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

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”.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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