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.