Found this blog post linked in a Wartburg Watch comment thread.
It is notable enough that I feel the need to pass it on.
Mark Driscoll Smacks Down Rebellious Evangelicals.
Of course Driscoll doesn't want any of us to search out what the Bible really says. Then he can no longer use it as a sock puppet that always agrees with him.
Showing posts with label Nick Bulbeck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick Bulbeck. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2013
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Men Judging Women...
...from the depravity of their own minds.
Let me specify because I do not want to imply, in any way, that all men do this.
But there is one man in particular who believes that he has great spiritual insight into the sin and wickedness of women and feels called to reveal that to his congregation concerning a certain Bible hero, Esther.
Rachel Held Evans is doing a good job of revealing the mishandling of Esther by Mark Driscoll. It's so good that I can't improve upon it and I'll leave her to it here: Esther Actually:What happens in the harem
But I want to draw one thing out that she says and quote it here:
"He rejects the story as given and replaces it with a story he wishes it to be, a story that lines up with some of his assumptions regarding salvation, election, gender, sin, and relationships."
This goes along with the quote from Nick Bulbeck that I've written about here:
"Driscoll isn't a teacher, he's merely adept at using the Bible as a sock puppet that always agrees with him."
Driscoll truly believes that he is getting to the heart of this story and that his revelations are Spirit led. The problem is that what he is really doing is revealing the depravity of his own views of women.
His misogyny is so thick that he projects his prejudices against all women onto Scriptures thereby making him completely incompetent as a Bible teacher when it comes to anything having to do with women.
But the worst part about all this is not his own depraved view of women. It is the silence of other male Bible teachers who must share in this depraved view of women because they never call him on it.
Let me specify because I do not want to imply, in any way, that all men do this.
But there is one man in particular who believes that he has great spiritual insight into the sin and wickedness of women and feels called to reveal that to his congregation concerning a certain Bible hero, Esther.
Rachel Held Evans is doing a good job of revealing the mishandling of Esther by Mark Driscoll. It's so good that I can't improve upon it and I'll leave her to it here: Esther Actually:What happens in the harem
But I want to draw one thing out that she says and quote it here:
"He rejects the story as given and replaces it with a story he wishes it to be, a story that lines up with some of his assumptions regarding salvation, election, gender, sin, and relationships."
This goes along with the quote from Nick Bulbeck that I've written about here:
"Driscoll isn't a teacher, he's merely adept at using the Bible as a sock puppet that always agrees with him."
Driscoll truly believes that he is getting to the heart of this story and that his revelations are Spirit led. The problem is that what he is really doing is revealing the depravity of his own views of women.
His misogyny is so thick that he projects his prejudices against all women onto Scriptures thereby making him completely incompetent as a Bible teacher when it comes to anything having to do with women.
But the worst part about all this is not his own depraved view of women. It is the silence of other male Bible teachers who must share in this depraved view of women because they never call him on it.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tolk-a-mentalists vs Fundamentalists.
Nick is back and commenting under the "Political Leaders Make Poor Teachers" post. I'm sure most are missing our lively conversation which is fine. There are bits and pieces that would probably only interest Nick and myself. But I did want to bring to the forefront and interesting parallel that he has pointed out.
"The thing about Tolkien die-hards not liking the films is an interesting one. You're right; inevitably, Jackson had to take certain liberties to make it work cinematically. Also, the characterisation and sub-plots are subject to interpretation. But people get stuck on their own interpretations of Tolkien, and hey presto: Tolkien fundamentalism. There are those who seem to forget that he only wrote it as a story, and Middle Earth is only pretend! I think Jackson did a decent job, personally. Essentially, he told us: this is what I think Tolkien's Middle Earth would be like to live in. There are differences, but he certainly produced an amazing spectacle.
All of which kind of brings us back on topic. Tolkien is dead, and Tolk-a-mentalists are free to argue ad nauseum about who has the correct interpretation of his work. But the Holy Spirit is not dead."
Again, thanks Nick for tools and insights for helping us understand the things we deal with.
"The thing about Tolkien die-hards not liking the films is an interesting one. You're right; inevitably, Jackson had to take certain liberties to make it work cinematically. Also, the characterisation and sub-plots are subject to interpretation. But people get stuck on their own interpretations of Tolkien, and hey presto: Tolkien fundamentalism. There are those who seem to forget that he only wrote it as a story, and Middle Earth is only pretend! I think Jackson did a decent job, personally. Essentially, he told us: this is what I think Tolkien's Middle Earth would be like to live in. There are differences, but he certainly produced an amazing spectacle.
All of which kind of brings us back on topic. Tolkien is dead, and Tolk-a-mentalists are free to argue ad nauseum about who has the correct interpretation of his work. But the Holy Spirit is not dead."
Again, thanks Nick for tools and insights for helping us understand the things we deal with.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Political Leaders Make Poor Teachers
Nick Bulbeck dropped in at FBWTS again recently. He left a nice long comment that I want to make others aware of. It is under:
Seattle Slavery Pushing
You can go there and read it in it's entirety. But here is a snippet to whet you whistle.
" I mean any one of numerous "teachers" who are nothing of the sort, but are gifted leaders and politicians who cultivate a reputation for being "biblical" merely by banging a drum for a selected handful of conservative doctrines. There are thousands of local pastors out there who think everyone but their own tribe needs to get "back to scripture", and who are just Mark Driscoll writ small. Historically, of course, there's the Papacy, which is Mark Driscoll writ large."
More understanding of the Driscoll phenomenon from over the pond.
Seattle Slavery Pushing
You can go there and read it in it's entirety. But here is a snippet to whet you whistle.
" I mean any one of numerous "teachers" who are nothing of the sort, but are gifted leaders and politicians who cultivate a reputation for being "biblical" merely by banging a drum for a selected handful of conservative doctrines. There are thousands of local pastors out there who think everyone but their own tribe needs to get "back to scripture", and who are just Mark Driscoll writ small. Historically, of course, there's the Papacy, which is Mark Driscoll writ large."
More understanding of the Driscoll phenomenon from over the pond.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Seattle Slavery Pushing
Okay, before I get into the meat of this I want to apologize to Nick Bulbeck and all others for any trouble they have on commenting on my blog. I could switch over to Wordpress, but unfortunately I'm a creature of habit and convenience due to the hectic nature of my off-line life.
I also apologize to Nick if the title above is too inflammatory and takes his observations a bit too far. In debating Driscollites (those who defend Driscoll) I have learned that they like inflammatory. That's why they like Driscoll. And in fact, they cannot even hear you if you do not speak as boldly and blatantly as their Idol. If you speak in a more gracious tone, they just think you are a ________ (insert degrading term in reference to the feminine that means you are not masculine enough for them to take seriously)
Anyone who has visited here very often knows that I have issues with a certain famous preacher in Seattle. Yes, I know that none of us are perfect and that none of us have full comprehension of all Truth. But the combination of perversion, popularity, and hypocrisy from Washington holds a special place of "WTH???!!!" [What The Heck, not Wenatchee the Hatchet ;) ] in my world. The Seattle Spin, that song and dance that confuses us and keeps us in a perpetual state of "WTH?!", is better understood, dissected and debunked from different perspectives.
Speaking of WTH (Wenatchee the Hatchet, this time) and different perspectives, I had a wonderful guess series by him concerning Driscoll and his teaching on the Song of Solomon back in October. WTH comes at Driscoll's SoS series from a unique perspective and clarity that I appreciate. Anyone who missed it will find the first installment here:
WTH on Driscoll's SoS, Intro and part 1
Well, through WTH I have become acquainted with Nick Bulbeck who has been quoted here twice and is about to be quoted a third time. Nick also comes at the Driscoll Spin Machine from a different perspective, one that I'm learning to appreciate more and more. Here is his most recent comment under "A Surprise Comment Made My Day":
"The frustration we share at the neo-calvinists, or whatever one cares to label them, may stem from something that runs very deep in us. Consider the truth that has become labelled as "Penal Substitutionary Atonement", or "PSA". Behind the academic label are some astounding implications: God almighty emptied himself, became as nothing, and faced death at the hands of his enemies in order to make them his sons and daughters. There's an old English hymn, My Song is Love Unknown, that puts it thus:
"... a murderer they save,
The Prince of Life they slay;
Yet, cheerful, He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free."
"If my understanding of this jaw-dropping truth moves me to worship; if it opens my mouth, but leaves me silent because I can't escape the realisation that I cannot possibly describe what I've just seen... then and only then have I truly understood it.
"But... if my adherence to "PSA" moves me to self-righteousness and pride, and I use it as an empty shibboleth to prove I'm more doctrinally sound than the next person, then I've understood nothing, but am deceived and blind. My "good doctrine" is, to paraphrase Proverbs 11:22, just a gold ring in a pig's snout.
"Proverbs 19:10 talks about a slave ruling over princes. The Seattle-based preacher under discussion here teaches legalism, rules, and justification by doctrine; that's slavery, but he has managed to get himself into a position of very high influence and authority. If he were just an immature high-school jock sounding off in the corner of a church somewhere because he'd only just become a believer and didn't know any better, that would be one thing. But it isn't so. He is judging and lecturing wiser believers - men and women - from whom he should be humbly learning. A slave ruling over princes; and it is not fitting."
I love Nick's the reference to Proverbs 19:10 in particular. That along with meditations in Galatians is a good defense against the slavery that Mark Driscoll pushes. Nick's input and perspective helps me to understand better, why I'm so distraught over what Driscoll teaches. Driscoll waves a carrot of "freedom" in front of young men, giving them permission to drink, cuss, get tattoos, and have limitless, pornographic sex with their wives, then clamps down on them with his real agenda motivated by his own need for popularity and worldly success.
Thanks, Nick, for sharing your thoughts. I feel I have a better grip on what is going on when we compare notes like this.
I also apologize to Nick if the title above is too inflammatory and takes his observations a bit too far. In debating Driscollites (those who defend Driscoll) I have learned that they like inflammatory. That's why they like Driscoll. And in fact, they cannot even hear you if you do not speak as boldly and blatantly as their Idol. If you speak in a more gracious tone, they just think you are a ________ (insert degrading term in reference to the feminine that means you are not masculine enough for them to take seriously)
Anyone who has visited here very often knows that I have issues with a certain famous preacher in Seattle. Yes, I know that none of us are perfect and that none of us have full comprehension of all Truth. But the combination of perversion, popularity, and hypocrisy from Washington holds a special place of "WTH???!!!" [What The Heck, not Wenatchee the Hatchet ;) ] in my world. The Seattle Spin, that song and dance that confuses us and keeps us in a perpetual state of "WTH?!", is better understood, dissected and debunked from different perspectives.
Speaking of WTH (Wenatchee the Hatchet, this time) and different perspectives, I had a wonderful guess series by him concerning Driscoll and his teaching on the Song of Solomon back in October. WTH comes at Driscoll's SoS series from a unique perspective and clarity that I appreciate. Anyone who missed it will find the first installment here:
WTH on Driscoll's SoS, Intro and part 1
Well, through WTH I have become acquainted with Nick Bulbeck who has been quoted here twice and is about to be quoted a third time. Nick also comes at the Driscoll Spin Machine from a different perspective, one that I'm learning to appreciate more and more. Here is his most recent comment under "A Surprise Comment Made My Day":
"The frustration we share at the neo-calvinists, or whatever one cares to label them, may stem from something that runs very deep in us. Consider the truth that has become labelled as "Penal Substitutionary Atonement", or "PSA". Behind the academic label are some astounding implications: God almighty emptied himself, became as nothing, and faced death at the hands of his enemies in order to make them his sons and daughters. There's an old English hymn, My Song is Love Unknown, that puts it thus:
"... a murderer they save,
The Prince of Life they slay;
Yet, cheerful, He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free."
"If my understanding of this jaw-dropping truth moves me to worship; if it opens my mouth, but leaves me silent because I can't escape the realisation that I cannot possibly describe what I've just seen... then and only then have I truly understood it.
"But... if my adherence to "PSA" moves me to self-righteousness and pride, and I use it as an empty shibboleth to prove I'm more doctrinally sound than the next person, then I've understood nothing, but am deceived and blind. My "good doctrine" is, to paraphrase Proverbs 11:22, just a gold ring in a pig's snout.
"Proverbs 19:10 talks about a slave ruling over princes. The Seattle-based preacher under discussion here teaches legalism, rules, and justification by doctrine; that's slavery, but he has managed to get himself into a position of very high influence and authority. If he were just an immature high-school jock sounding off in the corner of a church somewhere because he'd only just become a believer and didn't know any better, that would be one thing. But it isn't so. He is judging and lecturing wiser believers - men and women - from whom he should be humbly learning. A slave ruling over princes; and it is not fitting."
I love Nick's the reference to Proverbs 19:10 in particular. That along with meditations in Galatians is a good defense against the slavery that Mark Driscoll pushes. Nick's input and perspective helps me to understand better, why I'm so distraught over what Driscoll teaches. Driscoll waves a carrot of "freedom" in front of young men, giving them permission to drink, cuss, get tattoos, and have limitless, pornographic sex with their wives, then clamps down on them with his real agenda motivated by his own need for popularity and worldly success.
Thanks, Nick, for sharing your thoughts. I feel I have a better grip on what is going on when we compare notes like this.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
A Surprise Comment Made My Day
And rather than leave it and my response lost in the comment section, I thought I'd bring it forward.
In February, Wenatchee the Hatchet brought a quote to my attention and I made a post about it here:
"Driscoll uses the Bible as a Sock Puppet..."
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Nick Bulbeck even found my little blog in the great cybernet wilderness. But I'm quite honored that he did. And he left a comment that I want to copy and paste in this post.
I could have just responded in the comment section but it was a long way back (in blog months) and both what he said and what I said would be lost and benefit no one. Plus, those who have interesting bits to add that we could have benefited from, well, we would have never known what they had to say.
Here is Nick's comment in full:
Mara - thankyou for your kind words, though the quote is not completely accurate - I wrote that Mark Driscoll isn't a teacher, but "is merely adept at using the Bible as a sock-puppet that always agrees with him".
May I clarify further? Namely, by saying that Driscoll is by no means unique in that respect. Ironically, many of the anonymous heresy spotters out there (who, perhaps, sit in their nan's basements blogging in their pyjamas, as the saying goes) do likewise. Not only that, but when I first properly discovered bible teaching 25 years ago, I was the same; I became a drooling and self-righteous fundamentalist, eager to "correct" the doctrine of my more gracious, patient and Christ-like christian friends.
As it happens, I'm only a couple of years older than Mark Driscoll and he and I both therefore discovered the bible at about the same time, though thousands of miles apart. And if I had been a strong personality with a clear leadership gift, then I too might have amassed a band of loyal followers and become a pastor before I ever learned to be a disciple.
Yes, I believe some of Driscoll's influence is unhealthy and must not go unchallenged. But I am not, in myself, better than he is; there, but for the grace of God, go I.
A couple of things first.
I totally agree that Driscoll is not unique in doing the sock puppet thing. He's just offended me more than most others for reasons I may or many not get into later.
I also greatly agree with the fact Nick pointed out that in order to be a good pastor, you must first learn to be a disciple. Driscoll skipped that stage to the hurt of himself and those he "pastors".
Another thing I would add is that if a person actually had the gifting of the office of a teacher, even with minimal training, that person would not make the blatant errors in teaching that Driscoll makes.
Now to the thing I really wanted to add. To me, this goes beyond even discovering proper Bible teaching, though that plays a prominent role in all of this. Because even the most 'proper' teaching of scriptures can go a muck. The best example I can give is the Pharisees in the day of Jesus. They knew the scriptures inside and out. But still, human error and tradition made them not recognize the Messiah when He came.
The point, even beyond proper Bible teaching is... Seeking God through prayer and the Scriptures. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. Driscoll screws up major royale in thinking that God thinks the way that he does.
And as Nick pointed out about Bible teaching, Driscoll is "by no means unique in that respect". We all do it to a degree. We think that God thinks like us. The point, though, is to recognize this as one of our human failings. When we reach out to God and His Book we must keep this always before us. And along with this, we should reach out to each other and compare notes. There is no one person who totally gets all of Who God is and What He is all about.
Sometimes I use this illustration, but not often because it is borrowed from Eastern thought and therefore soundly rejected by many. But it is still the best picture I know.
It's the story of The Blind Men and the Elephant. Each of the blind men touched a different part of the elephant and came to different conclusions of what it was. This is how we are with God. And while I hold to the Christian view, I see this also happening within the Christian circles. Each person or group has some sort of revelation of Who God is. They have managed to touch some part of God, and rather than realizing that what they understand is only a small part of the whole, they build a temple on this one aspect of God and shun and criticize all others rather than compare notes.
One of the reasons that Driscoll has gotten on my bad side is this:
He has decided a certain aspect of God, or in particular, a certain interpretation of the Song of Solomon is the one and only way to view both God and the Songs. Instead of realizing that he has only touched on a small area of what the the Songs are about, he has criticized, insulted, and mocked everyone and everything that doesn't agree with his narrow view and has run head long into deep error by not being willing to consider that perhaps others also have an understanding that brings the picture of the Whole better into focus.
So yes, this is why the "Sock Puppet" quote struck such a chord with me. The way certain men put forth their puny opinion on Bible interpretation as God breathed, all encompassing fact and then holds people accountable to their narrow and misguided interpretations, well, this really gets my goat.
Thoughts?
Nick or anyone else?
In February, Wenatchee the Hatchet brought a quote to my attention and I made a post about it here:
"Driscoll uses the Bible as a Sock Puppet..."
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Nick Bulbeck even found my little blog in the great cybernet wilderness. But I'm quite honored that he did. And he left a comment that I want to copy and paste in this post.
I could have just responded in the comment section but it was a long way back (in blog months) and both what he said and what I said would be lost and benefit no one. Plus, those who have interesting bits to add that we could have benefited from, well, we would have never known what they had to say.
Here is Nick's comment in full:
Mara - thankyou for your kind words, though the quote is not completely accurate - I wrote that Mark Driscoll isn't a teacher, but "is merely adept at using the Bible as a sock-puppet that always agrees with him".
May I clarify further? Namely, by saying that Driscoll is by no means unique in that respect. Ironically, many of the anonymous heresy spotters out there (who, perhaps, sit in their nan's basements blogging in their pyjamas, as the saying goes) do likewise. Not only that, but when I first properly discovered bible teaching 25 years ago, I was the same; I became a drooling and self-righteous fundamentalist, eager to "correct" the doctrine of my more gracious, patient and Christ-like christian friends.
As it happens, I'm only a couple of years older than Mark Driscoll and he and I both therefore discovered the bible at about the same time, though thousands of miles apart. And if I had been a strong personality with a clear leadership gift, then I too might have amassed a band of loyal followers and become a pastor before I ever learned to be a disciple.
Yes, I believe some of Driscoll's influence is unhealthy and must not go unchallenged. But I am not, in myself, better than he is; there, but for the grace of God, go I.
A couple of things first.
I totally agree that Driscoll is not unique in doing the sock puppet thing. He's just offended me more than most others for reasons I may or many not get into later.
I also greatly agree with the fact Nick pointed out that in order to be a good pastor, you must first learn to be a disciple. Driscoll skipped that stage to the hurt of himself and those he "pastors".
Another thing I would add is that if a person actually had the gifting of the office of a teacher, even with minimal training, that person would not make the blatant errors in teaching that Driscoll makes.
Now to the thing I really wanted to add. To me, this goes beyond even discovering proper Bible teaching, though that plays a prominent role in all of this. Because even the most 'proper' teaching of scriptures can go a muck. The best example I can give is the Pharisees in the day of Jesus. They knew the scriptures inside and out. But still, human error and tradition made them not recognize the Messiah when He came.
The point, even beyond proper Bible teaching is... Seeking God through prayer and the Scriptures. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. Driscoll screws up major royale in thinking that God thinks the way that he does.
And as Nick pointed out about Bible teaching, Driscoll is "by no means unique in that respect". We all do it to a degree. We think that God thinks like us. The point, though, is to recognize this as one of our human failings. When we reach out to God and His Book we must keep this always before us. And along with this, we should reach out to each other and compare notes. There is no one person who totally gets all of Who God is and What He is all about.
Sometimes I use this illustration, but not often because it is borrowed from Eastern thought and therefore soundly rejected by many. But it is still the best picture I know.
It's the story of The Blind Men and the Elephant. Each of the blind men touched a different part of the elephant and came to different conclusions of what it was. This is how we are with God. And while I hold to the Christian view, I see this also happening within the Christian circles. Each person or group has some sort of revelation of Who God is. They have managed to touch some part of God, and rather than realizing that what they understand is only a small part of the whole, they build a temple on this one aspect of God and shun and criticize all others rather than compare notes.
One of the reasons that Driscoll has gotten on my bad side is this:
He has decided a certain aspect of God, or in particular, a certain interpretation of the Song of Solomon is the one and only way to view both God and the Songs. Instead of realizing that he has only touched on a small area of what the the Songs are about, he has criticized, insulted, and mocked everyone and everything that doesn't agree with his narrow view and has run head long into deep error by not being willing to consider that perhaps others also have an understanding that brings the picture of the Whole better into focus.
So yes, this is why the "Sock Puppet" quote struck such a chord with me. The way certain men put forth their puny opinion on Bible interpretation as God breathed, all encompassing fact and then holds people accountable to their narrow and misguided interpretations, well, this really gets my goat.
Thoughts?
Nick or anyone else?
Monday, February 20, 2012
"Driscoll Uses the Bible as a Sock Puppet...
...that always agrees with him."--Nick Bulbeck.
A quote so brilliant I wish I had come up with it. But, of course, I didn't. Nor can I take credit for discovering this quote. WTH did. So I'm going to link his post where he quotes the entire paragraph, with contains other insightful things. And WTH's post links the link to this comment so, if you care to, you can read the comment in its in entirety and see the blog from whence it came.
(For those interested this comment was under one kinnon.tv's blog posts)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)