UPDATE: Justin D. Barnard at Mere Comments has a much more useful and on point critique of Driscoll here.
First of all, let me thank Frank for the opportunity to have a good discussion about the issue of pastoral accountability in the internet age (a very important topic) and for having such a constructive and positive dialog. Though I expect to be denounced to the lower reaches of the pit by a couple of commenters at his place, Frank’s been a first class conversation partner, and has said nice things about another post of mine to boot.
I have very little to say in response to Frank’s SECOND POST, available now at his blog, but I will say a bit.
Frank’s conception of a “global pulpit” or “addressing the global church” is a slippery, ultimately subjective concept that primarily seems to be meaningful in the minds of a small group of theo-bloggers. I think that a room full of non-internet using Christians, even conservative ones, would need considerable help working with Frank’s idea that the orthodoxy of the “global church” is presided over by an unelected jury of successful pastors such as John Macarthur and C.J. Mahaney.
In fact, as meaningful as the ministry of Piper, Macarthur et al are to me and many of us, I’d step to the microphone and have to stand in a long line to say that none of those men exercise any authority over me other than as brothers in Christ from whom I may receive a rebuke.
As many of you may know, in April of 2006, I was fisked for three days by James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries. (I am a big fan of Dr. White and benefit greatly from his ministry. I am not in any way disrespecting him with this illustration. For apologetics, he is the best.)
I was never contacted by Mr. White. I was never informed by his elder board or his ministry board that I was out of line with my influence on the “global church.” I had never mentioned Mr. White or contacted him. Yet Mr. White held me up before his audience for several days, working through a post I had written on the differences I had with some versions of being a “reformed Baptist.” It was a thoroughly public scouring.
Mr. White’s well known chat room crew apparently passed on my post as treading destructively on the subject of reformed orthodoxy, and someone must have said I was a rising liberal, emerging voice disguised as a Calvinist, who needed his wings clipped. Mr. White performed surgery on me, in public on his blog, for three days. I didn’t like it BUT IT WAS HIS PERFECT RIGHT TO DO SO.
In considering this incident of public rebuke from a brother- and that is what it was and that is what I evaluate it as- Mr. White was not dealing with me as a church member under his care. He has no covenanted authority over me to which I have ever agreed to submit. His place as an elder in a church and his position of respect and popularity still create NO FORMAL RELATIONSHIP to which I must respond.
What I must do is ask “Is God speaking to me through this rebuke?” If I judge that God is speaking to me, then- and this is important- I am not to go to Mr. White for further instructions on how to repent and what repentance is adequate. I am to go to those leaders to whom I am accountable.
Or- and this also is crucial- we might ask why Mr. White didn’t seek out my elders- I have three levels of authority over me- and inform them that I was disagreeing with the reformed faith. Of course, those to whom I am accountable would likely have heard all those rebukes with puzzlement because their theological commitments are different than Mr. White’s.
Now—I agree that my blogging put me on a larger stage, and I agree that once on that stage, others on that stage may rebuke, react or correct.
I agree that I must consider this as the possible work of the Spirit.
But there exists NO WORKABLE AUTHORITY STRUCTURE that involves Frank Turk or any other internet critic that can place these Driscoll issues out of the realm of rebuke and into the realm of specific accountable repentance, i.e. we know when he’s repented, how and if it was sufficient.
The only way we will know that Driscoll has repented is, apparently, when Frank says so, and as much as I trust and affirm Frank, I’m simply not ready to sign on to giving individuals- pastors, bloggers, etc- that kind of jury duty.
Frank has a standard of repentance in his mind that he derives from scripture and experience. I’m sure it’s wonderful. But I have not agreed to it, and unless Frank has contacted the Mars Hill elders, I don’t think anyone else has agreed to it.
Who has the last word on Driscoll? The blogger in the UK who says Driscoll is a Jesus rejecting apostate who teaches Jesus was a pervert? The people on the floor of the SBC who haven’t listened to or read a word of Driscoll? The mob with torches in Missouri who clearly loath Driscoll as a danger to the church? The major pastor who indicted Driscoll in 4 posts on his blog? Some assortment of bloggers and pastors?
If it’s the global church here, do we need to call a church council, or will the theo-blogosphere just have to do? Will we all get an email, telling us when Driscoll is all right?
I will say this again: Anyone can critique, rebuke or protest. When angry feminists protested at his church, he invited them in and listened. Blog away, Frank and Co. It’s MD’s responsibility to listen to you. But when it comes to what does adequate repentance look like, your opinions are going to be just that- Opinions. Only his elders can hold him formally accountable.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Who is being led to Christ and by Whom? .
LikeLike
Wcrila said “the world isn’t watching” and I could not disagree more. The world is watching. Try placing a “google alert” for MD. The world is watching, and talking and blogging. Take a trip to a University campus sometime, people know who MD is. And I don’t mean just evangelical young men.
I don’t know how I feel about a “global watchdog” but, I know for me, I am going to try and do everything I can be above reproach. Will I be perfect? Not a chance. But it is still worth trying. I think it is a very immature point to make that no one cares about what church superstars are doing and saying. You are always a light on a hill. Your words are always a mouth piece. The bigger the platform, the bigger the responsibility. Sure, there will always be stuffy evangelicals who will rip anyone apart behind the veil of a computer screen.
But raising light on these subjects is important, not needless.
LikeLike
My reply to Frank Turk’s 5 points.
[A] I agree with another commenter. Eph. 5:3 speaks of sins we must not commit. Eph 5:4 may be more apt. Worth a discussion. I’m inclined to think that it would be better for Driscoll to save such talk for a smaller public. He may be right about how it will gain street cred among his own sort. He may be wrong about how it is taken in people from other cultural contexts.
[B] Yes, sin must be repented of.
[C] An elder must be blameless. This charge tells the duties of those who put him in charge. That is on the leadership of Mars Hill to deal with. Or any future church that would call him.
[D] The public accountability was necessary in these instances [Jesus with Pharisees, Stephen with elders, Paul at Galatia] because the stakes were very high. It was the entire Gospel at stake in the given location. If what Driscoll did was this grave, that needs to be argued carefully. If the perceived gravity comes from Ephesians 5:3, some careful exegesis is in order.
[E] Yes, public teachers should be able to hold other teachers accountable. If you invite Driscoll into your church and he teaches falsely, by all means rebuke him. But the examples raise some interesting speculations. Had it been the Internet Age, do you imagine St. Paul would have confronted the Super Apostles in a blog post? I rather doubt it. Generally, even the letters were instructions for local leaders to handle things, or threatening a reckoning when Paul arrived on scene. I think this provides an applicable model for using the internet. We may use it as a tool, but it should be used to facilitate work done in person.
LikeLike
Remember gnosticism? The old idea that Spirit was pure but Flesh was nasty? I sense that in Turk’s postings re: Driscoll’s preaching. Thou shalt not teach publicly about (marital) sex. It offends our pure washed-with-the Blood spirits by pulling them down into the muck and mire of daily sinful life.
Well, whilst we all know that daily life is, indeed, fraught with sin, there IS no separation between spirit and flesh; pure and impure. We are holistically formed folk. We cannot keep our minds lofty and untouched whilst taking things like sex, gluttony, and football and placing them in these little boxes…only to be opened in the dark, in private, away from Church and Life.
One of the biggest problems in the Church, IMNSHO, is that She DOESN’T discuss sex…at all. Or that when a rare Pastor has the intestinal fortitude to do so, it is all dressed up in euphemisms and disclaimers as to be no talk about sex at all. So we have whole generations who have either learnt about sex from the worst possible sources (their peers, the movies, school and/or the farmyard) and without benefit of fitting it within God’s POV. We learn what sex is NOT to be, rather than what it is; we learn about what sexual activity is forbidden, rather than what sexual activity is celebrated. Sad, really.
St Augustine was familiar with this Manichean approach. Too bad some millenia later it is still with us, as strong as ever, as we continue to espouse this neo-gnosticism: life lived in our heads is better than life lived fully engaged with dirt under our fingernails (from gardening, perhaps?) and sweat on our brows (draw your own conclusions!).
LikeLike
“How many times has he offended your delicate sensibilities? Round up to 10 minutes for each item. Does it approach 2%? I doubt it.”
Hold on there! Let’s just take the “Oh, so offensive” interview that has Frank in knots. This interview lasted 7:28 or 448 seconds. Take out the 45 seconds DL spent on lead in and you’ve got 403 seconds. How long was Mark’s “highly offensive” joke? 13 seconds. So that’s 3.2% of the total interview and so clearly it exceeds Frank’s tolerance threshold.
LikeLike
Frank: appreciate the scripture quote, v.7 and v.8 got me to thinking. “do not become partners with them…” and “walk as children of light”
I dont’ see where anyone’s use of crudeness of speach would automatically put them in partnership with those who habitually use crude speech for the usual reasons. I’m as sick of our sex drenched culture as anyone, but I’m not prepared to throw MD under that bus because
1)he wants to see the lost delivered from that culture, and seems to be doing a pretty good job of helping them out of it (maybe not to Frank’s taste, but WAHH)
2)I’ll allow him some CONTEXT and INTENT to properly understant the joke and what he wanted to do with it. Not everyone’s teaching style, too graphic for the polyester golf pants set, but I dont’ see where he’s fallen afoul of the LORD”s commands here, cetainly not in a way that to warrant public censure.
As to Frank’s question about masturbation jokes, my answer is NOT NECESSARILY. this isn’t a yes/no question, and wanting that kind of answer is FRANK’s problem.
LikeLike
T
That is a typical frank exit, usually preceded by several clownings and bannings, after which he closes the thread by threatining the next commenter with a ban of a month. You know frank was DYING to do that here. He must be terribly frustrated by it all.
Of course I wonder if he will apply that ban on commenting to himself as he then commented on the thread … goose, gander and all that….
LikeLike
Frank’s latest post conceeds your point ms
He compares what MD did to Micheal Vick, and the response of the NFL
Of course, Vick has a contractual, work arrangement, which gives the NFL the right to impose requirments and restrictions.
Just like Mars Hill has with MD…..
LikeLike
Classy exit Frank.
Per your model ministry off of 2% of the Bible you again jump to the assumption that Driscoll is simply standing up and making masturbation jokes as a regular part of his preaching. Without this assumption your entire argument falls apart like a leper on a treadmill.
How many minutes worth of sermon has Driscoll preached, and how many minutes worth of teaching has Driscoll taught? How many times has he offended your delicate sensibilities? Round up to 10 minutes for each item. Does it approach 2%? I doubt it.
LikeLike
Hey listen folks —
iMonk just set me straight, and dirty jokes are funny, not sinful, because his dad told them well.
We’re done here; my blog remains an open target for those who need some finer points blackened over. I honor Michael’s memory of his Dad, and I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLike
Jerry —
So you’re saying that if we read the Bible page by page, there are bad words on all of the pages, most of the pages, some of the pages, a few of the pages, or none of the pages? You can assign any quantifier you want to those descriptors, but in English “most” will mean “more than half” and “some” will mean “less than half”, so you can sort of thumb-nail it from there.
Who would deny that there are probably a dozen or two examples of harsh, vulgar language in the Bible to describe and denounce sin? But we’re talking about two-dozen examples in more than 1300 pages of text in my ESV large print. The quick math there is that if each example is one page large, and we round up, 2% of the Bible is vulgarity in the service of God’s condemnation of sin and the rest is not.
Should we really model ministry on the 2% of the Bible which is dealing with the most extreme cases, or are we really instructed by the Bible to do something else unless God gives us explicit instructions to do something more invasive?
I’m not against hard preaching, or intelligent and measured sarcasm, or even ridicule of the contemptible: I have spoken out on this topic against something which the Bible is pretty transparently against in the normal Christian life.
LikeLike
Earnest —
I’m surprised at your inability to read what I’ve written on this so far. Do -you- think that’s what I mean — that is, that you can’t bring up sin ever?
What’s the context of Paul’s statement, Earnest? Is it all things at all times, or is it specifically the handling of the world’s sinfulness the way the world handles it? Let’s look and see, shall we?
[QUOTE]
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not become partners with them; 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that odd — that what Paul is saying here is that we should not partner in evil things, we should not walk as if we didn’t know what God thought of these things, and we also should not joke about these things — “these things” being specifically sexual immorality and idolatry.
Discern what is pleasing to the Lord, right? So jokes about your private parts, jokes about the things they do at the Playboy mansion or during the Seattle porn fest, jokes about the things outlined in Lev 18 — pretending that this is funny and sort of commonly acceptable is ruled out by Paul.
Should a father instruct his son about what it means to be a husband? Absolutely. Should a mother instruct her daughter regarding what is means to be a woman and a wife? No question. Can a pastor address privately the questions of a married couple to help them enjoy what God has given them? Absolutely.
Should any of these thing be a public spectacle in an assembly where there are believers and unbelievers mixed together (in the best case) equal measures? Should they be turned into jokes so the unbelievers can laugh at their sin rather than wince?
You tell me. Which do you think Paul would do? How do you substantiate that?
As to Titus and the question of cultural diversity, let’s ask paul what he wrote about that:
[QUOTE]
12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
1But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. … 7Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. … so that in everything [the believers] may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
[/QUOTE]
That Paul — not really putting up the missional “We’re #1” rubber hand, but instead preaching a counter culture where the virtues and fruits of the spirit are really the things which draw men to us. You know: “rebuke them sharply” is not a code phrase for “give them credit because they themselves recognize their sinfulness”.
I wonder: why did he say that the Cretans were “evil beasts”, Earnest? Was it to point Titus at the way to see their culture more sympathetically, or was it to show him that he had much to set in order?
Surely it’s obvious to you — I’m surprised you didn’t think of it sooner.
This is not about the broad adaptation of learning their language — because the Cretans spoke Greek, which was the language Paul and Titus were communicating in. This is about a fallen world and a Gospel which changes people not just in the “not yet” sense, but also in the “already” sense.
You are welcome to e-mail me if you have further questions on this — or stop by my blog as it is almost impossible to miss. I am sure there is more in Titus and Ephesians we can work out together for our mutual benefit.
LikeLike
I’d love to see some of this conversation focus on contextualization
mmmmmm, that is another can of worms E.G. Good thing you posted it here. At Franks blog it would probably get you clowned.
LikeLike
Turk, (assuming you’re still reading here), I’m surprised (and a little disappointed) in your poor use of scripture in the discussion here. Do you really understand “sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you” to mean that we shouldn’t even talk about those things? I was under the impression that “named among you” meant that we shouldn’t live in such a way that people would have reason to accuse us of these things.
Also, on the question of culture- you mentioned that Paul doesn’t give Titus any room for culturally different expressions of faith. I don’t read that in Titus at all. According to scripture, the sins “named among” the Cretans were sinful in the eyes of the Cretans. The principles are universal, but their expression will vary according to culture. Paul makes allowances for that. You, apparently, don’t.
On the mission field, we lean language in the context of the culture we’re assigned to. In other words, we learn to speak the language in the local accent and idiom for the sake of communication, incarnation, and our example. Would you rebuke them for using colloquialisms? Are you in a position to do so?
Again, I’d love to see some of this conversation focus on contextualization. I think it’s obvious that Mark Driscoll is a product of (and skilled minister to) the people he’s working among in the Pacific Northwest (and pockets across the country).
LikeLike
don’t you think at some point, if driscoll has so offended the Lord our God, that the Lord our God will call him to account? but if he is preaching the gospel, should we not keep our hands, and mouths, to ourselves?
i mean, in all seriousness, have the critics of mark driscoll (and his mouth) ever actually read the bible? have you ever seen the words that are used? we have only english and they are bad; i wonder how offensive they are in greek or hebrew or aramaic? when the Lord told ezekiel to cook his food over human excrement, what word did God use for ‘excrement’? (Ezekiel 4). Seriously.
all this discussion about whether or not driscoll should apologize and repent, and who has the right and authority to call him to it, makes me think there are quite a few people in the world who are the second coming of the Perfect, who have nothing better to do with their time than criticize those who do instead of being those who do. criticism is easy; let’s see you preach to his audience on any given sunday.
imho, all this ammounts to pure jealousy. it is a control thing. people want driscoll to fall into line and he is refusing to do so. they want conformity, and he is refusing to do so. the man is as orthodox theologically as it gets; sickening to a degree to be sure. he has been published in books along side da carson, david wells, voddie baucham and more. da carson has preached at mars hill. I trust dr carson’s opinion.
to the critics…armchair critics…who never will in their lives stand up behind a pulpit and proclaim the gospel, stuff it. to the perfectionists among us…whatever. this episode has caused me to look differently at driscoll…and download a bunch of his sermons…and also to look differently at myself. i have no right whatsoever to ask him to repent or apologize. that right belongs to Christ alone.
mark owes none of us anything. ‘before you, and you alone, have i sinned.’ i heard that somewhere.
why is it the harshest critics of preachers in this world are those who are inside the church? and we wonder why less and less young men (and women) each year decide they have been called to enter into the paid ministry, and why more and more of us each year are deciding to leave the paid ministry.
thank you.
LikeLike
Sue,
“What seems to be the problem here is people who have no authority over this man are acting as if they do.”
“The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. – 1 Cor. 2:15-16
I often think that watch bloggers look for and desire an authority that Scripture doesn’t grant them.
Where does this kind of thing end? If we give in to this kind of culture, it will end here:
“If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” – Galatians 5:15
Brad
LikeLike
Wolf Paul,
I hear what you are saying, and each Christian tradition has their own way of dealing with these gray areas that aren’t sin but also “are not profitable.”
I was pushing the point because I get tired of these wanna be internet popes making announcements from their thrones(blogs) impugning ministers of the Gospel and spouting BS about the “global church” and “global ministries” and how they have the right to confront and set these matters aright. They can’t even substantiate that the target of their rhetoric is guilty of a sin that disqualifies them from the ministry.(Apparently violating said blogger’s sensibilities is enough in this case.)
LikeLike
So, wait, all those “Presbyterians do it in committee” tee-shirts I used to see people wearing were sinful?
LikeLike
imonk,
I also believe this blog is about authority in the church. As you are well aware different denoms do it differently. None of the systems seem to work perfectly. But you go with what your tradtions has. What seems to be the problem here is people who have no authority over this man are acting as if they do.
LikeLike
Frank:
One of the big problems I have here is that I do not consider most jokes about human sexuality to be in the least shameful, and most not sinful. I consider them a healthy and often helpful acknowledgment of a huge part of human nature.
The closest I can come with Driscoll to hearing anything “shameful” is some of his ridiculous rants about masculinity, and then it’s his boneheaded insensitivity to the basic humanity of others that is shameful.
Personally, I haven’t found anything he’s said about sex to be anything more than moderately crude, and then only around those who read the NT with a kind of Discernment happy, Luther-rejecting legalism that I couldn’t live with if I tried. I do, however, understand that on the larger stage he has offend some sensitive persons and I think that deserved whatever correction he has received. The same people, my friend, are sending him to hell over BEER, and for all the same reasons.
But my views on dirty jokes aren’t important. My dad was an encyclopedia of them and I found it quite endearing.
LikeLike
I know it’s true, Sue. That’s not the problem.
The issue being discussed is:
“So he quoted Ecclesiastes 9:10 (â€Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.â€) in a joking manner when asked about masturbation being a sin.â€
LikeLike
Michael —
Just had a second here to see the meta for your rejoiner. I’m am actually perplexed by the shame/sin thing.
So for my sake — edify me — I have two questions:
[1] Are dirty jokes actually not a shameful thing?
[2] is there a manner of interpreting Christian spirituality in which we should experience shame for something which is “not sinful” but “not right”? If so, how does that work?
Some people may not see dirty jokes as shameful/sinful — I get that even though I think they have their heads in the cultural sand. But those who say it’s “not right” but “not sinful” are going to have to help me see where the Scripture outline venial infractions which are not an offense to God that we ought to avoid and/or regret.
LikeLike
Of course, I think a good colloquial interpretation of “μη γενοιτο†is, “Are you smoking crack!?†— Wezlo
My favorite comment along those lines is “WHAT ARE YOU USING FOR REALITY?”
Unicorn dude said it best: GET A LIFE. — Greg R
Because I’ve seen far too much of this sort of behavior among fanboys, and I’ve gotten very cranky in my old age. You can only experience Invincible Ignorance and human stupidity so many times before you just SNAP.
LikeLike
Is the problem that this pastor may have told a dirty joke or that he implied that you can’t justify your behavior by quoting Scripture?
By the way, my beyond the pale examlpe is true. No one at his church who knew him could believe he committed these crimes but he had.
LikeLike
When my elders say “Let’s talk about this,†then it becomes my issue and I MUST (no options) look at it as God possibly dealing with me over this.
Bingo: and the blogger-gestapo , methinks, has a difficult time believing this will ever happen, or not soon enough to …ahem..please the LORD. There are MANY situations, IMO, that could fall into this category, and saying less, rather than more, in the absence of relationship, has served me well. God is not impotent, the wheels grind slowly, but they do grind, and if MD, or myself, have a problem, GOD is going to alert the appropriate others. This will be an ‘inside job’ or it won’t happen.
Am I the only one who is a little uncomfortable with so many folks casually slipping into the mantle of JESUS and PAUL, and giving us the ultimate word on strangers’ (alleged) sins ? This creeps me out more than some salty talk from a rough edged preacher of the gospel.
Greg R
LikeLike
Let me clear up one possible misunderstanding.
Let’s say that I have an affair and the only one who knows is some blogger who intercepts an email.
He calls on me to resign as a minister, etc.
Now he’s totally right, and God has busted me, and I know it.
BUT, I’m not formally accountable to this guy. I am in the body of Christ with him, but his accusation is going to either 1) pierce my conscience and I act on it because it’s true or 2) he goes to my elders and they confront me because they have FORMAL authority over me.
NOW—tweak this a bit. Let’s say I use a crudity in an interview. A blogger says this is sin and being flippant, and calls on me to repent or resign the ministry.
I don’t see it that way. Let’s say I regret it, but I do not believe it in any way compromised the Gospel.
The blogger writes me. I say “Thanks for your concern.” He writes posts, ignites his army, calls my mother, etc. Still, it’s HIS problem.
When my elders say “Let’s talk about this,” then it becomes my issue and I MUST (no options) look at it as God possibly dealing with me over this.
In one there is no question of whether it is sin. In the second, there is some question and discussion necessary. The blogger won’t think that, but that’s the difference between the blogger and the people formally charged with oversight.
LikeLike
Andy D, I think that incident might have been roughly 2006 and possibly connected to People Against Fundamentalism.
LikeLike
Wezlo: Far from it. You are totally on target. By Frank and Dr. Macarthur’s standards, the dirty talk and anti-semitism of Luther completely disqualifies him as a God called minister. No arguments or context necessary. It was the “global” church and he was the ultimate public figure.
LikeLike
“It turns out that jokes about masturbation, tho funny, are actually a violation of…Frank Turk’s sensibilities.
OK, Frank is very sure this is sinful. Wow, what next, when do we get the list of approved TV and radio (should I just assume that all cable is no go ?). All this tells us more about Frank Turk than about Mark Driscoll, and I guess if Frank’s your guy, you can chest thump and say “SHOOT, yeah…..” wait, that’s really a bad word morphed…sorry, my bad.
Unicorn dude said it best: GET A LIFE.
LikeLike
I don’t get the whole thing, I really don’t. I don’t much care for Mark Driscoll personally – but…. really?
I’m glad that these two blogs are trying to have a conversation with one another, as it’s so much better than the typical Christian practice of lobbing grenades – so hats off to you both on that one.
But the source of the conversation leaves me kinda confused. I mean, by this logic Martin Luther would have been run out of town on a rail – and no one should ever read Augustine’s confessions.
Of course, I think a good colloquial interpretation of “μη γενοιτο” is, “Are you smoking crack!?” So I guess I’m out in left field here on this one…
LikeLike
HUG,
If I recall correctly it wasn’t even all that much of a joke other than ridiculing someone who would quote Ecc 9.10 in defense of masturbating. The hand wringing outrage over all this reveals far more about the world the critics live in than it does about Driscoll, or scripture.
LikeLike
I’m sorry that I can’t. This was a while ago, when Driscoll got a lot of negative publicity for the first time because the local paper gave him a weekly column. The protests from local feminists got pretty fierce, and I recall him talking about a meeting- maybe at his home- where he invited them to come over and pretty much have their say.
LikeLike
Can someone give me an article where Driscoll invited the feminists? All I can see is when they threatened to protest he gave a non-apology and they backed off.
LikeLike
On Frank’s blog commenter Ben searched the web and found the offense that Driscoll is being harangued about….
Ben said
“So he quoted Ecclesiastes 9:10 (â€Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.â€) in a joking manner when asked about masturbation being a sin.†— Patrick Kyle
THAT’s what this is all about? Driscoll made one slightly off-color joke and now they’re calling Jihad against him? THAT’S WHY ALL THE FLESH-TO-PILE-OF-ROCKS? THAT’S WHY THE BURNING STAKE AND FIREWOOD?
GET. A. LIFE. (Preferably far from mine.)
In the circles where I run, such an “earthy” joke — or other sign he’s human and not just another baptized-in-vinegar Church Lady — would build Driscoll’s Street Cred to the point they might actually listen to him!
LikeLike
ALL: At Frank’s site, in the comments, he’s now detailed what Driscoll needs to say. So the problem can now be solved. Can someone mail this paragraph to Pastor Mark?
“It turns out that jokes about masturbation, tho funny, are actually a violation of Eph 5 and Paul’s warning to us that we shouldn’t even mention the crude things the lost do as a joke. I was wrong to do that, I am sorry to my church, my critics, and most of all to my savior who bought me for a price. In gratitude to Him, I should do better, and in the future I’ll seek to do so.”
LikeLike
Jason: Almost all Presbyterians do as well. So do most mainlines, not just Catholics. And it’s not a scientific judgment, but I don’t believe any connected denomination I know of except maybe the OPC would remove Driscoll over the masturbation joke. Just my opinion.
LikeLike
It occurs to me that debates like this must make Roman Catholics roll on the floor with laughter or just shake their heads in derision. Obviously the RCC has its own internal issues to deal with and based on the recent Papal Encyclical not everyone is marching in lock-step, but at least there is a clear structure for dealing with loose cannons.
LikeLike
A point of doctrine/theology/church practice that I have not heard discussed much in the last 20-30 years is the subject of church structure and organization: congregational, presbyterian, episcopal, etc. Forgive me if I’m mixing terms and contexts. The ignorance of a fairly well-read layman may well show a general ignorance on these topics, and show the importance of church members having a working knowledge of even a seemingly obscure subject. If your church tradition is “congregational”, then the idea of a global church authority is meaningless, and much of Frank’s critique meaningless. If our Lord intended a universal church structure, organization, etc. then identifying the legitimate structure(s) and convincing MD to submit to it is important (which is what Frank appears to be attempting). It seems Frank has a vague and fuzzy idea of some kind of global church structure and authority that should be operating here, while Michael is arguing a congregational position. Fuzzy theology can lead to fuzzy debate and people arguing past each other, and this seems like a great example.
LikeLike
Speaking of authority in the Church my tradition Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is a merger of the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Lutheran Church in America (LCA). Both had a balance of authority local congregation vrs the heirarchy. ALC stronger at the cong level, LCA stronger at the heirarchy. The merger was a many year process and had to decide which why to go.
Then David Soul’s (famous on the Mod Squad at the time) brother Pr. Soul (don’t you love the name) barricaded himself in his church when members of his cong. went to the Bishop to have him removed(too long a story as to why). After much protesting outside the Church by pro Soul and anti-Soul cong members,the Bishop came to the Church to try to speak to Pr. Soul (probably hoping not to attacted too much local media) and WOW the national press!!!because of course his famous brother outside the church in support of his brother. Making the bishop and the ALC look very bad. So the LCA won that debate.
[MOD edit: All of this is way off topic, but the last one was beyond the pale.]
LikeLike
Clearly, the reason Driscoll attracts so much attention is that he is doing so much good for the cause of Christ. I’m 53, and sometimes he makes me cringe and seems, in my estimate, to go over the top. But in a world filled with Paula Whites, Benny Hinns, hatemongers like the Westboro “Baptist” gang, and gun-toting anti-abortion vigilantes, coming down on Driscoll for making a few old geezers like myself uncomfortable seems petty and vindictive. Let’s keep praying for Driscoll, but let’s defend the Gospel against those who really do it damage.
LikeLike
So in reading Frank’s second article I came across…
“The first round of objections to the criticism was: “You should take this to him in private and not out in public.†However, when it was disclosed that both Phil and Dr. MacArthur had actually taken the concern to MD privately and his response was less than engaging, the tune changed.”e
Ah, that’s the catalyst to this whole affair, because McArthur and Phil are hopping mad too. I guess it’s just okay to manufacture a controversy about a “joke” that never happened, the greater good is served by getting this “heretic” MD off our turf. By all means watch the video. There’s no joke. There’s just Driscoll telling a story about a guy that felt Eccl. 9:10 was a biblical justification for masturbation. And you know what, this 5 pointer found it funny (and sad) – not because of the alleged punch line, but because the guy had so badly interpreted Scripture.
But I guess when controversy is all you have to stay relevant to the Christian community, you have to start making stuff up in order to be heard. This is a good example why I believe the Piper’s, Keller’s and Mahaney’s of the world will be far more effective in fighting heresy going forward. First, because they don’t manufacture controversies to get attention. Second, because when an actual controversy exists they actually heed those Scriptures that speak about gentleness and respect.
“But when it comes to what does adequate repentance look like, your opinions are going to be just that- Opinions. Only his elders can hold him formally accountable.”
Or at least those who provide an argument we would consider credible to provide such discipline, and of those we know who are looking to offer such accountability for the sake of Christ’s edification, and not those who are just trying to retain relevance within a traditional Christian culture – oh, the irony.
Enjoyed the article, Michael.
Brad
LikeLike
T
Bishops will clarify?
No, Bishops will have authority.
LikeLike
Bishops will clarify?
LikeLike
T: Yes, I hear a great longing for a bishop (or more) in this discussion. Oh wait…..I believe I see one…
LikeLike
Well said, Rev. Cwirla. You said what I’ve been thinking.
LikeLike
Frank Turk’s entire argument hinges on assuming that Driscoll sinned. He knows it, and you can tell he knows because his entire argument is built on the initial false dichotomy (is it shameful to joke about masturbation…yes/no), and its the reason why he pursues it so hard in the follow up comments.
The problem is that Driscoll didn’t make a joke about masturbation. He made a joke about people who use the scriptures to justify masturbation. And honestly I can’t think of a better response than ridicule to such a position.
And this is where we really see this is a matter for the local church. I have absolutely zero doubt that Turk has never been confronted by someone trying to justify masturbation by using the scriptures. And I have absolutely zero doubt that Driscoll has, probably multiple times. As a result Driscoll ridicules the idea in public and Turk does not, and both are acting properly due to the differences in culture.
One other thing: you either believe in the local autonomy of the church or you don’t. You don’t get to believe in the authority of an eldership when things go the way you want, but then turn into a Papist when things don’t go the way you want. It doesn’t matter if Augustine/Pelagius had a positive outcome if the scriptures support a congregationalist theology, that type of argument smacks of the very pragmatism that Turk has written against when it comes to how certain churches pursue evangelism.
LikeLike
Poor Gene Scott. Where were you with him, Frank? Scott had a personally funded global network- tv and shortwave- on which to cuss 24 hours a day.
LikeLike
wcwirla: really, this is quite a revealing matter in terms of what the blogosphere thinks of itself. It’s why I said at the outset that a room full of non-internet addicts would hardly understand what you mean. “The preacher told a crude joke. Ha!”
LikeLike
Re: The “global church” and a “global pulpit.”
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a “global pulpit” and the only “global church” I’m aware of is the “una sancta,” that is, the one, mystical body of Christ and all who are united to Him by baptismal faith.
this “global” talk betrays the inflated notion of self-importance held by many a blogger.
News flash: The whole world isn’t watching, and most of the world doesn’t really care, and God didn’t make you pope when you signed up for a blog account.
Question: Has anyone read Matthew 18:15-20 recently?
LikeLike
But God speaks through Balaam’s donkey and even through me sometimes. So you never know.
are these in some kind of order..?? ass-cending perhaps.. ; and yes , GOD does speak thru you, keep up the work at school and elsewhere.
Hope the book progresses well, praying on that today;
Greg R
LikeLike
iMonk: I really appreciate the interaction. I guess what scares me is that the ministry I worked in dealt with bondage to various sins. When someone helps you find freedom from a lifetime of pornography and depression you tend to look up to him as a hero. That’s what I saw with the Board of Directors there. I thought the same way for a long time too. There are a variety of reasons why I don’t serve there anymore though which would be inappropriate to discuss publicly.
What makes me nervous is when I read the story of Pastor Jamie Rasmussen and what a huge influence MD was in his life, for example. It’s just hard to imagine him confronting MD about something, though I hope I’m wrong.
I also am confused about why MH added City on a Hill church in Albuquerque as a satellite when it seemed to be a thriving church in its own right. I hope that it’s not empire-building.
As a member of a megachurch adding satellite campuses I sometimes wonder where ministry ends and empire-building begins. What I’ve come to realize is that I either trust my elders or I don’t. Unless there is evidence to the contrary I am to think the best of brothers and sisters in Christ, so that is what I want to do with MH and my own church. I have concerns based on my own experiences and I sure hope that they’re unfounded.
Thank you for being a rational, gracious voice in the blogosphere. I sometimes disagree with things you write, but I am always thankful for them as they force me to think things through in a rational, biblical manner.
LikeLike
Jason: Several people have said that all Driscoll’s elders are “hand picked.” In every elder led church, the elders are “hand picked” by the elders as a group. Usually requiring unanimity.
I have no firsthand information on how the elder board works at MH, but I am not inclined to believe those who portray Driscoll as a dictator. Listen to any of his recent messages on the MH Global expansion and see if you conclude it’s a one man show.
peace
ms
LikeLike
But somehow I don’t think you’re quite as intimidating. I like his preaching, but I’m afraid that his hubris may end up being his downfall. Hopefully his elders are elders and not just raving fanboys.
I’ve worked in a ministry where the board of directors were all hand-picked by the president. Unity in ministry is great, but there needs to be room for dissension too. Hopefully Mars Hill has that.
LikeLike
You know Jason, my best friends may agree with me alot, but they aren’t afraid to tell me when I’m an idiot. Several make it a daily deal.
LikeLike
While I am definitely a fan of MD and I do agree with the idea of the local church handling any sin in his life and ministry, I also think that it is naive to think that his elders are going to do anything about this. Given the history of his church, I would be shocked if any of his elders are not in lock-step with him about how to “do church.” Therefore, it is unlikely that Mars Hill is going to do anything about his behavior.
Oh, and I think the joke using Ecclesiastes was brilliant. It is a great example of how someone uses proof-texting to make a point. By making that joke I think MD illustrated the clear absurdity of the argument, which was the point.
LikeLike
Oh I totally agree. But God speaks through Balaam’s donkey and even through me sometimes. So you never know.
LikeLike
ms
…listen to critical voices and determine if God is using them to speak to me
Sure. Absolutely. But there is a range of value to be placed on those voices. My wife and kids? Number one. My pastor? Top of the list. My church leaders? Right up there. My small group members and other church members that know me – also at the top.
Everyone else? Not so close. I am not going to waste any sleep over internet meanderings by a bunch of self styled vigilantes on the web. They can say what they want – they may even be right, upon occasion – but to place any serious value on what they have to say about me? No.
LikeLike
For those who don’t know, Christian teacher and author Gordon Macdonald had an affair while he was President (?) of Inter Varsity. He resigned, went through a long process of restoration, and is back in useful ministry. The matter is referred to in Macdonald’s writing in a general way- no details- but I know of no one who isn’t impressed with the process, the seriousness or the changes.
greg r: Macdonald had a serious private process and its up to the evangelical world to buy the results or not. I assume apologies were part of that, but they weren’t to the world in general, at least not that I read, other than what he says in books like Rebuilding Your Broken World.
LikeLike
Haven’t read Frank’s second post, but I will later today (I can only take his blog in small amounts), but I do appreciate the topic discussed, THANKS IMonk and Frank for that.
The only things effectively done with Franks set up are:
1)colossal amounts of time and band width wasted.
2)prided manufactured in enormous, unheard of amounts as we concratulate ourselves for another “chastening” well done (whether received or not). Gag me.
LikeLike
I’m not from his church or area, but I’m fairly sure that in Gordon’s case, the repentance was intensely private FIRST, including all the necessary parties esp. those in authority over him. The public announcements came LATER, as they should. This step was appreciated, but I’m not too sure it was ‘necessary’. Sure increased my respect for the dude, he could preach at my church any day.
Greg R
LikeLike
Let me give two examples where a public mechanism for repentance of public sins was set up- in both cases beyond the local church- and NO ONE BUYS IT even though the authorities say all is going well.
Todd Bentley
Ted Hagggard
Let me give one where I do buy it:
Gordon Macdonald
LikeLike
dac:
It would be good to finish that thought. It’s my responsibility to listen to critical voices and determine if God is using them to speak to me. Considerably different.
LikeLike
I think I can hazard a guess about when Frank would consider Driscoll repentant: When he stops selling his “apostate” books; has new books published in which he recants his emergent views and preaches “traditional” theology; deletes all online sermons under his control that have bad words in them and reference sex; dismantles the Acts 29 church-planting movement or at least no longer associates with the churches planted; and resigns his high-profile pastorate until such time as he can demonstrate via low-level, public ministry that he has been correctly discipled.
LikeLike
Expanding the circle of authority over individual pastors (i.e. the “global” church”) will only increase the number of those who might be personally offended by that pastor, and will not improve the effectiveness of discipline. If anything, it would lead to a bureaucratic morass with little impact whatsoever.
This is like expecting a Washington official in the Department of Education to deal with a student out in the middle of the country who somehow gets on national television and butchers the English language in an interview. “I seen the plane crash over yonder.”
Good grief, before you know it, we’d have self-appointed evangelical watchers dissing Sister Wendy Beckett for showing a nude statue in one of her art critiques.
The other issue I have with this concept is this: Who gets to decide when wrong has been done and who put those individuals in charge?
Popularity does not equal correctness and the ability to stir up the blogosphere with heated rhetoric does not qualify one to a position of authority.
Disagreement, debate and criticism are one thing, but the expectation of control is another thing altogether, and at the risk of a DC investigation into my educational background, I have this to say: You ain’t the boss of me.
LikeLike
Am I right in assuming that these are names of famous American Baptists?
LikeLike
Patrick,
I think the assertion about being ashamed of actions not clearly defined as sin ties in with an earlier post of Michael’s this week.
I think it has to do with Paul’s statement that “All things are lawful but not all things are profitable”, and the conviction of not a few Christians that ultimately anything not spiritually profitable (idle words, vain babblings) should be avoided (1Tim 6:20, 2Tim 2:16); that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23, I don’t think that’s what it means, but I have heard it quoted to support this notion).
And of course Christians of all traditions have a Tradition of interpreting Scripture pretty widely — masturbation is a case in point, the only direct reference condemns Onan’s denial of offspring to his brother’s wife, everything else Christians have had to say about it throughout church history is based on conjecture and extrapolation and while much of it makes sense it is no more binding on anyone’s conscience than MD’s jokular assertion that it should be done with all one’s might (even though it sounds more pious).
LikeLike
Patrick – fwiw, I find Frank’s Haloscan thing to be pretty flaky, especially if you try and post after using the “preview” function. If your comment doesn’t show up there, try reloading the comments page and copying your post in, and publish without previewing. Hope that helps, unless you are actually banned in which case you’re on your own! 🙂
LikeLike
On Frank’s blog commenter Ben searched the web and found the offense that Driscoll is being harangued about. (I attempted to post over there but for some “strange reason” my comments never show up in the meta. I think he banned me after the baptism discussion.
Ben said
“So he quoted Ecclesiastes 9:10 (“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.”) in a joking manner when asked about masturbation being a sin.”
This is what this whole dust up is about? Really? (It’s actually a pretty funny joke.)
Frank, in your effort to show how this is an offense you urge your readers to try this affirmation on for size, as though this is the position of those who disagree with you and repeating it will get them to see how wrong Driscoll is.
“According to the Bible’s standard for Christian behavior, anyone should be allowed to make jokes about masturbation in public without any shame.”
In addition to being such a roundabout way of arguing the point as to be obtuse, it is also completely nonsensical.
The bible never addresses telling jokes in public without shame. This statement makes your beef with him center on his lack of shame for a joke he told.
Try something a little more clear and able to be proven or refuted like “Scripture absolutely forbids joking about masturbation.” Keep it in the realm of sin or no sin,not some amorphous feelings “of shame” arbitrarily determined by by people who differ in sensitivity of conscience and faith.
As to your second assertion,
“The objective of Christian sanctification is that we should strive toward becoming ashamed of things which we do which the Bible does not define as sin.”
My question is who made that up? You?
To say that Christians should be morally ashamed of things not clearly condemned in Scripture as sin is to bind them up under false guilt, and place upon them the same load of man made religion that the Pharisees laid on the backs of others but were unwilling to lift a finger to ease.
C’mon, dude,you seem way too sensitive about this masturbation thing. 🙂
LikeLike
First I want to say that I am sorry you had this bad experience with this man Mr. White. This is not how Christian people need to treat each other. Regarding this Mark Driscoll fellow I would agree with Fr. Ernesto in that most of the Christian world has never heard of this fellow or this dispute so it is hardly a global setting.
Guarding anothers reputation is a Christian value. Even if we don’t agree with the guy or his ideas. We don’t gossip or blog hateful things about someone else. If we have a dispute with someone we take it to them privately.
Since your tradition is not set up as mine I don’t know who holds authority to discipline this man if that is what is needed. But I don’t suppose it is bloggers or others who are not part of his church.
As far as him influencing others there is a world of stuff in the religious realm that can influence others. Are we doing our jobs in teaching people to be discerning when reading or listening to a whole host of material?
LikeLike
You had me until…. It’s MD’s responsibility to listen to you.
Really? MD (much less anyone in the blogosphere) has a responsibility to listen to Frank? I think no.
LikeLike
I am going to double post this on your blog and Frank’s blog.
Could the solution perhaps be the solution of the Early Church? When one has a debate that is so strong that it is splitting the Church, then one gets together to “have no little debate” about it, Acts 15. If it takes Seven Ecumenical Councils to solve a bunch of problems, then that is the way one has to go.
The Orthodox would agree that the Church was in need of Reformation in the Middle Ages. But, we would also point to this type of discussion as precisely the tragedy of the Reformation. In its insistence on sola scriptura to the exclusion of the possibility of the Church as a visible entity, the Reformation made impossible the solution to dilemmas such as the current debate over Mark Driscoll.
The divisions in the Church and the resultant inability to even agree on what Scripture is saying mean that it is somewhat useless to argue about Mark Driscoll in a “global” setting. One can only argue about Pastor Driscoll in a very limited local setting (such as the USA) and then argue that, somehow, this has global implications. The sad news? It does not. In fact, most Christians in the USA will not even realize that the discussion has taken place as they do not travel in the circles in which the discussion is viewed as being important.
LikeLike
HOW DARE YOU! How dare you treat these things in such a rational, spiritual and gracious manner?!?
Seriously, I think the way you’re looking at the issue is the only responsible way to do so. Or as Paul put it, “to his own Master he stands or falls.” I’m not a fan of Driscoll, or an accuser of him – frankly, his impact on my life has been close to nil, about the same as that of Piper and MacArthur. But regardless of what you, me or Rev. Tinkling Brass has to say, he has to be answerable to God and the people God puts in authority over him. That’s the only way it works … much to the disappointment of some, I suppose.
LikeLike