MoreThanMine

Mark had written several articles for secular magazines and had been interviewed a few times on the radio and had gotten this reputation as a pastor who said cusswords. It is true that Mark said alot of cusswords. I don’t know why he did it. He hadn’t become a Christian until he was in college, so maybe he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to say cusswords and be a pastor.

(Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz)

I read this book and excerpt nearly two years ago and I unwittingly sat through an entire service of Mark, The Cussing Pastor, without making the connection. Miller actually speaks quite well of Mark, and says that his church represented the first time in years that a church made him feel like he could breathe, but this wasn’t my experience.

I had indeed planned on elaborating upon my experience last Sunday, but in the course of research today, I stumbled upon an epic feud. (Well… Epic in it’s implications, but hardly a fued as the conflict has failed to ilicit much response from those who Driscoll implicated.) In fact, Tony Marr writes,

“There have been a few moments in church history that have defined or exposed a movement. I think that the 800 or so of us sitting in the chapel on the campus of SEBTS tonight were witness to such an event. … After Mark was done, John and I went to have a drink with a few of the guys from Acts 29. There was this feeling in the air as if we had just been a part of something that will be talked about years from now.”

More or less, within about an hour and a half (you can download the podcast here) Mark Driscoll decried the emerging church movement and implicated three people in it. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell.

The folks at Emerging Grace summarized the accusations pretty well, writing:

1. Brian McLaren - Guilt by Reading and Footnoting

• Mark is very concerned with Brian’s influence from several authors. He spent considerable time explaining the questionable doctrines of the authors that Brian has referenced - Borg, Crossan, Chalke, and Wilbur. Based on Brian’s association with these authors, Mark implied that Brian’s belief in atonement is questionable.
• The other concern that Mark has with Brian is his “increasingly obscure” stand concerning homosexuality based on quotes by Brian in Time Magazine and Christianity Today.

2. Doug Pagitt -

• In the “Listening to the Beliefs” book, Doug said, “we should reconsider the idea that there is a necessary distinction between creator and creation.” Mark explained that, according to Romans 1, this is by definition paganism and idolatry.
• Also when he asked Doug if homosexual practice is incompatible with the christian faith, Doug’s response was no.

3. Rob Bell -

• Strike One - Brian McClaren covers Rob’s pulpit when Rob is gone.
• Strike Two - Rob uses rabbinical sources, and the rabbis didn’t know or love Jesus.
• Strike Three - Trajectory hermeneutic. Based on the “horrible” book - Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals - Mark says that Rob is guilty of theological evolution in arriving at the egalitarian position.
• Strike Four - Because of Rob’s remark about the virgin birth in the book Velvet Elvis, Mark said that Rob’s theological method is frightening.

Now, here’s where the problems begin. First and foremost, there is the issue of who appointed Mark Driscoll as the arbiter or Orthodoxy and heretics? If God has appointed him to such a task, there is very distinct advice in the book of Matthew 18:15-17 saying:

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

Conservative interpretation of this text says that this is advice meant solely for disputes within the context of a church congregation. In fact, in the new testament there is scipture of ten times that Paul doesn’t follow this protocol, and comes out and makes public his accusations against false teachers. But there is something unsettling about the inflamatory nature in which Driscoll went about this matter.

Firstly, his accusations against Brian McLaren are more (actually… completely) based on the authors he cites and references than on his own personal theology.

Secondly, his claims against Doug Pagitt, they have basis in truth. Doug and Mark have spoken to a great extent on this matter. Props to Pagitt for his forthright answers when questioned.

Thirdly, Rob Bell gets the short end of the stick. In fact, about 40 minutes into the podcast, Mark Driscoll says:

Thirdly, Rob Bell. A man I’ve never met. I don’t know if he’s nice or not. I know he’s creative, I know he’s talented, I know he’s gifted. Brian McLaren covers his pulpet. Go to iTunes, it’s there. (Earlier in the talk Mark also makes a somewhat angry-ish comment about Rob Bell copying his idea to name a church Mars Hill, saying he’s still in therapy trying to get over it.

Driscoll begins his argument against Rob Bell by his association with Brian McLaren who he has previously failed to legitimately implicate. In fact the implication here is that Bell is guilty because he hangs out with McLaren who is guilty because he cites and quotes questionable people. (Didn’t Jesus get some negative attention for talking to people whose opinions were unpopular?) ((I’ll admit. Maybe that’s a stretch. But it’s worth thinking about.))

I digress… Back to Rob Bell.

At most, as Jamie Arpin-Ricci points out in his comment at Emerging Grace, he’s guilty of some careless writing with regard to how he phrased that whole virgin birth stuff. Mark particularly insults Rob with a claim of arrogance as it pertains to the preaching of trajectory hermeneutics. By-and-large, however, Mark’s criticism is overstated.

So why is this important?

The pastor who has a swearing problem is pulling the heresey card on his co-workers. Is there some amount of discontinuity here? Not to suggest that swearing is by any means a damnable sin–except by the reality that all sins are equal and carry no relative weight against one-another–but there is some degree to which a true man of God is to strive for Christlike behavior.

Precipice Magazine writes:

My concern, again, is with this idea that one can somehow be excused of all sorts of unChristlike behavior- merely because one’s church attendance is swelling. Again, the question should be- swelling around what conceptions? Isn’t the issue of what we are growing just as important, dare I say more important, than how fast we’re growing it? Apparently not. At least for some of the folk coming from this particular stream of the reformed spectrum.

For all of the people who are up in arms about this ordeal, we need to remember that we’re completely missing the point on this matter. The goal is not to create division in the church, and to take sides is only to ignore Christ’s proclaimation that we are to Love one another as he has loved us.

I had sincerely hoped that my summary of this ordeal would be much more rounded, and I am not completely sure if I have succeded here. (I fear I have not.) But I don’t think that this is about reaching a conclusion. Rather it is about asking what has happened to us as a universal body of believers that has caused us to so completely miss the boat here.

I’m sure there’s more to come.

ADDENDUM

Attached below is a very good play-by-play if you’re interested in a summary of Driscoll’s talk without listening to the whole hour and a half. Jonathan Brink posted this as a comment at Emerging Grace.

I have posted the audio here.

Here are my thoughts through the audio.

1. I wouldn’t assume that Mark hasn’t had significant conversations with McLaren, and Pagitt or others people already. He intimates in the audio that he has at certain times, especially Pagitt.

2. He says 19:50 of the audio, When God speaks, we are not to converse, we are to obey. This saddens me because it assumes that everyone understands the Gospel with perfect clarity and we don’t. Jesus met with Nicodemus, as example. He gave the disciples three years of training. The very nature of discipleship and the journey is to seek and engage the questions and learn. Grace provides the framework for learning and failing so we can stay in learning. To not converse is to close dialog and learning.

3. Mark’s concern for McLaren’s relationship with Crosson and Borg (around 22:00) reminds me of the Pharisees concern about Jesus hanging out with sinners. He never calls out anything specific that McLaren likes about the book, just that he’s associating and referencing them. His reference to an earlier work in Time assumes they are saying the same thing and that McLaren is agreeing to it. McLaren never said that.

4. I’m not going to defend McLaren’s position on homosexuality. My responsibility is to love them, not change them. Sadly I don’t think McLaren has communicated this well. Mark does use the term hammer as a way of communicating truth, which is why I think he doesn’t get the emerging church.

5. Mark has mastered the pregnant pause well.

6. Again McLaren’s use of footnotes (30:00) appears to get him into trouble. But in the same respect, Mark’s concerns are with the book McLaren is referencing and he’s making assumptions about what Brian means by the footnote. I just read it and its just muggy. Mark is again drawing conclusion based upon a tiny footnote, not with the words of the author. Again, guilt by association.

7. Doug’s comments about sexuality are his.

8. At 37:25 Mark quotes Doug’s word in a book. He says, “the idea that there is a necessary distinction of matter from spirit or creator and creation is being reconsidered.” I don’t know if Doug is referring to the nature of what he hears happening in the world or what his personal beliefs are. Mark doesn’t provide the context, only the quote. (Help here).

9. Rob Bell - The McLaren comment (40:15) is flippant and I doubt he realizes what he said.

10. At 40:20 Mark says, (Rob) holds up rabbinical authority as the KEY to Bible interpretation and hermeneutics.” This is just an absurd comment and shows that he doesn’t know or listen to Rob. Rob looks at Scripture in light of rabbinical interpretation and context. But would he call it the KEY? Come on. Driscoll shows his weakness here. Rob absolutely holds Jesus as the key to hermeneutics. He doesn’t cite anything Rob says, mind you. He just references a common misinterpretation of Rob.

11. The trajectory stuff seems personal and esoteric. I’ve actually talked to the elders of Mars Hill personally about how this topic came out and they worked it out. It is clear he hasn’t.

12. (44:16) He actually insults Rob. Wow.

13. (44:35) Velvet Elvis and Virgin Birth conversation. Mark obviously missed the point of the chapter. Rob doesn’t draw the conclusion in the book that Mark draws. Lots of big words and misunderstadning. Again seems personal. (Earlier in the audio he expressed his frustration at Rob regarding the use of Mars Hil).

14. (49:50-52:45) Again, hanging with the sinners. Is it possible that Wilbur and all got some stuff right? I’ve actually read some of the people he references and he’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sweeping generalizations here.

15. The New Reformed. All of his friends. Sounds like an interesting crowd.

16. He talks about the need for new forms. Loved it.

17. Look to Jesus. Love it.

18. (1:02:09) “The emerging crowd loves Jesus the man. Not Jesus the God man.” What is he smoking? Cites no reference here. Sweeping.

19. (1:06:50) Incarnational. Nice. I wish he had stuck with this. It was really good because what he doesn’t realize is that so many in the emerging church are saying this same thing.

Share This

This entry was posted on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm and is filed under Big Things, Faith Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.