So I was poking around the web and came across the videos for a conference called Advance09. I was just a minute into the first video from Mark Driscoll when I heard the following excerpt.
I admit, I don’t keep up with all Driscoll teaches, so I am asking for your input to help me get this straight.
Mark Driscoll was at a conference for pastors who have super large congregations. He is there with Rick Warren (25,000 members + 200,000 pastors trained in the PDL) and Jonathan Falwell (20,000 + members plus “millions” through their TV ministy). These men are considered hugely innovative and successive pastors because they have built really big congrgations. Driscoll (8,000 attending + plans to have 100 worldwide campuses and 50,000 people) turns to this group of men who are the spiritual guides to hundreds of thousands of people and asks, “what is the church?” All of these successful pastors look at one another with confused looks and say, “I don’t know! What is the church?” According to Driscoll, not a single pastor had a clear ‘functional’ ‘biblical’ definition of church!!!
Really? What do you think when you hear this story? How did these men grow such big congregations without knowing how to define church?
Second observation and question.
Mark Driscoll says we are living in an age when “Ecclesology is being redefined” by technology and redefined by the innovative ideas of this group of pastors (online church, video-venues, etc…). So again I am confused. Driscoll says, good things were happening for Jesus in his church, but he did not know how to define church. So now we have a group of pastors who don’t know how to define the church and they are now taking on the responsibility for redefining the church based on their use of technology and dreams of multi-site venues.
Is Driscoll suggesting that the Ecclesioology as defined in the New Testament is insufficient for today’s high octane mega-church leadership? Is God’s revealed Ecclesiology no longer viable and so it is left to this group of leaders to redfine Ecclesiology for the next generation? Is that really what Driscoll is saying? Is he right? Does Ecclesiology really need to be redefined for each new generation? Are these mega-church leaders the ones God has appointed to lead us all into the redefinition of church?
So what do you say?
——
NOTE: I am not intending this post to be a rant against Driscoll or big churches. From what I read, he preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is a brother of the cross. I just want some discussion on the topic and video.
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Joe,
I believe we should attempt to be as close to the scriptures as we can see and pray that we are fililng in the gaps as we are led by the Spirit. As long as the redefinition are not “out of bounds” to the biblical mandate I guess it is fine. I struggle with broadcasting “sermons” and building multi-million dollar (and 100′s of thousands of “members”) enterprises. However, for most people ecclesiology is not important, other than church government, thus my opinion falls in the category of “liberty” since the scriptures don’t give a direct ecclesiology as some say. So I think Mark brings up good points because for him and many others ecclesiology is fluid and thus as long as the scriptures are being preached and there is church discipline and definable leaders and the “ordiances” are faithfully employed then how you meet is irrelevant. I don’t know if I agree with this, but for most people who fight against the “multi-site” broadcasting sermon type of church they have no valid point of contention if ecclesiology is fluid. So from the common pespective on ecclesiology why not use all of the technocological advances at our disposal?
Rick Warren has a post on the front page of his website about the church. http://www.rickwarren.com/ If he was ever confused – he doesn’t appear to be now.
“What do you think when you hear this story? How did these men grow such big congregations without knowing how to define church?”
Mark Driscoll is doing what many public speakers do – conflating, and thus unintentionally misrepresenting, some conversations he had to make his point. The point he appears to want to make is that with these churches can expand and communicate in ways that weren’t possible in the past and that they should probably consider that as they expand or the “Ecclesioology” as he puts it will be defined (redefined) for them. (I assume by technological progress, etc.)
Of course these pastors have a definition of what the church is. I’ve yet to find someone who doesn’t have an opinion or idea of that. (It’s a building, it’s the people, it’s an organization, it’s a legal entity, etc.)
It seems that Driscoll, like so many others, is confusing a particular cultural expression of church for the essence of church–an essence clearly (though figuratively) laid out in the NT images of the church. I think this errant focus is a major cause of their lack of definition: there are so many expressions that coming up with a set of commonalities is nearly impossible. Studying the NT images is, frankly, much simpler and ought to be done more frequently and more publicly.
It strikes me that Driscoll is viewing the church through the lends of the visible expression, and that overemphasis leads to confusion when examined in light of what we see in Scripture.
[What is the church?" According to Driscoll, not a single pastor had a clear 'functional' 'biblical' definition of church!!!]
I think we need to focus on what the “biblical” definition of the term church is. With respect to those whom “church” equates to things structural or organizational — rather than congregational — we might find more than a few pastors in attendance. The Hebrews called their herd a congregation. The Greeks – church – all them sheeps! In either case they were defining a group of persons “called out” — separated — unto something.
In but a few cases we find people “called out” by God to separate themselves from something or someone. Unfortunately, in most cases we find people being “calling out” to separate themselves out unto something, by someone, other than God (whose name was used to entice a congregate unto something which is not of Him.) Perhaps this is why all the multimedia, Internet, razz-a-ma-tazz is required to keep them connected to their collection plates.
Excluding brick and mortar “church” we have a biblical definition the church:
It has a head – - and it’s not Rick Warren, Billy Graham, or the Pope:
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: . . .
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
It has members – - and they need no electronic devices to keep them attending:
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body. . .
Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, . . .
The Body (Church) has a message – - and it’s not in some coffee table bible-ette:
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins . . .
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
A church of called out people – - not to lordship salvation, health, wealth, or mystical superstition: Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Galatians 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Galatians 1:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Get out of the world’s church and get into the Church which is His Body. It’s FREE!
Romans 3:24 . . . justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Lionel,
I love the balance you are bringing in your “open-hand” irenic approach to ecclesiology.
Cliff,
I had that same thought myself. It certainly is “normal” for speakers to exaggerate stories and add to them to create some kind of effect. I am not a fan of such things (especially when the result is making others look bad just to make a point).
Laura & Arthur
I think your observations are similar and you both may be on to something. I would probably have to get Driscoll’s full teaching on church (which I think is for sale now) to really examine it though.
Wally,
Good summary brother and excellent challenge!
I wanted to give you a background to why Driscoll said what he did. Just recently ACTS 29 hired Steve Timmis as there Europe Director and there has been discussions recently in their camp (they just had there pastors retreat) about video campus’ vs. church planting, house churches vs. mega church so through his observations over the past couple of months there is a huge debate on what the church is and how that looks in todays culture?
I’ve recently been studying this subject more in depth and have come to the conclusion that although technology can help advance the Gospel there is something to be considered when looking at the church in Acts on how they had a diverse, loving, sharing, committed church which we lack in our culture today. I believe if you can accomplish the basic traits of the first church through house churches or mega-churches than great. As far as video venues I have a hard time with the concept but I’m still considering it’s value.
Joe, I think I know Driscoll’s thinking about church and mission yet I found this clip very odd. I wonder what is not here. I wonder what he is really getting at. It is not clear to me here. I find his reference to Warren and Falwell either a form of “one up” (I got it and you don’t) or just plain wrong. Obviously, as you suggest, Rick has a doctrine of the church and could explain it. He wrote a book on it. He is a Baptist and a smart guy. This makes Driscoll look rather odd as well.
Since I am not into all this “we define church” stuff I find this entirely a waste of time. This stuff would make me a Roman Catholic, or more likely Orthodox, if I hadn’t already settled the ecclesiology issue a long time ago. I sense there is a confusion here between defining the church and missiology but I could be reading my thought into his.
In the end I do not know what Driscoll means from this 2 minute clip. I really do not care what he means since this is grandiose nonsense in the end.
Before I went to seminary, a good friend of mine who was training for the mission field in Nigeria said, “Don’t get caught up in hero worship.” What he meant was, don’t look to the Christian “super stars” and think of the big “name” evangelists as something special. They are just like you and me. Only God can raise someone up and if it is from Him, it will last. Often, the professional “evangelist” has a professional “ego” to go with him. Or, God uses someone in a great way but others tell them how wonderful and great they are and they lose site that it is God, not them, that is great and then “pride comes before a fall.” We are all equal in the eyes of God. I have photographed many celebrities, ministers, and politicians professionally and they are just regular people when the media isn’t looking. The pedestals we put them on is harmful and impossible to sustain. None of us sees clearly. We all see “through a glass darkly”. If God does not do it, it wont get done. We are ALL special.
Mike,
thanks for your insight brother.
John,
I link to the whole video on the blog, but after this Driscioll pretty much moves on to say how this incident started him on a study of the church (now available on DVD and w/teaching materials).
I agree too that this story in effect throws these other guys under the bus.. very odd.
Good point about not confusing “church” and “mission”.
Donny,
Good advice brother!
I agree with Donny’s comment but also feel Mark, at least in this segment, throws these guys under the bus to make a point about what he wants to say and promote. Not good. I love him and long for him to not speak in this way.
Given our tendency to conform to the patterns and structures of this world, we should feel to some extent justified in placing the burden of proof on those who find the church insufficiently worldly. Further, we should constantly examine how our status quo has been shaped by previous worldly wisdom, by what is fashionable and perishable.
I find much of the current and proposed use of technology in worship and fellowship distracting and unnecessary. It often mimics the exaltation of celebrity in our culture. (Why, to hear God’s word preached, do I need to see an image of my pastor enlarged x 100?) It cuts against God’s clear preference to work through a community of flawed, broken humans to bring himself glory. It makes worship, the work of the people, more and more the work of the amplified pros.
Over 100 years ago, E.M. Bounds observed:
“What the Church needs to-day is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more and novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use — men of prayer, men mighty in prayer. The Holy Ghost does not flow through methods, but through men. He does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but men — men of prayer.”
Matt, great quote from Bounds!
I think in this same message, he goes onto define what the church is.
I think this clip is his intro to his message on what the church is.
Hi James, you are correct and this is what I wrote just a few comments above yours. I wrote, “I link to the whole video on the blog, but after this Driscioll pretty much moves on to say how this incident started him on a study of the church (now available on DVD and w/teaching materials).”