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.

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).