Final Blogumentary on the Driscoll Firestorm

The Sunday Wrap-up is coming.  But, first, I give you my latest soap opera: 

I think that with this post and any ensuing comments, I'm done with the Mark Driscoll , Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt Convergent Conference blogstorm on my blog (even though my site meter is broken from excessive traffic).  My comments are being picked up and discussed by Bob Hyatt, Duncan McFadzean, Amy Welborn Dubruiel, Emerging Grace, and a few others.  I welcome that.  But, I don't know what else there is to add.

Ultimately, you just need to listen to the podcast for yourself.  My final commentary (that final piece of opinioneering to add) is that if you deny the core components of the Gospel, you deny the Gospel of Jesus and you should expect to be called out. Maybe I'm too much of a simpleton and don't question the integrity of the Scriptures enough to satisfy liberal theologians (who have largely been overgeneralized as wearing pajamas and living in your mother's basement...do we all laugh at that?!) but, I don't think that's totally the case.  Actually, I have a brain, a decent IQ, a few accomplishments, and some decent failures to draw from.  I do believe the Scriptures are authoritative for our lives.  If I didn't I'd go do something else with my time and stop wasting it on an impotent, lying, cheating, and manipulating god (little "g").  Get a freakin' life.

Augustine said "If you believe what you like in the Gospels, it is not the Gospel that you believe but yourself."  He recognized even then that a lot of "the conversation" was nothing more than a load of self-satisfying babble. 

I would say that denying the virgin birth,a pretty core component to the Gospel is a big deal.  Seeing someone rejecting it or saying that the virgin birth is unnecessary is cause enough for me to agree with Mark Driscoll's direct and timely comments.  Some of the comments on other blogs slam Mark for not following Matthew 18 for confronting a brother.  I have a couple thoughts there. 

First, I ask how is it that someone who denies Scripture as authoritative has the intestinal fortitude (or blatant hypocrisy) to inject a Biblical model for confrontation when they are denying that very Gospel as authoritative when it comes to claims that Jesus was born of a virgin and other pet liberal theologies?

Secondly, how is it they say Matthew 18 applies?  I see no one sinning against Mark.  I see sin against the Gospel of Jesus, a twisting of the truths of the Church of Jesus Christ, and a marginalizing of God-breathed Scriptures.  I would rather direct you to Titus 1:10-14:

“10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.” (Titus 1:10-14; NASB)

We should be gentle with those who are victims of false teaching and denounce strongly those who freely teach doctrines that disassemble the Gospel principles.  Some of you need to be yanked up by your goatees and lovingly shaken.

Regardless of how good a minister communicates or how likable he is, how can we do nothing other than denounce that person or people as a false teacher(s)?  I see no other way if we are truly a Gospel-centered people regardless of what/who we like or dislike or what camp we come from.

I thank God for the good that is taking place at the hands of Scripturally unfaithful people.  But,  we are not in the business of solely doing good works and gathering like-minded people together.  We do good works as an outflow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in our lives.  Getting the Gospel right in the essentials is key to the eternal value of our good works. 

Comments

[Bob]

I think when speaking about (and calling out) other people's beliefs, it's really, really, really important (Really!) to quote them in such a way that they agree that you've "got" what they are saying. This is simple consideration.

To be fair to Rob Bell, whatever his analogy, and whether it was wise or unwise for him to ask a question in a book the way he did, he stated very clearly "I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more." (Velvet Elvis, pg 27)

[Evan]

Bob what I think you are missing is that it might even be worse if Bell affirms the doctrine himself and then tells others it is not essential. I mean that makes even less sense to me than thinking he does not believe it.

[Josh Butcher]

I thought I would chime in with my final thoughts, especially after listening to the podcast from Driscoll. I was surprised that he wasn't as brash as I thought. I also appreciate his desire to point people to Jesus. I can dig that. With that said, I still find him a fairly stodgy Calvinist. (who would think someone would call Driscoll 'stodgy'?) His beef with Bell is mainly around very "Calvinistic" ideas. He's ticked that everybody's not down with penal-substitutionary atonement and throws down on Green and Baker's "Rediscovering the Scandal of the Cross." I read this book for a Seminary (COGTS) class, and it is highly recommended by many of the professors there. I think he's wrong on Bell's theological method. Again, I think RB is using an analogy to make a point, not to change the theological landscape. And lastly on Bell, I still think part of it is the women thing... Bell has women elders and Driscoll has no place for that... again, Calvinism (who drowned the Anabaptist cause they disagreed with him).

On another note, I wonder if Pentecostal Theology was considered in that "hot theology" question. Cause lets face it... outside the US, Pentecostals are growing like crazy... faster than "relevants, revisionists (EV) and reformers (cool calvinists)" combined. (I have no proof of that last "combined" part, just that they are the fastest growing thread of Christianity)

[travis johnson]

Josh,

During the talk, I don't think Mark even mentioned being complimentarian other than in a passing comment unattached to anyone else.

Regarding Calvinism, I really don't understand his fixation with Calvinism when he begins defining the three streams of the emerging church. I understand confessional and contextual. But, I don't understand how calvinism gets elevated into the discussion. It hardly seems germane other than an attempt to make Calvinism synonymous with relevant, Scripturally faithful ministry. I guess I miss the parallel.

My agreement with Mark on Rob Bell, though I think Bell is the best story teller in the Church, is echoed perfectly by Evan. I think its a legitimate concern unfortunately. I also think its a discussion (especially concerning McClaren and Pagitt) that needs to be had publicly.

[Duncan McFadzean]

Travis, wasn't sure if I was meant to take any of what you said as a rebuke to me, I don't think I wrote anything harsh but I apologise if anything I said was taken that way.

I think your statement below is right, (and I'd confess to being too non-confrontational naturally) but I don't think I'd be in a position to do that right now for those guys, as I haven't heard them say anything when I've heard them speak (or that I have read and noticed) that contradicted scripture.

"We should be gentle with those who are victims of false teaching and denounce strongly those who freely teach doctrines that disassemble the Gospel principles."

Apologies again if I caused offence.

[travis johnson]

Duncan,

In no way was I giving you grief. I was just trying to point people to where the discussion was being had...didn't mean to come off any other way.

[Duncan McFadzean]

Thanks. Blog communication sucks sometimes! I'm off to listen to the podcast....wierd accents tho.....

[Derek]

Agreed, friend. Agreed. Great post. Although...Josh Butcher's comment has got me thinking. I've had quite a few brushes with "Pentecostal theology" lately.

[travis johnson]

Derek,

I wonder if one of those brushes was with Winfield Bevins. I'd love to hear. Winfield is a great guy, a friend, and a super genius. I'd love to hear.

[Josh Butcher]

"Josh Butcher's comment has got me thinking." I promise you... this is a first! If it was with Winfield, I would love to hear too. I know WB from Seminary.