Don’t let anyone tell you what you can or can’t do. Don’t follow the rules that someone else made up. Don’t do something just because someone else says you have to. Sure, those rules represent something good, but Jesus lived that out for us. Don’t let people who pretend to be humble and worship church take advantage of you. They brag about their experience with God. But they’re full of crap, they’re just out for themselves. Jesus is nothing more than a facade for them, but for you he is freedom. They say their lives are all about Jesus. But for you, Jesus made you able to face your life and all that you are, without worrying about whether or not you’ve got it all right. So don’t worry about the rules anymore, they won’t last anyway. Why bother? Following the rules might seem like the smart thing to do. It might make you look like a good person, like someone who’s got everything together, but the rules can’t control who you are.

Colossians 2:16-23

TO some degree I think I understand your concern. Coming from a Pentecostal background I know I’ve heard people use terms like “the annointing” with disdain either because they don’t like P/C churches or they have found the term so abused that a real biblical term and concept can no longer be used because of abuse or scorn.

I know people who are so offended by churches they refuse to use the word “church” even though Jesus used it. The Incarnation isn’t one of the words we want getting a bad reputation. I think I’m getting it now, maybe.

Like a few other commenters, I don’t get the fuss. I know what Driscoll’s trying to say. I understand. But I’m also not trying to look at his comments through a microscope. I don’t think a microscope is necessary here. I wish we’d all put the microscopes away for a while. We’ll find cancer in every cell if that’s all we’re looking for.

But what about the more pervasive element in Mark’s rants–the one you could find in any other topic the man speaks on? What about the idea that “men” need Jesus to be a bad-ass in order to worship him? Is it too much to ask “men” to humble their WWF expectations of God? Is Mark not implying that women (who are aparently soft, delicate and weak minded by nature) are fine with worshiping a “wussie” Jesus? Am I a “wussie” if I read Scripture in a way that confirms Jesus was marginalized and humble?

For someone who rants so much about other people’s “versions” of Jesus, Mark’s version tends to look a lot more like Mark Driscoll that Jesus of Nazareth. It almost seems that when Mark wants to think of Jesus, he looks in a mirror. Yeah, Mark’s a tough guy. Mark’s a strong, white, male, intelligent, wealthy, traditional American bully–how could he worship someone who was less than that?

Consider some non-gospel Jesus images (Phil. 2, Isa. 53, Rev. 5): And yet, being in very nature God, Jesus took the form of a servant. He was despised and rejected–a man of sorrows. There was nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. And then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain.

Well, I’m through. Reading those wussie Jesus passages almost made me want to become humble myself. I guess I’ll get over it the way Mark might suggest–by working out, asserting my manhood on all passers by, and by downplaying the strength and equality of women.

Out.

“I just got home from a 7 service 10 year anniversary Sunday and need to crash. I did say that Jesus was God during His incarnation and said that, for example, He forgave sin which is only what God can do. I believe that Jesus was and is eternally God with all of the divine attributes. I believe that in His humble state of incarnation it is harder to see His divinity as he is not, for example, omnipresent. What this means is that we must see Jesus before His incarnation, and after His exaltation to get a clear picture of who He is. My entire point is that if we do not we are being reductionists and like many do limit him to only a really good man and not King of Kings and Lord of Lords as God over all. If I was not clear, I apologize as that was not my intent. Next week I start a 12 week series called Vintage Jesus and begin by arguing for the deity of Jesus if that is of any help. To be honest, I likely bit off more than I could chew for one session and may have rushed. Blessing and Jesus love.” Pastor Mark Driscoll

I realize it doesn’t speak to exactly what you’re saying Michael, but thought it would be good to mention Marks humility too.

Also, in other news (good news), I don’t know if anyone saw, but ENo is shutting up shop.

Driscoll’s point concerned reductionism. If we teach that Jesus was fully man, hence our great example to follow and that only, we are in error. This is an under-realized eschatology that was manifest in the Corinthian church. We do whatever we want now because there is nothing beyond. Kingdom work here and now is all that matters: not judgment, not hell, not heaven. Driscoll pointed to those who are in the midst of denying these Bible truths. If you read many blogs you know this is out there.

Conversely, if we teach that Jesus is fully God, and that he is pissed and coming back to open a can of whoop-ass on the world, and that only, we are in error as well. This is an over-realized eschatology that was manifest in the church at Thessalonica. A person would receive Christ, then sit down and wait for his soon return. No kingdom-work here because we are going to see the King. Said person stores up Moon Pies and Coca-Cola in case the rapture catches him on a bad day and he has to do the “Left Behind” thing. In the mean time children are starving to death around the world…

All Driscoll was calling for was balance on both sides. His message was an open rebuke of those who would err on either side. We need to do the kingdom work now, but we also need to know that there is a king coming to judge the living and the dead. If we meet a “heretical liberal who rejects the full truth about Jesus” that person should be confronted with the true Jesus. By the same token, if we meet a heretical conservative who rejects the full truth about Jesus, he should be confronted as well.

In this “battle” between the reformed and their perception of the emergent movement, the word “incarnational” is becoming a label meaning “heretical liberal who rejects the full truth about Jesus.”

I don’t care if there was a clear set up for how he was using the word, “incarnation” is not a word that needs to become identified with some kind of apostasy on the person of Christ. The statement that the incarnation only is less than the full doctrine of Christ is not helpful, and in terms of the person, not the work, it’s way off base.

The same thing happened with the term “missional.” The reformed seem quite happy to toss off these terms and tell their followers that they are emerging code words. Just QUOTE the emergent author abusing the term. Just CITE the refernece. Don’t poison an entire word used by thousands of Christians.

He was speaking of incomplete Christologies on both sides. He then went on to explain that a FULL Christology should include both the incarnational and exalted Christ. At least that is what was in my notes. I am interested now to hear it again.

BTW – The word used by Mark was effeminate. not wuss (at least if he said it I missed it, doubtful considering crowd reaction to his other Driscollisms). A little editorial license was taken there. Otherwise great job by Tim.