Michael Brown spent his April 17 WorldNetDaily column wading into an evangelical controversy:
I arrived at my radio studio Monday to learn that social media sites were blowing up over the latest controversy involving Pastor Mark Driscoll. He had publicly called out the church performance of a sword swallowing acrobat as demonic without talking to the pastor first. The pastor, in turn, then called out Driscoll in midstream, shutting down his comments. Did Driscoll do the right thing? And why was this acrobat, a former male stripper, performing at a church conference?
The plot thickened when I received a phone call from one of my ministry school grads, now a trusted ministerial colleague. “Dr. Brown,” he said, “I go to this church. I know this pastor. He’s a fine man, and he preaches holiness and purity. I’m perturbed.”
My colleague also told me that this pastor was involved in restoring Driscoll to ministry after a previous ministerial failure and that they had talked for 30 minutes before Driscoll got up to speak. Yet not a word was said about the performance in question. Why didn’t Driscoll broach the subject then?
Brown’s link regarding Driscoll goes to a WND article that is a reprint of an article by the highly discredited Gateway Pundit. Further, Brown’s claim that Driscoll was merely involved in a “previous ministerial failure” grossly understates what Driscoll did; among other things, he got caught plagiarizing the work of others and trying to game sales of a book he wrote in order to get on the New York Times bestseller list, and officials with a church Driscoll used to lead revealed how he led a culture of fear and cult of personality in which he attacked employees with abusive language and bullying behavior. Even WND called this out at the time; in 2013, columnist Jim Fletcher accused Driscoll of launching “Mafia-style PR hits” on his critics and “infamously advocates running over “bodies” with the “bus” of the vision-casting celebrity preacher when dissenters question the vision and implementation of said vision.” Driscoll was eventually forced out of that church, only to resurface at a different one months later; he was forced out of that one as well after the elders of his former church resurfaced to accuse him of being unrepentant.
But Brown is apparently an ally of Driscoll; they were criticized by other evangelicals for jointly signing a statement regarding false prophecy. Indeed, Brown went on to serve up a defense of sorts claiming that Driscoll was right to callout the performance:
- Even if the church had no idea this guy had been a male stripper, there is no possible justification for his pole-dancing, shirtless performance at a men’s conference. None! This is completely outrageous, and the only proper response from the pastor should be a deep apology and a complete repudiation of what happened. This is madness.
- A colleague of mine goes to this church and knows the pastor and told me the pastor preaches holiness and purity. This makes the situation all the more ugly and inexcusable. Again, there is NO possible justification for this in the house of God. You can have some fun as men gathering together – like play sports or whatever – but you’re ultimately there to be meet with God and be changed by the Word and the Spirit, not see some carnal performance like this, let alone by a male stripper!
- The proper protocol would have been for Mark Driscoll to speak to the pastor privately, urging him to immediately correct the situation with repentance and an apology, then allowing Driscoll to say what was on his heart too. If the pastor refused, then the right thing to do would be to tell the pastor you could not participate in the conference and then issue a public statement as to why. So, technically, Driscoll did not follow proper order, but no one has a right to complain about this in light of the greater offense that had taken place, namely, the carnal performance.
- Matthew 18 has nothing to do with this at all. The pastor (or the performer) did not sin against Driscoll personally; he/they sinned against God and those attending in general. Matthew 18 applies to matters of personal offense and sin. That being said, again, the proper order, being under the authority of the leaders for whom you speak while there, would have been to speak to the pastor first, but I’m personally glad that Driscoll said something even if he didn’t follow perfect order, and our entire focus should be on why on earth this man was invited (may he really come to know the Lord!) and why the pastor allowed it, not on the protocol of Driscoll’s actions.
“Matthew 18” refers to a Bible verse that outlines how to confront someone over allegedly sinful behavior. Brown went on to whine further about the performance:
He acknowledged that the church leaders who invited the sword swallower “were not familiar with this dude’s past prior to inviting him, which obviously was an oversight” but that he was now a born-again Christian attending a church in Los Angeles.
Of course, I had assumed the church did not know about his past. But my question was: If you used to be a male stripper and Jesus changed your life, why are you stripping off your shirt at a Christian men’s conference, not to mention using what looks like a stripper pole for your performance? It appears that this young man could use some solid discipleship from some godly spiritual fathers.
In fact, the performer in question says he’s a born-again Christian and that his goal was to “use my talents to inspire and entertain audiences in a way that respects my faith.” He also said the stripper behavior took place when he was a young immigrant who needed money to survive and criticized Driscoll for being “a 53 year old pastor [who] was judging a 21 year old me.”
Brown then noted an anonymous pastor who claimed that “Mark’s rush to label this in the most inflammatory terms does a disservice to the actual facts of the event,” then tried to distance himself a bit from Driscoll:
In response I left him a voice text saying that: 1) I do not know Mark Driscoll at all and cannot comment on his relationship with God, but perhaps what he said was true and that this performance was much more demonic than he realized. 2) As I said in my post, the whole focus should be on why in the world the church allowed this to take place, not on whether Driscoll followed proper protocol. 3) Most importantly, this is the kind of junk that the fire of God will soon burn up. Enough already with this nonsense!
[…]The rest of the conference may have been powerful; I was not there. But, to repeat this carnal nonsense has no place in the house of God.
Meanwhile, the pastor of the church has received threats over the controversy. Brown continued to remain silent about that, as well as Driscoll’s history of abusive behavior.