Thanks for posting this material and your thoughts. I am not as “in tune” with everything Driscoll teaches or does (like some), but I know he is very popular and it is good to see other perspectives on what he is saying and doing. Appreciate your hard work.

Chad

If I had one recommendation for you about Driscoll, do what I did, and don’t just take others word for it. Go subscribe to that ever-so-popular podcast and listen to a few months worth of sermons. What is in a man’s heart will always come out, over time, in the pulpit. What he values most (whether it’s the gospel or his edgy language), he will certainly save for the pulpit.

That would be the best way to research him, in my opinion.

Grace to you, brother

The question has to be asked of Piper and others who support his continued ministry in the pulpit: Would they use his methods? His language? Why not? If it is acceptable, or even tolerable, then why not?

You see, the same questions can be asked of those who support homosexuality. Why not be involved in it? If it is just preference, then one agrees that there is nothing wrong with it. And, if there is nothing wrong with it, why wouldn’t one, if preference is removed from the equation, not engage in it? What does one find in it that makes it non-preferred, if preference is involved? Until Piper begins to use Driscoll’s antics, and/or language, he must do one of two things. Condemn it as sin, and in the case of Driscoll it is making Christ one with the temple harlot by his use of language and inference, which means he must not have anything to do with him. Or, to embrace it as legitimate, and just a matter of preference, which does not bode well for the future of reformed evangelicalism. Piper, as of now, is unwilling to do either, which throws all into chaos. It is sad to say so, but for some, it brings Piper’s credibility into question, and undermines the message of the Gospel that he so dearly loves and enunciates so passionately well.

The thrust of this on the body of Christ is this: Is there division being caused where there is no need of it?I love this ending to Romans because it leads so naturally into Corinthians where we find self-expressionism condemned by Paul. Paul could have cared less if the Gospel was culturally relevant. He could have cared less if it was contextualized. To him, the only thing that he wanted to know was Christ and him crucified.

So we are left with: why? Why is it that we are willing to compromise the ethics found in Scripture? Is it fear of becoming irrelevant? We do not need to look back very far to see where keeping in step with the secular world leads the church. It eventually will compromise everything. Is it the need to grow?

I posted on the Element Church here in Cheyenne. What is really disturbing is the deception. I see this in the SBC, also. Is it just the “thing” we must do to remain “pop” enough to remain relevant. Or, is relevance not the issue, but numbers?

You asked: Do you have any thoughts on John Piper’s growing intertwining with Acts 29?

To tell you the truth, I really don’t know. I love John Piper, and he is one of my favorites. But I wouldn’t describe him as having a strength in the discernment department He’s approved of and joined with some ministries that I would certainly disagree with. But regarding Acts29, I don’t know much about them. All of my knowledge of Driscoll has come from his sermons; I have not read his books or researched him very much. I’ve only listened to his sermons. Clearly, that is enough.

Wow.

If you didn’t know much about Driscoll, now you do.

My point here is not to defend Mark Driscoll. I just wanted to “take issue” with Rodney’s reference to the “cult” in Missouri and reference to Darrin Patrick. Yes, I know that the word cult was in quotation marks. But I am not so certain that is a helpful term. That’s pretty strong. And I know a fair amount of brothers that ARE attracted to Mark Driscoll and Darrin Patrick because of the Gospel. Now, are there things that ought to cause us caution and drive us to our knees to pray for these guys? Yes. But such a blanket statement in my opinion is very unfair. Also, please at least make some distinction between the Acts29/Driscoll and Emergent.

Here is my recommendation. This movement is so fluid (nailing jell-o to the wall) that we really ought to deal with each case/person individually. Each case will have its own struggles and each case will have its own positives. Outright acceptance or rejection based on association may not be the best idea.

I guess that wasn’t a quick word….

Let’s not invade Nathan’s blog with the madness in Missouri over Acts 29. I think you got the message of ‘cult’. Granted, it isn’t the best term, but conveys my point of people who follow someone rather blindly.

I’ve no doubt you know genuine people in the Acts 29 movement who are attracted to a message, not a man. So do I. I don’t mean to sweepingly condemn everyone outright who associates with Acts 29, Mark Driscoll or Darrin Patrick. I also know others who aren’t so genuine and appear enamored with Driscoll more as a pop star than anything else.

Your term “nailing jello to the wall” is accurate if not overused. Christian theology is far from jello. It is solid, concrete and established. It seems to me any movement stemming from Christianity that looks like jello ought to be rejected, not embraced, until it shows itself to be something different.

I agree that the “jello on the wall” analogy is overused, but seems to be accurate. However, in this case, I think I might have used it inaccurately. And that inaccuracy I think is perhaps the reason why we have so much trouble with the Acts29/Driscoll/Emergent discussion. Without going into a long tangent here is my point. Not all of those in Acts 29/Driscoll are jello on the wall in their theology. In fact I would say that a good majority in Acts 29 are NOT jello on the wall in their theology. We know what they believe. We can be fairly confident that an Acts 29 church plant believes doctrinally what the Acts 29 statement of belief is. That is not jello against the wall. I guess my point is that you cannot completely throw out an Acts 29 church by association just b/c some might be practicing methodology we disagree with. Nor can you accept one just b/c of their association with Acts 29. I would say that the SBC is kind of the same. What do Southern Baptist believe about the doctrines of grace? Can you say that all of them are Calvinistic? Certainly not. Can you say that all of them are of the Arminian persuasion? Nope. Each must be looked at individually b/c of the local atonomy. (Something that Acts 29 also tries to adhere to). Just as it would be unwise to throw out every SBC church because you disagree with a few, it is unwise to lump every Acts 29 church together.

Now as far as Emergent; that is where your jello on the wall theology comes from. But again, we probably ought to be certain that each church is actually Emergent before we reject them. (Although I would say that a decent majority do have shoddy theology).

Sorry again if it seems that I have hijacked the discussion with the difficulties in Missouri. My intent is not necessarily to defend Acts 29, but I really fear that we are in danger of shooting our brothers in the foot. Some may not be brothers, or at least not acting like it and for the sake of the body and truth we ought to address these issues. Many are dear brothers…and we ought to treat them as such.

The “hijack” comment was more a caution to myself than an accusation against you. Sorry. I think your response was good at not hijacking, though I disagree with your post. The “jello” comment IS accurate (IMO) and DOES apply to Acts 29.

We are separate ends of the spectrum; you generally approve of Acts 29 recognizing some are problematic; I generally disapprove of Acts 29 recognizing some are fellow laborers.

I can’t comment further because I (me, not you) would be “hijacking” Nathan’s blog with references to the Missouri conflict.

Suffice it to say, Nathan’s original post of the dichtomy between Driscoll’s heart and tongue is worthy of great reflection on this point.

I want to comment on Mark D . What I’m about to say will not suprise you because you clearlyknow where I’m at on what I’m about to say. I’m certainly not looking to change the direction of your blog on Mark concerning some things he says in the pulpit. This part is for your readers so they can better understand another concern I have with Mark D in his thinking.

First, I’m a staunch Calvinist and a Baptist and some would call me a Landmarker because of some of my views however, I’m clearly in the majority with my views on how historic Calvinistic Baptist view Presbyterian churches. I noticed that the Acts 29 network starts Presbyterian churches. I have a major problem with that. I’m not saying that Presbyterians are not saved. I repeat I’m not saying Presbyterians are not saved ! They are unbaptized therefore I believe as two of their great spokesmen have said : Dabney and Thornwell ” If Presbyterians are not correctly baptized then we are not in the visible church”. These are the words of their own theologians. Nathan knows where I stand on this so he is not suprised with my comment. Nathan does disagree with me. We are both fine with that. So my concerns are two fold with Mark D: His mouth and his view of the visible church and as a matter of fact the Acts 29 group as no statement on the doctrine of the church however, they do have something on salvation. Don’t you find it really odd to be a church planting group but not have a solid position on the church. These are my two concerns and I’m not looking for a fight with my comments however, they have been said openly so I will defend them if I need to. I repeat I love my saved presbyterian brothers . No valid baptism = no church which = no Lord’s Supper.

Good article,
Mark