UPDATE: In addition to criticizing Driscoll for his nutty exegesis of Song of Solomon and his less than impressive analysis of The Shack, I’ve backed up Pastor Mark before.
It became painfully/strangely/humorously obvious at this week’s SBC meeting that a lot of people are worried about Mark Driscoll.
I’d like to suggest a brief program to calm you people down before you hurt yourselves, or worse, start a preaching series on cursing preachers who link sex toys on their sermon pages.
1. First, cards on the table: I am, for the most part, a supporter of Driscoll. I’m not in agreement with him on gender issues, and I’ll criticize him without mumbling on a collection of boneheaded maneuvers. But the guy’s vulnerability, passion for the Gospel, missionary’s heart, vision for church planting and insight into contemporary ministry far outweigh his flaws. Give him a few years and some room to be a goober.
2. The 75% of the problem you people have with Driscoll is that he’s bone-headed enough to hang some of his laundry out on the clothesline where we can see it. Trust me: all your preacher-heroes are flawed in ways that would disappoint you. Driscoll’s flaws simply have to do with his public persona. The other 25% really are flaws that, while not disqualifying, do need to be repaired, and I am confident they will be.
3. Much of the Driscoll hysteria is pure hype. Donald Miller called him the cussing preacher and most of you think Donald Miller is an emerging church apostate. Can you locate a quote of Driscoll “cussing” in a sermon? (We’ll talk about his topical and vocabulary choices in a moment.) I heard him say “Who the hell do you think you are?” once. If you have the impression that Driscoll’s language is the swearing equivalent of Good Will Hunting, you’re misinformed.
4. Here’s the deal: when he’s on the topic of sex, he talks like he’s on late night television. IOWs, he discusses sex very much unlike any preacher you know, and more like a typical guy in Seattle. He needs to change this. The problem is that Driscoll’s success has given him an audience of people who have no place whatsoever to process a joke about masturbation, etc. or to see Driscoll as embarrassing, but not dangerous.
5. My good friend- and I mean that folks- Frank Turk and I are going to have a mini-debate on here sometime regarding whether and how Driscoll should apologize for the extent of his poor example and distraction to the Gospel. I believe Driscoll’s willingness- imperfect as it may be- to be mentored by men like John Piper is as good an example as his occasionally crude words are a bad example.
6. Most of Driscoll’s problems relate to a sermon series that I believe was an unmitigated disaster. I’m willing to give the guy that one. I expect him to learn a few things.
7. If your pastor or youth minister is behaving poorly, it’s an issue in your church and in his context. Don’t think a motion at the SBC is going to make your little Driscoll fanboy sit up and fly right. That’s your bad choice of a person to work at your church. I’d advise you to get him a mentor and some feedback, and see if he grows.
8. Definitions of “holiness” in evangelicalism can get pretty prissy. The Bible has a lot of characters who are a lot more like Driscoll than they are like some prissy, fussy, fainting, prude of a morality cop. Men respect Driscoll for his imperfect holiness. People who are offended at his imperfect holiness may be in a zone that the rest of us should avoid anyway. Sometimes what offends you is offensive, and sometimes it’s an indication you ought to be doing something more constructive with your time.
9. Banning Driscoll at Lifeway will do exactly nothing…..except maybe make him more interesting. The man has millions of mp3 and video downloads a month. Lifeway books aren’t actually where those who like his preaching plug into him. This is the way the world works now. Denominational approval is not required. Piper GIVES AWAY his books for Pete’s sake. If the SBC votes that Driscoll is bad, a few people feel better and Driscoll’s stuff sells 5% more than last month.
10. Listen carefully: preacher boys liking Driscoll has to do with Driscoll getting about 25 things right most of the critics have been complaining about for years. If he grows as a person in the next 5 years in the directions most of us think he will, I don’t think you are going to want to have dumped him in the trash for being young and arrogant on occasion.
Driscoll has made a few bad decisions. Who hasn’t? But you cannot fault the man’s zeal and committment. Peter made a few bad choices, he turned out ok. So will Driscoll as long as he keeps Christ first and formost in his life and ministry.
some room to be a goober…
that is where i stopped in reading.
it says it all.
we could all stand to give people a little more room to be a goober.
come on over to my blog and visit sometime
By ‘a sermon series that I believe was an unmitigated disaster’ I take it you mean ‘The Peasant Princess’ series… or was there another you had in mind.
I think we should harp more on his mistakes. That way we will overshadow the fact that he is effectively helping reach numerous people in a traditionally non-Christian area, and is helping set up effective Christian networks.
Why would we want to acknowledge that positive stuff?
Maybe because he is not doing it in a “traditional” way (ie. “my way”).
I am curious about which sermon series is being referenced to as well. I was turned onto Driscoll through the “Peasant Princess” series. So I am curious.
I considered the exegesis of Song of Solomon in that series to be an unmitigated disaster, while most of the application was simply hung onto the text to suit Pastor Mark.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/whats-a-conservative-reading-of-song-of-solomon
Does the SBC really want to go here? Do they really want to start criticizing every little thing a preacher does? There is plenty of “dirt” on plenty of SBC pastors. Nothing that would disqualify them from the ministry, but enough that it would upset or disillusion the same people who are upset with Driscoll. These pastors just hide their dirt while Driscoll is honest about his.
I’m not a Driscoll fanboy. I find him helpful at times and frustrating at others. He makes me laugh and makes me cringe. So what. Many of the saints in Scripture make me do the same. Come on, people! What about the gospel don’t you understand?
I appreciate Driscoll’s honesty and candor. We talk about being “authentic Christians,” but when people finally see one it pisses them off. When we finally see a messy life that has been redeemed by the cross of Christ we go nuts. When we see that sancification is acutally a process we can’t handle it. Good grief! No wonder so many people stay away from us out of fear that they might be condemned if we really knew the real them.
Honestly, this stuff wears me out. Let’s get our eyes off ourselves and onto Jesus.
Mark who?
I’ve too much to do with my own church to be worried about the latest fad preacher. So, I really don’t understand the uproar, either for or against, this man. Very few folks warrant this kind of attention. He is not one of the few.
But I did hear a young man at the SBC that could warrant further scrutiny — David Platt. He is the real deal.
You’ve just ruined me among my peeps. Next thing you know Bob Hyatt is going to start saying nice things about me and I’m going to have to sign a list of affirmations and denials or be burned at the stake.
BTW, We can start the firefall on Pastor Driscoll’s foibles at your convenience.
Maybe I’m in a very small minority, but none of the things you mentioned bother me (well except his version of complementarianism), what concerns me is the over use of fear and intimidation. I recall one person say that Mark Discoll can make most any man wet himself when he’s fired up and angry. To me this would border on spiritual abuse. I know that there are plenty of old fasioned conservative preachers who do this as well, and I wouldn’t darken the door of their churches either. As a person who grew up in an abusive home, I could not sit under him, nor would I subject anyone I care about to his preaching, or the Jonathan Edwards like version of an angry God he portrays.
I think that the sex series is only one aspect of a multitude of problems with Driscoll. I hope you are right that he will improve a bit down the line but I have some reservations.
1. He claimed the pastors wives let themselves go and need to look better. He has a video of his wife chasing her kids around on the street dressed in high heels and leather pants. Not only is this impractical and obviously staged but, look at Driscoll himself. He’s appears overweight and wears a Mickey Mouse t shirt. He should point his finger to pastors who “let themselves go” as well.
2. His autocratic church structure led to his firing of some pastors on his staff without due warning. He also made statements just prior to their firing about “punching them in the nose.” He routinely says these sorts of things, coming across as a guy who was bullied as a little boy and now gets to bully back.
3. His cutesy sex talks are leading to expectations in college crowds of a good, juicy lesson. His use of twitter and his answering of questions seem a bit staged.
4.I liked him on ABC during the debate on Satan.
I am concerned that Driscoll, gifted communicator notwithstanding, has some underlying issues that could one day surface and further hurt the cause for Christ. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.
Please visit our blog. A few weeks back we did a series on Driscoll that lasted a week. We have links to you tube, etc. to make our case.
Finally, in case you think that I am some sort of reactionary Christian, I was a public health nurse for many years. I was disabused of any modesty in speech by the end of the first week. I am quite comfortable discussing said topics. I just think there is enough evidence to be a bit concerned about this guy. Once again, I hope I am wrong.
http://www.thewartburgwtach.com mash the blog button at the top of the page.
Blessings
Dee
The reproach of most of ‘church’ today is not that it is categorically false, but boring and irrelevant. Love him or hate him, you can’t pin that on Mark Driscoll.
The fact that he is willingly and purposefully being mentored speaks loudly , to me, about where he’s at as a pastor and a man.
Greg R
I guess I could be called a Driscoll fanboy. I listen to all of his sermons and find myself defending him on some of the conservative blogs I frequent. What I keep asking for and not getting is the list of words in Scripture that violate Ephesians 4:29 and Ephesians 5:4. Many folks think that his style is so obviously over-the-top that it doesn’t even warrant discussion. Granted, he is not for the old ladies at the First Baptist Church. However, that’s not his audience either.
What I find particularly fascinating is that his detractors sure sound a lot like Spurgeon’s back in his day. And most of his detractors with whom I interact are unashamed Spurgeon fanboys.
Scott,
Because you’ve not heard of Pastor Driscoll a “fad preacher” makes him not. He’s young, but he’s been at this preaching thing for quite a few years already. He heads one of the most remarkable, back-to-basics, churches I’ve ever been to which happens to reside in one of the most remarkable religion-free areas in the entire U.S.
He’s the real deal, not a “fad preacher”.
Regarding point #5 on whether Driscoll should apologize for his poor example, I don’t think there’s a need for a debate, because he’s already done it. His sermon on humility (which I found to be outstanding) addresses this: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rebels-guide-to-joy/the-rebels-guide-to-joy-in-humility
Imonk,
I would like to know what the 25 things are that Driscoll gets right in your opinion.
I don’t follow Driscoll much and don’t have that much of an opinion about him. Except that I generally don’t care for his style of church, that is big and contemporary. But it wouldn’t be anything against him personally. I wouldn’t get on a man for using profane language either, as long as he does so with proper syntax. But just to see where the evangelical or post evangelical world is, could you list a few of those things he gets right?
I think most of the fuss over Driscoll is about 1 Cor 7:5, and his tendency to call us to repentance on that.
I suspect that most of us do need to repent there, but because nobody else dares to preach that verse it is easier to label Driscoll as a radical than to consider the scripture.
I really enjoyed the radio interview he did some time ago. He admitted that sometimes he had gone too far. But then he pointed out that it is also a sin not to go far enough.
He went too far in Scotland when he preached SoS… But his other lecture there on the 11 aspects of the atonement was one of the best sermons I have ever heard.
As far as the abusive tone goes. Most of us deserve to be yelled at sometimes. I know a lot of men from his church, and they seem enjoy learning from a guy who doesn’t use kid gloves around the issues that are destroying their lives.
Dave,
Oh, I’ve heard of him. The point is he doesn’t matter to me. He is not the center of my ministry. Platt isn’t either, but from what I know of the two, Platt deserves more attention. I’m glad you have regard for Driscoll. But that doesn’t make him relevant either.
I guess, to each his own.
The Wittenburg Door wrote the best piece on Driscoll I’ve ever seen at http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/driscoll-kicks-own-ass
Note: you should ALWAYS consult the Wittenburg Door before making deep spiritual judgements.
Jason: One of the most common words used by Spurgeon’s critics about his language was “racy.” Spurgeon of course never used any form of profanity, but his language was called too common.
I’m glad you’re sticking up for Driscoll and telling us that he’s not as black as he’s painted; I was never so glad to be single and Catholic as when I read the advice he (allegedly) dished out to guys about Christians and sex – yes, Mark, way to impress women when their husband whines “But honey, it doesn’t matter if you don’t like doing this! The Bible says you’re not a good wife if you don’t!” Never mind the “Oooh, ‘Song of Solomon’ as an allegory of the relation between Jesus and the soul? Gay vibes!” silliness. Er, Mark, you do realise that it was written by a MAN and that the bits you were quoting are a MAN (using the persona of a woman) talking about another MAN embracing and kissing? Honestly, I wanted to bundle together “The Ascent of Mount Carmel” and “The Theology of the Body” and whap him over the head with them
However, if he gets over the “Hey, us modern guys aren’t one bit hung up about sex, heh heh heh” and, as you say, he does indeed truly preach the Good News of salvation from sin, I can get over my maiden aunt desire to say “Stop that right now, young man!” (Yes, I actually am a maiden aunt)
Honestly, I wanted
Martha:
I don’t know if your knowledge of MD goes beyond Youtube clips, but I seriously doubt it. Driscoll preaches the Gospel and through books exegetically. The caricature of his views on gender doesn’t really help us understand the right or the wrong.
Evangelical views on sex in marriage may have some flaws, but turning all men into practical rapists isn’t one of them.
And your version of the Song of Solomon is not the original author’s intent. Solomon wrote that about Yahweh and Israel? Uh…right.
It’s the Catholic Church’s way of getting around the sexual content. It plainly says what it says. The question is about canon, not about original intent.
ALL: This conversation needs to proceed with a bit of honesty about how much Driscoll you’ve heard or read. And please don’t link watchbloggers.
ms
I wish I could remember who this was supposed to be about, but the aging brain can’t do it
Years and years ago, I read an anecdote about a famous 18th century saint who preached a sermon that had the fashionable congregation riveted: he expatiated on the tiny piece of flesh that ruled man, that caused so much sin and scandal, that expressed the passions and appetites, in a way that had the packed church both scandalised and titillated.
The highlight of the sermon came when he said “Shall I name you that organ?” Sensation! Incredulity!
Then he said “Shall I show you that organ?” Swooning! Consternation! Sensitive souls walking out!
Then he stuck out his – tongue
Hmm…
So, in your book… Are we allowed to link to TeamPyro?
teampyro is miles from being a watchblog
iMonk — thanks for pointing that out. What I’m trying to figure out is the timeline. Where do we freeze the culture in time and say, “that’s appropriate,” and then declare anything beyond that inappropriate. Who gets to make that decision?
For the record, though I’m a fanboy I still thought his scream of who in the hell do you think you are? was unnecessary. I thought that when I first heard the message and I still think so every time I consider it.
If only he were perfect like John MacArthur…
I care about Driscoll because God tells us to. I can honestly say I don’t know enough about him yet. I’m a little scared that, from what I’ve heard and read so far, I feel like I have to kick all of my kids out of the house before I can listen to his sermons, though.
BTW, thought it was cute that you used “your little Driscoll fanboy” and “your bad choice of a person to work at your church” in the same point. Sounds like you are saying Driscoll fans are bad choices for ministry… LOL… I’m just KIDDING!!!
I sent you an email about your earlier post on help with the blog. Hope you got it!!
Have a great day!
Sallie
I’m SOOO glad you wrote this. Thanks.
Jason: Appropriate or not, it’s a signal that MD often is under way too much stress, and the structure and elders of Mars Hill need to get a clue about that. If I ever blow up like, I’m angry, tired and probably depressed. The brakes aren’t working. The subject, of course, was the years he has put into dealing with some abusive men and I understand why it hit a very explosive spot for him.
Sallie: I can’t access regular email where I am, but will in a couple of hours. Thank you.
Well, Michael,
[MOD EDIT: We;'ve established the factual nature of the sexually explicit things Driscoll said- or anyone can listen to them- but I'm not going down this road. It's unfair and unnecessary.]
Though I would love to see him telling women like my mother that she *had* to do (any particular thing, especially one relating to the conjugal act) in her marital life; all that would be left of him would be a smoking pile of charred ashes.
And no, I don’t imagine he spends all his time giving advice to the love-lorn, but you know as well as I do, that’s the bit that will get all the publicity. Ah, well: somehow I imagine he’ll change his tune when he’s older – [MOD edit]
Though on the other hand, although “Who the hell do you think you are?” is not the kind of language we’d expect from a preacher, it’s not really swearing (by Catholic? anyway, certainly not by Irish standards) so I’m not so concerned about that aspect.
iMonk — actually he is under much less stress than he used to be. A year or two ago he basically had a breakdown and realized that he needed to restructure some things. He does much less at Mars Hill now than he once did so he can focus on teaching, writing, speaking, and his family. I think the screaming fit was completely controlled and calculated regarding an issue that is clearly a hot button for him.
[MOD edit: We aren't going to be responding to that topic raised by Martha.]
Martha: It’s clear to me that whatever version of this you’ve heard on the Catholic side, you’re far more interested in using it to slam a popular evangelical than in interacting with your own tradition’s hang-ups on sex. Since we aren’t going to discuss what you get in marriage when you proclaim that Mary and Joseph never had sexual intercourse, we aren’t going to discuss the caricatured rehashing of what Driscoll said at his worst moments.
Driscoll is leading a movement that will plant tens of thousands of churches. It doesn’t offset his failures, but it provides evangelical context for him.
ms
Well written, sir.
Let’s pray for the dude, learn from his successes and failures, and get on with the Great Commission!
Michael, whatever about original intent in the Song of Songs, it’s not (on our view of it) a case of “either/or”, but “both/and”.
Like the “Ascent of Mount Carmel”, written by St. John of the Cross, dealing with the union of the Soul with God through the purgative way of the Dark Night of the Soul, and couched as a love-poem, amongst which are the following stanzas:
“6. Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
7. The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.
8. I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.”
Mark Driscoll was saying, on the reading of the Song of Songs as an allegory of the Bridegroom (Jesus) and the Bride (the Church, but also the Soul): “Jesus has His hand up my shirt? That’s so gay!” Er, yeah, Mark. That’s it. Guy talking about embracing another guy. Gay love poetry, that’s why it’s been kept in the canon all these years.
Or maybe there’s more to it as well as celebrating the goodness of the body and the material creation?
Martha:
As much as I am embarassed by Driscoll’s treatment of Song of Solomon as a marriage manual, the idea that this book is an inspired allegory of Christ and the church is worse. And I say that with plenty of Puritans, etc on your team.
It’s love poetry. Nothing more. Get over it people.
ms
Okay, I’ve cribbed about the man, now let me say something nice about him.
So I went to the Mars Hill website and I like what he says about the Gethsemane Prayer. I’m old-fashioned enough I prefer to read the text than watch the video, so I’m probably not getting the full effect of his presentation, but on the other hand, that also means that I’m not being swayed by great surface but shallow meaning.
This is good, sound, solid teaching. This is, I presume, what he is like under all the kerfuffle about sex’n'swearing.
Plus, he was (at least) baptised Catholic so he’s one of ours (or was, until his family left and he made a choice for himself), so I have to be nice to a brother!
Martha: Your “gay love poetry” reference is as inappropriate as Driscoll. Please find the rhetorical brake pedal. I don’t like having to moderate you.
Sallie,
98% of Driscoll’s stuff is absolutely non-controversial straight up bible teaching. You could watch it with your kids.. I frequently do.
Most of the controversial stuff lately has come not from the Q&A where his congregants ask questions..
It should be noted that he ranted about the nature of the sexual questions, and admonished his congregation for being so selfish. (they where always asking how far away from Jesus they could go without crossing the line instead of how close they could be to him) That youtube video never gets highlighted.. You can find it on my blog if you care to..
As long as we expect our spiritual leaders to be somehow better than us and represent (at least on the surface) some kind of idealized lifestyle, we’ll never be completely comfortable with MD’s “ready-fire-aim” approach or his honesty about his own faults.
I for one find him to be honest, earnest, refreshing and real.
This has been a fascinating thread. As a pretty “Hard shell Baptist” myself, many times I have gone to MD’s website to hear his latest alleged heresy…Alas, every time “I find no fault with this man.”
More power to him and his ministry.
I think Frank Turk is a peach of a human being- a regular ol’ teddy bear- and I’m not afraid to say so!
On Driscoll- so much to respect and so much to be wary of. And the problem is, most of the things the SBC/other critics talk about are red herrings.
The real danger of Driscoll is not langauge or crassness. The guy will grow out of that. It is raising complementarianism to the level of the Gospel. He’ll often make lists of vital theological, “Gospel” questions like atonement, universalism, male leadership… Huh? To quote Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other…”
I’m fine with a generation of young preachers working through the question of where the line is when it comes to crassness. They’ll work it out pretty quick as they speak to real audiences that push back and as they figure out there’s no WAY they can get away with what Driscoll does.
However- a generation of young pastors who see stay-at-home dads as a church discipline issue? Who think “Male Headship” is somehow theologically equivalent to Substitutionary Atonement?
Truly disturbing…
Ed,
I don’t disagree entirely… But leaders are supposed to be the best of us. It’s part of the qualifications for being an elder (as in Titus 1:5-9).
Bob: Driscoll’s stay at home dad line was his dumbest statement imo. I don’t believe it is church policy. It’s just Driscoll trying to say “support your family” but coming out with a line for the stupid hall of fame.
Yah, the stay at home dad thing was an impromptu remark answering a live question. He should have worded it better, and expressed some better compassion..
I think Driscoll holds up a good ideal, and he is preaching predominantly to an audience that is still in a place where they can easily aspire to that ideal. The problem is that he needs to acknowledge that many folks are 10 or 20 years down the wrong path, and there needs to be some grace for that. I suspect that there is, if you where to ask the folks at Mars Hill..
A word about Mr. Driscoll-
As a Unitarian Universalist, I’m not too inclined towards agreement on the theology espoused at Mars Hill Church, and from a personal taste perspective, I’m often uncomfortable with the style of Mr. Driscoll’s presentations. However, as a Seattleite, I have to say that the people I’ve met whose lives seem to have deepened and transformed by being touched by Mars Hill Church has really impressed me, and moderated what is an easily unpleasant opinion for me to have of it’s leading pastor.
Mr. Driscoll (I believe?) started ministry pretty young. In fact, I think we are roughly the same age- early 30s? If that’s true, I think about just the general and unavoidable sea changes that all the people around me and myself go through while transitioning to adult hood, and while it doesn’t make me all that thrilled with some of what I hear about his preaching, it does help humble me from getting too on my high horse about it. Whether his theology is right or wrong, ultimately he is just a guy and struggling with all the things everyone struggles with, including being a goober- unlike me, who gets to do this mostly anonymously, Mr. Driscoll has a legion of admirers and haters who are watching, making his maturation a very public thing indeed.
Sarah O, which items of theology do you disagree with from Driscoll? Just wondereing and not trying to start a argument.
Driscoll is 39 years old, has a B.A. from WSU (where he went on a Fulbright Scholarship). He has a Masters from Western. He’s been married for what — 15 years or so. He and his wife have 5 kids. Why should the next five years produce more maturity?
I disagree with him on gender issues, but in my opinion, that’s not a primary issue. I disagree with my own pastor (whom I love like a father) on gender issues, too.
I think the church needs frank talk on sex, but there’s a difference between frank talk and vulgarity.
I’m struggling not to feel condescended to, here. I have no preacher heroes. Exactly none.
MOD EDIT: Sue- when we are discussing a topic we don’t ridicule one another for discussing the topic. Your comment is a no go.