I am a huge fan of this blog: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Phil Johnson is one of my favorite blog writers and I think you will enjoy this post. It is great food for thought regarding Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll.
"Perhaps you are one of those who thinks I have been too hard or too shrill in my criticisms of "the Emerging Church." In all honesty, the more I have been exposed to the various streams of the movement, and the more closely I have examined the agglomeration of trends and ways of thinking that make Emerging-style "ministry" distinctive, the more I want to distance myself from everything "Emerging." If any ostensibly-Christian movement since late-nineteenth-century modernism was more deserving of a shrill warning, I can't imagine what it would be.
Here is a lie writ large: "Postmodern Ministry Takes Us Back to The Bible." I invite you to follow that link; read the page; notice the sound file linked at the bottom of the page; and give it a careful listen.
It's a sermon by Rob Bell. David Posthuma introduces the message with this hopeful claim: "I present this teaching for one purpose alone . . . to illustrate how radically different postmodern Biblical facilitation is from the Seeker-Sensitive Topical Talk model so prevalent within our churches today."
OK. I'll grant that Bell's message is completely and radically different from anything you would hear in a seeker-sensitive context. But Posthuma's blogpost seems to imply that Bell's sermon proves Emerging-style ministry is somehow more "biblical" than seeker-sensitive worship.
Hardly. Bell's message is not only unbiblical; it's anti-Christian. He takes a bit of drivel he apparently learned from a yoga instructor somewhere, badly rephrases in quasi-biblical terminology, and spends 36 minutes doing "exposition" on a breathing exercise.
The result is not merely trivial: it's flat-out heretical. And in more ways than I care to enumerate.
I'll give one brief example, though. Here's a sample of what Bell does with the gospel: "You can't get enough points to get in with the Big Guy. You can't do enough good deeds and then God will like you. One of the things the Spirit does is remind us that we belong. Period. Just exactly as we are. You are loved by God."
Bell's syncretized amateur yoga exercise is not Christianity by any stretch of the definition. I'll go further: if this is what Bell really believes, he himself is no Christian.
The message actually proves that the stream of Emerging religion represented by Rob Bell hasn't a clue or a care about basic biblical truth. It's nothing but an experiment with the deconstruction of Christianity.
On a side note, but a related subject I thought in the interests of balance, after hearing that sermon by Bell, I ought to listen to a sermon from the "conservative" side of the Emerging movement. So I listened to this one by Mark Driscoll. I wish I hadn't. Driscoll's smutty language and preoccupation with all things lowbrow are inappropriate, unbecoming, and dishonoring to Christ. I completely agree that many Christians fail to appreciate the true humanity of Jesus. But it's not necessary to get vulgar in order to communicate the truth about His humanity.
This is the first time I have ever posted anything critical of Driscoll. I have appreciated his defense of the atonement and his willingness to confront the neo-liberalism of other Emerging leaders honestly. But I don't think his perpetually coarse language in the pulpit and his apparent preoccupation with off-color terms and ribald subject matter are merely minor flaws in an otherwise healthy ministry. It is a serious shortcoming.
No, it's actually worse than that, because it blatantly violates the clear principle of Ephesians 5:3-4. It is shameful (v. 12) and therefore a reproach. It's characteristic of the old man and one of the fleshly behaviors we are expressly commanded to put aside (Colossians 3:8). Scripture even seems to indicate that unwholesome language signals an impure mind (Matthew 12:34). And yet this seems to be a deliberate, calculated, and persistent practice of Driscoll's. It is practically the chief trademark of his style.
That's troubling, and even more troubling when I see young Christians and older believers who ought to know better mimicking the practice. If this is the direction even the very best Emerging-style ministry is headed, it's not a trend any Christian ought to find encouraging, much less one we should follow." BY Phil Johnson
Check out http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ if you'd like to interact with Phil or read all the comments in context.
14 comments:
Jerry Wragg:
Phil –
Ditto!!!
For the life of me I can’t understand the attraction to Driscoll anyway. Clearly, today’s souped-up emerging passions gravitate toward the reckless and flippant rather than “fear and trembling”. With so much counter-seeker bravado about being truly biblical, where is the humility before the text? Where is the pastoral sensitivity to the corporate community, locally and at large? What happened to guarding the flock with a careful and moderate example? Even a cursory reading of NT Christianity reveals that biblical ministry was characterized by humility, holiness, sacrificial love, discipline, forgiveness, et.al., and a reserved practice of “freedoms”.
Phil Johnson:
Frank: "I think Phil makes a mistake lumping Driscoll in with Bell. Rob Bell has been problematic since the first Nooma video was coined (2003? 2004?), but Driscoll has visibly distanced himself from 'Emergent' for doctrinal reasons for at least as long."
I'm not "lumping" them together just because I mentioned them both in the same post. I said I appreciate that Driscoll has tried to distance himself from Bell and McLaren.
Now I think he needs to distance himself from his reputation as "the cussing pastor." Instead, he seems to cultivate the image. I'm making the point that it's a serious problem, not a charming idiosyncrasy.
I'm also making the point that I'm fed up with both extremes (as well as the middle) of the Emerging spectrum.
Frank: "And Pastor Driscoll has the same problem: he's Mark the cussing pastor. If he stopped being Mark the cussing pastor, I don't know what would happen -- and neither does he."
Regardless of "what happens," he needs to stop being Mark the cussing pastor.
It's curious that you cringed when you heard my adult son refer to me as "dude." Multiply your response to the power of infinity and mix it with a conviction that blasphemy is the most egregious of all sins, I suppose that would be something like my reaction at hearing Driscoll make a joke about whether Jesus ever got the toilet seat wet (not to mention all Driscoll's other comments in that vein).
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34). I'm saying Driscoll's proclivity to raunchy, scatological, and off-color language and subject matter is a breach of the commands in Colossians 3:8 and Ephesians 5:4. That is as morally disqualifying as the other sins Paul names in Colossians 3:8-9. And it's especially a problem when a pastor does it from the pulpit.
Phil Johnson:
Rick: "My issue with your issue (can I say that?) is that there's no context. That is, Bell clearly said right after the part you quoted that God isn't impressed with our stuff nor our self-perceived good works. Don't you agree with Bel on that?"
I'm not trying to rip anything out of context. In fact, I gave the link to the whole sermon just so that my readers can hear for themselves the FULL context. Let me know after listening if you still think I'm misrepresenting the context.
Of course I would agree that our good works can't earn favor with God. But that's because we are sinners and therefore everything we do is tainted. It's not because God loves us just fine "just exactly as we are." And it's a hellish lie to say that the Holy Spirit's message is that "we belong. Period."
The closing sentences of the excerpt I quoted nullified and utterly corrupted the point of the first two sentences. I quoted as much as I did (rather than starting the excerpt woth the words "One of the things...") precisely so that you can see how he turns gospel truth on its head.
Anyway, listen to the whole message and tell me if you seriously think any of it is salvageable. I would say not. If Bell's sermon doesn't fit in the category Paul described in Galatians 1:8-10, I've never heard anything that does.
Phil Johnson:
Pirate: "Why put him in the ECM catagory?"
Good question, and it would require a whole post to answer adequately. But here's the short answer:
1. Driscoll is the first one everyone points to when they want to argue that we shouldn't write the "Emerging" trends off completely.
2. Driscoll does have one foot (or at least a few toes) in the Reformed tradition, but the other foot is still in the Emerging community. This sermon illustrates the ramifications of that.
3. Note that I applied the term "Emerging" to Driscoll, NOT "Emergent." There's a reason for that, carefully explained in my various critiques of Emerging/Emergent, which you will find scattered here and there.
I have placed some of the best replies here under this post. I like to copy and paste certain blogs on my site. WHY? Because i can then come back to my site and find these articles for future usage.
I am very thankful for guys like Phil Johnson, Al Mohler, Paul Lamey, & James White. They have posted some great meat on the internet
that rob bell 'sermon'/yoga session/breathing marathon is messed up. haven't had a chance to listen to the driscoll one yet. looking forward to it later after youth group.
-laura
Chris and Laura-
Thanks for leading the teens while Andrea and I are up in WA. We return tom. night.
Hope you guys are doing well. We have had a wonderful vacation (though all of us got pretty sick).
CK
Jerry Wragg said...
Frank –
Excellent and very poignant insights!!!
Matt –
I understand your concern to uphold the biblical implications of Jesus-as-man, but the scriptures do not address His humanity with such an undignifying approach. When someone, whether a Seattle-ite or an astutely curious biology major, speculates on Jesus’ bodily functions we should simply say “of course Jesus experienced all of life in a human body”. For non-Christians to further extrapolate the specifics may be quite natural to them, but is clearly both extrabiblical and unnecessary. When Christians (let alone shepherds of God’s people) publicly speak of such human characteristics without preserving the intended dignity of keeping them personal and private, the result is an image of humanity that is denigrated and shamelessly exposed without reason. Frankly, I’m stunned that Driscoll even remotely continues the practice given the countless good-willed believers who find it confusing.
Furthermore, I’m beginning to see a parallel between the raw, out-in-the-open, shameless, and undignified image of humanity (including Jesus) portrayed by Driscoll and his defenders, and the normalizing of reality TV, where the shameless airing of human “dirty laundry” is no longer shocking. Bear with me for a moment…
It seems to me that today’s young generation has been spoon fed the idea that humans being stripped of their dignity, personal suffering, raw emotion, gross exposure, even embarrassment before a mocking crowd, are great entertainment! We have reality shows that are actually defined by putting a camera into the “private” worlds of troubled and very afflicted people, and capturing all the undignified behavior, the shameless speech, etc. What’s worse is that the participants seem to glory in flaunting their trashed lives in front of millions of viewers. We have movies that glorify the immature, destructive exploits of incorrigible males, all without the slightest hint of shame. If you think our culture is not obsessed with throwing off all sense of dignity, just check out who shamelessly auditions in front of talent scouts for the next “American Idol”. What’s my point? I think the generation Driscoll is preaching to is attracted to language that portrays Christ in less dignified (than scripture I might add) images because they have unwittingly lost some of what should be the normal (and biblical) preservation of human dignity.
By the way, I’m not some old codger, out of touch with today’s youth. My four children are all in college or married, and they have mentioned the same trends. Driscoll has been, in my opinion, no help in elevating the word of God and Jesus’ humanity to their rightful (and self-declaring) place in our understanding. Speculation, at times, may be harmless and interesting, but it is not the substance and should never become such in the minds of God’s people.
Phil Johnson said,
I've been tied up in meetings all day and unable to read, much less reply to the various rebukes, end-zone celebrations, and calls for my repentance until now. And even now, I have only enough time to complete one response I began this morning. I'll try to get to some of the others this evening. But just so you know, I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone. But I started this one comment hours ago, before going into some meetings. When I finish it, I have a ton of other stuff to do before answering any more comments:
Screaming Pirate: " Is it his Christology, that you think makes him, still, ECM material?"
No, and thanks for the opportunity to make this clear: Aside from Mark Driscoll's glaring lack of reverence when he speaks of Christ's humanity, I have no issues with his Christology. I agree that Jesus learned things the way any boy would learn. Scripture expressly says so (Luke 2:52). I agree that Jesus was fully human, saddled with all our normal non-sinful infirmities, including the ones we don't talk about (or giggle about) in settings where we need to be polite.
What makes Driscoll "Emerging" is the philosophy that underlies his deliberate public use of such language and lowbrow cultural references. He seems driven by the notion that the Christian message must be "contextualized"—or translated in a way that suits not merely the language but also the cultural preferences of the target society.
The society he is trying to reach is the infamous Seattle grunge community. (It's more of a dysfunctional subculture than a foreign culture or language group, but that's beside the point.) His target demographic must define and determine his style. Notice: Driscoll's strategy for "contextualization" is driven by generational differences, stylistic issues, and fads. So we're not really talking about cultural or linguistic differences such as those that arise from centuries of unique traditions, like a missionary from Mississippi would face in trying to reach North Koreans or whatever.
But anyway, we have to be "missional" and seem "relevant" and "contextualize" everything for whatever culture we are trying to reach. That presupposition is deemed self-evident these days. No one in the know would ever dare question it.
Just ignorant bullies like me.
Whenever evangelicals have tried to "contextualize" their message for a particular generation (as opposed to a legitimate culture or language group, the result of the philosophy is always the same: Their primary goal becomes a desperate attempt to make Christianity seem "cool." Driscoll is head-and-shoulders better at this than anyone.
I count Driscoll as "Emerging" because he was one of the movement's founders and chief advocates until roughly six months ago. He still seems to be aiming at a kind of "contextualization" that is driven by postmodern sensitivities rather than by biblical convictions.
That said, let's be clear about the point Frank wants me to make: I realize Driscoll is nothing like Bell doctrinally. He most likely wouldn't approve of Bell's sermon any more than I did. He might even be more forceful or use stronger (and much cruder) language in his denunciation of Bell's gospel-twisting than I did.
So I'm not suggesting that the two disparate problems I highlighted in this post are the same thing, or even equally serious. My only point in tying them together is (once more) to explain why I'm not interested in anything in the way of Emerging Christianity, from either end of that spectrum.
Phil Johnson said...
C. Stirling Bartholomew:
I've read unsanitized Luther. Luther's proclivity for scatalogical language and crude topics is well-documented. And it's offensive.
I've been to Wittenberg more than once, and at the entrance to the library, they display a book of cartoons apparently written by Luther and illustrated by Kranich. It's in a glass case and permanently open to a page with a cartoon so vile I won't try to describe it. But let's just say it's classic toilet humor, used to lampoon the pope.
So the comparison between Driscoll's style and Luther's is not far-fetched.
Luther's scatology hurt his ministry while he was alive (because it gave his critics legitimate reason to criticize him); it has hurt his reputation ever since; and it is still something that critics of Protestantism sometimes point to as a disqualifying flaw in Luther's character. In no way did it enhance his influence.
Same goes for Driscoll. That's exactly my point.
Luther was also anti-Semitic and advocated the drowning of a mentally retarded boy. Would we tolerate ministers in this postmodern era who aped any of those characteristics?
centuri0n said...
Matt --
Does your reply to Don sound, at all, like PoMo language theory to you? No?
OK -- then let me give you the answers you need in order to perceive this problem. The Bible tells us frankly:
Col 3
5Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6On account of these the wrath of God is coming. 7In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. 8But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. 9Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
OK: now you may say, "obscenity is culturally defined, cent. What Paul might have had in mind may not be truly obscene, or even relevent to our culture today."
You know: I anticipated that objection by citing more than 3:8 to you -- because Paul has contrasted slander and obscenity with the image of one's creator. Paul isn't placing this moral precept on the back of some transient cultural practice or perception: he's placing it at the feet of the image of the creator which is unchanging.
So when Paul talks about "obscenity", he's not talking about secular ideas about such a thing: he's talking about "aischrologia" -- filthy talk, dishonorable talk, "low" in the sense of morally low. And given that it's paired with slander, anger, wrath and malice, it seems clear that he's talking about speech that is low in intent as well in content.
On your second count, it seems a little incongruous to say, on the one hand, that Pastor Driscoll has been rebuked by his own elders for this kind of thing in the past and then to say that we are jumping the gun on whether this is a heart issue. Listen: I have the same problem Pastor Driscoll has, and when I have to teach at church I sweat it -- because I want what comes out of my mouth to be God-honoring and Christ-exaulting, and I don't want to say what I think is right or what might make some kid in the back row laugh but what God has said is right. It is a heart issue, and those of us with this problem can confess that it is out of the overflow of the heart which the mouth speaks.
When we make that confession, we then have the grounds to reform what is happening to us.
If scatology is a good way to reference the humanity of Jesus, why doesn't the NT ever do it? Think about that -- the NT is target-rich with examples of how human Jesus was, but in that orchard of examples it never mentions anything about his private anatomy or its functions.
Is scatology really a necessary part of communicating the Gospel to Seattle? Is Seattle the first culture in 2000 years which requires an understanding of something which the Bible never references to hear and embrace the work of Jesus Christ?
The defense of what happened here is starting to wind down to, "geez -- we weren't there and we don't know what really happened." That's simply a cop-out. We know what happened, and Mars Hill broadcast it as a podcast/download of sermon audio. If you comb through the archives of GTY, or Capitol Hill Baptist, or DGM, or any of dozens of other broadcast/podcast ministries, you can't find this kind of reference -- because it is out of line.
SJ Camp said...
Phil:
Very good post brother... spot on and thank you.
I think some are finally coming to see that Driscoll is just not that important and certainly shouldn't be taken seriously. There's nothing really profound about him and his shock-jock approach to the handling the Word of God while at the sacred desk; it is a tragedy and not worthy of praise.
He's nothing like Luther or Spurgeon. He's more like Sam Kinison
The tragedy in all of this, is that a fine man of God like Dr. John Piper has embraced Driscoll in a wholesale fashion. His lack of discernment on Mark's ministry is perplexing; his casual humorous introduction of Mark at his recent DMG Conference while referring to Mark's scatological use of language is shameful; and his desire "to be cool" (I think those were his words) like Mark is embarrassing.
If a brother like PIper can be charmed and fascinated with the likes of Driscoll, then does it come as any surprise that the broader landscape of evangelicalism has?
Lastly, where is the eldership of Mars Hill Church in all this? Are they nothing more than Mark's sycophants or men of God? They are aware weekly of the controversy that surrounds Mark on these issues, but they let him continue on without fear of church discipline or public rebuke.
The thing that makes Driscoll dangerous is not that he is a man of God who is dynamic in the Word, boldly preaching gospel; but that he has convinced so many that he is a reformed pastor, when really he's just the oldest youth group leader in the country who can't accept the fact that high school is over and that it is time to put away childish things.
We should know by now that the emperor has no clothes.
I have posted some of the more interesting replies to this topic over at PYROMANICS. You need to check out there website if you want the FULL context.
I don't agree with Rob Bell's theology or Mark Driscoll's philosophy (in this matter). The left wing and right wing of the Emerging Church movement has some major issues to deal with. It is not a movement i am interested in joining (even though by age, i probably would be a good fit).
good sermon sunday night!
-laura
Post a Comment