More on Mark Driscoll

Since I wrote a review on Confessions of a Reformission Rev. and no one was killed, I thought I'd do a review of his interview with Christianity Today magazine. If you want to skip my commentary and read it for yourself, you can check it out here.

You may ask yourself, "Why, dear brother, are you spending so much time on Mark Driscoll?" The answer is because he is extremely influential, and because he isn't boring. He may be wrong, but he's never boring. Also, I think that he's right a good bit of the time.

The interview only consists of a few questions. I will deal with two of my favorites. I'll give his abbreviated responses here.

Question #1:

What are some of the major blind spots of megachurches?

Driscoll: The major blind spot of megachurches is that they tend to be very effeminate with aesthetics, music, and preaching perfectly tailored for moms...many of the men who find it appealing are the types to sing prom songs to Jesus and learn about their feelings while sitting in a seafoam green chair drinking herbal tea—the spiritual equivalent of Richard Simmons.

Me: HA!

Question #2: This is actually the best question, and Driscoll gives a three part, alliterated answer...which means this isn't the first time he's been asked this.

What do you think needs to be the relationship between church and culture?

Driscoll: The difficulty is that there are actually three ways that faithful Christians and churches must respond to culture:

Reject—Some aspects of a culture are simply sinful and should be rejected by God's people. In our day this would include sexual sins (fornication, pornography, homosexuality, adultery), illegal drug use, and the pluralistic notion that every religion is an equally valid path to salvation.

Receive—Some aspects of a culture are the result of common grace and should be received by God's people. Examples in our day would include stewarding and enjoying creation, building community, and acts of mercy for the poor, widows, orphans, sick, and elderly.

Redeem—Some aspects of a culture are, in and of themselves, morally neutral but are used for evil, and can be redeemed for good. Examples in our day include using media portals (e.g., internet, podcast, vodcast) for the gospel, celebrating sex within heterosexual marriage, and spending money and using power in such a way that honors Jesus and demonstrates his love for people.


I very much like the answers to questions one and two, but I have a quibble with number 3. "Celebrating sex within heterosexual marriage" is not a morally neutral issue. Sex is a good gift from God. People use this gift sinfully, but sex in itself is intrinsically good. In fact, I'm not certain that anything is actually "neutral." Picking your nose is gross in company, but very helpful and good in private, especially if something flies into your nostril. In other words, it isn't the use of the thing that makes it evil or good. The act may be reprehensible precisely because it abuses the good thing itself, which is ultimately an insult that that object's Creator. Perhaps some of you will disagree. I'd like to hear all about it if you do.

If you haven't already, it would be worh your while to go and read that interview. Let me know what you think, there's a lot more interesting stuff in there than what I've covered here.

Oh yeah, and thanks for stopping by.