Mark Driscoll & Acts29 Network

[Josh]

I've placed this thread in this forum because I see that it is where discussion on emergent/ing church stuff is supposed to go. I am in no way implying that Mars Hill Church is involved in apostasy or somesuch.

I currently attend and give money to Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA (apparently there is a church in Michigan or something that has the same name).

It is pastored by Mark Driscoll.

It is extremely popular. I believe it is the largest church in the state. There seems to be some sort of association with some sort of emergent or emerging churches.

I have zero tolerance for liberals and mushy-truthers. I have so far found him to be quite biblically conservative. He does not have much of a tolerance for today's "tolerance" of everything (ex: in a recent sermon he preached about how we should not compromise and offend God's truth to avoid offending people), which I also like. In an article (http://criswell.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch%5BDr iscoll%5D.PDF) he wrote, he states:

Scripture commands us to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). Therefore, the truths of Christianity are constant, unchanging, and meant for all people, times, and places. But, the methods by which truth is articulated and practiced must be culturally appropriated and therefore constantly translated (1 Cor 9:22-23).Do any of you have specific thoughts on this particular church? I'm sure some of you out there have heard of it.

The Wikipedia article on my pastor has him quoted as saying:

In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.

So anyway. Shouldn't a church be judged on how Biblically conservative it is? Am I missing something in my assessment?

[Josh]

I should also mention that there was a conference a couple of weeks ago he spoke at. I heard he pointed out Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell as teachers of false doctrine.

Also, in a Christianity Today article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/julyweb-only/127-52.0.html) he is quoted:

The two hot theologies today are Reformed and emerging. Reformed theology offers certainty, with a masculine God who names our sin, crushes Jesus on the Cross for it, and sends us to hell if we fail to repent. Emerging theology offers obscurity, with a neutered God who would not say an unkind word to us, did not crush Jesus for our sins, and would not send anyone to hell. I came to Reformed theology by preaching through books of the Bible such as Exodus, Romans, John, and Revelation, along with continually repenting of my sin. I am, however, a boxers, not briefs, Reformed guy. I am pretty laid back about it and not uptight and tidy like many Reformed guys....

The difficulty is that there are actually three ways that faithful Christians and churches must respond to culture:
Reject—Some aspects of a culture are simply sinful and should be rejected by God's people. In our day this would include sexual sins (fornication, pornography, homosexuality, adultery), illegal drug use, and the pluralistic notion that every religion is an equally valid path to salvation.
Receive—Some aspects of a culture are the result of common grace and should be received by God's people. Examples in our day would include stewarding and enjoying creation, building community, and acts of mercy for the poor, widows, orphans, sick, and elderly.
Redeem—Some aspects of a culture are, in and of themselves, morally neutral but are used for evil, and can be redeemed for good. Examples in our day include using media portals (e.g., internet, podcast, vodcast) for the gospel, celebrating sex within heterosexual marriage, and spending money and using power in such a way that honors Jesus and demonstrates his love for people.I think my church is still classified as an "emerging" church. Is that necessarily bad? He seems pretty theologically sound.

[Christy]

It is extremely popular.

These 4 words alone judge it for what it is (without even getting into the obvious doctrinal shortfalls):

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Proverbes 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Besides,

1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us
Test everything. Hold on to the good

and

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:16
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

They seem okay, they seem good, and they are perceived as meek and loving, but one can see the "wolf" coming out in the very words that they utter, which go against the Bible (doctrinally or otherwise).

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

What seems to be happening out there is that the emergents are now tagging the signs & wonders movement as the "false prophets/teachers" and vice versa. Which is merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (From what I've seen, the new pseudo prophets and apostles clearly fall into the emergent church category, because they're neither hither or thither - they are still trying to discover what they believe or don't believe - wow! talk about C-O-N-F-U-S-E-D).

Mark Driscoll is clearly a "neo-evangelical repackaged in a broadly reformed parcel". You can read about him here:

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2007/07/gospel-coalitions-hodge-podge.html

[petras]

wow Christy calling or inferring he is a wolf inwardly is a scary thing to infer about someone. i hope you have more than that one article to call upon as a character witness. i might not agree with him on everything but to use that scripture seems unwarranted. i have heard him speak with boldness against what the emerging church has become. im not really a big fan of popular ministries either, but not all popular ministries are bad. John Piper, Lenard Ravenhill, Tozer, and lots of pretribers are/were popular among Godly people.
josh knowing you live in seattle you might want to stay put in that Church.

[petras]

so Sing let me make sure i understand this........you are saying that mark driscoll is a wolf in sheeps clothing. he is not just someone in error, not someone who saw the errors of the emerging church and trying to get out of it, not as someone who repented, regenerated transformed from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light by being justified by faith alone in Christ, not as someone who in immaturity said, did, maybe even continuesto do some things that as you get older you see for the immaturity that it was, but you see him as a wolf wanting to destroy the work of Christ on earth and cause people to be tormented for ever in hell. as i look at what he has taught, stood for, the manner of how he has loved his wife and family. how he has stood along side people like john piper, mark dever and others it seems his fruit would seem to say hes is a believer. maybe not as wise as some but i dont think that makes him a wolf. i am wondering what teachers you recommend, if you dont mind? being a moderator, i would think when you speak people take notice, that why i want to make sure that i understand if you are really calling him an actual wolf that only looks like a sheep.

[Josh]

I am at work, so I haven't done an in-depth examination of this thread yet. It seems a large part of the frowning on Mark Driscoll has to do with his association with certain other people. Does it matter that he has pointed out Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell as teachers of false doctrine, and likened them to the Ebionites? Wouldn't this seem to indicate a great theological divide between them?

[icebear]

Mike Corley did a program on Mr Driscoll on September 26, 2007
if you can get audio downloads you can find it at www.Oneplace.com for free

its about 12 minutes into the program before Mike Corley starts talking about it.
but he takes some audio clips from a recent message from Mr Driscoll and kind of discusses what was said.

its worth listening to....

[ATYCLB]

so Sing let me make sure i understand this........you are saying that mark driscoll is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I don't see her "saying" anything other than be careful of who you follow,
research their affiliations and compare their teachings to Scripture.

What's wrong with that?

[Buzzardhut]

If Driscoll is pulling out of the emergent apostasy I'd like to see a collection of his statements denouncing the movement.

[Bernardd]

I read a few of Brian McLaren's books, loved A New Kind of Christian. One of the most thought-provoking books I've ever read.