Mark, would love to hear you share your heart like that more often.

Okay, who did you get to write this, and what happened to the real Driscoll?

That was a very gracious response.

Mark, thanks too for the "A Book You'll Actually Read" series. Devouring it. Passing it on.

I think amidst people throwing out ruthless and terribly uncreative terms like "Driscolled"...the critics have failed to tune into Mark's teachings over the last couple of years and have settled for basing their view of him on a few isolated sound-bites chosen by his detractors. Aside from his use of a few debatable metaphors, this tone is pretty much the norm nowadays.

Thanks Mark.

What do you know?! Chad was right! Mark seems so humble in his response, and Tony ... well, not as much.

It's nice to see this moment from Mr.Driscoll. It's nice to hear that he is aware of his own growth process.

I'd also like to hear him specifically repudiate certain kinds of slanderous comments that Chad minimized by their only being "unhelpful".

But if the piece above is indicative of where he is heading...then I can take joy in that.

Also, people, don't confuse Tony's rigorous disagreement with a review that really was adversarial about his motives and heart with his being arrogant.

Methinks that if this "dual review" (ahem) was really a dual review and the tables were turned...we might have seen a little more "fire in the belly" from Mark.

And you know that's the truth...

Paul, I confess I have used the term "Driscolled" on here. While I justified it as mere humor and fun (it's true that I do not hold contempt in my heart for Driscoll), it's probably neither productive nor Christlike. I repent. I don't want to joke at anyone's expense! I have not really taken the time to listen to Driscoll, I think I will check him out and see what he has to say, as you recommended. Thanks.

I mean, seriously, what did Mark have to respond to that required "graciousness".

Compare:
Mark your book was boring.
Tony your book reveals that in your heart you are a condescending, arrogant intellectual.

To add salt in the wound, Tony responds clearly about his heart and intent and it's clear that it's never going to be good enough.

whatever.

remind me to never write a book that might get reviewed here. if i was to have to come here and respond in kind to it... well, you can just imagine the carnage.

nice response, mark.

just remember, though, that we URbanites are a pretty independent (well, 'independent' anyway...) bunch. i mean, we don't even need items posted here to engage in grand and self-serving arguments.

discussions, i mean - meant to say discussions.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Thanks to both Mark and Tony for responding to Chad's post and helping to clear up what could have turned into more of a mess. There is a long way to go between these camps, but if we all turn more toward grace it's going to turn out well, i think. that's something I am still trying to practice as well.

Jonathan Stone... not the most helpful thing to write, don't you think? Debates about who is most humble seem to be a waste of time.

nathan,
One has to wonder if you listen to Driscoll's weekly sermons or just the cut-and-paste quotations you can get from the Ooze and other places? If you did you would realize that this "moment" has been a consistent attitude from Driscoll for at least the past year. Driscoll has been very open about his struggles with pride and anger as well as his desire to grow in self-control, and you can hear it clearly in his messages.

One needs look no further than when a few months ago his congregation gave him the opportunity to lay into emerging Christianity in his "Questions" series and instead Driscoll decided to take the high road and focus the entire sermon on the Gospel presentation. How many people here would be so willing to pass on nailing Driscoll if given a forum like that?

What do you know?! Chad was wrong! Tony seems so humble in his response, and Mark ... well since he really had nothing to be gracious about (as Nathan pointed out, his book got called boring, Tony was called an arrogant intellectual) his response was...nice.

Mark's response...appropriate to the review given to him.

Tony's a different response because there was a different challenge. I agree with Tony, but the format of his response, I think, was not sinful or disqualifying.

Jonathan,
It took some stones (pun intended...sorry for any potential offense, I couldn't pass it up!) to repent like you did publicly. What you did is a rarity for the blogsphere. Just a forewarning though...Driscoll's tone and form of content has matured in recent times (not nearly so many shocker moments), but from what I can tell, and I don't want to speak too much for someone who can very well speak for himself, he hasn't changed his theology or his sometimes sarcastic call for certain people groups to see the tentativeness of their positions (to put it mildly).

(For the record, I actually like his edgyiness, at least nostalgically. I'm one of those loser, young, argumentative white guys who needed to step up, put on a cup, and get back in the game. When I started interacting with Driscoll's preaching, I was throwing a spiritual temper tantrum and about to give up on God and people. God used him to kinda shocked me out of it. I've had to recover from some brashness habits he encouraged (and since repented of in Rebel's guide Joy in Humility), but overall he's been a godsend.)

Wow...I kinda feel exposed now...naked and vulnerable in a big, chill blog-world without an argument robe to put on!(smiles)

Paul, thanks for the encouragement. Maybe before long Chad and Tony and Mark will be on here repenting and reconciling and talking about how they admire each other! :)

Todd,
lovely. I don't follow "the ooze" and never have, and I don't know about what other websites carry your soundbites...your biases are showing.

Actually, my reference to this moment means exactly that "this moment" (i.e. this particular outing on UrL)

LIke I said, I think it's great if Mark is demonstrating a turn around in his tone. So I'm glad you and I agree.

It's clear you've made up your mind about Tony Jones. In all seriousness, I'm glad he can be a catalyst for your own confidence and strength of conviction. Like I've said on here and elsewhere...I don't mind critiques of anyone. Just make sure they are fair and about the actual content--not attributing motives, etc. The issues taken up in these threads demonstrate my point

Honest conversation and accountability . . . the internet--a wonderful thing!
Greg from Faith First Fitness

is it just me or does the one person that comes off sounding bad here is Chad Hall? perhaps Chad should respond? i'm not agreeing or disagreeing per se, but just observing....

grace and peace

i think the two different responses to two very different opinions of the authors are quite revealing.

i would agree that driscoll got the "easier" review to respond to - chad was unsatisfied with many elements of his book, but didn't go on the attack as he did with tony.

that being said, getting the "tougher" review gave tony the greater opportunity to demonstrate his character in how he responded to the harsher criticisms. i'm not sure he grasped that opportunity.

i'm 24, have attended 1 Bible and 2 secular colleges in both artistic and academic streams, and am an artist by trade - i can barely stretch out my legs without hitting a young emergent. and what confuses me the most about the movement is the fervour for empirical knowledge, intellectualism, and academic credentials that rarely seems to show its head in the emergent-traditional debate. mr. jones had a huge opportunity to respond to a less-than-intellectual review with the manner of reasoned, calm, intellectually "correct" academic response that so many emergents claim to have the goods on. instead, he responded to a rather emotional review in kind, and only gave credence to the stereotype of emergents being a bunch of overemotional pseudo-intellectuals, the emo kids of the Church. he's certainly not the first person laying claim to the emergent title who i've seen or heard do that. this seems to me a common problem that not only emergents are having a lot of trouble with: reconciling the heart with the mind in the struggle not only to grasp the truth but to convey it. the emergents seem, while striving for high levels of intellectualism, to be afraid of appearing overly academic (i.e. stuffy), while the traditionals seem to be striving to reach people's hearts while being afraid of appearing overly emotional and touchy-feely.

well gosh, when i put it that way, the problem hardly sounds new, eh?

I definitely agree that Tony's response in this debate, moreso than Driscoll's, shows just how much the "overemotional pseudo-intellectual" stereotype is true for emergents. As a 25 yr old who has also been in Christian colleges and (for grad school) a very secular university, I have experienced emerging Xty in all way shape and form, and none of it is very intellectually satisfying. This is ironic, of course, because a major conceit of emergent is their elevation of discourse/conversation/dialogue, which you'd think would be grounded in firm intellectual principles. Unfortunately the "discourse" produced by emergent authors like Jones is rarely much more helpful than an undergrad dormroom conversation about predestination is... good for relationships but not so much for an enlightened understanding of anything.

It's great to hear that you are striving for humility Mark. Repentance often requires examining past actions and going back as needed to those that you have sinned against and humbly asking for their forgiveness and if you've sinned against them before others then repenting to them as well.

I know you know this, but I hope you'll do it too.

Mark,

I've never met you, but this whole post was you at your best. thanks

my favorite quote, "First, the accusation that I am humble is scandalous."

Steve