Until last fall, a 25-year-old Seattle man named Andrew was happily committed to Mars Hill Church, one of America’s fastest-growing megachurches with more than 5,000 members. He volunteered weekly for security duty at his branch of the church, joined a Bible study group, and had recently become engaged to the daughter of a church elder. Then he made a mistake that found him cast out: He cheated on his fiancee with a community college classmate. The fury over Andrew’s experience—and his decision to publicize the church’s internal disciplinary procedures—has led to accusations by other Christians that one of the most powerful evangelical voices in the country, Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll, employs a cultlike leadership style. Now, for the first time, Mars Hill is speaking out in response to its former member’s charges.

Comments

Search

PineHall  - Church Discipline, Not Online   |2012-02-12 18:21:17 Quote: One key element that was not clear in Andrew’s original account, Dean told me, was that the letter was intended to be read aloud, not posted online, and only to a “handful” of people. Instead, the group leader received unclear instructions and posted the letter online, a move Dean insists was not meant to hurt Andrew. Church discipline is by nature a messy thing, and most churches avoid church discipline like the plague. Church discipline can be the loving thing to do and needs to happen at times. From the article it looks like the letter was not meant to be posted online. You must be careful of what you post online. My rule of thumb is that if I am posting online then I must assume that the whole world will eventually see it. Privacy settings don't work that well. Mars Hill did go to far posting it online, but if it was a letter just read to a few people was that good church discipline? Was the terms of his church discipline too onerous? Quote: He was given a new contract requiring that he write his “sexual and emotional attachment history with women” and share it with his fiancee; he was also told to give her, and his pastor, a list of his sexual and emotional sins. I don't know what to say. From the article it sound like punishment, but maybe was it meant to be a road to healing. I don't know.

laika  - re: Church Discipline, Not Online   |2012-02-13 00:07:15 PineHall wrote: I don't know what to say. From the article it sound like punishment, but maybe was it meant to be a road to healing. I don't know. Same here. I'm sure that church discipline is never easy, and I certainly think that there's a place for confession and accountability, but a detailed written record sounds a bit much. A bit odd, even.

whitemice  - Online?   |2012-02-13 05:48:10 I'm pretty much pro-church-discipline; there are many churches, if someone feels wronged or harassed they can go elsewhere [ the disciplined will often claim this ]. Given the nuttiness and inconsistency I've seen I think church's should take membership more seriously (becoming a member is a choice). BUT... and it is a big BUT... "online"! Really? That is just &*(!@^&*$ @^*@ stupid and irresponsible. Please put miles between the church and the Internet.

emperorbma   |2012-02-13 13:17:46 whitemice wrote: Please put miles between the church and the Internet. Not so sure we should revert to Horse and Buggy postage. The Internet is too important a communication media for Christians to avoid having a presence on it. Of course, there is something to be said for good security, proper decorum and not putting all one's eggs in the "internet basket."

laika   |2012-02-13 22:15:37 emperorbma wrote: Not so sure we should revert to Horse and Buggy postage. Said the advocate of Horse and Buggy government ;-)

emperorbma   |2012-02-14 00:46:52 Hey, the Internet is free market, unlike that Horse and Buggy postage system... :P

laika   |2012-02-14 17:09:30 emperorbma wrote: Hey, the Internet is free market, unlike that Horse and Buggy postage system... :P Touche, old sport, touche! And yes, I do share your enthusiasm for the freewheeling, wide open Internet. To borrow from Neil Young, Long may she run!

PineHall  - face to face   |2012-02-13 23:10:32 emperorbma wrote: Not so sure we should revert to Horse and Buggy postage. The Internet is too important a communication media for Christians to avoid having a presence on it. I agree that the Internet is a very important communication tool, but in the case of church discipline I feel that face to face communication is necessary. Even in explaining things to the small group that will shun him. There needs to be interaction in the communication. A posting will not do.

emperorbma   |2012-02-14 00:53:12 I know what you mean. I think that makes sense if you have an established congregation and can gather somewhere. If it's some kind of online Bible study group, though, that might be a lot harder to implement especially if the person being reproved doesn't have a home congregation.

whitemice  - re: Church Discipline, Not Online   |2012-02-13 05:54:46 PineHall wrote: My rule of thumb is that if I am posting online then I must assume that the whole world will eventually see it. Privacy settings don't work that well. +1 And importantly, "privacy settings" have very close to zero legal weight (at least in the USA). They can be changed or discarded at will. The law is pretty simple - my server, my data; your server, your data. I upload my data to your server.... who owns it now? You. A little known bit of American law - if you are using your personal laptop/tablet in the employers cafeteria and your employer is a legal corporation - who owns the data on that device? Your employer, at least until you take it off the premises. Yes, I as the IT manager can confiscate the device and inspect the "contents" (your data, oh, wait no, the companies data!). Short answer - private means it is at home and still works when unplugged.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."