Originally posted on [url=http://www.xanga.com/Prayer_Warrior83/629719777/book-review-confessions-of-a-reformission-rev-hard-lessons-from-an-emerging-missional-church.html
]my blog.
Book Review: "Confessions of a Reformission Rev.: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church"
I have to say that when I first picked up this book, I was initially doing so to get some perspective on the Emerging Church movement from soneone who had essentially "been there, done that."
Mark Driscoll's name is one that has been associated by those for and against the Emerging Church as one who is paradoxically either loved or loathed. Liberal theologians loathe him as he chooses to take a stand for common evangelical doctrinal principles (the integrity of the gospel, gender roles within the church, authority of scripture, spiritual gifts, a biblical understanding of salvation). At the same time, conservatives and "fundamentalists" give their own share of criticisms not so much to Driscoll's theological principles, but his practical methods (he dresses casually, he uses not-so-polite language and his worship band honestly sounds little different than Seattle's grunge music culture.)
Confessions is not so much a refutation/apologetic for the Emerging Church, but rather an autobiographical look at how his church, Seattle's Mars Hill Church, came to be where it is. I've read a fair share of church health books ranging from the pragmatic (e.g, Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church) to the conservative (Mark Dever), yet Driscoll honestly left me with more questions than answers. First of all, this is Driscoll's explanation of the Emerging and Emerent church movements (yes, they are two different things):
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuIMark Driscoll - "Emerging vs Emergent"
]
The "Emerging" umbrella basically consists of those within protestantism who, seeing that there is indeed a postmodern culture emerging out of 21st century society, have desired to respond accordingly. These include:
1. Evangelical fellowships that are looking into new ways of church structure and polity different to that of the usual Sunday Worship Service (e.g., house churches).
2. Churches that maintain their theological distinctives, yet choose to "upgrade" themselves in areas where scripture does not give a black and white description on how it is to be done methodically (e.g., music genres, the use use of Information technologies, multimedia) yet are nonetheless prevalent in society as identifiable tools for communication. (This would probably be where Driscoll would be).
3. Those who hold to an essentially-Reformed view of Christianity, yet are nonetheless interested in practicising their ministry as though they were a missionary within the context of an increasingly secularized postmodern society. (e.g., Joshua Harris' "Humble Orthodoxy")
4. The Emergents, who have decided to respond to postmodernity by way of conforming to rather than contending against, and in doing so become postmodern themselves and hence pave the path to liberal theology. Dialogue and discussion are encouraged more than scripture-based teaching and impartation; the divine identity, lordship and exclusivity of Christ isn't emphasised to the point that it becomes openly denied and congregants are told not to "think that only Christians have the truth, but try to see the truths found in all religions." (e.g, Doug Pagett, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren).
Hence, in this respect, any church that wishes to engage postmodernity effectively should fit into one or more of the above four categories. Where many churches fail, Driscoll states, is that when we fail to love the Lord, our culture and our church simultaneously, reformation ceases, leaving one of three holes: the parachurch, liberalism and fundamentalism.
"Confessions of a Reformission Rev" - Mark DriscollGospel+Culture-Church=Parachurch
First, some people become so frustrated with the church that they bring the gospel into the culture without it. this is referred to as the parachurch and includes evangelistic ministries such as Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ. The parachurch has a propensity to love the Lord and it's neighbours, but not to love the church.Culture+Church-Gospel=Liberalism
Second, some churches are so concerned with being culturally relevant that, though they are deeply involved in the culture, they neglect the gospel. this is classic liberal Christianity. Liberal Christians run the run the risk of of loving their Christian brothers and sisters at the expense of loving their Lord and his gospel.Church+Gospel-Culture=Fundamentalism
Third, some churches are more into their church and its traditions, buildings, and politics than they are the gospel. though they know the gospel theologically, they rarely take it out of the church. this is classic fundamentalist Christianity, which flourishes most widely in more independent-minded, bible-believing churches. Fundamentalist Christians are prone to love the Lord and their brothers and sisters but not their neighbors.
The only way out of this hole is repentance, which enables reformission. Through repentance, Christians andchurches are empowered by the Holy Spirit to simultaneously love the Lord, love their neighbours and love their Christian brothers and sisters.Gospel+Culture+Church=Reformission
Reformission combines the best aspects of each of these types of Christianity: living in the tension of being culturally liberal yet theologically conservative Christians and churches who are absolutely driven by the gospel of grace to love their Lord, their neighbors and their fellow Christians. (pg. 16)
This poses the very challenging question: How much of what we take pride in being what makes our churches unique (whether we be Charismatics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Reformed, Wesleyet, et al) is really just the result of man-made traditions that have grown over the generations and have absolutely no basis in scripture for being yea or nay? Furthermore, what are the things common know within the church that can welcome practical innovation and change? Of course, where we draw the line is when scripture does indeed establish a boundary. When those boundaries are crossed, that is when we find ourselves in compromise.
Driscoll then describes the blood, sweat and tears journey over eight years to grow a church from zero to 4000 congregants. He doesn't pull any punches here, he describes with brutal honesty the challenges he has faced as a pastordetermined to take his stand within seattle's postmodernity. At this point I have to give a warning: in terms of using the English language, Driscoll is no Spurgeon. He can get very sarcastic, cynical, even course in how he describes things. His second appendix about "Larger church Distinctives" is if anything more of a rant than an analysis. But to tell the truth, as someone who is part of a fellowship within a bigger multicultural movement that has struggled with learning how to reach out to the people "next door" while also having to deal with false converts, people falling into sin, deception, spiritual attack nd even apostasy, Driscoll's honesty was a breath of fresh air. Finally! Someone who has the guts to tell it like it is! It took me two hours straight to read the 207-page book, after which I simply cried both tears of depair at past losses and tears of hope knowing that in spite of all these challenges when God places a vision in your heart to see his kingdom advance, you can be assured that if you're up to it, he'll guide you through.
So in short, if you're looking for a book that will teach you how to contend for the faith in the midst of postmodernity, this book won't offer much in terms of a theological how-to strategy. However if, like me, you want to see what the pastoral aspects of the latter will mean for those that choose to take up the challenge, here it is.