rhettsmith.com

Thanks man for that post. I read Driscoll's post too and I think I get the frustration he may be feeling at watching churches step away from Biblical truths, but I think you're right about the tone. I felt the same way after reading it. I think when we attack and criticize, we miss out on opportunities to talk and help each other grow or grow ourselves.

Paul

I think Mark will be Mark and sometimes colourful language like that is what pricks a jaded audience to reaction. Jesus spoke strongly against the Pharisees and Sadduccees as a party even though there were godly ones like Gamaliel among their number. When we in Asia read about the Episcopalian and Presbyterian decisions it really saddens and anger our heart and we pray that God will be merciful and the godly amongst them will rise up in courage and wisdom. Just an outside opinion.

I find it interesting that Pastor Driscoll writes a post that a few folks in the TR section of the blogosphere really like, and yet you have a distaste for it. I'm not making a judgment call or anything - I'm just pointing that out. I don't think Pastor Driscoll is picking fights as much as responding to problems he sees in mainline churches, with a special eye towards the Episcopalian and Presbyterian brethren. I think his "ten easy steps" are pretty spot on.

You read what he wrote, right? Then you would have seen that he's not dissing every single mainline church out there, but "the most left-leaning end of mainline Protestant Christianity."

Good Brownie,

I read his article, several times. And I suppose it comes down to how you define "liberal mainline churches" in someone's mind. For example, is the church I work at www.belairpres.org a "liberal mainline church"....for Driscoll I would say yes. One of the reasons I would say yes is because we have women ordained to the ministry of the Word and Sacrament at our church. So though I don't view my own church as liberal, I would have to lump myself in that category under Driscoll's views. We may not fit a lot of the other categories that Driscoll mentions (i.e., the ordination of a gay or lesbian), but I'm sure many of our views on Scripture and theology would differ.

I have always been intrigued by Driscoll, that's why I have his blog on my blog links. But I have felt recently that he is sometimes more "shock" than "substance." Meaning, there is substance in what he says, but the shock takes priority over what he says, and keeps many from even hearing what he has to say.

And like I said above. I'm guilty of picking fights or pointing fingers at others as well. But I've been realizing, all that does is draw the ire of some section of the blogosphere, especially the TR section. If I mention something that I take issue with, with Piper or MacArthur. Wow! Watch the emails fly in. But somehow conversation and a change for understanding is shut off.

I was interested in this exchange below on another site, regarding Driscoll. Months earlier he praises Schuller's church, even though he (Driscoll) was the only speaker there who was probably theologically conservative and not part of the mainline denominations. But then a few months later he is blasting these churches.

http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2006/08/especially-to-spite-i-monk.html

http://theresurgence.com/lunch_with_schullers

Anyways. Thanks for the comment. Looking forward to more chats.

would Jesus really wear purple trunks?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: