You can stop reading this post if you think I am going to review Mark and Grace Driscoll’s book Real Marriage. I have a much more boring post in mind.
Driscoll’s Real Marriage book is to the NeoReformed what Rob Bell’s Love Wins was to the Emerging church last year. They both stir up humongous sales with a media frenzy and in the process reveal the “cracking” (to use Scot McKnight’s word) taking place within the mainline N. American protestant evangelical church. As with Bell’s book, so also with Driscoll’s book, each brouhaha (to use Bill Kinnon’s word) reveals something of the theological pulse driving their respective movements.
This time the Driscoll fiasco revolves an interview done by the Driscoll’s about their book with Justin Brierley on the British radio program Unbelievable (here’s the podcast of the entire hour-long interview with Mark Driscoll). There was a “dust-up” on the interview. Driscoll was offended. He then calls it “the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective” interview he’s ever had. And now it’s all over the internet driving up sales of his (and his wife’s) new book.
My take (and the angle I want to pursue) on the interview is that Driscoll’s “act” simply doesn’t translate well into the very post-Christendom context of Britian. In fact the whole encounter reveals the Christendon assumptions that drive his theology. There are three missional “bugaboos” that he clashes with Brierley on. Each bugaboo represents a theological position we Missionals fear/resist because of the way these things work against mission. In this interview, these bugaboos are a.) Driscoll’s singular obsession with penal substitutionary atonement, b.) his commitment to hierarchical male authority in the church, and c.) his blind belief in the importance of preaching/successful preacher to the church’s identity. These bugaboos represent the Christendom assumptions behind Driscoll’s theology and way he operates. Yet I think we can make a case for interpreting Driscoll as a symptom of the wider Neo-Reformed theological movement. So I think this episode reveals more than just Driscoll’s Christendom theology and mode of operation. I think it speaks to why the current Neo-Reformed revival and its theology will have a hard time leading missional–incarnational-externally driven church. So I put this theological psychoanalysis to the test before all my neo-Reformed friends. Let’s converse. Here goes!
(FYI: I’m riffing off of the account of the interview here and here, Driscoll’s response to the interview here, and Justin’s response to Driscoll as reported here).
1.) The Focus on the Substitionary Atonement. Towards the end of the interview, Driscoll asks Brierley if he believes in the penal substitutionary atonement. When Brierley affirms it as one of many ways to view the cross, Driscoll suggests he’s being cowardly about it. Driscoll then insists on singular commitment to penal substitutionary atonement is essential to the success of the gospel.
To me this speaks to the singular focus on the penal subtitutionary atonement that is central in many parts of the Neo-Reformed matrix regardless of contextual considerations. Am I right? Driscoll is blind to contextual considerations concerning salvation. In other words, the atonement is many faceted (read McKnights Community of Atonement for example). One size does not fit all. It could be argued that penal substititionary atonement makes the most sense in Christendom, amidst a culture shaped under Medieval Catholicism, it’s theology and penitential system (Driscoll grew up Catholic). Moral guilt, you could say, was (and is) the singular Christendom condition into which Reformed theology was born. It is not however as universal in the West as it once was. If we insist on being locked into this one view of the atonement, we will in essence be narrowing our context for mission.
The atonement is wider, bigger and more multitudinous than substitionary theory. And the hurts and pains of the world we are engaging cannot be put fit into this one theory. I believe in the substitionary theory of the atonement. But it is limited. The work that God is doing in the world includes reconciliation, healing, restoration, justice, and the victory and authority of Christ over Satan, evil, sin and death. It is in short God at work through Christ making all things right. A narrow focus on substitionary atonement disables the church from engaging the world outside Western Christendom culture. It discounts the manifold ways God in Christ has come to set the whole world right. Mark Driscoll can’t understand this. And so when he enters a post-Christendom context he gets frustrated.
Does not Drsicoll’s frustration then reveal the atonement myopia at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement. Does it not reveal the weakness inherent in Neo-Reformed theology for those of us minsistering in post Christendom contexts (like Brierley’s Britian)? Does not his whole fiasco reveal how the singular focus on subtititionary atonement hinders missional engagement? Yes? no?
2.) The View that Authority is Hierarchical. Towards the end of the interview the issue of women pastors came up. It caused a bit of a flare-up in Driscoll’s intensity. Driscoll ends up suggesting that the reason why more people did not show up at Brierley’s church was because of a woman in leadership. To me, this has been a subtle persistent theme within Neo-Reformed ecclesiology: that men should be over women in authority in the church. Now it explodes on a radio interview in the UK. This I suggest is a Neo-Reformed habit learned and sustained in Christendom.
Authority in Christendom is viewed in hierarchical terms. Hierarchical patterns of leadership exist readily in established church systems where you have Christianized people who are already conditioned to respect clergy authority, where things can get done, goods and services distributed, decisions made, disputes arbitrated more efficiently among Christians who already submit. It is because of these ingrained habits of hierarchy that most Neo-Reformed views of church authority have struggles with women in authority over men (OK this is at least one of the reasons). Take hierarchy out of the authority question and it becomes much harder to interpret Scripture in a way that excludes women from leadership in the church.
In the post-Christendom world, authority is flattened in the church and pushed outward (Read this post for more info). Positional authority of anyone over someone else is not the way things work in the Kingdom (read Mark 10:42). Instead we work alongside each other out of our giftedness in the communities appreciating one another gifts and mutually submitting one to another in each one’s gifts (read Eph 4, Rom 12:3-8). The authority lies in one’s recognized gift. The idea that women are over men is as unthinkable as the idea that men are over women.
Flattened authority structures push leadership out amidst the organic work of ministry in context. Hierarchy pushes church ministry inward and upward for approval. Hierarchical authority inhibits dispersed missional engagement. Its structures will miss with people who submit to authority only as encountered via authentic relational engagement. Driscoll seems blind to these issues. He’s absolutely frustrated with Brierley’s inability to be impressed with the importance of top down male leadership. My question is: are these assumptions part of the larger Neo-Reformed movement as a whole and does this mean that the Neo-Reformed will always be inhibited somewhat from true missional engagement? (Can I say “just asking?”). It will always be a movement prone to attracting Christianized people who are already habituated to submit to a pre-established hierarchical (male) authority.
3.) The assumption that “success” is best measured by the number of people who show up to hear a male preacher preach. When Mark Driscoll finds out that Justin Brierley’s wife is a pastor and is questioned on the validity of a wife whose husband supports his wife’s leadership, Mark asks about the size and growth of his wife’s church. He says among other things “You look at your results and you look at my results and look at the variable that is the most obvious.” In other words I have thousands in my church, and you have a few hundred. That proves female leadership is inferior.
To me this is more than blind Driscollian machismo. This reveals something deeper in the Neo-Reformed ethos. There is a tendency in the Neo-Reformed movement to put a large emphasis on the gathering to hear preaching. I believe in preaching! But I see its function differently in the mission of the church. For the Neo-Reformed – correct me if I am wrong – there is a confidence that non-Christian people will still come to church to hear a good sermon. There is therefore a default tendency in Neo-Reformed churches to see success in terms of the numbers of people gathering on Sunday to hear a male preacher preach. This is a missional bugaboo. Success in mission will not always look like big numbers listening to a preacher (has Driscoll ever heard of Fresh Expressions in UK?). I see preaching as formational for a missional people, not a place where mission actually takes place (although I am uncomfortable with making that split). As a result, though often unintentional, the Neo-Reformed movement often devolves into a male led preacher attracting already existing Christians to come hear a good sermon. It thereby mistrains the congregation to think this is what church and mission is all about. That’s perhaps an over-characterization. But is there any truth to it?
Again, I think Driscoll’s question about the size of his wife’s congregation is more than a slip of the Driscollian machismo, I think it reveals something at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement that will hinder it in the formation of congregations for mission. What say you?
In Conclusion
I see in the Mark Driscoll dust-up with Justin Brierley a revealing of some of the Christendom habits deep within the Neo-Reformed movement although often covered over by the many good things they do. The fact that Mark Driscoll’s flare-up happens in the UK – a very post Christendom place – only reinforces my case.
Some have said in response, that Mark Driscoll’s church is in Seattle, the most post-Christendom city in the US. But here, in this post, he says boldly admits going to Canada or the UK is much harder to do ministry than even in Seattle. He states “You are in a cultural context that is more non-Christian, and even anti-Christian, than even the most liberal cities in the United States. I’ve taught across Scotland, Ireland, and England. Each one is more difficult to reach than my hometown of Seattle, which is one of the historically least-churched and most secular-minded cities in America. I’ve said for years that Britain and Canada are more secular and difficult than the United States.” He basically admits that he himself with his particular approach to ministry would have difficulty succeeding in his own approach to ministry. Does this then not reveal what I am saying here? Driscoll is largely dependent upon the harvesting of already Christianized populations in Seattle area (what’s left of them)? Is this then why he then goes with video churches to go capture other such populations elsewhere? Does this then reveal some things that my Neo-Reformed brothers have to examine about their own theological modus operandi? I genuinely ask these questions for the furtherance of God’s Mission in our times.
It may seem unfair to stigmatize the entire Neo-Reformed movement with the likes of a Mark Driscoll temper flare-up. But I’ve learned that these kind of escapades are the best places to look at the cultural forces at work in theology and poitics. For myself, Mark Driscoll is an irruption of sorts on the skin of the Neo-Reformed movement. His flare-up, if closely examined, can reveal some of the theology at work and the forces behind these theological allegiances. How other leaders in the movement respond to him, like Tim Challies, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Collin Hansen, James McDonald, will reveal perhaps even more. Is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
David, I’m a christian in my 60′s. For years and years I have read the gospels, they have consumed my thinking. With this profound redemptive mystery of the kingdom that seems to turn up every corner you take…I have always thought ” redemption ” has to be much much bigger…like a cosmic Big Bang of a new creation…in which the nuclear fall out of that reality touches everything. Much like Eugene Peterson’s Message…the idea of Christ holding everything, all creation together. In a world that creeps closer to the edge of extinction, in which we cal only offer forgiveness of sin…is like offering a band aid to a world that is hemorrhaging its life away. In a post modern, and post christendom we need to plumb the depths of the gospels again with the mind of Christ, to re-imagine a redemption that will not only glorify God…but honor and recapture the imagination of all humanity. Thank you for drawing us into that liminal space.
In response to Rob’s point 4:
4. Still, “penal substitution” a problem for mission? That doesn’t ring true. Doesn’t it all boil down to saying things like “Jesus died for you” anyway? The phrase is weird (what is that anyway, a sex change operation?) but who uses it? It’s not like Mark is making converts in the US by preaching about “penal substitution.” But I understand there had been a bit of a controversy in the UK about the nature of the atonement, so maybe I’m speaking whereof I know not.
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your question. You ask: “Who Uses It?” In the UK, to be sure, but in English-speaking conservative evangelical circles throughout the world, the phrase “penal substitutionary atonement” is so popular as a theological shibboleth that it even has its own abbreviation, PSA. You are right to note that the language originates in the UK, with the InterVarsity movemement there, now known as the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF), which essentially started in Cambridge with the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU). Since 1928, the language of Jesus as “representative and substitute” has been part of the UCCF doctrinal statement (as you can read in the famous essay by J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve?”):
6. Redemption from guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death once for all time of our representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
This language is no less part of Neo-Puritan Calvinistic Baptist orthodoxy in the USA than in the UK. For a prime example, see the article by Mark Dever in Christianity Today, May 2006, here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/9.29.html
Nothing But the Blood
More and more evangelicals believe Christ’s atoning death is merely a grotesque creation of the medieval imagination. Really?
By Mark Dever
The official title is “Nothing But the Blood,” but the attention-grabbing CT cover art had the headline: “No Substitute for the Substitute.”
I had my Greek students at Northern Seminary read Dever’s article; we tried to read it out loud in class. The class included a CT employee and a student whose spouse also worked at CT. The class found Dever to be so unfair to his opponents (and to the biblical facts) that they asked me to stop the reading half way through. The CT employee declined to comment, saying, “I plead Switzerland,” i.e., neutrality.
In sum, these things are not being done in a corner. And there is no book to really introduce the debates about the biblical theology of the atonement: I need to write one.
Until then, please notice that Anselm’s satisfaction theory has been written right into the Living Bible and its successor, the New Living Translation (1st ed.). (Note that Anselm’s satisfaction to God’s honor, i.e., a positive compensation for God’s slighted honor through Christ’s meritorious act, was reworked by the Reformers as a satisfaction of God’s demand for strict penal or retributive justice, which is supposed to have fallen on Christ when God appointed him to be executed.)
New Living Translation, Romans 3:25:
“For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us.”
The last 14 English words (“to take the punishment … against us) represent just ONE word in the Greek, hilasterion, the “mercy seat,” as in Heb. 9:5 and LXX Pentateuch. See, 14 English words for 1 Greek word. That is Neo-Puritanism in a nutshell.
The KJV and Neo-Puritan word is “propitiation.” But the literally correct translation is: “God publicly displayed him [Jesus] at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith” (NET Bible).
The Calvinistic language of “propitiation” is in the Bible — but only in the English Bible. The SUBSTANCE of penal atonement doctrine is also in the Bible, in the sense that death per se is a punishment for sin, as for Adam, so also in the case of Jesus; but since Christians are crucified with him, the “substitution” language is can be, and usually is, misleading.
The deficiencies of the English Bible at Rom 3:25 come about because of a mistake in the Old Latin translation, “propitiation,” and the murder of William Tyndale in 1536, which removed the idea of Jesus as the one “whom God hath made a seat of mercy” (Rom. 3:25, Tyndale, 1526) from the English Bible up until the NET Bible from Dallas Seminary (thank God, for these 4-Point Calvinists!). The entire history of the English Bible needs to be called into question. Most of the promoters of the ESV seem to be uniformed here, especially their literary editor, Leland Ryken, Prof. of English at Wheaton, who apparently does not do first-hand work in the biblical languages.
Rob closed by saying: “Maybe I’m speaking whereof I know not.” Well, all I can say is that these things have not been done in a corner; you are right to say that the UK is the ground zero for atonement debates among evangelicals, as in the atrocious book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, with a Foreword from John Piper, but written by theologians who are not specialists in biblical languages or exegesis (Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach). This book has a chilling 10 pages of prefatory endorsements from Neo-Puritans or Reformed Orthodox throughout the English-speaking world: It reads like a hit list of mafiosi who will be out to get you if you disagree. Nevertheless, opposition to Calvinistic Baptist, Neo-Puritan hegemony is also coming up from Scot McKnight and also Joel Green of Fuller (both mentioned in Dever’s CT article). Yet the full-on academic analysis has not been written.
Best regards,
Dan Bailey
Daniel…just a question form the old guy in the comment above yours. Could you recommend some books on progressive theories of atonement other PSA. Thanks…Ron Cole
Ron,
Thanks for your query. For books about the atonement with views other than PSA, you could start with all the people Mark Dever criticizes in his CT article:
Nothing But the Blood
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/9.29.html
Those criticized include Joel Green, who is Wesleyan (not Calvinist), and also my friend Steve Finlan (see below).
But for this blog with its “missional” interest, you might read two books which are not accidentally by a Mennonite, Driver, and another Wesleyan, Shelton:
John Driver, Understanding the Atonement for the Mission of the Church (1986).
R. Larry Shelton, Cross and Covenant: Interpreting the Atonement for 21st Century Mission (2006).
See also Shelton’s contribution to the AAR Wesleyan Studies group: Google this: Shelton, “relational atonement-online”
AAR-Wesleyan Studies Group/Open and Relational Theologies Consultation Session
Relational Atonement: Covenant Renewal as a Wesleyan Integrating Motif
R. Larry Shelton
For the debates about atonement “theories” among evangelicals, see the IVP book:
The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views: James Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, Thomas R. Schreiner, Gregory A. Boyd, Joel B. Green.
The four views are referred to as:
Christus Victor, Penal Substitution, Healing View, and Kaleidoscope.
I don’t think this is the best typology; what we need is a full-on analysis of CULTIC atonement in the OT and early Jewish sources, including DSS.
I wrote just such an article together with Stephen Finlan, “Atonement.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Unfortunately, the editor printed the wrong version, written by Steve as a draft, with no input from me. The editor got the final version from me, but never downloaded it from the email, therefore the true version was never printed.
You can email me to get the correct version of this article. It explains as much data as possible in about 2,200 words.
email: danpbailey@aol.com
The most important conclusion of my research for present purposes is that God is the initiator of atonement in the DSS and in the NT (and to some extent in the Hebrew Bible), whereas the idea of humans propitiating or appeasing God is found in the Hellenistic Jewish writings of Philo, Josephus, and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha written in Greek.
I include here only the part on the NT:
ATONEMENT
“To make atonement” for persons and their sins is the traditional English translation of the Hebrew verb kpr (piel: kipper) and its derivatives when used in the Priestly materials of the Pentateuch and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and can also be used to translate most occurrences of kipper’s Greek equivalent exilaskomai in the LXX. Both ancient word groups also have a wider range of meaning. Kipper can be understood in terms of “purging” (NJPS) the sacred objects in the Israelite sanctuary. Exilaskomai generally means to “propitiate” or “appease” God in nonbiblical Jewish sources. Studying atonement in early Judaism requires understanding these words and their changing contexts and theologies.
[...]
NEW TESTAMENT
The two Testaments of the English Bible have been linguistically disconnected for centuries. The Old Testament has spoken of “making atonement” for people and their sins ever since William Tyndale in 1530, while the New Testament has spoken of “propitiation,” implicitly of God’s wrath, under the influence of the Latin Vulgate’s propitiatio (Rheims [1582], KJV, ASV, NASB, ESV). This was later replaced by the “expiation” of sin as a reaction against propitiation (RSV, NEB, NAB). More recent versions such as the NIV and NRSV reconnect the Testaments by speaking of a “sacrifice of atonement” or “atoning sacrifice” in Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:10. These versions are correct except in Rom. 3:25. Here Jesus cannot be called a “sacrifice of atonement,” since a victim of sacrifice is never termed a hilasterion in ancient Greek. Paul speaks of a sacrifice of atonement in Romans using the more precise Levitical expression peri hamartias, “sin offering” (Rom. 8:3, NRSV mg.).
These New Testament uses of hilaskomai and related words are connected much more closely to the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls than to Hellenism or Hellenistic Judaism. In Heb. 2:17, Jesus’ priestly mission to “make atonement for the sins of the people” (NIV) involves an absolute use of the verb in its biblical sense with few nonbiblical parallels (cf. Ps. Sol. 3:8). As in the Scrolls, God is the initiator of atonement when he sends Jesus as an “atoning sacrifice” for sins (1 John 4:10) and as a “sin offering” (Rom. 8:3). Finally, where the Scrolls connect atonement with God’s saving righteousness (1QS 11:14-15; 1QHa 12:37), Paul understands God’s act of setting forth Jesus as the new “place of atonement” or “mercy seat” to be a similar demonstration of God’s righteousness: “God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat (hilasterion) accessible through faith…to demonstrate his righteousness” (Rom. 3:25, NET Bible).
The controversial translation of hilasterion, root hilaos (Attic hileoœs) by “mercy seat” in Rom. 3:25 is supported by Philo, who understands the hilasterion or kapporet on top of the ark as “a symbol of the merciful (hilews) power of God” (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Although the ark with the kapporet was missing from Israel since the destruction of the first temple (cf. Jer. 3:16; 2 Macc. 2:5; 2 Bar. 6:7; Eup. frg. 4 [Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.5]; Tacitus, Hist. 5.9) and the Day of Atonement proceeded without it in the second temple (m. Yoma 5:2), the Temple Scroll understands the kapporet to be part of the ideal temple (11Q19 3:9; 7:9), and there was even a tradition that the ark would rise at the resurrection (Liv. Pro. 2:12; cf. Rev. 11:19). The identification of Jesus as the kapporet or hilasterion for the age of faith in Rom. 3:25 appears all the more striking against these Jewish backgrounds.
I know that starts to get a little technical. But you will see that the Jewish sources are not really about “penal substitutionary atonement.” English-spealing Reformed evangelical biblical scholars commonly project their Calvinistic systematic theological theories of Christ’s work back on to the animals that were the sacrificial victims in Leviticus, e.g., the “sin offerings” of Leviticus 4 and 16. It will take some more academic writing to counteract this trend and get a fresh view of the Hebrew and Jewish Greek sources.
By Daniel P. Bailey and Stephen Finlan
(actually, these parts are all by me)
Best regards,
Dan
Hi Ron,
One additional book, just out (2011). If you want to know what someone would say about OT sacrifice and its applicability to the NT, who is not an English speaker but is a Christian BIBLICAL theologian, read this by a German scholar who teaches in Canada, Christian Eberhart, co-chair of the SBL group Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement:
The Sacrifice of Jesus: Understanding Atonement Biblically, by Christian Eberhart (Fortress, 2011).
The book is short, only 134 pages of text. Back matter includes glossary of Hebrew and Greek cultic terms, Bibliography, and End Notes.
Compared to this, the many popular books on atonement by evangelicals (including even some by professors) are just not up to date with the debates about OT cultic atonement. By contrast, Eberhart is a world leader.
Best,
Dan
Thanks Dan, much appreciated…just ordered it. Peace Ron
Hallelujah, for the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
[...] the interview with Justin Brierley, so well covered you need to read this and this and this. And listen to the [...]
“I believe in the substitionary theory of the atonement. But it is limited.”
: ) That’s classic.
Hi Dave,
Very insightful posting. I’ve been chewing on it all week. I think it brings the focus off of Mark Driscoll and on to his ideas, for while personalities fade, ideas have force and spread. So, focusing on the ideas that undermine his words is key here. I want to focus my comments to your part 3 above. I recommend folks read (re-read) that section again before listening to my comment here.
I love a good sermon. I’m a seminary student and hope to preach one day, so I believe it’s an important gift in the church. However, I have to remind myself that when I was a non-Christian, I had no interest in hearing a sermon. I passed by preachers on TV constantly. I turned down the one church invitation I got. It wasn’t until I was saved that I was desperate to hear sermons as God used them to nurse me during that phase. However, it was a two-year long sermon that brought me to Christ. I worked with a woman who lived out Christ’s incarnation day in and day out. I wanted what she had. Once I got What she had, the gift of preaching (and other church gifts) were key in my early formation.
I realize many come to faith through the preaching of the word, but when Mark Driscoll’s solution to a problem he perceives in the UK is to have more young male preachers, I question that silver bullet. While preaching has its place as a gift in the body, I do not see it as a primary means of growing us in Christ-likeness. Willow Creek, known for their great preaching, were brave enough to perform a study to show us this. (http://www.revealnow.com/key_findings.asp).
Should the church grow more people like Linda (the woman who witnessed to me at work through her life) to become walking sermons in the market place and beyond, we are on a good road.
God bless
Brian
p.s. it’s late, I hope this is coherent.
correction on above…..’undermine’, should be undergird
[...] of the interesting comments on David Fitch’s recent post about Mark Driscoll & the neo-Reformed was Scot McKnight’s. Scot said he prefers [...]
[...] David Fitch wrote a piece entitled, “The Mark Driscoll Fiasco: What this Latest Flap Teaches Us About the Neo-Reformed Movement.&#… Per usual, Fitch’s insights are well worth your [...]
Response to some of Driscoll’s comments by D.A. Carson:
“We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success. We must avoid ever leaving the impression that these equations are valid.”
Part of a longer piece here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/01/29/reflections-on-the-church-in-great-britain/
[...] short of the biblical requirements of leaders in public ministry roles. (As a starting place, read Dr. David Fitch’s post and check out the many comments, commenters’ blogs, and related links and you’ll be able to [...]
David,
Thanks for this post. I came upon it while doing some research for an essay of my own I was writing about Mark Driscoll, and very much appreciated hearing your perspective.
The essay I’ve written is an attempt understand Mark and the controversy he generates in a broader context. I thought it might interest you:
http://thisismyweblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/christianitys-mark-driscoll-problem.html
Please forgive the shameless plug. Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
John
[...] was also reading something on the blogosphere about the latest Mars Hill spat – Mark Driscoll throwing his weight around and playing power doctrine games. From the [...]
The latest: Acts 29 is undergoing a radical reorganization. Driscoll just announced: “I am resuming the presidency of Acts 29.”
http://www.acts29network.org/
He just announced that. Was there a vote? Or just a decree? How many heads will roll? Will we even hear about them? How many staff firings are in the offing?