I got plenty of food for thought from Mark Driscoll’s two lectures at the Sydney Ministry Intensive conference the other week. As he was requested, Mark delivered what he called “the wounds of a friend” (Prov 27:6) who shares many theological convictions with us Moore College-types. Much of his analysis was penetrating. Again, I was impressed with how hard and well he has tried to understand Sydney’s cultures—both church and pagan.
For example, I will put my hand up to cop Number 1 of his 18 criticisms of us here in Sydney—namely, that
- The Bible guys are not the missional guys, which leads to proud irrelevance—[Ministers are] less aware of the context of their ministry and more aware of the content of Scripture. It’s not enough to just be the faithful, you must be the fruitful.
This describes me! No excuses.
I was deeply convicted on Monday that I need to do less (somehow!?) at church, and get more connected into my community. For me, the most obvious way is to get involved in our kids’ local state school. With another Christian couple whose kids attend there, I can also imagine—realistically—inviting other parents to a Simply Christianity course without too much difficulty. If I—the pastor—will not set the example in personal evangelism and in being out among my own non-Christian community connections, how can I expect anyone else at church to do it?
Mind you, I was already convicted of this without Driscoll. The words of Andrew Heard from Central Coast Evangelical Church at our Wollongong regional ministry workers’ conference and again at a recent MTS training day brought me exactly the same thought. And I think our Archbishop has been on about something to do with re-connecting with our communities, hasn’t he?
Nevertheless Driscoll’s critique was on the money, seeing I still have not done anything about it. Pray for me that God’s Spirit might help my reluctant heart to repent. And Driscoll said plenty of other stuff like that too.
That said, let me tell you that I was angry about Point 8 of his critique. Now, Mark Driscoll is a pretty robust guy—the sort of bloke whom Aussies would affectionately say calls a spade a ‘shovel’—maybe even with an adjective for good measure! (You say, “Tell me something I didn’t know!”) So that’s why I have no hesitation in speaking bluntly in reply. I reckon his Point 8 was slander. At best, it was sloppy caricature. At worst it was a slap in the face.
Here’s a summary of what he said taken from the Sydneyanglicans.net website:
- Many of you are afraid of the Holy Spirit. You don’t know what to do with it, so the trinity is Father, Son and Holy Bible. You are so reactionary to pentecostalism that you have reacted also to the charismatic. The Holy Spirit calls people into ministry. He also empowers people for ministry. You don’t have to be charismatic but you should be a little charismatic, enough at least to worship God with more than just all of your mind. The word charismatic here means prosperity, excessive, bizarre. In London, it means you’re not a liberal. Don’t get hung up on all the terminology. Do you love the Holy Spirit? Jesus says the Holy Spirit is a ‘He’ and not an ‘it’.” Ministry cannot be done apart from the Holy Spirit—I think that is in part leading to the lack of entrepreneurialism and innovation, because if it’s not already done and written down, you’re suspicious of it.
Why is this slanderous? Well, we have good reasons for critiquing the scourge of prosperity teaching. And we have carefully articulated from the Bible’s use of calling language why the ‘call’ to ministry theology is unhelpful.
But what really irked me is how Driscoll attributed motives to people he hardly knows. It’s running a big risk to presume to know the motives of another person’s heart. At the least, I argue, it lacks a lot of charity for Driscoll to generalize so confidently that Sydney evangelicals are “afraid of the Holy Spirit”. I am guessing the only evidence he can produce for this is that some of us—to varying extents—do not share his theology of guidance and extra-biblical revelation.
Secondly, it’s a very serious charge to say a Christian does not believe in the Trinity. And that is exactly what his line that our Trinity is “Father, Son and Holy Bible” alleges. This is a well-worn insult. And maybe it was designed to be a provocative throwaway line. But it’s pejorative rubbish to say such things. Frankly, I do not think we should be joking about such serious matters.
I have no problems with calling for more enthusiam in our singing and praying. I have no problems with calling for more innovation and entrepeneurialism. And I need the help. But I object in the strongest possible terms to the claim that we are afraid of the Holy Spirit or, worse still, do not really believe in the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, thinking of him as an ‘it’. I have never met a single Moore College graduate whom that accusation would fit. And I do not think a friend wounds truly by caricaturing those he wants to help.
Mark, if you think our theology of guidance or prophecy needs improving, then show us from the Bible why that is so. But let’s remember that (to name a few) John Calvin and, more recently, such friends as Sinclair Ferguson and John Macarthur have shared a caution about easy claims of extra-biblical revelation.
I am with Kent Hughes, who said at that same conference in the strongest possible terms that we must never separate Word and Spirit because, right from the start, the Bible does not separate them. He cited Scriptures from Genesis 1 and Psalm 33, right through to the clearest reminder that the Spirit’s sword is the word of God (Eph 6:17). As Kent said, we need more confidence in preaching and teaching God’s word, not less. And every Sunday before our congregational meetings, I pray that God’s Holy Spirit will work powerfully among us—that he might renew the convictions of the preachers—that he might work in the listeners to respond with faith to God’s word and with love to their neighbours—that the Spirit might change us from one degree of glory to another, and grant us his joy.
I am not afraid of the Holy Spirit. I long for him to wield his sword in my life and in the lives of my congregation members. I long for him to renovate us to become more like Jesus. And I long for him to open eyes blinded by the evil one.
It may have been an unfair throw away line that will offend, but lets think through the issue to see if any mud needs to stick. It seems to me that the issue Mark has perceived and tried to communicate is whether we have, generally, elevated the scriptures to such a level (being good theologians) that we have raised them above the third person of God and turned a good thing into a God thing, something that we worship, rather than directs our worship.
If we are honest with ourselves, then we will identify areas that we need to be careful with and address.
Should we use language like “we have gathered around his word” ? This is not incorrect, but it highlights our that our emphasis is drawing near to a book to hear God, rather than gathering together to draw near to God, asking God by the power of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the scriptures.
God is the gospel, not a book.
I listened to the talk this morning and felt he was furthering his point that we are good theologians, but need some more work on apologetics and application.
Thankyou, Sandy, for that honest and thoughtful response to Driscoll. Very helpful.
There is no doubt that this was his weakest point, or should I say least careful one.
but it is interesting how quick it arouses a defensive posture.
I reckon his words are a bit like mentioning Mark Driscoll in a blog, it is bound to arouse attention and bring in the ratings.
He knew that would get hackles up and I am glad it forced me think again about the person and role of the Holy Spirit ( and why he was in this instance wrong) but I wasn’t offended or slandered any more than other polemical preaching that risks hits and misses.
Just followed some links and ended up on the site. Interesting discussion.
From Sandy’s initial post, some people were cited ( Sinclair Ferguson and John Macarthur ) about warning people of extra-biblical revelation.
I was wondering what your opinion is with regards to making decisions – for example, if one were thinking of going into ministry. Could the Holy Spirit not lead us to end up at a bible college and ultimately a church? I’m just trying to see what people’s thoughts are on how we balance our God given wisdom and the call of the Holy Spirit – if you indeed believe that the Holy Spirit calls us to specific ministries?
I wasn’t at the gathering at which our brother from Seattle was asked to act as prophet and looking at the remarks he certainly pulled no punches. However, that’s what prophets do it seems to me.
I gather his views on guidance don’t accord with our tribe but there may be something in what he says. I am thinking of the possibilities of misinterpretation that could arise when we hold forth on verses like Ephesians 6:17. Even if the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit, such a metaphor ought to be handled with some care as to its theological implications – that is the things that it tells us about God. No one would disagree in this forum that Word and Spirit must be kept together. Yet this does not mean that they should be conflated either.
This verse belies the essentially complementarity that goes throughout the Bible between God’s Word and God’s Spirit. The Spirit wields the power of God the Father in and for creation. Yet the Word is the form through whom the Father’s power is realised in and for creation.
Again, it is hardly controversial in this arena to posit that God speaks His Word to us by His Spirit. Yet this kind of highly compact short hand statement contains a significant amount of theological description of how the Triune God of the Christian gospel related to His creation. A fuller version would be something like, God the Father reveals himself to us through His Word, the incarnate Son by the Holy Spirit who mediates the Lord Jesus to us in and through the Bible.
This kind of explicitly personal description seems cumbersome in anyone’s language, especially contemporary Australia. The question we may have to face up to is whether our short hand and less obviously personal phrases like, “the Bible says,” or “the gospel tells us” lead us into practicing a theology that doesn’t really need God to be Triune even if he is personal.
Hi Sandy, thanks for your post.
I think we should allow Driscoll to rhetorically argue _from within_ his theological position, and allow him a bit of additional psychologising… I think that’s all he’s doing, rather than slandering.
I perceive that we _may_ betray such fear of becoming pentecostal, that we are always veering away from any emphasis on the subjective, interventionist, emotional or extraordinary. It’s like a very powerful spam filter!
I think the Syd Ang “position” is right to say we shouldn’t expect these or focus on these… but I think we can tend towards *always* dowplaying them. Could that be due to fear? Would we *ever* believe someone God spoke to in an extraordinary way?
I deeply, profoundly agree with Mark Driscoll on point 8.
I believe we have over-reacted to pentecostalism, mainly because of prosperity theology (which I agree is bad), and that has caused us to have an incorrect understanding of the Holy Spirit.
There are many ways in which this is evident. One piece of evidence is the distinct lack of passion and negative attitudes in many of us.
I would humbly encourage you, Sandy, to rethink, and prayerfully consider your position on this issue.
I think this is a crucial issue for us.
Driscoll was just plain wrong on this one. Sloppy theologizing, sloppy (mis)understanding of what the people he was speaking to actually believe. Pointing out this error doesn’t make Sandy (or anyone) defensive. Because Mark made his point by asserting it rather than appealing to either scriptural or sociological proof, it had the appearance of a prophetic voice without its substance. Sandy thankfully hasn’t responded in kind in his post.
Not wanting to sound too harsh, however. There was plenty of good stuff mixed in; this particular point just wasn’t an example of it. We might also mention the astonishingly bleak view of singleness that MD put out, but that is for another post, perhaps.
I was at the conference, and agree with Sandy that Driscoll’s words here were very insulting to any Christian with an understanding of the church’s history and doctrine. He may well may not have realised it, but by bringing the Holy Spirit into the picture in this way he was effectively calling us heretics in the worst (i.e. Trinitarian) sense.
Perhaps, to try to be more positive, I could rephrase his accusation without reference to the Spirit. Was he trying to say two things:
1. “You tend to exalt the value of correct biblical interpretation at the expense of passionate obedience to God”
2. “You have an unhealthy suspicion of the supernatural in ministry”
Not that I necessarily agree with these accusations either – but at least asking the two questions in this way might get us talking and debating without stumbling over Mark Driscoll’s very sloppy formulation.
I would have to say that Mark Driscoll’s 18 points has given us fresh new ideas that we can apply. Are these points beneficial to us?
i like your rephrasing Lionel.
@Zac
Hey Zac, I’d like to hear more about the ways you feel we have overreacted to pentecostalism in Sydney.
Also interested in what we should be passionate about and how you see a lack of that passion displayed?
Zac – you mentioned that you think that we Sydney Anglicans have reacted to Pentecostalism due to Prosperity Teaching. I think that you would find that the reaction to pentecostalism goes further back than that and is about adding to the gospel some message (or manifestation of ‘tounges’ ect) to the gospel. I wonder still if peopel are keen to add a ‘supernatural’ or overwhelming emotional experience to the ‘must haves’ of the gospel.
I have certainly had deeply passionate and emotional times – particularly when I have been convicted of my sin and the great Joy of Grace comes home again. However – I don’t think it is right to seek to maintain that ‘high’ constantly – we are called to sobermindedness too.
I am concerned too with your comment about ‘negative attitudes’ – what exactly do you mean? are you talking about depression? if so that is something that I think you need to seriousely re-think. Or are you talking about just general ungodliness? if this is the case surely the answer is not ‘passion’ but alowing the Spirit to change our hearts through the teaching and correction of the world.
I agree with Mikey that your rephrasing is helpful, Lionel. Thanks.
Good question from Mikey as to whether we would <i>ever</i> accept that God had given someone a gift of discernment, as MD claims to have.
I’m willing to acknowledge that it can certainly happen in theory, but if it ever does (or at least if I ever hear about it), my walls go up. Right up. That’s not ideal.
But if the formulation of point 8 MD gave at the conference is a product of his gift of discernment, I’m happy where I currently am on this issue.
I put some other thoughts down here.
Gordon, I disagree with your understanding of prophecy. Prophecy can be an assertation without an accompanying Bible passage / sociological proof. The point is we must test it against the word of God (1 Cor 14:29). It doesn’t necessarily have to come packaged with a Bible verse. Can you explain from the Bible why you don’t think Mark’s words are prophecy?
Lionel, Mark put it in strong words because many of us are proud arrogant theologians who have got it wrong on that issue. I am guilty too. We need to have humility to accept that sometimes we can be theologically wrong. Are we prepared to admit this?
Neil, I think the results of our misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit are obvious: few churches are being planted, few people are being saved, churches are stagnated, preaching is often irrelevant, preaching is often boring, preaching is too often negative and depressing, we lack joy, we lack passion and fervor to serve God, many people are burnt out overworked and disillusioned. We lack vision, we don’t do enough for the poor and the needy. There are a rarely miracles of healing. There are rarely visions and dreams from God (joel 2). Just look at the book of Acts and compare it to now. There is a gap.
We should be passionate for the lost, I think too often it is token. We should be passionate for God. We should be passionate for each other. We should be passionate for the poor and the needy.
This passion would be expressed in action and belief. I think our culture of no-hands raised during singing is unhelpful. People should feel free to dance, raise their hands, shout praise to God, or sing ‘normally’ or whatever. People are too afraid to express themselves in worship to God. I know I am.
Kester: I think if there is no emotional reaction at all to God, then there is something wrong. I am not saying we always have to be excessively emotional. And yes I agree that sobermindedness and even sadness will be part of the Christian life. Also speaking in tongues is a good gift from God.
People in our churches are often negative – they are burnt out, disillusioned etc. They are depressed, they don’t believe God is actively working in this world – they have a bombshelter mentality. People lack excitement about God is his mission on this world.
Some depression is physical, probably most is spiritual.
One big problem I had with Mark Driscoll’s point 8 was the “Father, Son and Holy Scripture” jibe. It is simply snide. When I hear that sort of language, it makes me wonder whether I can take the speaker seriously.
It reminds me of Steve Chalke’s use of the phrase “cosmic child abuse”.
Why would someone choose to use the most insulting and hurtful language possible?
Mark doesn’t just raise questions about Sidney evangelicals – he also raises questions about himself.
Zac,
I’m still puzzled how our ‘misunderstanding’ of the Holy Spirit leads to some of things you mention.
Are people not saved because Sydney Anglicans aren’t pentelcostal in their thinking about the HS?
Is burn out and overwork due to a poor theology of the HS?
You say that compared with the time of Acts, we don’t see the same things happening, but surely that the point: we aren’t in the time of Acts. Where does the expectation that the same kind of things should be happening come from scripturally?
You say: “I think our culture of no-hands raised during singing is unhelpful. People should feel free to dance, raise their hands, shout praise to God, or sing ‘normally’ or whatever. People are too afraid to express themselves in worship to God.”
But again, are such superficial things really the issue here, and even if they are, how does it relate to a poor theology of the HS?
Zac (replying to your question to me above) – of course we must be prepared to admit we are wrong. But we need to actually work out what the real issues are and debate them, rather than making sweeping statements about who’s a heretic and who’s not. In this case, the issues that I think Mark wants to address are
1) our attitude to supernaturalism and
2) the perceived disjuction between theology and practice / passion.
But when you look at the Bible, and the great theological debates of past centuries, you see that the person and work of the Holy Spirit is far, far deeper than just the modern debates about supernaturalism and passionate obedience. I’m happy to talk about the presenting issues – and be prepared to admit I’m wrong or skewiff if needed. But to accuse people who may have a problem with these things of a wholesale denial of one person of the Trinity (as Driscoll has done, albeit by hyperbole) is really an incredibly severe overreaction.
Thank you for the interaction, friends. I appreciate it all, positive and also gently critiquing my own critique.
I especially appreciated my colleague Lionel’s clarification of the issues. I think he may have done a better job than me at getting to the heart of the issue and commend careful attention to his comments.
I promise that I will try and follow up your comments more myself – where I have something to add – and was doing so last night on Ben’s more general previous post.
However, as I was doing so late last night, I received some shocking news about the sudden death of a congregation member overseas and so you will understand if it is some time before I can interact much further.
I realise almost none of you would know anything about our congregation member, but perhaps I could ask you to pray – perhaps just once as you read this – for God to comfort shocked congregation members, and especially for our care and ministry to the family.
I too caught when he referred to the HS as an it. I admit I have a love/hate relationship with Driscoll. Having come out of the health and wealth, word of faith, charismatic chaos background I can truly say you all have good reason to take the approach you guys have taken in the ministry of the Holy Spirit. And I, because of this blog, have begin to seriously rethink the “subjective call” to ministry that Driscoll speaks of. I had applied this “subjectiveness” to myself, but now I doubt. Not a bad thing, but it has challenged me. Thanks.
“…I think the results of our misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit are obvious: few churches are being planted, few people are being saved, churches are stagnated, preaching is often irrelevant, preaching is often boring, preaching is too often negative and depressing, we lack joy, we lack passion and fervor to serve God, many people are burnt out overworked and disillusioned. We lack vision, we don’t do enough for the poor and the needy. There are a rarely miracles of healing. There are rarely visions and dreams from God (joel 2).”
Okay, so who wants to jump on board with that? Nobody. Your point is well made.
Just putting this out there:
That may sound flippant, but it reflects VERY strongly on the value we place on Scripture from a VERY young age in this church. And the amount of time we give to teaching about the Spirit.
Maybe I am being simplistic, but isn’t a significant role of the Holy Spirit to point to Jesus? If so, then I would have thought it was entirely appropriate that we hear more about God and Jesus in our Sunday Schools (and churches). And the Bible is, as is Jesus, the Word of God. So again, that emphasis seems entirely appropriate to me.
Spending more time ‘focusing on the Holy Spirit’ so often seems to me to be a strategy designed to help legitimize an emphasis on things other than Jesus, God and the Bible—perhaps to the grief of the Spirit.
On the practical level, again I repeat that I think Lionel is right to ‘hear’ Mark’s issues or concerns behind the false rhetoric as:
and I would add, to fill out the latter point:
<li>our different expectations about extra-biblical revelation.
Debate those issues by all means.
However I would add that I am not convinced by sweeping claims that our churches lack passion and are ineffective and our people are negative and joyless; anymore than I am convinced that “God, Jesus and the Bible” are the three most common answers in Sunday School.
Easy charges to make, hard to substantiate.
However as a discipline, I reviewed my sermons over the last 15 years, and noticed that there were plenty of mentions of God’s Spirit as well as of his Word … Topical sermons on the Spirit, as well as on the Bible. Concentrated time in places like 1 Corinthians 12-14, Romans 8 and Galatians 5, the Acts of the Apostles, John 14-16 and so on. All places where the Holy Spirit has been repeatedly taught on. I expect my colleagues are similar.
How many Sunday School classrooms or pulpits have been carefully analysed to say they neglect the Spirit in their teaching?
Or is it that there are some differences about our theologies of the Spirit, which is viewed as neglect by some?
You see, I think the Holy Spirit is powerfully active in the unspectacular work of inclining people to go serve by washing up the cups for everyone else after church, when they’d rather be talking to their friends. I think the Holy Spirit is active in the lady at my church who goes each week to read Mark’s Gospel to the elderly woman in the nursing home, for whom joy is a struggle some days.
But that does not look very passionate or supernatural. So it does not seem to count for some. To me, it is a profound work of God’s Holy Spirit.
I’m wondering, is it Driscoll’s life or his doctrine that recommends him as one to be followed? I agree that Kent Hughes point about Word and Spirit is a good one. He speaks on this regularly and was influenced by John Woodhouse (see http://thebriefing.com.au/library/1299)
From a Reformed pentecostal
To use an old adage
Divorce the Spirit from the Word
“Blow Up” (Excesses, Corinthian church, etc)
Divorce the Word from the Spirit
“Dry up” (Less outward expression of inward grace)
See that they are not opposed or can be separated. 2 Peter 1:21
We all “Grow Up” Eph 4: 15-16
PS: I heard it as Father,Son and Holy scriptures