I really shouldn’t have expected anything distinctively sane from a magazine called ‘Relevant‘. That was a huge mistake, and one that I can assure my faithful readership I will never make again. The magazine as a whole is committed to pedantically insisting that Christians can, pretty much be cool too, if they just try hard enough. Personally, I find this idea completely insane. Out of all the people I’ve ever met I have yet to meet someone who is clearly a Christian who is able to fill out all the aspects of coolness that are demanded by our culture. But I digress. My point in all this was merely that I should have expected something as stupid, insipid, and sophomoric as this from Relevant Magazine.
In a multiple-person interview that originally ran in early 2007, Relevant Magazine asked seven questions to various evangelical church leaders about what the most important challenges to the evangelical churches in a America are at this time in history. The answers vary from the utterly boring, to the sadly uniformed, to the sort of ok, to the downright ridiculous. Mark Driscoll’s answers however, were in a class of their own. In response to the question “What do you see as the greatest challenge for young Christians in the next 10 years?” he responded:
There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity. [Italics added]
I am of course most interested in Driscoll’s comment that he is unable to worship someone he can beat up. Strangely enough this would seem that he is unable to worship Jesus. As John Howard Yoder pointed out in reflection on John 1, the proclamation that the Word became flesh “does not simply mean that God became tangible. It means he became weak, undignified, vulnerable. The power behind the creation came among us in such a way that we can hurt him.” The whole reality of Jesus is as one who makes himself vulnerable, who puts himself at the mercy of the forces of sin and death that we have unleashed upon the world. Driscoll is almost certainly right, he could indeed beat up Jesus, and if he saw him, I’m afraid he probably would!
The real Jesus, the Jesus who makes himself vulnerable, thereby revealing the nature and reality of God from all eternity as love is not nearly exciting enough for Driscoll. His Jesus is a kaleidoscopic amalgamation of Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, and a cadre of mixed martial-arts welterweight champions. If Jesus is not an ass-kicking man’s man who changes his own oil, wins bar fights, and ropes cattle, he certainly is not worthy of Driscoll’s worship.
What is ultimately so revealing about this whole statement is not so much that is shows clearly that Mark Driscoll is insanely insecure about his own male identity – though it certainly shows that with sublime clarity. What is revealing about this quote is how it shows the bombastically western notion of masculinity that defines large swaths of evangelicalism. For Driscoll anything less than the assertion that God himself is a gun-slinging son of a bitch makes one into a wuss who deserves nothing more than ridicule. Driscoll lives in a world of binary oppositions. You either have to be a cage fighter ready to beat the shit out of anyone who so much as glances at your girlfriend, or you are a pot-smoking hipster pinko who does nothing but surf the net on a Mac all day and drink organic microbrews.
It’s a wonderfully simple world of black and white simplicity that Driscoll lives in. And what makes it really great is that he gets to live at the very tip top of this world’s power structure (maybe just below his Jesus character, pictured to the left). He is the last of the true Christians. In a world of effeminate losers toting Derrida around in their beer-stained man purses, Driscoll is standing in the gap, fighting for truth, justice, and of course, the American way. It’s a world where everything is stark, everything is simple and God is remade comfortably in Mark Driscoll’s masculine image. Wallowing in his self-aggrandizement, Driscoll makes certain to let everyone know that he is one of the 25 most powerful people in Seattle according to Seattle Magazine (as advertised on the site for Driscoll’s new book). Just about everything he says or does seems like a plea: “Goddammit, I’m a man! Am too!”
What makes the world of Mark Driscoll so fascinating is not just that it insane (which it is), or that is so obviously the product of western culture rather than the Bible or the Christian tradition (which is clear). What is interesting about it is how utterly obvious it is that this world is a complete fabrication. I cannot imagine anyone looking for a moment at the stuff that Mark Driscoll spouts and not immediately realizing that this guy is obviously freaked out by the world and is doing everything that he can to construct an alternative reality for himself and other like-minded people to live in. In Mark Driscoll’s world Jesus actually did come to kick the Romans’ ass (or we wish he had) and he calls us to be iron-pumping, football heroes who slam nerds into lockers and date the hottest girl on the cheerleading squad (without having premarital sex of course).
In other words, Mark Driscoll is Wally Cleaver from Leave it to Beaver. Or, more accuarately, he is Wally after his freshman year of college. He’s wised up enough to know that he better be able to beat people up, and force his point in order to keep himself above the morass of pagan decadence in this evil world, but hasn’t yet awoken to the fact that his world, which he thinks is divinely ordained, is in fact, a culturally produced schizophrenia. It is the death throws of a handfull of white western males who are consumed with the terror of the knowledge deep down that they are no longer in control of American culture and history. And this is precisely why Mark Driscoll is pathetic. In spite of all his bombast and goofy machismo, he is, in the last analysis a very sad, lonely person. That’s how you get when you have to construct your whole world. The very things that could bring him liberation are the very things he sneers at. Living out of control, embracing vulnerability, allowing oneself to be put into question, these are the very things that he cannot stomach. They are far too effeminate and girly for a man like him to countenance. They are marks of the hippie Jesus that Driscoll could never worship. However they are the very shape of the salvation offered in crucified, murdered Jesus. Driscoll is rejecting the very things that could set him free in his attempt to make Christianity distinctive.
His loss.
Has anyone read this Driscoll classic?
“Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality”
Hmmm. So, what do magazines like Playboy, Hustler and Bodacious Ta-Ta’s say about their readership?
I’ve been following this post off and on for awhile, just reading all of the passionate discussion from people, most of whom speak from their hearts, which is good in regards to discussion, but bad in regards to the quality of the statements being made, i.e. claims of biblical scholarship, etc.
I am from Seattle where I let college ministry at a small community church. I am a Jesuit-educated historical theology student, now at Princeton Seminary preparing in the M.Div program, preparing for minstry and teaching at the graduate level. I say this only to point out something that will be comforting to those who disagree with MD and probably meaningless to those who follow him: He is not a scholar, theologian or thinker to be taken seriously in any bona fide circles of church scholarship. This is not a matter of opinion. He (I won’t say his name because he likes to crawl the net looking for hits like that) is a successful motivator and pastor, and a popular author and commentator. He is NOT a theologian or scholar. Nothing he says can be construed as such.
For a long time he was “self-ordained” and not under the care of any ministry or church administration. His theological education and training consists of a Master of Arts from Western Seminary, a member of the Conservative Baptist Association. It was just recently accredited through ATS and can hardly be considered a scholarly instiution. He has never published nor otherwise released a comprehensive summary of his theological beliefs and conviction. These are not meant to belittle him, as there has been enough of that already. These are the facts.
As I said, many of us take this information and conclude that MD is nobody from whom to learn about the higher truths of the Divine. Other people pay no heed to such information, opting instead to rely on MD’s skills as a speaker and pastor.
As I said, I did college ministry in Seattle for three years. For those of you who demand that people go see for themselves, go hear for themselves, I am compliant in that regard. Not only have I done so, I have repeatedly sought to meet with MD and have been turned away, as have many of his own flock. I cannot tell you how many people have been burned and hurt by the venom he has spit from the pulpit, cloaked as “authentic preaching” and “straight talking.” Once again, for many of you, this is not important, as it only affirms your convictions that some people are weak Christians and/or cannot handle the “tough truths” that MD preaches. But for those people whom he has hurt, it does matter.
I am very thankful that since having begun serious study of the Bible, languages, history and theology, I have yet to encounter a scholar or teacher who could care any les for MD, if they have even heard of him! That is comfort to me. It tells me that he will one day fade into the background along with others like him who appeared for a time to test the saints, and then faded into history. I think that process has already begun as a quick Google search has shown: MD- 227,000 hits… Lauren Conrad from The HIlls T.V. show- 6,650,000.
David, I thought you were done here…..oh well,
“Joshua, why do you think my comments were all about you? You couldn’t offend me if you tried. My comments were about everyone who thinks like you (and most of them are narcissistic as well just like their leaders a.k.a. Mark D.).”
um…..I didn’t think your comments were all about me. I always like to make sure I don’t offend anyone as texting is not the same as face to face conversation :).
Glad I didn’t offend though…
And what do you mean by everyone who thinks like me?
“Typically people who need religion are missing something in their lives and that vacuum most often is the void of self esteem, self worth, or self “meaning”. But in all three the word “self” is present.”
Um…I don’t….so there.
Joshua C. – you have once again proven you think my comments were all about you. There was at least two other Joshua’s who commented along with you and my comments could have just as well been directed at either one. And just because you say you don’t fill a vacuum with religion does not make it so. Most Driscollians would say the same in some lame attempt to justify their decision to follow a religion that makes no sense vs. following their own hearts.
The only way to convince me of something is with proof and reason. The same stuff Jesus demanded of his own contemporaries. (Sort of like saying, “The Bible is true and literal because some other guys said it was and it says it is too…”) I have some ocean front property in S. Dakota that a friend of mine will swear is a good deal if you want it…..
aande28 – Do you have an email address I could write to at or should I just give mine as I have several times during this long and tumultuous discourse? No one else here seems willing to put themselves on the line and make themselves vulnerable to discuss the truth any further than what they get away with hiding behind their screen names.
david.spring@gmail.com
You are clearly a voice of reason and as a fellow who nearly joined the Jesuit order back in the 90’s I have many questions for you if you have the time.
Claire – I feel your pain. It shocks me how many talented women I know who gave up their dreams and live some other guys sad life because they gave in to Mark’s crazy delusions and misogynistic pseudo-theology. Ironically, my fiancee, a member of a satellite ACTS29 church, was stolen from me by one of Mark’s current elders (James Noriega – a married man) because I didn’t make enough money, was not TOTALLY adherent to their doctrine, and actually mentioned the possibility of being a stay at home dad because she made so much more than I in a similar profession to my own.
“Joshua C. – you have once again proven you think my comments were all about you. There was at least two other Joshua’s who commented along with you and my comments could have just as well been directed at either one.”
1. I am the only one who has been commenting recently as of late
2. There are 2 Joshua’s(me and one other who hasn’t commented for a while) that kinda narrows that down
3. I know you are referring to me because you said “You couldn’t offend me if you tried.” The other Joshua was not concerned about that, I was.
I do not think your comments are “All about me”. If I did I would respond to them in their entirety.
“And just because you say you don’t fill a vacuum with religion does not make it so.”
So…Are you calling me a liar? Just wondering.
“The only way to convince me of something is with proof and reason. The same stuff Jesus demanded of his own contemporaries.”
He did no such thing. He asked men to follow Him, He couldn’t care less about proof that people had for their arguments, since He already had all truth.
“(Sort of like saying, “The Bible is true and literal because some other guys said it was and it says it is too…”) ”
Which I have not said. Most scholars believe in the Bible’s credibility, that’s a fact.
God bless!
“Joshua C. – you have once again proven you think my comments were all about you. There was at least two other Joshua’s who commented along with you and my comments could have just as well been directed at either one.”
1. I am the only one who has been commenting recently as of late
2. There are 2 Joshua’s(me and one other who hasn’t commented for a while) that kinda narrows that down
3. I know you are referring to me because you said “You couldn’t offend me if you tried.” The other Joshua was not concerned about that, I was.
— I still count three but oh well…. it matters not.
I do not think your comments are “All about me”. If I did I would respond to them in their entirety.
— “All about you” in the colloquial sense. I apparently am having a discussion with a literalist not in possession of a functioning figurative speech filter (which makes sense seeing as how you interpret the Bible the same way).
“And just because you say you don’t fill a vacuum with religion does not make it so.”
So…Are you calling me a liar? Just wondering.
— I would never accuse someone of outright lying so much as being deluded and inconsistent to the point of not being a credible self witness.
“The only way to convince me of something is with proof and reason. The same stuff Jesus demanded of his own contemporaries.”
He did no such thing. He asked men to follow Him, He couldn’t care less about proof that people had for their arguments, since He already had all truth.
— Sorry man but I gotta call you out on this one. Mark 7:14-28 is one of several great examples where Jesus not only asked people to reason while he explained a simple concept to them which was counter intuitive to their existing laws, but he actually called them “dull” when they didn’t get it the first time because they were too wrapped up in their hard-boiled beliefs to follow His reasoning. The use of the figure of Caesar on the Roman coin precluding the whole “render unto Caesar what is his, render unto God what is His” thing was also an instance where Jesus demanded people abandon their beliefs through reason. Too many more to list but if you read your Bible like a story and not a “magic book of truth” it all makes far more sense.
“(Sort of like saying, “The Bible is true and literal because some other guys said it was and it says it is too…”) ”
Which I have not said. Most scholars believe in the Bible’s credibility, that’s a fact.
— Most “biblical scholars” believe the Bibles credibility as some sort of truth device. Most scholar scholars believe it is a fairly accurate source of early Hebrew land and family records, poetry, moralistic yet allegorical stories, as well as evidence of church corruption existing from the time of Paul to nowadays. You love those baskets of mixed fruit, my friend.
God bless!
— And you as well.
“All about you” in the colloquial sense. I apparently am having a discussion with a literalist not in possession of a functioning figurative speech filter”
Because you haven’t been engaging in figurative speech. You accused me of thinking the comments were ‘all about me’, when you were directly answering my claims, not the other Joshua’s.
“which makes sense seeing as how you interpret the Bible the same way).”
Sez who? For the most part, the verse I have quoted have been literal verses, not figurative. If you want, we can go into the themes of Revelation(of which I attribute more symbolism and figurative prose) and then you can judge how I interpret Scripture.
“I would never accuse someone of outright lying so much as being deluded and inconsistent to the point of not being a credible self witness.”
So I’m deluded….nice…
“Mark 7:14-28 is one of several great examples where Jesus not only asked people to reason while he explained a simple concept to them which was counter intuitive to their existing laws, but he actually called them “dull” when they didn’t get it the first time because they were too wrapped up in their hard-boiled beliefs to follow His reasoning.”
Yes, but this is also asking them to believe His words over the Pharisees. What do you say about verses like “Believe in The Son of Man and You will be saved.” Or “….that whosoever BELIEVES in Him will not perish…” etc…Belief is central to the Christian faith.
“The use of the figure of Caesar on the Roman coin precluding the whole “render unto Caesar what is his, render unto God what is His” thing was also an instance where Jesus demanded people abandon their beliefs through reason.”
How so? And actually the meaning of this verse is debated in the Christian community.
“Too many more to list but if you read your Bible like a story and not a “magic book of truth” it all makes far more sense.”
You should read Luke 10:21, that might blow your mind. I do not read the Bible like a ‘magic book of Truth.” It IS the truth, pure and simple, otherwise you have no basis on anything Jesus said.
“Most scholar scholars believe it is a fairly accurate source of early Hebrew land and family records, poetry, moralistic yet allegorical stories, as well as evidence of church corruption existing from the time of Paul to nowadays.”
Again, Bart Erhman is the only one who fits that criteria. Even most of the Jesus Seminar(extremely liberal and biased against the Bible) Believes that Jesus was God’s son, they just don’t see Him as being the exclusive way to salvation.
“You love those baskets of mixed fruit, my friend.”
I like Strawberies!!!!!
“And you as well.”
Thanks! ….You too……TAG! you’re it!
Oh God, please please stop…now.
Yeah I probably should…
Don’t stop now…. It’s just getting to the point…
“All about you” in the colloquial sense. I apparently am having a discussion with a literalist not in possession of a functioning figurative speech filter”
Because you haven’t been engaging in figurative speech. You accused me of thinking the comments were ‘all about me’, when you were directly answering my claims, not the other Joshua’s.
— I specifically addressed any “Joshua’s as well as anyone else who might be reading” in the post being referenced….. not just you… but your assertion that I was “directly addressing [your] claims” just proves my point even further….
“which makes sense seeing as how you interpret the Bible the same way).”
Sez who? For the most part, the verse I have quoted have been literal verses, not figurative. If you want, we can go into the themes of Revelation(of which I attribute more symbolism and figurative prose) and then you can judge how I interpret Scripture.
— Sez you! You’re the one clinging to scripture as the “ultimate truth”. I’m the one saying it should be taken with a shaker of salt…
“I would never accuse someone of outright lying so much as being deluded and inconsistent to the point of not being a credible self witness.”
So I’m deluded….nice…
— Sorry, friend. Not a mean dig, just an observation.
“Mark 7:14-28 is one of several great examples where Jesus not only asked people to reason while he explained a simple concept to them which was counter intuitive to their existing laws, but he actually called them “dull” when they didn’t get it the first time because they were too wrapped up in their hard-boiled beliefs to follow His reasoning.”
Yes, but this is also asking them to believe His words over the Pharisees.
— Who upheld the same ancient law Mark D. loves to reference and would have us devolve back to if he could…
What do you say about verses like “Believe in The Son of Man and You will be saved.” Or “….that whosoever BELIEVES in Him will not perish…” etc…Belief is central to the Christian faith.
— Do you believe in Mark Driscoll? If a fireman were saving you from a burning building, would you believe in his training and abilities? If I told you Mark and/or the fireman were really God would you believe me? Read those last three questions a few times and I hope you get my meaning…
“The use of the figure of Caesar on the Roman coin precluding the whole “render unto Caesar what is his, render unto God what is His” thing was also an instance where Jesus demanded people abandon their beliefs through reason.”
How so? And actually the meaning of this verse is debated in the Christian community.
— The very community in question…. Again you are referencing the condemned killers statement of innocence as proof of his innocence….
“Too many more to list but if you read your Bible like a story and not a “magic book of truth” it all makes far more sense.”
You should read Luke 10:21, that might blow your mind. I do not read the Bible like a ‘magic book of Truth.” It IS the truth, pure and simple, otherwise you have no basis on anything Jesus said.
— Actually that verse refers to how convoluted adults reasoning can become when tempered by religion and law…. nothing mind blowing… just basic fact that Disney, Pixar, Tool, and other artists have stated throughout the centuries….
“Most scholar scholars believe it is a fairly accurate source of early Hebrew land and family records, poetry, moralistic yet allegorical stories, as well as evidence of church corruption existing from the time of Paul to nowadays.”
Again, Bart Erhman is the only one who fits that criteria.
— We need to talk in person so I can dump the hundreds of pounds of varied literature on you to prove this Bart guy is NOT the only one… You really need to explore resources outside of your church or related sites…..
Even most of the Jesus Seminar
— Fuck the Jesus Seminar. Those guys are fags.
(extremely liberal and biased against the Bible) Believes that Jesus was God’s son, they just don’t see Him as being the exclusive way to salvation.
— “He” isn’t. His WAY is. Whatever happened to the way? Oh, yeah…. Paul.
“You love those baskets of mixed fruit, my friend.”
I like Strawberies!!!!!
— I moved up here from a strawberry farm in Louisiana. Beautiful place. Highly recommended. Big, big berrys! I agree. Probably the best of natures sweet fruits!
“And you as well.”
Thanks! ….You too……TAG! you’re it!
— You got my email address and any time you would like to meet and discuss in person, I’m game. I promise the only time I get loud is if I get excited like that goofy professor from “Back to the Future”…. Otherwise I am laid back, open to criticism, and totally calm. Just don’t be pissed at me if you leave the scene an agnostic with Christian questions…..
As for R.O. Flyer – join in or shut up.
“but your assertion that I was “directly addressing [your] claims” just proves my point even further….”
You were directly addressing my claims, I responded. I don’t get where you’re going with this.
“Sez you! You’re the one clinging to scripture as the “ultimate truth”. I’m the one saying it should be taken with a shaker of salt…”
Then why don’t you apply the same line of reasoning to Jesus’s words? You’ve quoted Him so much and so favorably, yet every quote came from the Bible. So why are you so hostile to the rest of it?
“Sorry, friend. Not a mean dig, just an observation.”
Yes yes, much in the same way that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens make ‘observations’…..and by observations I mean non reasonable judgements….
“Who upheld the same ancient law Mark D. loves to reference and would have us devolve back to if he could…”
sigh….you missed my point. Jesus was still saying that they should BELIEVE His words and not those of the Pharisees. It’s not just about simple rationality.
“The very community in question…. Again you are referencing the condemned killers statement of innocence as proof of his innocence….”
Er…no. apparently it’s only Driscoll who has been called into question in this instance. Besides, even people who aren’t christian could debate this verse back and forth till the cows come home….
“Do you believe in Mark Driscoll? If a fireman were saving you from a burning building, would you believe in his training and abilities? If I told you Mark and/or the fireman were really God would you believe me? Read those last three questions a few times and I hope you get my meaning…”
1. No, because Mark is not God…The Bible that has the Jesus quotes you love says so.
2. I would trust the fireman. The Bible that has the Jesus quotes you love tells me to respect authority…
3. No I would not believe you…The Bible that has the Jesus quotes you love doesn’t say so….see where I’m going with THIS?
As to believing because the Bible says so, plenty of evidence exists to verify the truth of Scriptures. I do not believe just because I was brainwashed by my Church thank yo very much.
“Actually that verse refers to how convoluted adults reasoning can become when tempered by religion and law…. nothing mind blowing… just basic fact that Disney, Pixar, Tool, and other artists have stated throughout the centuries….”
Sigh….Then what about having “Faith like a child.” As Jesus said? You clearly miss the intent of these verses. Yes, mindless religion blinds men, but that’s why Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP based on FAITH….
“We need to talk in person so I can dump the hundreds of pounds of varied literature on you to prove this Bart guy is NOT the only one… You really need to explore resources outside of your church or related sites…..”
I have. I truly feel Bart is the only skeptic who has actually come up with a few good points. A lot of the other ones I looked up aren’t trustworthy…
“Fuck the Jesus Seminar. Those guys are fags.”
0_O? ooookkkkkaaaaayyyy…..
“He” isn’t. His WAY is. Whatever happened to the way? Oh, yeah…. Paul.”
I am going to repeat this verse one more time…and by then I hope you get it memorized….”I am the WAY, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through ME.” John 14:6 Jesus is the way. Not his teachings, not logic, not religion. Jesus is the WAY.
“I moved up here from a strawberry farm in Louisiana. Beautiful place. Highly recommended. Big, big berrys! I agree. Probably the best of natures sweet fruits!’
Hmmm….sounds nice! :)
“Just don’t be pissed at me if you leave the scene an agnostic with Christian questions…..”
Nah, I’m good. Thanks.
“Do you believe in Mark Driscoll? If a fireman were saving you from a burning building, would you believe in his training and abilities? If I told you Mark and/or the fireman were really God would you believe me? Read those last three questions a few times and I hope you get my meaning…”
1. No, because Mark is not God…The Bible that has the Jesus quotes you love says so.
— If you do not believe in Mark then why do you defend him so? My point here is that even the word “believe” can have different connotations. Verses like “I am the way, the truth, the light, etc…” have many connotations and have been translated so many different times they should not be taken literally. I have quoted the Bible’s version of Jesus’ words because there are no other sources of them – which in and of itself is something to consider. But I think there is one thing we can agree on – this discussion has gotten way out of hand and after reviewing my comments I realize I should have stayed away like I told myself to in the first place.
If your version of Jesus makes you happy then run with it. I would beg in closing that you realize it is not the only one and just maybe, may be incorrect.
Peace.
“If you do not believe in Mark then why do you defend him so?”
You’ll notice I haven’t really been defending him all that much. Mostly I’ve been defending the Bible….
“Verses like “I am the way, the truth, the light, etc…” have many connotations and have been translated so many different times they should not be taken literally.”
Well, that’s your opinion. :)
“But I think there is one thing we can agree on – this discussion has gotten way out of hand”
Yeah, sorry bout that….
“If your version of Jesus makes you happy then run with it. I would beg in closing that you realize it is not the only one and just maybe, may be incorrect.”
Right back at ya! :P
Thanks for the discussion, God bless.
The authors claim (quoted below) that Mark could beat up Jesus is not based on understanding at all. Jesus came from omnipotent God, all powerful, all knowing, etc, to human form. Even the strongest, most powerful human becomes, in comparison, a weakling. So was Jesus weak? No, but He was fully human. Compared to Jesus in His full Heavenly glory, any human is weak.
~Meghan
In response to:
“I am of course most interested in Driscoll’s comment that he is unable to worship someone he can beat up. Strangely enough this would seem that he is unable to worship Jesus. As John Howard Yoder pointed out in reflection on John 1, the proclamation that the Word became flesh “does not simply mean that God became tangible. It means he became weak, undignified, vulnerable. “
Indeed, Jesus incarnate was weak, in that he humbled himself to our level. The Jesus in Revelation however, in His eschatological fulfillment will return with legions of Angels. Seems badass to me!
Maybe you should watch some of the sermons from http://www.Marshillchurch.org, you might learn something. Taking a couple blurbs from a magazine and defining someone from that context is just as stupid as your summations about Mark Driscoll, Mark understands what it meant when God became flesh and was thereby vulnerable to all human suffering and temptation. What you do not understand is that Jesus still lives and reigns in Heaven today, not as a poor, homeless man but as the King of Kings who’s judgment will fall upon the earth at the second coming, That is what Christians should see Jesus as, not a helpless homeless man that said a few inspiring one-liners and then died as a misunderstood free love hippie.
Wow! Looks this thing died a loooooongggggggg painful death. Halden, thanks for your forbearance.
Indeed, this was a thread for the ages.