Driscoll on Church Innovations

For Mark Driscoll, being innovative as a church means getting young men into the church.  Quotes...

The problem in the church today is just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickafied church boys. 60% of Christians are chicks and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of...chicks. It's just sad.

We're looking around going, How come we're not innovative?  Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football or they're out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck.  They look at the church like that's a nice thing for women and children.  So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men?  All this nonsense on how to grow the church.  One issue: young men.  That's it.  That's the whole thing.  They're going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate.  They're going to make the culture of the future.  If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything.  You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you get everything.  If you don't get the young men you get nothing.

Comments

[stepchild]

I'm not sure that the church's lack of innovation is due to a lack of manly men, I think it's due to a lack of innovators. The problem is that they tend also to be liberal, creative/artistic, and internationally influenced. That's the opposite of most churchgoers. I agree with Driscoll about our need to speak to men, though.

Unfortunately, someone is going to hear Driscoll on this and get the bright idea that we need to start a Christian mountainclimber's ministry or another Association of Christian Realtors or something. Remember Promise Keepers? Yech!

[luke britt]

I think both of those already exist.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Driscoll is half right. No doubt the Church has pandered to women and much of it doesn't appeal to young men--and we need young men back in churches.

But the demographic we ought to be seeking is everyone--and had our churches been after everyone we wouldn't have this unbalanced feminized wackiness we have now in many churches.

But a church of harsh young men seems to me to swing the pendulum a bit the other way and we will have equally problematic issues with the Church--they'll just be different than the ones we face now.

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, a church of "harsh young men?" Where does Driscoll call for that?

[ryan]

Where is Driscoll calling for a church of "harsh young men?" I missed that part. He is simply saying many men who are strong, bold, leaders who are shaping culture find the church to be less then appealing place to give their life to. Living in Las Vegas for a long time I can attest that most of the uber-young talented guys I know see nothing captivating about the church and advancing the Kingdom but see a better use of their time to be found in the real estate and business world, and these guys are christians. I do not think Driscoll is simply just calling for us to shift the pendulum back to the other side. But really just stop and ask "why do so many young talented guys want nothing to do with the church?" Personally I find it to be excting to think about what the local church would and could look like if we were to see this generation of young men rise up and give their lives to the church. This does not mean dominate and turn it into a frat house, but loving sacrafice and serve the church with all of their time, talents, and abilities. God knows we are certainly lacking this.

[stepchild]

Um, aren't we the generation of innovative men? I guess I see the whole "raising up" thing happening through guys like Driscoll, and Rob Bell, (and Steve McCoy). Through their books, ministries, and blogs, these guys are publically working out what it means for men to be believers and spiritual leaders today. That's the kind of influence we need.

Huh, who'd ever thought I could be optimistic?

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Steve,

Young men are harsh generally because they are young and immature. That's not necessarily a weakness in the proper context and part of the edge of Driscoll's ministry is due to his youth and example. I didn't mean it in a negative way.

But the gospel (and the Scriptures, incidentally) calls us to seek out and proclaim the gospel to all and call them all into the church--not merely one age group or demographic.

I recognize the church is imbalanced presently but the way to address that imbalance is not add and attract one group while abandoning another (and my guess is that Driscoll isn't trying to abandon those who aren't young men).

For example, the Church also suffers today from a decided lack of mature Christian men who add the sort of stability that provide an environment for young men to strive, learn, and help grow the Church.

What we need in the church is both young and old, poor and rich, a racially and culturally diverse group of men, women, and children committed to Christ that reflects the biblical sort of call to repentance that the Great Commission commands to preach to all people groups. Or as the Bible puts it, the least and the greatest shall all know Him (Hebrews 8:11) because we make the effort to proclaim the gospel to *all mankind*. Forgetting this truth and going after only one group of people will continue to make the Church as imbalanced as it is today.

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, I share your concern in general. But I think it's misguided concerning this post. Your comment takes both sides. You say we shouldn't be imbalanced and abandon a group but also say your guess is that Driscoll isn't doing that. If he isn't doing that then who or what are you addressing in your comments?

And of course we aren't to try to reach one group without reaching the rest, but Driscoll's point is that by reaching young men you get the rest too. That's the point you should be addressing if you have concerns.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

My comments take both sides, yes, and that's why I said Driscoll is half right. Properly reaching young men will ensure that the Church will grow into the next generation but it often doesn't take care of those in the here and now. There are widows and orphans (i.e. "true religion") that need to be focused on as well for example.

Driscoll's point may very well be that by reaching young men you get the rest too--I just don't see that as a biblical model nor do I think it's always true. It may well be true in terms of generational outreach that is beyond the here and now and a great way to grow a church across multiple generations, but it can wind up ignoring the present needs of this generation as much as any call to emphasize one group of people over the others in a local church environment.

Call me crazy, but yes, I am writing not only against some of what Driscoll has said but also against those who might take his words too far.

I'm just arguing for balance and being true to the gospel call as the Scriptures present it. That call goes out to all mankind and not just young men and contra Driscoll's contention, there is nothing in the Bible that says we must be focusing on young men so we can "get the rest too".

But then again...maybe you can point me to a passage or two I've forgotten about?

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Further, let me just say that Driscoll may very well be balanced in regards to who Mars Hill reaches and who he wants to reach--I don't know mostly because I'm not there in his local context. As I said previously, he likely shares our mutual concern about reaching all men and though I might disagree about his methodology in doing so, that doesn't mean we can't further learn from him or his methods.

I just believe we need to make sure our methods are in line with Scripture and come from Scripture whether by explicit warrant or from scriptural principles.

In this case, I think his proposal falls a bit short though I admire his intentions and wish him all the success in the world in reaching the people that Mars Hill and Acts 29 have the ability to touch and transform.

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, a big part of the problem here is you import things to this discussion.

In some comments you don't claim Driscoll is unbalanced, and in other places you do. You can't have it both ways. And if you want to say Driscoll is neglecting a group of people (widows, orphans, whatever), please give some evidence. You may not agree with his approach or some things he says, but I have yet to hear someone who critiques him actually show where he is doing something wrong.

If you are just trying to get people to be careful not to take his words too far, you should find better things to do. I don't think the American church in in danger of becoming too manly and full of "harsh" young guys.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Steve...of course I'm importing things into the discussion...what's wrong with that? I have a perspective and so do you and so if I come to the table with a historical perspective that differs from the norm in terms of how to grow a church and more to say than the parroting of one particularly popular church planter in the Northwest, what's the problem?...I guess I'm not following why it's inappropriate to share my own perspective on it whether you agree or not.

And, why can't I have it both ways? I'm not saying that Driscoll is ignoring anybody--I'm saying his methodology may well lend itself to that. I trust you can see the difference.

But again...where is the biblical warrant for what Driscoll has outlined? You say I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I say we shouldn't just follow what some preacher has to say merely because he's said it. I'd love to see the biblical support for his position. Why is that too much to ask?

I think the answer to that question may very well be a troubling one.

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, I don't mind you importing some thoughts as long as you stay on topic and make your import clear. I put up the quote and link to the video to discuss what he said, not whether or not you already don't like Driscoll for things he said elsewhere.

I don't think anyone would disagree that all need the gospel and all should be reached. Driscoll is saying that reaching one leads to reaching the others, though of course it isn't always that way. Keller says much the same thing about the city. Reach the city and you reach the region. Paul went to big cities knowing the overflow would be to the region. This is also much the "man of peace" idea. Paul reached out to the jailer and got the household. Reach the Ethiopian eunich you influence Africa. It seems a very biblical way to think.

[ryan]

Kevin,
As a young guy I am interested in your reasoning that young guys are "immature and harsh." To me this sounds like a gross over-generalization that you can not support. I think the Biblical support for Driscoll's argument is ironically given by you. Being called to share the gospel with all mankind we should identify where the church seems to be failing and then make changes to address that area. According to the data where the church is failing is with young men, so therefore we should take steps to address this and share the gospel with them.

As Steve said this does not automatically imply that all others are to be excluded, or that we should stop sharing the gospel with others, it simply means we should make more of an effort to call young men to Godly leadership and give their lives for the church.

I have listened to the clip now three times and for the life of me can not see what is controversial in it, maybe it might just that so many out there do not like the messenger.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Ok, Steve, but somehow you forgot to mention that Paul also touched the life and household of Lydia in Acts 16 (and not only that but that they purposely went and spoke to a group of women, v. 13)...which is directly related to my basic point...that the Bible calls us to all mankind, not just a certain group.

I'm right there with you in terms of reaching urban centers for the gospel and having an overall strategy for reaching the world who still remain without Christ.

I just don't see the biblical effort to reach first the young men and then everyone else. I mean, that was the strategy of the Babylonians in the first chapter of Daniel, but last time I checked they were a pagan society. A smart strategy perhaps but is it really a part of a biblical Kingdom strategy?

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Ryan...whenever you speak about a group, you inevitably speak in generalizations. That doesn't mean everyone in the group is the way you describe them...but I think it's reasonable to consider many young men as harsh or young or immature or acting in a way that is in accordance with their youth. That doesn't, as I said before, make it necessarily bad. The Lord works through our weaknesses to make us stronger and thankfully we all are growing up together as a mature man in Him.

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, I wasn't trying to think of every single biblical example. And your point with Lydia is a good one, but I actually think it supports Driscoll's view. Because the early church was reaching men they were also able to reach all people in all places of society.

You make Driscoll more dude-o-centric than he is and that makes you think he would never reach women or something. I just don't get why you are looking at this from such an extreme angle.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Steve, I guess what you'd have to demonstrate from the text is that Lydia and the women of Lystra in Acts 16 were reached because young men were targeted (is it me, or am I the only one who watched the adjective "young" fall off your supposition in terms of the men being reached?).

I just don't see this connection in the text.

I'm sorry I seem extreme...I never said Driscoll wouldn't want to be reaching women. Are you sure that you aren't taking my own words a bit too far in return?

[billmelone]

I don't know where this comment thread is going, but I love Driscool (thats not a typo). I love how he doesn't even bother to answer the question of how can we be innovative. He just says 'young men'. I'd love to know what the seeker sensitive old heads think when they hear him talk like this.

[Steve McCoy]

Geez this is getting old.

1. Are you implying I purposefully took off the word "young" for some reason? Please. I haven't done anything like that intentionally.

2. Jesus reached twelve men, and then other men like Paul were reached who connected with the apostles and became one, and then Paul went and reached Lydia. Yes, the text demonstrates that. :)

3. As for Driscoll and reaching women, you said, "But the gospel (and the Scriptures, incidentally) calls us to seek out and proclaim the gospel to all and call them all into the church--not merely one age group or demographic."

You also said, "Or as the Bible puts it, the least and the greatest shall all know Him (Hebrews 8:11) because we make the effort to proclaim the gospel to *all mankind*. Forgetting this truth and going after only one group of people will continue to make the Church as imbalanced as it is today."

Your implication is that Driscoll is seeking to reach "merely" one group or demographic. If that isn't what you want to imply then stop implying it. I've been saying all along that you area speaking out of both sides of your mouth (unintentionally, I'm sure). That's why this thread is a mess.

[Steve McCoy]

Bill, yeah, I loved that too. His innovation is reaching young dudes. That seems so anti-innovation, and that's his point.

[Kevin D. Johnson]

Steve, Ummm...whatever.

If you're going to get hostile about it, it's not worth talking about in the first place. I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth and your assertion otherwise only complicates this discussion.

I'm sorry we're unable to adequately communicate. Some other time I suppose.

Grace to you and peace,
>>>Kevin

[Steve McCoy]

Hostle? Goodness. Bye.

[Matthew Smith]

I won't interact with what Driscoll is proposing here, but I will say that this is yet another example of why I have such strong positive and negative feelings toward him. He is so right when he talks about the church being too feminine, but his idea of masculinity rubs me wrong. Maybe it's because he carries himself like a bully (scream-preaches, makes outrageous statements), but I just don't buy what he's selling about what it means to be a man. Don Miller is much more helpful in this regard, reminding us that God has equipped us to be men if we look in our own shorts and see a penis. (See Don's "To Own A Dragon"). Sorry for the rant...I've just been thinking about it a lot lately.

[Steve McCoy]

Actually, I've only heard Driscoll scream-preach once. That isn't typical of him and the dozens of sermons I've heard.

I do think Driscoll can go too far in the way he describes manhood. He uses the word "dudes" too much. He talks about male parts too much. But he is also dealing with a part of the culture that is very different than mine. He is dealing with stuff in his church I haven't had to deal with. Some of Driscoll's stuff rubs me the wrong way too, but we have been so off in the church for so long that I have a lot of patience and grace for his approach and think that it is a very helpful correction for us (imperfect though it is).

[M. Bullard]

My read on Driscoll's comments would be more along the lines of strategic thinking and looking at it from a systems dynamics perspective. This is simply a point of great leverage to impact the culture (and the church) for the gospel that has been overlooked for quite a while.

I believe he (Driscoll) sees in his local context that by targeting (although not exclusively) young men and intentionaly discipling them to be well grounded Christ followers who will exert Godly leadership and spiritual maturity in their own lives, in their family's life, in their church's life, and in the life of their community then perhaps God will work something transformational through them in each dimension of the culture with which they interact.

[Steve McCoy]

MB, exactly. Well said.

[Roger Ferrell]

Steve,
Geoff Baggett just wrote an article about this on our blog (www.missionmpossible.blogspot.com) as we started a discussion about men not going to church. I think the thin line is "what are we willing to do to get young men into the church?" Do we have to be vulgar, crude, violent and obnoxious? Or can we shape men into the character of Christ as we draw them in? I want our church to reach men but I want those men to become loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful and have self-control (and I could care less if they are hip or cool). I don't want to raise my boys to cuss or talk about male body parts in public. I don't think that is manly, I just think it is crude and sinful. So it is disturbing when I hear these things about Driscoll's preaching. It seems to me that we can reach men and help them become godly men without compromising scripture. I say this not as a criticism of Driscoll's comments but just as an expression of confusion and concern about what I have been hearing.

[Michael Foster]

Amen! Amen! It is Driscoll's view on men, family, and women that won me to him. Given, his stuff on missions in general is great but his passion to win men is what makes him so needed in the church today. Let's remember that the New Testament was dominated by young male leaders and the church today is dominated by hard working Jesus loving women who have filled the gaps as men have checked out for a more compelling mission. Paul had Timothy, Silas, Titus, Mark, and so many more young men. Who do you have? If none your comments and thoughts on this issue is of little value to anyone except yourself. Quite down and go get some men. Teach them to love Jesus, find a wife to love like Christ does the church, raise some kids that are servants of the Most High, transform culture through the power of the gosepl, and win more men!

[jason woolever]

Any ideas on how to reach those young men? I know that Driscoll has a persona that draws those guys in, just by being himself. I like his idea. I'm not sure how to go about it. I don't think I could be like him in an authentic way and still be myself. His ministry is a blessing, but how do we transfer this principle? I like what he said about assessment. It may go back to Rick Warren's principle that we attract who we are not who we want to attract.

[Matthew Smith]

Steve, thanks for the info.

[Michael Foster]

Jason,

I think the key is having a well-developed and personally realized biblical theology of manhood in your church's leadership.Remember, men follow men not methods. If your not a masculine leader you will find it hard to "attract" men.

[jason woolever]

Michael. I may be too effiminate. I'm considering getting another tattoo. I'll let you know if that helps.

[Scott M]

I just had a conversation similar to this one at some point. While men and women are certainly different (there's really not much disagreement between 'faith' and 'science' on that one to use a fairly standard dualism of the day), Driscoll's picture of a man owes more to American cultural stereotypes than anything in scripture.

I suppose at the end of the day I look at the face of Jesus in order to understand what God is like and I focus on Jesus to begin to understand what it means to live and walk as a truly human person and more specifically as a truly human man.

I think there is a real danger in two directions. We can construct an idea of God and then use that construct to 'see' Jesus rather than the other way around. And we can decide for ourselves what it means to be human and then view Jesus through that lens. And both of those can only serve to distort our ability to ever grasp either.

But that's probably just me.

[Michael Foster]

Jason,

I guess I haven't reached my full "dudely" potential since I too lack a tattoo...I want to get one that works like the cover of Mad Magazine that way when I began to sag it will look like something else entirely.

I think Recovering Biblically Manhood and Womenhood by Piper and Grudem is an essential read on this subject regardless of where you fall theologically. Murrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church is helpful but his definition of a "man" seems to be somewhat flawed and too limited to me. However, this book is still equally essential just so people grasp the importance and scope of the issue. These two books have been very helpful in my journey to apprehend bibical manhood and reproduce it in others. Not to say I have apprehended but I press foward...

[jason woolever]

hey thanks for the referrals mike. I'll have to check the Piper out.

[Chris Stiles]

I guess the 'problem' - insofar as there is one - is taking the comment too far from the context in which it was originally intended.

I don't have a problem with what Driscoll is saying here. However, this is the sort of teaching which is easily parodied, both in order to criticise and prescribe from. A similiar thing happens with Eldredge's books.

As a fairly bookish - and not particularly physically imposing specimen, I get left behind at the point where masculinity is stereotyped as something shallow. Then again, at least half the men I admire as role-models don't fit the stereotype either - though it would never occur to any of them to ask themselves if they were 'sufficiently manly'.

If you have a church where the 40% of men are 'chickified' - then you have a problem on your hands that is solved by getting those men to grow up. Driscoll is doing this, the average person who takes quotes like the above and runs with them doesn't seem to be.

[Chris Stiles]

Lest it be misunderstood - the last sentence there was *not* referring to Steve.

[JACK]

Steve,

Charitably, I have to say that half way through this thread I was still trying to figure out why you were so bothered by Kevin's comments. And then I think you both fed each other. Maybe there's history behind there, but to this outside observer, it read like you were looking for a fight.

I can't comment on Driscoll's piece as I'm not at a computer that would let me view the clip at the moment. But I would agree with the premise that there is something in how we have come to understand and present Christianity as embodied in the life of the Church that does seem to draw women more than men. I don't know quite what it is.

I've mentioned before that I'm involved in a lay ecclesial movement in the Catholic Church. I recall one time, someone from another lay movement, after having had dinner and spending time with members of mine, told us how she was surprised by the masculinity of our movement's charism and how many young men were members. Whereas her's and the others she was familiar with were the opposite. (And us young men immediately thought we need to have a mixer with her movement! ;) ) Your thread has provoked me, Steve, to think about what she was seeing different in us that she identified as "masculine". I'll give it some thought and see if anything worth sharing comes to mind.

But the first thought that does come to mind is that the solution can't be a gimmick. Nor a ten step plan. The men I know are looking for something more rock solid than that. I tend to think it is the straying from the basics (i.e., what does it mean to be a human, what do I ultimately long for, Where does God fit in that, who is this Man known as Christ) that gets us in trouble. The bread and better encounter with Him and following Him is what attracts me.

When I get the chance, I'll look at the clip and see if I have thoughts on that.

[Steve McCoy]

JACK, I know you mean well but your comment will simply inflame a dead conversation that didn't go that well. If I respond to your comment then Kevin will feel he has to respond back. Thanks for letting our conversation stay dead from this point, though a continued discussion on what Driscoll said is welcome.

[JACK]

Steve,

Understand. It's your blog; I'm happy to comply.

I did get a chance to watch the clip now. I'm not sure I found it all that compelling, but it's also just a short clip, so too much can't be expected of it.

I think he's right about the fact that many young men don't go to Church and we should ask why that is. I also think there is some truth to his point that reaching them does reach others (in that, to take the family example only, I find far more women whose husbands don't go to church than the reverse.)

What I don't buy, though, is his confluence of innovation with young men. Sure, there are young men who are innovators. True, but he seems to generalize to much in the clip. He just asserts that they are innovators and then says the church must not be able to innovate because they aren't going to church. But that's quite a stretch.

Similarly, his stereotypes of the feminization of the church are shallow. I get them and the point he's making with them, so I don't fault him for using them. I get it. I just wish he had taken the step beyond all of that. Dug a layer deeper on what's really feminized the church. Why are young men really not attracted to it. And most of all, what would attract young men (which he doesn't address at all).

I'm sure he may do all that elsewhere, but this clip didn't give me much.

What I was more impressed with was his initial point about assessment. This notion that vocation is both the person feeling called, and the church confirming that that call is there, is well known to me given my church background. But I was glad to hear him speak of it. I think he's so right on the reasons why he emphasizes it and it was refreshing to hear.

BTW, watching that clip I'm starting to think I've actually met him before. Is his church in Seattle?

[Miles Mullin]

Gentlemen,

From an historical perspective, the issue of more women in American churches has been around since colonial times. In fact, there is some evidence that the "First Great Awakening" did not result in a surge of membership increases in the churches among women, but rather a dramatic one among men in New England. Thus, you had a surge in overall membership as the growth of women continued at pre-awakening levels and the growth of men increased dramatically. Why did it happen that way? THAT is a good question. The YMCA movement of the 19th century, the Muscular Christianity movement of the early 20th century, Promise Keepers, etc.--all these tried to address the same issue that Driscoll has raised. I post this to see if some historical perspective might help tease out the underlying issues. I could offer some historical-cultural suggestions as to why this is true in the American context, but would like to muse on it a bit more--the whole thing may not be unique to America at all. Then again, maybe it is...

[Ted]

There is certainly much to admire about Mark Driscoll and the work he is doing in church planting and at Mars Hill.

However, it appears from this outside observer's roost (just reading his own words and his own book) that while his strengths are great and obvious, so are his weaknesses. I find it unnecessary and even fleshly that one would choose to make his point by ridiculing others.

The church is and should be filled with people whose lives are not quite "together". This includes those who struggle with identity issues resulting from un-resolved family of origin issues.

I find nowhere in the New Testament where the early church targeted a segment of the culture. Jesus was ministered to and supported by women; he chose men for his immediate followers; and he corrected them when they hindered the children from coming to him.

When we are in our own subculture and talking to one another, it may seem as if someone should be king of the hill. But if we step out of our religious subculture, we will discover that we are too few in number and influence to shoot one another. We really do need each other - whether 'chick', 'chickafied', or 'chickenfried'.

The final word on innovation, church growth, creativity, and especially what constitutes being a man has not been spoken even by Mark Driscoll.

[Kris]

Driscoll says the church should be innovative in reaching young men.
I TOTALLY AGREE

How can we be more innovative?
BY DROPPING OUR HUMAN LEGALIST APPROACH TO GOD and CHURCH.

Men and young men have stayed away from the god of the American church because they feel pressured by to let go of things they are not sin and never were.

[Toby]

Weird as this may sound, growing up in Northern Michigan, then men Driscoll talks about were the ones going to church!

Seriously. All the men I knew like that, went to church. They also voted republican, etc.

So, maybe it's different in Seatle? I also think Driscoll is who he is. He's a "dude". He watches UFC with his toddlers. I wouldn't allow my young kids to watch that. Maybe he isn't aware of how "innovative" violence is affecting youth? Maybe he's on to something, I plead ignorance.

It all sounds both missional to me and kinda silly at the same time. Like he's looking at his culture and saying, "how do I preach the gospel here" and at the same time going, "how can I fix what's wrong". Right, like that's going to happen.

I believe if we teach that manhood is UFC, top-down driving listening to rock & roll, and being the boss at home and everywhere else, rutting all over, then we may attract the beer-drinking football fan, but we're going to be doing a bait and switch on them...

...cause once you get them, you're going to have to say, "Now, okay here's what the Bible teachers...1) You should love God (LOVE? yucky!), 2) You should cherish your wife (CHERISH? Like the Modanna song? Yuck!), 3) You should spend time with your kids (I do man, like when we watch football and UFC!) and 4) You should be hard working, etc (You mean like how I innovatively use the remote, eat chips and open beer cans with my teeth?)"

I guess what I'm saying is men naturally go against "church" because what God says men are supposed to be is opposite to what our sinful nature is.

Who wants to be apart of that? No one, naturally.

[billmelone]

Miles, I didn't know that about the great awakening, thats interesting, I'd like to hear more.

Ted, I think that Driscool knows that we are to reach all people and disciple all people. And so when he looks at either his church or churches in general, he sees that men haven't been properly reached. He's not looking to set up a church of only men, but a church that reaches everyone, as the Bible says we should do.

Toby, I agree that watching UFC is a little crazy, but I don't think for a second that Driscool is to be pinholed like that. He's too smart to want to do a bait and switch, and I don't know his sermons well, but I'm sure he addresses all those things (love, cherish etc.) far more than you make it seem.

I think that Driscool's calling for real manhood-Piper noted in a QandA session at desiring God that he loves Driscool and the reason he cited is that Mars Hill is trying to marry and mortgage the men. Piper doesn't watch UFC i'm sure, but he's a real man and knows a real man when he sees one.

[andre_y]

I know I'm late to this great discussion but here's my 2 cents. At 42, I'm no longer young but I'm out in the marketplace making money, innovating...and occasionally watching UFC with my kids.

I think Driscoll is speaking strategically when he emphasizes the need to reach young men and that's absolutely valid. However, in making his point, he's painted a caricature of what manhood is and I think it's off the biblical mark. There's no one more masculine than Jesus Christ and what we derive as essential masculinity must begin with him - humble obedience to the Father, laying down his life for the good of his friends and enemies alike, a passion for the glory of God.

Also, Driscoll's statements indicate that what's essentially lacking in the church at large is innovation...perhaps one could argue it's radical faithfulness to the gospel that matters. Everything else is window dressing.

[Toby]

Bill,

Don't get me wrong. I have a man-crush on Driscoll. I listen to his sermons almost weekly. I'm a big fan. I LOVE his heart to reach men and for strong male-leadership, etc. Us men are cursed with laziness, etc. I would follow Driscoll. I was just trying to communicate my mixed feelings on the subject. That's why I said that it seemed both strategic and silly to me. Good stuff!

[rhyne]

Man crush!!! That is hilarious!

[rhyne j]

Man crush!!! That is hilarious!

[Michael Bullard]

Quote from Andre:

"...one could argue it's radical faithfulness to the gospel that matters..."

This hits the nail on head! It is out of this commitment that the innovation will flow in the presentation of the unchanging truth of the gospel -- which is what Driscoll (and many others among us) desire.

[Rich]

Driscoll is remaking God in his own image: God is "Macho"

[Phil Cunningham]

Silly Driscoll. I attend Mars Hill and I love it, and I love most of what Mark has to say, but this thing that he talks about on making men to be a man's man is a load. What is a man's man? It is a man. If you have a penis and are heterosexual you qualify in my books.

[Ryan DeBarr]

Young men really are key...

If you get a young man in your church, he's going to eventually bring a wife along and have some kids. So you get four or five people for the price of one. The young men have more time, energy, and money to pour into the church than just about any other group except the WWII generation. I don't really see what is so controversial about what Driscoll said: every church I've ever been in was overjoyed when I walked through the door. It's really kind amusing to me that some church-growth type people don't understand a very simple fact.

Companies like to hire young men. Cities want young men to come live in their area. The military wants young men.

That's not to disrespect older men... older men are also essential. But you don't get mature, older men to lead the church if you never get the young men.

It's really quite simple.

[Ryan DeBarr]

Oh yeah, and Driscoll's right about all the girly men in the church. The more conservative the church, the more girly men it seems there are. It's wierd.

[Kipp Wilson]

I wonder how well video-feed sermons do for attracting these young men?

[SEaton]

I like his comment. Whenever I even mention the "shooting sports" in my church people (including the men) look at me like I just came from the moon. One woman even left the church because I made a reference to the NRA and guns in a sermon (not a political reference - an illustration about responsibility and education and it mostly was about the role of my father in my life).

I totally get his point and couldn't agree more. Reach the chiefs and the rest of the village will follow.

[MShedden]

OK here is my attempt at some Driscoll inspired humor:
Let's all get in our big 68' trucks (great gas mileage, good for the environment) drive to Mars Hill and have them beam in Mark on a TV (that’s innovative) and watch some buff men (whoa look at his abs) roll around in their underwear and fight. Hell things might even get so heated we might want to strip down and wrestle in our underwear. (This is not a sausage fest) After a good amount of time we sit back and talk about how girly John Eldredge is, and that no man has a inner poser (what a wussy idea). After this we will talk about how bad gays are (they are so gay and stuff) before we talk about our male body parts. Hell we might even measure them to prove who is the manliest (biggest wins right?) Then we move on to how we really need to get married and get a mortgage (they will free my finances up so I can live God's plan wherever he may call me). After this we all pack up and drive home to our big log cabins we made ourselves (they do have a lot of those in downtown Seattle) and wake up in the morning throw on our suits (got to pay the mortgage) and suppress our rage for another week before we can get together with the guys again (it is not a sausage fest).
PS I do not believe this represents everyone here, or even Mark, it just sounds like that. I typically don't write stuff like this but after Mark's loving crique of Mainline churches I could not resist (check his blog for my reference).
PSS I agree we do need to reach young men (although not more then we need to reach women) but I think a Wild at Heart goal is much healthier (and encompassing) then the uber-man Driscoll seems to reference.