Blogger CD-Host, in the post The SBC is Wary of the likes of Mark Driscoll, referring to Driscoll says that “we need a real conservative who actually understands postmodernist thought.”
Pastor Mark Driscoll views himself in the same light:
(Also at: Aberration Blog and The Scroll)
Driscoll believes:
- He preaches the Jesus of the Historic Christian Faith.
- He has to contextualize the gospel in his city, becoming all things to all people to save some (1 Cor. 9:19-23)—without compromising.
- He believes many in the Emergent community are engaging in heresies—because they continue to redefine the God of the Bible.
Pastor Driscoll was responding to a letter from Phil Johnson, executive produce of Grace to You, a half-hour radio program that features the teaching ministry of Dr. John MacArthur.
Thanks TC for posting this video. I would like to take a moment and briefly address some of the points he raised.
1. His point(s) about the Bride of Christ are well taken. As far as I am aware, Mr. Driscoll is correct that the Bible refers to the Church (as a whole) as the Body/Bride of Christ. Individual Christians certainly make up that body/bride but we are not the body/bride. I am also in agreement with Mr. Driscoll about the disturbing language some modern evangelicals use in reference to Christ. Christ is not our “lover” as some have claimed, He is our Lord. Yes, we are to have a loving relationship with Him. But that is a loving friendship, a loving slave – master relationship. Not a romantic relationship.
2. In connection with the first point, I agree with his points on the Song of Solomon. I can find no Biblical reason to read into that Song anything about a Christian’s relationship with Christ. The Song of Solomon is about a bride and a groom in a romantic relationship. As I have already said, I do not believe we have a romantic relationship with Christ.
3. As for his making a mockery of false the false Jesus being preached by cults and other false groups. I would caution Mr. Driscoll since leavity can be misuderstood. The subject of Christ is very, very serious. Those who do not believe in the Biblical/Historical Jesus should be shown from the Scriptures that their view(s) are distorted. Leavity only serves to confuse the issue since they are likely to get defensive or dismissive. Also true Christians should realize that false Christs are not anything to laugh at. These are very serious issues that determine people’s eternal destinies. There is no room for leavity on such a serious subject.
4. I am disturbed by his continual assertion that others maybe more conservative than him. What does he mean by this? Is he saying that, to some degree, he is a theological liberal? A very strange assertion on his part.
TC, if you don’t mind, I would like to post this video and my response on my blog. Let me know, I will not do so until you give me permission.
Martin.
Martin (re #3):
I think Driscoll has characterized himself as conservative theologically but culturally liberal (whatever that means) in the past. I’m guessing that’s what he was getting at. It certainly would be a strange assertion if he were talking theologically.
Martin, I’m with you until #4: I think he’s referring to the fact that even though he’s theologically conservative that he’s go places where someone like John MacArthur, as conservative as he, would not go.
Sure, use the video. It’s there to be used.
Justin, his point of reference for some of his methods is Paul and 1 Cor. 9:19-23, as he mentioned in the video.
I just realized that the one being critical here is one of the “pyromaniacs”.
Is anyone really surprised that he has a problem with Driscoll? They have a problem with everyone don’t they? Is MacArthur very far off? He’s already basically said that everyone but YEC dispensationalists are unorthodox. I think an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that all these people actually do is criticize other Christians who aren’t reformed baptists.
Justin, yeah, that Johnson.
Dr. MacArthur is still a fundy at heart, hence the criticism of Driscoll. But Driscoll honors him at the end of the video.
Yeah, I have a problem with the fundamentalism of MacArthur, as solid an exegete as he has been.
I don’t pastor the same type of church Mark does, but if I did I can see myself saying things much in the same manner that he does. I have my disagreements with Mark theologically, but whatever method works to get the Gospel out that is authentic and not the old bait and switch method is fine by me.
I never got why Johnny Mac would intentionally go after Driscoll, take away the “bad” words and they are the same guy, fundamentalist/Calvinist
I never got why Johnny Mac would intentionally go after Driscoll, take away the “bad” words and they are the same guy, fundamentalist/Calvinist
That’s precisely the point of disagreement. The core point of the neo-evangelical movement….
Driscoll believes you Christian culture and Christian theology are separable. That theological orthodoxy does not require fundamentalist cultural values.
MacArthur believes that fundamentalist culture values are a natural application of the scriptures the two go hand in hand. If you are rejecting his culture then you by definition rejecting part of his bible.
TC,
“I’m with you until #4: I think he’s referring to the fact that even though he’s theologically conservative that he’s go places where someone like John MacArthur, as conservative as he, would not go”
==Ok, I just did not understand his point there. Thanks for permission to use the video/reply.
Martin.
Jerry B, that’s exactly what Driscoll is saying, but a MacArthur doesn’t get it or don’t want to get it.
I was in a conference back in May where MacArthur came up as challenging younger pastors’ methodologies. It’s his fundamentalism.
CD, I’m with you to a point.
Martin, Driscoll view himself as theologically conservative but not the MacArthur type, hence his calling out of some in the Emergent community.
Looking forward to your reply.
Jerry:
I think Johnny Mac would disagree with your statement, not just in the cultural distinctions that Cd-Host mentioned above, but also as far as theological distinctions. This can be painted as a disagreement over Driscoll’s methods, but its hard not to see it also as simply an excuse for MacArthur & others to go after someone who they disagree with on a deeper level.
To put it simply: Johnny Mac has painted nearly everyone except reformed baptists (and not even all of them) as outside the circle. So why bother? How do these people feel that they can say anything at all to Driscoll (or almost anyone else) at this point? It’s a one-sided conversation.
I personally feel Driscol brought it all home when he stated,
Don’t be another generation of guys known by what their against. Don’t get caught up in shooting all your brothers and arguing over secondary matters…share the good news about the forgiveness of sin offered…
Bryon, I was of the same mind-set as you’re. I feel the same way about secondary matters. We usually divide over the secondary matters.
Driscoll is dead on. Thanks for transcribing that piece.
Wearing hip clothes and using the latest lingo on the part of Driscoll doesn’t for me, make his fundamentalism any less offensive then Johnny Mac’s.
Jerry B, at some point, all this becomes relative. I’m sure you would agree.
My point of view if from my understanding of the bible. There is only one Jesus Christ and only our own point of view could be wrong. Pastors or brothers/ sisters, or just people are the only ones who can be mistake. Jesus Christ will not and has not changed. I could never speak from an others point of view because I see through what God has allowed for me to see and only understand what God has allowed me to understand. For me to assume I understand what “others” are meaning and intending without respect to God giving each one understanding I could be “judging” my brother, be completely right BUt totally off the message of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 7(ESV) Jesus Speaking to his disciples and the crowd.) Sounds like I must be careful and watch myself.
These “issues” only come up when we begin to focus on each other in stead of Jesus Christ. John Macarthur, TD jakes, Piper, Driscoll and who ever your favorite preacher is really doesnt matter when the bible clearly says each one will give an account for themselves, not each other, and teachers will be judged (james 3 ) with greater strictness. We all stumble in many ways…..I say we stay focused on Jesus Christ, stand on the word be lead by the holy spirit allowing God to work through us and in us so we can be like Paul in Philippians 3:8-11
Amen!
PIPER PRIDE STOPS JOHN FROM PREACHING …?
Dealing something with the3se comments in other replies-MacArthur never denied being a fundamentalist. Basically the association he is in originally started by Torrey called the Independent Fundamental Churches of America.
Recently published a book on the fundamentals of the faith.
They are not the same. Drischoll claims Pentacostalism which obviously macArthur denies as a valid viewpoint scripturally.
Drischoll claims he is missional. This ideal of being Missional is not a nuetral teaching and to me puts him in the same camp as all these other emergent types-yah-I think he is a trojan horse. All that he speaks of being emergent so as to use technology of the day to get his message out-MacArthur and many other fundamentalists/Calvinists ministries uses the same technology. In fact, in large part fundamentalism has always ised modern technology i.e. Meachem on the radio teaching fundamentalism and against liberalism in the latest modern inventions.
So on ine hand you have fundamentalism having no problem using modern technology which is quite diferent from judging the word of God by modernism/Postmodernism and his big thing is to say he is emerging or emergent because he uses modern technology-I just wander if anyone sees a problem with this soince no fundamentalist group really has no problem using modern technology(internet, blogs, youtube) and still feels the need to call himself emergent.