If you have not read anything about the topic at hand you can check out Collin Garabino's article here, another by Carl Trueman here, and a little of the aftermath here and here. I know it seems like quite a bit of preliminary reading but if you are reading this then you probably have some time on your hands to skim and get caught up.
I hope to not come off damning or to place to much blame on one side or the other but to explain a few thoughts on why this issue especially troubles me. I think this issue highlights a couple things about our Christian culture than should be brought to attention and discussed in a greater circle as a part of the Church in America. We are in a peculiar time and place which will require extra patience, humility, and understanding before we can come to a place where we can discuss the topic in an objective and fair manner. This is what I hope to do; in a way that evaluates an issue more than evaluating a person. People are fickle and a blog simply does not have enough room to comprehensively evaluate a person. Please take note of that.
The first issue that concerns me is one that Carl Trueman highlights in his article, an issue of current consequences of our culture: fame in ministry. It is an interesting thing to ponder. I wonder if there is any historical comparison that we can make for how we treat celebrities today in America. We live in a culture that looks to elevate people and watch their star-lit lives moment by moment. This type of mentality has also pervaded the church. Now what I am not saying is that people being known is a bad thing. Assuming positive intent, most people who become known in the church are known because of the good that they have done in their work- whether that be through ministry with people, ministry of great thought, or the ministry of living a faithful life and proclaiming God's word. What is alarming, though, is what this ends up doing to the culture at large.
In this Driscoll event, there was an evident split. There was one group of people that supported Ms. Mefford in bringing to light the plagiarism. There was another group of people that defended Driscoll. In other circumstances the issue would be brought to light and dealt with accordingly (Garabino and Trueman explain what would happen in their institutions) but because of the platform that Driscoll has found himself the issue becomes so much more. Because of the fame itself it elevates the two general reactions to the issue- those quick to forgive and those who want justice. These two reactions are common in every scenario where sin is brought to light. It is the job of the fellowship of believers to take council from both sides to come with a balanced approach to the situation. But the question becomes who is the fellowship of believers in this situation? I have one friend who I respect greatly for their composure on such issues who would take the stance that the direct local church and publishers are those who really have a say on the issue. This friend would say it does not help for others not directly related to chip in or talk about the issue; at that point the rest of the church is endangering itself with other sins of gossip and slander among other sinful states that is produced when you simply cannot know all the details because you are not directly involved. This makes sense and I believe there is wisdom in that for all of us but I also believe that because of the status of the person in question there is a void left if something goes unanswered on a public level. Also I fear what Trueman states in his article, whatever happens will be a strong message to the watching world.
The second thing that troubled me is something I have been pondering more on my own. It seems that the Christian culture at large does not know how to respond to wrong acts. The extremes here are either too forgiving or too damning and what we all seek is the golden mean. To be transparent, I tend to lean on the side that is too damning. Personally, I resonate with an ideal sense of justice that has been transgressed and I want to see things be made right. As I have just completed college, it was drilled in my head that plagiarism is a big no-no and has severe consequences for those caught in the act. So why should that be different for anyone else? There were others I interacted with that countered with thoughts of forgiveness. Driscoll screwed up, we all screw up, but now we know and we trust that we will all move on, besides Christ is being preached, good work is being done- why let this slow things down? I believe this to be a bit dismissive.
I am not on a witch hunt. I do not want to see Driscoll humiliated for what he has done, for I do not want to be humiliated for all the things that I have done wrong. But I do expect accountability and a level of seriousness to be taken for my sins. Plagiarism is wrong and should not be tolerated on any level because it is a form of theft. Not to be trite, but that is what it is- it is theft. I believe that by me stating that it does not damn Mark Driscoll because he plagiarized. Saying he plagiarized is not inaccurate if he did, in fact, plagiarize. Saying that I lied is not unfair to say if I did not tell the truth. But this is where we find our golden mean. Because Mark Driscoll plagiarized and because I lie does not make up our identity or put us in some weird subcategory of Christian. It makes us humans in need for a perfect savior.
With that being said you can still have the two reactions. Again assuming positive intent, both sides want the same things. Both sides want to deal with the issue as it is; neither side wants to make it too big of a deal or underplay the seriousness of the issue. Both sides want to deal with the issue quickly and seek restoration and unity of the Church on this issue. In an appropriate manner in regards to where you are and how you are connected to the situation, reason that out. Ultimately it will be in the hands of that closest to Driscoll and his work. What we should make sure our dialogue is centered around is that we have a perfect Savior that we have joined to die to our sins so that we may live in Him.
As my father says it is better to have dead heroes than living ones. For the dead heroes cannot change their minds or fail us anew and the only true living hero is Christ. My dad may have gotten that from his pastor. I don't know, don't cite me on that.
 |
| The interns, Pastor Russ, and Dr. j |
Instead of writing down a brief schedule and description of the entire trip, I thought I would share with you what I've been processing since then and the parts of the trip that contributed. Before the trip started I had just started thinking about the differences in theology and how people can come to different philosophical conclusions based on the context of study. For example, a person who is studying theology in a library without contact with anyone will come to different conclusions than a person who has no access to books and is only working in certain ministries. I know these are extremes, but it is interesting to see how action affects thinking.
In line with my thoughts on this before the trip our host for most of the trip was a professor at Moody Graduate School- Dr. Julius Wong Loi Sing. I cannot describe to you how helpful and entertaining it was to have him a part of the group. He was in and out of our activities because he had other meetings and classes, but when he was with us his sense of humor and his knowledge kept us on our toes. In a small way he was an interesting peg on the spectrum mentioned earlier. He was a professor for the graduate school yet he was our connection to all of these on-the-ground ministries and he knew all about them. He also gave some interesting insight to the direction that Moody Bible Institute has been taking recently in terms of the academic and the practical.
Meeting Dr. J was our first stop which took us to Moody. We had a little time to walk around and see the D.L. Moody museum that the school has. This added more food for my thoughts. Moody was known for being a little more on the charismatic side, a little more on the Armenianist side, and relatively uneducated. But his school, now some 125+ years later now leans more fundamentalist and Calvinist as it has further become a celebrated educational institute. Is this due to a theological trend or swing? Or could it be that when the focus turns to theological education more than evangelism or practical theology we see these changes?
Let me be clear, I'm not saying that D.L. Moody would be disappointed with where we are now. He might have known that this would happen and actually wanted this for future ministers. Or maybe he just wanted sound biblical training, uncaring of theological bias, and this is what history has brought us too. Honestly, I have not done in-depth study of Moody or the school, but this is what I have picked up from fellow students who have done more research than I.
After seeing Moody a bit (something I have done before) and meeting Dr. J, we began to have busy days running around Chicago visiting different kinds of ministries and meeting different people. The thing that everyone that we met with had in common was passion for the work of God to be done in their context. We met Sarah who works for an after school program in Cabrini Green called By the Hand. She is a single woman originally from Kentucky who sought to work in one of the more difficult places in Chicago. She gave her life to this ministry, so much so that she adopted a couple of young boys who had a more extreme family situation.
We visited another after school program that was in Cabrini Green, but since the gentrification of the area, they moved to south Chicago to help out that area. The after school program helps kids in the poor Chicago Public School system aspire to do better than their environment often equips them for. When we were there the program was celebrating that one of its eighth graders recently tested well enough to go to a sponsored school- which is much better than continuing on in the public schools. It was a really rewarding experience because we got to hang out and help some of the kids in the program. These were some of the wittiest, funniest kids that I have ever met. I didn't realize how my west coast inspired style would not translate to south Chicago. I had a lot of the kids gawk and ask me about my plugs, long hair, and tattoo... which they would then continue to laugh at. But it was cool how that was an easy ice breaker which allowed us to enjoy helping the kids do their homework, read, have a brief bible lesson, and then, of course, play some dodgeball.
Briefly, for those who are unfamiliar with gentrification what I learned from the trip is that it is the reversal of the "white flight". In history there was the movement of affluent people out of the downtown city areas to the suburbs to escape some of the downtown culture that was being created by the pull of industry. But recently culture has turned its eye back on cities as they are becoming less of a focus of huge manufacturing plants and other factories and more of focus for rising businesses. Gentrification is the term of the affluent coming back to the cities, relocating government issued housing, and spending a ton of money in making those once run down areas into trendy, urban places friendly for tourists and upper middle aged business people. If I seem to be presenting this in a positive or negative light, I do not mean too. I am, rightfully or wrongfully, taking the perspective of unbiased, objective history. It has both positive and negative effects on different groups of people. Until one becomes intimate with the context and issue, it is hard to know what the right and best course of action is.
One of the other more unique experiences that we had was we witnessed a very different discipleship group. This was probably one of the most directly intellectually stimulating times of the trip. We were with very intelligent people who were very aware of culture and Christianity. They had taken "life together" to the next level. From what I gathered they at least met once a week to share a meal and catch up in their group which was around 8-10ish people (which they considered was getting "too big"), but they also made it a point to get involved in each others lives out side of the group and talked about meeting regularly outside in one on one or smaller group situations. They would do everything from just getting coffee to talk or going to see a movie. They were intentional about speaking into what was occurring in each others lives whether it was big things like general life direction or smaller situations that happened at work, school, or in their families.
What was unclear about this group was whether or not they considered themselves a church and I believe this is where the tension for some in our group lied. This is where all my study of eccliesology would come into play. Encountering this group led to questions such as; "what is necessary for a church?", "what is the church?", "what is required from the church?". Some of them did also attend a gathering of believers on Sunday, some did not. When I asked the organizer of this discipleship program (that is occurring in different areas of the U.S. as well as a group overseas I believe) about the history and development of this... thing for lack of a better word he gave a brief personal history of his work as a senior pastor of a couple churches. When trying to bring a similar discipleship program into the church it was evidently like oil and water, it ended up making a group that were in the discipleship primarily and a group primarily going to church. I regret not having more time to talk with him more and find out why he thinks that was the situation, but it is a talk for the future.
This brings a lot of pertinent questions in Christianity today. People are becoming nervous of things like the New Perspective on Paul and the influence it has on theological and church movements such as the emerging and emergent church. I believe we need to realize that we have a great debt to our history but we also have a great responsibility to our future and we need to bring those two together when discussing the appropriateness in our action as Christians. What is necessary for a church? How far should we stretch people in certain spiritual disciplines? How important are certain forms of worship over others? How much of preference (theological and practical) plays into our distinctions? Can we maintain minor distinctions and also our unity as the Universal Church? People have struggled and are struggling with these questions. Do not feel overwhelmed. Pray and humbly seek God's word and wise counsel because if history has anything to say we probably won't get it perfect in our generation either.
On Sunday we went to six or seven different churches. We visited four "high" churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, and Greek Orthodox) and some "low" churches that were in various areas of Chicago. Being in different buildings and witnessing the various different forms of worship was an awesome experience. If you have not done something like that where you live, I strongly suggest that you do so.
Overall the trip was extremely useful. I engaged in thoughts that I will continue to wrestle with for my foreseeable future and also got to meet a ton of passionate people filling a need that God has burdened on their heart. I just would like to thank those that gave me support for going on this trip and the professors that gave understanding for the missed classes. I hope this gave you some things to think about. Please feel free to contact me or leave a comment to talk more about the things discussed here. I am very much a fan of learning as a conversation.
To those who read this all and are praying for me and others mentioned in this post, God bless.
Posts
