Is it just me…
Posted by Tim Reed, Owosso MI on Oct 6th, 2007
2007
Oct 6
…or do they seem a bit ashamed of Jesus’ humble circumstances?
In the past Driscoll has been critical of e/e churches for loving Jesus’ humanity but not his divinity. It seems we have the flip side of that here.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I was thinking the same thing. Driscoll’s language was not inappropriate, is was correct. Bethlehem wa just like he described. The comment section is GREAT! You would think that Driscoll cussed of God himself from stage with the way they are talking about him. hilarious.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Tim: The title of your post begs the question: “Is it just me? I’ll just be terribly blunt here: No. It’s the whole stinkin’ lot of ya!
I’ve sat back for the past couple of days and just watched this blog. THIS post is so typical. CRN.Info and it’s contributors have to be (at times) some of the most arrogant and sometimes obtuse individuals I’ve ever encountered. You seem to think you have some kind of special insight that, until you came along, was totally undiscovered by the Christian community at large. You have much more spiritual eyes and discernment than anyone before our time. Thank GOD, you guys came along to straighten us out! Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, Luther, etc. were all complete IDIOTS, but thankfully, we now have a blog that can enlighten our minds and show us the error of our ways! (I’m burning all of my MacArthur, Kistemaker, A.W. Pink and Calvin commentaries this afternoon. Obviously don’t need them with enlightening posts like this around. I would just take my commentaries to the dump, but I’m afraid some poor unsuspecting soul would find them, read them, and…I just can’t stand the thought of people being deceived like that!!!)
The fact that you see nothing wrong with Driscoll’s comments is very telling. His statement is crude, not funny, insulting and most certainly not edifying. He thinks he is being cute or funny by describing people who “change their own oil” or “eat a lot of Hot Pockets” as hicks. And his description of how the townspeople explained Mary’s pregnancy (”knocking boots…”) is absolutely inappropriate coming from a pulpit. Are you telling me that you could have uttered the same words from your own pulpit with a straight face?! (Actually, I think Gary Lamb or the MoviePastor would be right at home with this one)
Driscoll’s type of comments reveal a lot. Your condemning people for finding fault with his statement says a lot as well. If my pastor spoke like this during a sermon on Sunday morning, he wouldn’t need his notes for Sunday night–he wouldn’t be employed.
What in the world makes it necessary to connect with people/congregations is such crass, juvenile way? And the fact (at least that’s what you seem to imply) you see nothing wrong with it…I’m absolutely stunned. We can speak about Jesus’ humanity without lowering ourselves to this.
Let the caddy, snarky, smart-aleck, rebuttals begin! You won’t be wrong. You never are.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Keith,
The problem here is there is effectively no way to have communication with you now, if we respond in any manner other than agreeing with you, you can go back to your Indian rain dancing and say, “See, See, I told you, you’re never wrong.” Personally, I’ve apologized rather publicly before for being wrong. I just want to ask though, it’s OK to make fun of people and put them in “posters” and then make fun of another person who makes posters that she feels more accurately represent her view, but if we say, Well it sounds like what Driscoll was saying was true, we’ve got problems. Perhaps, if you read your N.T. carefully you will see that Driscoll is fairly accurately representing what the Jews accused Mary of.
The quote, “At least we know who our father is…” comes to mind. Now, what could they have meant by that?
As for never being wrong, maybe we’re all guilty of that now and again, except you of course.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Keith, for the record I know what Driscoll was attempting to teach, I disagree with his verbiage.
I own and have read books by the men you referenced. I asked one of Calvinitic friends why It seems that the Calvinistic men like Whitefield and Spurgeon and others were different than some of the ones of today. He agreed with my perception and suggested that just like Arminianism has changed so has Calvinism. I am thinking on that, but I do not subscribe to Driscoll’s terminology.
So am I still in the “whole stinking lot”?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Keith,
I’ve pointed out before that Driscoll is a PG-13 guy in an R-rated town. I don’t particularly have a problem if someone wants to say that Driscoll is too crude for them. His style of communication isn’t for everyone. I mean that literally. Its meant to communicate to Seattleites, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.
What I do have a problem with is denying the circumstances of the Biblical narrative out some misplaced sense of propriety. I don’t care if you think the bare facts laid out by Driscoll are somehow shameful and unworthy of Jesus to the point where we have to clean up or deny what was actually going on. The entire point is that the entire work of Jesus’ mission was unworthy of him. Why we think we have to pretend he was born to some middle class couple in a clean, tidy little stable (first kind of those I ever heard of) I have no idea.
I find it interesting that all of the authors you listed as burning in favor of this blog have all been praised on this blog. What’s been criticized is the way their works have been used by watchdoggies.
I would also point out that the reason the e/e movement began at all was because of churches that have failed to communicate the gospel. Much of what the e/e has grabbed onto are scriptural observations, commands, and methodologies that have long been dormant. And this post I linked to is a great example of that. Many churches, and people have taught the divinity of Christ to the exclusion of his humanity. Without both you don’t have Jesus.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“I find it interesting that all of the authors you listed as burning in favor of this blog have all been praised on this blog. What’s been criticized is the way their works have been used by watchdoggies. ”
Amen.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Joe: We weren’t talking about posters. Stay on topic.
Rick/Tim: Then why not communicate “what Driscoll was attempting to teach” in a less crude way? Why does it HAVE to be graphic. I’m not stupid. I’ve read the story (Joe). I know where and under what circumstances Jesus was born. Do I have to give you all the minute, gorey details of a rape for you to understand what happened? Same here.
If we are going to let Driscoll pass on this one, why not take it a step further since we all know “what was actually going on?.” You want humanity? How about this:
How’s that for relevant and “accurately representing what the Jews accused Mary of?” Maybe I can get a job writing for Driscoll.
Rick: You’re one of “the whole stinkin’ lot” if you see nothing wrong with Driscoll’s presentation. You seem to be saying you have a problem with it, so I might let you slide.
Tim: You didn’t answer my question: Would you preach those same words from you own pulpit? If not, why not if they are accurate? Why aren’t you willing to say the “Seattleites” are wrong?
October 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Keith, have you ever read my blog? Do I use language like that? Driscoll is known for crudeness, even worse than this, for effect. I would not attend his church with his type of graphic language. I would not even use the words you did as a reply, so I’m more conservative than you Keith and that whole stin’ bucn over there at Whatwuzithinkin! Oh yea, it’s only you!
In my view Driscoll’s approach is unecessary. I believe without firsthand evidence that a person who uses questionable language in the pulpit curses in private. I might be wrong but I think it might be true.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Keith,
You are one angry dude, today. I never said or implied you were stupid. You don’t seem all that interested in talking today, you seem more interested in shouting. Besides, didn’t your blog say you were trying to wean yourself off of us? I’m sick, so I’m going to wish you a good day and move on to homework.
Peace
October 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Keith,
I have preached in a similar way, though I didn’t draw on stereotypes of rural America to do it, as I suspect even the poorest, most rural American stereotypes would have been amazingly luxurious for the time.
As to why your example is inappropriate, well it comes back to taking the scriptures seriously. The details you chose to include aren’t even faintly similar to first century Nazareth.
BTW, if Driscoll’s characterization of 1st century Nazareth was too much for you I’d avoid the book of Hosea completely, also, most of Judges is probably a bit much for you. Here’s the thing, when it comes down to it, the Bible is a crude book. There’s all kinds of rough edges, dirty words, and scandalous incidents. Ultimately that’s why I’m not going to condemn Driscoll for saying this, or Seattleites for responding to it. The Bible isn’t G-rated (in fact it’d probably be at least NC-17), the apostles weren’t some Joel Osteen nice guys making sure that their sermons and letters were approved for 4 year olds. So, I have to question if our sermons don’t preach the Bible, all of it, including the rough bits, then are we faithfully teaching the Bible? Is a cleaned up, teeth whitened, air brushed Jesus really the Jesus of the scriptures? I know the manger scenes we put out at Christmas is comforting, but are they honest? Somehow I don’t think so.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Rick said:”In my view Driscoll’s approach is unecessary.”
THANK YOU, Rick!
October 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Mary was a simple peasant girl raised in an unremarkable city called Nazareth in a county called Galilee. It was a part of Israel that was what we would call working class, like a small coal mining town in West Virginia. It’s religiousness had morphed into cultural ritual and it was well abused by the pagan Romans, so when the Angel Gabriel came to give a message to this daughter of Judah the entire circumstance surrounding his visit and more importantly his message would be viewed with mass skepticism. Every piece of circumstancial evidence would point to an immoral lie rather than divine intervention.
God surely would not have chosen this rural and dusty place of obscurity to choose the vessel for His Son’s entrance.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Tim: The details you chose to include aren’t even faintly similar to first century Nazareth. They had Hot Pockets and changed their own oil in first century Nazareth?! My comments are not taking Scripture seriously, but Driscoll’s are!? This is exactly the kind of logic I’m talking about. Tim, you bombed on this one and you don’t have the guts to admit it.
Your appeal to books such as Hosea or Judges is just lame. I’ve read them both and have yet to encounter the phrase “knocking boots” or any other crude euphemisms. There is just enough information there to convey the situation without being graphic. I know what a “harlot” is. I don’t need all the sorid details of how many men Gomer slept with, how many times or where they “did it,” what she was wearing, etc.
Joel Osteen is an idiot. He may be saved, but he’s still an idiot. (Didn’t want to be accused of saying someone isn’t a Christian.)
===
Joe: You bet I’m angry. I’m angry that comments like Driscoll’s are passed over/defended with statements like: “Perhaps, if you read your N.T. carefully…” I read a condescending tone in your comment.
Oh, and since I didn’t mention any names, why do you automatically assume I’m talking about this blog? The internet is a very big place (thanks to Al Gore).
BTW, I’m sorry you are not feeling well today. I mean that.
===
Rick: Yes. I’ve read your blog. I didn’t say or mean to imply that you “use[d] language like that. ” But what would be wrong if you did? Tim and others seem to have no problem with it. Big deal if people such as Driscoll [probably] “curses in private.” Makes him all the more relevant in the eyes of some people, don’t you think?
I don’t talk like that either. I was only making a point. And frankly, I felt dirty using some of the words I did. Sadly, some of those same words apparently are appropriate in certain pulpits/geographical areas.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I agree with everything you said, Keith.
And your words reminded me of a picture on your blog a few posts ago of a certain truck! ha!
October 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I find Mark D. to be an abhorent, suburban, rich kid, with an axe to grind and anyone who gets in his way will get kicked in the teeth like an ultimate fighter who was just sucker punched in the temple. JUST KIDDING!
I’m more offended by Marks euphinisms about rural people than I am about his descriptors of Jesus’ town and parents.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Keith,
The general view of the average Seattleite towards those who change their own oil and eat hot pockets is at least faintly similar to the view of the average Jerusalemite of someone from Nazareth. I didn’t bomb on this question, you just completely missed my point, because you have no conception of what Driscoll’s congregation is like. So, I suppose its a good thing you’re not the one trying to communicate with them.
The reason you don’t see the “crude euphemisms” is because you’re not a part of that culture (for example, Jezabel’s name was probably not her proper name, but was a Hebrew insult. They changed her name from a praise to Baal to a praise to crap, except a much stronger word). Euphemisms don’t have much of an impact outside of the culture they’re in.
But you also have explicit references to sex, alcohol abuse, violence, death on a massive scale along with many other events that we’d consider to be barbaric to say the least.
Taking all that into consideration, I can’t get all that worked up over what Driscoll said here. At least not from a crudity standpoint.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Actually despite his current social location Driscoll’s background is the very class strata he “described” in his take on Nazareth.
If you listen carefully to him you’ll see he is very self-conscious about his background, his lack of education and his need to constantly toot his “masculine” horn. All issues that are driven by class considerations.
There is more going on here than just determining sacrilege, socially appropriate terminology, etc–with Driscoll there always is more to what’s going on than what is typically fixated on.
Step back, see the big picture with regards to Marky mark and let it go…what I mean is this:
Let him go. He only “matters” if you make him an issue. He, along with a lot of currently popular people, are the proverbial flavor of the day.
You’ll give him an extended shelf life if
(a) you don’t ignore him
OR
(b) go postal when you do find it necessary to respond to him. Just state your case without rhetoric, pronouncements and tone. Then ignore him. Otherwise you become guilty of his own tactics and perpetuate a cycle much bigger than the current players.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
You know there are some that say I am this site’s version of Mark Driscoll, and I have never. I mean never preached like this.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Tim: I’m really having a hard time taking you serious on this one.
those who change their own oil and eat hot pockets is at least faintly similar to the view of the average Jerusalemite of someone from Nazareth. Driscoll says Hot Pockets and I say BBQ and Longnecks, but HIS comments are taking Scripture more seriously?! Good grief, you’re reaching.
But you also have explicit references to sex, alcohol abuse, violence, death on a massive scale along with many other events that we’d consider to be barbaric to say the least. WHERE in Scripture do you see “explicit references to sex, alcohol abuse, violence, death on a massive scale…” There is a huge difference in stating: “And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father…” (Genesis 19:33) versus “They got their father drunk, so he could h**mp her brains out all night.” THAT”S what I’m talking about and that is what was offensive about Driscoll’s remarks. It wasn’t the reality of what was going on. It was the crude way he described it!
you have no conception of what Driscoll’s congregation is like. Really? “For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart…every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.” (Matthew 12:34-36) My “concept” is that Driscoll and his congregation need to have their mouths washed out with soap.
I can’t get all that worked up over what Driscoll said here. At least not from a crudity standpoint. Start your sermon tomorrow with the same quote and see if your own congregation agrees. Pretty sad if they do.
for example, Jezabel’s name was probably not her proper name, but was a Hebrew insult. They changed her name from a praise to Baal to a praise to crap, except a much stronger word). Please cite a source for this one…and the correct word is SH**. Remember, Paul used it, so it’s okay.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I was just taking into consideration the needs of a weaker brother.
October 6th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Actually, I was referring more to the racial and gay references than the BBQ and longnecks. While you might be able to make some connection to racial bias against gentiles I don’t think there’s an accurate comparison between American racism and the gentile/Jewish divide. Though I’m willing to listen.
I do, also, want to point out that BBQ and long necks are probably a cut above what was eaten in Nazareth. The entire idea is that this was a backwoods, dirt poor region. BBQ and long necks is my idea of a good meal, hot pockets on a regular basis is my idea of poor.
Do you have a problem with explicit descriptions of the cross? I see them all the time including the Passion of the Christ, as well as articles written by doctors, and historians. This is exactly the kind of thing Driscoll is doing here (and most good preachers do in general). Illustrating what was going on in a way that is understandable to the average person in the congregation is not a bad thing.
So which word is it that is on God’s naughty list? Actually I’d suggest to you this wasn’t a “careless” word by Driscoll. It was deliberate, and it got the point across to his audience. Like I said before, if you want to say this was a bit much for you, or for your community I don’t have a problem with that, but to say this is some kind of a stone cold written in stone no-no, then I have to disagree.
It was a part of the curriculum for my OT History class at CCU.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Tim: I’m waiting to hear that you used Driscoll’s remarks in one of your sermons.
Actually I’d suggest to you this wasn’t a “careless†word by Driscoll. You’re probably right. I’m sure it was deliberately crass. That’s what sells and makes him relevant. My brother-in-law would love that kind of language in a sermon.
What does the cross have to do with a crude reference to Mary’s virginity?! Now you’re starting to sound like another poster/commentor that apparently equates Halloween blood and gore with the crucifixion.
You’ve confirmed for me today what I HATE about “emerging conversation.” Like I said in my first post…you are never wrong and will never be wrong. You’ve had some seminary class, you’ve been to [fill in name]’s church and I don’t know anything about their congregation, etc., etc. Like trying to nail jello to the wall. Do you really wonder why TeamPyro and others say the things like this, this or this?
Is there ANYTHING written in stone for you? Seriously.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Is moderation like “time-out?”
October 6th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Who’s on moderation?
October 6th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Keith,
I’m guessing your comment was caught by the spam filter b/c of the links. I freed it up.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Keith,
My point is you get upset at Driscoll for expounding on what was going on in Mary’s situation, but you don’t blink an eye when there’s a voluminous breakdown of crucifixion. What’s the difference?
You mean other than that Keith isn’t the ultimate authority on scripture? Seriously.
Oh, and since you showed me yours, I’ll show you mine.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Also, is it just me, or has Keith refused to admit he might be wrong on this issue? Weird, I thought only emergents did that. Wait, does that mean Keith is an emergent?
October 6th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Tim: No. I am not the ultimate authority on Scripture. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing on which I would/could consider myself the ultimate authority. I do know for a fact however, that I don’t care for the type of language you and Mark Driscoll deem appropriate for the pulpit. (Not gonna use Driscoll’s version of the “Christmas story” anytime soon, though…are ya?!)
Because “It was a part of the curriculum for my OT History class at CCU,” does that make YOU the ultimate authority on Scripture?
Man, I don’t see how you could miss it. YES, I am refusing to admit I’m wrong on this issue. This is one I won’t back off of. I’m sick and tired of Christians that “from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing.” Makes me want to puke.
I’ve lost a lot of respect for you today, Tim (not that you probably care–maybe you think the same of me.) I thought there for a while you weren’t the typical CC guy, but I’ve seen today that you fit just fine. Here’s a church right up your alley if you’re ever in the Tulsa area. It’s the one I left.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I love it when people apply a particular contemporary sub-culture’s stringent understanding of language to their readings of pre-modern (read: ancient) texts of Holy Scripture.
There’s nothing like foreign criteria to help make scripture mean what any given social class needs it to say.
yeah. But only evil, pomo emergents are bad when they admit that the reader’s self, community and context affect EVERYONE’S reading of texts.
This issue of language, descriptions, etc. is a waste of time.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
just let people do their thing
no one is making you listen to or attend Driscoll’s church or EC churches or whatever.
some people think being perpetually offended is a sign of spiritual maturity or true commitment to Jesus.
everyone should just give it a rest.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Keith,
As I pointed out before, I don’t have a problem with a “community standards” approach to preaching etiquette. What I do have a problem with is a single community pretending that its standards are some sort of universal, global command handed by God himself. The fact is what was considered crude by the first century church is different from what you consider crude, which is different from what Driscoll’s church considers crude.
And that shows me that you don’t get it. For some reason you think this has something to do with something other than communication. Of course I won’t use the phrase “bumping uglies”, about 3/4 of my congregation would have no idea what I was saying. The other half would giggle because I don’t have the street cred to pull it off.
Just so we’re clear that you’re the one complaining about refusing to admit wrong, and then simultaneously refusing to admit wrong. A lesser man might drag out the dreaded H word. I prefer to think of as quirky.
And there’s the rub of it. Where has their been any cursing? This has been one of my pet peeves for the longest time. The church has reduced cursing to a set of words that it finds inherently offensive. As a result you can shred someone to pieces as long as you don’t use one of those naughty words and you won’t find a single objection. How about we police actual cursing instead of looking for FCC standard violation.
And there it is Keith. I don’t know what that church did to hurt you, but sooner or later you need to let it go. My interactions with you have been less than what you get sitting next to someone on an airplane and you’ve brought this up like 5 times now. I get it, you don’t like the Restoration Movement or the people in it, perhaps to the point where any communication from me is going to be tainted because your experiences with me are the exact opposite of your experiences with that church. I’m not telling you that doctrine doesn’t matter. In fact I’m sitting here arguing with you over doctrine. And yet somehow it comes back to all us stupid restorationists not giving a crap about doctrine.
Have a good Sunday Keith.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I apologize that last sentence was probably unnecessarily combative. I’ll remove it, but for everyone who saw it, it was not proper.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
NC: That was some funny stuff.
Time Reed: Knowing (and not being a part of the restoration movement) I think it would be kind of funny if you used that phrase. Yeah, I’d laugh at you.
Keith: I think Tim might have hit something here. You seem to have an axe to grind with Tim’s denomination. Your arguments today were of a personal nature, something you usually avoid. I’m not sure why, but I did notice the difference.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
sooner or later you need to let it go. How about, sooner or later you need to ignore Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, TeamPyro, etc? How about letting THAT go? If you’re not willing to do the same…
Not all Restorationists–just the bad ones. (And when did I or anyone else bring up doctrine?)
The fact is what was considered crude by the first century church is different from what you consider crude, which is different from what Driscoll’s church considers crude. I call that “situation ethics.” What’s wrong for you may be right for me. So…does this same approach apply to things like, oh for instance…the TeamPyro Emergent Posters? I think they are funny, you do not. Neither of us is wrong. The world is full of butterflies, unicorns and bright pink fairies.
Where has their been any cursing? And here we go again. Jump on a single word and run with it. So because there was no actual cursing as outlined by the FCC, the point is moot? I’ve never actually sat next to you on a plane, so can I ignore everything else you’ve said?
Actually, I think a “list” would be a great idea. Then there would be no question…but then I think that’s been tried and some people say we’re bound by the list today and others say we’re not; some say one word means “Sunday” and others say the word means “Saturday.” Oh, just forget it.
I’ve had fun today. You have a good Sunday as well. I’m using the Driscoll quote in my lesson tomorrow. Serious. Really.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Joe,
thx.
It just gets tiresome when people go on and on and on and on and oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon about “out of the heart the mouth blah blah blahs”, but nobody seems to be bothered by their overwrought spasms/tantrums that cast aspersions on people they don’t even know. Yeah, that’s not a sign of the heart…
Obviously going to churches that are so right and perfect is boring as hell and so kicking people in the shins and looking around at other churches every failure breaks the tedium of perfection. Ah…the motionless, immutable, ineffable perfection of the divine. Thank you, Plato.
Besides, stroking ourselves with the good news of our own righteousness couldn’t possibly be all that bad. Teenage boys could probably attest…
ooooops…there’s that coarseness and evil entendre that only the emergents possess.
forgive me, I apologize.
I’ll withdraw now and return to my outhouse filled with the blood of the reformers.
BLESSINGS!
October 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
wow, Keith.
RE: “letting it go”
I don’t harp at the Cyber-God-Squad.
And since you bring it up, as do a lot of their defenders….
NOBODY gets to level the charge of “harping, tantrums, etc.” at anyone on this site. (contributors, creators, or even occasional commenters like me.)
Why?
Because arrogant harping, carping, shrieking and exigent tantrums are the currency of the god squad–even if some are quite eloquent and lucid.
Calling that out (by the good folk who manage CRN.info) is not the same thing, no matter how much anyone wants it to be.
But I will give the God-squad and their defenders credit…
It’s ingenius to establish whole “ministries” to perpetuate their own sinful attitudes that could be best remedied by turning their penetrating insight on themselves. It’s even more brilliant to further deflect by accusing their detractors of the very things they do.
“God has called me to a ministry of abusing people, pointing out their faults and generally poking people in the eye. If anyone, after being smeared, torn apart and slandered, says that they think I’m a jerk for poking them in the eye then they are hypocrites and are really the unloving ones. Nevermind that unprovoked, with no context of relationship or credibility, God has called me to a life of hurting other followers of Jesus–because I really know that they really aren’t Christians in the first place. They’re resistance certifies my own standing as a true believer in the remnant that stands against the man-loving new evangelical arminian ecumenical church of deceit. (But that doesn’t mean I’m a calvinist or a fundamentalist! Recognize!)”
Whatever.
Back to my reformer blood…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Man, where was everybody today?
“…cast aspersions on people they don’t even know.” NC, do we know each other—just in case your comments were directed at me?
October 6th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Wow! You’re gone most of a Saturday and you miss a lot!
I realize I’m late to the conversation, but a few observations:
1) Contextual crassness aside, Driscoll’s description of Mary’s situation and the relative difference between the uncultured backwaters of the Galilee region is much more accurate than the sanitized version of Christmas most churches portray:
“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. (John 1:46)
Besides their uncouth, somewhat cultish reputation in the first century, Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem in a “stable” was most likely a shepherd’s cave (stables in Bethlehem have never been free-standing wooden structures) with inches/feet of manure on the floor. The manger would have been a carved impression in the stone floor. The shepherds that came to visit would have likely been prepubescent girls and (maybe) boys, socially considered to be the lowest of the low.
In contrast, Herod’s greatest palace, the Herodion would have dominated the skyline. The picture here is that the King of the Universe came to earth in the humblest of humble situations while less than 5 miles away, the richest of kings of this world sat in the most luxurious of palaces. It was a statement which compared the kingdom of God with the kingdom of men, and the difference in what holds value.
For more, you can go here.
Having a brother and friends in Seattle, I don’t know that Driscoll’s comments would be “over the top” out there. However, I can tell you that it wouldn’t play well here in central Indiana, though I think Tim’s would…
2) Joe said:
I think I once said that you and Mark both have a bit of a combative streak in you, but I wouldn’t extend that to manner of speech…
3) I’m not sure what Keith is having a meltdown over here… he’s not in Seattle and Mark’s not his pastor. Let’s deconstruct what Driscoll said:
True.
Somewhat true, though it would be seen here in the heartland as a poor caricature of what sometimes goes on in the ‘poor white trash’ segment of society. Still, it is comparatively similar to a lot of contemporary descriptions of Nazareth (which fashioned itself a the birthplace of the coming Messiah, and whose residents referred to themselves in terms that (no kidding) would translate to ‘Branch Davidians’ - Koresh didn’t choose that name by accident).
The one inaccurate part of this (and the part I found inappropriate) was the ‘uncle-daddy’ part. The folks in Nazareth weren’t known for inbreeding (they were religiously cultish, but observent Jews).
Again, probably accurate, unless people assumed that Jesus was Joseph’s child conceived before the marriage occurred, but after the betrothal (which happened more often than we might like to think). This, in itself, would have held a great deal of shame.
If she would have told the story about Jesus’ conception, yeah, this would have been true, as well. This statement would be inappropriate here in the Midwest, as well, but in Seattle (if even half of the stories I hear about the culture there are true) - probably not.
Holy cow - if you actually know anything about the euphemisms within scripture, you’d probably be tossing out Moses and other OT writers out on their ears as well… Like Ruth uncovering Boaz’ feet…
Oh well. Seems like a lot of sound and fury from folks in search of being offended…
October 6th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Keith,
Now lighten up a bit… I think Mark is closer to things the way he is stating it.
I have not read the comments… I really do not like the abusive way Steve Camp interacts with people.
Yet, tell me… Joseph himself thought Mary was lying until God set him straight.
If you read the original language it is much courser than the cleaned up versions we have today… Isaiah spoke of filthy rags… sorry…
It was closer to saying used toilet paper or used menstrual rags!
Luther stated much courser things than Mark ever stated…
Here is one quote.
“But if that is not enough for you, you Devil, I have also s**t and p***ed; wipe your mouth on that and take a hearty bite.” ~ Martin Luther
If you want a reference I can get it for you….
I think we have created a Jesus so God-like… so higher than the biblical Jesus who lowered Himself and became a man… that (yes He is and was God) yet to deny he was man is almost more blasphemous… that is negating the incarnation, virgin birth, and that he physically lived and died on the Cross and it makes the Resurrection a total joke… It turns the real Jesus into the Gnostic joke of a Jesus.
Jesus was God who became man… to lose that is to lose Christianity in all its glory and to lose our very salvation and savior.
Be Blessed.
iggy
October 6th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Keith,
Re: talking to you…
yes and no.
Just dove tailing off of your comment to a general observation about the way some “discerning” people have comported themselves…which is the primary concern of this website.
October 7th, 2007 at 2:54 am
I guess Tozer, Finney, Wesley, Cambell, Spurgeon etc. had it all wrong. They should have brought the holliness of God’s divine word down to GUTTER talk. I go to a Bible college named Trinity University and I am taught by Theological doctors that have more of God’s word stamped on their heart than if you piled on 10,000 Bibles on top of Driscolls head! Do they have it wrong…I think not!!!!!!!! You may forgive or justify Driscoll’s terminology and he may call people like me “haters”, but the simple fact is that he doesn’t hold God or his words higher than he could hold a lighter to his ciggarette. I am usually more light hearted but this man is headed for severe judgment. I have had many a day where I have not represented my Lord in high esteem. And yes, I am just as imperfect as my Father the great Rick Frueh; But Driscoll has fallen way out of bounds with his “methods” of teaching and will suffer consequences he obviously knows not of! Disgusting, no matter how you slice it. What has Christianity come to? The story of the virgin birth and the manger scene has come down to the level where the story of Hansel and Gretel sits in the theological libraries. I am so grieved I don’t know what else to say. The Way, as the old times called christianity, has now turned to whichever way. I was going to visit a local church tomorrow and had the miss forutne of looking at their website. They are starting the thing called “Organic Jesus”. Who is that I might ask? I know you are not referring to my sovreign Lord and Savior in such a worldly way! I know that you are not referring to the one who is returning with a SWORD!!!!!!!!!! I am so disgusted…I rather go to the most dry calvinistic church on the face of the earth than step foot in the same county as Driscolls’ meeting place of the deceived. Sorry if I sound nasty, but I know the Holy Spirit is grieved!
October 7th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Since I’m a Youth Pastor I thought that I would share the verse all the guys in my youth group crack up about every year when someone mentions it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Talk about coarse language! Since Ezekial was a prophet I’m assuming these are Gods words.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Jonathan in what way did Mark disrespect Jesus?
He used descriptors that accurately (some hyperbole) painted the picture of whom Jesus was born to, where he lived, and the people to whom he preached.
Your comment is so littered with hyperbole and assumption it’s really tough to know where you stand. Mark one week ago was lauded for his “breakdown” of the E/E (which in some ways was innaccurate). In fact many people took his words as “Gospel”. This week he’s the goat for teaching about Jesus’ hometown; which in many ways was accurate.
So my question is Mark in or out? Really I want to know. From my vantage point this (the referenced quote) equates to a “footnote” about Marks entire ministry.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Sorry I just can’t get this line out of my head.
That’s not really measurable criteria. Is it?
Most of the people who comment here try to do so with reason, logic, and the occasional reference. Albeit I tend to joke about stuff more than most (well not Iggy or Joe but most) but I try to have “sober judgement” in my assesment of most of the topics.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Jonathan is a product of a home in which he never heard cursing and crass speech so it violates him on some level. He agrees with me about Driscoll’s ;anguage but thank goodness he has the fire of a first year Bible student.
My rule of thumb is that there is so much dead wood Christianity out there that a little wild fire might even be good. Mark is in, that was never the question.
FYI - Jon just spent four hours with me in the hospital where we witness to people who walked in the room. I got a chance to give a ten minute version of my testimony and when I told her about my being involved with a bank robbery plot she stopped and stared at me for five minutes. When I say to the nurses and my doctor “I am ready to go if that is God’s will” I must be ready to give and answer to the question about the hope that is in me.
Jesus - the only Eternal Hope!
October 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Jonathan,
You made a lot of statements without much to back them up. I graduated from a Bible college where there were lots of guys who understood a lot about the Bible. Same for Seminary, the only question here is Did Driscoll misrepresent Scripture? I gotta tell you I don’t think he did. What I see (even in your fathers defense of your enthusiasm) is a cultural thing. He’s not disparaging Mary or Jesus, he’s just telling you what that town looked like.
Your statement that I find most troubling is
Would you mind explaining that to me? I’m not a fan of Driscoll, but your rhetoric sounds no different than others who determine who’s in and who’s out based on agreement with them. In other words, Driscoll (who is a Calvinist BTW, so I’m not sure what you were driving at there) has a church that is deceived b/c it doesn’t agree with you?
You came with a lot of emotion but not a lot clarity. Help me out.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Hey Rick, I’m all for your sticking around here a lot longer, and hope you’re feeling better!
October 7th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Thanks, Chris, but my posts would be a lot more vivid!
October 7th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Run away, Jonathan! Run away!
October 7th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Why Keith, are you going to start yelling at him too?
October 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
No, just trying to save him some frustration. Trying to kindly help a brother out.
Hope you are feeling better today.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Thanks
I was going to try and go to church but I think I’m going to skip. First time in years and years, but I can’t quite get the whole stand up and walk thing without hacking up a lung so….
October 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Hope you are feeling better, Joe. No, Jon needs to learn how to engage, how to examine his own mistakes, how to be strong without self righteousness, how to confront while still projecting respect, how to forgive with getting any apology, how to apologize when he needs to, he needs some of this type of discource.
Jon, if you click on any blue name it will go to their blog and I comment sometimes on some including Keith’s. Joe, is that you hacking I hear?? Be well my friend.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Rick,
I hope/pray that it isn’t quite your time, yet…Praying for healing for you.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Well, Lets just let Driscoll rewrite the bible in his terminology(hyperbole etc.). Why not? Ahhh..the church fathers won’t mind! By the way, the calvinistic thing was suppose to be kinda funny! If you ask my father about what books I love he will tell you the “Gospel according to Jesus” is my favorite besides the bible. Remember, me and my father are humor people. By the way everyone, I am just getting my sea legs with this blog thing. Save some of the hard attacks for Rick Frueh; he is accustom to it. LOL
October 7th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Please tell me that’s a joke.
This came from a sermon. Every half way decent sermon (or better) does this sort of thing to connect what the circumstances in scripture really like to their audience.
October 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
What Jon means is why not come out with a hip-hop or crass version of the Bible. What confounds me is that Driscoll claims to be a Calvinist and yet feels the necessity of being so relevant to even outdo some Arminian relevantists? Why?
Every sermon uses explanatory language so as to make it clearer. But when you say things like “knockin’ boots” for something that can just as easily be explained by less graphic and offensive language then you are doing it for effect.
Oh well, the train’s left the station and I don’t have a ticket.
October 7th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I know I’m about to get shot at with both barrels but I honestly don’t see that big of a deal in using the phrase, “knocking boots” or “bumping the ugly’s.” Mary and Joseph did have sex.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
My wife and I call it the horizontal mambo! Was that T.M.I.?
October 7th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
LOL, My wife and I tell the kids we’re praying.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Joe, may I ask you a question? If so this is it. Can I say that Mary and Joseph never (blanked) until after Jesus was born. Just imagine what the blank stands for. When there are no lines then there is no spiritual playing field other than what our carnal minds can come up with. Driscoll is an attention hound. Whatever happened to if Jesus be lifted up…not what our “connecting minds” can come up with. When Driscoll uses his terminology it puts the focus on his shock or comical value. I guess Ezra has it wrong. By the way…knockin boots…Thats childs play. If he wanted some really graphic terminology he should have hung around me when I was lost in the world. Oh wait a minute, I will get my pastoral degree and bring all those disgusting terms back to the surface and really turn people toward Jesus. HAHA Proverbs 19:1
October 7th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Jonathon,
The thing here is context. Saying “Other people in the town believed that Mary had sexual intercourse prior to being married” doesn’t carry the same connotations. Mary’s hometown denizens believed that she had hormone driven, pre-marital sex, which is exactly what the terms “knocking boots” and “bumping uglies” communicate. So while you’re busy complaining about the term used in a sermon at a church you’ve never been to, the congregation is busy understanding what the scriptures communicate.
October 7th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
“To each his own” said the lady as she kissed the cow!
October 7th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Hey Tim,
“the congregation is busy understanding what the scriptures communicate”
Or so you assume. Just use the good ole F word and get it out once and for all. Context…..I will have a naked man and a naked women on the stage and they stand next to each other…Mary and Joseph before Christ. Then I will have them have sex on the stage and say …Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. Any questions? In context! I will have a talk through and visual aids so everyone will make no mistakes on the passage. I understand what the terminology means I grew up in the 90’s. My question is why does he stop there. Why doesn’t he just go all out? Knockin boots…ok.. F word no. Stop the tip toe and say it.
By the way, nice to meet you(no sarcasm intended). I enjoy you and many others on this site.
October 7th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I guess Driscoll’s conscience gets the best of him and his tongue won’t say the F word. I guess Prov. 19:1 stops him dead in his tracks.
October 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Jon,
Wow.
Tim
October 7th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Jon (Can I call you that?),
Personally, I believe in certain cultures that yeah, you can say that. But even still that isn’t what Driscoll said. As for him being an attention hound, I agree 100% with you. I find him repugnant, and revolting. However, in this case, I think there is much ado about nothing. Tim, seemed to do a good job answering the rest of your questions.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Jon,
I just read your last comment. You make some really big jumps in logic there. I’m going with Tim here and pulling out a wow. Since you pulled out Proverbs, may I share my life verse with you?
Proverbs 5:19
God’s not against us talking about sex and even being explicit. Personally, I think people would have been angry if Driscoll had used this terminology. Called him a prurient pastor or something. At best all you can say is he offended you in your culture.
Now, I’m off to pray with my deer.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:38 am
So you’re feeling better? LOL
October 8th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Well, there’s other verses that talk about healing…Actually if you guys still want to pray I’d really appreciate it. I’m kind of in wait mode to hear about a new job and the one I currently have just informed me that they may be changing the pay scale–we already don’t make enough to pay our bills so–any prayers would be appreciated. I still have something of a cough, but I feel a ton better than I did.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Joe,
I’ll be in prayer for you…
Blessings,
iggy
October 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
When I was a youth pastor, I always told my kids that if the bible was ever to be turned into a good movie, it would have to be at least R-rated. I think (mainly thru bible colleges and seminaries — I have been to both) we tame down the scriptures to suit a congregation that really doesn’t live in the real world.
The other day I did a talk on loving those who are different than us. One of our more “sheltered” ladies in the church came up to me and said “I homeschool my kids so they don’t have to hear words like ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’” I think most of Christianity is “home schooled” so they don’t have to hear the reality of the scriptures or the reality of life.
David had crazy bathtub sex with Bathsheba
Apparently the Israelites needed laws about not sleeping with animals to keep them from doing such.
A man in Corinth is sleeping with him mother (gross)
I am really surprised at the language that people have found to make the bible G rated.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Nathan - you crack me up, really. All those things you metioned are correct and can be communicated even in a semi-grahic way. But crazy bathtub sex to me would be an over-colloquial way of describing it and so the wording removes some of the serious nature of the offense.
And many times, in my opinion, such terminology trivializes some Biblical truth. And I am one who sold drugs to high school children, was as promiscuous as could be imagined, and was in the process of planning to rob a bank in New Jersey and kill the guard as we went in, so I am no prude.
And as many who would appreciate or relate to some street terminology, there are as many who might be offended. I do not mind much of it but Driscoll crosses the line…on purpose I believe.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I would guess the euphemisms you’d propose as replacement would sterilize it and as a result minimize what was going on.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I listened multiple times to Driscolls address to the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In the near future I will be blogging about this but for now I would like to ask the following.
Throughout his speech at SBTS he uses euphinisms that some would consider coarse. For instance…
“Deep Shift…someone inadvertantly added an F”
“booty call or friends with benefits”
“Bell proposes the Mary was a lying whore”
Throughout the blogosphere people applauded Marks “expose” of the Emergent movement. Nary a word was mentioned about his “colloquial euphinisms”. Now in one week we have debated throughout 74 comments about his appropiateness from a different speech/sermon (which by the way nobody, including Camp, has referenced anywhere).
Driscoll in his speech/sermon at SBTS calls into question Bell’s reverence for Jesus when Bell proposes the question of “What if Jesus had been born to Larry?”
Which leads me to some possible conclusions.
1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
2) We overlook inconsitencies in when we largely agree with what a person says.
3) We are all pushing our own agendas and anything that bolsters our case, whether accurate or not, we will trot out in defense of our position.
4) We all have planks in our eyes.
5) Sinners are often irrational and focus on all the wrong stuff.
There maybe more and some of these are similar but I will leave it up to you to decide.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
chris - I do not endorse Driscoll or his methods and was clear about his crassness even in the Southeastern speech. He did make some extremely serious accusations which if true should be looked at if there is anytghing resembling accountability within Christianity.
In the end, it is just words and the energy to confront, combined with the vulnerability that comes with correcting one from your own side of the tracks, probably is not available today. One man’s plank is another man’s method.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
chris,
To me, it is more and more about the ones who are “me” centered in theology have “itching ears” hear only what they want.
I can make my own list which would be much like your own there… This list could go on and on… and yet as I listen to both sides I am more and more convinced that if we do not stop and start to focus on Jesus again, we will only devour ourselves… This is to both sides.
Galatians 5:14-16
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
I do not care to partake in destroying others…
Be Blessed,
iggy
October 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I agree. John 11:35
(I’m working on being less combative this week; also documenting/supporting my “arguments” from Scripture.)
October 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Wow…did you guys see that CRN.info is now a “hate site” according to CRN.com?!?!
Congratulations.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
It’d be easier to figure out what their problem is with what Nathan wrote if they actually included some commentary. As it is I’m left thinking that they’re denying what teh Bible actually records as history.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
When Driscoll describes the birth of our Lord Jesus as some smut filled story..he better lay low….his jaw will be eating dirt when Yeshua comes in ALL HIS GLORY….the brazen blasphemy of today’s “pastors” stuns me!! They are crass and crude and no different than the gay leather men who mock tha last supper with their whips and chains. For the sake of the elect God has not destroyed America. And the division between the wheat and tares is becoming more and more obvious. They tares are foaming at the mouth with more rank and the wheat are entering into the secret place more and coming out of the apostate church in America. As Halo 3 trains the deceived and duped sheep to kill the true believers, WE ARE READY TO GO…….Come Lord Jesus for your true Bride and not the whore!!
October 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Thank you, Tamela. You give a pretty good picture of what a modern Essene movement might look like, and the target demographic of CR?N…
It’s just too bad it has nothing to do with what Jesus taught when he was here…
October 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Tamela,
wow.
wow.
(picks up jaw) wow.
you are the reason I am not a Calvinist.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
“As Halo 3 trains the deceived and duped sheep to kill the true believers, WE ARE READY TO GO”
what?!?!?
October 8th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Nathan,
I wouldn’t blame the display on Calvin - it’s closer to a “Left Behind” Westboro Baptist Church…
October 8th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Maybe we should introduce Tamara to Tim Bell and the JFK assassination stuff from a couple of weeks back - or the guy trying to convince us of the existance of the North American Highway and the New World Order a few months ago…
A match made in heaven?
October 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Tamela - does that come with a study guide?
October 8th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Tamela,
What amazes me is how any Christians have any credibility with uncritical, unthinking Christians like you running around. You seem to have a terminal case of diarrhea of the mouth.
First, Driscoll didn’t take a low view of Christ’s birth. He was describing the view of Mary’s contemporaries would have had of Christ’s birth. BTW, viewing Christ’s birth as anything but humble destroys quite a bit of the symbolism God intended, as well as misunderstands the tone of Jesus’ ministry and purpose.
Secondly, your unthinking paranoid fantasies concerning Halo 3 not only disgraces Christ, but also disgraces the brain he gave you, and makes it very difficult for everyone who listens to you and identifies you as a Christian to take seriously any other Christian they run into.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Isn’t halo 3 a video game?
October 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The most evil video game ever, according to some.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Why do I have a feeling Tamela isn’t even real? That was really something, right there. Driscoll better hide out?
October 8th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
LOL…see you all do not even think the NAFTA superhighway is REAL……………..LOL…..I mean DOUBLE GUT BUSTING LOL……..get your heads out of the brainswashing killing machine games and see the REAL WORLD…..you bring shame to the Lord by not being able to see the signs right in front of your faces…..even VISA says we’ll be a CASHLESS society by 2012…….h e l l o……cashless…as in book of Revelation….cashless as in anti-christ…..as in choose whom you will serve. Yeah baby…I’m as real as they get…..former Top 4- jockette, lived all over America…now an intecessor mom o’ twins. Uh…I think the paranoid fantasies come out in people like the V-Tech killer….oops….what did he watch and put into his skull….hmmmmmmm
October 8th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I suppose it’s just an accident that in order to buy and sell in Ephesus (that would be the same Ephesus listed as one of the Seven Churches to whom the book of Revelation was written) during the reign of Domitian, in order to buy or sell in the marketplace (agora), one had to burn incense to Caesar and declare him lord, receiving his mark on your hand or upon the goods you wished to sell.
Pure coincidence. So much so that we’re trying to fit circumstances today into prophecy fulfilled during the time of the people it was written to…
October 8th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I’ve been cashless many times in my life.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Wow! What to say?
I guess we could go into the actual meaning of the “mark of the beast”…Nah nevermind. I’m just gonna make my aluminum foil hat and play Halo 3.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Now that’s funny.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Tamera - you should teach a