You will need to read through this but here is a good resource:
http://criswell.files.wordpress.com...lPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch[Driscoll].PDF
Mark Driscoll in his own words...
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by PastorSBC1303, Oct 5, 2007.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
THanks, I printed it out and will give it a read.
-
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 :) -
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! -
-
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. -
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: -
2Timothy, I have read this article you posted on here and I fail to see anything to support your thoughts. Can you paste on here the quotes you are referring to? -
-
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. :) -
-
Yet when I read it...it sure got me off of mine. -
2. But in John Macarthur's Truth War, he paints Driscoll in a bad light with his cussing. -
-
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. -
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: -
Thanks for the comments TC, glad you listened.
I do not always agree with Driscoll, but I have found him to be a good read/listen. And I do think he gets a bad rap from some people for things that are simply not true.
I am glad God has called men like Driscoll to the ministry.
Page 2 of 5