"Do you believe that abortion as a result of rape is wrong?" one worship service attendant at Mars Hill Church in Seattle posed to the pastor.
It's one of many controversial and long-debated questions being asked at the growing church that draws a large twenty-something crowd every week. Pastor Mark Driscoll has opened up the pulpit to a daring "Ask Anything" session, giving unscripted answers to questions not typically addressed in the church.
And the content being addressed over the course of nine weeks has been divided into two categories: offensive and really offensive.
Questions are being asked only during the Sunday evening service - the last of five services at Mars Hill when no children and virtually no families are present and attendance is mainly made up of singles, young adults and non-Christians.
Part of an experiment launched on Jan. 6, "Ask Anything" allows worship attendants to text message any questions they have for the pastor - during the course of the live preaching - on the subjects of the sermon. Those questions are then answered on the spot following Driscoll's preaching. There's no forewarning or preparation. If the experiment "serves us well," the question and answer session may be expanded to all services.
Regarding the question of whether abortion as a result of rape is wrong, Driscoll answered, "Yes."
"And I say this as a man who knows that roughly one third of the women in the church have been raped or sexually abused. I tell you this as a man who has counseled a long list of rape victims," Driscoll continued.
While acknowledging the ethical dilemma the raped woman has on her hands, Driscoll said, "But as a general rule, I would say a life is a life and though the woman is a victim, let's not make the child a victim as well."
The result of one woman's pregnancy caused by rape - a Mars Hill Church pastor, he said.
"So what I would say is, it is horrible, but God is good," he said to a silent crowd. "And I tend to err on the side of giving Him the opportunity to use what was intended for evil and to use it for good and the saving of many lives."
Driscoll, a prominent emerging church pastor whose theology is conservative, encouraged any woman facing this dilemma to seek prayer, comfort and counsel from him that very night.
The question followed a sermon on sex, birth control and abortion. It was the first in Mars Hill's "Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions" sermon series. The series is a response to nine top questions Mars Hill attendants voted for to be preached on this year. Question No. 9 is: “There’s no doubt the Bible says children are a blessing, but the Bible doesn’t seem to address the specific topic of birth control. Is this a black and white topic, or does it fall under liberties?”
After listing Bible verses to explain the biblical teaching on creation, sexuality and children, Driscoll denounced legalistic and judgmental views from Christians who say anything that hinders procreation is demonic. God didn't create sex only for procreation but also for pleasure, comfort and protection within marriage, he stressed.
No birth control, natural birth control such as the calendar-rhythm method, and non-abortive birth control such as condoms are "fine for Christians," said Driscoll to a curious crowd while making it clear that sex should only occur within marriage.
However, he expressed opposition to the use of "the pill" and abortion. While research has been ongoing on whether or not the birth control pill is abortive, no conclusion has been found and Christians remain divided on the issue.
Driscoll did not go as far as calling the use of the pill "a sin," but said it is "a little more risky and a little less clear."
Abortion, however, "is a sin," he said plainly, speaking of abortion in its majority sense and not for minority cases such as a mother's life at stake.
A former pro-choice advocate, Driscoll advised the worship attendants not to argue with him on the issue but to turn to Jesus.
"I was pro-abortion," he said, "and then I met Jesus."
In the latest of his "Misconception" sermon series, Driscoll addressed question No. 8: "Why do you make jokes about Mormon missionaries, homosexuals, trenchcoats wearers, single men, vegans, emo kids and then expect these groups to come to know God in the same sermon?"
His third sermon on Jan. 20 will address: "Why does an all loving, all knowing, and all sovereign God will into creation people He foreknows will suffer eternal condemnation? Why does Romans 9:20 feel like a cop-out answer?"
Driscoll's sermons are broadcasted live to thousands at five other Mars Hill Church campuses.
RSS
Anthony
Jokes at someone else's expense are not funny. They contain an underlying theme of intolerance. It makes no difference who makes them. Self deprecating humor may be OK as long as the teller is the only victim. But our country and culture has decided that somethings are out of bounds. Tolerance should be preached from the pulpit. If it isn't then it does not serve God's purposes of bringing people together. If it divides us then it serves Satan's interest.
'That is why you see the leadership in such denominations demonizing others where numbers are increasing or the negative atmosphere is less palpabale."
You do realize that Mars Hill is one of the fastest growing churches in the country?
"Often this need is based on a belief of their own inferiority. They ridicule weaker people in order to make themselves feel better about who they are." Or, they could just be making a joke. Why would the pastor of one of the fastest growing churches in America feel weaker. He is in the most unchurched city in america and they cannot seem to have enough room for all the people even with 9 locations.
Have any of actually listened to the sermon? Pastor Driscoll points out that the bible is full of comedy. Instead of attacking Pastor Driscoll about a sermon you havent even taken the time to listen to, how bout you acculy do something productive.
There is nothing wrong with a little light hearted comedy.
Rand503,
"I like jokes, and I certainly have no problem with jokes at my expense, but why would any church make jokes at the expense of : Mormon missionaries, homosexuals, trenchcoats wearers, single men, vegans, emo kids?
Does that mean that real Christians can't be vegans? "
listen to the sermon, he answers all those questions.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Rand503
People make fun of and deride those they feel are weaker than they are. Often this need is based on a belief of their own inferiority. They ridicule weaker people in order to make themselves feel better about who they are. This belief often is instilled in them at home and confirmed in church. But, this may be changing as Americans and others around the world become educated and understand more about each other. Keep in mid however, his mindset is often the impetus for declining numbers in many Christian denominations. That is why you see the leadership in such denominations demonizing others where numbers are increasing or the negative atmosphere is less palpabale. If you are attending a church where Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists or others are berated and derided from the pulpit or other official church organs such as newspapers or websites, you may want to look elsewhere.
I like jokes, and I certainly have no problem with jokes at my expense, but why would any church make jokes at the expense of : Mormon missionaries, homosexuals, trenchcoats wearers, single men, vegans, emo kids?
Does that mean that real Christians can't be vegans?
amendoza
God was not alone. Christ was there as were others. But I suggest the question does not revolve around whether there were others but who and what they were. There is nothing in the NT to suggest these beings were a God described like the Trinitarians say He is. In fact the NT is quite specific that God the Father, Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate beings.
JLF,
I will research it but how do you explain in Genisis before the creation of man where God says: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,..."(Genesis 1: 26)?
amendoza
The Trinitarian view of God is a man made creation which was adopted in the fourth and fifth centuries AD. It was heavily influenced by the ancient Greek philosophers. It can't be substantiated in the New Testament according to Harper's Bible Dictionary. This idea of a three-in-one God was not taught or believed by the original Christians. If we believed the Trinitarians, Christ, the Apostles, and the membership of Christ's original church could not be called Christian. It wasn't until Constantine, the Roman Emperor who murdered his family, called together the Councils at Nicaea that these and other non-biblical ideas began to be discussed and then codified in the canon of the dominant religious authority. Historic Christianity has continued to promulgate it. But it is not biblical. It is a tradition.
The Trinitarian view is, in fact, an element of the apostasy. The apostles warned of the influences corrupting the primitive church at the time. Paul said, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8) He was speaking of Greek philosophy, the same that influenced the Trinitarian view. You might want to research that a bit.
JLF,
I am sorry, I must have misunderstood the question. Like I said, all you have to do is repent and trust in Christ. In order to do that however, you have to believe in and trust the real Jesus Christ. He is fully God, fully man. He is Divne therfore not created by God and therfore not the brother of Satan (not a slam my friend, just stating a fact).
If you say you believe in Jesus than state that He is something different than what the Bible you are breaking a comandment by creating a false Idol. Hope I answered your question this time.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
amendoza
I am sure what you said is heartfelt. I appreciate it. But you have not addressed the issues. What I wanted was for you to address Trinitarianism given Evangelicals say that is why, given we reject that notion, Mormons are not Christian.But, using your piece as the test, Mormons believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He is our Saviour. We believe that through Christ's atonement, people can be changed or born again. So if all we have to do is believe in Christ to be saved why aren't we Christian?
JLF,
thank you for responding to my post in a level headed manner, as I was not expecting that at all. for your question "- what does one have to believe in order to qualify for salvation?" you don't have to do anything to be saved. now let me explain: Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins and took all our sin (past, present, and future). By ourselves we are evil wicked people and cannot receive salvation. this is the point where most would say you have to accept Christ into your heart and say the "sinners prayer" but this is not true. Christ doesn't need your acceptance, you need his. he payed the price now all you have to do is receive it. What you do is simple: you trust in Jesus and pray for repentance (a turning away from sin). You do not have to say any special words. Pray for forgiveness and a change of heart. If you are truly saved, your whole outlook on life and sin will change. You will not want to sin because you know Christ hates sin and therefore so do you.
I really hope I explained it well as I am not the best with words but that is my belief in what is needed for salvation
God bless,
Anthony
www/anthonymendoza.org
amendoza
You bring up some interesting points. In my post I suggest the things you described as problematic are, in fact, distractions from what should be the focus of discussion. That is, first, the nature of God and second whether God has again opened the scriptural canon. All the other things about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and so forth are subordinate issues to these two things. They are the underpinnings of the whole Mormon theology. Successfully attack them and you can rightfully defeat all the other issues that spring from them by default.
Members of the Evangelical movement have told us what we believe is in error but when we ask what we should believe in order to qualify for salvation all we get are shaky views of scripture, personal opinion or tradition based on Greek philosophy adopted in the fifth century and passed off as Christian. So let me ask you - what does one have to believe in order to qualify for salvation? Not what you think Mormons believe, but what you understand Christ says true believers must do. Let me start you off, hopefully, on the right foot. No man converted me.
"Correct information is the foundation of acceptance and cohesion even if we have real doctrinal differences." Correct information? how am I supposed to get corect information on a secret religion if I am not a member. You can ask a mormon something and get one answer and then look it up on official LDS teachings and get two answers. So who is lying to me about their faith? The reason Christians talk about Mormons more than other religions say Buddism or Islam is because of all the other faiths, Momonism is the only faith that attempts to allign itself with Christianity. All I am asking is that you admit that the Jesus Mormons speak of and the Jesus in the Bible (and that of historical Christian belief) are two totaly different people therfore two seperate religions.
If you want me to have correct information on Mormonism, show me the gold plates that Smith read off of. Give me straight answers on the difinity of Christ, the trinity and the Jesus/Satan link. Until then, you cannot call me ill informed. I look for information on Mormonism all the time but it is kept secret and if you find somthing that could distinguish Christianity from Mormonism and ask someone from LDS the will say that they would rather not speak of it (see fox news article on 20 questions to Mormons).
If you listened to the sermon on Humor, Mark Driscoll talks about mormons for less than 10 min. of his hour sermon as that was not his point to the sermon at all. The fact of the matter is that Smith formed the LDS church because traditional Christianity was the Church of Satan according to him (I would cite it for you but you don't really want to see it and would find some way to skate around it). Why does the LDS want to be considered part of Christianity if it's founder called it the Church of Satan.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Amondoza
Misconception" sermon series, Driscoll addressed question No. 8: "Why do you make jokes about Mormon missionaries..." Misperceptions are because of inadequate information. Bad information feeds into to bad judgment. Bad judgment feeds antagonism and mistrust which serves only the Deceiver. Correct information is the foundation of acceptance and cohesion even if we have real doctrinal differences. It makes us better Americans.
JLF,
where did Mormonism play into this??
Mormons have always held that historic Christianity is the outgrowth of the first century apostasy and that Joseph Smith, acting under the direction of Jesus Christ, restored Christ’s original Church. This of course has always been a rub for historic Christians. Mormon theology attacks their very credibility and 2000 years of Christian thought and practice. If Smith was right, it would put the historic Christian world on its ear requiring a re-thinking of so much of what historic Christianity has said since the fifth century creeds. Is it any wonder why Mormons have been disinvited to the party?
It seems the more vocal the anti Mormons get the more interest they generate in the Church. This is supported by the stats for www.mormon.org, the LDS Church’s web site where basic doctrines and beliefs are presented. According to Quantcast, http://www.quantcast.com/, monthly visitors have increased by 80,000 or 40% since August of 2007. This coincides with the increasing discussion of Mormon beliefs in the press. There, visitors contrast and compare what they read and hear from our detractors with what the Church actually presents. Concurrently, it also appears to this observer that the discussion is moving away from the wholly outrageous unsubstantiated non-sense we sometimes see from so many Evangelicals - and their fellow travelers - to the more thoughtful and researched presentations of Catholics and Anglicans.
“And then they have a Mormon. Do the math.” says Jonathan Martin of Politico. Well, we do math all the time and the higher the LDS Church’s profile gets the more opportunities there are to clarify all the disinformation promulgated by our detractors. The anti Mormons have raised these issues to the level that Americans wonder what all the fuss is about and investigate. When mainline Christians began distrusting their religious leadership in the 1950’s and 60’s they deserted by the millions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was a beneficiary of some of that congregant disenchantment then and will certainly have more such opportunities. It seems the more outrageous the claims about us the more interest is generated. Our last several Church presidents have said the biggest problem the LDS Church suffers from is growth. And so it is.
It has been clear that Americans do not like ad hominem attacks. It is undignified and turns people off. In discussions about religion from the pulpit it has a particularly devastating effect. The following was submitted to a Georgia newspaper recently.
“I grew up here attending the Baptist Church every Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night. We were at revivals monthly, I attended Baptist school, Vacation Bible School, etc. I enjoyed church very much - until they started preaching against this religion and that religion. I really didn’t think that was very Christ-like. Then our pastor began bashing the “Mormons,” similar to the article I just read. I was so curious about this church and the crazy, unbelievable things I was being told they believed. I attended their church and something was really different; I felt the spirit of Jesus Christ like I had never felt before. I studied and studied and found out they don’t believe what I had been told all my life that they believe.” Walker County Messenger, 12/26/2007 by Susan Nowland.
This lady converted sometime thereafter. Historic Christianity would be more successful if they dropped the anti-Mormon campaigns and just answered questions about theological differences when asked. Just present the differences. Leave the demonizing out of it.
hampstead pete -
<<"Considering a fetus a "human being" is a purely religious viewpoint">> If you shot a woman carrying a "fetus" and killed them both, under the law you would be charged on 2 counts of murder.
<<"put a GUN to a woman's head and FORCE her, under pain of imprisonment (or worse) to have a baby that she DOES NOT WANT!">> She can still proceed with the abortion.
Considering a fetus a "human being" is a purely religious viewpoint, as such a view requires the insertion of a "soul" (whatever that is) at conception. There is absolutely no medical or other evidence that anything that could be labeled a "soul" exists in the real world, so it's existence is certainly at least problematic.
Why do you think that a religious viewpoint should be part of our criminal law? It is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the first amendment. An abortion is clearly not murder under our law, so why do you insist on calling it that? Would you arrest doctors who performed the procedure?
I understand that in some Catholic countries, they arrest young women in the hospital if they suspect they have had abortions. Is this what you want? Is it about "murder" or the subjugation of women? If you take the religious aversion to all forms of contraception, and add it to wanting to arrest and prosecute young women, that's certainly what it sounds like.
Oh well, vote for Huckajerk, and we'll be back to the dark ages and coat hangers in no time!
HampsteadPete...
"Religion aside, no government should EVER have that much power over the body of a living, breathing human being."
Are you implying that murder is ok?
"Understand what you are saying here! You are saying that you think the government should have the power to put a GUN to a woman's head and FORCE her, under pain of imprisonment (or worse) to have a baby that she DOES NOT WANT!"
If you were sleeping at night in bed with your wife, and all of a sudden somebody broke in and was threatening to kill her would you not take action against that person? And that person threatening her life would obviously need to be arrested, and placed in jail right? So why is it different when we talk about taking the life of a young unborn child?
http://www.thefireofnewdesire.com
HampsteadPete,
"If we men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament!" well, that is probably the most asinine and useless statement I have ever heard! Even if there were a scrap of evidence to suport that statement, it still does not make abortion right. That is like saying if African-americans were in charge, it would be fine if they lynched white people. Just because you swich things around that doesnt legitamize somthing that is wrong. You lost pretty much any bit of legitamacy for that comment and attempting to state it as a fact.
"Religion aside, no government should EVER have that much power over the body of a living, breathing human being. " What about the life of the child you are choosing to kill? It is our job(and governments) to protect that child. If I have a two year old and decide I no longer want the baby I cannot kill it can I?
I will pray for you my friend that God touches you and showes you that the murder you condone is wrong.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Understand what you are saying here! You are saying that you think the government should have the power to put a GUN to a woman's head and FORCE her, under pain of imprisonment (or worse) to have a baby that she DOES NOT WANT!
If we men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament!
Religion aside, no government should EVER have that much power over the body of a living, breathing human being.
johndk, although you're right about that 1930 swing in position, let's share that with gentleness and reverence, OK? I know you meant to offer this with more of an inviting open hand than a pointed finger. Many gifts, but the same spirit, one body with many parts.
Anthony, I will check out that link and e-mail you. Perhaps they could have included it as part of the article. I was just scratching my head, not making snap judgments, brother. Sorry if it seemed that way.
Mk8:34
"If we love God with all our heart, mind, soul,and strenght we are biblical even as it needs to be amemded later."
The scriptures need to be amended?
Hi there, I was thinking about the who was reasoning that non abortive birth control was unbiblical. If we love God with all our heart, mind, soul,and strenght we are biblical even
as it needs to be amemded later.The wise man recieves correction continually.If God put
Adam in the garden to cultivate it he didn't let the plants take over.Plants in the living room,
plants in the frig, chairs. etc. He used the undarkened wisdom of God to agriculture God's
undarkened creation. Non abortive birth control to me is nothing more than that.If my
pasture is only 10 acres I don't want to put 500 milk cows there that would be sinful.
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Orthodox/Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
People are kidding themselves when they say that issues like "birth control" are "controverial." Before we move forward-which really takes us no where because a Protestant mentality usually tends to automatically cause strife, contention and division-how't we ask those who directly succeeded the 12 Apostles, namely the Church Fathers. You'd think that these guys would have something to say on major life issues seeing that they DIRECTLY came after Jesus's 12, wouldn't you? Or did God just leave us in doubt until about all of this?
I am Greek-Orthodox and I listen to the Fathers because THEY are direct successors of the Apostles, THEY were under the tutelage of the Apostles and THEY are in line with Apostolic Succession;something that MOST Protestants IGNORE to their detriment.
Here is a link that talks about what the Fathers said on this issue, and you might find this interesting:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Please also see my blog for more interesting articles: http://www.300Sploggers.com
also KoneWone2,
I fear Christ GREATLY and tremble at the reading of His Word.
God bless,
Anthony
anthonymendoza.org
KoneWone2,
How much of Mark Driscoll have you accually read, viewed or listened to??
I listen to alot of his sermons yet I am a member and leader of a conservative penticostal church (what most people sneeringly call fundementalist). Mark's sermons glorify Christ and every single sermon I have heard by him ends with the Gospel (more than you can say for some 90% of churches in America I would dare to say).
Yes, Mark Driscoll adresses extreme things and yes, he may even cross the line on occasions (which to he admits and repents); However, if you noticed, the questions adressed during the Q & A as well as the sermon itself came from Chirstians. Obviously this is somthing in the mind of Christians in the generation and it needs to be adressed. Who better to adress it than a Pastor?
As far as the offensiveness, it was calmer than what you can find on prime time tv. Do you watch tv? then no more complaining. He adressed it in a biblical manner (as he does any other subject he covers) and you should be praising God that someone is willing to take the flak inorder to answer the questions this generation of Christians is asking (based off of the thousands of voted recieved on the ask anything site)
God bless,
Anthony
anthonymendoza.org
"Mars Hill Tackles Sex, Rape, Birth Control the Biblical Way"
The Biblical way or Mark Driscoll's way?
Pulpit Porn?
"This is also my initial response to Mark's unfortunate scatological message he gave this past Sunday, and the vulgar Q and A that followed, addressing his first question on his ask-anything promotion concerning child birth. Mars Hill rated the Q and A, MH-17, and even Mark personally called it "really offensive." (BTW, he said they have broken down their content into only two categories: "offensive and really offensive." How about "biblical or unbiblical?") My primary concern here is not should we ever talk about this subject; but in addressing them in the fashion he did, there was little or no fear of the Lord or reverence for God - two staples that should always mark biblical preaching. Graphically unfolding individual sins as opposed to powerfully unfolding the victory offered through Christ Jesus the Lord was, IMHO, an error in judgment."
Continued here:
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/01/pride-and-presumption-of-men-upon-grace.html
Does Mark Driscoll tremble at the proclamation of God's word? Do those, that listen to Mark Driscoll proclaiming God's word, tremble?
Where is the fear and awe and holiness and august majesty of God to be found in HIS Church these days?
FullGospel,
Instead of making snap judgements, listen to the sermon and then the extra questions then comment. Don't be legalistic, Pastor Driscoll makes many great points and adresses your very question.
please listen to the sermon online at this site: http://www.marshillchurch.org/sermonseries/religionsaves/ then please feel free to email me at renonut2006@gmail.com as I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
God bless,
Anthony
anthonymendoza.org
I wonder how someone concludes that "condoms are fine for Christians," and then reads "be fertile" (and multiply) in Scripture (Gen. 9:7). Be fertile seems to imply all the time. I can't see where one finds wiggle room for intended infertility in that.