Drunk WatchdawggieI guess nailing down the CRN folks is kind of like nailing Jell-O to the wall these days.

For so long, they’ve been trying to define anyone/everyone with a differing theological opinion as ‘emergent’ – with this term implying a lack of orthodoxy.  [Granted, there are a number of churches in the 'Emergent' movement who have moved too far in favor of liberal interpretations (or no interpretations), but much of what I see in the 'emerging' church is not this far out - as Dan Kimball has aptly demonstrated in recently disembowling the arguments of Johnnie Mac's lackey.]

Now, though, it seems that non-adherence to legalistic orthopraxy is on the table, as well.  In the continuum of the ECM, probably the most conservative of voices has been Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill church in Seattle – a strict complementarian, 5-point Calvinist – whose chief sin has been to set up a church in downtown Seattle and to minister to the culture there, without demanding that the church’s culture bow to traditional (not Biblical) norms.  In fact, Mark has said on recent occasions that he doesn’t consider Mars Hill ‘Emergent’ (though he would consider it ‘emerging’), and a growing number of fundamentalists (like John Piper) have been cautiously welcoming Mark into their fold to discuss how to be relevant without watering down the message.

[In fact, I would recommend Mark's podcast, available on iTunes, though I sometimes think that he holds some of the 5-points a little too closely.  Generally, in terms of orthodoxy, it is right on par what you'd expect to hear from John MacArthur's pulpit minus the legalism and treatments of "who's 'in' and who's 'out'".]

But, of course, who would have imagined that Ken wouldn’t buy Mars Hill’s ‘Emergent-ness’?  And what is the evidence of this “sin”?  The church is holding a Cinco de Mayo celebration which serves beer (seems Ken is answering our question from last week).  And Driscoll, that awful dude in black, is a “chelero, a bebedor de cerveza” (a beer drinker, for those of you who don’t want to run to AltaVista Babelfish).

Also, the advertisement referred to a New Year’s celebration which had a champagne toast and had a “Red Hot” theme (which, from the context of the original message meant to wear red…).  Of course Ken’s dirty mind made this into a sexual reference of some sort (had this actually been the case, if you listen to Driscoll and know how he deals with certain issues, he would not have minced words in forcing a change in clothing/atmosphere).  Leave it to Ken to manufacture slander against a brother, but who’s really surprised anyomore at his outrageous lies?  Really?

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, April 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pm and is filed under Commentary, Emergent Church, Ken Silva, Legalism, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, Original Articles, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

4 Comments(+Add)

1   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

great pic of the dog!

Talk about the classic leap to extremes:
“getting the congregation liquored up”, “inciting to lust”.

I hate to step into the ham-handed “biblicizing” of the controversy language, but…

does this seem like 21st. c. “judaizing”?
It does to me.
The new “circumcision”.
The new oral law.

I know, I know, “by their fruit…”, blah, blah, blah.

Apparently, many of us didn’t get the full list on the “fruit” we are known by, but I think I’ve been able to piece it together in my perusal of the discerning, arm-chair “research”.

How naive of me to think that love, joy, peace, et. al were enough.

I guess Jesus had to die for my glass of Gruner-Veltliner over Easter brunch. Oh, and for the fact that I enjoyed it too…the “pleasures of sin for a season” and what not…

I wonder if it was worse that I drank on Sunday, much less Easter itself?

This is just silly.
And sad.

2   Matt    
April 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Here’s photos from the Red Hot Bash. No one looks dressed inappropriately. Everyone is dressed up. It’s not skanky at all.


3   Tim    
April 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Thanks, Chris, for replying to his post on Driscoll.

I was amazed and a bit disgusted after reading what he said about Driscoll.

So beer drinking=emergent… What!?!!?!

Ken seems to essentially be calling Driscoll a cult member and a heretic, since he has said that Emergent is a cult. That’s pretty scary if you ask me.

Ken, please be more careful with your labels. And while you’re at it, be more careful with your accusations as well. Maybe do some investigation first. That could have prevented saying some very untrue and harmful things.


4   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
April 9th, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Matt – did you bother to look at those pictures!!!!? Clearly they were inappropriately dressed and doing awful things while listening to very questionable music…..and look how close they were standing to each other, and they were not wearing wedding rings, and clearly you lack discernment to not see that this is sexual – inciting them to lust in their drunken frenzy. [ oh wait - can I use the word "suck" here?]

[end of sarcasm]

One Trackback/Ping

  1. CRN.Info and Analysis    Apr 10 2007 / 10am:

    [...] And so it was yesterday, when commenter ‘Matt’ provided photographic evidence (left) of Ken’s rush to slander Mark Driscoll over the name (”Red Hot Bash” New Years’ Eve celebration) as if it were some sexual slang or innuendo for church-sponsored sleaze.  Unfortunately for Ken, there’s an entire Flickr photoset to dispute his smear.  I wonder if there will be an apology made to Driscoll and Mars Hill (cue chirping crickets). [...]