A quick update on my question for Mark Driscoll.

Since I posted my question last Friday, over 1200 votes have come in, currently holding the #1 spot on the site.  Thanks to all of you who have been voting for this question.  Apparently some of those commenting do not believe this is a legitimate or important question.  The question I asked is,

Do you believe that Scripture regulates not only your theology but also your methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?

In the comments, I elaborated a little further, adding,

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to explain my question a little further. Being missional and Reformed, there is the tension between Scriptural fidelity and cultural accommodation. At times, I feel as though Scripture drives your methodology (e.g. complementarianism among others); at other times, I feel as though culture drives methodology. What I would like to know is how you deal with this tension and how you reconcile these two governing factors. For instance, do you work from Scriptural prescription (explicit) to general principles (implicit) to prudence and practicality?

For someone who is so influential in missiology and ecclesiology, I think it is important for Driscoll to address the issue of the Regulative Principle.  If the RP does not “regulate” our worship, government, contextualization, or other ecclesiological and methodological issues, then what does?  Since the Reformation, the RP has been an issue worthy of considerable discussion and critical thought; however, my concern is that our generation isn’t adequately applying the sufficiency of Scripture regarding matters of ecclesiology. 

Driscoll is an intelligent guy, and, as far as I can tell, a student of church history.  It is unfortunate that some would consider this question as merely academic or legalistic.  That is why I am asking you to take a few minutes each day and vote for my question

Thanks!