1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

Does anyone else think that Mark Driscoll is the last guy not the guy who should speak about Old Calvinism (if there is such a thing), and does anyone else think that after his comments above it seems like he doesn’t really understand Calvinism?

Of course guys who go to his church, or people who are big fans of Driscoll will think Im just another bitter and back biting “Old” Calvinism. Well I’m not, but I do think that its important for people to say “hold up.” On top of it I think the idea of dividing the new and old, Of saying we are not those guys, is divisive and not productive.

Here is what bothers me. On the topic of baptism he is inconsistent. Here is why I say this.Driscoll is one of the founders of The Acts 29 Network, and is on their board. IN their documents they say “How a local church performs them is open-handed (we have Presbyterians and Baptists in the Acts 29 Network”

I was happy to hear that they apparently admitted that Christians are divided on the issue, but when I recently read a section from Vintage Church. “We simply cannot believe that justification and regeneration are by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone can hold this understanding of baptism…”

More than his disagreement, I am bother by the tone of the latter quote, and to be honest it seems to be a contradiction to the notion that baptism is an open handed issue in Acts 29.

Here is why I am really disappointed in Drsicoll’s take: In many of the things that I have read from Driscoll I have found that he is gifted at communicating a unique, and yet critical and insightful perspective on theological issues. He is well read and cites from authors across the ages. Yet when it comes to Baptism, he cites several reformed voices including the Westminster Confession of Faith, but chooses to avoid interacting with them. Additionally unlike the majority of his writing he seems to be simply restating a modernist, perspective from a very narrow historical sector. Its especially unfortunate that Driscoll is so dogmatic on one sacrament while at the same time is fairly unspecific when it comes to the other, simply stating that he “stands more in the Reformed Tradition”.

I understand that Presbyterians are in the minority, but it bothers me that with one statement Discoll can, at least by association, admit and accept differences on the issue of Baptism, while with a another statement, condemn, and disassociate himself with many great men, including Tim Keller, Harvie Conn, and others.

This is not an attack on Driscoll, and I hope it is not a rant. I felt that it was necessary to voice my disagreement with a person that I often recommend, in a respectful way.

But I thought to myself–did they just say that in the New York Times?!?

The article makes me proud and a bit sad.

At one point Mark, a brother whom I greatly respect, talked about when a “number one” Pastor should step down. His argument, there are some guys who are really, as he puts it, “number two” guys who are in number one positions. He argues that these guys need to step down. According to Mark, pastors who struggle with sermons, who shrug off vision and “architecting”, and whose churches are stagnant are probably number two guys in the number one slot.
Mark advises that they need to step down, and let a real number one step up. It seems like he is arguing that Preaching and vision are things that a number one does, while shepherding and counseling are for the number two.

Let me share what I disagree with, before I move on to what I agree with.
First, Mark often speaks about the problem of simply pulling your church’s structure for culture. In fact he has gone to great pains to show how he is a two office guy, Elders and Deacons. These statements hurt that part of his witness. This idea seems to come more from the corporate world than the New Testament. Putting a value judgment on guys as being primary or secondary is wrong. Its wrong when Presbyterians devalue ruling elders, and its wrong when Mark devalues these number two guys, and it divides the office of elder.

In addition I think its unhealthy to score different aspects of the ministry of an elder. Here is the problem and this might sound mean. Mark has forgotten where these guys are coming from. He points out in Confessions of a Reformission Rev. that most churches are less than 200, which means that most churches only have one guy on staff. Which means that the specialization that Mark is talking about is entirely unknown to most of the guys he is talking to at church planting conferences. Regardless of if these small churches are healthy or not, I think that Doug Swagerty is right when he says that a church is not a fault for being small. In a larger church, with multiple full-time elders (ie. Pastors) it is understandable that different men need to specialize. I think Mark might be setting up for church planters the idea that 2000 plus people should be the norm for a church, when factually this is not the case.

I understand that he was not trying to devalue these specialized pastors who don’t preach, but I think he explained his idea in the wrong way. I also understand that this is a blog, one that very few people read. My critique is probably not going to change the way that Mark talks about this stuff, though it would be nice if it did. I think Mark has to realize that many Pastors are going to be both ones and twos, most of my seminary professors showed the ability to cast vision, to teach, to prophetically call people to follow Christ. At the same time these men, can along side of their students, they encouraged and counseled them. It is not as easy as saying your a one and your a two. I would argue that the majority of good pastors are going to be a mix of both.

Instead of simply speaking of number one preachers and number two counselors, I think Mark should have gone to Scripture to argue for the diversity of gifts on a pastoral team, something that I agree with. As I was listening to his lecture, I immediately went to Acts 11. In Acts 11, Barnabas, is working in the church Antioch, he is preaching, teach, and shepherding this new church. The Spirit is using Barnabas and the result is an explosion in the growth of the church. Barnabas, though he is a gifted speaker, realizes that Paul’s teaching would build up the church so he seeks out Paul, and asks him to join the ministry in Antioch. It seems fair to say that Paul and Barnabas, though sharing many skills, each brought their own talents to the table. From what we gather later in Acts, Paul seems to headline much of the speaking, while even Barnabas’s name reveals his counseling gifts.

I think Mark could, and should say, that if you are a Barnabas, and you see that you need someone else to come and minister with you, you need to find that Paul. Even if it means that visibly your place in the church will decrease.

I don’t think that Mark should presuppose that all churches will reach a point where all their staff can specialize, but I do think that in in the western church, there has been a culture of solo. Even the Presbyterian system, which is still being refined by God’s word, has for too long seen the Teaching Elder as alone in his ministry. In the New Testament, men ministering alone was the exception not the rule. In part, I think what Mark was getting at is the importance of realizing the need to be connected to other men in ministry. This commitment to connection must be valued even if it means that, like Barnabas, one pastor’s role might become less visible.

The challenge is to not setup success as our functional savior. A pastor’s desire must be to see people come to love Jesus, and each other, and not to be know for seeing people come to love Jesus and each other.

As guy I have to say that just seeing John Tesh at the top of the site made me think: “These guys have nothing to say to me.” And I’m a Christian! I would bet that most people would be much more comfortable with John Tesh running their church than they would be with Mark Driscoll.

Mark is offensive, he is sometimes a bit imprecise but he is right when it comes to men. As a man I can confirm that men need to be told to step up; to stop pounding six packs of IC Light and playing Halo 3, while they surf for porn, and starting living like all of life is under the good reign of King Jesus, and that one day he is going to return and check our time cards.

“The Key to church growth is kick a guy in the middle as hard as you can.” – Mark Driscoll, from Preaching the Mission.

After listening to the sermon and reading the blog post found here, I decided to send the church a message, via their Mission and Vision blog. I’ve posted the whole message below. If you’ve listen to or read the post on voxpop and agree or disagree I’d love to hear some feedback on what I said.

I know this comment is worth as much as one of those 90′s camel bucks, but I was disappointed in lasts week sermon. I felt that you didn’t give most regulative principle guys much credit.

In Christ your Bro,
Sam DeSocio
Pastoral Intern
City Reformed Church

Again I have to say praise God for Marshill and their commitment to the word of God.

See it at www.regreek.com

Here is my relationship to Marshill, I love Jesus and they love Jesus.
I would consider myself a diaspora Marshiller, but I am not a member of the church. I have been reading Driscoll and listening to his sermons for 2 years now, since I came across his article in Criswell’s Theological Journal. When I hear people are moving to Seattle I tell them to check out Marshill. If I meet someone from Seattle I ask them if they go to Marshill. In fact for a time last year we were seriously considering moving to Seattle just to go to Marshill, God had different plans.

Well I am excited about this new series, i though Nehemiah got a bit off tract toward the end.
Here are some things I noticed in the first sermon:

1. New Technology in the Service.
2. Driscoll played a video of Olsteen and then corrects what he said about health and wealth. Bravo!
3. Mark is back to wrestling with the text. Which is my favorite part. I guess some people do better with Epistles than they do with narratives.

All this to say: if you have never read or listened to Mark Driscoll check him out. You can read about his ministry in a recent article put together by Christianity Today.

If you don’t necessarily like churches or Christians. Still check out Marshill. Its not your regular church, and they are not your regular stuffy Christians, they enjoy tattoos, tobacco and even beer, because they say its all made by God to be enjoyed by people.

Driscoll talks about punching bloggers in the Throat. He encourages anyone who wants to be a pastor to study comedians, such as Chris Rock. Marshill has a band called “team strike force”.
Here is the link to the last sermon.

I know its still a debatable idea, but most of us living in the north east or the west coast are living in a post-Christian culture.

Ive recently listened to two talks by two different guys from different background. Both come down with similar strategies.
What does this mean for those of you reading this post:

No matter what style you like, if your goal is to see more people interact with Jesus, you need to listen to at least one of these guys.

Here is a bit of background:
Darren Patrick is the Pastor of the Journey in St. Louis and is connected with the Acts 29 Network.
David Bisgrove is one of the Assistant Pastor who have taken on some of the preaching at Redeemer NYC.

So for all those of you who think that wearing jeans with no holes is dressing up for church, and who are know the difference between emergent and emerging go check out Darren Patrick’s Talk. For those of you who have at least one blue blazer with the golden buttons, and are more comfortable with the organ than a gibson, you must listen to David Gisbon’s talk at the Gospel Coalition.

Mark Driscoll did a lecture series on the topic of different types of preaching. Thematic, Narrative, Exegetical, Textual, and Topical.
Here is the question:

What type of preaching best suits a missional church, and why?

the link to those books are here: Vol. I, Vol. II, Vol. III, Vol. IV, Vol. V, Vol. VI.