Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 2

each chapter in Listening the Beliefs of Emerging Churches is titled with a descriptor of that pastor's theology, in the case of the first chapter - by Mark Driscoll - it is "The Emerging Church and Biblicist Theology."

Driscoll is the pastor of mars hill church here in seattle, a church he planted in 1996 that is now close to 5000 members. we live just minutes away from mars hill, but and i have yet to go there, though many things have certainly piqued my interest in going just to see what it's all about.

i've heard a lot about Driscoll since we moved here last year, and i've read some of his blog posts and seen some of his videos. so before reading his part of the book, i knew that there were many things that i wouldn't agree with. though i agree with a lot of his theology, we do part ways in a number of places, but most of all i take issue with his presentation (in general, not just this book).

in Driscoll's fourteen pages, he clearly and succinctly lays out his calvinist views of scripture, the Trinity, and the atonement (and he references 700 bible verses) often using bullet points to refer to the bible as much as possible in a small amount of space. now, i wasn't reading this book as some sort of bible study, so i didn't check on each and every passage he quoted. but i did look up several that seemed unfamiliar by the context of his quotes. the response i had after reading some of them was that he was prooftexting (taking things out of context to make a point) quite a bit in certain parts. i found that even in some of the points that i agreed with his conclusion, i disagreed with how he got there, i just didn't find them in the context or content of some of the verses he quoted. by far, most of the scripture he used did back up what he was saying, which seemed to make the prooftexting unnecessary.

as i mentioned previously, my usual problem with Driscoll is his presentation, and once again his presentation frustrated me. Driscoll wrote with great passion, but honestly it felt as if his passion was less about his theology and more about being right and showing how much he knows.

to save space here, i'll just give a key quote or idea that stood out to me from each of the other authors' responses to Driscoll's chapter:

• John Burke: "This is why it is important that we provide space and room for questioning theology. . . . assenting to the correct doctrinal beliefs along can create that stench of the Pharisees if we're not careful, because what people say they believe is not always what they actually believe. . . . Ultimately, how we live reveals what we truly believe."
• Dan Kimball: "He is reformed to the core. . . . when we take extreme theological positions on anything, the extreme part of it actually is the weakest part of the theological system."
• Doug Pagitt: "At times I found it difficult to read Mark's chapter. . . . I am troubled by Mark's use of the Bible in what seems to be reference approach. Placing Bible passages in and around an argument is not in and of itself a proper way of being informed by the Scriptures. . . . Laying claim to part of the Bible as support for one's theological perspective needs to be done in a careful manner."
• Karen Ward: "When I read his words, I think "Wow, if Gold's Gym were a Christian church, then Mark would be the lead manager, nutritionist, and personal trainer."