Reply by McScribe
Hang on a minute--so he's committed sins and said and done some bad things. No matter what the situation is, if someone says biblical truth as biblical truth is it not biblical truth? We're not talking distortion of the Gospel here--as Satan did with Jesus during the temptation--we're talking scripture being scripture and truth being truth. How perfect does someone have to be before they can preach or teach and be received in any way?
Hang on a minute--so he's committed sins and said and done some bad things. No matter what the situation is, if someone says biblical truth as biblical truth is it not biblical truth? We're not talking distortion of the Gospel here--as Satan did with Jesus during the temptation--we're talking scripture being scripture and truth being truth. How perfect does someone have to be before they can preach or teach and be received in any way?
And to comment on the book...I couldn't finish it. When they were discussing their marriage issues his whole tone seems to imply that even though he wasn't treating Grace right it was her fault for being frigid and cheating etc. I really didn't like the way he shamed her for having cheated on him in High School, when they were both aware before they got married that they weren't virgins. And then at the end of chapter 1 he says "Then, after more than a decade of marriage, a root issue was finally revealed. Graces problem was that she was an assault victim who had never told me or anyone else of the physical, spiritual, emotional, and sexual abuse she had suffered". So it turned out it was all her fault they were having marriage issues...
And the part where she comes home with a "mommish" kind of hair cut and he reduces her to tears because he tells her she is putting "a mom's need for convenience before being a wife."
And that's all I have to say about Mark Driscoll
One of the first messages I ever listened to of his (it's somewhere on Youtube) is where he mocks Joel Osteen (and he also mentions another preacher, can't remember who) for preaching a "feel-good" prosperity gospel and leaving God out of it. Now I may not agree with Joel Osteen but for Mark to publicly call him out and criticize him like that is not very Christ-like. It's one thing to disagree with another pastor's teaching, it's a completely different thing to judge him publicly.
And to comment on the book...I couldn't finish it. When they were discussing their marriage issues his whole tone seems to imply that even though he wasn't treating Grace right it was her fault for being frigid and cheating etc. I really didn't like the way he shamed her for having cheated on him in High School, when they were both aware before they got married that they weren't virgins. And then at the end of chapter 1 he says "Then, after more than a decade of marriage, a root issue was finally revealed. Graces problem was that she was an assault victim who had never told me or anyone else of the physical, spiritual, emotional, and sexual abuse she had suffered". So it turned out it was all her fault they were having marriage issues...
He lists sexual abuse third in his list of sexual sins to confess. Sexual abuse is NOT a sin to be confessed, it is something to be disclosed. The fact that he thinks it was sin on his wife's part is ick.
And the part where she comes home with a "mommish" kind of hair cut and he reduces her to tears because he tells her she is putting "a mom's need for convenience before being a wife."
And that's all I have to say about Mark Driscoll
He lists sexual abuse third in his list of sexual sins to confess. Sexual abuse is NOT a sin to be confessed, it is something to be disclosed. The fact that he thinks it was sin on his wife's part is ick.
Yeah, last time I ever went was a sermon in which he and Grace said if a man cheats on his wife, it is her and I quote (I kid you not), "sin" for not providing for his needs. I honestly expected him to give his usual diatribe about "Christian boys" needing to "man up" and blah blah blah, but no. If you're a husband and not getting enough sex at home and you have an affair with some girl at work, not only is your wife in the wrong, but she's sinning!
Anyways.
But this, and actually worse, calling him non-Christian, is what many have done to Driscoll in this thread. Not you, your post actually does quite well and sticking to what you object to in his teaching without attacking his character or questioning his christianity. But most here in this thread are not simply disagreeing with a teaching or with many teachings of his but are outright attacking him plain and simple. It's as if Christ, upon encountering the woman at the well had, instead of what He did do said "away from me you dirty rotten filthy sinner." It's wrong and it saddens me that people who call themself Christian are doing it.
But this, and actually worse, calling him non-Christian, is what many have done to Driscoll in this thread. Not you, your post actually does quite well and sticking to what you object to in his teaching without attacking his character or questioning his christianity. But most here in this thread are not simply disagreeing with a teaching or with many teachings of his but are outright attacking him plain and simple. It's as if Christ, upon encountering the woman at the well had, instead of what He did do said "away from me you dirty rotten filthy sinner." It's wrong and it saddens me that people who call themself Christian are doing it.
Yeah, this stuff about calling people (folks that have accepted Christ as their Lord & Savior) nonChristians or not having the "right" Spirit because you (not you but others) disagree with them doctrinally are IMO forms of spiritual prejudice and self righteousness.
Hang on a minute--so he's committed sins and said and done some bad things. No matter what the situation is, if someone says biblical truth as biblical truth is it not biblical truth? We're not talking distortion of the Gospel here--as Satan did with Jesus during the temptation--we're talking scripture being scripture and truth being truth. How perfect does someone have to be before they can preach or teach and be received in any way?
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of Gods church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devils trap.
As early as the second century, Christianity was criticised as the religion of women, slaves and little children. It seems it's always attracted those with subordinate status in society.
The likes of Driscol and this Podles guy would have us believe that the problem is with the church. The church needs to change so that men will come. My question is, why does the church need to change? Maybe the problem is this uber masculinist society which sneers and scorns men for not living up to the macho macho man stereotype, and that treats women and 'weak' men with utter contempt. Maybe it's society that needs to be changed. Now that is a radical thought.
Technically to be a pastor there are requirements:
1 Timothy 3:1-7
I mean even the devil can quote scripture. My brother in law can give you biblical truth but being an atheist I'm not sure he is up teaching and preaching .
His lifestyle is counter to the Christian faith, his teachings are counter to the Christian faith. We have proven both.
I am...not talking about his qualification to be a pastor.
Forgive me but I thought you were talking about his ability to preach and I correlated that with his position of pastor. If you continually miss the requirements to be a pastor then it is not wrong for someone to point that out. After all anyone can give gospel truth that doesn't mean anyone can preach. Hope that makes sense.
Also, to those who say there's no evidence of Driscoll's false teachings.... give me a break.
I never said no such evidence existed, I said that all we had in this thread was a bunch of stuff that people had said he's said, like the examples in your post, and little to nothing in his own words.
Again, for clarity, I'm not exactly a huge fan either, but I'm even less a fan of the sort of character assasination that's gone on here in this thread. Specific evidence of his false teachings in his own words has been requested several times, it's continued absence is quite telling. I strongly suspect that most of his "false teachings" are misrepresentations or misunderstandings of what he's actually said that get parroted around rather than people actually taking the time to look at what's really said/meant in his own words. That happens a lot to people who sometimes use a bit of hyperbole to make their point, especically when the point there are making is offensive or scary to some people.
Besides, in your case, since he's not Lutheran, isn't pretty much anything he does teach immediately highly suspect anyway, regardless of whether is comes straight from the Bible or not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?