The Secret Leadership Lessons of Mark Driscoll

Slowly but surely, Mark Driscoll is making a comeback. He recently spoke at the “Thrive 2015" Leadership Conference at Bayside Church in Granite Bay, CA, and is slated to be interviewed (along with his wife Grace) by Australian Pastor Brian Houston at the “Speak, we’re listening” Hillsong church conference. Warren Throckmorton has reported on his Patheos blog that he has been contacted by sources who claim that Driscoll is preparing to plant a church in Phoenix, AZ.

His appearance at these conferences begs the question: “what lessons does Mark Driscoll have to offer other pastors”? During his tenure at Mars Hill Church, Driscoll created what Paul Tripp called “the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I've ever been involved with”, which literally dissolved amidst unanswered questions about possible mishandling of funds raised for world missions and whether or not Driscoll was qualified to be an elder. According to Driscoll, he and his wife audibly heard the voice of God telling them to resign. According to other accounts, Driscoll resigned rather than accept a plan for discipline and restoration laid out by the elders of his church after a yearlong onslaught of allegations that Driscoll had used plagiarized material in multiple books, had misused church funds to buy a spot on the NY Times bestseller list, and had abused and bullied his staff for years. Prior to his resignation, he was kicked out of the Acts 29 church planting network he helped found.

Presumably, most pastors already know how to commit career suicide, so perhaps Driscoll is telling pastors how to avoid making the same mistakes he made? Unfortunately, not so much. According to reports of his Thrive appearance, he doubled down on the tone of the remarks he made at Robert Morris’ Gateway conference in October of 2014, just days after he resigned as pastor of Mars Hill.

• He continued to portray himself as a victim, calling himself a “struck shepherd”
• He repeated his October 2014 narrative of having moved 3 times for safety since the controversy began (according to some accounts, he HAS moved 3 times since he began the church, almost 20 years ago, not 3 times in the last year or two)
• He stated that the week following his resignation was the first Sunday in 18 years that he didn’t have a sermon prepared on a Sunday (did he prepare sermons during the weeks prior to his resignation, when he was on break from leadership at the church?)
• Most telling were these comments by a Pastor named James Miller: “Driscoll just gave a long lecture on forgiveness without asking for it. Aside from the allusion to “not being totally innocent,” he really didn’t point out his own failings. In fact, it seemed like the entire lecture was aimed at his need to forgive those people who had wronged him. What has happened to his family is horrible, as he describes it, and should never happen. But what lingers after Driscoll’s resignation is that he evaded his Board’s plan for a disciplinary procedure. He never really reconciled with those whom he had harmed, and after all of his talk of forgiveness, it would have been so simple and so graceful for him to ask for it.”

All of this gives the distinct impression that whatever lessons Mark Driscoll had to learn about his own weaknesses as a leader either haven’t sunk in yet, or if they have, he isn’t going to share them openly at this point. That is why I am calling the following the Secret Leadership Lessons of Mark Driscoll: they’re either a secret to him or he’s keeping them a secret. If you want to avoid crashing and burning as a leader, pay attention to these ideas (in no particular order):

1. Secret Leadership Lesson #1: people can see through your spin. Wikipedia gives the following description of spin: “In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics”. After Mark Driscoll took a six week break for an investigation by the Mars Hills elders a letter from nine of Mars Hills elders was leaked, which contained the following statement: “We have become masters of spin ... we have taken refuge behind official statements that might not technically be lies on the surface, but in truth are deeply misleading”

Throughout anyone’s experience in ministry leadership, there will be a temptation to try to manipulate other people’s perception by manipulating the truth. For instance, many churches describe the transition of all staff members as some version of “they felt a call elsewhere”, even when staff members are fired for cause or resign for a completely different reason (than being called elsewhere). While it might not be appropriate to announce from the pulpit “Pastor Jones was fired for having an affair with his secretary Brenda” or “Elder Smith resigned because he can’t stand the Pastor anymore”, we should be honest about what really happened. There is nothing wrong with saying “Pastor Jones was removed from his position from this church by the board, and we’re not going to disclose the details”.

If a leader does give in to using spin, he should be aware that people see through it, and if he have a habit of using it, they will start assuming that he’s not telling them the truth. No one outside of Mars Hill knows with any certainty how much money was raised for Mars Hills Global or how much of it was spent in India and Ethiopia. But it is entirely fair to assume that the leaders who kept saying there was no way to answer those questions were engaging in ”official statements that might not technically be lies on the surface, but in truth are deeply misleading”.

2. Secret Leadership Lesson #2: if you don’t treat your team members well, they won’t be loyal to you. No one can deny that the World Magazine article exposing Mark Driscoll’s use of Results Source marketing scheme had a powerful impact on Driscoll and Mars Hill. Or that Warren Throckmorton will be forever linked to Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill the way that Bob Woodward is linked to Richard Nixon and Watergate. There remains an unanswered question, though: who gave World Magazine the copy of Mars Hill’s contract with Results Source, and who kept feeding embarrassing information about Mars Hill church, Mars Hill Global and Mark Driscoll to Warren Throckmorton? It was obviously someone with access to the Mars Hill inner circle of information and data, so they must have been a long-term staffer. At the same time, it was very obviously someone with an axe to grind with Mark Driscoll and Sutton Turner.

That thing about Paul Tripp calling Mars Hill “the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I've ever been involved with” probably had some effect on why a Mars Hill insider was willing to destroy their pastor and church by leaking so much damaging information. Every organization has dirty laundry that shouldn’t be aired for the sake of the health of the organization and its leadership. If you want your staff to keep confidential information that could be damaging to you confidential, you may want to treat them nice. This is not to say that Results Source marketing schemes or Mars Hill Global funds misuse SHOULD be kept secret, but that there IS information that is legitimately kept out of the public eye, and you will need loyal team members to help you keep it out.

3. Secret Leadership Lesson #3: minimize your dirty laundry. Mark Driscoll and some of his supporters have taken pains to claim that he was never disqualified from ministry because he hadn’t stolen church funds, had an affair or preached heresy (as if the qualification for elder leadership were “not a thief, not an adulterer, not a heretic”). It’s somewhat valid to make that point though, given that there are well known celebrity pastors who actually ARE known to be thieves, adulterers and heretics. This causes us to ask the question: what really did bring Mark Driscoll down absent a blockbuster scandal like an affair?

Some people point to the effect of social media on Driscoll and Mars Hill as being the deciding factor, especially bloggers like Warren Throckmorton, who consistently kept on pushing out damaging reports and pressing the organization for answers. Mars Hill’s public relations spokesperson Justin Dean complained that “we didn't get everything right but I do think our critics, a few in particular, were responsible for starting a snowball effect of events, all under the guise of doing God’s work. These aren't honest people we were dealing with”.

In my opinion though, what destroyed Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill was the sheer volume of issues that kept coming up. The plagiarism, the results source scheme, the staff turnover, the 7 and then 21 former staff and elders filing charges, the unanswered questions about Mars Hill Global, the homophobic and misogynistic remarks going back years, the embarrassing William Wallace II rants, etc., etc. Were the bloggers and social media a factor? Yes, but Mars Hill had been a source of controversy and negative social media throughout its existence. It is more likely the truth that even many of his supporters just got tired of having to justify supporting him in light of all his dirty laundry time and again.

The point here is not that a spiritual leader is expected to be perfect, but that the character qualifications of an elder (especially the concept of being above reproach and having a good reputation with outsiders) are important if you want to keep your supporters supportive. Above reproach doesn’t mean without any sin (something no one can claim). According to gotquestions.org, it means that elders “are to be of such moral quality that they do not bring shame (to) or…disgrace the body of Christ”. So if you have a lot of enemies and you give them lots of ammunition to use against you, they’re going to use it effectively. That means keeping your reputation positive by avoiding the kinds of ethical lapses and broken relationships that Driscoll specialized in.

Overall, Mark Driscoll always acted like he was above the normal requirements of a pastor because of the success of his ministry, and unfortunately his followers and a host of big name leaders who should have known better enabled him to do so. Eventually though, the ministry built with his talent and charisma collapsed because it was never built on a foundation of Christlike personal character.

A Shepherd, Not a CEO...

"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." (Sam Pascoe)

The Good Shepherd

In John Chapter, 10 Jesus tells his disciples that “11 The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.” By making this statement, along with the use of the word Pastor (or shepherd) in the New Testament, Jesus established a lasting metaphorical example that church leaders have sought to imitate throughout church history.

As a result, for many Christians, the ideal church leader is a mature, kindly person who preaches the Bible, visits sick members, performs marriages and funerals and oversees the administrative functions of the church. Above all though, the shepherd is a person who lays down his life for the sheep. Where Jesus literally allowed himself to be crucified to pay for our sins, the good shepherd puts providing spiritual care for his members above his own needs and desires. The good shepherd (pastor) does not a minister out of self-seeking motives; he ministers out of love and obedience to Christ and devotion to His Church. While no one fulfills this ideal perfectly, it still serves as a lasting emblem of Christlike service.

In the 21st century North American Church, however, the role that church leaders more commonly aspire to is that of a corporate CEO. In a Leadership Journal Article, Kevin Miller (executive vice president for Leadership magazine) asked: “Are we Christians in North America overemphasizing the need for leadership in the church? …By overemphasizing skills, we may underemphasize character. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when we find giant leaders with midget souls…Our near obsession with leadership, I suspect, stems as much from our culture as from Scripture.”

Out of the Overflow of the Heart, the Mouth Speaks

The CEO Model leader places little emphasis on caring for the needs of the sheep and living a sacrificial life; he is more focused on organizing and mobilizing his followers (and their finances) to pursue the vision of an institutional mega-church, complete with book deals, a media empire, an executive salary and all the perks that a corporate CEO would expect. Many of these CEO’s are masters of positioning themselves to appear as though they are down-to-earth pastors whose churches just happen to be attended by thousands of members.  Occasionally though, the true attitudes of some of the most influential pastors in America are revealed. Consider the following:

1. When Harvest Bible Chapel’s Pastor James McDonald was asked by his board members to reveal his salary, he responded to them that he “would lose 1,000 people before I would disclose that.” 
2. New Life pastor Perry Noble made the following comment about church members who want to have personal attention from a pastor: “We have people come to this church going, ‘I want a church where I can know the pastor. I could never go to a church where I can’t know the pastor.’ You need to leave. I don’t have the time…I won’t sacrifice my family on the ministry altar so I can come eat food that I don’t like and I can hang out with people that make me uncomfortable.” He made some additional comments along the same lines and then stated to those who offered criticism of his approach: “Here’s the problem: you think I care… You don’t understand how little I care.” 
3. During a leadership training session, disgraced Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll (in)famously described how he deals with members of his church that don’t agree with his decisions by explaining that: “‘There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done. You either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus. Those are the options. But the bus ain’t going to stop!’” 

These kind of statements stand in stark contrast to the words of Jesus as he described the qualities of the Good Shepherd. Jesus said that the Good Shepherd cares for the sheep because he owns the sheep, but the hired hand cares nothing for the sheep. Perry Noble made it clear to the members of his church that they “don’t understand how little I care”. Jesus said that a shepherd who owns 100 sheep would leave 99 to go and seek for a single lost sheep. James McDonald said he would rather lose 1,000 members than reveal his salary. David describes the care that a shepherd provides for a sheep in the 23rd Psalm when he stated that the shepherds rod and staff protected him. Mark Driscoll bragged about the pile of bodies run over by the Mars Hill bus. It is not possible to reconcile the attitude behind those kinds of comments with the self-sacrificing care and love of Jesus for his church.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Some have explicitly made the case that the comparison between a pastor and a shepherd is not valid for the 21st century church. Mega-church pastor Andy Stanley was asked if “we should stop talking about pastors as “shepherds”. His answer? “Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, “Pastor, you’re the shepherd of the flock,” no. I’ve never seen a flock. I’ve never spent five minutes with a shepherd. It was culturally relevant in the time of Jesus, but it’s not culturally relevant anymore.”

While the word shepherd may not be as culturally significant in 21st century North America as when Jesus used it, Stanley’s seems to be missing Christ's point. He and many contemporary church leaders don’t just want to stop using the metaphor: they want to reject altogether their obligation to fulfill the Biblical qualities of a shepherd. If Jesus were to offer us a parable today in place of the good shepherd, he might use a different word, but it is difficult to believe it would be CEO.

For instance, in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and in Titus 1:7-8, Paul describe the qualities of spiritual leaders, including that leaders be humble, patient and gentle with opponents, hospitable and not greedy for gain(money). How does the image of a CEO fit with those qualities? Do the comments made by Driscoll, Noble and McDonald reflect the attitude that Paul described? Does McDonald sound greedy when he refuses to disclose his salary? Does Noble sound hospitable when he complains he doesn’t want to eat his members’ food and spend time with them because it would make him feel uncomfortable? Does Driscoll sound gentle and patient with those who oppose him when he brags about running a bus over a pile of people?

Would you want to be one of those people that McDonald would rather lose?  That Driscoll wants to run over with the church bus?  That Noble doesn't want to spend time with?

We need to start asking ourselves: do we want a shepherd, or a CEO?

Is Mars Hill Dissolving or Positioning Itself for the Return of Mark Driscoll?

Who Owns This Place:

In the last few days, the leadership of Mars Hill Church has announced that Mars Hill will be dissolved as a central institution with satellite campuses receiving a video feed of teaching from a lead pastor. They have determined that the individual satellite campuses will decide whether or not they wish to continue to exist as independent churches, and if so, they will have to assume the facility mortgage in order to retain ownership of their building, and will not be allowed to use the Mars Hill name.
This brings up some very serious questions about the future of the Mars Hill “brand” and how future ministry activities by Mark Driscoll and the current executive elders/BOAA may affect the future satellite churches. Keep in mind that according to public announcements, there appears to be a conflict between the conclusions of the Board of Elders and the Board of Advice and Accountability regarding Mark Driscoll’s fitness for ongoing ministry. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where pro-Driscoll leaders make the decision to dissolve Mars Hill as it currently exists to accomplish the following:

1. Shed millions of dollars of debt and payroll obligations that current giving levels cannot sustain.
   
2. Remove individuals who want to hold Driscoll accountable for his behavior from positions of authority and influence in the organization
   
3. Retain ownership of the Mars Hill media library and name for future use.

Mars Hill 2.0?

Then, come January 2015 (or whatever future date Driscoll decides is an appropriate time for appearances sake), Driscoll and those leaders who are loyal to him can launch Mars Hill 2.0 somewhere in the Pacific Northwest or Southern California. It is not unrealistic to expect that if Mark Driscoll were to launch a new church (or take on of the satellites over) in the near future that he would have in excess of 1,000 members at the first meeting.

Dave Bruskas has been named the "interim lead pastor" of Mars Hill Bellevue and Matt Rogers is part of the leadership team at that satellite.  Both have been fiercely loyal to Mark driscoll. Is it too far-fetched to assume that the permanent pastor of the Bellevue church will be Mark Driscoll?

Can the executive leadership of Mars Hill be trusted?

If I were a member of Mars Hill Church, I would be asking the following the following questions:

1. What authority do the current leaders have to make this decision? The Executive Elder Board was made up of Mark Driscoll, Dave Bruskas and Sutton Turner. With Driscoll and Turner gone, how is Bruskas authorized to make this decision? If he is not making it alone, who is, and are they authorized by the church constitution and bylaws to do so? Shouldn’t an executive board be created out of a group of people who have demonstrated the ability to make decisions based on what is best for the entire membership of Mars Hill? Can the current leadership that has made this decision (even if it wasn’t made by Bruskas alone) be trusted to take the best interest of Mars Hill church as a whole into account?
   
2. Who owns the name Mars Hill? If the satellite churches are not going to be allowed to use the name (and who has made that decision, btw), who will be allowed to use it? Is the name going to be used by any other person, group, or entity that may be able to capitalize off the “brand” in a way that may be detrimental to the satellite churches by drawing supporters that would otherwise be a part of the satellites? What effort will be made to prevent Mark Driscoll from starting a new church named Mars Hill?
   
3. What restrictions have been placed on Mark Driscoll from competing with or taking over one of the satellite churches? In the past, Mars Hill forced outgoing elders to sign non-compete clauses that prevented them from taking ministry positions in the region around Mars Hill campuses in order to receive severance pay. According to reports, Driscoll will receive a very generous severance package that provides him with a year’s full pay and benefits. Will he be similarly prevented from taking a ministry position or starting a church that can conceivably draw people who would otherwise support the satellite churches? If not, why not?
   

4. While the idea of non-compete clauses may seem distasteful to many Christians, the reality is that they prevent individuals who harbor a grudge or possess a hidden agenda from creating the division and strife in the church that naturally occurs when a trusted and beloved former leader becomes involved in another church in close proximity to the original location. The satellite churches stand to suffer tangible harm in loss of recognition, membership and financial support if Driscoll is allowed to start up a new ministry (especially with the name Mars Hill) anywhere in the general region of the satellite churches.
5. Who is making the decision that the current campus pastors and elder leaders will continue to lead the satellite churches? A few weeks ago, nine elders of the church stood up and demanded accountability in the church for the dishonest and abusive actions of Mark Driscoll and the executive elders. Are those who were carrying out the dishonesty and spin being allowed to continue to serve in elder leadership at Mars Hill? Shouldn’t the members start to have SOME say in how the satellite churches will be led, and by whom?
   
6. What is Mars Hill’s current relationship to Mark Driscoll and specifically, how is the current leadership of Mars Hill handling the issue of his refusal to submit to a plan of restoration outlined by the elders? If he were a member or staff member of the church who was “under church discipline”, he would not be allowed to simply resign his membership and move on to his next church/ministry position. Rather, Mars Hill would not allow him to simply leave in peace. Similar to the issue of non-compete clauses, this may seem distasteful to some Christians, but Driscoll’s issues are ongoing and public. What steps are going to be taken to compel him to repent and seek reconciliation?
   

The scandals at Mars Hill have been a slow motion train-wreck for the last two years. In that time, the leadership of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll have proven that they simply cannot be trusted to be honest, forthright and transparent in their dealings with the members of Mars Hill and the public. Trusting that any decision being that is made is actually in the interests of the church members without consideration of the leaders self-interest is not naïve, it’s delusional.

Sam Smith

Domestic Violence in the Evangelical Church

When it Comes to Violence Against Women and Children, Some Shepherds are Feeding their Sheep to the Wolves...

In March of this year, a video was released of former Baltimore Raven running back Ray Rice.  In the video, he is dragging his unconscious wife (then fiancee) out of an elevator in a New Jersey Casino.  Rice was charged with assault, but the charges were dropped when he agreed to attend court-supervised counselling.  After the legal case was resolved, the NFL placed Rice on a two game suspension, which generated a great deal of criticism that the NFL was not taking the issue of domestic violence seriously.  Following the initial outcry, the NFL revamped their policy on players accused of domestic violence to include much harsher penalties that can be imposed even if the players are not convicted of a crime.

On September 8th, additional video from inside the elevator was released.  This shocking footage has stunned and outraged the public.  It shows Rice punching his wife twice, and it shows her striking her head on the inside of the elevator and falling to the ground unconscious.  Showing no emotion, Rice then picks her up and drags her from the elevator.

The video can be found on YouTube. There are other videos of Ray Rice on the video sharing site, including a clip of him in a video called SuperBowlGospel, where he discusses his faith in God.  Rice has since been cut by the Ravens and placed on an indefinite suspension by the NFL, and many sports broadcast figures have been calling for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to resign due to his mishandling of the original suspension.

How does the Evangelical Church Respond to Abuse, the Abuser and the Abused?

Given that the Bible calls on the strong to protect the weak, and points out that civil authorities have been established to punish evildoers, and that many evangelical leaders promote a view that the Bible teaches that women are the weaker vessel and that is is a man's responsibility to protect women, it would seem that Evangelical leaders would make a strong stand for victim's rights and the need for swift and strict justice to be carried out against abusers.  While many do, surprisingly, some very influential evangelical leaders and institutions have what appears to be a practice of enabling abusers and blaming victims.

Consider the following:

1. During a Conference Sermon in 2000, Paige Patterson (President of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) offered the following advice to battered spouses:  "you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him".  In the same sermon, Patterson bragged about how a woman came to him in church with two black eyes after following his advice.
2. In a 2009 question and answer video, popular pastor John Piper answered a question about how abused wives should submit to their husbands by stating that "if it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church…The church then must step in, be her strength and say to him, “No, you can’t do this.” Four years later he "clarified" his remarks by stating that a physically abused wife could possibly seek help from the police, and not just the church.
3. Students of Bob Jones University who had experienced rape and sexual abuse were told by college deans and counselors to repent if they had experienced pleasure while being assaulted and to reach out to their abusers and ask their forgiveness for feelings of bitterness.  One victim was told that she needed to find the sin in her life that caused her to be raped.
4. Students attending Patrick Henry University (a popular school for home-schooled students who have been raised to seek a spouse through "courtship" instead of dating) found the administration had a practice of blaming female students when they complained to college officials about sexual assault, harassment and stalking from male students.  The female students have complained that the administration is more concerned about protecting the image of the school than protecting the students from unwanted sexual attention and assault.

Setting the Tone

It is troubling when institutions and individuals who represent the Christian faith and the Gospel, who are training the next generation of Christian leaders set an example of dealing with victims and abusers in ways that excuse violent and harmful behavior by blaming the victims and placing the responsibility on the victims to behave in away that does not provoke abuse.

Christian leaders and institutions need to be careful that they aren't creating an atmosphere where abuse can flourish.  Several attitudes that create such an environment include:

1. Rigid authority structures where disagreement with and opposition to spiritual leaders is viewed as rebellion to God, even when the leaders behave in immoral, abusive and illegal ways.  This especially comes into play in groups that strongly emphasize "complementarian" theology, a patriarchal concept that claims that women and men have intrinsic, gender based differences that require wives to be submissive to their husbands as the spiritual leaders of their homes.
2. Strict behavioral codes where outward behaviors are viewed as symbols of one's obedience and devotion to God.  Because of their tendency to emphasize appearing righteous, these groups are often pressure abuse victims not to report their abusers, since it would bring a reproach on the church and the gospel if the truth becomes widely known.
3. A strong belief that women are required to take special efforts not to "defraud" men by provoking lustful thoughts and desires in men.  Functionally, they are required to wear long dresses and skirts and tops that do not expose skin below the neckline.  The female body and female sexuality are viewed as irresistibly desirable to men; however, little or no pressure is placed on men to control their desires, and women are blamed when men act out.

Imagine the situation that a woman who is physically abused by her husband finds herself in when she approaches her pastor and complains about the situation.  She is told she must forgive her husband, submit to him and pray that he will repent.  She is discouraged from going to police, since a the scandal would surely bring a reproach on the church and the gospel.  

If she discovers that her violent husband is also sexually abusing their children, she is told that she must make sure that she is meeting his sexual needs, and that her abused children must forgive him, and that the children (if they are female) must be careful not to provoke his sexual desires.  He may be confronted by church leaders, and if he appears contrite, they will be satisfied that the family needs to forgive him and continue to submit to him.  Above all, they are told not to go to the police.  

If the wife or children do go to the police (or they are notified in some other way), church leaders will appear in court: to support the accused, not the victims.  They will plead with the court for mercy and lenient sentencing, and they will pressure the victims not to testify against the abuser.  If he is convicted and sentenced, they will attack the victims and claim that he was unfairly accused.  As outrageous and unbelievable as this scenario may sound, it is played out more often than we would like to believe in evangelical circles.  The experiences of abuse victims at New Tribes Mission's Fanda school and members of Sovereign Grace Ministries churches provide shocking examples.

Shepherds are Supposed to Guard the Sheep

In the Bible, pastors and spiritual leaders are likened to shepherds, and are commanded to guard the sheep and protect them from wolves.  All Christians, whether church members or leaders need to recognize that men who physically and sexually abuse women and children are wolves, and that the leaders who protect wolves aren't true shepherds, regardless of their titles.

What is happening with Mark Driscoll and how should we respond?

What Is Going On?

According to an article on Religious New Service:

Seattle megachurch founder Mark Driscoll will step down for at least six weeks while the Mars Hill board of elders review formal charges lodged against him from previous pastors

Driscoll has been under heavy fire for the last few months, since a March article in World Magazine revealed that Driscoll used church funds to hire a company named "Results Source" to carry out a scheme to have Driscoll's book "Real Marriage" be declared a New York Times best seller by having Results Source purchase a large number of the books while posing as individual buyers.

Driscoll has been dogged by controversy for some time, and his critics within the evangelical world have used the damage that the scandal has done to his standing as a "Celebrity Pastor" to inform a broader church audience of their concerns about Driscoll's behavior, including accusations of plagiarism, abusive treatment of his staff, and misuse of funds that were raised to support churches in impoverished areas of the world, but were actually used for Mars Hill expenses, including the purchase of additional satellite locations.

Until recently, Driscoll enjoyed solid support from many influential leaders in the evangelical community.  In the last several weeks, however, that support has begun to crumble.  James McDonald and and Paul Tripp resigned from his Board of Advisors and Accountability (BOAA) with Tripp publicly stating that the BOAA "will never be able to do what it was designed to do."

Then, on August 8th, the Acts 29 church planting network that Driscoll helped found expelled Driscoll and the Mars Hill family of churches for engaging in a "pattern of “ungodly and disqualifying behavior" and urged Driscoll to " “step down from ministry for an extended time and seek help.” In addition, Acts 29 criticized the Mars Hill BOAA, stating that "we no longer believe the BOAA is able to execute the plan of reconciliation originally laid out. Ample time has been given for repentance, change, and restitution, with none forthcoming."

What Conclusions Should We Draw?

Driscoll and many of his supporters (including the executive elders of Mars Hill) admit that Driscoll has made mistakes.  They also point out that nobody, including pastors are perfect. They also claim that he has admitted his errors and apologized for them and that the broad body of evangelical believers should accept his apologies, forgive him and allow him to continue his ministry.  In response to Acts 29 criticism, the Mars Hill BOAA stated that "There is clear evidence that the attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark's life for some time now."

It is true that it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect pastors to be perfect.  However, it is reasonable to expect pastors to meet the Biblical qualifications for an elder cited in 1st Timothy  3 and Titus 1. A pastor should also be expected to treat his staff and church members in a caring and Christ-like manner, and to conduct himself with the dignity that reflects the honor of his position, so that he gives a positive impression of himself, his church and Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it is evident that Mark Driscoll is not (and has never been) "qualified" to serve as an elder for a Christian church, for the following reasons:

1. Driscoll has consistently used crude and vulgar language in and out of the pulpit.  The Bible clearly instructs all believers (never mind pastors) to avoid using crude language.  Driscoll's consistent and ongoing use of Biblically prohibited speech reveals him to be a person who is carnal, angry and immature, the exact opposite of what the Bible requires from a pastor.
2. Driscoll has made abusive and vile statements about those who disagree with his definition of gender roles.  From his 14 year old rants about a "Pu**ified Nation", to calling men whose wives work outside of the home "man fails", to blaming pastors wives who "have let themselves go" for their husbands moral failures, Driscoll has continuously made unbiblical, unspiritual and abusive statements to and about those who don't fulfill his overly macho version of "complementarian" theology.  His lack of gentleness and his argumentative persona are not compatible with the requirements of an elder.
3. Driscoll has treated his staff and church members who disagree with his vision and tactics in an abusive and unchristlike manner.  Driscoll has bragged about wanting to accumulate a mountain of bodies under the wheels of the Mars Hill Bus, and that he put one of his elders through a wood-chipper.  He publicly stated that if it weren't for Jesus, he would physically attack two elders who opposed his 2007 redrafting of the Mars Hill constitution and by-laws, and then fired and ordered them shunned without biblical justification.  An elder who question church finances following the Results Source revelations was fired, and members who asked similar questions were told to leave the church.  These are the actions of a dictator or a mafioso, not a shepherd  of God's flock.
4. Driscoll has proven to be a fundamentally dishonest person.  He has admitted to stealing property from a former church.  He has plagiarized multiple authors in numerous books.  He used Results Source to make it appear that he was a best-selling author.  He claimed that the security staff at John MacArthur's strange fire conference confiscated his books.  There are serious unanswered questions about funds raised for the Mars Hill Global Fund and for the cancelled Jesus Fest.  These examples are well documented and leave little room for the possibility of innocent mistakes and misunderstandings, and he has created a track record of deceptive behavior that is unacceptable for a Christian Pastor.
5. Driscoll unilaterally excommunicated his entire church in 2007 in order to force the church into accepting the new constitution and bylaws that radically altered the church's governance structure.  The Bible does not give pastors authority to excommunicate members at will, much less their entire church  for their own personal agenda.  This action reveals an attitude towards the church that is ultimately self-serving, rather than recognizing that the Church as an institution belongs to Jesus, not the pastor, and that a pastor is called to serve the Church, not the other way around.
6. Driscoll has mis-characterized and misused the scriptures, often for transparently self-serving purposes.  He has claimed that the Bible states that church members sin by questioning the decisions of elders.  That the Bible teaches church members to shut up and do what they are told.  He has interpreted the Song of Solomon as a graphic sex manual wherein Jesus commands wives to perform oral sex on their husbands.  He claims that the character of Esther has been grossly misinterpreted as a virtuous hero by evangelicals who ignore her sexual sin and godless behavior.  A pastor is expected to correctly handle the word of truth so that God and His eternal will are communicated effectively to his congregation, not to use the word to manipulate members into obeying the pastors every command without question or to pressure wives into performing sexual favors for their husbands.
7. Sad to say, this could go on for a while...

How should the Church respond?

Christians should be praying.  Praying for Mark Driscoll to take the time he has for the next six weeks while the charges against him are being investigated for what it is: an opportunity. It's an opportunity to reflect on who he is, what he's done, how he got to where he is, and where he is going in the future.  An opportunity to reach out and reconcile personally with the many people he has hurt.  An opportunity to decide how the rest of his life is going to be defined.  

We also need to pray for the elders of Mars Hill who are investigating the charges and who will determine what discipline, if any, is to be applied.  So far, the leadership of Mars Hill has been seriously lacking.  They have consistently enabled and supported Driscoll in his reign of error by refusing to insist that Driscoll model Biblical standards of behavior and refusing to stand up for the rights and interests of the members of Mars Hill.  Hopefully, they will realize that the ends (a big Church ministry) do not justify the means.

The latest set of charges brought against Driscoll are more or less a response to the fact that the BOAA did not act to remove or discipline Driscoll following charges made by Dave Kraft.  Even though the BOAA basically admitted that the substance of the charges were true, they claimed that Driscoll had not behaved in that manner for several years.  The charges brought last week all focus on more recent action by Driscoll.   Hopefully they will respond to the latest set of charges with a more responsible attitude.

We should also be careful not to sin by rejoicing in the fall of another Christian.  Although Mark Driscoll has never offended or harmed me personally, I have never agreed with his "I am the brand" approach, his ultra-macho persona, his scorched-earth approach to leadership or his misogyny disguised as "complementarian" theology.  And unfortunately, it's all too easy to adopt a self-righteous attitude.  To forget that I'm not perfect and that I just might have some serious blind-spots in my life too.  To enjoy the fact that he's finally, maybe, going to reap what he's sown.  It's a tragedy when a person who is as talented and capable as Driscoll is publicly exposed, when he could be used powerfully for the kingdom of God, and our hope is for restoration, not vigilante church justice in the name of Jesus.

Ultimately, the church needs to be willing to adopt a much more discerning attitude towards the concept of the "Celebrity Pastor".  It is truly amazing how long it has taken for Driscoll's supporters to pay attention to the damage he has done to the people he has abused and to the reputation of the evangelical church.  The only explanation that makes sense is that people who should have know better overlooked his very obvious, disqualifying flaws because he was able to successfully reach a demographic that the church normally cannot effectively minister to.  

Unfortunately, there are more out there like him.  There are pastors whose over-zealous staff members criminally harass and stalk church critics.  Who use advances for books written on Church time to purchase expensive homes in gated communities under third party names.  Who offer money back guarantees on members tithes.  These are not "Prosperity Preachers" or Sleazy Televangelists.  These are preachers who sell popular books, host popular conferences, write articles for mainstream christian publications.  They are promoting an approach to ministry that is fundamentally dangerous and abusive, and we are footing the bill.  It's time for us to wake up.

In an recent article on Driscoll, J Lee Grady stated:

 "I want to get on my soapbox and remind everybody that there really are biblical requirements for leadership, and that we should not follow pastors who disregard those rules—no matter how popular they are on Twitter or how many books they sell."

That's good advice, and I hope we follow it.