Jensen on Driscoll

In the continuing conversation about Mark Driscoll’s critique of Sydney Anglicanism, Phillip Jensen recently made some typically sharp and insightful reflections. Reproduced with permission.

Recently, Sydney had the pleasure of hearing Pastor Mark Driscoll. In a two-week period, he spoke in many venues, including my church, St Andrew’s Cathedral. In the Cathedral, he twice addressed a packed gathering of Christian workers. His second address was a challenge to our evangelistic ministry of the gospel in this city: he lovingly told us 18 problems he saw we had. It was an address that caused considerable discussion amongst Sydney’s evangelical community.

Since that address, I have been approached by many people wanting my opinion on Mark Driscoll and, in particular, his critique of Sydney’s evangelism. As one of the people who invited Mark to speak to us, I am keen to keep the conversation going, and to ride the enthusiasm that he has engendered among the next generation of Christian leaders. I hope to look at the 18 points in the future, but before I do that, I think it is important to make some general observations about listening to criticism.

Mark Driscoll is a fine Christian man who has been gifted and blessed by God to undertake a great ministry in his home city, Seattle. He loves the Lord Jesus Christ as his saviour and Lord. He upholds the great Reformation doctrines of grace, and seeks to teach the Bible as he reaches the lost with the gospel. His gifts in oratory and communication are enormous. He is a great evangelist: he is able to communicate with his generation, and he makes the gospel clear and its claims compelling. His address to us in the Cathedral was more that of a prophetic preacher than an expositor of the Bible. He spoke as a Christian friend about the problems he sees we have. As such, it is important that we weigh what he says (1 Cor 14:29).

There are three obvious mistakes that we can make concerning such a message and such a messenger. The first is that of reactionary defensiveness. Mark was hard-hitting and critical. He said things that made us feel very uncomfortable, and he said them with force and vigour. He was calling upon us to change our ways. All of this can create defensiveness within us, and it makes us want to argue with him and explain ourselves. There are many ways in which we can defend ourselves: we can find fault with his manner or his choice of words; we can look for holes in his logic, or point out the minor errors of fact—especially about Sydney; we can qualify what he has said—to the point where we have domesticated his main points; or we can complain about what he failed to address (e.g. some found fault in his attack on young men because he did not speak to young women—as if he was supposed to say everything). We could also find fault with his rhetorical use of hyperbole, generalizations, stark contrasts and lack of nuanced discussion. But in all this, he is not dissimilar to Jesus’ preaching. He is a man who confronted us with hard questions, and we must be very wary of our own defensiveness.

The second mistake is to become a sycophantic follower. Mark is a remarkable man with many clear and great insights. But he is not the only one, nor is he always right about everything, and nor would he want people to follow him instead of Jesus.

The prophet is without honour in his own country, but has great honour overseas; it is humorous to hear of the respect our preachers have overseas, and the honour that overseas speakers have in Australia. Certainly we have had many compelling preachers come through our city over the years. Each arouses a new generation of enthusiastic followers. Over time, we get used to the arrivals and departures of people like John Stott, Dick Lucas, Billy Graham, Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. We have been blessed with books and tapes from Francis Schaeffer, Tim Keller and John Piper. America is full of great preachers and leaders who influence Australian Christianity. Mark is not the only voice to listen to and learn from, and it is immature to think that any single person is the answer to all our problems.

Mark’s challenge to us is timely and helpful. But his criticisms may be more helpful than his solutions. The gulf in church life between a denominational church in Sydney and an independent church in Seattle is enormous, and our theological perspective on church and ministry is also quite different. But this is not to say we have nothing to learn from him, or that we should not change what we are doing in the light of his challenge. Yet just as defensiveness is wrong, so is slavish sycophancy.

The third mistake is to do nothing. It is manifest that if we are going to reach our community, we must change. Mark has challenged us to change, and I believe he is right. Much of what he said is already in the Diocesan Mission statements. But having them in mission statements and putting them into practice are two different things. I was glad Mark spoke to us because he challenged us to change in the very direction we want to change. However, it is possible to spend too much time weighing what he said, rather than doing anything about it. He has caused a real movement in the camp, so it is important that we capitalize on his visit and bring in change.

Those who are defensive will oppose any change. Those who are sycophantic will wait until Mark returns to tell us what to do. We must avoid both errors. If Mark never returns, it will be a shame and our loss. But that is irrelevant to his message, for his challenge to us was to get moving, take initiative, and not to wait around to be told what to do next.

Here’s the question: Even if we demur at some points, what are we going to do about those aspects of Mark’s critique that were obviously and painfully true? What are the top three things we need to change? And how are we going to take the initiative to change them?