Mark Driscoll and the Emerging Church

[James Nored]

This is a clip of Mark Driscoll talking about different expressions of the "emerging church." Though he does not mention this category, Driscoll represents a type of "fundamentalist" emerging church. Driscoll is the pastor at the Mars Hill church in Seattle.

What do you think about Driscoll's different categories of the emerging church? Where is he correct in his descriptions, and where do his descriptions need to be changed or expanded?

[WesWoodell]

James - that is not a clip of Mark Driscoll and he would be quite amused (or not) at your saying it is. :p

Here's Driscoll breaking down the emergent church: http://www.sebts.edu/chapel/getFile.cfm?FileID=396&Download=true

He's speaking to a group of Southern Baptists bashing Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.

I like Driscoll a whole lot. I'm not sure about all the things he says in that presentation, but certainly enjoyed listening to it.

[James Nored]

Opps. I posted this last night quickly--I had two different clips I was looking at. Thanks. I'll fix this.

[Hobby Chapin]

I became interested in Emerging church back at Harding. I read Kimball, Gibbs, Mclaren, and others. At that time I intended to plant a church in New Zealand. As we were anticipating a survey trip, I started looking up the emerging church guys on a blog. All but two excepted my invite to spend some time together. There were some rich experiences for me in this. This was where I first realized the difference between missional emphasis and worship arts emphasis. There was a church planted by Steve Taylor in Auckland. His successor told me that he was working to change the direction from worship emphasis to mission emphasis (I am not trying to create a shallow semantic issue between worship and mission here). I followed the successor's trail in Wellington and saw a church for the homeless, and talked to the leadership. The heart for the poor and helping prostitutes get off the streets etc was powerful to see. I later spoke with Steve Taylor in Christchurch. He had written his Ph.D Dissertation on a theology of the Emerging Church, which I bought from him and still have not read. He thought Kimball and Mclaren were not the strongest poster figures for the emerging church as he saw it. He did not have great emphasis in mission, but great emphasis on discipleship rhythm. Those were important discussions for me. I have become most interested in the "missional" strand. I have not read anything by Driscoll. Is he worth reading?

[WesWoodell]

I enjoy his preaching more than his reading ... check it out: http://www.marshillchurch.org/

I've not read it yet, but I've heard really good things about Radical Reformission. My buddy Kerry Cox was telling me about it this week. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Reformission-Reaching-without-Selling...

[James Nored]

Hobby, you are right on to see the differences in emerging church and missional church. The emerging church is very broad and cannot be fully characterized. However, much of the emerging church is simply a renewal movement, seeking to make worship more in tune with postmodern culture. Some emerging churches are seeking to be missional. At its worst, the emerging church is made up of disgruntled, white evangelical, former youth pastors who play with candles with no theological reflection. At its best, the emerging church is missional, incarnational, and striving mightily to bring the gospel to today's culture.

I am a missional guy, for it is a biblical-theological concept grounded and rooted in the mission of God, as best exemplified in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Missional is not primarily about worship, though part of being missional is being incarnational. This incarnational expression of the church will vary from culture to culture, and many aspects, though not all, of the emerging church may be very appropriate for our culture.

Hobby Chapin said:

I became interested in Emerging church back at Harding. I read Kimball, Gibbs, Mclaren, and others. At that time I intended to plant a church in New Zealand. As we were anticipating a survey trip, I started looking up the emerging church guys on a blog. All but two excepted my invite to spend some time together. There were some rich experiences for me in this. This was where I first realized the difference between missional emphasis and worship arts emphasis. There was a church planted by Steve Taylor in Auckland. His successor told me that he was working to change the direction from worship emphasis to mission emphasis (I am not trying to create a shallow semantic issue between worship and mission here). I followed the successor's trail in Wellington and saw a church for the homeless, and talked to the leadership. The heart for the poor and helping prostitutes get off the streets etc was powerful to see. I later spoke with Steve Taylor in Christchurch. He had written his Ph.D Dissertation on a theology of the Emerging Church, which I bought from him and still have not read. He thought Kimball and Mclaren were not the strongest poster figures for the emerging church as he saw it. He did not have great emphasis in mission, but great emphasis on discipleship rhythm. Those were important discussions for me. I have become most interested in the "missional" strand. I have not read anything by Driscoll. Is he worth reading?

[James Nored]

Hobby/Wes, Mark Driscoll's book Confessions of a Reformission Rev.: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church, is a fascinating read for anyone interested in church planting. He gives a detailed account of his planing of Mars Hill, including his struggles and mistakes, how he had to change his thinking, his shift from a generation specific church to a multi-generational church, their successes, leadership, etc.

WesWoodell said:

I enjoy his preaching more than his reading ... check it out: http://www.marshillchurch.org/

I've not read it yet, but I've heard really good things about Radical Reformission. My buddy Kerry Cox was telling me about it this week. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Reformission-Reaching-without-Selling...

[WesWoodell]

Cool ... I'll pick that one up too. I've just been turned on to Driscoll in the past few months. I plan to visit Mars Hill after I get settled in in San Francisco.

[Lynn S. Nored]

Hobby,

I am interested in knowing more about the churches you mentioned in Auchland, Wellington, and Christchurch. Can you give me contact information. I just returned from giving a course in Postmodern Evangelism at South Pacific Bible College in Tauranga.

Tks
Lynn Nored

Hobby Chapin said:

I became interested in Emerging church back at Harding. I read Kimball, Gibbs, Mclaren, and others. At that time I intended to plant a church in New Zealand. As we were anticipating a survey trip, I started looking up the emerging church guys on a blog. All but two excepted my invite to spend some time together. There were some rich experiences for me in this. This was where I first realized the difference between missional emphasis and worship arts emphasis. There was a church planted by Steve Taylor in Auckland. His successor told me that he was working to change the direction from worship emphasis to mission emphasis (I am not trying to create a shallow semantic issue between worship and mission here). I followed the successor's trail in Wellington and saw a church for the homeless, and talked to the leadership. The heart for the poor and helping prostitutes get off the streets etc was powerful to see. I later spoke with Steve Taylor in Christchurch. He had written his Ph.D Dissertation on a theology of the Emerging Church, which I bought from him and still have not read. He thought Kimball and Mclaren were not the strongest poster figures for the emerging church as he saw it. He did not have great emphasis in mission, but great emphasis on discipleship rhythm. Those were important discussions for me. I have become most interested in the "missional" strand. I have not read anything by Driscoll. Is he worth reading?

[James Nored]

Hi Paul. Good to have you back on. I hope that you are having a good holiday.

As you allude to, it is important for us to have discernment. We should neither embrace nor reject something just because it is new.

Paul Smith said:

WesWoodell said:

James - that is not a clip of Mark Driscoll and he would be quite amused (or not) at your saying it is. :p

Here's Driscoll breaking down the emergent church: http://www.sebts.edu/chapel/getFile.cfm?FileID=396&Download=true

He's speaking to a group of Southern Baptists bashing Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.

I like Driscoll a whole lot. I'm not sure about all the things he says in that presentation, but certainly enjoyed listening to it.

Wes, I'm not sure the word "bashing" is really the best word here. Sure, Driscoll is honest about his disagreements with Bell and McLaren. Frankly, I think he dealt with his differences in an appropriate manner. We have to be able to disagree if we disagree. I think Driscoll can see where McLaren in headed in a way that most of the rest us of cannot.

By the way, thanks for the link. I listened to the whole thing and, like you, enjoyed it very much. I find it irritating that everyone fawns over the latest and greatest without critically examining it. Driscoll certainly has the cred to speak whereof he speaks.

Paul