Making the Bible an Idol

I really appreciate and share John Piper's love of the Bible and I think that underneath his narrow polarizing language there is a valid criticism of "trendy faith". His ability to inspire emotion is amazing and takes me back to my early childhood experiences of faith. However, I wonder if Piper is suggesting that we become blind to the Christ that lives in the world today in many people, places and things. Do you think he is so caught up in the particular stories that opened his own eyes to the love of Christ, that he now discounts the many ways other people find Christ?



It seems to me that sharing culturally relevant stories that communicate the central meanings about God’s love and community is not only ok, it is an act of being true to Jesus by imitating his own love of symbolic parables. Why must we favor our own stories and myths over the universal meanings hidden within them?

"The best way to waste your pulpit is to preach your own thoughts, instead of preaching God's thoughts" - John Piper

Isn't this another way for a preacher to say...

"Don't think, just check your brains at the church door. Of course, I can think because my thoughts are really God's thoughts."

If Piper really believed what he said, then why does he preach? Wouldn't he just read scripture from the pulpit? What is he really suggesting here?

The Bible is a lens to understand how particular people experienced God. We can learn so much for its texts, but when we make it an idol, it feels like we lose sight of the living Christ that is at work in the world. Christ is present. I’m in complete support of Piper’s devotion to Christ, but we shouldn't have to limit Christ to the works and experiences of the past.

Does Jesus Kick Ass?

I'm still plodding through John Stott’s “The Cross of Christ”. I didn’t think it would be easy but I didn’t want this to be a lesson in futility. I decided to do a little supplemental reading to get a more colorful approach to the same perspective. I turned to the more culturally relevant style of Mark Driscoll. Mark shares Stott’s view but he is always good for an entertaining presentation and he shows us what it might look like to live out this barbaric view of God. “The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World” is a collaboration of several fundamentalist authors dedicated to John Stott. You can read more of it online. In the section written by Driscoll, he contrasts his reformed view of Jesus that focuses heavily on the exaltation (divinity) of Jesus with the emergent view that focuses more heavily on the incarnation (humanity) of Jesus. He suggests a balance, but he feels the only valid reason for choosing Christ as Lord is Jesus' divinity. He also goes further to diminish our attempts to admire the beauty of Jesus’ humanity.

“Without a robust recognition of the corresponding deity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus has the propensity to leave us with a marred false image of Jesus – little more than a limp-wristed, marginalized, hippie-esque, unemployed Galilean pacifist in a dress with feathered hair and open-toed sandals – a guy that the average man would be remiss to worship because he could beat up that Jesus.“
...
“Perhaps my favorite picture (and that of my young sons) of the glorious exaltation of our great God Jesus Christ is what we like to refer to as Ultimate Fighter Jesus. In Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus rides into town on a white horse, with his steely eyes blazing red like fire and a tattoo down his leg that says “King of kings and Lord of lords.” He is wearing white like a gunslinger from an old western and carrying a sword, looking for some bad guys as the blood of a ready-fallen enemies drips to the ground below. Simply, Jesus was, is, and forever will be fully God; he is not someone anyone would want to mess with.” - Mark Driscoll “The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World”

The historical Jesus was not potent enough to suit some Christians so they invented their own version of Jesus. The biblical stories of divinity contain provocative literary imagery. This imagery was used to speak about the importance of Jesus through the culture of Greek and Roman theology (divine beings visiting and interacting with people on Earth). I agree with these ancient myth makers that Jesus is important, he causes the blind to see (reveals wisdom), he heals the sick (restores outcasts to community), and he is the son of God (he was expected to be the replacement for Caesar and king of the Jews). But, I don’t feel that being Christian has anything to do with confusing those symbolic stories with historic past or future events. The imagery of Jesus' violent return to earth was a result of revenge minded violent zealots. These zealots were clearly part of Jesus' following, but as far as I'm concerned, they were not speaking for Jesus. Unfortunately, this view of Jesus has become the dominant view among modern Evangelical Christians. I feel it was inevitable given the acceptance of violent atonement theology by people like John Stott.

Christian Re-Education

This clip of Anne Coulter proves what Marcus Borg has frequently said, "The most important need for Christianity today is the re-education of adult Christians." The worst thing about Anne's hate speach is that she insists she really believes it. This type of theology gives Christianity a bad name. I guess if she were a man she could speak at Mark Driscoll's church.

Shame on me

In my last post, I implied that Mark Driscoll might be saying things that make him sound like a religious bigot. Actually, I must confess that I did more than imply that idea. I appreciate the many positive AND critical responses. I take to heart the fact that pointing out bigotry in others with provocative language may not be expressing the type of loving kindness I've written about on this site. Please note that I did express apprehension and uncertainty in my original post but I obviously didn’t make my concerns clear enough.

I’m sure progressive Muslims struggle with the same problem of discerning when to speak out against fundamentalism and when to stand by and watch it erode the reputation of your own faith tradition. Do we wait for religious exclusivists to become violent as they did in the crusades or Nazi Germany? You could argue that it is already happening today in our American Government. It isn't just the violence that is harmful. The shame and humiliation inflicted on Christianity by fundamentalism is harmful for all of us that value the good name of Jesus. I’m still considering how to respond to the people I’ve met who espouse that rhetoric.

However, I’m not willing to accept the idea that what I did was bash Driscoll for his theological differences to mine. I never said “hey, this guy is a bigot because his theology is not as good as mine”. I may disagree with his theology but that is not why I suggested his language may be a form of bigotry. He seemed to be rebuking the practice of religious tolerance and his specific language spreads the ideals of religious separatism. Maybe in my original post I should have used the term “seeds of bigotry” and I probably should have explained the specific details I was addressing rather than leaving the door open for others to connect my theological disagreements with the charges of bigotry.

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.

Mark Driscoll This Wink Is For You

This is a south park wink (background) in honor of the rants of Mark Driscoll who claims McLaren, Pagitt, and Rob Bell are now all heretics.

See more winks here and here.