Mark Driscoll in his own words...

You will need to read through this but here is a good resource:


http://criswell.files.wordpress.com...lPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch[Driscoll].PDF

 

There is a real difference between Emergent and Emerging - confusion reigns! McLarren is Emergent and I would agree has some major issues that we are and should be concerned with. Driscoll is solid - I have heard a few of his messages on You Tube - they are fantastic. I also heard the convergent conference over the web - I also enjoyed the Q&A session. The emerging folks did enjoy giving a gentle jab to the SBCers from time to time in the Q&A.

If I am not mistaken, Driscoll is Donald Miller's (Blue Like Jazz) pastor.

I would love for that convergnce conference to go on the road, but dont imagine Paige Patterson going in a direction like that here in the DFW area - or at least allowing such a conference to happen at his seminary (perhaps after he has headded off to be pres of the IMB his sucessor will have something like it

 

I believe Donald Miller is actually in Rick McKinley's church (Imago Dei in Portland). He gave Driscoll the name "the cussing pastor" after having dinner with him one time I believe. Driscoll talks about it in one of his books. He has publicly talked about his speech and his failures in that area as well as other areas.

In response to the general conversation, people do need to listen to Driscoll to get an accurate view of him, IMO. I have listened to him for five or six years though not much in the last few years. He is mostly orthodox. I think he is too easily given to false dichotomies and to making points based on extremes. His view of fundamentalism is extremely flawed because he focuses on a narrow segment of fundamentalism and ignores the genius of what fundamentalism actually is. I think he is too simplistic in some of his statements and positions.

I think the claim about subculture and gospel is a bit misleading. To say that subculture or culture plays no role in understanding the gospel is inadequate. The Bible gives us plenty of examples of the gospel addressing different audiences. When Paul went to the Jews, he started with OT reasoning that Jesus was the Christ (ACts 17). When he was with non-Jews, it seems he started at a different place, namely, that God exists, he was the creator, and is the judge and you will answer to him (Acts 17). To start with the OT with Gentiles would have made no sense to them becuase their "subculture" was not familiar with nor did it accept the OT.

So we need to be a bit more careful with our statements, IMO. Overall, I think Driscoll is decent. He has a great heart for ministry, yet IMO he too often approaches it in the wrong way.

 

I think you'd have to try real hard to discount guys like Driscoll. People don't come as authentic as he is. Does he have issues? Sure. Has he screwed up? Yep. Does he put on a plastic face and pretend he hasn't? Never...which is why I think many don't like him. He's REAL. He really loves Jesus too. He loves leading others to Him, and he loves his church. Driscoll is a model for leadership in that he is sincere in his passion to follow Jesus, and in leading others to Him.

It takes a lot to discount him....unless you're way too picky....which some are!

 

Unfortunately, this is not the totality of the biblical qualifications for leadership. There are also things like "above reproach" and "dignity" and the like. And I like Driscoll. I admire much about him. He has taken a strong stand on some very controversial issues and has suffered some heat for it (to put it lightly). But in some areas, he is not a model for leadership. "Being real" won't fix that. Fixing it will fix it. Part of the problem is that he, in some public areas, has not demonstrated self-control with his tongue and has not demonstrated discernment, particularly in areas of culture and Christianity. "Being real" about making mistakes is only necessary because of the lack of spiritual and occupational maturity to begin with. I have never had to "be real" about using profanity from the pulpit, or making crass comments. So "being real" about these things is not necessarily all that admirable in some ways. (And remember, I like Driscoll for the most part). But the Bible is pretty picky about who leads the church. We should be too.

 

Right...I didn't go through the entire list of biblical qualifications for leadership...but obviously my support would assume that I think he fits those. My main point is that I really appreciate him because he isn't fake. There are a lot of plastic leaders who "fit" the biblical qualifications, but in reality, are not real, or authentic in their faith. They have it in their mind that they've got it figured out, and all together.

A great quote from Erwin Mcmanus from this past weekend at Catalyst..."The miracle is not that I have all of my pieces together, the miracle is that every day God picks up all of my pieces and puts them back together." My observation was meant to address sincerity versus fake. I definitely agree with you that there is more to biblical leadership than being real.

 

That's great, but isn't all that admirable in some cases. Isn't "being real" admirable for a leader when he has committed adultery? Not really. We recognize that he is disqualified. But this demonstrates how we raise some qualifications for pastor above others, and I think we do it to the detriment of the church.

I can't comment on that, though it is probably true. But everyone who isn't "real" to you because they are not as crass as Driscoll isn't necessarily plastic.

I think Erwin McManus is a guy with a huge amount of problems theologically and philosophically. Catalyst is made of people like him, and I find that troubling.

What these guys have in common is a too high elevation of contemporary culture as a norm for biblical ministry. As a result, they end up compromising some biblical doctrines.

 

Oh boy....sounds like a couple of cans of worms opening with some of this...nevermind. I'll stick with my initial comments.

I think Driscoll is a great guy (as do you, it sounds like). I think he is edgy to some because he doesn't pretend. Sorry for my confusing post :thumbs:

 

All along I thought his "cussing" was a means of reaching the unsaved. Why did I get that impression?

 

I heartily disagree. As a disclaimer I am one of those "catalyst" guys, so maybe we are looking at the glass from a different angle.

Again I completely, and respectfully, disagree and suggest that this is a major misunderstanding of what really is behind the motivations of Catalyst. I was at the conference (also at Convergent) this last week and never heard a theologically shakey point being made.

Just because someone confronts the contextualization of the Gospel differently doesn't mean that we are at odds theologically. I am wholly orthodox and awfully conservative in many areas of my doctrine but also wholly embrace the ideas and intent behind this Catalyst network.

When we begin to realize that we are playing for the exact same time, just using different equipment, we can begin to realize that how we confront the Gospel in an increasingly Post-Christian society must be contextualized to engage them. This is no different from the message of the New Testament.

The reality is that you can be just as biblical and theologically centered wearing jeans and t-shirt as someone wearing a suit and tie. One of the reasons I buy into the Catalyst ideas comes from the place that I have checked their business theologically.

 

I agree....yet the reason I'm hesitant to explain myself is because no matter what you or I say, it doesn't really matter. These younger leaders are always going to be "not enough" of something for some. It causes them to look over everything else they say or do.

 

I sometimes find it humorous that "cussing" is so horendous to some. I don't know why....I guess I'm not to sensitive to a particular word....that is, unless that word is used in a horrendous way. I think many times people are way too sensitive as to what "words" people use yet it is their attitudes that make the things they say wrong. I remember John Piper not too long ago said the word "ass" at a conference. I can't remember the specific things he was saying, something about leaders needing to stop being lazy and study, or something like that... but his context was in no way immoral, or wrong. But of course, Piper "cussed"!

Yet when I read it...it sure got me off of mine.

 

1. I have to agree with you on Piper. He is like my contemporary theological hero, but I've heard him too, but the context is not immoral.

2. But in John Macarthur's Truth War, he paints Driscoll in a bad light with his cussing.

 

I think this is the kind of oversimplification that underlies the fact that we are not necessarily playing on the same team just using different equipment. If you, or anyone else, really thinks this is about whether we wear coats and ties or jeans and Tshirts, you have totally missed the point.

When you read 1 Cor 1-2 and 2 Cor 2-4, you see a NT gospel that is radically counter cultural, and that is presented simply and clearly. When you see the gospel of Catalyst and the EC movement, you see a gospel that is too often confused because of the hesitancy to declare without apology that there is absolute truth in the Word of God that governs all areas of life.

Furthermore, the means through which we communicate the gospel does matter. The medium is important, and there are underlying core philosophical issues at stake that need more careful consideration.

Piper's language was brought up. It was a dumb thing to say. The gospel does not need that kind of motivation. He apologized, as he should have.

 

I had never heard of him before, so I gave him a listen, here are my first impressions. I liked his testemony, and he is a good public speaker, I enjoyed listening to him. I don't really have an opinion about what type of preacher he really is, because this wasn't really a sermon. He seemed to be sound in doctrine as far as I could tell by this. I give him credit for what sounds like him separating from all that apostasy coming from the group he was associated with. Of course that brings up the question, how could he have been with them as long as he was? How sound is someone that finds themselves running with that thinking? Keep in mind I am just asking out loud, not judging, I don't know anything about this man other than the link provided here on this OP. Also I do commend him for the stand he was taking, and making it very clear, and backing it up with scripture.

I did find it a little ironic that he was criticizing what he feel are people too fundamental for separating too much, when in fact the majority of his message was who, what and why he was separating from. So basically he agrees with separating, but just believes he knows the correct point as to how to do that. That's how it sounded anyway.

As far as there having to be a new way to share the Gospel, because "we" are not saving enough. I don't know if I agree with that thinking. I agree 100% it is awful for there to be millions who haven't heard the Gospel, and we should desire that they all hear and be saved. But the way he puts it, it just doesn't sound quite right, like he and others like him are the answer, rather than God. Relying more on themselves. Relying I guess, in their wit, charm, hipness, smarter thinking to better at sharing the Gospel. I actually don't like when people overly criticize anyone and their methods in sharing the Gospel as long as it is biblically sound, and not compromising. So I doubt I would have much, or for that matter any problem with his, if I heard him preach it. But then that (overly criticize)is what he seems to be doing with a broad brush, to a large group of Godly people when he basically calls them outdated, with their methods causing churches to die. I thought it also ironic when he used Ecclesiastes as one example where we are not to long for the past. But then I also read where in verse 1:9 we are told that "there is nothing new under the sun". I guess my point is I think everyone should use there individual personalities when they share the Gospel, God has created us all as different individuals. So of course some peoples methods and styles will be different from others, There is a great benefit to that in that, as far as the variety of people that will be hearing that message. But let us not forget, it is the Holy Spirit that pricks or pierces our hearts, not a style of message. So I guess my point is, he likes a different style, God bless him in his ministry, but why the need to go that step further and condemn others, and make his way a cause. Seems kind of self righteous to believe that way.

All of this of course is from hearing him talk one time. I don't have very strong opinions because I don't know enough about him, just giving my first impressions to add to the discussion of the thread. The only real one thing I really felt strongly about that I didn't like, was that he called fundamentalist sinners. I think he crossed a line. I am not very conservative when it comes to many of the views that fundamentalist take on many issues. But as long as they view them as personal convictions, and not a legalistic approach, I respect those convictions greatly. It really is a heart issue, and not a label of people issue. I believe he is clearly wrong is issuing the blanket statement, that if you are a fundamental you are in sin, shame on him for saying that.

 

Thanks for pressing me.

1. I listened to the lecture you provided and I found nothing unorthodox or questionable in the presentation as far I understand the gospel. In fact, Driscoll affirms the same gospel that you and I would.

2. Also, he is not to be grouped with Maclaren and others of that nature. In this lecture, he reproves Maclaren and company.

3. Now, I can say, Driscoll got a bad rap from from Macarthur in the Truth War.

4. Before I forget, I found no offensive language. :thumbs: