I'm not too familiar with these guys but I heard a few snippets on YouTube and I love Piper but I have to stay away from Driscoll. (because of my past)

I'm just curious on why would they share the same stage together? They both seem, ummm...different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRg7lpozNzU

_________________
Leonardo Santana

Greg's basically correct. However, I don't think Driscoll fully embraces the historical understanding of the "L" in TULIP.

Personally, I think you'll do well to stick with Piper.

_________________
Taylor Otwell

Does Piper approve of Driscoll's teaching methods?

_________________
Leonardo Santana

Another thing is that unlike most Reformed theologians, Piper and Driscoll are charismatic/continuationist in their view of Spiritual Gifts (tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles) as opposed to cessationist. If anything, Piper's theology is unashamedly derived from Jonathan Edwards' teachings on the Affections.

I guess what makes Driscoll unique is what he calls the two-handed approach to church and culture. In one hand, you hold in a clenched fist that which defines biblical Christianity (The Gospel, scriptural authority, doctrine); in the other, you present a welcoming, open palm towards the things that do not have a definitive black-and-white in light of scripture (e.g., dress codes, music styles). Applied practically, a visitor to Mars Hill Church will notice the visible influences of Seattle's "grunge" culture upon the fashion of the 15-40 age group, but at the same time when it comes to teaching and discipleship, one can see clearly the Reformed-Evangelical emphasis.

I actually had the priveledge of meeting Mark Driscoll when he came to Brisbane to do a lecture on Church vs Culture at the University of Queensland last year. [url=http://www.xanga.com/Prayer_Warrior83/672237978/8220all-things-to-all-men-by-all-means8221/]Here's my notes.[/url]

_________________
Benjamin Valentine

Santana asked, "Does Piper approve of Driscoll's teaching methods?"

John MacArthur comments on this here:

[url=http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/]http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/[/url]

As well, here are some first-hand observations of persons present at a recent conference with both teachers (not myself) from [url=http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/john-piper-vs-mark-driscoll/]this blog[/url]:

* * *

"There was a Q&A late last night after Piper gave his third message at the Resurgence Conference in Seattle (I really hope they make that Q&A session available, because it is worth your time). They had collected text-messaged questions all during Piper’s last session, and then he, Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll sat up on stage and responded to the questions as they appeared on the wide-screen TV beside them. About four or five in, one question popped up concerning contextualization and being relevant in preaching. Chandler responded first, and then Piper unashamedly made a distinction between himself and Mark Driscoll on this issue. He began by acknowledging that Driscoll would disagree with him on this point (the necessity to be culturally relevant), and then he said that if he did all the things Mark does to stay culturally relevant, he [Piper] would die spiritually. He said that he would literally die inside (or something to that effect). He admitted that he doesn’t know how Mark does it (being up on all the worldly stuff - television shows, secular books, etc.), and also said that if he himself did what Mark does, he wouldn’t have any time for his Bible.

The final point he made about being relevant was that the only thing that IS relevant is Scripture. He held up his Bible and said to the audience, “Stay as close to this as you can, because it is the only thing that is relevant!”

TRIVIA: How long has Piper lived without a television? He commented that he has not had a TV since he was 17!

...there was an absolute sense of brotherhood, love, and collegiality betweeen Piper and Driscoll. It was NOT Piper v. Driscoll. It was Piper and Driscoll and there was much good natured ribbing but an OBVIOUS sense of togetherness and love between these two men...

...Driscoll didn’t have a response to what Piper said, other than to offer to buy him a TV, which Piper said he wouldn’t plug in and turn on if Mark did that (there was a lot of joking and laughing during that exchange, but Piper’s point came across quite clear, I think, concerning what he thinks of Mark’s attempts at all the cultural relativism).

...Both Chandler and Piper spoke directly against the leadership structure of Mars Hill (probably without knowing it)! Mark did not make one comment about the MH leadership group while both Chandler and Piper were so humble in their positions that it just ’screamed’ at Driscoll to submit to the authority of Christ and repent!

...I thought it was interesting (and disturbing) when I heard Mark talk during his personal Q&A session yesterday about firing other elders, and how to handle those situations when they arise and you (the audience) are in that position of having to fire someone. He even said some of those he has had to fire had no charges against them, they just weren’t doing their job like they needed to be doing. The type of structure he was describing sounded like a corporation with one guy at the top who makes all the decisions.

Piper, in his description the other night of Bethlehem’s elder structure, made it clear that he has no more say in what goes on than the other 30+ elders at the church!

* * *

Theopenlife: I thought your post was well said. I attend Mars Hill and love Mark Driscol.

To the rest:

There are lots of things that can be thrown at Mark. I know Mark has made some mistakes and has repented of them. I know that there will be plenty of bloggers and posters who will continue to bash him no matter what he does or says because Mark is way outside the box that some of you are in.

But when you are chosen of God to start a church at 25, in 10 yrs see it burgeon to 7000 members, have another 8 campuses and a coming of two more, plus raise a family of 5 children, work with dozens of people, raise up new leaders, find time to study and present the gospel as coherently as Mark does....then after youve made your errors, your church mistakes and have put yourself out on the front lines with alot to lose....then your critique of Mark would have some weight. Dont forget the spiritual warfare directed against your family and your own mind and heart, in the case of some of you, the devil doesnt waste his time picking on you. But with men like Mark, and I mean men, men of God like Mark you will have your own bullseye painted on your chest and get shot at. You will have plenty of opportunity to raise the shield of faith against firey darts of the enemy shot from the bow of Christians who have no idea what it is to be on the front lines of ministry.

Maybe some of you are on the front lines of ministry...if so, shame on you.

Micaiahsword

_________________
Marvin Torgeson

Hey micaiahsword:

You never know who your talking to on here, so when you pop off about what someone has under their belt as far as experience go's be a little bit more humbler.
Most of the comments here are based on facts and truth that can be verified and are documented.
Most people dont like it when something negative is said about their favorite teacher or writer.
We usually have to suck it up and ask ourselves this question... is what being said true?
If not then we can recant with facts and proof texts, if not then we just like to argue.
I found out some things about a favorite teacher of mine and had to rethink my opinion of them,
it caused me to do my own research and discover that someone I liked didnt walk on water after all and just because they had a big following didnt justify their behavior or actions.
p.s. when someone repents of something that means that they stopped doing it...
:-P

_________________
howard

micaiahsword, there was a question asked and opinion was given. The opinions were given not in the presumption of absolute truth nor were they given in heated emotion.

However, your critique of them seemed much more harsh than their critique of Mark. Keep in mind that some who are outside of ministry are outside of ministry for a reason, not everyone is supposed to be on the 'front lines'. That makes them no less of a Christian nor less in the gifts of the Spirit, than someone who has a mega-ministry. Mark was called at 25 to build a church but perhaps someone else was called at 25 to be a prophet to a wayward church (in general, not Marks ministry specifically). Perhaps sometimes perpective is what is needed. We all have different gifts and therefore not everyone can have a gift Mark Driscol does. So to slam those here just because they don't have a 'mega-ministry' is out of line both in your emotion as well as Biblically. And to imply that they must have a ministry to have a correct outlook is equally in error. That's like someone telling Mark that he can't have an opinion of their theology that the trinity doesn't exist since that word is never used in the Bible, because they are a Bible scholar and he is not.

If we are without discernment unless we have a church ministry then the church, as a whole, is in big trouble. At this point there is no reason to call out a false prophet like a Todd Bentley (again this comment in no way applied to Mr. Driscol)who deceived many for financial gain. According to you, we can't say anything because we don't run a ministry such as his. That's wrong. We shouldn't paint everyone with the same standard just because an opinion was given that we didn't agree with concerning a ministry, or person, we like.