Guilt By Association (and so on and so forth)
In this latest post at CRN / Apprising, Ken Silva attacks Mars Hill Bible Church (Rob Bell) for allowing Doug Pagitt to fill in as a guest speaker while Rob Bell was sick. First off, Ken often makes insignificant jabs at churches for really ridiculous reasons. For example, he writes:
…was asked to preach yesterday at Mars Hill Bible Church. This is from a member in covenant relation with MHBC; ah, that’s a member for those of us who speak English
It really isn’t that hard to understand what a member in covenant relationship with MHBC implies and means. But I digress. Ken presents the idea that because MHBC allowed an emergent leader to preach, that somehow Rob Bell is emergent. He writes
As I have said before: If it looks Emergent, and it does; if it acts like Emergent, and it does; and if it sounds like Emergent, and it does…then know it’s just as Emergent as Brian McLaren
I am confused as to how Brian McLaren got into the conversation. But I digress yet again. So, I am wondering if Ken actually heard what was preached at MHBC, or is he just assuming that what Pagitt preached was heresy? Is everything that comes out of an emergent leader’s moth heresy just because it comes from an emergent leader? I am sure that a well researched theologian and author like Ken Silva would not make accusations about someone before actually hearing what they said in a given setting.
Also, I do not understand how allowing an emergent leader to speak at your church makes you emergent. If a democrat preaches at my church, does that then dictate my political views? If someone with a literal 6-day creation theory comes and preaches on sin, does that dictate my views on the foundation of the world? Of course not. The problem here is that the staff at CRN is generally unable to differentiate between labels, insignificant theological differences and the truth. They see everyone in different boxes with labels on them. It is impossible to run in emergent circles and yet be a reformed thinker. It is impossible to be reformed and actually believe that non-reformed thinkers are not heretics. And at the core: if you are not like me and my friends, then you are man-loving heathen. Are there essential doctrines should divide? Yes. I just think that CRN often chooses the wrong ones to divide over.
Lastly, the logic in the article flows like this:
- Bell allowed Pagitt to preach for him
- Pagitt is emergent, therefore Bell is emergent
- Brian McLaren is emergent, therefore Bell is too
- Pagitt actually gets along with Dan Kimball
- Dan Kimball is therefore emergent
- Pagitt would then agree with Ken that Kimball preaches a “perverted gospel”
What? Guilt by association is no good here. If that was the case, Jesus would be considered a whore, a drunk and a thief. I would also like to point out that 6 of the 7 reference links go back to Ken’s website for reference. The other link is from Team Pyro. I am not too sure, but I am pretty certain that using yourself as a reference is not good research.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
46 Comments(+Add)
From the Wittenburg Door interview:
DOOR: What about the labels of Emergent, Neo-realism, Relevant, Post-modern? I’ve seen your name associated with all those movements.
BELL: I don’t use those words. It’s easy for that to become “Are you in or out?” A friend of mine calls it a conversation. Which I think is a much healthier way to think about it. There are all these people who are having a conversation about these pressing matters of theology and practice and I’m all up for that. But when it becomes some sort of label—are you with us or them?—that seems so destructive. But it’s a discussion that needs to be had. I haven’t heard anything dangerous. It’s necessary for each generation. I’ll take the Christian/Jesus label. Other than that, it seems a lot of labels really don’t help anybody.
So Ken is mad that someone he considers a heretic was invited to speak at the church of someone else who he considers a heretic. It seems like he should just be content in letting the heretics do their own thing. His blood pressure would probably be a lot lower.
If what Driscoll outlined in his message is correct, then the whole thing is a mess. Who cares about Ken, what do these men really believe?
That’s funny, he linked to my wife’s blog! I got my name thrown in there. My wife’s blog is about our life, that’s it. That is too funny.
First of all it is funny because he needs to get his facts straight. Rob did not invite Doug to come. The jumps in logic are nuts as well. I think Doug is a nice guy! He preached a great message that was solely from the text. I am not sure how that makes him emergent.
Logic flow is like this… LOL!
Rick Frueh wrote for the original Slice a none heretic…
He saw the error of their ways and left.
He showed up here and becomes friends with some emergents
He associated with iggy and now is emergent.
iggy was not a Arminian but now is because he associates with Rick.
McManus wrote a book about barbarians
Some here go to McManus’ church so are barbarians.
Rick adn iggy are not emerging Arminian barbarians
Rick now writes for CRN.info
iggy is just a commenter.
Ken now is no longer friends with Rick.
Ingrid is a nice slice of her former self.
So the end of all that is to help the watchdoggies become nicer people more people need to stop writing for them and become emergent/man-loving/semi pelagian/Arminians.
The End.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Oh yeah, Nathan, I meant to say earlier we don’t call them members here. We just say we’re choosing to live in covenant community. Ken and I had a discussion about that before.
Joe I’ll be in G’rap on Monday of next week.
Iggy it would be cool if you could make and acronym from all the things Ken has called you in the past.
Rick I’m still in the process of listening to the PodCast from Mark D. but based on other things that I have heard from Mark he probably diverges from the “E/E” crowd a lot.
Chris,
Where Driscoll and the e/e crowd agree is in not creating bunker-style churches where congregations.
I can pencil you in between Labyrinth prayer and yoga.
Joe sounds great! When we get together I was hoping we could do lectico divina together and then study the writings of Arminius. LOL
By the way, did any of you other than Joe and Erica actually listen to Pagitt’s sermon. I just listened to it, and I actually think it’s very expository sermon on Acts. I’d encourage people to listen to it themselves before making any judgments.
Phil, I would hope every one could preach a Biblical message at a given time. My concerns with Pagitt go beyond one guest sermon spot, if what Driscoll contends is true then I have problems with his overall teachings not just one sermon.
Driscoll talks a lot about himself and his books he’s writing. I’m not done yet, but to this point it sounds like he’s trying to find some space for his market. He wants these people (future SBC leaders) to be part of his Acts 2 9 movement and to buy his books.
Rick,
What did Driscoll actually say about Pagitt? I tried to download that file last night, but couldn’t, and I didn’t feel like messing with the Podcast. Driscoll has done some good things, and his church is growing, but he definitely fits the bill of an “angry Calvinist” to a big extent in my mind.
I would say Pagitt has drunk from the well of postmodern thought more than some in the EC movement. I do think he comes off as a humble guy, though. I like how he basically ends each sermon with a Q&A time, and asks people to tell him why he’s wrong. I can see that to some people that is probably the exact opposite of what they think a pastor should do.
This is not about Driscoll or Pagitt or their particular styles, that is what we charge the other gys with when we ask questions. On my blog I referenced Driscoll’s personality liabilities, but the claims he made about MacLaren, Pagitt, and Bell were explosive. Read here and I have the link.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
Joe,
I know what you mean. There is that sense from his books. Also, he won’t let anyone in the Acts 29 network unless the sign off on being a 5-pointer. A friend of mine actually got the application, so I’ve seen what they’re looking for.
From the standpoint of looking at these guys’ personalities, I think Driscoll is the one I would have the hardest time getting along with. Some of the things he says just make him sound like a jerk.
Rick,
I put this on another thread, bu you might not have seen it:
____________________
Rick,
I finally found it on iTunes.
1) MacLaren – nothing really surprised me in what Driscoll said
2) Padgitt – I don’t know him that well, and I think that a) Driscoll makes the right ’split’ between homosexual temptation and homosexual sin in his question; b) Padgitt’s answer was incorrect. Also, I missed the logic in the idolatry part, and I think I’d want to ask Padgitt some serious follow-up questions, though.
3) Bell -
1) MacLaren preached at Mars Hill one Sunday last summer (I have the file). There was nothing disagreeable in the sermon. Not someone I would have had preach at my church, but who knows what the arrangement/restrictions were. We sometimes have guest ministers preach on Sunday morning, and their subject and sermon are always pre-approved by the eldership.
2) Bell does frequently go to rabbinical sources – particularly for contextual help (supporting, not primary usage), and primarily pre-Christian/first-century contemporary sources. Driscoll has a particular ‘bone to pick’ with modern Judiasm and a local (Seattle) rabbi that he has interviewed on multiple occasions. Bell does not argue for a return to Judiasm or ritual practice. I disagree with Driscoll’s casting of Bell’s usage of first-century context.
3) Trajectory hermeneutic – this follows William Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexual hermeneutic, which I do not completely agree with (I think it misses some nuances in Ephesus), but (contrary to Driscoll’s summary) shows that homosexuality is not a “cultural†issue (like braiding of hair), and is not on a ‘trajectory’. This is the opposite of what Driscoll portrays.
4) The Virgin Birth and Velvet Elvis. On the same page as the example Bell uses, he reaffirms his belief in the VB. Personally, I wish he would have used a different example (maybe even something as incendiary as literal vs. figurative 6-day creation) to make his point. I disagree with Driscoll’s point on “making scripture lie about Jesus†– Bell was saying that sometimes we interpret scriptures a specific way, based on English paraphrase, and that perhaps our interpretation is not always correct.
5) Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything†– I’m not familiar with the book . [Just to add, in the footnotes of the same book that Bell mentions this book, he also gives effusive praise to one of John Piper's books. Does this make Bell a Calvinist, as well?]
Rick,
I’m going to say this one time. Mark Driscoll lied when he talked about how Mars Hill came to the position about women in leadership. He said nothing new in this about Rob that no one else has said. He did his fun little dance about Velvet Elvis (that other people have done).
I’ll let other people do the whole defense thing. I’m just ticked that I just wasted my time listening to him re-hash the same old same old. I’m never going to get that time back, which is sad.
I’m not sure what you found to be so “explosive” here. Besides giving you the opportunity to link to your blog, here’s the outline to Driscoll’s sermon:
(A). Talk about how great he was/is. Talk about what a great athlete he was.
(B). Express his angst over throwing his friends under the bus
(C). Express his three streams which are 1. People he likes (interestingly enough Dan Kimball is listed as a good guy), 2. People he doesn’t dislike but finds to be trouble makers, and 3.People he finds to be heretical. (Of which Bell is one b/c he has women elders in his church)
(D)Intersperse this sermon with blatant self advertisement, a few name drops, and one or two crude jokes. Talk about your upcoming books and hope that all of these guys buy them.
I saw your comment, Chris, and I appreciate your time. You and I disagree with the seriousness of some of Driscoll’s ascertions, and I am no Driscoll fan.
Driscoll relates his conversation with Kimball and says he was completely satisfied with his basic theology, so it isn’t an across the board emergent slaughterhouse. The books that Bell encourages everyone to “spend a week with” if indeed are as Driscoll defines then there is a major problem.
Driscoll although indentifying some problems, intimated there are more. And if Bell has had MacLaren speak at his church then he and I strongly disagree about what constitutes ministry cooeperation. I plane on doing some more work on my own but I am presently negatively awakened again.
In a way, I see this as a good thing for Driscoll. He’s drawing his own line in the sand, saying who he wants to be associated with, who he’s willing to stab in the back and what he believes about flesh and blood delineation of friends and enemies.
He’s been asked to take a stand, and he did.
Again, Joe, this in not about Driscoll personally or his motives. Is there any validity to what he ascerted last Friday night. He was careful not to name call and “stab anyone in the back”. He put forth legitimate concerns for what some are teaching. Listening to the sermon is a prerequisite for an informed opinion.
Now we sort it out without attacking or protecting anyone personally.
Rick,
The thing with the book recommendation in the footnotes is:
1) Bell quotes a whole lots of sources, and frequently does so in an effusive manner.
2) Bell’s footnotes included Piper, VanderLaan and an incredibly diverse spectrum.
3) Driscoll spent almost no time on the actual work Bell cited, “A Brief History of Everythingâ€, instead focusing on anything and everything about the author of the book. I haven’t read it, and I’m not sure what exactly Bell’s point was in recommending it, but to base 5-10 minutes of exposition on a footnote of a book with >100 footnotes, without any supporting evidence that Bell is walking in lock-step with Ken Wilbur on just seems to be stretching.
As for MacLaren speaking at his church, like I say, it’s not something I would have done, but I didn’t find anything offensive in it (or Padgitt’s fill-in last week at Mars Hill).
Other than getting Padgitt’s answer on homosexual practice, I didn’t find anything helpful or ‘bombshell’ in Driscoll’s seminar.
I’m not sure I agree with you Henry. What’s funny is that his whole thing on Subversion was taught at Mars Hill Grand Rapids a few years ago.
“I’m not sure I agree with you Henry. What’s funny is that his whole thing on Subversion was taught at Mars Hill Grand Rapids a few years ago. ”
What do you not agree with, Joe? And what does the “whole thing on subversion” have to do with what Driscoll actually said was true about their teachings? I will be working on this the next several days. Just a quick reading of MacLaren has placed in my hands enough evidence that he teaches heresy, redemptive heresy.
I will have to listen to the podcast myself, but from I gather from different bits and pieces around, it doesn’t seem much different than what the criticism has been for awhile. It seems Driscoll has actually become more of a Calvinist now. For a while he said he Calvinism in “an open hand”, meaning it wasn’t a primary issue. It now seems he is taking more of a hardline on it.
Ken Wilber, from I can find out, is a non-professing Buddhist, whatever that means. He seems to be a philosopher more than anything. The book that Bell cites is over 500 pages long. I highly doubt Bell is endorsing the book in its entirety.
It seems to me we need to ask ourselves what standard we are holding men like Bell and others to. What is the purpose of Velvet Elvis? It’s not a textbook. It’s not marketed as a theology book. It seems like it was written as just a collection of Bell’s thoughts that are intended to provoke thought in others.
I guess some say would say Bell has a responsibility to be more clear. In a sense, it reminds of when the Pharisees would try to make Jesus take “stands” on certain issues. What was their purpose. What is our purpose for having to know where everyone stands?
He was careful not to name call and “stab anyone in the backâ€.
He was?
How about some these “non-name calling” and “non-stabbing” comments:
- The Southern Baptist Convention of North Carolina is bringing him [Doug Pagitt] to teach in October. Shame on you.
- 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.
- 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.
There were others, but I will stop there. Driscoll is a caricature of himself. He is one of the most arrogant authors/speakers I have read/listened to, and he takes every opportunity to not just criticize, but to make personal attacks of anyone who may disagree with him. In my mind Driscoll has no credibility, as he uses a platform to create controversy and attach so-called friends.
I’m saying he lied about what Rob said about that book–and why women are in leadership at the church. Rick, you are one of the staunchest supporters I’ve ever seen for women to just be quiet and stay out of leadership. Would you say someone is a heretic because they disagree with you?
I also agree with Phil, I didn’t hear anything new about accusations against Rob and Chris L has already fielded.
Bell’s footnotes included Piper, VanderLaan and an incredibly diverse spectrum.
Hmmm… time for C?N logic…
Rob Bell cites Piper.
Rob Bell is a heretic.
Therefore, Piper is a heretic?
I can’t get Driscoll’s talk on the web. How did you find it in iTunes?
I am confused where Driscoll got into the conversation.
Matt B,
There was a link on that page to subscribe via Itunes. Just click on that and then hit d/l on Driscoll’s message.
Al Mohler shared a pulpit with Mark Driscoll? Does that mean Al is emergent?
Wait I thought that SBC stood for Slowly Becoming Catholic. Now you’re telling me that Al Mohler is Emergent? What?!?
Al Mohler shared a pulpit with Mark Driscoll? Does that mean Al is emergent?
Well… Driscoll isn’t emergent, unless you expand the logic.
- McLaren is “Emergent”
- Driscoll has participated in organizations and conferences with McLaren.
- Therefore Driscoll is “emergent.”
- Driscoll has shared a pulpit with Al Mohler and John Piper.
- Therefore Mohler and Piper are “emergent.”
- If you are “emergent” you are a heretic.
- Therefore Mohler, Piper, Driscoll, and McLaren are ALL heretics!
Hey, I just posted my wink for Driscoll, you can see it here.
Joe, I dismissed the women thing. It was most of the rest. Again, I hold no place in my library for Driscoll, but he has had a unique vantage point. I will do some research. Then I will post my thoughts on FJL.
To me they are important issues.
What is his unique vantage point? He admits he never met Bell, so basically he could have put his notes on him together by searching Silva’s site and maybe seeing clearly.
Here’s a little insight to who Ken Wilbur is and what he believes. There is a ton more of his pantheistic, Christ denying dribble. He should never be mentioned from the pulpit, ever.
http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/1
If I heard Driscoll right, Wilber’s book was mentioned in a footnote, and it was the first time I’ve ever heard him referred to – by anyone.
I have recommended Stephen King’s The Stand and The Dark Tower series to folks before, but I don’t think I’d ever invite him to speak at my church on Sunday morning. I’ve read books on quantum physics by atheists, which I found useful within specific bounds, while rejecting certain aspects of their conclusions which came from false pre-suppositions about the nature of the universe.
Chris,
I agree with your assessment. When I read VE, I actually did look at the endnotes, but I have to assume that most people don’t when they read a book like that. Also, even if they do, what percentage of those people would actually go out and buy a 500+ page book based on Bell’s advice? I guess anything is possible, but I don’t know.
Also, again the way the note is worded seems to say that Bell is pointing to the book for it’s explanation of a paticular subject. It doesn’t necessarily mean he is lock-step with the author.
Chris – Bell recommended everyone take THREE MONTHS and read Wilbur’s book “A Brief History of Everything” which is a new age philisophical book about NOTHING. Wilbur has practiced Buddhism and openly admits being taught by the leaders of Zen. His website has a topless women with butterfly wings among other things, and the essence of Wilburs book is the evolution of man to pantheism.
When a pastor recommends this book as a “look into the emergent thought” (Bell) and recommends everyone read it he should be held to account. Is anyone interested in investigating whether these things are accurate, or will we jsut pay no attention because it deals with someone we like?
Driscoll cannot say these things without himself being held accountable. And why are we making Driscoll or even other men the issue, let us be students of the Word and see if these things be true.
I’m not making Driscoll an issue – I listen to both Mars Hill podcasts each week. On this particular issue, though, I think Driscoll is out of order in his assessment. To wit –
Beef #1: MacLaren preached at Mars Hill one Sunday last summer. a) It was a week during the month Bell was gone; b) As I understand MH’s structure, the elders and the lead pastor (Don Golden) make the decisions – not Rob in a vacuum; c) MacLaren didn’t touch on anything controversial in the least, and gave a good sermon (which I can send to you, if you’d like); d) MacL isn’t someone I’d invite to speak at my church on a Sunday morning, but while I have serious issues with him, I won’t consign him to outer darkness, either…
2) Bell does go to rabbinical sources – and so do I – not for primary support, but for contextual understanding (which means distinguishing between pre-70AD rabbinical sourcing and post-70AD rabbinical sourcing). I’d be willing to guess that Driscoll has actually read this from talking points on Bell, and not from listening to sermons.
3) Trajectory hermeneutic – I understand this hermeneutic (particularly in how it deals with apparent differences moving chronologically through the OT and to apparent differences with Paul), and would note that this hermeneutical method specifically calls out condemnation of homosexual practice as a “universal” condemnation, not a cultural one. This is the opposite of what Driscoll portrays in his comments, imo because of his hard complimentarian stance (even harder than you, Rick).
4) The Virgin Birth and Velvet Elvis. Bell affirms the VB. Bell’s point is a valid one, his example is a poor one.
5) Ken Wilbur’s book (which, relistening, isn’t addressed by Driscoll so much as Wilbur’s other stances and works) – which seems to be one of his earliest works (1996) – is endorsed in the footnotes within similar effusivity as is Piper’s book and a number of other books (Bell tends to over-praise a number of his sources). We’re talking about a single footnote tagged to a single point in a book and somehow making it the sum-total of Bell’s thinking. Sorry, Rick, but I think this is grasping straws (and is at the heart of GBA argumentation)…
Agreed…
McLaren on homosexuality: Driscolls statement on the quote from the article is not the whole picture of that article. Rick I trust you have read that article?
Bell reference of Wilber: I told my students to read portions of the Koran. What does that make me?
If dialogue is what is desired then all those who dialogue should at least have read “Velvet Elvis”.
I do like Driscoll’s opening line about “or your a fundamental legalist looking for stones in which to throw”. Good Stuff.
Chris,
“Bell reference of Wilber: I told my students to read portions of the Koran. What does that make me?”
It depends on your preamble. If you told them to read it in order to gain insight into the Islamic mindset or to learn what Muslims believe, that’s one thing – that makes you a proponent of discernment and an educator. If you told them to read it in order to obtain some positive spiritual insights that would make you confused, at best, or a universalist heretic to be avoided at all costs at the worst in my book. So which was it btw?
I can understand the Koran on a very limited level, on Wilbur’s book maybe a couple of quotes but very careful. He is a great writer who can be used of the devil to lead people away from Christ. Hiw writings espouse the spirit of anti-christ, if anyone still believes in that. How do you give a blanket approval of spending a few weeks reading it?
How about spending a few weeks in your prayer closet?