Book Review- Vintage Jesus
Vintage Jesus is written by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears. Driscoll is the reformed/emergent lightening-rod pastor of
The book intends to answer a number of relevant questions about the person and work of Jesus Christ. To Driscoll’s credit he tackles some of the most common questions asked by unbelievers and endeavors to answer them biblically and within the realm of historic protestant orthodoxy. There are some really good sections of the book where we are given clear, biblical answers to common questions.
Some of the chapter titles include:
Is Jesus the Only God?
How Human was Jesus?
Why did Jesus’ Mom Need to be a Virgin?
Did Jesus Rise from Death?
Why Should We Worship Jesus?
I feel that it is necessary at the outset of this review to show my hand a bit. I have been a Driscoll supporter for a number of years now. I have read both of his previous books and enjoyed them. I have also been a subscriber to the Mars Hill podcast for over two years. I have benefited from the ministry of Mark Driscoll in a number of different ways. All of this to say, I am not the ‘anti-Driscoll guy’. However, I did not enjoy this book. In fact, I repeatedly found myself wincing and much like an argument amongst friends, just wishing it would end soon and without further damage.
One criticism that has accompanied Driscoll for years is his language. Ever since his days of being labeled “Mark the cussing pastor” by Donald Miller in his book Blue Like Jazz we have heard folks decry the language used by Driscoll. To his credit, we have heard what appears to be humility in the pulpit and in writing that seems to indicate that this is behind him.
For those who are interested Driscoll did not drop ‘F-bombs’ in the book, neither did he employ any of the other socially relegated ‘cuss words’ that he has been criticized in the past for. However, in Vintage Jesus Driscoll repeatedly dips his pen into the sewer for illustrations. For example, I do not know why he feels it necessary to draw vivid pictures in his readers’ minds of groping women at frat parties (he went into some detail here). He also spoke of stumbling upon a naked woman in the frat house. (p.80-81) Is this the best illustration possible for whatever the point was that he was trying to make? As a pastor and a man I work hard at trying to keep men’s minds fixed on what is pure and good. The human heart does a fine job itself birthing temptations and lust in the heart without pastor Mark priming the pump.
I know that some folks will say that Driscoll is trying to ‘contextualize’ and reach out to those who are unreached; those who don’t know Jesus and don’t go to church. Who else is going to reach the urban, jacked-up, fornicating, pot-smoking, violent, ungodly deviants? Well, I was that guy. And speaking as a guy from that background it turns my stomach to see appeals to the third rail of culture in order to relate. Do you know how Jesus related to me? He showed me my sin. Like those that Paul referred to in 1 Cor. 14, the secrets of my heart were disclosed and so falling on my face, I worshipped God and declared that God is really among the church. (1 Cor. 14.24-25) It breaks my heart to see Driscoll attempting to ‘sanctify’ sin for the sake of illustration. This is really pointless when you think about it.
Driscoll states that it seems that “every generation is guilty of giving Jesus an extreme makeover.” (p.42) And of course we (guys like me) tend to like much of what Driscoll says about the need for men to act like men and the fact that Jesus is not weak and effeminate but rather strong and masculine.
However, is Driscoll not guilty of doing the same thing but with a little more spiritual testosterone?
For example, Driscoll, in his run through The Gospel According to Mark, describes Jesus as a guy who,
“[tells] a leper to shut-up”
“does the equivalent of breaking into a church on a Sunday morning to make a sandwich with the communion bread..”
“needs Paxil”
“needs sensitivity training”
“has his guys take a donkey without asking like some kleptomaniac donkeylifter”
“[Is] an obvious workaholic who needed to start drinking decaf and listening to taped sounds of running water while doing aromatherapy so he could learn to relax.”
We are talking about Jesus…right? The Son of God? He needed Paxil? This isn’t even funny. Look, I am guilty of laughing when we hear Driscoll going after the environmentalists, the charismatics, the fundamentalists, and the pastorettes, but…come on…we are talking about the Lord Jesus Christ. And I think this is what has me up in arms. Jesus did not need medication, a vacation, or sensitivity training, he is the perfect Son of God! The only thing he ‘needs’ is to be bowed down before and worshipped. Driscoll would do well to put away his sarcastic comedy routine and his sketchpad, for he, himself seems to be giving Jesus an extreme makeover. And the more I look at this Jesus that he is drawing the more it looks like Mark Driscoll.
Some of the unnecessary references in this book to Jesus’ incarnation are included below…
“Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the ‘fact’ she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.” (p.11)
“Jesus’ humor was often biting and harsh, particularly when directed at the Pharisees. For example, he called them a bag of snakes, said that their moms shagged the Devil, and mocked them for tithing out of their spice racks.” (pp. 40-41)
“Joining them later at the party at Matthew’s house was nothing short of a very bad hip-hop video, complete with women in clear heels, dudes with their pants around their ankles and handguns in their underwear strap, lots of gold teeth, bling, spinners on camels, cheap liquor, and grinding to really loud music with a lot of bass. When word got out to the religious folks, they were perplexed as to how Jesus could roll with such a jacked-up posse. Jesus’ answer was purely priestly. Jesus said that they were sick and needed mercy.” (p.77)
“Some Catholic theologians taught that Jesus was not born in the normal fashion through Mary’s birth canal. Rather, they say he was born via something much like a miraculous C-section, as if Mary were some Messiah-in-the-box, and Joseph cranked her arm until the Messiah popped out of her gut.” (p. 93)
From a theological perspective I found the book to be pretty tight. It was your basic Protestant defense of biblical faith. However, I was shocked to find this quote in the middle of the book (I quote the context):
On the cross as our substitute, Jesus was made to be the worst of what we are. This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned. Rather, it means that he was made sin. As a result, in that moment when Jesus cried out that he had been forsaken by God the Father, Jesus became the most ugly, wicked, defiled, evil, corrupt, rebellious, and hideous thing in all creation. In that moment, Jesus became a homosexual, alcoholic, thief, glutton, addict, pervert, adulterer, coveter, idol worshiper, whore, pedophile, self-righteous religious prig—and whatever else we are.” (p. 114—emphasis mine).
Jesus became a whore? Jesus became an idol worshipper? Really? So now we have Jesus with a new nature? He is sinless human, perfect God and a pervert? This is not what the Scripture teaches. He became sin (that is he was imputed or charged with our sin) on the cross he did not become the sinner (2 Cor. 5.21). I realize that he says, “This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned.” But that is exactly what he says. He could have said Jesus was judged in our place, being charged with our sins. He was treated like the homosexual, alcoholic, thief, etc..should have been treated (though he was sinless). I do not believe this is theological semantics, but rather the heart of the gospel. The numerous endorsers and his co-author should have caught this error. It seems to me that Driscoll’s penchant for dramatic hyperbole got the best of him and unraveled his explanation of the gospel. Regrettably, this really becomes a good picture of what you have in this book; Driscoll’s drama getting in the way and ruining a clear explanation of Jesus.
Along with many people, I have been praying for Driscoll that things would get better and that he would not crash and burn. This book, in my view, goes backward rather than forward. As I read the book I found myself thinking of the NFL running back who gets up and draws attention to himself after every first down. I find myself saying, “Just go back to the huddle and run another play.” In this book I find myself saying, “Just go back to the Bible and give us some more Jesus. Enough with the ‘extra & unnecessary stuff’ it just gets in the way.”
Possibly Related posts:
- Book Review- Vintage Church
- Book Review- Death by Love
- Book Review- The Truth War
- Book Review- Jesus Christ: The Prince of Preachers
- Book Review- Jesus the Evangelist
35 Responses to “Book Review- Vintage Jesus”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Updates
Sponsors
About
Twitter Updates
- What Christ-Centered Preaching Endeavors to Do.... http://bit.ly/cWjFTx
- May God forbid that Jesus ever be so familiar that he is no longer fascinating.
- The Church History ABC's http://is.gd/eRlnb
Recent Comments
- Erik on The Church History ABC’s
- Jim on The Church History ABC’s
- Coffee, Steam and Vapors of Life « A Clay Jar Speaks on Don’t Waste Your Coffee
- Tweets that mention What Christ-Centered Preaching Endeavors to Do- Erik Raymond -- Topsy.com on What Christ-Centered Preaching Endeavors to Do
- Beau on Evangelical Polygamy: The Conservative Honeymoon with Glenn Beck
Recommended Products
Random Posts
Most Read Articles
Tags
Archives
Powered by Wordpress | Design by ElegantThemes | All Content © Erik Raymond 2006-2010 
Erik Raymond's Blog by Erik Raymond is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.IrishCalvinist.com.
Good points. Some of that made me cringe, and I too am a Driscoll fan. The description of Jesus dining with sinners though, I think was not over-the-top as an illustration. But some of the language in other examples is a bit excessive.
I agree that the difference between imputation of sin and being a sinner are crucial. In fairness to Driscoll, I don’t think he was saying the latter, but I can see where he could be misconstrued. Perhaps a 2nd edition that’s cleaned up and refined a bit might do well.
There certainly is room for more retrospection and wisdom. The lines about a dumpy hick town, etc, I think could stay. Nazareth was considered a dumpy hick town by the cultured, refined, hypocritically pious folks of Judea. Galilee itself was considered hicky and unrefined, Nazareth was just like the redneck capital of it to Judeans of the day, right?
Thanks again for your thoughtful review and for not going overboard in blasting Driscoll but giving wise pastoral counsel about how he should refine his writing, etc.
Yes, I agree with your review. I know that you feel you have to include the parts you found objectionable, but I am personally tired of reading them (others have included some of the same stuff on their blogs). I never wanted to read them once, much less over and over. It grieves me to read what is written about the glorious Lord Jesus.
The Lord also saved me out of a very worldly life, when I was 38 years old. I WAS the unsaved person that so many are trying to “reach.” I was taken to church sporadically as a child by friends. My family did not attend church tho my parents considered themselves Christians (a.k.a. cultural Christians). I knew some biblical language, a few stories from the OT and the first sentence of the Bible. I knew Jesus died on a cross but had no idea why. I was your typical pagan – fleshly, immoral, selfish, looking for pleasure & happiness.
How was I saved? By the scriptures. A co-worker shared the scriptures with me. They were not even “witnessing” in the narrowest sense, but just reading the scriptures to me. The word of God is powerful but we in the church today don’t believe that and we think we are smarter than God. I started attending a very conservative church that only sang old hymns and that without any instruments. The Lord was drawing me, not men. I never even thought about whether I liked the music, if the teaching was relevant or if the pastor was cool and “spoke my language.” I had never even heard of Christian contemporary music. I just wanted the Lord and thankfully the pastor preached Christ and His salvation. It wasn’t perfect, glitzy, fleshly or sensory. It was the truth though and the Lord used it. I really, really don’t get what people like MD are trying to do.
Driscoll goes for shock value. It looks cheap sometimes; it shakes up the religious sensibilities most of us have wrapped ourselves in. There are times it goes over the top. Still, I am mostly a fan of what Driscoll writes. I’d like to see him take a re-look at this one, and maybe ratchet down some of the rhetoric about Jesus as referenced in this review. Mark, when you mess with the person of Christ, you’ve ventured too far into the no-go zone.
The bottom line is that we are talking about Jesus. Plain and simple. And to jack around with what is due him, whether by immaturity or indifference, is reproachable.
And frankly, just the fact that folks keep on talking about the language issue makes it an issue. The pastor is to be an example of purity…in speech (1 Tim. 4.12). Pastors are to be a tupos to be followed, that is an imprint or a stamp of faithfulness. I have so been hoping that through Driscoll’s friendships with Maheney, Piper, and Ware that this stuff would be history. I regret that it is not.
Anon, I had to review it. And do so thoroughly. I simply have to many guys around me that need to interact with it. Thanks for reading and I appreciate the testimony of grace in your life. Your indebtedness comes through as you write.
Erik
“I am mostly a fan of what Driscoll writes.”
The question is: Is the Lord a “fan” of what he writes?
If what he writes does more to stir up believers then stir up the lost to repentance you have to wonder which is his audience. I admit I am not a “fan”, but think some of his stuff is humorous and entertaining. I won’t be letting my 9 and 11 year old read his stuff, so I wonder about the entertainment value as it seems to be tied to irreverence.
Thanks for the review. It’s helpful to get some balance. I’ve benefited from some of what Driscoll has said, but from what you have said here and some of the things I have heard (even in the context of his sermons), it’s hard to endorse the guy as a whole. At times, he has a way of describing truth in a very transparent, lucid way. His heart for the lost comes through and it’s convicting to me. But what he thinks is funny and acceptable often saddens and even scares me. We’re all growing, but as you say he is to be a model as a pastor. I hope he has godly friends giving him counsel/confrontation in these areas and that he’ll take it to heart.
Your statement that you pray for him is convicting and I will pray today for him and examine my life for what we accuse him of. It is definitely easier to bash him and call his sin worse than our own than it is to pray for him, his people, and the godly leaders who are giving him counsel. If I contemplate the effort and time spent structuring argumentation against people and compare it to the time I spend praying for them, I know I am convicted. I’m sure I’m not alone.
There is certainly a place for calling him out on sin (especially as he puts his words out there in the public arena), but not to the neglect of prayer. Thanks again.
Powerful and spot on!
Thank you dear brother for speaking the truth without compromise and doing so bathed in Christian charity. I ministered in your church several years ago and don’t recall if we met or not then.
Keep up the great work you are doing for the kingdom here on your blog.
Grace and truth,
Steve Camp
Col. 1:9-14
I have been reading the book and have found it interesting. I do agree that at times he goes over a line but it was not as cringe inducing as some of the free will sermons and poor preaching I have heard in my area. Plus I think that by being around Mahaney ,Piper,Devers etc… I’m confident he will grow. He surely has a heart for the lost and is far from the ivy tower pastors I recall of my past , which I respect . Plus a young friend of my son’s , who is 18 ,so the language Driscoll uses would be like Mr.Rogers to him , seems very keen on reading it and I haven’t been able to get him into any of my other books . Hopefully it will be a launching pad for discussion and introduce him to Sproul,Piper,Horton etc..
There is no doubt the criticism of some of Driscoll’s methods are valid and needed to hopefully stir him on in growth and maturity but much of what I have read is nasty and not helpful at . I hope and pray that he will grow because I hold he has much to offer .
These days it has become easy to allow your ministry to become the object and not what it should be, a conduit through which HE becomes the “object” of our interest. When we spend time dissecting and inspecting someone’s style and shock value, it then becomes apparent that the spiritual value of a ministry has been compromised by the minister himself.
Driscoll is obviously gifted, but it is obvious that he struggles with celebrity status and the need for attention. He could be, in my opinion, used to a much greater degree in the kingdom if He himself was not always a prominent part of the equation.
For me, some of what Driscoll has written alternately very exciting and challenging, and unnerving. It’s like he can’t quite get out of his own way. He’s been flirting with the wrong side of “contextualization” for a while. I was curious to see how he would position himself after all of the pubicity he’s gotten. Despite signs that he’d grown and learned to reel it it, it looks like he just wants to push the envolope.
Despite what he may yet have to say, I think that he has carved out his own cubby-hole in popular Christianity. Whatever he might say in the future, many peope are going to rightfully tune him out.
I, for one, am really disappointed to hear this, as I trust your reviews.
I appreciate the comments guys. A lot of good thoughts.
Reg, you said, “Plus a young friend of my son’s , who is 18 ,so the language Driscoll uses would be like Mr.Rogers to him , seems very keen on reading it and I haven’t been able to get him into any of my other books .”
-I would hate to argue in from the backdoor of pragmatism. I can think of a lot of things that I could say or do that would make unbelievers comfortable, but talking about Jesus is not one of them. I really think this book reveals a lack of appreciation of the transcendent Jesus. When Peter saw this he said, “Depart from me for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke 5.8). When the glory of God is revealed in and through the Son of God our reaction is not joking but humiliation, fear and then worship. I just can’t stomach Jesus being the punchline in a joke or comedy routine.
I know. I’ve seen some other excerpts that made me cringe as well. Or even want to throw my monitor against the wall. I appreciate Driscoll’s flat denouncement of the mystical emergent rubbish, and I do have hopes that he will grow away from this foolishness. Driscoll is a little boy in many ways, trying to talk about Jesus by writing on bathroom stalls. I cannot stand this sort of talk about my Jesus, the Son of God. We are not so much supposed to be “lightning rods”, but rather footstools. And what an honor that is!
I have high hopes and prayers for Mark, but this grieves me deeply.
Thanks
“I have high hopes and prayers for Mark”
I have only prayers. His Calvinism gives some false hopes.
“I appreciate Driscoll’s flat denouncement of the mystical emergent rubbish”
*should be a no brainer
“I have high hopes and prayers for Mark”
*I have only prayers since I am not influenced by his supposed Calvinism. His methodology is solidly hyper-Arminian. (I am Arminian)
This is really too bad. I had been hoping that he would have turned it around.
I am not sure whether it is common among all Americans, that we love super heroes and would refuse to rebuke and “still have hope” despite the words and action of the person hailed as a hero. It’s seems in the “church” and outside the church everyone is too nice and still are fans no matter what. I am already filled with anger against Driscoll by just reading some of the statements made in the review here. This person should step down from church leadership and be discipline if he claims to be a Christian. I don’t know this Driscoll well and from time to time hear about him and read excerpts of his writings, and I have found blasphemy after blasphemy. However, what surprises me most is that those who claim to be reformed and conservative give him so much attention. Should such a blasphemer get or worth this kind of attention? Maybe this person should just be ignored because it seems like his fans and supporters are those who critic him.
Rick,
You said:
“I have high hopes and prayers for Mark” I have only prayers. His Calvinism gives some false hopes.”
And:
“I appreciate Driscoll’s flat denouncement of the mystical emergent rubbish”
*should be a no brainer
“I have high hopes and prayers for Mark”
*I have only prayers since I am not influenced by his supposed Calvinism. His methodology is solidly hyper-Arminian. (I am Arminian)”
Thanks. That was very encouraging to see that kind of brotherly affection despite some theological differences. I don’t know brother, maybe you were just being funny. But it came across more as argumentative and a little patronizing.
You’re better than that Rick. Let old Calvin rest, and have a read on where I stand on the matter just for clarification.
http://www.alionhasroared.com/2008/02/intermission.html
Have a blessed Resurrection Day Rick, and all others here.
SW
Hon Yee,
I really appreciate this! Exactly what I was thinking.
[...] Warnock asks if Mark Driscoll is in revival? Speaking of Driscoll, Erik Raymond reviews Vintage Jesus and likes Driscoll's theology but has problems with some of his [...]
Driscoll’s an interesting guy. It’s obvious the Lord is using him mightily in his generation, (over 200 got baptized last weekend at Mars Hill’s Easter service) and older, repsected guys like Breshears are pouring themselves into his ministry. Driscoll, like all of us, are a work in process, the Lord is working on the rough spots, and maturing him in the faith. The best thing we can do for him is to continue to pray for him and his ministry, and remember his ministry is the ministry the Lord chose for him, not necessarily us.
Travis,
Just to reset: I write a post criticizing the book, and particularly Driscoll’s references to the Lord Jesus. Then you leave a comment stating, a) it is obvious that the Lord is using him, b) the best thing we can is pray for him, c) and that we should remember that this is what the Lord has called him to.
It seems that you have a pragmatic view of things. Just because someone is getting ‘results’ (in this case numbers, per your definition) does not mean he is doing things right. The Lord calls his shepherds to be faithful and to play by the rules. Your other point about this ministry being what the Lord has chosen seems strange. So, are we to give him a free pass because the Lord has called him to this?
I can just see the college pastor at the local Bible Church using your logic as he sits with his mouth wrapped around a bong…”Hey, look at all the unbelievers coming to my bible studies…the Lord has called me to minister to these people….who else is going to reach them?” We are governed by the Word of God to dictate our message and coral our methodology. And btw, I am praying for him….I want so bad for this guy to make it.
Erik,
So are you saying that the Lord isn’t using Driscoll? Hundreds of people giving their life to the Lord, church plants all across the nation…sure seems like the Lord is using him.
And why do you assume, he isn’t being faithful? I agree that he misspoke about what the Lord did on the Cross, by saying that Jesus became those things, but just because Driscoll may have misspoke, doesn’t mean he isn’t being faithful. It’s called a mistake, a lapse in judgment, and I am sure that we both have misspoken at times, even during teaching times.
And your point about the college pastor, smoking pot is weak at best. Nothing about Driscoll’s methodology is illegal, like smoking pot is. He is trying to bring Christ to a very pagan soceity, and by using humor, and being real with people he is able to gain an audience to share Christ with them.
Blessings
I’ve gone to Mars Hill for 4 years, and I’ve had my share of great moments with Mark and times when i think, “Did he just say that?!” One thing that I came away with from Mark last fall was something he quoted from Spurgeon: (this is a paraphrase) “Instead of always looking for problems with your pastor, please pray for him and try to get the most out of him that you can.” Mark said that to us, and acknowledged that he is still growing too. I would encourage everyone here to remember that, for their pastors.
As far as the stuff about Christ, I know that Mark loves Jesus very, very much. He glorifies Christ every week. Jesus is presented consistently at Mars Hill as the holy Son of God, without blemish, the hero of all time. When Mark writes stuff like Vintage Jesus, he is not saying how he feels about Jesus, he is showing how nonbelievers have falsely seen Jesus, both during his time on earth and today. Jesus was accused of all that horrible stuff in his day, and he is still accused of it today. Remember that Mark is in Seattle, not Nebraska. This culture is very spiritual, but doesn’t love Jesus. Most people in the Northwest don’t go to church, and don’t really care who knows. People around here want truth spoken to them without fluff, and thats what Mark does. And the truth is a lot of people hate our Savior, and we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this isn’t true.
Justin,
Great reply, and good thoughts. I totally agree with you that pastors are still growing and maturing also, and instead of looking for their faults, and we all have them, even in our theology, we should look to encourage them and pray for them.
Good word
Travis-
I’m glad you see that illustration (college pastor) as weak, as it demonstrates the futility of pragmatism, carried to its natural end. Just because something ‘works’ (whatever that means) doesn’t mean it is right. The Mormon Church and Islam are growing pretty rapidly but that doesn’t make it right. My point is that a pastor is governed by transcendent requirements for purity in speech, conduct and thought; he is to be the example for the flock. This mandate does not become less rigid as you move in and out of various zip codes.
Justin,
I appreciate your perspective as one who attends the church week in and week out. I had been encouraged by the apparent trajectory of development (growth and maturity) of Driscoll (remember, I have been a proponent both on this blog and in my everyday life and ministry).
Your statement about location is interesting and I believe one that folks use to validate questionable behavior and speech. I’m from the Boston area (pretty godless and pagan) and I live and do ministry here in Nebraska (Omaha). I will tell you that the problem (though packaged differently) is the same as it has always been:
John 10:20 Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?”
People do not love Jesus, they think he is insane and he is not valued. But this requires clear, compassionate, faithful gospel proclamation; for this is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1.16; 1 Cor. 1.18ff). It is not cultural capitulation. The more I hear Mars Hill / Acts 29 guys defend this type of stuff the more I think that folks actually believe that this type of relationship to culture and presentation of Jesus (as I outlined above) actually bring about salvation and without which these people will not be saved. This is troubling.
[...] #2 My review of Mark Driscoll’s recent book [...]
Great Review… you did a very good job on stating your criticisms. Although Driscoll can be a bit over the top sometimes, but anybody who can grow a church from the ground up in the least churched city in America has got my attention. He is obviously doing something right out there. Guys like John Piper, Ed Stetzer, Wayne Grudem, JI Packer, Danny Akin, Al Mohler, etc etc. are backing Driscoll for the work he is doing in Seattle aned if these guys can… again… than he must be doing sommething right!!!
Also, your comment on the passage in the middle of the book was way off on what Driscoll said on “what Jesus accomplished on the cross.” In saying that Jesus “became sin” on the cross does mean (as you said) all sin… this means, if he “became sin” then he had to become the sin in which the sinner commits. He became the lie, the lust, the pride, etc. etc. In turn, HE TOOK OUR PLACE ON THE CROSS… Driscoll does a great job of explaining “penal substitutionary atonement” meaning that Jesus was substituted in the place of “sinner”… what he actually became on the cross. Yes Jesus, in his humanity, is 100 % sinless… but ‘but He who knew no sin, became sin on our behalf.” Driscoll was exactly right to state what he did!!!!
Medium Book Review Error at best… other than that… good review!
Great Blog… keep it up!
Greg,
I think the point is that Jesus becoming sin and having sin charged to His account is not the same thing as becoming a sinner. Correspondingly, in justification, being declared righteous is not the same thing as actually being made a righteous person, though in our case that process always follows by God’s grace (progressive sanctification).
Though Jesus bore our sins (Is. 53) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) the Bible nowhere refers to him becoming a sinner. In fact it says the opposite in the same verse. He is the sin-bearer, not the sin-committer. Erik makes a precise distinction, but seemingly an important one since the Bible does as well in 2 Cor. 5:21.
Matt, well said and, I think, exactly right.
Erik
I put a link to this book review in my new blog, I hope that is ok. I appreciate what you have to say and want to give you credit for saying it. I write about Mark Driscoll to the people in our fellowship in my blog:
http://caseforchrist.weebly.com/mark-driscoll-and-meditation.html
Thanks.
Jackie, you are free to use the review. I will say that earnest prayer at the conclusion of this review regarding Driscoll and his preaching/writing seems to be answered. I have noticed a much different Driscoll in the last 7 mos or so. For this I am quite thankful!
I have to say, I almost completely disagree with this post. While I haven’t read the book, having listened to much of Driscoll’s teaching, I find your quotations to be nearly entirely out of context and seeking to find fault, rather than being heard as they were intended.
Every quote had some purpose other than to accuse Jesus of anything. When he says Jesus needed Paxil, sensitivity training, or to start drinking decaf, do you think he actually meant that? Or is it possible that he’s using the obviously untrue to point a finger at our culture’s perspective on those things?
And when I hear those types of comments, I laugh. NEVER am I laughing at my Redeemer in any way. I’m laughing in realization of how twisted our culture has made things.
As someone who has listened to Driscoll, as you have, I find him continually pointing to Jesus as our savior, friend, hope, and God. To take the aforementioned as straightforward statements, rather than reading them in the sarcastic tone they were written seems, at best, disingenuous.
Regarding the last quote (on Jesus’ substitution), I guess I would take Mark at his word and call it awkwardly worded, but still potentially accurate. Jesus didn’t become all of those things (homosexual, whore, etc.) in his nature, but he did in terms of his position. So it wasn’t worded very well, and probably *erred* on the side of shock value and ambiguity (rather than on the side of false theology).
I don’t want to be proud in posting this, and I don’t want to defend a man’s heart/intentions, since I can never know that. What I do want to do is give him a fair swing in a Christian culture that seems to want to villainize him.
Nathan, maybe you should read the book. My review is based on reading the book and taking it at face value. I like Mark Driscoll a lot but I think this book is a wart of immaturity. The theological error I noted along with the tone could have used a mature proof read.