Please go to the following website for the entire article by Carla
http://emergentno.blogspot.com/
2006 DG Conference Speakers
Sometime in the last couple of weeks, a friend mentioned to me who this years Desiring God conference speakers would be. I made a mental note of it and set it aside.
I've had a bit of time to give this some thought since then.
This year's theme is "Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World". Of course this is an interesting and very timely topic, considering the broad scope of tolerance, to acceptance that postmodernism (in various flavors) has found it's way into local churches.
Here are the speakers & their topics:
David Wells: "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World"
D.A. Carson: "The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World"
Timothy Keller: "The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World"
Mark Driscoll: "The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World"
Voddie Baucham: "The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World"
John Piper: "The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World"
This is an unusual group of men to me, for a variety of reasons. Two of them I know through their works to be quite staunch on sound Biblical doctrine. That would be Wells and Carson. One I've never read anything from, and that would be Baucham. One has stirred more than a little controversy lately with his position on baptism and church membership, and that of course would be Pastor John Piper.
This of course leaves Driscoll and Keller.
Mark Driscoll has created quite a stir in not only the blogosphere lately, but also the evangelical world as well. Why? Well, he's come out a bit louder these days about how he's no longer "emergent", and in so doing he's also levelled quite a scathing response to EMC figurehead Brian McLaren, regarding McLaren't position on homosexuality. (read that "rant" here)
Christianity Today's Leadership blog called Out of Ur introduces Driscoll's comment this way "As one of the 50 most influential pastors in America" and an outspoken critic of the emergent movement, we thought others would like to read Driscoll's comments."
Before I address Driscoll's statement to McLaren, let's go into a little background on Driscoll.
The reference to the 50 most influential pastors in America comes from the July 2005 Church Report that lists Driscoll and Mars Hill at #23. Andrew Jones aka "Tall Skinny Kiwi" commented at his blog on this: "Great to see some emerging church pastors there (Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus - congrats you guys!!!!!!!)" (source).
For the entire article go to http://emergentno.blogspot.com/ Jan 31st post.
1 comment:
Nate B. said...
Nate B. is to MacArthur as Abanes is to Rick Warren =)
Adam, that is awesome! I honestly got a hearty laugh (in the sincere, laughing-at-myself sort of way) out of that. Just this morning, I was reading Mahaney’s Humility and I came across a paragraph that describes me perfectly.
"Winson Churchill, who perfected
the art of the clever put-down, once described a political opponent as ‘a modest little man who has a good deal to be modest about.’ The last part of his remark is an accurate description of me—though I can’t say I’m humble, I certainly have much to be humble about! My general ineptness is well known to all who have even a casual acquaintance with me, and that’s no exaggeration" (p. 25).
Like C.J., I too am painfully aware of my own weaknesses and limitations, especially when I dialogue with those (like Sharad) who clearly know a lot more about philosophy and academia than I do.
What’s especially ironic about your comparison, is that Richard Abanes actually critiqued me in his recent book Rick Warren and the Purpose That Drives Him. Abanes didn’t like my review of The Purpose Driven Life in Fool’s Gold?, so he took me to task. When I found out, I contacted Abanes personally and set up a time to visit Saddleback and have lunch with him.
When I finally met Abanes, he was totally different than I had imagined him to be. And I suspect I wasn’t the fire-breathing fundamentalist he expected me to be either. When our lunch ended, we left agreeing to disagree. But I think we also left with a certain amount of respect for one another, simply because we had met face-to-face.
The Lord has used that and other experiences to convict me and to remind me that I need to be careful in my criticism, especially online (where I can forget, as I stare at my impersonal computer, that there is a real person on the other end of my attack). If I have personally offended anyone in my tone on this blog recently, I sincerely and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
In my opinion, this "controversy" has become more than it really ever should have been. Sharad felt that Dr. MacArthur’s lecture was inadequate and that it deserved a harsh critique as a result. Personally, I felt that Dr. MacArthur deserves more latitude than some are willing to give. But, even more than that, I believe that he deserves more respect in the way that he is criticized (especially from those who have directly benefited from his ministry). Does that make me a blind loyalist? I don’t think so. But maybe some do.
I think I should also add that my interest in Sharad’s other posts (about objectivity in interpretation) is genuine. I’m not trying to trip him up or trap him or anything of the sort. My honest goal is to try to understand the practical implications of the philosophical frameworks that Sharad has discussed. I don’t have a lot of experience in studying philosophy, so sometimes it takes me a little while to get things. But I appreciate Sharad’s patience and his willingness to dialogue.
Anyway, I hope that all of us (fellow TMS alumni and others) will take our Christian testimony seriously—meaning that no matter which viewpoint we take, we will express our opinions with grace and charity, and that the Lord would be honored through our Spirit-controlled interchange.
Just some thoughts from a Prov. 30:2 man,
NB
1:09 PM
Caleb Kolstad said...
Sharad,
Since you can not respond to further discussions regarding TMS and the EC i will try and keep this to the point. I agreed with Nate B when he said MacArthur's lecture needs to be listened to in context (Part 1 of a 5 part series).
I think some people assumed i was agreeing with Dr. MacArthur simply because he is one of my modern day heros, because of my past relationship with him, etc, etc. No one knows how much or little i have studied the E.C. movement prior to this lecture series (which was even a little late in my opinion).
I recently heard Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and others toot MacArthur's horn in a big way. Just because they claim to be huge admirers of his does not mean when they defend him they are doing so out of "blind loyalty." When they agree on a hot topic issue does that mean they have not studied the issue at hand for themselves?
As a young pastor and bible scholar do i take what MacArthur, Sproul, Carson, Mohler and others say and hold their opinions/perspectives/convictions in high regard? You better believe i do. Do i agree with everything they teach/believe/hold? Of course not.
But as i mentioned earlier, when men like this AGREE on something as important as the new E.C. movement does that impact me in a big way? Again, sure it does. I don't think the points i mentioned above are contradictory...
Thanks for keeping me honest though. Just because i disagree with some of your blogs doesn't mean i'm not interested in any of your thoughts. Clearly you are a smarter man than I. You read wider than i read and are interested in some things that i find rather boring. None the less that's the beauty of our God's creative power.
Together for the Gospel,
CK
2:11 PM
Caleb Kolstad said...
Nate
Would you have changed anything substantial in your book chapter AFTER meeting with Richard Abanes?
5:29 PM
Nate B. said...
Caleb,
Thanks for your question.
No... I explained to Richard that I felt Warren's book...
1) presented an incomplete Gospel (as there is no one place in the book where the Gospel is adequately presented, and yet the book was written for unbelievers)
2) undermined a high-view of Scripture (by using so many different Bible paraphrases, and taking many verses out of context)
3) promoted an unbiblical level of doctrinal ambiguity (by implying that doctrine was not that important in several statements, and also by promoting Roman Catholics and New Agers as examples Christians should follow)
Interestingly, Abanes seemed to more-or-less agree with the specific examples I pointed out...though he disagreed with me on the seriousness of those issues.
(I obviously think those things are very serious, but Abanes didn't think it was something anyone should make a significant stink over.)
My point above was not that Abanes and I came closer to seeing eye-to-eye. We didn't. But, by addressing our differences over lunch, I think the entire interchange was much more cordial (and Christlike) than it otherwise could have been.
Anyway, thanks for asking me to clarify. I can see how my earlier comment could have been confusing.
-NB
5:49 PM
TheBlueRaja said...
Caleb,
Thanks! Sorry you find some of these posts boring - but you get what you pay for!
Nate B.,
I think if you took all of your very respectful and honoring pleas about how MacArthur should be treated and applied them to everyone he's publically razed, we'd probably agree!
When it comes to studying philosophy, I admit to not studying much, but it's interesting to see how much theological heroes in the past (like Warfield etc.) mirrored the philosophical trends of their day. I do hope you continue reading and posting - I still can't believe anyone actually reads this thing!
6:14 PM
TheBlueRaja said...
Hey Nate,
Love the Abanes story. Just out of curiosity, can you think of a circumstance in the recent past where you've heard something new, disagreed, talked it through, and then came to a different point of view? If so, I'd love to read a post about the interchange on Faith and Practice, perhaps under the rubric of Prov. 18:13.
6:15 PM
Nate B. said...
Sharad,
It’s funny that you ask. I actually had a Proverbs 18:13 moment a few years back when I attended ETS with your brother (in Colorado Springs). He probably won’t remember this, but for some reason it’s stuck in my head.
He was talking about Molinism (if I remember correctly) or something along those lines. There were a few of us standing around listening to him. Me, Jonathan Rourke, and I’m not sure who else. Anyway, I interjected some totally dumb comment about how Molinism was essentially equivalent to Openness Theology. Obviously I had no idea what I was talking about, but I heard the words pass through my lips nonetheless. (Since then I’ve learned that Gregory Boyd actually does argue that Open Theism can be construed as a variation of Molinism [see his article in JETS, June 2002]. But that’s beside the point.) Sameer was quick to correct me, and rightly so.
Both at that moment, and every time I reflect back on that moment, I think to myself, "Boy, you were an idiot. Next time don’t talk unless you actually know what you’re talking about." I wish that were the only time I’ve spoken before understanding all (or even most of) the facts, but it still happens more than I wish.
...
I think if you took all of your very respectful and honoring pleas about how MacArthur should be treated and applied them to everyone he's publically razed, we'd probably agree!
We’ve already hashed all this out, so no need to rehash. I would just like to add a personal word, if I might. I think the primary aspect of your critique that so many TMS guys found offensive/alarming was not so much the content of it, but rather the tone of it.
If I called one of Brad Arnold’s messages "way too glib," "totally ridiculous," "a sad, professional over-simplification," a "demagoguery," "sloppy," full of "non-sequitur[s]," "a farm full of straw men," in which it was "not nuance or comprehensiveness that was lacking, but old-fashioned accuracy" because Brad "doesn’t care about the WAY a person gets to their conclusions, he just cares whether their conclusions agree with his own bottom line." And if I were to go on and state that other messages were much better, and "showed much more of an understanding of the issues," since Brad’s message was something other than "a responsible discussion of a topic"...my guess is that you’d be pretty upset.
I suspect that you would also find it pretty hard to listen to anything else I had to say... and that you would respond with emotion and indignation... since you love and appreciate Brad and rightly desire to defend him. I would also guess that my repeated reminders to you that "being right and being righteous are two different things" would sound strangely hypocritical.
Anyway, I think you get my point. Perhaps you don’t intend your tone to sound mean or malicious, but sometimes it reads that way.
Just something to consider,
NB
P.S. My sincere apologies to Brad for dragging him in to my hypothetical example. Brad was actually one of my leaders at Grace Church when I was in 6th grade or so... so, in a sense, he's one of my mentors too!
11:05 PM
TheBlueRaja said...
Nate,
I don't know what I'm talking about most of the time, but I'm never so bold as to do so in front of Sameer! He's only degrees away from omniscience.
As for our ongoing disagreement about MacArthur, I'd only say that my reasons in this post, and in all my other comments aren't primarily about "tone" but about the content and the negative effects it produces among genuine believers. Again, I think much of the problem has to do with what even constitutes a "critique".
As for your example with Brad, I can only say that if he gave the presentation I heard, you can bet I wouldn't defend him. Ask him if he thinks I would . . .
I'm genuinely sorry if what I'm saying comes off as malicious. It's not. I know you love the man and the institituion he represents, and I'm not trying to tear him down just for iconoclastic reasons. As I said, the level of my concern is appropriate to the level of damage these kind of statements do - which is harder to see in ministries who never have strong disagreements with him.
10:15 AM
Caleb Kolstad said...
Raja,
I find some of Dr. Thomas' classes/books boring too. It does not make them any less important. You guys write about some things that are very scholarly (in my opinion sometimes things that are boring) yet none the less they are very important.
Post a Comment