Mark Driscoll Sermon Archive - I think I want a refund

MJ,

I know you have a better understanding than most regarding East-Asian religions. I do not presume to teach you anything new.  However, I do think the only emotional/cultural impact my literal statement may have is on non-Japanese who have politically-correct sensitivities.

MJ. Smith said:

I don't even like the thread speaking of Japan as "pagan" - while it is correct for the definition of the word, it is incorrect in its emotional/cultural impact.

To whom? Emotionally I am Japanese. (I arrived there before my 10th birthday. I spent all of my "grunge" years there and much of my angst.) I returned to an America I had no affinity to. Just because my skin is white and my eyes blue did not mean I understood or belonged here. It has taken me decades in America to become bi-cultural but I still feel like a citizen of no country.

The Japanese are not apologetic for their paganism. It is part of their cultural identity. Shintoism controls the public school system in Japan.  (I've got a Japanese school diploma.) They freely mix Buddhism (foreign origins), Shinto and Emperor worship.  The Crown Prince allowed me to sit in his limo in 1975. He became the current Emperor when he declared his Godhood and ascended the throne. Me calling them pagan doesn't hurt their feelings one iota.  And as much as my heart is Japanese, they call me a gaijin without hurting my feelings either.

MJ. Smith said:

Yes, I know I am expressing nothing but personal reaction - but it illustrates why I don't steer Catholic friends towards the forums.

 Personal reaction..... me too. And I would definitely steer my Catholic childhood friend "Larry M." to Logos if I knew where he was. Then maybe he can explain to me why he had to wear white shoes when taking communion. [:D] Fer real!

MJ. Smith said:

I have never been to Japan but my Japanese Buddhist friends won't know whether to laugh or cry if I were to call them "pagan". I suspect the reaction of any person of Japanese citizenship would depend on whether or not they knew the connotations of the term.

Maybe you missed the part of about me loving the Japanese people, their land & culture. My ancestors were also persecuted. My wife is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation & Chickasaw Nation. So I would never disdain anyone for their God-given heritage. But according to the English I spoke in, "pagans" is the truly literal term. And  theologically, I cannot broaden the definition of "Christian" to include my "pagan" friends who do not believe in Jesus Christ.

Ooops. There is reason to believe I have strayed into theological territory with this thread. 

Final comment: I don't hate anybody for being different. I just want them to hear about Jesus. Even if it comes from Driscoll, praise God!

MJ. Smith said:

It is the pejorative aspect that prompted my response. It appears that it does not have that aspect in your use of the term.

Fascinating. I never thought of it that way. I am sure glad you persued this to a clarification. I now see how you (and others ) could possibly be offended. The way you have described your usage resembles the different ways "goy" & "goyim" are used by Jews.

In my family tree we don't let differences get in the way.  Jews/Gentiles,  Americans/Foreigners,  Irish/Native Americans,  Baptists/Campbelites/Presbyterians, Yankees/Confederates.... Democrats/Republicans/Populists/Libertarians ......even have some cat lovers.

No, MJ. I don't burn witches or cast stones. My glass house is too fragile and my "righteousness" inadequate to save myself.

Paul Golder said:

Are we not called to exemplify purity of the Spirit when we preach the Gospel?

Paul,

I agree with you completely that we are supposed to do this, pastor's especially. But I also think our freedom in Christ allows for wiggle room in living this out as we preach. For example, to a first century Jew, purity of spirit may have included the need for the preacher of the Gospel to be living under the Law. To a Gentile of the same era, this would not be the case. This is why Paul said the things he did in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Timothy being circumcised in Acts 16:3 may also reflect a form of exemplifying purity of Spirit that would have been important to the people Paul and Timothy hoped to reach. We see Paul doing the same thing again in Acts 17:22-34 in the Greek Areopagus. Instead of running about condemning their blatant idolatry and tearing his clothes, he complimented the Greeks on their religiosity, quoted their own poets to them in support of his point, and preached the gospel in a culturally appropriate way that netted a few new believers right there on the spot.

So yes, as I said, I agree with you 100% percent. We are called to exemplify purity of the Spirit when we preach the Gospel. But as Paul himself demonstrated so many times (Jesus did, too), the mores of one culture are not always the mores of another culture, and any one wishing to connect with their audience needs to understand that point. Driscoll understands this and he knows the mores of his congregation. If he has to talk about sex in a way similar to what they are used to, in a manner that would get their attention and keep it, then let him do that in as much as his freedom in Christ allows. Better to hear it from their pastor then to try and fill the gap with the culture's answers about sex again. The last thing we need is the Church to go Victorian towards sex again and leave everyone to fend for themselves. Even my own church has understood this need, and its a hardcore Southern Baptist church! We have a Sunday school class for married couples called The Love Lab, and it treads on the nitty gritty issues of sex in marriage. Its been extremely popular, especially among the older couples.

And that too is a way church leadership has gauged the mores of its congregation and addressed a need in an appropriate manner. My church chose not to teach these things from the pulpit because we have a large teen demographic that attends our church. Driscoll's church, according to him, does not have this demographic represented, so he has a little bit more freedom in that regard.

So while the underlying morals of different subcultures are largely the same, there's no guarantee the mores are too. So exemplifying purity of Spirit will look different in different places.

I have nothing to say about Driscoll that hasn't already been said. I was aware of some of the issues surrounding him but this thread has been an eye-opener.

Incidentally, a preacher doesn't have to be vulgar to be hip and "relevant" to the unchurched and the younger generation. Here's a good example:

Coldplay - Knowing God (intro to a sermon)

And in a similar vein, here's a very intriguing post:  Coldplay’s Christian Message in Viva la Vida

I'm generally pretty out of it when it comes to contemporary culture, but I did have a chance to see a Coldplay concert in Vancouver (invited by some Christian friends). They are definitely not Christian, or at least not in the same sense that U2 are (which even some Christians have trouble with), but I did like their music and I can see value in interpreting it through a Christian lens as that preacher and blog poster did.

Matthew C Jones said:

Greg Masone said:

Better to hear it from their pastor then to try and fill the gap with the culture's answers about sex again. The last thing we need is the Church to go Victorian towards sex again and leave everyone to fend for themselves.

Did you really mean what you wrote? It sounds like the Federal Government saying they will look out for us because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. I am all for freedom in Christ. I just can't agree with having the Pope, Driscoll, Jerry Falwell or Warren Jeffs telling people married people what to do in their bedrooms. Having freedom to do what is right, holy, honorable........that is what freedom means to me. And before anybody thinks the Christian marriage is boring, consider how God gave me 19 babies, so far. Psalm 127:1-5, Psalm 128:1-6 .

You have 19 kids? How can you afford Logos?

Driscoll never told his church what they HAD to do. He was telling what he thinks is possible if both parties want to do it because a bunch of people in his church had questions. Yet on the other hand, I think it is the pastor's responsibility to tell people what they should do in the bedroom. Paul encouraged married couples to have regular sex. This was not a suggestion on the part of Paul. Pastors today should do the same.

Matthew C Jones said:

Having freedom to do what is right, holy, honorable........that is what freedom means to me.

It seems to mean the same thing to Paul as well:

Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:16-23

John Graves said:

I understand the need for some folks to share their opinions about different public figures and all, myself included.  But I would have liked to have heard more about the resource.  Such as, is it that the archive is tagged badly or is there just not that much Scripture in his sermons.  Also, if Logos plans to update the way the resource is now, which is barely usuable as a study help for specific Scriptures.  Also maybe make it look a little better by changing some of the inaudiables and the (laughter) from the transcripts. 

These are all issues I had hoped this thread would address.  Whether you like Driscoll or not, it really doesn't matter to me.  I just want to be able see what he said about such and such a verse and how he applied it.  Just like any other sermon I might read through.  Many who have commented in this thread have been off topic who are normally the "off topic" police on these forums.  I just wonder if maybe a new thread could be started sharing some of the concerns people have with the quality of the resource not the critisism of the author. 

Good call. Don't have the product, can't comment much.

Matthew C Jones said:

If you are a fan of Driscoll, I would say keep the resource and ask for a refinement. Better to have it in the rough than not at all.

Thanks for the reply.  The problem is, that I am not a big Driscoll fan therefore I don't really want to spend a lot of time reading every single thing he has ever said.  I was just hoping for a quick way to see how he applied different verses and theological truths.  To be honest I am very disappointed in this resource thus far.  Hoping that Logos will update it or something. 

Michael Birney said:

you hijacked the tread which was an insult to me to OP

Michael,

I'm sorry you were offended.

I am also sorry you asked for a refund in light of your report the content gets better as you keep reading. The resource was advertised to be a sermon archive similar to the John Piper resource. I believe Logos did deliver that much. It would be nice to have extensive tagging (if that is possible) but I don't know who you would appeal to.

If you ignore all posts by those who did not buy the resource, you are left with what you asked for. If those who like Driscoll's style and bought the resource don't like it, I don't know what to say.....   [:#]

Though the thread did wander I do think it had input that proved beneficial to others.

Michael Birney said:

Those of you who just attacked Mark Driscoll, you should of kept your opinions to yourselves - you hijacked the tread which was an insult to me to OP.  Where are the apologies you who are so perfect that you can cast stones?  No one asked you about anything else except the resource, if you didn't even have it, you should not have posted.       

So who is casting stones now?

³ Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!  1 Corinthians 6:3  (ESV)

Kenneth Shawver said:

The bigger issue than the language is the whole "emerging or emergent" movement which Mark is a part of - by his own words to me is a bigger issue as their thoughts an belief have gone directly agains the word of God.

Kenneth,

I think much of Driscoll's former reputation guides many of the beliefs about him in this discussion. Perhaps when a man repents publicly of certain actions, we as the body of Christ should extend to him our grace in as much as God has extended His own.

While he may have been associated with certain members of the now defunct "emerging church" movement, he has since burned those bridges permanently and done what he can to oppose the unbiblical portions of their movement.

If you would like to hear Driscoll talk on the Emerging Church, he did a sermon about it here: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/emerging-church

He also wrote a blog about it too: http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/02/26/notes-on-the-emerging-church/

Kenneth Shawver said:

why does the Word need to be updated?

So people can understand it. The essence of a preacher of the Gospel is to communicate the Gospel in a manner the audience can understand. God becoming man incarnate is an example of the gospel being adapted to its audience. Paul in the Aeropagus is one too, along with the measures he took on his missionary journeys to be all things to all people.

Too often we try to conform people to our traditions and styles while preaching the Gospel instead of meeting the people where they are. This is what Paul did, and what God did to you and I. God met us where we were and did not first require us to become holy before he could help us. Rather, he became flesh and blood and came to this dump heap of ours so he could make us holy.

The work of the preacher is to bring the Gospel to the people and not force the people to conform to his own traditions and styles beforehand. Traditions are good, and they can be helpful and useful, but they are not part of the Gospel. Neither are they sacrosanct or above correction or revision.

Kenneth Shawver said:

Why do we have to have Church 2.0.

That number is too low. Your generation and my generation are only the two most recent ones in church history to experience a revision in tradition and style of gospel presentation and worship. What you really mean to say is you are very fond of Church 345.0, while the "gospel updaters" seem to prefer Church 346.0 or 347.0. Your generation is just another generation in a long line of Christians who have sought to modernize the presentation of the Gospel, and now the same thing that happened to your grandparents is happening to you!

So we're all guilty of this, but that's okay because its a very biblical idea.

Thank you.[Y]