Panel discussion on Christology in the OT: Hamilton, Garrett, Gentry

In correspondence, a sister from Jews for Jesus pointed me to this panel discussion on Christology in the OT at SBTS. The discussion is hosted by Dr. Thomas Schreiner, panel includes m'man Dr. James Hamilton, author of a wonderful book on Biblical Theology (among others), Dr. Duane Garrett, and Dr. Peter Gentry.

It's a good, solid, helpful discussion, with a few sparks here and there and more than a few helpful guidelines.

I'm saying this half to share with you, and half to bookmark for myself!

Enjoy.

Postscript: for any who don't know, my talks in a British conference on Messiah in the OT can be found via this post.

Driscoll TGC 2009 impressions

Just finished listening to Mark Driscoll's talk at the The Gospel Coalition 2009, and here are my thoughts:

1. He said some good things.
2. Wow. Dude really does think he's a martyr. I mean seriously.
   
3. If I were a young guy, hanging on every word and earnestly purposing to do everything Driscoll was saying... I'd be completely lost at sea. So many of the things he said just tangled back up on themselves. I'd have to have a transcript to illustate extensively. But I remember kind of chuckling when Driscoll was talking about "those people who say 'Thank you God that I'm not like those people!'" Yes, well, indeed; thank God we're not like those people who thank God they're not like those people! Because that would be bad!
4. I honestly wonder whether Driscoll knew how much he contradicted himself, just in the course of the talk. Or is that why he kept saying he did those bad things, too? Or was that a device to make it okay for him to say it? I really don't know.
5. I honestly think, in those young shoes, I'd have ended up with, "Well, I guess I just have to be Mark Driscoll. Because he's the only one who gets right what matters, what doesn't matter, when to 'throw down,' when to 'peace out'... and then say he repents, periodically. And do it some more. But everybody else is wrong! Everyone else is too doctrinal about the wrong things, too undoctrinal about the right things, too strident, too passive, too fixated, too limp...."
   
6. Does Driscoll listen to himself? Does he like what he hears?
7. Meaning no snark whatever, I think I would think, "Wow. Do I really want to sound just like those guys in Comedy Central?" I say "no snark," because maybe he does. I heard somewhere that he learned how to communicate from comedians. Maybe he thinks they're the ones who know how to connect with people, and that's his model. So, IOW, maybe he does want to sound exactly like them. Because he pretty much does.
   
8. Even worse, I really think I'd wonder if I really want to think like those guys on Comedy Central. Because a lot of the things Driscoll said were just cute. Period. Plus nothing. They were laugh-lines. Think about them for two seconds, ask one serious question, they collapse.
9. You can't not see the Driscoll/Johnson/MacArthur interchange in the background. Driscoll means us to, clearly. "Rapist." Yeah, that was subtle, Mark. And he means us to believe that he's really, really, really trying to be a good boy and suffer for Jesus. But I have to say: just not buying. It felt a more like venting, to make himself feel better. One Dan's opinion.
   

• Driscoll talks a lot about repenting and all. Phil Johnson asked him, "Of what, specifically?" Is it a good thing that Driscoll never answered Phil? Specifically?
  
• Driscoll and apologists seem to (try to) make a lot of the fact that John MacArthur didn't pick up the phone and ask Driscoll out to Starbucks or an Ultimate Fight game or something. Even granting that (which I don't) — then why didn't Driscoll do what he thought Phil or MacArthur shouldn't have done? Isn't that Matthew 7:12-y, and 1 Peter 3:9-ish? Piper's a significant voice, but MacArthur isn't? Johnson isn't? Why couldn't Driscoll have picked up the phone and asked MacArthur or Johnson out to... to whatever, if that's the way he thinks it has to be done? Is ignoring the specific pleas and concerns, and playing the martyr, a better way to "make the Gospel win," as he kept saying?
• Where would this discussion be today if Driscoll had just responded as promptly, directly, Christianly, and forthrightly as MacArthur and Johnson had reached out to him?
• ...or if those who "mentor" him had pressed him to do so, and followed through?

I'm left with a bad, sick feeling about the whole thing. I can't see his heart, and I truly, honestly won't guess. He sure gives every sign of a guy who just doesn't get it, who feels attacked and harrassed. Which he is, in all honestly. Driscoll is hated by the same people who would hate you and me, and for the same reason.

But this isn't about that. These are critics Driscoll needs to hear; but he thinks he needs to hunker down, endure, suffer, be a martyr, and fire back from under cover (as I think he did in this talk).

Since I don't know what's going on "backstage," I really wonder what his mentors are doing with him, saying to him. They are men who are mature and godly enough that they ought to be able to calm him down, translate, add any warmth they think is missing, but reaffirm the specifics.

If Driscoll doesn't deal honestly and frontally with good counsel he's gotten... I just don't see a happy future. Not for him, not for folks who look up to him... and I fear repercussions for the good men who've tried to help him.

Spectacular find: Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese, and other C. S. Lewis audiobooks

This site claims to provide copyright-free old radio programs. It provides in particular one...

...Spectacular Find...

...for which I've long searched. To wit:

The Screwtape Letters, read by John Cleese

The same site also features The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity on audiobook.

(Thanks to my friend Tim, in Minnesota)