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

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.

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.

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You’re setting up a pattern here.

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

haha!

Let’s move on.

I repeat: Docetism.

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.

Hmm…