« Why Men Hate Going To Church Reason #21: The Classroom Environment | Main | Pastors: Simplify Your Life »

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Mark Driscoll on Church 3.0

Confessions_2Here is a handout that was provided by Mark Driscoll at a recent Acts29 conference. (from the Gaslight Gospel).  Most of this stuff comes from Mark's new book "Confessions from a Reformissionary Rev".  I think this is great stuff.  Here's just a little bit... you can click on the link above for the pdf of the full handout.  Mark says:

Gospel = loving the Lord Jesus for His substitutionary death and resurrection

Culture = loving your lost neighbors

Church = loving your Christian brothers and sisters

Distinguishing Terms:
Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch

Culture + Church - Gospel = Liberalism

Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism

Gospel + Culture + Church = Missional Church

Mark then goes on to explain what he calls the Church 1.0; the Church 2.0; and the phase that many churches are moving to now:  the Church 3.0.  It's a great handout.

I'd love to know your thoughts. Feel free to leave your comments below...


Add Your Comments and Ideas now...
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts

April 27, 2006 in Leadership Issues | Permalink

First Name:


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mark Driscoll on Church 3.0:

» Rethinking Church & Mission from uconnchurch.com: BLOG
I just recently finished reading Mark Driscoll's new book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev. I loved it! Mark is funny, honest, and raw--and the quintessential church planter. He made me laugh out loud, challenged me, and also encouraged me.... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 27, 2006 6:36:10 PM


(Disclaimer: I am responding only to this post and Mark's handout, not to the books from which the concepts are drawn. Like all seminar/class handouts, there is a lot of detail left out.)

I like where Mark is going here (even if the "1.0/2.0/3.0" thing is a little too academic even for me). I do have a problem with his definition of church as "loving your Christian brothers and sisters" and distinguishing the parachurch as excluding that; I definitely do not believe that parachurch in general excludes love. What it excludes are the organizational structure and the "normal" activities of church. The problem is in Mark's "Defining Terms", I think. Maybe better definitions would be:
1. Gospel - Jesus loves the world
2. Culture - the world around me
3. Church - Christ followers

Though not as alliterative as Mark's definitions, I think these retain the important distinctions in his subsequent "Distinguishing Teams". (Is it Teams - as in the handout? Or is it Terms, as in the post?)

As for the definition of Church 3.0, I like the breadth of it, but I think it would be good to better define what "glocal" means. That is still a fairly new concept in missions, and probably one that warrants discussion here at MMI. To say that in Church 3.0, missions is glocal does not sufficiently differentiate it from missions in a 1.0 or 2.0 context.

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Apr 27, 2006 3:34:31 PM

Beautiful! I love it. These terms help a lot in defining, hopefully, where Evangelicalism will end up. (That is, Church+Gospet+Culture).

Posted by: Rich | Apr 27, 2006 5:42:15 PM

Man this is good stuff Todd.... I believe a good name for this would Be "The Meat & Tater's of the Gospel" Gospel + Culture + Church = Missional Church that is good. If you don't mind a suggestion: I would do it like this...

Gospel+Culture+Church= Church on Mission for God

Posted by: Clairvoyant 1 | Apr 27, 2006 10:05:19 PM

Mark really fleshes out this handout in his new book which I hope to post a review of this weekend. Also, for more on Glocal check out Bob Logan's (I think) new book.

Posted by: Michael Foster | Apr 27, 2006 10:54:30 PM

This is my first time posting in this forum... But I have to disagree with Mark's categories of "Church 1.0, Church 2.0, and Church 3.0," because a lot of churches could be "2.0" are not really because they are not seeker-sensitive, and do not have those kinds of earmarks. I think the "1.0, 2.0, 3.0" is also rather limiting, because a lot of churches I know have aspects of 2 or 3 of the different categories. Plus, many churches that might be considered "2.0" are generally resistant to moving into a "3.0"-styled church, but are still doing a lot to reach the young people through an unusually active youth group, etc. Just my thoughts

Posted by: Jonathan Krems | Apr 28, 2006 12:25:51 AM

I don't think Mark is meaning to categorize churches specifically... but rather to paint a picture of what we should strive and aim for (not leaving any piece of the puzzle out!). Good stuff.
However, I'm with Randy on this one: I don't think his definitions (insofar as they are accurately presented... not having ready beyond the post, I wouldn't know) are good. I particularly have a bone to pick with his definition of the 'gospel'. So much hinges on this, doesn't it?
As best as I understand it, the 'good news' is: Christ reigns! Change your way of life! His Kingdom is here, hop on board or be left in the dust (where there's weeping, gnashing of teeth, and choking on dust particles).
Substitutionary atonement (under a certain strongly Reformed construal, at least) shouldn't be the heart of the word we're called to preach. The fact that it's so hard to pronounce is a hint of that fact, I think... (mostly kidding on that one)
-Daniel (F.)-

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 28, 2006 2:08:28 AM

Lost me on the: Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism. Sorry but as a fundamentalist, I am very culture aware. The changing of the culture from the 1.0 to the 2.0 church back in the 1900's and now early 2000's is something I haven't seen in my neck of the woods. The "seeker sensitive" church doesn't exist here. Either you are Fundamental or you are liberal, and culture has a lot to say about that.

The Missional Church needs definition for me, are they missions minded?, or are they on a mission to be a church for the 21st century? The term doesn't click here. And what is Reformission REV? I really must be out of the net.

Sounds like something out of the bad 60's.

Posted by: Jay Gainer | Apr 28, 2006 2:25:24 AM

Jay writes

[The "seeker sensitive" church doesn't exist here. Either you are Fundamental or you are liberal, and culture has a lot to say about that.]

I am in a similar neck of the woods. And when a "seeker sensitive" church was finally planted here, just over 10 years ago, it grew, in just one decade, to be about 3 times the size of the next biggest Protestant church and to the point where up to 4 or 5% of the community worships here on a regular basis. Also, a great number of our growth has been non-transfer growth! (We are baptizing 20 or so people this weekend...)

Your town sounds like an opportunity for you or someone to reach some new people with the Gospel!

Posted by: Peter Hamm | Apr 28, 2006 11:07:59 AM

I don't want to put words in Driscoll's mouth, but my hunch is that when he uses the term "fundamentalism" he is not speaking of fundamental theology (i.e., orthodoxy), but rather is speaking more of legalism and methodologies; e.g., a strong opposition to anything that looks at all like contemporary culture.

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Apr 28, 2006 11:44:47 AM

Sorry folks, Mark has missed it! First fundamentalism is a kind of culture itself, it is not the absence of culture. One only needs to visit the deep south Bible belt to understand this. Second, missional church definition is wrong as stated. Gospel+Church+Culture? Wait a minute, what do you do when "culture" = racism, discrimination, a disregard for the poor, shallow commercialism, social, economic, racial inequities, immorality, relativism, pluralism, etc. Isn't the church called to be salt and light? As usual, evangelicalism proves only that it has a shallow grasp of the landscape, that its leadership has ultimately failed in understanding the current climate and how to respond to it. Its no wonder that 5/6 american's have proven to be wrong yet again.

Posted by: Omar | Apr 28, 2006 11:47:39 PM


Mark isn't saying that we should embrace everything the culture says and believes. For example, in The Radical Reformission he writes, "We have the various cultures in which people live their lives (for example, ancient Jews and Gentiles; modern, urban homosexual artist; modern, rural heterosexual farmers). Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective" (pg.19-20). In other words, the gospel should be carried by Christians into the world's various cultures in a way that is understandable. Keep in mind what you are looking at is but a worksheet and probably not enough information to developed an informed opinion on what Driscoll is saying if you haven't read his previous books.

Posted by: Michael Foster | Apr 29, 2006 3:53:24 AM

Short cuts don't work. I missed the seminar on this one. But at first glance, I pondered the definition of fundamentalism: Church + Gospel - Culture. In reality, that is the real missional church. We are a counter-cultural force. We live in this world but not to be of this world. God is in the business of cleaning us up when saved. Fundamentalism has been redefined by others to be legalistic and close minded. I don't accept that definition...the world may accept it, liberals may use it, but it does not change the original meaning - believing and behaving according to the basics of Bible believing Christianity. I know Mark means well and culture is what we are working through to win people to Christ. Jesus said to make disciples of all nations (ethnos - cultural groups) and to teach them...which will change a pagan culture into a Kingdom culture. I will read Mark's books...and I am sure that the church he serves adheres to the fundatmentals of the faith.

Posted by: Dan Moore | May 1, 2006 12:24:28 PM

The key to this being a great idea or not is what you mean by "+ culture". There is much in our culture that should not be "+". I assume "+ culture" means "the ability to relate to people within the culture."

Posted by: Scott | May 1, 2006 3:27:27 PM

Oops! Didn't see the definitions the first time through. It's been one of those weeks and its only Monday.

Posted by: Scott | May 1, 2006 3:39:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.