Tony

thanks for that. As someone who didn’t hear Driscoll it has been interesting to read and listen to people’s reaction and comments.

For mine one of the things that Phillip does better than any other clergy I know is the extent to which his theology shapes his practice down to the detail. I don’t mean to detract from the other clergy that I know, it is just Phillip does this better.

I believe it is something that we need to be more and more careful about in Sydney. The world around us is very outcomes driven, usually with a short term focus.  It is all to easy to adopt this worldly approach and be “pragmatic” or “practical” at the expense of acting “theologically”.  My personal view is that in just about all other walks of life it is useful, and often correct, to be commercially practical and pragmatic. Therefore there is pressure for bible teachers to be the same as they lead our congregations and parishes etc.  I am not arguing that clergy shouldn’t ever be practical (and potentially learn things from practical or other outside environments), but that their actions should be driven by their theology and where the two clash it is important to be theological and not practical.

From what I have read it seems that Mark Driscoll was encouraging our leaders, in some ways, to act pragmatically at the expense of theogically.  If that is the case then the real benefit in hearing him is to help test whether we are all (including our clergy) earnestly striving to act theologically and not merely practically.

well done Tony for cleverly taking a venerable old put down and making it a venerable new put down.

you say ” Nearly all Mark’s points are tactical assessments, and a great many of them are shrewd, accurate and well worth hearing. But as we think about our ministries, our effectiveness in evangelism, and the methods we should employ, we need to keep asking the old but crucial question: what does the Bible say?”

let’s do that. lets hear his shrewd accurate technical assessments - and see if they penetrate through our walls of defensiveness and negativity.

Guys, thanks for the comments.

Mike and Shane, in case you (and others) assume that I am in some way seeking to neutralize Mark’s critque, or am recommending business as usual, please don’t mishear me. As you said, Mike, it’s great that Mark was given free rein at the Cathedral, and (as I said) we are in real need of hearing these things afresh, and acting on them!

So Shane I agree entirely when you say:

let’s do that. lets hear his shrewd accurate technical [sic] assessments - and see if they penetrate through our walls of defensiveness and negativity.

(Although I’m not sure whether that last bit is aimed at me, or is just a general comment about how easily we Christians are defensive and/or negative. I don’t mind either way—and would agree either way. I am certainly just as capable of defensiveness and negativity as the next guy!)

As we do so (and yes as we actually do so!), I am only pleading that we keep tactics in their appropriate place, and that we keep allowing the Bible to drive our methodology.

I too was at St Andrews and heard MD’s 18 point Calvinism. When I got over the grief of hearing him say he was a 4.5 Calvinist (naughty boy), one of the 18 points I thought was a bit difficult was the one pertaining to Tall Poppy Syndrome. I was soo tempted to ask him a question about “How are we to tackle something that so part and parcel of the Australian cultural mindset and something that is seen as a good thing?” but I realised that by asking such a question I would have seen as being a tall poppy and would have been shot down in flames!

Though the comment about British structures was very insightful. After two years in Scotland when I came back I was amazed at the differences but also laughed in how British Australians still are. In lots of ways we are still Brits, we just have darker skin and speak better!

Bob

To defend Phillip a little, I think it’s probably fair to say that Aussie evangelicals see a lot more of American culture and evangelicalism, than American evangelicals see of Australian culture and evangelicalism. That’s not to say Phillip was necessarily right in what he said (I don’t know what it was). But I wonder how much Mark Driscoll knew about Sydney evangelicalism before he came down to Sydney?

Also, I know that we Aussies tend to be pretty conscious of and sensitive to cultural differences (because we are the little cousin). So, for example, at the Matthias Media USA conference in 2007, Phillip said some things that didn’t go down too well, but he quickly worked out that the concerns were due to some cultural differences, and clarified what he meant during the next session.

the more i think about this post, the more i like it. we need to keep insisting that our pragmatism flows out of and is informed by our theology. always.

Just letting people know that the article that Tony mentioned—‘The strategy of God’ by Phillip Jensen is now online.