I just finished reading Mark Driscoll's book, Radical Reformission. I bought it on Monday. To say I found it to be an interesting read would be an understatement.
There were many highlights I'd like to mention here, but don't have the time. So my interpretation of a few things he talks about.
1. In order to faithfully be in mission we must see the interconnection between the gospel, the culture, and the church. The gospel + the culture - the church = parachurch organizations. The culture + the church - the gospel = liberalism. The church + the gospel - the culture = fundamentalism.
2. Driscoll berates churches that cling to traditionalism. He writes, "The result of traditionalism is a Christianity that has all the right answers to all the wrong questions, because the questions that were once most pressing are no longer being asked." Sadly, as he points out, most established congregations and the pastors who serve them are afraid to address the questions that are presently being asked because they may make "good church people" feel uncomfortable.
3. As equally as Driscoll rails against churches that circle the wagons lest those "sinners" infect us with their sin, he derides churches that seek to be innovative and end up acquiescing to the culture. "The irony of this innovation is that churches and ministries that pursue it become so relevant to the culture that they are, in fact, irrelevant and are unable to call lost people from or to anything because they have lost the distinctive and countercultural nature of the gospel. Unrestrained and undiscerning innovation not only contextualizes the gospel to fit a culture but also capitulates it to the culture."
4. This being said, Driscoll doesn't allow himself to be catch up in the culture of criticism in which we live. In each chapter, he points to a problem or issue that exists within the church or culture, then explains how the gospel can redeem that problem.
5. Don't read this book if you lack a sense of humor about the church. Driscoll regularly using satire and sarcasm to make his point. I found it immensely entertaining, LOL funny in places.
6. I have to admit that I'm still assimilating what he says. It sounds good on paper but "does it preach." It's one thing to acknowledge that I and my church need to be more relevant, it's another thing to take the risk to do so. But if we don't what good are we to the Kingdom?
Comments