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.
“For you to say “God has no need of us” paints Him out to be sociopathic.”
Well, God doesn’t really have NEED of us. However, He WANTS us. I think that makes it a little more clear :)
“He is in total control of EVERYTHING” means we have no free will”
Um, no. It means He is in control of everything the Bible says “A man plans his way, but the Lord directs His steps.” (I’m paraphrasing) The point is not that we have no free will, but that God directs and guides us because He is all powerful.
“Jesus did not choose to die for us.”
Whoa….That’s new to me….:) Yes, He went through Hell (literally), but He wasn’t a namby pamby wuss begging to get out of His death. “Not my will, but Yours be done.” What a powerful testament to the trust He had in His Father.
“If Jesus was not as vulnerable and scared and weak as the rest of us then His sacrifice and advice is meaningless.”
True, but also, if Jesus did not conquer death and triumph over evil, then He wouldn’t be God’s Son. You have to keep both aspects of His character in mind.
Jesus came in humility and God has exalted Him as the Name above all Names. Talk about power!
[Joshua]:
[“For you to say “God has no need of us” paints Him out to be sociopathic.”
Well, God doesn’t really have NEED of us. However, He WANTS us. I think that makes it a little more clear :)]
my response:
So now God has “wants”? Isn’t that a human quality of the soul? Our souls desire. Our souls make plans. Otherwise the sins we commit could not harm them. I thought you were against assigning and limiting God to human qualities.
[“He is in total control of EVERYTHING” means we have no free will”
Um, no. It means He is in control of everything the Bible says “A man plans his way, but the Lord directs His steps.” (I’m paraphrasing) The point is not that we have no free will, but that God directs and guides us because He is all powerful.]
All you have done there is create a conceptual mobius strip. What you are now implying is that I get to choose my path in life but God gets to choose where I go. That’s like when I joined the military and they said, “You can go anywhere with us” and then promptly controlled everything I did for the next four years. Nice try.
[“Jesus did not choose to die for us.”
Whoa….That’s new to me….:) Yes, He went through Hell (literally), but He wasn’t a namby pamby wuss begging to get out of His death. “Not my will, but Yours be done.” What a powerful testament to the trust He had in His Father.]
In other words you are actually proving my previous point about free will being stripped of us by God while also using the Bible to state direct evidence it was not, in fact, Jesus’ own will to die. (knock knock… is this thing on?)
[“If Jesus was not as vulnerable and scared and weak as the rest of us then His sacrifice and advice is meaningless.”
True, but also, if Jesus did not conquer death and triumph over evil, then He wouldn’t be God’s Son. You have to keep both aspects of His character in mind.]
Who says He did either? All we know was his body was gone when his friends came to grieve, four guys wrote second hand accounts of reported ghost sightings ranging from 50 to 200 years after the fact, and some guy who hated Christians made up a great story to join them and then completely corrupted the church with more laws and lots of money laundering (going against the advice of both Jesus’ Rock and own brother) and now people who go to places like Mars Hill worship the ass-kicking, womanizing, wealthy preacher instead of God.
[Jesus came in humility and God has exalted Him as the Name above all Names. Talk about power!]
Jesus did not ever say that. Talk about slander and libel.
Joshua’s responses are more Biblically founded and a better interpretation of what God’s Word says, overall. You must read Scripture in context and with an open heart, not coming at it with biased human suppositions and opinions(2 Timothy 4:3). What we have to say matters nothing and we must allow his Word to speak to us as it plainly will(Hebrews 4:12). Let us not use the Bible to argue points that are insignificant when compared to the weight of sin in this lost and dying world. The Word of God is everlasting(Matthew 24:35), piercing to the heart of man(Hebrews 4:12), and to be used to equip the Christ-seeking man for good works(2 Timothy 3:16,17). For these reasons, seek after it as the treasure it is, love it, desire to understand the whole of it, and use it to love those in this world who don’t know Christ through sharing the gospel and maintaining your brotherly love for those who do know Christ.
As to the last line of your post, David:
Philippians 2:5-11 says, “5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
The fact that humility, meekness, and love can be paired with power and authority seems paradoxical but, as Joshua rightly stated and as the Bible clearly says in Isaiah 55:9, God’s ways are higher than ours and his thoughts higher than our thoughts.
Might I submit to you that the fact that Christ came in humility to die for the sin of mankind can only invoke worship from our hearts once realized. That gives him the name above all names and authority at which every knee WILL bow and every tongue WILL confess(on Earth now or before the throne in heaven one day) that Jesus Christ, the humble and meek servant of mankind, is and will eternally be Lord of all. Even now, he is in heaven interceding and giving grace to this sinful world that some might be saved(2 Peter 3:9). That is love, humility, and GRACE from a mighty God in heaven for a lowly people on earth. Read how Christ is described in Colossians 1:15-20 and in Hebrews 1. These are remarkable passages that most accurately define Christ and his being before, during, and after the creation of the world. The Bible will speak for itself. It is alive, complete, and searches our hearts to reveal truth to us and in us. I pray that it does so for you and I am open to any responses from anyone. Thank you for your time in reading this.
Neither the ‘hippie Jesus’ nor the ‘uber-macho’ Jesus is biblical. He was direct and forceful when needed, and kind & gentle in other situations when needed.
As Christian men, our challenge is to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Macho posturing has no place in that. Jesus made it clear, and the apostles modeled this as well, that true masculinity means putting others first and being the servant of all. There’s nothing passive or wimpy about that; it takes more strength and humility than simply strutting around like a rooster.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to put on a cardigan sweater and sip a cup of tea…..
Both Max and Cameron have provided good insight(Cameron has quoted more Scripture than I ever could…Nice one Cameron!)
David to answer your assertions:
“So now God has “wants”? Isn’t that a human quality of the soul? Our souls desire. Our souls make plans. Otherwise the sins we commit could not harm them. I thought you were against assigning and limiting God to human qualities.”
I am against limiting God to human qualities. But you seem to forget, we are made in the image of God. God so LOVED the world, because He WANTS us to be with Him. He does not NEED us in that sense, if anything, that’s more attributing human qualities to God(God has needs? isn’t that a human trait…lol!)
“What you are now implying is that I get to choose my path in life but God gets to choose where I go”
Not really. When Joseph was sold into slavery, he eventually ended up as a 2nd in all of Egypt. He said what his brothers intended for harm, God used for good. What I was trying to convey was the sense of God being in control no matter the circumstance.
“In other words you are actually proving my previous point about free will being stripped of us by God while also using the Bible to state direct evidence it was not, in fact, Jesus’ own will to die.”
er…no. Jesus surrendered to the Father’s will. He made a choice…That’s free will. He Himself said, “Don’t you know that I could summon a legion of Angels to come and save Me, but how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled?” His mission was to save the world by doing the will of the Father. At any point He could have chose to stop, but He didn’t….FREE WILL.
“Who says He did either?”
Um….the Gospels….and the rest of the New Testament…yeah…
“All we know was his body was gone when his friends came to grieve, four guys wrote second hand accounts of reported ghost sightings ranging from 50 to 200 years after the fact,”
Um, two of those four guys were His apostles, and their accounts were the main source of info of Jesus’s life….so….your point?
“and some guy who hated Christians made up a great story to join them and then completely corrupted the church with more laws and lots of money laundering (going against the advice of both Jesus’ Rock and own brother”
Are you talking about Paul? Hmmm, according to Scripture, he was actually trying to get rid of the useless laws, and James agreed with him!
“Jesus did not ever say that. Talk about slander and libel”
I never said Jesus said that. It was Paul who said that. :)
God bless!
Oh my friends of the last 20 or so posts, how easily we have strayed from the original point yet, strangely proved it as well.
The entire point of this particular blog is that Mark Driscoll and those like him cannot possibly worship the Jesus of the Bible, and those who have so passionately attempted to respond otherwise have only proven how far away from that goal they are as well.
When examining a story for it’s credibility one must be very careful to look for consistency within the story as well as evidence to support the story from other outside sources. One cannot use the very book in question as proof of it’s own accuracy (although in an attempt to cater to the close mindedness of many here I will commit that crime despite myself).
As well, none of you ever actually quoted Jesus (although my last point means even those quotes are suspect anyway) except Cameron on Sep. 25th and even that was an incorrect quote most likely born of Driscollian interpretation – (Jesus actually said, “…My words will never die..” not, “The Word of God is everlasting.”). Subtle yet potent in it’s misdirection.
And despite their futility in effectiveness, there have been many other quotations of other NT authors who claimed to have known someone who knew Jesus, or in a couple cases have claimed to know Jesus themselves yet without identifiable proof (Sorry, Joshua, but none of the first four books of the NT were written by the men whose names they bear. And that is common knowledge amongst ALL Christians.)
So in the spirit of Jesus’ love of consistency in the search for truth (again, assuming some degree of accuracy as to the accounts of Him), like any good court of reasoning, let’s identify and stick with the clearly identifiable facts.
Toni, on Aug. 29th clearly did not get the point and asked several silly questions before finally discrediting himself by stating, “He [Mark Driscoll] gets that Jesus came as a man and didn’t have supernatural strength on earth.” There are so many problems with this I don’t feel I should even have to mention them.
Then someone named Nic on Sep. 4th decided he was smarter than the rest of us (despite admitting to not knowing “big words” or even understanding the nature of the debate) and embarrassed himself as well in the name of Jesus.
I then stupidly sobered up and wrongly assumed on Sep. 9th that offering a REAL and PROVABLE story involving the top brass at MH might help these folks gain a little perspective. Instead I was JUDGED and HURT by comments on Sep. 10th from some anonymous turd named “mark driscoll supporter” who knows nothing of me, my ex, our situation involving an adulterous elder of MH, or the fact that Mark’s church is one of the largest and fastest growing in the U.S. and is even know internationally. He, along with Toni and Nic have since then showed their true commitment to Mark’s ideal of being “ballsy for Christ” by promptly never writing anything again, thereby proving they can make a good decision after all…
Shortly afterward, on the same day, several clearly intelligent and interesting fence-sitters made some true and amusing comments which made me hungry and I had to go get a sandwich and some more beer before returning in the dead of night to reply. After calling one of the aforementioned little’uns out I settled in to reading some classic Christian commentary and then came back the following afternoon to admonish all those reading and writing these posts of the importance of education and thought outside of what they hear in church on Sunday. I also broke my own rule about using the Bible as a reference to Christian reason and mentioned a Bible verse (1John 2:27) in the vain attempt to end this hurtful nuttiness once and for all. But to no avail.
On Sep. 19th another MH supporter showed their ignorance of technology and reason and was promptly countered by the very skillful and articulate d.w. horstkoetter. I could not help but to once again offer to give a real-world, evidence-laden example of what the author of this original blog is trying to convey. And once again was avoided – presumably out of fear of open-minded investigation on the part of “truth seeking Christians”.
Sep. 23rd someone named Joshua, clearly intelligent, yet not so original, made a long and passionate, yet totally inconsistent case which was in turn opened up and refuted back and forth a couple of times before Cameron, on Sep. 25th mentioned something that actually supported me (although I think he was trying to support Joshua). He wrote, “You must read the Scripture in context and with an open heart, not coming at it with biased human suppositions and opinions(2 Timothy 4:3).”
Ironically that is exactly the essence of what the author of this blog, as well as I, am trying to say Mark is doing and taking to non-Christian extremes to manipulate for his own financial gain! Those who continue using “popular evangelical interpretation” of the scriptures to counter our open minded and non-popular allegations are doing the same as well and placing themselves on the same shelf as Mark.
Then on Sep. 27th another even minded fence sitter decided to elucidate us as to his current wardrobe and choice of beverage before a submission by Joshua unleashed a whole new slew of biblical cacophony. Purporting “WANTS” are not a human quality just like “NEED”, trying to use an phantasmagorical story of the Old Testament – out of context – to explain away the obvious contradiction in thought concerning the supposed “free will” he cathects onto Jesus during the tribulation of execution, quoting Jesus out of context for the same aforementioned reason, trying to convince us at least two of the books of the NT were written directly by the apostles themselves despite ALL evidence against it, and then topping off that ice-cream dessert by supporting my assertion that Paul is the one attributed with defining Jesus’ message and not Jesus Himself.
So what does all this mean?
Against my better judgment, as well as personal ethics, I will commit the very same crime I accuse my detractors of.
1John 2:27 – “The annointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you.”
Matthew 5:39 – “But I say unto you that you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Luke 10:25 – And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (26) He said unto him, “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” (27) And he answering said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” (28) And he said unto him, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” (29) But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (30) And Jesus answering said, “A certain [man] went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded [him], and departed, leaving [him] half dead. (31) And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. (32) And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked [on him], and passed by on the other side. (33) But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion [on him]. (34)And went to [him], and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (35) And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave [them] to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. (36) Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?” (37) And he said, “He that shewed mercy on him.” Then said Jesus unto him, “Go, and do thou likewise.”
John 11:2 It was [that] Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.
Fact: Jesus had very little if in fact nothing to say about retaining one’s virginity and was openly accepting of feminine affections as well as supported women’s sovereignty, rights, and ideas against traditional belief.
Fact: Paul was so uptight about women he could barely stand their appearance let alone to be touched by one as well as insisting non-virgins were dirty whores and totally unacceptable.
Fact: Mark Driscoll stated in a publicly accessible interview (YouTube) interview that the only way his church could survive was to attract young, untouched, totally submissive virgins which would in turn attract 18 – 35yo males who could provide the most money to expand his church.
Fact: The pastors at UGM who befriended me (until their elders told them not to) all admitted 30-something year old virgins were most likely screwed up in the head.
Fact: Jesus never said anything disparaging about drinking or drugs (Mark 7:14-23), homosexuality, or wanting lots of money.
Fact: Paul said a lot of bad things about the first three but never about money, which he kept a VERY keen eye on and punished other churches for not managing properly and even allowed the death of two parishioners for lying about their means (Acts 5).
Fact: Mark Driscoll HATES gays, drugs, liberals (mind you I personally am a non-partisan, gun-toting, meat-eating, conservative from Louisiana), and drunks, yet never fails to mention tithing and money management as often as possible.
Fact: Jesus’ first concern was unconditional love and the disdain for the legislation of morality.
Fact: Paul sought to isolate those who were not worthy of “The Way” and actually enforce the laws of morality.
Fact: Mark Driscoll is a hard-right, Republican who would legislate morality and make sin punishable by law if given half the chance.
Preachers like Mark worship Paul out of insecurity and fear and lack of personal relationship with the true Jesus.
The followers of preachers like Mark worship the preachers, not Jesus, for the same reasons.
To worship Jesus is to abandon ALL hate, ALL agenda, ALL presupposition, and embrace consistent, open-minded research of the world around you without attachment or belief in any “truth” which may be gleaned from several thousand year old, non-contemporarily relevant, Bedouin poetry or the agendas of those who would seek to regress us back to those ideas.
“Sorry, Joshua, but none of the first four books of the NT were written by the men whose names they bear. And that is common knowledge amongst ALL Christians.)”
Says who? You? Bart Ehrman? Please, most of the Christians around the world(including most Biblical scholars) agree that the Gospels were indeed written by the men who wrote their names at the top of the page :)!
“Sep. 23rd someone named Joshua, clearly intelligent, yet not so original, made a long and passionate, yet totally inconsistent case which was in turn opened up and refuted back and forth a couple of times”
Well, thanks for the compliment! But to be fair, you didn’t really refute me. you made a few assumptions and a few good points, but all were off the mark.
” Purporting “WANTS” are not a human quality just like “NEED”,”
You miss my point. You said I was assigning human qualities to God, when in fact you were doing the same thing by suggesting that God NEEDS us. that was my point.
“phantasmagorical story of the Old Testament – out of context to explain away the obvious contradiction in thought concerning the supposed “free will ”
“All Scripture is inspired by God.” And What contradiction? We make choices, that doesn’t spare us the consequences. Nor does it prevent God from taking what is bad and using it for good(Hint: Jesus’s death and Ressurection also fall into this category….)
“he cathects onto Jesus during the tribulation of execution, quoting Jesus out of context for the same aforementioned reason”
How am I quoting Him out of context? He Himself said He could have gotten out of dying! He CHOSE not to!
“trying to convince us at least two of the books of the NT were written directly by the apostles themselves despite ALL evidence against it,”
I am not trying to ‘convince’ anyone. Facts are facts. There is no evidence to support the belief that the apostles didn’t write the Gospels! Even the Jesus Seminar believes that for the most part!
“and then topping off that ice-cream dessert by supporting my assertion that Paul is the one attributed with defining Jesus’ message and not Jesus Himself.”
Jesus also said the Pharisees would see Him sitting at the Right Hand of God(Special powerful position) and coming in the clouds of Heaven(I.E. Glory and Power). Pretty close to what Paul said huh?
“Fact: Jesus had very little if in fact nothing to say about retaining one’s virginity and was openly accepting of feminine affections as well as supported women’s sovereignty, rights, and ideas against traditional belief.”
For the most part(Although I think you missed a few verses about not looking lustfully at a women…). However, Jesus was a traditional Jew, He observed their laws, and He Himself said e came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it.
“Fact: Paul was so uptight about women he could barely stand their appearance let alone to be touched by one as well as insisting non-virgins were dirty whores and totally unacceptable.”
AND…..Where did you get this from? Have you even read Corinthians?
“Fact: Paul said a lot of bad things about the first three but never about money, which he kept a VERY keen eye on and punished other churches for not managing properly and even allowed the death of two parishioners for lying about their means (Acts 5).”
Dude…..PAUL WASN’T EVEN A CHRISTIAN AT THIS POINT!!!!! He didn’t convert until Acts 9!!!!
(sorry….little rants are fun!)
“Fact: Jesus’ first concern was unconditional love and the disdain for the legislation of morality.
Fact: Paul sought to isolate those who were not worthy of “The Way” and actually enforce the laws of morality.”
Jesus said “I have come to do the will of the Father.” That was His mission. Not disdain for legislative morality. I’m a conservative too, and I don’t buy that libertarian garbage.
Paul said “I have become all things to all people, that I might win them for Christ.” He always spoke to people in a way they understood. He wanted to save as many as possible. Honestly do you even read His letters?
“To worship Jesus is to abandon ALL hate, ALL agenda, ALL presupposition,”
True…YAY! we agree on something!
“..and embrace consistent, open-minded research of the world around you without attachment or belief in any “truth” which may be gleaned from several thousand year old, non-contemporarily relevant, Bedouin poetry or the agendas of those who would seek to regress us back to those ideas.”
Oooohhh…..not true. That is not what Jesus said. He said, “Believe in the Son of Man and you will be saved.” And considering He also said He was the ‘Truth’, if you have no attachment to ‘Truth’, you aren’t attached to Jesus….
In closing, I don’t know what happened to you at Mark’s church, but I do know that Jesus also said “If you do not forgive others, you will not be forgiven.” Matthew 6:15
David, don’t let your heart be bitter, allow God to wash that away. He wants to.
If I offended at al please forgive me,
God bless!
Also, I’m not the same guy as the first Joshua….Just to let you know!
I must admit not to have read through all the comments here. Given that there are 100+ at this point, I trust others will not judge me too harshly in this.
While I would not endorse Driscoll’s language, it does appear that his wording [and hence the implied meaning] is being twisted here. Furthermore, regardless of any the above, the personal comments seem out of line.
I do not follow Driscoll, so it is perfectly possible that he means exactly what you are casting him as saying…but all he really said was that the version of Jesus being presented is not consistent with Scripture, nor is it one that demands our worship in the way Christ does.
He describes Jesus the way he does not to show that exhausts Jesus’ attributes but rather to show that the version of Jesus he is concerned as being over-represented is not a full picture either.
For example, imagine you heard someone suggesting a form of simplistic neo-Sabellianism, suggesting Jesus=the Father.
How might you respond to show the error? You might point out places where Jesus clearly shows Himself to be below the Father [John 14:28], show places where the Father exhibits characteristics Jesus does not [Mark 13:32], illustrate places where others misunderstood Jesus’ claims about His relationship with the Father [10:30-36], or indicate that Jesus in general praying to the Father makes little since if Jesus=Father.
Now, would that mean that your response exhausts your beliefs about Jesus? No. You were not representing a complete picture of Jesus so much as pointing out aspects of Jesus shown in the Bible that would make the Jesus=The Father idea untenable [even if it is simpler for us to get our heads around.]
Perhaps that is Driscoll’s point here. Not to hold up an entire picture of Jesus but to relate aspects of Christ that would not allow one to hold to a “soft” version of Jesus without accepting the rough edges.
In the end, my guess is that Mark sees a real danger in people clasping a version of Jesus that they find more palatable and holding that version tight, not being able, even after “believing” of seeing that there are aspects of Jesus that are not at all meek.
I just have to make this my last message and hope somehow someone more articulate comes along to do a better job than I… My heart can’t take too much more of this.
Joshua 1 or Joshua 2 or whichever Joshua may be reading this as well as anyone else who worships Mark Driscoll, y’all have all missed the point entirely.
1. No. The first four gospels that we all read were written by men who translated them from other translations which were translated from other translations, ad nauseum…
2. As usual oranges and apples were mixed – Jesus referred to his ability to be saved by a host of angels while being tempted in the desert and not while begging his Daddy to come up with some other way to “save” us.
3. Paul was very concerned about money and furthering the “church” – Jesus was not so concerned about money and could give a shit less about any church. He just wanted to spread his MESSAGE. Mark Driscoll, like Paul, is more concerned about image, money, church planting, and bashing liberals then he is about spreading a message of all inclusive love-sans-judgment.
Which leads me to the ultimate point I have been trying to make all along… The Bible is not the ultimate source of wisdom, knowledge and truth. It is a collection of stories about how no one ever really gets to know the “truth” and how some guy came along trying to point out how we should be more focused on each others happiness and our surroundings than on any metaphysical, unknowable truth. Then this guy gets deified, misquoted, and ultimately mythologized (is that even a word?) until his whole message gets lost in an unbelievable, literally in-credible, twisted war of legalism and interpretation between myriad churches who are all run by egomaniacal, greedy men of average intelligence with no discernible talent other than bilking old ladies and socially unsuccessful young people out of their hard earned money with the promise of something no one can actually guarantee.
And the only “proof” any of you can offer up in their defense are quotes from these very guys who claim to be interpreting the Bible better than any one else. And the Bible is the very book in question in the first place.
Ironically, if we don’t take the Bible literally then churches become pretty much meaningless, and if we do take it literally – including and especially Jesus’ words – than churches are still pretty much a waste of time and money.
Lastly, even though I will most likely never return to this site it doesn’t matter because it’s not me you have to answer to. It’s the God that created you to think for yourselves and not follow any other man. The God who probably finds you very boring if you go to a church like Mars Hill.
Goodbye.
David
david.spring@gmail.com
I’m sorry your heart is troubling you David. If I offended you at all, please forgive me.
Know that God loves you and wants you. Regardless of what you think or feel. I understand you’ve been hurt, but God wants to take that away from you. He wants you to be free.
God bless!
The only other issue I have with this article is this: Relevant Magazine may try to be too relevant at some points, but at least their hearts are sincere towards God and their love for people is geniune. They are not trying to make Christianity ‘cool’, any more than Paul was in his sermon on Mars Hill to the Greeks.
They are trying to speak to culture in a way that culture can understand.
That’s all…God bless!
Perhaps this video will be of interest to some of those on this post.
I knew I should have stayed away but my curiosity got the best of me. And now I’m just in shambles.
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.).
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. People who are constantly looking outward have no vacuum in their lives because we don’t need validation or guidance to find substance.
And then that video! ARGH!!!! Where does Mark get his “statistics”? Statistically speaking – married, Christian, stay at home moms are the most likely to get bored and disillusioned and cheat on their husbands. This is not my opinion. This is documented fact from many research projects done over the last 50 years. Just Google it…
Secondly, I know MANY people who were raised by stay at home dads and they turned out highly successful as well as their parents marriages.
And did anyone else notice the body language (oppressive hand on her knee at all times, her hair covering her confused and vapid stare as she recited Mark’s obviously coached words…)?
Too much to say. I really need to stay away from these discussion boards because they just make me ill….
Sorry.
Three things that video from two posts ago taught me about Mark Driscoll.
1. If his wife died (God forbid) he would have to marry another “woman unit” to raise the kids because he can’t do it. This reflects not only Mark’s ineptitude to do anything other than bully people into his viewpoints but his views on women as well.
2. If a woman making $100,000 dollars a year marries a man making only $20,000 a year and they have kids, Mark’s God would command that the family suffer in poverty rather than live with more means because the man’s ego and “role” is more important than his families comfort and financial security.
3. Mark has decided that we are stupid and evil if we disagree with his personal take on the Bible. His hero complex and huge ego will simply not permit him to evolve with the rest of us and stop obsessing over legalistic BS.
If you are a woman, a man making less than your spouse, a man who is able to raise his own children, and/or not into Kung Fu Jesus – then Mark Driscoll thinks you are stupid, evil, and in danger of Hell.
Wow.
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.