Talk Elections

I once called him "the biggest piece of sh*t in American Christianity". I think here's good evidence (even though I agree with him on the alcohol part):


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/mark-driscoll-s-sex-manual-real-marriage-scandalizes-evangelicals.html

He's a tool. The fact that he's given such a free pass in my corner of the evangelical world is a source of never-ending anger on my part. Occasionally his theology is sound, and he associates with some good guys (J.I. Packer and D.A. Carson come to mind). However his philosophy of ministry, his attitude, his behavior in pulpit and a constant stream of stupid remarks make him unfit to hold the office of elder. Driscoll is also symptomatic of a worrying trend in which younger guys have taken the complimentarian movement and used it as a thinly veiled disguise for their chauvinism.

Of course he brings them in the door in a city that doesn't have a large evangelical presence, and apparently worldly success covers a multitude of sins...

His buddy Matt Chandler is far more worthwhile, imo.

He's a perfect example of the tendency in modern Evangelical (and Christian in general, really) 'thought' to submit entirely to the starting point of the temporal reign of concepts of sexuality and attempt to replace Jesus' holy silence and inhabitation of the empty space between sexual identity and nonidentity with a picture of a heteronormative Jesus that is both spiritually and temporally damaging and makes no sense whatsoever. Massive HP.

I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that abstaining from something can be a sin, unless we're talking refusal to take the Eucharist or something.

I don't see how refusing to take communion could be a sin unless it was done with the reasoning of refusing to take it from a woman or something. The far more common belief is that it would be a sin to take it under some circumstances (which I don't agree with.) But I know that I would be very uncomfortable taking communion in a Catholic church even if the church's rules on it didn't "prohibit" me for example. I also wouldn't hold anything against someone who wasn't Christian declining to take communion even if the church they were visiting was OK with it.

What I think is wrong and could be a sin would be encouraging ("threatening" might be a better word in some contexts) someone to not take in communion because of some sin they had committed like the Catholic Church and some evangelical ones do. I kind of think discouraging alcohol consumption is sort of similar. It's not an issue if you are a designated driver, or get sick off it easily, or just don't feel like drinking that night or at all. But the legalistic prohibition many churches have on alcohol is wrong, and someone abstaining for that reason alone is kind of in the same vein as "ex-gay" "therapy". Not saying that it's anywhere near as damaging of course, and "sin" might be too strong of a description, but it's definitely not the right thing to promote.

Also I'm so irritated by the US's stupid laws on alcohol and current drinking age despite being legal for quite awhile now that I kind of hold that it's an unjust law worthy of civil disobedience and someone declining to drink for no reason other than they they are not above the legal age is not quite a "sin", but also certainly not the right thing either. Mind you this is extremely rare anyway.

That makes sense. I thought you were saying that there might be something wrong about abstaining from alcohol for reasons of personal conviction or health reasons or lack of desire to lose inhibitions socially or whatever, which I was having a hard time wrapping my head around.

I'm not sure sin is the right word for refusing alcoholic Eucharists. In fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't. It just strikes me as a little odd, and I can see, with some effort, how others might consider it wrong.

Mark Driscoll is still an oblate to the altar of sexual-commoditized Christanity and an HP, in any case.

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/driscoll-kicks-own-ass.html

Lol, trolling.

“At last year’s Converging Conference, Driscoll talked about standing up when you piss and I got really excited. We started a men’s-only Bible Accountability Group. It was a combination of scripture study and Muy Thai Stick Fighting. It was great for a few weeks, until my worship pastor lost an eye. I had to make a tough call then and there: no more Muy Thai Stick Fighting at Kiona Community without protective face gear. I still think it might have been a spiritual compromise.”

this reminds me of the debate over the health care mandate.

It's much easier to argue for abstaining from something being a civil liability.