Recently, Sydney had the pleasure of hearing Mark Driscoll. In a two-week period, he spoke in many venues, including my church St Andrew’s Cathedral, where he twice addressed a packed gathering. His second address challenged our evangelistic ministry in this city: he lovingly told us 18 problems he saw we had. This caused considerable discussion amongst Sydney’s evangelical community.
Since that address, I have been approached by many 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, I am keen to keep the conversation going, and to ride the enthusiasm 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, I’d like 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, he upholds the great Reformation doctrines of grace, and he 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, able to communicate with this generation, making the gospel clear and its claims compelling. His address to us 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 mistakes we can make in response to such a message and such a messenger. The first is to react defensively. Mark was hard-hitting and critical. He said things that made us feel very uncomfortable, and he said them with force and vigour. He called upon us to change our ways. All of this can create defensiveness within us, making us want to argue with him and explain ourselves. There are many ways in which we can do this: we can find fault with his manner or choice of words; we can look for holes in his logic, or point out minor factual errors; we can qualify what he has said—to the point where we domesticate his main points; or we can complain about what he failed to address (e.g. in his attack on young men, he did not address young women—as if he was supposed to say everything). We could also find fault with his rhetorical use of hyperbole, generalizations and stark contrasts, and the lack of nuanced discussion. But in all this, he is not dissimilar to Jesus’ preaching. He confronted us with hard questions. Therefore we must be wary of our own defensiveness.
The second mistake is to become his sycophantic follower. Mark is a remarkable man, possessing many clear and great insights. But he is not the only one, nor is he always right about everything. Nor would he want people to follow him instead of Jesus.
Certainly we have had many compelling preachers come through our city over the years. Each arouses a new generation of enthusiastic followers. We’re now used to the arrivals and departures of people like John Stott, Dick Lucas, Billy Graham, Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. We’re 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 between a Sydney denominational church and a Seattle independent church 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 light of his challenge. Yet just as defensiveness is wrong, so is slavish sycophancy.
The third mistake is to do nothing. Mark challenged us to change, and it’s clear that if we are going to reach our community, we must change. 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 to host Mark speaking to us because he challenged us to change in the very direction we want to change. However, the danger is we spend too much time weighing what he said, rather than doing anything about it. He has caused a real movement in the camp; we should 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 was to get moving, take initiative, and not to wait around to be told what to do next.
