The Wrong Way to Listen to “Mars Hill”
If we close out The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill having only been entertained, feeling confirmed in our correctness, excused in our evangelistic apathy, or justified in our critical and overly suspicious spirit toward other churches and leaders, we will have missed a God-given opportunity to follow the apostle Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 10:12: If you think you are standing firm, take heed lest you fall.
As The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, a podcast that tells the story of the rapid rise and fall of pastor Mark Driscoll and the influence of his church in Seattle, draws to a close, evangelicals who love the church and care about the future will take away lessons related to leadership, both good and bad, and implement measures designed to prevent abuses in the future.
In previous columns, we considered the potential spiritual effect of this podcast on the souls of those listening, the place of “father hunger” in the rise of the Reformed movement (a dynamic at work in Driscoll’s “How dare you!” sermon), and the need to respond to the abuse of authority with good authority, not the abdication of pastoral responsibility.
Today, we wrap up this series by considering one of the unintended consequences this podcast could have, unless we commit to listening with care and wisdom. We may become instantly suspicious of another ministry model.
The “Real” Problem . . . Out There
Some listeners to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill might assume the real problem is the megachurch, as if the size of a congregation and the “celebrity” status that anoints the pastor is the root of all kinds of evil. The problem is the “attractional church” with its focus on numerical growth. Once a church grows too big and successful, we should expect all sorts of shenanigans behind the scenes. Surely something nefarious must be going on for a church to gain this kind of traction.
Raising an eyebrow toward churches that follow a different ministry model is not a new phenomenon. Many large-church pastors privately sneer at the small church without a full array of programs, or quietly judge the small-church pastor who just doesn’t have “what it takes” to influence the power brokers in the congregation and “make things happen.”
You Might also like
-
Concerning Professions of Public Orthodoxy: A Somber Reflection Occasioned by the Recent Stover-Semper Ref Controversy
In sum, LeCroy was wrong and did well to retract his claims and apologize, and Stover was right to publicly oppose him. But in the process he stumbled and suggested things are more hopeful than they are just now. For it is written that we will know men by their fruits (Matt. 7:15-20), and who can deny that the fruits of Revoice and Transluminate and the like have been vile? Strife and quarreling, the driving of people and churches from our fold, the threat of a denominational split, and the shameless public discussion of what it is shameful and dangerous to mention publicly (Eph. 5:3), and which was previously unthinkable, have all hobbled our church. All this has happened because the leaven was not purged at the first infection (1 Cor. 5:6-7; Gal. 5:9), and for that there is much occasion for grief on the part of all of us.
In a recent article Tim LeCroy made some claims to which another Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) minister, Charles Stover, objected in a response. LeCroy’s original article has been withdrawn and replaced with an apology, so I have little inclination to address it directly. But having read the two articles and pondered the matter for a few days I find myself thinking that it is Stover’s article that is the more alarming.
That is perhaps a startling statement, and if you are familiar with my previous writing you will know that I have been quite blunt in responding to LeCroy and to the purportedly now defunct National Partnership of which he was a prominent member. Permit me an explanation. I do not object to Stover’s rebuttals, which accord with the truth and were justified by LeCroy’s original claims. It is rather statements like these that unsettle my conscience terribly:
I had no idea that Missouri Presbytery was meeting regularly to investigate Memorial Presbyterian Church, Transluminate, and Greg Johnson. I was not aware of the impassioned debates and floor speeches being conducted at Presbytery.
And:
I am quick to correct detractors when they accuse our presbytery as being liberal.
For it would seem to me that investigations and impassioned debates do not justice make, at least not as a matter of course. They perhaps produce the appearance of energy and life, but it is their end result that matters, not they themselves.
And what was the end result of all Missouri’s debating and investigating? Were the Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) purity and peace increased? No indeed, and it was very much the opposite. The accused seized the investigation as a vindication. He went before the whole nation and exposed his own denomination and his ostensible brethren to ridicule in the eyes of unbelievers – something no believer should ever do to another – and appealed to these investigations and debates as proof that he was guiltless and was subject to needless opposition on the part of others in the PCA.
Let me state it plainly: the many words and the passion notwithstanding, those debates and investigations accomplished nothing beneficial, at least as far as the PCA as a whole is concerned. They did not punish wrong, but rather forced the opponents of wrong to pursue the matter by other means and in other forums. Even now the denomination is greatly absorbed in the matter as it seeks to amend its Book of Church Order to hopefully prevent another similar debacle, a matter which will drag on for the foreseeable future. What should have been put to rest efficiently long ago has festered and spread throughout the whole denomination and occasioned continued disagreements, with no end in sight.
That passion and those debates and investigations do not, as such, suggest that the presbytery in question is solidly orthodox/conservative/sound/faithful or whatever we wish to call it; nor do they commend our processes as fair, efficient, and apt to produce a good result. To the contrary, they suggest inefficiency, delay, and an excessive fondness of words, wrangling, and procedural minutiae, as well as an elevation of process over result and of procedure over its proper end. If it be objected that the churches and elders in question nonetheless confess sound doctrine as expressed in Scripture and in our standards, let me rejoin with a paraphrase of James: ‘You say that you have sound doctrine and holiness apart from discipline; should you not rather show me your soundness in the faith and your zeal for holiness by your discipline?’ For professions of orthodoxy notwithstanding, such an orthodoxy is as dead and useless as the purported faith of James’ readers (2:14-26). It may sparkle in the sun and have the appearance of great majesty; but in the time of testing it proved no more than a façade. It failed utterly, and it did not even do that efficiently.
Now one might say that these are only the rants of a fundamentalist doom monger who has in espousing them committed slander himself. If one is so inclined I invite her or him to look at this and to make the case that this is anything other than slander (my contact info is in the bio line) or that objecting to such a thing is somehow inherently ‘fundamentalist’ or sinful. And I would invite such a person to ask himself these questions: was John a fundamentalist when he objected to Diotrephes “talking wicked nonsense” about him and his companions (3 Jn. 10)? If the answer is no, why then should I be deemed a fundamentalist for opposing someone who showed his character in such unjust malignment as in the tweet linked above?
As for Stover’s claim that Missouri Presbytery is not liberal, let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the public profession of faith of its members is indeed sound. About the most generous thing that can be said in such a case is that, as far as the maintenance of public orthodoxy and discipline is concerned (key phrase), such a conservatism gives cause to say ‘with conservatives such as these, who needs liberals?’ That sounds excessively harsh and uncharitable; but I do not make it, if you can accept it, because I am a hateful fundamentalist provocateur who revels in quarreling. Remember what was being investigated by Missouri Presbytery. Memorial Presbyterian allowed its property to be used for a series of plays promoting and celebrating unnatural sexual confusion (what is called, with doubtful accuracy, ‘transgenderism’).
Now God says in his law that “a woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deut. 22:5). How much worse do you think it is when someone puts on the physique of the other sex and subjects himself or herself to physical mutilation by surgical or chemical means to attain it? Such a thing involves a revolt against nature and against God’s created order itself – which is to say that it is about the pinnacle of impiety. That it is often a result of mental disturbances and past trauma and is attended by a plethora of other miserable mental maladies I grant; but the thing clearly propagates by example. The more acceptable it is, the more common it is; and if anything, the misery to which it reduces its sufferers is all the more reason to refuse to do anything, no matter how slight, that in any way encourages the existence and spread of such a dangerous thing.
Now God also abundantly attests that when his people use that which he has given them to commit abominations in his sight they arouse his anger and jealousy, defile the places in question, and bring God’s curse and just condemnation upon themselves (Lev. 18:24-29; 20:22; Deut. 27:15-68; Isa. 1:28; Jer. 2:7; 16:18; Eze. 36:17-18). He attests further that those who have authority and responsibility to restrain wrong in such cases are solemnly obligated to do so, and that they themselves will suffer his wrath if they fail in this (Ex. 32:25; 1 Sam. 2:12-36; 3:11-13; 2 Chron. 28:19; Rev. 2:14, 20). Now a church in Missouri Presbytery did what was abominable in God’s sight and did what must be considered an act of apostasy after the fashion of the ancient Israelites. And the presbytery’s response was to investigate and issue a report, and not to meaningfully punish the church or its leadership or restrain the evil. Its response was about as effective as Eli’s to his wayward sons, and we see how that ended (1 Sam. 4:17-21).
All of which is to say that conservative or not, professedly orthodox or not, the actual nature of Missouri’s deeds was not productive of orthodoxy and tended strongly in the other direction. That’s a bold claim, admittedly, and it is not everyday that I – who am an insignificant man and vile sinner – accuse an entire presbytery of being derelict in its duty. That is defensible only if my view of things is correct. But if my view is correct, then it would seem to me that Scripture (Zech. 7:9; 8:16; Eph. 4:25) and our standards (WLC Q. 144) require me to speak in such a way, but with much sorrow and the strong hope that there will sincere and full repentance for the future.
In sum, LeCroy was wrong and did well to retract his claims and apologize, and Stover was right to publicly oppose him. But in the process he stumbled and suggested things are more hopeful than they are just now. For it is written that we will know men by their fruits (Matt. 7:15-20), and who can deny that the fruits of Revoice and Transluminate and the like have been vile? Strife and quarreling, the driving of people and churches from our fold, the threat of a denominational split, and the shameless public discussion of what it is shameful and dangerous to mention publicly (Eph. 5:3), and which was previously unthinkable, have all hobbled our church. All this has happened because the leaven was not purged at the first infection (1 Cor. 5:6-7; Gal. 5:9), and for that there is much occasion for grief on the part of all of us.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name.
Related Posts: -
The Quest for Community
Written by T. M. Suffield |
Sunday, September 4, 2022
I’ve yet to talk to a Christian who doesn’t think community is inherently good for us. We’re meant to be a people. The local church is supposed to be the household of faith—something different to our modern concept of family but in the same broad arena—where everyone fits and is loved and is able to develop deep and abiding relationships with others. We can still do that, but if because never seen it modelled, we find it hard and sometimes oddly unnatural. I write not with solutions but to highlight a problem. I’ve never met a church that doesn’t talk a good talk about community, whatever language they choose to use. I’ve met plenty of churches full of people who find that community difficult to access. Modern life makes it hard for us.Everybody loves community, or they say they do at least. We live in a land that is parched of the life-giving water of friendship and stripped bare of many of the settings that used to make this easy for people.
Robert Nisbet in his book The Quest for Community argues that what he calls a strong associational life that would have been found in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the home, the village, and the church has been slowly replaced by a weak associational life. His examples for weaker associations are the union, the workplace, the political party, and the state.
To put it in language we’re familiar with, the settings that used to provide the ability for community to grow have changed and morphed over time, but these newer settings provide a thinner context for bonds between people to grow.
Or think of this way, where do people make their friends? Compared with a century or two ago the settings we have for making friendships that are strong and lasting are not as good at that as they used to be.
He was writing in 1952. Unions and political parties do not have the strength that they used to, and our connections to the state have weakened in the last fifty years. Bonds formed in the workplace are probably still as strong, or at least they were pre-pandemic. The rise of remote-working, which is here to stay at least short-term, also reduces the way the workplace can form these associational bonds.
The western workplace, especially for so-called knowledge-workers in office jobs who make up around a third of the workforce in WEIRD nations, is ephemeral. We do stuff on computers that has weak connections to physical things. I’m not sure that’s bad in and of itself, but it does tell us a story about ourselves—that everything is ephemeral, if you’ll forgive me to quote Marx out of context, that everything that is solid melts into air—which I think makes physical community more difficult. Even the way that the annual appraisal process in so many workplaces suggests that only this year matters truncates our view of reality—we then treat our relationships the same way.
Perhaps if he was writing now, Nisbet might include the Facebook page, the Discord server, and the MMO. Which, because they’re disembodied, are forms of ‘weak associational life.’
I think this sort of thing should concern the church. Not least because it sounds remarkably like C. S. Lewis’ vision of Hell in The Great Divorce where everyone is constantly drifting apart over the millennia.
It’s not good for us as a society, for all we don’t need to go backwards, we will need to strengthen community settings if we want our communities to flourish.
Read More
Related Posts: -
A Curious Clue about the Origins of the New Testament Canon
Written by Michael J. Kruger |
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Covenants were largely conceived as something written or read; i.e., something in a book. It is precisely for this reason that warnings were given not to change the text of the covenant (Deuteronomy 4:2), and there were concerns about it being in the proper physical location (Exodus 25:16).Although most discussions about the development of the canon focus on the patristic period (second century and later), there is much canonical gold yet to mine from the pages of the New Testament itself. Unfortunately, this step is often skipped.
There are a number of possible reasons for why it is skipped. But perhaps most people just assume that the whole idea of a “canon” is a late development anyway, and thus we wouldn’t expect to find anything about it in the New Testament books themselves.
Aside from the fact that such a position already presupposes an entire canonical “worldview” known as the extrinsic model (for my critique of this model see my book The Question of Canon), it keeps us from noticing some fascinating clues.
One passage that I think contains a number of intriguing clues is 2 Cor 3:14 when Paul says, “When they read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted.”
Often overlooked in this passage is that Paul understands a covenant to be something that you read. In other words, for Paul (and his audience) covenants are understood to be written documents.
When we look at Paul’s Jewish context this should come as no surprise. So close is the relationship between the covenant, and the written documentation of the covenant, that Old Testament authors would frequently equate the two—the covenant, in one sense, is a written text.
Read More
Related Posts: