So, our fearless editor passed along not only a video of Pastor Mark Driscoll discussing Tribalism, but included in the link was a critical and unfavorable critique of Driscoll’s positions. It is my intent to respond to both Driscoll’s message and the subsequent response from First Thoughts.
Allow me to begin with a brief disclosure and point of clarification. Both the article and Driscoll make mention of Seth Godin, an author and marketing guru that most certainly should be credited with coining the modern usage of the word ‘tribe’ and ‘tribalism’. Clearly what Godin is articulating is resonating with a lot of people, myself included. However, Seth Godin did not invent the idea of tribalism, nor did he frame much of my own thoughts on what tribalism is and should be. I had been working out my own ideas for a number of years, making a conscious effort to articulate the need for a bottom-up network of groups instead of the top-down bureaucratic mess that we currently reside in. It was Godin that accurately put a label on my ideas, calling them ‘tribal’ or ‘tribalism’. And I am grateful to him for that. To my point however, my idea of tribalism goes much much further than even where Godin is proposing. Which if I understand him, he would be all in favor of. For the record, the same thing happened with my libertarian philosophy. Even back in high school I was advocating for the cessation of punishing victim-less crimes etc. However, it wouldn’t be until Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign did I understand that the word ‘libertarian’ accurately described me and upon further investigation I learned I had so much in common with.
First, as far as Driscoll’s message, he makes the comment, “I believe the world is becoming increasingly more tribal.” (4:45) He is wrong. The world is not BECOMING more tribal, or at least that is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that the world has ALWAYS been tribal which is problematic for groups and individuals looking for more power. So in order to distract us from our tribal responsibilities, they have invented the State, National and Imperial narratives (or any narrative that consists of groups larger than tribes). So, we are not BECOMING more tribal, we are already tribal, but more and more individuals are now willing to stop buying into the larger narratives. Driscoll continues stating that the Church, especially the Evangelical Church is becoming ‘exceedingly tribal’. Please. The history of western Evangelicalism is littered with (using Driscoll’s word) ‘tribalism’. This is in no way a modern phenomena. And allow me to make a point here. Driscoll is going to keep on using the word ‘tribal’, when in fact I think he should be using the word segmented or siloed or even fragmented. But his usage of ‘tribalism’ instead of ‘segmented’ gives the word a negative context, which is a mistake on his part.
Moving on, Driscoll goes on to explain his idea of tribal chiefs and their means of communication. (6:00) He states, “You know you have a tribe when you have a tribal chief”. Again, no. But I will explain why in a bit. Second point here: he continues on stating that Billy Graham is the tribal chief of evangelicalism. A thousand ‘Nos’. Driscoll and I disagree greatly here. I believe that the role of the tribal chief(s) is to arbitrate and/or perform conflict resolution. Billy Graham has no authority, NOR HAS HE EVER, to arbitrate conflict on any large scale. He is not the protestant Pope nor does being the most famous figure make you the chief. Here are Driscoll’s 4 marks of a tribal chief: 1. Tribal chiefs determine who’s in and who’s out. 2. Tribal chiefs have convening powers. 3. Tribal chiefs practice clumping. 4. Tribal chiefs endure a lot more criticism than average. (Again, Billy Graham even fails to qualify under Driscoll’s own criteria as he has never had the authority to determine who is in or who is out.) This whole list is really much ado about nothing. The tribal chief arbitrates. Which did not even make Driscoll’s list. When conflict arises in the tribe, which it will, the tribal chief arbitrates and provides subsequent judgement for how the conflict will be resolved. Let me illustrate. My youngest son accuses my oldest son of stealing his basketball card. They come to their tribal chief, me, and I arbitrate based on my findings of the situation. There is no court of appeals. My decision is final. The same thing works, as I have explained within this website. What if C. Jay does not want to publish your article? Are you going to call the police? Are you going to file a motion in small claims court? Nope. The tribal leader has spoken and his decision is final. Your boss is most likely a tribal leader. As is your coach.
The rest of Driscoll’s talk is about various labels and classifications within Evangelicalism, not really focused on tribalism per se.
Moving on now to Collin Garbarino’s thoughts regarding Driscoll’s talk. For the record, I have no idea who he is nor do I know is background. What I do know, is his thoughts about Driscoll’s message are bizarre. Take the following passage:
…he’s marginalized the church, so its leader must be recast as “tribal leaders.”
I find this distasteful. The church is the body of Christ. From the church’s institution, the office of pastor has been of central importance. Christianity has its own traditions, language, and culture. Why would Driscoll jettison those things in favor of trendy jargon? Tribes and tribal chiefs. Sounds decidedly pagan to me.
Pagan? Of all of the words available, and he seems to have a broad vocabulary, why the word ‘Pagan’? Certainly Mr. Garbarino owns a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is nothing pagan about labeling small groups of individuals that congregate around a shared value or values ‘tribal’. Is there? Am I missing something?
That conclusion is just nonsense. And his attack or criticism on Driscoll for using a term coined by Godin is an ad hominem. Who cares where Driscoll got the term? Who cares if Godin is trendy or if Driscoll is a copycat? Is tribalism, as described by either Driscoll or myself, indicative with reality? Is the tribal message in violation of God’s written word? Is it anti-gospel? If so, please enlighten us, Mr. Garbarino as to why and then discussions can be had. But to dismiss the idea as trendy and therefore irrelevant, or worse, pagan, is a poor argument and a logical fallacy. Tell me where my tribalism fails the Gospel’s demands. Or stay on the sidelines. Quietly.
UPDATE: Mea Culpa to our commentators for not getting permission to use the photo. Clearly to do so made them uncomfortable and thus I was wrong to do so.
