Driscoll podcast up...

The Driscoll podcast calling out everyone to the left is up.  Here's the message- listen to it. (and skip the first few minutes... You've heard it. At some point Mark needs to start beginning messages with "I know you've all heard the story of my rough and tumble youth, and if you haven't, just pick a random podcast from iTunes- I'm pretty sure it will be in there.")
 

To sum up-
He uses the word "heresy" in and around the discussion, and while he doesn't apply it directly to the forehead of either Brian, Doug or Rob, he doesn't leave a whole lot of doubt as to what category he places these guys in mentally...

So- for the record...

I agree with Mark- Brian McLaren seems to endorse just about whatever book comes across his desk and some of them are truly disturbing. I don't so much have a problem with what Brian himself says- but he seems to endorse and approve of some books with some horrific ideas. This concern has been growing in me for awhile.   

I agree with Mark- If Doug truly did tell him publicly that homosexual practice (as opposed to orientation) is consistent with following Jesus, he's wrong. (I feel I should modify that statement somehow, but I won't. That's what the comments are for...)
I don't, however, think this makes him a heretic.

I somewhat agree with Mark-
About Rob Bell...
a. Rabbinical authority.  Mark dings Rob for  saying that if you want to understand Scripture, you have to understand the Rabbis. Has Rob ever actually said this? Yeah- he's got his style in this regard, but I don't think (as far as I know) that he raises this to the level Mark is saying he does.

b. Mark disagrees with Rob's "trajectory hermeneutic." I agree with it. Webb's book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals is one everyone should read and understand. It fits well with a Jesus-centered, Gospel-focused understanding of the Scriptures. Mark dings Rob for having women elders and in so doing reduces the whole argument to something of an oversimplification and caricature.

He also conflates homosexuality into the argument, missing or ignoring the point that Webb specifically denies that there is a redemptive movement or arc in Scripture regarding that issue. I personally have heard Bell make the same exact point. I think the "guilt by association" argument sticks somewhat in McLaren's case as eventually he's going to have to answer for that of which he approves, but I find the "slippery slope" tack here frustrating.

c. I agree with Mark- Rob Bell overplayed the spring metaphor in Velvet Elvis. I know (and affirm) what he was trying to say, but he picked the wrong example to demonstrate it. I'm glad Rob himself affirms the Virgin Birth, but by saying it's not necessary, he potentially gives away the farm. He's not a heretic as far as I can tell, but he probably does need to hear what Mark says on this.

Overall, though the case against Bell is a bit stretched, Mark is on target, particularly at the end as regards the ineffectiveness of some in the emerging church to do anything other than attract the disgruntled children of evangelicalism- I think you all should listen to it.

As an aside- there's a lot of talk about whether Mark "should" have taken a Matthew 18 approach with these guys...

And my take is this- Whether or not he "should" have... he could have. This is a guy who could get a face-to-face with any of these 3 big names he's calling out.

I know, I know, I KNOW how busy he is (that's one of my main complaints about the mega-church pastoral lifestyle), but what I'd like to see is less of the big guns in this whole thing (and let's face it- calling someone out for heresy is like the a-bomb... there's really isn't any way to escalate after that) and more pleading with people he calls friends and brothers to come around (he admits that there's distance, he hasn't talked to Brian or Bell and has had only 1 or 2 conversations with Doug and not of the kind I'm talking about). I'm not saying Mark's completely off-base here, but if I have a chance to rally and supply my troops or sit down one-on-one with the general of the opposing "team" (as Mark likes to call it) I think I might try the second  for awhile and save the first for a possibly necessary last resort.

I told you all I was going to post a bit on "boundaries" awhile back... this is probably a good week for that. Stay tuned...

Comments

[shawn]

hey bob, great points on the matter. by the way, where did you get that pic of Colbert?

[Scott Davison]

Bob,
I have no problem with people disagreeing but the discussion needs not be inflamatory which is difficult to do from a distance. I don't need to agree or disagree with Driscoll to see God woking significantly in his ministry nor can he deny the same of some of those with whom he disagrees. What does the kingdom gain by this public discourse but to alienate and seperate people.

-I am curious about the "Men In Skirts" thing. Mark glared at me something fierce when I went to Resurgence in a kilt.

[Bob]

No... "Pastors in Skirts" :) His shorthanded way of referring to women in leadership.

As I said in my closing bits- I don't think Mark is off here. The kingdom gains when truth is advanced over error. I would just like to see the working towards that truth take all private avenues possible, and when public be as respectful as possible. If this really concerns him this much, Mark is in a unique position to have some good, private discourses, something he admits he hasn't pursued.

[ryan]

Really well balanced comments Bob. I just finished listening and the only thing I would add is that I am not really sure if this is a Matt. 18 situation. These guys did not sin against Mark, and they are all public figures promoting their ideas, allowing for them to be evaluated by the public.

Also the one thing that blew me away was Mark's control and tone. Sure he threw in a few barbs, and jokes but for the most part you could tell he was really trying to watch himself. If we are taking him at his word it seemed this message boiled out of a Holy Spirit pastoral concern for young people being negatively influenced. I did not get that he was out to just lambaste these guys to get some pats on the back. He even went out of the way to say he had been guilty of this in the past and had greatly sinned in the way he has talked about this stuff in the past. He seemed to have spoke much more slowly and methodically than I can previously remember. For someone like me who generally likes Driscoll but has found myself cringing constantly over the last year, I think he was more tempered than I can ever remember.

Anyway I just thought people can not get a full grasp of this message (if they do not listen to it) without being told about the tone and attempted humility it was delivered in. This does not mean I think he fully succeeded, but as he said in the message Mclaren is a much more likable guy then he is, and this was probably really hard for him. Would love to hear if you had these same impressions or not when you listened to it bob. Maybe it was just me.

[Bob]

Yes- In fact, I almost edited my post to make some of those same points but thought I'd just leave it alone as good enough.

Mark's tone was reasoned and his humor appropriate and well-directed... (and he'll appreciate this: funny too)

Like I said- I don't think Mark is bound by Matthew 18 in this case. It's more that I see Paul "pleading" with people a lot- he definitely calls out some as well.
I just think there's an order there, you know?

[brian]

Driscoll greatly exaggerates the position and content of Webb's book and grossly mischaracterizes what Rob is trying to accomplish in Velvet Elvis. The real reason Driscoll doesn't like Velvet Elvis is that Driscoll believes he knows everything and wants Bell to know everything too (so long as Bell agrees with him.)

(And really, is he that dumb that he can't understand the purpose of a 'what if' scenario? A scenario Bell himself denies is true. I'm not trying to be a jerk here...he really sounds stupid in dealing with the virgin birth stuff in VE. Not to mention that he sounds like he has an RC view of Mary. By that I mean he sounds horrified at the idea that Mary might be a 'sinner.')

[aaron]

"Overall, Mark is on target, particularly at the end as regards the ineffectiveness of some in the emerging church to do anything other than attract the disgruntled children of evangelicalism- I think you all should listen to it."

This is so spot on and encompasses my personal struggles with being part of the "emergent" movement.

[Bob]

Brian- Calling it a "what if" scenario doesn't change the necessity for the pieces of your scenario to be congruent.

If Rob had used other pieces of theology to demonstrate its springiness, well and good.
This one overplayed it.

It's like me demonstrating my commitment to my wife with two scenarios-

1. She burns the toast. That doesn't end our relationship does it? (of course not)

2. She leaves me for another man and hires a hit man to take me out for the insurance money. That doesn't end our relationship does it? (uh...actually...)

I think it matters in your "what if" scenarios exactly what the what if's are.
Rob didn't deny the Virgin Birth. But he picked the wrong what if...

And Mark knows Mary's a sinner. He himself overplays with "lying whore", but he's far from horrified at the idea that Mary might be a 'sinner.' If you are saying that he exaggerates other people's positions, it doesn't make much sense to exaggerate his as you critique him.

[Miche]

Thanks for this info.

I am not familiar with Mark Driscoll, except for reading about him these last few days. I am a huge fan of Rob Bell. In light of this I cannot help but have a couple of thoughts.

Is it not obvious that "Velvet Elvis" was intentionally not a scholastic piece of theology and that the intended audience was the postmodern crowd we claim to know about in the emergent church? If so, doesn't it make sense that some of the more difficult aspects of our faith (springs) may be explained in light of this audience? I guess that is how I see Bell's approach.

Driscoll seems to come across very ungracious about this. It would make more sense if Bell was repeating the essence of this spring metaphor elsewhere as if he were actually wishing to attack the issue of the virgin birth, but this is not the case from what I know of Bell. It seems to me he was attempting to communicate to a postmodern audience. It seems unwise to take one thought/idea that someone attempts to communicate with a motivation of love and blow it out of proportion to make ourselves look good as if we are the keepers of orthodoxy (perhaps I am too judgemental, but it sure is sounding like this to me). If it helps open up someone to experience Jesus, I hope my theological cage gets rattled more and more, because the first time I read Bell's metaphor it did rattle me a little. By the end of the book, or even chapter, it was obvious why he stated it the way he did.

It seems like Mark Driscoll has the respect of many people from what I am reading on the net, but I am scratching my head right now asking how? I guess I will try to find time to look into him...

Thanks for the update on this.

Shalom!

[brian]

You're right, I did the same thing I'm accusing him of, my bad. (But my wrong doesn't make his right, either, no?)

Bell's point, as I see it, is that our theology shouldn't be so tight that if one part of it proves to be wrong or not all that we thought it was, our faith shouldn't therefore disintegrate. He chooses a fairly 'meaty' bit of theology, true, but I think his point remains. What if that theology, though, is creationism? (I'm willing to bet you know a person or 10 whose faith was shipwrecked on the rocks of academia.) What if this were 200 years ago in the south and the bit of theology that caused the whole tower to crumble was a belief that it was biblically acceptable to own slaves? What if that theology centers around "pastors in skirts" or elders in skirts?

You see what I'm saying? The "what if" scenario doesn't really matter because Driscoll, it appears anyway, refuses to ask the what if questions and refuses to consider that his positions may be off base. And this is Bell's point...we can't be afraid of the questions or the possible answers. There are many people whom I respect and admire and have learned a ton from who seem to prefer certainty over faith. Driscoll may be one of those who'll take certainty.

[josh]

wink.

[ryan]

Ironically Brian when you listen to the message Driscoll does exactly what you claim he won't do or is incapable of doing; he plays the "what if" game with DNA. Which I think is a better example then the mother of Jesus.

[brian]

Ryan, you may have misunderstood what I was saying or (more likely) I was unclear: Driscoll seems to refuse to consider anything that might challenge his conclusions. His "what if" regarding DNA reinforces that perception which, I freely admit may or may not be true to reality.

[bob]

I agree with Bell's overall point. Mine is that if he had chosen literal 6-day creationism as his example, that would have worked as there are multiple ways to read the opening of genesis. But there's only one way to read the opening of Matthew.
Jesus could have come by another means. God is pretty smart- a virgin birth probably wasn't the only way. But it's what the narrative says happened.
Mark's point, and I agree, is that you can't deny that particular piece of the narrative without calling into question the whole thing. Listen to it again- he makes the case well.
bell's overall point is a good one. Just a really, really poor example...

[ryan]

Brian if your point is that Driscoll is stubborn and has a hard time considering anything that will challenge his conclusions, than I say we are in complete agreement; he sure does. I bet we could even as Mark himself and he would say that he can be stubborn. But then again I think most of us really struggle to be truly open opposing views. Personally this is an area where I work earnestly at but I fail more than I succeed.

[brian]

Bob, at the risk of over-commenting, may I again, push back just a little bit? Maybe that there's "only one way" to read it IS what makes it a good example? Let's face it, if he had used creationism as his example, MOST of his Christian readers (to say nothing of those of his readers who would not identify themselves as such) would've laughed at it. "Of course no one believes that" would have been the response of many of his readers. (It would not have been my response, but I think that would be the majority response.)

And, you know this, I'm sure, the Greek could be translated "young girl" not necessarily "virgin" so "one way" isn't necessarily the case either. (Though, I will admit even a cursory study of the text and the prophecies around it really do point to one interpretation.)

Still, I think it is a good example because it's strong enough to hurt, so to speak, and there is at least some (very, very little, admittedly) wiggle room in the text and, by the way, what if the point of the writers wasn't Mary's virginity but rather the fact that God somehow "took over" this birth?

Please don't misunderstand, I'm making an argument there that I don't agree with, but I am trying to make the point that the Virgin birth is something most of us hold to strongly enough that we would call it "essential" but is, perhaps the one point of "essential" doctrine that could fall without everything falling with it. It would be difficult to comprehend and deal with, but not a death blow. (Now, you go with other "essentials" such as Jesus humanity or divinity, that's a different story.)

Okay, I've said enough. Thanks for allowing me to ramble a bit. I'll go back to enjoying your blog mostly as a reader and only as a very occasional commenter.

[Rich]

Fair post Bob. As for:
"Rabbinical authority. Mark dings Rob for saying that if you want to understand Scripture, you have to understand the Rabbis. Has Rob ever actually said this? Yeah- he's got his style in this regard, but I don't think (as far as I know) that he raises this to the level Mark is saying he does."

I have listened to the MHBC podcast for a long time and remember him specifically saying this at least twice.

[Rich]

Brian,

"perhaps the one point of "essential" doctrine that could fall without everything falling with it."

Really? To say this is to not comprehend just what the virgin birth means. It strikes at the very thing that you say we couldn't do without, Jesus' human/divine nature. If he was simply Mary and Joseph's boy, then we have a problem I think.

[bob]

for clarity- the Hebrew "alma" (this is from memory so don't jump down my throat if I'm wrong) can mean either virgin or young girl. The Greek "parthenos" is unambiguous- it means virgin. And the surrounding narrative is clear in supporting that. The testimony of Scripture is that Mary was a virgin until after Christ was born.
And again, to deny something that clear in the narrative is to call the whole thing into question.

[Helen]

Like Rich said, the virgin birth is theologically necessary for Jesus to be sinless because sin is passed down through the human male line - or something like that.

You people who don't think it matters theologically need to go study why conservatives think it does. At least seek to understand their position, whether you agree or not.

[Samuel]

Bob,

Would you mind giving a few examples of books which Brian McLaren has endorsed that raised your concerns? I've read most of his own books and liked most of them a lot, but only a few ones which he's endorsed. These have been great reads though, IMO, for example McKnight's "Embracing grace", Pete Rollins' "How (not) to speak fo God" and Shane Hipps "The hidden power of electronic culture".
It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on this, since it raises the question if McLaren, for example, should only endorse "safe" books, if you know what I mean. In my opinion, there's quite a few books I wouldn't agree with regarding the opinions the writer has and conclusions she/he makes, but which nevertheless was a stimulating and challenging read. Maybe recommending and endorsing a book is two different things?

[Andrew]

Like Rich said, the virgin birth is theologically necessary for Jesus to be sinless because sin is passed down through the human male line - or something like that.

Helen, that is a commonly held belief in evangelical circles, but we're never clearly told that. All we are told is that we are all sinners because we are all related to Adam. There is no clear statement that sin is only passed to children by their fathers.

[Helen]

Andrew, I agree.

I've been listening to Mark's podcast.

Here's a summary of it:

Brian says...
Doug says...
Rob says...

But the Bible is exceedingly clear.

And when they say those things Jesus is insulted and God's feelings are hurt.

Plus Mark gets to say "lying whore" a whole bunch of times when addressing whether it matters whether Mary was a virgin.

And I just got to "Brian's organization Deep Shift which someone accidently put an f in".

Mark gives lots of lip-service to Jesus but it sure sounds like his object of worship is The Clarity Of The Bible.

[Scott]

I am generally in favor of giving people the respect of naming them by name if you have a beef. That part I can admire from the Driscoll talk...

What I do want to pipe up about is his statement, "religion killed Jesus." I have heard him (and others) say that before. What about Isaiah 53 - "It pleased the LORD to crush him..."? What about Psalm 118? What about the prayer in the Garden, "Not my will but, Your will be done..."? What about Jesus telling Pilate, "You would have no power over me unless it were given to you by my Father..."?

I have a lot of ugly things to say about religion too, but THAT is really careless. Is there any greater heresy than shifting the responsibility for the substitutionary death of Jesus away from the Father? Like I say, too careless for my tastes.

[ScottB]

Is there any greater heresy than shifting the responsibility for the substitutionary death of Jesus away from the Father? Like I say, too careless for my tastes.

Well, one might suggest that it's equally problematic to shift the responsibility away from, you know, the people who actually nailed him to the cross. Doesn't that sort of mess with any theology of sin whatsoever?