31st Mar 2007
Mark Driscoll Doesn’t Speak For Me
I picked up a copy of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives at the library recently. It’s one of those point/counterpoint books, in which five church leaders (Mark Driscoll, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward) each write a chapter on what they believe about the church’s role, and the other four authors all make a short response/rebuttal.
The first chapter, called “The Emerging Church and Biblicist Theology”, is by Seattle’s own Mark Driscoll – pastor of the Calvinist hipster megachurch Mars Hill Church, blogger at TheResurgence, and all-around bad-boy of the conservative evangelical subculture (Donald Miller’s famously referred to him in Blue Like Jazz as “Mark the cussing pastor”). Mark’s main objective in his chapter, as evidenced by the 700 (!) Scripture verses he references in the endnotes, is “to defend the traditional Protestant doctrines of scriptural authority, the Trinitarian nature of God, and the substitutionary atonement” (p.16, from the introduction by Robert Webber).
Mark represents a passionate adherence to the particulars of a Reformed evangelical theology, and in that sense, is not typically emerging. He is a theological traditionalist leading a cutting-edge church that ministers primarily to the new emerging generation. (ibid.)
I think that his perspective is valid, and I understand the concern of [some] theological “conservatives” that some doctrinal essentials are being overlooked or ignored [by some] in the “emerging conversation”. With that said, however, I think that Mark setting himself up as the arbiter of truth is a bit disingenuous. “This chapter is my attempt to address three of the hottest theological issues in our day and to correct emerging error with biblical orthodoxy” (p.21). I get the impression that he thinks that he’s the only one that does theology; that if everyone else would just read the Bible and take it seriously, they would come to the same conclusions that he has.
The following lengthy quote is from pages 34-35. It’s the climax of his chapter, in which he defines and defends his position on hell:
The following Old Testament truths about hell are worthy of note:
- Hell is unending, conscious, loathsome torment.159
- Heaven and hell will have people in them forever.160
Also, Jesus had much to say about hell, including the following:
- The pain in hell will be excruciating, causing “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”161
- The torture in hell comes from Jesus.162
- Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell.163
- The physical pain of hell is like being burned in a fire.164
- Unrepentant sinners will be thrown into a fiery hell.165
- Hypocrites will be butchered and spend eternity in pain.166
- God will send unbelievers to the same fate as Satan and demons.167
- Jesus said the eternal torment of Isaiah 66:22-24 is literally coming.168
- The punishment of hell is like a painful beating.169
- Hell is a place of unending torment.170
Lastly, the apostles also speak of hell in the following terms:
- Jesus will repay unrepentant sinners with everlasting destruction.171
- Jesus today holds the unrighteous in punishment.172
- Jesus will rule over hell as well as heaven.173
- Hell is like spending eternity in a fiery lake of burning sulfur.174
Footnotes:
159 Is 66.22-24
160 Dn 12.1-2
161 Mt 8.11-12; 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 24.50-51; 25.30; Lk 13.27-28
162 Mt 8.29; Mk 1.24; 5.7
163 Mt 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 25.30
164 Mt 13.49-50; 18.8-9; 25.41; Mk 9.43-48; Lk 16.19-31
165 Mt 18.8-9; Mk 9.43-48
166 Mt 24.50-51
167 Mt 25.41
168 Mk 9.43-48
169 Lk 12.46-48
170 Lk 16.19-31
171 2Th 1.6-9
172 2Pt 2.9
173 Rv 14.9-11
174 Rv 19.20; 20.10-15; 21.8
Honestly, this section has me fuming. To my reading, Mark’s tone seems to be giddy to “correct [this] emerging error”. I can understand and respect that people hold to the traditional doctrine of hell as “eternal, conscious torment”, but I just can’t deal with the smugness, superiority and presumption that he exudes here.
Additionally, I think that his over-eagerness to stand up for orthodoxy causes him to overstate his arguments. I didn’t have the time or energy to investigate all the verses he cited, but two of the claims struck me as preposterous, if not disgusting – and here I find his exegesis dubious at best:
- The torture in hell comes from Jesus
Mt 8.29 – “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”
Mk 1.24 – “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God!”
Mk 5.7 – He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!”
So, some demons ask Jesus not to torture them, and Mark sees this as saying that Jesus does torture? That’s just wrong – not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, the passages in question are about demons, not people. - Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell
Mt 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 25.30 – all variations on The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Quite simply, these verses do not say what Driscoll says they say.
I’m done. If anyone wants to evaluate the rest of his claims, that’s fine; I think I’m going to wash my hands of this whole thing. It’s neither useful nor helpful in living an authentic, spiritual life – rather, it seems to be only concerned with defining the boundary markers of acceptable belief, in order to decide who’s in and who’s out. I’m tired of it.
Somehow, the verses about the demons begging Jesus not to torture them reminds me of the time my best friend’s firstborn got into trouble at Wal-Mart, and – hoping he wouldn’t find out right then whether Dad was a spanker or not – hollered out, “Daddy! Don’t hit me again! Please don’t hit me again!”
And the same guy blames women for their husband’s infidelity.
I agree with your feeling that this needed to be said and I further concur with you that it is a waste of time to spend to much energy focusing on Christians who preach and teach self serving doctrine. I think a Biblical doctrine that explains how a human finds them self in hell would be when we choose to disregard the reality of God in our world (Rom. 1:18) and the reality that it is our choice to not believe in Jesus Christ that sends us to hell, God wishes that none should perish (2 Pet. 3:9). Thanks for your passion.
I know that Driscoll gets thrown into the emerging argument alot. I am attempting to get back into the SBC and many crituqes of emerging theories all bring up Driscoll. But I really can’t figure out why he is looped in with the emerging church. I know he had an affliation with Emergent Village at one point in time, but I can’t see why he still gets lumped in with the bunch. I guess if you are on the outside he looks like he is a part of it, but I could make a list of multiple reasons why I wouldn’t consider him a part of the EC.
Whenever people bring up Driscoll to me, I make sure to toe the line and distance myself from him.
I have been wanting to pick up this book, and I still want to, but this does seems like a wasted section.
Thanks for the review
I read the book starting with Karen Ward’s chapter first and was immediately ticked off by Driscoll’s response to Ward. It went nowhere but downhill after that. I can’t even begin to understand why he was invited to be part of the conversation in that book. Especially since he just espouses good old evangelical/reformed propositional theology.
I just read in NT Wright’s New Testament and the People of God this statement about methodology in determining worldview. I think that it’s illustrative (by contrast) of my problems with Mark’s approach.
Actually, the Bible doesn’t describe hell as a place of torture, but as a place of torment. It is a common misperception.
anyone who thinks they can go to the scriptures and prooftext anymore just hasn’t been paying attention for the past 20 or 30 years. And I agree with you, it’s tiring and not the least bit “emergent” or even intelligent.
But the least he could do, if he’s going to chop verses out of context and divest them of all cultural and metaphorical meaning, is read them and make sure they say literally is what he’s claiming they say. What else does a literalist have but the plain meaning of the text? If he can’t get that right, then I think we have every reason to believe he’s reading into the text what he wants to see.
Good summary Daniel; simply put, the vast majority of verses which are seemingly about Hell or eternal conscious torment are in fact related to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the horrors surrounding the fall of the Jewish temple at that time, and/or the people thrown and burned into the valley of Gehenna outside Jerusalem. It’s all history, whether Driscoll likes it or not.
This is a month late and, considering the very anti-driscoll atmosphere, probably very unwelcome…
Perhaps it might be better for your arguments if you did look up the verses mentioned. Rev 14 actually does allude to the Lamb presiding over hell…a disturbing reference to be sure but something I had to wrestle with.
Also, hate Driscoll’s tone and use of proof texting, I can understand that…yet, if we are going to be united by faith, what faith is that going to be? Do we have one to unify us without the Bible, the texts? Even our knowledge of Jesus comes solely from the Bible.
As much as I would wish that Driscoll’s tone would be such a stumbling block to many of us, I fear for my soul to so quickly dismiss what may be truth because of an perceived offense or rudeness…Jesus himself offended many in his time…still he’s offensive. I’d rather look in my heart to wonder if it my heart, deceptive above all things, that rebels against truth or whether it is the Spirit rebelling against lies. More often, I find my heart is rebelling against truth. I find the possibility that Jesus would preside over hell VERY hard to swallow…but then, I have a hard time with God slaughtering the women and children of Canaan. My conclusion: we don’t serve a tame God. But if we believe he is the TRUE God…I can do nothing but humbly call his actions “good”.
I’d encourage anyone that reads this last comment to consider, as I did, if my emotional repugnance at certain things tend to warp my reception of potential truths.
Thanks for listening.
Also, please excuse my VERY poor grammar…I was in too much of a rush today.
I see where you’re coming from, Paul, and I can hold to your line of reasoning to a certain point. However, Driscoll has been, on occasion, injudiciously rude, and I don’t find it necessary to give his actions the same degree of open acceptance that I give to God. Jesus (and God) are offensive when necessary, not necessarily.
The point is not so much the message as the medium, and if his message were one of correction for his fellow Christians, then I would think he would have adopted a different tone. Oblique jabs at the emerging church would seem unnecessary. And conclusions like “Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell” provide a very narrow and polarizing vision of the return of Christ. This entire discussion is exactly the kind of fight that Driscoll is trying to provoke; was it really necessary?
Thanks for your comments.
Paul,
Your opinion is certainly not unwelcome here. Thank you for sharing it. I agree with you that we shouldn’t shy away from the more disturbing imagery of the Bible in the process of forging an authentic faith in today’s world. I’m not saying that Mark is not entitled to his interpretation, but he doesn’t seem to acknowledge that such imagery is, in fact, disturbing, and that it needs to be wrestled with. Rather, he comes across as gleeful in holding to the “Truth” as he sees it, without an acknowledgment that there may be honest disagreement between faithful Christians over Biblical interpretation.
I’m with Dunnchaidh – Mark is unnecessarily provoking a fight. As I said in my follow-up post, the more I got into the book, the more I realized that Mark was far afield from the conversation the others were having – to the point of absurdity.
Again, as Dunnchaidh said, “The point is not so much the message as the medium” – it’s not that Mark’s theology is so far off; the problem is his antagonism to anyone who comes to different conclusions than his own.
I FULLY I agree with the statement that Jesus was harsh when necessary, not necessarily. A good line actually.
I guy posted on Scot McKnight’s blog in the past month or so who talks about evaluating positions and policies in light of their actual value, not on the infamy or fame of the presenter and holders of the policy. I agree with him on this one. It just seems that people are missing a lot of wisdom and truth now because of their emotional response to the presenter and holders of the “wisdom and truth”. He also said that to have a response that is majority emotional speaks of a lack of self-control. I don’t know how to handle all of that, but it seems so much that we do this. I find too much within Driscoll’s LIFE choices and teachings as a young man, to ignore it all because his tone is rude. But that’s just me.
And to be honest, much of Driscoll’s tone resonates with me recently for a goofy reason. As I’ve recently read through 1-2 Timothy and now 2 Peter just today, it occurs to me that we should be expecting attacks from false teachers and false sheep ALL the time. I’ve not heard that discussion even implicitly among any of the civil-minded of the emerging leaders…only Mark Driscoll. I haven’t heard any of them speak of holding firm and protecting sound doctrine…just a lot of criticism across the board without discernment about WHO is giving it and WHY it is being given…Spencer Burke being a prime example. There are certain theological posts that are clearly well planted in the ground, clearly laid in the Bible…yet instead of using these posts to build a strong house, Emergent seems fine with anyone ripping these down along with the corrupted structures in a desire to rebuild. This strikes me as fool-hardy.
But I’ve SEEN these false teachers first hand and I wonder how many of the emerging teachers, when the day is over, will be seen to be false teachers. I don’t mean to be overly afraid of the wolves, but if one is identified, it needs a swift kick to the head. And certainly many of the emerging teachers are strong followers of our Lord. Yet as the body needs all gifts to keep it strong, I pray that emerging, who seem top-heavy on the pastor/encourager/mercy gifts can allow some who have more truth orientated gifts in the conversation as well, even if the conversation isn’t seemingly pastoral/encouraging/merciful. And I pray that the emerging conversation can start to question who is a wolf bent to rip and destroy and who indeed is a genuinely conversing sheep.
Thanks for talking…
Hmm…I guess I didn’t say it explicitly in what I just wrote…
In response to Driscoll’s rudeness and his ill-advised tone…I feel for you there. Since I’ve started to pay any attention to him, his tone if you can believe it has actually gotten better. And I believe he will continue to learn.
But, to say it plainly, I wonder if he sees some of the emerging theological deconstructionism as more than something he disagrees with and yet can see how a honest believer can come it. Perhaps he has thought, as I have often thought, that this is not an attack on tradition, conservatism, or reformed theology (all open to discussion) but rather is an attack on the church itself. If indeed there is an attack, you don’t converse, you fight.