All posts tagged Mark Driscoll

  • October 22, 2013

    Jesus and Nonviolence: A Response to Mark Driscoll

    I appreciate Mark Driscoll, maybe even more than my friends do. I first stumbled upon Driscoll in the late 1990s when I was in seminary and wrestling with postmodernity and the mission of the church. Mars Hill was in its infancy and some around the country were pointed to Driscoll and Mars Hill as an example of a church plant responding effectively to a shifting culture. I began listening to Driscoll via podcast in 2006. I appreciate his emphasis on theology. I enjoyed his weaving together of humor and theological themes in his preaching. He gave me a greater respect for the Reformed tradition. I find him less offensive than others, I suppose. I for one chuckled at his appearance at the Strange Fire conference last week. Most of all I appreciate Driscoll’s devotion to Jesus Christ. “It’s all about Jesus. It’s always about Jesus. It’s only about Jesus,” is one of his mottoes. Driscoll loves Jesus, and so we are brothers in Christ.
    Driscoll’s devotion to Jesus is without question, but I do question his view of Jesus related to the issue of violence. In a recent blog entitled, “Is God a Pacifist?” describes a Jesus who is “coming to slaughter his enemies and usher in his kingdom.” According to Driscoll, Jesus is neither a “pacifist” or a “pansy,” but rather a patient King burning with anger waiting to kill his enemies.

    In all humility, I would like to ask: “Pastor Mark, is it possible you misunderstand Jesus?”

    We agree the kingdom of God is a peaceable kingdom. Many of the descriptions we see in Isaiah of the coming kingdom of messiah are clothed with metaphors of peace: swords beaten into plowshares and lambs laying down with wolves, etc. Where Driscoll and I disagree is the way in which the kingdom comes. Driscoll believes the coming of the kingdom is only possible through the violent vanquish of the enemies of God. I would argue the kingdom has come (and is coming) through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. We agree Jesus is the way, but in what way is Jesus the way? The way of Jesus is the way of nonviolence. He became the point in which the kingdom broke through into human history not by slaying his enemies, but by being slain. The kingdom has come through the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus. Through his ascension, Jesus is ruling over this kingdom. And at his return, the kingdom will come in fullness. This kingdom was, is, and shall be a peaceable kingdom.

    Jesus embodied this peaceable kingdom. Jesus practiced non-violence and it cost him his life. It seems like Driscoll implies that pacifism (or the term I prefer is “non-violence”) and healthy masculinity are incompatible. While Driscoll did not state this explicitly, it seems to me that, for Driscoll, masculinity includes violence in some form and non-violence is to be associated with a “pansy” or less masculine man. Am I reading Driscoll wrong at this point? If to be non-violent is to be weak and less-than-masculine, then Jesus upon the cross is the worst example of masculinity. I do not think Driscoll would want to say, “Jesus was a pansy because he died on the cross instead of killing his enemies,” but it seems like this statement in the logical conclusion to Driscoll’s implications regarding masculinity and violence. I appreciate his desire to rescue Jesus from the feminine caricature he has become in the eyes of some. In the past I even used Driscoll’s “ultimate fighter Jesus” motif, but I was wrong. Proving the masculinity of Jesus by arguing for a violent Christ is not the way to go.

    The text Driscoll quotes in making his point about Jesus, violence, and masculinity is Revelation 14:14-20. From this text, Driscoll concludes that at his return, Jesus will kill his enemies. I struggle to sum up my thoughts on Driscoll’s eschatology here; words like: abhorrent, mistaken, ridiculous, sickening, erroneous come to mind. Driscoll’s conclusion is faulty and it is built on some theological miscues. First, Revelation is highly speculative and not the place where we get the clearest picture of Jesus Christ. Yes the book of Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ, but it is a revealing Jesus to us through symbol and metaphor. If you believe the son of man in Revelation is literally going to shed blood and that literally blood will flow for 184 miles, then you must literally believe this son of man will be conducting his warfare with a sickle. Why is the bloodshed to be interpreted literally, but the sickle is a metaphor? The book of Revelation does reveal Jesus Christ to us, but because of the highly symbolic nature of the book we interpret the symbols through the Jesus we see in the gospels and in the rest of the New Testament. A standard method of biblical interpretation is we interpret unclear passages by clear passages. Where do we ever clearly see Jesus killing his enemies or advocating the killing of his enemies?

    In attempting to harmonize the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, Driscoll has put at odds the Jesus of the Gospels with the Jesus of Revelation. If the Jesus of Revelation is coming to kill his enemies, then the Jesus of the Gospels who taught enemy love was wrong. I too struggle with understanding the violent texts in the Old Testament associated with the commands of Yahweh, the God of Israel and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. What we cannot do is attempt to harmonize the violent texts of the Old Testament with the non-violent texts of the New Testament by marginalize the teachings and actions of a nonviolent Jesus. If we must prioritize the texts, let’s put the Gospels at the top and allow the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to interpret all the other texts.

    Jesus calls us to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing, and teaching them to obey all he commanded. If we begin to teach an eschatological violent Jesus, we nullify his teachings of enemy love. I understand the call to nonviolence is complex, but I would rather work through the hardship of the complexities of enemy-love, than disobey the commands of Jesus. I agree “Jesus is no one to mess with,” but he is not to be messed with because he is the benevolent Lord not the violent warrior.

    11 Comments / Theology /

  • March 27, 2009

    Nightline Face-Off: Does Satan Exist?

    I finished watching the debate over the existence of Satan this morning. I watched half of it yesterday and the other half of it this morning. Apparently the debate was edited when it was aired, but you can watch it in its entirety here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

    Be prepared to endure commercials before and after each clip. A couple of times the online media player started over at the beginning of the first clip. A bit annoying, but well worth it.

    I wish every follower of Christ would watch this. I thought it was a great cultural/philosophical clash. It would be so helpful for Christians to watch and think deeply through the issues presented in this debate. And the greatest issue for me was not the existence of Satan, but the reality of truth.

    The players in the debate formed two teams: Mark Driscoll & Anne Lobert on one side and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson on the other side.

    When I watched the first half, I thought Driscoll was the winner. He did have home field advantage however because the debate was at his church. Thus, the many rounds of applause after Driscoll’s comments. But the TRUE WINNER of the debate was “Red Shirt Guy.”

    As you watch the debate, pay attention to the interaction between the audience and the panel. In particular, pay close attention to two audience members and how they address the Deepak. The two audience members are “Red Shirt Guy” and “Pony Tail Girl.” A please, please understand that if we are going to engage culture we all need to be “Red Shirt Guy;” he got it. He understood the underlying issues and gave the best rebuttal of the night. (See below for my transcription of “Red Shirt Guy’s” comments.) “Pony Tail Girl” took things way to personal and misunderstood the deeper implications of Deepak’s comments. She was right to become angry, because Deepak was saying she was at a “lower level of consciousness.” But for her to say that Deepak was attacking Jesus was the wrong way to respond. Deepak was attacking the nature of truth (which of course we know is Jesus). She would have done better to take a lead from “Red Shirt Guy.”

    So here is my reaction to the debate. At the end I will sum up my thoughts about truth, but here are my random thoughts and observations:

    “All belief is a cover up for insecurity.” — Deepak Chopra

    I did not plan on taking notes, but this is the first thing I wrote down. I am glad “Red Shirt Guy” addresses this later on, because this is an attack on all people of faith.

    “If something is real then you don’t need to believe it. You just experience it.” — Deepak Chopra

    This is THE ISSUE in the debate for me. I know it was supposed to be about Satan and evil, but this is the issue. What is truth? What is reality? How do we know it? Deepak says that reality is that which we can experience. I agree. But what if we experience something inauthentic? What if two people experience the same thing and interpret it different? How we discern right reality and evil reality?

    “The Bible is not the inspired Word of God it is the inspired word of man about God.” – Carlton Pearson

    Oh how the mighty have fallen! Pearson’s descent into heresy began with a denial of hell and eternal punishment and it has led him to reject the authority of Scripture all together. Pearson did make a few (emphasis on “few”) good points, but for the most part his comments were wondering, off-topic, etymological, self-involved rambling. I know it sounds like I am hating on Pearson and really I am not. Often the moderator cut Pearson off, because he was headed off into la-la land. I feel so sorry for Pearson.

    “Perception is the ultimate reality, but it not necessarily the ultimate truth.” – Carlton Pearson

    Yeah, I know where Pearson is coming from. There is a difference between truth and perception. He is wrong to say perception is reality. Perception can be a “perceived” reality, but reality is that which is really real. This goes to the very definition of truth. Truth is that which corresponds with reality. More on truth below.

    “Fairytale-like good god and bad god” – Carlton Pearson

    The Devil is the “bad god” by the way. Oh and earlier Pearson called the Devil “hairy and horny.” I think he was referring to the caricature of the Devil who has horns, but I did laugh out loud when he said “horny.” My, my, the bishop is off his theological rocker.

    Red shirt guy: “My question is for Deepak and the Bishop, You said, ‘All belief is a cover up for insecurity?'”

    Red shirt guy: “Do you believe that?

    Deepak: “Yes”

    Red shirt guy: “Thank you”

    Audience laughter

    This was the best moment in the debate. Pearson laughed and looked at Deepak. Driscoll smiled. Lobert seemed to miss it. And Deepak tried to explain himself, but he never addressed the implication of Red Shirt Guy’s comment. And don’t miss this, but this is the leverage point in the argument of truth between Christians and pluralists.

    Deepak is arguing that “belief” is somehow a more primitive way of knowing. Evolution, he is arguing, has brought us to a higher state of consciousness were we know by experiencing in a way that is consistent with science and philosophy. But here is the deal….DEEPAK’S ARGUMENT IS A BELIEF!

    He is using a belief to devalue beliefs. In other words, he is using a belief system to say belief systems are no good. Tim Keller is right, “Every doubt is based on an alternative belief.” (Read Tim Keller’s Reason for God for a fuller explanation of these issues.)

    As soon as you define god, you limit god. — Deepak

    This is true, but it shouldn’t stop us from exploring God should it? Deepak is no atheist. He contends that there is a high probability of an intelligent being out there. So sure, for finite beings to try to define god we do limit him, but for followers of Christ, we believe Jesus is God and came to reveal to us (in part) who God is.

    At one point in the debate a woman question’s Driscoll on how he reconciles the evil of pride with the exclusivity of his position. I don’t have the exact quote, but Driscoll is right to go to the heart of the matter, “But what if it is true.” This whole debate is about truth.

    “My experience is more consistent with what we know about biology, evolution, and the laws of nature, in my opinion.” — Deepak

    This was his response to “Pony Tail Girl” and it is a sophisticated way of say you are wrong, but in Deepak’s worldview you cannot call anybody wrong, because there is no constant, no fixed point of reality, no frame of reference.

    Pony-tail girl: “Why would you come here tonight if not to attack him [Jesus]?”

    This was the worst thing she could have said. The only thing worse thing for her to say would have been to say that Deepak’s mom is a prostitute. Antagonistic attacks on non-Christian people will never lead them to Christ. This is a good time to love our enemies. Deepak wasn’t attacking Jesus. He was attacking truth. As I stated above, we know that Jesus is the Truth, and so maybe by inference he was attacking Jesus, but in responding to a pluralistic culture we need to respond to people’s statements, and the worldview behind their statements, and not the inferences we draw from those statements, because like Pony Tail Girl we are then arguing against an idea in our minds that may not be in theirs. She had all the best intentions in the world, bless her heart, but she didn’t help our cause.

    “You need these forces [creativity/evolutionary and entropy/destruction] to keep creation going.” — Deepak

    Driscoll needed to push the issue with Deepak over why he would call Anne’s story “evil” and more importantly why are these entropy/destructive forces necessary for creation to go on? Maybe he should have asked “How is it both evil and necessary?” Anne had been brutally gang raped and Deepak agreed that this was evil, but he wanted to brush it off as the fault of cultural psychosis. As he described his worldview he said destructive forces are necessary. So does that imply that evil is necessary? Or that Anne needed to be raped and tortured? I wish Driscoll would have pushed this issue. It would have clearly shown the inconsistencies of Deepak’s worldview.

    “I don’t trust my mind. I trust my spirit which is beyond all this” – Deepak

    Driscoll did a great job in questioning how Deepak believed in the evolutionary process and yet Deepak admits that he doesn’t trust his mind. He trusted his spirit! This was a clear contradiction in Deepak’s form of pluralism. If he doesn’t trust his mind, then why use his mind to study biology, cosmology, and philosophy? Why not just meditate and stop writing books?

    CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: This debate was not about Satan. The existence of Satan is what got the debate started. This was a debate about truth. What is there in the world of philosophy, religion, and theology that is true? What is it in those areas that corresponds with reality? For those of us who follow Jesus, we believe that he is the way, the truth, and the life, the only way to God the Father and eternal life. Jesus did speak these words in Aramaic, but when he spoke of “me” or “God” he was not referring to the “circle within the circle” or the great “spirit” in the sky. Deepak’s interpretation is not consistent with First century Judaic thought. It sounded intellectual, but his interpretation of Jesus is not consistent with what we know theologically or linguistically about the first century. What his followers heard him say is “God” and “me.” When Jesus said nobody comes to the Father except through me, the gospel writers wrote the word eimi in Greek. There only way to interpret that is through the very simple meaning “me.” Jesus was simple at this point. It takes a lot of religious and philosophical wrangling to make it more completed than that. For those of us who are Christ followers it is simple:

    Jesus is the Truth.

    He is our philosophical constant.

    He is our moral framework.

    He is what corresponds with reality.

    He is not our experience of cultural/philosophical influences.

    He is really real.

    He really lived.

    He really died on a Roman cross.

    He really was buried in a borrowed tomb.

    He really rose up from the dead.

    He really sent the Holy Spirit to live in the hearts of those who are his.

    He is really coming back.

    Mark Driscoll did a great job of reading Scripture as his closing remarks. He read 1 John 5:19-20. I am closing this blog with that text:

    We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (ESV)

    2 Comments / Theology /