I promise this won’t turn into another Mark Driscoll rant – if you want something like that, I’m pretty sure you couldn’t find something like that on this site. I ran across a link to a new podcast of Mark Driscoll on Bob’s blog – I don’t agree with much of his analysis. Driscoll is speaking at the Convergent Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and you can listen to the podcast here. You can skip the first 14 min or so – it’s just Driscoll telling about his upbringing. Around minute 14 or 15 is when he begins to start criticizing people, specifically Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell (really? Rob Bell?). Apparently, the battle has begun (again) and it’s time to take up your battle positions. While there is so much more I want to say, I’ve said it before. So – Mark Driscoll, “this wink’s for you.” I like to think of it as an “Aww, isn’t that cute”-wink. And I’m not the only one – many are giving Driscoll the wink.
For those of you who don’t want to listen to the entire 80+ minute lecture, here are some ridiculous snippets from it:
- I don’t mind a conversation…but when God speaks, we are not to converse, we are to obey.
- Brian McLaren was asked this question: ‘What is your position on gay marriage?’ His answer was this: ‘You know what? The thing that breaks my heart is that there is no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’ To which I would respond: ‘Now you have hurt God.’
- The Southern Baptist Convention of North Carolina is bringing him [Doug Pagitt] to teach in October. Shame on you.
- If Rabbis don’t love Jesus, they have a bad hermeneutic.
- The Bible is all about Jesus. Ultimately, it’s all…about…Jesus.
- Brian McLaren also has a new organization called “Deep Shift” and I think somebody inadvertently put an “F” in there.
- I believe Emergent is, like Judas, in the process of hanging itself.
- And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations — I’ll tell you as one on the inside, they don’t have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it’s all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they’re not.
So Mark Driscoll – you just keep on doing your thing. This wink’s for you.
UPDATE: Join the *Wink Revolution* – here are some winkers: Doug, Tony, Mike, Marissa, Gavin, Josh, Will, Jay, Kyle, Andrew, Brother Maynard Josh, Blake, Joe, Nick and Kay. Some are giving peace signs: Scott and Steve.
No related posts.
Share This Post:
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
thanks for the link.
do you mind if i steal your pic with wink idea and title?
and then we can get everyone to do the same thing. it’s what we in the biz call culture jamming. or in this case . . . caricature jamming.
I think someone needs to go to Seattle and give Mr. Crankypants a hug.
reading these i had some reactions… are you talking?
1st one: what?
2nd: did anyone ask you to respond?
3rd: sorry daddy. please don’t spank me.
4th: that might be some bad math.
5th: i can go with this one…
6th: seriously? did you just say that? sounds mature my friend, real mature.
7th: interesting theory. sounds like you’d be happy to be the one who oversees that hanging.
8th: might be a valid critique…
While I would agree that Mark is an Evangelemergent and spends too much time talking bad about others, his points about the Bible’s authority is spot on.
because i do not have the time nor desire to hear him talk for 80 minutes, how does he criticize rob bell?
Hey Adam — just wanted to let you know that your link to this post showed up in my “blogrush” bar. It was only a matter of time, right? ;-)
Ironic, your “wink” at MD is done in a degrading and infalmatory manner. Might it be that you are more like him than you would like to admit? I do not have a horse in this race. But if EV is what you consider to be friendly than I would hate to be your enemy. The truth is your insults are just more veiled and patronizing. You are just as smug and sure as he is. Just when was the last time you encountered an idea that was conservative or different than your ideology and you did not scoff at it and cast it aside. I have read your blog a few times and each time it fits perfectly into the catagory of “tolerant as long as you agree with me.” Maybe open your mind since you are in search of progressive theology and ponder if some of Driscoll’s points may be right and you could be wrong. But that would take intellectual courage, to accept that maybe your pursuit of God is to find a god that is just like you and agrees with you. To which I would say that is just an idol.
Love the wink idea and was considering posting a copycat myself.
Mark’s ad hominem hermeneutic is better at drawing boundaries than it is conclusions. But isn’t there a better way?
Check my blog for a suggestion. Can we do it instead?
Mark Driscoll – Same crap that Jerry Falwell pushed but with hair gel and designer shirts. It isn’t enough to play cool music while you preach the same violence, bigotry, and exclusion.
MMm. “now you have hurt God”. You can hurt God? Really? I’ve heard of the “Don’t make God cry” guilt trip – usually from Irish Grandmothers.
Ohhhhh Todd. You so crazy. Don’t you know that Adam is never wrong about anything!
Adam,
My initial reaction to your wink is, “Ha, that is pretty funny.” But then I think. What I think is, “How is this reaction any different than Driscoll himself?” I can only propose that both might be equally wrong. In our attempt to be tolerant we ourselves are indeed that ones that are intolerant. It seems to be a vicious cycle. How can we think critically and act lovingly even when someone else is initiatingly unloving?
I’ve added a south park style wink for Mark.
Mark Driscoll?
Fine by me.
Hey Adam,
Can you respond to why #5 is ridiculous? It just doesn’t seem to fit with the rest, in my mind. Thanks :)
Rebecca – thanks for asking. #5 is a little different than the rest – but it still rubs me the wrong way. It’s similar in the way that Mark says that THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Jesus’ life is the death on the cross. And see, I just think there was a lot more to Jesus’ 30 years of life and ministry than his death. And if we’re going to pick just one sole moment that is THE MOST important, I think it would be the resurrection, rather than the death.
The Bible is about Jesus. But it’s also about a lot more – it’s about generations and generations of people’s stories, experiences and encounters with God. It’s about the kingdom of God – and while Jesus is surely key to the gospel – I just wouldn’t think to say that the people is ALL ABOUT Jesus. There does seem to be an entire section of the Bible (the Torah, the Hebrew Scriptures) that doesn’t mention Jesus too much…
Thanks for clarifying – I’m with you there.
I, of course, don’t have a stake in Driscoll words, but most of what he says in your quotes I, at least conceivably, might say (which is a problem with using quotes — though generally I would utilize much different rhetoric and style…and hopefully much more nuance and better context), for example:
I don’t mind a conversation…but when God speaks, we are not to converse, we are to obey.
There’s something to this. Right? Obedience should be on the table both as a legitimate category and as one that probably trumps certain flat epistemological categories. The problem is that it brackets prudentia or phronesis, which seemingly might require conversation. Here it seems Driscoll’s problem is the assumption that God’s speaking is unambiguous and forgetting that you need a particular interpretive community, which would seem to entail conversation, in order to hear rightly. However, talk that only seems to defer obedience (and is employed to do so) should be held to be suspect by all of us.
Brian McLaren was asked this question: ‘What is your position on gay marriage?’ His answer was this: ‘You know what? The thing that breaks my heart is that there is no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’ To which I would respond: ‘Now you have hurt God.’
This is the one with which I simply disagree and the one where conversation is probably most needed (actually, conversation is too limited a notion given the stakes involved…living with…would probably be better).
The Southern Baptist Convention of North Carolina is bringing him [Doug Pagitt] to teach in October. Shame on you.
The argument is a little ad hominem, okay, quite. However, I think argumentum ad hominem can be interesting, or at least can raise interesting questions about the relationship between a person’s actions (here I’m assuming ‘thought’ as one of these actions), so I never rule it out of hand. I can think of people I respect (both theologically and practically) more than Doug, so there’s at least some point there.
If Rabbis don’t love Jesus, they have a bad hermeneutic.
There is a sense in which Christianity is always supersessionist and as such this comment makes some sense. [One of the leading Jewish intellectuals in the US,Peter Ochs, once said that he doesn't trust Christians who aren't supersessionist in some way.] However, even if you have some version of a supersessionist account of Christianity’s relation to modern Judaism, that hasn’t yet said what form of engagement one can have with (in this case) Rabbis. Driscoll could have a better account of Christian receptivity.
The Bible is all about Jesus. Ultimately, it’s all…about…Jesus.
Well, this is right. However, if it rubs Adam the wrong way, I’m guessing it is because it sounds simplistic. Christianity need a thicker narrative than “me and Jesus” to be sure and reductionistic accounts are not helpful. Of course, this whole way of engaging someone like Driscoll (through quotes, etc.) falls prey to the same critique. Said differently, the post and comments rub me the wrong way.
Brian McLaren also has a new organization called “Deep Shift” and I think somebody inadvertently put an “F” in there.
Doesn’t seem called for, but, to be honest, McLaren’s work probably doesn’t live up to the attention it gets.
I believe Emergent is, like Judas, in the process of hanging itself.
I’ve said the same, but what is interesting is not this statement, but the question: on what is it hanging itself?
And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations — I’ll tell you as one on the inside, they don’t have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it’s all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they’re not.
Blanket statements are particularly helpful. We’d have to look (and Driscoll has some responsibility to do the same) at particular embodiments and evaluate them on the ground.
===========
I do think, Adam, that you have some responsibility not only for how you engage someone like Driscoll (here I think Travis’ comment is right: “My initial reaction to your wink is, ‘Ha, that is pretty funny.’ But then I think. What I think is, ‘How is this reaction any different than Driscoll himself?’”) but also how you invite people who read your blog to engage. It should not be a move toward pithy engagement, “For those of you who don’t want to listen to the entire 80+ minute lecture, here are some ridiculous snippets from it,” but a cautionary one about relying on your context-less quotes, something like: “for those of you who don’t want to listen to the entire 80+ minute lecture, your comment might ring hollow.”
In the past you’ve said that you like to stir things up (though I’m not saying you’re doing that here). That may be good for increasing readership and attention to your blog, but not a great Christian politic. I do understand that you’ve said more about Driscoll before now, but if something is ridiculous, continue to say why it is ridiculous, not simply the dismissive eye-roll or wink (in other words, shame on the ‘Wink Revolution’ for not caring enough to engage).
http://willzhead.typepad.com/willzhead/2007/09/this-wink-is-fo.html
Add me to the list anytime bubba.
how in the hell do you have 28 comments when i only have 1? you snarky princeton punk.
My wink is here.
Hey, I know Brian has been called worse, so he probably doesn’t mind.
Umm, Dan you talk about listening to the “whole lecture”, but fail to read the link provided to Pagitt’s blog for more information about what the “wink” is about. Doug is trying to reach out in a spirit of friendship, not animosity, and has blogged about meeting resistance to his attempts. So he suggests to assume a battle position (not one of duking it out but one of friendship)…a wink, a smile, a prayer, a friendly email, hospitality.
There is nothing childish about trying to rebuild a friendship.
uh oh, now Mark’s got all these good lookin’ guys and gals winking at him. Good thing he’s got such a hot wife or he might be tempted to stray.
;-)
“There does seem to be an entire section of the Bible (the Torah, the Hebrew Scriptures) that doesn’t mention Jesus too much…”
Not according to Jesus.
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Luke 24: 25-27
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
John 5:39-40
Grace & Peace,
James ;-)
Stephen, thanks for the info. I didn’t follow all the links.
Well…I completely agree with Mark. However, I don’t like the comments about “deep shift” and the one about shame on the school. It seems a bit immature. Other than that….I am not really sure how anyone could disagree with the other statements.
If someone called me or inferred I was a heretic, we’d definitely have a “conversation” about it and get things cleared up. I believe what Driscoll talked about deserves to be addressed or shown to be wrong and a “wink” doesn’t do that for me.
If you just want to write a response on my post about this on my blog, that’d be fine or you can email me or ignore me. ;-)
Ok as a part of a new-monastic community I’m not going to react to being called ridiculous… other than to say I’d far rather be winked at! But on one or two of the other comments; My response to the first one would be, absolutley when we hear what God says we should respond not question God, but… the question is what is God saying? How do we reflect on and discern what God is really saying and not simply parrot the same old blinkered hermeneutics. I can understand what Brian is saying, people seem more often than not to ask the “Gay” question for reasons of association rather than reflection… because they want to know whether you are on the same “side” as them (something which Driscoll seems inordinately concerned with himself… defining who’s in (sound) and who’s out (unsound). The “its all about Jesus” comment I would disagree with because I am ultimately Trinitarian and would prefer to say it is ALL about the whole of God! Its all about the Godhead who creates, about the God who became incarnate (who was not just a MAN but fully HUMAN) about the God who leads us into reconciliation through willing sacrifice and resurrection, about the God who is present now. There is no point that is not about Jesus but nor is there any point which is not *only* about the Son. The Deep Shi’f't and Judas comments are typical Driscoll and not worth responding to IMHO. The final comment for me shows a simplistic and dualistic soteriology (it’s all about the entry ticket to Heaven) which does not reflect (for example) the Sermon on the Mount. Bonhoeffer once said “the renewal of the church will come from a new type of monasticism which only has in common with the old an uncompromising allegiance to the sermon on the mount.” but then perhaps Driscoll thinks he was ridiculous too? In which case, I’m more than happy to be in such illustrious company… ;-)
I don’t follow – what’s the big deal with saying that ultimately, the Bible is all about Jesus?
I tried to fit my response to this strange phenomenon in a comment, but things got too complicated. Thus my response is here.
Niccolo
Maybe you all should start “winking” at Pagitt since he is doing the very thing you all are so up in arms about. How is it that no one has a problem with him calling Jonny Mac’s gospel “harmful” and “dangerous” but when Driscoll does it he is mean and a bully? Oh wait maybe I can answer my own question, because Pagitt right!
C’mon Ryan, don’t be so partisan. If Driscoll had said, “I believe their views are harmful and dangerous”, then so be it. I may disagree, but fine, we can do that. Driscoll went into personal digs. If you go to any site on “bullying”, one of the suggestions is to turn the bully’s comment into a joke. Perhaps the better response would have been to ignore Driscoll. He may be a Christian bully, but the man is still a bully. A bully needs someone to pick on. Half his audience would be lost if he quit picking on people. It’s like watching a wreck. Various emergent folks could go on just fine without the likes of a Driscoll. Could he say the same? Does he need someone to be against in order to have a platform?
Andrew I think your comment is the one that is partisan. Truth is if you listen to the message Driscoll actually gave he did his best to muster up humility and grace. Was he perfect no. Did he use humor that could be interpreted as “personal digs” possibly. The point is Driscoll gave it an earnest attempt to address serious matters that he felt were important. Just because he is not as likable as McLaren does not mean he deserves to just be caricatured and turned into a joke. Funny thing is when Pagitt does something like this and you are content to make excuses for it, and not hold him to the same standard; it just shows that many in the EV have an attitude of we can dish it out but not take it. Conversation is fine but it involves more than a wink.
;) i’m in
Ryan,
Would any response other than “Gee, Driscoll is right and fair. How did we miss it this whole time?” be acceptable? Also, the dish it out but can’t take it doesn’t work. You are not dishing it out if you are responding. Without the initiator, there would be no response. The “truth” is that all of the anti-emergent people are running around the blogs complaining that they don’t like the way some emergents are responding to attacks. This sounds like some of my elementary students who smack someone and if that person has the audacity to smack them back, they run up and tell on them (conveniently leaving out the part of their instigation).
Driscoll’s likability has nothing to do with it. I know plenty of unlikable people who are civil.
Also, please address my point about Driscoll needing someone to attack. Again, I state that in these scenarios, anti-emergents are complaining about responses to attacks. How about finding a new target to kick and then responses will be immaterial.
Lewis says that evil cannot succeed in being evil the way good can being good. Evil is not original, it can only exist as a corruption of good. Evil needs good, but good does not need evil. In the Harry Potter series, Harry could go on fine in life without Crabbe and Goyle (Malfoy’s two thugs), but they could not go on without Harry (or someone like him). Their nature requires an enemy, someone to be against, or better yet – someone to beat down. Without someone to shove below them, Crabbe and Goyle would not know what to do with themselves.
I think emergent folks could go on fine without anti-emergents, but without emergents the antis would not know what to do with themselves.
Andrew
Wow you just don’t get it. This is not about changing your mind or making you agree with everything that Driscoll says. I honestly do not care at the end of the day, and that is not meant to be snotty. My point simply remains that when critique comes it deserves more than a “wink.” Like Driscoll or not his talk was civil, and addressed concerns that he sincerely held about the theological errors of some prominent Christian leaders. And yes the dish it out but can’t take it does work, when Pagitt calls another prominent Christian leader out on his understanding of the gospel, it is strangely silent from the emergent crowd, and double standardish, that he is not being labeled a bully for doing so. And the conservative blogs I have read have chosen not to wink at Pagitt’s comments but instead engage them. Sooner or later Emergents will have to decide if conversation means more than agree with us or we will just mock you and say you are being mean.
As to your point about Driscoll only being an antagonist, I suggest you do a little more research. What the guy is about is clear, Jesus. The guy preaches Jesus every week at this church and points people toward Jesus. Thousands of people have been pointed to Jesus by him in Seattle and seem to be able to figure out what he is for. Or how about one of the fastest growing church planting networks in the country that he founded. I think they know what he stands for; planting churches and seeing people’s lives changed by Jesus. Maybe it is really easy for you to cynically dismiss this, but the guy stands for a lot. You just have to read something else than Adam’s blog.
Last, to compare Driscoll and “anti-emergents” to evil is just absurd. First because I do not know what an “anti-emergent” is, and second because comparing people to evil is to miss that our enemies are not flesh and blood. I get that you are trying to say that Driscoll, just like Malfoy needs an antagonist to exist, but as I pointed out above that hardly seems to be the case. Because while many emergents continue to wink at one and other Driscoll just keeps planting churches, giving money to start churches in India, and point people toward Jesus. Andrew I truly hope that you would understand my intent here is not to say Driscoll has it all figured out, there is a lot you can critique him for. But to just dismiss and mock him is below any group who claim to be progressive and open minded. I am simply asking you to live by your values of possibly believing that Jesus might, just might, be working through those you consider to be antagonists.
Ryan,
I can appreciate that, and I appreciate your attitude. My one contention would be “how about one of the fastest growing church planting networks in the country that he founded.” I really, really wish we could stop using that as a barometer either of success, or lack of it. If Driscoll is in the will of God… he is simply a servant in the will of God. No more or no less than the guy or gal who is stumbling through a church plant that can hardly get off the ground. Or better yet, let us remove the pastor as celebrity altogether. If numbers are the indicator, we should all be heading to the next Benny Hinn crusade.
“I suggest you do a little more research.” The thing is, I have heard him… and every time he has a rip for somebody. Even many of his supporters say he runs off at the mouth, but they balance it off with everything good he does. He has a reputation in this regard, and it is not a good one.
The thing teaching for 16 years has shown me is that the only difference between 10-12 year olds and adults is their height and weight. I have a bully in my class right now. There is this kid the bully does not like, and yet the bully cannot stay away from this kid. He sidles up next to him to pester him every chance he gets. I tell my students that they do not all have to be best friends, but that every student has a right to feel safe in our room.
Driscoll doesn’t have to like Mclaren and his crowd. No one is asking them to be buds. I think though that it is bullyish behavior to behave how Driscoll behaves. He reminds me of the bully in my class who cannot stay away from the kid he claims not to like.
I don’t care for Driscoll, but I am not registering a Driscollisapoopyhead.edu domain. I simply don’t buy his books or listen to his preaching. If he doesn’t like Emergent… QUIT LISTENING. By saying the things he says, he just prejudices people against Rob Bell who have never even heard of him. I think we should let people hear and make their own judgments. If you read a Bell book and you don’t care for it… great! Move on to something else that helps your walk with Jesus. But you are nothing more than a bully if you then choose to follow Bell around and through rocks at his head. And if an emergent pulls the same stunt, I would be calling him on it too. And if I do it, let me have it.
“I am simply asking you to live by your values of possibly believing that Jesus might, just might, be working through those you consider to be antagonists.” I don’t argue that point at all. I do not doubt that God works through clay vessels. I just believe that when he quit talking about Jesus and started attacking his brothers in Christ with heretic and deep shi*, it was time for him get off the podium and have a time out. And if he cannot get into a podium without using it as a bully pulpit, he needs to stay out until he can.
One last one, cause this was your main point but I got lost in my pontification. “My point simply remains that when critique comes it deserves more than a “wink.”
Agreed, but I think that was just the catalyst. This response page alone has generated tons of discussion. In total, the written discussion on this topic the past few days over the net has created volumes. Probably though, most folks have the same opinion they started with, but perhaps there was some movement. I am not nearly as attitudinal toward Mark as I was yesterday. ;)
Andrew,
Good remarks and thanks for taking the time to engage, plus after your driscollisapoopeyhead.edu line how could I not enjoy your response. Truth is I think we just have a different view on the nature of what it is to confront teaching that we view to be harmful. It seems your approach is one of live and let live, while mine might be more proactive. Now I do not know for sure which is right, maybe neither is. But I do believe and I think you do to, that these are serious matters that deserve serious consideration.
And another way to look at Driscoll that I think is worth consideration is not as bully but as untactful spouse. Truth is as a married fellow, I often do dumb stuff that frustrates and exasperates my wife. When she comes to confront me, I can either find one little thing in her approach or tone as a justification to dismiss her valid complaints. Now even if a spouse lacks tact and does not say things as well as they would always like, we still are obliged to listen carefully to their comments. All I was saying is that this whole winking thing reminded me of the times I dismiss what someone has to say just because of their delivery, even though I knew they were trying hard and they had some points worth considering.
Just one last point. It was not my intent to equate Driscoll’s success with God’s blessing or signs of his rightness. I could not agree more with you that numbers are not the only or primary indicator of the working of God. I simply listed the profound impact his church planting organization was having because it is a clear indictment of what the guy is about. It shows fruit that is not related to simply being an antagonist, but actually being for something.
I’m adding my wink to the fun. It is well-earned, Mark.
http://yutegal.blogs.com/weblog/2007/09/this-winks-for-.html
Count me in as a “winker.” I’d even wink with both eyes if I could!
;-)
Hope you’re having a good start to the school year Adam. How’s CRW life treating you? Do you miss my daughter running around like Eve in the garden of Eden? LOL
I joined the Revolution. Hope to see people at Glorieta!
For Monastic Mark:
As far as I know, Driscoll is a Bonhoeffer fan. I think I can recall him mentioning Dietrich in several sermons, and the Mars Hill bookstore stocks “Life Together” among a fairly small selection of titles.
Also, I don’t want to throw gasoline balls on this fire, but what kind of soteriology is not dualistic? The condition of being saved necessarily implies that there is an opposite condition that one has been saved from…right? I won’t argue here about the nature of that salvation; I’m concerned with the way we use words. If salvation is not the opposite of lostness, then it does the term injustice to call it salvation. Call it “spiritual progress” or something else instead, because what you are implying is that there is nothing to be saved from–that it’s all really a matter of gradations. If there is no clear break between two, opposed conditions, then what you actually have is an infinite number of conditions lining up on a single spectrum. You are more than welcome to believe that, but again, my concern is that you do not classify such a belief under the heading of soteriology. I think that would be misleading.
“I promise this won’t turn into another Mark Driscoll rant”
Then why is one of the tags for this post: “rants?” I would encourage you to figure out where all of this energy towards Mark is coming from.
“I like to think of it as an “Aww, isn’t that cute”-wink.”
I believe that comment and the wink in the picture are condescending, arrogant, and patronizing. Would you give Mark the same wink if you were to encounter him in person? I hope not. Winking at Mark in the way that you do doesn’t foster an atmposphere of conversation or respectful engagement with someone with whom you disagree. It would take intellectual and emotional courage for you to sit down with Mark, or talk on the phone with him, or e-mail him. And yet, it’s something that I believe you can do if you will devote time and energy to it.
I love it!!!
Check out what I had to say about Driscoll.
http://jeremyzach.blogspot.com/
I wasted the 80 minutes of my life and listen to the podcast.
This man is asking for it.
It hard not to confront evil with evil. : )
How truly sad the church today has become. “A house divided against itself will not stand”. Any wonder then that the world wants nothing to do with Christ or His body today? Adam, you have done nothing more than contribute to the ridicule and strife. At no point here have you tried to have any intelligent search for Godliness and truth. Instead, you use sarcasm and “wit” to belittle the belittler. This is not Biblical acountability; it is a wordly pissing match. We seem to have forgotten on all sides that being right doesn’t mean being righteous.
And don’t try to play the role of innocent child that Adam, Andrew, and so many other “emergents” want to project. The very foundations of this so-called movement are largely based in taking swipes at the modern church (which is in need of revival and change for sure!). Ya’ll have no qualms about calling out the mega-churches and traditional churhes when you perceive they are wrong, but then get so offened when anyone dare to call you ito accountability with God’s Word. You hypocrite! I could care less about Driscoll or McClaren or Bell or any of the others we could list. I’m called to be a disciple of Christ, not man. But look at the points you take in bits from Driscoll’s talk. (Which the fact that you pull soundbites in and of itself makes me immediatley question your approach to scriptural interpretation.)
#1 – Sounds a lot like “obedience is better than sacrifice” to me. Seems Biblically sound. How can you ridicule the essence of that statement in any way?
#2 – Contrary to some of the bloggers words, you can hurt God. His word says we can grieve His heart. As a pastor (called a fundamentalist by the emergents and an emergent by the fundametalist) who’s brother is gay, I know how sensitive this issue is. But I am called to speak the truth in love. This is not a grey area at all. Homosexuality is sin. What excuse is there for Brian to not answer? He can caveate all he wants about how we should show love in his answer, but the lack of an answer prompts many more questions. Again, you ignore the essence of the issue.
#3 – A total lack of tact and love by Mark. Not at all in line with Biblical accountability for any of the parties involved.
#4 – Whatever…a bit ridunckulous to me.
#5 – 100% true in every sense. And to the person who took the “Trinitarian” take on this…do more research. Jesus is the full embodiment of the trinity. Anything that is 100% about Him is also 100% about the Father and the Holy Spirit and vice versa.
#6 – Why so upset? Brian and other emergents have thrived on shock value and absurd language for years. Is it right? Of course not. But don’t act like Brian is innocent of this either which by posting this soundbite, you are attempting to do.
#7 and #8 – Is Mark right? You (yet again) don’t discuss the essence of the statement. The emergent movement has (for the most part) become simply another flavor of church. It is just as politicized, has just as many “star” leaders, deals with just as much trendiness, etc…as the modern church it originally sought to change and revive. Is the emergent church more effective at reaching people for Christ? Are lives being transformed to the glory of God? If this is such a better way of doing things, the proof should be in the pudding. Is it? Are have we all missed the mark (that’s called sin by the way) and spent more energy trying to get everyone in the church to see the world as we do and not nearly enough energy uplifting, encouraging, and blessing one another? Do I agree with Mark on everything? No Rob Bell? No Brian McClaren? No Joel Osteen? No Rick Warren? No Bill Hybel? No. But does that give me the right to attack and question their calling and place in the kingdom? I have issues with every one of those men and their teaching at some level, just as many people have issues with me and my teaching at times. But instead of attacking where I disagree, shouldn’t I: 1. Uplift and encourage the places I see Christ at work in and through them and 2. Deal with my issues via the Biblical plan for accountability as God gives me opportunity?
God help us all. You body is sick and i need of healing.
You know this is what is sad. We havr people who have no biblical or theological training commenting on something they have no right to discuss. Let me ask you? If a Dr. said you had strep throat would you argue or would you trust him. If an architech designs a building does a person with no training in archetecchtual design tell the architech that he’s wrong. Now these things seem foolish and rediculous. Well the same can be said for anyone who argues with someone trained in biblical theology. If I may be candid these theologians and Bible teachers pushing for a more “open and progressive theology” are trying to look for a way to get away from percecution and away from controversy with the world. This gentelman who posted this blog is a very confussed person. I use the word confussed because they are confussed about what the Bible says, confussed about who Jesus is, and confussed about who God is. This individuals and the ones that back him are people (more than likely) that listen to someone else’s idea of Jesus and scripture instead f reading it for themselves. Please I beg of you (becuase I am tired of reading comments like these that are uneducated and blind to truth) to no longer comment or blog on anything before you actually study the topic. Everyone has an opinion but only one is right.
To Hakin: I hope your theological training is better than your lingustic training. I don’t agree that there is only “one” true theology, but I definitely believe there’s only one true way to spell architectural, ridiculous, persecution, and confused. And I do have a degree in English to back that up, since that seems important to you. As far as Adam (the author of this blog), if you took the time to do *your* research like a good academic, you’d know easily enough from the “about” page of this blog that he has had plenty of theological training at one of the nation’s oldest and most respected seminaries. (Not that I think it *should* matter). How ’bout you?
English never was a strong suit of mine unfortunately. This guy goes to Princeton, an extremely liberal seminary (if it can be called that) that disregards the authority of scripture, and violates some of the most important theologies in the church. So any kind of a theological degree from a “seminary” such is this isn’t much of a degree at all. Neale I see that you slammed me on my English (which I fully admit can always use more work) but you didn’t actually tallk about what I said. The problem is this. There is a faulty and worldly interpretation to liberalism. Where if there are rules or commandments that you don’t like becuause they go against “your human ideology of good adn righteous” well then they just can’t be right. The problem is that liberal or progressive theology is too focused on man’s limited ability to understand and process this information. They are too focused on their academic integrity and not focused enough on the spiritual integrity. They ignore their conscience and go with their head. Now I’m not advocating a “blind faith”. But I am advocating a belief that requires faith. Christ calls us to follow him not just merely believe in him. He calls for people to abandon there “human” ideas of good and trust his truth of sacrifice and service. If you actually read Mark Driscoll you would understand his hearts desire, and his theology and the scripture that backs it. Unfortunately you probably haven’t. So I’ll leave it at this Scripture is true, not in a allegorical way, or a metaphorical way, but in a literal way. There are some forms of scripture that are meant to be taken literally and others that can be translated a bit more loosely. Not to the extent where we ignore scripture or try to make it something it wasn’t meant to say but to try to understand it as it was written. Please read over the text more carefully and attempt to know the person you critize better before you do so. This goes for Adam and for Mark Driscoll.
Dude all that seminary training you are doing seems to be a complete waste on you.
I like Driscoll and I like emergent.
I think we all need each other so that we don’t lean too far right or too far left.
This one has some truth in it. Except the fact that he is completely misconstruing what the “conversation” these guys talk about means. While I agree that some of these guys are going a bit overboard, I think that refusing to allow people to converse, disagree and question our beliefs about Biblical theology and the implications thereof is what has led to the Jesus cult we have in most modern American churches.
I mean, seriously. If I were to see this quote with no author, I would suspect it came from the mouth of John Hagee or Pat Robertson. Driscoll says some good stuff, but he seems to spend quite a bit of time tearing these people down. Not warning people not to be led astray, but just tearing them down.
This may be a little late, but this whole thing has got to be the lamest thing I have seen since Transformers. And that is pretty hard to top!
{ 19 trackbacks }