Saturday, November 06, 2021

Mark Driscoll as King Jehu rather than King David, a Jacques Ellul-inspired reading of the man’s self-confessed vices and ministry history


 
If in Driscoll’s understanding of church governance and ecclesiology leadership is from the throne down and not the pew up, and if Justin Dean’s account is accurate that the Mars Hill Church governing board offered Mark Driscoll a restoration plan in which he would stop being in a managerial role and would preach, then the most plausible explanation for why Mark Driscoll resigned that takes all of his accounts as factual, face-value accounts is this: he decided that a church as a corporate entity in which he was not seated on the throne (as president and CEO) was not a church in which he would be a member. 
 
All of that is by way of introduction. I know we are down to the last two episodes of the Christianity Today podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, not counting any possible bonus episodes that may emerge. I know that it has been popular among Christian bloggers, if from time to time, to compare Mark Driscoll to King David.  I find such comparisons to reflect a poverty of imagination regarding biblical literature.  If we’re going to compare Mark Driscoll to a king in the biblical literature who received a clear call and then was “released” (per Grace Driscoll’s remarks to Brian Houston in 2015) then it’s more probable that Mark Driscoll would be a King Saul figure than a King David figure?  Why?  David was never “released” from his leadership role the way King Saul and Eli were told by the prophet Samuel that they were dismissed from their leadership roles. Where Eli accepted the Lord’s dismissal of his household from leadership Saul did not accept the dismissal and tenaciously clung to power.
 
Yet, for all those potentially fascinating parallels there is still another figure among the kings of Samaria to whom Mark Driscoll might profitably be compared.  Jehu has a claim to being a potential parallel, if we’re going to entertain biblical parallels of rulers with whom Mark Driscoll might be compared.  So today I mean to consider Driscoll’s life in public ministry to Jehu with help from the work of Jacques Ellul.
 
A friend of mine once pointed out that Mark Driscoll often repeated the story that God told him to marry Grace, teach young men, plant churches and teach the Bible.   None of those things actually required that Mark Driscoll sought out starting a church.  Certainly there was nothing about that calling, if we assume it took place (and I’m well aware not everyone will) that requires us to suppose that what Mark Driscoll subsequently has done since 1990 should be construed as having always … or even ever … been the will of God.  It is here I want to make reference to Ellul’s work:
 

The Politics of God and the Politics of Man

Jacques Ellul

Copyright © 1972 by Editions de la Table Rondo and Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

ISBN 13: 978-1-61097-798-2

ISBN 0-8028-1442-5

Translated from the French Politique de Dieu, politiques de l’homme, Nouvelle alliance, Editions Universitaires, Paris, 1966

 

Pages 98-99

… Now this employment of an intermediary has a result one might expect. The message is changed. In the same way the Word spoken by God in Christ is undoubtedly modified by the church, and not for the better,. What Elisha says to the young man is this: “Lead Jehu to an inner chamber, anoint him with the oil of kingship, and say to him, `Thus says the Lord, I anoint you king over Israel,’ then flee, do not tarry.” There is nothing more, no address. The message to Jehu is both radical and also very terse. But this is not the way the young man delivers it. Instead, fleeing at once, he gives an address (as the church often does), and he adds his own invention: “You shall strike down the house of Ahab … I will avenge on Jezebel the blood of the prophets … the whole house of Ahab will perish, every male, bond or free. … The dogs shall eat Jezebel … .” In sum, the young man outlines a program of action for Jehu, which is something Elisha does not do. Now the young man is undoubtedly using prophecies of Elijah (1 Kings 21:19-24), but Elisha does not tell him to do this.  It is on this false transmission that the whole career of Jehu is based. We are usually struck by the fierce and bloodthirsty character of Jehu, and this is clear enough. But another and no less decisive element should not be missed, namely that all Jehu’s work is done in a situation of ambiguity and misunderstanding.

 

He is anointed by God, but in the long run he does nothing but evil wherever he goes. He fulfils prophecies but he is condemned for so doing. He is a man of God, but he uses all the methods of the devil. [emphasis added]

 

We are faced again by a question we have investigated already, that of the coincidence between God’s design and man’s, that of God’s employment of what is bad in man to bring about what he himself wills. Here, for example, there is undoubtedly coincidence between the anointing of Jehu and the existence of a conspiracy among the generals of Joram’s army. In fact, the conspiracy probably existed already. This would explain the immediate support of the generals and their siding with Jehu.

 

The situation was indeed favorable for a coup d’etat. The army was in the field, the king was wounded and had withdrawn, and the generals had a free hand. Probably Jehu already wanted to seize power and the decision of God passed on by the young man seemed to him to be a sign for action. There is also an obvious coincidence between the work that Jehu is commissioned to do and the glimpses we catch of his temperament. He is clearly a bloodthirsty man, and this not merely by reason of his trade. He is at home in massacres, and we thus see God choosing as the agent of his judgment a man whose temperament corresponds to what is asked of him. …

 
Given that Hebrew narrative can be laconic we might take caution here. Perhaps Ellul assumes the young man added a great deal that was not in Elisha’s statement. Or perhaps the young man conveyed something of Elijah’s warnings that were preserved in Elisha’s community that Elisha did not need to add.  Still, Ellul’s proposal that a rambunctious young prophet interposed a great deal upon Elisha’s instruction is thematically interesting—either way the young man transformed Elisha’s simple command into a pretext for setting a violent and activist agenda. Jehu was a man of violence and treachery who was given the task to depose the Omride dynasty and this Jehu did! 
 
But how Jehu deposed the Omride dynasty is what interested Ellul:
 

Page 101

… Undoubtedly, Jehu is the man who executes what God has previously announced. In some sense he is the one who manages the important acts which accomplish the condemnation. But in the last resort he does it all in his own interests. [emphasis added] He takes part in the fulfillment of the prophecy, but he does so, one might say, within the order of political logic. The prophecy intimates this unfolding of political logic. Ahab triggers the movement. Jehu, the champion of Yahweh, uses the same weapons as Ahab, the weapons of politics and violence. …

 

Page 103

We see here another aspect of Jehu. He is cunning. He sets traps for men, as he will do later for the worshipers of Baal. Indeed, in the story of the massacre of the priests of Baal he goes further and lies openly: “ Ahab served Baal little; but Jehu will serve him much. … I have a great sacrifice to offer Baal” (10:18f.). It is on the basis of this promise and this profession of faith that he gathers together the priests and worshipers of Baal to destroy them. Here Jehu is shown to be a liar. …

 

Pages 112-113

The real question in the case of Jehu is that of the heart. Like Abraham, one may say, Jehu is set outside the morality which God established. But Jehu is not Abraham. In fact Jehu is a man who, faithful to God and knowing his will, commandeers this will and makes it his own. He identifies his own cause with God’s design. He thus sets out to shape history in the name of God  but also in the place of God. No doubt he does everything exactly as prophesied. No doubt he achieves what the Lord intends. But it is now his own affair. He has substituted his own will for God’s. It is he who does it, he does not let the Lord act through him. He puts a screen between history and the Lord of history. For man can always erect this barrier and achieve his own purpose. What was God’s purpose has become purely and simply the autonomous will of jehu. He seizes control of the prophecy. He makes it his own cause, confident that he is in the line of God’s will.  He himself has decided to fulfill the prophecy. [emphasis added] …

 

Wanting to put into effect God’s decision, he pays no attention to the great statement that it is not of him that wills nor of him that runs. Jehu is one of those in the Bible who want to fulfill and accomplish of themselves what God has said.  Thus Abraham wants to fulfill the promise of posterity by his own decision and at his own time, i.e., the means of Hagar. This is the whole problem. …

 

Page 115

… Jehu uses prophecy in the interests of politics while pretending to use politics in the interest of prophecy. …
 
Why mention so much about Jehu by way of Ellul?  Because Mark Driscoll once preached through the book of Ruth and mentioned something about himself he heard from Grace Driscoll: 

http://marshill.se/marshill/media/redeemingruth/gods-hand-in-our-suffering
http://download.marshill.se/files/2007/01/07/20070107_gods-hand-in-our-suffering_sd_audio.mp3

Mark Driscoll

Ruth 1:1-1:22

January 07, 2007

01:00:20
...Elimelech is the guy--everything falls apart. It looks dark, it looks bad. He takes a poll he makes a plan. He decides Moab has a lower cost of living. Moab has more vocational opportunity. Moab has food on the table. I will make a plan, I will be the sovereign. I will take care of everything. Trust me. I know what I'm doing. He leads well. He plans well. He tries to be the sovereign (they're all going to die anyways). I am Elimelech.

I asked my wife, "Which one am I?" ... She didn't even breath, didn't even take a breath, "Oh, you're Elimelech." And his name means what? MY GOD IS KING! That was me. If you asked me, Jesus, sovereign, lord, king, God! And if I ever need Him I'll call him but I don't think I do because I've got all this taken care of.
...

And how many of you are Naomi-ish? You’re a bitter, moody, cranky, self-righteous, finger-pointing, brutally honest, frustrating person that God loves deeply, for no apparent reason. You want to know me? Here’s how I work. I start with Elimelech. If that doesn’t work, I go to Naomi. That’s me. “I’ll figure it out. I’ll make a plan. I’ll lead well. I’ll take care of everything. Give me the variables. I got it all figured out. It didn’t work? Well, God, did you not get the memo? I knew exactly what needed to be done! [emphases added] I’m not sure who to call to tattle.” And if we’re honest, we find ourselves at varying seasons in our lives identifying with each character in the story.
 

So by Driscoll’s own account he starts with Elimelech and if things don’t work out he goes to Naomi. He played it all for laughs in the 2007 sermon but you can potentially hear past the jokes that he confessed to being a Jehu, the kind of man who conflated whatever he thought he heard from God with his own personal agendas and desires.  What Mike Cosper has continually circled around in his podcast is why no one sense that this Mark Driscoll guy was a Jehu rather than a David. How did people not pick up that Mark Driscoll was a guy who, in his own accounting, had made an idol of victory?
 

RESISTING IDOLS LIKE JESUSPart 22 of 1st Corinthians
Pastor Mark Driscoll | 1 Corinthians 10:1-14 | June 18, 2006
...
Here’s the tricky part: Figuring out what your idols are. Let me give you an example. Let’s say for example, you define for yourself a little Hell. For you, Hell is being poor. For you, your definition of Hell is being ugly. For you, your definition of Hell is being fat. For you, your definition of Hell is being unloved. For you, your definition of Hell is being unappreciated. That fear of that Hell then compels you to choose for yourself a false savior god to save you from that Hell. And then you worship that false savior god in an effort to save yourself from your self-described Hell. So, some of you are single. Many of you are unmarried. For you, Hell is being unmarried and your savior will be a spouse. And so you keep looking for someone to worship, to give yourself to so that they will save you. For some of you, you are lonely and your Hell is loneliness, and so you choose for yourself a savior, a friend, a group of friends or a pet because you’ve tried the friends and they’re not dependable. And you worship that pet. You worship that friend. You worship that group of friends. You will do anything for them because they are your functional savior, saving you from your Hell. That is, by definition, idolatry. It is having created people and created things in the place of the creator God for ultimate allegiance, value and worth.

So here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to get incredibly personal. This will get painfully uncomfortable if I do my job well. I’m going to ask you some probing questions. We’re going to try to get to the root of your idols and mine and I am guilty. I was sitting at breakfast this morning. My wife said, “So what is your idol?” I was like, “Hey, I’m eating breakfast! Leave me alone. I don’t want to talk about that.” I’m the pastor. I preach. I don’t get preached at. Eating bacon. Don’t ruin it. You know, it’s going good., And I told her, I said, “Honey, I think for me, my idol is victory.” Man, I am an old jock. More old than jock, lately, but I – I’m a guy who is highly competitive. Every year, I want the church to grow. I want my knowledge to grow. I want my influence to grow. I want our staff to grow. I want our church plants to grow. I want everything – because I want to win. I don’t want to just be where I’m at. I don’t want anything to be where it’s at. And so for me it is success and drivenness and it is productivity and it is victory that drives me constantly. I – that’s my own little idol and it works well in a church because no one would ever yell at you for being a Christian who produces results. So I found the perfect place to hide. 

And I was thinking about it this week. What if the church stopped growing? What if we shrunk? What if everything fell apart? What if half the staff left? Would I still worship Jesus or would I be a total despairing mess? I don’t know. By God’s grace, I won’t have to find out, but you never know. [emphasis added] So we’re going to look for your idols, too. Some questions. Think about it. Be honest with me. What are you most afraid of? What is your greatest fear? See, that probably tells you what your idol is. Sometimes your idol is the thing that you’re scared of not having, not being, not doing. What are you scared of? You scared that you’ll be alone? Are you scared that no one will ever love you? Are you scared that you will be found out that you’re not all that smart? Are you scared that you’ll be stuck in the same dead-end job forever? What are you afraid of?


And to this an Ellulian observation of the kind of man Mark Driscoll admitted himself to be would be to suggest that here is another Jehu.
 

Page 117

… As John says of himself: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30) Jehu, however, is a man who interposes himself while pretending to be accomplishing the purpose of God. …

 

Page 118

[Jehu] … is a type of the man who is unfaithful even in his faithfulness. He is both approved by God and also rejected by him. To be sure, he is always loved by God in spite of his lies, assassinations, and treacheries. But he is also rejected by God because of his commandeering of the Word and the harshness of his loyalty. [emphases added] The real tragedy, however, is that he is finally the reason for the rejection of the whole people, and the reference is very plainly to him in the extraordinary saying which Hosea speaks to Israel, “I have given you kings (a king) in my anger, and I have taken them away (will take him away in my wrath” (Hosea 13:11) …

 
Even if we suppose that Mark Driscoll had a sincere conversion experience and a genuine sense of calling to some kind of ministry literally none of that precludes interpreting his decades of pursuit of public ministry as partaking in the spirit of Jehu. Even if Mark Driscoll had a sincere conversion and calling process Jacques Ellul’s observation about Jehu was that Jehu ultimately regarded the word of the Lord as a pretext to do what he wanted to do. Deception and crushing enemies was just part of ruling.  Gaining and consolidating power through abuse and deceit was just part of Jehu’s deal.   Even when deceit isn’t involved there is, I suggest, a pragmatic streak in Jehu that may have been revealed decades ago when Mark Driscoll was talking to someone writing for Mother Jones.
 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1998/07/generation/

…

“There are gays all over our church and I don’t need to yell at them like the religious right,” Driscoll says. “You can be a gay or punk and we’ll treat you like everybody else. Even if you never become a Christian, we’re still friends.”
 
Mars Hill is all about acceptance. Compared to the religious right’s favorite son Ralph Reed, a vision of fundamentalist zeal in a blue suit, Driscoll seems downright countercultural. He’s unabashed about using the pulpit to discuss sex. “I speak very frankly about the reasons God made our bodies to experience orgasm, the Bible’s approval of oral sex between a husband and wife,” he says. “Once you’re married and as long as you remain monogamous, God tells his children to be unblushingly erotic and passionate.”
 
He offers classes at church on topics such as “evangelical feminism” (“the Bible is clear that men and women are both created by God in His image and likeness and totally equal in every way,” he says) and disavows any link with conservative politics. “I used to think it was part of Christianity to be conservative,” he says. “I was further right than Falwell and Limbaugh.” Now he says he doesn’t even vote. What changed? “It got boring,” he says with a shrug. “And I realized that politics didn’t change anything, that in the meantime, people were still starving.”  [emphases added]

 
Time has shown that Mark Driscoll may have just been saying what he believed was strategically necessary to ensure his church plant survived. Driscoll more and more, as time goes by, seems like he has been a Jehu rather than a David from the beginning.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

another case of purged content, Larry Osborn conversation with Driscoll from 2016 has been scrubbed, revisiting that 41 former MH elders issued a statement earlier this year that Driscoll was disqualified from pastoral ministry

For those longtime readers who remember the following post ... an index of a series I wrote a while back ...
https://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-larry-osborne-conversation-with-mark_20.html
be advised that the following links are dead ends because the content has been made private or unavailable

https://leadnet.org/video/400-gathering-day-2-session-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzhEwT7xLsI
uploaded November 16, 2016
092816 400 Gathering Session 1

A somewhat significant stretch of the material I've discussed here at Wenatchee The Hatchet ended up purged or redacted in some fashion and so it's not really a surprise if the Osborn/Driscoll talk has vanished since Christianity Today reported that 41 former elders signed a statement saying they found Mark Driscoll disqualified from ministry.
Read more »
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)