Christian Unity, Mark Driscoll and Progressive problems: TNT week of Sept 29

By the way, one of my favorite emphases of Calinvinistic preaching over Arminian would go like this: Arminian Appeal: God commands you to repent, and you can and should. Calinistic Appeal: God commands you to repent, and you can't unless he provides the grace to do so. But you can cry out to God so that He grants you repentance. I tihnk I would like to blog on that. Hmmm.

That is an interesting sentiment. I have gay friends with whom that word is totally understandable as a descriptive adjective for gays who are overly effeminate or 'flamey.' I suspect your sentence might also make sense if you changed the word 'faggy' to 'hypocrites, snakes, liars, blind, white-washed tombs', and you might be equally uncomfortable with "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!' I understand the comparison is not direct, but I think you are too sensitized by liberalism in the guise of compassion. I am not unaware of the pejorative use of that word, but it's negative connotation fits the type of feminized Christianity that Driscoll and others rightly criticize. Having rejected machoism, they have taken on an almost entirely effeminate God - it's almost as if the God of progressive Christianity is a Goddess - all love, and not truth or justice, or coming King and Judge. >> BO: any coincidence that a guy who uses that word also happens to not like the world ‘progressive’? ;) I think not. Any coincidence that the guy who labels as 'progressive' has a knee jerk reaction to the perfectly valid descriptive word 'faggy'? Also perhaps not. Returning to the word 'progressive' As I mentioned, it is fascinating that, like self-identified fundamentalists see no issue with that label, 'progressive' Christians seemingly ignore the connotations of their label, like fundamentalists, trying to associate it to its noble roots. The problem with this somewhat inconsiderate and self-important approach, which ignores the misconceptions associated w the label, is that it seems to ignore the history and somewhat anti-biblical ideas that progressivism has grown out of and into. I mean, I suspect that today's progressive christians mean to associate with what might be called 'classic liberalism', with it's concern for the poor over against cruel employers, but how can they avoid the more well known associations with communism, socialism, anarchism, and far left politics? Returning to the original ideas here All that aside, please don't fixate on my use of the word faggy. What's really more important are the other ideas presented, namely: 1. Would Jesus fit the nicey nice image that you seem to require of Driscoll? I'm not agreeing entirely with Driscoll, but I am saying that perhaps we have discarded the GOOD for the NICE. As I like to say, Jesus would make a bad Bodhisattva, he got angry too much ;). 2. I think an emphasis on women's primary role as mother and homemaker is a much needed corrective to the excesses and outright errors of feminism regarding how women are fulfilled in life. Sure, women should have equal opportunity and rights to work if they want, but to miss the fact that women are, in general, meant to find maximum satisfaction in raising children is to miss both the truths of nature and scripture. I'm glad someone is saying it. Why not affirm the balance instead of positioning oureslves against Driscoll's overreach? 3. I think your abuse of Calivinists (and their abuses) is a sophomoric oddity that we all must abandon as we mature, and I don't mean that as a slam, since I too have been and sometimes am sophomoric. While it may offend the mind at first, it becomes more beautiful and true as we meet our broken selves more deeply in light of God's nature. It is not accidental that many of the most influential theologians across time were Calvinists. I think this is due to the 'facts' that Calvinism: a. is powerful to save, esp. for those who have tried it on their own, and leads to a peace that Ariminianism can not (See Hebrews 3-4) b. is biblically accurate in its emphasis, even if you think some form of libertarian free will might exist (illusion?) c. It has a depth that must be experienced beyond intellectual evaluation or our superficial and mistaken disgust at its implications regarding the justice of God (which Paul addresses directly in Romans 9).

Dan - I have thought about it several times this weekend and I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with any minister of the Gospel using the word 'faggy'. I'm going to go out out on a limb and just say that there is never a circumstance where that would be ok. on an ironic sidenote... any coincidence that a guy who uses that word also happens to not like the world 'progressive'? ;) I think not. -Bo

And please call me Dan, not Mr. Sinclair. I am also an Assistant Teaching Pastor, so you could call me Pastor Dan too, I guess.

>> BO: Muscular Christianity is bad religion and that it makes the world worse… I hope that you can hear me. I think there is a difference between macho religion (bad) and muscular/masculine religion - and though I think Driscoll ventures into machoism, I think he has a point about the feminization of spirituality, similar to the feminization of education that has ended up mislabeling so many boys as ADD - Jesus may be meek and gentle, but he's not faggy (excuse the expression, I don't mean it meanly) and he certainly preached boldly, esp. when challenged by religionists. Looking at Jesus for our tone of ministry is a bit problematic, though, because he was sinless. He did get angry, he did turn over tables and threaten others with a whip, and he called religionists snakes, hypocrites, and liars. Can we do that in good conscience? Perhaps we should consider Paul the Apostle as our practical guide to personal evangelism instead :D. >> BO: The idea that there is ONE way to be, or a single type of person that god uses, or that there is someone that god is not interested in or not willing to use I think there are two extremes here - one is to be too narrow, the other is to lack definition at all. For example, the bible gives pretty clear requirements for an elder or pastor. It gives some emphases for marriage, including an authority structure. We should not abandon these, but employ them within the balance of scripture. When it comes to masculine spirituality, sure, God can use us gentle men, but also, we all need to learn to develop our inner warrior, wildman, and king as part of healthy masculinity. >> BO: I bet that we would be buds if we lived in the same town. Absolutely. I love your intellectual discussions that sometimes go over my head (and I'm not a slouch), and although I'm too old to want to be hip (46), I am young enough to be frustrated with church as we do it today, and pine for more missional emphases.

IDEA....can we get a neo-calvinist on the podcast? like a call in guest to TNT? that would be awesome. maybe God predestined it!!

I actually like Tripp's radio voice. I do a more NPR voice on Something Beautiful. Occasionally Driscoll says something I agree with, but for the most part I think he's a bit too over-the-top. Must be a mega-church pastor thing.

I think the moniker 'Mainline' Protestants is outdated, because it sounds like a majority - when these churches were vibrant bible-based churches, they were the 'mainline' majority. As Barna recently indicated, many of those 'mainline' churches are now "Old Line" in that their congregations are waning, and they have long since become theologically and politically liberal. It seems to me that evangelicals, charismatics, and pentecostals are the mainline churches of today, while the emergent, charismatic and Calvinist churches are part of the vanguard.

yeah, sorry so long, and of course, i probably mis-apprehended your positions on various things, since I've not been listening too long.

BTW, I think that self-identifying as a "progressive" Christian is the analog to those who self-identify as "fundamentalists." They mean something good, and they know what they mean when they say it, but no one else does. Everyone but them is disgusted at just their label.

First, there are a few of us neo-calvinists who listen to your show, at least until your apostasy becomes more obvious ;). So don't diss us - we're here, we're predestined, get used to it! Your take on Mark Driscoll reeks, and not in a good way. Ready? Here I go... 1. Your description of the neo-reformed Ornery, agitated, aggressive, violence loving? I suppose a similarly unkind retort could be fashioned for 'progressive' Christians which contains as much caricature. You know, snide, whiney, agitated, limp wristed. What ever happened to 'in the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity?' 2. Jesus' return - nicey nicey, or ass-kicking judgment? I'd say that, despite the Christian right's love for justice and righteousness over peace and mercy, they are right on describing Jesus' return as different from his first coming. The NT consistently draws distince differences between the two. Do I need to quote scripture at you? He's coming to JUDGE next time, while during the first time, he said he was NOT here to do that. Does that mean our current Christianity needs to be all justice and blood? Naturally not. But let's not forget that we are to help people "flee from the wrath to come." Jesus is meek and lowly of heart, and so should we be in personal relationships. But in our endeavors to preach the gospel, we should be militant in spirit (St. Paul used military imagery for our spiritual life often) towards evil, injustice, and vain philosophies that contradict the gospel. I would say that, while some conservatives confuse the arenas in which we must be merciful or militant, I find that 'progressives' (ugh, that word gives me hives, it smacks of moral relativism and theological liberalism, in the bad, anti-intellectual sense of liberalism) often see militancy in the arena of ideas and think that this is promoting aggression with respect to ministry to individuals. 3. Hard core calivinist violent god? What the hell (pun intended) are you talking about? Since WHEN is Calvinism somehow violent? You mean because it believes in Hell and the atonement? If you don't, you've just abandoned a core tenet of Christianity. I think Calvinism is vigorous, not violent - and enthusiastic about the awesomeness of God's ability to save. I am shocked that modern day liberal Arminians are blind to the beauty, mercy, and biblical coherence of Calivinism. Me, I'm a "four point calivinist," meaning I don't buy into double predestination, but beyond that, I am disturbed that modern leftists have returned to a milk toast Jesus. It's pathetic, weak, feminized, and not reflective of the full nature of God. I suppose Jesus didn't really make a whip of cords and angrily drive out the money changers? When Jesus returns, the virgins who did not prepare for his eventual coming will be left outside - Christian unversalism be damned (literally). I find it entirely disheartening that 'progressives' deny the justice of God just because some rightists deny the mercy of God. Knee jerk theology sucks no matter where it lives. 4. Effeminate worship leaders OK, so Driscol might be a little over the top on this one, but I get him. When I go to a church, if the entire leadership team or worship team is women (or the Senior pastor is a woman), I suspect that the church has a spiritual problem - emasculated men who can't lead. When Driscol calls for more aggressive worship leaders, I know what he means - someone who is up there to declare their love and truth, not just wimper pieties in a sweet voice with campy smiles. The same could be said for preaching. 5. Yoga and Christians I'll give on this, I think Driscol is wrong on this. I wrote a couple posts on my own yoga journey. Christians and yoga Christians and Yoga - YES Says CT 6. Driscol and Women Sure, Driscol is over the top, but I think that moderns, still influenced by the excesses of feminism, downplay or ignore the true differences between male and female, both in their psychological makeup and role in the family. Again, in an over-reaction to patriarchal abuse of power, they've missed the beauty of God's design for men and women, and bristle at it being mentioned. In being egalitarian, they reject God's authority in the home (men>women>children), thinking that this is the sole doctrine regarding women, and so rejecting it as unfair. I think they also assume that women can't find a place to develop their abilities and interests within the home, and so any call to the highest call of parenting and home making seems like a prison to them because they can't imagine how a woman could develop her skills in that place. I think that the curse of the fall is very instructive in how men and women are designed to find fulfillment - God cursed the man's work, and the woman's child bearing - I would suggest that men are designed to find fulfillment through labor, and women through child raising, primarily. This is not to say that men do not get something out of parenting, or that women don't also need to find meaningful labor apart from being a wife and mother. But i think that these things need to be prioritized, or we risk damaging the family, which is the key structure of human and social success and happiness. 7. Innovation and Old Time Religion I am glad that you acknowledge the innovation and success of Driscol. But I bristle at your hipsterish pejorative use of 'Old time religion.' While he may support the traditional gospel of sin and redemption and coming judgement, he is not anachronistic, stuck in the past, anti-modernity, anti-intellectual, or any of the other backward things associated with 'old time religion.' I think that 'progressive' Christians (ugh) may see the traditional stance on homosexuality and, excusing such as non-sinful, see that as a marker of outdated, bigoted Christianity, a.k.a. 'old time religion.' 8. Unity The question is, what are the essentials of the faith? That's what defines unity. The non-essentials? I suppose we don't have to walk with someone whose methods or emphases we don't agree with, but they're probably still Christians. What are the essentials of faith?

http://www.jesusneedsnewpr.net/how-dare-you-a-mark-drizzy-driscoll-remix/ Thought this was fitting based on the convo about Driscol's aggression From @Thatbarefootguy (Twitter)

Isaac, are you asking this AFTER having listened to the pod or are you asking INSTEAD of listening to the pod? You answer would really help me know how to respond :)

So, what was the conclusion about the Mark Driscoll question? I live in the seattle area so I'm interested.

I'll have to look into Stitcher. I've heard about it from you and from Left, Right, and Center (perhaps my favorite politics podcast).

It's all good. It gets to the same place :) and now that the Itunes feed is fixed ... we are all happy! -Bo

it's all good. itunes should be up and running. we are also on stitcher now....yall should be too!!! TNT is gonna be a regular event and eventually it will be its own stream. all in due time....

Oh crap. Bo, I'm sorry I addressed you as Tripp. I'm just used to typing his name when I have things to say here at HBC.

Tripp, is this one on the regular RSS feed, or will it appear somewhere else? The West Coast must be ahead of the trend once again, because iTunes here in Georgia is only showing episodes up to part 2 of the Westphal interview. BTW, I thoroughly look forward to listening to this once it's up. I think the TNT episodes have been strong ones (which might be because I'm biased towards podcasts in which good friends take on difficult questions in dialogue), and I'm looking forward to their inclusion as regular features of HBC.