Castle Church Discussion on Mark Driscoll's Church Planting Video

Piper on Pragmatism, Pleasure, and Pride

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:35:35 GMT

John Piper warns against three P's: "The idolatry of pragmatism that ruins the church; the pleasure in unrighteousness that refuses to love the truth; and the pride of being strong that leads to destruction."

With regard to pride in particular, Piper writes:

1) Never let me be above criticism and correction. I invite you to give me constructive criticism whenever you see some attitude or words or actions that dishonor the Lord. 2) Stay close to the cross and never cease to be amazed and thankful that you are saved. People who are perpetually and thankfully amazed that God has saved them are not likely to be destroyed by pride.

DG Conference Videos

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:30 GMT

The guys at Desiring God have now posted all the videos (for free, of course) from the past two conferences.

A God-Entranced Vision of All Things looks at Jonathan Edwards life and theology, with addresses by John Piper, J. I. Packer, Iain Murray, Sam Storms, and Don Whitney. (It is available as a book, too.)

The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World features John Piper, David Wells, Tim Keller, D. A. Carson, Voddie Baucham Jr., and Mark Driscoll--along with speaker interviews. (The book will be published in November.)

Carson, Henry, and Kantzer: Historic Video

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:26 GMT

D. A. Carson, in Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians (p. 58), writes:

Several years ago I was asked to interview Dr. Carl F. H. Henry and Dr. Kenneth S. Kantzer for a videotaping. These two American theologians have been at the heart of much of the evangelical renaissance in the Western world, especially, but not exclusively, in America. Each was about eighty years of age at the time of the videotaping. One [i.e., Henry] has written many books; the other [i.e,. Kantzer] brought to birth and nurtured one of the most influential seminaries in the Western world. They both have been connected with Billy Graham, the Lausanne movement, the assorted congresses on evangelism, the influential magazine Christianity Today, and much more. The influence of these Christian leaders extends to the countless numbers of younger pastors and scholars whom they have helped to shape not only by their publications and public teaching but by the personal encouragement at which both have excelled. Both men gave lectures for the video cameras before several hundred theological students, and then I interviewed them. Toward the end of that discussion, I asked them a question more or less in these terms: “You two men have been extraordinarily influential for almost half a century. Without wanting to indulge in cheap flattery, I must say that what is attractive about your ministries is that you have retained integrity. Both of you are strong, yet neither of you is egotistical. You have not succumbed to eccentricity in doctrine, nor to individualistic empire-building. In God’s good grace, what has been instrumental in preserving you in these areas?”

Both spluttered in deep embarrassment. And then one of them [i.e., Henry] ventured, with a kind of gentle outrage, “How on earth can anyone be arrogant when standing beside the cross?”

That was a great moment, not least because it was so spontaneous. These men had retained their integrity precisely because they knew their attitude should be the same as that of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:5). They knew that they had been called not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him. If their Master had viewed equality with God not as something to be exploited for personal advantage but as the basis for the humiliating path to the cross, how could they view influential posts of Christian leadership as something they should exploit for personal advantage?

Ever since first reading this I've wanted to watch this historic video. Now, thanks to The Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding, this four-part, 120-minute video is available online for free.

You can also listen to more audio messages at the site, and more will be forthcoming.

(HT: Andy Naselli)

Storms on Dever

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:28:23 GMT

Sam Storms:

If you haven't yet read Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (B & H Academic), you are missing out on what is, in my opinion, the finest and most persuasive case for credo-baptism yet written. One need not agree with every point of interpretation in this book to recognize the remarkable accomplishment of these authors (contributing to the book, in addition to the editors, are Andreas Kostenberger, Robert Stein, Stephen Wellum [his chapter on "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants" is alone worth the price of the book], Steven McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever).

I mention this book not only to encourage you to read it but also because of the excellent chapter by Mark Dever concerning how baptism is practiced in the context of the local church. One thing you can be assured of, Mark is never boring! His insights are penetrating and, most of the time, persuasive. When one hears that we evangelicals lack a credible ecclesiology, I immediately point to Mark Dever and his voluminous writings on the subject. No one is more serious about the centrality of the local church in God's kingdom purposes than is Mark. I highly recommend all his books on the subject. No, you won't agree with him on every point, but you will be challenged, instructed, and encouraged in a way that I find rare in the evangelical world today.Sam goes on to repost his disagreements about Dever's point that paedobaptists occasionally may partake of the Lord's Supper at a Baptist Church. But I draw your attention again to Sam's commendation of Mark's writing on ecclesiology:

Even though I end up differing with Mark on this point, I have probably learned more from him on the nature of local church life than any other author. And I look forward to learning even more as this dialogue continues.

I agree with Sam's comments here, especially regarding the book on Believer's Baptism. I'll have more to say about Wellum's chapter by the end of the week (Lord willing).

Dialogue with CT's Ted Olsen Regarding the Two Kingdoms

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:47:34 GMT

Ted Olsen wrote to ask about my response to his initial post (confusing enough yet?) on "Jack Bauer and the Kingdom of God." This led to a helpful exchange which he has posted on the CT Liveblog site and which I'm also posting here.

---

Ted Olsen

There has been some online discussion of my earlier blog post on plans to rescue the South Korean Christian aid workers being held hostage by the Taliban. I was particularly troubled by word that the Afghan government wanted to seize the families of Taliban members holding the hostages "as a way of applying pressure." Read that blog post, then read a conversation I've been having with R. Scott Clark, associate pastor of Oceanside United Reformed Church and associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California. He'll be posting the exchange on his site, The Heidelblog, too.

[Ted quotes my original post which is linked above, so I omit it here]

Ted's First Response

Thanks for your comments about my blog post. I think you'll be interested in an earlier article I wrote that makes some similar points that you're making.

But what I find interesting is that you missed the point that I was talking about the church rather than the government. The hostages are Christian aid workers. Should we automatically assume that it is the duty of the government to save Christian aid workers and missionaries when they fall into persecution? If we go into dangerous places to fulfill our Great Commission mandate, should we look to Caesar when Jesus' promise of persecution is fulfilled?
I do think that it is the church should proclaim justice to the civil magistrate, and that Christians should speak against the government taking innocent people hostage, just as I believe that Christians should speak against the government enabling the killing of the innocent unborn. I also think that the church, and Christians in democratic societies, should speak on behalf of their persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. But I think our witness is damaged when the government takes innocent people hostage in an effort to rescue us from kidnappers.

Do you disagree?

Clark responds:

Hi Ted,

Since you wrote, I've re-read the post a few times to make sure I didn't miss something. I understood that you were talking about "the church" (more on that in a second) but that's why I was criticizing your post. I should have been clearer. I was writing too fast when I should have been working toward meeting a deadline.

Two things. When I say "church" I mean the visible, institutional church. Where you say "church," I would say "Christians." I understand the Kingdom to be the visible church and I understand it's ministry to be wholly spiritual, i.e., to be concerned with Word and sacrament.

Christians can speak to all sorts of things, but not in the name of the church, per se.

I wasn't commenting on what the governments in the US, Korea, or Afghanistan should or shouldn't do.
I agree with you that Christians shouldn't have put the respective governments in such a position, but I wouldn't tell them what to do once they face the crisis.

I'm an amillennialist so I agree with you that Christians ought to expect persecution -- though they shouldn't go out of their way to solicit it.

So, when you say the "church" should proclaim justice to the magistrate, I think I must disagree if the word "church" means, "institutional entity established by Christ."

If by "church" you mean "Christians functioning as citizens" then yes, I think Christians, operating on the basis of natural, creational, common law have a right and duty to call the state to fulfill it's creational function including the various causes you mention. I don't think, however, that our faith gives us special insight as to what governments ought to do or any special status. I'm sure you agree with the latter, but I'm not sure about the former.

Thanks for writing.

Ted's Second Response

Scott,

thanks again for taking time. And yes, as an editor, I very much appreciate that you met your deadline instead of taking more time answering e-mail!

Can I ask two clarifying questions (and these are honest questions about your views; I'm unclear on whether we actually disagree)?

1. Does the magistrate's duty to bear the sword include the ability to take innocent people hostage in order to influence and punish the guilty family members?

It seems to me that even in very strong "two kingdoms" views, the duty to bear the sword is rather limited. The Augsburg Confession, for example, repeatedly uses important adjectives: "lawful civil ordinances are good works of God ... to award just punishments, to engage in just wars." I do not deny that it's the duty of a government to rescue those in mortal peril, to use force in doing so, or to punish kidnappers and murderers. But I do believe that the means by which and the extent to which the government bears the sword matters (jus in bello). As Augustine wrote, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

2. Does it matter that the Koreans were sent by a church?

Saemmul Presbyterian Church, to be specific. I wholeheartedly agree that there is entirely too much confusion between the visible, institutional church and the invisible church (Christians). And in this case, it seems to me, the difference matters quite a bit. The church sent these aid workers into a dangerous situation, knowing they were likely to persecuted. That does not mean that the church should not ask the government to intervene against persecution. (Indeed, Paul appealed to Caesar when he faced persecution; yet he did so in service to the gospel rather than merely to spare his life.) But I'm uncomfortable -- horrified, even -- with the government seeking to kidnap innocent Afghans in order secure the release of Christian workers sent by a church. And I think that, given the church's involvement, it does not violate covenant theology for both Christians AND the church to say, "It is unjust to kidnap innocents so that church workers may go free. Please do not do this on our behalf." That, to me, would certainly be part of the church's proclamation ministry.

Again, thanks for this conversation. It's good to think deeper about these things.

Clark responds:

Hi, Ted,

These are important questions. I'll interact below. (Ted's questions/comments are indented)

1. Does the magistrate's duty to bear the sword include the ability to take innocent people hostage in order to influence and punish the guilty family members?

I agree that the magistrate is responsible to the moral law, but I also think that it's long been recognized that under war, governments have liberty to do things that they would not ordinarily do. We have practiced carpet bombing killing large numbers of civilians that we would not otherwise have done. We're certainly at war with the Taliban and if their taking hostages is an act of war then perhaps taking their families hostages is also an act of war?

That said, I'm not saying what the governments should do except to say that they should act according to the second table of the moral law as it applies to war.

My query is how Scripture applies to this whole question. Your original post seemed to assume that there's a biblical or Christian response to this problem and I don't see it. Isn't that the force of your invocation of Paul, of asking what Paul would say (either to the Korean congregation who sent the missionaries or to the governments involved)?
That was the assumption I wanted to query. I don't know that we can deduce any sort of social policy from Scripture beyond whatever it tells us about the natural, creational law. Certainly there wouldn't be a "Christian" position on rescuing the hostages. There might be a wiser position or perhaps a position that accords with the natural law more than others. E.g., it might be more just not to take hostage the family of Taliban members.

It seems to me that even in very strong "two kingdoms" views, the duty to bear the sword is rather limited. The Augsburg Confession, for example, repeatedly uses important adjectives: "lawful civil ordinances are good works of God ... to award just punishments, to engage in just wars."

Of course, this is part of what is in dispute here, whether the war in Afghanistan is just and whether in the face of the patently unlawful acts by the Taliban a government is entitled to retaliate.

I do not deny that it's the duty of a government to rescue those in mortal peril, to use force in doing so, or to punish kidnappers and murderers. But I do believe that the means by which and the extent to which the government bears the sword matters (jus in bello). As Augustine wrote, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

I know it's heresy to disagree with Augustine on the just war, and I agree with Augustine's general theory that there are such things as just wars, I think Augustine (inasmuch as he assumed Christendom) was still confusing the two kingdoms and the covenants of works and grace.

The magistrate only works for the law. He doesn't work for the gospel at all. Here I dissent from much of contemporary evangelicalism when it continues to assume a sort of Christendom and continues to confuse the two kingdoms. The magistrate, as he wages war, should act justly and bring justice--as much as possible in this life--but not in the interests of grace; except as bringing justice and thus peace will facilitate the interests of the church.

2. Does it matter that the Koreans were sent by a church? Saemmul Presbyterian Church, to be specific. I wholeheartedly agree that there is entirely too much confusion between the visible, institutional church and the invisible church (Christians). And in this case, it seems to me, the difference matters quite a bit. The church sent these aid workers into a dangerous situation, knowing they were likely to persecuted.

Thanks for this clarification. I do remember reading and hearing this. We have prayed for the safe deliverance of the hostages.

The church probably erred in sending the missionaries to Afghanistan. I think we agree that, if they chose to do this, they should accept the consequences. Certainly this denomination should not ask the government to act one way or the other.
Individuals are free to speak to the government about policy and to encourage this or that course, but the church as church should remain silent on penultimate matters. The church as church may speak to ultimate matters (life, death, truth, salvation etc) and it's true that some policy questions verge on ultimate questions, but churches should exercise extreme caution.

That does not mean that the church should not ask the government to intervene against persecution. (Indeed, Paul appealed to Caesar when he faced persecution; yet he did so in service to the gospel rather than merely to spare his life.)

Here we disagree. Paul invoked his rights as a citizen. He didn't put his appeal to the magistrate on the basis of the gospel. He didn't say to the magistrate, "Listen, I'm an apostle of Christ therefore you ought to...." He invoked the same legal rights that any citizen had. Yes, it was to the advan tage of the gospel, but the appeal was made on the basis of common or natural law not special revelation or grace.

But I'm uncomfortable -- horrified, even -- with the government seeking to kidnap innocent Afghans in order secure the release of Christian workers sent by a church.

Personally, so am I, but my discomfort lies in my understanding of natural law, not special revelation. I might be wrong in my understanding of NL. Perhaps there's a common/natural way of justifying taking Taliban families as hostage? After all, haven't the Taliban and other Jihadists utterly blurred the line between combatants and non-combatants? They can't have it both ways.

And I think that, given the church's involvement, it does not violate covenant theology for both Christians AND the church to say, "It is unjust to kidnap innocents so that church workers may go free. Please do not do this on our behalf." That, to me, would certainly be part of the church's proclamation ministry.

Well, I'm not sure how this relates to covenant theology, but it would violate the spirituality of the church for the visible, institutional church, to speak to penultimate public policy matters. The only commission the church has is to preach the law and the gospel, administer the sacraments, and church discipline. Anything the church does outside of those three things is problematic.

Scott

Jack Bauer Doesn't Work for the Kingdom of God

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:32:41 GMT

In a piece that appears on Christianity Today online Ted Olson argues that a plan, which was cancelled, to free the Korean hostages in Afghanistan by taking hostage the families of the kidnappers is a bad idea because the Apostle Paul wouldn't have done it. His closing line:

It's hard to imagine Paul writing to the Corinthians, "When persecuted, we persecute; when kidnapped, we kidnap..."

Oh my.

Would the Apostle Paul have cut off anyone's head? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that he thought that the civil magistrate shouldn't do so. In fact, the Apostle taught that the civil magistrate had a duty to bear the sword (Rom 13:4).

The real point here is this: the church is the kingdom of God, the locus of the administration of the covenant of grace. The civil magistrate is not the church, it is not an administration of the covenant of grace. The civil magistracy is an administration of law, of the covenant of works, of the principle "do this and live."

This editorial reminds me that much of the evangelical left (e.g., Sojourners) and right (i.e., the "take back America" crowd) do not understand the difference between law and gospel and they are confused about its corollary, the difference between the covenants of works and grace.

We don't need grace from the magistrate. That's not his job. We need him to conduct wars and prosecute justice. If one wants grace: go to church, that's why Christ instituted it as a distinct kingdom.

This editorial seems to assume that there's a Pauline way to rescue hostages. If so is there a Pauline monetary policy? What would Paul write to the Corinthians about the the sub-prime crisis? Should the Fed lower interest rates or should he stand pat because God is opposed to inflation?

I'm not saying what the Koreans (or Americans or Afghanis) should do about the hostages. That's not my place. I'm a minister of the Word, but so far as a I know, the Apostle Paul didn't articulate a social policy. Maybe that was intentional? Maybe he didn't make assumptions that Olsen seems to make and he did make assumptions that Olsen seems to neglect.

Lauterbach’s Gospel Driven Life blog

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:06:56 GMT

Mark Lauterbach is a pastor and author of Gospel Driven Life, the best Cross centered blog on the Internet. In our search for the very best Cross-centered resources we consider this blog essential reading and proudly stamp it “TSS Certified Cross-Centered.”

Just recently Lauterbach wrote: “I have wondered for a couple of years where the Gospel intersects modern American life — and I think it is here. The Gospel calls us to stop trying to improve ourselves.” Read more.

A full list of “TSS Certified Cross-Centered” blogs, books, music, movies and other resources is in the works. Stay tuned …

Malawi Wow!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:05:14 GMT

Earlier this summer I posted a note about the trip several Westminster Seminary California students were taking to Malawi.

They're back and Mark VanderPol has posted a site with dozens of gorgeous and amazing photos with some brief descriptions. The thumbnail I used for this post does not do these pictures justice.

One of our students Fletcher Matandika founded an organization in Malawi several years ago to feed children and teach the Bible to them. The students worked with Fletcher's organization and they also taught seminary classes -- maybe now they'll have a little more sympathy for their old seminary profs?

I'll try to get more information to you about Fletcher's work.

Whence All the Calvinists?

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:05:10 GMT

Mark Dever writes a good and edifying blog at 9 Marks. Recently Mark has been doing a series, "">Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?"

When Mark uses the word "Calvinist" he's using it broadly to mean "predestinarian." Many of the folks and influences he describes are confessional Reformed folk, but not all. My impression is that this is the way the word is used used with SBC (Southern Baptist) circles where the growing interest in the doctrine of predestination is a matter of genuine concern in some places and a cause for rejoicing in others. I know that when a good friend of mine, in our SBC congregation back home, back in the 70s, became a predestinarian it was a matter to be kept strictly secret!

There's one factor that I did not see him mention in the series (maybe I missed it?): Westminster Seminary. It is not widely known, but in the 30s and 40s, Westminster (Phila) was a very small seminary. By the 1970s, however, it became a much larger seminary. After a failed attempt to start a campus in Miami, the leadership in Philadelphia began a campus in Escondido (now independent). There are also WTS campuses in Dallas, and elsewhere.

WSC alone has graduated more than 800 students, about 70% of which have entered the pastoral ministry. Many of those students who have gone through WSC were not Calvinists when the arrived, but they became confessional, full-blooded Calvinists by the time they left. Of course WTS/Phila is a larger campus (and there's Dallas and NYC) with an even larger number of graduates.

In the same period that WTS/PA began growing from a few dozen students to several hundred and WSC has grown to about 150 students, there has been a small explosion in the growth of regional Reformed seminaries in North America. Many of them are small (by design) but it all adds up.

The growth of interest in the doctrine of predestination generally and in confessional Calvinism more particularly probably can't be explained fully without reference to the Westminster Seminaries.

Trueman: Where’d the Psalms go?

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:24:57 GMT

It is quite obvious in Scripture that Psalms are to be sung in the corporate life of the church (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). Scripture assumes continuity between the life of the Psalmist before the Cross, and the life of the Christian after the Cross. Yet, this emphasis on relating to the Psalmist – not to mention the direct singing of the Psalms – seems to be largely missing from the contemporary church. I wonder why?

Let me make my own confession. As a non-denominational reformed Christian, I’ve never sung from a Psalter. In fact I’ve never held a Psalter in my hands. In my circles, I would have a hard time finding people who even know what a Psalter is! (One close friend suggested it must be something like a salt shaker!)

I am thankful that Scripture calls us to sing Psalms, and also opens the door to hymns and various other spiritual songs. I am deeply grateful for the corporate freedom to sing a variety of worship songs.

But a big question in my mind over the past year is, simply, why have the Psalms been disconnected from the corporate expression of the church? In the past I have suggested that perhaps part of the reason Puritan spirituality seems so foreign to us today is because the Puritans used the Psalms to interpret their life experiences. But this does not get us closer to a contemporary answer.

Recently I read Carl Trueman’s collections of essays, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism (Christian Focus: 2004). These essays provoked stimulating thoughts in a number of areas. Trueman is the Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death) of the contemporary church and if you want a great read, Wages of Spin is it. (Catchy title, isn’t it?)

In his chapter “What Can Miserable Christians Sing?” Trueman also takes note of the disappearance of the Psalms in corporate worship. While I am no closer to an answer, I have benefited from his insights:

Having experienced — and generally appreciated — worship across the whole evangelical spectrum, from Charismatic to Reformed — I am myself less concerned here with the form of worship than I am with its content. Thus, I would like to make just one observation: the psalms, the Bible’s own hymnbook, have almost entirely dropped from view in the contemporary Western evangelical scene. I am not certain about why this should be, but I have an instinctive feel that it has more than a little to do with the fact that a high proportion of the psalter is taken up with lamentation, with feeling sad, unhappy, tormented, and broken. In modern Western culture, these are simply not emotions which have much credibility: sure, people still feel these things, but to admit that they are a normal part of one’s everyday life is tantamount to admitting that one has failed in today’s health, wealth, and happiness society. And, of course, if one does admit to them, one must neither accept them nor take any personal responsibility for them: one must blame one’s parents, sue one’s employer, pop a pill, or check into a clinic in order to have such dysfunctional emotions soothed and one’s self-image restored.

Now, one would not expect the world to have much time for the weakness of the psalmists’ cries. It is very disturbing, however, when these cries of lamentation disappear from the language and worship of the church. Perhaps the Western church feels no need to lament — but then it is sadly deluded about how healthy it really is in terms of numbers, influence and spiritual maturity. Perhaps — and this is more likely — it has drunk so deeply at the well of modern Western materialism that it simply does not know what to do with such cries and regards them as little short of embarrassing. Yet the human condition is a poor one — and Christians who are aware of the deceitfulness of the human heart and are looking for a better country should know this. A diet of unremittingly jolly choruses and hymns inevitably I creates an unrealistic horizon of expectation which sees the normative Christian life as one long triumphalist street party — a theologically incorrect and a pastorally disastrous scenario in a world of broken individuals. Has an unconscious belief that Christianity is — or at least should be — all about health, wealth, and happiness silently corrupted the content of our worship? Few Christians in areas where the church has been strongest over recent decades — China, Africa, Eastern Europe - would regard uninterrupted emotional highs as normal Christian experience. Indeed, the biblical portraits of believers give no room to such a notion. Look at Abraham, Joseph, David, Jeremiah, and the detailed account of the psalmists’ experiences. Much agony, much lamentation, occasional despair — and joy, when it manifests itself — is very different from the frothy triumphalism that has infected so much of our modern Western Christianity. In the psalms, God has given the church a language which allows it to express even the deepest agonies of the human soul in the context of worship. Does our contemporary language of worship reflect the horizon of expectation regarding the believer’s experience which the psalter proposes as normative? If not, why not? Is it because the comfortable values of Western middle-class consumerism have silently infiltrated the church and made us consider such cries irrelevant, embarrassing, and signs of abject failure?

I did once suggest at a church meeting that the psalms should take a higher priority in evangelical worship than they generally do — and was told in no uncertain terms by one indignant person that such a view betrayed a heart that had no interest in evangelism. On the contrary, I believe it is the exclusion of the experiences and expectations of the psalmists from our worship — and thus from our horizons of expectation — which has in a large part crippled the evangelistic efforts of the church in the West and turned us all into spiritual pixies. By excluding the cries of loneliness, dispossession, and desolation from its worship, the church has effectively silenced and excluded the voices of those who are themselves lonely, dispossessed, and desolate, both inside and outside the church. By so doing, it has implicitly endorsed the banal aspirations of consumerism, generated an insipid, trivial and unrealistically triumphalist Christianity, and confirmed its impeccable credentials as a club for the complacent. In the last year, I have asked three very different evangelical audiences what miserable Christians can sing in church. On each occasion my question has elicited uproarious laughter, as if the idea of a broken-hearted, lonely, or despairing Christian was so absurd as to be comical — and yet I posed the question in all seriousness. Is it any wonder that British evangelicalism, from the Reformed to the Charismatic, is almost entirely a comfortable, middle-class phenomenon?

- Carl R. Trueman, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism (Christian Focus: 2004) pp. 158-160.

Church Planting in Chicago: The Creed or Chaos Interview

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:20:48 GMT

Phil Sipe at Creed or Chaos inteviews Westminster Seminary California grad and OPC pastor Chris Sandoval who is busy planting a church in Chicago.

If you know someone in Chicago looking for a Spanish-speaking congregation contact Pastor Sandoval at sandoval.1@opc.org

ps. As you can see, Chris and I share the same excellent barber!

“You will think you have had enough…”

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:29:11 GMT

One of the most consistently disheartening experiences for both the members and pastors of Old School Presbyterian (OSP) church plants is the small size of the congregations. I can well remember one particular Sunday sitting and listening to one of the greatest sermons I think I have ever heard being delivered by one of the [...]

For Us and for Our Salvation by Stephen Nichols

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:19:54 GMT

Book announcement
For Us and for Our Salvation by Stephen Nichols

Conservative Evangelical publishers are placing a greater emphasis on patristics, the study of the early church fathers. It’s no surprise. Prominent figures have been jumping off the Evangelical bus to walk to Rome and frequently (we are told) because Rome better stresses the church fathers. In particular, the Reformed community is reclaiming its rich patristic heritage. For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church (Crossway: 2007) by Stephen J. Nichols is one great example.

At 37 years old, Nichols has written everything but a cookbook. He is known as a master storyteller and a prolific writer, the author of several biographies and a lively overview of the Reformation – The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World – the most exciting book we’ve seen in 2007! On top of patristic theology and the Reformation history, Nichols recently published an excellent essay on J. Gresham Machen, B.B. Warfield and Fundamentalism and is now working on a book connecting theology and the blues.

Due out on August 13th, Nichols’ latest release is yet another of his excellent historical studies. Now Nichols travels back into the first five centuries to rediscover the debates and characters who fought and defended a true understanding of Christ in His glory.

“Perhaps in no area of theology is this more necessary or beneficial than in the doctrine of Christ in the early church. … The early church fathers wrestled with the same problems presented by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon and its fanciful speculations about Jesus. They wrestled with the same problems presented by Islam and its adamant denial of the deity of Christ. And they wrestled with the same problems presented by the scholars working in the Jesus Seminar or in Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Judas who quickly dismiss the four canonical Gospels as God’s true revelation to humanity. In the days of the early church, the names of the opponents were different from those faced by us today, but the underlying issues bear a striking resemblance. When the church fathers responded with the orthodox view of Christ, they did the church of all ages a great service” (p. 14).

Contents

The book development is split into three historical eras: the first three centuries, the fourth century, and the fifth century. Nichols is a master tour guide through the significant theological works of Church history and a significant place is provided to quote the church fathers in their own words. Nichols provides an concise breakdown of the content:

“This book explores these controversies over Christ faced by the early church. This book also looks to tell the story of the people involved – Arius and Eutyches, Ignatius and Irenaeus, Athanasius and Leo. These may or may not be known to contemporary evangelicals, but they should be. The following chapters unfold this struggle in the early church chronologically. Chapter 1 starts with one foot in the pages of the New Testament and stretches to the first decade of the 300s. Chapter 3 tells the story of Athanasius and his arch-nemesis Arius, the two figures behind the Nicene Council in 325 and the Council of Constantinople in 381. Chapter 5 unfolds the events of the 400s, focusing on Leo I and the Chalcedonian Council in 451. In an unprecedented event, no fewer than 520 bishops met and actually agreed on a very nuanced and sophisticated theological statement that we know as the Chalcedonian Creed. The intervening chapters, 2, 4, and 6, all break from the narrative to provide primary source documents, allowing the major figures in this struggle to tell the story in their own words. A brief epilogue explores the variations on these themes that have occurred in the life of the church since Chalcedon in 451” (pp. 15-16).

TSS Certified Cross-Centered

Nichols’ historical illumination on the church fathers is excellent but more excellent is the Cross-centered focus of its content. Nichols is not content sharpening orthodox Christology until the Cross is brought into focus. At each point Nichols reminds us that the greatest danger in misunderstanding Christ is a misunderstanding of the Cross. It’s because of this repeated emphasis that we stamp this book “TSS Certified Cross-Centered.”

Conclusion

In The Glory of Christ, John Owen said a hearty gaze at the glory of Christ is exactly what we need to cure our spiritual declension and spur us to new levels of Christian maturity. Owen was right (see 2 Cor. 3:18). In For Us and for Our Salvation, Nichols has given us a great view overlooking the valley of patristic Christology, but more importantly he has led us to a place where we can better behold the life-transforming glory of Christ.

———–

Title: For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church
Author: Stephen J. Nichols
Reading level: 2.0/5.0 > very readable
Boards: paperback
Pages: 172
Volumes: 1
Dust jacket: no
Binding: ? (reviewed electronically)
Paper: ?
Topical index: ?
Scriptural index: ?
Text: perfect type
Publisher: Crossway
Year: 2007
Price USD: $14.99 (w/free PDF edition)
ISBNs: 9781581348675

Better Things to Do Than Transforming the World? CT Gets it Right

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:30:37 GMT

I've been critical of CT so I try to give credit when the editorial staff gets it right. There's a nice editorial online from Mark Galli today regarding "transforming" the world. There are no references to Darryl Hart, but one wonders if Mark hasn't been reading Darryl?

Old School Church Planting

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:30:32 GMT

I've never met Andy Webb in person but we've corresponded for several years. He is a PCA church planter and he's started a new blog on planting Old School Presbyterian (OSP) congregations. I've learned from and benefited from his writing in the past and the blog looks helpful.

Andy is trying to offer an alternative to the way that church planting is often considered. It is widely accepted that, in order to plant a church we must conduct what might be called a "bait and switch." We're to pretend to be broadly evangelical, or "seeker sensitive," and even, in some cases, quasi-Pentecostal in order to attract people to a new congregation. There is tremendous pressure on church planters "to succeed." There is pressure to "produce numbers" in very short order.

As James Boice used to say, so I'm told, "what you use to get them in, you must use to keep them in." In other words, if we "market" our congregations as one thing, there's no reason to think that the folk we attract using such methods will be much interested in getting to know us as we really are.

Here's a pointed example: imagine a young women decides to attract a husband by dressing and acting like, what used to be called, "a girl of easy virtue," or "fast" or "easy." Let's say she meets a man and he agrees to date and marry her with the understanding that she's a certain sort of girl. Once married, however, the sleazy clothes go away and suddenly she wants to go to church weekly and pray at meals. The new husband has a right to ask, "Hey, this isn't what I signed up for!"

Why would we think that we can attract folks to our congregations, when we say we want to be Reformed, and convince them to be Reformed when we, by our actions, have demonstrated that we don't really believe it ourselves. We say we believe it, but we're willing to set it aside in order to get the church started.

It's like trying to start a family restaurant by convincing consumers (not the happiest metaphor) that we're a McDonalds.

Why do we feel such pressure? For one thing, the first thing anyone asks a church-planting pastor is, "How's your attendance?" They mean well and it's not as if thinking about how many folks are attending is unimportant, but the question serves to put pressure on the congregation to measure itself by attendance. We also feel pressure because, unless you live in Philadelphia or Greenville, SC or Grand Rapids, perhaps in a few other cities, you're probably not living in "Presbyterian Country" or "Reformed Country." We need to be realistic. It's probably not possible, in the ordinary providence of God, to plant a confessionally Reformed congregation in two years. It probably takes much longer than this. We should think in terms of 10 years, not 2 years.

I'm not defending mediocrity or failure. There are times and places to close works and to start over or to move on, but we have decide to plant what we want to grow: confessional Reformed congregations. If we plant something other that confessional Reformed congregations, we're not likely going to get confessional congregations.

All this is to say, it's great to see someone, who is actually doing it, writing about planting confessional Reformed churches.

Giving and receiving correction

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:29 GMT

sermon delivered on July 29, 2007
by Pastor Mark Alderton
Sovereign Grace Fellowship
Bloomington, MN

INTRODUCTION

We continue our series on topics that affect our fellowship – our life together – and which are vital to biblical and effective fellowship that builds up the church and the individuals in it. The topic of this message is correction.

Correction is another word for adjustment or changing course. It doesn’t have to be about sin. It can be about improving something like how a team is organized or how a person plays guitar. But the focus of this message is going to be about bringing correction to the sin in our lives, about moving from sin to obedience to God.

There are many, many things that could be said about correction – about methods of correction, about the different levels of correction like counsel, reproof and rebuke, and so forth. Our focus this morning is going to be on one thing: how to give and receive correction for sin in a hopeful and grace-motivated way. We’re going to learn how to speak into one another’s lives about our sin.

Now, most of us are probably not thinking at this point, “How excellent! We’re going to talk about how to confront sin in my life. I’ve been feeling the need to have more correction. Why don’t we have a whole series on this?!”

More likely the idea of correcting one another provokes a feeling somewhere between tolerance and dread, unless you’re hoping that someone else who is hearing this will be more open to your correction after this message.

We generally don’t like correction. We like to get it over with as soon as possible and would be glad to avoid it altogether. It can seem so unfriendly and oftentimes it is brought with sinful attitudes and we respond to it in similar fashion.

Well, by God’s grace we’ll have a more favorable and faith-filled understanding of correction after this morning. Correction does not need to be a bad experience. In fact it should not be. There is a way to give and receive correction in a hopeful and grace motivated way. The Scriptures show us how.

(more…)

Grudem's Change of Mind regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:11:19 GMT

While at a Christian bookstore today I noticed that Zondervan has retypeset Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, using the Minion font and a wider trim size. The result is quite attractive, with bigger margins for note-taking. (If you don't own the book, I'd highly recommend purchasing it right away. It's excellent.)

By and large the text (and pagination) are unchanged. But readers may be interested to know that Grudem completely rewrote section F1 (pp. 982-983) in the baptism chapter (ch. 49). Grudem previously argued for "allowing both views of baptism [i.e., paedobaptism and credobaptism] to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question." Grudem has since changed his mind. Here's the rewritten section:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position. One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Notes

1. I realize that some readers will object to this sentence and will say that baptism is very important because of what the differing positions represent: differing views of the nature of the church. Many Baptists would argue that practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a church made up of believers only, and many paedobaptists would argue that not practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a covenant community which includes the children of believers.

I would encourage those who reason this way to consider how much they hold in common with evangelical believers on the other side of this issue -- not necessarily with those far from them on other matters as well, but especially with those on the other side who agree with them on most other aspects of the Christian life. Many Baptists do encourage and demonstrate a valued place for their children within their churches, and many paedobaptists do pray for the

salvation of their baptized children with the same fervency with which Baptist parents pray for the salvation of their unbaptized children. Regarding church membership, evangelical paedobaptists do require a believable profession of faith before children can become full members of the church (their term is "communicant members"; that is, those who take Communion). They also require a believable profession of faith before any adults are allowed to join the church.

When these procedures are functioning well, both Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.

2. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing.

More on Fasting ...

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:05:15 GMT

For anyone who's interested in learning more about fasting and prayer (mentioned recently in this post), and their power in the Christian life, I highly recommend reading through this material by the late Bill Bright, former President of Campus Crusade for Christ. Bright observed more than one 40-day fast during his lifetime. The teaching you'll find there is very practical and biblically based.

When the Bible Is Boring

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:18:03 GMT

(Author: Abraham)

It would be hard to have a slow, careful, exegetical Bible study about the second half of the book of Joshua. Chapters 13 to 21 are mostly lists: what parcels of land are going to which tribe of Israel.

Much of the Old Testament is like this—genealogies, lists, rules, procedures. As lovers of the Bible, what should we make of these mundane details? Is it even appropriate to call parts of God's word mundane? It sounds sacrilegious.

What does it matter, though, that Issachar received the territories around Jezreel, Chesulloth, Shunem, and 13 other cities? Or that Manasseh's land reached from Asher to Michmethah, just east of Shechem?

Joshua tells us why these obscure details are important: So that the Israelites would have specific and extensive evidence that God does what he says he will do.

Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)

The more detailed the report of God's faithfulness, the more proof that indeed not one word of his had been false. He promised their forefathers this land, and now, because of this account in the book of Joshua, they can remember specifically how God was faithful. Faithful in concrete detail. Faithful down to the most boring of trivia.

As Joshua died, he said to the Israelites,

You know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (23:14)

It's true that knowing Michmethah is east of Shechem ranks very low in the list of facts that are important to know from the Bible. But it matters, because the sum of all the dull details that God has accomplished proves that whatever he promises, he will do.

We have a God who keeps a tally of sparrows, who counts the hairs on our head (Luke 12:6-7), and who watches over the grass as it grows (Matthew 6:30). If that's not boring, what is? But it is his power over the mundane and trivial details that proves his power over the universe. And because of this power, we know he can keep his promises.

Christ’s Servant Among Sheep & Wolves

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:05:19 GMT

This Saturday’s Featured Toolbox is a link to an excellent interview conducted over at the “Against Heresies” blog. Joel Beeke, who pastors Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation and is president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, speaks to the vital issue of identifying heresy in the church today. Here are the three segments of the interview.

* Christ’s Servant Among Sheep and Wolves (part one)
* Christ’s Servant Among Sheep and Wolves (part two)
* Christ’s Servant Among Sheep and Wolves (part three)

Personally, I especially appreciated Beeke’s three suggestions for younger ministers in dealing with error:

1. Become and stay well versed in the Scriptures, in confessional Reformed theology, and in the great classics of Reformed, experiential theology.

2. Summarize the errors of various movements succinctly from the pulpit when the scriptural text you are expounding pertains to them. Enlarge upon your exposure of error, perhaps, in catechism classes (because young people are the church’s future) or weekday classes (because those who attend have, in general, greater appreciation for apologetics than does your average Sabbath attendee and because your teaching situation is less formal).

3. Remember that you cannot study every false movement in depth, nor should you. Study in depth for yourself those that directly affect your congregation. Otherwise, read the best book from an evangelical perspective that refutes a particular error. In some cases, reading one good article may suffice.

Younger ministers should beware of being so caught up with the trends, debates, and crises of the present that they neglect to reinforce their knowledge of Christian history and Christian doctrine.

—————————————–
Other Toolbox This Week
* Lay Level Systematic Theology Class: Bruce Ware
* Video: What is the Gospel - Don Carson
* The Mereness of the Church: Preaching (Thabiti Anyabwile)
* Using Illustrations to Preach With Power
* Ever Wanted to Do This to Your Computer?
* New - Nine Marks Blog
* Differences Between Justification and Sanctification
* 25 Things I’ve Learned About Sin - Team Pyro
* Ten Reasons Why I Believe the Bible To Be the Word of God: RA Torrey
* Steve Lawson: Five Talks on Augustine of Hippo
* Interesting Site: American Rhetoric
* Don’t Short Change the Conclusion
* Style or Substance: What’s the Biggest Problem With Contemporary Church Music?
* Tips for Preaching Multiple Times a Week
* Sermon Titles: Tricky Little Things
* Mwebe’s Favourite Books for Preachers
* Six Lessons We Learn From Luther: JI Packer

At the heart of Reformed Theology

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:15:58 GMT

"At the heart of Reformed Theology, at the heart of Luther and Calvin's struggle, and in Knox and Jonathan Edwards, were men who were awakened to the greatness, to the majesty, to the holiness, and the sovereignty of God. By contemplating the holiness and sovereignty of God, they were driven to develop their doctrines of the grace of God. Because until you meet a God who is holy and is sovereign, you don't know what grace means. I don't think we are ever going to see a healthy evangelical church until the evangelical church is solidly Reformed, where it takes biblical Christianity seriously with a right concept of a sovereign God.

That's because unreformed Christianity has failed in our culture. It has been pervasively antinomian (no law, no Lordship), and has been pervasively liberal in it's trends and tendencies away from scripture, because there's been no real basis in the sovereignty of God.

Today's evangelicals are never amazed by grace, because they don't understand sovereignty. They don't understand God. The evangelical church today is sick, more sick than it has ever been. We need a style and a variety of Christianity that is not a religion, but is a life and a worldview, where at the heart and foundational structure of it is a sound and deep biblical concept of the character of God."

R. C. Sproul - from his series "A Blueprint for Thinking."

The Latest Mark Driscoll Controversy

Sun, 06 May 2007 01:15:03 GMT

Looks like there might be trouble in Church Growth land. LiveBlog tells us, "Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church isn’t pleased with response to his ‘Good Soldier’ video, shown last week for the National New Church Conference in Orlando. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Church followed the video by affirming that women, too, have spiritual gifts. Driscoll makes clear that he believes Scripture endorses men only to lead churches. Watch the video for yourself…"

HT: Tom’s Big Picture

Bill Hybels Loves Mark Driscoll

Sat, 05 May 2007 19:35:13 GMT

It just kills me how hard some folks (can anyone say Missouri Baptist Convention?) are trying to distance themselves from the "emerging" Acts 29 organization and Mark Driscoll. Driscoll is all pomo and truth has no meaning for him.

Then in Bizarro world Bill Hybels (a pastor of a moderately influential, smallish church in suburban Chicago) has poked him publicly for his fundamentalism after viewing Driscoll on video at the National New Church Conference. He basically didn't like Driscoll's male-centered approach to church planting and let that be known from the platform. That resulted in Acts 29 eating thousands of Driscoll's videos because the conference decided not to hand them out as originally planned.

From Driscoll on the Resurgence website...

Last year I spoke at a large church planting event along with a number of other church planters and church planting movement leaders. The event was held in Florida, went well, and did a very encouraging job of bringing together a number of denominations, networks, and organizations that otherwise would not have benefited from such a partnership.

This year I was invited back but declined because the few-day round trip from Seattle to Florida to give a very short message (last year it was less than twenty minutes) seemed like too much in light of other responsibilities. So, the sponsors of the event asked me to instead put together an eight-minute video on church planting that could be shown at the event and then handed out to each of the 1,500 attendees. So, in an effort to be helpful, the video crew from Mars Hill Church and I spent half a day in freezing weather at a military cemetery shooting scenes that were then edited for the video. Apparently the video was shown at the event, was well received by the attendees, and then criticized by Bill Hybels from the stage because it did not speak of women church planters. And, not wanting a bigger fuss, the organization hosting the event then made a decision not to hand out the video as they had promised, leaving the guys from our Acts 29 Church Planting Network who had hauled suitcases of the videos to Florida with thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of wasted effort. The leaders of the event are good guys whom I still consider friends, and I've never met Bill Hybels so I won't speak about him personally. But, I thought we should at least post the banned video online, so here it is:

Mark Driscoll at the Exponential Conference

Tue, 01 May 2007 13:40:09 GMT

Last evening Mark Driscoll spoke via video in Orlando at the National New Church Planting Conference called Exponential, an event hosted by Leadership Network.

Apparently his comments caused quite a reaction by the crowd and the following speaker.

In reading Andrew Jones’ account (who was there), Driscoll did his typical bit on the necessity of male leadership in the church. According to Jones, Driscoll hit these points:

.1. God wants men who fight like soldiers in leadership
.2. God wants men to stay on mission
.3. God wants men to stay on message

According to Andrew, Mark said something in the first point about 60% of pastors being women and the fact that men need to step up. (I am thinking he probably said 60% of church attenders are woman and men need to step up and lead and attract men to lead, as I have Mark preach this many times before).

Anyway, this being a conference that attracts many in the Emergent stream, there were many women in the audience who did not get down with Mark’s video. Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Association) got up there and made some comments that made clear that he was not endorsing Driscoll.

According to TSK, Hybels said: “After that video I would like to acknowledge that there are women in this room and they have spiritual gifts. “

I find it very interesting that so many people keep inviting Driscoll to speak knowing that he is going to say things that cause a stir. In this case it doesn’t sound like anything crazy, just a charge for men to be faithful leaders. What an indication of how the egalitarian view is gaining such contemporary traction. I’m thankful that they put the Driscoll video on….I will be looking for it online (drop a comment if you find it).

[update:: thanks to Andrew Jones (TallSkinnyKiwi) for dropping in and clarifying that Driscoll was referring to attenders and not pastors in the 60% stat above. ]

Driscoll Video from the Exponential Conference

Tue, 01 May 2007 13:40:07 GMT

Here is a link to the video of Mark Driscoll that was mentioned in this post.

It is this type of stuff from Driscoll that is so helpful:

“If you want to win a war you have got to win the men”

I love the fact that it is filmed at a cemetery.

[note: I had originally posted the video here. I had not watched the whole thing attentively and received a couple of emails questioning some of Driscoll’s language. In relooking at what he said I do not feel that it should be on this site. I apologize for any who may have been offended. Unfortunately, this video represents both what is good and what is not good about Driscoll].

Mark Driscoll Banned Church Planting Video

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:15:04 GMT

Marc Driscoll has been at the centre of controversy once more. This time it is about a video he shot for a conference which was aimed at stirring men to fight for the church. The video was publicly criticised from the stage of a conference by Bill Hybels. The video was then not given out as planned to the conference delegates. I am impressed with his restraint in his blog post on the subject. I