- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostDown and Out
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/04)
Desiring God Conference Reflections
- 10/03/06
- 54
After eating a delicious meal of soda crackers chased by warm, flat ginger ale, I’ve been able to crawl off the couch for a few minutes to get some writing done. I wanted to be sure to spend a few minutes reflecting on the Desiring God Conference before the memories began to fade. I fear that what I will remember most clearly about this weekend is the food poisoning I managed to contract just before I left Minneapolis. And on that topic, thanks for all those who have expressed concern. I do think I am over the worst of it and hope to be back on my feet (and back at my desk) by tomorrow. Aileen took very good care of me. I am so grateful that I made it home before the illness struck with earnest!
I always find it difficult to measure the success of a conference or to measure just how much it impacted me. I take a certain set of expectations to each conference I attend and find that sometimes these expectations are met, sometimes they are exceeded and sometimes I realize they were just plain unrealistic. People go to conferences for different reasons. Some people attend with a husband or wife as an opportunity to have a weekend away; others attend because the teaching at their local churches is poor and conferences represent an opportunity to enjoy a weekend of solid, biblical teaching; others attend simply because they like the atmosphere of conferences. I suspect there are as many reasons for attending as there are people in attendance. Each of these people will weigh the weekend differently in their minds.
I have the rather unique privilege of liveblogging conferences. This represents a challenge in that I often have to wait until after the conference to read through my notes and discover what I think about what has happened. I keep so busy writing, taking photographs, and editing what I have written that I have very little time for reflection. This was particularly true this weekend since the wireless Internet connection at the Convention Center was unavailable and I had to walk some distance in order to post my summaries (this was, by the way, in no way the fault of Desiring God). Though it seems to be a small thing, it impacted me significantly. I guess I felt that I wasn’t really in control this weekend, but continually felt like I was behind in my writing and was unable to give it my best effort. And it is too bad that I wasn’t able to do better, I think, because I felt that this was a very significant conference.
As I began to reflect on the conference, I turned to John Piper’s invitation to the conference. He wrote:
Our aim is to call the church to a radical and very old vision of the Man, Jesus Christ-fully God, fully sovereign, fully redeeming by his substitutionary, wrath-absorbing death, fully alive and reigning, fully revealed for our salvation in the inerrant Holy Bible, and fully committed to being preached with human words and beautifully described with doctrinal propositions based on biblical paragraphs. We love Dorothy Sayers’ old saying, “The Dogma is the Drama.” We think the post-propositional, post-dogmatic, post-authoritative ‘conversation’ is post-relevant and post-saving.
Of the six keynote addresses delivered at this conference, the two that stand out in my mind as best reaching these goals are Voddie Baucham’s “The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World” and John Piper’s “The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World.” These two stood out for two reasons. First, I thought Piper and Baucham spoke with both conviction and passion. Second, I felt that they thoroughly and pointedly covered the topic that had been assigned to them. In making these points I do not wish to indicate the the other speakers failed, but merely to suggest that I felt that these two men went above and beyond.
While I had heard Baucham’s name prior to the conference, I had never read anything he had written or heard any of his speeches or sermons. Because of this I had no real expectations. In his address he compared secular humanism, the predominant worldview of our day with a biblical perspective. I found his speech tremendously helpful in understanding the spirit of this age and in understanding just what a privilege it is to be set free from the hopelessness of secular humanism. He pointed directly at Christ as the only hope, the only answer, to hopelessness. “Let us rest assured that those who walk aimlessly through life will never be satisfied by the answers of culture and the further we have run from Christ’s supremacy, the further we have run from the only thing that will ever satisfy and will ever suffice. Let us rest assured that the supremacy of Christ in truth also means the sufficiency of Christ in truth. Let us embrace this, and proclaim it passionately, confidently and relentlessly for after all, that is why we are here.”
John Piper’s Sunday morning “sermon,” though not classically expository in nature, was also very powerful. It was clearly a direct response to the teachings and beliefs of the Emerging Church, but it was done in a way that was tender and pastoral. Piper seems to be embracing his role as a father figure or elder statesman within the church. He was passionate for the truth and was filled with deep love and concern both for the truth and for those who have fallen under the sway of teachings that deny the truth. I expect and hope that this sermon will be widely distributed and that many of those who have embraced the Emerging Church will listen to it and be convicted by it. In fact, I would love to see some of the Emergent leaders respond to it and interact with it. I would have no hesitation in recommending this message to anyone who was investigating Emergent teachings and, of all the responses available on this subject, can think of none that are better.
I think Mark Driscoll’s address also bears some mention. Generally speaking, I think he did very well with the opportunity given to him. I think Mark has a great deal to offer the church and hope he can continue to refine his presentation so that it carries the same seriousness or gravitas as the message he seeks to share. I was blessed by his session and was glad to see him affirm all that he affirmed. As you may have heard, John Piper gently admonished Mark. I’ll quote Josh Harris who explains it:
Piper began by explaining how he thinks about who he hangs out with and how he decides who to invite to speak. “I have a litmus paper and its called theology,” he said. He referenced a point Driscoll had made in his talk about the importance of holding certain unchanging truths in our left hand that are the non-negotiables of the faith, while being willing to contextualize and differ on secondary issues and stylistically (these are “right hand” issues). Driscoll had listed nine issues we need to contend for, including the authority of God’s word, the sovereignty of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, and gender roles, to name a few.So Piper said, “If he [Driscoll] has those nine things in his left hand, I’m not even going to look at his right hand.” The audience clapped loudly for this. Then Piper went on to share that he does have some differences with Driscoll on some so-called “right hand” issues of style, which he feels free to share with Driscoll. He went on to share a specific one, noting that Driscoll would get to see this on video. (This was the moment I was glad I wasn’t Mark!)
As if he were speaking to Mark, he said (and I paraphrase), “A pastor cannot be clever and show Christ as glorious. Mark Driscoll, you’re clever. You have an amazing ability to turn a phrase and make statements that draw people back week after week. But it’s dangerous. So many pastors will see you and try to imitate you and then try to watch all the movies and TV shows so they can try to be like you.” In essence, Piper was bringing correction to certain aspects of Driscoll’s style and delivery, while stating that they agreed on the most important issues of doctrine.
I would hesitate to draw as firm a line as Piper has, as I think the right hand issues can be sufficiently important that they merit attention when considering a speaker. Having said that, I do not think it was wrong of him to ask Mark Driscoll to speak at this conference. Mark made a unique contribution.
At any rate, I think that Desiring God’s 2006 National Conference was a tremendous success by almost any measure. I benefited from it a great deal and know that those I travelled with did as well. It will take some time to gauge the long-term impact both in my life and in the church, but I trust God will be gracious in allowing the truths that were shared this weekend to resound through my heart and throughout the church. I look forward to the book that is sure to follow this conference. I also look forward to reading the experiences of others who were able to attend.
I’ll end with a personal note. I was blessed to travel this weekend with two friends: my pastor, Paul, and a new friend also named Paul. I enjoyed their company and was blessed to be able to spend so much time with them. I also enjoyed meeting many of you who read this site and treasure your words of encouragement. And finally, it was great to spend time, however brief, with new friends and old: Tim McNeely, Annette Harrison, Timmy Brister, Justin Taylor, Amy Hall, Roger Overton, Alex Chediak, and others. Bashing the Yankees with C.J. Mahaney was a special highlight (And you know what, I think he was right and that we actually did see Harold Baines checking in at the Hilton).
Finally, the audio recordings from the conference are now available online. You can download them at the following links:
David Wells
The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World
John Piper, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Justin Taylor
A Conversation with the Pastors
Voddie Baucham
The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World
Tim Keller
The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World
Mark Driscoll
The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World
Voddie Baucham, John Piper, D. A. Carson, David Wells, Justin Taylor
Speaker Panel
D.A. Carson
The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World
John Piper
The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World (Transcript
I have a special request for those who first read my liveblogged summaries and who are now going to listen to the audio. I’d appreciate it if you would send me an email (see the contact page) or leave a comment letting me know whether you felt my summary was helpful and accurate. I continue to attempt to refine this thing called liveblogging and am eager for any pointers you may be able to provide.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (54)
I heard Piper assume the same fatherly type of persona when speaking about Emergent and post-propositionalism at a conference last February. He might have even been refining this approach, though, because when he was talking about post-propositionalims and the Gospel, he seemd to be almost overcome with disgust or indignation and said something like, “if there were any time in which I would swear, it would be over this!”it makes you wonder JUST HOW threatening some of these issues are??
I’d just like to make a brief comment about Piper’s criticism of Driscoll.
Piper’s public dressing-down of Driscoll was probably the low point of the conference. First, even if Piper’s assessment was correct, doing it in the public eye was a cheap shot, especially in light of the fact that Piper was the one who invited Driscoll knowing full well what Driscoll’s preaching style was like. If Driscoll’s style was such a concern for Piper, he should have spoken to Driscoll privately about the matter, or simply not have invited him.
Second, Piper warns Driscoll that his “clever” preaching style might be a distraction from the glory of God. Can anyone say “preaching envy”? If Piper had one-third of Driscoll’s stage presence, his ministry would be tenfold what it is today. Piper is much needed in the church today, but his preaching style (somewhat staid, strait-laced) is no match for his significant intellectual prowess. That Driscoll has a magnetic preaching style should not be so chastisingly cutdown by another pastor who does not have such a dynamic style.
Consider this: imagine Driscoll had invited Piper to Mars Hill to preach. Then, after Piper had preached and left the building, Driscoll began to systematically critique Piper’s delivery style. I’m just sorry that Piper had to stoop down to the junior high school level.
In essence, then, it was so sad to see such sniping at an otherwise wonderful conference.
“First, even if Piper’s assessment was correct, doing it in the public eye was a cheap shot, especially in light of the fact that Piper was the one who invited Driscoll knowing full well what Driscoll’s preaching style was like. If Driscoll’s style was such a concern for Piper, he should have spoken to Driscoll privately about the matter, or simply not have invited him.”
I’m not sure that I agree with this. I suspect Piper and Driscoll have spoken of these things in the past and that what Piper said did not come as a complete surprise.
“Can anyone say “preaching envy”? If Piper had one-third of Driscoll’s stage presence, his ministry would be tenfold what it is today.”
This is just an outrageous and ridiculous statement. To suggest that Piper’s preaching style has been holding him back from greater “success” is just ridiculous. As if God hasn’t used Piper far beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. And as if God is so dependent on a person’s stage presence. Shame on you.
“Piper is much needed in the church today, but his preaching style (somewhat staid, strait-laced) is no match for his significant intellectual prowess.”
If you consider Piper’s preaching styling staid, I’d suggest you probably have not seen him preach very often. He is dynamic and passionate in his preaching.
Tim, you may mention the follow up that Piper publicly received about cleverness in this context. I thought it brought a good balance to the issue, but I heard it second hand.
I too was at the conference and was a bit perplexed by Piper’s comments about Driscoll. I want to say first and foremost that I love Piper, there has been no one else that has has such a big impact on my love of theology and passion for God, yet the critque seemed to be quite untimely. What I mean by this is that as I sat there enjoying the fantastic disscussion the panel just had and looked forward to going away and thinking about some points that has been raised Piper decided to end it with his remarks on Driscoll. The feel of it was totally out of context and just changed the focus from where it was at.
Also the fact that Driscoll has just spoken the session before and probably had stirred some conviction in a number of peoples hearts and minds about their interaction with the culture around them, Piper undermined his message by offering these comments on his delivery. I was saddened as I sat there thinking, “I imagine that was just the justification a number of people in hear needed to disregard the powerful message of Driscoll and ignore the conviction it stirred in their souls.”
In the end though I was impressed the next morning as Piper came forth and in many ways stepped up and said that the very thing he was quick to accuse Driscoll of, he was guilty of himself. May we pray for both of these men.
“In the end though I was impressed the next morning as Piper came forth and in many ways stepped up and said that the very thing he was quick to accuse Driscoll of, he was guilty of himself.”
I think this was an important footnote and one I should have mentioned.
Mr. Challies, I fear you have inadvertently fallen right into my trap.
Judging from your comments, and the swiftness with which you responded, you felt a certain level of righteous indignation. How dare I quibble with Piper’s preaching style?! How dare I judge Piper’s delivery technique?! Just because I personally find his approach unattractive, i.e., staid and strait-laced (albeit theologically spot on), who am I to belittle his preaching style on this public forum?!
It’s interesting that you have these questions, and are feeling this righteous indignation. Somewhere in Seattle, a pastor named Mark Driscoll is asking the very same kind of questions, and possibly feeling the same kind of righteous indignation.
Tim:
I can’t agree with you more on your comments concerning Piper’s so-called “stage presence.” I would add a resounding “outrageous and ridiculous!” to yours, and that it is incredible that anyone who has ever “seen” Piper preach could make such a statement.
Right now, on YouTube, is a 10-minute clip from a sermon Piper preached at the 2004 Desiring God National Conference. It is an amazing clip, and one that is almost impossible NOT to be moved to the point of tears by the end of it. It builds from a somewhat soft-spoken Piper to one of such passion that it is even difficult to put into words just how passionate he actually becomes in this short clip. He is talking about the supremacy of Christ over everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, from microorganisms, to the blue whales, to anything Hawking could ever dream of, to every intricacy of life … and over it all, Piper says, Christ shouts a resounding, “MINE!” To which his congregation applauds with their own passionate response. By the end of the clip, all you want to do is KNOW CHRIST MORE !!
I repeat your reaction, and even add a bit - it’s beyond outrageous and ridiculous!
Contrary to what people might think I would say, I would like to take up for Mark Driscoll at this point.
As a precursor: I have listened to all of the MP3’s today and found the conference very well balanced and an encouragement to my heart and walk with the Lord. Anyone interested in postmodern issues and ministry to the culture from a biblical worldview should listen several times to all of these messages.
D.A. Carson’s tears when speaking about his father’s ministry was extremely powerful and a highlight for me personally of this conference. Not many men of God in Carson’s league are ever so vulnerable. That vulnerability coupled with D.A.’s exegetical, theological, and biblical knowledge and skill is unique indeed. May his tribe increase.
Now to Piper’s remarks about Mark:1. I also think that this was inappropriate for John Piper to offer a word of admonition to Mark Driscoll only AFTER Driscoll had left the conference. This is cowardice and is not in keeping with Christian charity. If Piper talked with Mark before he left to go back to Seattle, he should have made that known to the attendees of the conference and to those of us who would be “attending” by way of MP3 or DVD so that there would be proper context for his words. But that did not occur.
2. Some may call this a needed “clarifying word” from Piper about Driscoll; but let’s be honest here - in reality it was John covering his “hind parts” to those who may have been troubled by Mark’s appearance and presentation at the conference.
3. Piper IS already very familiar with Driscoll and these concerns should have been addressed before the conference (as many of us urged him to do so); instead, he chose not to make a word of admonition about Mark and his ministry before the conference, but he chose to do so during the conference and again, ONLY after Mark had left. This was “bad form” beloved.
4. If some of you listened to Piper’s introduction of Mark, he made a bit of a joke about Mark’s use of poor language. This was confusing (in light of his admonition to Mark) and out of place. No one should make light of anyones sin issues or blind spots and to that which in part drove Christ to die on the cross—…our sins. James even says that “if a man cannot control his tongue, his religion is worthless.”
Considering Piper wants to be known and respected as one who treats with seriousness the glory of God, the supremacy of Christ, the salvation of souls, the centrality of the cross, God’s wrath against sinners, etc. then he needs to treat with more seriousness that which is sin in another and not with a cavalier tone. Even the prophet Isaiah struggled with being a man of “unclean lips” and was not treated as something frivolously in Is. 6:1-6. It was so serious to Isaiah that he pronounced eternal judgement on his soul when beholding a right view of the Lord by crying out “woe is me…!”
For Piper in slightest way to joke about Mark’s degrading speech on one hand and then exhort him on another due to preaching style and manner is not prudent and sends a double standard.
5. Piper said “If he [Driscoll] has those nine things in his left hand, I’m not even going to look at his right hand” is not being pastoral, but irresponsible. The apostle Paul emphatically says in 1 Tim. 4, “watch your life and doctrine closely.” It’s not just getting the left hand correct (doctrine) and then ignoring the right hand… (life, duty and method). Methods are not “a moral” but reflect upon message. After all, it was a methodological concern that ignited Spurgeon’s burden in what came to be known as the Downgrade Controversy of the late 1800’s. And worldly methodology led ultimately a skewed theology. History is a lucid teacher and proved Spurgeon correct.
But Piper made it crystal clear that it is only the “left hand” that means anything to him. I hope he just misspoke in a moment of passion and will recant his words.
Tim,
I’m glad you are beginning to feel better…I feel for you brother. Being sick like that is the only time when I start praying for God to take me home right then and there!
My question is concerning Piper’s comments regarding the person who came up to him and said he had been doing the same ‘clever’ thing as Driscoll, only in the area of the academic world (if I am incorrect on that, please let me know).
Is Piper’s ‘cleverness’ with respect to his remarks about academia equal to Driscoll’s ‘cleverness’ regarding his comments about culture?
Is it not true that Piper can easily reverse what he has said and done regarding the academic world…but for Driscoll to do the same regarding culture would require a paradigm shift in his church and ministry?
I’m not looking for a defense of Driscoll here, just some thoughts on how the Piper and Driscoll examples really compare.
Thanks.
Brian,
In my opinion, what Piper was saying about Driscoll was that his cultural cleverness could hide Christ’s glory precisely because people would remember the cultural cleverness. It was not so much about whether a style is right or wrong, but does it serve to draw attention to the messenger and away from the message. In this way, Piper’s “academic cleverness” is prone to the same problem. Some people could get drawn away from the content of the message to Piper.
As Josh Harris noted, this is a risk for every speaker, especially those who are especially gifted in some way.
Tim, glad you are feeling better. Thanks for all your work at these conferences.
Taliesin - I think you are pretty well right. Piper’s academic cleverness may serve to draw attention toward the messenger in the same way that Driscoll’s cultural cleverness can draw attention to him. Additionally, both types of cleverness could cause a person to depend less on the Spirit than might otherwise be the case. I suspect Piper was suggesting either or both of these points (or something close to them).
Steve - You believe it was wrong for Piper to publicly exhort Driscoll and yet you’re doing the same by posting here, aren’t you?
it’s dilemas like this that create such an anti-reproof atmosphere in the church today. it’s way to difficult to love anyone enough to reprove them, since it will always get spun back around on the reprover. It seems to me that if the first reproof is done in love, it stands on it’s own—but how can the second one (the counter reproof) ever be out of love? it is proud indignation. was Piper’s reproof not loving? it sounds to me like it was.
One final point: As Tim noted, these were excellent messages. Don’t let the “drama” keep you from hearing the content of the messages. Like Tim I was impressed with Vodie Baucham’s message, though I was expecting it because I had heard him once before.
What will remain with me for a long time is Carson’s exhortation to worship Saturday evening. His delving into the love within the Godhead was a deep and at times difficult journey, with the end result that worship and awe of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the appropriate responses.
Tim,
Your coverage of the conference was, as usual, excellent. I think that trying to cover the sessions in a “reporter” style fashion is great. You seem to capture the essence of the speakers message.
However the reflections are also helpful. It’s a great way to get the “feeling” of the conference.
Either way its something that there is really no format for. You get to define the format of live blogging!
I’m glad you are feeling better. And next time listen to your pastor. It will save you lots of belly aches.
Tim:
I don’t believe it is the same thing.
I was trying to say that it was publicly wrong for Piper to exhort Driscoll on his manner of preaching after Driscoll had just spoken in the previous session and had already left the conference.
The fact now that the good folks at DGM have sought to leave in this scenario on the MP3 downloads available to all who did not attend the conference makes a public source as any message or blog entry would be for scrutiny and comment.
To be clear, I like and appreciate Dr. Piper and how the Lord is using him in the kingdom for His glory. His writings are very helpful and a staple in my own daily study of God’s Word (especially his excellent historical works on the ministries of some of the great divines).
But his comments, as others have suggested here, seemed misplaced for two important reasons:
1. John was well acquainted with Mark and his manner of ministering. He has been to Mars Hill before and has had times of fellowship with Mark on other occasions. IOW, this came as no surprise to Piper and therefore needed no clarification from him as if it had been. And:
2. Those same remarks could have been addressed in the form of a few probing questions by John in the first panel discussion previous to when Mark spoke has helpful clarifying remarks to those attending who were either concerned about Mark’s manner of preaching or who were unfamiliar with him, which in case, would give some context for his manner of preaching.
But he chose to do this as it seemed almost a hurried after thought at the very end of the second panel discussion. I have received several other emails from people who listened to the MP3’s and were specifically looking for “his admonition of Mark’ per it being mentioned here yesterday.
I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify this and thank you Tim, as always, for your precise and accurate posts on the conference. Your notes plus the MP3’s were excellent complimentary tools that I have benefited from today.
Grace and peace to you brother and glad to hear you are feeling better.
SteveCol. 1:9-14
Tim,your summary was great to read. Not having been there, I felt connected in some ways. looking forward to hearing the Mp3s.
thanks for the daily updates,vapor
I’ve only managed to listen to one of the panel sessions so far. But it was the one with Don Carson’s reflections on his father’s ministry and the Quebec awakening.
Not only was it very moving, it was also terribly convicting. I can’t tell you how grateful I am to hear God’s sovereign ways spoken of like that. There was an edge to it that seemed to cut through the pretense that I can justify in myself of speaking of God’s sovereign glory but at the same time masking over and nursing my own self reliance.
Having been at the conference I found the comments by Piper very measured and respectful. I am sure that Piper has communicated these admonitions before to Mark and like Josh Harris did… I would hope that Mark would take them as they were meant to be, a gentle admonition from a spiritual father.
There is no question that Driscoll is a gifted and talented speaker, but I would guess even he would say that he is not in the same caliber as Piper. The only way you get to that caliber is to have years and years of faithfulness and suffering. Mark is hilarious and very good at keeping people entertained and he is also very good at making biblical things clear, but Piper has a way of taking you out of your world and bringing you to the feet of Christ.
Both of these men are being used by God for the glory of his kingdom and the attacks on either is not warranted and a waste of time… it is too bad we can’t spend the time proclaiming the Glory of Christ rather than criticizing our brothers in the Lord. Neither of these men are perfect, but both desire to glorify God and will ultimately answer to God for their ministries.
I for one appreciated both of their messages tremendously.
As for the ability for Piper to question Driscoll on these things in the Q&A that was not really possible in the format they did. Just FYI
Wonderful job on the liveblogging and especially the recap. I appreciate side notes about conferences like books, side notes, stuff in addition to the great message summaries.
The links were great too Tim, thanks,
Wescott
I think Piper’s comments were appropriate coming from a spiritual mentor who is respected by many. Besides - it’s hardly an insult to be told that you are and clever and to be careful how you use your cleverness. The comment was for the benefit of the attendees - telling the pastors not to seek to imitate cleverness without having theological depth behind it. I think if Piper had a real beef with Driscoll - he would handle it privately. It’s silly to accuse him of being out of line here.
There are good comments here…but I think we are still missing the real point about cleverness, and even excusing it with respect to Driscoll, and even with Piper. And I think we tend to excuse it because of their theology.
Stealing from the White Horse Inn guys here: faith does NOT come from the creativity or inginuity of the minister or ministry…not from the gimmicks (not from the things done to make people feel at home or to attract them in or to keep them coming). Faith comes from hearing, so there must be something that’s heard, and that is the gospel.
If the minister be an atheist, an indifel or immoral…his ministry has EXACTLY the same effect as if he had been a believer & godly…because it is the ministry of the Word through his mouth…NOT the minsiter himself who is a means of grace.
This applies to any minister who tries to be clever, no matter who he is: Driscoll, Piper, Sproul, Dever, Mahaney…Warren, Hybels, Osteen, etc. Cleverness, no matter who the minister is…is a waste of time and energy.
Any thoughts?
Dear Tim,
First, you asked for some comments about your live-blogging and the audio versions. You do amazingly well! I hope you continue to have opportunity to go to other conferences. I love being able to read and get a “good” sense of what is being said and done! Thank you!
Second, I am thankful to Dr. Piper and his leadership team who allow us to freely hear all the messages!! What a blessing! Truly, many other ministries could learn from their example!
Third, I get a little weary of so much criticism leveled at brothers in Christ. Sure, if it is heresy - contend for the faith! If not…well, I am reminded of:
1 Corinthians 4:1-54 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.
Can you imagine if the Apostle Paul was alive today speaking and writing?!? He would be destroyed, dissected and condemned by the blog world in a nanosecond! I imagine his words to the Corinthians above would be his response today as they were back then!
Anyway, thanks for all you do! You have a UNIQUE ministry for which I am grateful! From book reviews to other interesting links (like the free download of John by Max Mclean that wasn’t free for long!), you have blessed my life by what you do! I don’t have much time to “surf” and “browse.” BUT, you are on my tab bar in Mozilla!
Grace and peace to you brother!Greg
Your link to the Piper speech is wrong.Tryhttp://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2006/1828_The_Supremacy_of_Christ_and_Joy_in_a_Postmodern_World/Thanks for your work!
I attended the conference and did not take Piper’s remarks about Driscoll as any kind of rebuke/reproof. I just saw him expressing a concern. It may have come out of reservations Piper has concerning the Emergent movement and Driscoll’s original role in it. It certainly was balanced by Piper’s humility displayed the following morning concerning his own skill at academic turns of phrase.
It seems clear to me that Driscoll has drawn a clear line between himself and the Emergent movement. At the same time, he remains concerned about rescuing those who are drowning in a sea of relativism. His right hand/left hand remarks were brilliant and I think Piper missed the impact of these. Think in terms of which wing of a plane would you prefer to fly with, right or left. The answer, of course, is that you MUST have both or the plane will not fly. In the example, the left wing is more important, i.e., we must have the truth or we have nothing. But Driscoll’s message was about the church. If the plane is the church, it MUST have the right wing as well if it is to fly.
Regarding the conference, I thought each of the messages hit like a sledgehammer though the panel discussion on Saturday. After that session, I told my wife that this was the best conference I had ever attended. I, too, thought Carson’s remarks about his father showed an outstanding depth to the man. Which brings me to my greatest disappointment of the conference: Carson’s address Saturday night. I have read many of his books and have a deep appreciation for both his scholarship and his passion. His message, however, either was not well done or it went over my head. I like to think it was the former but it is most likely the latter. It seemed like a long, rambling, stream of consciousness talk. I saw little relation to the topic of postmodernism. It seemed his brief comments at the end to tie what he was saying to this topic were not convincing. Maybe my expectations for him were too high.
While we could discuss the merits/demerits of Piper’s actions, the simple fact remains and should be the center of the discussion, not at the periphery: Piper acknowledged his short-sightedness with regards to his comments about cleverness and graciously received correction from a conference attendee. While his comments were directed at Driscoll the night before, he didn’t have to publicly mention a private conversation where he had been corrected. But he did, and it was right and good and proper to acknowledge that he had been corrected and received the correction - and that spoke volumes.
Piper’s comments still stand valid as a warning in general. And at the end of the day, I will remember this conference both for Carson’s comments about his father’s ministry in Quebec and Piper’s humility in publicly acknowledging private correction. These humble and broken attitudes are the kind I desire to characterize my life more and more.
Many of you who are critical of Piper’s comments about Driscoll COMPLETELY MISSED THE ESSENCE of his point. Piper was not saying that Driscoll needed to change anything about himself. In fact, the next morning (after having been approached by an conference attendee) he admited that while Driscoll was clever in regards to culture, he himself was clever in regars to academics.
Piper’s main point in his comments was not an admonishment directed to Driscoll but to those of us sitting there thinking in our heads, “I wish I could preach like Mark.” or “I wish I could preach like Piper.” His point was that we need not concern ourselves with emulating men, but instead, focus on emulating Christ. There were no shots taken at Driscoll, only at those of us who had found a new mold to press ourselves into that wasn’t Christ.
Tim,
Glad you’re doing better. Thanks for all the time you put in on this, it will definately be a resource for me as I go back and listen again to the conference mp3’s.
If I could make a simplification here, I think some of the back-and-forth about Piper vs Driscoll is off point. The conference was about “The Supremecy of Christ,” not the supremacy of a style of teaching or level of pop-culture knowledge. And if your personal preference is for a particular style, you should try all the harder to have an open heart to other styles of teaching.
As a tattooed, 25yr old Evangelical, I would consider Driscoll my favorite speaker at the conference: but the session I got the most impact out of was David Wells! And the other tattooed 20-something’s I attended with all chose a different speaker or session as their most impactful, personally.
And there is where we see the supremecy of Christ. Because at the end of the conference, He was the one linking factor for all the sessions and speakers. I’d be afraid if the common theme was just a man…
“And there is where we see the supremecy of Christ. Because at the end of the conference, He was the one linking factor for all the sessions and speakers. I’d be afraid if the common theme was just a man…”
Aaron - That is an excellent point. Thanks for taking the time to share it.
Tim
Thank you for the hard work that goes into live-blogging a conference. I cannot imagine how distracting it is but it does serve so many of us who could not be there.
I have begun to listen to the messages and have already begun to profit by them. It was a timely subject and as Wells said, we are increasingly a culture of secularism. That would make our particular form of monism unusual as Hinduism is very relgious.
I have concluded the last few months that the best way to increase traffic on my blog is by mentioning things controversial — and exaggerated. I have begun to shun all such matters. Thank you for your example. You do not seek controversy in these posts and I am grateful for that. Your review of each session was very fair and without “agenda.”
Thanks for your serving us all — for very wise reporting of the conference and for trying to keep us on the main thing.
Mark Lauterbach
Well…I love Mark and John, so there!
Tim: I stole some of your pictures and put them on my blog cuz I forgot my camera at the conference. Thanks! Keep up the good work.
~St. Brianstine
And it was funny when Driscoll said, “It’s hard to worship a guy you can beat up” when referring to the “Emergent Jesus”…
Hi Tim,
Just a minor point: I suspect that Piper was addressing his comments to emergent rather than to the larger emerging church (see, for example, DA Carson’s of the “emerging missional church” in Australia ) especially considering that Driscoll considers himself part of the emerging church.
Thanks for your work and blessings,
And it was funny when Driscoll said, “It’s hard to worship a guy you can beat up” when referring to the “Emergent Jesus”
I hate being another complainer, but I just had a thought.
When Driscoll was explaining the whole it’s better to describe Jesus as big and tough as apposed to a whimpy girly man. He said it in a way as though that’s why we explain why Christ is big and tough, because frankly, to think of Him as a girly man doesn’t drive us to want to worship him.
Quite honestly, I can’t see that being the reason. The reason we explain Christ as a man on earth and who is now sitting on a thrown with an almighty hand, is because it’s Truth. There’s no other reason to explain it, stop dressing it up, stop making it look good or something that’s appealing to the eyes (a mighty warrior with a tatoo along his leg).
I believe that is what Paul tried to stay away from when he says in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, “and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” And I don’t believe Paul is saying to not talk at all, and I don’t believe Paul is saying not to use the revelations of scripture that God has given to him. But rather, stop making it look appealing.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Driscoll is still preaching the gospel, but why is he doing it? Because it’s Truth? Or yes truth, but because he likes to think of Christ as a muscle man that can beat people up?
*shrug*
Frank Martens,
2 passages of Scripture came to mind…
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.—Is 53:2
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are…—I Cor 1: 26-28
I for one was glad to hear John Piper warn Driscoll since Driscoll and his friends like Ed Stetzer cloud the Gospel with their methods. They are not “gospel definers”- a term used by Mark Dever. Their view of the gospel and its sufficiency is very different than the one put forward by Dever in The Deliberate Church (compare Stetzer’s book Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age). Stetzer, who Driscoll claims is the foremost church planting expert, assumes the gospel repeatedly and when he defines it, it is different than my understanding of the gospel (check this aricle out on Assuming the gospel). While I agree with what Piper said I wish he had said it with Mark at the conference. I have heard Piper correct R.C. Sproul at a Ligonier conference ten year ago, also over an important issue of truth. At a conference where IDEAS are being discussed it is also an academic atmosphere where ideas can be address and rebuked. This still should be done in private first, then with others, then publically. I don’t know if Piper did this with Mark Driscoll or not- this is my only reservation.
http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/bigger/assumedevangelicalism.htm
Piper and Driscoll conversed. Driscoll just posted this. I hope this puts things to rest. The conference was one of the highpoints of my life.
http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-10-04_thank_you_dr_john_piper
…Amen.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Rev 19:15-16)
I do want to clarify one thing…
I do not say what I say because all I’m out to do is to nit-pick at Driscoll or Piper. It was just something that stood out to me. I don’t want to appear as unloving. I’m glad just like Piper that Driscoll stands on some very important fundamental issues. However, I fear that he’s walking a dangerously fine line. I’m sure if I was talking about this in person, it’d be easier for me to display that.
Thanks, John Jordon, for posting the link to Driscoll’s blog where he comments on this whole thing about Piper’s remarks. I was about to post the link myself until I saw yours. Those of you who have not yet gone to Driscoll’s blog, I suggest you do so to get the best understanding of what is going on.
Driscoll clearly would have preferred to be notified about Piper’s remarks ahead of time, but he seems to have handled it with the utmost grace.
As much as I think I still disagree with Driscoll’s cultural cleverness, it is hard to ignore his love for the truth.
Before this conversation goes any farther, let’s consider this:
If you were to hear these comments pass between two women over coffee, might you call it gossip?
I’m not aiming at anyone specific, and I wouldn’t apply this to everything that’s been said here, but it’s something to consider before clicking the “post” button.
Something else to consider:
Out of Tim’s entire 1895-word article, only 562 words involve Mark Driscoll. Let’s not have tunnel vision.
Piper and Driscoll have made it all very clear by posting an email exchange from after the conference. I think many would do well to hear Piper’s comment about people having “too much time on their hands.”
The ‘too much time’ remark applies to those like David, who apparently has time to sit around and count the words in a post, then count the words pertaining to one specific part of that post, and then compare those total words with the amount of volume of comments pertaining to a certain aspect of the original post….then post his own comment on all of that.
David…get a life (talking in jest and smiling very big here).
And the number of words Brian Thornton has posted in this thread is…
It probably took me a whole minute to copy-and-paste Tim’s article to Word, click “word count,” select the portion involving Driscoll, and click again. The math was the hardest part. I only have ten fingers.
Wiseguy.
And the number of words Brian Thornton has posted in this thread is…
515, according to my unofficial word count….which is probably about, oh, I don’t know…515 too many!
And all the people said…”AMEN!”
AMEN!
Wiseguy.
Having read Mark Driscoll’s endorsement of Robert Schuller, I could not, with a clear conscience, invite him to speak at a conference. Perhaps he has changed his view, but the lack of discernment involved in endorsing Schuller leaves me bewildered.