Mark Driscoll's Emergence

It's pretty much old news already, but Mark Driscoll caused a big stir with a speech he gave at a Southern Baptist conference recently. You can listen to Mark's actual words here. It is lengthy, but worth the time if you have it. There are posts all over the place and you can sample a few here, here, and here.

I don't agree with everything Mark says and I don't always like how he says things, but I do believe he loves Jesus and he loves truth. I think his voice is important and I think that his critique was fair and that his concerns are very valid.

A few things...

He calls out Doug Padgitt, Brian Mclaren, and Rob Bell for having bad theology and being dodgy on a few subjects. And I have to agree.

A big issue here is homosexuality and that has lots of people up in arms and losing their minds. He has however made it a point time and time again that he is NOT going to hold it higher than other sins, especially other sexual sins, and that his church ministers to many of these folks. He is concerned that Brian Mclaren dodges it and that Padgitt thinks it's ok.

Mark's biggest critique, worry, warning or whatever you want to call it is the bad and sometimes unorthodox theology of some of these guys. I am not going to go down the line and list it all here, but his concerns are warranted and they are the same ones I have had all along about the "Emergent" stream of the emerging church. Listen to the podcast.

But let's move to the actual conversations that are going on in the wake of this speech. In one comment thread that I jumped into, I read this question:

Whose theology gets to be assumed to be orthodox?

To which I answered:

Isn't this the problem with Emergent and Postmodern thinking as it applies to Biblical truth? If we live by this statement does it mean we are all orthodox no matter what we believe? I don't understand how we can have a truth, if we aren't ready to say that someone else has something wrong.
If it doesn't mean this, then please Julie, you answer your own question. I seriously would like to know your answer.

Her reply was all the proof I needed to show that this is indeed the problem with the Emergent (not "emerging church" or missional) and Postmodern thinking:

At some point we all make the choice to affirm a particular set of beliefs. We align ourselves with others, but in a way it is all about choosing our own personal orthodoxy. Once we align we can and do make statements about who is right and wrong.

Yikes. We get to choose our very own personal orthodoxy? That's extremely problematic at best.

Look, I have come from a very conservative background and there are lots of things I left behind and just can't be party to anymore. But I did not check the Bible or Truth at the door of the place I am in now.

Back to Driscoll on this orthodoxy thing. The folks most upset are asking things like "who made him the heresy police" and "why is his truth any better than someone else's" (again, yikes, there is only one truth). And in this speech he does not deliver the gospel according to Driscoll. Now, he backs up claims with IN CONTEXT text from the Bible. You know, that book that contains the Word of God.

His critics tried to make this about his blunt and sometimes rough way of handling things, but behind it there are many who have either lost the Truth or never had it to begin with. And when they are faced with a young, missional minded pastor who has lots of folks following his lead, they are threatened.

So be careful out there. There are many who would try to convince you of some crazy stuff as you journey out of the fundamentalist and more conservative ranks. And when it comes to their beliefs, they are "fundamental" about them as the Bible thumpers.

Tomorrow, just to prove I am no "fundie nut-job", I will be posting about alcohol. :)

Technorati Tags: Emergent, Mark Driscoll, Doug Padgitt, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Emerging Church

Comments

[Chris Alford]

right on bro!

[franklin]

Rich, I was following that thread and when I saw your question I couldn't wait for the answer. When I read her answer, it confirmed a lot for me about Emergent ideas. I appreciate what many in the Emergent Movement are doing as far as forcing us to rethink some issues, but man, I'm tired of this "choosing our own personal orthodoxy" thing. In fact, I'm coming to believe that the mantra of Emergent is just what Julie said..."choosing your own personal orthodoxy".

Sometimes I wonder if Emergent isn't the protestant reformation at its low point.

[grace]

Rich and Franklin,
It seems to me that the majority of the emerging spokespeople and followers would be willing to stand by the creeds as orthodox. If that is true, then aren't the continuous aspersions to their doctrine as heresy unfair?

I don't agree with the way in which Julie stated that, but giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she meant something similar to what I said on fr'nklin's blog, "we hold to the basics of orthodoxy, but we are all in a process of growth and revelation concerning our personal theology." I mean that's scriptural, we see in a glass dimly, we grow in our wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of the revelation of God.

I have tried to be open minded about the Driscoll thing, and I have no reason to protect McClaren, Driscoll, or Pagitt, but I strongly disagree with the manner and content of Driscoll's message.

If you listen to the podcast, there is not one specific statement OF BRIAN MCCLAREN's that Mark uses in his critique. He expounds at length about the heresies of other authors that Brian has footnoted! and by association links their beliefs to Brian.

Does Brian have some of his own questionable stuff? Probably. So why didn't Mark specifically use things that Brian himself had said? If you are going to try someone in the court of public opinion, it should at the very least be on things that they have directly said rather than casting suspicion on them through the words of others.

When we step into the role of heresy hunter, we have put our own heart in a dangerous place. We are no longer looking for the best in our brother, but instead it has become our agenda to sniff out their faults, cracks, and weaknesses. And let's be honest, we all have some.

[Rich]

Grace,

I hear you, I really do. But to for us to act like there is no danger in the words and beliefs of these guys specifically (and I did it for a while) is just as dangerous as stepping into the role of "heresy hunter". And on that note, that idea and phrase has been overblown in this whole discussion IMHO.

I'm not crazy about Mark's manner, but I have little to quibble with when it comes to his content. I have read nearly there is to read that these guys have written. I've kept up with their web presence and listened to podcasts. And while I truly love some of their ideas, there is a lot to be wary of and warn others about.

In my own reaction to modern evangelicalism I just can not turn my back on truth. There still is truth and anyone who plays with it or muddies it needs to be called out. That is very Biblical.

[grace]

Rich,
I agree with what you said and think that it is very valid for you (or anyone else) to specifically bring up things that someone has said or written and explain why you believe that statement or idea muddies the waters.

Why isn't more of that happening? I have seen it occasionally from Bob Hyatt, Andrew Jones, Scot McKnight, and Ben Witherington. For some reason it isn't acknowledged when critique happens "within the camp." Of course it's not nearly as controversial as a smear campaign.

My specific complaint is concerning this widely spread message of Mark's. It does not contain adequate support for the claims and accusations he has made.

I think that critique will be most effective if it is specific, current, and in context rather than sweeping generalizations of heresy.

[rich]

Grace, Thanks so much for coming over to talk! Your blog is one of my absolute favs and it's been nice having you commenting over here.

[franklin]

I have to get back in here. Grace is hogging up the comment space!

First, I am no Driscoll fan. I never have been. He just grates on me...and that has nothing to do w/ his theology. I mean, Jmac grates on me, but I thought he gave Pagitt the spanking he deserved on that CNN piece. All that to say I usually like to disagree w/ Mark.

However, on this, I agree to a large extent. Getting McLaren or Pagitt and to a lesser degree Bell to speak with any certainty about anything is nigh to impossible. They ARE the leaders of the EC (along w/ some others - McKnight strikes me as very much different in this respect).

Could you make a case for McLaren being a "heretic"? Two books come immediately to mind: Generous Orthodoxy and the last word. I would think you could sniff around in there and get mighty close. I don't believe Brian believes the Bible is inerrant, but what I would want to study is what he believes about the GOSPEL. Same with Pagitt and to a much lesser degree Bell.

All this "heresy" talk though, really seems pointless in this stream of protestantism where you can't do anything about it if someone IS a heretic. I think, though, that for ECer's to be shocked that these men would be publicly called "heretics" after they've clearly FLIRTED with UNORTHODOX beliefs is suprising to me. I thought it at times when I read them...I knew they were on the line. I can't help but think they knew it too.

[rich]

If only I could articulate like Frank!