As I read Scripture, I'm struck with the profundity with which God's revelatory Word unfolds the Eternal Word made human flesh.
Below are two quotes. You be the judge as to which snippet solicits from your spirit awe and wonder concerning God's Savior in Jesus Christ.
- "The point in all this is, had we seen Jesus as a man, we would have seen a normal guy carrying his lunch box in one hand and a tool box in the other heading off to work. He did normal things that actual people do like farting, going to the bathroom, and blowing boogers from his nose" (Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears, Vintage Jesus, Crossway, 2007, p.32)
- "For in any number of passages, Scripture speaks of Jesus Christ as truly God and truly man. He is one of us, like us in all things, our brother, sharing our flesh and our blood. He did not come as a heavenly ambassador to frighten us with his surpassing divine power or, in spectral form, to bring us a message from heavenly realms. No, he entered into the reality of our world and life, having assumed the form of a servant. Repeatedly our attention is called to this fact, not in order that “man” be somehow honored for redemption, but in order that we should honor the way in which God redeemed the world" (G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, Eerdmans, 1954, p.224).
With that, I am...
Peter
It strikes me that both snippets are right, though Driscoll illustrates the principle of God being "one of us, like us in all things" while Berkouwer simply states the principle, with a reminder that this is not an incident that we should claim as our doing.
No doubt which one wins the crass award, and Driscoll overdoes his point, but his point is nonetheless made. Sort of like people in movies are rarely acknowledged to need bathroom breaks, how often do we remember that Jesus was in flesh like us, in *every* way?
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2009.11.08 at 01:50 AM
Chris,
You have been much too generous, in my view, toward Driscoll, proclaiming hands-down, as you do, Driscoll the winner of the "crass award" in "overdoing" his point.
In my mind what Driscoll illustrates is not so much the humanity of our Lord. Rather he illustrates the quintessential thinking of every giggling junior high kid in the country obsessed as they universally are with crude bodily functions.
Interestingly, in his book, Driscoll had just delivered a broadside to pop cultural icons such as Southpark in their exploitation of Jesus. He then turns right around and captures perfectly the very language with which Southpark would be delightfully excited in talking about Jesus himself. The real irony is, we are expected to take him seriously.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.08 at 07:57 AM
Well "I am, Peter" the bottom line is look at audiences. The Vintage Jesus was a sermon serious from his church in Seattle. Though you enjoyed Berkouwer's quote, I would say to show the normal side of Jesus for people to identify with is good in the culture he is in. Wait you may come from the school that we should not contextualize.
Reality is that Jesus was able to have 12 guys hang with him for three years. Though not every part of their activities are shared it does help in a culture that sees the church as this place where one has to get things in order before coming to. The reality is that Jesus is the one who fixes but if people can see Him as the great high priest that can identify with every aspect in life, Hebrews. Also in Isaiah 53 scripture says he was not outstanding in looks. Over all the crowd that Driscoll is addressing sometimes needs that swift kick in the side to show how personal Jesus is and why it is so amazing Philippians 2:5-11 really is.
Finally Peter, why are you even trying to criticize a fellow brother in the body that is theologically on board and preaches the gospel. The bloody cross, have you even read the chapter about the cross. There is not a pulpit today that has given a better description of the cross.
Sorry for the unload but people we should be raising awareness of the difference are heretics not people we don't identify with on "traditional" matters.
Gilmore
Posted by: Gilmore | 2009.11.08 at 08:51 AM
Why are people upset about Driscoll reminding people of just how human Jesus really was? Driscoll does not go into great detail to get laughs from the crowd as he tells body humor jokes--he is attacks the modern Apollonarian tendencies which prevent us from truly affirming (and realizing) that Jesus was 100% human.
Apart from the critical spirit of your post, perhaps it is you who needs to get beyond junior high and quit being uncomfortable with the way that God made our human bodies to function. Lest we forget, God did pronounce such "very good."
Posted by: Ben Arbour | 2009.11.08 at 09:04 AM
Gilmore,
I do not follow the logic of claiming as you the "bottom line is look at audiences." A) I didn't quote from sermons contextually delivered at Seattle. Instead I quoted a book written with no specific geographical/demographic/cultural context stated.
B) Those today who appeal to Driscoll's context for ministry as rationale for his particular linguistic idioms fail to factor in Driscoll's audience outside the NW. It is utterly ridiculous, in my view, to argue Driscoll speaks primarily to Seattilians when his influence boasts more global proportions.
Further, you suggest Driscoll shows "the normal side of Jesus for people to identify with" means exactly what? So contextualization of the biblical revelation means we focus on farts and buggers? Please. If such is the case, we surely do not gather one iota of evidence from the NT record this is so.
A "blazin' saddle" reading of the NT may fit your criteria, Gilmore. Yet I think I'll pass if you don't mind.
Finally, Gilmore, your assertion I am "trying to criticize a fellow brother in the body that is theologically on board" assumes far to much to address.
Grace today.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2009.11.08 at 01:50 PM
Ben,
Thanks.
You query, "Why are people upset about Driscoll reminding people of just how human Jesus really was?" Concerning what portion of the post are you referring? Which of the three (3) sentences--that is, 46 words (yes, that's correct: 46 words!
Also, you deny Driscoll goes "into great detail to get laughs from the crowd." Aside from the fact preaching and/or doing theology is not intended to "get laughs from the crowd"--so far as I know--to say he does not go "into great detail" when he specifically references "farting" and "blowing buggers" is absurd.
You further assert Driscoll "attacks the modern Apollonarian tendencies which prevent us from truly affirming (and realizing) that Jesus was 100% human" is contextually incomplete. To the contrary, the specific reference he is contending with is the traditional "fundamentalist" eskewing the humanity of Christ, a point asserted but not argued in the book.
Finally, you judge my post as containing a "critical spirit" whereby I need to "get beyond" being "uncomfortable with the way that God made our human bodies to function." I ask again: which of the three sentences meets your criteria?
With that. I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2009.11.08 at 06:09 PM
'Finally, you judge my post as containing a "critical spirit" whereby I need to "get beyond" being "uncomfortable with the way that God made our human bodies to function." I ask again: which of the three sentences meets your criteria?'
And I ask: do you deny being critical or having a critical spirit toward Driscoll? I would assume you would readily admit to such a thing as being critical of someone is not necessarily a bad thing. Though my perception of you is that you tend to go out of your way to find things to disagree with. What did you think of the rest of Vintage Jesus?
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2009.11.08 at 09:14 PM
Chris,
I asked a simple question pertaining to the description of this post. Once again: which of my three sentences totaling 46 words in this post meet your criteria of "critical spirit" whereby I need to "get beyond" being "uncomfortable with the way that God made our human bodies to function"? If you're not willing to answer, I'll assume the point you wish to make vacuous.
As for your perception of me, that's perfectly acceptable, Chris. We all must live with the perceptions others have of us--correct or incorrect, fair or unfair. However, your point is surely strange to me in this particular context. To ignore Driscoll's obvious invoking of the provocative--"farts" and "boogers"--and instead imply I've gone out of my way to "find" something with which to disagree is too fantastic for words.
Finally, this post is not about Driscoll's book and therefore what he pens in the other chapters is hardly relevant. My single point was and still concerns comparing two quotes: one from Driscoll and one from Berkouwer. That's all.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.08 at 11:22 PM
Peter,
No, you asked Ben questions pertaining to Ben's description so I have no need to answer. So, are you still unwilling to answer my question?
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2009.11.08 at 11:40 PM
Chris,
You're correct. Sorry. I caught that and edited my comment to accommodate.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.08 at 11:53 PM
The money quote:
"In my mind what Driscoll illustrates is not so much the humanity of our Lord. Rather he illustrates the quintessential thinking of every giggling junior high kid in the country obsessed as they universally are with crude bodily functions."
God bless you Peter.
It seems that far too many people in the American Church who were and are rearing children never realized they were to be in "The Man Business."
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man I gave up childish ways."
Grown men should not take bathroom humor to the pulpit. To grow up should be the goal of every boy.
cb
Posted by: cb scott | 2009.11.09 at 07:43 AM
I would agree with you, Peter. Driscoll, once again, went to the extreme to be a Jerry Springer in the pulpit. There is absolutely no need to say what he did to talk about he human side of Jesus. This was done for shock and awe, to produce laughs, and it really makes me think that it's disrespectful to the Lord to say such things as this. It's almost a mocking way to talk about the Lord Jesus.
To bring out the human side of Jesus, could you not simply say that the Lord Jesus got hungry like we do...got sleepy like we do....got tired and had to rest like we do? Would that not suffice?
The more I hear about Driscoll, the more concerned I get.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2009.11.09 at 10:22 AM
Isn't it a little disingenuous to take one of the best quotes from Berkouwer and compare it with the low point of Driscoll's book? While I admit that there is really no excusing what he wrotein the portion that you quoted, there are some fantastic quotes in Vintage Jesus. Why would you cherry pick one objectionable quote from a pretty good book and compare it with such a gem from Berkouwer? It appears that the general point of your post is to further denigrate a good man of God so that you can try to make those who associate themselves with him look bad in order to score points in an intramural SBC debate.
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.09 at 11:00 AM
Scott,
Bravo, Bravo.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2009.11.09 at 11:01 AM
Scott and Chris,
Because he said it. It doesnt really matter that it was just one passage out of a book that was pretty good. The fact is, he said it.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2009.11.09 at 11:23 AM
CB,
Thanks, bro. From the looks of some comments here, I surely need extra blessings from the Lord given the devious motives attributed to me :^)
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.09 at 12:32 PM
David,
Bravo, Bravo!
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.09 at 12:33 PM
Scott,
Thanks for your heroic contribution here (at least according to Chris;-).
I confess your tacit admission that Driscoll's book possesses such a "low point", that there is "really no excusing what he wrote" is refreshing to say the least. Be assured some of the other commenters were not so courageous as you!
On the other hand, to pronounce as containing the "low point" in your literary criticism of Driscoll's work the very first chapter (p.32) must be the strangest criticism I may ever have read.
Well bust my West Georgia britches!
In your view, I take it Driscoll started at the very bottom and worked his way up the literary ladder--from a "really no excusing what he wrote" to utterly "fantastic."
Interesting. From my experience, most successful reads rarely start in the basement--at least, if they do, they're usually not finished. But Driscoll can start with "no excusing what he wrote" and finish with what can arguably be dubbed a masterpiece!
More importantly, Scott, is your interesting assertion I "cherry-picked" both Driscoll and Berkouwer, offering but a "low point" for Driscoll while mining for a "gem" from Berkouwer.
Tell you what, Scott: I'll give you a shiny new nickel if you can mine, for me, a "low point" from Berkouwer's work from which I quoted...a "low point" that even barely resembles Driscoll's "low point." Remember, Berkouwer's "low point" like Driscoll's must qualify for the "really no excusing what he wrote."
You know--"farting, going to the bathroom, and blowing boogers from his nose" kinda stuff. Heck, if you can do it, I may just throw in a public retraction of this post!
What do ya say? Think Berkouwer can yield it?
Now, I must challenge you as I did Ben (and subsequently Chris since he quoted my question):
Rather the entire thrust was explicit in encouraging the reader to make up his or her own mind concerning the two examples:
It seems to me, Scott, unless you can point to something I wrote in the post to demonstrate my real purpose in posting was to "further denigrate a good man of God," your mind was entirely clouded by other criteria when you decided to log on and comment.
Thanks anyways, though.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.09 at 01:30 PM
I agree with you on this Peter. Although what Mark Driscoll may be saying is true, Christ was also 100% God and this type of remark said in this way takes away from this and puts it on his humanity. His humanity was important, but this crass way of describing it takes away from the beauty of his God/Man in my opinion.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2009.11.09 at 01:36 PM
Peter,
I would say that I made that assumption from the entire context of your blog. It is obvious that you do not respect Driscoll or his ministry. My problem is that Driscoll did not get much mention from many in SBC life until the GCR came up. It appears that there has been a concentrated effort to use Driscoll to discredit Danny Akin, Ed Stetzer, and J D Greear. Just my view from the cheap seats.
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.09 at 04:48 PM
Scott,
Thanks for your honesty. It's rare a commenter on a post will, in carte blanche fashion, concede his or her judgments concerning a particular post have jack squat to do with the post itself.
Have a great evening.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.09 at 05:03 PM
Peter,
It is also rare that an author so cleverly uses sarcasm to avoid answering a point made by a commenter.
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.09 at 07:34 PM
Scott,
Avoid answering? I think you may have confused me with another.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.09 at 07:54 PM
Peter,
Point of post well put. I agree with CB. Mr. Driscoll is a grown man now, preaching God's Word. Is it really necessary to devolve into potty humor to point out Jesus' humanity?!
Someone brought up Mark trying to be contextual with his audience. I'm a woman, and I find farting for laughs and blowing boogers out your nose disgusting. He's not being very contextual with his female audience. (I'm kidding on the contextual for females part. God's Word relates to everyone no matter gender, race or culture. This concept has been taken way to far if we have to point out that Jesus blew his nose, for folks to get the Gospel.)
I also want to urge folks to read his other books, listen to his sermons, read his website, conferences he's done, etc. I have, and you'll find, unfortunately, this quote Peter picked is not just one rare low point. It is a confusing pattern, at the least. It may not have been mentioned in the SBC until the GCR was put together, but our state, and I've found others, have been going over Acts 29 and Mr. Driscoll for about three years now. His influence here is big and I think it's responsible to be addressing the concerns many of us have.
He's also spoken, and not just once, at Robert Schullers Crystal Cathedral. That should be concerning for everyone. Schuller spreads a different gospel than Mark, yet Mark gives him credibility by ignoring the advice of friends and going there anyway. Schuller denies almost every core doctrine of God's Word. Aren't we supposed to be warning folks of this?
Forgive me Peter for being so long. This is an important topic here in our state, so it just struck a nerve.
Posted by: kim | 2009.11.10 at 11:23 AM
First let me state that I think Driscoll was clearly out of line in what he said.
However, this post raises a general question for me. Once a preacher says or prints something inappropriate is he done for, disqualified, relegated to the scrap heap?
I once heard one of the godliest preachers I have known use the f-word in a sermon. He was quoting a new believer that came from a rough background and noting how they needed to grow in the Word, with the help of other Christians.
Shortly afterward, the preacher was rebuked by other pastors and he sent a letter to the several hundred college students who had been at the event admitted he had spoken inappropriately.
What happens if Driscoll admits he said something inappropriate? Is he back on the good list or is there no redemption? I believe he has already retracted some hasty and crass statements that he made before about Ted Haggard's wife letting herself go. Just a thought.
Posted by: Barry D. Bishop | 2009.11.13 at 03:44 AM
Kim,
I appreciate your studied perspective and wish more SBs would attempt to understand issues for themselves by exploring them first-hand as do you.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.13 at 08:17 AM
Barry,
Thanks for your comment. The major difficulty is public ministry. On the Driscoll issue, the quote I mentioned comes from his latest book. Hence, there is apparently no maturity in site.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.13 at 08:20 AM
Peter,
Vintage Jesus is not his latest book. He has released at least three since it came out. Do some research.
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.13 at 10:39 AM
Scott
Correction noted. Thanks. Now, if possible, please inform us how my alleged lack of research substantially affects the point I made.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2009.11.13 at 02:45 PM
The point that you made in the previous comment is that there is "apparently no maturity in site." Read "Death By Love" and you will search in vain for any of the things that you pointed out from "Vintage Jesus."
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.13 at 03:23 PM
Scott,
You've openly conceded here what Driscoll wrote was decidedly a "low point" in which there's "really no excusing what he wrote." Even so, why you continue to jab seems needless and not a little crass.
Indeed each time you attempt to subtly "catch me" the point you make becomes even more absurd.
Let me get this straight, Scott: it's supposed to make a recordable difference to all that has been logged here that because Driscoll did not write in a book published Sept 2008 what he wrote in a book published Feb. 2008* that somehow the 7 month gap justifies or washes out or makes moot his previous words? And hence, he matured? Is that what you're desperately wanting us to grasp?**
Please, brother. The best thing you can do is let this thing lie. There's no foreseeable sense to be made in this exchange.
I had an aged professor long ago tell us in class, "Brethren, use common horse sense in dealing with authors--'eat the hay and spit out the briers'."
You've already agreed with me on the briers. Yet paradoxically you continue to subtly insist I've nevertheless misunderstood real hay as briers and thus need to cease spitting.
Well, know I've not been infected, at least yet, with the seismic shift from old world thinking. For me, blatant contradictions really do matter.
Grace for today and especially tomorrow.
With that, I am...
Peter
*Dates given by Amazon.com
**again, according to Amazon.com stats, Vintage Jesus (the work I cited) by far appears to be Driscoll's best seller (at least via AZ) making it even more profoundly difficult to cite other Driscoll works as corrective to his crude, South Park doctrine of the humanity of Christ found in Vintage Jesus
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.14 at 09:14 AM
KIM said it best...so I should just leave it alone. But let me 'fine tune' her comments. I wouldn't let my daughter date someone like Mark Driscoll...let alone sit under his teaching. He is a 'distraction' to the Gospel and needs to vacate the pulpit(and all Spiritual leadership) until he grows up(Spiritually). Mohler and Akin need to apologize to tithe paying CP Southern Baptists for 'entertaining' this 'pervert'. Yes, I said 'pervert'. He is perverting the true Gospel.
Posted by: Casey | 2009.11.14 at 12:05 PM
Scott,
I can see that you're having a hard time admitting that Mark shows a disturbing pattern here. You might want to check out Dr. John MacArthur's four part series called The Rape of Song of Solomon. He did this a few months back, but I believe he even did a radio show on it just a week or two ago. It was about Mark.
I don't know if you're familiar with the fuss over Mark's interpretation of Song of Solomon, but I think you should read about it. You should also listen to Phil Johnson's lecture(works with Dr. MacArthur) on Pornification in the pulpit. (I believe that's the right title) Read how Mark also turns a beautiful scripture in Ecclesiastes into something dirty as well.
I'm really not trying to pile on here. I know that's what it looks like others and myself are doing. There's a problem here, and we ignore it at our own peril. To me it seems that Mark is either struggling with something, or he's being a shock jock type of pastor who clearly doesn't know where the line is. He's trying to appeal to the lost with worldly talk. Is that what we're supposed to do? Is his talk and actions edifying to the church or just leading our minds to the gutter? What are we also supposed to think with his relationship with Schuller and this weird interpretation of Song of Solomon? Lot's of questions here.
Posted by: kim | 2009.11.14 at 11:10 PM
Kim,
I am familiar with all of the works that you have just cited. I am not necessarily trying to defend Driscoll as much as I think that he should not be defined by some of the quotes that have been offered. I have listened to over 100 sermons and most of what people talk about from him probably makes up .05% of everything that he says. (By the way, I find it interesting that people are not taking MacArthur to task for using the term "rape.")
My bigger issue is that I believe that many in the SBC try to portray him in the worst possible light so that they can score points in the debate over the GCR. I have repeated that on here several times and no one will disagree with that point... or at least they haven't yet.
Casey,
For you to say that Driscoll perverts the Gospel suggests that you either haven't listened to Driscoll or that you don't understand the Gospel yourself. Furthermore, I would suggest that the tone of your remarks is as crude as the things that you have an issue with Driscoll saying.
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.15 at 10:54 PM
Scott,
You write, "My bigger issue is that I believe that many in the SBC try to portray him in the worst possible light so that they can score points in the debate over the GCR. I have repeated that on here several times and no one will disagree with that point... or at least they haven't yet."
Brother, please. I gave you ample opportunity to make a case for your absurd statement. Your only response? You admitted nothing I wrote here suggested it but things I'd written elsewhere.
Do not come back here making that charge again. If you cannot reasonably deal with assertions you make, read but please refrain from comment.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.16 at 07:52 AM
Peter,
Sorry that you think that reasonable points of contention are absurd and that you would choose to stifle legitimate debate in favor of comments that merely echo your own sentiments.
Posted by: Scott Slayton | 2009.11.16 at 11:00 AM
Scott,
I judge as absurd charges which show no reasonable attempt to make sense of them. Consistently, you have attempted to make this post about me rather than the two quotes I offered.
Further, I do not take kindly someone judging me disingenuous--"so that [Peter] can score points in the debate over the GCR"--when they openly concede nothing in the post implies this.
Now as for my alleged "stifl[ing] legitimate debate" you have my express permission to believe as you wish, Scott. And, I remain perfectly content for all readers at SBC Tomorrow to make up their own mind about that.
Unless you have a question about the OP (excluding the absurd charge I wish to "score points in the debate over the GCR"), I'll assume this exchange is exhausted.
Have a good day.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.11.16 at 11:21 AM
Scott,
I'll go ahead and stop my exchange on this post, this being my last thought. I've had these conversations for almost four years now, realizing there really is no evidence or facts I can show, that will give folks pause when it comes to Mark Driscoll. Like Peter, I'm exhausted at what I see as always excusing or just plain changing the subject, when it comes to discussing Marks behavior. Attributing the motives of those of us with concerns, to a secret conspiracy to tank the GCR is unfounded, not constructive, and a waste of time.
I've mentioned before, I've been aware of Mark for almost four years, way before the GCR committee was put together. Why is it so hard to believe that folks really have some honest problems with a pastor of God's Word, on numerous occasions using dirty talk, twisting Scripture, and giving legitimacy to false teachers? He's very popular, has a huge following in this country and others, has a lot of influence through his books and conferences, and young youth pastors are intrigued, and are trying this persona out in their churches. No conspiracy. No secret witch hunt. Just concern, confusion and a dislike of the inconsistencies on Mark's part. That's all.
You mentioned that the distasteful and wrong stuff was only a small percentage of his overall work. Based on his books I've read, sermons, interviews, etc., I probably would disagree with you on that, but I won't chase that now. My point would be, how much would be too much then? How far do we get to go before it's enough? Are we not supposed to flee from evil, run from temptations, don't act as the world acts? When does his witness start being compromised from this? We're not supposed to see how close we can get to sin and bad behavior, and still stand firm. It will start having an effect on you. You will start thinking it's not a big deal after awhile, and will get hardened to it. We all know this.
One last thing, you didn't mention your thoughts on his Schuller friendship or the twisting of Song of Solomon. The sad thing is, most conversations I have where I bring up these two things, it does get skipped over or ignored. I think it's very troubling, and wonder why more folks don't think so, or dismiss it. Oh, on Dr. MacArthur using the term rape in his series title, I guess I don't understand why we should be upset he used that word. If you read the transcript, or listen to the sermon Mark did on this in Scotland, the term is sadly, appropriate. Sorry Peter again for the long winded comment.
Posted by: kim | 2009.11.17 at 11:03 AM