★ Accusations of Heresy
Sep 10th, 2008 by Ben
To be honest, Driscoll bores me on a not infrequent basis. I got a few minutes into his explanation of why Mars Hill church simulcasts his sermons in HD to its various campuses (which I thought would be quite interesting) and almost fell asleep. Watch it and tell me I’m wrong. (It weighs in at 36 minutes).
I have to confess, despite all the hype, I haven’t yet bothered to read all 18 points that Driscoll charged us with at the Ministry Training and Development days last week.
There’s been lots of comment, but it’s mostly been about how great a challenge it all was, with Driscoll turning over the cart and getting us to reflect on our passivity with respect to evangelism. This was good stuff.
Then I read yesterday’s article by Sandy Grant. He opens by admitting he was skewered by point one (and others, I imagine) and then goes on the offensive, taking umbrage at Driscoll’s apparent accusation that we don’t actually understand the Trinity in Sydney. I’ll let you read the article, but that’s a very serious accusation.
It brings us back again to what I think is Driscoll’s weak suit: exegesis. He tells us how proud he is of us: the Bible Guys. And he’s certainly Reformed and orthodox in his theology, but is he a Bible Guy?
I’ve been listening to his series on Spiritual Warfare, and it’s pretty out there. He talks a lot (a lot lot), but there isn’t much Bible thus far, and that’s something we saw at Engage as well. He started preaching a great sermon on John 4 – the woman at the well – but left the passage behind after about 20 minutes and never came back.
Someone asked him (via sms) where from the Bible he gets the idea that men should move out of home before they get married, i.e. young, as part of growing up. He made a great joke, by sighing, opening his Bible, and saying, “Page 2.”
But Gen 2 tells us that “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (v. 24) It actually seems to imply that the appropriate point at which a man should leave his family home is as he gets married, not some years before. Now there are other arguments about marriage age etc, but he didn’t go into any of these, he just pointed at Genesis 2:24 and acted as though that was case closed.
And I think it was obvious to many there that you could have driven a truck through the gap in his reasoning. To be fair, he was tired and speaking essentially extemporaneously. But you do see this kind of thing in his regular sermons, from my experience.
Now he’s accused us of not understanding the Holy Spirit and not believing in the Trinity. As Sandy says, maybe this was hyperbolic and meant for a laff, but let’s not stuff around with the Trinity, okay?
This is going to cause problems, because when the afterglow has worn off, and that initial burst of excitement and encouragement about church planting and evangelism fades a little, we’re going to run home to what we know. And that’s our greatest strength and greatest weakness: criticism.
The temptation will come to black-and-white this whole thing and some will see Driscoll’s sometimes ordinary exegesis as grounds for rejecting his whole agenda (and there’s some justification for this way of thinking). Others will want to see past it and continue to align themselves more and more with the Acts 29 way of thinking and perhaps be tempted to see the other group as the old-school bigots we’re all supposed to be already.
As Sandy deftly does, I hope we can forge a path between the extremes, that appreciates Mark Driscoll for what he’s said to us in love about how we can do a better job of reaching out (and acting on what he’s said), and also continuing to think critically about how he gets to where he does sometimes (and stopping short of where he errs).
[...] Accusations of Heresy [...]
You’ve made more sense in this post than in the 100+ Driscoll posts (for and against) I’ve read in the last few weeks.
“But is he a Bible Guy?” Brilliant question.
Bible Guy? Just wait until his upcoming Song of Solomon series which he will be presenting live onstage in Seattle starting Sept. 21.
Hi Ted. Does that mean he is a Bible Guy or isn’t?
Hi Ben,
interesting post. Found your blog via your post on the Sola panel.
I have also listened to Driscoll’s spiritual warfare sermons. They are not intended to be primarily exegetical. They are very much “how to” sermons. At least that is my recollection.
I am pretty sure they’re also Biblical. Ephesians 6:10 – onwards, 1 Peter 5:8-11, James 4 all exhort Christians to resist and beware the devil and his schemes. The ministry of Jesus is filled with exorcisms and the notable encounter between Jesus and Satan documented in Luke 4, in which Jesus resists the devil by quoting the Scriptures.
Driscoll’s spiritual warfare series may be out there. But so are the accounts of Jesus and the disciples casting demons out of people in the Gospels and Acts.
Do you think Satan has changed? Or that demons have changed? Or has the church’s perception of their activity changed?
I got a few minutes into his explanation of why Mars Hill church simulcasts his sermons in HD to its various campuses (which I thought would be quite interesting) and almost fell asleep. Watch it and tell me I’m wrong. (It weighs in at 36 minutes).
i don’t think i can tell you that you’re wrong… i wasn’t there… so i’m not sure if you fell asleep or not!!
but – i found the stuff he talked about in the videology talk interesting and intriguing.
Hi Ben
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I too have been listening to the spioritual warfare stuff and have heard nothing like before come out of reformed pulpits. Its arguable if it really is reformed but I think we should hold off on that until we have really heard and taken on board his missiological, cultural and leadership concerns.
I think one of the problems he faces with a Sydney audience is that he tends to play fast and loose with the text a bit. He is a bible guy, but his not the kinda bible guy we are taught to be. He said at Moore that he envies our college and would welcome a campus being established in seatlle immediately.
he needs more careful biblical exegesis, we need more missiological exegesis. and we can learn from one another.
re the heresy accusation – this has the potential to be blown out of all proportion and risks distracting from some serious relfection that is needed in our leadership and missional context.
my take is that he is using hyperbole and all the rhetorical flourishes that Phillip Jensen is readily forgiven of to say two things
1. we are in danger of exalting correct biblical exegesis in a way that potentially ignores passionate obedience to God
2. we have an unnecessary or even unhealthy suspicion of spooky stuff (too modernist?)
That is worth thinking about – not getting insulted over.
His polemical thrusts and sloppy remarks could distract us from the weightier things of hearing behind the rhetoric to his genuine concerns – as you said – from a loving friend. As no doubt he would want to listen to ours.
He has a good track record of repenting when he gets things wrong – the question is do we?
Look forward to more on your blog
I have a number of areas of concern regarding MD – but this is the big one for me. I have listened to lots of sermons and found many times where I thought the Bible was not exegeted properly – or appeared to be misused to make a point. And I think that is dangerous. And its so encouraging to see some discerning and thinking going on in this post. Because I think this is a dangerous flaw. A leader must know how to correctly handle the word of God.
It is a big and serious responsibility to get up and preach from God’s word. While not suggesting we not take valid criticism to heart wherever we find it – I’m not sure I like the approach of at the same time minimising concerns of exegesis in order to do so.
And on a lighter note – it was nice to hear that someone sometimes finds Mark boring! I’m not the only one! : )
[...] Anglican blogger Ben Bathgates asks: is Driscoll a Bible Guy? Posted by: John H @ 4:04 am | Trackback | [...]
Yeah, fan of Driscoll here.
The accusation of “not understanding the Trinity” is one of the more aggressive (and frankly under-protested) accusations of continualists against cessationists — that is, from charismatics to everyone else. I wouldn’t let it get you too bent out of shape.
As to Pastor Mark’s interest and participation in exegesis, I have two thoughts to offer on the subject for stirring up the pot. The first is this: not all exegesis is word-by-word, verse-by-verse exegesis. That is: it’s whooly-fair to be an exegete who is taking the text more broadly and drawing out the conclusions of the narrative — which, I think, is one approach which Pastor Mark takes.
The second is this: without saying, “Mark Driscoll is just like Charles Spurgeon”, Spurgeon is seen as a historically-significant expositor of Scripture. Yet Spurgeon’s technique was not a wholly-narrative-based approach to bringing forth the truths in Scripture. Most people love Spurgeon because his sermons are biblically-informed to what I would call an unattainable degree for most preachers — but often he starts at a specific text and uses it only insofar as it is an exemplar of some larger biblical truth.
Pastor Driscoll emulates this -technique-, because often he is an -expositor- and not an -exegete-. He uses rudimentary -exegesis- and tries to drive home -systematic- points which necessarily drive away from any starting text to broader issues.
At least, that’s what it looks like from my armchair in my bathrobe. For me, I could use less scatology when I listen to preaching and fewer references to pop culture.
Your mileage may vary. Thanks for the soap box.
Wow – a lot of big words here. Glad I’m a LayGuy.
That being said, I am blown away by the criticism Driscoll gets from within the Church. Your comments on how boring the videology section are way out of line. Tell me if you understand the intricacies of pastoring a multi-campus Church with thousands of attendees and coping a barrage of questions as to why you don’t rock up and preach live anymore? Oh that’s right, you’re just in 3rd year of training and probably have no idea as to what he is talking about. Hope you enjoyed your nap.
In regards to the teaching on spiritual warfare, this is where so called “college” educations gets my goat. This series was delivered to a bunch of counselors on a front line battle with people going through all kinds spiritual attack. It’s biblical practical wisdom Driscoll was imparting based on first hand experience. Your type would rather get a person going through crap in their life hand in a doctrinal statement outlining the exegetical reasoning behind their affliction and then you stand back and critic even that – pointing out the flaws.
Driscoll’s first point “The Bible guys are not the missional guys, which leads to proud irrelevance” hit’s the nail right on the head with people like you who would rather hide behind your theology.
I’m not attacking you man – I’ve had enough of this already. But what irks me is when people slander leaders who are working their butts to make a change in the world – when they themselves have no idea as to the daily realities these leaders face.
I’m not sure if I’m stating the obvious, but it’s hard to see how ‘people like you who would rather hide behind your theology’ (LayGuy’s post #11) isn’t a personal attack. I do agree that we need more of an appreciation of Driscoll’s situation, but then again, this is precisely what many people are saying about his assessment of Sydney…
Taking the personal out of it, the deeper question is still valid – if you’re not doing exegesis from the pulpit, what are you doing in it? It’s helpful here to listen to Driscoll – exegesis should necessarily lead to exposition (though I’m not sure how you can be an expositor without being an exegete Frank), systematics and apologetics. And if this move isn’t made it will lead to irrelevance, though whether proud or not, only the Lord who searches the heart knows. This should be an encouragement from a brother to work very hard at all of these things, in order to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). However, if it is not foundationally exegetical, where does the authority lie? In someone’s systematic construct? In their perceptions of society? These things are useful tools, but they aren’t where God has promised to reveal himself. That doesn’t mean that the authority is in the exegesis, or even that we’re going to get the exegesis right, but it does demonstrate the strongest reliance on where the true revelation lies.
We need to heed Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharises about searching the Scriptures and missing the one that they bear witness to (John 5:39). We can’t let the art and science of exegesis of the bible move us away from its subject. But then, good exegesis and exposition doesn’t – it glorifies Jesus and encourages others to do so in their lives.
dmic – you say I lay a personal attack. What about the author when he says “And I think it was obvious to many there that you could have driven a truck through the gap in his reasoning.”
I was just responding to the tone of this post. Trust me, I love it when you “theological bigwigs”
explain the depths of scripture. But what bugs me is when you guys are so damn negative about someone doing a great job.
There are plenty of fish out there that deserve to be nitpicked – shall I drop names like Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen & Brian McLaren? Oops, there I did it again – I promised I wouldn’t bag these guys out again…
Peace brother!
LayGuy – you talk of Peace, but your words are full of scorn, ridicule and name-calling.
There is a difference between thoughtful criticism, which should be useful both to Mark and those who are listening to Mark, and being “so damn negative”.
In your world – is any criticism of Mark, no matter how careful, allowed?
In this case – I think the criticism is a valid one. But if you disagree (and by all means – you are free to, and may even be right to) – instead of launching a personal attack, why not point out that Mark’s exegesis of Gen 2 was tight and right, and show how the original post’s criticism was wrong.
Mike
As Mike said, there’s a difference between critiquing someone’s logic and making broadbrush statements about someone’s character. And even if there wasn’t, I think that Jesus said something about not repaying kind for kind…
As for Hinn, Osteen & McLaren, I agree that they need to be examined. But because they tend to be so obviously on a different wavelength, and thus don’t pose a great danger. Those who are closer in thought, though perhaps starting to move in other directions are a different story, both because of the subtly of difference and the long term nature of the movement. Please don’t hear me wrong – I’m not saying that Driscoll is wrong or even a danger, but as with anyone, even those within our ‘tribe’, all things must be weighed up against the only true authority. Mind you, that authority is not how well they are or aren’t doing in spreading the gospel.
Also, I can’t speak for all, but I hope that the motivation behind evaluating others thoughts is not just for the sake of being right. It’s love. Because we love God, we want to see his name honoured in truth. Because we love his people, we want to see them mature in the right knowledge of God. Because we love the lost, we want to present the gospel to them, truthfully and relevantly. And without looking at the way others do things, both the good and the bad, how will we ourselves grow? And if we don’t grow, what about those we love? Isn’t that the place of criticism – so we can faithfully serve those God has given us to minister to? This is where the inital post ends up as well.
“As for Hinn, Osteen & McLaren, I agree that they need to be examined. But because they tend to be so obviously on a different wavelength, and thus don’t pose a great danger.”
What a sad comment. Here we have thousands upon thousands of souls listening to these people and being deceived and you think they don’t pose a great danger? Really blows my mind that you would say something like that.
I didn’t express myself very clearly – my apologies. My intention was not to minimise or dismiss the danger of these men or their thought on those who follow them. I share your grief concerning their influence. Rather, it was purely to point out that often the greatest dangers aren’t the obvious ones. Again, I’m not saying that Driscoll is a danger, but unless we, in conversation with each other, examine their thought, how do we know? And what about the next ‘great’ preacher who is similar to Driscoll but relies on the bible less? How will those we minister to know unless they are also taught to examine all people and teaching in the light of scripture?
I know that testing is part of the equation. Surely, scripture-grounded debate and careful examination of any teaching IS a healthy, nay vital part of holding onto the gospel truth.
Thinking about this has led to wonder:
Are we too good at “testing everything” and not at the “holding onto the good?”
I know that I am sometimes.
In short, I feel we should test away, but if there’s truth in what Driscoll teaches, truth that comes from God and at its heart proclaims Christ as Lord. If such truth is there, then we’d better act on that truth with the same intensity as we critique. Otherwise, what good fruit will come out of all this? It will end, not with godly lives, but with a sense in our own minds of “Cool, at least I know what’s what.”
I hope you are all well.
Hi Hugh
I wonder if “test everything” and “holding onto what is good” is a false dichotomy.
Surely, for every teacher, we can “test everything” (in terms of – always be questioning in a helpful, discerning way), and “hold onto what is good”. So we can take someone like Mark, recognise the things we may be cautious about, and hold onto the great teaching that he gives.
Surely this should apply to every teacher we have, no matter if they are “friend” or “foe”.
That’s exactly how we work out what the “good” things are we can hold on to – by testing.
Of course – I’m suggesting this should be done in a relationship of christian brotherhood and love. Not in a mean spirited way to polarise people and pull down good teachers.
It’s just a matter of recognising that “good” and “not so good” comes out of every preacher – and it’s worth being aware of this. And avoiding a polarised “we love him” or “we hate him” approach. Criticism doesn’t equal hate – it should be equated to love.
Mike
Thanks Mike
Of course, you’re right. But maybe in being right you missed the second part of what I said?
Maybe not.
Come back at me.
-H
yeah, sorry, I didn’t acknowledge your second half.
Yes yes and yes – my heartiest endorsement, we need to listen very carefully, learn first, critique later. Without a doubt.
I was just pushing back on the culture we seem to have of polarising positions WRT ministers/preachers etc. Either you love them – or hate them. And certainly, you weren’t arguing for this in any way shape or form.
I would suggest the problem may not be that people are too good at testing everything, and not good enough at listen, but that we seem to do either one or the other. We either love the person, listen to everything and accept everything they say without proper critique (and go nuts when people say otherwise), or we hate the person, hate everything they say, and hate those who like them.
Mike
Yeah.
Speaking for myself again, I know that I can get stuck when it comes to finding the said balance in practice. And I suspect this is true of us all at some time or another.
-H
I thought this post was over!
Hey Ben – I was out of the country for the last month, so I was a late-comer.
Yep – I tend to polarise to.
Ben – never say die! At least it’s good for your page-count!