"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

02/19/08
Comments (66)

Book Review - "Vintage Jesus" by Mark Driscoll

Vintage Jesus by Mark DriscollVintage Jesus is the first book published under the banner of Resurgence Literature (Re:Lit) which is a ministry of Resurgence (which is, in turn supported by Mars Hill Church). This is also the first title in a series called “Vintage Jesus” that will build on the themes and doctrines introduced in this book. It is one of six(!) new books we’ll see this year from the pen of Mark Driscoll. The book is a collaborative project between friends—Mark Driscoll and Gary Breshears. Describing how this collaboration unfolded, Driscoll writes, “In the chapters of this book you will hear my voice since I crafted the words onto pages, but many of the concepts were shaped and formed by my good friend. I sent the manuscript to him for his insights and suggestions, and he also wrote the answers to common questions found at the end of each chapter.” Their hope is that “this book will be readable, practical, and biblical so that everyone from seminary professors and pastors to non-Christians would benefit from our work.”

Those expecting another Radical Reformission or Confessions of a Reformission Rev will not find it here. This book, though still written by Mark Driscoll and still laced with the humor and unique writing style we’ve come to expect from him, is in a whole different category. The bulk of the book is simply straightforward, biblical teaching about the person and work of Jesus Christ. It also engages in some light apologetics, defending Jesus against the countless caricatures of Him that have arisen through the history of the church. The book offers “timeless answers to timely questions” and in that way is meant to speak to some of the strange and unorthodox teaching that we see in the church and outside it today. As Bruce Ware says in his endorsement, “Vintage Jesus offers a fresh, engaging, and insightful discussion of some of the oldest and most crucial truths about Jesus Christ that constitute the very core of the gospel itself.”

As Driscoll covers this ground, you’ll find some things that are funny, some that are profound, and some that are, in my opinion, in poor taste. I will provide a few brief examples of each.

There are some portions of the book that have the Driscoll flair that so many people have come to love. Some may just leave you laughing out loud.

  • “Jesus was a dude. Like my drywaller dad, he was a construction worker who swung a hammer for a living. Because Jesus worked in a day when there were no power tools, he likely had calluses on his hands and muscles on his frame, and did not look like so many of the drag-queen Jesus images that portray him with long, flowing, feathered hair, perfect teeth, and soft skin, draped in a comfortable dress accessorized by matching open-toed sandals and handbag. Jesus did not have Elton John or the Spice Girls on his iPod, *The View* on his TiVo, or a lemon-yellow Volkswagen Beetle in his garage. No, Jesus was not the kind of person who, if walking by you on the street, would require you to look for an Adam’s apple to determine the gender.”
  • “The Orthodox and Catholic baby Jesus pictures are simply freakish, with him looking like a Mini-Me complete with a halo. Honestly, if I had a kid like that I would sleep with one eye open.”
  • “Sadly, the Catholic Church in which I was raised and served as an altar boy missed the punch line when Jesus called Peter the Rock and, rather than a good laugh, ended up with the papacy.”
  • “Jesus also tells some Sunday school teachers they are going to hell, which made the universalistic Emergent folks immediately engage in a conversation about the mythology of hell and fingerpaint about the emotional wounds caused by his words.”

Like many who will read this book, I appreciate how Driscoll is able to communicate real truth in a way that is accessible and funny. He is able to poke fun at the way people think about Jesus and do so in a way that makes those beliefs seem so utterly ridiculous. He has his finger on the pulse of this culture and is able to speak to it.

But sometimes this humor gets a little out of hand. There are some portions of the book that I felt went beyond good humor and crossed the line into what is inappropriate. This is a common critique of what Driscoll says and writes and, I suppose, some were hoping that his transition from publishing with Zondervan to publishing with Crossway would signal the end of such statements. Somehow, while these statements may not seem so out of place in a Zondervan book, I had hoped for better from Crossway. I can’t help but feel that certain words and phrases must mark a kind of low point for Crossway. Perhaps the editorial staff weeded out more and worse. But I think you’d be hard pressed to find any other Crossway title with this kind of language. I hope it is the last.

For example, when looking at the humanity of Jesus, Driscoll chooses to say that Jesus told the Pharisees “that their moms had shagged the Devil.” Though what the Lord said may have such connotations, that particular phrase seems out-of-place and unnecessary. It’s flippant and it makes light of serious subject matter. Similarly, a heading in the chapter entitled “Why did Jesus’ Mom Need to Be a Virgin” reads, “Scripture does not teach that Mary knocked boots with God.” While it is true that the Bible does not indicate that there was some kind of sexual relationship between Mary and God, using this particular term seems beyond good taste. The same phrase (and a passing supposedly-humorous reference to incest) appears on the book’s first page:

  • Roughly two thousand years ago, Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the “fact” she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom. Jesus was adopted by a simple carpenter named Joseph and spent the first thirty years of his life in obscurity, swinging a hammer with his dad.

It is interesting to compare how D.A. Carson handled the Pharisee’s talk in his commentary on the book of John. He writes, “It is not at all impossible that the Jews are alluding to the irregularities connected with Jesus’ birth. From their perspective, he displays considerable cheek to talk about paternity: they were not born of fornication (wink, wink). If this is a correct reading, then it is a further instance of Johannine irony…” The point is the same, but Carson preserves a kind of dignity absent in Driscoll’s description. This is not just anyone we are talking about here, but our Lord and Savior—the Son of God. Surely we ought to treat His conception and birth with more respect and dignity than this.

What bothers me is not just the use of these phrases, but the utter non-necessity of doing so. They are designed to illicit laughs and perhaps show people how edgy Driscoll is. But they are, in my estimation, completely unnecessary, especially since Driscoll is perfectly capable of being humorous without being dirty. The book would not suffer at all without them. It is easy to gain laughs through such words and phrases, but just because we are able do so, I don’t think we necessarily should. Thankfully such examples are rare (though one could argue that their rarity proves how unnecessary they are). There is so much more to Driscoll than his sense of humor and his edginess. I hope that sooner or later he becomes known for what he does that pleases God rather than what he does that shocks the masses. In some cases I’m convinced they are not the same thing.

Of course there are also many portions of the book that gave me a lot to think about and showed some very good depth of insight. Here are just a few examples:

  • “The warm, soft truth is that for those who do love Jesus, this life is as close to hell as they will ever get. Heaven awaits them.”
  • Sadly, it is too common for churches not to speak of Jesus, which is a tragedy akin to a wife rarely uttering the name of her own husband. In our day when there are innumerable contradictory beliefs about who God is, Christians must be clear that their God is Jesus Christ alone so as to communicate the same central truth that Scripture does. No matter how many verses are used, the Bible has not been rightly understood or proclaimed unless Jesus is the central focus and hero.”
  • “Sadly, some Christians and some Christian leaders, while not denying the cross, prefer to keep it out of plain view because they wrongly believe that nice, decent people hate to have their sensibilities offended by such violence and gore. Consequently, the word has gotten out that being a Christian is about avoiding the suffering, pain, and horrors of this life by living in a safe, zip-locked Christian plastic bag filled with diversionary worship songs to prom-date Jesus so we don’t have to pick up any cross or shed any tears.

Statements like these, combined with the book’s biblical foundation and the addition of several poignant descriptions of moments from Driscoll’s ministry, make it a valuable read. Those who read it are likely to learn from each of the chapters. The teaching is powerful, biblical and weighty. This is solid food.

But would I recommend you read it? That is a tough question for me to answer. And no matter what I say, someone is going to disagree with me (and quite strenuously too, no doubt). To be honest, there are some people to whom I’d definitely hesitate to recommend it. I would certainly not be happy if Driscoll, standing face-to-face with my wife or my children, used some of the words and phrases in this book. Why then would I hand them the book and recommend that they read it? There is certainly much to gain from Vintage Jesus and I’m sure that many will read it and will benefit. But I’m sorry that Driscoll had to cross the line of good taste, even if only occasionally. It does not invalidate the book, but neither does it make it any better. It was so utterly unnecessary.

Book Review -

Comments (66) »


1. Candy
February 19, 2008
9:29 AM

What a well balanced review. Unfortunately, Driscoll is like many young people these days, who do not want to mature beyond childish shock talk. I sure wish he would heed older and wiser men and give up the coolness factor.


2. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
9:31 AM

I’ve grown tired of Driscoll’s coarse language and his attempts to be cool and ‘with it’. I keep hearing the same old coined phrases coming from him, trying to make the same old tired gutter jokes with Jesus as the subject. It’s not funny. it’s not even hip. It’s just immature and irreverent.

Grow up, Mark.


3. KC
February 19, 2008
9:38 AM

Tim,

Thank you for this candid review of Driscoll’s new book. It shows a level of integrity to question the actions of one’s own publisher (Crossway) in the editorial process of some questionable matters. Undoubtedly, you will face much opposition from avid fans of Driscoll, but I dare say that Driscoll himself would be excited about your upfront honesty. I truly believe that is his intention and I can only hope that is future books will rest on his theology and not his shock factor.


4. Jeff Locke
February 19, 2008
9:50 AM

Tim,

I understand your dislike of some of Driscoll’s language, and I’m sure a lot of people feel the same. Like you, I might hesitate before I recommend the book to my mother-in-law. Yet, there is a sense in which he’s translating the truth of Scripture into language that many will relate to. Our inherited culture tells us “knock boots” is a dirty phrase; frankly, is it any less offensive to report that others believe there was some kind of sexual relationship between God and Mary? I just said it in black and white, Driscoll says it in color. Had our English Bible translators pulled no punches, there would be passages of the Bible itself whose language is far worse than anything like this. That doesn’t give us license, but when used to bring God’s truth from the abstract to reality, such language can be a very helpful and effective thing. May the gospel of Christ Jesus go forth through this book!


5. Shannon Lewis
February 19, 2008
9:53 AM

Honestly, those phrases offend you? Hmm - odd. And I thought those might only offend some southerners like those I live around. I’ve been in Northern churches (and solidly evangelical ones) where courser terms for urination and defication (I’ll not use them for fear of offending you) were used in sermons and hardly anyone whatsoever even flinched, including myself. I think Mark speaks the language of my generation and younger. I’m 34 and I connect with the man dead on, and have rarely, if ever, been offended by anything I’ve heard or read by him, and often I’m thankful he’s not only said it, but for the way he says it. It was a good review, overall - I’m sad you won’t ‘endorse’ the book more fully, I guess.


6. Alisha
February 19, 2008
9:57 AM

I really wish the older generation would look at the impact that Mark is having in one of the least churched cities in the country. His ministry (preaching and writing) is relevant, Christ-Centered, and Jesus focused. His church is one of the few that is reaching 20-30 year olds (men at that). I think each of us must ask ourselves if our churches are doing that? How many college aged men are you reaching and seeing come to Christ. I worked on a college campus and this is the best resource I’ve seen lately for helping this unchurched 20-something generation truly understand who Jesus is in a way they can understand. Lastly, two suggestions: 1. Look at his facebook profile to see how much the younger generation loves him and the impact he is making 2. Listen to his talk on Humor from a few weeks ago


7. Josh
February 19, 2008
9:58 AM

I’ve never read a Drisocoll book but I’ve hit his blog a few times and who hasn’t seen the blowback from some of that? But here’s the thing: There are people who will read a Driscoll book who would never read one by R.C. Sproul. They would never pick up Packer, or MacArthur or anyone like them. But here’s a book about Jesus thats true even if you don’t like the language and it seems to communicate the Gospel. That in and of itself should make the Christian rejoice—that he’s reaching people with the Gospel.

And if that doesn’t please you—and I don’t really care either way—then you can at least cherish an inward happiness that you don’t have to deal with the folks with whom he resonates.


8. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
9:58 AM

Let’s be real honest here. What does the truth of the gospel (and its going forth) really have to do with knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom???


9. Hayden Norris
February 19, 2008
9:59 AM

Tim,

This is a great and balanced review. Too often when the subject of Mark Driscoll comes up there is a lot of heat and very little light (from ‘both sides of the aisle’). I just purchased your book on discernment and now feel compelled to read it :) (If you are ever in the Detroit area to see your Blue Jays get beat by the Tigers let me know. I’d love to meet with you since we know many of the same people)

I hope your comments section does not get overwhelmed by those against and for the ministry of Mark Driscoll.

May all of the comments display the same balance of grace and truth that you do in your review.


10. Josh
February 19, 2008
10:00 AM

It seems you’ve missed my point…


11. Josh
February 19, 2008
10:05 AM

…wait, maybe you’ve proved it.


12. Larry
February 19, 2008
10:06 AM

Looking at this from another angle, I think the last thing leaders in the church need to be doing is encouraging the ‘teenager in a grown man’s body’ mentality of so many men today, especially men in the church. Driscol could do a great service by simply talking like a grown up as an example to all those physically grown men who can’t seem to emotionally and mentally mature beyond their teens or early 20’s. That doesn’t mean, by the way, that he has to write like he’s producing a text book for a seminary, just that he not revert to locker room slang.


13. Anna
February 19, 2008
10:21 AM

To those who say that Driscoll connects most with a younger generation… I’m 21, and I do not run in ultra-conservative circles, and I don’t find Driscoll’s language helpful or easy to connect with. In fact, I connect with Carson’s language and teaching style far more.

Just my two cents… I appreciate this review. I appreciate Larry’s point as well.


14. Jerry
February 19, 2008
10:38 AM

“Looking at this from another angle, I think the last thing leaders in the church need to be doing is encouraging the ‘teenager in a grown man’s body’ mentality of so many men today, especially men in the church. Driscol could do a great service by simply talking like a grown up as an example to all those physically grown men who can’t seem to emotionally and mentally mature beyond their teens or early 20’s. That doesn’t mean, by the way, that he has to write like he’s producing a text book for a seminary, just that he not revert to locker room slang.”

Hopefully this won’t be misconstrued as a personal attack, but what you say here reveals your utter lack of familiarity with Driscoll. Much of his ministry is concerned precisely with encouraging boys to become men.

If you don’t believe me, I’d heartily recommend his current series answering questions, which you can view or listen to on Mars Hill Seattle’s website at marshillchurch.org

While I’m initially inclined to agree with Tim in his one main critique of Driscoll’s new book, all I can say in my defense of not agreeing ultimately is that more people need to watch Mark Driscoll’s recent sermon on Humour:

http://www.marshillchurch.org/sermonseries/religionsaves/week_02.aspx

Though you may not agree with his arguments, it would be beneficial for all Driscoll-detractors to familiarize themselves with his reasons (both scriptural and logical) for utilizing the language and humour he does.


15. Hugh
February 19, 2008
10:42 AM

Great review. But as with all your reviews of MD’s books the language and humour he uses seems to be an issue which puts a blocker on it being a glowing review.

I like Carson, and Driscoll, but I can’t think of a Carson book that I could give to a pagan friend to help them understand Jesus. Driscoll speaks in a language that most younger people can relate to - who actually uses the word ‘fornication’ in conversation today??


16. Nick Setterington
February 19, 2008
11:06 AM

Tim, I appreciate your review. I resonate with the tension you put forth as well…

Piper commented about Driscoll at the 2006 conference in this way (paraphrase): If he holds those 9 things (which Driscoll expounded in his talk) in his closed hand, then for the sake of the supremacy of Christ, I’ll deal with what’s in his open hand…

I too don’t totally agree with Driscoll’s use of language, but I sure am glad to see him running with guys like Piper, Keller, et al, AND that he has shown great humility in the past to heed rebuke in this area from them… If this book points to the centrality of Christ in all things, and points our attention to Him, then praise God!

To steal a line from Carson, like all books except one, this book is not for everyone.


17. Steve McCoy
February 19, 2008
11:08 AM

Driscoll is speaking to a culture he understands. He’s not trying to be cool or hip. He’s being himself and speaking the language of the culture, which most Christians can’t do and therefore most Christians can’t appreciate.

If you don’t appreciate Driscoll’s humor, it’s probably because you either don’t live in the “emerging” culture (unchurched, younger generations) or don’t know how to appreciate healthy biblical contextualization (1 Cor. 9:19-22). This book wasn’t written for Challies or his wife or kids. It’s written for, and will be influential among, the same younger folks that Driscoll’s church is reaching by the thousands and the Acts 29 Network is reaching by tens of thousands.

I want to add my great appreciation for Crossway’s courage to put out a book that fundamentalists are guaranteed to misunderstand. That’s publishing that will finally make an impact beyond the judgments of the choir.


18. ryan
February 19, 2008
11:12 AM

It is an obsession of so many to major on the minors. We are so busy playing language police that we are willing to nullify the amazing impact that Mark is having for the Kingdom.

As one commenter said, “Lets be real honest here” some of the language Driscoll uses is debatable, meaning that it can be viewed as over the top or right on the edge, basically it can be argued either way. This tells me that we are really talking about PREFERENCES. What people prefer. So many who are more conservative and like to curl up with a nice Sproul book might find a sour taste from some of Driscoll’s language, and others who would never otherwise pick up a book about Jesus would find it mild and even keel. So brothers and sisters please realize that some communicative language is more subjective than our own personal standards, and allow for some liberty in this area. So if you do not like the book and Mark’s blue colloquial language upsets you then don’t read it. But be slower to think you get to make the definitive judgment on what is absolutely wrong or right, and how God might use it to bless thousands of people.


19. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
11:13 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot…numbers equals success and validates the means by which those numbers are reached.


20. Tim Challies
February 19, 2008
11:14 AM

I like Carson, and Driscoll, but I can’t think of a Carson book that I could give to a pagan friend to help them understand Jesus. Driscoll speaks in a language that most younger people can relate to - who actually uses the word ‘fornication’ in conversation today??

Nor would I. But that’s what Keller’s new book is for. While I agree that Driscoll speaks a language people can understand, you seem to be looking at this through the lens of pragmatism. I wouldn’t hold out Carson’s use of thee word “fornication” as the model—rather, I think he managed to maintain a sense of dignity. “Knocking boots” isn’t the only way Driscoll could have termed this.


21. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
11:17 AM

and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting - Eph. 5:4


22. Bibliomaniac
February 19, 2008
11:23 AM

Driscoll is speaking to a culture he understands. He’s not trying to be cool or hip. He’s being himself and speaking the language of the culture, which most Christians can’t do and therefore most Christians can’t appreciate.

Surely it’s possible to speak the language of the culture without being vulgar. My three boys are ages 17-23, are all actively involved in very effective ministries to teens and young adults, and I’ve seen and heard powerful, meaningful ministry take place without vulgarity.

What Mark does, he does by choice. Vulgarity is not a necessary element for effective ministry. I would contend he would actually be more effective without crossing the line of taste.

I commend Tim for being willing to express his disappointment with Crossway, his own publisher. I too am surprised at what Crossway was willing to publish and what Garry Breshears was willing to coauthor.

These stand as confirmations that more and more, discernment is lacking among Chrstians today.


23. ryan
February 19, 2008
11:29 AM

Brian your better than that. Cheap shot when it is quite clear that my main argument was not that numbers equal godliness. Lets be fair to each other when we engage each other on the internet.

Second I do think numbers matter because numbers are people. And the more people that come to know Jesus and love him the better. So step back from a depersonalizing phrase like “numbers” and realize we are talking and people that need to hear about Jesus.


24. William
February 19, 2008
11:36 AM

In all of this we must remember Ephesians 4:29 :

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

I think that language that is offensive to some should not be used. It is irrevrent and speaks of the spiritual condition of the person making/writing the statement. We are to honor the LORD in all that we do, this includes speech. Weather we reach a certain segment of society that we deem has not/cannot be reached is irrelevant because that is God’s province, not ours. We are His tools, but we must follow His ways as set down in His law/word. This includes clean, understandable, reverent speech. ANYONE should be able to understand what is written/said and not be offended in the presentation, except perhaps where it points out the sin in one’s life, and then that is where the Holy Spirit may be working.


25. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
11:37 AM

Ryan,

Just because my comment follows yours, it does not automatically mean I was responding to what you said. My comment was entered before I even read your entry (I was actually directing my remarks toward Steve’s comment about mark reaching thousands), but I think it still applies to your remarks as well, since you said almost the same thing.

Also, you changed what I said. I never made any remark about numbers equaling godliness.


26. julie
February 19, 2008
12:05 PM

I don’t agree that this is just a matter of “reaching” people, or differences in what speech is acceptable. Mark’s reference to his Roman Catholic background is quite telling. I have worked alongside Roman Catholics and I have to tell you that this type of crude speech is quite common among them, especially the men. Even RCs that otherwise show that they may be regenerate can be very worldly in their speech and quite irreverent at times. (tho the church itself is corrupt, there may yet be saved people within it)Their speech is not necessarily shocking, and I don’t think that they deliberately mean to offend others, but this is their manner, their speech. Even priests may have irreverent speech in their homilies. Do they think that it doesn’t matter because in the end they just have to face purgatory anyway to make up for any irreverence they showed? Or is it just hardness of heart?

It must be that one of the Reformation distinctives was an renewed understanding of God’s holiness and purity, and therefore a deliberate turning toward reverence for God and the things of God. Generally speaking, there is a seriousness in our understanding, for we see God as holy, high and lifted up, and Jesus Christ as Lord and King. We do not want to be loose with the things of God, out of respect - reverence - for God. As protestants this must have been passed down to us. Not so the Romanists, for reverence for God is surely lacking in many Roman Catholics to this day.


27. John Hendryx
February 19, 2008
12:05 PM

Hi. I like your review Tim and I thank God for you for speaking up about it. It is very well balanced. What bothers me about Driscols’ language is not so much that it is “edgy” or “dirty” or merely “not in good taste” as you say, but that it makes jokes at God’s expense. There is simply no place for this kind of talk about Jesus’ conception among Christians. We should not promote tasteless images about Jesus Christ. When John saw the Lord in the book of Revelation he fell at his feet as though dead. This was not our of mere reverence, but dread and fear of the holiness and majesty of our God and Savior.

In contrast to this, the intro language of Driscols’ book frankly breaks my heart, especially from someone who claims to love God. It makes light blazing holiness of our God. For all the talk on here about reaching young people, I would argue that this has nothing to do with personal preferences, or the group of people we are trying to reach, it is simply vile to speak of our Lord in such terms and this is the specific thing that should be repented of. Driscol may reach many with his ministry, and this is not a comment about his ministry as a whole, but for these specific comments about our God. And you are right. People like Tim Keller reach the people of the city effectively with respect, but without the worthless talk.

By the way, we won’t be carrying this book in our store.


28. Reid
February 19, 2008
12:13 PM

Vulgarity is a concept that is fluid guys. I tried to convey some of this in Tim’s post about Piper saying “kick your &#@” a while back. There are people today that would look at the term “knocking boots” or “shagging” (which is a British term popularized in America by the Austin Powers movies that non Christian people are very familiar with) as so uncontroversial that they would just find this discussion humorous. If you spend significant time with real non Christians you will find that there are other terms used for this activity that are much, much more offensive (and I would say actually profane).

Any word has a level of offense in the community that it is used and heard. For instance “poo-poo, dung, feces, rubbish, crap” are all words which could be used to translate certain biblical terms into our culture today. Remember, Driscoll has chosen to use the ESV so he has not advocated crazy language Bible translations…which do exist. What he has done is remain native to the culture out of which he was saved and teaches the Bible within it while being a follower of Jesus who was saved out of it.

Obviously, in certain circles, these phrases ARE offensive and I am glad for Tim’s honesty in saying so. In other circles they are not in any way. Yet we stand before Almighty God and must give account to him for the choice of our words. To me Driscoll has not sinned against any of you in his choices of words - but he has probably offended some. The question that I believe he would be most concerned with is whether he has offended Jesus - and I do not see where he has.

I am reading the book now as well and agree that I did not see the need for all the choices Mark made in being funny. But I did laugh out loud. I did appreciate his depth and rigorous understanding of Christological controversies, historical theology, contemporary heresy and Jesus as revealed in Scripture.

I want all to pause and look at all the men who endorsed this work - from an ultimate fighter to preeminent theologians. I thank God that Crossway is standing with The Resurgence to put forth biblically faithful, theologically driven, culturally real works for the world. I hope you all can do the same.

And Tim, personally, I would hand Keller and Driscoll to different crowds…but both books are indeed timely gifts to the church for any who care about making Jesus know to lost people in lost culture.


29. Jeri
February 19, 2008
12:16 PM

Tim, this is an excellent review. Bravo to you! I would say it’s courageous to be so honest, but I know this is just you being you. I wish everybody who plans to read Driscoll’s book could read this review first. Good job.


30. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
12:18 PM

Perhaps those who have embraced him publicly (Piper, Dever, etc.) will be bold enough to call Mark out on this. Then again, perhaps not. There seems to be a willingness to overlook serious issues if the person in question has what we would deem good or correct theology. Theology is not everything, and I hope that those who have publicly come alongside of Driscoll will, at the least, approach him privately with some elderly admonishment.


31. Joe
February 19, 2008
12:21 PM

It is interesting how quickly and confidently the comments are rolling from folks who have not yet read the book.


32. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
12:25 PM

Here we go, no one is qualified to comment unless they’ve read the book. Well, I haven’t been to a n x-rated movie either, but I believe I can still speak to its being something that should or should not be done.


33. mike rucker
February 19, 2008
12:33 PM

tim wrote: I wouldn’t hold out Carson’s use of thee word “fornication” as the model—rather, I think he managed to maintain a sense of dignity.

i won’t comment on the book, since i haven’t read it.

i will applaud tim for this: not only did he get ‘fornication’ in a sentence, but he managed to get ‘thee’ in there as well. people who think jesus and paul were quite happy using the kjv would be proud…

mike rucker

34. Joe
February 19, 2008
12:37 PM

Brian, that’s true - but not everything is as black and white as, say, an x-rated movie, where sin is portrayed as attractive, etc… For the vast majority of discernment issues- especially as would relate to commentary on a man and his ministry and his book- I just think context is pretty important and, although we can and should make observations and think together, we should probably do so very judiciously when we don’t have the full context.


35. Jeff Fuller
February 19, 2008
12:43 PM

I’d have to ask how many of the commenters have actually witnessed to someone in the past month who thinks Jesus was just some hip moral teacher who taught another way to heaven?

This book was written for those kind of hippie freaks and liberal universalist weirdos that street preachers and evangelists come in contact with all the time. Finally a book that is full of Christology that I can give to people who don’t understand king james english and get lost reading books with a theologically academic tone!

Now if it could only be printed in the syle of a comic book! (that’s a joke for you stuffy types)


36. Bibliomaniac
February 19, 2008
12:48 PM

Joe said: It is interesting how quickly and confidently the comments are rolling from folks who have not yet read the book.

Joe, even if some of us haven’t read the book, isn’t it okay for us to respond to the particulars Tim Challies has addressed in his review? I would think so.


37. Josh
February 19, 2008
12:49 PM

Reid wrote: What he has done is remain native to the culture out of which he was saved and teaches the Bible within it while being a follower of Jesus who was saved out of it.

There’s a concept for you.


38. ryan
February 19, 2008
12:49 PM

Joe, don’t waste your time trying to explain that something might not be all black and white. Brian is the same guy calling for Driscoll to be admonished because he has different linguistic preferences than Driscoll, and does not understand his targeted audience. I just wonder though for those who are so absolute that Driscoll is in the wrong, why do your language standards/preferences get to be the decisive voice?

Point to Eph. 4:29 and than I can get the stack of Ephesians commentaries off my shelf who will speak to the broad interpretation of this passage.

Last I would just ask who reads D.A. Carson commentaries? Pastors, scholars, seminarians, that is the targeted audience for his PNTC John commentary. Believe it or not New Testament scholars also write for an audience. So it is silly to think that Carson would write the same way if he was trying to reach the un-churched guy down the street who probably does not even know what a commentary is.

So language police put aside your preferences and realize that as Christians we have the liberty to contextualize our message without changing message, for the audience we are communicating to.


39. Steve McCoy
February 19, 2008
12:58 PM

Reid, a very helpful comment (#28). Good thoughts.

Brian, are you going to criticize Luke for talking about numbers in Acts? We aren’t talking Osteen here. Driscoll has the gospel, solid theology, etc. He and Mars Hill are very evangelistic. They are pouring tons of money into church planting. When those things are true and we see God blessing it, we should at least take notice. And I’m not using numbers so much to defend the means he uses, but to show there is a crowd who understands him who is the audience of the book.

Ryan (#38), I had the same thought on reading Carson. Who pulls off a commentary to compare the language with a popular book? Solid point.


40. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 19, 2008
1:15 PM

I’ve listened to enough of Driscoll’s “humor” to have a proper context, thank you.

How about the Eph. 5 passage?

and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting - Eph. 5:4

If Mark is not over the line with respect to this from Paul, then where is the line, and what use is it?


41. Carol
February 19, 2008
1:48 PM

I object to the assumption (implicit or explicit) that the unsaved are all going to “resonate” with the language and coarse jesting in this book. There are plenty of non-Christians who consider themselves to be very moral people (think Mormons, Muslims) and would be very offended by this type of language.

I had the same issues with Halo “outreach” parties at church. Why do we assume that the parents of unsaved teens have no morals or standards? Some unsuspecting parents are probably sending their kids to a church event with no idea that their kid will be exposed to a extremely violent “M” rated video game that cannot even be legally sold to young teens. I think you could rightly reason that many outside the church would have different expectations for a church event and from a Christian book.

I’ve never heard of anyone being offended because you’re not offensive! On the other hand, I’ve heard plenty of, “Those Christians are no different than anyone else in the world…” Much bigger problem IMO than NOT being offensive enough.


42. Caleb
February 19, 2008
1:50 PM

I’m going to have to echo Anna from comment #13. I’m 21 and I don’t think that Driscoll’s style of preaching and teaching is any more effective at reaching those in my generation than men like Carson. Most people I’ve seen who like Driscoll are in their late 30s and not in their 20s. I rejoice that Mars Hill is seeing people come to Christ, and I appreciate Driscoll’s emphasis on church planting but I will take Mark Dever over Mark Driscoll any day.


43. DJ
February 19, 2008
2:02 PM

Brian and others,

I don’t pretend to have the corner market on exactly what “there must be no filthiness or silly talk…etc” means from Ephesians. Certainly we must seek before the Lord to understand an obey that.

But let me ask this: do you think the Galatians were offended when Paul wrote in Gal 5:12:

“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!”

I am sure some people would say at that time, “That is not proper language for a Christian leader, and is not reverent at all.” Come on, don’t you think the Galatians were VERY offended by this?

Or how about Jesus telling the Pharisees that Satan is their dad? We’re they offended by that? And didn’t Jesus purposely seek to offend them because of their self-righteousness (also seen when he would not wash his hands on purpose)?

I think it could possibly be that we need to look biblically at what “fithiness” and “silly” talk is. Is it filthy when God, in Ezekiel 16 says “whore” again and again, and that Israel “spread her legs to every passerby” Ezekial 16:25?

I am not saying I or Driscoll get this right exactly, but really, there are a lot of offensive things and offensive language example directly from God himself, and of course he is not in sin!

I agree with others that it would be good to listen to Driscoll’s sermon on Humor from a few weeks ago, which goes into this.


44. Alisha
February 19, 2008
2:04 PM

Just to clarify - when I was talking about Driscoll appealing to a younger generation, I was referring to the unchurched 20’somethings who know very little about Jesus and have no experience with the Christian Subculture so many of us live in. They think Superbad, Van Wilder, and Wedding Crashers are the funniest movies they’ve ever seen. Mark Driscoll is speaking their language and compared to those movies it’s actually in a tame and tempered way.


45. Patrick Lacson
February 19, 2008
2:10 PM

Tim,

Good post. Marc Driscoll is a man who is very precise in explaining justification but very loose in apply sanctification. There seems to be a strong disconnect there.


46. brianmetz
February 19, 2008
2:19 PM

Not offended. But thankful. Thanks for the review, Tim. Look forward to reading Mark’s work for myself.

This comment section has gotten ugly. Why don’t some you write a letter to Mark Driscoll instead of writing anonymous comments with your own pious views of what is offensive and what is not offensive. Frankly some of the things written here have offended me as a Christian. Language is so up for interpretation and preference. I find that “vulgar” can mean common, or current. So, if we are really splitting hairs about language then lets all read Greek and Hebrew and stop all this English vulgarity.


47. DJ
February 19, 2008
2:41 PM

SJ Camp,

Your words grieve me. I may have to stop bothering reading these comments. Amazing.

I would love for you to respond to my post a couple up about “offensive” language by Paul and Ezekiel. “Whore” and “spreading your legs to every passerby” would seem to fit.


48. Carla Rolfe
February 19, 2008
2:44 PM

John Hendryx said in comment #27:

“By the way, we won’t be carrying this book in our store.”

As offensive and as insulting at some will no doubt find that, I applaud the decision. It’s refreshing to see folks hold a high standard, especially when it’s an outlet as influential as Monergism Books.

As long as people keep making excuses for Driscoll’s langauage and humor, there will remain an audience for it. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand.

When people finally get tired of hearing and reading his “hook” in preaching/teaching/writing (finding a niche and exploiting it for all its worth, which is exactly what he’s doing - any good marketer can spot it a mile away), and take the Scripture seriously where it pertains to holy and righteous living and conversation, then the demand will decrease, and maybe Driscoll will finally clean up his act, and his mouth.

Somehow Driscoll has missed the point in that it’s the simple preaching of the word that God uses to save sinners. Driscoll’s convinced himself he has to speak like the lost (how many times does he use the excuse that he has to speak the way he speaks because he’s in the “least churched city in America” ??), in addition to preaching the word, or a whole segment of Seattle society will never hear the gospel. In a word? Baloney.

The sad thing is, Driscoll actually does have some good things to say. It’s just a shame anyone has to wade through the trash to hear those good things.

And for the record, no I have not read the book, and have no intention of doing so. Make of that what you will. I’ve heard enough of his so-called humor to know that I have no desire to spend good money on his book.


49. Leslie
February 19, 2008
2:57 PM

thanks for the review…very helpful!


50. Suzanne
February 19, 2008
3:01 PM

After reading the quotes from Driscoll’s book, I have no intention of reading it. It sounds perfectly awful, to be honest. Granted, I’m nearly 50, and not his target group, but I have college-age kids and they absolutely find his kind of “Christian” trash talk ridiculous, so it doesn’t necessarily have broad appeal to young people. Yes, Jesus came to seek the lost, but in order to bring us salvation, not to come down to our level and stay there. In order to connect with younger people, we do need to “be real” but since when does that mean being crass and crude? I’m so tired of the mentality that says we can bring people to Christ by being as cool or cooler than the world. And what happens when people like Driscoll hit middle-age and their coolness factor wanes? I fear a generation will be left with little but how cool they, too, were for a time….


51. brianmetz
February 19, 2008
3:03 PM

Steve Camp - “But we all know that the leadership at Mark’s Hill Church is not strong enough to stand up to him; or they would have done so already.”

That is a pretty judgmental statement. Who died and crowned you pope.


52. Leslie
February 19, 2008
3:08 PM

I’m 26 and I do not connect with his imagery in the ways that are labeled “offensive.” It just doesn’t do it for me. I think the younger generation ought to know how to address topics such as these with grace. “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” Col. 4:6

I think one should always be cautious.


53. ted
February 19, 2008
3:12 PM

Brianmetz, if you read Steve Camp’s comments around the blog world on Driscoll you will notice that he long ago crowned himself judge and jury. Yet he continually makes false claims about Driscoll and is unwilling to listen to any voice but his own. Steve has repeatedly called Driscoll and prideful and unwilling to be humbled but this runs contrary to many of Driscoll’s public confessions and sermons on humility and his need to continue to grow. In all honesty it seems that Steve always for humanity and imperfection in everyone else but Driscoll. We all know Driscoll is not perfect but I do not know any pastor that is. I do know the guy is growing and willing to confess his sins and failures, I wish we saw that same humility from Steve Camp in all his fundamentalism.

Plus I do find it a bit ironic that Tim seems to take quite a few shots at Vintage Jesus and unwilling to fully endorse it, but has advertising banners for it on the same blog! So for those of you patting him on the back for standing up to Crossway you might want to look at the Vintage Jesus banners that can still be found here.


54. Matt Monge
February 19, 2008
3:22 PM

Thanks for the review. Good thoughts.


55. Tim Challies
February 19, 2008
3:28 PM

Steve Camp’s comment was sufficiently inflammatory that I decided to remove it. Camp’s thoughts on Driscoll are well-known and I’m not really interested in allowing them to derail this discussion!


56. Reid
February 19, 2008
3:30 PM

Too fun - if anyone is going to buy the book - click through Challies’ banner ad to give him the credit. I love Tim’s work on this site (and others) and want to see it increase in quan.


57. Josh
February 19, 2008
3:36 PM

I guess if Mr. Camp wants to beat us over the head with those verses thats fine. He’s seems to be pretty good at it and It’s obvious he’s studied up and I’m all for getting people to study the Bible. The thing I’m having trouble with is the passages no ones quoted so far about bringing a charge against a pastor/elder—all of which make his preaching and way he does it none of our business.


58. Tim Challies
February 19, 2008
3:38 PM

Plus I do find it a bit ironic that Tim seems to take quite a few shots at Vintage Jesus and unwilling to fully endorse it, but has advertising banners for it on the same blog! So for those of you patting him on the back for standing up to Crossway you might want to look at the Vintage Jesus banners that can still be found here.

It’s a funny coincidence, isn’t it? It’s amazing that it took over 50 comments for someone to point it out. The banner went up before I had finished reading and reviewing the ad (the publisher pays for ad space on this site and rotates banners on a weekly basis). When I actually wrote the review and saw the banner…and it got me thinking.

But I decided to let it stay. After all, I really do think this is mostly a good book and I hope my review made that clear. There were three or four brief portions that I felt were over the top. Beyond those I think it’s a good book. So I felt I could, in good conscience, leave the banner in place.


59. RT
February 19, 2008
3:44 PM

When I think of the pharisees I think of a bunch of people that would get all caught up in terms like “knockin’ boots,” and totally fail to see how that kind of self-superiority walks hand in hand with running through the streets screaming, “Unclean! Unclean!”

I wonder how upset some of you are going to be when MD invites himself over to a tax collectors house for supper.

Maybe we should work harder at presenting the Gospel to people in a language that they can understand. We should speak to our grandmothers with one form of speech, and to babies with another. I speak to my grandmother loudly and very slowly…she doesn’t usually understand me. I speak to my baby son in fast paced gibberish that is unintelligible and he seems to understand every word. If I reversed the order they would both feel either scolded or mocked.


60. Hayden Norris
February 19, 2008
3:54 PM

Tim,

Thank you for deleting the comment by SJ Camp. There are many that I see commenting here that I have seen commenting in other places on Mark Driscoll. It has almost become a crusade. Thanks for moderating your comments and not letting it get out of hand.

Back in comment #10 I predicted this would happen, now, I am not a prophet or a son of a prophet but…


61. Justin Keller
February 19, 2008
3:58 PM

I’m saddened by reading the comment section on this review. There is a lack of charity by those both pro- and anti-Driscoll.

Maybe Driscoll does cross the line sometimes. I think this is probably true. In seeking to speak a language 20- and 30-somethings easily understand, Driscoll dances right up to the edge of good taste and sometimes slips over it. And that’s the reservation Piper and Dever have about him.

But maybe he is doing a better job of contextualization than most evangelicals are. Some of the comments of scandalized critics are telling. The reality is that for a 25 year old male asking questions about Jesus, the last thing I am going to hand them is something written by D.A. Carson. And unless that 25 year old is the sort of Upper West Side elite or Greenwich Village creatnik that Tim Keller seems to speak so well to, I’m not sure that his writings are going to be all that helpful.

Maybe “knocking boots” is a bit too crass. Okay, nevermind the “maybe” — it is crass. But “fornicating” sounds just like the kind of stuffy, holier-than-thou sort of language that alienates the generation that Driscoll is having such success reaching. (Maybe if we left the “g” off and replaced it with an apostrophe…)


62. donsands
February 19, 2008
4:23 PM

“But “fornicating” sounds just like the kind of stuffy, holier-than-thou sort of language that alienates the generation that Driscoll is having such success reaching. “

There were two 21 year old commenters here that would disagree with your thought.

The problem is that we are dumbing down our youth. I remember having to study William Shakesphear in High School, and I hated it, but the teachers taught us what the words meant.

I believe the English language is broad, and there are many appropriate words we can use, and then take a few seconda to eplain what they mean. This is the way to edify the soul, and renew the mind. I was a below average English student, and I now love to hear different words, and learn there meanings.

If Pastor Driscoll is using crude language for the glory of God, and it pleases God, then he should do it, and then God will commend him on the Day of judgement. If he isn’t, then he needs to repent, or he will be judged. The Bible says “Be not many teachers, for greter is your condemnation”.

I’m sure Mark Driscoll knows this, and so he must believe his language is pleasing to the Lord.

Personally, I don’t like it, and it doesn’t edify me at all. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Though, at the same time I appreciate much of what Pastor Driscoll is doing for the Lord. He is young and has a long way to go. We need to pray for him, for Satan would love to sift him, as he does all God’s shepherds.


63. Hayden Norris
February 19, 2008
4:32 PM

Don,

Use big words like, justification, sanctification, imputation, glorification ?[kind sarcasm implied] Oh, wait, Mark Driscoll does use those words and explain them fully. (Go to his sermon on Philippians 3:1-11 if you don’t believe me) That has been the biggest surprise for me. A man that at first glance that I thought was vulgar, largely by the comments of others, was teaching sound theology by using theological terms.

I teach young people. I agree with what you are saying about dumbing down the language. (It drives me nuts) Mark Driscoll does use ‘dumbed down language’ sometimes but I have heard him use it to ‘meet people where they are at’ and then turn around and ‘take them where they should be’ by teaching theology.

I have seen you on the web and you comments are always filled with grace so I do not think you are being caustic here. I agree with much you have said, but realize that the majority of what Mark Driscoll is teaching is sound, theological, and non-vulgar in nature. I think that is what Tim is saying in his review.


64. Hayden Norris
February 19, 2008
4:49 PM

Cindy,

You can see the heart of a man to determine ‘everyone has their price’? Ouch, not very charitable my sister! Be careful! Prv. 20:5; 21:2

I appreciate much of what Steve says on his blog but I think Tim was right this time.

Remember you cannot know the heart of any other person because you do not even know your heart fully. (Jer. 17:9) You can disagree with Tim’s methods, and his message but you cannot read his heart. This is what Paul was getting at in 1 Cor. 4:4,5.

I will be in an Elder’s meeting, so, I better sign off. All of you have a nice conversation, but let’s keep it brotherly and sisterly :)


65. jurisnaturalist
February 19, 2008
4:57 PM

We often don’t realize that our prudish way of speaking was largely shaped by British culture and written word. Vernacular is not getting more coarse. It has always been this real. While I think f-patois (to use Wolfe’s term) reveals a lack of imagination, Driscoll’s language rather demonstrates incredible creativity. If we don’t like to hear about real life in real terms we might wonder whether we are dealing with reality. Prudishness has done great harm to the church and adds nothing to it.


66. Tim Challies
February 19, 2008
5:00 PM

Well, I guess it’s time to shut this one down. I suspect that not much good can come from it from here on out…