Mark Driscoll Resigns from the Ministry For Now…

I readily acknowledge I am an imperfect messenger of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are many things I have confessed and repented of, privately and publicly, as you are well aware. Specifically, I have confessed to past pride, anger and a domineering spirit. As I shared with our church in August, “God has broken me many times in recent years by showing me where I have fallen short, and while my journey, at age 43, is far from over, I believe He has brought me a long way from some days I am not very proud of, and is making me more like Him every day.”

Mark Driscoll

mark_driscoll9mickey

Mark Driscoll

Shock jock preacher Mark Driscoll is once again garnering attention — this time because of his resignation from the church he co-founded back in 1996.  The elders of Mars Hill Church, along with a member of the Board of Overseers, promptly accepted his resignation.  This is how the news broke in Seattle.

It seems that almost every news outlet, both Christian and secular, has covered Mark Driscoll's resignation, and it has been a daunting task to keep up with what is being said and written.  In this post we want to focus on the response of those left in charge at Mars Hill and specifically on their opinion regarding Driscoll's future qualifications for the pastorate.

Surprised by Mark Driscoll's sudden resignation, these MH leaders released a statement on the church website the day after receiving said resignation letter.  What was most disconcerting to us was this portion of the statement (featured in a screen shot below).

https://marshill.com/2014/10/15/pastor-mark-driscolls-resignation

We are incensed by their contention that Mark Driscoll has not disqualified himself from pastoral ministry, as stated in item 1.  They immediately followed with this in item 2:

Pastor Mark has never been charged with any immorality, illegality, or heresay. 

It is obvious to the average reader that Driscoll plagiarized multiple times in multiple books. Had he done so in the realm of academia, he would have failed the course and possibly been dismissed from the school.  And if he had done it in the secular realm, he most likely would have been sued because plagiarism is illegal and immoral.  Why is a Christian leader being given a pass?  What a terrible testimony to a watching world!  If this doesn't disqualify Mark Driscoll from the ministry, we don't know what would.   

As far as we are concerned, Mark Driscoll's overall behavior has also disqualified him from the ministry.  His infamous remarks about bodies behind the Mars Hill bus were reprehensible.  There is no way he should be allowed to lead a church again. 

Then there is his treatment of his wife in a public forum (i.e. Real Marriage).  Does a real pastor blame his wife before a watching world?  Not only that, would a 'real' pastor have written Real Marriage in the first place?

And what about the use of church funds to propel Real Marriage to the top of the New York Times bestseller list for what was it, a week?  If Driscoll had had his way, Mars Hill members would never have known about it.

Then there is the Global Fund, which actually wasn't established for a global outreach at all.  As Warren Throckmorton revealed in a post several days ago:

Today’s Mars Hill lesson: Global doesn’t mean global, and Fund doesn’t mean fund.

Dr. Throckmorton wrote a follow-up post on the Global Fund today.  Again, because of the terrible lack of transparency at Mars Hill, how would members ever have known anything about this? 

And how about Mark Driscoll's provocative sex talks around he world?  We believe just this aspect of his ministry should disqualify him from the pastorate forever.  To make matters worse, Driscoll has inspired copycats, and there may be no end to the damage being done in the body of Christ by these Driscoll clones.

Michael Newnham, the Phoenix Preacher, has been doing a great job covering Mark Driscoll's resignation.  Xenia, a commenter on his website, posted the letter s(he) believes Driscoll should have written (instead of his non-apology).  See below.

“Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I write to you with a heavy heart because I know I have hurt so many of you over the years with my arrogance, anger, and bullying. I have stolen other people’s writings, I have cheated to aggrandize myself as an author, I have written humiliating things about my wife and I have thrown many precious people under my bus and bragged about it. I beg your forgiveness and in an attempt to begin to make amends, I am retiring from the ministry, a position I now realize (but have known for years, really) I am not fit to hold.

Brothers and sisters, forgive me.

Please pray for me.

Love in Christ,

Pastor M.”

^^^^ What he should have said.

Those left steering the Mars Hill ship have asked for patience while they adjust to life without Mark Driscoll.  Dave Bruskas will be serving as the primary teaching pastor for now until Driscoll's replacement can been found.  At this juncture, one has to wonder whether it is even realistic to seek a replacement…

Finally, we want to point out that Trevin Wax, presumably on behalf of The Gospel Coalition, has chimed in about the Mark Driscoll debacle with a post entitled The Mars Hill Postmortem.  You may remember that Mark Driscoll was one of the founding Council Members of The Gospel Coalition.  In fact, before we launched The Wartburg Watch, we were monitoring what was happening with TGC, and they were so excited that Mark Driscoll would be speaking at their National Conference in April 2009.  My what a difference five and a half years make… 

Perhaps the most incredulous statement in Trevin Wax's post was the following:

If anything, evangelicals gifted with discernment and biblical doctrine of sin and grace should have been the first to expose these problems. I know some of this critique happened behind the scenes, inside and outside Mars Hill. But more could have been done sooner to warn and protect the flock.

We have been speaking out against Mark Driscoll's antics since the spring of 2009 (shortly after TWW began).  Not only that, we have been vilified by Driscoll sycophants.  And what have those over at The Gospel Coalition done in that same timeframe?  They have endorsed Driscoll by recommending his books, uploading videos featuring him, and having him speak at their conferences.  And now after Driscoll's resignation, a TGC spokesman says "more could have been done sooner to warn and protect the flock"??? 

So what are Mark Driscoll's plans for the future?  Perhaps his words — "while my journey, at age 43, is far from over" — provide a clue… 

Dee and I predict that in the not too distant future Driscoll will be launching another ministry.  The Mars Hill door may be closed for its co-founder, but we believe Mark is making plans to re-emerge through an open window somewhere, possibly in sunny California.  We'll just have to wait and see…

Comments

Mark Driscoll Resigns from the Ministry For Now… — 292 Comments

  1. My understanding is that by resigning he gets a years pay (whatever that is) as severance. I agree with you both that he will most certainly pop up like a bad penny soon enough. It is astounding to me that the board would not pronounce him unfit, although I guess that was too much to ask from a hand picked panel. That they can say that without shame just goes to show how deep the rot has spread.

  2. @ Tired:

    I was going to mention Driscoll's severance package, but we will get to that next week.

    We are planning to discuss other angles of this story for the foreseeable future. So much to discuss…

  3. If there is any good to come out of this whole sordid saga, I hope that it comes in the form of more awareness, so that folks will not be such easy prey for abusive alpha males of any stripe.

  4. From the MH letter, “While a group of seven elders plus one member of the Board of Overseers was charged with conducting this investigation, the full Board of Overseers is charged with reaching any conclusions and issuing any findings.” A few picky little questions here.
    1: Who appointed and “charged” the “Board of Elders” to conduct this investigation?
    2: Who appointed and “charged” the “Board of Advisors and Accountability” with issuing any findings?
    3: How did the “Board of Elders” change in the last week to “a group of seven elders plus…”?
    4: How did the “Board of Advisors and Accountability” become the “Board of Overseers” and lose Bruskas?
    5: Are they aware “overseers” means the same as “bishops”?

  5. A one year severance package is not remotely uncommon, though most churches can not afford to do so these days. But what I’ve been told is that the fair approach is to give a month’s salary for every year served. That would entitle MD to a year and a half.

    As far as him popping up again, I don’t think any church could make him an offer that would be competitive to his own perceived worth, so I bet he’s going to do the Rob Bell thing and just consult with other Pastors while trying to build his faithful fan base of fans that can prop up his rebranding media empire and buy his books.

  6. OK Just a couple more picky questions, and I’ll take the answers off the air.
    “We found some of the accusations against Pastor Mark to be altogether unfair or untrue.
    Other charges had been previously been addressed by Pastor Mark…”
    Sooo… What are some of the altogether unfair or untrue accusations? Please specify. Shouldn’t he be exonerated of those, at least?
    Into which category fall the charges of the group of nine elders forced out in the past 2 months for the crime of asking Driscoll to resign?

  7. In the words of an actor that Mark probably reveres as the physical embodiment of masculinity, “He’ll be back.”

    I’m guessing some sort of independent speaker-writer role, at least until he is able to rehab his image enough to start another church.

    He seems to be done with Mars Hill. It’s extremely sad, but not surprising, to see how easily and dismissively he abandoned Mars Hillians in order to serve his own self interests.

  8. @Deb

    “The Mars Hill door may be closed for its co-founder……” Thanks for calling him the CO-founder! I am so sick of reading the media accounts of his resignation stating he has resigned from the church he founded! He DID NOT found Mars Hill alone. It was founded with two others!

  9. His severance package would probably enable the average family to live in not too bad a style for half a dozen years or more. So I am not going to shed any tears for him.

  10.   __

    “Turn About Moment, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

      Kind Folks, religious tyrants come, and religious tyrants go,

    –> have a bit of class, even though certain 501(c)3 religious ‘leaders’, presumably, do not.

      As such be the dire case, therefore, be ever building yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, thus by -keeping yourselves in the love of God, which is a healthy place to be,

      Please don’t forget ta look for da mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is unto eternal life,

      Remembering, Dear Heart, as well, ta have compassion, making a difference daily in the lives of those plucked from da fire, as it were, showing love, but not for their sin, remembering it is the Lord who keeps us, and not ourselves, for He is always able to keep kind folks from falling, always able also to present us with joy, into His wonderful presence.

      May we always seek His glory, His majesty, His dominion and His power, both at this present moment, and into the disconcerting and trying days that are sure to come.

    Sopy
    __
    Comic relief: Miles Davis – “Bye Bye Blackbird”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV2lNHfSXBQ

    🙂

  11. Sam Laskey wrote:

    He is guilty of growing a great church. He is guilty of seeing thousands saved He is guilty of having a heart for the Glory of God He is guilty of being a strong leader You are guilty of piling on while a brother is down and being a tool of satan. Shame on you

    Sam, You are obviously a true believer, but your tribe is dwindling…

    "tool of satan" – Dee, be sure to add this to our list of what the world is saying about The Wartburg Watch.

  12. Sam Laskey wrote:

    He is guilty of growing a great church.
    He is guilty of seeing thousands saved
    He is guilty of having a heart for the Glory of God
    He is guilty of being a strong leader

    Sam, please do not attribute to man what only God does – which is grow His church and redeem people to Himself. Besides only time, will tell if these things are even true. When pastors believe these things about themselves and people surrounding them feed into that -arrogance surely follows.

    I cannot comment on his “heart for the glory of God.” That is for God to judge. Finally a “strong leader” does not make someone qualified for ministry. What makes one qualified is when he or she gets down on the dirty floor and washes the cr@$ (ed.) off of other people’s feet.

  13. @ Miguel: wonder what people might say if the settlement is in the $1 million range. He refuses to release his salary to the congregation.

    Can u imagine? Tithing to care for the poor and having it go to keep a rich guy rich? Nice gig.

  14. Mr.H wrote:

    In the words of an actor that Mark probably reveres as the physical embodiment of masculinity, “He’ll be back.”

    I was thinking the same thing. 😆

  15. @ Deb:
    You minion of Satan you!!

    It is my suggestion that people stop giving money to churches until the churches tell them where it is going to include salaries, perks, clothing allowances, church credit cards, meals at restaurants, travel, etc..

    Instead find a missionary that is serving in underserved areas and give directly to them. Ask the mission group how much they take as service fees..

    If u feel guilty. Give to a mission supported by the church u attend.

    If Driscoll leaves the church as a rich man and still takes the money, you know what kind of a man he is . But then again we’ve known for a long time.

    I’m sure some sweet 22 something, struggling to make ends meet will be “blessed” to give their hard earned dollars to help the Driscolls live in their mansion.

  16. @ Deb:
    @ Bt:

    Haven’t we seen “Sam Laskey” before? I’m sure the name rings a bell.

    Anyway, his/her comment has parody written all over it. It would enter more effectively into the spirit of things if you were to join in rather than reply!

  17. @ Sam Laskey:
    Is this satire like your post earlier in the week concerning the ECFA? You said
    Ed. Note: This is a satire
    I praise God for the money that Franklin Graham is making. His dad makes over 130000 and he deserves to make more. WE pay our preachers in North Carolina. Steven Furtick makes a half million a year but he brings in millions in offerings…a laborer is worth his hire. Keeping the pastor broke and humble is not the Jesus way. Jesus had money. He had a treasurer and therefore had to have money for the treasurer to keep up with. My Lord owns it all and He wants me to have a slice of the pie too. Being poor ain’t being holy- My God wants me Blessed! I tithe and I drive a 2013 Volvo and live in a nice house and I ate out tonight at Outback…God is good!!

  18. dee wrote:

    I’m sure some sweet 22 something, struggling to make ends meet will be “blessed” to give their hard earned dollars to help the Driscolls live in their mansion.

    All frivolity aside now, the tragedy is that some struggling 20-somethings might very well do exactly that. Such can be the conflation of “successful ministry” with “God’s Kingdom” that poor Christians will indeed give to rich Christians in the belief that this is an act of worship that is pleasing to God. I know because, as a struggling 20-something, I did this myself. And I was not alone, either.

    I am resolved never to forget that the Gospel of the crucified and risen King cannot be divorced from the hope in the resurrection of the dead. So, I don’t want to downplay God’s power to present an eternal and un-stealable reward to Christians who make honest mistakes that, in this life, leave them struggling and impoverished. Nevertheless, I am also resolved to make sure that any future struggles and sacrifices are directed rather towards the needy, the oppressed and the despised, than towards the rich, the powerful and the widely-admired.

  19. @ dee:
    What I heard is that the combined salary of the top three executives, including Driscoll, was one million, and Driscoll is only getting a year, which would set him at right about half. Either way, it is pretty sad, but what do you say to somebody who has been giving their money to this fool for all these years? And some of them still won’t wise up.

    The problem isn’t necessarily the standardized business practice so much as it is that his salary was too high to begin with. However, many of these larger churches base their salary on corporate scales. A CEO overseeing an operation comparable in size to Mars Hill could expect to be similarly well paid. However, this fails to take into account three things: First, a Pastor’s salary is paid from DONATIONS, not revenue or profit. Second, it is a religious organization, not a business, so there are reasons that some practices can and should not transfer. Third, you can measure the size of a business by its intake, or its number of employees, or its number of customers. But a church? They don’t have customers, but in the case of megachurches, I often wonder if, in determining the pastor’s pay scale, the parishioners are counted as “employees.” So a pastor of a 20,000 member congregation feels entitled to the salary of a company with as many employees. That would be very disproportionate. In the LCMS, our President, who oversees a church body of 2.5 mil makes less than 200k. Pastors should be on a different scale from company execs.

    Now I understand why they aren’t. They’re well paid for one reason: to keep them around. Once they enjoy celebrity status, the church has too much to loose when he walks away, so they retain him at all and any cost. So to a certain extent, it takes a village to create a monster.

  20. Gavin White wrote:

    @ Sam Laskey:
    Is this satire like your post earlier in the week concerning the ECFA? You said
    Ed. Note: This is a satire
    I praise God for the money that Franklin Graham is making. His dad makes over 130000 and he deserves to make more. WE pay our preachers in North Carolina. Steven Furtick makes a half million a year but he brings in millions in offerings…a laborer is worth his hire. Keeping the pastor broke and humble is not the Jesus way. Jesus had money. He had a treasurer and therefore had to have money for the treasurer to keep up with. My Lord owns it all and He wants me to have a slice of the pie too. Being poor ain’t being holy- My God wants me Blessed! I tithe and I drive a 2013 Volvo and live in a nice house and I ate out tonight at Outback…God is good!!

    You had me laughing this morning so hard i woke my wife up…..

  21. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Hadn't had my first cup of coffee when I read Sam's comment. 😉

    I'm now fully engaged; however, I'm sure there are true believers out there who will staunchly defend Mark Driscoll.

  22. Board of Advisors and Accountability, Board of Elders, Board of Overseers, etc., in a Baptist Church? I have really been in the dark.

  23. Miguel wrote:

    The problem isn’t necessarily the standardized business practice so much as it is that his salary was too high to begin with.

    Yes, this is what happens when there is no financial accountability to the poor souls who support these ministries with their hard earned dollars. 🙁

  24. Deb wrote:

    I’m sure there are true believers out there who will staunchly defend Mark Driscoll.

    Does one have to be a poor thinker in order to be a true believer? It does seem like a 1:1 correlation in some people, especially those who are true believers in some mega-preacher.

  25. @ Sam Laskey:

    Oh, Sam, that is so “true” since we all know that christian discipleship is a matter of being sure your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds. Of course, “strong leadership” can be characterized as bad, since it is contrary to scripture. And trying to rob God of the glory for saving people and claim that glory for himself is just about as bad as it gets. And using the methods of the world (think: the bus) in order to do the work of building a church (never mind Jesus said he himself would build the church) is inexcusably bad. But as to his “heart” we cannot know, apart from the “by their fruits” comment…

    But, hey, in that great balance scale in the sky there must be something to go on the “good side.” As soon as I find chapter and verse on that I will let you know.

  26. Bt wrote:

    What makes one qualified is when he or she gets down on the dirty floor and washes the cr@$ (ed.) off of other people’s feet.

    How utterly true.

    I’ve been following the Driscoll controversy from the beginning, my interest coming from the church I used to attend–an Acts 29 church with a young pastor that was personally trained and mentored by Mark himself. I say that I used to attend this church because this whole controversy had me examine my ex-church in a new light. I had already had some misgivings about what was going on; Mark’s tribulation only served to give my unease a sharper focus. I saw a lot of Driscollisms in the church, from the Neo-Calvinist theology (which I now believe is a failed theology) to pastoral arrogance and an unhealthy lust for Money/Power/Fame.

    A couple of thoughts as I wind down this episode of my Christian walk:

    1) Thanks to websites like TWW, Warren Throckmorton, and others. You guys are the true heroes here.

    2) Having been involved in “high ministry” (up on the church stage), I know that humility is essential. Learn to wash feet before you get up on the stage. It’s the most dangerous place in your church.

    3) Mark Driscoll will continue to make money–good money–in some type of Christian venue. Even Jimmy Swaggart (remember him?) had a ministry after his fall from grace. See also the story of Todd Bentley.

    4) Mars Hill will survive. There are plenty of examples of churches that were started by a charismatic personality only to have that leader fall from grace, yet the church they started survives. Mars Hill just needs to find their Brigham Young to fill in for their departed Joseph Smith.

    5) Above all, God wins in the end.

  27. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I am resolved never to forget that the Gospel of the crucified and risen King cannot be divorced from the hope in the resurrection of the dead. So, I don’t want to downplay God’s power to present an eternal and un-stealable reward to Christians who make honest mistakes that, in this life, leave them struggling and impoverished. Nevertheless, I am also resolved to make sure that any future struggles and sacrifices are directed rather towards the needy, the oppressed and the despised, than towards the rich, the powerful and the widely-admired.

    That’s good, Nick.

  28. @ Sam Laskey:

    Sam, so his theology of living for God’s glory…does that include calling women “penis homes?”

    A couple of observations from me. This crowd talks so much about being a man. Leading women, leading the family in faith, having women submit, and what a man truly is. You hear that from this crowd over and over. Mark Driscoll went so far as to talk about a “pussified nation.” In the end when he walked away from a mess, refused to take ownership, and left a lot of people in pain and hurting….when Driscoll was speaking about a “pussified nation” was he really speaking about himself?

    Second if you are going to rally and support Mark Driscoll Sam, in my mind you have validated the theiss in the book “the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” because you have shown how you lack critical thinking skills…like much of evangelicalism.

    Nuff said…

  29. Sam Laskey wrote:

    You are guilty of piling on while a brother is down and being a tool of satan.

    Shame on you

    You cannot be serious. Do you know he is a brother? Do you know Satan well enough to know that we are tools? Is Trevin Wax a tool of Satan, too, now that he is saying someone should have spoken up sooner?

    Please wake up and think rationally about the real people Driscoll piled on. Is he a tool of Satan?

  30. Miguel wrote:

    A one year severance package is not remotely uncommon, though most churches can not afford to do so these days. But what I’ve been told is that the fair approach is to give a month’s salary for every year served. That would entitle MD to a year and a half.

    This is what my employer would pay me if I were to get *laid off*. Not if I leave voluntarily. Which is what Driscoll did. Seriously, who gets a severance for leaving voluntarily??

  31. @ Sam Laskey:

    I was just saying at Julie Anne’s blog the other day in her Driscoll thread I don’t think Driscoll was ever “born again” in the first place.

    Driscoll has never, on a consistent basis, demonstrated any of the “fruits” the Bible says one can and should expect to see from an actual believer.

    Most Christians seem very reluctant to actually consider that perhaps a guy who says he is a Christian may not actually be one, even though the Bible says this is very much a possibility and actual Christians are supposed to be on guard from these people.

    So Driscoll preached from the Bible now and then.
    Satan can quote the Bible, too. Satan knows the Bible really well… but he doesn’t do what it says, and he twists what it says. See Matthew chapter 4.

    False religious leaders study the Bible a lot and love to quote from it, but they get it wrong anyway, see John chapter 5:39-40, Matthew chapter 23.

    In the New Testmanet, the Bible warns many times of wolves who will come into the church dressed as sheep to led true believers astray, for greed or power. I think Driscoll is a wolf, not a sheep.

    Shame on any Christian for lacking basic discernment, for being unwilling to consider a preacher may be a wolf, and for blindly following a preacher, especially one who more often than not displays traits totally opposite the Bible says a real follower of Jesus will have.

    Driscoll or his ardent supporters should read this:

    Is A “Carnal Christian” Saved? (Part Two)
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/10/is-a-carnal-christian-saved-part-two/

    Sam said,

    You are guilty of piling on while a brother is down and being a tool of satan.

    Driscoll brought this all on himself by his own behavior.

    In the end, Driscoll’s not hurt by any of it anyway, so why complain about anyone supposedly “piling on”?

    Driscoll did not truly apologize in his resignation (he minimized his actions), lied and said he is not disqualified from being a preacher or leader (he was never qualified to begin with), and is getting a year off with pay.

    Someone else above also brought up something that bothered me – in all this, nobody (people at his church) called Driscoll out for his sexism and the unnatural obsessesion with all things sexual and crass. The only people calling Driscoll out on those things are bloggers.

    Apparently his church, (the assistant pastors etc), have no problem with a regularly foul- mouthed- from- the- pulpit, abnormally- fascinated- with- sex, grilling- women- at- his- church- about- their- sex- lives- type of guy.

    That is very alarming. Churches should show immediate concern the minute their preacher starts talking about having “porn o visions,” interrogating women about their sex fantasies, saying God commands wives to perform oral sex on their spouses, etc.

    They only started investigating Driscoll when their donations and membership started going down. The other stuff that came before should have set off the alarms, not only loss of money.

  32. I don’t gloat at Mr. Driscoll’s resignation, but it is a pity it came to this tragedy. The tragedy being all bodies figuratively piled under the Mars Hill bus. And all the spiritual abuse that occurred. Don’t know if Mr. Driscoll resignation will improve things for those who remain at Mars Hill because the theology practiced there seems pretty consistent with that of other neo Puritan organizations. It is a theology that is all about control and rules and spiritual abuse and guilt and implied, or made up guilt, and sins both imagined and fantasized, and games and gamesmanship. What a pity.

  33. dee wrote:

    …might say if the settlement is in the $1 million range. He refuses to release his salary to the congregation.
    Can u imagine? Tithing to care for the poor and having it go to keep a rich guy rich? Nice gig.

    I skimmed over a news article the other day (I would give the link but can’t remember where I saw this) that talked about how preachers in another area of the world are being killed for their Christian faith.

    These preachers are in a Muslim- controlled region where Muslims are going door to door telling people if they don’t deny Christ (Christianity) and convert to Islam, they will be killed.

    So these preachers are refusing to convert to Islam and renounce Christ. They are being murdered as a result. (I can’t remember if this was in the Middle East or in Africa.)

    The article mentioned Christian lay persons are also facing the same situation.

    You have believers in other nations losing their very lives – and violently – over their faith, while celebrity preachers in America are flying around in private jets, getting million dollar book deals, some of them are acting like jerks to other people. There is something very, very wrong with some portions of American Christianity.

    In light of the fact Christians are being killed for Jesus in other parts of the world, I have no sympathy for the Driscolls who resign, still live in large homes, and get zillion dollar severance package deals.

  34. So, is Trevin Wax admitting that the entire Gospel Coalition and T4g crew lacks discernment? It would seem so since they did not speak out until Driscoll became a liability to them.

    I’m trying to distill the principle in operation here. If one is a member of the Gospel Glitterati and lacks discernment for a decade, at the very least, one can chime in after the house has burned down and say someone should have said something. It seems to me that the logical implication of this view is that discernment is not necessary in men who are called to be shepherds and teach future shepherds, because no one has resigned from any of the gospelicious organizations as a result of this huge failure to discern by “Leaders.” Because shepherds don’t need to know the difference between wolves and sheep??? OK…

    OTOH, if one is a discernment diva blogger, a shrill and shrieking woman who names names and throws the flag when a foul is committed by one of the Gospel Glitterati, then that woman is still just a discernment diva blogger who is unqualified to discern good from evil.

    Rod Serling could do something with this, and at least it would be entertaining instead of merely absurd and depressing.

  35. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    He might be a parody, but it reads like a Poe. I’ve seen about identical comments or sentiments on other blogs that discuss Driscoll resigning. Even if Sam is a parody, there are some Driscoll supporters out there who actually do believe the stuff Sam wrote.

  36. Gavin White wrote:

    Jesus had money

    😆 This is neither here nor there, but when I first glanced at your post, the “K” from the word “keeping” that appeared in the line before the “money” phrase blended together for me as I was reading, so I at first thought your quote said,

    “Jesus had a monkey”

    I had to re read it to see it was talking about money, not a monKey. If Jesus had a pet monkey, that is news to me.

  37. Daisy wrote:

    Even if Sam is a parody, there are some Driscoll supporters out there who actually do believe the stuff Sam wrote.

    That’s the point. Whatever Sam’s motives are, who cares. He raises some good points and highlights some silly mess that can legitimately be addressed. We have gone through this before with other whatevers, have we not? Anyhow, this is my position statement.

  38. @ Daisy:
    Hello. Just to be clear. Sam posted his remarks on 7th October on the TWW article about the ECFA so any credit for satire should go to him.

  39. I don’t know if anyone read Vox’s take on the Mars Hill saga, but it’s worth a read http://bit.ly/1p83NKq. One thing really struck me that I’ll quote below here.

    According to Kiley, Driscoll’s steady “fall from grace” provides an illustration about how power can corrupt even the best of us. Kiley was loaned a copy of Driscoll’s high school yearbook, which was a testament to how charismatic and likable he was: his many accolades included Most Likely to Succeed and Nicest Guy. “He wasn’t always this macho, chest-thumping, I’m-gonna-kick-the-shit-out-of-you guy,” said Kiley. There was a time, he said, when Driscoll genuinely seemed to want to help people.

    And Henderson agrees: “Clearly, if you talk to insiders, they have some good memories of this guy.”

    No one starts out growing their villain mustache to twirl as they laugh menacingly. The man has done some bad things and has been enabled by others in his church, by other churches and by the general celebrity culture. However, it doesn’t look like he was always this. And that has to hurt. I pity Mark Driscoll, even though he may never realize how trapped and twisted his path has taken him.

    The whole thing is just sad.

  40. Exactly what golden parachute exit package to MD obtain? Is this documented? What deals were made behind closed doors???

  41. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    I wouldn’t. I would urge him in the strongest possible terms to act on his open admission that he does not have much of a pastoral gift, and repent to the uttermost of ever being called Pastormark.

    He is not a pastor. He has never been a pastor. He will never be a pastor. He should be what he actually is, only this time, recognising authority other than his own.

  42. Speaking of people who are over paid or get paid for doing nothing. I have revisited some blog pages about Ron Luce (Christian ministry leader of “Teen Mania” and “ATF”).

    “Readers will also find key issues WORLD [magazine] did not have space to address, including recommendations to review Katie Luce’s [Ron Luce’s wife] compensation— she works in the office one day per week, according to the report, and earns $50,000 annually (No. 9)”

    from:
    http://www.recoveringalumni.com/2014/05/world-magazine-follow-up-teen-mania.html

    Must be pretty nice to only work one day per week all year, and get paid $50,000 per year for it.

  43. randog wrote:

    3) Mark Driscoll will continue to make money–good money–in some type of Christian venue. Even Jimmy Swaggart (remember him?) had a ministry after his fall from grace. See also the story of Todd Bentley.

    Also Robert Tilton and Jim Bakker.

    I too think Driscoll will simply move on. I don’t know if he’ll get a new church, or stick with speaking engagements or selling books, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he continues to try to make a buck off being a Christian talking head.

  44. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    Mark Driscoll’s “pastoral ministry” == being a bully, being sexist, being rude, crude, vulgar, hostile, arrogant, being a money grubber, power seeker at the expense of others, and using other people’s works for his personal gain without citing credit.

    In light of that, are you absolutely sure you want Driscoll to continue with that “ministry”?

  45. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:
    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.
    I wouldn’t. I would urge him in the strongest possible terms to act on his open admission that he does not have much of a pastoral gift, and repent to the uttermost of ever being called Pastormark.
    He is not a pastor. He has never been a pastor. He will never be a pastor. He should be what he actually is, only this time, recognising authority other than his own.

    Nick, I’m not thinking of, at this time, being a designated pastor of an organized church. He’s probably not ready for that. But, can her perform pastoral ministries towards hurting people?

  46. Daisy wrote:

    I was just saying at Julie Anne’s blog the other day in her Driscoll thread I don’t think Driscoll was ever “born again” in the first place.

    Here’s Driscolls testimony:
    “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…” (my CAPS)
    He made plans to plant churches for his career, and within a month, voila!, he was teaching.

  47. I will believe in the sincerity of the RBD’s to the extent that one of them, just one of them, repents, rather than just resigns, and demonstrates their repentance by submitting to church discipline (not the care or counsel of other RBD’s) and publically apologizes by name and specific event to those they have brought harm to. I will believe in their sincerity when they do not use ‘threats to their wives and children’ as a reason for resignation. I will believe in their sincerity when they sign over their book and tape royalties, their conference fees earnings to an escrow account that funds counseling for victims of spiritual abuse.

    I can’t help but think part of the Driscoll timing is to jump ship before the lawsuits hit MHC over the tremendous debt they have built up under the arrogant corporate leadership that has reigned there for so long. I see no hint of courage or love toward those the MHC leadership cynically used to fund their ‘corporate vision’.

    I am sad for those who have invested trust, even more than money–a wise man once told me that one must be disillusioned with what is false before one can truly be informed and set free by truth. May truth and grace flow like a river to all involved, from the least to the greatest at MHC.

  48. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    Mark Driscoll hasn’t “resigned from the ministry.” He has resigned as senior pastor of the Mars Hills Churches.
    *
    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    Based on what? The Driscoll Droolers sound like silly pre-teens infatuated with Justin Bieber or whoever is in style this month.

    Did you cut the Pastorals out of your Bible? Being a pastor is not an entitlement. It is a privilege and a responsibility and is contingent at all times on being qualified according to scripture. Maybe you think your authority trumps Paul and the Holy Spirit???

  49. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    If we give him the benefit of the doubt, according to the above testimony, his ministry was to be sent out to plant churches — ie apostolic or missional, not pastoral. He may have gone off track by, amongst other things, settling down to pastor (eventually CONTROL) multiple “sites”, rather than planting and being sent on, like Paul. Again, this assumes his original calling was authentic, of which I have some doubt.

  50. Foot wrote:

    Exactly what golden parachute exit package to MD obtain? Is this documented? What deals were made behind closed doors???

    You’ll find that info in the vault with the formula for Coca Cola.

  51. @ Dave A A:

    That was interesting and a little disturbing.

    If anyone is curious: I’m basing my view that the guy was never born again based upon his behavior I’ve seen reported and discussed in the last ten years, and on videos I’ve seen of his, blog pages he wrote.

    (I don’t buy into the “no, you have to know him personally and be his best friend for ten years to arrive at a judgement.”
    No, I don’t. I’ve seen enough of his public behavior to get an idea of what the man is like.)

  52. Dave A A wrote:

    He made plans to plant churches for his career, and within a month, voila!, he was teaching.

    Thanks for that quote from Driscoll.

    Funny how the life paths of Mahaney and Driscoll resemble one another. And that he calls planting churches a career. Funny how all of these gospelly networks–MH, Acts29, TgC, T4g, 9Marks, SGM–look like either multi-level marketing or franchising or vertically integrated businesses. Funny how the Bible says not to make men elders/teachers who are new to the faith lest they become puffed up with pride. And when they are identified as elders by the congregation they are to be held to higher standards, not lower ones.

  53. I don’t think ECFA has pulled Mars Hill from their list of approved churches, but they did remove these people (the Ron Luce ministry) but not after a long time (if I’m understanding this page correctly):

    Teen Mania No Longer Accredited by ECFA
    http://www.recoveringalumni.com/2014/04/teen-mania-no-longer-accredited-by-ecfa.html

    Teen Mania still touts its relationship with the ECFA and oversight by the Board of Directors as two crucial reasons why they can be trusted with your money

    … Given Teen Mania’s current financial shape, how can anyone take ECFA accreditation or Paul Nelson seriously?

  54. I don’t see how anyone can ‘launch a ministry’. I was always taught that the way a ministry starts is by someone getting involved in church life in some way, and over time the Body starts to recognise a gift, and gives it chance to be used and flourish and mature. That may or may not include going off to a bible college for training. It’s something that has to grow in a church, you can’t start from scratch by getting a paper qualification that confirms you are now a ‘minister’.

    Sometimes the Body may need to point someone in a different direction!

    Any church that took Driscoll on now would only have itself to blame if and when things went wrong afterwards, and history started to repeat itself. I think he is disqualified in that I cannot imagine he is well thought of by outsiders.

  55. Gram3 wrote:

    Funny how the Bible says not to make men elders/teachers who are new to the faith lest they become puffed up with pride.

    Unfortunately, “Say-the-Magic-Words” salvation and how “all old things are passed away” means that you can get made an elder/pastor/teacher the minute after the Altar Call. As happened with the pastor/dictator of Calvary Chapel Visalia.

  56. Gram3 wrote:

    Funny how the life paths of Mahaney and Driscoll resemble one another.

    Brent Detwiler calls them “twin brothers”. Driscoll has the disadvantage now, of having alienated the Gospel Coalition boys. They won’t be coming out with glowing letters of support. Of course, neiither will they admit to any faulty discernment for their prior support.

  57. Foot wrote:

    Exactly what golden parachute exit package to MD obtain? Is this documented? What deals were made behind closed doors???

    Don’t Ask Political Questions, Comrade.

  58. Daisy wrote:

    These preachers are in a Muslim- controlled region where Muslims are going door to door telling people if they don’t deny Christ (Christianity) and convert to Islam, they will be killed.

    So these preachers are refusing to convert to Islam and renounce Christ. They are being murdered as a result. (I can’t remember if this was in the Middle East or in Africa.)

    It’s the Middle East.
    ISIS/ISIL, Islam’s version of the Khmer Rouge. More Islamic than the Taliban, with a “World Caliphate” primarily of rank-and-file psychopaths who joined up for the killing, rape, and pillage. A land-locked pirate kingdom using Purity of Religion to justify their pillage.

  59. Daisy wrote:

    Apparently his church, (the assistant pastors etc), have no problem with a regularly foul- mouthed- from- the- pulpit, abnormally- fascinated- with- sex, grilling- women- at- his- church- about- their- sex- lives- type of guy.

    Maybe they figure they can get a piece, too.
    As long as they suck up to the Great Man.

    That is very alarming. Churches should show immediate concern the minute their preacher starts talking about having “porn o visions,” interrogating women about their sex fantasies, saying God commands wives to perform oral sex on their spouses, etc.

    Well, we know what his kink is.
    And that he badly needs saltpeter in his diet.

    THAT is the type of public figure who gets all over the news one day, caught with his wick in either a live boy or a dead woman or indulging “special preference” kinks.

  60. Nancy wrote:

    @ Sam Laskey:
    Oh, Sam, that is so “true” since we all know that christian discipleship is a matter of being sure your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds. Of course, “strong leadership” can be characterized as bad, since it is contrary to scripture. And trying to rob God of the glory for saving people and claim that glory for himself is just about as bad as it gets. And using the methods of the world (think: the bus) in order to do the work of building a church (never mind Jesus said he himself would build the church) is inexcusably bad. But as to his “heart” we cannot know, apart from the “by their fruits” comment…
    But, hey, in that great balance scale in the sky there must be something to go on the “good side.” As soon as I find chapter and verse on that I will let you know.

    I know where that verse is, Nancy, it’s in the Qur’an…which strangely makes perfect sense.

  61. I am betting Driscoll winds up teaching in a college for a year or two while he ” redeems” his reputation…..Corban?
    What a way to look good to the faithful. Suffer a by taking professor’s pay at church school….

  62. __

    Tommy Blogs: “No Reason Ta Adjust Your 501(c)3 Religion Paradigm?”

    hmmm…

    Driscoll N’ Mahaney  bringing shame to the 501(c)3 Christian Religion Industry?

    Publishing profits down?

    Venerable Preachers under demanding scrutiny?

    Abusive tactics abounds?

    **

    Where is the quality control?

    Where is the safety?

    Where is the accountability?

    Security guards that carry guns, uniformed Sunday-service law enforcement, security cameras, ironclad membership agreements vetted through hired attorneys?

    And the old testament bit about throwing ten percent of your gross weekly salary for fancy pastoral ‘private’ fortresses?

    huh?

    Assembly line ‘churhes’s’ that act as venerable spiritual brew-thru’s?

    Mega 501(c)3 religious  brand ‘free basing’?

    What?

    Hey, we got everything but ‘organized crime’ in da  line up!

    -snicker-

    Place your bets?

    (I guess datz next)

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    A house of prayer, dat ‘you’ have made into a den of thieves?

    could b.

    (sadface)

    Sopy
    __
    Intermission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTQ9UZs4wY

    🙁

  63. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    I wouldn’t. I would urge him in the strongest possible terms to act on his open admission that he does not have much of a pastoral gift, and repent to the uttermost of ever being called Pastormark.

    He is not a pastor. He has never been a pastor. He will never be a pastor. He should be what he actually is, only this time, recognising authority other than his own.

    I couldn’t agree more Nick. I used to wonder if up close, in person, he actually displayed the fruits of the Spirit & fulfilled the peace loving character requirements for Eldership, or that maybe there his gentleness was evident to all, whereas just his public worldwide image made him look utterly different. But all the reports from inside the church, from those men he was close to & worked with, it seems that he’s never fulfilled the Christlike character requirements for the ministry. Maybe if Jesus being angry at the moneylenders was played on a permanent loop MD may resemble him in a surface way. When I consider someone like Eugene Peterson, compared with MD I see only one shepherd.

  64. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    I wouldn’t. I would urge him in the strongest possible terms to act on his open admission that he does not have much of a pastoral gift, and repent to the uttermost of ever being called Pastormark.

    He is not a pastor. He has never been a pastor. He will never be a pastor. He should be what he actually is, only this time, recognising authority other than his own.

    True Nick. Seeing as Driscoll now has an extended, funded, period of time, and perhaps may be considering the notions of repentence and reconciliation, I suggest instead that he muscles up on his advocacy skills and starts speaking up for the voiceless, underprivileged and oppressed. Here’s one place of so many where he could start: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/asia/2014/03/28/Pakistani-Christian-gets-death-in-blasphemy-case.html Okay, back to my dream state…

  65. Until the neo Reformed movement recognizes how crushing, patronizing and corosive their hermenutic is, they will continue to produce pastors who are alienating so many within the body of Christ, both men and women but particularly women. The whole-top down, patriarchial, authoritarian structure that men like Driscoll et al propegate renders God’s gifted daughters voiceless. This is a tragic loss to the church that desperately needs the wisdom and gifts of God’s feminine, Spirit-filled image-bearers to serve alongside the men. How I hope and pray that the MH debacle will expose the dark side under-belly of Wayne Grudem’s hermeneutic.

    Same-sex elder boards in the Bride of Christ???? Seriously????? F.F. Bruce is quoted in McKnight’s “Blue Parakeet”, “Paul would be spinning in his grave if he could see how his words have been made into Torah”. (not verbatim but hopefully approximate!)

  66. Quick note: plagiarism isn’t the same thing as copyright infringement. Plagiarism covers a broader range of things which are dishonest and academically unacceptable but many of which are not illegal–things like taking someone else’s ideas without proper attribution, or even pulling from your own previous work in an inappropriate way. Ideas are not themselves subject to copyright, only the specific expression of them. So you have to be careful with statements like “plagiarism is illegal.”

  67. Garland wrote:

    Quick note: plagiarism isn’t the same thing as copyright infringement. Plagiarism covers a broader range of things which are dishonest and academically unacceptable but many of which are not illegal–things like taking someone else’s ideas without proper attribution, or even pulling from your own previous work in an inappropriate way. Ideas are not themselves subject to copyright, only the specific expression of them. So you have to be careful with statements like “plagiarism is illegal.”

    It is not illegal…..but in the academic world it is considered ” theft.”
    It will get you suspended/expelled from college if you are a student…..It will get you fired if you are an instructor.
    Sorry, but to me, stealing someone else’s ideas and then passing it off as your original work is…well….this is a religious site and in keeping in the decorum, I will not swear….

  68. Nancy wrote:

    Of course, “strong leadership” can be characterized as bad, since it is contrary to scripture.

    Oh, Nancy, I think you will be pleased to know that you disagree with the Biggest Baddest Baptist in the USA.

    IIRC, it was R. Albert Mohler who said (my paraphrase) that the reason people were upset about Mahaney was that he exercised “strong leadership.” I guess Al appreciated the way C.J. was so proficient at exercising the KEYS…

  69. Is Mark Driscoll a follower of Jesus Christ? Well I’m a follower of Jesus Christ and I’m no gem.
    *
    Reading Wartburg Watch will not provide sufficiently accurate information to make that judgment on Mark Driscoll. TWW sees only the negatives.

  70. Trevin Wax is indicative of how that movement works. PR spin!!! Nevermind all those bloggers (who had discernment!) who tried like crazy to warn people for years. They were censored, shamed, banned, etc by the gospelly coalition guys on many blogs.

    Now, Trevin says they should have had discernment. And I am to take them seriously now? I think not.

  71. @ Lydia:

    Women can’t have discernment. It is impossible because we are all daughters of Eve, the Deceived Deceiver. A woman who dares to question a man is a slandering shrew and a raging feminist who wants to tyrannize men and rebel against God. It is impossible for a male to learn anything worthwhile from a female. God forbids it plainly, dontchaknow.

    Influential Men who take over a decade to realize what was going on at Mars Hill and who, to this day, refuse to acknowledge the disaster at SGM are Wise, Careful, Protective of the Flock, Charitable, Prudent, and Gospel-centered and Gospel-soaked and Gospel-covered. They cannot possibly be self-serving, arrogant, willfully blind, cowardly, or anything other than Great Authoritative Servant Leaders who are Large and In Charge.

    Trevin says that these Great Leaders showed such appalling cowardice because Driscoll taught the right doctrines, and so it was only natural that they overlooked his flaws. Seriously? This is what these Leadership Gurus and Authorities on Authority consider moral courage? Is it possible, Trevin, remotely possible that the doctrine is a big part of the problem considering that Mahaney and Driscoll largely promote the same doctrine–the gospel of power?

    Grudem loves Driscoll, and so does Piper, and Keller is willing to shrug and turn a blind eye. What else matters to these people but what their peers think? That’s leadership and masculinity?

    If these were the only men, and thankfully they are not, we would be better off with Deborah and Jael–Deborah for her courage and wisdom, and Jael because she was clever and knew how to apply her strength with a mallet on the blunt end of a tent peg. Just try to mentally put Grudem or Piper or Owen (not John) or any of the other Great Leaders in that scene without laughing out loud.

  72. @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:
    Right Seneca Griggs, plagiarism, lying (about fund collections and about ghost writers, plus the fact he denied plagiarizing in general when Janet Mefford caught him – acting like it was a one-off incident) and insulting people should be spun into a good light, I am so negative only seeing problems with this sort of behaviour. My 11 son would agree with you heartily, there are very valid reasons to bully, and I am just blind to them due to my negativity. Or not. Because, Seneca, I became a Christian to follow a God who was the least of the least, who was born in poverty, grew up in exile and preached to those Driscoll would insult. It isn’t negative to point out who Jesus is and that his preaching doesn’t line up with Dricoll’s, or that Jesus’ call on our lives to “die to ourselves” and “take up the cross” and “bless those who persecute you” isn’t the call Driscoll was following. In fact, he was insulting people who were trying to live like Jesus. I don’t need to go into Ananias and Sapphira here. You know as well as everyone else here that how you follow Jesus is what counts once you accept the free gift of Grace and Salvation Christ offers. Don’t do it and it WON’T go well for you, even if it goes well for unbelievers. The way of the world is not the way of Christ. Driscoll wanted his cake and to eat it too. That isn’t an option in the Kingdom.

  73. Seneca

    From now on, you must give an example of your contention. TWW sees only the negative? Baloney. Next time try harder.

     

     

     

  74. Daisy wrote:

    I was just saying at Julie Anne’s blog the other day in her Driscoll thread I don’t think Driscoll was ever “born again” in the first place.
    Driscoll has never, on a consistent basis, demonstrated any of the “fruits” the Bible says one can and should expect to see from an actual believer.
    Most Christians seem very reluctant to actually consider that perhaps a guy who says he is a Christian may not actually be one, even though the Bible says this is very much a possibility and actual Christians are supposed to be on guard from these people.

    This friend speaks my mind.

  75. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I would urge him not to give up pastoral ministry.

    I wouldn’t. I would urge him in the strongest possible terms to act on his open admission that he does not have much of a pastoral gift, and repent to the uttermost of ever being called Pastormark.

    He is not a pastor. He has never been a pastor. He will never be a pastor. He should be what he actually is, only this time, recognising authority other than his own.

    Amen, Nick.

  76. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    But, can her perform pastoral ministries towards hurting people?

    No one is saying he can’t help hurting people. All of us should do that. He is unqualified to be an elder until he repents specifically and is reconciled to those he hurt. After he does that, then he can think about a public “role.”

    As Nick pointed out, he certainly has not behaved as a pastor of Christ’s flock.

  77. Christians shouldn’t be bringing each other up on charges anyway (1 Corinthians 6 verses 1-7), so the idea we can judge this the same as something in academia is wrong because the rules of dealing with disputes in academia are not the same as those for dealing with disputes among believers, so we should at least keep things in context. Besides, he discussed it and apologised for it back in November last year and its sad people are so desperate to bring someone down that they dig things up that are already dealt with.

  78. Gram3 wrote:

    Women can’t have discernment. It is impossible because we are all daughters of Eve, the Deceived Deceiver

    In my charismatic evangelical days (i.e. not charismania) some of the most discerning people I ever met were Spirit-filled women. Women who could pray and ‘speak in the Spirit’, and ‘supernaturally’ see through some of the hogwash doing the rounds in those days.

    I have an opinion on the deception of women issue, and it’s tacked on to the end of the Anna Lotz thread. I’d be interested on your take on this if you have time, but I don’t want to derail this thread onto that theme, which in any event thought one of interest is not my favourite subject. 🙂

    If there are a couple of extra worn out places in my bible, they are 1 Cor 12 – 14 and Romans 6 – 7 !!

  79. dee wrote:

    Seneca

    From now on, you must give an example of your contention. TWW sees only the negative? Baloney. Next time try harder. So other commenters are free to make any allegation (he's not a Christian) they want about a pastor/leader they don't like but I'm not to make criticism of TWW without proof? You're being pretty hypocritical.

  80. Mickey wrote:

    Besides, he discussed it and apologised for it back in November last year and its sad people are so desperate to bring someone down that they dig things up that are already dealt with.

    Repentance is not “discuss and apologize.” People can and do “apologize” in the court room as part of a plea bargain just before they are pronounced guilty and sent off to prison. Apologize is not a get out of jail free card. True repentance includes massive changes in behavior and attitude and is a work of the Spirit and when it happens it “shows” in the life of the person. “Oops, sorry” is not repentance.

  81. Mickey wrote:

    …the idea we can judge this the same as something in academia is wrong because the rules of dealing with disputes in academia are not the same as those for dealing with disputes among believers, so we should at least keep things in context.

    The methods for judging Driscoll’s plagiarism might be different. But the standards should be just as stringent, if not more so. Otherwise, we Christians run the risk of making secular academics look more honest and self-disciplined than we are. How does that glorify Jesus?

  82. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    I’m not thinking of, at this time, being a designated pastor of an organized church. He’s probably not ready for that.

    “Probably”?

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    But, can he perform pastoral ministries towards hurting people?

    Maybe someday. If he learns how to stop hurting people himself. Right now, I’m not sure he even fully understands all the pain he’s caused already. As it stands, what’s to stop him from running over more sheep, and hoping for the chance to maim still more?

  83. Remember Mr Driscoll’s Mr Goldilocks comment about a Hasidic Jew. I have experienced anti Semitism and and am sensitive to it and I know it feels awful. I am not Jewish — my ancestors were. One who belittles what he doesn’t understand and unrepentantly doesn’t try to to understand is unworthy of my respect. Mr Driscoll has much to repent of and what is described is only the tip of the iceberg. He deserves to be shunned in my book. I would turn my back if I saw him.

  84. @ Nancy:

    I agree that repentance is more than just an apology but I don’t think he’s done another book since then so I think its a bit early to say he hasn’t changed his ways.

  85. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    …the idea we can judge this the same as something in academia is wrong because the rules of dealing with disputes in academia are not the same as those for dealing with disputes among believers, so we should at least keep things in context.

    The methods for judging Driscoll’s plagiarism might be different. But the standards should be just as stringent, if not more so. Otherwise, we Christians run the risk of making secular academics look more honest and self-disciplined than we are. How does that glorify Jesus?

    I agree they have to be stringent but its still not a public matter. Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

  86. @ senecagriggs yahoo:
    Jimmy

    I always let God judge the motivations of a person’s heart because we can’t see those. However, we are called to judge the outward manifestations of that heart. I know that the previous year or so has been difficult for you. Both CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll have declined in their popularity. I know you love authoritarian pastors and leadership and would like to be in such a position. Its hard to see this happening. I feel sorry for you because your words have led me to believe that you have hitched your wagon to their “ministry.”

    Scripture gives us the right to judge people on their actions and words which is what we do here. Any man who says the following:

    “Too many guys waste too much time trying to move stiff necked, stubborn, obstinate people. I am all about blessed subtraction. There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus (chuckle), and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done…. ‎You either get on the bus, or you get run over by the bus. Those are the options.”

    and is involved in disgusting dialogue via William Wallace 2 is in no way fit to be a pastor by every passage in Timothy and beyond. I don’t acre about his heart. I care about his words and actions.

    Anyone who thinks they are “called” to be a pastor better be darn sure their actions and words line up. And those who defend Driscoll who never, ever mention the victims of his fractured Christian worldview show themselves to be missing something in their hearts.

  87. Mickey wrote:

    Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    Ah, yes, the old “But what would the unbelievers think?” card.

    Mickey, please understand what happened here. Driscoll copied words and ideas from another author’s book, and published them as his own. He did so (apparently) on his own time, and outside of his duties as a pastor. He published his book and had it sold in the public market. It might very well have been bought by folks who don’t attend his church, and perhaps even some non-Christians.

    In other words, Driscoll’s plagiarism is very much a public matter, whether he’s a Christian or a pastor or whatever. Public matters get aired in public. If it brings disrepute on him or his church or on Jesus’ name, that’s no one’s fault but Driscoll’s.

    I’m off to bed now. Please think about this.

  88. @ Mickey:

    I don’t think that “unbelievers” are blind to the dirty linen until “the church” points it out. I think that when the church tolerates and hides bad behavior within the church or among believers that is when the church is being hypocritical. That is having one standard for “the world” and a different standard for “the church.” And that sort of behavior of dealing with it “within the church” is exactly what got the RCC in so much trouble with child sexual abuse.

  89. @ Ken:

    Thanks for responding. I don’t think I’m reading equality into the text of Genesis 1:26-28. God gives the creation mandate jointly to the man and woman with no distinction in roles. So we have to get “roles” somewhere else.

    God gives the Father’s blessing to both the man and the woman. This is a significant thing to be recorded in a patriarchal culture. It is unexpected, since the Father’s blessing goes to the woman as well as the man, something that was not done in a patriarchal society. In that case, the Father’s blessing would go to the the one the Father chooses from his sons. There are no distinctions made between the daughter and the son in the blessing, so I don’t think we can find any “roles” being prescribed there, either.

    Eve and deception are coupled in three places in the Bible. The first is Genesis 3, the second is 2 Corinthians 11:3 and finally in 1 Timothy 2:12. So, the canonical authorial context for 1 Timothy 2:12 includes 2 Corinthians 11:3 (I’m assuming you believe Paul wrote the letters to Timothy), and 2 Corinthians was written *before* 1 Timothy. In 2 Corinthians, Paul uses Eve as a type of both men and women who are being deceived.

    If you look at the immediate textual context for Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 11:3, you will see that it starts at least in chapter 10 where Paul describes the people in Corinth being led astray by others who *appear* to bring better “truth” to them than Paul has told them as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. They are following something that appears to be better than what God had said to them through Paul.

    This is exactly what happened in the Garden when Eve was led astray by another voice telling her something which *appeared* to be better than what God had said. Paul was using Eve’s example as a lesson for the Corinthians not to be led astray by false voices which claim to have something better than God’s word.

    So the correct way to interpret 1 Timothy 2 must be in light of Genesis 1-3, then 2 Corinthians 11, and only then 1 Timothy 2:12. Then, when we look at Paul’s introduction to that letter to Timothy, we see the concerns he had which prompted that letter. There were false teachers in the church, at least some of whom were women, and they needed to be silenced and instructed.

    He says that the women (and possibly men) would be saved through The Childbearing, just as Paul was saved, if they abandon their false teaching and continue in the true faith. In his introduction Paul reminds Timothy that Paul was once a false teacher, too, but the Lord saved him.

    I don’t understand why you want to divorce the cultural context of the audience and author of the text from the words of the text. That is neither good nor standard exegetical practice. If we know the cultural conditions of the Ephesians, why would that not have weight in our attempt to determine what Paul meant? Jesus was a Jew teaching Jews. How can we understand what he said unless we know something about 1st century Judaism and the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

    If a church were planted in Mecca, what false teaching would you expect to arise in that church? I would expect to find problems with theology proper, Christology, and soteriology at least, knowing that Mecca is the pilgrimage city for Islam. I would want to understand Islam before I tried to understand how to minister to people coming out of a false religious system and what to do to counter false teaching when it arose.

    Similarly, the people in Ephesus were coming into the church out of a false religion, the Ephesian Artemis cult, and artifacts of that prior religion were to be expected. In a false religion of female supremacy, we should not be surprised to see women dominating the worship, teaching doctrines like the superiority of virginity vs. childbearing and such.

    The Ephesian women, whether from the Jewish diaspora or gentile Ephesians, would be ignorant of the Scriptures. They had to be taught before they taught others, lest they lead them astray with false doctrine. After all the time Paul spent with Timothy at Ephesus, you would not expect for Timothy to have missed something as obvious as permitting a woman to teach men. Why would he need that instruction in a letter? He would surely have already known something if it were that important and, if Timothy was a trustworthy teacher, as Paul seems to think he was, the he would never let females teach if that were forbidden simply because they were female. Both Paul and Timothy would have known the rabbinic prohibition against female teachers (and also learners, for them most part.)

    Again, I don’t understand why you dismiss the cultural context and textual context of Scripture or why you disregard the pre-understandings that Paul and Timothy must have shared. Careful consideration of all of these factors seems to me to be standard exegetical practice except for the texts which bear on the Gender Issue. I cannot see the rationale for a special gender methodology unless it is necessary to get to the “right” answer which is always male authority or a “role” that is reserved exclusively and always for males and never for females.

    Back to the deceived woman thing, until mid-20th century, it was commonly believed that women lacked critical thinking skills and analytical skills. And that was based on the “plain” words of the Bible, including 1 Timothy 2. Many things which we now understand as wrong were once supported using the “plain” words of the Bible. I’m saying we need to use the same conservative exegetical practice for the gender texts as we do for the rest of the Bible. If it is legitimate to have a special hermeneutic for the gender verses, then how, in principle, can we deny others a special hermeneutic for their pet doctrine?

  90. Mickey wrote:

    Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
    Mickey wrote:
    …the idea we can judge this the same as something in academia is wrong because the rules of dealing with disputes in academia are not the same as those for dealing with disputes among believers, so we should at least keep things in context.
    The methods for judging Driscoll’s plagiarism might be different. But the standards should be just as stringent, if not more so. Otherwise, we Christians run the risk of making secular academics look more honest and self-disciplined than we are. How does that glorify Jesus?
    I agree they have to be stringent but its still not a public matter. Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    The unbelievers see what is going on. They are not stupid…..if we say nothing they’ll assume we are okay with the action of those….we have to ” police ” ourselves. We really do….

  91. Mickey wrote:

    Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    Beg to differ here. I think we *do* glorify God when we acknowledge that we have dirty linen and repent and ask forgiveness and reconciliation. That is something that differentiates believers from non-believers who understand hiding shame very well. If we are reluctant to confess and repent of dirtying our linens, then we are demonstrating that we are more concerned with our reputation than we are with what is true and good. Unbelievers are not stupid or irrational, and believers certainly should not be.

    The gospel is not about reputation or impression management. God’s reputation is sullied when we refuse to acknowledge our sin and pretend it does not exist.

  92. @ K.D.:

    Apologies for repeating what you wrote. I had not read your comment first, and obviously I agree completely.

  93. Mickey wrote:

    I agree they have to be stringent but its still not a public matter. Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    Ah, so you glorify your god by keeping stuff hidden and presenting a false front to the rest of the world. Yeah, I see no problems coming from that and it’s not obvious at all to us outside Christianity. Totally trustworthy!

    Sarcasm aside Mickey, the unbelievers see what y’all are doing. We live in your same communities, we’re your friends, we’re your family, your neighbors and your former fellow believers. We see these behaviors that are against what is said to be what belief in Jesus leads to supposedly. Trust me, trying to cover it up does more damage then good. Why should any unbeliever listen to hypocrites, when it’s really about covering up for the person on top and keeping in touch with the neighbors.

  94. Mickey wrote:

    Christians shouldn’t be bringing each other up on charges anyway (1 Corinthians 6 verses 1-7)

    Actually, you have missed the point of 1 Corinthians 6. There are many witnesses to Driscoll’s sins who *did* take it to the church, and the elders or board refused to hear their complaints or treated them with partiality and bias in favor of their idol, Mark Driscoll.

    The actual point of 1 Corinthians 6 is very applicable. It is indeed shameful that the leadership at any number of NewCal organizations have decided to abdicate their responsibility to adjudicate fairly and impartially and to apply the word of God faithfully and consistently.

    When it started looking like their hand might be forced, Driscoll bailed. And he hid behind his wife and kids. What a courageous man and great leader!

  95. Gram3 wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    Apologies for repeating what you wrote. I had not read your comment first, and obviously I agree completely.

    I think we might have done it about the same time….I apologize for repeating your post….

  96. Here’s my take: driscoll resigned because his appointed appointed lackeys wouldn’t back him 100%. While those currently in charge of MH haven’t done anything near even a cursory investigation and are still no more transparent than murky swamp water, they still had the gall to accuse MD of being arrogant and abusive towards people and wouldn’t let him into the pulpit just yet.

    Those in charge at Mars Hill at least know that for MD to make a ‘comeback’ there, MD would have to at least make a show of being repentant and back off some of his more disgusting ‘theological’ views. No way was MD going to kowtow one bit to those that he appointed to carry out MD’s will, so he resigned. This really puts MH in a jam because only a ‘rehabilitated’ MD could save MH. As it is now, it looks like MH is destined to slide into bankruptcy and fade into obscurity following in the footsteps of the Crystal Cathedral.

    And MD will try to rise Phoenix-like from the ashes with no real change to his theology or abusive personality. I think he’s way to arrogant to ever really repent and to change as a result. Just one more arrogent and error-filled ‘preacher’ with the gift of gab and no theological training, which allows him to make up his bizarre ‘gospel’ and somehow convince a lot of people that it’s something worthwhile.

  97. dee wrote:

    @ senecagriggs yahoo:
    Jimmy
    I always let God judge the motivations of a person’s heart because we can’t see those. However, we are called to judge the outward manifestations of that heart. I know that the previous year or so has been difficult for you. Both CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll have declined in their popularity. I know you love authoritarian pastors and leadership and would like to be in such a position. Its hard to see this happening. I feel sorry for you because your words have led me to believe that you have hitched your wagon to their “ministry.”

    Oh please, not even close as to what I think ( as usual).

    I DO think we must be extraordinarily careful of judging other people’s hearts. I think at TWW, harsh judgments of conservative evangelicals appears to be the norm.

  98. That was an interesting post to the Throckmorton article and his surmising, based on MD’s sister’s FB posts, that the Board of Elders and Board of Accountability forced MD out. MD’s sister basically wants a congregational vote on the thing, believing that if the congregation had the right to vote on it they would never vote MD out.

    I bet she is right.

    This is the exact reason that I believe the NT presents an elder structure for local churches.

    A church can always pick bad elders, as MD influenced his congregation to do, so the process can break down.

    But if the church has a functioning group of Elders who are not just rubber stamps for an ego maniacal pastor, there is a better chance that pastoral misbehavior can be addressed without the emotionally coercive tactics that beloved pastors use on congregations.

    I have no doubt that MD would love to preach, and following the sermon call for a vote of confidence by the congregation.

  99. Gram:

    Read your interesting argument regarding what you believe to be a proper interpretation of various Bible passages relating to men and women.

    I am interested in learning which scholars you rely upon or recommend for these interpretations.

    I would also ask if you know of any good scholars who have come to different conclusions in these areas.

    I was also curious as to whether the senior preaching pastor of your church is female. Please do not take offense at this question, as I realize there is nothing inconsistent in holding a position about female eldership and attending a church pastured by a male. But I am curious as to what the general status of things in the churches that people attend.

    Thanks.

  100. Anonymous wrote:

    bet she is right.
    This is the exact reason that I believe the NT presents an elder structure for local churches.

    The NT does nothing of the sort that is official It is only recommended in a few places. If you do your historical homework it becomes obvious there was no such thing in place for many years in quite a few of the “churches” in the NT.

    Anyway, the NT idea of an elder is one who is fed to the lions first. The structure we see promoted today is a tight knit group of like minded who protect the institution, fulfill their personal power needs claiming it is for God and work in secrecy telling the pew sitters only what they think they should hear including not sharing detailed budgets, salaries, etc.

    The question for us why anyone in America would ever voluntarily join such a group.

    MD’s congregation had no say over who was chosen as is the case in most evangelical churches. Even when there is a vote for elder the “Holy Spirit” is always trotted out from stage on who the picks are. Same game. different tactic.

    The thing is that those who are in Christ will always detect a true ‘elder in the faith’. It might just be old Mrs Wilson or the man who is a janitor by day.

  101. Anonymous wrote:

    But if the church has a functioning group of Elders who are not just rubber stamps for an ego maniacal pastor, there is a better chance that pastoral misbehavior can be addressed without the emotionally coercive tactics that beloved pastors use on congregations.

    Like you, Marshall? Are you still on the SBTS Foundation Board?

  102. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    dee wrote:

    @ senecagriggs yahoo:
    Jimmy
    I always let God judge the motivations of a person’s heart because we can’t see those. However, we are called to judge the outward manifestations of that heart. I know that the previous year or so has been difficult for you. Both CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll have declined in their popularity. I know you love authoritarian pastors and leadership and would like to be in such a position. Its hard to see this happening. I feel sorry for you because your words have led me to believe that you have hitched your wagon to their “ministry.”

    Oh please, not even close as to what I think ( as usual).

    I DO think we must be extraordinarily careful of judging other people’s hearts. I think at TWW, harsh judgments of conservative evangelicals appears to be the norm.

    It’s the conservative thing, there you have it, now I understand you better, seneca griggs. I’ve heard and seen this one before, almost a stereotype: the conservative evangelical who reflexively circles wagons round a high profile conservative evangelical leader who’s coming under even reasonable criticism.

    My personal take is this is sign of one who places a great deal more stock in their particular doctrinal spin than they ought. The cause of conservative doctrine becomes the idol. I think this is why you tend to see the most stunningly ungodly rhetorical tactics used by supposedly conservative evangelicals in defense of those who uphold the cause. So long as Driscoll or Furtick or Macdonald or Mahaney don’t slide into liberalism (typically on homosexuality), it does not matter what they do otherwise, they’ll always have staunch defenders willing to say or do anything to support them.

    I’m a conservative evangelical, I pretty much can tick all the boxes, but I think one essential aspect of being a true conservative is caring a bit about what the Bible says about qualifications for leaders, exposing evil, and calling out those who trumpe their power and authority while failing to meet those qualifications and practicing evil.

  103. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Beakerj:

    How are you doing, Beaker? It’s good to see your comments.

    Thanks Gram… am okay, just silly busy working, my second year of Master’s study starting, along with getting on with a lot of life changes after ending my miserable marriage of 10 years in May. Chronic neglect is no fun.
    A high point recently was being invited to the Home Office with 19 other informal educators to help them with their drugs education, the focus being on ‘legal’ highs or new psychoactive substances. Great 4 hour session including lunch (&getting lost & seeing loads of signs to the bomb shelter). I had to get special security clearance to take a drugs education box full of facsimile illegal drugs in with me, my contact there found it hilarious that I could potentially cause an ‘incident’. I wasn’t quite as amused 🙂
    Am trying to come up with a short way of explaining my current faith crisis – it’s not about the problem of evil or anything philosophical in that way, I thrashed out most of that at L’Abri in my early 20’s & during my 15 years as a church youth worker with teenagers. It’s all about religious language & epistemology & how to gain a clear – let alone trustable – picture of God from the Bible. I seem to be always in a state of pervasive interpretive pluralism (Christian Smith’s very helpful term) where I see possible interpretations of various passages, but not the textual keys that seal the deal one way or another. So God remains a spectrum of possible Gods that can be gleaned from scripture, some of which (hello Calvinism) I detest & have no way of trusting. This is probably very unclear… which drives me mad as both linguistically & literarily I’m very competent in most other areas…I score in the 80s at Master’s level for heaven’s sake. I have prayed about this for 20 years & I just feel the weight of trust asked from us by the faith can’t be reached (at least for me, so far) through the words meant to give us this basis. I suspect God is either not there or doesn’t like me. So I’m looking for a way forward. Last time I was at L’Abri (this’ll make Numo laugh) they said they didn’t have anyone who could keep up with me…sheesh.

    Are you still glad I commented? :)Normally I’d never say so much in a thread where Seneca is active because his brand of cold literalism makes my hope/heart die a bit each time I read his comments. Not true for yours!

  104. K.D. wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
    Mickey wrote:
    …the idea we can judge this the same as something in academia is wrong because the rules of dealing with disputes in academia are not the same as those for dealing with disputes among believers, so we should at least keep things in context.
    The methods for judging Driscoll’s plagiarism might be different. But the standards should be just as stringent, if not more so. Otherwise, we Christians run the risk of making secular academics look more honest and self-disciplined than we are. How does that glorify Jesus?
    I agree they have to be stringent but its still not a public matter. Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    The unbelievers see what is going on. They are not stupid…..if we say nothing they’ll assume we are okay with the action of those….we have to ” police ” ourselves. We really do….

    They know what’s going on because it was released in social media and to the press by Mars Hill, which should never have happened.

  105. JeffT wrote:

    Just one more arrogent and error-filled ‘preacher’ with the gift of gab and no theological training

    … and to think he had the audacity to write, err, – don’t know what to call it – a book on “what Christians should believe”.

    I haven’t read it, but let’s hope that research assistants and Mr Breshears wrote most of it.

  106. @ Anonymous:

    It is “interesting” that you find my comments “interesting” without addressing anything substantive.

    I don’t *rely* upon scholars, and I have none to recommend. Do you? The Holy Spirit indwells me, and I have incredible access to Bible study tools.

    If you want to start with purported scholars, you can start with RMBW. Examine what they say the Bible says with what it actually does say. Take a good look at their “interesting” reasoning. I suggest you start with Ortlund’s chapter 3, IIRC. It is a great example of eisegesis as he re-writes Genesis 1-3 substituting his own narrative. Then you might take a look at Shreiner’s argument for his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15. The entire premise of the book is ridiculous, IMO, but it is very Piperesque.

    I have never had a female pastor other than a children’s pastor. I have had female deacons and adult Sunday School leaders and female adult Bible study leaders. Have you?

    If you have something to add to sharpen my thinking, then please point that out. I’m not afraid of what the Bible says. I refuse, however, to bow at the altar of Credentials when many of those who are credentialed have vested interests which are not always made plain. For example, SBTS and its professors are very interested in promoting this view. They have built careers on it, as have Grudem and Piper.

    If you believe that God has prescribed gender “roles” or hierarchy in the Bible, can you show that to me in the actual words of the Bible? If you don’t see gender roles, what persuaded you that God has not prescribed a hierarchy of roles?

  107. Harsh judgment against clergy has been a part of the reformation since Martin Luther tacked those 99 thesis’s on that door at All Saints Church in Wittenberg. If there is corruption in “conservative” evangelicalism, it should be exposed, and that tradition of 99 thesis’s must continue. Now Driscoll and ilk claim they are descendants of Luther and Calvin, and does this claim give them the right not to be criticized for corruption? And should discussion of such corruption only stay within the cloistered confines of a church? I am certain there were those at the time of Luther who were making similar arguments. They would have liked to silence Luther’s criticism and would have liked to quell the Protestant movement in their desire for silence. And the same issues Luther brought up centuries ago are relevant today as they were in the 1500s. Now those who claim conservative credentials would like to quell all criticism of their anointed leaders, like Driscoll, and the corrupt polities they preside over. The spirit of the reformation is not ended and we have Luther to thank for that.

  108. Gram3 wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    Christians shouldn’t be bringing each other up on charges anyway (1 Corinthians 6 verses 1-7)

    Actually, you have missed the point of 1 Corinthians 6. There are many witnesses to Driscoll’s sins who *did* take it to the church, and the elders or board refused to hear their complaints or treated them with partiality and bias in favor of their idol, Mark Driscoll.

    The actual point of 1 Corinthians 6 is very applicable. It is indeed shameful that the leadership at any number of NewCal organizations have decided to abdicate their responsibility to adjudicate fairly and impartially and to apply the word of God faithfully and consistently.

    When it started looking like their hand might be forced, Driscoll bailed. And he hid behind his wife and kids. What a courageous man and great leader!

    I can’t comment on how the leaders allegedly dealt with matters in private but releasing various these statements to the press, both officially and unofficially certainly doesn’t work in their favour.
    I’m not sure he’s hidden behind his kids either. The last I saw was him by himself reading a statement in front of the church. If he wanted o hide, he could’ve just put it on his facebook or twitter pages.

  109. Beakerj wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    along with getting on with a lot of life changes after ending my miserable marriage of 10 years in May. Chronic neglect is no fun.

    beakerj, actually sorry about that. That’s one of those things that saddens me (actually a number of things sadden me).

  110. Beakerj wrote:

    Are you still glad I commented? :)Normally I’d never say so much in a thread where Seneca is active because his brand of cold literalism makes my hope/heart die a bit each time I read his comments. Not true for yours!

    Yes, I’m very glad you commented, and you are in a challenging time in just about every respect. Don’t be pressed into the mold of anyone’s thinking, except mine, of course. 😉

    At best we have models of what God is like and what he has done and is doing and why. They should always be subject to study and revision. Try to think of it that way, and don’t feel pressure from anyone to accept their “answer to everything.”

    Although I’ve not had the marital grief that you have had, there have been other things that made me think God was through with me. But, having come through that, I know God loves me, and he loves you because God Incarnate showed us that he does.

  111. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    I agree they have to be stringent but its still not a public matter. Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    Ah, so you glorify your god by keeping stuff hidden and presenting a false front to the rest of the world. Yeah, I see no problems coming from that and it’s not obvious at all to us outside Christianity. Totally trustworthy!

    Sarcasm aside Mickey, the unbelievers see what y’all are doing. We live in your same communities, we’re your friends, we’re your family, your neighbors and your former fellow believers. We see these behaviors that are against what is said to be what belief in Jesus leads to supposedly. Trust me, trying to cover it up does more damage then good. Why should any unbeliever listen to hypocrites, when it’s really about covering up for the person on top and keeping in touch with the neighbors.

    Non Christians may see bits and pieces and ask questions but that doesn’t mean everything should be aired as a matter of course. Obviously if accusations are made by non Christians they may need to be answered publicly but questions of leadership and teaching methods are church issues.

  112. Mickey wrote:

    I can’t comment on how the leaders allegedly dealt with matters in private but releasing various these statements to the press, both officially and unofficially certainly doesn’t work in their favour.
    I’m not sure he’s hidden behind his kids either. The last I saw was him by himself reading a statement in front of the church. If he wanted o hide, he could’ve just put it on his facebook or twitter pages.

    The last statement he made in person at MHC ended with a group hug with his wife and children on the stage. That was undignified and emotionally manipulative both with respect to his wife and children and also to the MHC congregation.

    His resignation letter says that the situation has become a threat of some sort (can’t recall his exact words) to his wife and family, and he needs to remove them. This was a totally unnecessary inclusion in the resignation. It is also manipulative. I did not mean that he was literally hiding behind his wife and kids, although the visual metaphor of them surrounding him on stage suggests something like that.

    His wife and kids had nothing to do with his behavior, and so they are irrelevant to the real issues which he, by all appearances, has no intention of addressing.

  113. Beakerj wrote:

    Are you still glad I commented?

    Sorry to but in, but always glad to hear your comments Beaks. I think Sopy should do you a funky YouTube mashup. Have you rubbed shoulders with the indomitable Russell Brand yet? (UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs)

  114. Mickey wrote:

    They know what’s going on because it was released in social media and to the press by Mars Hill, which should never have happened.

    Let me see if I understand. It is a good thing to build a following on social media for one’s personality and one’s views and to sell one’s products, but it is a bad thing for others to use that same social media to shine light on what should not have been hidden in the first place. Did I get that right?

    Is this a variation of the theme that blog discernment divas should shut up? I don’t really get what your complaint is.

  115. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    Church issues should be dealt with within the church. We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    Ah, yes, the old “But what would the unbelievers think?” card.

    Mickey, please understand what happened here. Driscoll copied words and ideas from another author’s book, and published them as his own. He did so (apparently) on his own time, and outside of his duties as a pastor. He published his book and had it sold in the public market. It might very well have been bought by folks who don’t attend his church, and perhaps even some non-Christians.

    In other words, Driscoll’s plagiarism is very much a public matter, whether he’s a Christian or a pastor or whatever. Public matters get aired in public. If it brings disrepute on him or his church or on Jesus’ name, that’s no one’s fault but Driscoll’s.

    I’m off to bed now. Please think about this.

    Its not about my opinion of what non Christians will think. I work in retail and the vast majority of people I know are not even mildly interested about what happens in the church I go to but regardless of that the Bible says we should even favour being wronged over taking each other to task in front of unbelievers.

  116. Gram3 wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    They know what’s going on because it was released in social media and to the press by Mars Hill, which should never have happened.

    Let me see if I understand. It is a good thing to build a following on social media for one’s personality and one’s views and to sell one’s products, but it is a bad thing for others to use that same social media to shine light on what should not have been hidden in the first place. Did I get that right?

    Is this a variation of the theme that blog discernment divas should shut up? I don’t really get what your complaint is.

    To be honest I don’t use social media, so I’m obviously not a fan but I don’t think its a sin unless we use it for things the bible tells us not to do.

  117. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    I DO think we must be extraordinarily careful of judging other people’s hearts. I think at TWW, harsh judgments of conservative evangelicals appears to be the norm.

    That is because, speaking for myself, one should clean one’s own closet if one is female and one’s own garage if one is male before one complains about others. I think, though I would have to check with Grudem, that basements are non-gendered.

    It’s the whole log-speck thing. Self-styled conservative teachers ought to live by Biblical principles, and the standards should be consistent. That is not judging their hearts. It is looking at their actions and comparing that to what Christ has called us to be and also comparing their actions to the standards they enforce on their pewpeons.

  118. Gram3 wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    I can’t comment on how the leaders allegedly dealt with matters in private but releasing various these statements to the press, both officially and unofficially certainly doesn’t work in their favour.
    I’m not sure he’s hidden behind his kids either. The last I saw was him by himself reading a statement in front of the church. If he wanted o hide, he could’ve just put it on his facebook or twitter pages.

    The last statement he made in person at MHC ended with a group hug with his wife and children on the stage. That was undignified and emotionally manipulative both with respect to his wife and children and also to the MHC congregation.

    His resignation letter says that the situation has become a threat of some sort (can’t recall his exact words) to his wife and family, and he needs to remove them. This was a totally unnecessary inclusion in the resignation. It is also manipulative. I did not mean that he was literally hiding behind his wife and kids, although the visual metaphor of them surrounding him on stage suggests something like that.

    His wife and kids had nothing to do with his behavior, and so they are irrelevant to the real issues which he, by all appearances, has no intention of addressing.

    I’m not going to get into whether he’s addressing his issues in private because I simply have no way of knowing that. The way I saw the hug was that the statement wasn’t an easy one and he was upset. I also assumed they all got up on stage because they were all about to go but I may be wrong about that because I wasn’t there and only saw the Youtube video. The bit about his family being at threat surprised me but if its true I see no reason why he shouldn’t have mentioned it in a statement to the church.

  119. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    And both weans made it to the top of the 28-metre tower

    That rocks Nick. One of my favourite memories is a couple who ran a climbing wall business watching their two-year old son in nappies happily camming and jamming upwards (well, sort-of, slight exaggeration). I hope you have the Radical Reels tour like we do? http://radicalreels.com.au/

  120. @ Mickey:

    You keep saying that, but that is not Paul’s point. Mars Hill Churchcorp is one giant example of Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 6.. They are utterly defeated because it has come to the point where unbelievers will be involved. Had the leadership handled matters properly amongst themselves, it would never have come to this. Paul was rebuking and shaming them for their leadership failure–see verse 5–not foreclosing an option for people to obtain justice.

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Mickey:

    You keep saying that, but that is not Paul’s point. Mars Hill Churchcorp is one giant example of Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 6.. They are utterly defeated because it has come to the point where unbelievers will be involved. Had the leadership handled matters properly amongst themselves, it would never have come to this. Paul was rebuking and shaming them for their leadership failure–see verse 5–not foreclosing an option for people to obtain justice.

    Yes I’ve read verse 5 and I’ve also read verse 6 onwards “6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

    7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ”

    Pauls suggestion was that we should favour being wronged, not that if wronged we should throw our toys out of the pram in public.

  122. Mickey wrote:

    I go to but regardless of that the Bible says we should even favour being wronged over taking each other to task in front of unbelievers.

    Oh dear, it appears that you have a problem. Driscoll took it to the world and his fanboys were thrilled that he did so. Once you play in public, you pay in public and even Carl Trueman agrees with this. I believe your interpretation of the Bible is not only in error but is potentially dangerous to the church as a whole.

    Driscoll did not just hurt people in his church (you could show some concern for them, btw) but he hurt people who are not within the church. His willingness to plagiarize affected the unbelievers and so did his public utterances. NonChristian mean and women have been offended by him.

    Driscoll got what he wanted-lots and lots of attention.

  123. Mickey wrote:

    auls suggestion was that we should favour being wronged, not that if wronged we should throw our toys out of the pram in public.

    Driscoll took care of that for us. The public took note of his arrogant displays. Therefore, Christians have a responsibility to show the world that we believe Driscoll does not represent most Christians and that we are sorry for him imposing his ugliness on the world.

  124. Mickey wrote:

    Non Christians may see bits and pieces and ask questions but that doesn’t mean everything should be aired as a matter of course.

    In this case, due to Driscoll’s unbelievable persona, the world saw far more than most Christians.

  125. Mickey wrote:

    Christians shouldn’t be bringing each other up on charges anyway (1 Corinthians 6 verses 1-7),

    This is the same Paul who publicly rebuked the apostle Peter’s false teaching (Gal.2:11-14) and publicly rebuked the man who was flagrantly sleeping with his
    stepmother with the churches knowledge. (1 Cor. 5:1-13)

    And we can’t overlook Jesus’ publicly chiding the Pharisees over their twisting the law. He certainly didn’t mince words!

    Public figures need to be confronted publicly so all will be aware of the problems involved with those individuals who preach, teach, speak at public events, publish books, etc. lest more are led into false/erroneous doctrine and led astray.

  126. Mickey wrote:

    I’m not sure he’s hidden behind his kids either. The last I saw was him by himself reading a statement in front of the church. If he wanted o hide, he could’ve just put it on his facebook or twitter pages.

    Bless your heart. It must be so hard to see Driscoll fall so far. He has lost everything in pursuit of attention. It is difficult for those who pushed Driscoll, admiring his *style.* buying his books, defending him to their friends. Frankly, this man will never again be the “whatever he says is from God* leader. I am so sorry for all who loved this man. They were taken for a ride.

  127. Mickey wrote:

    7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ”

    Pauls suggestion was that we should favour being wronged, not that if wronged we should throw our toys out of the pram in public.

    Yes, this has been made a public matter, and they are shamed and defeated because they failed. Who should suffer the wrong, Driscoll or the people he ran over with his bus? How about the taxpayers who granted a subsidy to Mars Hill Churchcorp. Not all of them are believers. Should they just get over it and move on because…PastorMark?

    Why do you not insist that PastorMark waive his severance package for the sake of the unbelievers who are watching? Why don’t you insist that PastorMark request comparable severance for the many he fired unrighteously? I’m really trying to find consistency in your interpretation and your application here but I’m not seeing it.

  128. dee wrote:

    Driscoll took care of that for us. The public took note of his arrogant displays. Therefore, Christians have a responsibility to show the world that we believe Driscoll does not represent most Christians and that we are sorry for him imposing his ugliness on the world.

    Wait, is that the jangling and the wrangling and the tintinnabulation of the KEYS, KEYS, KEYS, KEYS, KEYS, KEYS, KEYS being exercised that I hear? Yes, I think it is!

    Sincere apologies to Mr. Poe.

  129. Gram:

    I don’t know what most of the initials you are referring to mean (RMBW? IIRC?).

    I didn’t ask about your credentials.

    I would believe as a professing Christian that you have the Holy Spirit indelling you.

    I assumed that you had read something that supported your reasoning, and that was what I was interested in.

    You mention some “incredible access to Bible study tools.”

    That is what I was interested in knowing. What tools have you found most useful to you on this topic?

    And I also would be interested in whom you think makes the best case for the traditional position and why.

    I do not debate the gender issue on the internet. Too many people get way too angry too quickly for no reason.

    But I am interested in the the positions that people have reached and why.

    You did a good job explaining what you believe to Ken, and I was interested in what tools may have helped you.

    Of course the Bible. Of course the Holy Spirit. All Christians have those.

    You mentioned the Bible study tools.

    If you would be so kind to share them, I would appreciate it.

    Thank you.

  130. dee wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    I go to but regardless of that the Bible says we should even favour being wronged over taking each other to task in front of unbelievers.

    Oh dear, it appears that you have a problem. Driscoll took it to the world and his fanboys were thrilled that he did so. Once you play in public, you pay in public and even Carl Trueman agrees with this. I believe your interpretation of the Bible is not only in error but is potentially dangerous to the church as a whole.

    Driscoll did not just hurt people in his church (you could show some concern for them, btw) but he hurt people who are not within the church. His willingness to plagiarize affected the unbelievers and so did his public utterances. NonChristian mean and women have been offended by him.

    Driscoll got what he wanted-lots and lots of attention.

    I think I’ve already been clear that I don’t think things should’ve been done so publicly and i’m not sure how genuine people who show concern for people they don’t know based on hearsay are.
    I’ve already given my opinion about him using peoples words without acknowledging them, so I wont repeat that, except to say that this situation has been used as a means to dig up things dealt with as far back as 14 years ago and I think if something’s been addressed then people should be willing to move on.

  131. Haitch wrote:

    Beakerj wrote:

    Are you still glad I commented?

    Sorry to but in, but always glad to hear your comments Beaks. I think Sopy should do you a funky YouTube mashup. Have you rubbed shoulders with the indomitable Russell Brand yet? (UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs)

    I would LOVE to rub shoulders with Russell Brand… I’m far from agreeing with all he has to say, but his intelligence & quick wit would make for a fantastic conversation.
    Thanks for butting in Hatch, it all cheers me up 🙂

  132. Gram3 wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ”

    Pauls suggestion was that we should favour being wronged, not that if wronged we should throw our toys out of the pram in public.

    Yes, this has been made a public matter, and they are shamed and defeated because they failed. Who should suffer the wrong, Driscoll or the people he ran over with his bus? How about the taxpayers who granted a subsidy to Mars Hill Churchcorp. Not all of them are believers. Should they just get over it and move on because…PastorMark?

    Why do you not insist that PastorMark waive his severance package for the sake of the unbelievers who are watching? Why don’t you insist that PastorMark request comparable severance for the many he fired unrighteously? I’m really trying to find consistency in your interpretation and your application here but I’m not seeing it.

    1. I’d say the people who should be ashamed are the ones who decided the issues should be in the press.

    2. All I know of an alleged severance package is from what I’ve seen in the press. I don’t know if its true or the reasons for it but if you sign a contract then that contract should be honoured.

  133. @ Anonymous:

    RBMW is Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which is considered the go to text for the “complementarian” position. If you want to read what some consider authoritative, that is a good place to start. There are also articles on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site that you can read. Others here probably have good suggestions from an egalitarian viewpoint.

    My understanding of the Traditional position is that women are inferior or deficient in some way that renders them unfit to lead men under any circumstance. This view is found in the extreme patriarchal circles.

    The “complementarian” view seeks to thread the needle between the equality of the sexes spiritually and their insistence that nevertheless females are created by God to be subordinate to males. They have invented the device of gender “roles” so that they can attempt to say contradictory things. Women are equal to men except in authority, which they valiantly attempt while maintaining a logical straight face to prove is merely a functional category.

    My favorite Bible study site is biblehub.com because you can read contexts, you can read an interlinear with hyperlinks to all kinds of great tools to help you study. You can click on a Greek word and see how that word is translated in various other places so you can evaluate the reasonableness of a given translation and evaluate the plausibility of other possible translations of that word/phrase. There are maps and lexicons, and older commentaries. You can read a verse in multiple parallel translations to see how translations have changed over time or how different translation teams see the text.

    Another good site is Biblegateway.com. And finally, you can go to literalword.com and print out a chapter of either the NASB or the ESV (not recommended) so that you can make your own notes and markups.

    IIRC=if I recall correctly. When I use that, it means that I think that what I’m saying is correct, but I invite others to correct my sometimes incorrect recollection. Several people here are helpful and very knowledgeable about a lot of things.

    You can read more of my interaction with Ken on the Anne Graham Lotz post at TWW in late September. There are lots of very good threads here on this issue, so you can check in the Categories list box for those. Happy studies.

  134. Mickey wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Mickey wrote:

    1. I’d say the people who should be ashamed are the ones who decided the issues should be in the press.

    So it would be better to keep it hidden, out of the daylight so people so non-believers can speculate what really happened? Isn’t that what cults do?

  135. Mickey wrote:

    1. I’d say the people who should be ashamed are the ones who decided the issues should be in the press.

    So, are you saying that the people who are informing the press, presumably insiders, should just ignore what happened and the failure of leadership over a decade to deal with these issues in a Biblical manner? Approximately when do you think the leadership at Mars Hill Churchcorp would find the time to deal with PastorMark’s issues if the press had not been informed?

    Are you saying the bad guys here are the people giving information to the press rather than the perpetrators of the wrongdoing and the enablers of that wrongdoing who had a responsibility to deal with it which responsibility they shirked???

    The leadership had a high responsibility. They failed. Miserably and shamefully. They are held to a higher standard than the pewpeons or the church administrative staff. Why are they exempt because they can cherry-pick a prooftext while ignoring their own failure? How do you manage to ignore that?

    It is not the people who talked who brought shame on the name of Jesus. It is the man, PastorMark, who used the phrase “It’s all about Jesus” when it was really all about PastorMark. It is the men who turned a blind eye and enabled him as long as it was expedient and profitable to do so. That is not in keeping with the Bible, and one prooftext that you interpret one way does not change that overarching principle of greater responsibility.

  136. Gram3 wrote:

    It is not the people who talked who brought shame on the name of Jesus.

    You go that right.

    As for the opposite opinion, I am not getting this thinking at all. How is holding leadership accountable for it’s egregious public actions bringing shame on the name of Jesus? Did Jesus somewhere say that the church folks should pretend that everything is alright all the while knowing that there is bad stuff going on, apparently to try to deceive “unbelievers” into believing a lie? Did he intend for the church to be some safe haven for all sorts of abuses and unethical behaviors and distortions of doctrines and money making schemes and confidence games? He certainly was upset with the hypocrisy of some of the Pharisees, and the money changers in the temple got a dose of his anger. But now he wants people to overlook and hide and pretend regarding abuses in his church? Come on folks, you can get away with a lot of stuff if you do it in the name of religion? You can even stand up in front of the world and present yourself as a spokesman for God himself and nobody will hold you accountable?

    How do people get from the person of Jesus as presented in scripture to any such nonsense as this? Look at the letters to the seven churches. The repeated messages are (a) you people have some good things going for you but (b) you have neglected to clean up this particular mess and if you don’t do it I will and that will not be pretty. So, that was a thing to say back then but now we tolerate anything and everything from leadership and are simply concerned with trying to hide it from prying eyes? He must have said that to the eighth church and somehow the story got lost in manuscript copying or something, because I sure can’t find that in scripture.

    And for anybody about to whip out a proof text, I am not talking about Bill and Bob who have a private issue about some business deal and are considering a civil suit. That is a whole different issue. But even then, small claims court is cheap and private and chances are the judge is not a heathen, so there are some cultural aspects even then to be considered. But that is not what I have been talking about, obviously.

  137. Gram:

    Thanks for the Biblehub.com reference. I will check that out.

    And thanks for the other information, too.

  138. @ Anonymous:

    Hope it helps, and I sincerely apologize for barking at you. I’ve heard similar questions from others who were not really interested in studying but rather in citing what their favorite scholar says instead of what the Bible actually says. I should not have assumed that was what your comment was about, so please forgive me for that wrong assumption.

  139. Gram3 wrote:

    It is not the people who talked who brought shame on the name of Jesus. It is the man, PastorMark, who used the phrase “It’s all about Jesus” when it was really all about PastorMark. It is the men who turned a blind eye and enabled him as long as it was expedient and profitable to do so. That is not in keeping with the Bible, and one prooftext that you interpret one way does not change that overarching principle of greater responsibility.

    Excellent! Mark Driscoll chose to take his dog and pony show beyond the walls of Mars Hill. That was his choice, and he must deal with the consequences.

  140. @ Deb:

    Thanks so much. I’m still having trouble with my new computer with Windows 8.666 and crummy keyboard, so proofing before posting sometimes doesn’t happen the way it should…

  141. K.D. wrote:

    So it would be better to keep it hidden, out of the daylight so people so non-believers can speculate what really happened?

    But if it was never in the press, then it never happened.
    And we can all keep singing the Happy Happy Joy Joy Song.
    Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!

  142. dee wrote:

    @ Anonymous:
    That is unbelievable. It looks like Mark couldn’t *take it like a man.*

    The most Manly Man men (who will lecture you at length how they are so Much More Manly than you) are often the biggest physical cowards when it’s their turn in the barrel.

  143. dee wrote:

    Bless your heart. It must be so hard to see Driscoll fall so far.

    Just like all the Hopey-Changey Obama fanboys in 2009 when their carefully-spun Messiah turned out to be only a man. That’s the drawback of Messiah politics of any sort, secular or Christian.

  144. dee wrote:

    Driscoll got what he wanted-lots and lots of attention.

    And even negative attention is still attention.

    Remember the motivation of a lot of school shooters a la Columbine?
    “I’ll be dead, but I’ll be FAMOUS!”

    And (invoking Godwin’s Law), a certain A.Hitler still gets a lot of attention, and he died seventy years ago.

  145. My old college roomie had a great line for situations and people such as this:

    “You know what the Bible calls him?”
    (point to Driscoll or Mickey in this case)
    “A FOOL!”

  146. Gram3 wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    1. I’d say the people who should be ashamed are the ones who decided the issues should be in the press.

    So, are you saying that the people who are informing the press, presumably insiders, should just ignore what happened and the failure of leadership over a decade to deal with these issues in a Biblical manner? Approximately when do you think the leadership at Mars Hill Churchcorp would find the time to deal with PastorMark’s issues if the press had not been informed?

    Are you saying the bad guys here are the people giving information to the press rather than the perpetrators of the wrongdoing and the enablers of that wrongdoing who had a responsibility to deal with it which responsibility they shirked???

    The leadership had a high responsibility. They failed. Miserably and shamefully. They are held to a higher standard than the pewpeons or the church administrative staff. Why are they exempt because they can cherry-pick a prooftext while ignoring their own failure? How do you manage to ignore that?

    It is not the people who talked who brought shame on the name of Jesus. It is the man, PastorMark, who used the phrase “It’s all about Jesus” when it was really all about PastorMark. It is the men who turned a blind eye and enabled him as long as it was expedient and profitable to do so. That is not in keeping with the Bible, and one prooftext that you interpret one way does not change that overarching principle of greater responsibility.

    Obviously I can’t predict the future and say for sure when all the problems would’ve been addressed but Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll do talk with other churches and church leaders and relatively big problems, such as the one dug up by various media outlets recently that was dealt with over a decade ago, have been addressed. My overall feeling is just that if I had a serious problem, I’d discuss it with people who knew something about it rather than just phoning the press.

  147. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    My old college roomie had a great line for situations and people such as this:

    “You know what the Bible calls him?”
    (point to Driscoll or Mickey in this case)
    “A FOOL!”

    Unlike Mars Hill, I’m not particularly concerned about opinions about me from randoms I’ll never meet. It is unfortunate that you can’t discuss things like an adult rather than resorting to name calling but that’s life, you always get one in every group I guess.

  148. A celebrity pastor and his empire sure is a far cry from the pure and undefiled religion described in James as caring for orphans and widows. That would be too lowly.

  149. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    Reading Wartburg Watch will not provide sufficiently accurate information to make that judgment on Mark Driscoll. TWW sees only the negatives.

    The Bible calls followers of Christ to be on the look out for negatives, most of all from other people who claim the name Christ. (see 1 Corinthians 5:11 for example)

  150. @ senecagriggs yahoo:

    Driscoll’s public actions are enough for me. I am judging him based on remarks and actions he has made in public, as well as testimonies by people who used to work with/for him who have spoken about how Driscoll bullied them.

    Jesus said the mouth speaks what is in the heart – if that is so, Driscoll has a very crass, vulgar, sexist, hate filled, bullying heart.

  151. Mickey wrote:

    We don’t glorify God by airing our dirty linen in front of unbelievers.

    What you do is cause people who once believed in Jesus to abandon the faith (or strongly consider it) when you do not air and expose the dirty linen of other Christians. Is that what you prefer?

  152. JeffT wrote:

    Here’s my take: driscoll resigned because his appointed appointed lackeys wouldn’t back him 100%.

    Warren Throckmorton has been updating his site about this.

    I could be wrong, but it sounds to me as though the elders or board or whatever it is called were possibly going to lay down some ground rules, and Driscoll didn’t want to answer to them or be held accountable, so he chose to walk instead.

    Here is one of the recent headings from that site (Throckmorton’s):
    “Mars Hill Church Board of Elders: Mark Driscoll Resigned Instead of Entering a Restoration Plan”

    There’s also another post there with this title:
    “Mark Driscoll’s Resignation: What is the Real Story?”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/

    Throckmorton was interviewed on Janet Mefferd’s show a few days ago (and I think some other guy who’s written about the Driscoll story), and he or the other guy said he will be writing more blog posts about what really happened in the days to come, if he can get certain information verified.

    I agree with your conclusion. I think Driscoll will likely re enter preaching, or some other Christian talking head or famous person position, maybe keep writing books.

  153. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    I DO think we must be extraordinarily careful of judging other people’s hearts. I think at TWW, harsh judgments of conservative evangelicals appears to be the norm.

    This is what I was trying to get at above.

    Christians are too reluctant to consider that a preacher may be a wolf or are unwilling to call one so in public. They are afraid of being seen as mean, or as anything less than nicey-nice.

    This reluctance is one reason why totally unqualified jokers continue in these preacher positions for years, despite obviously being unqualified and unsaved.

    If it makes you feel any better, I am not a supporter of leftist anything, including leftist Christianity.

    However – I started noticing a couple of years ago that the ‘right’ (conservative) side of Christianity has its issues and problems, which I had not noticed before. My eyes were opened to some of the problems that conservatives have.

  154. Deb wrote:

    Excellent! Mark Driscoll chose to take his dog and pony show beyond the walls of Mars Hill. That was his choice, and he must deal with the consequences.

    Driscoll was all over Non-Christian media or well-known media, usually advertising whatever book he had out at the time.

    I think he went on shows such as “The View” and was interviewed by Glenn Beck (who once had shows on CNN and FOX cable), and a few other national shows.

    Why is Driscoll given a pass to go out and about, sharing his views and hawking his wares on national television, but Christians are told to be hush hush over any misgivings they have about him or his teachings? He gets to say or do whatever he wants and nobody can say anything?

    His church – his elders were either incapable or unwilling to hold him accountable. So to that guy who keeps saying on this thread it was a “church matter only,” his church was doing nothing about it.

  155. Mickey wrote:

    Obviously if accusations are made by non Christians they may need to be answered publicly but questions of leadership and teaching methods are church issues.

    They’re not “church issues” when celebrity pastors teach, preach, and sell books all over the globe pushing their wares!

  156. @ Beakerj:
    They literally said that they couldn’t keep up with you? LOLZ to the power of 10, because as long as they stick to a Calvin-influenced theology, they just won’t be able to accept where you are and what your questiins are even about. (not assuming that’s necessarily the case there, but still – LOLZ.)

    If anyone in the entire organization were to get where you are, i think it would be John and Prisca (in Huemoz). But they’ve been through more than a few storms themselves.

    As for the other news, i am sorry you’ve been dealing with so much. Here’s to better days ahead, beaks.

  157. Bridget wrote:

    Mickey wrote:

    Obviously if accusations are made by non Christians they may need to be answered publicly but questions of leadership and teaching methods are church issues.

    They’re not “church issues” when celebrity pastors teach, preach, and sell books all over the globe pushing their wares!

    I agree the charge of plagiarism was a public issue because he was accused of it publicly and he did address it publicly but how he lead the church he co founded is for him and the other leaders to sort out.
    I assume they still stand by his teaching and teaching methods because his talks are still on the website and they’ve said he can comeback and teach there. The issues with it seem to be more from people who don’t go to that church.

  158. @ Mickey:

    The leadership did zero about Driscoll’s behavior until its hand was forced. It is simply not within the realm of reason to believe that they would have done anything but for the public exposure. Why would they when they were making a bunch of money and gaining a following for themselves. You can’t just wave their miserable track record away with “I don’t know when.”

    Driscoll has not repented of his misogyny, and that is what William Wallace II put on display. That was not the only instance. Teaching men those things in the name of Christ is a very serious matter, since Christ does not view women that way. Again, you can’t just say “He apologized” and make the damage from his misogyny go away.

    You just keep repeating that no one should have gone public with their information, but you haven’t shown that there was any internal path available to them. How many people did he throw out like garbage? You need to show that before you criticize the people who have addressed the problem of PastorMark. Produce some evidence that they have done wrong and that he left them any other option to redeem the situation and prevent further abuses by PastorMark.

    You can’t just make stuff up and slap a “Bible Says So” sticker on it and pretend that settles it.

  159. Mickey wrote:

    how he lead the church he co founded is for him and the other leaders to sort out.

    So what if he co-founded Mars Hill Churchcorp. The church was founded and belongs to Christ, not PastorMark, though it appears some confuse the two. PastorMark and the leadership showed no interest in ever sorting anything out with anyone. You are saying something that is simply not credible and all of your coulda, shoulda, woulda magical thinking is just that if we judge by past performance.

  160. Mickey wrote:

    Non Christians may see bits and pieces and ask questions but that doesn’t mean everything should be aired as a matter of course. Obviously if accusations are made by non Christians they may need to be answered publicly but questions of leadership and teaching methods are church issues.

    Interesting perspective Mickey, thanks for sharing it.

    Something for you to consider, some of us non Christians are concerned about your leadership and teaching methods because we are affected by the aftermath of those issues when they blow up. I have friends, family and acquaintances who I hate to see hurt by these issues, that’s one of the reasons I follow this sort of stuff at least as a non Christian and I’m in no way alone in that.

  161. @ Beakerj:
    Hugs to you, Beakerj. I also value your insights and am cheering you on from down here in the Fairest Cape. BTW, I think of you whenever my kids watch a Muppet dvd 🙂

  162. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Something for you to consider, some of us non Christians are concerned about your leadership and teaching methods because we are affected by the aftermath of those issues when they blow up. I have friends, family and acquaintances who I hate to see hurt by these issues, that’s one of the reasons I follow this sort of stuff at least as a non Christian and I’m in no way alone in that.

    I hear you. And may I add that some of us who self-identify as christians but who are not part of the fundamentalist / evangelical / calvinist life style also get hurt because the public sometimes thinks that “all christians are like that” and there we stand with it smeared all over us when we did not do it. This attitude is also fed by the fact that some of the fundamentalist / evangelical / calvinist christians are adamant about saying that anybody who is not f/e/c is not really a christian.

    So some of use who are in the been there and done that category are denounced, as it were, by those from whom we dis-associated (f/e/c) and by those with whom we did not associate (orthodox / catholic) and by the general public when the f/e/c mess hits the fan. Fortunately there are a lot of us, so we do not have to face that alone. Unfortunately there are a lot of us so right many get unfairly accused in the process.

    In southern speech that reads out: fortunately “hit don’t make me no nevermind” because I know Whom I have believed and there it both starts and ends. (For the sake of any language lovers I would have put an apostrophe instead of the “h” on “hit” to indicate exhalation-best I can do on my computer- but I thought that was a bit much.)

    You all have a good day–I have “group” and shopping and miscellaneous errands.

  163. Mickey wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Mickey wrote:
    Obviously if accusations are made by non Christians they may need to be answered publicly but questions of leadership and teaching methods are church issues.
    They’re not “church issues” when celebrity pastors teach, preach, and sell books all over the globe pushing their wares!
    I agree the charge of plagiarism was a public issue because he was accused of it publicly and he did address it publicly but how he lead the church he co founded is for him and the other leaders to sort out.
    I assume they still stand by his teaching and teaching methods because his talks are still on the website and they’ve said he can comeback and teach there. The issues with it seem to be more from people who don’t go to that church.

    Not so. Quite a few of his teachings and sermon series have been removed from MH website — with no reason given. There are thousands of books authored by him, and Grace, that are out in the wide world. He co-founded a business, 501c corporation. He eventually rid himself of the co-founders and proceeded to build a “brand” for himself. He marketed himself and MH to the world and was continuing to do so up until he left for his six week break period.the brand was being spread all over the world via his marketing plans which included Act 26, TGC, Desiring God, Saddleback, etc. He was flying around the world spreading his brand.

    As far as coming back to teach at the church business MD founded, that only proves to me that the current leaders at MD’s church business shouldn’t be leaders and don’t yet realize that they are part of a cult. They did not choose to disqualify MD, as they should, and institute a procedure for the church and Mark Driscoll’s spiritual health and restoration. You see, Mark Driscoll isn’t the only one in need of help and restoration at Mars Hill. The leaders and many of the members have been infected with the damaging teachings of Mark Driscoll.

  164. Mr. Driscoll will not be going quietly into the night — this would be inconsistent with his character. My perception is he really doesn’t care what people think — which is why he has done so much to people, instead of for people. It is all about him. I doubt he will ever be truly repentant about anything he does, because there will always be an excuse for everything. There are people like this, and people are in denial, and for some it will take years to sort out all the damage Driscoll accomplished, and some may never recover. I hope I am proven wrong in all of this. For me, Driscoll is like Cain. I don’t wish him ill, but I will avoid him and people like him (ie Celebrity preachers and TGC) like the plague, and they are in my prayers. The writer who wrote Elmer Gantry got them right.

  165. Mickey wrote:

    Non Christians may see bits and pieces and ask questions but that doesn’t mean everything should be aired as a matter of course

    Christians inside Mars Hill DID address the problems with ND’s abusive teachings and leadership style. The only reason this is out for all the world to see is that those who dared disagree were driven out of the church, and often shunned.

    It’s taken long years before anything was aired. It’s the lack of appropriate reactions from the MH leadership that caused the current brouhaha.

  166. Gus wrote:

    It’s the lack of appropriate reactions from the MH leadership that caused the current brouhaha.

    Let me add: there are enough christians who see it as their duty to warn unsuspecting others because they don’t want them to be trapped in unhealthy/abusive situations.

    Therefore, in my opinion, if abusive behaviour is not addressed by the local church immediately, the only thing to do is make it public, to protect the innocent.

  167. @ Mickey:

    I just read this –

    From Mars Hill Leaders:

    “The investigation of formal charges against Mark Driscoll has revealed patterns of persistent sin in the three areas disclosed in the previous letter by the Board of Overseers. In I Tim 5:20, it requires that an elder be rebuked for persistent sin. Our intention was to do this while providing a plan for his eventual restoration to leadership. The Board of Elders in agreement with the Board of Overseers are grieved, deeply grieved, that any process like that was lost to us when Mark Driscoll resigned in position and left the church.”

    He was already disqualified as a leader in my mind because of his actions and teachings. He is now double disqualified as far as I’m concerned (although I don’t think it’s biblically possible). He shouldn’t be allowed fellowship in any church at this point, much less be any kind of leader of Christians. He removed himself from the process of restoration. I now wonder who pronounced him not disqualified. Was it the leaders at MH as be claimed, or did he just do it himself?

  168.  __

      The Creator has sent His Son to warn us all to flee the wrath to come. 

    huh?

    The means of ‘flight’ are the words of eternal life Jesus has offered to all. 

    What?

    Jesus encourages all of us to receive His words which have come from His Father in Heaven. 

    (bump)

    To receive His words, is to believe in Him, and what He has graciously done through His precious Son, Jesus:

    God has loved the kind folk in the world so much so that He sent His only Son, to deliver them from da bad stuff that is sure ta come. Believe in Him and what He has done, receive His words.

    IT IS DAT SIMPLE.

    Please have a listen today, and receive His gracious help.

    Take care,

    Sopy

  169. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    That’s the drawback of Messiah politics of any sort, secular or Christian.

    And for many young men, Driscoll was a Messiah-he swore, he threatened, he blamed his wife, he lived in a mansion and got lots of money, young men swooned at his sermons. Now, they are bereft of his presence and they are having withdrawal symptoms.

  170. Mickey –

    Bridget wrote:

    As far as coming back to teach at the church business MD founded, that only proves to me that the current leaders at MD’s church business wordsshouldn’t be leaders and don’t yet realize that they are part of a cult. They did not choose to disqualify MD, as they should, and institute a procedure for the church and Mark Driscoll’s spiritual health and restoration. You see, Mark Driscoll isn’t the only one in need of help and restoration at Mars Hill. The leaders and many of the members have been infected with the damaging teachings of Mark Driscoll.

    Now I’ve just seen this from MH leaders:

    “The elders of Mars Hill Church acknowledge as we’ve gone through all of this investigation, and heard all of these stories, we acknowledge that we have personally led in some of the same ways that demonstrate some of the same ways that Pastor Mark had. And those things require repentance and forgiveness and restoration. We realize that there are ways that we have led as elders in ways that have been domineering, sometimes arrogant and sometimes boastful and at least for my part, I want to say I deeply regret those sins and I ask for your forgiveness. We want to lead you into the future in a way that displays more grace, more love as we speak the truth to each of you. If there are people that I have offended in ways I have pastored this church, I would welcome that you come to me and speak with me to allow me the opportunity to reconcile with you.”

    The elders seem.t

  171. Mickey wrote:

    the one dug up by various media outlets recently that was dealt with over a decade ago, have been addressed

    No the problems weren’t dealt with years ago. He did what little boys do when their hands are caught in the cookie jar- “Sorry, mommy.” while hiding three cookies behind his back to eat when she isn’t around.

    The world now gets to see what the guy who likes to call women *penis homes* is all about. Frankly, you should be ashamed that this man was a pastor and that you supported him, refusing to look at the many people destroyed by the out of control, broken down bus.

    Get over it. He is gone and he left when his board said he was disqualified. Manly Mark couldn’t take getting chastised. Whadda guy!

    But, perhaps you could start a club for those disenfranchised Driscoll fans. He might even come and talk to you if you can come up with $50,000 grand or so. (Plus- he probably will want to fly first class.)

  172. Gram3 wrote:

    So what if he co-founded Mars Hill Churchcorp. The church was founded and belongs to Christ, not PastorMark, though it appears some confuse the two

    Well stated. Unfortunately, lots of young men wanted exactly what Driscoll had. Money, power, and a wife he could insult in public.

  173. Mickey wrote:

    My overall feeling is just that if I had a serious problem, I’d discuss it with people who knew something about it rather than just phoning the press.

    The victims did, over and over and over again. The victims came to us, hurting, wondering why no one would listen to them. This man was a disaster. It was time to throw open a window into a culture that appeared abusive to many. God likes light. It causes the cockroaches to run.

  174. @ Bridget:

    The elders seem to agree with me. Although the elders should be going to the people they know they have harmed with their actions, not asking people to come to them. I hope they are going to people and not just waiting to hear. I’m also not convinced that they should continue as elders at this time since they don’t seem to have an understanding of what scripture teaches regarding leading. They only seem to understand Mark Driscoll’s version of leading. What elder doesn’t study for themselves?

  175. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Something for you to consider, some of us non Christians are concerned about your leadership

    You should be concerned. From my perspective, we were told to be alight on the hill. Instead, Mark Driscoll built a fortress on a hill that was shrouded in darkness. You have a right to look at us and tell us what you think since

    God said our good works were supposed to shine before men. So, when they don’t, then we gotta take responsibility. Please, continue to tell us what you think-no matter how hard it is for us to hear it.

  176. @ Bridget:
    Thank you for brining this up. I have been tweeting about it this weekend. I plan to discuss it today. I also plan, at some point this week, to write a post in which I tell people to stop giving money to unaccountable or secretive churches.

  177. @ Bridget:

    Based on what the Board has stated about Mark Driscoll, how can they not also publicly disqualify him as an elder and warn people to stay away from his teachings and leading???

    It seems pretty clear to me, but maybe I’m missing something . . .

  178. @ dee:

    Ahh! I’m not a tweeter. I do look at them through your tweet link on the sidebar when you mention a tweeting bruhahah is going on 😉

  179.   __

    “Trick or Tre@t: Reese’s pieces?”

    hmmm…

      Th@t 501(c)3 proverbi@l religious ‘church’ [termin@tor] is ‘still’ out there. 

    huh?

      MD c@n’t be b@rg@ined with. MD c@n’t be re@soned with. MD @pp@rently doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or sh@me,

    And He @bsoulutely …will not stop, 

    —> ever…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvJyuaka3GM

    SKreeeeeeeeeetch !

    (bump)

    Be-w@re?

    🙁

  180. Since MD prides himself on being such a visionary, he could always start a ministry for sexed up macho male believers, who can’t get enough. They could sit in a circle and use vulgar language as therapy and rail against those unsubmissive, stupid women.

  181.  __

    “Today begins a new chapter in the history of our church which has proceeded in one direction under one leadership for many years now, but I want you to understand this, God is our Father. That does not change. Jesus is the chief shepherd of the church and that has not changed…” -Mars Hill Church leadership

    hmmm…

    That they should have to say such a thing, is to painfully realize that ‘501(c)3 pastoral idolatry’, is the order of the day.

    🙁

  182. Mickey,

    I realize that a lot of readers are asking you questions, and giving you a lot to consider. And I think I know why you’re taking so much flak — people here probably just can’t figure out why you don’t get it. Why you don’t see that making Driscoll’s abuses public was not only permitted, but necessary. Please allow me to give you a bit more to chew on.

    Dee and others have repeatedly told you that former members of Mars Hill went through all the channels mandated by scripture (supposedly) and by MHC’s own bylaws. They did everything “by the book”, and got stomped on and shunned. You keep insisting that they should have kept it within the local church, and not related their experience to outside parties. So — what should they have done? When all their avenues within the church were exhausted, what do you think they were supposed to do to get Driscoll to change, and to protect others from getting hurt?

    Also, consider these words from Jesus Himself:

    There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

    As far as I understand, He’s saying that it’s the nature of truth to become known. All of the heinous behaviour at Mars Hill that you think we should keep a lid on? It will one day be public knowledge anyway. Are you saying that that’s a bad thing? Then why would Jesus declare that it’s inevitable? And if you think these problems at Mars Hill shouldn’t be exposed through the media or through blogs like TWW, how should they be made known?

  183. @ Sam Laskey:
    Ha Ha Ha! Excellent satire of the sycophantic drones who lack the virtue, character, and manliness to stand up against wickedness…. That was satire, right?

  184. Muff Potter wrote:

    If there is any good to come out of this whole sordid saga, I hope that it comes in the form of more awareness, so that folks will not be such easy prey for abusive alpha males of any stripe.

    Let’s not buy into Mark’s self-branding. I’m not sure I accept the whole “alpha male” thing, but if I did, Mark wouldn’t be one. Telling everyone how tough and masculine you are is not the same as exhibiting the characteristics of a dominant male. And a person needn’t be an alpha nor a male to abuse others.

  185. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    All of the heinous behaviour at Mars Hill that you think we should keep a lid on?

    That is the problem with the latest iteration on “keeping it in the church.” We are supposed to entice people to come to our church and tell them how wonderful it is. Except the church is one in which the pastors believes in running people over with his bus, thus creating lots of people who are hurting.

    In Mickey’s world, he is telling them to shut up because that is the right thing to do. We are to keep creating lots of hurt people so that Mickey’s particular “pastor of choice” can continue.

    There are many men out there who banked their church on following a Mars Hill model. Driscoll’s downfall may result in some of them being unable to continue with their agenda.

    Recently I learned of a church which voted out a pastor who was trying to get them into an Acts 29 network. It seems that some church members are doing their reading and realizing that some things are not as presented. In Mickey’s world, they would only be told of the *nice* things and the nasty things are to be deep sized because that is what the Bible says.™

  186. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    They could sit in a circle and use vulgar language as therapy and rail against those unsubmissive, stupid women.

    And Driscoll will keep railing on his wife who is the reason™ that he became so angry. Driscoll is a problem, always has been, and way too many people in The Gospel™ Coaltion just wanted to jump on the bandwagon.

  187. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Let’s not buy into Mark’s self-branding. I’m not sure I accept the whole “alpha male” thing, but if I did, Mark wouldn’t be one.

    Whenever I see picture of MD, I don’t think ‘alpha male’. I think kewpie doll. Or Pillsbury Dough Boy.

  188. Hi All,

    Am I the only one who noticed the length of time this has been going on for MD/MH? If you go back 14 years from “age 43”, he is at age 29, right? How long before that did he “found” the church? How long before age 29 did he drop his difficulties with the NT? So the majority of the time, his behavioral problems were on display, right? And the leadership did nothing to rein him in? And he attracted followers all that time, right? That is a long time to be under a pastor/influence who is in sin, isn’t it?
    My apologies if this has already been addressed elsewhere. (Please point me in the right direction if so. Thanks!) 🙂

  189. Wasn’t Jesus’ rebuke of the the religious leaders out in the open? I’m not getting this philosophy of “thou shalt keep their sins hidden”, especially when those in place for accountability do nothing. Although, I’m sure someone can offer a cherry-picked proof text to make the case that hiding abuse is “Biblical”.

  190. Doug wrote:

    So the majority of the time, his behavioral problems were on display, right? And the leadership did nothing to rein him in? And he attracted followers all that time, right? That is a long time to be under a pastor/influence who is in sin, isn’t it?

    Can’t speak for the earliest years, but the first time he came onto my radar was about 2005, and it was obvious to me that he should not be in the pulpit. But he was enormously popular among young men, and I think that the ones who should have been wise were foolish and wanted to gain PastorMark’s audience to their enterprise.

    I have no idea why someone, particularly a woman, would sit under his “teaching” for so long. However, I’ve been duped before by others and made myself willfully blind because I wanted to believe. This is a huge leadership fail, from the elders at Mars Hill Churchcorp all the way to the top of the Gospel Glitterati who hold themselves out as the Ultimate Authorities. Trevin’s post and Keller’s remarks are very telling, IMO. They ignore the obvious question of why there was such a leadership failure of discernment and courage, although Trevin writes about it a bit

  191. “Jesus’ miracles were never intended merely to attack attention, draw a crowd, or manufacture a following. They were intended to reveal the heart of the Redeemer.”–Calvin Miller

  192. @ Anonymous:

    Just want to clarify something. I “recommended” that you check out RBMW only because you can compare what they say with what the Bible actually says. You can see the logical fallacies and misleading language for yourself. They have managed to persuade many that their view is the only “conservative” view, despite their shoddy exegesis and reasoning. But, you’ll have to see that for yourself, and I hope that you will.

    One example is Grudem’s obsession with kephale. He insists that it means “authority over” and he supports that with extra-biblical sources and then imposes that meaning on the text. If you look at 1 Corinthians 11, Paul tells us the point of his argument at the end of it. He says that woman came from man, man comes from woman but all come from God. Paul is using kephale as “origin” or “where something comes from” as is clear from his summation.

    Nevertheless, Grudem ignores this contextual interpretation of kephale which is the proper conservative way to interpret. He finds a use of kephale as “authority over” in extra-biblical sources many centuries after Paul wrote and and says that is what Paul meant. Ridiculous though it is, many just take Grudem as the Pope.

    Grudem inserts words into 1 Corinthians 11 in the ESV to support his view of male authority over women. When Paul wrote that a woman ought to have authority over her own literal head on her shoulders–check this out for yourself in the Greek interlinear–Grudem inserts “sign of” before “authority” (her husband’s authority) on her head. This is just frankly dishonest. It indicates that his concern is primarily to push his agenda of gender hierarchy rather than protect the authority of the actual words of the text. This is one of many reasons I don’t trust him.

  193. Gram3 wrote:

    I have no idea why someone, particularly a woman, would sit under his “teaching” for so long.

    I have one idea, which may or may not be worth something. Life is confusing and difficult and most of us have areas in which we simply have no idea what to do. Some of us apparently have pervasive and huge areas in which we do not know what to do. So along comes somebody–anybody–who is able to convince people that he knows what to do and will share that information with anybody who will follow his lead, and ta-dum there is leader and follow-the-leader. It does not much matter if the leader’s ideas are good or not, anything is better than either chaos or a vacuum. Being leader-less is worse for folks, apparently, that having a bad leader. And if the leader has both good and bad qualities there is the power of intermittent reinforcement so folks tolerate the bad because of the memory of and the expectation of the good–all from the same leader.

    I have no idea how to deal with that sort of thing in people, but I think I see it a lot.

  194. @ Gram3:

    Just to bring my previous comment back OT, Grudem’s son, Elliott, was on staff at Mars Hill Churchcorp and Acts29. Grudem is the theologian who taught Driscoll his theology of asserting authority over others. And now we have see the outworking of that theology.

  195. @ Gram3:
    So do you think his appeal to young men was the drawing card to those who should have been shepherding MD (older/wiser men), maybe because he figured out (not making a value judgement) how to reach a demographic that the older men couldn’t reach?

  196. Doug wrote:

    So do you think his appeal to young men was the drawing card to those who should have been shepherding MD (older/wiser men), maybe because he figured out (not making a value judgement) how to reach a demographic that the older men couldn’t reach?

    Definitely a possibility.

    When the name of the game is to put those Tithing Units in the pews and keep them there and Tithing, it’s not much stretch from there to all those pro wrestling angles cataloged over at Wrestlecrap to “put butts in seats”. And for that demographic, the angle is JUICY quasi-porn. Or (given the location) Hipster Irony. Or both.

  197. Gram3 wrote:

    One example is Grudem’s obsession with kephale.

    If I were to ask the other cubicle denizens where I work about “the meaning of kephale, I’d get blank looks. I’d have more chance of a response if I asked on some detailed fan controversy about Batman or My Little Pony.

    Once you step outside the four Thomas Kincade-hung walls of your church’s bubble, NOBODY KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT ALL THESE WORLD-SHAKING IMPORTANT THINGS OF YOURS!

  198. roebuck wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
    Let’s not buy into Mark’s self-branding. I’m not sure I accept the whole “alpha male” thing, but if I did, Mark wouldn’t be one.

    Whenever I see picture of MD, I don’t think ‘alpha male’. I think kewpie doll. Or Pillsbury Dough Boy.

    You are NOT the only one.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jWe9T2Ml4s

    Though in my experience with drooling fanboys (gamer, otaku, furry, etc), it’s always the soft spheroids who claim “I’m so tough I’m a Ninja I can kill you all with my little finger!”

  199. dee wrote:

    Recently I learned of a church which voted out a pastor who was trying to get them into an Acts 29 network. It seems that some church members are doing their reading and realizing that some things are not as presented. In Mickey’s world, they would only be told of the *nice* things and the nasty things are to be deep sized because that is what the Bible says.™

    This is really good news Dee. I would venture to say that TWW may have had a part in getting those folks to think and decide for themselves what the ‘Bible says’ rather than blindly signing on to what one man or one organization says it says.

  200. dee wrote:

    In Mickey’s world, he is telling them to shut up because that is the right thing to do. We are to keep creating lots of hurt people so that Mickey’s particular “pastor of choice” can continue.

    “Pastor of choice” or “Personal LOORD and Savior”?

    Either way, Mickey’s just trying to put the mickey on us.
    Or he’s gone Mickey Mouse on us.
    Either way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImfNHsdoymI

  201. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Thanks for the insight. That explains a lot. It seems as if it all boils down to the money. How long before the modern church realizes that we have been made merchandise of?

  202. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    @ Sam Laskey:
    Ha Ha Ha! Excellent satire of the sycophantic drones who lack the virtue, character, and manliness to stand up against wickedness…. That was satire, right?

    With these guys, You Never Know.

  203. Sometimes this blog discusses how some churches teach that women should not be preachers, should not be in positions of leadership, or should be under authority of their spouses, etc.

    Maybe if women were permitted more of a say-so in churches, things like child sexual abuse would not be covered up, or not as often? I thought of those sorts of things when I saw this:

    Are Women Better Decision Makers?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/are-women-better-decision-makers.html?_r=0

    By Therse Huston OCT. 17, 2014

    Snippet:

    Credit Suisse examined almost 2,400 global corporations from 2005 to 2011 — including the years directly preceding and following the financial crisis — and found that large-cap companies with at least one woman on their boards outperformed comparable companies with all-male boards by 26 percent.

    If more women were key decision makers, perhaps organizations could respond effectively to small stresses, rather than letting them escalate into huge ones.

    I think that could maybe apply to churches, too.

  204. If we are to believe some of what is being reported from behind the Mars Hill curtain in regards to this resignation , it appears MD couldn’t follow his own teaching about authority and hierarchy. Funny how that works. Women are to joyfully submit to their Godly ordained leaders, because that’s the “order of things” but the manly man couldn’t be a man and accept his own ideology when it didn’t go well for him with the powers that be. To borrow from the words of William Wallace II (Mark Driscoll) that sounds very —insert female part here

  205. Doug wrote:

    Hi All,

    Am I the only one who noticed the length of time this has been going on for MD/MH? If you go back 14 years from “age 43″, he is at age 29, right? How long before that did he “found” the church? How long before age 29 did he drop his difficulties with the NT? So the majority of the time, his behavioral problems were on display, right? And the leadership did nothing to rein him in? And he attracted followers all that time, right? That is a long time to be under a pastor/influence who is in sin, isn’t it?
    My apologies if this has already been addressed elsewhere. (Please point me in the right direction if so. Thanks!)

    Hi Doug,

    I read that since becoming a “believer”, which was coupled with an immediate full-time “calling” into the ministry, Driscoll was never a member of any church prior to Mars Hill, although he was raised Roman Catholic.

    This same pattern is seen in the life of CJ Mahaney. Raised Roman Catholic, after his “conversion” he immediately assumed a “full-time” calling into the “ministry” without prior membership with any church.

    Both men have never been accountable to anyone throughout their “Christian” lives, but both men sure did make a big deal about insisting that others submit to their “spiritual authority”.

    Both men were conditioned growing up by a top-down hierarchical structure of “church”.

    Both men, upon their “conversions”, recognized the opportunity to set themselves up as bosses over a group of people who were willing to look to them for leadership.

    Both men assume spiritual authority that they attached to their leadership.

    Neither Driscoll nor Mahaney was seasoned, experienced, or mature enough to assume positions of leadership within the church. They insisted that others meet specific requirements, but they were never required to met any such criteria themselves. Both men presumed they were qualified to lead, and made others believe they were as they went along, assuming greater and greater authority which was never approved of by God.

    Both men build up around themselves businesses which they referred to as “churches” but thought the exclusive rights to that organization belonged to them, and they had the “authority” to manipulate the message and develop the “brand” according to the dictates of their own wills.

    Both men were selfishly ambitious, competitive opportunists, and willing to remove challengers who threatened to take away their “personal property” and assumed kingdoms that they took credit for, even so far as assuming credit for the faith people exercised toward God. In their minds, Mahaney and Driscoll owned the members of MH and SGM and had no qualms about fleecing the sheep and using the proceeds for their own benefit and to further their own agendas.

    Lastly, both men have been removed from exercising the tyrannical and unbiblical authority they assumed in the name of God. No one, aside from the Lord, has any authority, within the Kingdom of God, to assume spiritual lordship or authority over another believer. Yet, if someone’s model growing up is that of a Pope ruling over a church, then is it any wonder they presumed they could be little popes, too?

  206. Doug wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    So do you think his appeal to young men was the drawing card to those who should have been shepherding MD (older/wiser men), maybe because he figured out (not making a value judgement) how to reach a demographic that the older men couldn’t reach?

    From a marketing perspective, Driscoll appealed to a certain psychographic segment that the older men were not reaching. He opened up that market for their products and their market to his products. It is part of the huge cross-selling (pun intended) that goes on among the Gospel Glitterati.

    Grudem’s power theology appeals to people like Driscoll who are about power but lack a theological justification for their power lust, since it pretty much goes against Christ’s example and his teaching. Proof-texting is very handy in situations like that.

    A theology of power is what unites the men of the Gospel Glitterati, or at least that is my hypothesis to explain what otherwise does not make sense to me.

  207. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    NOBODY KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT ALL THESE WORLD-SHAKING IMPORTANT THINGS OF YOURS!

    But Grudem’s entire career is built on the meaning of kephale and its implications! It is his worldview, and unfortunately, he has been able to infiltrate many, maybe most, conservative circles with his power theology. He is one of the founders of CBMW and that is his legacy which he and his buddies fiercely guard.

  208. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    the manly man couldn’t be a man and accept his own ideology when it didn’t go well for him with the powers that be

    Got that right. We’ve had a peek behind the curtain. He was running a con and all of the Martians were Mark’s marks.

  209. @ Paula Rice:

    That is an excellent summation of these two, and by extension, to all those who share the view that the church is about power. Thank you for putting this together so clearly.

  210. Heh, maybe he can get a gig with Oprah.

    (Although, frankly, the difference between Driscoll and Rob Bell is as stark as night and day. Bell – while not all agree with him in terms of theology – at least shows generally better fruit.)

  211. In my quote above, I should have used the word “attract,” not “attack.” Oh, my! what a mistake!

  212. @ Beakerj:
    Beakerj, ach, I’m so sorry that you’re stuck in no-comfort land.

    If there’s anything I can do, please let me know.

    A sweet little home and personal tour of Detroit is available, if you need a break. I’ve found solace roaming around here during my times of ruination—it rang and echoed in oddly clarifying ways.

  213. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The most Manly Man men (who will lecture you at length how they are so Much More Manly than you) are often the biggest physical cowards when it’s their turn in the barrel.

    My Father said all that he-man John Wayne crapola goes out the window when you’re in the $hit for real. He knows first hand. His squadron of B-17s were among the first to tangle with the ME-262s over Germany in the summer of 1944.

  214. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    A celebrity pastor and his empire sure is a far cry from the pure and undefiled religion described in James as caring for orphans and widows. That would be too lowly.

    Indeed.

  215. Gram3 wrote:

    Grudem … finds a use of kephale as “authority over” in extra-biblical sources many centuries after Paul wrote and and says that is what Paul meant.

    You need to read Grudem on this issue, you couldn’t have got this more wrong. Grudem examined the use of kephale over 2300 times in a wide spread of Greek literature and genres over and extensive period to examine its meaning.

    Mostly it means literal head, the neck up.

    Figuratively when used of relationships between people it means head in the authority sense, head of department in modern English. Not used this way very often, but this is the clear meaning in this context.

    When used of a river and in the plural it can mean source, singular it can mean mouth, as in mouth of a river. There are two instances of this use in all the Greek literature examined.

    There is zero extant use of the term meaning ‘source’ when used of people, as it in in the NT. The lexicons also do not bear this out either. Because the Greek can mean both head and source in different contexts does not mean you can take it to mean both in English. Synonyms are not automatically tansferable from target to source language.

    It is quite amazing how the claim you can translate kephale as source instead of head with reference to people in the NT passages (you know which ones!) has spread despite the absence of attestation of this usage. It is frequently asserted without evidence.

    This is primarily a linguistic question. Exactly what being ‘head’ means is one of interpretation, but the basic meaning is clear.

    It may be that in future someone does find a use of kephale meaning ‘source’ when used of people, but until that happens the established meaning should be used and not treated as a mistranslation occasioned by someone wanting to insert a pet doctrine into the bible. If anything it strikes me egalitarians are changing the translation to suit their presuppositions.

    I’m not surprised someone on another of these unending threads advised me not to read Grudem, but I’m glad I did.

  216. Ken wrote:

    This is primarily a linguistic question.

    Part 1

    I wanted to talk about this a little with you, but I could not find a perfect quote from you comment to start with, so bear with me here.

    What you are saying is correct and what you are saying that other people are saying is, it seems to me, correct. But here is the problem.

    The approach to scripture of “the bible says and what that means is so what you must do is”–always said as if each next assertion must follow the last assertion and if you do not agree with any level of the statement then your are wrong, sinful, not a real christian, rebellious and dangerous to the flock–that approach leads to certain problems. The idea that if you disagree with assertion 3 (what you must do is) then you have ceased to believe in scripture and have denied the faith–that is a huge problem.

    If you see that scripture does not condemn slavery, but you believe slavery to be wrong, then where does that leave you? If you see that Paul justified some of his opinions related to genders to his apparent belief in a literal Adam and Eve, but you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, where does that leave you? If you come to be convinced that there are inconsistencies in scripture but you find the attempts to explain away the inconsistencies unconvincing, where does that leave you? If you look at male and female within the current culture we live in (for example where lack of upper body strength is not necessarily a handicap but lack of adequate mental ability is–and note the relative importance and the gender distributions of these two variables) and then see that Paul thinks that husbands are the authority over wives with no qualifying adjectives or limiting applications–and that makes no sense for lots of reasons, where does that leave you?

  217. @ Nancy:

    Part 2

    Here are some places where it might leave you.

    You can change your mind about scripture and come to believe something different about scripture itself–as in what does inspiration mean, and as in whether some statements that seem to be culture dependent may not apply to today–that sort of thing.

    Or you can change you idea of what constitutes ultimate religious authority, scripture or magisterium or individual and personal revelation, or some combination of these.

    Or you can come to believe that christians must re-create as much as possible the first century culture and try to actually live like that in as many ways as possible, because things were not culture bound at all.

    You can strive to convince yourself that your are wrong about all of it and proceed as if faith is defined as believing something you now good and well is not true. This is a commonly recommended approach, I think.

    Or you can give up on the whole thing and forget about all of it, since you cannot find a workable and reasonable way to deal with it all.

    Or, and here is my point, you can play with the words and conclude that scripture really does not say what it says, not at least if understood in certain ways. (For example the popularity of the kephale wars.) This approach, to the extent that it works, avoids all the other possible and painful ways of dealing with these issues, and by far can seem to be the best approach. Is it accurate? Nope. Do we see it done in a lot of very current and very notorious issues and even may I say political issues? Oh yeah. Is it a lasting solution when it is done? It is not. The harder choices cannot be avoided, in my opinion.

  218. Ken wrote:

    You need to read Grudem on this issue, you couldn’t have got this more wrong. Grudem examined the use of kephale over 2300 times in a wide spread of Greek literature and genres over and extensive period to examine its meaning.

    Mostly it means literal head, the neck up.

    I have read Grudem. I have read just about every academic paper, including the ones from ETS, that are available without a subscription.

    Have you read the responses to Grudem’s study? I think it is wise for us to read both sides of an issue before we rely on one person’s word, especially when that person’s entire career has been built on female subordination.

    The fact is that Paul tells us that his whole argument is about “who comes from whom” at the end of his argument in 1 Corinthians 11. He bookends his argument with a similar structure. Thee incarnate Christ comes from the Triune God, man comes from the Eternal Word/Christ (see John 1), and woman comes from man. At the end of his argument, Paul says that woman came from man, man now comes from woman, but that all come from God. That is “source” language, not “authority” language. Paul is describing relationships, but that does not mean that the relationships are ones of authority. That is Grudem’s eisegesis.

    Grudem takes one aspect of a relationship and makes that one aspect the whole of the relationship. A progenitor of a tribe is the “head” of the tribe. He, if he is alive, may be the “authority” of the tribe as well. One aspect of being “head” does not rule out other aspects of being “head.”

    Context determines meaning, and Paul is very clear about what he is talking about. He’s talking about the literal head on one’s shoulders, and he is also using kephale metaphorically. He explains his metaphor, yet Grudem insists on disregarding Paul’s own explanation.

    Given Grudem’s dishonest “translation” of 1 Corinthians 11 by inserting “symbol of” into God’s own words, I don’t think his opinion, especially when it violates one of the cardinal rules of exegesis, should be given any weight.

    Grudem has an agenda and a reputation and fortune riding on this. He is hardly an honest broker.

  219. Ken wrote:

    It may be that in future someone does find a use of kephale meaning ‘source’ when used of people, but until that happens the established meaning should be used and not treated as a mistranslation occasioned by someone wanting to insert a pet doctrine into the bible. If anything it strikes me egalitarians are changing the translation to suit their presuppositions.

    I’m not the one with the pet doctrine. I didn’t make my fortune subjugating other people like Grudem has done.

    I have not inserted words into the text to prop up my pet doctrines. Grudem has done that. I have not imported my presuppositions into the text. I have stated what the text actually says in Genesis 1:26-28 and asked anyone to show me where God revoked or modified the equality that is explicit in that text.

    I’m still waiting.

  220. Gram3 wrote:

    Paul is…talking about the literal head on one’s shoulders, and he is also using kephale metaphorically. He explains his metaphor, yet Grudem insists on disregarding Paul’s own explanation….violates one of the cardinal rules of exegesis.

    Grudem has an agenda and a reputation and fortune riding on this. He is hardly an honest broker.

    Amen + 100

  221. @ Ken:

    For historical context, you may also want to study the understanding that people in the first century had about the head. It was not regarded as the command and control center of the body as we do today with our knowledge of the nervous system. It was regarded, for obvious reasons, as the part of the body that provided food, water, and air to the body.

    Are you English Ken working in Germany? There is no flag by your name, so thought I’d ask.

  222. Gram3 wrote:

    Are you English Ken working in Germany? There is no flag by your name, so thought I’d ask.

    Morning Gram! Yes it is me from Germany.

    My sole point in the kephale argument is to show the meaning of head cannot legitimately be changed to source. I know source can make sense in some passages, but linguistically this cannot at present be supported where kephale is used metaphorically. Whatever Grudem’s personal stake in this, I not seen anyone refute his actual argument on linguistic grounds.

    Once we have got that far, I do think there is room for discussion of just what we should understand by ‘head’ in an authority sense. What exactly did it mean then, and what does it mean today? I wonder if the word ‘authority’ is part of the problem, which is why I like to use the word responsibility. There are some responsibilities placed on men that are not placed on women.

    I did mean to end the last post on this by saying I commend you for wanting to look at both sides of the argument, and pointing anonymous in the direction of CBMW to read first hand what they actually think.

    On a personal note, I’ve pontificated on this subject here (mostly enjoyable) more in the last 6 months that the last 20 years! I’ve been by and large an unwilling ‘none’ for about a decade here. The Lutheran church – female pastors who preach a domesticated, rather harmless God, tried a good church a few miles away again recently – lady preacher was pretty good until, on the second week Dallas Willard and his pseudo-christian mysticism was being touted (at which point she stopped referring to the bible – very telling). Then there’s the local free evangelical we used to go to. Now advertising for new pastor, male or female. They are Willow Creek dominated, again with all the pseudo-christian stuff that comes with it. Very nice group of people, though, if you can get ‘in’.

    So I continue to be uneasy at ‘neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some’, but much as I believe in women ministering in the body until and unless someone can show me that female eldership is not ‘out of order’, this is likely to continue. I don’t think my conscience would let me stay long-term in such a church. Years ago I wouldn’t even have considered it a possibility, but more recently I’ve been more willing to give it a go, but I can’t get away from thinking this is a rejection of the authority of the apostles and the scripture they gave us.

    I’m quite happy to continue the conversation from time to time, but get a bit paranoid that it keeps cropping up in different threads where it is not the main theme. 🙂

    Finally not been spamed this time either!

  223. I have heard the arguments, and I don’t get it. It seems to me that with either understanding of “kephale” we still end up with Paul saying that in a marriage the male is in a particular position of authority. Now, I don’t personally mind saying that people have taken that and used it to oppress women and children, and I don’t mind saying that the circumstances of Paul’s day and the circumstances of our day are tremendously different and no telling how Paul would have worded his comments today. And I don’t mind saying that Grudem has indeed gone off the deep end on this subject, to the point that I think there surely must be something wrong with him in this area. But Paul clearly believed in some sort of authority meaning in what he was saying and he clearly based his reasoning about genders on what he believed to be the historical order of creation–first Adam and then Eve from Adam. I personally do not believe that is literally how creation happened, based on my own educational background of course, so Paul’s arguments do not jerk me around much if that is his argumentative basis.

    I do not have any problem with people taking Paul’s writings and debating what in the world to do with some ideas, but whether kephale means “authority” in its own right or whether it means “source” as an explanation for authority, I still come away with an idea of an authority structure in his writings about marriage. Maybe Paul was wrong. Certainly there were opponents of Paul during his lifetime and the gospels of and apocalypses of Peter were anti-pauline early on, and maybe elevating the writings of Paul to a semi-divine status is really and really wrong (I think it is), none the less he still had certain ideas about marriage which mostly do not do well in our culture. Maybe the church has the authority to mitigate that–I think it does and that God did not die when Paul died–but either way and all ways Paul had his ideas. Regardless of the translation of kephale.

  224. Ken wrote:

    Whatever Grudem’s personal stake in this, I not seen anyone refute his actual argument on linguistic grounds.

    Ken, You may find some of these posts interesting. There are a lot of them and she has done her homework…especially concerning Grudem’s claims.

    http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/search?q=kephale

    A few things to consider: If you believe scripture was inspired, then one must ask themselves why the Holy Spirit did not use very clear language concerning “authority” in the Kephale passages. There are several in Greek that would have made it quite clear. If you scroll down on the link, she goes into Grudem’s claims and refutes them. Kephale is not as simple as some think…and we all know that language and thinking was very different in the 1st Century than today.

    Another consideration is how the 1st Century hearer would have understood Kephale. I believe throwing out the word “source” is too simplistic. In the 1st Century people thought thinking/decisions, etc came from the heart. (makes the “heart” passages make more sense) and that the “head” provided for the body as in eating, breathing, smelling, etc. So the “head” was prominant and important. And a “source” of provision. It was not until about 100 years after Paul that the Physcian Galen started to discover more about how the “head”functioned in controlling limbs, etc.

    My position is that the most quoted Kephale passages simply state the situation as it was. In a world of paterfamilias the man simply was the provider and “source” for most women.

    Unless a woman in that world had been given indepedence and wealth she was totally dependent on men for provision. She could not run down to the Corinth women’s shelter for protection or better herself at the Ephesus community college. She had few choices in life. There were exceptions and they are interesting to note.

  225. Ken wrote:

    You need to read Grudem on this issue, you couldn’t have got this more wrong. Grudem examined the use of kephale over 2300 times in a wide spread of Greek literature and genres over and extensive period to examine its meaning.

    Here are just a few examples example of Grudem’s research. If there is one thing I have learned about these guys is you have to check everything but most of us are not well read enough in Greek to do so. They are not above editing and twisting. I have seen it far too often even down to the despicable editing of Anthanasius by Bruce Ware. And Grudem and Pipers use of Epiphanuis to try and prove Junia was a male. Using the same resource where he claimed Priscia was a man, too! Even Douglass Moo refuted Epiphanuis as unreliable. But Grudem/Piper put him out there as reliable leaving out his other glaring problems.

    I would never trust their conclusions. They are not scholars. They have an agenda.

    Here is something to consider:

    http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/04/andreas-kostenberger-did-you-really.html

    “Now let’s scan back to the CBMW blog and see what Grudem, the king of kephale researchers wrote (no date) here,

    I once looked up over 2,300 examples of the word “head” (kephal¯e) in ancient Greek. In these texts the word kephal¯e is applied to many people in authority, but to none without governing authority:

    ◦the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation
    I am only supplying Grudem’s premiere example, not the lesser ones. You would think that this example at least would show a person in authority over the persons over whom he was the kephale.

    Here is the quote about the king of Egypt,

    the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings. Moses 2:30
    Here Philadelphus was the most illustrious of his family who were “eminent and conspicuous.” Philadelphus had no governing authority over his father. The statement made by Grudem is false, and the statement made by Kostenberger is doubly false. Remember that this example was chosen by Grudem as the citation to place first in line. It is clear that Philadelphus was never called “head” of the nation. It is hard to believe that Grudem made that up but he did.

    Now let’s see how else Philo uses the word kephale.

    If, then, any one proves himself a man of such a character in the city he will appear superior to the whole city, and if a city show itself of such a character it will be the chief of all the country around; and if a nation do so it will be the lord of all the other nations, as the head is to the body occupying the pre-eminence of situation, not more for the sake of glory than for that of advancing the interests of those that see.

    For continual appearances of good models stamp impressions closely resembling themselves on all souls which are not utterly obdurate and intractable; (115) and I say this with reference to those who wish to imitate models of excellent and admirable beauty, On Rewards and Punishment 114
    Oh, here it actually says “pre-eminent.” I guess this is the passage from which people got the bizarre idea that kephale meant pre-eminent. How did Kostenberger miss this? And what about governing authority? It may appear that is in included, but actually, the man talked about here is the virtuous or wise man,

    For virtue and goodness are judged of not by quantity but by quality, for which reason I look upon it that even one day spent with perfect correctness is of equal value with the entire good life of a wise man.
    The wise man is the kephale. And so what does that mean exactly? The passage explains, the wise man is a “model of excellence and admirable beauty.” Philadelphus is an example of this kind of man. He is the kephale, the leader of the herd. The herd is the family of kings that precede him and follow him over whom he had no authority.

    What does all this have to do with kephale in the Bible? Is God the model for Christ and the husband the model for the wife? I don’t see the connection myself. Unlike Grudem and Kostenberger, I see no way to derive an interpretation of the kephale passages of the scriptures from these citations.

    However, I wish Grudem and Kostenberger would face up to the facts. The premiere example of kephale meaning governing authority speaks only of the wise and virtuous man who is a model of excellence. What a lesson has been missed. They seek power and are blind to virtue.

  226. Lydia wrote:

    Ken, You may find some of these posts interesting. There are a lot of them and she has done her homework…especially concerning Grudem’s claims.

    I quickly re-read Grudem on this issue, AND the link you have just posted. Great minds ..! I’ll have another look at it when time permits.

  227. Ken wrote:

    My sole point in the kephale argument is to show the meaning of head cannot legitimately be changed to source. I know source can make sense in some passages, but linguistically this cannot at present be supported where kephale is used metaphorically. Whatever Grudem’s personal stake in this, I not seen anyone refute his actual argument on linguistic grounds.

    Not sure what you are saying. No one is trying the “change” the meaning of kephale. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul clearly uses it both literally and metaphorically. The question is how is he using kephale in the metaphor?

    Are you saying that metaphors are not linguistically legitimate. Or are you saying that Grudem’s assertion is the only legitimate metaphorical meaning which cannot be changed?

    If a word has a semantic range, I would think it linguistically unwise to rule out a particular meaning if the context supports that meaning. I would also think it is linguistically unwise to take one possible meaning out of the semantic range and declare that meaning *must* be the meaning in every instance. That is what Grudem does. In his world kephale can mean the literal head or “authority over.” This, it seems to me is intellectual dishonesty or intellectual incompetence.

    I strongly encourage you to research this issue beyond Grudem’s agenda-driven “scholarship.” Cervin was the first to respond to him. As Lydia said above, Ware and Grudem, in particular, are not above twisting words when it suits them.

    Do you think a man who inserts his own words into the text in order to support his agenda and which words change the meaning of the text to its exact opposite is a man who can be trusted to exegete that text?

    I don’t think it is *ever* acceptable to insert one’s own words into the words of the Holy Spirit.

  228. Ken wrote:

    I’m quite happy to continue the conversation from time to time, but get a bit paranoid that it keeps cropping up in different threads where it is not the main theme

    Please just stop for a moment and think about this. Reading about this topic in various threads makes you feel paranoid.

    How do you think a woman feels in a church that teaches that women are more easily deceived. That an adult female is required by God to be under the authority of a male. That females are always looking for a way to undermine their husband’s authority. That women are not made in the direct image of God but rather in the derivative image of God. That man is the glory of God but woman is the [lesser] glory of man. Basically that women are incompetent and deficient human beings. Then, they insult a woman’s intelligence by saying that they are not saying that women are unequal in “dignity, value, and worth” but only distinct in “function.” That is ridiculous logic.

    Do you think that might make a woman a little paranoid and untrusting of men who believe and teach that?

    Do you think any intelligent person should trust a “Bible scholar” who adds to God’s word so that he can feel more powerful and important?

    The reason this comes up in various threads is because the men teaching this doctrine are abusers both of Scripture and of people. It is a rotten tree growing from a rotten root that produces various kinds of rotten fruit.

    Can you answer my question about where God revoked the equality that is explicit in the text of Genesis 1:26-28?

    Let me add another question: If it is OK for Grudem to add to the words of the Holy Spirit to support his “pet doctine” is it OK for anyone else to add to the words of the Holy Spirit to support his or her pet doctrine?

  229. @ Nancy:

    Sorry, Nancy, you have written some longish posts and I appear to be ignoring you!

    I think the bible in general and the NT in particular do have a certain timeless quality about them. Human nature doesn’t change, and in dealing with how man relates to God nothing changes, despite the passage of time.

    The culture the bible was written in does require thought. Who said being a Christian was easy! My underlying presupposition is that scripture is clear enough when being read in all generations to get the essential message of what God’s will is. Exactly how you live that out is less easy and requires wisdom. I don’t think any of the NT is culture bound, and am not keen on claims that you can only understand it if you have a detailed knowledge of the culture of the time garnered from extra-biblical sources. That doesn’t mean (and I think Gram has misunderstood me on this somewhat) that reading round for knowledge of this sort is not worthwhile or should not be taken into account. But it is sometimes used to make the word of God of none effect.

    It’s not rocket science, for example, to apply the principles Paul uses in addressing slave and master in Eph to the employee/employer relationship today. A Christian businessman should treat his employees fairly including just wages, and they in turn should do a decent day’s work and not pilfer.

    We do (in the UK at least) live in the paradoxical situation of a society that still has a residual Christian face due to centuries of the gospel being preached, and yet this society has over the last century increasingly rejected this light and embraced a secularism or an irrational paganism, and a culture where nobody ever wants to submit to anyone about anything. So communicating what Paul meant for wives and husbands and the structure of the church gets harder and more prone to misunderstanding as society finds it more archaic. God’s will never changes so such a society is in no position to try to negotiate exemptions from biblical teaching because it doesn’t gel with modern ways of thinking.

    There is a delicate balance between unnecessarily putting people off on secondary matters and leaving bits out in the vain hope of getting someone in the Kingdom first and sorting the rest out later.

  230. Lydia wrote:

    However, I wish Grudem and Kostenberger would face up to the facts. The premiere example of kephale meaning governing authority speaks only of the wise and virtuous man who is a model of excellence. What a lesson has been missed. They seek power and are blind to virtue.

    Excellent point. They are preaching a power religion, not the faith taught and modeled by Christ. Grudem and Kostenberger and the entire CBMW cult have tied their identity to the subjection of others. That is precisely the opposite of what Christ taught and did. He did not exalt himself the way these men exalt their importance and their authority. It is very sad.

  231. Ken wrote:

    I don’t think any of the NT is culture bound, and am not keen on claims that you can only understand it if you have a detailed knowledge of the culture of the time garnered from extra-biblical sources. That doesn’t mean (and I think Gram has misunderstood me on this somewhat) that reading round for knowledge of this sort is not worthwhile or should not be taken into account. But it is sometimes used to make the word of God of none effect.

    I don’t understand what your objection is. If you are saying we should not read our own culture into a first century text, then I agree. But it is impossible to understand the *meaning* of a particular text without taking due account of the *meaning* that text would have had to the audience and the writer/speaker as well as their pre-understandings which flow from that historical culture.

    That is just standard grammatical-historical practice as it is accepted by all conservative evangelicals. I’m the one trying to argue for a consistent application of these principles, as well as the standard hermeneutic for the epistolary genre. The problem is that being consistent does not yield their desired result, so they change or ignore the rules. That is not honest.

    I reject your at least implicit assertion that I am reading current cultural egalitarianism into the text. I could just as easily assert that you are reading cultural patriarchal thinking into the text. Neither of those makes any difference. What matters to me is what does the text actually say, what did it mean when it was written, and how does that meaning apply today.

    Conservative exegetical methods are not the same as methods which preserve traditional readings and interpretations. We should be willing to follow the text where sound exegetical methods take us, and that methodology for conservative evangelicals has been the grammatical-historical approach.

    It is the “complementarians” who have changed the exegetical rules because they can no longer deny that women are equal, but they still want to maintain their position of privilege within the hierarchy. And that is how we get the ridiculous result that 2:12 means what it plainly says but 2:15 does not mean what it plainly says. That makes no sense and it does not honor the text as the words of God the Holy Spirit.

  232. roebuck wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    You are NOT the only one.
    Where do you come up with this stuff, HUG!

    Natural-talent speedreader since age 5. Massive mental database with NO search engine, just a random link cascade. And I used to watch a LOT of MST3K.

  233. Gram3 wrote:

    We’ve had a peek behind the curtain. He was running a con and all of the Martians were Mark’s marks.

    And the trick in running a con is to get the marks emotionally involved in it. For a long enough period of time where they have invested lots of money and time and emotional energy in the con. Literally put a major part of their being into the con. They will then defend the con and con man with all their being rather than have to admit they were taken to the cleaners.

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    It is the “complementarians” who have changed the exegetical rules because they can no longer deny that women are equal

    I think part of the problem here is our differing backgrounds. You only ever seem to have experienced “comp-ism” as being abusive and/or demeaning to women. I haven’t – which doesn’t mean it cannot be misused for this, but the view itself is not intrinsically abusive or demeaning. Demeaning women is heresy.

    You asked me about equality and Gen 1 which M and F being made in God’s image. I’m not sure this text has much bearing on the issue, and I’m not altogether sure what you mean by ‘equal’.

    I don’t have the problem of equality of status or treatment being at odds with differentiation of role that egalitarians do. The Queen, middle-class business man, hairdresser, school teacher and charlady are all made in the image of God, one is not superior to the other. They are all equal under the law, and need to be justified by the same faith. I doubt if we disagree on that! Yet there is differentiation of role and indeed rank in a hierarchy that is something separate from this. Whether hierarchy should exist at all is a different question, but both M and F being in the image of God does not preclude God from assigning differing roles or responsibilities between then, and between men in general. Without this secular govt and pastoral leadership within the church would be impossible.

    You cannot really have a ‘hierarchy’ in a marriage amongst two. At least the husband being ‘head’ in my view of this meaning having a greater responsibilty for provision in the family makes sense. Absolute mutual submission does not for obvious reasons.

    Has it never given you pause for thought that the egalitarian view of scripture has largely arisen at the same time as women’s lib and feminism? I’m not saying that falsifies it in and by itself, but I think keeping an eye on what those who have read and studied the bible in previous generations is useful in making sure we don’t read modern cultural developments into the text. This, incidentally, applies just as much to those who claim Paul taught rigid patriarchy or absolute submission to elders or shepherds in the manner of feudal lords.

  235. @ Ken:
    Your closing paragraph just flies in the face of history, in England and the US. You must not know about the 19th c. “womens’ movement,” which arose at the same time (and partly as a result of) the abolitionist movement in this country, but which had far broader influence ans was a driving force in womens’ suffrage in both of our countries.

    Does the name Susan B. Anthony ring a bell? If not, i would kindly suggest that you do some reading on her – and the topics i have just mentioned – and *not* be blaming what you disagree with on something as amorphous (and such a convenient target!) as “womens’ lib.” You have been arguing your side of this for a couple of years now, and i have yet to see any real substance on your argument other than proof texts and “That word doesn’t mean whay you ladies think it means.”

    Please be at least a little willing to concede that women do not now have a place in society equal to that given to men, even though a lot of people are working to change things. (Hint: women being given the vote and being able to run for office was a watershed moment.)

    You might also wish to look up the term “separate spheres” and then extrapolate from this middle class/upper class Victorian view of the way men and women were ideally supposed to live and draw some lines between that and the current comp position. A lot of comps over here *love* Victorian-era books that extol the virtues of men and women living jn “separte spheres.”

    Social and cultural conditions are not only relevant to the texts as understood (via our best guesses) at the time they were written, but in the 2000 years (approximately) since that era.

  236. @ Ken:
    The term “feminism” goes back a fair deal further than the 1960s.

    Again, do some research and you’ll see.

  237. @ Ken:

    Thank you for replying. You quoted me but didn’t actually respond to the point I was making. The point is that I am arguing for a consistent application of conservative interpretive principles to the gender proof-texts. An ad hoc hermeneutic just is not acceptable, or at least it should not be for people like me who believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the very words of Scripture and that the texts we have are a reliable witness to those original words.

    To your point about going to extra-biblical sources, I think that is exactly what you are doing when you invoke Grudem’s analysis. The examples he cites and every other scholar cites are from extra-biblical sources and are analyzed as such. There is no difference between lexical scholarship being extra-biblical and cultural/religious extra-biblical scholarship. Language is part of culture, after all. So either we can’t look to outside sources for background understanding or we can. But we need to be consistent if we want to get to the best approximation of the truth.

    Feminism is a loaded term. I know of very few people who want to go back to the time when women were little more than chattel or children. They could not own property in their own name nor did they have equal inheritance rights. Women could not vote. They were denied equal access to professional education, in my lifetime! Those were all at one time “feminist” issues. So, if that is what you mean by a feminist, then I suppose I am a feminist.

    I oppose abortion except to save the life of the mother. That might get me into a lot of trouble here at TWW, but that is what I believe. I believe that males and females are distinct, but at the same time I acknowledge that there are cases where the sex of a child is ambiguous, and I do not make an idol out of this particular issue. I oppose the radical feminists who devalue men and traditionally masculine traits or interests. If that is what you mean by feminist, then I am not a feminist.

    Wayne Grudem and CBMW have equivocated on “feminism.” They want people to think about the “scary” feminists when they use the term “feminism.” That is yet another dishonest use of language. I don’t know any other way to say it. They are deliberately deceiving people into thinking that people who reject gender hierarchy are feministas when that is simply not true. If they were true scholars, they would not need to resort to base propaganda techniques.

    They want people to think that “women’s lib” is the cause of females being admitted to the clergy. That may be true, but it does not follow from that that “women’s lib” is the only reason that women are called to the ministry. Just because A causes B does not exclude C from causing B or D causing B. That’s bad logic, but that is what they do to get people not to look at what they are doing to the actual texts.

    The way ideas change is that an idea first has to be considered “possible.” Then, when it is accepted as “possible” it may become considered “plausible” and only then might it become accepted as “likely” and then finally “true.” Until the past couple of centuries, equality for women in any sense was not in the realm of possibility. After WW2, in the greater society equality became mostly “likely” or “true.” In the church, however, it was still considered “impossible” except in the mainline/mainstream churches.

    Some of those were due to a rejection of God’s authority and of his word’s authority. Some of those were due to looking afresh at the actual Greek texts rather than the English translations, and looking afresh without thinking a priori that equality is impossible. This was done by conservative scholars who honor God’s word. When you remove the presupposition of inequality that has been perpetuated in the English translations (remember that the English translations were done in a culture which presupposed hierarchy among classes of people), then it is at the very least “possible” that women are equal to men.

    So, the question becomes what did God intend for the basic relationship between males and females to be?

    And that is why I keep returning to Genesis 1:26-28. Because that is an explicit statement of God’s thinking regarding us. God does not prescribe a hierarchy there. God does not prescribe “roles” or “responsibilities” that are gender-specific. If God intended for a hierarchy between the genders or gender-specific roles, then that is not where it is found.

    That is the default state, and therefore I argue that the burden of proof is on those who insist on a hierarchy and gender-specific roles to show where God instituted those by either changing or modifying what He said in Genesis 1:26-28.

    To pick up a bit on Numo, the reason that 1st wave feminism followed on abolitionism is that the rejection of slavery and the way that slavery was defended from the Bible made people look at the slavery/woman texts with new lenses. They had to face the fact that Christians had misused the “plain” reading of the Bible to support an evil institution. Slavery defenders in the American South said that Abolitionists were atheists influenced by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. These are the same approaches being used by Grudem and Piper and CBMW.

    I am not of the Egalitarian party. I am one person who believes passionately in the authority and integrity of the words of the Holy Spirit and who will defend God’s word against those who misuse and abuse it for their own purposes. They say they honor God’s words, but they nullify them by adding to them, as Jesus said. Please look at the things these men have lied about and the way they have put their own words into God’s book.

  238. @ Ken:
    Ken, following from numo’s contribution, can I ask you this question: are you interested in researching other areas of enquiry on this topic, eg numo’s suggestion re: Susan B Anthony and elsewhere, or do you feel implacable and that your ideas are fixed on this matter? This is a genuine, non-snark question.

  239. Gram3 wrote:

    I oppose the radical feminists who devalue men and traditionally masculine traits or interests.

    Semantics, but, I don’t believe that ALL radical feminists can be categorised as such (I’m not suggesting you were saying that, just how it may read). And I’m certain there’s some mean misandrists who wouldn’t define themselves as feminists.

  240. @ Haitch:

    I’m mainly trying to draw a bright line between misandry and feminism. I’m really not familiar at all with the variations within the feminist movement, so I just used radical to designate whichever ones are misandrist or devalue traditional masculinity. The CBMW cult paints with a very broad brush to malign all people who disagree with their misogyny.

  241. @ Haitch:
    My default position is that I don’t think people are being snarky unless very obviously so, i.e. I assume they are not!
    This whole subject is of some interest, but it is not a main part of my thinking at the moment. So as and when something relevant comes up, I’m quite happy to think about it.

    You question about whether my views are fixed is a very good one (good one for all Christians about many other issues as well, for that matter). I don’t think I would easily be shifted from my current view, but that doesn’t mean I would never modify it if I were persuaded there is a better way to understand it or I gain new knowledge I hadn’t seen before. I don’t claim any infallibility on this or any other subject, or else I wouldn’t discuss it with other contributors here because that would be pointless. I’ve made the mistake of thinking I had something pretty well all sown up and sorted out before!

    If anything, the whole ‘head’ thing is a challenge at present if only I need to consider whether I am living this out in my own family at present. Am I avoiding responsibilities that God wants me to take up, am I dumping too much on my wife, that kind of thing.

  242. @ Gram3:
    May I take time out to say thank you for that post and how much it blessed me?

    Most of the feminists I have had anything to do with have been of the pro-abortion, obliterate all gender distinctions and men are the enemy variety. I really appreciated we could stand together on this in not obliterating distinctions and giving a voice to the unborn.

    Once in the office this subject came up in discussion, and the granite rock face you meet that abortion is an absolute right and no-one dare even question it really got me down. Disappeared into the local C of E church to pray about it and I believe (and I don’t ever say this lightly) the Spirit prompted me to read Phil 2, and verses 14 – 16 lept off the page. It was very encouraging.

    I had a similar experience of this more recently on another secular forum I dabble in for fun, when this came up in a general discussions section and I was the only one I think who stood against abortion. I prayed for wisdom to be gracious in what I said, hoping that it would at least get some to rethink their position on this, but again the pushback was at times pretty viscious. It was looking at the pure evil of the ‘flesh’ full in the face.

    So at times like this, it would have been nice to know if you had been around I would have had someone to stand together with on this. It puts kephale, whilst not unimportant, in perspective.

  243. People who see an elective abortion as a right don’t see that the little unborn human is made in God’s image. So, from that perspective, elective abortion makes sense. There have been multiple shifts of public opinion in my lifetime regarding abortion, and recently there has been a shift toward the pro-life position. My hypothesis for that phenomenon is the advent of high-resolution ultrasound which has given a “face” to the unborn human. So the question has become more one of the rights of two humans rather than the rights of one human and one collection of cells.

    At the same time, I think we need to take due notice of the effect that a pregnancy and childbirth have on women and not minimize it as if it were merely an inconvenience. I think that some of us who are pro-life have minimized this aspect, and that diminishes our credibility. Of the childbirths I experienced, two would have resulted certainly in my death and another in the death of my child if very modern Western medical intervention had not been available. I know personally of one young woman who died in childbirth around 1980 here in America.

    And we must not stigmatize women who have faced very difficult circumstances and decisions. I know of one woman who had an ectopic pregnancy, but her pro-life family still felt shame about ending that pregnancy. The fact is that all of us make foolish choices and even wicked choices. Sometimes choices must be made as a result of circumstances we did not choose, such as rape. We should, I think, be pro-life holistically. I’m preaching to myself here.

    Life is very messy, and I think we need to think and act and speak carefully and wisely in a way that honors God and everything that he values.

    Regarding kephale, I would say that in your remarks about feeling responsibility toward your wife, you were showing the marks of one who is the kephale of his wife–one who desires to provide for and nurture. That’s not the same kind of thing as being over her in a hierarchical sense. Going back to our culture disagreement, the fact is that in the 1st century, a husband had minimal responsibility toward his wife. A husband was considered her lord already, so there was no need for Paul to instruct men to take authority over their wives. The Christian men needed to unlearn what the rabbis and the pagan philosophers had taught about women, namely that they were essentially property whose function was to bear children.

    They needed to be taught to love their wives as their own bodies and as Christ loved the church. That was a huge paradigm shift for those men, I would imagine. Think of the ridicule that a Christian man who respected and honored an loved his wife must have endured in that culture. We take that for granted now, but it was not always so.

    Similarly, the wives had been set free from their bondage by Christ. They no longer were subjects of their husbands but subjects of Christ. So, I can imagine that some of them took this in the wrong direction and became perhaps not very compliant after having their basic humanity denied for so long. It was a paradigm shift for them, too. I think that Paul was teaching the women not to abuse their new freedom by being disrespectful of their husbands just as the wives had been disrespected. A woman who was not outwardly deferential would have brought shame on her husband and on Christ in that culture.

    Themes of love with respect and freedom with self-control among Christians are found throughout the NT and explicitly in Paul’s teaching. He was having to destroy a lot of cultural practices and beliefs so that the new Christians could learn to live as ones who are in Christ. I appreciate that you mentioned Philippians 2. It is one of my favorites along with Ephesians for teaching us what it is to be in Christ and Christ-like.

    If you are interested in other conservative perspectives on kephale, you can check out Philip Barton Payne or Gilbert Bilezekian who respond to Grudem’s take on kephale. They both have articles online that are enlightening. Again, let me emphasize that being a conservative for me means that we let what the Holy Spirit has actually said be authoritative rather than humans who want to be an authority. For me, being conservative does not necessarily mean that we must conserve the status quo, because the status quo may not reflect the revelation God has given to us.