|
Mar
22
|
I admit that I’m struggling with something here. That’s often why I write. One of the ways that I work through issues is dialogue and interaction, so there will be times when I intentionally write in a way that’s sort of “thinking out loud,” or what a friend calls “blogging out loud.” I’ve not come to a conclusion, but need input and discussion to see the nuances that I’m otherwise missing. Today is one of these “blogging out loud posts.” I’m reading Mark Driscoll’s book”Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out” and it has raised an interesting question which I’d like to share.
I struggle with the idea that we must make the Gospel “relevant” to our surrounding culture. While I agree that we must preach and live the Gospel in a way in which everyone we meet sees that it is real and “relevant” to their lives, this approach often means simply packaging the Gospel in the cultural garb of the day, whatever it might be, like those hip musicians and their complicated shoes.
We end up with “hip hop” churches, we have “MTV unplugged/artsy” churches, etc. In the search for relevancy we end up with the very segmentation of tastes that the Gospel overcomes. In other words, we erect the very boundaries of separation the Gospel has torn down!
With all of that being said, the Gospel will take on slightly different appearances as its lived out in various cultures, this is part of the beauty and diversity of the Body and the liberty and freedom that Christ brings to His people. The language used will vary as will the meeting places and styles, while the core truths remain unchanged. The Gospel is indeed bigger and more powerful than many of us will ever realize and it is always “relevant” because it is the only eternal truth. This ought to ignite our hearts in proclaiming, shouting from the rooftops.
I’ve just begun reading Mark Driscoll’s “Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out.” idea of “reformission” comes in. In the introduction, Driscoll defines this idea of “reformission” as:
“a radical call to reform the church’s traditonally flawed view of missions as something carried out only in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his church. Most significantly, they need a gospel and a church that are faithful both to the scriptural texts and to the cultural contexts of America.”
For the most part, I agree. Many of our churches are great about going across the ocean with the Gospel but not nearly as successful going across the street to their everyday neighbors. Here I think Driscoll’s voice proclaims a much-needed message. But it’s that last sentence that begins to make me uncomfortable and that’s also where my struggle comes in.
Driscoll argues that we need a “gospel and a church that are faithful both to the scriptural texts and to the cultural contexts of America.” But what if American culture as a whole is antithetical to the Gospel message? How much do we need to remain “faithful” to American culture then? What if our “culture” lacks any reverance or respect, how do you remain “relevant” and Scriptural?
While it is hard to avoid stereotypes and generalizations here, I for one would argue that (very) modern American culture is one that lacks reverance. Whether it be for our elected leaders or for God, much of our society is ripe with pride and refuses to humble itself to anyone. After all, we’re the greatest country on earth, why be humble right, after all, God bless America?!
What if that lack of reverance finds its way into our biblical talk? Is it possible that our search for relevance might end up in a lack of reverance? I’m not sure if Driscoll is the “Mark the cussing pastor” referred to by Donald Miller, but it certainly wouldn’t seem out of place. Though I’ve not completed the book, much of Driscoll’s handling of Scripture strikes me as highly irreverant and almost disrepectful. While trying to bridge gaps and cross boundaries, I wonder if he also hasn’t left his reverance at the door. I want to quote an extended section for consideration. Please forgive me for its length, but I think it’s helpful to quote the entire section:
“The story begins with God making all things, then creating a man named Adam. Though Adam is technically perfect, it is still not good for him to be alone. The Bible never tells us why, exactly. Perhaps he would have forgotten to pick up the trash around the Garden of Eden, and the place eventually would have looked like an eternal fraternity without a hint of an annual spring cleaning.
Whatever the case, God creates a perfect woman who is beautiful, sinless and naked - the same kind of woman every guy ever since has been searching for. Adam meets her and, recognizing that his life has just taken a turn for the better, he sings her a song, after which their marriage is consummated. The Bible could end right there, after only two chapters, with the man and woman naked, eating fruit, and trying to fill the earth all by their happy, horny, hly selves.
But ever since that dreadful day of the Thud in Eden, we have all been walking around scratching our thick skulls trying to figure out how to get back to that glorious time. Why? Because our happy, naked first parents sinned against God and brought a curse upon themselves and all of creation. They sinned because they believed the lies of a talking serpent who had been an angel until he got kicked out of heaven for his pride.
After they are exiled from Eden, our first parents have two boys, and before long, one boy kills the other. From there, carnage and death ensue, and people grow so wicked that God floods the earth, killing nearly everyone. But he starts over with another decent guy named Noah, who nevertheless ends up having a bad day, gets drunk and passes out naked in his tent like some redneck on vacation.”
Driscoll goes on to discuss Abraham “who is happy to whore out his loving and beautiful antique of a wife to avoid conflict,” Moses, David, Solomon who gave it a “good Hefneresque run” and the prophets. Describing the coming of our Savior, Driscoll says,
“He has a mom whom everyone thinks is a slut, a dad whom they think has the brilliance of a five-watt bulb for believing the ‘virgin birth’ line, and brothers who likely pummel him frequently, because even God would have to get at least one wedgie from his brothers if he were to be fully human. The God-Man goes through puberty and likely goes through that weird vocal transition in which, in the course of one syllable, a young man can seamlessly go from sounding like Barry White to sounding like Cindy Brady…
Doesn’t the story sound like the plot of a trashy, daytime television talk show? The God-man is born to a teenage virgin in an animal stall, grows up with a blue-collar dad in a dumpy rural town, and has a weird cousin named John, who lives in the woods and survives on a steady diet of bugs, sugar and repentance.”
Further describing the ministry of our Lord, Driscoll envisions that
“God is fun to hang with, because he and his posse get invited to a lot of parties, including a wedding, which is basically a week-long wine and dance party celebrating some guy’s attempt to get back to Genesis 1 and 2. This would be the first of Jesus’ many parties.
The constipated religious leaders of his day accuse him of being a drunkard, a glutton, and a crooked guy who always hangs out with the wrong people: easy girls like Mary, crooked mafia types like Matthew, and the kids in high school who always wear black concert T-shirts, sport greasy male ponytails, and smoke cigarettes just off school property during lunch (Matt. 11:19). To the religious leaders, Jesus is a scandal - his followers are felons - and every time they see Jesus, it agitates them that he is always surrounded by a crowd, telling knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor (because his perfection had to have included comedic timing).”
I apologize for the extended quotes, but it helps to see the “big picture” of Driscoll’s handling of the “big picture”. I doubt that I’m the only one who is uncomfortable here. His misplaced attempts at humor and off-color insertions are entirely out of place. Though I don’t know Driscoll, I imagine that he might counter that the Bible is off-color and offensive. Yes it is, but our handling of it doesn’t need to be.
Has Driscoll crossed the line of reverance in search of relevance? I think so. What’s more, once we accept a role of authority within the Church, we are held to a higher standard, but we also become leaders. It is rare that a congregation will ever rise above their leaders, and if this is Driscoll’s level of reverance for the God-breathed Word (2 Timothy 3:16), how must his people be using the Word?
Am I misreading Driscoll? I don’t doubt his heart one bit, simply his approach, but if I’m wrong, please tell me. I covet your input because like I said, I’ve not reached a conclusion. How do we best cross cultural contexts without losing reverance?
- Read The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out by Mark Driscoll.
- Read Mark Driscoll’s blog “The Resurgence”.
I have listened to a lot of Driscoll’s stuff and read the book. It seems to me that over the last year or so he has become a little more reverent in his tone. He still goes off on Brian McLaren about homosexuality stuff, but overall he seems to be getting more reverent with age. Since this book was published in Oct. 2004, it was probably written much earlier than that. It will be interesting to see his tone in his next book due out this Summer.
But this is just my personal observation. Driscoll might curse me out for it!
Thanks Chris.
That’s just the sort of thing I was hoping to hear. I’m not that familiar with Driscoll, so I just wanted to put this out and get people’s feedback.
One reason for the cultural “irrelevance” of American Christianity is that many American Christians live happy and healthy lives more or less cloistered off from anyone who isn’t like them. Sometimes it appears that in addition to believing in Jesus, it would help to be white, married, middle class, and suburban if you want to make it as a believer in the states. Also, I think that the meaning of “Christianity” in the collective American consciousness has little content beyond belief in God and a conservative (ie no homosexuals or abortion) morality.
I don’t think that true Christianity will ever be terribly popular. It demands too much. Maybe we should strive to ensure that the only excuse people make for not going to Church is the offense of the gospel: “What? Me? A Sinner? No way!” This negative formulation may sound strange, but I’m sure that infighting and and triumphalist mentality aren’t the reasons why we want people staying at home on Sunday morning.
Also, we need to think about what forms of life currently present with the Church are themselves actually artifacts from a past age, in need of replacement. I like Rick Warren’s comment that he doesn’t use organs at Saddleback because no one listens to organ on the radio. There’s something to that.
Brent,
I would venture to say his handling of scripture is beyond irreverent and borders on being blasphemous. I know the two words are synonymous, but, for me, labeling his writing as blasphemous better conveys how offensive I find his writing style. He must be a real pulpit comedian. He has a fixation on nudity and sex. I guess he thinks street jargon is more effective at reaching people than plain old boring scripture.
As far as reaching out to the current culture to make God, the Bible and Christians more relevant, I don�t buy it. The Word has been and always will be relevant. Its relevance is not dependent upon whether or not people label it as such. Just like denying that Jesus is the Christ does not make it so.
I think many Christians worry too much about trying to be accepted by secular culture. They think that hip clothes, piercings and tattoos will somehow open doors to witness and evangelize that otherwise would not be open to them. Forgot about the Holy Spirit and the Word. Those are just outdated methods. We need something more relevant.
I had a Christian friend who pierced his ear. I was curious what made him want to get it pierced. He said he wanted to show the world that he was a slave to Christ. Well, Paul said we are slaves to righteousness and are no longer in bondage to sin. Christ was pierced for our transgressions. Why do we think that piercing ourselves does anything to further the message of Christ and His finished work? Second in importance to loving God, he commanded us to love others and do good to everyone. Surely that is a message that is relevant for all times in all cultures.
sb
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Culture, I think is a lot like grass. We see it, we feel it between our toes, we have to cut it when it gets too long (okay, I’m stopping here before I slaughter the metaphor anymore).
I think everybody’s got culture. The question is - does your culture look like 2006 or like 1956? There are contexts, I think, where looking like 1956 is totally appropriate and others where it would be a sin. The same can be said if we substituted 2006 for 1956.
I think the most important question though is whether or not we are making an idol out of the grass… I mean the culture. Maybe it’s appropriate within your cultural context to sing songs by Fanny Crosby and wear wing tips (those are shoes, I think). But if wing tips become a stumbling block to presenting Christ and Him crucified then culture has replaced Him who alone is worthy of worship.
I don’t know much of anything about Mark Driscoll. I do know that in the quest to be culturally relevant we must be careful to not allow culture to be more important to us than the cross.
To be fair, we should remember that our own Reformed/Baptist tradition is a culture of its own. There was a time when the church culture we take as a given was radical to the establishment(i.e. there was a day when worship that was not in Latin was “seeker friendly”).
I think all that the emergent folk, Driscoll, etc. are doing is telling those of us in the Bible belt that our evangelical culture is 50 years behind the times and thus is completly out of step with the rest of the world. Why is a church culture of 50 years ago better?
On this point, I think they are right. Evangelicals are holding on to a church culture that is no more uniquely Christian than that suggested by the emergents.
Bretn,
Thanks for the post. More people need to be weighing in on the Emergent and Emerging Movements (notice the plural, movements). I have a couple thoughts; one about missions and one about cultural relevance.
Missions: I think there is a distinction that should be recognized between “Missions” and “Evangelism”. Paul in Romans 15:19-24 says,
“So that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I [Paul] have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named. . . Now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions . . . I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain.”
Why would Paul say he no longer had “any room for work in these regions” when there were still hundreds of thousands who were not yet evangelized? I would say it’s because Paul saw a distinction between missions and evangelism.
I think there is confusion of terminology among the “Reformissionary”, “Missional”, camp. Distinctions should be held between “domestic ministries” and missions or “frontier missions”.
By domestic ministries I mean all the ministries that we should do among the people in our own culture. For example, ministries relating to evangelism, poverty, medical care, unemployment, hunger, abortion, crisis pregnancy, runaway kids, pornography, family disintegration, child abuse, divorce, hygiene, education at all levels, drug abuse and alcoholism, environmental concerns, terrorism, prison reform, moral abuses in the media and business and politics, etc.” John Piper
Frontier missions, on the other hand,
“is the effort of the church to penetrate an unreached people group with the gospel and establish there an ongoing, indigenous, ministering church.” John Piper
Check these links out for more.
Cultural Relevance: If we are looking for commonality or relevance to any human, culture aside, we have it. We need look no further than this:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Ephesians 2:1-3
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:9-20
Believers need look no further than our love for the world before our rebirth in Christ.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world– the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions–is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. 1 John 2:15-17
We can be relevant by talking with the culture about their love affair with the “things of the world” and share with them how to have a “love for the Father”.
Sorry it was so long.
Thanks again Brent.
try this: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness Where There Is No Church
and…Answers to Objections to Going into Missions: What I Said at Missions in the Main Hall
Get your own blog, Dustin! Stop your blograffiti.
“Culture is a whore, and postmodernity is her new dress”
This is a quote from Driscoll’s book. It’s okay to talk about how we show reverence for the Bible, just make sure you make a judgement on what the guy has said, after you’ve heard him speak (or in this case read his book). The author of this blog has that right, becuase he has actually read it. Most of you don’t have the right to make judgement calls here about a book you have not read.
As far as the issue of reverence. Douglas Wilson has a wonderful breakdown of how we handle the “obscene” references in the Bible, and still hold it with reverence in the first chapter of his book Fidelity. Those of you who care about truth, and not just randomly slandering should check it out.
Blessings,
Matt
Nice work Brent. I am planning on starting Driscoll’s book soon so hopefully I will be joining you in the “conversation.” Keeping thinking out loud on it.
Brent,
I have read Driscoll’s book, as have some in my church. We appreciate Driscoll in a lot of ways and one of the things that made us most uncomfortable was his “loose” handling of Scripture. But, I think, in principle, Driscoll’s message is one the church needs to hear. Evidently, Piper thinks that way, too. He has invited Driscoll to speak at DG Fall Conference.
I hope to run into you at Together for the Gospel.
Mark,
I’m glad you say that because you’re right. Driscoll is saying some good things that we need to hear and he needs our prayers that his method would not hinder his message. We all need to take that to heart as well that how we say things is tremendously important.
My family and I are planning on being in Louisville for the whole week of the conference and I’m certainly looking forward to praising God with you in person!
[...] Brent Thomas (Colossians 3:16) has written some really good thoughts on Mark Driscoll’s Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out.� Brent always has some great pictures to go along with his posts as well.� I hope to begin reading this book soon so I can weigh in on the discussion. [...]
I think he is referring to you!
http://stephennewell.blogspot.com/2006/03/reading-mark-driscoll-and-other.html
Fourth, some of the guys who’ve recently reviewed the book need to get a life and grow a sense of humor. This guy is funny. Funny. I did not in the least feel his handling of Scripture was irreverent; then again maybe my sense of humor is different from most other people’s. But I have never gotten such a knee-slapping laugh out of a book other than Christopher Moore’s Lamb, and that one was a parody of the Gospel! Much less, I have never laughed while reading a serious book like Reformission. When you can thoroughly enjoy someone laying some serious sanctifying smackdown on you, you know the book is good.
Now this is funny. “grow a sense of humor” and that it’s a “knee-slapping laugh.” Just what I want in my theological admonitions to a missions-minded lifestyle. Does it have a good beat too? Can I dance to it? Hey, as long as its entertaining in the process! I guess I just miss the relevance, don’t I?
I am not sure what Moore’s Lamb is but isn’t there something wrong with a parody on the gospel? Says something doesn’t it?
I love Driscoll, but he makes me uncomfortable a lot. I have heard him cuss in sermons on several occasions. He is very sarcastic. I think this is a fault, but I think that his church, and his planting group (Acts 29) are doing things right. They are holding to Scripture while seeking to keep up with the times. I appreciate him and his ministry.
