- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostDG06 - Session 3
- Next Post »DG06 - Session 5
DG06 - Session 4
- 09/30/06
- 78
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.”
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 (78)
Hey,
Any comments or observations on the music at the conference?New songs that stand out?
Great work!
Thanks so much, Tim! How you manage this, I can’t think.
Yer a peach, dear sir. ;^)
Thanks Tim!
Your reports are greatly appreciated!
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.
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. =)
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!
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.
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 . . .!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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! : )
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.
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!)
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.
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?
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.
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’.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 himselfand became obedient to death—even death on a cross!9Therefore God exalted him to the highest placeand 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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.