Mark Driscoll

Article on Mark Driscoll’s Sex Sermons

mark

Mark Driscoll is controversial.

In other news, water is wet.

Examiner.com did an article on Mark Driscoll’s sermons on sex titled “Pastor Preaches Oral Sex is Biblical”.  The author of the article, Karen McCracken, warns readers that the article contains “adult content.”

So in McCracken’s article on Driscoll’s poor choice of topics and language in the pulpit, she uses language risque enough to preface her article with a warning.  (Don’t miss the irony there)

The piece ends with this paragraph, citing Driscoll’s inclusion in a Top 50 most influential Christians list:

Despite the controversy surrounding Driscoll he was named one of the top 50 most influential Christians in America by Zondervan this past year. For those unaware, the word influential means ‘to influence’ and according to Miriam Webster is defined as: an emanation of spiritual or moral force; corrupt interference with authority for personal gain.

So according to the general tone of the article, Driscoll should not be using adult language to discuss adult topics in an adult setting, while the author of the article does the very same thing.

Plus he’s influential, which means, naturally, he’s a corrupt spiritual force interfering with authority for personal gain.


Advertisements

Article on Mark Driscoll’s Sex Sermons

mark

Mark Driscoll is controversial.

In other news, water is wet.

Examiner.com did an article on Mark Driscoll’s sermons on sex titled “Pastor Preaches Oral Sex is Biblical”.  The author of the article, Karen McCracken, warns readers that the article contains “adult content.”

So in McCracken’s article on Driscoll’s poor choice of topics and language in the pulpit, she uses language risque enough to preface her article with a warning.  (Don’t miss the irony there)

The piece ends with this paragraph, citing Driscoll’s inclusion in a Top 50 most influential Christians list:

Despite the controversy surrounding Driscoll he was named one of the top 50 most influential Christians in America by Zondervan this past year. For those unaware, the word influential means ‘to influence’ and according to Miriam Webster is defined as: an emanation of spiritual or moral force; corrupt interference with authority for personal gain.

So according to the general tone of the article, Driscoll should not be using adult language to discuss adult topics in an adult setting, while the author of the article does the very same thing.

Plus he’s influential, which means, naturally, he’s a corrupt spiritual force interfering with authority for personal gain.


Mark Driscoll: Christians Should Be Fun To Hang Out With

“Maybe the true mark of a Christian is someone you would eat chicken wings with, and shoot pool with or throw darts with or go to the game with, not just if they could exegete the Greek text and beat you in Bible jeopardy like some Sunday School jerk.  Maybe the true mark of a mature Christian is someone that is actually kinda fun to hang out with.”
–Mark Driscoll, Was Jesus Funny? (youtube video)

Mark Driscoll’s Lecture on the Emerging Church and Rob Bell

mark

I just listened to Mark Driscoll’s recent yet already much-blogged-on lecture on Christianity and the Emerging Church.  Just a few thoughts.

First, Mark is funny.  I like Mark.

Second, I have a feeling Mark used every ounce of patience within him to not yell and jump up and down like he sometimes does, and the reason might be because, as he said in the beginning of his lecture, he is friends with two of the guys he critiqued and finds them to be very generous.  He said this after a long and difficult pause:

It’s really hard for me.  I don’t want to be the man who is known by what he is against.  I don’t want to be the man who is known by what he is angry about.  And I don’t want to be the man who is being unnecessarily unpleasant to men who have been pleasant to me.

Third, I don’t know if Mark’s critique of Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt is accurate.  I will leave that to people who are more familiar with these folks.  I will say that Mark is a very intelligent man and has known these two guys and their work for a number of years, so it would be hard to imagine him misunderstanding them.  Mark says this about Doug Pagitt:

(He’s) a friend of mine.  Saw him in Seattle recently; we had dinner together.  He’s a very nice guy.  He’s great to argue and debate with.  He’s as cranky as I am, and so we have a great time.  No one in our presence does, but we have a great time.

Fourth, Mark criticizes Rob Bell, whom he admits he has never met.  Most of Mark’s critique of Rob consists of contending for the belief that the virgin birth is a vital part of Christianity, which Rob in his book Velvet Elvis wonders is a necessary component of being a Christian.  Another chunk of Mark’s critique of Rob focuses on a book called A Brief History of Everything that Rob, in Velvet Elvis, recommends people read.  The author, Ken Wilber, is not a Christian, which means he has ideas that don’t fit in with Christianity, and these ideas are the ones that Mark criticizes.  The remaining part of Mark’s critique of Rob is that Bell focuses on Rabbinical interpretations of the Bible, and since this interpretation hinges on not believing in Jesus, it is therefore bad.

In my opinion, if Mark and Rob would sit down and have a long chat I think that Mark would have a different understanding of what Bell is all about.  Mark likes to talk about how Christianity is all about Jesus, the Bible is all about Jesus, and it’s a good thing to be all about Jesus.  I know of several thousand people who can say without reservation that few people are all about Jesus like Rob is.  I think it’s important to realize that some people don’t communicate in quite the same way as others, and oddly enough, Mark encourages the audience to be subversive, a technique which Rob has mastered, which has gotten him in trouble with Christian leaders.  I am going to agree with many of the bloggers out there who are saying that Driscoll was unfair in his critique of Bell.

Rob Bell has been criticized all over the blog world, and most of the critiques are laughable, so this isn’t a new thing.  But Mark’s critique concerns me a little, and here’s why: people who have not heard Rob teach or who who have not seen Rob articulate a vision of Christianity that is centered around Jesus will get an incorrect view of the man based on this lecture by Mark Driscoll, and that would be a shame. (Rob Bell: “Christ is enough.”)

All in all, there are few people in the world I respect more than Mark Driscoll.  He’s a brilliant, down-to-earth, funny guy who loves Jesus and is influencing the world.  I’m thankful for him and what he’s doing in Seattle and throughout the world, and I can’t wait to hang out with him in the renewed earth.

Other posts on the lecture: Pomomusings / CRN.info

John Piper on the Emergent Church

John Piper

The following is an excerpt (full mp3 here) from a panel conversation (With Justin Taylor interviewing Tim Keller, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll) at the Desiring God Conference 2006, which took place on September 29. John Piper was asked about the Emergent Church, and after shocking the audience by saying a curse word (Justin said Mark must be rubbing off on him), he said this about a lunch conversation that he had with Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent Village:

I just kinda kept going back on my heels, like, I don’t understand the way these guys think, and so there are profound epistemological differences – ways of processing reality – that make the conversation almost impossible; just kind of going by each other. My question sort of is, how profitable would it be to press on with that when your worldviews seem to be so different and your ways of knowing seem to be different, the function of knowledge in transformation, what the goals of transformation are – all those are so different that I’m not sure we would get anywhere.

These words by Dr. Piper caused me to wonder if this is the reason why some leaders are not in the habit of dialoguing with a lot of their critics, because how profitable would it be when your worldviews are so different? I for one don’t think that Brother John should spend a lot of his energy in dialogue with people who come from a totally different angle (although some is healthy), because it takes him away from focusing his attention on the things that he really feels passionate about. It reminds me of Nehemiah 6:3 – “I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?”

Pastor Piper is doing a great work. I hope that he’s open to correction, yet always working hard at the work he’s been given.