Driscoll On Britain: Offensive, Wrong or Neither?
Mark Driscoll is in trouble again. Not only has he just released a very controversial book on sex, which has many of his supporters asking some searching questions, but he has apparently lambasted British preachers in this month's edition of Christianity magazine, much to the consternation of - well, pretty much everybody. The quotation which is grabbing headlines is as follows:
“Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.”
As a young Bible teacher who speaks across Great Britain, I ought to be offended, not just on my own behalf, but also on behalf of many of my friends who I regard as good, young Bible teachers. Krish Kandiah certainly was, and immediately wrote to say so; he will doubtless be followed by many others, particularly after the offending article is published this week. But I’m not. So here’s a few words on why.
Firstly, full disclosure: I am personal friends with Krish, Justin Brierley (who did the interview) and Ruth Dickinson (who edits Christianity). I’m also a consulting editor for Christianity, although that sounds grander than it is (I don’t get consulted before publication, for example). But for all the things about Mark that I find challenging and sometimes infuriating - and I dare say I’d have said the same about Martin Luther, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon and lots of others - I find him to be a compelling preacher who loves Jesus and loves the gospel, a deeply courageous man, and an inspiration. All of which makes me want to think well of him when he says things like this.
Secondly, I simply do not believe that the sentences I just quoted mean that Mark thinks all young British preachers are cowardly and rubbish. This is how some are choosing to hear what he said, but I’m certain that Mark would regard Joel Virgo, Tope Koleoso and a bunch of other young preachers he knows as courageous, gifted communicators who are passionate for the gospel. What he said was that none of them were known across Great Britain. And on that, he’s probably right: Joel might preach to 7,000 at Newday, and Mike and Andy Croft to 30,000 at Soul Survivor, but the reality is that hardly anybody in Britain, outside of a small Christian bubble comprising up to 5% of the population, has ever heard of them. Like it or lump it, but the mainstream exposure of our American brothers - Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Francis Chan, Driscoll himself, and a fair number of others - dwarfs that of our most well known British preachers. In that sense, Mark is just pointing out a fact that many of us don’t like hearing.
Thirdly, there is a flipside to this in what Mark said, which is that those British preachers and church leaders who are well known in the secular space - which is not many! - are not, by and large, young and courageous. (Listen to Thought for the Day for a week, or read the “Faith” op-ed pieces in the broadsheets, and you’ll see what I mean; few contributors would qualify as young, even if they were courageous and clear on the gospel, which sadly they often aren’t). The fact is, there is a lack of clear, young, gospel-articulating Christian voices in Britain amongst those whom the society around us would recognise as speaking for the church. That may not be the fault of anyone in particular - Rico Tice and Krish can’t help being largely unknown in contemporary Britain, any more than Rowan Williams or Tom Wright can help being (relatively!) old - but it may well contribute to the relative dearth of young men in the church, which is what particularly animates Mark.
So I’m not offended. If I was a Martian looking at British Christianity, I would conclude that in most places, it was still generally perceived to be something for older rather than younger people, and women rather than men. And while we’re on the subject, I’d also be struck by how many spokespeople for Christianity wore cassocks and beards, rather than the things that normal people in Britain wear (which was another one of Mark’s throwaway broadsides).
But although I’m not offended, I still think he was somewhat clumsy in what he said (which, when the dust settles, he may well happily concede. Do enough interviews, and you’ll say some silly things on occasion). You see, Mark Driscoll is not a Martian, so he can’t talk about British Christianity as if he were. He knows enough about the UK to know that there are lots of good young preachers who articulate the historic gospel courageously, week in and week out, and that their not being noticed, in comparison to the US, is the result of a far lower Christian population and a disinterested-to-hostile media when it comes to robust evangelicalism. There are happy exceptions, as Liam’s recent article pointed out, but most opinion forming newspapers in the UK do not give column inches to the faithful proclamation of the gospel, even when it’s being done by hip young men in jeans and funky glasses. Similarly, the fact that British books do not sell in their millions like Crazy Love or Real Marriage does not indicate that there are no young writers prepared to articulate the gospel boldly and clearly: it just indicates that there are nearly one hundred times as many professing evangelicals in the US as in the UK, so getting on the bestseller lists is significantly harder. So to contrast the courageous young men we need with the cowardly dress-wearers we have (which is implicitly what Mark was doing in his comments, both in the interview and his follow up blog post) is not, in my view, to diagnose the problem correctly. The young men are there - Joel, Tope, Krish, Rico, and the many you have never heard of and never will - and they are doing exactly what they should be doing: preaching the gospel faithfully and clearly, whether the headline writers talk about them or not.
One further point, which was made by the ever-insightful Carl Trueman over at Reformation 21, is that Mark’s comment reflects an unspoken assumption that what we need are (a) individual leaders who are (b) young and (c) famous. These, he wryly remarks, are three things that the apostle Paul was not unduly preoccupied with, as far as we can tell. Fair point.
With all that said, Mark and I agree on the key point he was making, whether or not it was expressed in the ideal way: both of us would love young proclaimers of the biblical gospel to be more widely known, if only because that would mean the gospel was getting more deeply into the culture; and we’d be even more keen to see the widely known Christians in the UK articulate the gospel, along with (where necessary) some of its less culturally palatable implications, more clearly and courageously. Mark Driscoll, for all the controversy he attracts, has done both of these things with passion and fervour, and has blessed many of us in the process. If he’s a bit clunky and offhand about British people sometimes, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
Comments
By Steve Timmis on 16/01/2012 at 12:05
Good post Andrew. Thank you for taking the time & care to write it so well.
Quick question re your comment - both of us would love young proclaimers of the biblical gospel to be more widely known, if only because that would mean the gospel was getting more deeply into the culture.
Is that actually the case? You cited all the men that are widely known around the US but that doesn’t seem to equate with gospel impact on the wider culture. They just have a larger, slicker evangelical (sub) culture that builds platforms for people in ways that we don’t.
By Dan Rodger on 16/01/2012 at 12:05
Spot-on!
By Matthew Rees on 16/01/2012 at 12:09
I fail to understand how somebody who claims to be the master of understanding ‘culture’ and ‘context’ could get Britain so wrong. Does he think that the lack of young Christian men known to the British public is something to do with their lack of boldness and courage? The fact they are not known is because not only does Britain not have a huge percentage of evangelical Christians like America, but the British public do not have an understanding of civic religion in the same way as the Americans. It is acceptable for Barack Obama to ask Rick Warren to pray at his inaugural address, but this sort of thing is not acceptable in Britain because we have an established church. Britain understands Christianity in terms of history, tradition and establishment and that is why there’s a ready platform for Tom Wright and Rowan Williams because they come from the acceptable ‘established church.’ The people who appear on Radio 4 tend to be at the top of the established church and therefore older. Americans have a different understanding of religion. Their decision not to have an established church could well be why Evangelicalsim flourishes in their country. Either way, our lack of ‘Christian celebrities’ (which doesn’t always do American Christianity any good…) isn’t because our preachers are shy or weak but for better or for worst because of a totally different culture and context.
By Zak Lacey on 16/01/2012 at 13:19
Brilliant thanks.
It seems to me that recently it’s been almost fashionable to pull Driscoll to bits. Even within Newfrontiers, and while he certainly does say same odd stuff sometimes, generally his ministry has been a huge blessing to us.
So he makes the occasional ill thought out remark, so what? We all do that. The bottom line is he loves Jesus.
By ian on 16/01/2012 at 13:25
I think Mark’s best point was that although he sometimes goes too far, too many preachers don’t go far enough. I agree with that, and I think he ably demonstrated this weakness in the very same interview.
However, the bigger issue was not what Mark said, but the fact that he practically lied on his blog saying he was taken totally out of context and that Justin Brierley was antagonistic and confrontational, when actually the interview recording showed that nothing could have been further from the truth.
By Andrew Wilson on 16/01/2012 at 14:01
@Steve: thanks! And I take your point; I’m more thinking about “the gospel getting into the culture” in terms of more people being Christians (that is: if young preachers were celebrities, it would indicate a large number of evangelical believers in the UK, which would be a good thing). I wasn’t meaning to make a cultural transformation point, although it may have come across that way. My bad.
@Matthew: good points, although I think my third point above reflects something Mark is still right to point out (that many of our prominent spokespersons in the UK are not as courageous or clear on the gospel as they should be). Interesting thoughts on the establishment/evangelicalism connection ...
By Nick Payne on 16/01/2012 at 16:07
Ironically I didn’t really have a great idea who Mark Driscoll was until people tweeted about this incident. The idea of “celebrity preachers” kind of makes me feel uneasy and more than just a bit queasy. I think I know exactly what Paul would say about this. I think he would remind us that it doesn’t matter who the mouthpiece of a message is… or how well known they become; the only important thing is that the Gospel message, or message of instruction… IS preached. I heard a story once about an orchestra conductor who stopped his audience applauding him citing “I am nothing… the orchestra is nothing. Beethoven is EVERYTHING”. We each have our part to play in God’s plan… but it is he who is the one and only real star.
By Tim Virgo on 16/01/2012 at 18:40
Thanks for this Andrew. Well written and argued. I totally agree that we simply must think the best of Driscoll. He is a passionate man who believes in and preaches the real gospel, real God and reality of hell. I would ask all of the people who are so offended - Are you REALLY content with how well known and courageously preached the gospel is in Britain? Surely not. I honestly think that is his only point. Come on everyone, we’re not satisfied are we?!
By Virginia Hill on 16/01/2012 at 21:46
The first I knew of this controversy was when a well-meaning American friend posted Mark Driscoll’s blog comment on Facebook. I could not square his comments about Justin Brierley with the man whose programme I have regularly enjoyed listening to and who is portrayed so negatively by him.
Having listened to the interview in full, and now read the article in “Christianity” magazine which arrived today I do not understand why MD wrote so negatively about another person in such a careless way (although I suspect it was not written without thought), but would hope that an apology might follow.
By Dan Hayter on 16/01/2012 at 22:55
I’m currently listening to the full interview and as much as I love Mark Driscoll, I am struggling to hear humility and wisdom in what he is saying.
As someone who goes to a church where one of the elders is an exceptionally courageous, big platform and hard-hitting preacher, I’m hearing two possibilities according to Mark: Either Stef Liston is a Wimp or else he is not known well enough in the UK. Out of the two, the latter is obviously the problem for Mark (I would sincerely hope), but what if God’s purpose for preachers in the UK is not that they would become nation-famous preachers, but rather faithful and obedient to what Christ has commanded them to do in the localities they serve in in order to train lots of culture changing people.
Anyways, Driscoll is a great man and makes mistakes as do we. He just happens to make mistakes on radio and gets blogged about whereas most of us don’t.
By Adrian Birks on 16/01/2012 at 23:09
Good post Andrew.
Especially helpful are Carl Trueman’s comments.
There are many things about Mark Driscoll that I like & admire but he does court controversy seemingly unecessarily. (I wonder if being controversial & publicly critical of others goes down better in the US than in the UK?) His mistakes are certainly more public than others, I guess that means his apologies & retractions should be too.
In short, I was disappointed with the comment as it just makes him look rather silly.
By SHMAAANY on 17/01/2012 at 00:27
i think the established church is what has done britian no good! Too much of a link between church and government in the past hasnt done anyone good because people see church as something they were forced into at school singing hymns etc.
But i think there’s soil to sow seed on now and that britain is truly in a way starting afresh and this is our time to break down misconceptions about Christianity. I think people in Britian are desperate for the truth but just hide it behind a shell, which brits do all so well.
I think Mark was right on a lot but just said it all in the wrong way!
By LittleWarrior on 17/01/2012 at 00:44
I agree with this post in part. I posted my own reaction on another blog where my main accusation is that Mark didn’t stand by his jab at the British church as you rightly say he could have. I think it unfair to compare some of the American speakers and their influence in a much more church-centred culture than the pastors of the UK. There is much greater cross-over in America than here.
I have heard him use these exact same soundbites in the UK in the past and nobody responded… maybe he was right after all
By Pete Thorne on 17/01/2012 at 02:24
Well said Andrew.
And in response to Mark re British men: I am a coward with respect to speaking openly about the gospel. I am also a 30yo male Brit. He might have a point.
As to the interviewer. He did indeed ignore Grace but did apologise at the end of the interview. Nearly every question was indeed about some controversial statement Mark has said or was reported to have said. That said, his intro to the interview was measured and without malice.
So what do we do with criticism? We receive it, with open arms. If it contains only a gram of truth we take that truth and grow, learn, repent and move on.
Come on men of Britain, man up!
By Robert Briggs on 17/01/2012 at 02:42
What can I say about this? As a Brit living and pastoring in the States I have to live in the world of Mark Driscoll and all that brings. This was a comment from someone who needs to think a bit more and speak a bit less. Poor guy just does not seem to be able to avoid needless controversy. Not a good model for young gospel ministers.
By paul on 17/01/2012 at 04:05
I guess I would simply also as the question: What was the necessity of even saying such a controversial, ill-intended remark?
Our “American” Christianity is so segmented and fractured and we claim to follow “so and so” but “so and so” over there isn’t ‘really’ teaching the Gospel…it’s sad over here…so for us to try and export that “segmented/fractured/elitist” mentality is not only sad, it’s destructive for the Kingdom of God.
Rather than acting like we have it all together, a message of encouragement and love would be much more helpful in my opinion.
By Navaz DCruz on 17/01/2012 at 04:46
I have been following the preaching at CCK, The Westminister Chapel and others over the years. None of the preachers of at these places can be accused of what Mark D said in one broad over generalized statement. The catch phrase one might argue is “known all over the UK”.
First of all, is that even a biblical requirement ? We are called to be faithful where ever we are to whatever measure the Lord has apportioned us. So while UK preachers may “fail” by MD’s standards,Jesus at the end of the ages may have something quite different to hand out, don’t you think?.
While his statement may provoke people to be more bold in their proclamation, I still wonder whether it was wise , loving and encouraging in its tone.
I for one felt quiet upset when I read the posts on this issue. I’d like to remind Mark D that it is is because of the strong bold proclamation of people like Arthur Wallis, Barny Coombs, Terry Virgo, Dave Holden, Dave Devinish, Arnold Bell and many many more that India has scores of thriving churches reaching out to our nation with the gospel.
If making offensive statements is Marks definition of a bold proclamation, that would probably narrow it down to just him being the lone defender of the gospel. But if preaching the word in Spirit and in truth with gentle persuasion is the definition I think you will find UK dotted with many fine men in His Majesty’s service. Navaz
By Chris on 17/01/2012 at 09:50
Thanks for the thoughtful blog post. I thought Carl Trueman, as he often does, hit the nail on the head. Faithfulness in Bible teaching is not proved by fame, but sadly that is the unavoidable conclusion Driscoll seems to have come to. Something I am very thankful for about Mark’s comments is that so many people have come out to say “no, you’re wrong, my pastor DOES boldly preach the gospel” which is a great encouragement to bible teaching churches to carry on with what they’re doing.
Andrew, I appreciate the tone of your comment about being charitable to Mark, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, that is important. Nevertheless, words matter, and carelessness is not a good thing, especially in one who has such a public profile. I am astounded at the humility of Jefferson Bethke, the guy who produced the Jesus>Religion video, who has accepted loving criticism from Kevin DeYoung in a gracious and godly manner, and who wants to ensure that his public words are as accurate and true as possible. Mark Driscoll should not have said what he said; it was wrong, and what’s more he gave a false impression of the context on his blog. I hope he has the humility to accept criticism and recant his words. I’m not ‘hating’ on him, or ‘downing’ on his ministry, but saying that, like all of us, he is not perfect, and should not be above apologising when he makes mistakes like this.
By Ali Griffiths on 17/01/2012 at 12:07
Every cloud has a silver lining so they say and I am encouraged that the outcome of this most unpleasant episode appears to be:
1. Brits see no reason why being famous is any indicator of expertise or success. This is a very healthy response. 1 Thess 4: 11
2. Brits are emerging from all corners of the UK to declare how wonderful their own young(ish) pastor is although unknown outside their community which must be very encouraging personally for them.
3. It makes us all remember that if we are going to make a negative comment we should think carefully about how and why we are making it. James 3 is always relevant.
I don’t want to rubbish Driscoll either but if he makes such remarks then he has to be called to account. My own view of what he said and how he has responded is that he doesn’t say anything helpful about the UK church scene but it does say a lot about Driscoll himself. Whatever our views about him and his ministry we should be praying for him.
By Kevin Carter on 17/01/2012 at 13:03
Why does Mark Driscoll need to be defended when he should repent for his words? Where has respect and propriety for those who labour in relative obscurity gone? Was he wrong to say what he did? Then he needs to make that right. We do not and should not try and defend comments that are offensive, unjust and just plain dumb. I just read an article about shepherding the flock which is “among you” and wonder how that article fits into driscoll’s comments. It is a very dangerous thing to the unity of the church and to the faithful quiet ministry of pastors in local congregations, whether in Great Britian or North America, to say the words he did. Jesus said that every idle word we say will be brought into judgment. He should watch his words plain and simple.
By Ryan Mahoney on 17/01/2012 at 14:15
Unfortunately, Driscoll, again, has confused godly strength with yelling, chest thumping and popularity. He has also fused American pictures of success with biblical demands of a healthy church. A church can be healthy without there being any “popular” pastors. Bigger is not necessarily better.
By andrew price on 17/01/2012 at 15:32
Praise God for British pastors who slog there guts out feeding the flock, often for little money, tentmaking and often in out of the way places. May your tribe increase (and your flocks!!)
By Greg Memberto on 17/01/2012 at 16:14
I had read about a couple of interviews that Ricky did before hosting the Golden Globes the other night. I dont follow the guy and wouldnt know he was going to be on TV except to see the commercials and build up to the show which I did not watch.
The thing i did notice is that he was not sure how insulting and offensive to be based on past performances. He apparently was not that effective because he was not offensive. That is how I see Mark Driscoll. He may be a gifted teacher, a lover of the Gospel, a bold man for Christ. But I dont follow him and dont hear about him unless he does something offensive. That is the starting point of any discussion about him. If someone needs to be offensive, even to those who have the same love and devotion to Christ, to be effective, is it really effective for the good of the Gospel? I dont think so. But, I could be wrong.
By Andrew Evans on 17/01/2012 at 16:26
Thanks - a very thought provoking post written in a generous spirited tone. If anything I think you have erred on the side of being too kind - as Steve Timmis’ points out things are not great in the US either.
I also think Mark underestimates the courage of UK preachers from a number of ways: http://www.andysstudy.org/2012/01/christianity-magazine-has-reignited.html?m=1
By Bonnie Lindblom on 17/01/2012 at 16:45
It is good and right to want to be fair and charitable to Mark Driscoll. But fairness and rightness do not mean “never pointing out fault.” Driscoll clearly linked, even in the quote provided at the top of your post, the fact that there is no young, good Bible teacher known across Great Britain with the fact (opinion?) that there are a bunch of cowards (preachers, pastors) who aren’t telling the truth. The reason he gave for there not being a young, good Bible teacher known across G. B. is that there aren’t any to be known. Not that there are some that deserve to be better known.
By Stephen on 17/01/2012 at 19:44
This is arrogance plain and simple. Pastor Driscoll desperately needs some elders to rein him in before he does more damage to the cause of the gospel he is called to adorn (Titus 2).
By Pete Thorne on 17/01/2012 at 20:01
Lets face facts guys, only around 7-15% of the UK even attend a church (making us fourth from bottom in Europe on percentage of populating attending church) and the average age of a UK attendee is around 50+. In surveys, 33% of the UK claim to have no religion at all. Worse still, the number of ‘dechurched ‘people (i.e. Christians who’ve left the church) outnumbers those in it by 2 to 1.
Are you happy with the status quo? No? Me neither.
So what can be done about it? Well as Ryan Mahoney says “bigger isn’t better”. No it isn’t. We need some mega churches and many more smaller ones. So here’s the thing: we need more pastors and teachers. Now Mark may be off on the courage of some of our young men (Wilson, J. Virgo, Listen, etc.) . But overall the picture isn’t great and in terms of numbers I think we have a real issue.
Take my city, Portsmouth. It’s population: ~180000. In other words in would take 180 churches of 1000 capacity to meet its needs fully (and 1800 churches of 100). At a guess I’d say that you would want a minimum of one leader for each 200 people - meaning that 900 leaders would be needed for Portsmouth alone - and we’re not a big city. Worst still, the nearest recognised centre for leadership training is in Bognor… 25 miles away (but that’s probably better than the UK average).
Grind you teeth about Driscoll if you really have to. But please please, do set out to prove him wrong!
By Graham on 17/01/2012 at 20:14
This is a very generous response to Mr Driscoll; and I think that a British preacher should respond in a generous tone.
However, we can divide Mr Driscoll’s teaching into three categories: a) common-place b) odd advice c) “shock-jock”.
“Commonplace” is simply teaching that one would hear from any conservative evangelical. Mr Driscoll makes many good points; every Sunday most faithful pastors are making exactly the same points. “Odd advice” includes his hare-brained efforts at demonology (with a handy guide for exorcists); and his latest advice to newly weds. Confess all your secret sins to each other. Why? Well, this would have helped his marriage. Therefore, it follows that everyone’s marriage will benefit from this exercise.
To be honest, two minutes reflection would have told Mr Driscoll that it mght be a good idea to discuss what needs to be shared with an elder or Pastor. This leads me to my deepest concerns, and why I think we should not use Owen or the Wesleys to excuse Mr Driscoll’s behaviour.
The first “revivalists” were theologically grounded; Whitefield’s impulsive nature has to be balanced against his ability to dispute monergism and synergism with Wesley (who was, by all accounts, a remarkable theologian himself.) We might find that we disagree with these gentlemen on some points; but not because they misjudged a press release.
While Whitefield knew how to work a publicity machine, we cannot claim that he came to public attention by making crude or rude statements. And we can hardly put the revivals down to media hype. It is no more appropriate to compare Mr Driscoll to Aimee Semple MacPherson than the Great Revivalists.
Most worryingly, Mr Driscoll has gained attention through shocking statements. His online book “Porn Again” has more in common with pornography than it does with regeneration. Chapter 10 of “Real Marriage” has less to do with reality than it has to do with a fantasy sex life (the lack of pastoral reflection and absence of substantive ethics is noteworthy). For precisely these reasons, Mr Driscoll dominates blog headlines again.
He has found a niche in the evangelical market - the conservative rebel. He rebels against liberals; he shocks conservatives.
So what will he have to do gain our attention next time? He can’t maintain his position by repeating old tricks. He has a degree in communications from one of the best programmes in the US. He knows better. So we sail ever closer to shipwreck and disaster. And if something genuinely scandalous should happen, statements that locate Mr Driscoll in the evangelical mainstream will come back to haunt us.
We need to exercise more care when responding to Mr Driscoll.
G
By Ali Griffiths on 17/01/2012 at 21:46
You’re missing the point Pete. No one thinks all is well with UK church life but Driscoll shouldn’t have said what he said. Apart from being rude for the sake of it, his assessment of the situation is just plain wrong. We don’t need to prove anything to him at all.
By Peter Byrom on 17/01/2012 at 23:18
It’s not actually the remarks about the UK church from the interview that bother me. What truly disgusted me was the bullying way he went after Justin Brierley, in his “Blog for the Brits”, and to a similar extent how he treated Justin during the last portion of the interview, when he turned the tables and called him a coward (second half of 1 Peter 3:15, anybody)?
Yes, Mark has achieved big things, but my trust in him has been damaged to the extent that I now can’t listen to his preaching without wondering, “does this come from sound theology, or personal machismo issues”? It also makes me worry how many of the young men from Seattle will have become Christians out of a desire to know Jesus, as opposed to wanting to follow Driscoll’s way of becoming a “real man”. If Driscoll is going to say provocative things, he needs to grow up a little himself if this is how he’s going to react to those who question him.
I can forgive him (indeed that is essential) but in all honesty this is something of a nail in the coffin when it comes to taking instruction from his sermons. Fruits are just as important as whether or not a person is theologically “right” or “wrong”. I’m not cut out for Driscoll’s prescriptions of caffeine!
By Peter Byrom on 17/01/2012 at 23:37
You can hear the audio through this link:
http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
And this is Driscoll’s “Blog for the Brits”:
http://pastormark.tv/2012/01/12/a-blog-for-the-brits
Pay particular attention to how Driscoll pounces on Justin near the end, using “manliness” as the litmus test rather than scripture, and compare his claims about Justin, in the blog, to what is actually said in the interview. You’ll probably be able to tell why I’m troubled, but hey, make up your own minds.
By Big Ben on 18/01/2012 at 04:25
Driscoll’s coments are certainy incorrect, if taken in a factual sense. Of course, young christian men of courage do exist in Britain, some more well-known than others.
But i take his comments more in the light of the history of Christanity in Britain. What if, one were to ask, where are the Whitfields, Spurgeons or Wesleys of Britain today?
What woud the answer be?
By Paul on 18/01/2012 at 05:22
First of all, it is God who makes someone popular. If Driscoll is popular it is only because God has allowed him to be so. If someone else is living a much more faithful life and not popular, then that is also because God wills it that way. That said, its almost proud of Driscoll to say that others ought to be popular like him, because he is not God and he does not see other’s hearts the way God does. So he cannot make that judgement. That is so much pride speaking. He ought to be humble and thank God that God is using him in spite of all his weakness. Instead, I just feel that its his pride which is letting him speak like that and put others down. We always have to remember that one can be zealous in a wrong way too. So maybe MD said it because he was zealous for the gospel, but that does not mean that the statement was not wrong.
And there is no comparison of MD to Spurgeon or Whitefield or any of the like. I just want to quote Spurgeon’s words from his sermon “The two talents”. Shows how humble he was in his own esteem and how God is only a rewarder of our faithfulness rather than our fame. “A Calvin or a Luther, with what plaudits shall they be received!—men with talents, who have been faithful to their trust. Yes, but know ye not, that there is many a humble village pastor whose flock scarcely numbers fifty, who toils for them as for his life, who spends hours in praying for their welfare, who uses all the little ability he has in his endeavor to win them to Christ; and do ye imagine that his entry into heaven shall be less triumphant than the entry of such a man as Luther? If so, ye know not how God dealeth with his people. He giveth them rewards, not according to the greatness of the goods with which they were entrusted, but according to their fidelity thereunto, and he that hath been faithful to the least, shall be as much rewarded, as he that hath been faithful in much.”
By Jez Bayes on 18/01/2012 at 07:06
Three Biblical mandates:
A: Make a Gospel impact even if you aren’t noticed, and even if the impact isn’t immediate or obviously connected to your actions. Genuinely planting something as yet unimpressive is as vital as watering something noticeable and increasing.
B: Don’t hero worship human christian leaders.
C: If you are a christian leader, don’t seek a following. If you get one, it’s not supposed to be yours.
1 Corinthians 3
... when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care.
By Andrew Wilson on 18/01/2012 at 07:30
Thanks so much for all your comments - much appreciated. Let’s all continue to preach the gospel boldly, whether we’re noticed or not!
By graham on 18/01/2012 at 12:51
Andrew - reading over my post again, I worry that it sounds like I have you in my sights when I say
“We need to exercise more care when responding to Mr Driscoll. “
By “we” , I meant all of us. Me included. It is very difficult to critique Mr Driscoll without sounding like an apologist or an assassin. Re-reading my post, I sound like a man with a vendetta!
But you gave a good and fair critique, appropriate to the current climate, in your article. I did not mean to imply otherwise!
Graham
By graham on 18/01/2012 at 13:00
There is less room for Christianity in Public Life in Britain today. Mr Driscoll’s comments ignore the necessary social conditions for a Spurgeon or Whitefield to emerge. There may well be men (and women!) with the same qualities labouring unnoticed in some corner of some English field.
It’s also important to note the suspicion of charismatic preachers engendered by the “televangelist” scandals in the 1980s, and the Religious Right in the 1990s. The English have always had a suspicion of “enthusiasm”. I think that the behaviour of American Evangelicals in the late C20th put the final nail in coffin. I simply don’t think that charismatic preaching would sound plausible in England.
However, quieter, more reasoned preaching has an audience. We have “Christianity Explored” and NT Wright. They do a similar job, but in a different style. Mr Driscoll is comparing apples and oranges.
Graham
By Pete Thorne on 19/01/2012 at 11:02
@Graham: I’m surprised by your take on Driscoll’s advice to confess your sins to each other before marriage. I’ve heard that same advice from several sources and would see it fit very well with James 5:16 and 1 John 1. I don’t doubt he wouldn’t rule out talking to a pastor or mentor as well: he himself set up redemption groups in his church for that very reason. But getting back to the point, why wouldn’t you confess all to your intended?
By Peter Byrom on 19/01/2012 at 18:11
A rather insightful and especially ironic blog for you folks. Somebody should definitely pass this to Driscoll!
http://www.redchurch.org.au/blog/2012/01/19/you-will-never-guess-who-is-really-responsible-for-the-softening-of-males-in-the-church/
By Pete Thorne on 20/01/2012 at 13:05
@Peter, what a great article, a fascinating read. Not sure it’s as ironic as you make out as Driscoll isn’t proposing a hard macho man for all, rather talking to men as men, women and women, boys as boys, etc. (he loves to go on about snuggling with his girls for example). That rather fits with the scriptural instructions to talk and relate to men and women differently and to different ages in different ways… and with the example of Jesus being very hard on the religious folk on the day and gentle with ‘sinners’. “Tough and tender” is Driscoll’s theme, and I would wonder who would argue with that?
By Ali Griffiths on 20/01/2012 at 13:25
@Pete. I don’t want to be spoken to as a woman. What on earth does that mean in practice anyway? I’m a person not a category. Talk to everyone as a person whose primary identity is in Christ not their gender or their role. This bizarre idea that the genders have to be spoken to in different ways is one I just don’t buy. It alienates large numbers of both genders and I can’t see where you’re getting it from scripture at all. Jesus dealt with everyone as an individual.
@Peter Byrom. Excellent article - thank you.
By Pete Thorne on 20/01/2012 at 14:33
@Ali: The verse I had in mind was: “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” 1 Tim 5:1 - i.e. treat people differently, but intimately - as family.
Obviously the context is how to relate to others as a pastor/elder. But I certainly do believe you relate to (and hence speak to) different genders (and ages) in different ways, but totally hear you on the need to see individuals first rather than the gender/age. Certainly Jesus broke cultural gender taboos when speaking to woman and in choosing them to be the first witnesses to his resurrection.
Maybe a less controversial example of treating people differently is in talking to visitors from overseas for whom our culture and language is alien. If I just looked at them as ‘totally different’ I could treat them with hostility, contempt or even just patronise them. If I looked at them as ‘identical’ I could carry on speaking as if they understood my culture and language, making no allowances, and therefore lose them completely. But if I realise that they are ‘equal’ I make every effort to engage them and to translate ideas and culture in order to make a connection. No-one would see my differing treatment of (and language towards) this individual as being a negative thing, in fact it’s essential to show love towards them isn’t it?
Now this example is an imperfect picture of the gender difference debate, but holds some parallels. But lets look at age next. One shouldn’t talk to an ‘old person’ as an ‘old person’ - slowly, loudly and patronisingly as a general rule. That falls into a terrible stereotype… However, I equally can’t talk to an aged relative with the same language and speed I talk to teens. The cultural differences need to be addressed sensitively.
“Ah, but!” I hear you say, “men and women don’t come from different cultures, women are not from Venus, men are not from Mars! And even if they were - you yourself have said that Jesus broke cultural taboos in this area!”
Great, you’ve floored my argument… hmmm… am I completely wrong here? Well, like it or not, gender cultural differences exist, even in the west. Now the key to cross-cultural mission is to know which bits of culture to respect and which to reject. Holding doors open for women, wearing pink, shorts vs skirts in boxing…. We have to negotiate the minefield with love and the gospel in mind. We cannot completely dispose of gender differences even if that was a good thing and therefore I… think… that possibly we can treat each other differently???
For a more intelligent look at gender issues, refer to Wilson’s blog post on the topic: http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/twenty-facts-in-the-gender-debate
By Ali Griffiths on 20/01/2012 at 15:43
@Pete
I am not proposing to do away with gender differences (which I perceive as good and God given!) but it is almost impossible to pinpoint the differences that are not biological and say that a particular difference always belongs to one particular gender. Every time you do that someone comes along and offers a legitimate challenge. Most of us are very clear about our gender and don’t have issues with it but would be hard pressed to define what makes us peculiarly masculine or feminine other than our biology. We are just who we are and usually we don’t even think about it.
Clearly there are certain issues to take into account when dealing with the opposite gender (eg counselling situations) and wisdom has to be used but the assumption that we start by approaching people on the basis of their gender or age is still not necessarily a good one as it is failing to deal with the person as a unique individual.
I have always read 1 Tim 5:1 as saying that we should treat everyone appropriately and with respect as members of our family. In the case of a fellow male believer he is my brother and a female believer is my sister. That is their status in my life. However, I would treat them in the same way - I wouldn’t treat them differently because of their gender but because of who they are.
One caveat: where the differences do kick in for me is that I would cheerfully call up a female friend to go for a drink one evening but I would rarely do that with a male friend - because of how it would be perceived by others and to safeguard our friendship.
So when you end by saying: ‘We cannot completely dispose of gender differences even if that was a good thing and therefore I… think… that possibly we can treat each other differently?’ I am not sure what you mean? Exactly how do you treat women differently from men? Can you be more specific?
Btw I’m not trying to be funny or pick a fight with you - I am genuinely intrigued by the conversations about the whole area of gender in various parts of the church at the moment that is quite separate from the leadership/authority debate. This is an issue that Driscoll is vocal about as well!
By Graham on 21/01/2012 at 00:29
@Pete Thorne
I don’t think that it fits the context of James at all; the issue there seems to be sins that have led to illness. As to 1 John 1… what does that tell us about what we should confess to our wives, neighbours, children, workmates etc? Word association games aren’t a great basis for pastoral or ethical advice. They are a lot of fun, though, I’ll grant you that (-:
Why wouldn’t I confess all of my sins to my wife? Well, I’d be there a while (-: When should a husband confess specific sins to his wife? I’m not prepared to write a checklist or an algorithm that puports to give everyone an answer. And unless that is a very old picture that you’re using, I reckon that you’re too young to write one either (-;
We need to distinguish proverbs from commands in any case; and what is great advice in one situation can be terrible guidance in another. Proverbs 26v7 should be drummed into the head of every evangelical preacher. Might stop them writing these silly “to do” lists.
Mind you, that would leave the rest of us with nothing to argue about….
Graham
By Gavin Cargill on 22/01/2012 at 15:13
Driscoll? Wimp or Wolf?
If Justin Brierley’s interview is ‘the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective’ dialogue that Mark Driscoll has ever had I can only assume that previous interviewers were inexplicably fearful or that Driscoll is really a wimp in wolfs clothing!
Brierley is to be congratulated for the grace he demonstrated in exposing Driscoll’s real vulnerability. The fact that Justin didn’t/couldn’t name one young preacher that has the following that Driscoll seems to need is perhaps the biggest coupe of all!
What about the global impact of Alpha? But hey Gods in charge so let’s not fall into the Moses trap of counting!
Well done Justin!
By Pete Thorne on 22/01/2012 at 23:47
Hello again! Ali, I totally agree that defining gender difference other than biologically is fraught with pitfalls on all sides (and for some extreme cases - even biology fails us). I struggle to get my head around the teaching of Paul on the subject and often take refuge in Peter’s admission that he is “hard to understand!” I don’t believe I’ve got things worked out and, like Wilsons list on his other blog post, I’m sure some of my opinions are questionable.
Differences kick in as you say when dating and relationships require us to behave wisely towards each other. I have a male friend who keeps getting into hot water while counselling female friends. He’s a genuinely nice guy who wants to help but this isn’t always wise it seems.
Aside from those issues it is apparently one of the consequences of the fall that men will dominate women. I guess that for us to reverse that ill effect Christian men might want to be radically different in their approach to women. If you like to try to treat women even better than their male peers because of a sinful predisposition to do otherwise. Hence the silly little (but important?) symbolic acts of opening doors, giving up seats, first off the ship? be interested in knowing a female response to such gestures…
By Ali Griffiths on 23/01/2012 at 23:20
Hi Pete. A female response to gestures of courtesy? Hmmm - difficult to say. I have women friends who object to men treating them differently because they are women - but personally I have no problems with it - I like being treated with courtesy - by anyone! I don’t think this is a peculiarly Christian virtue though. Where Christian men can make a difference is by treating women as people first and foremost - people worthy of the kind of respect you would extend to any of your male friends. That would be pretty radical. Many women feel they are constantly being assessed for their attractiveness/availability etc by men - men who genuinely don’t do this and pursue genuine relationships of ‘just’ friendship are much appreciated.
Interesting question - I will continue to think this one over.
By Tessa on 24/01/2012 at 01:18
Having just listened to the entire interview on the Premier site, I was cringeing quite a lot during it as there was tension building the whole time between interviewer and interviewee. I have to agree with Driscoll that the interviewer did focus on the most controversial issues and ignored Grace Driscoll almost completely. I reckon part of the problem was the fact it was a phone interview… a lot of subtleties are lost without visual contact and body language. The other problem is cross-cultural. Some Americans(and Europeans, Africans, Asians…) have a very direct way of speaking which a lot of British people find hard to stomach and perceive as rude. I have had to learn this the hard way being a British/American born and raised in France!!!
Driscoll is direct. My dad is direct. They are v. similar. They both say sweeping statements about the state of affairs either in the culture, church or an individual’s life which often but not always hit the nail on the head. But they are not easy to take. So as the daughter of such a man, I have to take what he says and weigh it up…Do I disagree with this because it is wrong or inaccurate? Or do I dislike it because I don’t want to hear the truth? Sometimes it’s the first and I try to lovingly discuss with my dad why I disagree. But more often it’s the second, and that is often when I get angry with my dad and walk out of the room or put the phone down.
I think these 2 questions ought to be asked of ourselves whenever we hear a controversial statement coming from the pulpit. It might be that God has been trying to get through to us by speaking gently and we weren’t listening…so he might have to turn up the volume and say it more strongly to get our attention!
Yes Mark Driscoll says things that are sometimes untrue or inaccurate, but don’t we all? But he also says A LOT of hard hitting truth that is refreshing to hear for some and makes others squirm. As a woman who has been abandoned by exactly the kind of man Driscoll is so hard on…a British cowardly husband who did not live up to the responsibility God had given him in marriage and parenthood, I am really thankful to God for equipping men like Driscoll to address those men. God opened my eyes through Mark’s preaching of the Bible to the way my husband had been unfaithful to me and God not so much by commission but by omission.
Someone asked for the female point of view on how a woman would like to be spoken to and treated… Well, this might not be popular, but a lot of women I know (mostly Christian, but not all!) long to be led. They might not actually say that, and might even bristle if you suggested it to them but give them 2 examples…one of a man who loves Jesus but struggles to have any drive, motivation or passion and one of a man who loves Jesus and has a clear plan for how to serve him best and wants a woman to join him on it…I bet you the women choose the 2nd every time.
But I understand how hard it is for men these days. They have no barometer for what is appropriate or not in their treatment of women. I think the sister thing can be helpful, but that depends on how you treat your sisters!! I think loving a women better than she loves herself is a great principle in marriage. I personally love it when a man is gentlemanly towards me but only if he is just as gentlemanly with the 90yr old lady or the 3 yr old girl…in other words as long as it’s not just for show. But my prideful nature doesn’t like feeling patronised!! So if a bloke is almost mocking in his attitude of ‘Your a girl, you can’t do that!’ it makes me want to prove him otherwise!
Wow that was a long post. Sorry! You know, us women love to talk!!
By Ali Griffiths on 24/01/2012 at 15:35
@Tessa. I don’t know why everyone thinks Brits aren’t direct - maybe it’s only southerners who post on the internet? If you want ultimate directness find a British northerner or a woman from the Welsh valleys. They can beat anyone hands down for plain speaking the unpalatable truths. It’s what Driscoll is saying not how he said that I object to although that could also be critiqued.
‘Well, this might not be popular, but a lot of women I know (mostly Christian, but not all!) long to be led.’ That may be true for many women but it doesn’t mean that it’s an attitude we should encourage in our fellow sisters or men should pander to. Wanting to be led by a man is abdicating responsibility for one’s own spiritual life - it’s laziness. The only person all of us should aspire to be led by is Jesus Christ and Him alone.