I enjoyed reading Vintage Church by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Brshears. Here are some of my thoughts:Pros:
-It is the coolest cover on a book I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of books). Next time you are in a book store or see it on someone's shelf, pick it up and look at it. When it came in the mail, my wife said, "I want to read it just becaue of the cover."
-I love the emphasis on the nature and necessity of the church. While not the best book on the church available, it is definitely moving in the right direction.
-It is well written and engaging.
-I love the emphasis on the gospel and the centrality of Jesus Christ.
-This book contains some good material on preaching and leadership in the local church.
Cons:
-I cannot endorse everything Driscoll advocates. For example, I do not agree with him that pastors and church leaders should saturate themselves in the culture. He says he has 3 TiVos in his house so that he can record all the popular shows to see what others are watching.
-I do not like the multi-campus movement. Chapter 10 is basically an argument for and defense of a church having multiple campuses with the same preacher.
-This book is mainly geared at larger churches with lots of resources. For example, the chapter on technology assumes thousands and thousands of dollars for equipment, personnel, and mantinence. I certainly think technology should be used to read people with the gospel. I just don't think the church should try to compete with the world in this area.
Overall, it is a helpful book that could be of benefit to a lot of churches. We can disagree about the methods, but the message is what really matters.
7 comments:
Justin, I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I've been volunteering at the book store at the Downtown Seattle campus and Driscoll has been promoting it almost every week prior to each sermon because we want as many of the members as possible to read it. The church is selling it at the campus bookstores at loss because it's that important.
I think some of the things Driscoll pushes are the result of pastoring a megachurch in the midst of a largely unreached culture. This is definitely not the Bible belt. He spends much of his time studying the culture of this city. It's basically the 1 Corinthians 9:22 approach to being on mission. Mars Hill has been effective in Seattle where other churches have failed partly due to engaging culture. We are not married to the culture but are a counter-cultural community in the city.
I have not read the book yet, but my understanding of Driscoll's position is that it does not necessarily have to be the same preaching pastor at each campus. He is the preaching pastor at each campus mostly because he is the founding pastor. This is due mostly to the real estate costs in Seattle. Personally, I would much rather have gatherings in various separate locations throughout the city rather than one gigantic one. There are very few places in Seattle capable of handling 8,000 people every Sunday, even split between four services. I certainly don't want to see Mars Hill turn into Lakewood.
I understand that many of these principles are geared more toward larger cities and probably aren't all that relevant in places like Wilson. I am glad to read your feedback on the book and I'm pleased that you enjoyed it. I still am working on my first Driscoll book (On Church Leadership). Much of what is in his books are also in his sermons from what I've experienced.
Justin,
Good, concise review. Do you plan to attend the Advance 09 conference in Durham? I have mixed feelings as you do about some of the emphasis. I know there is perhaps a place and a time for unconventional ministry, ie., Whitfield and Wesley, but I wonder how much of this is warranted or even effective in discipleship of members.
BTW, you and I have a mutual friend in Dwayne Milioni- he's my former pastor.
Grace,
Travis Hilton
Wow! I am learning a lot from reading your blog! I have seen the cover of the book at BAM (Books a Million). It is a cool interesting kind of cover.
I do agree with you not to do all the fancy technology (I never had heard of TiVos).
Old fashion way without the fancy technology will do the job very well in church setting. Of course, I like music on the screen instead of the hymn book which does free our hand as we worship Him.
Hungry to eat His Word,
'Guerite ~ BoldLion
I think the question of cultural adaptation is an important one - primarily with respect to non-believers. If we expect non-believers to be present in our services (which we should), to what extent should we try to communicate in a language they understand (vernacular, avoid or explain jargon, etc), using illustrations and stories to which they can relate, addressing objections they may have, etc? How far do the implications of what Paul says on Mars Hill about "becoming all things to all men" extend? How important are the cultural differences between say the younger generation in a city like Seattle compared to an older generation church in a small town in Bible Belt? These are the issues at stake here. No doubt Driscoll is going to be biased towards a model that fits the culture in which he finds himself but surely he has a point? I think Keller argues the same (far more persuasively!) in various places (e.g. see http://www.redeemer2.com/themovement/issues/2005/fall/ministry_in_globalculture_II_p3.html )
Martin
Martin,
I appriciate your comments and certainly think we should communicate the gospel in a way that is faithful and understandable.
However, I would love to hear what Driscoll thinks about the quote on irrelevance that I posted yesterday. That book ("Unfashionable") contains a forward and endorsement by Tim Keller.
It seems to me like they are saying two different things.
Justin,
Thankyou for your reply. Obviously I can't speak for Driscoll but I am inclined to expect that he would agree with it. Perhaps there's a danger of confusing two things here? One is the message, the other is the way the message is delivered. The message certainly consists of timeless, unfashionable truths but it has to be delivered in a way that is intelligible. In the forward to "Unfashionable" Keller distinguishes between contextualising and the need to "form a distinct, 'thick' Christian counter-culture" and in his preaching lectures he has spoken about his own extensive reading of non-Christian books and magazines in orer to contextualize his messages. Now I accept that Driscoll isn't as good or as clear as Keller on this and may well lean a little too far towards the contextualization side of that balance but, on the other hand, I don't think it would be fair to say that Driscoll is as bad as the position that Tchividjian appears to critique (and I don't mean that you're saying that). I think I may even have misunderstood your point somewhat so let me put it like this to see if you agree: I don't think its so much a question that he's wrong, more a matter of degree - the difference between 'saturate' (which does strike me as going too far) and, say, "fully familiar with, understanding and engaging with the culture". Whilst Tchividjian's critique is definitely needed in many quarters in our day, I'm just concerned about the opposite problem that some, perhaps as an over-reaction to much of the trendy, superficial christinaity that seems to pre-dominate, may run too far in the other direction and make little effort to understand the culture and presuppositions of those whom they engage. I suppose no-one's going to get the balance perfect but I do think we need more like Keller and Driscoll who make the effort to communicate to their cultures, whilst still clearly proclaiming the gospel and preaching against sin. Does that help?
Martin
Martin,
I totally agree with you. I'm thankful for the way guys like Driscoll and Keller engage the culture with the timeless truths of the gospel.
Maybe one of the things I need to think more deeply about is the difference between understanding the culture (so as to be able to speak to it) and looking like the culture (so as to be considered "relevant"). I'm not sure, but it may be Driscoll's attempt to look like the culture that bothers me.
Post a Comment