You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘pastor’ tag.
Dr Wryzek’s blog, So What’s the Point? provides a thought-provoking insight into the 21st century Church.
Dr Wryzek has studied theology and has also spent time as a pastor. One of his latest posts, ‘Are Your Church Leaders Doing the Right Thing … Really? (Part 1)’ followed the line of the Episcopalian Mockingbirds on legalism and ‘working’ for the church. The Mockingbirds posited that there were two classes of churchgoers: one which served and one that was served.
Although I wasn’t of this mindset until the last decade, I now believe that many pastors put to ‘work’ the middle and upper-middle class members of the congregation. The class ‘to be served’ is only on the receiving end of their gracious ministrations, as ordered by the pastor. It is another way — perhaps a ‘nudge’ — to get people to redistribute their wealth and time ‘for the church’. Meanwhile, they and their families get left behind.
One proponent of this perspective is a Baptist pastor, the Revd David Platt of the Church at Brook Hills, Birmingham, Alabama. Dr Platt is firmly committed to overseas missions, which is laudable. However, from what I have read of his theology on other blogs, it seems that he wants wealthy Americans — I use the term advisedly — to finance his missionary ministry with large sums of money. Hmm.
Yes, as Christians, we are all called to charity, however, as with fruits of faith, we do this in various ways. We are not cookie-cutters. Platt proposes a ‘Radical Experiment’ which involves, as one would expect, money and time, some of which should be spent in small groups — the ecclesiastical collective flavour of the month. Small groups often involve public confession of sins which are in general no one else’s business except yours and God’s. In the small group — a pietist innovation from centuries ago — the congregant humbly confesses before the appointed leader. If you’re thinking Communist Party here, you would not be wrong; check out the late ex-Communist Bella Dodd’s story of public confession before the local Party Leader.
I can appreciate Platt’s enthusiasm for missions, but to apply emotional blackmail to faithful Christians who are no doubt are already giving to their church and various charities — free time included — is bang out of order. It is not Platt’s business to coerce people into the redistribution of their wealth, which is really what this is. The Holy Spirit and God’s grace will move Christians towards a decision which is right for them as individuals and families.
Anyway, what happens when the money runs out? People like Platt seem to think it is an endless resource when it is, in fact, as Baroness Thatcher pointed out, quite finite, especially where redistribution (socialism) is concerned.
I’m not saying that Platt is a socialist by any means, but he seems to have fallen into a trap. Jesus’s advice to the rich young man was situation-specific. The young man said that he was faithful to all the commandments. This then begged the question: what was the only thing left which was required of him? Jesus tested him; in today’s parlance: ‘Well, if you’re that good a person, then, please, join My apostles and Me. The only prerequisite is for you to sell your possessions and donate the proceeds to the poor’. In other words, Jesus called the young man out.
It is unlikely that Platt’s congregation and adherents are self-proclaimed keepers of all the Ten Commandments. I certainly am not, even though I keep praying for the grace for increasing sanctification. We are all sinners, and almost all of us would fully admit that. So, why should Platt feel he is authorised to develop a Radical Experiment for wealth redistribution? In any case, the first word — ‘radical’ — should start ringing alarm bells.
Seriously, if one’s ministry is that compelling — to use language which Platt’s generation would understand — then, money should just come flowing in naturally. Platt shouldn’t even need to hammer on this topic. However, as it is, his move comes across as arrogant and unbiblical — even if he doesn’t intend it to be that way.
I don’t think that Platt, as well meaning as he probably is, is using actual force or cruelty, just emotional blackmail. ‘Look at how much you have and how little they have’.
However, there is another aspect to this subject, which might come as news to Platt:
There are many European states which take in many people from the developing world every year. Not just a few dozen, but tens of thousands per Western European nation annually. These migrants do not want Platt’s sort of 19th century missionary charity in their own lands, even if they happily accept it as a stopgap measure; many are looking for economic opportunity in the West. We European taxpayers provide every assistance to those coming to our countries — at the expense of our own — believe it.
To my American readers: In all sincerity, donate money and time as you wish, but do not give up your holiday homes or bulk savings for the missions unless you can afford to and really want to. We Europeans are redistributing our ‘wealth’ — via taxes – to those arriving from former colonies as well as in tens of billions of euros (pounds, etc.) in foreign aid to their homelands. Therefore, today’s taxes address the material problems the missions once did. This is the truth. So, relax, enjoy your families and contemplate your retirement. May it be an easy and happy one in this time of economic crisis.
But, I digress.
Back to Dr Wryzek, who writes of pastors employing emotional blackmail in more malign ways (emphases mine):
Because once a pastor always a pastor, I’m disturbed (probably in more ways than one!) at the condition many churches and their leaders are in these days … But, this is nothing new; similar leadership degradation happened to Israel and Ezekiel 34 … describes what Israel’s shepherds did that brought them under God’s judgment and how the problem was solved.
You’ll notice the very first indictment is they used material and monetary resources reserved for the flock, and from the flock, to insure their own personal security and plenty; they became exceedingly fat while the sheep became skinny. Making this number one suggests it is particularly irritating to God (putting it mildly). Next, because of this inordinate self-preoccupation they lost track of the sheep and didn’t bother to go after those who either wandered away (the Hebrew word suggests ‘scared off’) or seek after those who became lost altogether (literally ‘perishing’). Furthermore, they failed to take care of the weak (malnourished), provide healing to the sick and bind up the broken (alludes to treating wounds caused by wolves). Finally, they ruled the remaining sheep (the ones not scared off or not yet dead from neglect) with force and cruelty ...
The ‘force and cruelty’ is a bit more subtle and is very often disguised by ecclesiastical authority (the minister/laity distinction or the so-called ‘Moses’ model of ministry are examples) and tricking the sheep into thinking they exist for the sake of the shepherd instead of the other way around. Using the force of guilt to manipulate a flock into supporting dubious, self-serving programs is one quite effective example. This works by appealing to loyalty for the shepherd (“I’m your loyal pastor so help me out here”), or by using the Bible to coerce some kind of behavior, usually about giving money (“…give to this ministry and God will give back to you even more”). The sheep feel bad if they don’t respond as directed or, much worse, might even feel they’re letting God down and this is just plain cruel.
If any of the above is happening to you or the flock you’re part of at least consider confronting the leadership or find a safe haven somewhere else. Blind loyalty to a person, persons or denomination just because of some ‘past’ good old days or long-standing history isn’t going to cut it because we are in the last days and the kind of ecclesiastical disintegration we are witnessing is a precursor, and contributor, to the great apostasy I think is already beginning (2 Thess. 2:1-3).
Pray for guidance when receiving pastoral requests for time and money. Avoid feeling pressured. Focus on your families’ needs first, then those of others. Charity begins at home.
Today’s post concludes with the LCMS pastor — the Revd Matt Richard’s — journey to confessional Lutheranism.
Yesterday, he detailed his Folk Lutheranism. In Part 2, he describes the four main hurdles he faced in coming to a confessional understanding of the Christian faith. Excerpts follow, emphases mine.
Shift #1: My View Of Sin?
My Folk Lutheranism understood sin primarily as a series of actions that I did or did not do. Sure, I confessed that I was a sinner, but in all reality my belief of sin was narrowly focused on external actions alone …
I slowly began to realize that I wasn’t a sinner because of my sinful actions, but rather I was a sinner who sinned. This idea of sin was a much more serious problem than I had originally realized.
In the linked post relevant to this shift, he observes (italics in the original):
If we only see sin as a series of bad behavior (i.e. actions) and repentance as a change in certain external deeds (i.e. going from bad to good), we do not capture the full extent of sin and repentance but only arrive at a watered down view of sin and what the reformers called ‘partial repentance.’ Seeing repentance primarily in the external realm (i.e. change in external actions) can be equated to putting a band-aid over top of a cancerous internal tumor and saying, “all better!” This limited view of repentance only deals with the symptoms of sin but not the core of sin itself. Using a biblical phrase from Jesus in Matthew 23:25-26, this limited focus of external repentance results in becoming a whitewashed tomb; it fosters a mess of works righteousness and man-centered theology.
According to Martin Luther the life of a Christian is one of daily repentance. He states, “In a Christian, this repentance continues until death. For through one’s entire life, repentance contends with the sin remaining in the flesh. Paul testifies that he wars with the law in his members (Rom. 7:14-25) not by his own powers, but by the gift of the Holy Spirit that follows the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 8:1-17). This gift daily cleanses and sweeps out the remaining sins and works to make a person truly pure and holy.”
Shift #2: My View Of The Law?
We have all heard the phrase, “Don’t smoke, drink or chew, nor date girls that do” … The problem with people was that they were simply were lazy and lacked the proper will power to enact God’s Law. Things changed though as I encountered the Epistle of Romans. I slowly began to understand the implications of a bound will and see that the main use of the Law was not to reform my sinful nature, but to reveal and expose the depths of my depraved nature. The sinful nature needed to be crucified.
In his essay, ‘The Law Is Good’, to which he links above, Pastor Matt notes (p. 9):
Living by the Law actually does not increase faith but destroys it. When we live by the Law and strive for external good works what happens according to Gerhard Forde is that, “the apparent goodness of our works seduce us into putting our trust in them.17” Forde goes on to comment on all of our works that proceed from the Law stating, “no matter how good, are deadly sin because they entice us away from the „naked trust in the mercy of God‟ to a trust in self.18”
Doing works under compulsion to fulfill the demands of the Law results in freedom and faith being destroyed. Martin Luther comments on the thought of viewing works as if they can fulfill the demands of the Law by saying, “to presume that they (Works) are able to do something that they are actually powerless to do. The result of this violent intrusion of works is to corrupt and diminish the glory of God’s grace.19” To diminish the glory of God’s grace is to destroy faith and put the attention onto self. (See Galatians 5:4)
Shift #3: My Location Of The Gospel?
Probably one of the most difficult things for me to process in my shift was the fact that the Gospel was outside of me … Thus I reduced the Gospel to my pious actions and located Salvation within the sphere of Matt Richard. I failed to realize that the Gospel was outside of me in the person and work of Christ.
In the document linked to, he explains (italics in the original):
Simply put, our justification is outside of us not inside. This means that we don’t look inward, but we look outward to Christ for assurance that our sins are forgiven. We don’t turn inward, but we turn outward to hear the acquittal declaration that we have been restored in a right relationship with God through Christ. Furthermore, in the realm of sanctification we are blessed with the Holy Spirit dwelling within us so as to mold and shape. Sanctification is something that happens inwardly to us by the Holy Spirit through the Word.
Loosely stated, justification happens outwardly and sanctification happens inwardly. Another way of stating this is that, “our justification is entirely a consequence of Christ’s work for us, on our behalf, but not in us.”[4]
Shift #4: My Understanding Of Biblical Verbs?
Finally, I also failed to see that many of the verbs in the scriptures were done by God to me, not by me towards God. I viewed God like a deaf old man that was passive. I didn’t understand that God came to me through the precious means of grace; therefore, I created my own ways to try and get another jewel in my crown. In other words, I constantly felt the pressure to actively ascend to God in order to bring Him my spiritual report card for affirmation. I viewed my faith as needing to be something that required action on my behalf, lest I be labeled a lazy Christian …
In a link to his explanation on the use of the passive voice in the New Testament, he says:
… our inclination to the active voice does impact our reading of the New Testament. The result is that we will often interpret New Testament passives as things that we do, verbs that we need to act upon rather than what God is doing to and for us, verbs that God is doing to us. The difference is huge because it can change the whole meaning of a passage.
Pastor Matt concludes his post as follows:
The Old Adam had freedom to move in my Folk Lutheranism, but in Confessional Lutheranism he was not merely threatened but was finding death. Furthermore, my understanding of the Gospel was no longer conditioned by the theology of my Folk Lutheranism. It was declared boldly without “ifs, ands” or “buts.” For the sake of Christ, Christ alone my sins were forgiven …
… when the Law kills and the Gospel unconditionally grants life, all theologies of glory are brought to rubble and in the midst of the debris appears a Cross. Brothers and Sisters, we are left with Jesus, Jesus alone, and He is all that we ever need.
May God richly bless you as you continue your journey into the depths of the cross of Christ.
Yesterday’s post concerned the legacy of Charles Grandison Finney, one of America’s foremost evangelists — and Pelagians — of the 19th century. Even today, his legacy reaches the Protestant church in subtle ways.
The following first-person story from a Lutheran pastor explains why Finneyism is alive and well in the 21st century. The Revd Matt Richard is a regular contributor to a confessional LCMS pastors’ blog, Steadfast Lutherans (The Brothers of John the Steadfast) [see my blogroll].
Recently, Pastor Matt shared the story of his journey into confessional Lutheranism. Now one might think that he must have been this way since he was a child, considering that he is ordained. However, such is not the case. What he has to say concerns not only Finneyism but the outer holiness legalism of another large Protestant movement that has over the centuries pervaded many denominations.
What follows are excerpts from ‘My Journey into Confessional Lutheranism (Part 1 of 2)’, a fascinating account. Emphases mine below:
Church of the Lutheran Brethren? Chances are you haven’t heard of this small denomination. However, for me it has been all that I’ve known since infancy.
This denomination was founded in 1900 as five independent Lutheran congregations met in Wisconsin to form a new synod. These churches were not splitting from another synod or denomination but gathered together with the main purpose of compiling resources to send missionaries overseas …
For myself, I have often jokingly said that I am a spiritual mutt. I grew up in the Church of the Lutheran Brethren, my Father is a practicing Roman Catholic and my Mother has roots in the American Lutheran Church. Through my childhood Christian education and youth group, as well as my college years of working at an Evangelical Christian Bookstore, I developed what I’ve come to call “Folk Lutheranism.” My Folk Lutheranism was a mixture of Lutheranism and Fundamentalistic Finneyism, coated with Evangelicalism and saturated with Pietism. Needless to say, I spent a lot of my time in legalism as well as constantly taking my spiritual temperature to see if I loved Jesus enough. I virtually had no assurance.
After college I applied to Lutheran Brethren Seminary in Fergus Falls, MN … Frankly, I was unprepared for seminary and found myself crushed by the academic weight of the classes. Furthermore, the theology that I encountered also attacked my old nature and worldview. I can recall … longing for the Gospel that they presented, yet warring with it in my mind. About this time in seminary I gravitated towards the Church Growth Movement and really sunk my teeth into Rick Warren’s books, “The Purpose Driven Life,” and, “The Purpose Driven Church.” Therefore, when I received a call right out of seminary to go to Rancho Cucamonga, California, I was a Fundamentalistic-Finneyistic Lutheran Pastor, coated by Evangelicalism, saturated with Pietism and driven by Purpose.
… add the Emergent Church Movement to my list. How can all these “isms” be embraced cohesively? They can’t, as much as I tried. All of the plethora of theologies were beginning to make up a perfect storm; that is to say, an epistemological crisis …
I can remember it like yesterday reading Matthew 9:10-12 during my struggle … As I read this passage, the Word hit me. I… I am sick. Jesus came for me! It sounds so simple now, but you have to understand that from my Folk Lutheran perspective the Gospel was merely what got you “in.” … I had carelessly assumed the Gospel, and at this point I was gracious[ly] delivered the Gospel. I was reminded that it was for me, a sick sinner who was confused, dead and broken. Thus my journey into Confessional Lutheranism had just begun.
You can read more about the Church of the Lutheran Brethren and its seminary.
The point of these spiritual journeys is that many of us carry influences other than the denominations to which we adhere now. Pastor Matt was affected by a Finneyistic pietism and legalism under a Lutheran umbrella. Yes, it seems contradictory, but it’s probably not that unusual a story. In fact, the mix of denominational and cultural influences is probably pretty common to many, especially in North America.
I have read accounts of Assembly of God Pentecostalists with seminary degrees moving to the Anglican Church and acquiring a strong Calvinistic influence along the way. Why they wouldn’t join an orthodox Presbyterian denomination instead is puzzling, but there you go.
It’s not right or wrong, it just is. As one cannot choose one’s family, it seems that one cannot choose one’s childhood church, either. However, one can end up with a fair amount of baggage and spiritual issues to work through later.
It also seems that our childhood denominations can help to determine our responses in various situations. Some longtime denominational adherents develop trigger reactions to various words or vocal intonations from others in the secular world.
It takes a lot of determination and a lot of grace to work through these struggles. And human nature dictates that we, for whatever reason, enjoy legalism. Quite possibly, it gives us the illusion that we are in control of our own religiosity, perhaps our own salvation. Being able to jump through all the legalistic hoops of pietistic, Finneyistic Christianity day after day connotes personal success for many people.
Thank goodness God stopped Pastor Matt in his tracks and transformed his life.
For those of us welcoming newcomers to our churches, let’s remember to practice patience, kindness and fellowship. And, when we are in the quiet of our own homes, let’s remember them in our prayers, that they may come to know the doctrine of grace.
As an ex-Evangelical, now a Reformed pastor and seminary professor, Dr R Scott Clark, said:
Now, a word to those congregations (such as mine) who find themselves host to such pilgrims. Please remember that our new friends are probably disoriented. The language, customs, and food are strange to them. They bring with them expectations not shaped by the Reformation. Our emphasis upon the gospel, sacraments, and the visible church may strike them as overly formal. We have two choices. We can pretend that we really belong to their tradition or we can gently, gradually welcome them to ours. I recommend the latter. It may take time for Americans raised on religious fastfood to learn to enjoy a new diet, language, and culture. If we try to become what the pilgrim has left behind, what use are we to the pilgrim? (Matt. 5:13). Let us welcome our brothers and sisters with open arms, open Bibles, and warm smiles.
More Evangelicals are beginning to make their way towards liturgical and confessional denominations. I’ll have a few posts on this soon.
Tomorrow: Pastor Matt’s Journey into Confessional Lutheranism (Part 2)
Earlier this year, a Mars Hill Church (Seattle) member, Jeff Bethke, made a popular YouTube video about the problem with today’s Christianity and its adherents:
Bethke is half-right and half-misguided. As Brian — a reader of the White Horse Inn blog — noted:
The insidious nature of self-justification is brought out well here. Although the “rapper” thinks he’s denouncing works righteousness, he’s actually practicing it – and the worst possible way because he thinks he understands grace.
‘J Fisk’, a young Lutheran (LCMS) pastor (it seems), posted a response in a similar style, noting Bethke’s correct observations about Christianity and correcting his errors:
Back to the post at the White Horse Inn blog and the commentary there:
One of the really encouraging things today is seeing people raised in “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” coming to understand and embrace the gospel. At the same time, the antithesis between “religion” and “grace” (or being “spiritual but not religious”) is still trapped in its own kind of moralism. It fails to recognize that Christ came to fulfill rather than abolish the Law and religion. If religion is a community with certain doctrines and practices, then certainly Christianity is a religion. It’s bad religion that Jesus abolishes, because he gives himself as the Life of the world in the gospel through preaching and sacrament. Take away this religion and you are just left once again with a religion of your own making.
Indeed, it does seem as if Bethke (the Mars Hill member) is substituting socio-political works for outward holiness works. Fisk does a great job of dismantling this argument and steering it away from either type of semi-Pelagianism. On the YouTube page, he summarises the problem succinctly:
rightly distinguishing Law and Gospel is an art that bashing “religion” won’t help any one learn any time soon.
Paula on the White Horse Inn blog observes:
As Fisk points out, [Bethke] is ranting against a religion of works, and then immediately complaining about people not having enough in the way of good works. I find this over and over again among well meaning Christians who desire to tell everyone else they need to “walk worthy” and they have just the thing to show them how. The law, and threats of God’s displeasure, or even loss of heavenly reward, if you don’t!
A Catholic priest, the Revd Claude ‘Dusty’ Burns (aka ‘Pontifex’), also taped a response to Bethke’s original, shorter but worth watching:
I also had the same questions as Bethke when I was younger, despite my many years of Catholic education in school and at home.
As I mentioned yesterday, many Christians do not understand their own faith and fall into semi-Pelagianism with the full help of pastors and lay leaders.
Then the problem arises of what sort of semi-Pelagianism is the desirable one. Urban church members, like Bethke, see socio-political activism as ‘correct’ discipleship. Suburban and rural church members are likely to be more concerned with personal outer holiness. This gives rise to the American religious conflicts we see today — on the left and the right.
The result is that many young people in high school and university fail to understand the difference between manmade works and grace-inspired fruits of faith. It is important that they know the difference. For this reason, I prefer Fisk’s Lutheran video, because it is more biblical and doctrinal, responding point by point. Youth directors would do well to show it to young people in their congregations.
Tomorrow: Why Americans fall into semi-Pelagianism
The Revd James Fowler of Christ In You Ministries has a sermon and several articles on his website about promoting Resurrection theology as being central to Christianity. Those provide great examples which can be used in church, Sunday School or in the home.
The Revd Rod Rosenbladt, a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) pastor, has a marvellous exposition of why people are so angry at the Church. Although he might not know it as Resurrection theology, he gives us an outline of what to say to those who feel betrayed by our church experiences.
I wanted to applaud after reading this, because, it is more about understanding who Jesus is and why He is than advising someone to go to the nearest church to get saved. Rosenbladt explains his thinking in this useful sequence which applies Resurrection theology, although he does not call it that (see pp 20-21 of the PDF). Note also what he says about the Law, which is why I advised thinking of it as we would a mirror. Emphases mine below:
I’m going to talk about the Gospel as if it can be believed in totally apart from the church! You say to me, “Rosenbladt, that isn’t how Scripture presents the church!” I answer, “I know. But first things first! This guy needs Christ, Christ as priest, Christ as having bled for his sin, Christ as giving eternal life to sinners for free.” And in his mind, the church is what is keeping him or her away from Jesus Christ! If he comes to trust Christ and Christ’s sin-bearing death, the guy might later on deal with passages about “not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together . . .” But not now. To this guy, the church and its behavior is the “scandal!” (The real scandalon, according to Paul, is that we are sinners under condemnation, and cannot do anything to make things right with the holy God. The true scandalon is that Someone Else is going to have to satisfy God’s justice for us because we are unable – and unwilling – to do that).
To put it another way, we sinners are in need of a divine Mediator. And without a divine Mediator, we are doomed. Scripture says, “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” At the judgment, the law of God will justly declare us condemned. And the Gospel is that God the Son freely agreed to die our death for us, to suffer our deserved condemnation and doom in our place. And He didn’t just agree from eternity to do that. He actually did it. On the cross. For free! And for each one of us. (Rom. 5:8).
If your friend can see for just a moment that the truth of the Gospel does not turn on Christ’s church, but only on Christ’s resurrection from the dead, it might be the first time he has ever thought such a thought. Will he bend the knee to Christ as His Lamb and Substitute? Who knows? But you will have done him or her a great service. Would that all people who are angry agnostics or atheists were clear that their animosity toward the church for giving them nothing but morality as soon as they became Christians is really understandable. That we would have that same reaction. Believe it or not, that’s progress. I’ve sometimes said to people who reject Christ and His death as for their sin, “Well, you are one of the few I’ve met who has really rejected the Christian Gospel for the right reasons. Congratulations for that! But I recommend that you keep thinking about it. And keep asking the question, “Was Jesus really raised from the dead, or was He not?” Because if Jesus Christ was raised the third day, that is the best reason in the world to believe that He can make good on His claim that His death was a death for your and my sin, and that His cross and blood will be enough for anyone who dies still a sinner. Me. You.
Lastly, we might be surprised to find that this guy is a Christian. He’s just vowed never to let a church do to him ever again what was done to him earlier. Do you know a church that won’t? (Don’t answer too quickly. There are not a lot of these – no matter what the “label” on the door.) Most of today’s churches will just re-inflame his anger, giving him “law-Gospel-law.” Find one for him instead that will speak to him of Christ—after he is a believer. If you don’t know one, tell him that. At least it’s honest.
If someone asked me, I would have to be honest. A few of my readers are unchurched or long-departed from Sunday worship. This is why I emphasise the Bible and prayer in the meantime.
More from Pastor Rosenbladt soon.
Whilst assembling the following sources, I ran across an illustration called ‘God’s Hierarchy’ in the Daily Kos. ‘God’s Hierarchy’ appeared in a 1974 Bill Gothard manual (it’s a must-see but requires permission to use).
Gothard, for my readers outside the United States, is a cultlike Christian leader who has been around for some years, although I had not heard of him until last year. Americans who have come under his influence would say that was a blessing.
‘God’s Hierarchy’ shows God (represented by a triangle and arms) with a hammer in His hand. The hammer — the father of the family — is pounding a huge chisel — the mother. The chisel as mother is cutting the jewel, the teenager. That is Gothard’s and the ultraconservative Christian’s idea of the family. It’s not what I grew up with but might be familiar to some of my readers.
So, it was not totally surprising to read about the Islamic version of this linear top-down relationship in the Telegraph. An imam in Catalonia (Spain) is under police investigation for advocating battering ‘errant wives’ (emphases mine):
Abdeslam Laarusi, an imam at the Badr mosque in Terrassa near Barcelona allegedly issued instructions during Friday prayers on how to beat unruly women without leaving telltale marks.
The Muslim cleric advised using “fists and sticks on various parts of the body to avoid breaking bones or drawing blood”, investigators said.
“He provided concrete examples of the manner in which wives should be beaten, how to isolate them inside the family home and how to deny them sexual relations,” said the police in a statement, saying they had received testimony from numerous witnesses.
The imam, a Moroccan immigrant who is married with five children, was called in for questioning by the Mossos d’Esquadra, the Catalan police force, on Tuesday …
Muhammad Kamal Mustafa received a 15-month prison sentence and a 2,160 euros fine for inciting Muslim men to physically abuse their wives in his pamphlet “Women in Islam”.
In it he wrote: “The blows should be concentrated on the hands and feet using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave scars or bruises on the body.”
Afterward, whilst browsing my blogroll, I came upon the latest posts from the Sola Sisters about Rick Warren’s continuing overtures to Muslims! One post asks what the King’s Way document actually says, another demonstrates that Saddleback pastors know it is an interfaith document and the third discusses one of Warren’s pastors, Abraham Meulenberg, speaking near Nice (France) in 2011 at an ecumenical conference. Photos show him lecturing on the commonality between Christianity and Islam!
It won’t be long before Warren’s fellow Baptists join him in this effort. It would seem as if the complementarians among them would have lots to learn from their Muslim brothers. (Sarcasm alert.)
Why are we teaming up with these people? Don’t discount for a moment the possibility that there’s more money and more prestige in this for Warren.
Back to domestic violence, however. As Anna Wood writes (please take a few minutes to read her post in full):
A man is abusive because he desires ungodly control over his wife. The sin of abuse lies in the abuser’s court.
When you meet up with an abused woman, remember these things:
When a woman is abused by her husband, it isn’t because
she didn’t submit enough (if she is like most abused women, she is far more submissive than most women ever have to be),
she didn’t obey often enough (in the name of obedience, he has likely commanded things that would disgust and frighten the best of us),
she hasn’t tried hard enough,
she didn’t love him enough,
she didn’t spend enough time in prayer for her husband and for their marriage,
she didn’t study the Word,
didn’t believe the Word
or didn’t try to obey the Word with everything within her.
Without further ado, below are resources which women (especially in North America) might find helpful in case of domestic abuse. Clergy and other church-based workers might also find them useful.
N.B.: I have not read the books, only blog recommendations and the Amazon reviews.
Articles:
Is substance abuse linked to spouse abuse?
Blogs:
Submission Tyranny, in Church and Society
Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence
Books:
Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion
Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence
Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics and the sequel
Character Disturbance: the phenomenon of our age
In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People
Websites:
Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria (Australia)
These are just a few suggestions. There are bound to be many more resources in cyberspace.
End of series
This post is not for those of a sensitive disposition.
For Christians recovering from toxic churches, Ronald M Enroth’s 1992 book Churches that Abuse is recommended reading.
The book has been mentioned on many church abuse recovery sites and is available in its entirety online for free. It’s well worth a read, even for those who belong to sound, doctrinal congregations. It will confirm certain stereotypes but smash a few others.
What follows are a few excerpts, highlights mine.
Background to the book
… Despite the defensive protestations of authoritarian leaders that ex-members of their churches lie, distort the facts, and are “accusers of the brethren,” there is abundant evidence that a serious problem of abuse exists in the Christian community …
It is my hope that this book will provide a context for understanding. If we have basic information about a subject, we can sometimes take preventative action. Regrettably, it is not always possible to “get through” to people already caught up in abusive churches. They do not see themselves as being manipulated, or in any danger of spiritual abuse. Hence, the frustration of parents, relatives, and friends who try to reach or “rescue” them. There are no easy solutions to this problem.
In the final analysis, the book presents a hopeful outlook. Not only can individuals leave abusive churches and achieve recovery and restoration, but there are encouraging signs that some groups are themselves recognizing the need for change and are moving away from the fringe toward the center. May their numbers increase. (Preface, pp ix and x)
In Chapter 1, Enroth states that he conducted interviews of ‘hundreds’ of abusive church victims and also visited some of the churches in question. Whilst the church names in most cases are real, the names of the victims have been changed (pp 30-31). His intent was to expose the nature of manipulation, control and pain that these cultish congregations foster under seemingly omnipotent pastors.
Pastoral control over relationships
Chapter 4 details an Asian-American group near Los Angeles, which changed its name several times. At the time Enroth was compiling information, it was called Church of the Great Shepherd and, as a legal entity, Shepherd’s Training Center (STC).
Jean Liang headed the group and damaged family relationships among her adherents:
As the head of the STC, Mrs. Liang dictated every aspect of life, whether spiritual, physical, or relational …
Members shared a common purse …
Evan and Stacy’s two daughters almost died as a result of Jean Liang’s influence, the oldest from being force-fed at six months and routinely beaten, the youngest because of premature birth due to Stacy’s being overworked in the communal house. In addition, Roy and Mandy Chan’s young son and daughter were severely abused, being regularly beaten or shaken for such offenses as wetting, crying, not keeping their eyes closed, or falling asleep. After a severe shaking of their three-month-old daughter, Jean said that it would be better for her to grow up submissive and retarded than intelligent and rebellious …
The bonding of mothers and children was seen as a great sin. Jean regularly separated nursing mothers and their infants, even going so far as to take them from the breast, saying, “You are tying your child to yourself and not to the Lord.” This “tying” supposedly endangered the child’s salvation. However, former members state that Mrs. Liang’s five children are strongly bonded to their mother, but have little respect for their father. Husbands and wives were also separated for long periods. Their relationships supposedly were impure and ungodly, based upon lust and manipulation.
Public times of confrontation, confession, and repentance were common, lasting anywhere from four to twenty hours. These sessions usually took place at night. The airing of the most intimate details of one’s life was seen as opening the way for God to take one deeper into the spiritual life. All participants were victimized because of their idealism and desire to more fully serve and love God. These intimate details, including those related to one’s sexual behavior, were brought up over and over again to produce feelings of deep guilt. “It amounted to spiritual blackmail,” states Evan. Many persons were labeled as homosexuals and were required to write letters to old associates confessing this “sin.” Old “sins” were never forgotten nor forgiven. (Chapter 4, pp 85-86)
Enroth observes:
Spiritually abusive groups routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members. In my opinion, the leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. In all totalitarian environments, dependency is necessary for subjugation. Jerry MacDonald, a student of autocratic religious movements, notes that authoritarian religious groups manipulate “rewards, punishments, and experiences to systematically sever from members their past support systems, which include their own powers of independent and rational thinking, their ability to test, define, and evaluate, as well as their ability to freely interact with others about their experiences. These internal support systems are replaced with exterior support systems under the control of the leaders.“1 (Chapter 5, p. 103)
Pentecostal ‘demons’ and deliverance
Chapter 2 discusses the Pentecostal focus on demons and deliverance:
On March 20, 1986, Janet Cole drove from Seattle to Portland and drowned her five-year-old daughter, Brittany in a motel bathtub. The attractive thirty-seven-year-old mother, described by friends as the ideal Christian woman, was convinced that she was demon possessed and that a similar fate would probably befall her daughter. She wanted the little girl to go to heaven and so committed an act of love by killing her.
Janet Cole was also a member of a large Pentecostal church, Community Chapel, in south Seattle that ex-members and other critics claim was pre-occupied with demons and “deliverance ministry.” The tragic drowning resulted in the first of a series of media reports that brought unwanted publicity to the church and its former pastor, Donald Lee Barnett. In addition to the emphasis on exorcism, a swirl of controversy emerged as a result of Barnett’s teaching on “intimate dancing” and “spiritual connections” with members of the opposite sex. (Chapter 2, page 35)
Barnett regularly received special ‘revelations’ which he passed on to his members. Enroth describes what happened when Community Chapel was at its peak, which was in the 1970s and 1980s.
Barnett’s ‘intimate dancing’ involved members finding ‘spiritual connections’ with other members of the opposite sex — not their spouses. It went far beyond dancing, as spiritual connections were to spend time with each other during the week.
Enroth unpacks the situation:
Community Chapel had not always been so controversial and controlling, although its pastor had promoted various unorthodox concepts from the beginning. As a youngster, Barnett and his family belonged to the United Pentecostal Church, a small denomination isolated from the Christian mainstream because of its rejection of the traditional concept of the Trinity. Barnett still preaches a non-trinitarian message.
Although never ordained a minister, he did attend an unaccredited Bible seminary in Idaho and began his ministry as a Sunday school and Bible study teacher in a series of Assemblies of God churches in Washington. Barnett left each of these churches because of doctrinal disagreements. Meanwhile, he worked as a draftsman. (pp. 38-39)
As his church grew:
Barnett instituted “Operation Rescue” in which members were instructed to report each other’s faults to the pastor. A dress code for both men and women was also begun, as well as dietary code restricting pork, shellfish, and alcohol, all based on Barnett’s interpretation of the Old Testament laws. Oreo cookies were outlawed because they contained lard. Interracial dating was proscribed. Certain Christian books and bookstores were to be avoided because they promoted “false” creeds. However, Barnett approved of and quoted from a weekly publication by a neo-Nazi group.
Celebrating Christmas and Easter was discouraged because Barnett considered them secular holidays. Engagements could not be announced until Barbara, the pastor’s wife, was informed. Every indication of a negative or ”rebellious” attitude or unapproved opinion was attributed to demons. (pp. 39-40)
The irony is that the focus on demons and deliverance actually encouraged Barnett and his members’ demonic behaviour:
The practice of “spiritual connections” had a particularly demonic impact. There were numerous accounts of adulterous relationships, sexual assault, harshly shunned and rejected dissidents, child abuse, suicides and attempted suicides, broken marriages, child-custody battles, and lawsuits, several of which were aimed at Pastor Barnett for alleged sexual misconduct. (p. 41)
And:
Another problem was the abdication of personal moral responsibility for sin, blaming it instead on the work of demons. There was a tendency to attribute any problem, interpersonal or otherwise, to demons. Members would spiritually psychoanalyze one another with regard to what specific demons were troubling them and then point to the need for “deliverance.” This would be the case frequently between marriage partners. Common, natural emotions were more often than not attributed to demons. Members were told that when they saw their spouses dancing in an intimate manner with some other person, they were not to feel any jealousy, resentment, or hurt. The natural tendency in such a situation is to feel possessive of one’s spouse. Yet, when they experienced those feelings, they were accused of having a demon of jealousy. (page 49)
Sex and sensuality – a warning!
I found the following mention of sexual activity, particularly oral sex, interesting in light of Mark Driscoll’s views:
Barnett discussed oral sex in Sunday school and was “inappropriately explicit” regarding sexual matters from the pulpit.
Community Chapel has reportedly paid for abortions for members, including teenagers, and Barnett has preached that “God never did really say ‘thou shalt not have an abortion.’ ” Those who say abortion is murder are said to be guilty of a “legalism,” a term used to refer to an incorrect or overly literal interpretation of biblical, civil, or moral law. He reasoned that if “adulteresses” were forced to have babies, the children raised by them, or given up for adoption, would grow up to lead sinful lives and end up in hell. If aborted, they would return to God.
Robin and Matt [former members] say that the extreme emphasis on sexual issues impacted the children and adolescents of Community Chapel in one of two ways. “Either they were really into it or they think it’s junk” …
What went wrong at Community Chapel? How can one explain the bizarre series of events that led to Barnett’s eventual downfall? According to former members Robin and Matt, “Don Barnett lost his grip on the Bible. It was that Book which kept the place reasonably sober over the years. He gradually diminished and de-emphasized the Bible as something to preach from, as something to live by. He had to get rid of the Book.”
Much of the problem can also be attributed to the deceptive nature of Barnett’s sensual theology. He and his wife, over a period of several years, drew the congregation into the trap of believing that the sexual and the spiritual realms were innocuously intertwined. Barnett increasingly relied on mystical and subjective religious experience to convince his followers that he was indeed in touch with God. He gradually, cleverly, and subtly prepared his audience for what would be considered outrageous pronouncement in more conventional evangelical churches. (pp. 43-44)
This is also worth noting:
An interesting postscript is that in Robin’s opinion, those who were considered to be the most spiritual at Community Chapel and who supposedly had the most contact with God were those who had come out of deep occult backgrounds. Those persons who resisted getting involved in the dancing phenomenon were told that their refusing to dance was the result of “demonic oppression.” (page 46)
The importance of the Bible
Afterward, former Community Chapel members voiced the need to examine teachings by the light of Scripture. I know that some of my readers would not agree on this, and they have their favourite authors who offer more comforting messages. However:
What contributed to Community Chapel’s slide into what observers agree is false teaching and deception? Virtually all ex-members agree with the conclusion of a founding elder of the church that an over-emphasis on experience began a drift away from the Bible. “It was the experience focus that got us off the track more than any other thing.” “People need to be reminded,” commented another former member, “not to put their confidence in a set of criteria put forth by a man who is simply relating his observations, but to place their confidence squarely on the Bible as the only infallible standard for judging truth.“ (pp 47-48)
Dangerous discipling
Chapter 6 tells the story of Barbara Harold, a 21-year old student and hospital employee, who began attending the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ, affiliated with the infamous Boston Movement.
As Barbara became more enmeshed in the cult, she found her new friends dictating her every move. Her daily exercise regime was pulling her away from God, she wasn’t making enough converts in local evangelical excursions and she had to have a certain amount of ‘quiet time’ each day.
Enroth tells us:
Given that she had to be at the hospital each morning at 6:30, Barbara would rise by 4:15 to spend her “quiet time.” Invariably, because of the demands of her heavy schedule, she would fall asleep unless someone else was with her. This led to her being called “weak hearted” and lacking in zeal for God by her disciplers (those more mature Christians who supervised her spiritual activity) and the other women in her Bible study. A vicious cycle of emotional highs and guilty depressions resulted.
… She was told, “You must live for God’s kingdom only.” Because she came to believe that her whole family would be lost if she didn’t try to convert them (the Boston churches constituted the only “true Church”), Barbara was constantly speaking to them about their salvation. Her family grew tired of the spiritual barrage, as did her old friends, so Barbara ended up moving into an apartment with four other women from the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ.
Although she enjoyed the activities and the pep-rally-like church sermons, Barbara was under constant pressure to be something she wasn’t. She was always required to confess sin to her discipler. Not being a very extroverted person, Barbara found it hard to meet the requirement to constantly evangelize. Times with her discipler were like interrogations: How many persons did you reach out to today? Barbara’s answer was invariably one, two, or none. She was told that because she didn’t desire to reach out and witness that Satan was in her, that she didn’t have Jesus’ heart for the lost, and that she needed to be more like Jesus. Finally, the pressure became so great that she began making up sins to confess so that she would at least have something else to say. She constantly felt guilty ...
If you “stuffed” bad feelings toward someone down in your heart, that is, if you didn’t confess them, you were in sin. This would obviously lead to more sin since a root had already taken hold.
Barbara’s last night with the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ was one of severe reprimand and interrogation by the members of her Bible study because of her alleged “stuffing” of bad feelings. The Bible study was not “advancing” (growing in numbers), and she was obviously at fault. What bad feelings and thoughts was she stuffing? Why wasn’t she having quality quiet times with the Lord? How many persons was she really reaching out to each day? One by one, each member told her what her shortcomings were …
Barbara asked to move back with her parents that same night. “It was the hardest decision I ever made,” she said … Her guilt increased, exacerbated by the fact that members contacted her and asked, “How could you allow Satan to harden your heart so much to do this to your friends?” She was told to remember that her heart was “exceedingly deceitful.” (Chapter 6, pp 112-113)
Extreme church discipline for all ages
Enroth relates the story of Pam and Tom Murray in Chapter 7. The Murrays were members of the No-Name Fellowship, or C-U Ministries, based in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
It’s difficult to imagine people who are better off economically and socially becoming entangled in Christian cults, yet, the membership base was solidly middle-class, well-educated, ‘highly idealistic’ and between 18-25 years of age. For those who are unaware, Champaign-Urbana is a university town.
Similar to the Pietists, this group felt that organised church worship was lacking, so they started their own Bible study. A man by the name of Doug Kleber emerged as the chief elder, with his ‘greater calling of God’.
Hmm.
Kleber, who had an authoritarian personality, also had ‘revelations’ which, interestingly, told him how to dictate everyone else’s life:
These extra-biblical “revelations” dictated how members were to properly eat, dress, discipline their children, decorate their homes, clean their homes, and behave in the marriage bed. Because of the group members’ love of the Lord and their genuine seeking to know and do what he wanted, they submitted to Kleber’s self-appointed spiritual authority, even though at times Pam knew that he was wrong. As time went on, she eventually convinced herself that she “was the one that was always wrong.” (Chapter 7, p. 128)
Like extreme pietist groups, the group reverted to an early Christian lifestyle. The world was evil and church denominations ineffectual. Everyone else was damned but they.
… there was so much “revelation” coming that the average member found it impossible to take the time necessary to carefully study the Bible to determine for him or herself that what was being taught was the whole truth of God. In addition, as Pam notes, “I lived in fear of correction, while Scripture tells us to embrace and love it.” Also, many of the rules and regulations were never actually spoken or articulated as a command. One simply knew from experience that something was a rule, and, if not adhered to, discipline resulted. (p. 130)
Unfortunately, as a result:
For Pam, who had had an active prayer life before the fellowship, “God turned into an unreachable spirit. It was like playing a game that I could never win.” She has lost all desire to share Jesus with others.
If members ever did decide they had reason to disagree with Kleber and his “revelations,” they quickly found reason to stop. Pam knew that even when she desired to stand and say, “This is crazy!” or, “I don’t agree!” she would have been disciplined for disrupting and coming against authority. (p. 131)
This is how Kleber and his followers conducted church discipline for disagreements:
Although the “breaking of the Word” may have been a part of the settling of dissenting opinion, outrageous discipline of members was the order of the day according to Pam and other ex-members. These measures included the spanking of adults with hands, belts, wooden paddles, or other objects; the drinking of salt water; having liquid soap squirted into a woman’s mouth for inappropriately addressing her husband; and lying at someone’s feet in order to apologize. Pam recalls a woman’s prayer meeting at which one woman was told to remove her dress in order to become “more vulnerable.”
… Tom adds, “Many, but not all, of these disciplinary measures took place in front of the entire body, because we regarded ourselves as family. Many times the body was asked to judge whether they thought the offender had found repentance.”
Unfortunately, the harshness of the discipline extended to the children as well. Pam says, “I could cry over some of the spankings they received. Bruised bottoms. They were even calloused.” The eventual disbanding of the church was in large part related to a tragic event that took place in another branch of the organization in Spokane, Washington. (At one point the group also had outposts in Passaic, New Jersey, and Plano, Texas.) (pp 131-132)
Eventually, corporal punishment — ‘discipline’ — resulted in the death of a ten-year old boy with juvenile diabetes at a branch of the organisation in Spokane, Washington:
When his physical condition worsened and prayer did not seem to be effective, elders of the church were consulted to determine what the problem was. According to a story in the June 21, 1988 issue of the Chicago Tribune, the elders determined that Aaron had sinned. The sin was masturbation, but Aaron would not confess to the sin. His father decided to spank Aaron with a board because the Holy Spirit had told him that he had been masturbating. As the Spokane County deputy prosecutor stated, “His father and the elders ‘rebuked’ Aaron to confess, but he wouldn’t. Aaron’s father and Kleber then beat the child . . . A wooden paddle was used at some point until Aaron confessed. On Sunday morning when his parents awoke, Aaron was dead. There were severe bruises on his buttocks.“ (p. 132)
Catholics not exempt
In Chapter 11, Enroth reviews the changes made in some of these toxic churches and movements in the late 1980s and 1990s.
He makes general mention of Catholic Charismatic groups and the ‘extreme submission of women to men’ and conformity required. This went so far as to celebrate the birth of baby boys but only a tolerance of baby girls. Pastors and other leaders also discouraged family contact, even of children towards ailing and aged parents.
Some Catholic Charismatic leaders have now acknowledged their error and arrogance.
That false feeling of exclusivity
Throughout Churches that Abuse, former members report that they believed their church had the only way, that it was exclusive, that they were uniquely blessed and so on.
When there are no guest preachers in the pulpit and no free exchange of ideas, when the pastor wants to dictate your living quarters, your personal time, your relationships with family outside the church, your potential employment, your parenting methods, your attire, your hairstyle and your health — run for the door.
Why?
Those of us on the outside reading this will wonder if it was pure gullibility that drew these people into cults and toxic churches.
However, as Enroth points out in Chapter 10 and elsewhere in the book, a number of factors can be in play:
- Personal circumstances, e.g. an attempt to come out of substance abuse or the occult.
- Being accustomed to an authoritarian home life.
- A search for security on the assumption that more rules equal greater security.
- A desire for exclusivity and the ‘only way’ to holiness.
- A successful way to cope with and counter our ever-changing society.
- The need for heroes one can admire.
- The adulation of experts — including gifted clergy: ‘If X says so, it must be true’.
However, the question now is, 20 years on and where are the victims now? And have the leaders ever truly repented?
Answers on a postcard, please.
This post is for adults only.
Mark Driscoll‘s latest book, Real Marriage, is a frank exploration of human sexuality.
Written from a complementarian — male headship over women and children — perspective, it won’t please Christians who find this type of thinking unbiblical. It also won’t please those who are concerned about women being exploited in marriage.
Driscoll’s church members and admirers around the world will no doubt find it of value. What follows are a few excerpts of reviews from conservative and mainline pastors alike.
- Denny Burk, an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, gives a good summary of the book’s contents and purpose. He points out that the Driscolls’ account of their own marriage is written from a Christian perspective. Chapter 10 of the book concerns sodomy, which Driscoll considers acceptable in the context of the sanctity of marriage. Please note that the book discusses Mrs Driscoll’s unfortunate sexual experiences earlier in life. Burk notes (emphases in bold are mine):
The bulk of the chapter gives an ethical assessment of a variety of sexual activities. The Driscolls invoke 1 Corinthians 6:12 as the basis for the evaluation, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” From this text, the Driscolls propose a “taxonomy” of questions to assess the different activities: (1) Is it lawful? (2) Is it helpful? (3) Is it enslaving? If one judges a given behavior to be biblically lawful, relationally helpful, and non-addictive, then it is permissible for Christians to participate in that activity. Among the activities that the authors deem permissible within this taxonomy are masturbation, fel[l]atio/cunnilingus, sodomy (on both spouses), menstrual sex, role-playing, sex toys, birth control, cosmetic surgery, cybersex, and sexual medication. The Driscolls are careful to stipulate that these are activities spouses may participate in by mutual agreement, but not that they must participate in (p. 180). No spouse should be manipulated into doing anything that violates his or her conscience (p. 178). The only item in the list deemed impermissible in every circumstance is sexual assault.
The value of the Driscolls’ taxonomy is only as good as the exegesis that it is based on, but in this case their reading of 1 Corinthians 6:12 is fundamentally flawed. The Driscolls read “all things are lawful” as if the phrase were Paul’s own declaration of Christian freedom, but that is mistaken. Almost every modern translation1 and a near consensus of commentators2 treat “all things are lawful” not as Paul’s words but as a slogan that Corinthian men used to justify their visits to prostitutes (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15). The NIV captures the correct interpretation:
“I have the right to do anything,” you say–but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”–but I will not be mastered by anything (1 Cor. 6:12).
The Corinthians may have been riffing on themes they had heard from Paul (cf. Rom. 6:14; 7:4, 6). But they had twisted Paul’s law-free gospel into a justification for bad behavior. Thus the phrase “all things are lawful” is not an expression of Christian freedom from the apostle Paul, but rather an expression of antinomianism from fornicators! Paul’s aim in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 is to correct the Corinthians’ misunderstanding. One of the reasons for the Corinthian error was the fact that they viewed the physical body as inconsequential in God’s moral economy (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13b). Yet Paul refutes the Corinthians on this point and gives them an ultimate ethical norm with respect to their bodies: “You have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God with your body” (1 Cor. 6:20) …
Paul’s question is not “Is it lawful?” but “Does it glorify God with my body?” To miss this is to miss the entire point of the text. Sex exists for the glory of God, and Paul only commends activities that glorify God with the body. In order to answer the question “Does it glorify God?,” one has to have an understanding of the purposes that God has given for sex and whether or not a given activity fits with those purposes (more on this below). This kind of reflection is absent from chapter 10 in Driscoll’s book …
The problems with the Driscolls’ advice, however, are not merely exegetical. They are also pastoral. Although some Christian authors comment on the ethics of a husband sodomizing his wife6, I have yet to find any who contemplate the reverse. Yet the Driscolls give explicit instructions to wives about how they might sodomize their husbands in a pleasurable way (p. 188). Yet where in the Bible is such an activity ever commended? The Bible only contemplates such activities in the context of homosexual relationships. The Bible condemns the “unnatural” use of bodies between persons of the same-sex (Rom. 1:26-27). Why would Christian couples emulate that unnatural use in the marital bed? What about a husband for whom such an activity might stir up homosexual desires that he has never experienced before engaging in this activity with his wife? I do not think that the Driscolls have reckoned with the view that says “immorality” (porneia) is possible within the marital bed. The Driscolls may disagree with this point of view, but they should at least engage biblical commentators who understand sodomy as a defilement of marriage.7
I can think of a whole range of other pastoral problems that might be provoked by chapter 10 …
I can only imagine how chapter 10 might land on someone whose experience has actually been one of sexual innocence. I work with college students who tend to get married at a very young age. I meet students who come from sexually broken backgrounds and others who come from sexually innocent backgrounds. Sometimes these students marry each other. I think chapter 10 has the potential to wreak havoc in such marriages where one spouse will feel a whole range of taboos to be “permissible” if he can convince his spouse to participate. This to me seems like a recipe for marital disaster, and I do not think the Driscolls’ requirement of “helpfulness” mitigates the difficulty …
In Ephesians 5, we learn that every marriage from Adam and Eve until now exists ultimately to give an enacted parable of Christ’s covenant love for His bride. In other words, the purpose of marriage is to glorify Christ—to shine a light on his redemptive love for His people …
I love and appreciate the Driscolls, and I am really grateful for the testimony that they share about their own marriage … At the end of the day however, the shortcomings I have identified above keep me from giving Real Marriage an unqualified endorsement. Indeed the theological and pastoral errors of chapter 10 alone are weighty, and they are the primary reason that I would not recommend this book for marriage counseling. There are other books that have many of the strengths of Real Marriage without all the weaknesses.
- Wade Burleson, pastor and blogger, encourages us to study Augustine’s writings in light of the New Testament. He points out:
… for Augustine sex has a God-given purpose; and without this purpose in the forefront of the mind, the soul becomes deadened by the lusts for sex. When a married person participates in sex for the sake of its pleasures, it becomes like overeating food for the ecstasy of its taste. Damage will occur. Unlike the effects of food overindulgence, the consequences of participating in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure are hidden and unseen. Married couples, according to Augustine, who pursue sex for the sake of its pleasures are commiting a ”fault” (culpa). They have substituted pleasurable sex for God. This fault in a married couple is easily “forgivable” (venialis) because of the goodness of marriage itself, but it is a fault. If left unidentified and unresisted, it will lead to further and deeper bondage and more and more movement away from God.
How radically different is Augustine’s view to that of Driscoll’s and Young’s? I am not saying that Augustine is completely right and that Driscoll and [Ed] Young [author of Sexperiment] are completely wrong; what I’m saying is something may be out of kilter with the pronounced advocacy of enormous pleasurable sex from evangelical pulpits. If we are to believe Augustine, the problem is that those promoting the pleasures of sex are themselves addicts–chained by their lusts. I trust that my four children, all of whom love Christ and read what I write, will realize that Augustine is worth considering on the subject of sex as much as he is on the doctrines of grace.
- Deb of The Wartburg Watch, a site for Christians recovering from abusive churches, was understandably unhappy to learn that Driscoll is touring American campuses giving frank talks on sex to Christian student groups. Deb’s daughter recently graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Driscoll had spoken there in 2009 on his interpretation of the Song of Solomon. Deb writes (emphases in the original):
From my vantage point, Driscoll’s antics have certainly escalated since 2009. Now that the Driscolls are going around the country peddling their wares (Real Marriage), I find it necessary to speak out once again. Driscoll reminds me of the indulgence preachers that enraged Martin Luther. They traveled about Europe conning people into buying worthless pieces of paper. I believe Driscoll is doing something very similar as he attempts to sell sex and salvation in a little red book, at least that’s how I see it. I guess you could call Driscoll a 21st century “indulgence” preacher.
I am deeply disturbed by how Mark Driscoll is trying to influence my daughters’ generation with his not so secret agenda, which appears to be:
We love SEX (any form as long as it’s between a married couple), BEER, INDIE ROCK, TATTOOS, BODY PIERCINGS, and DOCTRINE (Neo-Calvinist, of course) — probably IN THAT ORDER. As we learned from the tragic testimonies published here last week, Mars Hill appears to play for keeps. Based on what these escapees have shared, Driscoll’s church reminds me of the Eagles’ Hotel California – “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave” — unless you are a fired elder whom Driscoll wanted to punch in the nose!
My daughter graduated from UNC last May and was involved with Campus Crusade (now “CRU”) for all four years of college. She will tell you that Cornerstone (as it is called at Carolina) was a wonderful organization, and I have been grateful for this ministry …
Here is my concern. When my daughter took on a leadership position in CRU, she was required to read Mark Driscoll’s Radical Reformission before attending a leadership retreat at the start of the school year. Now that my younger daughter is involved in CRU, I would like to know how closely aligned it is with Mark Driscoll.
In 2009, Deb’s daughter heard Driscoll speak on the Song of Solomon and asked her afterward:
“If Mark doesn’t tell us about these things, who will?” I immediately said, “Is that what Mark Driscoll claims? That is absolutely not true! You can discuss any sexual topic with me.” She and I have had quite a few “sex talks” before, and that’s probably why she felt comfortable sharing such an intimate question with me. I then went on to explain to her in a very matter-of-fact way why anal sex can have serious health consequences. Prior to this graphic discussion, I had heard a medical expert explain that the vaginal lining is twice as thick as the lining of the rectum, and that’s why anal sex can be dangerous. Remember the E. coli? I shared this information with her and explained that anal sex is just not natural. If God had intended for a married couple to engage in this kind of sex, He would have designed the female body accordingly.
The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a page on the genital human papilloma virus (HPV) (emphases mine):
Genital human papillomavirus (also called HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI). There are more than 40 HPV types that can infect the genital areas of males and females. These HPV types can also infect the mouth and throat. Most people who become infected with HPV do not even know they have it …
Most people with HPV do not develop symptoms or health problems from it. In 90% of cases, the body’s immune system clears HPV naturally within two years. But, sometimes, HPV infections are not cleared and can cause:
- Genital warts
- Rarely, warts in the throat — a condition called recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, or RRP. When this occurs in children it is called juvenile-onset RRP (JORRP).
- Cervical cancer and other, less common but serious cancers, including cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis, anus, and oropharynx (back of throat including base of tongue and tonsils).
The results of sodomy also show up in an abstract from a medical paper from 1976, ‘The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases’:
The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10% of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum …
Not so exciting now, is it?
- Carl Trueman, a Reformed author and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, considers the overemphasis on sex when pastors attempt to ‘engage the culture’:
… The gospel is light; it is truly beautiful. To wake in the morning and to know that whatever darkness lurks within our hearts, the light of Christ is sufficient to dispel it all is surely glorious. Why would one even want to dwell in any detail on the deeds of darkness when one could spend time reflecting on the magnificence of God manifest in the flesh?
I have often in the past stood with those who laughed at what we regarded as the ignorant, unsophisticated taboos of the older generation. But now I worry about the ease with which the rising generation talks explicitly of ‘the fruitless deeds of darkness’ in the name of cultural engagement, fear of being thought passé or simply a desire to slough off the legalisms of their fathers in the faith. You can, after all, get to heaven without ever having seen an R-Rated art house movie or having enjoyed a spectacular love life …
- A former member of Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church and leader of women’s ministry there now blogs at Practical Theology for Women. She and her husband both read the book and reviewed it. Emphases in the original in the first and sixth paragraphs; the rest in bold are mine:
… in Real Marriage, Mark and Grace recall personal events as the foundation of the book, and they project their conclusions from these personal events onto those reading it. They have brought these things into the public arena and revealed much about intimate areas of their life that affected many people in their public ministry. In light of this, silence on these issues no longer seems the righteous choice …
What stood out earlier as odd about Mark’s perspective of the past was that Grace was humbly reconciling her past, but HE wasn’t! What at first appears to be a book about their marriage is really a book about Grace’s marriage. We actually know very little about Mark’s. From the beginning of this book, Mark has made passing references to Grace’s mistakes and abuse that lead to difficulty in their marriage, but what about him? He had been in previous sexual relationships prior to Grace, and with Grace prior to their marriage. What affect had this had on him and how he would view relationships going forward? Not much is said about this, in fact Mark barely recognizes his responsibility in this at all.
Grace’s words are in passive voice, and she bears the burden of her actions and consequences. Mark’s words are active, and based on clarity from chapter 11, it is now clear he has initiated this as a process for reconnecting with his wife. He fails to take responsibility for his part in their shared emotional baggage however, and ultimately Grace bears most of the burden. How have Mark’s previous relationships shaped his needs during sex with his wife? He describes the change between he and Grace after marriage as unimpressive. He had experience to base this on. How had his previous relationships influenced him emotionally? Had previous partners he’d been with left him with scars too? Had he been abused himself or witnessed abuse he was unable to prevent?
The role that these factors have in the story is described clearly in how Grace was able to relate to Mark, but how had these factors influenced Mark’s ability to relate to Grace? Did he enter marriage with realistic and fair expectations on her? He’s made progress apparently, but there is very little attention given to the emotional baggage Mark carries with him. He seemed oddly silent on these issues in his life and let Grace’s story stand on its own.
When viewed as a whole, the end gives context to the beginning and now some pieces fall into place. This is a story told by the inside voice in Mark’s head about a period in his life when he was a pastor under pressure in a large young church … He has yet to recognize his own responsibility in much of this, to the point that his wife is publicly apologizing to him for past offenses he participated in himself with seemingly no remorse or consequence on his part. The dichotomy between their viewpoints is striking.
… I remember Mark telling a husband publicly on the church members’ forum during those years that if he didn’t shut his wife up, Mark would do it for him. I hope his regret has caused him to reach out to that family in apology (she was also an abuse victim, sexually exploited by an older youth leader) as they left Mars Hill after that …
In Real Marriage, Mark acknowledges a past problem with pride, but he remains blind to his self-centered view of the church, the extent of his disqualifying anger problem, the true root causes of both in his life, and the long term effects that both have on those around him. When you can flippantly write off 1000 members in your church, including elders, deacons, and community group leaders, because (as he explains it) you’re burnt out based on long standing bitterness and sexual frustration with your wife stemming from a sexual encounter when she was a teenager 19 years before—well, wow, I’m at a loss for exactly how to address that …
My biggest concern about Real Marriage, though, is the abundance of references to Jesus, forgiveness, and repentance without a corresponding understanding of the gospel grace that Jesus Himself teaches. I say it often, and this is a clear example – using gospel language and understanding gospel grace are two different things. The best articulations of the gospel in Real Marriage are those given by Grace on p. 126-127 and p. 137-138 as she recounts dealing with her past sexual issues in the light. But there is little corresponding from Mark about facing the wealth of his own sin and deep need. What Mark actually says in the book reveals a poor understanding of Biblical grace, particularly as Jesus describes it in Matthew 18 …
- David and Sarah Vanderveen reviewed the book for the Sojourners site. (Yes, this goes against my earlier post about Jim Wallis and the Sojourners, but I found a few points of interest in this article.) The Vanderveens are married with two teenage sons. He said:
… One would hope that the well-regarded Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson would have better editorial oversight and better author management. This book is not only a troublesome read, it dispenses poor general advice, has bad scholarship and is based on a management style that is doomed to failure from the start.
Real Marriage for me wasn’t about marriage relationships at all. It was a cry for help.
Amidst the awkward, embarrassing and problematic style, I think that the book is really an example of the desperate place to which Mark Driscoll’s ministry style has led him.
She said:
… The Driscolls barely address the myriad issues that can be root causes of marital strife and sexual dysfunction, including but not limited to: health problems including depression and other mental illness, hormonal imbalance, stress, and different stages of life, whether new baby, empty nest, unemployment, change of employment.
Unfortunately, solving these problems often takes more than Bible study and a pastor’s counsel—though that’s a good place to start.
Real Marriage is a poorly written, poorly researched book by a well-meaning pastor who I believe is struggling with his own sexuality and sense of self-worth. I don’t know how else to explain his weirdly inappropriate fixation on masculinity and specific sexual practices, and his failure to address the complexity of human sexuality and relationships.
It feels to me like he doesn’t really want to understand the whole person, rather he just wants to cut straight to the salacious tidbits. I realize that’s how you sell a lot of books, but still. I get the distinct impression that Driscoll is not a man at peace …
So, there you have it. It seems as if Real Marriage is more for itching ears than it is for a yearning soul seeking advice about the sanctity and honourable estate of marriage.
Tomorrow: Another problem with complementarianism
The following post is for adults only.
Last week, I posted on Mark Driscoll’s type of Christianity. It’s hard to know how to describe his constant tickling of itching ears in the Seattle area at Mars Hill Church. Who knows what is going on in his church-planting Acts 29 network?
In this post, I cited an article which appeared in the Seattle Times. There, we learn that Mark grew up near a strip club in a working class neighbourhood.
Driscoll also gave the reporter his impressions of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church, in which he was raised (emphases mine):
It was like an aerobics class: stand up, sit down, kneel . . . It never intersected with food, sex, friends, going to college, getting your first job — the things kids think about.
Later on, after he became a Christian of an Evangelical Calvinist sort, he decided he wanted his very own church:
“I’d never preached, run a business, gone through seminary.” But “it’s like you’re at the kids’ table at Thanksgiving and someone says: ‘Someday you’ll get to the big table.’ [Forget that]. I’ll just form my own table.“
In 2007, Driscoll preached in Edinburgh (Scotland) on the Song of Solomon. He then created a series of sermons on it called The Peasant Princess. The ‘princess’ refers to the young woman in the book, who, Bible scholars say was actually a nobleman’s daughter being oppressed by her brothers. So, in reality she was neither a peasant nor a princess.
In an article from 2009, the Baptist Press described Driscoll’s interpretation of the Song of Solomon:
A May 18 interview with Driscoll, on the syndicated “Family Life” [radio] program hosted by Dennis Rainey, was halted in mid-broadcast after Bott Network founder Dick Bott learned Driscoll was the guest. Bott then cancelled another scheduled interview and ordered all Bott stations not to carry any programs featuring Driscoll …
Bott said he made the decision because of what he saw as Driscoll’s penchant for using vulgarity in his sermons, especially his questionable interpretation of the Song of Solomon in a Nov. 18, 2007, sermon preached in Edinburgh, Scotland, and subsequently in a multi-part series entitled “The Peasant Princess.”
“I’ve seen a lot [about Driscoll] that’s on the Internet and that only makes the whole thing worse,” Bott said. “I’ve seen what he said at that church in Scotland and as far as I know he’s never addressed it in any repentant way or apologetically tried to explain why on earth he got so far off the reservation as to think that that’s the way to address people.”
Driscoll’s Edinburgh sermon included graphic detail to explain his idea that Song of Solomon 2:6 encourages husbands to stimulate their wives by touching private parts of their bodies. He said chapter 7 of the book gives biblical justification for spouses “stripping” for each other and quipped that while lovemaking is better than wine, “lovemaking is great with wine.”
During the sermon, which was entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon,” Driscoll interpreted Song of Solomon 2:3 as referring to oral sex and then said, “Men, I am glad to report to you that oral sex is biblical…. The wife performing oral sex on the husband is biblical. God’s men said, Amen. Ladies, your husbands appreciate oral sex. They do. So, serve them, love them well. It’s biblical. Right here. We have a verse. ‘The fruit of her husband is sweet to her taste and she delights to be beneath him.’”
Driscoll went on to tell an anecdote about a wife who he said won her husband to Christ by performing oral sex on him. Driscoll said he told her that giving him oral sex would be following the admonition of Scripture. A transcript of the sermon quotes Driscoll saying he told her, “1 Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness,” referring to oral sex. Verses 1 and 2 of that chapter, however, tell wives it is their “pure and reverent” conduct that will win their unbelieving husbands.
By 2009, Driscoll was already being invited to major American conferences headed by older Calvinist pastors with their own ministries. The Christian Worldview cautioned against giving him more credibility and renown than he merited:
Oddly enough, it was a stand-up comedian, foul-mouthed Chris Rock, whom Mark Driscoll credits with teaching him how to preach. Mark claims this comedian was “a better study in homiletics than most classes on the subject.” (Confessions of a Reformed Rev, pg. 70). Therefore, would he think others should also follow his example, which will require them to fill their mind with curse words and smut in order to learn how to effectively deliver a good sermon?
Admittedly, Mark Driscoll states he is reformed in his thinking, and he can deliver a sound sermon if he wants to. But, that does not negate his reckless, irreverent treatment of God’s Word, and the crude language that proceeds out of his mouth. This only makes his ministry more dangerous. If an enemy of the faith had used the same comedy to mock and pervert the Word of God, we would see this attack for what it is. Moreover, throughout the history of the church, vulgarity and playing fast and loose with Scripture would have immediately been identified as falsehood, error, or a serious character flaw. However, for some reason, today many in the Church are compromising and excusing ungodly behavior coming from the pulpit.
We tread down this new road to our own demise. In the words of A.W. Tozer, “We should and must learn that we cannot handle holy things carelessly without suffering serious consequences.”
I submit that this ministry attacks the integrity of Scripture, the character of Christ, and feeds the sensual, worldly heart of man. [Emphasis here in the original.] Therefore, out of love for Mark Driscoll and the Body of Christ, there needs to be close examination and scrutiny of this ministry …
Driscoll’s sex advice offers no other scriptural basis for his views other than his interpretation of Song of Solomon. Nor does he discuss scriptural precepts that are at odds with his interpretation, like the Romans 1 warnings about anal sex — “natural for unnatural” — or the exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 4 about “sanctification and honor” in the marriage relationship, rather than “lustful passion, like the Gentiles.”
While no vulgar language was used by Driscoll in his interview with Rainey, Bott said he could not trust Driscoll, given his track record, and that he worried what might be said could damage or offend Bott’s reputation for offering family-friendly programming to a wide range of listeners …
Scriptural admonitions about “unwholesome” speech (Ephesians 4:29) and “filthiness” and “coarse jesting” (Ephesians 5:4) should give pause to any Christian, especially preachers who stand to publicly proclaim the Gospel, Bott said …
He said some of Driscoll’s interpretations of Song of Solomon passages are extreme at best and he is concerned that Driscoll is being hailed as a role model and mentor to too many, particularly young pastors.
Driscoll’s emphasis on women servicing their husbands sexually and pressing the notion of female submission reminds me of Muslim family life. Islam, as practiced, gives the husband to demand from his wife what is his — conjugal rights, whatever time of night. If she does not submit to him, not only that way but in others, he is allowed to beat her. After all, she is his property. Much of practical Islam is intended for the man, not the woman, who is considered in Sharia courts as less of a human than he is.
Driscoll’s preaching is not much different. Sure, his wife Grace takes part with his permission, in panel discussions which he leads. I did see one video of him where she starts to speak and then goes quiet. He looks at her, smiles indulgently and says something like, ‘You can say something, that’s okay’. So, he has given her his permission.
This over-attentiveness and submission should concern faithful Christians — men and women. We have no business modelling our lives on Islam. The ‘modesty’ issue also plays into this, with Christian women warning others to cover up, because men are too easily led into sexual thoughts. That is exactly what happens among certain devout Muslims. Some Protestant women already insist on wearing veils to church. How long will it be before they are wearing ‘Christian’ hijabs and niqabs?
As far as the Song of Solomon is concerned, Andy Bannister, writing for Answering Islam, tells us:
The primary message of the book is this: that human love, marriage, and, dare I say it, sexual love, are a gift from God. If there is one area of life that we tend to get into trouble over, it is this latter area. On the one hand, you have the worst excesses of Western secular culture, where sex is cheapened and disengaged from love or, at worst, simply used as a marketing tool to sell dishwashers. And at the other extreme, you have what occurs in many Eastern cultures, where sex is seen as totally taboo, dirty, is not talked about, where women are hidden away behind closed doors. These are just two examples of the various errors into which a society can fall — cheapening sex, or writing it off as dirty and taboo. Song of Songs, and indeed other parts of the Bible, correct both errors. The poem we have just read celebrates the joy of sexual love; but within the context of a one-on-one relationship in marriage. The poem commends the shepherd and the maiden for their devoted love to one another, the maiden is praised for guarding her virtue and her virginity against all the advances of Solomon, because she is saving herself for the one she loves and wants to marry. Yet sexual love is also commended and celebrated in the poem as a gift from God to be celebrated and to praise Him for. This theme is not only found in the Song of Songs, but goes right back to the very beginning. For, as we read in the book of Genesis:
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24
What should concern us is the thought process of the young men in Driscoll’s congregation listening to these sermons. Saying that oral sex is okay is likely to encourage them to think unwholesome thoughts and thereby ignore Driscoll’s veneer of religiosity and cautions. These men could then well say to their wives — current or future — that Pastor Mark said that if a wife truly loves her husband she will perform oral sex on him.
The lady who writes Freedom For Captives warns (emphasis here in the original):
Does anyone else get it? Does anyone else see how sickeningly sexually abusive it is for Driscoll to teach young husbands (by the thousands!) that they can basically demand oral sex from their wives because, he says, the Bible strongly endorses it?! What if that wife is opposed to oral sex? What if she has past sexual abuse issues where her dad or other abuser orally raped her or forced her to perform fellatio on him? Come on, Driscoll, and everyone else, please, open your eyes! This is beyond, waaay beyond merely putting up with a “Christian brother” who has differing theological views than I do.
The man is doing and saying countless things that appear extremely abusive: spiritually, psychologically (verbal/emotional), and now sexually, in that he is outright condemning the poor woman who will not “submit” and make herself perform oral sex for her husband because it “pleases him.” Oh, and then he claims that one believing wife brought her husband to the Lord by performing oral sex on him. Okay. I see this in John 5:9… NOT!
A few years ago, I read a couple of posts which a youngish member of a Wesleyan church wrote on his own site. He extolled Driscoll’s videos and sermons, saying that they were biblically sound. This chap, who was single with no marital prospects at the time, said that he expected his wife to be fully independent during the day, know how to handle a firearm, homeschool the kids, clean the house, make meals from scratch and — in the evenings when he was home — totally submit to him! Ladies — be careful whom you date. That is the profile of one Driscoll admirer.
In response to her post, Freedom For Captives heard from another Driscoll admirer:
For the record I’m a 19 year old white guy, I have struggled with porno in the past, I have treated women badly in the past and Mark Driscoll has done so much to turn me away from porn and get me to treat women right. So, please keep criticizing this man of God, get angry at everything he says, keep singling him out. As for me I am going to back this faithfull preacher of the Gospel. I will hope for him, I will pray for him and I will thank God for him and on judgement day I am going to be in the crowd smiling as Christ says to Mark Driscoll “Well done good and faithfull servant”
For the record im not going to read anything else anyone posts on here. So however you choose to argue against me, it doesnt matter, you can load up your gun, but there are no deer in the forest, no ducks in the barrel, no monkeys in the trees, no nuts in the bundle… no fries left in the happy meal… im done, I wont respond any more or read any more.
bye
Blog away!
Note how this young man, speaking as Driscoll would, is granting a woman who is probably old enough to be his mother the permission to continue blogging without him! The arrogance.
Freedom For Captives responded:
You may not read this, fine. But your response truly baffles and saddens me. I simply cannot comprehend how you could read those quotes of Mark’s, (in my June 29 comment, as quoted from The Christian World View [cited above]), find humor in them (???) and then say you now “treat women right”… pardon me, but how can that be?
You’re 19. I’m glad you shared that… I’ve stated before that the more I read of Mark, the more I think he comes across as being at the developmental level of an 8th grade boy… His apparent emotional immaturity has been noted by many others besides myself.
Mark has apparently mocked the holiness of our Lord and Savior, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, I don’t think God takes kindly to that. He has also apparently caused much damage to women and to men in his oppressive, anti-biblical teaching about women, men, marriage and sex… I don’t think he will get the “well done” on any of that.
None of us is perfect. But, when someone is a leader in Christ’s name, and leader of thousands no less, he will reap the harsher judgment for steering people wrong (see the book of James: not many of you should aspire to be teachers…) and for shaming the name of Christ.
She added in another comment:
If Paul, writing through/in the Holy Spirit, or rather the Holy Spirit writing through him, wanted to indicate authority, leader, one in charge, top dog, etc, he would have used the word commonly used for that in those times in that culture, which if I remember correctly was something like “archeon.” But he used head, “kephale,” (forgive me if misspelled) which means source…
And, yes, what is confusing at times is that Mark can and does say/teach some really good things… at times… But as a friend pointed out to me the other day, “A little poison will still kill you.” And I would say that there appears to be more than a little poison in the overall message that Driscoll offers, and in the apparently controlling/bullying way he offers it– repeatedly, in patterns, consistently over time.
I’ve watched a few Driscoll videos, as many as I could stomach, and his carnal message outweighs his Christian message. I did not hear a mention of grace, freedom for the spiritually oppressed or anything on Christ and Him crucified.
This new type of preaching is called ‘missional’. Today’s definition of ‘missional’ has nothing to do with the most godly evangelists of the 19th and 20th centuries but instead plays to a congregation’s carnality.
Tomorrow: Mark Driscoll versus the sanctity of marriage
Last week, I cited Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church as an example of toxicity.
When I first started reading about him a few years ago, I wondered what his background was. The only Driscolls I ever knew were Roman Catholics.
Driscoll, for those who are unaware, founded the Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, as well as the Acts 29 network of churches. His is an Evangelical Calvinist theology.
He has an odd way of combining the religious with the carnal. However, as Janet I Tu wrote for the Seattle Times, perhaps it’s no wonder:
The oldest of five siblings, he grew up in a house behind a strip club in SeaTac [Seattle-Tacoma area]. He saw drive-by shootings there, drug dealing. Being close to all that, “it’s not enticing. I think that’s what kept me out of trouble.” He also had a strong father who “made it really clear that ‘my kids don’t do certain things, and that’s the way it’s going to be.’ “
He’s a tough, streetwise kinda guy:
He says he didn’t have a drink until he was 30, never tried drugs. But he always had a temper. “If you [annoyed me], I beat you up.”
So, it’s better to be teetotal than to beat your opponents up. However, as long as there have been pietist and holiness Protestants, Catholics have not been untouched by this type of thinking. One might suspect that there might have been a drink problem among a Driscoll antecedent which would have brought on a family prohibition. Who can say?
Here is how Mark describes his early Christian upbringing (emphases mine):
His parents were devout Irish Catholics and until age 13, he went to church weekly. But the meaning of Mass eluded him. “It was like an aerobics class: stand up, sit down, kneel . . . It never intersected with food, sex, friends, going to college, getting your first job — the things kids think about.”
He stopped going to church and got involved in sports and student government. At Highline High School, he captained the baseball team, edited the school paper, served as student-body president.
So, he never had a drink until he was 30 and yet thought that Mass was ‘like an aerobics class’? Also, if his parents were ‘devout Irish Catholics’, why wasn’t he better catechised and taught about the Order of the Mass? I, too, am an ex-Catholic and would never think of referring to it as ‘an aerobics class’.
Incidentally, this is what Christ said about ingesting:
18 “… Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, ”What comes out of a person is what defiles him.” (Mark 7:18-20)
St Paul said (1 Timothy 5:23):
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
Although he intended that for St Timothy, the young evangelist, it could also pertain to an adult who was experiencing occasional digestive upsets.
And what about Proverbs 31:6?
Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish.
However, it seems as if alcohol was a distant runner compared with ‘food, sex, friends’. This would show up later in his ministry. And it seems that even in secondary school, he was already developing a gift for the gab.
Meanwhile, it was his girlfriend and future wife Grace who got Mark started on the Bible:
Driscoll went to Washington State University on a Fulbright scholarship. He considered going into politics or journalism — something where he could influence. He certainly wasn’t interested in being a minister. He remembers reading the New Testament in college in two weeks — mainly because he was smitten with Grace, who had given him a Bible. He immediately disagreed with most of what he’d read.
Of course, he didn’t think he was a sinner. One wonders if this is the sin of pride he seemingly acknowledges yet projects on his congregation — that they, too, somehow do not think they are sinners.
It wasn’t until he read St Augustine that he
realized pride was the worst sin. That was like a kick to the groin.
St Augustine was a libertine until he began reading Roman classics and from there delved into Holy Scripture.
That, too, must have been a revelation to Driscoll. Perhaps he recognised himself in Augustine’s writings.
He testified to Ms Tu, the Seattle Times reporter:
God told him to marry Grace, preach the Bible, plant churches, train men. He married Grace, graduated, worked as college outreach pastor at Kirkland’s Antioch Bible Church.
It’s funny that John MacArthur has never said that God told him to go to Grace Community Church. Yes, he had always hoped to have his own church, start a seminary and train men to serve God, but it does not appear that he received a divine message in this regard.
I also doubt whether MacArthur viewed the ministry the way Driscoll did:
“I’d never preached, run a business, gone through seminary.” But “it’s like you’re at the kids’ table at Thanksgiving and someone says: ‘Someday you’ll get to the big table.’ [Forget that]. I’ll just form my own table.“
Is that a good and humble way to view service to Christ’s people? (Driscoll did attend Western Seminary.)
And the way he describes Judgment Day?
the party to end all parties, the good time to end all good times
Most of us consider it seriously and solemnly, hoping that we will be able to see Christ face-to-face and be in God’s kingdom for eternity. We never thought it was going to be a party.
So, how would Driscoll’s preaching play out in church? One woman — the author of Freedom For Captives — who attended Mars Hill occasionally with her husband wrote:
In his Spiritual Warfare series Mark states that when he counsels couples “Invariably one feels their sex life is fine and the other is not satisfied.” He says this is a wedge between them and “it is Satanic,” that is, demonically influenced. He goes on to say, “It is like Satan is sleeping in bed between the two of you.” He implies the wife should not hold out on her husband, that if both parties are not getting all the sex they want and if it is not “fun and exciting” there is “Satanic” involvement. Nothing is said about the woman’s possible if not probable prior sexual abuse.
After three years of grad study to earn my masters to be a psychotherapist and 2 years of doing therapy with deeply traumatized women, those statements and implications of Mark’s are absolutely abhorrent to me. Many studies report that 1/3 to 1/4 of women have been sexually abused (e.g., childhood incest, rape, etc). This kind of trauma often causes severe, complex PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), which includes terrifying, panic stimulating flash backs, dissociation, avoidance, and hypervigilance. This has very little if anything to do with one’s cognitions (thoughts) and very much to do with one’s emotional brain (the amygdala) taking over due to various cues in ones environment or unwanted, unelicited flashbacks. Therefore, it is not under one’s conscious control or one’s will power or one’s spiritual beliefs and memorization of Scripture.
Mark is not a therapist, to my knowledge, and certainly not a Traumatologist, and he is therefore treading on waters he knows absolutely nothing about… he seems to think a few short Scriptures and some counseling where he convinces this poor woman that she needs to, according to him, “repent of believing lies” will cure her and the sex “problems” in her marriage.
You would no doubt be forgiven if you thought of the aforementioned strip club after reading this passage. I did. Given abused women’s circumstances — of which there are bound to be more in our age of sexual freedom, now encompassing nearly two generations — perhaps the wisdom of the Holy Spirit is guiding them, not Satan. An abused woman does not need more pain in her life, especially of a sexual nature. If anything, it seems that Driscoll’s preoccupation with sex and scatology in his sermons reveals a possible carnal nature.
On a post about the closure of the women’s blog at Mars Hill in 2008, near the end, one of the women (Anonymous, April 30, 2008, 12:24 PM) says:
Driscoll envisions himself as the head, or “father”, of a movement. He has often joked that his goal is “world domination.” Is that sinful?
So, what are we to think? That Mark Driscoll is a young Dominionist in postmodern clothes? Or, alternatively, the next Rick Warren? Who is he exactly and what is he really after?
It all seems very confused. And if it is confused for the onlooker, imagine what it must be like to be listening to him week after week. As to his Calvinism, well, that’s another matter entirely.
The author of Freedom For Captives is right in making this assessment. She wisely has no answers here but says:
When Peter became overly concerned with John’s walk with Jesus and whether or not he would remain alive until the Lord’s return, Jesus told Peter to never mind about John, “you follow me.” Why is it that certain anxious men must so vehemently demand that women submit to them? Why don’t they leave that “command,” if it is such, up to the women to fulfill or not, just as we are all called to choose whether or not to obey the Lord on many various issues. This is harmful enough when male laity behave in such a manner, but it is exceptionally abusive when men use their church positions (and usually false authority) to coerce women into obedience to their desire to rule and reign (all in the guise of obeying Scripture, of course).
I find it awfully suspicious that some “Christian” men are so extremely invested in ensuring that women “obey” a few cherry picked Scriptures! This is very cult like. This is what cults do. That is why MH’s stance on women and the testimonies of those harmed by this caught my attention, along with other aspects which match up with VanVonderen’s and Dr. Enroth’s descriptions of church abuse. Cults use various Scriptures out of context also in order to control the cult members. Driscoll, and others like him, use Scripture passages which are difficult to translate, to understand and to apply correctly partly due to one glaring reason: they seem to contradict the gender equality Jesus teaches, Paul teaches and Gen 1-3 teaches and which many other Bible passages exemplify. Conversely, you do not find women in an uproar about husbands not loving their wives properly and not giving their lives up for them, now do you? …
Freedom4Captives is about analyzing and highlighting what appears to be CHURCH ABUSE at Mars Hill. The more I read of mind control, aberrational “Christian” churches and of cults, the more I see similarities in Driscoll’s style of “leadership” (control) and the Mars Hill system.
Personally, I do not know. Nor do I have an answer. However, Mark Driscoll is said to have an increasing following in the UK. Furthermore, many Protestants have not appreciated Driscoll’s somewhat flippant — others might say lightearted — approach to Christ and to relationships. We didn’t grow up with this approach, nor did we grow up with ‘federal headship’, another idea now almost into its second generation. Again, I would urge caution on church membership and subjective feelings of security and protection, particularly on the part of women.
Tomorrow: Mark Driscoll and the Song of Solomon
