I actually liked this recent offering by Mars Hill Church (yes, that church, pastored by Mark Driscoll)… until the last line. (Well, I like it except for all the passive voice. Why can’t it be “to serve my church” instead of “my church will be served by me”? They need a writer on staff.)
This poster of the vow is available on Driscoll's website.
I’m all for encouraging men (and women *ahem*) to step up, serve, love, pray, lead, and teach the Bible. I’m all for sharing our faith and living consistently with what we believe before our children and grandchildren.
*But*
The last line of this vow assumes that we can force our children to share our faith, and then force them to force their children to do the same.
This assumption is both foolish and tragic.
It is foolish because we do not have that kind of control over people. It is foolish to vow that your children and grandchildren will do anything. It’s like vowing that the people who buy your house will stay together, and that the people who buy the house from them will stay married too.
In addition, Driscoll makes a surprising departure from Calvinism with this statement. Calvinists believe that God chooses who will worship Him, and that none of us do anything to actually become one of God’s children. According to their understanding, God must first choose a person and make their dead soul alive before they can choose to serve Him. If God is the one doing the electing, the awakening, the choosing, then we cannot make our children and grandchildren worship our God. Mark Driscoll teaches that people can only choose to worship God if God chooses them first. He also knows that the Bible offers no guarantee that a Christian’s children will become Christians. So why did he make this Arminian statement (assuming people have free will to choose God on their own), and lead thousands of men to make that statement with him?
This vow is tragic because it has the potential to hurt generations of people. I am grieved for the fathers who have taken on a burden they cannot carry. I fear the misplaced guilt and agony that awaits them if their descendants choose differently. I fear for those children who will be bullied, manipulated, and coerced by fathers desperate to keep this vow, and who in turn will bully, manipulate, and coerce. This is a generational tragedy.
I suspect that Mark Driscoll intended to encourage fathers to think about the future — to remember that their children won’t stay young forever and eventually will have children of their own. It is good to keep perspective, and to consider whether we have shared the way we think and live and why we think and live that way to our children. A better way to say this would be to vow that we will share our faith with our children and grandchildren, and that our lives will be consistent with our words. Whether they choose to join us is up to them and God.
I would make such a vow and support anyone else willing to make such a commitment.
What do you think of this vow? Does passive voice annoy you? What do you think of my suggestion for the last line?
***
P.S. I’m looking for guest posts. I have a busy few weeks coming up, so I’d like to add some guest posts to my schedule to give me the time I need. You do not need to have a blog, and you may remain anonymous if you prefer. If you have a life:unmasked post you’d like me to consider, please email it to me at joy at joyinthisjourney dot com. Try to keep it under 800 words.
Available for RSS readers and email
I aggree with you on this one. Especially on the ramifications of that last line. I wouldn’t make that vow, but I like your correction you offered for it. That I believe is a vow/promise we all should take on. It’s prettu much saying we will live out our faith and share it with the ones we love. We can’t force anyone, but we should still share our faith honestly and lovingly.
To begin with, a VOW is a very serious thing to God (Eccles 5:1-7). Wisdom ways we better think deeply before making a whole bunch of them at once!
To presume that our children and grandchildren will all be believers is either motivated by pure, fleshly human will or extreme naivety and biblical illiteracy. It is the sovereignty of God, not the flesh that births believers (“…children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision OR A HUSBAND’S WILL, but born of God” – John 1:13).
As usual, Driscoll way overstates his case/argument in hopes of getting a response. It appears that all that’s needed in family and ministry is simply a very strong-willed man. As if that’s the secret to the kingdom of God on earth. Seriously? This smells very self-centered to me. And while obedience and proactive faith and service are invaluable to the body of Christ, we cannot “make” people become who God desires them to be simply by being more “forceful”. There is a time when getting up in the face of a man (as Driscoll seems to enjoy) can motivate him to score a touchdown or charge in battle. And other times, it can get your butt kicked. Turning the amp up to “11″ in every song eventually causes people to tune you out. They get bored with your lack of creativity and communication skills. But that’s off the subject here.
To be sure, God greatly uses the leadership of a godly mom or dad, but children do not respond from the heart simply because a strong-willed Christian parent is in the home. Kids are created to respond to RELATIONSHIP. We don’t merely lead by position alone. If you want to be a strong leader in your home, lead through strengthening the bond between you and your children. This will earn you “relational equity” in your family bank account. Do this and you have a better chance of them listening to you at 17. And why? Because you nurtured the relationship from Day 1 instead of commanding them like a drill sergeant. Dad’s your family is not your “platoon”. They are your flesh and blood. Trust in God to bring your children to faith and relationship with Him as you lead them. Still, there are no 100% guarantees, and that keeps us relying on Christ!
I have observed that when a pastor has a weak relationship with his congregation (i.e. he is distant and unapproachable), he typically shouts louder from the pulpit to get their attention, subsequently covering them with a blanket of guilt and shame to get them to do what he wants. I hope that’s not what’s happening here.
Good catch. How can you vow that little Johnny will be a Christian when he might be damned to hell since the beginning of time?
yes. the voice that is passive annoys me:)
not a fan of public, blanket vows, either….
kendal recently posted..what is your it?
I wonder if the last line (which I agree with you about) is based on the biblical idea of covenant. But if it is, it’s clearly based on a misunderstanding of it. Even those who claim “covenant” for their children don’t believe– if they’ve been instructed clearly– that their children’s salvation is guaranteed.
And the passive voice is not only awkward in this instance, it belies the pastor’s “REAL” attitude.
Tamara Lunardo recently posted..The Pharisees Are Not Dead
For me, I also heard evidence of the idea of children of the covenant in this. It’s not a mainstream evangelical line of thought – the only people I know who believe in covenant covering their children are Presbyterian (PCA).
As much as I do not respond well to his teaching/preaching, and as much as the passive voice really bugs, I have to say I admire the first few statements. As a devout Arminian, however, the last statement grates. Each couple’s children will have to choose how to respond to the call of salvation from Christ, and their children as well. I would not classify the last statement as Arminian in any way (but maybe I’m off-base in that).
Megan at SortaCrunchy recently posted..crumbling
I’ve never heard anyone refer to themselves as a devout Arminian. Fascinating!
I’m much more familiar with Calvinist theology as that what I was raised with, but I’ve tried to familiarize myself with Arminian theology in the last couple of years. The statements of remonstrance really interest me, and I find myself drawn to their reasonableness.
Anyway, I categorized the last statement as Arminian because as I read it, I see it putting responsibility for salvation in the hands of people rather than God (a clear departure from Calvinism). But now that I think about your comment, I think calling the statement “Arminian” is wrong. Arminius taught that each person individually is responsible to choose or not. This statement puts responsibility in the hands of the father/grandfather. Is that what you would say?
Joy recently posted..Dear Hilary, Love, Hilary: The Plunge [#lifeunmasked]
The spirit of Arminianism as I have always understood it is that each person has the freedom to accept or reject the offer of salvation. And so saying, “This statement puts responsibility in the hands of the father/grandfather” – yes! That’s what I would say. And I think most Arminian types would absolutely shudder at the thought. As a parent, my responsibility is to till the soil of their hearts to prepare the seed of the gospel, but only my children can accept the salvation offered to them through Christ.
Thanks for clarifying, Joy!
Megan at SortaCrunchy recently posted..#STOPSOPA
Joy, the passive voice annoys me from a writer’s perspective, but I think his intent was to highlight the “by me” aspect. Yes, of course, the church will be served. The question is, by whom? or by who? Whichever is appropriate, lol.
As far as the last line goes, given that he is a Calvinist, as you noted above, I believe his intention there is to press into the hearts of the men the responsibility they have for their families when it comes to leading in matters of faith. Obviously, Driscoll doesn’t believe that they have any measure of control (in a sovereign sense) over their children and grandchildren confessing Christ, as the arena of Regeneration and Justification is in God’s hands alone.
I also don’t believe he is trying to push Arminian doctrine with this statement either. Many Calvinists, especially young Calvinists, lend more toward fatalism than they do Calvinism. Somewhat along the lines of “if God has it all planned out, what use is my effort?” I feel that Driscoll does a good job of communicating both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility overall, even though this vow is focused solely on man’s responsibility.
Don Sartain recently posted..Give Grace in Disagreement
This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered this view from a Calvinist (and, oddly enough, I’ve only ever heard Calvinists express this kind of view). I had a very uncomfortable conversation with an uncle of mine a few years ago, back when I was applying to graduate school, about how I shouldn’t move away from family because when I get married and start having kids, I’ll need to be close to family. I told him that I don’t plan on children and I don’t even know if I’m going to get married (at the time, I wasn’t dating anyone and my life was too up in the air to think about dating anyone). His reply? “Well, you have to! You have to produce lots of Christian kids!”
It didn’t occur to me until months later that not only was his statement offensive because he assumed my greatest goal in life was to have children (this in the conversation where I had just told him that I was thinking about applying to Oxford University for grad school), but also the assumption that children I have would be Christians. I can’t guarantee that; no one can. But, it seems, since my children would somehow be an extension of myself, then OF COURSE, they’d be Christian.
Autonomy? As if.
I think where you ‘assume’ with the last line, is your problem. We shouldn’t assume anything. To me it reads a faith pledge – a declaration – where there is power in the spoken words and I think the very opposite is possible – I believe that generational curses can be broken with words like this – by taking the faith pledge and announcing good and like-minded words over ones children and grandchildren. But that’s just me.
You know I think there is a danger in this kinda post and I don’t mean to pull you down as I can see you are just raising a point that you believe firmly in but – no wonder Christians come across in such a bad light all the time to secular world – I firmly believe we need to stop pointing the finger and single-ing out differences in theolgical views and get on with the job we have at hand. Love people. Be Jesus with skin on and not worry about these petty differences. All the effort it takes to think ‘they’ are wrong and this could be worded better….I mean come on, we are not called to judge others – especially those in leadership positions – they are accountable to God and only God and yes we need to be wise and not follow blindly……but…..let’s just get on with being salt and light. I know your heart is heavy at the moment and you hurt. And I’m sorry.
calvinist or not, there is a tremendous amount of pressure on christian families to have perfect christian progeny, and much hang-wringing and finger pointing accompany the families of wayward children.
i think it comes down to a literalist reading of “train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” if a child strays, the parent *must* be to blame for failed training.
any parent should know that it is impossible to make a child believe or do anything! less guilt, more grace.
suzannah {so much shouting, so much laughter} recently posted..MLK & the Prophetic Church {or: reading Playboy for the articles}
Thanks, Joy. I agree about the last line.
As neither a Clvinist or Arminian, I find it interesting when these kinds of discussions arise.
Note that in the Biblical context, often when a passive is used in regard to salvation work, it is an indirect reference to God’s work, unseen but nevertheless present. (There are many examples of this, and also clarify some misunderstandings of texts, i.e. Rom. 9:19-23.) So, I would say that the emphasis in his list is right in wanting to focus on “by me.” But I find it awkward at best in communicating clearly.
So, with you, Joy, I would encourage him to get a staff writer, specially one who is theologically solid.
Rich recently posted..“I Have a Dream!” — The Challenge for us as Christians
Well said. The undo pressure and burden he creates for men is sad. Yes, I can understand he is wanting to emphasize the need to think of passing our faith to the future generations, but this vow takes it too far.
I also find it interesting that a Calvinist would include the last part of the vow. John Piper, one of the leading Calvinist scholars and pastors, has said he prays and hopes that God has chosen his son to be part of the elect but if God has not and his son ends up in Hell, he will still praise God. Driscoll is usually very much in line with his Calvinist theology and so this surprised me.
I am also unnerved by the first on the list…..My church will be served by me……I think I would prefer I will serve the Lord in all that I do and all that I am, including serving at my church. It seems to limit “ministry” to the church. Yet we all have ministries in our families, our workplace, our neighborhoods, our communities outside of our churches. And I am bothered that God is not mentioned in this vow until the end with whom the children and grandchildren will worship. If that is what you wish to pass down from generation to generation, perhaps the first vow should have something to do with God.
And finally, I don’t know the answer to this, but should church come before family? Before your spouse? Just some thoughts.
Thanks for a well written piece.
Yes, the passive voice is weak writing. And yes, the last sentence is very sad to me. This is what my mother calls “magical thinking”–the idea that if we do just the right thing (serve our church, love our spouses, open the Bible in our homes) we can guarantee the wished for result. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last ten years, it’s that I can’t guarantee anything, no matter how badly I want it and now matter how hard I try to do the right things. Only God declares the end from the beginning.
I love that phrase. “Magical thinking” really does describe it well.
I heard a pastor describe it this way once: God is a cosmic vending machine, so if you put in the correct coin (prayer, obedience, whatever the formula of the day is) and pull the level, out pops the candy bar of blessing. Like we can make God do what we want by acting a certain way. That isn’t God at all.
Joy recently posted..Dear Hilary, Love, Hilary: The Plunge [#lifeunmasked]
Yes!
Lucy recently posted..Afternoon Nap
As a fellow writer, I have to begin by saying YES—they need a writer on staff! (Doesn’t everyone?!?)
There are so many problems with this vow, I hardly know where to begin! For instance, how often should a man do these things, and what should it look like? If he opens a Bible in his home once a month or once a year, is that enough? If he prays over his wife (why not FOR his wife, btw?) but uses that prayer to bully or criticize her, does it still count? I realize the ideas have to be simplified enough to fit on a poster, but it still makes me uncomfortable. A vow like this could as easily be a cop-out as a meaningful challenge.
Anyway, thanks for approaching this with such clarity (I would have been all over the place), and for re-writing that last line in such a spot-on way.
Kristin T. (@kt_writes) recently posted..The difference between ‘right’ & ‘perfect’
As a Calvinist, I think I understand what Mr. Driscoll was saying. He is referring to the Calvinist view of “covenant,” that the children of Christians have the promise of God and will most likely be Christians, but not necessarily. God is the one who chooses us, and I have no idea if my children (when/if I have children) will be saved or not. But I do know that children of Christian families will be a part of God’s covenant, and that His blessing will be upon them while they live under their parents’ roof. Whether or not they will actually become Christians, that is something that only God decides.
Yet, I do think you make a valid point about how Mr. Driscoll can easily offend or hurt Christians with that kind of statement. It does give off the impression that the fathers of households are responsible for their children’s salvation, which is not true at all. Only God saves.
God bless!
Kate recently posted..When To Stop Performing
This is so upsetting to me. Especially coming from a prominent pastor with a large following – - comprised of people who think that they’re rejecting evangelical Christianity for something ‘real’ and ‘masculine.’ These are empty promises founded on the idea that man can save himself. I suppose they have forgotten that the Gospel says man can not save himself.
It saddens me because it is something I once would have believed and touted. It angers me because it promotes self righteousness and a sense of control over one’s own salvation, not to mention the lives of others. I would much prefer to see a humble leader who guarantees nothing except for the goodness of the mercy of the Lord. We are all indebted to Him, for His sake, because of what He did, to Him be all the glory.