you're reading...
Evangelical Christianity, New Media

Evangelical Accountability in the Social Media Age: The Case of Mark Driscoll, Provacateur

Earlier this month, well known and controversial, Seattle Mars Hill Church Pastor Mark Driscoll posted the following status on his public Facebook wall:

Image and link to Google cache snapshot courtesy of Slog's Eli Sanders

Driscoll’s words, unsurprisingly, drew rapid and sharp criticism from the Christian blogosphere. Seemingly in response to the swift reaction he received to his post, within a few days Driscoll removed the status, which had garnered hundreds of comments.

This incident suggests that the nature of accountability in non-denominational evangelical Christianity, and perhaps the church at large, is evolving as the internet, especially social media, becomes more and more a part of church life, ritual, and public relations.

Churches have always been in the business of broadcasting. But in the social media age, that sense of broadcasting has been amplified, especially for someone like Driscoll who is trying to reach a younger population that generally interacts through the web.

Apparently, Driscoll’s hyper-masculine image and posturing is attractive—thousands attend his multi-campus church—so it’s unsurprising that he sometimes broadcasts that image online (he has over a hundred thousand followers on twitter).

In terms of outside institutional accountability, Driscoll has none. Mars Hill Church is not tethered to any particular denomination. This (rhetorical) situation gives Driscoll quite a bit of latitude to do and say what he wants. He is institutionally unconstrained (which is not to say that we would like the constraints placed on him if his church were a part of a denomination).

One could argue that his congregation acts as a constraint on what he says and does, but this seems improbable. Mars Hill itself is built on the Driscoll brand and has grown phenomenally, arguably in large part because of Driscoll himself, hyper-masculinity and all. Driscoll appears to be at the top of the power pyramid at Mars Hill as evidenced by the job descriptions on the church’s website. (To be fair, the other two “Executive Elders” may exert some influence on Driscoll, as Driscoll claims he considered their opinions of his controversial Facebook status.) Further, we can reasonably assume that his congregation generally consists of self-selected individuals who are attracted to Driscoll’s ethos and/or the kind of culture that has grown up around that ethos. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that a large portion of his congregation either supports his words and actions, is generally unfazed by them, or finds them relatively unimportant given what else he and his church have to offer. Also, given the hierarchical nature of the church and its emphasis on authority, we can reasonably assume that the congregation has little power over his words or actions.

The internet, however, yields a different kind of audience. Unlike Sunday mornings, which consist of a self-selected and relatively silenced audience, the internet consists of a vocal, interested, and even partisan audience, some of whom desire to shut Driscoll down (unlikely). It’s difficult to know Driscoll’s own thoughts on the incident—if he was simply being provocative, seeking attention, even if it was negative, or if he really thought he could get away with what he wrote. But whatever his thoughts, it seems that he could not ignore this internet audience. While it’s hard to estimate how many people tweeted, blogged, and reposted Driscoll’s words, enough pressure seems to have built up that Driscoll apparently felt the need to in essence retract his statement (though he certainly has not retracted his views or positions as no apology was issued). Driscoll’s free reign was circumscribed by his internet audience.

As what once used to go on within the closed walls of a church moves to the public, indefinite memory of the internet, with an audience that has the potential to pounce at any misstep, a new kind of accountability, a new set of constraints emerge. The independent church is no longer independent, at least not if it wants to thrive in the social media era (i.e. if it wants to attract younger members). This phenomenon is not limited to the Mark Driscolls of the world who pastor churches of thousands. The world, Christian and non-Christian alike, pounced on Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who threatened to and eventually did burn the Koran. At the time, his church had no more than a few dozen members.

Welcome to accountability in the social media age.

About these ads


6 thoughts on “Evangelical Accountability in the Social Media Age: The Case of Mark Driscoll, Provacateur

  1. It certainly was a fascinating case study, wasn’t it?!

    Thank you for linking to my post.

    Posted by Joy @ Joy In This Journey | July 20, 2011, 5:58 pm
  2. Excellent post Mr. Camper. Visiting Mr. Driscoll’s facebook page is a trip to Oz for me. He has 82 comments about an UFC match and that seems to be just par for the course. The page, read one way, is a monument of power.

    I wish I could have seen the original post/comments because I don’t understand what he was going for. I guess that is part of the glib nature of facebook posts.

    Alex Caruso

    Posted by Alex Caruso | August 7, 2011, 11:50 am
  3. There used to be a link to a Google cache snapshot of Driscoll’s original post with hundreds of comments, but the link now appears to be defunct. If I can find it, I’ll repost it. This blog post of his, however, provides some context. Scroll down to “Some backstory.” http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/13/the-issue-under-a-lot-of-issues

    “A monument of power” is a good way of putting it. Thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comments!

    Posted by K. M. Camper | August 8, 2011, 11:33 am
  4. “Driscoll appears to be at the top of the power pyramid at Mars Hill as evidenced by the job descriptions on the church’s website. (To be fair, the other two “Executive Elders” may exert some influence on Driscoll, as Driscoll claims he considered their opinions of his controversial Facebook status.)”

    One of the “other two” at the top of the pyramid, the one Driscoll has referred to as the “lead pastor” or “senior king of Mars Hill” just resigned last week (see: http://blog.marshill.com/2011/09/06/important-letters-from-pastors/ ). The pawns there seem to come and go, but el Numero Uno remains the top dog.

    Posted by Theo C. | September 10, 2011, 6:50 pm
  5. I think you give too much credit to Facebook for pushing accountability on Mark Driscoll, and not enough credit to Mark in his use of new media to generate what he wants: attention and publicity. His Church grows by drawing attention and casting a wide net. He places a provocative post that withdraws after a lot of attention. He withdraws it with no explanation. Mission accomplished. Many more people that agree or simply dislikes with his critics find him and he grows without appearing weak. (No apology) His Facebook audience grew in the controversy. As P. T Barnum said:
    “I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”
    No better motto for the good Pastor Driscoll.

    Posted by Ernesto Tinajero | July 27, 2012, 12:38 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: