Driscoll on Homosexuality

 

From the first time I saw this, I was blown away both by Driscoll’s grasp on Scriptures and his wisdom and tact in sharing it. How does one learn to answer (on the spot!) a thorny question like this in such a profound way?

¹⁶ All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Related Posts

The Campolos on Homosexuality

Reflections on the Interview, where Jennifer Knapp “Comes out of the closet”

Sin Lists and Why We (Should) Love Them

The “Homosexuality Issue” as a Litmus-Test of Orthodoxy

 

Francis Chan on Hell

I was just listening to this video (thanks, Tim Johnson!) by Francis Chan.

In so many ways, I feel that Chan has hit the nail absolutely on the head. How can Hell be secondary? How can we avoid it? If it is real, we need to make it primary, and live as though people are really going there, unless we do something about it. Hell quite literally “lights a fire” under people – Christian and non alike. It forces the non-Christian to make up their mind. It forces the Christian to get out there and give people the option of making up their mind.

If you believe in Hell, passivity and non-evangelism is the worst form of sin!

I loved especially what Chan had to say about being humble enough to believe that God knows better than you.

The section where Chan speaks of all the things which God said and did in the Old Testament that “I would never think to do or say” was fascinating. What I found really interesting here was that Rob Bell has a section almost identical in Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith – only he leverages the section for the exact opposite use. (Note: because I read this book in audio, I don’t have the direct quotation in front of me, but see my review of Velvet Elvis Here) He basically says, “Look, there’s lots of stuff (e.g. the Israelites slaughtering the now-helpless citizens of Jericho after their walls fell down, or the slaughter of the Amalekites, etc.) which we as rational, moral Westerners just can’t stomach. So if we can’t stomach parts of it, why do we trust any of it?” Then he goes on to talk about how we need to “repaint” Christianity for our own generation, etc.

Perhaps I am over simplifying his nuanced language: but he was basically saying, “we believe this, the Bible presents that. We win, the Bible looses. We get to edit Scriptures.” Chan seems to be saying, (and I so agree!) “the Bible says this, we think that. The Bible wins. We need to learn to think like the Bible thinks and, if this is impossible, sometimes we just have to admit defeat and say, ‘God, your ways are above our ways. We commit to learn from and obey you, without arrogantly judging or attempting to edit your Word!’ “

I like it. I like it a lot. I think I will start getting into Francis Chan in a big way, very soon!

 

Mark Driscoll on May 21 and Harold Camping

Well, it has come and gone, and the rapture didn’t happen. I think this is a good opportunity to pause and reflect on the fact that in the very passage where Jesus spoke about the end-times, He also says, “Nobody knows the day or the hour.” Whether it is at Jesus’ second coming, or at your own death, your meeting with your Creator is unavoidable, and it will likely surprise you like a thief in the night: we must be ready constantly.(see related post, “I am coming, cawed the raven“)

However, we need to be cautious of being too arrogant about our ability to predict precisely when Jesus will return. Many pastors are gloating over Harold Camping’s wrong prediction – but are they much better, when they say, “The signs of the times are everywhere! Jesus will return within our lifetimes!” This is also a prophecy with specific claims, and it is also a prophecy which people live according to. Is this claim any less arrogant, or dangerous, or misguided than the claim made by Harold Camping?

For entertainment purposes, I recommend Mark Driscoll’s thoughts on the topic. No, we don’t know the day or the hour. No, we should not try to guess. No, it does not matter whether we have a chart. The bottom line is “be ready!” That is all.

 

What if Mark Driscoll is Right?

Here is a sermon-clip (8 min) worth listening to carefully, and re-listening. Don’t dismiss him immediately: listen and ponder – what if he is right? How would your world change if Driscoll is right? If you disagree with him, have you done sufficient research to be absolutely sure that he is wrong?

I think we can agree this is no secondary issue. You must make a decision, make the right decision and live accordingly. There simply is no ethical, safe, sane alternative.

 

Prophet, Priest & King

Today, while listening/reading Mark Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” I had a revelation. Many threads from tough questions all wove together into a systematic whole. I am happy, but a little frustrated since, a) the ancients (specifically, John Calvin) seem to have “stolen” my thoughts here, and b) this “amazing solution” sounds strangely familiar…did I “learn” this in a class I wasn’t paying attention in?

All that work to end up on well-trodden ground. *sigh* Oh well – maybe that’s why orthodoxy is a path for the humble.

The solution is this: in understanding Christ’s role to us, it is not just that “Jesus is Lord,” as I had thought in a previous post: rather, Jesus is “prophet, priest and king.” Allow me to explain.

Jesus as Prophet:

As a prophet, Jesus stood up for truth, rebuked the pharisees, corrected Peter, slammed Herod and all around was a blunt, no-nonsense teller of truth. I like this role – it’s fun! Also, this is usually how I learn and grow in my walk – people being blunt and frank with me about sin and righteousness. Mark makes the point that in most religions, God plays the “prophet” role – that is, he sits up there on his throne telling people they are sinners. Jesus also does that: however, the difference with our God is that not only points out our sin, but actually comes down to help us with our situation, as our priest.

Jesus as Priest:

A priest is a mediator, the one who stands between sinful humanity and a holy God, and offers an appropriate sacrifice for the latter, thus restoring fellowship. As priest, Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, “neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more.” It’s not that Jesus is light on sin: when people are in denial about their sins, He definitely slips into prophet role. When they are finally brought to the place of repentance, however, He does not endlessly berate them or leave them to hang, but compassionately pursues them with a solution.

Jesus as King:

This last role is the role which I have felt the need to emphasize in my own thoughts of late. Jesus is King. He has a plan for the earth, and our role as Christians is to humbly pray “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven!” We don’t call the shots, He does – He is our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. He is the boss, the king: at the end of the day, there are only two types of people in the word – those who are submitted to the Lordship of Christ, and those who are in rebellion against it.

USES AND ABUSES

1: Prophet + King – Priest = Fundamentalism

This is my tendency. I have no problem speaking the truth….it is the “in love” part that I often fumble. This is called “fundamentalism” – being hard on rules, loud on rebuke, short on love. This sort of attitude feels comfortable to those who have grown up in it, or who have stiff necks and need the truth communicated to them with a 2/4, but leaves many wounded and disillusioned in its wake. Mark is right to link modern fundamentalism with the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Just as those Bible characters evaluated their holiness by their ability to identify “sinners” and stay as far from them as possible, modern-day fundamentalists also spend much time isolating from, insulating against and condemning “those sinners” on TV, at the bar, out in society, etc., rather than doing what Jesus did, which is seeking out the lost sheep, spending time with the outcasts, and ministering to the physically and spiritually “sick.”

2: King + Priest – Prophet = Liberalism

Liberals don’t like fundamentalists, and vice-versa. They are the opposite and equal errors: whereas fundamentalists stress truth at the expense of love, liberals stress love at the expense of truth. Thus, the modern Liberal is fuzzy on Hell, open to rival opinions about God, and “welcoming and affirming” to sexual immorality of all sorts. When pressed on the discrepencies between Scriptural statements and their beliefs, they engage in a variety of evasive maneuvers designed to: a) change the topic, b) shame the person asking the question, and c) subtly downplay the importance of Scriptures, and up-play the importance of “cultural relevance.”

I don’t get along well with Liberalism. But then, you already know that from other posts.

3: Prophet + Priest – King = Evangelicalism

This point was highly illuminating. Driscoll believes that most modern Evangelicals (if you are reading this, you are probably in that camp) have no problem with Jesus as the prophet (telling them what is sinful and what is not), and are welcoming and grateful to Jesus as priest (forgiving their sins, allowing them into heaven) but have a hard time with Jesus as Lord. “What do you mean Jesus has a plan for my life? I thought I had the plan, and Jesus was supposed to help me by saving me from hell, giving me a better marriage/family/job/money, etc.?” No, actually, Jesus is your Lord. You join His team, not vice-versa. He becomes your boss, your parent, your king. If He decides it’s time to sell the house/car/big TV and move to Mexico, well….he’s got a right to do that. He’s the King – not you.

I still feel that I have a lot to learn in this regard – hence the emphasis on it of late.

Anyways, I feel as though Mark has handed me a very simple, balanced way of thinking about Christ. Prophet, priest, king. Very nice. Thank you, Mark!

 

A Marriage Pre-Requisite Sermon

You know it…I know it….some women marry losers. Not that they are not valuable in God’s eyes, not that they don’t have potential…but for a variety of reasons, they just don’t reach for that potential or they become mean. For a woman who is stuck with such a man, life can be far less than it could be.

So how could a woman marrying such a man? How can a man take steps not to be such a man?

One easy way is to listen to this amazing sermon by Mark Driscoll. (Click here) Here Mark Outlines the major types of “loser guys” – with ways to avoid them, and practical, loving steps towards becoming a more mature man who better models Christ.

A word of warning: Driscoll communicates with all the subtlety of a 2/4. He is not being harsh just for the fun or being right, however: he believes (based on 1 Peter 3:7) that men are different from women. In his words “women are delicate wine-glasses. I would not be speaking like this at a ladies retreat. However, men are like a thermos: you can knock them around a bit. In fact, sometimes that is the only way to get through to them.” Well said.

For those who can handle some hard, pure truth on the topic of “what is it to be a man,” I highly recommend this sermon.

For an as-yet unmarried woman – this sermon may just save you from the worst mistake of your life!

 

Your Opinion On A Sermon By Mark Driscoll

I finally found the sermon that Keith was wanting to direct me to in the first place. After listening to a handful of Driscoll’s sermons, I am completely entranced. Bruxy Cavey move aside – I have found a new love! lol.

This sermon is among the best I have heard so far from him (or from anybody, for that matter!) and it also serves as an EXCELLENT introduction to his ministry and preaching philosophy.

I especially liked what he had to say about rebuking the religious people in our congregations. If we rebuke only the sin in the world, and not the hypocrisy in the church, then people in the world think that we want them to change their outward appearance – to white-wash the outsides of their lives, and sit and smile in a pew like the rest of us. We need to also rebuke the pharisees in church, so that everybody knows they need to be coming daily to the cross – our only hope – for forgiveness and grace.

I also liked what he said about laughing at religious people. I love that. I am a religious person. I take myself waaaay to seriously. I am so grateful for people who laugh at me, in love. Who say, “Seriously, Josiah – seriously?! You are a joke! lol…” That is so good for the soul!!

As far as what he says about rebuking the swine, barking at the dogs and shooting the wolves…I LOVE it when Driscoll does it. I think he is being Biblical when he does it. I can also see where I could really use my talents and my blog to do that as well…but I hear a voice of caution somewhere in my subconcious. I think part of it is just “not being reckless” (he mentioned that in his opening prayer). Also, not being right, just to be right. He mentions that 20-something white males tend to gravitate towards controversey, just to be right.

Are there any other cautions you have, in listening to this? Or should I just take Driscoll’s advice hook-line-and-sinker, and do what he says I should do?

 

The Peter-Pan Syndrom

This is, bar none, the BEST sermon I have ever heard for men - 06 Luke_ The Birth of John the Baptizer (Start at around 33 minutes, to get to the good part!)

Every man in our society, aged 19-35 ought to listen to this.

Mark Driscoll is somebody I only discovered recently, but have absolutely been rocked by his teaching. Amazing what power the simple Word of God has, in the hands of an effective communicator!

In summary, Driscoll says that in most “normal” cultures (we are far from normal/healthy!) around the world, there are two stages of maleness: “boy” and “man.” There are several transitional markers which usually fall into place quite rapidly: getting a trade, buying a place, marrying, having children. In our culture, however, these normal transition-markers have broken down. Since there is a prologued gap between child and man, we have created a new stage of life, called adolescence. For some, this period never really ends.

I especially liked what he had to say about men being designed to be givers, not takers, providers, not consumers, others-centered, not inward-focused. Men are supposed to live their lives to empower others – not impose on others, use them and abuse them to facilitate a lazy, out-of-touch, ego-driven existence.

Let’s admit it – young single men in our culture have it MADE. They have tons of money to spend, tons of time to spend it, and no responsibilities to weigh them down. It is easy to purchase big “toys,” to pursue glamorous hobbies, to spend enormous amounts of time in purely selfish occupations.

This stage is great fun…But it’s not real, and it’s not healthy. It should not be encouraged, it should not be prolonged and – here is the really important point – it should not be held on to as “normal,” against which the responsibilities of marriage are “abnormal.” Men are called to “lay down their lives for their wives, as Christ laid down His life for the church.” (1 Cor. 5:25) Christ left all the riches, power, pleasures, authority, etc. of Heaven in order to live a menial existence and die a humiliating and painful death here on earth. If we are to follow Christ’s example, we men also need to lay down our lives – to set down the video-game controller, to sell the fancy truck, to pick up the punch-card and go to work, then come home and change diapers, resolve fights, learn to love and lead in the midst of chaos, then go to sleep exhausted only to wake up again and do it all over. This is real life. This is real adulthood – giving, not taking. Dying to self, not draining others for self. Attention, men – this is what you are called to do!!

Unfortunately, by the time most men get married, they have been single long enough to get comfortable in the “adolescent” stage of life. Tragically, some men try to go on living as bachelors all their married lives – ignoring their spouses and children, under-providing, not carrying their weight around the house, distant, distracted, always wistful for “the good old days.” What makes everything so much worse is that the marketing world has learned that there is an easy market here. Men are insecure about their manliness, and so the “buy this, you’ll be a man!” line works astonishingly well. Also, men long for “the good old days,” and so the promise of “buy this, you’ll feel young again” also works far too well. From advertising to programming to social pressure, every loud voice in our society is telling men that this strange, made-up-phase of life called “adolescence” is not only a normal, but it is to be normative: anything that doesn’t look or feel like adolescence is constricting, limiting, abnormal, unnatural. No wonder men see their families as a “ball-and-chain,” keeping them from “the good life.”

“Marriage is not about making us happy, but about making us holy” – that is a quote I heard which so totally encapsulates this concept. It’s time to grow up, men! It’s time to stand up to the plates. It’s time to stop taking and start giving.

It’s time to leave Never-Never land, and become a real man – now here, take this bottle and diaper and get to work!

 

Follow-Up Post to "From….Emergent to….Conservative"

Well, I must say that I have been a little taken aback by the huge response to my last (major) post. I’m not used to that much activity on my blog! I have learned some things from the feedback I received, and my thoughts have developed on points. Here are some of the things that I would like to say, to follow up my previous post:

TO THOSE OFFENDED: I APOLOGIZE

From some private posts and e-mails, I realize that my post was very hurtful, at least to a few people. This was not my intention, and I am sorry. My post was primarily about my journey, and a reaction against my immaturity in a past stage of life. It is always okay to critique yourself and learn from the past – however, I recognize that my language was at times too loose, and others found themselves insulted in what was to be an introspective critique. I also said some strong things against Emergentism which are true in a limited sense, but should have been said more clearly. More on that in a bit.

I guess this has all been a learning experience for me. I am used to sitting down on my computer and just dumping whatever pet-peeve, poem or insight is within me. I am prone to hyperbole and I have been wandering around, changing my perspective every six months or so, trying to find my theological moorings. I have directed all sorts of attacks at the institutional church, church-leaders, church beurocracy, and the Evangelical sub-culture. I have not lost any friends doing this, nor even had negative feedback – one of my pastors actually tracked me down and told me how much he enjoyed “The Sled” (a post which made pastors look ridiculous!). This recent post has made me realize, however, that I should be more careful in how I word things in such a public space – especially when critiquing the Emergent camp.

I cannot help but remember that I became Emergent because of pain. I felt ripped off and stifled by the organized church, and felt that without Emergentism as a safety-net, I would have simply free-fallen into who-knows-where. I remember being very angry at times with people who attacked the Emergent movement without presenting a viable alternative.

All this to say that I am sorry: I misjudged my audience, and I regret causing pain where I have done so.

CLARIFICATION OF THE WORD “EMERGENT”

I mentioned above that my usage of the word “Emergent” could be better defined. Well, this is the problem with the word “Emergent” – nobody knows what in the world it means! Broadly speaking, it is probably accurate that “Emergent” is a reaction against the Evangelicalism of the 80′s and 90′s. Like a teen which wants to break away and find their own identity, my generation (and the generation just older than me) wants to break away from the “Baby-boomer-dominated” churches they grew up in, to create a new Christianity for the future.

Instead of intolerance they want tolerance. Instead of heirarchy they want equality. Instead of dogmatic theology, they want open-ended discussion, mystery, and journey. Instead of perfect leaders and shiny buildings, they want leaders who “let it all hang out” and buildings that make them feel comfortable. Instead of paranoia of those who “drink, smoke, chew, or go with girls who do,” there is an openness to the “vices” not directly forbidden by Scriptures. Instead of a protectionistic “us-vs-them” attitude towards culture, they want to be welcoming to non-Christians. Instead of a difference in dress and music, they want to integrate into society on non-moral issues. Instead of rules, they want personal opinions. Instead of a sheltered perspective, they want a global perspective. Instead of local initiatives, they want global initiatives. Instead of suspicion of Science, they want an openness to new science (evolution, global warming, etc.).

As you can see, the emergent movement is very broad. It is likely that it is even broader than these points, but this is a start.

If you are like me, you are likely looking at that list saying, “So, is he saying that Emergent is bad or good?” From this list, however, you can see that there is room for all sorts of people within Emergentism – there is room for “bad” and “good” stuff.

This was a major flaw of my last post: I spoke out agains all of the Emergent movement. Attacking “Emergentism” is like fighting the tide with a baseball bat: cathartic to the deranged, perhaps, but not terribly productive.

Please allow me to refine my critique.

Everyone who becomes Emergent has a story: usually, there is pain involved. There is usually also an attraction to promises made by the Emergent movement. Thus, there is a push away from the insitutional church, and a pull towards the emergent church. In and of itself, this motivation is not sin (people who stay in the institutional churches also have motivations – but I have spoken amply of that elsewhere). What will one do with one’s motivations? This is the question. More importantly – what will one do when their motivations conflict with Jesus? This is the real heart of the issue.

Perhaps a case-study would be helpful here.

I once heard a leader in the Emergent Village discussing what it takes to become “Emergent.” The gist of his comment was: “Unless you are willing to accept the ministry of a lesbian pastor, you cannot really be emergent. Being emergent is about toleration.” (You can read my visceral reaction to this comment here) What should be glaringly obvious here is that the one thing which is not tolerated is a person who takes a stand. What if a person has a crisis of conscience? What if a person honestly feels that scriptures declare homosexuality to be a sin (Rom. 1) and forbid them from “tolerating” any such person involved in immorality – especially if they are involved in Christian teaching (cf. Rev. 2:20, NASB)? Apparently, at least some “Emergent” people believe that one must at times deny Christ and conscience in order to be a card-carying, true-blue member of the Emergent Movement.

Thus, I think it is accurate to depict three camps within the Emergent movement: those who put culture first, and Jesus infinitely second (the “culture-emergent” camp), those who put Jesus first, and culture infinitely second (the “Jesus-emergent” camp), and those who are as-yet undecided. This middle camp is comfortable and appropriate for a time, but it can never become permanent because even the the decision to remain undecided is itself rejection of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The gist of my last post is that my family and I have been wandering back and forth in this place of indecision for nearly a year now. It was what we needed, it was the journey God had for us. It was a place of healing and maturing. I cannot condemn others in this place, because I do not feel God’s judgment over me for being here. At some point, however, we had to make a choice: we had to decide whether culture or Jesus would have the final say in our lives.

Some may still say that we are Emergent. Perhaps this is true – but that all depends what is meant by that frustrating, floppy word. What is really important to know is that we are followers of Christ, who are explicit about making Jesus Lord of our lives, and seeking to build our family on the foundation of the Bible. Can we still be Emergent and do these things? Certainly – but maybe “conservative” is a better tag for us now. I’ll leave that to others to decide.

The season we are in now seems to be a transition-stage, filled with many life-forming decisions. Here are a few I have been thinking about recently:

1. Being relevant is not enough: I must share Christ, and Him Crucified

There is nothing wrong with learning more about the music, culture and interests of people I am trying to reach for Christ. However, I have to be honest and say that my attempts at “culturally-relevant evangelism” looked more like “trying to be cool” and “making new friends” than real evangelism. If I am terrified to speak the name of Jesus, or share the message of what He has done, it should be obvious that whatever I am doing, it is not evangelism. I have much to learn in this area, and I really need prayer, and to grow in boldness in this area.

2. Equality is a cop-out: God has called me to lead my home

There is something very easy – too easy! – about saying, “I don’t know – what do you think, honey?” It’s not right for me, as the head of our home, to drift along – mind filled with theology and work, hands busy with projects and toys – not really engaging in the important issues of family life until they are raised by my wife. It is also not right for me to test out my wife, to feel out the decision she is leaning towards, then “choose” to go along with her in whatever she thinks is best. This is not acting within my role as head, and it places a burden on her she was not intended to carry. I have a lot to learn in this area, but the teaching ministry of Mark Driscoll has a lot of good resources for this area.

3. Cowardice is not an option: I am called to be the spiritual leader of our family

I don’t like doing family devotions. I don’t like praying in public, or reading the Bible aloud. I feel exposed, vulnerable, ridiculous, and silly. I have been trying to tell myself that I am being considerate to my wife: she doesn’t enjoy these things anymore than I do, and there are wounds from the past to be considered. Scriptures are clear on this point, however: as followers of Christ, we are to “teach God’s Word diligently to our children and to talk of them when we sit in our house and when we walk by the way and when we lie down and when we rise up. We are to bind them (metaphorically, or by tattoo? lol…) as a sign on ours hands and foreheads, and to write them on the doorposts of our house and on our gates” (Deut. 6:7-9). I do not want to be the leader of a home where mentioning the name of “Jesus” is a socially-awkward event, where Bibles are never opened, where prayers are never said. Christ should be to my children as constant as gravity, as visible as the sun, as vital as air, as comfortable as Mommy’s embrace. I will do what I can to provide it.

4. Indefinite indecision on important topics is unacceptable and unethical

In this life, I will probably never know which end-times theory is correct, whether the human is “body-and-soul” or “body-soul-spirit,” or how exactly predestination and free-will fit together. So what? These doctrines don’t change how I wake up in the morning. But then what about Hell? Is it real? Is it as bad as people used to say it is? Is it true that everybody who does not accept the Gospel is going there? There are questions on which perpetual ambiguity and indecision is unethical and unacceptable. If Hell is a myth, we can take a collective sigh of relief. If it is real – if it is true that people all around me, and around the world are falling every day, every minute into an eternal, conscious torment apart from God and apart from hope – then there is no excuse. Basic human compassion demands that I live every waking moment in the light of this terrifying fact, and make evangelism the #1 priority of my life. There are many such life-or-death issues in the Christian faith: I will take the time I need to research out answers, but I cannot get too comfortable with a perpetual indecision.

 

I could go on, but I hope these points give you an idea of the direction I want to take our family.

The decision has been made: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Now, we are finding ourselves in a season of purging, standing awkwardly around a pit dug under the Oaks of Shechem (cf. Gen. 35). What are the family idols? Let us root them out, let us be rid of them. Let us place them here, under this tree, cover them with earth and never think of them again. Let us move on from this place with renewed focus and passion for our One Lord, Jesus Christ.

Under His Lordship and direction, and on the firm foundation of His word, may we move forward as a family!

 

A Mystery Solved About Mars Hill Church

Last week Keith sent me a link to some EXCELLENT sermons by Mark Driscoll, teaching pastor at the Mars Hill church. (Link in itunes here…http://rss.marshillchurch.org/mhcsermonaudio) I especially enjoyed the sermons “the struggle of false teachers.” Wow – Driscoll really knows how to say it like it is! And his words carry the genuine weight of Scriptures behind them. Yes, false teachers are “wolves” that kill and destroy the sheep. Yes, there are “close-handed” (aka really important) doctrines that you just CANNOT mess with. Yes, a true pastor needs to spend time guarding and defending his sheep against false teachers. So true!

All through his sermon, however, I just kept asking myself “How can Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell be pastors of the same church?” After all, Rob Bell – the man who recently wrote a book “Velvet Evlis,” in which he stated that religion is like a faded painting of elvis which needs to be re-painted every generation or so, and that the virgin birth and other essential doctrines are fair-game along with everything else – is also the pastor of Marsh Hill church. It seemed that the two were at complete logger-heads: according to Driscoll’s very correct interpretation of Scriptures, Rob Bell is a heretic.

I typed in “Driscoll vs Rob Bell” into Google and did indeed find that Driscoll has recently come out and said Rob Bell is a heretic, and he is (predictably) getting flames for it. I was all bothered by it, thinking, “After all his wonderful precision with Scriptures, has Driscoll allowed a heretic to emerge as co-pastor in his own church? This will absolutely devastate his ministry!”

Okay, long story short – there are two (at least) churches which are called “Mars Hill” church. Actually, Rob Bell’s is “Mars Hill Bible Church” (ironically enough, since they seem more concerned with popular spirituality and NT. Wright’s theology than the Bible per-se) and Driscoll’s church is just “Mars Hill Church.”

Well that makes sense…kind of. I suppose there’s a limit of good names in the bible. Too bad it worked out like this – so confusing!!