Comments on adrianwarnock.com: DG06 - When Josh Harris Was Glad He Wasn't Mark Dr...

Piper and Driscoll e-mail exchangeTake the time to...

2009-11-26T11:47:30.148Z

Piper and Driscoll e-mail exchange

Take the time to link to the above. It is an exchange between John and Mark that hopefully will begin to put this matter to rest!

I liken this to a fledgling author receiving a critique from the likes of Tolkien. It is no insult to have the counsel of a wise and respected mentor poured into your life. Mark Driscoll received this humbly and thankfully as any true believer should receive admonition. My respect for both of these men has grown deeply.

I was there to hear Piper's comment after Driscoll...

2009-11-26T11:47:28.355Z

I was there to hear Piper's comment after Driscoll left. I took it as wise advice to everyone in attendance (including many pastors and elders), not as a rebuke directed only at Driscoll. If Piper had not intended it for everyone, I do not think he would have said it publicly.

Peter,One final note of the "theology of gender" P...

2009-11-26T11:47:27.757Z

Peter,

One final note of the "theology of gender" Piper and the CMBW people are not the only ones who make gender a litmus test. I was told by one of our mutual friends (I will not name her) that Mars Hill Graduate School, also in Seattle (Bothel to be precise) makes it a requirement that their professors be egalitarians. I would assume that this is also the rule at Fuller even though they might not be up front about it. So this theology of gender cuts both ways.

I just listened to a really good sermon by Driscoll
Resisting Idols like Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:1-14)
Preached 6.18.2006. The man can preach.

So I assume that Mars Hill Graduate School is not ...

2009-11-26T11:47:27.931Z

So I assume that Mars Hill Graduate School is not related to Driscoll's Mars Hill Church? So who copied the name from who? Or is Mars Hill actually the name of a suburb of Seattle, and not just the confusing KJV footnote version (is it actually in the text of any translation?) of a biblical name?

I am glad that someone is agreeing with me that "t...

2009-11-26T11:47:27.206Z

I am glad that someone is agreeing with me that "the CBMW folks have developed a theology of gender", including a concept of "male representation". As far as I can tell this theology is completely novel. It is also heretical, including in a formal sense, in apparently denying that Jesus became fully human by insisting that he took on male humanity only, which also implies that he was unable to save women. Yes, by claiming that it is theologically wrong to translate 1 Timothy 2:5 with "one mediator between God and human beings" and "the human being Christ Jesus", but that male specific words must be used here (despite the Greek being anthropos), they are insisting that Christ took on male humanity only and saved male human beings only.

In my opinion this all started with certain people reading translations like RSV in the 1960's and 1970's and misunderstanding "man" and "he" as always gender specific. Rather than consider whether the RSV translators actually intended "man" or "he" to be gender specific in many of those verses, they developed a theology to explain the gender specificity. Then, when these people learned a little Greek, they even read their gender specific understandings back into Greek, in trying to claim that all earlier Greek scholarship and lexicons were wrong and that anthropos has some kind of gender specific meaning.

The really sad thing is that so many Christian leaders, even people who really should have known better like J.I. Packer, have bought into this theological nonsense. But I'm sure you won't find a trace of this in the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones. And that's a challenge to anyone reading this to find examples where any of them spoke of males representing females or of Christ taking on only male humanity.

lrbfan81,I think it has to do with tact. If you sa...

2009-11-26T11:47:26.681Z

lrbfan81,

I think it has to do with tact. If you say, "But Driscoll had no tact" I might agree, but it is Piper who invited him, remember. His comments virtually discredited the point of Driscoll's talk (contextualization). Not only that, Driscoll wasn't even there. Its kind of cheap.

I am more interested in how Piper apparently agree...

2009-11-26T11:47:26.587Z

I am more interested in how Piper apparently agreed with Driscoll's list and further defined these points as "the non-negotiables of the faith". I have commented further on this, and about the inclusion of "male and female roles", on my own blog.

Clay, thanks for your comment about Driscoll's apparent "sanctification of 1950's working class values". This ties up nicely with what I wrote in my new post about how Piper's teaching is based so strongly on the values of his only 1950's upbringing, in his case in South Carolina. So perhaps we should see the differences between Driscoll and Piper as reflecting the distance between Southern Baptist Greenville and working class Seattle, but their agreement as reflecting their common concern to turn the clock back 50 years to their probably imaginary idyllic childhood.

Hi Peter,We meet again. I was also surprised to fi...

2009-11-26T11:47:26.805Z

Hi Peter,

We meet again. I was also surprised to find gender roles on the list of non-negotiables. But I can see the reasoning behind it, the CBMW folks have developed a theology of gender and it is a constant theme in Driscoll's preaching.

Seattle is indeed a clone of San Francisco when it comes to gender issues. People from 1950s South Carolina would find living in Seattle like visiting a different galaxy.

I am glad to hear that someone else agrees that Driscoll and his older friends are indeed not radicals. I was a disciple of Francis Schaeffer who was a radical indeed. I find Schaeffer's understanding of the cultural mandate in Jesus teaching hard, or perhaps impossible to reconcile with Driscoll's overwhelming preoccupation with the health and welfare of the american family. Jesus didn't die to save your family.

Driscoll makes his comments in public, so why is i...

2009-11-26T11:47:26.460Z

Driscoll makes his comments in public, so why is it wrong for Piper to critique him in public?

OK. I have kept my mouth shut about Driscoll becau...

2009-11-26T11:47:25.491Z

OK. I have kept my mouth shut about Driscoll because I know his in-laws from way back. His father in-law was my mentor sort of against my will in my late teens and early 20s. I have been hearing about Driscoll since he was a junior at WSU. I haven't had much direct contact with him but I have listened to his radio programs and sermons on and off for a decade or so.

I have little to say about what is in Driscoll's left hand but his right hand has been evolving so fast it is hard to keep up with. When I first heard him on "street talk" in the early 90s I thought he was promoting some sort of fertility cult, I gave it a name "phalocentric fundamentalism". Some of his weird views on sex within marriage were not original with him I had heard the same thing in the 70's from Earl Radmacher. Anyway, that is old news now. That was the 90s.

The more recent stuff is much more mainstream, he reminds me a little of Wayne Taylor at Calvary Fellowship (North Seattle). If I had to identify the most salient feature of Driscoll's right hand I would call it a sanctification of 1950's working class values, sort of a return to Ozzie and Harriet. This may sound radical to people born after 1980 but it doesn't sound radical to people who rejected all that in the 60s.

I can see how Driscoll would appeal to rootless vagabonds from the generation that came after the great upheaval of the 60's and 70's but his message really sounds to me like a biblical defense of something my generation rejected and I for one still reject it.

I will keep listening to Driscoll once a month to keep up with what he is doing since Mars Hill is doing good things. Like Piper I can ignore Driscolls right hand. But I ignore it for totally different reasons than Piper.

Okay, let me add my agreement. I wasn't there, so...

2009-11-26T11:47:25.268Z

Okay, let me add my agreement. I wasn't there, so it's always dangerous to comment, but I think it was inappropriate of Piper to criticise Driscoll 1) publicly and 2) when he wasn't there.

I would also ask (if someone can help me) what the criticism meant? Are we to have no personality when we preach?

I agree with Michael; I was there, and there seeme...

2009-11-26T11:47:24.803Z

I agree with Michael; I was there, and there seemed to me to be a definite feeling that, once Driscoll left, then the "grown ups" could reclaim the stage. Then came wisecracks about Driscoll's wardrobe and then Piper's criticism.

If Piper felt he had the place and cause to rebuke Driscoll, it should've been done in private, or at least to his face.

Making this kind of criticism in a public forum is...

2009-11-26T11:47:23.248Z

Making this kind of criticism in a public forum is worthy of as much criticism as Driscoll's cleverness. Piper's intensity has the same effect. These conferences sometimes amaze me with these little dramas.

o for more wise elders who would lovingly say such...

2009-11-26T11:47:23.210Z

o for more wise elders who would lovingly say such hard words to kids like me.

John Piper graciously mentioned at the last sessio...

2006-10-03T00:01:00.000+01:00

John Piper graciously mentioned at the last session (I believe) that he falls into the same thing he admonished Mark Driscoll about. He admitted that someone came up to him and pointed out his own hypocrisy. How cool is that!?!