At lunch today, I just finished reading Confessions of a Reformission Rev. by Mark Driscoll. In fact I read it back to back with The Radical Reformission. It has been a very interesting read. Driscoll is the pastor of a missional emerging church in Seattle. He has been the source of lots of controversy. John Piper likes him; MacAuthur doesn't. I thought that both books were hardy, generally Scriptural, and occasionally rash ... much like something I would write or at least think. Several things came through clearly.

First, he is deeply seeking, as hopefully all Christians should be, to further the kingdom, train up disciples and love Jesus. He has shown himself to be growing theologically and pastorally. I appreciated his outlook. He has many important lessons to share. We should critically, compare every teaching to scripture, move forward powerfully under the conviction of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, and humbly confess and repent when we are shown that we are wrong.

I am, in many ways, completely off in my theology though I can't identify it yet. I must be ready to repent as I am convicted by Scripture, Scriptural teaching and the Holy Spirit. But while I am waiting for the next correction, I must move forward in ministry. I can't wait until my knowledge is perfect to love Jesus and share the glorious gospel.

Second, he is reaching to a particular emerging culture. He clearly demonstrates the importance of reaching into lost cultures and redeeming them. The reason that I think this message is controversial is that it is hard and requires a balanced view of Christianity. What causes so much trouble for many is that Driscoll is unapologetically really about the limitations, the positive aspects and the sinfulness of the Seattle culture. What makes this difficult is that his culture is so radically different from the dieing Bible-belt culture. His culture is bold about sinning, so he is bold about calling them out on their sin. His culture is completely unchurched and needs introduction to the very ideas of the Biblical God. What seems crass and shocking to me in my culture is necessary for his culture to be convicted. He is truthful before he is polite.

My culture is over-churched, under-convicted and needs to have their view of the Biblical God and sin rearranged. How I reach my culture must be different in vocabulary and method than how he reaches his culture.

Third, his ecclesiology is very interesting. I haven't worked out in my own mind just how firmly founded on Scripture his ecclesiology is, but what he does do is address and encourage the presence of non-believers in church. I like how he addresses it. Just how biblical it is, I don't know. I would appreciate any thoughts about this topic.

Anyway, both books were interesting and challenging and I can recommend them to those who are willing to compare his thoughts to Scripture. Of course we should be doing the same with books by every author be it by Piper, MacAthur, or Owen (and that is just the John's).