Mark Driscoll in his own words...

Yeah, John Macarthur in his Truth War mentions him as the "cussing pastor." He's quite a character.

 

I've listened to Driscoll and read enough of his current theological mood (including part of this one). Comparatively he lacks maturity, gravity, and is reactionary. In the end I find Driscoll to be more of the same but with the slogan:

"We're cool too, we just do it the right way". It would behoove Driscoll to enlighten himself with weightier thoughts than chasing down Halo 3 gamers with a new vid box stamped with "Jesus Rulz". In fact here is one he might consider (though I am not a Lutheran I certainly respect the seriousness and maturity reflected in these words from the LCMS concerning the culture of the church):

From the LCMS by By Dr. Arthur A. Just, Jr.

“However, many do not realize that Lutheran worship is its own culture, distinct from the pop culture and the evangelical culture of Christianity in our country today. The church must develop and maintain its own cultural language that reflects the values and structures of the Scriptures and not of the current culture. This church language can only be shaped by a biblical theology which affirms the real presence of Jesus Christ in worship and our belief that this presence binds the culture together as a community. The context that shapes our distinct Lutheran ethos is Scripture, theology, and history. Local circumstance is secondary. Traditionally, this Lutheran culture is liturgical, theological, and counter- cultural.”

 

Driscoll holds to some sound doctrine. Where he falls short is on the doctrine of epistemology. 1 Cor 2:11

His methology is based on a flawed understanding of how man comes to understand the gospel. The premise of the Emerging Church is ungodly and allows for comprimising of the gospel. The Emerging Church is heretical.

 

This is a repeated assumption that cannot be known unless you sit beside those who are accused while they study this. It is often used as a way to discredit opposing view points but in has no basis in fact. What happens is the criticle characterizations are what is not really liked. But I find most are made with clarity.

 

Why is this?

 

Since this is a constant drum beat of thse who defend The EC I want to know why you all constantly assume this. It has no basis yet I can get none of you to answer my question. Why do you assume this?


I have heard it. I read his blog. As I have aleady told you I read emerging blogs and writings almost on a daily basis. I suppose you think that because Driscoll seperates himself from McLaren and Pagitt that it somehow clears up his error. Now can you answer my question?

 

I was at the Convergent Conference. Driscoll did great and I fully appreciate him, his ministry, and his desire to reach people. He did a good job in his presentations and I think he is in a very (self-admittedly) different place personally in regards to his arrogance and humility issues. He publicly repented of his cussing and arrogance, again, during the conference.

Nothing but good things to say about Driscoll.

Saying the "Emerging Church is heretical" is silly and simply wrongheaded, you don't get it and refuse to try to get it. Enough on that.

 

As I figured cannot answer why you continue to make such an unfounded accusation.

 

You may want to actually read my post. I d not know how much clearer I ca be. And once again you have avoided my question.

 

Here is where I responded to your question, Noice the red highlighted answer to your qestion that is so very obvious:

Now are you going to answer mine or can you?

 

Actually I agree with most all of what I heard from him. except when at anytime he or anyone else suggests that pople understand the gospel based on subculture. Subculture has no part to play in understanding the gospel. And there is no evidence that I have ever reached any conclusion about the EC based on what other people have said. It is false mantra. And DRiscoll is nt the begining and the end of he EC. He s just one fish in a big pond.