Mark Driscoll @ the Resurgence:

Furthermore, in some sense, every Christian is to be a teacher who imparts biblical truth into the lives of others. For example, Colossians 3:16 is directed to an entire church: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”

I think too many people pass this work off to others - their ministers, Sunday School teachers, and small group leaders - saying they don’t know enough, or it’s not their role.  But we all share this role, and not knowing enough is no excuse…learn it.

The other day I was reading this poem by Karsten Piper (read it, the title of this post will then make sense) and started to think about the story of the Rich Young Ruler, particularly the ending. You know, the whole camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle thing.

I haven’t studied it a great deal, but in the past I’ve been taken in by a couple of rumors. First, the one about the gate outside of Jerusalem that was so small that a camel would have to crawl through unladen. Back in high school that seemed like the answer. No such place. The second was that the word for “camel” is the same as the word for “rope”. In Aramaic the jury is still out (for me), and the Greek words may be close but a mix-up is just speculation.

After looking into it for a while I read something that made me want to slap myself because the thought had never occurred to me, and I just can’t figure out why not: (continue reading…)

As I mentioned in The Supremacy of Christ, Adam at Pomomusings has some issues with Mark Driscoll. In his own words, he ‘just [doesn't] get this guy.” I think there’s more to it than that. It looks to me like he just doesn’t get the Gospel.

He states three problems with Driscoll’s chapter. First, he cites too much Scripture:

Mark apparently thinks that the number of Biblical citations is directly proportional to how faithful his chapter actually is to scripture? Seriously, he has 176 footnotes, 174 of which are practically lists of Bible verses for a 14-pg chapter.

Why is that a problem? A Christian pastor who’s been asked to lay out his theology should be backing up everything he has to say with Scripture. Part of my problem with progressive Christian theology is that it is moving away from the Bible as its source. Beyond that, comments like this imply that, not only is it alright not to use much Scripture, but a person who uses a lot is somehow deficient.

His second problem, the one that inspired my earlier post (and the title of this one), is that Driscoll is overly concerned with showing that Jesus and “the Christian revelation of God [are] distinct from and superior to all other views of God” (26). Adam calls this an “unhealthy need for power” on Driscoll’s part. But whose power is he talking about? Christ’s.

That’s what the Apostles taught:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 1:15-20

Our purpose is to glorify Christ. How can we do that without pointing to him as superior to all? Should we pretend that we believe him to be equal to others, just a different choice? Of course not!

Adam’s third problem is that Driscoll calls Jesus’ death the most important part of his life:

There it is - Jesus’ life, ministry, care for the poor - nope. Let’s focus on the most important thing: Jesus’ death.

There’s an easy explanation for Adam’s emotional response to this: he doesn’t understand the Gospel. The Gospel is not about healing and caring for the poor. Not as a first tier priority. The Gospel is about us being reconciled to God. How does that happen? God tabernacles among us, lives a sinless life and goes to the cross to bear the burden of our sin. The good news is that we can now be reconciled, regardless of our past, through the death and resurrection of Christ.

I’m not the scholar to explicate this, but they’re out there. Driscoll is one of them, though he’s mainly drawing on the work of others (which is fine). The atonement is important. It was big in the OT and the NT, and should be to us. Many came before and after teaching and preaching good works and care for the poor and outcast. The Passion and Divinity of Christ is what separates him from the others.

Many progressives choose to ignore that, and I don’t really know why. Can’t you be progressive while still acknowledging the basics of the Gospel?

It isn’t Christ-following. I’m amazed at what passes for Christian theology today. The message is truly proving to be “foolishness to those who are perishing.” Check this out. The OP has its own issues, such as the “conversion” we may experience while evangelizing. Commenter Matt MC said this: “I think I’m a little unclear though, on your intentions with those last two quotes. Is the evangelist’s “conversion” in question a broadening of perspective, or a recognition that somehow he has been preaching the wrong gospel?”

But I want to focus on the comments. With the advent of the postmodern movement and the much talked about breakdown of modernity (something I don’t see nearly as much of as some say), some mindsets have been welcomed into the church in the name of tolerance or diversity. Try to imagine Jesus’ response to this:

“Do I or you have the ‘truth?’ Are we so arrogant to think our religion is the correct one?[...]I don’t think my religion is any more true than anyone else’s and I have no desire to participate in their ’so-called’ [Isn't the term so-called enough without the quotes?] salvation.”

I don’t think he’d applaud with the audience of The View, I think a parable would follow…one resembling the man who built his house upon the sand. But that’s just me. My question is this: Why would you want to be part of a religious group and follow a religious leader (this being Jesus himself) who claims to hold all truth if you don’t think that’s possible?

That comment was followed by this one:

The biblical text itself contains so many voices, so many angles, and was written in so many contexts, all removed from ours significantly if by nothing else than time, that using it to form a firm confidence in exactly what God is up to feels, well…honestly impossible.

I’d like to see her expound on this statement in some meaningful way. What about those times and cultures and writers is so different from those that we live in now? Are we not still human? Are we not seeking joy and fulfillment? Do we not have family, and enemies, and suffering, and fear, and work, and rest, and everything else? It’s tiring to constantly hear people say, “things were different back then,” and never supporting it with even an explanation. So tell us how the voices, angles, and contexts were different and what that means to how we read the narrative of Scripture.

I also get the impression that she wouldn’t care to look into it further. Maybe I’m wrong about this particular person…maybe she has a passion for historical and sociological study of the ancient Hebrews. Perhaps she has a deeper understanding than I can surmise from her post. But judging from the others I’ve read with similar opinions, they’re happy enough with the doubt cast by their assertions to leave it at that.

What that does, effectively, is take all the burden and worry off of a person…they no longer have to concern themselves with being right, because it’s not possible. Unfortunately, God revealed himself in Christ, and in so doing said that if anyone denied him, rejected him, or was ashamed of him, that Christ would deny, reject, and be ashamed of him on the day of judgment.

Both of these commenters’ statements - that we are arrogant for claiming we can know the truth - are, in essence, being ashamed of Jesus. Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life”, that he was God, that he’d be seated at the Father’s right hand, that all who followed him would live forever, and all who rejected him were condemned. He was exclusive. And in today’s world that’s a sin.

Much like Republicans are distancing themselves from the President to avoid any shame that may come from being linked to his policies, so these “Christians” are distancing themselves from the controversial claims of Christ, and trying to be something a little more palatable for the world today. For their sake I hope they hear the rooster crow and get their butts back to the Master’s feet.

This post is about me. I can hear both of you saying, “Aren’t they all?” Well, yes. But this one isn’t about me, per se, but about “me”. As has been said many times, in many places, our culture is driven by the consumer. It used to just be an economic phenomenon, but it’s spread. The consumer determines whether or not you have a job, and how hard you work, and how much money you make. How much money you make determines how much money you spend when you get off work and become the consumer. The consumer determines what movies and TV shows get made, and what kinds of commercials air during those shows.

I know you’ve seen the whole “consumerism is EVIL!” rant before, so I’ll stop there. Suffice it to say that (several years ago) it made its appearance in the church. People started choosing churches based on what they “got out of it”. I’ve done it myself, and I hate that part of me.

Like I said, that was several years ago. When people started seeking church that way, rather than correcting that error, church leaders began to cater to it. Robert Webber says this in the intro to Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches:

While the sixties were the age of secularism in which God had been shoved to the periphery of existence, the eighties and nineties rapidly shifted to a new era of self-focused spirituality…In this context, a “pragmatic evangelicalism” was born…[it] created new practical solutions - corporate churches, entertainment worship, need-driven programs, therapeutic faith.”

Webber goes on to discuss how theology took a back seat to meeting felt needs. I went to a conference last year that brought to my attention the concept of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The basic idea, as stated on Christianpost.com, is this:

• 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”(Deism)
• 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”(Moralism)
• 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”(Therapeutic)
• 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”(Deism again)
• 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.” (Moralism Redux)

I just read this article to brush up…the comments are especially telling.

It’s clear that based on the evidence of MTD that we can easily see in our world, theology - Biblical theology, that is - has taken a serious hit. I was speaking with my pastor today about a conversation I had with some of my teens. Our Sunday School conversation turned to world religions, and two of my students said that they believed that a) God revealed himself differently to different cultures, and those made up the world religions…so they’re all equal, and b) that a good person - the example was Ghandi - must be deserving of God’s love.

I told my pastor that I disagreed with them, and first he asked me why. I was a little confused, but he said that he’d tell me what he thought, and that I could tell him what I thought, and we’d go from there. Here is a paraphrase of his position:

I see religion as people watching a baseball game through a wood fence. They’re looking through knotholes, one from first base, one from centerfield, one on the third baseline. They’re all different perspectives of the same game.

I had a friend who was an alcoholic and a drug addict [note: I assume he was recovering]. He told me that we’re all suffering from the same disease: separation from God. Everyone’s trying to fill the void inside, he had chosen drugs and alcohol.

I’m a Christian because I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the way to God. But if someone tells me that they’re Muslim, or Buddhist, and that fills the void for them, who am I to say that’s wrong?

It’s like in the the Gospel lesson this week. When they asked Peter why he had to eat with the uncircumcised, he said, “If these guys had an experience just like we did, who am I to keep them out?”

There are two things in this conversation that stand out to me, showing that Biblical theology has become unimportant. First, my pastor believes that the purpose of faith is therapeutic. Whatever stuffs your turkey. It’s about you feeling complete, satisfied, happy. Second, he either misunderstood, or intentionally misstated the passage that had been our reading this Sunday.

Before Peter went to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 he had a dream. God told him not to call “common” that which he has made clean. Then the Spirit directed him to follow the three men who had come from Caesarea. He did, where he was told of Cornelius’ dream, then he preached the Gospel. Then the Spirit descended on them. When questioned, Peter recounted the whole incident, including both dreams, and applying Jesus’ words of them being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then he said, “Who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Peter’s experience was directed by heaven itself. Supported by dreams, prophecy, and the words of Christ. Moreover, it doesn’t conflict with Scripture, it confirms it. Scripture tells us that “the nations will rally to him” (Is 11:10), that he would proclaim justice to them (Is 42:1); Christ told the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19-20), etc, etc.

But my pastor’s argument does not confirm scripture. It contradicts it. Those who do not believe are “condemned already” (Jn 3:18), no one will find God except through Christ (Jn 14:6), “there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1Tim 2:5).” How can my pastor, who seems in all ways conventional hold this belief? I honestly don’t know.

I know it’s a product of our consumer culture. I know it’s a product of the “tolerance” movement that is en vogue in progressive churches like my own. I know it’s a result of “niceness”: you must be careful not to offend. Nobody wants to seem arrogant or superior, so they won’t point out error. They won’t point out anything that will make another person uncomfortable. So they pretend there’s no right way.

In the end, it all comes down to “me”. What makes me happy right now? What makes people like me? What will keep my parishioners and the members of the community from thinking I’m cocky?

I told him that Jesus’ purpose wasn’t to make us feel whole or complete, that’s just a by-product. He came to reconcile us to God, for his glory. Our purpose is to give glory to God. This isn’t about “me”, it’s about him.

Next Page »