I just don’t get it.  Some anti-emergents are just puzzling.  This guy goes off on Driscoll and Bell and really gives no reason why.  I’m having trouble seeing how Bell is heretical in this sermon.  I’ve listened to it before.  Maybe it’s not ageeable to some, but to say that it put him outside of the scope of orthodoxy and that he has degenerated into heresy is just a little over the edge.

Another random observation: many very conservative, anti-emergent types tend to be treading very closely to docetism.