Mark Driscoll in the New York Times

A friend of mine called what happened at Mars Hill a great example of how the new emphasis on authority and community gets it wrong, sliding into authoritarianism that is not biblical. I’ll have to get him to talk more on it, since his thoughts would be relevant.

The Times covered the controversy thus:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

Let’s note here that Jonathan Edwards, the greatest preacher of America’s history, was fired by his congregation because he wouldn’t budge on membership issues. I used to think that this represented a failure of the church. I now see it as a good thing: even someone as potent as Edwards was not above the whims of his elders. (Plus, the church and state should never have been tied like that. It was idiotic to have the church membership requirement ‐ full communicant and not just baptized — for all who would hold elected office in the colony. This just created the situation Edwards found himself in.)

The problem with non-Scottish Reformed belief is that it isn’t suspicious enough of people. The Scots had enough sense to modify the structures of the community to balance powers. Power could still be abused but it was unlikely.

Any time you don’t balance the power of leader you will end up with fascists. Democracy in America was heavily influenced by the Scottish Presbyterian model, now widely abandoned by Presbyterians, including the PCA ones. Too bad, really.