the irony is, i actually agree with him up to the :45 mark. granted, he sounds like he’s parroting john eldredge’s wild at heart, but he has a point. but, it is precisely at that point (the :45 mark), that driscoll completely derails and misses the point. i mean, really, are you seriously referring to women and men as ‘chicks and dudes’??
and really? the entire mission of the church should revolve around YOUNG MEN??!! really? is this the 50s? are we in afghanistan? if we target young men, we ‘win’???
no wonder driscoll’s church is ‘over half male, single, and in their twenties': who wants to date an uneducated, ‘perverted’ male who’d rather ‘punch someone in the nose’ or ‘work on their truck’ than go to church?
see for yourself: