"I should have realized the Mark Driscoll supporters are as loud if not louder than the Mark Driscoll haters."
Just when we thought the Mars Hill drama had subsided, there is suddenly a HUGE EXPLOSION! What in the world could possibly have upset the 'Martians' (as they used to call themselves) after everything else that has happened with their former church and pastor?
Gleanings, an online forum of Christianity Today, has been covering this story, along with Warren Throckmorton, WenatcheetheHatchet, and others. The Gleanings article provided the following background information:
Among the assets left over from the collapse of Mars Hill Church were several church buildings, a legacy website, and an email list with tens of thousands of church leaders and pastors.
Selling off the buildings has proved successful—as the church recently made deals to sells its Sammamish and Ballard campuses.
The email list, with 90,000 names from Mars Hill’s Resurgence conference, became a headache yesterday.
The list showed up on a new website called churchleaderlist.com this past month, on sale for $1,500—or $1,350 with a coupon. Craig Gross, founder of xxxchurch.com, bought the list in order to promote his anti-porn ministry's book and accountability software. His ministry had sponsored the 2013 Resurgence conference for "a lot of money," but felt the group remained one that his ministry was "least connected with."
Gross, who learned about the list from Justin Dean, a former Mars Hill staffer, sent out what he thought was a clever email on Monday.
Here's what happened, according to the CT article. Craig Gross, probably thinking that recipients of an email promoting his anti-porn ministry book and accountability software would pay little, if any, attention to his correspondence, decided to use this catchy caption on the subject line: Mark Driscoll – The Real Story. No doubt most, if not all, the recipients would take the time to read it! And boy was he right!
In the email, Gross provided some background information about himself and then launched into the sins of 'failed pastors' which included:
“extramarital affairs, flirting, porn addiction, gambling addictions, and a whole mess of other stuff.”
Gross went on to say that these specific sins all stem from a terrible lack of accountability — the same root issue that he claimed ruined Driscoll's ministry.
The Gleanings article then stated:
Gross’s overall message: buy our software, or you might end up like Driscoll.
“As a leader, if you don't have accountability, your time is coming. You will fall,” he wrote.
Gross closed with an offer for half off the software, using a “resurgence” coupon code.
The response was immediate and visceral, mostly on Twitter.
WenatcheetheHatchet was quick to alert his readers about Warren Throckmorton's coverage of these developments. In his post he provided a link to Warren's March 23rd post — Anti-Porn Ministry Buys Mailing List; Turns Out It Includes Mars Hill Church’s The Resurgence Emails. In this post, Throckmorton published the entire e-mail sent out by Craig Gross. It is an interesting read…
The following day, Throckmorton reported on further developments — Craig Gross and Justin Dean Speak Out About the Mars Hill/Resurgence Mailing List Story.
And earlier today Warren Throckmorton wrote a follow-up post entitled How Did Church Leaders List Get Mars Hill Church's Email List?
This is a story that is getting more convoluted by the day… In his latest post, Throckmorton wrote:
Initially, the story of Craig Gross buying an email list from Church Leaders List seemed like a marketing story gone sideways. However, there appears to be much more to the matter.
At the end of Christianity Today’s article on this, Bob Smietana wrote:
On Tuesday, Dean apologized for his part in the drama over the list. He admitted that he’d been involved the initial sale of the list to churchleaderlist.com (screen cap of page now removed from the web).
Now Justin Dean’s website is down and so that statement is not available…
I found the end of Warren Throckmorton's post intriguing. Here is his conclusion:
I have seen communications which indicate to me that Mars Hill Church has not sold The Resurgence email lists. Thus, if the lists have not been sold by Mars Hill Church, then how did Church Leaders List get them?
From my conversations with former Mars Hill staff, I believe there is a limited group of people who have access to the lists.
Mars Hill Church is still a viable entity but has not responded to repeated requests for information or comment. Given the non-profit status of the church, the public and former members still have an interest in their operations. If the church is selling member emails without permission, then they should come forward and acknowledge this. If not, then the question remains, how did Church Leaders List get that information?
Obviously, there is much more to this saga than we currently know. We will continue to follow these developments and provide an update when more information is known.
In the meantime, check out this post – I Don't Hate Mark Driscoll – by Craig Gross (in the wake of sending out the e-mail that started it all). Gross concluded with these key points.
I found it interesting that as soon as I posted this that Justin Dean posted a blog on his website that he somewhat apologized for distributing the list to me. Lets be clear, he sold the list to me. He didn’t broker a transaction. He sold me the list along with several other people who paid $1350-$1500 for the list.
I asked the lawyer that was in charge selling the assets for 100k earlier in 2014 and he said that no one has purchased the rights to sell these assets yet.
I found it interesting that on December 16th the WHOIS registrar data has been updated for over 100 websites that Mars Hill once owned and now they state that are owned by who else but… Justin Dean.
How does the right hand man to Mark Driscoll now own all the Mars Hill websites? Unless since he works for Mark.. these are actually in the possesion [sic.] of Mark Driscoll but handled by Justin Dean. If that is not the case and Justin and Mark don’t own the assets they are selling them illegally. Either way, we learned our lessons on buying email lists.
More to come…
Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 20:22-22:16 Mark 9:1-29 Psalm 43:1-5 Proverbs 10:18
A. I’m first.
B. I wondered if you’d address this. I saw it blowing up all over Facebook.
Second! :-p. My east coast Mom!! Hi!
According to this link at the Washington Secretary of State site on corporation registrations, Mars Hill Church is still listed as “active.” Which I assume it must remain until all properties are sold or otherwise disbursed.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=601677819
As I’ve been reading the articles and analysis on this mailing list situation, it brings up all the same potential legal and ethical issues from last year: inurement (insider benefit from a non-profit), conflicts of interest, etc.
I wonder if some issue(s)/allegation(s) will still eventually find their way into an official Washington state investigation …
The worst place to finish – just outside the medals.
(Fourth…)
A non-profit corporation must donate all remaining assets (or sell them at a fair market price, and donate the proceeds) to another non-profit corporation. To fail to do so is both a tax law violation which can be treated as a felony under federal law. Driscoll and Dean are walking on a tight rope in selling assets. Quite frankly, staying on to sell the assets and profiting in any way is dangerous business. Instead, the lot should have been turned over to a broker to sell at standard commission rates for the type of assets being sold, and not by a “salaried” member of the former entity. BTW, generally, that includes all of the videos, books, etc., if part of Driscoll’s job was to write them or church resources (staff) were employed to help research and write them.
When one acts to deceive . . ..
Isn’t xxxchurch.com the folks who brought us Wally the Wiener a few years back?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Better fourth than never…
I am not sure how much more proof people who looked to Driscoll as this great leader need that they were nothing more than merchandise for the leaders to profit from. I just wonder how many times this list has been sold. There are plenty of other charlatans out there in Christendom who would love to have all those names.
I do wonder if people signing up for Resurgence conferences, etc, ever thought this is how their information would eventually be used.
@ An Attorney:
I thought Driscoll “resigned”, took his big payout before the bills came due and was out of it completely. Such a Christian manly man.
And the Drama Queen Diaries continue…
No, make that South Park.
“Martians”…?
“YAK! YAK! YAK-YAK! YAK!”
Lydia wrote:
First rat off the sinking ship.
Hester wrote:
Like I said above, Drama Queen Diaries meet South Park.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Do not run! We come in peace! BRZZAAAP!
@ Lydia:
Absolutely. Dee and I are wondering just how far and wide that email list has been marketed. And whose is profiting from this scheme?
No one would ever accuse me of being a Driscoll fan but what disturbs me about this is that someone who knew little about Driscoll’s departure would conclude from Craig Gross’ email that Driscoll’s departure was due to some sexual sin.
While Driscoll certainly shouldn’t be in ministry leadership anywhere, I haven’t read anywhere that Driscoll was involved, or was thought to have been involved, in “extramarital affairs, flirting, porn addiction, gambling addictions, and a whole mess of other stuff” which is what this email would seem to imply to a casual, uninformed reader.
But then, the shysters who seek to profit off of God’s people seem to care less about truth than they do about getting the buck and the followers.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yeah, obviously. He knew best about the many holes where the water was leaking into the ship. Truth be told, he had had a hand in making many of these holes.
I have a question for those in the (legal) know:
MD left MH with all the MH “intellectual property” (books, websites, videos) in his personal possession. How is that even possible? Didn’t the web site belong to the non-profit MHC? Wasn’t all that IP created as work for hire and belonged to MHC as well?
– Didn’t MH pay a salary to MD for preparing and delivering sermons? Didn’t he prepare a sermon series and a book based on each other, so the research and writing (if it wasn’t done by Docent, and we don’t know who paid their invoices) were paid for by MH?
– Weren’t most of the videos recordings of sermons and other speeches MD gave at MH as part of his salaried position?
In a word: wasn’t all of MD’s “work for hire” property of the church, which – as a non-profit – can’t give huge chunks of its property to a (former) officer of that non-profit? Least of all an e-mail list that was probably put together by church employees, not MD himself?
It’s difficult not to feel some sympathy for Justin Dean, who seems to be still in denial over what really happened and his own role in it (blindly following a very flawed leader?), but MD should know a lot better.
But then again, his good friend James Macdonald’s example, who managed to do what he did do (have to be careful with my vocabulary here, but it’s all documented at http://theelephantsdebt.com/ and in some posts on this site as well, anyway), he may be beyond caring.
Gus wrote:
I’m not a legal professional but I am a pastor and it was explained to us in seminary that since pastors are considered self-employed for tax purposes the copyright for what we produce (e.g., sermons and books, I don’t know about websites) belongs to us. Our work is not is not work-for-hire. Since every pastor I know and every church I know operates this way (anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it’s worth), and I know for a fact that the federal government considers us self-employed (because of my taxes and Social Security), and I have yet to find a reliable source who can demonstrate anything to the contrary, I take this as being true.
Michael wrote:
Considering the guy came across as a male nymphomaniac obsessed with both ends of the alimentary canal, I always figured he’d go down in some sex scandal too. It was actually a surprise when it was plagiarism plus book juicing.
Gus wrote:
Make that “first rat of the sinking ship with ALL the moneymakers”.
Michael wrote:
Gus — while this makes sense IF pastors write all of their own material, part of the issues in this specific situation at Mars Hill involve allegations of whether paid church personnel and perhaps volunteers and paid researchers/ghost-writers provided material that ended up in Mark Driscoll’ NON-work-for-hire copyright, meaning that would have derived significant *personal* financial benefit from the supposed-to-be non-profit organization he headed up. Such potential misuse of tax-exempt donations for personal gain is a legal issue with the IRS, and the technical term is *inurement*.
Here is some material I wrote on inurement (see section 04-3. #1 Inurement) related to IRS regulations and Mars Hill Church.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/mars-hill-case-study/04-specific-legal-ethical-issues/
So, you may want to check out whether a self-employed pastor/”writer” whose copyrighted material has been supported by tax-deductable church-based donations beyond his/her own salary may have a problem claiming sole intellectual property rights.
Michael wrote:
Really? All Mark’s sexual addictions took place in his mind. He was obsessed with sex and “gambled” on it’s popularity with the young people in his congregation.
Who can forget his pornographic divination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVyFyauE4ig
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I wonder if he stiffed his ghostwriters as well?
After all, it was a MINISTRY(TM).
Oops. Meant to address it to Michael, who was quoting Gus. Sorry.
@ brad/futuristguy:
The information we were given in seminary was assuming that pastors were indeed writing and producing their own material which, of course, is how it’s supposed to work and how it presumably works most of the time.
I was only addressing Gus’ overall assumption that (1) pastors are employees and that (2) all pastors’ work product is therefore work-for-hire, neither of which is true.
You raise good concerns specific to MD and MH to which I cannot speak (and hadn’t really thought about) but would love to know the answer. The tough part, however, would be proving any of it at this juncture.
Michael wrote:
It’s a very relevant question, given the use the days of online sermons, research services, etc. If you want to do more research, Michael, there was a *huge* amount of factual information documented between autumn 2013 and autumn 2014, during the period of “meltdown” of Mars Hill, about details exactly along those lines. Some of those trails of details can be found in Warren Throckmorton’s blog, especially in his category on “plagiarism.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/tag/plagiarism/
It may not be so tough to prove/confirm those conclusions as you may have thought …
@ Michael:
The issue with self-employment status and the IRS is a totally separate thing from the rights of a non-profit organization versus the rights of an “employee in fact”. In point of fact, a church can pay social security taxes and do withholding on an employee, including the pastor. And as an attorney, and life-long Baptist, I believe that the church body should run the church not the pastor, and the fiction that the church belongs to the pastor, and therefore he is self-employed, should be understood for the evils that it creates. A pastor is paid to write and preach and what one is paid to do belongs to the entity or person paying.
P.S. Having worked in and around a seminary from the mid-1990s through mid-2000 decade, I would suggest from what I’ve seen that the whole issue of “spiritual plagiarism” needs to be addressed more thoroughly than it has been, and is it really the pastor’s copyrightable material when it uses and/or quotes directly from sermon/research supply sources — outside the bounds of “fair use” and/or without accurate attribution.
So I realize that it’s not the focal point of the conversation, but the reason for Mark’s downfall was not a lack of accountability.
@ An Attorney:
You’re confusing two things here: the employment status of a pastor and church governance. I nowhere said that a church could not do these things (my own church pays my social security, for example). It is a fact, however, that once one is ordained, the federal government considers that person to be self-employed (though they do now allow us to file taxes as an employee if we so choose, older pastors tell me that wasn’t always so, and, as I noted, churches pay SS for pastors as does the church where I serve). This self-employment status is, presumably, what influences the copyright issue. As I noted above, I have seen no reliable information from any reliable source that leads me to believe that I was taught in error so that what I produce belongs to the church and not to me.
Whether or not the pastor should run the church or the body should run the church or a church board or board of elders should run the church is an entirely separate issue. I know of no pastor, church, or denomination who makes the argument that since the pastor is self-employed he should run the church. Nor have I seen that argument in any journals or books relating to ecclesiology so I don’t know why you’re addressing that like it’s a real issue.
@ brad/futuristguy:
I agree completely and having been around a major evangelical seminary from the mid 200’s to the early 2010’s I can tell you that plagiarism is being addressed more and more but that instances of plagiarism are increasing more and more despite that. I was a Teaching Assistant and was horrified at not only the number of occurrences of plagiarism but the extent of the plagiarism. I once graded a ten-page paper where every sentence but one had been plagiarized. This same student had been accused of cheating the previous semester so it was a pattern. I would not be surprised if this happened even more than we know about.
Michael wrote:
Which includes Driscoll.
Jeff S wrote:
From my own research, I’d suggest that there were some structures of *potential* accountability in place all the way along, but that the evidence clearly shows Mark Driscoll refused to listen or take heed to warnings they gave about what they saw as character issues and behaviors. This goes back at least as far as the late 1990s and early 2000 decade when his peer leaders within the emerging ministry movement confronted him about his contempt and belligerence. Eventually, it looks like Mark Driscoll removed anyone inside Mars Hill who challenged him, set up semi-external structures that gave the appearance of accountability but apparently were ultimately silent or supportive.
Authoritarian leaders are their own “accountability.” Which means they are unaccountable for their irresponsible actions, until some entity which can enforce some responsibility steps in. In this case, other entities (like the Acts 29 Network) and the public and media intervened, imposing their own consequences: not more association/commendation, no more purchases, no more uncritical reportage and many more factual disclosures … i.e., all evidences of assuming that Mark Driscoll disqualified himself from public leadership roles. And who knows, given the continuing stream of issues emerging, perhaps legal or regulatory agencies may eventually step in with their own investigations …
Ultimately, the reason for Mark Driscoll’s downfall was Mark Driscoll; everything else simply shone some Kingdom Klieg-lights on his actions and his attitudes.
What bugs me about this whole thing is that it brings Mark Driscoll’s name back so strongly into the blogosphere & it’s related feeds/twitters/etc.
Considering the unflattering & unpleasant personal things Mark seemed willing to share just for the attention, it makes me wish that his latest escapade (even if done by one of his henchmen) was just ignored.For Driscoll, any publicity seems good.
I think Mark Driscoll needs to be yesterday’s news. Unless, of course, he personally starts making egregious public or online appearances.
Then, of course, have at him!
molly245 wrote:
Mark Driscoll is a featured presenter at the upcoming Hillsong conference in June/July of this year. If it is accurate that he is, for at least at present, disqualified from being a public theological thought leader or ministry role model on behalf of the Church, then his being given a public platform still could itself be considered egregious.
As with so many other celebrities who seemingly dodge their responsibility and whose supposed repentance is not exactly followed up by obvious and long-term changes in behaviors, then the public’s conclusions about their character, and any continuing/unresolved allegations, are certain to keep following them – especially if the behaviors are public. Just a fact of life in an era of Christian celebrityship, I suspect …
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I was too.
And with all his talk about sex in inappropriate places and times, who is to say that he didn’t have a problem with porn? The evidence points to a problem. That’s just not what brought him down.
Michael wrote:
In a manner of speaking, I do think Driscoll was involved in sexual sin, or questionable sexual attitudes.
Driscoll sexualized stories from the Bible in his sermons. He wrote borderline X-rated sexual advice for marriage books, advised, or implied, that husbands are owed particular sex acts from wives, etc etc etc. His rants as William the 3rd on the Mars Hill forum (or whatever the name was) contained a lot of sexualized and sexist slurs and commentary.
Driscoll admits in blog posts that he had sex prior to marriage, but he also tells people in his materials (after he became a preacher) to abstain from sex until marriage, and it always bothers me when people who preach one thing but who didn’t or do not live it out lecture others on the same issue.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
But who knows what the future holds?
I suspect there is something off with Driscoll in the sex area. Maybe we’ll never hear anything, but I would not be surprised if ten or more years down the road, we find things out about him, like if his wife leaves him and writes a tell-all book or something to that effect.
It could be that there’s nothing there – he’s just oddly obsessed with sex, but what really gets him off is bullying, power, and control. I guess it can go either way.
Jeff S wrote:
That is an interesting point. It looks like after years and years his church was finally trying to hold him accountable, but he quit rather than hang around and face the consequences to his actions.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
This is sadly funny and painfully true!
I just think the “if only he had accountability” angle minimizes his responsibility.
Like if a woman goes to her pastor to say her husband is beating her, and his response is to put the man in touch with other men for “accountability”. The issue here isn’t that the mean needs people to hold his feet to the fire about wife beating, it’s that he has a fundamental entitlement issue where he considers his wife to be an object to be controlled.
Accountability isn’t going to help such a person: “Hey Joe, how are you doing this week, brother? Have you been consciences about thronging of your wife as a real person with needs and feelings equal to your own, or have you had a moral failure and treated her like an object to fulfill your narcissism supply?”
“Man, I’ll tell you. It’s been tough, but with prayer and the Word I’ve only considered her sub human three times this week, which we all know is better than when I started meeting with you guys. I’m so glad for your intervention in my life!”
There’s not accountability for fundamental heart changes. Driscoll wasn’t a guy who slipped up. He was a guy whose entire approach to life and how he views people disqualified him from ministry.
Darn phone. “Thronging” is “thinking” above
Jeff S wrote:
Touche.
I’d argue that the reason for his rise was a lack of accountability. The man should never have made it to the spot he eventually got to (pastor).
molly245 wrote:
Oh, he will be around huckstering Jesus. It is all he knows. And there will always be a new market niche and generation to seek. Let us hope they Google him before they buy his stuff.
@ Mara:
I thought his entire ministry was pornograpghic inspired. Right down to the porno divinations: I see things.
Mr.H wrote:
Yeah- accountability would have been valuable to his congregation more than him.
Jeff S wrote:
Totally agree! it is also the excuse I most often hear from his pastor fans who were promoting him not long ago. Even at the end Mark had “elders”.
@ Daisy:
The money was drying up. That was his “accountability”. It works….
The entire saga of Mars Hill can be a porn movie for Larry Flynt! Think of the possible names!
“Mark’s Hill”
“The Resurgence”
“Act Like Men”
“Porn Again?”
“A Neo-Calvinist, His Wife and His Sheep”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
My guess is that ..he’ll be bahck like a rebuilt t-1000 model. How and why? Because stuff of a sekshul* nature is the only stuff that’s unpardonable* in fundagelical circles. All else is just water over the dam for ‘poor sinners’.
*So long as it’s sex between consenting adults. Pederasts & the rapists of little girls on the other hand are still just ‘poor sinners’.
Latest from Craig Gross
http://www.craiggross.com/post/114672927831/last-tmz-post
@Daisy
When Mark had sex before he was married he was not a Christian.
Eagle wrote:
I shouldn’t have laughed, but I did.
Margaret wrote:
That doesn’t make a difference to me.
@ Margaret:
Driscoll sure made a big deal about Grace and premarital sex.
Lydia and Daisy I am not defending Mark Driscoll. I agree how he treated Grace when he found all about her being abused was not acceptable. Imagine being married to someone who said if I knew this before I married you I would have never married you. Not meaning to hijack the topic here that is about Craig Gross purchasing the email list. Thought his blog today was great.
Deebs –
Maybe you should change your blurb in the reply section to “Your email address will not be published or SOLD!” 😉
@ Bridget:
What about rented?
@ Michael:
“I know of no pastor, church, or denomination who makes the argument that since the pastor is self-employed he should run the church. Nor have I seen that argument in any journals or books relating to ecclesiology so I don’t know why you’re addressing that like it’s a real issue.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
in practice, I’m pretty sure you’ve observed it: Mars Hill & MD. it was his church. he ran it. he did whatever he wanted (through his 2 puppet elders).
there are many churches run entirely by the pastor. It is the shepherding model. They may say they have oversight from an overshepherd (who may be a few states away), but in practice they do virtually whatever they want. I unfortunately spent many years in such a place.
@ dee:
“Your email address will not be published, LEASED, RENTED, or SOLD!” 🙂
Corbin wrote:
Indeed you shouldn’t have. Porn again – cracked me up too!
Lydia wrote:
To be fair, I think the big deal about Grace was her having premarital sex while dating him, right? I didn’t read the book . . .
@ Jeff S:
I dont think so. I am not so sure I would believe anything Mark wrote. And I do not view Grace as independent with her own voice. Those sorts of specific details dont really change the overall pattern of what Mark was always about when it comes to the topic of sex.
Margaret wrote:
He was raised catholic. He knew better. He converted to evangelical protestantism as a young adult. It is high time that the protestants follow the catholic lead in this and quit calling persons in the other camp “not a christian.”
Here’s the latest post! 🙂
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-doubts-which-overtook-me-and-the-problem-of-evil-which-drove-me-from-christianity/
@ Corbin:
Don’t forget…”The Explicit Gospel” (book title by Matt Chandler) 😛
@ Nancy:
Oops. Margaret, I have no doubt you were just quoting MD. My job was not at you. My jab was at MD and the other pulpiteers to love to say that a whole lot. It slams the catholics and it excuses all their own mess prior to whatever time they decided to start calling themselves christian.
Nancy wrote:
I was under the impression that his “conversion” had been called into question because of some of his own statements. There is an awful lot of doubt that MD ever converted from anything or to anything at all. Whatever the case, the fruit of his life certainly reflects a bad root.
lydia wrote:
Agreed.
Nancy wrote:
Thanks, Nancy; I was thinking the same thing.
Nancy wrote:
Oh Nancy, bless your heart! I love it when you speak in code…
Doug wrote:
I have to say that this is where I stand. I can’t get past the feeling that he was always a con artist. He certainly showed no signs of any conversion.
Bridget wrote:
But could it be given away as a Gospelly gift? Could it?
@ Jeff S:
You are correct. However, Driscoll was having premarital sex with her. It is a case of “See, I’m better than you.”
Nancy wrote:
I don’t know about this, Nancy. Not to stick up for MD in any way here but I was raised Catholic, baptized as an infant, confirmed, received communion, went to confession a few times, and went to mass regularly until I was about 13 years old. I then didn’t have a thing to do with God, except a few talks, until I was 21. At that time, I had what I would call a serious interaction with God that changed me and my life in drastically good ways. I considered myself a Christian at that time, but not before that time. What I had done as a child when Catholic had no life or meaning for me. It was ritual and what I was supposed to do. It was not generated by the Spirit and had no effect in my life.
This is not to say that my experience is every Catholic’s experience. I certainly believe that there are Catholics who know God, but there certainly are some that really don’t know Him. I believe the same about protestants though, too.
So, concerning MD, he may have known better than to have premarital sex, but just because he was raised Catholic, doesn’t mean he was a Christian. You can’t be a Christian and not know it.
Nancy wrote:
Thank you. I have a post that i want to publish that deals with precisely this issue.
Beakerj wrote:
How about leaked ala Gospelileaks!
@ Nancy:
What is humorous is that Driscoll is setting up a moral code for those who do not adhere to moral codes. So, even when he was not living out a Christian life, he was claiming a virtue. That virtue was “It is OK to have premarital sex as long as it is with one person (me). It is wrong to have premarital sex with two people when one of them is me.”
Beakerj wrote:
You mean like a Gospelly gift to other Gospelly money changers who wish to sell their Gospelly products because they know how much god really, really, really wants me to have this product so He (it) can help me change after I pay the money changer who changes my money into his money in God’s name?!?!?
@ Bridget:
In other words, no 😉
dee wrote:
You mean his ego was hurt, because she slept with someone else at the same time she was dating and sleeping with him . . . he seems to have never forgiven her or gotten over it.
@ Bridget:
I think his moral high ground bit is just a cover for an ego tantrum.
Bridget wrote:
I am not so sure that people know all there is to know about their standing with God, based on what Jesus said about those who were religious but who were surprised to hear at the judgment “I never knew you” and also those who were surprised that they had done something pleasing to God and apparently surprised to hear approval for it, “when did we see you…?”
Nor do I think that we can rely on decisions or on subjective experience very much. It is too easy to deceive ourselves. I tend to think that “I once had an experience with God/ made a decision for Christ” is no more something on which to base assurance of salvation any more than “I got baptized as a baby” would be. Judas had lots of Jesus experiences, for example, and poor old Thomas barely held it together there at one point, but with very different long-term results for each one.
Based on that I think we have to consider carefully what the word “christian” means and whether the ‘deciders’ get to define it or the ‘experiencers’ get to define it or whether the ‘baptizers’ get to define it or whether those who trust some adherence to a particular set of beliefs get to define it. It is the last group which seems most likely to tell other people they are not saved, IMO.
@ dee:
Oh, you are right. I never thought about it that way, but that is what he was doing.
@ Nancy:
This makes it sound like you don’t think anyone can ever be sure if they are a Believer or not. If they say they are not and were not, you don’t, believe them either? To me this makes Christianity sound all airy-fairy in the sky and no one can ever really know if they are or aren’t a followed of Christ. I’m talking about one knowing oneself and what they believe. God does give us assurances.
Nancy wrote:
To me, Jesus was judging them by their actions; not by what religious order they were in or not in, not by their birth right, not by their words. But he also said there is only one way to the Father. If they didn’t know the Father, they didn’t know Jesus and vise versa
dee wrote:
The main difference, as I see it, is that historically at any rate Protestants have tended to get in a mess, whilst Catholics have tended to get in a Mass.
Does that help? …
Bridget wrote:
It is not for me to either believe of disbelieve what somebody else says they believe, or not. And I do know that what I have said puts me more in the camp of the hyper-calvinists (though I am not that) and may even put me in a similar camp with the ‘baptized but did not know it’ people, though I am not saying that either. But I am saying decisions wax and wane, and belief sometimes takes a holiday, and placing too much emphasis on the human person and what they decide or believe or experience can be misleading.
lydia wrote:
“Elders” as in Twentysomething Driscolljugend whose heads can only move up and down in Pastor’s presence?
lydia wrote:
That’s “I SEE THINGS…”
I always figured those were his sexual fantasies and paraphilias coming out in a Christianese-acceptable form. Especially because he cultivated the public image of The Invincible Fuehrer, and could not afford to show any flaw or weakness at all. So anything like that had to be spun as Spiritual.
Doug wrote:
‘In the first season, in the fall of 1989, God was in the process of drawing me unto Himself. While attending Washington State University I began reading such classics as Augustine and Aquinas, and read through the New Testament in less than two weeks from the Bible my girlfriend Grace gave me as a high school graduation present . Aware of what God was orchestrating, but still unyielding in my heart, I had one Christian friend who asked me over a burger one late night what I was planning on doing for my career. I told him that God was going to make me a Christian and send me out to plant churches like I had read about Paul. He laughed, unsure if I was mocking him, being serious, or trying to discourage him from giving me any more goofy tracts. Within a month, my lingering struggles with the Gospel disappeared and I began teaching a Bible study and attending a solid church pastored by Doug Busby. In the spring of 1990 I attended my first retreat and after a late night of worship with a few hundred farmers and college professors I knelt down by an Idaho river and prayed. It was at that time that I quite unexpectedly received my call. God told me, “Mark, I have called you out from among many to lead men.”‘
Mark Driscoll — Seasons of Grace
I take this as meaning that his conversion (my struggles with the Gospel disappeared and I began teaching a Bible Study) was a career move,
dee wrote:
The following phone conversations are fictional. Any resemblance to real Martians is purely intentional.
Couple weeks back…
Fiscal: Hey, Bro! Glad you can still be my right-hand man as an independent consultant! It’s time for some Gospelileaks (for Gospelly gifts) of the ol’ potential giving units list.
Jean: Sure thing, boss! I’ll get right on it!
This Sunday evening…
Fiscal: Hey, Bro!!!! That bleeping Gross fellow is slandering me to the whole bleeping potential giving units list!!!
Jean: Sorry about that, boss! I forgot to have him sign a No-Gossip-Agreement. Won’t happen again, boss!
Fiscal: No sweat. And you don’t have to call me “boss” any more…
Jean: Sure, boss er… Bro… Glad you underst…
Fiscal: ”cause you’re fired!
Click… Dial tone…
Jean: Hello??? Uh-oh… I think I’ve been “Mefferded”!
@ zooey111:
That is what I think. Even in the early house church days he had a following and an audience.
@ Beakerj:
LOL!
@ Bridget:
Bridget wrote:
You’ve nailed it. He is definitely egocentric. I wish Grace had slapped him upside the head.
@ Dave A A:
🙂
@ Nancy:
”
Bridget wrote: “You can’t be a Christian and not know it.”
Nancy wrote: “I am not so sure that people know all there is to know about their standing with God, based on what Jesus said about those who were religious but who were surprised to hear at the judgment “I never knew you” and also those who were surprised that they had done something pleasing to God and apparently surprised to hear approval for it…”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is true that “you can’t be a Christian and not know it” in the sense that ‘to be a christian’ seems to be not much different than being a card-carrying registered ‘republican’ or ‘democrat’, faithfully going to the polling booth, and perhaps attending political rallies/conventions.
The word “Christian” is becoming ever devoid of meaning, other than being useful for politics, marketing, and demographics.
I think each of us would be surprised at how much faith we put in the ‘instruction manual’ mindset with regard to God & the bible. At how small a box we put God in. Like, cramming God and all God is into a periodic table of sorts. ‘That’s God, sum total & all!’
how silly we all are. as if God can be reduced down to a textbook.
I think there are more unknowns and mysteries than organized ‘christianity’ is willing to be open to (because it would undercut so much of the organization itself, especially jobs).
I can think of so many people who emulate Jesus (knowingly or not) & are impacting their community for great, who are not card-carrying ‘christians’. They put ‘christians’ to shame. They seem to know God very well, just by different names.
It seems utterly incongruous that they are consigned to the eternal badlands (whether firey or not), yet some boilerplate prayer (the equivalent of registering to vote) even at the last minute is the deciding factor. Like it or not, that is the theological brass tack.
elastigirl wrote:
That would not be my idea of a Christian. On the other hand, I can’t do much about what the term “Christian” has come to mean. It does seem much different than what it meant in the first century; one following Christ and his teachings. On an up note, I don’t think any of us grasp the fullness of God and his mercy towards his image bearers. We may have had a a small glimpse with the thief on the cross, woman at the well, good Samaritan . . .
Ken wrote:
Whereas nones just give it a miss.
dee wrote:
He would have probably bloodied her nose or worse. She knows this. And even though it would have been wrong for him to hit her, it would still be her fault. This is how his doctrine is written, believed, and promoted.
What’s worse is that Mark (shut her up or I will do it for you) Driscoll would have had the sympathy of Bruce Ware, Doug Wilson, and the like because Grace didn’t model the joyful submission that she is required to bear up under. When a woman doesn’t joyfully submit, and even sometimes when she does, it is always somehow her fault. There must have been some sort of other aspect of submission and womanhood that she wasn’t doing perfectly. Otherwise, he never would have hit her.
So the logic goes.
Dave A A wrote:
Yeah, no mention of his own sin, repentance, faith, Jesus death in His place, or the usual stuff you would hear in a conversion. Nope. Not even making a decision for Christ. His testimony sure isn’t very “gospelly”, is it?
elastigirl wrote:
YES.
Doug wrote:
Nope! Only a decision to become a “church planter”, for which “Christian” is a prerequisite.
@ Bridget:
“I don’t think any of us grasp the fullness of God and his mercy towards his image bearers. We may have had a a small glimpse with the thief on the cross, woman at the well, good Samaritan”
+++++++++++++++++++++
I love that thought…. God’s mercy towards his image bearers. ‘Image bearers’ — such dignity about it. so affirming, of all human beings.
Daisy wrote:
Oh, there’s a LOT off with Driscoll in the sex area. He’s made that abundantly clear in books, in TV/radio interviews, in the pulpit, etc. He’s actually proud of this fact–it’s in all the aforementiioned venues as well.
My question is: was it a dead girl or a live boy?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You get kudos.
lydia wrote:
Exactly.
He even put ads for his favorite online sex-toy-/-porno-film businesses on church releases.
An Attorney wrote:
Yet another reason a church should be very hesitant to incorporate. Federal law then dictates how such a corporation operates, as we clearly see here. My guess is that most small time churches have no clue these laws even exist. They just see an attorney to “get the paperwork done,” not realizing the long term consequences. I was part of one once that incorporated. Simply mind boggling how they deal with people who raise these things as questions.
zooey111 wrote:
No Skubalon?
Mara wrote:
First Wife-Beaters’ Church of Seattle?
Bridget wrote:
“I go chop you dolla,
I make you money disappear;
Four-one-nine just a game —
You be the Mugu, I be the Masta!”
— “I Go Chop You Dolla”, Nigerian pop song about a con man