I say all that to say this positive thing about Mark. As a teacher, he’s excellent. He rarely, in my far less educated opinion, misses an important point of a passage he’s teaching. He does sometimes - ok, often - turn a sermon into an opportunity to attack a pet enemy of the moment of his, but when he sticks to the point of the passage, no one is clearer.

He’s an excellent teacher and even when he drifts from the topic at hand, he’s still easily learned from.

What Mark is not so good at - what so many charismatic entertainers are not so good at - is diplomacy.

Great teacher. Bad spokesperson for my faith and his own - erecting again and again far too may uneccessary boundaries to belief. It’s hard enough to beliefe God was born to a virgin and walked on water without stripping Him of compassion and mercy too.

Christ, like God, is paradoxical. I have a hard time believeing anyone who says He’s all kick ass with no time for tears in the garden or wine making at a wedding celebration. He’s a lion AND a lamb.

Well, actually I will hear something in there that I agree with but it is laden with slanderous, homophobic, “mr. I’m a Christian but a tough guy” remarks. I agree that small groups can just get around a gripe about big church, but is that not what he is doing in griping about the small groups. There doesn’t seem to be much room for grace in his rhetoric. Then again, I need to read more to make such judgments.

What trends in church and worship styles do you see? Are they positive or negative?

MD: This generation can be a whiny bunch of idealists getting together in small groups to complain about mega-churches and the religious right rather than doing something.

I don’t want this to turn into a Driscoll bashing-fest, as to avoid pissing off friends that I have who work closely with him. However, where is this guy coming from? What is his appeal to the thousands of people that seemingly, worship him? I have yet to hear something from him that I can respect.

Thoughts on these two questions?

That said, paraphrased it would be this…

Mark must have read the story of Jesus and the moneychangers, and discounted the entire balance of the gospels.

The entire point of the new testament is that Christ, though all powerful, chose not to use his power, but to excercise his meekness and his humility.

Christ is not Clint Eastwood. Christ is Ghandi.

I fail to find evidence, in my studies, of Christ as the bully or as the intimidator. Christ is funny, shockingly intellegent and chose to difuse situations with his wit and tact instead of picking fights and looking for trouble.

Apparently, Mark wants George W. Jesus. There are times for that, but the Bible doesn’t support evidence of that Christ.

Even in Revelation, Christ is still the meek and humble savior. He only flexes his muscles when he has to, he doesn’t go around looking for excuses to do so.

Thats a human thing to do. Christ is more than human. He understands that when you have the biggest guns, you don’t have to prove it.

Christ doesn’t have to compensate by acting like a badass.

Thats want to marvel in God’s compassion, not revel in his butt kicking.

Dan
PS. sorry for the f-bomb.

PSPS - he still didn’t answer the question.

Dan
951 897 4927

Bell, though, could be argued to speak from guilt and self-loathing in his reply. Is he not, after all, also a part of the culture he decries?

I think that both speak truth (at least, some truth). Painting a picture of Jesus or Jehovah that casts Him in only the light we wish to see and live by is deadly (and I mean spiritually deadly). Turning a deaf ear to the cry of our “neighbor” (as Jesus described), especially while seeking our own ends, is equally deadly. Both are problems that the next generation faces. Both are problems that have been faced for the last couple of millenia. I think we are really not producing new problems, just reemphasizing old ones.

The one I tend to emphasize is the pittiful knowledge of scripture that most professors of Christ have.

Mark’s formula: Liberal or Moderate= wuss. Maybe lay of the Carmen records for a while. We get it. Your a tough guy. Fine, you couldn’t beat up Jesus. But maybe your mom could beat up Jesus’s mom. Does that count? Also, the whole statement here seems to paint anyone who doesn’t see Jesus in the same light as Jesse “the Body” Ventura is a Homo. - ‘Limp wrist’ ‘product in hair’(strange, it may be the light but his hair sure seems shiny) ’shoe shopping’…

Come on. Go ahead and say it.

Jesus certainly wasn’t a wimp but he was no Hell’s Angel or Conan the Barbarian either. If memory serves me, Jesus was willingly beat up pretty bad, then emerged to conquer death. So he could have blown everything apart… Is that why you worship Him? Because he can beat everybody up? Because he is tougher than you?

I also disagree about the swing to the left. I think if he means there is a swing back to the middle from the right, then I agree. So I guess you could say that is a swing to the left. I agree with the last sentence. Tolerance is not the same thing as Right. That is a HUGE trend. Jesus loved, but wasn’t tolerant of sin.

I think Rob Bell is right on.

What is the “greatest challenge”?

Why is it that whenever Mark Driscoll’s name is mentioned, an immediate defense follows?

I have my own thoughts on this, as well as two more quotes from Driscoll I would like to share… but I want to hear from a few others first.