My blog has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.markedly.com.au
and update your bookmarks.

4 Lanes of Emerging Church Driscoll

Mark Driscoll is someone who has been through a lot of controversy. That is to put it mildly. His greatest strength is his ability to clearly and frankly articulate his view points....maybe that is a weakness as well....
Either way this description of the four streams of emergent thinking/church is interesting and informative. He is probably a equal opportunity offender....in that most people could get offended by something he says! But I like him, and his style, even if I dont agree with everything he says. (I also think he wears the coolest shirts)

8 comments:

  Geoff

12:14 pm

There's a mindset that Mark articulates which I've got to disagree with: that we shouldn't question doctrines because they've been held for a really long time. It seems to me that the only way we understand why we have these doctrines is when we ask these questions.

  Mark Edwards

2:22 pm

Does he say that? on this video? where abouts?

  Geoff

3:02 pm

I'll give you the two direct quotes that I'm taking that from:

"They're also calling into question many Christian doctrines that should not be questioned."

"They're calling into question or outright denying Christian doctrine that has been established for a really long time"

  Mark Edwards

4:48 pm

As I said, I am not in agreement with everything Mark says so I dont want this to become a post where I defend him, but....

There are some doctrines, which as Christians, we should not call into question. For instance, Christ is God....if you dont believe that, your not a Christian.
So if we agree on that...then we can ask the question, which doctrines are 'out of bounds'

  Geoff

10:52 am

I don't understand why we shouldn't be asking the questions - unless it's that we're afraid that we'll come up with the wrong answers. For me, it's because I've asked myself "Is Christ fully God" that I can come to a place of understanding why I believe that Christ is God.

It seems to me that you have things in the wrong order: "because I am a Christian, I believe a), b) and c)." Surely instead we need to be working the other way around, and come to a place of "Because I have come to believe a), b) and c), I am a christian."

Just because getting the wrong answer to a question would change whether or not you're a christian, doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask the question. It means that I trust in what I already believe, to recognise that if I ask the question and genuinely pursue God in that, then I will discover something more of God's truth.

Does that make sense?

  Mark Edwards

11:55 am

Of course someone should ask the question, that is why God has given us free will. But the difference is this....lets take an extreme example. Bishop Spong questions whether Christ is divine, and comes to the conclusion He is not....Which if Bishop Spong was not a significant leader in the "christian church" would be perfectly okay. We, as Christians, would pray that Christ would reveal the truth to him.

But Spong is a leader in the Christian church. I think what Driscoll is saying is that significant leaders in the Christian church should not question the basic tenants of the faith.....and I think there is plenty of scriptural encouragements for leaders in the church to preach the word, preach the gospel, and believe it!!

I am no right wing 'evangelical'....and I strongly believe in questioning practice and beliefs within the church, but not the basic tenants of the faith, these are the things which are essential.

To give my own view, McLaren is too vague in his response to questions which go to the heart of our Christian faith.

But...I dont agree with Driscoll about Bell. I just think Bell is more sensitive than Driscoll is. Both Driscoll and Bell have their strengths and weaknesses.

  Geoff

12:37 pm

Here's my problem. Driscoll (in the quotes above) equates "questioning" with "disbelief" or at least a sense on incomplete belief and I'm guessing from your comments above, you would agree with that. I think that represents a harmful approach - and not a standard that I would apply to any other area of my life.

Let me give an example: when I perform an update on the server, before I run the update, I'll question whether or not I'm logged onto the right server. That's not that I don't believe that I am on the wrong server - I question so that I can be more certain of what I already believe. I question because it's important to me that I get it right, not because I'm assuming that I'm wrong.

I certainly don't ascribe to pretty much anything that Shelby Spong says and I think that once you get to the sort of point where your beliefs no longer align with what it means to be a christian, then it's dishonest to remain in leadership in a Christian denomination.

I'd disagree with your evaluation of McLaren - probably for the same type of reason that you'd disagree with Driscoll on Bell. The big areas that I've heard McLaren be a little bit vague on have either had to do with eschatology or sexuality - neither of which "go to the heart" of what I believe as a Christian. But I understand why, for others, they would. That's fine.

Hope I haven't over-ranted, I'm enjoying having the conversation. And the whole "moderating comments" thing just means that as soon as my comment appears, chances are you have a reply! :)

  Mark Edwards

12:49 pm

I have turned moderation off :) (and only use it sparingly) I appreciate reasoned discussion.

You have not over ranted, I appreciate the discussion.

I am glad we agree on Spong, I am happy to disagree on Mclaren, and I am glad Driscoll made it clear he has nothing personal against Driscoll.

I dont think some areas are 'up for grabs'

Blessings

Post a Comment