Helpful and not so...

From Driscoll's Confessions...

Helpful:

"I hit a particularly low point one day when a young couple knocked on the door of our home... We considered them friends until they came over to tell us they had left the church. They complained that since the church had grown a bit bigger and things were a bit busier, my wife and I had become less available to them...
We were stunned. We needed couples like this to help the church survive, not jump ship just because my wife could not drop everything to take this woman out to tea whenever was convenient for her. The odd thing was that they transferred to a megachurch in the suburbs, which made no sense because they would get no closer to that pastor and his wife than they had to Grace and me. Yet they knocked on our door unannounced to tell us we were not doing enough for them. It seemed obvious that they wanted us to bend over backward and promise to do anything to make them happy in order to keep them in the church...
In retrospect, this was a hard lesson, one that I have had to learn many times in the various seasons of our church. As a church grows, it also changes. And as a church changes, so does the accesibility of the pastor and his family. As the pastor gets busier with new people and responsibilities, some people are displaced and are not as close to the pastor as they had been. Displaced people are prone to expect the pastor to ensure that their access to him and his family will never change. If the pastor agrees to these demands, he will keep the disgruntled people but not reach any new people because the mission will shift from reaching the new people to pleasing the old people."

A good differentiation to keep in mind, I think...

Not so helpful:

"We continued to meet on Sunday nights until Christmas, when some of the arty types started complaining that there was a preaching monologue instead of an open dialogue, as would become popular with some emerging pastors a few years later. This forced me to think through my theology of preaching, spiritual authority, and the authority of Scripture. I did an intense study of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament commans regarding preaching and teaching. In the end, I decided not to back off from a preaching monologue but instead work hard at becoming a solid long-winded, old-school Bible preacher that focused on Jesus. My people needed to hear from God's Word and not from each other in collective ignorance like some dumb chat room."

There are so many false antitheses here, I hardly know where to start. How about a quote from DA Carson, well-known critic of the emerging church? What was it he said? Oh yeah... "Damn all false antitheses to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ."

Preach it D.A.!

Let me say this strongly-

The idea that we should teach dialectically (with dialogue) is rooted in the very teaching style of Jesus, exemplified throughout the book of Acts, is nowhere forbidden in the NT commands/descriptions regarding preaching and is just plain solid pedagogy.

To say somehow that the two choices are either 1. "long-winded old school Bible preach[ing]" or 2. artsy collective ignorance is just plain dumb- a false antithesis that deserves to be called out.

Somewhere in the middle of these two choices lies walking through biblical passages as a community with one person faciltating, pointing out and preaching the message of the passage passionately, and yet throughout asking non-rhetorical questions that cause people to think and respond, engage the text and be engaged by the text.

Collective ignorance?

So... if I'm such a good teacher with my monologues is no one learning anything? It seems that if the teaching of a church is worth anything at all, the people will be learning, growing, and at least qualified to answer a couple of questions from a text on Sunday morning, right?

Right?

I manuscript my messages- I know what I want to say, what I hope God is saying to our community on a Sunday morning. But I hope and pray I'm not the only one who gets to say that. I want us as a community to come to a passage of Scripture, to wrestle with it, to engage it... and to be honest with you, dialectical preaching is the absolute best way to make that happen, and to disregard it as somehow unbiblical???

Unhelpful in the extreme. There's a time and a place for monologue. Sometimes we have more discussion and sometimes less. But let's not hold that up as the sole, only God-ordained method of communication. Because it just ain't so...

I've written more on this here

Comments

[Toby]

Ah, now I know why that guy commented the other day about you picking on Driscoll...lol

I appreciate what you said and what you did here, Bob. Who holds the Warren's, Driscoll's, Bell's and Heybel's of the world accountable? Dig? I don't think we're picking on them when we say, "I disagree and here is why I think you're wrong" - that's just silly.

Espcially when Driscoll derieds the other side of the argument with name calling, etc (which does not offend me, cause I'm not that light skinned, and I appreciate the retoric and humor of Driscoll, and wish more were as funny)...

What will be even more funny will be people who will COMMENT here about your point of view and actually be against it! Odd isn't it? Would they then be adding to the collective ignorance? We know and we should share our hearts, and sharing helps us come to the conclusion God would have for us.

Anyway. Good post. Very helpful with some things I have been wrestling with lately.

[bob]

I know it seems like I'm piling on the guy, but I'm reading his book, so...

I just know that Driscoll is becoming more and more influential, which I think is positive in many ways. The downside to that is that when he says something boneheaded or even potentially dangerous amidst a lot of good things, that potentially dangerous thing gets swallowed a bit too easily.

Someone's got to say "Hey, the guy's great, has a lot of good to say, but maybe not X or Y..."

[shae]

Great post. Thanks for the quotes. Very helpful.

[david]

i agree with you, bob. driscoll pushes too far in one direction...

however, he's reacting in part against guys like doug pagitt who are going too far the other direction, and suggesting (i knnow he doesn't say it, but its the impression you get from his book) that the sermon as monologue is passe...

i think there is a via media!

[bob]

But does he really understand what Pagitt is saying? Not from the sounds of his comments. I think Drsicoll and others are guilty of charicature.
In his book, Pagitt describes his methodology, and it definitely includes times when he's the one talking- he gives a message. And then the dialogue follows. I'm not sure where the biblical disconnect is there, other than that Pagitt has said (strongly- and made a good case, I think) that a steady diet of nothng but monologue is good neither for the speaker or the hearers in the long-run.

Now- I loved Pagitt's book, and I still preach... I don't even take things as far as Pagitt does in his discussion time... in fact I want to add more minutes (by shrinking some other things or starting earlier) to our "So what do you think, what questions, reactions, etc do you have about this passage?" time that we do towards the end, to allow for more questions that I didn't think of... I just don't see how that's unbiblical to let others make observations on the text or ask questions. Unworkable in a big church, sure... but not somehow in violation of the spirit of NT commands to preach the word.

Yeah- some people in some places have gone off the deep end, no doubt.

But the answer isn't to defend a "sit down and shut up" model of preaching, I think...

[shae]

I think one of the most valuable things about Pagitt's book is the latittude it seems to give to apply the basic concepts of what he's talking about to your own context. He does (in my opinion) seem to speak a bit too strongly about the plight of modern preaching...but I also have to admit the only difference between me and him is that what I've only thought or said in small places, he's published in a book.

He does, however, keep a certain sense of understanding that there are times and places where the "speaching" is appropriate.

However, it's easy for folks (be it Driscoll or anyone else)n to fabricate straw men that are easily defeated.

[Jeff]

Try having a helpful dialogue during a Sunday service when you have 1000 people in the room, 300 watching via live feed across town and 3 more services to preach that day... (that's Driscoll's life right now.) Dialogue happens at Mars Hill, in community group Bible studies through the week, in groups of 10 to 20 people, lead by both men and women some of which are deacons (both the men and the women). Dialogue happens, but practically it doesn't work during the sermon, so Mark monologues and then we flesh it out togehter...

[bob]

You are completely correct (which is a good reason to stay away from video venues, but that's another discussion).

My point is this: Driscoll demonizes dialogue regardless of church size. This comment came in the chapter titled "75-150 people."

[ryan]

Bob I do not think you are being completly fair here. If you go back and listen to a lot of the early audio of Driscoll preaching like when he did the Gospel of John, he did QandA almost every week. In the context I thinking he is speaking that as the church grows, and I believe he is right, on solid preaching that in many ways is dialouge based, by assuming the questions and thoughts of the listeners and responding. I also believe that what he is responding to here is the "Jay Leno Jaywalking theory," that just beause everyone in America has an opinion and the right to share them, they are often uninformed and just plain wrong. Just some thoughts about the whole thing to consider.

[bob]

Sure- I heard Driscoll speak back then. He was very dialectical. It was great.

But again- these are his words. His book. His numbers (75-150). He pitted "long winded, old school monologue" against "collective ignorance", not me.

And yes, people are often wrong. It's a beautiful thing to see on a Sunday when (it doesn't happen often, but it does happen) someone says something totally out of left field, one of a couple things happens.

Occasionally, I need to "correct" a thought, and when I feel like I need to, I do.

Second- the whole community just shrugs and "makes allowance" for someone who's a bit odd anyway, and since it was so wild, no one gets upset...

or (and this happens most often), someone else in the community makes a comment of gentle correction.

Seriously.

It's beautiful.
Makes a teaching pastor proud.
I'm glad they get to talk.

[Jeff]

seeing as how there's only a handful of churches doing video venues, and Mars Hill's attempt has been unequivacably successful, maybe you should withhold judgement for a bit...

[bob]

Well, "judgment" is a bit harsh.
I'm not saying it's wrong... I'm saying I think it will prove unhealthy for both local bodies and the church in general in the long run.

And it's not a handful... it's a LOT

[grace]

I think the most serious thing about this is that attitude of the leader. Does he believe others have nothing worth offering (collective ignorance), which means he believes he is the only one with anything to offer, or does he value what others might bring to the table? Personally I wouldn't want to be under someone who equates the community sharing with another to a "dumb chat room."

[A Different Jeff]

'Does he believe others have nothing worth offering (collective ignorance), which means he believes he is the only one with anything to offer, or does he value what others might bring to the table?'

This affects other areas of church leadership. I was interested in Driscoll's critique of congregationalism as that is my tradition's form of church governance. Driscoll strongly decries a democratic form of ecclesiology, stating that allowing the congregation to vote slows down or stunts growth, especially at the hands of a small interest group within the church. Much better to let him and his team of elders hand down the decisions. This critique is not without warrant, but there is no sense given that perhaps he and the elders can be an interest group in and of themselves.

All of that makes more sense in a 5000-member church, but in smaller churches it doesn't have to be that way. That's the spirit of what a missional church is supposed to be about: finding what works in your context.

[david]

i think most people would agree that driscoll almost always speaks in extreme language. i wonder if that should be a reason to not always take him "literally"?

i do think it's appropriate to question his apparent disregard for the wisdom of the body.

i don't think it's wise to fixate on his likely tongue in cheek expression, "old fashioned..."

i do think it's okay to debate the validity of video venues.

i'm pretty sure it's not wise to make it an "A-level" issue (remembering previous post on bob.blog).

anyway, probably all of us would do things differently than driscoll, but we can't know until we find ourselves in his shoes (which likely some of us never would because we wouldn't do things like driscoll!).

bob, keep taking your shots. i think you almost always do so with grace and truth! and i think most of the time it leads to good discussion

[kelcifer]

I call bullshit.

That guy's bad attitude is apparent in not just the second quote ("not so helpful"), but in the first quote ("helpful"), also. He's justifying his side of the story and appears to have missed whatever his ex-friends' point was (minimized here and labelled "complaining"), which COULD very well have been that they didn't like him using them "for God." Success is hard on relationships, especially when the people who form the base that made the success possible begin to be treated like fans or objects to serve "God's" goals. I could say a lot more about this, because the whole excerpt bothered me a lot...

[bob]

Well, you wouldn't be the first :)

Actually, I was bothered by "considered them friends until..."

I thought that was a bit low, but you know- I was trying to find a good positive chunk to balance out what I had to say about the next bit.

But I think you are projecting a bit there with the majority of your critique... :) Not quite fair to judge Driscoll on what "could have been" their point...

Overall, though, that final statement is good- it's a pressure that's there. At a certain point, people have to take responsibilty for their own feelings. You feel a bit ignored? Well, make some more friends. Or say something before it gets to the point where you have decided to take off. But don't sit and stew in your bitterness and then blame the people that are running around taking care of a lot of other people just because after focusing on you for awhile, they expect you now to be focusing on others...

[kelcifer]

No, there's something wrong with the whole set-up here. This guy is basically saying, "We were too busy to have a relationship with them anymore because we needed to go out and lure in other people to eventually not have relationships with ... they should have supported us, even though we didn't care about their needs anymore."

It's like Pimps for Jesus or something. Relationships that go from mutual to non-reciprocal make people feel cheap. When the person who's no longer participating in the relationship makes excuses for why people should stick around and not be offended, they've become users in God's name.
This:
"the people that are running around taking care of a lot of other people just because after focusing on you for awhile, they expect you now to be focusing on others..."
is a relational bait and switch. It's giving in order to take. To insult people who rightly recognize it as offensive makes it worse. It's ALMOST right, but it's off target just enough to be deadly wrong.

[bob]

Sorry, but I think you are reading this backwards. These people didn't want reciprocal. They wanted attention.
It seems like it had moved towards something a bit more reciprocal, and that's what made them mad...

Bait and switch? I might go for that if we were talking about a matter of days or weeks. But notice the detail- Mark and his wife had given hundreds of hours to this couple- had helped them out in many, many ways both physical and spiritual and emotional.

Look- we're talking about adults here! I'll reiterate- at a certain point, people have to take responsibility for their feelings. That their commitment to their community extended only this far and no further disturbs me more than anything Mark might have said in relating this story...

What was their responsiblity if they were feeling overlooked? I think there were many steps between "hurt" and "We're out of here."

And I'm sorry- but I WILL make excuses for why people should stick around and not take off :) If your commitment to the community extends only as far as something like being offended, then have fun trying to find ANY church or group where you'll be able to hang for more than a year.

After a number of years in a church community, claiming to be Christ followers, we begin to move towards an expectation of maturity, of being less focused on self and more on others, and at least of talking about your hurt before making a decision to bail...

[kelcifer]

You're missing the point, just like I would bet my dog he did.

I'd also bet that couple couldn't get an appointment to talk about this stuff with their "friend," or maybe they knew it would be a waste of breath trying to get him to HEAR them.

Projection? I KNOW justification and blame when I hear it, and those excerpts are full of it. Usually when someone's telling their side of a story, you can read the other side between the lines.

Hey, maybe we should meet to talk about this. Can you meet me in Beaverton at 11 a.m. Sunday?

[kelcifer]

If you want to condone the way this guy treats people in the name of God, go ahead, but I wouldn't want to be the one making excuses for collecting souls like notches in a bedpost and moving on.

[bob]

No sorry- Busy then :)

And you are going out of your way to paint spending hundreds of hours pouring your life into someone, and then expecting a bit more maturity out of them than "sorry, we're gone" as an extreme negative...

[kelcifer]

If he saw the friendship as hundreds of hours he gave to them instead of as a mutual give and take without obligation on either side, then it IS a negative scenario. ("You spent time with us so we'd support your church? We thought you liked us.") Friends generally invest in each others' lives because they enjoy each others' company, not because there's something to gain.

We're arguing about if it's okay for pastors to act like rock stars who think their time is more precious than others, to stop investing in relationships they've established with the excuse that people are lucky to receive their crumbs and owe them for spending time with them in the past. Pastors are just as lucky for the time invested in them by those they invest in.

I think you're advocating pastors acting like pimps, who make a girl feel special, then sell her to go out and make money for them.

You're damn right I'm going out of my way to make my point, because it's too damaging for pastors to act like addicts (in the way they treat people) and use God to justify it.

You do know religious dynamics can mimic alcoholic dynamics exactly, don't you?

[bob]

"Pastors are just as lucky for the time invested in them by those they invest in."

No doubt!

And again, you are missing that I am not arguing this from a pastoral perspective but from a community one.

People have to take responsibility for their own feelings.

If they are hurt, they need to say something before taking their ball and going home.

These people didn't owe MARK more than they gave... they owed the rest of the people, THE COMMUNITY more than they gave.

[kelcifer]

They owed the community? That is dysfunctional family thinking. Group loyalty is one thing abusers of power hide behind in order to continue misbehaving.

You and I have both chosen different possible interpretations of this situation, which are: the couple was immature and handled it badly or the pastor was immature and handled it badly (it was probably both).

It sounds to me like the couple came to the pastor looking to resolve a legitimate issue and he took it as them "wanting him to bend over backwards." For the pastor, the whole issue was about keeping these people in his church. I doubt that was the issue for them, which is why it wasn't resolved. Do you REALLY think they came to him unannounced like bratty, spoiled children whining, "Pay attention to us or we'll stop going to your church."?

If, as it sounds, he made it obvious he didn't care about them the way they thought he did, they more than lived up to their "responsibility" by giving him a chance to convince them otherwise. If someone communicates they don't care, the relationship's over. The issue is false love. Inevitably, confronting it only confirms the deception.

Should they have agreed to disagree with the pastor and stayed with the community? I don't think so. Pastors don't need to be perfect, but maybe there are some "A level" flaws that can't be overlooked in leaders (especially ones serving as spiritual role models), such as disrespectful attitudes and behaviors toward people (like making fools of people by bringing them in as friends and changing the relationship once they're hooked) or expectations of sycophantic devotion.