Friday, September 21st, 2007
by Justin
Pastor Provocateur | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Driscoll can’t stand in front of a crowd for long without stirring things up. That’s what you get from a pastor who learned how to preach by watching comedian Chris Rock. Before long, he has the audience going. “If you’re going to be a fundamentalist or moralist … pick things like bathing with your wife to be legalistic about,” Driscoll says in his distinct, gravelly voice. “Don’t pick something stupid like, ‘Don’t listen to rock music.’ I don’t know who’s choosing all the legalisms, but they picked the worst ones. Eat meat, bathe together, and nap—those would be my legalisms. Those are things I can do.”
Driscoll “comes off as a smart-aleck former frat boy,” according to The Seattle Times. Guilty as charged. If he hasn’t offended you, you’ve never read his books or listened to his sermons. On any given Sunday at Mars Hill, it’s possible that a visiting fire marshal will get saved. But it’s just as likely that a guest will flip him off before walking out.
The spectrum of response speaks to his sharp tongue—his greatest strength and his glaring weakness. But Driscoll also disturbs many fellow evangelicals because he straddles the borders that divide us. His unflinching Reformed theology grates on the church-growth crowd. His plan to grow a large church strikes postmoderns as arrogant. His roots in the emerging church worry Calvinists. No one group can claim him. Maybe that’s why they all turn their guns on him.
Check out this article on Mark Driscoll. And if it’s any consolation…I haven’t turned my guns on him.
Friday, June 1st, 2007
by Justin
So what is a “fundamental baptist”? What does that really mean?
Friday, May 4th, 2007
by Justin
After a hiatus with school work, I will be getting back to this discussion.
The future posts will be
- Youth Ministry in a Postmodern world
- Fundamentalism
- Fundamentalist Separatists and it’s relevance today
- A definition and beginnings of culture and how the church fits into it
Those are a few. Check back!!!
Saturday, April 7th, 2007
by Justin
Multicultural Church by Rev. Ken Davis, Director of Project Jerusalem. Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania.
I have been having some conversations (not be confused with the emerging church style of conversations) with some friends on another blog. We have been talking about culture and multicultural churches. Let me know your thoughts about what Ken Davis has to say in this article.
Sunday, March 4th, 2007
by Justin
Here is goes. I am going to attempt to create a discussion about postmodernism. This is what I will be learning, finding, and wrestling with. Will you join me?
Sunday, December 3rd, 2006
by Justin
No. But before we deal with this hypothetical possibility we should say that the meaning “source” in Ephesians 5:23 is very unlikely. Scholars will want to read the extensive treatment of this word in Appendix One of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. But realistically, lay people will make their choice on the basis of what makes sense here in Ephesians. Verse 23 is the ground, or argument, for verse 22; thus it begins with the word for. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife. . . . “When the headship of the husband is given as the ground for the submission of the wife, the most natural understanding is that headship signifies some kind of leadership.
Moreover, Paul has a picture in his mind when he says that the husband is the head of the wife. The word head does not dangle in space waiting for any meaning to be assigned to it. Paul says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body” (Ephesians 5:23). The picture in Paul’s mind is of a body with a head. This is very important because it leads to the “one flesh” unity of husband and wife in the following verses. A head and its body are “one flesh.” Thus Paul goes on to say in verses 28-30, “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body.” Paul carries through the image of Christ the Head and the church His body. Christ nourishes and cherishes the church because we are limbs of His body. So the husband is like a head to his wife, so that when he nourishes and cherishes her, he is really nourishing and cherishing himself, as the head who is “one flesh” with this body.
Now, if head means “source,” what is the husband the source of? What does the body get from the head? It gets nourishment (that’s mentioned in verse 29). And we can understand that, because the mouth is in the head, and nourishment comes through the mouth to the body. But that’s not all the body gets from the head. It gets guidance, because the eyes are in the head. And it gets alertness and protection, because the ears are in the head.
In other words if the husband as head is one flesh with his wife, his body, and if he is therefore a source of guidance, food, and alertness, then the natural conclusion is that the head, the husband, has a primary responsibility for leadership, provision, and protection. So even if you give head the meaning “source,” the most natural interpretation of these verses is that husbands are called by God to take primary responsibility for Christlike servant-leadership, protection, and provision in the home, and wives are called to honor and affirm their husbands’ leadership and help carry it through according to their gifts.
Twitter
