The Lesson From Mark Driscoll

Posted by Jonathan Brink
October 7, 2007

finger.jpg

When Mark Driscoll chose to Mark Driscoll chose to pick a fight with the specific voices in the emerging church at the SBC conference, I really didn’t want to get involved. What would drive someone to do something like that when it wasn’t even what he was there to speak on? I did listen to his message for the sake of being informed and did comment. I even drafted a a lengthy response for this blog. But I never could hit publish with my response because I always felt like it was stepping into a fight I didn’t want to engage. I thought about it. The bully had swung and missed and I kept wondering what was the real reason for this urge to swing back. The more I thought about it, the more I kept wondering what the issue was in the first place.

I for one, and I’m sure many others, loved the wink idea as a response. Many of you got that it just wasn’t the fight we were interested in walking into. Brian McLaren and Rob Bell simply didn’t comment. Doug simply accepted his boot from the next SBC conference. Love it all.

The moment that some think is going to be really, really important, left me wanting and wondering if this is the best that we as a body of Christ can really come up with? Will this be a defining moment in the emerging church? I actually think so but for a very different reason than most. I for one think that this will be a moment Mark will regret what he did at some point in the future. Not because he was right or wrong, but because I think at some point in the future he’ll see that he got derailed.

And the reason I say this is because MoreThanMine posted a recap that included my comments. And as I was reading through the comments I made again, I recognized that at the end of his 1 hour twenty minute talk he spent about ten minutes talking about new forms and being incarnational. I really like what he said in these ten minutes. Other people liked it too.

And I realized that Mark had the unique opportunity to really inform a body of believers that would tend to be on the outside fo the emerging church, and to talk more about incarnational and open so many minds at the SBC. This is one of the hearts of the emerging church. How do we embody Christ in our everyday lives. He had the opportunity to provide positive steps forward for everyone who was interested in the emerging church conversation. This would have been so affirming and would have given everyone something to really think about. Instead of spending 50 minutes critiquing the church, he ended up throwing in incarnational as almost an aside.

And then I realized what the enemy does so well. He invites us to go after our own brothers. The enemy invites us to take the first swing because if he can get us to fight each other, we’re not fighting him. We become the enemy, and he finds his amusement from the grandstands.

I think about the allure of the word heresy. It has so much power, so much force and weight, It also has so much potential to make me look good. The crowd is on my side. If I’ve called someone a heretic I must know something they don’t or I wouldn’t possibly say THAT. The temptation to swing first is so present because it sure makes us look so good in the process. The enemy even gives us a bright, shiny banner with the words, “In the name of God,” written all over it. Who is going to argue when we’ve got (g)od on our side.

But, If I use the word heresy on someone, even for good reasons, it invites the other to defend themselves, to swing back. And if they do, now we have a fight that divides us. And if you and I aren’t speaking to each other, we’re not as strong. I’ve actually lost my brother who can’t watch my back. I’ve actually lost relationship with someone who can remind me what my Heavenly Father looks like.

All of this makes me realize there might have been a deeper wisdom to Jesus inviting us to, “Turn the other cheek.” How many times have we read that verse assuming it was only our enemy. Maybe Jesus knew we’d need that verse for our own brothers (and sisters) too, for the one’s that hurt us within the church.

The reality is that my brother is going to miss the mark sometimes. But if I go to him in secret, holding his dignity in love, he’ll know I really am his brother. I can listen to why he thinks this or that and say, “Oh I get it…but have you thought about this.” It’s just between the two of us. Jesus knew that love was the only response that worked. In a mission of restoration and reconciliation, I can’t do that if there are blows thrown.

Maybe Jesus knew that the moment someone strikes us is the moment we are being invited to destroy ourselves by striking back or running away. When someone hit us was actually the most defining moment of our lives. It was in this moment that life was demanding an answer to who we really are. Are we really the children of a living God?

You see the reason I think this will be a defining moment in the future is because love will win out in this one. The emerging church body will stand up and say, we don’t need to fight to win. We already have.

So my response to Mark is sorrow. My hope is that you will someday find the best in your brothers because that will be the best in you. That will be what your Heavenly Father is looking for in you.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
Church Leadership, Conflict, Emerging Church, Missional, Rob Bell, love, postmodern, spiritual warfare

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Very well written Mr. Brink. And I completely agree with your sentiment. It is a sad day when this is what the church is spending time and attention on. (And I think there's great value in letting this issue die on both sides.)

    Something interesting struck me, though, when I was reading through Christianity Today\'s Article
    on Mark, and I came across one of the last paragraphs in which, while discussing criticism, it is noted that "[Mark] regrets that MacArthur chose a public forum for criticism, when he would have gladly flown to Los Angeles to hear MacArthur's advice."

    The interesting thing here is that nobody really disagrees that this is not the ideal way to go about loving and guiding our brothers. Accordingly, I think there's great value in continuing the conversation not of the division of the Church, but these ideas of incarnational missiology--something we all seem to be in a bit of agreement about.
  • Wow Nate. Nice knowledge to bring to the table. These things always have a way of biting us back.
  • Jonathan -

    Thank you for this post. I am one of the "winkers" from Pomomusings!

    You spoke with great grace and wisdom. I hope your attitude and heart are caught by others - beginning with me.

    Melissa
  • Melissa,

    You'll catch it. I'm very sure of that.
  • Tim
    In College I referred to something as "heretical," and my philosophy professor cautioned me and pushed back. He could tell that my definition of heresy was "not what I think the Bible teaches."

    Instead of this, he wanted to define heresy as, "Disagreement with the centristic Christian tradition." Or, put another way, disagreeing with either the Apostle's, Nicene, or Chalcedonian creeds.

    I don't have time to go into a historical explanation for how these three ancient affirmations are received across the board in the ancient churches and the modern protestant splinters, but in the last five or six years the wisdom of that professor has come back to me time and time again, lest our definition of orthodoxy be too vague, and our doctrine of heresy be "anything with which I disagree."
  • Natalie
    Wow. Deeper than deeep.
  • Found your blog through a friends blog. He's an "emergent type". Some comments to your blog here (though I haven't heard Driscoll's speech)---

    Quote "But, If I use the word heresy on someone, even for good reasons, it invites the other to defend themselves, to swing back. And if they do, now we have a fight that divides us. And if you and I aren’t speaking to each other, we’re not as strong. I’ve actually lost my brother who can’t watch my back. I’ve actually lost relationship with someone who can remind me what my Heavenly Father looks like."

    RESPONSE: Heretics are never "brothers". Brothers are orthodoxy. Those who are not orthodox are heretics. The family of God is made up of sinners, so in a since we are all heretics, yes, but this is where the distinction of orthodoxy is helpful. However, if you are an "emergent type" you most likely are going to reject any category outright...

    QUOTE: "All of this makes me realize there might have been a deeper wisdom to Jesus inviting us to, “Turn the other cheek.” "

    RESPONSE: There are 2 proverbs that apply here: Answer a fool according to his folly & do NOT answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him.

    There seems to be only 2 options you leave emergents with your blog: Either they are fools who are orthodox brothers that deserve a dialogue (both directions) or indeed they are heretics that don't deserve a response anymore.

    My point is this:
    Heretics deserve a dose of truth. If they continually reject the truth, we become like fools if we persist in trying to convince him. Heretics are fools by definition because they deny the Truth.

    So the real questions we should be asking are:
    1.) Are Driscoll's charges of heresy (ignoring the Truth of God's Word) valid ones?
    2.) If yes, are they people they are levied against being listening to the charge and the evidence? Are they considering these things at all or rejecting any opposition outright as "unloving" or "non-incarnational" or other reletavistic (undisprovable) dismissals?
    3.) If no, then turn the other cheek & or respond in love that is undeserved (which is not silence or disassociation, unless they, the non-emergents, are in fact the real heretics.).

    I am not emergent, nor do I particularly like the methodology or rationale behind the movement, but so long as "emergent" is "orthodox" it's a matter of style. However, once the test of orthodoxy is broken, there can be no more fellowship.
  • That is a pretty big statement.... "once the test of orthodoxy is broken, there can be no more fellowship."

    There can always be fellowship. A fellowship that goes beyond our doctrines and down to the very condition of mankind.

    Without getting into all of the ways your statement violates biblical "doctrine". I would say you must first answer the question "Who are you?" and "Why are you here?"

    Until the answers to those questions have settled into your soul there will always be the urge to fight for orthodoxy which is only a battle on the surface. A battle that has no roots and will pass away with the culmination of this material world.
  • I really appreciate your sentiments here as the majority of the others do. But my question is this: have you ever come up against a teaching, about which you were deeply convicted, was one that would lead people to a false gospel? And if so how did you react?

    The purpose of this question is simple: There are two ways to sin in regards to words: say something you shouldn't, or refuse to say something you should. Maybe Driscoll was wrong. But I at least believe that he felt deeply convicted that to remain silent was wrong. Maybe you will have to face that choice one day, maybe you already have. I hope that the people watching you will have as much, or more mercy for you as you had on Mark.

    Let us all humbly search the scriptures, and do our best to ignore personalities in our desire to be discerning. Oh yeah, and pray.
  • Tawmis, I actually like Mark and love his conviction. But it's often pointed at the wrong person.
  • Dani Miskell
    Hey! For all you Driscoll fans, here's a fun podcast that's a parody of him: Introducing, Mark Friscoll!

    http://www.conversantlife.com/node/20211
  • Dani Miskell
    Hey! For all you Driscoll fans, here's a fun podcast that's a parody of him: Introducing, Mark Friscoll!

    http://www.conversantlife.com/node/20211
blog comments powered by Disqus