Driscoll: Jesus Was A Passionate Human

Taken From Chapter 2 (pages 43-44) of Vintage Jesus:

[Referring to the Gospel of Mark] In the third chapter, Jesus gets angry and also grieves and apparently needs paxil. Then he ignores his own mom, which threw Focus on the Hebrew Family into a tizzy, so they quickly issued a position paper renouncing his actions. In the fourth chapter, Jesus rebukes the wind, which causes an uproar with the local pantheists. In chapter 5, Jesus kills two thousand pigs, sending the animal rights activist blogosphere into a panic and creating a bacon famine only rivaled by the great Irish potato famine...
In chapter 10, Jesus tells a rich guy to sell all his stuff and give the money to the poor, which put him in bad graces with the local prosperity-theology luncheon for pastors who were hoping for Bling Christ...
In chapter 12, Jesus tells people they are wrong and don't know their Bibles, which upset the postmoderns because Jesus was clearly using a narrow modernist epistemology. Jesus also tells some Sunday school teachers they are going to hell, which made the universalistic Emergent folks immediately engage in a conversation about the mythology of hell and fingerpaint about the emotional wounds caused by his words...
In chapter 13, Jesus threatens to destroy the temple, which put the nation on heightened security alert that included taking off one's sandals before boarding a camel...
In summary, the Jesus of Mark's Gospel is not fitting for old ladies in hats and men in suits like those we see at church. Rather than handing out communion at church, if he were to show up, the men would need cups and the women boxes of tissue and flak jackets because the real Jesus is passionate and nothing like the Lobotomized Lord of the Thomas Kinkade paintings.

YES!

Let me just take this opportunity to go ahead and say that chapter two of the book was just as enjoyable as the first. Driscoll lays his emphasis in a few areas which I appreciated. These included:

1. Jesus was not a woman with a beard. He did not look like a woman with a beard. He was a man's man.
2. "He did the normal things that actual people do, like farting, going to the bathroom, and blowing boogers from his nose."
3. He takes some shots at Creflo Dollar, who apparently overemphasizes Jesus' humanity to the point that he says that Jesus came as a man, not as God.
4. He emphasizes that Jesus was funny, that he joked, and then provides Biblical examples of Jesus' sense of humor. He then takes issue with G.K. Chesterton who, apparently, disagreed with this assessment.
5. He also demonstrates how Jesus struggled with depression, dowerness, unreliable friends, and other things which make this life hard for all of us. Driscoll also emphasizes that "without these insights into Jesus' life, it would be difficult for us to run to him in our time of need because we would be unaware of the similar experiences he had during his life on the earth."

Keep it up, Mark. Keep it up.

Mark Driscoll's Vintage Jesus: First Impressions

Mark Driscoll is a troublemaker. He talks about drinking beer, jokes that skeptics in Jesus' time thought the Virgin Mary was probably "knocking boots in the backseat of a car with some guy at the prom," and he once called on audience members who don't own TVs to repent. He is irreverent, at times inappropriate, and most importantly: awesome.

I've only just gotten finished with the first chapter of the book, but my blogmates thought it might be a good idea for me to interact with the book since they're busy with getting their Masters' degrees and I just sit and listen to records all day long.

From a theological perspective, the first chapter is as straightforward and orthodox as any apologist could ask for. In contrast to his other emergent-type peers (who think skepticism and "questioning everything" should rule the day), Driscoll thinks it's cool to be orthodox and embrace the classical/creedal views of Jesus. The first chapter is, essentially, a defense of the divinity of Jesus. Driscoll offers ten reasons why we should believe that Jesus was/is God. There are plenty of nuggets and humorous expressions Driscoll chooses to employ.

Here's Driscoll attempting to explain Scientology's view of Jesus:

According to Scientology, Jesus is an "implant" forced upon a Thetan about a million years ago. I would explain that position more thoroughly but I have never smoked weed or done any drugs; subsequently, I apparently lack the imagination to understand a religion started by a science fiction writer that has unleashed Tom Crazy Cruise on the world as Billy Graham's evil doppelganger.

One of Driscoll's ten arguments for the Divinity of Christ is His sinlessness. To bolster the argument, Driscoll recounts his attempt to chronicle claims of sinlessness by religious leaders throughout history (he found no credible claims, by the way):

To see if anyone has ever claimed to be sinless, I actually did a Google search for "sinless" only to find that there is a strip club by the same name. That pretty much sums up my point that the world is filled with sin.

Very nice, Mark. Very nice.

Though I know there are Reformed Christians out there conservative enough to have already decided (based on what I've written here) that they don't want to have anything to do with Driscoll (this review comes to mind), I actually find his conversational style very refreshing. Maybe reading systematic theologies until my eyes bleed isn't the best thing to do, so now I'm burned out on eating steak and no dessert. Truthfully, however, this is the way that I normally talk, and Driscoll's style reflects my own, so I enjoy it a great deal. I actually think that this book will appeal to those emergent-types who like edgy and irreverent, and if that means I can get those around me who think that the deity of Christ is a secondary issue, then I'm all for it. It will also, however, appeal to people like you and I, who think that theology is really important!

Stylistically, one thing which I appreciate is that, rather than put his Bible-references within the text, he primarily cites Bible verses with endnotes. This probably sounds like an awful idea to your average Reformed theologian, but it means that you can read the book and then, if you wonder about his source for something he says, you can look it up in the endnotes. Will anyone deny that reading a page of theology that is constantly broken up with bracketed Bible verses can start to drive you crazy?

With chapter one out of the way, I'm looking forward to working my way through the rest of the book. Great, now you all think I'm a liberal.

It's A Milestone!

Well everyone, Bring the Books has reached a milestone: 1000 separate visitors have passed through this not so hallowed labyrinth of theology and philosophical madness. For some, this may be child's play, but considering the small scale and humble beginnings of our little blog, we think it's a pretty big deal. Thanks, everyone; and keep reading!

Appalling!!

I have never been so appalled in my entire life. To get the full weight of this, you need to watch the video to the end.

You’ve Got to be Kidding

Assessing The Decline of Protestantism

According to a new report by US News & World Reports, we Protestants are going to eventually become the minority. "Whereas nearly two thirds of Americans identified themselves as Protestant as recently as the 1980s, only 51 percent identify as Protestant today, the study found." Really? Going to be a minority? I'm a Protestant, and I'm pretty sure that I've always been in the minority of American religion. Ever since I took my evangelism class with Josh Walker at GCU and read my way through The Purpose Driven Life per my teacher's requirements, I have known that "true" Protestant religion stopped being cool a long time ago. Sure, really cool guys like Josh and I are fighting to make it society's standard for awesome once again; but swimming upstream like this takes time.

"American religion is likely to be even more diverse in the future than it is now," John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum, told reporters. "One can make the case that Americans will be less Protestant and less Christian a century from now, but how much is hard to gauge."

Darn. And I was used to being in the majority! I thought that the "seeker sensitive" churches with their broad and appealing approach were supposed to save Christianity in America. Oh well; I suppose the next trendy approach to butchering historical Christianity should get its chance to try out the spotlight. Go ahead, Emergents; you give it a try.

One really interesting piece of information: "Thirty percent of all Americans, it found, have switched their religion at some point in their lifetime, either to a different religion or to an 'unaffiliated status.'" For those living in Rio Linda, unaffiliated means, "I believe what I want about God and no religious group is going to tell me what He's like. This is becoming very popular, but lets remember that this trend started long before Meno Simon ever picked up a New Testament and decided those creeds were completely worthless.

I want to remind our readers here at Bring The Books that we are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of those around us; of our communities. Significant threats are not only on the horizon, but already here. First, Roman Catholicism; as more and more immigrants come here from Latin countries, so too does the Roman religion come along with them. Second, Islam; though not something I have to deal with, living here in the Bible belt, it is nonetheless a worldview threat which we must all be educated on and prepared to offer a defense against (with love and respect). Finally, generic unbelief; judging from this study from US News & World Reports, massive numbers of people are turning from religion altogether or labeling themselves "atheistic" or "agnostic."

I want to also make a passing observation that these figures from USN&WR makes one presumption which we should not accept; and that assumption is that the trends will continue as they are right now. If history offers us one lesson it is that trends change. What pollster could have predicted the Great Awakening, for example? The opportunity for spiritual revival and a resurgence of interest in the true Biblical faith is there, and that is something which polls cannot predict, because our God is sovereign.

Though election and predestination are both true, we as Reformed Christians know that we have a responsibility to present the Gospel and to leave unbelievers "without an excuse." "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). After all; would the Great Awakening have ever happened if Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and John Wesley had not spread the Truth of God throughout the colonies? I would suggest not. I would also suggest that we each take personal stock of each of these major competing worldviews I have pointed out and ask ourselves whether we are adequately prepared to defend "the faith once delivered" against unbelief in its many forms.

And Then There Were Three

I would like to introduce our readers to the latest addition to our staff here at Bring the Books... Jason Grabulis. Jason is an M.Div student at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson Mississippi. He grew up in the D.C. area and moved south after he got out of the military. After graduating with a B.A. in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in New Testament Greek, Jason headed to Knox Theological Seminary in Florida. However, after a year and a half of study the seminary abandoned its commitment to the historic Reformed confessions and so Jason transferred to RTS. In fact, he has a blog that informs the Reformed community as to what is going on at Knox, read it here. Jason has been married for about 12 years and has a beautiful and vivacious little girl.

I am sure that he will be a great addition to the staff here. His theological insights are deep and his grasp of Church history is outstanding. He will fill in some of the gaps and add to the overall breadth at Bring the Books... We are very exited to have him join and we are sure that our readers will be blessed by his contributions to this site. I would like to be the first, but I hope not the last, to welcome Jason to Bring the Books..., welcome!

Heartbreaking

This news story is heartbreaking. I think it emphasizes the gravity of abortion. Many today treat abortion as a common, unpleasant, but sometimes necessary thing. Consideration for the long-term effects on the woman having the abortion often goes on the back burner. Also, although this woman made the decision to have the abortion, I still hope her "boyfriend" feels terrible.

[Also, a side note: I live in Kansas, and was traveling through a nearby town when I saw a sign which, even as an ardent pro-lifer, made me angry. The sign read in big black letters: My Mommy Had An Abortion. It was accompanied by an illustrated picture of a baby chopped up into little pieces with blood everywhere. Seriously, what am I supposed to tell my 2 year old when she asks me what that picture means? I think there is something to be said for tact and self-control when it comes to arguing for one's position. We don't have to reduce ourselves to the level of the barbaric baby-killers in order to change the minds of others. In my own opinion, signs like the one I just referred to do greater harm to the pro-life position, since they insult the intelligence of their audience, assuming that they will only be moved by brute, offensive images and not by rational discourse and argument.]

The Recantation of Eli Sunday

Plainview: "I see the worst in people. I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I want to rule and never, ever explain myself. I've built my hatreds up over the years, little by little, Henry... to have you here gives me a second breath. I can't keep doing this on my own with these... people."

We watched There Will Be Blood tonight. It's an absolute shoe-in for best picture, I am certain. Even if it doesn't win best picture, I guarantee you all (this is the day before the Oscars) that Daniel Day-Lewis will win best actor.

This is all an aside. Before proceeding, here's my warning: I'm giving away a massive confrontation at the end of the film. If you don't want to lose the surprise, don't read this. I'm assuming if you're reading that you've seen There Will Be Blood or that you don't mind spoilers.

In the film, the two opposing characters are Daniel Plainview (a pragmatic, irreligious, greedy oilman) and Eli Sunday (a young, deceptive, two-faced, charismatic preacher sharing a strong resemblance to Benny Hinn and company). Throughout the film, the two characters clash in violent and emotionally revealing ways. At one point in the film, in order to make a land deal go through, Daniel agrees to be baptized in Eli's church The Church of the Third Revelation (seems like a cult to me). During the baptism, Eli the preacher forces Daniel Plainview to reveal painful and embarrassing sins to the church (and by extension, to the community).

Many years later (approximately 10), Eli comes to Daniel (now a fabulously wealthy oil tycoon) asking him for financial assistance because the church has fallen on hard financial times. Daniel takes the opportunity to belittle Eli and insult him

Plainview: "You're just an afterbirth, Eli, slithered out from your mother's filth. They should have put you in glass jar on a mantlepiece."

The ultimate indignity comes, however, when Daniel demands that Eli admit what Daniel has known all along - that Eli is a false prophet. Essentially, we the viewer have known it all along, as well. However, Daniel takes things a step further and demands that Eli not only confess that he is a false prophet, but that God is a superstition. After mumbling his confession, Daniel finally coaxes Eli into selling his soul for Daniel's help.

Eli: "I am a false prophet and God is a superstition! I am a false prophet and God is a superstition!"

Now, of course, I don't condone what Daniel forces Eli to say, completely, since I do not believe that God is a superstition. But for Daniel, God is a superstition, and Daniel knows that the greatest indignity that can be foisted upon this false prophet is for him to have to admit the lie which he has been keeping from everyone for years upon years.

Possibly the most powerful confrontation I have ever seen in any film, this scene in the film transcends physically violent confrontation. For once, I felt I had seen something more devastating than violence in a film. It is painful to physically hurt someone, but what can be more soul-wrenching than forcing someone to confess a lie dealing with one's ultimate worldview?

The tagline for the movie is "When Ambition Meets Faith," and this scene of clashing personalities could not have delivered more rewardingly on that promise. Ultimately in this showdown, we don't learn anything about God's existence so much as we learn about the two men who are saying these things. Eli clearly chooses materialism over principle. His affection for financial gain was greater than his affection for God, and therefore he denounced Him. Earlier in the film, Daniel's desire for financial gain was greater than his desire to maintain his integrity, and therefore he made a false profession of faith and was baptized by Eli.

From both sides, greed won the day. Principle took the back burner. I feel a little guilty saying it, but it was rewarding to see this Benny Hinn-type figure get his just desserts (not that Daniel Plainview was any better; he was a very selfish and evil man). I have had few times when I felt so much pleasure while watching a movie. I guarantee you, I'll be thinking about this movie for many many days to come.

"Jesus Died For Someone's Sins But Not Mine"

"Jesus died for somebodys sins but not mine
Meltin in a pot of thieves
Wild card up my sleeve
Thick heart of stone
My sins my own
They belong to me, me"

Patti Smith "Gloria"

I appreciate the brutal honesty in Patti Smith's words here. I would, however, say that it is never correct for someone to say words like these, believer or not. The reason is that there is a high level of presumption which says that they know they will never become a Christian, never find forgiveness, and never recognize a need for their sins to be atoned for. Biblically speaking, no one may ever be presumptuous enough to declare that "my sins my own/they belong to me, me." Maybe. Maybe your sins are your own, and you will atone for them yourself. But maybe you will someday come to faith in Jesus and find that He has atoned for you already. Guard your words, Patti Smith, for you do not know what the future holds.

What a disservice we do to unbelievers when we (in the spirit of hypothetical universalism) tell them that Jesus died for their sins. These are people who do not want an atonement; they probably do not even believe they need an atonement. And this atonement actually does nothing for the indifferent pagan.

Nowhere in Scripture do we ever find someone being told to repent on the basis that Jesus has already provided atonement for them. Everywhere, we find that people are told to repent and believe in Jesus - essentially - on principle. Repent because eternal life is at stake. Repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins. But no one is told in the Bible, "Believe in Jesus because he died for your sins." Go ahead, look it up; try to find it just once.

I actually worked with a fellow named Chris* who once told me that he didn't need to become a Christian. I asked why, and he said, "Well all my life, I've been told by people that Jesus died for my sins. I thought about it one day and realized that if Jesus died for my sins, then I'm off the hook; whether I become a Christian or not." My response was stunned silence, because universalism makes way more sense than hypothetical universalism, and I realized this in that moment. (Actually, later, I told him that he had no reason to believe that Jesus died for his sins, and that those people who told him that were well meaning idiots who thought that "Jesus died for your sins" was the Ace up their sleeve. Sorry, hypothetical universalists.)

Think about it: Jesus provides atonement for you. What fear should you have of hell? On what basis will you be sent to hell if your sins are atoned for? On what basis?

*This is an absolutely true story.

Ecumenical Discussions

There are many, as of late, who think that unity in the Church should be found in the first four ecumenical councils. Besides the fact that this is arbitrary (why not the first five? Or the first three? Why only the first four?), it misses the point that the person and work of Christ can never be separated.

Allow me to explain. The first four ecumenical councils deal primarily with the person of Christ. That is, they develop who Christ is. Is he divine or human or both? What is his relation to the father? How many wills does the person of Jesus have? These are but a few of the questions that these ecumenical councils sought to answer.

Whereas, questions about his work (what he did) were given a cursory treatment in relation to the depths these councils went with the person of Christ. They did not develop the significance of the cross, for example. What was the death of Jesus for? Why did he have to die on a cross? Why all the blood? What is justification? What is propitiation? Most of these questions were not dealt with at these councils and if they are the answers are hardly as deep as the Christian Church needs them to be.

This raises the question, why are we to be united on the person of Christ and not on his work? Or even more fundamental, how can Jesus be separated into these parts? Sure we can make the distinction between the person (who he is) of Christ and the work (what he did), but we cannot separated them—they are two sides of the same coin. Those, I would submit, who try to find unity in the ecumenical councils are in fact separating Christ’s person from his work. Since we are to have unity (which I am a huge advocate for), I suggest that we have unity around the whole Jesus, his person and his work.

Gordon Fee in his new book, Pauline Christology, discusses this very point that Jesus cannot be broken into parts.

The attempt to extract Christology from Paul’s letters apart from soteriology is like asking a devout Jew of Paul’s era to talk about God in the abstract, without mentioning his mighty deeds of creation and redemption. Although one theoretically may theologize on the character and “person” of God on the basis of the revelation to Moses on Sinai, a Jewish person of Paul’s’ era would hardly imagine doing so. What can be know and said about God is embedded in the story in such a way that God’s person can never be abstracted out of the story. Whatever else, God is always “the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.”

The Gospel In Two Sentences

"God had sent his Son into the world to die for sins. He had lived in Palestine and had taught for a few years, and had been killed like a criminal, though innocent, and had risen from the dead to show that his death was a ransom for sin, and had ascended into heaven where he rules the world until the time when he will come and establish his kingdom for all those who have put their life in his hands."

John Piper, Taste and See

Scientology Update: Anonymous Becoming Less Anonymous?

The LA Times is reporting that the hackers who posted the Youtube video under the name "Anonymous" have started physically appearing and protesting in major cities while wearing Guy Fawkes masks (a la V for Vendetta). Very nice. So they're still sort of anonymous. But we all know who'd have a lawyer at their front door the minute they took their masks off; don't we? You might remember this video from when we posted a link to it about a month or so ago.

The story is here.

The interesting thing is, these hackers actually seem to have a very easily accomplished plan. They are protesting and picketing for an examination of the circumstances under which Scientology actually gained tax-exempt religious status. Anonymous claim that Scientology is a business, not a religion and are making what is, in my opinion, a strong case. It seems clear that their plan is to get Scientology's tax-exempt status revoked. This wouldn't topple Scientology, but it would be one brick out of Scientology's financial foundation.

Another interesting site for discussions by former members of Scientology is found here, at xenutv.com.

Paul's Authority

I am currently reading An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson and Moo. This introduction is great and I could not recomend a book more highly. Their writing style is great. Here is a section from their chapter on Paul: Apostle and Theologian:

Paul's apostolic stance enables him to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures with sovereign freedom and to make demands on his people that he considered to be as binding as anything in Scripture.

Politics: Advice For Republicans

I'm not a republican, but I am soliciting advice to Republicans on my other blog where I put my "un-theological" thoughts. Check it out, if you want. It gets considerably less traffic, so I can say far crazier stuff over there. Interestingly, I'm also violating my own post from about a week ago where I told everyone to stop thinking about politics because they're wasting their lives on it. This is what I get for listening to talk-radio at work instead of listening to my iPod.