A Young Layman's Perspective on the Discernment Gap Among Young Southern Baptists: by Mr. Chris Poe

Precipitation caught Southern Baptists without their umbrella last week, but now slowly moves to the north.  Sheets of water were visibly heavy at times, as a steady downpour of defenders made their case for Seattle pastor, Mark Driscoll, and his continued influence among Southern Baptists.

From North Carolina to Nashville, each voice showered his unwavering commitment to one thing:  the solution to the sorrowful state among multitudes of Southern Baptist Churches is found in Seattle.  In short, we'll call it the Seattle solution.

According to some, the Seattle Solution will fix the "generation gap" among Southern Baptists.  Recalling the words of one professor, the Seattle solution may stop our hemorrhaging:  "I am tired of talking good younger men off the ledge from leaving the SBC."

Twice Dr. Nathan Finn expressed his view on the "generation gap," and presumably believes as well the Seattle solution is key to overcoming it. 

Also, Professor Finn posted the view of a young Southern Baptist layman and his struggle to fit in.  One is tempted to assume most or even all young Southern Baptists style their hair with Dr. Finn's mirror.  Nevertheless, as we shall see, not all young thinking Southern Baptists do.

The guest contributor for today's post is Mr. Chris Poe.  Mr. Poe is a young,  thirty-something Southern Baptist layman from Louisiana.   A graduate of Louisiana College (a Southern Baptist institution) with a degree in history, he leans on the Calvinist side of the soteriological equation as does Mark Driscoll.  Yet, far from accepting uncritically the Seattle Solution, Chris offers a striking commentary all Southern Baptists should consider as we contemplate embracing Mars Hill methodology.

by Mr. Chris Poe

From reading some blogs, you'd think that the response in the blogosphere to the Baptist Press article on Mark Driscoll's continued vulgarity was almost unanimously negative.  However, I ask you to please consider the following:

Expository Thoughts is a blog that has a number of young pastors as contributors.  Any objective observer would have to admit that they are not disposed to be "anti-Driscoll."  (Indeed some of Driscoll's most ardent defenders often express concerns, albeit usually failing to articulate just what it is that they are concerned about.)  Although they don't specifically interact with the BP story, there are several recent posts that are pertinent.  See here (don't miss Jerry Wragg's comment,) here for a take on the NYT article and here where we see that Driscoll evidently missed an opportunity to preach the gospel on CNN.

Dr. Bart Barber compares Mark Driscoll with an exemplary pastor of his youth.  I find the juxtaposition intriguing given that we often hear that a major problem in the SBC is the preoccupation with numbers.

Here is a careful and comprehensive take on the issue.

Peter Lumpkins weighs in here, here, and here. In his last post, Bro. Lumpkins gets to the heart of the issue:

Alas, as it is, I suppose those of us who foolishly questioned the liaison with a ministry which strangely but fully and clearly endorses encouraging husbands and wives to prayerfully consider sodomy as a viable Christian option to enhance intimacy together will just have to face reality:  we are apparently woefully out of touch with what's hip today in reaching the multitudes with the gospel.

Sadly, the counsel of these men is rejected by many of the young Southern Baptists in the blogosphere due to the misguided perception that they are too old, too traditional, that they belong to the wrong political faction or whatever, and that the old paths just aren't going to cut it today. 

Harry Emerson Fosdick said that the soldiers returning home from the horrors of WWI simply wouldn't believe the fantastic tales revealed in the Bible about the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection, so we have to give them something else lest the church become irrelevant in the 20th Century in the wake of Darwin and the destruction of war. The church growth gurus of the past few decades used similar reasoning to justify their practice of preaching to felt needs and proclaiming a message of positive thinking, rarely if ever getting around to clearly proclaiming the law and the gospel. 

Mark Driscoll is certainly more sound doctrinally than the above examples, but the rationale behind his appropriation of the coarser aspects of our culture is the same.  (And can doctrine ultimately be divorced from practice?)  I simply ask those who think this continued parade of vulgarity is what is necessary to reach lost people today to consider the following comment from Scott Shaffer:

"I'd wager that if you went back through church history, you'd be hard pressed to find orthodox ministers of the gospel discussing sex in the same manner Driscoll does. Yet, the topic has always been relevant to mankind. So, are we to believe that MD is the first gospel minister to get it right?" 

The Sixties radicals refused to listen to anyone over 30.  It appears that some young (and some not so young) Southern Baptist radicals refuse to listen to anyone over 40 or who they perceive to be too "traditional" in their methodology.  When "young leaders" are more alienated by editorial judgment and journalistic practices than they are by Driscoll's actions, then I submit that it isn't Baptist Press who has the problem. 

If the blog responses to this controversy are indicative of the views of "younger leaders" as a whole, this 35 year old Southern Baptist layman has no small degree of trepidation about seeing the baton handed over to them, as some say needs to be done.  Why should older leaders have to get out of the way to begin with, assuming they are still faithful to their calling?

One searches in vain to find the concept of retirement in the Bible.  Did Moses get out of the way when he reached "retirement age?"  How about the apostle John?  The ministry is a calling, not a profession.  On the subject of retirement, I once heard John MacArthur say something like "What am I going to retire from?  Preaching the Gospel?" If a young leader who is truly gifted to teach is being stifled in his current context, then why wait to be "promoted" at "his church?" 

Instead, why not seek out some other avenue of ministry in which he may be useful, even if it means changing churches or locales?  Did William Carey let the naysayers hold him back?  No doubt there are many small churches in rural as well as urban areas would be happy to have some gifted young people come and serve.  I can think of once such church now that may well have closed the doors by this point were it not for a friend of mine going there and taking up the preaching and teaching ministry.

Earlier I charged that the problem isn't so much a Generation Gap as it is a Discernment Gap.  Although it pains me greatly to say so, I don't hesitate to say that, I'd rather see the Southern Baptist Convention fade away rather than see it given it over to those who who evidently fail to see (or even consider) the issue when a prominent evangelical pastor places a link to (at best) a borderline porn site on his church website.  I wonder how many people will visit a site like the one Mars Hill has linked right now, and once they've had their fill of that and find that it doesn't satisfy them, will eventually move on to harder core sites? Depravity being what it is and the fact that we are never free from sin in this life, it's not much of a leap for a man to go from a site like the one to which Driscoll links to one that allows him to gratify his lusts to the full.

The standard reply of his defenders is "This is what has to be done to reach people today," especially those who are considered "unreachable."  Haven't we heard that before? My friends, no one is beyond the reach of God's grace! 

Many such "unreachables" have been reached by very "traditional" ministries.  The church certainly has failed in many cases in not seeking to minister to the prostitute, the addict, the unwed mother to be, and others who would make many church folks who don't understand the mission of the church uncomfortable.  But we don't have to get down into the gutter ourselves to reach the "unreachable." I may not literally be the chief of sinners, but neither am I a prude who has lived a sheltered lifestyle far removed from the realities of today's secular culture. 

I live in the Greater New Orleans area.  Technically it may be somewhat more churched than Seattle, but who would disagree that New Orleans is practically unrivaled when it comes to open wickedness and depravity?  As a man who has in his lifetime wasted many years in indulging in nearly all of what this world has to offer, has stared into the abyss and has now been granted repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I can assure you that there are few things that I find shocking, including the material to which Driscoll links. However, what is disappointing is when the church embraces the more vulgar aspects of our culture out of an apparent conviction that it is what has to be done to reach the lost in this postmodern age. 

A preacher once told me, "What you win them with is what you will have to keep them with."  That's true whether it is clown shows, promoting the power of positive thinking or demonstrating how cool and liberated one is when it comes to modern sexual practices.

In closing, let's consider the following:

The glory of the gospel is that when the Church is absolutely different from the world, she invariably attracts it. It is then that the world is made to listen to her message, though it may hate it at first. That is how revival comes. That must also be true of us as individuals. It should not be our ambition to be as much like everybody else as we can, though we happen to be Christian, but rather to be as different from everybody who is not a Christian as we can possibly be. Our ambition should be to be like Christ, the more like Him the better, and the more like Him we become, the more we shall be unlike everybody who is not a Christian. 

-----D.M Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount

The subject [The World] is one which demands the best attention of all who profess and call themselves Christians.  In every age of the Church separation from the world has always been one of the grand evidences of a work of grace in the heart.  He that has been really born of the Spirit, and made a new creature in Christ Jesus, has always endeavoured to "come out from the world," and live a separate life.  They who have only had the name of Christian, without the reality, have always refused to "come out and be separate" from the world. 

He that desires to "come out from the world, and be separate," must steadily and habitually refuse to be guided by the world's standard of right and wrong.

In all doubtful cases let us often try ourselves by recollecting the eye of God.  Should I go to such and such a place, or do such and such a thing, if I really thought God was looking at me?

-----J.C. Ryle, Practical Religion

*For more information on Mr. Chris Poe, visit his personal page

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Les Puryear]

Chris,

I guess everyone has their opinion. Thanks for yours.

Peter,

I'm impressed with your volume of output after closing the site. Hope you make your deadlines.

Les

[Jim Champion]

I would agree with Mr Poe that the New Orleans is as debauched as any other area in the country. The difference I see between Seattle and N'awlins however is that at least in New Orleans there is a culture of Christianity - or at least the New Orleans area is not hostile to Christianity - its more of a live and let live environment.

I would argue that the Seattle area is actually a hostile environment to Christianity and that the culture up there is vastly different from the culture in the south.

One of my friends left the beautiful sunny environs of the DFW area and moved to Seattle to help with a church plant - the reports I get from him were truly amazing regarding the hostility he met.

I am under no illusion that Pastor Driscoll is perfect. In fact I have no idea if I would be comfortable in his church - in fact I like the medium sized church of between 200-500 members best myself. Pastor Driscoll is making an impact in an area that is a tough area in which to minister. I dont understand why we are continuing to pile on.

If not piling on, I dont understand the purpose of this post

Jim

[Todd Burus]

Chris,
I appreciate the time you have put into writing on this matter. Unfortunately, the quotes you list at the end belie the problem with what you are arguing. What Dr. Lloyd-Jones and JC Ryle are calling down is a sense of worldliness and carnality among Christianity. However, I would charge, Driscoll, his ministry, and those like his, can not be rightly accused of worldliness. In fact, as he explained himself at Southeastern (and several times prior) what he is teaching is how to truly be counter-cultural, a "refus[al] to be guided by the world's standard of right and wrong" if you may: get a job, get married to someone of the opposite sex, have kids, and worship God as the One true God of the Universe.

Methodologically you may imagine what he is preaching is worldliness, and if for you it would lead to worldliness to pursue it then by all means avoid those things, but do not make the mistake that MacArthur made when making his comments on Driscoll by assuming that there is some kind of implicit church culture that the Bible teaches. What each of us views as worldliness is guided heavily by the world in which we live. That is why I continually call for us not to try and export the culture of the Old South to the rest of the world. Even you, in bringing up New Orleans, miss this point. Though N.O. is wicked, it is still (1) Southern, and (2) historically Catholic. This brings about a level of guilt and shame to actions which just simply are not to be found in places like Seattle. Again, as Driscoll points out, it is not about being culturally relative or even relevant, but being culturally (and seeker) sensible.

The problem is, people are being to quick to condemn Driscoll viewing him through their own ministerial biases instead of honestly evaluating the philosophy of ministry and area in which he is speaking. Many are fond of criticizing his use of Chris Rock as a homiletician, but where are those same voices chastising Paul for quoting the pagan philosophers of Athens?

[peter lumpkins]

Jim & Todd,

I will not step in for Chris--though sooner or later, I'll offer some commentary here--you both have one peculiar overlap which brought a smile to my tired, dried-up, old face:

Jim--"...at least in New Orleans there is a culture of Christianity...the culture [in Seattle] is vastly different from the culture in the south"

Todd--"...I continually call for us not to try and export the culture of the Old South...Though N.O. is wicked, it is still (1) Southern, and (2) historically Catholic"

To equate historic New Orleans proper or even southern Louisiana (distinction drawn at Baton Rouge) generally with what's typically viewed as "Southern culture" or a "culture of Christianity" or "historically Catholic" seems to me indicative of a bubbled existence you both have unfortunately experienced. I'm quite sure Chris will fill the blanks in on that one.

My family & I had the privilege of living in the greater NO area for over 3.5 years while I attended NOBTS. It is not too much to say, it is a world all its own and may very well qualify as a foreign mission field.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Always glad to hear you are impressed. But if you think I implied I was closing shop for good--or, even for a long time--at SBC Tomorrow, I'm thinking you may just be expressing a thinly veiled wish. (wink wink^)

More seriously, Les, to treat Chris Poe's article with an innocuous remark such as you left, reveals the level of silliness to which Baptist blogdom has descended. Why remark at all, if the remark is little more than childish snobbery?

If you'd like to engage Chris, by all means do so. But leave such displays on your site, not SBC Tomorrow, and especially toward a guest I've invited.

With that, I am...
Peter

[scott shaffer]

What continues to amaze me is 1)how many people still miss the point - that the pulpit is no place for crass jokes and language, and 2) how his supporters are unwilling to defend his words. Instead, as Peter and Chris have stated, his words are glossed over because he is doing a good work. There is a false dichotomy in play with such an attitude. Maybe I've missed it, but have any of his supporters actually stated that his pulpit speech is unacceptable?

[Chris Poe]

Peter has said it well, New Orleans is definitely a world all its own and is no more Southern culturally than Miami is. Louisiana is one of our more diverse states, and New Orleans is a separate culture even from Cajun Country. It may be historically Catholic, but the % with that affiliation today is much lower than one might imagine. Also, guilt and shame unfortunately don't factor in for many people, even in the "Bible Belt" in many cases today. I didn't note the fact that I live near N.O. wanting to get into a tit/tat over whose city is the baddest but only raised the issue to point out that I'm not unaware of the challenges we face in this age, and to point out that I was not raised Southern Baptist.

As for MacArthur's view on "church culture" his view is the same as Ryle's, Spurgeon's and Lloyd-Jones' and the Puritans. Throw one under the bus, you've got to dismiss them all. I simply refer you to Scott Shaffer's words above. Are we to think that MD is the first gospel preacher to get it right? I believe the following is still largely relevant today:

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/11/grunge-christianity/

Here's a pertinent quote:

"Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we’re not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it."

I will be checking in as time permits, but will be away from the computer for most of the day.

[From the Middle East]

Brother Peter,

New Orleans seems to me to have a high Christian identity. Obviously practice is quite low! But it is good to distinguish between identity and practice. While it is certainly unique and the people there could be classified as a micro-people group, there seems to be a strong Christian identity.

Apologies for the interruption. I'll let you gentlemen get back to your arguments about Mark Driscoll.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

[From the Middle East]

Oops. I meant to put a smily face by the comment about Driscoll ;^)

[Chris Poe]

Scott,

His supporters have stated that the potty mouth is unacceptable, and apparently Ed Stetzer confronted him to his face about it. But now they appear to want to just sweep everything under the rug when arguably this is the worst action yet. As Peter has pointed out, the m.o. is to make vague noises about concerns, but when you try to get specific about some issue, they cry foul and attempt to deflect criticism by appealing to pragmatism, essentially. The Seattle Solution seems to be working, so let's ride this wave and not get distracted by these little peccadilloes.

[Chris Poe]

From the Middle East,

I would say that from a Biblical standpoint it is largely an apostate identity, not a Christian identity, although I'm sure you simply mean that generally people would identify themselves as some kind of Christian, regardless of their lifestyle. Seattle and other areas on the W. Coast are more like Canada and W. Europe where people are more likely to identify as atheists, agnostics or embrace some other religion. But there are other parts of the country in which this would be true as well.

[scott shaffer]

Chris,

Thanks for the correction/clarification.

[peter lumpkins]

FTME,

Thanks. I'm going to have to disagree, I'm afraid. Todd was correct in suggesting a high watermark of Catholics in the greater NO area. However, unless it's changed alot since I was there (by the way, I assisted in some church planting on the Northshore) grassroots catholicism in NO proper has been highly infected with voodoo and superstitious rituals imported from elsewhere. It''s very prominent, or at least was.

But, Chris is correct. Which city is more needy is not really relevant. The point I would make is, to argue that those of us who've raised concerns about Mars Hill methodology as imposing "Old South" decor where it cannot fit, would be hugely hilarious were they not serious. As it is, it's just plain nonsense.

If I were suggesting Driscoll wore a tie & jacket every Sunday and only met for worship Sunday @ 11:am and 6:pm and Wed. night prayer meeting--not to forget Tues night visitation--I think their point would have merit.

However, like I say: as it is, it's just plain nonsense.

With that, I am...

Peter

[From the Middle East]

Brother Chris,

Yup.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

[Todd Burus]

As for MacArthur's view on "church culture" his view is the same as Ryle's, Spurgeon's and Lloyd-Jones' and the Puritans.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My argument is not that those quotes are biblically inaccurate, I do not believe that. What I am saying is that they are not being applied correctly. You, MacArthur, and BP see Driscoll's ministry as engaging in worldliness. I disagree. I think that they are engaging in culturally appropriate ministry. They are being "in" the world, not "of" the world. What do you think that means? Why have we decided that when Paul speaks of being "all things to all people, that by all means [he] might save some," that he is heading us towards liberalism? There is definitely a way to do this in a conservative, orthodox manner, and it is, for the most part, other than acknowledged transgressions, what the ministry of Driscoll and Mars Hill is doing.

My fear is that too many Bibles in the SBC have stricken 1 Corinthians 5.9-13 and 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 from their pages, and that is why we have decided to practice church as a bomb shelter.

[volfan007]

Chris,

Excellent post. Excellent insight into this. When you said,"A preacher once told me, 'What you win them with is what you will have to keep them with.' That's true whether it is clown shows, promoting the power of positive thinking or demonstrating how cool and liberated one is when it comes to modern sexual practices," you said a mouthful, Brother! How true.

David

[Chris Poe]

Todd,

Do you think Paul would offer advice on sodomy as Driscoll did were he in Seattle today?

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Since Chris is away from his desk most of the day, allow me to pinch hit.

In your first comment, you wrote:

"Methodologically you may imagine what he is preaching is worldliness, and if for you it would lead to worldliness to pursue it then by all means avoid those things, but do not make the mistake that MacArthur made when making his comments on Driscoll by assuming that there is some kind of implicit church culture that the Bible teaches. What each of us views as worldliness is guided heavily by the world in which we live."

First, no such vague, empty category such as "worldliness" is in view here, even though the Puritan authors may have employed it. Specific examples have been cataloged, one of the most serious of which, is the biblically insufficient promotion of hedonistic sexual exploits. Thus, Todd, to suggest Chris "imagines" a vague sense of "worldliness" in Driscoll's preaching entirely avoids his larger question.

Secondly, you wrote, "if for you it would lead to worldliness to pursue it then by all means avoid those things... What each of us views as worldliness is guided heavenly by the world in which we live."

For the life of me, Todd, I do not understand what you mean by this. On the surface, it reads similarly to what we find in standard ethical relativism. What do you mean by the "if for you"?

Even more, what do we conclude from your premise stating, what each views as worldliness is guided heavily by each's individual world? Are you suggesting that whatever one happens to view as worldliness is worldliness for him or her, and whatever one happens to view - -given their own cultural context - -is unworldliness for him or her?

And, if so, where does that leave Biblical revelation to inform, and if need be, correct and even judge the culture wherein one dwells? If I'm correct, your statement qualifies as a perfect illustration of the ethical is/ought fallacy: what is, is what ought to be.

In your second comment, you deny you disbelieve MacArthur, Ryle, or Lloyd-Jones (though for the record, you implored Chris to not "make the mistake that MacArthur made... by assuming ...implicit church culture that the Bible teaches".
Afterward, you assert,

I think that [Driscoll & Mars Hill] are engaging in culturally appropriate ministry. They are being "in" the world, not "of" the world... There is definitely a way to do this in a conservative, orthodox manner, and it is, for the most part, other than acknowledged transgressions, what the ministry of Driscoll and Mars Hill is doing."

First, Todd, though not in the quotes above, your connecting your view of Mars Hill with the Apostle Paul's "all things to all people," not to mention the fuzzy, new descriptor, "Liberalism," is totally unconvincing. Whatever the Apostle Paul's principle included, we can be reasonably sure he did not intend it to be an invitation to play in the mud with secularism's sex toys.

Secondly, asserting at this juncture Mars Hill is simply engaging in "culturally appropriate ministry" simply begs the question. That is the very issue on the table!

Finally, the little qualifier, "for the most part," is indicative of the problem both Chris and I have been lamenting. Driscoll's defenders are clever to continue suggesting those phrases --something James Packer referred to in another context as "weasel words" - - which convientiently serves as a protection for them just in case anything tragic happens in this ministry partnership.

Yet, when someone desires to put teeth into that phrase, that is, when specific examples are offered which raise concerns about Mars Hill ministry, the first thing defenders do is cry foul: No truth to it! You're a legalist! You're imposing your bias on Driscoll! Look at all the great ministry Driscoll does! Consider his ministry context! ad infinitum ad nauseam.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Sorry. I thought you were away.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Wally]

Peter

Some of us don’t necessarily agree with this type of preaching, but Jesus said, “Follow Me”.

Anyone Not Against Us Is for Us
38 f John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone g casting out demons in your name, [6] and h we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 i For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, j whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Peter who are we to judge this Pastor Mark Driscoll?

[peter lumpkins]

Wally,

Thanks, brother. An excellent question, stemming from a powerful reminder from our Lord.

My only hope is, the posts I've published, the comments I've made, and the conclusions I've tentatively drawn thus far, focus properly on a sub-biblical methodology in some aspects of Driscoll's ministry, not the man, Mark Driscoll.

The truth is, I can say with the best of Driscoll defenders, no one can throw stones at all Driscoll does.

I just finished a video by Driscoll which possessed some solid teaching (mixed with a few caveats, which, by the way, could have been if another was teaching). Nonetheless, such does not splash cold water on what I see are significant, necessary criticisms of those issues that's been raised, issues I think must be raised if Southern Baptists partner with him in ministry.

Thanks, again, Wally. With that, I am...

Peter

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

As usual, when I pay a friendly visit, you take the opportunity to chastise me. Why did I expect anything different? Apparently I forgot that you are all-knowing of the thoughts and intents of all commenters.

Don't worry, I won't be back.

Chris,

You seem to be a nice guy. Blessings to you.

Les

[Chris Poe]

Bro. Les,

Thank you.

However, your first comment came across as rather snarky both with regard to Peter's deadlines as well as the reference to my opinion. The saying "opinions are like bellybuttons, everybody has one" came to mind.

However, I do thank you for your efforts at contacting SWBTS regarding the recent rumors.

Blessings,

Chris

[volfan007]

Les,

Your comment came across a little snarky to me, too. Maybe that was not your intent, but it sure did read that way.

David

[Bart Barber]

HEY!!!

HEY!!!

HHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I take extreme personal umbrage to something implied in Chris Poe's article: I'm not over 40. . . . . I'm only 39.

;-)

[From the Middle East]

Brother Peter,

You said:

Thanks. I'm going to have to disagree, I'm afraid. Todd was correct in suggesting a high watermark of Catholics in the greater NO area. However, unless it's changed alot since I was there (by the way, I assisted in some church planting on the Northshore) grassroots catholicism in NO proper has been highly infected with voodoo and superstitious rituals imported from elsewhere. It''s very prominent, or at least was.

I agree. The Catholicism practiced in New Orleans seems, to me, to have some syncretistic elements. But, there is a difference between practice and identity. In order to answer the question of whether or not folks in New Orleans have a "Christian" identity, we would need to find out what percentage consider themselves "Christian" and attempt to understand how important it is to them to be considered "Christian." Whether or not their practices are biblically orthodox is not the question. The question is one of self-identity. Other than that, I think we agree that New Orleans is not the most Christ-honoring city in the U.S.

As to the rest of your response: I am not getting involved in the Driscoll discussion... but am quite content to hear out both sides.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle east

[peter lumpkins]

FTME

I understand your distinction between "Identity" on the one hand and "practice" on the other, appreciating them both. I'm afraid though, on this particular issue, as applied to Seattle--just as NO' Catholicism--I think it is just the opposite of how you're reading it, FTME. The contended point is precisely over practice, not identity. Much of Driscoll's "orthodoxy" is unquestioned (analogous to say, catholic dogma in NO).

Instead his "orthopraxy" is being scrutinized (analogous to the grassroots "voodoo" focus, etc.), and even that only in a few areas, particularly from my perspective, the skewed sense of hedonistic sexual exploits, with a more minor quibble over ungodly chatter.

Even so, FTME, I appreciate your usual discernment in spotting properly significant distinctions here as elsewhere. Also, I envy your outside-looking-in status on the larger Driscoll discussion. I'm 55, and sometimes I still underestimate my abilities to get myself into discussions producing little, spiritually edifying cash.

And, peace as well to you, my brother. With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Poe]

Ah, but Dr. Barber,

It is worse than that, unless you fear having more than one of the categories applied to you. :) The implication is that those who raise concerns are either:

1. Older people who just need to get out of the way.
2. On the wrong side politically i.e. "Landmark" (or simply confessional/historic Baptist, if the truth be told)
3. Pharisaical legalists who wish to impose an extra-biblical 1950's style morality.

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
I'm glad that Chris gave you the pretext for doing what you would have done nonetheless. As for your comments, it really is all the same with you on this, isn't it? First you deny me the ability to hear why sodomy is outlawed for heterosexual married couples, now you bring up sex toys. Please tell me where this falls out of line with the Bible?

Anyways, on Driscoll, despite what you are saying, this is all about worldliness. You guys claim that his comfort with worldliness is causing him to compromise on the truth of Scripture. You may not have said it specifically, but that is what you are doing.

Thanks for accusing me of ethical relativism. It seems in my Bible that Paul would be guilty of such too. And no, I don't mean that dreaded 1 Corinthians 9 passage. Read Romans 14 and 15:

(some highlights)
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. . . . I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. . . . Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. . . . The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves (14.1, 14, 20, 22-15.1)"

Thus, it appears pretty clear that there are differing convictions about right and wrong and that "Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself . . . but whoever has doubts is condemned [for what he does] because [he is acting] not from faith" (a reasonable application of all considered), which is basically what I said already by saying, "if for you it would lead to worldliness to pursue it then by all means avoid those things... What each of us views as worldliness is guided heavenly by the world in which we live.".

Now, clearly the Bible is to inform about the boundaries, but exactly what I am saying is that the things you and others are getting up in arms about are not boundary issues; they are taste and personal conviction but not biblical instruction (yes, you believe it condemns sodomy, but are unwilling to discuss that, so . . .). Is alcohol to be consumed? can we tell jokes in church? is it okay to watch Chris Rock? These are issues of personal conscience. You may have a verse which tells you why it's wrong for you, but I think one would be hard pressed to make many of those prescriptive for everybody (which, by the way, is the error MacArthur makes that I referred to).

As for your issues with people qualifying what they wouldn't endorse that Driscoll has done, here goes: I think him using language in the pulpit (swear words, not crass words) is inappropriate, but he no longer does this and has repented of it; I disagree with him in that I believe the virgin birth was necessary for Jesus not to inherit the curse of Original Sin. I think that's it. Happy.

Oh, by the way. I like CS Lewis but do not agree with everything he says. Is that a shiesty qualification? Am I tacitly endorsing the places where I disagree with Lewis? Will I call out people who enumerate where they disagree with him as being legalists? No. Come off it, Peter. You are making a fuss where there is none, which just adds to the lack of charity you have shown for Driscoll so far. Maybe you are the one who should be seeking genuine repentance and not him.

Sincerely,
Exasperated

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

I do not blame you for being "Exasperated." The word count is pretty high but the substance you've written no more addresses the spots I pointed out than cold water does grease. Honestly, I have no desire to wade through long comments that virtually rehashes the first one written.

Good evening Todd.

With that, I am...

Peter

[From the Middle East]

Brother Peter,

My apologies - I was unclear in writing. My comparison would not be between high identity, low practice Catholics in New Orleans and those at Driscoll's church or even Driscoll himself. Rather, it would be between high-identity, low practice Catholics in New Orleans and secular humanists in Seattle who are somewhat antagonistic towards theists. I was looking at it from the perspective of someone looking for those most likely outside of the Kingdom and how they might see themselves.

On another note, thank you for the compliments in your response... maybe I'll drop by more often ;^)

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East