This is always a favorite game of mine: My dad is better than your dad. Sometimes boys play this when they are young. I heard a joke about it once. It had three boys arguing about whose dad was the richest or something like that. The doctor’s son. The Lawyer’s son. And the preacher’s son. It ends with the preacher’s son saying something like, “Well, my dad talks for 30 minutes per week and it takes seven people to carry out his haul.” That’s kind of what I thought about as I read this gem from Sam Guzman: Driscoll’s Jesus.

After informing us of his anger with Driscoll, Samuel writes this:

After opening to a random page and starting to read, I quickly gave up all notions of learning something of value.

Then he writes:

What’s my problem with Driscoll? He has a low and vulgar view of my friend, Jesus. To Driscoll, Jesus is not a conquering King, before whom millions of angels fall on their face day and night; He is not the glorious Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, before whom every knee shall bow; He would never be sitting on a throne high and lifted up; He could never knock you unconscious with a glance. In short, He is not worthy of respect because he’s just an average Joe. Joe the plumber Jesus. I wonder if Mark Driscoll realizes the Jesus of Revelation is Jesus in his humanity. The Jesus with flaming eyes is Jesus the man.

Sam, my friend, no one said you had to read the book. No one said you had to like Mark Driscoll. No one said you had to open to a ‘random page’ and start reading. But how can you, after ‘opening to a random page’ of one book begin to completely understand what a person believes about Jesus? Sam, you are fighting the wrong battle here. Driscoll, for all his weirdness, is on our side; he is preaching the Jesus of Scripture. There is no such thing as ‘Driscoll’s Jesus’ any more than there is ‘Sam’s Jesus’ or ‘Jerry’s Jesus.’

As the second member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ ruled from eternity past as God exalted in glory. He then humbly entered into history as a man to identify with us. The common jargon for the second member of the Trinity entering into history as a human being is incarnation (from the Latin meaning ‘becoming flesh’); it is a biblical concept.

On the earth, Jesus grew from infancy to adulthood, had a family, worked a job, ate meals, increased his knowledge through learning, told jokes, attended funerals, had male and female friends, celebrated holidays, went to parties, loved his parents, felt the pain of betrayal and lies told about him, and experienced the full range of human emotions from stress to astonishment, joy, compassion, and sorrow. Furthermore, Jesus experienced the same sorts of trials and temptations that we do, with the exception that he never sinned. Subsequently, Jesus lived the sinless life that we are supposed to live but have not; he was both our substitute and our example.

Significantly, Jesus lived his sinless life on the earth in large part by the power of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that Jesus in any way ceased to be fully God while on the earth, but rather as Philippians 2:5-11 shows, he humbly chose not always to avail himself of his divine attributes. Thus, he often lived as we must live: by the enabling power of God the Holy Spirit. I want to be clear: Jesus remained fully God during his incarnation while also fully man on the earth; he maintained all of his divine attributes and availed himself of them upon occasion, such as to forgive human sin, which God alone can do. Nonetheless, Jesus’ life was lived as fully human in that he lived by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Mark Driscoll, The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, pp 128-129, ed by John Piper and Justin Taylor.)

I’m not sure how this Jesus differs from the Biblical Jesus. I’m not sure what you are contending for if this Jesus written of by Driscoll differs from your Jesus whom you claim Driscoll is opposed to. What? I know. I’m confused too.

Driscoll then goes on to defend truth: “Since nothing short of God’s glory and human eternal destiny are at stake when it comes to matters of the truth, we must contend for it like Jude 3 commands.” (134) He then lists what he believes are ten theological issues we must contend for. Among them are 1) Scripture as inerrant, timeless truth. 2) The sovereignty and foreknowledge of God. 3) The virgin birth of Jesus [I would call this the virginal conception]. 4) Our sin nature and total depravity [we don't agree here]. 5) Jesus’ death as our penal substitution [and more!] 6) Jesus’ exclusivity as the only possible means of salvation. And 4 others.

So, Sam, out of curiosity, how is ‘Driscoll’s Jesus’ different from ‘your Jesus’? Contrary to your statement that this is ‘not about theology’, it is about theology. You write:

Your conception of God will transform everything about you, your worship, and your service. In his practice, in his speech, in his writing, in his whole demeanor towards holy things, Mark Driscoll reveals what he really believes God to be like. And it is not high and lifted up.

And you know this to be true because…You are either saying that Driscoll is a liar or that he is, well, a liar. No one, the Scripture says, can say that “Jesus is Lord, apart from the Spirit.”

Sam once again you are fighting the wrong enemy.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm and is filed under Samuel Guzman, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

67 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Jerry – did Driscoll say this:

Mark started in by describing the Jesus that he learned as a child growing up in a Catholic church. He described him as a boring, lobotomized, drooling idiot with no personality, no sense of humor, and no desirability. He was just some crazy, flower-picking push-over who liked sheep a lot. Mark then jumped on conservative Christians, saying that we view Christ the same way. He went on to mock the prudish, stiff, self-righteous idea of a patient, mild-tempered, sorrowful Christ who didn’t party and didn’t tell crude jokes like Mark likes to.

2   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

I don’t know. I haven’t read the book Samuel is complaining about. Why? Frankly, that’s the sort of Jesus I grew up ‘admiring’ too, and that is not the Jesus of the Bible.

I’m taking Samuel at his word here and it makes me want to rush right out, buy Driscoll’s book, and read until dawn.

Why?

3   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
May 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Jerry, where were you 13 months ago? ;-)

4   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 28th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Rick, here’s a PDF of the first chapter of Vintage Jesus. I think it’s pretty clear that the Driscoll Sam’s created is different than the Driscoll Driscoll’s created…

Sam’s Driscoll is a cartoon cutout, packed with straw.

I guess that’s what happens when you pull a “random page”, read it – knowing ahead of time you’ll hate it, and then tell people you hate it.

Who knew being a prophet could be so easy?

5   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

I guess that’s what happens when you pull a “random page”, read it – knowing ahead of time you’ll hate it, and then tell people you hate it.

Therein is the key to understanding why Samuel Guzman, to quote from the prophet himself, ‘makes me angry’ in an I-can’t-stop-laughing sort of way.

6   Mark Spansel    
May 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Thanks Jerry!

Driscoll loves the real Jesus, the Jesus who gladly laid down his life for his enemies. I thank Driscoll for being a human who knows he needs a Savior!

7   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
May 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

After opening to a random page and starting to read, I quickly gave up all notions of learning something of value.

A random page?!?! Trying to think of a book (other than the Bible) that this would not be true for.

In unrelated news, water found to be wet ….

8   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

Mark,

Great to hear from you! Thanks for stopping by. You are right, Driscoll might be a lot of things, but someone creating an alternative Jesus he is not.

jerry

9   merry    
May 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Does anyone remember the story of the five blind men who felt the different parts of the elephant and argued about what the elephant really looked like?

Has it occurred to anyone that it might be beneficial to put our different aspects of Jesus together instead of fighting about who Jesus really is? The Bible shows both the glorious and the human sides of Jesus. He is not a one-dimensional figure.

Sam could be right and Driscoll could be right, they just have different pieces of the puzzle.

10   nc    
May 28th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

So funny…

It makes me wonder “which Driscoll” he’s reading.

Driscoll’s the guy who talks about loving the “real Jesus” who is a enemy destroying Lord.

He (Driscoll) loves the idea of Jesus being bowed to by all people…he goes so far in that direction that Jesus becomes a caricature of domineering, power-mad divine Napoleon. Not some plumber or whatever bat doo-doo craziness Guzman is peddling.

Guzman is out to lunch.

But what do ya expect when you open a book to some random page?

That’s lazy, intellectually dishonest and downright irresponsible…not to mention a violation of the commandment to not bear false witness, or to avoid the appearance of evil (in possibly bearing false witness.)

Then again, he’s been trained by the “acceptable ranting” of his mother.

If I opened the D.A. Carson book I’m currently reading to some random page and then went on a rant like that I’d be skewered and deservedly so.

That being said, I’m giving it a charitable read…even though I know that I generally disagree with Carson on a lot of things. I’ve gained some great insight from him…

Too bad even Carson and that whole camp can’t seem to reciprocate.

11   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 28th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Merry,

I think Sam and Driscoll are a lot closer than Sam is willing to admit.

jerry

12   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 7:34 am

What would anybody expect when this,

And no, it has nothing to do with his obviously crude and vulgar sex talk.

is the second sentence in the OP.

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 7:57 am

Driscoll does not worship a “different” Jesus so let us be careful in what is being discussed. All of us, and I mean all of us, misrepresent Jesus on some level. But Driscoll pulls the historical Christ into the semi-grunge culture and suggests that his caricature is close to the actual earthly revelation of the incarnation.

Instead of addressing the other unfortunate caricatures that releave Jesus of His human manifestations, he goes further by assigning to Him characteristics that can not be supported by Scripture. So many times “I think” become “This is truth”.

“I think” Jesus was a hearty man and not thin and frail, “I think” Jesus did not engage in questionable humor, “I think” Jesus walked in righteousness, “I think” the essence of His desirability had nothing to do with His wit or personality, but Scripture indicates sinners were draw to Him because “no man spoke with the authority as did this man”. That is what “God thinks”. :cool:

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 8:38 am

NEWS ALERT*****

Kavya Shivashankar won the national spelling bee. The last word she had to spell was easy, she said, since it was one of her favorite blogs. The word??

Laodicea. :cool:

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 8:40 am

Comment #13 – A little known fact:

One of the favorite praise songs of Jesus was an early Jewish version of “Smells Like Teen Spirit”.

:cool:

16   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am

Actually, it was “Laodicean”…

17   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 8:53 am

My mistake, however the word she had to spell before that was Sodom.

18   ianmcn    
May 29th, 2009 at 9:12 am

I wouldn’t listen to anything Sam says, he doesn’t even wear a tie. http://www.samguzman.com/about/

19   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

“I think” Jesus was a hearty man and not thin and frail, “I think” Jesus did not engage in questionable humor, “I think” Jesus walked in righteousness, “I think” the essence of His desirability had nothing to do with His wit or personality, but Scripture indicates sinners were draw to Him because “no man spoke with the authority as did this man”.

Since Driscoll is a full-blown Calvinist, I doubt seriously he thinks differently.

But there were also people who were repulsed by his speech.

There were also some who were drawn to him because they needed healing.

There were some who were drawn to him because he was compassionate to them.

But Scripture also says that ‘he came to his own and his own did not receive him.’ So when you say that people were ‘drawn to him because of the way he spoke’ that’s a little misleading to the uninitiated. Scripture says he would draw all [people] to himself when he is lifted up.

20   Thomas Booher    
May 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Guzman is concerned with the way Driscoll describes Jesus, as far as telling rather crude jokes, making Jesus to be someone who “spoke the language of the unbeliever” if you will. I did read some quotes from Vintage Jesus where some of what Driscoll attributed to Jesus and how Jesus “behaved” and spoke was quite irreverant and well, un-Christlike.

And that is why Guzman says it has nothing to do with theology, because Guzman and Driscoll, on paper at least, probably agree quite much regarding theology.

No one, the Scripture says, can say that “Jesus is Lord, apart from the Spirit.”

Matthew 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

21   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

Guzman is concerned with the way Driscoll describes Jesus, as far as telling rather crude jokes, making Jesus to be someone who “spoke the language of the unbeliever” if you will. I did read some quotes from Vintage Jesus where some of what Driscoll attributed to Jesus and how Jesus “behaved” and spoke was quite irreverant and well, un-Christlike.

I am not a Driscoll fan, to be sure, but this sort of whining almost makes me want to be one. Seriously, sometimes I think people think Jesus floated around with a halo on or something.

Jesus farted. He was human. Humans fart. He hung out with fishermen from Galilee, which would be somewhat like hanging out like tobacco farmers from Alabama. They were not high brow people.

Basically, I think what Sam Guzman thinks is un-Christlike and what I think is un-Christ are two very different things.

22   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Jesus farted

Chapter and verse, please Phil? I’m not sure what translation you’re reading, but mine says, “Jesus wept.”

Right now within the RCC there is a raging debate among certain factions as to Mary’s flatulence patterns. Some say she did, others that she didn’t. It’s grown into a serious matter and threatens to divide the groups.

I think the fact they’re willing to dialogue on this point is progress, but also shows how highly some hold Mary. So for you to make a statement like that about Jesus tells a whole lot about your low view. Sorry Phil.

23   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Low view?

Rubbish.

How so?

That Jesus was human and had human bodily functions?

I hate to break it to you, Paul, but the Middle Eastern diet is conducive to some production of bodily gas. If Jesus was human and ate food in the Middle East, he’d have had gas to deal with. The Jews, as a people, were not shy people when it came to general bodily functions (they even had blessings they said to God for the different excretory functions), and it is doubtful that ‘farting’ was something embarrassing (or burping, for that matter). I’d venture to say that it is more our Victorian cultural hand-me-downs that make whether or not Jesus had normal bodily functions something to be embarrassed about, than a “low view”.

24   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
May 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY human. Anything less is a low view of Jesus. That’s the theological response in agreement with Chris L.’s cultural response.

25   nc    
May 29th, 2009 at 9:50 pm

It may seem crude, but the reality is that if you start demanding “chapter and verse” on these things you’ll find yourself slipping via the back door into Docetism–it’s a heresy the church fought before.

Docetists would concede that Jesus “ate”, because the Scriptures affirmed it. However, they made a point of denying he defecated–it was just too human of an activity…and that was the scandal of the incarnation to the greco-roman worldview (i.e. that deity would ever have any human/material attributes, well, attributed to it).

It’s not a disrespectful thing to say Jesus passed gas…

methinks your problem has more to do with your preferred social graces and tastes than anything else.

26   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 29th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Comment 23, 24, 25

You guys are absolutely classic!! I was just kidding for goodness sake! With Phil’s comment I just couldn’t resist adding a little levity (I thought my quip about the upheaval in the RCC over Mary’s flatulence might have brought that out).

How farting leads to Docetism is astounding. nc you have me in fits. You need to spend the weekend away from the computer. Classic!

27   John Hughes    
May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

I can’t believe this has degenerated to talk regarding flatulance and the Deity.

Your father farted too. Is stating this biological fact honoring to him? Jesus was a great and honorable human outside of His deity. Is this the way you honor his human-ness by contemplating His participation in one of the lowest of human bodily functions?

Jesus farted. Do you feel closer to Him now? George Washington farted. Lincoln farted. Plato farted. Is that how you honor them by conjuring the mental image of such such?

Good grief people. Are you all in the 3rd grade? No matter His human-ness He is now exalted at the right hand of the Father and this talk is disgusting. Fortunate for all that any word spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven.

28   John Hughes    
May 29th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

NC: It’s not a disrespectful thing to say Jesus passed gas…

Yes it is NC. Get your boss’s superiors and coworkers together in front of your boss and discuss to the group how your boss passed gas and then get back with me on if **he** thought it was disrespectful or not.

I’ll wait . . . . . .

29   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
May 29th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

John H (#27):

Is this the way you honor his human-ness by contemplating His participation in one of the lowest of human bodily functions?

No, this is the way that we acknowledge his human-ness, something that many are loathe to do.

Jesus farted. Do you feel closer to Him now?

Actually, yes. I’ve heard too many people profess “fully God and fully human” and yet get their knickers in a twist when you try to explore any ramifications of the latter. So when someone actually acknowledges those ramifications (even if it is one of the lowest of those ramifications), it restores Jesus to His rightful place in my understanding and makes Him more accessible to me.

30   John Hughes    
May 29th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

You know, I’ll banter theological fine points all day long with anyone here. I respect a lot of the arthors here and the commenters here, but crap like this (no pun intended) crosses the line when it deals with the honor and respect due the One who died for you. Is that how you honor Him? Pathetic!

You know that airline pilot that landed the plane in the Hudson and saved all those people? Yes, he is a hero but you know he farts like the rest of us.

You know your mother who birthed you, raised you and cared for you. Yes she deserves respect and honor but you know she farts like the rest of us.

Oh you kings of the obvious, I feel so much closer to the Lord now that I have contemplated “Jesus farted”. I was really just about to loose sight of Him humanity.

31   John Hughes    
May 29th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Brendt,

Good for you bud.

Jesus farted.
“it restores Jesus to His rightful place ”

Who knew?

Jesus farted.
“(it) makes Him more accessible to me.

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll contemplate that during my next morning devotion.

32   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
May 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

John,

Good for you bud.

You apparently weren’t royally screwed up as a kid by the knickers-in-a-twist people like I was.

If you’re going to take away anything from this for your next morning devotion, let it be a prayer of thanksgiving that God’s path for you didn’t include that particular crap.

33   nc    
May 29th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Sorry to disappoint, I don’t have a boss…so I won’t be able to conduct your suggested experiment.

And the only thing your experiment would demonstrate is something about social niceties and preferences, not something enshrined in the Bible or reflective of a deficient christology on the part of people who acknowledge the humanity of Christ.

Paul C,

that’s a dirty trick. ;)

But if you were serious, I think I made a good point…denying Jesus farted would be a kind of neo-docetism…

oh, well…ya got me.

34   nc    
May 29th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

The point, John Hughes, really isn’t arguing for Jesus’ human flatulence.

It’s making the point that people who have such a problem with the idea actually are elevating their social preferences over something so obvious as to NOT be controversial.

But all of sudden such “obvious” things are representative of a “low view”…

That’s just silly…

35   nc    
May 29th, 2009 at 11:09 pm

“The little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes”.

A line lifted from the persistent perception of an “otherwordly” Jesus drawn directly from apocryphal gospels not included in the canon.

Jesus probably had acne.

36   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

After reading John’s comments, I stand duly chastened in all seriousness (and I am not joking now). I regret my attempted light-hearted comment and am sorry I decided to go down that path.

He brings up a very good point about reverence or lack thereof. When we consider the image of Christ described in Revelation, and then cut over to the comments here, I find a great divide. He must ALWAYS be held in the highest honor and esteem. John, thank you for your comments, they have been well taken by me. My sincere apologies for any offense caused.

37   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 1:37 am

Defending Mark Driscoll is a thankless job, as well as supremely difficult.

38   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 2:29 am

Defending Mark Driscoll is a thankless job, as well as supremely difficult.

Not really, unless your cultural sensitivities are fueled more by Queen Victoria than a plain reading of Scripture – or if you can’t grasp Jesus’ humanity in its fullness, preferring only to focus on his divinity…

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 7:02 am

Or if you have been significantly affected by western culture, and you also have predetermined who you will give the widest latitude and who you will not.

For the record, I have never met or read anything by Queen Victoria. I believe I saw her once at a gay pride parade in San Francisco.

40   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 8:39 am

Chris L:or if you can’t grasp Jesus’ humanity in its fullness, preferring only to focus on his divinity

To grasp Jesus’ humanity in it fullness is a far cry from meditating on His flatulence. It’s something 3rd graders do but not grown men who should put away childish things. My point is you do not honor great men, much less Immanuel, by contemplating and discussing such things.

This whole discussion is just plain asinine. It is. And what ever His physical condition in this 33 year incarnation He is in His glorified body **now** (as you and I will be in eternity for that matter) and none of us will be farting in heaven, Chris. Christ is exalted to His proper place **now** and will not ever be debased again. It is a wonderful and marvelous thing that He stooped to our level and took on flesh and is now not ashamed to call us brothers having personally experienced our lowly estate. Having tasted the human condition with all our weaknesses, even unto death **is** marvelous to contemplate. But contrary to what you may say I vehemently disagree that it is a good thing to contemplate Christ’s sharing in our basic bodily functions much less its dysfunctions. It’s taking a true condition, i.e., Christ’s humanity, and dissecting and extrapolating it to the point of absurdity. It’s not the way you honor the memory of any great man, much less the Son of Man.

Chris you are one of the contributors I admire most here. That has not changed, but this conversation has been disappointing to me and you, Brendt, NC, etc., and I will just have to agree we disagree on this issue and move on.

Peace.

41   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 9:16 am

The glory of the Incarnation is indeed found in the Theos, the Word, the divinity of the Godman, for without His divinity He would be just another man. Of course we cannot make Him a floating ghost, however to set out to exalt His humanity is to diminish His divinity.

In heaven He is not a glorified man, He is the Risen Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. His humanity was the common conduit that opened the door of redemption for all mankind, but it was God Himself who paid redemption’s price.

There is something mystical and mysterious about the Incarnation, and the sacredness of the Creator wrapped in human flesh should never be diminished, it should be magnified. To suggest that Jesus was just one of the guys is to completely misrepresent His life and mission, and in many ways it sets up an idol that not only is in the likeness of sinful flesh, it acts like sinful flesh.

To claim Jesus may have told raffish jokes is unacceptable, and suggesting He did it to get the Pharisees mad is a shining example of portraying Christ as having some tortured satisfaction in getting someone’s goat.

Did Jesus see fallen humanity? Was He brought to tears over their condition? Was He ever mindful of His continuing journey to the cross? There is something incongruous when we portray the God of Redemption as careless and given to frivolity.

Check out the cross, see if there is any joke telling there. Listen to see if any Pharisee needling is taking place. Watch the blood run down and wonder where the part is now. You want to speak of bodily functions then speak of His blood running in a redemptive flow all over that same body that some speak about so carelessly.

And what edification, pray tell, does speaking of body functions bring you? Oh, you say, it makes Jesus more real. Is that what you need to see the Risen Christ in all His glory – body functions. John fell at His feet as though dead and the Great Apostle was blinded by just a momentary encounter.

How clever and articlulate are these new teachers who can extrapolate the common from their own imaginations. Will they now describe in detail the birth of Christ and suggest that maybe Mary got torn? That which the Holy Spirit refused to make public these new and avante garde feel compelled to provide revelations that excite the flesh but have no spiritual quality in them at all.

We live and breathe in an evangelical climate where the holy is replaced by the profane and God’s people love to have it so. Perhaps when the next Passion Play is presented it can contain all the details of human functions so we can better understand the sufferings of Calvary.

Man wants Jesus to be just like Him. No, we are supposed to be just like Him.

42   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 30th, 2009 at 9:54 am

#41 – excellent comment.

43   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am

To suggest that Jesus was just one of the guys is to completely misrepresent His life and mission, and in many ways it sets up an idol that not only is in the likeness of sinful flesh, it acts like sinful flesh.

To make him into a humorless schoolmarm is just as stupid and inaccurate. Nobody (Driscoll included) has suggested that he was sinful. The very fact that y’all have taken offense at Driscoll’s statement that Jesus was fully human – which includes bodily functions – is pretty much case-in-point to nc’s earlier comment about docetism being alive and well. It’s not Driscoll that’s dwelt on this aspect, though, it’s the hyper-prudish, closet docetists who can accept Jesus’ physical humanity in theory, but not in practice.

Case in point, it wasn’t Phil who dwelt on it in this particular thread, it was Paul.

To claim Jesus may have told raffish jokes is unacceptable, and suggesting He did it to get the Pharisees mad is a shining example of portraying Christ as having some tortured satisfaction in getting someone’s goat.

Raffish (adj): marked by or suggestive of flashy vulgarity or crudeness.

Nobody’s suggested this. However, Jesus DID use a good deal of humor, and it was often used – not at the expense of the Pharisees, but to better hone in on their hypocrisy. And, most certainly, it did tick them off. You’re supplying your own context now, though, Rick.

Did Jesus see fallen humanity? Was He brought to tears over their condition? Was He ever mindful of His continuing journey to the cross?

Yes. Yes. and Yes.

There is something incongruous when we portray the God of Redemption as careless and given to frivolity.

There is something one-dimensional and antiseptic when we portray him as constantly somber, self-reflective and overwrought, as well. In the gospels, we see him invited to parties, spending 24 hours a day hiking and camping with a group of high-school boys, and we hear him using earthy (not raffish) stories to make points, and pointed humor to convict his enemies.

The picture painted is a three-dimensional one, but a good number of Christians have a problem with what they might categorize as “frivolity” that, in his setting and context, he most certainly was a part of.

Check out the cross, see if there is any joke telling there. Listen to see if any Pharisee needling is taking place. Watch the blood run down and wonder where the part is now. You want to speak of bodily functions then speak of His blood running in a redemptive flow all over that same body that some speak about so carelessly.

Apples and oranges, and you know it. You’ve just picked a context and then put an inappropriate action for that context. Whatever.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: [...]

a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance.

Did Jesus weep and cry out to heaven when he was at the wedding feast in Cana? No.

And what edification, pray tell, does speaking of body functions bring you?

“edification”? If you’re trying to teach that Jesus was someone who was human, real and approachable, and dealing with folks from church backgrounds that have so downplayed his humanity that he is nothing more than a one-dimensional paper cutout. We can say he was fully human, but God forbid that we might actually believe it.

Oh, Maggie bar the doors!

The very fact that you have a problem with it even being mentioned (when it’s not even the main point of a discussion) suggests that perhaps you could be edified by it, as well.

Is that what you need to see the Risen Christ in all His glory – body functions.

Straw man.

Nobody’s said that. Now you’re just making stuff up as wildly as Chad often does.

John fell at His feet as though dead and the Great Apostle was blinded by just a momentary encounter.

John also sat around a campfire with him, laid his head on him during a formal religious meal, and went to wedding parties with him.

Context, context, context.

Go ahead, though, and pick an extreme and then paint me, Brendt, Driscoll, etc. as ingrates from a different context. That makes it a lot easier to feel good about your position.

We live and breathe in an evangelical climate where the holy is replaced by the profane and God’s people love to have it so. Perhaps when the next Passion Play is presented it can contain all the details of human functions so we can better understand the sufferings of Calvary.

Paging Ray Bolger…

44   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am

My letter was returned marked “Unable to Deliver”. :cool:

45   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Rick: You want to speak of bodily functions then speak of His blood running in a redemptive flow all over that same body that some speak about so carelessly.

You have literally brought me to tears Rick. Thank you.

46   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Rick said:
“Check out the cross, see if there is any joke telling there. Listen to see if any Pharisee needling is taking place. Watch the blood run down and wonder where the party is now. You want to speak of bodily functions then speak of His blood running in a redemptive flow all over that same body that some speak about so carelessly.”

Chris said:
“Apples and oranges, and you know it. You’ve just picked a context and then put an inappropriate action for that context. Whatever.”

The cross is and always must be the context in which we view the Savior. The cross, the essence and core on the Incarnation, when juxtaposed against the careless and base sensationalistic words of men like Driscoll, reveal a heart set upon earthly things and unconcerned with the things of heaven.

Every mature believer knows of the needs of the human body, that is hardly a revelation. But the way in which Driscoll strives to represent the Lord Jesus as some fight club character is disgraceful at the very least and in some respects indicate a desire to justify his own imperfections.

47   nc    
May 30th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

You’re right, JH.

The conversation is asinine because it’s been made into something much bigger than need be.

Nobody is “meditating” on bodily functions. They’re just non-controversial facts of humanity…that’s why their mention shouldn’t be turned into a litmus test on the heart of a person and their ability to satisfy your preferences on how to demonstrate perfect reverence for our Lord.

It shouldn’t offend us or fixate us…it’s just a fact about humanity.

The Incarnation is glorious, but it’s glory is not merely based in the idea of it’s pragmatic “carrying of divinity into the material world”. It’s glory is not merely based in the mysterious inexplicable economy of “God in the flesh”.

It has much wider implications and to want to explore that in it’s infinite range is not wrong.

48   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Rick,

I’d say the problem was yours, not Driscoll’s. He’s not the one with a fixation problem. For folks to get their panties in a wad over a matter-of-fact statement says more about their own issues than the person making the statement.

The cross is and always must be the context in which we view the Savior.

The empty tomb is far more important than the cross.

But now you’re just playing semantic games. Jesus lived a life here, and the cross was one aspect of it. When we read about him turning water to wine at Cana, the wedding feast is the context – not the cross.

Every mature believer knows of the needs of the human body, that is hardly a revelation.

And Mark’s audience has a large percentage of immature believers, unchurched believers, and folks who grew up believing stuff like Away in a Manger…

But the way in which Driscoll strives to represent the Lord Jesus as some fight club character is disgraceful at the very least and in some respects indicate a desire to justify his own imperfections.

I’m sorry you’re scandalized by Jesus’ masculinity.

49   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

“It’s glory is not merely based in the mysterious inexplicable economy of “God in the flesh”.”

Oh but I humbly beg to differ, that is exactly what magnifies the glory of the Incarnation. God, the Creator of the universe, enters a human body and carries redemption with Him. And that redemption is not a writ of innocence or a proclamation, oh no, that redemption is the Word made flesh Himself. And lifted up in a bloody mess, gruesome to see and having guilty written all over it, the Passover Lamb takes upon Himself all the sins and indignites that fallen man has ever committed.

The Savior on the cross is the same Savior that transversed this world for a little over thirty years, and did not lay down His upbeat personality when He reached Golgotha, no, this cross is what set His face like a flint. This 33 year miracle was not to have a good time and then get serious, the entire journey was serious, eternally serious.

This was God walking knowingly toward His own excruciating murder. Jesus is no trifle, and all the careless assumptions diminish this cross. He was different and His earthly demeanor is much closer to the Roman Catholic presentation than to carnal men like Driscoll.

Men of old fell down immobilized at the Shekinah presence of Christ, but today they speak of Him in terms that would not be allowed at many kitchen tables. It is palatable to the grunge mentality and the humanitic atmosphere covering much of the church, but the apostles knew none of that.

Men and women of God have given their very lives for the faith, and many still die today. Not for the good time charlie Jesus and not for the belly laughing, joke telling Jesus. They have laid down their lives for the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the one who sits as the Risen Son of God Who is worthy. Make all the cartoon, sitcom Jesus’s you wish, I will continue to worship Him high and lifted up and with His glory filling the Temple of Almight God.

50   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Chris L, no one has painted you or others as an ingrate. You are just off balance IMO on the extrapolations of Jesus humanity to an absurd level, again IMO. I for one am speaking to you as a brother and valued community member. As I said I have a lot of respect for you and most others here. I jjust think your argument is way off base.

Something for you to consider is that Jesus’ debasement was but for a season. He is now exalted and highly lifted up and restored to the glory He had with the Father from eternity. Rick’s reference to His post-ascended appearance to John only goes to further contradict your view of this event, not support it. That John “partied” with Jesus and laid on his breast at one point in time, but now feel into a swoon upon seeing the glorified Jesus only goes to prove that something seminal in the relationship had changed.

“Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity.”

Well the incarnate Deity is **no longer** veiled. He is **now** resplendent in His full glory. This was pre-figured on the Mt. of Transfiguration upon the temporary unveiling of his pre-incarnate glory. Peter James and John were offering no hi-fives with their bro. They were scared to death. And the result of contact with Him by even His closest of earthly friends post ascension and glorification is telling and worthy of contemplation, not his body functions experienced in the scant 33 years of his earthly existence and NEVER more to be experienced.

I tried to use earthly examples of great men and women, even our own parents for example, to show how inappropriate and dishonoring it would be to contemplate that they fart. It’s just weird and asinine and dishonoring. It’s not being a prude. It’s called being a grown-up. Scatological references are for 3rd graders, not mature men.

“Hey Jesus,” said John to Jesus setting on His heavenly throne. “Remember that party we went to in Cana where you farted after that spicy piece of lamb?” Somehow that just does not jive with the bible record:

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the)elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen ” And the elders fell down and worshiped. Rev 5:11-15

One does not have to extrapolate the human condition to such purient levels to combat docetism. We are warned not to revile angelic majesties, much less the Lord of Hosts.

I just wish you would rethink this issue.

Peace.

51   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

“Hey Jesus,” said John to Jesus setting on His heavenly throne. “Remember that party we went to in Cana where you farted after that spicy piece of lamb?” Somehow that just does not jive with the bible record:

This right here is a fine example of missing the point of the conversation. No one here has said this. No one here is espousing this. No one here thinks this is the point of contention between Driscoll and Guzman.

No one here is denying that Jesus is exalted, worthy of worship, and that people do not fall down in his presence (see John’s Gospel in the Garden). But that is all quite beside the point.

Guzman’s argument is that Driscoll is worshiping or teaching about a different Jesus. Guzman’s point is that his Jesus is somehow superior to Driscoll’s Jesus. They are the same Person. And many here are falling for the same false-dichotomy. The same Jesus who is worshiped by angels is the same Jesus who at spicy lamb and belched after a hearty glass of wine.

That is the point that you seem to be missing with all this pointing to Revelation and leaving out of the Gospels.

Sheesh.

52   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

And what CONTEXT is Driscoll speaking about? Jesus life and ministrynot his post-resurrected being.

Context, context, context.

This 33 year miracle was not to have a good time and then get serious, the entire journey was serious, eternally serious.

To everything there is a season – times to be serious and times to celebrate and enjoy. That is one of the purposes of the festival calendar the Jews kept.

Y’all are just still finding yourselves married to Roman Catholic asceticism and antisemitism that has never been fully expunged from the church. Driscoll is no more “carnal” than you or I – perhaps more honest, apparently, but no more carnal. If you’re going to teach about a time period (i.e. Jesus life and ministry), then you actually need to teach about the time period, not pretend it existed only in theory. My apologies if history offends you. just because you’ve missed the point and gotten sidetracked on a truthful, spoken aside, doesn’t mean that Driscoll’s the one with a problem here.

Men and women of God have given their very lives for the faith, and many still die today. Not for the good time charlie Jesus and not for the belly laughing, joke telling Jesus. They have laid down their lives for the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the one who sits as the Risen Son of God Who is worthy. Make all the cartoon, sitcom Jesus’s you wish, I will continue to worship Him high and lifted up and with His glory filling the Temple of Almight God.

Do you feel better about yourself now and can we go on?

I’d say that I, Brendt and Driscoll would agree that the Jesus we follow is the Risen Son. But teaching about his pre-risen glory is “carnal” or “debasing”? That Jesus had times of enjoyment is not a scandal, nor does it subtract from the glory that came later. The Jesus we worship has risen, but the Jesus we study prior to his resurrection WAS fully human. He lived and He lives – and each of those times have their place in teaching. He lived. He ate and drank and experienced all of the normal human body functions. He experienced joy, laughter, sorrow and pain – all of it. I’m sorry that his pre-resurrection humanity (apparently) offends you, but sometimes the truth is offensive.

53   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

Nobody seems to make reference to Popeye belching or vomiting or passing gas or excreting because it is irrelevant to the story. I guess all that extrabiblical information has some importance in the redemptive narrative.

What a shame the church didn’t have that info long ago. :cool:

54   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Straw Man Burning!

55   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

LOL:

Y’all are just still finding yourselves married to Roman Catholic asceticism and antisemitism that has never been fully expunged from the church.

Because I don’t dwell on obscure body functions I’m a latent ascetic and an anti-semite? What?!? Chris that is hysterical, bro.

History doesn’t offend me, Chris and it is very probable that Jesus did indeed fart but the biblical narrative chose not to go into such morbid — yes morbid — detail on such silly, silly matters and such attention detracts from, not enhances the biblical truth of Jesus’ humanity which is again a matter of concern to 3rd graders not grown men.

56   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

OK. I’m for one ready to move, on. Anyone?

57   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Because I don’t dwell on obscure body functions…

And neither do we, nor does Driscoll.

In fact, the only reason we got into on this thread was because someone took offense at its even being acknowledged (in a context in which is wasn’t the primary topic). That’s not “dwelling on” anything.

58   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Body functions was only a part. Driscoll’s presentation and caricature of the incarnate Jesus is, as expected, much like Driscoll.

Hmm…

59   nc    
May 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Rick,

What I’m saying is that they mysterious economy of how God came in the flesh is not the only wondrous thing about the Incarnation.

The Incarnation is not just divine pragmatics to get a Savior on a cross.

It (the Incarnation) says a ton about God’s view of God’s creation, the ideal of human living as dreamed by God, the dignity of every part of our lives…yes, even farting and acne.

Acknowleding the full range of what “fully human” is does not have to be set up against “fully God” or as necessarily emptying it.

To deny Jesus’ divinity is heresy. To deny the fullness of his humanity is heresy too.

Some of us may not see any need to mention his adolescent acne, or prefer not to mention it, but it’s not an attack on his divinity.

60   nc    
May 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

It was considered a real denigration of Jesus to downplay or deny his full humanity.

I repeat: Docetism.

61   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

NC: has the last word on the topic. All in favor? Agreed.

Let’s move on.

62   nc    
May 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

JH,

You’re setting up a pattern here. ;)

Why don’t you go ahead and have the last word on having the last word.

haha!

63   John Hughes    
May 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Yin and Yang?

64   nc    
May 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

:)

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

65   Thomas Booher    
May 31st, 2009 at 12:26 am

Wow I miss a few days on here and it turns out everyone is talking about Jesus passing gas. How sad.

To go back to my comment (#20) I was NOT referring to Jesus passing gas at all.

I was referring to things that Driscoll says in Vintage Jesus like this: “Roughly two thousand years ago, Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the “fact” she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom. Jesus was adopted by a simple carpenter named Joseph and spent the first thirty years of his life in obscurity, swinging a hammer with his dad.”

Irreverent much? I think so. Crude? I think so.

Also, Guzman is not saying that Driscoll isn’t a Christian. I hope everyone realizes that.

66   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 31st, 2009 at 1:43 am

Also, Guzman is not saying that Driscoll isn’t a Christian. I hope everyone realizes that.

Thomas, can you then explain this statement by Rev. Guzman?

Your conception of God will transform everything about you, your worship, and your service. In his practice, in his speech, in his writing, in his whole demeanor towards holy things, Mark Driscoll reveals what he really believes God to be like. And it is not high and lifted up.

The way I read this statement, Pastor Guzman is saying that Driscoll either a) believes in a lesser God, b) doesn’t believe in the same God as he does, or c) doesn’t believe in God at all. But thank you anyway for explaining to us all what he really meant because some of us really have trouble reading between the lines. Give me a break. We know exactly what the Rt Rev Guzman is saying whether he says it or not. Rocket science is not required to understand the undercurrent of anything posted by anyone at Slice of Laodicea.

It doesn’t really matter what a person writes on a blog. Tozer said, the most important thing about a man is not what he says on paper, but what he in his heart of hearts conceives God to be like (which Guzman doesn’t believe or else he wouldn’t be criticizing something that Driscoll wrote for crying out loud. I said, you can really tell what a person thinks of God not by what he writes on a blog, or talks about with his mouth, but by the way he treats other people on his blog and in his blog posts. Mr Guzman reveals what he thinks of God by what he believes about other Christians like Mark Driscoll and by the way he treats them. And it is not high and lifted up. (Sorry to end my sentence with a preposition.)

There is not a thing crude or irreverent about that quote you made from Driscoll’s work and even if there is, that does not make it any less true.

But that was a nice try Thomas.

67   Joe C    
May 31st, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Thomas,

What Driscoll said in Vintage Jesus is about as true of a comparison to the time Jesus was born in as you can get. Instead of cringing at how ‘irreverent’ you find it, why don’t you examine why he chose to take the Christmas-time sheen off the story to show the reality of it? IE, what is the point of that book?

There be learnin’ there, brother. Good luck.

Joe