Examples of how to critique?

This BLOG is in response to a whole string of blogs and comments on blogs concerning mark Driscoll’s new book. I think the whole thing is illustrative of why blogging is dangerous and why blogging needs oversight.

I am not defending Driscoll’s ways at all.  I am calling for biblical process. I have visited Mars Hill and I have friends close to the Acts 29 network or in it. There are many things I appreciate about this work of God. But how should we approach critiquing a brother whose books raises concerns?

This all began at www.challies.com. This post has been run by Tim before I posted it too – practicing what I preach. Tim did a fair review of Driscoll’s new book. He pointed out good things and raised some good questions. What followed was furor!

First, I think the first biblical guideline is to take the log out of our own eye first. I look on Driscoll and see remarkable conversion fruit. I see a man passionate about the Gospel and who speaks truth clearly from his pulpit. Mars Hill has seen more adult conversion in ten years than most of the critics combined – myself included. Is this nothing? And I see how hypocritical my criticism is – I find fault with his language and find no fault with years of indifference to the lost. Which is the greater sin? If someone with a critical eye were to come ino the church I pastor what faults would they see? They would see many – and are those less evil than Mark’s coarse language. Is it better to be disobedient to the command to witness and be a good reformed complementarian with appropriate language? Taking the log out takes me to humility.

Second, the intent of all Gospel correction is repentance and restoration. It is cheap to critique without trying to show the person their fault. What if Mark saw his sin immediately and removed the book from the market with a public apology? But what if he did this after his good name had been maligned and slandered all over the blogosphere? Then where would the sin lie? What effort has been made to address these concerns with him, through whatver channels are there? It may be a book, but he is our brother – public sin still calls for personal care to lead the person to repentance. 

Third, all biblical correction begins with careful investigation. Are we being biblical or cultural? My mother thought it was sin to refer to any body parts – she referred to chicken as “dark meat” and “white meat” and was very offended when some referred to a “thigh.” Is that biblical or Victorian? That is not a simple question – as a study of history will tell you. How often has corrective action been taken over a point of cultural Christianity and not biblical Christianity? 

Included in careful investigation is personal discussion and confrontation, if necessary. Let’s get the facts. Careful investigation is demanded in the law of Moses – and I do not think published works with error are an exception. I think it is clear that we all like to reach our final judgment quickly.

Fourth, repeated attempts would be an expression of patience and kindness. What purpose is served by going public with criticisms as soon as possible? Certainly, when careful investigation takes us to a solid conclusion, we may have to go public – but only then. Meanwhile, we may have slandered an erring brother rather than restored hm gently. We have have set him up for angry evangelical boycotts of his appearances. 

There is more at stake here than we think – there is a watching world. More young believers are stumbled by the carping criticism between believers than by adulterous pastors. 

So, you say you cannot reach Mark Driscoll and feel compelled to warn people? I have two thoughts – who appointed you as an overseer in the flock and over what flock? I will certainly read him and help my people if they read him. But I will do the careful work called for in Scripture. If I cannot make personal contact I will keep within the boundaries of my responsibility and keep quiet.

I am trying to make a personal connection with him and will defer evaluation until I have all the facts.

Comments

[merilee]

What is the usual procedure when a book is submitted for publication? I imagine it would go through several steps of editing and approval, and you would hope that somewhere along that path, red flags would be going up in someone's mind. Wouldn't that be the time for private confrontation? By the people closest to him and to whom he was directly accountable- like his felllow elders? Once the book entered the public arena, does that make it open to public debate?

A lot of what I have read about this does seem to be an attack on Mark, and it is at times ugly. Probably more often than not. That is a grievous thing to see within the Bride. May God forgive us all.

But I think there are also people who have refrained from the bitter speech and the personal attacks, and are simply and rightly concerned about the broad acceptance and even celebration of his behavior. The fact that no one at Zondervan saw a problem with the language and more graphic elements before publishing it. Or that he didn't answer to the other men in his life close to him and in a position to admonish and exhort. The fact that so many in the larger Christian community are giving him a forum and hearty approval. The fact that so many are willing to justify glaring sin because of the sometimes good that Driscoll does. This is what seems to be troubling many. They're just stepping up and saying, "Hey, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes."

I am in no way equating what Mark has done with the sin of 1 Cor. 5, but that said, I think the passage can be instructive as to what our response to sin should be.
In I Cor.5 Paul was more outraged at the church's response to the sin of the man who had his father's wife than at the actual sin itself. Paul was rebuking the church for not rebuking the man, but for actually being puffed up about sin. And for me that is what is so sad about all of this. Indeed, Mark should be privately, lovingly and humbly confronted. But apparently, there are people within his close circle who seem to have failed him in that respect. Now his book is out there and gaining acceptance and even being celebrated and some of us are just saying in the spirit of Paul- "You are puffed up and have not rather mourned." For those who love God and His glory above all things, for those who do not want to see His glorious gospel blasphemed, this is grievous and weighs heavy on the heart.

Mark- your thoughts?

[merilee]

One other thought...people often refer to the passage about removing the log from our own eye. They say that we are to be more concerned with our own sin than with the sins of others. More, or equally? I'd point out the structure of that passage. "First...then."

There is a prescribed order of things we are called to do. We can't do the FIRST portion of the verse- removing the log from our own eye, and then neglect the THEN portion. We are to remove our log to the end that we can see clearly to remove the speck in our brother's eye.

Sadly, many use this verse to justify inaction. "I have my own sins, so who am I to judge?" That is not what this Scripture is saying! Deal with your own heart. Be right before God. Ask for clean hands and a pure heart. Then, if your brother is overtaken in a fault, you will be that spiritual man whom God calls to restore the erring brother. And having dealt with the ugliness of your own heart, you will be enabled to do it in a spirit of meekness considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

[merilee]

Comment with response below:

What is the usual procedure when a book is submitted for publication? I imagine it would go through several steps of editing and approval, and you would hope that somewhere along that path, red flags would be going up in someone's mind. Wouldn't that be the time for private confrontation? By the people closest to him and to whom he was directly accountable- like his felllow elders? Once the book entered the public arena, does that make it open to public debate?

A lot of what I have read about this does seem to be an attack on Mark, and it is at times ugly. Probably more often than not. That is a grievous thing to see within the Bride. May God forgive us all.

But I think there are also people who have refrained from the bitter speech and the personal attacks, and are simply and rightly concerned about the broad acceptance and even celebration of his behavior. The fact that no one at Zondervan saw a problem with the language and more graphic elements before publishing it. Or that he didn't answer to the other men in his life close to him and in a position to admonish and exhort. The fact that so many in the larger Christian community are giving him a forum and hearty approval. The fact that so many are willing to justify glaring sin because of the sometimes good that Driscoll does. This is what seems to be troubling many. They're just stepping up and saying, "Hey, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes."

I am in no way equating what Mark has done with the sin of 1 Cor. 5, but that said, I think the passage can be instructive as to what our response to sin should be.
In I Cor.5 Paul was more outraged at the church's response to the sin of the man who had his father's wife than at the actual sin itself. Paul was rebuking the church for not rebuking the man, but for actually being puffed up about sin. And for me that is what is so sad about all of this. Indeed, Mark should be privately, lovingly and humbly confronted. But apparently, there are people within his close circle who seem to have failed him in that respect. Now his book is out there and gaining acceptance and even being celebrated and some of us are just saying in the spirit of Paul- "You are puffed up and have not rather mourned." For those who love God and His glory above all things, for those who do not want to see His glorious gospel blasphemed, this is grievous and weighs heavy on the heart.

Mark- your thoughts?

EXCELLENT QUESTION:

1. yes, most publishers have a severe editorial process but some publishers may not filter this out. Don't know what happened here.

2. I am very careful to apply discipline passages outside the local church. I am not a freelance church disciplinarian. I think in the church the passages you cite may apply -- but, please note Paul includes the greedy on his list and I have never seen discipline for that. I have written on church discipline in a book called The Transforming Community

3. I do not think anyone is justifying his sin -- not his elders, not the people who have a friendship with him. Note: he has responded to correction from his elders and Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds has the link to that public confession. The people from the outside who have been there and seen the work of God have come away certain that this is of the Spirit -- immense first generation conversion fruit, being built into strongly male-led homes and godly families. Again, see the quote from Ryle over at Taylor's site.

4. The issue is not whether we can debate publically -- but how we do so and in what spirit. Peronal attacks are inappropriate and evil. Dismissing a brother out of hand for obvious flaws of character is uncalled for -- especially when we allow unobvious sin to thrive in our own hearts.

I would think you should e-mail Driscoll and Zondervan . . . .

[Mike S]

Mark, thanks for the comments and true discernment. I stumbled upon your blog by following a train of thought from Challies and Adrian Warnock.

Maturity is often being able to sort out what we are for as well as what we are against. Too many followers of Jesus in the blogworld have decided its more important to state what we are against, assuming that they preach to the choir of people who already agree and know what they are for. Thanks for displaying that maturity and humility.

A side note for Nathan above: Driscoll's comment about the porno being good may not have been a joke. We can't tell from the mere words in print without hearing the tone of a speaker's voice. Sometimes in my pastoral ministry confronting sin is best done by coming in the back door rather than charging hard up against a door that is locked and defended. When the kid admitted it was good stuff, he was saying this wasn't the first time he done this, he had a frame of reference to decide what was good and what was bad. Also the young man essentially admitted that he enjoyed the sin and his tears were the crocodile tears of guilt, not repentance.

I've been amazed at the stink this issue has caused and no one said anything about Driscoll's counseling jiu jitsu. Anyways thanks again Mark, I'll be stopping in more often as God allows.

[Ariel]

This post is a needed antidote to some of the angst that has been passing for "discerning criticism" of Driscoll in the blogosphere. Thanks!

[Nathan Fullerton]

I just wanted to say thank you, that's all. keep up the excellent blog!

[chris schroeder]

I appreciate the comments you Godly men have posted. As a young man who desires to grow in the knowledge and grace of God it is extremely helpful to read your comments. Personally, I am a fan of Driscoll. I appreciate your comments and agree with you that while we are quick to point out the sin of another we are slow to deal with our own. May God grant us more and more repentance so that we may be more like His Son.

There is only on thing that concerns me about Driscoll and it is not his language or his sarcasm. What concerns me is the way he jokes about sin. Asking whether or not a porno was good is inappropriate. Sin no a joking matter. A good friend once told me that "He will not be entertained by that which crucified Christ." Sin is to be hated, mortified, destroyed, and never laughed at or to be made the center of humor. If you listen to driscolls sermons, which you can download from marshillchurch.org, this joking about sin characterizes his preaching. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with this assessment?

REPLY: this is a good point but one that can only be taken up with him or the elders of his church . . . .

[David Wayne]

Mark - thanks for this. As I read the comments at Challies I had a visceral reaction to them like I have rarely had in reading blogs. You and David Fairchild and Paul Schaeffer have reminded us of what is truly important in ministry.

[marc]

Mark,
I appreciate your thoughts on this subject.
Also, It was great meeting you at T4G... that was you?

BTW, I led worship at BBC tonight and CJ preached his Hebrews 13:17 message. He's a wonderful blessing to our church. Thanks for sharing him with us.

[David Fairchild]

Mark,
Thank you for clarity and sanity in an otherwise heated discussion. Pastor Mark is a dear friend of mine, and someone whom I have had the pleasure of learning from and under for the last three years of our plant here in San Diego. Mars Hill funded our church for two years while we were trying to figure out who we were and what God has called us to. I say these things not to excuse anyone's actions, but to mention that it is easy for armchair theological critics to post on the blogosphere their rantings and concerns, while never recognizing the blatant sin and hypocrisy not only in their lives, but even in the way they are handling their frustration. At the end of the day, Pastor Mark is an elder of the Church of Christ and is responsible for his actions before the true senior pastor- Jesus.

Now, to the point of greatest concern- Mark's language. Well, there's not much I can say to persuade the blogging world that they should be cautious when using terms like "profanity," "vulgarity," "cursing," or "swearing." It is a subject that I have spent a fair amount of time investigating biblically and culturally, and I can tell you that most of what shocks us in Mark's delivery (sarcasm, and culturally relative slang and colloquialism) is not "cursing" or "profane" in the way scripture considers such words. That is another post, that may have profit if we are patient and willing to work through the differences. Regarding Mark, I can tell you that there have been things that my dear brother has said that he wishes he could take back and has apologized for. He has said certain things that he felt were over the top or even too colorful for the moment. The man is a deep lover of Christ though, and the same Holy Spirit that connvicts us of sin, righteousness, and judgment, is the same spirit that inspired the canon, and lives in us and Mark and leads us into all truth. That being said, we should be quite careful and cautious about our rush to judgment since we are not the HS, nor are we going to change a mans heart through our sheer will power or powers of verbal persuasion. God has dealt, is dealing, and will deal with Mark where Mark is in error. Also, Mark submits himself to a large, strong, and thriving group of elders who are all God fearing bible guys who love His glory and want His gospel to go out in power. That being said, whatever public discussions may occur, unless you are part of Mars Hill and an elder of their church, chances are, you have no clue what is or is not happening. I know many of the elders there, and their cringe when Mark says something is not much different than most of us. The difference is, however, that they have thought out this issue regarding "cussing" or "swearing," and can offer a pretty good treatent of what it means to have a tame tongue.

Lastly, as I have mentioned over on challies board, Luther was not immune from such charges and his response to detractors of his message was pretty powerful:

I was, said Luther, very lately sharply reprimanded and taxed by a Popish flattering Courtier, a Priest, because with such passion I had written, and so vehemently had reproved the people. But I answered him and said, "Our Lord God must first send a sharp pouring shower, with thunder and lightning, and afterwards cause it mildly to rain, as then it wetteth finely through. In like manner, a willow or a hazel wand I can easily cut with my trencher-knife, but for a hard oak a man must have and use axes, bills, and such-like, and all little enough to fell and to cleave it."

Axes are needed in our time, and Driscoll just happens to be called to swing it in our generation. He has been on the early corrective front of the doctrinal errors and insanity of much of the liberal emerging movement when no one else even understood what the heck emergent was. He has swung it out in a city where there are more dogs than Christians. He has swung it out in a context where he is one of the few straight pastors in Seattle and with a group of "emo" driven nancy boys that more closely resemble extras on Will and Grace than they do strong, godly, biblical men. I can not tell you how many men who have not only converted to Christ within that ministry, but how many professing Christians have converted to biblical manhood and masculinity because of that ministry.

Mark is an interesting cat- he is part theologian, part puritan, part football coach, part comedian, and all Christian. This type of blend is going to produce sparks, many, many, sparks. Most of the Acts 29 pastors (including myself) were attracted to the network because we took Christology, ecclessiology, and missiology serious. We didn't have to get neutered to become a preacher of the gospel, but we are all in need of further refinement and maturity. Each of us has our own faults, flaws, and sins which some are obvious, and some hidden, but we are living and dying for the glory of the Father, the advancement of the Kingdom, by the preaching of a bloody cross and empty tomb. You can say, we are actively, aggressively, and intellectually fit to such a task. With all that being said, we are men, fallen, fallible, finite, foolish and immature men who need our hineys cracked with a board, our mouth washed out at times, and who simply need to mature through grace as God deals with those issues which will hinder the gospel instead of advancing it. My great hope for Mark and other men in this network is that we see our sin, we want our God to be glorified, and we'll submit to Him as He deals with us through his word and Spirit. I have never seen Mark be convinced by scripture he was in error and willfully turn away. What I have seen is a man who not only can call other men out, but who can take it when he is called out as well. He is a great example of the chief repentor in his church, and I have tried to model that in my own ministry.

This post was longer than I had planned, but I think it was brewing under the surface and needed to get out.

If Pastor Mark's critics are really concerned for him, and really convinced by scripture that he must change, then please don't act like an arminian by working on guilt or the will- entrust change to the only one who has the power to accomplish it- Christ Himself, through His spirit. We should pray for Mark, prayer for ourselves, and seek repentance in all we think, write, and do.

May God be glorified in our time!

David

[Paul Schafer]

Mark,

Thank you for this post. I too agree with your assessment. I wanted to post the same thing that you wrote since last night. Reading over the 100 some comments, I felt appalled at the lack of love and biblical restoration of Mark Driscoll, but instead I read stunning words of accusations against Mark.

My post is the blog link in the URL. I've listed a bunch of negative comments from the negative commenters. Here is there accusation against Mark, who holds the office of a pastor. "They said Mark is crude, disturbing, tasteless, sinful, cusses, offensive, profane, faux macho, wolf, stop talking like an unregenerate adolescent boy and clean up his filthy language, disgusting, nauseous, shocking, sarcastic, the world laughs when they hear one who claims to be a Christian talk just like they do, and graphic."

Obviously, like you said above, it's easier to point out the sin in others, but we don't take into account our own sin we just committed against an elder by making accusations, being slandererous, being a Judge and judging our brother (both from book of James), disobeying our leaders and their authority over us, and persecuting Christ by persecuting the body like what Apostle Paul did before his conversion.

What happen to biblical church discipline from Matthew 18?

Mark,
Thank you again for warning us about this sin.

Sincerely in Christ,

Paul Schafer