- 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)
Wow, a(nother) veritable commentpalooza. Quick Tim, stop the madness - write something on homeschooling!
Would it be so much to ask Driscoll to step down? He is surely aware of the controversy. What I cannot figure out is why those who have been mentoring him have not asked that he do so. Perhaps they have.
A sabbatical wouldn’t hurt if indeed his ministry is truly being “blessed” by God. It would be a good faith act on his part. And, it may help him if he were to take the time and go to the mountain and reflect on where he is, where he has been, what is going on and where this whole thing is going. Two years, to study and reflect on the ministry of Christ, to see if he can find himself there. What would it hurt? Better, what would it heal?
“A sabbatical wouldn’t hurt “ -Thomas
That’s a good thought, I thought.
My pastor took 7 weeks off a while back, and our Lord Jesus Christ had him move on to shepherd a new church, and things of God are happening, and it’s exciting to see the Word being proclaimed with clarity and power, not caring about what this world may think: For we are crucified to the world, and the world to us (Gal. 6:14).
I think sabbaticals are a good thing for the Lord’s chosen pastors. A true blessing for His genuine servants.
If you want to know what Mark Driscoll thinks of the way he talks go to Mike Corley’s blog, The Expositor, and listen to Mike’s recent interview of Mark. Also, for more insight into Mark, he gave his personal story at a Southeastern Seminary chapel service. You can log on to their website and listen.
I admire Piper and Carson for coming along side of Mark and discipling him, which McArthur has also done through a letter. God’s sovereignty in calling him to pastor, allowing him to continue to pastor and have influence in churchdom is interesting, but God used Samson as well even though he had not kept any of the Nazarite vow except not cutting his hair. And finally, before we jump on the let’s be like Mark because he is trendy, hip, and bringing in the numbers bandwagon, we would do well to remember Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you, and considering the result of their conduct imitate their faith.
Re: comment #52—I’m not really sure that asking him to step down is warranted, considering this is a preference issue.
Thanks for speaking on this issue in a balanced and gracious way, Tim.
I ended up podcasting Driscoll to hear him for myself some months ago when similar types of comments (from both sides) began to pop up about him throughout the blogosphere. His sermons are very solid, and I would say that from week to week, there is very little that one could find objectionable. I agree with Tim that his “Humor” sermon was not the best topical sermon I have heard from him. However, the ones on “Grace” and “Predestination” are excellent.
I’m not sure the “I know enough from reading other people’s comments to dismiss him out of hand” comments are really justifiable.
I would encourage those here who have not listened to him for themselves to check out a sermon or two. They are free and readily available. A few months ago, I didn’t know what to think of him given all the conflicting comments. Now I know enough to judge for myself, though I certainly value Tim’s (and others’) opinions. If you have the time, I think it would be more investing it in listening to him for yourself.
Grace and peace.
Whoops…the end of the last paragraph should read “I think it would be worth investing it in listening to him for yourself. Sorry! :)
It is obvious from the above posts that many comments are made based on little knowledge of Pastor Mark or Mars Hill Church. Driscoll is a solid, Bible teacher - not a rockstar. For Driscoll, it is ALL about JESUS, it is ONLY about JESUS, it is SOLELY about JESUS.
(You could stop listening to him (or reading his books) if it is SO offensive to you.)
Driscoll’s treaching is changing lives in my family and friends. One young man recently told his parents “I can hear him (Driscoll). I get it.” This young man has had numerous Christian teachers and opportunities. But Driscoll is getting through. Praise the Lord.
Young men age 18-35 are the primary focus of Driscoll and Mars Hill Church. Grabbing the attention of this age group is challenging in our culture. Yet, God is transforming lives through MHC.
hi from Australia2 small points
1. if you are going to slam someone on a comment blog I reckon its fair enough to post your full name and not hide behind some lame proxy - own your ideas like you were sitting in the same room - that’s love with truth.
2. it seems that for some use of language has become the touchstone of orthodoxy - this really needs some propriety friends, not mindless ranting.
Thanks for the review Tim, I am looking forward to giving it to my mother.
“Young men age 18-35 are the primary focus of Driscoll and Mars Hill Church.”
Shouldn’t a Pastor of Christ’s sheep, & lambs, be the primary focus. From 88 years old down to 4 years old, all these are to be considered by God’s shepherd. I would imagine Mark does this, but from just discussing him here, it does seem like he’s not as concerned about other age groups, which would be wrong for any pastor of Jesus Christ.
Or perhaps I’m over thinking this.
This has been a good thread of comments.
Seeing as no one has addressed this question, I will pose it again…
SHOULD 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?
I think this is a valid question. Anyone have a thought on it?
I think one must keep in mind that this book was initially a sermon series by the same title delivered at Mars Hill. When that is taken into account, the context of statements delivered to a particular audience needs to be accounted for. While there might be expressions a pastor of a church in south east Ohio might hear Pastor Mark use, it doesn’t mean I can use them from the pulpit in my church. Likewise, when D.A. Carson uses a phrase in a sermon, while it might not have the ‘colorful’ overtones or allusions, I still might not be able to use it in my pulpit either. I appreciate Pastor Mark’s efforts to reach the city of Seattle for Jesus.
While there might be expressions a pastor of a church in south east Ohio might hear Pastor Mark use, it doesn’t mean I can use them from the pulpit in my church.
Why would you not be able to use them in your pulpit?
Just wanted to add my thanks for a gracious post that maintains a sense of humor; perhaps the apology at the beginning would be better addressed to Mark than Maria (Julie), though. :-)
I wrote some similar info with my own struggles with Driscoll some time back, I didn’t read his book but one of the sermon’s I listened to was his “Vintage Jesus Sermon”… check out my link if you have time.
Brian@voiceofthesheep has it exactly backward. The relevant question is: Does Mars Hill attract thousands because of Driscoll’s language? If the answer is “yes”, then there’s a very large problem. But the answer clearly is “no”. The language issue (like the t-shirt issue of the past) is inconsequential to the overall gospel message. As I write this the Holy Spirit is reminding me of Luke 4 where Jesus was thrown out of a temple after speaking to the Jews about lepers and widows.
Is Driscoll accurately preaching the Gospel? Is he leading people to Christ in the “largest unchurched City in America”? The fact is that too many people are unbiblically jealous of his success. I watch his sermons each week on my iPhone. He is an instrument of glory to God. He is bringing a Reformed message to thousands of people who otherwise wouldn’t hear it. I’m looking forward to hearing him this year in NYC. God Bless Mark Driscoll and, once again, God Bless Tim Challies for his spiritual discernment and ability to write so cogently, objectively, and completely.
Charles,
You said I have it backwards, but then proceeded to address nothing of what I said. My main question was this:
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.
Brian:1. I was referring solely to your first comment above: 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? I apologize for not making myself clear.
2. As to this question: 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?, clearly you meant it to be rhetorical and that is why no one had addressed it.
I think a more relevant but also rhetorical question is: Can anyone on this blog deny that they have used language about our Triune God, the Bible, and other believers that was sinful and that they regretted and repented of later? The larger issue is that Driscoll is a Pastor. The images that he evokes from the language used in Vintage Jesus are repulsive to those of us who are in Christ. But compare that to images lost people realize from a random ten seconds of TV, music, or schoolyard banter. His audience for this book is the unchurched, and those just beginning their Christian walk. If they find him to be unstuffy, hip, modern, and unlike the legalists and false teachers in some charasmatic churches, and because of that are then led to a true sanctification, who can complain?
I’m still confused how WE here in blog land really have any say at all in holding a pastor accountable. He has his church leadership to do that. They live where they are ministering. They know the territory. From that perspective we ought to butt out and let them preach the gospel.
I didn’t say we had to like it, but to publicly gripe about it will (a) only give them more publicity if they are in the wrong and (b) break all kinds of Biblical concepts for handling disputes.
As to this question: 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?, clearly you meant it to be rhetorical and that is why no one had addressed it.
No. It was NOT rhetorical. I would like to hear an answer.
Thanks.
This is a very gracious, thoughtful, helpful post. I remember when I got to seminary and met the men who wrote the books I was reading. I was struck by two facts: 1) They were fallible men who weren’t right about everything or knew everything just because they had their names on books. 2) I should be more careful before criticizing because there was a real person behind the book. I am still learning these lessons—not to be overawed by authors and not to see them at such a distance that we say cowardly things we would never say in person. Thanks Tim for the reminder.
Kevin
Mark Driscoll is not a “problem.” He’s a person.
I don’t think the issue is whether or not Mark Driscoll has a credible profession as follower of Christ.
Neither does it seem that any kind of fair, thorough inspection of Mark’s ministry would lead to the conclusion that he isn’t united to Christ or a false prophet.
If you do, just plainly put your evidence out there for all to see. Truth is our friend, right?
The issue seems to be one of culture, style and temperament. The Galatians sincerely believed that a person must become Jewish, or adopt certain Jewish behaviors and attitudes, before they came to Christ.
But they were dead wrong.
Friends, let’s not make the same mistake. Let’s not take areas of freedom and conscience and make them Law, where the Bible does no such thing. Do not make Mark Driscoll become conservative, upper-class, white, academic in his word choice and style before he’s accepted as Christian brother and faithful pastor.
Liberal or conservative personalities and sensibilities aside, the defining question is this: Do we see Jesus in Mark Driscoll? It seems we do.
It is difficult to like or love people who are different than ourselves. The Parable of the Good Samaritan makes this clear. But this wonderful story also makes something else clear. The difference between those who merely pose as more mature followers of Jesus and those who really are more spiritually mature and is evident in their response to the outsider.
Thanks Mark for demonstrating the presence and size of God’s grace in your life by giving your life to minister the Good News of Jesus Christ to some of the outsiders of our day—people who might otherwise never enter the doors of most evangelical or reformed churches.
Mark Driscoll, a problem? Hardly.
Our ambition should be to be like Christ, the more like Him the better, and the more like Him we become, the more we shall be unlike everybody who is not a Christian.
Brian the answer is not that complicated to that question. If I am speaking to a youth group or a gathering of senior citizens I will use different language. If I am speaking to a blue collar crowd compared to a forum of college professors I will use different language to talk about Jesus.
One of the very first lessons you learn in a preaching class is to KNOW your audience. Who you are speaking to shapes much of how you communicate your message. Notice I did not say the content, but the method in which you share that content. We live in a nation that is united in principles but made of massively different sub-cultures and regions. The values, attitudes, and morals of someone in the south are drastically different than someone from the west coast. Paul realized this principle long ago, and we see him model it all throughout the book of Acts. As he preaches to different crowds and people groups, he shapes his presentation of the gospel in a way that will most deeply resonate with that particular audience.
Think about it for a second Brian, would you really talk to a group of rural senior citizens the same way you would a young urban crowd of 30 year olds? This concept is really not that new, as missionary for centuries now have been looking at their context and then communicating the message of the gospel in a manner in which will connect with their audience. You would not share the gospel in the exact same manner with a western European as you would a Pakistani Muslim. I hope that answers your question Brian.
Agreed, however because of the secondary disagreements I personally would have a hard time supporting his ministry or becoming a member of the Church he pastors. Besides that I have no problem reading him, listening to him, or watching his video podcasts.
I will use different language to talk about Jesus.
Why? Why does the “different” in any situation have to be raunchy, worldly, and debasing?
And Paul did NOT adjust his language to any point of being rude and crude because of his audience. When before the Areopagus, and in one of the most sexual cities of his time, where does Paul resort to crude and profane rhetoric so that his audience will relate? He doesn’t, he cuts through his culture difference with them by going straight to the gospel.
would you really talk to a group of rural senior citizens the same way you would a young urban crowd of 30 year olds?
When it comes to the truth of Scripture and the gospel? Yes, I would. I teach both kids and adults at church, and, other than explaining a little more what some of the words I’m using mean to my younger audience, my content is basically the same. Why lower the bar just because of my hearers?
Why lower the bar to a worldly standard because my audience is worldly?
Brian,
I believe you bring up an excellent point. As Christians , should not our language , as well as all other things, be the best that culture has to offer not just what is relevant? When we say “culture” are we referring to American culture? If so does the American culture ethos all speak this way? My parents don’t & I don’t since I have followed my Lord. I never hear a superior in an occupation talk to his employees in this manner , lest he lose his job {Yes I know you can give examples the other way}. Does a store employee talk to customers this way and if not—-why not?
Is not our God high and lifted up? Are we not lifted out of the mundane shackles of culture to a higher calling and life in Christ Jesus? I am sure we would all say yes. Then his language and any justification of it is only in the name of pragmatism and possibly worse yet, a love of a pop culture that is increasingly getting more vulgar. Instead of buddying up to this cultural style, shouldn’t we be salt and light to it—-sanctified and separate? Is the standard unknowable and subjective? If so, where do we draw the line at anything?
Brian nowhere in my comment did I say anything about using raunchy language or filthy content. That was not your question. Your question was why would we use different language to talk about Jesus to different groups of people.
I imagine you live in a culture that is quite homogeneous and you do not have to adjust much in your vernacular. Yet I highly doubt you use the exact same vocab with a four year old that you use with an adult, that would be quite patronizing.
I also notice that you just ignored the fact that missionaries have been doing this for centuries. And your misrepresented my previous point to sound as if I was saying that Paul used vulgar language, I in no way implied or stated that. Once again, I was making the point that Paul contextualized the gospel based on if he was speaking to Jews or Greeks.
All I would really ask Brian is that you be a little less dogmatic in imposing your preferences of language standards upon all. There is more liberty in Christ than you seem to be allowing for, and others may not hear vulgarity where you are absolutely declaring it. I know we went around this cul-de-sac already so I will just drop it at that.
Perhaps some verses should be used to make our points. Eph 5:4 - “There must be no filthiness and silly talk or coarse jesting…” Also, 1 Cor 1:17 - “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”
I really appreciate what Driscoll is doing - putting the theory of true reformed theology into practice. However, there’s simply no place for using language, euphemisms, etc. that is “of the world” in that message. We are to be *in* the world, not *of* it. There’s no doubt that Corinth had all the challenges with sexual misconduct that we see today, yet Paul didn’t find the need to deal with the topic using that kind of language.
I trust that Drisoll is continually trying to find where the line is and stay a step or two on the right side of it.
Brian,
I love your passion for truth. Its heat is just the thing on a cold, snowy day around Chicago.
I presume all of us in this forum want to be biblical, right? We are one in this.
Then, search the Scriptures and ponder if contextualizing the Gospel is biblical or not, a la Ryan’s comment above.
If contextualization is not biblical, then your views are correct. Questions of culture, style, preference and the like do not matter much or at all.
On the other hand, if contextualization is biblical, and I think there is ample exegetical, historical and theological grounds it is, then what might this mean for your views and mindset shared in this forum?
The Westminster Shorter Catechism answers Question 2 that the Bible is “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” Agreed.
So, what is the biblical answer about contextualization? All of us must answer the question, “Is contextualizing the Gospel biblical?” No answer is already an answer in the negative. We must follow scripture alone, not human reason.
All any of us can do read the scriptures in community, reflect and pray for the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth and then seek to glorify God.
I’m still learning to do this about a lot of matters besides the issue of cotextualization, and I am a slow learner—just ask my wife, kids and congregants!
Peace
“I trust that Drisoll is continually trying to find where the line is and stay a step or two on the right side of it.”
As a leader and educated to be one, why would even the tolerance be there for Mr. Driscoll’s language? I could see this struggle with a new Christian, but a leader? Should he not know this before becoming a leader? This is where I see that we are being too overly gracious. I believe more rebuke and a higher expectation of leaders is needed , not tolerance hiding behind grace. Some may say we need to understand where he is coming from. I agree, but the demarcation between right and wrong actions in this regard is not some gradual path, but an abrupt shift. This is not a gray area and Mark is a leader that should be in of itself {being a leader}, held to a higher standard. This is not an area that I would think a leader should have to “grow”. Besides, it is obvious he willingly and intentionally uses this language. I always thought that this was called sin? Or is this Christian freedom today?
I’ve read in multiple places in the blogosphere that Driscoll has at times recognized when he’s gone too far, not just in the area of speech, and has apologized and tried to grow and improve his conduct. What I was trying to say, perhaps poorly, is that I’m trusting that this will be true for Driscoll in this area as well.
Re: comment #52—I’m not really sure that asking him to step down is warranted, considering this is a preference issue.
It is not so much the case of warrant or preference. More of wisdom. It would seem to me that the wise men who are mentoring him would have seen this as a good thing also. The life of Samson was use as an example. But, this is equivocation. We cannot justify our actions because we have a calling, it in fact requires of us a higher standard. The men that are mentoring him know that, they have taught it. And, my question is, why isn’t Driscoll listening?
Let’s suppose that most are not being damaged by Driscollian antics. Do we play the cost/benefit game at the expense of those who might be hurt by it? Then we need to ask the question, would right behavior risk the same? Wisdom would instruct us that we should cease from our liberty if it is harmful to our brother, or even to those who are coming in, should they take it that Driscoll and not Paul, is the pattern which was cut after Christ.
I have defended Driscoll and criticized him (as if I were anyone). He is an enigma. But a greater mystery, and one that works better is the mystery of godliness.
Suppose then, Driscoll praying, studying, fasting, like Jesus and his disciples did for a season, then re-approaching ministry. What harm would there be? It just seems to me to be the clearest, and most prudent approach that a temperate elder could take.
Thomas,
I like what you said. I am not desiring to be harsh on Mark as a person. He is a child of God and therefore a brother to me. But he is also a leader. It is that position that I am more critical on. Mark truly needs some matured mentoring by matured believers. He needs Elders that will hold him to the Biblical standard in his conduct , no matter what the perceived cost is to evangelism.
Far to often today, in our world of the “expert”, the professional , folks come out of the University, or Seminary believing they have all the tools to hit the top of the profession right away. I believe a Pastor to be should be under a mentor for however long the mentor {matured mentor) deems necessary before they are turned loose to seek a pastorate. We have many bright , educated young men coming out of seminary, full of head knowledge but no maturity in the faith and no one to guide them ,but be it some false philosophy of the world that they have been taught and lived ,believing that that alone is sufficient to shepherd a flock. I believe that is what Mark’s weakness is—-. lack of spiritual maturity and I think that should have disqualified him from being a head pastor in the first place. But he was fresh and that seems to be what most are looking for. Always fresh new ideas, new products, challenging the status quo. This could be a good thing if properly done (maturely), but many times it is nothing but old fashioned rebellion.
I think that a Sabbatical or a tudoring under a matured Elder would be proper. My prayer is that he would quickly mature in the faith and in his actions.
thank you for posting this bit of wisdom. it said some things i needed to remember. love the thought by D. A. Carson.blessings!
“Anyone who has a problem with Mark Driscoll should have an even bigger one with Martin Luther. There was one crude dude.”
Did Luther use foul language in the pulpit?
I have read his books, especially his commentaries, and I haven’t seen any crude language. But I have been overwhelmed by his gift of expositing the Holy Scriptures.
Mark is, of course, not a theologian, and so his speaking is more of his own wisdom with Bible added here and there, at least that’s how I take him. Whereas, preachers like Piper, Begg, Sproul, Ferguson, Dever, Mahaney, MacArthur, and so many others preach the Holy Writ, and add their personalities.
I thank the Lord for my brother Mark, and pray he would be able to conquer his shortcoming. I know I have many of my own I need to conquer.And may His grace help us do so, for His glory, and because He sets the standards, and it pleases Him. Amen.
Mark Driscoll is a great Pharisee Detector - oine of the best on the market. You want to sniff out the Pharisees put something about him on a blog. Them dogs never fail to bark.
You know, it’s really not helpful to come here and start calling names. You’ve just said that everyone who disapproves of Driscoll’s behavior is a Pharisee. That’s not your judgment to make.
I think it’s time to shut this one down. Thanks for the discussion, everyone!
Nice. Fair. Helpful. Thank you.
If you will be at the Desiring God Conference next week I would love to meet you and build a friendship.