# I went and bought The Shack after I saw this…..
When Mark tells me “don’t”, I can’t help but run and do the complete opposite. I wonder if this condition has been identified and named? I know I’m not the only one…..am I?
When Mark tells me “don’t”, I can’t help but run and do the complete opposite. I wonder if this condition has been identified and named? I know I’m not the only one…..am I?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
time to go buy the shack…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I just finished reading Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything,” also largely because driscoll told me not to. I’m glad i’m not the only one with this condition
June 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
i know alot of people have a problem with this guy. i actually like most of his preaching. i appreciate that he wants to stick to the historical understandings of the bible and jesus(i’m sure i will have to defend that sentence a little more clearly, that’s ok.) it seems that there are a lot of books out now that are trying to redefine christianity. i don’t think it needs to be redefined and nothing about the core of it needs to change. that’s what i appreciate about driscoll is that he sticks to the historical understanding of who we believe Jesus to be and why.
as far as doing something when i’m told not to, i am usually the opposite. when there is a big movie or band that everyone says i should check out i usually don’t for the same reason that someone would if they were told not to. it’s thickheaded, but that’s just my first reaction usually.
i don’t want to hear something new about Jesus, because i don’t think there is anything new to hear. when i heard brian mclaren talk about the cross being a distraction or a contradiction to jesus teachings it really made me question his view of scripture and theology. does he read the bible? i wonder.
but at the same time i belong to the vineyard church who allows women to teach and have leadership, something driscoll would have a fit about. it’s a weird subject that is hard for me to decide on. i have heard both arguments and don’t know who to go with.
ok…..nuf said
jason
June 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I’ve listened to a lot of Driscoll, but I rarely hear him talk about Christianity that could be called “historic” in any full sense of the word. He worships the great god John Calvin, and even named a kid after him. It’s much more accurate to say he sticks to the historic understandings of Protestantism.
And when McLaren talks about the cross being a distraction, he’s referring to the emphasis that the protestant glorified “substitutionary atonement” understanding of the cross (which emerged in 1100AD- historic?) being a distraction. He’s not actually saying that the work of jesus is in any way a distraction; on the contrary, that’s about all that McLaren ever talks about.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
greg boyd just raved about this on his blog which really made me want to buy it. now seeing this, there is no doubt that i will be reading this in the coming weeks. i’m going to go ahead and say that driscoll didn’t actually read this book before he talked on it. kinda like when he didn’t talk to bell before he called him a false teacher at a sbc convention.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
to Tad….
i don’t really think that mclaren could back his assertion up with scripture. there is way too much scripture to tell us that substitutionary atonement is accurate and necessary. if you don’t believe that then what did jesus accomplish? i realize that mclaren did not say the work of jesus is a distraction. but he did say that God could not possibly demand for the cross as a necessary way for our salvation. unless i misunderstood him.
i do have issues with calvinism though. some of it i buy, but not the whole thing. it’s problematic in some senses.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
jason,
substitutuionary atonement theory is one of 5 or 6 major theories on how atonement works. As i mentioned, it wasn’t formulated until 1100AD by Anselm, and each of the other theories before or sense can claim the same scriptural evidence. There’s plenty of material out there explaining all this if you’re interested.
My problem with driscoll is that he seems to think that if you reject the notion that the purpose of the cross was to allow God to be able to justifiably forgive us, then you aren’t a real Christian (mark labels that heresy). The problem is, what about the millions of christians before Anselm, when nobody articulated the Cross like that? Or what about all the people outside the conservative protestant stream that most heavily adopted SubAt? Is everyone who doesn’t understand atonement exactly like Driscoll… are we all going to hell? Cause Driscoll seems to think so
June 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Hey Zach,
The Shack is one of the best books I have read in a long, long time. I can’t imagine a better book for someone who is “seeking” to read and discuss than this one. Very non-threatening, but extremely thought provoking - and it always points to the sacrifice of Jesus.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Yeap, I think im gonna need to buy the book too. Mr Driscoll has always been great in promoting the doctrine and literature of his “enemies”.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:52 am
to Tad again…
my only problem with people questioning the substitutionary atonement theology is that i don’t hear the opposite view. if SA is not true than what did Jesus accomplish with his death on the cross. i do think that a lot of people place too much emphasis on the cross and not enough on the resurrection. i hold those two events as equally important. if jesus just died than we just believe in a martyr. but if he didn’t die for us than how are we forgiven of sins and how do we have eternal life?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The only time i really get exposure to Driscoll is here, so thanks…a dubious honor indeed. I actually bought the Shack and Vintage Jesus at the same time. Let’s hear it for Amazon. I look forward to reading them both.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 am
Jason,
There is not ‘the opposite view’ to SA. There are actually 4 or 5 major alternate views (at least 2 of which predate the SA view), not just one, although there could be more formulations.
As far as why/if jesus had to die, that has been at the center of questions of Atonement for all of church history. Keep in mind, Substitutionary Atonement was only first coherently put into a theory in 1100AD by Ansel (I hate to keep repeating that point, but you seem to think it is the ancient, orthodox position, and it simply isn’t). But as to ‘how are we forgiven?”… I think the answer is simple. God can do whatever he pleases. There is, contrary to common evangelical teaching, do logical or scriptural reason to think that God HAD to have a sacrifice in order to forgive us. No, instead He can actually forgive without redirecting punishment (just as He commands us to do… i don’t forgive my friend by kicking my dog instead).
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 am
‘do logical..’ Should read *’No logical…”*
and ‘Ansel’ should be ‘Anselm’
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
tad….
i would like to know which scripture backs your argument. i will look for those that support SA.
i don’t think the kicking the dog analogy works. also: what about when abraham was to sacrifice isaac. God stopped him because it was a lesson that He himself was going to do that.
also: what did jesus accomplish on the cross?
i’ll get some stuff for my position and i’d really like to hear yours.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
jason…
I don’t think i can take this any further with you. With all respect, sure you can find scripture to back your position. But if those dealt a death blow to any theory other than SA, then there wouldn’t be any other prevalent understanding than SA. You already have your opinion (one i used to have before i did more scripture/historical research) and will see any evidence through this lens. For instance, you will correctly see Abraham/Isaac as a precursor to Christ, but will make an unsupportable jump that this implies God is ‘unable’ to forgive without a substitutionary payment which he did by Jesus Christ.- big, unsupported jump to make (even if it were true).
And you still seem completely oblivious to the point i raise over and over again… that SA is not the ancient, orthodox understanding of atonement. We know this because we have coherent descriptions of the Church fathers, in writing, of how they though atonement worked, and none voiced SA. Or in other words, every early church father would disagree with you (nevermind that they couldn’t even agree among themselves on the purpose of christ’s death… so much for being a straightforward matter).
So, honestly, i’m not trying to sound mean or antagonizing at all, and I hope it’s not coming off like that. But i know what it felt like when i first learned that my old SA theory was not the orthodox or ancient or only description of the reason for the death of christ. If you are interested in the various other ways each are supported by scripture, you can do the research yourself. But you will find that no major Atonement theory (4 or 5 other than SA) has any less scriptural support that SA does (some have much more, as well as Biblical metanarrative in support).
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
tad….
the only reason i ask you to back it up more is that i really want to see how that argument works out. i understand that it hasn’t been the orthodox position, as you say. i just haven’t heard anyone use any kind of biblical support of their argument against it. plus, i am willing to research to make sure that i am on solid ground to trust the doctrine. it wasn’t a challenge as in a debate. i really wanted to hear a full argument with scripture, but i have not heard that yet. it’s all in a spirit of education and open minded communication.
if you don’t want to continue that’s fine. but your posts have led me to look into this further. i’m glad for the awareness of another view.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
jason, you keep asking for some kind of scripture based proof for tad’s point but his point doesn’t need any scriptural backing. he’s not arguing a particular brand of atonement here. he’s simply pointing out that to call SA the definitive “historical” christian theory is ignoring generous portions of christian history. he doesn’t need scripture to back that up, he has history on his side. you don’t need scripture to see tad’s correct. you need google.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
‘Christos Victor’ and ‘Ransom theory’ are the two major ones that predated SA. You might also look into Governance and Moral Influence, to name a few, but there are others. And echoing Zach, sans systematic theology texts that give comprehensive doctrinal history, Google is probably your best bet for learning about all this. You will find all the coherent backing and scripture for each view point, as well as plenty of scripture used to attack SA.
To tell you the truth, i like SA a little bit, but only as a metaphore (recall Romans saying ‘God did this to ‘demonstrate’ his justice…’- it’s a picture, but not comprehensive)- it’s not the primary or full picture of what Atonement really is about. It would have been nice for God to lay it all out there simply in Scripture, but He didn’t. He gave us a vague collection of writings to sort through and synthesize to the best of our ability
July 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
jason,
i’ve been fascinated with the christus victor theory of atonement the last few months and have been trying to find research on why the penal substitutionary version is unbiblical. just two days, i stumbled upon this fantastic article which details with a great amount of scriptural references the problem with PSA and why christus victor makes sense. it’s a very long read (may take you several hours) but if you are really interested then i recommend reading it. it is super informative.
http://www.sharktacos.com/god/cross_intro.shtml
July 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
so that link didn’t work…go here http://www.sharktacos.com/god and click on the link on the left side of the page
July 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
i mean right. wow. i’m done.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
thanks tad and jon…..
i just finished a two year program with the Vineyard Church for leadership training and church planting. one of the concepts that was in the christian history class was the different views of what Christ did and what it accomplished. i can see your point that SA is not just it. one of the other views that i loved was called the ‘vicarious life’ perspective. it said that Christ came to renew us as humans to restore us to what Adam was before the fall. i really liked that view because it encompassed all of what He did and shows us how we are to live. that does for me include his death on the cross and the defeat of death. that’s probably more important to me than just sticking with SA. i never meant to only defend SA, it just seemed that some people(not here) were almost saying that it had no part of what Jesus did.
i need to get my notes from that class out and look up all those views that it detailed.
thanks for patiently responding to my replies. i wasn’t here to argue or win my ‘view’ i was just trying to understand how your view worked within what we understand about the cross.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Dude don’t get your necklace in a knot, it’s not meant to be literal. Think CS Lewis really thought God was a Lion!?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
greg…
what are you referring to?
July 10th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Sorry, I am referring to the fact that Mark Driscoll seems to be taking a literal interpretation of “The Shack” i.e. goddess worship, God the Father not God the mother etc. And that he likes to wear a necklace.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
i wanted to be able to just walk away…but i couldn’t…
“Driscoll and his new nemesis: literature”
http://prophetsandpopstars.com/?p=227