EDIT: MPT published the second post not long after I wrote this. I know, my sense of timing is impeccable. Anyway, both posts are available at his website (see the link below).
Matthew Paul Turner has posted the story of Andrew, who served a role in Mark Driscoll’s Seattle-based church Mars Hill and the disciplinary actions that took place after he confessed to cheating on his fiancee.
In the first of two posts, we read how Andrew took responsibility for his actions but started to call Mars Hill into question based on how he was treated in the weeks following his trespass. Eventually, he left the church.
I don’t want this post to be about trashing Driscoll (even though I’m opposed to both his theology and methodology). Instead, I want to briefly touch on whether it’s appropriate to publish Andrew’s story at all.
Many people would insist that publishing this story is motivated more by anti-Driscollism than anything else. They’d also point out that a church has every right to discipline its members.
Now I agree that church discipline is a biblical concept, but I also disagree with the sentiment that it’s inappropriate to make Andrew’s story public.
I think this kind of series is important because a good number of Christian men want to be like Driscoll. Since many of these same men will grow up to become pastors and lead churches of their own, I think we–as potential members of their future congregations–have every right to see just what kind of church environment Driscoll has helped to cultivate over the years and what type of leaders these future pastors will be.
So that’s why I’m paying attention to Andrew’s story. (Hopefully, a response from Mars Hill is forthcoming so we can get both sides of the story.)
I hope you’ll be reading, too.