Asking and Answering – Today
Just a reminder to all of you who were so supportive and voted for my question on “Ask Anything” and especially those of you who participated in the 9th inning rally that rocketed the question from #10 to #1 in six days (a total of over 25,000 votes). 
While Pastor Mark Driscoll will preaching on my question today, I do not expect the audio and video to be available by mid-week. Those of you who will take the time to listen or watch, I would be interested in hearing your responses to Driscoll’s treatment of my question. All the media should be posted here.
Advertisement
Explore posts in the same categories: Miscellanies
Tags: Ask Anything, Mark Driscoll, Ninth-Inning Rallies, Regulative Principle, Religion Saves, Thank You
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
March 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Can’t wait to hear what he has to say… I’m really looking forward to it. The series has been outstanding!
March 3, 2008 at 5:57 pm
As of 4:50pm CST, the sermon is up on the podcast, but not the website.
(iTunes link to the podcast)
March 3, 2008 at 7:32 pm
It’s up, it’s up!
March 3, 2008 at 10:17 pm
OK, seriously, the last 10 minutes — amazing. I think we’re seeing the start of a new chapter in Driscoll’s life. He’s gentler, more studious, more humble than I’ve ever seen him.
All in all, a great, careful, well-thought-out treatment of your question. I think his critiques of both the normative and regulative positions were especially good — that’s one thing Driscoll does exceptionally well, IMO: giving brutally honest assessments of the pitfalls and dangers of all positions, even ones that he holds.
March 4, 2008 at 2:05 am
Mark is confused. He confuses form with method, style and stipulation, et cetera. He actually does a poor job of defining the RPw and drawing a clear distincition between it and the NPW. When he spoke of the negatives of the RPW, he lists three negatives, all strawmen. He further confuses the issues of corporate and vocational worship (life of worship). I am wondering now that he has prescibed for himself the limits of blasphemy if he will stop doing so. In the end he sums up by defining the means by which he will continue stylishness under the rubric of contextualization as if he was in some foreign mission field rather within a culture that has historic context which he does not seem to honor but rather seeks to overthrow.
When he speaks of grace in worship it really gets ethereal and ends up bifurcating what he has earlier said should not be bifurcated. He confesses he has not lead his congregation on to worship after the preaching of God’s righteousness and the depravity of man and the need for repentance, as if the first is not worship. He seems to misunderstand that Isaiah’s response was in awesome worship of the glory of God in recognition of his depravity by the grace sent from the throne of God such that his worship is acceptable. At this point I was convinced that what Driscoll is moving toward will be CJ Mahney’s reformed charismatics. Okay, but hopefully without the trash. Unfortunately, he has not listened to Piper or CJ and others well enough or he would pull out of ministry for a season until he can ween himself of himself. Finally, unfortunately, he mentioned Warren, a glaring deficiency in discernment. Driscoll is content, happy, when, if he was really worshipping, he wouldn’t be at all. How can someone hear the admonitions and rebukes of elders and not be broken, when the facts are obvious? Instead, he confesses his self, and how great a time his self is having. How much greater his ministry would be if he would follow Christ to the mountains for a long season of prayer, ask his congregation truly forgiveness, and thank God for the grace that has allowed him to live this long, and come back in a couple years, just to establish that he is not the leader of a pop personality cult. That should be long enough to clearly hear the word of God from the elders he says he loves, admires and trusts outside his approving inner circle. Then perhaps he will truly repent. How long God will continue to rain upon this soil before he deems is worthless should be Marks greatest worry.
March 4, 2008 at 10:16 am
Bro. Twitchell,
You need to take a deep breath and step away from the computer….
How can you know so much about Mark’s heart? It’s OK to stop the morbid over-analysis.
Luv ya!
March 4, 2008 at 10:20 am
Thomas: as if he was in some foreign mission field rather within a culture that has historic context which he does not seem to honor but rather seeks to overthrow.
You my friend are confused, he is in Seattle where there is no historic culture only unchurched pagans…we live in a post-Christian culture. In my neighborhood most people are third generation unchurched. They have never been to church and have no idea who Jesus is. Is it your argument that God would have us teach them the culture of the western church so that we might evangelize them?
March 4, 2008 at 10:22 am
It is a great sermon by the way…
And here to the overthrow of the western church culture of the last 50 or so years….
March 4, 2008 at 11:30 am
Thanks for confirming all I said. The proper culture is the church. Mark would like to have us believe that some how when the disciples went out they conformed their practices to the locals, rather than offering them a culture, biblically based.
But, *gents do not get this. What, pray tell, is culturally relevent about Marks foul mannerisms? How is that contextuallization? And, the point of all of Scripture is its own context. Mark is a work in progress, no doubt. But, there is no justification for him to remain in the pulpit. The fact that he doesn’t recognize who he is in the context of the pulpit is more than enough proof. Who cares how appealing he is culturally, really? I find it interesting that it is the overthrow of the church of the last fifty-years. You’re sure about that?
When in the history of orthodoxy has the presentation of the Gospel been draped in filth as a legitimate mode of expression? If that is what it means to become all things to all men, the Gospel has no relevance. It simply becomes an accomodation to the spiritual aspirations of narcissists. It is supposed to be a transforming entity, not a conforming one. Beside, even the following does not support transforming the church, but deals with the reconcilliation of Jew and Gentile in to one fold, not the compromise of the fold comforming it to civil culture: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” The point that Paul makes is that he is winning the two in to one. Not that the one is being comformed to all to be one. Instead, all are to be conformed to the image of Christ, the only culture. And that understanding is no license, but liberty, that does not bind the hearer, nor does it enslave the speaker. But Paul explicitly says that he must himself conform to the culture that has been entrusted to him, warning Timothy to watch his life and model it on Paul and warns Timothy to reject any who bring another teaching.
It is typical of mergers to confuse social culture with the culture of the church. They are myopic and do not understand the RPW, or even the NPW. Even Luther, who gave us the principles of the NPW, would never have countenanced the antics of Mark.
As I said, his confusion of style with liberty within the constructs of Scripture plays well to his enamored, lust filled, followers, but it does not stand in the light of the clear admonitions of the word of God which command that a minister be beyond reproach, not just within the culture of the church, but as they present themselves to the culture outside.
So, don’t confuse the culture within the church with the culture of native populations. When I say that there is a culture to be upheld, it is Scripture, not whatever social declinations that it has gone through by the hands of unfaithful ministers. Mark is not dealing with the kind of example he gave. The culture that he should be speaking of is within, not without. Not only do we have to deal as separate but not separate with the culture external that is secular which stretches back hundreds of years, civility within the secular culture is recognized even within the text of Scripture: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” So, it is not that we must bow the the current pop melieu. Or, do you suppose that if incest was recognized as acceptable outside the church, that the church (Mark) would emulate it? To this issue, Mark shows himself double-tongued, for on one hand he says he needs to contextualize his messages and the forms and styles of presentation, and on the other, preaches against cultural norms of the Seatle tribes on the other. It cannot be both. We might sit at the table of an idolater, however, if the food offered is dedicated to false gods, we are to abstain.
The day that Mark gets up and says: “Jesus would say”… and speaks with foul speach as he does, the case will be made. For now, the Scripture tells Mark that if he is to speak he is to speak as an oracle of God. Or, shut up. Neither, it seems is something he is willing to do.
There, that was my deep breath…
March 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Are there any good non-calvinist slanted sites that you would recommend. I get kind of tire of the re-hashing a view which is historically valid, but like any view needs to be refined or changeed to more acurately represent what God says in His Word. Calvin, Luther, Melanthon all addressed the same issues and a bit of a different approach as each one was a particular individual. I didn’t realize until recently there was an english reformation. I think we loose so much in castigating others instead of approaching Him and one-another in the Spirit that we have in common. I think it may have been Luther who indicated that satan’s ploy includes getting people to attack position or issues that are not current. A prophetic voice is what is needed and is indeed present today and I trust that God will lead His Church to recognize this and find the common life we all have in Christ as our rallying point.
Blessing in the Son,
Steve
March 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I am sure that the western church is completely devoid of the gospel for the most part…I am sure that the conservative churches I grew up in preached only behavior and never the gospel…I am sure that most churches for the last fifty years have done nothing to speak the gospel in a language that anyone who was not familiar with church would understand. You call the church a culture I call it a ghetto, where the thinking and the language is not guided by scripture but western thinking. The church in America is consumeristic, mono-ethnic and inward looking…She knows nothing of grace and has instead traded God’s grace given us as a result of him pouring his wrath out on the Son for trite and self serving moralism. I have no interest in that church. To me the Gospel and the Bible are the standard…and I have not seen the church in America done much with either in a long time though you seem to think that she has.
Also putting your two arguments about cultures and mission fields together is it your argument that mission fields do not have the scriptures…
March 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Thomas I am just wondering though if you were in France would you preach in English?
March 4, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I know that everyone that has seen (or heard) the sermon has different opinions, but I thought it was an honest approach to answer Tim’s question. I did not agree with everything that was said, but I enjoyed the sermon nontheless!
I do agree with Mark on one thing… the question was very well stated! Congrats Tim! It was a great question.
Yogi
March 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mr. Twitchell just wants every church congregation to look just like his. Praise the Lord that they don’t!
March 4, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Mr. Twitchell, if a pastor is humbly confessing his sin before his congregation from the pulpit, and receiving with joy the correction of godly older brothers in the faith (see 2 Cor 7:8-11 for an example of godly sorrow over sin leading not to perpetual remorse but to freedom), and you still give him a hard time about it, it’s probably time to ask yourself if you’re dealing with a personal vendetta.
One of the things that gives me the most hope and excitement about Driscoll’s future in ministry is the fact that he’s willing to humble himself under the loving critique of godly men. If he were just some blowhard Lone Ranger, I’d write him off completely — but he’s repeatedly shown that that’s not the case.
March 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Perhaps brother Twitchell has a different definition of “culture” than brother Dever. To say that scripture is culture is rather to assume a definition of what culture is that is not understood by many people. There are different cultures addressed within the pages of scripture. Even Paul alludes to addressing different cultures differently. To the Jews he was a Jew, to the gentiles a gentile. Peter was a Galilean who came from a different culture than the Jerusalemites he preached to in Acts.
In my church, staying on schedule is important because the church is heavily used. Most of the rooms have several purposes and have changeable placards depending on what day and what time it is. if you’re not in and out of a room by a certain time, then you are denying its use to someone else who needs it. That includes the “Worship Center”. We can barely keep our building and planting ahead of our growth right now.
When my team goes to Venezuela in the summer, we will have a completely different situation. Hispanic culture is focused more on relationships than time. The beginning and ending of classes or worship in the church is rather flexible. Any understood time for a service is understood to be a general suggestion. People will come and join in when they get there. You have music, scripture reading, prayer and preaching, but it happens as it goes. The scriptures are the same and they have the same understanding of them. However, the culture is different and corporate worship takes on a whole different flavor.
Music may differ dramatically also. Even western music has changed. We’ve used bar music since Luther (although some denominations still use the older Gregorian type stuff in their liturgy). Some cultures have music that employs scales that are foreign to our ears and our tastes. Something that sounds sad or onerous to western ears may sound cheerful to someone of another culture. It helps to have music that makes sense with the words you’re singing. You don’t sing “Crown Him King of Kings” to a dirge. Likewise, you must adapt for cultural sensitivities.
These are the sorts of examples I think of when I think of making things culturally relevant. There are people who abuse relevance to allow forms into corporate worship that are not honoring to God. I think Mark covers this distinction pretty well. Because of this, I think there are more important factors other than the RP/NP; namely, our heart for the worship of God.
March 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I had reservations with Driscoll when I first heard him and heard of him, but the more I hear him, the more I like him. Will I try to copy him here in small town Alberta, Canada? Not a chance. I do rejoice in his stand for good theolgy and expositional teaching. If he’s taking advice from men like John Piper and C.J., he’s only going to imporove.
As for the message, I thought it was well done. He’s done his homework well – he understands the positions without making an idol out of any of them. He could have answered the question with far fewer words, but I have to remember that he is trying to serve a diverse, unique congregation. In that context, it was great.
Remember, critics, at how the conservatives cried “foul!” at Whitefield preaching in open air meetings to coal miners (talk about dirty). Also, read Luther’s Tabletalk to get perspective on how God can use earthy characters.
Having said that, though, Mark has cleaned up his act considerably.
March 4, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I agree that the form of worship may change with culture. Driscoll has said this many times that our worship should reflect the culture. I think the bigger question for at least Americans is “do we pick a culture or try to create a different one?” In America we have hundreds of cultures just walking down the street. There is no way to make worship be in such a way that every culture would feel perfectly at home. So should we buy into the Homogeneous church principle where we form fit our churches to fit a certain demogaraphic group, or do we try to reach all people and have a multi-ethnic, multi-social class, multi-generational church? Driscoll obviously thinks that the former is the way to go by the way he does his church worship, form, and delivery. He admits that his church is geared towards 18-34 year olds. Other churches are geared towards cowboys, bikers, etc.. I just think that we should attempt to have churches that don’t look for just one demographiic, but all of them.
In Christ
Joe Hussung
March 4, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Joe, I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that a multi-ethnic, multi-class, multi-generational church is an awesome goal in that it reflects what the Church is going to look like when “the old has gone and the new has come.” But I also think that Mark thinks like a missionary and plays the hand that was dealt to him. If you’re ministering in, say, a ghetto in Calcutta, your church is probably going to be mostly poor, all Indian, but probably some diversity in gender. Or a lumber town in Alaska — all blue-collar, mostly male, but diverse in race.
See where I’m going with this?
Seattle is predominately white. Driscoll knows how to minister to young men. But (in addition to some racial/ethnic diversity, probably more than the city itself, and plenty of women) they have a pretty range of socio-economic groups at Mars Hill.
March 4, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Oops. Pretty *big* range.
March 4, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Thomas said:
“For now, the Scripture tells Mark that if he is to speak he is to speak as an oracle of God. Or, shut up. Neither, it seems is something he is willing to do.”
I hold out hope that the Holy Spirit will do a massive work there, and either clean up his mouth, or close it. His irreverence is a horrible, ungodly example to young people, the way things currently are.
March 5, 2008 at 12:25 am
Laura,
I understand. Mars Hill does a good job in the Multi-Social class category where most traditional churches would do well in the Multi-generational category with families and so on. But I don’t think that either can stop there. We have to be willing to have churches that will welcome all into the fold who are of Christ. And where Mark says that the “traditional churches” are not reaching the 18-34 year old men I would say that he isn’t reaching the other demographics either.
I am just concerned that the trend for “niche” churches will continue. I want to see churches that reflect the entire demographic in their communities in one local congregation. we don’t have it down, Mars Hill doesn’t have it down, but we have to be willing to get it right.
We just seem to have specific answers for each age, ethnic group, social class, and generation but not answers for all at the same time. We need to reach all at the same.
In Christ
Joe Hussung
March 5, 2008 at 9:32 am
Joe, MH does have about 50% married folks. I agree that they don’t have it down. Thanks for your graciousness.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why people think Mark is “irreverent” — I have hardly ever seen someone so enamored with the Gospel, so quick to defend the foundational issues of our faith, so unashamed of preaching truth. Does the Gospel somehow lose its power in Mark’s hands? I really don’t get it.
March 5, 2008 at 9:58 am
Laura,
I agree with you that Mark has a missionary mindset but to say that he is intentionally trying to act like the culture in Seattle is, in my humble opinion, incorrect. He IS that culture. It is embedded in him just like yours is in you. Once we put on a culture that is not deeply rooted in who we are, we enter dangerous ground.
I also don’t see the “irreverence” thing with Mark. Again, to the Seattle culture, he is EXTREMELY conservative and reverent. We can’t understand that because we don’t have that particular culture unconsciously in us. We’re on the outside looking in and we can never have an honest assessment of where Mark is.
If Mark is clearly being disobedient to scripture, then he will answer for it, either in this life or the one to come. I happen to like his trajectory. He is reforming….
March 5, 2008 at 10:00 am
Laura,
you said “For the life of me, I cannot understand why people think Mark is “irreverent” … I really don’t get it.”
Rather than repost here what I’ve already said at my own blog. I would encourage you to read my post there, about this. You may still not get it, but at least it will give you some insight into why many people (certainly not just me) find Driscoll offensive and irreverent.
SDG,
Carla
March 5, 2008 at 11:22 am
Thomas, point taken!
Carla, thanks so much. I replied on your blog. Blessings!
March 6, 2008 at 4:19 pm
And what is your response to the sermon, Timmy? Did he address the question in the manner you hoped for?
March 10, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Timmy
I am listening to the Podcast for Driscoll’s message. Thanks for asking this question. Have you written about your view of the RP?