It makes the landscape seem just a little bit less like a giant dust bowl. It also likely means the cancellation of my chopper flight to go visit some of my soldiers. I wish I had a dog sled...with a turret.
This past week, our "No BS BS (Bible Study)" completed a twelve week course through Vintage Jesus, by Mark Driscoll. This book introduces basic matters of Christology (study of Christ) to the young adults of Seattle and around the country who largely comprise Driscoll's audience.
The fact that Driscoll would engage in a project like this is laudable. Aside from the length of creation days, many Christians shy away from substantial theological subjects. And the Church is still recovering from the "doctrine divides" and "just invite Jesus into your heart" movements and mantras from the last couple of decades in the twentieth century.
Driscoll, in tackling the doctrine of Christ, shows a familiarity with the present cultural trends. Most young adults want unambiguous teaching and intellectually potent and spiritually satisfying doctrinal truths. Just as I was impressed when I heard Driscoll preaching about the propitiation of God's wrath by Christ's righteousness when I was in Seattle, I am similarly impressed that he continues to defy past movements in order to feed the present flock.
In many ways, Vintage Jesus is vintage Driscoll. He immediately starts hitting hefty topics, like the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the necessity of His atoning death for sinners, and the exclusivity of life through Christ alone. He sets these doctrines against the prevalent beliefs conveyed in our culture through music, media, art, etc.--demonstrating his adroit awareness of the culture around him. And he shares these truths with his characteristic wit, bluntness, and sense of humor. He is a very engaging speaker.
All of these things provided the basis for quality discussions in our small group. But there were also several weaknesses to the study that, if remedied, would make it much more helpful.
Driscoll's explanation of various doctrines and usages of certain terms was sometimes sloppy. Maybe I am simply showing the effects of the OPC's emphasis on precision, but it seems to me that you don't want to leave important ideas half-formed in the minds and hearts of your listeners. One shouldn't move on to the next topic unless the first topic is comprehensively presented. In addition, Driscoll would make unconvincing arguments for certain doctrines that didn't even need to be made. While various intellectual/verbal gimmickry can be helpful at points, the final and decisive word should come from Scripture and its declarative formula "Thus saith the Lord."
This sloppiness was also reflected in his use of terms like "religion." He would constantly contrast Christianity with "religion"--the former having to do with God's grace for sinners in Christ and the latter having to do with man's (futile) attempts to earn God's favor. While that stark contrast needs to be made between salvation in Christ and self-salvation, "religion" is not a good term to describe the latter. It might play well in postmodern culture with its suspicion of authority and truth as a means to power, but historically, "religion" has often been synonymous with Christianity. It would be more helpful to speak of true religion and false religiosity.
He also makes a strawman of fundamentalism. The term itself is quite meaningless at this point. Originally, it referred to the defense of several core biblical doctrines. It was later associated with a wooden biblical literalism, dispensational end-times theology (i.e., Left Behind), and the culture wars. By the time the century ended, it had also been tied to legalism, cultural moralism (don't dance, drink, chew or go with those who do), and anti-intellectualism. If you are a current college student and a professors asks you if you're a fundamentalist, it is inevitably a trap--like asking if you like beating your wife.
There is none of the nuance is Driscoll's treatment of fundamentalism. While his contrast between biblical Christianity and some of the flawed points of fundamentalism is somewhat helpful, his lack of nuance simply muddles the term further and tosses out all babies of fundamentalism-variously-defined with the bathwater of its excesses. One of the members of my group considers himself to be a fundamentalist in ways closer to its original sense, and resented what he considered frequent belittling and misrepresentation of a large group of believers.
Finally, while Driscoll would've benefited from more time on some of the key doctrines of Christ and His work (especially the atonement), he subsequently allowed too much time for somewhat superfluous issues (i.e., Christianity's value to Western history). To a man, our group agreed that this was the worst part of the study. First, Christ didn't come to transform culture, but to build, spread, and sustain His Church through the salvation and sanctification of sinners.
Second, while most people (excluding neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) can agree that Christianity did indirectly benefit Western culture in a number of ways (i.e., notions of morality, human dignity, human depravity, pursuit of scientific discovery, advance of arts and communication, etc.), that was not its purpose nor are most of the relationships between the two as clear-cut as Driscoll made it seem. While an apologetic in this regard may prove useful in engaging the belligerence of those who see Christianity as the cause of bloodshed, rather than its usual restraint, it is often unimportant, distracting, and certainly not convincing in the format that Driscoll provides. For most people, the more important question is whether it is true, not whether it is useful.
All in all, Driscoll in his usual fashion provides a helpful gateway for the throng of young adults who seek to peer deeper into the truth and beauty of biblical Christianity. And there is no doubt that his persona lends additional credibility and appeal to his message. But all of this is still hamstrung by a general sense of sloppiness. While the pastor's life will in many ways be just as sloppy as the rest of God's people, he is called to be intellectual rigorous, lighting straight paths before the sheep, enabling them to behold the clarity of God's truth and understand with charity the views of others. May God equip His under-shepherds, including me, to do just that.
(12)
