No Compromise Radio: On the Elephant Room

The first episode of No Compromise Radio has finally aired. The issue is a bit dated, but the principles are still very important.

No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.

[HT: Aomin.org]

Mark Driscoll: A Pile of Dead Bodies behind the Mars Hill Bus

Chris Rosebrough in his latest radio podcast has exposed *Pope* Mark Driscoll's tactic of "blessed subtraction." One wonders why anyone think that Driscoll is even called a pastor since his conduct here is more like a hired hand.

Mark Driscoll the Schwärmer

It seems that Mark Driscoll has preached a sermon attacking the "Cessationists" who do not have a need for the Holy Spirit. Eric Davis from the Cripplegate has responded to this video excellently here.

The whole dichotomization of sound doctrine from the Holy Spirit is sadly a systemic problem within Charismatic circles. While there are certainly Charismatics who try to be biblical, the problem is that such a dichotomization of doctrine from the Holy Spirit is foundational to the very essence of Charismatism. The idea of a distinct separate second baptism of the Spirit that happens after one's conversion means that it is possible for one to believe in sound doctrine but not to be "baptized in the Spirit." It is hard to see what kind of Charismatism would be left if one rejects the second baptism of the Spirit doctrine, for if one rejects it, then there is no necessity to pray for people to be filled with the Spirit. Either these people are saved and thus filled with the Spirit already, or they are unregenerate and need to be converted. To deny holding to a second baptism of the Spirit while continuing to pray for filling in the Spirit with new gifts (with a particular emphasis on the gift of tongues) is to deny the doctrine in theory and affirm it in practice.

Driscoll's speech against sound doctrine is hardly new. Before him, the Zwickau prophets and the Anabaptists were proclaiming "the Spirit" and stating that to pay attention to sound doctrine is to be a minister of the dead letter, referring of course back to 2 Cor. 3:6. Getting new revelations from "God," Jan of Leyden instituted polygamy, imposed a totalitarian autocratic state with him at the head and initiated a reign of terror in his "New Jerusalem" in 16th century Münster. Truly there is nothing new under the Sun.

Historically, Driscoll is the spiritual descendant of the mystics and the Anabaptists. He is what Luther would call a Schwärmer or fanatic, one who believes that they can know God through direct immediate revelation, instead of knowing God through Scripture. Driscoll holds to the theology of glory (theologia gloriae) and seeks God not through His ordained means of the Word but through his vain imagination.

Biblically and theologically, such a false dichotomization between sound doctrine and the Holy Spirit pits God's attributes against God's person. It therefore is a practical denial of the doctrine of the simplicity of God. Given that Driscoll wrote some sort of systematic theology, I wonder if Driscoll actually knows what he is doing? Did Driscoll teach or deny the doctrine of God's simplicity in his book Doctrine? If he indeed holds on to the orthodoxy doctrine of God's simplicity, why does he not practice it here?

Those who denigrate sound doctrine denigrate God's attributes, and thus denigrate God Himself. Saying that one listens to the Spirit while denigrating sound doctrine indicates that one is actually listening to oneself and the voices of others, even unclean spirits, and thinking that one is actually listening to God. God does not reveal Himself in audible voices today, and whoever thinks he is listening to God through such immediate revelation is self-deceived or deceived by demonic powers instead.

The problem of contextualization: A Critique of Keller's idea of contextualization

In my reading into the writing of a non-Western theologian, Kazoh Kitamori, the issue of inculturation and localized theologies do come up. The whole idea of an "Asian theology" or "Japanese theology" of course is just plain nonsense and is heresy against the catholic, apostolic faith as it is not catholic (universal) and not apostolic. Regardless, there is a softer version of this in the idea of contextualization. In fact, both of them flow out of the same font.

Tim Keller has produced a paper which from the looks of it was done for Covenant Seminary. The paper is entitled Contextualization: Wisdom or Compromise?. Last I checked, the paper is not available to the public, and I only have my copy because of a course I took in my winter term.

As the paper is probably not available anytime soon, I would summarize Keller's paper and then interact with the main issue at hand.

Keller's case

In this paper, Keller is putting forward a case for contextualization. According to him, contextualization is

... adapting gospel ministry from one culture into another culture by 1) changing those aspects of ministry that are culturally conditioned, and 2) maintaining those aspects of ministry that are unchanging and Biblically required. "Contextualization" 'incarnates' the Christian faith in a particular culture. (p. 1)

Keller argues that cultures may be good and bad, and that there is "no universal, de-contextualized form or expression of Christianity" (p. 1) Using the analogy of a stone and multiple colored globes, Keller opines that the Christian faith is analogous to the stone and the colored globes represent the various cultures of the world. The stone will always be in a globe, just like the Christian faith will always be inculturated. His point therefore is this: Christians (probably with Western Christians in mind) have their faith (stone) as understood within their culture (eg. a blue colored globe). When attempting to communicate the Gospel and the Christian message to those from another culture, one should take out the stone from one's culture and placed it into the new differently colored globe. So for example if a Western white PCA Christian were to attempt to communicate the Christian message to urban cosmopolitan New Yorkers, one has to take out the stone from one's blue globe and put it in let's say a yellow globe. The stone would thus look different when it is in the yellow than when it is in the blue globe.

Keller makes pain to state that he is against over-contextualization (and under contextualization too). He insists that the Gospel message cannot be compromised. What is essential must be kept, but what is not essential if it offends people must be removed.

The rest of the paper revolves around practice and the idea of showing how the Gospel fulfills the narratives of opposing worldviews, which we will not cover here.

Analysis and critique

Keller is right in saying that there is "no universal, de-contextualized form or expression of Christianity." Certainly, we should not make our culture the determining form of how Christianity is to be practiced. But does this mean that Keller's idea of contextualization is therefore proved?

The problem with Keller's view of contextualization is that it is based upon a Platonic, Idealist view of Christianity. Christianity in Keller's view is this abstract faith out there, which is incarnated into the cultures of their time. Thus the abstract Christian message is like the stone which in the beginning is already placed in a colored globe. Since the world has changed, cultures have changed, and therefore we should not continue to keep the Christian message (stone) within the old culture (e.g blue globe). Rather, we are to "contextualize" the Christian message (stone) by transferring it into the appropriate culture of the receptors (the yellow globe) so that the Christian message will continue to be heard as it ought to be.

One can see the similarity between Keller's version of contextualization and the liberals' version of localized theologies. Like Keller, they acknowledge the "cultural captivity" of the Gospel. In order to interact with other cultures, the Gospel (stone) has to be taken out of its western context and situated in its new context, be it Korean, Japanese or African. The only difference between Keller and the liberals is what each would categorize as essential and non-essential. Keller would, I hope, keep the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone to be essential, whereas the liberals have "moved" beyond that.

The problem with Keller's view is that the Gospel and the Christian message is not a Platonic ideal. The Gospel and the Christian message is revealed through history and in history. There is certainly an ideal archetypal message, but that is not what is revealed to us. What is revealed to us is the Gospel message as ectypically revealed through the prism of the cultures of that time. The Gospel message is therefore revealed through these cultural lenses, and cannot be separated from them.

Thus, Keller's (and the liberals') idea of the Gospel is not available to anyone. It is part of archetypal theology. There is no such "stone" therefore available to anyone but God. Only God knows the Christian message unmediated, not us. Therefore, it is impossible to abstract the Gospel message absent of its historical circumstances, and then re-contextualize it into a new globe.

When anyone therefore faces the Gospel message, it is an altogether alien thing, unless of course one lives during the time of the writing of the Scriptures. The Christian message uses the cultural forms of an age long ago. Thus, biblical exegesis and meditation on the worldview portrayed by Scripture is necessary to grow in understanding the Christian faith. Ad fontes! All cultures are brought back to understanding biblical truths as revealed in the cultural contexts of their time, and then reapplying them to ours. Such application is necessary regardless of whether one is white or black, German or Japanese.

We do not attempt to somehow decipher the core Platonic essentials of the faith and re-contextualize them. Rather, we bring the whole of Scripture together with its various cultural forms to bear on every culture. Every culture has to come to terms with the foreignness of the Christian faith before seeing the pertinence it has for all peoples in every culture.

Keller's view of contextualization is therefore unbiblical. By trying to bifurcate between essentials and non-essentials in his manner, it has more similarity with Adolf Von Harneck's kerygmatic theory than biblical Christianity.

Mark Driscoll, Steven Furtick and Christian maturity (ADD)

It is no secret that people like Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick are not exactly nice to their critics. Driscoll likes to attack young men especially in their 20s as cowards and berates them to grow up. He furthermore attacks critics as bloggers living in their mother's basements blogging while wearing pajamas. Steven Furtick attacks his critics as "haters" who need to grow up. Both of these "pastors" while rather different do not hide their manifest disgusts at their online critics and young men.

It is the case that there may be some substance behind some of Driscoll's critiques. What I want to focus here however is to examine these men according to the true biblical criteria of what maturity is. As they attack others for being immature, are they actually mature at all?

What exactly is maturity? Is maturity defined by being married, as Driscoll puts it? Then the Apostle Paul is certainly immature according to Driscoll's standard.

There are different types of maturity: for example physical, intellectual, emotional, relational and spiritual. Since we are speaking of supposed "pastors," we would look at the pastoral epistles which specifically define the maturity required for leaders of the church.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3: 2-7)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

All pastors are elders of some sort, and thus are expected to be mature with the qualities exhibited. Most certainly we are not perfect, but these qualifications are not meant for only perfect people to qualify. One does not have to be perfect for example to not be a drunkard.

We start first with Mark Driscoll, the recent author of the salacious book on sex. How does Driscoll measure up to these attributes? Well, Driscoll is certainly the husband of one wife, and probably not open to the charge of debauchery and insubordination. He is however not above reproach, not self-controlled, and not a lover of good, and is not dignified. He also does not hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, with his blasphemous pornographic "visions" being a violation of Scripture and basic common sense. Compared to the standards of Scripture, Driscoll does not qualify as being mature.

Steven Furtick is much worse. He is not above reproach, definitely not well thought of by outsiders (and instead attacks his critics as "haters"), not self-controlled, not a lover of good etc. He attacks the sheep who want to go deeper into Scripture, certainly behavior more like a butcher just waiting to have lamb chops for sale than a shepherd.

According to the standards of Scripture therefore, both Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick are not mature. In their attacks against the supposed "immaturity" of young men and/or critics, they therefore have absolutely no authority whatsoever. It's worse than a pot calling the kettle black, because at least the pot does not take to itself the sacred office of the pastor.

Therefore, next time Driscoll or Furtick rants against immaturity, ignore them. They are basically over-age immature playground bullies. None of them are fit for the office which they illegitimately take hold of. Ironically, while deploring the immaturity of others (real or imagined), they are poster boys for the perpetual adolescence of boys who refuse to grow up. In other words, their very behavior manifests the pathology in today's adolescent culture.

This applies also to all who follow them. Shouting and berating others even for a good cause is not a sign of maturity. The kind of pseudo-masculinity paraded by Driscoll and others gives those of us who are complementarians a bad name, as if biblical masculinity is supposed to one that is interested in violence, "fight club," beer and sex (lots of it). Instead of letting the Bible defines what masculinity is, Driscoll defines masculinity as the almost total opposite of the effeminized cultural norms, as if the extreme opposite of an error is always the truth.

Let us therefore reject the examples of people like Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick. Their examples only lead to more immaturity and a continuance of the pathological state of the perpetual adolescent culture. Instead, follow the examples of true godly men. Look to the examples of the pastors and elders of your local church (assuming it's a true biblical church), who though little known faithfully care for the flock without much recognition, honor and glamour. Such people despite their flaws are much more mature than Driscoll and Furtick can ever be, unless they repent.

Addendum: Just as to prove me right, Driscoll decided that calling British pastors cowards was an excellent thing to do.

Missional, Charismatic, and Reformed?

Over on Driscoll's The Resurgence website, pastor PJ Smyth has written a short write-up regarding the Driscollite unique blend of ministry distinctives. It seems that the inclination to combine the three ministry distinctives of "missional," "charismatic," and "reformed" continues. However, are these really biblical, and are they really compatible?

Missional?

Let us look at the first distinctive: missional. The term itself has various shades of meaning, but we will focus on its understanding and use in the Reformission movement. According to Smyth, "missional" begins with the understanding that "Jesus came to [the] earth as a missionary and he commissioned us to follow his example." Another synonym for this distinctive is the term "incarnational." What are we to make of this term? First of all, they are in error in claiming that Jesus came to earth as a missionary. Jesus' mission was to die on the cross, not to proclaim the Gospel everywhere. Jesus did call people to faith in Him, but more often than not, Jesus concealed the Gospel in parables (Mt. 13:13-15) and such a concealment is judgment upon a nation and people who do not respond in faith to His miracles. Jesus as an intrusion of the last days even proclaimed that certain people are reprobates and not His sheep (Jn. 10:26). Do these actions strike us as something a missionary should do?

Jesus came to inaugurate His Kingdom. As God and Savior, He is unique in this aspect. When Jesus spoke in parables, and when He for a moment revealed the secret decree of God that His opponents then are reprobates, He is functioning as the King of glory, with these actions being a foretaste of the Last Judgment when all will be laid bare. Missionaries are NOT kings or the King. They are not inaugurating the Kingdom of God but proclaiming it. They are not privy to the secret decree of God in exposing the reprobate status of reprobates. As such, missionaries are not to preach to people in parables. They are not to conceal the Gospel message as a judgment upon people.

Jesus was not a missionary but a King and a suffering servant. We are therefore not to be "missional" but "mission-minded." We witness the Gospel to the world, not like Jesus as Jesus did not do so, but as those sent out by the King we serve, like the Apostles and the early church.

Charismatic?

If there is one thing that truly irritates me, Smyth misrepresents Charismatism and non-Charismatism. It is reprehensible that Charismatics go around claiming that they believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, as if they are the only ones who do so. Similarly, spiritual warfare in the biblical sense is not peculiar only to Charismatics, neither is the link of sickness with the Fall nor that God heals.

The fact of the matter is that Charismatics add to the biblical teaching on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit an under-realized ecclesiology and an over-realized eschatology. By the former, we mean that the Charismatics have an immature view of the Church as if she is still in the same infancy stage of the apostolic Church. Ignoring the fact that the Gifts of the Spirit have a purpose ordained for them, they insist on the continuing gift of tongues, interpretation of tongues, foreknowing prophecy, words of knowledge etc as the ordinary (as opposed as extra-ordinary) reality of the Church. They ignore the fact that the Church has matured with the closing of the Canon and thus the completion of the function of the sign gifts in general.

On the latter, we mean that the Charismatics believe that the blessings of the last days have already come to a great extent if not has come and is coming with the immanent millennial earthly kingdom. Thus, we have Charismatic healers who are more certain that God will heal people when they pray than God Himself. We have Charismatics who are so thirsty for the presence of God that they seek spiritual experiences outside of Scripture, not realizing that on this side of heaven, Christ is absent from the earth and His presence in this age is only mediated by the Holy Spirit through the Word written (Holy Scripture), the Word preached (exegetically sound sermon), and the Word performed (sacraments). Thus, we have Charismaniacs who see "visions" (of their own delusions) and see the "glory-cloud" of God, seeking by such experiences to drag Christ down from heaven to earth. Yes, more biblical Charismatics do denounce such antics, but one wonders upon what basis they can do so, since such flows logically from their over-realized eschatology.

Charismatism therefore is in error, and should not be embraced by the Church.

Reformed?

As a Reformed Christian, most definitely I think the Church should be Reformed. But what does the Reformission movement think of the word "Reformed"?

As we can see from the article, the word "Reformed" is defined as the "mainstream tradition of Christian theology that acknowledge the sovereignty of God in and over all things." One wonders then if Smyth and the others Driscollites think that Lutherans and Barthians and others should be included under the term "Reformed," since both of these groups also "acknowledge the sovereignty of God in and over all things," at least formally. I mean, Karl Barth not only claims to be Reformed, but he also denies infant baptism, which should be a plus point for the mainly baptistic Reformission guys!

Such a reductionistic definition of the word "Reformed" shows the utter ahistorical nature of the Reformission and the YRR movement(s). "Reformed" is defined by the Reformed Creeds and Confessions, not just an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God and the embrace of TULIP. It is then no surprise that Smyth can claim to be "Missional, Charismatic and Reformed," for his understanding of what "Reformed" means is indistinguishable from mere Augustinianism. To be truly Reformed however would sound the death knell to this synthesis, for being Reformed means that one embraced the whole of the teachings of the Reformed Creeds and Confessions which proscribe Charismatism (cf WCF I.1).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Reformission synthesis is unbiblical and ahistorical. We agree with Smyth's point that we should remain God-centered, and not only God-centered but Christ-centered, Spirit-led and Word-founded. But we disagree with Smyth's beliefs and synthesis as they are none of these.

Mark Driscoll and one practical problem with continuationism

Mark Driscoll's recent hack job on cessationists have seen his pronouncements on the topic scrutinized to a greater degree. Over at Pyromanics, Phil Johnson has written an excellent post on this very troubling aspect of Driscoll's ministry.

Driscoll's sermon at the Gospel Coalition: A total disappointment

Mark Driscoll has recently given a sermon at the Gospel Coalition 2009 entitled Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, supposedly based on 2 Tim. 2:14-26, which can be downloaded from the Gospel Coalition website here. (You can see Driscoll's notes here)

After listening to the sermon, I am rendered nearly speechless. Is this the type of eisegesis encouraged by the Gospel Coalition, which is supposed to be Gospel-centered? Driscoll's points are so far from being taken from the text that it cannot even be called biblical in any remote sense of the term. In fact, coming from mainstream apostatizing Evangelicalism, what Driscoll is teaching in my opinion is no different from the typical "life application sermons" that are in vogue in such "evangelical" churches.

Even worse than this is the divisiveness of this sermon. This sermon encouraged pastors to distrust their flock, and to exercise dominion over the sheep and categorize them as "positive", "negative" or "neutral", contra the command of Christ to feed His sheep! The passage in 2 Tim. 2:14-26, and in fact in all parts of Scripture, are NOT attacks on "negative" people but on those who subvert the faith — heretics and schismatics. The only categorizations a pastor/elder can come up with is sheep, goats or wolves, and all this is based upon whether the person believes the Gospel and is saved (ie based on the objective criteria of Scripture). To come up with a list of 20 types of "negative people" is eisegetical, divisive and unloving. Such a disgusting attitude towards the flock is more akin to the false prophets of Ezekiel's time (Eze. 34:1-10) rather than a biblical shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep.

The book by Dan Southerland, Transitioning, a Purpose-driven paradigmatic book endorsed by Rick Warren which develops in concrete form the attack-the-PD-resistors methodology, is a resource which brings Driscoll's concept to its logical conclusion. Judging by Driscoll's closeness to PD pope Rick Warren, will this mean the entrance of this divisive technique into the New Calvinist community? If such is the case, this would make the Shepherding Movement of the last century like child's play with the widespread abuse of Heb. 13:17. I shudder to think what a "reformed-minded" abuse of Heb. 13:17 could do in destroying the spiritual lives of the flock.

Book reivew: Confession of a Reformission Rev by Mark Driscoll

I have just finished a book review of Mark Driscoll's book Confession of a Reformission Rev., which has been uploaded to my website here. Here is the conclusion

Driscoll's book is a good window into the worldview of the conservative "calvinist" emerging church. What it shows is indeed rather alarming, and serves to perpetuate and accentuate the problems in the churches. What is the point of having solid doctrine when such doctrines have no bearing whatsoever on life and ministry? What is the point of becoming a Calvinist when the most fundamental point of Calvinism — the Sovereignty of God — is denied over and over again through the incessant need to be relevant, "missional" and adopting the methodologies of the world? It is not enough to profess sound doctrine, but that such profession must be a true confession from the heart which will manifest itself in proper Christian living and fidelity to Scripture alone for all of life. May God show Driscoll his errors so that he may repent and obey God 's Word fully and not partially. Amen.

Some people have asked me on my current focus on Mark Driscoll especially since he seems to be an American problem (for now). First of all, the main thing is the issues involved, not the person. Secondly, whatever that is in the US would come over to Singapore sooner or later. Thirdly, I know of a leader in my former church who is currently enamored by Mark Driscoll. It is simply naive to think that Singapore does not have to deal with this issue now; with the growth of the Internet, ideas can spread very very rapidly.

A Response to Driscoll on "New Calvinism" *UPDATE*

With a recent Times article mentioning "New Calvinism" as the third most influential idea changing the world right now, Driscoll just have to draw up a list contrasting "Old Calvinism" with "New Calvinism". This is his list as posted on his website:

Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful

1) Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.

2) Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.

3) Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

4) Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them

Let us examine them one by one:

1) Does Driscoll even know what Calvinism is historically? He does not even understand the original Fundamentalist/Liberal controversy as it is! (Read at least J. Gresham Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism, and also the book consisting of articles from Charles Spurgeon The Downgrade Controversy for some background). Furthermore, the entire culturalist stance is grating on my nerves. Where in Scripture are we commanded to redeem culture? Answer: NOWHERE!

2) First of all, the Reformation started in ... cities! Cities like Wittenberg, Zurich, Geneva etc. Sure, what was called cities back then would be equivalent to the size of our towns now, but it still started off in cities.

Secondly, Calvinism "did not fled from cities", as if all Calvinists have an epiphany and decided to leave the cities in droves for the countryside. The fact of the matter is that Calvinism sharply declined after the Second Great Awakening due to the influence by the Pelagian heretic and revivalist Charles Grandison Finney (See Iain Murray's book Revival and Revivalism for starters). It wasn't even found much in the countryside for that matter.

3) There is plain nonsense. Is Driscoll now calling all Reformed folks who are not continuationists "Old Calvinists"? And Cessationism is not "fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit". That is mere strawman bashing unbecoming of someone of Driscoll's influence. Even though I am not a classical cessationist, I think a little more respect for godly pastors who have held on to the Cessationist position in an informed manner is in order.

4) In other words, Driscoll is admitting that "New Calvinism" rejects the doctrine of separation and follows the lead of New Evangelicalism in her willingness to compromise the faith? No thanks! I would much rather follow the Reformers who "burned bridges" between them and the apostate Roman Catholic Church. Compromise is never an option for the Christian who truly loves Christ (cf Jude 1:4, 2 Cor. 6:14-18, 2 Jn. 1:10-11)!

In closing, let me share what I wrote in my article on the Reformed Resurgence which indirectly addresses Driscoll's fascination with novelty and disdain of the past:

As stated, truth is transcendent and timeless, and the Church as the pillar of the truth partakes in part of that quality insomuch as she holds the truth in righteousness. Such would therefore mean that the modernist focus on novelty and its equation of novelty with improvement and progress must be jettisoned. Progress in Scripture is to be measured in terms of growth in the knowledge of God based upon truths established by godly men in the past and present (Eph. 4:11-16) as exposited from the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17), not a complete overhaul and revolution of all doctrines for every generation. It is therefore imperative upon any movement that aspires to be in line with God’s Word to function in this light.

Practically speaking therefore, doctrines and practices from the past are to be treated with a certain amount of respect. Although old does not necessarily mean good, yet if something is universally held by the Church in previous times, we should examine it carefully according to the Scriptures and not dismiss it flippantly. (Bold added)

Addenum: Dr. R. Scott Clark has weighed in on this matter on his blog here. I agree with Clark in one of his more irate comments:

...The problem is that Pr Driscoll and the YRR folks are calling themselves “Reformed” and “Calvinist.” Who wrote a post contrasting the old Calvinists with the new? ...

[HT: Cal.vini.st]

Some thoughts on Mark Driscoll

Paul Wallace has written a balanced post on Mark Driscoll here:

There is much to be praised in Mark Driscoll. But there is much to be praised in many pastors all around the world whom we have never heard of. There are things I can learn from Driscoll, but to be honest I can learn them elsewhere without the risk of having my conscience offended by borderline language. I am not convinced that he has the theological depth to be in the influential position he is presently in, with God’s help he perhaps will be in the future.

Here is a good clip by Mark Driscoll just to show that Driscoll does indeed know and preach biblical stuff. We will be praying that in time he will grow to practice more of what he preaches on this topic too.

When Relevance becomes Irreverence - The curious case of Mark Driscoll

Here is an interesting video program on the controversial person of Mark Driscoll. Cathy Mickels has written a very interesting article entitled Mark Driscoll: Is he qualified to lead? here:

This memo is written to Christian leaders detailing my concerns regarding the ministry of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. His church has grown to 6,000 members in 11 years and is also described as one of the fastest growing, innovative churches in America.

Because this ministry is characterized by so many examples of the trivialization of Scripture, crudeness, foolish talk and vulgarity it will be a challenge to keep my correspondence as brief as possible.

Research leads me to concur with Pastor John MacArthur, who has also said, “I have a great concern about him. [Mark Driscoll.]”

In fact, in a radio interview with Todd Friel on the April 7, 2008, edition of Way of the Master, referring to Mark Driscoll’s book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Pastor MacArthur said, “…there are statements in that book that are so sexually explicit and unnecessary and purely gratuitous humor at the basest kind of level; I saw a video from a service in the church in January in which comments were made from his pulpit, which were then put…. on the website, which again, were sexually explicit and gratuitous and unnecessary…in which he referred to a certain sin and actually twisted out-of-context a Bible verse as a kind of way to mock that sin. You know ….there was a time when we worried about the church adjusting itself to accommodate the peoples’ social expectations, and then their psychological expectations, and now the latest wave of this let’s identify with them at their sensual level. And I think that baser approach - that’s something I’ve never heard of in my life — I’ve never, ever, in the name of ministry heard anyone who would speak at that level of explicit language with regard to things sexual… I just think there is a dignity, there’s a maturity, there’s a holiness, a virtue, a fear of God that belongs with the pastorate, …there’s a refinement that belongs in the ministry. The Bible talks about that ; being ’sober-minded’ - the pursuit of godliness,…Speech that comes out of your mouth, no filthy communication, only that which ministers grace to the hearer ….you can’t put one thought in their mind and then try to transition them to something holy…it’s a new kind of thing that I never, ever, imagined would happen…”

...

Missions and contextualization - A reply to Mark Driscoll on the use of language *UPDATE*

Though calm in his defense [of using trash talk], [Mark] Driscoll insisted that Seattle's missionary need demands new, creative ways to engage the city with the gospel [sic].

"I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't think they're any fun at all," he said. "I'm a missionary. Fundamentalists avoid culture. Missionaries study it in an effort to reach people. If I were going into China to be a missionary, no one would complain. They wouldn't say, look at that, Mark's wearing Chinese clothes. He's speaking Chinese words. He's listening to Chinese music. Gosh, what is this guy? A liberal? No, he's in China.

The truth is that Seattle is as lost and pagan as China. And if we're not going to send missionaries to China, we have to send missionaries to Seattle. We need to give them the same freedom that we do missionaries in China."

[Collin Hansen, Young, Restless and Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (Wheaton, IL, USA: Crossway, 2008), p. 146]

So states Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Wisconsin, in defense of using rather inappropriate language, especially when it comes to sexual issues. Since he decided, as a Caucasian American, to use the Chinese as an example of contextualization, I as a Chinese Singaporean would respond to his assertions with regards to my culture.

Driscoll in his defence attempts to defuse criticism of his usage of coarse language by stating that he is contextualizing his message, thus communicating God's truth to the people in Seattle who evidently speak in that same frequency. With this in mind, he tries to build an analogy between what he is doing and what missionaries to China do. Just as missionaries to China are to speak Chinese, dress Chinese (not much valid today) and do listen to Chinese music, so Driscoll speaks the type of trashy lingo of the audience he is ministering to, dress like them and listen to their type of "music".

As a Chinese, this attempted analogy does not convince me one bit as being valid. Regardless of the variation in Chinese culture and the different dialect groups among the ethnic Chinese, each with their own distinct culture (There is no such thing as a single Chinese culture per se), there is still what is termed culture and what is termed gangsta "culture" (for lack of a better term for it). All dialects and Mandarin (what is termed "pu tong hua" - 普通话) has its own cultured words and swear words; words used for civilized discourse and words used by uncivilized people which often do not see the light of day. Chinese culture is traditinally ordered as per Confucian principles, and with it come ethical codes of conduct to govern everyone and everything in society. Most notable of course is the rejection of all forms of vulgar discourse as being barbaric.

Driscoll's analogy therefore breaks down at this juncture. The missionary to China most definitely will spek Chinese (or one of its dialects), probably does not need to dress traditional Chinese dress nowadays, and will listen to a mix of traditional Chinese, Chinese pop and English pop music, with probably some J-pop and K-pop mixed in as well. Nevertheless, they will not converse in vulgar Chinese. The early Protestant missionaries to China like Robert Morrison and Hudson Taylor certainly did not do so, and neither did any of the missionaries to China. While they most certainly adapt to the culture, they did not adapt to the lowest degradation of Chinese culture to reach any of the Chinese, not even triad members.

It is in this regard therefore that Driscoll has no idea of what he is talking about on the idea of culture and missions. In fact, it seems rather condescending to be thought of as reachable only if a degenerate manner of speech is adopted. Worse still in my opinion is for such a method to be likened to the adoption of the mother language(s) of other ethnic group(s) like Chinese. In fact, it is downright insulting for non-Westerners like me, as if our language is analogous to the language used by Mark Driscoll with his coarse and scatological speech.

On a more fundamental level, the whole idea of contextualization as practiced by Driscoll and others seem to lack a true measuring rod for culture. Culture, as embodying manners and forms of values and living, is to be judged by the Word of God as all conduct is (Ps. 119; 2 Tim. 316-17). Just because a particular sub-culture exists does not mean that the elements of any (sub-)culture must by definition be neutral or even good. Since such is the case, uncritical wholesale acceptance of any culture or sub-culture is not biblical.

In conclusion, it is hoped that Driscoll should evaluate what he is doing according to the Scriptures. There is simply no warrant for deliberately sinning, even for the sake of evangelism. The famous text of 1 Cor. 9:22 cannot apply to the issue of sin, for the context focuses on following or not following various human traditions, having nothing to do with violation of the commands of God. The question he should ask himself is not, "Is what I am doing missional?", but rather "Is what I am doing sin?". If using coarse and scatological language is sin, no amount of protest of being relevant and missional can excuse it, and neither should we condone it.

*Update*: Here is a good sentence I have stumbled upon in the meta of this post that sums up the concern over contextualizaton for the case of Mark Driscoll

A language can be vulgar (common) without being vulgar (degrading).

On Driscoll and the New Calvinist movement - A response to the NYT article

The New York Times has came up with a hit article on Mark Driscoll, the controversial pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington. CRN, Tim Challies, Pyromaniacs, Steve Camp and even the Reformation21 blog have taken note and some have commented on it. While a little late, here are my two cents on the article.

First of all, before commenting on the article proper, the New York Times has previously shown itself to not being credible with its bias reporting, most especially seen in the coverage of the US election and the current counter-terrorist operation in Gaza. In my opinion, the New York Times [and almost all mainline newspapers also] has little or any credibility left, and anything written in it must be filtered to remove the liberal spin on whatever topic it is presenting, knowing that whatever it says is almost always one-sided and tailored to support the liberal agenda — in other words, propaganda. Therefore, whatever the article says must be critically examined and deconstructed instead of taking it as objective truth. [I so love deconstructing the liberals and their post-modernist offspring]

The article by Molly Worthen takes pot shots at two aspects of Mark Driscoll — his theology aka Calvinism, and his language usage. Her dislike of both is clearly evident throughout the article, though to her credit she tries to be factual and objective.

We will return to the Calvinism issue later, first focusing on Driscoll's propensity for crass and scatological speech. It is disturbing that Phil Ryken calls Driscoll's language usage, among others, masculinity. Our concern can be seen in this quotation from the article:

An “Under 17 Requires Adult Permission” warning flashes before the video cuts to evening services at Mars Hill, where an anonymous audience member has just text-messaged a question to the screen onstage: “Pastor Mark, is masturbation a valid form of birth control?”

Driscoll doesn’t miss a beat: “I had one guy quote Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says, ‘Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.’ ” The audience bursts out laughing.

Somehow I don't see what masculinity has to do with this sort of sexually degrading foul-mouthed talk. Or how about this even more shocking example from Driscoll's blog [Warning: Graphic language utilized]:

Question #21: Can I perform anal s-x on my wife?

Answer: The body is not well suited for this so make sure your wife is agreeable, do your homework, be careful if she is willing, and do not go from this to normal intercourse since you will infect her with bacteria. When you discuss the issue, it would be helpful for both of you to express why you do or don’t wish to participate in anal s-x and then pray about it for a time if there is disagreement. Most people are either for or against it, and very few people are neutral. Many wives are not agreeable to this so do not force it on your wife as she will be tense and that will cause her pain; if you love her you would not seek to shame her or cause her pain. Thus, anal s-x is technically permissible, but for a host of reasons may not be beneficial. We do not endorse everything on this website, but if you want to read some commentary on the issue from Christian married women, you can go to Christian Nymphos.

Ugh!

Now, is masculinity defined by being the exact opposite of the culture as being effeminate, such that men are to behave the exact opposite of what is considered proper and respectable conduct in society, including bringing the perverse influence of pornography into the church with such titillating language? Just because the effeminate institution calling itself the [visible] Church is about, to quote Driscoll, “singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.", dos this therefore mean that true biblical Christianity is the exact opposite? Why can't we let the Bible define what biblical Christianity and true masculinity is rather than being reactionary against the inroads of Feminism?

I do not think that it is hard to see what the Scriptures teaches regarding Driscoll's smutty language (cf Eph. 4:29). Since when has being doctrinally orthodox means that the way you live your life is not important? In fact, since a good tree brings forth good fruit and vice versa (Mt. 7:16-20), can such a chimera with sound doctrine and worldly living ever truly exists ( in fact not in appearance), except probably as a transitory phase?

Worthen claimed in the last sentence that "Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents." Before touching on the issue of Calvinism, I would like to submit that Driscoll's "New Calvinism" is not true Calvinism or Reformed at all. It may be Calvinism in the TULIP soteriological aspect, but what kind of Christianity is it that is so comfortable with the world such that worldliness enters the church with inappropriate R-rated public discussions on private issues such as s-x, and even homosexual-style s-x! As it is, Driscoll's words and actions especially in the capacity of a pastor drags the Lord's name through the mud with such unbiblical and repugnant behavior.

Phil Johnson chooses to focus on the Calvinism aspect especially in the last statement written by Worthen. I agree with Mark here that such seems to be "airing dirty laundry" in public. In this effeminate post-modern age, any form of confidence and certainty in the truth would surely be thought of as pride and arrogance by the "loving" and "tolerant" crowd (both within and without the visible Church btw). Those who like to talk about the "proper", "civilized" and "Christian" manner of discourse ought to peruse the Scriptures and Church History to see what true Christian discourse on such matters have been like before even utilizing the word "arrogance".

Back to the statement. Calvinism, contrary to Worthen's claim, does not embolden Christians. Rather, it is Christ that emboldens Christians. Like the prophets and believers of old, Christians today are emboldened to speak the truth with confidence and certainty because Christ is personally real to them. Those who know Christ will be changed by Him, and part of that lies in the confidence and certainty of the truth in Him. Being something that is at its root spiritual, it cannot be discerned by unbelievers though they can grasp it cognitively. Yet such is foolishness to them because they know not Christ nor have His Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14).

With regards to the statement as it is applied to Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, I think Steve Camp's statement here hits the nail on the head

Boldness for the gospel comes from the crucible of humility; and is not marked by the obscene and frivolous, but by what is reverent, holy, and Christ-exalting. Even in Seattle.

Amen.

For more, see this article Grunge Christianity? by Pastor John MacArthur

Driscoll on Jesus the Evangelist to the Unevangelized?

Timmy Brister points to us an interesting paragraph made by Mark Driscoll that was posted on the Resurgence website:

Lastly, the fact that Jesus remains to this day an active evangelist is of great encouragement to me personally. It means that children who are aborted in the womb, those mentally incapable of understanding the gospel, and those people who have lived in times and places that missionaries did not visit are not necessarily beyond the hope of salvation. Indeed, Jesus could visit and save anyone anywhere because He remains The Evangelist.

I find myself very very uneasy over the sentiments stated in that paragraph and echo the same concerns as Timmy Brister. What does Driscoll mean here? Is this some form of inclusivism? Barring the mentally handicapped and the unborn, the mention of unreached peoples and people groups is very troubling. Is the Gospel necessary unto salvation, or can salvation be mediated by some sort of supernatural encounter apart from the Scriptures and cognitive belief in Christ? Something stinks over in the New Calvinist camp, that's for sure.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Driscoll orthodox?

This article casts legitimate doubts on the growing sentiment of believers about Mark Driscoll's orthodoxy. Not to mention Driscoll's manifestly inappropriate speech in the promotional video for the upcoming sexuality 'Song of Solomon' conferences, which probably sounds more like soft-porn I guess. (Yeah right, striptease dances by wifes to their husbands is biblical... Why hasn't anyone seen this before?...)