I am sure you have heard about Mark Driscoll and his recent resignation from Mars Hill in Seattle.
This post is not really about Mark Driscoll, but about how his resignation is a symptom of a wider problem in Western Christianity.
As much as I never really cared for Mark’s preaching, approach to ministry, or theology, I always felt a bit sorry for him. He was another victim of the corporate, celebrity-style Christendom that operates under the word “church” in most of the western world.
About ten years ago I listened to a sermon by Mark Driscoll in which he publicly stated his desire for Mars Hill to become the largest church in the United States. It had already been recognized at that time as the fastest growing church, and he wanted to leverage that growth into the largest congregation. Yet according to recent news releases, by January 1, 2015, Mars Hill will be no more.
I think people around the world are finally starting to wake up to the fact that when it comes to church, bigger is not always better. Of course, this doesn’t mean that smaller is better either.
Church is not about “how many” at all. It is not even about “how.”
In a culture which says “It’s all about you,” we need to reawaken to the fact that Church is all about “who.”
Who is the church about?
Jesus! He is the sole head.
Who is the church about?
People meeting together for friendship and fellowship.
Lots of people point to the description of “two or three” in Matthew 18 as the minimum requirement for church. I personally don’t think this text has anything to do with how many people are needed to “do” church, for church is not actually something we do, but is something we are.
But even if we say that church exists where there are two or three, nothing is said in Matthew 18:20 that when these two or three gather, one of them needs to stand up and give a sermon. Nothing is said that when these two or three gather, they need to sit in a circle with their bibles open on their laps, discussing a particular text or point of theology. Nothing is said about prayer or music or food.
It is best to think of church as you think of family.
Do you ever talk about going to “family”? Of course not. You are a family.
Do you ever plan regular family events? Well, sometimes. But these are rarely set in stone for all time, and you never assume that what you do in your family is what all families everywhere should be doing as well.
But even when family events are planned, true “family” most often occurs outside and away from these family events. True “family” happens as life happens. True family occurs at 4:00 in the morning when someone has a bad dream or wakes up with a stomach ache. True family occurs when memories are formed while buying celery at the supermarket. True family occurs when everybody laughs at a joke about peas on the curtains. If you tried to package and export these family events to all other families, it wouldn’t work.
How did I get onto this topic after beginning with a discussion about reconciliation and redemption of abusive leaders?
For Mark Driscoll, I hope that he does not enter into another form of Christian leadership any time soon. It’s not because he is disqualified. Far from it! He might be more qualified now then ever before. It is just that modern Christian forms of “leadership” look nothing like the leadership modeled by Jesus.
For all the fans of Mark Driscoll, I hope that rather than simply turn to another celebrity pastor or mega-gathering for their weekly fix of preaching, they see that Jesus Himself wants to lead them into the biggest adventure of a lifetime.
And as for all the critics of Mark Driscoll, I hope there is absolutely no gloating whatsoever. What happened to Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill is extremely sad, and anyone who gloats is in danger of the exact same problem.
Ultimately, I hope that western Christianity in general learns from what happened to Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill.
I hope we learn that reconciling and redeeming abusive church leaders begins with reconciling and redeeming the church itself.
The problem is not the church leaders. Church leaders are some of the victims of a church structure that functions as God never intended.
So let’s abandon our power structures, our titles, our positions, our platforms, our offering plates, and even our buildings and campuses.
Instead, let us turn to love. Love for our neighbors. Love for our enemies. Love for our family.
Let us not rush to get fallen leaders back into positions of authority. Let us not rush to get anyone into any position of authority in the “church,” for there is no authority other than Jesus Christ, and there is no church other than the family of God.
This post was part of the November 2014 Synchroblog. Here are the other contributors:
- Justin Steckbauer – The Servant Leader: A Radical Concept
- Mary – Can I Get A Doctor?
- Glenn Hager – The Man Of God Myth
- Lisa – Forgive
- Peggy Brown – Abi and November’s Synchroblog: Spiritual Abuse and Redemption
- Edwin Pastor FedEx Aldrich – Shooting Stars: Of Scandal, Abuse, Restoration, and Systematic Failures
- Tara – Forgive Us Our Sins As We Forgive Those…
- Liz Dyer – Sorry
Mars Hill has begun what we may hope will be a trend in the future – the divestiture of “multi-site” churches.
The proximate cause of Mars Hill closing is finances.
That does not mean that the multi-campus model is inherently flawed. Nor does it mean that mutli-campus churches are not capable of being self-sustaining.
The most positive way to view its collapse, is that twelve new churches are formed.
There are denominations with fewer congregations than that.
On the flipside, whilst what is arguable the oldest multi-campus churches in the world is down to 1,200 campuses worldwide, it seems to be holding steady, with demographics being its primary long-term problem.
Yes, may this trend continue….
Age old problem. Man defines the church within the confines of a building and campus. Thus it can be controlled, measured and manipulated. Man rises in the pulpit and place the focus on what they say or what they do, usurping the power, grace, authority, and majesty of God. I have no problem with church or pastors. I have been intimately involved with churches and pastors that wanted to be a large church to be a big thing. In fact, Mars Hill was their model. Is not just a large church thing since this was a small community church. Its a mankind thing, a heart thing. I thought it was clear that it’s Christ alone.
You could probably even argue that this is a mindset that has given us the word church in our common vocabulary to begin with. When they came to the word ekklesia in the Greek there was a decision to be made, and they chose to link that word to the building rather than the people that assembled within them. He who controls the building controls what goes on inside the building.
I think that one of the problems that we have within modern Christianity is that an Idol has worked it’s way into our midst. We have become a culture that worships at the altar of celebrity, and rather than rejecting that mindset, we have just created our own celebrities.
Quite the cycle, right? But a cycle that is repeated over and over and over.
I must admit that I have a hard time seeing Mark Driscoll as a victim. That may be the case, it can sometimes be hard to determine whether you have a wolf like man who has taken advantage of the system, or a man with good intentions who has been twisted by the system that he is in. I guess I just react negatively to the word victim when we live in a culture that likes to give that status to just about everyone… sometimes the abuser before the abused.
Yes, I really don’t like the word “victim” either. Everybody is a victim these days. I just wasn’t sure what else to call it. Mark was trapped by Christendom to be and do what God has never called any man to be and do.
Great piece..well considered article…
You were not joking, there are no coincidences, only miracles.
Lord Jesus, help me to grasp the hem of Your garment again, to feel Your hand in mine. I long to feel your breath on my neck, and feel Your heart beat against mine-just like it did when we first met. I long to hear Your voice again. Help me to look past the faults of others and the troubles I face and embrace the hope and joy Your love brings…let me be such a blessing to my brothers and sisters that they give You praise and all the glory. I am Your servant. Forgive me, Lord, heal me, restore the joy of my salvation, for in You alone am I complete.
Amen!
Well said, Jeremy.
Wow. Driscoll was a victim? That is so, so wrong on so many levels. We can critique problems in the church without making martyrs out of those those who choose to use dysfunctional churches to victimize others. This post explains so much that is so wrong today in how we deal with abusive leaders and how we fail to understand and minister to their true victims.
Interesting to come across a familiar face, or at least profile pic, on the interwebs. My friend David, who is also on the Organic Church facebook group, and I have been discussing this over the last few weeks. He has borrowed a concept from Philip ZImbardo’s Lucifer Effect, that he has dubbed the lupine effect. He is working from the framework that the institutions that we hve constructed by nature twist leadership in a “wolfish” direction.
It is just as possible that his wolfish characteristics predated his rise into leadership, so I can’t really determine which came first without really knowing the man… possible some combination of both.
The point really comes down to the fact that even if you have someone like Driscoll who has been cast off of his throne at Mars Hill, there is a system that is pumping out new Driscolls every day.
What do we do about that?
Excellent point, Dallas. That is the only “victimization” of Mark I was trying to point out. He was a product of a system that pumps people like him out by the score. Most of them are not so “successful” as Mark, and so don’t get the public attention, but it is still damaging to them, to their family, and to the people they try to minister to.
Jim,
Who says that victims cannot create other victims? Of course they can! In fact, one of the defining characteristics of a victim is that they often victimize others.
Anyway, Mark was not a victim of people, but was a victim of Christendom, which puts men in charge of what belongs only to Jesus. In this capacity, Mark misused and abused many people.
Again another great post! I think you are so on point here. It is about loving our neighbors, loving our enemies, loving each other. It isn’t about who has the biggest church building or best pastor or what not. It is about spreading God’s love into a broken world. Thanks again for your post.
yes, yes, yes! It is about spreading God’s love to a broken world. Thanks for the comment!
Good post, Jeremy. I don’t think there’s anything to add. And you sum things up well at the end.
I have always accepted the idea of having a leader and the need for leadership.
However, the word “pastor” was always awkward mainly because of its once-only replacement for “shepherd”.
But not too long ago I wondered how these fitted into the Lord’s New Covenant Kingdom of God.
Surprise, surprise, there is no such ministry as “Leader” nor is there “leadership” in the Kingdom. Or “pastor”, for that matter!
There are a fair few Leaders in the Old Testament, though,
The Kingdom has those who lead and some called “leading brethren”, but no one is a “Leader”.
Like a number of, what seem to me to be, parallel (to God’s Kingdom) words they open up much that is business-like rather than godly.
And there are many traps in all that for the sincere.
Yours in Christ
We often think of leadership in the context of a leader who is over other people, but I would wonder if within our context if it might be closer to the person who goes first, that we can follow behind. The word elder would seem to carry that connotation. We have people who are probably physically older, likely have been walking in the faith longer, and have demonstrated a certain amount of wisdom. They are those who know the lay of the land and are able to guide us past the pitfalls that we might come across. Once we have a picture of elders that is like that, I think that the pastor (shepherd) comes into a little clearer focus as well.
I might be making a leap here, but I would wonder, given the concept of pastor or elder above, if the seminary system might not exactly be the best way to find leaders within the church. It might (emphasis might) be a good palce to get a biblical education, and some technical training, but it doesn’t seem like an overly great place to develope experiences that will be beneficial and guiding other people.
It’s also one of the reasons that I am a bit leary of congregations who bring in pastors from the outside. It is exceedingly difficult to truly discern whether someon meets the qualifications to be an elder if you haven’t lived life with them.
That was a little bit of a rabbit trail. Hope you didn’t mind.
Many traps indeed.
What do you think about the titles of Elder and Deacon?
Hi Jeremy, I think you dealt so well with a touchy topic.
Your question above on the titles of Elder and Deacon – I do not find titles for people in the NT ecclesia. Paul always referred to himself as Paul, an apostle of… Titles have become an in-thing today.One minister I spoke to was very adamant about titles, because in his view it created protocol. To me this is just another way of saying it ensures the people know their place!.
Here in South Africa a well-known televangelist who was widely known as Prophet So and So (it was even on the entrance notice board) died a while back. His namesake son, with his mother and two brothers have taken up carrying on with their father/husband’s work. I have no problem with that and would not expect less, for I would think they were being prepared for the task. But I see the young man now goes by the same prophet-title. In my heart I want to cry out for him, for people are not doing him any favour.
A thought on Matthew 18:15-20, because it is often used in churches to direct prayer, for example. It seems to deal with two matters, the foundation of apostolic discipline (two or three witnesses), and laying down down apostolic doctrine (binding and loosing). In both cases it comes down to life determining decisions and should therefore not be done by a single person only. What is important in terms of interpretation is that Jesus was speaking to his group of disciples only and was addressing them directly (“you”) all the time. There is no indication of wider applicability. The most important foundational role was awaiting them. If my interpretation is wrong, verse 19 raises important questions as to its manifest reality among believers.
Interesting. I have often wondered how to reconcile Jesus’ statement about not letting anyone call you “Master” or “Teacher” and the statements about the “positions” of elder and deacon in Paul’s letters, and, as you point out, Paul’s “title” of apostle. I definitely think you might have found the balanced answer.
You are most generous in saying that Driscoll was a victim, since this is not exactly what I’ve heard and read from those who were closest to him and knew him best, especially those who worked in “ministry” positions under him, those he fired when he perceived them as a threat in any way. Driscoll started this enterprise from scratch and he’s the one who made all the rules and set all the parameters. I would describe him as a victim of himself.
Admittedly there are many things terribly wrong with a system that allows someone such as Driscoll to have no accountability to anyone until he becomes a national disgrace. “Church” has become some strange and perverted mix of money, power, authority, and celebrity with a little Bible and Jesus sprinkled around here and there to make it appear legitimate to some. It may resemble some sort of religion, but looks almost nothing like Jesus, and therein lies the problem.
I just wonder what Jesus would say to Mark.
I often think that Jesus wanted the Pharisees and Sadducees to believe in Him and join with Him. They were victims of religion that used their power to make victims of religion. Just like Mark.
Church is a group of people who serve the Lord God by going out into the world to give. I go to church to worship with my fellow brother and sisters. I go to church to be in a common community of believers. I go to church to learn about the word of God. A Pastor to me is a teacher who encourages me to know God, love God, and love others. I listen to a Pastor who edifies and shows himself approved to the word of God. I surround myself by leaders who are recognize that they are sinners and need Jesus. I don’t care if my church is big or small. I take my kids to Sunday School so that they can learn what the word says and make friends. I read the word on my own. I seek the Holy Spirits direction, I do the will of God. I fall on my face and I can only get back up with Jesus. So good for me. right? I’m a believer in a big church. My point – I am responsible for my relationship with God. I can’t depend on my leadership to get me to Heaven or make my life better. I can’t piggy back on my pastors journey.
I failed miserably as a Christian one time when I expected to much from leadership and I put to much trust in my Pastor. The size of a church is not the issue for me. The focus of the members is always my concern. But most importantly who do I have my eyes on. If we could all just keep our eyes on our relationship with Jesus I believe we would have more healthy community and enjoy serving one another.
Great comment, Lisa. Thank you. I am so glad you learned that lesson. I am still learning it myself. I am responsible for my relationship with God. I can walk along with others, and learn from them, but I cannot expect them to lead me into a growing relationship with God. Relationships don’t work that way. Glad you are finding this also!
Hi Jeremy this is THE BEST article I think you have written to date.
Your description of ‘Church’ is beyond criticism. Brilliant!!
I’m keeping this post as a Reference article to remind myself and others what ‘CHURCH’ should mean.
You have defined Church in exactly the same way I think the Bible describes it and in the way I wish it was.
I don’t believe anybody within the body of Christ should have a title, whether it is pastor, Reverend etc. Such titles in my opinion are an abomination. Jesus CLEARLY stated we should not go down that path:
Mat 23:8 But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers.
Mat 23:9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One.
Mat 23:10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.
Mat 23:11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister.
What is so hard to understand about these words? Any leadership provided is not to be honorific but rather for the service to others and to protect the flock from false teachings as when the need arises. Leaders should be enablers, encouraging all to attain to maturity in the same way a parent helps a child to become an INDEPENDENT ADULT able to stand on their own two feet. Our so called Christian leaders should be doing the same for their brothers and sisters so that their only dependency is on Christ and not on themselves.
As a fading JW I see the same problems plaguing the JW movement, where a group of men (aka the so called Governing Body) wield ABSOLUTE POWER over all 100,000 congregations of JW’s with the same cult status that Mr Driscoll enjoyed. And like Mr Driscoll they do tolerate ANY kind of criticism.
Would it be spiteful to wish the same fate that Mr Driscoll experienced on this group of men? I don’t think so. It would liberate so many and allow them to go to Christ and not to a man made organisation parading as Christ.
Keep up the good work, I always enjoy your posts.
Oh my. That is high praise. Thank you.
It really is an issue of power, isn’t it, wherever it is found… either in Mark’s church or in groups like the JWs.
I recently heard Wayne Jacobsen say that whenever people start talking cash, credit, and control, (Give us money! Who gets the credit? Let me control you!) we should start to get nervous.