…..but rather, the members are. It strikes me that if you’re going to put someone on the elder board for external accountability, James MacDonald is not the person I’d choose. You’ve got the amazing example of him tolerating T.D. Jakes’ prosperity theology and modalism on tape, a public endorsement of at least parts of prosperity theology in at least one sermon, expelling elders for the “crime” of asking to see the line by line budget (they’re overseeing exactly what now?), his two million dollar house (which is probably part of why he didn’t want the elders to see the actual budget and how much he was earning), his real estate empire (and seventy million dollars in debt), his gambling habit, and quite frankly a habit of playing fast and loose with the Scripture (necessary for him to excuse all the other stuff he does, I think).
In other words, Driscoll’s “accountability” board included a man with outsized influence who does not appear apt to teach (at least recently) and shows strong signs of being strongly self-willed and a lover of money.
Now I would agree that a church ought to be generating its own Godly leadership, so Driscoll’s format does not fit squarely into either a congregational or presbyterian chuch government model. But the big issue going on here is that for whatever reason, the church culture is to choose “big names” rather than to choose men of good report who are apt to teach. It’s a struggle that a lot of corporations (e.g. J.C. Penney’s, Sears/Kmart, now IBM) have as well.
Discussion
NewThe board type is not the problem, church culture is
…..but rather, the members are. It strikes me that if you’re going to put someone on the elder board for external accountability, James MacDonald is not the person I’d choose. You’ve got the amazing example of him tolerating T.D. Jakes’ prosperity theology and modalism on tape, a public endorsement of at least parts of prosperity theology in at least one sermon, expelling elders for the “crime” of asking to see the line by line budget (they’re overseeing exactly what now?), his two million dollar house (which is probably part of why he didn’t want the elders to see the actual budget and how much he was earning), his real estate empire (and seventy million dollars in debt), his gambling habit, and quite frankly a habit of playing fast and loose with the Scripture (necessary for him to excuse all the other stuff he does, I think).
In other words, Driscoll’s “accountability” board included a man with outsized influence who does not appear apt to teach (at least recently) and shows strong signs of being strongly self-willed and a lover of money.
Now I would agree that a church ought to be generating its own Godly leadership, so Driscoll’s format does not fit squarely into either a congregational or presbyterian chuch government model. But the big issue going on here is that for whatever reason, the church culture is to choose “big names” rather than to choose men of good report who are apt to teach. It’s a struggle that a lot of corporations (e.g. J.C. Penney’s, Sears/Kmart, now IBM) have as well.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.