Theology
Mark Driscoll uses a great illustration that summarizes much of the book of Ecclesiastes.
He says that people are living life with a big can of peaches and no can-opener. We walk around wanting peaches but can't get to them. We are frustrated! God comes to us in our frustration and says, "I have a canopener." Ecclesiastes, as a book to be read with Genesis 3 and the Fall in mind, is wonderfully redemptive.
Mark
Driscoll (Pastor of Mars Hill Church
in Seattle, founder of the church planting network Acts29 and the new missional
web resource Resurgence, and author of Radical
Reformission) emailed me a couple of months ago and asked if I wanted
to read and blog review his new book Confessions
of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church.
I was pumped, agreed, and received a pre-publication version of the book in the
mail from Zondervan and read through it near the beginning of January.
I'm going to approach the review in three phases.
I.
The Boring Details: how long, when published, etc.
II. Themes, Quotes & Content: hitting a few themes and highlights.
III. My Take & Recommendation: why you MUST read this book.
I have found this to be a difficult book to put in a one-post review. I considered doing multiple posts, but since the book isn't out yet I would end up giving up too much of the content and you would have to take my word for it. I would rather you read the book. So consider this an extended trailer that should encourage you to pick up the book. Consider this a tray of Turkish Delight. I want you to read and be hungry for more.
So away we go.
I. The Boring Details
The book is due out on May 1st, 2006 and is Driscoll's honest look at the 9 year run of Mars Hill (planting and pastoring). The church has gone from a few people in his living room to more than 4,000, and he has a strategic plan to take it to 10,000 and more.
Mark has already posted a brief excerpt from the book as well as the table of contents. I won't repeat those here. Suffice it to say the chapters are based on attendance, so he deals with issues at each stage of numerical growth. Each chapter is followed by reflection questions, and these are actually ones you won't skip. Very helpful.
Before the "meat" of the book you get Chapter Zero, which is "Ten Curious Questions" and deals with lingo, theology, and ecclesiology to build a missional foundation before talking about their church story. The first appendix is called "The Junk Drawer" and deals with common questions people have about Mars Hill. The second appendix lists distinctives of larger churches. There are endnotes as well. All-in-all the book is about 200 pages long.
II. Themes, Quotes & Content
Emerging Church Issues
Driscoll early on points out his connection to the Emerging Church Movement, but he is careful to distance himself from Emergent. He says, "I myself swim in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church" (p 22), but also says, "the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that old liberalism accomodated modernity and the new liberalism accomodates postmodernity" (p 21).
I assure you that I speak as one within the Emerging Church Movement who has great love and appreciation for Christian leaders with theological convictions much different from my own. And because the movement has defined itself as a conversation, I would hope there would be room in the conversation for those who disagree, even poke a bit of fun, but earnestly desire to learn from and journey with those also striving to be faithful to God and fruitful in emerging churches. Standing with my brothers and sisters in our great mission, I hope this book can in some small way help the greater church emerge in biblical faithfulness and missional fruitfulness. (p 23)
Knowing and Hearing God
In Confessions you can't miss the idea that God is not silent in the work of Driscoll and Mars Hill, and that He speaks in amazing ways. Driscoll speaks often of "The Ghost" (his Holy Spirit term).
He tells us why he started Mars Hill, "God had spoken to me in one of those weird charismatic moments and told me to start a church" (p 39). Before they launched their first service Driscoll had a "prophetic dream" that told him to ditch a guy who would eventually try to take over as pastor. Driscoll showed up to the first service and found the guy in the exact circumstances of his dream and told him to get lost before the service even began. Not the best way to build a welcoming atmosphere, but necessary.
Driscoll later tells the story of a demon-possessed guy who came in the service and disrupted it. God told Mark to go to the front of the church during a time of prayer just before the demon-possessed guy started acting out. The book is sprinkled with these sorts of stories, talk of spiritual attacks and "bad angels" talking to his daughter, prophetic dreams (both from God and Satan), even "words of knowledge" (p 121). Sure to be provocative.
Mistakes & Frustrations
Mark confesses his major mistakes in starting and leading Mars Hill. At first they had no clear leadership structure, relationships were too connected to him, he didn't draw clear theological lines, and the church was broke. With some clearly articulated goals written out by Mark, they began to work toward a more biblical church, and it began to grow. Driscoll is open about his mistakes throughout the book.
Driscoll talked about his frustrations being in an immature church with less than manly men. He tells one hilarious story of a guy who called him in the middle of the night upset because he watched a porno and masturbated. Well, that's not hilarious. But the way Driscoll talks about it is hilarious, and his response to the guy was, "A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead" (p 60). This is typical Driscollian bluntness, and it works for him. He seems to use frustrations to push him toward prophetic sorts of responses. You will laugh at his strangely courageous moments, and wonder if you are being too soft with those who frustrate you. Will you do what Jesus wants or what the people want?
You don't get the impression from the book that getting from a few people to 4,000 has been easy. It's been rough. There have been problem people ("nut jobs"), pastoral mistakes, spiritual struggles, and even the near miss involving Driscoll, a massage from a hot lady, and the decision to run from rather than receive sexual favors (p 128). Driscoll's openness to his own problems is helpful.
Theological Issues
Ecclesiology is a big issue in the book, especially dealing with church polity. Of congregational ecclesiology he says, "As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote. Practically, it seemed obvious that a congregationally governed church would not be led but would instead make decisions by compromise to appease all of the various interests in the church" (p 103). Driscoll instead holds to elder ecclesiology and his thoughts should be challenging to those with other positions. He should also be challenging as a complementarian who believes the biblical view is for male eldership.
Buzz
Future
Driscoll believes that comfort is an enemy at Mars Hill and so he has to keep the church ready to charge hell with their squirt guns instead of becoming complacent. To do that Driscoll and the elders strategically blow up the settlements of MHC and push toward risky and bold goals. They buy more property, add more services, and decided that Mark should stop being the pastor of everyone and instead transition to being more of a "missiologist-preacher." They have now begun to move toward so many venues and services that some are video rather than Mark preaching each one. And they are adding a bunch more elders and some staff to serve and lead the church. They have decided not to be happy with where they are.
Their mission is much bigger than growing a megachurch of more than 10,000. Though they have a lot to focus on internally (Driscoll says they are like a "kite in a hurricane"), they have a church planting network and are continuously planting churches and discipling new planters.
III. My Take & Recommendation
This has been one of the most important books on church and ministry I have read, and I think will hold a unique place among books about ministry. My advice? Get this book. Read it. Reread it. Give it away. It's most helpful for pastors and planters since it deals a lot with dealing with preaching, logistics, pastor's family issues, church growth, etc. But I highly recommended for all church leaders and thoughtful Christians.
Where could this book be better? I don't know. Some people will be offended at Driscoll's "in your face" approach. Some will disagree with his reformed theology, his ecclesiology, his charismatic tendencies, his complementarianism, and more. I have my concerns with some of the practicals, like video venue preaching. I'm concerned that a lot of Driscoll's ministry is founded upon his personality. I'm concerned that there may be better ways to go than to build a monstrous church. These are some of the things I've wrestled with in this book and found myself wondering if there might be a better way to go.
But I don't answer to God for Driscoll and Mars Hill. Driscoll does. And I don't have his growth problems, unfortunately. And one of the things he points out in the book is that he has learned to be more careful in his criticisms of others (such as Rick Warren) because it's easy to disagree with the big church guy who is seeing so many good things happen that there are few ideal options open. Instead of considering how to disagree with Driscoll's directions, I encourage you to read the book, be thankful for what God is doing, and learn from it.
Now some positives. Conservative evangelicals need to learn from Driscoll's willingness to identify with the "emerging" church while distancing himself from movements within it that he finds problematic (at the least). By considering himself an insider, he has influence that many evangelicals who only scold the ECM will never have.
I hope this book will be read by many who are practical (or theological) cessationists. Driscoll's "Ghost" stories will be shocking to much of the frigid American Church. I hope this book sparks discussions on the miraculous, the supernatural, the voice of God, the will of God, and more. I hope this book will be widely read and cause many of us to say, "How is God speaking to us?"
For all I've written about, I've neglected so many good things in this book. I've left out lists and charts and stories and systems and ideas that have already become a part of my thinking with my local church. It's a theology book, a missiology book, and a practical book. You will find help no matter what kind of church you are in, where you are located, or what size you are.
I think most of all Confessions is a Jesus book. You cannot help but to read and feel that Jesus is the focus of Driscoll and Mars Hill around every corner. Driscoll writes, "My answer to everything is pretty much the same: open the Bible and preach about the person of Jesus and his mission for our church" (p 86). Good advice.
I think many who read this book will be awakened from their bland Christian slumber to ask good questions of ourselves and our churches. May we hear and respond to the voice of the Ghost, preach Jesus and be on His mission, and have our churches buzzing from the work that God is doing.
John Piper is always good, but rarely so good as he is when speaking of suffering. And now he has offered this article as he deals with surgery and prostate cancer: "Don't Waste Your Cancer." His ten fantastic points are...
(HT:JT)
Chuck Lawless is the new Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth at SBTS and a guy I really like. When I was commissioned as a "missionary" to international students I asked him to preach at the service. I think very highly of him.
Dr. Lawless recently gave a breakout seminar on the Emerging Church at the collegiate conference held at SBTS. Here's a news article giving some of his thoughts and critiques. I like a lot of what he has to say. And though I might say some of it differently, I think it's good to have Dr. Lawless encouraging students to learn (cautiously) from the Emerging Church. I have the last bit for you...
"We have to build relationships to gain a hearing," he said. "I'm right there. But New Testament evangelism does not say, 'I'll just wait and listen and when you ask, I'll respond.' New Testament evangelism is initiatory and it is confrontive."
Some teachings from the emerging church movement "do not fit Christian orthodoxy," Lawless warned.
"Read very, very cautiously. Hear the positive. Then pray that God would help us to work on our own churches to take those positives and to become more relational, to become more authentic, to become more vulnerable as needed, but without ever compromising the truth of the Gospel."
Makoto Fujimura, the founder of IAM (International Arts Movement) in NYC which is connected to the ministry of Tim Keller, is writing a series of essays on art called "A.R.T.: Awareness, Reconciliation and Transformation." His first essay, "About A.R.T." is available on his blog, Refractions. Other essays will only be available initially to members of IAM. Here's a blurb...
After the success of Lord of the Rings, and now Narnia, we desire formore Lewises and Tolkiens to come out. These creative resources are not birthed out of a vacuum, but over generations of commitment to nurture and value creativity. The church has been mostly reluctant to take the lead in cultural production, fearful that those who enter Babylon will come out tainted by her, unable to speak for her values. And since there is still a vacuum in culture that the church abdicated to general culture, even if we desire more Tolkiens and Lewis, the church, in her present status, will be the first to reject them as misfits.
In order to have meaningful dialogue in this condition, we Christians must reevaluate our definition of creativity and art. On one hand, Biblical literalists and separatists (such as the “Left Behind” authors) may insist on that all of what is discussed in art must be literal interpretation of Christian stories, an approach which forbids certain art to exist at all. On the other we have secular purists who desire art to be left alone to the “good” desires of our hearts, self reliant and (in most cases) necessarily alienated from society. My approach in A.R.T. is neither of these routes. In order to lead, and teach our children to lead, Twenty First Century with creativity, we must speak in to our culture to value art and steward her with proper boundaries, and lead with a sense of responsibility. At the same time, we must realize that art is neither a mere tool to be used for ours or other ideologies. A.R.T. must ask deeper questions: what I have began to call “a five hundred year questions.” What we create matters: all art products cast their vision of what the artist consciously or unconsciously desire for the world to become. We are, and will become, what we imagine: and if we do not understand both the power and the danger of our imaginative powers, we will not begin to birth meaningful, and hopeful works of inspiration.
Sony isn't stupid. As the worldwide bestseller and much discussed, debated and disliked (among Christians especially) The Da Vinci Code heads to theaters on May 19th, Sony has put together a truly brilliant marketing scheme. They have started a website called The Da Vinci Challenge for Christians. On the site Christian experts will deal with issues raised by The Da Vinci Code between now and the release date. Currently there are articles by Darrell Bock, George Barna and Richard Mouw, and links for discussion take you to the Hollywood Jesus website.
From The Da Vinci Challenge...
The primary focus of The Da Vinci Challenge is to help Christians prepare for the inevitable question that will arise with the release of the film, “What do you think of The Da Vinci Code?”
These are the facts - currently, there over 40 million hardback copies of The Da Vinci Code in print. There have been thousands of column inches already written about The Da Vinci Code, and there will surely be more. It is now possible to take tours across Europe to visit historic sites referenced in the novel. On May 19, 2006, the highly-anticipated film version of the book, starring Academy Award-winner Tom Hanks, will open in theaters. There are literally millions and millions of devoted fans of The Da Vinci Code spanning the globe.
But there are also numerous people worldwide who question the theories espoused in The Da Vinci Code. Books refuting the claims of the best-selling novel have collectively sold millions of copies. Churches have held sermons and seminars to address the controversy and dispute assertions that many believe run counter to the foundations of their faith. These, too, are the facts.
The Da Vinci Challenge offers a thoughtful and faithful response to the questions raised by The Da Vinci Code. In the weeks leading up to the release of the film, prominent scholars and experts from across the spectrum of Christianity have volunteered to tackle specific issues raised by The Da Vinci Code – cultural, historical, theological and practical. By tapping into the collective wisdom of these respected Christian men and women, The Da Vinci Challenge hopes to present a forum where people can wrestle with the complex topics raised by the book and the film.
While Sony Pictures Entertainment has provided the means for this discussion to take place, neither the studio, the filmmakers nor Dan Brown have any editorial control over the content of this site. None of the Christian experts have been paid for their commentary or insights. This is an open forum where discussion, debate and disagreement are welcome. The Da Vinci Challenge wholeheartedly invites you to join the conversation.
Fascinating explanation by Michael Collender of St. Anne's Pub on how Brokeback Mountain was financed by those who watched Pride & Prejudice. Listen here.
If you are in the SBC or are interested in keeping up with the discussion and disagreement on IMB policy changes, you need to be reading my other blog: Missional Baptist Blog. Be sure to get into the comments as well. We now have Hershael York posting to defend the changes, Ergun Caner giving him a "high five," and Tom Ascol pointing out that this policy tells our forefathers they weren't wet in the wight way.
MBB Posts...
Hershael York Likes the IMB Baptism Policy
Ergun Caner, IMB Policy
Ascol on York
Mark Driscoll has now commented on Brian McLaren's post at Out of Ur...
Brian, as someone who has known you for many years I will, out of sincere and true love for you, ask one simple question and kindly request that you answer it.
Do you personally believe that all sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is always a sin?
I hope this question is simple, clear, and personal enough to result in an answer of either yes or no. Perhaps my attempt at some prophetic sarcasm which is commmon in Scripture was not well received. So, rather than repeating my tone I would like to simply ask your forgiveness if your have been wounded and get to the point of all this controversy. People like me who have known you, followed you, and learned from you for many years would simply like to know the bottom line for you personally with all of the other issues set aside for the time being. If you refuse to answer I am sure you can understand why accusations and concerns will be coming from both the right and the left and your answer will at least enable you to speak for yourself. So, with all respect would you please answer the question my brother?
(HT: KC)
Adrian Warnock interviews Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist in D.C. and 9Marks Ministries. Enjoyable, especially concerning cessationist issues.
(HT: Blue Fish)
Whoa mama! I hereby declare 2006 the year of the mega-conference. Together for the Gospel in Louisville, Reform & Resurge in Seattle, now...
Desiring God National Conference 2006
Theme: Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World
Date: September 29 to October 1, 2006
Speakers: David Wells, D.A. Carson, Timothy Keller, Mark Driscoll, Voddie Baucham, John Piper
(HT: JT)
McLaren now responds to the conversation over at Out of Ur on homosexuality, where his original post was made public. It isn't short, and he deals with a number of issues.
McLaren's original post
Driscoll's response
McLaren's response
The Reformissionary discussion...
Moratorium on Truth?: Homosexuality
Driscoll Responds to McLaren
Other helpful posts elsewhere...
TallSkinnyKiwi: Is the Blogosphere Ready for Mark Driscoll?
Bob Hyatt: Some Thoughts for Mark Driscoll
Mark Driscoll has a nice post on Al Mohler's appearance on Larry King Live. He includes several of Mohler's quotes from the show, which are very good and generally humble.
By the way, I remember being in a conversation with Dr. Mohler and other students one time and he was explaining how hard it was to appear on shows like King's. It demands very quick reactions, and you need to speak and not mess up or you will be quoted all over the place. I have said before that I think Al Mohler is specifically gifted in ways that make his TV appearances come off well.
If you don't agree, please wait until at least Monday to blast me. Make it a high-priority task in your Treo. I need a break.
Mark Driscoll has responded to Brian McLaren's post on the "homosexual question." It's posted on the same blog as McLaren's post: Out of Ur (Leadership Journal's blog).
This is getting interesting. Driscoll's first line...
Well, it seems that Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals.
Driscoll's best line...
I am myself a devoted heterosexual male lesbian who has been in a monogamous marriage with my high school sweetheart since I was 21 and personally know the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.
And don't miss the main points...
And on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is posted on this blog. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.
As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him somewhere between 2011-2016.
Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” from your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labyrinth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.
In conclusion, this is all just gay.
-Pastor Mark Driscoll
UPDATE: The original article was slightly tweaked, so I tried to make sure my post represents what is now public.
One of the truly life-changing things I've learned in thelast two or three years of my ministry is that my tendency to scold sinners rather than speak and act redemptively (hard to believe I would approach culture like that as an SBC'r, isn't it) is the wrong approach. As someone once said, it's hard to get someone to smell a rose right after you've cut the nose off their face. And scolding is not the God-ordained means by which sinners will realize they are sinners and run to Christ. The only people Jesus would scold are religious leaders bent on torquing God's ways.
With this I have realized how important it is for the church to stop saying they "love the sinner" without lifting a finger to express love to them. This is particularly true with homosexuals, and we as the Church need to repent of how we have at times scolded them and refused to love them actively. (There are many out there who aren't guilty of this and have been in gracious ministry to homosexuals, but I don't see these courageous saints as the norm.)
And while I desire this change in evangelicalism and my own life, it appears that Brian McLaren has failed to even comprehend what to do now.
Read McLaren's "pastoral response" on the issue of homosexuality, which quite honestly is hardly pastoral and not much of a response. I realize that those who have needed grace from Christians haven't received it. I realize that too quickly answering the "homosexual question" (which is, What does your church think about homosexuality?) sometimes can close the door to answering more important questions first, like Who is Jesus?
But what about conviction? What about Peter (Acts 2) preaching to the crowds and saying YOU crucified this Jesus, and they were cut to the heart and responded, What shall we do? Maybe many homosexuals aren't asking What shall we do? because they aren't cut to the heart. And maybe they aren't cut to the heart because we have equated being non-committal with being "pastoral."
The most pastoral thing we can do for someone who run with down the avenue of homosexuality (just like any sin) is help them be cut to the heart in a God-intended way, through the truth of their sin in comparison with truth of God's law.
McLaren and I have similar issues with evangelicalism. We are both concerned to 'cut' sinners through our own "rightness" which will tend to run homosexuals off and keep them from hearing about grace. But I cannot go down McLaren's path of choosing to not know the answer to the "homosexual question." Being pastoral in our responses, and getting to more important questions is a great and important thing, but there is no excuse for not even knowing the answer to the "homosexual question." McLaren said...
Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.
I find no space for nuanced arguments on homosexuality. In Scripture I find direct answers with direct implications for ministry, and our pastoral job is to realize where we have failed to speak and act with love toward those who need to be cut to the heart deep enough to see the hole that only the cross can fill.
McLaren then says...
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.
I'm disturbed that McLaren doesn't think that thousands of years since the destruction of cities and the teachings of Jesus and Paul and others isn't enough, and that maybe 5 more will do it. If not, let's go 5 more.
Something is terribly wrong with McLaren's lack of clarity on what Scripture teaches. The answer for "emerging leaders" is not a moratorium on deciding, but boldness to take the Scriptures at face value and to approach sinners with a firm kindness that will lead them to repentance.
_____
Worth checking out on the issue:
Doug Wilson's response to McLaren
Tom Ascol's discussion with a homosexual radio host
Mark Driscoll discusses hearing Charles Colson talk about "culture war" and offers some great questions...
Colson’s comments raise interesting missiological questions aboutthe role of the gospel in the culture. An aging generation of evangelicals assumes that America is essentially founded upon Christianity and that the role of the church is to defend Christian morality through mainly conservative and Republican political involvement and by fighting against such things as abortion and gay marriage. Younger emerging type Christians are increasingly answering these questions differently than previous generations, leading to a growing rift among American Christians regarding the proper role of a Christian in their culture:
I love my kids. I have four 100% huggable and lovable kids. And whenever ministry gets tough, or I get distracted, or I just am in the dumps over my own apathy and sin, I often find great comfort in and rejuvenation through my family.
I remember times in 2004 when I was getting some heat from a few church members (who are now gone). It was really hard on me, and I would come home at the end of the day and just hold my daughter for five minutes on the couch, or play a game with one of my boys, or chase the kids around with a Nerf gun shooting their eyes out.
These things could be seen nice ways to distract me from the stressful things of life and ministry, and they are helpful distractions. But much more positively they are reminders. Reminders of who I am more than a pastor, more than a preacher, more than a sinner. I'm the pastor of my family.
Two nights ago we had our five year old pray for our dinner. He prayed and thanked God for the food to make us healthy and strong, and prayed for everyone in the world to become Christians, and prayed that when people become Christians they would become fishers of men. When I heard that, it made all the frustrations of life shrink.
I'm about ready to head home for the night. Tonight, as we do each day, our family is going to read some Scripture to learn about God and talk about what He is calling us to do. The kids will probably ask a half-dozen questions, and then we will hold hands in a circle and pray. We will pray for God to help us live what we have learned and to provide for what we need.
May God raise up in my home fishers of men who will turn the world upside down, and may he use this weak vessel to train them. I can think of nothing to do today that is more important for God's mission and my own heart.
Today Russ Moore has written a short article/blog post called "The Spiritual Danger of Blogging" (also posted at Mere Comments). He has some important things to say, things that we as bloggers need to hear. To be honest, I think he aims this post at me (though I drink mochas).
I've encountered many blogs run by the sort of "self-righteous" and "cynical" people that he mentions. Strangely, most that I have encountered have been run by Calvinistic inerrantist reformed-types (who I doctrinally side with) who think a doctrinal statement is the bottom line of righteousness. They typically spend a lot of time finding errors in the doctrines of others, defending anyone who holds the same doctrines they hold no matter what they say, finding people with any connection to something bad and broad-brushing them into the heresy camp, and looking for sins in the culture to preach against. It's a deadly lot and I have run among the "angry Calvinist" number before.
Though Russ seems to emphasize the bad bloggers (he may be a bit cynical about bloggers, I think), he also points to a good group of bloggers out there. My fear is that his group would be the kind who always tow the party line, and link to the "right" places, and vote straight party ticket.
I've found many good bloggers too, but I would think they would be a different sort than Russ'. I like the bloggers who don't draw extra-biblical lines of fellowship. They are willing to speak truth even when it costs them connections they may need in ministry. They point out the dangers Jesus points to (like legalism) and not the ones that legalists point to (like alcohol). The bloggers I like are the ones who like Jesus so much that they realize how messed up they are and how great grace is. I like bloggers who are interested in a Kingdom that God builds, and who would have no problem watching our institutions and kingdoms die when they cease serving God's desires. Sounds delicious, doesn't it?
Ultimately Moore seems to miss something. He writes, "But, let's be honest, blogs also tend to give a microphone to a kind of deadening cynicism and blind self-righteousness in the guise of taking on self-righteousness, legalism, and what-have-you." Sure, we all would agree. That happens too much. All of us who blog have certainly from time to time held on to our "rightness" too tightly because being wrong isn't fun. But this sort of self-righteous blogging that Moore speaks of rarely makes a ripple in the blogosphere, let alone beyond it.
And Moore's quote can just be as easily be turned around. The guise could be on the other side, just as it was with Jesus who seemed to criticize the religious power brokers the loudest and sharpest, not the little guy who was "self-righteously" attacking legalism.
In other words, I seriously doubt the big problem with blogging is that some of the "self-righteous" ones are getting a hearing and hurting the big boys. I think it is much more likely that if any bloggers are getting loud enough to actually create a stir among the power brokers, those power brokers would try to find a way to combat the bloggers. The odds are stacked against the bloggers and for those with power, position and notoriety.
And isn't this what we see with Luther and the 95 Theses? He was an annoying gnat to the institution for questioning what they were doing. Then some started to agree with him which created fear among the powerful, and an attempt was made to silence him (something that can't be done in the same way to bloggers, which elevates fears among the powerful today). But Luther continued on as a flawed man who didn't do it all right, but who in the end was faithful and led a revolution of biblical proportions.
While I'm not able to remove the lint from Luther's belly button (and I'm more likely to lead a revolution for P.F. Chang's), I'm more hopeful about real change happening in the SBC after reading Russ' post. It's a sign that the message of 'necessary change' is getting out. God help us.
"Strangely enough...some who come to Jesus Christ seem to immediately and fully embrace this barbarian way. They live their lives with every step moving forward and with every fiber of their being fighting for the heart of their King. Jesus Christ has become the all-consuming passion of their lives. They are not about religion or position. They have little patience for institutions or bureaucracies. Their lack of respect for tradition or ritual makes them seem uncivilized to those who love religion. When asked if they are Christians, their answer might surprisingly be no, they are passionate followers of Jesus Christ. They see Christianity as a world religion, in many ways no different from any other religious system. Whether Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, they're not about religion; they're about advancing the revolution Jesus started two thousand years ago.
Erwin McManus, The Barbarian Way, 5-6
