Gallons of virtual ink have been spilled over the weekend as
people have discussed the latest news in the ongoing saga of Mark Driscoll and
Mars Hill Church: both he and his church have been removed from Acts 29, the
church-planting network he helped establish. This is only the latest incident
in a long, steep, and very public decline. The news has been reported in
Christian outlets, all over the local Seattle media, and as far afield as
Huffington Post, TIME, and the Washington Post.
As the situation comes into focus through scandal after
scandal, it becomes increasingly clear that there are, and always have been,
systemic issues at Mars Hill. Many of those issues are directly related to the
sins and weaknesses of the church’s founder and leader.
I am much too far outside the situation to comment on the
particulars; there are many places you can go to get caught up and to learn
details, with Wikipedia as good a place as any to begin. One area that I
haven’t seen anyone explore yet is what the news means to the wider movement
that has come to be known as New Calvinism. I want to think about how it
pertains to the majority of us who know Driscoll only by association as a
prominent voice in a movement we share. What should we learn from it?
The first I heard of Driscoll, at least to my recollection,
was after the publication of his first book, The Radical Reformission.
This—late 2004 or early 2005—was the time when most of us first heard his name,
and when we began to read his books, to listen to his sermons, and to look him
up on YouTube, even if only for sake of curiosity.
As I read his book in 2005, and followed it with in 2006, I felt both admiration for what Driscoll taught
and concern for how he taught it. I loved most of his theology, but was
concerned about his coarseness.
In 2006 Driscoll was more formally introduced to the New
Calvinism with his inclusion in the Desiring God National Conference and even
then he was a controversial figure. When Piper invited him again in 2008 he
recorded a short video to explain why he had extended the invitation. These
words stand out: “I love Mark Driscoll’s theology.” While Piper did not deny
the concerns, he loved Driscoll’s theology and loved what the Lord was doing
through him.
Many of us felt the same way. We didn’t quite know what to
think about the man, but we loved his theology. We loved what he believed
because we believed most of the same things.
Bear with me as I artificially divide Driscoll’s ministry
into three parts: theology (what he said), practice (how he said it) and
results (what happened). So many of us had genuine concerns over the second
part, but were willing to excuse or downplay them on the basis of the first and
third. Yes, he was crude and yes, he sometimes said or did outrageous things,
but he never wavered in publicly proclaiming the gospel and both his church and
his church-planting movement continued to grow. We were confused. We did not
have a clear category for this. We had concerns, but the Lord seemed to be
using him. So we recommended his podcasts, or bought his books, even if we had
to provide a small caveat each time.
In retrospect, I see this as a mark of immaturity in the New
Calvinism, in what in that day was called the Young, Restless, Reformed. It was
the young and the restless that allowed us to be so easily impressed. To large
degree, we propelled Driscoll to fame through our admiration—even if it was
hesitant admiration. (You can read an article I wrote in 2008, How Do You Solve
a Problem Like Mark Driscoll?, to see how I did this; reading it today, it
seems awfully naive and immature, doesn’t it?)
In those early years I traveled to quite a few conferences
and had the opportunity to hear from several of the church’s elder
statesmen—men who have had long and faithful ministries within the church. At
every conference Q&A someone would inevitably ask, “What am I supposed to
think about Mark Driscoll?” I heard many answers, but time and again I heard
mature leaders express concern. Many of them were convinced he did not meet the
biblical qualifications to be a pastor and, therefore, should not be in
ministry. Some of them said, with regret, that they were convinced his ministry
would eventually and inevitably explode into scandal at some point.
At the time I was tempted to take this for pessimism or a
curmudgeon’s spirit. But then Driscoll’s ministry exploded into scandal. Now I
have to see it as wisdom—wisdom that comes from many years of observation and
many years of searching the Scriptures. These men knew what we overlooked:
Character is king.
When the Bible lays out qualifications to ministry, it is
character that rules every time. The Bible says little about skill and less
still about results. It heralds character. And from the early days, Mark
Driscoll showed outstanding natural abilities which led to amazing results. He
knew and proclaimed sound theology. But he also showed an absence of so many of
the marks of godly character. A hundred testimonies from a hundred hurt friends
and former church members shows that what we saw from the outside was only a
dim reflection of what was happening on the inside. The signposts were there,
but we ignored them.
The young and the restless are, I hope, growing up and
settling down. A young movement responds eagerly to things a mature movement
does not. I doubt we will see another Mark Driscoll anytime soon—someone known
equally for crudeness and for gospel preaching. We get it now, I think. The two
are incompatible.
It is my hope that an enduring lesson for the New Calvinism
is that character matters. As Christians and as a movement, we need to allow
this example to put to death any lingering pragmatism that judges the means by
the results. Numerical growth and shared theology are wonderful, but
insufficient. It is character that qualifies a man to ministry. God’s Word
could hardly be clearer in this regard. Let’s allow this tragic situation to
cause us to look with fresh eyes at the biblical qualifications for a man who
would be a leader within the church. That would be the healthiest outcome for a
movement that prides itself on health.
No comments:
Post a Comment