For the past couple of months, like thousands of others, I have been engrossed in Christianity Today’s podcast “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill,” hosted by Mike Cosper. The podcast, which is still ongoing, covers the origin, rise, and demise of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, along with the fall from grace of its founding pastor, Mark Driscoll. So far, I have found myself laughing (often uncomfortably) at some of the commentary, particularly some of the things said by a man named “Jesse” who oversaw Mars Hill’s media. But most of the time I have been annoyed by Driscoll’s warped view of pastoral leadership and his nonchalant use of language, especially his teaching on women and sex.
Beyond the basic narrative of events, the podcast also explores what caused the demise of Mars Hill. This theme is apparent even in the first episode where Cosper suggests that we are all responsible for the implosion of pastors like Mark Driscoll and churches like Mars Hill, because we quickly give people platforms and treat them like celebrities. Thus people gain positions of influence before they have developed the requisite character for such leadership. There is certainly some truth to this claim. But when we think about ministries like Mars Hill, we should think about more than just Driscoll’s character and bombastic style. We should also consider the nature of the Church and biblical ecclesiology.[1]
The attractional model of ministry and biblical ecclesiology also played a role in this debacle. To be sure, Mark Driscoll has had serious (and sinful) character issues. Yet I would contend that the problem is not merely a lack of character. The underlying problem is an anemic ecclesiology that accompanies the attractional model of ministry. That model tends to privilege youth, charisma, and speaking ability over ecclesiological accountability and the biblical qualifications of the office of elder. Stated differently, the problem is not just Driscoll’s problematic character or judgment. The problem is that the attractional model of ministry is crafted for someone like Driscoll—someone whose ability exceeds his character but meets the needs of the model.
Ed Stetzer and the Seeker-sensitive Church
Ed Stetzer has appeared several times on the podcast. I was a bit thrown off in one episode as Stetzer discussed the seeker-sensitive church model.[2] The reason for my confusion was not because Stetzer does not know anything about the model but because Stetzer discussed the seeker-sensitive movement with such detachment, like a historian or sociologist describing something from a bygone era. It was as if it was a concept or idea from a textbook that Stetzer had studied but with which he had little experience.
Yet Stetzer was deeply involved in the movement through Acts 29, his books and talks, and the various resources he has provided to church planters through Lifeway. Stetzer was even directly involved with Mars Hill in its early days. Cosper notes these connections in the podcast, but Stetzer appears on the podcast as one playing the role of a church growth expert rather than co-conspirator in the movement.
One may wonder why this matters. Who actually cares if Stetzer played a significant role in the seeker-sensitive movement? Here is the reason it matters (and a potential weakness of the podcast): The seeker sensitive model, I believe, aided the proliferation of the celebrity pastor among evangelicals in the digital age. Undoubtedly, the celebrity pastor is not new to Christianity or to evangelicalism, but it has taken a particular turn in the digital age and has been exacerbated by the entertainment style production of the attractional church model.
Driscoll likely would have denied that Mars Hill was a seeker-sensitive or attractional model church. Mars Hill was coming of age near the peak of Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Church” ministry emphasis that spread out from Saddleback Church in southern California. Then Driscoll came along—something like the anti-Warren—scolding men from the pulpit for failing to lead their families and being addicted to pornography. In the meantime, Warren was telling us how to smoothly transition visitors into being members with as few hiccups as possible. At a meeting of church planters, Driscoll went so far as to criticize openly Warren’s purpose-driven model as being too man-centered.[3]
Yet Driscoll’s preaching clearly had a seeker-sensitive component. As Cosper helpfully notes, Mars Hill was still driven by hype, entertainment, and expressions of power. Even his lack of political correctness in the pulpit had its own allure to seekers who sought a non-traditional church with a non-traditional message. Mars Hill and Saddleback might have looked radically different on the surface, but they both were built around the hype and entertainment that typically accompanies the attractional model.
Character and Ecclesiology
One of the oft-repeated lines in “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” is that Driscoll and some other celebrity pastors of late have often lacked the character necessary for the office of elder. I think that is true. Other examples of celebrity pastors who have had significant moral failings might include men such as James MacDonald, Perry Noble, Bill Hybels, Tullian Tchividjian, Darrin Patrick, and others. But it does not seem to me that character is the only issue with Driscoll, Mars Hill, and some of these other men. The issue seems to be that some models of ministry are inclined to elevate men with certain gifts even when there are concerns about their character. That is to say, the attractional model of ministry is especially vulnerable to valuing personality and charisma over character.
Sometime around 2011, The Gospel Coalition posted a conversation between Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald on the issue of multisite churches. Driscoll and MacDonald vigorously defended the multisite model and interacted with Dever in an uncharitable manner.[4] Dever was cordial but questioned some key assumptions of the multisite model, particularly whether it created a sort of cult of personality by piping in a preacher on a screen at various locations, as if another man was not capable of effectively preaching the gospel at that other location. Driscoll’s and MacDonald’s replies were thin, and they quickly turned to criticizing Dever, suggesting that an elder who preaches to his congregation each Sunday was even more inclined to create a cult of personality.
Dever mostly avoided baseless charges and expressed two concerns. First, multisite churches that have live music but stream a preacher on a screen place much emphasis on that one man and his gifts. I would add that, if this man and his gifts are so essential that we must pipe in his preaching—and no one else can do the job—then we might be tempted to overlook some of his failures and sins because of the uniqueness of his speaking gifts.
But Dever also expressed ecclesiological concerns about the multisite model of ministry. Driscoll and MacDonald repeatedly defended their approach by arguing that it was “missional” and, therefore, focused on doing whatever was necessary to reach as many people as possible. Similar arguments are often made in defense of attractional models of ministry. “We’re missional,” people say. Or perhaps, “We’re trying to reach people who are far from God who would never attend a typical church.” The problem with such statements is that, when the vague mantra of “missional” becomes our guiding principle, we can justify almost anything for the sake of the mission.
For example, being “missional” means we need to structure the church for efficiency so that we can be nimble and make decisions quickly. To do this, we might move away from biblical models of ecclesiology, especially congregationalism, and replace it with a “board of directors” who can make decisions without needing the consent of the congregation. Then we might make the pastor accountable only to that board of directors who may not even be members of the congregation. And if the whole arrangement appears successful, then we cannot afford to lose the pastor who is the face and voice of the brand. So we might be willing to excuse (or at least overlook) his misdeeds in order to save the brand.
My basic point may sound silly, but we have seen it transpire time and again. And it is not just self-consciously culturally relevant churches that are prone to this tendency. We can also find it in the most fundamentalist churches with authoritarian pastors and standard hymnals or southern gospel music. In this area, only a hair’s breadth of difference exists between Jack Hyles and Bill Hybels.
Conclusion: Is Driscoll our Scapegoat?
Though I have other concerns about the podcast (some of them significant), I am thankful for Cosper and Christianity Today’s work on “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” However, I do not want us to overlook, as Cosper mentions several times, the very issues that gave rise to Driscoll and Mars Hill. I do not want us to miss the ways in which entertainment and hype that typically accompanies attractional models of ministry privileges certain traits like charisma and rhetorical ability—even to the point of overlooking deficiencies in character. But the problem is not just the person who lacks character; it is also the way in which we promote these men and perpetuate models of ministry that are vulnerable to unqualified shepherds.
As Cosper so poignantly states at the end of the first episode, maybe we are part of the problem. Maybe we need to reconsider the biblical nature of the church, biblical ecclesiology, the qualifications of the office of elder, and how we seek to obey the Great Commission. It seems that, as Cosper says at the very end of episode eight, evangelicalism has become so driven by entertainment, hype, and authoritarianism that it has abandoned relying on God’s ordinary means of grace and the genuine spiritual transformation that typically comes about through seemingly mundane, long obedience.[5]
[1] I am thankful for the ways in which Cosper has begun to address these issues more directly, particularly in episodes eight and nine.
[2] I am using “seeker-sensitive model” and “attractional model” interchangeably.
[3] At one point in the podcast, Cosper includes a clip where Driscoll makes fun of Warren’s “Purpose Driven” model and its use of “Saddleback Sam” as the church’s target audience. Driscoll then chides the “seeker-sensitive” model of ministry.
[4] The video for this discussion initially appeared here: https://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/multiple-sites-yea-or-nay-dever-driscoll-and-macdonald-vote. However, The Gospel Coalition has since removed the video. The video can be seen here via an account not associated with The Gospel Coalition: https://vimeo.com/287582281.
[5] By so stating, Cosper is drawing upon the wonderful work of Eugene Peterson, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction.
December 9, 2021
This was very well said. You make some very good points. I do think that character is at the center of biblical ecclesiology and therefore much of the basic argument in the podcast holds up. Your points, however, are well taken.