I'm not really a big watcher of trends in the evangelical church, not considering myself an evangelical (even though I go to an evangelical seminary--that's another blog post). But I care about the universal church, and this means dialogue with and about the diversity of the people of God. And, I am interested in church "innovation" -- what's working in churches in the so-called post-Christian era.
Or, in the case of Mars Hill, whats not working.
Who hasn't heard about the controversy around Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill, the Seattle mega-church? Driscoll was recently asked by the MH board of elders to step down, but his macho "not for sissies" idea of Christianity, and the absolute authority he wields at Mars Hill has been criticized for years, although defended by many congregants there. I know people up at several Episcopal churches in Seattle who regularly receive "refugees" from Mars Hill: I have heard some about the damage done by their model and by their theology. The theology isn't what I want to take up, though. The question that's been going through my mind is, who decided this guy could lead a church in the first place?
The answer, pretty much, is that he did. Although no doubt, with the claim that God told him to.
Which leads me to the problem of the absolutely free church.
I like to think of the various denominational and non-denominational churches which proliferate the protestant landscape as on a continuum, from most to least "churchy," churchy meaning adhering to a degree of centralized church structure (sometimes called "polity") with some hierarchy and administration, the expectation of conformity to doctrine, canons or bylaws, a particular governance structure, and the like. Lacking a Pope and a global leader with any real power, the Episcopal Church is not as churchy as the Roman Catholic church in this regard, but it's a lot churchier than the Baptist church. To non-denominational evangelicals, the freedom to do their thing is essential to their identity--it's what they think the Reformation was meant to accomplish. This is why evangelicals tend to have a highly individualistic and entrepreneurial approach to church planting. If the Spirit moves them, they just do it. In Mark Driscoll's case, his plant became a mega-church, so successful (at least in numbers and wealth) that it became a virtual franchise, with fifteen locations.
The non-churchiest churches get to say for themselves who is qualified to preach or lead, and they frequently claim to get their authority to discern this directly from God, via the Holy Spirit, with a dose of Scripture to frame their case biblically. Contrast this with the Episcopal church, where the process of being ordained is heavily vetted and structured, involving congregational and diocesan committees, an advanced degree, a criminal background check and psychological exam, an ordination exam, and a chaplaincy and congregational internship. In short, the distance between feeling "called" to be a priest in the Episcopal Church and getting to be one is vast compared to the obstacles in place for a free evangelical.
All these rules and regs can seem onerous to someone from a "free church" background. But they also support standards, quality control, and a system of governance that doesn't allow power to be concentrated in any one place. It is true that Acts 29 expelled Mars Hill and called for Driscoll's resignation, but the network (which was founded by Driscoll) couldn't make him step down. Indeed, the Acts 29 network seems largely designed to create efficiencies for its members, although it draws a line in the sand on certain matters of Christian doctrine.
It's fair to say that a churchier system isn't perfect--there are definitely bad actors in leadership in more structured churches, and the churches themselves can suffer from slowness, sameness, lack of innovation, and a bloated institutional church dedicated to self-perpetuation. It's also fair to say that plenty of non-denominational pastors are discerning, educated, and well-qualified to lead.
In the business world, entrepreneurial energy is prized, and it's also necessary in the church (we could definitely use more of it in mine.) But there are also rules and regulations that constrain businesses from abusing market power and harming consumers. Even self-regulated professions like accountancy and medicine have examining boards and qualification standards. What is the equivalent in these strictures in free, non-denominational churches? As a self-started and self-regulated entity, what was in place at Mars Hill that could have prevented Mark Driscoll from abusing his power? And what's in place to keep the next Mark Driscoll from planting another church in God's name?
