I've intended for some time now to share my thoughts on the decline and fall of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. In fact, I've already written a lot about it, but never managed to produce anything coherent enough to be worth publishing. The reflection has been useful, however; and now, more than three years later, I have concluded the reasons for MH collapsing are not terribly complicated. I expect no shortage of disagreement as to what issue I have singled out as the centrally important factor; but that will not stop me, and is pretty much to be expected. One can do no better than to call things as he sees them.
I should also note that I'm assuming the reader has some familiarity with the topic, so I'm bypassing a lot of background information about Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll for the sake of brevity.
But first, just a quick paragraph about my relation to Mars Hill: I have observed that people who have any connection with MH may be divided roughly into three categories: those who were merely disappointed in MH's collapse, those who are angry and cynical over the whole affair, and Driscoll loyalists. Some overlap is possible, especially between the first two categories. I place myself more in the “disappointed” camp since MH didn't damage me personally like it did a lot of folks. I was there from about 2002 through 2005, and left voluntarily due to relocation to Kitsap County and lack of continuing interest/dedication to commute that far for church.
A remarkable growing church
In the early 2000's MH was expanding at a rapid pace and truly looked like it was going somewhere. This was made all the more miraculous by the fact that this growth was occurring within the city of Seattle, with its relatively low proportion of Christians, and by more-or-less organic means. A familiar mantra from Driscoll that I will have to paraphrase, since I don't remember it precisely, went something like this: “All these other churches are designed to appeal to women. (You know, sappy music, lots of programs, and all that.) But at Mars Hill, we are going to get the men, and we are going to train the men.” I believed then, and continue to maintain, that his observations about the majority of churches were quite accurate. But we'll revisit that later.
We're going to get the men, and train the men. I think this is very significant. As I read events, MH was growing rapidly when they were doing this successfully. As the years wore on they were doing this with only moderate success, and growth slowed. And in the end Mars Hill failed because they lost the men. That, I believe, is the main reason things fell apart; and it's worth taking a closer look at how it happened.
Five ways to lose men
How did Mars Hill lose the men? We know that shunning and ostracizing were increasingly destructive over time, especially under the new bylaws. But I'm looking for the root causes behind that. Much conversation and reflection has led me to single out the following five problems:
1. Hypocrisy
Sooner or later most men will recognize a hypocrite and wise up enough to cease remaining loyal to him. In 2000 Driscoll made it clear the plan was to train men to plant satellite churches all over Seattle and beyond. In 2005 Mark appeared on a big screen saying his sermons would now be broadcast to all the other campuses because there were no other men who wanted to do and/or were able to do it. In 2000 Driscoll said never to be part of a ministry that is named after the pastor. Now he has just such a ministry. Those are just two examples of a trend which could be multiplied over and over. At what point can you no longer take a guy seriously when he says one thing but does the opposite? This was a factor for me in leaving Mars Hill, or at least, in not really missing it once my relocation was complete.
2. Lack of ecclesiological oversight
To the best of my knowledge Mars Hill lacked any real accountability structure between the elders and any outside entity from the get-go. In the early years accountability existed, as far as I can tell, only in an informal sense among other more or less like-minded churches pastored (mostly) by Mark's friends. (If there was anything formal at that time, I didn't know about it, and I'm open to correction.) Over time Mark increasingly shunned this accountability, and ultimately distanced himself from his old friends. Thus, persons with legitimate grievances against the leadership had no recourse, and little choice but to depart. By contrast, in (for example) a Presbyterian church the elders are members of the presbytery rather than the congregation, and someone with an issue can appeal to the presbytery. (Not all is perfect in Presby churches but at least an additional layer of accountability is advantageous.) Later, a board of accountability was created for MH following concerns raised by some members and possibly former members; and, while some actions to correct the problems at Mars Hill were attempted, this effort ultimately amounted to a case of too little, too late.
3. Divisiveness over secondary issues
Some issues are worth dividing over—those of “first importance”—but, given the limitations of fallen humanity, it is unreasonable to expect all Christians to agree completely on all matters all the time. That's not to say conflicting positions are “equally valid,” because there is one correct view and God knows what it is; rather, it is to say that an honest reading of scripture can lead one to more than one possible conclusion. Importantly, adhering to the wrong view in this case doesn't make one a heretic. With secondary issues, you can still embrace those who don't agree with you in Christian fellowship.
In the early years of Mars Hill, Driscoll plainly understood the concept of primary vs. secondary issues, and he taught it with clarity. But as time went on, he completely failed to apply this principle. By 2007, when two pastors were fired and the bylaws re-written, a level of “divisiveness” worth defellowshipping over was defined as failure to agree completely with Mark Driscoll and his “yes-men,” and exactly what they wanted to do at Mars Hill. “Embracing those who don't agree with you” on secondary matters was thrown out the window. It's one thing to take a stand for important truths like the infallibility of scripture, but foolish and counter-productive to divide over actual secondary issues (infant baptism being one example) or disagreement over church management. This is a great way to alienate and lose the wrong people. When you become incapable of working together with other Christians, people leave and you no longer have a church. I suppose that is stating the obvious.
4. Pride
In James 3 – 4 we read such statements as “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.” “You are envious and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.” “Do not speak against one another, brethren... ” All Christians struggle with pride, and the more power and influence one has, the greater will be the temptation to fall. It's fair to say that Mark and his “yes men” group of executive elders (until they were “thrown under the bus”) had a pride problem, because their actions manifested that they believed their decisions and actions at certain points were above question. While I wasn't closely involved enough to form a long list of specific examples, it is my belief that they looked in pride to their own wisdom in dealing with conflicts, and in crafting the 2007 bylaws which consolidated more power to Driscoll, and erred in doing so. Also, I personally noticed over time an increasing amount of scoffing and poking fun at other pastors, denominations, and Christians holding to certain beliefs, coming from the leadership at Mars Hill. Some of it may have been “all in good fun” at first, but I believe it grew into boastful pride which became manifest in various ways. This is a problem for sensible men because pride is foolish, and sooner or later it will start to look foolish, and no one wants a fool for a leader.
I also believe pride was, and still is, a driving factor in Driscoll's failure to reconcile with the pastors who were removed in 2007, Bent Meyer and Paul Petry, and many others. Furthermore, it is the main reason he increasingly distanced himself from a lot of his old friends (including fellow pastors) who stood by him when he planted the church. And it continued with all kinds of other people getting “thrown under the bus” in the later years of MH. There is simply no other explanation for the failure to recognize one's own errors, to reconcile, or to see the need to reconcile, other than a sense of personal pride that says “I'm fine on my own and I don't need you.” (Granted, there are plenty of folks MH didn't need, but it's a big mistake to confuse allies with enemies.)
5. Lack of eschatological vision
The reader may wonder “what does that even mean,” but I actually believe this is the biggest factor in MH's demise. In the early formative years at Mars Hill, the elders including Driscoll remained ambiguous (at least, ambiguous enough) about eschatology so as to pretty much leave members to their own conclusions. But you really can't sweep eschatology under the rug, and I will demonstrate why it matters. Consider this progression of Driscoll's thinking over time (interpreted by me, as long as I'm here to help):
2000: We're not going to try to be popular and hip. We're not going to do what all the other churches are doing, with things like singles ministries and youth groups. We're going to get the men and train the men. And we only want real men, not pansy-asses. We're going to mobilize men who will plant churches all over the place and take the city in the name of Jesus!
2008: Now we've mellowed out significantly, because we're only “a city within a city”. (What kind of dumb slogan is that anyway?) We've retreated to a position of being much better behaved. We no longer need the whole city, but just our own little enclave.
2014: I'm super sorry for all the offensive things I said back in 2000 (even if they were all true). Please come back to my church. Henceforth I will say only nice things, and keep you entertained, and do whatever it takes to appeal to as many people as possible (as long as that doesn't mean actually apologizing directly to those I have wronged).
Notice the progression in Driscoll's attitude from courageous and inspiring (2000), to maintaining the status quo (2008) to being a total pansy-ass who has completely lost sight of his mission (2014). In the end it was “We'll bend over backwards to not offend anyone in order to bring in whoever we can get to keep the church running!” Driscoll (and MH in general, to an extent) had become the very caricature that he had disdained—rightly, for the most part—back in 2000. I'm not sure what kind of men gravitate to such a person as a leader: surely not many.
So what happened? Although Mars Hill had a formal vision statement, the eschatological basis for it was never established. Why take the city if our only job is to win souls? Why take the city if (as the average premillenialist will suppose) God's just going to bail us all out of here any day now?
The answers to these questions are very important, because possessing an eschatological vision that recognizes God's ultimate and immediate authority over the entire city, and not just individual Christians within the city, alters one's perspective in a broader sense. Once you have swallowed that pill, you have to think strategically about how to disciple Seattle and preach the authority of Christ to all (Matthew 28:18-20). You can no longer afford to act pridefully, or to divide over secondary issues. Who has time for that? You have to accept all Christians who are, or potentially could be, on board with the true meaning and application of the words of Christ in the great commission, and the vision for Seattle that follows from it. You will emulate the example of Joshua: “Be strong and courageous, for the Lord has surely delivered it into your hands.” (Which sounds a bit different from “I'm sorry I offended anyone.”)
I believe “let's take Seattle” as an objective drew a lot of people to Mars Hill in the early years, but this vision gradually faded into the background, which I can only suppose was due to a lack of commitment to it as a biblical eschatological principle. It became apparent over time that Driscoll failed to recognize, or perhaps to believe, his own words about “taking Seattle” as an inherently eschatological statement with an eschatological objective. (You'll be relieved to know I'm done with that word now.) Of course, many Christians think God's authority extends only as far as their “hearts,” which is not Biblical thinking; but it has subtly crept into most churches over the decades, and Mars Hill was no exception, especially as they attempted to become more broadly appealing over time.
What about the women?
Now you culturally seasoned folks may be thinking, men men men, what about the women? I'm aware of the prevailing view that maltreatment of women was a major factor in the demise of Mars Hill. I'm not dismissing that as a piece of the puzzle, but I now view that as more of a secondary issue—a symptom of other problems (especially #2 above), and not a root cause.
This question is also made more complex by various degrees of faithfulness to or departure from Biblical thinking with regard to the roles and duties of women among all MH congregants; including elders, husbands, and wives. On paper MH was “complimentarian:” on the ground, a wide range of relationships existed all the way from reasonably Biblically healthy to “egalitarian” to quite dysfunctional in a variety of ways. Thus, some complaints of “abuse” bear greater legitimacy according to Biblical standards than others.
But more importantly to my premise, it is worth noting that there is no shortage of churches that appeal to women. This has been the case for a long time, to the point where some of us are probably too accustomed to it to notice. That's basically what the seeker-sensitive movement is, which has infected (in varying degrees) nearly any church you can think of. Because these churches tend to largely compete with each other, they seldom experience any very dramatic growth or decline.
By contrast, it is very rare indeed when a church comes along which succeeds in appealing to men and mobilizing them into action. It only makes sense, then, that MH's amazing growth in the early years was because they were not directly competing with these other churches, due to their calculated appeal to a different demographic.
Furthermore, this model results in a fast growing church for the simple reason that men bring their wives and girlfriends along with them. Additionally, many single women are drawn to such a church because of the appeal of an environment where men are actually, proactively seeking God and getting things done, rather than (as is so often the case) just being dragged to church by their wives to survive a boring service with sappy music and forgettable preaching. Where men lead, women follow. Where women lead, men run the other way. This point is certain to offend some people but there is no use denying the truth of it. It's worth adding that, as this principle holds true regardless of what else is wrong with one's church, it almost doesn't matter (as concerns growth/decline) what other internal problems MH had, as long as they were not problems that caused men to leave.
Reviving a worthwhile mission
So, those are my thoughts about the decline and fall of Mars Hill. And some readers will be disappointed in me for not talking more about spiritual abuse, or misogyny, and other such issues. Suffice it to say that I am aware of many stories relating such incidents, but I don't see a particular need to go in depth on those topics. If I did, I would have to start by dropping those terms in favor of biblical terms, and then I'd be off on a major tangent. Others have put the blame on worldliness, which is certainly another angle worth exploring.
Additionally, I wish to continue to exhort those persons who were “thrown under the bus” by Mars Hill to “dust themselves off,” if you haven't already, and continue on what was a worthy mission in 2000, and still is now, without Driscoll and MH. Seattle still needs the gospel, now more than ever. Many of you whom I know personally are already doing this. But because I read what people write on Facebook, it is apparent that there are still plenty of embittered and jaded people out there.
When Driscoll sensed things were falling apart, he did an awful lot of whining about how unfair this all was and how victimized he felt. Then he bravely ran away, away to Phoenix. Don't be like that. We're all “victims” of something. I have some real problems with the church I grew up in. At what point do we move on, repent to God of our own sins, and focus on the mission at hand? If you haven't done so already, there's no time like right now. Don't be mastered by pride.
Conclusion
It's not complicated: Mars Hill collapsed as a direct result of doing the opposite of what made it grow. When men were gathered, discipled, and mobilized, the church grew. When they lost the men, for the various reasons outlined above, the church went into decline and was not sustainable. Let us all pray that when the next church comes along that draws in and trains men, that whoever is in charge is teachable enough to learn from the failures of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, and will manage not to screw it up.
No comments:
Post a Comment