I’m Not Winking (UPD: do what you want)
September 25UPDATE: So, I get the “wink” now. Read Pagitt’s post. Yes, the whole thing. I’m down with it.
Despite what you might have read (all updated), I’m not winking. (See previous post)
Fig. 1 – Me Not Winking
Before adding my un-wink, I posted a comment on Adam and Josh’s blogs that seems to have gone unread by both before adding my name to their lists: (Both have updated their links. Thanks, guys)
Love the wink idea and was considering posting a copycat myself.
Mark’s ad hominem hermeneutic is better at drawing boundaries than it is conclusions. But isn’t there a better way?
Check my blog for a suggestion. Can we do it instead?
I’m not defending Mark by any means. A couple quotes that somehow emerged from the throat of our brother:
“I believe Emergent is, like Judas, in the process of hanging itself.”
“Brian McLaren also has a new organization called “Deep Shift” and I think somebody inadvertently put an “F” in there.”
“And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations — I’ll tell you as one on the inside, they don’t have converts.”
Say what you want about Emergent, Mark, but Judas? And what’s up with going all ad hominem on Brian - perhaps one of the most peaceful men I’ve met?
But attacking neomonastic communities? I spent the last four months living in something like one of these communities (embarrassingly named “The Manastery,” believe it or not). Our house was a safe place for women and men who had found themselves homeless for any number of reasons, a place of peace for a man with a developmental handicap, a place of hospitality for travelling friends and friends-of-friends, and (most importantly) a place where we did our best to worship God together in word and in deed. We went through a lot of shit together, but it was the Jesus Creed that pushed us forward.
Want to talk about converts? We could talk about “Tom” who, despite being a Christian, was suffering from a sort of marijuana-induced schizophrenia and living in his car. He’s now employed and in the process of transitioning into a stable home. We could talk about “John,” who was living with his father but frequently fought with him and called the police (things still aren’t great, but they’re better). We could talk about “Vicki” who is the legal guardian for a teenage girl and just needs some people to talk to sometimes. Or we could talk about “Tina,” who moved to Oregon from the midwest but didn’t know many people in Portland and needed a place to call “home” while she got a job and a permanent place to live.
We’ve prayed with and for these friends of ours, and we love them to death. It’s been an incredible pleasure to have the opportunity to journey with them in body, word, and spirit. Believe it or not, an off-hand comment from a guy from Seattle who got ahold of a microphone does not invalidate the stories of God’s work in their lives.
Here’s a little gem for everybody:
I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to that person; then come and offer your gift.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:32 am
[…] The link you followed says I’m winking. I’m not. You might have noticed this. Why? 4 Comments posted on “Hey Mark Driscoll” Mark Driscoll This Wink Is For You | […]
September 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am
sorry for the confusion. i see that. you’re really not winking. i have updated my link to you. no worries. and good thoughts man.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
[…] last week here in North Carolina, and I think he deserves more than a wink. So I’m going with Scott Andreas on this […]
September 26th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Scott,
Hey, I am sorry that we didn’t get to see each other before you left.. truly. I should have called, but I have this tendency to make myself feel overwhelmed when I am really not. I trust that we’ll see each other again.
OK, so in the interest of a less-heated but important discussion, let’s just say that we know I am more into Driscoll than McLaren. But I wanted to let you know (if perhaps you had wondered) that I do keep up with Driscoll’s consistently inappropriate remarks and my heart is more than a bit grieved. It seems that he has fallen into more than a bit of pride and I would venture to say that he is in need of much repentance and humility in order to be a pastor that truly honors God.
That being said, I believe that God is gracious to those who have glaring faults in that they strive to be used by Him where others have shrunk back from His service for whatever reason. It’s no secret that most ‘Evangelical’ churches today hardly hold up to the measure of that word, historically-speaking. They are far more interested in pleasing people than God, and the result is that they hardly please at all because they are so evidently contrived and shallow. Hence the rise of the emerging church in response to this emptiness.
But here in the emerging world we have two approaches — one responds to the
‘grace without transformation’ seen in much of American Christianity by saying new methods and beliefs/ways of believing are necessary (emergent), and the other responds to this problem
by saying that what made churches truly Evangelical has been lost — and so the reclaiming of Truth must be all of our goal.
To this end, Driscoll warns about sin and hell (never mentioned in many churches — too much of a downer) and is consistently Christ-centered and Cross-centered (which no serious Bible student can miss); moreover, he gives consistent Gospel-application to his congregation–husbands love your wives–women love your husbands–parents teach your children to love God–stop throwing tracts in peoples’ faces and live honorably among all so that they may see your good deeds and ask for the reason for the hope that you have.
In that Driscoll consistently (I subscribe to his vodcast) teaches these things, and is consistently striving to build up Mars Hill in holiness and not just in opinion and ‘conversation’, I believe that God has been gracious to him. No doubt, gentleness and self-control are graces that he must seek to learn–and I would say urgently so–but in that he clings to the foundational truths of the Gospel and has suffered much persecution for them (yes, people actually trying to hurt him in his own church) I would say — may God be gracious to Mark, and may he grow in faith, hope, and love for Jesus our Savior and so become a much more gracious speaker to those whom he feels are dangerous.
That being said, just because McLaren is peaceful and nice does not make him a saint. And I say that about myself, too. We all have sinned and need forgiveness and justification that leads to sanctification (–> which we agree that Driscoll needs to pay attention to). But how do these truths benefit people like Pagitt or McLaren who deny them? Reading Pagitt’s chapter in “Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches” I could not help but agree with Mark’s summary of it as “living heresy.” (this in response primarily to Doug’s assertion that ‘Pelagius was right’ among several other things). The hurtful things we believe and say do grieve the Holy Spirit, but how much more so when we deny the very truths that He inspired men to write down! That McLaren believes in the substitutionary atonement of our Lord is highly suspect (for those who might feel likewise, please at least read Packer’s short article on the atonement and see where the ‘radical reformers’ are coming from) and the general assumption by both and many emergers that doctrine is divisive is troubling. A fervent orthodoxy — yelling at everyone who doesn’t hold your systematic theology — will likely needlessly divide, but so is such radical doubt and the lack of conviction expressed by many that leads people to believe that what we believe is no indication of our souls’ health. When Christ comes to judge human hearts, who among those who deny that His atoning blood actually purifies sinful souls and that through faith we have been justified and set free from God’s rightoeus condemnation of sin–who among those who deny these things will stand before God? They will cringe, and they will fear, because no matter how well they believe they have lived and striven to follow Christ’s commands, they will have denied his most consistent command that is given by Him–believe and be saved.
So, this was a little rant and shows what I feel is going on at the core of it — different answers to the same problem. Is the problem that human hearts are inherently sinful and that apart from the Law, men and women must come to faith in the Savior for present justification and the subsequent life of sanctification that ensues? Or is the problem that we are simply not very religious and need to talk a lot more about how we might become better Christ-followers? I think it is both, but I believe that one is more foundational than the other.
I am getting long-winded in hope that some real conversation might happen — this is being said in much love and hopefully by the grace of God. Do you believe that my assessment is wrong? Is my small defense of Driscoll unjustified? I truly believe that God will work in Him to become more gracious, and perhaps it will require much suffering (most refining does).
September 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
[…] just makes me feel sad at a very deep level - so I’m joing the post-winkers (like Steve and C. Scott). It also reminds me of some profound experiences that have marked the journey towards the emerging […]
October 11th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Scott,
I appreciate you NOT giving MD a wink… when what he really needs is a gentle “kick in the throat” so he’ll just SHUT UP.
I think Tony Jones gives a good teaching on heresy and gnosticism here:
http://web.mac.com/jon_davis1/iWeb/Site/Podcast/E99C783F-79EE-4E67-A301-0B4F94C1BD58.html
I don’t find MD to be Christ-centered OR Cross-centered… rather I find him self-centered.
Sorry. His approach is inflammatory, degrading and not funny.