Driscoll v. Young – ROUND ONE…FIGHT!
Blog, Featured — By Jordan Green on September 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Okay, okay…not a fight per se. More like a terse discussion.
Before we go any further, I should point out that we here at Burnside are generally big fans of William P. Young (we published one of the first reviews of The Shack years ago and Mr. Young graciously joined a book project we worked on that we’ll talk more about in the future). We are not, generally, big fans of Mark Driscoll.
Anyway, Wm. P. Young is giving a free talk in Seattle on September 10th. He has publicly invited Mark to join him on stage, and a Facebook campaign is spreading the word. Here’s Young’s statement:
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.
And, of course, some commenters get all snippy, because that’s what happens online. I liked the 20 million copies bit, because we all know Mark loves numbers. I’m trying to figure out the Street Fighter II – Championship Edition parallel to this, and I settled on Ryu for Wm. P. Young (immensely likable, unassuming, humble) and Vega for Driscoll (vain, a bit foppish, and far less badass than he wants you to believe).
So, this should be fun! Anyone in Seattle want to attend this and let us know what happens?
35 Comments
I would have gone with a Mortal Kombat twist. Young is Raiden and Driscoll is Johnny Cage . . . or maybe Goro.
We also want this conflict/conversation to generate understanding, truth-telling, and reconciliation, if at all possible.
Just curious…
In a previous article you extolled the teaching of Mark Driscoll (specifically his book, “Religion Saves”) yet then claimed that because of his public perception, people won’t read his writings. Well, don’t you think you assist in perpetuating a perception that keep people away from his writing?
And regards to this post, I don’t believe Young to be a heretic… that word is bandied about as much as “Communist” at a Tea Party Rally… however, Christians tread dangerous ground when we try to propose an analogous way to describe the Trinity… its beyond contextualization, its pandering to a biblically illiterate culture and doctrine gets lost in the translation.
I’m not overly worried about perpetuating that perception, because I think that perception (that Mark Driscoll acts like a jerk) is correct. I suppose I could’ve said the same thing about Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggard, but the truth (right or wrong) is that a leader’s actions say more about who they are than the accuracy of their theology.
I encourage anyone to read Mark Driscoll’s book, if only to get a perspective on his stances from the man himself, and I don’t think my criticism of the guy states otherwise (though I could be wrong in that).
You said:
“Christians tread dangerous ground when we try to propose an analogous way to describe the Trinity…”
What dangerous ground? Wouldn’t we then tread dangerous ground any time we tried to interpret any bit of scripture? The problem with misinterpreting analogy, from the Left Behind series to Frank Peretti’s “Piercing the Darkness” to “Pilgrim’s Progress” to “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” to “The Shack”, comes down to individuals extrapolating out theological stances on books that are not scripture. That sucks, of course, but does it mean those books shouldn’t be written?
Matthew has a point in that the Shack at the very least will have some strange effects on the biblically illiterate culture. It’s a bit backwards to try and deliver a “fresh, new, outside-the-box” presentation of the trinity to people who don’t yet understand the orthodox, normal, time and church-tested explanation of God.
Matthew,
Your phrase – “an analogous way to describe the Trinity” – makes me cringe a little. Is “analogous way” just a fancy way of saying “fiction” and “poetry” and “art”? If so, how far does this extend?
I’m sure you don’t have a problem with writers dealing with biblical themes, but what do we do with “Paradise Lost,” which depicts the war in heaven, life in Eden, the fall of Man, and literally puts words in the mouths of God the Father and God the Son? What about an allegory like “Pilgrim’s Progress” in which the character The Interpreter is a stand-in for the Holy Spirit? Aslan the Lion in “The Chronicles of Narnia” is clearly Christ. Not quite an allegory, C.S. Lewis hoped “The Chronicles” would “baptize the imagination” of children so they would be ready when they heard the gospel – the power of a well-told story.
There is a long tradition of novelists re-imagining the earthly life and ministry of Jesus: Lew Wallace (“Ben-Hur”), Shusaku Endo, Christopher Moore, and Anne Rice, to name just a few. “The Last Temptation of Christ,” a controversial book somewhat outside orthodoxy, is nevertheless powerful, beautiful, and extremely useful for the orthodox believer.
Also a frequent subject of the visual arts, the Trinity is sometimes depicted as three human figures, two human figures and a dove (the Holy Spirit), or as a symbol like the triangle or Celtic triquetra. I saw one medieval painting on Wikipedia (that’s right) that portrayed the Trinity as three faces fused into one.
(Sidenote: Peter Hitchens – brother of Christopher Hitchens, probably the most famous atheist in the world – was once an atheist himself. He describes in his new book “Rage Against God” how a painting, Rogier van der Weyden’s “The Last Judgment”, helped lead him to faith. He also says he doesn’t believe his brother can be argued out of atheism: “It is my belief that passions as strong as his are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time.”)
In other words, nothing is beyond contextualization. Contextualization is what humans do; it’s the only thing we can do. Theology itself is contextualization. The work of reducing an ineffable God into a series of doctrinal formulas is by definition inadequate, and just as susceptible to being wrong. The good news is that the Christian life doesn’t stop here. Great religious art – and elegant theology – can send us back to our Bibles, and then back out into the world, where we live by metaphors and by the grace of God.
John,
Beautifully said. I have several friends I wish would read your post. The sneering they do at poetry that touches on religious themes because it doesn’t conform to their contextualization of theology is sad.
I wish more Christians would use the freedom Christ died to give us to try to explain the gospel in the best ways we can using arts, sciences, literature, etc…all the well knowing that it will fall short because “we see through a glass darkly”. But just because we don’t understand it all doesn’t mean we should try or shouldn’t try to share what we have discovered.
I get your points (John & Jordan) and I welcome them. And yes, we definitely need to use art to contextualize the gospel. Yet, I believe in specific regard to the Trinity, that our explanations are grossly inedequate when we try to contextualize this great mystery without allowing Scripture to lead the way.
The doctrine of the Trinity is often ignored because it is difficult to understand. But when I have spoken to people in regards to the Shack, their understanding of the Trinity is off the mark and they end up referencing The Shack rather than the Word of God to explain. I guess my basic concern is that contextualization should cause a thirst for further study of Scripture and not become a messy and inaccurate explanation of who God is.
The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible; it comes from the church fathers. The Bible certainly talks about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the 3-in-1 emphasis really comes from post-cannonical theologians. So, while we certainly get guidance from the Scripture, most of our understanding of trinitarian doctrine comes from outside the Bible.
The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the basis of the doctrine is clearly defined within Scripture. The divinity and humanity of Christ is clearly defined in Scripture. The relational qualities of a triune God are clearly defined in Scripture. The systematic approach of its explanation is outside of Scripture, but Scripture leads the explanation and not man’s imagination.
On the most basic epistemological level, you can’t have faith without imagination. I understand the reverence for Scripture as foundational, but when it comes to our image and concept of God, our ability to imagine what cannot be seen is essential, especially when it comes to something abstract and challenging as the Trinity. I get where you’re coming from but I reject the premise.
The only premise I am stating is that we need to be careful when using analogy to explain doctrine. Let’s face it, The Shack is no Pilgrim’s Progress… it simplifies a unique mystery that demands careful study. I just get nervous when we simplify doctrine, or human experience, without giving heed to nuance. It’s that simplification that allows Glenn Beck to be advertised as representative of American Christianity and not just a bastardized version of it.
I see what you’re saying, because that’s generally how I view the Left Behind series.
But eventually, the interpretation of The Shack or Left Behind or Da Vinci Code or The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is outside the hands of the author, and if people believe Left Behind is actually how the End Times will play out, is it the fault of the authors? No metaphor is going to be exact. If a cult began worshipping a lion named Aslan, would we chastise C.S. Lewis for not being clear enough?
I understand your premise to some degree, but saying “we need to be careful” is extremely broad, and I think that mentality has been one of the reasons Christian publishing isn’t known for great fiction.
I think we could call “The Shack” a limited analogy. It communicates some true things about the Trinity, but if pushed too far, distorts things also.
We don’t expect road maps to communicate truths about mineral deposits, or weather patterns.
We don’t expect one club in the golf bag to hit every shot.
I think we could look at the Shack as one type of map or one type of club and leave it at that.
If Driscoll would have stopped with recognizing the book had value, but was buy itself incapable of communicating Trinitarian theology, he’d had been fine. By calling the Shack heresy, he necessarily casts Wm. Young as a heretic. It feels like spiritual McCarthyism.
I agree Driscoll went too far, but he was being asked constantly about the book, as most pastors probably were being asked. He gave his take on what he considered to be bad theology. I don’t agree with him, but I also don’t have a problem with him answering the question. I don’t think you do, either, based on your comment above. But the fact that so many here do, when they also engage in calling out some other authors/teachers, is a bit inconsistent.
Besides all that, Driscoll cannot possibly answer all his critics. This whole thing by Young seems childish to me. No, not childish. It seems like grandstanding.
James,
In other circumstances I’d might consider it grandstanding. But Young didn’t ask to be called the author of a heretical work. And he definitely didn’t choose to have someone of Driscoll’s considerable platform to make those accusations.
The only means he has to exonerate himself is to engage Driscoll’s followers, and the only path to do that is to engage Driscoll.
This may be stupid, but are these things really analagous? Were they intended to be? I know the Narnia books weren’t intended to be. It would seem that analagous nature and intention would have to be established before it could be judged on that basis. Or, maybe not.
I don’t think so…if an analogy is just a comparison between two things, it’s not necessarily a matter of the author’s intent.
But I’d say Aslan’s comparisons to Jesus are pretty established and obvious.
I agree to a certain extent, but analogy is a comparison to show sameness. If you criticize the author for not doing something well which the author never intended to do, it seems like it would be unnecessarily exasperating for both sides.
If we take writing that has loose ties and/or influences and condemn or praise the author on the strength Biblical analogy and/or allegory, it almost like judging a gymnast for not being a great syncronized swimmer.
C.S. Lewis repeatedly said that Narnia was not supposed to be a direct Biblical parallel, and he hated allegory. Tolkien said the same thing about his writing. This whole thing is off topic. It just seemed like the comments assumed all the variously mentioned writing was intended to be more than spiritually influenced fiction, and I wondered where we got that.
Nothing wrong with analogies, but I’ll just say here that there are some very inadequate analogies out there, especially ones which attempt to explain the Trinity. My favorite is the egg one. God’s like an egg, which has 3 parts. You know: the shell, white, and the yolk. Three parts, one egg.
I’m suddenly getting hungry.
I guess my question is: are they inadequate because they do a poor job or because they are being asked to do something they were never intended to do? The egg is not, in itself, a poor analogy. It’s just an egg. It’s the analogy that’s poor, and that doesn’t come from the egg. It comes from the person using it.
Sorry this is so tangential. I didn’t mean to start an abstract, off-topic discussion.
James,
The egg analogy has limits. The shell, the white, and the yolk, are in an off themselves not fully egg. I shudder to think of the damage you’ve caused to Trinitarian theology.
Burnside declares you the Grand Slam Breakfast Heretic and we sentence you to a lifetime of bad service at a Denny’s.
mmm…Denny’s…
I think it is very irresponsible of the BWC to symbolically represent Driscoll and Young in the sacred bodies of Street fighter characters. I would go as far as saying it is heresy to any player of the NES systems to see their beloved Fighters represented by these mere mortals. Shame on you! I believe it says in the Nintendo 64 owners manual, “And you shall have no other avatars but these, lest ye be struck down by Sonic Boom.”
Sonic boom indeed, Burnside Writers Collective.
Jordan
I appreciate your admonishment, Jordan.
And many blessings and Hadokens in reply.
irresponsible, yes. But might it also be heretical?
I wish all of our confrontations included Street Fighter references. We probably have ‘The Shack’ to blame for that, too.
Karen Spears Zacharias and I will be there and look forward to reporting back!
Looking forward to your report. Praying that this is a God-honoring moment that produces light instead of heat.
sorry to say that I’m out of the city that night, but wanted to chime in on this trinity discussion – it’s intriguing to me that people get upset with attempts to offer analogies as a means of providing light on the trinitarian mystery, yet become upset when confronted with the possibility that God’s sovereignty and man’s free will are, mysteriously, both true. The people trashing the Shack have, generally, a strong Calvinist bent, and because of this, have landed squarely on the side of God’s sovereignty, at the expense of ‘free will’.
Yet those same Calvinists are now content to declare that the trinity is mystery. Why is sitting with mystery OK when pondering the trinity, but somehow unacceptable when pondering the interplay of election and free will? My suspicions are that it’s because people have bought into a theological system wholesale. This is tragic, because the truth is that every system is inadequate, that the real need isn’t for each generation to defend a system from yesterday, but discern blind spots so that our living and believing can closer represent God’s heart. We’ve a ways to go here, and cherry picking the application of “it’s a mystery – get over it” isn’t helping matters at all.
Richard,
I understand your point; however, citing anecdotal evidence, when people rely on an analogy (specifically regarding the Trinity) they must abandon core principles regarding the nature of the Trinity.
For example, some say the Trinity is like water. Water can be seen as water, vapor, or ice… and God is the same way. The problem with that analogy is that water can be manifested in different ways, but that is not how the Triune God works… He was not manifested as God the Father, then God the Son, and now as Holy Spirit… This is an eternally existing, in three personhoods, triune God.
Purely anecdotal, but I know people who believe that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the “ghost” of Jesus Christ with us until his return. I have to assume this belief stems on the reliance of analogy and not Scripture.
Analogies should not replace doctrine, especially when the doctrine is as difficult as the Trinity. In this specific case, I believe the analogy takes away from the mystery… but more importantly, I think it “waters-down” our view of God and reduces the glory and awe in which we recognize him.
I agree with Matthew’s above comment. But getting back to the article, I think it’s a little bit prideful for Young to throw in the “manning up” bit. The implication is that Driscoll is less of a man if he doesn’t accept Young’s challenge. Seems like Young is being vain, while also appealing to Driscoll’s vanity. Sounds like a recipe for a pointless contest of pride.
I think it’s in response to Driscoll’s constant preaching on “manning up”, I think Young is challenging him to put this thoughts on masculinity in action.
I dunno. God even uses Mark Driscoll, you know? I think instead of saying you’re not a fan of the person of Mark Driscoll, you should be more specific on the behaviors or attitudes of which you are not a fan.
As Don Miller says, “In matters of faith, what matters most is not theological debate, but closeness with Jesus and unity with believers.”
This whole idea of Driscoll preaching about “manning up” is not adequately represented here. Like any good pastor, Driscoll is speaking out to what he sees happening in his church, and how it is a microcosm of the greater cultural attitude. Does it not alarm anyone else that advertisers consider 18 year olds and 34 years olds to be in the same demographic, when they are supposed to be in clearly different life stages?
This “manning up” isn’t a general machismo, it is a call for guys to take responsibility for their actions… to produce and commit to something greater than themselves, rather than be self-centered consumers searching for ways to prolonge their childhood.
I think Driscoll’s critics spend more time reading blogs about him and watching snippets of his preaching on YouTube rather than objectively listening to a complete sermon. Sure, brashness rubs people the wrong way and he is admitting that and, but the theology he preaches is correct, and his recommended application – especially to young men, is necessary.