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.
Halden,
While I won’t argue with your speculations about Driscoll’s identity issues, I find a more charitable reading of his rhetoric is near to hand: contemporary, popular Christianity presents an extremely inaccurate and one-sided portrait of Jesus, and I present version X to specifically counter this portrait (culled from Scripture).
Perhaps, as you and others suggest, he perpetrates the same error. However, I think it is undeniable that much contemporary theology does not like to address some of the biblical imagery of God (generally) and Jesus (specifically – e.g., in John’s Revelation). Jesus is portrayed in martial terms, he is portrayed as a judge who will destroy his enemies, and, while it is perfectly understandable for a classic liberal to simply deny such imagery, people who claim to be orthodox do not have such recourse. (I’m not sure what WTM’s means by “non-violent,” so I’m not sure if I agree with such a description or not).
Either you ignore such imagery and its doctrinal bases and implications, or you incorporate into your theology, despite the tensions it will create and the hostility it will engender. Many so-called orthodox believers opt for the former option (following a venerable liberal tradition minus the consistency of simply denying Scripture’s authority), and those are the people I take Driscoll to be mocking and denouncing.
“Do all of you really think this is loving and nurturing of the body of Christ? How is this about living wholly and unreservedly with and for others as one body – Christ’s body?”
Now, perhaps I am mistaken, but I would think that one who argues that Jesus was neither passive nor weak would understand that the peace of Christ does not mean the absence of conflict, nor the turning of a blind eye. On the contrary, Jesus and the prophets repeatedly ruffled the feathers of those who held power over others.
Now (lest this go straight to your head, Halden) my intention is not to draw some sort of sweeping comparison of Halden’s blog and and the words of the prophets, but I do think that we are called to be prophetic voices in our generation–to speak out against injustice and oppression and to advocate on behalf of those imprisoned physically, spiritually and psychologically. The misogynist discourse espoused by Mr. Driscoll perpetuates the minimization and dehumanization of our sisters in Christ.
So, Rubin, I agree with you that we must promote “loving and nurturing of the body of Christ . . . [and] living wholly and unreservedly with and for others as one body – Christ’s body.” However, to not speak out against this continued marginalization of God’s children is to deny and reject half of that same body. Living wholly with and for others means walking beside them, seeing the world through their eyes and advocating for the full humanity of each child of God.
Halden, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I understand more clearly now what’s behind your tone. I’m still not sure that such an acerbic style is really productive in getting your point across. Perhaps you’re simply writing to your audience here who mostly agree with you anyways. And perhaps that’s enough for you. But to really communicate and persuade with reasoned logic, I do think a kinder tone is a better approach ala Paul and Silas.
Samuel,
Driscoll seems to through the word “liberal” around without having any knowledge of what liberalism actually is in theology. And if you’re leaning on him for a definition, you’ll be as equally impoverished. He uses it as a rhetorical tool to marginalize anyone questioning such an opinion – a tactic to lump a great variety of people into one category that many do not fit into. Its pretty cheap and plays on fear, but, as politics shows, it works for an uninformed audience.
Realizing that the church, nor Jesus when he was on the earth previously, are not to, or did not act like the Jesus of the parousia, is not ignoring the parousia and nor is it “liberal.” Rather, this theology is focusing on the Christian call, which is not talked about in terms of conquering, but power in weakness. Quite simply, we are not the ones to open the scroll in Revelation, so we better not act like we are that person of the future. Eschatologically, we do have a hope and this drives change, but even then, it is not the church, and specifically the martyrs, who actually do anything in Revelation. Quite simply, the church is the body of the crucified and resurrected Christ. None of this is “liberal” and in fact, conservatives and liberals alike could widely agree with it. This I know first hand.
Damned liberals.
I think Mark Driscoll has half a point in speaking against hippie Jesus, but he cancels it out by offering jock Jesus as a solution. He doesn’t seem to be aware that both Jesuses are cultural products, neither of which are faithful to the real Jesus. Mark seems to like rhetoric (something you, Halden, seem to like as well), which is fine as such. The problems start when rhetoric takes over and we forget the real point we were trying to make. I often find myself making that mistake and it seems to me to be a mistake that a preacher might be prone to make. Mark makes this mistake again and again and you have to ask yourself whether he makes it on purpose. Shocked reactions can be addictive. Maybe Mark keeps insisting that Jesus is a jock because it produces reactions like these and keeps him in the headlines.
d. w. horstkoetter,
Sorry to taking so long to respond.
The word “liberal” is a slippery term, and my use of it is loose but historically accurate, I believe. I use it to describe any variety of theological traditions which would be in some ways indebted or similar to 19/20 German theology, starting primarily with Schleiermacher (naturally there are antecedents in the Enlightenment), and stretching through influential figures like Ritschl, Harnack, Bultmann, Tillich, et al. A liberal would deny classic and central doctrines of Christianity, like the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, Chalcedonian Christology, etc, and would root authority in something other than God’s self-revelation in Scripture (and, arguably, tradition and the Church).
My point was that even nominally orthodox Christians are subject to the immense cultural pressures to not offend current sensibilities, so any presentation of Christ which incorporates the Scriptural imagery and teaching pertaining to judgment, punishment, “violence,” and other related themes will be very unpopular and likely attacked, even by fellow “orthodox” Christians, who are currently emphasizing themes more palatable to current sensibilities (e.g. social justice, non-violence, liberation/freedom, etc.).
Cordially,
Samuel
Driscoll is a closet homo.
Jesus wasn’t weak. He was obedient. That’s why he didn’t call down 10,000 angels (who could easily have whipped Mark Driscoll).
Jesus the man was a temporary state. god the Son is eternal. THAT’s the one I worship.
BTW, if a magazine has to TELL you it’s “relevant” by it’s name, it probably isn’t.
Amy2,
You may want to take a little look into the doctrines of resurrection and ascension and determine whether you still think the incarnation was temporary…
you can read my response to this article at:
http://willyrobertson.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/in-defence-of-driscoll/
Correction, “Disciple” is not “my” band. Typo.
I think that Mark was using hyperbole. You took it literally and wrote tirade against somethig I don’t think Mark would even try to defend in a literal sense. Watch a series of his sermons and you will find he is a fairly balanced preacher who frequently goes over the top to make a point. Don’t get caught up in the details, hear the theme of what his is talking about. Mark supports a Jesus who stands up for his beliefs (clearing the temple) while also submitting to the Father’s will. What makes Christ perfect is that he can be a manly man and a humble servant!
Its time for Christians to stop ripping into eachother and start spending time telling their friends, coworkers, and neighbors about Jesus (his eternal love and his eternal judgment).
Thats whats wrong with Driscol — who defines manly man? Other than the notion that killing lots of other people would disqualify you for building the temple. God rejects David on this account.
The point is Ryan, Driscol uses gender concepts that are of his own making, or this current social climate’s making. This is no small detail — the hypostatic union and/or Chalcedonian creed (depending if you’re spirit or logos) wasn’t a manly man and God, it was human and divine in one. To harp on manly men is unnecessarily exclusive, if not patriarchal. This manly Jesus isn’t necessarily the Jesus I know, because I reject your definition of manly as both unnecessary and unbiblical. Now that is something definitely worth discussing and not glossing over.
This whole post seems to be a complete waste of time and I am sad that I got sucked into reading the back and forth insults, japes, and comments disguised as theological dialogue that did nothing to foster healthy discussion/relationships.
I have listened to Driscoll as much as I have listened to Rob Bell and find them both making mistakes in their theology and speech as do I. To assume that they have any more power than I do over the people I am in relationship with is simply to shift the blame of my disobedience onto them because they are public figures. I have made just as many mistakes in my theology and speech as they have. And obviously so have most of you.
When you want to begin real change, stop blogging about pastors you hate and disagree with and go plant/serve a church in a city you have a heart for. Once you are there and in relationship with those people seeing the immediate needs of the community and understanding the problems with your church, then you can begin to claim the role of “Luther”.
I am sure that Luther would have seen the vanity (emptiness) of this “ministry”. Good luck serving the poor, the widowed, and the immigrants through this blog. I’m sure they are reading every word.
Umm, B-rad, frankly you don’t know shit about me but you seem to think that, after reading this post you know quite a lot. You could,however know a bit more than you do if you took time to read about me in the pages I’ve provided on this blog that give information about who I am and how I live. I have lived in intentional community for the last 6 years, rooted in a local community which I serve on a daily basis. We are active in the sanctuary movement for illegal immigrants that have been displaced in our area, have widows in our midst, and do what we can to serve the poor in any way that we encounter them in our life together.
What do you do?
By all means shoot your mouth off if you want. But it doesn’t speak well of you if you just go around doing so without even bothering to check very easily accessible information about person in question that might put your assertions into question.
Halden,
I did my research. Great work in the city.
Poor work on the website.
The work in the city still doesn’t make you righteous and neither does this website. Christ does.
I do what I do and that won’t get make me righteous either. Christ does.
So it looks like we’re both saved by the same eternal God. You’re probably even more pissed about that, but I’m thankful that even though we disagree, Christ is doing a great work in your life and in the lives of the people you know as well in my life and the lives of the people I know.
I didn’t say a word about my actions saving me. Don’t be stupid just to try to avoid getting caught when you say something without checking. You came in spouting your mouth of with self-righteous “suggestions” about what I should do regarding where I live, minister, etc. Clearly you had not read anything about me or you would have known the answers to those questions. You are being disingenuous just to cover your own ass. Come on, man.
Contrary to what you wish to believe I am quite thankful to be saved by grace. I am acutely aware of my own sinfulness and deep brokenness. However I don’t think that means we shouldn’t critique heresy and false gospels where they are found. Mark Driscoll is the shepherd of a large church and, in my view he is leading his flock significantly astray. I have experienced his “ministry” first hand through its effect on members of my immediate family. I find what he is doing despicable and destructive and I think it needs to be attacked for the sake of the gospel and the people he is hurting. I don’t just go around looking for people to critique. I’ve read Driscoll’s books, listened to his sermons, and been among people impacted by his work. That’s why I wrote what I wrote and I stand by it.
What you say about me is true and worse. I am self-righteous and disingenuous and say most things just to seek approval. I am usually a poor shepherd of the people around me and I do try to avoid getting caught when I mis-speak just to cover my own ass. It is worse. I am a recovering sex-addict, I treat my friends with disrespect so that I can reap the benefits and I am usually caught lying to defend my wrong actions, even to my wife. It is much worse than you think and I apologize for wronging you when I don’t even know you.
I am also sorry for your suffering through the ministry of Driscoll’s church.
No worries, mate.
B-rad,
I’m not sure you agree with Halden’s post (which is not really the point of my comment anyways), but I definitely see that you understand and put into practice the image of Jesus that Halden has put forth (i.e., one who is out-of-control and has embraced vulnerability). Thanks for accepting his critique and for responding to it with humility. That’s more than inspiring for someone like me who hates to admit when I’m wrong about something. It should be easier to be good, don’t you think?
Bottom line, one of the best things in life is to walk alongside Jesus in his Way (opposing the Powers, with all its conveniences), but the strength to do so (with integrity) sometimes leaves me wondering–What’s a brotha to do?
Once you are there and in relationship with those people seeing the immediate needs of the community and understanding the problems with your church, then you can begin to claim the role of “Luther”.
I am sure that Luther would have seen the vanity (emptiness) of this “ministry”.
I would just like to bring up the irony of invoking Luther in this discussion. He is the paragon of the Christian polemicist. Nobody was nastier in rhetoric than Luther. That is all. :-)
I you listen to some of Mark’s other sermons, you will see that he’s looking at this from the viewpoint of the exaltation of Christ. He affirms the Incarnation, but Jesus is now exalted. We must hold on to both of these truths such that while Jesus identifies with us, and suffered for us, he now is glorified and rules in power. The images in Revelation are frightening to his enemies, and comforting to his people, precisely because no one can defeat him. Personally I’m glad we have the incarnate Jesus who has been exalted to defend his people.
Hi Halden, someone has borrowed your words over here: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3519/P0/
I stumbled upon this while trying to find a devotional BY MARK DRISCOLL…wow, can you believe it? I must be one of those brain washed petty american Christians because I want to learn something from Mark Driscoll. I think the problem here is jealousy. Jealousy will always turn to bitterness. Obviously just at the mention of his name, you people are willing to slander him! Do you honestly think your punny Jesus would back this blog up? Are you kidding me??? He would be embarrassed that His disciples were out making a mockery of His name. No wonder the unsaved have such trouble becoming a “Christian” when they stumble upon junk like this! Why don’t you pick out the positive things about Mark Driscoll and post them on here? And by the way…Mark Driscoll is talking about Jesus as He is now. He gets that Jesus came as a man and didn’t have supernatural strength on earth. He gets that…but the Jesus that is seated at the right hand of the Father? You better believe that no one can beat Him up. Come on guys, instead of bashing Mark’s ministry, why don’t you look into your hearts and see if there is any bitterness towards him.
This blog is the biggest load of crap I’ve read in years. I read it so that I could try to understand the thought patterns of idiots and I’m sorry to admit that I failed. It’s just too hard. I’m not going to use big words I don’t understand to assert my point like some bloggers I’ve read seem to do, but I will say that Jesus Christ currently sits at the right hand of God, waiting to enact judgement upon all who do not have faith in Him for the forgiveness of sins, and re-establishment of relationship with the Father. I’m pretty sure no-one could beat him up without getting their arse kicked. God bless, I pray you can come to the same faith in the grace of jesus alone for salvation. Shalom
No, Toni. And I’m sorry, Nic that your parents didn’t love you enough to teach you big words.
The fact is Mark Driscoll is running a virgin sex cult and I am living proof.
I live in Seattle (Ballard section actually) and attended the original Mars Hill regularly as well as was dating to the point of engagement a beautiful, intelligent, truth seeking (virgin – which turns me off actually as she was 33 – what the hell is wrong with her and why is there so much emphasis on bloody, painful, awkward sex on the wedding night for Christian men?) woman from Kirkland who belonged to one of Mark’s Acts29 churches. Near the time I was to officially ask her parents permission for her hand she freaked out. So I took her to James Noriega, a pastor from Mars Hill and mentor / counselor of mine for about a year. He immediately fell for her (he is married) and stole her from me because I did not make enough money to deserve a beautiful virgin of their church. NO SHIT! The betrayals continued all the way to me being banned from all Acts29 and UGM property because I “ask questions that undermine their authority” (James’ words).
These people are sick.
These people are a cult.
I would love nothing more than to debate Mark openly in front of his entire congregation any time any where and tear him a new one so he can finally poop out that potato chip up his ass he clearly doesn’t want to break.
Listen again to his sermons and count the number of times he discusses virgin sex and tithing.
Then get back to me.
david.spring@gmail.com
David Spring….from your wording it is obvious why they stole her from you….you don’t deserve her….wash your mouth.. and then talk.
As for the rest in here….Mark is one of the ONLY few christian advocates around who speaks the truth and takes the hits no matter how unpopular it us….some of you are wrong…Mark is not talking about how big his church is ….because His church is not that big…it’s really small comparesd to all the big churches out there….if anything he boasts just as Paul boasted in all his epistles…….EVEN IF 2 members joined…he won’t exhaggerate and say 2000.
He talks about virgin sex a lot because people like you can’t keep your penis in control…So calm down and try to be half the man that he is
Going to get some popcorn… be right back.
Bring some twizzlers while you’re at it Hill.
“I’m pretty sure no-one could beat him up without getting their arse kicked. God bless . . . Shalom”
Irony, that.
At any rate, I would like to propose a corollary to Godwin’s law for theoblogs: As a Christian blog discussion grows longer, the probability of someone questioning the author’s salvation approaches one.
mark driscoll supporter – You know not of what you speak.
She herself gave me a card not 2 weeks earlier from the start of all those events citing me as a (her words) “gift from God to her”. Seeing as how I have devoted my life to understanding and getting to know Jesus / God to the point of near death on many occasions as well as losing most of my friends and family for the cause I would have to question your criteria for “deserving her”.
Was I not wealthy enough in your eyes?
Was I not righteous enough in your eyes?
How do you know what I do with my penis?
Wash YOUR mouth, sir. You speak boldly from the hip without even the courage to print your name. How about you come over and tell me your point of view to my face?
Mark is a coward and seeks to establish a community of cowards like you who speak of righteousness yet have never gone out on the limbs the rest of us have to discern the truth in a truly Christ-like manner.
Besides, in this world no one and nothing gives a crap about what you think you or anyone else deserves. I bet you aren’t even legal age for me to put a stiff hand to your neck.
Grow up and invest yourself in risky and frightening pursuits of truth before you ever comment on me again.
http://www.differhonestly.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=487&p=4497
This was written quite some time ago yet applies not only to the specific preacher it was written about but to all preachers such as Mark and his cohorts.
Also check out chapter 8 of part 2 of Neil Postman’s book “Amusing Ourselves to Death”.
If we don’t start collectively following the advice of 1John 2:27 soon these crazy evangelists will lead us all straight to Hell down the road of good yet uninformed and narrow minded intentions.
For those who rant on about Mark, I suggest you show up at one of his sermons. It’s easy to dig at someone that you don’t know.
Here is a challenge for you. Come to church service on Sunday and see for yourself. Are you strong enough in your own version of faith?
Kyle, you seemed to have forgotten that videos of his sermons are online. However, if his sermons in the church do not employ the drug induced animations for “the peasant princess” it would be easier to persuade me to go.
Kyle,
I not only rant from personal experience with Mark and his church, I rant from a personal wrong he, himself, as well as several of his elders and the elders of UGM inflicted upon me and never apologized for or did anything to rectify.
He is, as I have previously stated, a coward who is too chicken to even confront me in his own church, in front of his own congregation because he knows what will happen.
If you would like I’d be glad to share my story, the emails involved between all parties, and any other info you need to have a fair and unbiased opinion of the damage his organization does to Christians who truly live the message on a daily basis.
david.spring@gmail.com
Peace be with you.
Let me express my heart in writing this first off to deal with any reply’s related to that. i am a born again believer and thing it is not only sad but unsettling and upsetting when people who would claim to be the same give the God they claim to serve the sad status of a human soul. When God really is just that GOD, COMPLETELY HOLY NEEDED NOTHING INCLUDING YOUR WORSHIP AND FELLOWSHIP TO BE CONTENT AND COMPLETE IN EVERY WAY! GOD IS HOLY HOLY HOLY!!! and any thought otherwise is a lie and disgrace deserving destruction which according to the bible has been given for less than that many times before.
Now on to what i am writing about there is a big difference between a Jesus like the one in the picture with the nuns behind it and the Jesus who is weak and fable like a babe who’s only response to an attack is to cry and fill its diaper.
Or as you put it
“Living out of control, embracing vulnerability, allowing oneself to be put into question”.
Let me brake this down for you.
For starters you said out of control….
WHAT?!?!? THE SON OF GOD. JESUS CHRIST NOT BEING IN TOTAL CONTROL! you must be joking here right? the Son of the One who hold not only the world but everything in the universe in PERFECT control Who controls the destinies of man just as easily as every supernatural force, the Son of that God being out of control. No my friend on the contrary Jesus like his Father was in TOTAL control every moment of His time here on Earth. Jesus willing lay down His life and that’s what makes it so glorious.
“Embracing vulnerability”
By this I do hope that you are saying gave Himself to the people who were seeking His life. Not oh i can’t do anything anyway so I’m just going to embrace that because that’s who i am. because if you’re saying that my friend you missed the part where Jesus rebuked Peter saying “put away your sword, or do you not know that I could call down legions of angles and heavenly host in my defense.” Jesus who almost laughing at those who came to seek His life… “Why do you come at me with all these men when i was with you in the temple every day.” as if to say it matters not how many men you have their power is nothing compared to mine. I did not fear you then and I don’t now but I willingly give myself to you to be killed by my choice. don’t be confused my friend Jesus did only as His father did and His father time and again destroyed host of men and nations without an effort. Jesus was not weak in any way but made the choice to die, made the choice to be beaten and crucified, made the choice to carry the cross when a normal human would be holding to life by stands so easy to brake one more lash could rip it away.
“Allowing oneself to be put into question”
It is more accurate to say putting oneself willing in to question. Seeing and knowing exactly what they wanted to do to Him. Jesus said yes that is what I chose I go toward that with all that I am because that is what will pay the price for the sin of Halden, and the sin of Joshua, the sin of Kyle, and the sin of David, the sin of Hill and the sin of (enter your name hear) It was a CHOICE Jesus WILLINGLY CHOSE, with total joy and rejoicing, to give each of us the OPPORTUNITY for salvation.
That is the Jesus i hope Mark Driscoll is talking about the one who in COMPLETE CONTROL, CHOSE TO LAY DOWN HIMSELF, TO DIE just to give the chance, the choice of salvation and relationship with Him and His heavenly Father to each person on this earth for all time. Not a weak Jesus who could do nothing about it and not a Jesus who runs around with nuns that shamefully expose their nudity to the world. No my friend a Jesus who when thinking about the people He loved decided to die in such a way that no one could say that death is not enough to pay for the sins of this person or that. A death Horrific enough to cover sin, and make way for redemption and salvation. When Jesus Himself needed nether redemption, salvation, or the forgiveness of sin. When He who would gain nothing because there was nothing that He needed in free will gave His life as payment for sin. That is the God that I serve and that you weather you realize it or not, serve if you have made the choice to accept His as Lord and Savor.
Joshua, you make my work so easy for me.
I find it interesting and typical of “parrot Christians” (those who lack originality in their own thoughts concerning God) to define Jesus in one breath and curse those who define Him differently in another. For you to say “God has no need of us” paints Him out to be sociopathic. For you to say “Jesus was not vulnerable” paints Him out to be a control freak / power mongerer. And further more to say “He is in total control of EVERYTHING” means we have no free will – which is the greatest gift God gave us short of sending His son to help us learn to how to use it.
Jesus asks us to embrace vulnerability with axioms such as, “Forgive and forget” and, “Turn the other cheek.”
Jesus did not choose to die for us. Jesus chose to begrudgingly follow His Father’s orders as was evidenced by him sweating blood the night before due to being so stressed out about it (and even begging God for some other way to get out of it).
If Jesus was not as vulnerable and scared and weak as the rest of us then His sacrifice and advice is meaningless.
Lastly I find it odd you say, “That is the Jesus i hope Mark Driscoll is talking about…” Does this mean you have never even been to Mars Hill or heard several of Mark’s sermons to even have an opinion on this matter?
You are the very kind of Christian that gives Christ a bad name. Presumptuous, uninformed, self-righteous, unoriginal, and an atrocious affront to all Jesus stood for.
Good day, sir.