Scolding isn't leadership

John MacArthur has been posting a series of blog posts calling on the “Young, Restless and Reformed” crowd to settle down and eat their peas. Sort of. The series has been intresting but unfortunate in a lot of ways because it seems like Dr. MacArthur is channeling Clint Eastwood’s grouchy old man character in Gran Torino.

There are two primary reactions to this series. One is from the YRR crowd that amounts to "don't judge me man! you don't know me!". The other is "shut yer pie holes youngsters and listen to Dr. MacArthur!". Guess what? If you make public pronouncements, you are going to be open to being publicly disagreed with. Even if you are an older guy who has a radio “ministry”, written a bunch of books and gets invited to Larry King Live occasionally. There have been a number of outraged ancillary blog posts simply aghast that anyone should question Dr. MacArthur. The whole thing has gotten pretty silly. I find the whole thing equal parts of sad and fascinating, fascinating because the dynamic at work here, namely control, has so much power in the church, sad because it is rapidly becoming an ugly, divisive situation. If you are interested, read on after the jump….

The phenomena of the “Young, Restless and Reformed” crowd has been around for a while now. There would have been a time when I would have been included in that camp but I am afraid my rebellious, “anti-authoritarian” ecclesiology would get me booted these days (plus the fact that I find myself far more in sympathy with the Anabaptists than the Reformed folks who persecuted, tortured and martyred them). I still hold to the things that actually make up Reformed theology proper, I just have largely abandoned the traditions and culture that surround it.

From Dr. MacArthur’s second post on the topic, Grow Up: Advice for YRRs (part 2)

One might think any movement that formally affirms Reformation doctrine would be at the vanguard of opposition to the jejune faddishness that has plagued evangelicalism for the past few decades. But that has not always been the case with today's Young and Restless Reformers. As the YRR movement has taken shape, some of the best-selling books and leading figures in the movement have been completely uncritical (and in some cases openly supportive) of seeker-sensitive-style pragmatism.

Worse, the fads and gimmicks some prominent YRRs seem to want to be known for are much more sinister than the shallow diversions that seeker-friendly churches were playing around with twenty years ago. Judging from certain church websites and pastoral blogs, a sizeable core of young men in the YRR movement are perfectly happy to give the world the impression that cage fighting, beer-drinking, cigar-smoking, hard-partying, and other forms of bad-boy-behavior are the distinguishing marks of their religion. Meanwhile, many others who identify with the movement evidently think any talk of holiness—not to mention any concern for taste or propriety—is tantamount to the rankest sort of legalism.

Such an opinion reflects a carnal immaturity that must not be encouraged. When smutty talk and lascivious subject matter from the pulpits of 40-year-old pastors are routinely defended by an appeal to the "youthfulness" of the offender, someone's maturity meter is badly askew. It is a serious problem. The movement cannot survive or prosper under leaders who are stuck in perpetual adolescence—no matter how much they talk about manhood and thump their chests to demonstrate their machismo.

It is pretty clear, even if he doesn’t say so, that Dr. MacArthur is talking about Mark Driscoll (who has become something of a pariah lately, more so than normal) at least in the abstract. I have no interest is mixed martial arts or drinking beer or other examples of pseudo-manliness. On the other hand may I be so bold as to suggest that uptight, buttoned down, “suit and tie=mature” religion is hardly better than vulgar talking, MMA watching, tattered jeans wearing religion? A somber, sober, measured religious performance is still a religious performance and clinging to cultural traditions is hardly a sign of maturity. One can wear neatly pressed khaki pants, drink nothing stronger than bottled water and refuse to have a TV in your house and still be less mature than a brother with a tattoo or three that drinks wine with dinner and occasionally watches the NFL.

What seems to be happening is that the old guard of the Reformed, the guys who were preaching the Five Points back when these YRR types were still in diapers, suddenly find that their wing of the church is getting out of control. The Calvinist culture seems to thrive on minority status, the better to harrumph and glower at the hordes of Arminians and feel like the tiny remnant of true believers. If Calvinism goes mainstream, where is the fun in that? What we are witnessing is something of a leadership power struggle, something that goes on all over the church (for example the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention and the more contemporary conflict over the doctrines of grace). Who is going to lead the Reformed in the future when men like Sproul, Piper and MacArthur have retired? Will it be the old guard capital “R” Reformed guys or the leaders of the YRR group? Perhaps even worse in the minds of some people, many “Reformed” believers are straying out of the Calvinist ghetto and finding that there is a rich expression of the church that doesn’t look like a Sunday morning service at Grace Community Church or Capitol Hill Baptist Church. As I have mentioned, if your idea of “always reforming” only takes you back to the 16th century, you are missing the boat.

Listen, I don’t carry any water for Driscoll but neither do I carry water for MacArthur. I think both are profitable teachers in different ways and both are men I disagree with about quite a few things. I don’t feel any obligation to give them deference because they write popular books or are older than me (JM) or cultivate a “cool” factor (MD). I think they both are missing the boat in ways that are actually quite similar. However I also don't care for scolding and finger wagging, whether the finger being wagged is attached to John MacArthur or Barack Obama.

Here is my larger issue and my main point (which I have taken my own sweet time getting to). Are men like John MacArthur or Mark Driscoll really “leaders” in the broader church? Depending on whom you ask that question, it will garner at least a quizzical look and likely an outraged spluttering. I think it is a valid and valuable question to ask.

What makes one a leader? Having lots of sermons under your belt? Writing great books? Speaking at conferences? Having a radio show or a blog? Being asked to write recommendations for books written by other people?

It certainly seems from reading the Scriptures that there are a few features of leadership that we consistently see in the Bible. One is servanthood. Someone who is not a servant cannot be a leader in the church. No matter how famous or oft quoted they may be, a man who doesn’t serve is by definition not a leader. Now preaching a sermon is not really Biblical service. Nor is writing a book. So is John MacArthur a servant? Is Mark Driscoll? I don’t really know because I don’t know them. I am also pretty confident that very few people on either side of this kerfuffle know much about MacArthur or Driscoll other than their public writings and personae. That brings me to my second point.

Another way we recognize leaders in our midst is by the example of their lives. I am quite certain that John MacArthur is a great example in the way he lives his life. At least as certain as I can be without knowing him. There’s the rub. A lot of people label certain other people “leaders” in the church without ever meeting them beyond maybe a handshake or a book signing. In the celebrity culture of the church, we are more likely to see the famous pastor as a “leader” than the simple layperson we know and see serving others every day.

Our understanding of leadership in the church is often way off the mark. We still want the best speakers, the most dynamic and charismatic people, the strongest personalities as leaders. We want leaders who look like what the world sees as leaders. What Jesus tells us is that the leaders in the church, the greatest among us, will be the humble servants, those who are out of the spotlight. That doesn’t mean that famous people cannot also be leaders but we should not look first to the ranks of the celebrity to find those who we can emulate. You are more likely to be able to imitate the life of the older saint you see all the time than you are to imitate someone you know only by watching from afar.

This entire unpleasant blow-up is little more than a leadership struggle. The saddest part is that instead of having a conversation about who the leaders are in the church, we are seeing a fight over which celebrity pastor’s vision will prevail in the future.