Here’s some stew for your Monday morning. A month or so ago, Mark Driscoll was interviewed by Unbelievable?’s Justin Brierly. As per usual with Brierly, he asked Driscoll hard questions about the book the Driscolls just released as well as hard questions surrounding his public ministry and public perception. If you recall, he did the exact same thing with Rob Bell when Love Wins came out.
The interview itself is fascinating. It showcases the good elements of “Pastor” Mark: cultural engagement, a desire to bring young men into the fold and to form them, the willingness to ask hard questions, the devotion to our sacred text.
It also showcases the bad: the bullying, the martyr syndrome, the boasting/pride, the holier than-though attitude, the obsession with numbers, notoriety, the presumptuousness, the arrogance, the doing-it-wrong of building up of women, the syncretism of American Masculinity with Eternal-Biblical Masculinity, my way or the highway thinking, et cetera.
Mark’s Attempt at Damage Control
Suffice it to say, in Justin Brierly’s interview with Mark Driscoll, things got a little dicey. Mark was retro-actively offended by the questions asked and preempted the video with a woe-is-me post in which he offered suggestions for and commentary on the Church in the UK as well as set up Brierly as an atonement-squeamish liberal who had a bone to pick with him. He then ends by saying it’s all about Jesus and people should stop talking about him.
The first part of Driscoll’s post is decent and showcases some of the strengths of his approach. If that was all that he had said and had retained that sense of maturity throughout the rest of the post, all-would be well.
But, then came the last two sections of his post. Having listened to the interview in its entierty and being a regular listener of the Unbelievable? podcast, Mark’s completely mis-characterizes both Justin and the tone of the interview. He would have us believe that Brierly was a feminist liberal who didn’t really believe in the atonement (penal-substitution, of course) and doesn’t believe in hell (Again, go back and listen to the Bell podcast. While Brierly leans towards annihilationism, he raked Bell over the coals on Hell and its necessity in Christianity).
Calling People Cowards while Engaging in Cowardice
Driscoll’s attempts at undermining Brierly’s manhood and Christianity are both unfounded and cowardly.So there is this rather dis-honest (or ignorant fundamentalist) attempt to de-legitimate Brierly as a Christian and as a “Man” on Mark’s behalf in order to rescue himself from this interview wherein he comes off as a foolish bully who can only point to numbers to validate his points. A quick survey of Joel Oelsteen’s theology and numbers should be enough to dispel such an approach to validating one’s points.
I find this quite cowardly for the so-called-Man who had the arrogance to call all of the pastors in the UK cowards repeatedly and who flat-out called Brierly a coward in the interview!
The last bit, about it being all about Jesus, is fantastic in the abstract – if Mark hadn’t called all pastors in the UK cowards and now wants no accountability for his statements and actions. If you disagree with me here, go back and listen to both the Rob Bell interview and the Mark Driscoll interview. Rob Bell was treated with the same critical questioning as Mark Driscoll and carried himself in a graceful, kingdom-building manner where as Mark’s only real defense was to proclaim himself as the manly courageous person who could not be argued with because of his… wait for it…. numbers. (Again, I refer you to Joel Olsteen)
Justin’s Response and the Interview Itself
Justin, in his ever-present spirit of reconciliation and cheerfulness wrote a response to Mark which can be found here, explaining his side of the story. Justin also decided to put up the entirety of the audio so that one can hear the whole exchange. In regards to the charge of being a feminist-liberal “Christian”, Brierly responds:
I would not describe myself as a liberal Christian ‐ I believe Jesus is the son of God, rose from death and people are saved through him. I’m not a complementarian but I do believe people can choose to reject God & I see the cross in a variety of ways (including substitution)
And if you’ve ever listened to the Unbelievable podcast, you know Brierly is correct about… himself.
Summary – The Dangers of Neo-Fundamentalism
Nothing in Mark’s interview and response negates the worth of his and Grace’s book. Nor does it negate the good that his ministry has done. If reading the Real Marriage helps your marriage, AMEN!. If attending his network of churches gets you more involved in building the Kingdom and draws you closer to God -AMEN!
But, if you find yourself mirroring Mark because of the numerical success of his ministry or for the sake of mirroring Mark, please, take pause. He’s as messed up as the rest of us. Take some time to rest up on the Christians he attacks, that he calls heretics, that he loves, that he recommends.
A Mark-Only (or Piper-Only, et cetera) approach will lead you into Neofundamentalism (info on its development; info on its characteristics). Perhaps that suits you. It doesn’t suit me and it does not suit the Kingdom. Mark and his ilk are a part of the Kingdom, but their exclusionary rhetoric and practices are not.
.jpg)
