The Institute (協会)

People tend to go where they can hear what they want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3, man.

I'm not going to comment on Osteen because whatever I would have to say would be sinful. But it's all been said elsewhere. Sigh.

I was nodding my head through almost all of Osteen's speech, and then also through all of Driscoll's. This issue is complex and paramount for the church today. God does not call us to have a poverty mentality, which is pagan in origin. It sees no tomorrow.
But at the same time we have a regenerate nature which frees us from self-interestedness and makes us able to sacrifice for others.
He promises neither wealth nor poverty. He calls us to full and exclusive responsibility for the least of these.

often times: THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE...

this is my thought, irrespective of any possible Osteen health, wealth and happiness heresy. i've seen Driscoll on youtube now twice, and on both appearance this messenger-man struck me as abominably arrogant!

what Driscoll preaches may be true, however, it's hard to hear the truth for the arrogance.

if you don't see what i'm seeing, i will personally note: that it may be a projection of my own pride onto Driscoll that i'm seeing. i can personally identify it because it's an ugly tendency in my own self. i hate arrogance in others as much as i hate it in my self. i'll say this much: i'm more edified by the watered-down version of Osteen's gospel then i am by Driscoll's pompous diatribes.

Ironically I contrasted Osteen and Driscoll just last week. Click my name and go to "Prosperity and the Christian Ethic."

I find this a bit like the "pot calling the kettle black." O'Steen is off-base and Driscoll is right to criticize him. But if this is Driscoll's sermon then what biblical text is he using? He referred to biblical themes but didn't cite a text. Granted, this is a ten minute clip of his (1 hour) sermon but I didn't see a Bible in his hand or anywhere else. Topical preaching (cherry-picking texts) to wow the crowds is plain wrong. Both of these men are guilty.

This is the question I have for both O'Steen and Driscoll: Did Jesus Christ need to die to make your sermon work? The Scriptures are about Christ (Luke 24:27) not us.

[quote]I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly.[/quote]

Driscoll focused on Christs life. Christ came to fix our mess not to live the life of a earthly king.

I have met very few Christians including myself that have an abundant life. Joel looks to have one to me. I am really starting to think that the reason Joel has the abundant life is because he is by faith claiming to have what Christ told him he had.

That is what faith is right?

Why does it seem that nearly every time a man preaches with authority, someone is compelled to call him "arrogant?" I listen to Driscoll's sermons from time to time. They are often overly long and he has never seen a rabbit trail he doesn't like to hop down. But he also goes verse by verse, book by book through Scripture for at least an hour at a pop in a town that is essentially the least churched in America. That his name is constantly dragged through the mud by non-believers is no great shock. He says there is such thing as God and that Jesus is the only way to know Him. He says that there is such thing as sin and it is killing us. He also cusses sometimes and seems to like Chris Rock. So of course, many of his brothers and sisters in Christ feel the need to tee of on him too. Personally, I am tired of equivocating, sweetie pie preachers who seem to be afraid of their own homiletical shadows. There aren't any of us who are perfect and that would certainly include Driscoll but why are we always beating up our brothers?

O' Steen's theology, such that it is, isn't recognizable in the life of Christ or in the history of the Church. I would suspect that the reason that Joel is having such an "abundant" life is due in no small part to the bank that he is making blowing sunshine up the hind quarters of millions every week. In the military, I am confronted with this worldview constantly. And sometimes, I am even around to pick up the pieces when bad things happen to "good" people. The Gospel doesn't free us from troubles. Abundant life is living in the grace of Christ in spite of our troubles.

If you google "larry king interview joel osteen" you can read a transcript that will clearly demonstrate why any Christian believer should have a problem with Joel Osteen's preaching ministry. The problem with him isn't so much the things that he says (though as Driscoll pointed out, those can be very troubling), it's the things that he won't say. For example, when asked by King what happens "if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?" Osteen says, "You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know..." When King pressed him by asking, "If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong aren't they?" Osteen responds, "Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong..." Such failure to clearly articulate the truth of the gospel when offered the opportunity is not only unhelpful but gravely dangerous to anyone under his influence. That's my beef with him...

Waterman asks, "Why does it seem that nearly every time a man preaches with authority, someone is compelled to call him "arrogant?"

Probably because the evangelical church in America is so feminized that confident men who speak with authority as assumed to be overly "macho."

The bar for men has been set so pathetically low that anything different than sounding like Mr. Rogers scares American evangelicals (this is NOT the case, however, in Korean, Latin American, and Black churches that I've seen).

It's really sad. The answer to your question may also be found in the Taylor Mali video below.

Guys, I gotta throw this out there; has anyone ever read any Martin Luther? Now, I'm in no way saying Driscoll is a new Luther or anything of the kind. My point is that what Luther wrote on the Catholic church and on reformed theology, particularly in "The Bondage of the Will," would seem the height of arrogance. He comes of as pompous and arrogant and exactly the right man for the job. Luther was called all of the things that some of us have just called Driscoll, yet we look back and applaud him for standing up for the truth of the gospel. On a strictly biblical note, Paul's response to the circumcision party in Galatia was far from a kindly reprimand. It's gracious yet firm and unwilling to sacrifice biblical truth for the opinions of man. If Paul and Luther had not been firm, if they had not drawn lines in the sand, and said this is the gospel, where would we be? This isn't to say Driscoll is perfect; though I love the guy to death, he does sometimes come off as a bit arrogant. However, I think to protect biblical truth we sometimes need, as Melancthon once said of Luther, a harsh physician for the extent of the age's ills.

Daniel wrote: ‘Why does it seem that nearly every time a man preaches with authority, someone is compelled to call him "arrogant?"’

I truly appreciate gifted and mature Christian preachers who have spent time with God and time in the Word. Off the top of my head I can think of two great men of God who preach with wonderful authority—Jerram Barrs of Covenant Seminary, and Tim Keller of Redeemer. Jerram Barrs is one of the most humble and soft spoken of teachers, and his messages have the power to convict and change lives for God. Tim Keller preaches with great authority, but I know of no one who considers his personality, his manner of presenting the truth, as arrogant.

On the other hand, the very woman who yesterday sent me the link to this blog, after she read what I wrote above, sent me an email. This is what she said: ‘I agree... I have seen a few of his clips and he is arrogant. He advocates manly-men in leadership... but much of it is asshole tendencies masked as strength.’ I also checked out the comments below this particular Driscoll clip on youtube, and I wasn’t the only one who read his manner as arrogant.

Quite frankly I’m disturbed at the lack of discernment in the Church. On the one hand you have men who have been taught—praise God—a solid (let’s say ‘reformed’) theology. But what’s just as important as possessing knowledge of the truth is possessing a humble character which is in line with the teaching of Scripture. Jerram Barrs goes out of his way to implore his seminary students to have the right spirit, particularly the spirit of humility, when they communicate the gospel message. No matter how true your message, if it’s not communicated with humility, your message will be distorted, or not heard at all.

On the other hand you have Christian Television pastors like John Hagee and Rod Parsley who exhibit great style and ‘authority’ when they preach. They preach some very disturbing and unbiblical things, however, because of their charisma and air of authority, thousands upon thousands of sheeple flock to their ministries and imbibe their every word. Rod Parsley has a school, and he’s spinning off hundreds of young power-hungry preachers in his image, who preach with the same booming, arrogant style as Parsley. Pride is an abomination against God. And where preachers should be modeling the spirit of humility, they are instead promoting a style issuing out their own charisma.

Where, it seems, most people haven’t the Biblical knowledge to discern the truth from untruth, they do have (I really want to believe this) the critical faculties to discern the difference between arrogance and humility. Even if a person knows it all, few people want to listen to a know-it-all.

Caleb,,,

There are two critical issues here: SUBSTANCE and STYLE

First, the substance is all important, the content of the message must be biblically true. Without the truth we might as well be 'a sounding brass or clanging cymbal.'

Then there’s style—the manner in which the substance of the truth is delivered.

Yes, we need to speak the truth of the Word of God to power, to people, to the world. But we must speak the truth in love.

And especially because of how the world frames the issues, our message might come across as being arrogant. They might say, ‘who are you to say my lifestyle or religious convictions are wrong?’ That is why it is critically important, if we want to reach those around us who haven’t a Biblical worldview, to speak the truth in love and in humility. The love, the humility and the Spirit of Christ will provide the authority that will change hearts.

The substance might, at times, be considered arrogant.
But the style, the way we share the truth, must never be seen as arrogant.

Dave Sarafolean:

Driscoll is preaching through Ephesians right now. He has entitled the whole series: "A Rebel's Guide to Joy." Go check out the Mars Hill Website it has all of the details. He has essentially been talking about the joy the gospel grants us in the midst of our suffering. I don't know what specific text he was on that day when he was preaching but I'm pretty sure that for the most part he is an expositional preacher. At least all of the sermons I've listened to are expositional. Also he preaches sometimes for like an hour and a half (which is ridiculous and uncalled for even if it is edifying) so who knows where this fell in his sermon.

David claims, "The love, the humility and the Spirit of Christ" and "But the style, the way we share the truth, must never be seen as arrogant."

These aphorisms are so culturally located and situated and don't really give much of any real direction. Put most black preachers in a soft-spoken Euro-centric evangelical context and they will come across as "arrogant." Just youtube some of them--G.E Patterson, Bishop Eddie Long, Eric Mason, etc. And they probably sound "angry" too.

"Humility" and non-"arrogance" means something completely different with speaking to the hardcore punk scene in Boston than to those grew up 'in da hood' versus those who are professionals who wear ties and sit at cubicles all day.

In Korea, for example, the level of your bowing determines arrogance vs. humility.

It's not that simple. Christianity in the black community became known to be something that "makes a brutha soft" when Euro-centric norms of 'humility' were imported into 'da hood' proof-texted by the Bible and called "Christ like."

Humility in "speech" and "style" does not mean that one should necessarily sound like a soft-spoken dude from western Europe which is often the assumed norm.

it's easy to see driscoll as the sophisticate...

the fact is, he's just as niche as any televangelist out there

driscoll paraphrases christ's sufferings but leaves out christ's stories of investing and using well what we're given - money, relationships, health.

of course, there is sin and it's not perfect - but i am not going to use the fact that christ suffered as a reason to NOT work hard.

what driscoll said is MOOT.

Anthony,,,

You may be assuming for me a standard of style which is uniquely Euro-centric. Maybe the confusion comes in my choice of the word STYLE—a term pregnant with cultural meaning. A far better word to convey my sense of meaning would be SPIRIT. I recognize the whole viable range of voices and styles used for communicating the truth of the gospel—you’ll get no argument from me concerning this.

And as I reread your quote of mine—I stand corrected. I said that we must never be “seen” as arrogant. I retract this. I should have said, that we must never BE arrogant. What you’ve pointed out to me is that in spite of our Christ-like spirit, we still may be “seen” as arrogant by others. Yes, I think it’s important to abstain from all appearances of pride, of evil. But if our love and humility is taken for arrogance—that is beyond our control. What is in our control is the HEART from which we speak, the SPIRIT in which we communicate the message.

I don’t presently have the time to check out the preachers you listed above. But I will later. However, I do want you to know Anthony, that I (a young white man) have spent several years in an African-American church. I have seen a good deal of arrogant and cocky black men flaunt their stuff across the stage, and I've seen the crowd react in a fleshly way to the hoops and hollas. I have also seen some of the most godly, humble, wise, spirit-filled black men preach from the same stage, and they did it with their own unique culturally-situated style, they did it with power, they moved us with the truth, inspired us to be the creatures of God He has designed us to be—and they did it with booming fire in their voices, they shook the house, they had us dancing, etc. etc. but they did it all in the spirit of humility—which is the basis of real power and authority. I video recorded these sermons and they are some of the most substantive sermons I have ever heard preached. And they did it with awesome style and profound humility.

Again, I stand corrected. But please understand that however hard-spoken or soft-spoken we are, there is a pride or humility which issues from the heart, and in whatever way our message is expressed, the SPIRIT behind our voice and style is always discernable (but perhaps not by everyone, as the Driscoll clip may be a case in point).

marketing said: driscoll paraphrases christ's sufferings but leaves out christ's stories of investing and using well what we're given - money, relationships, health.

of course, there is sin and it's not perfect - but i am not going to use the fact that christ suffered as a reason to NOT work hard.

what driscoll said is MOOT.

You need to go a listen to more of Driscoll's sermons, he actually does cover investing and using well what we are given frequently. I also think for anyone to comment on what Driscoll said they need to view/listen to his whole sermon. He's commenting on what joy is and what it is not and is using Osteen and his "message" as an example of what a lot of Christian's think joy is. He also starts off by calling Osteen a Christian brother.

As a Christian in Seattle, I would absolutely love for my pastor, John Haralson, to critique Mark Driscoll, but I think he's probably more rational than I am, and doesn't feel the need to slam other other pastors to make his points.

That being said, Joel Osteen looks like Wes Anderson.

Joel Osteen is not wrong because he teaches that God's will for our lives ultimately includes physical health and financial prosperity. God did create a good world, and when he restores and glorifies his creation in the end by making all things new, there will be no more pain or crying or death or poverty or suffering of any kind. See Revelation 21-22.

The first problem is that Joel Osteen promises that we can have all of this now in our present era of history that remains fallen and broken. Jesus is indeed giving victory over sin and death as far as the curse is found. But we have no promise from God that each of us will see the fullness of salvation come to pass in each of our lifetimes in this present age. Indeed, we have just the opposite promise. God tells us that living as a follower of Jesus in a fallen world will make this present life harder in many ways than it would have been otherwise. Following Jesus means moving upstream against the current of a world slouching toward Gomorrah (to mix my metaphors). Jesus tells us that many people in the world will reject us and treat us just the way it treated him. In technical terms, Joel Osteen is preaching an over-realized eschatology. He's saying that we can have now what God only promises to give us on the new earth when Jesus returns. There is no resurrection without the cross. That's true in Jesus' own life, and it is true by extension to our lives. Resurrection and the new earth are coming, but first we must fight the battle against sin and death in this present age, dying to ourselves as we pour out our lives in spiritual warfare for the mission of the kingdom. Then, and only then, will we receive the crown of life.

That's not to say that God doesn't give us good things in our life in this present age. He does promise to give us all that we need to serve him in this battle against the evil one and the curse of sin. He does promise us his very presence. He promises to forgive us and to begin the work of true healing and purification that yields the fruit of the Spirit in our lives (love, joy, peace, etc.) The second problem that I perceive in Joel Osteen is that he spends so much time emphasizing the health and wealth that he neglects these greater gifts of the presence of God with us and the fruit of the Spirit that is worked in us through suffering service for the kingdom. There is a true spiritual abundance that we can know in this life, and I think that Joel Osteen seems to spend more time talking about more superficial gifts than he does the gift of God himself and the changes in character that he produces in us as conforms us more and more to the image of Christ.

I have read the Larry King interview, and yes Joel has some issues theologically. He even says he is not a theologian. I know we would hope that his grounding would be more to our liking, but it is not. Joel has never said that we will not have hardship, pain, rejection. . . But he pulls heavily from the “What is good. What is lovely, What is pure think on these things.” This is what Christ has called us to do. And Joel with his gift of encouragement is hitting on. God does not call us to dwell on the hardships of our life, but rather the victory we have in Christ. This includes that we need to dwell on the fact that we are the bride of Christ. To that point I don’t think it is misguided to have expectation of how our groom will provide for our needs.

First of all, you don't have to be a theologian to interpret John 14:6. His grounding doesn't have to be in reformed theology, it'd just be nice if it were orthodox. "In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." So let me say, as charitably as possible, that Osteen equivocates on the essential (not reformed) truth that Jesus Christ is the "only name under heaven, given among men by which we must be saved." I'm down with Philippians 4:8 stuff. But it would be great to hear Osteen balance his presentation of whatever "gospel" he's preaching by backing up a few chapters and preaching from Philippians 1:29 - "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake."

To David's points: I agree with Anthony's take on the cultural implications as to what is and isn't arrogant. Actually, I think you illustrate this truth with the examples of the "humble" preachers that you offer. First off, let me say that I have the highest respect for both Barrs and Keller. I was also a student of Jerram's at Covenant and I found him to be a gracious and godly man. And you are right to assert that no one in a million years would experience him as arrogant. After 12 years as a military chaplain, I am also pretty certain that Jerram would not be very effective in this environment. What you and I experience as "the spirit of humility," most DOD members I know would view as softness and even weakness.

I listen to Keller's sermons regularly. In fact, he is probably my "favorite" preacher to listen to. But again, I've been in any number of congregations where Keller, with his $20 vocabulary words and scholarly delivery, would likely be experienced as arrogant. I don't think for a second that Keller is arrogant. I just think that a different audience would think so.

To me, what you are talking about is how you experience and respond to a particular style of sermon. The reason that I share your opinion of Paisley and Hagee (and pray for me-I live in San Antonio) is not because they are bombastic and loud. It is because they are wrong. How many of the pastors, prophets, and apostles from throughout the history of the Church would be found arrogant today?

In the interest of full disclosure, I spent a long time trying to change my preaching and pastoral styles so that PCA people (in particular) would experience me as humble or "not arrogant." It didn't work, of course. I am from the north, from the military, and am just hard-wired to be loud and forceful. Sometimes, I am a knucklehead. When that happens, I seek God's and the congregation's forgiveness and do my best to press on. I don't desire to offend anyone and I certainly hate it if someone experiences me as arrogant. But I am afraid that is something of an occupational hazard.

Waterman said, "I spent a long time trying to change my preaching and pastoral styles so that PCA people (in particular) would experience me as humble or "not arrogant." It didn't work, of course."

DW, bro, you got my point. Thanks. I'm glad to hear that you no longer feel like you need to sound like some soft-spoken, white collar dude from the U.K. A lot of the kinds of men that Driscoll attracts would NOT step one foot in a suburban conservative evangelical upper-class church.

"Spirit of humility" is usually a prooftexted cultural preference and you are correct to highlight how the guys in your military context would view certain people. Thanks something important to think about!!

People thought Jesus was so arrogant that they tried to kill him.

I hear ya David. No worries. But still went right back to style. Read Daniel's comments again.

David said, "style is always discernable"

Really??? Here's what's true. We all have preconceived notions of what is "arrogant" and it has everything to do with our past experience with men in leadership and our cultural context. When you think about the word "humility" a certain type of man pops up in your head (one that you like personally) and Driscoll simply does not fit with that picture of your preference. Maybe that's the only way you can claim to discern the "spirit" behind what someone is saying without actually asking the person.

Hey Anthony,

I've been keeping up with your blog here in Korea, it's been a good source of spiritual and intellectual food.

I wanted to start off with a small thanks for mentioning Korea/Koreans twice in these comments. For some reason, it makes me feel like you still think of me from time to time ^___^. I'm loving Korea by the way, and I always make sure to bow very low. Also, I've been attending an English speaking church here in Seoul, so I don't know how much I can comment on actual Korean pastors, but I did go to one Korean speaking servicde here, and let me tell you, this guy was convicted and it was powerful (even though I didn't understand most of what he said, I was still moved).

In regards to the discussion, I'll try to put a couple cents in.

This is definitely a sticky situation, and I don't feel like I've come to a clear side on this issue of pastoral style. I've seen some really soft-spoken pastors that have moved me to tears before. I've also attended churches with confident, authoritative pastors that provoke the same tears. I'm not convinced that there's one right way to preach a sermon.

My grandparents' pastor is from Wales, and he's very softspoken, but also full of heart and conviction. You know he means what he says. But in no way sounds "arrogant" as the term might be used. He preaches with gentleness, but with boldness, and his sermons have always been very convicting for me.

Then at college, I went to an RP church where the pastor could by many people's standards be considered arrogant in his style. But he preached truth, and he knew it. And he wasn't afraid of it. He is one of the few pastors who made me feel safe during his sermons. So many pastors I question, but this guy always spoke straight from the Bible, and because he was so biblically grounded, he could be as confident as he wanted to be. He was confident in God's word, not in himself.

So here we have one pastor who is so gentle I couldn't see him squashing a fly, and another pastor who will put you in your place if you tell him you sing anything besides Psalms. And I loved them both. Is one doing it right, and one doing it wrong? I think if God wanted every pastor to be the same way in his, he would have made it more clear in the Bible how a pastor should preach. But since God is creative, I think he's ok with having different personalities bring the Word to people.

I don't like the idea of people changing who they are to fit what is most attractive in sermons. If you preach the truth and believe it, why so much squabbling over their presentation?

Also, one last thought...
The only thing, at least in my life, that I would say to be careful of when sharing God's word is to make sure you are confident about the right things. I think too often (particularly reformed thinkers) people tend to fall into idolatry through their theology. Some people tend to fall into the trap of studying God so much that they think they are an expert, even in areas where God has not made it clear. People can often worship a God who is not actually there, but merely the God they have made a thesis about. God is mysterious in many ways, and to be arrogant or too confident in areas where He has not chosen to reveal himself seems very dangerous to me. So for me, I've learned to become much more humble in what I know about God. Especially since I've been proven wrong before on issues.

I guess the main thing I would leave with is a quote from Corinthians. This sums up what everything we do in life should be motivated by:

1 Corinthians 13:12-13:
"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

I fear you fellas are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my point (as re-expressed above).

I’m not at all arguing about style—bad choice of word. I readily admit that style may have almost nothing to do with arrogance. There’s a wide spectrum of viable styles from the south to the north, from afrodudes to eurodudes, from military men to mister roger-types. Ok, I’m with you on that. I even see how Tim Keller could be seen as arrogant, even though he may not in the moment be acting out of pride, it could just be his misunderstood sense of humor, etc. etc. I understand cultural sensitivities, internalized dispositions and assumptions, and what sociologists call the ‘habitus.’ And even within or without the cultural context—it is true, as Mark above has stated, that everyone of us is different, and God delights in us and sets us free to be the unique personality that we are. Beneath the matter of style is something deeper, and this is what I’m trying to get at.

I don’t think, Anthony, that I said style was discernable, I said that the SPIRIT behind the voice and style is discernable, the HEART behind the presentation is discernable. But not by everyone. Now, there are those who do have the gift of discernment—both natural and spiritual. Not everybody, necessarily, has the eyes to see the difference between an acting-out-of-the-flesh and an operating-out-of-the-Spirit. My judgement on Driscoll for pride may not be apparent to you. Nevertheless, the depth of a person does manifest itself on the surface, however, subtly or obviously. And the arrogance I’m reading from Driscoll is issuing from the heart, which is where pride comes from. It’s not his style I’m critiquing, the way he asserts himself, or even the truth that he’s conveying—it is the spirit in which he is communicating which I (and others) find arrogant. This is a matter of the heart, not an issue of culture (although it can be, there are certain cultures that do actively foster the spirit of pride—but I don’t want to go there). I understand that certain styles and personalities will appeal to different people. And there are certain styles and personalities which, for me, are more preferable, but please don’t make this an issue of content or style or presentation, it’s an issue of spirit. Regardless of style, of true or untrue content, arrogance is a spiritual condition issuing out of the heart, out of the flesh.

And Anthony, you don’t have to ask the person to discern if he’s arrogant. Much of the time the person may not even be aware of his own pride—that’s the deceitful nature of pride.

And thank you guys for engaging me, and challenging me with this.

Realize you are watching a 10 minute clip out of a hour long sermon out of a multi-week sermon series on Philippians... primarily delivered to Seattle.

It would not be unheard of for someone from a different (non-Seattle) subculture to find Driscoll a bit rough and arrogant. But in general, that isn't the case in the Seattle sub-culture. (And the Seattle-subculture in no way fosters a respect for arrogance, yet some ~4000 Seattlites have dedicated their lives to Jesus partially due to Driscoll's preaching of Jesus.)

(Not to say Driscoll has never been sinfully arrogant during a sermon... he has publically admitted as much and repented.)

"I would absolutely love for my pastor, John Haralson, to critique Mark Driscoll, but I think he's probably more rational than I am, and doesn't feel the need to slam other other pastors to make his points"

Did you listen to the first minute or so of the video? If with even that, it's considered a slam, then I guess we really can't say anything about someone's theology without "slamming" them...

Not to come off as arrogant myself, but I think hammering on Osteen or Driscoll is a bit petty, somewhat arrogant and totally off base from what we should be discussing on this thread. Honestly, I don't think this really about either man but about the health and wealth, prosperity gospel that so many people are drawn to in our culture. For a moment, let's not criticize either man but look at the real issue of dealing with this false gospel that permeates (to some extent) every denomination and every church in the US.

I've been teaching an adult Sunday School class for about two years, and among my responsibilities I make certain that those in my class understand the grave danger found in the wolves (Joel Osteen and many of the others that appear on so-called "Christian" TV and radio). Sometimes our love for Jesus and the church forces us to say difficult, bold words. The cross of Jesus Christ is not about satisfying our lust and greed.

I wish that Driscoll had pointed to Paul rather than Jesus in his illustrations. Paul suffered pain, poverty, relationship crises, and so many other problems not acceptable to the nausiating word-faith, prosperity gospel of Osteen. In love (may God have mercy on me if my self-perception is wrong) I must warn others that there is a cancer in the Church, and it can be found on TBN every day of the week.

Tucker said, "I wish that Driscoll had pointed to Paul rather than Jesus."

??????????????????????

I have a question, Anthony. If arrogance and humility are culturally-located, then isn't it wrong for people in the 'hood to think that Christian men are "soft?" In other words, it sounds to me like these judgments are themselves an uncharitable, culture-based judging of differently-situated Christians.

If that's true, then abusing Christians for their cultural situation (or appropriation of another culture's attributes) is just another example of perpetuating divisions of the flesh, is it not? And accordingly, failure to condemn the abuse would be failure to condemn sin, no?

I do have many problems with Joel's theological and I also have no problem with Driscoll speaking with authority what I do have a problem is with Driscoll and his whole "emerging" church buddies who actually think that these concepts of justice, empowerment, and distribution are some how lacking in the church as a whole. The "emerging" church leaders usually consist of some white 30 something men who think that their new brand of Christianity is out of the box and cutting edge when in all actuality these aspects of the Christian faith have been preached and lived out in the ethnic minority communities for years.It just so happens that we live in a racialized society where the "majority" refuses to listen. All this to say that yes I do have a problem with Joel's stance but I think I have more of a problem with Driscoll and his buddies. For a great resource on this topic (the overrating of the emerging church movement) please go and listen to this sermon by Professor Soong Chan Rah titled "Freedom to all the Captives and Pardon to all the Prisoners."
Pray for me yall as I struggle with this movement.

Driscoll Repents of Pride...

November 4, 2007

partial transcript from bob.blog
http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2007/11/driscoll-repent.html

Mark Driscoll: "I believe that humility is the great omission and failure in my eleven years of preaching. I believe that this is my greatest oversight both in my example and in my instruction.

I therefore do not claim to be humble. I do not claim to have been humble. I am convicted of my pride, and I am a man who is by God’s grace pursuing humility.

...
But I truly believe that were there one thing I could do over in the history of Mars Hill it would be in my attitude and in my actions and in my words to not only emphasize sound doctrine, encourage in strength and commitment and conviction but, to add in addition to that, humility as a virtue.

And so I’ll start by asking your forgiveness and sincerely acknowledging that this has been a great failure.

And I believe that it is showing up in our church in the lives of men and women who have sound doctrine but not sound attitude. They may contend for good things but their motives are bad and their methods are bad and their tone is bad and their tactics are bad and their actions are bad because their attitudes are bad even though their objective is sometimes good. I see this in particular with the men. I see this with men young and old, men who have known Jesus for a long time and should know better, and men who are new to Jesus and are learning sometimes the hard way.

I will take some responsibility for this. Luke 6:40 says that when fully trained, disciples are like their teacher, and I am primary teaching pastor of this church and I can’t simply look at the pride in some of our people and say that I am in no way responsible or complicit.

I’m a guy who is pretty busted up over this personally and it really came to my attention last December just in time for Christmas. The critics really brought me a lot of kind gifts of opposition and hatred and animosity. Merry Christmas. And some of those most vocal and nasty critics were Christians – some of them prominent Christians. So I was getting ready to fire back (my usual tactics). They hit you, you hit them twice and then blog about your victory. Which I don’t have any verses for and don’t say it was a good idea. But it had been a pattern in my life until a man named C.J. Mahaney called.

I’d always considered humility to be cowardice and a compromise. In the name of humility you give up biblical conviction and passion and the willingness to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and to fight false teaching. What he was describing was orthodoxy in belief and humility in attitude and that those two together are really what God desires. And so it got me thinking and studying and praying through pride and humility and repenting and learning and growing. So I would start by saying that I thank my dear friend C.J. Mahaney for his ongoing friendship and the kindness he has extended to me and the things I’ve been able to learn through his instruction.

Furthermore, I apologize and repent publicly to you, the church for whom I am responsible, for much pride in the history of my ministry that some of you have poorly imitated and for that I am deeply sorry.

And thirdly, to say that I’m not a humble man but as result of study I’m a man who is acknowledging his pride and pursuing humility by God’s grace."

-- Mark Driscoll, sermon on Philippians 2:1-11 (November 4, 2007), part 5 in The Rebel's Guide to Joy in Humility (3:16-8:40)