Tag: Mark Driscoll

Book Plunge: Evidence Considered Chapter 5

Does Jelbert have a refutation of why we suffer? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is a response to Bruce Little’s essay on why Christians suffer. At the start, Jelbert (Whose work can be found here.) says “You could say that this is evidence for the consistency of God, rather than evidence for God in the first place.” I agree. In this chapter, we are looking to see if Christianity can provide an adequate explanation for why we suffer.

Now Jelbert says this, but does he go there? I am not convinced he does. For one thing, one of the first things pointed out is that indeed, not all things happen the way we want to. Jelbert talks about prayer studies and other such things. I have never been convinced by prayer studies. You have to ask who is praying for who and assume that God is going to answer like a machine would. If any husband has a wife out there, they understand this. What will make your wife happy and please her one day will thoroughly annoy her the next. There are way too many variables with prayer studies.

Jelbert can also speak about the No True Scotsman fallacy for people who aren’t Christians. The thing is, I think this can be the case sometimes. If someone says it every time, it is indeed a cop-out, but there are many people who have a said faith rather than a lived faith. I think people can openly apostasize and such, but we should not use the claim too easily that they weren’t a real Christian. Real Christians can do evil. All I need to know that is to look in the mirror.

The problem with objections here is that the Christian position is that God does know data that we shouldn’t. Why on Earth should this be a surprise? If there is a God, I suspect He knows loads more about reality than I do. I suspect He knows more than all humans that have ever lived combined. What Jelbert needs to do is show that there is no good reason for what seems to be needless suffering. This is one reason in fact that the logical problem of evil is not really debated. The emotional and existential one is, but not the logical one. It is granted there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of God and evil.

Jelbert also says that the idea that evildoers will be punished seems to hopeful, but this seems odd grounds for rejecting an idea. You reject it because it seems too hopeful? Jelbert says this is common sense to want this and thus not evidence for God, but he said at the start this is not about evidence for God, but rather consistency for God. One of the great things about Christian theism is that it does explain that evil will be judged.

In fact, I consider this a major point. Evil is a problem for every worldview and not just Christianity. Atheism needs to explain the existence of real evil and based on Jelbert’s chapter on morality, I do not think Jelbert has an explanation. I say that with some hesitancy because in this chapter it looked to me like Jelbert was jumping all over the map. My point still is that we all have to explain it.

As I write this, it was just yesterday that we learned about a shooting in Las Vegas that killed and injured several. This was evil. In my worldview, I have no hesitancy saying that. Now I need to explain this evil. I think a lot of Christians who had no room to explain evil in their worldview due to not thinking about it were left reeling.

Atheism also has to explain it. One major difference is that Christianity I think can provide hope. It’s a wonder that evil should be seen as a problem for Christianity since evil is one of the things Christianity is meant to address. It’s why we have the cross.

Jelbert spends the rest of the chapter talking about abuse in the church as a result of the Scriptures. He goes to Romans 13 and says that people in the pew view what is said from the pulpit as the commandment from God. That is indeed part of the problem. People in the pew do not educate themselves enough to know how to assess what a pastor is saying.

Jelbert then says that because of this, we have a group of people who think they are ordained by God to dictate the behavior of their subordinates. Overall, I think Jelbert is being too harsh here. I have been to many bad churches, but I don’t think any of them really match what I see here. Still, there are cases, so let’s get to them.

Bill Gothard is one. I recommend that people go to Midwest Outreach like I did. There, you can do a site search like I did and find numerous critiques of Bill Gothard. Mark Driscoll is another one, but again, the church quickly did point out that we have numerous problems with this kind of behavior.

I just want to know that if Jelbert wants to do this, will he be consistent? Will he say that Stalin and Mao and Pol-Pot were being consistent with atheism? Sure, not all atheists are murderous dictators just like not all Christians are power-hungry leaders, but does Jelbert really think that the kind of leadership being done in some churches is really what Jesus had in mind? On the other hand, there is no one to have anything in mind for the murderous dictatorships of atheist rulers. All they have to say is that there is no God and then what tenet of atheism are they violating?

Jelbert goes on to say that if you take the theology seriously, then you believe that all is of God and God is good so that everything that happens must be good. You can then call evil good. Unfortunately (For Jelbert), the Bible doesn’t do this. It calls some things evil and wicked. All that God created is good, but not all that happens is good. Even Romans 8 pointed to at the start does not say all things are good. It says all things work together for good, and even then, only for good to them that love the Lord.

As someone who takes theology seriously, let me be clear.

Evil is real.

Jelbert also writes about situations where the church seems to forgive the abusers and abuse the victims. This does happen, but it’s not just in the church. How many women have been blamed for rape because what they were wearing was asking for it? To say we are all sinners doesn’t work. Even sinners have to accept consequences here. David was forgiven of his sin, but there were still consequences. I wholeheartedly condemn abuse and I am stalwart in my insistence that the church needs to get its act together.

I also agree with Jelbert that if all we do is pray, we have to wonder about what we’re really doing. Now in some cases, yes, prayer is all you can do, but if you can do more, then you’re in error to not do so. Interestingly, James would say the same. If you just go to your brother and say “Be of good cheer” and do nothing to meet his needs, you have not helped him.

Jelbert ends by saying that he is not trying to show that God does not exist here, but that the evidence is insufficient to accept it. Once again, it looks like he has forgotten that the chapter is not about the positive case but rather a consistent case. Jelbert has not shown an inconsistency in Christianity. He has shown an inconsistency in how it is lived out. That does not show it to be false at all. If he wants to say Little neglected to point out the suffering in the church caused by bad leadership, then I say Jelbert can be dismissed similarly because he failed to mention the suffering caused by wicked atheist leadership. If that does not work for Jelbert, then neither is it an argument against Little.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Driscoll/Brierley Discussion

So who’s the bad guy in this discussion? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I recently got to listen to the Mark Driscoll interview that he had with Justin Brierley of Unbelievable? Let me go ahead at the start and present a possible bias. I do consider Justin Brierley a good friend and I have been on his program before. I consider Justin a great guy and he’s done a lot for my wife and I.

Being an Aspie, I wonder if there’s things I can see in this conversation that others might miss. I also want to state up front that what I say about Mark Driscoll is based solely on this interview. I have not seen his sermons or read his books. I am just looking at the interview and asking “Was Driscoll out of line?”

First off, I’ll say about Driscoll that I do like his style. I found a number of things he said in the interview quite amusing. Of course, that could also be because I have a sarcastic mindset. I also like the idea of him being straight forward and confrontational. I think part of the problem in America is that we Christians have let the world walk all over us and not had a spine.

As for Brierley in the discussion, I will grant that there were times I think he should have spoken more, such as when asked about Penal Substitution. Of course, I also realize that it could be that he is a moderator of a debate show and has to learn to be as neutral as possible. He could have also thought the interview was not about him and that stating his opinion could reflect that of the organization he represented and did not want to do that.

I can understand where Driscoll was coming from some in that there are times I do think Brierley can be too polite. I understand not all people are confrontational. That’s fine. At the same time, there are times where one does need to just bite the bullet and offend someone. Jesus did that several times.

Looking at Driscoll’s part, I do think he was too defensive when he told Brierley that the only parts being picked out in the book were ones that were the most controversial. Well that’s what an interview is for I think! These are the parts of the book I’ve heard about and those are the exact questions I’d want an interviewer asking. I want to know what the author thinks about the most controversial parts of his book.

I would have thought that Driscoll should have been prepared for such questions, particularly since people are wanting to know more about him and for someone so confrontational, I would have thought he would have handled that better. If anything, I would think it would be seen as a welcome opportunity to finally silence the critics. (Assuming his position is right. I’m not saying it is, but if he thinks it is, he could have seen it that way.)

Driscoll also complained that his wife did not get to speak much and it seemed like Brierley ignored her. On the contrary, Brierley said that she could speak at any time and he did not want it to be just Driscoll, but from what I gathered, it seemed like Driscoll spoke so much that Mrs. Driscoll never got a chance to say anything unless she was personally addressed. Could this be a failing on the part of Driscoll that the Mrs. does not think she can speak? I don’t know. All I have is this one interview, but I do not think Driscoll had a real basis for this complaint.

I do think Driscoll has a valid point about Britain not having a great Bible teacher. Honestly, some bloggers have thought Driscoll was thinking about himself, but I don’t see that. Our country has often had noted teachers throughout it that are known from Moody to Billy Graham. Of course, none of these fit the criteria of young. If Driscoll is known all throughout America however, it could be that he might be doing something right we can learn from. This is not necessarily so however as one could easily say Benny Hinn and T.D. Jakes are known throughout America as well.

Sometimes I thought Driscoll’s approach was too simplistic. When asked about his view on women in ministry and where he got it from he said “The Bible!” and talked about what a great book it was and how everyone should read it. Granted, I think the answer is funny and straightforward, but I wonder also since the other side, people like Brierley would also say their view is biblical.

At times, I wondered if Driscoll himself was reading his own culture into the Bible instead of understanding the culture of the Bible. You really cannot isolate Scripture from its social context and when you try to do that, you will replace it with another context, most likely your own culture.

I do think Driscoll’s answer on questions of Reformed thought was very unsatisfactory. Driscoll used the analogy of a parent saving their child against their will, but this is not what happens with God as the person who is saved at the time of being saved is NOT his child. Ephesians 2 makes it clear that we were once children of wrath.

It was odd to hear Driscoll speak around that point about people making decisions based on feelings, and later saying that when he speaks a word of prophecy, he does it based on what he feels led to do. To speak a word of prophecy sounds like a serious decision to me and Driscoll made it clear that he was, yet his basis for this was a feeling.

Now we come to the major point of disagreement. Women in ministry. Now personally, I would probably have more sympathies for Driscoll’s position. I cannot sign on the line yet about women being pastors. However, having said that, it is not a hill I am willing to die on and I definitely think women can still be active and involved in ministry.

People are talking about this and how offensive it is. No one seems to be asking one question. “Could Driscoll’s position be true?” It does not work to say that you find a position offensive. Several people find the doctrine that Jesus is the only way to be offensive and because of that say Christianity cannot be true. Christianity is offensive however. It does teach that people are sinners who can’t save themselves and must rely on Christ. There is no other way. That offends people, yet we tell them they must deal with it.

Now let’s look at Driscoll’s position. Could it be that it is biblical that women don’t pastor churches? Could it be that in fact women can be too motherly and present God in a way that might tone down some arguments? Keep in mind that this is his position and not necessarily mine. I would side more with the reasons of Lewis in an essay he wrote on this topic most likely, but let us not discount Driscoll’s view because we find it offensive. Let us do study to find if it is true. In saying this, I do not doubt that women can certainly give the hard truth if need be, but is this the way it naturally is?

For instance, many of us young men growing up knew about which parent to approach if we wanted something. If we wanted to do something questionable and/or dangerous, we went to see Dad. If we skinned our knee or needed some comfort, we went to Mom. There’s a reason for that.

Is the way to determine this to compare Driscoll’s church to Brierley’s? No. The way to do it is to have skilled researchers that know how to compare churches that have women as pastors to churches that have men as pastors and see if this is the case. Of course, if Driscoll can make his case biblically, that will settle the deal, but if we are uncertain, there is nothing wrong with looking at his question in other areas.

Note the danger we get in if we just play the offensive card. A few years ago, Lawrence Summers had to resign from a position at Harvard when he said that there are some skills men are better at than women. There was an outcry against what he said without asking one question about what he said. “Is he right?” If he is right, well he’s right and saying that it offends someone will not change the fact that he is right.

Men and women are different and God values those differences. I do believe I’d have more sympathy with Driscoll’s position because I do believe that men have been given the place of leadership and that men need to stand up and take charge of the situations around them.

This is not anti-woman at all. Those who know me know the devotion I show my Mrs. and that I do not look down on her because she is a woman. In fact, I take my position of leadership very seriously as I have to remember that when I stand before God, I give an account not only of how I turned out, but how my family turned out based on my leadership and that is a serious charge. For those who think the Bible is sexist in Ephesians 5, have you seen what it tells me I must do as a man? I must love my wife as Christ loved the church. Do you know what a calling that is? Do you know how serious that is? The Bible gives me the greatest responsibility that I must answer for.

I think it would be wrong then to say that Mark Driscoll is sexist because he holds this position. If he is sexist, it is not because of this. Elizabeth Elliot even holds the position that women should not be pastors. Does she hold this position because she hates her own sex? When we look at whether this is the way it should be, we have to look at the arguments themselves and not how we feel.

This is not to say that Driscoll’s arguments were the best of course. For Driscoll wanting Brierley to give the verses, it would have been nice if Driscoll himself had given some. Could we have had more of a discussion on passages like 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2?

Driscoll also emphasized getting the young men saved, but could there not be a good reason for this? In Driscoll’s view, the men are the leaders of society and if the men are living Christian lives, it could be expected the people would follow. In ancient times, if the king of a land became a Christian, it would not be a surprise for the people to soon follow suit. We can look at this statistically? Could it be that if men become Christians, more of the family is prone to follow than if the wife or a child becomes a Christian? Of course there are individual exceptions, but we must ask on a whole if Driscoll’s position is correct.

In that case, I don’t think Driscoll is sexist in saying this. Again, he could be sexist in other ways, but not in this one. Driscoll just wants men to be men and to lead their families and the best way to lead them is to be like Christ and how can they be like Christ if they do not know who Christ is?

At this point, Driscoll chooses to ask Brierley some questions. I have already briefly discussed how Brierley answered on Penal Substitution. I do not see how Brierley struggles to believe in that, but rather how he wants to be careful about how he presents it.

As for the literal Hell question, I would have asked what Driscoll meant by a literal Hell. If he meant a place that actually has flames and worms, then no. I don’t believe in a literal Hell either. That is just because I don’t believe that is what the Bible has in mind. Now I don’t think annihilationism is the way to go, but it was surprising to me how Driscoll spoke about that being a feminine position when someone he said he admires, like John Stott, held to that position. Was Stott really affected strongly be feminism?

Having said that, I don’t think Brierley was annoying or impolite in the interview. I also would not call him a liberal Christian. When I think of people we call liberal Christians, I think of ones who want the name of Christian but hold to stances that deny essential Christian doctrine, such as the deity of Christ. I do not really consider such people Christians, but there is not much other name for them in our society. I do not see Brierley backing down on essential issues.

At the end of the day, let us remember that if we are in apologetics, one question e should be asking at the start of any claim is “Is it true?” It seems too many people are jumping at Driscoll and immediately talking about how offensive they find what he says before asking the question “Is it true?”

If it is, I think we should all want to know that. If Brierley comes to the conclusion that it is true and thus, his wife needs to step down, well that will have to be accepted, but I think he’d want to do that rather than to go against the truth. If it comes that the conclusion is not true, then we have nothing to worry about. If it is, let us give thanks that it was brought to our attention so we could discover it. If it is not, let us give thanks anyway that we got to come together in a disagreement and work together on studying a position to learn if it is true.

That’s my opinions on the matter. I overall think Brierley handled himself well. I also think Driscoll does raise some points worth thinking about and we need to watch to see how we respond. We don’t want to be reactionary people but people seeking the truth in all things, even if we don’t always like that truth.

In Christ,
Nick Peters