Is Mars Hill Church Emergent?
December 24, 2003
Rudy Carrasco asked the question on UrbanOnramps a few weeks ago, of whether Mars Hill Church is emergent or not? He wrote: “Mars Hill Church is going to make us define what we mean by “emerging.” Does it mean somewhere between fundamentalist and liberal theologies? Is it a worship style? Is it a way to engage youth culture and/or emerging culture?” He also linked to an interesting article by The Seattle Times, entitled Pastor Mark Packs ‘em In.
Well, I have an answer to Rudy’s question.
Okay, I’ve only attended Mars Hill once, so I don’t really have an answer to his question, but I wanted to post some of my observations.
Obviously, Mars Hill is doing something for the area they are located in. I heard someone say they have about 1600 people in two different services on Sundays. The majority of those who attend Mars Hill are the younger, hip, Seattleite crowd. There were some more generations present, but for the most part, it was the 20-30 crowd. Their worship music was pretty sweet, definitely a bit of the rockabilly influence.
Mark Driscoll is definitely a captivating speaker. He preaches for close to an hour [and for those of us who are Presbyterians and are used to a 15-20 min sermon, that's pretty intense], but he’s able to keep people’s attention with his intensity, humor and the way he relates to people. Definitely good stuff.
Yet, while I am aware of the good things that Mars Hill is doing, I have some issues with other things I observed. The church excludes women from leadership. This seems to be a good indicator/litmus test for where they are at “theologically.” The issue of women in ministry should be a non-issue for emergent churches. Mars Hill’s 7 pastors are all male [they also serve as the Elders of the church] - 2 of the 9 Staff Deacons are women and 5 of the 9 Volunteer Deacons are women.
The Sunday I was there, they dedicated many newborn babies in the congregation. There were about 8 couples that came forward. The women didn’t speak at all. The men introduced the baby and their wives, the men read the Scriptures for their child. A family of 5 came forward to read the Advent Scripture and light the Advent Candles. The father and son read Scripture [the mother did light the candle]. The women and men are also educated theologically separately [they have Practical Theology for Women and Mars Hill Men].
Mark also comes across very much as a black/white, I have the answers kind of guy. It seems that emerging church pastors should emphasize humility, simply walking alongside people, and the idea that we can learn much from each other, and that I (as pastor) certainly do not have all the answers. I just get the feeling that Mark feels like Scripture is clear, black/white on many issues and he is sharing those answers with people.
One last observation. As I browsed the book table at Mars Hill, I saw some Christian Classics (Bonhoeffer, Augustine, Willard, etc.), some emergent-type books (Chris Seay’s books, etc.) but was troubled by some books I saw. Though I’ve never read any John Piper (Desiring God, Future Grace, Don’t Waste Your Life), he was a favorite with my very conservative/fundamentalist(?) friends at Whitworth. Mars Hill had a lot of John Piper available.
But more specifically, they had many books by Douglas Wilson, who is Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, ID [Christ Church is Charter Member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals]. This church puts out a publication, the Credenda Agenda, has a Publishing company, Canon Press, is involved with Logos School, and started New St. Andrews College. They have also had to deal with several controversies surrounding some of their beliefs.
At any rate, all of this is just to say that I’ve had some experience getting to know Christ Church and people that come out of that church, and I wouldn’t think that any “emergent/postmodern/whatever” church would want to be espousing beliefs, literature, etc. that come from that church. It was quite a shock to see Douglas Wilson’s books there at the book table.
I think part of the idea about emergent churches is that there isn’t/shouldn’t be one model for future churches. So, I am fully aware that all emergent churches will not look alike. Mars Hill is doing some sweet music, the aesthetics of the worship facility itself is very non-traditional, but theologically, they resemble any other conservative, evangelical church [with the possibility of a bit of a fundamentalist streak there]. I’m not sure how that makes Mars Hill an “emergent church.”
Below are a few quotes from the Seattle Times article.
[on his ranking of the various translations of the Bible] :: Far to the right, and way down on the bottom - “toward hell,” he says - comes the New Revised Standard Version. The widely used New Revised, which distinguishes between references to all humans and references to men and women separately, is “the politically correct Bible,” he says. “It’s like the Bible got neutered.”
[on the theology of Mars Hill] :: Mars Hill is also growing…And it’s doing so by reaching young, urban, creative people…and preaching a theology that is as orthodox and conservative as it gets. Think Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God.
[on Mark's messages] :: But make no mistake. He is a biblical strict constructionist, preaching a core message that could be delivered by, say, Pat Robertson — if only he were young and not so uptight.
[on...what?] :: And in January, he will speak on church leadership at televangelist Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral.
[on the theology of Mars Hill & Mark] :: At Seattle Pacific University, a school with conservative Methodist roots where Driscoll held a Bible-study group for three years, some students accused his teachings of being sexist.
The Rev. Karen Ward, pastor of the postmodern Church of the Apostles in Seattle, says Mars Hill is “espousing a certain tradition, a very conservative, fundamental, Promise Keepers ethos.” Emerging-church pastors, she says, are generally more open to saying they don’t have all the answers.
So I guess the question is what really does make a church an emergent church? Is it the music? Is it the method which the “unchanging” message is preached? Should we be evaluating it on a more theological basis?
Tags: Emergent, emerging-church, Is-Mars-Hill-Emergent, Mark-Driscoll, Mars-Hill, Mars-Hill-Church, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
December 23rd, 2003 at 5:07 pm
Frankly, I would say by this article your definition of “emergent” is quite limited. As I read this entry, you seem to be saying you disagree with some of the churh’s theological stances and therefore do not want to be associated with it in any way.
December 23rd, 2003 at 5:14 pm
Damn! My modern tendencies are seeping through…yes, you are right, which I guess is pretty modern of me. My best friend actually goes to Mars Hill, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop associating with him by any means. But yes, I do disagree with some of the church’s theological stances.
So, what makes an emerging church then? Can you be an emerging church and have such a limited view of God’s ability to use both WOMEN and men in roles ofleadership?
We’re all so funny. Even the very question of this entry “Is Mars Hill an emerging church?” is a very modern approach — stemming from the desire to classify and box in certain churches…
December 23rd, 2003 at 6:31 pm
Nice site - so - Whitworth — my first “real job” was in the admissions office at Westmont, and I covered Washington as part of my recruitment territory.
December 23rd, 2003 at 8:20 pm
I guess “emergent” means whatever you want it to mean, just like “seeker-sensitive.”
By the way, an hour long sermon is the hallmark of a preacher in love with the sound of his own voice. If you can get more than 15-20 minutes out of a lectionary reading, you’re making up stuff that ain’t there.
December 23rd, 2003 at 10:41 pm
good job on the article. Very honest, first impression type of observations. I agree with KEVIN and CLEAVE, to categorize something as emergent is the very thing that we shouldn’t be doing. Is a new generation being reached with the gospel? That’s the test, and it seems they are doing it.
December 24th, 2003 at 3:34 am
I hope the emergence will be one where we are not trying to make people conform to a way of thinking but seeing the truth of God in them.
Cleave, to read “Living Buddha, Living Christ” and appreciating the truth in his words (many would find you in error for even having a copy of it because it is Buddist and not baptist), can we not find truth in someone as distasteful as one who supports slavery? Jesus said we will know them by their fruit, what fruit is this church, brother or sister, line of thinking, etc. producing?
Will doctrines follow us into the new century? If so, why are we talking about change? Let’s just continue rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic! Peace.
December 24th, 2003 at 10:03 am
Good piece, Cleave. There are lots of directions to go with it, but I’ll pick up on something said in one of the comments.
Can you be an emerging church and have such a limited view of God’s ability to use both WOMEN and men in roles of leadership?
I would argue that you can’t be a church, emerging or otherwise, with such limited views. Granted, this subject hits close to home (I work for Global Action Canada Ministries), but I agree with you that this issue must be an non-issue for the emerging church.
So I’ll leave that with you. That, and I completely disagree with the Rev. on the length of sermons. It’s quality, not quantity, Mike. I’ve been blessed, challenged and left wanting more with 60 minute sermons, and disgusted and turned off in 15 minutes, so that can’t be it.
December 24th, 2003 at 12:43 pm
“Postmodern churches” cannot be defined by their form such as music, candles, or track lighting, because none of these things are what define the change coming about. The truth is that the hunger that grows inside the postmodern culture is a “new” approach to Christianity. Postmodern churches will be defined by their search for theological truths and their abilities to ask questions that encourage the culture to come into the discussion. I am not promoting relativity or abandonment of all our theologies, but I am encouraging us to lose our modern/postmodern lenses and seek out a relationship with Christ that is authentic. Now back to form, it is one of the most critical and fragile pieces that will be added to the “Postmodern church.” Even though it cannot define the church, the church will not have a far-reaching voice with out it. Sorry if I sound like I am trying to have all the answers because I don’t, but I think that it will soon be important for us to find focus for the emerging churches. With out it I fear that we will not be taking advantage of our opportunity to share the relentless love of Christ with such a spiritually hungry culture.
December 24th, 2003 at 1:41 pm
Wow, Mike just “de-churched” a lot of “churches” with that sweeping statement about theological understandings of gender roles. If he’s right, a lot of non-churches have led a lot of people to God through Christ over the last two thousand years or so (not to mention all kinds of other important ministry). Whatever you think about the roles of men and women in the Church, we don’t get to call ourselves inclusive while using our pet issues as cause to exclude people who disagree with us on those particular issues. I don’t disagree that, if we believe or stand for anything essential, at some point we are necessarily a certain kind of exclusive. The great hypocrisy arrives when we tout the virtue of a broader inclusiveness, but really just develop a new breed of exclusivity that dismisses those who don’t buy our particular brand of inclusiveness.
People are flawed and churches are flawed, and we’d be remiss to dismiss the viability and legitimacy of a local body based solely on their understanding of God’s intended roles for men and women within the church. Despite what some think, not every church with a Mars Hillian view of gender roles oppresses and devalues women. Likewise, not every church with a more open view of women in leadership espouses militant feminism. The misunderstandings and sweeping generalizations are probably more dangerous than either particularly point of view. And, in fairness, the discussion of gender roles should not be confused with the discussion of gender value. I know, love, and fellowship with men and women with the full spectrum of views on this issue, and I’m confident they all supremely value both men and women. They simply disagree about God’s intended roles for them in the functioning of the Church.
All that said, if we’re going to draw an emergent boundary on this issue, somebody needs to let some of the primary emergent leaders know that. Take a look around at the churches some of these guys pastor and see how many only have men as pastors and/or elders (including the church pastored by the author Adam used as the example of an emergent author available at Mars Hill). I’m not just talking about a few peripheral folks. I’m talking about keynote guys at the emergent conventions and authors being published by emergent/YS. I don’t claim to speak for anyone about individual beliefs, but you might be surprised who you’ll be throwing out of the emergent sandbox if you disallow folks on this single issue. Perhaps we should think more along the lines of an emergent mindset that understands a different point of view on this particular issue rather than a mindset that requires a monolithic point of view about gender roles.
December 25th, 2003 at 5:47 pm
My comment is regarding John Piper and his influential books (Desiring God, et al). I sat under Pastor John’s teaching for three years at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis, and I can honestly say it some of the most inspiring and challenging teaching out there today. The issue isn’t that he is “conservative” or “fundamentalist” — those are just meaningless buzzwords. The issue is that his theology is incredibly rigid. Piper has a “I’m right and you’ll find out that I’m right when we both get to heaven” kind of attitude. (He actually sais something to that very effect from the pulpit once.) He certainly doesn’t think you’re going to hell for believing something different — but you are definitely wrong (because he’s right). And that’s at odds with what the values of the “emerging church” should be. The “emerging church” should be all about rethinking theology and asking the hard questions and admitting that it’s not all black and white, and we don’t have it all figured out. I love Piper, but his teaching creates as many questions for me as it attempts to answer.
December 25th, 2003 at 7:16 pm
Great discussion. I’m glad a.CLEAVE gave as much info about his visit and views and you did.
As time passes I’ve found myself with some pretty unique challenges in terms of how my church and ministry are to grow. That’s why this question is on my mind. When I read about Mars Hill, the question came on strong. I’ve known Driscoll and Mars Hill for a few years and they have, uh, not necessarily gone through transformations, but have matured because they’ve had to make some critical decisions (growing families, appointing church leadership, teaches hordes of new Christians the fundamentals of Christian faith). When you go beyond starting up a church that uniquely reaches the emerging generation, then it’s time to answer some questions that were easily sidestepped in the startup phase.
I think one of the virtues of the emergent movement is that we’ve been good (on balance) at not defining (too quickly) what an emerging church is. We have been very sensitive to people in “post” phases - post-fundamentalist, post-liberal, and all sorts of positions in between. This is an important space, and one I want to be a part of preserving.
Meanwhile, I’ve been fascinated to see how various emerging churches and pastors handle particular issues.
I don’t wish to go on with vague generalities, just want to throw out a dilemma I ran into a while back.
When reading The Next Christendom I felt like I wanted to be in the Global South where God’s hand seems to move so strongly. In that same moment I realized that my brothers in the South might not accept me. Among my various, uh, not positions - hmm, activities? - I hang around with this group of Protestants and Catholics who study the Bible and macro-economic theory. The leader is a Catholic priest. I love this group, and I consider this friendship and fellowship. But many in the Global South, on both the Protestant and Catholic sides, have strong and fixed positions on how they are right and the other side is wrong. Then they might find out I hung around a group of Prot, Cath and Orthodox writers without any theological bickering, and think I watered down my faith.
So my issue now is how to explain my Christian beliefs and practices to these “less tolerant” folks while at the same time affirming Christian foundations for new Christians. I’m not worried about pleasing the naysayers, but it is not something that can be ignored, either.
Hence my interest in what Mars Hill does and why they do it, because they strike me as an emergent / emerging church that is maturing and making tough decisions.
I hope this makes sense. I feel like I rambled a bit. Also, my son is holding my ear and tweaking it as I write.
December 26th, 2003 at 12:42 pm
Adam,
Great stuff in reference to Mars Hill. I’m afraid I was the one that got Rudy asking these questions. To me, Mars Hill is very cool. Very cool new original music. Straight outta Seattle Style Worship. Which I like. Theologically, straight outta the good ole boy network. I don’t like so much. Emerging - is more than a model/method. Mars Hill is a model/method. And it’s an outdated theological method at that.
Personally, I don’t want to be preached at with black/white right/wrong stuff. (Obviously 1600 people in Seattle do) I’d rather be taught biblical principles that help me decide for me what is black/white right/wrong. Driscoll could effectively argue that that IS what he does. I disagree.
In the end, I’d go up the hill in Ballard and go to Church of the Apostles.
Jason
December 27th, 2003 at 1:55 am
Dang, Cleave, you sure got people talking on this one.
Mark is a good friend of mine and a great pastor. Once a friend of mine from Arizona went up to visit the church and i called up mark and asked him to take care of my friend.
So mark opens up his home and gives him car keys and just rolls out the carpet for my friend.
the fact is, mark is a great guy and he loves his people. he is a good pastor and his people are healthy.
his model of church is not new but his unique mixture of old and new seem to be working. there are lots of models of emerging church and his is one of them.
the best thing about his church, in my opinion, is not the service but the intentional communities - guys and guys houses that are connected and are places of training and fun and parties. they really rock.
the biggest problem with marks ministry is that people try to copy him and they dont realize that he is extremely gifted - speaking, thinking, and saying what needs to be said/raising trust to raise money for projects - there are very few people that can do this, let alone preach for an hour, (preach well . . every week) and those who copy him are disappointed and a disappointment.
Let mark walk out the race before him and lets all cheer him on.
December 27th, 2003 at 3:14 am
interesting that your own words say that emergent churches will be different… so is there no room for what MH is doing? if not, it seems that emergent is only a small group of those who have it figured out, but who use the term because they like to think they’re not that way… and in case you’re wondering, i’m very interested and much a part of “thh conversation”, even amongst some fundamentalist Whitworth folk…
December 27th, 2003 at 3:40 am
Theologically, Mark Driscoll is Francis Schaeffer without the adopted European flair–which was all that Francis had going for him. Tired, Reformed, presuppositional theological correctness is so intellectually disappointing… the gospel is not that God hates you and killed his son for you.
December 27th, 2003 at 5:59 am
good discussion, Cleave. Thanks. As a priest myself (and a woman) I can’t see anything very ‘emergent’ about a church that wouldn’t give my gifts and abilities the time of day. Emergent is surely the creative (rebel?) fringe of the church - the people who will determinedly be church DESPITE the inadequacies of the tradition, but not in agreement with them. That’s not to say Mars Hill isn’t a Church - all churches have their faults! But it doesn’t sound like ‘emergent’, just regular, traditional, patriarchal Christianity with a few candles added. (I wrote about the difference between ‘alternative’ and ‘trendy’ in The Postevangelical Debate back in 1997)
December 27th, 2003 at 9:16 am
To be clear, I do not have a dog in this fight….I have never been to Mars Hill…but from a logic standpoint, the sweeping generalities in these remarks (such as those about the book table stating, in effect, “I’ve never read these books but they’re dangerous!”) are some of the first solid indicators I’ve seen that the warm fuzziness of the emergent church is beginning to wear thing. How can something so nebulous such as the new way of doing church be so quick to draw circles of who’s in and out. Yikes, gang. Go form a denomination and vote on things. It’ll make you feel better.
December 27th, 2003 at 11:16 am
There is solid scriptural support for the exclusion of women from leadership roles (1Tim 2). I also believe there is there is solid scriptural support for affirming women in leadership roles (Gal 2). If we write off those who don’t affirm women in leadership (complementarians) then we fail to honestly grapple with scripture. If we do this what authority defines our theology and our churches?
I’ve moved from the complementarian camp to the egalitarian camp on this issue in the last few years. I’ve always believed that churches should have the freedom to maintain theological distinctiveness on non-core issues. Women in ministry is not a core issue to the gospel. If the emerging church begins to define itself on such issues then it becomes another denomination in an already fractured church. We become the very thing that frustrates us. The last thing I want to become is fundamentally anti-fundamentalist. It is the opposite side of the same coin.
From what I’ve heard from Mark Driscoll I get the impression that when he interprets the bible he comes to solid conclusions a lot faster than I would on issues I consider debateable. If I were to sit down for coffee with Mark that is what I would talk about.
December 27th, 2003 at 2:29 pm
For someone who has only visit Mars Hills once, you “dude” have a pretty strong opinion. Oh, well is your blog and basicly you can write whatever you want, right? I do the same on mine. I’ve been at Mars Hills several times inmy trips to Washington, and Have to say that while some groups are trying to impress and become popular -Mars Hill is ministering. Mark Driscoll is not known for doing metaministry (the redundant talk about ministry). As many others who are fleeing from the cool name calling either “pomo” or “emergent” because at the end it is just another name “seeker service” or “contemporary church.” Emergent or not, they will be known by their fruits.
December 29th, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Nice thoughts - and great blog design, BTW.
I’ve been to Mars Hill about five times, in all 3 locations (old Ballard, Paradox, and new Ballard buildings) and I’ve heard three pastors preach (I think Mark does all the preaching now, though).
I would not classify MH as an emergent church because they don’t do things differently. For the most part, when we say emergent church, we mean a church that does things differently than most evangelical churches. Mars Hill is pretty normal, though well-adapted to Seattle’s culture.
If everyone at MH wore a button-down shirt and tie and talked with a drawl, and the band played Gaither or Passion instead of rockabilly, they could be any Southern Baptist church in America.
Granted, the whole enterprise of deciding whether a church is emergent or not can be an exercise in futility, but…
Mars Hill (and Mark) has a huge voice with the media. If he says “the emerging church is like us”, newspaper reporters will listen. I’ve written about MH several times, and I resonated with a lot of the comments left here. In the end, it doesn’t really matter to me how they do things; they’re doing fine, and I’m not here to imitate them, and I’m OK with what they’re doing as long as everything labeled “emergent” isn’t expected to look like them.
Nice blog, again, Cleave.
December 30th, 2003 at 10:54 pm
I’m as much a lover of dialogue, discussion, and debate as anyone. I thrive on conversation, and this is a good one. Sometimes, though, in the midst of a gathering of thoughts, one voice emerges that distinguishes itself from the others. It’s the voice that doesn’t storm in demanding attention, but earns it anyway by virtue of its wisdom. For me anyway, Leighton’s post, particularly in its handling of the gender issue and related implications, is one that makes me feel like the rest of us should snap to attention and salute. We should put it on a billboard on the highway to San Diego (and Nashville). We should chip in and buy ad space in the Convention program (yeah, I know there probably isn’t a convention program at a gathering of pomo church types…certainly not one with ad space). As much value as there is in the liberal exchange of raw ideas and the freedom to be uncertain and adventurous in our thinking (and there’s a lot of value in those “things”), wisdom still demands the rapt allegiance of even conversation. Leighton has, at least here, become a bearer of wisdom. He didn’t win an argument, and I’m confident that wasn’t his goal. He just shared wisdom, and wisdom wins on its own merit. That’s the beauty of Wisdom (or at least it’s a beauty of Wisdom)—even when She’s all dressed up in gentleness and humility, She owns the room. She is the show. She wins.
Which causes me to speculate out loud about another curiosity that’s building in me about “the conversation.” (And Cleave isn’t obligated to host this one; there just seems to be a nice little assemblage of folks here who are well suited for this one). Why do we all have such an adverse reaction to preaching? I mean, I think I know why I do (and I do a lot of the time), and maybe I’m not really asking why. Maybe I’m asking if we’re too quick to dispose of preaching. Here’s what I mean…
Aside from the gender discussion, the most common theme among the “Mars Hill isn’t emergent” voices seemed to be that the sure-footed preaching counted them out. I can understand why the apparent tone and approach Mark takes in his delivery (at least as its portrayed in the SPI article) would be a little like fingernails on a chalkboard to some folks. That’s not really my concern. I guess I’m more curious about the heralding of what we call “humble, I-don’t-have-all-the-answers-type teaching” and the discounting of someone “preaching at” us about answers. I think I’m just interested in hearing some folks unpack what those two ends of the spectrum (and I’m not sure they’re really polar opposites, but they seem to be set against one another that way in these contexts) mean to them.
And just to try and clarify my lack of a hidden agenda – There is a lot of preaching that I don’t want and probably don’t need. I’ve heard some guys nail what I’d call a pretty humble, Socratic sort of delivery, and I can dig what’s helpful and inviting about that. I just know that, as much as I often don’t want to be preached at, I still need to be preached at pretty regularly. I don’t mean that I need a whitewashed windbag to yell at me and force feed me empty promises and worn out answers. I definitely don’t need anyone to pretend they have all the answers, and I think we can pretty easily dismiss anyone who says they do. Time has done well to prove that no one but God is all knowing. But, even though none of us understand Her perfectly, Wisdom is real, and I need Her. Truth (or, if you prefer T(t)ruth), as much as we wrestle with its true nature, is real. God, as far as we are from knowing him completely, is real. Questions are good, and God is okay with our questions. Failing to acknowledge and embrace that has certainly been a flaw in the modern church, and I do think reversing that trend is a must of the emerging church (corporately and individually). But answers are okay too, at least some of them. If we’re confident that none of us have all the answers, we probably shouldn’t be so turned off and offended by hearing someone offer a few answers. Does that make sense? Am I alone in this one? Wisdom and Truth come from God, but He’s long used men and women to deliver them to other men and women. I need those with more wisdom than me to share it with me, sometimes with clarity, certainty, and authority.
So there’s that, and then there’s this – to set ourselves up as disinterested in preaching and/or answers seems to put us at odds with Jesus, Scripture, and its authors, at least a little. Scripture actually commands preaching. Jesus preached, and he didn’t just ask questions. He told truths. We have certainly been guilty of objectifying the Bible and erroneously assuming it is black and white for all of us on all issues, but it is pretty clear on some issues. Surely humility doesn’t mean that we pretend it isn’t. Sometimes I wonder how we’d react to Paul or James if they were pastoring a church down the road in 2003. Would we accuse them of being too preachy? Would we be turned off if they seemed to offer more answers than questions?
As we feel our way through this exploration of what an emerging church values and practices, this seems like one of the conversations we should have. Or maybe it’s just me.
Thanks, Cleave, for letting us play in your yard.
January 1st, 2004 at 3:45 am
Although Ive never been to Mars Hill( I live too far away) from what iHave read of itr and know about emergent churches, hoiw can MHJ be calssed as emergent when they have a pastor who forbids women to lead church, has a theology of salvation which appears to be a ticket to heaven as opposed to living out the Kingdom here on earth. As a son of catholic parents who has turned his back on the Mass, seeing it as merely “aerobocs” what would his position be in regards to incorporating some of the catholic elements in his services as does other emergent churches? Does he?
January 1st, 2004 at 6:37 pm
I’m new here, but thought I would join in.
Regarding the subject of women in leadership,why don’t you ask his wife and the other women in the church how they feel.Apparently they are ok with it. The bible contains quite a few examples of women who stepped forward and did what had to be done. At the same time it appears the leaders of the early Church were men, yet there are also times when the women had to take charge there also.If GOD’S ways are not our ways,and HIS thoughts not are thoughts,then we need to approach the matter through sound biblical study instead of the Gloria Steinem school of theology.
Thad commented that people and churches (same thing) are flawed and he is quite correct. That is why the reformers put Scripture as authority.
I have read John Piper extensively. He is an incredibly gifted teacher and author. I suggest his book “A Hunger for GOD” especially the chapter on Isaiah 58.It’s the kind of stuff the emergents have been desiring to see happen. His online teachings on Worship are fantastic.
Randy’s comments are right on, as are Leighton’s.
Take time to read Mars Hills doctrinal statement. It is as close to perfect as you can get. If you will notice Mars Hill and Bethlehem Baptist,which is John Piper’s church in inner city Minneapolis are exploding in growth.Both places adhere to a Word rooted, reformed doctrinal style. Why are people drawn there if the post modern generation is supposedly rejecting that kind of church? I think the emergent church is deathly afraid that Chuck Colson could be right.
Finally to D.You are right.GOD did not hate us so much that HE sent HIS Son and killed HIM.HE loved us so much that HE gave Himself up even to death on the cross. The apostles preached that and so did the reformers!
January 2nd, 2004 at 2:50 am
I recall a recent sermon on Revelations in which Mr. Driscoll deplored John’s falling before an angel in heaven on his knees in homage. His pity almost bordered on contempt. How disappointed he was in John! John mistook a mere angel for God!
Yet this is exactly what the Mars Hill elders do with Paul. They have placed Paul on a pedestal above Jesus. At Mars Hill, Paul’s single, isolated statement in 1 Tim. 2:12 looms large over and extinguishes Jesus’ most noble teaching. In closing the door on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, they are sinning against Jesus’ greatest commandment: to love all others, men AND women, as ourselves.
Driscoll laments that if there is just one thing in the Bible he would change, this single statement in Timothy would be it. But this is wrongheaded and dishonest. He merely has to change his own approach to 1 Tim. 2:12 and the rest of scripture. After all, it is Driscoll himself who counsels his listeners to study the Bible with a keen appreciation for and awareness of the temporal cultural and political factors at play in the ancient texts.
How we have treated slaves, women, children, and various ethnic, religious, and racial groups has varied over history to this day. We can choose to treat others with shabby tyranny, denying them freedoms and rights we assign to ourselves, or we can treat them with dignity, honor, and respect by allowing them the same rights and honors we accord ourselves. In according others the same rights we grant ourselves, we fulfill Jesus’ most radical, blessed, and beautiful commandment. How we treat others is temporal, but Jesus’ new commandment is eternal.
The Reformed Protestant church long ago dissolved its barriers to women serving fully within its churches. This is the very church Driscoll claims to be aligned with. Yet in his own peculiar theology, he steps aside from the tradition he espouses respect for, simply to discriminate against a whole class of people.
This is no “Gloria Steinem school of theology.” This is the official doctrine of the Reformed Protestant church. It is absurd that in the year 2003 we are pleading for women to be granted the simple dignities and freedoms that have long ago been accorded to them by the vast majority of enlightened Protestant denominations.
If I could, I would ask the male elders if they truly love their sisters at Mars Hill. I would ask the Mars Hill sisters if they truly respect Jesus’ commandment if they tacitly approve or merely silently endure a humiliating discrimination based on selective and biased scriptural reading. I would ask all the men who attend Mars Hill to examine their hearts and ask if they are respecting Jesus’ Golden commandment in supporting a church that denies a whole class of people the full gifts of the Holy Spirit.
God’s ways are indeed not our ways. When the Holy Spirit takes hold of a soul, and that soul wants to sing, and is gifted, and is blessed with and by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit grieves when that voice is quenched by mortals acting as God’s interpreters. God speaks to us, and only the Holy Spirit can decide what gifts we shall be blessed with, and what gifts shall be denied us. We cannot usurp the power of the Holy Spirit to inspire us.
I believe with all my heart that it is sinful to stamp out the Holy Spirit in any beautiful soul who finds Jesus and wants to fully express Jesus by preaching and ministering. If a woman is gifted with preaching, if the Holy Spirit is soaring through her, then that woman ought to be allowed to do her work for the Holy Spirit and to win souls to Christ. Her spirit and soul ought not to be quenched, especially by those who claim to be her spiritual elders.
Mark Driscoll is a brilliant and gifted preacher. I pray that he will find the humility to ask himself if he is truly loving his sisters as himself. I pray that all the elders will examine their hearts and decide to truly walk the best, brightest, and highest principle ever taught by Jesus. I pray that they will stop sinning against and grieving the Holy Spirit, who wants to work freely in all of us regardless of race, gender, or age. I pray that Mars Hill will continue to be an even stronger church after its inequities are examined in a forthright, humble, and honest manner by elders and members alike.
The whole congregation of Mars Hill will applaud the elders if they will but choose to love their sisters as themselves.
January 2nd, 2004 at 2:43 pm
When I read the Seattle Times article on Mars Hill, I was excited to hear about a church changing the medium of how the Word is presented to 20-somethings. I live in Wisconsin, and we are plagued by what I like to call Clear Channel churches.
We had a 20-something small group at church, which was eventually shut down by the heads of the church. I don’t know why, exactly. We were taking God’s word and applying it to our lives, presenting it in a way that our generation could relate to. I guess the piercings and secular music were too scary.
I don’t wear denim jumpers to church. I don’t like the Christian top 40 music my church plays. I don’t feel like my church is making any effort to relate to my generation.
Once you get out of youth group, you’re thrust into the cold world of the “adult” church. I don’t relate to most of the “adult” church issues like kids and mortgages. I’m not there yet, nor do I want to take that path. I’m attending church out of obligation now, not out of interest. I’m getting more out of studying the Word on my own than I am attending church.
I’m visiting the Seattle area in May and I want to visit Mars Hill badly. To those of us trapped in tradition, Mars Hill offers an exciting way out.
January 3rd, 2004 at 5:36 pm
I attend Mars Hill and the one thing that drew me there was their celebration of communion. It is observed every week. People walk forward as they are ready and dip bread into wine (juice is available if you want). I really felt connection with the Lord in that.
Plus, the music is fantastic…and the atmosphere is welcoming.
I am a woman and have no problem with their stand on women in leadership. It’s not that women cant lead (there are gobs of opportunities for women) its that they shouldnt be pastors….I am comfortable with that because it is the view I share. I understand why others might not be comfortable with it.
There is a perception out there, I think, that seems to be believed by people who have never actually attended MH that it is a church of uber-cool young people that are too hip for any other church. If you walked in the door of MH expecting to see folks like that, you wouldn’t quite know where you are. Normal Seattle folks attend there. They are urban people…and tend to be into creative things. But they are the same kind of people I see shopping in my neighborhood gorcery store.
Jennifer
January 10th, 2004 at 10:25 pm
Honestly, if you’ve done much reading at all, you will notice that Mark and Mars Hill’s leaders don’t give a crap about being “emergent” or “trendy” or “hip” or “cool.” Who cares? Christianity is definitely about deconstruction. But, it’s about a foundation, too — Jesus Christ. It seems I see a lot of talk about peripheral issues, and not a lot about Jesus.
The complementarian view of gender roles is nothing new. Our egalitarian society has created a new view, which is not biblical. When things are abused, why not just get rid of them? Honestly, that sounds pretty “modern” to me. Isn’t Christianity about reconciliation? Taking back what the world has destroyed, and using it properly? That’s what Mars Hill is about.
Jesus wasn’t as “nice” as some people make him out to be. All the “offensive” things that people rag the church for are straight out of the Bible.
January 12th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
Just to clear up some confusion, Mark was invited to Crystal Cathedral (he didn’t seek it out), and he plans on getting kicked out…
January 12th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
posted by Rob
Just to clear up some confusion, Mark was invited to Crystal Cathedral (he didn’t seek it out), and he plans on getting kicked out…
posted by me:
You gotta have goals.
January 13th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
“The complementarian view of gender roles is nothing new.”
You’re right. It’s a role good for the dark ages, but not for loving Christians.
“Our egalitarian society has created a new view, which is not biblical.”
Ever read 1 Cor. 11:3-16? It’s all about worship. A man should not cover his head and a woman should. Paul is explicit. A woman should cover her head. If she doesn’t veil her head, “she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.”
Why doesn’t Mars Hill enforce this? It’s Biblical. and Paul is very explicit. He gives a lot of instruction here in fact, gives several verses to this important matter.
“When things are abused, why not just get rid of them? Honestly, that sounds pretty “modern” to me. Isn’t Christianity about reconciliation?”
Right, so Mars Hill elders should stop using scripture to abuse their offices and positions. If you have abuse of power, you should get rid of it.
My brother goes to a Mars Hill in Michigan and told me they let women be elders. No one seems bothered by it. Rob, what has the world “destroyed” by allowing women Christian equality?
January 13th, 2004 at 3:26 pm
>>”The complementarian view of gender roles is nothing new.”
You’re right. It’s a role good for the dark ages, but not for loving Christians.
Huh? Just because someone disagrees with you they are not a loving Christian? Huh?
I consider myself a complementarian and a loving Christian. I think it is insulting that you say someone can’t be both.
January 14th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
posted by me:
Just to clear up some confusion, Mark was invited to Crystal Cathedral (he didn’t seek it out), and he plans on getting kicked out…
posted by Dave:
You gotta have goals.
Maybe my comment was too simple. I would post Mark’s actual remarks on the issue, but I don’t think anyone really cares what he has to say. Just a lot of slander…
January 14th, 2004 at 1:24 pm
It’s interesting that something like 95% of churches in the U.S. still stick to the complementarian view on gender roles, but because people “assume” that Mars Hill is an “emerging church” (whatever that means), they get picked out…
January 14th, 2004 at 6:46 pm
>>Just a lot of slander…
Rob, I would hope that this would be a place where we could in fact voice differing opinions without *anyone* labeling any view as “just a lot of slander.” I know we all have very different views, and I may not always be the best at being open to others’ views - but that is my hope…
January 18th, 2004 at 12:25 am
Dear Jennifer,
It isn’t loving to discriminate against people because of race or gender. Jesus did not discriminate between slave and free, between rich and poor, between men and women. All were children of God to him, all were equal to Jesus. Jesus was a radical and loving egalitarian.
Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (Jn. 14:15)
Jesus also said:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35.)
Jesus said if we wanted to enter life, we have to obey the commandments. One of the most important commandments Jesus gave is “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 19:19)
Jennifer, is ruling out a whole group of people from a position of power you allow yourself — it that loving? Is that loving your neighbor as yourself?
I say it’s not loving. It’s also not Christian. Jesus wouldn’t do it, and neither should anybody who professes to be a Christian.
The Pharisees were really upset that Jesus was walking around telling people to disregard the law. Jesus was radical — he broke the laws. Why not be like Jesus and stand up for justice and love, and be truly loving toward your neighbor instead of “following the law.”
Mark Driscoll was telling his congregation last week that anyone who disagrees with him is like a Judas. That’s what the Pharisees thought of Jesus, because he disagreed with their laws. You can follow a law because your pastor says so, or you can follow Jesus’ law. You choose.
With all due respect, not a single decent argument has been made for this gender discrimination except “Paul said so” and “other people do it.”
Jesus didn’t say so, and Jesus didn’t and wouldn’t discriminate against women or anyone else.
January 18th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Rob,
I wonder where you get your figures that “something like 95% of churches in the U.S. still stick to the complementarian view on gender roles.”
According to my cursory research (I welcome more input), the five largest Protestant denominations are:
Baptist
Episcopalian
Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian
All of them allow women full participation in their ministries. To wit:
Baptist
The American Baptist Policy Statement on Ordained Ministry states:
The Bible has always claimed the equality of all people within the church. “But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus,” (Galatians 3:25-28 NRSV.)
American Baptist Churches have also claimed the equal partnership of men and women both in church and in society.
“Partnership, as best evidenced today, calls both men and women to work in leadership roles and share in a broad spectrum of positions in church, home and society. It calls for men and women to cultivate and use the unique gifts God has given each of them. Genuine partnership calls for women and men to work for opportunities for each person regardless of sex.” (The ABC Policy Statement on Women and Men as Partners in Church and Society.)
….
American Baptists believe that every person who confesses faith in Jesus Christ is called to discipleship and ministry (I Corinthians 12:12-13).* We affirm the priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:9; Romans 12:1-8), in which all believers are directly responsible to God for their obedience to the Gospel. We affirm that every Christian is gifted by God for ministry (I Corinthians 12: 14:26; Romans 12:1-8; Ephesians 4:11-16; I Peter 4:10-11; Acts 2:14-21). Not only are these important biblical affirmations, but they are also major emphases of Baptist tradition within the whole Church of Jesus Christ.
Both women and men were leaders in the early Church. Although the names of men are more familiar, the New Testament provides us with the names of ten women who were leaders in the ministry of the earliest churches, including Phoebe, Priscilla, and Lydia (Romans 16:1-16; Philippians 4:2-3; Acts 16:13-15, 40.)1
…
Within this context we make the following affirmation:
We affirm the faithful men and women who serve the Church in the vocation of the ordained ministry and who bear the crucial responsibilities inherent in that vocation.
http://www.abc-usa.org/resources/resol/ordain.htm
Episcopalian
The Episcopalian church allows women to be deacons, priests, and bishops. They even have a graph at their web site that shows “Women Compromise a Growing Percentage of All Active Clergy, Nearing 25 % in 2000” :
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/WOMEN/chart1.htm
Lutheran
The Evangelical Lutheran Church allows women to be bishops, pastors, and ministers.
‚ÄúAll baptized people of God are called to ministry in this world. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), we understand that we all share in the “work” of God ‚Äî that we have a special calling or vocation. The voice of God speaks to us and through us. If you are thinking of becoming a minister, remember ‚Äî you are a minister, just where you are!‚Äù
http://www.elca.org/dm/question1.html
See also their Documents and Policies section of their Division for Ministry:
http://www.elca.org/dm/documents.html
Methodists
Methodists allow women to be bishops, ordained ministers, elders, and local pastors.
“The rights and privileges a society bestows upon or withholds from those who comprise it indicate the relative esteem in which that society holds particular persons and groups of persons. We affirm all persons as equally valuable in the sight of God.”
See: http://www.umc.org
Presbyterians
Presbyterians allow women to become ministers and lay pastors:
Our Book of Order contains two great phrases that identify the Presbyterian understanding of church leadership. In G-6.0202b we read, “With the Elders, …” and in G-6.0304, “Together with the pastor, …” These quotes preserve the specific responsibilities of the pastor regarding “studying, teaching, preaching the Word, administering Baptism and the Lord’s supper (and) praying with and for the congregation.” They also preserve the elders charge, “to strengthen and nurture the faith of the congregation committed to their charge.”
http://www.pcusa.org/ministers/index.htm
For an interesting overview of women in Protestant clergies, see:
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/research_women_religion_research.html
January 20th, 2004 at 2:49 am
This is the link that Rob mentioned:
Mark Driscoll in a debate on women in ministry
January 22nd, 2004 at 9:33 pm
I gave Mark Driscoll the benefit of the doubt — listened to about ten of his sermons before opening that debate sermon. I can honestly say that even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he didn’t sway me or convince me that his theology was just, fair, morally sound, or righteous. It’s still screwed up, no matter how you look at it.
No wonder so many women at SPU gave him a hard time after this debate. No wonder he lost his cool after that debate. His position is indefensible, he was called on it. Ultimately he could not find a way to defend it. Busted by the SPU ladies!
In the 19th century there were lots of people who thought slavery was cool, and they had long arguments on why it was defensible. Ultimately slavery was defeated because it’s morally indefensible (and reprehensible). I see no difference here.
January 23rd, 2004 at 9:13 am
perhaps Barna will come out with a statistical measurement of how many churches are complementarian vs. egalitarian next, not too far a follow-up from measuring the “Biblical worldview” of pastors.. 2 large denominations that didn’t make the cut of the top 5, Southern Baptist (SBC) http://www.sbc.net/ and Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) http://www.pcanet.org are notably complementarian. And another pairing on this spectrum, Evangelical Covenant is egalitarian, whlie Evangelical Free is complementarian.
January 23rd, 2004 at 10:25 am
FYI!! JESUS went to temple to read from the Torah, something women weren’t allowed to do in HIS day. The lifting of Scripture out of Biblical context is the bane of the Church in general and specifically in the charismatic and emergent circles. The repeating of the so called “Golden Rule” is not support of your arguements. If you believe the entire Bible is the WORD of GOD,then not only JESUS’ but Paul’s words are WORD.So therefore JESUS does not contradict Paul and vice versa. We do not get to decide what parts of Scripture we can take or leave so as to “prove” our particular agenda. Politics whether conservative or liberal have no place in the Church. JESUS is not and never was a social reformer.HIS Kingdom is not of this world. Mark Driscoll can say and do what he feels he must where he has oversight. All he said is that women cannot pastor at Mars Hill. For this he is being labelled as an “abuser”, as hateful and worse. I am sure he loves his wife and she him. If one doesn’t like the way a particular fellowship is going,go elsewhere. He does not have to cater to the feminist or any other agenda. Why don’t you ask his wife,kids or the other women in the Church how they feel. Perhaps they are too afraid to speak out against this “brute”!! Unfortunately in the realm of the political,liberalism is the most vitriolic,shrill, and destructive of philosophies. The accusations against Mr. Driscoll follow the usual tactics,that if you repeat something enough, even if it is untrue, everyone will start to believe it. Even the abolitionists were among the most murderous of people i.e. John Brown. No,I am not a woman hater. Some of my best friends are women and I even married one! The original purpose of the discussion was to determine if Mars Hill is emergent or not. (Which in itself is a pointless discussion.) I gather the concensus is “NOT”. Right on Pastor Mark!! Galations 3:27-29
January 30th, 2004 at 2:27 am
Dear Chris,
FYI! I am a Christian, meaning I worship JESUS, not Paul. Therefore Jesus’ commandments take precedence in my life because I follow Jesus first on all things.
Jesus said if you love me, you will keep my commandments. If you love Jesus, you will treat others as yourself. This is simple, Chris. Jesus was very straightforward on it. It’s not political. It’s spiritual. It’s clear. It’s honest, radical, and simple.
As for the whole Bible being the Word of God, I do not believe that God would have us stone women for adultry, nor do I believe that God would have us insist women always wear head coverings. And we don’t.
I must assume that you insist that your wife wear head coverings even at home. After all, Paul himself says so.
In fact, we do decide what parts of Scripture we take. I do not subscribe to stoning people, period. I do not subscribe to murdering people as a penalty for sexual transgressions. Do you, Chris?
Jesus was the greatest social reformer who ever lived. He was the best man who ever trod the planet precisely because he was a social reformer. He was a true radical, Chris. He loved all, regardless of gender, position in society, race. He preached a gospel of inclusion. This is Christianity, to love all others as yourself.
Perhaps Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, but we are now of this world, and our job is to make this world as much like Jesus’ kingdom as we can. That means we must look heavenward, to Jesus, and live and act as Jesus commanded us. Not as Paul commanded us, but as Jesus commanded us.
Mark Driscoll’s personal relationship with his wife is of no relevance here. What is relevant is what Mark Driscoll preaches. As a pastor of a church with a large and growing population, he has a duty to be righteous and to elevate Jesus’ teachings and commandments over Paul’s social preferences.
Jesus’ gospel of love and inclusion is not a “feminist agenda.” It is a GOSPEL OF LOVE — not exclusion!
It is not “liberalism” that is destructive, but any philosophy or theology that excludes Christians from gifts of the Holy Spirit merely because of a quality they are born with, such as color of skin or gender. This is a gospel of discrimination, not love. And this is destructive, not Christian, not loving, not righteous, not of Jesus.
The word of Jesus is typically printed in Bibles in red typeface. The word of Paul is never printed in red typeface. Why? Because the word of Jesus is primary in the Christian tradition. It is holy and inspired, it is God speaking. Jesus’ word is not equal to Paul’s or any other disciple’s words, but superior, final, and authoritative.
The truth always stands in the end against the schemes of those who would appropriate to themselves what they would deny to others.
Jn 14:15
Jn 15:12
Gal. 5:14
1 Ti. 1:5
2 Jn:6
January 30th, 2004 at 1:56 pm
FYI!!
I am a member of the Body of CHRIST meaning I worship the Triune GOD;Father Son and Holy Spirit!
Where to begin Hmmmmmm……………
Matt 5:17-20 The purpose of the law was and is ,to make sin exceedingly sinful.Romans 7, the entire chapter. The Law still stands,it has not been abolished. JESUS commandments are only for those who can keep the Law. Unfortunately,no one is able to. So we have JESUS,GOD in the flesh not social reformer. He keeps it for us so we no longer have to stone people for offenses. He bore the stoning i.e. just requirement of the Law. A requirement that will stand until the new Heaven and new earth are manifested. The “sermon on the mount” in Matt5-6-7 sets up an impossible standard,which is the LORD’s whole point. Now even my thoughts make me a sinner not only my actions. So along comes poor stupid Paul to explain what GOD has done in CHRIST. I will take him at his word that he spent time in the third heaven gaining revelation of the purposes of GOD. So Romans 5-6-7-8 not only tells me what CHRIST did in my stead, it also tells me that I am dead! (Hey that rhymes and I think I’ll use it in a song as I happen to be worship leader in my local fellwship.)As in all issues WE are too very much alive. All focus of men is horizontal. We are not here to create an egalitarian utopia.The world is hopeless and it is the LORD’S job to set things aright at HIS return. Our job is to preach the Word and disciple all whom HE brings into the Kingdom. I do not look heavenward for answers,I look from heaven downward as Ephesians tells me that JESUS is seated at the right hand and I am seated there with HIM,i.e. in the present reality not metaphorically.Genesis 3:14-23 shows us the basis of all Spiritual and gender relationships today. Now the FATHER said these words and they are not in red ink, so I guess we can just blow them off. Paul alludes to Genesis in his statements on women from 1Tim 2.
Why do you ask if my wife wears a head covering and then say that Mark Driscoll’s relationship with his wife is irrelevant? You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of GOD. In 1 Cor 11,Paul starts out by saying “Be imitators of me as I am of CHRIST” Therefore my dear Terry I worship the samre LORD that Paul worshipped. I never said that Paul’s words supercede the LORD’S,I said one does not contradict the other. The Bible is one word from beginning to end. Pauls’ commands are JESUS” commands. The whole issue of red type or black type is nonsense as the original writers did not use red ink. Nor was there chapter and verse references. These came much later, and while they make things easier to refer to,they also make it too easy to take words out of context or to discard what we don’t agree with. So a careful reading of 1 Cor 11:1-16 shows us that at the end Paul states that the whole issue of headcovering for women or long hair for me is not an issue at all ,since we(he included) nor the churches of GOD have such a practice, don’t be contentious.The preceding verses are chastisement for getting off the focus of order in the Kingdom of GOD. Sooooo, in answer to your question,my wife does not wear a head covering because no one ever said that she had to.
No one can exclude anyone in the exercising of the manifestations of the “gift” of the Holy Spirit as this comes from GOD. The question isn’t can women be in leadership,but are they as individuals called to that work; and so the same standard applies to men.
JESUS said the greatest commandment is,”You shall love the LORD your GOD with all your heart,mind ,and soul. This is the great and first commandment.” The second is LIKE it not the same which is to love your neighbor as yourself.So my first response is vertical as Paul taught in 2 Cor 5:16-21 so that I may have the proper horizontal relationships as Paul states in the same verses. So Mike Driscoll’s “duty” is to be faithful to the author and finisher of our faith and to teach the Bible as one cohesive,complementary Word. The whole Bible is GOD speaking and by your standards should be entirely in red. The writers of the Bible are speaking the WORDS of JESUS. The Bible happens to be one of three ways that GOD reveals Himself. The other two being by the Holy Spirit and the Incarnation. Your subjective opinion and experience define only the reality in your own little world not the reality of the universe or the GOD that created it. By the way,why in your five Scripture cites do you only have two from JESUS(red letters), and three from the imperfect apostles Paul and John,i.e. black letters? Relativism rears its ugly head!
Finally, I do not appropriate to myself that which I deny others and I don’t believe Mike Driscoll does either. I resent the inference that somehow we are unloving towards women. You do your job and I will do mine. You are unable to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. I am sorry but your gospel is political, earthly-bound and man(woman) centered, and a typical knee-jerk response to all the supposed evils of the world.
Chris P.
March 4th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Marshill . . . Hmmm
I’ve been to Marshill at least once a year for the last 4 years. I like Mark, but I don’t agree with everything he says. Music wise, Marshill understands something that most churches have yet to grasp. If you want to understand the genectics of Marshill, someone should run down Paul Mossbarger, Brad Currah, or Team Strike Force. They have some very interesting stories to tell. Thankfully, Mark is human. He says and does some powerfull things. It is difficult for me to say the Spirit of God is not involved in his ministry. He also says some stupid things, but so do I. Mark has been kind enough to return my emails and answer my questions as I worked on planting a church. Those of us who claim to be humble are often quick to tear apart our brothers and sisters. The emerging church is simply emerging . . . define it 100 years from now.
March 5th, 2004 at 1:26 pm
“The emerging church is simply emerging…define it 100 years from now.” If the 1st century Church had waited 100 years to define itself, we wouldn’t have any of the writings that instruct us as to how to be the Church. It is appropriate to examine, evaluate, and define what the Church is and what the Church should be.
March 17th, 2004 at 2:58 pm
Wow, what a question.
Can you be an emerging church and have such a limited view of God’s ability to use both WOMEN and men in roles of leadership?
Yes! Look at Acts, or Paul’s teaching to Timothy and Titus. They are both Scripture and the Word of God, or any on the new churches after the death of Christ. Back then it was black and white, and they were as emerging as they get. So do you think that the early church was not emerging? Were those who were with Christ wrong, and you are right?
Paul is not elevated above Christ at MarsHill, all scripture in at the same level. It is all the Word of God, once you begin to play with scripture, this book is less meaningful then that, or that book is not scripture and this one is, why not just throw out God all together and start making stuff up? I mean you already took over creative control. When God speaks we listen, we don’t edit and approve.
I am sorry that many of the people who post on this web site like to go to a church once, or not at all, and write such nonsensical arguments about it. First of all who gave you the authority to expound on what emerging is? Do you just get to make up your own criteria? And anytime you don‚Äôt like something about a church you tweak the criteria a little so that church falls behind? Second, every church is different, and it’s ok to have different theological views, the piety I see in some of these responses makes me almost sick. Many of you write about how mark sounds too pious yet you write from a standpoint that you have to be right, or that you know best. I am sorry if the theology at some churches does not agree with culture, but the Bible didn’t when it was written. You bash people because they try hard to keep with the word of God, which must be a horrible way to live. You can‚Äôt do it so bash those who try? Just because the church today tries hard to put more culture and less scripture into their lives, don‚Äôt bash those who are not willing to follow suit.
Oh and since this guys roommate went to a church and this one guy he knew was for slavery, and some kind of nut job fruit, everything connected to that church must be bad. That is horrible logic, how can you even put that kind of statement in anything that would be subjective. It is so far removed from the argument it is only in there to make people look worse then they are. It’s like seeing a bad news report and telling everyone not to watch the news, or me seeing this disgusting piece of web page, that is filled with conjecture, and inaccuracy and saying that the whole web sucks.
April 11th, 2004 at 3:15 am
Neato, a (f)lame war.
I wouldn’t call Jesus names.(egalitarian?)
That’s a boo-boo in judgement
Emergent is becoming a buzzword for seeker-friendly, liberal, fascist, and gutless thanks to left wing uber-pissants who think the Bible is open to manipulative interpretation.
The Bible is Black and White…literally. And red sometimes.
Mars Hill is as close to a biblical example of a church model as I have seen.
Didn’t Jesus teach that truth=truth and man can know Truth.
Please don’t tell me some of you think homosexuality is a “gray” issue also.
I don’t even care if you reply cause after I flush the toilet I’ll forget any of this ever happened.
P.S. Don’t drag Francis Schaeffer into this thread, You probaly saw his book on a table and his goatee offended you.
May 13th, 2004 at 4:43 pm
It’s been said already, but I have to beat this dead horse a little more:
To ask “So and so church: Emergent?” is absolutely redundant, especially when you look at the scorecard that was used in this evaluation.
*sigh*
October 27th, 2004 at 9:26 am
I have to say that even though I’m not a big fan of the theology of Mars Hill. But, the “emerging church” should have room for theological diversity just as the modern church.
But this has got me thinking: is the emerging church a new union of theological unity, or a diverse friendship of theologically different people doing church in new ways. I’m thinking it is the second, which poses the question: is there an emerging church pattern or is this all about indiginous church — church that comes out of who people are, the story of the church history and city history and the people who attend.
Let Mars Hill put out Piper books and we’ll put out our John Howard Yoder.
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:54 pm
I’m new to this site, and to the whole “emergent” movement. I am a theologian, and i appreciate the freedom to rethink our theology–our doctrines that we’ve simply learned but never thought out. But I must question the idea that we can’t be certain about anything. Some doctrines are foundational to our faith. Some, such as the roles of women in ministry are not “foundational.” Now, i have a legitmate question–one i struggle with. Some of you have mentioned that the role of women in the church should be a “non-issue.” Well, I’m not sure where i stand on this issue, but I dont see how we can say it needs to be a “non-issue.” It is not an issue because a bunch of men want the power. It is an issue because of the statements made by Paul–I mean look at 1 Tim. 2:12.Paul says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” The reason it is an issue is because the apostle spent a considerable amount of time discussing it. It’s all over the epistles. So, that’s why it is and SHOULD be an issue. We need to figure out what to do with those kind of statements. Do we ignore them? excuse them? reinterpret them? take them at face value? Well, we need to figure it out. of all those options, we CANNOT simpy ignore them. In my opinion, the emerging church is a beautiful thing because it allows us the freedom to reanalyze this stuff. When you tell us it should be a non-issue, you are saying that YOU are right and all who hold to a complementary view of gender relations are wrong–is that not modernist thought? Are you not equivocating? We have to answer some questions as postmodernists—can we know any truth from God’s Word? I would think so–it’s not all relative. God’s Word is truth—even if there is no other truth to be known. Now, as the emerging church, we have the responsibility to understand it as best we can—and no, we don’t and won’t have all the answers—but lets give it a shot. –Sorry to write a book–
March 5th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Emerging churches are an outgrowth of the soil of culture. The emerging church in the 15th century is the reformed church of yesterday and the emerging church of the 18th century is the puritan roots of america. The emerging church of today will produce fruit in keeping with the ground from which the doctrinal seed is planted. Follow me for a second.
You plant a “What does the bible say” person in the 21st century urban middle class city and you produce Marshill, Seatle Washington. It carries a fundemental view of scripture which roots itself in a tradition owing to the Reformation. It will be literal and will be precise. It must believe that there are answers to the questions it asks and therefore produce clear black and white answers for the emerging generation that asks.
You plant a “I want relationship and meaning” person in the 21st century urban city and you get something like Willow Creek in the Chicago area. It carries a liberal veiw of scripture which roots itself in the divergence of the Armenian split in europe and following the course into the 19th century liberal movenment in America. It will view all questions through the emphasis on relationship of people, proclaiming equality of the sexes and finding meaning in the value that God places on people. Therefore it will be ever flowing and changing in its theology as culture changes. Because people change their theology will change.
The important question is not so much what is the emerging church, but in our emerging generation how do I love jesus and thus express him to my generation, glorifying Him and thus enjoying Him.
Figuring it out with you,
Zachary
June 24th, 2005 at 8:11 am
To the outside observer, the Emergent/Emerging/church/movement/conversation is defined by its “Tragic Hipness.”
Usually evangelical Protestants trail the pop culture trends by years, but the Emergent/Emerging “conversation” has managed to shave off quite a bit of lag time, but they still come across as so “5 minutes ago”, hence, “tragic.”
December 20th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Bro… I love alot about the Emerging Church. Missional/Incarnational/holistic/ Kindgom saturated gosple. But in love, it seems that in our search to become an undefined non-intrusive conversation…we have, maybe unknowingly xed more conservative theological stances out of the conversation. Even in your attempt define what the emerging church is or isnt…it take you one step closer to the modern. I beleive like our phylosophical counter part (Postmodernism) we will continue to run into the very plague we are tring to fight(static/rigid/absolute understandings of God in Christ)as we seek to engage and discovery our emerging identity.I believe the fundamental flaw that Christ eversought to reveal is that in the alley ways of our differances…we can find truth. Dear friends, to say that a community that does not hold you view (i.e. women in leadership/people that read John Piper book)…”are not a church…is to miss the point…end the conversation…cease to emerge. Let not knot them…let give them props…for in faith stepping out on the truth that God has reaveled to them. At the very heart isnt that what you are doing.
Just a thought! Here to our daily endevor to see the Word Become flesh through our lives in Christ.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
“Can you be an emerging church and have such a limited view of God’s ability to use both WOMEN and men in roles of leadership?
I would argue that you can’t be a church, emerging or otherwise, with such limited views.”
awful black and white of you TONYB. i hope you realize you just excluded the majority of the christian church if what you mean by “leadership” is full ordination rights.
September 30th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Mars Hill is far from an “emerging” church; it’s a FUNDAMENTALIST church.
An “Emerging” or “Emergent” church is distinguished not by its style of worship but by its courage to reclaim and embrace a gracious, loving, forgiving God in place of the stern, judgmental, often seemingly hostile God of Fundamentalism. The “Emergent” name reflects the fact that many (if not most) of its members have experienced Fundamentalism as oppressive, confining, and heavily focused on the negative and threatening aspects of the God‚Äìhuman relationship in general, and have left (emerged from) it as a result.
Like all Christians, Emergents believe that we all have sinned and are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but the Emergent understanding of God and Christ, and the living out of that understanding, differ radically from the Fundamentalist view. The Emerging church is made up of individuals and congregations working to move beyond Fundamentalism into a “bigger” Christianity emphasizing God’s gracious love for us in Christ, and the freedom granted to us by that love and grace to love God fearlessly and without reservation and, in turn, to love our neighbor as ourselves without reservation.
(Yes, that’s a lot of times to say “grace” and “love” in two short paragraphs, but it can’t be said often enough: Grace and love, not anger and condemnation, are the very definition of God’s gift of Christ to us.)
That freedom includes:
[1] “soul liberty”‚Äîthe freedom to search the Scriptures and our own hearts and grow into an authentic relationship with God based on how God reveals God’s self to each of us, rather than on imposed interpretations, dogmas, or other formulas.
[2] “soul competency”‚Äîthe wisdom and discernment God gives to each and every one of us to guide that growth process, without the interference of hierarchies or other human “authority.”
[3] the freedom (indeed, the obligation, for with every true freedom comes responsibility) to face our doubts and ask the hard questions, because only by asking those questions prayerfully and listening for God’s answers in our day-to-day experience can we continue to grow in understanding, faith, and grace.
[4] the freedom (indeed, the obligation) to express ALL our God-given abilities, free of restriction or stereotype, for in Christ “there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.” The church is a priesthood of ALL believers, not only of the pastor or other “official” clergy, or of the male half of the church only. No role in the church or the world should be closed to anyone whom God may choose to call, and that includes a woman’s full freedom to follow God’s call into the pastoral ministry.
As for that pesky Timothy: In at least one translation, Paul’s words read, “I AM NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWING”‚Äîcertainly NOT “God forbids”‚Äîa woman to teach. But no matter how we translate the passage, it contradicts the majority of Paul’s other writings on the subject as well as ALL his recorded actions. Paul openly acknowledged and worked with a number of women as leaders and full partners in ministry.
More to the point, Paul’s words here contradict Jesus himself, who befriended and respected women, spoke freely with them in defiance of custom, depended on them for material and moral support, and made them the first witnesses to his resurrection. Not to follow the Man’s own example to the best of our ability, in this or anything else, is‚Äîto put it bluntly‚Äîa sin.
(In a world truly built on God’s love and the grace given to us to recognize the image of God in everyone, that freedom would be recognized as extending to sexual minorities as well as to the rest of us. Indeed it does, and I’ve experienced that fact myself. A gay pastor came to my aid and may well have saved my life in a time of crisis several years ago, and I thank God every day for calling him to the ministry. I also rejoice that God has blessed him with a wonderful life partner; their decades-long, loving commitment could serve as a ministry-by-example to straight couples everywhere.)
[5] the freedom to experience the deep, wide, ever-expanding range of wonders, possibilities, growth, and other joys of the “life abundant” and to live that life courageously and with abandon.
An excellent example of Emergent/Emerging Christianity may be found at http://www.theporpoisedivinglife.com.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
It seems to me that the only time people read each other’s posts was when they wanted to argue about the micro instead of the macro. There were some really good posts made already about why going that small is simply not fruitful…nor, well, emergent. I’m a complementarian. I think most of the comments made in the argument miss the point. The point is that there are good biblical reasons to be on both sides of the argument. It’s the heart of emergence, and dare I say Christian liberty, that we can have divergent views and both be Christ-followers. To pin emergent (and in the minds of most of the posters this means “correct” church) to a set of culturally progressive values….well, that’s just exclusive. (I prefer to think of emergence as biblical values expressed in a culturally progressive, or relevant, way.) Both sides can still get along and still believe the other is running with Jesus. That’s true inclusiveness. Obviously this excludes central values and beliefs. It’s already been said, and ignored, that to draw the circle is as exclusive as fundamentalism….and somewhat revealing as to what the movement of emergence is doing in the minds of its adherents. There’s a bit of hypocrisy that is being developed.
Regarding gender issues. All I’ve seen so far in the micro-discussion is a bunch of name-calling (primarily from the egalitarian standpoint, although some less-than-friendly conversation came from the complementarian side). Name-calling just doesn’t seem to be consistent with “loving Christian”. It’s called ad hominem in logically correct circles, and it’s just not helpful to your view as an egalitarian. It doesn’t endear me to you or your point, and it does nothing to make your point any more valid. I’m complementarian = I think women are worthless. I’m complementarian = I would’ve supported slavery. Hmmmmm…….. Are us complementarians really that morally stunted? Give us more credit and maybe we’ll take you seriously. I do know some wonderful egalitarians, btw. One of its leading Christ-following proponents, Dr. Glenn Scorgie, is a great man, wonderful writer, and clear thinker. I’m more referring to the people who’ve posted on this blog.
That being said, the only thing I really wanted to comment on from the original article was Cleave’s use of Piper as a metric….when he’s never read him. Really? Do I even have to say it?
February 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Shaun,
Great thoughts brother! Like you I am a complementarian and even though I am one I am willing to submit to the authority of a woman when the time is appropriate, for instance as a church staff member who is low on the totem pole and must work alongside women directors and staff leaders. On the flip side, even though I am willing to submit when the time is right, I do not believe that the head of a church IDEALLY should be a women. If no man in a body of believer is capable of leading in an appropriate manner than a woman ought to lead, but I don’t believe it the most ideal situation.
I really find it wonderful that Mars Hill allows the man to speak and read scripture at a baby dedication. For the most part, here in the South, when a baby is dedicated neither parent speaks and when they do it is generally the wife. But as a man who strongly believes that the husband and father should take direct control of his family’s spiritual direction and training this is encouraging. Feminism has killed the Christian male by neutering him and silencing him to the point that most do not want to take up any role of leadership for fear of being chastized by militant feminists. We need men who will retake the mantle of being strong spiritual leaders for their home by creating a sacred space in the home where their wife and children can enter into the presence of God. Not to say that men lord it but do it in humility and love, knowing that they are pointing the way to Jesus. We must restore the Christian males place in the church and in society or else when the next culture war comes there will be no testoterone left to fight. Just look at Britian in the 60’s, where feminization killed the church because men did not care and it has never recovered.
Thanks for your posting Shaun! I do not mean to offend but this is what I believe but am open to hearing others comments on these point. Some have brought out great things to ponder and chew over, others here have been too quick to write off this church in an unfair manner while espousing “emergent” tolerance. It’s okay to judge and critique but don’t espouse inclusivity unless you are really sure you are willing to include those that may not agree with you on every point.
Blessings everyone and may the Lord of peace brighten your day!