Mike Corley interviewed Mark Driscoll last week and you can listen to the show here. It’s interesting that, for the most part, Corley and Driscoll agree. What is even more interesting is that CRN and Slice are silent in regards to this interview. Where is Ken and Ingrid?

Here’s part of Steve Camp’s response:

1. The issue with Mark’s scatological speech isn’t so much with cussing; but that it is what Paul refers to as being “unwholesome speech.” His humor even extends to using the Lord as a punch line for his jokes. THAT goes way beyond cussing…

2. Mark has recently shared the platform with T.D. Jakes – a known heretic due to his anti-Trinitarian beliefs. Jakes denies the One Triune God of the Bible and therefore worships a different god. Driscoll knows this and agrees that he is a heretic; but yet, still had no problem sharing the pulpit with him at a pastors conference held in Dallas, TX just a few months ago. There is no justification for this kind of partnership in ministry. Mark never even confronted the issue in his preachment.

Just a few years ago he went and ministered at Robert Schuller’s church as well and spoke glowingly of him and his ministry afterwards. If you have ever heard Michael Horton’s interview with Schuller, you will hear him clearly not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why would Mark knowingly partner with known heretics against the gospel he says he loves so very much?

3. Mark’s PR strategy is to position himself as being Reformed. That really isn’t the case. He is pragmatic to the core (his emerging missionality is nothing more than seeker-sensitivity with an edge–audience driven and contextualized); he is Amyraldian in his view of the atonement; and as MacArthur rightly labeled it – his kind of Christianity is grunge Christianity.

4. Lastly, Here is quote from Driscoll’s recent message at the C3 Conference where he shared the pulpit with heretic T.D. Jakes: “In that moment when God made Him who knew no sin to become sin, that though Jesus was sinless and pure a Lamb without spot or blemish, on Him was laid sin; He became a pedophile, a homosexual, a fornicator, a pervert, a thief, a liar, an alcoholic, a drug addict, He became that. He became the most despicable, ugly, disgusting, accursed thing in all creation—in that moment on the cross. Because He took our place and He became our sin; and He died to pay the penalty for our sins.”

That is blasphemy my brother and certainly is not representative of biblical Christianity or the Reformed faith.

These are issues that Mark should be required to answer at some point.

My response:

1. Camp is splitting hairs. Driscoll has sworn and has repented. His language is edgy at times but it doesn’t offend me and certainly wouldn’t offend any non believer. Just because it offends someone who has a bad haircut and wears homemade clothes and sings all four verses of the hymns doesn’t mean that it is in fact offensive to God.

2. Driscoll says that he is friends with heretics and wants to see them repent. He preaches anywhere and says that he doesn’t get asked back to speak at conferences because he isn’t afraid to preach the gospel. He doesn’t partner with those he considered heretics.

3. Ask any Arminian, Driscoll is reformed. He believes that many are a part of the elect in Seattle, they just need to hear the gospel.

4. Can someone explain why this is blasphemy?

What are your thoughts?

Julie has brought up a great question on a verse in I Samuel. She suggested that it would be good to have a thread where we could discuss a Bible verse. I have copied the format from her Blog. So have it people. She asks some great questions. Where it says, “My Thoughts” it should be understood that those are her thoughts.
Today’s Discussion: 1 Samuel 16:14:

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.

My thoughts/questions:

• I understand the Spirit of the Lord departing from someone, and even hardening a heart (Pharaoh).
• I do not understand an evil spirit coming from the Lord.
• I was under the (evidently mistaken) impression from other verses in the Bible that nothing evil could come from God.

Recently I had the misfortune of watching a short video where a nice, clean cut gentleman told me that I can get “€œan idea of how sincere my love for Jesus is” by asking myself, “€œHow much do I love the Scriptures?”€ So far, we’€™re doing good. But then he goes one step further and equates Scripture with doctrine. He even goes so far to imply that if someone does not “€œpassionately defend” doctrinal truth they may not be sincere. He told me that doctrinal truth bears the image of Christ. He informed me that if I don’t defend doctrine I cannot love Christ. “€œThere is no room for personal interpretation,”€ he confidently informs his listeners and me. It was no surprise then when I found other videos that this gentleman did where he “solved” the age-old disagreement between Armenians and Calvinists. Think about the audacity of that statement. In yet another clip he tells me that God may not talk to me or anyone else anymore.
I’m sure this fellow is a good guy. I imagine that he is pretty devoted to his faith and in following Christ. I’€™m not here to attack him, but I do want to look at his assertion that Scripture equals doctrine.
We should first start with what the Bible tells us about what is truth. In John 14 Jesus tells us that he is “the way, the truth and the life.” Almost all of us would agree that God is truth. That is to say, that God is the embodiment of all truth. There can be no truth apart from God. God is truth. God is absolute truth. It is at this point that most conversations will usually turn a little “€œsnarky.”€
Is the Bible in your house truth? Is it pure truth? Are there any errors in it? At this point, I have to step back and ask you the reader to stay with me to the end. The truth is we have many translations of the Bible today and I believe what we have is the face of what God wants us to have, but there are errors in each translation. The original text that God gave us was perfect. We do not have that text any longer. What is amazing is you can take one copy of a passage and another copy both being hundreds of years apart in age and they are almost identical. This lends credence to their validity.
There was a guy named Erasmus who actually admitted to adding a few things when he made a copy because it helped explain the Trinity better. The Bible was originally written in languages other than English (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic). Translating anything from one language to another is a difficult task. For one, the mindset of the hearer will almost certainly be different in the original language. This is why it is so important to understand how the original listeners would have understood whatever passage of Scripture you are looking at.
God is Truth. The Original text is perfect. The Bible(s) I have in my house and the one’s you have in your house are not perfect they are translations of copies.
Now, for years preachers and those in charge have tried to minimize or hide this truth. The fear is that it will open the door for us the simple to start questioning everything there is to know about God. A guy I really respect once related a story to me about how a young lady rejected all of Scripture because a well known preacher began “€œmonkeying”€ with the text.
As I have attempted to illustrate in my drawing by the time we get to doctrine we are a few steps away from absolute truth. Your doctrine is a result of interpretation of translations of copies of the original truth.
At this point you are faced with one of two choices (I hate that phrase because I am sure there is probably more choices out there but these are the most common choices). You can either end up in Peter Ruckman’s camp and spout something just short of insanity about how the KJV is the authoritative version or you have to be willing to wrestle with tension.
The great danger in Christianity has always been that we try to make everything manageable, we try to make incredibly complex things makes sense. Christianity, especially conservative, Calvinistic Christianity has attempted to reduce the Bible to something that is a compilation of logical, irrefutable arguments. The result has been a bastardized version of honest faith. We’ve compared having a relationship with God to sitting on a chair, we€™’ve created two diagnostic questions and done all sorts of stupid things. Worse, we have created our little doctrine clubs and call it church. We have elevated doctrine above God. We worship at the alter of doctrine and systematic theology. What other conclusion can be drawn when a man takes the time to make a movie where he compares love of Scripture with love of doctrine?
So you can chose the absolute way, where there is no room for discussion…or…you can chose the honest way. You can chose to admit that our doctrine is the best interpretation we have, but there is room for discussion. I believe that the Bible is the face of what God wants us to have. In other words the key doctrines are clearly in all of the copies.
We as a bride of Christ need to decide how many doctrines are we willing to die over. We need to decide as a Church where is the line between this is what I believe but I could be wrong.
I know there are those who fear this will open up all of the Scriptures to be questioned but is that bad? Didn’t™ Paul tell the Bereans to test everything? What is so bad if every doctrine we have is tested?
Most of the people I know who would oppose this idea are afraid. They are afraid of what might happen. You can “what if” yourself to death. If what we say we believe is true (and I believe it is) then it cannot be stopped. Truth always finds its way to the top.
I know for some of you that is a scary proposition and you may even be reacting with some anger for me right now,that’s ok. Embrace the tension; embrace the mystery. If you think your theology and doctrine is helping you explain the more difficult aspects of the gospel be cautious. Remember one ancient writer put it this way,

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

How do you “€œprove”€ or explain something you cannot see?

It’s sad that all of this has come to this type of post but I feel it’s time to put people’s writings out in the open. For months now many here have enjoyed the input of Henry Rick Frueh. Whether or not I am one of those people is irrelevant for this post. What I want to address is Henry’s accusation against me that I called Clearly a name. First I will quote my comment, then I will quote Henry’s. I will add emphasis to Henry’s but the original quote will remain completely intact in the original thread which can be found here.

First my quote:

Clearly, your actions here represent some of the worst aspects of the internet. The depth of depravity is disgusting. You hide behind secrecy and attack another man. On top of that you make sweeping statements and then finish with, “I’m done here.” Your actions smack of cowardice. They stink of a pride that can only be fostered in the professional clergy. You say you invite analysis of you but then when Erica did it you accused her of being harsh. That reeks of hypocrisy. I won’t even get into the whole “one chapter’s good enough” debate.
My name’s out there, Rob’s name is attached to his works. Your’s is the only one hidden. Why is that?
. As Nathan said, your assertions are laughable. You clearly demonstrate one of the best reasons to stay away from the internet.
As for your actions, perhaps you missed Jesus’ words in Matthew 9

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Peace to you and yours

Now, I went through and highlighted every reference to Clearly. It is plainly visible that each sentence is directed towards his actions. This is not name calling. This is pointing out error in one’s actions. No different than saying to someone, “that’s a lie.” Name calling would be saying, “You are a liar!” As you can see, there is a vast difference there. One is attacking actions the other is attacking the person. Or as Henry put it, Name calling.

Now, let’s look at Henry’s comment to me. He said,

Joe – you are the Ken Silva from another perspective. A brother gracefully bows out and you attack him. You are not an open emerging believer, you are an argumentative judge who is just waiting to verbally attack some one. You should honestly review your comment tone, this guy “Clearly” engaged in a good dialogue and because he leaves you call him a coward.

Wow, you are a name caller just like a lot from the other side that you despise. Good Christian behavior and a good example for some of the younger believers..

Self righteous tone aside let’s break this down. Now, as I said, I went through and highlighted the sentence structure in Henry’s comment. Repeatedly he says, Joe you are… . It seems to me that Henry is the one calling the names. He called me

1. Ken Silva from another perspective,

2. An argumentative judge and

3. a name caller

Henry here’s a tip; if you are going to accuse someone of calling names, have your facts lined up. Oh and don’t call them names. It kind of kills your credibility. You may not agree with what I said about Clearly, you may think I was wrong or even mean. But each thing I confronted was an action not his person. There’s a huge difference between the two.

In a extraordinarily cheap attempt to cause division and strife, Ken attacks our own Joe Martino in his latest article.  Ken posts this quote from Bell:

“The Bible is still in the center for us,” Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.”

He then attempts to show that Joe is “not tracking” with Bell by posting this quote that is on Joe’s blog:

“The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

Unfortunately Ken did not provide commentary other than that.  I don’t see how these two statements don’t jive with each other.  Can we not hold to a mysterious truth that is incontrovertible?  I experience mystery on a regular basis in my walk with Christ.  I look at my very own conversion and marvel in the mystery.  I look at the things he does and the miracles he performs and embrace the fact that his ways are higher than my ways.  It is an incredibly mysterious faith.  Yet, at the same time, the truth that lies within that mystery is a solid rock, a foundation that cannot be moved.

One of my biggest problems with people like Ingrid, Ken or Johnnie Mac is that the mystery has been completely removed.  They have God down to a simple math equation, knowing every move and integral part of the creator of the universe.  He is no more than an analyzed character from a divine piece of literature to them.   They have an explanation for everything, and nothing leaves them in unexplained awe.  Rob and Joe’s thoughts track quite well, so long as you don’t hold God within the confines of your reason.  The day I am able to explain away the mystery of God is the day I stop believing.

Ingrid has decided to go after Christian singles dances. Like the old joke goes, “Why don’t Baptists like sex? Because it might lead to dancing.”

Every year my young adults ministry puts on a Boston Harbor boat cruise and we hire a Christian DJ. People dress nicer then usual and we just have a good time. No alcohol is served. There is mostly secular music. And we dance. However, nothing inappropriate happens (or has happened) and if it did, we as leaders would step in.

I grew up in a Christian home and was not allowed to listen to secular music. I now listen to some secular music. I’m not interested in Fergie and our boat cruise wouldn’t play her music. There are songs/musicians I choose not to listen to. Like movies, I think music is a decision of conscience. What do you think?

So, when you are going to make a global statement about someone’s book, you would think that reading the book would be a good first step. However, you have to read one of the opening paragraphs from this CRN article.

While I have been quick to point out my disagreements with Bell’s theology, many have criticized me for not reading his stuff, but rather only focusing on quotes that others have pulled from his writings (mainly the excellent work of Rev. Ken Silva). Because I refuse to spend money on his stuff ($19.99), I only read the first chapter of his book, Sex God (you can download the first chapter here for free and read it for yourself. (emphasis mine)

Amazing! Here is someone who admittedly has not read Bell’s works, goes completely of the select and skewed quotes of a pastor out to get Bell, and then feels informed enough to write an article against Bell for the global community to see. I am sure that Ken got all giddy with with the first sentence quoted and absolutely had to show this to his friends at C?N. But, if this is really what C?N’s standard for research is, watch out. Maybe I will write a critique of MacArthur with only reading a few pages of his new book.

The first point in the article was this:

my problem is with what he doesn’t say. His life and ministry are not gospel centered – they are social help centered.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Rob Bell is one of the most learned men in emerging circles today when it comes to the scriptures. He can barely open his mouth without quoting scripture or bringing up a biblical principle. But then again, I can see how one would arrive to this conclusion when only reading a few pages of one book. As long as Ken is informing them, they should have enough information….right? right?

I think we need to celebrate when Christians do something good, not just provide analysis of fundamentalist scare tactics. On May 27, Rob Bell interviewed Alan Close, a musician at Mars Hill Bible Church. Close is also an illustrator who has started a Christian comic book series and this isn’t exactly Archie and Veronica. It’s a visually realistic view of various Biblical stories.

One of the fascinating things is that when he drew the Baal priests, he googled Baal artifacts and discovered a mask that they wore. He used this in the costumes he designed.

It’s pretty cool stuff. The first comic is based on Elijah and Mount Carmel.

http://www.dustpress.com/

You can listen to the interview at http://www.marshill.org/teaching/pcast.php

For some reason, our spam filter has gotten incredibly strict – like an old-fashioned schoolmarm on steroids – over the past week or so.  I’ve gone in and approved (non-duplicative) comments caught up in its clutches, wading through all sorts of ads for prescription medications, personal ‘enhancers’, and other distasteful things to find the well-intended comments.

I will be checking this filter (which is truly vile to moderate, thus my not going into it on a more regular basis) more frequently in the near future to better catch non-spam in its clutches.  If you are having difficulty getting a comment to approve, please drop me a line at slicedlaodicea AT earthlink DOT net, and I’ll see if it’s been filtered…

UPDATE

After a few weeks of no problems, the spam filter is at it again.  I will be on vacation starting tomorrow, but all the writers on CRN.Info have the ability to rescue comments from the throat of the spam-filter-monster, so please be patient if your comment doesn’t immediately appear…

Grace and Peace,

Chris