Church Member? Your fired! - unless you follow me!
The December Christianity magazine article carried an article about domineering church leader Mark Driscoll and his fall from grace. The following quote taken from the article holds lessons for evangelical Christians. After Driscoll put one of his pastor's in "the wood chipper" (as Driscoll nicely put it; i.e. gave the pastor the sack and threatened to destroy his career), Driscoll seemed to become intoxicated by power. As Christianity tells us:
It was at this point that Driscoll cancelled all church membership and instructed the congregation to reapply, simultaneously forcing them to accept his newly proposed bylaws. However, while the majority did not reapply, new members continued to flock to the church plugging the many gaps.
This quote is evidence of how these authoritarian leaders are made and supported by gullible followers: Having failed to pull the wool over the eyes of the church members who had at last got wise, Driscoll attempted to "refresh" the membership by gathering to himself only those who would follow him. It seems from the above quote that initially Driscoll found enough new members ignorant of the background to keep his church going for a while. But he couldn't fool all of the people all of the time, for it seems that even these new fresh faced members got wise to him, eventually causing the demise of Driscoll and the Mars Hill fellowship in its original form. The sad fact is it looks as though Driscoll had to be pushed rather than him voluntarily jumping. However, there is some consolation in the fact that ultimately it was by congregational power that Driscoll got his eventual comeuppance. But only then did repentance set in.
Driscoll's strategy by which he attempted to establish absolute control is not original; it's happened before in Restorationist churches and is probably a known, perhaps even a once recommended technique of its leadership: I once heard of a Restorationist leader in the UK who did something very similar: He declared all membership null void during a church meeting and he said that only those who wish to support him need follow him into the next room where he would effectively "reboot" the church with a loyal membership. This little episode, taken together with the Driscoll affair, is evidence of the unhealthy power ethos in Restorationist circles.
During my early 1980s research of Restorationism I also had contact with one of their house group leaders, a certain Steve Lock. Steve said during his sermon at a Restorationist service I attended that one of the purposes of house groups was to give people a boot up the backside - another indication of the kind of abrasive heavy shepherding ethos that was abroad among restorationists. So what has changed? By leaning on his members Driscoll is in many ways simply reflecting his leadership culture.
As said in Part I, we can't put all the blame at Driscoll's door because much traces back to Restorationist attitudes and the epistemic arrogance of their fundamentalism. People like Terry Virgo are in part responsible for this travesty of Christian leadership and their patriarchal maturity should be called into question; Driscoll was never going to learn the art of responsible accountable leadership from the likes of them, especially as the doctrine of the restoration of Apostolic authority was central to their teaching. In fact Driscoll implicitly used this doctrine to justify his putting one of his pastors in the "wood chipper". For this reason the Christianity article could not offer worse advice than the following:
...if there are lessons to be learned from the rise of Mark Driscoll (and Mars Hill church) perhaps it is the importance of older and wiser mentors for young church leaders.
No. Given the patriarchal outlook of Restorationist leaders one may as well throw more fuel onto Driscoll's fire if one is to follow that advice. In the end it was the church membership that did their job, voted with their feet and effectively disciplined Driscoll. And that's the way it should be. It's a lesson about where ultimate church power lies; Viz: with an educated and economically and socially empowered church membership who make or break leadership. The writer of the Christianity article needs to learn that lesson, rather than be besotted with "maturity" and patriarchy. But then does it really matter if the article writer doesn't learn the lesson? Because the hard (and profane) fact is that unless thoroughly deluded church members can simply vote with their feet and withdraw their economic support. That's where the real church power lies, and the Driscoll's of this world can grimace and point as much as they like; they can't take that power away.
For Part I see:
During my early 1980s research of Restorationism I also had contact with one of their house group leaders, a certain Steve Lock. Steve said during his sermon at a Restorationist service I attended that one of the purposes of house groups was to give people a boot up the backside - another indication of the kind of abrasive heavy shepherding ethos that was abroad among restorationists. So what has changed? By leaning on his members Driscoll is in many ways simply reflecting his leadership culture.
As said in Part I, we can't put all the blame at Driscoll's door because much traces back to Restorationist attitudes and the epistemic arrogance of their fundamentalism. People like Terry Virgo are in part responsible for this travesty of Christian leadership and their patriarchal maturity should be called into question; Driscoll was never going to learn the art of responsible accountable leadership from the likes of them, especially as the doctrine of the restoration of Apostolic authority was central to their teaching. In fact Driscoll implicitly used this doctrine to justify his putting one of his pastors in the "wood chipper". For this reason the Christianity article could not offer worse advice than the following:
...if there are lessons to be learned from the rise of Mark Driscoll (and Mars Hill church) perhaps it is the importance of older and wiser mentors for young church leaders.
No. Given the patriarchal outlook of Restorationist leaders one may as well throw more fuel onto Driscoll's fire if one is to follow that advice. In the end it was the church membership that did their job, voted with their feet and effectively disciplined Driscoll. And that's the way it should be. It's a lesson about where ultimate church power lies; Viz: with an educated and economically and socially empowered church membership who make or break leadership. The writer of the Christianity article needs to learn that lesson, rather than be besotted with "maturity" and patriarchy. But then does it really matter if the article writer doesn't learn the lesson? Because the hard (and profane) fact is that unless thoroughly deluded church members can simply vote with their feet and withdraw their economic support. That's where the real church power lies, and the Driscoll's of this world can grimace and point as much as they like; they can't take that power away.
For Part I see:
29/07/21: See here
