Drop Sunday School eh? So Christian education should be limited to sermons and self-direction?

The bigger picture I'm hearing from Driscoll is the continued rejection of ecclesial structure and history. It's certainly a temptation to throw out structures that have, at times, been domains of controversy and corruption. Yet without some tether to the past, how does one know their church has "qualified leadership" or the "sacraments rightly administered"?

I would argue that the lack of more formal Christian education and the modern rejection of ecclesial structure is why TBN can air the prosperity gospel almost 24 hours a day. It's also why megapastors can fill megastadia and megachurches with their looping feel-good messages.. or with their brash, confrontational style and creative language that allows folks to feel just a little naughty at church (tee hee).

We need more education, not less. And we need to cling to our ecclesial heritage, not reject it just because we don't like it.

Why does Out of Ur even cover this clown? I honestly don't understand it - other than as a subconscious stab at Emergent. Driscoll is becoming more and more like a freak-show - and you cover him under the category of "leader"? I think some soul-searching could be in order.

So Driscoll thinks his preaching is most important... and that people need to heed his commands... and he wants control...

"His" people must enjoy the lash.

Anybody want to bet a dollar that this tough guy preacher would have trouble with any leadership that does not put him at the head?

Well, by the numbers then...

1) Don't know if Driscoll layed out his 8 charcteristics in that order, but if you reverse the order of of his 8 as an idicator of priorities I have little to comment on.

2) Not much to say, but okay.

3) I always did like people who put Christ first...of course that is my bias.

4)Ephesus has a lot to teach us...though...I find his view of what caused Ephesus downfall...interesting.

"I was also surprised at the high number of women at the conference. For a group that is clear in their conviction that church leadership is for men, there were plenty of women who evidently agree."

Uh...not sure what to make of this comment of yours...what are you saying here?

"Too many preachers are cowards who offer suggestions rather than commands. "

So the Gospel is now about commands, not the Good News? Jesus certainly demanded stuff of us, but the wording here makes it sounds like Driscoll wants to focus on a Moralistic gospel, which I don't really agree with (certainly morality is part of Biblical teaching, but not the whole story).

"He also quipped that churches should drop Sunday school because it keeps unchurched people away. He got a boo or two, but I couldn't agree more. "

I don't understand this one at all. How does a Sunday school class keep the unchurched away? I'm all for moving Christian education off-campus to home small groups, etc. But that didn't appear to be his point.

Brad: nope, not just sermons and self-direction. Actually Driscoll characterized sermons and small groups as partners in the "air war and ground war."

Darren: there were three other speakers mentioned, so don't feel obligated to give attention to the "clown" if you don't want to. Would love to know what you thought of the others.

Andrew: Not sure about your bet. Say more.

Sheerahkahn: With my comment about women at the conference I was just trying to say that
I was surprised that a overtly male-only leadership conference attracted so many women. Not saying their presence is good or bad - just surprised me.

Kenny: actually, a rampant theme among all the speakers (including Driscoll) is that moralism and commands are too often false gospels that become idols. He didn't say the Gospel is about obeying commands, but that preachers should give people commands, not "suggestions."

-Chad Hall

Chad - The reason I say bet is because, ultimately, I don't know the guy. However, after 26 years in Christianity and working with many, many pastors and ministries, my experience tells me that those who speak as aggressively as he does about commands, and hard messages, and authority... tend to find it rather difficult to come under any authority when the roles are reversed. They are very loud when in charge and hold the trump cards... but want to go rebel whenever it suits them. I can't help but hear hollow noise any time Dricoll speaks.

As Steve Taylor once sang, "When the chicken squawks loudest, its gonna lay a big egg."

“leadership without control is not leadership.”

The guy needs to take an organizational behavior class. If you only lead by control, the second you turn your back or lose control, the people go back to what they were doing. Or you get the "I'm just doing what you told me to do" excuse when things go wrong.

The last thing any leader needs is a bunch of 'yes men' just following orders. Because that will take down the entire organization.

True leadership also demands leading by example. How would he react if he were controlled? I suspect he'd fight it tooth and nail.

Well, folks, are any of you really surprised?

This guy is just another in a long line of self-appointed leaders who, by all accounts, purged leaders who refused to only be "yes men".

His need to continually make jabs at people outside of his authority--i.e. his local church--demonstrates how much he loves control, power, etc.

Let's go beyond self-appointed and straight to self-important.

It's sad that CT has to perpetuate his celebrity, especially when his reputation is built on flaming other people.

This guy started out a long time ago rebuking and flaming people when he was still attached to Emergent.

What's worse is criticism of him immediately generally gets neutralized based on three ideas that somehow he should get a free pass because: (1) his commitment to the gospel, (2) his working in Seattle as a larger church, or (3) the effeminence of all who dare critique him.

1. His commitment to the Gospel does not justify anything.

2. Oh, yes, I mean what would Seattle have done without Driscoll? It's not like there aren't any other churches there.

3. Yet another distraction from real issues that only reveals the man to be a bully.

Would to God you people would stop, in Driscoll's own parlance, "drinking from the toilet" of his celebrity.

To everyone criticizing Out of Ur for parading Driscoll for web traffic, please keep in mind that this post featured several other preachers and their opinions.

You have a track record, Url.
And this particular post came right after a post exclusively devoted to him again.

You can't understand the reaction?

Driscoll is certainly not my hero, Jesus is but calling someone in ministry who is trying to proclaim Jesus, planting and watering so Jesus can build the church a clown? Please. Jesus said something about calling our brother names (clown is awful close to fool) and would probably approach a brother with a somewhat different attitude than what is on display here.

Gregg,

When I used the term "clown" I didn't mean it in the pejorative sense, but rather an an accurate representation of how even the media handles this guy. And you cannot tell me Driscoll himself doesn't enjoy saying things for the sake of stirring up controversy and getting a reaction out of people - the latter being very much in the line of business of "clowns".

Secondly, I wish you (and others) would stop giving him a free pass because he supposedly is in the business of spreading the gospel. WHAT GOSPEL? Come on, as I've said before, and many others have said it as well, what and how you speak and act says a lot about your understanding of the gospel - and honestly, I don't want any part of the gospel Driscoll is proclaiming.

Stop apologizing for this guy. At best he is immature and needs to be reeled in (unfortunately, people see his "results" and refuse to do so), at worst he is an egomaniac cloaked in sheep's clothing.

Strong words, I know. But sometimes they are necessary. I'm sure even Driscoll would (ironically) agree with that.

Darren:
From what I've heard from you over the last couple of years, I'd say that your critique of Driscoll's free pass and people's continued attention to him, despite his behavior, is awfully plank-speck of you. From the positions you taken in the past and the way you've presented them, I'd say that for me you're criticism of Driscoll is significant motivation for me to listen to him.

Concerning Sunday school:
I think this is a classic case of mistaking the value for the method. Sunday school is a METHOD that promotes the VALUE of equipping of the saints. Just because someone criticizes the method doesn't mean the don't hold the same value. It very often means that they would have a more effective, more current, method to offer.

About commands and not suggestions,
Is it possible that the commands Driscoll speaks of are derived from God's own word (love your neighbor, abstain from sexual immorality, etc..) and not mere arbitrary, fickle commands from the preacher? And if the commands are biblical, is it not spot on for a preacher to speak as if those commands carry some weight and authority?

Concerning the rest of the conference:
I would have loved to hear more of the speakers...especially their use of Ephesians. That's always been an interesting case study...and a telling warning for all those that start well, with heart, and end with a form of godliness but without the heart. Scary.

Usually don't get into these back and forth things but this is ridiculous. "Why does Out of Ur even cover this clown?" sounds pejorative to me. The "he says stuff like that too" is a very mature response. Seems growth is needed all around.

I am curious about the them and verbage mentioned. War - Battle all those types of things.

I don't consider myself a theologian by any means but as I read the teachings of Christ and Paul in the NT the only battle theme that is mentioned is a spiritual one. Why make the Gospel out to be a campaign for an agenda of the physical. The Gospels deepest teaching is to love God, love one another and to give the hope of Christ to the world.

I am a pastor of a missional type church and I am pulling up deep roots of warmongering (I hope I spelled that right) and trying to teach people that Onward Christian Soldiers isn't a theme for the church to portray to the world.

I would love to get your guys' imput.

"Sheerahkahn: With my comment about women at the conference I was just trying to say that
I was surprised that a overtly male-only leadership conference attracted so many women. Not saying their presence is good or bad - just surprised me."

Ah, okay...however, on the flip side Chad, I find it sad that you were surprised...not sad at you, but rather at your experience/perspective.
There are so many good, and spiritual women in the church who are fantastic leaders, have all the makings of being the best pastors ever...and still, "surprise" is the only description one can use to summate the perspective on the presence of women at a leadership event.
Perhaps there will come a time when "expected" replaces surprise...hmm, yes someday perhaps.

Paul,

If you want to listen to Driscoll simply because I have disagreed with him, then go ahead. Seems like weak reasoning to me though. The fact remains that he (Driscoll) has offended more people because of his speech and actions than pretty much anyone else I can think of over the last couple of years. And before someone tries it - no, I'm not speaking of offending people BECAUSE of the gospel. I mean Driscoll himself is offensive. He gets IN THE WAY of the gospel. And Paul, in case you didn't notice, it is hardly only I who questions Driscoll. And if you question the vehemence of my and others response to him, please understand, we believe he is, in many ways, the very antithesis of a Christlike presence in the world. Its because we take the witness of Jesus seriously that we react so strongly.

Sheerahkahn:
The surprise is not that women were in abundant attendance at a leadership event, but at THIS leadership event. This particular thread of the Christian fabric is noted for a strong stance that church leadership (pastor, elder, maybe deacon depending on the use of that term) is for men.
The role of women was addressed -- as Daniel Aiken put it on the third day of the conference, "women play an important role: to pour into children who will soar."
I am surprised that a fair number of women pay money to attend a leadership conference that's overtly complimentarian.

Darren,
If you can't tell me what the witness of Jesus is...what His news is (the gospel)...then I'd say that you're concerns are a tad disingenuous.

And from what I heard from Driscoll, and from what I've heard from you in the past, you in particular would be offended because his message is directed against individuals such as yourself. You and others call it offensive, I'd call it helpful to the health of the body. And if you can't recognize that his tone and wording has indeed changed over the years (repentance, some would call it), then you're not listening. If we don't see that people are defined both by their position and their life's momentum, then we only see where a person is at rather than giving consideration to where a person is going. I'd rather listen to a leader that is willing to model repentance (even public repentance!), than give ear to one such as you. And its BECAUSE Driscoll has started without humility and is moving towards it in his message and his tone that I feel hopeful enough not to dismiss Him.

I'll listen to and give credence to other's here...but you've lost all credibility with me because of your vitriolic contentiousness.
There is always room for repentance from you though, friend...the same repentance you don't seem ato accept from Driscoll.

Respectfully,
Paul

Interesting stuff on all counts. I've heard just a little of Chandler before and really appreciated what he had to say. Seems very sharp.

Driscoll I have a hard time with on a number of issues, but I'm glad the gospel is generally preached. Bottom line as I see it is that he needs some serious infusion of humility for the sake of the gospel.

Can't go with these guys on the role of women, or the extent of calvisinism, or the idea of dropping Sunday School (as if many people in the pews aren't already woefully ignorant on doctrine and practice!) but these aren't fellowship deal-breakers.

I have a lot of disagreements with Driscoll--and I often don't like his tone--but I'm a little surpised at the vitriol leveled at him. Maybe a little enemy-love is in order?

Chad, can you clarify what direction Driscoll was going when he said Sunday school keeps the unchurched away? It does seem odd that he would focus on the importance of preaching and "qualified" leadership and then dismiss a mechanism for education. Is it just the time? Why?

I'm glad to see two speakers emphasize the importance of confession, and I wonder if any of them explored what that means. So often, I think we have pushed people to find something to feel guilty about as the starting point for confession. This seems like a very narrow definition of confession, a very demanding and legalistic one. (Then we do an about face--"Just kidding, there's actually grace to cover over those sins! Don't you feel better now?")

I prefer expanding the understanding of confession--bring our whole selves, as we are, before God (and joining the Psalmist in saying "Search me and know me"). Confession after the model of St. Augustine, where we see that all things are under God's purview, that nothing can be hidden from him.

I happen to believe that confession can only happen in a space without shame, the very opposite of the attempts to induce guilt. This is why I fear both "suggestions" and "commands" are misguided: the Law, whether suggested or commanded, brings death. But in Christ, there is no condemnation.

Nate:
Great comments/questions.

On SS... Driscoll didn't camp out here. His statement came in the context of the idea that churches need to be both "attractional" and "missional." Dropping SS had to do with the pragmatics of attracting the unchurched and how it's hard to invite someone to church if they either have to attend SS with you OR arrive to worship alone (without you, the person who invited them).
Not sure those are the only options, but that's the gist of the comment. I was not a huge portion of his talk, but it did get a boo (at least I think that's what I heard).

On confession... I didn't get any sense that shame was a part of the call to confession. It sounds like you've thought about confession much more than I have, so I could have just not known what to look for. But overall, the call to confession struck me as a way of pursuing God and removing pride from the equation. Others in attendance might have something to add.

-Chad Hall

I'd be interested in knowing how many women there were actually single.

Then there might be a "point" being made.

Sidebar comment: Is it just me or are there alot of conferences that have the prefix 'RE' in front of them. Why? Why so many?

Also along with alot of women there, I wonder if other ethnic groups were represented.

I went to a PCA weekend conference and man, I was the only one there blessed with melanin. Well, I was not shocked but I could tell they werent used to having me there. LOL

Paul,

Your getting a tad personal, aren't you? And, regardless of where I land with you, I promise not to write you off.

I honestly think the witness of someone like Mark Driscoll is toxic and contrary to the spirit of Christ. So that's why I say it, and, until he changes his tune or Out of Ur stops covering him, I'll keep saying it. Just because my views (about the Gospel, for instance) may not completely line up with yours, nor follow strict modernist constructions, does not make me disingenuous - regardless of what you may think.

Peace,
Darren

Paul,

A couple of additional thoughts:

1.) I do give Driscoll props for moving (even if microscopically) towards repentance. However, it does sometimes sound like lip service because, in the very conference that's being covered for instance, he is reported to have made several more statements that suggest he's up to his "old tricks" again. True repentance is not just saying sorry, but also a changing behavior set.

2.) Please don't mistake a more emergent mindset for a lack of conviction. Just because I'm not as rigid on certain dogma as you, does not leave me unable to offer critique where it is warranted.

3.) In all honesty (and I don't think this is a surprise to anyone) I have problems not only with Driscoll's delivery, but also his theology. His hyper-neo-Calvinist views (I'm honestly not sure what to call them) alienate many who fall within the larger pale of Christianity. And, overall, I think his view does as much to distort the good news of the Gospel, as it does to promote it.

Darren,
The way you spoke about Driscoll, I didn't think you minded being personal. I'm confused...is it only when its directed at you or someone you like that you find personal attacks distasteful?

Me, I don't mind personal...as long as it's evidentially true. Jesus did it...the Apostle Paul did it. Many of the Old Testament Prophets did it. But unless you discuss ideas, some would label what's happened in the last few blogs GOSSIP.

So about you...yes, personal. Yes, in that I'm offering a critique of you. Yes, in that I'm suggesting that the brutality of your past posts leaves your credibility, to my mind, zero. And yes, as you're position on the nature of the gospel (from past and current posts) seems obscurantist enough to question what this "Spirit of Christ" you're protecting really is.

So in the spirit of being more than just emotional:
1) what is the gospel?
2) What is this "Spirit of Christ"?
3) And what damage are those like Driscoll doing to it?
4) and if we're not to evangelize (Emergent right?), what does it matter?
5) And can you please explain to me what is modernist about my understanding of the gospel? What do you mean by modernist? Or are you just throwing around terms you think mean something (or don't, if you are a strict postmodernist) in the hopes it will win you a point?

Look, I could be okay with your taking shots at a person but for your claimed "convictions" of plurality and generosity. The way you post makes me believe that you don't hold anything like those claimed Emergent convictions. I'm glad for your honest in saying you have a problem with Driscoll's theology...be mature enough to discuss that theology rather than solely smearing character. It makes you look like you bring more heat than light to the discussion.

Paul,

Again, I am certainly not the only one who has concerns about Driscoll's theology and his delivery. Surely you recognize that those you would consider "mature" say some of the very same things I'm saying. So, I'd encourage you to deal with the meat of the argument, even if you don't appreciate the tone in which I'm presenting it. Feel free to ignore my comments, but pay attention to others. There are plenty of them. To do otherwise is a little like missing the forest for the "less mature" trees. :)

And if you really would like to carry on the dialog, perhaps - since its becoming you vs. me - we should carry it on in private. Feel free to email me at contact@precipicemagazine.com.

Peace out.

Paul,

For more info on the concerns with Driscoll and his cohorts, please see this series, from Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed. It is very specific in some of the concerns people have with what Scot calls the "neo-Reformed": http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/02/who-are-the-neoreformed.html

It's highly ironic that anyone would complain about "personal" attacks when defending Driscoll.

It's not an attack to name clearly that what he actually does is attacking people.

Add in a guy who, from before most of you ever heard of him, was flaming people as a matter of course, it's even more ironic...

"Add in a guy who, from before most of you ever heard of him, was flaming people as a matter of course, it's even more ironic..."

What Driscoll conveniently omits from his account was that he spent so much time making vitriolic statements about anyone who disagreed with him while using a pseudonym that he was setting an example for the young men to follow, the very young men he held in his book were getting out of line. Well, duh. If the lead pastor writes a lengthy screed called 'Pussified Nation' and claims that people who disagree with him must be guys who live in their mama's basements downloading porn from the internet then why be surprised if a bunch of young men who are baby Christians and look up to him as their role model start doing the same?

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2008/09/mark-driscoll-person-vs-mark-driscoll.html

Darren,
I get some of what McKnight says...I have been the target of the stereotypical Reformed pugnaciousness...but I'm not fully onboard about the uniform ignobleness of the movement you're proposing. But thank you for pointing out that others agree with you, very helpful. Do you think Scot McKnight would feel comfortable espousing your tone and rhetoric?

Nathan,
It's not about defending Driscoll...the guy can take care of himself. Nor do I agree or condone much of his past. I did not direct my issue to you because, though I think your post doesn't exhibit full understanding of why the guy has a powerful positive influence to many, I can see where the spirit of your criticism is coming from and I don't have an issue with that. He is not a pure white figure and if you can accept that and discern, he has a lot to offer in the way of pastoral theology to those who need a bit of a kick in the pants. I was/am one such individual. He is not Jesus, he is not perfect, and there is much I disagree with...but he has been used in my life.

What I find repugnant is the hypocrisy from some here who attack his personal attacks while claiming that all such personal attacks are wrong. I believe, as a matter of loving protection, in the rightness in give warning (taken as personal attacks) of specific individuals. For me to be "personal" is not outside of my framework where there is definitive right and wrong.

We can discuss HOW that is done, and in that light I don't believe Driscoll has done exceptionally well. BUT, for those of us who believe there are wolves, indeed hard action is credible.

BUT many here claim to come from a gracious, open, conversational group that seem to be repelled by personal attacks. UNLESS THEY GIVE THEM! And that is clear hypocrisy. Silliness.

And for those who believe in SOME gospel, you should be cheering on ANY move in the right direction, in the direction of repentance. Sure, let it be modulated by "he should be in leadership". But where is the hope that our God changes people? No amount of squawking is going to get him to step down, just like my whining won't propel Mclaren, Jones, Pagitt, Osteen, and any number of others to step down.

So why don't we pray for God's intervention in the hearts of those we disagree with?

Paul,

That's totally fair.

I would agree that we should be happy for the Gospel to be preached.

I just think that when people use that as a way to deflect criticism of the man it's not relevant to the issue.

As far as "kicking in the pants" goes. I agree that sometimes people need the wood laid to them, but his petty sideways commentary is precisely not that--and that's why I have an ongoing problem with him.

I bring up "his past" because it's not. It's right now. It's a pattern of behavior that has not changed and any call to change is met with undeniably "personal" attacks about people's masculinity, where they presumably live, etc.

I think Jesus can change someone, I think Jesus can use someone, but we need not feed this man's celebrity.

Nathan,
Thanks for the response. Again, I'll agree with the problem of his sideways commentary and response to criticism. I'd disagree that things haven't changed...there is change of quality and change of quantity. I'd say that while he still handles issue poorly at times (quality), the amount of issues has gone done (quantity). The amount of time he is spending in the public eye has gone up considerably.

I've learned, there is almost no quicker way to be disregarded in disagreement than overstating your case....and Driscoll is guilty of this at times, especially in characterizing his critics. I think some of the characterization is accurate in some cases...but the blanket overstatement kills him. Probably, silence would be a wiser response from him towards his critics.

As far as his celebrity goes...I think his celebrity is doing him some good in that it has brought him into contact with older, wiser pastors who are investing and correcting him. I don't know how much good it is doing for the church at large...frankly, I don't like superstar churchmen of any type.

Either way, pray for the dude. He has a lot of pressure on him, and whether or not you think he should be in such a position in the first place, I hope all christian brothers could at least desire his good.