"I cannot worship a guy I can beat up." I fear Driscoll may have fallen into the culture trap himself... top

i understand what you're saying. would you say it's wrong to express what driscoll has said?

how much is he shaped by culture? and how much is he being shaped by Revelation 19 (which he quotes often when talking about Jesus)? top

I have only two words ... utterly bizaare. Apart from a series of slurs, what is Driscoll's specific beef with theological left's depiction of Jesus.

It seems to me that Driscoll equates thuggery with strength. I would consider myself part of the much maligned "hard theological left", but this doesn't mean that my picture of Jesus is soft. One doesn't need to have much character to retaliate and strike back, but it takes a person of real courage to turn the other cheek. Violence is part and parcel of this world, but non-violence ... well that is truly counter-cultural. top

driscoll often refers to Revelation 19
dave what's your view on his views on rev19?

have a listen to this talk here from dg conference 06

i think driscoll helpfully warns against theological reductionism.

he talks about the incarnation and the exaltation of Christ and the danger of reducing him to one or the other.

i think for a fuller picture of what he believes about Jesus - listen to that talk... rather than the quote from relevant.

peaceout top

I like the thrust of this quote, even if I'm not into all of the images myself.

One of Driscoll's strengths as a communicator is using cultural imagery. Here he's using it to create a picture of Jesus as a Lord not to be messed with, and I think it works. top

i dont like the imagery that he puts but i can get what he is saying. this image of jesus this world has that he is mushy and loving and we are just down here and theres just so much love thats round. its rong yes he carried out the biggest act of love by taking our place on the cross,but he is also our judge and will judge us and on the final days his wrath will be poured out on this earth like never b4.
when he was on this earth he didnt come here to bring peace on earth, stop hunger, stop poverty he came here to SEEK and to SAVE he might have fed a cple of ppl or gave money but thats not what he came here for. (matthew 10:34- Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.)and evanglism today have tipped toed round the real jesus so that they dont hurt other ppl feelings cuz they might be up set with the truth. and 1 john 2 and 2 john say if you dont have the correct jesus u dont have the father also. so many ppl are walkin round today who think they have the right jesus when they dont and reality is on judgement day they will cry out lord, lord,.. i have dont this & that in ur name he will say depart from me i never knew you. and thats the sad reality and its only goin 2 get worse i believe. thats why its important to read the bible literally, in truth and not try and play hockey with it then u will hav the correct jesus and will preach the correct jesus and not worry about other ppls feelings if paul worried about ppls feelings and spoke a lovey dovey hippy jesus wuld hav he been thrown in jail, beaten,stoned, bible even says he was smacked in the mouth.we need to do what jesus and paul did and use the law when witnessing its so simple to use 10 commandments and speak of the correct jesus but ppl are afraid of backlash.jesus said in john 7:7 - The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. top

nath...

does your 'enter' key work??? top

we need to do what jesus and paul did and use the law when witnessing its so simple to use 10 commandments and speak of the correct jesus but ppl are afraid of backlash.

what do you mean by using the 10 commandments when witnessing?

i'm not sure if you're familiar with kirk cameron and the way of the master guys - but if that's what you're referring to... (while they may have people become Christian - i'm certain) then i disagree.

i think trying to show 21st century gentiles that they have broken the 10 comms is a bit odd. the 21st c gentile was never under that law... and i think the nature of the new covenant is such that the 21st c Christian isn't under the law of moses either.

we are under the law of Christ. we are to love God and love others.

what do you think? top

Well the first thing I should suggest is that Driscoll's literalistic reading of Revelation demonstrates that his grasp of hermeneutic technique really is very primitive and that his grasp of theological issues isn't much better.

I just listened to the link you sent me and I seriously wonder why it is that anyone really takes the man seriously. Is it merely the novelty of watching a train wreck in progress? top

I just listened to the link you sent me and I seriously wonder why it is that anyone really takes the man seriously.

the same reason they take any other reformed evangelical seriously.

david do you take don carson seriously?
do you take john piper seriously?
do you take joshua harris seriously?
do you take graeme goldsworthy seriously?
do you take david wells seriously?
do you take cj mahaney seriously?
do you take phillip jensen seriously?
do you take peter o'brien seriously?

i don't think that driscoll really thinks that the rev 19 picture of Jesus is necessarily a carbon copy... revelation uses pictures... mark is picking up one of these pictures!!

in all seriousness.. what's your problem with that talk?

did it hit a nerve?
what's your view on Jesus? top

there's been some discussion over at craig's blog as well.

check it out here top

Hey Dave,

I guess I'd have to suggest that I take these figures seriously to differing extents. One figure who isn't in your list, but who I would take seriously, is Archbishop Peter Jensen. I might not necessarily agree with every theological position he holds, but it is clear that his position is well considered and cogently argued.

My general frustration with Driscoll is that he is all tip and no iceberg. He's an interesting novelty and gives considerable shock value, but that's about it. There's simply very little substance in what he has to say.

More specifically with respect to the talk, I'd reaffirm my profound disagreement with his reading of Revelation 19. The passage in question uses metaphor, so to depict that as an authentic picture of Jesus in reality is rather misguided.

Secondly, Driscoll seeks to be unaware of the idea of meekness and strength existing in paradox. To give you an example, I'm a pacifist, but this doesn't mean I don't fight for what I believe. I simply aim to use non-violent means to fight. In fact, it is Jesus' meekness that most draws me to him. Think about his walk to the cross and the fact that he chose to defeating the prevailing powers not by sending down legions of angels, but by dying as a lowly criminal. Any old man can rule with the fist - it takes a Messiah to rule with the reed.

Thirdly, Driscoll caricatures the incarnationationist perspective. Jesus is not God despite the fact that he is human - he is God because he is fully human. He possesses a humanity that the rest of humanity lacks. The path to godliness is through observing and emulating the example of the incarnated Jesus. top

I guess I'd have to suggest that I take these figures seriously to differing extents. One figure who isn't in your list, but who I would take seriously, is Archbishop Peter Jensen. I might not necessarily agree with every theological position he holds, but it is clear that his position is well considered and cogently argued.

i almost wrote him in... but just went for one member of the family. he does speak with great clarity and warm humility.

My general frustration with Driscoll is that he is all tip and no iceberg. He's an interesting novelty and gives considerable shock value, but that's about it. There's simply very little substance in what he has to say.

I disagree. I think you will find more theology in his talks than a typical sydney anglican one. he's good at both speaking about big ideas and also in a simple way. he will use theological nomenclature but always explain what it means. having listened to a significant number of his sermons he isn't just tip.

More specifically with respect to the talk, I'd reaffirm my profound disagreement with his reading of Revelation 19. The passage in question uses metaphor, so to depict that as an authentic picture of Jesus in reality is rather misguided.

i think driscoll would agree that it is a metaphor.


from the rest of what you said... i don't think it's fair to what driscoll argued. he was arguing against the sin of reductionism.

he was saying that the incarnational view isn't enough
and the exalted view isn't enough. we need both. top

"...all tip and no iceberg..."

Driscoll is extremely well read in historical theology. If you listen to more than a few of his sermons, you will pick that up very quickly.

Regarding his take on the Emerging Church, his opinion deserves respect. I don't know if everyone realises, but Driscoll came *out* of the Emerging Church movement. He used to do tours with McLaren and Pagitt etc. So his opinion deserves respect.

I admit it is difficult to make generalisations about a movement as diverse as the EC. It is also difficult to make generalisations about Reformed Evangelicals... top

I hate to agree with his smugness David Castor but:

this quote IS disturbing. top

Hey Dave,

I'm sure your right about Driscoll understanding Revelation as metaphor as apocalyptic imagery. However, if he recognises this he should also realise that one can't cast Jesus in light of this text.

Now, regarding your comment:

from the rest of what you said... i don't think it's fair to what driscoll argued. he was arguing against the sin of reductionism.

he was saying that the incarnational view isn't enough
and the exalted view isn't enough. we need both.

Firstly, I would suggest that Driscoll himself is quite painfully reductionistic at times. One example of this was when he insisted that we *must* refer to God as "Father" in prayer. While I believe that "Father" is a perfectly legitimate title to attribute to God, this argument simply doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. I suspect that the conventional argument is taken from the Lord's Prayer, but it should be recognised that this prayer, while an incredible example addressing God, is proscriptive. For instance, Isaiah refers to God as "Mother" - not one of Driscoll's favourite texts, I'm guessing. Furthermore, in Acts 8, Stephen prays to Jesus.

Concerning Christology, my major beef is that Driscoll's accusations contain so little actual content that it is difficult to work out what his actual concern might be. The comment: "Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes" might get a few cheap laughs, but where are Driscoll's specific examples of this occuring. To the best of my knowledge there have been none. I have read no Emergent literature that depicts Jesus as an effeminate woose - he simply isn't the thug that Driscoll wants him to be. What's more, the Jesus of the Emergent movement is a very dangerous character from my experience. If you can give me one example of a quote from the Emergent movement that Driscoll has used to found his argument, then I will very happily retract my statements.

Just in passing, it might be worth noting that my understanding of Jesus is every bit as grand as the Driscoll understanding. When asked about how I understood Jesus before, I stated that he is "the centrifugal force around which the cosmos spins". Indeed, as a universalist who believes that Jesus will eventually redeem all to himself, an extremely lofty understanding of Jesus is required. top

thanks craig. helpful point about md coming out of emergent background.

I hate to agree with his smugness David Castor but:

david c - this is a moment to remember!! top

dc.

driscoll and reductionism.
i'm sure that he is at times. just like you. just like i am.
i'm not familiar with the isaiah passage you're referring to... what is it?
as far as prayer. driscoll regularly addresses God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in his prayers. almost every sermon i've heard he kicks off with a very trinitarian prayer. sometimes he even just prays to Jesus like stepehn in acts 8.

Christology - i'll keep an eye out for a quote. he obviously wasn't going to use one in the context of the sermon he was giving or a short answer in a magazine... but i'll get back to you...


Just in passing, it might be worth noting that my understanding of Jesus is every bit as grand as the Driscoll understanding. When asked about how I understood Jesus before, I stated that he is "the centrifugal force around which the cosmos spins". Indeed, as a universalist who believes that Jesus will eventually redeem all to himself, an extremely lofty understanding of Jesus is required.

it pains me to read your closing comments. we are no longer talking about the same Jesus. your closing statements are a total denial of the Jesus of the Bible. i don't think claiming that Jesus will save all in the end is an exalting, lofty view of Jesus - but actually making out Jesus and the Apostle Paul to be liars. The Jesus in the scriptures is just. He speaks about hell and punishment more than anyone. And if all are saved His death was in vain.

i don't think we worship the same Jesus. top

Hey David,

Of course it is forgiveable to be reductionistic and Driscoll hasn't committed the unforgiveable sin by suggesting that we *must* refer to God as "Father" in prayer, although it may be that Driscoll in making this comment has actually contradicted his past practice. I'm merely pointing out that in this respect Driscoll is categorically incorrect.

Concerning my universalist stance, I would have hoped that you have seen our differences as different understandings of the same Jesus. Indeed, I hold this understanding not because I believe that Jesus and Paul were liars, but because I honestly believe that they promote a universalist understanding. I mean, why would I worship Jesus if I honestly believed that he was a liar or even mistaken?

I should point out three things. Firstly, I don't believe that my understanding diminishes judgment - merely that judgment will take place in a different way and for a different means than the traditional understanding. Secondly, I still believe in a Hell, albeit not an eternal Hell. Thirdly, universalism doesn't mean that Jesus' death was in vain - it is precisely because Jesus' died that all will eventually be saved. top

dc
i agree with dave diiferent jesus mate, 1 john 2 and 2 john say if you dont have the correct jesus then you dont have the father also. and the mormons and jws claim to hav a different understanding of jesus also when clearly its different

if jesus died so that everyone eventually goes to heaven then whats the purpose of hell??
whats jesus saving people from??
as dave said jesus spoke of hell and judgement more than any1 else

you say that u believe judgement in a different way and means i would like to know your views. top

dave m
this is like steering away from this article lol
but in ur question i believe we need to use the law to define sin as romans 3:19,20 i think it is says the law brings aknowledgement of sin. and last time i checked...
1.do not worship any other gods
2.do not make any idols
3.do not blaspheme
4.keep sabbath
5.honor mother and father
6.do not murder
7.do not commit adultary
8.dont steal
9.dont lie
10.dont covert
are all still bad today if you brake them.
i also believe you are still under those until you are under grace.

also i wouldnt use that on everyone such as primary skool kids on the camps i do at toukley we use the "who will be king 2 ways to live" book and that works perfect for them but sometimes u need to use the law to help due to active minds in questions lol,
but for someone older need more so to define and bring aknowledgement of sin its better to use the law.

although i have used the one u hav done in one of the talkcasts being tied to a train track and gods wrath is the train etc etc and workd well.when i used it again i had to use law cuz they askd questions where it was needed etc etc top

(Hoping this slight tangent doesn't interupt the far more interesting discussion already happening)
I'm working my way through Driscoll's Vintage Jesus series. What fascinates me is that, for all of Driscoll's talk about contextualisation, the 3rd sermon is the gospel so raw it could reach any heart. He presents it almost without any context.

To use a metaphor, the church building, his clothes, the music, and his language were all contextualised - but the content was unchanged. top