Driscoll and MacArthur's differences seem to have gone public.
Sadly...
"Driscoll guys" are dogging on MacArthur, upset that he has gone public and is assuming motives.
"MacArthur guys" are dogging on Driscoll, upset that he hasn't directly answered questions nor responded to their pleas.
Would the MacArthur and Driscoll loyalists be pleased if the two sides completely reconciled?
Would Acts29 guys be pleased to see Driscoll at the Shepherds' Conference, in a suit, sharing an exegetical message without any controversy?
Would Shepherds' Fellowship guys be pleased to hear MacArthur challenging men at a Resurgence Conference, even if his message were preceded by a rap performance?
In an imperfect world, that seems impossible. But with a perfect Savior, it should be our hope!
____________________________________________________________
Of note, MacArthur's final article on the issue is wonderfully crafted. He avoids any assumptions of motive and simply deals with the improprieties expressed. At the time of my posting the link, snarky comments weren't appearing yet...but unfortunately, I would bet they are coming.
4 comments:
I don't agree with all of Drisoll's take on the Song. It's poetry for a reason, and it's not a how-to manual. Taken as a whole, Song can help us develop a holistic understanding of intimacy. Still, we can't get around the fact that Christ claims the Song as a testimony of himself.
On the other hand, I think there are far more important things to challenge. I don't know what year MacArthur was appointed keeper of the gate of all things Christian, but his polemic tone is somewhat worn out after all these years. Piper said Owen's last years were his most Christ-centered. I truly hope we can say the same for MacArthur. As I scan my MacArthur books (27 of them not including his commentaries), most are written to challenge someone else's views - some on secondary issues.
In answer to the question, "Would Acts29 guys be pleased to see Driscoll at the Shepherds' Conference, in a suit, sharing an exegetical message without any controversy?"
I don't think this would ever happen because MacArthur has publicly stated that he doesn't think Driscoll is qualified to be an elder/ shepherd.
man darby,
i think we're going to have to disagree on this one. reading from some of the links to other links to seeing/hearing some things driscoll has said--not just poor exegesis. flat out disqualifying speech for an elder.
i think it is also possible that you are underestimating the impact driscoll has in young, reformed circles. he's practically the poster boy for our generation. i've heard several young men say they were going to preach SoS and were using driscoll's material as an influence. yet, with the communication that has been attempted from those who are concerned...there just isn't much sign of repentance.
his "ecclesiastes joke" deserves a public apology/confession, but as far as i can find...none is there. (and i originally plead for tolerance after the hughley interview...for that is a tough environment.)
trust me, i am bummed. a man i believed was probably "luther-like" in the sense that he was a renegade with some rough edges, instead seems destined to crash and burn. i PRAY that i am wrong. it's also pretty humbling personally when you realize others who saw concerns before you were right...but that's the least of my concerns right now.
Hey bro,
I think you're right about Driscoll. He's gone too far with his language and tone. He's misinterpreted parts of SoS, even while saying some good things about marriage. Even Piper said that Driscoll has enough rope to hang himself.
As far as MacArthur's critique, I'm just as guilty at times of critiquing what other well-meaning Christians are teaching. Just look at some of my book reviews for goodness sake. So for me to criticize MacArthur is the pot calling the kettle black. I should have kept my big fingers shut. :)
Post a Comment