Reading the Bible: The Driscoll Effect

A Conversation About Understanding the Bible

Awhile back someone posted this tweet of Mark Driscoll’s on their Facebook page:


I decided to comment. This led to quite an exchange about the nature of interpreting and understanding the Bible. I share this because I wonder if you can relate, and perhaps, you may have an insight to add. I also do so to highlight the nature of this conversation between an evangelical approach that leans on inerrancy and those who are more willing to allow recent biblical scholarship in on the conversation. Finally, you can let me know if I was ever inappropriate (or inaccurate in my own approach!), so I can do better next time in such engagements. To protect the innocent, I will name my Facebook acquaintance as ‘Driscoll Fan.’ (Excuse the typos, I kept the interchange verbatim).

It’s quite the back and forth, so buckle up.

Bryan Berghoef: One of the biggest mistakes people make is to confuse their interpretations of the Bible with the Bible itself. To come to a new understanding of a text or a passage than a traditional view of it, due to study of language, context, history, archaelogy, etc., is not to change the Bible, but one’s understanding of it, and perhaps to be more faithful to it. Not sure of anyone who seeks to actually ‘change the Bible’.

Driscoll Fan: Bryan, Unfortunately the epistemological and ontological assumptions of the postmodern emergent movement clearly seems to be enamored with reconstructing the Bible rather than reinterpreting it. There is for example a disregard for the objectivity of Scripture that leads language, history and archeological analysis to be more a deconstructive process than honest research. In this context I do believe that Driscol is absolutely right. There are always those who seek to “reinterpret” the Word in their own image rather than being willing to humble themselves before an immutable God.

Bryan: I don’t disagree with your last sentence – in fact, we are all at times capable and culpable of this. But to assume any of us can infallibly interpret the text is simply not the case. We *always*, invariably interpret the text when we come to it. There is a lens through which we see it (as in a glass darkly). Driscoll’s comment seems to presume that there are some who see directly (without this lens), or who have “the” lens. I have to disagree. Again, its not a matter of changing the Bible, but one’s interpretation of it. There’s a vast difference.

Driscoll Fan: Bryan – As I read your critique of Driscol it seems to me that you are saying something like this: “Those (Like Driscol) who say that we can have confidence in absolutes are absolutely wrong.” In other words you are claiming to be sure that anyone who claims to be sure is surely wrong. Kinda like saying You know that nothing can be known. This is the problem with postmodern epistemology. It is self-refuting at every turn. Even your disagreement with Driscol (and me in this Facebook) exchange assumes there is a measuring rod outside of those things being measured (to quote Lewis) and that your argument is measured to be more accurate than Driscol’s or mine. Without objectivity there is no reason to debate with anyone about anything. Disagreement would literally meaningless for there would be no basis or even any desire to engage in it. I would argue that you are basically proving Driscol’s point by saying that he is wrong for in doing so you claim to be more closely aligned with reality of what Scripture is than he is. So – when you respond and challenge me on my posting remember that the desire that pushes you forward toward such a challenge is the very thing you are claiming has no merit.

Driscoll Fan: One more word – Indeed, “we ‘always’ interpret the text when we come to it” but that doesn’t mean we are “always” right in our interpretations. In fact we could be wrong. As Os Guinness says “Truth is true even if no one believes it and falsehood is false even if everyone believes it. Truth is true and that’s just the end of it.” Interpretations, i.e. opinions, are irrelevant to accuracy. Some people interpret the Bible rightly and some do so wrongly. So – the goal should not be to settle on a view of the Bible that suits our culture or our egos but to find out what it Truly says and what it Really means.

Bryan: Actually I wasn’t saying nearly what you’re implying I was. My point was simply that no one changes the Bible (it’s a nonsensical thing to say), and that we all approach the Bible with a hermeneutical lens. I don’t know a single biblical scholar who would say otherwise. You’re doing a nice job of avoiding what I’m actually saying while reading into my comments a whole bunch of stuff that I didn’t say. It appears you’re more interested in fighting a caricature of postmodernism than discussing this issue.

Driscoll Fan: Not at all Bryan. In fact I would disagree completely with your contention that I’m avoiding what you’re saying. To the contrary I have addressed it head on and quite specifically and repeatedly.

Here it is again –

1. You disagree with Driscoll’s tweet and with me for posting it.

2. You are saying repeatedly that “everyone” interprets the Bible (i.e. changes it) through their own “hermeneutical” lens and life experience.

3. You say over and over again that no one reads the Bible with any hope of an objectively accurate understanding because we all bring our subjectivity to the process.

4. You therefore by definition align yourself with a “hermenuetic” that is postmodern rather than modern or premodern for the only way a person can hold your epistemological and ontological position is to say that anthropomorphic change and personal subjectivity always supersede the objectivity of natural law and the immutability and knowabilty of Divine revelation.

5. I have pointed out repeatedly that your above position is circular and self-refuting and that the very argument you bring to the table proves Driscoll’s point and mine more than yours because in arguing that you are right and that I am wrong you are appealing to the very objective standard of truth that you are attempting to deny.

6. I have highlighted the fact that in your efforts to disparage the absolute statement of Driscoll that you find it impossible not to use absolute statements of your own such as “all”, “everyone”, “no one”, “nonsense” etc.

7. I have suggested that the above is proof that you cannot disagree with someone who believes that there is an ultimate measure of accuracy and rightness without you yourself implicitly appealing to that same “measuring rod” of rightness that you at the same time seek to dismiss.

8. I have said that the fact that you are even taking the time to debate me right now proves my point. For you obviously believe you are right. Therefore, you believe I’m wrong.

9. Finally you contend that I am not interested in a “discussion” of the issues while at the same time you seem to not want to discuss the issues unless I agree with you. In other words “discussion” is great (I guess) as long as makes you feel comfortable but it’s not “discussion” anymore if it doesn’t.

I do have to admit to be smiling a bit at the claims of searching for “depth” while at the same time not being willing to acknowledge that one may be standing in water ankle deep – and in fact being offended when a fellow traveler even suggests that such shallows even exist.

Bryan: Yes, of course I think I’m right. I never said there were no absolutes. There are. If we couldn’t know anything, there wouldn’t be much point in talking about it. There are things that are true about the world.

But that does not imply a leap to knowing everything exactly as it is. You seem to be making a false dichotomy here that is unhelpful. Either there are absolutes *and* we can know them perfectly, or there aren’t any absolutes and we can’t know anything, which as you noted is self-refuting (and not the stance I was taking).

You’re confusing several realms of knowledge: knowledge about what Bible passages mean, knowledge about what we are able to know about ancient texts, and knowledge about what we can know in general. The same standards/limitations aren’t going to apply to all. The first category is limited by the second, which is limited by the third, and so on.

From the start, I was taking issue with Driscoll’s choice of language, which to me, doesn’t make sense. He (and you) are apparently conflating a change in the text itself with a change in how it’s being interpreted. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! (And I think it is misleading and unhelpful to talk that way, which is why I responded in the first place).

The text of the Bible has been more or less stable for quite some time (setting aside minor translation issues and Dead Sea Scroll stuff). What is changing is how people are interpreting it.

There are clearly interpretations that are more right than others, and certainly plenty of wrong interpretations. I’m just cautioning a little humility in assuming we know in every case whether I or someone else has the right or best interpretation. If you think you’ve arrived at the best understanding of every text you should publish a commentary – I’d love to buy it.

There are things that are true. There are ways the world actually is. The question is which of those things can we know and how sure can we be whether we know them.

An analogy might help.

In clear sunlight we’re good at identifying the colors of things. In the dark we are not. Interpreting the Bible at times is like trying to identify colors at night. There is some light, but it is limited. More and more sources of light are becoming available (e.g., archaeology, history, linguistic discoveries). But we don’t all have equal access to those sources. Nor are we all equally good at seeing under low light.

Under these circumstances, we could still be in a position to say that this object before us is definitely not yellow (No one is saying there is no object, or no color!). It might be red or violet or indigo, but it’s not always totally clear. In all of this, reliance upon the Holy Spirit, one’s faith community, and historical witness all play a role, in addition to what’s already been mentioned.

We are also in a position to say that anyone who denies that there is insufficient light or who claims to be able to see perfectly clearly is extremely unlikely to be telling the truth.

On a different topic, I’m also not sure – given what appears to be your position – what need there is for faith. Where there is perfect and complete knowledge, faith is beside the point. Faith comes in when there is an element of doubt, when things are not obvious. If it was all clear cut and obvious, everyone would have that perspective.

Driscoll Fan: Bryan, I am going to try to be brief as I can for i fear I am risking becoming a bit pedantic in my responses to you.. So I am simply going to respond to several of your contentions in you last posting on a point by point format below.

Driscoll Fan: Opps – I copied your entire text and tried to respond to the first point and it reposted the entire thing… Sorry :- ) [he reposted my entire previous response, deleted here for brevity] Here is my basic response (probably better this way because I will REALLY be brief now 🙂 First, you say I am guilty of presenting a false dichotomy because I contend that you either have absolute knowledge or no knowledge – Not sure where you see that in my writing. Must just be your “interpretation” of what I am saying. Or is it possible my words and intent are being “changed” to suit what your experience and unique context leads you to want them to mean? Just because I am arguing that absolute reality exists and that it is knowable doesn’t mean I am arguing that I am always know that reality without error. What it does imply however is that reality exists and that it can be known and that arguments to the contrary are actually self-refuting and circular attempts to claim that you know nothing can be known and that you are sure that nothing is sure and that you are confident that we can have no confidence. Feels a bit like I am watching my dog chase his tail 🙂 Your obviously think it is REAL that I am wrong and that it is REAL that you are right in this debate. You also clearly think you KNOW what this REALITY is. Therefore you are essentially admitting to KNOWING Driscoll’s point while trying REALLY hard to claim you KNOW no such thing. Third, I disagree with you that Driscoll doesn’t make sense. In fact I think he makes more sense than those who argue that there is no “sense” that is common to and thereby anchored to a knowable absolute. Fourth, I agree with the caution for humility. The irony here is that history shows us that bowing to the knowability of Scripture Truth is the only way man has ever actually humbled himself before God and others. The elevation of ourselves to the position of “grand interpreter” is perhaps the quintessential example of the original sin where we don’t need God to tell us what is right or wrong or good or evil because we are fully capable of “knowing” this on our own. The Bible is clear and it should be read, heard, and “interpreted” in the context of such clarity. This is Driscoll’s obvious point. We have no right to “change” or “interpret” its meaning beyond the obvious. Doing so is the ultimate hubris and the antithesis of the humility you call for. Fifth, I don’t think you need buy one of my commentaries for I doubt (in all humility) my “interpretations” and “subjective” views would lend themselves to the “depth” of “authenticity” and “openness” you cherish…

Driscoll Fan: On your analogy of light – It appears that you are taking the same position of Jones, McClaren, Bell et al in claiming that ontologically there indeed is ultimate reality but that epistemologically such a reality can’t be known by flawed humans. I guess I can only respond by asking how do you KNOW this to be REAL and true? Or perhaps you are saying that you don’t know this??? Or perhaps you are conflating your opinion of what is true and real with what really is?? Or maybe … Oh never mind — my dog almost just caught his tail but watching him has made me real dizzy – or maybe not! Maybe dizziness is merely my interpretation and not real after all..

Driscoll Fan: Finally, forgive all the typos – I am rushing in between duties for the day and I haven’t had time to review and edit… But if it all boils down to your interpretation of what I am saying then it really doesn’t matter anyway because you can never REALLY KNOW what I meant in the first place anyway and it frankly doesn’t matter… Take the text and, in humility, make of it what you want.

Bryan: My guess is that we are both guilty of misunderstanding each other at some level, which actually illustrates my point about how communication works in reality. If you and I can struggle to understand each other clearly, imagine getting a point of view from people who have been dead a couple thousand years, spoke and wrote in languages no one speaks today, and lived in a culture that is in many respects different from ours!

I love the Bible, and study it a lot because of that, and because I think we can know things, and because I believe God is still speaking to us through it.

The simplest understanding is not always the most accurate, because we do not live in the ancient world and culture in which these texts were written. What seems simple and obvious to us in English may not always have been the author’s intent. The very fact that every pastor has multiple commentaries, and many, if not most, study the original languages – illustrates the exact point I have been making. All are unnecessary if it was always simple and clear.

Finally, I’m not sure why a mocking tone seems to follow all your comments about my approach and intentions. It detracts from the substantive things we are discussing.

Driscoll Fan: Bryan.

Frankly I’m saddened (but not surprised) that u just aren’t seeing that even in your last note you are essentially proving my point and Driscoll’s.

What difference does it make of there is no measuring rod of accuracy by which to judge the veracity of competing claims.

It is the ultimate in arrogance for man to place himself above this immutable scale.

This is what Driscoll was saying.

This what I’m saying.

Only subjectivity and sin would dim this light

Bryan: Yes, we do live in a subjective and sinful world. So my point stands. God may have such a rod, but we, this side of glory, are limited by the aforementioned, and get along by his grace.

Bryan: None of us stands where God stands, it’s a pretty basic point, really.

Bryan: In any case, appreciate the chance to discuss – I hope people can learn something by reading our exchange.

Driscoll Fan: Yep.

I guess if God’s measuring rod exists as you claim but that we are “limited” in our ability to ever truly know it then we are indeed a sorry lot.

Doomed to be oppressed by the power, popularity and pretensions of man –

Doomed to be subjugated to the bondage that always comes from opinions rather than being set free by the absolute Truth that Christ himself tells us we SHALL KNOW.

Doomed to political arrogance and ecclesiastical hubris.

Doomed to being given over to a reprobate mind –

Doomed to follow in the footsteps of the arrogant young professor of the Great Divorce where we never really had an original thought but simply kept parroting the opinions that seemed popular.

Indeed I hope people do read and learn and think about the consequences of their ideas.

Bottom line – At the end of the day all people will plead to be judged by God’s truth rather than yours or mine.

Thus Driscoll’s point.

What do you think?  I let Driscoll Fan have the last word.  Did he use it well?  In the end, after a later engagement, and despite my attempts to be as cordial as possible in the interchange—I was unfriended by Driscoll Fan, who, it turns out, is the president of an evangelical university.


21 thoughts on “Reading the Bible: The Driscoll Effect

  1. “The irony here is that history shows us that bowing to the knowability of Scripture Truth is the only way man has ever actually humbled himself before God and others.” – Driscoll Fan

    How the heck did anyone pre-printing press ever humble themselves before God?

    Bryan you made total sense, the text and our interpretation are two different things. When we make them one we are often seeking to speak for God and control others. I wish I could thing of a recent example of where this position was used to control and harm people in the name of truth…



  2. I did find this a very interesting exchange. I myself have found it very difficult to get into a discussion with people on concepts that have come out of the Emergent movement – it seems all the critics seem to project misunderstandings of the concepts onto the authors. After reading some of their works, I invited a couple of my very best friends over to discuss some of the concepts. I had carefully arranged a series of scriptures that I felt caused logical conundrums if one held steadfast to some traditional beliefs. I could tell my friends were beginning to see the questions. In the end, I tried to leave them with the questions themselves and not my own responses to them. But of course they wanted to know where I stood. So I explained some of the conclusions I had come to. I was immediately faced with some questions such as “so there’s no justice? You’re taking the concept of justice out of the Bible?” Nope, not at all. Fortunately for me, these two have been very, very good friends for quite a long time. I never really convinced either of them, I don’t think, and we emailed back and forth for quite a while on related details, and in the end they simply dropped the conversation, feeling satisfied that I wasn’t a complete pagan but that they weren’t going to pull me back into the old conclusions I once held. Moral of the story – it’s really hard to challenge traditional ideas and not be misunderstood. Oh well – one has to try, right?


  3. What a delightful comment page. I’m not sure I have ever seen so many uplifting comments in relation to a post such as this! Bryan your post has convinced me how important it is to have a beer in one’s hand while discussing theology.


  4. Hey Roger! Don’t let your beer go flat over something as stubborn as a person who is filled with such certainty that they cannot or will not consent to even listening to another’s view. Without the exchange of ideas, the whole world will go flat…AGAIN!!! We can’t let that happen. 😉


  5. Just bought Theo Pub. Hope you get at least a buck out of it. I hosted a Theo Pub about 10 years ago with several sincere ‘seekers’ and one ‘Driscoll fan’ type. Yikes! The beer went flat pretty quickly when he arrived on the scene. That has been pretty much my experience with all these kind of guys. Patronizing, skilled at circular reasoning, skilled with non-sequitors and incredibly presumptuous–not to mention, mean spirited and self righteous.


  6. Thanks for sharing Brian. I actually thought Driscoll Fan’s last comments the most enlightening of all. How odd someone who follows Driscoll, an ‘absolute depravity’ propagandist (as I understand him), could fail to see that even our interpretation of Scripture is fallen. How weird that one might believe sin corrupts everything but NOT our understanding of Scripture. So… odd. Your ‘mirror darkly’ quote fit well.

    I thought of something CS Lewis wrote in a Grief Observed when reading your blog. He was talking about ‘images’ of Christ we all have. But I think his words also hold true concerning ‘images’ of truth and scripture we all have. He wrote, “Images, I suppose have their use, or they would not be so popular. To me, however, their danger is more obvious. Images of the Holy easily become holy images – sacrosanct. My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself. He is the great iconoclast. Could we not almost say that this shattering is one of the marks of his presence? The incarnation is the supreme example; it leaves all previous ideas of the Messiah in ruins.”

    I would almost go so far as to say that often we Christians make Scripture an idol. We worship IT rather than whom it REVEALS.

    Anyhow, love your blog. And me and my staff here are plugging through Pub Theology for staff devotions. I enjoy telling them I used to skip Seminary Chapels with the author in order to play ping-pong.

    Joel Renkema


    1. Joel-
      Thanks for the good comments. Terrific quote from C.S. Lewis.

      Glad to hear you guys are reading Pub Theology – hope it sparks some ideas for ways to connect in the community.

      I miss our ping-pong games! Haven’t played in too long. Knetsch is moving out to the East coast, so we’ll have to host a tournament out this way. By the way, had dinner with your brother recently. Small world!



      1. So you saw Renkema the younger! He’s a good sort, for being an economist.

        I hope DC treats you well. And say Hi to the Knetsch for me. I miss seeing him, and kicking his tail in ping-pong (make sure you tell him I said that).


      2. Ha! I’ll let Knetsch know. He’ll be salivating for a chance to make you put up or shut up.

        By the way, if you guys are interested in getting some pub discussions going, you might want to check out my new e-book: Pub Theology 101. Cheers!


  7. So are you saying that there are certain possibilities for what text could mean, and that there are certain things it cannot mean? If you are, I can agree with you. I think there are a set of theological possibilities in the Biblical, but also a set of impossibilities, and that we can know these things through good hermeneutics. Obviously I will come to a certain set of conclusions within the realm of possible meanings, but I could be wrong on certain interpretations. Therefore, I think a helpful way to the approach the Bible would not to be dogmatic in saying that it can only mean a Calvinist or Arminian or any other sort of select interpretation, but rather to discern between the possible meanings and the impossible meanings. Select interpretations should always be held with humility as it could actually be something else within the set of possible meanings. If I understand you correctly, to not hold such humility about select possible meanings would be to place human reason above the text.


  8. I liked the imagery of trying to view an object in dark settings. It seems more than reasonable to suggest that a limited or biased view of whatever data we try to make sense of could lead to distortions of accuracy regardless of intentions to search for truth. What “Driscoll fan” wants to suggest is (using a different context) that a legal system under your understanding could never convict anyone of a crime because objectivity would be lost in the quagmire of relativity. Yet, we clearly do arrest people and convict them for crimes based on evidence. On the other hand, the Innocence project has worked to release 300+ “convicted” murderers & rapists based on new DNA evidence. While I think everyone could be on board with use of data, the startling fact is that eighteen people had been sentenced to death before DNA could prove their innocence and lead to their release. The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13.6 years and about 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are people of color.

    What do we say about those mistakes? Will we be better interpreters of the past the farther away it is from us and when it concerns mere religious concerns?


  9. Lack of charity in discussion, but then again, Bryan you’ve known me to be less than charitable in our discussions, but that’s because sometimes the flesh is oh so tempting. The online forum is really a dangerous one for any sincere discussion.

    I think I understand what Driscoll is arguing for – changing the Bible in terms of orthodoxy to make it more palatable for one’s life or to make it more “mainstream”, then he is correct. This change does come about through “new information” or new research etc. Sometimes I agree, that this leads to a richer interpretation and perhaps a more accurate one than previously existed. At other times, I feel that obscure and unverifiable research and discoveries can be used to justify a personal viewpoint, even though the facts don’t hold water.

    Remember, Driscoll speaks in extremes a lot, and he has a specific audience that he’s working toward. Nothing wrong with that. And yes, I think we’ve seen definitely biased interpretations based on generous archeology and “historical context” that has made Christianity more acceptable to the masses, but that in the end, only hurts our ability to truly connect with God.

    My comments, for what it’s worth.


  10. I did enjoy this “debate”. Glad you posted it. You kept your cool, and for the most part you both had a clean debate over the issue at hand. Sometimes when we argue we do need to help reframe what we said for the other person (you had to do that several times). This is part of the hard work of dialoguing together. But, it’s worth it! God has uniquely positioned you for this task, it seems to me, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to engage. Too bad he “de-friended” you. That was a mistake on his part, it seems to me. Both of you could have grown from further interchanges.


  11. Welcome to the “joy” of trying to honestly debate someone with an (apparently strong) fundamentalist mindset! No, he was obviously not interested in truly debating you or having a conversation. He was interested in preserving his Facebook status among his followers. If he did not do what he did, he would have risked a possible job-ending situation for not standing for the truth.

    Yes, I am saying that he had to win the argument to keep his job. You let him do that by giving him the last word. I have been through this with many acquaintances who are still fundamentalist/evangelical. He threw every arguing technique at you and you did well to not step to his level.

    Take it for what it is and move on….he already has.


  12. Bryan–I hesitate to post because I am philosophically and theologically out of my depth. However, you asked if readers think there is anything inappropriate in your responses. And I’m wondering about the appropriateness of your final sentence. It saves until last (the strongest position in a piece of writing) the dramatic revelation that he is a president of an evangelical university. I gasped when I read this. Then I shook my head. And sat in less-than-charitable judgement. I wonder if your ending is intended to invoke that response. And if that is your intent, if perhaps that ending might be a bit inappropriate.


    1. Hi Carol-
      Well, I actually didn’t know that either until after this interaction, and was as shocked as you to find out about it (this was someone who was a ‘friend of a friend’ on FB). I could have stated this up front on the post, but didn’t want that to affect one’s reading on where the person was coming from. I think the shock is useful, as one considers, as the first commenter does, whether someone in such a position can effectively engage on this important topic.


  13. Hey Bryan….Same old, same old, it seems to me. Reminds me why we were always told not to discuss politics or religion. I did find the Fan rather rude in his/her replies to you, even insulting a few times. I think it courageous of you to reply and to post the exchange, but it doesn’t seem to me that any progress was made by either one of the people debating. I certainly didn’t come away enlightened in any way.


  14. Wow! It seemed to me he was projecting all his training on how to argue against postmodernism into this discussion. It was like a politician at a press conference who couldn’t answer the questions without getting lost in his own talking points. I really resonated with your responses and appreciate your approach. I’m sorry he defriended you. I’m appalled at the idea that he is the president of any university, even an evangelical one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s