Hey all -
You may be familiar with Mark Driscoll, this has been my first introduction. The Emergent Village posted a weblog regarding Mark's talk at a Southeastern University Conference. It certainly sparked some thoughts for me. I could only get the actual podcast from iTunes, and it is rather lengthy. However, I think it could be fuel for some interesting discussion, if anyone is interested. Specifically, I would raise questions regarding:
- The value and dangers of theological "conversation" (which Driscoll basically labels as demonic, ala Gen. 3)
- The roles of such emergent leaders as Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Rob Bell and of course, Brian McLaren
- The concept of a "timeless" truth but a "timely" message. This seemed to really be the heart of Driscoll's message: We should not (cannot) change the Gospel, but we can change how we communicate it to our immediate culture. However, I can't help but wonder how much our understanding of the Gospel (meaning God, sin, salvation, etc.) has changed over the centuries. If we are in an age when information is disseminated more broadly and rapidly than before, should we be surprised or concerned that theologians are presenting new ways to think of, conceive and understand "orthodox" Christian theology? It seemed to me that Driscoll is primarily trying to preserve orthodox evangelicalism, and he criticizes the emergent church (or revisionists as he says) for changing the terms, opening up to new ideas, and re-envisioning the "old old story." But isn't orthodox evangelicalism something that was a revision to begin with? Even Driscoll refers to the Reformation in his talk. So why should we be surprised that we are continuing to reform our theology?
Those are some of my thoughts. As always, everyone is welcome to chime in.
How to eat healthy?
2 weeks ago