Exemplary:

1. As noted in an earlier post, Mark prefaced his comments with pastoral concern and love–a very different Driscoll from years past. This should be applauded.
2. Mark clearly set the stage for his critique by identifying the three steams of Missional.
3. His critique of the “Revisionists” was informed by primary resource research and not hearsay or out-of-context interpretation.
4. His use of classical Systematic theology categories (e.g. use of atonement theories) to critique other theologies was a great reminder that, in a day when biblical theology is in vogue, systematics are still an important discipline for church life.

Concerns:

1. Though Driscoll engaged McLaren, Pagitt and Bell in context, he did not do so from a comprehensive understanding of their theologies. Not that he has to cite every work they have written, but understanding the isolated “heresies” within a greater framework would have been really helpful, especially with the Bell critique.
2. From my limited exposure to Bell, he relies too heavily upon Rabbinic commentary; however, does this translate to not being Jesus-centered? Thoughts?
3. Driscoll critique’s McLaren’s silence on homosexuality issue. “No answer is an answer.” It would have been better to get McLaren’s actual stance on this.