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

[Julie Clawson]

I too am curious which books McLaren has endorsed that scare you. And wondering just for the record whose definition of orthodoxy is being used here to determine what qualifies as heresy or even just "questionable moves"?

[ScottB]

Stephen puts it this way:

You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him — you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it." (Acts 7:51-53)

I think "heresy", given scripture's own testimony on the matter, is an extraordinarily large stretch.

[Scott]

ScottB,

I'm not sure what you mean... you have to go slow with me. I'm from Indiana :-)

[Scott]

ScottB... I just saw your quote from Acts 7. I get your drift now. You can email me if you're interested. I don't want to hijack Bob's blog through comments.

scottjbane@mac.com

[Scott Davison]

Ok, There are just to many Scott's posting on this topic.

[tim]

Is it just me or does it seem like this blog is at its best when Bob is blogging about Driscoll? Not trying to be rude but Bob you kind of have a dependent relationship with Driscoll. You are like the christian blogger that tracks his dealings and takes him to task kind of like a parent. Whenever there is Driscoll news out there everyone knows bob will have a good lengthy post to set the stage of debate. I mean maybe you should rename your blog bog. At the end of the day Driscoll gets more convo than anyone out there, so there must be something about him that is compelling.

Plus I think it is interesting that aside from Mars Hill Bible the EV churches are not having a lot of impact while Driscoll does. The funny thing is they are the one's shouting that in order to reach the type of people that Driscoll is ACTUALLY reaching the pastors need to not be like Driscoll. The irony of that can't be lost on guys like Doug, and Brian.

[josh]

oh come on dude. i know you want to wink.

[Bob]

No... not really. There are things to wink at, and things to take seriously.
Ken Silva? A wink, a blink and a nod.

Team Pyro? wink, wink, wink...

This?

Like I say- I agree with Driscoll.

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.

[ScottB]

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.

Quoted for truth.

[Bob]

For the book titles, check out the message by Driscoll. He mentions a couple...
Also, Alan Jones' Reimagining Christianity seems to be basically a new take on the whole John Shelby Spong vibe... and it was endorsed by Brian, including presumably, this quote: "“The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it."

Yeah... see, that's disturbing.

[Mike Clawson]

Bob, I don't know you personally, so I don't really know what set of theological assumptions you're coming from with this stuff. I guess I'm wondering the same thing as my wife Julie: whose version of orthodoxy are your referring to when you say that McLaren or whomever is getting too close to the edge so to speak?

Anyhow just a few comments along those lines:

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.

Maybe he does. Maybe his theology is different than yours. Maybe he doesn't see their ideas as being quite as "horrific" as you do. (Interesting choice of word, "horrific". Are they telling people they should eat babies or something?)

If Doug truly did tell him publicly that homosexual practice (as opposed to orientation) is consistent with following Jesus, he's wrong.

So is that opinion completely out of bounds in your view? Is there no room for discussion or disagreement at all on the homosexuality issue?

Mark dings Rob for saying that if you want to understand Scripture, you have to understand the Rabbis.

Suppose Rob did say this. Is he wrong? Is it wrong to say that to understand Scripture you have to understand its historical context?

I agree with Mark- Rob Bell overplayed the spring metaphor in Velvet Elvis.

The irony is that the more grief people give Rob for this, the more it just proves his point.

the ineffectiveness of some in the emerging church to do anything other than attract the disgruntled children of evangelicalism

Is that such a bad thing after all? There are lot of us who feel like we have no where else to go. For many of us it's a choice between the emerging church, or walking away from Christianity altogether. I talk to people all the time who have already made the choice to walk away, or are on the verge of it, and what I hear all the time is "If I had known there were churches like yours, I might not feel the need to leave." If the EC can help preserve the faith of these people, and slow the rapid attrition among younger evangelicals, why complain?

At any rate, I think the emerging church is open to good criticism - for example, the "Outsider Interviews" we hosted at our Midwest Emergent Gathering this summer - but frankly I personally don't see much good in this criticism from Mark. But then, perhaps I'm less worried about being a "heretic" than you are.

Anyhow, I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic or anything Bob. Just trying to give a little pushback on your assessment of Driscoll's critiques.

Peace,
-Mike

[ScottB]

whose version of orthodoxy are your referring to when you say that McLaren or whomever is getting too close to the edge so to speak?

Orthodoxy is usually defined in terms of the historical creeds. I'm with Bob on this one - Brian dances way too close to the line at times in terms of trinitarian theology for me to be comfortable, particularly in his portrayal of the cross. There's too much of an element of God-vs-Jesus in the way he looks at substitutionary atonement, and yes, that's a dangerous position because it fails to recognize that the Father and the Son are one. In terms of classical, historical orthodoxy - what all Christians have always affirmed - Trinitarian theology is a non-negotiable. You can't be non-trinitarian and be orthodox, by definition in that it's a denial of the classical creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon. That may not bug you - but it bugs me, because I want to pay more than lip service to the idea of Christian community. I want to adhere to what the Christian community in a grand sense has set forth as the bounds for inclusion.

Suppose Rob did say this. Is he wrong? Is it wrong to say that to understand Scripture you have to understand its historical context?

The problem is that the rabbinical sources aren't a part of the historical context. Most were written centuries after the NT. It would be like trying to use next year's election rhetoric to shed light on the cultural situation surrounding the American Revolution.

[Bob]

Mike-

in order:
This can't be seen as anything but horrific: "The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it."
For the record- I like Brian. My point is that he's putting his name on some books that contain some truly disturbing ideas.

I'm not getting into "whose orthodoxy." That's not the point here.
But at the very least, to even be in the orthodoxy game, we need to affirm the death of Jesus as the universal saving act. Deny that and you've moved off into something else besides Christianity. I don't think Brian has done this, at least as far as I can see. I just hate that he puts his name on books by people who do.

There is plenty of room for discussion on the subject of homosexuality. I stated my opinion. That's still valid, right. I also stated that even if Doug did disagree with me on that, that's not heresy. You caught that, right?

I said I had never heard Rob say this. And if he did, I don't think it's all that important... Mark puts a lot more weight on this than I would.

No- I don't think it proves the point. But you caught that all through this thread I said I agree with Rob's basic gist with the analogy... right?

"the ineffectiveness of some in the emerging church to do anything other than attract the disgruntled children of evangelicalism

Is that such a bad thing after all? There are lot of us who feel like we have no where else to go."

Yeah- its a bad thing.
I pastor a church with a huge population of formerly churched people- those who dropped out for one reason or another and are just now coming back, so please don't try to spin it like I'm against that. But if that's all it is, if no one ever finds Jesus through your community other than disgruntled Christians, then yes... there is a problem.

"If the EC can help preserve the faith of these people, and slow the rapid attrition among younger evangelicals, why complain?"
Because slowing attrition isn't the point... and if we settle for that, God help us.

The real appeal of the emerging church has been to me the ability to lose the detritus of american evangelicalism and get back to focusing on missional engagement with the world in order to more clearly articulate and live out the Gospel in our culture.
That's what I want to do. Not tread water.

I'm happy our little pub church has been a haven for hurt, burned and burned out Christians. I truly treasure every story we have along those lines. But I won't ever be content to stop there...

People meeting Jesus is what it's all about. Without that, it soon becomes nothing more than a younger, hipper version of what we all walked away from... inward facing, inbred, church-as-a-club that makes no difference, matters to no one outside its membership and wouldn't be missed or mourned should it disappear.

[Dan Brown]

"But at the very least, to even be in the orthodoxy game, we need to affirm the death of Jesus as the universal saving act. Deny that and you've moved off into something else besides Christianity."

So someone who believes that the life of Jesus is the source of salvation is not only heterodox but also not a Christian (i.e., not a follower of Christ)? Really?

[Mike Clawson]

This can't be seen as anything but horrific: "The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it."

I'm not for diminishing the importance of the cross, but I am all for rethinking the horrific (and yes, I'll use that word too) doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. Whoever this quote is from probably goes to far, but I can understand their concern to get away from this view that the Cross is all about God's bloodthirsty need to take his wrath out on someone. As I read him, that's one of Brian's concerns too. There are many other ways to understand atonement and the meaning of the cross, and I think it's about time we reappropriated them.

if no one ever finds Jesus through your community other than disgruntled Christians, then yes... there is a problem.

I guess those categories of "Christian" and "non-Christian" have stopped being so useful to me anymore. We're all on the journey, and I know plenty of so-called "non-Christians" who are probably a lot closer to the way of Jesus than a lot of Christians I know. And, as Rob puts it, Jesus wants to save Christians too. The way I look at it, I'm called to make disciples, and I don't care if that person already wears the label "Christian" or not; if I can help lead them further into the way of Christ then it's all good. Frankly, there are plenty of Christians I know who I don't think have ever really heard the gospel the way Jesus actually preached it (i.e. "the kingdom of God is at hand") so what's the difference between "re-evangelizing" them and evangelizing someone who never got corrupted with the evangelical gospel of sin-management in the first place? (except that maybe the former is sometimes a lot harder to convert to the way of Jesus)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about a "inward facing, inbred, church-as-a-club that makes no difference". Missional is what it's all about for me too. That's what I mean by the way of Jesus. But that's exactly why I think it's valuable to have a church that is trying to reach the evangelicals for Jesus. How can we even begin to have a church that is not "inward facing" until we convert the Christians away from that self-focused version of the gospel in the first place?

[ScottB]

Hey, Mike - you dropped the "repent and believe" part from your explanation of how Jesus understood and stated the gospel. That's still a big part too, right? Also, as to this:

I can understand their concern to get away from this view that the Cross is all about God's bloodthirsty need to take his wrath out on someone.

That's not penal substitution. It's a gross caricature of it. I understand that you don't want your views to be mischaracterized by the likes of Driscoll et al, so perhaps you should return the favor. Do a bit more study on this one, please?

[david]

whether or not completely agree with you, this is a great post, bob.

well done.

[Bob]

Well said, Scott...

Mike- thanks for the primer on emerging church thought- believe me, I've got it.

At the end of the day, I'm not concerned with advancing Christianity but Jesus.

However, there's still a difference between someone who is in relationship with Jesus and someone who isn't, regardless of how you may assess their lives. It still matters because there is still such a thing as (in the biblical language) putting your faith in the person of Jesus and His work on your behalf.... as salvation.
And as Scott said- this ridiculous characterization of substitutionary atonement (which is one undeniable, biblical facet of the work of Jesus, along with others) has to stop.

Dan B-
I'm not discounting the life of Jesus. As someone who's walked through at least 2 seasons in the Gospels with us you know that.

But without the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, there is no salvation for you, me or anyone.

[brian]

I don't know...it seems a little unfair to assume that a book someone endorses says exactly what they believe or that they agree with everything in it. I recommend books all the time with the proviso that "I don't agree with everything (s)he says, but there's a lot of good stuff in here...it'll make you think." If one can only endorse a book with which they are in 100% agreement, I don't see many books getting endorsements.

Is if fair to make McLaren answer for things he's never said? I don't think so.

[bob]

In general I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that one can only endorse books you are in complete agreement with. My point us that when the issues scale to a certain size, should someone suggest and recommend a book, that caveat and probably even a bit of detail is needed.
When endorsing a book that denies the heart of the gospel, Brian probably has a duty to do it more responsibly. Or better yet, not endorse books like that at all...

[ryan]

Brian I would just ask where is the line? I am not meaning to be sarcastic but if a book on Satanism or Witch Craft has some interesting ideas should one just endorse it? There has to be some wisdom as an influential leader in what you point people toward, and that is the exact intent of an endorsement, to guide people to resources that will be worth their investment

[TJ (Tom)]

Bob, you don't know me at all, but I've been reading your blog for several months, and as I read this, your take on Driscoll's words, it stood out to me how even, thoughtful, balanced, and restrained YOUR words were.

You see, I've followed a bit of the Pyro/Emergent exchanges recently (including those involving you), and almost always I come away with the thought that BOTH SIDES seem to revel in caricature of the other side, readily take offense EVEN WHEN NONE IS MEANT, and are simply implacable in their concept that the other side is wrong, mean, ignorant or arrogant, and rude. I'm serious -- that's the overall impression I got on BOTH sides. Please don't ask me for examples, I don't write them down or even bother keeping them in my head; I'm just sharing an impression -- one that saddened me.

But here you are, responding to someone who was pretty firm and violent towards Emergents. He may have been violent in love and humility and earnestness (I think he was trying hard) but the punches were delivered nonetheless. And you respond by hearing, considering, agreeing-and-differing, with the same earnestness and humility.

I simply want to commend and thank you.

I've always found your blog interesting, and often useful and thought-provoking. Thanks again.

[Mike Clawson]

It appears that I've pissed you off Bob. My apologies, that was not my intent. I wasn't trying to imply you weren't familiar with emerging theology. I was just sharing my perspective on things.

there is still such a thing as (in the biblical language) putting your faith in the person of Jesus and His work on your behalf.... as salvation.

Certainly... I just don't think that means what evangelicals think it means, so I'm not sure everyone who claims to have done this is really following Jesus in the way he intends. Hence the need to "convert" evangelicals to the way of Jesus.

Of course, it's not up to me to decide who's in and whose out, which is why I'll just preach the gospel as I understand it to anyone and everyone, regardless of whether they claim to have already gotten it or not.

There's something else going on here too I think. I appreciate the fact that out in Portland you are surrounded by a lot more non-Christians, but the reality is that others of us are not yet in "post-Christian" contexts. Let's face it, in a nation where 75% claim to be Christian, there's not a lot of actual first level evangelism going on (that is, unless one wants to go the route of saying that all Catholics, Mainliners, Pentecostals, etc. aren't really Christians). Most of us are in the place of calling people back to faith, or helping them rediscover what Jesus' message is actually about. Honestly, here in the far west suburb of Chicago where I live, I would have to look pretty hard to find an honest to goodness non-Christian (and not just a lapsed Catholic). I mean, I know a few, but they're pretty far between.

So bottom line for me is that if I want my church to have any impact at all, I have to do just as much calling of already-Christians to really follow Jesus as I do genuinely non-Christians.

I'll comment on the penal substitutionary atonement thing in another post.

[Bob]

No- not pissed off... just trying to type between minor crises with three and 1/2 year old :) My apologies for sounding so...

"So bottom line for me is that if I want my church to have any impact at all, I have to do just as much calling of already-Christians to really follow Jesus as I do genuinely non-Christians."

I agree totally. As long as we never settle for either one alone!

[Mike Clawson]

Hey, Mike - you dropped the "repent and believe" part from your explanation of how Jesus understood and stated the gospel. That's still a big part too, right?

Nope, didn't drop it - just didn't have time to give a full explanation of the gospel here in someone's blog comments. Yes, of course Jesus gospel message was "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand".

Now how many evangelicals do you think know that repent means more than "pray the sinners prayer" and that it actually has to do with living a different way of life?

And as Scott said- this ridiculous characterization of substitutionary atonement (which is one undeniable, biblical facet of the work of Jesus, along with others) has to stop.

Well, I wouldn't call it "undeniable" since frankly, I deny it. Or rather, I deny the Anselmian/Calvinist theology of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I agree that substitutionary atonement itself is biblical, just not that particular twist on it.

And maybe I have mischaracterized it, but I don't think so. Trust me, I am rather familiar with it - having grown up with it my whole life. I even have John Piper's book on "Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die" and chapter 1 is "to absorb the wrath of God". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the doctrine of PSA is that God is angry at sin and demands punishment, and yet because of his love for us he offers Jesus to be punished instead of us. So God is satisfied because someone got punished, and we are saved because it was Jesus and not us.

Which of course leaves us with the question "How does punishing an innocent help anything? If God is supposed to be just, how is that just?"

Granted, the turning aside of God's wrath is scriptural, but the PSA interpretation of what this means has far too low a view of Trinitarian theology IMHO. The way it gets talked about by Piper and many others sets it up as if God the Father and Jesus are separate, and that God takes out his wrath by punishing the Son, as if the Son was not also God.

But frankly I don't think the point of the atonement was that God was saving us from Himself. I think God was saving us from sin. The point of the atonement is not that God turned aside his wrath by punishing someone else, but that he turned aside his wrath by refusing to punish at all. Jesus died not because God was punishing him, but because God refused to retaliate against those of us who were "punishing" him.

It's a subtle difference but it makes all the difference in the world IMO. I talk to a lot of atheists, and while most of them are repulsed by the idea of a God who punishes innocent people for the sins of others, they are attracted to the idea of a God who loves us so much that he chooses not to punish, but to forgive and not retaliate against the evil being doing to him. And frankly, I am too. IMHO, that is the meaning of the cross - the triumph of the way of love over the way of violent retribution.

Peace
-Mike