"We like to talk at Mars Hill Church basically three categories of gifts or abilities or ways that people are hardwired. We talk about prophets, priests, and kings…"
Mark Driscoll (from embedded video below)
Four years ago Mark Driscoll was discussing the roles of "prophet, priest, and king" (which he claimed Jesus fulfilled perfectly). You can listen to the nine minute message here. Then last year he discussed those same three 'roles' again (see below). This certainly seems important to Driscoll.
In a recent post WenatcheeTheHatchet focused on what appears to be a rewording of the Mars Hill's Governance policy. The 2013 version is somewhat abbreviated when compared to what Wenatchee claims was the 2012 version. Here are some pertinent excerpts:
How has church governance within Mars Hill Church changed over the years?
As Mars Hill Church has grown over the years, we have had to reorganize ourselves more than once. We do this because we love Jesus and want to love and serve people and steward resources as well as we can. For example, when Mars Hill started, it was a very small church of a few dozen people all meeting at one time in one room. At that time Pastor Mark was the only pastor, and we did not yet have any other official elders, deacons, or members. When things are small they tend to be informal. Most churches operate in an informal way as the average church in America is roughly 70–80 people. For a church to grow it has to reorganize itself much like a married couple that has done things one way for years has to make serious changes if they birth triplets. In the same way, a church has to make changes when God brings the new birth of new Christians. While the growth makes things complicated, we praise God for it because we love people and want to serve them. In 2011 alone, we baptized 1,392 people! But to welcome that many people across multiple states is complicated.
Every church has a culture that goes with its size and which must be accepted. Most people tend to prefer a certain size culture, and unfortunately, many give their favorite size culture a moral status and treat other size categories as spiritually and morally inferior. They may insist that the only biblical way to do church is to practice a certain size culture despite the fact that the congregation they attend is much too big or too small to fit that culture.
At Mars Hill, this means we have had to make changes as we have grown. For example, for the first year or two of the church, we had one formal elder, Pastor Mark. Then, a few other elders were added. By 2007, the church was approaching 6,000 people and meeting in multiple locations but still had the same governance structure.
In the fall of 2011, we undertook yet another restructuring as we planned for more churches in more states to serve more people. As part of the restructuring, we researched the governance structure of other large churches across the United States. We sought counsel from outside attorneys with practices devoted to providing legal services to large churches. With this background and research in mind, Mars Hill’s in-house legal counsel, who specialize in corporate law and came to Mars Hill as a partner in a national law firm, together with our Executive Elder Team, proposed a revised organizational structure for the church that would allow us to plan for, rather than react to, the rapid growth we have experienced by God’s grace.
What does the organizational structure of Mars Hill Church look like?
Mars Hill Church is an elder-led church. Therefore, the leadership and governance of Mars Hill is established within the office of elder…
We want to encourage you to check out Wenatchee the Hatchet's post comparing the purported 2012 governance policy at Mars Hill Church to the current one.
What do you think? Is Mark Driscoll the "King at Mars Hill?"
I am in the process of reviewing all of this information and may have additional comments in a future post. In the meantime, we'd love for you to share your thoughts on the matter.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 1:1-2:25 Acts 13:42-14:7 Psalm 139:1-24 Proverbs 17:19-21
Perhaps not the “king”, but definitely the profit.
Current listing of the organization Corporation Registration with Washington Secretary of State
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=601677819
And for Acts 29 Network, for the curious
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=602502267
Can we pick letter D ? ” “None of the above”
@ TedS.:
Mars Hill is looking more and more like a business enterprise, and profit is the bottom line in the business world. I hope MH members are paying attention.
As an aside, the idea that Jesus fulfilled those three roles has been around along time and is stated in the WCF. How that relates to MD I don’t know.
Jeff S wrote:
In the video, Driscoll explains that this is how they assess the leaders at Mars Hill. Are their giftings in prophecy, teaching, or managing the ministry?
Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Thanks for those links to the Secretary of State’s records in Washington state.
I see that Mark Driscoll is president of both Mars Hill and Acts 29.
Ok I don’t like MD but the Prophet/Priest/King thing is really just a fancy (perhaps self glorifying) way of categorizing visionary, people oriented, and administrative types of leaders. We have used this exercise at our church as more of a personality test sort of thing to understand each others strengths and weaknesses. Have you ever been on a team of people where everyone was “Visionary” but no one had the admin skills to get anything done? I agree practically that a good team will have a balance of these three types of people. As for going around calling oneself a “king” or a “prophet” that is highly unnecessary.
That said perhaps MD really is suggesting that individuals possess the official “roles” of prophet priest and king in a church. That would be kinda scary.
Kristin wrote:
This is what concerns me about Driscoll's focus on 'prophet, priest, and king'.
As we discovered from the clip – ***TRIGGER ALERT*** ==> I see things – Driscoll appears to embellish and take things to an extreme IMHO.
Is Matt Chandler not the president of Acts 29 anymore?
@ TedS.:
TedS. wrote:
🙂
Diane wrote:
I wondered the same thing when I saw the officers of Acts 29 according to the Secretary of State's records.
Maybe someone who is in the know will chime in.
TedS. wrote:
More like Buttery Doughy Pastor/Dictator. And why stop at Prophet, Priest, and King? Why not go for it and be GOD? With your giant face on the Telescreens at every "franchise campus" in your not-a-denomination?
@ Diane: Maybe for everything outside of Washington state? Remember, wherever Driscoll is, he is king. Always. He is never not king. He is also the visionary (sees lots of things) so that means he is a prophet. He appears to be the admin leader- firing those he hires on a regular basis. He is everything.
Dee wrote:
Did you see my last comment? Yep, Driscoll is some kind of prophet.
@ Deb: Wasn’t it Driscoll and then Scott Thomas and now Chandler? I wonder if the public records simply don’t reflect the change yet.
@ Moxie:
The Washington State filing has Expiration Date 05/31/13 but a Duration “Perpetual”. I have no idea what this means!
@ Dave A A:
I suspect the expiration date has to do with their state registration, along with the payment of any associated fees.
@ singleman:
Ah. I just realized that they ought to be based out of Texas now, so maybe they just let the Washington one run out.
@ Moxie:
I found a site confirming this, in Texas a/o 04/30/12– with Chandler as Pres.
Still like the “perpetual” duration, though. 🙂 Maybe that refers to Pastor Mark’s position as prophet? 😉
I was under the impression that Driscoll stepped down from Acts 29. Our church wants to join the Acts 29 network, but I’ve been hesitant because of Driscoll’s associations there.
HEre, Matt Chandler is listed as President, and Driscoll is listed as “Co-founder”. http://www.acts29network.org/about/leadership/
Chandler, Driscoll, McDonald – all are “kings” of their little empires.
All manipulate the scriptures to justify their own styles of “lording over” their flocks.
Birds of a feather, they flock together.
And this fall, they are all going to their Mecca:
http://theresurgence.com/conference
“Starting at $99”
Deb wrote:
You were clear- I was off on a tangent. I think the roles of Jesus as Prophet/Priest/King are important, but not really the way MD applies them.
Deb wrote:
And the Holy Spirit doesn’t limit those gifts to men, either.
I wonder if Driscoll would allow a woman who has been gifted to be a teacher to teach in any of his churches? Some gender complementarian churches are stricter than others. Some will let women teach, but only childre. Some won’t even allow that.
It’s sad to see that although the bible speaks approvingly of women leading entire nations (Deborah), or being Apostles (Junia), or saying women will prophesy, a lot of churches won’t allow them to do these things.
Acts 2:17
“‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”
His church does look more like a business. If I understand WenatcheeTheHatche’s posts correctly, Driscoll is incorporating his churches? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that before.
@ Daisy:
Not that I mean a woman at a church today can run the entire United States of America (by using the Deborah example), but that God allows women to be in positions of authority over men and allows women teaching males.
But gender complementarians choose to ignore many passages of Scripture to favor one or two Bible verses (1 Timothy 2:12, Ephesians 5:22). They ignore or explain away all the other ones that talk of female equality and times when it is permissible for a woman to be in authority over men.
Daisy wrote:
I’ve often thought the same thing….
Anon wrote:
That’s if you don’t need parking or use of the bathrooms.
Deb wrote:
I don’t know about Washington State, but a lot of states require you to update your corporate officers annually, so my guess would be it’s correct within the past 12 months.
@ Janey:
I’m not sure what the $99 references – is that how much the Mars Hill church coffee shops charge for a cappuccino? 😆
@ Dave A A: Ha!
I've noticed a lot of these men claim to have visions. I wonder if it's about power. How can you argue with a guy who hears directly from God like he does? How could he ever be wrong if he has such a direct line and the rest of us don't?
Daisy wrote:
The Resurgence Conference’s website says it “Starts at $99” — but that’s for B Team speakers at a “broadcast location.” I assume that might mean a Simulcast?
You could go fly to California and visit Rick Warren or Greg Laurie’s church for less than $300 + $200 in hotels and food.
But wait there’s more costs. When you sign up for the $300 event at Mark Driscoll’s church, there’s a $15.99 fee (no explanation) on the registration page. Hotels range from $99-$149/night.
Jeff S, the triperspectival thing is worth discussing at more length but it’s a dormant project connected to the Resurgence Training Center Master in Missional Leadership. What new Calvinists do with “triperspectivalism” doesn’t look like the very normal, traditional Western understanding that Jesus was the ultimate prophet, priest and king, what new Calvinists do with those roles, at least since roughly 2007, is reduce them to a kind of Meiers-Briggsian idiom for people on an executive leadership track.
Dave A A,
that’s what seemed likely. Is it possible to post the re-incorporation/location later?
@ Janey:
Oh. I sometimes wonder if these guys are about helping other people and spreading the Gospel, or just making bucks off people who are already Christian?
All the conferences, books, and the TV preachers selling their DVDs and CDs – they’ve turned the house of God into a den of thieves, or are peddling the Word of God for profit.
Which is not to say I am against any and all books about theology by Christians.
On a slight tangent: I have never understood the TV preachers who sell books about things such as “how to effectively pray to get a healing” or “biblical principles for having a great career” and so on- shouldn’t I be able to figure that stuff out on my own by reading the Bible, which I already own a couple of copies of? Why should I have to spend $20 – $80 for a set of DVDs discussing what the Bible says about topic X, Y, Z?
And that is not to say I am against Christians buying books by Christians or Non Christians to understand a topic better.
But the TV preachers and their books/DVDs cover rudimentary subjects you should probably be able to figure out on your own, I would think, from reading the Bible. And they seem to be pushing this stuff to make money, nothing more.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
All I found was http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Flower-Mound/acts-29-network/103051438.aspx
But I couldn’t find anything straight from the Texas SOS horse’s mouth.
I have to say I’m not down with this prophet, priest, king delineation and I’ll tell you what it is that trips me up. It’s that verse in 1 Peter about believers being a kingdom of priests. We are all priests (the priesthood of the believer) and there is no such thing as a non reigning member of the body. Someone would have to not be part of the body to be excluded from that. I realize the whole reigning thing is for the future but that doesn’t help me here. I also realize he’s trying to find a working way to categorize people for convenience but I think he’s going to get into trouble with this.
(But then as for getting into trouble, well, it is Driscoll….)
Thanks to JeffS for pointing out the classic understanding of Jesus’ fulfilment of the 3 roles, and for Deb for clarification.
Emily wrote:
I’m not an attorney, but I’ve got a little experience with “Foreign Non-Profit Corporations.” It appears to me that Act 29 Network is incorporated in Washington, but also has a legal entity in Texas. This is fairly common when the bank account and most of the activity for a corporation takes place in another state. So Matt and/or his staff in Texas probably write the checks and run it on a day-to-day basis.
How about this
https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cpa.app.coa.CoaSearch?Search_Nm=ACTS+29+NETWORK&Submit=Search+by+Name&Pg=tpnm&Button=start
https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cpa.app.coa.CoaGetTp?Pg=tpid&Search_Nm=ACTS%2029%20NETWORK%20&Button=search&Search_ID=32047815827
@ Daisy:
Selling books is a time honored way of funding a radio/TV ministry, and I have no problem with that. They aren’t a church and they have no control over you the viewer/listener. I don’t even have a problem with churches that have a bookstore on their property. That’s just offering good material in a convenient location.
But when a church loses his primary focus on the one thing that churches do best — to share the Gospel, provide a supportive community for believers, etc. — and switch their time and executive focus on commercial enterprises, I think they’ve lost it. I understand the temptation. Many good executives jump into ventures outside of their mission. But they do so at their own peril and that of their organization.
http://aixtcp.cpa.state.tx.us/exemptorgs/address.php?tp_id=32047815827
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Yes, that makes it clear. The corporation was formed in Washington, but basically has a Texas entity so they can do their banking. It implies that much of their business is being done in Texas. It’s not a switch. They will probably continue this way, although I would guess Texas is more favorable from a tax standpoint. Any CPAs out there?
Mark’s video has sent me back to studying this prophet, priest and king business in the new testament. I still believe that the whole New Covenant implies that we, the saints, are all prophets, priests, and kings. Sure there may be some individual God given or genetically influenced talents that allow us to operate more or less in any given organizational situation, but when it comes to God declaring that the new covenant made a way for us not to have to go through prophets, priests or kings anymore for our direction in life and salvation, I see that made us all on equal footing with each other in everything. Mark Driscoll is still trying to live under the Old Testament system.
NT study is actually one of the big problems in the way people field the subject of offices. The role of king in the Pentateuch is defined, as Frank Crusemann has pointed out, by delineating what he DOESN’T get to do as much or more than what he does. He must not be a foreigner, he must not amass too much gold, he must not have too many wives, he must not have too many chariots and here Crusemann points out this was a circumlocution within the Torah to say that the king’s professional standing army must not be allowed to be so strong as to overcome the volunteer militia. Crusemann also notes that it is the people who appoint the king.
Then there’s the prophet, whose role is to adjudicate problems and cases that can’t be handled by local leaders with existing case law. Read within a setting where the Torah and regional family and tribal leaders were expected to play a role it becomes apparent that the prophet was not supposed to be needed in the vast majority of cases and that if you look at Deuteronomy on the role of the prophet eschatological aspects are absent from what the prophet was supposed to do. People who look only to the NT and at Pentecost can miss that the role of the prophet was limited and presupposed that the written divine revelation was not considered comprehensive. The prophetic office’s activity only “began” when either the scriptural witness at hand was not comprehensive enough to cover a given case OR when the scriptures themselves were being corrupted to the point that a prophetic rebuke was called for or social devolution accelerated to the point of a general rebuke being in order, to put things a bit too broadly.
Driscoll isn’t trying to live under the OT system at all and even if he were the triperspectivalism espoused in MH has little to do with the OT at best and fundamentally misconstrues and misrepresents the very nature of the three offices as described in the Torah at worst.
I enjoy reading about the Prophet, Priest and King roles as they relate to Christ.
I am not fond of using those descriptions for the division of labor and gifts in the local church. There is no biblical warrant for that. Also, sounds to “Churchy” to me. When “churchy” language is used, it can actually hinder people from having real conversations about issues.
Dave A.A., the corporations codes of most states (maybe all) require that the corporate charter contain how long the corporation is to exist. If there is no end date, “perpetual” is used. That means the corporation continues to exist until it is terminated. This keeps the corporation from having to file paperwork to amend the charter in the event the expiration date comes, and the corporation wants to continue on.
A “perpetual” corporation can be terminated by filing documents stating such. But if the corporation is “perpetual,” it can keep on existing without any other matters being filed with regard to its lifespan.
I thought Matt Chandler took over Acts 29 And it was now based in Texas. The dates on the link are very interesting.
Dee wrote:
PSI CORPS IS MOTHER.
PSI CORPS IS FATHER.
PSI CORPS IS ALL.
(But Psi Corps never had such JUICY visions — “I SEE Things…”)
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
In the video, at least, Pastor Mark equates Prophet with Teacher. This despite the distinction between them made by Paul right there in I Cor 12, as well as Romans 12 and Ephesians 4. I’d be hard pressed to put several of the scripturally named gifts into one of the three categories.
Mark self-identifies with the Prophet gifting.
He changes the common meaning of King into more of a bean-counter/paper-pusher. If Henry VIII had heard him talk about King that way, a someone’s head would have rolled…
Then there’s the odd description of Jesus: “as King he distributes leaders and gifts, and *stewards* dollars…”
One important question– He’s apparently talking to the whole church, who might infer that all *members* have gifting in one of the 3 areas. But in practical reality, does this tripper specialism (triperspectivism, thank you spell-check for improved term) only apply to “high-level visionary leaders”? And *members* have only one gift– that of “ground-level implementers”? (see job description for marketing chief)
One final odd thing in the governance docs– several times they switch from “church” to “churches” in describing the MH in its *multicampus with telescreen* aspect. Are any of those “churches” free to burn the telescreen, preach their own Sunday AM sermons, and secede from MH if they choose?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
“Perhaps not the “king”, but definitely the profit.”
“More like Buttery Doughy Pastor/Dictator. And why stop at Prophet, Priest, and King? Why not go for it and be GOD? With your giant face on the Telescreens at every “franchise campus” in your not-a-denomination?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
…or Chuck E. Cheese.
(my daughter at 3 yrs always loved to go to Chuck E. Jesus’!! — sick but accidental play on words, with best intentions)
What is CT Corporation?
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=603258278
@ Heather:
Yes, what is OMCRU INVESTMENTS, LLC?
On Mission LLC is the copyright holder for Real Marriage
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=603258287
Agent name: C T Corporation System
Which is the agent name for OMCRU Investments, LLC, is it not?
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=409002643
CT Corporation System?
https://ux-ctadmin.ctadvantage.com/CTAdminUX/CTWebAdmin/Public/Login.aspx
OMCRU Investments, LLC appears to be a form of investing firm that has no public records of what exactly they do. From the sources I’ve seen they are considered a “very small business” comprised of two people: Mark Driscoll and one unknown. It’s the same Driscoll as the pastor because the mailing address is the same as the MH church office. Their last filing was in 2012, and they showed a revenue of approx $110,000 a year. Located in Colorado Springs, but operated in Seattle. Company phone number, if interested in calling to find out what they do, is in the link below. Some of the sources I have found say the company is 2 years old, some say 6 months. I’m guessing 6 months was their for time filing for a fiscal year and was then considered a true company (I could be wrong, don’t know the admin side of businesses, just my guess.)
http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/7954729/Omcru-Investments-Llc-in-Colorado-Springs-CO
Probably just a company Mark, and one other, can use to invest in various things. The rich getting richer, you know. But it’s all speculation. More then likely just a side project. It appears, from what I can see, them working as a Miscellaneous Intermediation Company is that they buy and sell financial contracts focusing in land speculation, oil dealings, or venture capital companies. Once again, not very knowledge on this stuff so I have no idea what all of that means. Here’s he US Census definition of what a MIC is:
http://www.census.gov/econ/industry/def/d523910.htm
Very interesting though. I’m curious what this little side venture is and how two people made over $200,000 with a business in only two years.
@ Invalid_Nate:
Mark and someone else (Grace perhaps) have a little side business in investments where they make $200,000/yr.?!? Just to invest various things? Whose money was used to invest this? The tithers? Very interesting. Is this a normal way for people to invest personal money in the US? Or is this fishy?
Daisy wrote:
At my old church, one of the ‘pastors’ was also, as it turned out, the owner of the company which was producing all the materials used in the youth sunday school and camp activities. I remember them distinctly because they were truly awful, ranging from vapid to potentially heretical at times. It all made sense (including why our protests were totally rebuffed) when we found out who owned the company. That man will be in big trouble one day, I have little doubt.
Off topic, but really interesting.
FBC Jax Watchdog just posted a comparison of the reaction to Paula Deen’s racist remarks vs the reaction to Ergun Caner’s. Paula Deen loses her sponsors; Ergun Caner keeps getting invitations to speak.
Conclusion? Paula needs to become a big-wig Baptist chef so she doesn’t lose her income.
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2013/06/paul-dean-gets-fired-ergun-caner-keeps.html
Janey wrote:
This is the job for her!
http://www.churchstaffing.com/job/152312/
Anecdote about Mark Driscoll…
Sometimes when I am talking to other people and MD happens to come up, I tell them things about him and what he’s done that I’ve learned from this site and others.
Usually, I get blown off, because they are trying to give me some “Great article he wrote that I have to read” (I do read them… but they are usually horrible. I was sent one on dating that was a horrid mess of twisted bible prooftexting, blatant historical falsehoods and maybe even some outright lies…) and they don’t really know anything about him beyond that so when I tell them about some of the stuff (Especially the evergreen “I SEE THINGS”) they think I’m exaggerating and they tell me that I must have misheard or am taking him out of context and don’t believe that no, really, He is really like that.
However, I was encouraged recently. I was in a conversation with a few people my age (early 20s) and a few older ones and Mark Driscoll came up. I once again began to reveal MD for what he was (the older people were trying to praise the “great work he does” lol) and got the usual WHAT NO THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE response. However, the younger people in the group broke in at that point and backed me up with “No actually he does get really extreme…”.
So perhaps Driscoll’s target crowd is starting to see through his shenanigans.
I don’t see anything at OMCRU that would affect Driscoll’s public ministry or message.
I had written a long comment about OMCRU and Mark Driscoll and his estate planning attorney, but it occurred to me that Mark’s legally earned income and personal investments — as long as they are legal and ethical — are none of our business. I wouldn’t want him going through my personal finances.
Heather wrote:
Heather — Oh that is so very very good. But she won’t be able to cook with wine. Ha!
Val wrote:
Val — Yes, this is a normal way of holding investment real estate in the U.S. now. Investor forms an LLC and the LLC buys the property. The $110k is probably just annual rental income, which might indicate they’ve bought a nice house, a modest apartment complex, or a commercial property.
Janey wrote:
This is a good point.
Just because most of what Mark Driscoll says/does/spreads is wrong, doesn’t mean everything he does is wrong. It’s better to reserve criticism for stuff we know about (which is plenty of stuff…) rather than speculatively criticizing on his private finances, which we know little to nothing about.
We should beware of dividing people into black and white demons and angels categories, where one group is criticized for everything they do no matter how small and the other for nothing. Not saying we are doing that here, but on subjects like this it's good to have the warning out there…
@ Janey:
@ JustSomeGuy:
Yes, that’s been my experience with MD also, and I live in MH territory. Recently a close friend of my daughter’s quit attending the satellite Mars Hill by us. She would tell him things that she was learning online and he would defend it but then pay attention more when he attended. He told her that the things she was telling him are true.apparently he had never signed a membership agreement though so his leaving was easy.
@ JustSomeGuy: I agree. As long as the initial investment money is earned ethically and the investments themselves are ethical, i see no problem in pastors investing. They have families to financially be responsible for. I actually think it more irresponsible that many individuals cause their familie's poverty when they take on poverty in ministries. I think our questions about Mark Driscoll is from his over emphasis on money that makes us suspicious that the original money wasn't earned so morally.
A little off topic awesomeness for my friends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-pyuaThp-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niz8TfY794
JustSomeGuy, there’s stories that can be shared about the oddities of the Mars Hill dating scene and its courtship fad. Possibly half of the Ruth sermons Driscoll preached in 2007 was recycled material he taught in 2005 at a singles ministry kick-off event. Then he followed up with a semi-notorious Nehemiah series. Contrary to the report that 1000 people left over the re-org there were people who actually began leaving MH before the Nehemiah series was even completed.
Should anyone have a copy of the infamous Edinburgh sermon on Song of Songs, not a partial transcript, mention something. 🙂
Ah Ruth, so beloved by these acts 29 folks for twisting.
I was at one of the A29 churches recently where the pastor said after the current series is done they will be going through “Old testament bible stories” to “Retell them as you’ve never heard them before through the lens of the whole bible being about Jesus”
As his preview example, he decided to go on about how Boaz is the main point of Ruth as he is a Christ-type put there to demonstrate “headship and authority and redemption”.
Had I been more brash I might have jumped up right there and pulled up one of the half dozen examples in Ruth that invalidate that theory that immediately popped into my head but instead I just cringed in my seat.
ugh.
Patrice wrote:
William Carey’s wife, Dorothy, was severely mentally ill and on the mission field she was out of commission most of the time. It was not a good marriage. After her death, Carey married a woman who’d been a co-laborer for many years. It must have taken all they had to maintain integrity prior to his wife’s death.
@ Janey:
Ah, that makes sense of it. I hope he had a wonderful second marriage. I can understand why he’d not been able to be open about it, but wish he’d not made that over-spiritualized and somewhat deceitful statement.
So true! Driscoll is a tool. But he can’t be all bad I guess.
@ Fendrel:
That’s marvelous.
As to destructuring ruts, I thoroughly enjoyed teaching painting to freshmen. They had to set aside all that they thought they knew about, say, an apple, and learn to see it for what it was in shape, color/tone/hue/value, and space/context. It was very hard work but hugely rewarding for all. I was lucky enough to also teach senior studio where the students tried to carry that newly minted openness into their ideas about the world and what was/wasn’t important. Most couldn’t transition that far, but even the attempt had worth.
Patrice wrote:
Exactly.
Patrice wrote:
He did. Charlotte was a well-educated wealthy widow he had known for many years. After her death, he married again, but his marriage to Charlotte was his most satisfying.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1992/issue36/3627.html?start=3
Fendrel wrote:
Cool. I love those!
@ Janey:
I doubt I would have liked William Carey, having myself been sacrificed on the altar of ministry. That he was devoted to missions is fine. But any sensible person (and if not him, the people around him) would understand that marrying left/right, having children and forcing them all to submit to his/her personal calling is a counter-witness to Christ. Did Carey think the “heathen” didn’t notice?
He was downright awful to his first wife. She didn’t want to go to the mission field. It wasn’t her calling and obviously wouldn’t be good for her. But she was finagled and commenced deteriorating, right on schedule. Rather than face the mistake and sending her back home with his love, Carey doubled down until she was locked into a room while he went about his godliness next door and the kids were left unattended. Sharp tongue indeed!
My auntie, a small frail woman, went with her husband and their four children to Liberia while my uncle built hospital, school, and open church building for our denominational mission. They came back because my auntie had caught malaria and was so run down from overwork that meds weren’t pushing it into remission.
It’s nice that Carey loved Charlotte. Plus she brought some much needed money with her and that had to relieve some of the domestic distress. But he made it clear that he didn’t love his third wife as much, which is…well, he should never have married once, much less three times. Nope, I would not have liked William Carey.
Every human has a calling of one sort or another and it is incumbent on each to fulfill that calling in a way that embraces the two Great Commandments. There is no calling so holy that can excuse unloving behavior towards intimates.
Yeah, it’s a touchy subject for me. End of rant. 😕
Patrice, I don’t think William Carey’s profile would be on anyone’s eHarmony list:
“I will drag you to India where most missionaries die within 10 years. If you resist I won’t listen. If you become too grief stricken at the death of your child, I will lock you in a room…”
But I think attitudes were different in the 1800s. Abraham Lincoln’s mentally ill wife didn’t slow down his ambitions either, though clearly he was a lot kinder to her. Abe’s son had his mother locked up.
After reading these I can understand why women feel “uncomfortable” in the church.
@ Janey: It still doesn’t change the absolutely abusive awfulness of that statement!!!
@ Janey: the “I wills stand out, as does “the death of your child.”
Frankly, he sounds very selfish and cruel, and I don’t believe the apologists for one second. (Nothing personal, Janey – it’s just that what he said – and did – is SO contrary to what Jesus taught…)
@ Janey:
It is my position that is unusual, I agree. I was born/raised in a family system minimally different from the 19thcen; walked out the front door and into the hot humid landscape of the 1970s. Whoop!
Yet, “See how they love one another!” has been Christ’s invitation no matter who/where/when/how. And anytime that invitation is set aside for ultra-spiritual&righteous-callings, Christ’s voice is dimmed. Which is a shame—it’s such a beautiful voice!
Also directly applicable to various current Christian pastors (or memberships) under discussion. No one gets a pass.
“See how they love one another!”
JustSomeGuy wrote:
In my view, the Almighty didn’t give a rat’s rip about Boaz’s sperm, save that it didn’t damage Ruth’s ovum and genome further.
You were very right to just cringe in your seat, wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. Tribal shamans do not take kindly to being told even nicely that they’re full of ….. er… um …. well you know.
Patrice, Thanks for your comments on William Carey. It has become taboo to speak of him in any way but reverence in certain Calvinista circles. He is quite the icon in the YRR movement and it is chilling. We are never called to “sacrifice” others to please God. That is Islamic thinking, not Christianity. And there are many ways to “sacrifice” others whether it be wives, children, other believers, etc. I have seen it all too often in varying ways done even today when one is building a great empire for God.
In fact, such thinking and deeds are NOT a witness at all but quite the opposite. We teach by our actions. If we know that Jesus is the Anointed One it will show in our actions toward each other whether we are here or darkest parts of Africa.
@ Fendrel:
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. –Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century
This quote sums up nicely why I take early church views on women very lightly. There is no such thing as a male “seed” sperm alone cannot create a baby – they had no concept of a female egg playing a role in the reproductive process – making all men fertile and all women merely holding vessels.
Hebrews 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10
Note the author’s view – Levi was in the body of his ancestor – it is WRONG. In the ancient world, they believed that sperm (called seed, because they thought it was a complete baby) was like Russian dolls, inside Adam’s seed was a mini-Seth and inside mini-Seth’s seed was really mini-Enosh and inside the really mini-Enosh’s seed was a wee little Kenan and inside wee little Kenan’s seed was an even littler Mahalalel and inside littler Mahalalel’s seed was a microscopic Jared and inside mircroscopic Jared’s seed … etc., etc., in fact, it was believed that all humanity was inside one man (the Hebrews assigned Adam to this role as they adapted to Greek culture) was the entire human race. This is why Paul draws the parallel to all of us falling due to Adam’s sin, because in his view, we were all inside Adam when he sinned. Except we weren’t there inside when Adam sinned. If Adam is really one of the first homo sapiens sapiens (tech. term for modern humans – not just homo sapiens) to walk the earth, his fall had no direct effect on us. We weren’t in him during his defilement. We didn’t exist until we were conceived. But, to the ancients, we lived inside our fathers. So Augustine then takes that to the next level and claims the entire human raise is already defiled before conception (because he didn’t see conception as the beginning of a life, rather as the planting of a seed that had existed since the beginning of creation.
Aquinas’s other point is regurgitating the Roman view that women were incomplete men – they were not fully formed and hadn’t gestated inside their mother’s womb long enough. They were born “soft and weak” or incomplete (as in not yet fully male). I wonder if this is because very early preemies (12 weeks gestation) are born before the testicles descend and therefore would have look “female” to the ancients?
numo wrote:
I agree, and I hope it would not happen these days. The world must have been different in the 1800s. I cannot imagine a missionary couple being approved today for field service by a reputable missions organization when they weren’t equally called to it.
Patrice wrote:
I agree 100%. If you are called to marriage, it’s clear that partner needs to occupy a high priority.
@ Janey: Let’s just say that I have my doubts, given the number of missions boards that seem to approve all kinds of people…
@ Janey: I think it’s more than just “the world was a different place” (you’re right to say this, imo) – it’s that Carey seems to have been a remarkably insensitive and cruel person, regarding his spouses and his children, too.
numo wrote:
In fact, the SBC missionary Lottie Moon first worked for in China was a cruel man that her sister first worked for. Eventually Lottie insisted her sick sister go home as she was going insane. She never fully recovered. Lottie broke with the cruel missionary leader there eventually and did her own thing.
Prior to the notorious by-law change of 2007, Driscoll was one elder of many – all of whom were “elders for life” according the the by-laws. The governance of the church was by the elders. It took firing two key elders and then asking the rest of the elders to vote without discussion (only emailed comments to “lead pastor” Munson). The shocked and numbed remaining elders – almost all of whom were highly paid (6 figures – once you added in benefits – and used to being flown around by Jon Phelps to attend luxurious elder meetings at Phelps’s California ranch) voted to change the rules. Many of these elders had never had life so cushy and any dissent meant that they would be fired next.
So the governance was changed placing control of the church from all the elders to the top 5 executive elders, who had life long tenures under the newly passed rules – with remaining elders now having practically no authority and now being subject to fired-at-will.
Interjection (only Mark Driscoll remains as an executive elder). Despite salaries in the $140k to $175k range, the life long tenure did not help the remaining four executive elders stay at their post for very long.
The current scenario has 3 executive elders – but interesting and almost unthinkable in most churches and certainly most reformed churches, Mark Driscoll is named and protected in the by-laws.
He is the King – by any reasonable thought – process.
Unlike the old by-laws that required an elder to neutered if a charge was directed and being investigated, the latest series of by-laws states that a hand-picked accountability and advisory board deal with any formal charge. This board is named in the by-laws.
So the King is protected and holds his position until this board decides what to do after a credible charge is reviewed. They can rebuke him or remove him as elder. Of course, these men are vested in Marc’s success – so the likelihood of an impartial treatment of any credible charge is highly unlikely.
So the King is very hard to remove.
Ben Tudley
@ Val:
Oops, somehow the rest of my cut and paste was cut off (I was trying to bold it)- but it was the main point:
Hebrews 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, *Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.*
It’s verses like these that never allowed me to agree that the Bible was perfect/without error in it’s original form – it may well have been exactly what the author intended, but it is an erroneous view of the physical existence of humanity.
Ben
It would appear that Mark Driscoll is running a privately held private company. The only one who has job security is Driscoll and it is a nice life. I am going to speaking out against any church which employs an elder model in which the elders are selected by pastors and current elders, the pastor is the lynchpin for the success of the enterprise and the pastor has hiring and firing capability. I also do not believe that any church leaders whould accept flights on private jets and cushy retreats at the expense of any member. This will naturally elevate that member to an elite status within the church. Heck, I know of one situation in which an elder got appointed in a megachurch because he had enough money to rent private jets for the lead pastor.
I long for the day in which celebrity pastors spend more time hanging around members who cannot give them anything. Instaed of a retreat at some fancy ranch, why not have a retreat at the community center in a low income housing project?
@ Fendrel:
Fendrel,
Are you by chance able to give links or citations for the quotes that only have names? I don’t care about the Mormon ones but I’d like to look up the rest, if possible.
dee wrote:
…The weak are the meat which the strong do eat… It’s always been this way. Great leaders and chieftains have always preyed upon the weak minded in order to advance and aggrandize themselves. The only one who didn’t follow this pattern was Jesus of Nazareth who went out amongst the dregs and showed us all how it doesn’t have to be this way.
Val wrote:
We know so little about the twists and turns of the human genome and the double helix which drives heredity. My guess is that at this stage, we are like Ptolemy with his astrolabes and quadrants, still taking careful measurements.
While I’ll agree that Augustine’s and Aquinas’s views are largely ancient and medieval clap-trap, the notion that Levi was still in the loins of his ancestor (Abraham) is not entirely without warrant.
It depends on what you mean by what was “in the loins”.
If you mean the person of Levi was there in total, yes that is entirely without warrant. True, we know comparatively little, on the scale of things. But we know enough to eliminate THAT completely.
dee wrote:
This is eminently biblical, of course (as distinct from Biblical™ or Gospel™).
The thing is, though, that for those of us who not only profess Christian faith but actually believe all that c**p about eternal life and Jesus coming back, there’s a real hope that this longing will be fulfilled. Because the first, who have all their reward, honour and adulation now, will be last; and the last, who serve in secret for a reward that eye cannot yet see, will be first. So the celebrities who mainly hang out with their buddies who agree with them will be anonymous nobodies; and the unsung, true heroes will become celebrities. (But fame will be powerless to change them.)
P.S. I should clarify – I wasn’t suggesting you don’t believe in eternity, but rather that I’m not sure how seriously some people take it, who sell it.
@ JustSomeGuy:
I admit, that was rather slippery of me. And yes I agree that the total person of Levi was NOT determined by Abraham’s male gametes alone. Still though, I can play spin-the-Bible with the best of em’.
dee wrote:
MONEY TALKS.
Specifically, Bought and Paid For.
Apostate Romish Papists call this “Simony”.
Val wrote:
I remember Steven Jay Gould mentioning this belief in one of his essays on the History of Science. It doesn’t seem that ridiculous when you consider that (1) there was no cell theory to set a lower limit to an organism’s size and (2) they only had to account for 6000 years/250 generations max instead of millions.
But true, this “everybody knows that” belief does sound like the source of Original Sin transmitting down through the male (requiring a virgin birth to be born without sin).
Anon 1 wrote:
Reverence as in Dulia, Hyperdulia, or Latria?
Or is Carey the latest Fifth Person of the Trinity? (Calvin being the Fourth.)
I thought they reserved Latria for Calvin’s thick theology book.
@ Muff Potter:
How could Levi be inside his ancestor?
This is just basic “where do I come from” questions, today, we learn it is from a fertilized egg that contains the genetic material from both parent. No one parent passes on their complete set of DNA to a child. In the ancient world, they thought kids were made from their fathers – so a complete seed from the father. That would mean, under their view, we could use our DNA to identify our fathers but never our mothers.
Since they are already cloning animals, I hardly think we are at the Ptolemy-level of understanding. Those Greeks never developed the tools accurate enough to measure their hypothesis. Nowadays, people make Genetic recombinants all the time – tomatoes with fish DNA in them (omega proteins), in labs c. elagins with phosphorus jellyfish DNA – to glow under the electron microscopes during development – (for research), people have cloned numerous animals – Dolly the sheep was widely reported, there have been thousands since. Just last week Britain allowed scientists the go-ahead to begin working on creating an IVF baby with three – yes, three! ekes! – genetic parents. My husband’s a geneticist, believe me, today we are very, very certain that Levi was NOT in Abraham’s loins (that is a 400 year gap, remember) when Abe gave that tithe to Melchizedek. Not even the paternal portion of the DNA that Levi would inherit was in Abraham.
One of the biological advancements of having sexual reproduction was to mix and match the DNA, not clone it. This DNA swapping is what keeps sexually-reproducing animals responding to their environments. Asexual organisms just have very loose copying methods and produce numerous mutations to survive. Higher organisms, like us, reptiles, fish, etc. would die from that amount of mutations, our reproduction creates far less mutations, allowing the bodies of sexually produced animals to specialize in many specific forms.
Again, I may be reading you wrong, how do you mean Levi could have been in Abraham? I am talking strictly physically, as that is what Hebrews is arguing for.
@ Val:
I had hoped to make it quite clear that I don’t believe the ruminations of Augustine or the medieval scholastics who followed. In fact I now reject large swaths of Western theology regarding sin and justification. But that’s a whole nother’ orison which I’m sure that neither you nor the blog owners care to hear.
I think that we probably are misreading each other about Levi in Abraham’s loins. Do you mean that Levi got none of the original DNA molecules from the zygote produced by Sarah & Abraham and that it was just copies which were passed on? Forgive me for any layman’s indiscretion here and I will certainly defer to your husband’s field of endeavor.
You also wrote:
Those Greeks never developed the tools accurate enough to measure their hypothesis.
Here is where some push back is in order. The discovery of the Antikythera Machine has laid to rest once and for all the notion that the ancients did not have the technological sophistication to measure extremely small angular displacements. It would also give some credence to the speculative notion that Ptolemy knew about the principle of the Vernier scale and employed it widely in his astrolabes and quadrants long before it was invented by Pierre Vernier in 1631.
The Antikythera Machine sounds interesting, and more likely a Chinese or Arabic invention that was transported or introduced to Greece, likely after Alexander’s rampage across Asia.
As for genetics, there is a specific sequence of alleles in the Y chromosome of Jewish males. Like a marker showing Jewish male ancestry- not necessarily indicating if someone is actually Jewish or not, just that as a race/group they have found a specific male genetic marker (which is interesting considering you inherit and identify your Jewish-ness from your mother). But a similar genetic factor in an ancestor (not direct copies, just carried down markers) and saying Levi was there when Abraham gave the tithe as what the original author was getting at is a bit of a stretch. There is, also, no guarantee Levi or Abraham for that matter, even had that Y-factor marker – it isn’t like we know where they are buried, or could exhume them if we did. And even if we could get DNA from their supposed grave sites, we would never be 100% certain they even are the bodies being genetically tested.
Interestingly, your method was what the early church did with the Torah and other OT books. They would take something intended for one audience – say a people under a certain ancient King, and reinterpret it as a foreshadowing of an event in Jesus’ life. They often took OT scripture and used it with a completely different meaning.
I dont’ know, honestly. Knowing now what we know about genetics, and knowing what the ancients thought was happening, the literal, straightforward reading would say no. However, given that we got our NT with a heavy dose of extrapolating Ancient Palestinian or Greco/Roman events onto Even Ancient-er Israeli events in the Bible, a straight forward literal reading may not be what the author intended – but then that refutes the rest of his argument, that Levi and Jesus we part of the tithing since Levi and Jesus were Abraham’s offspring.
I used to view a revelation from God as very valid if a sentence or two of scripture was used. I then realized, if God wants to tell me something, he could use a book, blog post or advertisement just as easily as a verse or two from the Bible. So, I no longer feel that a more contemporary meaning than the author’s – or a meaning apart from the author’s intended meaning – would carry any revelatory weight. I mean, Peter had a vision, not a few OT verses to make him accept the Gentiles. Paul saw visions of where to go minister next. If we now understand that something in the Bible was based on an outdated notion of life, do we, using our new understanding, reform the author’s meaning, or let it be a record of how they viewed life. The OT is pretty clear that pigs are a defilement. The NT is pretty clear God doesn’t see it that way. They don’t rework the scriptures over this.
I watch the effect that fighting publicly to get students to be taught a 6 day creation has had on our witness, our ability to be taken seriously, our focus on what a Christian ought to believe in, etc. Trying to make an outdated text say something about modern understanding is like trying to twist an Elephant through a keyhole – not working, and if it did, somehow, manage to work, it would no longer look like an Elephant anyway.
Just my view. Scriptures can be outdated. It is a revelation to us of God walking with his people, not a book with everything we need to know. Didn’t apostle John say that not even a whole library could record everything Jesus did? Yet we only get a glimpse of that. The Bible, to me, is a glimpse. I don’t view women as property who lose value if they lose their virginity, but the OT does. I don’t think one of the spoils of war are concubines, but David is given Saul’s concubines. So, I don’t agree with the values of the OT, because they are not Christian values. The Bible itself isn’t a “How To” book for following God, science or church politics. It is an autobiography of the Great I am, by a rag-tag group of people from all places and walks of life. It is a useful tool, but not a Law. So, I have grown very comfortable seeing human errors, or old understandings as part of God’s story. It is OK. It doesn’t have to be twisted to be literal. It is a record of how the author, with God’s spirit, reached out to the Hebrews – the Hebrews didn’t care that the biology may have been wrong. Why should we?
TedS. wrote:
Nailed it.
I think you guys are reading too much into it. What he is doing is using the idea of archetypes in attempt to describe the various personalities of people in the church. Certainly he is not saying….we are not priests or that he is a king. He is simply using character types to describe various roles people take on. Granted….I do somewhat agree that it would probably be wiser of him to use the biblical language of the 5 fold ministry….teachers, prophets, evangelists, apostles and pastor. When you try and get creative to come up with new terminology to describe things the bible has already described you are bound to confuse people. We are always looking for something new and fresh…just stick to the bible….its timeless in its principles
Mark Driscoll hate blog? Speak objectively and stop criticizing.
Jake
Now that was convincing.