Paul Young in Seattle September 10th – FREE
William Paul Young’s best selling book The Shack has provided comfort to millions of people all over the world.
But not everyone likes it
Especially the pastor of Mars Hill Church – Mark Driscoll watch
Join Jim Henderson on Friday September 10th at 1PM at First United Methodist Church near downtown Seattle as he hosts a conversation with Paul Young, his fans and his foes.
Do you remember the recent Facebook campaign that got Betty White on Saturday Night Live?
Help us draft Mark Driscoll for this event.
Here’s how…
1) Join our Facebook Fanpage
2) Blog and Twitter this event for us (Paul Young’s username on Twitter is wpy2009 and Mark Driscoll’s is PastorMark)
3) Reach out to Mark Driscoll and tell him you’d like to see him there
BTW – Seating is limited so get there early
Here is a personal invitation from Paul Young to Reverend Driscoll (if you know Mark please make sure he sees this)
“Mark Driscoll has leveled some serious charges against my writing and by extension against me. He has publicly called me a heretic. I’ve decided to ask him to meet me in Seattle on Sept 10th, from 1-3 PM, and have an open discussion in front of a public audience about the different ways he and I view scripture.
I have asked my good friend Jim Henderson to host this conversation. It will not be a debate but a discussion about our differences and because we are both Christians about the places we are in agreement. The audience will be able to ask questions of both of us.
Mark seems quite fond of telling his congregants to “man up” and I guess I am really asking him to do the same. I would like him to say to my face what he has spread around the world via Youtube, and you can be sure I’ll have a few questions for him as well.
I’m sure many ‘non-Christians’ wonder why someone like Mark can say things like this with impunity. When someone is able to garner 350K views on Youtube, or for that matter has sold almost 20 Million copies of a book, I believe the conversations have become public property.”
Doc said
am September 3 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Hmm. Doesn’t Matthew 18:15 say that the first step to take if a brother sins against you is to go to him alone?
Sounds like Young jumped the gun.
Justin said
am September 3 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Umm who threw the first stone in this? Last I checked, young isn’t running around calling people a heretic on their very public YouTube page.
And how do you know young hasn’t approached Driscoll privately?
John said
am September 3 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Jim:
I am debating whether I want to jump on board with this. What do I care what Mark Driscoll thinks,or says? Is it our hope that he will recant his message? Good luck with that!
The mindset that what we think about God is more important than how we relate to Him (and each other)is rarely changed through debating or even sharing ideas. Or, is it your hope that this will simply be exposing the mindset for what it is (the real “heresy”)?
I could spend a lot of time making this point, but I think you get where I am going.
What say you?
Rhology said
am September 3 2010 @ 2:19 pm
Doc –
Young’s book is public. Let the rebuke to his heretical writing be public.
It’s how the apostles handled it in the NT.
Justin –
Where is Driscoll “casting stones”? The apostles called out heretics all the time and warned the church against such wolves in the flock.
Jim Henderson said
am September 3 2010 @ 4:09 pm
who died and made Driscoll an apostle?
martha Hopler said
am September 3 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Thanks for having the courage to invite Mark to show up and speak truth Paul…………the acuation that you should have spoken in private forgets the fact that all the acusations have been public no step was missed…………lets stop using the bible as a weapon for that only lands some one on the cross oh that was done already only need one savior…………the rest of us are just a bunch of human beings trying to figure out what was meant by loving one another……..this invatation seems to be such an attempt…………thanks Paul………
Jim Henderson said
am September 3 2010 @ 4:46 pm
actually – Paul had or has nothing to make right with Driscoll – It was Driscoll’s responsibility to check with Paul before making these accusations. Driscoll is the one who has been disobedient to scripture. He took it public. All Paul is doing is say lets have this discussion (that could have been private had Driscoll tried to reach out to Paul) in public. The cow has left the barn.
Please encourage Reverend Driscoll to make time for this opportunity to take questions in an open (and uncontrolled) forum. He needs to do the right thing and as he seems to fond of saying “man up”
Brian Mashburn said
am September 3 2010 @ 5:15 pm
I would love to be there for this. Both Paul & Mark have powerful ministries that have produced fruit in my life and the lives of people I love. They are both “good trees” in my book based on the fruit they bear. But Mark D’s 4 accusations about the Shack seemed hyper-alarmist and misleading (at least). Suffer my uninvited commentary:
Graven Images? Isn’t that thing over Mark’s shoulder in his video an “image of the invisible trinity?” God is NOT a set of 3 circles, but I’m not accusing Mark of promoting the worship of them any more than Mark should be accusing Paul of promoting the worship of the black woman, the asian woman, and the arab man. Both of them are using those images to promote worship of the God they each represent.
Goddess Worship? – The very point Mark makes in his “graven images” accusation (“you can’t define God in an image”) is the point the Shack makes when it explains why the Father presents Himself as a woman (to challenge the image that Mac had created in his mind of God). It’s strange & ironic to hear Mark condemn the the book as promoting the very thing the book challenges.
Modalism? – This is just outright slandar. Isn’t modalism the denial of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity? The simple presence of all three entities in the same room show the book to teach nothing of the sort. And if Papa saying “I am truly human in Jesus” is modalism, then Jesus saying “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…the Father is in me,” is too.
Hierarchy? The Shack suggests a MUTUAL deference based on perfect love between the Three, not NO deference. Mark seems to be saying a belief in that (rather than deference based on hierarchy) would destroy the Biblical basis of submission to any authority ever! The quote he used from the Shack challenges hierarchy, not submission.
Whatever it’s flaws, the Shack is not “dangerous” as Mark represents. At least not any more than his (or my) preaching is with all of its flaws.
I pray Mark shows up and that he and Paul leave as supportive co-workers and friends for the Kingdom. They are both powerful spokespeople for Christ.
Craig said
am September 3 2010 @ 7:10 pm
Jim, Why do you clearly have your undies in a bunch over Driscoll. This is amazing! And a tad embarrassing.
David Kinzel said
am September 3 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Actually I find this turning into an interesting discussion already with just what others have posted. To be honest I haven’t heard of Mark Driscoll before. Apparently he has some serious issues with the book “The Shack.” I must say I was inspired by the book myself, but being someone with an open mind it would be interesting to at least hear Mark out. I do not know for sure but would surmise that Paul, Mark, and everyone who has posted here is a Christian who has a love of Jesus. This seems to me to be a very good basis of something we all share in common to start a conversation on.
Craig said
am September 3 2010 @ 8:16 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more David and I appreciate you centering this thing in Christ. My guess is that’s why Paul wrote “The Shack” and why Mark felt he had to warn his congregation about its teaching. These two influential men read their bibles differently – bottom line. But frankly this “invitation” on the 10th is nothing more than an ecclesiastical sucker punch to Driscoll. I’m not terribly impressed with his YouTube assessment either but then I don’t have to be. As an undershepherd of a local “institutional” church he believed by conviction that he needed to warn them of this book. It seems that Paul needs to man up and take the criticism. Mark does not owe him, Jim or us an explanation. If I were an elder of Mars Hill I would advise Mark to stay away from the ambush – not because he’s not man enough but because it’s not wise enough. Equally, if I were on the board of Off the Map I would advise Jim to get over his Mars Hill envy and keep doing what God so clearly has gifted him to do. I have so enjoyed Off the Map over the years and get discouraged when I see this stuff. It’s provocation pure and simple.
E.A. Klein said
am September 3 2010 @ 8:29 pm
Mark D. is an a__ . Of course, Balaam’s shows that some a–es can be Biblical, but using the faith of Christ to bully people is just plain old school and boring.
The Shack was lovely and helped many people see God’s presence in their suffering or in those that they love. It wasn’t meant to be systematic theology. I’m sure Young knew that any presentation of the Trinity falls short. I think the take away for most is that God is there, even in the most heinous acts.
Why would you want to talk about that in Driscoll’s presence? I’m sure he doesn’t get it.
Doreen said
am September 3 2010 @ 9:00 pm
This is starting to feel much more testosterone-fueled than Christ-fueled, but then, I am often fooled by testosterone…..
Wolfgang Fernandez said
am September 3 2010 @ 9:02 pm
I think this would be a good debate. There is no reason for Mark D to be calling people heretics. Our job is to love people and it is the Holy Spirit’s job to lead us into all truth. We all need to stick with our responsibilities.
A couple of Sundays ago I was visiting Seattle and went to Mars Hill and was saddened to hear Mark add more fire to the inflamed rhetoric over Islam. This only brings confusion to the claims of Jesus.
In the book of Acts we clearly read that the followers of Jesus then were know by their love.
J.R. Miller said
am September 3 2010 @ 9:43 pm
In June of 2009, I had many of the same questions and concerns about what Paul Young had written. I decided to talk to him directly. As a result, we engaged through a live interview where I ask some very probing questions about his theology. I was very impressed with Paul and his answers.
For those interested, Paul was kind enough to allow our conversation / interview to be posted on my blog “More Than Cake”
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Blessings in Christ
Jim h said
am September 3 2010 @ 10:20 pm
No undies in a bunch
just curious about why Driscoll needs protection
just happen to believe that if you choose to leverage a public platform
you can be held accountable to the same platform, I frankly don’t understand why he wouldn’t want to do the right thing and honorable thing just like JR Miller says above. That was honorable, I’m certain that JR didn’t change his mind on all points but he was able to learn that Paul is not a demon
Mark said
am September 3 2010 @ 11:24 pm
It’s interesting that Young chose Driscoll to challenge. He is not the only one whose made the charge of heresy. I know there are local churches, mine included, who warned the congregations to be discerning about this book.
For example:
And –
Can you guess who wrote those words?
Michael Adeney said
am September 3 2010 @ 11:40 pm
I manage a Christian bookstore 1 block from UW. I love and respect both Mark and Paul.
Mark’s father-in-law (a retired pastor) is a huge fan of Mark, but he disagrees with Mark on the SHACK.
Remember Paul the Apostle was wrong about Mark and Peter was wrong when he stopped eating with the uncircumcised Christians at Antioch.
I am a sinner who can be proud, arrogant and judgemental(that’s easy to do when you think you are right), but God loves and forgives me.
Mark and Paul are both passionate about following God- about the power of God to meet us change us and forgive us in our brokenness. I respect and love them both. If the New Testament Paul, Mark and Peter can quarrel and make up, don’t lose sleep over a little spat between Driscoll and Young. Just listen to the truth and love from both men and ignore the crap.
When you buy the SHACK, at our bookstore you get a critical review dialog about the Shack involving Paul Young and 4 theologians from Regent College in Vancouver. Go to http://www.HarvestLogos.com for store information or call 206-781-8725
Since all truth is God’s truth we carry something to offend everyone in both theology and politics. God is not threatened when we have a little lively disagreement. What God hates are those lukewarm folk with not passion for loving God and no passion for his truth. You can’t fault Mark or Paul in this regard. They are both passionate. at times they might both be wrong. Who knows.
connie Mitchell said
am September 4 2010 @ 12:14 am
Thank you Michael…God uses different people and their unique gifting to impact lives and often it does not look the same. The older I get the more I realize the less I know and that the Lord is a gracious God,abounding in mercy and grace.For that I am grateful!
sonny varela said
am September 4 2010 @ 11:11 am
I’ve seen Driscoll’s Shack video several times. It seems to me that he starts to realize his weak arguments while speaking.(the puritan image comments and the HS as a dove) But when you’re speaking with that much passion you can’t back pedal. I wonder if he actually read the book?
Jim Henderson said
am September 4 2010 @ 11:25 am
It is my understanding that at the time he gave this talk he in fact had not actually read the book – i could be wrong so that is one of the questions I would like to ask him at our event
Hagere said
am September 4 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Driscoll is a Jerk
William TImmers said
am September 4 2010 @ 6:22 pm
I admit I have not read book by Paul Young. I also admit I have not read Mark Driscoll’s books neither. I do have great respect in both of them. BUT…
The fact remains: I am concerned MORE on how will OUTSIDERS think of two most powerful Christian authors and they are fighting each other?
That is my simple question for a thought.
Hagere said
am September 4 2010 @ 6:59 pm
Everybody… including ” OUTSIDERS” know that Christians fight all the time.This has been going on for centuries.
I wouldn’t worry to much about it. And Driscoll is opinionated,laud and obnoxious individual.
Everybody knows that.
Peter J. Walker - EmergingChristian.com said
am September 4 2010 @ 8:20 pm
Tiggy, I hope you’re a woman if you’re going to use that word. Otherwise, you’re just as bad as Driscoll.
It’s amazing to me that such a tame (albiet racially ignorant) book gets so much flack from fundies. It’s about as shocking as The Purpose Driven Life. If Driscoll wants to start fights (which he clearly does) he should at least go after some folks willing to shake things up theologically. Young’s book is not theological, it’s allegorical (not that something can’t be both).
All of the talk about whether this should or should not be discussed publicly or privately is ridiculous, since we have a couple of Christian celebrities with ridiculously huge platforms. Celebrity culture (imho) doesn’t deserve the protection of New Testament etiquette.
Peter J. Walker - EmergingChristian.com said
am September 4 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Also, my undies are all bunched up.
Craig said
am September 4 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Couldn’t agree with you more with your last paragraph concerning celebrity Peter. Couldn’t disagree with you more concerning theology and allegory. Agree with him or not, Young is clearly advocating a way of thinking theologically by using an allegorical tool to communicate. It is a heart-wrenching story written by an author who wants us to think certain things about God. That is the only similarity between “The Shack” and “Pilgrim’s Progress” (a comparison that several reviewers have made). Undies are now unbunched.
Hagere said
am September 4 2010 @ 9:55 pm
It meant to be an allegory and that is why it is classified as fiction. Am I missing something here?
ellisabethe said
am September 4 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Meh, the underlying issue seems to be whether or not God’s truth can exist outside of what is currently accepted within institutional Christianity. Young and Driscoll (as well as other teaching pastors who combine preaching with their livelihood) are obviously going to differ on their perspectives of what the Bible says, doesn’t say or how much priority we should give any particular interpretation in the first place. This is because we can all find support for what we believe, or want to believe, and the Bible or philosophies can pretty much say whatever we want, even if others disagree with us.
And, it seems to me that listeners are only going to be able to hear what they want to hear, which is confirmation that our own belief is more worthy than our opponent’s, entirely forgetting that we are all at different points in our journey. I noticed this in the debate including Driscoll and Deepak Chopra. Debates never solve anything, nor necessarily change anyone, unless we’re looking for a change of or a broadened perspective, which, Christianity generally speaking does not seem to allow.
While public debates can be entertaining and enlightening (but more entertaining, especially when feigned respect gets thrown out the window), stubborn, fundamental beliefs are at stake. Publicity is at stake. That our team wins the game is at stake. Christians are notorious for being so narrow-minded that we forget what Jesus said, although God loves us anyway.
Personally, I’d rather hear, or even better, read a private and respectful discussion between the two adversaries, if that was possible. I think we’d all be able to gain a lot more insight and wisdom from them that way, and maybe they would benefit from the discussion too.
Susan said
am September 4 2010 @ 10:58 pm
If You publish a book to the PUBLIC… then your open to all responses. Young needs to grow some.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci said
am September 4 2010 @ 11:35 pm
I have deep & serious reservations about much of what Driscoll teaches, models & says. I believe his response to The Shack is unfair, unreasonable & intentionally inflammatory. I understand and resonate with the desire to have him challenged publicly to answer for these things. The idea stirs me deeply.
However, I just can’t help but think it is not the right thing to do. I feel like it is simply going to fuel the fire of the convinced on both sides. While I am not suggesting it is intentional, it smacks of a publicity stunt at a time when Young should be focusing on more pressing concerns.
The best rebuke Driscoll can be given is a life lived in contrast to his tactics and methods. In the end I believe this will just reinforce to those outside the church that their common suspicions might be true- that Christians are just a group of bickering, back-biting complainers. Is that fair? No, but it is what it is. If we want people to be convinced otherwise, let’s start living like it.
Kelly Wilson said
am September 5 2010 @ 1:49 am
This “conversation” would accomplish nothing. If Driscoll did show up, he would be himself and therefore labeled bully, intolerant, judgmental, narrow-minded, etc etc etc.
A few things I find interesting:
-the host (a guy who calls Driscoll ‘Reverend’?) is Young’s friend.
-the people in attendance of the event would, more than likely be fans of Young. Its not like the people from Mars Hill are invited. (although I am sure they’d be welcomed)
-The Shack is approaching three years old. Driscoll’s YouTube video about The Shack was from April of 08. Why is all this coming about now, 29 months after the fact…..?
Jim Henderson said
am September 5 2010 @ 3:16 am
Great questions
Thanks for caring
Mark is a Reverend should he not be called that
I am Pauls friend but I am also hosting the conversation
This will not be a debate – those are boring – it will be a discussion of different viewpoints
Paul happened to be in town for some other meetings and I asked him if he would be willing to have a conversation with Driscoll – I produced this event -it is all my idea, Paul was gracious enough to be open to participate in it.
The city is invited – not just Pauls friends – I would love to have people from Mars Hill there
Why does Mark need protection – he seems strong enough and certain enough to represent himself
Not sure why people feel the need to circle the wagons around the pastor of the fastest growing church in Seattle and one of the fastest in America
sonny varela said
am September 5 2010 @ 4:00 am
I’d like to see the discussion. I’m often asked about The Shack by people wanting to know if it’s “safe”. I’d like to see Young’s response if Driscoll were to really have an open honest dialogue about his concerns.
But dialogue is a luxury I guess. It’s much easier to monologue because it doesn’t require a relationship.
Felix said
am September 5 2010 @ 5:52 am
It’s fascinating how this discussion recreates the disputes of 16-17th century Europe. Let’s see which of the opinions comes out on top by merit of evidence, shall we?
All this pearl-clutching and fist-shaking over works of fiction, century after century, while reality trods on, merrily refusing to change course on the whims of petty human wishfulness.
William TImmers said
am September 5 2010 @ 9:25 am
First of all… I am glad for opportunity to see REAL LIFE application of many books I had bought over last 3 years. That really made huge impact on my life. But reading books without interacting with anyone such as this Off-The-Map is much like self-monologue.
Yesterday, I had very good Facebook dialogue with fellow church member and I enjoyed that. Having said that, I am Sunday School teacher… I think we should not have Sunday School, instead strongly encourage small groups during week. Anyway, I easily could teach a class from the Word of God about “One Another or Each Other”.
How about Love for One Another, Serve One Another, Kind To Each Other, Forgive One Another, Encourage One Another, Love One Another (6 times in 1 John and 2 John), and Accept One Another.
All are relationship-based… Therefore, I respectfully disagree with Sonny as written “But dialogue is a luxury I guess. It’s much easier to monologue because it doesn’t require a relationship.”
Jesus and Paul the Apostle have LOT TO SAY about relationships. I love book “More Jesus Less Religion: Moving from Rules to Relationships”. And I strongly encourage to read book called “God Space”. I already learned very hard lesson for being Too Monologue and I felt dang!
sonny varela said
am September 5 2010 @ 12:41 pm
William,
I agree with what you disagree with in my post. (-:
Rohmeo said
am September 6 2010 @ 12:00 am
I’m hoping Young did contact Driscoll in private first because it does seem a little trumped up for a “public” debate. I read “The Shack” and think it’s ok because I never felt like it was a deep theological book in the first place. The problem is that it’s not Scripture which was never Young’s intention but so many are making it out to be their “spiritual” renewal. It takes discernment and maturity to test things and dig deeper on some of the points in the book. Therefore it’s not for everyone..it can be refreshing for some and perhaps misleading to others depending on where they are at in their journey.
I have to agree with Driscoll for a couple reasons: one, remember his primary audience (young unchurched adults..mostly men) is his local church Mars Hill in Seattle not Youtube (as if he marketed the video clip himself..come on really?) I think it’s refreshing that Driscoll is bold enough, among the very few these days, to call out heretics. Folks that is love as well…it’s called loving the sheep enough to do it. It’s all over Scripture. I think this culture could use more Jonathon Edwards, Charles Spurgeon’s etc. who did incredible things for the Kingdom by telling it like it is. Call him an alarmist if you want and he’s even admitted sometimes he goes overboard…another reason why I respect him greatly because he’s REAL, not like so many seemingly perfect plastic pastors. He admits his faults.
If they do have a sit down I’m sure Driscoll would absolutely hear Young out and maybe not agree on everything but take off the “heretic” label who knows. It’s fair for him to ask questions and Young can follow up with his thoughts. If people go home disappointed because hey want “fireworks”…that’s where the shame lies…where’s the love in that?
By the way, those of you who have only heard of or perhaps never heard of Mark Driscoll before some so-called negative comments, he also has some books out…you want some practical and powerful stuff that gives you and I hope in Christ from any seriously messed up background we can think of–
check out “Death By Love”, a totally Gospel-focused and Cross-centered work.
Jim Henderson said
am September 6 2010 @ 12:35 am
Rhomeo
Did Mark reach out to Paul before calling him a heretic in public?
Does he get a pass because he is a famous pastor/ an apostle. Jonathon Edwards?
Are people afraid of asking him this question before turning it on those he feel free to disparage?
Just not “getting” why no one has raised this issue with Mark or on his behalf but feel free to with Paul?
J.R. Miller said
am September 6 2010 @ 12:44 am
@Rohmeo
Just one quick clarification. You wrote, “I have to agree with Driscoll for a couple reasons: one, remember his primary audience (young unchurched adults..mostly men) is his local church Mars Hill in Seattle not Youtube (as if he marketed the video clip himself..come on really?)”
Actually, Mars Hill has not fit this demographic for some time. They have multiple campuses in the suburbs and they are not longer a “city” church as they once were. Their goal is to have 100 video campuses all over the world (see their website for details). And so their target audience for their marketing is quite broad and no longer even about Seattle.
The YouTube videos are part of the Mars Hill marketing campaign to promote Driscoll’s teachings.
I am not trying to express disagreement or agreement with your overall post, just correcting a few of your facts for the record.
Blessings
Jim Henderson said
am September 6 2010 @ 1:16 am
Like JR points out
The Internet changes everything
Rohmeo said
am September 6 2010 @ 10:18 am
Jim and J.R.
You can’t possibly mention Oprah, Deepak and the like in the same universe as Driscoll? Totally different ballgame. We are talking about brothers in Christ who may differ on some things or have a squabble. I would rather have a fellow Christian who is totally sold out to the truth of Scripture like Driscoll who actually does stumble and repent along the way like we all do (unless it merits something larger that would disqualify them from the pastorate). He also said the movie Avatar was dangerous. I thought that was silly but I still can see his point. It makes you think and challenges you. He isn’t walking on the platform and calling them out…they are illustrating points of where he’s at in his Expository of Scripture for that message. His opinion is not Gospel…in a perfect world would it be ultimately wise to be a little more careful in his comments? Probably? but again I think we are all soft and want to make the “narrow” path so easy for everyone but the Gospel is not soft. We need more leaders who tackle issues that aren’t popular in “American Christianity”…we have enough “soft love” from the Joel Olsteens of the world that are doing more damage than transforming hearts for Christ.
And yes the Internet changes everything. He may tick some people off when pulling lines out of his messages to insight stuff like this or you can look at it as the thousands of people who have come to Christ or come back to the “Church” because of Mars Hills ministry. Yes they are growing virally as JR mentioned which broadens the demographic but Driscoll is who he is and God has given him a gift to reach people…in fact I think his initial “target” audience is good for all ages and stages. Sure, just like us he has to be knocked down a notch or 2 because of proclavity to “self” or “pride” etc. Thank God for His Grace!
Jim Henderson said
am September 6 2010 @ 10:53 am
Whether you like them or not Oprah, Deepak and Robbins influence the spiritual views of millions of spiritually curious people including many who are leaving church.
As I see it, Paul Young is a very rare kind of follower of Jesus who can play in that same pond and get a hearing which is largely why many Christians worry about him.
It also places him squarely in the tradition of Jesus who cared far more about his reputation with outsiders than he did with insiders
William TImmers said
am September 6 2010 @ 11:15 am
I want to echo that “Internet changes everything”. I was already fed up with local Churches. Internet offers solution called “Digital Discipleship”. I believe that internet has help me grow in Christ by listening to 100% Grace and 100% Truth messages. Lot of churches are like either 75% Truth and 100% Grace or 100% Truth and 0% Grace. I think with internet, I don’t have to go to local church that is not 100% Grace and 100% Truth. I can easily find many churches are already 100% Grace and 100% Truth, perhaps, Mars Hill and National Community Church are few of many that I had been monitoring weekly while maintain physical fellowship with local church at same time respecting them and agreeing to disagreement.
Craig said
am September 6 2010 @ 11:25 am
Jim, why do you think you need to protect a guy who has sold, oh I don’t know, a bazillion copies of his first book? Seems like he is doing just fine in spite of guys like Driscoll. If Paul is so concerned for the outsiders then why did he issue a challenge to Mark to “man up” and meet him behind the gym after school (metaphorically speaking)? I can’t help but read between the lines of your comments and see that you have a humongous chip on your shoulder that you are daring Mark to knock off. No doubt this chip of yours has theological under-pinnings but the reality is, it’s personal to you. Put your big boy pants on, quit trying to instigate something and if Mark and Paul want to iron out anything, do them both and the kingdom of God a favor and stay out of it. From where I sit, God, through both of these fine men, is accomplishing the very thing your heart beats for – reaching people with the love and truth of Christ.
Jim Henderson said
am September 6 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Craig
Thanks for sharing your insights
Why are you worried about protecting Mark?
Sounds like you might be unaware of your attachment to his success
Craig said
am September 6 2010 @ 1:52 pm
It’s funny you should say that Jim. The fact is, I have never heard Driscoll preach with the exception of that YouTube thing concerning the “The Shack.” He didn’t do himself or the cause of Christ any favors but then again he will be the one who has to answer for that – not you, me or Paul. I have read one of his books and concluded that, as a writer, I’m sure he’s a very good preacher. Frankly, I don’t think Paul or Mark need protecting. They’re big boys and can fend for themselves. I guess if I’m “worried” about anything it’s that your jealousy, bitterness, envy (fill in the blank) that fuels you to instigate something with another brother in Christ for the purpose of a) protecting a friend that doesn’t need protecting or b) knocking a bold and possibly arrogant preacher down a notch or two, will diminish the positive impact Off the Map could have within the body of Christ as well as community (sorry about the run on sentence).
When it comes to the kind of “attachments” that I want – i want to be attached to things like Off the Map. What you intend to do with Young and Driscoll only discourages such attachment. I can’t help but think all you want to do is organize a train wreck and hope Driscoll is the casualty. But there I go again – protecting him. Riiiiiiiight!
J.R. Miller said
am September 6 2010 @ 2:32 pm
Hi Jim,
I did a search of Mark Driscoll’s sermon archives and found that the YouTube video is the only public sermon Driscoll gave regarding the theology of The Shack.
In Paul’s open letter, he writes, ““Mark Driscoll has leveled some serious charges against my writing and by extension against me. He has publicly called me a heretic. ”
I am no defender of Driscoll (he puts his foot in his mouth all the time), but in this sermon I did not see where he called Paul a heretic. He says his theology of the Trinity is heretical, “And Christians are, “This is amazing! Now we understand the Trinity!” No, you don’t. I’ll tell you why. And Christians are endorsing this. And Bible teachers are endorsing this. And recording artists and musicians—“Oh, this is amazing!” No, it’s not. Regarding the Trinity, it’s actually heretical. I’ll give you some reasons why….
…Number three. It’s Modalism. It’s a heresy. Papa says at one point, “I am truly human in Jesus.” That’s not true. That’s Modalism. The Father was not born of a virgin. The Father did not die on a cross. The Son did. Modalism says that the Father became Jesus and the Father became the Spirit. ”
The only 2 references to heresy, in this sermon, are specifically charged against Paul’s doctrine in The Shack, not Paul as a person.
I don’t see in the context of this sermon a direct attack on Paul. Again, maybe Driscoll called him a heretic somewhere else (I would not be surprised), but it was not in this sermon. In fact, where YouTube cuts off, Driscoll goes on to give context for his charge that the Theology of The Shack is heretical. Driscoll says, “These are very important issues. Who is God? Might I submit to you, that’s the biggest question there is? So that’s a peripheral issue—God. God.
Now, some of you would say, “Why do we have to talk about all this? Can’t we just love each other? Can’t we serve each other? Can’t we care for one another? This seems so doctrinal. This seems love the Lord your God with all your mind only.” Here’s my point, okay? I love you. The leaders of this church love you. Back to my original statement, that in each of us are deep, passionate, profound longings, and none of them can be satisfied apart from the Trinity. And who would think that you can just simply live your life without your doctrine have missed the verse that says to watch your life and your doctrine closely. Your doctrine informs the quality of your life. They are inextricably connected.
The last question is this, and I tell this one to you because I love you. Some of you say, “Well, you picked on the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” No, I didn’t. If you’re here, you’re Jehovah’s Witness, you’re Mormon, I love you and you’ve been lied to. And you’re being encouraged to worship a demon. And I love you too much to let you do that. Truly, our battle is not against flesh and blood; it’s against powers, principalities and spirits. That Satan and demons are at work in the world trying to get us to believe in, to worship someone or something other than the God of the Bible. And what we want for you, because we love you, is a Trinitarian life. See, sin separates us from God and Jesus reconciles us back into loving relationship with God, who is the source of all life and love. There is no life apart from connection to the Trinity.”
So it seems in this specific case, Driscoll is not all that over-the-top. So can you help me out and show me where Driscoll actually called Paul a heretic?
Thanks
PS
Blessings brother!
I just moved from Seattle to San Diego, otherwise I would love to be there for the event. I enjoyed my interview with Paul and found him to be a great guy (we agree on many things), but I also agree that The Shack has some questionable theology. It would be interesting to have this discussion in a non-adversarial way and dig into the substance of our Faith in Christ. Maybe if my books were more popular, Paul would have asked me to sit down for the debate
Jim Henderson said
am September 6 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Driscoll did not call Paul a heretic he called his book heresy
That counts for me as calling him a heretic
Craig
Thanks for caring enough to respond. You will have to live without understanding my motives for producing this which Im sure you’ll be cool with
I agree with your statement
Craig said
am September 6 2010 @ 5:04 pm
I get it Jim – and thanks. OK for reals, my undies are officially unbunched. Enjoy the 10th. I’m out.
J.R. Miller said
am September 6 2010 @ 7:49 pm
Jim,
I prefer to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt rather than assume the worst of him. Just as I prefer to give Paul the benefit of the doubt rather than assume the worst of his book and writings… but I know not everyone approaches differences that way. At least you helped clear up for me that this one sermon from 2008 is the source for your concern and the reason for setting up the debate.
God bless in the goals you have for the meeting.
Mike Corley said
am September 7 2010 @ 8:59 am
Mark Driscoll is right and scriptually accurate.
Mark said
am September 7 2010 @ 9:24 am
Jim, does it bother you or Mr. Young at all that Al Mohler wrote that there is heresy in ‘The Shack’?
William TImmers said
am September 7 2010 @ 9:37 am
“Mark Driscoll is right and scriptually accurate.”
How do I know that?
Does that statement imply that Mark Driscoll is world champions of best doctrine, yet, he already had flaw.
Jesus plainly said “Do Not Judge”, he already judged Paul’s book. Paul the apostle also wrote about do not judge, too. I am scratching my forehead.
Jason said
am September 7 2010 @ 10:23 am
So if someone thinks this is nothing more than an attempt by those who dislike Driscoll to ambush him we’re “circling the wagons” around Driscoll?
This is my first time to this blog, so this kind of posting may be common, but the responses seem to be on the level of a backyard bully. “Do what I want or I’ll come after you. And if someone stands up for you or tells me I’m wrong I’ll go after them too.”
I don’t see much about being Christ-like in any of this.
Ron Larson said
am September 7 2010 @ 11:16 am
I don’t know what the fuss is about regarding Driscoll “going public” with charges that Young’s book is heretical. Young wrote, and published a heretical bunch of hooey, that tragically many mainstream pastors, Christian TV talking heads have endorsed and applauded. Those facts are alarming, when one considers that people testify that they have a better understanding of the Trinity, when in fact if one takes and digests the enumerated heresies found within The Shack, the are “beleiving” in a man made deviancy. Quite honestly, I ma convinced that Young will be no match for the rebuke and correction that Driscoll will present. That being said, we live in a time where objective Truth from scriptures regarding the Personhood, and character of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, isn’t preferred, rather, many who call themselves brethren would rather have the ears tickled with mere fabrications, and false notions that make them feel good.
ellisabethe said
am September 7 2010 @ 11:17 am
Jim, I think I can understand your concern. I’ve seen plenty of Christians, including myself, who have accepted without question a pastor’s preaching as scripturally sound and accurate, failing to consider the subtle but strong pressure to conform to it. To disagree with a prominent church leader, especially if he is your pastor, means not only that you will be labeled as “not Christ-like,” or even a heretic, but you may not even be saved and in that case, you may be risking an eternity in hell – along with all kinds of other nightmares that the institutional church uses to manipulate mass thinking.
So yeah, if we care at all, we would like to see people freed from this misery called church preaching, as long as people are ready to be freed from it. And perhaps that is where you’re coming from in setting up this possible discussion. I am wondering that if Mark does not show up for it, W. Paul would want to voice his side of the story via another avenue, such as an article or essay. I think he has a gift of articulating through written words and I have heard humble and kind pieces here and there from him regarding his defense. These pieces (in interviews) helped to put my mind at ease after hearing the fear-mongering from Mark and others who opposed The Shack.
As far as Mark (or any other preaching pastor whose livelihood depends on the devotion of their church members) being scripturally sound, I think that is a joke. That is only what a teacher would like to make people think. Is any human omniscient? I think not. Is every human fallible and mistaken to some degree. I’m pretty sure that is the case. And yet we become mind slaves to the latest personality. Even Jesus said, “And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?”
Mark, et al, comes across like W. Paul is a New Age, goddess worshiping, Universalist and that is quite a heavy accusation in the church world. It is considered heresy that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law in the minds of many a Christian. And his accusers supposedly use the Bible to back up this claim.
After slashing the religious rope tied to my own mind, I personally disagree with both Young and Driscoll but respect their opinions as only that.
As far as I understand, the doctrine of the trinity did not gain momentum until after the third century in which you were burned at the stake if you did not believe it. Notwithstanding that the doctrine has caused all kinds of confusion among Believers, I think we should at least question this doctrine full of contradictions. Personally, I do not see it in the Bible, but projected into it.
Concerning New Age philosophies, well the Bible is full of them. We’d have to ignore all the times God spoke through dreams and interpreters and wise men who followed the stars to find the Christ…. I also think that religions such as Buddhism and Kabbalism can extricate love and peace from the Bible far better than Christianity, a religion of exclusion and war. In fact, Christians are notorious the world over for preaching but ignoring the first and second greatest commandments.
Universalism is also in the Bible among over a hundred verses which talk about God ultimately reconciling the whole world to himself through Christ. Fans of the Left Behind series, etc. completely ignore scriptures such as, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” While I don’t think that Universalism, nor any other theology, covers the whole spectrum, it at least provides some truth to consider, not ignore. And it’s in the Bible.
The goddess accusation, to me, is void of any and all logic. The Bible calls God a rock. Does that mean God is an actual rock? The Bible is full of metaphors, symbols, similes, parables and anything else that hides the truth from the spiritually blind. An analogy is not the definition of God. It helps us understand one or two characteristics about him. In fact, God cannot be defined. He is the I am… infinite… eternal God. We can’t narrow him down presuming the mystery, although most pulpit preachers sure like to try.
Furthermore, even the Bible alludes to some feminine or motherly side of God and even Christ. He wanted to gather Israel to him like a mother hen gathers her chicks. He is called wisdom who is called “she”. Isaiah 49:15, ““Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?” Also, Job describes creation coming forth from the womb of God – the source and sustenance of all of life.
Christianity claims to be based on the Bible and yet, in my opinion, it preaches the book with heavy biases. These biases are traditions that began not from scriptures but largely from pagan cultures, especially the Judeo-Greco and Roman culture, as far as I understand. Don’t be fooled when someone tells you what the Bible says. Check it out for yourself taking into consideration opposing beliefs. Don’t regurgitate but bravely judge for yourself. And like the Apostle Paul said, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Everyone is free to have their own opinion, and to consider the opinions of others, in my opinion.
Sisterlisa said
am September 7 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Elizabeth, I couldn’t agree more! And by all this continuing controversy it’s fully convinced me to read The Shack and find out what all the hullbaloo is about.
But I am familiar with Driscoll from people who
escapedleft his church and I am very familiar with other churches where the leaders exhibit much of the same philosophies and it’s quite abusive, imo. Spiritual abuse is on the rise and it doesn’t portray Christ very well at all. We all make mistakes, but it’s quite something when a pastor can get away with it and sweep it under the rug, rending thevictimsmembers helpless.I wonder if the verse ‘neither Jew nor Greek’ could be seen today as ‘neither one denomination or another’ all are one in Christ.
and any teaching that produces works of the flesh instead of the fruit of the Spirit, imo, should be ditched.
Jim Henderson said
am September 7 2010 @ 3:27 pm
ellisabethe
you are a very good writer and thinker
Andrew said
am September 8 2010 @ 2:47 pm
William, you say that Jesus and Paul say not to judge. However, Paul clearly states in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21
“(20)Do not despise prophecies, (21)but test everything; hold fast what is good.”
Now, obviously, The Shack is not prophecy, but in proclaiming to be an explanation of theology, it should be held to the same standards that the Apostle Paul sets out.
And as John says in 1 John 4:1
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
Again we are told to test and see whether a spirit, or prophet (or pastor or doctrine or best-selling book) is from God, or whether it is false.
I hope you can stop scratching your forehead when you realize that what Mark Driscoll is doing is not judging, but testing doctrine, and theology, and “christian” leaders, to see if what is being said is scriptural, and true to the God of the bible, as we are told to do many times in the New Testament.
William TImmers said
am September 8 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Andrew,
Where in the bible say that Mark Driscoll declare the Paul’s book is wrong? The Bible clearly stated is to have Mark Driscoll is to contact and ask Paul Young about this book PRIVATELY FIRST. Paul Young clearly stated that the book is not prophecy nor theology but just fiction story. If I understand that way.
So I think you just put your foot in your mouth, too. Had I have time to read the Shack, then I would have admire it because I am confessed Addict myself, too. Cool Book!
William
Andrew said
am September 8 2010 @ 4:14 pm
William,
If it was a private journal that Mark had preached an entire sermon on, then I would agree with you. However, it was a public book that obviously millions of people have read, and was one short example that Mark used in a much longer sermon. So no, I think this is something that you, Jim, and Paul (among others) have completely taken out of context and blown way out of proportion. I’m sure that if everything that any of y’all said was recorded, that I could get a lot of people stirred up about something that you said at one time or another.
Jim Henderson said
am September 8 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Andrew
When 350K people watch something that is edited to be provocative – the rules change – thanks for taking time to weigh in on this one
Andrew said
am September 9 2010 @ 12:04 am
Jim, I’m pretty sure that it’s edited to be enlightening, not provocative.
Jim Henderson said
am September 10 2010 @ 12:06 am
Andrew
I call that comparing your best with my worst
we can agree to disagree about Driscolls motives
William TImmers said
am September 10 2010 @ 11:19 am
Key issues about being Christians that God Loves ALL PEOPLE is… ability to agree to disagree. I have to be blunt with truth, I spent first 25 years of my Christian life without attitude of Grace-filled and ability of agreeing to disagree, 25 years is waste.
I think Mark Driscoll do talk about agreeing to disagreement that help his church to grow large.
Yet, Andrew, I wonder why can’t everyone agree to disagree.
I can agree to disagree that Jim and Paul should defend himself about his book, the Shack. I have no problem.
Please correct me if I am wrong about Mark talking about agreeing to disagreement.
mirele said
am September 12 2010 @ 2:54 pm
I’d prefer if someone confronted Mark Driscoll over his obvious dislike and fear of women. This is much more important and has much farther-reaching consequences than Paul Young’s book. I believe that confronting Driscoll over his abysmal views on women would need to occur over and over and over again until he gets it through his thick head that we women are not doormats for his precious manned-up men.
(And, by the way, I attempted to read the Shack and found it to be poorly written, infuriating and in the end, impossible to complete. It angered me because this is the one thing in my life I always wanted–a personal, face-to-face hearing with God–and the Shack reminded me that having that kind of encounter was NEVER going to happen. That it was fiction. IMHO it’s wrong to write that sort of thing as fiction, because people do take it as some sort of “reality,” and it is not going to happen. You are not going to end up in a shack having a conversation with the Trinity. Even if the Trinity existed, of which I have serious doubts.)
Jim Henderson said
am September 12 2010 @ 2:58 pm
mirele
we’re working on this
Peter Walker - EmergingChristian.com said
am September 12 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Mirele,
I want to be your friend. I STRONGLY agree with your remarks on Driscoll.
I also feel similarly about Young’s book in terms of style and content. But I blogged about it recently, and had several folks share how powerful it was to a painful healing process they went through, so I won’t quite say that it’s “wrong,” because someone found it useful. Sort of like Christian radio
On the other hand, I found Young’s portrayal of racial stereotypes (Mama-God’s caricatured blackspeak) and “Jesus-the-big-nosed-Jew” wrong. So I guess we’re just convicted over different things. I certainly couldn’t finish it.
Jim Henderson said
am September 13 2010 @ 2:13 am
here’s why I like what Paul is in reality regardless of what I may or may not think of his fiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNr9HzFIWcg
Viorkibre said
am February 15 2011 @ 8:13 am
Seneca Salamanca Poker Room and New York Poker information. Salamanca Poker Tournaments and New York Poker Tournament information.
ChrisF said
am May 11 2011 @ 3:45 pm
Mirele,
I know I am joining this discussion late but I think Young’s view of the Trinity and Driscoll’s view of the Trinity has everything to do with why Driscoll views women the way that he does. Within Trinitarian Theology we find a God that before he ever created the world, before he was ever a “ruler” of anything was three persons in perfect loving community. It is as 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love”. God was always a Father, God was always a Son, and God was always a Spirit loving each other. So what we see happening in how we relate to God is that God created us out of a loving relationship. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” To be made in God’s image is to be made both male and female, not one or the other completes God’s image, rather when the two are unified we are like God, because he is multiple persons in one God. If you take one of them away then he is no longer God. For example for God to be a Father he needs a Son and visa versa. If we read male and femaleness back on God we see that he contains both natures within his persons. God is not an old bearded man, God is not Gandalf, God is not even a large black african woman, yet everything that makes up men and women is to be found within the three persons of God.
So in Orthodox Christianity the “other” is seen as a good thing. Unity in Diversity is the very nature of God and the very nature of our beings as humans. Young’s view of the Trinity is consistent with that of the Early Church. Christ himself surrounded himself with many women who were leaders in the early church. The early church in many ways pioneered equality for women in a culture and world that was very patriarchal and androcentric.
In fact if God was not three persons there would be cause to fear. A monadic god (a singularity or a one person god) does not have in his very nature the ability to love because before creation all he had was himself, so he would create man to serve his selfish needs. He would be a forcer of love and devotion, in harsher words, he would rape his subjects. Very much unlike the Trinitarian God. Jesus states in John 17:24, ““Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” We see here that Christ and the Father shared a loving relationship before the creation of the world. We have twisted the Gospel to use for our own purposes. One area is that of how we view roles of men and women. I will apologize to you for ways in which Christ’s followers have possibly hurt you and other women over the ages, they did so not in the name of Christ.
True Christianity is not about laws, legal codes, punishment, or even getting a free pass to a so called heaven. It is about sharing in the divine relationship that is found in God the Father, Jesus the Son, and God the Spirit. Whether you believe it or not that is not fiction. God loves you and wants to include you in this prefect relationship. This is what you are invited to, you do not believe me read the rest of Christ’s prayer in John 17.