Mark Driscoll, Elder Qualifications, and ‘Blameless’
Nov 15th, 2007 by Nathan White
I recently had an interesting discussion about the biblical qualifications for an elder. This discussion centered around Mark Driscoll, the former ‘emergent’ and admittedly crass pastor from Seattle, as well as other controversial pastors that people tend to have differing opinions of. Driscoll, though he has come a long way over the past few years, is disliked by many because of his fiery and sometimes crass rhetoric, not to mention his personal history (even being known at one time as ‘the cussing pastor’).
As I contemplated Mark Driscoll and the pros and cons of his ministry, I was brought back to the scriptures, specifically 1 Tim chapter 3 and Titus chapter 1, and thus I considered the biblical qualifications for the office of an elder. (As I list under ‘Beliefs‘, the scriptures clearly teach that the local church is to be governed by a plurality of biblically qualified elders, instead of the typical ‘CEO’ figurehead or congregational rule that is predominant in most protestant churches today. Thus I move forward in the article below with these presuppositions).
Upon a study of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, the question that must stand out in our minds above all else is: What does it mean to be blameless and above reproach? Consider this question with me, even in relation to Mark Driscoll and others like him, as I welcome your feedback as well.
First, let us note just a few of the character-traits scripture lists under elder qualifications (ESV):
1 Tim 3: Above reproach; sober-minded; self-controlled; respectable; hospitable; gentle; not quarrelsome; not a recent convert; well thought of by outsiders, etc.
Titus 1: Above reproach; not arrogant; not quick tempered; self controlled; upright; holy; disciplined.
By observing this list, we can clearly see that the qualifications for an elder are centered on personal character, reputation, faithfulness, and sanctification, as just a basic summary.
Interesting that the scriptures do not mention a man’s:
- Educational level, as if a seminary degree is somehow a necessary asset to enter the ministry (it does mention that an elder must be ‘able to teach’ and ‘refute those who contradict’.)
- Popularity, as if a man’s ability to attract large crowds, demand a large hearing, or ‘change a lot of lives’ has anything to do with the holy office.
- Results (pragmatism), as if we are to look at the response to his message and determine if he is qualified. (Example: “Lot’s of people are getting saved, and God is moving, thus this man must be anointed!”)
- Likability, rhetorical skills, ability to be culturally-relevant or creative in presentation, etc.
Instead, the Holy Spirit through Paul focuses on a man’s steadfast obedience, his faithfulness to practical obedience, his integrity, his reputation, and basically, his level of sanctification. Elders are to be the very best examples of Godliness, the very holiest of men, and they are to be held to the very highest of standards.
Driscoll and Elder Qualifications
It is specifically in relation to these qualifications that I have concerns about Mark Driscoll and others like him. In this post, I am not out to discuss the tired argument of whether his methods/preaching/ministry is God-honoring. But what I am out to discuss is whether Driscoll being in the office of an elder is a good thing or a bad thing for the Church.
Regarding Driscoll specifically, I believe that an element of his success is undoubtedly his ‘rebellious’ streak. He isn’t afraid to say exactly what he is thinking, no matter how crude, shocking, or offensive it might be. I’m not sure why, but people tend to see this as somehow more honest, or more humble, when in reality it seems to be exactly the opposite. Driscoll specifically goes after the ’shock effect’, ever-so-trying to appeal to the pop-culture, and he successfully captures the approval of those who rebelliously hate what they see as rigid, legalistic, or boring Christianity in other circles.
But this issue does not stop with Driscoll alone. Even in what we would generally consider to be the most ‘doctrinally sound’ of circles (Reformed), we have men who are lauded and praised for their passionate messages, their cultural relevance, their success rate, and yes, even their rebellion, all while many turn a deaf ear to a ’strict’ interpretation of the qualifications of being an elder. However, it’s not all bad, as unlike many of his contemporaries, Driscoll at least preaches a sound gospel, for the most part, and he does at times seem passionate about that.
Specific concerns with the popular standards for eldership
I must be honest, I am deeply concerned that so many are so quickly embracing Driscoll and his message. Again, his message and methods are not the main concern of this post, but rather, his office and the popular (Reformed) church’s response to his ministry is a big concern. Regardless of whether we love him or hate him, his reputation is anything but blameless. His personal history is anything but steadfast, faithful, and self-controlled. Even if you wish to argue that he meets all the qualifications at the current time, what of a few years ago? What of his old material that is still out there and impacting people? What of the plethora of Godly leaders who object to many things in his ministry that are happening right now, based upon his character as an individual?
Reputation, faithfulness, character, and holiness
I fear that we have redefined ‘blameless’ because we like a personality –and this didn’t start with just Driscoll. Driscoll doesn’t have some new glorious truth of the gospel; he is just edgy and honest, which makes those who have a low view of sanctification feel good about themselves.
But a blameless man is one who is well thought of both in the church and in the world. A blameless man is almost the picture-perfect man of integrity, character, and humility. A blameless man is one who both the saved and lost point to as a man of God.
I don’t hear objections to John Piper’s character, or John MacArthur’s reputation, or RC Sproul’s integrity as an individual or in the pulpit. The offence of the gospel aside, these men are indeed ‘blameless’, and can be an example to all Christians and unbelievers alike in the arena of personal integrity, character, humility, and excellence. Indeed, these men are anything but sinless, but they are proof (along with many others) that God can and does raise up men that fit these qualifications to a ‘T’, with absolute 100% certainty.
Conclusion
Driscoll has come a long way from where he once was, no doubt. But he clearly isn’t ‘there’ yet, even if reputation and character are the only area we consider. Why isn’t there more of a loving approach of correction aimed in his direction? Why are so many content with a casual glance at his character/reputation issues in order to pat him on the back for what they like about him?
Do we really want to emulate his example as we look to follow the biblical mandate for electing elders to lead? Should we look at him and say, “Driscoll is the prototypical leader, a man of God, and an example of a good leader to the Church.”? I look out at the Church and the typical ‘elder’ process that goes on, and I shudder for God’s people, and the Reformed crowd’s response to this man’s ministry raises my concerns even more. When will we realize that Paul meant business when he gave these qualifications, and that any compromise with them is putting God’s people at a serious, serious risk?
Let’s encourage Mark to keep reforming himself and his beliefs, and that his reputation and character are not acceptable for a man who the scriptures call to be blameless and above reproach. And let’s also strive with every fiber of our being to honor God in the area of elder qualifications, refusing to compromise in the event of popularity, personality, likability, successfulness, etc.
Think over the passages of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 2, and may the Spirit of the Holy and Sovereign God guide your thinking as you seek to fully honor Him and His word to us.
Excellent questions and quite valid concerns. Thank you for posting this and hopefully it will give others some things to think about and make a matter of serious prayer.
I think you’re right in your explanations. They are biblical, and not humanistic. But about Driscoll, I have had the same thoughts you write here, but I think he is on the right way. I too have preached the gospel in a smart and modern way, but God has showed me that he does not need his word to be smart and modern. I shall not bend the word of God. I believe (and hope) that Driscoll will end there at least to. He seems as if he relly want to do the will of God. But maybe he’s got a little leftovers from the emergents he need to get rid of.
Love your site!
The thing that’s always struck me about Driscoll’s crass-ness is that, on me at least, I think it has the opposite effect that he intends. Meaning, I think he wants to come across as a guy who is as real and gritty as a guy can be. He wants to be accepted as somehow more genuine.
But I think it all sounds calculated. I bet if you ate dinner with the guy, he’d be perfectly polite and never color any of his words with the slightest shade of blue. I think the whole “edgy” thing is play acting. It’s like people who buy blue jeans all pre-ripped and worn-looking: yes, the jeans look just like mine that are ripped and worn through years of abuse, but there’s a huge difference. I’ve repented of (most of) my sailor language, and here’s a guy who seems proud of it.
Some of the things that need to be discussed when applying Timothy and Titus, is clear definition. So, I think that in a study of a particular man, all nuances of the meanings of the qualifications need to be brought to bear.
I think that sober-mindedness, or sobriety in actions, temperance, are probably Driscoll’s biggest disqualifiers. Reputation, and do not condemn me when I say this, is relative. Should we take an opinion poll as to what the public thought of Jerry Falwell? There are also things that we must take into consideration beyond this. For instance, how many pastors coming out of Seminary, are recent converts, and by recent, I mean mature. How many have raised families, such that we might be able to determine whether or not they are able to control their families? Are their wives fully submitted and filling the qualifications as one flesh with their husbands?
I am not saying, and with popularity, I think it even more appropriated, that we should not look at the qualifications. But, before we do let us define them correctly and examine whether or not the man can reasonably fill the roll when we tally the score.
Hey Thomas,
You said: Reputation, and do not condemn me when I say this, is relative. Should we take an opinion poll as to what the public thought of Jerry Falwell?
I see what you mean by this, but I’m referring to their reputation in regards to character and integrity. Yes, a whole lot of people hated Jerry Falwell, but I don’t believe it was for related to anything in regards to his character. Even his arch-enemy Larry Flint said after his death that they actually became friends and that Falwell was a great guy (adding in of course that he disagreed with what Falwell believed). The point I was making, is that even when people disagree with what an elder says or does, the general consensus will still be that he is still a man of integrity and uprightness.
But to further clarify: people will hate elders for what they teach (Example: some hate John MacArthur because he is a Calvinist), and we should always expect this because of the offense of the cross, but when there is dislike for a man because of his mouth, his personal character, his recent personal history, etc., then we need to take a step back and reconsider things in light of scripture. Some people hate MacArthur for what he believes, but rarely if ever will you find a biblically qualified elder disagree with his character, reputation, speech, personal holiness, etc.
Agreed. We still have to look more deeply. So, if I am seeing this more correctly, the reputation in the eyes of outsiders of the Elder in question, is subject to the way that the qualifying Elder’s view what a person’s public presentation and life should be. I agree with this, in that we should not suffer as evil doers, but if we do suffer reproach of men it should be as ministers of God, so that when they see our good works, they, in what ever reaction, will glorify God.
Am I straying too far?
One more thought from you, please.
Do you think, that Mark is earnest in his recent repentence? Not that you would know, but in light of the Willow Creek “confession” is this coming from a self preservation reaction? I know that he has been receiving council, and my prayer is that it will be effect. In my view, his current or past status should not negate his call. I am of the mind, that earnest repentence of fallible men is something the world sorely needs to see, especially if they already claim the Name.
Hey Thomas,
I’ve been thinking about your question, and I just cannot really give an informed opinion. I stopped following Driscoll once I had seen enough, and this was late last year. I just cannot say whether it’s self-preservation or sincere repentance. I certainly hope it is the latter.
You said:
This I strongly disagree with. We’re talking about his history as a pastor and as a Christian. We’re not talking about his former life of unbelief (like the Apostle Paul), or his years in seminary. We’re looking at just a short time ago, as a pastor, and as a Christian. This, I believe, is what scripture speaks of with the qualifications for an elder. Repentance is possible, and yes, we should humbly forgive him, but I don’t think we should throw him right back in the pulpit, any more than we’d throw Ted Haggard back in the pulpit in another year or so. There must be some time to heal and ensure a sincere, thorough, deep repentance and change of life.
Well, yes, but… Driscoll is not Ted Haggard. Haggard was not just a bizarro as is Driscoll, he was a phony deceiver teaching all sorts of weird stuff. He looked good and that was a deception. I would not even call Haggard’s theology Christian. On the other hand is Driscoll, whose actions from the beginning are not one of deception but buffoonary of youthful uninformed Christianity. I wish that we had some means of disciplining inter-church, but we don’t short of exclusion of a congregation. And, it is our fault that we accept youthful men, ill equipped and immature to take pulpits. Does Driscoll’s board of Elders care? What is the effect, realistically, of his antics? When Driscoll received counsel from others was it outside his Elder core? And, if in lieu of any kind of review and adjudicated disciplinary authority (since we do not have such an animal), should we not accept their determination. Beside, what conference does Driscoll belong to? Who then can tell him what he must do? And, if he has truly repented, then isn’t this commendable, seeing as he has not accountability authority over him? Doesn’t this seem to show considerable growth in maturity, and isn’t that what we should look for out of leadership. And, just what does this look like to the world? Are we to say that a person, a David, is unfit to lead, after repentence?
When I said that the world needs to see such action, know our process of Matthew 18 and other Scriptural admonitions, it is because they need to see our “love for one another.” And, I am reminded of Paul’s dealings with James and those he sent forth, namely Peter. Or, with Mark (not Driscoll). Yes, the agregious should not be taken lightly, but neither should the restorative justice of the ministry of reconcilliation. Haggard went through phony external review. How bizarre is that? Men who have no judicial authority reviewed and recommended his process of reconcilliation? What was the sense of his repentence. Well, the perception was that he was not verily repentent. I do not think that he was, really.
I heartily agree with you that “we” should not throw Driscoll back in the pulpit, and I would sincerely like to know of an adjudicated regimen of reconcilliation. Just who were the men, and we do know of some of them, and by what authority did they council? But, “we” have no such mechanism. And, I am not so sure that greater damage might not be done if he were just excluded, denounced and such, to those over whom he has oversight. Or, that the world might not perceive such actions as unloving. This all should be taken care of through his Elder Board, and their recommendations as men filled with the HS able to execute proper judgement and restoration should, by those of us on the outside, be repected. At least this is what the SBC cooperative agreement would maintain, and I might add, even if we had an ethics mechanism that recommended findings and issued opinions of disciplinary proceedure, I think that the local authority, as the 1689 upholds, would be the final arbitur, seeing as no such councils have any ecclessiastical authority in them.
Maybe we also have a disparated view of call. When I used the term I used it in the Scriptural sense, and in that, the gifts and callings of God are without remission. We must bear this in mind. A Church’s call is quite distinct, and depending upon the judicial prescriptions and proscriptions of the church’s constitution, the ability to carry out Biblical mandates of discipline may or may not be existent. Even if they are, they will still be subject to the nature of human politicization.
Driscoll started this church, and it may not be possible to unseat him, though we might hope that the integrity of the Elder board would not consider tenure as a weight of judgement. I doubt Driscoll was mature enough to be what he became. That may also be true of those who serve his Board. But, he and they, are not unlike many young pastor/elders. That is a primary problem with the way we view and appoint our leadership. We do not know who they are. Either pragmatically, or credentially, many who have not grown in faith through the church’s relational mandate to equip believer’s, are promoted to positions of leadership. We have produced the Driscolls and asundry nuts around. And, we have to realize that the standard that we set, of immaturity, whether in word or allowance is something that the SBC, and others as well, need to repent of as we are asking for the repentence of those we have betrayed by making them to be, or expecting them to be, what they were not ready to be.
I hope that with this verbose response I have not strayed too far from the topic. I believe that your premises are correct. We have problems. I do not know how much we can do as observers. The phonmenon of populism is always a trap, e.g. Billy Graham. We love our public icons and unfortunately the pragmatism of the SBC tends to follow success rather than clear biblical mandate. But, how different are we than others? If we pursue regenerate membership, we must by necessity pursue regenerate Eldership. That being said, should we require apprenticeships or internships by those coming out of seminary? It would seem prudent. But then, who is going to fill all those church planting positions? Or, even the many empty pulpits in established churches. It seems we have our work cut out for us.
Thankyou for this post. The same sorts of discussions are happening here in Sydney - Mark is coming here next year - and he appears to have quite a polarizing effect, either strongly for or against.
Having thought about this for some time, I think your post goes to the heart of the issue. It seems to me that what has happened here is that Mark is doing all his maturing on the public stage and while he is already a pastor. In one of his books he recounts how he started his own church. His recent confession of past pride and arrogance seems to me to justify the concerns raised by some over the past few years.
I think it is encouraging that Mark seems to be changing and maturing along the way - but as this post points out - that is not the way that eldership should work. It seems to me that someone like Mark should have these things worked through before being in the office, and we should look to the bigger principles of how we choose leaders and what the bible says they should be like.
Thomas,
Yeah, maybe my Haggard comment was over the top. I was just trying to give an example, I guess; I certainly was not trying to compare his situation to Driscoll.
But I’m not advocating any kind of real ‘action’ towards Driscoll. Instead, I’m asking the question of whether or not we want to raise up leaders like him, or use his situation as an example. I’m just sick of people patting him on the back as if he is infallible, or as if he is some great example/preacher for us to follow. The fact remains that he is very flawed, too flawed for leadership right now in my humble opinion (from what I see that scripture clearly teaches), and we would do better to lovingly exhort him along rather than continue to confirm him with his many errors.
Do we want young men to mimic Driscoll? Do we want the leaders of the next generation to follow his example? Do we want to send the message that this type of character/reputation/language/seeker sensitiveness is to be accepted if you preach a good sermon every once in a while? Heck, do we even want men right now to emulate him? Most would agree with me in saying ‘no’ to these questions, even if he does have some positive elements in his ministry. So that’s what I’m trying to point out. When we recognize these things, maybe then we can exhort him on to further sanctification, rather than lifting him up and making matters worse.
I heartily agree-
We should be about emulating maturity for the next generations. A wise man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, so Scripture recognizes the importance of leadership by example. I am no example, but that does not mean that there should not be those who are. Paul made clear to Timothy that T was to imitate his life and doctrine. And that meant not giving an excuse to any to defame the name because of actions and deeds.
Boy, I wish I had remembered the Lord in the days of my youth. Now, I am having to teach my children to not follow my example.
I think that I mentioned the pragmatic aspect of this. We are compromising and shifting toward a “youth” centered, I might say “pop” centered practice. And, you are not alone in your accurate appraisal and warnings.
hi! found your blog via a comment on mine. Have we met? What church are you a part of? Your site is quite interesting, this post on Driscoll is certainly thought prevoking…
[…] few months ago I posted a few details on where I have concerns with Driscoll. I’d encourage you to read the post if you’re […]