Mark Driscoll in his own words...

There is an assumption going on here that the reason for any decline in the church is a result of flawed methods. No where in scripture does it suggest this will ever be the case. And it overlooks some very important factors. We have spent the last three or more decades "winning people" at any cost that we have brought many into the flock who claim to have had a conversion but show no fruit of such. As a result of reaching high numerical goals we have let a large number of lost people into the church who take part in decision making.

We have many revival meetings and no actual revivals. There is much more evidence of a loss of power from the Holy Ghost beyond evangelism. Contrary to popular belief what goes on in the sanctuary is not about evangelism and evangelism is not the big picture in our worship. Worship is about coming to God with a focus only on Him. We come to worship expecting to get nothing in return. The church has lost its way on worship.

I am never impressed with those who say " I wouldn't come to church for years, but then I found church so and so and I liked it because it made me comfortable". People who are drawn by the Father and have a heart for God will come regardless of the comfort level. Because they are ready to worship God with no expectation of anything in return. Much like the Publican who was compared to the Pharisee, much like Zacheas, even like the Samaritan woman.

The church has lost its way because we have filled it with lost people who are only looking for their own interests such as being culturally relevant.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Psalm 126:6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.


The rich young ruler wanted to come to God his way. He did not want to submit to God. He wanted salvation. Knew he needed it. Understood that Christ was the one to go to for it. But he walked away sorrowful. Because he wanted to do it his way. Would it have been better for Christ to be culturally relevant to the culture of the rich to not suggest that he sell everything he had? The rich have their culture as well.

In the passages I listed above one tells us how to go to the lost. With a broken heart carrying the Word of God. The other tells us how to come to God. Seeking Him with all of our hearts. People who are looking for the church with the right clothes and the right music etc. are not doing this. They are like the rich young ruler trying to hang on to their hangup. Why is there so much division in our churches? Because we are all trying to hang on to our hangups.

Driscoll has it wrong. The cutlure doesn't determine the life of "Othodoxy" the Holy Ghost does. The church needs to be as concerned for the purity of the church as it is evangelism. It needs to strive for a faith like George Muller. The church doesn't need more and better methods. That is a secular mind set that has nothing to do with God. The church needs the power of the Holy Ghost. The church needs to be on its knees until that happens. The church needs a true heart for God. There is no power in the church because the church has quite relying on the Holy Ghost and instead has replaced Him with words like "Orthodoxy" "whatever it takes" "culturally relevant" etc. What the church needs to do is get on its knees.


By the way I take exception to your statement that I have made statements about Driscoll based on what I have read others say about him. First I rarely ever mention anyone in particular in the EC. Second You need to find my statements that you think support such an accusation and post them. It has never happened.

 

I'm partial to second servings. :thumbs: My thoughts again.

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.”

 

Excellent points! We have had our differences but it is a thing of beauty when we agree!

I'm not a huge Driscoll supporter and I believe his simplistic dichotomies about fundamentalism also extend to his opinions about portions of the emerging church that he has conflict with. Particularly Emergent which is not very popular with evangelicals.

But I do appreciate Driscoll as a bridge for communicating some of the valuable elements of emerging Christianity to evangelicals in a way that they can understand.

I had my small group today and one of the passages was Leviticus 18:1-5 where God tells the people of Israel not to be like the cultures around them but to be holy and set apart. This counterculturalness is a concept that I believe the emerging church and all Christians need to keep in balance with Paul's cultural sensitivity in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

 

PastorSBC1303,

You seem to be a fan of Mark Driscoll, do you agree with his statement that if you are a fundamentalist's you are are in sin, and need to repent?

 

You think Macarthur was inaccurate because you listened to one sermon?

 

Usually when Mark Driscoll speaks of fundamentalists...it is not simply someone who believes in the fundamentals of the faith. Fundamentalist has taken a very negative connotation to it, and rightfully so. Although I definitely consider myself as one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith, as would Mark Driscoll, I think he is speaking of those who have given themselves certain reputations. It doesn't take a lot of searching to find out what those are.

 

IMO it didn't sound like he was joking at all, and I don't recall hearing any laughter after he said it, so I don't think the audience took it that either. If he was serious, I think that should be a big red flag about his character and level headiness.

 

Do you think Macarthur is accurate because of one of his books?

 

He didn't even attempt to make one distinction.

 

I am not that concerned, I thought since you were recommending him here to others, that you might be.

 

Well, I guess you have to understand where he is coming from. He makes all sorts of distinctions in his books, and elsewhere. I'll say that I agree with him because I know what he's talking about. Frankly, if you still think that being a "fundamentalist" is a good thing today, based on what that means....then you might want to broaden yourself into understanding of what people TODAY understand that to mean. Usage determines meaning. Fundamentalist means more negative today than positive. It's a fact of the change in times. Instead of sitting back and saying that is wrong, and people are wrong for using it negatively, blame those who gave it the negative connotation.

 

No, I think MacArthur is reliable because of many of his books (and sermons, articles, not to mention the testimony of his ministry).

It's clear to me from reading this thread that Driscoll has a reputation for profane speech, and if I were to research it I would expect to find ample evidence from an array of independent sources. (Whether that disqualifies him or not is not the point of this statement.) I found it odd that one would so quickly discount the criticism from a man who has the reputation for wisdom and knowledge based on one thing he heard from a fella who has a reputation for being immature and profane.

 

I have never read any of his books. I read this Op and he was recommended to listen to. People were posting their opinion and I did as well. I believe that the speaker has the responsibility to make clear what he means to the listener. Why is the onus on me to research after the fact about everything someone says so that I can understand what he did or didn't mean? It is absurd to think that is the responsibility of the listener. I can only take from him what he says.

 

Okay, exactly. You think MacArthur is reliable because of the totality of his ministry and influence. I would suggest that it is the same with Driscoll. Driscoll may have gotten a bad rap, not based on one sermon, but because either PastorSBC, or myself have read and/or seen his ministry for years. Just as we all appreciate MacArthur for all of his works, Driscoll can't be discounted because of one book. I don't care if it is MacArthur or whoever. I would suggest along with Pastor SBC that instead of just taking MacArthurs thoughts in one book, get more familiar with Driscoll.

Oh yeah, get over the bad words. If you are still stuck on Driscoll being a "cussing pastor", you're dwelling on old news. Another reason to learn more about him, he's actually delt with that a long time ago. I'm tempted to throw a cuss word in this line, but I don't want to be banned!:laugh:

 

This is funny.....I'd now like to officially recommend you reading "Radical Reformission" and "Confessions of a Reformission Rev." by Mark Driscoll.:laugh:

There is still nothing wrong with anything Driscoll said...whatever the fundie comment was...

Usage determines meaning. That is, usage in 2007 not in 1967.

 

He is certainly an interesting man. I do not know, though.

 

It did not happen and since you cannot back up your accusation it cannot be deemed reliable.