Thoughts on Mark Driscoll

 I've been listening to the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcast. Here are my thoughts.

For those unfamiliar, Mark Driscoll was the controversial pastor who had a megachurch in the Seattle area from the late 1990s until 2014. Its collapse revealed a cult-like, abusive church led by a highly charismatic pastor. 

I'll be honest, sometimes the audio clips of Mark Driscoll make him come off very likable, funny, and easy to listen to.

But there was a dark side to it.

Mark Driscoll shows us what complemenaarianism allows for. Complementarianism is the idea that God created men and women for different, complementary roles in society. If we're talking about men being fathers and women being mothers, that shouldn't be objectionable. 

However, it is usually taken to justify patriarchy, where only men can lead.

Well, Mark Driscoll articulated that it's the woman's job to please her husband in the bedroom, including oral sex even if she isn't uncomfortable with it. This view of complementarianism views women as sex slaves of their husbands.

If we take male-centric complementarianism to its conclusion, then we should not be surprised by this.

Mark Driscoll also said that God created some people to be "match-sticks." This was a blunt way to express the Calvinistic idea of double-predestination, where God created "some" people to go to eternal conscious torment.

By "some", it actually means billions of souls. Perhaps even the majority of all humans that ever lived,

This form of God is neither loving, nor just, but resembles more of the devil. 

But to Mark Discoll's credit, it is an accurate description of double-predestination.

The Mars Hill debacle went on for so long because it was perceived as being an overall good. They were motivated by saving souls on earth. The problems are overlooked because of this, in a machiavellian sense of the ends justify the means.

This is one of my lifelong frustrations with the "saving soul" focus. This is not an isolated incident. When people feel that the only real currency or priority in life is converting people, then it tends to justify the method of doing so. 

Put simply, people justify being assholes if it leads to conversion. This leads to toxic, hostile forms of christianity and ironically, isn't the Gospel at all.

Personally, I think salvation is something that is demonstrated. People should want to be christian because they see Jesus demonstrated.

Human thumbprints - discrepancies in Jesus' sayings

Let's return back to the case of Jesus mistaking Abiathar for Ahimelek, at least as recorded in Mark. The issue raises another widespread problem in the Gospels for inerrancy. There is no problem if we acknowledge the humanity of these books.

The issue is that Jesus is recorded saying three different things in three different Gospels. If they were all similarly and inerrantly inspired, then the sayings should match word for word.

This isn't about whether they contradict on a substantive level, although that certainly arises elsewhere. But rather, this is about the process by which the Gospels were formed. They included human thumbprints.

Here is what Jesus says, as recorded in Mark 2:26-28. "He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

In contrast, this is what Jesus says as recorded in Matthew 12:3-8. "He answered, 'Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread-which which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law the priest of Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would have not condemned the innocent. For the Son the Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Luke 6:3-4 records it as: "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Here are the main differences. The Mark version not only mentions Abiathar, but also contains the phrase, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." These are not found in the others.

The Luke version is the shortest and generally is identical to Mark's version except for those differences.

Matthew's is longest. It includes a description that the priests are in fact desecrating the Sabbath by their word, but God considers them innocent. It also includes the portion that mercy is more important sacrifice.

So, what can be said about this?

First, let's assume that all three record the same event. If they record different events, then Jesus had different teachings at different times. But all three have the same context of Jesus picking grain on the Sabbath and being challenged by the Pharisees. Jesus annoys the Pharisees at other times, but this is the only time of record about collecting grain on the Sabbath.

That aside, the Gospel writers all record the same event differently. Why does Matthew includes far more detail than the other two? Why does Mark mention Abiathar and the phrase "the Sabbath was made for man", when these details are excluded from others.

if this passage were similarly inspired by the same spirit in a dictation form, then we should see the exact same words. We do not.

Instead, the Gospel writers focus on different details of the story. This reveals the humanity of the writers themselves. Perhaps the discrepancies were intentional, which reveals the details that the individual Gospel writers believed to be more important.

if the discrepancies were un-intentional, then it goes to the reliability of the sources. In other words, the memory of the eye-witness who recounts the discussion at whatever point the Gospel writer records them.

Either way, it points to the humanity of the writers and what divine inspired means. It cannot be word for word dictation. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are using their human filters which accounts for why some parts are included and others excluded.

Belief in a bad God

I have sympathy for all the atheists who have a bad God in mind. When I hear their description of God, I don't believe in that God either.

What makes a "Good God" or a "Bad God?" By what criteria do we determine that? For me, I start with God is love. The Bible defines God is love, as is written in 1 John 4:16, "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God and God in them."

This is an oft-cited verse and the standard retort is "God is also just." 

On its face, qualifying "love" with "just" seems straightforward, until you hear how it changes love. In fact, it changes it so greatly as to completely alter the meaning of "love", so that we're actually describing a "Bad God", but calling it good or loving.

The most eggregious example that I've come across are those that incorporate predestination and eternal conscious torment. The Reformed churches that embrace it rely on the writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther (where he wasn't slamming Jews).

What's so offensive about it? What's not offensive?

Let's restate the problem. God knew, from the beginning of the world, who would have faith and go to heaven. God also know, from the beginning of the world, who would lack faith and go to hell, which is viewed as an eternal conscious torment. To make it worse, the vast sea of humanity, billions upon billions of people, who never even heard the name of Jesus are condemned into eternal conscious torment.

Why would God create people only to destroy them? How is this either loving or just? This paints a horrible picture of God. 

God designed the world with the goal or knowledge of putting people into eternal conscious torment. 

The Calvinist gets around by this by also incorporating the "total depravity of mankind." It is an extreme form of Original Sin which believes that humans are well, totally depraved. If this is the starting condition of humanity, then it is just to throw them into eternal conscious torment.

Why is that objectionable? 

First, it's wrong Biblically. People were made in the image of God, which occurred before the Fall (if that were literal). The starting point for humanity is the image of God. Love. Something beautiful.

Second, it's wrong experientially. Have you ever held a newborn child? It is pure innocence and beautiful. Such is to an unblemished image of God.

A newborn child is not depraved, as Calvin's theory requires.

Third, God doesn't view us totally depraved, but worthy. Fixable. Redeemable. John 3:16's declare that God loved the world. God wants to redeem and help rehabilitate humanity. Why? Because we were all made in the image of God and reflect love.

Fourth, the line drawing between "totally depraved" (the outgroup) and "elect" (in-group) leads to all kinds of horrible applied theology. Wars are started. Land is stolen. Minority groups are persecuted. Persecution is justified. 

Think of all the bad things that happened in the name of religion - crusades, witchburnings, and planes flying onto buildings. It stems from a misguided that God approves of your group, but hates those outside. That your enemies are the same of God. Since God wants to eternally punish them, then your actions are minor in comparison.

In other words, a devil that we create is worshipped as God.

No, I don't believe in that God,

Bad apologetics

Apologetics is the field of trying to come up rational answers for faith. The notion seems somewhat contradictory, as if something taken on faith cannot be objectively provable. Otherwise, it's not faith.

That aside, there are good answers and bad ones. Oftentimes, bad answers are held as good ones. 

Likewise, I categorize the field of apologetics to various sub-components, which have different levels of quality of answers. The answers are bad because the premise it seeks to prove is wrong.

The absolute worst field is Young Earth Creationism. The arguments made are just plain awful and belief is entirely an act of faith, not reason.

The absolute worst I have ever heard was that is that Big Bang Cosmology cannot explain why galaxies exist that display either a clockwise rotation or counterclockwise rotation. The thinking went that the rotation of the galaxies should all be in the same manner.

A five year old can see the problem with this reasoning. Whether galaxy exhibits a counterclockwise or clockwise rotation is a question of perspective. It depends entirely if the observer looks at it from above the plane or below it. 

Case in point, rotate your hand with your palm open. When your thumb is pointed away from your body, it exhibits a clockwise orientation with regard to the other fingers. Now, rotate your hand so the thumb is pointed to your body, and now it exhibits a counterclockwise rotation as to the other fingers. This happens because you're viewing your own hand from different perspectives when you rotate it around.

This is not a complicated explanation. But if your faith requires that the earth is young, then you will overlook the nonsense and publish bad explanations.

Slightly better, but still bad, is apologetics for Biblical Inerrancy. Again, the answers are bad because the premise is bad.

The best form of apologetics is probably the forms rooted in the early church. That too, has limits.

The best reason for belief in God is rooted in actual experience. That's why I believe in God and count myself a Christian. Since my belief is not grounded in a tight hold of the Bible or a young earth, I can critique those and not lose my faith.

Human fingerprints - Abiathar the High Priest

 Mark 2 tell the story about Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath. He is challenged by the Pharisees who ask Jesus why he is doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath. (v. 24)

Jesus responds as follows. "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." (v. 25-26).

This passage refers to 1 Samuel 21, when David is on the run and goes to Nob and seeks sanctuary among the priests. The text identifies the priest as Ahimilek (v. 3) who gave David the "consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away." (v.6)

The point - Mark 2 insinuates that this priest was Abiathar but 2 Samuel says it was Ahimilek. Later in the text, Abiathar is identified as the son of Ahimilek (2 Samuel 8:17).

What's the point? Mark 2 says that Abiathar was the high priest at the time, but 2 Samuel says that Ahimiled was it.

There is a way to protect Biblical inerrancy, but it is a stretch. The text Mark 2 says, "In the days of Abiathar the high priest". So, technically speaking, Abiathar was alive at the time.

However, the text makes clear, or at least strongly implies, that Abiathar was not just merely alive, but was the high priest at the time. This is not the case at all. It was Ahimilek, his father.

This is the equivalent of Jesus forgetting where he left the car keys. On one hand, it points to the full humanity of Jesus. That Jesus made forgetful errors. A first century Rabbi should know the story. 

What can we take from this?

The Gospel writer of Mark just got it in wrong in the details. It's a human fingerprint. He likely wrote it down two or three decades after it occurred and made a simple human error. I find this explanation far more satisfying and honest than trying to fit in "days of Abiathar the high priest" to mean he was alive, but not yet the high priest.

It should be noted that this story of Jesus is also recorded in Luke 6:3-4 and also in Matthew 12:3-4. Neither of those mention Abiathar, Ahimilek, or any priest.

If they fail to mention any name at all, then it is further evidence that the writer of Mark made an error.

The other is the focus of this book. That it points to the human fingerprints of the Bible itself. That it has errors. Perhaps those errors were made by Jesus, or by Mark the Gospel writer, or maybe a copying mistake in the manuscript.

Idea that the original version was inerrant, but the manuscript copying were not divinely inspiring.

This is cheap. Because as used, the modern manuscripts of the Bible are quoted and cited as authoritative. There is usually no hedge that any version of the modern Bible, which the same preacher is teaching from, should be discounted.

Problems with substitutionary atonement

Christianity has come up with numerous explanations about why Jesus went to the cross and died. 

The substitutionary atonement theory is that idea that Jesus was the final atoning sacrifice for our sins. It was a divine transaction where the blood of God was necessary to save all of us from the wrath of God. Jesus was the atonement for sins and substituted our place. Hence, the phrase.

It is likely the most common perspective that one might find in the United States today. In certain circles, it is inseparable from the Gospel itself. Put another way, one must believe in substitutionary atonement in order to be Christian at all.

I've heard people say that if you challenge it, then you challenge the Biblical teaching. Of course. (sigh)

There are numerous problems with this overall idea.

First, it offers a seeming contradiction. Why does God need to kill his son (or anyone) to show us that killing is wrong? What does that say about God? If God made the universe and all that is in it, couldn't have God made a different system that didn't require? If not, is God all that loving?

Second, substitutionary atonement has a history as well. In fact, it didn't become a popular idea until the Middle Ages. Its popularity was burgeoned by the medieval concept of justice, where punishment was based on the social standing of the victim. For instance, killing the king's deer required a greater punishment than killing a commoner's animal. 

So, if one offended God, who is infinite, then the punishment should be infinite. Thus, atonement should be infinite, which could only be purchased with the blood of Jesus

Prior to the Middle Ages, the more dominant expiation for why Jesus died was Christus Victor. More on that in another post. 

Third, substitutionary atonement doesn't match the way sacrifices were actually used in the Jewish Scriptures.

For starters, God does not want human sacrifice. That is a fundamental principle in the Jewish tradition stemming from the aborted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. I've never heard any explanation why this foundational principle is disregarded with Jesus.

Also, blood is not always required for the forgiveness of sins by sacrifice. This is demonstrated by Leviticus 5:11-13 which allows grain sacrifices as a sin offering if one cannot afford an animal.

Fourth, substitionary atonement does not match the teachings of Jesus. On numerous occasions, Jesus forgave sins by declaration without having gone to the cross. So if Jesus can declare sins forgiven, then Jesus didn't need to die to forgive sins.

In fact, Luke 5:24 makes this precise point.

Viewed in this way, then Jesus declaration of "Father, forgiven them for they know not what they do" while on the cross is a universe; declaration of the forgiveness of all sins.(Luke 23:34)

Human fingerprints in the Bible - Leviathan

What is the Leviathan? It is one of the great mysteries of the Bible.

Personally, I think the mystery is somewhat solved. It was a multi-headed serpent that many people of the ancient near-east believed inhabited the ocean. One theory posits that the Litany River of Beirut was believed to have been the home of such a creature. Hence, the name similarities.

The Leviathan's presence in the Bible may have been the result of cultural borrowing. This shouldn't be offensive at all as large, mysterious sea creatures is a fairly common myth around the world. Examples could include the Midgard serpent which Thor tames or even the Loch Ness monster. A stretch example could be Apeph of Egyptian mythology, which is a large serpent which seeks the sun-boat of Ra. I say it's a 'stretch', as Apeph's battleground is the sky, not the sea.

As for the Bible, the Leviathan is described most clearly in the Book of Job. It is described as a natural creature with a double coat of armor. (Job 41:13). It has a mouth full of fearsome teeth and its back has rows of shields. (v. 14-15). It has flesh folds which are tightly joined and immovable. (v.23)

Despite a description of its natural "flesh", nothing like this exists in the natural world. For those thinking that this describes a natural creature, the book of Job describes something that is beyond this world. Here's what it describes in v. 18-21:

It snorts throw out flashes of light. Flames stream from its mouth and sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from its nostrils and its breath sets coals ablaze.

We can also add Psalms 74:14, which adds that the Leviathan has multiple heads.

If people want to say that the Leviathan was (or is) a natural creature, they must account for this extra language.

Again, speaking personally, I think it fine to think of the creature as something metaphorical, or at least out of this world. There is no theological harm to admit that this creature may have been culturally borrowed. In fact, this human fingerprint speaks of something divinely beautiful.

After describing the creature in natural-supernatural terms, it is God that has the ability to tame it.

I would say that the Leviathan represents the universal fear of the unknown. The fear of the dark. The terrifying sense of losing sight of land while on a small sail boat.

It is God that slays and tames it.