desiring-god-2006-national-conference
Gracious Words
In reply to the “controversy” of John Piper’s comments regarding Mark Driscoll at the DG2006 conference, Driscoll has graciously posted an email interaction between him and Dr. Piper. A brief quote:
As far as your comments regarding me, I welcome them but must confess that maybe telling me them before they get sent out to cyber world like fresh meat to feed all my critics would be preferable. Either way, I love, respect, and appreciate you very much and have an open ear for any counsel or criticism from you. Perhaps some day I can take a few minutes to tell you my life story as it may help to explain a bit of who I am and make our friendship even simpler. It was a tremendous honor to be in the company of men I have learned much from over the years and made the celebration of 10 years in ministry all the more memorable. This past weekend was one of the highlights of my life. So, thank you very much and I pray you get some rest after the conference.
Praise God for gracious servants who are willing to openly share their lives with us. Blessings on both Dr. Piper and Pastor Driscoll.
DG2006: The Audio is Up
One of the things the DG folks do right: all the audio from the Desiring God 2006 National Conference is available, online, for free, today. That’s right, no waiting 2 months for an expensive tape set. You can download it this morning.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/EventMessages/ByDate/
DG2006: Piper rebukes Driscoll's "cleverness"
I am sad that this is the moment that most sticks in my mind from the Desiring God 2006 National Conference, but it’s still rankling me, so I’ll post about it here and see if it generates any discussion.
Josh Harris has posted the best summary of Piper’s comments thus far. Note that all this was said after Driscoll had left to catch his flight back to Seattle. Josh narrates:
Piper began by explaining how he thinks about who he hangs out with and how he decides who to invite to speak. “I have a litmus paper and its called theology,” he said. He referenced a point Driscoll had made in his talk about the importance of holding certain unchanging truths in our left hand that are the non-negotiables of the faith, while being willing to contextualize and differ on secondary issues and stylistically (these are “right hand” issues). Driscoll had listed nine issues we need to contend for, including the authority of God’s word, the sovereignty of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, and gender roles, to name a few.
So Piper said, “If he [Driscoll] has those nine things in his left hand, I’m not even going to look at his right hand.” The audience clapped loudly for this. Then Piper went on to share that he does have some differences with Driscoll on some so-called “right hand” issues of style, which he feels free to share with Driscoll. He went on to share a specific one, noting that Driscoll would get to see this on video. (This was the moment I was glad I wasn’t Mark!)
As if he were speaking to Mark, he said (and I paraphrase), “A pastor cannot be clever and show Christ as glorious. Mark Driscoll, you’re clever. You have an amazing ability to turn a phrase and make statements that draw people back week after week. But it’s dangerous. So many pastors will see you and try to imitate you and then try to watch all the movies and TV shows so they can try to be like you.” In essence, Piper was bringing correction to certain aspects of Driscoll’s style and delivery, while stating that they agreed on the most important issues of doctrine.
Now Josh is very charitable in his evaluation of these remarks: “I felt in his statement not just a correction for Driscoll, but for me and every other young preacher learning to proclaim the good news of the glorious savior. Thank God we get to learn from guys like Piper. Thank God they’re talking to us. I’d rather be corrected by John Piper than cooed over by someone else.” But they rubbed me the wrong way. And yes, I’m aware of the irony of posting critical comments about someone’s critical comments.
Two things. First of all, Piper contradicts himself. First he says that as long as the doctrine is sound, I’m not going to look at the “right hand”. But then he goes on to look at, evaluate, and rebuke the right hand. Decide which it is, brother.
Second, I think Piper should’ve stopped after the first part of the statement. Affirm the guy, say you’ll stand with him if he’s right on doctrine, then stop. If Piper felt a public rebuke was necessary, he should’ve done it in the context of a discussion where Driscoll was present and able to respond. But to rebuke Driscoll after he had left, and on matters of style, not of content, to me seems to have been the wrong move. It only served to highlight the discomfortable divide that still remains between the “old guard” and Driscoll. And as Piper himself said in the first part of the statement, we need to contend for doctrine, and then let the other stuff go. I think he should have followed his own advice.
Desiring God 2006 National Conference
I got home about 2:30 this morning from two days in Minneapolis at the Desiring God 06 National Conference. Richard and I got up there Friday afternoon, and after a tasty dinner at Brit’s Pub, we perused the massive book sale before heading in for session one.
I’ll just thumbnail the conference in this post, then if I’m motivated I may post more in depth in future posts. If you want to get a good summary of the conference speakers, go to challies.com. Amazing how much info he’s got on there.
The opening night speaker was David Wells; he’s a professor at a seminary in Massachussets, a charming older British gent who spoke on The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World. Good stuff.
After the opening session I walked 8 blocks or so over to Block E to meet several folks from the dot net. It was fun to get to meet these people face to face; Erik and Rhea, Mike and Rachel (and little 3-week old Emma), Rae and Amy, and Jamie.
Saturday morning brought a continued quality slate of speakers: Voddie Baucham, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, and Don Carson. They were very good, excellent, best of the conference, and somewhat academic, but still thoughtful, respectively.
We took off right after Don Carson spoke in the evening and high-tailed it back to Iowa. Richard still had to be at church for Sunday morning; I got my brother Andrew to lead music for me so I could sleep in. Thanks bub!