In an exceptional article on Religion Dispatches by Jessica Johnson, whose book Biblical Porn: Affect, Labor, and Pastor Mark Driscoll’s Evangelical Empire, is based on eight years of social scientific study of Driscoll’s Mars Hill, we encounter penetrating and scathing observations of the kind of complicity that:
Some really good points in her article - especially the part about all the free labor behind many well known christian leaders. Hadn’t really thought about that - I think there is a lot more to reflect on there.
The entrepreneurial platforms that have become the base of so many leaders are a huge development in christian history I think. There has not been enough examination of the dangers to both leaders and followers. Lots more to think and reflect on in that development - and probably run from for those who want to not be overwhelmed by their own success. It’s getting so you feel like the mega pastor or leader who isn’t corrupt is the exception rather than the rule.
Reminded of Jim Collins speaking of the dangers of charismatic leaders - “charisma is a liability you can learn to overcome.”
Also struck by how “charisma” come from “charis”/grace/gift and how our english usage has turned this into a gift that one uses for one’s own benefit while claiming to be using to help lead/benefit others. The free gift given to the undeserving that Paul articulated has been turned back into the Greco Roman idea of gift given to demonstrate/preserve/build power.
From many years up close in both parachurch and churches I put together this little line: Watch out when the personality's preferences slowly become priorities that then eventually get baptized as precepts from on high.
The free or criminally underpaid labor is a reality in the multi site church I used to be a part of, where the lead pastor wants to be just like Marc Driscoll, and even brought him in to speak this May on “healthy leadership” at his church Leadership Conference. In spite of all of this, Exponential still chose to let this lead pastor and church host their conference last week because the free/underpaid labor at this church benefits them when they hold their conference there in the most unchurched part of the US.
The quote “love him or hate him, Driscoll is bringing people to Jesus in one of the least-churched cities in the United States,” is exactly what I was told about the lead pastor at my previous church where my story was much like EPS 3 of the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcast. (Would love to have a conversation with Karen Schaeffer some day, as our stories are so similar.)
When the lead pastor at my former church gets questioned as to how he can justify bringing in Marc Driscoll to speak after he was so abusive, the response is often “there was so much spiritual warfare in Seattle. It is a dark place.” Which is, of course, reminiscent of the Demon Hunting episode, and a narrative constantly used to excuse the inappropriate behavior of this lead pastor as well. “Bringing people to Jesus in one of the least churched cities in the US” cannot continue to be a get out of jail free card for these abusive pastors where they are excused just because of “the fruit,” especially when “the fruit” is a lot of emotionally manipulative re-baptisms and being recounted when serving in multiple services on a Sunday to make the numbers seem bigger.
I do wish we could hear more from Dr. Kristin Du Mez on the podcast, and really would love to hear Scot and Laura have a chance to speak into it, based on A Church Called TOV.
We have much work to do, and I am constantly trying to do my own work on how and why I was complicit, even when I was naive. We all need to dig much deeper into that in the church in the US. Would love for the podcast to guide us there, but the audience may not take well to introspection. It’s easier to scapegoat one man, even if he did bring it on himself.
In a recent episode of Theology in the Raw podcast, Preston Sprinkle interviewed Mike Cosper about the Mars Hill podcast and addressed many of these concerns directly. Cosper welcomed the criticism and seemed to respond with sincerity and a willingness to own his and CT's shortcomings. It's definitely worth a listen.
The Ten Quotes need questioning too. Yes, they make good points, but they also leave out a lot. I was impressed that CT was as clear as it was and implied wider responsibility as much as it has, for I know that CT is already under fire as being less than "truly evangelical" and that critiquing a megachurch pastor was a daring move. I was also impressed that CT would push forward and then back off a bit and then push forward again. This reminded me of listening to Tony Campolo preach in an upper class basically white evangelical Episcopal Church years ago. There was push until the tension rose and then a joke, usually at his expense, as he pulled back, and then more push. His goal was to win hearts for his social concern message, which he did do, not speak all the truth at all costs and lose the hearts. One has to ask whether going farther, pushing harder in the podcast would, rather than getting the audience to think, make them reactive. Context is important. Then I wondered what Jessica Johnson's context and audience was and how that played into it. I am indeed sympathetic to both sides of the discussion. But ultimately it must play out in dialogue rather than in accession.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I am trying to learn how to not be as heated in how I talk about structural problems in evangelicalism. For a while I thought, "Well, if I say it nicely, no one will listen anyways." But now I've realized, no, actually, when I said it more carefully, and even understate the situation to where someone's current perceptions are, it actually is way more impactful. For a lot of evangelicals I know who need to hear the message of the podcast, it's already "too much" in a lot of ways, but still has been able to grip them.
Also, the author of these quotes might be too hyperfocused on Mars Hill. High production value podcasts may have other sources than "Mars Hill". This is like the "paralellomania" problem in some Biblical studies. Just because there is similarity in content doesn't mean there's derivation.
Also, it is very ironic for the author of that book to criticize crude and clickbaity titles and methods.
I’m sure there is plenty of criticism that is justified about the podcast itself, but to me this reeks of sour grapes. The author put years of research into this and a podcast comes along and goes viral after a few episodes - so let’s point the finger at the podcast producer and say he’s acting just like the person he’s criticizing in the podcast. You can’t say everything in a podcast
Sour grapes, indeed. And the criticism feels weak to me (saying Stetzer blamed the internet? Claiming that good production and music mimics Driscoll’s own tactics?). That sour tone distracted from the opportunity the article had to be more constructive and fueling for future work than it was (if it wanted to have that purpose, which I’m not sure it did). The author had a unique and necessary perspective and insights as an “outsider” but I can’t discount Cosper’s perspective and insights as an “insider.” Perhaps that’s the real reason the podcast is as successful as it has been—it needed to come from within evangelicalism to be listened too—right or wrong. Because of that, I think/hope more work will be done in the important areas she recognizes, which I presume CT might recognize, too. It’s gotta start somewhere.
“2) should send a warning flag up the pole for all those presently involved with authoritarian white males playing power games and using fear to keep everyone in line.”
Good thing there are no authoritarian POC or females playing these same power games. SMH. When these problems get reduced to “white males” it hurts reform. You turn away from very real abuse elsewhere and give the people who need to hear it most the excuse of the CRT boogeyman. “White” is a strange and unnecessary qualification here, and it centers our thinking around only one aspect of the American church when it’s a global problem.
Good article, but I’m a little confused on one point. The podcast does talk at length about the churches forum and Driscoll posting as William Wallace.
Some really good points in her article - especially the part about all the free labor behind many well known christian leaders. Hadn’t really thought about that - I think there is a lot more to reflect on there.
The entrepreneurial platforms that have become the base of so many leaders are a huge development in christian history I think. There has not been enough examination of the dangers to both leaders and followers. Lots more to think and reflect on in that development - and probably run from for those who want to not be overwhelmed by their own success. It’s getting so you feel like the mega pastor or leader who isn’t corrupt is the exception rather than the rule.
Reminded of Jim Collins speaking of the dangers of charismatic leaders - “charisma is a liability you can learn to overcome.”
Also struck by how “charisma” come from “charis”/grace/gift and how our english usage has turned this into a gift that one uses for one’s own benefit while claiming to be using to help lead/benefit others. The free gift given to the undeserving that Paul articulated has been turned back into the Greco Roman idea of gift given to demonstrate/preserve/build power.
From many years up close in both parachurch and churches I put together this little line: Watch out when the personality's preferences slowly become priorities that then eventually get baptized as precepts from on high.
Good line!
The free or criminally underpaid labor is a reality in the multi site church I used to be a part of, where the lead pastor wants to be just like Marc Driscoll, and even brought him in to speak this May on “healthy leadership” at his church Leadership Conference. In spite of all of this, Exponential still chose to let this lead pastor and church host their conference last week because the free/underpaid labor at this church benefits them when they hold their conference there in the most unchurched part of the US.
The quote “love him or hate him, Driscoll is bringing people to Jesus in one of the least-churched cities in the United States,” is exactly what I was told about the lead pastor at my previous church where my story was much like EPS 3 of the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcast. (Would love to have a conversation with Karen Schaeffer some day, as our stories are so similar.)
When the lead pastor at my former church gets questioned as to how he can justify bringing in Marc Driscoll to speak after he was so abusive, the response is often “there was so much spiritual warfare in Seattle. It is a dark place.” Which is, of course, reminiscent of the Demon Hunting episode, and a narrative constantly used to excuse the inappropriate behavior of this lead pastor as well. “Bringing people to Jesus in one of the least churched cities in the US” cannot continue to be a get out of jail free card for these abusive pastors where they are excused just because of “the fruit,” especially when “the fruit” is a lot of emotionally manipulative re-baptisms and being recounted when serving in multiple services on a Sunday to make the numbers seem bigger.
I do wish we could hear more from Dr. Kristin Du Mez on the podcast, and really would love to hear Scot and Laura have a chance to speak into it, based on A Church Called TOV.
We have much work to do, and I am constantly trying to do my own work on how and why I was complicit, even when I was naive. We all need to dig much deeper into that in the church in the US. Would love for the podcast to guide us there, but the audience may not take well to introspection. It’s easier to scapegoat one man, even if he did bring it on himself.
I’m so grateful for your heart-rending set of observations, Lori. Bless you.
In a recent episode of Theology in the Raw podcast, Preston Sprinkle interviewed Mike Cosper about the Mars Hill podcast and addressed many of these concerns directly. Cosper welcomed the criticism and seemed to respond with sincerity and a willingness to own his and CT's shortcomings. It's definitely worth a listen.
Yes, I heard that one.
The Ten Quotes need questioning too. Yes, they make good points, but they also leave out a lot. I was impressed that CT was as clear as it was and implied wider responsibility as much as it has, for I know that CT is already under fire as being less than "truly evangelical" and that critiquing a megachurch pastor was a daring move. I was also impressed that CT would push forward and then back off a bit and then push forward again. This reminded me of listening to Tony Campolo preach in an upper class basically white evangelical Episcopal Church years ago. There was push until the tension rose and then a joke, usually at his expense, as he pulled back, and then more push. His goal was to win hearts for his social concern message, which he did do, not speak all the truth at all costs and lose the hearts. One has to ask whether going farther, pushing harder in the podcast would, rather than getting the audience to think, make them reactive. Context is important. Then I wondered what Jessica Johnson's context and audience was and how that played into it. I am indeed sympathetic to both sides of the discussion. But ultimately it must play out in dialogue rather than in accession.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I am trying to learn how to not be as heated in how I talk about structural problems in evangelicalism. For a while I thought, "Well, if I say it nicely, no one will listen anyways." But now I've realized, no, actually, when I said it more carefully, and even understate the situation to where someone's current perceptions are, it actually is way more impactful. For a lot of evangelicals I know who need to hear the message of the podcast, it's already "too much" in a lot of ways, but still has been able to grip them.
Also, the author of these quotes might be too hyperfocused on Mars Hill. High production value podcasts may have other sources than "Mars Hill". This is like the "paralellomania" problem in some Biblical studies. Just because there is similarity in content doesn't mean there's derivation.
Also, it is very ironic for the author of that book to criticize crude and clickbaity titles and methods.
I’m sure there is plenty of criticism that is justified about the podcast itself, but to me this reeks of sour grapes. The author put years of research into this and a podcast comes along and goes viral after a few episodes - so let’s point the finger at the podcast producer and say he’s acting just like the person he’s criticizing in the podcast. You can’t say everything in a podcast
Sour grapes, indeed. And the criticism feels weak to me (saying Stetzer blamed the internet? Claiming that good production and music mimics Driscoll’s own tactics?). That sour tone distracted from the opportunity the article had to be more constructive and fueling for future work than it was (if it wanted to have that purpose, which I’m not sure it did). The author had a unique and necessary perspective and insights as an “outsider” but I can’t discount Cosper’s perspective and insights as an “insider.” Perhaps that’s the real reason the podcast is as successful as it has been—it needed to come from within evangelicalism to be listened too—right or wrong. Because of that, I think/hope more work will be done in the important areas she recognizes, which I presume CT might recognize, too. It’s gotta start somewhere.
She is to be commended for suggesting a meta-view!
“2) should send a warning flag up the pole for all those presently involved with authoritarian white males playing power games and using fear to keep everyone in line.”
Good thing there are no authoritarian POC or females playing these same power games. SMH. When these problems get reduced to “white males” it hurts reform. You turn away from very real abuse elsewhere and give the people who need to hear it most the excuse of the CRT boogeyman. “White” is a strange and unnecessary qualification here, and it centers our thinking around only one aspect of the American church when it’s a global problem.
Good article, but I’m a little confused on one point. The podcast does talk at length about the churches forum and Driscoll posting as William Wallace.