Pensees: Hear Mark Driscoll on the Emerging Streams

So Mark the Cussing Pastor is “gutsy” and “fascinating,” but you nail Brian McCrorie for praising Robert Webber, even though he included a disclaimer?

Or are you just “funnin’” with us? Maybe. But these weird flip-flops don’t wear any better on a Fundamentalist preacher than Mark’s neck chain wears well on him.

Monday’s coming, and I’m looking forward to your explanation.

I don’t get it. How do you barbecue Joe Zichterman and then praise Mark Driscoll?

I echo the apparent contradiction.

I don’t see the contradiction. Why can’t he admire a character trait of a certain individual while at the same time disagree with some (or all) of his views.

By the way, didn’t Driscoll separate himself from the ECM?

Sheesh! Driscoll is an unusual person. That’s what I meant by fascinating (“1. to attract and hold attentively by a unique power, personal charm, unusual nature, or some other special quality; enthrall: a vivacity that fascinated the audience.”)

He doesn’t fit anyone’s mold, blazes his own trail and has been very bold for core doctrines and practises that Zichterman, for example, has abandoned. I like that.

Is he my hero? Hardly.
Do I think that his dream of a “reformed emerging” is going to work in the long haul? Nope.

His cussing, for example, is one area where he has capitulated to culture and is, I think, just one example of major holes in the dike.

But he is fascinating intriguing, I think.

That Driscoll is “very bold for core doctrines” while Zichterman has abandonded his is utter nonsense.

You’ve contradicted yourself.

But don’t worry. I’ve done this once or twice myself. And we are in good company. Read these quotes:

Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”

Walt Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then. I contradict myself.”

The big difference is that I don’t post such impertinent contradictions on a webpage.

Keith,
I still see no contradiction. Both of Bob’s statements are facts. The fact is Driscoll is very bold for his core doctrines and practices, a quality Bob greatly admires. He may not agree with everything Driscoll has said, but just the way he says it. Zichterman, on the other hand, did indeed abandon many of the core doctrines and practices he once claimed to hold dear. Where’s the contradiction?

Puhlese (or however you spell it). Is the word hero really that sacred?

Saying Webber is a “Hero” is wrong, but saying about Driscoll that “I love his gutsy style”, “if all emerging were like him we’d have no real problem”, and his video clip is “quite helpful” is ok?

For what it’s worth (which isn’t much) I don’t care that Bob likes Driscoll. Just like I don’t care that Brian likes Webber. Both appreciators say they appreciate certain things and disagree with certain things in regards to their appreciatees. This is all quite normal and frankly unavoidable.

However, it’s obviously a contradiction to say “I can have a qualified appreciation for a non-fundamentalist, but if you do, fundamentalism and truth itself is at stake.”

If we were to pick apart this post of Bob’s the way Bob and friends picked apart Brian’s, we’d have to write things like: “Driscoll is clearly associated with the emerging church and the emerging church is associated with McLaren (yeah, Driscol has spoken against some of McLaren’s ideas, but they are still associated), and McLaren is a latter day liberal. Furthermore, if you take that problem and add Driscoll’s famous ‘cussing’ (oh, it makes me blush just to think of some of those words), it seems like much more than a passing jab about a neck chain and a pie in the sky attitude is needed in this day.”

And, to be boringly clear here, I don’t think that things like this need to be written in regards to Bob’s appreciation for Driscoll. The point is that such parsing and nitpicking is ridiculous.

To be boringly clear here, I don’t care who likes who. For the record, I like Whitman and Emerson and J.N. Darby and Evelyn Underhill. I don’t particuarly care for Piper and MacArthur.

But I do care about preachers who use their bully pulpits, be it wooden or cyber, to bully others and then duck under an exasperated “Sheeeesh!” when the duckie’s shoot back.

Farewell to the Fundamental Chatter Vortex! I should’ve kept my nose out of this.

Keith and Keith,

First of all, the blog is not a bully pulpit. No one is obligated to read it. Nor do I have to allow comments.

Secondly, neither of you are boring or clear! Let me help you out:

One thing that I very much admire about Robert Webber (and I say this with all sincerity) is his devotion to his work and life’s calling. I hope that I can emulate him in that point. I’m sure if I knew him better, there would be other points to admire.

Keith, I do not duck. Probably the fact that you don’t particularly care for Piper or MacArthur but prefer Underhill is indicative of a vast difference between us and would explain why you think I am inconsistent to think more highly of Driscoll than Webber.

However, Driscoll still holds a Reformed soteriology (I would call those fundamentals), a complentarian polity, and practices church discipline. Though he interacts with the emerging, a closer look will find that he is often a burr in the saddle because of his “old-fashion” commitments.

Doctrine actually matters to me. And Driscoll is, because of his unabashed Calvinism is many more times doctrinally sound than many fundamentalists, frankly.

So think I. I’ll remind you that this is not a bully pulpit, but it is a private blog so if you want to argue you can do it with a little respect or start your own blog.

I had every intention of trying to answer the charge of groupthink, but I doubt that it would go anywhere.

I often apreciate the comments of Keith (phillipsk) even though we do not agree much of the time because they are usually lucid and contributive.

And Wheaton Keith, I have no idea what your issue is. I thought we understood each other. We must need to go to Beef-a-roo again.

I don’t want to keep discussing this here because I have more important things to do, but if you keep reading my blog, you will find some inconsistencies, but in the main you will see a consistent patter.

Reformed soteriology with a high view of God’s Sovereignty scores a lot of points with me. And, I say it again, if all emerging were like that, I’d not like a lot of what they do, but I’d be confident that Christ was preached with clarity. A confidence, I might add, that I don’t necessarily have for many fundamentalists.

I would still like to hear your response on the groupthink charge sometime. I do not consider myself an expert on that concept, and am quite open to learning more. Depending on what I learn, I might retract the charge.

My arguments were intended to show A LITTLE respect. They were intended to show the same kind of respect and tone that the blog seemed to be showing (not as a rebuke by the way, I think such “in your face”, satirical discussion is quite acceptable if everyone involved can handle and enjoy it). Even so, perhaps my intentions failed to produce the intended result. If so, I offer an apology.

Bob, all I would want to remain from my interaction here are the following points (which as the owner of this blog,you should feel completely free to delete if you wish)

1) You seemed to be arguing that Webber WAS an insignificant figure in evangelicalism. I think that is demonstrably false, whether he SHOULD have been significant or not.

2) It seemed that your reaction to Brian’s personal reflections was overblown and nitpicky — which is not the same thing as my endorsing Webber.

3) It seemed that the blog interaction was revealing groupthink as you’ve described it — Like Dave, I don’t know that groupthink is completely avoidable. However, I thought you might ponder, and address, how your blog’s dealing with Brian’s personal comments was different than previous fundamentalist’s overheated personal opinions on secondary matters.

4) It seemed ironic (if not inconsistent) that you would praise a singificant member of the emerging church immediately after blasting Webber for being the father of the emerging church — without spelling out why it is ok to like one emergent and not the other.

5) I completely share your lack of confidence that many fundamentalists are preaching Christ with clarity.

Peace

Bob, this is the whole problem with all these talks so many have about Emerging church. You have created a straw man. As a part of Mark’s A29 church planting network I can tell you there are hundreds of Emerging pastors from both small and large church across the world who hold to very conservative theology, men-centric leadership, while engaging culture.

The Robert Webber you don’t like because he is respected by the Emergent crowd (McLaren) is the Webber who is also respected and followed by the Emerging group (Driscoll). This doesn’t mean we all have Prayer mazes, or hold to Open theism. That group is not the majority.

Brent,

Thanks for commenting.

Explain “engaging culture” and then how, say, Piper and MacArthur are not.

Bob,
We could start with simply the preaching alone, not including missiological philosophy. Listen to MacArthur or Piper speak and ask yourself who they are talking to. MacArthur particularly preaches as if the room is full of Christians who went to Masters or some other Christian school. Try to imagine a truly ignorant non-Christian trying to understand or connect with Piper. I think he has been influenced by Driscoll a little and is trying to think a little more non-believeresque.

These men are old-school preachers who know how to tickle the ears of Christians, and how particularly to get theologues excited. I was at Mars Hill last year when Piper came to speak and he did great for the pastors conference. Room full of 5-point Calvinists who get tingly every time he says “imputation” or “fiduciary faith”. But these guys are out of touch with the non-Christian world. We need Pipers to help bring inspiration to Christians, and be the poster boy Calvinist who is the transition guy for many Fundamentalists. But these guys are not the ones to reach the non-believing culture.

Driscoll for example is not shallow. He just preaches the same deep concepts in a language that Joe computer gamer/indie rocker can understand. Then find other ways to engage them culturally and philosophically that make sense. And it works. Mars Hill is a church of 6000+ with about a 60 percent conversion rate. Mark told me the average person takes around 3 years to become a Christian in his church. They have to belong before they believe. Hear the gospel for years before they convert. Yet they have converted and changed by the droves. These are not Christian school kids who are rededicating their lives, but very educated people who are extremely ignorant of the Bible or Christianity. Plus, the expected commitment level we “Emerging” church planters are expecting from our members and leaders is much higher than the average church. We do regular church discipline, require participation and giving or members are ejected, and expect life change to be in leadership. Nothing shallow about that. We just don’t see “change” or “growth” as getting rid of your tattoos, your ear rings, or your beer.

So “relevance” to me happens when you are engaging non-Christians where they are, in language and contexts they understand without compromising clear Biblical commands. This is messy, and dangerous at times, and to play the relevance game means to fail sometimes or have to re-group. But those willing to play that game are the ones who will go beyond the ripened fruit falling from the trees of the post-Christian cultures.

BTW - Calvinism and Reformed theology taught correctly and contextually brings conversion and depth, not deadness. We don’t need shallow “seeker-sensitive” fluff to bring passionate life change.

Brent,

Thanks for the thorough response. There is so much that you say that I sympathize with that it pains me to respond negatively. But, for the sake of discussion, here goes:

1. I don’t think I agree with the belong-believe paradigm even though it makes sense methodologically. I think the Scriptural paradigm is believe-belong. But ‘nuff said on that for now. So, while you may be right that “it works,” I can’t help but wondering if that isn’t a bit pragmatic.

2. I can’t help but noticing that many of the leaders of the emerging churches are reactionaries to Christian sub-culture. A quick look at your church website (which, btw, certainly gives the impression of God’s blessing for which I am very happy) revealed some names that I know from the Christian sub-culture that I grew up in. To be pointed, I sometimes think that the reactionaries pontificate long and hard on culture, forgetting that culture has many faces.

Truth be known, I look quite like the average guy in Rockford, Il. I am often seen at church functions with the jeans and untucked shirt! LOL. Unbelievers from this area can understand me. In fact, I think that some guys have dumbed down so much that they don’t realize they are insulting the intelligence of the listeners.

But then again, is church for the unbelievers? Or, more specifically, the Lord’s Day worship? I don’t think it is so I don’t focus on that each Lord’s Day morning. I focus, instead, on the edification of the believers and the worship of God, something that is foreign to unbelievers.

The passion for cultural relevance seems to me to be very shortsighted. It really is no different than what evangelicals were saying in the 1940s and now some of the leading scholars in evangelicalism are willing to wonder outloud if fundamentlism, in the end, hasn’t had the most effective long-term impact on the preservation of the Gospel, which every person who claims to love Reformed Calvinistic theology as some of you guys claim would see as true relevance, may be the rightful claim of fundamentalists! (See David Wells).

I don’t tell people to get rid of tatoos or beer or even their music. I never talk about those things from our pulpit. And even though they know what I think about these things (i.e via personal conversations and blog, etc.) they comfortably are themselves with me. Nonetheless, cultural relevance is irrelevant when it doesn’t aim for cultural change.

Thus, I can’t help but wondering if the long-term effect of the relevant church will be irrelevance. ..

But, again, there are so many things that I find missiologically appealing about your perspective and I thank you for engaging our culture in order to make your point!

That last line makes a point that I have tried to make before: I am trying to be culturally relevant to fundamentalists in order to convert them to the Reformed Christianity of Spurgeon, Owen, et. al.. Therefore, I willingly (most of the time) don a tie whenever I feel it will help.

Bob,
I appreciate your balance. I am also glad you say what you believe even if you disagree. That is where I say many of the Emerging church brothers would have a lot in common with you. We are not all angst loving, no-absolutes bunch.

You are correct. In many ways the Emerging church has reacted against the Religious subculture of America. It is no different to me than Luther and Calvins reaction against the corruption of the prevailing religious system of their day. Every reformed movement was a reaction, an attempt to give a wake up call. Sometimes, like Luther, we overreact and have to go back and apologize for our over-zealous reforms.

The Reformission which now takes place has several key emphasis. 1) Living Mission, not just supporting missions. 2) High value on teaching. 3) High accountability. Keep the bar low for non-Christians, but raise the bar for Christians. Christians need to buck up, or get out. Too many Christians who are sitting in the pews whining about the music or color of the carpet and aren’t doing a thing for God.

In terms of the point of church, in my humble opinion church is a gathering of Christians with the sole purpose of bringing sinners to repentance. Once someone has bought into the message, the emphasis is not for the holy huddle to gather and hang out. They are to get on mission and be givers and reachers instead of consumers.

Anyway, good discussion.

I forgot to also say, Bob. I do agree with you in terms of context. I am called a Fundamentalist in Seattle because I believe in the authority of Scripture, and don’t have women elders. Pretty low bar for the Fundy label, but I know what you mean.

Let me chime in on this one in light of Brent’s earlier comment.

One of the ways this Emergent theology has gotten so deeply entrenched is this mistaken notion that church worship services (and sermons) must be targeted to the non-believer. On the contrary, the worship service and message is primarily for believers to worship God AND to be equipped for ministry. If more pastors taught like MacArthur and Piper, aberrant or heretical movements like the ECM would never get off the ground. You would have a congregation that knew the Word of God instead of being biblically illiterate.

It is the job of individual believers like you and me to be salt and light in our culture. Instead, we think because we pay the pastor a salary, that it’s his job to win the lost and gather them in. That sits well with a Wendy’s/McDonald’s idea of drive-by church, but it isn’t biblical.

I forgot to answer the “belong before belief” comment. This is how every single individual has become a Christian so far in our 3 year history. I also teach this methodology called the Synagogue method of evangelism to our new members. In a religious society such as Jerusalem having an open air sermon converts religious people. So in the Bible belt or any quasi religious culture in America, a sermon may reach someone, but this is becoming more and more rare. In Athens, Ephesus, etc. you must build community and in depth teaching first. Can’t expound in this post, but it may be another good discussion.