“The Ethos of Mark Driscoll: A Summary of an Undergraduate Thesis”

by Benjamin Sherick | Xchanges 11.2

Analysis

Demonstrating Virtue

One function of Driscoll’s sermon is to defend the legitimacy and truth of the Bible. Driscoll opens his sermon with: “We’re talking about the scriptures, we’re talking about the Bible and I know that up on campus they’re talking about it as well. Women’s studies classes, history classes, sociology classes, anthropology classes. You cannot avoid the impact of scripture on the canon of Western literature and history. So you guys are going to hear all kinds of negative, pejorative things about God’s Word, and I want to give you a bit of an overview of what God’s Word actually is and is not” (1:54).

Immediately, Driscoll sets himself up as a defender of the Bible and by extension, a defender of truth. He positions secular academia as an adversary and tries to convince a Christian audience that their common worldview is under attack. Driscoll proceeds to explain that he is merely trying to tell the truth: “Follow the truth wherever it leads and you’ll end up loving Jesus” (48:22). Driscoll establishes himself as a guide, pointing the way towards truth.

Demonstrating Knowledge

Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos additionally benefits from his use of numerous and various biblical passages. During the course of the sermon, Driscoll demonstrates an incredible knowledge of the Bible, often quoting or paraphrasing lengthy passages from memory. Most respondents found that Driscoll demonstrated expertise and intelligence through this ability to quote the Bible without reference to his notes or the Bible itself.

Courtney stated: “He seemed very knowledgeable and he didn’t refer to his notes a lot. He was very engaged with the audience and he wasn’t glued to his notes, like he was very much quoting stuff that he knew and he quoted Scripture that he didn’t necessarily seem to have written down.” Emily said, “He also seemed like he had a really good understanding of Scripture, because he was just quoting off Scripture, like, this reference, that reference, this reference.”

Demonstrating a Lack of Wisdom

As one watches the sermon, it becomes apparent that one of Driscoll’s draws as a rhetor is his sense of humour. However, Driscoll often butts against the line of propriety. Two problematic instances arise where Driscoll’s humour may negatively affect his intrinsic ethos. Early in the sermon, Driscoll claims that non-Christians steal the Bible’s metaphors: “That’s why even the unbelievers, when they can’t come up with better metaphors, they steal ours. The rainbow, that was ours. That was ours. Just throwing it out there” (9:20). While his immediate audience may find this hilarious, it remains a problematic statement since it uses the Pride movement as comedic fodder, demonstrating a lack of discernment.

The second instance occurs when Driscoll discusses the doctrine of predestination: “You’re like, ‘Oh really? God’s playing Duck Duck Damn? Really? Duck. Duck. Damn! Duck, duck. Damn! Really?'” (33:02). Emily found this particular instance troubling: “Predestination is such a hard topic, and for myself even, I struggle to think that God would purposely condemn some people to Hell. So to make light of it, and say ‘He’s playing duck, duck, damn’ as if God is just randomly choosing people and wants to condemn them to Hell, I just didn’t think it was very appropriate.”

Demonstrating Goodwill

Driscoll finishes his sermon by presenting his hopes for the congregation: “I want you to leave here tonight having firm faith in the Word of God. I want you to pick it up and study it to learn about Jesus” (1:03:05). From these concluding remarks, it is clear that Driscoll seeks his audience’s spiritual wellbeing — he does not seek his own good from the sermon, but that of the audience. Courtney commented that Driscoll “seemed like a father that didn’t want their kids to go wrong” and perceived him as having “a really deep care for them and a deep concern for the issues that they’re facing right now.”