Part 1: Mark Driscoll
Mark Driscoll: Biblicist Theology
I just don’t get this guy. I really wonder why Zondervan asked Driscoll to be a part of this book, and I have to wonder why Driscoll said yes. Mark apparently thinks that the number of Biblical citations is directly proportional to how faithful his chapter actually is to scripture? Seriously, he has 176 footnotes, 174 of which are practically lists of Bible verses for a 14-pg chapter. It also seems as though Driscoll has an unhealthy need for power; Driscoll mentions numerous times about how a major point in his essay is to show how “The Christian revelation of God is distinct from and superior to all other views of God” (26) and “But the fact remains that Jesus Christ is distinct from and superior to all other religious leaders and their religions…” (27). Later on, in response to John Burke’s chapter, he writes again, “It is imperative that we remain steadfastly committed to articulating the reasons why Jesus is distinct from and superior to all other religions and religious leaders” (71). What is his deal with this power trip?
We all know that Mark is a big penal substitutionary atonement guy, and he definitely shows his colors in this chapter:
“Many people warmly recollect the kind deeds of Jesus, such as healing the sick, caring for the poor, and feeding the hungry. Many people also appreciate Jesus’ teachings related to doing good deeds and being loving. But it is the death of Jesus and what it accomplished that is the most controversial aspect of Jesus’ life and ministry, because it is the most important” (29).
There it is – Jesus’ life, ministry, care for the poor…nope. Let’s focus on the most important thing: Jesus’ death. I am all for the theological diversity that exists within Emergent and the emerging church discussion, but I just don’t get what Driscoll’s deal was with this chapter? Was this so he could show the chapter off to his buddies like John Piper and Douglas Wilson – to show that even an uber-conservative, Reformed, fundamentalist self-described biblicist can shed the light on the emerging errors? I really just don’t get it, and I had to nod in agreement with Doug Pagitt, when he wrote in response to Mark, “At times I found it difficult to read Mark’s chapter” (43).
