by Phil Johnson
ulpit Live is currently posting
transcripts from Friday morning's plenary session at last week's Shepherds' Conference. The comment-threads there
would be a perfect place for me to answer some of the questions I have received since the Shepherds' Conference, but for reasons unknown, the Pulpit website won't accept my comments. (I'm dead to them.)
On top of the many comments posted in various on-line forums, I've received about two dozen e-mails from people who have written me directly to ask questions or lodge complaints about Friday's message. All who have written me directly have been very gracious, and I believe all of them have been sincere. Most have asked the same two or three questions, so today I want to answer those questions (plus a few of the not-so-sincere objections that have showed up here, there, and on Facebook). These are roughly in order from the most common questions to the most bizarre:
| Have you or Dr. MacArthur ever personally shared your concerns personally with Mark Driscoll? |
|
Yes. I sent Mark a 6-page letter the first week of December, telling him what I was planning to deal with at the Shepherds' Conference. I explained why I thought his message at the Desiring God Conference in September left some of the most important objections to his own use of crass language unanswered. I also enumerated six specific questions that I thought would help my understanding of his position.
Mark didn't reply or acknowledge my letter until one week prior to the Shepherds' Conference. Then he phoned and said he would answer me by video since the timing was late. When the video arrived, Driscoll had addressed his reply not to me but to the attendees of the Shepherds' Conference—as if I had invited him to share my time slot at the conference.
His reply also ignored the six questions enumerated in my letter. Instead, he answered a question of his own choosing, saying he believed that one answer would suffice as an answer to all my questions.
John MacArthur likewise attempted to correspond with Driscoll a year and a half ago. He too received no answer for almost six months, and when the answer finally came, it was routed indirectly, through an e-mail sent by Driscoll's secretary to John MacArthur's secretary. Curiously enough, Driscoll's reply to John came on the first day of last year's Shepherds' Conference.
Driscoll clearly does not take his critics very seriously. Communication with him hasn't done anything so far to convince me that he understands (or wants to understand) the concerns some of us have tried to express to him.
| Didn't you know that Driscoll has already repented of using bad language? |
|
So I hear. I mentioned that fact in my letter to Driscoll and cited three well-known instances of ribald jokes and profane remarks that occurred long after he said he was sorry for past sins of the tongue. The first of my six questions to him was, "How do the above remarks differ from things you previously said you had repented of?" He did not answer that question.
| I had someone else listen to your message. He went semi-ballistic, claiming that you'd misquoted Driscoll, and used 5- and sometimes 10-year-old arguments against him, etc. |
|
I mentioned Driscoll by name only in two places in my message—once at the start and once at the end. The first time I mentioned him, I quoted from the opening sentence of an article in the New York Times Magazine about Driscoll. I attributed no words to Driscoll himself. The second time I singled out Driscoll by name, I referred to a joke he has told repeatedly. I made no attempt to "quote" the joke, because doing so would have violated the principle I was attempting to affirm. So I described the joke in oblique terms. Again, I attributed no words to him.
Both of those references dealt with material that has been published since January 1 of this year. So I would be curious to know where the critic thinks I "misquoted" or made use of "5- and sometimes 10-year-old arguments against him, etc."
| Can you cite a single sermon where Driscoll used "cuss" words? |
|
Why?
Not only did I not accuse him of using "cuss" words; I did not even mention Donald Miller's infamous nickname for Driscoll.
My complaint about Driscoll's language in the pulpit is much more serious than the question of whether he cusses or not. And I think I made that fairly clear.
There's no reason to assume that had anything to do with me, or that it meant anything sinister. He said he was meditating on Proverbs 26:4: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself." It's a good verse. I meditate on that verse virtually every day, whenever hostile or hateful comments show up on my blog.
But you know what? Even if I thought Mark was aiming that Tweet at me, I wouldn't make an issue of it. I'm not particularly interested in what his visceral reaction was on Friday afternoon. I'm curious what his response will be when he has had time to think through the biblical substance of my message.
| You lumped Mark Driscoll together with Ed Young. That's not fair. |
|
Precisely how did I "lump" them? By naming them both? Both of them have shown a predilection for dealing with sexual topics in lurid terms. But not only did I not draw that connection or imply that the two of them are in any way in league with one another, I don't believe I even made any specific mention of Driscoll's series on sex from Song of Solomon—even though I think some aspects of that series and the accompanying Q&A were even more offensive than Ed Young, Jr.'s smirking interviews on the cable news programs that featured his sex challenge.
I have noticed, however, that all the questions I'm getting are about Mark Driscoll. Where are the defenders of Ed Young, Jr., ChristianNymphos, and xxxchurch's inflatable mascot?
Here's the point: My message was not actually about Driscoll per se. If the problem were just one guy who likes to talk dirty, I wouldn't have even dealt with the topic.
What my message actually decried was the atmosphere in evangelical and post-evangelical circles that deliberately glorifies everything lewd and lowbrow at the expense of any serious call for holiness.
I think I made that pretty clear, too.
337 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 337 of 337Redbeard — I just finished listening to the message from the conference....
...evidently using the word "listening" in some new, broadened sense, not actually inclusive of, you know, listening.
"When was the last time YOU went on national television and preached the Gospel to the anchor and audience without hinderance? Driscoll has done it several times THIS YEAR."
I'd like to see those. I have seen him in a secular venue, but never caught the Gospel.
"...the only difference between his worldliness and yours is that yours is from the 50's and he doesn't require everyone to embrace his ideas of worldliness like you do...
I think Phil was preteen in the 50'. And boy, if it is a trend thing, what is the next generation in for?
"...a man that doesn't care what you think, because he shouldn't."
The problem in a nut shell.
Everyday Mommy:
No. I didn't. I don't feel our discussions are really progressign very far...
"Your po-motivators are childish at best."
I would say "at worst".
At best there are some good Christians here, who are blessed by Phil's excellent teachings from the Scripture.
Let me ask you about something Mark wrote in Vintage Jesus.
he compared the Cross of our Lord with a "condom".
Do you think this was appropriate?
Note: Redbeard's interests are listed as, "Jesus" and "My Smokin' Hot Wife".
Tournifreak:
I feel our discussions are "progressign" quite nicely.
Tournifreak,
Do the words "devoted to" denote primacy or not? How about singularity of purpose?
Lark,
I'd like to know from you how Tournifreak has been attacked as opposed to having his questions answered (a practice that he seems mostly unwilling to reciprocate)? Do you have anything to offer in helping me understand where you are coming from?
Redbeard: "Spend your time doing something other than attacking a man that doesn't care what you think, because he shouldn't."
Gee whiz, Redbeard. Do you spend as much time earnestly contending for the faith as you do contending for your earthly idols?
As to Phil's message to the general assembly, having listened intently to it twice myself, methinks what you think you heard isn't atall what Phil said ... as evidenced by your emotive, reactionary commentary here.
@DJP: I get it, because you don't like my response, there is no way we could have listened to the same message.
@Strong Tower: Some of them are available on the Mars Hill website, they are worth watching.
Mark Driscoll does not answer to Johnson or MacArthur because they are not elders at his church nor are really all that concerned with actually dealing with the issue with him. A Letter? An Email?
C.J. Mahaney was interested, so he called Mark and confronted him because he wants Mark to be able to grow from the conversations.
@everyday Mommy: I love Jesus and my wife, and she likes it when I compliment her beauty. I don't see the issue here. But when my wife begins to have a problem with it, it may matter, but until that happens, meh.
@Donsands: Can you point to where that was said, I have a copy of VJ in my office and I will read it and respond to your question.
@ Deb_B: Pot, meet kettle. I post one thing one a blog and now I worship Driscoll and don't contend for the faith? Thats a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
John MacArthur should be ashamed for allowing Phil Johnson use his pulpit for personal attacks and strawmen.
Tournifreak,
In other words, if I wrote a book that was described as "devoted to" squirrels, would you think that the book was mainly, or first and foremost about songbirds?
Phil,
Thanks for addressing this topic in your presentation last week. As one who struggled with the very issues you highlighted while I attended Mars Hill Church (I've since left), I appreciated the clarity and biblical care you brought to this subject.
In your sermon, you said that this issue could be settled once and for all if a few respected evangelical leaders got together to address it. As the popularity of Mark Driscoll and others employing the same methods continues to increase, I think it is time for respected Christian leaders such as John Piper, C.J. Maheney and D.A. Carson to let us know where they stand. It is time for these men and the rest of the evangelical Christian leadership to examine what you and Dr. MacArthur have said. Let's settle this issue biblically and in the open where lay people who are trying to make sense of it can benefit.
Dr. Piper, are you listening?
Greg
Redbeard,
????
A couple observations.
1.) On pointing to a sermon where Driscoll cusses, Phil said, "Not only did I not accuse him of using "cuss" words; I did not even mention Donald Miller's infamous nickname for Driscoll."
You replied with, "Furthermore, you ask why should you be able to point to sermons where Driscoll cusses? Because you accuse him of it, thats why."
Did you read the sentence that you were replying to? It really looks like you didn't.
2.) You said,
"When was the last time YOU went on national television and preached the Gospel to the anchor and audience without hinderance? Driscoll has done it several times THIS YEAR."
Why did you ask that question?
You're saying that Driscoll preaches the gospel well. I agree. Do you think that means he can't mess up somehow in his preaching? That he shouldn't be called to account, by those who are convinced he's doing something wrong?
You seem to be emoting. Please, calm down, listen more carefully, and discern more thoughtfully.
Dude,
A fair amount of what you are saying is outright false and has been addressed here by Phil Redbeard.
Phil shows where MD HAS said this stuff this year, he has repeatedly shown that MD has been contacted, and you have given no biblical refutation of Phils interpretation of the passage. That is the real thing.
You are going to fault Phil for not being on national TV?
*sigh*
Dr. MacArthur has ALWAYS shared the Gospel when on TV, and not once done it while basically baspheiming the Scriptures with a crude joke.
Wow...now they're going after John MacArthur.
Redbeard: "@ Deb_B: Pot, meet kettle. I post one thing one a blog and now I worship Driscoll and don't contend for the faith? Thats a bit of a stretch, don't you think?"
What I think is a stretch is your disinclination to actually listen, whether virtually or literally, to what is being said/written ... as opposed to O, say, emoting.
I was reaching for a modicum of linear thought/expression, Redbeard. Hope springs eternal, I suppose.
Can someone re-post the link to Phil's message so Redbeard can actually listen to the message in it's entirety? Also, there must be something wrong with today's original post. Redbeard's ISP must be blocking it or something.
Redbeard: "@ Deb_B: Pot, meet kettle."
Duh? Specifics, please, Redbeard. (No raw emoting allowed ... PULEEZ!) Otherwise, the tired "Pot, meet kettle" allegation/canard has rather worn out its welcome in this thread, methinks.
Okay guys,
Can we wrap it up now?
My eyes hurt from reading this. lol.
Phil, where ARRRRREEEEE YOOOOUUUU?
Your blog is being taken over!
Oh, and Squirrel wins the "It's obvious" award for his elders quote.....
"DUH!" It cracked me up.
Tourinfreak: "Sanctification is not achieved through people being told to read their Bibles more and watch TV less"
Much less is it achieved by the profane and joking treatment of sacred things.
It is achieved when people actually do read their Bibles and allow the word of Christ to dwell in them richly. See John 17:17.
Dave: "Others have aluded to it, but it is confusing that Phil and Johnny Mac have come down so strongly on Driscoll, while Piper, Mahaney, Keller and even CCEF have invited him to their conferences to speak as recently as last fall. Why are so many other brothers not speaking out about it if it is so Biblically clear. Those guys have stepped on many toes of other Evangelical 'leaders' when they have erred. I haven't even heard Duncan, Mohler, Dever speak out."
I've talked to a few of those men myself and raised that very question. (I frankly think it would be helpful all around if more people raised that question.) Not one Christian leader I have ever spoken to has ever said he truly approves of Driscoll's obsession with (and immersion in) the lowest elements of the culture. Some of those men have taken a more indirect and subtle approach to addressing the issue. I respect them and understand their rationale. But I think the say-nothing-publicly approach is wrong and counterproductive in this case. I'm not one for staying silent and hoping a problem of this magnitude will go away. Driscoll himself obviously isn't a fan of subtlety and circumlocution--so do the math.
Short Thoughts: "What were the six questions?"
I read Frank's response to this question, and he has a point. On the other hand, the questions themselves were not so personal that repeating them here would feed anyone's voyeuristic bent. So I decided to answer this one, because it is probably the most focused and on-target question raised so far.
After citing some recent examples of Driscoll's public remarks that seemed clearly to violate Ephesians 5:4, I asked:
1. How do the above remarks differ from things you previously said you had repented of?
2. If someone told jokes evoking the imagery of your wife engaging in homosexual activity, or if they flippantly described the excretion of bodily wastes with an illustration that put her at the center of the narration, would you not find that demeaning and offensive?
3. If so, how do you justify speaking of Christ less reverently than you would want another man to speak of your wife? And if not, how would she feel about your standing by passively while someone else spoke of her that way?
4. What justification can there possibly be for using a verse of Scripture as a punch line in a sexually suggestive joke? Does it concern you that you have planted an unwholesome idea (totally foreign to the true meaning of that text) into people's minds so that when they read or hear that verse, your joke will now be what they think of first?
5. Do you believe the third commandment is binding on believers today as a rule that should govern our speech?
6. How do you reconcile flippantly crass remarks about Christ with the biblical concept of the fear of God?
_____________________
So I scanned the comment-thread down through 200 comments or so, and those were all the important comments I felt I ought to reply to. Let me just say I appreciated Tim Challies' early take on our comment-thread: "To this point it seems a very grace-filled discussion."
Please keep it grace-filled. Especially if you are positioning yourself on my side of the controversy. I think we can do better than we often do, and since this thread involves the importance of guarding one's tongue, let's be serious about that duty, OK?
"Note: Redbeard's interests are listed as, "Jesus" and "My Smokin' Hot Wife"."
Now THAT'S a red herring....
"@Donsands: Can you point to where that was said, I have a copy of VJ in my office and I will read it and respond to your question." -Red
Sure can. Page 111 at the bottom of the page. Ididn't really want to quote the whole thing.
And to be fully honest, I liked most of the book, and Mark's doctrinal stances are well stated, and very biblical. But why say such cude, and even demeaning things, especially of the Cross of our Lord and Savior. His death should be precious and holy to us.
I really don't understand some of the things this man says.
And that's why i appreciate Phil's sermon. He brings out the Word, which is a light, and it is a razor that cuts deep into our soul, and is powerful. Phil preaches the Word, and he also makes us aware of what is happening within the Body of Christ.
Jesus said beware of leaven. False teachings will come from among those in the Body, Paul told us.
And they can be blatant, like Kenneth Hagin, or a Brian McLaren, or they can be subtle, perhaps like Mark is doing, and his error is to draw us away from sound speach and keeping the holy things of holy, and undefiled, though he certainly is a brother in Christ.
I used to teach falsely when I was in the Catholic church for a couple years, and then in the Charismatic movement, I taught that one could lose his salvation. But I was given the grace to see the truth, and turn. Thank the Lord.
Redbeard:
I just finished reading your blog; it will be the last time I do so, albeit for different reasons than you have for not visiting pyro again. Wait, I just realized that you won't read this. Oh well.
I think I see a bug in the teamptyro blog template.
The comments are topping 200, so they're being split into two pages. In the "blogger.com" view of the combox, there's a "Newer" link for going to the second page. But on the direct teampyro.blogspot.com link, there's no link--there isn't any hint that you've hit the end of the page of comments, or that there's another page of them.
Joshua:
"Now THAT'S a red herring...."
You say red herring, I say propensity.
As a happily married woman with a wonderful, Christian husband I would prefer that sort of endearment be kept between the two of us.
You know what, I am a Christian woman. Respectable and all that stuff, that's me.
And I'm quite prepared to admit I struggle with lust, and have admitted as much in public before now.
I listened to a number of Driscoll's messages and Q&A sessions. I find him engaging on many topics, and I like him.
But when he addresses certain issues with the frankness that he does, in that setting, I am drawn back into sinful thoughts and attitudes, and there's no getting away from that. I don't need encouragement to dwell on the mechanics and specifics of sexual behaviour, I need encouragement on dwell on purity.
I genuinely think Pastor Driscoll needs that encouragement too, and I think Phil gave him some.
Jugulum, I spotted the same thing. Viewers of the main page will never see these comments.
Hey Phil,
Just wanted to reply. I'm not coming from either side. I am just trying to clarify thoughts. I enjoyed your points about proper speech. There were also points that I thought jumped off the track.
The comments about ultimate fighting pastor or even the references about Crete being worse than Seattle is sarcasm. That sarcasm may be funny but could be considered mean or not something we would want children to use right? I am just trying to ask questions from a wiser pastor to help me with my discernment. I have people who love Driscoll and started an ACTS29 church, and others who can't stand him. I saw a large amount of time spent on his crude words, and I agree in some instances and others I am not sure what he is saying is wrong, maybe just not well spoken. I think he seeks to be seen as a "common man" to be relatable. I know that is wrong in the extent it becomes sinful, but I do think sometimes the different dress, music and technology can reach some groups better. IF and only IF the message isn't changed.
Fundamentalism or legalism can be an issue for anyone who likes certain ways of doing things. I love hymns, I don't think anyone including Sovereign Grace or the Getty's have come close. I'd rather hear them only on Sundays, and occasionally if they play a newer song, I may not be as happy. I have to guard against it constantly. Since I know it is a struggle for me to be so judgmental, I am trying to work on it.
I read your sermon and felt there were issues that I agreed with. But there were also issues were I think you needed more examples of actual, sinful actions from Driscoll. Besides his speech, areas of his life or ministry that you thought would carry him into sin. That was what I meant by legalistic pond, sometimes it is easy to "fish" for other reasons or you may know those reasons and I don't.
I guess I am trying to figure it all out. And it is tough because I love Pulpit and Johnny Mac, but then I see Piper and all the rest of the T4G, and Gospel Coalition, etc. using Driscoll and selling his stuff. And I need other areas to point to his sin to understand your thoughts maybe. Do you understand my concern? Thanks for the reply thus far.
Phil,
Because of preaching through Ephesians, I've been thinking for three weeks or so about this issue of Ezekiel, the prophetic 'potty mouths' vs. clean speech and prohibitions against course joking in Ephesians 5:4.
My conclusions have been: First, I have to admit some of Ezekiel's words (or Isaiah on menstrual rags) are graphic and disgust me . Even if I use none profane words to describe it, it is a pretty putrid image but isn't that the point I am to transfer that disgust to a disgust of my sin and idolatry--to see how deeply sin offends God's holiness.
Second, coarse joking and silly talk while the bare words might be disgusting (like the prophets), unlike the prophets the goal is to stir up, entice, titillate and eroticize--in order to find enjoyment and pleasure. That strikes me as a world of difference and to use the former to defend the latter seems immature at best.
Dr. Albert Mohler has on several occasions (on his radio show and during conferences) said that the not only does the Bible condemn homosexuality (both the affection and the act), it gets into details concerning the receiving and giving acts in the greek. I do not read greek (give me French or Latin any day!) but assuming Dr. Mohler is right then I would have to agree that the pulpit is an acceptable place to sometimes use earthy language if the expository preaching of the Word deals with sexuality. I would be of the opinion that saying the Songs of Solomon calls for some earthy language from the pulpit, the story of Abraham and sarah, Joseph and Potiphor's wife, ect... I could be wrong and I am open to correction. But I also think this could be a generational gap. Younger Christian's have been so pornified by the culture (even many of those who have been homeschooled) that hearing that from the pulpit doesn't offend us nor does it seem against New Testament teaching. As for the boomer and older generations of course it would offend them (not that I am calling the great Phil Johnson old!) given the environment they grew up in. Clearly there is some overlap between the two and I am speaking in generalitites but I have noticed personally a great sanctification in the ministry of Driscoll (Young, christiannympos and xxx church sometimes act like a bunch of perverted christians who obsess on sex far too much for their own good and need to learn there are other things in life besides sex). Each year Driscoll becomes better in his preaching and life style while preserving his unique casual style of preaching which I like. He is less vulgar and less earthy than he was 5 years ago. I guess as someone who has struggled with lust daily for the last 5 years and has only seen real mortification in the last year I am prone to cut him more slack than you guys will. Those are my thoughts: take them for what they are worth.
Libbie,
Your profile pic made me laugh, at first I thought it was in response to the stuff that's being talked about here. "They said what?! In church?!"
Emoting? Because I don't believe in being passive aggressive? Just because I don't post like you do does not mean I am emoting.
@LeeC: First, I never questioned whether MacArthur presented the Gospel while on TV, I asked if Phil Johnson had.
@Jugulum: I read the sentence and listened to the message, he makes a reference to Millers nickname when he says "The Cussing Apostle". Thats why I brought it up. Johnson may never have said "Mark Driscoll Cusses" but the intent is all over the place.
@ CarolJean: Just because I did not agree with what was said or with your viewpoint doesn't mean I didn't listen.
@Deb: Proof? "Gee whiz, Redbeard. Do you spend as much time earnestly contending for the faith as you do contending for your earthly idols?" You say this in defense of a MAN. Thats why you are guilty of what you accuse me of. Hence the Pot meet kettle comment.
@Donsands: Having looked at it, I don't think he was saying that the Cross of Christ was like a condom, but that the cross (the method of death) was the equivalent of a needle for lethal injection. It was a death sentence, an instrument that guaranteed death. While I personally may not have used an aids filled condom to illustrate that point, I don;t think he is equating the actual Cross of Christ with a condom, but more the death sentence of historic crucifixion.
Furthermore, I am not defending everything Driscoll says and does, because I don't care enough to do that. I'm just sick of the constant attacks from seemingly all sides that Driscoll and guys like Driscoll are getting because they are a new style of Christianity because he is not afraid to engage the culture around him.
Yes Red, that was in response to your "Accusation" or denigration of Phil for not sharing the Gospel on TV when he hasn't been on it.
What about all the false accusations you have made that are answered right here in print?
I am brewing a response to Redbread. Other readers please stand by.
"You say red herring, I say propensity.
As a happily married woman with a wonderful, Christian husband I would prefer that sort of endearment be kept between the two of us."
I just meant in the sense of contributing to the argument. It doesn't really add anything, it distracts.
But I'm glad you and your husband are respectful towards each other :)
God bless.
Tssssssss. . .
Redbeard: I am a Driscoll fan but we need to be men of the word and our American culture must stop with the celebrity culture (whether its Driscoll, Piper, Bell, MacArthur, ect...) I have a feeling that if Driscoll was an arminian about 95% of his defenders would be attacking him as fiercly as they defend him. Our main source of teaching for our soul should be from our local churches and local pastors NOT podcasts and mp3 downloads. They are a fine suppliment but Driscoll's critics are not against engaging the culture they just want to engage it by being faithful to the Word as they see it.
@Lee:
Again, stating that MacArthur preaches the Gospel (Which I never questioned) does not answer the question I asked about Phil Johnson doing the same. Because MacArthur has done something, Johnson is credited with doing it too?
What accusations have I made that have been proven false? If I am wrong in any of them I will gladly retract them and apologize to Phil.
The bacon and I are standing by, Frank.
"I am brewing a response to Redbread. Other readers please stand by."
This is a test of the emergencyt broadcast system. If this had been a real emergency, an uber long post would have followed this comment followed by explosions of Scripture laden logic.
Redbeard: " I don't care enough to do that."
Why don't you care? If we are all members of the same body - the Body of Christ - as we claim to be, what hurts you, should hurt me, too.
"...a new style of Christianity..."
As opposed to what? Paul's and Peter's and James' and John's and Luke's and Matthew's [et.al.] "old style of Christianity"?
Have you studied Church history? Most specifically the historical cultural mores prevalent in places like Crete where Paul preached the Gospel truth?
I can assure you, the baser cultural mores in Crete and elsewhere during Paul's earthly ministry could more than give our current Post Modernistic Western culture a run for the proverbial roses in the lewd, smuttiness genre ... and then some.
There's your first errant presumption right there: "...a new style of Christianity...".
You see, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God doesn't adapt His inerrant, infallible truth to our culture ... nay, we are to be conformed to the image of Christ. Not the other way about.
I'll second Lee's comment. John MacArthur does an exemplary job of presenting the gospel through the mainstream media, whenever he is interviewed, in a manner that is befitting to the honor and glory of the holy King he represents, and to the authority of His Word. On these programs, John demonstrates meekness in the truest sense of the word: power under control. Why? Because that power is not from him, but from the Lord of whom he is concerned with honoring before a watching world of lost souls. Whether the unregenerate agree with him or not, they can see what awe and love and reverence he has for his Lord----now, THAT is relevant!
I am brewing a response to Redbread. Other readers please stand by..
Strong pot of black coffee? *drool*
"I'm just sick of the constant attacks from seemingly all sides that Driscoll and guys like Driscoll are getting because they are a new style of Christianity because he is not afraid to engage the culture around him."
Redbeard,
For the record: Driscoll and others like him are not being critiqued for being "a new style of Christianity" or not being "afraid to engage the culture around him."
I'm not sure that Christianity has a "style". We either follow the Bible or we don't. Mark Driscoll has, on this blog and other places, been commended for certain aspects of his ministry. However, using crude language and jokes or references is not synonymous with engaging the culture around him. Engaging the culture around us can never be used as license to sin.
Redbeard,
I think Lee's point was that it is no more valid to ask if Phil has clearly presented the gospel on TV, than it is to ask if YOU have.
You can't do what you're not given opportunity to do.
MD has had the opportunity and had done it...differently.
I was just getting ready to leave and Frank fires a warning shot.
"While I personally may not have used an aids filled condom to illustrate that point,"
He doesn't say it the way you said Red.
Never mind. You made the point that you wouldn't have done so. So why does Mark? That is the question.
He shouldn't, but he does it anyway.
Perhaps Dave has a pstial answer: "I think he seeks to be seen as a "common man" to be relatable. I know that is wrong in the extent it becomes sinful, but I do think sometimes the different dress, music and technology can reach some groups better. IF and only IF the message isn't changed."
Is a pastor of the Lord Jesus Christ to think this way? Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Feed My sheep, and tend them." Of corse He asked Peter first if he loved Jesus.
If you are called to be a shepherd of the Lord's sheep, you need to love Christ above all, and then feed the sheep His Word, and pray for them. And be an example to the sheep.
Reaching the non-sheep is the primary call for the pastor, though he certainly should be doing the work of an evangelist as well.
Redbeard,
My "emoting" comment wasn't about the way you're speaking. It was about the content. It was about the irrationality of your question about speaking the gospel--the part of my comment that you didn't answer.
Redbeard:
Who are you talking to? Based on the content of your complaint it cannot possibly be Phil Johnson, the man in question.
Amazing... you rag on Phil for not being familiar with what Driscoll has said yet you clearly misrepresent and contradict and demonstrate that you either have not read or clearly breezed over what Phil has said... Please, read the post before posting because you are in error INDEED.
Enough with the slandor. If you criticize someone publicly it better be meaningful and accurate. Phil Johnson did. You did not.
I'm not critiquing your post. Read what Phil said. It's that obvious that your post is riddled with fallicious statements.
For the record. I have heard Mark Driscoll preach the Gospel. I have also heard him attack psuedo christian works such as The Shack and various elements of the Emergent Church.
That being said, He has a tendancy to stray too far into lewdness when disscussing the Gospel. He needs to stop.
I have full confidence if believers pray for him, he will. After all, he left the emergents to become reformed.
God bless.
Sould have read: "Reaching the non-sheep is "not" the primary call.."
Sorry about that.
D.A. Carson has pointed out in many of his lectures on postmodernism and the Emerging Church that Paul preached the same truth in different ways to different people. I remember Billy Graham made the point that Jesus never dwelt with two people in the same way (yes I know way of the master people would disagree but that is a separate debate). We do not adapt the truth for a different culture rather the means by which the truth is presented is different depending on the culture. It is simply insane to state that we are to preach in the same manner to the Québecois, Seatleians, Illinoisians, Mississippians, Indians and Arabs! We start at different places and we ought to dress to fit in with the culture we want to reach (as Huston Taylor and the China mission taught) so that we can eventually preach Christ and him crucified.
I see I did not delete my post fast enough to comply with franks wishes.
Rather than get fully into it before his post I will simply say that there is a world of difference between being humble, and being common. Christ was not, and never will be common.
Hey Phil,
Thanks for listing the six questions. Is it possible to see the list you sent him of his words? Don't think it's being voyeuristic at all, since we know there was a letter and the questions. I just want the whole deal so I can understand. Any chance we could see the video?
I know I am dragging this out, but I think these things are important. I hate the said/she said things. Once you have decided to take Biblical correction public then we should be able to see the just of your letter and his response. Even if we don't like either. That way we can say ok Phil did the right thing and Mark is an egomaniac or Phil's letter attacked Mark and he felt it was in the parameters of not replying to completely. Not judging you Phil or even Mark. But this is the most important step in your outreach and even John's. When it is made public we should know the whole story, not one side.
Whenever we have conducted church discipline we have to go over a huge amount of information in the congregation to see what, if any actions to take. Is that fair here?
Did I see the BlueRaja? Hmm.
@DebB:
Christianity adapts to where it is, thats why it is culturally relevant everywhere it goes. Thats why Jesus is personal to everyone, not just a cookie cutter type of person.
I am aware of Church History, and thats one of the reasons why I don't have an issue with what Driscoll is doing, because he is engaging the culture around him (engaging, not embracing) for the Gospel.
Driscoll isn't hurting the Gospel, so its not a huge issue for me not to address everything he says or does. How many of his sermons have you listened to or books have you read? Especially the more recent ones.
I agree we are to be conformed to Christ, not 1950's style church life "safe for the whole family". You embrace American Christianity like it was the exact same as the Apostles Christianity. Its not.
@Chris:
I agree that MacArthur does a fantastic job of presenting the Gospel on TV when he has the chance too.
Redbeard:
You wrote:
"because they are a new style of Christianity because he is not afraid to engage the culture around him."
A "new style of Christianity"? Oh, I think Paul was was dealing this very old "style of Christianity" when he wrote to Corinth. Hey, they were "engaging" inculture around them too....and Paul addressed it! However, Paul addressed them in his language, not theirs! This is the same way he addressed "culture" in Acts 17, on his terms, not theirs (as all emergents get entirely backwards). If you call "engaging" the culture the heavy-duty sermon Paul preached to them on that day, go ahead and believe what you want; naming a couple of poets that predated them is hardly engagement. Oh, and what is the name of Driscoll's church again?? Named after a misunderstanding of the text.
I just have to say I can't believe that Phil's message is the message that brings controversy! That the subject even had to be addressed is bizarre. Or sad. Maybe tragic. Here's hoping and praying that other solid leaders will join the fray.
Thanks Phil. Stay the course (as if).
@redbeard
What do you mean by Jesus is not a cookie-cutter type of person?
His nature, his life, his atonement and bodily resserection from the dead are essentials of the Christian faith. These things need to be taught and preached in every culture in order for saving faith to occur. There is no way you can teach these aspects of Jesus without stating truth in propositional terms ultimately. The bible does not call us to a personal relationship with Jesus rather it calls us to be reconsiled to the Father by the Son initiated by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Frank:
Time to start planning supper around the 400 mark at this rate!!!!!
It's too bad for the gospel's sake that Paul and other New Testament writers didn't know what Driscoll knows about being culturally relevant in a provocative way... As long as you condemn masturbation it's okay to use a Bible verse to make a joke of it ;D
That's what us old-fashioned fundies are all upset about, right? We just don't think people should do anything trendy. What Phil is saying has nothing to do with soundness of speech or propriety or holiness. Naw, we just don't like it when people say things that are uncomfortable and possibly even "cool"...
uh... what?
Frank: "Other readers please stand by."
Duly noted ... and awaited.
Were there any negative responses to my initial comment?
"Driscoll isn't hurting the Gospel"
Redbeard,
Can you be sure of that? Because an unbeliever may indeed be affected by the actions and words of believers who claim to be sanctified; who claim to be changed because of what Christ has done. There is certainly the propensity for me to "hurt the gospel" if I proclaim the gospel message to my unsaved neighbor and then proceed to live as he does.
These are my reactions and responses, not Phil’s. FWIW.
| I just finished listening to the
| message from the conference. It
| will be the last of yours that I
| listen to, and I will no longer read
| your blog.
Your loss, bro. Especially if your primary forms of edification are from more dubious sources.
| It would appear that you are
| concerned with arguments against
| Driscoll from several years ago.
| You claim to only address him
| twice, but with the "Cussing
| Apostle" remark you address him
| because of the nickname Donald
| Miller gave him in 2003, and the
| mentioning of Seattles news
| anchors.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Phil didn’t mention xxxchurch, the sad but popular Ed Young, or any other off-color ministry. Is it not obvious to you at all that the Ecclesiastes joke is completely outside of Biblical character for a pastor? Do you really think the only way to preach Jesus to D. L. Hughley and his viewers is by lewd jokes?
You know: just say yes if you think so, and if you don’t think so, work that into your view of Pastor Driscoll.
As to the Seattle broadcast news anchors, you have utterly missed the point. Let me help you find the point. Seatlle, WA, is the #13 major local TV market in the United States. They have more television viewers than Christians, as they say. Those stations are trying to deliver common news to the population, and they do not have to resort to blue language to do so. And it turns out that people are watching the TV news and getting it.
If that is true with common news, why would that be untrue for uncommon news, and especially good news?
| You claim Driscoll is sophomoric in
| his approach? Your po-motivators
| are childish at best.
Please work out this comparison to its logical end: which PoMotivator relies on a dirty joke? Which one makes Scripture the punchline of a dirty joke?
If you can find one, let us know which one it is.
| Based on this blog post it would
| appear that you don't even listen
| to what Driscoll says, and hear
| soundbytes without realizing
| whats going on. The part about
| your hand finding something its
| good at? He was saying that it is
| NOT a verse to condone
| masturbation, and DEFENDED
| morality.
I think you need to review the Hughley clip again, my friend. Does Hughley conclude that the activity in question is wrong based on the joke?
Does Hughley not laugh? Does Pastor Driscoll not laugh?
And wasn’t that joke originally in a sermon at Mars Hill?
See: Driscoll uses that joke as a way not to spell out the vileness of that particular sin, but to take a poke at poor interpretation by some of the people he encounters. So while his objective is sound, his method does something far worse than what he is actually reproaching.
You should review the soundbyte, Red. He’s making a dirty joke out of Scripture for some other purpose. I’m not sure that’s a very spiritually-informed thing to do, do you?
| Furthermore, you ask why should
| you be able to point to sermons
| where Driscoll cusses? Because
| you accuse him of it, thats why.
So the sermon where he makes scatological jokes about Jesus are not tantamount to cussing? You’re obviously a student of the man and his preaching – you know exactly what I’m talking about here.
You frame up what that is. Explain how that works when one makes jokes about Jesus and the excretory functions – is that contextualization or blasphemy?
| When was the last time YOU went
| on national television and
| preached the Gospel to the anchor
| and audience without hinderance?
| Driscoll has done it several times
| THIS YEAR.
My opinion is that you should compare what Driscoll did this year vs. any 2 segments of John MacArthur on Larry King Live in the last 2 years. Compare and contrast – and do your worst to the MacArthur segments and try to doll up the Driscoll segments as best you can. Viewing them back to back will be startling.
But that said, I wonder: Mark Driscoll was on “several times” this year – David Letterman is on almost every night. Benny Hinn is on almost every day, as is Pat Robertson. Should we use all of them as examples of how to reach the culture because they get play?
How much like Pat Robertson do you intend to be in the future?
| You accuse him of being like the
| culture and worldliness, the only
| difference between his
| worldliness and yours is that yours
| is from the 50's and he doesn't
| require everyone to embrace his
| ideas of worldliness like you do.
I suggest that you personally need to review a fact before making a ridiculous accusation like that against, of all people, Phil Johnson. There is almost nothing 1950’s about Phil.
Requiring, however, that pastors as per Titus 2 avoid lewd talk is hardly a 1950’s notion – and if you argue otherwise, you have frankly given up the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s one of the plainest, most incontrovertible passages of the NT.
| Spend your time doing something
| other than attacking a man that
| doesn't care what you think,
| because he shouldn't.
I have some closing notes here, so hang in there while I clean them up.
The first is this: if what Phil said in his address here was, for example, without any merit a la much of the watchblogging that still goes on out there, you’d have some justifiable ground for outrage. But, factually, he dealt with a far more than on clip on D.L. Hughley or a 5-year-old sermon or a nearly 10-year-old comment by Donald Miller. So you have to decide whether or not Phil is looking at this situation – and Mark Driscoll in particular – as a grudge-bearing complainer or as someone who has tried to track a trend.
The next is this: I think Mark Driscoll needs to take the advice he quotes from Billy Graham seriously. That is: he needs to try to learn something from critics with whom he has deep disagreements. Especially when it comes from the Shepherd’s Conference – which has decades of reputable ministry, scores of humble and faithful men as disciples, and frankly has held a course through a period in Christian history when, frankly, Secularism thought it has won hands-down.
Right there in driving distance to Hollywood.
The last thing I want to suggest is this: from the first time I heard Mark Driscoll, I liked him personally. Many people do. He’s that kind of guy – and has always been that kind of guy, if you can use his bio as any kind of barometer. The question is not, “is he likeable?” I’ll bet he and I would have a completely stupid time watching TV together or picking through each other’s iTunes libraries.
But here’s the thing: being “likeable” does not give one license to re-write what it means to be a pastor – even in (and especially in) the least-churched city in America.
If this is about Mark Driscoll – and everyone except Phil wants it to be – let it be about him. But the answer is not at any point, “he shouldn’t care that it’s about him.” He should wonder why Paul didn’t make potty jokes about Jesus to the Greeks at the Areopagus who loved scatological humor, and why in that place’s name sake he (Driscoll) must.
Eric,
"Because an unbeliever may indeed be affected by the actions and words of believers who claim to be sanctified; who claim to be changed because of what Christ has done."
For that matter... If our speech causes our brothers & sisters to stumble, that's significant damage--whether or not we classify it as damage to the gospel.
Frank,
"I am brewing a response to Redbread. Other readers please stand by."
Whoops! Mea culpa. Standing by for gracious smack-down.
Strong Tower,
short, tall, brief...still laughing! I needed that.
All you other guys arguing for vulgarity in the pulpit.....
The use of explicit language in Ezekiel and other places has nothing to do with fleshly pursuits. It is all about spiritual error, sin.
To claim the same language is suitable for use in discussing ways to satisfy or gratify fleshly desires and lusts is an abomination. Especially from a pulpit in a worship service where Christ is to be honored, glorified and praised.
Come on folks, you have no business dispensing this tripe when your business is spirituality and the very sacred WORD of God.
Jug,
No, it wasn't directed at you. It was more aimed at those who are defending being crude and engaging in all sorts of gymnastics to try and justify their position.
Thus far, we've seen Ezekiel and the Song of Solomon brought up as supposed examples of edgy language, which Phil just handled quite ably.
I've made the statement before and I'll make it again. It astounds me that we even have to have this kind of discussion in what are supposed to be conservative, Bible-preaching, Bible-believing churches.
I expect this kind of thing in the circles where Bishop Spong runs, but I don't expect it in ours. When I go to worship, fellowship with the saints and be edified from God's Word, I would rather know when coming home that I've been at church and not at a Jerry Springer taping.
Redbeard: "Christianity adapts to where it is..."
Red, I'm going to defer to Frank before commenting further, as I await his commentary with my trusty can o' Diet Coke in hand.
For the moment, I'll temporarily leave you with this thought: it is WE who must do the adapting and conforming [Christ in me/you, the hope of glory], not the other way round.
'til later, Lord willing.
Frank:
BAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!
Spot-on!
Sola,
Ah, good. I thought that you were perhaps commenting on the "meaning of lust" comments.
Jugulum,
I concur.
For the record, no I don't want this to be about pastor Driscoll. I'm concerned about the precedent set by a style that he is known by, and how some defend it. In particular in how this style reflects upon Christ and the Gospel.
If anything have posted has helped turn this meta into a "attack/defend" pastor Driscoll meta then I humbly apologize and ask forgiveness from my fellow readers and posters.
Thanks Frank
What Frank said.
+1000
Frank: excellent.
For Whatit is also worth, I think all the hypothetical questions (like "is he hurting the Gospel?" or "how does some unbeliever see this?") is utterly irrelevant.
The Gospel survived Medieval Roman Catholicism -- it can survive Mark Driscoll and xxxchurch. Unbelievers are spiritually blind -they are going to see things as the spiritually-blind see them.
The only question in play is the whether it's appropriate for a pastor to crack dirty jokes and speak of private virtues in a public place (therefore making them vices).
Red,
Please read 2 Timothy 2:22 and study the words 'youthful lusts'.
Throwing around accusations that profess to understand Phil Johnson's heart is nothing short of 'youthful lusts'. (Hint: You do not even understand your own heart--- Jer. 17:9)
You can critique Phil Johnson but remember he is your elder in the faith, with and established track record, and to discredit that is hubris on your part. (BTW I do not think that Phil is free from error, I would just address him differently than you.)
SCN's comment was deleted by me. More comments like that, SCN, and you're banned.
Why was my comment deleted Frank? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
You can as Pastor Hugh, SCN.
Your feigned ignorance seems, at least, a little chummy.
Frank, do you know who Pastor Hugh is? If you don't, ask Phil.
Redbeard:
You Wrote:
"Christianity adapts to where it is..."
If this were so, then we wouldn't have Foxe's Book of Martyrs today.
If you haven't read this highly "relevant" account of UNadaptive men and women, who shed their blood for the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, then I suggest treating yourself with this insightful look at real "engagement" with culture, dating back a few years before the 1950's. As you read, ask yourself what these dear brethren might think if they could look ahead, through the annals of time, and hear Driscoll's vulgarities intermingled with the glorious gospel of Christ they embraced upon their stakes, amidst the lions, and within the fires. Makes potty-mouth preaching look pretty absurd, does it not?
The joke was vulgar. However, I'll do this: if you e-mail Phil the post I deleted and ask him if I should have deleted it, I'll abide by his judgment, including an apology to you.
"Phil is from the 50s"
For the record, I am from the 1960s, was a teen and 20 something in the 80s and 90s, and I agreed with Phil then even when I didn't know who he was.
Just saying...
Joshua - Now THAT'S a red herring....
I’m not sure that it is. We’re discussing a penchant for a perverse, sex-laden attitude, in thought and word. Referring to one’s wife as “Smokin’ Hot” is indicative of that. “Lovely” – “Gracious” – “Beautiful” – and others, would all be, IMHO, acceptable adjectives to describe a Godly wife, not “Smokin’ Hot.” Hot, however modified, is a synonym of “sexy.” By referring to any woman as “sexy,” one is calling attention to, and inviting, lustful thoughts. Saying, “My Smokin’ Hot Wife,” is like saying, “Here, make my wife the object of you lustful thoughts. Go ahead, I don’t mind.”
This is a test of the emergencyt broadcast system. If this had been a real emergency, an uber long post would have followed this comment followed by explosions of Scripture laden logic.
LOL
The Squirrel
The joke was vulgar? really? It wasn't meant to be vulgar. It was meant to prove a point, and I think you just proved it.
Why don't you ask PJ who Pastor Hugh and his wife Laura is. He'll know.
Squirrel...you just earned a bucket of acorns.
Waiting for the e-mail from Phil, SCN -- until then you'll be best served to not draw this out.
Eric,
I refer you to what I said earlier:
"God gave us an entire book of the Bible devoted to the subjects of love, romance, marriage and sex."
Is it primarily about those things? Yes, I would say. And if we want to do justice to the text, we need to explain it so that our congregations can understand it. In a pornified, sick world like we live in, grasping how the Biblical pattern for life actually makes sense is vital.
Is there a subtext, a la Luke 24? Yes, of course! Christ can be found in all the scriptures. But surely you don't believe that means he is the primary focus of every verse?
What's your point?
no need to draw it out any further. The fact that you deleted it because it was "vulgar" proves the point I was trying to make. Like I said, ask Phil about Pastor Hugh and his wife Lara. He'll tell you all about them.
This is off-topic, and is a blog-rookie question:
Why is my blog showing as having linked to yours on this post? I don't object, but I'm not trying to take traffic from you guys and direct them to me. It's some kind of auto system that I don't get or activate. Just to let you know that.
Anyway. This is on topic: if we preach, we are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Should we not be open to the honest questions of other believers who also preach, study the word, and are guided by the same Spirit?
In other words, I, as a preacher, should never be so awesome that I neglect to listen to prayerful critique from honestly motivated fellow believers, especially preachers that have been around a while.
So, Phil, if you ever pass through here and want to critique, you're welcome to do so, as are any of you who will do so based on Biblical standards.
Just a thought to Frank and DJP,
I think it's perfectly natural for you to defend the cause and merit of Phil's post, especially given your close friendship. Also, I think the basic point you all seem to be making about holiness of speech in the pulpit is more than acceptable.
What I find frustrating is your quickness to pile on folks who take pro-Driscoll positions (as inconsistent as they might or might not be), without ever seeming to correct similar errors in arguments from pro-Phil commentators. I'd be happy to provide examples if you'd like, but I'm not really looking for a huge debate.
What this discussion seems to devolve into is party loyalties more than constructive exchange. I think it would add a level of credibility to your points if you corrected your teammates too. Maybe not?
Tournifreak
I can read just fine, you're the one who said; "Sanctification is not achieved through people being told to read their Bibles more and watch TV less."
Now, I also understand that you followed that up with a remark saying people need a biblical understanding of sex.
Here's the problem, sanctification is achieved through reading the scriptures and taking into your heart what it teaches. Biblical preaching is only one means of sanctification. Reading the word and meditating on it is extremely important. If people read their bibles more they will indeed be more sanctified. The more people understand the scriptures the more these problems take care of themselves.
Pastors are not sex counselors.
Chad V,
As I already admitted, I expressed that sentiment quite badly. I think if you had read what I wrote at 7:53am I think you will find that we are close to agreeing:
"Let me try again: Everyday Mommy suggested people with sexual baggage ought to be told to read their Bibles more. Obviously I agree that would help, because the Holy Spirit sanctifies us through the word. But, we have preachers and teachers in order to explain the Word, do we not? Specific teaching on the word fixes specific problems. The specific problem that a lot of people now have is an incredibly worldly view of human sexuality. Specific teaching on that subject will help fix their specific problem. Specific teaching may occasionally have to be direct and graphic, in the appropriate context (i.e. no kids, and with fore-warning!)"
And with that, I sign off. Not all of us are on the nice sunny Pacific coast!
Squirrel
"I’m not sure that it is."
I'm not condoning Red's words. What I'm saying is instead of addressing Red directly, everyday mommy steered her comment away from the subject at hand and instead made observations of Red's
blog.
We're disscussing vulgarity in the pulpit, not what Red writes about his wife. It's the equivalent of me debating someone on evolution and then saying "BTW, this person has a blog about why the Yankees are better than the Mets."
It serves NO purpose in dialogue.
That's all.
Tournifreak
Missed that follow up in the fray. Sorry.
Squirrel,
Your faithful definition of the current phrase du jour too many college kids at our church use to describe an attractive person of either sex is spot on. With your permission, I'm going to take it and use it, often and out loud, when the need next arises. As, sadly, it probably will.
To Tournifreak, Chad, etc:
It looks like y'all agree that there should be restrictions on more direct, specific teaching on sexual matters--"no children present", at least. But you disagree on others. Maybe it would help to narrow in on identifying the restrictions, and where you differ.
You agree on:
1.) No kids.
What about:
2.) No mixed company.
3.) No groups larger than X.
4.) No open groups, where a visitor might walk in.
Are there others that you have in mind?
It seems that Tourni doesn't agree with 2-4, and others insist on them. If so, then... Talk about why. Why does wisdom & propriety require (or not require) them?
As a reformed charismatic it's hard to know who frustrates me more, Phil Johnson and his fellows or Mark Driscoll and his, both wrapped up in their robes of self-righteousness and closing their eyes to 1 John 1:10's "If we say that we have not sinned we make Him a liar and His Word is not in us." something by which both are clearly fingered (James 2:10) as their manifest pride in refusing actual genuine personal interaction prevents each member from benefiting from God's charismata in the other (no matter Phil's silly cessationist eisegesis pretending there aren't any when he daily demonstrates his being graced of them, as with Calvin !).
The falsehoods "reformed" types tell about having God's Word as ULTIMATE authority (so long as one leaves out Genesis and Jesus and creation, refuted with Biblical creation at www.creationontheweb.com) are legion, as well as the several lies told about my own charismatic fellowship that flatly contradicted my own eyewitness testimony in their vain attempt to prop up their cessationist eisegesis.
Sadly it seems that in God's inscrutable sovereign plan He's preventing reconciliation in His Church, at least presently, so that He will get all the glory for it happening, as we'd surely take the credit for it if we could manage it. May God drive us to our knees to repent of the stench of pride that is just as odious among "true" evangelicals as among "post" evangelicals, again as 1 John 1:8-10 above makes plain.
God save us all.
I truly enjoyed Phil's message. I thought he was very on target, and I hope Mark Driscoll will receive it for the good, Biblical counsel that it is(and not totally aimed at him, as some seem to think). I listen to Driscoll from time to time, but I can't abide listening to him for long because I can't agree that his language is Biblical by any stretch of the imagination. The same goes for these other pastor's who seem to dwell on such language and topics.
Umm Russ...?? Oh never mind.
Changed my mind...
Russ, if you're going to add to the conversation, leave out the falsehoods and silliness.
Try at least...
Russ: "As a reformed charismatic..."
No you didn't. Yes, you did.
Never mind.
Russ Said:
The falsehoods "reformed" types tell about having God's Word as ULTIMATE authority (so long as one leaves out Genesis and Jesus and creation, refuted with Biblical creation at www.creationontheweb.com) are legion, as well as the several lies told about my own charismatic fellowship that flatly contradicted my own eyewitness testimony in their vain attempt to prop up their cessationist eisegesis.
Ummmm...huh? What? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
Russ,
So brave behind a keyboard... Some how I doubt you would term Phil's Biblical exegesis of the Scriptures in regards to non-normative signs and wonders as " silly cessationist eisegesis" if you were to meet him in person.
There's no room for that here, Russ.
Joshua ,
My position is that Red’s invitation to view his wife as a sexual object could be seen as indicative of a less-than-sanctified view of sex, which would prevent him from discerning the inappropriateness of the type of speech in the pulpit to which Phil referred in his session at the Shepherds’ Conference. In that light, referring to Red’s blog is not out of order. Goes to the creditability of the witness, your honor.
The Squirrel
Russ,
As a reformed open-but-cautious:
I'll tell you what's not helpful: Coming out of nowhere with sweeping, generalized criticisms about lies and pride--some of which have little or nothing to do with the current topic. With no interaction with Phil's specific concerns.
If you think you see genuine problems in the way someone is speaking or believing, there are better ways to handle it. More direct, specific, evaluate-able ways to criticize.
Your approach did much to affirm non-charismatics' perceptions of charismatics.
Andy --
Go ahead and tell us what you mean specifically. I am certain there's nothing you can bring up which, frankly, I haven't confessed to already.
I'd be glad to compare your examples to the examples Phil has already provided via his talk.
With your permission, I'm going to take it and use it, often and out loud, when the need next arises.
OK, Raechel... Just wear a hat...
(c:
The Squirrel
Redbeard wrote:
"Mark Driscoll does not answer to Johnson or MacArthur because they are not elders at his church nor are [sic] really all that concerned with actually dealing with the issue with him. A Letter? An Email?"
MacArthur and Johnson both e-mailed Driscoll.
Are you kidding me??? You've just verified that you did NOT read this blog post, assuming the [sic] is supposed to be a pronoun in reference to MacArthur and Johnson ... unbelievable... you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy on this issue until you apologize for such misguided ignorance.
Rachael not Raechel :-)
The Squirrel
Doug Hibbard,
"Why is my blog showing as having linked to yours on this post?"
It's because you have TeamPyro in your blogroll. And blogspot includes a link to the most recent entry--so your blog will always link to whatever the most recent entry is.
Is striving to be like Jesus and live a holy life before the One who can kill your body and cast your soul into hell become some kind of shame for Christians (and their shepherds) to pursue?
http://www.thetruthofchrist.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the response Phil,
I went with Ezekiel 16 becuse it was the first one I could think of off the top of my head there are severl passages in Isaiah and Maalachi that use preaty rough languge also. But I couldnt remember the particuler passages the one in Isaiah has to do with The Assyrian govner telling The Isralites that they will be rduced to drinking there own excremt if they dont surender (trying to keep it clean) and Malachi Chapter 2:3 has refrnces to dung being spread on the faces of the preists (I think). Of course that's in the King James Version the NKJV cleans it up and makes it refuse. As far as Ezekiel 23:20 I didnt even think of that one. As James White says The Gospel is ours to proclaim not to edit and I think that apllies to useing corse gutter languge also. May You live in intresting times my friend.
Squirrel
"My position is that Red’s invitation to view his wife as a sexual object"
I'm not convinced that's what he was doing. Might it have that effect? sure. In any case, it's not arguing, it's saying, " Red said this about his wife, so obviously he doesn't know what he is talking about...."
It's not an argument, it's a red herring.
God bless.
A little more feedback, but first here's a reminder of what I said in my previous comment:
"Let me just say I appreciated Tim Challies' early take on our comment-thread: "To this point it seems a very grace-filled discussion." Please keep it grace-filled. Especially if you are positioning yourself on my side of the controversy. I think we can do better than we often do, and since this thread involves the importance of guarding one's tongue, let's be serious about that duty, OK?"
SCN: "vulgar? really? It wasn't meant to be vulgar. It was meant to prove a point, and I think you just proved it."
Some words, including a few classic biblical terms such as "ass," are capable of multiple meanings, some inappropriate, some not necessarily so. If the immediate context of that word included pictures of a donkey, I'd give the speaker the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for the comments, though. Sincerely. I do think you make a valid point, regardless of how you chose to make it.
Also, in a similar vein: I can't remember and can't seem to find which commenter suggested that the Po-Motivators reflect a level of sophomoric humor, silliness, or sarcasm that proves Phil Johnson hasn't always been the paragon of watchful dignity. To whoever made that observation, here's my reply:
Point taken. But you could surely find better examples than the Po-Motivators if you wanted to cite examples of reckless or misplaced jesting from me. I'm certainly not proud of every parody I have ever invented or every wisecrack I have made. The sudden rise of profaneness in the pulpit over the past 3 years is one of the things that has driven me to rethink how freely we ought to indulge in hard-edged humor.
Russ: "no matter Phil's silly cessationist eisegesis pretending there aren't any when he daily demonstrates his being graced of them"
I didn't quite follow that, but if you think I'm denying my own dependence on the Spirit's gifts, you have probably completely misunderstood my "silly cessationist eisegesis."
Russ: "May God drive us to our knees to repent of the stench of pride that is just as odious among 'true' evangelicals as among 'post' evangelicals, again as 1 John 1:8-10 above makes plain."
That I can say amen to. In fact I made that very point in my other seminar last week.
Are we about finished with this thread? I realize we could probably stretch this to another 1000-comment post, but does anyone really think that is necessary? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Unless someone gives me a strong reason not to, I'm going to close the thread at 6:00 PM PDT.
Josh:
It's not a red herring. It's an observation of the predilection of the commenter which goes to the veracity of his comments on the subject of lewdness from the pulpit.
jules
"Eric,
I refer you to what I said earlier:
"God gave us an entire book of the Bible devoted to the subjects of love, romance, marriage and sex."
Is it primarily about those things? Yes, I would say. And if we want to do justice to the text, we need to explain it so that our congregations can understand it. In a pornified, sick world like we live in, grasping how the Biblical pattern for life actually makes sense is vital.
Is there a subtext, a la Luke 24? Yes, of course! Christ can be found in all the scriptures. But surely you don't believe that means he is the primary focus of every verse?
What's your point?"
Tournifreak,
I'm not sure why you felt the need to refer me to that quote, as I was the one who refreshed your memory to that quote after you said: "Did I ever say the primary function of SoS was a sexual handbook?" Can't you see how you've contradicted yourself?
The point I originally made to you was that the whole Old Testament first and foremost points us to Christ. Am I saying that that purpose can be found and identified in every word, phrase, or verse? No. But if you read SoS first and foremost as a book about sex, you miss the main point. That I am confident of.
Everyday Mommy,
alright. I kinda see what you mean.
Sorry if I offended.
God bless.
excellent post Dr. Johnson. Just one thing too remember (myself included): When you publically name names and criticize other pastors especially those who are sincere and whose theology is relatively close to you (even if it is called for biblically) you will hurt those who depend on him for biblical teaching. I know Driscoll is a celebrity and all but he is a pastor first and if someone attacked my pastor (even justly) I would be extremely defensive of him. It is hard to be objective to those you feel close too.
Josh:
No offense taken lil' bro :)
Keep reading Pyro!
jules
Joshua,
I doubt that you've offended anyone. Certainly not me :-)
My logic works this way:
If it is a sin to desire/covet a woman not your wife;
Then what righteousness is there in drawing attention of other men to the desirablity of your own wife?
It dishonors her, and it dishonors the other men.
The Squirrel
"...but does anyone really think
that is necessary?"
No.
Has Pastor Driscoll's video response to Phil's questions been posted somewhere? I read the 6 questions and I think they are very fair questions. i think it would be fair to Mark and to those of us who like Mark to see his response. Would that be possible?
(Sorry, this is the second repost of my last comment. I just want to be careful about what I write.)
Solameanie wrote up above:
"...I expect this kind of thing in the circles where Bishop Spong runs, but I don't expect it in ours...."
The really sad part is that, most liberal, mainline churches would probably avoid such open vulgarity, because its pastors understand that it would be offensive—this regardless of what we may think of their overall theology, social positions, approach to Scripture, etc.
They may avoid it for the wrong reasons—not wanting to offend being the primary reason, rather than not wanting to dishonour the Gospel—but if they who otherwise take such liberties with Scripture can avoid it, why can't some of our evangelical brethren?
The Gospel faithfully preached is inherently divisive—and for that matter, inherently counter-cultural. Why would we want to make it any more divisive by piling on unnecessary stumbling blocks?
SCN,
Read Phil's post. He didn't respond to these questions.
It would be helpful if everyone actually read the post by Pastor Johnson.
SCN: Please note..."His reply also ignored the six questions enumerated in my letter. Instead, he answered a question of his own choosing, saying he believed that one answer would suffice as an answer to all my questions."
Hayden: (to SCN) "Read Phil's post. He didn't respond to these questions."
I think SCN's point is that all anyone here has is my word for that. Some might judge Mark's reply to me differently than I myself do.
Fair enough. Let me write Mark and see if he has any objection to the posting of that video.
Give me a few days to work through the process, though. I'm headed out of town tomorrow and won't be back till late next week.
Incidentally, I know I said 6:00pm, but I have to leave the office in less than 15 minutes. On hearing no further objections, I'm going to close this thread at 5:30pm. Thanks to all for your feedback, including those who vehemently disagree with my POV.
Perhaps we'll take this topic up again in the near future. Personally, I'm hoping tomorrow's subject is something sunnier.
Hey: How about we talk about the iMonk's article in the Christian Science Monitor? From my first quick reading, it sounded to me like what he said in that piece was right on target. Think about it, and we'll talk when I get back in a couple of days.
See you in a day or two.
"What my message actually decried was the atmosphere in evangelical and post-evangelical circles that deliberately glorifies everything lewd and lowbrow at the expense of any serious call for holiness."
What serious action needs to take place? Long slow death, or does the church and the world need to see what church discipline is all about?
The following was written earlier, but it now seems rerelevantasmic. The observation, though it sounds obsurd, is really sound. In todays world there is no room left for non-separation. As noted, what bars any performance on the stage we now call the pulpit? Here Redbeard will fall on his sword defending the new cultural milieu as demanding modification. The point is what does Scripture clearly teach concerning these things. Not, what can we stuff into the parameterless parsing of possible permutations. It is long, but by now everyone has fallen to sleep, so it does not matter anyway ;P
We need to know who is a legitimate authority and the Bible speaks clearly to that character required.
Redbeard-
Driscoll says he has submitted himself to others. Driscoll is not submitted to his own Elders, or he wouldn'd be their Archegos. Why would we expect him to really be submitted to others?
Some have asked of Piper, et al, why? Their answers are equivocations like Driscoll's. They enable and in doing so partake of his actions, whether they think they do, or not.
As standard bearers, the ministry is not called to swim in the cess pool. It is called to rescue out, and in such a way as not to become one of the droppings in it, hating, get that, hating, even the garment stained by sin. In other words, it is a messy business to spank Driscoll and one must be careful on two fronts: not compromising and not lording over him in a legalistic way. It is not a matter of superiority, but of communion.
A long history of infection control has taught the medical industry a simple truth: even what is not seen can kill as certainly as that which can. In preparation, proceedure, dressing and sterilization, attention to minutiae is vital. You see, malpractice is the careless handling of the patient and where we know and do not take action we are liable and where we practice but do not know, we are likewise liable.
The faith is a work of certainty. From all angles, Driscoll is approved as a physician by his adherents and supporters. And, then there are those who see what is being done and it does not accord with sound doctrine or practice. For them to remain silent makes them malfeasant, also.
It is like bystander-apathy. We cannot stand by and watch as innocence is betrayed no matter how popular he is, or who supports him. He is wrong, and the leaders in the Reformed camp are wrong to embrace him without proper discipline, and if necessary, disfellowship.
Some have suggested that Driscoll take a sabbatical, two year or so. Let his ministry, including his hand picked men, come under the oversight of proven men. Let him be John Mark. Let it be proven that his followers are indeed disciples and that they do not follow a cult personality. Let it be tested whether they can be disciplined, like their leader, in the unadulterated Word of God. It is simple. If they and Driscoll are earnest, this would be an easy thing to submit themselves to. It's not forced compliance, it's requested, but refusal is a much as an admission of guilt.
Even from what you have said, carelessness appears the ethic. Even at that, if earnestness is the desire, then let the borrower become slave to the lender, let him truly submit and not offer the mixed message of repentance and then continuance. This also goes for those who have befriended him whose weight is great on his side of the scale. They are also being called to account. They need to remember that the council of Jerusalem held no power over the Truth, and Peter and James were held to account for their actions as any others would be. Now the promise of Scripture is that those who doubt this power will see when the day comes just what materials they built with. And what we desire is that no one will suffer loss on that day. The day can be any day. Go ask Haggard, or any number of men whose pop following made them what the were, while either their doctrine or behaviors were their undoing.
Is what we desire is that God would give Driscoll over? Not at all, but we understand that God does at times turn men over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh. We understand that the faith of many is overthrown by mean of corrupt ways. We also understand that when the prince is a child the people mourn.
This is not to bring question as to their salvation, or even their calling for that matter, it is to test whether or not either is true. How do I derive the difference. Paul indicates with Timothy that he was born to his calling, yet taught him to study so that his calling would be assayed by the evidence produced. The calling is to be struggled for to secure it not merely for ourselves but by that others will see and be built up. We all stand by some measure, being tested by God to show those things in us which remain imperishable.
At this point, MD's recalcitrant attitude testifies against him that he is not a man called to fill such a beautiful office.
Post a Comment