Comments on: Review: Confessions of a Reformission Rev by Mark Driscoll

By: Tim B

Tim B — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:52:42 +0000

Love Driscoll’s book.
It’s time we come to grips and accept that our pastors are really just regular guys like us. We shouldn’t expect them to be anything but; so they struggle and have weaknesses and sometimes get pissed off and cuss? Well so do I. Get over it.

Another ‘confession’ book from a pastor I recommend is “Confessions of a Pastor” by Craig Groeschel–unrelated to Driscoll’s book but just as effective in tearing down our foolish misconceptions of what a pastor should look like.

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Pastor-Adventures-Dropping-Getting/dp/1590527208/sr=8-1/qid=1167709079/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4429473-3764668?ie=UTF8&s=books

By: Gaddabout

Gaddabout — Mon, 22 May 2006 19:22:19 +0000

Mark has something in his nature, his character, that too many pastors try to create and manipulate with methodology; Mark has credibility. He has credibility because he speaks plainly … sometimes a little too salty, and I consider that a weakness, not a strength … but younger people in the real world can relate to him. He’s unapologetically real about his business, but sensible enough to remain grounded in the tradition of reformational truths. That’s a powder keg of a combination.

In a world with so many people under 40 getting their news and political opinions from Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Jon Stewart, a pastor like Mark Driscoll makes total sense to me.

By: GerryBreshears

GerryBreshears — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:51:42 +0000

There are three legs to any good church stool: confessional (faithful to the biblical witness in theology and world view), experiential (Community of the Spirit who regenerates and unifies) and missional (following the mission of Jesus to reach lost and hurting people).

A good thing Mark does, following a suggestion from Dan Kimball, is give McLaren and friends the term Emergent (as in Emergent Village who are generally theologically unplugged) and use the term Emerging for those who want all three legs in their churches.

Significant difference in any of these three areas will make it hard to associate in anything more than a superficial way, it seems to me. So I think Mark is right on target.

Gerry Breshears

By: mshedden

mshedden — Fri, 19 May 2006 04:06:51 +0000

Scott,
You are exactly right about Driscoll in so many ways. The sad part (or happy depending how you look at it) is what you are right about is the same reasons a lot of younger people don’t want to listen to him. And you are right about him being a voice for christainty the problem is why does someone who dislikes the emerging church movement so much consider himself part of it. Why is it whenever he writes an article about it (see Criswell Theological Review) he divides the emerging church into a us vs. them (liberal vs. conservative), when most of the emerging churches are trying to overcome those basic labels by being in community with each other regardless. He has plenty of people who love him, love his books, and love his view of “truly biblical Christianity” and always will. Just as Pat Robertson has people who will always listen to him, and so does McLaren. The choice comes to what type of leader you want to follow, and what type of issues are worth alienating people over, and whether we should take humility in light of the whole bible, or be bold on a certain moral issue (I don’t say social because I am not sure I have ever heard him talk about some real social issues ie the Darfur, AIDs Crisis in Africa. unfair trade). But aside from that I am sure he is a great guy and a great pastor, and I wish his minstry the best.

By: mzellen

mzellen — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:30:21 +0000

On smoking in Bible studies…my son smoked and struggles with it.

Instead of encouraging him, a “smoker’s Bible study” would make it more difficult.

It’s just a thought.

By: Scott Eaton

Scott Eaton — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:29:29 +0000

Does it really matter if Driscoll has a voice in the emergent movement? He has a voice in the Christian movement. He is a voice for truly biblical Christianity. He is a voice for sound theology and biblical fidelity combined with missional relevancy. Big whoop if he runs with Pagitt, McKnight, Bell, Jones, or McLaren. They may have larger voices, but are they faithful voices? I think Driscoll would do well to continue blazing a new trail whether it is called emergent or not. Younger leaders and progressive thinkers who are also concerned with biblical fidelity will follow.

By the way, when did hard hitting and confrontational speech become an indicator of a lack of humility? The apostle Paul was a bit forward when he told the Galatians to cut it off! Does Driscoll need to learn some humility? I’m sure he does (he who is without sin cast the first stone). Was he wise in all of his comments about McLaren? Unfortunately no. But God help us if he stops speaking truthfully and boldly about social and moral issues which are clear in Scripture. Surely we need one “emergent” leader who is not confused.

By: mshedden

mshedden — Thu, 18 May 2006 23:52:16 +0000

I think it is a bold step to say that Mark Driscoll is going to be a large voice in the emerging church movement. His perspective on women in ministry, the bible, and Calvinism, all tend to go against what a lot of emerging churches are trying to do. When I attended the emerging church conference most people where not talking about that Mars Hill, they were talking about the Mars Hill in Michigan, Rob Bell’s Church, or the seminary in Seattle (not tied to the church). However I do think he will sell well to the “we want to hip and emerging, but women pastors freak us out crowd, or we want Calvin, or the bible needs to be the three I’s (infallibly, inerrant, inspired) or it isn’t the word of God, or we know who’s going to hell, crowd. These groups will have a harder time switching over to a more modest (humble) Post-modern emerging church theology (Dare I say a less generous orthodoxy). Even the idea of beaming in sermons seems to be opposite of the community the emerging church is trying to form. Or perhaps if you read his comments about the faith Doug Pagitt & Karen Ward you might see his lack of humilty on issues (He did aplogize which is great, and I do think higher of him for that.) I think the larger voices of the Emerging Church will continue to be McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Scot McKnight, Rob Bell, and Tony Jones.

By: Scott Davison

Scott Davison — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:47:03 +0000

I actually just recieved this book at the Reform and Resurgence up at Mars hill last week. I started it and have found it good so far. Where the difficulty lies for me is in the exact words of Josh Harris whom I also heard speak, “Remember you are not Mark Driscoll”.
You see I am in sales therefore marketing for me is a way of life. This methodolgy right or wrong is just what it takes to grow a big church these days. I spent a lot of time talking to people at the conference who go to the church and found a cult like following of Driscoll. He is a VERY COOL guy and easy to like, which I am sorry to say made me respond adversly.
I hope the best for Mars Hill and I know a lot of people will be challenged by this book. We all need to be challenged

By: mkjergaard

mkjergaard — Thu, 18 May 2006 15:40:28 +0000

Michael,

I loved this book too. It was very informative. I went to Mars Hill’s website and listened to a few of Driscoll’s messages. I was surprised at how “normal” the guy was. Thanks for the review.