Yesterday I turned 45. I’ve lived a lot of life and experienced quite a bit in those 45 years. When I said in a recent post (Mark Driscoll Says Macho Men and Dudes are the Key to the Future of the Church) that I believed we were going to see a person’s views on the roles of men and women in the church become a measuring stick for being a true believer, I think some who read here might have been skeptical. So today I’m going to address that point a bit more. In order to get to my point, I hope you will indulge me in a little background storytelling.
Acts 29 Church Beliefs
I grew up in the Baptist church. If you grew up in the Baptist church, you knew that anyone who baptized a baby was just wrong, wrong, wrong. You were even suspicious if they were really a Christian because baptizing an infant is just so wrong. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is by immersion according to Baptist doctrine. I was very much an immersionist. Through a long series of events, David and I ended up attending a Christian Reformed church. We were childless and didn’t know if we would ever be blessed with a child. I was still not completely sold on the infant baptism thing, but since we had no children the issue wasn’t completely relevant to us. I had decided that if I was going to spend eternity with these people, then I certainly could attend church with them. I knew that salvation was not dependent on the mode of baptism.
When we discovered we were expecting on our ninth wedding anniversary, we had to make a decision. Do we stay in a Reformed church and baptize our baby or not? We decided to move to a Baptist church and Caroline was dedicated in a Baptist church. Through another series of events, we left the Baptist church and returned to the CRC church where Caroline was baptized as a toddler when we all became members. (I had been immersed already and David has been both sprinkled and immersed.)
So my views on baptism have been somewhat fluid. I went from being a strong immersionist to becoming rather practical about the whole thing. Frankly, the women’s issue became more important to me than the baptism issue. In other words, it was more important for me to be in a church where women had freedom than it was to practice a specific mode of baptism. That was the main catalyst for our return to the CRC from the Baptist church where Caroline was dedicated.
If you’ve been a Christian long in either the Baptist or Reformed traditions, you will know that baptism has been a divisive issue for a very long time. It still is in some circles. Should it be that way? No. Anyone who confesses Jesus as Savior and Lord will be in heaven regardless of whether they were sprinkled or immersed.
Given that background I find it very interesting that in order to become a member of Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, there are four areas that church planters and churches must agree on according to their doctrinal statement. One of them is that you must subscribe to the Reformed doctrines (which is another post to come). You must also be Christian, Evangelical, and Missional. There is no requirement concerning mode of baptism and they go to great pains to list all of the other areas where they do not have requirements such as views on the end times, alcohol, etc. I do think that is great. I don’t think modes of baptism should divide Christians as is evidenced by my own life.
Acts 29 is Complementarian
But there IS a requirement about complementarian versus egalitarian. They say in the list of things they are not:
We are not egalitarians and do believe that men should head their homes and male elders/pastors should lead their churches with masculine love like Jesus Christ.
Interestingly enough, in another letter posted by Mark Driscoll he wrote:
The following is a list of items I want focused on this year and would appreciate prayer for. As you read them, you will recognize we are not changing our beliefs or brotherhood. I just want to help promote and tell the stories of changed lives to help our churches grow by focusing on the air war and trying to catch it up with our ground war:
A manifesto on our core convictions: gospel-centered theology, Spirit-filled or empowered lives, complementarian relationships, and missional churches.
Yes, complementarianism is as important to them as gospel-centered theology and Spirit-filled lives. You can believe anything you want about baptism, the end times, alcohol, speaking in tongues, etc. Think about that. These have been some of the most divisive theological issues among denominations over the past one hundred years and they have no requirements about them at all. As long as you subscribe to the rest of the doctrinal statement, you are good to go. But there is no leeway when it comes to men being the absolute leaders.
Acts 29 and Women
That might not seem like a big deal at first glance. The concern I have with it is that their take on complementarianism is much more extreme than that of the average Christian. In Mars Hill women have multiple restrictions on them. As Wade Burleson detailed the other day in Memo to Mars Hill: The Suppression of Church Women is Not the Cure for the Feminization of Church Men:
Only males compose the church’s legal standing. Only males vote on church business. Only males serve on leadership teams. Only males determine pastoral salaries. Only males convene for business meetings. Only males determine matters related to the church. Only males are the true members of the church. Females, for the sake of ‘spiritual standing,’ can be called ‘members’ and have access to the church’s website, but females cannot be, in any form or fashion, in leadership at Mars Hill or considered as people with legal or moral authority.
Women cannot vote. Women don’t even attend the business meetings which follows that they do not speak about issues in the church, even if they have the gift of discernment. Women are not allowed to serve on leadership teams. Is your church this restrictive? Even the most conservative Baptist churches I participated in were not this restrictive. And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that they believe it is the responsibility of men to read their wives’ emails in order to “protect them.” Is that your view of complementarianism? That a man should censor his wife’s personal email to “protect” her?
Again, people might think that this isn’t a big deal. After all, this is just a small group of churches out on the left coast, Seattle no less. What else would you expect? No, it isn’t just the Mars Hill campuses. The Acts 29 network currently has 400 churches. Unfortunately it isn’t going to end there. Do you have any idea how widely they are already reaching into churches and their vision for the future? From a memo posted by Mark Driscoll:
Last year, 157 US churches were planted by A29. Last year we had 382 church-planting applicants, and right now we have 550. At our current pace, Lord willing, we could be over 1,000 US churches running perhaps 500,000 people on Easter 2016, if not earlier.
Their application has buttons to choose USA-Canada, Western Europe, Australasia, and South Africa. They plan on exporting these teachings around the world.
Not only that, their reach is wide through conferences, books, broadcasts, and other materials. Young men who aren’t even officially part of the Acts 29 network are taking these ideas with them into local churches and causing great upheaval in congregations.
This is the vision Mark Driscoll has for churches. Egalitarians and soft complementarians need not apply. If you think a woman should vote in church, forget it. If you think a woman should be involved with the general business of the church, forget it.
My heart breaks for the unsuspecting couples and families who will be impacted by this movement.
Acts 29 Doctrinal Statement
One last visual to leave you with. While researching for this post, I went to the WayBack Machine. I thought for sure they had listed something else on their Doctrine statement so I went back to check if it had recently changed. Apparently I was thinking of something else. But what I did find astonished me. On their previous doctrinal page, there was a photo at the top. I’m sure if you think of the topic of doctrine, all sorts of possible images might come to mind. I am going to guess you would never think of what they posted on their doctrine page. You can check it out here: Acts 29 Doctrine. (It takes a few seconds to load, so be patient!) I’ve also added it here.
Still think I’m overly concerned? Who in the world would put that on their Doctrine page? And what not-so-subtle message are they sending?
*applauds*
I’m applauding for all kinds of things.
1. Your point about there being both sprinkled and immersed believers in heaven is bang on. As someone who grew up in a tradition that sprinkled babies (Lutheran), then married an evangelical, convincing people that baptism is not a salvation issue has been a life mission of mine. 🙂
2. This whole women and men doctrinal issue is scary. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how people can read the Bible and not see that Jesus loved and valued women. I do not understand how a whole system of theology can be based on a few verses ripped out of context.
I heard someone say once that in some circles, it seems like Paul and his writings have been elevated above Jesus and his teachings. I think this is sad, but quite true.
Thank you for being a beacon of light and truth! 🙂
Jen in ON
This is all very interesting stuff I knew nothing about. The photo on that web page was disturbing! Thanks for your hard work pulling it all together — I’m glad to have the “education” and be on the alert when I see these names in the future.
Having grown up Grace Brethren (very akin to Baptist), then moving to a liturgical church, I can also totally relate to the stories you share about doctrine, baptism, etc., to put this issue in a larger context.
Best wishes,
Laura
Sallie:
The core convictions:
gospel-centered theology, Spirit-filled or empowered lives, complementarian relationships, and missional churches….
Our experience was that we were taught Calvinism. We were exposed to the complementarian roles immediately and often (it was like reminding a woman of her place), and each service they stoked the ambition of young aspiring men by listing out how many Mars Hill churches, A29 churches and community groups they intended on having and told them all that those leaders and pastors were right here in the room.
We did not experience Spirit-filled lives…at all. If you read my blog, my list of red flags (that was taken from my journal I wrote as it was all happening) addresses these “distinctives” as they are now referred to officially.
They do give lip service to women deacons on the website…there may be a few in Seattle but I think it is probably more like your token affirmative action deacon, not an empowered to lead one. I would HATE to be a deacon in the boys club!
‘Masculine love like Jesus’ … hmmm. The first picture that comes to mind is a little red hen fluffing out her feathers for her chicks to gather under. See Matthew 23. So much for masculine!
I think Scripture uses images of finite human (and non-human) relationships to describe the indescribable connections between Father, Son and Holy Spirit and also of God’s great love and passion for us, His creation: Father and Mother to child (sons and daughters), Husband / Lover to Bride / Beloved, Potter to Clay, Vine and Branches, Shepherd and sheep, and finally, Friends, are some examples). Focussing almost exclusively on one aspect of Christ’s humanity, namely his male gender, is limiting and detrimental in so many ways. There is just so much more to Christ’s love, which Paul tells us ‘surpasses knowledge’ (Eph 3.19). Today, we can only know in part, but one day, we shall know fully.
P.S. Happy birthday for Wednesday!
Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond!
Jen C., well said. When it comes to the Mars Hill thing I have my own ideas about what drives all this and the people in charge, but they are speculation and I’m not going to enter into speculation. I’ll post accurate information that I can link to, but I’m resisting publicly voicing my own theories about what is driving all this.
Laura, that is my goal. To educate people. People can do whatever they feel led to do with these posts. My desire is simply for people to be better informed so if they hear the names of certain people or organizations brought up, they have some background. For example, if someone’s pastor all of the sudden starts quoting Mark Driscoll, I hope red flags will go off.
Sophia, do you have a link to that? How could they have women deacons (even token ones) and not allow them into the business meetings of the church? I’m not doubting you, just wondering how in the world that would work.
If they do exists, I would bet everything I own they are Yes Women, there only to nod in agreement and do the bidding of the men. That is another topic I hope to address on my blog. Women will comment that they have no problems in their complementarian circles with being heard. Of course not. As long as you toe the party line, the men are GLAD to have you there. You just strengthen their power and position. Try being a thinking woman who raises a few questions that go against the grain and see how welcome you are as a woman.
Estelle, well said! Thank you!
Sally, it has been my experience, too, that the gender issue has been elevated to a place much higher than those doctrines that have divided the church for centuries. I can’t tell you how manta times I have seen people, men AND women bend over backwards to welcome those with differing views on baptism, for example, but watch their nostrils flare if I so much as say, “Well, I believe we have to carefully consider passages such as 1st Timothy in proper context.”
I was absolutely dumbfounded to read ” pink is poisonous” at the top of page. That has the “mark of Mark” all over it. Pure misogyny. Thanks, Sallie, for keeping us informed!
“Last year, 157 US churches were planted by A29. Last year we had 382 church-planting applicants, and right now we have 550. At our current pace, Lord willing, we could be over 1,000 US churches !!! running perhaps 500,000 people!! ! on Easter 2016, if not earlier.”
Seems a bit too interested in numbers and production! I am in agreement with what has already been stated by each of you… But this !!! jumped out at me because this quote sounds like someone is running a factory – NOT making disciples to truly KNOW Jesus and understanding free access to the Father and the need to love individuals as He does and that the body is NOT complete without all sharing HIS gifts thru each one. I pray that God will humble the proud and give grace to the humble.
As an egalitarian I just wanted to make a small correction to your statement, “If you think a woman can serve as a deacon, forget it.” It appears from the Mars Hill website that women can actually serve as deacons:
http://marshill.com/2010/09/18/meet-the-female-deacons-at-mars-hill
I don’t know what they define “deacon” as or what their duties and responsibilities are but for the sake of accuracy I just wanted to put that out there. Like I said I am committed to egalitarianism but I want my critiques of others’ viewpoints to be well-informed.
Emily – Thank you for the verification. Yes, I want what I write here to be accurate so thank you for the link. I have amended my post.
Unfortunately, it really doesn’t change my overall impression of Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll. I wish it did, but it doesn’t. I still think it is an unhealthy place for people and women in particular.
I agree. What in the world were they thinking? I just don’t get it. They were being funny? Truthful? Hateful? Clever? Who would find that and think it appropriate on top of a DOCTRINE page? Maybe on a men’s ministry page, but even then it is in incredibly poor taste. And it was there for quite some time if you flip through the WayBack Machine captures.
Sallie, I wrote a post about Mark Driscoll a week or so at http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-im-not-fan-of-mark-driscoll-real.html
I also commented on the “If you don’t get the young men…” Blech. The bulk of my post though, is about 25 web links about Mark Driscoll.
Hi,
I’ve read your blog for a long time and have always appreciated the thought and sincerity with which you write! I just don’t comment a lot :).
First of all, I’m not a fan of Driscoll. I’ve read some of his writings and have many, many problems with much of it. In fact, some of it is downright scary!
I would like to offer a different opinion on complementarianism. And please know that I’m not trying to be divisive or rude 🙂 just maybe a different way of thinking.
I’ve been a member of a PCA church for about 15 years. There aren’t women deacons or pastors and complementarianism is taught and, I believe, practiced by most in our congregation. The marriages that I see (and, indeed, the one that I’m in) are a beautiful picture of men loving their wives as Christ loved His church. Women are submissive (to their husbands–not men in general). Do we do it right always? Absolutely not! We are a sinful people.
Women are not “kept in their place”. They are valued, have a say, a vote, and active roles throughout our church’s life. Men and women were created equal in value but with different roles.
As tough as submission is, I’ve always thought that men had a much tougher responsibility. They are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church (sacrificially, with servant leadership). That’s huge to me. Both men and women were given roles/responsibilities that they can’t do on their own. They must look to the Creator for the ability to do them and the grace with which to do them.
I don’t find the teachings of Driscoll and others like him to be complementarian (at least by my definition). I don’t think they are honoring to women–or to men for that matter. Men loving their wives as Christ loves the church implies a great deal of honor. You don’t generally lay down your life for that which you do not honor or hold in the highest regard.
I just think that it is sad that complementarianism is being defined by those who practice it poorly. Those who practice it with God-given grace and humility are probably a much better picture of what it truly looks like. However, they may not have as much time to write books about it because they are busy striving to do it well ;)!
I hope this makes some sense and isn’t filled with typos
Dana – Thank you for offering your perspective. I didn’t respond at first because I don’t want it to seem like I always have to have the last word. LOL!
I agree that Driscoll’s version of complementarianism is not that of the average person. I have many friends who are complementarian and they would strongly disagree with Driscoll on much. The problem is what you stated. The people living complementarianism well aren’t writing about it. The people who are twisting it into something truly sad and scary are the ones spreading the message. That should concern anyone who is a soft complementarian (which is what you sound like to me and I mean that in a very good way).
I simply want people to be aware of who Mark Driscoll is, what Mars Hill is about, and what Acts 29 is about. I have another post with new links about Acts 29 once I can get a few minutes to write it up.
Wait a second… Driscoll says that women can be deacons… but not elders.
And in his little “explanation” to his daughter about what the Bible says about women as Elders he uses 1 Tim. 3, the phrase that says “…the husband of one wife”- therefore, according to him the Bible is clearly saying that Elders are only men.
But if you continue to read in 1 Tim. 3 it also describes the qualifications for Deacons and says “… Their wives likewise must be dignified..”. If you use his reasoning, then that would disqualify women from being Deacons as well… I wonder how he explains that one. Or maybe he’s just hoping nobody notices….
i wont be shy about what i think driscoll is up to—he’s an out of contron power freak plain and simple and he is building himself a one-man personality cult
oops, i meant to say out of control
I know this is not a post about baptism per se but I thought my experience would be interesting. I was immersed as a baby in a Baptist church in California (I don’t know the name–my mom had a little paper in her sewing box that stated this fact). Then I was immersed at a Baptist church in Florida as a teenager. There is one problem with baptism in some churches. Some believe that you will not go to heaven if you have not been baptized. My friend’s husband became a Christian and they were falling all over themselves to get him baptized (immersed) as soon as possible so he would not go to hell if he had a motorcycle accident or something.