Such as when one reads from Darryl Hart that "Maybe Mark Driscoll should turn Seattle into the Jerusalem of the Pacific Rim before setting up shop in Portland ... ." What is he thinking?
I certainly don't agree with Driscoll on everything (in fact, I almost certainly disagree more with him than with Hart in general), but Portland could use more godly churches - they could use more of the gospel. I assume this is some kind of joke to Hart, but the gospel shouldn't be a joke.
If Portland was known as a place where no one tells his neighbor or brother, "Know the Lord," for they all know him, then there would be a reason not to plant a new church there. But that doesn't describe Portland, much though I wish it did.
Likewise, it is true that Seattle still can use more gospel preachers. Hart's absolutely right that people don't hear "Seattle" and think "gospel" like they do when they hear about the so-called "Bible Belt." Nevertheless, there is a pressing need for more evangelization in Portland, and if Driscoll's church is going to provide that, wonderful!
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Nevertheless, there is a pressing need for more evangelization in Portland, and if Driscoll's church is going to provide that, wonderful!
Nodding my head in agreement.
I understand from friends down that way, that the "Bible Belt" isn't all that "Bibly" anymore, either.
Squirrel
There are two real questions here:
1.) In what sense is a multi-site satellite of Mark Driscoll's group can be called a "godly church?."
2.) In what ways is Darryl Hart proposes preferable or not preferable?
Bonus: How do we know whether a certain congregation can be called a "godly church?"
As to your (1) (at least) a body of believers that gathers to worship God on the first day of the week; and (2) at least not preferable as to the number of evangelists.
As to the bonus: you know them by their fruits.
Post a Comment