Grunge Christianity?
December 11th, 2006
Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel
(by John MacArthur)
One of the favorite topics on the evangelical agenda these days is how the church should “engage the culture.” Do Christians need to imitate the boorish aspects of a quickly-decaying civilization in order to remain “relevant”? Some evidently think so.
We keep hearing from evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture.
You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can’t minister effectively if don’t speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don’t vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christanity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times.
Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are worldly. They just don’t want to be thought uncool.
That way of thinking has been around at least since modernism began its aggressive assault on biblical Christianity in the Victorian era. For half a century or more, most evangelicals resisted the pragmatic thrust of the modernist argument, believing it was a fundamentally worldly philosophy. They had enough biblical understanding to realize that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
But the mainstream evangelical movement gave up the battle against worldliness half a century ago, and then completely capitulated to pragmatism just a couple of decades ago. After all, most of the best-known megachurches that rose to prominence after 1985 were built on a pragmatic philosophy of giving “unchurched” people whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable. Why would anyone criticize what “works”?
Whole churches have thus deliberately immersed themselves in “the culture”—by which they actually mean “whatever the world loves at the moment.” We now have a new breed of trendy churches whose preachers can rattle off references to every popular icon, every trifling meme, every tasteless fashion, and every vapid trend that captures the fickle fancy of the postmodern secular mind.
Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.
Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.
Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”
I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.
Some of the things Driscoll talks freely and frequently about involve words and subject matter I would prefer not even to mention in public, so I am not going to quote or describe the objectionable parts. Besides, the issue has already been discussed and dissected at several blogs. Earlier this year, Tim Challies cited one typical example of Driscoll’s vulgar flippancy from Confessions of a Reformission Rev. The sermons I listened to also included several from Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” series, including the one Phil Johnson critiqued in October.
The point I want to make is not about Driscoll’s language per se, but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to “engage the culture.” It’s possible to be overexposed to our culture’s dark side. I don’t think anyone can survive full immersion in today’s entertainments and remain spiritually healthy.
Let’s face it: Many of the world’s favorite fads are toxic, and they are becoming increasingly so as our society descends further in its spiritual death-spiral. It’s like a radioactive toxicity, so while those who immerse themselves in it might not notice its effects instantly, they nevertheless cannot escape the inevitable, soul-destroying contamination. And woe to those who become comfortable with the sinful fads of secular society. The final verse of Romans 1 expressly condemns those “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we’re not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it.
We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, “while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.”
When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn’t adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God’s Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That’s to be expected. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
Even Jesus’ high priestly prayer included a thorough description of the Christian’s proper relationship with and attitude toward the world: “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14-16).
Whenever Jesus spoke of believers’ being in the world, He stated that if we are faithful, the world will be a place of hostility and persecution, not a zone of comfort. He also invariably followed that theme with a plea for our sanctification (cf. John 17:17-19).
The problem with the “grunge” approach to religion is that it works against the sanctifying process. In fact, in one of the messages I listened to, Driscoll actually boasted that his sanctification goes no higher than his shoulders. His defense of substitutionary atonement might help his disciples gain a good grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith; but the lifestyle he models—especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world’s filthy fads—practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification.
I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be “culturally relevant” Christians should participate in society’s growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?
I know of a Church (local fellowship) less than 8 miles from where I live, where the Pastor lets a group of the Youth play in their band and serves as a “ministry extension” of the local fellowship. The terms EMO and Punk Rock Christian Band are used and they go and play at venues with secular bands. He, (the Pastor) and others have heard warning trumpets from others and myself that this is not fitting for those who name the Name of The Lord Jesus. Something that a Christian should not be involved in even to spread the Gospel (1 Thess 5:22, 1 Cor 2:1 -5), and we could could go on and on. Just because they say “Jesus loves you” in one of their songs does not denote presenting the Gospel by far. By listening to the lyrics of their band and any other so called Christian Punk Rock Band, the predominate “theme” is not the Gospel but “all about me” and self esteem. Should be right at home in the Mega Church in Houston, Texas. Anyway this turning to the world for answers for how to evangelize and spread the Goepel, is very, very dangerous and saddening.
I think worldliness has to be properly defined. David Wells defines worldliness like this: “that system of values, in any given age, which has at its center our fallen human perspective, which displaces God and his truth from the world, and which makes sin look normal and righteousness seem strange. It thus gives great plausibility to what is morally wrong and, for that reason, makes what is wrong seem normal” (Losing our Virtue, 4). From this, I’d paraphrase it by saying, “Worldliness is a way of valuing things based on a fallen human perspective, not God and his truth, which makes sin seem normal and righteousness seem strange.”
Driscoll may have said wrong things or sinned in his engagement with the world, but those things need to be properly and clearly communicated. Engaging the world, even knowing the latest fads is not sinful in and of itself. Whether God and his truth are the controlling paradigms through which one sees the things in the world is the issue. In my limited exposure to Driscoll, I think he helps people see the worlds thinking from a Christian and biblical worldview and models discernment by contrasting current worldly philosophy with robust reformed theology. His language can be inappropriate, and on that level he should be confronted (and has been and has repented). But I think MacArthur may misunderstand Driscoll when he says:
“The point I want to make is not about Driscoll’s language per se, but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to ‘engage the culture.’ It’s possible to be overexposed to our culture’s dark side. I don’t think anyone can survive full immersion in today’s entertainments and remain spiritually healthy.”
I don’t think Driscoll embraces the godless worldliness of ignoring God and his truth on the issues he discusses in reference to recent fads or icons, I think he brings God’s revelation to bear on those issues. I think his language is at times inappropriate and that should be dealt with, and to necessarily connect to worldliness might be too hasty a conclusion.
To Tim Shumate: Thanks for your concern about lyrics that disguise themselves as Christian but do not communicate Christ-centered values. I think the problem is in the lyrics and the worldview of the song through its lyrics and not necessarily the style of music (EMO, punk rock, hip-hop, or whatever).
I’m afraid that Donald Miller never mentions the last name of “Mark the Cussing Pastor”, either on p. 133 or in the acknowledgments on p. 241. While, he definitely may seem to fit this description, this may represent a pastor who was very early in his ministry. I think a bit of grace could be extended. I know I regret even the smallest things I’ve said in years past.
He has responded in a way that is humble to criticism, and he has used his words to extend grace to even his critics.
Perhaps this part is a bit subjective?
His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.
Unfortunately, even with the editor’s comments (which are quite helpful, thank you), I think this article may present an unfair approach to Mark Driscoll.
John,
MacArthur wrote: “Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are worldly. They just don’t want to be thought uncool.”
With all due respect, you are moving from rhetorical conclusion to rhetorical conclusion. No christian that is interested in contextualizing their approach to culture will make such a caricature out of stating that it’s simply about “looking cool” in front of nonchristians. Contextualization is far more mature and deeper than that.
MacArthur: “That way of thinking has been around at least since modernism began its aggressive assault on biblical Christianity in the Victorian era. For half a century or more, most evangelicals resisted the pragmatic thrust of the modernist argument, believing it was a fundamentally worldly philosophy. They had enough biblical understanding to realize that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).”
James 4:4 has nothing to do with dealing with Pragmatism. How you try to enforce this interpretation on such a passage would be faulty. James is actually dealing with christians who are not being pragmatic enough; that christians are not doing what they are supposed to be doing and that they are habitually imitating the world’s ethics.
MacArthur: But the mainstream evangelical movement gave up the battle against worldliness half a century ago, and then completely capitulated to pragmatism just a couple of decades ago. After all, most of the best-known megachurches that rose to prominence after 1985 were built on a pragmatic philosophy of giving “unchurched” people whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable. Why would anyone criticize what “works”?
I am not defending those megachurches, but I am going to say without hesitation that there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic. And that does not mean one will need to subscribe to the revivalist methods of Charles Finney. It simply means that christians are fault to think that is the only way in being a pragmatic agent in culture and in the Church. The only problem with Pragmatism is that they sought to redefine epistemology, not the way in which one does something and to see if it contextualizes appropriately with the culture.
MacArthur: “In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out.”
You can only pose a problem about this if you can successfully deem that exposure to these things are definitively sinful. Mark Driscoll has said numerous times that we are not to be imitators of what we see in the world’s culture.
MacArthur: “Some of the things Driscoll talks freely and frequently about involve words and subject matter I would prefer not even to mention in public, so I am not going to quote or describe the objectionable parts.”
As I am reminded over and over again, there are numerous things in Sacred Scripture that would be deemed “objectionable.” Mark Driscoll seems pretty bare in comparison to passages like Ezekiel 23. The Song of Solomon was forbidden to be read by children by the Jewish culture, but it is laid bare and open in public for us to read as a Church.
MacArthur: “The point I want to make is not about Driscoll’s language per se, but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to “engage the culture.”
I recognize that this is supposed to be dually a reproach on Driscoll as well as instruction for other christians, but to merge to the two by using the type of language you are using becomes disingenuous. Driscoll has never claimed that one has to imitate the world in order to reach it. Nor would Driscoll say that Romans 1 is the only way to engage culture. Contextualization again, is much more than that. Not only do we find it in Driscoll, but also preachers like Tim Keller.
MacArthur wrote: “We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, “while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.”
Paul being “repulsed” here would not be an accurate plain reading of Acts 17:16. The language used in that specific passage in facts communicates more of an idea of compassion rather than of hatred.
MacArthur: In fact, in one of the messages I listened to, Driscoll actually boasted that his sanctification goes no higher than his shoulders. His defense of substitutionary atonement might help his disciples gain a good grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith; but the lifestyle he models—especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world’s filthy fads—practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification.
You have failed to mention that Driscoll, although at times may laugh at himself (which is good to do with our own failures) does not boast that he has used some vulgar language in the past. In fact he admits that is something he has repented of in the past when it was a lot worse. (Listen to his sermons from Piper’s conference) However, not all “inappropriate language” is deemed vulgar, and in fact “harsher” language can be used meaningfully to portray a deeper thought or a figure of speech. Driscoll does not use in-your-face language for the sake of just shock value, but to get across a crucial point or to even tell a story. And to quickly make a judgment on him without knowing that would be a failure to notice the distinctions. Here is a big example from Apostle Paul;
Philippians 3:8b;
“For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.”
In the exact vernacular of the 1st century, that Greek word is the equivalent to using the word **** in our day.
Does not the Bible say “come out from the world and be different” and ” Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”? If we renew our mind from a sinful life style and transform our mind like the Bible says HOW can we let this junk into our churches today??? If we are like the world we are not being transformed, this covers all areas of our life. ie. language, music, worship, thought processes etc, etc… How can you DARE worship The One and only God of the universe, Saviour of the world, with “punk rock” or “grunge worship”?
Instead of trying to get as close to the world as possible maybe we should try to get the world out of our church!
Albert,
Don’t let your training in rhetoric cause you to over analyze and inadvertently redefine pragmatism. When Driscol uses crass language and coarse language and coarse jesting to engage the culture he is being pragmatic–doing what “works” as opposed to doing what is holy…falling into a thought process involving “the end justifies the means” type of approach. This is very much a friendship with the world mentality…
Christ was very much unlike the world, his language was never crass, and He did not emulate the people He reached He only reached out to them and called them to repentance and faith. Dining with tax collectors is not acting like tax collectors.
The best of intentions by men like Driscol cannot justify behavior that does not exalt Christ.
Albert,
Could you please exegete James 4:4 from the Greek and set the context of the book for us?
Hayden
“remain spiritually healthy.”
This is such a good study. These are words needed. I pray the Church would have ears to listen.
Thank you Pastor MacArthur.
“Dining with taxcollectors is not acting like tax collectors.”
So true. So simple. And yet so hard for many to grasp.
We are either Pharisees, condemning those who eat with sinners, or we are becoming friends with the world in an unhealthy way. Our salt has no saltiness, and that can be in either case.
“Be not deceived: evil companionships corrupt good manners.
Awake to righteousness, and sin not; … Therefore, my beloved brethern, be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for you can know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” 1 Cor. 15:33-34;58
In his enthusiasm, “David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the Lord with all his might.”
Michal, representing a royal lineage in decline, says, “How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would.” David’s reply, “I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.”
Michal, daughter of the discredited former king Saul, criticized King David with that word “vulgar.” As a popular and charismatic leader, David knew that being “undignified” and “humiliated” would displease the upperclasses (represented by the royal line of Saul and Michal), but would inspire the lower classes, the slave girls of the servants.
These would be the poor and oppressed whom Jesus came to save.
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ’sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”
“The Pharisees and the Scribes who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, ‘Why do you eat and drink wih tax collectors and sinners?’”
The cultural, idiomatic equivalent of being a friend of tax collectors and sinners, of being a glutton and a drunkard is something like this:
“Your master is a party animal.” This is the allegation of Jesus’ critics, not his disciples.
“I am made All things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
We live in a culturally disparate nation, with a huge diversity of goups with differing attitudes, values, and musical tastes. No one congregation or denomination is flexible enough to be able to minister to them all. If one group is making a successful effort to engage a major sub-group, then more power to them.
Why Rev. MacArthur would zero in on a fruitful new outreach is perplexing if the furtherance of the gospel is his primary concern. There are many motivations for writing a section like this.
Musical innovations are typical sources of controversy in the church. In the middle ages music in a minor key was controversial (they were considered demonic. The introduction of hymns in the English church was controversial (singing the Psalms was totally Biblical adequate for worship). The “contemporary Christian music” spawned by the venerable Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel and Maranatha Music was controversial.
Tongue in cheek, Larry Norman sang: “Why let the Devil have all the good music.” The music referred to is virtually “elevator music” today.
“So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block in your brother’s way.”
“So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.”
“Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you.”
“Let us then make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.”
What Paul wrote about are now considered grey areas for Christians, areas where legitimate differences are allowable. But notice that the Sabbath observance turmoil is rooted in interpreting and applying one of the Ten Commandments, as is eating meat offered to idols which deals with idologry.
Certainly if Sabbath observance and idolotrous meat, which are rooted in a debate over the meaning of Scripture, are LEGITIMATE GREY AREAS for Christian, then certainly the question of “grunge,” which is NOT a subject of Scripture, should not be a subject of debate.
Why is Rev. MacArthur not willing to heed the thrust of Romans 14, especially Paul’s admonition, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.”
Rev. MacArthur is preoccupied with questions of personal taste, questions of personal preferences in style, and personal determinations of propriety.
Rev. MacArthur focuses on questions of taste, style and propriety throughout this excerpt. His reference to “every tasteless fashion” is totally subjective. His community of faith may share his aesthetic values, but the example set in this tract of prescriptive homiletical aesthetics is quite unbiblical.
Taste only becomes a spiritual issue when it becomes divisive, the source of unmerited polemic.
The church’s goal is to convert people to Christ, not to convert them to evangelical culture.
Referring to Mark Driscoll, he writes, “his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ.”
This is the reply of Scripture to Rev. MacArthur’s attack on Driscoll:
“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.”
Rev. MacArthur poses a rhetorical question which merits a brief reply. “Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?”
There are two meanings of “culture” relevant here. One involves culture as it exists, as in “black culture,” “American culture,” or “church culture.” The other refers generally to the upper-class or highly educated phenomenon reflected in statements like, “She’s got a lot of culture,” or “He was the product of a highly refined culture.”
Many versions of culture can be cultivated. Mrs. Jones can cultivate a refined cultural persona in order to fit in at church, and Mr. Smith can cultivate a vulgar cultural persona to fit in with the unsaved. It’s a choice. Two choices with two goals: one to fit in, one to reach out.
Jesus “cultivated” a vulgar cultural persona by humbling himself, and taking the form of a man. The Incarnation is Jesus’ example of deliberately changing cultures in order to reach people.
The scribes and Pharisees clung to their refined “church culture” to remain in good standing with their colleagues, thereby preserving their status in the community.
Rev. MacArthur bemoans the “use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit.”
What is the mission of the church, to bring justice and salvation to the world, or restore “polite society”? People avoid the churches, not just because they hate the light, but also because they know that culturally and linguistically they don’t fit in. The salvation of the poor and oppressed does not include classes in etiquette and good manners!
Rev. MacArthur’s main Scriptural basis for his critique is based on a fuzzy, subjective, and superficial application of “worldliness.”
Jesus was accused of “worldliness” by the respectable religious, but the worldliness of the respectable religious is the greatest danger facing evangelicals, and especially ordained clergy. Jesus’ most stinging rebukes were for the religious leaders, not for vulgar “sinners.”
MacArthur criticizes the “mega-church” approach as “a pragmatic philosophy of giving ‘unchurched’ people whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable.”
I am no fan of mega-churches. Having said that, his comment requires comment. First, different congregations are “comfortable” with different things. Some church members aren’t happy if they’re not made to feel guilty by the preacher. Other church members are only comfortable with hymns by Luther, or Wesley, or Fannie Crosby. Other church members are only comfortable if they can exercise glossalalia with or without interpretation. Other church members are only comfortable with expository preaching.
Every ordained minister had better be concerned with what makes his congregation “comfortable.”
Certainly Jesus made people–other than Scribes and Pharisees–feel comfortable. The common people heard him gladly. The Woman’s Accusers felt distinctly uncomfortable, but Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you.”
I could go on. I am disappointed by this section by Rev. MacArthur. His fiery rhetoric is mere opinion. He esteems values and goals which have no Scriptural merit, but reflect mere matters of taste and a class-based sense of propriety. What is he really fighting for?
Personally, I believe this reveals a battle over turf. His “opponents” are admittedly orthodox, but have a popular “style” which reflects their committed determination to understand and reach millions of unchurched people, and to minister to tens of thousands of alienated young people.
Am I uninformed, someone please help? I was under the impression that Pastor Mark Driscoll has been showing definite distance from the ECM, admitting his previous errors in that and more specifically repenting of pulpit language that he now considers inappropriate. If he has recently repented of a method he previously used, it seems to me a critic should be clearly supportive of his current attempts to change. I say this not knowing the specifics of Mark Driscoll’s past preaching or his current preaching, so someone please help me. Because I believe the ECM will be a short lived movement, as it lacks fundamental doctrinal undergirding, as more and more pastors depart from ECM pragmatic practices, I hope we embrace their repentance – evaluating them not from where they were but where they are. Hope I am not sounding too critical of MacArthur here, ans again I admit I might be misinformed about the current direction of Pastor Driscoll. Please help me someone?
Don Sands, one word on your translation. Try this translation: “Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character.” Other translations read “good morals.” Good manners are no indicator of good character or good morals.
I count Scribes and Pharisees among the bad company which corrupts good character.
The issue that John is addressing which is the issue in the “new” church is this exaltation and thus preoccupation with pragmatism. The “whatever works” taken to the level of “whatever it takes” that has become the mantra of the “new” church. Not every church is at the same level or is going to the same length in their approach, but once accomadation is made at any level they are on a slippery slope which will lead them further and further down the path of worldliness and will dampen and eventually deaden their spiritual discernment.
The old adage that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it is true hear as well. We should pay attention to what happened to evangelicalism in our country as it accomadated the modernistic culture. Look at the recent incidents in the Episcopal Church and the PC USA, look at the proliferation of female pastors in most mainline denominations. Accomadation always leads to compromise, compromise always continues to compromise until their is only a shadowy resemblance of the original.
On a short other note, if Mark Driscoll has truly repented, then he would flatly state that his vulgarity was wrong and sinful and take his previous sermons and destroy them so that they would not lead anyone else astray or offend anyone else.
Morris Brooks recently commented, “…if Mark Driscoll has truly repented, then he would flatly state that his vulgarity was wrong and sinful and take his previous sermons and destroy them so that they would not lead anyone else astray or offend anyone else.” Yes, this is reasonable and I am wondering if anyone has information concerning: 1.) In what way has Mark Driscoll repented, i.e., what did he specifically say about what specifically? and 2.) Has he cleaned up his tape archives to reflect a sincere desire to remove any stumbling?
Mark Driscoll helped reveal Christ to me, each week he exalts the name of and points to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is a standout in Seattle of pastors who preach through the biblical text, talk about Jesus and are not “open and affirming of all lifestyle choices”. He is not perfect, he is a man. It is unfortunate that some of his temporally offensive terminology bother your heart to this degree, and your concern for fellow Christians being misled is desirable. But it pains me to see you address him like this. Is this open rebuke of his preaching style the right way to go about a Christian correction? You have a large platform pastor, were you unable to approach Mark on a personal level, pastor to pastor, to air your concerns and understand a fellow Christian pastors stance and see his love of Jesus?
Am I missing something? Do not all Reformed believers hold the doctrine that salvation is solely the work of GOD? If so then why is there any need to be culturally relevant?
Once you have translated the bible into English, put on American style clothing and stood up to preach, are you not making your presentation culturally relevant?
Bob, language is part of culture. So is wearing clothes. If we don’t need to be culturally relevant, then it would be okay for us to fly to France and start preaching in English, and if that didn’t communicate, we could all remove our clothes.
The greek of the New Testament is koine greek, or common greek. It wasn’t refined like classical greek. It was common, or vulgar, greek. The language of streets.
(But then, you’re writing tongue in cheek, right?)
OK — as a guy “on the team” (I guess) who would agree with everything Dr. MacArthur wrote here, I have a question about this issue of engagement which I have not seen too many of the “emerging” types take up against their critics. And I offer it because I’m not sure I have an answer to the question, but I’m hoping that if Phil gets better soon, or Nathan is reading, or if Dr. MacArthur himself has a moment, there might be some interaction with this idea.
In Phillipians 1, Pauls writes this:
12I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, 13so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. 14And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
15Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.[ESV]
Paul’s perspective here is either confusing or shocking, especially given the strong language of the letter to the Galatians. He says, in effect, that as long as the actual Gospel is preached, the faults of the preachers ought to be overlooked. As long as Christ is proclaimed, men who preach out of envy or rivalry (and one assumes this might also include vanity — the motive to be seen as one kind or another of man) should be rejoiced over.
On the one hand, I think this is a great rebuke to those who find contenders for the truth offensive and unloving. But on the other hand, I think it gives us contenders a moment of pause to think that perhaps someone like Driscoll — as long as his theology is not rank heresy — is allowed a certain degree of license.
Any comments about that?
Whyte, Thanks for your response but my point was not tongue in cheek. I understand what you’re saying but respectfully it does not answer the question. Why does GOD need me to reach to the lowest common denominator in my efforts to witness to the Lost when all who will be saved have already been chosen by HIM? Is there any biblical support for this? In CHRIST alone.
Anthony,
I admire your appreciation of Pastor Driscoll’s impact in your life. Your gratitude for his ministry speaks well of you. I have the same feelings for John MacArthur. He was my first pastor. Please keep in mind that when a pastor’s sermons are published outside of his congregation, he has expanded his influence into the public arena and he should be willing to accept public criticism of what he says from his pulpit.
Some in this thread say that Mark has publicly expressed sorrow for the use of language unfit for the pulpit. I hope this is true and I will need to find and read his remarks concerning that issue. But, if he is truly concerned about the negative impact such language has on the effectiveness of his sermons and the glory of God, then he will take pains to edit those messages that he deems inapproprate. Every thoughtful pastor (including John MacArthur) has had to correct himself in the course of his ministry. It’s a sign that a man is growing in maturity.
Dr. MacArthur is the first one to say that when you write a book or distribute messages and views over the airwaves and through various media, you need to be ready for criticism and disagreement. John knows that every word he writes on this blog or in a book is fair game for criticism. He doesn’t object to it, nor should he. It goes with the territory. In fact, he’s pretty gracious and humble about it, even when it is done in a way that is personal and derogatory.
It’s my hope that Mark Driscoll will continue to grow and develop as a Pastor and theologian and become a strong voice for theological and pastoral integrity to those who respect his ministry. Perhaps he could help turn a few pastors toying with the EC back to a more biblical approach.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
Whyte Stonne wrote: Personally, I believe this reveals a battle over turf. His [MacArthur's] “opponents” [meaning Driscoll and others in the ECM] are admittedly orthodox, but have a popular “style” which reflects their committed determination to understand and reach millions of unchurched people, and to minister to tens of thousands of alienated young people.
Response: This is not a battle over turf. John MacArthur acknowledges Driscoll’s orthodox soteriology, and he also appreciates true evangelistic zeal at any level. This is not about systematic theology or evangelistic fervor. It is, instead, about practical theology (the inevitable outworking of one’s systematic theology), and about the philosophy and methodology that underlies one’s evangelistic strategy.
Those who wish to hold sound doctrine in one hand and cultural relevancy in the other must realize that, at many points, the two are antithetical and fundamentally opposed to each other. Often, those on the cutting edge of cultural relevancy find themselves on the bleeding edge of what is biblically permissible. This occurs when an eagerness to be edgy and provocative pushes one beyond the boundaries of Scripture.
We cannot incorporate those elements of culture which are antithetical to the gospel into our philosophy of ministry–even in an attempt to do cross-cultural evangelism. The end (as noble as it is) does not justify the means. (A helpful article on this topic can be found here.)
Is the content of this post from John MacArthur an excerpt from the book The Truth War, or are these attending ad-hoc comments? It doesn’t sound like an excerpt from a book, but will someone confirm this, please?
Thanks!
-Touchstone
Keith,
Keith Crosby wrote: “Don’t let your training in rhetoric cause you to over analyze and inadvertently redefine pragmatism.”
You do understand my point. I am not using rhetoric to redefine Pragmatism. I’m simply stating using plain language the distinctions that people dismiss; There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic. It is rather Pragmatism that would should avoid. And Driscoll is not a Pragmatist. Peter Singer is.
Keith: When Driscol uses crass language and coarse language and coarse jesting to engage the culture he is being pragmatic–doing what “works” as opposed to doing what is holy…falling into a thought process involving “the end justifies the means” type of approach.
In every instance that I’ve read Driscoll use a certain degree of crass language, it was in cases where he designed it to get a point across. His motive is not simply to be pragmatic, but make people understand what he was trying to get across. Again, I showed you an example from Apostle Paul where he used certain language to get his point across. What Driscoll communicates to all listeners is Authenticity and this includes the majority of occasions when he doesn’t use such language.
This does not mean I completely disregard the fact that Driscoll has stumbled, but it does mean that I find it close to the edge of hypocrisy that many people like yourself would demonize the man.
Keith: “This is very much a friendship with the world mentality…”
You can use biblical rhetoric to jump to false conclusions this like one here.
Keith: “Christ was very much unlike the world, his language was never crass, and He did not emulate the people He reached He only reached out to them and called them to repentance and faith. Dining with tax collectors is not acting like tax collectors.”
Jesus used language that was more offensive than just crass. When He claimed to be God Himself, that was blasphemy on all accounts to every hearer in Israel. However, if you want to talk about Jesus being pragmatic and engaging the culture, Driscoll is doing that far better than most MacArthurite advocates here. You should listen to his story from Piper’s conference about the pornstar and his discussions with her that eventually led to her repentance and salvation.
Keith: The best of intentions by men like Driscol cannot justify behavior that does not exalt Christ.
More pious rhetoric that has no use for a real discussion.
Hayden wrote: Albert,
Could you please exegete James 4:4 from the Greek and set the context of the book for us?
My exposure to NT Greek is minimal, so I cannot exegete the passage from Greek. But I have been taught through the book of James in exposition by Masters Seminary students and graduates through countless weeks. But I can at least tell you that the context of James is probably directed towards Jewish Christians and the epistle itself stresses true faith (what James calls ‘true religion’) and practice. This is what I mean when I say that the author of James is instructing christians to be “more pragmatic.” Pragmatic in the sense that it corresponds to faith in Christ.
MacArthur’s application of James 4:4 as applied to issues like Driscoll and his “Apparent Pragmatism” is simply forced into the text. As I’ve stated before; Being Pragmatic (practical) and Pragmatism are two completely different things.
Bob S,
Truly, I could speak to my daughter, who is 2 (and quite a joy) and explain to her the gospel. I can use large terms and speak in a way that would be more appropriate for a discussion with a college student. I trust that the power of God will work through the Holy Spirit. This may have a impact that leads to salvation.
I trust that. God’s word does not return void.
However, I don’t think that I will be doing that. I’d rather explain the gospel in terms which she could understand (yes, perhaps a couple of years from now).
So, would you then conclude that I do not trust the power of the Spirit?
Whyte Stone wrote… “If one group is making a successful effort to engage a major sub-group, then more power to them.”
I would challenge you to think of what’s “successful” in the eyes of God. Groups “engaging” major “sub-groups” to socialize with them? Or People living in loving obedience to the Son?
Touchstone,
This article is a stand-alone piece, separate from The Truth War. We will do our best to note The Truth War when an article is directly adapted from the upcoming book.
Thanks,
NB
bob,
God doesn’t need us at all. It’s an honor to be one of the Lord’s laborers in the harvest. God chooses to work through His Church to take salvation to the neds of the earth.
At the same time I cry out to the Lord to use me. I cry out that He would have mercy on my family members who are dead in their sins. My heart aches for His mercy to be poured out.
god says, “You have not because you ask not.” He also says, “Ask and you shall receive.”
Keep praying bob. And keep the gospel light shining.
Whyte,
I agree. Manners is the KJV word. good moral habits may be a better translation for ethos.
Also, I agree with you that those who are religious can also bring corruption to good habits.
BTW, that was quite the long comment.
Nathan,
Could you please correct my weblink to GraceSantee.org. I mistakenly put the weblink to Grace Community Church! I don;t want anyone to get the impression that I work at Grace Community. Mine is GraceSantee.org.
Thanks,
Steve Lamm
Nate B.
Thank you for the response. I will consider subsequent posts “not-excerpts”, unless specifically identified as excerpts.
Appreciate it!
-Touchstone
Centuri0n wrote: As long as Christ is proclaimed, men who preach out of envy or rivalry (and one assumes this might also include vanity — the motive to be seen as one kind or another of man) should be rejoiced over. … [This] gives us contenders a moment of pause to think that perhaps someone like Driscoll–as long as his theology is not rank heresy–is allowed a certain degree of license.
Response: In Philippians 1:12-18, Paul rejoiced in the truthful proclamation of Christ, though he obviously did not commend the “selfish ambition” (v. 17) that motivated his detractors. In fact, just a few verses later, he instructs his readers to “do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit…” (2:3). Thus, while Paul rejoiced in the message (knowing that the gospel was being proclaimed accurately), he detested the motivation. Interestingly, nothing in the chapter is said about the specific methods or evangelistic strategies used by his detractors–except for the fact that they were “preaching Christ” (1:15) and that “Christ is proclaimed” (1:18).
I don’t know that this particular article (by John) is really a discussion about motivatation, but rather about evangelistic methodology and the philosphy that undergirds that methodology. To be sure, the books of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and others have strong words about those who minister with a wrong motivation. And I don’t think Paul was dismissing wrong motives in his statement in Philippians 1.
But the real issue here (as I see it) is methodological. How should we go about engaging culture? And at what point have we crossed the line, even if our motivation is sincere?
Hope that helps,
NB
Clyde wrote: I’m afraid that Donald Miller never mentions the last name of “Mark the Cussing Pastor”, either on p. 133 or in the acknowledgments on p. 241.
Response: It’s no secret that the cussing pastor in Miller’s book refers to Driscoll. According to one article, Mark himself “seems to feel [the title] is both funny and well-deserved.”
Nate –
As always, your reply is gratious and useful. However, I think it is taking a simplistic view of Phil 1 and Paul’s brief mention of the men about whose work he was willing to “rejoice”.
Before I say another word, let’s keep in mind that even as I am sending this objection, I am on Dr. MacArthur’s side in this. In the end, I think that trying to make the Gospel into an episode of South Park or a rap song (who would have thought Dr. MacArthur would use the word “gangsta” [sic] in a sentence) is wrong-minded — it becomes “of” the world rather than being simply “in” the world. My objection here is to try to work out something which I think both sides of this argument tend to talk past each other about.
The passage sets a context for Paul’s rejoicing: the context of his imprisonment, and the preaching of the Gospel to the Romans guards, and the emboldening of the brothers.
In that, some of the bold brothers are preaching out of “envy and rivalry”. No question: this is the motive of their preaching. But doesn’t Paul’s conclusion speak to the methods — that is, both in pretense and in truth — by which the Gospel is preached?
paul is saying some brothers are boldly preaching the Gospel — because of some kind of envy (maybe of him, because he is reaching the Romans and they can’t reach the guy at the Phillipian kosher deli) and some because of rivalry (fill in your own hypothesis here). But by these motives Paul says that methods arise — both pretend/false methods and true methods — but that both are a cause for rejoicing.
I think we let ourselves as critics off light when we say that this passage is only about the motives of the ones Paul is rejoicing over: it is about even their lousy methods as long as Christ is preached.
That doesn’t overshadow all the warnings about the character and the practice of teachers and preachers elsewhere in Paul’s writings — but it does point us at something important, which is that Paul was glad whenever the Gospel was preached and he saved his harshest criticism not for people with bad motives but for those who corrupted the actual Gospel.
I don’t know if that offers you anything to respond to, Nate, but I appreciate you taking some time to give this a read.
And let’s make sure I mention that my spelling is terrible.
Thank you.
Albert,
Thanks for your candid response. I am glad that some of my fellow brothers from TMS have been teaching on this very important book. I agree with you that the context of the letter is most likely to Jewish Christians, but that does not make it monolitically so.
Anyway, when you exeget the passage, as I am sure my brothers from TMS did with you, you get a different message than what you have said. The full text reads in the NASB “You adultresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” Clealry, James is “calling the believers on the carpet” for their worldliness, which is what Dr. MacArthur was saying. (reread the above article)
As far as you description of pragmatism, here is the Oxford English dictionary definition:
noun 1 a pragmatic attitude or policy. 2 Philosophy an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.
That is the natural use of the term that Dr. MacArthur was using it.
Albert, I respect your opinion on this but realize that just becuase someone disagrees with Mark Driscoll’s methods and calls them pragmatic does not automatically invalidate their opinion. I watched you disregard Keith’s comments above, by the way he is a TMS grad as well, because you did not like his conclusions.
I have some real misgivings with the EM and am close to Mars Hill in Michigan. I see some things that are less than encouraging about the movement.
Hope you do not sens any air of superiority on my part, because there is none there, but take to heart my cautions of disreagrding those you disagree with. Take care brother.
Hayden
I just saw a news report which featured Jay Bakker, son of Jim Bakker.
He has what he represents as a Punk church.
It is boastfully in-your-face and he unashamedly uses
profanities.
Can you see Isaiah in Ch,6, or the Elders in Rev. 4 & 5 approach the Holy Throne of God in this manner?
The church has been listening to the world tell it that it is not relevant to its (the world’s) culture, and has believed the lie, much like Eve listened to the serpent. Where in the Scripture does it tell us that the body of Christ is to culturally relevant, that it should do “whatever it takes” to be attractive to the culture. God was angry with Israel for intermarrying with the pagan peoples around it, for adopting their customs, their idols. Look what happened to Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, because of his many foreign wives. Why does God tell us in the NT to come out of their midst and be separate, not to love the world or the things of this world, not to be friends with the world? What did He say was to be done with salt that has lost its distinctive saltiness? What does it say about those who profess Christ, but by their deeds deny Christ? What does it say about those in darkness not wanting to come to the light? What does it say about us being an aroma of death to the unsaved?
In its rush to be relevant with its mantra of whatever it takes the “new” church has lost its holiness, its reverence, and has given up the things that make it distinct and peculiar to the culture. It has morphed into the very thing it set out to change. In the churches that are seeking to be relevant man has become major, God has become minor. Here are some ways it has taken place:
1. When “evangelism is placed over theology
2. When confrontation is traded for comfort
3. When results are traded for truth
4. When sin becomes bad choices, poor decisions, having problems, falling down, or failure
5. When requiring committment is exchanged for providing convenience
6. When preaching/teaching becomes speaking or conversation
7. When pastorisms are substituted for Scripture
8. When what’s right gives in to what works
9. When fellowship becomes community
10. When the sacred becomes like the secular
11. When being relevant is more important than being righteous
12. When being distinct gives way to accomodation
13. When books are studied instead of the Bible
14. When it becomes all about life change instead of faith in Christ
15. When worship becomes man-centered entertainment instead of God-focused exaltation
This “new” church has an infatuation with all things new and a disdain for all things that have been done before. In its pragmatism it is incorporating whatever seems to provide the results it is looking for and we are seeing a sycretism between what we have labeled as a seeker church and the emergent movement. Truth has been thrown under the bus because it is not appealing and is looked at as “old shcool.” So, yes, there is a truth war, and it is much more subtle than most realize.
Centurion,
I think your point is correct – Paul rejoices that the Gospel is proclaimed even though the motives and methods might be wrong. We ought to rejoice that the Gospel is preached to the lost in any church even if their methods might be a bit off the mark. I also agree that the real issue is: what kind of a gospel is being proclaimed?
If the proclamation of the Gospel is soundly biblical and complete, people will certaintly be redeemed. But often the message being proclaimed is so shallow and unbiblical that many of the “converts” being produced are really not redeemed. The church is making it far too comfortable for the unconverted and that is producing a weak and carnal church full of tares that stain the glory of Christ.
I think John’s concern is not merely the methods used to proclaim the Gospel. It’s also, and primarily the content of the message and the results produced.
Doesn’t this whole issue also spill over into the doctrine of practical sanctification? Jesus said: “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). That being true, a pastor should try to set the highest standards of godliness he can in his life in order to inspire his congregation to the same. If his behavior is worldly and his speech sprinkled with vulgar language, certainly the members of his church will think this is acceptable behavior. This passage always makes me pause to consider my own example to my congregation. Will God be pleased with a bunch of disciples that turn out like me? That makes me break out in a sweat!
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
I’m struck by John MacArthur’s last line:
Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?
There’s a lot to unpack in this short sentence.
First, culture and vulgarity *were* opposites, or at least distinct, historically. But that was back when men where ruled by kings and czars, tyrants and despots. Culture was the a production of class, and a matter of social status.
With the industrial revolution and the advent of the information age, the disruptive technologies subverted this social hierarchy; Gutenberg’s printing press put printed works — uncontrolled printed works — in the hands of common (vulgar) man. In the 1980s the Apple LaserWriter made any person with $600 a professional publisher. Today, Google and SixApart offer anyone a globally networked publishing platform for free.
Culture has been taken down from the altar of “high class” society. The media and cultural elites still lead and instigate trends and fashion, but the common (vulgar) man is now a *producer* of culture, rather than just a consumer of it.
I won’t assert that MacArthur is long for the reversion to the days when common (vulgar) and culture didn’t mix. But it’s a strange lament, anyway you cut it. If there’s a signal effect of the Reformation that still stands strong in modern society, it’s the idea that religion and faith are vulgar (common) enterprises. It was precisely the “culture” of Rome that Luther rejected, and a list of vulgarities — investment of power, jurisdiction and responsibility in the common man — that he nailed to the Wittenburg Door.
Second, the more I read the Bible, the more clearly I can make out a distinct “earthiness” and “commonality” (vulgarity) in the lives and actions of Jesus, Paul, and others. The Bible is not an exercise in sterile, euphemized culture. It’s very visceral and, well…. vulgar in places.
Specifically, I’m thinking of Paul’s discussion of castrating (err, maybe more precisely the cutting off of the testicles) in Galatians. It’s a bit euphemized in the English translation (“cut themselves off”), but Jews of the time would remember that per Deuteronomy 23:1, a man whose penis was cut off cut off from the assembly, the tribe.
Also, when I read the parable of the fig tree and the gardener in Luke, I get the sense of an earthy farmer, talking about the therapeutic, if “uncultured” effects of manure. I’d be surprised if ‘kopria’ was a sanitized euphemism back in the day. Same goes for whatever Aramaic word Jesus actually used when delivering the parable.
There’s the Song of Solomon to look at, so salacious that the kids weren’t allowed to read it back in the day. There’s Ehud, making his escape through the latrine.
Those should suggest something to us, I think, but most importantly, I look at the Incarnation, the idea of God become man, as the vulgarity of all vulgarities. Was there ever *anything* more vulgar that God deigning to become a man, born in a filthy barn in a back woods village of nowhere Palestine?
Jesus wasn’t a “cultured” king. He was of noble birth, no doubt, but his path was to be a vulgar one. Unto a vulgar, bloody, grimy, naked death between two thieves.
He inverted the class structure; He hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes and savaged the “theology pundits” — the cultured elite — of His day with scorn for the “offense” at his “gluttony” and “foolishness”, his cavalier and brazen flaunting of the sabbath when he picked wheat kernels, etc. Jesus was a populist, a “man of the people”. He was *vulgar* — common. Part of the mind-bending awe of the Gospel is the tension Jesus creates as the confluence of the sacred/holy and the common (vulgar). The Kingdom of God arrived and advanced through a humble carpenter born in a manger, an itinerant teacher who had empathy, ease and comfort around ordinary, broken, “uncultured” people.
The Bible is offensive to many Christians in its vulgarity. It’s not a “cultured” story. It’s salvation for all mankind rising from the gutter.
At any rate, I think I can acquit MacArthur here by reason of misunderstanding. If I read “vulgar” as “indecent”, his words make a lot more sense. But “vulgar” as “vulgar” doesn’t. “Vulgar” is just another word for “common”, “everyday people-ish”.
Would toward we never return to the day when the culture was a hegemony of the power elite.
-Touchstone
With respect to MacArthur and his followers I believe this article has more to say about Fundamentalists and the Fundamentalist movement than it does about the EC movement. It shouldn’t be surprising that MacArthur and his followers have a problem with Mark Driscoll or the EC movement. Even though I would consider myself a conservative evangelical I give full support and am encouraged by people like Mark Driscoll who are biblically and theologically strong and who have a heart to reach the world and are doing something about it. Again Fundamentalists have always had a problem with anyone who is not like them whether that be the Charismatics, the Seeker Sensitives or now the EC movement. I disagree with many of the known leaders in the EC movement but do not have a problem with those who faithfully stick to God’s word and who also seek to be missional. Frankly, this article just shows what MacArthur is all about. He may preach all about being ‘biblical’ but his literature and his attitude show other wise.
Centuri0n,
Thanks for your reply.
I will admit that the line between motivation and methodology may sometimes seem a bit arbitrary, though I think those categories are helpful for this discussion. In any case, I don’t see pretense and truth (in Philippians 1) as primarily referring to methodology (or the practical outworking of an underlying philosophy). One term speaks of false motives (“in pretense”), the other of genuine motives (“in truth”). (MacArthur’s commentary on Philippians [pp. 63-–69] indicates that he too sees the issue in Philippians 1 as motivational.)
From the limited data we have in Philippians, we find that the message (meaning doctrinal content) of Paul’s detractors was orthodox (vv. 12, 18). We also learn that their motivation was wicked (vv. 15, 17, 18). Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, was able to assess their motivation with divine accuracy.
But as to their methodology (the practical implementation of their evangelistic strategy), we learn very little. They preached Christ. That’s about all that Paul tells us.
In John’s article, the emphasis is on Driscoll’s methodology (his philosophy of ministry and the practical outworking of that philosophy). Neither the message (doctrinal content) of Driscoll’s ministry nor the motivation behind his ministry are primarily in view.
To extend latitude to an “unbiblical methodology” on the basis of Paul’s comments in Philippians 1 seems a stretch to me. The passage itself is not directly normative, nor is the historical case really parallel to what John MacArthur is addressing here. Other passages (such as those in the pastoral epistles) which explicitly address key aspects of ecclesiastical methodology must be considered. And when they are, I don’t think there is much wiggle room (or latitude) left.
But perhaps I’m missing something. I’d enjoy hearing your feedback.
Thanks,
NB
[...] Original post by unknown [...]
Hayden,
Hayden wrote: “I agree with you that the context of the letter is most likely to Jewish Christians, but that does not make it monolitically so.”
Indeed, it applies to all believers. But you asked for the probable context for which I gave a few answers to.
Hayden: “The full text reads in the NASB “You adultresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” Clealry, James is “calling the believers on the carpet” for their worldliness, which is what Dr. MacArthur was saying. (reread the above article)”
I well aware of the context of that specific chapter. Yes, ‘friendship’ with the world is enmity against God, however, I think MacArthur’s usages of the passage in direct relation to Driscoll and his apparent Pragmatism is a much unfounded conclusion.
Hayden: As far as you description of pragmatism, here is the Oxford English dictionary definition:
noun 1 a pragmatic attitude or policy. 2 Philosophy an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.
That is the natural use of the term that Dr. MacArthur was using it.
As I’ve stated already, there is a difference between one who is pragmatic and one who adheres to the worldview of Pragmatism. The problem lies not with the application of such ideas, but only when it is taken so far as to reinvent one’s epistemology. Another example; Behavioristic ideas are very true, but “Behaviorism” is not. Positivistic ideas are also true, but “Positivism” is not. All faulty 20th century Epistemology derive from taking true concepts that are true on their own but then stretch them to the point that it blankets all process of knowing. That is when Epistemology becomes self-defeating and why Pragmatism cannot work. Driscoll is consciously missional in his disposition and such an attitude constantly requires practical (pragmatic) considerations.
Hayden: “Albert, I respect your opinion on this but realize that just becuase someone disagrees with Mark Driscoll’s methods and calls them pragmatic does not automatically invalidate their opinion. I watched you disregard Keith’s comments above, by the way he is a TMS grad as well, because you did not like his conclusions.”
Hayden, it would only invalidate their opinion if they go so far as to use vicious biblical language to attack the integrity of the person as well as the ministry. I have not been impressed with Pulpit’s recent dealings with the ECM because as many have already pointed out, it does not represent fairly the thoughts of the ECM.
If this was dedicated solely to critique such people as McLaren, then I may have given a bit more leverage. However I believe, even though McLaren frustrates me inside whenever I read him, that I can learn much from his insights and critiques. The part of the problem with the recent critiques on this blog is simply that the writers do not take the figures they have been attacking on their own terms. This is also the reason why I believe, regardless of what one’s position is, NT Wright is misunderstood by much of the Reformed community.
Hayden: “Hope you do not sens any air of superiority on my part, because there is none there, but take to heart my cautions of disreagrding those you disagree with. Take care brother.”
I do not so there is no need to worry. I am glad that you even responded since there is no guarantee anyone would. But I put my effort into considering what everyone writes though I can err even in that process. I personally love Mark Driscoll, though he has made error in the past, I believe we can give him much more grace to accomplish his task. And much grace is needed for all of us and thank God that we in fact see diversity in people like Mark and others. We need it.
Blessings,
touchstone,
You say Jesus was vulgar. I think I know what you’re trying to say.
The word vulgar also means profane. Was Jesus profane?
Words are very important when discribing our Holy Savior.
I know Jesus was the Holy One. And though he was born in a fithy stable, that same night the heavens were filled with multitudes of glorious angelic hosts praising and giving glory to God!
I think you chose a bad word to try to explain who the Lord Jesus Christ was at His incarnation.
Perhaps the question of motives vs. methodology is irrelevant anyway. No matter how you interpret Philippians 1:12-17, I’m confident MacArthur would agree without qualification that what Paul says there applies in this case. We should rejoice, and do rejoice, whenever the true gospel is preached. I don’t see anything in MacArthur’s criticism of Driscoll that would contradict the spirit of that text. He’s certainly not encouraging Driscoll to stop preaching the gospel; he’s simply encouraging him to stop using profane language and imagery.
More than that, he is challenging the notion that a blithe display of easy familiarity with the underbelly of contemporary society’s most lowbrow fads is the best tactic for “engaging the culture.”
Centuri0n: “[Paul] says, in effect, that as long as the actual Gospel is preached, the faults of the preachers ought to be overlooked.”
I don’t think that’s quite what Paul was saying. He rejoiced that the gospel was preached, but he did not “overlook” the preachers’ faults. Actually, he named the faults: “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife . . . The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.” And (as Nate has already pointed out) he almost immediately forbade Christians to have such attitudes of selfishness: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (2:3). So Paul was not giving the selfish preachers a pass just because they preach the gospel.
It has been noted that Mr. Driscoll uses crude language to make his point. Why is this necessary: Is it that his audience does not understand the vocabulary of civil language, or (more likely I would suggest) is it that his audience understands the vocabulary of civil language all too well and it takes the shock effect of crude language to get them to pay attention to his point? I have more sympathy for Mr. Driscoll if it is the case that his audience does not understand the vocabulary of civil language.
Look at the problem, however, that results if Mr. Driscoll believes that he must resort to using crude language in order to get his audience to pay attention to the point that he is making. As this use-crude-language-to-get-attention strategy is used over time the shock and attention-getting value of the crude language will wear off. Eventually, crude language will not be seen as shocking. Instead, it will be seen as common, with the benchmark for common or civil discourse being reduced as a result. If Mr. Driscoll – or any other speaker – continues to use this strategy, he will be required to use progressively more crude language in order to preserve the required degree of shock or attention-getting value.
In a chapel service at a Christian (not christian) college in East Texas, Tony Campolo used the crude language strategy to get his audience of college students to pay attention to his point. Not being used to hearing s*** (synonym for manure) in chapel, the students paid close attention. Originally, the students thought this strategy was quite clever and effective. When asked, however, what would happen if all chapel speakers started to employ this strategy, they saw the problem: Before long, hearing the synonym for manure in chapel would be no big deal and it would fail as an attention getting device. The benchmark for common or civil language, however, would have been lowered, and this would not be a positive outcome.
In the end, God is sovereign. The Holy Spirit always gets His point across. There is not an inattentive audience that the Holy Spirit cannot effectively reach. If one’s theology starts with an understanding of God and His attributes (what a concept, God as the object of theology), he will not be compelled to resort to crude language or other pragmatic accommodations in order to get his point across. We are just conduits through which God gets His point across.
Farmboy,
farmboy wrote: “It has been noted that Mr. Driscoll uses crude language to make his point. Why is this necessary: Is it that his audience does not understand the vocabulary of civil language, or (more likely I would suggest) is it that his audience understands the vocabulary of civil language all too well and it takes the shock effect of crude language to get them to pay attention to his point? I have more sympathy for Mr. Driscoll if it is the case that his audience does not understand the vocabulary of civil language.”
There is an excerpt from Mark’s book “Radical Reformission” where he describes one of the earlier frustrating days of his ministry. The language he uses in describing his feelings as well as what he was witnessing involve words that many conservatives may deem “unnecessary.” (Though they were not particularly vulgar per se) However, when you actually try to understand what he is saying, he is rather describing how there were some people he knew that trivialized the moral issues in their private lives and it was an honest cry for change. It was effective in communicating the climate in which he was ministering. My suggestion to you is actually try to understand such scenarios in context. It doesn’t mean you have to imitate, but it does mean to scold him without warrant would be premature.
farmboy: “In the end, God is sovereign. The Holy Spirit always gets His point across. There is not an inattentive audience that the Holy Spirit cannot effectively reach. If one’s theology starts with an understanding of God and His attributes (what a concept, God as the object of theology), he will not be compelled to resort to crude language or other pragmatic accommodations in order to get his point across. We are just conduits through which God gets His point across.”
If this is still your conclusion, then you have not rightly understood some of the arguments here. You have only taken the same words we’ve used and put it into your own rhetoric to create a “pious conclusion” that does not really say anything new at all. Again I will say; To accuse Mark Driscoll of Pragmatism is WRONG. To say that he thinks cultural engagement is all about resorting to crude language is also WRONG.
farmboy,
Your arguments are a good practical case against shocking language — the law of diminishing returns. I remember back when the requirements for cars and trucks changed to require an additional brake light above the trunk. It was supposed to dramatically improve brake light awareness. And for a while, it did, according to reports I’ve seen.
But, after a while, the novelty wears off, and so does the “safety gain”. More awareness? More lights. It’s a diminishing futile cycle.
Anyway, I think your point with Driscoll and others and shocking language is a good one; any “attention gains” are synthetic and ephemeral.
DonSands,
I’m loathe to split hairs on Webster definitions for “vulgar” or “profane”. I suppose “vulgar” can connote something like “profane”. I’m a literature guy, so maybe I’m out of date; “vulgar” to me has always connoted a sense of “common” as in “lower class”, “uneducated”, “uncouth”. That’s why I said what I did in response to Mr. MacArthur; “vulgar” seems so overloaded with class and power semantics. “Profane”, “indecent”, “lewd”, etc. seem to fit better with his argument. Maybe he sees them this way.
As for Jesus being profane, I don’t think He was at all in the sense I think you offer the word. But I would note that at several points, Jesus words, his language, were sufficiently offensive to stir the local elites to pick up stones against Him and to conspire to have Him killed. To the Jewish establishment — the ones who dictated and defended the culture — Jesus’ message, and even (especially!) His incarnation were thoroughly profane, profane unto blasphemy.
Jesus was a “third rail”, a high voltage, disruptive, scandalous presence. He still is. So while I enthusiastically affirm that Jesus was not “profane” in the sense of “sexually lewd” or “abusive”, or “debased”, Jesus did gore a lot of sacred golden calfs, as it were. He was positively *sacreligious* in the eyes of many.
If He were here today I don’t doubt there would be people clucking and tsking — even and especially in Christian seats of power and influence — about how “wild” and “untraditional” and “uncultured” He and His message were. That doesn’t mean I see Jesus in the mosh pit at a Marilyn Manson concerting busting heads, but it does mean that I think he would purposely and pointedly slice and dice the hypo-allergenic, sterilized sensibilities of many in the Church.
And yes, I anticipate he’d be called “reckless” and “profane” and “worldly” and “vulgar”, even as he waded into the vulgar masses to heal, teach, and save. The Jesus I see in the Bible seems profoundly “relevant” to the common man, and out of step with the elite, the ones who determine what’s vulgar and what is not.
-Touchstone
Isn’t it nice to have Phil back from vacation?
Phil –
Yeah, I think this is what I was driving at — that here Paul was glad that anyone would preached the Gospel so that Christ would be made known, but your point — that he immediately reprimands wrong-heartedness (that is, adopting methods which subvert the message) — is actually the point.
I asked this same question at my blog, and the answer I got back from one reader was that the problem is really that we are “not ready” for scatology, and we are too uptight. Your answer is so much better in so many ways that elaborating seems a little gratuitous.
I also wanted to say to Nate that I hope I wasn’t being thick in asking this question. It seems obvious to me that this would be one way I would defend myself if I was an “emerging” person, and I wanted to see how much thinking one would have to do to answer that defense.
Iron sharpens iron — even a filing like me.
“Jesus’ message, and even (especially!) His incarnation were thoroughly profane, profane unto blasphemy.”
How about this:
Jesus’ message was full of truth and grace. Jesus’ words were holy, and righteous, and good. Jesus came to do the holy will of His Father, for the glory of His Father, and for the glory of His grace. Jesus manifested the love and graciousness of God, even at His birth.
This same message to us, mankind, is something that we hate. We hate the truth. We hate Christ. We hate light, but love darkness. We even hate His mercy at the Cross. We hate the law. We hate everything about the kingdom of God.
We are profane. We are blasphemers. We are self-absorbed disobedient sons of wrath.
But God, with His great love quickened our dead hearts and minds. What a Savior!
I think I see your point, but I don’t think you need to make it that way.
I read a letter from my brother the other day where he said, “God in His stupidity sent Christ to be born in a stable, and to die on a cross.”
I realize where he was coming from, but his words were not the right words. Words are very important.
Thanks for explaining yourself.
Blessings to you.
[...] John MacArthur offers a candid critique of Mark Driscoll and ‘grunge Christianity.’ [...]
I don’t believe that Mark Driscoll or any other “Christian who takes the Bible at face value” is “participating in society’s infatuation with vulgarity.”
Mark Driscoll is one of the most brilliant reformed minds that I have heard. His theology is the most biblically balanced of any “popular” preacher I’ve ever seen.
God forbid that Mark Driscoll look or dress or act differently from Dr. MacArthur. We all know that John MacArthur is the perfect Christian and we should all imitate him. Could it be that we are all different for a reason?
Can we just put our legalism detectors to rest and unite as Christians, and reformed Christians at that, in the cause of Christ. Mark Driscoll is doing awesome things to reach the lost in Seattle and around the country with the true message of Jesus Christ. Dr. Macarthur is doing great things through his writing and preaching ministries to reach people for Jesus Christ.We have so much in common, why is it that we must always magnify those areas in which we differ.
This touched a nerve with me because I run a blog called EngagingCulture.com. I don’t immerse myself in all of the indecent and boorish aspects of secular media, but I do feel that it is important for Christians to Understand culture, Confront it with the Word of God, and seek to transform it through the power of God. I am biblically conservative, but I don’t dress or act like most pastors you’ve met, because I’m different. And different isn’t necessarily better or worse. It’s just different.
[...] Over on this article at John MacArthur’s SFPulpit.com, I submitted the following comments yesterday. Inserting them into the “blog record” here. I’m struck by John MacArthur’s last line: [...]
With all proper respect to John MacArthur, I appreciate this excellent article, however, I believe JM should be harder on his own minstry first. His use of the rock idiom and pop culture baggage in his own ministry is just as suspect. Second, John Piper now uses rap music for worship. Is that any better than the cultural meltdown of Grunge Christianity? Yet, JM will have JP into speak even though Piper recently had Driscoll speak at his conference last year. How deep do these convictions run in these men? Not very! JM has written prolifically on the music issue in his Ephesians commentary condemning the sensuality of modern western music; he has written bulk letters lamenting the worldliness in the CCM field while exhorting us to buy the great hymns of the faith; he has condemned the pragmatism of Rick Warren, the mega church movement, and now the aggregious indecencies of Driscoll in the pulpit. It seems he should rid his own minstry of the pragmatic, sensational, pop culture baggage that is tarnishing all the good and wonderful things he has written. We must submit our music and its associations to the Lordship of Christ too. And it does not make sense to bring Piper in to speak or to speak for him when Piper recently endorsed Driscoll. If you are Calvinistic you do not need this Arminian styled pragmatism to win converts. Be practical but not pragmatic. The Gospel still works. We don’t need sensual music and vulgarity in the pulpit or worldliness in our presentation to win the elect to Christ.
Pastor Mike Harding
FBC Troy
I’m just tired of all the division in the body of Christ. Driscoll and MacArthur are not going to agree on their philosophy of ministry. But do they have to? MacArthur is a legalist and Driscoll has gone too far in liberty. Driscoll is MacArthur’s peer and he should have approached him personally as a brother, fellow Elder in Christ’s church and co-laborer for the gospel if he wanted to correct him instead of publicly defaming his character in blogerdom and enflaming wars within Christ’s body which looks pretty stupid to the on looking world. Driscoll has not publicly attacked another part of Christ’s body like this as he shouldn’t. If MacArthur felt the need to do so he should have justified it by coming right out and denouncing him as a heretic and false teacher (anathema). He didn’t because there are no biblical grounds for such. Shame on MacArthur for his uninformed and damaging approach.
Jack,
Did you approach MacArthur personally as a brother in Christ to correct him for what you perceive as sin?
No, of course not. You chose, instead, to publically confront him in blogerdom.
Why? In all probability, you felt that since MacArthur’s actions were public they warranted a public response.
My guess is that this is exactly why MacArthur felt Driscoll’s actions warranted a public response. If a Christian leader is going to make his materials publically available (through published books and web-audio), he should be willing (and expecting) to receive public criticism.
Morris, you wrote that, “The issue that John is addressing which is the issue in the “new” church is this exaltation and thus preoccupation with pragmatism.”
I still maintain that the main thrust of Rev. MacArthur’s piece is style and taste. The concept of pragmatism is attacked on an intellectual level, but his preoccupation with the vulgar, the inappropriate, and the impolite remains a matter of the aesthetics of one group competing with the aesthetics of another. Let me repeat my question:
What is the mission of the church, to bring justice and salvation to the world, or restore “polite society”?
Nate, you wrote that, “We cannot incorporate those elements of culture which are antithetical to the gospel into our philosophy of ministry–even in an attempt to do cross-cultural evangelism. The end (as noble as it is) does not justify the means.”
Which particular elements of culture are antithetical to the gospel? Rev. MacArthur’s objections to the “grunge gospel” are not biblically based, but are based on his sense of what is appropriate and inappropriate from the pulpit. Goodness knows we all have preferences when it comes to preachers. And goodness knows that preachers all have their own styles of preaching.
Rev. MacArthur writes, “His vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.”
Tasteless? Matters of personal taste are hardly grounds for the public excoriation of another Christian leader. Regarding what is indecent and crude, there are sufficient examples of indecent and crude language in Scripture to qualify Rev. MacArthur’s critique as subjective and unscriptural itself.
I must ask what he is suggesting in this sentence. “Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle.”
Is MacArthur accusing Mark Driscoll of a wicked practical lifestyle? Is Rev. MacArthur privy to some information about Driscoll’s private life to which we are not? If he is not, then I need clarification about the basis for labeling a preaching style as “wicked.” But he isn’t criticizing Driscoll’s preaching style here, he writes about “the wickedness of the practical lifestyle.”
Frank Martens, you’ve challenged me to think of what is “successful” in the eyes of God, and you then summarize my comments as “Groups ‘engaging’ major sub-groups to socialize with them.”
I believe that the Incarnation is the model for this. Jesus “engaged” with humanity by becoming one of us. He dirtied his hands by becoming a human being. He socialized with us, at weddings, at parties, at dinners. The Scripture says, “He was not ashamed to call us Brothers.”
Defining success? Our ability to humble ourself, and to associate with those of low estate, this is a measure of our conformity to “the image of his Son.” And conversely, our unwillingness to humble ourselves and associate with those of low estate indicates an unwillingness to be in the world as Christ was in the world. So, socializing with major sub-groups IS living in loving obedience to the Son. There is no “or” between these two concepts.
Let me repeat: Socializing with major sub-groups IS loving obedience to the Son.
Touchstone, I was under the impression that the content of this post from John MacArthur an excerpt from the book The Truth War. I could easily be wrong. I was basing my assumption on this announcement:
“Over the next several weeks, we will be excerpting small portions from John MacArthur’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Nelson, Spring 2007), along with other articles focused on postmodernism, the emerging church, and related issues.”
Bob S., you ask this question: “Why does GOD need me to reach to the lowest common denominator in my efforts to witness to the Lost when all who will be saved have already been chosen by HIM? Is there any biblical support for this?”
I have two Bible passages which I believe address this question. First is Romans 10: 14-15.
“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?”
The answers to these rhetorical questions are: In order to call on Christ they need to believe, in order to believe they must hear the message, in order to hear someone must tell them, and in order to tell people, they messenger must be sent.
In this passage, we don’t know “why” this is true, just that it is true. When people are called to be evangelists, it is up to them to work out the means and methods between themselves and God.
Now, you ask about the work involved in reaching the lost. There are a number of passages which deal with the thought that goes into communicating the truth of God to people. Here are two of my favorite ones from Isaiah:
“Build up, build up, prepare the road! Remove the obstacles out of the way of my people!” (Isaiah 57:14)
“Prepare the way for the people. Build up, prepare the highway! Remove the stones.” (Isaiah 62:10)
There are many obstacles, or stones, in the way of God’s people coming to him, and we are exhorted to remove the obstacles and stones which stand in the way. This metaphor also describes preparing a highway for God’s people.
The churches have accumulated a cartload of stones and debris which prevent God’s elect from coming to him. By the example we set we perpetuate dozens of hurdles which hinder God’s elect in their approach to God. By our example we show that you have to dress a certain way to “come to church,” you have to speak a certain way to “come to church,” you have to get used to certain kinds of music, and it doesn’t matter that you are ADHD or dyslexic, you’d better force yourself to read the Bible if you expect to get anywhere in church.
Now EMO, the ECM, and the like are attempting to remove the hurdles, the barriers, the stones and debris which prevent unchurched and alienated young people from approaching God. They are reaching out and communicating God’s love and truth.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the Parable of the Wineskins (Luke 5:33-39). The wine in the wineskins is the life of Christ, the Holy Spirit. The wineskins are the forms or structures we build or inherit as part of our church existence. Old wineskins, that is, old church structures, developed in response to what, 100 years ago or 500 years ago, was new wine. Now, according to the Messiah, those wineskins are old and stiff. They are not fresh, supple leather ready to contain new, fermenting wine. Jesus himself said old wine tastes better, but the new wine of the Spirit is necessary.
The old wineskins will be ruined if you put new wine in them. There are people who have chosen to work in and for old wineskins. There are others for whom the old wineskins are too inflexible and rigid, which, indeed, they are. Jesus said so.
My point? You have the responsibility to determine what the specific obstacles and hindrances are that prevent God’s elect from approaching Him easily (see Isaiah 57:4; 62:10), and removing them. And you have the responsibility to determine whether or not the man-made church structure you live in is flexible enough to reach God’s elect who are embedded in ANY culture, grunge culture, gay culture, crack culture or whatever.
And, loosely speaking, is God’s goal to convert them to God, or to convert them to middle-class evangelical culture. The answer to that is a no-brainer.
Two Cents,
It is one thing to criticize and question a philosophy of ministry. JM took it to a whole new level mid article and personally attacked Driscoll. It is a slap in the face to God’s church (globally)and His overseers which are called to unity.
I am not JM’s peer and I don’t have access to him. Thus, an invited comment on his blog seems appropriate. Your comparison might be fair if JM commented on one of Driscoll’s blogs in the comment section without the personal assault.
Dr. MacArthur:
Pastor Harding wrote, ”JM should be harder on his own ministry first. His use of the rock idiom and pop culture baggage in his own ministry is just as suspect.”
I was not saved until I was 23 and by that time attended many rock concerts. What I saw on stage in the Resolved video trailer did not look much different than what I witnessed on the rock stages I sat in front of.
The music in the trailer was muted, but I suspect the sounds may not be much different either. It had all the look of the world from which I was delivered from.
If you are going to use what the world has to offer to get a crowd and a chance to see some saved, you will have to continue using the world’s methods to keep them. What you use to win them with, you will have to continue using to keep them!
As for Driscoll’s disturbing methods: (assuming I was not aware of his delivery style)
1) If I had a group of teens or adults in a setting where Driscoll went off I would have the group rise and we would walk out immediately.
2) If I was on the platform as a guest speaker I would ask my host pastor to intercede, and if nothing was done I would walk off the platform and leave the conference.
3) If I were the host pastor I would go the pulpit and bring his portion of the meeting to a close, and end any further involvement remaining for him in the conference.
With that said, since Dr. Piper appears to have no problem with the vulgar, indecent speech of Driscoll; have you considered the possibility of Piper uttering similar indecencies at your venue?
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
This is all a steaming pile of putrid smelling c***! (I could say “rubbish” and be “proper” that would not make my point.)
The very idea that anything in this world is inherently wicked or unavilable for use in Gospel work is absolutely absurd. All things, be it: rock and emo music, baggy clothes, piercings, tattoos, slang or any thing else have no moral value of themselves. All things can either used by people for condemnation or for redemption. It is the thing’s use that determines whether it is evil or if it is redeemed. To suggest anything else is intellectually dishonest, un-Biblical, imbicilic and just plain stupid.
Albert,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Two days out and missed a lot of stuff. Let’s get to the point.
You wrote, “Jesus used language that was more offensive than just crass. When He claimed to be God Himself, that was blasphemy on all accounts to every hearer in Israel.”
Let’s not confuse Mark Driscoll with Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t use body humor, or “cuss-word-light.” He didn’t talk about people’s body parts or any such thing. His language wasn’t offensive—His doctrines were to those who had hollowed out the word of God and were unbelieving.
When He healed on the Sabbath it offended the hypocrites who did not understand God’s word (i.e. the Law and the Prophets) but merely outwardly kept the Word.
His claim to deity and citations and allusions to the prophets to make His case would not have been offensive to all in Israel, only the unbelievers. He was never profane. He did nothing He later repented of… He was sinless.
Your application of moral equivalence of Christ’s conduct and Mark’s conduct is inappropriate and plain wrong.
You simply can’t compare Christ’s “before Abraham was I am…” to Driscolls comments about “naked women.”
Finally, in checking my concordance and other resources, I find Jebusites, Hivites, Hittites, and such but I find no reference to “MacArthurites.” It almost seems you employ the term as a perjorative term—but a brother in Christ wouldn’t use “hate speech” would he.
I follow Christ. I haven’t assumed you were a Driscollite–I assume you are a Christian. With all due respect, when you complete your study of James 4, you might wish to back up a chapter and explore the content of James 3.
Let’s keep the discourse and dialogue civil. I have a great deal of respect for John MacArthur. He is a brother in the Lord. He has stood in the gap many times. I would assume that you would, as God’s word says, show respect for an older man ala 1 Tim. 5:1 … Grace to you.
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Steve, you posted this to Centurion:
“Doesn’t this whole issue also spill over into the doctrine of practical sanctification? Jesus said: ‘A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher’ (Luke 6:40). That being true, a pastor should try to set the highest standards of godliness he can in his life in order to inspire his congregation to the same.”
How does the example Jesus set fit into this? When he dined with publicans and sinners, he didn’t “avoid the very appearance of evil.” In fact, his detractors used this very act of socializing with non-religious Jews as grounds for criticism, even rejection, of Jesus.
As often as possible I try to measure our concepts against the example set by our Master, Jesus. I assume that by associating with publicans and sinners, where very unsavory low-life would be present, that Jesus was setting “the highest standards of godliness” possible.
His example of practical holiness suggests that living where sinners live, socializing with them non-judgmentally, takes precedence over “avoiding the very appearance of evil.”
Holiness means being set apart. Jesus’ example suggests that being set apart is primarily being set apart to reach people wherever they are, whatever they’re doing. This is a loving thing to do.
Is it safe for pastors to emulate Jesus in his practical holiness?
Keith, thank you for the response. A final brief response from me;
Keith wrote; “Let’s not confuse Mark Driscoll with Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t use body humor, or “cuss-word-light.” He didn’t talk about people’s body parts or any such thing. His language wasn’t offensive—His doctrines were to those who had hollowed out the word of God and were unbelieving.”
Forgive me, but my intention was not to equate Mark with Jesus in such a way. It was rather to show that Jesus’ offensive claims make the occasional crass language seem insignificant. I have explained certain scenarios where Mark uses such language and why he used them. (And why I think one shouldn’t be too judgmental about them because the way in which he used them)
I have already qualified my defense of Mark saying that I agree Mark has stumbled at times, but my criticims of people who condemn Mark are that they are unnecessarily presumptuous and quick to make conclusions without actually knowing the scenario. I have explained why previously to you and others.
Keith: “When He healed on the Sabbath it offended the hypocrites who did not understand God’s word (i.e. the Law and the Prophets) but merely outwardly kept the Word.”
Indeed, but it was rude of Jesus to do so. You can give as much valid theological justification for Jesus’ actions, but you must understand that He was being culturally transgressive. This is what the secular culture does well and what American Christianity has failed to do in a relevant and authentic way.
Keith: “Finally, in checking my concordance and other resources, I find Jebusites, Hivites, Hittites, and such but I find no reference to “MacArthurites.” It almost seems you employ the term as a perjorative term—but a brother in Christ wouldn’t use “hate speech” would he.”
It wasn’t intended to be hate speech but to categorize the people that were in agreement with MacArthur on this specific issue. I have been a member of Grace Community in the past for about 5 years. I have made lifelong close friends at the church and I don’t have anything persona against MacArthur. He was my pastor and I still affirm that he is one of the greatest preachers of our time.
Keith: “With all due respect, when you complete your study of James 4, you might wish to back up a chapter and explore the content of James 3.”
James goes farther than just discussing the taming of the tongue. He specifically mentions taming it in a way that it does not bring curse upon people. In CH 4 he even talks about speaking against a brother as the equivalent of being judged by the law. I am aware of this, but the epistle does not make specific that it is necessarily a same kind of sin, or even a sin at all that one speaks harsh language in a different way; that is, in a way that does not directed towards a person. Driscoll seems more tame in comparison to passages like Ezekiel 23, a divinely inspired text.
Keith: “as God’s word says, show respect for an older man”
Indeed, and I urge you to show respect for a pastor in the ministry as Driscoll. Within the brethren, despite our failures, we can show mercy and grace towards each other and to give them the benefit of the doubt. We have already heard Driscoll’s repentance and we know his theology, therefore we should not make the kind of monumental deal that many have made on the man.
Blessings to you,
-Albert
Whyte,
I would agree with you that Jesus certainly mingled with the outcasts of His society in order to share His saving message with them. We should also. He loved them and genuinely enjoyed spending time with people like Matthew’s old friends.
But in mingling with them, I’m sure Jesus did not engage in any behavior that was sinful. Im convinced (considering Zacheus’s repentance after such a visit) that Jesus raised the level of behavior and conversation by His presence.
Jesus also did not take pains to avoid what others believed to be evil associations. I think I Thess. 5:22 is better translated, “abstain from every form of evil.” Paul is speaking about practices, not merely appearances. Neither Jesus nor Paul gave much credence to what the legalistic religionists of His day thought. Neither should we. Our guide is the Word of God, not man-made rules.
I hope I answered the question you were asking.
Steven, close, but not quite. Let me put a point on it. Would it be safe for a Southern Baptist pastor in Springfield or Fresno to frequent a local bar, drinking a little wine for his stomach’s sake, to minister to people where they congregate and socialize?
Or that he attend a Catholic wedding, enjoy the punch and the toast, and perhaps even provide the wedding guests with several bottles of White Zinfandel or Chardonnay of his own when the host’s supply runs out?
Again, this is assuming that we are to strive for “the highest standards of godliness” possible, conforming to the image of God’s Son.
Albert,
My closing comment is as follows… Jesus was never sinful.
Whyte,
It’s certainly not sinful for a pastor or any other believer to drink in moderation. What is forbidden in Scripture is drunkenness (Eph 5:18). Of course, you know that and no doubt agree with me.
A pastor has to consider several issues when he makes decisions about this. Let me speak only for my own understanding of Scripture. 1) I have to obey Scripture no matter what I’m doing because that brings glory to God. So, no matter how much certain sinful behaviors may endear me to the non-believer, I am commanded by the Master to avoid them.
2) I also have to consider how my behavior affects both believers and non-believers. If I “frequent” bars, I may lose credibility with my own congregation even though some of them drink in moderation. After all, I am one of the main teachers in their life. If drinking would ruin my ability to minister to them, I would avoid it. The principles Paul lays out in Romans 14 would certainly apply in that situation.
I Have also known non-believers to be surprized, even shocked because they saw a pastor take a drink even though they drink freely! This issue is even more important than the prior one because if I assume too much, I may just lose my opportunity to witness to that lost person who has such a view. So, in my experience, it’s not quite a simple as your scenario suggests.
3) I try to never violate my own conscience in any area. Every time I do, I get into some kind of trouble!
I’ve found that non-believers usually are quite understanding of the scruples of believers, whether biblically required or not. What they are looking for is friendship and genuine love (as Jesus displayed to Zacheus).
Whyte, I think there are a lot of stuffy Christians who try to make everyone else obey their extra-biblical rules. They’re real quick to condemn other believers who don’t fit their notion of what spirituality looks like. I suspect we’re all guilty of this to a certain degree which is why Paul wrote Romans 14!
I try to teach my congregation to be biblical in every area, and then gracious where the Bible is silent. Some of these things we argue about are not even spoken of in Scripture! Who am I to make rules about them?
What I’m concerned about is that we don’t compromise the truth of Scripture in our zeal to win the lost. To do so is no favor to them because they may commit to something other than the true Gospel of Christ. That to me seems dishonest.
Now, I don’t believe every new evangelical church is compromising the Gospel or the teachings of the Bible. We’re not all the same. My church is no doubt different than yours. That’s inevitable especially in California where I live! But, even though styles may differ, if we both love the Lord and His Word, there will be far more of substance that we agree on than there will be differences.
In Christ,
Steve
“If this is still your conclusion, then you have not rightly understood some of the arguments here. You have only taken the same words we’ve used and put it into your own rhetoric to create a ‘pious conclusion’ that does not really say anything new at all. Again I will say; To accuse Mark Driscoll of Pragmatism is WRONG. To say that he thinks cultural engagement is all about resorting to crude language is also WRONG.”
For better or worse, yes, this is still my conclusion. Far from failing to understand them, I believe that I have understood some of the arguments here all too clearly.
As for my “own rhetoric”, my assumption is that Mr. Driscoll is a better rhetorician than I am. My assumption also is that Mr. Driscoll chooses his words with care, fully understanding all that goes with the words he chooses to use. In any given context you may choose, the question still remains: Why did Mr. Driscoll choose to use the particular words that he did? Were those words reflective of the only vocabulary that his audience would understand, or did he choose those words for shock value? This is a fair, reasonable question, one that you avoid directly answering.
As for me creating “a ‘pious conclusion’ that does not really say anything new at all”, I plead guilty as charged. There is nothing new under the sun. The point of a person’s understanding of God’s sovereignty having practical consequences still remains. I am far from the first person to make this point.
I’ve never seen a blog about Driscoll that didn’t generate comments. This is a tough issue for sure. I agree with Dr. Macarthur’s assessment and personally do believe that Driscoll goes to far in his language, though biblically he is very solid. It is important to draw a distinction between Mark Driscoll, who is our brother in Christ, and others in the ECM who clearly are not.
John:
This was a very good post. Thank you for speaking out on this important issue. When I wrote about this same thing 6 months ago, I received mostly comments from the ECM/Driscoll supporters–it was not pretty, but valuable dialogue in addressing this issue of scatological speech and the ECM ecumenical movement in general.
One brief comment that I hope will prove helpful as in this discussion as well. You said, “His soteriology is exactly right,” This isn’t exactly correct. True, that most of Mark’s theology seems solid. He says he is reformed or Calvinistic, but that isn’t the case.
-He is Amyraldian in his view of the atonement.
-He is Arminian in regards to his views on particular redemption and election (the two go hand in hand). After listening to many of his sermons, he really doesn’t understand the nature of the atonement in regards to propitiation.
-He is also extremely Arminian/pragmatic in his presentation of the gospel. To be fair, he preaches a non-easy-believism gospel, but then his call for others to be saved is very Warrenesque (“just believe and receive…”). Driscoll IS the seeker-friendly ecumenical movement in grunge rags.
-He is antinomian; and that is why his degrading speech is not contemptible and woeful to him (cp, Is. 6:1-6), but continues to treat it in a cavalier and casual manner. I don’t believe he sees it as sin.
-He is disrespectful and irreverent to the name and person of Christ in that he will use the Lord’s name and aspects of His incarnation as a punch-line for his own brand of off-colored humor.
-Mark has embraced Robert Schuller completely as one “who deeply loves Jesus…” He has partnered with Schuller in conference settings at The Crystal Cathedral and has failed to publicly call him to repentance for his false gospel.
-Lastly, Mark continues to promote and recommend on his Acts 29 website books by nonorthodox men like Brian McLaren and others of the liberal arm of the EC ecumenical movement. This is disturbing to say the least. (On the other hand, Dan Kimball (to his credit) has recently removed all links and recommendations to McLaren, Jones, Ward, Burke, etc. on his website which we can all praise the Lord for.)
Thank you again brother for your excellent article. The only regret is that it is not included in The Truth War tome.
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
I just wanted to post what Mark Driscoll said in his book about the Blue Like Jazz book quoting him as the cussing Pastor by Don Miller
‘I grabbed a copy and thumbed through it to find that I am only mentioned in a few sentences as Mark the cussing Pastor, yet again I felt like Charlie Brown trying to get his foot on the ball to no avail, but I still love Don nonetheless and won’t cuss him out.’ He talks about it in Confessions of a reformission rev….
personally I am not sure how I feel about ‘crude’ language, all I know is we watch mark D. online and I have never been so convicted of sin as when I’ve watched several of his series…also, I go to a church plant of Acts 29 which he started and again, so the people wear t shirts and jeans but repentance is always mentioned and how God hates sin and how we need to go to the culture and teach them and redeem it….not to just stay in it…but redeem it….I have heard more watered down unconvicting sermons throughout the yrs at mainline denominations…you cant just sit and play church in these churches….
oh and the music, it is NOT sinful to worship with a certain a style…punk is not evil….if we do it in the right way…..you cant say traditionasl worship is of God and Hip Hop or grunge is of the devil……it is ALL of the world, because it is people who write it and different people enjoy different styles….where is your heart and who are you gloryifying when you sing it….I’ve seen churches ‘perform’ their hymns for their own glory….his church is in the heart of seattle, grunge city…of course the people who are artists there enjoy the sound and lean towards it…as the people in nashville have a country sound….God probably doesnt have a favorite style….I think we just need to make sure we are glorifying Him with it….
listen to Marks sermon ‘judging like Jesus’
he is not tolerant of sin in the church…..
Back from break, and I find a barn burner of a topic like this! Wow! Nice. I sure hope this doesn’t turn into another “Lordship Salvation” debate….ha ha!
Good article, and I gotta admit that some aspects of the debate are things that really shocked me about GCC when I first got here. In some ways GCC was more “modern” than I expected and in others GCC seems stuck in 1984. Sorry y’all. It’s true. Not everything here is perfect. (Good thing is that the stuff GCC is weakest on is also the least important!)
I would agree with those who say that the gospel must be preached, but it must also be preached in a way that is theologically consistent with the gospel itself. The Philippians talk was super good, and I would agree that Paul didn’t overlook the errors of those around him but instead rejoiced that they were saying the “right” thing, albeit not in the way that was ideal.
This leads me to a question then. How do we have right doctrine without comprimising ourselves in a NEGATIVE way, by being resistant to cultural change and sensitivity in a way that ALSO compromises the message?
The example that comes to mind is the James White vs. Gail Riplinger debate where Gail talks about how the NIV bible promotes sin. She explains that the KJV talks about “fornication” and the NIV uses the ambiguous “sexual immorality” term. She then suggests to James White that “Young people don’t have a clue what ’sexual immorality’ is, but when I use the term ‘fornication’, they know EXACTLY what I’m talking about!”
James White almost laughs at her and suggest that all the young people he knows have the EXACT opposite problem; they don’t have a clue what “fornication” is so he doesn’t ever use the term anymore. (I stopped using the term, years ago, when a person thought I was talking about polygamy…”four-ni-cation”? Oh sheesh!)
So I really am growing to understand the importance of RIGHT doctrine with RIGHT motivation and theologically/biblicall consistent methodology. The opposite danger, at least with many American Calvinistic Baptists that I see (in my excessively arrogant opinion…), is hanging onto the METHOD for no other reason than “this is how things is done!”. How do we balance right doctrine and right heart without shooting outselves in the foot with language/methodology that’s circa 1985?
I have been following this ongoing debate since the beginning. I finally decided to express my opinion in light of seeing Mr. Camp join the discussion.
Mr Camp,
You said the following:
-Lastly, Mark continues to promote and recommend on his Acts 29 website books by nonorthodox men like Brian McLaren and others of the liberal arm of the EC ecumenical movement.
Where? I visited Acts 29 TODAY. No McLaren, nothing really out there. Good stuff by Packer, Spurgeon, and Piper though. Go visit for yourself and bring back a list of all the questionable material.
-Mark has embraced Robert Schuller completely as one “who deeply loves Jesus…” He has partnered with Schuller in conference settings at The Crystal Cathedral and has failed to publicly call him to repentance for his false gospel.
One, reading the entry on Mark’s blog, I understand why he went to Crystal Cathedral. It would be easy to go to conferences where you knew everyone agreed with you on everything. But Mark took the risk of being able to preach the gospel to a lot of people that may otherwise not hear it, and even taking the risk of offending the host. Driscoll does explain in his blog that Schuller’s theology is off, but he also says that Schuller loves Jesus. I would imagine so. I bet if you ask the majority of false teachers if they love Jesus, they would say yes. To through Mark under the bus for this seems unfair.
-He is disrespectful and irreverent to the name and person of Christ in that he will use the Lord’s name and aspects of His incarnation as a punch-line for his own brand of off-colored humor.
As a regular subscriber to both Driscoll’s and MacArthur’s podcast, I would have to strongly disagree with you on this. Listening to both men, they neither one are disrespectful of the name and person of Jesus. In fact, I think we could learn from both men to have more reverence and respect for the name and person of Jesus.
In regards to your comments about Driscoll’s theology, I would say this. Driscoll openly admits he doesn’t have everything figured out, as most preachers (myself being one of them) would tell you is true. He is learning as he goes along. Listen to his series on teaching and preaching Jesus and you will get a better understanding of where he is coming from.
What MacArthur and you are criticizing Mark for is style. He is not John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, or John Piper. But neither am I, nor is my pastor. But we are comfortable when we preach, as I am sure Mark is. As far as the harsh language he sometimes uses, I would advise you look at two things. One, when he does it, it is used to explain a point more clearly, so that it insures his hearers get it. Secondly, he has apologized for any harsh or offensive language in his recent blog. Should we not afford some grace here?
In closing, I would like to say I enjoy reading both you Mr. Camp and Pastor Silva on Slice. Icontinue to keep you both in my prayers and I look forward to any response you have.
In Christ,
Ricky
Good comment Ricky. It’s really easy to point fingers and start tossing around historical heresies, and what’s up with the “Calvinist Police” thing going on? I am often disturbed at how many American Baptists think that if someone doesn’t articulate the 5 points in a certain way, they’re just off their rocker (at best). Some people need to move to Canada and start fighting the Charismatic Crazies and Hallucinating Brad Jersak disciples, and get a little perspective on matters. I praise the Lord for all the 4-pointers(and less) down here…at least we both open up the scripture and argue about scripture!
I fully admit that Mark’s not perfect, and I wouldn’t do things exactly like he does them, but after hearing him preach a few times, I’m not convinced he’s the Devil’s nunchuks either. He’s crass and he’s even sometimes vulgar, but he also seems to understand certain things that other people don’t seem to get for a second. He doesn’t have my worship, but he does have SOME of my respect. We’re essentially all brothers in the Lord and the Gospel, right? Let’s not be too quick to kick a brother in the lips.
It never ceases to amaze me how, when a blog post goes up with the name Mark Driscoll in it, if even 1 iota of criticism is levelled at the man, his defenders come running with an apparent attitude that he is off limits for public criticism. Even more than that, I find it striking that when the criticism is levelled at him specifically regarding his speech, his defenders often admit that he is vulgar and crass, but then defend that aspect of his language, and go on with the “but hey, I’m not perfect yet either and neither are you!”.
I read this post and the same statement that stood out to Steve Camp, stood out for me as well. “His soteriology is exactly right” I’m not so sure I would agree with that, but then again, I’m only basing that on what I’ve read from Driscoll himself. Maybe he’s changed his views since he last wrote that he is a “modified Calvinist”.
Differening views on that issue aside, the issue I think that continues to frustrate so many Christians, is the fact that there is a well known evangelical pastor among us, that is well known not for his conduct that is above reproach and of good report, as is fitting for a leader in the church according to Scripture, but that is well known for exactly the opposite.
As for me personally, I believe the public criticism is deserved, and reasonable – as much as (God forbid) it would be if pastor John MacArthur began using the same kind of language/speech Driscoll does, or if any other leader in the evangelical church started speaking or writing that way in a public venue.
After all these months, I still can’t believe this is even up for debate. I still can’t fathom how anyone can twist the Scripture so far as to say that even Jesus and some of His disciples used vulgar and/or obscene language, but that’s the defense I consistantly see on various blogs/sites.
Where does personal holiness fit into all of this? Are we all not called to be NOT conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our minds?
I believe that’s exactly what the Scripture says, and I believe that’s for every man, woman or child that professes faith in our Lord Jesus.
Just a few concerned thoughts.
SDG,
Carla Rolfe
Carla,
I would agree with you to the point as I don’t see Jesus and his disciples being crass or vulgar. But what I would say is what I said to Steve earlier. Mark has on his blog apologized for the crass language. Should we not afford him some grace there to see if there is genuine change? Also, everyone keeps bringing up personal holiness when it comes to Mark. Aside from crass language (which has been publicly repented of), what other complaint do you and others have about Mark’s personal holiness? Are you privy to information that the rest of us don’t know? Or is it simply that he looks different from MacArthur and the others? This is my point. Let us see if his language improves. If it does, praise God, let us move forward. If not, then you can denounce him and move on. But maybe that is just me. Your choice. You can continue to attack him, or wait and see. By the way, none of us, not Mark, MacArthur, myself or others are above reproach or criticism. EVERY teacher and preacher should be and is up for public criticism. I would think both Mark Driscoll and John MacArthur would agree with me when I say, I welcome the criticism. Just my two cents.
In Christ,
Ricky
Some good dialouge there, Ricky, Arm, & Carla.
I wonder, (just a thought), if Mark would stand before his congrgation, and say,
“You know I have been using some language that I see now was not appropriate, and was less than what the Lord wants from me, I repent and ask for your forgiveness.
Also, many of you have flowed along with me, and have thought this language was alright, I ask you also to repent with me, and let’s do all this for the Lord, and for the glory of His mighty grace, and for the good news of Christ crucified and risen!”
Just thinking out loud.
God bless. Keep on. Galatians 6:14
Yeah, yeah you do yur thing. It´s pretty sad that listening to a certain kind of music is “worldly” but you americans have no problem with your consumerism, your mixing of religion and nationalism, et cetera. I for my part, is glad that there are some people who are ready to search for new ways for the gospel to be preached. We have known all along that we will meet people like you – people that has stopped searching in favor on passing judgement on others.
You keep doing that, if it makes you feel good. We have a mission to finish.
“His soteriology is exactly right”
So can we invite Mark to the next “Together for the Gospel” conference?
I had a chance to hear Mark speak at John Pipers conference and was left with the impression that Mark is a work in progress. He is not perfect. But I have seen several times where he has made apologies for things he has said. We can keep attacking a guy who is growing but that is really telling God that he is not sanctifying Mark quick enough.
Let’s take time to pray for Mark. Is he rough around the edges. You bet. Has he said things that are shocking and unacceptable. Yep. Can you recall a time in your life when you were a little rough? Can you ever recall saying a bad word?
Let’s try and encourage him and in a loving way call him to keep growing.
And as far as culture goes. Grace engages the culture all the time. Grace is located in an area with a high hispanic population. And guess what….they have a Spanish ministry and a soccer outreach. Hmm…That seems like embracing the culture to me.
Grace is full of tradition. They are full of culture. Jesus was engaged in culture.
I think perhaps there is a misunderstand of what it means to be missional. People confuse missional with being seeker sensitive. The seeker model is very concerned with culture. So much so that the culture around a seeker church is what defines it. The sell out to the whims of the culture, don’t want to offend people, and want to offer a nice environment where you can come and feel good. A seeker church uses surveys and marketing to figure out what people want and then gives it to them. There is little concern for doctrinal truth or holy living. It’s really all about numbers.
A missional church sees its self in a post-Christian culture and sees its role as being local missionaries to the people around it. A missional church seeks to follow the model of Paul when Paul says
“Though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”
“If he was alive today, Paul would say to the indie rockers, “I did indie rock!” To the hip-hoppers, “I did hip-hop!” To the tech guys, “I had a blog!” For the families, I talked about marriage, and kids, and parenting. For the business guys, I did financial seminars and connected it back to God. For the environmental-rights activists, I told them who the creator was since they enjoy his work so much. Paul is saying, “I tried to figure out how to articulate Jesus in as many ways as I possibly could, to as many people as I possibly can, to win as many people as are possible.” – Driscoll
“What gets in the way is tradition. Churches continually choose their past over their children… It’s a sin to change the message, but its a sin not to change the methods. The message of the gospel is unchanging! The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sin, according to scripture – but the methods by which that is communicated constantly, continually, must change, for the sake of that same gospel. And some people love their methods and they loose sight of the importance of the message…” – Driscoll
Paul did not care about the whims and triviality of culture. He knew just how meaningless it is to be a Jew, or to be under the law, or outside the law, or weak. He just wanted to reach people for the sake of the gospel. He did not get hung up on someone’s style or preferences.
There are many styles and preferences that the Bible calls sinful. Those should NEVER be allowed to shape and mold us. But things like music (if it’s got God-centered, Christ-exalting lyrics), or art, or style of dress (It has to be modest and fit what is acceptable) or other even a mohawk in a place like Seattle (well…the mohawk is probably a bit of a stretch but I think you get what I’m saying) is not going to matter. Why should it? If the Bible does not call it sinful, why should we?
Now…All that’s stuff is fine and dandy. But can we find examples of Jesus being missional. I think we find many examples of Jesus doing missional work. Jesus was very unlike the world. But let’s not forget just how like us he is. Jesus was 100% man. He was like us in every respect. He was tempted like we were. He needed to eat. He needed to sleep. He wore clothing. Jesus existed in culture.
When Jesus called the fishermen to follow him he did not call them to follow in a way that made no sense. He connected with them and said “I will make you fishers of men!” Jesus was ok with fishing. He did not have a problem using the language of fishing to relate to those around him. In fact Jeuss used the language and culture of that day to reach others.
Jesus look very much like the people around him. He fit in. That’s missional. It’s being like and unlike the world. That’s what makes the gospel so powerful. We see people just like us. They have jobs, families, cars, houses, social interest, they like and dislike certain kinds of food. We relate to people on this level. Yet there is some radically different about those who follow Christ. And that radical difference is not that we all wear khakis or suites to church. That radical difference should not be that we refuse to sing anything other then hymns in chruch. That difference is not that we all have neatly combed hair and refuse to put on ripped jeans. That radical difference should not be we know a lot of fancy religions pious language like imputation, justification, and glorification (And I love those words and spend trying to understand them more and more) The radical difference should be that we love God and love others. That radical difference should be that we are delighted and satisfied with Christ. The radical difference should be that we loving call sinners to repent and enter into God’s kingdom.
Ricky,
you asked:
“Also, everyone keeps bringing up personal holiness when it comes to Mark. Aside from crass language (which has been publicly repented of), what other complaint do you and others have about Mark’s personal holiness?”
You know, I see a much bigger issue here than what some keep calling “attacking” Mark Driscoll. First, I don’t believe publicly voicing concern about his own public statements is “attacking” him at all. It is what it is, publicly voicing concern about Driscoll’s statements. More importantly than that however, is that personal holiness is supposed to apply to every single one of us, according to Scripture. When I ask about it, the questions I ask apply to myself as much as they apply to anyone else. But if “everyone” as you say, keeps asking about it when it comes to one particular pastor (and I have seen many others ask the same question), then that seems to me that many people are rightly concerned over the same things.
I’ve read before that he’s repented over his language/speech, and I would hope that this is a genuine conviction of his. I’m not “attacking” him for his speech, but I wonder about something. If I have my facts correct, when he was introduced at the DG conference, a tongue-in-cheek comment was made about his off-color language. The person who introduced him laughed about it, the panel chuckled and the audience & Driscoll himself also apparently got a laugh out of it as well. (If I have any of that wrong, I hope someone will correct me).
Now this was just a couple of months ago, but the one thought that occured to me was this:
If I were a former drug abuser who had repented of such a thing, and was invited to speak in a group of women, and introduced with a sort of tongue in cheek humorous way as a former druggie – not only would I be humiliated to be known as such, but I would be dearly grieved that so many people there would find that something to laugh about.
Does that make sense? In a general sense – not specifically directed to Driscoll but to all of us – my question about personal holiness has more to do with repenting of the old ways and not treating them as something to laugh about. If they’re important enough to repent of in the first place, they should never be considered as something that we’d joke around about and make light of.
I hope you are correct and this is an area that has indeed been repented of, and that Mark Driscoll will grow in grace and maturity in Christ. That is my hope for him, and the massive audience he now has, via the web.
SDG,
Carla
Carla,
I can not speak for what was said at Desiring God. I did not attend and I have not gotten the audio from it, so I can not speak of it. But since it was a few months ago, and Mark’s repentance of his language was few weeks ago, I would have to say we still need to afford some grace here. I would say this about speakers that might introduce him, if they continue to play of the crude language, I would hope Mark would not laugh, but correct them on it. But that is just my opinion. I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Ricky
Comments and Thoughts:
1. Nobody is above criticism and nobody is perfect. Mark Driscoll and Steve Camp alike are equally subject to the standards of scripture and neither one would deny that.
2. I don’t actually think Mark is vulgar. I’ve never heard him say anything that I found offensive. I was simply granting the point for the sake of debate, because it’s not something worth fighting about (whether or not he does say things that are offensive), but I actually am NOT offended by Driscoll. I’ve never heard him cuss (which in my books is the “S-bomb” and the “F-bomb”)and all I’ve ever heard from him is a guy who’s concerned about the church, the scriptures, the truth and personal purity.
The thing is that I know a bunch of people ARE offended by Driscoll, and I’m definitely open to the fact that he’s said a few horrible things that I’ve not heard. So, for the sake of continuing conversation, I granted the point. It’s not really a big deal to me because I’ve learned, after lurking and posting in the “reformed bloggers” ring for around a year, a lot of the reformed bloggers have sensitivities in places that I don’t have sensitivities, so I try to be aware of that.
3. As I think about it, I kinda see where Pastor Astor is coming from too. We all have to extend “grace” to everyone around us, for none of us are where we should be but instead we’re all “in progress”.
The thing is, some of us find it easy to extend “grace” to people on issues of personal holiness if their doctrine is solid where as others of us will be “gracious” with doctrine if they show adequate concern with personal holiness.
Those aren’t the only two categories, but I’d say that we all have areas where we’re weak. Heck, even John MacArthur and Phil Johnson have areas where they rub me the wrong way, but I suck it up and try to be gracious with them, though I don’t have to do that MUCH(and chances are that the problem is more likely with ME than with them!)
And before anyone trumpets “we should uphold right conduct AND right action, not one or the other”, I would agree. We need to be Christlike, and Christlikeness is comprehensive. Mark’s “on the way”, just like Steve Camp is “on the way”, just like MacArthur is “on the way”, just like I am “on the way”. All 4 are at different places on the journey. At different times, in different ways, we all need to struggle to be gracious with each other.
So my real problem was that I see us Reformed types (If I can be included among the esteemed) often falling into what Ted Kirkpatrick calls “Trivializing the Momentous” and having a “Telescopic view of a Microscopic Realm”. We seem to fight so much about the things that don’t matter that we somewhat neglect the great commission and we forget that we’re all supposed to love one another by ACTUALLY acting in loving ways towards one another.
We are all a work in progress here… No one has arrived in their sanctification (I surely have not) and we all need, as Calvin said, “to repent everyday” not just as a one time confession unto salvation. We all have blind spots as well–and I thank the Lord for those He has placed in my life to help me see mine, face them, and repent of them.
Ricky:
1. Driscoll’s letter of asking for forgiveness was several months ago, published in CT, about some foul words he used in response to McLaren’s post on homosexuality. If there is another one, could you please site the link here so that we all may read it for ourselves. This one is the only one I am aware of.
2. I would say at this juncture, his apology was only words for he continues on using speech unfit for a pastor expositing Scripture from the sacred desk.
3. I don’t have it out for Mark personally and have benefited from some of his messages which I have recognized publicly at my blog. I done my homework and have listened and read most everything he has published in book, podcast, vodcast, blog and web articles over the past few years. But when someone represents themselves by their own words as a reformed calvinist I take them at their own confession. To then see Mark implement methods or manners that continually contradict his own assertions, then there comes a time where he ought to be honest enough with his audience to own the differences. Speaking forthrightly about those differences is not unloving, unChristian, nor judgmental–anymore than you addressing concerns over what I have written (which I appreciate your questions and thoughts as a faithful Berean).
4. One of many things that I have appreciated about John Mac these many hears in ministry, is the reverence he conducts himself with while in the pulpit. This is my greatest concern for Mark. His scatological speech aside, there is a flippancy that marks his methods. Though exhibited not all the time, it is there in a prevalent unavoidable way. Carla got it right: J. Piper was wrong in how he casually and humorously treated Mark’s language in his introduction of him at the DG this past September. John even used some scatological speech himself in a panel discussion that warranted the moderator of the discussion to rightly retort by saying, “John (Piper), it seems that Driscoll is rubbing off on you” (my paraphrase). Compare Isaiah’s view of “dirty lips” with Driscoll’s in 6:1-8.
5. The emerging/emergent seeker sensitive/sensible ecumenical culture of post-modern methodology to ministry is not a reformed movement representing orthodox, historic, biblical theology; but in principle is what Spurgeon faced during the Downgrade Controversy of the late 19th century. It was a worldly methodology that preceded and gave birth to a skewed/aberrant theology that since ravaged every major denomination and in many respects are still recovering from the fall out. This is important.
6. Lastly, if Mark has pulled from his recommended reading list all references in any way whatsoever to the books and links of McLaren, Burke, Ward, Jones, Miller, etc. that is great news and I retract that portion from my earlier comment. In an article I wrote for CampOnThis and SLICE a some months back, I recommended that he do this as a true sign of consistent orthodox practice and it was then met with opposition from some in his own emerging ecumenical seeker sensible camp. I am delighted to hear that those articles had some influence to that issue and that he withdrew those unorthodox materials from his reading list. Thank you for sharing that development.
Driscoll is a smart gifted man; his voice matters to many young believers today. I do pray for him as I hope he prays for me too. I would hope that he would not humorously dismiss his scatology or crude humor while in the pulpit and that he would graciously receive these concerns from a heart of love and not one of condemnation. No one is pontificating here brother. In an age where feelings are considered more important than truth, we must guard against letting personal emotion rule the day, rather than the rule of faith to which we must all be held accountable.
All I would like to say is that I was once also “the lowest common demoniator” and someone found me, and brought me to Jesus. I clicked on this article because I was searching the web for “how to find hope”, and it disturbs me that there are so many articles with what I would consider empty words.
There is an old Star Trek show, where Spock is the only person who can save his father and in the middle of everything the captain is injured and Spock must see to the safety of the ship first, which endangers his father even further. His mother then condemns him for not rushing to his father and leaving his first committment, his rank as a Starfleet officer. In his reply, Spock says to her, “How could you have married a Vulcan, lived on Vulcan, raised a child on Vulcan, and still not know what it means to be Vulcan?” After reading this article by this pastor, I feel the same way? How can you have spent your life serving Christ and still not know what it really means to Serve Christ?
Yes, I believe God still speaks through men, but when I read this, all I heard was a man. Is there really no one else to reach? Are there no encouragements left to give? If all any of us have to offer is critiques, then we have truly outlived our usefulness to the one we claim we serve.
I do not understand why we so desperately attempt to defend the world. When someone speaks out against secularization of the gospel, we all throw a hissy fit and act like a bunch of 5 year olds. The Gospel is offensive. It is not easy to follow. Read your Bible. Quit living in a world that is full of relativism. Separate yourself.
Diane, thank you for your heartfelt response.
My hope for you is that you will learn more and more of “what it really means to Serve Christ.”
I hope that when you meet people, you will find those “encouragements left to give?”
I see myself in your comment, “If all any of us have to offer is critiques, then we have truly outlived our usefulness to the one we claim we serve.”
I hope that is not true of me.
Galatians 2:14
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Hypocrisy is a horrible method of evangelism. You don’t compel the world to not live like the world by living like the world. If you engage in sinfulness and unholiness, yet claim to be a child of God and a child of light, what incentive do you give the lost to change when they see your own hypocrisy?
I was told that in other parts of the world, it was OK to curse and talk vulgar, and churches did it, and it was my own fundamental theology that was the problem. But when I went to the czech republic and london in 2005, I asked sincere Christians in both locations if such conduct was acceptable, and both said no. The pastor in the czech republic said he would immediately confront any member of his church which used such language.
This summer I will be doing mission work on the outskirts of Beirut, and the church I will be working for would say the same. This idea of cultural Christianity is arrogant and man-centered, thinking that the Bible needs to conform to society as opposed to society conforming to the world. Something becomes specific to a culture by repetition and tradition, such as women going topless in certain parts of the world(such as in parts of Africa). Does that make it OK because the culture does it? No, it just means the culture is rooted in unchristian beliefs.
What it comes down to is a love of the world. When people want to keep their attachment to the culture, that is not out of some enlightenment on spiritual maturity, it is simply because they still love the world.
If this post comes across as angry and sarastic, forgive me for wearing my emotions on my sleeve.
My personal experience with the MacArthur-style approach to religion in my area is it stifles creative expression, deadens the emotions, morphs a living breathing faith into an intellectual exercise, has limited outreach in the community, and has a very small grace umbrella, marginalizing others who don’t quite fit the theological or stylistic culture of the local body. I left that church.
My personal experience with the heart of Mark Drisoll’s ministry in my area is it allows creative expression, does not deny emotion, encourages a whole-man approach to the Christian life, has large outreach in the community, and does not marginalize those who don’t quite fit the theological or sytlistic culture of the local body. I attend that church.
Nothing like a divisive argument over style to take the Church off mission and further stain the witness of the Church in the world.
Disappointing.
Tom, standing for the truth is more important than “can’t we all just get along?”
What does it matter if we all agree on something if that something has no substance? I’m sure John Piper has the same view as Macarthur on the subject, and you’d have to be blind and deaf to say he denies emotion. I obviously don’t know you personally, but if your priorities are what they seem to be from your post, do they really line up with scripture?
[...] Grunge Christianity? [...]
A builder left a master plan, letters on the application of the plan and a helper. His subs for the most part worked together under a generally accepted building code for a very long time.
The subs began to argue over what code was the right interpretation of the master plan; they split. Then there was a split within the split over what code was the right interpretation amid allegations.
The most recent split continues to splinter over their own codes, each equally convinced that their code best captures the master plan, they are the most in tune with the helper, and are critical of the other codes, both within and without their faction, regardless of age or historical fit with the master plan, producing a building unfit for habitation.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Hi Tom.
I have a question. How do you avoid the kind of splintering you mention? Would it be related to the little episode in Luke 9?
“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
Are we to stop criticizing other denominations, congregations and pastors and simply procede with our own ministries?
* * * * * * * *
I think the idea of a master plan is interesting.
I’m sure you know that there is a very simple “master plan” for our Christian meetings. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like any of the more traditional interpretations of the blueprint.
“When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All these things must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue (etc.) . . .
“Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirit of prophets is subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”
“. . . If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am saying is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself shall be ignored” (II Corinthians 14:26-30, more or less).
Now, what would it take to reorganize your fellowship to allow the level of maximum participation (“you can all prophesy”) Paul says is “the Lord’s command”?
As a fellow laborer in God’s building, as of yet I don’t qualify as a “MASTER BUILDER” and never will.
As long as the Blue Prints are followed, stone upon stone, The Name of JESUS is lifted up….
HE get’s All the glory……..
Those whom He has predestined will be saved, Not all of us will fit the suit and tie dress code, some of us will be “Tatooed” head to foot, rings in our noses, or have a PhD in liberalism, He changes us from the inside.
The message has never changed, Not all of us are Paul or JM, But we are co-laborers together.
Encourage one another along the way.
Does John realize with this broad sweeping swipe he also brought Martin Luther into question? Martin Luther was very vulgar in his day… in fact they just recently found the “toilet” that he sat often “contemplating scripture”…which is the place he wrote the 95 thesis… Martin Luther has some great quotes that revolve around bodily functions… He was in John’s own words “worldly” yet, he was also the great reformer…. go figure! Don’t give me the argument that he lived in different times… it does not hold… for the “standard” John sets is above the “times” and seems to deny “Grace to anyone”.
So in condemning Mark Driscoll who BTW is not what I would consider that “emerging”, John condemns Martin Luther without realizing it…
Titus 3:10
iggy
Tom, I agree with your reference of Ecclesiastes, there IS nothing new under the sun. But the thing is, I believe that makes Pastor Macarthur’s point all the more. We don’t need to “get with” the new cultural fad, God doesn’t need an upgrade, there’s nothing new, and salvation still has the same requirements it did thousands of years ago.
You know, I think I would have to agree, that we do not need to embrace the world in order to be culturally relevant. It is the Father himself, and not our knowledge of the latest fads that draws men unto God. I think it fair to agree with Augustine; “all restlessness is a homesickness for God.” And if that be true, then the gospel will always be relevant, no matter how much or how little the pastor engages himself with the culture. However, though Driscoll’s approach to the gospel strays heavily from MacArthur’s, shouldn’t we rejoice like Paul that the gospel is still being preached? After all, is the form or the message itself what’s most important? One thing I’ve definitely noticed about Dricoll, course language aside, is that He this man preaches the gospel. It grieves my heart to hear a well known pastor such as MacArthur bashing a fellow brother in Christ, for doing exactly that. I mean, what’s the benefit to the body by slamming Driscoll for something like his language? Are we ambassadors of grace or enforcers of the law? And I really have to think, that it’s the intention of the heart, and not the arrangment of certain letters and sounds that is offensive to God anyways. I’d have to encourage Mr. MacArthur to be be careful here, of what we presumes to know about someone’s heart from the mere outward appearances. To call Driscoll’s sanctification into question is no small thing. In that case, I think we are in danger of becoming like the pharisees who presumed Jesus to be a bastard.
Very well said, Mike.
David, I think your premise is backward. It’s not upgrading God, it’s understanding the culture, communicating in the language of the culture, answering the questions the culture is asking with the Gospel without compromising the truth and spirit of the Gospel.
It’s not much different than what the Russian Orthodox did in Alaska in the late 1700s with the Alaskan natives. (That is, of course, if you think the Orthodox are Christians – something a modern, narrow Reformed tradition may not agree with.)
Just curious. What does an a-cultural gospel look like? An evening with the Gaithers? What does a discipleship community look like that is ‘out of culture’? How do you inhabit the world but remain outside it aesthetically?
[...] John MacArthur shows us all how to miss a good point with proper Christian etiquette. I respect and enjoy the work of Mark Driscoll. I am mystified at the seemingly endless attacks directed toward the guy from ‘in house’ people. Ah, let’s all long for the good ‘ole days of 1966, shall we? [...]
“The point I want to make is not about Driscoll’s language per se, but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to “engage the culture.” It’s possible to be overexposed to our culture’s dark side. I don’t think anyone can survive full immersion in today’s entertainments and remain spiritually healthy.” Quote JM
I think this is one of the core problems…
Didn’t Jesus state that “it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out”? I understand what John is saying yet this really shows that he misses the point completely with a statement as anti-biblical as this…
Again, I do not know who he is implying is in “full submersion” to today’s entertainments… as I see one can be fully immerses in Christ and engage in the culture in a godly manner as Paul did at mars Hill. In a way Paul became a “Greek philosopher” yet was greater than they as Paul proclaimed Christ risen… and that is the core value of the EC… to bring the risen Jesus … to the culture… and “engage” them where they are at… one logically cannot be fully immersed in “immersion in today’s entertainments” and be fully immersed in Jesus… Jesus was fully in the Father and still ate with sinners… but the logic above would have been what the Pharisees said about Jesus… “look he eats with sinners!” which implied Jesus approved their sin… and Jesus did not… He engaged the culture around Him… He went to weddings, attended the Temple services, Jesus touched lepers, and healed on the Sabbath… this was subversive… it engaged and challenged the culture… and that is again one of the values of the EC.
John throws out the baby with the bathwater and in the end gives us a quote as above to show he is right… he seems to in this sentence be expressing a dualist view point of the world is evil and the spirit is good… that is more akin to Gnosticism that True Christianity.
Maybe grace is more than a word… and is something to practice in ones life… I suggest that. I see that John may have misspoken and not purposely set up an unbiblical view as truth. We are to be light to the darkness… and that does mean we must sometimes face that darkness to spread that Light especially cultures dark side… We are not about following down the Romans 1 road, but about following Jesus as He live His life in and through us… being light in a dark world.
Blessings,
iggy
One verse in the Bible clearly came to mind after reading all these posts.
“Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful.” Psalm 1:1
If we as Christians become like the world, what would unbelievers see in us that they might need or want in their lives?
I think it is wrong to post comments that are longer than the actual blog post. I can’t put a scriptural reference on it….nonetheless….
Dr. MacArthur has spoken once again, as always, with clarity, dignity and the authority of Scripture.
I am not a theologian, simply a student of the Bible and a “sponge” for correct teaching. I do not believe there is a need to “join” with the world, stooping to their level of communicating. The Bible doesn’t need expletives to get its point across nor do we need to “modernize” the old hymns to lure the world to our church. Our job as Christians is to go to the church and learn the word in order to take it to all the world.
John Mac Arthur is an expositor of the Word. I do not think we need to “add or delete” or enhance to get to the proper understanding of the Scripture. I have been under the teaching of the ones that manipulate with “just one more chorus”. I have “gone forward” feeling guilty as opposed to repentant.
I have sat under John’s ministry for a quarter of a century and will continue until I am called Home.
Norm
[...] 2. Speaking of John MacArthur (and Mark Driscoll!), here’s John MacArthur taking on Mark Driscoll! Now that’s a Celebrity Death Match™ I’d like to see… [...]
I love the story of Jesus healing the man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years…the only thing the Pharisees even cared to notice was that the man carried his mat on the Sabbath. God had just healed a man and raised him to his feet…rather than rejoice with the man in God’s goodness and grace and to praise and worship God for His work, the religious hypocrites get angry at the man who is breaking their rules.
Mr. MacArthur’s essay seems no different to me. Mark Driscoll does nothing but preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, point people to the fact that there is no forgiveness for sin apart from him. He is doing fairly well, I might add…people are getting saved in droves – but that doesn’t seem to matter much to any of you, or to Mr. MacArthur. Jesus’ name is being glorified and people are praising our Father in heaven…but all you care about is “nuts” and “banging.” Mark Driscoll cares about only two things: Jesus and the lost. He’s not so concerned with wearing a suit and tie, or with not drinking alcohol (they called Jesus a glutton and a drunkard, by the way), or with smoking. His concern is with preaching Jesus to the lost and seeing them repent and believe. Funny how the church (and Mr. MacArthur) seems to have a problem with that.
I leave you all with Galatians 5:12
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves.” I think what Paul is saying is that those who are religious hypocrites and say that salvation must be earned through circumcision should cut off their penises or testicles (or both). That’s crude no matter what culture you are in. I would be curious to see if Mr. MacArthur would laugh at that…because I certainly did the first time I read it. Paul telling people to cut off their “stuff.”
Lighten up, people – including you, Mr. MacArthur. And maybe you should sit down and have a conversation with someone before you crucify them publically? Just a suggestion.
Starting off, I’ll openly admit I’m a member at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, where Mark Driscoll is my teaching pastor. I grew up in strict fundamentalism, attending high school at Maranatha Baptist Academy in Watertown, Wisconsin, and taking both my undergraduate and graduate degrees at Bob Jone University in Greenville, South Carolina. I have attended many forms of theologically and culturally conservative churches. I am an armchair theologian at best. I have read quite a few of these comments but did not read all of them, so my apologies if someone else has already addressed this.
The point of Pastor MacArthur’s article seems to be the certainty of sinful results in a life or ministry dedicated to “cultural relativism.” Pastor Mark’s style is offered as the primary example. Whether or not Pastor MacArthur’s article is correct in its overarching theme or not is not my place to say. But I do wish to tell you what I’ve seen and learned since coming to Seattle and joining the work at Mars Hill.
1) Conversions. Mars Hill is one of the most unusual churches I’ve attended. I have never before been involved anywhere where I have seen this number of committed, growing new believers. Twice a year or so, we’ll have major baptismal services, often at one of the beaches around Seattle, wherein fifty to one hundred new, adult converts publically declare their commitment to Jesus. I want emphasize that these are nearly all adults. Prior to coming to Mars Hill when I was 27, I can recall one baptismal service at one church wherein a majority of the converts (seven) were adults.
2) Growth/Sanctification. These new believers do not stay stagnant, nor do they typically leave Mars Hill as they mature spiritually. Seattle is a damaged town. It seems nearly everyone has been or is currently abused, addicted, abandoned, hurt, etc. This is a sad place. What I see happening at church, especially through the small groups I’ve been involved with, is a tremendous amount of change, not by simple personal resolution and determination to be more holy, but by the work of the Holy Spirit. (I have no other explanation for it.) Addicts admit their struggles, reject their idols, love Jesus, share the gospel, and become positive members of society. Fathers and husbands take responsibility for the sin and trouble they’ve wrought in their own lives and in their families and then work for change. People turn from every kind of sexual impurity to live in the light and love of Jesus, no longer abusing others or themselves. For the people of Mars Hill, holiness and sanctification is not just a change of thinking but a change of how one lives one’s life. That doesn’t mean any of us are perfect. Do we participate in a variety of things that my own church background and family’s traditions would consider sinful? Yes, we do. (Being human is not sinful. God has made each of us to enjoy different aspects of his creation and thank him for them.) However, everyone I know at the church is careful not to lead another believer into sin, even if that “sin” is just a conscience issue. We take responsibility to help our brothers and sisters. Do we participate in anything that Scripture plainly forbids? No, we do not. Again, we are also careful to help our fellow believers avoid temptations in their own lives and willingly give up our freedoms for the sake of God’s children. If one of our number does violate Christ’s commands, we confront him or her and help that person walk in repentance and humility. If that person continues in sin, we will deal (and have dealt) with him/her in the way Scripture commands.
For us, sanctification is not an issue of external change. It is the growth of Christ in each of us as we continually submit our lives and actions to him. As he changes us, we begin to see changes in each other, not necessarily in dress or stylistic preferences, but in how we relate to God and one another.
3) Love. Never before have I been at a church wherein the people were willing to consistently expose their own sin and evil and offer the undeserved kindness and love of Jesus to one another. While we may appear to be “come as you are,” we are not “stay as you are.” We are committed to Jesus and desire over anything else to reveal him to our fellow believers, our neighbors, and even our enemies through attitudes and acts of love. Love is creative and takes understanding of the one you are trying to love. As I tell my friends in my small groups, we do not love someone in order to make him become a believer. We love those God has put into our lives whether or not they ever become believers. We love one another as Christ loved the church. This is the work of God in a believer. This is an undeniable gift of his presence.
Please note that I am not saying that results or outcomes determine the appropriateness of a particular methodology. Nor am I an official voice of Mars Hill Church. I am not even a small group leader. I’m just a regular member who loves his church family and wants to share the wonderful things Jesus is doing in Seattle, despite our stumbles and foibles. We aren’t perfect and likely never will be. However, we do appreciate your prayers as we seek to share Jesus with our city.
Thanks for listening, and all the best as you share Jesus with the people where you live!
I am a recovering Pharisee that used to attend Grace Church in the 80’s when I lived in LA. I now am a member of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. I have a lot of respect for John MacArthur. But I will say I have less today than I did yesterday. Sitting under JOhn’s teaching for four years was a wonderful experience of learning Scripture. Sadly, it also turned me into a prideful Pharisee: more in love with my knowledge of Scripture and my better-than-those-poor-other-churches Attitude rather than an increasing love of Jesus.
Coming to Mars Hill I learned that there are No Good people…and Jesus really doesn’t care if you wear a tie on Sundays or listen to music written after 1954. Mark Driscoll helped me to understand the worldly culture and to have a love for them. They are not worse than I am.
Let me deflate two prevailing assumptions on this blog: Mark Driscoll is NOT vulgar. Mark is honest. When he preached on Corinthians, he helped us understand what Paul was going through because Seattle is much like Corinth: Mark talked about the despicable practices and Godless spirituality of Seattle/Corinth. He didn’t skip the verses regarding the sins of Judah in Genesis. He was a bit graphic and I’m glad. He also was frank about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Second, Mark is NOT part of the Emergent Churches. He is very clear about the differnce between an emerging church and the Emergent Churches. MHC and Mark are very outspokenly distancing themselves from Brian McLaren et al. So please KNOCK IT OFF!!!!
John,
I love you, brother, and your work has meant a ton to me during my walk with Christ. The same can be said of many, many people that I know.
I hope you discussed these views with Mark before posting them for all to see. If not, the Scriptural line you’re crossing is not ambiguous. It is obvious.
[...] 1) “Preaching against culture is like preaching against someone’s house.” I’m not sure how far Stetzer meant this comment to be taken, but it seemed as if he was saying we should avoid preaching against culture altogether. I would agree with Pastor John MacArthur, however, that many aspects of today’s culture are poisonous and must be opposed with God’s truth. It is not so much like carelessly offending people by preaching against their house as it is carefully warning them that their house is infested with toxic mold, and they are in danger. [...]
mike harding,
hopefully with more than the psuedo-respect you offered jmac,
i would have to say that you may need to chill
on your secondary-separation rant.
it is arguably very little of your business
who macarthur associates with, though i know it
has been the topic of discussions for those
in eastern michigan (read: troy and dbts) for far too long.
john piper is one of the godliest men i’ve ever met,
and the rapper he had in his church comes out of Sovereign Grace Ministries,was redeemed off the streets, and is an urban-ministries pastor in a church like one i was apart of. Few promote the gospel and engage the culture better than those i know from SGM. as for taking rap back into the ghetto with doctrine/gospel-infused lyrics…it’s called redeeming the culture.
despite all of that, i’m just not sure what your healthy
alternative to Macarthur would be (let alone, Piper and Driscoll). surely not garlock, woetzel or makujina? and i’ve read your protege scott aniol calling ccm bubble-gum and classical/sacred (was it?) steak. come now…
i have no problem with you being who you are and ministering where and how you do. it is your (and your church’s) prerogative; and i’m pretty sure if we polled jmac, jp, and md, they would agree. but please know that the shots you and other fundamentalist leaders take at godly evangelicals are costing you dearly; perhaps more than you know. as i’m sure you’ve noticed – the ranks are thinning, and it may be time for you to look inward as well.
until then…
a little less vitriolity,
and a little more grace would be appreciated.
A few questions for Pastor MacArthur (who I respect greatly) and others who oppose Pastor Driscoll (who I also respect greatly):
1. Is one’s knowledge of culture inversely proportional to one’s holiness? In other words, are people who are ignorant about their culture more holy than people who are knowledgeable about their culture and can speak intelligently about it?
2. Pastor MacArthur stated that he doesn’t “know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation”. Has Pastor MacArthur EVER head a private conversation with Pastor Driscoll, as might have been appropriate before publishing ‘Grunge Christianity’?
3. Paul, in Acts 17, complemented the pagan Greeks and he agreed with some of what they believed. For example, in Acts 17:22, he said that the Greeks were very religious. In Acts 17:29, Paul agreed with a pagan Greek philosopher/poet that “we are God’s offspring”. Paul was obviously quite familiar with the Greek culture, enough so that he could quote one of their poets from memory. Was he wrong to do so?
4. Pastor MacArthur criticizes the lifestyle that Pastor Driscoll models. Given the implication that the two have never met or had a discussion, how does Pastor MacArthur know what lifestyle Pastor Driscoll models? Pastor MacArthur may know what Pastor Driscoll says from the pulpit, but how would he know his lifestyle?
I believe Pastor Driscoll to be in good company. In a piece dated January 2, 1875 and published by the New York Times on January 23rd of the same year, the following was said about Rev. Charles Spurgeon: “In Mr. Spurgeon we have an orator who…cannot help, now and then, being vulgar.” The article went on to say that “…Mr. Spurgeon could be seriously as well as comically vulgar”.
Dear Pastor Macarthur,
While your article may have been true, I do not think the manner in which you wrote it was best.
Mark Driscoll, is a loveable character who very much endorses your ministry in his sermons and on his websites.
This was not the best way to reprove a fellow believer and a fellow minister of Christ. You should have tried to rebuke him privately first and then if he chose not to heed you could’ve proceeded to expose him.
I am not saying compromise truth; but please show more sympathy and love if you are going to discredit another believers ministry.
Andrew