Exemplary:
- 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.
- Mark clearly set the stage for his critique by identifying the three steams of Missional.
- His critique of the “Revisionists” was informed by primary resource research and not hearsay or out-of-context interpretation.
- 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:
- 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.
- From my limited exposure to Bell, he relies too heavily upon Rabbinic commentary; however, does this translate to not being Jesus-centered? Thoughts?
- 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.