Comments on: Driscoll on Nightline

By: iMonk

iMonk — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:01:20 +0000

Thanks to all, but I think we’ve actually moved on to another topic which, though not mentioned by name, is actually controlling the discussion.

Thread closed.

By: e2c

e2c — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:55:08 +0000

Oh, I should have qualified my last comment by saying that I think “Be angry, but sin not” is important – that there’s a place for appropriate expression of anger as long as it does not harm others. However, I think Driscoll’s brand of anger is potentially quite destructive.

And the remarks about giant screens (etc.) speak all too eloquently of what I was talking about in some earlier comments.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:53:45 +0000

We certainly are hearing different Gospels. Despite whatever flaws are there in application, Driscoll preaches the Biblical Gospel. Watch his Desiring God videos. Osteen has repudiated the cross and calls himself a Norman Vincent Peale follower. No Gospel at all.

Appreciate your views. Just wanted to intro Driscoll to the IM audience that didn’t know him.

By: e2c

e2c — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:52:25 +0000

Iâ€™ll make a specific one about this megachurch and its charismatic leader. When his cult of personality collapses â€” and it will inevitably implode â€” the state of that city will be worse than if he had never been there at all.

Thatâ€™s a personal opinion, of course. And Iâ€™ve been wrong plenty of times in the past. Iâ€™m certainly not some sort of prophet. But cults of personality are generally destructive. I believe his particular theology is not helpful, but the manner in which he presents it makes it much worse. And making his particular views on men and women so central to what he is doing is extremely destructive. Further, the â€˜machoâ€™ image he produces and models for both â€˜properâ€™ manhood and into which he distorts Jesus actually enflames and glorifies passions (particularly anger) which have no part in true Christianity.

thank you for this – and (just to back you up), here’s link to an official MH “teaching” pamphlet that really made my hair stand on end. (The part that literally says “In sum, the greatest threat to Christianity is Sex” in particular, though I believe Driscoll is playing *very* fast and loose with the Bible – and the SoS in particular – in this series of sermons.)

he’s angry, and he’s arrogant, and he really doesn’t care who knows it. He’s also very closed-minded about the role of women in the church, and (dare I say it) insulting to LGBT folks in general.

There’s more I could say, but Scott M covered most of those bases for me.

By: Scott M

Scott M — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:43:14 +0000

Michael, it’s my observation that you are more sympathetic to Driscoll than you are to other megachurches simply because you are more sympathetic to his particular brand of theology, though you don’t fully espouse it anymore. I have a very low personal opinion of Osteen. But I think that ultimately he does less harm than Driscoll.

You’ve made some general predictions about evangelicalism. I’ll make a specific one about this megachurch and its charismatic leader. When his cult of personality collapses — and it will inevitably implode — the state of that city will be worse than if he had never been there at all.

That’s a personal opinion, of course. And I’ve been wrong plenty of times in the past. I’m certainly not some sort of prophet. But cults of personality are generally destructive. I believe his particular theology is not helpful, but the manner in which he presents it makes it much worse. And making his particular views on men and women so central to what he is doing is extremely destructive. Further, the ‘macho’ image he produces and models for both ‘proper’ manhood and into which he distorts Jesus actually enflames and glorifies passions (particularly anger) which have no part in true Christianity.

I wasn’t going to say anything beyond my one-liner. After sleeping on it, I decided to say a bit more. But it’s also perfectly fine with me if you don’t publish this comment. I’m torn about whether or not I should just keep my mouth shut as it is.

By: wcwirla

wcwirla — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:43:08 +0000

Enigmatic and engaging, to say the least. I appreciate that he does appear to preach Jesus.

“For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw â€” each manâ€™s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. (1 Cor 3:11-13)

So I guess we’ll see on the Day when each man’s work is made visible.

By: Scott Miller

Scott Miller — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:34:26 +0000

I don’t think that the Nightline piece was very fair to Driscoll. They focused on sound bites of hius preaching where he is riled up and making a fool of himself looking Pentecostal. I’ve listened to his podcasts for a couple of years and he is pretty steady.
His Doctrine classes as a required step for new membership and his resulting book Vintage Jesus are top notch doctrine and theology.
I am concerned about his cult of personality. The non-Ballard locations in Seattle show him on the big screen for the service. They have regular pastors there, but Driscoll’s message on the screen is the big draw, which must be a problem for the pastor who is normally there. If Driscoll is hit by a bus, will his church remain faithful? And will Driscoll still be cool when he is 50?

By: Patrick Lynch

Patrick Lynch — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:26:35 +0000

I like this guy.

By: e2c

e2c — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:21:57 +0000

Driscoll’s churches are independent, aren’t they? *That’s* where the rubber hits the road; when there’s nobody “higher” than the pastor/elders, and no governing body to which the leaders are accountable.

I wish I could believe that what happened to me won’t happen to other people, but you know… it does, all the time. WG makes some very good points about reasons that it’s hard to spot, accept, believe (etc.) that supposedly “good” people are acting in manipulative and abusive ways.

At any rate, this could all be a very good topic for another post or thread….

By: iMonk

iMonk — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:13:05 +0000

e2c:

Two points:

1. I’ve been at the end of unfair actions of abusive leaders. I’m not at all unsympathetic.

2. In 2006 and in the spring of last year, I was the subject of emails sent to reformed magazines that I write for, publishers I review for and to my employer. This were from blogosphere Calvinists who were completely unhinged at my criticisms of some Calvinists, and were prepared to say anything to destroy me. Much of this was libelous and some of it was dangerous. There were threats and completely invented accusations. These kinds of people do seem to gravitate to everyone with a higher profile in the Christian world.

Your point is well made, and thanks for the links. I’m glad you connected this up to your own experience, and that you do realize Driscoll may not be identical to other people who are clearly abusive.

(BTW- given the culture in Seattle, I would assume that Driscoll and other Christians will be automatically labeled a lot of things.)