Is the Blogosphere Ready for Mark Driscoll?

UPDATE: March 27, 2006. Mark apologizes. Hey Mark - we love you. Don't lose that edge!

ORIGINAL POST: Up early this morning (4:30am) and i am taking a peek at the blogs. Its Saturday and Elizabeth had a sleepover for 5 of her friends last night as part of her 13th birthday party. I have to make some crepes for them soon but first i want to talk about The Driscoll who has now entered the blogosphere.

Mark Driscoll, in typical form, exploded onto the comments of a Leadership Journal's Out Of Ur blog post and has everyone talking. LJ even made a new blog post so people can comment on it. Mark is a dynamite communicator and I am sure he will make his presence felt in the blogosphere - perhaps not so much with his own blog, but during his outbursts on other blogs.

Technorati Tags: Emergent, emerging church

First of all, I think everyone - especially The Driscoll - should be careful when speaking out on other peoples blogs because it is very, very, VERY hard to edit it later on when editing is no longer in your control. My rule of thumb is to be 3x more careful on the comments of other peoples blogs as i am on my own. One nasty sentence of Mark's comments about  Doug has been edited out of Out of Ur, which makes me thankful that I saved the full text yesterday . . . as one should always do when controversy of historical and posterical importance is afoot. And no, I am not going to publish it here, especially the thing about Minneapolis farmers locking up their  . . .  oh . . i cant say that!! And I don't have time to follow the story but Steve McCoy is on it, as is Lovely Carla, and Bob Hyatt has some thoughts for Driscoll that are getting response.

Secondly, to understand Driscoll is to appreciate [what Mark calls] Midrash, the understanding that comes from the violent clashing of opposing viewpoints. Driscoll is the King of Midrash and those reading him should not guess that he is holding personal grudges against the people in the other corner of the ring. He just likes a good fight. Its an Irish thing. Get used to it.

The Skinny?
I love Mark Driscoll and think he is one of the best orators in the country  - witty, smart. controversial, connected - as well as a really nice, hospitable, HUMBLE guy when you hang with him in his home town, which I have done on a few occasions, as opposed to the Mark you sometimes see on stage. He was never a fan of the house churches I was starting (he said they were not "real churches") but he cut me slack and we enjoyed each others company. He also loves my children so you will not hear me speak ill of him on my blog. (I will save my criticism of that Stubby, BigHeaded, Irish-Catholic Reformed Punk until i see him next . . . Hi Mark!)

I guess I am somewhat of a Driscoll fan. He is fantastic on stage. Funny and compelling. Give him a microphone and great things happen. People come back next week. He has built his ministry out of his strength and that is smart. Its not the kind of ministry I was involved in when i was church planting around USA - in some ways they are opposites - our little churches generally had no superstar and met in coffee shops while Mark's churches costed $100,000 to start (thanks to David Nicolas and Spanish River Church who believed in Mark enough to pay the bills) and needed a Driscoll-like figure to power them. Which, btw, is a problem. There is only one Mark Driscoll and he is one in a million. I have encouraged the Acts 29 church planters, both at their first conferences and at their locations, to try to diversify and decentralize, and NOT try to hold people's attention for an hour on a stage, which it seems only Driscoll can do really well. Yes, he IS that compelling.

But a team player Driscoll may not be. He fills the space he occupies and generally leads the groups that he joins. He owes a lot of his current popularity to Doug Pagitt who created conferences for him to speak at around the country and continued his allowance as a "Top Dog" (Mark's term) in the group. In the late nineties, Young Leader's Group (which became Terra Nova and then Emergent) was often criticized for rudeness and offensive remarks.  I never swore [HONEST!] even though people expected me to (I had the pony tail and weird clothes) nor intentionally offended people - although i was the snobbiest elitist in the group which was offensive. Nor did Rudy or Tim or most of the team swear. [Chris and Doug did] But Mark's humor, which was usually hilarious, was sometimes over the top, often caused offense and there were times when we cringed and wished we were not in the same room. [I distinctly remember pouring petrol over myself at one conference but that memory is fading now and may not be accurate] The shift to allow Brian McLaren to join the group (he was a few years older than us) provided a softer, gentler Emergent that allowed participants to ask questions in a safe space without fear of ridicule or rejection, especially if those asking the questions were of the female persuasion.

Did Brian help shift the image to the other extreme - that of a weak, soggy, namby-pamby quasi-liberal Christianity without bollocks? That remains to be seen. Brian is great at stimulating questions but can frustrate people by not arriving at answers for them in one sitting. He generally wants them to think through the issue before formulating a response which causes fundamentalists to pull their hair out. And Brian's background is not Reformed so his books will probably never be published by Banner of Truth. Emergent is now criticized, not for being sharp at people when they say the wrong thing, but for not being sharp at all. But then, Emergent is a conversation during a time of transition, and a conversation that needs to be hosted in a room without jagged edges. Or excess of bollocks. And the Co-ordinator of Emergent Village, Tony Jones, has a healthy bollockular balance in regards to all things controversial so I expect things to even out eventually.

I think leaders, ministries and churches should be appropriately convinced of what they believe so that they can speak and act with proper confidence. Such a confidence enables a leader to participate in ecumenical discussions outside their world because they know where they stand and are not threatened nor compromised by conflicting viewpoints but can enjoy a fruitful exchange of ideas. The discussion or conversation, which is what Emergent basically is, will be as diverse as the total amount of viewpoints in the room. But a diverse group will not be able to compose statements that speak for the group as a whole - only for themselves. Emergent can exist and prosper because it is a collection of Reformed, Evangelical, Baptist, Charasmatic, Ecumencial, House-church, [fill in blank ______] people who can speak for themselves and their ministries with great conviction and yet, for the sake of unity and understanding, choose to become less Reformed, less Baptist, less Pentecostal and more like Jesus.

Hey - for anyone interested in joining in - Emergent Village is an ecumenical conversation. There is guaranteed to be people who believe differently. Its like a Billy Graham crusade. Its as complex and as ecumenical as the songbook you use at your church. It may not be as ecumenical as the Wedding Supper of the Lamb that we are invited to but it is a step forward out of your own denomination into a bigger world. And if you cant take the heat from the encounter with alternative viewpoints then take off your dang apron and get out of the kitchen! Especially if you don't want your reputation muddied through identification with undesirables who have unclean lips. Like Isaiah. Or Jesus.

As for Mark, he has been so much a part of the history of emerging-missional church in USA in the past 8 years that it will be difficult for him to distance himself from the wider emerging church community and in particular, EmergentVillage which still has his fingerprints (ink, not paint) on it. If he doesn't like what he helped to create, then he shares a commonality with apostolic figures since the time of Paul. Welcome to the club!!! Although I don't think he will get the Fundamentalist vote for long, IF indeed he gets it,  I think it is great that he has figured out a way to stay Reformed, connect with the emerging culture in his town, put some more milage on the Constantinian/Christendom model of church, and give us so much high-octane pleasure when he gets on stage. And i would expect a few of those dangerous moments on his blog as well. Hopefully it will be driving adventure without the wreckage.

His blog is called Resurgence and you can download his videos, his sermons, his lucheons with Christian celebrities  [are you still reading this] and his sucessful life as an Emerging-Reformed pastor and his ongoing struggle to shake off some embarrassing ecumenical associations. Mark is also starting up a new group and a conference called Reform and Resurge. Those who want to follow Mark where he is headed should consider attending the conference. Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer are also speaking so it should be OK. I am looking forward to see what contribution towards a holistic trinitarian missiology the Reformed folk can bring to the table. We know they have stuff to offer and it will be good to see them tease it out of 16th Century Europe and offer it as a gift to the wider body of Christ.  If anyone can do it . . . I am sure Mark can . . . with pinache, humor, hair-raising offense and a statistical analysis of how many people it impacted.

Right. Where were we? Ahhhh yes. . .  Minneapolis!.

Now about that sheep. . .

No . . . really . .. I must stop here. Its 6:30 on Saturday morning and I have had my blog fun. Time to make crepes for the family and Elizabeth's friends who stayed over for her birthday party. And another birthday begins - my Son Samuel turns 15 today. My wife will be up soon and i am not supposed to be blogging on weekends so  . . . . have a great weekend everyone!

UPdate:

Related:
Mark Driscoll: The Skinny
Mark Driscoll Responds
The fat lazy blog-post that has let itself go.
Is the Blogosphere Ready for Mark Driscoll?

Comments

[bob]

Thanks for the shout out Andrew... and for the perspective. :)

[andrew]

go to sleep, Bob. Dangitt! Its way past your bedtime!

[Kevin Cawley]

I'm awake with Bob in the same time zone...wishing I was asleep. Thanks for the good words Andrew.

[ron]

Thankyou for these " encouraging " words Andrew, it is a breath of fresh air compared to alot of what I've been reading. you are so right about putting comments on other peoples blogs...in an instant you can have the bridge burnt from under your feet.

[Chris]

Gidday no problem with a fight I reckon we need to be fighting for the right things. Mark sounded like a smart a__ to me. With a touch of arrogance and self righteousness thrown in.

I must admit the arguments get a bit tiring. I appreciate what guys like yourself are doing and I think that Carson etc make a lot of sense in their criticism. Driscoll just sounded like he was up himself and indulged in a sarcastic article. I reckon we can lift the game a bit if we expect to relate to a non Christian.

[Call Me Ishmael]

Ready or not, here he comes.

[geo]

My question 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!

Peace
Geo

[Larry]

Church's stand on fat people? How are "fat people" and "homosexuals" alike? They aren't. Look, the Bible is clear about gluttony (it is a sin), and the Bible is clearl about homosexuality (it is a sin). And the Bible is clear that the two are not equal. Don't be silly.

But Mark has certainly talked about fat people, so you can't really accuse him of inconsistency.

Good article, Andrew. I have listened to Mark for a couple of years, and you are right that he is very engaging. He is a great communicator. He is very often "over the top," probably to his detriment. I read the original article, and thought it wasn't that good. But I am trying to remember what he said that was taken out. Unlike you, I didn't save it.

I think Mark's strength (boldness and energy) is also a great weakness. He sometimes seems to evidence a lack of common sense and propriety. I notice he doesn't allow comments on his blog. Probably smart ...

[Christian Cryder]

Andrew, I REALLY appreciate your comments here. I resonate w/ what Mark said (but I don't know him from Adam). Others, obviously, resonate w/ McLaren and feel like he's been bashed (and they probably don't know him from Adam either). It's amazing how fundamentalistically shrill we can all sound as we judge these men whom we really don't know.

It's nice to hear your perspective as someone who knows them both personally (and to remember also that they know one another personally as well).

It seems to me that BOTH Driscoll and McLaren illustrate the diversity of personality in the body of Christ. If we are really serious about dialogue and diversity and stuff like that, we are going to have to be willing to learn to embrace (and actually appreciate) some of our quirkier family members like Uncle Brian and Cousin Mark. And I think that is a little easier when we can see them personally (as you have presented them to us).

Thanks brother...

[Christian Cryder]

Here's a followup question, and I'd just be very interested in your thoughts as someone who knows Mark personally. I hear his brashness, and yet I also see signs of genuine humility, and I think "He must really have a lot of confidence in the gospel" - in other words, he really doesn't care what people think of him; he doesn't seem to care if he says things that make himself look bad, because he is seeking to find his self-worth and sufficiency in the gospel, not in the approval of others. That's just the sense I get (but I haven't read a lot of his stuff).

With Brian, on the other hand, I keep getting this sense that he really wants people to like him (but again, I haven't read a lot of his stuff either).

(And if you don't want to touch this question with a 10 foot pole, that's fine too...)

[andrew]

uncle brian and cousin mark

i like that!!!

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Andrew,

I appreciate the well informed, clear and gently humourous approach you used in this post. It is what has been needed all along.

While I agree with much of your perspecive (Mark was the first person to really start me on this emerging journey, for which I am deeply grateful), and while I am well used to interact with people of different view points and beliefs, I still believe that Mark crossed a line in his sharpness. There are many people who read/hear him and model their own treatment of people after him. This alone should give him pause.

I am not sure if it just a matter of "the heat from the encounter with alternative viewpoints" at issue here. Part of such encounters is owning up to ones mistakes, which is what I believe Mark has done (in part) in his post. I am not saying he should throw himself before "the courts" (or a bus, for that matter), just simply lead by example and apologize for going a little too far.

The fact is that I identify with his frustration where this issue is concerned. I understand (and can partial affirm) what Brian is trying to do/say in his approach, but it isn't without its faults either. In my recent series of posts on homosexuality, a friend "Alex" shared his struggle with homosexuality. I asked him his feelings on McLaren's approach. He said:

"I appreciate Brian's understanding that stating a fact about the morality of homosexuality is different from speaking the truth. We cannot seperate the personal from the intellectual where theology is concerned. However, as someone who struggles with homosexual orientation, McLaren can leave me wondering, hoping that maybe its ok to pursue this lifestyle- a hope I believe is false when looked at against Scripture. I know it isn't his intention, but people are still going to be hurt."

Great post, Andrew. Thanks.

Peace,
Jamie

[Dave Travis]

Hey Andrew,
Slight correction to your original post. Driscoll's post is on the site of Out of Ur which is affiliated with Leadership Journal an operation of Christianity Today Inc.

Leadership Network is a totally seperate entity not owned or affiliated with Leadership Journal.

Leadership Network has helped publish both Brian McClaren's and is also helping publish a new book by Mark Driscoll in the near future.

Dave Travis
Leadership Network

[robert terrell]

while i don't agree with a lot that driscoll says i do appreciate his wit and sarcasm. it obviously causes a "knee jerk" reaction sometimes but i believe we need that every know and them.

btw, great multiple use of "bollock".

[andrew]

dave

nice to hear from you

thanks - i didnt see that error (lack of coffee) and i just corrected it.

Great to see Leadership Network is big enough to avoid polarization and is supporting the whole body of Christ.

Speaking of Leadership Journal and CT, i would say that they have now entered the blogging world also - and are doing a great job hosting a controversial subject. Their previous "blog" had no facility to post comments and they were posting articles rather than blog posts. Good on them.

[Steve McCoy]

Hey Andrew. Thanks for a good post on this, and the opportunity for many to gain a wider understanding of the EC, Emergent, McLaren and Driscoll.

And thanks for the link too.

[Jon]

Thanks for the history and the humor. I'm calmer now.

[jason_73]

Great post Andrew. I guess it's another case of not knowing someones theology unless you really know them as people. We say all kinds of rants that we usually regret a bit. Having been to Mars Hill and being shocked as it was way different than I thought, I can relate in your discription of him, putting it in way more context. Those that have listened to Mark know he is the first to admit his mouth is his greatest struggle. But I do think very, very, very few of us here in the blogosphere know these gentlemen and we should be very careful before we draw such airtight conclusions to who they really are. (Although I'd really like to spend some time with you guys if your ever in British Columbia!).

[Bob C]

It saddens me even more that Driscoll (and those who know him) are aware of his tendency towards verbal violenece & have know it for some time.

[Bob C]

it's also odd to me when folks rant or exclude and we term it midrash - but when Scripture is interpreted by others, we tend to see it as falling short

[Mark Berry]

To be honest, having read the "dogma" of MH church... there is enough distance from anything I would connect with EC, e.g...

We do not believe in feminism because we believe that men should responsibly lead homes and churches with sacrificial love like Jesus Christ.

...without the need to resort to vitriol and insults aimed at folk who I assume he once counted as friends... If this is the kind of rhetoric he comes out with on 'stage' then no matter how entertaining he is I would not want to listen to him for 5mins never mind an hour.

[Scot McKnight]

Andrew,
Thanks for this piece, esp on the history of relations between the various leaders of Emergent and folks like Driscoll.

Two comments:

First, I have no idea where you get your definition of "midrash" for your definition sounds more like Hegelian dialectic. Midrash is interpretation of all sorts, not just the clashing of views.

Second, it is very pomo of you to say you like Driscoll so therefore you put up with his comments, for it shows the interpersonal relations inherent to all genuine conversation. But, as we learned from Aristotle, relationship does always mean condoning but involves correction and exhortation. Driscoll's rhetoric is uncharitable and unChristian, even if one agrees with his overall stance (which is traditional) about homosexuality.

Andrew, I rarely see such vitriol coming from a Christian leader, and I'd like you to reconsider support of his rhetoric as something Driscoll is known for. Offensive rhetoric puts folks on their heals; conversation welcomes to the table; the pursuit of truth enables us to argue our differences.

[andrew]

thanks scot

i am borrowing the term directly from Mark Driscoll in the way he describes it, rather than a general or biblical translation of the word.

thanks

[Scot McKnight]

Andrew,
How were the crepes?

Time for me to get my sermon notes into better shape. Preaching tomorrow at a wonderful church plant that is doing great things in the community (NorthBridge). And it's Baptist.

[+ Alan]

Not so much getting into the goings on between Driscoll and McLaren, et al. I just wanted to briefly comment that I'm not sure I have tons of time or mercy for someone who is one way "on the stage" and another "in the house." Not just directing that at dude, whom I do not know, but simply as a concept in general (especially as deals with Christian "ministers") - that public vs. private incongruance is a problem. It is, in fact, one of the problems with the whole way leadership is done that I think many of us in a certain corner of the "emerging church" have been trying to deal with, get away from, etc. Peace to all in this house.

[dave]

Andrew, Driscoll did sound a bit harsh, Mclaren did sound a bit vague but, because it appeared on CT its not OK? Some of the comments on emerging church blogs have been equally harsh, many even more so. This may have been because the abusers didnt understand the abused or for some other reason.

People just need to chill,get over it, and get along. I have noticed that in reading some of the blogs that those siding with the truth of Driscoll are happy to state their position on homosexuality, but those siding with McLaren are not willing to state their position, only comment on what was said.

Now why is that? Someone tell me

[Christian Cryder]

I find myself wondering if homsexuality is going to become the evangelical litmus test that inerrancy was in the 80s and 90s. And I wonder if it will become the defining issue that actually splits the emerging "camp" into distinct subcategories by forcing them to take a stand on content.

I think Dave (in the previous comment) has put his finger quarely on the rub, and it's something I've asked elsewhere: Where is the EM unashamedly bold?

[Ed C]

I have to face up to the fact that I could read Driscoll's article several times, associate a plausible voice/tone to him, and get something different from it every time. I see both an angry fundy furiously pounding at the keys and a snickering wise guy just having fun by putting on a tough, controversial front.

Which of these, if any, reprents the true Dricoll? Beats me. Your thoughts have been incredibly helpful though Andrew. I think I read him more charitably after reading what you had to say (in the convert blog post during the early hours of a saturday morning. tsk, tsk, TSK).

I have actually heard from a number of people that Mark has a really big heart for people. And while this is true, he can sound rough and uncaring. Is this part of a front? Probably. Why is it necessary? Maybe he's trying to stir the pot and get people talking, even if the means are questionable. Oh, it worked.

Is it justifiable? I don't know. I can't answer that question without hurting people on both sides. . . Maybe we need to not discuss Mark Driscoll's "style" for 5-10 years.

One final note. The sheep remark was priceless. Totally over the top, inappropriate, and out of the blue. I can't say that I approve of the statement, it probably was right to remove it, but I'm still laughing 15 minutes later.

[Gary Davis]

I have to be really honest with you here. Mr Driscoll seems to be taking a lot of flak for just simply stating some very CLEAR truths of the scripture. If that makes him an enemy of the "emergent" Church...well them my opinion of the emergent Church just went down a few notches.

[andrew]

right - back again

Gary - we are talking about Marks rudeness, rather than theology.

Scot - my wife kicked me off the computer halfway thru my response.

midrash - mark's term, here described in relation to mars hill: link"
"Midrash! (a Hebrew word for a constructive forum for argument based on the notion that truth is foung between the tensions)."

as for mark's rudeness - i will consider your challenge to review my stance.

my best guess, given that love believes all things, is that this is Mark sounding out the blogosphere, looking for a possible fight because this is how he learns and operates. He is exceedingly rude to those (Doug) who know him and like him and can not only put up with him but also bounce back from the floor and give him a run for his money.

Mark is probably expecting a Grand Slam and will disppointed if he does not get one. Aussies will understand this - insulting someone can be a a way to start a conversation. Clumsy, though, isnt it?

The other option, that i have not considered, is that Mark needs a new funding source for his resource-heavy models of church (think Concorde in a world of Cessnas) that he wants to plant and, since that money in USA lies with the Fundies, he is making a calculated move to distance himself from any possible threat to those funds. If this is true, then he really should be chided and spanked like a baby for being un-Christlike. But as i say . . . I am not even CONSIDERING that option.

And Scot, I also have to preach in a Baptist church this morning and lead communion. In two hours actually. . .

must go.

[hamo]

he sounded like a right wanker to me...

but then I'm an Aussie :)

seriously - there is blog ettiquette and I don't think Mark was within the bounds of that. Maybe the question ought to be 'is Mark Driscoll ready for the blogospehre?'

Ironically I would probably take Mark's position theologically, but wouldn't want to be associated with him right now because of his attitude.

What does that say?...

[djchuang]

Rudy awoke me from my slumber, er book editing mode, to stop in and check out the buzz on Driscoll, and it's classic entertaining & cringing fighting words, both at the same time! Even if the emerging church conversation can be all over the place, it is at the least entertaining, loosely defined as holding one's attention (circa Rick Warren). And props out to Dave Travis for stopping by, hope to see your voice in the blogosphere soon too!

[Dana Ames]

Happy Birthday Samuel!
Hope you had an enjoyable day.

Andrew, it was a long post, and you said much more than you wrote. I thank God again for your presence in the blogosphere, for it is where I know you.

Love to you & Family-
Dana

[Kyle Essary]

To be honest, the final line of Driscoll's "rant" ticked me off as much as anything by adding "this is all just gay" or whatever it was he said exactly.

If the whole purpose is reaching out to homosexuals with the love of Christ (whatever that may look like), then why use the term "gay" in a negative way meaning that something is silly or stupid? I would assume that any homosexual who made it that far through the post would have been very angry after the ending.

I personally resonate with Mark's stance, but with McLaren's attitude. I do not think we should take a 5-10 year break, but let's be loving about the whole issue and deal with it in a way that mimics Christ...not in the manner that Mark did.

[Existential Punk]

I am someone in the emerging conversation and i will say it - i have no problems with homosexuals and homosexuality. I am for gay rights and gay marriage. I am not so sure Scripture is against it in light of so much scripture from christendom that was written down by scribes who made mistakes or purposely rewrote it. I have several friends who are Christians and gay. They have a more beautiful and real relationship with Christ than many heterosexual christians i know. Maybe unnatural in the NT meant heterosexuality was unnatural to homosexuals. Also, in the OT, if homosexuality is prohibited, why do we not prohibit all the other things listed as well? Humans are such hypocrites. I don't know all the answers to this issue but i rather err on the side of love and compassion rather than dogmatic, fundamental, moralistic, judgmental criticism. Part of the beauty of Christ is mystery and vagueness and NOT having ALL the answers. This is very postmodern and we have to think through things and not look to someone else always for the answers. So, let's quit looking to Brian McLaren and Mark Driscoll for the answers for they are NOT God. We are always going to disagree about something. Let's just agree to disagree, quit being mean-spirited, and recognize we don't know the answers and proper interpretations to all of Scripture. God have mercy on us all and show us when and if we are in sin about anything in our lives. Pax, Adele

[wfseube]

Andrew wrote: Gary - we are talking about Marks rudeness, rather than theology.

So Andrew, do you believe that Martin Luther was "rude" in his writings about Erasmus and his aberrant opinions on free will? Take a read at "Bondage of the Will" (you probably have some time in the past). Seems to me like Mark has taken a similar path...

[Chris Giammona]

Andrew

While many of us do not agree with the conclusions reached by McLaren, he did make some relevant points that we need to ponder in ministry with the gay community (from years of experience in New York City).

Even so, Driscoll is not jsutified in his rudeness and arogance. It is ok to criticize a point of view, but making it personal crosses the line of charity and respect.

I would add that Driscoll, while in your terms maybe looking for a good online debate, did not offer any alternatives to the question of dealing with the gay community. He simply rants at McLaren and the ECM.

Chris
cgiammona.blogs.com

[andrew]

thanks chris

i dont think McLaren really published his conclusions on the matter in those blog posts but he will be posting something today on the Out Of Ur site that should be a little clearer.

[dave]

McLarens second post is up now, I've responded, we`ll see if it is published.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o_3.html

[Gay Christian Hit Radio]

This is the missing sentence.

"“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.” - Mark Driscoll.

Lance

[BryonM]

I think I like this blog

[Shayne Lee]

Driscoll is not emergent and his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev. is not a confessional. All he confesses are fundamentalist views about biblical inerrancy, and sexist/patriarchal views about male leadership in the church and his home that are disturbing to most open-minded, postmodern Christians in the emerging church movement. He sounds like a terrible pastor in the self-righteous way that he responded to men in his church who struggled with sexual sins (emerging people don't respond like that). The book seems more like a polemic against his enemies than a confessional: he takes unnecessary jabs at McLaren and Emergent, and even makes a strange reference to Donald Miller's portrayal of him in Blue Like Jazz as "Cussing Mark." There was absolutely no reason for the Miller reference but to show he was upset at Miller. I see this book as a self-righteous apologetic rather than a confessional and I can't imagine anyone in the emerging church movement (with the exception of Dan Kimball) enjoying this book.

[andrew (tall skinny kiwi)]

thanks shayne

uh . . . . what book?

[Kelly Phelps]

I have spent too many years in a self made hell fueled by drugs and sex and violence. My older brother, 1 older nephew and one neice are completely smitten by Driscoll. None of them, as I suspect is the case with Driscoll, have fallen very that far down in to sin:

My older nephew is attending Seminary in Boston Mass. He attended a Driscoll led conference. At the conference there was a lecture about sex in the marriage and he gave a very graphical description to a room full of strangers about how his wife and I quote "will ride him while fingering her clit until orgasm."

I have met some of my youger nephew's friends who regularly go to hear Driscoll speak while fried on Marijuana. Clearly his words lend more to a good "trip" then lend to the conviction of a sin wracked soul. How in the world can anyone go to church stoned and not come out feeling totally guilty?!? And they do this all the time for the fun of it.

To be willing activly use foul language as my older brother has confirmed he does sometimes does nothing more than perpetuate what me, my wife AND MY DAUGHTER already hear in an already godless world. If I use a foul word even one time my daughter, because she loves me, will automatically think it is OK - it is not, period!!!!

There is danger in being too much in the world.

Evangelism is not a new fad that has to be reinvented or re-emphasized for the sake of ones own ego. It is merely the act of Christ's love moving one to go unceremoniously, as an example, to a jail cell full of some hellish folks like I once was and introduce Christ's Words to those who would hear.