- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/20)
- Next Post »A Total Eclipse of the Moon
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mark Driscoll?
- 02/20/08
- 88
How do you solve a problem like Mark Driscoll? Is he a darling, a demon, a lamb? He’d out pester any pest; drive a hornet from it’s nest. He could throw a whirling dervish out of whirl. He is gentle; he is wild. He’s a riddle; he’s a child. He’s a headache. He’s an angel. He’s a…
Never mind. Forgive me for the introduction. Just a couple of days ago my mother-in-law and I were discussing The Sound of Music and somehow this came to mind. I post it with apologies to Maria Julie Andrews. May she sing forever.
Yesterday I posted a review of Mark Driscoll’s new book, Vintage Jesus. Were I to summarize the review I’d say that I was “hesitantly positive” towards it. I liked 99.9% of it but was troubled by a couple of mis-steps that I judged to be quite serious. These involved Driscoll’s use of phrases that I’d consider inappropriate. If you’d like to know more, you can read the review.
The review generated quite a reaction. The post quickly generated almost 70 comments before I realized the discussion was really not progressing and I opted to close it down. I was not surprised at the reaction. Love him or hate him, everyone has an opinion about Mark Driscoll. As has been proven when I’ve written about his other books, writing reviews is a lose-lose proposition. Some will react with anger that I even saw fit to mention the phrases that troubled me while others will react with disgust that, despite those things, I did not condemn the book and its author. Of course there were many who appreciated and I received some kind emails from people, many of whom known and love Driscoll, thanking me for taking a balanced approach. I hope the review communicated both my respect for him and this book and my hesitance based on his occasional use of rough language.
So how are we to think about Mark Driscoll? I’ve had to work through this in my mind and I thought I’d share just a few of the things that have rattled around my brain in the past years, weeks, months, days. I do this not to convince you but rather to explain why I could dislike certain references within Driscoll’s work, and yet not allow that to form the basis of a blanket condemnation of the book, the man, and his ministry. Maybe (and hopefully) this will explain to you why I reviewed the book as I did.
He’s a Real Guy
Not too long after I started blogging, I wrote a review that, in retrospect, may have been too harsh and perhaps even unfair (you may know of the author but have probably not read the book). As I read through that review today, I sometimes feel a twinge of conscience. Other times I feel that it was a legitimate criticism. In either case, several months after writing the review I had the opportunity to meet the author and was rather surprised to see that he was a real man. He wasn’t some cleverly programmed computer who just happened to write a book, but a real guy with a wife and kids and friends and family. Somehow that hadn’t occurred to me. It came as a shock and I believe it changed the way I review books and the way I address other people on this site.
Mark Driscoll may have a larger-than-life personality, but he is still a real guy who not only offends others but is no doubt offended by them. I’m sure his bravado on the stage is matched by times of sober reflection in private. We need to be certain that in our critiques we do not say things that we’d never say to him face-to-face and that we do not treat him as a guy that, since he is so remote from us, is somehow less human than we are. It’s an obvious point, I know, but in this depersonalized online world it’s worth reminding ourselves of it quite often.
This should go without saying, but I think it is sometimes easy to forget that people with big personalities are still people. Driscoll is a guy who, at the end of the day, goes home to a family not too different than yours or mine. He has children who love and and a wife, who, if she’s anything like mine, probably takes criticism of him harder than he does. He’s a real guy. Maybe he even cries at the end of chick flicks. Probably not. But he’s still a real guy.
Major on the Majors
Last weekend I had the privilege of spending a fair bit of time with D.A. Carson and he said something about Driscoll that I found interesting and meaningful. Because he has said this to others, I don’t think I’m violating any kind of trust in mentioning it. There is no doubt that people have had difficulty knowing what to do with Driscoll and knowing how to think about him. But Carson said he finds it helpful to look not just at where Driscoll is, but at the trajectory he is on. I took that to mean that if we look at where he has come from and then plot a course by where he is now, we’ll see that he is growing and maturing as a Christian and that he is continually emphasizing better and more biblical theology. We are all works in progress. This is not to say that we should hope that Mark Driscoll grows up to become John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul. Rather, it simply means that it is sometimes wise to look at the wider picture.
When we look to that wider picture we see that Driscoll clearly believes in and teaches the gospel. He has proven that he has a very good grasp on Christian doctrine and that he is no theological light-weight. He has proven that he’s unashamed to preach the gospel in contexts adamantly opposed to it. Thus any of our criticisms of him are dealing with, at best, secondary matters. This is an important matter of perspective.
By Their Fruit…
Matthew 7:16 is a well-known passage and one that is important to this kind of discussion. In a passage dealing with false prophets (a title many are willing to assign to Driscoll) Jesus says, “You will recognize them by their fruits.” And when we look at Driscoll’s ministry, there is no doubt that it is bearing fruit. While I have not traveled to Mars Hill and have not spent a lot of time in Acts 29 churches, I’ve spoken to many people who have. And it seems beyond dispute that the church and the movement are seeing a huge number of genuine, gospel conversions. These are not people who are coming forward at a crusade and later returning home and wondering just what they’ve done, but people who are seeing their hearts and their lives transformed by the gospel. There are multitudes being saved among the most difficult-to-reach demographic in the most difficult cultural settings in America. They are not being saved to a gospel of easy-believism or self-esteem, but to the true gospel built upon true, biblical theology.
If we are to judge Mark Driscoll, his church and its church planting movement by its fruits, we will have to conclude that God is choosing to bless them and to bless them in abundance. Like it or not (and for some reason I think too many “discerning” people don’t like it and refuse to admit it!), God is using this guy for His glory.
Because of…or Despite?
This may be a seemingly-silly distinction, but it is one that I’ve found helpful. It is true of any Christian that there are times God uses us because of who He has made us to be. He has given us all certain talents and gifts and He often uses us because of these things. God blessed Charles Spurgeon with a towering intellect, an incredible memory, and an amazing ability to communicate and through these God-given means He used Spurgeon. Yet it is equally true that God uses people despite certain aspects of their lives of personalities. All of us are blinded to certain sins and failings and all of us continue to provoke God on a daily basis. But God uses us despite these things.
When it comes to Mark Driscoll, some Christians would say that God uses him despite his use of sometimes-vulgar language while others would say that God uses him because of such cultural relevance. Of course there are others, some of whom seem to fancy themselves the church’s conscience, who would say that Driscoll is not and will not be used by God because of these things, but I’d suggest they are simply ignoring clear evidence to the contrary. The basis for this “because of / despite” distinction will come down to a Christian’s understanding of certain biblical exhortations about language and to a person’s biblically-informed conscience. In either case, we need to acknowledge that Christians differ on certain issues and what is vulgar to one person may not be to another. We need to allow room for conscience to speak where biblically-submitted Christians differ. So you will need to respect my hesitance when it comes to phrases I understand to be vulgar while I’ll have to tolerate your freedom to disagree. This is true tolerance—a respect on the basis of differences.
So?
I have never met Mark Driscoll. I don’t think he and I have ever exchanged emails or text messages or instant messages or anything else (or not that I remember, anyways). So I have no personal connection to him. But I love the guy as a brother in Christ. Whatever you feel about Mark Driscoll, you’ll need to agree that God is using him in an unusually powerful way. You’ll need to affirm that he is a brother. This is a reason for rejoicing, and I do rejoice. I pray for Mark Driscoll, that God would continue to bless his ministry and continue to do amazing things through him. I do not agree with some of the ways he chooses to communicate, but neither do I need to. He is doing the Lord’s work in a tough place. And I love him in Christ and support him in that work.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (88)
I didn’t see the the book review, but it’s good that someone with an audible voice will say that.
Thanks for saying it.
I wonder…
Would we be so forgiving of the schoolyard vulgarity if the numbers weren’t there? Would we still turn a blind eye (okay, a 3/4 closed eye) to the potty-mouth descriptions of our Lord and Savior if Mark were not reaching thousands, as many are quick to point out?
Granted, if he were not the leader of a fast-growing segment of the church, he wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar screen, there would be no big reviews of his books, and we wouldn’t even be having any of these discussions.
But, I still wonder…is he getting a free pass (for the most part) regarding his utterly poor example of sanctification because of his influence in the area of church growth?
Something to ponder.
Thank you, Tim. You provided an appreciative and accurate picture of Mark. His desire to be “all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:22) is something the Church at large needs to hear and consider well, whether or not all Christians agree on how he applies these principles. As a church planter’s wife in an equally secular city, God’s blessing on his work is an encouragement that seemingly unreachable people can be reached by the power of Christ.
Tim,
Great, balanced review of the book and the man. I have four words for you…CLOSE THE COMMENTS SECTION
Please:) You are not likely to get anyone to change their mind about Mark Driscoll. If you do not close the comments I believe there will be ‘blood in the water’ from both camps (no pun intended) of the Driscoll debate.
I know you do not run away from controversial topics, but can anything good come from the comments to follow based on yesterday? Before you know it you will be accused of taking a bribe from Mark Driscoll to give his book a positive review. (Oh wait, that happened in yesterday’s comments)
I personally like Driscoll, I love his passion for the lost and for the Church planter. I agree with you that he can and does cross the line of Good taste and sometimes in trying to avoid the pitfalls of “high church” can find himself in the “low brow”. I thank you for the kind way you approch matters like this.
P.S. love the site, I come here like everyday. My wife says i am addicted.
john-mark
I’m not sure the Apostle Paul would agree that becoming all things to all people should involve debasing Christ through raunchy descriptions of the Savior.
I’m not sure the Apostle Paul would agree that becoming all things to all people should involve debasing Christ through raunchy descriptions of the Savior.
I’m not either. You and I both disagree with Driscoll’s choice of wording at times and I’m not trying to convince you that it’s unimportant. I just think we need to be able to see beyond it. And I addressed that in the article.
Good follow-up Tim! As many have said, I appreciate your balance, and your discernment… I also appreciate that nugget you gave about trajectory. Seems that is a good tool for seeking discernment with Driscoll, and others, as well…
Brian, your point is well taken, perhaps, but you’ve completely failed to read what Tim has said here.
Something to ponder.
Anyways, thanks Tim for your thoughts on Driscoll. If nothing else (and some are going to miss the point, of course), it’s a challenge in discernment and a call to hold our “grey-area” beliefs (ie. language, drink, etc) at arm’s length - not too close, and not too strong lest they, good though they may be, separate us from Christ in any way.
I’m growing increasingly wary and weary of folks who’ve missed the idea that part and parcel of being a sinner is that our very minds (including our powers of interpretation and reason) are corrupted by sin. We are ALL going to reach glory and discover we were wrong about a lot of our doctrine, perhaps even our views on language and ‘vulgarity’.
Thank you for this post, I found it very helpful.
I would call myself a Driscoll supporter: I find him provocative in what he says, and how he does things. I don’t for one minute think everything he says is golddust though - he can be brutal or cross the line sometimes. But I think these errors on his part have been used to caricature Driscoll as someone he actually isn’t.
Lets also be aware that sometimes when we bandy around terms like ‘vulgarity’, ‘sancification’ and ‘coarseness’ we are using our own personal interpretations of what is vulgar, coarse and even ‘unsanctified’, and projecting them onto others to hold them by our own standards. We need to fight to make sure the Church doesn’t confuse ‘middle-class’ lifestyle values with biblical values.
Yes, Driscoll is a man - frail, fragile, and fallible. But in his provoking, perhaps he is challenging some of the religiosity that infects the Body of Christ. Perhaps some of that religiosity is what turns away some of the unregenerate from the gospel, and the church.
Perhaps Driscoll’s lack of religiosity, theological honesty, pioneering edge and unashamed demonstration of who God has made him to be are part of the reasons why he is seeing the extension of the Kingdom in Seattle in the way he is?
Here is my struggle: Your definitions of “inappropriate language”, “rough langauge”, and “offensive material” do not match my own definitions.
It really is that simple.
I have found, in my own life experience, that Christians seem to constantly want to be raising the bar of what is not acceptable to them.
Believe it or not, I agree that we need to see beyond it, I just don’t agree that we need to ignore it, as so many seem more than willing to do.
I love Mark’s obvious love for the true gospel, and I consider him a true brother in Christ. I just cant stand the way he often talks about and describes my Savior.
My main difference with him would be that, he seems to think Jesus must still be made into a gutter rat to reach the rats in the gutter, and He already did that once for all on the cross, and has now ascended back to the Father to take his rightful place on the throne.
TC:”I’m not either. You and I both disagree with Driscoll’s choice of wording at times and I’m not trying to convince you that it’s unimportant. I just think we need to be able to see beyond it.”
…only .1% concerned, maybe? As many others, including Obama, would ask…are these “just words”?
To be meek is not to be weak. Today is a full scale retreat. Take a stand, as you did yesterday, and press on.
My friends who are pastors, frankly, think Mark’s language disqualifies him from the pulpit.
I have other friends who attend his church, and they think Mark has gone “Big Time” or “Mega Church”, and that he has trouble now because he sees himself as a christian rock star rather than a minister of the Gospel.
I have a category at my blog called “Mark Driscoll Fan Club”.
I like him, I empathize with him, I relate to him, I have some clear criticisms for him, and I pray for him. God be willing that we are all doing at least the last together has he effects the next generation for Christ.
Amen, Cent.
Believe it or not, I agree that we need to see beyond it, I just don’t agree that we need to ignore it, as so many seem more than willing to do.
And again, what I tried to communicate here is that we don’t need to. Neither should the “Mark Driscoll Fan Club” expect us to. We can still appreciate his ministry and thank God for it, even while holding firm to our beliefs concerning the use of rough language.
I would submit that there are plenty of pastors and others “doing the Lord’s work in a tough place” and not being crass, crude, or otherwise drawing attention away from the cross and on to themselves. His church is growing; that’s nice. People flock to see a train wreck or a fire, too, and some find it life changing. I can’t judge Driscoll’s heart as I don’t know him, know little about him, am not God to judge that, but with what I’ve read here and elsewhere, I have no desire to discover more. I do know that numbers in the pews, in the building, or in the book stores don’t necessarily translate into good ministry, at least in my book.
I agree. There’s no reason to keep harping on this Driscoll thing. However, Tim, the real issue in this post is the knife you plunged into the hearts of all those who love to hear Ms. Andrews sing. Everyone knows Julie Andrews was left unable to sing after surgery on her vocal chords several years ago. How dare you say something so hateful as “May she sing forever.” I’m offended. ;)
We can still appreciate his ministry and thank God for it, even while holding firm to our beliefs concerning the use of rough language.
I think we agreement on this, Tim.
“But Carson said he finds it helpful to look not just at where Driscoll is, but at the trajectory he is on. I took that to mean that if we look at where he has come from and then plot a course by where he is now, we’ll see that he is growing and maturing as a Christian and that he is continually emphasizing better and more biblical theology. We are all works in progress….Rather, it simply means that it is sometimes wise to look at the wider picture.”
I’m glad you pointed that out.
We’ve all been called to salvation from somewhere, some of us from uglier pasts than others. If we pick on Driscoll for what he says, and for being “a real guy”, while forgetting we’ve all been made equal at the foot of the cross we’ve made a bigger mistake than Driscoll.
Book reviews are to be an honest assessment of what the reviewer thought/believes. I saw that in yesterdays post. I am actually a little shocked that you felt you had to have a “follow up” address. Let’s be real M. Driscoll has ruffled feathers and then there are those who get ruffled by those ruffled. Some reviews are fair and others (in my opinion) unfair - your review was very fair! What I do not understand is why people get so worked up??? If I do not agree with one of your reviews- so what! If I disagree with your review - so what! Please understand I am not saying this to discourage your reviews I personally enjoy them. I say this out of the confusion I personally have over reading piles of blog banter for or against Driscoll. Have I personally written Driscoll off? No. Do I agree with all his approaches or styles? No. Is this so shocking? The great reality is that one may not agree with everything a Driscoll, MacArthur, Piper, Mohler (or any other truly saved public minister) may say or write which may show up on a blog review by someone some where - With that I apologize T. Challies I know that last sentence will most likely start a blog war of banter ; ) It seems that seeking to have iron sharpen iron is no longer desired - we much rather just banter for the sake of banter.
Before these comments go any farther and get out of hand, I’d like everyone who is inclined to comment to ask themselves one thing:
Do I have anything to add that hasn’t already been said (here or in the comments yesterday), or am I beating the same old dead horse?
Seriously, how many different ways are there to say, “He’s got a dirty mouth and it’s a disgrace” (which happens to be my opinion), or, “Dude, he’s like so relevant and he has a great ministry”?
Think about it before adding the next “new” comment. Is it really new?
“I have other friends who attend his church, and they think Mark has gone “Big Time” or “Mega Church”, and that he has trouble now because he sees himself as a christian rock star rather than a minister of the Gospel.”
Before I comment I’ll say I like Pastor Driscoll and appreciate much of what he does, but I think Mr. Turk brings up a good point.
This “rock star” issue is an issue in my church, but in a different way. We had a pastor leave who was there for 20 years. He was basically worshipped by many of the long-standing members, and now there is angst as people work through the gap left by this prominent preacher. As a Catholic in my youth this was never a part of the culture. Priests basically could not rise to rock star status even if they wanted to. The archdiocese would have tempered that if it did start to happen.
I’m not defending the Catholic church at large, but I will say much of the structure in evangelicalism is clearly a breeding ground for this mega-church/rock star environment. The autonomy may have its benefits, but because we know that the heart of man is deceitful it creates problems, especially in this current age where a person can become famous within the time it takes for the Internet to transmit information. Fame does not seem to be a thing most of us are able to cope with very well - even pastors.
I do think Mark Driscoll could use more accountability, but how does that occur in the current environment?
This is a typical example of context. What Mark says works for the context that he is in in Seattle. Try and transplant that to a national audience and it sometimes doesn’t translate very well. Like when we read the Bible, context is everything. The same can be said for Mark and his ministry. Words great in his church in Seattle, but in other places it might not.
I love the guy faults and all. I hope people would say that same about me and my faults.
Tim, I’m glad you didn’t think it a fools errand to respond to the Driscoll debate. While we won’t solve much here, it would be good to note that Carson was right. We have to consider where Mark is coming from. He does work in a very secular city and has to adapt to a crowd made up of modern pagans (well many of the people there are saved though). More so, where is he going? I would hope we could at least take a wait and see approach. He has shown growth and maturity. This was especially seen when he recently talked on humility and apologized for his own pride in the past. Let’s wait and see where he goes on the trajectory.
Zach,
Does the word of God (say, in the NIV or NASB, or ESV) translate well across the US in different socio-economic lifestyles, or should it be tweak depending upon how wicked the people are who may read it?
Last time I checked, we are all born guilty and sinful, dead in our sins, and in need of being made alive by the Spirit of God. I’m not sure the lowness of the caliber of people should determine how something is said.
As Frank Turk has on his site, the gospel is the solution to culture.
Tim,
My pre-ordered copy of “Vintage Jesus” arrived yesterday evening from Crossway, autographed by both authors.
I appreciate your review of yesterday, and will read this work with discernment. Based on your review, and on what I have already read, I believe that I am now better prepared to know to whom to recommend it, as well as those to whom I shouldn’t give a recommendation.
Mark Driscoll isn’t for everyone, but I appreciate the fact that there is a proper audience for him. Thanks to both you and him as you serve the King.
One more nuanced but Driscoll-friendly take: Mark Driscoll and Rush Limbaugh
A specific enjoyment I get from reading Tim’s work is that he is very careful about what he writes and how he writes it. He’s quite discerning… =)I think that Tim does a service to the Kingdom when he is able to embrace the goodness despite those things that makes some cringe. When Paul is encouraged by the preaching of the gospel in his Epistle to the Philippians, he says, “Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice” (ESV, Phil 1:18). I think we should rejoice at Mark’s openness to bring the gospel to “a crooked and twisted generation” (ESV, Phil 2:15b). And yet, I find it necessary to balance such celebration with a humble word to Mark that he doesn’t have to be coarse to communicate the Good News about Jesus to this generation, but should, instead, “be blameless and innocent, [a child] of God without blemish” (ESV, Phil 2:15a).
Thanks Tim. This is a honest and balanced critique of Driscoll which is helpful. I’ll admit to being part of the “Driscoll Fan Club”, but I’m more than happy to listen to a fair hearing like this.It was good enough that I might have to read your book now!
I’ve deleted a couple of comments, one for applying the pharisee title (I love the irony), and the other for just being a pointless smart-aleck.
Think, people. If you have nothing to add, don’t add anything.
Think, people. If you have nothing to add, don’t add anything.
This is why I am so glad that David is willing to help me moderate comments around here. He’s a good man…
I know. I apologize. Being home with the flu makes me grouchy and pointless. I agree and will try to be more gracious in my comments.
er, how was my comment smart-alecky?
Tim: I think that someone yesterday mentioned Driscoll’s recent comments on humour. Did you ever listen to this? I’d be curious to hear to hear your reflections on this.
Dave,
I did. I generally like some of the things that he preaches. I really liked the series on Philippians, but I did not agree with much of what he said in the sermon. His comments about Noah and some of the things he were a bit of a stretch. His definition of scatological language was pretty good, but I just didn’t see it in some of the passages he quoted.
Overall, I think it was interesting but definitely not one of his best topical sermons.
I know you asked Tim, but, I thought I would give my 2 cents.
I listened to it a few weeks ago. There was some good to be taken from it. To be honest, in terms of the sermon’s “style,” I thought he was trying just a bit too hard. He’s not a stand-up comedian and in that particular sermon, or at least for a good portion of it, it seemed that he was giving stand up comedy a shot. It just went on too long and, as Hayden said, some of the things he said were a stretch. Noah passing out drunk isn’t meant to be funny, I’m quite sure (ask Ham if it’s funny!).
He covers humor in the new book and I agree that humor has a definite place in the Christian life and, at times, in the pulpit. It’s good to laugh and laughter really is a blessing from God. But, like all things, laughter is to be contextual and moderated…
Ben,
Your comment was, fine, manners-wise. I just don’t want a defense of Joel Osteen, who is neither relevant here nor defensible, thrown in to stir thing up further. This is touchy enough already without adding that controversy.
Oh, OK I understand that part. :)
My point was that the way the Gospel is brought forth is irrelevent as long as it shows the Gospel to be truth and shows Christ for who He is. The method might not be our cup of tea, but you never know who it’s going to grab hold of.
For Him,Ben
Thank you Tim for your review. You edify me daily.
I understand the comment about the trajectory someone is on entirely in the context of a christian. We’re all works in progress for sure. The difficulty I’m having with this in regards to someone in leadership is - doesn’t the Bible hold forth a standard of maturity for a Christian leader.
Secondly, isn’t Driscoll already influencing lots of people already in conferences, books etc.? If someone has some concerns with where he is at the moment, I would imagine those concerns couldn’t be too great, otherwise that doesn’t really make sense to me.
The part about knowing them by their fruit - isn’t that talking about life fruit (as in the fruit of the Spirit?) I will have to go and look at where you quoted from. Does it mean numbers in ministry? The biggest church in the place I live has a very weak gospel. Someone like William Carey laboured for years with one convert.
Hope this is sufficiently novel thoughts not to just be rehashing whats already been said ; )
I will be getting Vintage Jesus shortly and will read it with my own eyes . I do like Mark Driscoll and have seen in his ministry growth towards a solid ,reformed minded faith. I hope over time his language will tone down but I do not want to see this man lose his thunder . In fact ,if I’m not mistaken , Luther was known for his temper and interesting usage of language at times. Plus the bottom line , as much respect I have for people like Carson,Piper,Sproul,James White etc..whom I read all the time , I have some non-Christian friends whom I hope to share Vintage Jesus with, because they have no interest in the others I mentioned.When Paul told the Galatian church that whoever was leading them astray that he wished they would emasculate themselves , if we put that into street lingo, as if Paul was writing today , who would that offend.Just a thought!The problem I have with many attacking Driscoll ,they seem to treat him as a unbeliever. We need to pray for this man and his family . I have taken up the task of writing him weekly .Perhaps he will never read my e-mails personally, but in them I encourage him to grow in Christ and also to show him that you can be bold and over the top, but at the same time a bit cleaner. He is interesting , that is for sure.
Let’s try this from a different angle…
SHOULD (not is) the Christian walk and example to the world be different from one child of God to another? In other words, should my walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which I have been called look any different than Tim’s or Piper’s or Driscoll’s. If a Christian is walking in a manner worthy of the God who called him, then I would think the way in which he/she handles himself should be transferrable to any other Christian. Follow what I’m saying?
The way Piper carries himself and speaks of the Savior should be transferable to me and the way I speak of God should be transferable to him. Likewise, I believe the way Mark Driscoll speaks of my Savior should be transferable to other Christians, but sadly, it is not, and many here (of the MD fanclub) have said as much.
Can anyone explain to me how/why the way one believer in Christ speaks of his Savior cannot transfer to all other Christians because of where they live in the US?
Thanks.
“And it seems beyond dispute that the church and the movement are seeing a huge number of genuine, gospel conversions.”
“Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in the truth, Christ is preached: and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.”
And the rejoicing is in the Gospel, which is Christ, being proclaimed, which brings glory to God the Father, especially when sinners are saved, and bear the fruits of righteousness.
Thanks for a nice follow up. It’s good to look at those who are preaching the Gospel, and to learn from their gifts, as well as errors.
Mark Driscoll loves people, and he engages them where they are. I am so convicted by this, and it helps me to seek to love the lost more.He uses the word dude for Jesus, and I dislike that, and see it as error; as using too common a word for Christ.
So, I suppose I can live with this, and hopefully pray for my brother to be strong in the Lord, and in His grace do even greater works for the glory of Christ our King.
I got a good chuckle from your opening lines there, Tim…or should I say, the nuns’ (modified) opening lines. :) Your approaches to various issues of the Christian faith over the days/months/years have been extremely edifying for me (and, I daresay, to many others). Communicating with clarity and compassion does not come easily, especially in this “depersonalized online world.” Thanks for consistently using your gifting in this area for His name’s sake!
Tim,I appreciate the level of honesty in your words here. It can sure seem as if you ride the fence a lot on these types of issues (conflict of interest), but you seem to be very sincere in this post —which I commend though I respectively disagree with your reasoning.
Specifically, your observations above are largely personal, subjective opinions, which are of course fine to express, but are not always reflective of reality. This is certainly a debatable topic! :)
Nevertheless, I am most concerned about your reasoning behind the paragraph, ‘By their fruit’. As one who is no doubt well-versed in the issue of biblical discernment, I am sad to see you resort to such poor reasoning (very subjective, too), not to mention the fact that your verse is quoted to mean something that cannot be found in the text (Matt 7:16). How this verse relates to ministry and if God is ‘using’ or ‘blessing’ or ‘glorifying’ Himself through it is beyond me. Twisting that principle to make a point about whether a ministry is God-pleasing is not helpful to this discussion, and I hope that you would reconsider your use of this passage.
The ends never justify the means, and I learned a long time ago that people who say that are more than likely trying to defend something that cannot be defended from scripture. Out of many, many things we could debate regarding this ‘by their fruit’ point, I would humbly submit that you cannot see what is really being used by God and what isn’t, not to even mention that you are ignoring and/or are blind to the rotten fruit that exists or possibly exists as a direct result of his ministry. We are to look at scripture for discernment in these areas; we don’t look at our subjective interpretation of such things. This kind of pragmatism (certainly mild in this article) has led so many to shipwreck their faith. It is a deadly plague in the modern church.
But that’s enough; I usually wish to stay out of these types of discussions because they are rarely helpful. But I appreciate you opening up a little here in this post, and I hope that you would sincerely consider my words.
We are all works in progress. This is not to say that we should hope that Mark Driscoll grows up to become John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul. Rather, it simply means that it is sometimes wise to look at the wider picture.
I’m glad you brought this up. It’s a subject I’d be interested in seeing you write more on. If anything, I think the silver lining for Mark Driscoll’s colorful expressions is that it reminds us of just that: we’re not perfect and this side of heaven, we won’t be. Not to be too tangential, but I think there are a lot of Christian singles holding out for an idealized “perfect” person that they will marry. I remember Kierkegaard talked about not making these universal ideals of people that real ones can never live up to.
Praise the Lord for the body! Many members one head! May God bless Driscoll’s work and yours Mr. Challies!
I’m a bit surprised that in the criticism of Mark’s undoubtedly earthy language, some other popular Christian writers haven’t been mentioned.
I thought this was clever and apt (from the blog post Jake Hunt linked to above):
“And maybe, since I’m a sinner too, I just delight in the torment [Mark Driscoll] brings to some people who take themselves way too seriously.”
If nothing else,Amen.