An Emerging Church Response to Driscoll’s Lecture
There have been some questions as to how the ECM would respond to criticism of three figures who are either in the ECM or are, at least, associated by others as being part of it. One such response, by an ECM church pastor, Bob Hyatt, takes a similar approach to what several writers here at CRN.info have taken, as well.
From his blog:
The Driscoll podcast calling out everyone to the left is up. Here’s the message- listen to it. (and skip the first few minutes… You’ve heard it. At some point Mark needs to start beginning messages with “I know you’ve all heard the story of my rough and tumble youth, and if you haven’t, just pick a random podcast from iTunes- I’m pretty sure it will be in there.”)
ÂTo sum up-
He uses the word “heresy” in and around the discussion, and while he doesn’t apply it directly to the forehead of either Brian, Doug or Rob, he doesn’t leave a whole lot of doubt as to what category he places these guys in mentally…So- for the record…
I agree with Mark- Brian McLaren seems to endorse just about whatever book comes across his desk and some of them are truly disturbing. I don’t so much have a problem with what Brian himself says- but he seems to endorse and approve of some books with some horrific ideas. This concern has been growing in me for awhile. ÂI agree with Mark- If Doug truly did tell him publicly that homosexual practice (as opposed to orientation) is consistent with following Jesus, he’s wrong. (I feel I should modify that statement somehow, but I won’t. That’s what the comments are for…)
I don’t, however, think this makes him a heretic.I somewhat agree with Mark-
About Rob Bell…
a. Rabbinical authority. Mark dings Rob for saying that if you want to understand Scripture, you have to understand the Rabbis. Has Rob ever actually said this? Yeah- he’s got his style in this regard, but I don’t think (as far as I know) that he raises this to the level Mark is saying he does.b. Mark disagrees with Rob’s “trajectory hermeneutic.” I agree with it. Webb’s book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals is one everyone should read and understand. It fits well with a Jesus-centered, Gospel-focused understanding of the Scriptures. Mark dings Rob for having women elders and in so doing reduces the whole argument to something of an oversimplification and caricature.
He also conflates homosexuality into the argument, missing or ignoring the point that Webb specifically denies that there is a redemptive movement or arc in Scripture regarding that issue. I personally have heard Bell make the same exact point. I think the “guilt by association” argument sticks somewhat in McLaren’s case as eventually he’s going to have to answer for that of which he approves, but I find the “slippery slope” tack here frustrating.
c. I agree with Mark- Rob Bell overplayed the spring metaphor in Velvet Elvis. I know (and affirm) what he was trying to say, but he picked the wrong example to demonstrate it. I’m glad Rob himself affirms the Virgin Birth, but by saying it’s not necessary, he potentially gives away the farm. He’s not a heretic as far as I can tell, but he probably does need to hear what Mark says on this.
Overall, though the case against Bell is a bit stretched, Mark is on target, particularly at the end as regards the ineffectiveness of some in the emerging church to do anything other than attract the disgruntled children of evangelicalism- I think you all should listen to it.
As an aside- there’s a lot of talk about whether Mark “should” have taken a Matthew 18 approach with these guys…
And my take is this- Whether or not he “should” have… he could have. This is a guy who could get a face-to-face with any of these 3 big names he’s calling out.
I know, I know, I KNOW how busy he is (that’s one of my main complaints about the mega-church pastoral lifestyle), but what I’d like to see is less of the big guns in this whole thing (and let’s face it- calling someone out for heresy is like the a-bomb… there’s really isn’t any way to escalate after that) and more pleading with people he calls friends and brothers to come around (he admits that there’s distance, he hasn’t talked to Brian or Bell and has had only 1 or 2 conversations with Doug and not of the kind I’m talking about). I’m not saying Mark’s completely off-base here, but if I have a chance to rally and supply my troops or sit down one-on-one with the general of the opposing “team” (as Mark likes to call it) I think I might try the second for awhile and save the first for a possibly necessary last resort.
is one everyone should read and understand. It fits well with a Jesus-centered, Gospel-focused understanding of the Scriptures. Mark dings Rob for having women elders and in so doing reduces the whole argument to something of an oversimplification and caricature.
Thanks, Bob…
![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")
73 Comments(+Add)
I really need someone smart (Rick *raises his hand*) to unpack this for me.
1) Does anyone think that by “trajectory hermenuetics” we are usurping the truth of God’s word or enhancing it?
2) I’ve listened to Mark and nowhere do I hear context with the books that MacLaren quotes from. He just seems to ramble about the footnotes from this guy and this guy and this guy. But no context. Did I miss it?
3) Mark would/could get dinged for a lot of things he says/does but I’ve noticed that in this whole episode it seems that most are like “blind squirrels finding a nut”. Meaning the “heresy hunters” are scrambling around to try and find anything in which to feed on and it doesn’t matter who’s table it fell from. Apparently they “think” they have found it. But I don’t think this is conclusive evidence. Iggy soundbite…”Proof?” audio tape, transcript, dead sea scroll, anything that really smacks of heresy when viewed in context.
Thank you, Bob Hyatt, I read and appreciated your thoughtful and yet commited comments. We need more like you so that the brotherhood between methodological emergents and conservative believers can continue. I will always see it more defined, but as Chris L. noted in the former post, it isn’t all or nothing.
chris – I do not believe trajectory hermenuetics is always wrong, but if taken alone without other perspectives it can lead to an isolated theology.
The footnotes are enough for me.
I personally have documented my distinct differences with Driscoll, but that does not diminish the facts he brings up. It really isn’t about Driscoll, he is much too “swashbuckling” for my taste and unless I’m mistaken he comes across as prideful. One man’s opinion without tears.
So, if we are to do it “driscoll’s way” we must only footnote people who we agree with in totality?
The footnotes objections strikes me as being a remarkably watchdoggie-like guilt by association style tactic.
When you footnote someone who claims that Jesus wasn’t God and was buried in a makeshift earthen grave I would think that you could find another author to footnote. Sometimes our intellectual and well read prowess must give way to wisdom because if we are not careful we present a wider acceptance of literature than is really representative of our thoughts.
I have read some of mein kampf, but if I quoted it I would be careful to explain. If MacLaren said that the book I referenced would “save Jesus from Christianity” then that is a major problem that needs further explanation.
footnotes:
1. Following Judah’s Lion
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5 through 1000 (see #1)
Hmmm…
I use Hitler quotes and footnote them… the statements are true in that someone who states a lie over and over enough people will believe it… I do not agree with this “truth” Hitler taught as “good” though he made a valid points…
Is Hitler always wrong? Or was it his conclusions and application of the conclusions?
I know that is a strong example… so let’s soften it a bit.
A rabbi who wrote and lived before and at the time of Jesus of soon after writes as to what they were teaching… in that context, we MAY gain insight to some of the things Jesus stated… are Rabbis always wrong? I think the answer is no, so is Bell always wrong and is he then a heretic for quoting them?
Again, if Brian uses footnotes of someone most do not agree with… does that make Brian a heretic?
Mark is a Calvinist… I do not agree with some teachings of Calvinists and see those as harmful and at times cutting against the teachings of Paul, Jesus and the bible over all… I have heard Marks sexist comments and I know that some have taken him to be a misogynist over these comments… (Such as suggesting anal sex if your wife is having her period) Do I then state all that Mark teaches is wrong and that he is a heretic Yes! errrr I mean No! (Just seeing if you are still with me and awake).
I think that these are not enough to brand someone… and I still say…. oh you know, chris stated it…
I guess it takes more for me to start waving the heretic banner… maybe it is because I have been labeled as one myself so have empathy for them… and in that fall on God’s grace and mercy.
Blessings,
iggy
A friend of mine (who is not a Christian) says this to me all the time.
I realize he is wrong in some ways, but I confess there are times I wonder why we feel we must be the censure’s for the world. Perhaps, Jesus does need to be saved from Christianity.
The point is that footnotes are applied to a specific point within a book. Condemning someone for footnoting a book, for parts of the book that are not included in the footnote is just as ridiculous as watchdoggie guilt by association tactics. Its the exact same thing.
Which makes me ask this question: if McLaren, and Paggitt and everyone else is as heretical as everyone claims why does everyone have to go to unrelated material in footnoted books? You’d think it’d be more effective to just directly quote them.
Wasn’t Driscoll’s point that Bell said that everyone should take 3 months off and read Wilbur’s book, “A Brief History of Everything”? That’s a little different then just footnoting. That appears to be an endorsement.
As a former teacher it still begs the question: “Why is that bad, Matt?” Obvious hyperbole aside, what are we afraid of?
Matt,
If you read Bell’s footnotes, he says that type of thing about most of the books/websites he lists – including books by John Piper. Despite his quoting Piper and holding him in quite high esteem, apparently, I don’t see anyone “accusing” Bell of being a closet Calvinist…
Joe – the warnings to avoid certain things in Scripture are many. Why avoid Playboy? And if you have researched Wilbur’s website and read some of his writings there can be nothing gained from reading him. He is an pantheistic existentialist who is not just benign he is promoting the spirit of anti-christ.
This is one of the things about which people cannot get past, that the emergent leaning group will not even admit a mistake when it is obvious. Wilbur isn’t even close and if Bell actually encouraged people to read him he should rethink that.
The odms should stop by and see that we are having a pleasant disagreement.
We shouldn’t be afraid of reading anything. However, that’s different then endorsing it. I’ve seen “Piss Christ” in person, partially to see what the buzz was about. I wouldn’t endorse it as an art piece that everyone needs to see.
Rick,
The connection between playboy (which is clearly porn and condemned in Scripture) and someone who had a different world view than you or I have is non-existent (not to mention a logical fallacy). I sometimes wonder if we would have castigated Paul for his references at Mars Hill.
To me, this smacks of censure and in history it has never worked.
Matt,
Just don’t include Piss Christ in any published work you create. If you do then it’ll be taken as an endorsement of every work that artist has ever created.
Rick,
I’m just curious why you feel like you have to use the footnoted works as a basis of critique. Why don’t you just use what is directly written and said? Because if they are as heretical as you claim they are that should suffice.
I happen to believe that encouraging everyone, mature and immature believers to say nothing of unregeneate seekers, to read a book like Wilbur’s is as bad as Playboy. We should censure some things of which the number is growing.
Be simple concerning that which is evil and wise concerning that which is good. Check on Wilbur and his books and writings and let me know if you would encourage people to fill their mind or at least waste their time on him.
Tim – if you read my comments and listen to Driscoll the quote is that MacLaren SAID that the heretical book he footnotes could “Save Jesus from Christianity”. Could it get any stronger?!
The reason I appreciated Hyatt’s post was that he didn’t automatically go into “defense mode” about men he liked and agreed with on other subjects. A calm, impartial, and well researched investigation is sometimes necessary and may sometimes indicate that someone we like has made a mistake.
The size of the mistake will vary with our affiliations. (I’m guessing)
So Rick, what makes you the supreme censure person? Why do you get to choose what should be read and what shouldn’t? I’m sure you’re a nice guy (besides that whole ND thing) but what makes you the High Censure Guy? Why are we afraid as Christians to allow our faith to be examined? Why are we afraid to allow others to read other things? Why are we afraid to say, “Hey go read the Koran, or this guy here.”
Rick,
You didn’t answer the question.
Also, if McLaren really does advocate all the worst bits of all the books he footnoted and recommended you’d think there’d be at least a written or spoken advocation of it somewhere. After all, to paraphrase Luther, “When McLaren farts they smell it in watchdoggieland”.
What makes you the supreme non censure guy? The Bible exhorts us to avoid foolish jesting, babblings, false teachings, false teachers, etc., etc.. Are you saying that we should never avoid anything or only the things you define as you have suggested of me?
“Brian McLaren seems to endorse just about whatever book comes across his desk and some of them are truly disturbing. ”
by the supreme censure Bob Hyatt
I personally don’t understand why any Christian would have a problem with the statement, “we need to save Jesus from Christianity”. It might be a near impossible task, but I think it is something that is desperately needed for a lot of people.
Honestly, I admit, that it is hard for me to be objective with someone like Driscoll. I’ve read both of his books, and I actually liked them, but after listening to his podcasts and reading some of the more recent things from him, he seems to have gone further down the road to becoming an angry Calvinist.
First off, I find his charge about the EC just appealing to disgruntled children of Evangelicals a bit duplicitous. After all, he stated in his first book, I believe, that the reason he started his own chuch was because he couldn’t find he liked. In other words, he was disgruntled. Also, to characterize Bell’s church in that fashion is just wrong. It seems that Mars Hill in Grand Rapids is more diverse than Mars Hill in Seattle. I believe it has gotten bigger in less amount of time, for whatever that’s worth.
I will agree with the contention that a lot of Christian leaders seem to operate out of fear. In a sense it reminds of how small stores react when they hear a Wal-Mart is moving in. A lot of them will push for some sort of zoning ordinance to forbid them from coming, because they can’t compete economically. The thing is if they are truly offering superior products and service, the market will reward them. I believe it is the same for the marketplace of ideas. Good ideas will win; we don’t necessarily need to censure them out.
I love it when people say Mars is just a church for the angry kids of fundies. Yesterday, I prayed with people older than my father. They’re not not the only one’s. We have people all over the age spectrum. Yes, we have the young dissallusioned, along with the old dissalussioned. We also have the newly converted and the older happy people.
Now, I’m off to the Dentist. ICK
Brian MacLaren says that evangelicals think they are the only ones that take the Bible seriously. He recommends a book called “The Last Week” that is co-authored by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. The book claims that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and his remains were probably eaten by wild dogs and that the resurrection was wishful thinking, but if you remain unconvinced here is a direct quote from Crossan:
“The last chapters of the gospels and the first chapters of Acts taken literally, factually, and historically trivialize Christianity and brutalize Judaism. That acceptation has created in Christianity a lethal deceit that sours its soul, hardens its heart, and savages its spirit. Although the basis of all religion and, indeed, of all human life is mythological, based on acts of fundamental faith incapable of proof or disproof, Christianity often asserts that its faith is based on fact not interpretation, history not myth, actual event not supreme fiction. I find that assertion internally corrosive and externally offensive. ”
http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Crossan_bio/crossan_bio.html
It would take years to expound upon the heresies of the Jesus Seminar of which Borg and Crossan are writers. Now please do not divert the subject to Driscoll, he is irrelevant, do some reading about what MacLaren endorses and speak plainly about whether you agree with his view and if his view of heresies is just part of the conversation..
We are not talking about pre-trib/post trib or anything like that, we are speaking about the core truth about Jesus Christ. This is not about Silva or Schlueter, this is about how we as informed individuals will hold others accountable when they are carless and blasphemous concerning the gospel.
This isn’t about censure, this is about reading what MacLaren endorses and finds interesting and whether we should publicly censure him. If the emergent movement is to be taken seriously then some must speak out against those who are either misrepresenting it, or worse yet, revealing some dirty secrets.
Concerning Piss Christ, there is a completely different way of viewing it. This poem by Andrew Hudgins is fantastic. Please note there are two versions. The one you can find on the internet and the other that was actually published in his collection, Ecstatic in the Poison.
If we did not know it was cow’s blood and urine,
if we did not know that Serrano had for weeks
hoarded his urine in a plastic vat,
if we did not know the cross was gimcrack plastic,
we would assume it was too beautiful.
We would assume it was the resurrection,
glory, Christ transformed to light by light
because the blood and urine burn like a halo,
and light, as always, light makes it beautiful.
We are born between the urine and the feces,
Augustine says, and so was Christ, if there was a Christ,
skidding into this world as we do
on a tide of blood and urine. Blood, feces, urine?
what the fallen world is made of, and what we make.
He peed, ejaculated, shat, wept, bled?
bled under Pontius Pilate, and I assume
the mutilated god, the criminal,
humiliated god, voided himself
on the cross and the blood and urine smeared his legs
and he ascended bodily unto heaven,
and on the third day he rose into glory, which
is what we see here, the Piss Christ in glowing blood:
the whole irreducible point of the faith,
God thrown in human waste, submerged and shining.
We have grown used to beauty without horror.
We have grown used to useless beauty.
At some point, Rick, I hope you’ll have a criticism about McLaren by quoting McLaren.
And that really is the point that is consistently missed, not only in this conversation, but in multiple discussions of similar topics when GBA via footnote is the method d’jour
Rick,
I don’t want to waste a lot of energy defending McClaren, but it seems to me that his little blurb about that book is not a full-fledged endorsement. He also recommends plenty of books by N.T. Wright on his website (along with other more conservative writers) who is in staunch opposition to the Jesus Seminar. Based on what McClaren has actually written, I do not believe he denies the resurrection or comes close to it anywhere, even.
I guess it comes down to how much influence we think he has. Will people see McClaren’s endorsement on the back of a book, and take it mean, “Brian McClaren thinks this book is great, I should read and believe everything in it” or “Brian McLaren found this book at least somewhat worth his time”. Or a bigger question in my mind would be, “does his endorsement have the potential to convince potential readers that what the book says is correct?”
It’s a somewhat similar concept as what is read in Deuteronomy:
We can play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon till the cows come home with any writer who footnotes or quotes, but wouldn’t it be nice if men were just hung or lauded on their own words, instead of having to vouch for the regeneration of every quoted qource?
Brian MacLaren:
“But there is a big difference, I think, between Marcus Borg and say John Spong in this regard. The important thing that the Jesus Seminar is doing, I think, is helping people to ask, “What did Jesus’ message sound like in the ears of its original hearers?” (Marcus Borg – “The resurrection was wishful thinking”)
That is a quote from Brian MacLaren. Read the Jesus seminar and see what they teach.
Also, in light of my exposition about the book “The Last Week” (no resurrection, Jesus body eaten by dogs), Brian MacLaren says:
“I am enjoying reading The Last Week, I recommend it to all believers” and
“Borg and Crossan show one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I’ve ever come across.” Those are MacLaren quotes about extreme books of heresy.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. If we can not call MacLaren a heretic than who can we call one? And even a heretic has some truth. This reveals the soft underbelly of the emergent conversation, its abject refusal to think badly about any in their own group. And if by chance someone like Burke or MacLaren says something that sounds heretical, he is given the widest possible latitude in nuance and meaning.
But let MacArthur say something, and he is not given an ounce of latitude. What are the emergents afraid of, there are heretics in the orthodox realm I’m sure they are among you also. I am still compiling a post on MacLaren which perhaps the “against your will” theory will again surface.
The new camouflage, “I endorse this book”.
Of course I can claim I don’t agree with all of it, like…say…Jesus’ body was eaten by wild dogs. A minor point but whose splitting hairs?
The new lazy heresy hunter program: “just research the footnotes if you can’t find anything better to condemn someone with.”
“Borg and Crossan show one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I’ve ever come across.â€
Tim, you asked for a quote and now you ignore it because you do not want to hear it.
Rick,
And what reason did McLaren give for that analysis?
It was probably a spiritual reason based upon the absolute truth of Scripture. Not. This is what really makes me wonder, MacLaren -of all people, is defended and even when he endorses heresy I get “What did he really mean?”.
And then we agrue with the Calvinists over the word ALL and claim they do not mean the accepted meaning. MacLaren could say “I deny Christ” and some would say “In what context was he speaking?”.
I certainly wouldn’t say that. But I would ask, it is worth asking, what is Brians point in referencing the book? It could be a myriad of reasons. “Insightful” how? Insightful in the fact that this is a thought that is out there and we need to be prepared to defend it. Or “Insightful”…This revealed the truth of the resurrection to me.
Nothing we say happens in a vacuum, all words are connected, we can not assume to understand full context from a footnote or a quote or whatever.
Certainly the speaker has an obligation to effectively communicate his/her intent. In Brians case I try to look fully at his life and until I hear him deny the divinity of Christ or affirm the writings of non-believers as truth, the words “Brian McLaren is a heretic” will never leave my mouth.
So if he refers to a work of one that does deny Christ by saying it is…
“one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I’ve ever come across.â€
That is not a major flag? I would say that the speaker has effectively communicated his intent. We are not supposed to play word games…you know, the yea be yea thing.
Rick,
I’ve asked you about a million times and I’ll ask again. If McLaren endorses all of these heretical ideas found in these various footnoted works then where does he express these ideas himself? If you have to go to works he referenced when he himself is constantly interviewed, speaking, writing and generally expressing himself in public at a rate the average person couldn’t dream of then where are these ideas at in his public communications?
I told you I’m still researching, they are there. But just endorsing these books and heretics are heresy in my book. If you endorse books that desecrate the gospel, what does that say about your view of that same gospel?
Rick,
I am not a Borg fan at all… and I see that he moves deeper into the idea that God is more of a metaphor than reality… yet, I still think that sometimes we need to read theologians and see where they are coming from.
Nietzsche is not considered a theologian, yet he was. In fact one can gain much insight to the fundamentalist mind by reading him in that context… as that was his up bringing and from the perspective he was write against.
He is thought to have stated “God is dead” which he did but if one digs deeper into what was going on at the time… that the academies were on one hand going through traditions of signing creeds and doctrinal statements that they claimed to agree with, yet in practice did not even include them in their papers… we see Nietzsche simple stating that “God is not in the academics” He died there a long time ago. We take this for granted now…
Was Nietzsche saved? I do not thinks so… yet what he offers is more than “God is dead” but insight to what is and was happening at the time… and out of this we have construction ism… which is a very astute insight.
Now, I recommend people to read Nietzsche… as Christians… and if I wrote a endorsement i would say things like “insightful” and “carefully thought out”. Now, would I endorse all Nietzsche’s thinking? In no way… but I think it possible to gain insight to through Borg and others even if I disagree with them…
On a personal note I have only read one book by Borg… adn never really finished it.
Be blessed,
iggy
Unbelievable.
As pointed out he’s also endorsed books by NT Wright and other authors that have been OKed by the heresy hunters.
So, if you use the reasoning that endorsement=total agreement then you’re going to have to explain the obvious contradiction in what you claim he believes.
I think the phrase “obvious contradiction” aptly explains MacLaren’s beliefs.
So you believe McLaren simultaneously believes that the resurrection happened and didn’t happen?
I do not know. If he said he did believe in the resurrection and simulatneously endorsed someone who didn’t, I view his belief as suspect. “obvious contradiction”
Rick,
again, I see it as that he is not “endorsing” all the ideas and thoughts, but is “endorsing” that it is “one of the most insightful careful readings of the bible”.
Again, I can endorse an atheist that is very insightful and careful in their handling of scirpture, and not agree totally with them. I do know that Brian leans heavily on N.T Wright much more than Borg…
Now, Borg and N.T. Wright are friends and have done books together… each stating their view and also stating that the other is right here and wrong there… is N.T. Wright a heretic for that?
Again “insightful and careful reading” can be taken a few ways but still leaves much room for disagreement. To me it is still a very general statement that is kind but not too deep.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Well, McLaren wrote this, which plainly states he believes in the resurrection. I guess my point would be that being unwise or even unclear does not make one a heretic in my eyes. In the end, I don’t really see it as my job to go around deciding who is and who isn’t a heretic.
Well, Phil, it is somebody’s job according to the Word. And I do not mean labeling everyone with that moniker, I mean a calm and reserved inventory.
Mark Driscoll can be very crude.
I’ve heard (podcast? video clip? can’t remember where) him include in a sermon something about he and his kid peeing, with him acting it out on the stage. Quite a few months ago there was a post on this blog about Ingrid’s dropping of a radio program because of crudity in the presentation and I said, at that time, that I was tired of proctologist/excretory/gynecologist/gutter humor in sermons and Christian teaching by leaders that seems acceptable for a laugh. It is made light of, this kind of thing, and termed as “keeping it real” or something, but it embarrasses me to hear it, an embarrassment not stemming from being a prude or naive, but just simply because it embarrasses me. Inevitably, of course, I’m shushed and told that Paul was crude, with examples of such provided from scripture.
If Driscoll sees fit to go after other leaders for the apparently bigger problem that he sees them as having while not backing of from his facade of “I’m a tough guy who keeps it real [and crude]“, he really does fit the splinter/plank verse very well. Crudeness like that isn’t just a surface thing, but stems from something else, deeper, that needs to be addressed.
I don’t know Pagitt and McLaren, since I’ve not read them, but I have read Bell and can’t at all see what Driscoll is trying to do by lumping him in. The reason I included the crudeness of Driscoll is that he has his own issues that people have gone after him for and it starts to become this hugely bizarre (and shameful) exercise of Big Pastors condemning Other Big Pastors.
I don’t recall Bell ever doing such a thing like Driscoll did here. (Again, I can’t speak about Pagitt and McLaren — I’m not up on what they’ve said or done). It speaks volumes about Bell, the things he will not say about other pastors.
I’m always very curious about these strict Calvinist leaders who seem to think it their duty to behave like a rabid dog about others not in line with their teaching. One of the most distasteful things about severe Calvinist believers is there overwhelming lack of any kind of love other than “tough love”, and their 98 percent make-up of vinegar and bile.
And of course, I don’t agree with Driscoll’s view on women in the church. But don’t fear — I won’t even go there today.
I don’t really have a problem with Driscoll’s crudeness. In fact I had more of a problem with his shoddy research tactics in this case than I ever had with anything crude he’s said on stage.
Rick,
You’re fast losing credibility by pursuing this style of heretic hunting. Its just silly. You’ve got McLaren endorsing books with contradictory messages in each, so it seems to me that if you’re going to condemn as a heretic for the one, then you also need to embrace him as orthodox for the other.
We are not speaking of a person who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, we are speaking of denying the resurrection. Now I am not a heresy hunter but when ittracks me down I know it. So when MacLaren endorses him for whatever reason, that poisons him also.
If that makes me lose whatever credibility you think I have left, so be it. I would have a problem with someone being silent about a writer who denies the resurrection much less endorsing the book. We must be living in different realities.
Rick,
Srsly, you’re starting to sound like Silva. Its been pointed out that he has also endorsed books that affirm the resurrection, and a link has already been provided where McLaren affirms the resurrection. Yet you persist in pursuing this ridiculous guilt-by-association style of heretic hunting. Its starting to look more and more like you’ve got an axe to grind and its got McLaren’s name on it.
Bob hits another home run with this summation, much as he did when he objected eloquently and yet compassionately to Spencer Burke’s The Heretic’s Guide To Eternity.
Bob is my hero.
Tim,
I think each writer here needs to be free to pursue the angles to which they are led in study. I am willing to wait to find what Rick is reading, and what conclusions he reaches. I believe that he will likely fall somewhere between CR?N’s take (which wouldn’t even consider taking a deeper look before a full onslaught of tone-deaf condemnation) and mine (which probably is on the conservative side of most of the writers here).
Personally, I think that flitting through footnotes is an unproductive angle that only leads to Guilt-by-Association if it is not backed with proof that the positions of the writer are in lock-step with the person footnoted. I say this regardless of who’s being skewered. However, the one exception I would hold is when someone holds to a specific method (like footnote Fisking) and then becomes guilty of what he/she criticizes – and then only to illustrate hypocrisy, not to show a link between the footnote reference and the writer.
In this particular conversation, I would note that – in the case of Bell – we have 100+ footnotes which quote Piper, Vanderlaan, and a whole host of other Christian writers of all stripes. I don’t see anyone trying to say Bell is a Calvinist (Piper), Dutch Reformed (VanderLaan), Messianic Jewish (Bivins), Arminian (Young), or somehow connected to the rest of those he mentions in his footnotes. It is just not a productive path to walk down.
For example, one of my favorite science fiction books is Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which – humorously – makes some interesting observations about the world we live in. It is written by an atheist (the late Douglas Adams), and though I would heartily recommend it and quote it in some contexts, I would never espouse Adams’ atheistic philosophies.
With that said, I think Rick has answered with some MacLaren quotes, and I’d like to see where he finishes. I believe MacLaren is in error on a number of grounds, and I wonder about the line he walks between universalism and inclusivism. I still hesitate calling him a heretic – which is a title more are given than deserve these days. Even if I end up disagreeing with Rick on this point, I want to wait to see where he goes…
Chris L,
Are you telling Tim to wait until Rick brings up his final piece before he (or I for that matter) disagree with him? In other words, while we all wait for Rick to do his research (something I commend him for doing) he is making statements that seem “watchdoggish” to some. Should we not state that?
Secondly, if Ken posted simliar statements to what Rick has posted to this point are you saying that those statements wouldn’t have been met with some pushback?
Up until now I believe our major disagreement has centered on MacLaren’s endorsements (more than footnotes) of books that teach heresy. My research will deal with what I can accurately document what MacLaren believes himself.
In full disclosure, I e-mailed Ken and asked him if he had actual quotes pertaining to this subject free from personal hyperbole and he referenced one of my pokes at him on CRNinfo and declined to provide any. I wonder whether he has any but it is probably better for me to do myself. I may end up buying some of MacLarens books so it might take a while.
I am on record as seriously disagreeing with his endorsements of certain books.
Joe,
I’m just saying that I’m willing to wait. I think that any comparison of Rick to Silva is a Godwinning of this thread – just as if the same comparison was made of you. If we disagree on a topic, that is fine – so long as it remains in line with Christian love and respect.
I think I’ve made it clear that if Rick’s comparison rests on footnotes alone that it won’t meet what I see as a minimal threshold for condemnation of a brother. Do I really need to say more than that or add to the hyperbole?
Even if we end up disagreeing on MacLaren, if we can continue to work together, I see that as an example of Christian love in action – much like Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement over Mark which still resulted in them as friends and Mark as a valuable part of the early church…
I agree Chris as long as evryone agrees that I am completely right, then wecan proceed. I gotta go, I got Brian on the phone!
Rick,
I think that is pretty telling of Ken and his true attitude… I mean you were asking for proof for the accusations and he gets petty and sends you off with nothing… the irony is I bet the “poke” was better researched than the many of the articles Ken pumps out.
Really even if you do find that magic bullet that proves for all the Brian is a heretic, I would still recommend to others his books as they still inspire one to think.
I think that the real issue is that Brian is very “generous” and would always error on being kind and “generous” than to not to. So, I agree that he may “endorse” every book that comes down the line, yet if he did not, then there is that appearance he is not “generous”… Is that good? I do not see as a good thing to always be so, yet that is what his ministry is built on.
I bet if you wrote a book that was thought provoking and pushed one to dig deeper… good or bad… into others faith, then Brian might also endorse your book…
Be Blessed,
iggy
I don’t even know what “godwhining” is and I wasn’t comparing him to Ken, I was asking if Ken came in with the same statements what kind of reaction we would give him.
Now, I just hope that Rick and Brian get done soon. I have a pressing issue to ask him about his stance on something.
The designated hitter? Boxers or briefs? Paper or plastic?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Joe,
Sorry about the pop-culture reference there.
I think we’ve all made it clear that Fisking via footnotes is not something that most of us agree with, specifically if the footnoted extrapolation does not square with the subject’s actual writing.
Hopefully something about the drubbing that the ND choirboys took last week…
I can answer that, Joe, without even hearing the question. My stance is right!
No, you guys are all silly. I had to ask Brian if he preferred Jiff or Peter Pan. Strangely, he said, he didn’t want to hurt any of his friends that are at either company.
(Um…could someone close out the href tag? Anyone?)
The Bombers won again this week. First in the East. You’ll be seeing the Blue & Gold in the Grey Cup in November, wait and see!
(Does anyone here have the foggiest idea what I’m talking about?)
Chris L (and by extension Rick),
I wasn’t by any means trying to shut down further exploration of the issue, however, if exploration of the issue consists entirely of condemnation by extension of footnotes to the entire work then I’m gonna have to blow the whistle and call a technical foul.
For the record, I never even mentioned a footnote and am ignorant of any so please do notinclude me in that vein. You could footnote the Satanic Bible to reference a quote and it would be fine.
emphasis mine.
This is from Augustines “City of God”. It seems appropiate to excerpt from it for this dialogue.
I found it interesting that CRN’s new post about Pagitt linked to a man whose wife is also a pastor and she is reading Kimball’s book “They like Jesus but not the Church”. Maybe CRN is mellowing?
I know this is a few weeks old, but I saw this comment by Scot McKnight on Tony Jones’ blog regarding this issue, and found it interesing.