I'm not too familiar with these guys but I heard a few snippets on YouTube and I love Piper but I have to stay away from Driscoll. (because of my past)
I'm just curious on why would they share the same stage together? They both seem, ummm...different.
They are both 5 point calvinists theologically.
Greg's basically correct. However, I don't think Driscoll fully embraces the historical understanding of the "L" in TULIP.
Personally, I think you'll do well to stick with Piper.
Does Piper approve of Driscoll's teaching methods?
Another thing is that unlike most Reformed theologians, Piper and Driscoll are charismatic/continuationist in their view of Spiritual Gifts (tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles) as opposed to cessationist. If anything, Piper's theology is unashamedly derived from Jonathan Edwards' teachings on the Affections.
I guess what makes Driscoll unique is what he calls the two-handed approach to church and culture. In one hand, you hold in a clenched fist that which defines biblical Christianity (The Gospel, scriptural authority, doctrine); in the other, you present a welcoming, open palm towards the things that do not have a definitive black-and-white in light of scripture (e.g., dress codes, music styles). Applied practically, a visitor to Mars Hill Church will notice the visible influences of Seattle's "grunge" culture upon the fashion of the 15-40 age group, but at the same time when it comes to teaching and discipleship, one can see clearly the Reformed-Evangelical emphasis.
I actually had the priveledge of meeting Mark Driscoll when he came to Brisbane to do a lecture on Church vs Culture at the University of Queensland last year. [url=http://www.xanga.com/Prayer_Warrior83/672237978/8220all-things-to-all-men-by-all-means8221/]Here's my notes.
Santana asked, "Does Piper approve of Driscoll's teaching methods?"
John MacArthur comments on this here:
As well, here are some first-hand observations of persons present at a recent conference with both teachers (not myself) from [url=http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/john-piper-vs-mark-driscoll/]this blog
* * *
"There was a Q&A late last night after Piper gave his third message at the Resurgence Conference in Seattle (I really hope they make that Q&A session available, because it is worth your time). They had collected text-messaged questions all during Piper’s last session, and then he, Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll sat up on stage and responded to the questions as they appeared on the wide-screen TV beside them. About four or five in, one question popped up concerning contextualization and being relevant in preaching. Chandler responded first, and then Piper unashamedly made a distinction between himself and Mark Driscoll on this issue. He began by acknowledging that Driscoll would disagree with him on this point (the necessity to be culturally relevant), and then he said that if he did all the things Mark does to stay culturally relevant, he [Piper] would die spiritually. He said that he would literally die inside (or something to that effect). He admitted that he doesn’t know how Mark does it (being up on all the worldly stuff - television shows, secular books, etc.), and also said that if he himself did what Mark does, he wouldn’t have any time for his Bible.
The final point he made about being relevant was that the only thing that IS relevant is Scripture. He held up his Bible and said to the audience, “Stay as close to this as you can, because it is the only thing that is relevant!”
TRIVIA: How long has Piper lived without a television? He commented that he has not had a TV since he was 17!
...there was an absolute sense of brotherhood, love, and collegiality betweeen Piper and Driscoll. It was NOT Piper v. Driscoll. It was Piper and Driscoll and there was much good natured ribbing but an OBVIOUS sense of togetherness and love between these two men...
...Driscoll didn’t have a response to what Piper said, other than to offer to buy him a TV, which Piper said he wouldn’t plug in and turn on if Mark did that (there was a lot of joking and laughing during that exchange, but Piper’s point came across quite clear, I think, concerning what he thinks of Mark’s attempts at all the cultural relativism).
...Both Chandler and Piper spoke directly against the leadership structure of Mars Hill (probably without knowing it)! Mark did not make one comment about the MH leadership group while both Chandler and Piper were so humble in their positions that it just ’screamed’ at Driscoll to submit to the authority of Christ and repent!
...I thought it was interesting (and disturbing) when I heard Mark talk during his personal Q&A session yesterday about firing other elders, and how to handle those situations when they arise and you (the audience) are in that position of having to fire someone. He even said some of those he has had to fire had no charges against them, they just weren’t doing their job like they needed to be doing. The type of structure he was describing sounded like a corporation with one guy at the top who makes all the decisions.
Piper, in his description the other night of Bethlehem’s elder structure, made it clear that he has no more say in what goes on than the other 30+ elders at the church!
* * *
Theopenlife: I thought your post was well said. I attend Mars Hill and love Mark Driscol.
To the rest:
There are lots of things that can be thrown at Mark. I know Mark has made some mistakes and has repented of them. I know that there will be plenty of bloggers and posters who will continue to bash him no matter what he does or says because Mark is way outside the box that some of you are in.
But when you are chosen of God to start a church at 25, in 10 yrs see it burgeon to 7000 members, have another 8 campuses and a coming of two more, plus raise a family of 5 children, work with dozens of people, raise up new leaders, find time to study and present the gospel as coherently as Mark does....then after youve made your errors, your church mistakes and have put yourself out on the front lines with alot to lose....then your critique of Mark would have some weight. Dont forget the spiritual warfare directed against your family and your own mind and heart, in the case of some of you, the devil doesnt waste his time picking on you. But with men like Mark, and I mean men, men of God like Mark you will have your own bullseye painted on your chest and get shot at. You will have plenty of opportunity to raise the shield of faith against firey darts of the enemy shot from the bow of Christians who have no idea what it is to be on the front lines of ministry.
Maybe some of you are on the front lines of ministry...if so, shame on you.
Micaiahsword
To the rest . . . shame on you.
Hey micaiahsword:
You never know who your talking to on here, so when you pop off about what someone has under their belt as far as experience go's be a little bit more humbler.
Most of the comments here are based on facts and truth that can be verified and are documented.
Most people dont like it when something negative is said about their favorite teacher or writer.
We usually have to suck it up and ask ourselves this question... is what being said true?
If not then we can recant with facts and proof texts, if not then we just like to argue.
I found out some things about a favorite teacher of mine and had to rethink my opinion of them,
it caused me to do my own research and discover that someone I liked didnt walk on water after all and just because they had a big following didnt justify their behavior or actions.
p.s. when someone repents of something that means that they stopped doing it...
:-P
micaiahsword, there was a question asked and opinion was given. The opinions were given not in the presumption of absolute truth nor were they given in heated emotion.
However, your critique of them seemed much more harsh than their critique of Mark. Keep in mind that some who are outside of ministry are outside of ministry for a reason, not everyone is supposed to be on the 'front lines'. That makes them no less of a Christian nor less in the gifts of the Spirit, than someone who has a mega-ministry. Mark was called at 25 to build a church but perhaps someone else was called at 25 to be a prophet to a wayward church (in general, not Marks ministry specifically). Perhaps sometimes perpective is what is needed. We all have different gifts and therefore not everyone can have a gift Mark Driscol does. So to slam those here just because they don't have a 'mega-ministry' is out of line both in your emotion as well as Biblically. And to imply that they must have a ministry to have a correct outlook is equally in error. That's like someone telling Mark that he can't have an opinion of their theology that the trinity doesn't exist since that word is never used in the Bible, because they are a Bible scholar and he is not.
If we are without discernment unless we have a church ministry then the church, as a whole, is in big trouble. At this point there is no reason to call out a false prophet like a Todd Bentley (again this comment in no way applied to Mr. Driscol)who deceived many for financial gain. According to you, we can't say anything because we don't run a ministry such as his. That's wrong. We shouldn't paint everyone with the same standard just because an opinion was given that we didn't agree with concerning a ministry, or person, we like.
I know that there will be plenty of bloggers and posters who will continue to bash him no matter what he does or says because Mark is way outside the box that some of you are in.
This statment is a cover-up. I have seen people trying to correct the filthy language and corrupt talk that he seems to present and even glory in at times.
Besides that God bless him and his ministry.
-Jim
Thanks for the post from the Q&A. That really cleared up a lot of things.
But like I said, I can't listen to Driscoll because of my horrible past. There's certain 'words' and 'language' that he uses that trigger off specific thoughts. For a few years God has been cleaning my mind and I don't want to go back there. That's just me.
I'm not trying to live in a shell but my thoughts need to remain pure...no matter who or what I stay away from.
I'm safe with Piper. (Key word is I'M)
But when you are chosen of God to start a church at 25, in 10 yrs see it burgeon to 7000 members, have another 8 campuses and a coming of two more, plus raise a family of 5 children, work with dozens of people, raise up new leaders, find time to study and present the gospel as coherently as Mark does....then after youve made your errors, your church mistakes and have put yourself out on the front lines with alot to lose....then your critique of Mark would have some weight. Dont forget the spiritual warfare directed against your family and your own mind and heart, in the case of some of you, the devil doesnt waste his time picking on you. But with men like Mark, and I mean men, men of God like Mark you will have your own bullseye painted on your chest and get shot at. You will have plenty of opportunity to raise the shield of faith against firey darts of the enemy shot from the bow of Christians who have no idea what it is to be on the front lines of ministry
There is a lot of faulty logic as well as unbiblical statements in this quote.
First of all, it is important to remember that God does not give a person more than they can handle. Maybe Mark can handle more than I can. Perhaps that is why God has him leading Mars Hill and not me.
Making Mark a martyr does not help your argument. It is important to remember that Christ endured the same things we did, yet never sinned. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to this same standard, including those who are leading us? We may never achieve perfection until the day of Christ, but that is not a reason to stop trying.
Mark may have a Biblical understanding of God (what some would call sound theology), but if you are not changed by that understanding, what good is it? As already stated, repentence involves turning away from that sin.
I would also like to say that we are all "on the front line" by being part of the elect. By saying that "some are on the front lines" implies that we allow some to fight the Good Fight while the rest of us sit back and put money in the offering plate.
I would encourage you Micaiahsword to not respond so quickly with emotion, but consider and meditate on the Word of God.
God does not give a person more than they can handle
Really? Then why do we need Him?
That statement to me seems more unbiblical than anything Micaiahsword said.
I think it is very funny that everyone can criticize what God is doing in Seattle through Mars Hill because it doesn't "fit" their idea of how it should be done. Seems the Pharisees had a similar attitude because they thought they were "more holy" because of what they did or didn't do. Yet they were the most harshly spoken to by Jesus because they would not come to Him for righteousness.
Seems to me that God is giving life to the lost in Seattle and all most can do is write it off as a seeming work of the devil? I've seen that somewhere in Scripture before(be careful brethren).
Leave it alone and let God sort it out, it seems that God is pleased to move through many things we write off.
"13No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." 1 Corinthians 10:13
That statement to me seems more unbiblical than anything Micaiahsword said.
Looks like it is in the Bible.
EDIT: I am not denying man's total depravity and our inablity to do anything according to our own means. At the same token, He knows our limits.
1 Corinthians 10:13
Please look at the context this verse is coming from. It does not mean that God won't put us in situations we cannot handle.
Roaringlamb,
Just to preface, I am typing this with humility. I may be misunderstanding 1 Corinthians 10, but if you would allow, I'd like to talk through this and what my understanding of what Paul is saying to the church in Corinth. I truly desire to have a correct understanding of all scripture, so perhaps you could help me understand your understanding of this passage by me revealing my own understanding.
Obviously Paul is writing to the church in Corinth and this specific chapter he is speaking of the example of Israel and their sinfulness.
He says this example is "given so that we might not desire evil as they did" (v. 6). He then gives 4 admonisions 1.) Do not be idolaters (v.7), 2.) Do not indulge in sexual immorality (v. 8) 3.) do not put Christ to the test (v.9) and 4.) do not grumble (v.10).
He then repeats in verse 11 that they are given to us (the church - us) as an example. In verse 12 he says "let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he falls". Cross reference this with Romans 11:20 and I would understand this to mean that it is our faith that we should stand firm in.
He then continues into verse 13 by saying, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."
In other words, because God is faithful, he will not let us temped beyone our ability. Which means if we are standing firm in our faith, we will not be tempted beyond our "ability" and will be provided "a way of escape".
I guess I do not understand how this does not mean that God will not give us more than we can handle. We are able to remain free from sin, but only through Christ who gives us the strength we need.
It is my true desire to understand God's word and apply it to all aspects of my life, so I do seek your understanding.
Regarding Mark Driscoll: It is not my desire to "be a pharisee" but I do desire for God's people to be a holy people.
Just a few passages from 1 Corinthians 10 to keep in mind.
Verse 21 - You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
Verse 23,24 - "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
Verse 31-33 - 31So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
I appologize for the length, but again, it is my desire to have a correct understanding of scripture.
I also do not desire to be quarrelsome, ever. My intent is to help "sharpen iron" and be "sharpened".
Respectfully,
Ben
Brother Ben I appreciate your humble attitude and I too wish to "write" this in the same spirit.
Before I start, I wanted to say that I think if you took the time to listen to Mark Driscoll, you'd find that he too desires that Christians would walk differently than the world and he would echo your sentiments for holiness.
Too many read things they see on the net and then believe it before finding out for themselves(I have done this in the past so I speak from experience).
Now onto 1 Corinthians 10:13 :-)
It is interesting that there are two Greek words used for "temptation" and "tempted" in this verse.
The word for "temptation" is "peirasmos" which according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon means-
Thayer Definition:
1) an experiment, attempt, trial, proving
1a) trial, proving: the trial made of you by my bodily condition, since condition served as to test the love of the Galatians toward Paul (Gal_4:14)
1b) the trial of man’s fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy
1b1) an enticement to sin, temptation, whether arising from the desires or from the outward circumstances
1b2) an internal temptation to sin
1b2a) of the temptation by which the devil sought to divert Jesus the Messiah from his divine errand
1b3) of the condition of things, or a mental state, by which we are enticed to sin, or to a lapse from the faith and holiness
1b4) adversity, affliction, trouble: sent by God and serving to test or prove one’s character, faith, holiness
1c) temptation (i.e. trial) of God by men
1c1) rebellion against God, by which his power and justice are, as it were, put to the proof and challenged to show themselves
Now the word for "tempted" is "peirazō", same root but different in meaning.
According to Thayer's this means-
Thayer Definition:
1) to try whether a thing can be done
1a) to attempt, endeavour
2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
2a) in a good sense
2b) in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
2c) to try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
2c1) to solicit to sin, to tempt
2c1a) of the temptations of the devil
2d) after the OT usage
2d1) of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
2d2) men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
2d3) by impious or wicked conduct to test God’s justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.
I believe the idea here is that God will test our faithfulness in our trials which all men go through. What will the testing of our faith produce?
Will it be idolatry like those mentioned before this exhortation, or will it produce a deeper faith?
I suppose the idea is that God may put us in the fire, but never let it subdue us, but it will be His power and His glory that are what is displayed in the "way out" or "deliverance". Maybe this is what you're getting at.
I just don't buy the idea that God doesn't put us in trials that we can't handle. Scripture doesn't really support this as many people in the Bible were in situations that were too much for them and their need of God's power to deliver was made manifest by that.
"I think it is very funny that everyone can criticize what God is doing in Seattle through Mars Hill because it doesn't "fit" their idea of how it should be done. Seems the Pharisees had a similar attitude because they thought they were "more holy" because of what they did or didn't do. Yet they were the most harshly spoken to by Jesus because they would not come to Him for righteousness.
Seems to me that God is giving life to the lost in Seattle and all most can do is write it off as a seeming work of the devil?" roaringlamb
I remember a similar rant from a Todd Bentley follower on this forum. He called people here Pharisee's because Bentley's teachings didn't fit the "package" of some who were on this forum. We were told that Bentley was 'the real deal' and we have no right to say anything unless we go to Lakeland or listen to him speak on a consistent basis. Many were criticized for speaking against 'this move of God'. Turns out that the warnings were completely justified both before and after the Lakeland meltdown. Before I get painted in the category of Phariseeism like many others, and before I'm accused of putting Mark Driscoll in with the Todd Bentley's of the world please understand that A) In no way am I doing this and B) The point I'm making is a general point of discussing ministries overall. Let me just say that God cares about who leads His sheep and where they are led. There have been enough wolves (again, in general, not Mark specifically)throughout history to give people caution. If Martin Luther was worried about being labeled a Pharisee or stopping movements of God we would all still be praying to dead people. So I don't see any reason why the name calling and the attacking style of those who defend certain ministries is necessary. This stuff usually comes on the heels of a criticism of a ministry someone likes. Anyone who is even remotely astute to the history of this forum knows that it is FILLED with critiques, criticisms, and opinion. No one has much of a problem if it's another ministry but if it's one they are close too.... watch out!!! Roaringlamb would you oppose criticism of a Benny Hinn ministry? Are there any ministries out there that have given you pause? Where does true discernment begin and Phariseeism end on this forum in your opinion? Because there have been assessments of some ministries have proved to be accurate. Where's the line? You made the Pariseeism accusation. Have you never given an opinion on a ministry... ever? And where did someone write this off as being the work of the devil on this thread? I didn't catch that.
I've listened to Mark Driscoll and read some material from him but it's been awhile. I think he's sincere in his beliefs and his relationship with Piper is a good balance for he and Piper. He might ride the line in certain areas and offend some in doing so. Okay, it seems that he is at least aware of some of it. Piper really likes the guy and I think his endorsement of Mark as being a good friend is worth noting if you don't know much about him. I wish him well. But regardless, ministries have come and gone, some good, some not so good. The truth is that criticisms will also come and go and not all people who assess and criticize are Pharisees. Those ministries who stand the test of time are proven by God.
I have thought about this quite a bit since yesterday and have even started studying 1 Corinthians as a result of this discussion. I have come up with a few thoughts.
I think a person's understanding of God's sovreignty is important to understand what one would mean when they say something like "God does not put us in situations we can not handle". If God is in complete control of every situation, then there is not a situation he would put us in that he we can't handle because there isn't a situation that He can't handle.
I am of the persuasion that all that we do is a result of God working through us. I don't believe that we are capable of doing anything without God. (For those who live in rebellion, they may not acknoledge God, but it is God who enables them to do those things) It is God, afterall, who fills my lungs with breath and keeps my heart beating.
If there were a situation that I, as a believer, were to be placed in, that would mean that God has allowed me to be in a position that He is not able to control. Now, I may fail (in a human sense) but that does not mean that I was not able to overcome the situation.
I think you touched on this a bit when you said:
I suppose the idea is that God may put us in the fire, but never let it subdue us, but it will be His power and His glory that are what is displayed in the "way out" or "deliverance". Maybe this is what you're getting at.
All things are for God's glory. So, if I am in a situation that "seems dire", he will be glorified. My pastor once used this as a good example. Say I am diagnosed with cancer. There are two ways things are going to happen. I can be cured. Praise God! He will receieve the glory. The second - I die. Praise God! I get to spend the rest of eternity with God! No matter the outcome, he is glorified. Even if we do not rejoice, he will still receive the glory.
Now, I know that 1 Corinthians 10:13 is referring specifically to temptation, but isn't that where all sin starts? Aren't we tempted? When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, not once did he commit sin. There was no situation that was greater than God. Remember, Jesus is fully God, but was also fully human. I would suggest that if we "get out of a difficult situation" it is not us who is doing the work, rather it is God.
Scripture doesn't really support this as many people in the Bible were in situations that were too much for them and their need of God's power to deliver was made manifest by that.
You know, I was trying really hard to think of an example in scripture where someone was unable to overcome a situation but failed to think of one. I mean, there are examples where it was difficult for the person, but didn't God ultimately deliver those people from the hardship and glorify himself? I think of Noah(building an ark for hundreds of years), Abraham (wandering through the desert), Moses (leading the exodus from Egypt). In all these instances, God's will was not thwarted. Even when these men failed in their human condition, God was sovreign.
Again, this has sparked a fire inside my mind and I am very interseted in continuing this conversation.
This discussion is locked.
