"Daddy wounds"

Driscoll's interview is getting some buzz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKnSBxFqVXM&t=3s

Among other things, he says:

Reformed theology is, I have a dad who is powerful, he is in charge, he is non-relational, he lives far away, and don't make him mad because he can get angry really fast and hurt you…So almost every theological group within Christianity is somehow a rejection or projection of their earthly father, and the problem is they're starting with their earthly father and looking up; they're not starting with their heavenly father and looking down and judging their earthly fathers. I've gone so far as to say I think the whole young restless and Reformed movement…I don't hold to the five-points of Calvinism, I think it's garbage, because it's not biblical...God is father, but he's distant, he's mean, he's cruel, he's non-relational, he's far away. That's their view of their earthly father. So they may pick dead mentors–Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther–these are little boys with father wounds who are looking for spiritual fathers, so they picked dead guys who are not gonna actually get to know them or correct them. And then they join networks run by other young men so that they can all be brothers [because] there's no fathers, and they love, love, love Jesus because they love the story where the son is the hero because they're the sons with father wounds…the reason Jesus saves you is to get you to your dad. 

1. There's a grain of truth to some of what he says, but that's distorted by the way he combines it with Joseph Campbell, pop psychobabble, and hasty generalizations. His analysis is absurdly simplistic. 

A Piper paradox?

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2015/08/john-pipers-paradox-1999-2015-natural.html

High school diva

This is of interest for documenting the double standards of Rachel Held Evans, who reminds me of the high school diva in teen dramas. The classic queen bee mentality:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2015/01/brad-sargent-summarizes-events-between.html

The many faces of Mark Driscoll

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/11/todd-pruitt-raises-question-of-where.html

Beating a dead hobbyhorse

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-new-proof-that-lessons-learned-about.html

"Learning" from the Driscoll debacle

In the wake of the Mars Hill meltdown, you have Christian pundits who tell us what we can "learn" from the debacle. The takeaway lessons from that debacle.

I'd just point out that this way of framing the issue is presumptuous and prejudicial. It casts readers in the role of dupes who were taken in by Driscoll, and now have some hard lessons to learn from their disillusioning experience. He betrayed their faith in him. 

No doubt there are some former fans of Driscoll who fit the bill. There are, however, Christians who never cared for him in the first place. In addition, there are Christians who appreciated the good he did, especially before he began to go off the rails. But it was never unconditional support. It was the same implicitly qualified support for any minister who's doing good at the time. It always made allowance for weaknesses. And it was always provisional. Always subject to retraction. 

Taking belated credit for someone else's sleuthing

Now while the Team Pyro folks have surely been consistent in their public critique of Driscoll, and they have gotten some credit for having said "We told you so" about Driscoll in the last decade, no, they didn't.  Let's put it this way, were they on Driscoll's case over the last ten years about how carefully he gave credit where credit was due?  Nope.  They didn't say jack about plagiarism or the consolidation of power in the executive wing behind the scenes because it wasn't about those things for that crew, it was about Mark cussing and about Mark being too charismatic.  

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-nod-to-alastair-roberts-ad-mans_13.html

Bad blood

I notice every so often that Dan Phillips and Fred Butler like to take all the credit for warning the evangelical community about Mark Driscoll. If only we had heeded their prescient admonitions, we would not have been snookered by Driscoll's snake oil. 

Now I even see them touting articles from The Stranger. There is, however, a reason why evangelicals might regard The Stranger as a suspect source. For instance:

http://www.thestranger.com/personals/

It's precisely biased sources like that which cause people like me to take what they say with a grain of salt. It's like CNN covering the Israel/Gaza conflict. 

Before the MacArthurites and Pyromaniacs completely rewrite history, Soviet style, let's set the record straight.

i) Driscoll has had a bevy of critics for a long time now. It's not as if MacArthurites and Pyromanics were in the vanguard of the movement. So their back-patting conceit is misplaced.

ii) One reason the MacArthurites and Pyromanics haven't gotten their due, as they see it, is because their criticisms are motivated by barely-concealed partisanship. This isn't disinterested criticism. Rather, this is, in part, sour grapes between two rival megachurch pastors, with competing visions, and their respective supporters. Likewise, it's part and parcel of a running vendetta against The Gospel Coalition. From what I can tell, the MacArthurites and Pyromaniacs harbor an implacable animosity towards TGC because it's not consistently cessationist and premillennial. 

iii) This isn't to deny that the MacArthurites and Pyromanics raise some valid criticisms. For instance, a few years ago, Phil Johnson did a post on Driscoll's "pornographic divination." It was written in a somewhat sensationalistic style, but then, it was an expose of Driscoll's sensationalistic antics. I thought Johnson provided some useful documentation. 

iv) Long-standing critics of Driscoll include ex-church members, former associate pastors, &c. They were also in the lead. That, however, reveals a certain irony in MacArthurite indictment of Driscoll. For Fred Butler is a critic of survivor blogs. Therefore, a major source of information about Mars HIll Church comes from a source that Fred preemptively discredits.

v) Just as Driscoll has critics on the right, he has critics on the left. That's one reason some objections were discounted. Consider the source. They had their own agenda. The Rachel Held Evans wing of the party. Offended feminists and "Gay christians."

vi) Speaking for myself, I was never a fan of Driscoll. I rarely read anything by him. I did think he occasionally said something useful. 

vii) In addition, I happen to be personal friend's with one of Driscoll's leading critics. I've known this critic for over 20 years. He's very well connected. Has lots of inside information. So it's not as if I needed the Pyromaniacs to give me the dish on Driscoll. In fact, I have it on good authority that there's much worse stuff on Driscoll that's yet to hit the fan. 

I for one can do without self-serving, self-congratulatory comments by Dan Phillips about how Pyromanics was a voice in the wilderness, about how the evangelical community failed to heed his sagacious foresight on the impending downfall of Driscoll. Has Dan always suffered from this inflated pride? Does he like to cast himself in the role of Jeremiah? The underappreciated prophet? Driscoll has a big enough ego without Dan adding to the net egotism. 

Attack of the killer tomatoes

Valerie Tarico is a militant atheist who contributed a chapter to a book edited by John Loftus. She used to be a member of Debunking Christianity. She's a contributor to Salon magazine and the Huffingon Post. 

She recently published an attack on Mark Driscoll. Now, Driscoll is such a target-rich environment that a factual expose ought be sufficiently damning. Unfortunately, she didn't bother to do her homework. Ironically, one of Driscoll's leading critics has had to fact-check her error-ridden article:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/04/valerie-tarico-publishes-article-on.html

This illustrates the low standards of village atheists. Even when going after a soft target like Driscoll, with his overabundance of incriminating foibles and scandals, she can't be bothered to do the necessary research. 

Jaywalking

That accountability question has always been the Achilles' Heel of the evangelical parachurch movement.  

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/celebrity-pastors-a-retrospect.php 

The result is that a pastor's power and influence are intentionally enhanced and expanded while accountability is in practice detached from a proper ecclesiastical body.  

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/for-what-its-worth.php

This is Trueman's hobbyhorse, which he keeps riding into the ground. His objection isn't confined black sheep like Mark Driscoll. He constantly has TGC in the crosshairs, as well as parachurch movements generally.

By "accountability" to a "proper ecclesiastical body," I assume he's alluding to something like Presbyterian polity. But is that the solution?

i) To begin with, his position commits one to denominations. The alternative to independent local churches is a denomination. Now, I myself don't think there's anything inherently wrong with denominations. But it's not as if the Pastoral Epistles defined a "proper ecclesiastical body" as a denomination. To the contrary, they focus on the internal dynamics of the local church. 

ii) Having formal accountability structures doesn't ensure accountability. Liberal mainline denominations (e.g. PC-USA, ECUSA, CRC, ELCA) have formal accountability structures, yet that didn't prevent them from sliding into heterodoxy and heteropraxy. Indeed, church gov't enforces whatever the leaders believe. 

iii) The celebrity/megachurch dynamic is hardly confined to independent churches or parachurch ministries. Take Joel Gregory's expose of Dallas First Baptist.

When PCA pastor James Kennedy became incapacitated, a bloodbath ensued from control of his empire, resulting in a very ugly, damaging transition. Some have chided Kennedy for failing to groom a successor, but to my knowledge, a Presbyterian pastor lacks the authority to designate an heir apparent. 

Likewise, Ergun Caner was unanimously elected by the board of trustees to head a Baptist college. That travesty wasn't due to the lack of an accountability system. 

If a church board is packed with cronies, it will rubber-stamp malfeasance. Indeed, all parties may be on the take. 

iv) To my knowledge, Peter Enns is still a PCA elder in good standing. Technically, he's accountable to a "proper ecclesiastical body," but why hasn't he been held accountable? Where's the heresy trial? 

v) Beyond allusion to plural eldership, the Pastorals don't really say anything about an accountability system. Rather, they focus on the moral character of the elder. Choose a man of good character. There's no substitute for personal rectitude. 

Ultimately, it's not accountability structures that keep elders in check, but elders that keep accountability structures in check. That's why Paul makes the paradoxical statement that the law is for the lawless (1 Tim 1:9). Men of integrity don't need it. They do right without it. 

vi) Trueman acts as if the important thing is to be run over at a crosswalk rather than jaywalking. Follow procedure for procedure's sake. 

Match fixing

Before remarking on the latest Driscoll controversy, I'd like to make a general observation. I don't closely follow his ministry, but he has critics on the left and the right. Some of his conservative critics attack him for things like praising Christian tattoos and not wearing a business suit when he preaches. Somehow I can't quite work up a fit of indignation over charges like that. 

However, he also has critics who hate him because he's a complementarian. Because he opposes homosexuality. 

So it's important to keep in mind that he's made enemies by getting some things right as well as getting some things wrong. Some of the same critics who revile him would be just as quick to revile John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, and The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 

The latest controversy involves the revelation that Mars Hill Church contracted with a marketing firm to buy his way onto bestseller lists. And what's wrong with that?

Well, admittedly, it's not as a bad as bribing a technician to advance your name on the transplant waiting list. More like doping a racehorse or bribing a referee to throw the game. The fix is in. 

Another issue is the potential misappropriation of church funds. Did parishioners know that their tithes and offerings were going to be put to this use? Is that a proper use of donated money? 

Nothing fails like success

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2013/12/18/re-mark-driscoll/

Scrubbing the record

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/12/warren-throckmorton-keeps-tabs-mhc.html

Shifting blame

For those who still care:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/12/slate-returns-to-subject-of-mark.html

Disappearing evidence

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/12/mars-hill-altered-statement-about-trial.html

"Citation error"

For those who still care about the ongoing saga:

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/12/09/mars-hill-church-plagiarism-controversy-citation-errors/

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/12/mars-hill-church-admits-to-citation.html

Taking credit

Ingrid Schlueter, whom Janet Mefferd dubs her "part-time assistant producer," has resigned in the aftermath the Driscoll plagiarism kerfuffle. From what I've read, Schlueter is a long-time critic of Driscoll. But this raise an awkward question: who actually dug up the incriminating material on Driscoll–Mefferd or Schleuter? Mefferd accuses Driscoll of taking credit for someone else's research, but was she herself taking the credit for someone else's research? 

Of course, that does nothing to exonerate Driscoll. But it raises the question of whether Mefferd is guilty of the same offense she indicts Driscoll for. I wonder if Driscoll's critics and Mefferd's supporters will now measure her by the same yardstick. I'm not holding my breath. Do we have consistent standards? Or do we have rubbery standards that expand or contract according to our agenda? 

Pressure tactics?

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/well-lookie-there-driscolls-books-are-published-by-tyndale-and-tyndale-is-a-partner-of-salem-radio/

Settling old scores

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/12/ht-jim-west-jonathan-merritt-notes-that.html

Footloose footnotes

"My View on the Driscoll Flap" by Peter Pike.