Friday, October 24, 2014

answers to questions you didn't ask, new installment. "Why, again?"

Over the years some commenters have written asking "what's your motive?"  Variations include, "What's you're heart?", "Check your heart", "What's your goal?" and so on, with respect to, well, you have a guess, don't you? 

Since so many of these queries came cloaked in Christianese and Wenatchee The Hatchet is a Christian, how's about Wenatchee The Hatchet does the most Christianese thing possible and hits you with a verse from Leviticus.

Leviticus 5:1
If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible.


To whom?  Well, the public would seem implied here but Christians (and Jews) would tend to understand the "public" including, you know, God.  If you know something through seeing or hearing and don't speak up when the call to speak up comes up then you bear some iniquity.  That's another reason a whole battalion of guys who heretofore haven't said anything at all might want to reconsider.  Just saying, as someone used to say, it's in the Bible.

5 comments:

molly245 said...

Write on Mr. Hatchet!!

C. Stirling Bartholomew said...

Is anyone posting evaluations of MD's teaching, theology, christology ?

All the discussion I have run across seems to be focused on finance and the treatment of church people who were not in agreement with the direction MHC was headed. I think giving MD a “pass” on theology is a mistake. Also his ecclesiology seems to be seriously defective. The shape and substance of the MHC “ministry culture” is the outgrowth of some very non-biblical thinking on the notion of “Church.

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

Hoping to return to the problematic theology of Driscoll in time. There's so much in the 2008 spiritual warfare series besides the hot button stuff cessationists focused on it warrants further discussion but that'll take time.

And Mark's understanding of the church would be worth additional discussion but there's only so much a layman with a full-time job can tackle. :)

Diane said...

As a MH outsider who has been following this for many months, this is a discussion I have hoped for but not really seen. I have been drawn to the apparently sincere, caring and in many cases, wounded and hurting individuals (though Heaven help any man who weeps in his own pain or for the pain of others - MD would call him a "pussified" man). But through it all, I have wondered about theology and what importance it has played in this drama. My personal theology is neither Calvinist nor complementarian, so I disagree with much of MD's teaching (though not as much as I disagree with his often mean-spirited, confrontational and tough guy presentation). But even though dozens have shared on these websites and FB pages about their frustration, pain and abuse at MH, I am not clear whether most were drawn there originally by the belief system, or the dynamic leader. Was/is theology important to those under the bus? Was it a factor in some of their decisions to leave? Or do they agree with most of MD's theology, but offended and wounded by his "ministry style" with explosive rants, vulgar language and bullying? I'm interested if anyone wants to share.

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

Diane, that's a good question.

the working theory I've been considering is that Driscoll essentially targeted a very specific demographic, young males and ideally young alpha males (though young males in general were the target). In the negative sense Driscoll fixated on reaching young men who he wanted to see married to the exclusion of other groups because he wanted to capture the hearts and minds and wallets of those who could become the future Establishment for the sake of his particular vision of the Christian faith.

In a positive sense, Driscoll has mentioned that without fail young men are most likely to be violent socially maladaptive and prone to harm others and self; young males are also full of energy and competition that Driscoll wanted to not only avoid discouraging but redirect into what he considered socially, economically and spiritually positive and useful outcomes. Combine this general strategic approach with his penchant for targeting the unchurched or de-churched young males and promising them a legacy and I think the overall appeal of Driscoll is actually relatively easy to understand. If Mars Hill is a cult (and let's just suppose for this thread of discussion it is) Phillip Zimbardo has begun to argue that the flourishing of cults gives us an opportunity to take stock of what cults seem to offer its adherents that society at large does not. It could be that in spite of Driscoll's cartoonish vision of masculinity that not even he has been able to live up to the promise inherent in that portrait of masculinity for young guys is appealing enough that they sign on. It's only once they're mired in the mechanics of the cultural milieu and its leadership culture that they discover too late that they're just as expendable and interchangeable in the Mars Hill/Driscollian system as they were elsewhere.

But explaining how that played out may require some other blog posts down the line.