Mark Driscoll Sermon Archive - I think I want a refundClosed
I am preaching through 2nd Timothy, so as a resource I read through the Driscoll sermons on 2nd Tim - they are aweful. "All about me me me, my life is hard, I am so important, but here are 3 points you can get from this passage" would be my summary of his sermons I've read. He says he is going through a rough patch, but.....
Maybe 2nd Timothy is his worst and they get A LOT better - if that is your experience tell me where to read - I'd be glad to change my mind and not ask for the refund - but I don't have much time, so please let me know.
Comments Closed
I did not mean to bash on Driscoll, I actually have listened to and gotten something out of some of his podcasts, I don't really care if you like him or not, it's not what I asked. (Following line is edited, the original was a little harsh) In my original question, I tried to word it to ask specifically about the resource to avoid a bash on Mark Driscoll thread - I'd like to keep it that way.
But the sermons I have read have been horrible - I was hoping that he was just off his game for that time and was looking for input on the rest of the resource - is it worth keeping?
I know that I have had some horrible sermons in my day - many more than I would like to admit - so this is not criticism just to pile on Driscoll - it's just my observation (read the first 2 sermons in the 2nd Tim series).
Still would like some input from those who have and have used the resource, are others reading and getting some value out of them? Or is it time to ask for a refund?
Michael,
I haven't listened to or read fully the sermons you're referring to, so whether my quick assessment can help, I don't know. I did read briefly through the first sermon in the 2 Timothy series.
I think Driscoll was talking about the things you brought up because 2 Timothy is about pastors, and with him being a pastor in the same vein as Paul (church planter), he's in a good position to expand on the context of 2 Timothy. It looks like he explains what being a pastor is about to help his audience connect to Paul and Timothy's situation. He may have gone into how hard his own life as a pastor is so his audience can try and understand, in whatever small way, what it may have been like for Paul to be doing what he did despite being in jail. Why does he spend so much time explaining what a pastor does in his
sermon? Probably because most people in his church simply don't know
because this is the first church they've ever been a part of. That's what you get when you plant a church in the least churched city in America and have it grow to 7,000 members.
Driscoll's sermons tend to follow a set pattern. He usually goes through whole books of the Bible and unpacks the meaning and applications of whatever section he is preaching on for that week, but he does so in a way geared towards the needs of unchurched baby Christians.
One very important thing to keep in mind is that Driscoll is not a scholarly minded preacher. His sermons are already distilled for the common man to understand and benefit from. As I said, most of the people in Driscoll's church are first generation Christians, so this is why he takes a "bottom line" approach to his preaching. So I'm not sure what you may be looking for in Driscoll's sermons, but if you want to use them as an aid to your own preaching, just remember they are already about as basic as you can get. Perhaps instead of looking for great insights into the scriptures, maybe look at how he communicates the truths of scripture to his audience. He seems to do that part very well, judging by the tremendous growth of his church even before he became famous.
I personally enjoy Driscoll because of his clarity in communicating the meaning of scripture, the freshness and frankness of his ideas, and his ability to talk to the common man and identify with him. I've also been impressed by the depth of his knowledge and understanding on whatever issue or subject he is talking about. Whether it be scripture itself, different theological positions, issues of church history, or current perspectives on whatever topic, he's a man who has done his homework, and it shows in his preaching. This might be why he's such a good communicator too; he has a lot to draw from to connect with his audience. My mind is engaged when I listen to him, and that's exciting to me. Being in my late 20's, I'm also his target audience.
I'd say listen to Driscoll preach rather than just read the transcripts. There is a difference in the experience, I think, and that may effect how one looks at him. His "Religion Saves" series was what got me hooked, and since its on so many topics it might be a good way for you to gauge Driscoll's content and preaching style better.
Frankly, he's gonna be different than what most people are used to because his audience is different. If you're up for that, great. If not, I'm sure you can find someone to buy the sermons off you for the original pre-pub price.
But the sermons I have read have been horrible - I was hoping that he was just off his game for that time and was looking for input on the rest of the resource - is it worth keeping?
Hi Michael,
I should preface this by saying that I hold Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church in high regard. I regularly listen to the podcasts and own all of his books. I think that the Resurgence, in particular, is a great gift to the church. I also greatly value Logos and appreciate this may be a third-party resource.
In terms of this resource, I have read a fair selection and I the quality in terms of content is what I expected. I do suspect that the quality of the sermons may improve as you reach the series on 1 Corinthians. I do not think this is a controversial observation as I am sure I have heard Mark Driscoll say as much. (It also makes sense that experience will bring a greater degree of refinement.)
The positive with this resources is that you get a huge amount of content. There are around 150 sermons here, including special one off conference messages.
The weakness, in my opinion, is the formatting. The resource is in effect a transcript of the sermon as delivered. If Mark stutters, the transcript reflects this (with 'er...' and 'huh', I am really excited that there may be either a 'kerrrrppppppooooow' or 'keeeerrrrrruuuunnnnnch' in there somewhere). Where the congregations laughs, this is signalled in the transcript with, '(laughter)'.
This convention works in as much as it communicates the tone of Mark Driscoll's preaching (which is lively, funny (at least I think so) and informal). The problem, however, is that it is (in my view) difficult to read and difficult to follow along with the passage. Each sermon is pretty much a continuous chunk of prose with no divisions or subheading. Oftentimes it is difficult to see which passage of Scripture he is referencing. This is a world apart from the tight formatting style of, say, the John Piper Sermon Collection.
More disappointing are the incomplete transcriptions, for example,
And the word there is [inaudible] in Hebrew. Not gonna claim to be a great Hebrew scholar, but this is what it said. Now, these words are very important because [inaudible] means to create from nothing. It’s the original creation. And then [inaudible] is to create in terms of preparing for human life. The point here is that God made everything, and then he prepared it for human life.
Mark Driscoll, Mark Driscoll Sermon Archive 2005-2009 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009).
This, in my opinion, is rather shoddy... I suspect the [inaudible] word is significant... I understood from the promo video that Mark Driscoll was involved in preparing the resource and I would have expected stuff like this to be fixed.
The resource also is also lacking in terms of references. One of the things that impresses me about Mark Driscoll is the way in which he uses secondary sources. Perhaps my expectations were unrealistic on this latter point, but I had hoped these references would be properly footnoted.
I am aware that I could exercise my consumer right and ask for a refund, only I do want the Mark Driscoll Sermon Archive in my library. I just wish it was more expertly executed. Oh, and a whole lot prettier...
I dislike suppressing any thread on our forums, but I think this one has gotten out of hand.
We're going to lock it.
I know the discussion started out "about a Logos product", but it's gone far beyond that into an unproductive discussion of Driscoll.
i would be interesting in hearing more feedback before i consider ordering this product. thanks Michael.
River of Life Church: http://LifeOverflowing.org
Visit my blog: http://LifeOverflowing.org/pastor
I decided I didn't want to hear (much less buy) a Mark Driscoll sermon after reading the following article by Baptist Press: http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30700
I decided to purchase the Sermon Archive after reading his book, "vintage church." He seemed really good at practical application so I wanted to see how he used it in his sermons. Well his sermons are more like little talks and most of them are about him, you are right. The problem is, either they aren't tagged very well or he just doesn't preach from a text. I too am a bit disappointed in it. I wan't expecting to agree with him on a lot of things, knowing his background, but I was hoping to glean some insight from someone who is really reaching out to the younger generations.
I would not buy it again. If I could get a refund I probablly would. BTW, I am not a Driscoll hater, I think he plays an important role in reaching people for Christ that no one else would. Its just that his sermons are not all that helpful in dealing with different texts of scripture. Maybe it would be better to look at the topically rather than expositionally. Just my two cents.
I have downloaded and watched a number of the videos of Mark, from the Mars Hill web site (and links on iTunes).
I have read the above press article, and understand a need for caution in some contexts. Yet I also think there are important messages the Chruch is too scared to touch. Its no easy thing to balance this kind of matter.
I'm not here speaking for or against Mark and anything he might have said. I'm just saying this is not an easy thing.
I think its great that Logos offers this resource for sale, to those that wish it. But its OK too, for those that don't want it. I considered it, but decided not to purchase it in the end. Partly due to other big spends in Logos already.
Logos has a wide range of products. There are some I wish was withdrawn from sale as I strongly disagree with their position on some matters. But there are other customers that would want different products withdrawn, that I value. Choice is good. And each needs to pass everything thru their own filters of standards, doctrine-position and so on.
I'm not sure if my comments here serve much use, except to call for balance, and caution about whatever anyone posts next please.
Interesting. He hadn't come across my radar screen. I wonder if he used Logos approved word study techniques to come up with his interpretation of Song of Solomon.
Thank you for the reference to the review article.
"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things."
In my opinion, I do not believe Driscoll's take on SofS is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, contains any excellence, or anything worthy of praise.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
Ditto.
I've found his preaching to be shallow and too vulgar for me.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
I would have to agree. While I believe he is very close to the meaning of the text, I also believe that the graphic description of marital relations are better kept in a private counseling session, not in the pulpit.
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
Another thread says it well - "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Col 4:6)". http://community.logos.com/forums/t/18853.aspx
I know I used the words horrible or awful about Driscoll's sermons, but not about him. Let's just end this thread before it gets ugly - and we say some more less than gracious things about people.
For those of you who tried to actually give some insight into Driscoll's sermons, thank you.
The "Pharisee vs tax collector" attitude on this forum is depressing.
Have you not forgotten when Paul used "σκύβαλα" to describe his works in relation to Christ? Would any of you have the guts to describe your works by calling them "$h1T" like Paul did? Would any of you have the guts to preach with such a word, even though an inspired apostle of God included it in the inspired Word of God?
Or do you also forget when Paul wished that those pesky Judaizers would castrate themselves and finish the job their circumcision started?
Or when you preach from Ezekiel, do you gloss over the part where God chides the Israelites for lusting after foreigners because they have huge penises and ejaculate like a horse?
And this says nothing about the graphic imagery that really is in Song of Solomon.
So next time you throw stones at Driscoll, or anyone else, don't forget what's in your own Bibles.
I figure if Isaiah had unclean lips, surely Driscoll can get away with it until the hot coals arrive .Isaiah 6:5 [:#]
I would not start blaming the Logos forum for the reaction Driscoll gets. Logos even advertised this resource as controversial. It is my understanding many in Driscoll's own doctrinal camp are casting stones too, something about preachers having a higher calling than the tax collectors....
I almost bought this resource. There were entirely too many great resources coming out that I can't justify one I would marginally use.
Give me Paul Tillich or Karl Barth. There's enough controvesy there without offending my godly mother.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Matthew,
I noticed that too after I had posted, but didn't have the time to change it. My post was directed at this particular thread in the forum and not all of Logos' forums as a whole.
I think we get very comfortable with the cultural Christianity that we have grown up in, so it becomes very easy for us to judge things in relation to what is considered "tasteful" within our subculture. Our subculture then becomes the absolute standard by which we judge things by.
I think this is why Driscoll and his Logos sermons tend to get so much flack. Most of us simply haven't been charged with the task of starting a church in the least churched city in America. Driscoll may have to use things that offend our cultural Christianity in order to reach people whose only perception of the faith comes from the more uptight and judgmental ones among us. To the Jew be as a Jew, to a gentile be as a gentile, etc...
Its kind of like this: Imagine you have a bar full of non-Christians living it up and having a fun time. Outside are two Christians, one whose tradition forbids alcohol use and even the appearance of using it, and the other whose tradition doesn't. So while the former stands outside a safe distance away and condemns and preaches to those heathens inside, the other Christian goes in and shares a beer with the group and successfully shares the Gospel with them.
Driscoll was given the charge by God to reach the people of Seattle because, being the least churched city in America, obviously no one else was. I think it would be good for Driscoll's offended critics to remember this. Driscoll isn't a heretic, nor is he some evil emergent monster. He's just a man called by God to reach the counter-culture by being counter-cultural.
Just because its a particular Christian subculture he's rubbing wrong doesn't make any difference and it doesn't make him wrong.
That's my thoughts at least. I get annoyed when I see so much stone-casting going on and no effort is made to understand the reasons behind such actions.
Greg,
Isn't this an argument from pragmatism?
What works = what is correct before God?
What if it would reach more people in the bar by showing that you're a "regular guy" and get hammered like everyone else?
Would that be appropriate?
Just asking brother...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
That's not what I said, and I don't think my analogy went that far. Our freedom in Christ allows for the use of pragmatic ways of reaching people in as much as we do not go outside the bounds of that freedom. Just because one's Christian cultural sensitivities are offended doesn't mean Driscoll, or anyone for that matter, is wrong in how they are reaching people. Just look to Jesus for this. Look at how much he associated himself with sinners, and look at how much the religious people were offended by that and resented him. I think Matthew 11:19 sums it all up very well: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say,
‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and
sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."
Sharing a beer does not mean you have to hammered. Our freedom in Christ allows for the beer, but not for the hammering, FYI. Jesus made great headway with the sinners by sharing a meal with them and giving them some wine. Far be it from us to act holier then Jesus, right?
I don't think so Paul. Our freedom in Christ allows for one and not the other. The danger of a slippery slope is only there if you have faulty brakes. A
man strong in the faith with full knowledge of his freedom in Christ is
not in that sort of danger.
Jesus identified with the people he came to reach by getting down to their level. Why is that so hard to see? Saint Paul acted as if he was under the law to reach those under the law, and vice-versa for those not under the law. He adapted himself to his audience by making use of his freedom in Christ. Yet even still his critics gave him a hard time for doing that.
Matthew C. Jones,
I understand the push to follow the logical consequences of this sort of thinking, and I understand what you and the others have been getting at. But I think also our freedom in Christ has been overlooked in our assessment. Our freedom in Christ changes everything and allows us to adapt to our audience in the way that we feel comfortable and in as much as it does not obviously violate scripture. Homosexuality does. Drinking beer does not. Showing porn at church does, while preaching the Ancient Near Eastern imagery and interpretation of the Song of Solomon does not. In this line of thinking, what may be acceptable to older generation's ears may not be acceptable to a younger generations ears, and vice versa. This is not a difference of morals, but a differences of mores. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores)
Romans 14 seems to touch on the mores of individual believers in Paul's churches, those who used their freedom in Christ to eat anything, and those who thought it wrong to do the same. Paul comes out and says that both are right as long as they follow their conscience on these matters and do not seek to cause another to stumble.
Driscoll has asssessed his pastorate to have a set of mores different than most churches, so I think he is using his freedom in Christ to preach in a manner that helps them first and foremost. That Driscoll's sermons are broadcast so widely changes things some, and he has accepted the counsel of people like John Piper on some of these matters, but shouldn't be something that effects how he preaches to those directly under his pastoral care. In fact, that's where our freedom in Christ allows us to refrain from listening to those sermons which offend our own mores.
It doesn't make him wrong though. That's the whole point I'm getting at.
I understand your point, and just have one question:
Are we not called to exemplify purity of the Spirit when we preach the Gospel?
Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 1 Timothy 4:12
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
Paul,
I agree with you completely that we are supposed to do this, pastor's especially. But I also think our freedom in Christ allows for wiggle room in living this out as we preach. For example, to a first century Jew, purity of spirit may have included the need for the preacher of the Gospel to be living under the Law. To a Gentile of the same era, this would not be the case. This is why Paul said the things he did in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Timothy being circumcised in Acts 16:3 may also reflect a form of exemplifying purity of Spirit that would have been important to the people Paul and Timothy hoped to reach. We see Paul doing the same thing again in Acts 17:22-34 in the Greek Areopagus. Instead of running about condemning their blatant idolatry and tearing his clothes, he complimented the Greeks on their religiosity, quoted their own poets to them in support of his point, and preached the gospel in a culturally appropriate way that netted a few new believers right there on the spot.
So yes, as I said, I agree with you 100% percent. We are called to exemplify purity of the Spirit when we preach the Gospel. But as Paul himself demonstrated so many times (Jesus did, too), the mores of one culture are not always the mores of another culture, and any one wishing to connect with their audience needs to understand that point. Driscoll understands this and he knows the mores of his congregation. If he has to talk about sex in a way similar to what they are used to, in a manner that would get their attention and keep it, then let him do that in as much as his freedom in Christ allows. Better to hear it from their pastor then to try and fill the gap with the culture's answers about sex again. The last thing we need is the Church to go Victorian towards sex again and leave everyone to fend for themselves. Even my own church has understood this need, and its a hardcore Southern Baptist church! We have a Sunday school class for married couples called The Love Lab, and it treads on the nitty gritty issues of sex in marriage. Its been extremely popular, especially among the older couples.
And that too is a way church leadership has gauged the mores of its congregation and addressed a need in an appropriate manner. My church chose not to teach these things from the pulpit because we have a large teen demographic that attends our church. Driscoll's church, according to him, does not have this demographic represented, so he has a little bit more freedom in that regard.
So while the underlying morals of different subcultures are largely the same, there's no guarantee the mores are too. So exemplifying purity of Spirit will look different in different places.
Did you really mean what you wrote? It sounds like the Federal Government saying they will look out for us because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. I am all for freedom in Christ. I just can't agree with having the Pope, Driscoll, Jerry Falwell or Warren Jeffs telling people married people what to do in their bedrooms. Having freedom to do what is right, holy, honorable........that is what freedom means to me. And before anybody thinks the Christian marriage is boring, consider how God gave me 19 babies, so far. Psalm 127:1-5, Psalm 128:1-6 .
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Yep. Too vulgar for me as well. Exhibit A --> *Caution: Explicit Content* https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dg4fc37g_6fjdd38c8&hl=en