1. Watch the video again: he in no way "devalues" pastors who offer "love and counseling." He actually affirms that it as PART of pastoring. The video as a whole is geared toward church planters. Think of the context of the video and who it was made for.

2. Think of the historical context of the New Testament. Think about military occupation that effects every aspect of living.

3. Most religious and philosophical systems in the world have more disciple than AMERICAN/WESTERN Christianity. "Christians" in America do not fully realize the intent of disciple and honor that Jesus modeled and wants for His people.

4. Your biases and misquotes and mis-contextual interpretations shed light on the fact that the gap between "these types of people" is not being lessened by those who are the sources of the views you support. In fact, it should make you feel good to know there are men like Driscoll who are fighting FOR you (not WITH you)...men who are seeking restoration and reconciliation.

I like your Gandhi quote. I think he made a great observation on modern/western Christianity. Thank God there are men leading the way to restore what Christ intended and what the "Christians" have messed up.

I am fully with you on being disturbed about using imageries of war as symbols of Christianity. Last year when I went to a family reunion that took place in the fellowship hall of a fundamentalist church that my family often attended when out of town--I was reminded of this popular symbol. There were posters all over the church, sunday school rooms, and hall not just of supporting the troops (which I understand) but of Christians being *at war*.

I understand the references to soldiers of Christ in the Bible, these were a people who were under occupation and military metaphor was to be expected. Anyway, the song "Onward Christian Soldiers" always gives my stomach a twist and reminds me of the 13th c. extermination of the Cathars and when the knights asked how to tell the Cathars from the Christians, the papal legate replied, "Kill them all. God will know which are his." Which led to the popular military slogan: "Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out!"

There are so many atrocities that have been committed in God's name, for the so called divine good--one would think with the retrospect that Christians have today, they would eliminate that metaphor from their religion. And some have, more need to follow.

Thanks for your comments Kelly. I'm torn about how to approach these types of messagers. On one hand I want to point out the problems and stop further misinformation and harm. On the other hand, I want to get past the infighting that has plagued Christianity for centuries over doctrine.

I can embrace and work with Christians of all sorts of theological backgrounds. I'm not at all concerned with getting the "correct" doctrine and only associating with others that have the same understanding. I am however concerned when any one group claims to have some divine authority or a divine mandate of their own interpretations as God's ordained words. It is even worse when it is combined with this metaphor of war.

I try to offer observations of God based on evaluation, reason, and experience. Some will be valuable and I'm sure some will not produce fruit. However, I think it is a mistake to take that next step to claim the authority of God on our own group, doctrine, or words then declare war on all others. History and experience has proven what fruit comes from that mistake.

Kelly,

"Onward Christian Soldiers" is not one of my favorites, either! And as a true follower of Jesus Christ, I am ashamed at the way foolish people have misused the Bible and done horrible acts "in the name of God."

The metaphor of a soldier I like is not the blood-thirsty rampage, but more like the one who defends the innocent, helps the hurting, feeds the hungry, stands up for justice, and is willing to selflessly sacrifice everything for sake of giving to the oppressed. Sound familiar? That's the kind of soldier Jesus was, and the kind I want to be.

There are many good things that have been twisted in to bad things. We can't eliminate them all, but perhaps we can re-define and redeem them.

In addition, I know Driscoll's heart is to train men to be true Christian leaders and to redeem the damage done by "faulty Christian soldiers" of the past. Believe me, any true follower of Christ is not proud of the evils of the past. However, the best way to attempt to remedy is not to passively stand aside (and allow the lunatics to do their damage "in the name of God"), but to be pro-active in the ministries of redemption and reconciliation.

Jeremy,

I guess the core of the issue is that if you use imagery of war then you have to be careful about who you are implying is the enemy. My experience with many tranditional Christians is that they have at times A) misplaced the target of their aggression and B) used the theme of "protection" to promote offensive aggression and C) used violence rather than non-violent protest and diplomacy to acheive their desired results.

You could argue that our current war in Iraq is a result of both those mistakes. It sounds like a motivation speech for the Christian Crusades.

Non-violent protest is NOT passivism. Jesus refused to start a violent revolt against the Empire even though many of his friends and neighbors wanted to do just that. The did it after his death and the results were horrible.

Mike,

I'm not sure that Mark Driscoll's message is the same as Jesus Camp's, and the image of the soldier -- discipline, etc. is a constant theme -- consider the Jesuits --

That said, it is a hard nosed approach, which may be necessary to plant a church. I think what stands out here is the focus on the "man." Women can do just fine. Consider Aimee Semple McPherson or Disciple pastor Cynthia Hale.

But all said, I'm not one to plant a church -- too hard a life.

Cool shirt from threadless called "B.F.F."

Can't we all just get along? I say we all wear this shirt.

Bob, I also picked up that Driscoll seemed to be focused on men. I don't know if that was intentional or just a poor choice of words. I'm not the best either at using gender inclusive language. I hope to get better.

Maybe Jeremy (rev. rockstar) can help us guess about his intent since Jeremy is part of Driscolls network of church planters. I've heard rumors of Driscoll's bias about not allowing women in the ministry but I don't want to read too much into it if that wasn't his intention.

What do you think he meant Jeremy? Was I too harsh by using the word "Misogyny"? Does the Act 29 network embrace women as church planters and leaders in ministry?

If I could ask Driscoll any question to shed light on his reasoning I think it would be: Who are you fighting?

Jeremy,

We do need to get along. I feel bad at the divisiveness that results from these types of online debates. Our nation and our Christian faith are both too polarized. I'm torn about how to respond. I'm working to try and find healthy ways to discuss differences but most importantly I realize I need to learn to look for positive common ground rather than be critical. I'm not wild about the t-shirts you suggested, but I'll put a "coexist" bumper sticker on my car if you put one on yours. Is it a bet? I'll buy them if you agree.

The internet has been good for sharing information but seems to make debate more divisive and less civil.

Coexist sticker? No thanks. It states the obvious- we DO coexist! I like it that way! Diversity is fun- differences are beautiful!

Yes- the internet is a great forum for the exchange of ideas- kind of like an online Mars Hill.

I'm not going to speak on Driscoll's behalf, but check out the Acts 29 site for the Acts 29 Doctrine.

Basically, it's the Bible: complementarian view. Can men be mothers? No. Can women be fathers? No. It takes two to tango... Likewise, Scripture teaches some unique opportunities for ministry. Women CAN serve in ministry. Men CAN serve in ministry. There are certain guidelines Scripture offers.

Most importantly, the structure models the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son, Christ and the Church (His bride), and family structure.

There's soooo much to say about this subject, and I'm fine "coexisting" with those who disagree. Again, I find it to be the best job of interpreting and applying Scripture, honoring Jesus Christ, and serving people.

Jeremy, I took a brief look at the "doctrine statement". I now see why the coexist bumber sticker is not something you would agree to display. Thanks for link and the clarification.

I didn't realize how conservative Driscoll and the Acts 29 network really are but despite that, I still have hope in your mission here in Augusta. I hope you will consider inclusiveness and specifically relaxing the attitude toward women, but either way, I see no reason to have conflict.

Again, lets see if we can back off the bickering and forge new ground in collaboration and succeed where centuries of debate and anger has failed.

I did not care much for the video. I just don't envision that being Christ's approach. I realize I am wearing Emergent glasses. The tone of this preacher just sounds like a real man is someone who is itchin to pick a fight.

I am part of wildly successful church plant. Somehow we did it without all the testosterone and chest thumping. I would agree that having a strong leader is a piece of the puzzle, but I know our Pastor would be the first to stress that it was the team that made it possible. I think Driscoll and I may disagree as to what a strong leader looks like.

Great stuff Danutz.

I actually like that shirt.

Andrew-

Just curious the name/website of your church plant?

Also, how do you measure "success" (i.e. your "wildly successful church plant?")

A note on Driscoll: he once wore "emergent glasses," but has since moved toward a more reformed theology. Also, he's of Irish descent (and once joked that he therefore has two emotions: angry and asleep!)

Mike-

I think you know this about me, but just a reminder: I don't view differences or diversity as divisive- in fact, I really like it, which is why I'm very passionate about adhering to the tenets of my faith (which may be different than others). For instance, I have a lot more respect for a devout Jew (who may disagree with my belief in Christ) than I do for a politically correct quasi-new-ager who tries to "embrace everything" (in actuality, rather than celebrating the diversity, this person waters down each and ever faith system in order to "not offend," but in reality just insults ever faith system in my opinion).

During my time as a hospice chaplain, I experienced relationships with colleagues and patients of various faith systems (or some with none whatsoever). This was an extremely enriching time for my personal faith. Relating to those with different views did not water down or sway my faith in Christ, but rather helped solidify it. I feel confident the friends I made in those experiences will say the same about me.

Anyway, that's just an aside. You and I both agree that religion and politics alike have dark chapters in history, but also some good ones. We live in the present and have the opportunity of making history, which should motivate us to insure we have a solid faith!

Jeremy,

I too have issues with watered down religion and the recent trend of new-age spirituality that resembles more of a self-help mentality rather than self-sacrifice. I'm excited that we continue to find common ground in our different theological views.

Like you, I also found that my exploration of other faith traditions solidified my faith in Christ and my love of the Bible. The more I learned to see Christ in other faiths, the more my faith has grown.

Thanks for you comments and your desire to reach out in the spirit of the kingdom of God.

I realize on a re-read that "wildly successful" sounds like a boast. My original intent was to emphasize the difference in planting mentality that exists. My impression from the video is that we should not have done so well out here with such a different approach.

Four years ago, 35 people left the Detroit area to start a church in Salt Lake City. The video presented by Driscoll might have encouraged us to conquer this city, maybe see some of its people as enemies who would be against us. I wonder what our church would look like if we had taken on a war metaphor when coming out here?

Instead, a group came out that wanted to serve the community. As our lead Pastor in Detroit said, "This church needs to exist for the benefit of its non-members".

Any success is related in the stories told by the people who have changed the course of their lives through their connection to Christ.

You can see what we are up to at www.k2thechurch.com

Driscoll uses the war metaphor because it's used in the pastoral Epistles. To understand the meaning, look at the context of the writing of those Epistles. Also, do a little research on the context of Driscoll's ministry. Seattle is very different than Utah or Georgia.

One thing I do know is that Driscoll is not fighting AGAINST the city, but rather FOR the city of Seattle. He's a man who passionately loves Jesus, the Bible, and the people of Seattle. I think he's wanting to inspire men to do the same in their own ministry contexts and their own cities. Yes, this looks a bit different in Augusta, GA than it does in Seattle, WA. However, there are many Biblical principles that are the same, just with different applications.

I learned from Tim Keller (pastor of Redeemer Pres. in NY) that the city should be blessed by the presence of the church (implying that our blessing the city is not contingent on their being believers or church-goers).

I checked out your church site, Andrew. Good stuff indeed. Keep it up, and keep us in prayer as well.

www.thewellaugusta.org

This may clarify many things within this latest discussion. Check out the link below: Scott Thomas (Director of A29) addresses the Seven Misrepresentations of Acts 29.

Thanks Jeremy. I feel it is always best to let someone speak for themselves and that statement by acts 29 speaks clearly about their views.

This really ties into my last post about the "Worst Theological Invention". It illustrates what happens when people adhere to the notion of Sola Scriptura. Once you place a text as the authoritative word of God you become a slave to the text and loose God. Sola Scriptura is idol worship in my opinion because it places ancient myths and poems above God.

I feel this is the most glaring error in Christianity today and what we need to do to correct it is provide better theological education. Marcus borg calls this adult "re-education". So many people were taught these harmful theologies in our childhood and were taught that specific biblical interpretations were the only "correct" interpretations.

I appreciate and agree with Driscoll's love of scripture. I disagree with his intepretion of it and his application of that doctrine.

For whatever it's worth, I thought Driscoll's video was quite good, with a couple qualifications:
- his language is somewhat violent (e.g. his use of the word 'retarded' and the denial that Jesus is a 'gay hippie')
- he doesn't qualify the military metaphors the way the apostle Paul does when he uses them

While military metaphors are part and parcel of the Bible's vocabulary, in the New Testament, they almost are always subverted by their context. For example, Paul talks about 'spiritual warfare' because our 'enemies' are emphatically NOT 'flesh and blood'. In Revelation, even the triumphant Jesus's 'sword' is identified as 'the word' (rather than an actual weapon of descruction).
Ultimately, all of the military warfare of Scripture needs to be interpreted Christologically: it is in his death that Jesus disarms the powers, and by his sacrifice that he 'storms the gates of Hades'.
Language issues aside, this is the one qualification I wish Marc would have made in the video (the military graveyard was a little over the top in my view).
He obviously has more conservative views than I do on women in leadership, but his zeal can be admired in spite of its rough edges.
My two cents.
-Daniel-