Related Leaders: Mark Driscoll (Session Two)
Cross-Centered PreachingIt seems that the intent of this session is to talk about the differing theories of atonement. He’s arguing that we hold all of them as true & relevant to pastoral ministry and not pit one against another
- you’re not preaching Jesus until you preach his death
- “I believe that across the world, the doctrine that is most under attack is the doctrine of the atonement.”
- Paul was not speaking hyperbole when he said, “I seek to know nothing, but Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2)
- The big idea of the cross is the penal substitutionary atonement, and nothing else.
- “Christus Victor” — Jesus defeated Satan
- Christ is our redemption –
- Jesus is our new covenant/sacrifice
- Jesus is our justification (on N.T. Wright: his stuff on the kingdom and the resurrection is amazing…but when it comes to justification it’s “swing & a miss.” Wright tries to marry the reformation doctrine of justification and reconcile it with catholicism.)
- Jesus is our propitiation (God’s wrath is averted because of Jesus.)
- Jesus is our expiation (he takes away the wrong done to us…cancels all sin)
Warning: very incomplete notes. A lot of this stuff is basic level Bible college stuff, so I haven’t been very copious in my note-taking.
I really struggle with Mark Driscoll. He is so sure that his reformed theology is TRUTH that I wonder how open he is to seeing things from a different perspective.
Case in point, you have a preacher who hasn’t even completed seminary criticizing the work of arguably the world’s foremost biblical scholar, NT Wright. If you want to disagree with a scholar, that’s perfectly OK, but Driscoll’s black and white views on theology are hard for me to accept as fair and balanced.
I am not at the conference, so I don’t know how he’s presenting the views you’ve laid out, but I’ve seen and heard enough of him to know that he is definitely a dogmatic preacher.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts about him, Charlie.
I will admit not knowing much about Mark Driscoll at all, or his church other than it is the “other Mars Hill”. So I did my iTunes homework, and a Google search and…..
I don’t know. He clearly is very passionate about Christ. The sermon that I chose to listen to he talked about his calling, and coming to Jesus (he makes it very clear that Jesus should be the reference because God is to general - That God become man to ensure that we as Christians do not have to talk in generalizations like “God”
He was very genuine, and passionate in the sermon. Maybe at points a little too passionate (ie; the cursing was something I could do without - a little respect in the house of God please…
Then the Google search frustrated me totally as it told about attack after attack he has made on his peers, and scholars (Bell, McManus, McLaren, NT Wright, Borg, lots of people I read and respect….), and then to read that he still has yet to complete any formal Seminary work.
So Mark Driscoll - Yeah - I totally don’t get the guy…..
Ben –
we’ll talk in person. I mostly agree…
and
Jason — good research, although I wouldn’t call Bell, McManus & McLaren “scholars”….more in the “pastors” catagory — and I think there is a difference.
Gotta reread my 5:30am posts before hitting enter…..Yes in hindsight I totally should have made sure I divided the pastors from the scholars.
Thanks for great feedback on Related Leaders.
what makes a scholar? someone who has a degree in seminary…one who writes commentaries…or one who is well read?
just curious?
(i am late to the party on this one…
i think a scholar is someone who has put forth the enormous amount of effort to pursue a doctoral degree in something.
They really are artificial designations to some degree. However, in my mind, I think that I see pastors as people who are “in the trenches” doing ministry and don’t have the time that academicians have to really dig in.