Read this discussion on Mary Ann's xanga.  I am VERY fascinated at the completely different paradigms that Mary Ann, Sam and Pam have versus Yee and Alex.  That discussion is yet another example of the differences between these two groups of people.  Of course Yee and Alex don't agree on everything and Mary Ann, Sam and Pam do not agree on everything, but it seems like there are two distinctly different worldviews or schools of thought here.  Of course by writing this, I am generalizing and will probably receive flak for that, but this is what I see. :p

I relate to both schools of thought in that Yee and Alex are male and have been good male examples for me.  I relate to Sam, Pam and Mary Ann with regards to the passion that they have for life.  I am closer to Sam and Mary Ann as friends and maybe theologically but sorry, I don't really align myself with either group. 

I've always aligned myself with the Josh Chien school of thought, but maybe that's not a school of thought.  :p jk

On the particular issue of vocation, I think this is one element that we as followers of Jesus are still in the process of negotiating.  There seems to be a dualism where there is the spiritual life, and then there is a work life.  There's a problem with that when the life is supposed to be holistic.  Most people don't find much satisfaction from work.  Most people are not effective witnesses at work.  There is a sense of security that is placed in a professional vocation like engineering or medicine that replaces God.  Then there are the pastors and missionaries where most people feel like they aren't actually contributing to society.  They don't have to face the pressures of working for a boss everyday.  Some pastors don't know any non-Christians personally.   

Reasons why I like Mark Driscoll (Also probably related to why he's complementarian):

In Seattle, the young men are, generally, pathetic. They are unlikely to go to church, get married, have children, or do much of anything else that smacks of being responsible. But they are known to be highly skilled at smoking pot, masturbating, playing video games, playing air guitar, free-loading, and having sex with their significant others. However, the emerging-church massage-parlor antics of labyrinth-walking by candlelight will do little more than increase the pool of extras for television’s Will and Grace. If there is any hope for a kingdom culture to be built in Seattle, getting the young men to undergo a complete cranial-rectal extraction is priority number one.

Mark Driscoll, Radical Reformission, p. 184

And:

The problem in the church today is just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickafied church boys. 60% of Christians are chicks and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of…chicks. It’s just sad.

We’re looking around going, How come we’re not innovative? Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football or they’re out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck. They look at the church like that’s a nice thing for women and children. So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing.

Mark Driscoll, speaking at the 2006 National Desiring God Conference

Mark Driscoll again

The first post I wrote about Mark Driscoll was in January and I expressed my mixed feelings about the guy.

I read an interview with him on some guys blog and I have been listening to some of his sermons from iTunes. 

Emerging Church

In the interview he talks about the emerging church and how he believes there are 3 strains of the emerging church.

1. Relevants

2. Reconstructionists

3. Revisionists

He actually has 4 strains.  He has a "Reformed Relevants" strain, but I think its basically the same as "Relevants" so I lumped them together.  Revisionists are people like Brian McLaren, where their theology has basically been compromised. 

He says that "Relevants" are theologically conservative, and "innovative" in terms of church forms.  "Reconstructionists" are theologically conservative, but seek to revise church forms.  In otherwords people throwing out sunday sermons, buildings, and meeting in house churches are "Reconstructionists."  But people like him and Erwin McManus and I would also add Flood and Epicentre are "Relevants."  He says he has some concerns about Reconstructionists. I wonder what those concerns are.  He probably still really loves sermons and thinks that God's word cannot be communicated effectively without them?  I don't know.  I'm just speculating.  But I'd be interested to know what his concerns are. 

I relate to this guy

Driscoll is pretty firey and on his blog he's made some firey statements about like pastor's wives and Brian McLaren that he had to apologize for.  I respect him for apologizing, but I also really relate to him in the fact that he gets passionate and loves to use a firey tone, which may be to his detriment.  I also relate to him in that he was a speech major and he seems to really enjoy speaking :p.

Still Concerned about his complementarian stance

Last time I posted, I said that I thought he was reductionistic and disliked how he speaks as if he's an expert, when he really isn't.  Well I listened to his debate on women in ministry with Dr. Robert Wall from SPU.  Actually it wasn't the entire debate.  It was just his own side of the argument.  You can find it on the Mars Hill Church website.  Just go to media, and search for "SPU debate."  First of all, Driscoll, who doesn't have a masters degree is debating with Dr. Robert Wall, a professor who has a Th.D and a Th.M.  Not that it makes his argument invalid, but if I were Driscoll, I wouldn't debate with a guy in front of a huge audience who is much more educated than I am on the issue. 

All of those qualifications wouldn't make a difference if his argument is top quality.  Unfortunately, his argument from 1 Timothy 2 is like he was preaching the passage rather than debating it.  He never qualifies any of his assertions.  He basically makes the distinction that women can teach and have authority, they just can't teach and have authority from an elder position.  That's such a fine line and a fine distinction and I really don't think he supports that assertion very well from 1 Timothy.  I can't even tell you more of his argument or what he said, because that's all he basically said.  His debate was more of "stating his opinion" rather than giving arguments supporting his opinion.  That's fine for a sunday sermon, but in a debate?  Just reinforces my perception that the guy just reads Grudem and Piper (he says these are two guys he really admires) and just regurgitates it without really understanding any of the underlying issues. 

So again, mixed feelings

The guy is definitely interesting.  I still don't know what to think of him.  I really like some of his ideas, kinda concerned about the lack of thought in other areas.