There is a venerable old put-down, attributed to Samuel Johnson: “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”
That was, I confess, my first reaction to Mark Driscoll’s 18 Theses, recently nailed to the foreheads of the assembled Anglican leaders in Sydney (and summarized earlier this week by Ben).
As others have pointed out in the comments, most of what was powerful and convicting in Mark’s address is only what Phillip Jensen has been saying for nearly three decades. By my count, eight of the 18 are pure Phillip, and another three have his ‘vibe’.
Of the remaining seven, two are just wrong (such as the one discussed by Sandy on Tuesday), and five are debatable, or show a lack of understanding of our situation. What does it mean, for example, to say that ‘evangelism is not enough’, and that we need ‘mission’ as well? Or that the Bible guys are not the missional guys? (Which guys is he talking about? Not the Bible guys I know.) And do we really want to take the retrograde step of requiring that young men experience the subjective ‘call to the ministry’ before we start training them?
So as a first reaction, the Samuel Johnson dismissal may be understandable. But I don’t mean to say that it is adequate. Many of Mark’s best points may have been things that have been said before, but is anyone in any doubt that we needed to hear them again (or, for some of us, for the first time)? And in such a fresh and powerful way? By an outside voice that we might actually be prepared to listen to?
To quote another English wit (GK Chesterton), we should open our minds to such things in the same way as we open our mouths: in order to bite down on something solid.
If there is an overarching caution I would raise in relation to Mark’s Theses, it would be the tendency (so prevalent in the US, and increasingly here in Australia) to split theology from practice. Sound doctrine is respected and affirmed and taught, but it seems largely irrelevant to the key practical judgements and decisions about ministry, which are made on the basis of pragmatic, cultural and personal factors. Where theology or biblical content is adduced, it is usually an unconvincing back-fill to provide ballast and justification (such as Mark’s point about ‘prophets, priests and kings’). The theology needs to drive the practical thinking more thoroughly and convincingly, and where there is freedom to do things pragmatically in a variety of ways, that zone of freedom should itself be theologically defined.
This was the vital distinction Phillip made in his recent Briefing article, ‘The Strategy of God’ (which I personally think is one of the most important articles we’ve published in recent years): the Bible’s theology must drive and shape our ministry methods (the God-given strategies we must pursue, such as proclaiming the gospel), but as it does so, it marks out a theatre of free action in which we are free to experiment, learn and try different things (what Phillip calls ‘tactics’). The common and distressing tendency is to elevate our tactics to the level of God-given strategy, by spurious appeal to biblical teaching or precedent—usually after the tactics have proved effective in our own context and we are trying to sell them to other people as the answer to their ministry prayers.
Nearly all Mark’s points are tactical assessments, and a great many of them are shrewd, accurate and well worth hearing. But as we think about our ministries, our effectiveness in evangelism, and the methods we should employ, we need to keep asking the old but crucial question: what does the Bible say?
[I’ve just noticed that the ‘Strategy of God’ article is not yet online at the Briefing site. We’ll make it available as soon as we can. TP]
Tony
thanks for that. As someone who didn’t hear Driscoll it has been interesting to read and listen to people’s reaction and comments.
For mine one of the things that Phillip does better than any other clergy I know is the extent to which his theology shapes his practice down to the detail. I don’t mean to detract from the other clergy that I know, it is just Phillip does this better.
I believe it is something that we need to be more and more careful about in Sydney. The world around us is very outcomes driven, usually with a short term focus. It is all to easy to adopt this worldly approach and be “pragmatic” or “practical” at the expense of acting “theologically”. My personal view is that in just about all other walks of life it is useful, and often correct, to be commercially practical and pragmatic. Therefore there is pressure for bible teachers to be the same as they lead our congregations and parishes etc. I am not arguing that clergy shouldn’t ever be practical (and potentially learn things from practical or other outside environments), but that their actions should be driven by their theology and where the two clash it is important to be theological and not practical.
From what I have read it seems that Mark Driscoll was encouraging our leaders, in some ways, to act pragmatically at the expense of theogically. If that is the case then the real benefit in hearing him is to help test whether we are all (including our clergy) earnestly striving to act theologically and not merely practically.
Hi Tony, really great post, thanks again!
What is mission (rather than just evangelism)? I think it’s the holistic approach painted in Promoting the Gospel, for example or Total Church (whatever the flaws of these books).
I also reckon that at worst, our cultural engagement can be caricatured as simply pointing out the self-contradictory and morally hollow nature of secular humanism.
Finally, although I’d prefer to talk of ‘spiritual gift’ rather than ‘calling’, I think MTS could think more on this. We run the risk of assuming that ‘giftedness’ amounts merely to ability and willingness. Is this a tad too pragmatic?
well done Tony for cleverly taking a venerable old put down and making it a venerable new put down.
you say ” Nearly all Mark’s points are tactical assessments, and a great many of them are shrewd, accurate and well worth hearing. But as we think about our ministries, our effectiveness in evangelism, and the methods we should employ, we need to keep asking the old but crucial question: what does the Bible say?”
let’s do that. lets hear his shrewd accurate technical assessments – and see if they penetrate through our walls of defensiveness and negativity.
Tony
I’m deeply grateful for the way God has used and is using Philip Jensen. We’ve gotta give thanks that God is using MD to influence a new generation of young men.
I think it was great that Philip Jensen gave MD the Cathedral Platform to speak from and set up the question time so that people could learn from Mark, not defend themselves. Fantastic too that Peter Jensen was there.
The live audience there was (mostly) not the 25 year old church planters, but the generation that are being encouraged to prune anything that would stop future fruit. As the mp3 goes out & blogs keep talking about the talk, I find people are asking great questions about what evangelism, mission, training etc should look like. I’m glad these questions are on the agenda.
Speaking personally, I’ve had more conversations in the last fortnight with young men wanting to leave home, get married, start ministry than I have had in 6 months. It all started with Burn Your Plastic Jesus. For that I give thanks to God.
I’m not an 18 point Driscollite – I might be a 14.5er. I think each of the points is important and worthy of careful thought. I think he’s clearly wrong on some. But we’re talking bathwater. The bigger challenge I was left with is to think what needs pruning & who is going to do it.
As to Driscoll splitting theology and practice I don’t agree. As he said at the start the 18 points really flow out of 1 Cor 9.19ff. (When he used prophet/priest/king I thought he made it clear they weren’t biblical categories.) What he was doing was putting theology into practice.
There is more to say but I suspect there will be quite a line up of comments on this one…
Guys, thanks for the comments.
Mike and Shane, in case you (and others) assume that I am in some way seeking to neutralize Mark’s critque, or am recommending business as usual, please don’t mishear me. As you said, Mike, it’s great that Mark was given free rein at the Cathedral, and (as I said) we are in real need of hearing these things afresh, and acting on them!
So Shane I agree entirely when you say:
let’s do that. lets hear his shrewd accurate technical [sic] assessments – and see if they penetrate through our walls of defensiveness and negativity.
(Although I’m not sure whether that last bit is aimed at me, or is just a general comment about how easily we Christians are defensive and/or negative. I don’t mind either way—and would agree either way. I am certainly just as capable of defensiveness and negativity as the next guy!)
As we do so (and yes as we actually do so!), I am only pleading that we keep tactics in their appropriate place, and that we keep allowing the Bible to drive our methodology.
18 point Driscollism. Cool. Now, what’s a flower with eighteen letters, surely we can come up with an acronym?! Any florists out there?
I too was at St Andrews and heard MD’s 18 point Calvinism. When I got over the grief of hearing him say he was a 4.5 Calvinist (naughty boy), one of the 18 points I thought was a bit difficult was the one pertaining to Tall Poppy Syndrome. I was soo tempted to ask him a question about “How are we to tackle something that so part and parcel of the Australian cultural mindset and something that is seen as a good thing?” but I realised that by asking such a question I would have seen as being a tall poppy and would have been shot down in flames!
Though the comment about British structures was very insightful. After two years in Scotland when I came back I was amazed at the differences but also laughed in how British Australians still are. In lots of ways we are still Brits, we just have darker skin and speak better!
“Of the remaining seven, two are just wrong (such as the one discussed by Sandy on Tuesday), and five are debatable, or show a lack of understanding of our situation.”
For what it’s worth, when Philip Jensen was in the States some years ago, he made some critical comments about how Evangelicals in our country were dealing with the culture here, and my reaction was, “How can he say that when he doesn’t understand our situation!”
Bob
To defend Phillip a little, I think it’s probably fair to say that Aussie evangelicals see a lot more of American culture and evangelicalism, than American evangelicals see of Australian culture and evangelicalism. That’s not to say Phillip was necessarily right in what he said (I don’t know what it was). But I wonder how much Mark Driscoll knew about Sydney evangelicalism before he came down to Sydney?
Also, I know that we Aussies tend to be pretty conscious of and sensitive to cultural differences (because we are the little cousin). So, for example, at the Matthias Media USA conference in 2007, Phillip said some things that didn’t go down too well, but he quickly worked out that the concerns were due to some cultural differences, and clarified what he meant during the next session.
Hey Tony
Maybe it was just coincidence but I’m pretty chuffed that you used my line.
“recently nailed to the foreheads of the assembled Anglican leaders in Sydney”
You’ll see I used the same line in my post a while back here.
the more i think about this post, the more i like it. we need to keep insisting that our pragmatism flows out of and is informed by our theology. always.
Tony, I feel your post is heading towards empty talk. You say we need to look at what the Bible says, and that Mark splits theology from practice; how would you say the Bible does it specifically? (What points would you draw out on a practical level?) And how does Mark split theology from practice?
Just letting people know that the article that Tony mentioned—‘The strategy of God’ by Phillip Jensen is now online.