You may also like...

20 Responses

  1. WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

    for folks who haven’t kept up, the recycled content is revisiting in a substantially expanded form an anecdote from Driscoll’s 2008 book Death By Love that was in a 2005 sermon in which Driscoll said he prayed that someone who would not repent would die. Driscoll claimed in the sermon that the guy in question died of a sudden heart attack and took this to indicate God still kills people and that sometimes Mark Driscoll said he prays for it.

    2008 was also the period in which Driscoll literally as well as figuratively demonized dissent against and distrust of the policies and actions taken by the then executive elders of Mars Hill. Since Driscoll hasn’t been bringing back stuff from his 2005 Genesis series yet, it seemed necessary to keep material available for public consideration. If in his forthcoming Charisma House era he may become a charismatic, without the seatbelt he said he had before, it might be worthwhile to know some of the stuff he was saying back when he said he “was” a “charismatic with a seatbelt”.

  2. Josh the Baptist says:

    You might have linked the wrong article on Francis Chan. Unless I missed something in the “touch not God’s annointed” article?

  3. Michael says:

    Josh…fixed it.

  4. JoelG says:

    “The weak lead us to reality…”

    Excellent… I hope the documentary becomes widely available for all to see.

  5. Babylon's Dread says:

    Per Francis Chan article,

    The apologetic reference in the article amuses me some because I knew that guy. In college we were teammates. I knew him when he got saved. Haven’t had contact with him since college. Click on the link to his name and it gives a resume of everything he has done. He was a snazzy dresser and I would hurt his feelings by calling him ‘pimp’ Hux.

    I’m not a fan of Chan either but what is the connection?


  6. Babylon's Dread says:

    OK I see the connection

    The mistake connected me to an old college acquaintance. Not sure how that will go.

  7. Jerod says:

    The weak lead us to reality

    I think Micah 4:6-7 is a picture of the physical reality of God’s promises.
    I don’t agree with Vanier’s liberation theology leanings, but God creates everyone with a purpose, perfectly. We often just have no idea what perfect looks like.

  8. Babylon's Dread says:

    Turek would be well served to read NT Wright on the resurrection. Wrights treatment doesn’t fit in a blog space but …

    I’m not at all sure what I think of the Ortberg/Hybels mess. I don’t believe everything I hear, or see for that matter. We may be heading into a time where public male/female relationships are more fundamentally governed than the fundamentalist ever attempted. Ironies abound.

    I have been arguing that Jesus wasn’t nice since I first encounter old style liberalism in college. Thanks Steve Brown for the catalogue. I am certain that the crowd who says we love Jesus, but may he save us from his followers, never met the real Jesus.

  9. Jerod says:

    Re Chan

    It’s unfortunate he used that worn out line “Touch not God’s Anointed” . I hope he disassociates from the IHOP/NAR camps. I always appreciated his candor.

  10. Jerod says:

    Then again maybe Chan has been hanging out with the n a r camp for so long he now thinks himself a king of the mountains?

  11. Jerod says:

    Sorry to take up so much room here
    Received “A Generous Orthodoxy” from a good brother.
    Any caveats from the peanut gallery? He says it’s about 30% with considering. I asked for it so I’m not ignorant of his work (since I don’t agree with what has been said that he said, y’know).

  12. Babylon's Dread says:

    I do love NT Wright but his Easter meditation had little light on the subject of atonement. I get the message of the powers of darkness being overthrown but nothing about how the cross accomplishes that is evident.

    I remain content that a broken covenant brought the sentence of death and a self-sacrificing God took the matter upon himself. It cannot be avoided that in Genesis death is the result of sin. It cannot be avoided that His own death is a substitute for ours. It cannot be avoided that His victory over death assures ours.

    Caricaturing the picture to make it sound pagan does nothing to clarify why substitution is wrong. An angry God is not punishing his son in a fit of rage. A gracious God is sacrificing himself to rescue us from a mess we could not resolve. Too much angst over this subject has risen recently.

  13. Michael says:

    Well said, BD…

  14. John 20:29 says:

    Can we call Pastor Dread our venerable bd? ?

  15. Babylon's Dread says:

    Kudos for the Heaven and Earth video, a brief look at their website is encouraging …

  16. Michael says:


    I thought it was a weak book with some points worth pondering…

  17. Steve says:

    #13 – very well said.

    I’m totally fine with expanding the meaning of the atonement, like radiating ripples of a stone thrown into a lake, but NT Wright is not nearly so generous it seems, claiming that those who believe that Christ died in our place to take the curse of sin are wrong and misguided.

    To connect with “Generous Orthodoxy”, my journey with both McLaren and Wright have been similar:

    – To start with I deeply appreciated how they expanded my understanding of Christianity and scripture, applying truth in new and different ways.

    – And then they start to focus on their new ideas, to the exclusion of traditional perspectives, and I lose enthusiasm.

    – And then they end up saying that the traditional perspectives are simply wrong and misguided, especially with an air of academic “you regular people (actually not really non-academics, just not THEIR type of academic) are too simple to REALLY understand what this is all about”.

    That’s where I get off and become pretty much like I grew up, and increasingly distrustful of anyone who pushes those boundaries.

  18. Steve says:

    As for me, I’ll keep studying my Bible, but I keep on sensing that some academics spend more time thinking about their thinking than what the scripture says, to my mind, pretty clearly:

    1 John 2:2
    and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

    Galatians 3:13
    Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”–

    Isaiah 53:5-6
    But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.

    Hebrews 7:27
    who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

    Leviticus 17:11
    ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’

    Romans 3:25
    whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Not to mention the fact that all the sacrificial aspects of the Old Testament don’t make much sense to me if it’s not about “substitution”. Unless of course we’re going to start saying the Passover was a pagan concept that the Israelites borrowed too.

  19. WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

    I’m inclining toward an approach that says you either embrace all the models of the atonement, understanding each model has its limits and objections, or you reject all the models of the atonement by insisting on only one of them against all the others. People who reject even one of the atonement models for whatever supposedly good reasons they think they have are functionally saying they object to X because they insist Jesus did not, could not, should not have died on the Cross for X reason because people don’t need that in general and the objectors don’t need it in particular. Show me the atonement model you reject and I can show you what you insist Jesus didn’t need to do for you.

    Which, if you’re an atheist, you can cheerfully say you reject all the atonement models with cause. But if you profess to be any kind of believer …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading