Inhabitatio Dei on Mark Driscoll
I’ve been critical of Driscoll’s macho posture in the past, but nothing I said can hold a candle to Halden’s take-down here. Money quote:
“I am of course most interested in Driscoll’s comment that he is unable to worship someone he can beat up. Strangely enough this would seem that he is unable to worship Jesus. As John Howard Yoder pointed out in reflection on John 1, the proclamation that the Word became flesh “does not simply mean that God became tangible. It means he became weak, undignified, vulnerable. The power behind the creation came among us in such a way that we can hurt him.” The whole reality of Jesus is as one who makes himself vulnerable, who puts himself at the mercy of the forces of sin and death that we have unleashed upon the world. Driscoll is almost certainly right, he could indeed beat up Jesus, and if he saw him, I’m afraid he probably would!”
In a weird way, this reminds me of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.
Once again, more liberals taking Driscoll out of context.
What context is lacking here?
Driscoll’s believes that an emasculated image of Christ has become common place and that this image is inaccurate. I agree. But Driscoll uses hyperbole and it has the adverse effect of weaken his point.
I believe Andrew said a while ago: fine you might not believe in a God you can beat up, but what about one you can crucify?
5 minutes of fumbling around the Gospels and guess what you find? Jesus getting beaten up! For such a great preach, he really dropped the ball with that line.
Wheneverhe talks about a God he can beat up is always used in conjuction with the portrait of Christ used in Revelation (On a horse, sword mouth, robe with blood) The point being, the human Christ was weaker, was crucified. But the incarnate Christ was still tougher than the hippy Jesus we see now. That the Christ who was crucified, ALLOWED Himself to be crucified, gave up His some attributes as God so He could enter into human history. That said, Christ’s time here is over and now Her resides in with His Father, the portrait of Christ in Revelation is how Christ is now, a risen, victorious King and Warrior. Driscoll, along with others want to know why this image of Christ isn’t being shown compared to hippy Jesus.
Great clarification Jay.
Have you not considered that Driscoll’s “hippy Jesus” is a bit of a straw man anyway? Driscoll is obsessed with getting rid of Jesus as being anything less than some troglodyte UFC grappler.
Jesus chose to present himself as a simple man, he suffered and was killed. Christ crucified: Foolishness to the Greeks, a stumbling-block to the Jews, and apparently both to Mark Driscoll.
But don’t you think that the incarnate Christ is just one small part who Jesus is? That part if God is big for because it goes hand in hand with our salvation. Christ came in a capacity so that we could understand and accept Him. In our cases, that has been achieved, now it’s time embrace a more full picture of who Christ is.
When I see Driscoll speak about this (and he’s done this a great deal in various videos online), that’s not the impression he gives. You suggests that he is adding to the picture of Jesus. He isn’t. He’s trying to cut out the image of the merciful, humble servant.
I totally disagree, the risen Christ still bears the scars of the crucifiction, it’s impossible to disassociate the Christ of the gospels with the Christ of revelation. Those speak to as a reminder to me, that though Jesus is reigning King, He is still the God man who humbled Himself and died for us.
Jay,
It’s truly a good thing if you can have a complex, nuanced, evolving view of the complete Christ. I just don’t see that as being reflected in Driscoll’s teaching. Maybe it is in there, somewhere in the back, but the image of Jesus that he cultivates is such a hackneyed caricature and he seems happy to let this impression (if it is mistaken – and I’m still not convinced that it is) linger.