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

[Bob Hyatt]

Again- it's not an either/or. It's a both and.

I'm saying that if you ONLY (only, only, only, only, only, only) attract disgruntled Christians your community is in trouble.

I'm not saying you don't make a place for disgruntled Christians. I planted a church to be a home for formerly churched AND unchurched people.

[nc]

Bob,

I agree. I'm still trying to figure out why it seems evangelicals don't want to own their stuff.

It's great to have places for hurting people--churched and unchurched.

I'm concerned about grappling with the systems that do the hurting and not being told that such a desire to "grapple" is just a sign of being "disgruntled".

Does that make sense?

We need churches like yours, but after a while we have to stop pulling bodies out of the river and go upstream to find who is throwing them in...and try to stop them.

[Rachel]

"Look- if the emerging church decides to make its default setting towards any and all criticism, even the kind it probably SHOULD listen to, a "wink", then it's time to bail out."

I agree, Bob. Truth DOES matter and I think we SHOULD engage with our critics, with gentleness and with grace, but engage nonetheless. I was seriously bummed out by Doug's debate with MacArthur. I agree with Doug's position and I do practice yoga. But I thought Doug could have given a much better response - one that was more convincing and more orthodox. I saw a smirk on Doug's face when Mac was talking and I felt like saying, "Hey, wait a minute! You are representing a lot of us out here. Take this thing seriously!"

And I also agree that Brian M may be going too far with the book endorsement thing. I know that Brian doesn't mean for his endorsement to be an imprimatur. He is trying to be generous and amplify the voices of others who can add to the conversation and I appreciate that. But I believe that there does have to be a basic standard of orthodoxy.

[Henry (Rick) Frueh]

The book "A short History of Everything" is a humanistic philosophy of nothing and according to Driscoll was recommended by Bell to read it for three months. If true - disturbing at best.

[Brian Roden]

Totally off-topic, but does anyone else think that Mark's voice sounds like former Fox New commentator/White House press secretary Tony Snow?

The first time I heard Driscoll's voice was on that "Text/Context" web ad for a conference in 2008, and I thought it was Snow.

[Brendt]

Any chance we could get an alternate link for those who need iBloat on our computer like a hole in the motherboard?

[LayGuy]

I just listened to the podcast today and was riveted. I am a Driscoll fan. I enjoy his convictions and passion. I have serious issues with the wimpy Christian attitude so dominant in church these days.

I think he is spot on with whacko's such as Brian and Doug. Rob Bell's belief in trajectory hermeneutics's puts him in the same basket. Driscoll did well in unpacking the implications of what Bell says about Mary.

God places His Word above even His name and for man to twist it based on "evolutionary mindsets" is the pinnacle of arrogance.

"For You have magnified Your word above all Your name." Psa 138:2b

So when I see a guy like Driscoll contending for the word, I admire such a quality. In today's weak Christian mentality ready to bend over for anything apart from the truth, Driscoll shines.

[Bob Hyatt]

Uh... no.

Driscoll's version of "manly" christianity is as distorted in many ways as that which he is caricaturing.

Have you read Webb's book? Or just taking everyone's word for it?

Don't bend over and just take whatever anyone is offering, including Mark, man.

[Sam Andress]

So who made Mark Driscoll Pope and arbiter of orthodoxy? When did orthodoxy begin with the magesterial reformers and end up at Jonathan Edwards? Does Driscoll even know that Calvin his beloved was exiled from Geneva as a subversive (read heretic) before Geneva invited him back to "Christianize" the city? Does Driscoll know that all interpreters of Scripture, all Christains speak from a social location and perspective?

Does Driscoll know that heresy has never historically been defined by "right" and "left" categories? And that by reducing the faith to those poles actually makes him complicit with worldly accomodations--making him an idolater? Historically and creedally speaking heresy was only the result of compromising the dual nature of Christ and the trinue nature of God--and those were developments which "emerged" over 100 years after the initial forming of the church? How in the world can Mark deny a "trajectory hermeneutic"--without we couldnt get from OT to NT!

Does Driscoll know that "just as much as God hates homosexuals--by Driscoll's own theological understanding--God hates Driscoll that much too! "No, not one, no not one is righteous"--before the hands of an "angry God?"

So if Driscoll accuses McLaren, Pagitt, and Bell (all either aqcuaintances or friends) of sin for being "liberal" Mark is just as guilty for elevating "a RE:Lit" (does mean they're drunk?) brand of theology.

Does Driscoll not that throughout the churches "official" history martyrs (who were usually killed because of 'heresy') we're actually considered heroes of the faith a few generations later?

Oh and I think Driscoll has a blog where he self-promotes, writes gross caricatures which are insulting for a man of his seemingly sharp mind, and also writes books which play on trying to self stuff.

SO MARK DRISCOLL I ASK YOU HAVE YOU DONE NOTHING MORE THAN REPACKAGE A REFORMATION BRAND OF SELF ABSORBED CHURCHIANITY IN THE NAME OF THE GOSPEL?

Why did'nt Mark call out Rick McKinley who in his book on the Kingdom of God very much resembles McLaren's prose?

Mark is the ultimate sectarian. Mark needs to turn the tables in his own living room.

[Matybigfro]

i'm not sure i see what mark is doing here as advancing truth over error
just making allot of matcho noise and self inflating chum talk

what i mean is that the way mark has brought up these issues isn't gonna advance much truth in that

shouting around on your own podcast isn't gonna stop these "heretics" teaching what they teach and believing what they believe
the people that will hear it in the majority will either already strongly agree or disagree and not change because of it

its mainly just gonna make him and all those who already agree with him feel good about themselves and go round saying ahh how right we all are yar yar yar

i mean like wouldn't atleast meeting in private with these guys gives a chance of gaining their ears and an opurtunity to challenge them genuinely in way that won't get there backs ups and armour on before hearing what has to be said.

also a milder mannered selletion of gentle challenge's or questions might get some airplay on their stations which then would atleast provoke discusion on those issues
or do the whole share book discus and respond thing
they rule

[graham]

Personally, I'm a bit bored of Driscoll's rants (however calm and gracious, this time) over Emergent and the emerging church. It's beginning to feel a little like he just knows it will get good air-time. Not to mention, it's just bad form when these are folks he knows and could just pick up the phone!

I've never quite understood why Driscoll sees himself as some kind of authority here. I read a multi-authored counter-point book recently, where he all but admitted that he was entering the conversation as the one to keep the others in check. How's that for dialogue?!

I think the only thing I agreed with Driscoll on is Brian's amount of book recommendations. He's becomming our generation's J.I. Packer! ;-)

Btw, I think it's a stretch to say that 'parthenos' is unambiguous. It's certainly not as ambiguous as the Hebrew, but when context allows it can mean more than one who hasn't had sexual intercourse.