Fascinating. If Driscoll ever needed a back up gig, he’d be a great professional wrestler.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Fascinating. If Driscoll ever needed a back up gig, he’d be a great professional wrestler.
Zach Lind 
he should have his blood pressure checked.
i have never seen someone self-promote himself like that since i watched tbn. not everything he said was necessarily wrong, but good grief, if the message is the medium, watch out. was that any better of a witness for the gospel by screaming and yelling than promoting a rabbi on your website? i dont think so.
you can keep that. self-promotion over the pulpit.
tbn on steroids.
Matt Foley?
[speechless]
[mouth hanging wide open]
Exactly what was that? “If you don’t know Jesus you don’t know jack about the Bible”?
Perhaps wrestling is indeed in his future…
Kyle… Ha! I was thinking the same thing!
Obviously the BALCO scandal and Barry Bonds is not limited to baseball…
It’s like “have mouth, will talk…a lot”
I can’t believe people can listen to someone so frustrated every Sunday.
Heh.
So, have you been to Slice of Laodicia lately? I disagreed with their opinions as much as you, but I think you should check it out.
i originally thought that the introduction to the video was created to mock driscoll’s anger and frustration, but then i realized that this is something he and his church are proud of.
Chris, I checked out the Slice, but I guess somehow the site is down and Ingrid has bailed.
what exactly did you think i should see?
Jamie, I had the same reaction….”6k people wake up early on sunday morning for THIS?” haha. different strokes for different folks i guess.
SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!
I couldn’t stand to hear Driscoll every Sunday. Heck, I could barely make it through the whole clip.
“If you don’t know Jesus…then…you’re gonna end up…livin in a VAN down by the RIVER!”
😀
Wow, it is so eminently Christian of everyone to rip into someone. But it feels so good, how could it possibly be wrong?
And also, don’t y’all value authenticity? Then why are you so pissed that Driscoll would make light of his own anger or frustration? Is he perhaps being too up front about his humanity?
I mean, it is definitely not a good display of homiletics, but crikey, I thought that as Christians we are supposed to be chartiable to those whom we differ with on things (something I myself am working on).
Matt, do you value aunthenticity? In your statement it sounds as if you don’t value it, and that only “y’all” do. Who is this “y’all”?
I value aunthenticity.
As for the video, is he being authentic? Cause if he is, I wouldn’t enjoy being in his family.
And heaven forbid that Xnty today has an add about a Jewish rabbi.
What do you others think?
matt, i think you are right in the sense that maybe some of us aren’t being very charitable, but you also have to ask yourself the same question about driscoll himself. consider the fact that he just recently suggested that rob bell, brian mclaren and doug pagitt are heretical! if that’s not being charitable and if that’s not “ripping into someone”, then I’m not sure what is. if driscoll can call rob bell a heretic for referencing a ken wilbur book in the footnotes of one his books, then I think in your defense of driscoll is a little unbalanced.
I think you also need to consider that driscoll puts himself in a position for folks to wonder about him. by posting this video, my intent was really to allow driscoll to speak for himself. i think he’s deliberately putting setting himself up to be critiqued by much of what he has to say. i didn’t rip anything he said, but i simply wondered if maybe driscoll has some issues to work through……for example his fantasy of carving up his daughter’s future non-christian boyfriends with a turkey knife. i mean, what pastor do you know who wouldn’t be excited by that prospect! 😉
and for the record, my professional wrestling comment was totally sincere. he would actually be really great and there’s nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
I don’t think this is Driscoll’s best work at all. I mean, what does it have to do with his sermon? It seems way too random and impertinent.
BUT, excepting the fact that you have some serious theological differences with Driscoll (he’s a foundationalist; you’re not, he’s a complementarian, you’re not; he’s an inerrantist, you’re not (?); he’s a Calvinist, you’re not; etc.), ok excepting all that, don’t you think he’s funny? I’m just curious. I don’t think this was the best example, but most of the time the guy is really funny (in my opinion).
So you can’t “read him literally.” Everything he says is a bombastic statement that neeeds interpreting.
I think he’s hilarious, but probably for all the wrong reasons.
This blog is hilarious, but probably for all the wrong reasons.
Zach-
I live in Washington and sometimes attend Mars Hill Church and I still found your post to be quite humorous. While I am a fan of Driscoll (as well as Rob Bell) I could still find the humor in your post. Thanks for the laugh.
I’m a member of mars hill and this clip is an example of how driscoll preaches about 2% of the time.
Is he a hot head? absolutely. But at least he gets angry about the right things.
Delivery aside (most people can’t take Mark’s delivery) in this instance, he’s got a point does he not? If the old testament isn’t about Jesus and the anticipation of his coming then why is it in our Bible?
jason, i think you need to go back and read your bible a little more closely if you truly believe that the old testament has nothing to do with the coming of Jesus. if this is the kind of view of the bible that is the result of driscoll’s teaching, then I guess, Jason, you’ve done a great job making the very point that many of driscoll’s detractors are attempting to make.
thanks for the insight.
Jason said, “If the old testament isn’t about Jesus and the anticipation of his coming then why is it in our Bible?”
Zach said, “jason, i think you need to go back and read your bible a little more closely if you truly believe that the old testament has nothing to do with the coming of Jesus.”
Maybe I read this wrong, but I thought Jason WAS saying that the OT anticipates the coming of Jesus.
Regardless, Driscoll claims he believes in propostitional truth, but he talks like a Gnostic: He seems to be saying that you can’t really understand the Old Testament unless you have the “secret knowledge” which, in this case, is his fundamentalist filter.
I agree that the Old Testament contains images and symbols that point to Christ. We see them now when we read the Old Testament in light of our faith in Jesus. We see things that a person of Jewish faith/heritage probably wouldn’t see.
But to completely negate a scholar’s knowledge of the ancient texts (and, Driscoll, this guy actually reads Hebrew) because he begins with different presuppositions and/or arrives at different conclusions is … well … Driscollesque.
my bad…i misread that. at least i hope i did. 🙂 sorry jason.
yes, that was misread. thanks for the clarification steve. Sorry for being confusing. I believe that the OT (and the new) is all about Jesus. My point was – ‘what’s the use of listening to someone teach about the OT if they think Jesus was merely a prophet’?
The great thing about Driscoll, whether you disagree with the finer points of his theology or not, he’s one of the only pastors I’ve heard lately (I dont listen to much) that is concerned #1 with Jesus and how everything points to Jesus.
I was really encouraged in phillipians 1 last night. Paul says that basically some people are preaching the gospel of Christ out of selfishness and pridde, others are preaching Christ out of faith and humility. And then he says ‘who cares!’ as long as Christ is being preached!
I know that God will take the crookedness we all speak daily and make it straight by His Grace.
On a side note it seems that everyone who is critical of Driscoll and Mars Hill have never actually attended. They pull out snipits here and there of outrageous things he says but never listen to a whole sermon. Podcast it for a month and then tell me that Mark is crazy. Until then I think you lack context.
Hopefully my tone doesn’t sound bitter here. I won’t repent frustration, but i don’t want to come across as bitter or enraged.
Oh and Zach…
great blog. great band. I thank God for your role in culture as a musician and believer.
i agree with jacob b. with his above statement… your article in collide was great… others should check it out…
i am glad to say that the rocks are up 2-0 on the backs…
and i am anxiously awaiting the album…
thanks for the clarification, Jason. sorry i misunderstood you.
i would have to disagree with you on the thought that we can’t benefit from OT scholarship done by those who don’t view Jesus as the messiah. i think that’s an overly narrow perspective. For example, I’ve never read anything written by from a christian perspective regarding Sabbath that even comes close to the depth and wisdom of Abraham Heschel’s book “Sabbath”. There’s nothing inconsistent with reading that book and being a follower of Jesus. I think a strong argument could be made that it’s a very helpful book for Jesus followers.
Where do you draw the line with your reasoning here? Are we then supposed to discount the historical writings of Josephus because he didn’t believe Jesus was the messiah?
thanks for the comments.
Thanks for the response Zach,
I don’t want to clog your comments, feel free to email me if you’d like to continue.
That’s a good point about Josephus. I think the huge difference between the writings of Josephus, or anyone else today or in history, and the OT, is that OT is part of Holy scripture. It’s the words that ‘became flesh and dwelt among us’. Those words warrant a different treatment, would you agree?
I’m not saying that we can’t learn about Jesus’s culture and time from unbeleivers scholarship, I’m saying the point about learning about those things is to learn more about Jesus himself. So at a certain point there is a disconnect.
I think there’s tons of helpful scholarship from unvelivers that we can beneift from. But none about the life, message, and purpose of Jesus.
dominic crossan is a believer (and has a lot to offer us about the life,message, and purpose of Jesus), but apparently for driscoll being a “believer” simply isn’t good enough. it’s WHAT KIND of believer you are that REALLY matters. interesting. i’d throw marcus borg in that pile as well. although I don’t totally agree with borg and crossan on some if their conclusions, i defy anyone to read their stuff and claim that absolutely ALL of it is unhelpful in understanding who Jesus was/is. it’s rare that i read anyone who i 100% agree with, but does that mean I can’t learn something useful from them? I don’t agree 100% with Mclaren, so does that mean I should ignore EVERYTHING he has to offer? I disagree with about 80% of what I hear from Driscoll, but does he have something helpful to offer me, that helps me in my faith…..of course he does. unfortunately for driscoll, it’s ALL OR NOTHING. bummer.
thanks for the comments jason.
I’m going to agree with Zach. Driscoll’s comment was that “If you don’t know Jesus, you don’t know jack about the Bible.” Hence, if you don’t have “faith in Jesus” you have NOTHING to say about the Bible, including the Hebrew Scriptures…
To more fully understand the life, message, and purpose of Jesus, we would do well to understand the first century culture in which he operates. In addition, we must understand the hope in which the nation of Israel was looking toward at the time. This would necessitate us reading stuff that might be considered “outside” the Christian tradition.
If we don’t at least explore these things, we run the danger of taking Jesus’ life, message, and purpose out of it’s context. I think this is the real question I have about Driscoll’s comment.
Hey guys,
This is good discussion for me. Maybe it’s a headache for you guys, but thanks for the responses.
I would agree with both of what you said. I don’t 100% agree with anyone either. Not driscoll, not anyone.
Anyone who can teach me context, I will fully accept. Anyone who can teach me history and ancient culture, I will fully accept. Any scholarship based on truth is good enough for me.
But I want to learn about Jesus from someone who knows Him personally.
I won’t defend driscoll, his words belong to him, but I will say, Zach, that you’re making claims about what driscoll preaches “80%” of the time or what the core of his message is, and I bet you can count the hours of driscoll you’ve heard on one hand. I’ve been a member of Mars Hill of 8 years. The core of his message is Jesus, not male leadership, not post modernisim, not anti feminisim. It’s about Jesus. Every single freakin sunday. He never shuts up. That’s why I’m there.
I’ve heard some theology that doensn’t sound biblical coming from major Christian leaders. But guess what? I’ve never taken the time to listen to a large portion (more than 5) of their sermons. So I’m gonna keep my mouth shut.
In the end we all agree here that Christ is the answer to every question, and the reason why we care at all. The goal is to spend more of our days walking towards Him.
We should probably leave it there. Everything else is an open fist issue. Am I right?
sorry. I misread Zach.
You said 80% of “what you hear”. Not “what is said”.
My comment still stands on what Mark preaches about but I mis quoted you.
josh, i never made claims about 80% of what driscoll preaches. i said that i disagree with 80% OF WHAT I’VE HEARD. i just got done listening to driscol’s almost hour and a half presentation to the southern baptist theological seminary where he roasted doug pagitt, brian mclaren, and rob bell. how many sermons did driscoll listen to before he decided that it’s ok for him to open his mouth about it. he didn’t reference one sermon of doug’s or rob’s in his presentation, but mostly picked on footnotes in their books.
your defense of driscoll here (and it is a defense, whether you like to think it is or not) seems to itself undermine driscoll’s own method of critique.
driscoll puts his defenders in very awkward positions. maybe he should focus more on his community than on scouring for heretical footnotes.
Hey Zach,
Thanks for the response.
You’re right. Again I misquoted you. I’m sorry.
Like I said Zach, I’ll say it again, I don’t agree with everything Driscoll preaches.
I’m defending myself and the validity of my own statement here. I came into the discussion stating that no one here actually sits through this guys sermons year after year. I know more about Driscolls mission than you do. period. That’s a fact. I don’t even agree with everything he preaches, that should give even further evidence that I’m not some kind of Mars Hill zombie that parrots everything driscoll says. I won’t defend his sin. I won’t defend his loose tongue or his pride. I do not go to church and sallute captain driscoll. I go to hear and learn about Christ and his atonement for my sin.
Which brings as back to the subject.
Is that not worth fighting for? The truth about Christ and his sacrifice and the Gospel?
Yes I agree with you all we can learn from unbeleivers who have something to say, we can learn from scholars who know history and archeology and context and word studies and hebrew. We can learn from it all.
But at the end of the day – we all agree here that the Bible is about Jesus. The whole Bible, every last bit of it, points to Jesus. Correct?
So why would I take my car to the car wash, when it needs it’s oil changed? I agree It’s perfectly fine to have a clean car, infact it’s often helpful – but I need an oil change or my car will die.
i guess if the dude washing your car loves jesus, they you probably don’t need an oil change. 😉
I’m not super smart Zach. That may have come across already. Your retort sailed over my head. I honetly don’t mind if you spell it out for me. It’s my fault for switching over to a weak metaphor.
My point was, I open the Bible to read about Jesus. Although seeking various sources of information is good and often helpful, it often won’t show me where Jesus is between the confusing context. I could go to Billy Graham about Jesus but I may not get jewish context, and I could go to a rabbi about jewish culture but I may never hear about messianic prophecy, but instead I may go to someone like Bruce K. Waltke or others like him and hopefully get both.
Your agrument is that there’s other options. And close minded christians always shut them out.
My argument is – absolutely I’m close minded. I think Jesus is the only salvation for sins.
hmmm, when did I ever suggest that Jesus wasn’t the only way for salvation? point that out to me, jason.
to be clear, when you say my argument is for “other options”, i’m simply suggesting we can learn very helpful things from those who don’t share the same conclusions about Jesus and divinity. we can follow what they have to a certain extent, but then, most often, we depart from their conclusion. we can also learn a great amount from those who DO believe in the divinity of Jesus.
what i’m not suggesting is that we somehow allow these non-christian voices to erode what we believe. i’m suggesting we read these writers with discernment, taking the good and leaving the bad. i think i’ve heard someone say that before…….;-)
I didn’t suggest that you thought that at all. I’m sorry that you read it that way. I was merely trying to reinforce my own convictions, not put words in your mouth. Reading my post I can see how it sounded that way.
I’m in complete agreement with your last statement.
Thanks for the discussion. I look forward to reading more here.
Going back to what I said earlier, it doesn’t make sense to completely negate a scholar’s knowledge of the ancient texts just because he begins with different presuppositions and/or arrives at different conclusions. It also caused Driscoll to paint himself into a corner.
He says “if you don’t know Jesus you don’t Jack about the Bible.” Does that include those who translate the scriptures?
I wonder what Driscoll would have to say about the fact that a good number of the scholars who work on translation projects such as the NIV or the NASV aren’t evangelical. In fact many of them aren’t even believers, as most of us would define “believer.”
Their interest and their expertise is in the ancient languages. They don’t have a theological ax to grind when they translate; they just want to do good work.
If Driscoll really believes his “you don’t Jack” statement, I wonder which translation he uses.
Hi Steve,
Checked out your blog, looks like your in Brazil. My wife’s grandparents run an orphanage outside of sau polo (spelling?) I can’t remember the name of the town now. Mount Horeb is the name of the mission. Let me know if you’ve heard of it.
I agree with you Steve, there’s no reason to negate anyone who’s studying ancient texts more than me. I know I don’t have the answers.
Like Zach said it all comes down to discernment through prayer.
For me, when I want to find out more about a particular book, I at least want to find some who agrees with me on who actually wrote the book. That seems like a place to start, not a side issue.
Something that’s interesting to note here is that the bible didn’t exist in it’s current form until several hundred years after Christ left us.
I think it was one of the Nicean councils… they basically gathered together to discuss “which of these books makes it into the canonical bible?”
It wasn’t the case that the books left out were bad, per se…they just didn’t point to Christ in quite the same way as the books that made it in.
Of course, there are a whole slurry of books in the Apocrypha which are just bizzare, like the one about Jesus as a Kid bringing birds back to life, which was probably, by all examination, written by some greek trying to make fun of Jesus. But for instance, did you know that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally part of a trilogy? Yup, there’s a third book out there.
Also, bits in Chronicles reference a book of Kings, and a book of wars, and we only, by all accounts, have part of the book of kings. There is stuff that isn’t in there.
Jesus, in fact, references things that were either in what we have as the apocrypha, or writings of various famous rabbis at the time.
Another interesting cultural fact is that most well versed scribes and pharisees of the time literally memorized the old testament, as well as the works of various famous rabbis. So to understand some of what Christ is refering to, or responding to, you have to know the works of various rabbis of the time…who aren’t in the bible.
And surely, there are those of us who study the writings of C.S. Lewis, or brennan Manning, or Rob Bell, or Gordon MacDonald, or various others…they aren’t the scriptures, but their writings can be very important as we consider what Christ has told us, and how to become more like him. It’s all a matter of perspective.
I think that while it’s good that Driscoll has a lot of good points, for those of us who aren’t in Washington who can’t take the time out to go back and listen to several years of sermons, all we know about him is the very polarzing statements that he has made about gender, about Rob Bell, etc.
By the same token, because of who Rob Bell has publically admitted to reading, and the stances he takes on doctrine and theology, he’s pissed off a lot of folks too. Generally, anybody who is willing to get up and make public statements about what God said is going to piss somebody off.
Very interesting conversation. I can totally relate to both Zach and Jason’s points of view. Personally, I’ve been listening to Rob Bell’s podcasts for the past year. I went to lunch with a fellow believer and started talking about our faith and the different things we had been learning. I asked him about Rob Bell and he proceeded to lecture me on how he learned (from Driscoll) that Rob’s view of Christianity ultimately leads to moral relativism and that he overtly neglects the lordship of Christ. I couldn’t help but smile since I knew that this man had not listened to Bell or read any of his books. The conclusions that were drawn came from fragments of sentences that he had heard second-hand. The picture that my friend was painting held very little resemblance of the teaching I had listened to for the past several months.
Jason: I can definitely relate your feelings that most people who are trying to deconstruct Driscoll do not have a full picture of his theology. I cannot draw conclusions from things I have not witnessed.
Zach: I definitely agree that it we can find value in learning about the scriptures from people who are not Christians.
If I could add my own two cents:
It is obvious that the central figure in Christianity is…Christ. But I do think that assuming the scriptures are solely about Jesus is too narrow of a view. For example, you could view Noah as a “type and shadow” of Jesus. Saving people from God’s judgment – the door not having any specified dimensions and being too large for a human to shut, which alludes to God’s unlimited grace, etc. The problem comes when ALL you are looking for in this story is Jesus. If this story isn’t really about Noah, but it is only about Jesus, then it utterly negates and ignores the human aspect of Noah. What about the lessons we could learn from Noah’s faith and cultural context? Noah was NOT Jesus, and he was NOT God. There is much encouragement and wisdom that we could glean from the accounts of his life. We simply cannot ignore Noah and believe that it’s Jesus in disguise – or only look for the ways in which he resembles Jesus. There is much more going on there.
You can also draw a parallel between Saul, David, Jonathan and Mephibosheth to Satan, God, Jesus and us in 2 Samuel 9. But does that mean we continue to figuratively look at David as God throughout the entirety of scripture? What happens when David sleeps with Bathsheba? Is he still a picture of God? Where is Jesus when David sins? Is he the prophet Nathan? Uriah? Will we have to conclude that he is represented by God and his mercy? Is this really a story about Jesus? Or is it a story of how God relates to man?
It is dangerous to minimalize one’s worldview and the entirety of scripture to a single man. It would be too easy to manipulate and teach the “kind” of man Jesus was. For example I hear Driscoll de-wussifying Jesus. He likes to describe Jesus as a “man’s man” and not a gay-loving hippy who walks around with a peace sign and drives a volvo bug. If your worldview is solely derived from your definition of Jesus, then it is susceptible to dramatic changes without much thought or effort. A teacher could take one story of Jesus, and expound on the certain “kind” of man Jesus appears to be (from our 21st century perspective) and alter your faith exponentially. Sure, Jesus got pissed sometimes. He wasn’t a pussy. But he also said things like, “Follow me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” God’s longing and mercy for his people are beautifully portrayed in Amos when he longingly awaits their return to him. Giving the Israelites famine and drought does not resemble Jesus. Yet, it was God’s desperate attempt to get them to return to Him.
Merely judging from Driscoll’s demeanor and comments of slicing people, I get the feeling that in the Garden of Gethsemane, he would have commended Peter for slicing the guard’s ear off if he were in Jesus’s shoes. But Jesus did the exact opposite. He healed his enemy. He healed the guy on the “other team.” He didn’t try to destroy or degrade this non-messianic Jew. Instead, Jesus loved that man and didn’t scold him for being retarded because he didn’t realize that Jesus was God.
I agree that Jesus is the central figure of our faith, and that much of scripture points to him. He is the epitome and pinnacle of God’s love for us. Since this is true, why not let Jesus sum the bible up for us? He said it himself – the old testament can be summed up in LOVE. Loving God with all that you have, and loving your neighbor as yourself. Love is much more open ended than our narrow definitions of one man. We are left to discover through the life of Jesus and all of scripture what this love looks like, and what that love does. All of scripture tells of God relating to man.