~Putting Preachers In Their Place by Mark Driscoll

Another beautiful message done by Mark Driscoll on the definition and function of the Church. This is a must see for Pastors, that they may know how to lead their flock and for the layman, that he or she may know what to look for when looking for a congregation to join.

~How Sharp the Edge? - Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words by Mark Driscoll


A message by Mark Driscoll at the 2008 National Conference from Desiring God. To download the rest of the Conference click here.

Additional commentary:
I do affirm GREATLY what Driscoll presented in his message, but I do believe that a distinction or maybe a clarification needs to be presented, that is, on the topic of the evangelization of the lost. The following is merely my opinion that I think should be noted in reference to his message. *side note, this commentary is not meant to diminish or lessen Driscoll's message in any way, it is time for Christians and Pastors to grow up.
My emphasis here is merely to maintain a balance in witnessing lest someone where to walk away from watching this message and become overly contentious with just anyone he or she were to encounter who does not believe. However, one may also go away and think that Driscoll already made what I'm about to say clear. Whether that be so or not, I am going to reiterate and try to expound upon what I think needs to clarified. I believe that Driscoll's message applies to the church corporately and not necessarily and/or always to the believer individually. In my mind there is a difference between a denunciation of an error publicly, as for the preservation and love of the body of Christ, and the Christian privately in his daily Christian witness. Even Jesus and his disciples sat, ate, and drank with the unregenerate gentiles. So I think the distinction is clear Biblically that not all lost should be dealt with crassly at all times. There are several thoughts that I have concerning this possible distinction:
1. Driscoll mentioned the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, which spiritually speaking, are ravenous wolves. But to say that they are all knowingly out to destroy Christians, no way! The average cultist firmly believe that they have the truth and they are out to tell you about it. So in this sense I would agree with James Spencer when he said, "Well-meaning evangelists charge into the battle, indiscriminately lopping off heads, forgetting that the cultist is to be won, not killed." (emphasis mine)
2. This is where, I would say, discernment plays a large role in our evangelization of the lost... discerning when the heart of the individual is/grows cold and when/if the Holy Spirit is convicting him or her of sin, salvation, and righteousness. Maybe a slight distinction, amongst the lost, could be argued between the deceived and the deceiver, in the sense of the absolute belligerent and the person who is willing to engage in an honest discussion.
3. I have heard from many in the cults ministry a good basic rule for the prepared Christian is: if the individual stops coming back, let it be. If they do come back keep pressing the gospel and answering their honest questions.
4. I would say there is (normatively) a difference between the heretic that disseminates his garbage, who is creating division in the church and the average Jehovah's Witness that knocks on your door. The first needs to be dealt with harshly and the second needs to be dealt with lovingly (this doesn not mean pandering) but firmly, that God may grant him/her repentance. Here's another situation where I would see a distinction in interaction. Awhile back my Jehovah's Witness friend brought his dad, who is a JW elder. When a Jehovah's Witness is either, struggling in their faith or they can't answer your questions, they'll bring a 'higher up'. This elder comes with an agenda, not for truthful dialogue, but to make you look like a fool and "prove" to the unwitting Witness that you don't have the true faith and are nothing but an Opposer (a JW term for someone who is "against" their faith)... this is when things change, and is another area where Driscoll's message applies in "shooting the wolves".
Simply put, I would apply Driscoll's message this way, in reference to the evangelization of the lost, and I think this is another way in which as Way of the Master put it: grace to the humble and the law to the proud.

~Examine Yourself!

2 Corinthians 13:5 "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?"

Puritan Devotional~

"Avoid every kind of evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:22

He who now gives way to the least sin--may yet be given up to the greatest sins. We are never far enough from lust--while we are on earth; or near enough to Christ--while we are out of heaven. O, stand far off from the devil's mark--unless you would be hit by his arrows!

The drawing near to the appearance of evil--is the first step to the accomplishment of the most enormous evil. A spark--will easily catch a box of tinder on fire. Little streams--will find a passage to the great sea. Christian reader! Why should you venture on slippery places--when you can scarcely stand upon the firmest ground? Who will pity that man whose house is blown up with gun-powder--if he stores it in the chimney corner?

Such is the monstrous wickedness of men, that though the streams and currents of their own lusts carry them too swiftly already--yet they hoist up sails to catch the devil's winds!

The fowler spreads his net--but the wings of the bird carry her into it! If you would not step into the harlot's house--you should not go by the harlot's door! If you would not gather the forbidden fruit--then beware how you look on the luscious tree!

To pray against temptations, and yet to rush into occasions to sin--is to thrust your fingers into the fire--and then pray that they might not be burnt! If you hold the stirrup for him--no wonder if Satan get into the saddle!

"Watch and pray--so that you will not fall into temptation." Matthew 26:41. That man who is the most watchful--is the least sinful. A soul without its watch--is like a city without its wall, exposed to the attack of all its enemies!

Those who would not fall into the river--should beware how they approach too near to its banks. He who crushes the egg--need not fear the biting of the serpent. He who would not drink of the wine of divine wrath--let him not touch the cup of sinful pleasure.

A person who carries gun-powder with him--can never stand too far from the fire. If we accompany sin one mile--it will compel us to go two. Sin swells like Elijah's cloud, from the size of a man's hand to such an expansion, as to cover the whole sky.

"Let him who thinks he stands--take heed, lest he fall." 1 Corinthians 10:12. You will quickly lose your standing--if you are fearless of falling.

~(William Secker, "The Consistent Christian" 1660)

Credit to Grace Gems Daily Devotionals: www.gracegems.org

John MacArthur on the Purpose Driven Life~
and the gospel of Rick Warren...

Wake Up Church!!!~

The "New" Face of Atheism~
(This article will be subject to change, as well, later articles will be produced dealing with other issues and/or greater evaluation of the various issues that have already been raised in this article)

“The average Christian does not realize that there is a intellectual struggle going on in the Universities and scholarly journals and Professional Societies. Christians cannot be indifferent to the outcome of this struggle. For the single most important institution shaping Western culture is the University.” ~Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. J.P. Moreland

The new Atheism, fundamentally, is not “new” whatsoever. This emerging movement of Atheism is drawing from the same arguments that have flourished on the Academic landscape for centuries. However, the arguments this time are being re-cast in a new format relative to what’s going on in Astrophysics, various forms of Cosmology, and particularly in the biological field (i.e. evolution). But the fundamental issues are still the same. So why is it making such popular headway this time around?
There is a new style that marks this movement that epitomizes on what could be called, the “journalistic” phase. The Atheists are not writing so much at a heavy philosophical level as that which marked the 19th century, or in the beginning of the 20th century with the French Existential philosophers. There is a more pop-culture tone to the arguments of the New Atheists. They are expressing themselves with a greater militancy, a greater confidence and a greater hostility. Overall the New Atheism carries a new attitude. As Albert Mohler describes what is happening in his blog article entitled, The New Atheism?(1),
“It is not so much that Dawkins is attempting to convince believers that they should no longer believe in God. To the contrary, Dawkins is attempting a very different cultural and political move. He wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable.”
Antony Flew, contemporary to Bertrand Russell, converted from his atheism to theism stated concerning Dawkins’ book The God Delusion,
“…this book [the contents] shows Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).”(2)
This attitude towards theism, or better said, Christianity’s form of theism becomes apparent when reading or listening to lectures from the adherents of this movement. In a debate with Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Brian Lynch of the American Atheist Society boisterously remarked,
“…it [religion] has bound it [the human race], it has tied it, it has held it back, and it has continually tried to assert itself in society and the effect has always been detrimental. Throughout the entire history of the human race there have been people who have posited various gods, various ritual practices, various worship forms, and various activities that people should engage in because somebody has said its good for them. Now, what the atheists do, is they say, this is worthless, this is foolish, there is no reason to engage in all of these religious practices. We want to make sure that the people who do want to do this, separate themselves from society, and go off and play with their little toys, go off and play their games, go off and live in their fantasy world and don’t bother the rest of us. We are not imposing anything on society, we are simply saying, we don’t care to live under your religious…(indiscernible)…system.”(3)
And Christopher Hitchens in a recent debate with D’Nesh DeSouza echoed the same resentment and distain of religion,
“…there could be a virgin who can conceive, a dead body can walk again, your leprosy can be cured, the blind could see. Nonsense! It is not moral to lie to children. Its not moral to lie to ignorant, uneducated people and to tell them if they’ll only believe in nonsense, they can be saved. Its immoral!…The totalitarian concept of the afterlife, the idea, the hideous idea doesn’t even occur in the New Testament…excuse me, doesn’t occur, even in the violent, rape and genocide filled books of the Jewish Bible. There is no punishment of the dead. When God has destroyed your tribe, and had your virgins and children murdered in front of you, and your flocks and herds scattered and so on, you also fall down to a bronze sword. He’s done with you, the earth can close over you, that’s it, you tangled with the wrong tribe, the one He favored. Not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild, are you told, if you don’t make the right propitiations you can depart into everlasting fire, one of the most wicked ideas ever preached, and one that has ruined the lives, the peace of mind of many many (sic) children, preached to them by vicious child hating old men and women in name of this ghastly cult…” (4)
The New Atheists aren’t coming up with anything original. The problem is, in my opinion, but is not regulated only to, is that there are many who have been greatly hurt by someone who has taken on the name of “Christian” and are disenchanted with organized religions, if not grudgingly bitter towards them. So many can sympathize with these flamboyant sensationalistic atheists without even realizing let alone consider the under-girding presuppositions that preface their arguments/statements.
I am going to try and deal with both of these statements at the same time. First of all let us assume for a second that the way that Lynch and Hitchens present religion was accurate, what bearing on the validity of religion would the statements have? You can call religion any number of names but that does not have any weight on whether or not it (theism) is true. And if, Christianity per se, were true then it does not matter how one ‘feels’ about it, it is still true. One can call God evil all they want but this does not necessitate the fact that He does not exist, this just means that He is evil.
Lynch first states that religious people should go live by themselves but then right away says that Atheists are not imposing anything. Huh? Hitchens then makes the statement that it is immoral to teach your children religion. How does he figure? Would he then propose that it be illegal to teach one’s own children to believe in theism? These statements alone are an imposition, an imposition of regulation/separation. Just as Madelyn Marie O'Hare took the Bible and prayer out of schools, the move to regulate where one practices religion and what one teaches their own children is an imposition on somebody (specifically the theist). If the world at large claims to be theists, roughly eighty percent of the U.S., who then should be the ones regulated, the theists or the atheists? Why do they not just leave us alone? John Piper wisely recognized the contradiction in this ethical view when he stated,
“No one who makes her choice the criterion of another’s humanity or rights will let you make your choice the criterion of her humanity or her rights. Nobody will let you function by that principal. When we are in the position of the strong we like that our will governs right and wrong. When we are in the position of the weak we demand that you function by principals on the basis of dignity, my worth, my humanity… not your choice.”(5)
Hitchens then forcefully critiques the idea of a totalitarian view of destiny. Again, to quickly point out, it does not matter whether you like it or not, whether its evil or good, but the issue is, is it true or not? Hitchens, though being an atheist, does not seem to realize the implications of his own worldview. From the atheist’s worldview, what is the difference between being determined by God or being determined by the blind forces of chance and DNA? Even Richard Dawkins recognized the results of his own worldview,
“In the universe of blind physical and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music”(6)
It does not seem Hitchens even realizes that even within his own worldview, DNA has determined some to be theists. If Atheism is true, that would make Hitchens more pitiful for fighting against this chance selection of biological determinism. Under this banner of the New Atheism, religion would be nothing but an evolutionary meme (a theory developed by Dawkins ). A meme, that would be necessary for the survival of the “selfish gene”. Along these same thoughts, Albert Mohler commenting on Daniel Dennett noted,
“Dennett does not see faith as something that can be intellectualized away. To the contrary, he sees belief in God to have served an evolutionary purpose. Even as he now believes that evolutionary purpose is no longer helpful, he argues that such an evolutionary feature is not likely to be eradicated quickly. Therefore, Dennett suggests replacing belief in God with something of a secular substitute.”(7)
So religion, being a necessary part of the evolutionary process would be in the end beneficial for survival, so why are the New Atheists calling it evil? Another pertinent question is, is it evil intrinsically or is it evil because they do not like it?
Hitchens then proposes that eternal fire is one of the most wicked ideas ever propagated, one which has ruined the lives and the peace of mind of many children. With the preceding statements in mind, this whole issue is nothing but a bi-product of a cultural meme which was determined by DNA. It would also seem that Hitchens is presuming an inherent value within the child. Why is a child, or his or her mind, inherently valuable. If we’re nothing but the product of time plus chance, as Daniel Dennett said,
“In the beginning, there were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had a purpose, nothing has so much as a function; there was no teleology [purpose] in the world at all.”(8)
Then there is no right, there is no wrong, there is no evil, there is no good, there is no value. Its all “better” and justified by the survival of the gene. But even then there is a more profound issue, which C.S. Lewis pointed out,
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents--the accidental bi-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s [thought processes]. But if their thoughts--i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy--are merely accidental bi-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the other accidents.”(9)
The New Atheists propagate the immorality of teaching children theism. But this would imply a moral absolute, which is completely contrary to their biological determinism, for there would be no responsibility for one’s own actions. For something to be truly “immoral,” this would imply a moral law, which in turn would imply a moral-law giver, for if there is no moral-law giver, then there is no moral law, thus no immorality. And as Fyodor Dostoevski said, “If God is dead everything is justifiable.” It needs to be mentioned that I am not saying that all atheists are immoral, but as Ravi Zacharias pointed out,
“It is true that not all antitheists are immoral, but the larger point has been completely missed. Antitheism provides every reason to be immoral and is bereft of any objective point of reference with which to condemn any choice. Any antitheist who lives a moral life merely lives better than his or her philosophy warrants. All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the antheist is forever engaged in undermining his own mines.” (10)
In conclusion, even within the New Atheism, theism has a purpose, to promote the gene, which in the end is meaningless. There is no right or wrong, but theism is evil. Children and their parents are determined by DNA, but to teach them anything other than this is immoral. The New Atheists have become no better than the Christian hypocrites that they chide about. And as Socrates once stated, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” We all need to realize that “Ideas govern the world or throw it into chaos.” This becomes utterly alarming when taking into consideration Viktor Frankl, a WWII survivor, his statement that,
“If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry of other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”(11)
There is no such thing as a default position, one worldview will reign. And if man is the measure, then the question must be asked, which man? As Malcom Muggridge said,
“If God is dead then somebody’s going to need to take His place, it’ll either be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist, or the fallous Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”
The inconsistency of the New Atheism has radical consequences and is taking to popularity quite fast. They are moving towards being the measure of all things rapidly and if something isn’t done, the ramifications will be felt from generation to generation.

1. Albert Mohler, The New Atheism, http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21
2. Antony Flew, Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews The God Delusion, http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion.htm
3. Brian Lynch (American Atheist Society), James White vs. Brian Lynch debate, Is Atheism a Religion
4. Christopher Hitchens, D’Nesh DeSouza vs. Christopher Hitchens debate
5. John Piper, You Will See the Son of Man Seated at the Right Hand of Power and Coming on the Clouds of Heaven (Audio 04/08/90)
6. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p.133
7. Albert Mohler, The New Atheism, http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21
8. Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
9. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, pp.52-53
10. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, pp.31-32
11. Viktor Frankl (Jewish WWII survivor), The Doctor and the Soul, XXI, 1982

Human Sovereignty in "Election"~
Here again is proof positive that human beings have nothing to do with "election"... Something is seriously wrong.

The Nature of God~
“Why has the Trinity become a theological appendage that is more often misunderstood than rightly known? I believe there are many reasons. There is the utterly false idea that God does not want us to use our minds in loving and worshiping Him (anti-intellectualism), as well as the idea that “theology is for cold, unfeeling people. We want a living faith.” The last reason is the most irrational because a living faith is one that is focused upon the truths of God’s revelation. The deeper feelings and emotions evoked by the Spirit of God are not directed toward unclear, nebulous, fuzzy concepts, but toward the clear revealed truths of God concerning His love, the work of Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. It makes no sense whatsoever in human relations to say “I love my wife” while doing our best to remain ignorant of her personality, likes, dreams, etc. And even worse, if my wife has put forth the effort to make sure that I can know these things about her, and I go about ignoring her efforts, what does that say about how much I really love her? The idea that there is some kind of contradiction between the in-depth study of God’s Word, so as to know what God has revealed about himself, and a living, vital faith is inherently self-contradictory” ~Dr. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 16

As I was reading the other day, these are the words that my eyes fell upon, words that resound greatly within me and my experiences. I have been studying the doctrine of the Trinity for roughly three years, as the first year passed it was my goal to try and understand the nature of our God. As the second year passed I was merely trying to gain some sort of comprehension. The third year quickly passed and a mere mental assent, of some kind, was desired. The more and more I study the nature and attributes of God the more it appalls me when I hear of a “child of God” who is content in their milk of ignorance, concerning the God that saved them. Some time back I was listening to a message by John MacArthur Jr. entitled “What to Look for in a Church?” and the first thing he said to look for is a high view of God. It dawned on me how truly pathetic it is that one would even have to mention this in a message, this should be fundamental. As I have encountered this fideistic attitude amongst western churches at large it makes me ponder: should/can this kind of arrogance truly be a mark of a believer? And with the answer to the previous question in consideration, what are the implications and ultimate consequences in maintaining this apathetic mood?

Charles Spurgeon stated on the morning of January 7th, 1855,
“It has been said by someone that the proper study of mankind is man, I will not oppose the idea, but I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God’s elect is God. The proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The Highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the Great God, whom he calls, his Father.”

J.I. Packer echoed these same sentiments, at the conclusion of his book he writes,
“We have been brought to the point where we both can and must get our life’s priorities straight. From current Christian publications, you might think that the most vital issue for any real or would-be Christian in the world today is church union, or social witness, or dialogue with other Christians and other faiths, or refuting this or that ism, or developing a Christian philosophy and culture, or what have you. But our line of study makes the present-day concentration on these things look like a gigantic conspiracy of misdirection. Of course, it is not that; the issues themselves are real and must be dealt with in their place. But it is tragic that, in paying attention to them, so many in our day seem to have been distracted from what was, is, and always will be the true priority for every human being--that is, learning to know God in Christ.” ~Knowing God, p.279

“…the people who know their God will display strength and take action.” Daniel 11:32

Sin~
The glory of God not honored...
The holiness of God not reverenced...
The greatness of God not admired...
The power of God not praised...
The truth of God not sought...
The wisdom of God not esteemed...
The beauty of God not treasured...
The goodness of God not made sacred...
The faithfulness of God not trusted...
The commandments of God not obeyed...
The justice of God not respected...
The wrath of God not feared...
The grace of God not cherished...
The presence of God not prized...
The person of God not loved...
~John Piper

"Whatever weakens your reasoning...
Impairs the tenderness of your conscience...
Obscures your sense of God...
Or takes away your desire for spiritual things...
Anything that increases the authority and power of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, no matter how good that thing is, in and of itself..."
~John Wesley's Mother

A Call to All~
"Seek the LORD while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon." ~Isaiah 55:6-7

"...repent and believe in the gospel." ~Mark 1:15

"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish..." Luke 3:13

"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord..." ~Acts 3:19

"But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." ~Hebrews 3:13

The Sovereignty of God Over Rulers and Nations~
"The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." ~Proverbs 16:9
"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes." ~Proverbs 21:1
"...and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation," ~Acts 17:26
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." ~Romans 13:1

Truth~
"Truth is the most glorious thing! The least filing of this gold is precious. What shall we be violent for, if not for truth? Truth is ancient; its grey hairs may make it venerable; it comes from Him who is the ancient of days. Truth is pure (Ps. 119:140). It is compared to silver refined seven times (Ps. 12:6). There is not the least spot on truth's face; it breathes nothing but sanctity. Truth is triumphant; it is like a great conqueror when all his enemies lie dead; it keeps the field and sets up its trophies of victory. Truth may be opposed but never quite deposed... Truth has noble effects. Truth is the seed of the new birth. God does not regenerate us by miracles or revelations, but by the word of truth (James 1:18). As truth is the breeder of grace, so it is the feeder of it (1 Tim. 4:6). Truth sanctifies: "Sanctify them through Thy truth" (John 17:17). Truth is the seal that leaves the print of its own holiness upon us; it is both speculum and lavacrum, a glass to show us our blemishes and a laver to wash them away. Truth makes us free (John 8:32). It bears off the fetters of sin and puts us into a state of sonship (Rom. 8:11), and kingship (Rev. 1:6)... Truth is an antidote against error. Error is the adultery of the mind; it stains the soul as treason stains blood. Error damns as well as does vice... The reason so many have been tricked into error is because they either did not know, or did not love, the truth..."
~ Heaven Taken by Storm by Thomas Watson (A.D. 1620-1686), pp. 5-6