Mark Driscoll
11 comments | Permalink
In a previous post on the top 50 churches in America, I'm sure a number of readers didn't recognize the name of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church (which has grown from 9 to 4000 in 10 years) and founder of the Acts 29 Network ("A network that helps plant Gospel-centered, missional, church-planting churches to a postmodern mindset"). He is also the author of Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out (Zondervan, 2004)--a book I started this afternoon and hope to finish before I go to bed. He also has a book in the hopper with Zondervan, explaining how Mars Hill became a missional megachurch.For what it's worth, if more emergent-type pastors and churches were like Driscoll and Mars Hill, there wouldn't be much to complain about. Theologically sound and missional minded. Why is that so hard?
Here is a profile on Mark from a couple of years ago in the Seattle Times Magazine.
Update: Here is an email from Driscoll to fellow pastors in his network, encouraging them to stay on mission and not become bitter Calvinists, despite his frustration at those who are "drinking from the emergent church toilet." For more, see this post by Steve McCoy.
Update: See also www.reformission.com.
posted by JT at Sunday, July 17, 2005
11 Comments:
JT, you said, "For what it's worth, if more emergent-type pastors and churches were like Driscoll and Mars Hill, there wouldn't be much to complain about. Theologically sound and missional minded. Why is that so hard?"
If more evangelical pastors and churches were like Driscoll and Mars Hill, there wouldn't be so many "emergent-type pastors."
Justin,
Thanks for your "two-cents" on Driscoll and Mars Hill. Although he resists it, I believe he is the unwitting leader in the movement of truly "missional" churches (as over against the other emergent types you mention.)
I read "Reformission" a couple of months ago, and loved it! As always, he's a bit more crass than would be appropriate outside of the Seattle area, but one thing is for sure, you won't forget what the guy says!
Hey Justin, there is also another website connected to the Acts 29 Network:
http://www.churchplantingresources.com/
This is a very helpful site for those who may be contemplating, planning, or in the midst of a church plant or church renewal.
Justin, I read the book and appreciated much of it. I really believe that there is a way to pursue relevance without selling the truth. This is the best model I have seen.
Justin,
We need to watch "emergent" vs. "emerging." You are right about Driscoll, but he is not Emergent.
I've read this book and it is very much along the line of John Burke's new one, and this is the sort of thing that I think will carry the day with many, many of this generation. Kind of exciting stuff to me.
Justin,
We need to watch "emergent" vs. "emerging." You are right about Driscoll, but he is not Emergent.
I've read this book and it is very much along the line of John Burke's new one, and this is the sort of thing that I think will carry the day with many, many of this generation. Kind of exciting stuff to me.
I am encouraged by Driscoll's commitment to orthodox theology, discouraged by his reference to himself as a "smart a--" in the profile in the Seattle Times.
justin, thanks for the link. mark is a great guy, and A29 is an amazing network. we are really excited about what the future holds for our churches.
it's great to be part of a network that is serious about engaging the culture and committed to holding fast to biblical truth while doing so.
I have to challenge Driscoll's assertion that "so many young guys [are] denying substitutionary atonement and the like after drinking from the emerging church toilet." First, his derogatory reference to "the emerging church toilet" is a great way to offend people and turn them off to dialogue straight from the get-go. But, looking past that, I don't know of anyone in the emerging church who is "denying substitutionary atonement." That may be his observation, but it's certainly not mine. I think that is very misleading.
For some reason, considering other views of the atonement besides ransom theory to be equally "foundational" -- or, God forbid, more "foundational" -- is despicable. I'm still trying to figure this one out. If it's still biblical but just "less foundational," why is this theology considered "toilet water"?
Shalom,
Steve K.
Steve,
Could you give us some examples of key Emergent leaders who have affirmed substitionary atonement in writing? And how would you, or they, define it?
Thanks!
JT
First of all, I have listened to several of Mark's sermons on the web. He is pretty good. I don't like the fact that he dismisses a lot people as "idiots". Just doesn't seem like Jesus-talk to me. So, I like his sermons, but not so much his attitude. I am already "rough-around-the edges" as it is, so I prefer to listen to people who are more gracious in their preaching. Same reason I don't listen to Rush anymore. I don't like what it does to my mind(makes me meaner than normal :)
Peace,
Travis
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home