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.
“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.
