Some thoughts for Mark Driscoll

Dear Mark,

Wow.

When you step on a scene, you really know how to make an entrance, don't you? For a couple of years, everyone involved in the emerging church conversation/blogosphere has been wondering "where is Mark Driscoll?"
And bang- you don't just start a blog... you open up with both barrels.
I have to give it to you, you really know how to stir the pot.

But I have a couple of things I've been thinking about this last week, and I probably need to just get them out, so bear with me, if you would.

Since no one else seems to want to say this, I guess I will. You come off as obssessed with numbers. You mention them every chance you get. And while I'm glad that you now refer to your church as "one of" the biggest in Washington, rather than "the biggest" (sermon, 11.13.05), since that title really goes to Crossroads church in Vancouver, I'm still amazed at how often numbers pop up in your writing. You've been blogging for a very short time now... But in that time you've told us how big your church is, how big and fast growing your friend's churches are, how you've had lunch with some really big names, how many churches you've planted, how many times your sermons have been downloaded over this last year, the fact that your church is among the 60 fastest growing and 25 most influential in America, etc, etc, etc...

I'm left wondering what you are really trying to accomplish.

But as concerned as I am with all that, your recent piece responding to Brian McLaren's thoughts on homosexuality takes the cake... and also leaves me wondering just what it is you are trying to accomplish.

With a rapier wit, you managed to insult your former "acquaintances" (Really? Doug's not even a friend anymore?), slip in a nice insult regarding Doug's views on sexuality (which, thankfully was edited out after initially being published, most likely due to the extremely offensive nature of suggesting that people in Doug's vicinity should lock up their livestock) and completely miss engaging with McLaren's ideas at all.

Mark, you are standing at a crossroads right now. Down one road lies all kinds of applause and kudos from a lot of people who already agree with you. They'll slap you on the back every time you lash out at "those who drink from the toilet of emergent theology" and they'll high five you every time you put another "limp wristed" "homo-evangelical" in his place. Your stock among the Truly Reformed will rise... and those who identify in any way, shape or form with the emerging church conversation will write you off completely as an obnoxious, arrogant ass. The young preachers you supposedly want to influence will miss what you are saying to them because of the way that you are saying it to them.

But down the other road is actually having an influence on all the people and churches you claim to be so concerned about.

And the difference between taking one road or another lies primarily in your ability to control your tongue.

Sure, we all know Jesus had some harsh words for people like the Pharisees. We all know that at times, sarcasm is appropriate and even useful. But I have to tell you, if you want to have the impact you say you want to have, you are going to have to set aside the need to appear clever, to score with the zinger, and speak the truth in love. It's interesting to me that James' admonition about our tongues comes in the context of a warning to teachers: "Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged by God with greater strictness. We all make many mistakes, but those who control their tongues can also control themselves in every other way." Man to man, Mark, I have to tell you that God is not only going to judge you on the correctness of your doctrine, but also on the way you present it and how you interact with others over it. This is something I myself am learning these days...

I want you to be a voice in the emerging church. It needs you. But in order for that to happen, you'll need to stop throwing bombs. Clanging cymbals may get noticed, but ultimately, they accomplish little.

Please stop insulting your friends, please heed the words of the Bible you quote to answer others "...in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear."

Please speak the truth in love.

Bob.

Comments

[jeremy]

Well said.
I have never been in complete agreement with everything Driscoll has said or written but I was dissappointed to see him withdraw from the conversation so completely over the last month.

[Drew Caperton]

I resonate with that.

For as much as I actually agree with 90% of what Driscoll says and believes [I loved Reformissionary], I do not want to associate with him. I understand he's not weeping in the corner over that fact, but there are many more like me who feel much the same way.

I do not believe Driscoll to be interested in organic church-planting, and I'm OK with that. I say it only to point out that mentioning numbers for him is reciting success for the Kingdom. So, for as often as he mentions it, it's likely for God's sake [and some pride thrown in there like most every other preacher, we're only human].

[Mike DeVries]

Well said. Well said.

[aaron]

Thanks for taking the time to articulate what so many of us were already thinking Bob.

[robbymac]

well said, Bob. I resonate with a lot of Driscoll's questions and concerns, although not all of his theology, but as a reforming sarcasti-holic myself, I find his tone immature and unChristlike.

[monts]

thanks bob. i had a lot of respect for driscoll--still do in some ways--but much of the respect i had has since waned. i was disappointed with his tone and malicious sarcasm in his 'rant'... but i'm sure my disappointment won't hurt his enormous ego.

[Wes]

Bob, Interesting post. I agree somewhat.

It's important when things get hot to remember the issue at hand. The issue is whether the homosexual life is sin which dishonors the glory of God(Driscoll) or not really(McLaren). And being McLaren, a 'christian' preacher who does not apparently, believe that it matters.......MATTERS.

What did Paul tell and write to those who preached another gospel? I think it was on the lines of 'even if it's an angel may they....burn in hell'. Of course we aren't Paul. But,

Does this situation fit that category?
Maybe not.

[bob]

Does this situation fit that category?

Absolutely not.

You'll notice that
a. I specifically did not mention McLaren's viewpoint, other than to point out that Mark didn't even come close to responding to it
and
b. you misrepresent Brian's position. Read it again.

On this particular issue, I'm between the two, probably closer to Mark than to McLaren, but the fact is, Mark was out of line. Waaaaaay out of line.

And again, having a different view of the appropriateness of same sex sexual relationships does NOT qualify as a "different Gospel." It's an important issue (culturally and spiritually) but it comes nowhere near the level of "what is the Gospel" and "who is Jesus."

[Steve McCoy]

Bob, I agree with the heart of what you are saying. I think Driscoll would better communicate on these issues with a different approach and this is an important time for him to gain a real hearing with emerging church'ers.

We all know Driscoll well enough to know that he is going to be a bit brash, and I think some of that is a good thing in a culture where being honest is being too brash. So it doesn't bother me coming from a guy who is doing real and good ministry.

I think we need to be careful as well to realize that he is responding to people who have made great effort to never come down clearly on some of these issues, and I'm sure he has been frustrated. Many of the rest of us are too.

What I think you personally need to be careful about is insinuating things about Mark's ego, his love for numbers, etc. He has spent a long time becoming an expert on the culture he is trying to reach and has just finished writing a book that made him go through every significant piece of their church and his ministry history. The chapters in his book are completely based on where they were in number of members. It's just how he is thinking right now, I think. And even IF (huge IF) he is ego driven, we can't know that.

So I encourage you if you see reason to question his motives, email him. You could certainly be wrong there and saying that publicly isn't helpful. If you want to respond to his content or approach, I think part of your post does that pretty well. I appreciate your encouragement to Mark at the end, and agree with it.

[bob]

Hey Steve-

I hear what you are saying... I tried to word this carefully to let him know how I think he is coming across (which a lot of people would agree with me on) not how I know him to be.

The fact is, Mark is building himself a reputation- bit by bit.
"Brash" is a nice way to put it. Others have not been so generous.

And while I won't claim to know a guy's heart, pointing out how he is coming across to a large audience is not unloving.

[Steve McCoy]

Who would you consider to be that "large audience?" Do you mean the EC?

Thanks for reading my previous comment thoughtfully.

[Brian Brown]

If I could just add this:

I've been positively influenced by both Driscoll and McLaren.

But as an addition to the "large audience" which is outside the EC, I know of two different churches that our church works with, that would generally be on a similar page theologically and culturally with Mark whose staff and leadership were reading Mark's book and tabled it because "his tone was offensive and un-Christlike."

I've burned more copies and handed out the CDs from his old Church and Culture than I care to remember, but many people who have nothing to do with the emergent church, who I know and respect have lost any taste for Mark's tone despite appreciating some of his insights into missional church life.

[bob]

By large audience, I mean everyone, I think... Mark's hot right now. When he speaks, people listen.
I know not everyone thinks the same way about Mark, but I have seen the words "arrogant" and "egotistic" connected with his name on more than one occasion.

I've said before and I'll say it again- I respect Mark on a number of levels. The guy has brains, talent, and a call from God on his life.

But I think he's reached a point of diminishing returns with the brashness and "in your face" thing though... When it turns off more people than it attracts, it's counter productive. And when it turns off the very people you say you are talking to (in this case, the "emergent" crowd), then it's really an exercise in something other than communication.

I want Mark to re-engage in the emerging church conversation. I had high hopes that his participation in this new book project with others and the use of the word "emerging" in the title of his latest solo book signaled that.

But his derogatory comments about the other authors in the joint project and the tone of this last blog entry have all but derailed any hope that Mark can be a force for sanity and balance in the emerging church.

I think...

[James]

rant n 1: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion.

I found this definition befitting Driscoll's remarks over at LJ. I'll admit up front that my life has been positively influenced over the last year or so by Mark's free online resources. I find myself agreeing with most of what I hear. Coming from a charismatic heritage Mark's reformed preaching has spoken deeply to me. At times, however, the way he expresses his Christian liberty concerns me. I'm repelled by many of the same things you mention above.

But what about a good rant from time to time, Bob? I would guess most pastors have used the pulpit of their influence to unbottle pent up passion and spiritual energy at various points in their careers. Jesus seemed to come out of nowhere from time to time. I don't know. We're so damn careful sometimes. I'm not trying to play down the ostrasizing fires of the tongue. I just want to hear truth and passion sometimes without the couching of diplomacy.

[bob]

Mark's original (unedited) rant here:

Brian McLaren the Homo-Evangelical
Pastor Mark Driscoll

Well, it seems that Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals.
Before I begin my rant, let me first defend myself. Lastly, don’t just rant that I’m yet another angry fundamentalist who does not understand.
First, the guy who was among the first to share the gospel with me was a gay guy who was a friend. Second, I planted a church in my 20’s in one of America’s least churched cities where the gay pride parade is much bigger than the march for Jesus. Third, my church is filled with people struggling with same sex attraction and gay couples do attend and we tell them about the transforming power of Jesus. Fourth, I am not a religious right wingnut. In fact, when James Dobson came to town to hold the anti-gay rally we took a lot of heat for being among the biggest churches in the state, the largest evangelical church in our city, and not promoting the event in our church because we felt it would come off as unloving to the gay community. The men who hosted the event are all godly men and good friends and I’ve taken a few blows for not standing with them on this issue. Fifth, I am myself a devoted heterosexual male lesbian who has been in a monogamous marriage with my high school sweetheart since I was 21 and personally know the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.
And now the rant.
For me, the concern started when McLaren the February 7, 2005 issue of Time Magazine said, “Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, ‘You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side’”. Sadly, by failing to answer, McLaren was unwilling to say what the Bible says and in so doing really hurt God’s feelings and broke his heart.
Then, Brian’s Tonto Doug Pagitt, an old acquaintance of mine, wrote the following in a book he and I both contributed to called Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches edited by Robert Webber and due out this spring: “The question of humanity is inexorably linked to sexuality and gender. Issues of sexuality can be among the most complex and convoluted we need to deal with. It seems to me that the theology of our history does not deal sufficiently with these issues for our day. I do not mean this a critique, but as an acknowledgement that our times are different. I do not mean that we are a more or less sexual culture, but one that knows more about the genetic, social and cultural issues surrounding sexuality and gender than any previous culture. Christianity will be impotent to lead a conversation on sexuality and gender if we do not boldly integrate our current understandings of humanity with our theology. This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality but will force to consider new ways of being sexual.”
Although I am unsure exactly what Doug meant by this last statement for safety’s sake I would strongly recommend that all farmers, particularly those surrounding Minneapolis, lock up their sheep at night effective immediately.
And on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is included below. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.
As the pastor of a church of nearly 5,000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him and his penis somewhere between 2011-2016.
Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” out of your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labrynth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.
In conclusion, this is all just gay.

[geo]

My question for Mr. Driscoll is:
What is your churches stand on fat overweight people? Obviously they practice their "sin" on a daily basis. So what is your stand?
Funny isn't it that the church is so quick to condemn homosexuality but says nothing of the fried chicken eating obese fat pastor!

[tony jones]

Thanks for this, Bob.

A thoughtful response from Brian will be up soon.

[Jason]

That's powerful, brother. His machisimo version of contending for the faith is really misplaced, and he reminds me like what's his face who wrote that shit about the pastor at Baylor who died a while back.

I wonder if he's got a post like yours somewhere, where he admits to feeling...all...conservative...as you put it.

[David Alexander]

I think your thoughts are very well said Bob. I personally am very grateful to people like McClaren and Pagitt who have refrained from providing a "sound-bit" on this issue. As influential leaders in the Emergent church, I think it would be very counter-productive and unfair to the community as a whole for one person's "opinion" to be labeled as "Emergent's opinion." As you have articulated in your follow up comments, there is probably some disagreement within those who support the Emergent community. I'm OK with that. We have so much more to gain in our relationship with one another. It would be sad for that to to be compromised by one particular issue. I think that is the heart of your response to Driscoll. Let's not tear each other apart on this.

[Pam Hogeweide]

Boys, boys, calm down.

We all know there is a lot of shitting, oops, I mean shifting, going on in the church as we know it.

There is bound to be some tension and serious disagreement, and mud slinging and name calling and back biting. Kinda takes me back to my first year of marriage.

But in all of this let's ask ourselves,
What Would Jesus Blog?

[Johne976]

I'm new to the scene. Really trying to discover what Christianity, church etc. etc. means to me and how that will impact the way that I live my life. I don't ever fully agree with Mclaren, but I bet he is ok with that. Mark Driscoll's response is exactly the type of response that Mclaren is warning against. I appreciate your warnings to Driscoll. It is obvious in these types of conversation who has and has not had real ministry with homosexuals.

[jon myers]

bob, i appreciate your post about this issue. it is extremely tough to put these kinds of things into words and not polarize. yours and andrew jones posts have been the best responses those of us who identify ourselves with the emerging church could have wanted. i'm looking forward to mclaren's response as well, because i'm sure it will be graceful and well said.

[Jordon Cooper]

Thanks Bob, this a good and well thought out post.

[Michael]

Bob said:

"I want you to be a voice in the emerging church. It needs you. But in order for that to happen, you'll need to stop throwing bombs."

I think Mark's point is that he doesn't want to be associated with Emergent. He's way past the crossroads and chosen his path. That's why the post was so over the top was to distance himself.

[melissa l]

Bob,

Thanks for the thoughful comments and clarification to responses. I for one was disappointed by the tone and crass attacks of MD's response. I appreciated your calm and come back to the table and talk with us attitude. open ended, open handed. good on ya