The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Mark Driscoll

Theology Biblical Theology
#30

"]Some of you, God hates you. Some of you, God is sick of you. God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you. He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny. He doesn’t think your excuse is meritous [sic]. He doesn’t care if you compare yourself to someone worse than you. He hates them too. God hates, right now, personally, objectively hates some of you.

Alex, you’re going to have to stop posting these nuggets from the collected wit and wisdom of ‘Pastor Mark’ Driscoll (although I’d guess it’s a pretty short book anyhow) before I blow a gasket. :smiley:

It’s not so much his deliberate tone of provocation and aggression which bugs me (although it does), it’s the twisting of scripture, the eisegesis, the 180 degree inversion of Jesus’ teachings, the bizarre calling of white black. And you can just see his adoring hordes of young, macho converts (are women allowed in Mars Hill, or do they have to sit in the basement, or in a separate hut somewhere maybe?) lapping it all up and regurgitating it in their homes and workplaces.

Disposable - welcome to the board, by the way! - it’s nice to be reminded that ‘Pastor Mark’ (am I laying on the sarcasm heavily enough with the quotes, do you think? :smiley: ) doesn’t speak for American men in general. And bless you for your tolerance, you’re a salutory reminder and a correction to me.

I have actually gone back and edited the conclusion to my previous post, as I realise now that it had descended into an uncharitable invective against Calvinism in general, rather than a reasoned response to Driscoll’s theology. I apologise if I have offended any good, honest Calvinists.

I am tempted to delete the whole post, but I think that would be dishonest of me, as I personally find the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of double predestination deeply offensive. And the point about Calvin and Servetus, while doubtless a total yawnfest to most Calvinists, who are probably sick to death of being reminded about it, is that it does illustrate a very serious theological point - which is that we tend to reflect the god we believe in.

Calvin believed in a god who burns unrepentant sinners. So he burnt one. ‘Pastor Mark’ believes in a god who hates people - ‘personally and objectively’. Where, I wonder, will that lead him …?

Still angry, but calming down a bit now.

Shalom

Johnny (beardless, goatee-less, unmoustachioed, and definitely no Esau but with a moderate amount of chest hair :smiley: )

#31

Well, as someone with a full beard (including sideburns), moustache, and chest hair, who punches people with three-foot spikes of steel, and who plays games like this or like this rather than weak, wimpy chess, I’m clearly more masculine and more intelligent than Mark Driscoll.

Therefore I am right. :sunglasses:

(Or, possibly, might doesn’t make right after all…)

#32

Jason, i can only salute your geekdom! :ugeek:
:laughing:

#33

“Some of you, God hates you. Some of you, God is sick of you. God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you. He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny. He doesn’t think your excuse is meritous [sic]. He doesn’t care if you compare yourself to someone worse than you. He hates them too. God hates, right now, personally, objectively hates some of you.”

o.O

Only, in Driscoll’s theology, he cannot know FOR CERTAIN who God hates. For all he knows, this could apply to him. So I do wonder if this is him acting out of his own insecurity or just delusion. I love false dichotomies. :laughing:

Also, hating objectively (which I think God is certainly capable of feeling/doing but doesn’t) is not something God paints for us in Scripture. Quite the contrary. The Atonement itself kinda pimp slaps this mentality in the face.

I keep forgetting people actually think this. This is so going in the show bible. :wink:

–DS

#34

I’m kinda in confusion with the whole hate thing myself. The Bible does state that God hates X, Y, and Z. But Paul also states that everyone screwed up and there is no partiality. So, like, it would make sense for God to hate everyone equally.

#35

What do you think of An article on the Hebrew idiom “I love X but hate Y”?

#36

Heard of it before, actually, but wasn’t sure if it applied to Hebrew, as well.

sigh

Languages, languages…

#37

I just got into it with a friend on facebook about Driscoll. He’s a hebrew roots guy so I just gave him that link about love/hate, hopefully it will help. I normally don’t “debate” on facebook, but he keeps mentioning Driscoll, and this guy disgusts me. I hadn’t really heard much about him before you guys posting on him in here, thanks a lot :laughing:

#38

OK, I can’t believe I’m going to do this, but here goes. I know nothing about Mark Driscoll. What I heard here sounded terrible. When I read the comments on the linked article about his interview on “Unbelievable” I was infuriated with him. I read them to my wife and she said, “He’s a jerk!” With that said I went and listened to the entire 1 hour interview and though I disagree with his position, I thought he actually did pretty well within the context of the discussion. It did seem that the interviewer was trying to only get at controversial issues and that started to irritate Driscoll. He was trying to talk about their book, but the interviewer was trying to pick out nuggets of controversy in it, even if they were minor parts of the book. I have no problem with that, but if you are going to interview in a more adversarial way, then you need to be prepared for the responses. When I read the excerpts it seemed as if Driscoll was being a bully, but its not true, he was trying to be fair and honest about his book and beliefs and he answered many of the questions quite well, though I am hesitant to say that. Again, I am not in agreement with him on many things, but I recommend you listen to the whole interview because you will feel differently that just reading the excerpts. I still think Driscoll said some stupid things and disagree with them, but it wasn’t as bad as it looked in the excerpts.

One thing that irked Driscoll centered around a question about sex. The interviewer said that in his book he counsels couples and says its OK to have anal sex. He then implied that having such a position could be interpreted as giving in to the porn world view of sex by thinking that they need things like that to have a good sex life. He criticized Driscoll by saying that he was giving in to porn in this way. When Driscoll explained it, that wasn’t the case at all. It wasn’t even a main topic of the book but a small section where Driscoll talks about answering hard questions from young couples. His response was, I thought, very wise and very biblical. He wasn’t promoting anal sex, he just said that the bible doesn’t forbid it so he can’t go any further than the bible does in forbidding things. He did say that people need to follow biblical principles where the bible doesn’t speak, and go with their conscience. He said that the sexual activity shouldn’t be enslaving to either partner, demeaning to either parter (if either feels demeaned or enslaved, its wrong), and he said more about it but I can’t remember. Anyhow, it was a minor part and his answer was fair. He wasn’t promoting porn or anal sex. It was in this context that Driscoll began to see the interviewer as being his adversary and it began to irritate him. Anyhow, listen to the whole interview. I’m not saying you’ll end up liking Driscoll, but its not as bad as it sounds.

One more thing, even in the context of marriage and believing that the woman is to submit to the husband, Driscoll said that the woman has the right to not submit to the husband if he is being unloving or a jerk. He said that the husband has to fulfill his role of “loving his wife in a way that Christ loved the church and died for her”. He wasn’t just a “the woman must submit no matter what” kind of guy. At least in this interview he wasn’t. He said that the man isn’t the ultimate authority. He must submit to his pastor and leaders and to the governing authorities and if he is not doing those things or if he is trying to get his wife to submit in a way that harms her or puts her in danger, or against God in some way then she has the duty NOT to submit. He said he is very different with women in his communication than he is with young men.

#39

Chris,
That’s pretty much exactly what I thought when I listened to it. :sunglasses:

Sonia

#40

Are you guys just bored? Why do we care about Mark Driscoll?

#41

Thanks for sharing bro :slight_smile: I thought the guy was a jerkface when I first heard that ‘God hates you’ quote, but when we really reflect about, we have to remember that he’s a guy who has his good points and his bad points, like anyone else, and though some of what he may say if off-kilter, that doesn’t mean everything he has to say is.
This is true of Piper, MacArthur (whom I pretty much hated for years, for some personal reasons, but God has helped get over that), and any other preacher or theologian out there who really gets us wound up.
And whatever the case, if we believe that God loves them, shouldn’t we also? :slight_smile:

Blessings to you bro :slight_smile:

Matt

#42

i just thought it was funny, that anyone that disagreed with him was not manly!
it takes a man to be a girl, is my retort! :laughing:

but more seriously, i care that he believes he’s getting “results”, when all he’s doing really is indoctrinating many, many people with this indefensible theology.

he may have some good points, but seriously…

#43

Y’all have put a grin on my face and warmed my heart this morning with this thread; great wit and wisdom abounding here.

Driscoll reminds me of a schoolyard bully in his worst moments captured in video and print. That being said, I was bullied all through school; it wasn’t until I got into my 20’s that I realized I could tolerate a lot more physical and emotional pain than I thought when I was younger. So, it’s a challenge for me these days to avoid reacting to those I perceive as being a bully with extreme nastiness, either physical or verbal.

Arrogant certitude. I can’t stand it. My ideal is for me to be open, honest, and kind in discussions. The danged problem is that I’m filled with arrogant certitude on a variety of subjects, and when it hits me, I may as well be saying “Thus sayeth the LORD!!!”; my actions certainly give off that feel when I step into my certitude.

One insidious little thing I’ve always been fond of saying to the folks that want to tell me I’m going to hell for this or that is, “Well, I’ll be sure to save you a seat next to me!” Now that my heart and mind are moving to the realm of Universalism, I’m going to have to re-think some things. Either my attitudes towards Universalism or my attitudes towards those with whom I disagree is going to have to change! :laughing: :wink:

Thanks to all of you for putting a good grin on my face today. I love it when I get forced to re-think my pre-conceived notions and attitudes (especially when it’s in a way that makes me laugh at myself!)

#44

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Forgive me for chaining these together to form a pattern and maybe seeming to do violence to the text. But when I think of these passages together, it seems to me that in this new society we’re given by the Lord, we’re provided mothers, brothers, and sisters, but intentionally not fathers. We are to have one Father.

The implication to me is that all these “father figures” are not provided to us by the Lord, but are usurpers. Instead, as men, we have been provided to the Body as brothers, not fathers.

Driscoll is the symptom (and result) of an agreement between the Dominator and the Dominated.

#45

Apparently, he thinks God is Chuck Norris? :laughing:

#46

Do our brothers across the pond listen to Paul Anderson Walsh at thegraceproject.com in London. You really should, and get his name out. Simply amazing teacher…and at least teeters on the brink of UR.

#47

I posted this on my blog a while back. John Stackhouse, a well-known theologian, takes some strong issue with Mark’s exegesis. It’s pretty eye-opening.

splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … scoll.html

–Nick

#48

OK Nick, I’m no fan of Driscoll but to be fair to him, the critical review you have posted was written 18 months ago. I’m not sure what the point is in digging that up again now.

#49

I just found the article itself pretty recently. It eluded me for roughly that long, and I’ve been a fan of Stackhouse for years. I think it’s nice to have a respectful blog post on the topic. And I believe Mark is still using this type of exegesis, so I would consider it very relevant.

–Nick