- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (05/19)
- Next Post »Book Review - An Army of Davids
Confessions of a Reformission Rev.
- 05/19/06
- 169
Mark Driscoll is one of those guys I just cannot figure out. Despite being only thirty-six years old, he pastors a church of over 3,000 people, is President of a major church-planting network and is considered one of the fifty most influential pastors in America. I am not the only one confused by Driscoll who is varyingly described as emerging, missional, Reformed, sarcastic and vulgar (all of which are true of him). He is immortalized in Don Miller’s Blue Like Jazz as Mark the Cussing Pastor (a title Mark seems to feel is both funny and well-deserved), but is increasingly being asked to speak at events alongside people I simply cannot imagine either cussing or delighting in such a reputation (he will, for example, appear along with John Piper, D.A. Carson and others at the 2006 Desiring God National Conference).
It was with great interest, then, that I began Confessions of a Reformission Rev., a book which is partly autobiographical and partly a biography of Mars Hill Church. And indeed Driscoll and his church are, in many ways, inseparable. The book begins with “Ten Questions,” a chapter which defines various important terms and introduces the concepts Driscoll wrote about in his first book, Radical Reformission. The remainder of the book follows the growth of the church from 0 people to the future where Driscoll hopes to have at least 10,000 people attending each Sunday. The chapter titles and structure are as follows:
- Jesus, Our Offering Was $137 and I Want to Use it to Buy Bullets - 0-45 People
- Jesus, If Anyone Else Calls My House, I May Be Seeing You Real Soon - 45-75 People
- Jesus, Satan Showed Up and I Cant Find My Cup - 75-150 People
- Jesus, Could You Please Rapture the Charismaniac Lady Who Brings Her Tambourine to Church? - 150-350 People
- Jesus, Why Am I Getting Fatter and Meaner? - 350-1,000 People
- Jesus, Today We Voted to Take a Jackhammer to Your Big Church - 1,000-4,000 People
- Jesus, We’re Loading Our Squirt Guns to Charge Hell Again - 4,000-10,000 People
As is suggested by the title, the book is confessional. Driscoll is transparent in discussing his own shortcomings and failures and in accepting blame for many of the problems the church encountered through the years. He was, after all, immature and unprepared for the task that lay before him. In many ways the church grew through trial and error. Often Driscoll encountered a particular question or problem and wrestled with Scripture to understand what the Bible taught on that subject. He shares many of these in this book. Among the issues he discusses are ecclesiology (the organizational structure of a church), reformed theology, expository preaching, and the role of women in the leadership of the church. On the whole it seems that, when faced with such challenges, he was faithful to Scripture. These times of seeking after God’s will for his church shows that he truly does seek to honor God.
Mark Driscoll was one of the early leaders in what has come to be known as the emerging or emergent church. He is careful to define both terms, suggesting that he still believes in the principles upon which the emerging church was founded, but deliberately separates himself from the emergent crowd and such men as Brian McLaren. On pages 21 and 22 he says that “the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that old liberalism accomodated modernity and the new liberalism accomodates postmodernity.” As for Driscoll, he “swim[s] in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church.”
He also discusses issues of cessationism and continuationism, though not in those terms. He comes out clearly in favor of the continuing gifts. “Up to this point,” he says, “I had been basically a theological cessationist and a fan of fundamentalist straw-man attacks on charismatic Christians. It wasn’t until some years later, however, that I came to see the cessationists’ interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14 as the second worst exegesis I have ever read, next to that of a Canadian nudist arsonist cult I once did some research one” (121). He often speaks of visions, dreams, healings and prophetic words which continue to guide him to this day.
There is much in this book that is very good. Driscoll has some very good insights into culture, Scripture and human nature. These are just a few of the many quotes I marked as being particularly interesting, thought-provoking or insightful:
- “I’m still not sure if most pastors are aware that their churches are comprised of people they don’t yet know. Those people will never come to the churches, so the pastors need to go to those people” (61).
- “The professor wound up getting divorced a few times, which just proved to me that often people who mess with the Bible want to sin instead of repent, which explains why they bury Scripture under philosophical fads (Rom 1:18)” (78).
- “I was wrestling through some theological issues, such as election, predestination, and other matters generally known as reformed theology. So I taught through the book of Romans on Sunday nights, which helped to clarify our doctrinal convictions as a church and cemented us as a church with a reformed view of God and salvation. If you don’t know what that means, the gist is that you people suck and God saves us from ourselves. For more details, you can read the book I’ll write on it in the future or just accept a plain, literal reading of Romans, particular Romans 9-11” (85).
- “I feared that if we did not put our marriage and children above the demands of the church, we would end up with the lukewarm, distant marriage that so many pastors have because they treat their churches as mistresses that they are more passionate about than their brides” (102).
- “As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote” (103).
Despite the many great quotes, there were a couple which I felt showed lack of discernment in theology, and equally troubling, several that which I felt were in poor taste, displaying the vulgarity for which Driscoll has formed something of a reputation. There are a few that are similar to this, using a pejorative term where a more tasteful one would have been, in my opinion, more appropriate: “Every one of them was older than me, a chronic masturbator, a porn addict, and banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze…” (128). I also found this one quite disturbing:
This was drilled home for me one night when the church phone in our house rang at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3:00 a.m. I answered it in a stupor, and on the other end was some college guy who was crying. I asked him what was wrong, and he said it was an emergency and he really need to talk to me. Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned. I asked him what was wrong, and he rambled for a while about nothing, which usually means that a guy has sinned and is wasting time with dumb chitchat because he’s ashamed to just get to the point and confess. So I interrupted him blurting out, “It’s three a.m., so stop jerking me around. What you have done?”“I masturbated,” he said.
“That’s it?” I said.
“Yes,” he replied. “Tonight I watched a porno and I masturbated.”
“Is the porno over?” I asked.
“Yes,” he said.
“Was it a good porno?” I asked.
He did not reply.
“Well, you’ve already watched the whole porno and tugged your tool, so what am I supposed to do?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” he said. “You are my pastor, so I thought that maybe you could pray for me.”
To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind. “Jesus, thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen,” I prayed.
“Alright, well you should sleep good now, so go to bed and don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry,” I said.
“Well, what am I supposed to do now?” he asked.
“You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up, man. I don’t have time to be your accountability partner, so you need to be a man and nut up and take care of this yourself. A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright?” I said.
I cannot understand why he feels this type of quote is necessary. While this book is filled with confession, the one thing Driscoll does not seem to regret is his reputation as a loose canon and a man whose mouth is often filthy. I wonder if this will be the subject of another of his biblical studies. I hope it will be, for whatever he may feel he gains through this crudeness, it simply cannot be God-honoring. Scripture affirms many times that what comes out of the mouth is a sure indication of what is in the heart. Thus we have good reason to examine what we say and how we say it, for words are merely symptoms of what lies inside.
In the end analysis, I really did enjoy Confessions of a Reformission Rev.. There is much in this book that is edifying. It helped me understand Mark Driscoll and showed how he grew a megachurch in a largely unchurched city in only eight years. He is clearly a passionate, focused man who is genuinely seeking hard after God. He has much to offer the church. I wonder, though, how long his message will be heard as long as it is wrapped in a sometimes vulgar, always sarcastic, package. It may endear him to some, but it will surely alienate him from far more.
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 (169)
Agree, David Fairchild. More Bunyan (and Edwards), less Church Lady.
Practically what this means: accept that santification calls for effort on our part. The active, progressive side of sanctification calls for effort.
See in yourself what you dislike in others. Use the world as a mirror for clues as to what you currently can’t see in yourself.
Follow Pink’s advice in this very, very short piece on practical godliness:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/practical_godliness.htm
By the way, I’d like to add that I am completely calm here. Absolutely no intention of sounding like I’m sniping. I thought the idea of this was to discuss scripture and our differing views.
I could go into a detailed account of my own sins and failures just to prove I’m not a Pharisee, but that would obviously not be productive. The reason these comments are being made is because this man is a public figure who has opened up his life and his failures for all to see in a published book.
I have read that he has changed these things in some ways, and that is a good thing, isn’t it? Yes, we all learn, change, and grow. The difference is that fewer people will be affected by my shortcomings simply because I am not in the public realm. This of course does not let me off the hook for anything. But please don’t think I am a Pharisee because I hold leaders in the public eye to a high standard. I hold myself to a high standard as well.
My apologies to anyone to whom I seemed unloving… Since you don’t know me you can’t know how I really am. My statements were out of love for some possibly weaker brother or sister.Blessings to all…
Anonymous-
You (kind of) quoted me:
‘Oh please. Whatever defines “cursing” and “vulgarity” is defined by arbitrary culture. A word is not “good” or “bad” in and of itself. Grow up people!’
I think that’s true. The KJV uses the word “piss”, and today in the UK, that’s regarded an objectionable word. Equally, some of the words that are freely used today would have been frowned-on a few generations ago. How do you explain this?
Each culture has it’s naughty words, and they’re all different. In the USA, a “bugger” is something that comes out of your nose, but in the UK, it’s a strictly regulated sexual act. Was it sinful of the visiting Australian youthworker at my friend’s church to announce to the congregation that he was “taking the little buggers [children] out to Sunday school” during the next hymn (he didn’t know what it meant!)?
Rude words in all our cultures come from the areas of social taboos- in Western culture, it’s mainly things to do with bodily functions, sexual acts and religion. Elsewhere, it’s different. So we can’t really pin sin on words, as it’s all a bit fluid. Sin isn’t relative, but language certainly is. The potential for sin in this area is surely more about how we express ourselves, handle subjects that deserve sensitivity, show concern for the offence/boundaries of others. As far as I can see from these quotes, probably Driscol has been loose here, but I think it’s not simply a matter of “bad language” so much as sloppy handling of the subjects he’s dealing with (and he’s recounting a past conversation, right?).
While I’m here, Mark (#129)- great comments about making judgements on Driscoll without really knowing him. I guess equally I’ve defended him without knowing him as well… we all have to be careful.
And Andrew Jones: right on! Thanks. Am I allowed to agree with you? ;o)
Blessings to all,Dan
Wait a second… I just thought of something.
Because I am so quick to examine myself in regard to sin, I very quickly took some words recently posted to heart. But after a bit more thought, I am wondering a few things.
Some on this board are being spoken of as being unloving or Pharisaical because we have spoken of what we consider to be the wrong of language spoken by Driscoll. But is Driscoll unloving in the way he dealt with the student? By his own account of the story, it kind of looks that way.
He says the phone rang “at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3:00 a.m.” He says “Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned.” He then goes on to say “To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind.” He then goes on to say “don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry”.
Somehow none of this seems very loving to me. Many of the posters here have said that he handled it well and that you have to get tough on sin and sometimes a kick in the teeth is helpful. That Driscoll himself is quite tough on sin.
I am unsure why those of us who see the language used as sinful, and have said so, are considered more unloving than all of you who said we should be tough on sin?
let me clarify my statement above, before the log protruding from my own eye knocks any of you out:
much of the disgust I come away with after reading comment threads like this is directed at myself. I see a great lack of charity and an ugliness in my own heart. these kinds of debates just don’t seem to bring out the best in most of us—myself included.
WOW !! Anyone else think that the comments section here contains lots of stuff that’s far more offensive and unChristlike than anything Driscoll has written?
Tim,
You might want to consider putting a post limit on each of your threads…that may help prevent the type of insane repetitiveness and going in circles such as can be found on this particular thread (maybe limit them to 50-60 posts).
If there is a “most ridiculous” blog award for comments to a post…I believe this one would win hands down.
Good grief!!! 161 comments and counting on the subject of Chrisitans and their right under grace to cuss and be crude like the world…man, we sure love our vices, don’t we…
Brian wrote: Good grief!!! 161 comments and counting on the subject of Chrisitans and their right under grace to cuss and be crude like the world…man, we sure love our vices, don’t we…
Amen, brother. How absurd is it that, on a Christian blog, there are Christians trying to justify using foul language? Pretty hard to believe, but then again, the gap between the world and the Church is becoming smaller and smaller, so that should not be a surprise.
Brendt said: Anyone else think that the comments section here contains lots of stuff that’s far more offensive and unChristlike than anything Driscoll has written?
No, not at all. The vast, vast majority of this thread (contrary to your and Amy’s opinions) has been quite measured and civil and within the bounds of Christ-likeness, especially compared to some of the exchanges we’ve had about Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, etc. over the last couple of years.
Objecting to Mark Driscoll’s language does not mean one is objecting to the message he delivers - I’ve heard virtually no one make that assertion. And as a prior poster pointed out, Driscoll himself has recognized that he has a problem with the “cursing pastor” persona that he is developing. So it’s not like this is new news. He is obviously concerned about it himself - as well he should be, just as any of us should if we are found to suffer from the same “issue” (myself included).
——bill
Your comments on the gap between the world and church growing smaller makes this ring even more true.
“The biggest mission field in America is professed Christianity.”
-MacArthur
As we all know, we should be considering what God say’s about these things. I don’t go for anyone telling me there own opinions with no valid scriptural basis. That is how we all get misled. We are looking at and examining a “topic” of concern. It happens to have come out via a “popular” person in the church who has decided to publically publish his words for ALL to see. Therefore ALL SHOULD JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT. Judgement is not reserved for the Pharisees who ignorantly and falsely judge without knowing God’s Heart. We do know them by their fruit. Or can we say that we discern them by their works? This man may actually be a very nice man who does many works in God’s Name and even understands nearly all mysteries and all knowledge. He may prophesy God’s Word with great insight. But the issue, he has chosen to reveal on his own accord, is there and can’t be ignored and obviously isn’t here ignored. He may have even repented of this by now as someone has mentioned before. Even some of those defending him have in their words confirmed that he has sinned here. The man is not to be judged here as much as his actions. In other words this is an “issue” of godly or ungodly speech, is it not? Why don’t we stop seeing this as judging a man and see it for what it is at a greater level and that is: judging what is proceeding out of the mouth? Maybe some of you on here can relax over your concern that a man you admire who has chosen to be in the limelight is being wrongly judged. Do you all realize that probably EVERYONE of you on this thread has been judging here in one why or another one person or another? I’m not saying this is wrong if it is done rightly. I am saying that if you judge others judgements YOU are judging. And if you don’t judge it you are heading for trouble somewhere.
If we truly are Christians, we are all called to know for sure what God’s Word means not just what it says. The spiritual man judges all things yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
Ep 5:11-12”And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is SHAMEFUL EVEN TO SPEAK of those things which are done by them in secret.”OK, we are supposed to expose these things but not speak of them. What does this mean?
Please consider this Believer’s Bible Commentary:”Now the apostle explains why the Christian must have no complicity with moral corruption and must rebuke it. The vile sins which people commit in secret are so debased that it is shameful even to mention them, let alone commit them. The unnatural forms of sin which man has invented are so bad that even to describe them would defile the minds of those who listened. So the Christian is taught to refrain from even talking about them.”
And Matthew Henry:Observe, A good man is ashamed to speak that which many wicked people are not ashamed to act; but, as far as their wickedness appears, it should be reproved by good men. There follows another reason for such reproof: But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, v. 13. The meaning of this passage may be this: “All those unfruitful works of darkness which you are called upon to reprove are laid open, and made to appear in their proper colours to the sinners themselves, by the light of doctrine or of Gods word in your mouths, as faithful reprovers, or by that instructive light which is diffused by the holiness of your lives and by your exemplary walk.
Does this passage not instruct us to be careful “how” we speak of sin?
And, as we have brought out earlier, is this not a matter of “liberty” and “clear conscience” and the concern and love for those younger and more sensitive brothers and sisters in the Lord for whom Christ died? Do you have any sensitivity for those who don’t know what you know yet or do you wish to trample the weak consciences of those that could be emboldened to sin in this way? Those saying that we who have spoken out against this are unloving and know nothing just might need to be honest with themselves in this judgement. If we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God what are you “DOING” about the words we have reminded you of here?
Please, I say this with a heart of love and concern for us understanding what tough love really is.
Please study this, pray and be honest with yourself before God and see what you come up with in this.
Thanks for considering.
SK- You quoted from Mark 7:14ff where Christ speaks of that which defiles a man. Please note that the Pharisees’ issue with Jesus’ behavior was that some of His disciples had eaten bread with unwashed hands. To deduce from this passage that God is unconcerned with what we take into our bodies, hearts, and minds is not taking the context into consideration.Intentionally or not I don’t pretend to know, but I believe you are throwing out a red herring here. You refer to this one Scripture over and over while ignoring numerous other portions of Scripture that would be relevant to Mark Driscoll’s behaviorand our response to it. We cannot take one verse that supports a pet idea (and it sounds as if legalism is a pet peeve of yours- rightly so) but then fail to look to the whole counsel of God. Mark 7 may be instructive, but it is not all that the Bible has to say on this subject. Doubtless, there are many verses which have relevance to this subject, and I think it would be a profitable exercise for all who are participating in this thread to use more Scripture and less opinion when seeking to make our points.
Here are a few verses that I think have particular bearing on this topic:
Proverbs 25:26 Like a muddied spring and a polluted well, so is a righteous person who gives way before the wicked.
Titus 2:1 But as for you, communicate the behavior that goes with sound teaching. 2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in endurance….2:6 Encourage younger men likewise to be self-controlled, 2:7 showing yourself to be an example of good works in every way. In your teaching show integrity, dignity, 2:8 and a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us…..2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. 2:12 It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 2:14 He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good. 2:15 So communicate these things with the sort of exhortation or rebuke that carries full authority.
SK, I am not meaning to be your critic. It sounds to me like you’ve had a bad turn with some pharasaical folk at some point, and I can see where it would be a real turn off. I can see how you’d go on the attack of anything that resembled it. Been there, done that. But, I do hear in your comments, what sounds like a sincere desire to see the gospel preached, and preached in a way that is relevant. So, I cannot dismiss you. But please do consider some of the above verses and let me know your thoughts.
Does anyone else have Scripture that could help us all to sift through this in a way that honors God and in which we can spur one another along in godliness?
Merilee, this is one scripture that I like because it reminds me that there is another facet to grace that is very important:
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:11-14
Merilee said, “To deduce from this passage that God is unconcerned with what we take into our bodies, hearts, and minds is not taking the context into consideration.”
Thanks Merilee, I was going to address this one, but I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Thanks to both you and Kathy, and to everyone else who spoke grace to this situation.
Amy remarked on this quote somewhere above:”I love the discussions that go on in the comment sections of Tim’s blog. They are usually very edifying and thought-provoking, and I am very thankful for that.”
I can echo the comment in the regard that the differing views expressed here have certainly caused me to be in the Word even more than usual, and consequently, I have grown myself. Not a bad thing, I’d say…
We all come from different perspectives on things, and if someone else knows something I can learn, great! If I know something someone else can learn, great! Iron sharpens iron, right?
Blessings to all!
This is embarrassing. I thought I had read Merilee’s comments quite carefully and yet I repeated a scripture she had already posted! Maybe that scripture was so applicable that it needed to be repeated here? ;-)
wfseube said: The vast, vast majority of this thread has been quite measured and civil and within the bounds of Christ-likeness…
Let me give some examples of that civility and Christ-likeness:
#5 — smug sympathizers swoop - While this is killer alliteration, it’s not very charitable to assign smugness to anyone who disagrees with you. One might even say that it is rather smug to do so.
#13 — Baloney - Yeah, there’s a charitable and Christ-like response. (Be honest: were you really thinking “baloney”?)
#31 — this wolf (refering to Driscoll) - Getting more charitable by the minute.
#33 — what he meant is entirely irrelevant - Because that’s how the commenter interpreted it, and if someone else claims to have gained something from it, they’re wrong.
#52 — Perhaps you can explain to us what you know that every serious Bible translator thus far has missed - “Hey mama hey mama lookee what your little babies all have become”
#77 — He certainly is the star of his own book, and wants to shock so as to get attention (on himself?) - Interesting sweeping analysis by someone who (one paragraph before) admitted to not having read the book.
#78 — Your lack of discernment continues to stun me. - Personally, I think I’d rather be told to “nut up”
#107 — “Christians” - Wow, those quote marks assume a lot!
Amy said: Every time I come to Challies.com, I find myself edified and my thoughts provoked by the original post (thanks Tim)…and then, almost without fail, I come away disgusted by a comment thread.
For me, I wouldn’t classify it as “almost without fail”, but I am in total agreement with you, otherwise. I had to take this site off my blog-roll today. I am saddened by that fact, as much of what Tim has to say is nothing short of golden. Fortunately for him, I get so little traffic, that not blog-rolling him won’t decrease his traffic at all. ;-)
I guess I just need to either stop visiting Tim’s site altogether, or just read his posts and resist the urge to click the comments link
I subscribe to the blog, so I only get the good “Tim stuff”. I just heard elsewhere about this particular comment thread and my schadenfreude got the better of me. But ordinarily, I’m not “tempted”.
Why does David Fairchild keep injecting thought-out and well-phrased sanity into the conversation? I’m suspecting that “David Fairchild” is just a pen name for Tim Challies. ;-)
(That’s only a compliment to Tim; not a slight to David)
wsfeube wrote: (contrary to your and Amy’s opinions)
Maybe I’m reading to much into it, but did we just get criticized for being offended by the way some people have been talking about being offended?
As it seems that this thread has outlived its usefulness, I’m closing the comments for now.
Cuss amongst yourselves…