Bad Example of Church Discipline

[RICHinCHRIST]

Don't know if many of you have heard about this story yet. A man came out and shared the way he was treated by a very popular ministry in Seattle (Mars Hill, Mark Driscoll) in regards to church discipline. The church went far and beyond Scripture, and many think they have cult-like tendencies. After reading the guy's story, it seems pretty clear that Mars Hill (and Acts 29 as a whole) is very power-hungry. I have felt this way after attending a Mars Hill church in NJ for the past 6-8 months. It seems that it is part of their vibe. Sad to hear about this story... you can find it at the following link: http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-need ... tted-line/

[mattrose]

I think this sounds very bad because we are more familiar with errors on the opposite end of the spectrum. Most churches don't engage in discipline at all, so pretty much any discipline seems out of place. Driscoll does seem to have 'issues' but I'm not sure they are 'worse' than a church lacking discipline completely.

But that's about as much as I can play advocate for Driscoll. I think the guy, while a good speaker (not afraid to boldly share his views), has really missed a lot of the heart of the Gospel. Of course, I think hard-core Calvinists in general tend to miss the heart of the Gospel, but perhaps especially Driscoll. This is a guy who, it seems to me, wouldn't have liked Jesus very much when He walked this earth. He has stated that He wouldn't worship someone he could beat up. Mark looks pretty strong. I'm not sure Jesus in the flesh could have taken Mark in fight. But even if Jesus was stronger than Mark, Mark could have beat Him up b/c Jesus wouldn't have utilized violence.

If Mark is against worshiping someone he could beat up, isn't he also in some way against worshiping Jesus who voluntarily submitted Himself to the hands of His enemies?

I can't think of many things more annoying than macho calvinism

[RICHinCHRIST]

I agree that withholding church discipline is wrong... But I don't know if I'd say that oppressive spiritual abuse would be better. The man in this story clearly made every effort to prove his repentance, but the church leaders continued to pummel him with non-Scriptural requirements. They seem to think they have the right to determine that the man's repentance was not genuine because he didn't jump through all their hoops. They also proceeded to claim he was an unbeliever and told the rest of the congregation to basically shun him.

I would see this as legalism, which I think would be much worse than antinominanism (which is still bad). Remember, even though the Corinthians lacked church discipline, Paul did not say they had "fallen from grace" or preached "another gospel". Legalism would seem to be a heavier offense than demonstrating cheap grace. No doubt they are both wrong, but this policy of Mars Hill seems more like the Pharisees than offering "too much grace".

Mars Hill denies they were trying to put the guy through penance, but I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. The man repented when he was confronted by one individual (the very first step in Matthew 18). it says "if he repents, you have WON your brother". Everything should have ended there, and they should have received him back into fellowship with open arms. I suspect that they were weary that they had not used their "church discipline contract" yet and were looking forward to some sheep spanking. This sounds like oppressive leaders who want to control people... Very sad.

Regarding the "macho Calvinism", I didn't know Mark said those things. Very repulsive!

[mattrose]

You're probably right that IF we are going to err, it'd be better to err on the side of grace.

I feel weird trying to defend them to any degree, but I feel a bit compelled to do so b/c of the total lack of church discipline across most of America. To that end, I don't know if it is supposed to be as simple as him repenting and them receiving him with open arms. Generally that is true, but some of their 'discipline' might continue after the repentance. For instance, if he was a teacher and fell in these ways, it would make sense that his repentance would bring about forgiveness, but not full restoration to his teaching position (at least not right away).

But don't get me wrong. I do agree with you almost completely

[darinhouston]

I was a bit conflicted when I read this -- Knowing what I think I do about these people, I tend to second guess their motives, read between the lines and judge them more than I do the young man. Of course, we can't really know how he has dealt with them, what signs he has shown of repentance to them, etc. Of course, they seam to have taken the process to an extreme legalism in a way that only the Calvinists seem to be able to do and remain sanctimonious about it. I still am conflicted because I share Matt's greater frustration over the complete lack of discipline. Clearly, they have taken this too far, but...

Knowing Steve's position on the present situation in the church (lack of discipline in the church and the mooting frustrations of the availability of the church down the street, etc.) I'd sure like to hear his take.

[darinhouston]

Saw this on wikipedia...

"Mars Hill leaders said in forum postings that one fired pastor was removed, in part, for "displaying an unhealthy distrust in the senior leadership." They said the other was removed for "disregarding the accepted elder protocol for the bylaw deliberation period" and "verbally attacking the lead pastor" — charges the fired pastor denied, the leaders added."[19]

Some have criticized the church for its harshness in dealing with dissent within its leadership. Citing as an example an incident in 2007 during the church reorganization in 2007 where two elders criticized the plan as consolidating power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. When one of the elders refused to repent he was subjected to church discipline according to Mars Hill Church's biblical convictions.[20] Additionally, members who have openly questioned or dissented with Mars Hill leaders have been asked to leave the church if they do not trust their leaders and pastors judgements. This policy of church discipline was discussed during a lecture given on April 20, 2009 by Mark Driscoll for The Gospel Coalition.[21]

[steve]

We don't know (or at least I don't know) what signs of repentance were exhibited by the young man. The story is told very favorably toward him, and, from what I can read here, I am on his side. It sounds as if he voluntarily confessed his sin, which sounds like he may be truly repentant. At least, I think he should be taken at his word in the absence of continuing suspicious behavior. We are told to forgive a brother of repeated sins upon his merely saying "I repent" (Luke 17:4).

On the other hand, I believe a church community is within its rights to withhold the delegation of ministry responsibility to someone whose behavior has made them uncertain about the safety of such an assignment. I am not clear on what role of ministry this man had before the scandal broke. It may be that there is reason to watch him for a while before placing him is such a position again.

I also was not clear as to the exact nature of his "sin." It is said that his relationship with his fiancé was "physical". Does this mean they were fornicating, or was it a case of touching that was deemed questionable or inappropriate. I wonder if every young man in the congregation would be held to the same standard, or if he is being made an example of either because he bore some ministry responsibility, or else because his fiancé was the daughter of an elder. I don't know, but I think some churches conduct "discipline" with a sense of vendetta arising from the personal offendedness of the leaders.

I have recently been brought into the confidence of a couple who are under discipline from their elders. The couple had been preparing for years to take their family on the mission field. At one point, prior to going on the field, the wife had an affair. Her husband learned of it and forgave her, but did not inform the elders of their church, because he wished to preserve her privacy, and because they had reconciled as a couple and were again doing well. They went on the field, but when they confessed this sin to a friend, it got back to the elders that this had happened. The leaders called the couple home immediately from the field, and put them under discipline—not because of the wife's sin, but because the couple had resolved the problem themselves without involving the elders in any intervention. That discipline is still being enforced, which has kept the family from returning to the field for over a year, and may prevent their ever being able to go back.

My impression is that these elders have no business interfering in this couple's private matters, and that there is no occasion of discipline here. The wife long-ago repented, and the husband long-ago forgave and mended the breach. He and his wife now have again a godly relationship. There is no one sinning in this situation—other than, perhaps, the elders.

I do believe that church discipline is too seldom exercised in modern churches. However, nonsensical discipline is no remedy to that imbalance. Church discipline should be exercised against members who are sinning and refusing to repent. When people who sin have repented quickly, and stopped sinning, there is no biblical reason to continue any negative discipline. Trust may have been broken, and may require a long time to recover, but forgiveness and the affirmation of acceptance of the repentant sinner should follow immediately upon repentance.

[look2jesus]

It was interesting to me that after reading Glenn Peoples' (Say Hello to My Little Friend) latest blogs, where he discusses Mark Driscoll (whom I had not heard of previously), that the next day I should come across this thread by Rich. Within Glenn's blog he included two Youtube videos:

http://youtu.be/lex6orNNzTs
http://youtu.be/ZkaeAkJO0w8.

Though the focus of Glenn's blog was entirely different, I found much of what I listened to in the videos somewhat disturbing, though I might agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed. One thing I found especially disturbing, at the time, is found in the middle of the second video. There, Mark is taking the men who are not acting in a Christianly manner towards their girlfriends/wives to task. He says, "And those of you men who are here, and your wives are suffering under your folly and failure--shame on you...And shame on you if you say you're a Christian...And shame on you if you've been attending Mars Hill...And shame on you if you've been surrounded by good men and have pursued none of them...And shame on you if you've not become a member and submitted to spiritual authority...And shame on you if you have not joined a community group so you can walk in darkness..."

It is the underlined portion that first caused the hair on my neck to stand up.

After reading through the account that Rich provided and considering the first video, something that "Andrew" said rang true to me.

"That confession led to more meetings and more than enough long (and sometimes ridiculous) text message conversations with church leadership at Mars Hill.

“On several occasions, I was called a Wolf,” says Andrew, “which at Mars Hill, is like the worst thing you can be called.”

I ask him why.

“Because it means you’re a man who preys on innocent people–nothing more than a predator.”

According to Andrew, at Mars Hill, the cliche “it takes two to tango” isn’t true. Why? Because Pastor Mark teaches that women are “weaker vessels,” and therefore, when a girl and boy engage in consensual sexual activity, it is always assumed that it’s the man’s fault because he failed to lead the woman (or “weaker vessel”) toward righteousness.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what it is I'm trying to say here, except that Andrew's story seems very believable to me, at least as it has been given to us. Like Steve, I was privy to a very similar situation in a Reformed church in Michigan a few years back, where the church leadership used their position to really distort a situation which involved one of the elders and a married woman within the congregation. Though there was undeniable evidence (saved emails) that the elder had acted as inappropriately as the woman (there was no physical contact but overt flirtatiousness and sexual innuendo), when the husband began to confront the situation, seeking to see his wife and marriage restored, it was the couple who was put under church discipline, ostensibly for not submitting to the authority of the elders when the couple would not allow the situation to be quietly swept under the rug. The leadership held all the cards. The couple was forced to leave the church and the members were instructed not to have anything to do with them.

Sadly, the elder involved died a horrible death from cancer within two years of all this occuring. I've always wondered if this was the result of pride and unrepentence.

Lord Jesus, Please purify your church and help us all to root out the sin in our lives, and to act humbly before you and others, and help us to, once and for all, start loving people as we ought!

[Kerri]

I go to a church like this. It is amazing how quickly things can get weird. One minute you say something, the next you are in next week's sermon. And of course in the sermon, there is also that bit about submitting to church government, being humble when you are reproved, seeking the community to restore you to Christ. Etc. I have never been under discipline but I have been involved with the elders involving issues of discipline and I once outright refused to attend a meeting because I thought the guy had been dragged through the mud enough. One mistake can brand your family as "Not as quality" for years to come. It drives me nuts. I have 10 kids, so far one has reached adulthood (considered to be 20 by our church) and 4 are teenagers now. So far, thank the Lord, they have all been really good kids and nobody has gotten into trouble. But with ten kids...

We started going here because I wanted a church that was really committed. I wanted a church where my kids could learn real Bible and not see church as "entertainment hour". I wanted things to be expected of them. But now I feel like we are soaking up this culture of judgmentalness and snarkiness. Everyone's always trying to get in "good with the elders". We don't follow the generally accepted courtship model because I think it teaches the boys to be rude, sneaky, and stoic and creates a culture of gossip. My daughter is in a courtship and she gets snide little comments all the time. I mean for crying out loud. We let them be friends when we knew he had intentions toward her. They waited until he had a job and a paid-for car and he spoke to her father. They didn't even hold hands until then. They still don't kiss. Is that really so liberal and shocking? But we don't "guard our daughter's heart" because we didn't make him leave her alone completely until then.

I'm sorry to go on, but I can totally sympathize with this guy. I can imagine the list getting longer and longer and the humiliation going deeper and deeper. I can imagine the worst possible interpretation being put on his actions. And I can see him denying the worst ones, like predator, and being told that the heart is desperately sinful and he needs the community to tell him what is in his heart, he can't discern it for himself. I can totally, totally see it.

Sometimes I wonder if it is me. Other people all seem to think everything is good and fine. My husband has friends here and he doesn't want to leave. But I feel sick when I enter the building. Maybe I am just rebelling. I know lots of the people there are really good people, trying to please God. But I wonder if it's God we are meeting. We are told we can't have a relationship with God outside of a church community. I wonder if I'm the reprobate and I'm expelling myself. I wonder if I'm going crazy. Why can't I just swallow it and get along?

I have one friend I talk to and she says she sympathizes but she thinks as long as my husband wants to stay here I need to stay united to him and wait for him to change his mind. So I go for the service and leave right after. Our church has a meal together, but I don't usually stay for it.

I feel like I'm going crazy.

[darinhouston]

Kerri, my heart goes out to you -- I think our fellowship should be a sweet fragrance to God. I suspect this form or fellowship is seen as vile and disgusting to Him, and I wonder how the service is even seen as worship from His perspective when there is such disunity and disfellowship.