If I Were Mark Driscoll
Posted April 18th, 2009 by Ernest
Obviously, I’m not Mark Driscoll. I couldn’t be, even if I tried. The man is an amazing communicator, a fearless preacher of the scriptures. Through his sermons, interviews, debates, and seminars, Pastor Mark makes the Truth understandable, accessible, and applicable for thousands of people on a regular basis.
Beyond the teachings of Mark Driscoll is the persona of Mark Driscoll. The dynamic pastor of Seattle-based Mars Hill Church doesn’t just set an example for young pastors across the country, he’s a role model. The regular-guy with working-class roots who’s cool but tries not to try too hard. He’s into music and art, pop culture, theology, and sports. In my interactions with pastors and church planters everywhere, I’ve met several who are Mark Driscoll fanboys, choker necklaces and all.
While I could never build and maintain a megachurch like Mark has, I’d love to step into his role for just a day. For one day, instead of Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill (and the hundreds of churches it influences) would get me- a burnt-out former church planting missionary to Western Europe. For that one day, here’s what I’d do:
I’d start the morning with a staff meeting. I have no idea what sort of leadership team Mars Hill has, but I’d call in all the elders and pastors to tell them the big news: Mars Hill is selling their building(s). The goal would be to sell or give away all of their properties by the end of the day. Why? Because Mars Hill has a vision of growing their church to 50,000 disciples by the year 2019, and getting rid of the walls and grounds that tie them down would really pave the way for that to happen. Buildings only create bottlenecks in the expansion of the kingdom. If they publicized the sell off/giveaway, they’d give instant credibility to their claim that the Church is the people, not the building. Giving some of the locations away to local nonprofits and needy people would be another opportunity to put into action what they already believe about grace, compassion, and social justice.
Next, I’d resign as pastor of Mars Hill Church. Not that Driscoll isn’t a good pastor or great communicator- he is. But that’s precisely why he should resign. For nearly ten years now, Driscoll has served an apostolic role in evangelical circles; writing, teaching, leading, and casting vision. He spends hours per week in study and sermon preparation, and it shows. If you haven’t seen Mark field questions on the fly via SMS, you really need to. His wit, and wisdom, fueled by his knowledge of scripture (and what seems to be an inability to filter his thoughts before voicing them) are really nothing short of divine gifting.
Which is why he should resign. Mark isn’t the pastor of Mars Hill Church. He’s a spiritual entrepreneur and visionary. He’s not a people person. I’ve never met him personally, but I suspect that Driscoll doesn’t care about your sick aunt or your new job. He’s probably not going to sit for hours by your side as you work through your marriage. No, Mark Driscoll needs to quit calling himself a “pastor” and reframe his role for what he is- an apostolic leader for the Church. Look at his aggressive expansion of Mars Hill through the opening of new campuses and video venues. Pastor Mark is a de facto elder of the Church at the city/region/nation-wide affinity/demographic level. He’s not trying to build an empire, he’s trying to be apostolic within the confines of his role as pastor.
Mark could still draw a paycheck from Mars Hill, and I would hope the he would continue to teach and answer questions. So much of his identity is wrapped up in his being considered a pastor, letting go is control would be an extremely difficult thing to do. But his resignation would take loads of pressure off of young leaders across the country who struggle to fill the role of Pastor as Driscoll has practiced it. Conferences? The Acts 29 Network? Resurgence? Debates on ABC? Those aren’t pastoral things, they’re apostolic things.
After resigning, I guess I’d go to lunch. But not without holding a press conference. On my way to Chili’s (or wherever Mark likes to eat), I’d meet with reporters, bloggers, protesters, and followers to ask for help. If the church suddenly doesn’t have the central location(s) in which to meet, they’re going to need somewhere else to go. As Mark Driscoll, I’d use my sizable influence to ask for hundreds (thousands) of places to meet in the Seattle are. Bars, theaters, coffee shops, living rooms, bowling alleys, high school gyms, Lion’s Club halls. These smaller meetings would spread Mars Hill church out into the community, rubbing Salt into Seattle’s mundane spaces and forcing parents and leaders to take spiritual responsibility for the few they meet with. To be pastors. Those are the people who I’d want to read my blog and listen to my podcast. As an apostle, my goal would be not to pastor the thousands of people who participate in Mars Hill, but to mentor and coach the pastors of small Mars Hill gatherings wherever they meet.
As I wrote, I’m no Mark Driscoll. I’m just a hack missiologist. But I’ve been to America’s future in Western Europe, and I want the Church here to be prepared for it. I believe that Mark Driscoll is one of many leaders God can use to get us there, if only we can free them from the modern pragmatism that keeps them from being truly missional.
Tags: apostolic, Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill
Unless writing a lot makes one a "writer," Ernest is a former missionary. After more than six years in Western Europe, he moved to Portland, where he drinks too much coffee and over-analyzes human behavior. For more about Ernest, visit the About page where you can read a long-time reader's interview with him. Or, if you don't mind waiting a very, very long time, send him an email.
17 Responses to “If I Were Mark Driscoll”
April 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Thanks for the thoughts.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
For someone who has never met Mark, and quite possibiliy never even visited Mars Hill Church, you make a lot of judgments about who he is, what he is about, and the vision of that church. This is very surprising. I think its very dangerous the line you are walking, and would urge you reconsider writing a post like this next time.
Mars Hill and Mark have to remain who they are, and where they are to continue the movement they are creating in the church. The suggestions you offer, I believe, would actually destroy the credibility of MH & Mark. Mars Hill has reached tens of thousands of people, because they are what they are and because of Mark’s ability to shepherd that flock with his teaching. And Mark is able to be the spiritual entrepreneur and visionary pastor that he is, because of what he has done & is doing at Mar Hill. The credibility of both are bound to each other.
You suggest that what is hindering Mars Hill from growing quicker to their goals, is the fact that they own property. I would suggest that it is exactly the opposite. The reason they have grown is because their uses of technology and the multiple locations they have in all areas of Seattle. “Most churches double in size the weekend they move from being mobile to a more permanent building. People are also less prone to give faithfully to a church that’s mobile. They don’t know if it will be there in two months, so why sacrifice? But with a permanent location, you have much more credibility with attendees and the city you are trying to reach.” – Barry Keldie
But despite all of this, we should all remember that it is not small missional communities, nor large buildings accompanied with book deals & great bands that build the Church. It is Jesus. He promises that HE will build HIS CHURCH. He is all we need.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I’m not sure that my church or the kingdom needs an apostle. I think we need total reliance on the Holy Spirit of God. I don’t know Mark, would love to meet him, but believe that God the
Spirit is the guide that I need to follow.
By the way, I would do much of what you would if I were Mark. I would just divide the mega-church into churches of 100 and send them into all the world starting in Seattle and then Washington, the US and the uttermost part of the world.
If Mark pastored his 100 and taught those God would call from his 100 to Pastor their 100s the world could at least hear the gospel in one generation. No mega-church will do that!
Thanks for making me think!
April 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Paul,
Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure what “judgments” I made about Mark Driscoll, but I’m sorry you found them offensive. I have followed Mark closely over the last few years, and, as I tried to communicate in my post, I consider myself a fan.
We’ll have to disagree with our assessment of Mars Hill and how best to prepare it for the ongoing worldview shift. My perspective is based on my experience as a missionary in Western Europe. I truly desire for the church to prosper.
I’m not sure who Barry Keldie is, but I’ll look him up. His quote on church buildings (and your decision to include it in your comment) show that we probably aren’t on the same page when it comes to our definitions of church. The issue isn’t “mobile” vs. “permanent,” it’s incarnational vs. attractional. Do you really think we should depend on buildings to give us credibility in our communities?
April 18th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Dave,
I certainly didn’t mean to say that anyone should follow Mark Driscoll. In my post, I use the term apostolic to refer to the visionary/entrepreneurial gifting we see in New Testament leaders. I don’t believe we have/need Apostles since the actual Apostles we read about in the New Testament.
For a better explanation of what I’m talking about, please see any of Alan Hirsch’s writings on apostolic functions in the church. To crudely summarize: pastors are shepherds, elders are church overseers, and apostolic leaders are church planters, missionaries, and spiritual entrepreneurs. They’re the ones with the vision for kingdom expansion in culture.
Like Mark Driscoll.
I agree with you about multiplication discipleship. Besides being a more “effective” way to raise up leadership, it’s good missiology; local leaders can do the form and communicative fine-tuning required for contextual application.
Thanks.
April 19th, 2009 at 3:58 am
stepchild,
Thanks for the explanation (as crude as it was –
). I understand better what you are talking about.
Dave
April 19th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Would you ever send these thoughts to MD?
I liked them (your thoughts), by the way.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Jill,
I would love to talk about these ideas with Mark. If I run into him, I will. If he allowed comments on his blog, I could post a link.
Can anyone put me in touch with him?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Now that is a visionary post.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Wow can u imagine the impact donating would have.
Forget MH what if that was the new “cool strategy”
and a lot of churches did that…plus we could stop
Saying “missional” I think it’s worth it, the investing
In our communities part of course.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Good blog. I enjoyed your perspective and how respectfully you wrote it. It bothers me when people pick this kind of stuff apart. Your writing allowed me to think different as I believe any good art should.
I’m in Issaquah which is just a hop and a skip away from MH.
Good times.
April 27th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Good post, I love the way you declared a difference between the role of pastor and apostle. I think there are guys like MD that can earn their chops on building a church but could do an amazing amount of work if they stepped into the larger role of modern-day apostle to the church.
Grady
April 27th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Howdy, I have been enjoying your counterintuitive church series. I have a question: Is it your opinion that churches should never own or rent property? I am just trying to wrap my mind around what exactly you are thinking. Should we all essentially be “house churches”? These are questions I am pondering as our own congregation (which is commited to never building) looks into finding a new rental…
Thanks,
David
April 28th, 2009 at 7:59 am
David,
Thanks for reading. I appreciate your question- I’m thankful for every chance I get to clarify what it is I’m trying to say here.
I think it’s okay for churches to own or rent property. In many cases, churches use their buildings to be a blessing to their communities. While I’m not against it, I’m concerned that so many churches act as though having a dedicated building is necessary. I just want us to reconsider that- I don’t think “our own place to meet” should be our default. I’d also like us to recognize that there are consequences to the decisions we make; the decision to own a building is formative- directly or indirectly, it teaches people something about our faith.
I’m not a house church guy like Neil Cole is a house church guy. I think smaller, tribal gatherings would be a great foil to our nation’s megachurch mentality, but I believe the forms and place we meet in should be contextually appropriate for the cultures in which they’re found. That might be a huge converted warehouse, someone’s living room, or a rented hotel banquet room.
Thanks again for asking. I’d be curious to hear how your church thinks through the decision of where to meet.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:48 am
This may be the stupidest thing I have ever read
April 30th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Tim Whatts,
Really? The stupidest?
You obviously haven’t read much of my blog then.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Well that was an interesting article. I am coming to the conclusion that those who are gifted to plant churches most certainly should not ‘pastor’ them. I have seen too many ‘pastors’ who should have just planted and moved on. I think many times the motivational preachers should stick to traveling and encouraging the people, because their gifting tends to draw them into a controlling leader, which is never good. I believe this is how cults begin. Man should not seek to control the Bride of Christ, Christ will lead her on His own.
Leave a Reply