Right to Rebuke? (2)

I have read iMonk’s opening statement for this little exchange, and kudos upon him for being open-minded about that multiple places where this whole discussion goes awry. As one wades through his points, one would find he and I share a lot of the same concerns, but of course at some point he and I have to disagree or else the universe will implode as even a sovereign and omnipotent God cannot have that.

The current trend in Mark Driscoll apologetics has caused me to think about something: I’m thinking about this guy who was well educated, fluent in the common languages of his culture, and learned-up in theology. He spent time learning the religious practices of the people he was with. He was not, however, a cleric. He was certainly well known in his home city, both for his public life as well as the power and persuasiveness of his speech. His reputation there earned him praise early in his career even from many of the leaders of the church in his day, who referred to him as a "saintly man." However, he was later accused of lying about his own teachings in order to avoid public condemnation. Most of his later life was spent defending himself against other theologians.

The guy I’m thinking about is Pelagius, a self-made theologian from the 4th century who, it turns out, was a heretic – his theology was not only bad but actually damaging to the faith of others. For whatever it’s worth, Mark Driscoll would repudiate all of Pelagius’ errors, and that’s why so many people like MD: he’s in the right camp when it comes to how Christ saves and why Christ must save – which is the Gospel.

But here’s why I’m thinking about the monk Pelagius: you’d think that Pelagius – as a guy who wasn’t even ordained – should have been handled by the leaders of his local church. That is, he should have been handled by his local elders, if we take the current iteration of counter-concerns about the MD situation at face value. There was no sense in, for example, Augustine refuting and condemning Pelagius: Pelagius was not his man, nor was he Pelagius’ elder. Better to have left it, apparently, with the pastors and bishops in Rome because this sort of thing speaks to the high road of Congregationalism.

Right? Or not so much?

It seems to me that it is “not so much”. Let’s concede something for the sake of clarity: Pastor Driscoll is not disqualifying himself as a Christian (some might say “yet”; MD himself might say it since he has taken the highest [and in my view, right-minded] view of repentance). The question is whether he is disqualifying himself as an elder and as a teacher.

iMonk has rightly said that, by Ipanema, we’re not Presbyterians or Rome: we’re Congregationalists at heart, champions of the local church. And he’s right in theory. It’s his interpretation of what that means which we ought to consider fully. In his view, if MD sinned, it’s up to his elders to measure that out, counsel him, and seek the fruits of repentance from him as they see fit – that’s how we do this, congregation by congregation, local church by local church.

But here’s the thing: if that’s the hardcore view we’re going to take, Mark Driscoll needs to stay home. He needs to stay off the TV. He needs to get off the conference circuit. No more books, RE:lit. In short: he needs to stop interfering with the local elders in other churches if that’s the standard for congregationalism.

However, since he’s not going to do that ever, we have to admit that, in the first place, “congregationalism” does not, and has never, meant “local church isolationism”. It’s a respect for the boundaries of the local church based on the responsibilities of the local elders for the people they have been given to for God’s purpose. So in that, Mark Driscoll doesn’t need any more elders – but none of the local churches he’s influencing need any more elders, either. And when someone is coming to their church – invited or uninvited – they have the same responsibility to their local church that they had to start with: raise up disciples and protect them from error.

It’s the “protect them from error” part here which, frankly, has to be the focus of attention. But to do that, let’s track the arguments in favor of cutting MD some slack from what I perceive to be the beginning of this little square dance – at or around the time of Phil Johnson’s Shepherd’s Conference message.

The first round of objections to the criticism was: “You should take this to him in private and not out in public.” However, when it was disclosed that both Phil and Dr. MacArthur had actually taken the concern to MD privately and his response was less than engaging, the tune changed.

The next round of objections was: “Are you really criticizing a sin, or is this just a difference in ministry approach?” The first one I thought was totally expected because that’s the fall-back for any criticism these days: yer a crude watchblogger, dude. But this second one, frankly, made me laugh – because it’s amazing in its own willingness to ignore the obvious.

Here’s the test -- you go find someplace by yourself where nobody can hear you (in case this would make you look foolish), and say this sentence out loud to yourself and see how it sounds:

According to the Bible’s standard for Christian behavior, anyone should be allowed to make jokes about masturbation in public without any shame.

“yeah but,” comes the response, “there’s a difference between doing something you ought to be ‘ashamed of’, and something that’s actually a ‘sin’.”

Really? Then while you’re there in your personal moral reflection zone, try saying this to yourself:

The objective of Christian sanctification is that we should strive toward becoming ashamed of things which we do which the Bible does not define as sin.

The third round of objections looked like this: “Because MD has done so much good for the Gospel, by calling him out on this activity you’re adding to the Gospel and becoming a legalist.” And I liked that round because it was a nice gambit to chide someone like Phil Johnson or John MacArthur (or in the cheap seats, someone like me) for being a moralistic fundie. The problem, of course, is that John Piper preaches on personal holiness; CJ Mahaney preaches on personal holiness; Matt Chandler preaches on personal holiness. They just don’t bring it up when Mark Driscoll might be associated with it.

Nobody who’s serious about the sufficiency of Scripture would deny that a qualification for the elder is that he already has very broad and deep evidence of personal holiness. The question is whether Mark Driscoll has ever had such a thing, and whether that should matter to those of us outside his local church who he is trying to influence.

Then there’s the one about the difference between “repent” and “apologize” – a distinction that the people proffering such a complaint fail to see as a difference with almost no meaning whatsoever. Before you bring your offering to God, go make it right with your brother and then bring your offering, you know?

And there may be some others from the “greatest hits” in this discussion which I have missed; sorry about that for you who offered them up. But this last round is the one which really gets us into the minutia. Since it has been taken up unsuccessfully in private, and it is actually a sin, and the elder really should be someone who demonstrates personal holiness, and part of that is actually repenting in a way which reflects the scope of the error, we have come down to an appeal to “congregationalism”.

Really? Two bloggers – or a blogger and the people in his comments – are going to appeal to “congregationalism” to avoid saying plainly that a pastor who tells salacious jokes on TV needs to repent in such a way that his repentance speaks to the public nature of his error?

Here’s the bottom line: those people who are elders, or teachers with a spiritual responsibility to those to whom they are given, have an obligation locally to speak to the errors which come into their churches. That includes the errors which look like a failure to repent.

As I am at my self-imposed limit of 3 pages in WORD, I leave it to iMonk to ask the obvious questions this post raises.

Right to Rebuke?

iMonk and I have been sort of poking each other over the Mark Driscoll thing, and he and I have agreed to discuss a thesis regarding this hot topic. I’ll post here and link to his responses; he’ll post over there and link back to here.

Here’s the thesis:

"Because Mark Driscoll's sins are public, made as a pastor, it is right to rebuke him in public and seek his public repentance."

As you can imagine, this is my thesis which I think is wholly a legitimate concern. In fact, I have to admit something: I have no idea why anyone would disagree with this. The fact that this topic has to be dissected and defined down to the basic terms sort of leaves me wondering if we are actually reading our Bible and not just decorating our blogs with Scripture-linking java.

Here’s my basic argument:
[1] If a pastor sins, then he must repent.
[2] Mark Driscoll has sinned.
[3] Therefore he must repent.

There are two other context-enhancing issues: the first is that MD strives for a global pulpit, so he has the problem of all the other local churches he wants to influence and, in some sense, teach. That is, it’s not just his local elders who have an obligation to think about his behavior: it is any elder or pastor who knows his local church has been influenced by the Mars Hill pastor. They have a spiritual obligation to seek this repentance.

The second issue is that because Pastor Mark has made his errors in a public forum, before both believers and unbelievers, he has an obligation to demonstrate the fruits of repentance publicly.

Now, that’s all very well-said, I am sure: it just has no overt Bible attached to it, and of course we shouldn’t do anything without the Bible’s sufficient and authoritative guidance, right?

Yeah: that’s my first frustration here. If we’re going to get serious about the substance of the accusation, maybe someone has to get serious about the substance of the activity which has spawned all the madness first. You know: does the Bible really demand we make crude jokes about Ecclesiastes, or read some parts of Scripture with a lot of influence by our own personal commitments to enthusiastic marital sex? Did the Bible really teach us that in seeking out (for example) the crude Cretans, a pastor should appeal to their crude humor and their every question in public in order to teach and rebuke?

The question of sufficiency starts which the question of cultural appeals and using the more vulgar elements of any culture to reach out to those who are lost and dying.

But fair enough: what’s good for the Gander must be also applied to the Goose.

[A] There’s no question that what Mark Driscoll has done is a sin. Eph 5 says, “sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” “Must not even be named”? That’s not a guideline: that’s a command. Is the word of God sufficient to tell us that? If not, what is a stronger way to express the idea behind “let it not be named” – the negated present passive imperative? Violating that command is not hardly Victorian as it comes from the 1st century.

[B] There’s no question that when one sins, one must repent. Even Mark Driscoll calls those who do not repent from sins “heretics”. Why would this need to have Acts 2 or Acts 17 cited to underscore the necessity of repentance?

[C] The elder must be blameless. That’s Titus 1, and when we abandon that we are frankly jumping off of Scripture when it doesn’t suit us. The letters to Timothy also tell us that the Elder must be mature, not maturing. So the question of “rookie mistakes” for a guy who’s been an elder for more than 10 years, and writes books for the church to receive, and claims to have a verbal call on his life from God is, frankly, hollow.

But here’s the thing: why should someone who teaches Sunday school, or who’s a pastor of another church, bother to bring it up to Mark Driscoll in any context – let alone blog it and expect to be taken seriously?

[D] I’m thinking of Jesus condemning the Pharisees with the 7 woes: did Jesus first take them aside privately and with some kind of knot in his tummy plead with them gently to please not be like that? I’m thinking of Peter and Paul in Galatia – was Paul’s first reaction to Peter’s hypocrisy to have a private meeting with him to see if his heart was in the right missional place to the Judaisers? I’m thinking of Stephen to the leaders of the Jews: did Stephen first apologize for the big misunderstanding? It seems to me that the guy who gave a global exhortation in a Desiring God conference about the value of prophetic hard words has the essential pastoral moxie to get it that nobody owes him a private lunch and a sorry tone of voice when he talks like a frat boy at spring break on national television. Public context makes a public response totally suitable.

[E] In that, those who have a spiritual responsibility to others have an obligation to address the spiritual influences on those in their charge. Consider the book of James, and the warning against too many becoming teachers as well as the exhortation to turn a brother away from sin. Consider again Paul confronting Peter before the Galatians. Consider Paul confronting the Super-apostles in Corinth. Consider The demand in the book of Titus that the leader must be able to teach and rebuke in order to set things right in the church at Crete.

I respect that Michael thinks this belongs inside the gates of Mars Hill Church. It belonged there until Mark Driscoll started seeking to be the global pastor for hipsters and hipster-wannabes.

I look forward to Michael’s opening statement.

Apologetics

Piper demonstrates his gift for leadership & humility.

This is how one actually apologizes, and then actually uses the opportunity to leverage the humility and guts it takes to say, "I am a jerk when I do this", to teach an important lesson about the Christian life.

And isn't it strange: what Piper did was some much smaller than the on-going unpleasantness with Mark Driscoll, yet nobody had to have a series preparatory meetings for how to address Piper, then meetings to set up “the meeting", then a meeting in which counter-grievances are heard, and then a cooling-off period in which the facts are re-researched, and then another letter or meeting to clarify, and then at some place someone says, "that's quite enough of this -- you go your way and I'll go mine, and you stay on your side of the world and I'll stay on mine."

Piper can see that Piper was, in his words, a "jerk". This is why he's qualified to be an elder in his church, and a man to whom other elders can look up to.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Maybe somebody has said this already

I just want to reiterate it for the record:

If David Letterman is willing to apologize for his coarse joking, you'd think that a pastor who does the same kind of thing would be willing to make at least the same kind of clear and contrite statement.

You'd think. I'd think, anyway -- you think what you want to think.

Weekend Red Meat

Yeah: OK. Here's the thing. I made a comment on someone's facebook page, and here's the thread:

For the record, names have been defaced to protect the unintentionally-involved.

So let's begin here: Mark Driscoll's talk at Advance09 was good, yes? Anyone want to say it was bad? I didn't think so. It's a good talk.

So what's the bee in my bonnet already? Can't I just let it go -- his people go his way and I go find me a nice reformed baptist cell that listens to John MacArthur podcasts and be done?

Yeah, no. I prolly could have let it go if the facebooker after me hadn't jumped to the "Mark Driscoll is a humble and contrite man" button, and then the last facebooker asking what exactly I meant.

Here's what I meant: I think it takes a significant amount of some version of what his second talk was decrying to give that talk when he has yet to actually make any serious or significant repentance for the long litany of vile talk which issues from his pulpit.

"'Issues'?" comes the defender of Pastor Driscoll. "'Issues'? You mean 'issued', cent: when was the last time you heard any vile talk from the pulpit of Mars Hill?"

That's amusing, yo. So without issuing any apologies for all the vile talk in the past, say, 18 months, he goes about 90 days without a dirty joke or a scatalogical reference, and we call that "repentance"?

I think we can call Pat Robertson repentant of being a false prophet if that's the standard. I'd like to hear comments about that.

In fact, I insist. This'll be the post for the week here at the blog unless someone says something utterly stupendous in the meta.

UPDATED: Other comments on this matter bubbling up at johnMark's blog.

This is a Football

They tell a story about Vince Lombardi who, during the half-time of a blow-out against his team, walked into the locker room and declared, in words to this effect, "Gentlemen, it is time to return to basics." Then he pulled out the pigskin and presented it to the team instructionally: "This: is a Football."

Over at the Resurgence Blog, Jonathan Dodson presents the football to those who read him.

Now, before you people (you know who you are) take this apart for lacking any scripture verses or direct references to the Gospel: you're right. No Gospel explications in that essay/list. But here's my problem with that objection: Sometimes you have to assume the Gospel when talking about mission. White Horse Inn and all that duly noted, but listen: at some point your extraordinary knowledge of the names and accomplishments of all the magisterial reformers and all the puritans and all the ECFs has to matter in the world God created -- the one outside the confines of your skull and your note books and your blog(s).

And it has to matter to people. You have to live someplace other than a bunker, and you have to talk to people other than your pastor and your sunday school teacher. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost -- it might prove useful to you to do the same.

Q and A with cent

I've been reading your comments about Pastor Mark Driscoll, and I think you need to think about whether you have the authority to make these kinds of comments. For example, you're an advocate of the slogan, "he should repent or step down." How do you justify making such comments?

I justify them as opinions -- not ecclesiastical decisions. There's a vast difference between saying that Mark Driscoll needs to repent or step down (an opinion) and marching over there with a bunch of sandwich-board-wearing librarians and actuaries demanding that Mars Hill Church turn out its pastor and elders.

Others have asked me, btw, whether this is a private matter between MHC and MD. The answer is "no". It stopped being a private matter when Pastor Driscoll wanted a global pulpit. If these were shenanegans going on inside MHC, we could just decide that they're like GUTS Church in Tulsa and ignore them as a group of people using the Bible for their own private purposes. When MD started looking for wider acceptance, he opened the door to wider scrutiny as well.

And let's keep in mind that my blog documents a history of mixed feelings for MD and his ministry. I'm not hardly his biggest fan, but I have never been an outright denier of his methods. However, the masturbation joke on Hughley was simply too much.

And let's be clear: this is about one or two specific incidents which, frankly, anyone who is a Christian ought to be ashamed of -- let alone a pastor speaking as a pastor representing his church and the Gospel.

Does this situation only get worse when you yourself admit (as you have) that you aren't qualified to be an elder?

Nope. Nobody got their nose out of joint when I started blogging and did an 8-part reproach to Tony Campolo for his gross misrepresentations of Calvinism and conservative evangelical christianity. This is not one iota different.

Doesn't a fight like this detract from the declaration of the Gospel?

I think that's a clever repositioning of this matter. See: what's at stake is not, "Does Mark Driscoll preach the (reformed) Gospel?" What's at stake is whether there are qualifications (and therefore disqualifications) for the place of an elder in a local church.

If an elder was stealing or sleeping around, I hope nobody would bat an eye when the least of us opined that he was no longer qualified. It seems to me that a pastor who commits other disqualifications -- such as telling dirty jokes to score points on Hughley's show -- and then refuses to publicly repent has disqualified himself. The really, really crazy thing is that I haven't seen anyone really dismantle that.

Was it a dirty Joke? That is, would you tell it in a place where you were seen as an advocate for the Gospel? If the answer is "yes", then I think there's a lot more leg work for the FOMD (Friends of Mark Driscoll) to work out than they are doing right now.

Are you adding to the Gospel by demanding that Mark Driscoll obtain some level of sanctification in order to keep his pulpit?

This is an interesting ploy -- one being promoted by MD himself in his Gospel Coalition talk. That is: those who think that his filthy talk needs more work than a shrug of the shoulders are somehow detractors of the Gospel, adding works to what Christ has done.

That only works if what people like me are saying is that Mark Driscoll is not a saved person. I'm not saying that -- I wouldn't bother saying that. I'm saying that being saved is not the criterion for elder which is in-play here.

The question is if telling a dirty joke in public is an offense, and if it is should a pastor who tells one specifically repent?

Isn't the standard for propriety culturally affected? That is, isn't it wrong to judge the joking of a pastor in Seattle by the standards of Oklahoma, or Tennessee, or Little Rock, or what have you?

That's an interesting proposition. See: someplace where MD and I would agree is complementarianism -- which is a Biblical standard. That stand, which requires male elders for the local church, doesn't go over very well in Seattle because it is anti-cultural. It is part and parcel of preaching the Gospel because it is a substantive part of the theology of marriage. If one has his soteriology all properly unpacked, but he doesn't have this unpacked properly, he goes right off the rails.

Let me say plainly that this is equally true of coarse jesting -- as exemplified in Eph 5 and Titus 1. So that standard is not "what will they accept in Crete" or "what will they accept in Seattle", but "what does the Bible proscribe?"

What has happened here is that the Bible has proscribed some behavior which Mark Driscoll has frankly embraced. It's not wrong to point that out, and it's not wrong to say it's not pastoral to do those things. It is also not wrong to apologize for doing such a thing in at least an as-obvious way as the mistake/error was made.

And do you know what would cover 80% of the gap between my objections and what has already happened? A simple, public retraction of the behavior. "I was wrong to make a masturbation joke on national television as it was a violation of how Scripture tells all people, let alone pastors, to behave." That ends nearly all of the core controversy.

It's not hard to say you're sorry and you're wrong -- unless you don't believe you are either. And it is in that latter state of mind that all the other concerns gather around.

Thanks for asking.

drive-by

Anyone else notice that JT didn't leave the comments open for this post?

I don't mind. You can leave your comments here.

In Other Words

This week was a tricksy week to be travelling and mostly disconnected from the internet, but this comment came up at the meta at Challies’ blog over the lurid language complaint John MacArthur has made against Mark Driscoll, particularly about how we read poetry:

I think the question of the extent one talks about sex is one issue, but I don’t follow you on the interpretation of poetry. Would you make this a general rule that poetry should not be interpreted line by line?

And what bothers me about this statement is that it was made by Justin Taylor, who is what I would call an erudite guy – well-read, and an editor of some significant note. He knows something about this subject.

I’m going to answer his question three ways here. In other words, I’m going to find three ways to think about this, the first is by pointing out a poem to you:

Call the roller of big cigars,The muscular one,
and bid him whip In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

This is the brilliant poem, “The Emperor of Ice Cream”, by Wallace Stevens. Now I ask you: as a general rule, should a poem be interpreted line by line?

Why yes: of course it should be interpreted line-by-line. It’s a poem. In some cases, it is worth interpreting word-by-word. But, what are we interpreting for? What are we seeking to gain from the interpretation?

See: I use this poem because, frankly, it is far more sexually-explicit than the Song of Solomon – far more intentionally sensual as it is about a funeral in whore house. But does that give us a mandate or even the natural liberty to expound on what “the roller of big cigars” means in the crassest terms? Can’t a cigar simply be a cigar?

So if we would, for the sake of merely being literate people, not have to talk about all the implications of big, brown hand-rolled cigars when speaking of a poem written by an agnostic secular writer, why would we want to require ourselves to expound on images which we think we see in the Song of Solomon?

So that’s way #1: unpacking every possible nuance of a sexually-charged poetic passage is not even nearly-profitable.

Way #2 would be this: not every poem is written for the same purpose. For example, and I think Challies did this already, when you think about the poem Psalm 119 and then the poem the Song of Solomon, one is a didactic and exalting poem about the purpose of God’s word in the life of the believer, and the other is a wedding poem, exalting the groom and the bride.

So it would serve the reader well in the didactic poem to make sure all the explicit nuances are grasped, but in the wedding poem, which is occasional and not meant to be instructional but in fact respectful and honoring, I think it is easy to see that as the apostle Paul said, things of lesser honor being given greater honor by covering them up. And there is no analogical rosetta stone for the reader of the song of Solomon to tell us how certain passages correlate to body parts or whether it is merely emotional and relational gratification the writer is “really” talking about.

As to the third way: it’s a fundamental error to ask a reductive question like this, and I am afraid Justin knows it. “All poetry”? Really – there’s a rule for reading “all poetry” which is an adequate stand-alone rule?

I like Justin. He and I have correspondences which always sharpen me, and I hope they sharpen him. But I think the path he is taking here in redressing Challies’ post and point of view is, frankly, not his best work.

Your opinions may vary.

While I'm thinking about this ...

... by analogy, does anyone remember the Mark Driscoll sermon in which he showed a Joel Osteen video in order to criticize and condemn his message?

Anyone?



He says Joel Osteen's message excludes God. A brother in Christ, he says, preaches a message which excludes God.

WOW! Where was the grace and tone police when he said that?! Naming names? How can that be full of the Gospel?

Geez. And I thought the Ecclesiastes joke was offensive. I may never be the same again.

Beat the mad rush

Join the Mark Driscoll fan club today.

Piper on Driscoll

Instructive. cf. Driscoll on his point of view:

For whatever it's worth

I feel like I'm about to return to blogging as an actual hobby again any time now, or else just keep slogging along as you 250-or-so die-hards keep stopping by and checking to see if I have any new graphics.

But seriously: if you want to read 4 books that are essentially blog that have been bound (and I mean that in a good way), you should pick up Mark Driscoll's new releases in the series "A book you'll actually read". Use the search bar on the left and type in "Mark Driscoll", and the titles are "on the Old Testament", "On the New Testament", "On Church Leadership", and "On Who is God?"

I promised Michelle at Crossway that I'd do reviews on these books, and I will later this week. But for now, suffice it to be a recommendation. The short form on these books is that if you have read any other Driscoll material, you have probably read all of these books someplace else; but the truth is that these books are better than tracts, and require you, the Christian, to engage the person you are handing pieces of paper to. They also look like you care more than handing someone a two-color glossy napkin does.

The rest you get when I write the reviews. In the meantime, go buy some.

Oh wait -- I also read the Keller book on God, I have the new edition of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith, I am trying to finish Kauflin's book on Worship, and I covet your prayers about my professional situation.

So yeah: I'm prolly going to blog a little. Soon.

Mark Driscoll info

Anyone have a link to Mark Driscoll's review of the Shack?

an interesting magisterium

Alert Reader Gil Thomas pointed me at the Acts29 blog to some comments by Mark Driscoll, particularly about a phone call he got from Rick Warren.

I'm going to drop those comments in here, and do some color commentary:

Third, I got a call from Pastor Rick Warren last week. He called simply to see if there was anything he could do to help. His kindness was humbling and helpful.

Which, you know: I get that. I get it that Rick Warren would call Mark Driscoll to lend him a (kind of) elder-statesman thing -- especially since guys like Dever and Piper and Mahaney are doing that. I get that someone who is perceived by many as a leader in the American church would call Pastor Mark so that, as a leader, he could give him some leadership advice.

I think, however, it begs the question of "what kind of leader of the American church is Rick Warren?" And that's not a rhetorical question, but some of you will take it that way because I don't answer it right here. Let me say only, for a moment, that he's a different kind of leader than Dever or Piper or Mahaney and we'll come back to it.

I asked him how he handled his critics and he had a great insight that in our day criticism has changed. He explained that there was a day when a critic would have to sit down and write a letter and then mail it into a newspaper. With limited space, the paper would then be able to only print a fraction of the letters they received. The printed letters were often not read and quickly became dated.

See: that's an interesting insight because, regardless of what follows, it says that in the past some criticism was sort of cast away because it didn't get through the filters of newspaper editors, and that was a way to get past it.

Let's think about that for a minute: someone like Rick Warren, who is responsible for a lot of things in popular Christianity today including the irresponsible idea that churches ought to be gigantic, and program-driven, and who operates a church which at best treats baptism like some kind of party favor, has the opinion that in the past some of that could get by without answering critics because the subjects didn't interest the editors of newspapers.

To keep this brief, that's an interesting magisterium. He's right in one respect: there are plenty of quacks out there, and I might be one of them. But his point that somehow that's a valid place to decide who is and is not a quack leaves so much to be desired that I'll let you, the reader, think about whether newspapers should decide what is and is not useful to report about men who lead churches.

However, Warren said, in our day criticism is marked by the following four factors:

1.Instant
2.Constant
3.Global
4.Permanent

He forgot "mean" and "impersonal" (meaning "they don't apologize for disagreeing", and "they don't call you on the phone first"), but I take exception to the idea that internet criticism is "permanent". Blogging, or erecting a web site, for the sake of some argument or issue doesn't make it "permanent" any more than getting you book published makes its contents "permanent".

What it does do is make it public, and the question then is "will anyone read it?"

If some guy named, um, "centuri0n" sets up a blog and starts saying that Rick Warren has 3 wives and practices Shinto in his basement at an altar to his father's father, the first question is, "did anyone really read that?" And the second question is, "can that be proven at all?"

That guy with a blog may never delete his blog, but if no one ever reads it, the only one who will judge him for it is Christ. The tree fell in the woods, and nobody else cared. So "permanent" is a bizarre category for what is different about criticism today, especially in comparison to criticism filtered by local newspaper editorial staff.

I'd also like to add that the attribute of "constant" criticism is only born by those who are doing something which somehow keeps drawing attention to their foibles or errors. For example, I am unaware of Mark Dever having to field "constant" criticism -- unless I should have read Steve Camp lately or something.

Let me suggest that pastors who are in the scope of "constant" criticism either have established themselves as opponents of a very powerful and vulnerable enemy, or they are doing something which deserves criticism. There may be a third choice, but I'll bet if you can find one, it's really the first choice.

For example, there was a time when Phil Johnson took a lot of guff from Fundamentalists. Phil had made some statements -- which he stands by -- criticizing the problems with their movement, and the defend of Fundamentalism came out of the woodwork. The problem, however, was that Fundamentalism was both very powerful (in numbers, anyway) but also very vulnerable -- and it the advocates for such a thing had to try to push Phil over because, well, if he's right the movement was dead, dying, or worse.

The other example I'd tender is Joel Osteen. Why does Joel take guff from people as diverse as Michael Horton and Steve Camp? It's because Joel is off the apple cart, out of the street, down the storm drain, and rolling down into the swamp outside town.

Criticism is not just hard to bear because it seems to come often. It is hard to bear either when it is the truth or resembles the truth enough to cause us to pause. False criticism is pretty easy to bear unless it costs us money or prison time -- the rest of the time (like when people call me "mean") it's good for a laugh just to see how far someone will take their imaginary world.

So I find Rick Warren's explanation facile for starters -- but I can see why he adopts it. It is a very easy way for him to dismiss his many critics -- and to put himself in Jesus' camp, at least in his own mind.

I think there is another reason for his view here, which relates to what I started to say, above, but I'm not ready to spill the beans yet.

Warren then went on to explain that, as Jesus experienced, the strongest criticism for any Christian leader comes from rigid religious people.

See what I mean? They criticize you, Mark, not because you don't really get how to keep the pulpit free from cheap scatalogical jokes and irreverant speech: they criticize you because they are "rigid religious people". You know: you're doing ministry, and they're blogging or raving.

I think an interesting contexter here is that Abraham Piper recently called Mark Driscoll a jackass, and he wasn't accused of making an unjust criticism. Someone else points out that referencing Jesus' anatomy and digestive functions from the pulpit is unwholesome and it's suddenly a world of hurt.

So as we think about Pastor Warren's trajectory here, let's remember that it's selective at best, and that somehow I think the actual criteria for making the selection is hidden or stowed away.

When I asked him what someone should do when facing criticism, he gave the following insightful points:

1. Turn your critics into coaches by hearing what they are saying and humbly considering if there is any truth in their criticisms to learn from.

2. Never engage the critics on their terms because it only escalates the conflict and is not productive.

3. Be very careful with firing off emails or leaving voicemails and responding out of anger in a way that you will later regret.

4.Shout louder than your critics to define yourself and do not allow them to define you.

Of these 4, #3 I get. In fact, #3 is the best advice on earth to give anyone who is giving or getting criticism -- but you don't have to be a globally-recognized brand of inspirational publishing either to give it or to receive it. You just have to read the book of James.

Here's what I think about the rest:

#1 seems so obvious that to mention it seems a little, um, obvious. Yes: criticism is only any good if it's true, and if it's true, do something about it. That's why PDL underwent so many revisions after the critics started pointing out its foibles.

#2 ignores the real burden and real freedom of #1 -- that is, if #1 is true, valid criticism should be used to improve one's self, and false criticism is simply false.

And #4 reveals something about Warren that I never thought we'd find him saying out loud: he's willing to admit that nobody defines who he is but himself -- that is, there are no valid criticisms of him unless he says so. That's a doozer, folks -- a real eye-opener. Someone criticizes me? All I have to do is say, "I stand for ice cream!" louder and longer, and therefore the critic can't be right. Someone once called that "the big lie", but I can't remember who that is.

So that leaves us with my yet-unexpounded subtext -- "what kind of leader is Rick Warren?" and the "other reason" for Rick Warren wanting to make himself a member of the Jesus squad and his critics "rigid religious people".

If you haven't really been thinking about Rick Warren's trajectory, it's riding on a the social Gospel, highly critical of clear doctrinal affirmations, balanced on self-fulfillment, focussed on style and allegedly "brining people together". For those of you who can't put it together, it's emergent lite. Rick Warren is the "conservative" Brian McLaren -- though I will admit that Warren's theology is not as completely wretched as McLaren's.

Warren is the nice suit for the left side of the evangelical divide. And it makes sense for him to give Pastor Mark an open hand -- just in case the MHC Pastor has one too many MHC-17 moments and Dever or Mahaney or Piper calls him on it and he doesn't want to hear it.

I think Warren's advice is bad advice, especially to Mark Driscoll. It is sketchy at best, flippant and self-deceptive at worst, and leaves one in the really unhelpful position of not having to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

And now that opinion, apparently, is permanent. We'll see if it has any impact.

Mars Hillbillies

Somebody who is apparently an ex Mars Hill member posted some comments in the meta, linking me to their network of Mars Hill dissenters. As I read through their blogs, it seems to me that somehow, a pocket of fundamentalist soul comp hillbillies have somehow sprouted up in Seattle, WA.

Here's what I mean by that: in many churches, people take the baptist foundational principle of "soul competency" before God too far, and think that because God holds them responsible for their confession and life of faith that they are some kind of personal pastor who them has a right to rule every decision of the church. That's false for a lot of reasons -- like the fact that the Bible clearly states qualifications of elders, and it is the elders who ought to lead (if not rule) the church, and it makes distinctions between mature and immature believers, and so on.

It's a hillbilly mentality somehow transposed into spiritual terms.

Now, on its face that sounds like a harsh criticism of the critics of Mars Hill. But that's also not very good thinking. MHC is, as they say, the least-churched city in America -- which is apparently an excuse for some pretty gritty homiletics. But if that's true, then the elders of Mars Hill have to take responsibility for the kind of believers they are reaching and making into what kind of disciples. Just because the women don't wear head coverings and the men don't churn their own butter doesn't mean that they are not being taught to be any different than people who live in the woods, homeschool (no offense Carla and the rest of you regular readers; this is a Driscoll idiom, so be tough) and think that the only church good enough for them is a house church over which only they themselves have a final say.

I think there's some bad blood from the dissenters at MHC, but as I read their blogs, I think they haven't been discipled very well. That speaks to me loudly through their complaints about how Elder rule works out in real life. I think that ought to be the concern of that church.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. If you're a Mars Hillbilly looking to air dirty laundry on Mark Driscoll, don't bring it here.

Jesus Hearts Piper

Here's the thing with this "Piper goes to far" battalion: they are simply trying to force Dr. Piper to say things which it cannot be demonstrated that he is saying.

In the last few days, the other side of this hoopla have tried to say that Piper's view somehow thwarts God's sovereignty because Piper is here instructing pastors to "make people feel" like they need to be saved. Unlike, I guess, Peter at pentecost, where the folks listening were cut the the heart and were pleading with him, "what shall we do to be saved?"

I guess.

But here's the thing: that troublemaker Jesus was also on about how our affections relate to our standing before God. There are a couple of places I think this is demonstrated pretty clearly, but here's one that is simply to obvious to ignore.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. [ESV, Mat 6]

Right? And this version of this statement is even less invasive than the parallel passage in Luke 12, amen?

Where your -treasure- is, there your -heart- will be. Jesus' words here say explicitly that your treasure -shows- where your heart is.

See -- God's sovereignty is not hardly at stake here: your ability to measure yourself is at stake here. And while we would all affirm -- Dr. Piper included -- that the foundation of our salvation is the finished work of Christ, and the basis for being assured is that Christ saves, our hero Mark Dricosll made a keen point about Grace in his recent "Ask Anything" sermon on the topic.

There was a guy who was a member of Mars Hill Church, and he was a serial adulterer. Married one grrl (that's how they spell it in Seattle), cheated on her, and married that one with whom he cheated. Did it a second and a third time. When Driscoll sat down with the guy, his response was classic: "Jesus forgives all my sins."

Driscoll's response is also classic: "Dude, while I can't see your heart or your soul, in my professional opinion, you do not know Jesus."

That statement is not legalism. It is the assessment that this guy's affections are not Christian affections. He wants worldly sex, not Godly sex. His treasure is laid up in the lap of women who are not his wife, and not at the feet of a savior who paid the highest price for his sin.

This is what Piper is talking about. This is how he is talking about it. Encouraging other pastors to talk about it this way is not hardly a vice -- because it turns out that this would actually be the most serious sin of the American church.

And I'll line that out, and finish up this Pyro-free week on this topic, tomorrow.

UPDATED:

Piper speaks for himself, and if you don't understand him after this, I'm not sure I can help you. The really-vigilant will listen to the audio as it has nature embellishments that the text here doesn't necessarily represent.

Yeah, well, somebody asked

What do I think of Mark Driscoll's "Ask Anything" series?

I haven't had time to listen to it except for the first one. I listened to half of his Q&A on humor last night, and I'll prolly have something to say about that eventually.

That's all I got. Right now.

The Main Event

You most faithful readers know that ultimately, I'm a fan of Mark Driscoll. Fan -- can't help it. Somebody has said that there isn't a "Billy Graham" for 21st century Christianity, and I totally disagree -- I think Driscoll is in the running to be such a thing, if I can say that and not cause a complete melt-down of the blogosphere and everything that's holy.

I just got wind of this because I was poking around at his church website, but Pastor Mark is conducting a poll to find out what he ought to preach on in January, and I just scanned the top-50 contenders for topics, and I think it's pure gold.

Now, some of you are going to have a lot of negative things to say about this technique -- like it's a little cheeky of Driscoll to ask the internet, which is frankly overpopulated with non-believers, to pick his sermon topics. But before you start cranking the handle of your organ and set the monkey to dancing, look at the list of questions.

If Driscoll preaches through this list of questions and gives the orthodox answers to these questions, he will have done more for Christian evangelism than anyone since Billy Graham because this is the ground in which we are conducting evangelism today.

Amen.

Here's a podcast of Mark Driscoll talking to Ed Stetzer (warning: a direct link to MP3), which answers some important questions about who Mark Driscoll is that many people have asked. I was one of them.

His riff on his own sanctification is really important. I'm sure his sympathy for the spiritual disciplines will make some people angry or whatever. Just listen to it and think about it.