Monday, October 01, 2007
Religious Bigotry
The type of Christianity that is in this video makes me sad. It isn't his specific theology that bothers me because he does have a deep faith that transformed his life. His views may work as well or better than mine, but Mark Driscoll's target is young Christians and he seems intent on creating yet another generation of fundamentalist religious bigots who feel their brand of faith is the only one of value. His words have a strong undercurrent of religious bigotry. Our Christian faith and religious tradition is beautiful but its value doesn't come from devaluing all other faith traditions. You don't need to create an atmosphere of artificial fear in order to protect your faith tradition or your family. We are already suffering because our society has a fear of people and traditions that differ from our own. Unrealistic fear and bigotry has cost millions of lives.
I appreciate his desire to protect his daughter, but what is he protecting her from, a "liberal" husband that will value her as an equal person rather than a second class citizen? The worst thing he said was his aversion to studying the Old Testament in context of Israel. If he can't figure out why we need to understand Jewish tradition and context in order to fully understand the Bible then it is hard to take anything else he says seriously. Also, is he implying that the only worthwhile reason to follow Jesus is because he won't go to hell?
This video comes on the heels of Driscoll's recent critique of the growing Emergent Conversation which launched a wink revolution in his honor.
How does progressive Christianity respond to this? Is it hypocritical to point out the potential harm caused by spreading religious bigotry? Is that spreading fear of fear? Or by being silent would we be making the same mistake as progressive Muslims who have allowed fundamentalist bigots to become the face of Islam? I'm struggling with how to respond.
19 comments:
I've not paid much attention to Driscoll, but he is not just a loose cannon, he's on the verge of being dangerous. He's advocating a separationism that can easily lead to hatred of others. If you don't love Jesus you don't know jack about the Bible? Bizarre!
One of his core thoughts at the end was a pretty poor commentary on the value of Christianity. Basically, it was stated that without Hell as a threat, Christianity has no value. Christ's teachings have NO inherent value apart from threat of punishment. He is "on his way to the strip club" if there is no "or else" to Christ's teachings. Whew! And he says that Emergents have a low view of scripture.
SO to Driscoll, Christ's ways are not good... he simply is the most powerful.... doesn't that make Driscoll a sycophant?
YOur question is valid... How do we address this, and not simply be the flipside of his attacks?
Wow. Someone get that man some riddlen!
Gandhi had a great quote about how everyone understands the message of Jesus, except Christians. I find it funny that Driscoll would say only Christians understand the bible, when American Christianity in particular has become increasingly pro-rich, pro-power, and pro-war. I wonder if WE really get the Bible and the radical teachings of Christ. Maybe we should remove the log from our own eyes before we start ragging on "outsiders" of the faith.
Great video! Thank you for making it available. It's message of love for God over love for wordly wisdom is a mesage more people need to hear and live. I'm going to put it on my blog.
Mike - I usually do not comment on blogs, but I can't help myself today. Nowhere in that video does Driscoll say he has an aversion to studying the Old Testament in the context of Israel. What he does point out is that studying the OT in the context of Israel is pointless if Jesus the Messiah is not the starting point. The disconnect here between you and Driscoll is that both of you have a different starting point when it comes to scripture - that's obvious. If you agreed with Driscoll's viewpoint, his conclusion is logical. According to Jesus' words in Luke 24, all of scripture points to Jesus - the Messiah. Jesus' hermeneutic for interpreting and understanding the OT hinges on him and him alone. As I said, it's a logical conclusion for someone who holds Driscoll's view of scripture. And no - he's not implying the only worthwhile reason to follow Jesus is to avoid hell - he says if those things aren't true, it changes things. The way I see it - you're calling Driscoll a bigot because he doesn't line up with what you believe. Just because he believes differently than you doesn't make him a bigot. Again, his viewpoints are a logical conclusion for someone who takes scripture for what it says. I could care less whether you agree with him or not - I do - but, be sure you are not being bigoted in your response to him. Because if you are, there's no really no difference in his response and yours. Furthermore, I have a 2 year old daughter and another one on the way. I can guarantee you I'll be just as passionate about who my daughters marry - and again, that's a logical conclusion for someone who holds to our understanding of scripture. One final thing - for you to compare Driscoll and Muslim fundamentalists as being the same - if that's what you're doing is simply ludicrous. Driscoll is certainly not a progressive Christian in the sense you would define yourself, but he is nowhere near a fundamentalist. That's a discussion for another day, however.
Reggie,
Thanks for your comments. I don't use the word bigot because he has different views. I use that word because he clearly states that he feels a Jewish theologian would somehow NOT understand his own scriptures. That is ridiculous. In addition he implies some horrible things that are the same types of hate and bigotry that have festered for 1500 years between Jews and Muslims. He implies that only Christians can be good husbands. He implies that only Christians would be worthy fathers. That is a deadly position to take. It may seem harmless but that is how large scale bigotry and genocide always start with small issues that grow into violence.
I have no problem with different theological views and respect his views even as I disagree, but to claim that only your views are validated by God or can produce fruitful lives is religious bigotry.
As far as scriptural intepretation goes, the way he tries to re-interpret scripture to fit a reformed theological view is a poor theological technique. The Gospel of John is an intepretation of the earlier texts and you can't switch the order. You can't read the other texts through the lens of John without distorting the earlier texts. You can't start with Jesus and then go back into the OT text and look for ways to bend them to be about Jesus. That is clearly using the text to suit your own purpose. For example you said:
What he does point out is that studying the OT in the context of Israel is pointless if Jesus the Messiah is not the starting point.
That is bigoted because it implies that the OT has NO VALUE to Jews or Muslims or even progressive Christians. You are saying that the Old Testament is pointless to ME! The OT was written well before Jesus and it certainly had value to its authors and the millions of Jews that lived before Jesus. It had value much before Christology was created and much before modern reformed theology was invented.
Either of us may argue that another person's theology is good or bad, but that is much different than writing off the entire Old Testament and its important history to transform lives, build communities, and mediate God for millions of people. I would never say that another person's faith is "pointless" or "meaningless" and it is silly to imply that Jews don't understand the Old Testament.
The whole point of exegesis is to go back and understand text in its original context and NOT IMPOSE OUR OWN VIEWS INTO THE TEXT. Driscoll starts out with a mistake of imposing his view of Jesus then looking for proof texts he can bend to prove his point.
First, let me say quickly that this is my last response on this topic. I hate commenting on blogs because I've found I don't always express what I'm trying to get across appropriately. I tend to think face-to-face is a better venue for these kinds of discussions. Second, it somehow seems inappropriate to link Driscoll's words with genocide. I fail to see the logical jump there. I don't think he's implying at all that a non-Christian can't be a good Father. His issue is not that when talking about his daughters - His issue is that he wants his daughters to end up with husbands that love Jesus and understand God in the same way he does. It seems grossly out of proportion to say his views would end up advocating genocide. Again, I would argue he desires that for his daughters because that is a logical conclusion for someone who understands scripture the way he does. Third, to accuse Driscoll of bad exegesis is unwarranted. Driscoll simply, as I said, starts with Jesus as the fulfillment of all scripture. Jesus is where the OT ends up according to Jesus himself. You may not agree with that hermeneutic, but it's a perfectly logical conclusion for someone who believes the words of Jesus as recorded in scripture really are the words of Jesus. If Jesus says all of the OT points to me, then understanding the OT in any other light leads to faulty interpretation. I would argue the OT had value before Jesus came along, but it's fulfillment is found in Jesus and Jesus alone insomuch as it pointed to the Messiah - Jesus. Any understanding of scripture apart from Jesus at the center is faulty and less than complete - and I believe that not because I made it up or John Calvin made it up or Mark Driscoll made it up - but because Jesus said it. The crux of the matter here is what you do with Jesus' words about scripture in Luke 24 and John 5 and other places like that. The reality of the matter is that you or I will never agree on this matter because our understandings of scripture are completely different - and I believe that's the key issue here. If you believed about scripture the way Driscoll does, then you would not think his words are bigoted.
Reggie,
Maybe one day we can get together and discuss in person. I'd enjoy that.
The reason I link this type of religious bigotry to genocide is that they often have the same roots. Religious bigotry is a part of the problem in the middle east right now. The root here is the idea that God has revealed true truth to "me" but everyone else has false truth. Mark may have been joking about using a knife on a non-christian son-in-law, but he is joking around with the same type of logic used by Islamic Terrorists and Jewish Zionists to create clear lines of division and distrust between religions and even sects of the same religion. Mark's sermon (and other's like it) creates more distrust.
I hope you will also realize that my original post was a question of how to respond. I'm still not sure. I am torn and I don't want to continue the division, but I also don't want to stand by and watch Christianity become synonymous with division and exclusivity. Hopefully, followers of Driscoll like yourself, can provide help in how to respond by clarifying.
Ok - I said my last comment would be my last. I guess I'm a liar (and I am) - because I can't let this pass. Although the church I am a part of is an Acts 29 church and although I think Mark's understanding of scripture is correct, I am not now nor will I ever be a follower of Mark Driscoll. At the risk of sounding self-righteous which is definitely not my intent, I am a follower of Jesus Christ alone. I agree with Mark so much so that I made the decision (with others) for our church to align with Acts 29 because we align perfectly in both our theology and methodology. However, please don't confuse me as being a disciple of a mere man. The only person I desire to be a disciple of is Jesus Christ - and I think that's a desire we both share on some level.
Reggie,
I certainly don't mean to say you are a follower of Driscoll over Jesus. That was not intended in a negative way. I meant "follower" in the sense of being in agreement with his theology. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I apologize.
Hey, are you Reggie from the Well in Augusta? If so we CAN do this in person!
In the recent lecture regarding emergent theology and reformed doctrine at the Convergent conference, Driscoll reminded the listeners that it's not an issue of "good guys and bad guys," but rather "bad guys and Jesus;" meaning, despite our theological differences, we are all "bad." Only God is good. Only Jesus is Truth.
Secondly, I recommend that you listen to the Q & A session. Within the first few minutes, Mark responds with great humility and love.
Thirdly, I'm saddened that you do not model the grace you seek to be given by other believers; rather you seem to blatantly attack- this is divisive and does not build up the kingdom.
Fourthly, I much prefer in person over writing, so see you next week, right?
Jeremy,
I hope in person I'll be able to articulate the difference I see between a theological disagreement and statements like "Only Jesus is Truth".
It is one thing to say I think my interpretation is right and your is wrong, but to make a statement that clearly implies that no one outside your own narrow definition of faith can speak truth is bigotry. Do you at least see the difference and understand that is what people here in Driscoll's sermon and in your statement above?
Does Amos, Jeremiah, or Isaiah speak Truth? How about anything the Buddha said? When a Rabbi said "do unto others as you would have done unto you" 200 years before Jesus, was it a FALSE statement until Jesus said it?
I'm not pronouncing somekind of sentance on Driscoll. I'm just posting my initial reaction and asking for help to know how to deal with this stuff in our society. How can we critique and let people like yourself understand how offensive it is without bashing him. I'm looking for help.
Mike, I'm afraid I have to call you out on this one as well... You say "I'm not pronouncing somekind of sentance on Driscoll" but you ARE! The word 'bigotry' is EXTREMELY pejorative!!!
You know I whole-heartedly disagree with almost everything about Driscoll's theology, but his only point is that (conservative) Christians should be taught about Christianity and the Bible by Christians. Is that really so far out?
Is it really so far out to think that if Jesus is central to everything, letting your daughter marry a non-Christian is like signing her death sentence? I totally understand where he's coming from on this one.
If this is what bigotry looks like to you, then I think you need new glasses.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Daniel,
Thanks for the comments. I'm not opposed to a little critique. I accept that using the word "bigotry" is provocative and I could very well be falling into the same trap as Driscoll. That is why I included the last paragraph in my origianl post. I'm looking for input and discussion about how to react. I recognize I'm in danger here of spreading more division.
How does progressive Christianity respond to this? Is it hypocritical to point out the potential harm caused by spreading religious bigotry? Is that spreading fear of fear? Or by being silent would we be making the same mistake as progressive Muslims who have allowed fundamentalist bigots to become the face of Islam? I'm struggling with how to respond.
I think you have to admit that what many fundamentalists like Driscoll do is potentially harmful. It isn't a stretch to hear the undercurrents of supperiourity and exclusion in his speech. I've seen that same type of language used and I've seen the reactions which have in my experience lead to exclusion and eventually alienation, fear, and hate. This is the same seed of exclusion that was at the core of Jerry Falwell's ideology. Do we sit back and wait for the fear to turn to hate or do we use provocative prophetic critique of our leaders when they start leaning toward exclusion and the spreading of unwarranted fear?
Mike - this is Reggie from the Well in Augusta. I'll be happy to catch up face-to-face sometime. Next week would be better for me. You can find my email address at our website.
Wow. What a meathead. I love people that view Jesus the same as a football team. Go team Jesus!
More:
http://eugenecho.wordpress.com:80/2007/11/29/drama-at-mars-hill
also:
http://seattle.metblogs.com/archives/2007/12/mars_hill_more.phtml
+
I THINK DRISCOLL IS THE WORST THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO EMERGING CHRISTIANITY. HE IS A RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN NUTJOB. THE 2ND WORST IS THE REDNECK PERRY NOBLE
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment