From the New York Times comes a story of one of the strangest churches I've ever heard of.
Mark Driscoll is American evangelicalism’s bête noire. In little more than a decade, his ministry has grown from a living-room Bible study to a megachurch that draws about 7,600 visitors to seven campuses around Seattle each Sunday, and his books, blogs and podcasts have made him one of the most admired — and reviled — figures among evangelicals nationwide. Conservatives call Driscoll “the cussing pastor” and wish that he’d trade in his fashionably distressed jeans and taste for indie rock for a suit and tie and placid choral arrangements. Liberals wince at his hellfire theology and insistence that women submit to their husbands. But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy.
Calvinism mixed with macho. Thus it ever was, I suppose, but the style is entirely new. I don't know where to begin to note the twists and contradictions that I see in Driscoll's teachings, nor can I fathom the reason for his appeal.
Driscoll represents a movement to revamp the style and substance of evangelicalism. With his taste for vintage baseball caps and omnipresence on Facebook and iTunes, Driscoll, who is 38, is on the cutting edge of American pop culture. Yet his message seems radically unfashionable, even un-American: you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time. Yet a significant number of young people in Seattle — and nationwide — say this is exactly what they want to hear. Calvinism has somehow become cool, and just as startling, this generally bookish creed has fused with a macho ethos. At Mars Hill, members say their favorite movie isn’t “Amazing Grace” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” — it’s “Fight Club.”
But wait! There's more.
God called Driscoll to preach to men — particularly young men — to save them from an American Protestantism that has emasculated Christ and driven men from church pews with praise music that sounds more like boy-band ballads crooned to Jesus than “Onward Christian Soldiers.” What bothers Driscoll — and the growing number of evangelical pastors who agree with him — is not the trope of Jesus-as-lover. After all, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the bride of Christ. What really grates is the portrayal of Jesus as a wimp, or worse. Paintings depict a gentle man embracing children and cuddling lambs. Hymns celebrate his patience and tenderness. The mainstream church, Driscoll has written, has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”
It's a long article, but quite an amazing read. Driscoll rules with an iron fist and brooks no criticism. I'd guess that the church won't outlast Driscoll, because he is the church and arrogates ever more power to himself. I can't think of much in the way of commentary, but if I attended a service at Mars Hill Church, I'd feel that I was in the middle of a nightmare.
Blame it on Dennis.
I'm glad someone posted on this, it's creepy in the extreme. I read this article on the train this morning but did not have time or energy to really plumb it.
ReplyDeleteIT
I have to say, though, that I tend to agree with his criticisms of the portrayal of a wimpy Jesus. As one of our recent adds puts it: "Meek and Mild: As if!"
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that there is a lot to be said about not making Jesus wimpy, to me this becomes more about how internal authority and power are lived out.
ReplyDeleteAt the heart of Jesus' humility - often played out as the wimpy - is a misunderstanding of how he held his power.
In our dualistic culture it is challenging to see the difference between hard and soft and there is a need to make it one or the other.
Jesus was pretty non-dualistic as I see it.
In any event, back to being on topic, I have read about this guy before. He scares the crap out of me.
That he holds such sway scares me even more.
This is one of those churches that subscribe to the "cult of the pastor". The church = the pastor, not the body of Christ or anything else. Like Mimi said, it won't survive his exit, whenever that should come.
ReplyDeleteI need to send this article to Only Son, whose church just survived a take over attempt by a bunch of folks like this but lost a huge number of members. I'd love to get his take on it.
Yeah, I saw this.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, this is another "cult" church, where the Pastor's personality rules. I find some of what Driscoll is doing interesting, and even some of his critique valuable. But it's hardly a theology I would champion.
I have to admit, my biggest problem with the article was the idea that Reformed theology=Calvinism, and that Reformed theology was so fossilized. Clearly Driscoll's church is proof it is alive and....well, alive, anyway.
There was nothing wimpy about Jesus as social critic, as the Gospels attest. I'm with DP on this.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this is yet another pastor cult, of which I have seen many in my lifetime. When they get this big and the pastor is that authoritarian it is scary indeed. I feel sorry for people caught up in such.
The saccharine, wimpy Jesus gives me problems, too, but what screamed out at me in the article was Driscoll's seeming lust for power, which is the very opposite of Jesus' teachings and life. That doesn't make Jesus a wimp, because only the strong can resist the pull of power and adulation. When you begin to believe your own press, you're in deep doo-doo.
ReplyDeleteI did a post on Mars Hill Church a couple years ago, and I haven't really kept track of them since. They're part of something called the Acts 29 Network which is an evangelical, mission-oriented association of like-minded churches.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance they seem like a bunch of head-banging, tattooed Christian hipsters and punk rockers, but their theology is pretty straight-on conservative fundamentalist, subservient women and all.
Bubs, I read your post, and you are correct.
ReplyDelete...their theology is pretty straight-on conservative fundamentalist, subservient women and all.
And of the very strictest type of puritanical (in its own way) Calvinism. And the authoritarianism. I'm a rebel at heart, who fought the wars within the Roman Catholic Church for many years, until I decided it was not worth the effort and the grief. Plus, I am not a subservient female, and I haven't been since I was 12 years old.
How to get the message across that Jesus was the very opposite of a wimp is difficult. If you read the Gospels with an open mind, I don't know how you come away from them with a wimpy Jesus.
And how does Driscoll know that Jesus wasn't a butch sky fairy?
Driscoll's Calvinism is not new in the States - John Piper taught the same things, also most of the people behind 'Christianity Today' magazine, which describes itself as a magazine of evangelical conviction but has until recently almost completely ignored the Wesleyan-Methodist (i.e. non-Calvinist) strain in evangelicalism.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes Driscoll different is his disdain for the traits of respectability. He comes across as hip, which is something John Piper never did.
Mimi -
ReplyDeleteI found this observation from the article to be rather striking:
"Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll's hypermasculinity and his Calvinistic theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition's resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism..."
Reminds me a bit of the situation in that church in upstate NY.
--J
Tim, I hardly knew any Protestants when I was growing up, so they all seemed strange to me as a child. You could say that all Protestants looked alike.
ReplyDeleteI remember one of my playmates referred the children as the Catholics and the publics, categorizing them by the schools which they attended, because nearly all the RCs attended religious schools.
I still have rather limited knowledge of the practices and beliefs of Protestant churches. My experience of their religious services was mostly limited to weddings and funerals, with an occasional attendance at a regular Sunday service. I ventured into the Episcopal Church as into a foreign land, but I found, to my surprise, that the Eucharistic service was quite similar to the RC mass.
I am woefully ignorant, but what I know of Calvinism has very little appeal.
JerseyJo, the pursuit of purity in a church or congregation seems to me to lead to a dead end. None of us are pure enough, and who decides who is pure enough?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in some ways, they remind me of the dioceses and congregations who departed from the Episcopal Church.
I have never understood the appeal of Calvinism. It's nonsensical: so Jesus said "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." but what he mean was "You filthy worm, don't even think of trying to come to me - I'll zap you with my irresistible grace if I decide to, otherwise you're fuel for Hell...and I planned it that way"?
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess I do understand the appeal of Calvinism, after all. I just don't understand why a psychologically healthy person would choose it, or how it is compatible with basic Christianity.
Well, I guess I do understand the appeal of Calvinism, after all. I just don't understand why a psychologically healthy person would choose it, or how it is compatible with basic Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI haven't looked into it in depth yet (never did study predestination in seminary), but I understand the idea comes from Augustine, as a response to Pelagianism.
Maybe Calvin just refined it a bit and so got more attention for it, but the idea does seem to have deep roots in Xianity.
During my many years in Roman Catholic schools, we studied Augustine of Hippo, but I don't remember predestination emphasized as part of the lessons. The RCC must have moved away from stressing that part of his thinking, since it is no longer part of their accepted teaching, so far as I know.
ReplyDeleteWe studied the early heresies, so it must have come up, but it was not something that was drilled in to the students. And I never could keep the heresies straight, and I still can't to this day. I learned them for the tests, and then - whoosh! - out the window of my brain. Why concentrate on remembering something that was wrong?
LOL. We try to remember the heresies, Mimi, because they never go away and it is useful to recognize them.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a lively thread. I like BillyD's summation.
Paul, we really don't need to remember anything now. We have Google!
ReplyDeleteCalvinism can be used as an excuse for not doing anything--after all, it's all in God's hands--or an reason to stop worrying--I can't control my salvation, so I'll focus on other things (hopefully good deeds).
ReplyDeleteThe whole deal of predestination and God's foreknowledge of our actions and God's omnipotence (after all, if God knows what we are going to do, and doesn't stop us, what does that mean about God?) is a theological quicksand that the Catholic Church simply acknowledges but says that human reason is simply too limited to sort out. (Unless you were a Jansenist, and they were labelled as heretics.) It does reject the Calvinist model, but didn't the Church of England also reject it in the 39 Articles?
The Jewish attitude is reflected in a statement from the Talmudic tractate Pirkei Avoth: Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven. IOW, God controls everything but we have the freedom to accept or reject what God does, to choose between good and evil.
[Cross-posted to Episcopal Cafe/Lead]
ReplyDeleteMark Driscoll, pastor at Seattle's Mars Hill Church
I think the name of Driscoll's god is right there.
Kishnevi, or if we're one of the predestined chosen, we can do what we want? The strict Calvinists say no, because if we commit sinful actions, then that means that we were not chosen in the first place. Except they don't call it sinning, but backsliding, because the chosen can't sin, or something like that. It's all very confusing.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, we make our own heaven or hell by our choices for good or for evil.
JCF, very good. You get A+.