Categories: uncategorized
Date: 14 January 2012 13:06:09
Whilst Third Party was wandering around the Twittersphere the other night it became apparent that something was afoot regarding Mark Driscoll opening his mouth and making some kind of pronouncement about preachers in the UK. This was what all the (T)wittering was about; a blog post entitled "A Blog Post for the Brits". It is a pretty standard Conservative evangelical post by an American about the UK - on one level - which made me wonder what all the fuss is about on one level. But on another I understand the fuss, this is all related to the ongoing struggle for the heart of UK evangelicalism - a battle from the intensity of this post I think the progressives are winning. Mark Driscoll is a darling of the UK conservative evangelicals, having spoken at the national New Frontiers conference a couple of years ago, amongst other things. I think we need to seriously take note of what he is saying on this basis. There is also the fact, if you take out alot of the unpleasant stuff alongside it, there is some wisdom in aspects of what he is saying.
So what did he say and what is my own response. Well, it all follows on from a report in a magazine - not sure which one - with what he would describe as a very liberal interviewer, (um.....who did not sound that liberal in the scheme of things - rather like most progressive evo's in this country who have the doctrinal views which allow women to be preachers in a non-complimentary way-i.e. without their husband being their boss and have questioned the doctrine of penal substitution).
His first point is the UK is different from the USA and a much more secular country. Um, well, yes....obviously. No disagreement there.
His second point relates to the need to proclaim the gospel and not be worried about legal challenges as a result. Now as the statement stands I agree with him...although I suspect the version of the gospel he is talking about is one which is homophobic, Islamophobic and not actually the gospel as it stands in the bible...i.e. the good news in the form of Jesus who came for everybody and had more problems with those who took the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. However, for the moment I will not say that interpretation is definately the one he would give and so I also agree with what he says in this point...as it is written.
His third point is more complicated. It begins by not compromising on key doctrinal issues..this is something I would agree with to some extent, although I think sometimes we need to understand that within the church their are differences of opinion on those issues and be ready to respect (and so possibly compromise our position) on some of them...whilst keeping within the bounds of accepted Christian thought. He says that people in the UK should not back down from preaching the bible which can be summed up as inerrant and literal. Here I am hesitant. I believe the bible is the word of God, inspired by God but I also believe that God calls us to approach it using tradition, reason and experience aswell as praying for the Spirit's gift of wisdom. Within this point he puts forward a Calvinist description of penal substitution which I cannot agree with. I believe that God, in the form of Jesus chose to go to the cross as a result of his love not because of his wrath. We do need his salvation and to be saved from seperation from God...and this is why God sent Jesus, IMHO, on a rescue mission which was related to love not wrath as I say. In terms of repentance I do agree we need to preach it...we can see the impact of wrong decisions and an unwillingness to change how we do stuff in our world and own lives. However, for me repentance needs to relate to asking God for the strength and wisdom to get more in line with his will on everything because we are sorry about how we are messing up our lives, the lives of others and the world we live in....not because God is a bully who will punish us otherwise. In terms of hell, I think something exists - which may be an eternal feeling of emptiness - but I don't think that it can be a threat used to scare people into believing.
Point four about reaching out to older generations so our churches don't become museums I 100% agree with and think it needs to be preached out loud...but not at the expense of also shouting out we need to show greater respect for and work out how to support more our older generations who have given many years faithful service.
Point five I agree with. We do need to see if more young men can be raised up for ministry and because of the way that more women are now offering than men in some denominations and that the church is disproportionately female I think that we do need to put an emphasis on finding men. However, I think that there is most definately a place for women in all roles of ministry and at all levels too. So we need to be on the look out for young people of both genders to mentor and nurture and raise up....but particularly men for the reasons indicated earlier, rather than the ones that Driscoll would give which are based - I believe - on a certain, selective reading of scripture and patriarchal perspective. If we can't get enough good preachers coming through we do have a crisis.
Point six which I have sort of covered in the above...we do need more good evangelists to be raised up to preach at major conferences and we do need to move away from our reliance on foreign pastors, particularly US based. So I agree with Driscoll on that point too - that is why I am glad to see people like Rev. Jo Cox coming through, who preached at 3 Generate, the Methodist Youth Conference this year. Not sure she is a new Spurgeon, but she is a very good and dynamic communicator - something Third Party who was at that conference agreed with very strongly.
In terms of the comments about the interviewer it is clear Driscoll is on the defensive and is getting personal. I will therefore not seek to get involved in that discussion...except to say I think that it is clear evidence that the Conservative element of evangelicalism is stepping up the fight because they know that the British form of progressive evangelicalism which does not have the same biases against women and is based more on God's love than His wrath is in the asendancy.