Mark Driscoll is making waves again...

[happi duck]

.

[Coffeetime]

You all made me do it.

 

Mark Driscoll at his "best." "God hates you....personally, objectively....." You can listen to the rest of it by clicking on the link.

 

When I listen to him talking in this clip, what I really hear him talking about is his own congregants. He would more accurately say, "I hate you...personally, objectively..."

 

Because after all, all theology is biographical.

:blink: My jaw is on the floor right now.

 

I completely agree.

 

I'm not sure I can word this properly. These mega churches do a pretty good job of making people feel "welcome". Because of that members often think erroneously that people KNOW them. They hit a period in their life of trial whether illness, finances, marital problems, temptation, etc and they think the church will be there for them. In reality the church was never there for them individually. It is impossible.

 

I think Driscoll's church is trying to do something they are truly incapable of doing CORRECTLY because of their size. I think this guy really wanted help and he realized he wasn't a member of a real church being mentored in real relationships but rather a cog in a vast machine. In the end they didn't even know him well enough to know if he was truly repentant or apostate. How sad is that?

 

Daisy, I think you said it perfectly. So incredibly sad.

[OnTheBrink]

This makes me ill. Driscol has taken the biblical model of discipline and blown it out of the water. I'm floored.

 

This whole church discipline thing boggles me.

 

Now, I'm new at the Catholic thing, so perhaps someone who is a cradle Catholic can explain it better, but if I choose to go into confession, it would be of my own will. What is said between the Priest and me is private. If I need to mend something, I'd be asked to do some sort of penance (give that back, say you're sorry, say something nice, don't go there anymore, return the money, stop seeing her) and spend some time in prayer, there, concentrating on what Father gave to you-a verse, something. I would be absolved, right there. No committees, no meetings, no shuffling me around. No contracts, no telling everyone that they're not allowed to talk to me, it's not a jury of my peers (which this all is). I went to confession, I obviously was repentant enough to go--see that's the sticky part. This 'church discipline' stuff, who gets to say when enough is enough? Who can a person go to if they feel the situation is out of control? I could go to my bishop. Who gets to tell Mr. Driscoll he is out of bounds?

 

AND, my confession is private! As it should be! Because public shaming is not what Christ did.

 

The thing is, if you confess your sin, there is no need for church discipline. The discipline comes in when the sinner is unrepentant. The steps, basically, are to approach him privately and in love, point out what the issue is. If he doesn't repent, then you take witnesses to the sin and again, lovingly point out the sin. If he still is unrepentant, then you take it to the church. The point is restoration, not shame. And, those who are planning to approach a erring member are to make darn sure their own motives and heart are right, it's not to be done out of vengeance or arrogance or sanctimony.

 

If this guy had come to my pastor and confessed, it would have never even been known by anyone else. The congregation would have NEVER known what was going on in his life, unless he shared it himself. He'd have been given counseling and maybe someone to be accountable to, if that was deemed appropriate. But never, in a gazillion years would his confession have been brought into the public and church discipline would never have even been an option. What Driscol has done is abuse, pure and simple, and it bastardizes a practice God intended for loving restoration and makes it a weapon of shame and punishment. That just makes my blood boil.

[Rhonda in TX]

This makes me ill. Driscol has taken the biblical model of discipline and blown it out of the water. I'm floored.

 

 

 

The thing is, if you confess your sin, there is no need for church discipline. The discipline comes in when the sinner is unrepentant. The steps, basically, are to approach him privately and in love, point out what the issue is. If he doesn't repent, then you take witnesses to the sin and again, lovingly point out the sin. If he still is unrepentant, then you take it to the church. The point is restoration, not shame. And, those who are planning to approach a erring member are to make darn sure their own motives and heart are right, it's not to be done out of vengeance or arrogance or sanctimony.

 

If this guy had come to my pastor and confessed, it would have never even been known by anyone else. The congregation would have NEVER known what was going on in his life, unless he shared it himself. He'd have been given counseling and maybe someone to be accountable to, if that was deemed appropriate. But never, in a gazillion years would his confession have been brought into the public and church discipline would never have even been an option. What Driscol has done is abuse, pure and simple, and it bastardizes a practice God intended for loving restoration and makes it a weapon of shame and punishment. That just makes my blood boil.

 

Exactly! :iagree: :iagree: I believe in a biblical model of church discipline. This seems to be far, far from that.

[AvasMom]

This makes me ill. Driscol has taken the biblical model of discipline and blown it out of the water. I'm floored.

 

 

 

The thing is, if you confess your sin, there is no need for church discipline. The discipline comes in when the sinner is unrepentant. The steps, basically, are to approach him privately and in love, point out what the issue is. If he doesn't repent, then you take witnesses to the sin and again, lovingly point out the sin. If he still is unrepentant, then you take it to the church. The point is restoration, not shame. And, those who are planning to approach a erring member are to make darn sure their own motives and heart are right, it's not to be done out of vengeance or arrogance or sanctimony.

 

If this guy had come to my pastor and confessed, it would have never even been known by anyone else. The congregation would have NEVER known what was going on in his life, unless he shared it himself. He'd have been given counseling and maybe someone to be accountable to, if that was deemed appropriate. But never, in a gazillion years would his confession have been brought into the public and church discipline would never have even been an option. What Driscol has done is abuse, pure and simple, and it bastardizes a practice God intended for loving restoration and makes it a weapon of shame and punishment. That just makes my blood boil.

 

:iagree:

[AvasMom]

I got up just now, started my coffee, and checked Facebook. One of the first posts was a link to Driscoll's Eminem video. I am really really trying to stop making unhelpful comments on FB (it's hard! People can be so dumb on there!) so I didn't type what came to mind. Having to bite your tongue before the coffee is even finished brewing is brutal!

[simka2]

 

If this guy had come to my pastor and confessed, it would have never even been known by anyone else. The congregation would have NEVER known what was going on in his life, unless he shared it himself. He'd have been given counseling and maybe someone to be accountable to, if that was deemed appropriate. But never, in a gazillion years would his confession have been brought into the public and church discipline would never have even been an option. What Driscol has done is abuse, pure and simple, and it bastardizes a practice God intended for loving restoration and makes it a weapon of shame and punishment. That just makes my blood boil.

These are my feelings as well. It is a distortion of something that is meant for healing.

 

I am hopeful that Driscoll will be held accountable for this. Not in a shame him sort of way, but these types of public shamings need to stop. It is a bit like the Scarlet Letter. Even if this was some out of control young man preying on the women of the church, it could have been handled better.

 

Instead, we have a homeschooled, SBC, young man who immediately confessed his sin, went through over a month of overly intrusive interviews and repeated confessions. Only when he begins to question the process and look to find a healthier place to heal is he brought under discipline. This is very suspect.

 

What does this tell the rest of the church? Confessing and repenting is not enough? You must jump through X, Y, and Z hoops. You must prove your repentance on the leaderships terms?

[Blueridge]

This whole situation grieves me on so many levels. I had never even heard of Driscoll until 2 weeks ago, when our dd18 suggested we watch a program that he was on...He was preaching to a large group, and after we watched it, she asked dh and me for our thoughts. I was unimpressed because I sensed a real problem with pride. Our family has been involved with quite a few fundamental type churches, and we have many scars to prove it. :001_unsure: We've seen so many people (us included) who needed support and encouragement be treated this way. I'm sure it breaks Jesus' heart to see the pride of these leaders going unchecked. I am wondering if the young woman involved had something to do with this...she had her reputation to clean up, so to speak. Maybe she was putting full blame on this man, perhaps exaggerating, which fueled the flames of church discipline upon the man. I feel badly for the man who really needed to be shown the love of Jesus, but instead was shown the wrath and judgment of man. Church is supposed to be a place of safety and building up and encouragement, and so often it is a place of condemnation.

[lionfamily1999]

AND, my confession is private! As it should be! Because public shaming is not what Christ did.

It seems to me that Christ tended to shed light on people's sins in public. IOW, someone sins and Christ points it out. "Get thee behind me Satan," is a pretty strong way to say, "Hey buddy, I don't think you have your head straight and perhaps you should stop saying and thinking these things." A woman says she's not married and his response is along the lines of "Your right, you're an adulterer with way too many 'husbands'." "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." That was pretty public too, and it was a wholesale condemnation. The only confessor that pops into my head is the theif and his was a public confession with Christ publicly forgiving him.

 

Of course, most of these people weren't confessing, they were concealing... which is what I thought church discipline was for :confused: Not for those that confess, struggle, repent, rather for those that refuse to see their own sin, or else prefer to live in sin. The example I can think of is the man that was having a sexual relationship with his step mother. The sin was known and the idea that he should be approached and told his actions were wrong (with the hope that he was ignorant of that, I'm sure) and all the follow ups, all the way to the church voting on whether or not he was allowed to stay in that church, were to reflect whether or not he repented.:confused:

 

ETA, thinking on it, it wasn't even just 'major' stuff that Christ would point out in public. Martha wanted to do housework and was angry at Mary for lazying around... Interestingly, I can't think of a single time that Christ pulled someone to the side to privately discuss their actions. Even in the Gospels, I don't remember anyone being given private admonishment or advice, it was all done infront of everyone. Maybe the point was that nothing is really hidden anyway. I guess the only private encounters I can think of are when God went to someone with a mission. I mean, Paul was blinded, he had to go around blind (pretty obvious/public) and confess to other people to get his sight restored.

Edited January 27, 2012 by lionfamily1999

[Pretty in Pink]

Talk about wanting a pound of flesh!

 

Overboard for some hanky-panky don't you think? They were all about the repentance but totally ignored the forgiveness and grace part.

 

Boooooooo!

 

Perfect!

[mytwomonkeys]

the sermons i've heard by mark driscoll were very good. i don't know enough about this situation here to comment, but it's clear the link provided is from one point of view only.

[mommaduck]

It seems to me that Christ tended to shed light on people's sins in public. IOW, someone sins and Christ points it out. "Get thee behind me Satan," is a pretty strong way to say, "Hey buddy, I don't think you have your head straight and perhaps you should stop saying and thinking these things." A woman says she's not married and his response is along the lines of "Your right, you're an adulterer with way too many 'husbands'." "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." That was pretty public too, and it was a wholesale condemnation. The only confessor that pops into my head is the theif and his was a public confession with Christ publicly forgiving him.

 

Of course, most of these people weren't confessing, they were concealing... which is what I thought church discipline was for :confused: Not for those that confess, struggle, repent, rather for those that refuse to see their own sin, or else prefer to live in sin. The example I can think of is the man that was having a sexual relationship with his step mother. The sin was known and the idea that he should be approached and told his actions were wrong (with the hope that he was ignorant of that, I'm sure) and all the follow ups, all the way to the church voting on whether or not he was allowed to stay in that church, were to reflect whether or not he repented.:confused:

 

ETA, thinking on it, it wasn't even just 'major' stuff that Christ would point out in public. Martha wanted to do housework and was angry at Mary for lazying around... Interestingly, I can't think of a single time that Christ pulled someone to the side to privately discuss their actions. Even in the Gospels, I don't remember anyone being given private admonishment or advice, it was all done infront of everyone. Maybe the point was that nothing is really hidden anyway. I guess the only private encounters I can think of are when God went to someone with a mission. I mean, Paul was blinded, he had to go around blind (pretty obvious/public) and confess to other people to get his sight restored.

So tell me, have you stood before your church and confessed every VERY PERSONAL sin you've ever committed?

[8circles]

This situation is very sad. Even if you believe in public discipline (which I don't) within the church, I would think you would agree that this situation wasn't handled properly.

 

The whole thing is sad. Sad that it happens, but also sad that other people see abuse in their very own church & either don't recognize it or choose to continue being part of that body anyway. Not just this church - there are examples of it IMO all over. I don't get it.

[lionfamily1999]

So tell me, have you stood before your church and confessed every VERY PERSONAL sin you've ever committed?

No. But I have told the people I go to church with what I struggle with.

 

My point wasn't public confession anyway, my point was that church discipline was supposed to be (imo, anyway) to curb sins that church members were commiting that they weren't addressing. An ongoing sin for which they didn't show repentance or any desire to stop. The example in the NT was the guy who was having relations with his step mother. Apparently, everyone knew about it, and no one said anything or did anything about it. Paul was pretty angry that the behavior wasn't being addressed.

 

Also, off the top of my head it doesn't appear that Christ dealt with things secretly. It seems like he addressed issues straight on, in the group where they were happening. People have such issues with things being dealt with in public (I do, I don't like to discipline my children in public, at all), but that's what Christ did. He didn't wait until it would be more appropriate, he didn't sneak into the kitchen with Martha and say, "Ease up on Mary, huh, come visit with us." I do believe you should trust your pastor to keep your secrets, but I think it's a little far to think that God would. I mean, one day He'll shed light on everything, everything done in secret will be made known. So, while I appreciate that my pastor isn't going to tell people what's going through my head right now, I also know that God will make it known. Remembering that helps me to try and control what I dwell on. :shrug:

 

I was thinking while I typed, I'm sorry if I bothered you.

ETA, this was what I was responding to:

Because public shaming is not what Christ did.

I disagree with that. Edited January 27, 2012 by lionfamily1999

[Princess Peach]

The Pastor himself posted that letter. And it SHOULD be very, very public because the WORLD needs to see what spiritual abuse looks like, so they can stay and away and warn others.

 

:iagree:

 

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

 

 

Self-ex-communication is one of the easier routes to take when someone doesn't want to submit to the elders.

 

This is my last post b/c I don't want to bump this anymore.

 

ETA: Yes, humiliation stinks [ask Ananias and Sapphira].

 

Good night.

 

Not the same. At all. The young man sinned, felt horrible and confessed on his own.

 

I agree. It is the extremeness that I find troubling. This man commits some sexual sin and I am guessing loses his fiance over it. I think it is perfectly acceptable for him to go somewhere else for healing and restoration. I do not understand his needing to remain at Mars Hill for it to be real repentance.

 

:iagree:

 

Talk about wanting a pound of flesh!

 

Overboard for some hanky-panky don't you think? They were all about the repentance but totally ignored the forgiveness and grace part.

 

Boooooooo!

 

These churches are all about oppression, not freedom in Christ. Grace is completely absent. It's so sad. Not at all what Christ preached.

[mommaduck]

No. But I have told the people I go to church with what I struggle with.

 

My point wasn't public confession anyway, my point was that church discipline was supposed to be (imo, anyway) to curb sins that church members were commiting that they weren't addressing. An ongoing sin for which they didn't show repentance or any desire to stop. The example in the NT was the guy who was having relations with his step mother. Apparently, everyone knew about it, and no one said anything or did anything about it. Paul was pretty angry that the behavior wasn't being addressed.

 

Also, off the top of my head it doesn't appear that Christ dealt with things secretly. It seems like he addressed issues straight on, in the group where they were happening. People have such issues with things being dealt with in public (I do, I don't like to discipline my children in public, at all), but that's what Christ did. He didn't wait until it would be more appropriate, he didn't sneak into the kitchen with Martha and say, "Ease up on Mary, huh, come visit with us." I do believe you should trust your pastor to keep your secrets, but I think it's a little far to think that God would. I mean, one day He'll shed light on everything, everything done in secret will be made known. So, while I appreciate that my pastor isn't going to tell people what's going through my head right now, I also know that God will make it known. Remembering that helps me to try and control what I dwell on. :shrug:

 

I was thinking while I typed, I'm sorry if I bothered you.

Well, if you believe that everything should be very public and blasted to the whole church, including very personal information from years ago, then why haven't you? This is what has been done to this young man. HE confessed. There was NO reason to bring it before the church. Leaving a church at a later date is also NO reason to publicize his confession. He was jumping through all their "hoops" (which is nowhere in Scripture) and they STILL kept escalating his punishment. This is called abuse. He was right to run if this is what was happening. And a contract? That is utterly ridiculous to put someone through. You don't put such things in writing to potentially be used against them later! You make it possible to FORGIVE and help that person move beyond!

[mytwomonkeys]

okay. i'm confused. i read through the link (part 1 and 2), and it seems that andrew (the guy in question) is the one that made this very public, not the church. am i wrong?:confused:

 

okay. i see it at the end of part 2. makes sense now!!

Edited January 27, 2012 by mytwomonkeys

[Princess Peach]

Well, if you believe that everything should be very public and blasted to the whole church, including very personal information from years ago, then why haven't you? This is what has been done to this young man. HE confessed. There was NO reason to bring it before the church. Leaving a church at a later date is also NO reason to publicize his confession. He was jumping through all their "hoops" (which is nowhere in Scripture) and they STILL kept escalating his punishment. This is called abuse. He was right to run if this is what was happening. And a contract? That is utterly ridiculous to put someone through. You don't put such things in writing to potentially be used against them later! You make it possible to FORGIVE and help that person move beyond!

 

Churches like this are not about forgiveness, they are about control. I hope the young man can move on and heal.

[Impish]

It seems to me that Christ tended to shed light on people's sins in public. IOW, someone sins and Christ points it out. "Get thee behind me Satan," is a pretty strong way to say, "Hey buddy, I don't think you have your head straight and perhaps you should stop saying and thinking these things." A woman says she's not married and his response is along the lines of "Your right, you're an adulterer with way too many 'husbands'." "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." That was pretty public too, and it was a wholesale condemnation. The only confessor that pops into my head is the theif and his was a public confession with Christ publicly forgiving him.

 

Of course, most of these people weren't confessing, they were concealing... which is what I thought church discipline was for :confused: Not for those that confess, struggle, repent, rather for those that refuse to see their own sin, or else prefer to live in sin. The example I can think of is the man that was having a sexual relationship with his step mother. The sin was known and the idea that he should be approached and told his actions were wrong (with the hope that he was ignorant of that, I'm sure) and all the follow ups, all the way to the church voting on whether or not he was allowed to stay in that church, were to reflect whether or not he repented.:confused:

 

ETA, thinking on it, it wasn't even just 'major' stuff that Christ would point out in public. Martha wanted to do housework and was angry at Mary for lazying around... Interestingly, I can't think of a single time that Christ pulled someone to the side to privately discuss their actions. Even in the Gospels, I don't remember anyone being given private admonishment or advice, it was all done infront of everyone. Maybe the point was that nothing is really hidden anyway. I guess the only private encounters I can think of are when God went to someone with a mission. I mean, Paul was blinded, he had to go around blind (pretty obvious/public) and confess to other people to get his sight restored.

Here's the thing:

Christ is Christ.

 

Mark Driscoll most assuredly is not.

 

And where, in all of this 'contract' and repeatedly delving into extreme details of what this young man, of his own choice, confessed, is there forgiveness and grace extended? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'love thy neighbour as yourself' considered to be a message extremely important to Christ?

 

How about, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone'? I mean, do we really believe that this church has so many PERFECT members that they can sit and cast stones at this young man without hesitation?

[simka2]

It seems to me that Christ tended to shed light on people's sins in public. IOW, someone sins and Christ points it out. "Get thee behind me Satan," is a pretty strong way to say, "Hey buddy, I don't think you have your head straight and perhaps you should stop saying and thinking these things." A woman says she's not married and his response is along the lines of "Your right, you're an adulterer with way too many 'husbands'." "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." That was pretty public too, and it was a wholesale condemnation. The only confessor that pops into my head is the theif and his was a public confession with Christ publicly forgiving him.

 

Of course, most of these people weren't confessing, they were concealing... which is what I thought church discipline was for :confused: Not for those that confess, struggle, repent, rather for those that refuse to see their own sin, or else prefer to live in sin. The example I can think of is the man that was having a sexual relationship with his step mother. The sin was known and the idea that he should be approached and told his actions were wrong (with the hope that he was ignorant of that, I'm sure) and all the follow ups, all the way to the church voting on whether or not he was allowed to stay in that church, were to reflect whether or not he repented.:confused:

 

ETA, thinking on it, it wasn't even just 'major' stuff that Christ would point out in public. Martha wanted to do housework and was angry at Mary for lazying around... Interestingly, I can't think of a single time that Christ pulled someone to the side to privately discuss their actions. Even in the Gospels, I don't remember anyone being given private admonishment or advice, it was all done infront of everyone. Maybe the point was that nothing is really hidden anyway. I guess the only private encounters I can think of are when God went to someone with a mission. I mean, Paul was blinded, he had to go around blind (pretty obvious/public) and confess to other people to get his sight restored.

The problem I have with this is that Mark Driscoll is not Jesus. There are certain things that should not be attempted by anyone who is not the embodiment of perfect love.

 

It is understandable that when Jesus was approached publicly, he responded in like manner. We have no idea how many things he addressed privately. All we have is the record of his public life. :confused:

 

Martha approached him in public, people asked him questions about sins...in public.

[elegantlion]

Well, if you believe that everything should be very public and blasted to the whole church, including very personal information from years ago, then why haven't you? This is what has been done to this young man. HE confessed. There was NO reason to bring it before the church. Leaving a church at a later date is also NO reason to publicize his confession. He was jumping through all their "hoops" (which is nowhere in Scripture) and they STILL kept escalating his punishment. This is called abuse. He was right to run if this is what was happening. And a contract? That is utterly ridiculous to put someone through. You don't put such things in writing to potentially be used against them later! You make it possible to FORGIVE and help that person move beyond!

 

:iagree:

 

Unfortunately it is scenarios like this that keep me from returning to the church. Honestly, it raises my hackles enough to quit considering it again.

 

I do believe there should be a trust between a pastor and his members, but I've had that broken once (or more, if you go back further in my life). It's hard to want to even attempt to visit a church, must less open yourself up to the entire congregation.

 

Church is one of the only organized social outlets for teens around here. I can not reconcile my idea of going to church solely for the social outlets. So we stay home.

 

I have faith in God, I don't struggle with my relationship with Him, but I do struggle with His church. It saddens me that bad chrisitian leadership drives people away from church. I know people are not perfect, but when they elevate themselves in that position of power it's beyond arrogant.

 

I don't need advice, books to read, me and God are dealing with this issue. However, I do think situations like this should be brought to light. Perhaps Driscoll would like it if some of his peers brought two or more and censured him in public for his overblown discipline of a child of God.

[Impish]

The problem I have with this is that Mark Driscoll is not Jesus. There are certain things that should not be attempted by anyone who is not the embodiment of perfect love.

 

It is understandable that when Jesus was approached publicly, he responded in like manner. We have no idea how many things he addressed privately. All we have is the record of his public life. :confused:

 

Martha approached him in public, people asked him questions about sins...in public.

Great minds, Simka ;)

[Joanne]

It's totally possible I missed something in my bible reading, training, and experience. Could someone with more knowledge please show me the verses that suggest "church discipline" be exercised in response to sexual sin but rarely, if ever over the sins of:

 

 

1. Gossip
   
2. Gluttony
   
3. Greed
   
4. Non-sexual addiction
   
5. Verbal abuse of spouse
   
6. Verbal abuse of children
   
7. Shaming of children
   
8. Envy
   
9. Abuse of power
   
10. Making idols ($, "family", church position/activity)
    

 

 

I'll check in later. I've been curious for so long. Surely there is scripture to back up the practice, because in all the church discipline situations I've heard, read, or been exposed to, sexual sin has been overwhelmingly the focus.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Joanne

[lionfamily1999]

Well, if you believe that everything should be very public and blasted to the whole church, including very personal information from years ago, then why haven't you? This is what has been done to this young man. HE confessed. There was NO reason to bring it before the church. Leaving a church at a later date is also NO reason to publicize his confession. He was jumping through all their "hoops" (which is nowhere in Scripture) and they STILL kept escalating his punishment. This is called abuse. He was right to run if this is what was happening. And a contract? That is utterly ridiculous to put someone through. You don't put such things in writing to potentially be used against them later! You make it possible to FORGIVE and help that person move beyond!

You didn't read what I posted.

 

I was responding to a statement that God doesn't shame in public. I disagree.

 

I did not say that people had to confess in public. I did not say that that the church should publicize confessions or that church discipline was about taking private confessions and making them public.

 

I said that Christ dealt with sin in public. And said that the only person who confessed, that I could think of, did so in public. I said that God would make everything public.

 

I said that church discipline was supposed to deal with sins that people were not repenting or acknowledging.

 

:chillpill:

Of course, most of these people weren't confessing, they were concealing... which is what I thought church discipline was for :confused: Not for those that confess, struggle, repent, rather for those that refuse to see their own sin, or else prefer to live in sin. The example I can think of is the man that was having a sexual relationship with his step mother. The sin was known and the idea that he should be approached and told his actions were wrong (with the hope that he was ignorant of that, I'm sure) and all the follow ups, all the way to the church voting on whether or not he was allowed to stay in that church, were to reflect whether or not he repented.:confused:

 

[cin]

Has anything happened to the girl to whom he was engaged? She participated in some sins with him. But she was an Elder's daughter. Inquiring minds want to know....was she disciplined? Because it did come out that she and he had engaged in a sexual relationship too.

 

One other thing that bothers me is that they what detailed information about his sin. To me, that sounds like they are enjoying this too much, almost like they are living vicariously through the sinners.

 

Also, who believes that this is the only couple in this church who have fallen into the sex before marriage sin? Yeah. If we're gonna clean house, let's clean all the dirt. Oh, and Mr. Driscoll, that includes you.

[cin]

It's totally possible I missed something in my bible reading, training, and experience. Could someone with more knowledge please show me the verses that suggest "church discipline" be exercised in response to sexual sin but rarely, if ever over:

 

 

1. Gossips

2. Gluttony

3. Greed

4. Non-sexual addiction

5. Verbal abuse of spouse

6. Verbal abuse of children

7. Shaming of children

8. Envy

9. Abuse of power

10. Making idols ($, "family", church position/activity)

 

 

I'll check in later. I've been curious for so long. Surely there is scripture to back up the practice, because in all the church discipline situations I've heard, read, or been exposed to, sexual sin has been overwhelmingly the focus.

 

It's the one that is the, um, most enjoyable, shall we say?

[lionfamily1999]

Here's the thing:

Christ is Christ.

 

Mark Driscoll most assuredly is not.

 

And where, in all of this 'contract' and repeatedly delving into extreme details of what this young man, of his own choice, confessed, is there forgiveness and grace extended? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'love thy neighbour as yourself' considered to be a message extremely important to Christ?

 

How about, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone'? I mean, do we really believe that this church has so many PERFECT members that they can sit and cast stones at this young man without hesitation?

 

Again, I was responding to the statement that God does not shame in public. I disagreed.

 

Then, I followed up with church discipline dealing with sins that church members were making a way of life and not dealing with themselves.

The problem I have with this is that Mark Driscoll is not Jesus. There are certain things that should not be attempted by anyone who is not the embodiment of perfect love.

 

It is understandable that when Jesus was approached publicly, he responded in like manner. We have no idea how many things he addressed privately. All we have is the record of his public life. :confused:

 

Martha approached him in public, people asked him questions about sins...in public.

Sure thing :D

[JessReplanted]

You can't take one clip from one sermon and base your opinion of the preacher from it.

It's like taking one verse of the Bible and basing your theology on it.

 

You also cannot take one side of a story - told from the point of view of someone who is angry at a well-known church - and assume that you really know what happened.

 

What if this was the rest of the story:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

A man professed faith in Christ and became a covenant member of the church. Over time he became a leader in several different ministries. He developed a relationship with a young college girl and convinced her that sex before marriage was fine. Over time, the young girl confessed to someone that she was sleeping with her boyfriend, who was a ministry leader. When confronted, the man confessed, but then said that he didn't want to discuss it at all with anyone from the church and that he was in fact, leaving the church.

 

From the point of view of the church, he's a man who used his leadership at the church to prey on the innocence of a young girl.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Who knows what really happened? But I can tell you that the situations we've encountered in ministry have been absolutely crazy. And the angry people are perfectly free to leave the church and slander it and it's leaders for the rest of their lives.

 

And people can read slander on the internet, and watch little clips from part of a sermon, and agree that the church is evil. :confused1:

[simka2]

You can't take one clip from one sermon and base your opinion of the preacher from it.

It's like taking one verse of the Bible and basing your theology on it.

 

You also cannot take one side of a story - told from the point of view of someone who is angry at a well-known church - and assume that you really know what happened.

 

What if this was the rest of the story:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

A man professed faith in Christ and became a covenant member of the church. Over time he became a leader in several different ministries. He developed a relationship with a young college girl and convinced her that sex before marriage was fine. Over time, the young girl confessed to someone that she was sleeping with her boyfriend, who was a ministry leader. When confronted, the man confessed, but then said that he didn't want to discuss it at all with anyone from the church and that he was in fact, leaving the church.

 

From the point of view of the church, he's a man who used his leadership at the church to prey on the innocence of a young girl.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Who knows what really happened? But I can tell you that the situations we've encountered in ministry have been absolutely crazy. And the angry people are perfectly free to leave the church and slander it and it's leaders for the rest of their lives.

 

And people can read slander on the internet, and watch little clips from part of a sermon, and agree that the church is evil. :confused1:

It wouldn't change my feelings at all in regards to the contract and the email/pm sent to church members.

[Impish]

Has anything happened to the girl to whom he was engaged? She participated in some sins with him. But she was an Elder's daughter. Inquiring minds want to know....was she disciplined? Because it did come out that she and he had engaged in a sexual relationship too.

 

One other thing that bothers me is that they what detailed information about his sin. To me, that sounds like they are enjoying this too much, almost like they are living vicariously through the sinners.

 

Also, who believes that this is the only couple in this church who have fallen into the sex before marriage sin? Yeah. If we're gonna clean house, let's clean all the dirt. Oh, and Mr. Driscoll, that includes you.

It said that women are weaker vessels, therefore it is men that are to lead them into salvation...aka, they aren't responsible for temptation, it was a man that led them there, and they're too weak to have withstood it.

 

*eyeroll*

[mommaduck]

You didn't read what I posted.

 

I was responding to a statement that God doesn't shame in public. I disagree.

 

I did not say that people had to confess in public. I did not say that that the church should publicize confessions or that church discipline was about taking private confessions and making them public. And yet, this is the exact situation we are discussing!

 

I said that Christ dealt with sin in public. And said that the only person who confessed, that I could think of, did so in public. I said that God would make everything public.

 

I said that church discipline was supposed to deal with sins that people were not repenting or acknowledging.

 

:chillpill:

So it's okay to publicly shame someone that IS repentant after they have confessed? How long and how publicly should this shaming go on for?

[abreakfromlife]

Has anything happened to the girl to whom he was engaged? She participated in some sins with him. But she was an Elder's daughter. Inquiring minds want to know....was she disciplined? Because it did come out that she and he had engaged in a sexual relationship too.

Yeah, I think we'll be waiting a loooong time on that one. You know, with women being second-class citizens and all :rolleyes:

 

I think it's sad when people dismiss this because it's only one side of the story. It happens a lot, to a lot of churches. There has been plenty of time for MH to issue some form of rebuttal or denial, and they haven't afaik. That is rather telling.....and there have been lots of other people who say they have experienced the same thing at MH. And with everything that Driscoll says, and the way he acted with the whole British interview....no one is saying 'wow, I can't see MD doing something like that - he's such a loving, humble guy, this seems really out of character.' Because this is something that is so easy to see him doing. It's just sad that victims automatically have to have more 'proof' of their victimness, and the church gets away with not being held responsible because they are a big group, and this is one person. That's what keeps churches like this and situations like this thriving, and why victims find it so hard to speak out. Because we don't give them the respect to say, wow, you know what, this might be true. So what do we do now? Everyone should be appalled at this, even if it is one-sided. Because it could be true. And it is true for lots of people. And as quick as MH is to SUE another church!!! They sure as hell won't let a random person attack them like this, if there wasn't any truth behind it.

[mommaduck]

It said that women are weaker vessels, therefore it is men that are to lead them into salvation...aka, they aren't responsible for temptation, it was a man that led them there, and they're too weak to have withstood it.

 

*eyeroll*

Big eyeroll...sheesh! Yeah, yeah...any guy that comes onto me, I should be too weak to resist and then it's his fault on top of it all... Sure... Hey, I have bridge to sell!

[JessReplanted]

Yeah, I think we'll be waiting a loooong time on that one. You know, with women being second-class citizens and all :rolleyes:

 

I think it's sad when people dismiss this because it's only one side of the story. It happens a lot, to a lot of churches. There has been plenty of time for MH to issue some form of rebuttal or denial, and they haven't afaik. That is rather telling.....and there have been lots of other people who say they have experienced the same thing at MH. And with everything that Driscoll says, and the way he acted with the whole British interview....no one is saying 'wow, I can't see MD doing something like that - he's such a loving, humble guy, this seems really out of character.' Because this is something that is so easy to see him doing. It's just sad that victims automatically have to have more 'proof' of their victimness, and the church gets away with not being held responsible because they are a big group, and this is one person. That's what keeps churches like this and situations like this thriving, and why victims find it so hard to speak out. Because we don't give them the respect to say, wow, you know what, this might be true. So what do we do now? Everyone should be appalled at this, even if it is one-sided. Because it could be true. And it is true for lots of people. And as quick as MH is to SUE another church!!! They sure as hell won't let a random person attack them like this, if there wasn't any truth behind it.

 

They have a policy of not responding to attacks or critics.

[lionfamily1999]

So it's okay to publicly shame someone that IS repentant after they have confessed? How long and how publicly should this shaming go on for?

:confused:

 

Are you even reading my posts before you respond?

 

Where did I say that? Quote it for me :D Where did I say that we should publicly shame repentant people? Quote that for me ;)

Edited January 27, 2012 by lionfamily1999

[mommaduck]

:confused:

 

Are you even reading my posts before you respond?

Did you read the red part?

 

I think you and I are reading past eachother. You are responding to one little part in someone else's post...I'm asking about how you would apply that to THIS situation. So are we in agreement that what this church did is abusive or do you think what they did was acceptable?

[abreakfromlife]

 

They have a policy of not responding to attacks or critics.

So why did Mark Driscoll write a blog post responding to the British article that he didn't like? :confused:

[JessReplanted]

So why did Mark Driscoll write a blog post responding to the British article that he didn't like? :confused:

 

I have no idea. I just remember hearing him say that Rick Warren gave him the advice of never responding to critics. ???

[Mrs Mungo]

How about, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone'? I mean, do we really believe that this church has so many PERFECT members that they can sit and cast stones at this young man without hesitation?

 

I can tell you one direct result of these sorts of actions. People will be far less likely to confess their sins.

[Caitilin]

They have a policy of not responding to attacks or critics.

 

And we all know how well THAT works--consider the s3x scandal in the RCC--what would people have said if the RCC had the policy of "not responding to attacks or critics?" The mind reels! Failure of accountability is the same, whether individual or corporate (in the sense of the body of Christ).

[mommaduck]

And we all know how well THAT works--consider the s3x scandal in the RCC--what would people have said if the RCC had the policy of "not responding to attacks or critics?" The mind reels! Failure of accountability is the same, whether individual or corporate (in the sense of the body of Christ).

One reason I still am for a "hierarchical" church. Having experienced churches that were "independent" or would split over every little disagreement, there is safety in being able to appeal above someone's head. Unless you are in one where the entire organization is corrupt (said for those that have had abusive hierarchical churches).

[mommaduck]

I can tell you one direct result of these sorts of actions. People will be far less likely to confess their sins.

And this was the point I was trying to get to.

[lionfamily1999]

Here's one half of my first post, including the quote I was responding to:

AND, my confession is private! As it should be! Because public shaming is not what Christ did.

It seems to me that Christ tended to shed light on people's sins in public. IOW, someone sins and Christ points it out. "Get thee behind me Satan," is a pretty strong way to say, "Hey buddy, I don't think you have your head straight and perhaps you should stop saying and thinking these things." A woman says she's not married and his response is along the lines of "Your right, you're an adulterer with way too many 'husbands'." "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." That was pretty public too, and it was a wholesale condemnation. The only confessor that pops into my head is the theif and his was a public confession with Christ publicly forgiving him.

Here's the other half of my first post, responding to the article:

Of course, most of these people weren't confessing, they were concealing... which is what I thought church discipline was for :confused: Not for those that confess, struggle, repent, rather for those that refuse to see their own sin, or else prefer to live in sin. The example I can think of is the man that was having a sexual relationship with his step mother. The sin was known and the idea that he should be approached and told his actions were wrong (with the hope that he was ignorant of that, I'm sure) and all the follow ups, all the way to the church voting on whether or not he was allowed to stay in that church, were to reflect whether or not he repented.:confused:

 

The church discipline, outlined in the NT, deals with sins that church member is taking part in, that are known by other church members, that this person is either must not know is a sin, or else they don't care. The three steps are:

1. Approach them alone, with love, and discuss this sin. If they repent, then it's over, the sin is dealt with.
   
2. If they don't repent, then you approach them with two other people, preferably elders/pastor/deacons. If they repent, then it's over, the sin is dealt with.
   
3. If they don't repent, then you put it infront of the church, and the church votes on whether or not to remove that person from the church. If they then repent, it's dealt with and over. If they don't then they are considered just like any other unsaved person and should be treated accordingly (iow, with love, concern and hope for their salvation).
   

Obviously that church is not dealing with it this way. Or at least that's how it seems.

 

I said that repeatedly (that church discipline was for sins that the person is not repenting from).

My point wasn't public confession anyway, my point was that church discipline was supposed to be (imo, anyway) to curb sins that church members were commiting that they weren't addressing. An ongoing sin for which they didn't show repentance or any desire to stop. The example in the NT was the guy who was having relations with his step mother. Apparently, everyone knew about it, and no one said anything or did anything about it. Paul was pretty angry that the behavior wasn't being addressed.

You didn't read what I posted.

 

I was responding to a statement that God doesn't shame in public. I disagree.

 

I did not say that people had to confess in public. I did not say that that the church should publicize confessions or that church discipline was about taking private confessions and making them public.

 

I said that Christ dealt with sin in public. And said that the only person who confessed, that I could think of, did so in public. I said that God would make everything public.

 

I said that church discipline was supposed to deal with sins that people were not repenting or acknowledging.

 

:chillpill:

Did you read the red part?

 

I think you and I are reading past eachother. You are responding to one little part in someone else's post...I'm asking about how you would apply that to THIS situation. So are we in agreement that what this church did is abusive or do you think what they did was acceptable?

I don't know the whole story. From what I see, this should have never gone infront of their church. I responded to the idea of church discipline (which I think is a good/great/Biblical thing), but I did not uphold their version of it (which, from what I've seen, is not Biblical). That doesn't mean that I think church discipline is bad as a whole, or that sin should never be addressed in public. Just that, from what I've read, that was not one of those times.

[abreakfromlife]

 

I have no idea. I just remember hearing him say that Rick Warren gave him the advice of never responding to critics. ???

I wonder if you're thinking of Rob Bell at the other Mars Hill, b/c I know that he does not respond at all.