This time at the Convergent conference. Via bob.blog:
He uses the word “heresy” in and around the discussion, and while he doesn’t apply it directly to the forehead of either Brian, Doug or Rob, he doesn’t leave a whole lot of doubt as to what category he places these guys in mentally…
I agree with most of Bob’s analysis here. I used to enjoy his preaching, but eventually found him to be something of a one-trick-pony. I grew tired of his abrasive style six or eight months ago. About a year ago I was listening to both Driscoll and Bell (after my late discovery of Nooma), but my iTunes stopped updating them long ago because I wasn’t listening (I am still listening to Matt Chandler, though). I quit listening to Bell after six or seven weeks when I realized his preaching wasn’t breathing any Spirit-life into me. Driscoll’s was, but it was sucking it all back with sarcasm and condescension.
Adam has some other things to say about the lecture.
For those of you who don’t want to listen to the entire 80+ minute lecture, here are some
ridiculoussnippets from it:
- I don’t mind a conversation…but when God speaks, we are not to converse, we are to obey.
- Brian McLaren was asked this question: “What is your position on gay marriage?” His answer was this: “You know what? The thing that breaks my heart is that there is no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.” To which I would respond: “Now you have hurt God.”
- The Southern Baptist Convention of North Carolina is bringing him [Doug Pagitt] to teach in October. Shame on you.
- If Rabbis don’t love Jesus, they have a bad hermeneutic.
- The Bible is all about Jesus. Ultimately, it’s all…about…Jesus.
- Brian McLaren also has a new organization called “Deep Shift” and I think somebody inadvertently put an “F” in there.
- I believe Emergent is, like Judas, in the process of hanging itself.
- And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations; I’ll tell you as one on the inside, they don’t have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it’s all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they’re not.
I agree that points 1, 2, 6, and 7 are pretty “ridiculous“. But I’d like to point out a few things.
First, while I have no idea (since I’m lacking context and I can’t read Mark’s mind) where he was going with the “now you’ve hurt God” comment, McLaren’s response to the question was an act of cowardice. If you want to be a spokesperson for the Truth, you have to be willing to speak it, understanding that someone’s going to feel hurt. You don’t have to worry though, because if you’re really speaking the Truth, and that person is really hearing it, a soul will be saved. But it’s impossible to speak the truth if the thing that breaks your heart is that someone will be hurt by it. The thing that breaks my heart is that Christians are willing to compromise so much to be considered forward thinkers.
If you’ve read my review of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, you know how I feel about Doug Pagitt. He is a skeptic in the purest sense of the word. He offers no constructive position theologically, but only casts doubts on others beliefs. His biggest critique of Driscoll seems to be that his theology hasn’t changed in ten whole years (I wish I could pull quotes but a friend borrowed my book and moved to Kansas). He criticizes Dan Kimball’s (or John Burke’s, I can’t remember) image of a ship in a storm anchored by Christ. It may move, but it stays rooted in the truth. Pagitt criticizes it by suggesting that the ship should be moving from port to port, not staying still. I don’t think they should invite him to teach, because it seems that he’ll simply teach them to doubt traditional doctrines and be willing to fold on the major issues of the faith.
Why is it ridiculous to say that a rabbi that doesn’t love Jesus has a bad hermeneutic? I guess it links to the declaration that the Bible is all about Jesus. Everything in the Old Testament that follows Abram’s call is about the fulfillment of the promise. How is that promise fulfilled? In Christ.
As for the last statement, I’ve been wondering about this lately. Missional Reformed churches seem to be reaching so many more people for Christ than “pomo” and Emergent movement churches that the trumpet call from Emergent Village and others like them is beginning to ring hollow. It seems that most, if not all, liberal/progressive/emergent theologians are the “disgruntled children of evangelicalism” (see here, here, and here). Are they reaching the lost? It would seem that for all their talk, their best bet in reaching lost souls would be in Seattle, where Driscoll is booming with over 6,000 members (claiming 40% as converts), and Karen Ward’s Church of the Apostles has around 80.
You’ll also find that a lot of Driscoll’s critics “are just as smug and sure as he is”, while they decry his rigid theology and arrogant manner. While Mark is clearly stretching the upper age limits of adolescence, he is seeing emergent theology quite clearly.
Should we go on sinning because we are under grace and not under the Law? Of course not! We have to live up to the standard of the one we follow. But how can we hold that position when it’s clear that were saved by God’s grace and not by anything we do?
He then goes on to quote letters from people implied to be Christian leaders to expose the “weakness of the religious mind.” He chooses a sample of writers that in no way reflects the intellectual elites of Christianity to compare to the genius of Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking. This seems like a slightly unfair comparison. Why not sample writings from C.S. Lewis or Alister McGrath? Why not find some people with M.Div.’s from Princeton and Yale? It’s simple, Dawkins is trying to (not-so)subtly set up his second point: that smart people are atheists and Christians/religious people are dumb.
Last Sunday was my last day as the youth minister at the Lutheran church. It was a tough day, but at the end my wife and I knew we were following God, and things have been well since then.
One of the hardest things about being on the conservative/traditional side of a Christian theological debate is dealing with statements like this:
