This Just In: Leading Pastor and Author Mark Driscoll Not Holy Enough
This month's issue of Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelical Christianity, featured an article about friction in a major American evangelical denomination. The denomination is facing a declining membership and theological in-fighting. Some in the organization want to overhaul the way their churches approach ministry and have proposed a major re-think. The article observes:
A flashpoint between... opponents and supporters [of a change in strategy] was Seattle megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll. Though not a [member of this denomination], he has won a following among many [of its] young ministers and church planters, particularly those who share his Reformed theology. But Driscoll’s history of using risqué language, and the fact that he drinks alcohol and talks about sex, angers those who say his approach undermines his message.
There were five motions made against Driscoll, including a motion to have all [denominational] entities report any contact with Driscoll or the Acts 29 church planting network he is a part of. That motion was sent to [denominational] agencies for review over the next year, as well as a separate motion to ban any speaker who cusses or drinks.
Cussing and drinking? This list seems pretty short. I mean, if we're going to go down this road, we should also list greed, lustful thoughts, putting your needs before those of others, pride, impatience, lack of contentment, partiality, and a failure to love everybody.
I wonder who is going to speak at this denomination's next annual convention?
Labels: Aaron M.G. Zimmerman, Church, News
posted by Aaron M. G. Zimmerman at
10:47 AM
17 Comments:
Not surprising. I'm liking Driscoll more and more. Especially since John is over there.
Brilliant! Thanks for this Aaron!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thats wild. What denomination does Mark belong to?
I'm a big fan of Driscoll, but I'm a former Southern Baptist, so let me try to defend my old tradition (and my family, etc.)
The SBC is, in theory and often in practice, teetotaling. Driscoll is not, and is often up front about this. Pub ministries are associated with some Acts29 churches. Nothing wrong with that at all, but no one should be surprised that the SBC has problems with it. I think they (the SBC is wrong, but I'm not shocked by the sentiments)
As for Driscoll's profanity, it hasn't happened in a long time, and anyone, SBC or otherwise, is wrong to harp on it. But...if he or anyone else were to do that, it's not out of bounds to suggest that a pastor, while in the pulpit, remain from questionable speech.
Driscoll's also linked to some downright weird Christian sex sites, but I believe that bizarre episode got resolved.
It's also important to note that some SBC leaders like Danny Akin are big Driscoll supporters.
Again, I like Driscoll very much and he is a fine preacher. I'm no longer SBC, either, but if - and that's a big IF - Driscoll were out of bounds (and I don't believe he is), saying we're all sinners doesn't really give him carte blanche to act childish in the pulpit.
Jeff: Driscoll certainly has sermons and talks that are heavy on third use of the law. So if you heard one of those sermons, it would have sounded like total law. However, in many other sermons and writings, he does strongly affirm a robust doctrine of sin, a total commitment to substitutionary atonement, and a deep conviction about justification by grace alone through faith alone.
Justin, not John. Sorry Justin.
Smiths: Driscoll is non-denominational. I left out specific mentions of the denomination that is finding him hard to swallow since I didn't want to be a hater.
Matt, thanks for these comments. I too am a fan of Driscoll for the most part, though I disagree with him on a few things.
Your point is a good one--acting childish in the pulpit is not a good thing. As a preacher, I believe you never want to give people an excuse to discount your message. Propriety and decorum is important. And it appears that Driscoll has tempered himself a bit.
The point of my post was to offer a corrective on the Christian (and human) tendency to (1) think that "holiness" is primarily about external behaviors and (2) that sin can be limited to a few line items. The "sins" listed by the SBC seem pretty low on the totem pole, biblically speaking.
Thanks for your helpful comments and for giving us some context on the SBC and Driscoll. The article does mention that many SBC pastors are Driscoll fans--in fact, that's why there was such a dust up at the annual meeting.
Aaron - excellent points. Totally agree. Believe me, I know that prideful spirit all too well. In my own life, most certainly
Mark Driscoll cracks me up and I think he is really cool, especially now that he rolls with Justin Holcomb. I have a feeling the SBC is going to loose allot of their best church-plants because of this decision.
I also am wondering if their won't eventually be a split in the S.B.C. as they become more and more polarized between the Arminian and Reformed Baptists in their group. Also, if only drinking and cussing was our problem in TEC.
Aaron,
I guess I have a hard time getting on the Mark Driscoll bandwagon because his earlier stuff was so "emergent" and now everything I've heard from him recently has sounded like hyper-Calvinism. On your advice, though, I will keep an open mind next time I encounter his work.
I do, however, heartily agree with you that his "drinking and cussing" are not valid reasons to exclude him from the pulpit.
Jacob's point is well-taken. That is a major SBC issue.
Jacob, I just caught your last sentence about TEC and it made me laugh out loud...
Check out this sermon... http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/trial/faith-in-your-new-birth
If you don't have an hour, start at 29 minutes and listen for a few as Driscoll unpacks and drives home the imputed righteousness of Christ.
I've been at Mars Hill for two weeks and am moved by the humility of the pastors and how much they serve and care for the people in the church.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?pagewanted=all
what about this NYT article?
it seems like ordained pastors within the denomination should be competent to regulate their own "contact" with Driscoll & his associates... and that it doesn't require denominational policy to deal with his charisma and not-so-controversial-actual-teaching
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home