Many of you by now have probably read Andrew's account of his firsthand experience of church discipline at the hands of Seattle's Mars Hill and its pastor, Mark Driscoll (if you've not read the account, I would strongly urge you to do so. It is very enlightening, as well as consistent with the accounts I have heard about Mars Hill in general).Now, I must admit I am a bit torn about this....
The reactions to this story that I have come across have been been overwhelmingly negative. The leadership of Mars Hill has been described as legalistic and heavy-handed, and Andrew's decision to leave Mars Hill has been met with general approbation.
But from what I can gather, the majority of the objections to Mars Hill's discipline has been coming from evangelicals, many of whom consider ecclesiastical authority of any kind to be bordering on abusive and illegitimate. To the evangelical mind, the Christian life is almost solely an individual affair, the only really corporate dimension being when a collection of those individuals gathers together in the same room to have their one-on-one experiences with God simultaneously.
As if this were not enough, evangelical churches like Calvary Chapel do not even have church membership, which makes the kind of discipline practiced by Mars Hill make about as much sense as a citizen's arrest in a town with no government.
All that being said, I can still understand why Andrew would balk at being told by his church's leadership that unless he signs their discipline contract and jumps through their hoops, that they will be unable to properly judge the sincerity of his repentance, and further, that his refusal to submit will result in his being treated as a publican and a sinner. While such thoroughness in shepherding its flock is admirable in principle, I can't help but wonder if there are some delusions of grandeur on Mars Hill's part (although I can't exactly put my finger on why I feel this way).
So anyway, I would be curious to hear the thoughts of those of you who have read Andrew's account. Is Mars Hill simply being scupulous and deliberate, or have they overstepped their bounds?
I'm not sure how possible it is to judge a situation like this from the outside. We're only getting Andrew's side of the story. As you well know, cases like this can be incredibly complex and for us to pass judgement on either his, or Mars Hill's actions seems inadvisable. From just the bare face of it, it seems MH is just trying to do church discipline, perhaps heavy-handedly. But who knows? Maybe Andrew has been an absolute pain in the butt to deal with. There is no way to tell without hearing both sides, is there?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAdd your name and explain your point or I'll delete your comment.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteIf you read both posts you'll see that it is not just Andrew's side we're getting. It's all pretty extensively documented.
I'm missing something. I did read both posts before commenting, and just read back over them again. All I see is Andrew saying he did everything right and the MH leadership becoming increasingly harsh. I see sentences like this: "That confession led to more meetings and more than enough long (and sometimes ridiculous) text message conversations with church leadership at Mars Hill." To make a judgment I would have to know what precipitated those meetings, what happened in them, and why more were necessary. I don't doubt for a second that it is possible for MH to act this way, but just because it is possible doesn't mean it happened here. Aside from a couple of vague documents from MH, we're only getting Andrew's and Matthew Paul Turner's side, both of whom seem to have some degree of antagonism toward the church. Even MH's response to the whole thing indicates that we don't know the whole story. I say this not in defense of MH, but in defense of the process of church discipline. Would you want someone who was dissatisfied with the way your church disciplined them to vent on the internet? Do you think they would represent you fairly?
DeleteFair enough, Steve. My point is suggesting you read the prior account was that MH's correspondence was all documented and reproduced.
DeleteYikes, based on the information at hand MH's response does not take into account that Andrew voluntarily came forward and spent weeks in meetings, respecting the authority of those over him. Give the guy some credit for the steps *he has taken*.
ReplyDeleteHow many of us confess our sins to each other? How many of us would long-suffer weeks of humiliating meetings?
Ideally counseling, prayer and mourning together (with Andrew) might have showed Andrew how much his church loves him (and was broken by his actions) seeking his restoration. The numerous meetings sound repetitive, humiliating, bureaucratic and botched -unless of course the whole point of those meetings were to point Andrew to Christ and encourage Andrew's sanctification.
*shown ... my bad ESL.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who attends a church that practices church discipline and has seen it, properly administered, be used by God to resore erring members, I would make the following observations:
ReplyDelete1) Church discipline is one of the marks of a true church and the American evangelical church is all the worse for not practicing it. So at the very least, I commend MH for taking the matter seriously.
2) One of the keys to proper church discipline is to recognize it as a process and that the church's response to an erring member needs to be proportionate, not only to the sin, but to the disposition of the one being disciplined. The church is not called to punish sin as God's "angel of wrath." As a member of the PCA, I am grateful that we have a due process by which a member can be called to repentance and also be reconciled to the church. The question I would have for MH is how they decide what the proper disciplinary process should be? With Andrew, are they focused on discipling him if he does not repent or are they looking to punish the initial sin which has already been forgiven?
3) I would argue that church discipline needs to be practiced by a church in the context of accountability to a larger body of churches, such as a denomination. Given the sin that is inherent in every believer, including church leaders, who speaks up when an independent church oversteps its bound? Where does the person being disciplined go when he or she feels they've improperly disciplined?
I think that is more to this story that needs to be known before proper judgement can be passed. My fear is that, with a church like MH, that judgement may end up being made in the court of public opinion instead of within the court of the body of Christ as it should.
The thing is, you have already had the 'other side of the story' in that the letter in the 2nd blog entry is what they would have released to their own church.
DeleteThe thing is, there is no way this looks good for the church. For one simple reason; read the contract, it doesn't make sense if the person was unrepentant, and if he was repentant then it just appears toxic.
I think they over-stepped there bounds. Given that the intent for church discipline is to restore a member to repentance, it's strange that the elders at Mars Hill—if Andrew's account is fair and true—did not recognize his repentance at an earlier stage in the process and work from there. Instead, the church drug out his discipline and didn't actually formalize it until far after he had repented. By doing this they completely squander the purpose and effectiveness of discipline and turns discipline into a fruitless and pointless thing. If discipline is to drive out a believer and hang the law over their head even after repentance, then I think they did a wonderful job. But that's not what discipline is, and it also isn't a reflection of the Gospel. In the case of Andrew, it would have been great if the elders would have taken action immediately and made their intentions clear.
ReplyDeleteI am not intending to blindly criticize MH, as I indicate in the post. I applaud them for taking sin seriously, which is something churches like Calvary Chapel could learn from.
ReplyDeleteBut what concerns me is this tactic: Billy sins, confesses, and repents. He then asks his leadership for accountability, and they respond in a way that seems heavy-handed and graceless. When Billy questions this, the issue in the leadership's eyes becomes his lack of submission. Then, regardless of how repentant he may have been for the initial sin, he is branded as hard-hearted since he disagrees with his leadership's perscription.
In a word, anything can be turned into a lack of submission issue.
Which is really a control and abuse of power issue.
ReplyDeleteThough I've never been under discipline myself, I've had the experience of struggling with sin, coming to the elders for help, receiving their loving oversight, and even in that context, having the sense of being misunderstood. I have also served as an elder and have wrestled with the whole matter of how to wisely, gracefully and faithfully discipline members in the church. So I've participated, in some sense, on both sides of the fence. Elders, ordained by God, are human and we must bear with their weakness since it is through them God chooses to rule us.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, there are a couple of points I'd like to make:
1. This very discussion is an example of the mixed bag we inherit with 2012 technology. While we can enter into conversation, learn from others at a distance and share important information instantaneously, we also end up sometimes peering into bedrooms which are not ours to share. Steve M's point is well taken that it isn't always helpful to have an under-informed internet community be the umpires in the weighty decisions an elder has to make.
2. If Andrew's account of how he was notified of the decision is true - text messages and emails - this sounds like a cowardly use of technology which can be misunderstood with the best of intentions and are dehumanizing when misused. (I would argue that church discipline is a misuse of those technologies.)
3. Years ago I was a member of an authoritarian sect where the types of abuse described were common-place. I don't doubt the validity of Andrew's account and I have experienced and seen firsthand the devastating and long lasting damage that can be done through such spiritual abuse. (Andrews description as well as the somewhat bizzare letter from the elders to congregants which puts hypothetical responses in their mouths is disturbingly familiar in it's controlling and non-pastoral tenor.) At the same time we must be modest in our response until we hear the whole story. We all are likely to cast ourselves in a more positive light when telling our side.
4. Lastly I think Kenneth's post above demonstrates the wisdom of reformed confessional ecclesiology. I am a member of a URCNA congregation and appreciate how loving, slow and deliberate the process is, including the advise of a wider body of churches as well as a channel for grievance if a member feels he has been unjustly disciplined. Without that kind of church order, broader accountability and historical precedent a church like Mars Hill, which stands firmly in NO tradition, is left to wing it with the weighty matters of caring for souls.
“Andrew will write out in detail the chronology of events and sexual/emotional sin with K and share it with XXX and Pastor X.”
ReplyDeleteYeow. Maybe Driscoll’s lusty visions aren’t as extraordinarily inspired as they are ordinarily informed. Either way, not very Reformed.
It’s admirable to want to give credit for taking sin seriously. But I’d rather see institutional Christianity taken even more seriously than independent-start-up Christianity. Like Dan points out, that doesn’t mean human flaw will be circumvented. But it does seem to me that institutional Christianity has a remarkable way of recognizing human flaws exist within both discipliners and disciplinees, which has benefits that celebrity religion and cult-of-personality just miss by the nature of it.
The longer I'm alive and the longer I both participate and observe these type of proceedings, the more sympathy I feel for congregants like Andrew. It's largely unfair to ask of a member to submit to a discipline PROCESS that is largely unstructured, subject to whim and mood and has no definite beginning or middle or end. If you're going to insist on church discipline and more importantly use it as a restorative measure not a punitive one, it has to be tightly organized and as much as possible devoid of overly pietistic or penance- oriented measures. People sin, that they come to you as a confessor and seeking accountability is 99.99% of the whole enterprise, somebody should have recused the step-father from the oversight process and allowing for the fiance's forgiveness and willingness, hurried up the wedding process, and move on.
ReplyDeleteFrustrating. Troubling. Disconcerting. Sad. Frightening. I will freely admit that I underwent my own church discipline in 2000 at Overlake Christian Church and this story horrifyingly reminds me my own account, with much pain and trembling, even 12 years later. My heart BREAKS for Andrew. My flesh CRAWLS at reading this article. We are to be Jesus with skin on. We are to faithfully administer God's GRACE in its various forms. Legalistic tarring and feathering of God's chosen people, His royal priesthood, His holy nation, does NOT result in better community or better growth. It results in an impoverished church, a beleaguered sense of trust in God and the body of Christ, and cultivates a climate of fear-based worship where God's children are walking on eggshells. I can only imagine what Andrew must feel right now. Andrew, I love you in Jesus' Name. You are repentant, you have repented, and you are forgiven. I do not know you, I have never met you, but you are LOVED IN JESUS' NAME. I am deeply proud of you for bringing your sin into the light, and for bringing Mars Hill's leadership's sin into the light as well. Knowing church discipline all too well, I can freely also admit that one sin that cost me my position of leadership, my community at the church, my connection to the body of Christ there, etc., also eventually lead to an even greater sin which cost me my freedom and sent me to prison. I do not blame my actions on the church or the leadership, but I will indefatigably say that there is an inexorable tie between the church discipline / excommunication I received from Overlake Christian Church, and my eventual crime. Do I wish I could take back my crime? Yes. But I also wish with all my heart that I could take back the church discipline I received, and replace it with something restorative like a warm hug. Alas, warm hugs are not mentioned in Scripture for those undergoing church discipline. And such a legalistic, grace-lacking approaches only send us further down the drain, with no hope of compassionate restoration. Wash your hands of us if you will, you beloved megachurches, and in the process so subsequently condemn yourselves as unloving, uncompassionate, and unbiblical. Jesus loves me the same that he does me, and that is my Amen, because truthfully I'd rather ALWAYS be the guy beating his chest, saying "God be merciful to me, a sinner" than be you.
ReplyDelete