The Claims of Mark Driscoll
On Friday, September 21st, 2007 a man named Mark Driscoll delivered a message to the Convergent Conference of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Pastor Driscoll founded the Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington and he remains the senior pastor there today. He is championed by some and rejected by others and it is safe to say although he professes a reformed theology he is unconventional to say the least.
He had a association with the emergent movement for a season during the 1990’s but now has distanced himself from the movement. He is sometimes crass and has even been known to use off color and inappropriate language in the pulpit and in other public places. He seems to have a cavalier and detectable arrogance in his demeanor, and even admits to having a temper and an abrasive personality that can be noticed without much trouble. He seems at home with that, and admits it as if a disclaimer rather than a request for prayer and something he should be very troubled by, because Christlikeness is not a pursuit in the realism of today’s evangelical world.
By his own admission he is still friends with and likes Brian MacLaren and Doug Pagitt, and does not know personally Rob Bell but thinks highly of him. I have said all this in order to present a backdrop for the message that Driscoll delivered to this particular convention. He is no flame throwing fundamentalist or doctrinal watchman, in fact he has joined hands with these men and still admits to fellowshipping with at least Pagitt. So if Driscoll would stand and publicly, and with the knowledge he was being recorded for distribution, denounce the teachings of these men would it hold more credibility than those whose every breath seems to center on reproof and rebuke? And if he is actually telling the documented truth about the resources that these men use for their teachings what does that mean to anyone who hears and believes his claims?
I have been always cautious and suspicious about the teachings of these men because they seem purposefully elusive and aware of what open pronouncements bring with them. Couched in “musings” or “what if’s” they can introduce certain redemptive uncertainties without actually endorsing them and the questions that would follow such endorsements. It is dishonest to stand and toss out things you say you don’t believe later and through speaking techniques you carelessly plant lies and heresies in the suggestive minds of many Christians who are already being bombarded by theological flying objects from every corner of the ecclesiastical world.
To unravel their teachings is a non-exact science simply based on their mercurial nature and the implied notion that somewhere under all the philosophical coyness was a solid evangelical belief system. And if indeed there wasn’t a solid orthodox base, then these teachings would be a toxic mix of gnosticism, spiritualism, intellectualism, and even humanism. And now someone “emerges” from within the very boardroom of these doctrinal persuasions and openly rejects their teachings and encourages everyone else to do like wise. I exhort you to listen to what one of their own has to say about the extent to which the emergent movement has now moved away from solid Biblical teachings. I have two sons in a solid evangelical Bible school who I would immediately remove if any of these men were on the faculty.
Listen to the resources these men use for truth. I must distance myself at the same time from those ivory tower watchman who have no tears and collect methodology, doctrine, music, and any and all things not approved by them and relentlessly attack with names of derision and enjoy a good round table mocking. This is no time for self righteousness about ourselves no matter where we stand theologically, this seems to be a time to gather the women and children and run for cover to the prayer closet and the safety of Biblical truth. Listen and get a peek into their world, listen closely to their sources, and then hear Driscoll give insight into what we’ve dared not think they might actually be saying.
http://www.sebts.edu/Convergent/GeneralInfo/
Posts
8 comments:
Wow Rick. I was absolutely shocked to hear Driscol say some of those things --- I am still finishing it though. Thanks for pointing this out to us...
I SO appreciated you including the link! Driscoll is entertaining, and clearly educated in what he speaks of.
Couple of things - I am not sure I came to the same conclusions on Driscoll as you did... He talked about when he Used to be "overcompensating with arrogance and pride" because he felt like a young man who had to prove himself. He sited that as one of the reasons he had not spoken on the movement sooner. And I think, as someone who has seen firsthand the dangers of the movement, and distanced himself from it, he has every right to sound as though he is someone who knows the dangers he is talking of. I did not find him overly arrogant in his demeanor... Which actually connects to my next thought -
"The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Proverbs 28:10
I think that there are definately some who go too far in how they handle truth, and those that attack it. But, I believe you presented extremes - either those who have no tears and mock, or those who must run and hide in their prayer closets. You said yourself that "truth, if it is truth, will withstand testing." Not everyone is called to be an Ezekiel, or a Luther, or a McArthur. But some are. And, it is not fair to assume that they wrestle without tears. I have wept more over this situation with Bell being in my church, than over anything else this past year - for God's glory is at stake. I am mulling over Driscoll's statement "I don't want to be the man who is known for what he is against" and seeking guidance from the Lord in my approach. But, the righteous are bold, the truth is of utmost importance, and we are in a truth war - whether on the frontlines, or the sidelines....
oh - and a random aside - love your blog name - my oldest son's name is Judah....
Rick said: "I must distance myself at the same time from those ivory tower watchman who have no tears and collect methodology, doctrine, music, and any and all things not approved by them and relentlessly attack with names of derision and enjoy a good round table mocking. This is no time for self righteousness about ourselves no matter where we stand theologically, this seems to be a time to gather the women and children and run for cover to the prayer closet and the safety of Biblical truth."
As you know I abhor hyprocrisy as we all should. My Judge Not! study dealt with this. However, that is not to say that we should not confront error. You did a fine job of that here Rick. Thank you.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Thank you, Mike, my friend. It is a dangerous time but as you of all people will ackowledge, God will not be mocked.
Rick, Thank you for this post. This is needed to be heard more often.
Cristina
Rick,
I put this on another thread, bu you might not have seen it:
____________________
Rick,
I finally found it on iTunes.
1) MacLaren - nothing really surprised me in what Driscoll said
2) Padgitt - I don’t know him that well, and I think that a) Driscoll makes the right ’split’ between homosexual temptation and homosexual sin in his question; b) Padgitt’s answer was incorrect. Also, I missed the logic in the idolatry part, and I think I’d want to ask Padgitt some serious follow-up questions, though.
3) Bell -
1) MacLaren preached at Mars Hill one Sunday last summer (I have the file). There was nothing disagreeable in the sermon. Not someone I would have had preach at my church, but who knows what the arrangement/restrictions were. We sometimes have guest ministers preach on Sunday morning, and their subject and sermon are always pre-approved by the eldership.
2) Bell does frequently go to rabbinical sources - particularly for contextual help (supporting, not primary usage), and primarily pre-Christian/first-century contemporary sources. Driscoll has a particular ‘bone to pick’ with modern Judiasm and a local (Seattle) rabbi that he has interviewed on multiple occasions. Bell does not argue for a return to Judiasm or ritual practice. I disagree with Driscoll’s casting of Bell’s usage of first-century context.
3) Trajectory hermeneutic - this follows William Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexual hermeneutic, which I do not completely agree with (I think it misses some nuances in Ephesus), but (contrary to Driscoll’s summary) shows that homosexuality is not a “cultural” issue (like braiding of hair), and is not on a ‘trajectory’. This is the opposite of what Driscoll portrays.
4) The Virgin Birth and Velvet Elvis. On the same page as the example Bell uses, he reaffirms his belief in the VB. Personally, I wish he would have used a different example (maybe even something as incendiary as literal vs. figurative 6-day creation) to make his point. I disagree with Driscoll’s point on “making scripture lie about Jesus” - Bell was saying that sometimes we interpret scriptures a specific way, based on English paraphrase, and that perhaps our interpretation is not always correct.
5) Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything” - I’m not familiar with the book . [Just to add, in the footnotes of the same book that Bell mentions this book, he also gives effusive praise to one of John Piper's books. Does this make Bell a Calvinist, as well?]
I do not have much comment concerning Driscoll's remarks other than he needs to address his habit of using the word "uh". I listened to his lecture at the Convergence Conference and I quit counting his use of "uh" at around 55-60.
Post a Comment