This afternoon Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle will teach on “The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World.” He was introduced by John Piper who said that never before had a speaker gotten him in this much trouble even before he had spoken! Mark took the stage and introduced his speech around the framework of two issues regarding Christology and two issues regarding missiology.
Christology
Driscoll began by telling the story of Jesus, despite its familiarity. He described Jesus much as he must to his largely unchurched congregation in Seattle. He described Jesus “mean and wild,” saying of the all-too-common feminized view of Jesus: “It’s hard to worship a guy who you can beat up.” The point of the story was that Jesus is as hot as ever, still appearing constantly in popular culture, from “The Simpsons” to “Rolling Stone” covers to Madonna concerts. Jesus is popular, but the majority of people do not know Him as He truly is.
Driscoll spoke of the recent issue of “Christianity Today” which discussed the two hot theologies of the day: Reformed and Emergent. So what should the church have for its view of Jesus and how should we articulate who He was and is? Christology is what separates Reformed from Emergent Christians. These two camps are debating, in large part, over Jesus. The incarnation of Jesus is a popular doctrine in the Emergent circles, for they think of him primarily as fully human. The also stress His imminence, being here with us now. They gravitate towards the gospels which teach about Jesus in his humanness but avoid the epistles which have a different focus. We must believe in the incarnation of Jesus, but we cannot only believe in this. What is fueling the missional effort is a rediscovery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Jesus came into culture and entered into community with lost people. Jesus identified with people in their culture. The problem is that when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God. The result is that the picture of Jesus taught by some is little less than a humble, marginalized, feminized wuss. This cannot inspire life transformation because He is not big enough to be worshiped, feared, obeyed or respected. Men are told to be like this feminized version of Jesus and they have no interest in following such a man.
On the other side, Calvinists tend to focus on the exaltation of Jesus. It is not so much the imminence of God, but the sovereignty and transcendence of God. These people go to texts like Isaiah 6 or John 12. What is too often lacking in the church today is a rigorous combining of both Christologies. We need to combine the incarnation with the exaltation. We must avoid the theological error of reductionism which means we are not saying something that is unbiblical, but are saying something that is incomplete.
Reading Luke and Acts show that Jesus was empowered by the same Holy Spirit who leads and guides and empowers us today, meaning that we can identify with Jesus in this. The draw towards Jesus’ incarnation is having a model we can follow. If we hold the incarnation and exaltation of Jesus we have everything we need for a robust and biblical missional theology. The humility of the example of Jesus in His humanity and the authority of His divinity. In addition to the gospels we must add the book of Revelation. This is not a book primarily about the Antichrist and suffering, but about Jesus Christ. It is a book about Christology - about Jesus. The book breaks down into heavenly scenes and earthly scenes. The heavenly scenes are centered on the throne where He reigns as king.
Missiology
Jude 3 tells us to contend for the faith. This is an absolute assault on postmodernism, for there are not multiple faiths or truths. Reformed folk are good at contending and here are some issues that most be contended for: 1) Scripture is truthful, authoritative, meta-narrative. Pastors then need to give their people the story of the Bible and need to begin where the Bible begins. Smaller stories always need to be plugged into the bigger story. It is easy to give systematic theology without also continually tell people the story of the Bible. 2) The sovereignty of God must be defended against open theism. 3) We must contend for a God who has authority and absolute sovereignty. 4) We must contend for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. “Don’t mess with Jesus’ mother. I doubt he’d take it kindly.” 4) We must contend against pelagianism. 5) We must contend for penal substitutionary atonement. There is debate about this, but there shouldn’t be because this is the best part of the Book! This doctrine tells us that we are saved from God - from his anger and justice and wrath. “If we lose the exclusivity of Jesus, we lose Jesus.” 6) We must contend for gender distinctions. 7) We must contend for the exclusivity of Christ. 8) We must also defend the doctrine of hell. “People don’t like hell! They’re not supposed to!” That’s the whole point! But to deny hell is unconscionable. Everyone believes in hell and we see this in advertising where advertisers tell you who you are, what you will become, and how they can save you from this hell. Everyone is running around trying to get out of their personal hell. Everyone is talking about hell except the church! We must contend for the importance of kingdom over culture. It is more important than culture. “We are seeing an over-realized eschatology.” This is an old problem. Emergent, emerging, incarnational Christians are Corinthians and have fallen into the same problems. They are, in many ways, reacting to a dispensational theology that had no concept of the kingdom here and now. The focus is on the impending rapture. This is where we see the tension of the “already” and the “not yet.” “I’m sick of talking about the kingdom without the king!”
The second point is that we must also contextualize. This is where there may be a proverbial fork in the road where people often begin to disagree with Driscoll. We must communicate this message in ways appropriate to different cultures and people groups. Jesus incarnates into a culture and we look to His example to see how He interacted in that culture. We have no problem seeing that kind of missional movement overseas, but when it comes to our own culture it is more difficult. Missions is to happen not only around the world but across the street. The church must do more than evangelize, but be missionary in its orientation. So what does this look like to an indie-rock subculture or an urban hip-hop culture? 1 Corinthians 9 tells us that we must contextualize. “I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel.” Do you care about the gospel? Do you really care? Then you’ll contextualize, won’t you? You won’t just contend, but will contextualize as well. You’ll contextualize so as many cultures and subcultures as possible will meet Jesus.
In one hand we put timeless truth. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. In the other hand is what is timely and contextualized. Timeless truth and timeless ministry. So what does this mean? He is not arguing for relativism, but for “relevantism.” Is he arguing for seeker sensitive? Not that we be seeker sensitive, but seeker sensible. We don’t lose theological vocabulary, but take the time to explain to the people in terms they understand.
In every culture there will be things to reject, things to receive, things to redeem. Sadly, many in the Emergent stream do not reject anything. Reformed people may be guilty of not receiving or redeeming that which ought to be received and redeemed.
Is this a new wind of doctrine? Is it the newest, latest, newest fad. “Yes, we are on the cutting edge of the sixteenth century. We are riding the sixteenth century Genevan cutting edge.” John Calvin was not just a contender but a contextulaizer, so we must redeem what it means to be a true Calvinist. When persecution happened in Europe, people flocked to Geneva. Calvin trained them and then sent them out to share the gospel. If you are a true Calvinist you are not just a contender, but also a contextualizer.
Driscoll closed his speech with these words: “The gospel is the power of God. We must contend for it and then we must contextualize it, because we get to. It is Jesus’ gift to us.”
Comments (78) »
1. LaFiestaGrande
September 30, 2006
8:05 PM
Hey,
Any comments or observations on the music at the conference?
New songs that stand out?
Great work!
2. Anne Ivy
September 30, 2006
8:47 PM
Thanks so much, Tim! How you manage this, I can’t think.
Yer a peach, dear sir. ;^)
3. Ron
September 30, 2006
9:08 PM
Thanks Tim!
Your reports are greatly appreciated!
4. Marni
September 30, 2006
9:28 PM
Thank you so much! I’m home taking care of our infant daughter, and it’s such a blessing to get to be a fly on the wall. Any observations or notes on the panel(s)? Blessings to you.
5. Jamie Butts
September 30, 2006
9:34 PM
Thanks for doing this. It has helped me see what’s going on there while my husband attends the conference. I enjoy hearing the summaries of the sessions that he is attending each day. What a huge blessing. Thanks for helping all of the “wives back home” feel connected with this conference. =)
6. Rebecca Schafer
September 30, 2006
11:04 PM
As already mentioned above, by another wife, who is at home with our almost 3 yr. old daughter thank you for doing the live blogging. The messages have been wonderful, and I am looking forward to suprising my husband when he gets home to talk about the conference that I will already know alot of what took place and we can have some good conversations. May the Lord bless you!
7. Taliesin
September 30, 2006
11:32 PM
Lafiestagrande:
I’m from a small church, and we’re not cutting edge, so I cannot comment on “new” songs because a number have been new to me. Although we have sung a number of older hymns as well. We were told that all information on the music would be available at the Desiring God website (along with audio for all messages) a few days after the conference.
Marni - I have enjoyed the panels. Justin Taylor moderated the discussion and asked questions. With the first (Piper, Keller, Driscoll) there were interesting exchanges about differing styles. Also, they discussed opinions about emerging/emergent leaders, including a recent meeting Piper had with a couple of them (Doug Pagitt being one?).
Second panel was Piper, Wells, Carson, Baucham. This was more informative, IMO, but I’m not a pastor and the first one had a pastoral focus. This followed Driscoll’s sermon (he had to leave immediately to get back to Mars Hill) and Wells made a couple of comments. One about feeling overdressed (suit and tie), which got a laugh. The other was that Driscoll says something and gets a lot of attention about how radical it is. Then he (Wells) says the same thing and people consider it ho-hum. Interesting discussions with Carson and Baucham about campus ministry and (for Carson) how it has changed over the past 30 years. Carson’s big comment was that people are not as confrontational anymore because they don’t understand enough about the Bible to be critical of what it teaches (I can’t remember if it was him or someone else, but someone today noted that a lot of younger people don’t even know that the Bible has two Testaments). Piper closed with a discussion about why he felt it was right to include Mark Driscoll at the conference.
Tim - Thanks. I’m looking forward to reviewing these posts to help jog my memory on details of some of the talks.
8. ReformedMommy
September 30, 2006
11:45 PM
I had listened to some of Mark’s preliminary comments about reforming culture and they, together with this message, really clarified for me where he’s coming from. It was definitely compelling and convicting, particularly as I come from a “hard core fundie” church where many of the ills he describes are prevalent. That being said, the one question I would ask him is where should the line be drawn between being relevant and yet not worldly. Some of my mom friends and I have all commented how much we appreciate his teaching, but how we could never let our kids listen! As a matter of fact, I wonder how he handles this issue with his own kids …!
9. Jabbok
October 1, 2006
12:05 AM
I’ve often heard preachers comment that the culture views Jesus as weak and effeminant and the church often presents Him that way but I’ve never found this to be true. What could a preacher say that would leave his hearers to believe in a weak and effiminant Jesus? I’ve always felt that this was a crutch used by men (preachers) who had difficulty themselves with meekness and temperance. No one can see a Jesus who willingly gave himself to be crucified as being effiminant. I don’t view Jesus as being “mean and wild” myself and wouldn’t particularly enjoy listening to a preacher who described Him as such.
10. Brian L
October 1, 2006
12:09 AM
The whole day was great today. Driscoll was, in my opinion, the highlight. But all speakers are phenomenal…can’t wait for Piper tomorrow.
~BRIAN
11. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:12 AM
I would definitely recommend everyone read Mark’s first book, which can realistically be read in one day by almost anyone.
As far as how he (or those like him) talk about things like he does with his kids… I think he would say our kids tend to be more sheltered by us than from anyone else. At some point, our kids will be “in the world.” Instead of avoiding that as long as possible, we should be preparing them for it. Where exactly to draw that line is another question. And, this is not theoretical for me — I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old…this is an everyday struggle. My wife and I probably tend to lean toward syncretism than sectarianism (to use the traditional lingo), so I’m sure our boys are in danger of that as well. Don Carson actually has some great practical examples of how he did these things with his kids as they got older.
12. Keith
October 1, 2006
12:16 AM
The problem is that when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God.
I mean this will all due respect, but no, no, and a thousand times no. Was Jesus Christ God or not? Did God comes to us as a human being in Jesus Christ or not? Was it something less than God walking around for 33 years and dying on the cross or was it fully God?
Since Council of Chalcedon, Christians have taught that in the incarnation, we encounter Jesus Christ—the one fully God and fully man. This is what Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and all the great theologians of the past 1500 years have believed. As the Chalcedonian definition says, “Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all agree in teaching that this very same Son is complete in his deity and complete—the very same—in his humanity, truly God and truly a human being, this very same one being composed of a rational soul and a body, coessentail with teh Father as to his deity and coessential with us—the very same one—as to his humanity, being like us in every respect apart from sin.”
To say anything less is not to speak of Jesus Christ. To say that when we speak of the incarnation, we are left with someone less than God is to speak of something other than Jesus Christ. Such a statment is flatly false.
What is too often lacking in the church today is a rigorous combining of both Christologies. We need to combine the incarnation with the exaltation. We must avoid the theological error of reductionism which means we are not saying something that is unbiblical, but are saying something that is incomplete.
Again, we can only say no to this. We don’t combine “both Christologies.” The very act of combining them means that we have separated the two natures at a conceptual level and then attempt to put them together on our own, “applying” them, as it were, to Jesus Christ. But we can’t “combine” something to Jesus Christ which he already has. Jesus Christ is fully God and he is fully human—true God, true man. That’s what it means to be Jesus Christ. We don’t combine them. They are combined in him.
I understand that Mark was trying to say that we shouldn’t be over-emphasizing one side or the other. I know his intentions were good. But statements like these—that in the incarnation we see something fully less than God—would cause Athanasius, Cyril, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards and a host of others to turn in their graves. That is precisely the kind of views they fought against.
Athanasius’s On the Incarnation would be a good place to start to see why such views simply cannot be held by an orthdox Christian believer. Even a very well-intentioned and faithful one like Mark Driscoll.
13. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:17 AM
I don’t think Mark paints Jesus as strictly “mean and wild” - his message was that either picture on its own is reductionism. Jesus humbled himself, for a time, but He is now exalted. He is human and divine, imminent and transcendant. Not either/or. Jesus hung out with the drunks and prostitutes, but he flipped the tables of the religious leaders. Both/and.
14. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:19 AM
Keith — I’m not sure if you actually heard the message, but your whole argument is completely semantical. Driscoll was not saying anything different than historic orthodoxy.
15. Keith
October 1, 2006
12:29 AM
Rob, I didn’t hear the message—I’m not at the conference and am I’just going by what Tim has written. But if the quotes that I cited are accurate with respect to what Mark said, then it is not historic orthodoxy.
I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything—I have no doubt that Mark had no intention of being unorthodox. I’m not accusing him or anything. I just think that we can never affirm that in the incarnation “we are left with someone less than God.” No historically orthodox Christian that I know of has ever affirmed that.
If that is not representive of what Mark actually said, then I’m happy to hear it. If it is, then I’m concerned about it.
16. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:29 AM
The problem is that when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God.
The key word here is ONLY — this is a direct attack on the emerging folk who ONLY stress Christ as fully human and neglect Christ as fully divine…
To say that when we speak of the incarnation, we are left with someone less than God is to speak of something other than Jesus Christ. Such a statment is flatly false.
That would be false, but that’s not what he said.
I have seen this over the past 5 years over and over and it’s more than a little frustrating. These are the kinds of remarks that Driscoll blasted UP FRONT — about (typically) the Reformed folk on the hunt for any scent of blood. People continue to twist Driscoll’s words and it’s really sad.
Jesus Christ is fully God and he is fully human—true God, true man. That’s what it means to be Jesus Christ. We don’t combine them. They are combined in him.
WE do combine them WHEN WE EXPLAIN WHO JESUS IS. Mark was not saying WE determine who Jesus is. Just like Paul was doing in his letters, Mark is RESPONDING to errors (typically coming those emerging hipsters).
such views simply cannot be held by an orthdox Christian believer.
So, Driscoll’s a heretic because you are twisting what he actually said? Wow.
17. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:34 AM
I just think that we can never affirm that in the incarnation “we are left with someone less than God.” No historically orthodox Christian that I know of has ever affirmed that.
No, we can’t. But, again, the message was about REDUCTIONISM. Focusing ONLY or even PRIMARILY on Christ’s incarnation leaves you (obviously) with a Christ who is NOT GOD, but only human. And, a fully human but not fully divine Christ IS NOT CHRIST AT ALL. That was the point of the message.
Maybe you should listen to the whole message before you blast someone or make accusations (or whatever you want to call it).
18. Keith
October 1, 2006
12:40 AM
The key word here is ONLY — this is a direct attack on the emerging folk who ONLY stress Christ as fully human and neglect Christ as fully divine…
I don’t think “only” makes a difference—was the incarnate Jesus Christ fully God or not? If he was, then even if we look “only” at the incarnation, we are looking at the one Jesus Christ who is fully God. The only way “only” would make a difference is if Jesus Christ was not fully God—because we’re saying that we have to look elsewhere than in the incarnate Jesus Christ to find the “fully God” Jesus. Why would we have to do that if he is fully God?
To think that we look “only” at the incarnation that we see something less than God is to drive a wedge between the incarnate Jesus Christ and the “fully God” Jesus Christ located elsewhere. Athanasius and the rest who have followed him have said that this belief is a mistake.
People continue to twist Driscoll’s words and it’s really sad.
Again, I’m just going by what Tim wrote. If it’s not accurate, I’d be happy to hear it.
19. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:44 AM
I don’t think “only” makes a difference—was the incarnate Jesus Christ fully God or not? If he was, then even if we look “only” at the incarnation, we are looking at the one Jesus Christ who is fully God. The only way “only” would make a difference is if Jesus Christ was not fully God—because we’re saying that we have to look elsewhere than in the incarnate Jesus Christ to find the “fully God” Jesus. Why would we have to do that if he is fully God?
To think that we look “only” at the incarnation that we see something less than God is to drive a wedge between the incarnate Jesus Christ and the “fully God” Jesus Christ located elsewhere. Athanasius and the rest who have followed him have said that this belief is a mistake.
I still don’t think you’re understanding the whole point. Driscoll would agree with you. A Jesus who is not BOTH fully human and fully divine is no Jesus at all.
Basically, a lot of the emerging folk are leaning toward a DIFFERENT JESUS.
20. Keith
October 1, 2006
12:45 AM
Focusing ONLY or even PRIMARILY on Christ’s incarnation leaves you (obviously) with a Christ who is NOT GOD, but only human.
With respect (and in a friendly and loving tone): no. How can we ever affirm that the incarnate Jesus Christ was “only human”? Was Jesus Christ in the flesh, the person who walked here on earth and died on the cross, fully God or not?
In the incarnation we see Jesus Christ who is fully human and fully divine. To say that he is “only human” is to not speak of Jesus Christ at all.
21. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:48 AM
With respect (and in a friendly and loving tone): no.
This is a hilariously pointless debate.
How can we ever affirm that the incarnate Jesus Christ was “only human”?
From Scripture, we can’t! Nonetheless, a lot of the emerging church folk TRY to…
In the incarnation we see Jesus Christ who is fully human and fully divine. To say that he is “only human” is to not speak of Jesus Christ at all.
EXACTLY. Thanks for quoting Driscoll almost word for word…
22. Keith
October 1, 2006
12:49 AM
A Jesus who is not BOTH fully human and fully divine is no Jesus at all.
Rob, I totally agree with this sentence. The difference, I think, is that the church has historically affirmed that we see this in the incarnate Jesus Christ, and what you seem to be arguing is that we need more than the incarnation to be able to affirm this statment. I (and the church fathers from Athanasius through Calvin to today) think we can affirm this on the basis of the incarnation alone.
23. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
12:55 AM
we need more than the incarnation to be able to affirm this statment.
I don’t even know what that statement means…
By “the incarnation” Mark was referring to Christ as ONLY human — not the the truth from Scripture that Christ is divine as well. I know that you cannot separate the two from history or Scripture. But, there are people in the church who are attempting to do so, which is leading to a lot of other theological errors.
24. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
1:01 AM
Keith — thanks for this beautifully frustrating example of people spending way too much time saying the exact same things.
Now, I get to go love on my wife. We have a long day tomorrow getting back to Oklahoma City to see our amazing kids. I hope you do actually listen to Driscoll’s message, and possibly send him a personal apology for your ASSumption of heresy.
25. Keith
October 1, 2006
1:03 AM
I don’t even know what that statement means…
Rob, to quote Tim’s report of Mark’s sermon, it means this: “The problem is that when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God.” The only logical conclusion from this statement is that we need something more than the incarnation to have someone who is fully God—because, according to this statement, the incarnation alone won’t give us that picture. That’s a problem, for all the reasons I detailed above.
By “the incarnation” Mark was referring to Christ as ONLY human — not the the truth from Scripture that Christ is divine as well.
That would be an improper use of the word “incarnation”—since the when we speak of the the incarnation, we are speaking of only one person: Jesus Christ. And when we speak of the incarnate Jesus Christ, we are speaking of one who was fully human and fully God. I think what we have here is a confusion of terms—the very confusion that the church fathers spent centuries fighting! : )
26. Kevin D. Johnson
October 1, 2006
1:40 AM
Keith’s comments are worth considering…I read the summary of Driscoll’s remarks and the idea that the Emerging focus on the humanity of Christ and the Reformed on the “exaltation of Christ” is just ludicrous in the extreme and it shows that either Challies or more likely Driscoll are completely unaware of the specifics of a more accurate and historic Christology in line with actual Christian orthodoxy.
These are no small points and the very fact that they are dismissed by ‘the faithful’ to Driscoll in this comment thread just shows how far we’ve traveled from the faith of the early fathers.
27. ReformedMommy
October 1, 2006
1:51 AM
Rob (in an attempt to raise a more general question :) ) - My comment re:kids and Mark’s preaching style refers more to the fact that the colors with which he decorates his sermons are more than occasionally off, or even blue. (And no, I’m not going to be suckered into giving examples here - there are plenty of them on his podcasts.) He might argue that he’s being “contextual”, others would say he’s crossed the line into worldliness. To be honest, I think he is gifted in much the same way as a Luther or a MacArthur - a passionate personality with an unquestionable gift for upholding and proclaiming the truth of God, but also with the weaknesses in speech that such passions experience in the flesh. Given that I struggle with those same weaknesses (and in the sovereignty of God am bereft of the ancillary gifts), I think I will simply thank God for Mark’s good words tonight, and pray that God gives him many more (and perhaps takes them away from time to time!)
28. Brendt
October 1, 2006
2:05 AM
Just to remind you, Tim, there are people who read this post for its actual value, rather than to nit-pick, eisegete, and Driscoll-bash. The comments started out representing the former. Don’t be discouraged that most of the recent comments are more toward the latter.
29. Brendt
October 1, 2006
2:11 AM
Of course, having said that, I gotta make one contradictory comment:
I love the way that those who happen to agree with Driscoll on one point are automatically classified as “‘the faithful’ to Driscoll” (Kevin #26).
This reminds me of my question some time ago: If I align myself theologically with much of what John Calvin believed, I am labelled a Calvinist. As I was introduced to the doctrines of grace by a friend named Phil, does that make me a Philistine too?
30. ReformedMommy
October 1, 2006
2:23 AM
Kevin - it sounds like you were blessed to have sat under far clearer teaching than I and many others. At my former church, Jesus was all about justification, and we were all about sanctification. Jesus saved us and freed us to obey, but it was up to us to do the obeying. As for the Holy Spirit, well, He was just the key in the ignition of my spiritual engine - I was the one that had to do the driving. Consequently, I spent the first ten years of my Christian life struggling and failing to overcome sin and judged by others who were more “spiritual”. (I did more than my share of judging, too.) It was not until I became so frustrated by my struggles that I turned to the Scriptures and discovered, as Mark stated, that the same Spirit of God that indwelt Jesus indwells me and enables me to live like Jesus for His glory so that God might use me to draw others to Him. I think my pastor would argue that this is what he preached, and yet I heard a whole lot more about my obligations, and not nearly enough about Christ and how he fulfilled them for me. There is an essential difference between affirming a doctrine like the simultaneous humanity and deity of Christ, and an entirely other thing to make that doctrine a hallmark of one’s faith, practice and preaching.
31. Mark
October 1, 2006
2:28 AM
For those wondering if Mark Driscoll has a orthodox Christology, please go to itunes podcast (resurgence audio or video podcast) or resurgence.com and download ‘Death by Love’.
32. Kyle
October 1, 2006
2:32 AM
ReformedMommy: regarding your mention of Driscoll’s colorfulness in his sermons; Driscoll happened to mention last Sunday that his humor translates horridly to any place outside of Seattle and asked the church to pray for wisdom and guidance as he spoke at DG06 where his usual Seattle-colorfulness would hinder his message (He said this at the 7PM service, so I’m not certain if it’s on the podcast or not).
Thought that tidbit may interest some of you.
33. Bob Hayton
October 1, 2006
2:36 AM
Some have expressed interest in the panel discussions. I came across a few posts on Josh Harris’ blog which describe the panel discussions quite well. You all may be interested in reading them:
Comments on Day One & Comments on Day 2
The second post also mentions an interesting pastoral correction that John Piper gave for Mark Driscoll. It is very interesting and I appreciate how Harris takes it to heart personally as an admonition for young pastors in general rather than something only intended for Mark.
Thanks Tim for these liveblogs. They are a blessing.
May God bless you all richly in Christ Jesus,
Bob Hayton
34. Andy
October 1, 2006
2:52 AM
Thanks for giving us back home a glimpse of the conference! Keep us the good work.
Contextualize, this is a loaded word. Contextulize the Fuller Seminary way? One the left side of contextualizing we have those who would say that Mohammad is indeed a prophet of God, they would go into the mosque to pray together with the Muslims accept that they pray in the name of Jesus.
If contextualize means eat the same food as the Muslim than I am sure the true and bold believers would not have a problem.
Contextualization has a driving theology behind it.
35. Phil
October 1, 2006
3:47 AM
OK, so Clinton was hung up on what “is” is, Calvinists and Arminians are hung up on whether “all” means “all”, and now here on poor ‘ol Tim’s blog comments we’re hung up on what “only” means. Ugh!
Tim: Thank you, as always, for live blogging these conferences.
36. Tim Challies
October 1, 2006
8:18 AM
I do not have time this morning to post a lengthy comment (the pace of these conferences can get a little overwhelming at times!) but I don’t think Driscoll said anything that contradicts Christian orthodoxy when it comes to Jesus’ incarnation. The mp3 will be available within a couple of days, so I’d suggest withholding further comment until then, when you’ve gotten it straight from the horse’s mouth.
37. Brian Thornton
October 1, 2006
8:30 AM
Driscoll happened to mention last Sunday that his humor translates horridly to any place outside of Seattle and asked the church to pray for wisdom and guidance as he spoke at DG06 where his usual Seattle-colorfulness would hinder his message
I am trying really hard to understand this line of thinking.
I don’t understand why Driscoll would be concerned about talking at the DG06 the same way he talks to his congregation in Seattle.
We are talking about those WITHIN the body of Christ…right? So, can someone help me with this way of thinking. Why would Driscoll NOT want to talk to one set of believers the same way he talks to another set of believers? Is it because (and I am only asking a question here…I am not making an accusation) Driscoll’s church on the inside looks the same as the rest of Seattle?
If so…is this right? Is the church supposed to reflect the culture…or is it supposed to be shaping the culture?
Again, not making any accustions or judgments here…just trying to get a proper understanding of why a pastor would not feel comfortable talking to a group of saints with the same language that he talks to another group of saints.
38. Keith
October 1, 2006
9:25 AM
I assume that Brent’s comment (#28) that some people are here to “nit-pick, eisegete, and Driscoll-bash” may be directed at me. If so, I want to assure you that this is not the case. I like Driscoll and have no desire to bash him. In my critique above (#12 and following), my comments were directed at statements that I believe were theologically problematic. I explained why they were so. I also said that I didn’t believe that Driscoll intended for them to be so, and I left room open that the description provided by Tim here may not reflect precisely what Driscoll said (it has to be hard to transcribe these things). I agree with Tim that we should wait for the tape. I plan to listen to it first chance I get.
My concerns were that, if the description of the remarks was correct, the belief that “when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God” is a belief we must join with the great theologians of our faith in rejecting. There’s nothing more important than a proper understanding of Jesus Christ. If this discussion helps us acquire a better understanding of him, then it’s worth the effort to be precise. That’s all I’m trying to do here—there’s no bashing intended whatsoever.
39. Frank Martens
October 1, 2006
9:52 AM
I thought of these two passages when Piper said “you can’t be Clever and show Christ as glorious”…
1 Corinthians 1:17-19
1 Corinthians 2:4-5
40. Mark
October 1, 2006
10:25 AM
Keith,
Phillipians 2:5-11
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
It is possible that was Driscoll was saying was that (in general), the emergent crowd focuses on 5-8a (stopping at ‘humbled himself’) and doesn’t emphasize the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ.
That is one sense in which “when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God”
Mark
41. Kevin D. Johnson
October 1, 2006
10:50 AM
I believe it’s only fair to point out that no one here is a part of the heresy police and out to get Driscoll or Challies. If either men are free from criticism where warranted however then we surely have stepped out of normal and appropriate Christian dialogue and into idolatry.
We’re not here to nitpick with what Driscoll has said and assertions made in that regard are obviously hypocritical since they are doing the very thing that they propose to criticize.
I too am hopeful that the mp3’s make things clearer and would only suggest to Mr. Challies that if indeed there is no problem with Driscoll’s Christology that he clean up his own description of the events to better represent Driscoll’s words and orthodox Christianity.
42. Keith
October 1, 2006
10:58 AM
It is possible that was Driscoll was saying was that (in general), the emergent crowd focuses on 5-8a (stopping at ‘humbled himself’) and doesn’t emphasize the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ.
Hi Mark, thanks for the question. That may or may not be true about the emergents—I don’t know them well enough to know what they believe. If it is true, then its they’re committing the same problem that I’ve been pointing out in my posts. The better response than saying, “when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God,” is to reaffirm that in Jesus Christ we have one person with two natures. In other words, the solution to the problem is to affirm that in the incarnation we see the one who is both fully human and fully divine. The solution isn’t to say that in the incarnation we see something “less than God.” That’s to commit another version of the same mistake he’s trying to call out!
Calvin’s treatment of this passage (specifically v. 6) in his commentaries gets that point across really well: “Moreover, he is utterly blind who does not perceive that His eternal divinity is clearly set forth in these words.”
43. Andy P
October 1, 2006
11:23 AM
If Christ was fully God & fully man, then there would have been no reason for the Holy Spirit to descend upon him after he was baptized by John. He had all his rights to deity, but never leaned upon those rights. All miracles & such was done though him by the Holy Spirit.
44. Kevin D. Johnson
October 1, 2006
12:07 PM
Biblical, orthodox Christianity has disagreed with your assessment, Andy, and men much better than you and I over the centuries (ie. the Church Fathers) have posited exceptional reasons why the Spirit descended upon Christ at His Baptism in line with what the Scriptures say and they were able to do so without compromising the biblical and historical emphasis on a proper view of the Incarnation.
Suffice it to say that what you put forward Andy—provided you are being clear and I’m reading you right—is mere speculation on your part and heresy at that.
This idea that the incarnation and how Driscoll has phrased it is a matter of mere semantics is just absolutely a departure from the way the Church has seen it over the centuries. I’m reserving judgement until I hear the mp3, but the phraseology of the incarnation is important as well as the actual truth of the matter. Five centuries of councils and creeds make this quite clear.
The fact that this is such a minor subject in evangelical/emerging/Reformed circles is evidence that we are not as Christian as we necessarily think. The incarnation is vitally important to what the faith means and how it is lived out in the world.
Much more so today than issues like justification by faith alone—we need to recover a valid creedal orthodoxy or we have no right in calling ourselves Christian.
45. Carla Rolfe
October 1, 2006
1:02 PM
Brian - you asked:
“I don’t understand why Driscoll would be concerned about talking at the DG06 the same way he talks to his congregation in Seattle.”
The reasoning basically works like this:
If a man pastored a church in Germany, and routinely spoke the German language and used German slang - then this same man travelled to the states, he would need to adjust his language for the people there (as they wouldn’t understand German).
In reality, it works exactly like this (and I used German because I know a pastor who did this very thing - from Germany to the states).
In other words, Mark Driscoll would have us believe the Christian culture in Seattle is so completely different than the Christian culture that would be represented by the attendees at the DG conference, that he’d have to adjust his language for that group of believers.
A lot of folks actually believe this too - usually folks that are not from Seattle and/or have never really spent any amount of time there. As for me, I lived there for over 30 years and know many believers still there, that have a completely different understanding of both the Christian culture and the unsaved culture in the Seattle and greater Seattle area. (And to be fair, there are also believers there that would agree with Driscoll, and speak just like him - so you figure that one out).
Obviously the Seattle culture is different in some ways than the culture in other areas, but it’s not as different (more depraved, darker, etc.) as the story goes. For some reason, Driscoll just gets away with the language he uses there, where he wouldn’t get away with it in many other areas. The blogs & commenters that have discussed this at length and voiced offense at some of this kind of language & “humor” (and represent believers from all over the US, Canada and elsewhere) prove that to be true.
In other words, as Driscoll has said himself, he’s “culturally liberal”. In effect this means that whatever the culture understands, relates to, considers “normal” where he is, is the medium that he’ll use to get their attention. And that’s what he does and that’s why so many people have such an issue with his language.
I’m all for understanding the culture in which you’re placed to minister, and respecting that culture (insofar as you don’t offend the locals needlessly), but I clearly disagree with using the most base things in a culture (such as foul language that is considered normal by the lost), to deliver the gospel.
This is just one person’s opinion - with which many disagree. I hope that helps you understand why Driscoll said what he did.
SDG…
Carla
46. Brian Thornton
October 1, 2006
1:54 PM
Carla,
I really appreciate your reply to my question, and I understand the German language example. I also would probably have to agree with your assessment that the depraved culture around Seattle is probably much like the depraved culture in any other part of the U.S.
Another question that came to mind this morning while at church was this:
How/where does holiness figure in to what Driscoll does?
I am curious to know the answer to this from anyone who can provide some information or thoughts about the aspect of holiness with relationship to being “culturally liberal”, as Mark describes himself.
Thanks.
47. Wolf Paul
October 1, 2006
3:07 PM
I don’t want to resurrect a discussion that seems to have wound down, but would like to comment on what I believe to be part of the problem:
Like Keith, when I hear the word “incarnation” it means first of all and above all one thing: God in human form in the person of Jesus. When Driscoll therefore says “when we look at Jesus only in the incarnation, we see someone less than God”, we see a problem. That’s why we don’t talk about the incarnation of, say, Billy Graham — while he’s certainly human, he is not divine, and incarnate implies God in human form.
Now, from all I have read about and by Driscoll I don’t think he meant to deny that the man Jesus was fully God, so I guess he actually meant to say, “when we look at Jesus only in his humanity, we see someone less than God”, and it never occured to him that anyone could misunderstand him.
This highlights something I have observed in a lot of contemporary writing, preaching, teaching, and even more so in informal speech: people, even eminent and educated people, use words without due regard to their FULL meaning and to ALL the implications that go with their use. This leaves them open to all sorts of interpretations which are totally foreign to what they actually think and believe.
Often, when you challenge people on this, rather than admitting that they could have expressed themselves more accurately and clearly, they get all huffy and defensive and accuse you of nit-picking, and say you should not twist their words.
I sincerely hope that that will not be the way Mark Driscoll reacts to these concerns about his choice of words.
48. Danno
October 1, 2006
6:00 PM
Driscoll’s point is simple. If Christ had not always also been God from all eternity then his humanity would have been no different than any other human’s. But Jesus was God from all eternity and therefore He was fully God and fully man in his incarnation. Driscoll was making the point that this needs to be preached.
He was not denying that Christ IS/WAS fully God; He was simply affirming the need to show clearly that Christ IS/WAS God - and to show the reality of this: His reigning from and to all eternity - something that many emergent folk don’t do.
So his statement “”The problem is that when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God. The result is that the picture of Jesus taught by some is little less than a humble, marginalized, feminized wuss.”” His point was that if you strip the clear teaching that Jesus was/is/always will be fully Sovereign God away from teaching about Jesus’ life here on earth then you are left with a “picture” which IS less than the real Christ. Not every presentation of Christ truly presents the real Christ (who is fully God and fully man). His argument is that the Emergent crowd often do not present a complete/real Christ.
Driscoll could have been clearer and so said “We are left with a picture of someone who is less than God by the Emergent crowd.” … Or, he could have said “We’d be left with someone who would be less than God if the Emergent picture of Jesus was accurate since they only talk about the human attributes of Christ and not his divine attributes.”
Hope this cleared up the confusion - I’m pretty sure Mark Driscoll knows Jesus is God and was God in his incarnation.
God bless you all
49. Rob Davis
October 1, 2006
10:11 PM
Brian — this may sound ridiculous, but do you talk to children the exact same way you talk to adults? Do you talk to immigrants the exact same way you talk to Americans? No, we never do that. Every single thing we say is adapted to our audience — always. And, just as Tim Keller (I think) said, we either accept that we contextualize or we deny it — we’re always doing it.
50. Brian Thornton
October 1, 2006
10:53 PM
Rob,
Your comments don’t answer any of my questsions. But I do have some thoughts on them:
this may sound ridiculous, but do you talk to children the exact same way you talk to adults? Do you talk to immigrants the exact same way you talk to Americans?
Your examples don’t match up well with what we are talking about.
1. Who are the “children” in Driscoll’s life? His church? The people at the DG06 conference?
2. Yes. I would talk to an immigrant the same way I would talk to an American. I only know English!
I’ll ask again: How/Where does holiness figure in at Driscoll’s church? Does anyone know how they define holiness in light of the language, etc. used there?
Thanks.
51. Michael Garner
October 1, 2006
11:38 PM
“The problem is that when we see Christ only in His incarnation, we are left with someone less than God.
The whole issue seems pretty clear to me. If this is actually what Driscoll said, then he made an error and should have said, “The problem is that when we see Christ only in His humanity, we are left with someone less than God”.”
I personally do not like some of the language and humor that Driscoll uses, but we can all agree that he has solid Christology. If he made a slight blunder here, let’s all just assume that he meant “humanity” rather than “incarnation” and actually focus on the point of his message rather than a minor mistake.
In Christ alone,
mike
52. Mark
October 2, 2006
12:08 AM
Brian,
If you want to know where holiness figures in at Driscoll’s church, you can listen to his sermon from May 28, 2006 on The Weaker Christian (1 Corinthians 8:1-13). I’m not sure if it is still available as a podcast via itunes but it is available on their website. You can find it under downloads -> sermons -> books of the Bible -> 1st Corinthians and I think it is on the second page as the sermons are in chronological order starting with the latest.
A good talk on contextualization (talking to different people in different ways) can be found from Tim Keller here…
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Keller_Connect2004_Breakout1.mp3
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Keller_Connect2004_Breakout1b.mp3
On a personal note and this is not directed at Brian at all. Over the last several months there has been a lot of focus on Driscoll and his teaching. Some of that is fine and his mp3s are out there and his books are out there to be reviewed and examined. My concern is over the negative extrapolations made to what the people of Mars Hill are like. Please be careful here. There are hundreds and thousands of members of Mars Hill who are wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ that live God glorifying - Christ exalting lives. Many times when I read what is written on Christian blogs about Mars Hill I wonder what church they are talking about because it doesn’t remotely sound like the church I attended for six years and was an elder at for a year before being sent out to help plant a church in a different part of the Seattle area. I’m not saying don’t comment I’m just saying be careful because you may end up slandering someone.
53. David
October 2, 2006
12:24 AM
Brian-
Don’t want to speak for Rob, but I’m guessing the children/immigrant examples were for illustration.
The point is that we DO talk to different groups of people differently. I don’t talk to my 2-year-old daughter the same way I talk to my wife, and hopefully, I don’t talk to my neighbor the same way I talk to my wife, either!
And if you have unchurched people coming into your church in Seattle and want to communicate the gospel to them through your sermon, you’ll probably use different illustrations, applications, etc., than you will at the DG conference made up of biblically- and theologically-literate Christians.
54. Brent
October 2, 2006
1:28 AM
2. Yes. I would talk to an immigrant the same way I would talk to an American. I only know English!
I am glad you would speak your native language. However the immigrant might not, or not very well. Good luck with that.
How/Where does holiness figure in at Driscoll’s church?
Well, the pharisess were trying to be holy and we’re not trying to follow them… I am not sure where you find “holiness” as a hallmark of Jesus or his disciple’s ministry. We are not legalists telling people that alcohol is bad (please enjoy in moderation) etc, etc. I guess in some circles this is “culturally liberal.” Quite simply, we go with the Bible, nothing more nothing less.
Perhaps you are speaking more on sanctification and the process of change when we become a christian. Again, we hold the Bible in high regard. When God through His word tells us to repent and turn away from sin, we take it literally. When we see that Jesus has a tattoo and that godly women wear nose rings, we take this literally as well. Is not the freedom in Christ sweet!
Sidenote - It’s interesting that some think that Seattle is not any darker a place, just about the same as where you are from. Most people would agree that communist China is a dark place. Portland and Seattle have the lowest populations of christians in the US, equal to that of mainland China! But, perhaps you live in one of these three places.
Sidenote 2 - The argument on incarnation is put into perspective when one looks at the emergent view of Jesus being a cool hippy guy that told good stories and would be a great guy to emmulate. It is this image of Jesus that truly is unorthodox.
In closing I will simply take a page from Driscoll in reminding that we are all the children of God. The sinning, depraved brats that run around yelling in circles trying to pull eachother’s hair and get as much brownie on our face as in our mouth. That is us. We need to have a high veiw of God and a low view of ourselves, which means having a high view of God’s literal word and a low view of what music and clothing equal christianity according to a group of people during a small slice of history in a small part of the world. Additionally, the church is a hospital for sick sinners to come and hear about the water of life that Jesus offers, we try not to let pharisee holiness get in the way. Hope that helps clarify what it might be like out here at Mars Hill in Seattle.
Well, cheers in Christ ya’all
B
55. Brent
October 2, 2006
1:33 AM
man, i’m long-winded! David totaly got me on the concise side. I’m a fan of being pithy (perhpas because I’m not?!)
56. Mark Driscoll
October 2, 2006
2:27 AM
I just got home from a 7 service 10 year anniversary Sunday and need to crash. I did say that Jesus was God during His incarnation and said that, for example, He forgave sin which is only what God can do. I believe that Jesus was and is eternally God with all of the divine attributes. I believe that in His humble state of incarnation it is harder to see His divinity as he is not, for example, omnipresent. What this means is that we must see Jesus before His incarnation, and after His exaltation to get a clear picture of who He is. My entire point is that if we do not we are being reductionists and like many do limit him to only a really good man and not King of Kings and Lord of Lords as God over all. If I was not clear, I apologize as that was not my intent. Next week I start a 12 week series called Vintage Jesus and begin by arguing for the deity of Jesus if that is of any help. To be honest, I likely bit off more than I could chew for one session and may have rushed. Blessing and Jesus love. Pastor Mark Driscoll
57. Brian Thornton
October 2, 2006
6:50 AM
The point is that we DO talk to different groups of people differently. I don’t talk to my 2-year-old daughter the same way I talk to my wife, and hopefully, I don’t talk to my neighbor the same way I talk to my wife, either!
David,
Thanks for the comments. You are talking about examples of different levels of physical and mental maturity, I am talking about spiritual matters. I think the problem with these types of illustrations is that they are difficult to transfer over to a spiritual situation. We are talking about spiritual matters, so how do you determine who is the ‘child’ spiritually? Did Paul change his language when he thought he was talking to spiritual infants as opposed to spiritual adults? I don’t think so. Today many consider Romans to be some deep theological treatise, when in fact it was written for the average Christian, it was to be read in the churches…today it is reserved by and large for the ‘theologians’.
And if you have unchurched people coming into your church in Seattle and want to communicate the gospel to them through your sermon, you’ll probably use different illustrations, applications, etc.
WHY? And how does worldly and salty language assist the gospel in getting accepted?
The corporate gathering is not for the unsaved anyway…it is for the saints. So, why would you need to taylor your language, applications, etc. for the ‘unchurched’?
Portland and Seattle have the lowest populations of christians in the US, equal to that of mainland China! But, perhaps you live in one of these three places.
Brent,
The unsaved people in Portland or Seattle or China are no more depraved than the people in Atlanta or Daytona or Nashville. Their hearts are no more dead than anyone elses, and require the same word of Christ and the same regeneration by the Holy Spirit as in any other part of the globe.
Besides, shouldn’t Christ shine brighter in a darker place, rather than blend in more with the culture?
Just a thought.
58. Carla Rolfe
October 2, 2006
6:51 AM
Brent, you said:
“Well, the pharisess were trying to be holy and we’re not trying to follow them… I am not sure where you find “holiness” as a hallmark of Jesus or his disciple’s ministry.”
Please elaborate on what you mean by this? I find it very hard to believe you mean what it looks like you mean, when you say you’re not sure where anyone would find holiness a hallmark of Jesus’ ministry.
59. Carla Rolfe
October 2, 2006
6:57 AM
Brian:
“Besides, shouldn’t Christ shine brighter in a darker place, rather than blend in more with the culture?”
Sure sounds logical to me. Also, your observation about the state of hearts in the Seattle area is one that has come up countless times in offline conversations about this very issue. The sin issue isn’t any different there than it is anywhere else, and the solution to that sin issue is also exactly the same as it is anywhere else.
60. Steve Camp
October 2, 2006
9:47 AM
Driscoll uses an “attraction model of ministry” – i.e., seeker friendly, Bill Hybel’s approach. Though he would deny identification with that movement, it is the wheelhouse in which he lives. It’s just his worldview is more Seattle grunge (dark, club atmosphere, poorly executed garage-band praise, cussing during some sermons, debasing stories and shady humor that even use the Lord’s name in an unholy manner for the sake of a punch-line). His model he would claim is more real and honest because it is a more “in your face” approach to ministry than say Hybel’s slick seeker-sensitive model is—but a rose by any other name is still…
When Mark preaches the Word and stays on message, he is good—not exceptional—but good. I do appreciate his passion for the gospel, but it takes more than passion, it takes (by God’s grace) discipline. Mark does admit his failings about his speech and such, but he is confusing honest with holiness. Remember he is a pastor, not a rebellious college kid who can’t control his language.
The biblical model beloved, when any of us minister the Word in any city, culture, or environment is to “let our yes be yes and our no be no.” To be a “approved unto God, a workman unashamed rightly dividing the truth.” The message, not the audience, is sovereign and determines our emphasis and approach. Mark has unfortunately forgotten that… that’s all. He actually thinks that he must contextualize (a bogus term and claim) Scripture, before he preaches it… When a man stands behind the sacred desk and preaches the Word, he is there first and foremost for an audience of One. He is not there for himself, for his listeners, for his own advancement, fame or agenda. He is there to bring honor and glory, praise and adoration to the Lord. He is there to tremble at God’s Word; not be a pretend pseudo-Chris Rock type of stand up expositor to his congregation. The first question that must be asked and answered is not did the people relate, were entertained, appreciative, buy more books, download more MP3’s, or applaud at my preachment; but was God glorified, honored, and His Word cut straight?
The bottom line is simple folks: if I could write my thoughts about Driscoll here using the same verve and shocking language that he preaches with, my post would be deleted by Mr. Challies (and rightly so) for it would cross the line of propriety, sound speech, and wholesome talk.
Sad isn’t it? What one man says from time to time from his own pulpit, can’t be repeated in most other Christian venues without offense taking place. It is the foolishness of the message preached that is to be the offense, not casually cussing because one lives in the Northwest part of our nation.
According to Tim’s notes (which are usually spot on), IMHO, what those gathered together at Piper’s conference this past week heard from Driscoll was a watered-down version of what he actually does at Mars Hill. He gave them decaf, when they paid for the real thing.
I call that schmoozing… I call that dancing, I call that - Emerging. How “Seattle” of him to do so.
Let me ask this question: to anyone who was there, did Mark paint the picture that Seattle is one of the least churched cities in America by citing that the town has more dogs than Christians? He likes to give the impression that he is in the deepest, darkest place to minister in our country so that he can justify his “on the edge” “over the line” nomenclature and tactics.
If Mark really wants a hard place to minister let him leave the comfort and ease of Seattle’s wealthy, rich techno environment and come to Nashville, TN where everyone thinks they’re saved and are not. The lukewarm is always more challenging and dangerous than the cold or hot.
In closing, what’s all the fascination about Driscoll? I don’t know; can’t figure it out even after listening to over a hundred sermons, reading numerous articles, reviewing blog entries (even though he doesn’t allow open commenting from anyone who visits his blog—you have to come to one of his conferences first, how special…), and magazine interviews. What he is doing is not radical, just ordinary, ecumenical and status-quo but in different rags.
It’s the Cross That’s a Radical Thing,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
61. bob
October 2, 2006
9:57 AM
A couple of things…
Rob said in comment 21…
“How can we ever affirm that the incarnate Jesus Christ was “only human”?
From Scripture, we can’t! Nonetheless, a lot of the emerging church folk TRY to…”
I absolutely detest this kind of slander… especially when it goes uncommented on among believers. Some evidence please, or a retraction.
Second,
The main issue here is also going uncommented upon- and that’s the re-adjustment that Mark is trying to make in what he sees as some people’s perception of Jesus. In his mind, many have “feminized” Jesus. His answer? A Dog-The_Bounty_Hunter Jesus who can kick your butt four ways from Sunday.
Tim reports:
“He described Jesus “mean and wild,” saying of the all-too-common feminized view of Jesus: “It’s hard to worship a guy who you can beat up.”
Really?
He was “mean”? The guy who talked about flowers and little birds and how much our Abba loves us? The guy who wouldn’t break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick? The guy who longed to pull Jerusalem under his wings like a mother hen? That guy? “Mean?”
And as for being able to beat Him up… I’m pretty sure I would be able to- Because that’s exactly what happened. He took the form of slave, Mark. Not an ultimate fighter. He was like a lamb, led to the slaughter.
Power, yes. But power willingly left unused.
This amazes me:
“The result is that the picture of Jesus taught by some is little less than a humble, marginalized, feminized wuss. This cannot inspire life transformation because He is not big enough to be worshiped, feared, obeyed or respected. Men are told to be like this feminized version of Jesus and they have no interest in following such a man.”
So, a humble marginalized peasant can’t inspire life change…
Are you serious?
Have you read Phil 2 lately??? Is that not the exact point of what Paul writes?
“Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be held on to, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant…”
I understand you really want Jesus to be seen as that tattoed, sword-in-His-mouth returning king, and that you think that image will be more attractive to the men you have such a big heart for… but consider-
Be careful that in your effort to correct, you don’t oversteer and end up in the ditch on the other side of the road. Jesus may be a coming King, but he’s also the servant, the one who teaches men to be humble through His own humilty. And no, not many men are interested in that. But that’s the point.
62. billmelone
October 2, 2006
10:27 AM
Steve, you’ve made some serious accusations about Driscool. And they come in a tone of arrogance, which I’m sure you don’t necessarily mean, but heres the bottom line: Driscool is working his butt off to preach humble orthodoxy to his people. Unless you have some REAL reason to criticize him, ie, you are a member of his church, an elder of his church, part of the Acts 29 network, or possibly an older wiser guy who has been there and done that (and only people like Piper qualify for this in my opinion), I don’t see why you feel like you have to criticize him. Why? You have no need to. Brian Thornton is asking questions, which is a good thing because we’re seeing links to sermons etc.—there is productive discussion. But I don’t see your statements as productive, or even accurate. For starters, show me where Mark swore, and when. Yes he uses edgy language but you said he cusses. If you can’t come up with a where and a when, you are no better than a person who claims God is a woman and can’t find the bible verse.
Sorry if I sound offended, and I don’t want to tempt you to anger, but your comments did offend me because Driscool is working incredibly hard to serve many people, and you’re giving what I see to be sniping accusations that you don’t support.
63. billmelone
October 2, 2006
10:37 AM
Plus, who would want to go from a conference where you poured your heart out, to a meeting with a member of the secular press (I forget what that was exactly), then go preach however many sermons to your church, then get online, see that people are picking away at who you are on comment threads, and lo and behold via blogs (hopefully piper told him first, but I don’t know) learn that John Piper had a public observation about you and your ministry.
Mark, if you’re still reading this comment thread, take a little vacation! Or something. I (remotely) appreciate all you’re doing, and so do many many others.
64. Steve Camp
October 2, 2006
10:41 AM
Dear Bill:
You said: “For starters, show me where Mark swore,”
Oh my…
You are either new to this issue or just haven’t bothered to do your homework. Do you realize that Mark is called “The Cussing Pastor” by his own friends in the EC movement? EC author, Donald Miller, even labels Mark as such in his book “Blue Like Jazz.”
Furthermore, Mark makes no bones about this—it is common knowledge at his church and around the blogosphere.
You said I made some “serious accusations” about him. Where? Do you think that I haven’t done countless hours of research or say these things casually?
Be a Berean brother and invest in some careful due-deligence about these things… It will open your eyes. Don’t just react…
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
65. Keith
October 2, 2006
10:48 AM
Mark, thanks for posting and clearing things up—I really appreciate it and am glad to hear your thoughts. I’m looking forward to your sermon series.
66. Chris Hubbs
October 2, 2006
11:17 AM
Steve, you managed to answer the easy question and avoid all the more difficult ones. What do you feel gives you the standing to bring Driscoll to task here? Why not address him personally if you have issues?
Bill is right; your comments are unproductive, and let me add unloving and judgemental. If a brother is in error, plead with him for his soul; don’t just condemn him.
67. Lance Roberts
October 2, 2006
11:25 AM
“When we see that Jesus has a tattoo…”
“the emergent view of Jesus being a cool hippy guy”
Exactly why I’d classify Mars Hill as being a liberal emergent church.
The reason people think God has something to say about music, clothing and body mutilation is because he DOES say a lot about music clothing and body mutilation. Holiness isn’t about man-made standards, it’s about acknowledging God’s standards, and realizing that there is such a thing as Christian behavior and Christian culture. I imagine that it’s easy to get church members when you tell them that they can do anything they want, that there are no cultural standards (just don’t let them read the Bible too closely).
68. Steve Camp
October 2, 2006
11:29 AM
Chris:
To use your plumbline, if you felt I was in error in what I said, why didn’t you confront me personally rather than on this public forum?
BTW, I don’t mind that you did. It is the same principle that I apply with someone like Driscoll. If it is said publicly then it needs to be addressed publicly as well.
FYI, anything that I have said here I said months ago in another article. It was sent to Mark personally before it was posted and even followed up with a few phone calls. He never once responded by email or phone though given an opportunity to do so.
This is not unloving judgmentalism as you suggest brother.
May I ask you, what do you consider to be the more “difficult questions.” I will be delighted to answer them for you.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Tim. 3:16-17
69. Lance Roberts
October 2, 2006
11:35 AM
The one thing I do agree with Driscoll on is that Jesus was a lot tougher than the Renaissance painters pictured him. He was a carpenter and back then that meant working with a lot of stone, so he was probably in great shape. No wuss would have been able to take out the temple Mafia.
One of the reasons for christian men’s passivity today, it that they’ve been taught the example of a feminized, passive Jesus.
70. Chris Hubbs
October 2, 2006
11:52 AM
Steve:
I am aware of the irony of all this. It’s difficult. Do we hold the discussion, or don’t we? I guess we are holding it. :-)
As to the “easy” questions vs. “hard” questions, I felt like you responded to the low-hanging fruit in comment 62 (about Driscoll’s cussing), but didn’t really address Bill’s other question about your place to criticize or your purpose with the criticism.
I was at the conference, and Driscoll didn’t try to paint Seattle as some unholy, difficult-in-which-to-minister place. He just came out and preached the truth from the Word. Yeah, I think he adapted his style a bit; he wouldn’t use the words “Christology” and “missiology” so much in a Mars Hill sermon - but to criticize this as “schmoozing” and “Seattle” sounds judgemental to me; adapting the message to the audience is something that should be applauded, not ridiculed.
And to suggest that Driscoll should come to Nashville where it’s ‘really hard’ - that’s a cheap shot, first accusing him of playing for sympathy, then doing it yourself.
I would much prefer that we praise God for Mark’s Seattle ministry which is bearing much fruit, rather than throwing stones at a brother over debatable issues.
Grace,
Chris
71. billmelone
October 2, 2006
11:59 AM
Steve, I’m well aware of Mark’s reputation. My point was that I have my doubts as to whether you’ve listened to a significant portion of his sermons, and to characterize him as someone who cusses all the time is to ignore the changes he’s made in the way he preaches as well as to ignore all the work he does. Preaching in Seattle isn’t easy—not because the people are more depraved, but because they are not as attuned to react to the gospel.
Heres the harder question: why? Why do you have to criticize Driscoll (as opposed to just asking questions)? You have no platform to do it. You aren’t part of his church and never were. You’re not an elder there. He hasn’t spoken at your conference. You don’t know the guy whatsoever. What do you have to do with Mark Driscoll that requires your critique?
72. donsands
October 2, 2006
12:06 PM
My question is, does Mark have accountability? Does he have brothers, who are seasoned in the service of the Lord to mentor him?
I see a still young convert, who has an evangelists heart with God’s hand upon him, and who needs men, like a Dr. John Piper, to come along side and encourage him, and help round him out.
Surely we are all growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. I know I need mature brothers, and sisters in my life to help me grow in my walk with Christ.
I long to be conformed into His image, and this is done through the pruning of the Father, and that is done through iron sharping iron. Encouragement, admonishment, and even confronting and rebuking, as Paul did with Peter, are blessings from our Lord Jesus Christ.
Enjoyed reading all your posts Tim, and the comments as well.
73. billmelone
October 2, 2006
12:14 PM
Steve, I notice you said you’ve listened to a lot of his sermons, which I’m glad for.
But to call him a schmoozer, a dancer, and his ministry as only growing because he’s a slick version of Bill Hybels (who I doubt holds tightly to all the orthodox things Driscoll does) is plain silly, and theres no reason.
I’m not surprised that he didn’t email you back. He’s busy enough with all the areas of ministry, and doesn’t need to peck at people that he doesn’t have anything to do with.
Why wouldn’t you offer him encouragement? Why not thank him for all his efforts? Why not share with him your story and efforts? Why not say you’re willing to help out any of his Acts 29 guys in your area?
bill
74. billmelone
October 2, 2006
12:18 PM
Don, I’m sure Mark has plenty of accountability with his elders. Even though I was surprised Piper reserved his admonishment for after Mark left, I’m still very glad that Mark was invited to speak. Piper has said elsewhere that he simply loves Mark and his ministry, and I have little doubt that Mark has heard from many people with their critiques.
75. candyinsierras
October 2, 2006
1:10 PM
Steve You say you have researched much of what Mark Driscoll has taught or stated. Did you somehow miss this on his blog?
It does sadden me when I see cheap shots taken at our people because, in some ways, they are just getting some of the stray bullets that missed me….. In some ways, I must confess that I do bring it on myself because at times I do cross lines and I have not learned the art of subtlety……
We’re not a perfect people and this is not a perfect church led by perfect men. But we worship the perfect Jesus and He promises to make everything perfect in its time. These seasons are the means by which He sanctifies us to be more like Him if we lean into them with gladness and trust that God is loving and works out all things for our good and His glory.
In conclusion, if anyone wants to pray for us in this crazy season, please do. I would especially appreciate the PRAYERS of our CRITICS (emphasis mine) because some of their criticisms may in fact be accurate and we are straining to keep up with the wildfire that God has set ablaze in our midst.
I wonder how long it took you to go from an immature Christian musician to taking a stand for truth? Didn’t it take awhile? Wasn’t it a process?
You also stated: When a man stands behind the sacred desk and preaches the Word, he is there first and foremost for an audience of One. He is not there for himself, for his listeners, for his own advancement, fame or agenda. He is there to bring honor and glory, praise and adoration to the Lord. He is there to tremble at God’s Word; not be a pretend pseudo-Chris Rock type of stand up expositor to his congregation.
Doesn’t that admonition go out to anyone else who uses sarcasm, biting remarks, or patronizing comments, including yourself? Do you bring honor and glory, praise and adoration to God by many of your comments? Not only that, but you continually bring up how you tried to contact Mark Driscoll and he didn’t return calls, and I have seen comments on your blog from people who tried to contact you, and you didn’t return their calls. I wouldn’t have trouble accepting your stand if I actually saw you practicing the humility that comes along with your stand, as well as practicing the very things you point out that Mark Driscoll needs to practice. Sometimes I think when someone protests too much, it is because they see the same rottenness in their own heart, and just don’t admit it.
At least Mark Driscoll seems teachable and willing to confess his weaknesses.
76. candyinsierras
October 2, 2006
1:12 PM
I meant to italicize the following in my comment as well, as written by Mark Driscoll
We’re not a perfect people and this is not a perfect church led by perfect men. But we worship the perfect Jesus and He promises to make everything perfect in its time. These seasons are the means by which He sanctifies us to be more like Him if we lean into them with gladness and trust that God is loving and works out all things for our good and His glory.
In conclusion, if anyone wants to pray for us in this crazy season, please do. I would especially appreciate the PRAYERS of our CRITICS (emphasis mine) because some of their criticisms may in fact be accurate and we are straining to keep up with the wildfire that God has set ablaze in our midst.
77. Steve Camp
October 2, 2006
1:17 PM
For anyone who was at the conference:
1. What did Piper say that was an admonishment to Driscoll;
2. And to follow up on a previous comment, why didn’t Piper do it in front of Mark?
3. Does anyone know if Piper shared it with Mark prior to his departure and told him he was going to share it publicly as well? Did John make any reference to this in his admonition to Mark?
Many of us who were concerned about Piper having Driscoll in at this conference, it now sounds like those concerns were justified…
One thing is for certain, the emerging church and its proponents are never boring.
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
78. Tim Challies
October 2, 2006
1:33 PM
This discussion is getting really long and I don’t know that much is going to come of it. Being as sick as I am, I don’t have time to read through it now and try to keep it on track. I am going to shut it down.