Mars Hill in Forbes

Over at Forbes, Rob Asghar has written quite an interesting piece on the Mars Hill debacle. Whether he knows it or not he makes a case for denominationalism and sound polity:

Some organizations are more wired than others for spectacular success or spectacular failure. Nondenominational megachurches are one example. They often can be free-wheeling, Wild West-style operations, unencumbered by national bureaucracies. That frees them to respond to grow quickly … or to grow malignantly.

The central focus of the article is on the malignant nature of toxic leading and following. Along the way he makes statements that the church ought to carefully consider. Without dispensing with the responsibility to restore the one who has sinned, the church must also consider realities such as sociopathy. In other words, the church must not be naive about the reality that some pastors, no matter how sincere their repentance, must never serve as pastors again.

With toxic leaders, there are no happy endings, no matter how hard you pray. You just have to move on. That may seem especially sad to those Mars Hill congregants who want Driscoll to undergo a disciplinary process so that that a newly mature, repentant and humbled version of himself might someday take the pulpit.

But a number of psychologists have told me that the truly toxic leaders, the ones who manage to cause trouble on the scale of a Driscoll, are tragically irredeemable as managers. Oftentimes, the disciplining process only teaches them new ways to exploit the system while pretending to obey it. (Bear in mind that Driscoll himself has been claiming for years that he’s been making progress on his shortcomings.)

Could it be that this writer for Forbes has a better grasp of the consequences of pastoral malpractice? Certainly he raises some important questions about the difference between a pastor whose sins and frailties are common to most Christians and the one who is simply not qualified for the role to begin with.

Read the entire article HERE.

Mega-Pastors and Mega-Money

The air out there in the evangelical atmosphere continues to get more noxious. In recent days it has been revealed that Mars Hill Church in Seattle spent over $210,000 to market the pastor's book Real Marriage.

If you are wondering if it sounds a bit fishy for a church to spend over $200,000 of tax free charitably given money to market a for-profit book in order to enrich the church's pastor then you may be on to something.

Major news outlets are on to the story and once again certain celebrity pastors are lending credibility to the old story that all churches and pastors care about is money. I truly believe that Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church must publically repent. I would also suggest that Mark Driscoll step down as pastor in hopes that some of the damage done to the reputation of Christ and his bride can be repaired.

"A Win for Team Jakes"

Prior to Elephant Room 2 there were a number of black pastors who expressed deep concern about two pastors as influential as Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald lending broad credibility to T.D. Jakes, an unrepentant Modalist (Jakes says now that he is not a Modalist although he is still vague and has never actually repudiated Modalist heresy and clearly affirmed biblical Trinitarianism) and propagator of prosperity heresy. These black pastors were rightly dismayed and even vexed that some of their white brothers were going to offer public approval to a man whose theology has done great damage to the black church.

One of those thoughtful pastors, Anthony Carter, who cares deeply about biblical Christianity wrote about his concerns prior to Elephant Room 2. As it turns out his concerns were entirely valid.

Jakes is no dummy. He will be careful not to say anything that would indict him as a false teacher. He is a smart man. You don’t get to his position being stupid. Therefore, I fear that by the end of the discussion, when all the rounds have been fired, and the dust has settled, the elephant in the room will be Mr. Jakes himself. He will be standing tall shaking everyone’s hand and thanking them for giving him another platform on which to promote himself. No matter what is said, unless Jakes denounces his previous teachings or is exposed as a false teacher, it’s a win for team Jakes and a loss for those of us left to clean up after the elephant has done his business.

Another black pastor, Thabiti Anyabwile gave voice to the same concern:

If Jakes could be won over and would publicly teach orthodox Trinitarian views, that could be huge. If the discussion turns warm and fuzzy, “aren’t we all brothers in the end,” the damage could be irreparable—to everyone. (emphasis mine)

Please read Thabiti's entire post HERE.

To make matters worse, charges of racism are now coming against those who voiced their dismay that MacDonald and Driscoll would embrace T.D. Jakes.

But what would explain James MacDonald's decision to cancel Voddie Baucham's appearance at a Harvest Bible Chapel men's conference?

I was naive to think that there would be no fallout if I decided to go forward with the Men’s Conference. The Men’s Conference was scheduled to take place two days after ER2. Once my worst fears were realized at ER2 (i.e., Jakes equivocated on modalism, was not even challenged on WOF gospel, etc. see here for a detailed analysis), there was no way for me to 1) keep silent on this growing controversy, and 2) attend the Men’s Conference, without giving tacit approval to ER2. The decision to go public was inevitable. The only question was how.

I have a regular practice of posting notices of upcoming events in my monthly newsletter, and on my Facebook fan page. These have been invaluable tools that keep people apprised of when I’m coming to their area (or the area of friends and family whom they’d like to invite to one of our events), how they can pray for me, and what kind of doors the Lord is opening for the ministry.

As per my practice, I posted a link to the Men’s Conference and asked, “Any fan page members planning to attend...” As you can imagine, there were more than a few questions about my position on ER2, my relationship with James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, and a whole host of other things. I answered those questions as honestly as I could. I made it clear that I opposed the decision to invite Bishop Jakes; pointed out what I saw as his masterful ‘dodge’ on the trinitarian question (and subsequent affirmation of modalist language), and gave a brief explanation of my reasoning for keeping this prior commitment (see here for a recap).

This did not go over well with James MacDonald. Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum. Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference. We prayed, shook hands, embraced, and ended the meeting as brothers. James also insisted on paying the agreed honorarium (Added 1/31/12). MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker. My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport.

Read the whole thing HERE.

So Voddie Baucham was disinvited after stating that it was not wise to give a platform to a false teacher. T.D. Jakes was given the hand of fellowship. Voddie Baucham was escorted out.

The elephant that went unnamed...

As the video posted below demonstrates, James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll have been faithful to point out the heresy of prosperity teaching. T.D. Jakes is a great popularizer of this heresy. And yet, at Elephant Room 2 T.D. Jakes was received as a brother and never confronted on his continued propagation of this false gospel.

"Bishop took two pawns"

Thanks to Carl Trueman for posting a link to a fascinating interview with a former Oneness Pentecostal.

RB: Assuming the best and that Jakes now affirms the orthodox view of the Trinity, if you were Mark Driscoll would you have asked him if he was going to publically recant for teaching damning heresy for so long?

JD: Yes. If he truly affirms an orthodox view of the Trinity, he must repent of his former teaching. The two views are totally incompatible.

RB: Elaborate on the practical implications of moving from modalism to the orthodox view in terms of Jakes’ church and world-wide impact. In other words, what would you do if you were T. D. Jakes and you now hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity after confusing so many people for such a long time?

JD: If I were Jakes, I would start to teach the Bible. That may sound like an oversimplification but men like Jakes may use the Bible every Sunday but don’t really teach it. I would start there.

RB: Comment on the following tweet I saw the other day: “The way Jakes played MacDonald & Driscoll, you could say Bishop took two pawns.” Why do you think the tweeter said that?

JD: Jakes quickly neutralized their objective questions with a bit of reverse psychology. MacDonald and Driscoll, who came to ER2 thinking the issue was doctrine, were very quickly routed by the Bishop, and before long they were talking about unity. It is always tempting to abandon our pursuit of doctrinal purity for church unity.

RB: On your Face Book page, you said, “Jakes’ chair was certainly no hot seat for he is an expert in vagueness and unfortunately they were charmed by his charisma.” Explain what you mean.

JD: He has capitalized on his cult of personality. His speaking skills, social diplomacy, and celebrity status can be overwhelming. He is a master at saying a lot without saying a lot. He is also a very likable fellow and the 30,000 Texans who make up his congregation are proof that theological ambiguity can fill a church building. I have been to conventions where he was the main speaker and have seen multitudes swoon over him. Driscoll and MacDonald were easy pickings.

RB: What would you say to folks who may be confused about ER2 and the discussion with Jakes?

JD: It may come as a surprise but men like T. D. Jakes are not epistemologically self-conscious. By that I mean that they spend so much time on motivating speech and platitudes that they’ve given very little time or thought to expound why they believe what they believe. They have reduced their doctrinal expressions to harmless sound-bytes intended to offend the least amount of people possible, and this is why he could neither call himself a Trinitarian nor fully renounce Oneness.

Read the entire interview HERE.

I must say that I am very concerned about the consequences of the Elephant Room. Driscoll, MacDonald and the other participants now affirm T.D. Jakes as orthodox. It is clear from Jakes' own words that he now desires to identify himself as Trinitarian while still holding on to modalist language. Driscoll and MacDonald should have called him on this. By failing to do so they diminished the importance of this central doctrine of biblical Christianity. By failing to mention, much less confront Jakes on his prosperity preaching, they failed further.

The clean bill of doctrinal health given to Jakes by Driscoll and MacDonald will only mean greater confusion within the church. It will mean pastors such as myself will need to be increasingly vigilant. Of course pastors expect this. What we do not expect is for false teachers to be given entree by influential evangelicals.

On asking better questions...

The latest gathering of the Elephant Room is now history. It stirred up no small amount of controversy. James MacDonald's decision to host prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes, whose views on the Trinity have been murky at best, was greeted with concern from a number of quarters. The concern was due to the fact that the stated purpose of the Elephant Room was to gather brothers who differed on issues not central to the gospel or Christian orthodoxy for the purpose of promoting greater understanding. A worthwhile goal, I would say. But that little detail about the discussion being among brothers who differ on secondary matters is a substantial detail. Promoting understanding and unity is really only possible when brothers agree on the essentials of Christian orthodoxy. It seemed, and seems to many that T.D. Jakes certainly did not fit the bill.

Concern was voiced by some of MacDonald's fellow council members at the Gospel Coalition. Mark Dever, who was involved in the first Elephant Room discussion, withdrew from further involvement. Thabiti Anyabwile, another Gospel Coalition council member, wrote a moving and eloquent article explaining how the inclusion of Jakes in such a forum would undermine those black pastors who, seeing the damage done by prosperity preachers, have labored to build churches on sound doctrine. Even some pastors from within the Harvest network of churches expressed their deep concern over the inclusion of Jakes.

But now the event is over and nothing has changed. Not really. Jakes was asked about his beliefs regarding the Trinity. His answers, while satisfying to those in the Elephant Room, we actually not nearly as clear as some claim. Glaringly absent were any questions about Jakes' continued propagation of the abhorrent prosperity and word/faith heresies. These are every bit as troublesome as his ambiguity on the Trinity.

Carl Trueman and Frank Turk have both written worthwhile posts on this whole affair.

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of `Hey, hater!' from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant's wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, `Did you do that?' to which he says `No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives'; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.

- Carl Trueman

A Plea to Mark Driscoll

There are things I truly appreciate about Mark Driscoll. I love that he knows and preaches the Gospel (the "matter of first importance" - 1 Cor 15). I love his zeal for evangelism and evident compassion for the lost. I love his desire to teach doctrine so that his church is not shallow and untrained. I love his desire to return to the church an understanding of and respect for biblical manhood.

But like all of us, Mark Driscoll is a bit of a mixed bag. He is a very public figure who has stirred up no small amount of controversy. Some of that controversy has been the result of his faithfulness to the Gospel, biblically prescribed gender roles, and biblical sexual ethics. However, much of the controversy has been due to some rather unfortunate behavior and statements on his part. All of us have said and done things that we would like to take back. But for an internationally known "rock star" pastor, author, and church network leader the margin for error is precariously thin.

With the release of Mark and Grace Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, there is fresh conversation about the pastor's tendency to preach, teach, and write about sex in frank, and, some would argue, inappropriate ways. Others are weighing in on this matter helpfully (Carl Trueman [here and here], Denny Burk, Tim Challies). I hope that Driscoll will listen to and learn from these brothers. I won't, at least for now, seek to add to their comments.

But I offer a plea to Mark Driscoll. It is a plea that flows from concern over his repeated claims to receive direct revelations from God. It all began, according to Mark, when his conversion to Christ, his call to be a pastor, to be a mentor to men, and to marry Grace came to him via the audible voice of God. Specifically, my plea is for Mark Driscoll to stop making claims of direct revelation from God.

My concern is four-fold:
1. It seems arrogant.
History is somewhat spare of those to whom God spoke directly. There was Adam and Eve. There was Noah, Abraham and, later, Moses. There were the prophets that followed. Later, the apostles received direct revelation as they recorded the Scriptures we call the New Testament. But even in their case we do not have any evidence that God spoke to them in an audible voice (except of course through the incarnate Christ). And now we have...Mark Driscoll? Is it wise to repeatedly claim to have heard the audible voice of God? What purpose does this serve? Is it important to broadcast the reception of continued, direct revelation? Those few men who truly did receive revelation from God suffered on account of it. Paul points out that because of the revelations he received (the purpose of which was for the writing of Scripture) God gave to him a thorn in the flesh that he might not become proud (2 Corinthians 12:5-9). It seems arrogant for a preacher in our moment of redemptive history to repeatedly make claims to receive direct revelation from God. It places one in rarefied air indeed.

2. It is pastorally unwise.
It seems that every cult and man-made religion begins with someone claiming divine revelation: "God speaks to me," "I am a conduit of the divine," or "I found these golden tablets that only I can interpret!" I am not accusing Mark Driscoll with being a cult leader. I do not believe he is. Again, I am grateful that he proclaims the gospel. But his claims to direct revelation can easily lead to a cult-of-personality. Who can argue that this has not already happened?

Don't misunderstand. A pastor ought to be the best educated man in his congregation in regard to the Scriptures and doctrine. It is right to honor such a man (1 Timothy 5:17). However, claims to direct revelation and hearing the audible voice of God can easily lead to a kind of elitism that goes well beyond healthy honor. It can create a sort of hierarchy in which the pastor is placed on a super-spiritual plane the average parishioner will never reach.

On the other hand, a pastor's claims to direct revelation can create within parishioners an expectation to experience the same phenomena. We don't have to imagine the sorts of confusion and chaos this sort of expectation can cause. We need look no further than some of the titles being released by Christian publishers where the fanciful and fantastic is valued over that which is biblical. Or simply tune in to Trinity Broadcasting Network to see a whole motley parade of men and women who claim to speak for God.

The claim to direct revelation begs the question why? What is missing in the Bible that Mark Driscoll, or anyone esle for that matter, can provide? Given the contemporary church's notorious biblical illiteracy, why should we be seeking additional revelation or words from God? I fear that Driscoll's claims will seriously undermine his congregation's confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.

3. It is, at least, potentially blasphemous.
As a preacher I know what it is like to have words placed in my mouth. People routinely "hear" me say things from the pulpit that I never said. The consequences are potentially severe of misquoting a person or, worse, fabricating statements that were never said. Even if the words are innocent or inconsequential, none of us want to be given credit for statements we never made.

It is bad enough when that happens to me or you or anyone else. But when God is misquoted or entire statements are mistakenly (or intentionally) attributed to Him then the consequences are grave. The Bible reserves some of its harshest condemnations for false prophets who do not speak God's words but their own vain imaginings cast as God's words. It is no small sin when we say, "God said," when God did not say.

Mark Driscoll has claimed from the pulpit of his church and in the pages of his new book on marriage that God reveals to him, in vivid detail, the sexual sins of others. Please understand, Driscoll's claim is not that God makes him aware of certain sinful patterns in other people's lives. That would be odd enough. Rather, his claim is that God runs in his mind, movie-like, graphic images of sexual sin that others have committed (including those of his wife in the days before they were married!). This is troubling, not least of all because it makes God responsible for projecting sexually graphic images in Driscoll's mind. But what if Mark is wrong? What if God is not running these disgusting images in his mind? Can it be anything less than blasphemy to falsely attribute these revelations to the work of God?

4. It is almost certainly not true.
Now, before anyone freaks out, let me explain. God is alive and powerful. He is a personal God who speaks to his people. And, no, I do not believe God spoke audibly to Mark Driscoll. Why? Because God no longer speaks to men in this way.

I can hear the protests. "Aha! You're just an anti-supernaturalist who is trying to put God in a box!" But this could not be further from the truth. I am not trying to limit God in any way. I am only suggesting that we believe what God himself has said about the way He speaks:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV).
God has spoken supremely through the Son. And where do we find this word of the Son? In the Scriptures of course. All of the Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, points us to the Christ. Jesus himself taught the disciples to read the Bible this way (Luke 24:25-27).

The days of the prophets and apostles are over. Direct revelation is closed by God's own design. The Scriptures are complete. God's plan is on the move just according to His design. Rather than listening for a voice in our heart, from the sky, or along a river bed we are promised something far better. God promises to speak to us through His inscripturated Word which never goes forth without accomplishing His purpose. No need to rely upon mystical experience. No unclear impressions required or ever warranted; just God's clear, powerful, and sufficient Word faithfully and lovingly recorded for us through the Spirit's work of inspiration.
The newly united brothers and sisters whom God formed into the first church at Jerusalem were "devoted," not to mystical experience or discerning a voice (audible or otherwise), but to "the apostle's teaching" (Acts 2:42). It is that very same teaching that we have today in the form of the New Testament. This, along with what we know as the Old Testament, continues to be the blessed means by which God graciously speaks to His beloved people.

So, I plead with Mark Driscoll to stop relying on and proclaiming these extra-biblical revelations. It is pastorally unwise and could imperil the souls of the men and women with whom he has been entrusted.

Is he really seeing things?

Mark Driscoll has famously said that God has spoken audibly to him. Driscoll reports that God gave him audible commands to become a pastor, marry his wife, and plant a church. There are a lot of things I appreciate about Mark Driscoll. He has been a stalwart champion of sound doctrine, expositional preaching, evangelism, and biblical sexual ethics. However, I have also been frustrated by some of his very public missteps. And, this may sound harsh, but I do not believe that Mark heard the audible voice of God. This is where I believe his doctrine begins to stray.

The idea of a man receiving direct revelation from God during our time of redemptive history is, I believe, a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture and a gateway into various dangers.

Recently, Driscoll told his congregation that he "sees things." It goes down hill, drastically, from there.

Phil Johnson explains quite well the problems with Driscoll's theology of direct revelation HERE.

Truth is never in fashion

I like Mark Driscoll even though some of his words and methods drive me a bit crazy. Nevertheless I rejoice in his commitment to Scripture and sound doctrine. I am also reminded of the fact that as much as I would like to be liked by everyone, as preacher I know this is not possible. I know what it is to be on the receiving end of some pretty vicious words. The challenge is how to remain sensative and at the same time have very thick skin. It ain't easy.

Silliness from Missouri Baptists

Tom Ascol over at Founders links to an article (Missouri Baptists axe Acts 29) about a recent decision by the Missouri Baptist Convention to refuse support to any Southern Baptist church plants that are connected to the Acts 29 Network. Acts 29 is a church planting ministry originating from Mars Hill Church in Seattle under the leadership of Mark Driscoll.

This, I believe, is a digression into parochialism at a time when we should be partnering with other kingdom minded Christians who are committed to advancing the Gospel and sound doctrine.