Posted by Helen on: 11.25.2006 /
In comment #26 on “Are we graciously encouraging people away from Jesus?” Jeff wrote (bold emphasis mine):
No, I don’t mean the protest. From the many different comments I’ve read about Driscoll, it seems to me that the majority of those who have issues with him do indeed think he is inflicting eternal harm, at least potentially. If this is not so, I do not understand the links to sites about recovery from spiritual abuse, for example. If he is spiritually abusing people then it would appear to follow that this abuse has temporal and eternal consequences if it is indeed spiritual in nature. In light of certain doctrines regarding salvation, I agree with you. No person can ultimately thwart God’s intentions for someone.
But, hypothetically speaking, if it were true that this site was graciously encouraging people away from Jesus and Driscoll is ungraciously encouraging people away from Jesus, the result is the same if the person is “away from Jesus.” This is why I was wondering why “if God is in control, is it possible that he’d let us inflict eternal harm on people? It doesn’t seem to me that a good God would enable that to happen.” would apply to this site but apparently not to someone like Driscoll. I would think that the reactions to him would be a little more balanced if a similar attitude were extended to him. I understand that this thread is not about Driscoll and that whole situation so feel free to let this part of the discussion drop if you want.
Comment by: Helen
1Jeff, I think the same rules apply because this is what I am saying: a variety of opinions are expressed here, without us taking a position that a particular position/belief/nonbelief is The Truth. Can’t we trust God to lead people who read all these opinions, to the one which is true, without us having to assert ‘this is The Truth’?
I am concerned about Mark directly or indirectly inflicting temporal harm on people because he is an influential person and people assume that he is teaching The Truth.
If someone said to me “should people just accept what you say?” I would say “NO!” They should check it out for themselves. Maybe I’m wrong. On the whole my approach is more “this has been helpful to me”, than “this is correct“, fwiw.
Because - as came up on Church Rater just the other day, I could be wrong.
I want people to think for themselves. If thinking for themselves results in them disagreeing with me so be it.
You can assume I will have concerns whenever I run into situations where one person is saying “this is The Truth” and others seem to be
a) accepting it without question; or
b) minimizing it because ‘he/she is a good teacher so let’s not nit-pick’
That bothers me especially when the person’s repeated choice is to use ridicule to express himself/herself.
I don’t hate Mark Driscoll. I have concerns and I hope he will address them as appropriate. Just as I hope I would address concerns brought to my attention, as appropriate.
Comment by: Jeff
2Just want to clarify that I do not know enough about this site to comment one way or another regarding whether the site does or does not lead people away from Jesus. At first glance, it would be difficult for me to believe that it is leading people “away from Jesus” but, like I said, I don’t know enough one way or the other. I was just following the train of thought from the other thread and used it as a hypothetical example. Its not necessarily my intention to drop in out of nowhere and stir the pot for the sake of controversy. I just read Helen’s comment (which I agree with) and honestly wondered whether a similar mindset shouldn’t be applied toward Driscoll. Behind that question is my presupposition that this mindset has not been applied to Driscoll from what I have read at various sites including this one. I could be wrong. I just think that if it had been pointed out early on in the Driscoll discussions that:
then the comments toward him could have been less vitriolic (without excusing his perceived offenses). It seems to me that the sovereignty of God is being used to defend this site from the criticism of leading people away from Jesus without having ever extended that courtesy to Driscoll. I saw very little mention of God’s responsibility and the offended party’s responsibility in the Driscoll discussions. I think its perfectly valid to point out that the offended party has a choice to make regarding how they will react to comments like Driscoll’s. That doesn’t invalidate the person or their feelings. It just serves to help balance the situation.
Comment by: Jeff
3I totally agree.
I see the distinction you’re trying to make here. Correct me if I’m wrong but you’re saying Driscoll puts forth his comments as The Truth while this site does not. For the sake of discussion I’ll grant that. All I’m saying is that if your comment about God’s sovereignty can be used as a part of your defense/explanation regarding this site (which I think is valid) then I would think that a similar reminder could be applied to Driscoll’s ministry. Whether or not either of you are claiming to speak The Truth, it has been suggested that this site and Driscoll are potentially leading people away from Jesus (while neither of you are intending that by far). Again, I just think that the valid point you made about what takes place at this site could have been made regarding what takes place at Driscoll’s church but it wasn’t.
Comment by: Helen
4Jeff wrote:
I agree, Jeff.
Here’s where I differ. To me it seems like the Christian leaders hold all the power. The situation seems profoundly unbalanced to me and I’d like to see lay Christians (and other people who aren’t Christian leaders) being given more voice and more power.
I think that’s what Jesus wanted too, when he saw an unbalanced distribution of power.
And I think it’s what God wanted in the Old Testament when he warned the people of Israel against asking for a human King to rule over them.
So the last thing I want to do is say to lay Christians (and other people) “Shhh…be nice to your Christian leaders!!! They need your support!”
We’ve tried that and what do we end up with? Ted Haggard-type scandals. They aren’t good for the leader involved, the church, or the world.
To me, balance means, ordinary people get a voice. Not, they sit in rows in mega-churches where one person gets a voice and thousands listen and then risk getting in trouble and being condemned, ostracised, asked to leave, whatever, if they dare express their opinions because these churches do nothing to make it safe to do so.
Comment by: Helen
5By the way Jeff, I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Jeff wrote:
I see what you mean; in my above response (#4) I have tried to explain the profound unbalance I perceive which makes me reluctant to discourage ordinary people from expressing what they think.
Comment by: Jeff
6Yes, I do not want that either.
This is certainly a problem. As a former mega-church attender I realize that there are many problems within American evangelicalism. If I feel any affinity with the emerging church, it is in this area. I haven’t yet found much common ground with emerging-type believers when it comes to solutions but I think there is at least some agreement over the presence of sickness within the body. When it comes to solutions, I tend to find more common ground with the perspective of Piper’s Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, for example, but at least the realization that things are not quite right is perceived across the spectrum. I don’t remember where I read this but someone commented in an article that the two fast-growing movements within American Christianity presently are the Reformed and Emerging movements. I think that’s probably accurate and it will be interesting to see what sort of common ground, if any, will be found among the two.
Comment by: Helen
7Jeff, I was encouraged to read John Armstrong’s response to the Ted Haggard situation the other day, because he articulates some of the problems I’ve seen in evangelicalism well. And he’s more from the reformed than the emergent camp, as best I know.
Comment by: Jeff
8Very good article. I’m not familiar with him but I’ll check out his site some more.
I agree. He nails a couple of the big problems: the hubris within much of evangelicalism and how we define “success,” among others.
Comment by: Helen
9I’m very impressed with John Armstrong.
Comment by: Jeff
10Wow! You really get around the blogosphere, eh? I just did a “Mark Driscoll” search to catch up on the latest chatter and you popped up over at a site called Verum Serum. Is there any site you don’t post at? :)
Comment by: Rachel
11I appreciated much of Armstrong’s article as well, though he is clearly not a supporter of the progressive evangelical/emerging church movement.
I believe younger Christians want something that speaks less for the Republican Party and a handful of wedge issues. They want to be identified much more by their loyalty to Jesus and his kingdom.
Absolutely! I completely agree.
My concern is that this younger Christian movement will be pulled too far to the left by a few strong voices that presently influence it.
My Translation:
“younger Christian movement” = emerging church/progressive evangelicals
“few strong voices” = Brian McLaren & Jim Wallis
Comment by: Helen
12Jeff: actually there are vast expanses of the blogosphere with no trace of me :-) I don’t generally post on other blogs much; although I have participated in some blog discussions about Mark Driscoll recently, including the one you mentioned. I do keep an eye out for blog entries related to Off The Map.
Comment by: benjamin ady
13In response to the original post here, I’m thinking that (at least from my perspective) the offense/harm people are subjected to by the words and and teaching of Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill is not so much “eternal” (whatever that might mean) as “temporal” (whatever that might mean). That is to say, the latter seems a lot less important to me than the former. I was *inside* fundamentalism for too many years where all the focus was on “saving souls” and getting people’s eternal fates all safely wrapped up in neat little bundles. I think this focus is ultimately harmful. For instance, I see Christians exercising a “forgive and forget and love” mentality towards abusers in the hopes of the abuser’s “eternal soul” being saved, when *really* the only hope for the abuser in this life or the next (IMNSHO) is for the victims to get healthy enough that they lovingly and graciously put on their hard-ass pants and hold the perpetrator fully legally and morally responsible with the hope that they will finally see and repent of their abuse and experience *real* change.
I don’t see Helen and CatE perpetrating any here-and-now harm to people, and what’s more, if someone were to say “Hey, I found that hurtful and offensive”, I think the response from CatEites would “Hey, I’m really sorry that hurt you–my bad”.
On the other hand, looks to me like Mark and M.H. are perpetrating here and now harm to people, and they (apparently) aren’t interested in apologizing.
Comment by: benjamin ady
14oops–that’s “the former seems a lot less important to me than the latter”. that former latter thing always strikes me as slightly dangerous.
Comment by: Jeff
15This is directed to anyone,
“Spiritual abuse” has been used often in the Driscoll discussion. What exactly is “spiritual abuse,” how does one spiritually abuse another, and how exactly did/does Driscoll spiritually abuse people?
Comment by: Helen
16Jeff, I posted about spiritual abuse recovery resources last week. I think the links lead to definitions of what it is.
I posted that so people could learn about spiritual abuse and/or get help if they feel they’ve been spiritually abused. I didn’t intend it to be a (covert) assertion that Mars Hill is spiritually abusive.
Comment by: benjamin ady
17from The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Jeff VanVonderen
and
and
Spiritually Abusive systems speak these messages
Hope that helps
Comment by: Jeff
18Thanks.
Comment by: Rachel
19Well said, Ben! The only time we see Jesus get really mad in the Gospels is at those who abused their power and oppressed the vulnerable.
Comment by: benjamin ady
20Jeff, I read through your Pursuing Truth about the whole Mark Driscoll thing and you sound fairly reasonable.
Helen–did you see the lovely review Jeff gave you and CatE?
Comment by: Paul M
21I am not sure which Q to answer - the one that heads up this post, which is whether the same rules apply to this blog as to Mark’s or the Q about whether if God is ultimate truth than all expressions of truth therefore point back to him or away from him if they are not truth…
I think this blog has a different ethos - it is set up as a conversation staging post, safe neutral ground on the border between christian, atheist and whoever else wants to come riding into town to hang and chat(the trekkies amongst us might be thinking of that ol Neutral Zone). As far as I am aware there is no membership requirement to who can post on here?
Mark’s blog on the other hand is very much a closed conversation - it is for him to write to people who have attended the church planting movement conference that he is linked with (from what I gather but could be wrong). Anyone can read but you can only post if you have been to the conferenec - that implies to me that the main audience therefore is for those people who tend to agree with what Mark says (which is not to agree with how it says it or indeed every single thing he says).
To me therefore you have two completely different sets of rules applying in each of these blogs - one is much more the thoughts of a teacher direct whereas this space is more shaped conversation - ok helen et al do pick the topics and offer their views but their is equal respect given if we agree, disagree or frankly don’t care one way or t’other.
I don’t think that agreement is really the purpose of this space (again this is only my take), it’s not so we all agree but we can all share. I think Mark’s ‘blog’ is written much more with the reverse in mind, it’s more a space to agree with what’s shared rather than an open forum…
Comment by: Helen
22Benjamin thanks for pointing out Jeff’s comments about me and CatE on his blog. Here’s the ‘update’ part of what he wrote there:
Jeff, thanks for being both fair and kind!
Comment by: Jeff
23Jeff, I read through your Pursuing Truth about the whole Mark Driscoll thing and you sound fairly reasonable.
Helen—did you see the lovely review Jeff gave you and CatE?
Well, thanks. I think I sounded rather harsh but I was trying to be fair (although my first post regarding the Driscoll ordeal was a little bombastic). Funny thing is that I’m open to hearing reasonable and legitimate views regarding egalitarianism, the social justice aspect of the debate, etc. but that wasn’t really what the Driscoll deal was about. No time to delve deeper. Just wanted to reply to your comments. Take care.
Jeff, thanks for being both fair and kind!
I try…sometimes. :)
Comment by: Helen
24Thanks Jeff! I appreciate the dialog we had here.