(resonance of reforming)
the blog of Jerry Bolton
…a gracious response to criticism
Current Tunage: Braille – Heart of God
“Why should you listen to me, when I don’t listen to the Holy Spirit?”
Braille brings some heavy but important words in commentary on the juxtaposition of art and faith.
A lot of the Evangelical (particularly Reformed) blogosphere has been abuzz lately about the various attacks upon the preaching and character of one Mark Driscoll. I’ve never really hidden my love of Mark – his sermons have been used of God consistently to bring me to repentance, greater understanding, and faith. He has been unashamed to take the Gospel to numerous dark places and on top of it all, he’s a really fun guy. I met Mark briefly at the recent Gospel Coalition National Conference 2009 and was struck by his friendliness and grace in being willing to meet random people (such as myself and my friends) despite being very obviously exhausted. Consequently, it’s been interesting to follow the firestorm that seems to follow him wherever he goes – attacked on one side by Liberals who are horrifically offended by the Gospel that he preaches (and rightly so – the true Gospel IS an offense!), and on the other side by extreme right-wingers who can’t deal with the methodology he employs in his preaching and teaching.
I’m not really intending to weigh in here, only to say that there’s plenty of story to read up on if you’re interested in what it looks like when brothers attack brothers.
The reason this “matters” is because recently, an extremely influential and respected pastor and scholar (whom I myself have benefitted greatly from) by the name of John MacArthur posted a four-part series which, essentially, is an attack on Mark Driscoll. You can read them here: 1, 2, 3, 4. What I found troubling about this is primarily that MacArthur has, on the record, said that Driscoll’s “soteriology is exactly right”(source here). In other words, they agree completely on the means, basis, and outcomes of Salvation and the Gospel. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds like a good working definition of Christian brotherhood (or at very least, grounds for treating each other with civility). What doesn’t make sense to me is the outright assault – certainly, since it’s MacArthur, it’s biblically informed… but the tone is more akin to a heresy takedown than the admonishment of a fellow believer. Please understand that I’m not necessarily trying to defend or endorse Mark’s choice of words and approach to dealing with sexual issues from the pulpit – those are objects for another discussion as far as I’m concerned (an important one, but a separate one!).
Let me be clear – I look up to both of them as godly examples and as skilled preachers and pastors – sinners as I am, but beloved brothers. I’m concerned about why guys like MacArthur and Phil Johnson (and many more, though most of the rest are inconsequential in terms of their influence by comparison) feel as though their concerns about Driscoll’s preaching merit lambasting him publicly.
Two things that I’ve come across in the last day or so have really been encouraging to me in light of this. First off is Steve Camp’s recent post. Please check it out: here.
Second is this video – as far as I know, it’s the only existing instance of Mark responding to a critic directly. I think you’ll understand why I appreciate it once you’ve seen it. Check it out, drop a comment, whatever you like:
May 19, 2009 - 9:04 AM
Good thoughts, dude. But is MacArthur really attacking Driscoll? To me it looks likes he’s just attacking his way of doing things, which is something all of us should be willing to do to each other from time to time, right?
May 19, 2009 - 1:37 PM
If it were just an attack on his way of doing things, there would be no need to name names – you can describe a person’s methodology without having to talk about the person at all.
May 21, 2009 - 11:09 AM
I don’t know a whole lot about Driscoll, and what I know has mostly been soundbites, but I can understand the offense he gives to some people (and no, it’s not all the the Gospel!). I think the concern is the sort of “macho Calvinism” that he embodies. The combination of a very authoritarian view of God, a traditional understanding of gender roles, etc all combined with a certain kind of cowboy swagger (”Jesus isn’t some limp-wristed hippie drinkin decaf” or whatever) rubs some people the wrong way. Some really gravitate toward that, but others are (quite understandably, I think) very turned off by it. I suppose Driscoll represents a broader phenomenon of trying to make the Gospel relevant and edgy, but I don’t buy it. It also smacks too much of a sort of cult of personality surrounding Driscoll.
Then again, maybe I’m just old and cranky…
May 21, 2009 - 12:40 PM
Joey,
I guess I’d just encourage you to check out more than just sound bites.
It borders on the inane for someone my age to say stuff like this, as I’m not oblivious to the implications upon myself, but Driscoll is young and still growing in discernment.
HOWEVER, as many much more established and respected men have pointed out, his theology is rock solid, his priority is Jesus and the Gospel, and he has shown a visible pattern of repentance and humility in the face of criticism and his own mistakes.
I agree that our methodology has profound implications upon the message that it brings, but at some point we all realize that our preferred methodology (ie. the one that reaches us) is imperfect too – this frees us up a little to give a lot of slack to those who are doing their utmost to be faithful amidst the difficulties of giving timeless truth a timely presentation.
So, to you I would say this, set aside your preferences… for an egalitarian view of gender, for a liberating God who demands little of those he liberates, and of feminist sympathy (and of course, forgive me if I misrepresent you in saying that)… and listen to Driscoll with an ear for his heart and his mission – to reach the lost and broken of his city Seattle with the Good News about our God and Saviour, Jesus. If you can do that – set aside your preferences for the sake of something much greater – I think you will find a lot to like in Mark Driscoll (particularly that old, cranky part!).
May 21, 2009 - 2:53 PM
Jerry,
I’m not arguing for “an egalitarian view of gender, for a liberating God who demands little of those he liberates, and of feminist sympathy…” Actually I think a wide variety of Christians would find something problematic about aspects of Driscoll’s theology and public persona. And, if I may add a word in my defense: I don’t think I’m as liberal as you think I am. I would see myself as standing within the catholic tradition of the church.
But, you’re right, it’s not really fair to criticize someone with very little knowledge about them. That being said, I do think I understand the particular tradition he comes from (a certain brand of John Piper-esque Calvinism) and find aspects of that tradition very problematic
In any case, I am glad he has had a positive effect on you and others through his ministry.
May 21, 2009 - 3:23 PM
One of the difficulties inherent to electronic discourse. Certainly we could agree that I’ve only had “snapshots” and “soundbites” of your theology, and obviously my conclusions – though informed by those snippets – were faulty and incomplete. I apologize, sincerely.
What would you say are your most glaring issues with the “John Piper-esque” Calvinism (as you call it)?
May 22, 2009 - 11:47 PM
Well, there are quite a lot of problems with John Piper’s theology, in my opinion (and here I assume Mark Driscoll is essentially on the same page as Piper – is that fair?)
I think the biggest problem is the understanding that everything occurs as a result of God’s will. Thus tsunamis and school shootings and the death of children are all willed by God. Not only is this contrary to the Bible, but it also presents a God who is so far beyond good and evil that he is neither – his character is shrouded behind his inscrutable will. In essence we can know nothing about God except that following him is to accept a kind of fatalism. God is determined by the imposition of his will, not his character. Thus his ordaining the death of children or tsunamis or whatever is good simply because God wills it.
This is contrary to Scripture because the New Testament assumes the existence of evil demonic forces that work against God’s will. Take the death of a child, for example. It is pathological and sick to say that such a thing is God’s will! Such a thing is the exact opposite of God’s will. And to soften the blow and say that God will bring good out of it is potentially even more perverse. It presumes that, in some sense, God needs evil to bring the world to redemption.
So this theology is excessively voluntaristic, distorting of key themes in the Bible, and ultimately twisted in its portrayal of God. I don’t mean to be needlessly harsh, but I don’t see how such a theology is faithful. In its more harsher forms, it is also awfully hard to swallow.
May 24, 2009 - 9:20 PM
Joey, I must apologize for taking so long. I spent some time thinking over your objections. I've dealt with them in the past for myself, but I wanted to think/read/study through it a bit again both to refresh my memory and to be prepared to better articulate my thinking for someone other than myself. The results come in this post as well as one immediately following it below. Here goes.
First, it's probably fair to more or less equate their theologies – at least in this regard (though also in some others). I am aware of some areas of disagreement but they're in what I think they (and we) would agree are secondary or tertiary areas. On the primaries, I'd venture to say that they agree with very few variances.
Now, with that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the issue.
I'm not trying to defend hyper-Calvinism/fatalism (and, I would humbly suggest that neither are Piper or Driscoll – both are very well versed in exhorting others to action, to decisions, to repentance, to missions, to evangelism, etc – all of which would be unnecessary were they as hardcore as you suggest).
Redemption is something that flows out of the character of God and not out of his "need" for anything – including evil, however it is true that without evil/sin there would be no scenario for redemption. Redemption isn't "necessitated" by anything – God didn't HAVE to save us or anything. Has He chosen to? Absolutely. Why? For what other reason could it be than to bring glory to Himself? Think about Joseph, think about Job, think about David & Bathsheba – in all of those cases God brought great good out of great evil that He did not "will" or "cause". What better way to show just how unlimited and unstoppable His power and His will are than to utilize and accomplish them despite the world standing against it?
The best example of this is the murder of Jesus (aka God) – great evil, great sin, and far more heinous and despicable than any tsunami or dead infant… yet from it came the greatest good ever – the Redemption of which we speak – the forgiveness of sins and the justification of sinners. That's my case study for this, really – how could it be that God "willed" his Son to die (or, himself to die, as it were), and yet be "without sin"? I think there's a tension in this, but that the best explanation is that God's hands are not tied by anything, even those things which are arrayed against him (ie. sin, evil, death, Satan, us generally, etc). God is ultimately powerful and his will is accomplished despite (perhaps sometimes TO spite) all of the many ways that everything might attempt to work against him. This is not to make less of how terrible things are, but I believe it does make much more of how great and how wonderful a God we serve – A God whose plan to glorify himself (note: not to glorify US) is not defeated even for a microsecond.
May 24, 2009 - 9:20 PM
So, let me directly address some of what you’ve said with these things in mind. You say that one big problem is that this kind of thinking results in “everything occurs as a result of God’s will”. In other words, God’s power and control over all things necessarily means that all things are directly a conseqeuence of His action, including evil – the common way of saying this would be to say that God created Sin. The issue here is simply this – is “Sin” and is “Evil” something created, or is it a lack and an absence?
Rom 5:12 says: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned–”
Some things to note: Sin and death (”EVIL”?) ‘came into the world’ and it was ‘through one man’. Nothing is said about it being created, and when it entered this world, it was through the rebellion of a creature.
Are you positing a dualistic universe, where evil and good are opposites – with evil being just as powerful in magnitude and breadth as good? Where Satan is God’s evil counterpart? Or, is your understanding that evil is something that exists solely as a contrast to the benchmark of God’s character (specifically, his holiness)? If it’s the latter, evil delineates FROM good, but is not created BY it (that is to say, by God). Sin and death and evil is entirely a product of the freedom of will God has given to his creations. We can debate whether or not the Fall was a necessary result of Him giving free will (I’m not convinced it was, if you’re wondering), if you like… however unless evil is created and equal to good in magnitude, I don’t think you have a case for God being responsible for it – and if evil is equal to good in magnitude, I think you have a problem much more “contrary to Scripture” than any you might see in Calvinism proper.
As a supplement to what I’ve already said, John MacArthur explains this issue and its resolution well here (as a side, I’m fairly certain that Piper and Driscoll share this understanding… as do I): http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A189
So, with those considerations in mind (and hopefully, you now understand a little bit better how us “Calvinists” deal with this problem) I’d ask you what the alternative is, how it’s “better”, how it more aligns itself with the God who has revealed himself to us through the Bible, and so on.
May 25, 2009 - 1:20 AM
“is ‘Sin’ and is ‘Evil’ something created, or is it a lack and an absence?”
Definitely the latter. Evil is a negation, the shadow side of creation (to use Barth’s wonderful phrase). I’m not for a second claiming it is created and as “real” as the good.
“Are you positing a dualistic universe, where evil and good are opposites – with evil being just as powerful in magnitude and breadth as good?”
Absolutely not! But there are evil forces at loose in creation, and the NT goes as far as to call it “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4). That is quite a claim Paul makes! Clearly this is something evil and corrupt running wild, and it seems to be a combination of demonic forces (however we understand that) and human sin that is causing the trouble. To say God wills it is to miss the point entirely, as far as I’m concerned. Yes, this does come into conflict with the exaggerated notions of sovereignty that Calvinists so cherish, but so be it!
I still think this kind of Calvinism that Driscoll and Piper advocate is excessively voluntaristic, in that God relates to the world through the imposition of his will. God and creation are competing for space, if you will, and God has to win out. In that scenario, God has to be the ultimately cause for everything, or else sovereignty is compromised (which is the cardinal sin for a Calvinist!).
I see this entire scheme as problematic and I don’t think that Calvin was as hardcore as Piper and his followers are. But it’s been awhile since I read Calvin closely, so I’m wading in way over my head here.
If you’re interesting in an alternative reading of theodicy, you can’t do better than David Bentley Hart’s ‘The Doors of the Sea.’
Thanks for keeping us all thinking with this blog – keep up the good work!
May 30, 2009 - 10:58 PM
I'll be sure to check out that 'alternate reading' as soon as I can – I'm quite intrigued.
Also, I think this is worth your attention: http://bit.ly/pCxZr
It should help you to see that Driscoll (and perhaps you can lump Piper in with him) is a lot more balanced than you might think. Without intending to come off as dismissive, I think you overestimate how much this one branch of theology (the sovereignty of God) affects the other branches for these guys. I constantly see them grappling with how His sovereignty interacts with His love, His grace, His compassion, etc. Nobody's trying to say that it's easy or that it's going to all fit together perfectly (ultimately it does, but probably in ways we can't grasp in this life) – only that in the process there's going to be things that are equally true yet apparently contradictory, at least in human contexts (ie. God's love and His wrath).
With all of that said, let's let this one sit. We've taken it about as far as is worthwhile in this kind of context. Anything further would require NTWright-&-JohnPiper-on-Justification-esque formality and thoroughness and I don't think either of us is about to move on this issue without something about that extensive.
We can definitely agree on this, though – ultimately, it's all about Jesus and making much of Him.
June 1, 2009 - 5:07 PM
Fair enough. Let me also add that while I don’t know a lot about Driscoll, I have a lot of respect for John Piper. Whatever my theological disagreements with him are, he is a wise and faithful man, and the church is stronger with his often-prophetic voice.