TheDeSocios.com

Recently I was talking to a PCA elder (@RaeWhitlock) on twitter. And he made the connection that Obama’s use of technology is to Mars Hill Church’s use of technology as John McCain’s use of technology is to The PCA’s(Presbyterian Church in America) use of technology.
And while that might leave a certain unpleasant taste in some people’s mouth, it seems to be a fair statement.

John McCain has a website, while Barak Obama had a web presence, sites, blogs, txts, social network, the works.

Now using this comparison might further alienate some in the PCA from using technology, but here is the question I am thinking about: will the PCA and, other similar denominations, be a day late and a dollar short when it comes to its use technology? Because if they are, what is going to happen is that they are going to end up interacting with a ever-decreasing segment of the population.

Anyone who reads what I write, or knows me, knows that I appreciate Mark Driscoll, and his ministry. I am very pleased with how the God has used his ministry. I have found his teaching very good on many issues.

Here is what bothers me. On the topic of baptism he is inconsistent. Here is why I say this.Driscoll is one of the founders of The Acts 29 Network, and is on their board. IN their documents they say “How a local church performs them is open-handed (we have Presbyterians and Baptists in the Acts 29 Network”

I was happy to hear that they apparently admitted that Christians are divided on the issue, but when I recently read a section from Vintage Church. “We simply cannot believe that justification and regeneration are by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone can hold this understanding of baptism…”

More than his disagreement, I am bother by the tone of the latter quote, and to be honest it seems to be a contradiction to the notion that baptism is an open handed issue in Acts 29.

Here is why I am really disappointed in Drsicoll’s take: In many of the things that I have read from Driscoll I have found that he is gifted at communicating a unique, and yet critical and insightful perspective on theological issues. He is well read and cites from authors across the ages. Yet when it comes to Baptism, he cites several reformed voices including the Westminster Confession of Faith, but chooses to avoid interacting with them. Additionally unlike the majority of his writing he seems to be simply restating a modernist, perspective from a very narrow historical sector. Its especially unfortunate that Driscoll is so dogmatic on one sacrament while at the same time is fairly unspecific when it comes to the other, simply stating that he “stands more in the Reformed Tradition”.

I understand that Presbyterians are in the minority, but it bothers me that with one statement Discoll can, at least by association, admit and accept differences on the issue of Baptism, while with a another statement, condemn, and disassociate himself with many great men, including Tim Keller, Harvie Conn, and others.

This is not an attack on Driscoll, and I hope it is not a rant. I felt that it was necessary to voice my disagreement with a person that I often recommend, in a respectful way.

Ok so though Ive known about the article for about a week, I just getting around to reading the article about the driscoll in the NYT. Im not sure
Here is one very interesting quote from the article:
Human beings are totally corrupted by original sin and predestined for heaven or hell, no matter their earthly conduct. We all deserve eternal damnation, but God, in his inscrutable mercy, has granted the grace of salvation to an elect few.

But I thought to myself–did they just say that in the New York Times?!?

The article makes me proud and a bit sad.