Mark Driscoll

[dallasapple]

Right..and if men are "moody" and allow themselves that luxury to throw moody immature temper tantrums over sex?Again how in the world over something as expected apprreantly as that does that make them more fit to be a leader of the home?It doesnt..Ya know I dont care..i just get sick of hearing on the one hand..how 'logical" men are and how "more "emotional women are..to the extent men should lead..then in the next breath its just a common place and excepted he can be led by his emotions when it comes to something as baisic as wanting more sex..its all about feelings and what HE WANTS...Includign this pastor..OBVIOUSLY lettign his emotions and "moodiness" over what he wanted from his wife..interfere with his ability to even do his JOB that was outside of the home..Its completely saying two things at once..then its all BLAMED on the woman..which again hows that leadership?He could at least take ownership over his OWN immaturity and moodiness and in many cases neurosis and obsessions..

Dallas

 

[Chaplain David]

On another thread I read where someone was saying very negative things about Mark Driscoll. I have never heard of Mark but the criticisms got me curious. I viewed a few of Mark Driscoll’s messages and so far Mark seems very much on target.

Maybe Mark is whacked on some other issues, I do not know as I have only listened to a few, but I feel that he is right on the video below. What do you think?

Why I hate religion - Mark Driscoll
(removed videos to make reply shorter)

I liked the videos you posted. The two main points of 'religion' (not a religion) being akin to the actions of the pharisees is right on, and, his primary point of redemption is about Christ is 100% accurate. In fact, I would add to that. if we could summarize what the Bible is about I would say it is Scripture that leads us to Jesus Christ.

Other remarks that deviate from the OP have been stated. Much criticism has been given. Little has been substantiated in my opinion. I've read it nonetheless and will continue to read, preferably substantiated material, and comment if the Spirit leads me.

Thank you for the videos.

 

[dallasapple]

Bill Clinton comes to mind..look how he let his "emotions" rule over him?Pretty darn immature if you ask me..Yep the leader of the most powerful nation in the world..being 'led' by something other than logic himself thats for sure..

Dallas

 

[McScribe]

I liked the videos you posted. The two main points of 'religion' (not a religion) being akin to the actions of the pharisees is right on, and, his primary point of redemption is about Christ is 100% accurate. In fact, I would add to that. if we could summarize what the Bible is about I would say it is Scripture that leads us to Jesus Christ.

Other remarks that deviate from the OP have been stated. Much criticism has been given. Little has been substantiated in my opinion. I've read it nonetheless and will continue to read, preferably substantiated material, and comment if the Spirit leads me.

Thank you for the videos.

It's a good reminder. I think we are too swift to judge our church leaders anyway--they are only people, and like the disciples make mistakes, sometimes ones worth rebuking seriously. We're like them too--we misunderstand scripture, we get caught up in our own sense of righteousness, and need to repent of it. But it's some good preaching.

 

[mkgal1]

It's a good reminder. I think we are too swift to judge our church leaders anyway--they are only people, and like the disciples make mistakes, sometimes ones worth rebuking seriously. We're like them too--we misunderstand scripture, we get caught up in our own sense of righteousness, and need to repent of it. But it's some good preaching.

But.....since people *can* make mistakes....what classifies as "good preaching"? Isn't the truth the standard of "good preaching"? In order to know that.....we need to pay close attention to our "Truth checker" (Holy Spirit) in order to not allow other's to hinder us (like the Bible instructs us in Galatians 5).

 

[Conservativation]

Right..and if men are "moody" and allow themselves that luxury to throw moody immature temper tantrums over sex?Again how in the world over something as expected apprreantly as that does that make them more fit to be a leader of the home?It doesnt..Ya know I dont care..i just get sick of hearing on the one hand..how 'logical" men are and how "more "emotional women are..to the extent men should lead..then in the next breath its just a common place and excepted he can be led by his emotions when it comes to something as baisic as wanting more sex..its all about feelings and what HE WANTS...Includign this pastor..OBVIOUSLY lettign his emotions and "moodiness" over what he wanted from his wife..interfere with his ability to even do his JOB that was outside of the home..Its completely saying two things at once..then its all BLAMED on the woman..which again hows that leadership?He could at least take ownership over his OWN immaturity and moodiness and in many cases neurosis and obsessions..

Dallas

I agree with this.

However, when people sat men are less emotional and more logical, and women the opposite, it doesnt have anything to do with the things you describe above at all. That expression doesnt say anything whatsoever about someone reacting with or without emotion. Its about a completely different thing, something that is not even remotely associated with external overt reactions on anybodies part.

I keep reading this and seeing this about how this man acts emotional under these circumstances, and this women is cool and collected and therefore the expression is invalid.

Im not going to get into arguing if the expression is valid. I will say this this and all things like this intending to refute it or poke holes in it, don't, because they are unrelated to what the expression means.

 

[mkgal1]

I liked the videos you posted. The two main points of 'religion' (not a religion) being akin to the actions of the pharisees is right on, and, his primary point of redemption is about Christ is 100% accurate. In fact, I would add to that. if we could summarize what the Bible is about I would say it is Scripture that leads us to Jesus Christ.

Other remarks that deviate from the OP have been stated. Much criticism has been given. Little has been substantiated in my opinion. I've read it nonetheless and will continue to read, preferably substantiated material, and comment if the Spirit leads me.

Thank you for the videos.

This new trend of using the word religion when it really ought to be called "legalism" is getting things kind of muddled, IMO. The Pharisees were "legalists".........many are religious without being legalists.

 

[Chaplain David]

This new trend of using the word religion when it really ought to be called "legalism" is getting things kind of muddled, IMO. The Pharisees were "legalists".........many are religious without being legalists.

I agree. Legalist would be better as some might confuse them. Religious legalism might be good too.

 

[Conservativation]

I agree. Legalist would be better as some might confuse them. Religious legalism might be good too.

Not to change the subject, I agree with this, legalism vs religion, which is why I dislike the "its relationship not religion".....I always say no, its both, and these days I think a little bit more religion would be a positive step.

 

[mkgal1]

Legalism was the persuasion the Galatians were following that caused them to "fall from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

When we embrace the law as our rule of walking with God, we depart from Jesus and His grace. We are then estranged from Christ, separated from Him and His saving grace.

The danger of falling from grace is real, but it is often misunderstood. Most people think of “falling away” in terms of immoral conduct, but we are not saved by our conduct. However, we are saved by our continuing reliance by faith on the grace of God. Someone may fall from grace and be damned without ever falling into grossly immoral conduct.~David Guzik's commentary

 

[LinkH]

There are different kinds of 'legalism.'

Someone with a weak conscience who thinks it is a sin to watch a news program on TV may be called a 'legalist.'

Someone trying to earn salvation by keeping the law instead of by trusting in Christ also gets dubbed a 'legalist.'

 

[mkgal1]

This conversation probably "fits" better in the other thread on Galatians. I'm copying and responding there.

 

[McScribe]

But.....since people *can* make mistakes....what classifies as "good preaching"? Isn't the truth the standard of "good preaching"? In order to know that.....we need to pay close attention to our "Truth checker" (Holy Spirit) in order to not allow other's to hinder us (like the Bible instructs us in Galatians 5).

Good preaching is where truth is preached. It's up to us to measure it against what the Bible says. A preacher should do this as well but honestly, all of us have probably spent time being wrong about something scripturally. It does not invalidate what we say when it is scriptural truth.

All religion really means, at root, is something that is done with devotion. In a way the vilification of the word is like using 'bourgeois' 'patriarchy' as words when they are basically neutral in meaning, as is religion. But my main concern was responding to Stan's request to watch the videos and see if the main point was agreed with. I do.

 

[LinkH]

women divorce their husbands(the whole 2/3 rd thing suppsedly women letting their emotions rule )..have legit emotions involved and have coupled those with logic including the desire to preserve thier mental health by divorcing..

...quite often divorcing contrary to Christ's commands.

 

[mkgal1]

...quite often divorcing contrary to Christ's commands.

If one chooses to divorce for reasons of preserving their mental health.....wouldn't that mean there were ongoing and habitual actions that were not beneficial to the covenant promises?

It's a matter of interpretation (and how one perceives God) as to whether or not that's "contrary to Christ's commands".

 

[sdmsanjose]

95 posts I finally got 5 that answered my thread question. I want to thank those that answered as they are re-printed below.

My post had nothing to do with video games, dreams, and Mark’s personal life but those topics took up the vast majority of replies.

Originally Posted by sdmsanjose http://www.christianforums.com/t7623967-post59538234/#post59538234
On another thread I read where someone was saying very negative things about Mark Driscoll. I have never heard of Mark but the criticisms got me curious. I viewed a few of Mark Driscoll’s messages and so far Mark seems very much on target.

Maybe Mark is whacked on some other issues, I do not know as I have only listened to a few, but I feel that he is right on the video below. What do you think?



Reply by Sacerdote
Why I hate religion - Mark Driscoll
(removed videos to make reply shorter)
I liked the videos you posted. The two main points of 'religion' (not a religion) being akin to the actions of the pharisees is right on, and, his primary point of redemption is about Christ is 100% accurate. In fact, I would add to that. if we could summarize what the Bible is about I would say it is Scripture that leads us to Jesus Christ.

Other remarks that deviate from the OP have been stated. Much criticism has been given. Little has been substantiated in my opinion. I've read it nonetheless and will continue to read, preferably substantiated material, and comment if the Spirit leads me.



Reply by McScribe
All this other stuff aside, I think that Driscoll's first point is very good, it's simply basically true. The Bible doesn't teach that if we do good things that God will love us--God loves us because God is good; His mercy offers us redemption. Simply true.

The second point is absolutely true as well--Christians are often confused about sin, I think.

Third point: simply true. Born again is the main point--Jesus says it, it's true.

Fourth point: Also very good. Church often gets it backwards--it is true that if we love Jesus, if we believe in him, we will be redeemed, and therefore increasingly as we come to know Jesus we will be like him.

Fifth point: Religion doesn't lead to joy. This is true.

I'll have to listen to more later but so far I agree with what I've listened to.



Good preaching is where truth is preached. It's up to us to measure it against what the Bible says.
But my main concern was responding to Stan's request to watch the videos and see if the main point was agreed with. I do.



Reply by Bigdaddy
I live in the area that the Mars Hill church started (Seattle) and I have not been impressed with him or the church. I have watched a few segments of his sermons and they seem to be theologically OK, but something about him just rubbed me the wrong way.

On the bright side, since Washington state is (or was) the 49th churched state, someone preaching the word of God and exposing the Gospel to some who otherwise would not be receptive can't be all that bad. He may miss on some things, but he is human like the rest of us.





Reply by MKgal
The first video has some truth to it.....I agree that religion is a contrast to redemption. I think it's an important point that religion breeds either a feeling of "I can't" which leads to despair and hopelessness........or "Look at how great I am---what a great Christian I am" That's great to point out.

What concerns me, though, is if each week his sermons are like this---that is never encouraging growth. He's right.....our relationship with God isn't due to our performance.....but, it should be a goal to increase intimacy with Him.....not merely halting at salvation. That's like starting at the finish line----already reaching our goal, before we even "ran the race".



Reply by Romans
Now as to the video, I agree with it for the most part. I think it's a good starting point, except that the word religion shouldn't be a bad word. He was talking about legalism, and interchanging that with the word religion, but scripture uses the word religion in a good way.

Also, as I said before, it's a good starting point, and good for people who are stuck in a performance mentality. So it really depends upon the audience.

 

[Luther073082]

The problem there is the lie - not the sexual behavior.

Bingo!!!

 

[Chaplain David]

There are different kinds of 'legalism.'

Someone with a weak conscience who thinks it is a sin to watch a news program on TV may be called a 'legalist.'

Someone trying to earn salvation by keeping the law instead of by trusting in Christ also gets dubbed a 'legalist.'

It is kind of a catchall term that has negative connotations. With reference to the kind of legalism the pharisees practiced then I am 100 against it. If in reference to those things Jesus tells us to do and other things that are found in the new testament, because they are directives, one could term the practice of them legalism. But I do not see it that way. For example, Love the Lord....Love thy neighbor...are absolute commandments from our Savior. Yet I would not lump them under the negative umbrella of legalism despite there being no doubt that we are being told to do that and in fact are all the better for doing it.

 

[Chaplain David]

95 posts I finally got 5 that answered my thread question. I want to thank those that answered as they are re-printed below.

My post had nothing to do with video games, dreams, and Mark’s personal life but those topics took up the vast majority of replies.

It's hard for some to stick to the topic and there appear to be a lot of negative emotions in some of our members about Driscoll based on His allegedly saying or writing certain things some posters do not like. But I would not throw the baby out with the bath water. The pastor has a lot of good to say. If I disregarded people because of a minority of things they said I didn't like or a miniority of things they did I didn't like (within reason of course) there would not be too many left to interact with.

I like Rev. Driscoll and his wife. I do not agree with everything he says but he speaks much wisdom.

Thanks for the OP.

 

[Conservativation]

If one chooses to divorce for reasons of preserving their mental health.....wouldn't that mean there were ongoing and habitual actions that were not beneficial to the covenant promises?

It's a matter of interpretation (and how one perceives God) as to whether or not that's "contrary to Christ's commands".

no