When I was a young Christian, I was influenced from many
directions, and I was listening to and reading quite a few different (and
contradictory) authors and pastors, not really knowing which path I needed to
take (or really what the differences were between them). As I matured in my faith and my understanding
of the Scriptures, I took a hard turn down the New Calvinism stream. I was introduced to this through John Piper,
as were most people in this group, and people like Mark Driscoll were regulars
on my iPod.
As time went on, I continued to learn and to grow, and
eventually I found myself in what we may call the Old Calvinism, though still
enjoying listening to these other pastors.
It was about that time though that things started shifting, and not for
the good, and now I had the theological foundation to recognize the problems. Some time ago, I publically (over Twitter)
repented of my role in the New Calvinism, because I started seeing the movement
as inherently dangerous and getting more dangerous. I was well behind people like John MacArthur
and Carl Trueman, who had recognized the problems much earlier, but they were
starting to become clear to me.
I have kept quiet during the Mark Driscoll controversy,
except to perhaps retweet a thoughtful article or something. I have thought long and hard on whether I
should remain silent. On one hand, I
generally do not think people should comment on stuff like this just to comment
on it. On the other hand, I’m not
someone who thinks that NO ONE should comment on it. A lot of people misunderstand Matthew 18 to
apply to all wrongdoing in all cases, but it’s the path to take if someone sins
against you directly. Both Jesus and
Paul rebuke bad teaching publically.
Oddly enough, Driscoll is the one who taught me that. I won’t be able to find that sermon again
right now, but it was a talk on church disciple, and the different ways we are
to approach people.
This is a public happening, and frankly, Christ’s name is
being dragged through the mud over it.
I’m glad that Christians are trying to set the record straight, that
this is not the way Christians should do things.
But that didn’t necessarily mean that I should be the one commenting.
What leads me to believe that I ultimately should comment is 1) that I
quoted Driscoll in one of my books, so I am publically referencing him as a
good source of material and 2) that I have actually kept up with what has
happened. I’ve seen more than one people
tweet something like, “Well, I haven’t been keeping up with Driscoll, but
people shouldn’t be talking about him.”
But frankly, if you haven’t been keeping up, then you should be the
first to stay silent about it.
And if you really believe that we shouldn’t publically
criticize people who sin publically, then you need to quit publically telling
people that they shouldn’t criticize. If
you think that people shouldn’t criticize others in public, then don’t
criticize those people in public. If you
think there is too much talk about something, don’t add to it by arguing with
those talking about it about them talking about it.
Well, time goes on, and I didn’t write anything on it, but
as we’re seeing the fallout from everything that has gone on, I decided that it
would be worthwhile for me to stick my head up just long enough to say:
The problems with the
New Calvinism, whether we’re talking about Driscoll, MacDonald, or even when
Piper (who has remained a great teacher, unlike the other two) messed up, would
almost all be solved by Old Calvinism.
Not that the people involved would have assuredly gone a
different path. No one knows on
that. I can’t tell you that Driscoll
would have repented if he had been in a Presbyterian church instead of Mars
Hill. I can’t even say that the
presbytery would have done its job properly in this case. But what I’m saying is that there are
fundamental problems with New Calvinism that allows for these scandals that are
actually guarded against in Old Calvinism.
Not that people in Old Calvinism execute it properly. There are many cases where the train has run
off the tracks. What I’m saying is that
in Old Calvinism, the tracks are running the right way, and they are not in New
Calvinism.
As a note, I’ll do my best to track down documentation of
the events I’m referencing, but for those who are unfamiliar with the Driscoll
saga, which will provide the platform from which I will draw my points, a good
outline of what has happened can be found here.
Church polity
One real question during the whole Driscoll debacle is who
has the authority to bring charges against him?
There was a bizarre series of events where nine elders (those would be elders) brought charges, and not only
were they rejected because those elders didn’t have the authority to do that,
but those elders generally then quit or got fired.1
Some elements of church polity are difficult to tease out in
Scripture. But at very least, an
elder-lead polity is easily seen, but oddly, the church has been stubbornly
trying to ignore those instructions for a very long time.
At first, it doesn’t seem like Driscoll was avoiding that at
all. But somewhere along the way, and I
honestly don’t know all the steps that happened to make this transition occur,
Driscoll stopped being accountable to the actual elders of the congregation and
started being accountable to an outside group of advisors.2 Sort of like a presbytery, but not quite,
since it seems like the only thing holding this group together was Driscoll
choosing them. There was little
doctrinal unity, and it certainly wasn’t a denomination. They weren’t even from Driscoll’s own
quasi-denomination, Acts 29 Network.
Biblically speaking, charges cannot just be brought up
against a minister all willy-nilly.
There have to be two or more witnesses in order to bring charges. But that being established, the charge is to
be admitted (1 Timothy 5:19).
Presbyterianism (of which I am a part) calls for a system of courts to
hear charges and such and to decide on them.
And as a Presbyterian, I have the right to call for a charge to be
heard, assuming there is another witness to this charge.
The Bible knows nothing of an elder who is an elder and yet
is not allowed to bring a charge against another pastor.
That at very least should be clear. I’ll take it a step further, and this is the
part of polity which is not so clear in Scripture. But I believe that the local church should be
interconnected, which is my I am Presbyterian.
If a pastor manages to arrange things so that the local elders can’t or
won’t do anything, there is still an outlet to turn to. This system is not perfect, as it involved
sinful men, but it is easier for someone like Driscoll, who really answers to
no denomination, to remain in his position after disqualifying himself than it
would be for a Presbyterian who answers to a presbytery and then to a general
assembly.
There is a reason that we see failures like this most often
in independent churches that do not have strong elders. When all the power is invested in one person,
we get the results we should expect.
Conservative denominations that are interconnected have a way to deal
with people who are behaving this way.
Seeing visions?
Very late in the game, Driscoll was claiming that the Holy
Spirit told him that he needed to be a pastor to pastors, to be a mentor to new
pastors.3 Clearly that’s not
true, because the Spirit does not contradict Himself. The Spirit-inspired Scriptures say that
Driscoll shouldn’t even be a pastor, let alone a pastor of pastors.
But there’s the problem.
Who do you believe? Driscoll
believed that he had a direct revelation from God Himself as to where he was to
go from here. So if your elders are
coming forward and telling you something different than what God is telling
you, who do you believe?
Let this sink in.
When Driscoll wrote the letter to discipline himself for his sins, he
made this statement: “To be clear, these
are decisions I have come to with our Senior Pastor Jesus Christ. I believe
this is what He is asking of me, and so I want to obey Him.”4 Is it any wonder he didn’t want to submit to
the discipline of the church? He already
heard from God Himself on what his punishment should be, so anyone who says he
needs more discipline is opposing God.
The real issue is that it wasn’t God that told him
that. The whole point of Sola Scriptura
is that Scripture is our final arbiter on spiritual matters, not someone’s
direct visions. The Bible should be
making this call, not Driscoll’s visions.
Old Calvinism rejects the quasi-charismatic movement in
Evangelicalism, while New Calvinism embraces it. The Old Calvinism has it right, and this is a
good example of why it is important to get this right. The idea of a vision-casting pastor who gets
revelation from God and enacts those visions is unbiblical, and it causes
problems. The whole problem is
illustrated here – what happens when your vision isn’t lining up with
Scripture? What happens with the elders
or congregation question the vision?
Driscoll says those throw those people off the bus (more on that below). The Bible says to let Scripture be the final
arbiter.
So what’s the real difference between having a plan and hope
for a church and thinking you have a vision from God? The difference is that someone who thinks
that God has told them to go in a certain direction is not going to consider
other directions. Someone who thinks
that God is telling them to go in a certain direction is going to see people
who disagree somewhat differently.
And that is what we see happening. If you take a look at the churches where
someone believes that they have a vision from God on the church, generally
disagreement is no tolerated. Which
brings us to . . .
Church discipline
Infamously, a talk from Driscoll got around the web where he
states that people who will not follow the vision of Mars Hill are to be thrown
off the bus and run over.5 We
have several real cases of that happening, particularly to elders at the
church. They were not removed because of
sin (as Driscoll himself should have been) but because they questioned the
vision.
Which is not a biblical category for church discipline.
Church discipline is a power deterrent for sin. It is not to be used to coerce people to
follow the leader. We mock countries
that are run like this. We say it is a
very wicked and dangerous practice. But
then we do it in our own churches.
When Driscoll sinned, the same man who bragged about
disciplining those who would not follow the vision refused to take part in
biblical discipline. He quit his job
rather than submit.
Sadly, I still hear pastors talking about their vision and
how people need to get on board or go elsewhere. This point and the previous one goes
hand-in-hand because when you believe that people who disagree with you are
opposing God, then you tie that “sin” to church discipline. Well, sir, your vision is not in the Bible,
and that is what we are called to follow.
If we are to discipline someone, we need to make sure we can explain
from Scripture why what they are doing is a sin.
The pastor is not the
church
Personally, I’ve been wondering for a long time what is
going to happen to these mega-churches as their pastors retire or otherwise
leave the church. This particular church
model seems to be based on the power of the leader alone, or at least to a
large degree. It’s also a very expensive
model. When a small neighborhood church
has an issue and splits, the people remaining can normally keep the ship afloat
because they aren’t dealing with massive property holdings and tons of
staff. But this model is hugely
expensive. What happens when the primary
source of income – the personality of the man on top – is gone? It is an instant crisis. This should be a concern for us – church debt
on these giant churches are going to last longer than the pastor is. Have you wondered about that? What happens when the guy leaves? What happens to the property, to the
congregation, to the campuses?
Mark Driscoll recently launched his own website, and he
continues to call himself “Pastor Mark.”
Meanwhile he church he helped found it splitting into numerous smaller
congregations. Mars Hill is no more.
That’s a problem, because biblically, the church should survive
the pastor. The body of Christ continues
on, while the individual shepherds come and go.
When a pastor fails and disqualifies himself, he is to be removed from
that position, but the congregation continues.
Under this model, the pastor continues, and the church dissolves.
That is completely backwards, and extremely sad. The sheep have suffered and have been
scattered, but the shepherd walks away and starts anew.
Confessionalism
Mars Hill’s doctrine changed as Driscoll’s doctrine changed. When elders questioned these changes, they were fired.6
In Old Calvinism, the pastors are questioned according to a
confession of faith – a document of what we believe the Scriptures teach. If a pastor disagrees with any point, he is
asked to explain why. Some of these
disagreements would result in being barred from the pulpit. Some of them are allowed.
Furthermore, if a pastor changes his doctrine, he is
required to notify the denomination of that change and explain it. Again, some changes would put him out of the
pulpit.
One way or another, the sort of flux that happened at Mars
Hill at the whim of one man is prevented and guarded against.
A confession of faith protects the people of the
congregation. It is a promise of what is
going to be taught and proclaimed in that place. In Presbyterianism, the doctrine of the
church does not change with the new pastor.
We don’t suddenly start getting different teaching. Style and approach will change, but not the
teaching. The confession protects the
people.
Had Mars Hill been confessional, the congregation could have
stood up with that confession in hand and said, “Hey! That’s not what you’re supposed to teach!”
But without that, what is “supposed to be” taught is really
just whatever Driscoll feels like teaching.
Conclusion
I’ve often heard the criticism that Calvinists only care
about cold doctrine. Well, we don’t only
care about doctrine, but we at least care about doctrine. And this is exactly why. Doctrine mattersTM 7, and all bad
doctrine leads to bad practice that hurts people.
When the New Calvinism started out, a few Old Calvinists
criticized the movement, warning that the differences between the two sometimes
seemed small, but even being off course by one degree will get you lost given
enough time. We’ve had enough time with
the New Calvinism, and now we’re seeing the fruit of it.
But I still hear people saying that this sort of discussion
isn’t worthwhile and it’s dividing the church!
No, what Driscoll did is dividing the church. That’s the problem. If we all (me included) had listened to the Old
Calvinists early on, we may have saved a lot of people some heartache.
Good doctrine unites Christ’s sheep. Bad doctrine is what divides. The problem is not that we’re talking about
this. The problem comes when we stop
talking about it. When we started
accepting really bad teaching into the camp.
Driscoll’s critics have generally not been the ones scattering sheep.
Driscoll did that himself.
The New Calvinism continues to do that. And it should concern us.
Notes:
3.
http://www.vaux.net/angry-young-prophet-becomes-father-figure-driscoll-and-tragedy-of-prodigal-son/
7.
“Theology matters” is a registered trademark of
Alpha Omega Ministries.