Mark Driscoll on Nightline the other night

[TCGreek]

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." 1 Sam 15.23

This is not the type of "rebellion" to judge Jesus' "rebellion" by.

The word "rebel" today usually conjures up an angry outsider fighting against the rules.
.

In his day, it was against those who tried to tame him by their human traditions, the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[J.D.]

This is not the type of "rebellion" to judge Jesus' "rebellion" by.



In his day, it was against those who tried to tame him by their human traditions, the scribes and Pharisees.

Did the Pharisees have any authority over Jesus? Who was rebelling against whom? Wasn't it the Pharisees that were in fact in rebellion against God?

 

[Marcia]

I think Driscoll hits some good points and I'm glad he tells the truth. But I am concerned about his desire to be "edgy" and his language, which I've read about. Sometimes his language is a little too much for me (in the video, he said something about "you don't know jack about Jesus").

MacArthur's comments on Driscoll:

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

...His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.”

http://defendingcontending.com/2008/09/27/john-macarthur-on-mark-driscoll/

But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Col. 3.8

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 1 Tim. 4.12

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Eph. 4.29

 

[Marcia]

Did the Pharisees have any authority over Jesus? Who was rebelling against whom? Wasn't it the Pharisees that were in fact in rebellion against God?

Yes, I agree!

 

[Marcia]

This is not the type of "rebellion" to judge Jesus' "rebellion" by.



In his day, it was against those who tried to tame him by their human traditions, the scribes and Pharisees.

I don't think it's a question of being tame or wild or being a rebel. Jesus was entirely submissive to God, self-controlled (which is the opposite of wild and rebellious, imo), and always knew what he was doing.

I see no biblical evidence that he was a rebel. Just because he spoke the truth and did not accept false teachings does not make him a rebel.

 

[Marcia]

I found this out after the fact and I just found the link online. Here's the 7 minute video. What do you think? DH is reading some of his books and they're edgy but seem right on the mark in what he's saying.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6746393

Annsni, did you see my post about MacArthur's comments on Driscoll's language? I've read several others who are disturbed by this as well. I wondered if your husband had come across this in the books. Could be that Driscoll is just like this when he speaks and not writes.

 

[TCGreek]

Did the Pharisees have any authority over Jesus? Who was rebelling against whom? Wasn't it the Pharisees that were in fact in rebellion against God?

Jesus did not submit to their authority. Rather, he defied their authority as seen in their traditions.

Jesus' defiance of the rules of the religious leaders cast him as somewhat of a "rebel."

Of course the Pharisees were themselves in rebellion.

The issue becomes the object of one's rebellion.

 

[TCGreek]

I don't think it's a question of being tame or wild or being a rebel. Jesus was entirely submissive to God, self-controlled (which is the opposite of wild and rebellious, imo), and always knew what he was doing.

I see no biblical evidence that he was a rebel. Just because he spoke the truth and did not accept false teachings does not make him a rebel.

Our argument becomes a riddle of semantics.

As I've said before, the fact that I cannot put God in a box means, to me, that there's a wildness to God that cannot be tamed.

It seems like you and others are troubled by terminologies.

Well, I'm not.

 

[blackbird]

Jesus never "rebeled" against religious leaders

Jesus never "rebeled" against political leaders

Rather

THEY "rebeled" against HIM!!

Jesus was not the rebel

They were!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

Our argument becomes a riddle of semantics.

As I've said before, the fact that I cannot put God in a box means, to me, that there's a wildness to God that cannot be tamed.

It seems like you and others are troubled by terminologies.

Well, I'm not.

Ah yes...the old "we cannot put God in a box" excuse. This way we can justify anything we want.

 

[TCGreek]

Why did the religious leaders object to Jesus eating with the tax collectors and the irreligious?

To them, Jesus who claimed to be a man of God, should not have table fellowship with such people (Luke 7:39).

Jesus defied and went against their perception of a man of God.

The fact that Jesus defied some of their traditions meant that he rebelled.

He did not go along.

 

[TCGreek]

I think Driscoll hits some good points and I'm glad he tells the truth. But I am concerned about his desire to be "edgy" and his language, which I've read about. Sometimes his language is a little too much for me (in the video, he said something about "you don't know jack about Jesus").

MacArthur's comments on Driscoll:

http://defendingcontending.com/2008/09/27/john-macarthur-on-mark-driscoll/

But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Col. 3.8

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 1 Tim. 4.12

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Eph. 4.29

Who is John MacArthur?

 

[Aaron]

Jesus was a rebel.

Why do some want to domesticate him?

The Scribes and the Pharisees wanted to domesticate him just like some on this board are attempting to do.

They want to remake Jesus.

He was indeed a rebel.

The religious thought he was. How ironic!

Let's just cut the cow pies here. Adopting this language is merely a way of justifiying the attitudes of youth (in whose hearts foolishness is trapped) and snubbing parental authority.

Remember parents? They are the ones who first resist youthful rebellion, i.e. manners of dress, speech and music. And we have forgotten the commandment that tells us to obey our parents. Driscoll is the product of the youth culture. Naturally he will adopt the words-of-art created to hallow it.

Driscoll's theological position is "Charismatic with a seat belt." He believes God gives him direct revelation. This is not a man to listen to or emulate. The 90% orthodoxy he preaches is just to mask the taste of the 10% heresy.

 

[annsni]

Annsni, did you see my post about MacArthur's comments on Driscoll's language? I've read several others who are disturbed by this as well. I wondered if your husband had come across this in the books. Could be that Driscoll is just like this when he speaks and not writes.

Well, he's read me some things that are quite ..... I'm trying to think of the word.....

OK - an example was that he was talking about his belief that man should be the head of the home, that he is to love his wife sacrificially and that she is to respect and submit to her husband. (I don't have the book here so I can't give the exact quote from that part). He ended up with saying that this was about as popular as a "fart in an elevator". We got a good laugh on that one. It's true - while not exactly the way I'd put it in conversation. I don't think my hubby has found anything wrong with his language - but it's definitely different than the country club Christian kind of talk that most of us experience.

As far as the cussing, yes, I understand he used to use some of the 4 letter words in his messages but someone called him out on that as a brother in Christ and he repented and has stopped doing that.

 

[annsni]

Let's just cut the cow pies here. Adopting this language is merely a way of justifiying the attitudes of youth (in whose hearts foolishness is trapped) and snubbing parental authority.

Remember parents? They are the ones who first resist youthful rebellion, i.e. manners of dress, speech and music. And we have forgotten the commandment that tells us to obey our parents. Driscoll is the product of the youth culture. Naturally he will adopt the words-of-art created to hallow it.

Driscoll's theological position is "Charismatic with a seat belt." He believes God gives him direct revelation. This is not a man to listen to or emulate. The 90% orthodoxy he preaches is just to mask the taste of the 10% heresy.

Driscoll is very clear on parental authority and obedience of children to them.

I haven't heard that he believes that God gives him direct revelation. Can you point me to a source for that? I'd like to see it and show hubby.

 

[MB]

To refer to Jesus as a "rebel" is to detach Him from actually being God. In order to be a rebel there would have to be a standard above Him. Jesus was, is, and always will be the standard for all things.

It's not the term rebel that is important here but the nature of the rebellion. Was Christ of the world? No. To me that means according to the world Christ was a rebel. He rebelled against the world's authority.

It also makes lite of rebellion and places it in a romantic setting that should be avoided. We should not place ourselves in the status of rebel as it denies God as being the ultimate authority. It is the world who oppose God who are the rebels and they rebel against the ultimate authority God.

Nonsense. You seem to be counting all rebellion as sin. Certainly Christ didn't agree with the worlds authority. He rebelled against it because He didn't recognize it's authority.

Finding entertainment in being a rebel and placing Jesus in that status is juvenile.

Maybe juvenile. Although the rebellion of Christ none the less is true according to the worldly powers of the day.
Is it rebellion to go against earthly powers or is it only rebellion when we are against Christ?
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

It's not the term rebel that is important here but the nature of the rebellion. Was Christ of the world? No. To me that means according to the world Christ was a rebel. He rebelled against the world's authority.

The world has no authority but in their minds. The only true authority is God and God alone. God can not rebel against a subordinate.

Nonsense. You seem to be counting all rebellion as sin. Certainly Christ didn't agree with the worlds authority. He rebelled against it because He didn't recognize it's authority.

A rather contradictory statement.


[/quote]Maybe juvenile. Although the rebellion of Christ none the less is true according to the worldly powers of the day.
Is it rebellion to go against earthly powers or is it only rebellion when we are against Christ?
MB[/QUOTE]

Rebellion requires an authority over the one rebelling.

 

[Aaron]

Driscoll is very clear on parental authority and obedience of children to them.

But is he very clear on the submission of youth to the elder (1 Pe. 5:5), or does he marginalize the judgments of the elder as "teaching the commandments of men," and extol independence by calling Jesus a rebel too?

I haven't heard that he believes that God gives him direct revelation.

Describing himself as Charismatic is just that. Describing his call he said he had one of those "charismatic moments" where "God spoke to me and told me to preach the Bible, train men, plant churches and marry Grace. Told me exactly what to do."

I don't believe him. Yes, I'm calling him a liar.

The old link to this talk on the BB is no longer active, but I suspect if you take a look at the book you have you will find several statements like that above.

 

[annsni]

But is he very clear on the submission of youth to the elder (1 Pe. 5:5), or does he marginalize the judgments of the elder as "teaching the commandments of men," and extol independence by calling Jesus a rebel too?

I've heard him teach the Word of God about authority so I'm sure he teaches on the submission of youth to the elder. However I don't have quotes here for you right now.

Describing himself as Charismatic is just that. Describing his call he said he had one of those "charismatic moments" where "God spoke to me and told me to preach the Bible, train men, plant churches and marry Grace. Told me exactly what to do."


I don't believe him. Yes, I'm calling him a liar.

I haven't heard him speak of himself as Charismatic at all and I haven't seen anything that would make me think he is. Do you have a quote from someplace where he said this?

The old link to this talk on the BB is no longer active, but I suspect if you take a look at the book you have you will find several statements like that above.

I've not read the book - DH is - but he certainly hasn't seen anything about Charismatic or new revelations. Yeah - God called him to the ministry. I've heard God speak to me in times past. No new revelations but a promise of a child. Both my DH and I got the same message (no, not an audible voice but a voice none-the-less). I don't see that as Charismatic at all but a sheep who hears His voice.

 

[Revmitchell]

I would not conclude that Mark sees himself as getting direct revelation based on the statements posted here. When we all feel lead to do something we express that as having heard form God.