Review: The Radical Reformission

The Radical Reformission
Reaching out without selling out
Mark Driscoll

I really, really, don't know what to make of Mark Driscoll. Much of what he says resonates with me: he passionately believes in reconnecting the Christian community with the culture around us. And he passionately believes a mainstream kind of Christian faith, too. Which part of the mainstream? Well, that's where the problems start...

My introduction to this emerging conversation was with the writing of the likes of MacLaren and Bell; and through Driscoll's blog where he described being thrilled to attend a UFC event (which I hugely enjoy, too) - not something you might expect from a mainstream pastor. He remarks (though I can't now find a link) on how this sport is rapidly gaining support among precisely the demographic which is missing from the church. So I nearly fell off my chair when I discovered that he is also about as Reformed as they come, a believer in plenary verbal inspiration and so on. Those things just don't seem to go together.

So he's a bit of an enigma for me, and I was keen to read some of his stuff. The Radical Reformission seems to be a good opening salvo. I settled down to read. It's not a slender book, but is an easy, quick read.

And it is just the same mixture. Great in parts. The tale of his trip to a gay country and western bar in chapter 1 is priceless. The story of the search for diapers in Florida, likewise. He is at his best when describing his own experiences, relating, often very gently, to the people of Seattle, with their needs and wants and fears and peculiarities. There is plainly a great ministry going on there.

Then there are other parts where he gets theological and/or philosophical, and, well, I get what he's saying, but the style is reminiscent of a B-grade college essay. Simultaneously it talks down to you and yet feels wide-eyed and brave in its choice of words. It doesn't quite work.

Stylistic criticism aside, some bits I simply don't get. I respect, though can't quite share, his reading of scripture, but one part really stood out. (p102) Maybe this is mainstream for someone, but it doesn't quite add up: he says there are two kinds of sin, "Universal Sins" - which the bible roundly condemns for everyone (1 Cor 6:9-10 is his text), and "Particular Sins" which are sinful for some people in some circumstances. Let's leave aside the dangerous legalism which might follow from this perspective. He writes "For example, I personally disdain cigarettes, but I cannot forbid everyone in my church from smoking, because the Bible does not." Is that, then, a discussion of a particular sin, or something else? He goes on to say that churches fall into error when they fail to distinguish, and make everything a universal sin (yes, ok), or when they name "everything a particular sin and bless activities the Bible forbids, such as drug use, fornication, homosexuality, and cohabitation before marriage". The latter lacks a list of proof-texts (unsurprisingly?!). To suggest that the bible unequivocally condemns cocaine but not tobacco seems ... contorted at best.

Though my background is solidly evangelical, Reformed people have always scared me slightly. I can admire their clarity, but sometimes their great certainty about everything seems quite unwarranted. I find much to agree with in The Radical Reformission about the church and culture, and much that just seems plain odd. I'll certainly read more of what Driscoll has to say.