This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 am and is filed under The Church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pages:
Feeds
Categories:
- Administration (6)
- Apologetics (22)
- be a bad consumer (5)
- Church Growth (14)
- Culture (141)
- Devotional (24)
- Media (10)
- Misc. (32)
- Philosophy (19)
- Podcasts (22)
- Question (11)
- Scripture (23)
- Testimony (6)
- The Church (77)
- The Outlaw Church (3)
- Theology (83)
- Uncategorized (194)
Archives:
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
Meta:
Tell us how you really feel Mark
08.22.2006 by Tim Reed
Mark Driscoll drops an atom bomb.
In summary, here are ten easy steps to destroying a denomination:
1. Have a low view of Scripture and, consequently, the deity of Jesus.
2. Deny that we were made male and female by God, equal but with distinct roles in the home and church.
3. Ordain liberal women in the name of tolerance and diversity.
4. Have those liberal women help to ordain gay men in the name of greater tolerance and diversity.
5. Accept the worship of other religions and their gods in the name of still greater tolerance and diversity.
6. Become so tolerant that you, in effect, become intolerant of people who love Jesus and read their Bible without scoffing and snickering.
7. End up with only a handful of people who are all the same kind of intolerant liberals in the name of tolerance and diversity.
8. Watch the Holy Spirit depart from your churches and take people who love Jesus with Him.
9. Fail to repent but become more committed than ever to your sinful agenda.
10. See Jesus pull rank, judge you, and send some of your pastors to hell to be tormented by Him forever because He will no longer tolerate your diversity.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
What a sad view to have of other Christians.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:22 am
I love Mark.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:55 pm
I think it’s more sad that certain folks have destroyed once-vibrant denominations by following Driscoll’s 10 points to the letter. Remember when being a Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, or Lutheran meant something? Me neither, because it’s been decades since they gave up on believing anything.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 am
It is rather scary that God didn’t make a Plan B. The church is it. While the church itself will never disappear individual congregations and denominations can, and geographically speaking entire areas can be cleared out if the saints don’t remain faithful.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 pm
As an Episcopalian, I have found it to be a very vibrant and challenging denomination. I am continually called closer to God and challenged to give up my cultural expectations for a Christ who continually transforms my way of looking at others.
If being vibrant or faithful is just a matter of numerical growth, I don’t think that the Restoration movement has much to brag on.
We are in an age where fundamentalism and narrow-minded religious fervor are what attracts the bigggest numbers (e.g., Islamist terrorism, right-wing fundamentalist fascism). Into that age, the Episcopal Church is seeking to follow the transforming call of the Gospel, recognizing the image of a trinitarian God present in all humans.
Your view of Christianity may be different, that’s fine. A diverse church isn’t a bad thing. Contrary to some claims, we all still hold true to the ancient historic creeds of the Church.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Jared,
Honestly, you’ve lost a lot of crediblity. Comparing Jerry Falwell to Osama Bin Ladin is dishonesty in the pursuit of ideology. There’s lots of people out there I don’t like (including Falwell) and disagree with, but until they actually start killing innocents I don’t compare them to people that do, and until they start a campaign of genocide I don’t call them NAZIs.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
I had to re-read my comments on this one. I don’t see any place where I compared Falwell to Bin Ladin, nor do I ever talk about Nazis…
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:10 pm
No you do not talk about NAZIs, but you put Islamic terrorists in the same category as “right-wing fundamentalist fascists” (which OBL and Falwell are representative of each).
BTW, where do you get “right-wing fundamental fascism” from? Fascism, other than being a mindless insult, is generally associated with governments controlling industry, in addition to the genocide of NAZIism. I don’t see any such movement that is simultaneously right-wing fundamentalism and fascist.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
one definition of fascism (and the one i was thinking of) was the coercive enforcement of an idealogy
August 24th, 2006 at 3:00 am
Of course that makes every government a fascist one since by definition a goverment uses coercive enforcement.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
“enforcement of an idealogy”
August 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
What law is put into place that isn’t an enforcement of an ideology?
“we hold these truths to be self-evident…” is an ideology.
“We the people…” is an ideology.
Even the idea that murder is wrong iand should be punished is part of an ideology.
American Heritage Dictionary
i·de·ol·o·gy (d-l-j, d-) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of “ideology” [P]
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:48 am
true, and all good points. what i meant was this:
the religious right advocates using coercive force to get other people to follow their interpretation of judea-christian morals. however, morality (especially christian morality) is not something that can be forced upon people. we have laws to protect people, to establish order. that is all well and good, it is the place of the state to do this.
however, when christians want to take a moral issue like homosexuality and marriage and insist that the state have a “christian” view of marriage, when they want to limit the civic rights of homosexual couples, they are using government force to enforce their idealogy.
even when i thought homosexuality was a sin, i thought this was a foolish (and, perhaps, immoral) move on the church’s part
August 24th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Jared,
It sounds like what you’re saying to me is that its ok to enforce the morality you want to enforce, but not for what other people want to enforce.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Tim,
I’d hope you’d know that is not what I’m saying. I’m sorry that this debate has devolved into nit-picking at one another’s words. It is hardly productive or Christian.
All I wanted to say was what I said in my main post, that it’s fine to disagree with other Christians, but to mischaracterize another group of Christians like that quote does, to declare that God is sending our pastors to hell, is a terrible thing for any Christian to do. It does not build up the body, and, as I said, it makes me sad.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Mark Driscoll is mad, and Mark Driscoll is mean. Why would you care what he says anymore than the people he things to be so destructive of the Kingdom?
August 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
God is mad, and God is mean. Why would you care what he says any more than what the people who are opposed to him say?
Kyle, have you considered the fact that God hates things, including the tolerance of things that he himself does not tolerate?
Two things, Jared. One, you imply your denomination to be modern and progressive. How, I ask you, can you modernize or progress absolute truth (i.e. the words of Jesus, the statements of Paul)? Two, the activity of the Church in government is secondary to its internal integrity, something which I believe your church lacks. Your “tolerance” level is the real issue here.
And about sending pastors to hell. I think Mark’s point was that this denomination is starting down a slippery slope of shaky doctrine, and the only ultimate conclusion you can make is the one he made…view it as an attempt at a wake-up call.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Jared,
I don’t particularly have any problem with Mark saying that pastors which have completely undermined the deity of Christ and allow the worship of other religions and gods will be facing the wrath of God.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am
But the real question, Tim, is have these church’s and their leaders really done those things? Or is that a mischaracterization of the overall character of these churches, is it taking a few small isolated poeple and claiming they represent the whole.
When I was in the Stone-Cambell movement, it used to frustrate me when people would characterize the entire movement on the basis of those on the ultraconservative side. This is the same sadness and frustration.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
If they’re not representative they’re certainly the loudest, and tend to be those in positions of leadership. I don’t see any of their fellow leaders reigning them in or a grass roots effort to bring them to heel. It could be that I’m simply not looking in the right places, but I do make an effort to poke around for those sorts of opinions.
Also, when this is coming from leaders in a denominations and keeps coming from them then its a fairly good indication of where they’re taking a denomination as those who would oppose them are either powerless to stop them, or simply don’t exist.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:14 am
i’d be curious where you got that information from. as a member of one of those “liberal denominations,” i’ll tell you that this quote is not at all accurate concerning the broad majority