The Radical Reformission - A Book Review

Introduction

            The Church has long been a passion of mine. Her relationship to Christ is an enthralling mystery; Her relationship to the world is a tragically misunderstood role. It was not until I grasped the true essence of femininity that I developed a deeper comprehension of Christ’s love for Her and Her mission to a lost world. The true nature of the virtuous Bride is well depicted in Proverbs 31 - a passage we forget when applying it to the Bride of Christ. She is an astute business woman, a lover, mother, provider, and the embodiment of wisdom and compassion. It is not only a relationship of inner intimacy with Christ, she is tasked to minister to the needs of her own and to the world.

            This perspective has largely shaped how I view the Church and Her image. The manner in which the Church has behaved over the past two thousand years takes on many forms. She has played the harlot and the performer, but none of this changes the ideal of what She is meant to be. The ideal remains pristine and a standard to which She must be held. If Christ is the image after which we strive to be, however imperfectly, then the virtuous Bride remains a proper image towards which the Church should aspire. This paper is an analysis of Mark Driscoll’s The Radical Reformission and his interpretation of the Church’s mission in the world.

The Radical Reformission

            I will begin by saying that the overall undertone in this book towards anything feminine is radically atrocious. Terms that Driscoll employs to depict femininity are degrading and a violent accost to any female. Terms such as cow, prostitute, dumb meat, strip club, strip poker, Victoria Secret, analogies of dogs and cats, whore, “Hefneresque”, beauty queens, naked, slut, trashy, easy, dirty, pornographic, and I kid you not - “junk in her trunk” - to name a few. These terms are used to describe a variety of different concepts including direct references to women, but each evokes violent imagery. If this is meant to depict a Church gone awry then that is fine. We have had our eras of immorality. But some redemption must be offered for an image of the Church that is clearly defined as a feminine entity. This does not happen. Instead of redefining a Godly image of femininity, Driscoll takes the role of the Church and transforms it into an aggressive, hotheaded, and aroused portrayal of masculinity. In essence, Driscoll turns the Church into himself.

            Driscoll’s depiction of a strong pastor on more than one occasion involved the capacity to kill another human being in self defense.^[1] I applaud the distinction of self defense, but it scarcely makes a difference. Unfortunately a class in self defense is not part of my M.Div. program. Perhaps it should be? Driscoll identifies himself as acting in one of two modes: angry and asleep. Perfect. Just the person who should be defining the Church’s mission to the world. His understanding of sin further complicates matters as he describes his identity as sin. In his words, “I thought sin was something you do not something you are.” ^[2] Firstly we are not sin. We are God’s image bearers and we are fallen, therefore, we sin. Secondly, this explains a lot of Driscoll’s seeming self hatred and inability to see true masculinity and femininity as reflections of the image of God. Driscoll’s words seemed to scream from the page, “I hate femininity, and even worse, I hate masculinity if it is not raping or killing something, or at least entertaining the possibility of such acts.”

            Driscoll’s understanding of the intimate relationship we share with Christ was loudly assaulted as a “thinly veiled homosexual relationship.” This is never explained, but neither are any of his “limp-wristed” references either. While I do not condone a homosexual lifestyle, I also cannot condone the manner in which Driscoll objectifies effeminate males and bends them over to suit his literary lust for attention. How’s that for conjuring violent imagery? He also seems to have an affinity for underwear and body hair.^[3]

            Finally after the onslaught of vicious imagery, Driscoll arrives at his first definition of Reformission. Reformission is “a radical call to reform the church’s traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out in only foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in this church.”^[4] Where the hell did that come from? I am still trying to figure out if finding that gem was worth all the smut I had to wade through to get to it. I did not have far to go before he ruined it again. On the very next page Driscoll identifies varying cultures as “urban homosexual artists and rural heterosexual farmers.”^[5] I heaved a deep sigh. Of all the definers of culture in the world and he resorts to sexual orientation? Of course this makes sense in light of his view that “culture is an old whore, and modernity and postmodernity are simply her old and new dresses.”^[6] Niebuhr would be rolling in his grave if he could read this. What of the Christ of culture? The Christ who created culture at the foundations of the earth, was born into it, grew in it, loved it, and redeemed it? Enough of culture. What of the Church and Her mission?

            “Reformission is a radical call for Christians and Christian churches to recommit to living and speaking the gospel, and to doing so regardless of the pressures to compromise the truth of the gospel or to conceal its power within the safety of the church.”^[7] Another excellent point. Driscoll sees the Church as the primary minister of God’s grace in the world. It does not last long, however, as Driscoll goes on to attack parachurch ministries, liberalism and fundamentalism.^[8] I would like to point out that the presence of all three of these entities would be nonexistent had the Church been conducting Her mission in the first place!

            Parachurch ministries became a necessity when the Church withdrew from culture. It was still our mission to deal with societal ills and deliver the gospel through evangelism. As far as I can see, the Church continues to ignore the poverty and suffering around Her in various communities. The Parachurch is not some evil construct; it was a supplement where the Church failed. Driscoll does not seem to understand the nature of the parachurch and believes it serves in place of church for community. This is an inaccurate understanding of parachurch. It is an organization, not a fellowship. Those who work for parachurch organizations still attend church where there are a variety of ages, cultures, and traditions. They do not believe themselves to be a replacement for the community of believers; they are fulfilling a task that the Church is not. This portion of Driscoll’s book made no sense whatsoever.

            Driscoll commits the same fallacy with liberalism and fundamentalism. He attacks the liberal understanding of sin which actually addresses a real deficit in the church. People believed that their sin was a private matter between them and God and did not grasp the impact of sin on an entire community and culture. There is both personal sin and institutional sin and both must be condemned. The Church was dealing with personal sin, but failed to confront institutional sin. Likewise with fundamentalism, it confronts cultural sin. Fundamentalism stepped in when the Church forgot that while She is the embodiment of Christ in and above culture, She also has a task to be Christ against culture when the need arises.

            As Driscoll writes of his “love” for culture, it is full of references such as, limp wristed gay men and cowboys, skinny, feminine gay buddy, and reference to killing himself. What Driscoll does then is truly appalling as he takes a text and bends it over, proverbially raping it for content that is not there. Way to treat the Word of God. Gay indeed. He describes the Samaritan woman as a “dirty, leathery faced town whore who traded sex for rent.”^[9] I scoured my commentaries for any reference to this and came up with none. Firstly, prostitutes do not marry and this woman had been married many times and was currently living with a man. This does not make her a whore in that culture. It made her a wife, many times discarded. She had been married to these men and they divorced her. There is no reference here to her being a town whore, let alone dirty and leathery faced. But Driscoll does not stop there, he goes on to describe this woman’s body as “smelling of cheap liquor and men.”^[10]

            I take exceptional offense to this part of the book since it was the topic of a research paper I wrote. In my research I analyzed the culture and beliefs of Samaritans versus the Jews. Their law was not much different. It was common practice to divorce a woman who was barren in order to marry another wife who could potentially yield offspring. There is no mention in this text of the woman having any children which would make her a disposable commodity in that culture. She was not a whore, she was a brokenhearted woman who longed to be embraced and loved. Having recently been through the horrors of divorce myself I felt for this woman who was so easily discarded. She was probably a very beautiful woman which accounts for why so many men pursued her in marriage. Men do not marry whores. It’s a money sink. No one in their right mind would do that. Epic Driscoll fail. There are plenty of passages in Scripture that refer to Jesus dining with sinners and prostitutes. If Driscoll needed content he could easily have referred to one of those passages. Instead he mutilates an affirming text for women who are theologically minded.

            One pertinent truth is nestled in between talk of oral sex and teenage pornography fascination - “Innovation when not tethered to the truth of the gospel, leads to heresy.”^[11] However, Driscoll ruins it by completely disregarding innovation as being motivated in a lack of identity. That made no sense whatsoever. Innovation is the product of being human and created in the image of God. We are finite beings who serve an infinite God. It is within our nature to seek out and know this God which makes our pursuit of discovery and innovation relentless. It is not lostness. It is a love of knowing the One to whom we belong.

            The meat of Driscoll’s message lies in the following seven points: 1) the gospel connects to this life, 2) the gospel infuses daily activities with meaning, 3) the gospel names sin and points the way to forgiveness, 4) the gospel transforms life, 5) the gospel builds a spiritual family, 6) the gospel is about participation with God, 7) the gospel is about Jesus as the means and end of our salvation.^[12] This is an excellent description of what the gospel is and what it accomplishes.

            Driscoll goes on to talk of the concept of dating Jesus before we hop into commitment with Him.^[13] This portion was not as offensive. Driscoll took a few stabs at erectile dysfunction, incontinence, and feminism.^[14] I am guessing he has ageist issues on top of his struggles with masculinity and femininity. (Oh, and minivans, but they don’t have feelings so I won’t belay that point.) Driscoll’s best work in the entire book centers around community and loneliness. Unfortunately he did not really write it and it is mostly cited from Robert Putnam’s work Bowling Alone.^[15] I think this may be telling. Driscoll seems to do well if he can just stay centered on the research and grounded in fact.

            I would love to stop there because it would end on a good note, but I really have to talk about the beer. And beer is also an excellent note to finish on. Driscoll ties the temperance movement to feminism in his book.^[16] I have no idea where he got this connection but it is entirely false. The women’s suffrage movement came long after the temperance movement and temperance had nothing to do whatsoever with any feminization of the Church. The temperance movement, regardless of what poor theology may have emerged in conjunction with it, most likely saved the nation from a sure plummet into dependency. As we have seen time and time again, the ramifications of war on returning veterans are overwhelming and immobilizing. Healing and time are required before soldiers can effectively reintegrate into family and society. Rwanda is a modern example of a country recovering from genocide through the efforts of women, while men take the needed time to rediscover and reinvent vision. Rwandan women lament the depression their men have fallen into and the passivity to which they have succumbed. They would do anything to pull their once stoic warriors away from the bottle and back into the present realities of rebuilding a country. The post war contributions of women worldwide to replenish, nurture, rejuvenate and sustain cultures are infamous throughout history and our story of civil war is no different. The temperance movement was an endeavor to save our men from the same fate. That Driscoll would try to demonize feminism for this is ridiculous. 

Conclusion

            I love beer. Not just any beer - I love stouts and porters - none of the light stuff. I hate this book though and almost everything in it. If there was some profound merit in it, I missed the forest for the trees. Driscoll understands nothing of what it means to be the Church. He does not understand her divinely gifted femininity. He does not understand masculinity or femininity and has resorted to false images of violence and sex. Mark speaks out against those who would deconstruct gender and yet this work is the greatest assault on femininity and masculinity I have read yet.^[17] He has completely deconstructed anything honorable and image bearing about either gender. I could not figure out who Driscoll’s audience was. I know it is not me, or any other woman for that matter. It is not meant for sinners. It is not meant for the elderly. It is not the liberal, or the fundamentalist. That leaves only one demographic really - young “emerging” males. My soul cringes inside of me that this is what will guide our young men in mission if other voices do not speak out louder and stronger to portray the beauty, grace, and strength of the Church, the Bride of Christ and Her mission to the world.          

---

            ^[1] Mark Driscoll. The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out. (Zondervan: Grand Rapids: MI. 2004), 15.

                ^[2] Ibid.,12.

                ^[3] Ibid., 16.

                ^[4] Ibid., 18.

                ^[5] Ibid., 19.

                ^[6] Ibid., 161.

                ^[7] Ibid., 20.

                ^[8] Ibid., 20.

                ^[9] Ibid., 36.

                ^[10] Ibid., 38.

                ^[11] Ibid., 53.

                ^[12] Ibid., 58-60.

                ^[13] Ibid., 67.

                ^[14] Ibid., 75.

                ^[15] Ibid., 78-82.

                ^[16] Ibid., 146.

                ^[17] Ibid., 169.