Mark Driscoll Names Some Names in the Emergent Church
September 25, 2007
Pastor Ken Silva points us to Mark Driscoll’s recent speach at a souther baptist conference where he addressed issues with Emergent leaders Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Doug Pagitt.
Read the complete post from Pastor Ken here.
I have listened to Mark Driscoll’s address and I agree with him about McLaren, Bell, and Pagitt. However Driscoll suggest that leaders like Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, John Burke, and Erwin McManus are ‘Evangelicals trying to be relevant’ and we should not be concerned with them. Driscoll’s assesment (or lack of assesment) of the doctrine and theology of these last four men seems strange to me. As I read and evaluate what these men are saying, there is a very real need to speak out againts their heresy as well.
You can find the audio from this conference here.
Note: Consider supporting this blog by going to Monergism Books or Westminster Bookstore when looking for great deals on Christian books. — Shane Trammel
Posted in Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Doug Pagitt, Emergent, Emergent Church, Erwin McManus, John Burke, Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell
content rss
September 25th, 2007 at 2:27 am
hello-
mark and i have had personal discussions about theology and beliefs and he is reporting accurately. most people who make claims about another’s beliefs, don’t take the time to do what mark has done or if they hear different don’t want to admit they might be wrong and that we are evangelical in doctrine.
hope this helps ,
Dan
September 25th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Dan,
Maybe I should be more specific with some of my concerns. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts here. I agree that many people make claims they can not support with facts. I would love to discuss some of my questions with you if you are open to that. I have no problem admitting I am wrong if indeed I am. I hope that could be said of you as well.
Are you in agreement with Mark regarding his concerns of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Doug Pagitt.
Shane
November 16th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Dan,
Are you going to reply?
April 6th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Something that was very hard for me to appreciate about what Driscoll was saying is that he at one point was very simply giving false information. I’m not suggesting that he intentionally did that, but he very obviously did not read “Slave, Women, and Homosexuals” (or he did and is changing what the book was talking about). No where in the book does the author say that we will get to a point where homosexuality will be biblically correct. The author uses slaves and women as examples of themes in the Bible that seem to take an upward swing, and then uses homosexuality as a theme that very obviously never takes that upward swing… therefore it never changes at all from the position that it is wrong is God’s eyes.
Mistakes are understandable, but with this mistake he basically claimed to have evidence that Bell was fine with homosexuality… not a accusation to throw around lightly.
I am not in agreement with Driscoll on his claims of heresy necessarily. Also, Bell, McLaren, and Pagitt are at three different “distances” from the conservatives view of orthodoxy (in their respective order).
April 6th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
my definition of heresy is the ancient definition – Apostle’s Creed, and Nicene Creed, etc.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:09 am
After reading this article, I feel that I really need more info. Can you share some more resources please?
June 29th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Shane,
I think it’s great that you’re so passionate about differing between what is heresy and truth.. However, I think you should look into men like Erwin McManus and Donald Miller a bit closer before you judge them to be heretical. Check out their doctrines.. read one of their books.. talk to one of the thousands of people that have come to know Jesus because of these men’s passion. Their style may not be what you prefer.. but one’s preference doesn’t make someone heretical.