John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Harsh Language
September 17th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
It was June 15, 2000—just over eight years ago—when James Montgomery Boice entered his heavenly rest. That same day marked the beginning of that year’s Ligonier National Conference in Orlando, Florida. The theme was “Upsetting the World” and the speakers included an all-star line up as men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson, Douglas Wilson and Al Mohler addressed those in attendance. By all accounts, it was a uniquely emotion-filled conference, and understandably so. One of evangelicalism’s foremost pastors, scholars, and statesmen had just gone home to heaven.
During the conference, in the first Q&A session, a memorable interchange took place between two of the keynote speakers. The first, Doug Wilson (whose magazine Credenda Agenda is known for its sharp wit and biting commentary), was asked to defend the sarcastic rhetoric that characterized his ministry. Wilson responded by pointing to how Christ used language to confront the Pharisees, contending that because Christ used “sarcasm” and “biting cultural criticism” we should too, since “we are called to imitate Christ in all that He does.” (Wilson also noted the polemic of the Old Testament prophets, suggesting that a similar polemic should be used by pastors today.)
The second, John Piper, disagreed; and he did not hesitate to offer a rebuttal. Graciously but firmly he warned Wilson of the dangers that come with an over-fondness for sarcasm:
John Piper: I want to go back to Doug’s defense of sarcasm and irony and balance it. One of the reasons I have a problem with simply “Do what Jesus did” is there is one huge difference between me and Jesus and that is sin in me. There are others. And that one is picked up by the Apostle Paul because when he argues for tenderheartedness and gentleness and forbearance he grounds it in the fact that you were forgiven, therefore forgive. In other words, Paul draws attention to the very thing that distinguishes me from Jesus when he’s arguing for my tenderheartedness towards people. . . .
Now Doug Wilson is absolute genius at sarcasm and irony. And I would just wave a little yellow flag . . . [because] you can’t exalt Christ and commend yourself as clever. . . . So that’s an exhortation, a warning, really to everybody who clapped for Doug when he said what he had to say, and for you [Doug], and for me, because frankly I think I need to say that because I am wired to be a person who puts down stupidity [in a way that is sarcastic or harsh], and I have to work really hard to manifest tenderness.
Doug Wilson: I appreciate that very much. I do want to encourage you, it may not encourage you, but every time you read something in Credenda Agenda, just tell yourself, “They’re holding back.” [Laughter from audience]
John Piper: And that worries me. That worries me. [1]
Fast forward eight years to the upcoming Desiring God National Conference (September 26–28), where the ever controversial Mark Driscoll will advocate the use of sarcastic and biting speech in pastoral ministry (in a session entitled, “How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words”). Like Wilson, it seems that Driscoll will appeal to the polemic of Christ, Paul, and the Old Testament prophets to make his case. But unlike Wilson, Driscoll will be defending much more than just prophetic sarcasm. Based on his reputation for locker room humor, crass allusions, and sexual innuendo, Driscoll’s definition of “harsh language” pushes the envelope farther than Credenda Agenda ever did . . .
. . . which brings up an interesting question as to how Driscoll’s presentation will be received when it is delivered in Minneapolis next week. (For those wondering why John Piper invited Mark Driscoll to speak on this topic, you can see his answer here.)
Mark Driscoll’s edgy approach to ministry is widely known for its use of provocative, sarcastic, and earthy speech from the pulpit. Few would deny that his colorful style sometimes falls outside the boundaries of pastoral propriety—at least as normally defined in evangelical circles. Though he denounces “shock-jock language” as inappropriate [2], this “smart-aleck former frat boy” [3] has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t shy away from saying things that many would consider overly crude and irreverent. [4] (Driscoll himself recognizes the fact that much of his content, such as the MH-17 adult-only sermon videos on his website, fits “into two categories: offensive and really offensive.” [5] Or as Christianity Today notes about him, “If he hasn’t offended you, you’ve never read his books or listened to his sermons.” [6])
But what does Mark Driscoll think about those who are critical of the “harsh language” he uses?
“I would push back and say that some of them are cowards,” he says in a recent interview, highlighting his upcoming message at Desiring God. “They don’t go far enough. Some of them are people pleasers and they’re worried about their ratings and approval as opposed to the truth.” [7]
Though he admits (in the same video) that “some guys like [him] go too far,” Driscoll ultimately justifies the use of harsh language in pastoral ministry by appealing to several Old Testament prophets (specifically, Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel) and two brief comments in the letters of Paul. At the beginning of the video, he states:
The Bible has some very strong language. The opening of Galatians where he [Paul] tells a bunch of guys who are into circumcision to go all the way and emasculate themselves, probably not something that you’re going to have on the flannel-graph for the children in the Sunday school. Ezekiel telling the Israelites that they are whoring after certain people and gods because of the size of their genitalia and the experiences they enjoy is very strong language. When Isaiah says that a righteousness is like bloody tampons and Paul says it’s like a steaming pile that a dog leaves in the yard, the Bible is using some very strong language.
The question is, is that okay? Well, all Scripture is God-breathed, and if that’s how God speaks that’s how we should speak.
Later Driscoll notes that, though God’s Word uses this type of language infrequently, “that doesn’t mean we never use perhaps even strong language, harsh tones, cutting remarks, biting sarcasm, devastating uses of humor and irony, ‘cause God does.”
And so, contends Driscoll, pastors today not only can, but should, use provocative and offensive speech because that is how God’s spokesmen have communicated at times in the past.
But does this line of argumentation really justify the kind of harsh language that has earned Driscoll a reputation for being “bold, brash, sarcastic, opinionated, and blunt,” “intentionally irreverent,” and comfortable using “language that will offend those whose scruples are sensitive”? [8]
Personally, I am not convinced. Here are three reasons why:
1. First, Driscoll’s argument ultimately comes up short unless he can demonstrate that the way in which the OT prophets, Christ, and the NT apostles used “harsh language” (especially as it related to the cultures of their day) is directly parallel to his own penchant for lowbrow humor, coarse rhetoric, and sarcastic wit. But Driscoll’s track record hardly seems to fit the patterns established by these biblical examples. For starters, their speech was neither lewd nor flippant, and it was certainly not motivated by an effort to be culturally relevant. Moreover, when Christ (being God) and the biblical prophets (writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit) said things that offended others, they did so in ways wholly absent from fleshly motives and sinful pride. We must take great caution in thinking we can do the same (per John Piper’s warning to Doug Wilson).
2. Second, Driscoll’s argument assumes that because some of the biblical prophets used harsh language (on limited occasions), then today’s pastors can and should use harsh language as well. But this type of reasoning presents a problem if taken to its logical conclusion. After all, wouldn’t this make every kind of prophetic behavior (no matter how infrequent) a paradigm pastors should follow today? Isaiah, for example, prophesied naked (perhaps in a loin cloth) for several years, in keeping with God’s command in Isaiah 20. And Elijah killed the prophets of Baal after he mocked their false god, according to 1 Kings 18. Are such actions to be imitated in contemporary ministry? And if not, why not?
3. Finally, and most importantly, Driscoll’s argument places the implicit examples of Old Testament prophets above the explicit commands of the New Testament Scriptures. If the New Testament were silent about the speech of believers, especially pastors, Driscoll’s line of reasoning might be sustainable. But in this case, the New Testament (in particular, the Apostle Paul), could not be clearer:
Ephesians 4:29: Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 5:3–4: But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
Paul’s instruction to Titus, as a pastor, is perhaps even more to the point:
Titus 2:6: Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.
(We might also mention the warnings to teachers about the tongue in James 3.)
It is hard to see how being characterized by dignity and sound speech fits into Driscoll’s provocative paradigm. Even if reasons 1 and 2 (above) could be sufficiently answered or dismissed, number three shuts the door and closes it tight. Principles implicitly drawn from descriptive examples cannot trump the explicit commands given to us in prescriptive New Testament texts.
Consider, as an aside, John Piper’s insightful comments on a couple of the passages cited above:
Regarding Ephesians 4:29: [Another] kind of language I think Paul would include in his command not to let any rotten talk come out of your mouth is vulgar references to sex and the human body. . . . I recall a couple of men in graduate school in Germany who seemed to carry the aroma of vulgarity about them. All they ever seemed to laugh at was sexual innuendo. The pitiful thing about it was that the nearer they got to the gutter, the more they laughed. With their mouths they created an atmosphere like a stinking locker room. It was unpleasant for everybody but themselves. And it made noble and high and worthy thoughts all but impossible. It’s hard to savor beauty from a garbage dump. [9]
Regarding Ephesians 5:3–4: Paul seems to be concerned mainly about two related errors: treating things as gross or treating things as trivial; filthiness and flippancy. There are people who are so dirty inside that they can hardly refer to a tree or a cloud or a fish hook or a brake pedal without treating it as filthy: they may do it with some gross language or simply with a despising attitude and demeanor. And there are people whose vision of the world is so superficial that they trivialize everything. Paul condemns both of these and says, “Get rid of all filthiness and coarseness on the one hand, and all foolishness and levity on the other.” [10]
And in another place (regarding Colossians 2:1–8): How can we guard ourselves against a foul or frivolous mouth? How can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is foul with criticism and bitterness … and sarcasm and disrespect and ridicule and cynicism? And how can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is just flippant and trivial and silly and petty? The answer to both questions is, Fill your mouth with thanksgiving. [11]
To be fair, Mark Driscoll has not yet given his message at Desiring God. Perhaps it is too early to critique his defense, since he has only given a brief overview of what will surely be a much more comprehensive and nuanced discussion.
Maybe he will address some of the concerns we’ve outlined above. Or maybe he’ll differentiate between what might be rightly called “prophetic,” and what some have described as nothing more than “the gutter language of anti-social people.” [12] In any case, we’ll know for sure in about ten days.
In closing, I’d like to cite a few more paragraphs from John Piper. I include them, not because I disagree with Dr. Piper (a great man of God whose ministry I highly respect), but because I think he is absolutely right; and because I think they make his invitation to Driscoll all the more curious:
I remember one time as a child that my mother actually washed my mouth out with soap. She took me to the bathroom sink, rubbed the bar of soap around in my mouth, and then rinsed it out and made me go to my room. Do you know what I had said? I think I had said, “Shut up!” to my sister.
Now why should my mother wash my mouth out with soap for saying, “Shut up!” to my sister? She did it because she believed Jesus when he said, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11).
I had made myself dirty by saying, “Shut up,” to my sister, and my mother had a white-hot zeal for my purity. So she used an unforgettable object lesson. I think she did right and I have risen up to call her blessed even this past week on her birthday.
“But really!” someone will say, “What’s the big deal with saying, ‘Shut up,’ to your sister? It’s not swearing. It’s not taking the name of the Lord in vain. It’s not a dirty word. Why get so worked up? What’s really so bad about it?”
The answer is that when I said, “Shut up!” to my sister, it was mean. There was no affection and no good will and no kindness in it. It was ugly. There was no moral beauty, no holiness, no love. To use Paul’s phrase in Ephesians 4:29, it was a “rotten word.” It came from a garbage pile of pride and one-upmanship and anger and resentment—all very normal between siblings, and all very sinful. Beware lest you grow accustomed to sin because it is so normal! [13]
(UPDATE: A clarification article has been posted here.)
* * * * *
ENDNOTES:
[1] Transcription from the video of the 2000 Ligonier National Conference (ordered from Ligonier).
[2] Interview with Ed Stetzer, online source.
[3] Janet I. Tu, “Pastor Mark Packs ‘Em In,” Pacific Northwest: The Seattle Times Magazine (November 30, 2003), online source.
[4] Tim Challies highlights the nature of Driscoll’s reputation when he writes, “I hope that sooner or later he [Driscoll] becomes known for what he does that pleases God rather than what he does that shocks the masses.” (Review of Vintage Jesus, February 19, 2008), online source.
[5] Mark Driscoll in his introduction to a Q&A on birth control from January 2008, online source.
[6] Collin Hansen, “Pastor Provocateur,” Christianity Today (September 21, 2007), online source.
[7] Transcript from video clip entitled “Mark Driscoll on Harsh Language,” online source.
[8] Mike McKinley, 9 Marks Book Review of Radical Reformission and Confessions of a Reformission Rev., online source.
[9] John Piper, “Make Your Mouth a Means of Grace,” sermon transcript, online source.
[10] John Piper, “The Enthronement of Desire,” sermon transcript, online source.
[11] John Piper, “Guard Yourself with Gratitude,” sermon transcript, online source.
[12] Comment left in response to “What Would You Ask Mark Driscoll?” posted at The Expositor, online source.
[13] John Piper, “Make Your Mouth a Means of Grace,” sermon transcript, online source.
I’ve had many of these same concerns. I look forward to hearing what’s actually said at the conference.
Incidentally, I like John Piper very much. I’m wondering if he will be as forthright with Driscoll as he was with Wilson.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
I’m looking forward to the Desiring God conference (my first time to attend one) but I remain puzzled about Driscoll speaking at a conference of this sort. Only rarely have I ever listened to or read anything coming from Driscoll without walking away saying, “Okay, I get his point, and I basically agree, but man was that a bad way of saying it!”
Thank you for posting this Nate, this is a very helpful! I trust that many will be able to think through your three points, especially number three (Driscoll’s argument places the implicit examples of Old Testament prophets above the explicit commands of the New Testament Scriptures).
Excellent, Nathan. Thank you for this timely warning and gracious confrontation. We are never given the mandate to contextualize personal holiness, even in our speech. A dear friend of mine once wrote: “You don’t change something by adding more of the same. In order to make a difference you must be different.” Good sense, heh?
Very good post, Nate.
To me the scripture that you quote in reason #3 against this sort of language is just irrefutable!
I have wondered for years why John Piper gives Driscoll a platform at his conferences.
I so respect John Piper’s ministry and how his books have helped me be able to articulate concepts that I could not seem to verbalize(like the whole concept that heaven is only desirable because God Himself is there, or the fact that “God Is the Gospel”.
In my opinion if enough godly men would in humility confront Driscoll he may actually tone his language down enough to not be so offenceive.
To me it would seem that J. Piper may just be adding fuel to Driscoll by giving him a platform.
I am getting ready now to follow your link where Piper gives his reason for having Driscoll this year. Maybe I’ll have a different opinion after I read that—we shall see.
Well-here I am again.
I have watched the video explanation as to why Mark Driscoll is speaking at D.G. this year.
I did not hear one good Biblical reason from Dr. Piper’s lips.
Now mind you– I am just a sixty yeara old lay woman, so what do I know?
I guess it is best just to wait and hear what Driscoll has to say before anyone can try to discern whether his reason’s for course language are Biblical or not.
One thing I did pick up on from the video–John Piper loves and seems in some way to admire Mark Driscoll. He said they are friends. He loves Driscoll’s theology and his boldness. I do hope Piper can have a positive influence on Mark, because he seems to have a mentoring relationship with the younger man.
Gee Beav, perhaps we should wait and write our reviews until after he speaks at the conference.
Great post. Thanks so much for writing this.
I’m heading to the conference and have been wondering what exactly to think of Driscoll being there…He will be interesting to listen to.
Your post was very insightful and helpful.
Having listened to almost all of Mark Driscoll’s sermons for the past year, I’d be hard pressed to think of many instances where the language he used was harsh or where he crossed the line with jokes or innuendo. I’ve found every one of his sermons to be cross-centered and Christ-exalting. He speaks with deep reverence, sincerity, and boldness about topics that many other churches won’t touch, like abortion and dating, all the while in one of America’s least churched cities.
I think Driscoll is bolder in his messages at some of the Resurgence conferences, but his audience is admittedly church leaders. The words aren’t harsh against other believers or churches, but against the false gospel and teachers who seek to steal and kill.
Read the article here and listen to the audio for additional comments by Mark Driscoll about these same issues
http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/driscoll-piper-mahaney.php
Let me speak in favor of Driscoll(as a coat and tie presbyterian) when I say that Jesus and the prophets proved themselves willing to go after modern-day sensibilities in creative fashion. On the whole, I don’t think evangelical pastors are currently pushing against modern sensibilities to the degree Jesus did, which means that there actually might be something to learn from Driscoll.
As a pastor, I think “pastoral propriety” is a term that leaves much to be defined and desired. That sounds like legalism wearing a nice dress.
Sorry for all those spelling errors!
I was in a hurry and I don’t know why but spell check didn’t seem to be working.
I really think if we are going to post comments we should be careful with grammar and spelling. It seems to me to be the courteous thing to do.
All,
Before we all jump on the ‘Mark the cussing pastor’ bandwagon, makes sure that we have listened to him preach. I was once a guy that was very opposed to him and his ministry based on the testimony of others. I then listened to his whole series on “Philippians” and heard a man preach the Word and is looking to grow.
Count the men around him that are speaking truth into his life: John Piper, Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, DA Carson, and many other well recognized CONSERVATIVE pastors have taken this young pastor under their wings. They know him better than we do and I trust that they are not ‘yes men’ to him.
My question for us is, are we going to allow him to grow if he grows past his past reputation?
Dear Nathan:
This is a very good article and I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you!
But there is an equally weighty concern along with Mark Driscoll appearing at the DG conference this year and it is Paul Tripp appearing at the DG conference this year too.
Are you aware that one of the promo videos featuring Paul Tripp has him using the s___ word about a half a dozen times? It is shocking. John Piper produced this video; approves of its content; and has authorized its use for wide distribution. This is a cause for real concern for it seems that Piper has now bought into the shock jock approach to an unbridled and undiscerning degree.
You can read about it and see it here. What a sad and disappointing day we live in where men of God that we respect lower themselves to this kind of guttural approach to ministry and the preaching of God’s holy Word.
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5
In regards to DG conference speakers, I just wonder what the readers here think of Paul Tripp using the *s* word repeatedly in his DG promo vid?
You can view the video here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2008/Podcast/115/
Its been up for nearly two months now, and I hadn’t heard anything about it from anyone, until this week.
My only concern is that Dr Piper (As good a Teacher and expositor as he may be, does himself use langiage in the Preaching which is not befitting, words that the unbeliever would even find inappropraiet in the Pulpit, which describes feacies in the “lay language of our culture”, a base word which is not fitting for ministry.
Which I add in of itself is a proper word and in of iteslf is not sinful, but when used with a motive of anger is sinful..Just as Dr Piper himself notes above…
What is that word that bother me so much…
“CRAP”.
Now I am not American and have no first hand expereince of American culture; but in the South African and British cultures that I do know and have lived in, CRAP is a very demaning and filthy word when used out of it’s proper context in describing feacies. And when use in the Pulpit it certainly has a tendancy to turn away the flock who are sensitive to conscience, and perhaps even unbelievers who might otherwise have been willing to be under the Preaching of the Cross and Christ.
I ONLY note this because I find this contrary to what Dr Piper himself believes and that an Elder ought to be qualified as one who does exercise a great degree of self control, especially in Preaching. I am not an Elder but i would disqualify myself if I where to be profane in my use of language in Preacing and thus offend the weaker brother or sister (Romans 14 & 15).
Perhaps Dr Piper ought to give heed to his own teaching and to rebuke with all long suffering others who do act contrary to his own convictions in this matter, as a pattern of life and or ministry.
I welcome any positive feedback on what I have heard from the “Pulpit” on Desiring God’s radio podcasts in the past.
It may be that Dr Piper has himself recognised this tendancy and may have repented therof, I would love to hear such good news.
How much does the audience factor in? In the examples above, course language was used when the audience were supposed to be the people of God. The OT prophets were speaking to Israel, Paul was writing to the church, and Jesus only spoke harshly to the religious leaders and disciples. Do we not need to be careful when lost people are our audience? I amspeaking as a person who has a terrible struggle using too much sarcasm.
First of all to Mr. Busenitz–Bravo for taking a stand for correct Biblical context & content. Although you will be persecuted for righteousness sake, know that you are lifted up in prayer & that your testimony of God’s glory will shine brightly through your life (cf. Matthew 5:3-16). What puzzles me is, how can a man who unashamedly proclaims the importance of God’s ultimate glory in every aspect of our lives turn around and invite and encourage the diminishing of God’s glory for the sake of falling into the emergent trap of relative culturalism. Thank your for Continuing to fight the battle for absolute truth & God’s TRUE ultimate glory!!
I appreciate your take on Driscoll, Piper and harsh language (though it is not surprising). My main concern with your critique is that it is not, ironically, explicit enough. What constitutes harsh and biting language? You needed to be more specific. Your article, while helpful at times, fails insofar as it paints a black a white picture of an issue that is quite gray. You are hoping for a nuanced view from Driscoll. I would have lived the same from you.
Nathan, more passages I would add:
Titus 1:13-14, 1 Tim. 6:11-12 and 2 Tim. 2:24-26
I admire (and podcast) both these brothers and pray for their ministries. I struggle with the language at times too, and wonder who is at risk in hearing ’sharp preaching’: the wheat or the tares?
I agree with brother John and I believe the preacher is most at
risk, that he might sin Moses did (Num. 20:7-12).
Carla,
Good point…
I know what Dr Tripp is saying:
The MOTIVE of our speech is the PRIMARY concern. And that we should NOT bow down to the culture, but to the standards of God.
It must be said that the use of the word *S* is used in teaching and therefore used not with awrong MOTIVE.
Yet, if it where used in my house out of a teaching or proper context with a hurtful or vile MOTIVE, the LORD knows the INTENTS of the heart and I am sure we would disern that evil speech, therfore action will be required when used PROFANELY.
Much like the word Sex can be used PROFANELY or properly in a teaching or loving context, between respectively Parents and childern & Husband and Wife.
But heaven forbid that I should hear my son speaking with evil INTENT the word “sex” and he will know that I will not tolerate PROFANE USE of any language.
Yet I find as the apostle Paul that the sins of my former flesh do follow me also when I capitulate in anger and argument with my wife, hence I also am found by the LAW as a sinner saved by grace alone, wherefore I must and will give account to the LORD. Hence I must “work out my slavation with FEAR and TREMBLING.” asone who loves God, but who FEAR His wrath against my sins.
I hope that my thoughts help in this assessment?
Therefore I find that an Elder must be more careful in Preaching and Teaching not to speak in anger or pride against others using a word in PROFANITY, but “to teach, exhort and rebuke with all longsuffering and care”.
Sola Gratia. Soli Deo Gloria.
Dave,
The audiance must never dicate our speech or our CONTENT.
The LORD Himself, grace imparted and the fear of God must be the ONLY real factors in our speech. (Perhaps there are more Biblically, but these are the only ones that come imediately to mind.)
Rebuke is not to be done in anger, but in grace trusting that the person will be brought to repentance, not indignation.
Ephesians 4:29
Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.
Ironically, John Piper, John MacArthur, and scores of other Bible-believing servant-leader pastors have been tarred and smeared with the adjectives of being “harsh”, “intolerant”, “hateful”, “legalistic”, “pharasaic”, etc… for preaching the truth-in-love from the Word of God.
The point? These adjectives are subjective measures that will vary from hearer to hearer. While Pastor Driscoll may be regarded as “harsh” by some/many, there are others who don’t regard him as being unduly harsh.
For that matter, there are many people, including Christians, who believe God’s Word is “harsh” and that God Himself is “harsh” in the Old Testament and the fact that many people will not be in Heaven.
Are the critics of God’s “harshness” justified?
I suspect, as Victoria suggested, that Piper is in some sense at least informally mentoring Driscoll. Because of that, it will be interesting to see what happens at the conference.
I’m wondering if Piper will be as ready to offer correction to Driscoll as he was with Doug Wilson. I have tremendous respect for John Piper, and I think all eyes will be on him.
To be fair, Mark Driscoll has not yet given his message at Desiring God. Perhaps it is too early to critique his defense, since he has only given a brief overview of what will surely be a much more comprehensive and nuanced discussion
“Perhaps”? I would say that it is definitely unfair to critique him SINCE HE HASN’T EVEN SPOKEN YET.
Well stated and important post, Nathan.
What is left unsaid (because it is not yet a part of your purpose) is this relates to a growing concern many of us have regarding the “culture of celebrity” that has become so entrenched. The young, restless, reformed crowd are so busy hopping from conference to conference to see the “superstars” that they seem glad to swallow whatever takes place. Then, if a question is raised, even from Scripture, they rush to hide behind poorly defined terms of “legalism” or “freedom” or “mission.”
The Word of God still speaks…and it speaks clearly as you have written.
Art:
Mark has spoken. He has not delivered his conference message, however he did record this video as a promo for the conference regarding the Bible’s use of harsh language.
Nathan,
Thanks for the post. I have to disagree with objection #2. Your argument is faulty. In no way does Driscoll suggest that we imitate everything that the prophets did. An exact imitation of language is not necessary nor is an exact clothing imitation. His point, and, to an extent, one that I would tend to agree with, is that we should be willing to use strong language when appropriate. The Bible uses many strong words to get to the point. This is the principle that Driscoll seems to be teaching.
Here are some examples from the prophets:
“have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree and there played the whore?” Jeremiah 3.6
“Acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the Lord your God and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree.” Jeremiah 3.13
“My people are fools; they do not know me; they are stupid children. they have no understanding; they are wise…in doing evil! but how to do good,they do not.” Jeremiah 4.22
“You lavished your whorings on any passerby” Ez. 16.15
“Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in here menstrual impurity.” Ez. 36.16
“All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.” Is. 64.6
I’m sure these guys shouldn’t be allowed in our pulpits! In fact, they usually aren’t!
William, thank you for the response. You are correct that an audience should not dictate content. But, doesn’t the audience influence the aspects of how that content is delivered? Alas, if we spoke with grace and love all the time, we just wouldn’t even have to worry about it.
Truth Unites, you make a very good point about harshness being subjective. However, it appears, in this case, that he is intentionally trying to be harsh. Is there not a balance between harshness and sugar-coating?
I agree with Art… my first thought was that you are criticizing a guy’s defense of his position before he has given it (fully). The sound bites, I’m guessing, are meant as teasers to get you interested in the topic. Sounds like it worked.
I agree with art and Victoria Lynch. Though I have had problems with some things Mark Driscoll has done and said in the past, I think we should we wait to hear what he says before refuting it. Furthermore, there are things that I genuinely appreciate about his ministry. First, his burden for men in the church is one that we desperately need today. Men are not attending church today and if they are many do not want to stand up and be the leader in the home God has called them to be. Mark places special emphasis on this in his ministry for the good of all the church, in my opinion. Second, Mark holds his elders and the church planters he trains to a very high standard (as does the Bible) of accountability. If you listen to some of his talks on the qualifications for elders, he uses harsh language, but I think it needs to be used to expose the fact that sin is serious and God takes sin very, very seriously.
My hope is that John Piper did not invite Dricoll to publicly shame him or criticize, or even perhaps to gather ammo against him.
There is a place for strong language, however foul language is another thing. Yet I think that in many cases Christians have become of very thin skin. Most wouldn’t have a problem saying, “he needs a kick in the behind,” but please don’t use the words which we really mean.
Art,
Mark driscoll obviously has preached before and w can exhort him and rebuke a brother in love and truth… It does not necessarily have to be unfair, in fcat I welcome ANY and all critique on any of my sins and charecter flaws, so that I may grow in submittion by grace…
I would trust that to be the same for John Piepr, John MacArthur and for Mark Driscoll and in fact any believer…
Truth unites makes a very good point!
I read a part of a book yesterday written by various Elders from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals(Here we stand! A call from confessing Evangelicals for a modern Reformation.), where it was noted that we ought ALWAYS to preach LAW with the GOSPEL of grace to be effictive in ministry to the “audiance” of the Church.
Perhaps that is the very same balance and content we ought to use in all things, the Heart of Preaching and Evangelism if you will?
Dave, as always it is a joy to be able to “speak” here and to contemplate issues with all, hopefully we do so with Scripture as our Authority in the LORD Himself.
The Gospel is enough of an offense. Why add any more possible stumbling blocks when they could so easily be avoided? I appreciate the espoused motive if it is to shake-up a slumbering unbelieving culture, but shouldn’t the radicalness of the Gospel be enough to shock them? How about us working on accurately and unapologetically presenting the Gospel, and allow it, through the ministry of the Spirit, to wake people up?
Bryan
As someone who has read Mark’s books, listened to many of his sermons and is applying to plant a church through Acts29 I will make a short defense.
1. Every pastors has said things they shouldn’t have from the pulpit or otherwise and Mark is no exception. I think the difference in his language from early on to today is evident (in a good way). He has also made public apologies for words said.
2. Mark saves his harsh language for the religious/self-righteous and religious heretics. The same people Jesus saved his harsh language for. Mark’s grace overflows for the abused, hurt, and downtrodden.
3. Listen to Mark’s sermon on humor from earlier this year. I think it will speak to much of the speculation here. He took a lot of it from C.H. Spurgeon who is Mark’s favorite pastor. I will also say, much of what is said about Mark and his “lowbrow” humor and language was said of Spurgeon. How many came to Christ under Spurgeon, 10’s of thousands? How many under Mark’s preaching? Thousands.
4. The last thing we have to remember is that Mark’s audience is primarily people in Seattle not the iTunes crowd or blogosphere. It also isn’t the Bible belt which, could probably use a harsh word or two on the the pitfalls of being “religious”.
Carla - I followed your link and listened to that video.
I am no stuffed shirt legalist but I have to say I can’t even imagine why the church should be having discussions about those kinds of words.
That is the kind of language I used before I knew Christ(and even worse I might add).
The first thing God did for me when I became a believer was to clean up my mouth!
I will admit with shame that when I am not walking in the Spirit and anger gets a hold on me– I am tempted to indulge in that kind of talk even after many years of walking with the Lord.
We just have to be careful as believers not to take on the crass and gross expressions of our culture. Let us please not make this a normal part of the way we communicate. We need to be above reproach in our daily lives–not as a matter of law –but as a matter of love.
I can never, as one the Lord has gloriously saved and delivered, go back to what used to be my normal way of speaking.
I can see this is going to be a passionate discussion with a lot of disagreement among us! Whatever we do (including the words we use) must be done for the glory of God.
For those interested, Doug Wilson has posted a response to this article on his blog. We will attempt to respond to his comments later today.
I was outright shocked by the video posted at DGM by Paul Tripp. The video is prefaced by the following statements:
“This interview contains potentially offensive, four-letter language to illustrate a profound biblical truth about wholesome language… Please be discerning in how you recount this story. Such discernment is exactly what the video is about.”
IMHO, this was not “potentially offensive” is was postively offensive and it demonstartes a lack of discernment on the part of Paul Tripp, DGM and John Piper. I love and have benefitted greatly from the ministries of both these men, but I am utterly disappointed with what is going on here.
Tripp argues that it is not words themselves that are the concern for unwholesome language but the intentions of the heart and whether or not words bring grace to the hearer. I can say unequivocally that the words Paul Tripp used in this video did not bring grace to my ears, they brought offensiveness and deep concern. To assume that words have no consequences and that only intentions are what matters is sorely mistaken. He is right about intentions and the grace words need to communicate, but the words themselves are at least as important. When we choose words that our culture has used in a way that is unwholesome and the culture at large has historically understood the unwholesome nature of their usage no amount of good intentions will mitigate the offensiveness of such words when they are used. When we avoid the use of certain words we should not do so because we want to establish an artificial vocabulary that meets our personal standard of wholesome speech and thus become legalistic (as I think some people assume those who are concerned with Mark Driscoll are doing). How do you define wholesome speech or wordliness if you do not define it in the way the culture does? The Bible does not make a list of such words by virtue of the fact that each culture has different unwholesome terms and such terms change over time precisely because the culture attaches different meaning to those terms over time. It does not take a lot of discernment IMO to see that their is a whole host of words (e.g. four letter words) that are inappropriate to use in the vast majority of contexts regardless of one’s intentions. I agree with Tripp’s basic argument about intentions, but I suggest that if we really search ourselves there is some impure motive, perhaps less apparent, that would drive a Christian and especially a preacher to use language that historically and culturally carries unwholesome and worldly meanings. I find it hard to believe that such language has as it ultimate desire to bring glory and honor to the name of Christ and not to meet some other personal agenda.
Great article, Nate. Thanks for putting all this together.
I believe the “vulgarities” of the Bible were not for the purpose of relating or conforming to the culture, but for illustrating the heinous nature of sin. God through His apostles and prophets sometimes employed shocking metaphors to illustrate how vile and repulsive sin and false doctrine are in the eyes of a holy God.
Nathan,
1st: For those who say you should not be addressing this before the conference, I disagree. You make a sound biblical defense. Whatever happens at the DG conference, your arguments will not be negated. The Bible references you gave and the truths they state will not change.
2nd: Wow, Dr. Piper only had his mouth washed out once? He must have been a quick learner! My mom used Ivory and I can still recall the taste to this day. Soap didn’t work for me though; it took Jesus’ blood to wash my filth away.
3rd: Thank you for the mention of Dr. Boice; it moved me greatly. I remember the first time I heard him on the radio was on a Sunday morning as I was getting ready for church. I was cautious at first, as the station he was on had a number of reckless preachers as regulars, but was pleasantly surprised and immensely blessed as I realized he was a solid, sound expositor. I became a regular listener. I was just a few years into my Christian walk at that time and his teaching was an important contribution to my spiritual growth. It is hard to believe it has been eight years since he went home.
All,
I should like to widen the discussion a little further by looking at an unexamined presupposition. The unexamined, underlying presupposition is that at all times and in all circumstances, the subjective perception of “harshness” is uniformly bad and to be avoided at all times.
Does anyone believe that? Or are you then saying that there are times when the discernment of wisdom dictates that “harshness” is called for?
Let me give some examples that are partially analogous. A football team is underperforming because of the perceived softness of the coach. The coach is replaced with a “harsh” coach and starts to win because the perceived “harshness” of the coach is exactly what the football team needed. General Patton and other military commanders were deemed “harsh”, but their troops needed the “harsh” commands to bring about victory. My father, a doctor, said that he sometimes had to cuss to snap the lethargy of other nurses and staff when operating on a patient in a life-and-death situation.
Look, you can kill people with too much harshness. But you can certainly kill people with too much softness too. Look at Scripture and look at the biblical commandments and the biblical people. Neither too harsh, nor too soft. Don’t make the error on either side of the extreme.
FWIW, I think people tend to err on the side of namby-pamby Politically-Correct secular understanding of “love” which, in all reality, just aids and abets and enables sin in others. Sometimes the “harsh” wake-up call is exactly what some people need. And to deny that wake-up call because you object to its “harshness” because of your subjective standards is unloving.
A couple weeks ago Phil Johnson gave an excellent message on Ephesians 5:1-6 in the TMS chapel. You can find it here:
http://www.tms.edu/audio.asp?ministry_id=3&dlyear=-1&dlcat=Chapel+Audio
He addresses, among other things, how Paul’s language is not what Driscoll and Wilson make it out to be.
If you are at all tempted to agree with Driscoll or Wilson, you must listen to this exposition of Scripture.
Nate et All,
I appreciate the manner in which you approached this post and seemed to have attempted to give Driscoll a fair hearing, at least up until this point. As one who is familiar with Driscoll’s ministry as well as one who is familiar with the concerns of the TMC/TMS/GCC crowd, I have a couple of thoughts.
1. There is a recognition on Driscoll’s part that he has gone “over the line” in the past. He has sown extraordinary humility for a Christian leader of his influence and has responded positively many times when confronted. An excellent example of this would be an email exchange that he had with John Piper after the last DGM Conference at which he spoke. This can be found on Driscoll’s blog at the Resurgence Website.
2. There needs to be a recognition of the context into which Driscoll has spent nearly his entire ministry. The kind of crowd that he is seeking to preach the gospel to are the rough-edged, tattooed, artsy and hopelessly depraved culture of Seattle. Compared against those standards, his language is EXTREMELY TAME. It is only recently (within the past few years) that his ministry has really taken on a national character and people across the globe have begun to download his sermons from the MHC website. As he has begun to recognize this more fully, there has been a corresponding tone change as he recognizes that he is not just preaching to a Seattle crowd anymore.
3. I think that in most conservative circles, there is a fundamental lack of recognition as to how radical/offensive SOME of the language of Jesus and the Apostles would have been in the cultural context in which they ministered and wrote. As Doug Wilson himself points out, the same apostle that enjoins people to let no unwholesome speech come out of our mouths is the same one who used the word skubalon in Phil. 3, katatome in Phil. 4, and encouraged the Judaizer’s to “cut it all off” in the book of Galatians. So, the question doesn’t seem to be whether such language is appropriate but IN WHICH CONTEXT is such language appropriate.
4. Finally, it pains me to see how Driscoll has been spoken of in the Theological climate in which I was raised and taught to love the Scriptures, the Gospel and the Glory of God. He is a man who is unquestionably gospel-centered, Biblically Saturated, focused on the Glory of God and has a greater passion for seeing Christ’s glory spread across the world and particularly the cities of America than anyone I saw growing up. If we truly care about Christ and His glory, we should not denigrate men such as Driscoll, we should rejoice that God has raised them up and pray that God would hew any real (not percieved) rough edges off of them.
Thanks for this post
There is a relative offensiveness to language; by that I mean that some people will take offense at language, while others will not have a problem with it. Christians, for the most part, do not have a fixed vocabulary that requires we refrain from ever using certain words. But this does not mean we can simply use the same language in any context or environment. To a degree we should speak with the audience in mind. It is unwise and foolish to use language that brings about an unnecessary controversy, when language that would not cause unnecessary controversy is perfectly sufficient. It’s also unwise and foolish to let the emotions run and speak with an unbridled tongue; you must always remain in control when you speak, especially when emotions are strong and controversy is occuring.
I have even found that using some words which seem very mild, cause a sense of guilt in me because I recognize a sinful connection in me with its use. And from this I have found that if I say or do anything with sin involved, then I did not do it as I should have. This I do quite often.
Becky said,
1st: For those who say you should not be addressing this before the conference, I disagree. You make a sound biblical defense. Whatever happens at the DG conference, your arguments will not be negated. The Bible references you gave and the truths they state will not change.
Other raise this point as well, but it is moot. You cannot, with integrity, critique someone’s message until it has actually been preached. Nathan is critiquing his projections, not Driscoll’s actual message.
What if, for the sake of argument, Christopher Hitchens wrote a critique of Nathan’s book and went after all the usual arguments. Then, at the end of the criqitue, Hitchens writes that he hasn’t actually read Nathan’s book, only a post that was an excerpt from his book. What would you say about that critique?
You would, of course, object that until Hitchens actually reads Nathan’s book, he cannot and should not write a critique based on a little snippet of Nathan’s work. Hitchens’ arguments may be still be valid after he read’s Nathan’s book, but that is besides the point. He needs to actually read the material before he can speak about it.
In the same way, it is completely unfair to post something like this that focuses on a message that has not yet been preached.
It is strange that people would critique Nate for responding to Driscoll’s interview, when in his interview Driscoll said that people who think he is over the line are “cowards.” How can he say that, and then Nate be criticized for not waiting two months to respond?
Scott,
I get that Driscoll has repented of his language and such, but some of his most outrageous stuff (his adult rated videos, for example), are just a few months old, and on his website still. So whatever the repentance was, it was not the kind that is producing fruit. It reminds me Wilson’s response to Piper (”just remember, I’m holding back”). Not comforting.
Jesse
Jesse,
I do not doubt you analysis, I would appreciate that you link to the ‘adult rated videos’ so I can assess what you are talking about. What is meant by adult rated?
in his interview Driscoll said that people who think he is over the line are “cowards.”
I have heard this statement from more than one source.
It is not true. Go back and listen to what Driscoll said. He said he believes SOME of those who disagree are cowards and themselves do not go far enough, but are afraid to step up and say what needs to be said.
Now, I am one who has not been shy of criticizing Driscoll in the past, but let’s not be too hasty here and jump the gun before the conference has even taken place.
Did anyone, like, I dunno, actually pay attention to what Pastor John said about why he invited Mark? Nathan provided the link.
Number three - He represents the very thing I’m struggling with. And I admit, it’s a struggle. When is it right to use tough language, even raw language. And he’s been accused of all kinds of misuses and clever uses of language. And OK, so it’s risky to see what he’s gonna say about this. But I ask him, “Think deep; think hard; think Biblically; and help us.” Not everybody’s going to agree.
Is it possible that maybe Pastor John is humble enough to think that he (and others) may have something to learn from God through someone who’s a bit more than half his age?
Comments on the comments:
Chris Blackstone: Having listened to almost all of Mark Driscoll’s sermons for the past year, I’d be hard pressed to think of many instances where the language he used was harsh or where he crossed the line with jokes or innuendo.
What do facts have to do with this? It’s what others think about him that’s important! They’re the ones that are going to stand in front of Christ and account for Mark’s life, right?
William du Plooy: Dr Piper … does himself use … words that the unbeliever would even find inappropraiet in the Pulpit …
I would hope that all pastors use words that are not merely deemed inappropriate by the unbeliever, but downright offensive! How many unbeliever would come to know Christ if they weren’t told, “You’re going to HELL!”
51 “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
or how about:
“59 He said to another man, “Follow me.”
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
60Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
62Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”"
Are there Christians today who, if they didn’t know it was Jesus speaking, would rebuke Jesus for being “harsh”?
And I haven’t even given all the name-calling that Jesus uttered. Wouldn’t you agree that there are spine-challenged Christians who are repelled by the rhetoric used in both the OT and NT?
Jesse Johnson: …Driscoll said that people who think he is over the line are “cowards.”…
brian already pointed out that this was not true. But it’s indicative of a larger point.
Early in the article, Nathan cites Driscoll’s “reputation for locker room humor, crass allusions, and sexual innuendo”. I wonder how much of that reputation is actually in the same area code as reality.
The old “cussing pastor” line was referenced once, and I’m actually quite surprised that no one else ran with that ball. Most of Driscoll’s harshest critics still cling to that phrase as though it’s Holy Writ despite the facts that:
* it was coined by Don Miller, someone that most Driscoll critics wouldn’t believe on anything else
* it was over pizza, not from a pulpit
* it happened over a decade ago (apparently, there is no spiritual growth after age 30)
* Driscoll long ago stated that if he did cuss, it was SIN to do so
So while Driscoll’s critics run around shattering the ninth commandment, maybe we ought to take anything said about his alleged “reputation” with a 50-lb grain of salt.
Truth Unites–I can’t understand what your quotes have to do with using foul language- four letter words-etc.
Talking tough to people about the terms of dicipleship does not seem to be what we are talking about here.
I thought we were talking about believers using crass words, curse words etc.
That is hardly what the Lord is doing in the passages you quoted.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/09/religious-symbology.html
I’m interested in this specific example of the use of sarcasm in decrying what is false. Is it over the line or does it fall inside the bounds of Christian norms?
And in asking that, I’d be offended by anyone who used the contents of that blog post in a sermon from a pulpit. There are clearly narrower standards for what should be said from the pulpit during worship than what can be said in a public conversation or some other venue.
I am not chiming in to defend Mark Driscoll’s sometimes offensive language nor to criticize Nathan’s well written article on the complicated subject and the controversial upcoming Piper conference. I want to comment on the reaction to Dr. Tripp’s video at the conference page and his use of the S*** word in it. Come on folks! If we can’t understand why Tripp used the word in the context he did then we need to thicken our skin a little. His talk with his children was an appropriate response to an important question from one of them. He defines what is wrong with some language from a Biblical baseline and uses the S*** word only as an example of a word made crude by its use in our culture. While I do not use the word and have taught my children to do the same (without total success) I am not offended by Tripp’s use of it in this context with the appropriate warnings at the beginning of the video.
Norm Eddy
I tried to post this at Doug Wilson’s blog, but his comment-system doesn’t like me. (It rejected my post and crashed my browser in the process.) Since my comment is germane to Nate’s post anyway, I’ll put it here instead.
Wilson’s reply to Nathan included the obligatory reference to Philippians 3, where Paul says he counted his former religion as dung in favor of knowing Christ. Only The New Wilson Version used a word my mom would have slapped me for.
My reply:
See: Paul actually said “skubalon,” which is more or less the equivalent of the English word “waste.” It can mean “excrement,” and I think that’s prolly pretty close to the idea Paul meant to convey, but he didn’t use “filthy language” (Col. 3:8) to say it. There were other words available to Paul if he wanted to cuss.
And if you like, Doug, I could send you a dozen or so English synonyms for the word you used that work perfectly well without incurring the indignation of men whose wives and daughters might be reading your blog, expecting that you will be ministering grace to your readers.
Every language (including all the ones Paul spoke) has a sub-vocabulary of words deemed obscene, and most of those words have perfectly good non-obscene synonyms (including the word Doug used). The line between these two categories, while never perfectly black-or-white, is generally understood. It is determined by the culture’s moms, I think. Especially the ones who homeschool.
Read Bill Bryson’s The Mother Tongue: English & how it Got that Way for an interesting and enlightening discussion of why certain words in English are almost universally deemed naughty but their exact synonyms are not. Bottom line: there’s no good reason why one word is deemed filthy and another is clinical, but all languages and all cultures do make such distinctions.
It’s true that the Bible doesn’t define for us a list of taboo words, but Scripture clearly recognizes that certain language is considered obscene and forbids us to use that kind of language (Col. 3:8; Ephesians 5:3-4), thus implying that we need to show respect to the line drawn by our culture, even if that line is indistinct in places.
Incidentally, I see the smutty-language problem as a different issue from sarcasm. They overlap some, but it’s not really the same set of principles that govern “harsh” speech and “filthy” speech. I hope Driscoll’s study of the issue enables him to see that. Same goes for Doug Wilson.
Brendt,
Nate’s article did not mention the Miller quote. In fact, his sources are all pretty neutral. Driscoll himself says that some of his sexually explicit stuff, done last December or so, is offensive to “people who sit at home and churn their own butter.” He might want to broaden the category a bit to include me. It is on his website, if that is close enough to reality for you. We are not talking about a list of words that are no-no’s; we–or at least Driscoll–are talking about a pattern of speech that is sexually explicit, offensive, coarse (and those are descriptions from his friends).
Jesse
Excellent post by Phil Johnson. I can’t comment on the Greek, since I don’t know Greek, but everything else is wise advice that would benefit all Christians; I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Victoria Lynch,
I thought this post was about the wider scope of being subjectively perceived as “harsh”, and not necessarily restricted to a narrow discussion about the use or non-use of expletive deleteds by Christians.
Yes. I need to be more clear. In my closing paragraph of that earlier comment, here’s what I’m trying rather clumsily to say:
“Harsh” speech is a different issue from “filthy” speech, and that is getting lost in this discussion. Driscoll seems to lump the two together. So does Wilson. Obviously, some of the biblical principles we need to consider in both instances overlap, but they aren’t precisely the same thing.
It’s fatuous to try to justify smutty words by pleading that even Jesus used sarcasm.
Paul clearly forbade the former; he occasionally employed the latter.
I agree with Jesse,
Brethren and cistern (Just kidding about sisters),
Do bear in mind that we are not condemning Mark or John Piper as heretics or false prophets, we are only exhorting brethren to discernment and spiritual maturity.
As for the offence of the Gospel and the harshness of it, let IT SPEAK FOR ITSELF. Let us not become too proud to presume ourselves “Inspired by the Spirit” in our utterances against SIN. Let us effectively EXPOSIT SCRIPTURE which is the VERY Word of God (”Verbim Dei”).
Let us not presume ourselves INFALLABLE in our utterances but let us be gentle seeking to CONFRONT the world and sin with SCRIPTURE, THE LAW and the GOSPEL of grace and mercy.
As many a good Elder and Pastor has remeinded us, let us be temeprate and balanced in all things. Let the WORD of God have IT’S OWN WAY with us and with the world and with SIN, then we know Him to be the One who alone SPEAKS without sin and INFALLABLY and SUFFICIENTLY.
I belive that Nates’ intent was to bring balance and knowing my brethren (As I trust I do), they would not attack a brother but rebuke and exhort him, should they believe that Scripture has been violated by anyone, including themselves.
In fact it would be great IF Mark or John Piper would come and deliver commentry? But then again they have already commented and expressed a desire to repent of this(which to me assumes guilt of ransgression or sin), and we just desire forthem to remain repentant in this sin, much as WE ALL must be. NONE EXCLUDED.
After all REPENTANCE is NOT a single act r confession; it is a CONTINUAL STATE of attitude of the heart and we MUST “bear fruits worthy of REPENTANCE”.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I think we might have a much more fruitful discussion on “harsh” versus “offensive” versus “offensive” language if we just kept the conversation to that.
I’m not sure what the benefit it was to even bring up Mark Driscoll, much less whether or not it was appropriate for John Piper to invite him. It’s Mr. Piper’s conference and he can do what he pleases.
It would definitely be fruitful to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum. If we’re going to criticize Mr. Driscoll, let’s cite the references carefully and directly rather than just use gossip or reference someone else’s criticism. At some point, it just becomes intellectually dishonest.
Sorry Truth Unites–I guess we were talking about two different things. So now I undestand where you were coming from.
I must say as a Christian woman saved from a smutty mouth, I hate to hear any Christian talk that way.
It does seem that the post has taken two different directions.
May I also suggest that those of you who can, go to the 9 Marks site and check out the Audio archives for August, 2007. There you can hear an interview by Mark Dever of David Wells.
I have listened to that interview several times. In it David Wells talks about being at that year’s D.G. conference with both Mark Driscoll and John Piper. Well’s goes into great detail about the comparison between Driscoll and Piper, and their thought processes.
I hope this link works.
http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070801/7a357214-783d-498d-a521-896bc916ecc6.aspx
Dear Art, Brendt, Hayden, and others,
Thank you sincerely for your comments.
Please understand that today’s article was not posted flippantly or without forethought. The article itself was written over a period of two weeks. After it was finished, a draft was sent by email to both Dr. Piper and Mark Driscoll (at the end of last week), asking them for their feedback. Specifically, we wanted to make sure that nothing in the article was (in their opinion) inaccurate or unfair. We also explained that we would be posting the article today.
We gave significant thought regarding when to post the article, recognizing that the conference has not yet taken place — and yet believing that some of these issues should be raised sooner rather than later. In the video cited in the article, Driscoll states that “These are the kind of things we’ll explore as we get into the discussion regarding the tongue in my session at the Desiring God Conference,” so it did not seem unfair to raise some initial concerns and questions based on his comments there (especially since Driscoll has used a similar line of reasoning elsewhere). Personally, I am hopeful that he will address some of these things in his session. We will have to wait and see.
As to whether or not there is any truth to the article’s description of Mark Driscoll’s reputation, I genuinely wish that there was not. In researching the article, I compiled roughly ten examples (from both video and print) that fit the description of “locker room humor, crass allusions, and sexual innuendo.” I did not include them because, finding them to be inappropriate, I did not feel right repeating them in the article for our general readership at Pulpit. This is not to say that all (or even most) of Mark Driscoll’s sermons cross the line of pastoral propriety. But it is not inaccurate to say that, based on past incidents, Driscoll has garnered a reputation for pushing the envelope. (I tried to cite a number of secondary sources that bear this out, including the local paper in Seattle, Christianity Today, Tim Challies, 9 Marks, etc.) If “reputation” is defined as the “estimation in which a person or thing is commonly held . . . in the view of the public” (Webster), then I stand by what I wrote in the article.
The heart of this article, of course, relates to how descriptive biblical examples and prescriptive New Testament texts should govern our speech as ambassadors for Christ. Driscoll’s comments sparked that discussion in my own mind, especially when viewed against the backdrop of Piper’s prior interaction with Wilson. Insofar as we desire to be faithful to our New Testament calling, I believe it is a discussion worth having.
Again, thank you for your comments. I appreciate the feedback.
NB
I will wait and pass judgment when all is said and done. Right now its all speculation to what might be said . As to Driscoll, I have found that over the last year it seems some of the harsh edges are coming off . I appreciate his boldness and courage but think it needs to be sharpened. So we shall see what “words” will be said at this conference .
Phil,
You wrote:
“Harsh” speech is a different issue from “filthy” speech, and that is getting lost in this discussion. Driscoll seems to lump the two together. So does Wilson. Obviously, some of the biblical principles we need to consider in both instances overlap, but they aren’t precisely the same thing.
It’s fatuous to try to justify smutty words by pleading that even Jesus used sarcasm.
Paul clearly forbade the former; he occasionally employed the latter.
An excellent point! … and a distinction that should have been clarified in the original post.
Thanks,
NB
It seems strangely quiet in this comment thread when it comes to the actual underlying questions of the article. How and why has John Piper moved so far from where he once stood, and is this newly appreciated (by Piper) cultural speech fad a good one or not? Mr. Busenitz seems to be puzzled with the shift by Piper, and convinced of the Biblical warnings against the newly appreciated “harsh language.”
I cannot say how much this kind of article helps us as pastors and Christians. It is not reckless, nor is it offensive to question the seeming movement in principle from such a respectable leader like Dr. Piper. It is not old fashion, nor is it irrelevant to query the Scriptures’ clear instructions for the sake of evaluating a popular teacher or teaching method.
May renewed thinking help us value the examination of our popular teachers/leaders, and may humble thinking guard us from foolish defensiveness that would mirror our brothers and sisters from Corinth…I am of Mark, I am of John, I am of Doug, I am of Nate.
Grace and peace.
Pastor Steve from AZ, Thank you for your words of wisdom especially the last paragraph!
To all, I believe that few in Christendom today have been more bold or “harsh” with lost people and false teachers etc…, than John MacArthur. I have not only read “The Truth War” by him but read many comments that place him as too hard and not loving. Yet he NEVER has to use unwholesome language to do it. It is never “wimpy” (my word) to refrain from using culturally foul language in order to be hard on someone in sin.
The part of Mark Driscoll’s reasoning that bothers me the most is that he thinks he has to preach this way or some will never listen to the gospel. He could not be more wrong. Now we are talking scriptural sufficiency. Nuff said.
Nate! Excellent stuff here, brother. Thanks for spending TWO weeks of part of your life serving us here. I am pastoring to a congregation where the average age is 25 and the average age of conversion is about 2 years. You can imagine what all I’m dealing with. This article has solemnly brought my mind and tongue back to the truth that being biblical while also communicating that message in culturally relevant terms is a razor’s edge which I must of necessity walk painfully and therefore carefully. Thanks again.
Chuck Swindoll starts using crass language, Ravi Zecharias agrees not to use Jesus’ Name in a prayer, on the Bible Answerman Program they start using Mark Driscoll and Rick Warren to hawk their magazine (not that Hank Hanegraaff has been the epitome of personal behavior, but at least they kept the show a good public face), Ray Comfort starts keeping company with Word of Faith teachers, now this.
Maintaining to the end is a thing to be taken very seriously, because one can cast doubt upon all the previous good.
John Piper mentions in the video wondering when it is right to use harsh language, and many people have reasoned with me attempting to stand on Paul’s use of “dung”, however I have yet to hear anyone prove that the word Paul used was the equivalent of today’s foul language as opposed to simply “dung”.
If a mother is changing her infant and says “Oh look, little Joey made p**py!” People laugh! (I censored that one out of respect for the forum.) If she were to use the “S” word in that place however, I think people would view her quite differently.
There’s always an appropriate word that avoids the lowest common denominator.
What happened to just preaching the wholesome Word of the Bible? Let’s get out the message that Jesus intended, and then let the Holy Spirit work in those lives. If we have to resort to using the ‘filthy’ words of the world to get the message the across then we are relying on ourselves not the Holy Spirit to work! That is one sure way of not getting the message across!
Jesse, I did not state that Nathan referenced the “cussing pastor” line, nor did I attribute any of what I said to you. I specifically stated that your mis-statement was indicative of a larger point — which you apparently missed.
You give specific instances that offend you. Please know that you are in the VAST minority of Driscoll detractors. Your mis-statement (unintentional, I assume) by leaving out one key word made his comment sound very different from what he actually said. And that was just one word that you goofed, first-hand no less.
Whereas, most criticisms of Driscoll are fourth-hand knowledge (though often presented with all the authority of one who sits on the front-row at Mars Hill every week) and are often exaggerated from reality. If I only got my information about Mark Driscoll based on his alleged “reputation”, I’d assume that an average service at Mars Hill would make Quentin Tarantino blush.
Nate, tied into that, I didn’t state that there was no truth to your depiction of Mark’s reputation. But I know of no other well-known teacher today whose “reputation” is further from reality, and it’s largely due to the fourth-hand knowledge I referenced.
I may have exaggerated a bit with my comment about the ninth commandment, as many people are doing so unknowingly. Unfortunately, they are doing so based on fallacious information provided by (unfortunately) well-respected people who know that they are lying through their teeth. And yes, I have specific people in mind, but won’t debase this conversation by naming names.
Phillip Johnson: I see the smutty-language problem as a different issue from sarcasm.
I would hope so. Otherwise, the decrying of “smutty” language that included such smart-glute references as “The New Wilson Version” would have caused you to spontaneously combust in a cloud of self-contradiction.
Hi Brendt,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that fouth-hand sources are an improper way to do research, especially when offering a critique. FWIW, the specific examples I found in my research primarily come from Driscoll’s sermon videos and Q&A sessions (online at his website), sermon audio (via preaching CDs), and a couple of his books.
NB
Brendt Waters: “You give specific instances that offend you. Please know that you are in the VAST minority of Driscoll detractors. . . . most criticisms of Driscoll are fourth-hand knowledge (though often presented with all the authority of one who sits on the front-row at Mars Hill every week) and are often exaggerated from reality.”
You gave no specific instances, though. I’m not sure I buy your generalization.
My three or four criticisms of Driscoll have always been based only on what I have heard with my own ears. The fact that I might not quote the words I think he shouldn’t have said isn’t quite the same as NOT “giv[ing] specific examples.”
If you need a specific example of why I don’t think Mark’s recent acknowledgement that he occasionally “step[s] over the line” ought to be instantly taken at face value as proof of full repentance so that all his critics just need to lay off, here you go:
The joke Driscoll told regarding Ecclesiastes 9:10 at the start of his “Ask Anything” Q&A is the single most offensive thing I’ve ever heard any well-known pastor say in a public mixed setting. And that came months after he originally supposedly repented for his inappropriate public language.
If that kind of smutty jesting about Scripture doesn’t fall into the kind of speech prohibited by Ephesians 5:3-4 and Colossians 3:8, what, exactly, do you think Paul was talking about there?
Phil,
I am not defending Wilson with this entry, just curious how you handle the fact that, in light of your disagreement for his word choice for the NASB’s use of ‘rubbish’ in Phil. 3:8, that ’skubalon’ is derived, in part, from the greek word ‘kuon’, which means dog.
For all others,
I still think this whole discussion is a bit premature, unless the point is to discuss only what has happened in the past (sometimes far back in the past). I hope I am not evaluated on that basis, as there is much I am ashamed of from even a few years ago, in how I handled some things.
I also wonder how many here have actually watched the Driscoll video where he posits that “some” of those who disagree with him are cowards. In that video he makes the very correct observation that the harsh, sarcastic language in the Bible is typically reserved for the religious hypocrites…those who profess but whose own words and works do not agree with that profession.
Being a vocal critic of Driscoll in the past, I am at least going to reserve my ultimate opinion until AFTER personally hearing what he has to say at the conference.
Phil, being the curious woman that I am, I went to the Mars Hill website and through trial & error I was able to find and listen to the Q&A session you referenced.
I just want to say this to all Mark’s defenders– how disgusting!
What does any pulpit have to do with that kind of talk?
I want to say that I am a woman who was a teen in the 60’s and did not come to Christ till twenty something. I was raised in a non Christian home in the middle of the free love drug culture. Nothing much shocks me: but I must say to hear a pastor talk in the pulpit that way comes shockingly close to shocking me.
No man of God needs to communicate with new believers and unbelievers in that kind of way.
We are all adults here and I believe everyone should go to Mars Hill’s website and listen to several of these M.H. 17 audios(as Mark calls them) for themselves. That way you have it FIRSTHAND. After all that has been one of the accusations at this post; that people are commenting who have not heard these things.
I say that we petition to get Ezekiel removed from our canon. I read Ezekiel 16 and 23 the other day and was utterly offended by the language that was used. It’s just not within the bounds of prophetic propriety to say such things. Ezekiel should have known better.
One more thought:
Compare the context of Paul’s statement in Phil 3:8
“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ”, with Paul’s life.
Paul–in prison-suffered the loss of all things-persecuted for Christ–will in a few years be beheaded for the Christ he so loves.
The context of Mark at Mars Hill:American Pastor–Prosperous life-no persecution. While he is talking everyone is snickering and laughing in the background. I can assure no one was snickering at Paul’s words-He was deadly serious!
I know this sounds dumb but I am going to say it anyway: It would not be so offensive to listen to a man of God using some crass language if he were in Paul’s circumstances and his statements were made out of passionate love for God. There is a real difference folks! This is not the case in modern America.
Victoria,
Have you ever been to Seattle? If you have I would be shocked. Seattle is one of the most hostile places in the country to plant a church. I’m not saying that Driscoll is being physically persecuted like others around the world or throughout the history of the church, but his ministry is constantly being persecuted by the media, neighborhood associations, local businesses and now, sadly, by fellow Christians on the internet.
Gabriel: thank you for linking to Phil’s sermon on Counterfeit Love.
Phil: thank you for such a great message. I listened last night and recalled SO many comment threads from blogs where the very things you mention, are promoted, supported and endorsed. You nailed this one spot on, and if others here haven’t taken the time to listen to this, I would strongly encourage you to do that.
Victoria: its mind boggling, once you actually hear the examples given of Driscoll’s language from Driscoll himself (and yes, this is after his much hyped public repentance) how anyone who calls themself a Christian, can still defend him. Something is defintely missing from this picture.
art: I’m from the greater Seattle area, and that defense was old 4 years ago when it first started being used. Unsaved people are the same no matter where you go, and the lost in Seattle aren’t any more lost than the lost in Chicago, Detroit, LA or NY. Driscoll EARNS his own reputation, and the criticism as well. He purposely and intentionally uses the language that he does with the excuse that Seattle can’t grasp what’s being said without that kind of language.
I have a word for that, it’s BALONEY. There are plenty of faithful pastors in the Seattle area preaching the gospel and they have no need nor desire to use the same “culturally relevant” tactics Driscoll uses.
There IS a higher standard, Driscoll just chooses his own way.
FWIW…
art,
I’m sorry, I missed the part where calling someone to pure speech = persecution.
Some thoughts from Mark Driskoll’s video for DG.
So I listened to Mark Driskoll’s video and I would have to agree with those who do not think this kind of talk is appropriate. He seems to imply that this kind of language is needed for some to “get the point”. Well Bible study did not start with this generation and I don’t think that others over the years “did not get it” if they did not use inappropriate language. It seems to me more of a gimmick to try to appeal to this generation but we know that gimmicks are not needed for any period in time. We just preach the gospel as it’s always been preached and it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to see who “gets it” and who does not. Some will and some will not. Some hearts are hardened and some are opened, that’s Gods part.
He mentions Paul telling the Galatians to emasculate themselves, I looked up emasculate in the dictionary and did not find any offensive language in there and I understood the point. Now I can think of a few ways that an ungodly, perverse person in the world would say it, but they say that because they are ungodly and perverse, as I myself certainly was before salvation. If your teaching in Galatians and you use the word ‘emasculate’ or ‘castrate’ people will get it. And if my children don’t get it and are paying attention they will likely ask their parents, who will know how to explain that to them.
The same with Elijah mocking the gods of baal that they are probably “going to the bathroom”. Well, who reading this does not understand what going to the bathroom means, even the children will get that one. So, I can also think of some phrases that the perverse ungodly world would use to say the same thing, I doesn’t make it any clearer it just shows their perverted way of thinking.
It’s the same with the “steaming pile that a dog leaves in the yard” Well, I understand that and I don’t need to hear it in a more filthy or perverted way to make it any clearer.
The one with Ezekiel and the size of the genitalia I’m not sure what verse that is so if anyone could help me out with that it’d appropriate it.
And what about calling those who do not “go as far as he does” cowards. There have been many faithful men and women of God through the centuries who have powerfully proclaimed God’s word and suffered for their faith who would hardly be described as cowards simply because they did not chose to speak as he does. That was just a foolish statement designed to insult his critics. There are always going to be those who are people pleaser’s and concerned with ratings and approval but that’s not even the issue here.
He also admits that he’s gone too far. Well, that’s good that he admits that and the assumption is that he will correct that and stop “going too far” if he is growing in Christ.
And what’s up with the MH-17 adults only sermons. I admit I did not listen to those (yet) but where in the Bible does anyone ask the children to leave first, especially Jesus when He rebuked the hypocritical religious leaders, which was done publicly. I think He just said it, with power and authority, without having to use vulgar or inappropriate language.
The bottom line is the Bible does use strong language, biting remarks and sarcasm and humor. I’ve been in Bible believing churches and studying the Bible for many years and putting these things in appropriate ways does not minimize the strength of the language. Just like we all know what it means when it says that “Adam knew his wife and she conceived.” Do we need some of the more popular phrases from the world to figure that one out.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the conferece.
Carla,
What does “baloney” stand for in your comment?
Chris,
Look up persecution in the dictionary. “To harass persistently.” If you honestly think that people on the internet do not do this to Driscoll then you are living under a rock.
I find it interesting that in consideration of Ephesians 4:29, Paul does tell us explicity what not to say, (as defined in Phil’s posted comments here), but Paul also gives by way of contrast what Christians are actually TO say.
“but only such a word as is good or edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” Eph. 4:29b
As a pastor or even a Christian in general, is it not appropriate to measure the words we use by asking the question, “Will these words edify, build-up, and promote spiritual growth? If I use language, tell a joke, use an illustration in a sermon or even a discipleship setting that instantly connects and engages another person’s mind to the obscenity of our culture, how exactly does that edity that person(s)? How can one keep his or her mind unstained from the world when the very shepherd of his or her soul connects the mind to the world?
Brian,
Thanks for your comment. I also read your thoughts over at VOTS this morning.
If you have some time, take a look at this video from January of this year. You’ll find that Driscoll uses the same line of reasoning to defend crass humor, as he does to defend harsh speech in the Desiring God video.
After discussing Aaron’s excuse for making the Golden Calf, Driscoll illustrates by laughingly drawing a parallel with fornication, and then embraces his own use of “poopy comedy.”
[Start Quote]
[End Quote]
Driscoll continues by defending scatological humor by pointing to perceived examples from the Old Testament. (He also cites Douglas Wilson’s work on the Bible’s use of sarcasm.)
Now, it’s possible that his message at Desiring God will be wholly other than this. I hope that it is. But based on his preview video (where he said that “These are the kind of things we’ll explore . . . in my session at the Desiring God Conference”), and based on what he’s said from the pulpit this year, it is not unfair to raise some preliminary questions and concerns (not only about what he might say, but also about why he is being given this platform at DG).
Track records matter. And in this case, the track record is hard to dismiss.
NB
Phil
I echo Carla’s thoughts here too. I listened to that message this morning and it is excellent in very respect: biblical, theological and exegetical. Thank you my brother - it it good to hear you teach the Scriptures.
To all
Wilson’s use of skubalon is guttural at best, ribald and vulgar, and completely unnecessary. Are we now to add this cussing caveat to the ever vacuous Federal Vision Theology he propagates as well?
From all my research and conversation with Greek technicians, the word skubalon literally translated means “fling to the dogs” donating a broad category of refuse or garbage of any sort. Thus, the translators of the ESV chose the word “rubbish” instead of the “s” word or Wilson’s “dog s” word to convey its meaning. The words dung/manure could also be included here as well (KJV). Some other translations render skubalon as filth, garbage, refuse, etc. It also carries with it meanings such as dregs, what is thrown away as worthless, the chaff of grain, and parts of slaughtered animals.
But the guttural “s” word is out of character for the Apostle and frankly is a forced, nefarious rendering of the text. I realize that some pomo’s try to make this Scripture verse their cultural prooftext to flame and flatter their use of vulgarity. But this is foreign to Scripture and historically from those who are called to rightly divide its truths and protect its fidelity.
I think what really drives this kind of pushing of the envelop of language in ministry foundationally by the Driscoll’s, the Tripp’s and now sadly the Piper’s, is a lack of reverence for God and fear of the Lord. No man when coming from the presence of the Lord to preach His Word would stoop to the cellar of the smutty, but would seek to use language that would exalt and glorify God with words of nobility, high esteem, exaltation, and divine respect.
Take for example the prophet Isaiah… He did not indulge, excuse, or promote his dirty mouth or unclean lips. But upon seeing a right view of the holiness of his Savior high and lifted up, he then had a right view of his own sin. He was convicted of it, he confessed it, he did not trifle about with it, and he pronounced judgment upon himself for it. He literally “came undone”; he was humbled and ashamed. But God granted him mercy and forgiveness through a painful cauterization with a hot coal taken from the alter and applied to his lips by an angel. He was then fit for service and cried, “Here am I, send me…”
The Apostle Paul did not debase himself or use cheap cultural slang when skubalon is uttered in Phil. 3:8. He is not saying that his religious past is s___. He is saying, however, that it is utterly worthless and offers nothing in regards to the righteousness he has by faith found in Christ Jesus the Lord compared to a righteousness by law-keeping or religious pedigree. He considered it all “rubbish” except for knowing Christ.
How tragic that this is even become a point for debate or discussion.
Godly nomenclature matters,
Steve
James 1:26
I find it interesting that all of the detractors of those who are concerned about Driscoll’s language gravitate easily to passages like Phil. 3:8 but we never hear their take on Eph. 4:29; 5:3-4; Col. 3:8; Titus 2:8 or James 3:3-12. It is as if some are looking for a license to push the envelope as far as they can. Isn’t it always more prudent and wise to err on the side of caution than it is to flirt with controversy and the fine line here between wordly speech and speeech that would never come under such suspicion?
I have struggled with language issues for many years. I can see how many Christians who have struggled to keep their speech wholesome and appropriate would love for some justification to let it all hang out in the name of grace, being revelant or any other questionable motive to justify such things. Some Christians always seem to be toying with the lure of the flesh. We like to walk the thin line between fleshly desires and godly ones on these less than clear matters. Why would one want to wrangle about fine distinctions between what constitutes unwholesome language and what doesn’t? It seems like some giggle with glee if they can justify that skubalon means dogstuff or any other term that suits their fancy. The more shocking and edgy the better. Wow! if I can preach this text using this term look how ‘with it’ I will appear to the tatoo crowd. Isn’t it better to stay away from the edge of the controversy and take the clearly prescriptive texts to heart instead of using desriptive texts (substituting questionable alternative terms) for your only instruction?
“Now, it’s possible that his message at Desiring God will be wholly other than this. I hope that it is.” -Nathan
Me too.
God is amazing how He changes, and molds hearts. He is such a good Father to His children. He saves us, makes us somplete in Christ, where we can’t be any more saved, nor clean, and yet continues to work in us with His Spirit of truth, love, power, and soundness.
Amazing.
If one is not being changed from glory to glory, then one may be an illegitimate son. I’d use the KJV word, but better not.
Thanks for an excellent post, and good discussion.
may the Lord bless this upcoming conference with His garce, and sanctifying power. Amen.
art:
baloney is slang for nonsense - which is exactly what it is (if you’re a Christian that is), to presume God’s sovereign working power cannot work via the simple preaching of the word (exactly like His written word says it does) in big, bad Seattle - so you have to preach using trashy talk of the world.
All that is, is Driscoll’s “hook” that he uses (and yes, thats what he calls it), teaches others how to find in their own communities (that whole “knowing your audience”/culturally relevant thing that I believe pastor John MacArthur recently referred to as Zip Code Evangelism, or something to that affect) and use, and whats earned him the rep that he has, both with his throng of defenders and his critics.
There are plenty of believers in Seattle that are not too impressed that Driscoll paints this picture of the area with this “they’re SO bad out here, I MUST use this language to reach them!”. I don’t know if he’s ever actually said it that way, but that is essentially what he’s saying. Not only does it grossly insult the folks (young and old) in the greater Seattle area that don’t appreciate that kind of language OR use it, OR hang out with people that do, it just does not bring glory to God in any way and actually contradicts the written word that tells us that its the preaching of the gospel, that is the power of God unto salvation.
Again, for what its worth.
SDG,
Carla
Truth,
You mentioned:
60Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
According to my study, aided by John MacAthur’s commentary, the implication here was that the man’s father was not yet dead. He wanted to wait for his inheritance first.
In that context, the element of harshness is lacking, but rebuke/exhortation is overflowing.
In Christ,
Keith
Douglas Wilson made a helpful distinction in the comments section over at his blog.
He says this:
“Just for the record, I draw a distinction between what is appropriate in the pulpit and elsewhere. I have never used in the pulpit the language I used above — the voltage of words varies, not just according to century, but also according to the medium available to conduct it. And I also draw a distinction between prophetic polemical language and pomo bad boy usage. A right use of this kind of talk will be more likely to make everyone furious with you; a wrong use will get you book deals.”
Brendt Waters,
Comment on my comment:
Dr Piper uses *CRAP* in an emotive and seemingly uncomfortable way in his sermons. I follow the points set out by brother Phil Johnson.
Filthy speech is definately distinguishable from offense speech.
In my own laymens way, that is what I meant.
I am glad for Elders who are sensitive to conscience, they set an example of godliness for the flock of the LORD.
To beloved brother Phil, thank you for your clear thinking and writing…
I know that a lot of Christians would find Team Pyro offensive in it’s speech and message, but certainly it is not FILTHY speech, and I am thankful for the OFFENCE of the GOSPEL preached; but I am not in favour of FILTHY speech “expounded by any Elder, or in fact brother/sister.
For the glory of our King, for His honor and for His great Name’s sake.
I posted a comment in reply to one of Art’s remarks from the Jacksonville airport departure lounge this morning and my comment disappeared. (It’s OK; it included a barb or two that are probably better left unsaid.) Now that I’m home, I’ve got too much to do to keep posting comments on the subject. Here’s one final comment:
Thanks to whoever posted a link to my sermon on Ephesians 5:3. That message is a good summary of my view on this whole issue.
On the question of whether Paul used skubalon as an expletive or not: So far the arguments for positioning skubalon high on the scale of ancient Greek profanity all sound extremely speculative. I haven’t examined all the occurrences of the term in classic Greek, of course, but so far, none of the actual uses that have been cited are coming from from ribald or lowbrow works, and they all sound as benign as any formal use of the English word excrement. Are there no ancient Greek comedies or farcical writings that make use of this word in clearly-profane contexts? If not, why not? If it’s the type of word many have suggested, there ought to be many examples of this.
But so far, the idea that this word is the koine-Greek equivalent of Saxon single-syllable verbal punctuation like that used commonly by post-modern hip-hop artists seems itself a post-modern notion. I’ll believe it when someone cites some ancient sources where the word was actually used in the context of clear-cut ribaldry. Until then, I’m sticking with the historic understanding of Paul’s very clear commands to avoid filthy language and bad-boy jesting.
Incidentally, it amazes me that there seem to be a few participants in this thread who seem to think the argument is about the meaning of the Greek word Paul employed. I’ve agreed several times that it speaks of sewage, not merely the kind of rubbish we put in the waste-paper bin. The question is whether the word was deemed “filthy” like the words you would hear in a hard-core rap song, or merely vivid and repulsive, like the word diarrhea.
I still say the former is to be avoided; the latter is to be employed judiciously.
Excellent article.
My concern here is the fact that Piper is on record as cursing at the passion conferences. After he did so, at a later time, since people were upset, he defended himself and justified himself in his so called “apology,” much like Driscoll did. He used examples from the Bible to do so.
As such, I agree with this article, but Piper is certainly blatantly hypocritical in his criticism of Driscoll.
Actually, I think people are more offended when you call them “stupid” and you really do believe and mean that they are STUPID in some way or another. They know it when you mean what you say and when you say what you mean. You call them “stupid” and they’ll know whether you mean it…. Ooooooooooh, not good.
Seriously, being called “stupid” ticks people off way more than hearing the S-word, or even the F-word.
“the fact that Piper is on record as cursing at the passion conferences.”
Really? What did he say? If you can share it, and have documentation.
It is ridiculous to use Paul as an example to justify vulgarity. In all of his writings there is but one, that is ONE word. Obviously he didn’t make it habit or routine, or part of his normal teaching/preaching vocabulary. The use of the word was neither vulgar nor inappropriate.
In addition there is a context to the use of the word. He didn’t use it just to shock or amaze his audiences. He used to make the point that whatever we do it is worthless in regards to our salvation.
Isn’t there something about the mouth speaking out of the aboundance of the heart? So the words are a reflection of the thinking process. Something about renewing of the mind comes to “mind” - pun intended.
If it appeals to the unregenerate (and it does); if it makes the lost say, “Hey, this guy is just like me–maybe I’ll give His Jesus a try?”; one must examine the usefullness of it as to whether it brings Glory to God or shame and dishonor to His name.
Just another “clever” way to entertain the people and tickle their ears. Many will come just to be “entertained” by this witty, clever, slightly foul mouthed preacher. “Hey you gotta go to church with me this Sunday…this guy talks just like we do and the people laugh”.
How is this any different than the other “methods” that the seeker freindly churches use?
Truth Unites,
You really can’t expect us to take your last comment seriously…
Tom
Just a few questions in reference to the mouth and tounge. Is not the tounge a living symbol of what is in the heart? Is not a dirty mouth most representative of depravity? Isn’t worldliness anything SAID or done that appeals to the flesh?…aren’t these the kinds of questions we should be asking ourselves before we get into the pulpit and open our mouths?
Tom,
Are you calling me stupid?? Why you *@$%!
Seriously, if you’re married or have a girlfriend, try calling them “stupid”, and really do mean it when you call them “stupid”, and then see what kind of response you get.
I think they’ll get more upset with you over that than if you happened to mention that they stepped in some dog doo-doo in the yard.
Matthew 5:22
“But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘YOU FOOL!’ SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE.”
Truth Unites and Tom; how about we hear what Jesus said on the matter of calling someone a “FOOL” or perhaps similarly “STUPID”?
Matthew 5:22
“But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘YOU FOOL!’ SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE.”
Truth Unites and Tom; how about we hear what Jesus said on the matter of calling someone a “FOOL” or perhaps similarly “STUPID”?
Apologies for the secondary post
William du Plooy,
Thank you for going where I wished someone would go.
You would agree then that there are worse ways of using language than using the language of profanity.
Of course that doesn’t excuse either being used….
In case anyone is interested, here are a few instances of skubalon being used in classical Greek. I am providing the English translation highlighting the translation for skubalon.
In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT includeding the Apocrapha).
“When a sieve is shaken, the husks appear;
so do a man’s faults when he speaks” (Sirach 27:4).
In Works of Philo (he lived during the time Paul, approx. 20 B.C. - A.D. 45).
“But there are other things which are not divine, which we must leave like refuse to the race of mankind” (Sacr 109).
“For this is the law respecting whole burnt offerings, that with the exception of the refuse of the food…” (Sarc 139).
“For to be able to distinguish what is necessary from what is mischievous, and what is nutritious from what is not so…” (Somn 2:22).
“… and the separation of the chaff from the genuine useful grain” (Virt 145).
” Not but what, if this is true, there is a certain sense and principle in it; for rubbish is heaped up in recesses: and quantities of sweepings, and refuse, and such things, are what venomous reptiles love to lurk in…” (Prov II 62).
From these examples you can see that skubalon is used in various ways to refer to useless waste. There is no hint of vulgarity or “shock” factor.
As others have said before, I will say again that Paul is not trying to bring any sort of shock factor. He is simply saying that his “reasons to boast” or but useless waste. They have no benefit toward righteousness. He is not trying to shock his audience in the slightest (other than to say that we have nothing to boast about).
Gabriel
Well done.
As others have said before, I will say again that Paul is not trying to bring any sort of shock factor. He is simply saying that his “reasons to boast” or but useless waste. They have no benefit toward righteousness. He is not trying to shock his audience in the slightest (other than to say that we have nothing to boast about).
Amen!
I recently found Mark Driscolls lecture on “humor in the Bible” at his church website. That video alone solidified in my mind that Driscoll crosses the proverbial line in his attempts to reach “the culture”, to the point where Driscoll actually seems to have a complete and total irreverance for God and the faithful saints found in the pages of Scripture.
One example of this was when Driscoll pointed at Noah’s drunken episode in Genesis 9 as an amusing little story in the Bible…laughing, Driscoll irreverantly likened Noah to a redneck hillbilly in a trailer park, not to mention, Driscoll totally ignored and failed to mention the fact that Noah’s son was cursed for his obvious lack of respect for his father during said event.
Furthermore, in an attempt to explain just how funny it was that God commanded Ezekiel to eat bread cooked over dung, once again, Driscoll totally ignored the seriousness of the Scriptures, and failed to convey to his audience that the command was to send a message to Isreal about how filthy and vile and disgusting their sin was in the sight of the Almighty.
I realize what Driscoll was trying to do…make the Bible more interesting/entertaining to those at his church who have probably not taken the time to read it. But if they are picking it up and reading it to look for what he was pointing out, are they really going to be edified and blessed?
How amazing! John MacArthur can post an article here on an aspect of the gospel or Christ and theology and at time receive only 3-7 comments. You can clearly see from this post how subtley the weak postmodern mindset creeps in and gets us to start to question things that in the past were pretty black and white to us. To get 111 comments on an article about s/@# is ridiculous. John Piper is not himself doing this to “mentor” Driscoll, he is quite cleverly manipulating us to consider that maybe it ok to use nasty speech, oh well on certain occasions. Just watch the Tripp promo video, this is all about defending Driscoll. This may even seem harsh, but it seems to me that folks have elevated Piper to a level of almost popishness, and that if he does anything controversial we need to see he has an “higher” purpose.
This is dangerous. I hear people I admire and respect greatly ramble off Piperism’s all the time and use his catch phrases and run to his defense whenever I say that I am not a Piperite. Just watching the Tripp video should send red flag warnings up that question the discernment of Piper. Mark Driscoll is the star and Jesus is the in the shadows background singer. I would caution that christians should use more discernment before running to the defense of other christians. I can’t imagine some of the godly people I have known over the years just letting their mouths run off in whatever way comes natural. Most people say that that was the first thing to go when they got saved. I struggle with this, growing up in a cussing drinking house, it took so long to have victory over the alcohol, but it takes even longer sometimes for some to have victory over the mouth, and we should and I think it’s right to want to overcome the potty mouth, we should feel convicted when the s&*( comes out of our mouths, not try to justify it! I don’t want to hear that out of my sons’ or daughter’s mouth, why the justification and reasoning. I want to be transformed and overcome weak areas of my life more and more. I am proficient at sarcasm and harshness, should I not as a woman desire to be gentle and have the teaching of kindness. Oh my, there is so much, my 88 year old mother will slip and she feels so bad, that is her conscience, she desires a highter vocabulary and standard for herself and wants to reflect the image of Christ. I just feel that this is really all about Mark Driscoll and defending him, not really about the cussing.
You wrote, “To be fair, Mark Driscoll has not yet given his message at Desiring God. Perhaps it is too early to critique his defense, since he has only given a brief overview of what will surely be a much more comprehensive and nuanced discussion.”
I really do not think that Driscoll will present anything new in his defense of the use of harsh language. His ministry has been characterized by defending the use of it. If anything he’ll just have a new crude joke.
Karie Hays-Vallejo, CA,
“How amazing! John MacArthur can post an article here on an aspect of the gospel or Christ and theology and at time receive only 3-7 comments.”
I share in your lament. It is truly heart breaking.
Shawn,
I too listened to the Humor in the Bible by Driscoll and it was painful. Especially when he presented Elijah on Mt. Carmel as one big joke. He made it seem as if God inspired that chapter (THE LORD against false gods) as if it were meant to be funny. When did idolatry become funny to God?
“I share in your lament. It is truly heart breaking.”
I know some who never coment, but read John MacArthur’s teachings.
It doesn’t bother me so much if some posts have a lot of comments, while others don’t. There are so many variables why this is so. Hard to judge really.
Though at large we know that the Church is not too excited about doctrine, I would think most who visit this blog are here to read some good theology and teachings from the Scriptures.
That’s my 2 cemts.
The spin is in calling it all “harsh” language, when the issue is “coarse langauge” and sexual innuendo presented from the pulpit to mixed audiences, singles, married, children, adults, which is inappropriate even by worldly standards.
I wish it were the case that all men lifted up Christ so high and holy that He became the main topic of the blogosphere and conferences rather than the use of certain words. The distraction caused by these words should be enough motivation to stop using them.
All,
I totally agree with you on the sermon entitled ‘humor’ by Mark Driscoll BUT let’s be careful not to tar and feather him and every ministry and anyone that associates with him.
How many of you have listened to his series on doctrine that he just completed? or him teaching through Philippians? I listened to Philippians and did not find one thing that made me uncomfortable.
All this to say, when he is wrong he should be called out, but let’s not make sweeping generalizations about him. He has struggled with this and there seems to be progress with some setbacks (the humor sermon is definately one of them). Are any of us willing to accept him if he grows past this? I pray that he would grow because he is a gifted teacher of the Word and has some great men mentoring him (Piper, Mahaney, Dever, DA Carson, etc) and has introduced biblical counseling to his people (Tedd and Paul Tripp have spoken at his church) as well as called out heretics and heretical teaching (’The Shack’ and Joel Osteen).
I too am hoping that the Lord will grow him in this area. Let us all pray for him.
Went to Mars Hill website, didn’t see the Q&A section, but did see an event coming up in October hosted by Mark Driscoll, titled “FREE SEX” and then below “College Tour with Pastor Mark Driscoll”. I know Madison Avenue uses sex to sell, but…
Does anybody else find some humor over the fact that Karie and Chris are lamenting the fact that people aren’t commenting on posts by MaCarthur about the gospel, but I would guess that neither have commented on the posts in reference. They also both added comments to this thread.
Nate,
I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your writing, on this and many other topics. You are always balanced, your posts always tempered with Scripture, and I think are a good example of speaking the truth in love (or overflowing grace and truth).
I don’t know you very well… I’ve only been to your Cessationism seminar and have talked you to on a handful of occasions. But I love you, brother, for the way you have fed me and ministered to my soul.
Thanks.
I have admired John Piper for a good while, but am coming to the conclusion that he is getting pulled sideways by a preoccupation with theology over simply preaching Christ. I would much rather say I love someone’s company because they are spiritually and Godly minded, rather than emphasize their theology. Theology is, after all, man’s own interpretation of what God is saying in scripture. Not a single one of us has a monopoly on that because we are all “looking through a glass darkly”.
Nice follow up post.
I watched “Mississippi Burning” a couple weeks ago. It is one of the best, and most powerful, movies I have ever seen.
The language is quite corse, and even foul. The n-word is spoken throughout the movie. However, in the context it makes a powerful point. And emphazizes the wickedness of this non-fiction movie.
A black pastor friend of mine, who grew up in North Carolona, and who understands what it’s like to be treated with such hatred, just because your skin is black, cannot watch this movie. It makes him angry, which it should. And it should make us all angry.
My point here is context. The n-word is used to give us the full force of just how depraved humnas can be.
Could the n-word ever be used in the pulpit? I don’t think it should, because of the audience being such a wide group of individuals.
Could the s-word be used in a movie to make a point? I think it could. But should never be used in the pulpit for the same reason. Or in a teaching video, for that matter.
To Karie-Hays, thank you so much! You said just what I wanted to say. This is just unbelievable that people would waste so much time trying to defend wrong behavior. I guess we all need to apologize to our children for punishing them for their foul language. And that is just what it is. Would the Lord Jesus Christ teach or preach like that?? There are many more doctrinally sound pastors that would never use filthy language to make a point. Let’s just call a spade a spade and quit trying to excuse someones boorish behavior. Gee whiz! Trust me, the Holy Spirit can reach those people in Seattle without Mark Driscoll.
Evan, I come to pulpit magazine about once a monthe to see “what’s up.” In the past dear brother I have made comments on other posts that are more theology, doctrinal related issues. I have been following, researching,ect. the seeker, ecm, postmodern movements for almost 3 years, how can I not make a comment on posts about a Mark Driscoll or a Rob Bell. Plus dear brother, did I detect a snort in your comment, possibly you are just irritated that I had the “gull” to have negative things to say about Piper and Driscoll. And, I would also like to mention, that I use caution when I do make any reply to a blog ministry has biblically sound as Pulpit Magazine regarding theology and doctrine because I am a woman. I noticed this happened on the Rob Bell posts, they descended to personal attacks and accusations.
There is a difference between harsh, confrontive, and polemical language and crude and offensive language. Just as we should not take a few Scriptures out of context to build a doctrine, we should not take a few Scriptures out of context to justify a practice.
In addition to Nathan’s points, especially #3, I would add that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, righteouness, and judgement; and He doesn’t need my harsh or crude words to do so. Also, the truth, which all of the Word of God is, is confrontational. So speaking the truth, along with the attending power of the Holy Spirit, will reprove, rebuke, and exhort exactly where it is needed and how it is needed. We just need to be bold enough to declare the truth….truthfully.
Morris
I’ve heard this one before (Driscoll’s explanation of why he uses scatological humor) and I am pretty sure that an overweight person does not have more intestinal capacity than the same size frame person who is not overweight.
Not that it matters. He is astoundingly coarse.
My thanks to Nathan for this excellent article on the use of “shock” language in our teaching of God’s Word. How is God glorified when a preacher lets vulgar, suggestive language flow from his mouth to the ears of his congregation. The preacher probably thinks he is being cute. Some silly kids will applaud his chutzpa for breaking the expected rules of decorum. Godly people will be offended that the assembly of worship has been sullied by carnality.
John Waddey, minister
John Waddey - respectfully, it doesn’t sound to me like you’ve recently listened to a Mark Driscoll sermon. Have you? If you haven’t, I must warn you - he doesn’t use bad language very often, if ever (I’ve certainly never heard any), so you may have to uncover your ears first.
Again, I mean no disrespect to you - I thank God that men like yourself give your lives as ministers, and all that that entails. I just wish people would go to the primary sources in these discussions, rather than reading cheerleading blogs on either side of the debate and saying “Yeah! Go get ‘em!” For what it’s worth, there are a lot of “silly kids” out there who are having their lives changed by the Word of God… communicated to them by Mark Driscoll.
I wonder if there is a cultural divide here also - I guess most of you are writing from the States - where, it seems to me, that your culture is quite prudish. You talk about ‘going to the bathroom’ etc
Come over to England and we have a completely different way of conversing - ‘going to the bathroom’ would be something that my ancient maiden aunt’s mother might have said. May be is a mixture of the Saxon and the Celt in our blood.
Over here, Driscoll is refreshing, real and very down to earth (which is the way we like things this side of the pond).
I listened to the Al Mohler broadcast (I’m a regular listener) and for the first time I really disagreed with him. He didn’t even sound convinced himself when he said it was OK for Paul to say our “righteousness is like dung” but that we shouldn’t…..
Spurgeon got in trouble for his plain speaking too.
Spurgeon got in trouble for his plain speaking too.
There, again, is the conflation of (1) speaking plainly, directly, with candor, and even sharply and (2) speaking crudely, coarsely, and filthily.
They’re not the same.
Point taken about Spurgeon - don’t forget though he was a Victorian. They used to cover up the legs of tables so that men didn’t get too excited. He still got into trouble though for his plain speaking - as it went against a class based culture of propriety and genteel manners.
Martin Luther however used language that would make Driscoll blush. I won’t print any out, I don’t want to offend or get Luther struck off as a heretic or anything…..but he used very very naughty words for bodily eliminations and parts of the anatomy.
Driscoll’s sermons are as white as snow compared to Luther. Whats more, Driscoll is preaching the gospel to an unchurched culture and seeing conversions.
I wish that we had more men like him, particularly in the UK, who are prepared to stand up and speak plainly to our culture. I wish I had heard some of his sermons on sex when I was a teenager - I may not have made some of the choices I did. I never heard it mentioned from the pulpit - NOT ONCE!!!!
I am sorry, I tried to post a longer post and it did not show up. It is probably better that it did not.
The one thing for certain about Driscoll, if you have watched any of his sermons (other than the humor one), is that he is commited to Jesus, repentance, life change, the atonement, and basically his gospel presentation is really solid!
Let everyone who condemns him acknowledge at least the most important thing is rock solid.
thad
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/augustweb-only/134-51.0.html
uhmmmm!!!AJ, mayby Mark Driscoll could host the reality show from your side of the pond, Make me a Christian. Prudes? I wonder if you would call Isaiah a prude after his sinful lips were touched with the burning coal, or call the apostle Paul a prude and “victorian” for admonishing us that silly and coarse jesting is not “fitting” for saints, or all the proverbs about speech, or just exactly “what” is unwholesome language? Oh, yeah that would be relative to an progressive, postmodern “Christian.” Uhhh, how many people in Europe profess to be Chriastian? Of course, you like Driscoll, he’s probably as good as it gets in the UK, and that is not a compliment. But, I would like to Thank the Lord, for men like Spurgeon, and Chambers and Edwards and others, who will not go down in history known as beer drinkin’ cussin’ pastors…Last time I checked I believe 3rd world believers are sending missionaries to Europe as well as America. And, one more thing, everyone keeps talking about the lost his ministry is reaching, I would love to hear those testimonies, looks like it’s mostly disgruntled men as yourself that you were raised in a church and are going through something that likens teen rebellion and your finally “free” to be yourself. Wow, I get to drink and cuss, yeah…Again, last time I checked, the Word of God, I believe the Lord Jesus Christ died to save us from our depraved, lower base selves and to change us and transform us and beautify us, maybe I was wrong, and I should have just continued drinking and cussing. Mark Driscoll talks about women and sex and crude stuff so much, makes me wonder exactly where his mind is, he should be cautious and warned, this could come back to bite him.
You can probably tell, I like Driscoll (I also like a lot of others too - Keller, Piper, Alistair Begg, my old Pastor etc etc).
I find him refreshing - however, I thought his “Humour” sermon was probably the weakest I’ve ever heard him. I was a little disappointed and thought he might be playing to the crowd a little bit too much.
(Lets face it, we all have bad days…)
So, maybe his Humour sermon is not the best one to listen to, in order to make an informed opinion.
It would be like saying I was a terrible cook, if you came round my house and you saw us eat Pizza out of a box.
Listen to his series on Doctrine - then make some decisions
donsands
I understand your point about not judging by number comments or the motives why people post them. Personally though I meant that this is a reality that plays out in real life too. I mean that I can be around Christians and spark up a conversation about Jesus and the beautiful doctrines surrounding his work and person, but it does not generate much conversation. Bringing up a church scandal, a controversy etc. will generate much conversation. It is just the way we are wired. I wish it were not so. I was including myself. Hope that clarifies.
I enjoy Driscoll. But I don’t agree with every illustration he uses or every joke he uses. But I do find him funny. Sometimes people need to laugh. Some evangelicals are just too stuck up to laugh. I do also think that for those who object to Driscoll and his humor it’s more telling of their cultural background. For the most part most well known evangelicals have grown up in a white-strict-fundie-rural enviornment. Driscoll is funny at times.
Karie
Just so you know - I’m not a ‘disgruntled man’ nor am I going through a ‘teen rebellion’, I tend not to ‘cuss’ and although I don’t mind a glass of wine, I’m not a drunkard.
I’m actually a middle age wife and mum of 2 boys.
Your passing judgement on the UK makes me sad. Partly because it is true - we don’t have enough Pastors/Ministers ready to stand up for the truth - they would rather tickle ears with what sounds nice or even worse, just try and get everyone to behave themselves, like that is going to make a difference!
We need men who will stand up and tell the truth and not be ashamed of the gospel. The gospel is what unites us - except, I see a lot of division on boards like this. A lot of sniping over style & presentation. That also makes me sad - because it causes division over things we shouldn’t be dividing over.
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones gave some lectures in 1973 and published a book of them called “What is an Evangelical?” I would urge anyone to read it - he says that there is a tendancy of evangelicals to split over the slightest thing, and its wrong and unbiblical to do so.
Perhaps I can plead for a bit of generosity on behalf of preachers like Driscoll who are preaching the gospel, even though it might be in a style which SOME people don’t appreciate, but OTHERS do. You could even pray for him sometime………
What more is there to say. Whenever anyone now, in the secular world or Christianity speaks to highter standards and values and appropriateness, and I did reference passages in the Bible that speak directly to speech that is fitting for Christians, meaning we have a different pattern laid out for us by our Lord, we are called “judgemental”. OK, if a man like Mark Driscoll sparks a revival in the UK in the same manner as the Wesley’s or and Edwards then I will “repent” of not caring for him. I also am a middle aged woman with 4 children, 18-25. I don’t want them or me for that matter to just “behave” ourselves. I don’t drink, because I had a problem, we have serious alchol issues on both sides of our families and one drink could send my kids down the same path. I am proficient at and quite good at “scatology”, unlike like you my sister, I was raised in the SF Bay area, not in a Christian home, but in a urban street-wise community. It seems that those of us to refer to and desire to retain to Biblical Standards and appeal to them are called after “judgemental” devisive. It may shock you to find out, I’m not a denim-wearing, home-school mom with long hair and “well_behaved”.
My kids are not impressed with Driscoll, my tattooed, pierced, rocker kids, are not like, “wow, a real dude, who can cuss and talk about sex, he’s coooolll” They don’t like Rob Bell or Donald Miller “we read Blue like Jazz” where Miller immortalizez Driscoll as “the cussing pastor.” They don’t need Driscoll, or rocker churches, according to my 22 year old, he goes to “shows” he does not need that at church. We talk openly about sex at home and they don’t need some rock star preacher pampering and consoling them and helping them to “understand” sex. We came off the streets as 22 year olds into a plain Bible Church, no frills or bands or coffee shops or “pubs” or big screens and a preacher who spoke the truth in clarity and authority and he was only 30, and also a former blasphemer. I will close with their are many, many, men who are wonderful, powerful, biblical preachers who are captivating and convicting and dynamic and passionate, “I love passion in a preacher” as a side note, to elevate and lift up and exalt one guy, MD, simply because he tells crude jokes, makes rude comments, adds coarse jesting to his sermons to the point that they are what’s memorable and not the adornment of the gospel is just “idolatry” it’s just being star struck, it’s just being a groupie. I would rather go to a secular rock concert than to waste my time going to hear MD, I would not walk across the street to hear him, becuase he has become the “Obama” of the Christian World. That’s my two cents. Hummm, I wonder how I could get through this without some really nasty words or crude references or innuendo’s about sex. I still think the dude has problems in that area and he just wants sympathizers.
Wow, somebody seems a little bitter. Jesus has done amazing things in, through, and in spite of Pastor Mark Driscoll and the ministry of MH Church. How can anybody justify their anger and bitterness in the light of this truth. All glory belongs to God the Father and none of us are any better then anyone else we are all insufficient and wicked to the core. It is only through grace and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ that we can do any good work. If you fail to marvel at the wonder of what God can do through a fallen sinner and instead focus on the sin of the sinner that only leads to pride on your part. Think about it.
Judgemental, divisive, now, bitter and angry,prise,wow! The lengths people will go to to defend one man. Thanks Pulpit, I guess I have to bow out of discussions here, I guess my standards (Biblical) for those who speak for the Lord from platforms and pulpits, who call themselves, leaders and pastors is way to high. DT, you are arrogant, and have more grace and forgiveness for the cussing, crude male guy who speaks from pulpits in the name of God over a middle aged housewife who speaks her mind, now I know how Sarah Palin feels. I am outta of this discussion. And, you know what, maybe I am angry, angry that people people use the word of God and the pulpit to make a stage for themselves, angry that Jesus is the background singer in the shadows.
Bitter, angry, proud! No, wow to you, I should have no that an average Christian middle aged housewife, obscure and a no one could ever speak out against men who stand in pulpits in the name of God to make a name for themselves and achieve rock star quality, wow, wow, wow, I feel like Sarah Palin. Thanks Pulpit for this opportunity to speak what I think is truth, but that comment from from DT is over the top, and proves my point, of the lengths folks go to to defend MD. I feel really bad and disappointed in the current acceptance of things I was taught as a young believer off the streets to “put off”. I am not sorry for anything I said, and I don’t think I am bitter over Mark Driscoll, what’s up with that! Angry, well now Yeah, if you dare to question things in this post modern world, you get mulled. Pride, pride? I shared my struggles and how I desire sanctification and change and transformation to reflect more of Jesus Christ, or is He now the crude talkin’, cussin, beer drinkin’ cool Jesus dude, whose my buddy and pats me on the back and says, oh go on Karie you can’t help yourself, I forgive you go and sin more!
Nate,
As many have commented, this is a very insightful article and I appreciate your boldness in presenting it knowing I am sure that it will not set good with many who love Driscoll.
I do have a question however. Given the relationship this blog has to the ministry of John MacArthur, I would like to understand where Pastor MacArthur falls on the specific issues of Driscoll being invited by Piper to DG Conference. I would further like to know if these kind of decisions by Piper will have any adverse effect on Pastor MacArthur and Pastor Piper speaking together in the future.
Shane Trammel
great post.
I would also like to know why Mark’s good friend Hank Hanegraaff of the radio show Bible Answer Man
isnt speaking out on Mark’s smutty beahvior.
both Hank Hanegraaff and John Piper need to explain themselves for not speaking out on Driscoll’s smutty sermons and behavior.
BtW:
has anyone read:
Would the Real John Piper Please Stand
Up?
http://defendingcontending.com/2008/09/25/would-the-real-john-piper-please-stand-up/
Shane,
If you’d like to know John MacArthur’s position on Driscoll you can read about it here, but as far as his position on Piper’s invitation to Driscoll to appear and speak at his 2008 Desiring God Conference…well…only time will tell.
From his December 11th, 2006 article entitled “Grunge Christianity? Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel” MacArthur well says:
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.
In Christ,
CD
I know that this is old news, but:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTitle/1942_At_the_Passion07_breakout_session_you_used_language_that_seemed_inappropriate_to_some_Will_you_explain_why_you_did_that/
This is in response to the post (way up above!) asking for documentation about John Piper cussing from the pulpit at a Passion Conference. I appreciate Piper’s humble response- although I disagree with his endorsement of Driscoll. I think he is contradicting himself.
I love John Piper- as a brother, a pastor, and a writer- but I do not let my love & respect for him to blind me.
Nathan- thank you for an excellent article. Your #4 point is very sound. I think an additional article explaining the basic difference between examples & commands in Scripture may help clarify the issue. This hermeneutical error is all too common in the church! Many assume that just because something is recorded in Scripture it is therefore endorsed as normative Christian behavior.
Keep up the solid work-
Just a few thoughts on this subject:
1. We don’t have to agree on every thing a preacher says to realize and appreciate that he is reaching people for Jesus Christ.
2. Mark Driscoll is on our team, ladies and gentlemen. No matter how you feel about his occasional use of “harsh language” he is still on our team, and we should keep that in mind in the midst of our disagreement.
3. We need to be careful not to be guilty of the same thing we disagree with Driscoll over. Namely that our speech lacks grace. Honestly I have found perhaps more grace-less speech in this thread alone than I have in all of the Driscoll sermons I have watched so far. It seems to me that a good portion of the comments here are void of any compassion at all, as if fitting for a believer dealing with another. Yes, we are to speak the truth, but we must be characterized by a loving attitude.
4. I don’t understand why Nathan “sharply disagrees” on Mark’s “birth control” video, in which he handles many hard questions with a great deal of grace. What unbiblical or unholy thing was said there? I could just be missing it.
Fifth a response to Karie,
Ma’am, I understand your outrage at what you deem to be inappropriate talk coming from the pulpit. And in fact, you may be right in your assessment. However, your words lack compassion. To say so is not a defense of Driscoll; it is a word of caution from one follower of Christ to another. I sympathize with your struggle for respectable speech before the Lord, but here’s the thing: You must allow the same patience for Mark Driscoll that God allowed for you in changing your speech. I hope you’ll accept this warning with an attitude of humility, knowing that it comes only out of a heart of concern.
Finally to all believers who may read it:
We need to be careful with the message we’re sending the world about Christ’s church. This is not to say that we must agree at all times with everything said in the name of Christ. Neither is it to say that we must be silent on the things we disagree on. But look at this comment thread. Could we really take it and show it to the world and say, “This is how the church deals with one of it’s own when there is disagreement”? Would Christ be glorified in the words on this webpage? Would His love, righteousness and glory be shown in our speech? Or would the world look at this and rightly conclude, “These people are full of dissension”? Once again this is not to say we cannot stand against what the Word of God says is unacceptable. We can and we must stand up for the purity of the Name, especially when the affront comes from one of God’s well known representatives. But we must do so in a way that magnifies the worth of Christ, otherwise we shame Him further.
Struggling together with you all to that end,
Trevor
Trevor, first I appreciate your tone and attitude, it is somewhat more gracious than others. Mark Driscoll is a Pastor of a mega church, he is an author, he is the founder of the Acts 29 church planting network, he is a sought after speaker, he has a platform and has the power and ability to affect and influence millions. Do not those whom have the call and responsibility to proclaim the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ have a great, huge, fearful resposibility, I think maybe it says that in the book of James. Teachers and leaders and pastors and elders and deacons all have qualifications and responsibilities and incur a stricter judgement. I did not say my struggles were completely overcome and I had total victory, and when a man like MD comes along and makes it OK and cute and possibly even justified then it become a stumbling block to me and other who are trying to overcome our carnal behaviours. Compassion, where is compassion for the body of Christ out here in obscurity, away from powerful mega churches and rock star pastors and living in the trenches of an unholy world on a daily basis with only a very few godly men and women to look to, to emulate to mentor us. Just like the liberals do not accurately represent most Americans, the Mark Driscoll’s the progressive, liberal Christians, the ECM do not accurately represent most solidly Biblical Churches. I have compassion on my unsaved, cussing, drinking, partying, blasheming, did I say unsaved, relatives. As a matter of fact dear Trevor, my unsaved, father who is constantly judging Christians just mocked me because of a word I should not have used, see the unchurched do not see some sort of “realness, genuiness” with us simply because we reduce our language to some nastiness, innuendo, coarse jokes, and etc.. As a matter of fact, my family looks kind of surprised, and confused when I act too much like them. You know Trevor it is possible to be a cool/hip Christian and retain an intelligent, vocabulary packed with lots of really cool words in the dictionary. It is not compassion I lack, if he were just your average Joe Christian, newly saved a couple of years out of the street scene (like yours truly) coming to church and then rehab after, I would have much, much more understanding and patience. But, we are talking about a guy who preaches to millions and has the platform, and has been confronted for about 3 years, he is the one with 0 humility, defending and justifying and coming up with more and more ridiculous illustrations that are personally offensive to a lot of people. We look back at a workshop Piper led, and we see him slipping and then in a very revealing confession, first he says it was for titilling the audience and then probably to grab the attention of the younger generation. Piper is drama and loves to “use words” to cause controversy, good words mostly, but now lower, more average everyday cuss words. Patience? Again, 3 years now Piper has been asked why he invites Driscoll, it speaks loudly that he loves the controversy and now has Paul Tripp in a promo video “shocking” potential conference goers. This is how the who postmodern agenda works. Get em’ used to it, question whether or not maybe we had it all wrong, we were all a little “prudish, rigid, legalistic” relativism comes in, maybe your offended, but others are not, who’s to say those are really bad words, bad words are used in the Bible, he hangs out with so and so. If MD were just teaching a home Bible Study in Coweta, OK, I doubt he would receive 150 comments here. Really Trevor where do we draw the line? Do not those who speak on behalf of the Lord have a greater responsibility, they are to be above reproach. Have you looked up silly and coarse jesting in the Greek. MD is not making the gospel attractive (what do you think of an attractive woman lacks discretion) he distracts, it is not real when you are trying to impress and please your audience. Also, it is insulting and a disservice to many who are quite intelligent, and have some discretion and dignity, and find it not necessary to be clever. I fear if I say this, I will get 39 lashes, I can’t believe some of the weak, lame reasonings and rationalizations and justification and lack of discernment on practical issues. We are talking about cussing in the church? Pubs in the Church?
No wonder people are leaving churches, no wonder unbelievers want nothing to do with the church or Christians. Show me the numbers, let me here the testimonies of all the fruit of MC and Mars Hill Church, let me see the data. Yeah, the message we are sending out to the world about Christ’s church, the message is is turning upside down, it’ becoming Hollwood and Woodstock, and Green, and Tolerant and politically correct and idolators and worldly and experiences an identity crisis.
The world cannot believe we have a “cussing pastor” they don’t get it. Please someone here please tell my why this guy gets so much praise and compassion and patience. Please send your idea to Piper and Driscoll, they speak from pulpits they are the ones magnifying this, ubelievers are not coming here to hear Karie from Vallejo rant about a cussing pastor, they shame Him in major venues and retreats and conferences and workshops, and books. You know judgement does begin with the household of God.
Nathan, this is from Slicecast, Ingrid mentions your article. The interesting thing is when she says her 20 year old son said he went to watch MD and came to her and said, Mom I can’t watch that “it puts images in my mind”
not that’s sin, that’ disgusting, that’s not Biblical.
That is what I was trying to convey to Trevor, Mark using jokes and bad words causes that to be in my mind, and that lower sin nature picks up on it files it and then voila, out of the blue that comes out of my mouth. Yes, he is actually causing people to stumble. Encouraging and promoting drinking is probably worse, what if these people have problems, what if one drink sends them over the top, what if they get in their car or truck in get in a wreck, what if it makes them notice other drinking men and women in that venue? I have been rebuked by some here, and they don’t get it! His speech on sex is a stumbling block to married and single men & women. I’m kind of discouraged by all this. I have 3 sons and I want them to look up men who can help them grow out of this stuff and become mature and dignified and godly.
For my 18 year old daughter, I don’t want her going out with an obnoxious, immature, pomo Christian guy. Please pass on the slicecast link. Thanks for your boldness, I appreciate it.
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/slicecast/2008/09/27/dr-don-kistler-on-foul-mouthed-preachers/
Sorry, forgot to paste it!
After reading Nathan’s article, attending the DG National Conference along with my wife, two of my fellow pastors and a lay couple, listening to Mark Driscoll there myself and then reading a lot of these posts, I have a couple of thoughts and a few of questions. My thoughts:
1) I respect Dr. John Piper for the fact that instead of sitting from afar and lobbing mortar shells at Driscoll he has decided to be a part of the solution and has come along side him, taken him under his wing, and is mentoring him, as is CJ Mahaney and others; and as a result, Driscoll is slowly changing. He was known as the cussing pastor…while on Saturday past he publicly apologized for much from his earlier days of verbal ministry impropriety;
2) In my mind, Dr. Piper showed great wisdom in his discipleship/mentoring of Driscoll by inviting him to speak at a conference where the focus was The Power of Words and the Wonder of God. It forced him to deal with weakness as well as to sit under other messages, such as the one delivered by Sinclair Ferguson. I see Jesus’ heart and wisdom in both these actions; and I see fruit in Driscoll’s life.
My questions:
1) Who made all you guys the standard of orthodoxy? Is Grace, TMS guys and those who hang in this circle now granted “papal infallibility”, in that you decide what is acceptable to Christ and what is not? If John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul or one of the prophets arose and spoke at a conference today, they would get 100 plus posts too, with much of the same tone as appears above, in my view.
2) Have any of you ever spoken to Mark Driscoll personally? Has Nathan Busenitz? I doubt it. That would take courage and I know, Mark Driscoll is so scary; and it would take time; and we might find he really isn’t any worse than any of us are!!!
3) Have any of you who are so sure Driscoll is so wrong ever stopped to think for a moment that if Jesus were here he might actually view you like he did the Pharisees while calling guys like Driscoll to be one of his inner circle?
4) Have any of you ever interviewed any of the former drug addicts, former whores, former abusers, former gays, former feminists, former fornicators, who have come to Jesus under Driscoll’s ministry, to see if they are real, genuine converts to Christ? To see why there are 12,000 plus people in seven campuses at Mars Hill Church? You should. You might change your tune if you heard from some of them!!
5) How radical a missionary are you to your culture? Paul boasted in what Christ had done through him. What can you boast in?
I already know my post doesn’t fit with the prevailing view here, but frankly, after near 40 years trying to follow Jesus, 21 years as a church pastor and 5 years as a missionary to Muslims before that, so what? I can’t wait to see what kind of response I get. I do think these are valid questions we all need to ask before we verbally crucify anyone…but my experience in the evangelical community since I was in tenth grade tells me we can talk more about grace than we can extend it.
Karie,
I’m sorry I was not clear enough in my first statement. Let me clarify: I do not intend in anyway to affirm or deny the dispute that Driscoll’s language is inappropriate for a person of his position. In fact, if I take any position it’s close to yours. You’ll notice the first person plural “we” in my first comment, as in “we disagree with Driscoll.”
I understand that by Driscoll’s words he runs the risk of causing believer’s to stumble, I have said as much myself when dealing with this issue with my friends. I understand your position that his speech is plainly in violation of Scripture passages such as James 3 and Ephesians 5:4. I partly agree with it.
But that’s not my point. My point is that it is not helpful to condemn anyone of being in violation of James 3 or Ephesians 5:4 if by doing so we ourselves violate Ephesians 4:1-3, which commands us to treat believers with humility, gentleness and patience, (the text doesn’t give qualifiers on how long we are to do this for, the command is for an indefinite period of time) and with an eagerness that longs “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
I realize that one can make the case that Mark also falls short in this aspect. So why don’t I criticize Mark? Here’s how my thinking goes: What’s the point of criticizing Mark? Has it not already been done by many here? Would I in any way be adding to the conversation? Would such speech give grace to the hearers? Would Mark be changed by my comment?
The answers, of course, are: Not much, Yeah, Not really, Probably not, Definitely not. So why correct you? Because you probably will read what I have to say. Because I might impact your thinking with the Word of God. It’s ok that you disagree with Mark. But the Word of God, not Trevor, demands that you do so with humility, gentleness and patience. It also demands an eagerness in your heart for unity. Please, look over your comments, read Ephesians 4, pray over what you’ve said and be open to what the Holy Spirit might say. Lord knows that I’ve said things I’ve shouldn’t in comment boxes before. But he is forgiving, and does not expect us to be perfect in every way, only to be humble and teachable. And even for that I rely on His grace.
Struggling with you to that end,
Trevor
Just a side note.
Doug Wilson’s books used to be sold at the Mars Hill Church book table, and later at the main MH Ballard campus book store/resource center. They are now banned.
Thanks Trevor, I give up, ok Piper and Driscoll win, I guess us pharisees should just shut up.
4) Have any of you ever interviewed any of the former drug addicts, former whores, former abusers, former gays, former feminists, former fornicators, who have come to Jesus under Driscoll’s ministry, to see if they are real, genuine converts to Christ? To see why there are 12,000 plus people in seven campuses at Mars Hill Church? You should. You might change your tune if you heard from some of them!!
Have you? I would love to hear at least 10. I can compare notes with how the Lord saved sinners such as my husband and I from some of the catagories above. Please post those testimonies here, have those folks here defending their Pastor, I would defend my Pastor. Saved in difficult Seattle? come see the power of the gospel and the Lord in the SF Bay, really can any good thing come out of here, yes, and without a Mars Hill Church and a Mark Driscoll.
I have been listening to Mark Driscoll lately. I love his boldness to call sin for what it is and his desire for true repentance in both believers and non-believers. I love his ability to teach the scriptures, as well. But as I have seen some of the reactions to his choice of language, and as I reflect on the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 4, I can honestly say that I am not surprised about the outpouring of opposition regarding his speech.
Paul writes to Timothy, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” He goes on to say that Timothy should be especially diligent and careful about his treatment of doctrine/scripture. The implication here is that because Timothy was a young pastor (probably in his thirties), he may be looked down on by a culture who saw age and experience as reasons to respect a man. The natural thing to do would be to “despise” this young whipper-snapper and say, “Who does he think he is?” Some would even look for a reason to say, “Aha! See, I told you! He has no business being in the pulpit.” I think that is exactly what is going on here with Pastor Driscoll.
I believe Pastor Driscoll should follow Paul’s advice and be an example to the believers in word, conduct, etc. Notice that the first item in this list directly relates to speech. Because Timothy would be scrutinized in this very way, he had to rise above and be a truly godly example to others, beginning in his speech. Likewise, Pastor Mark needs to rise above. And I think he knows this.
He has expressed a few times the fact that though a pastor should allow for “harshness” and “scatological humor” in his sermons, it should be used very seldom, as is the pattern in the scriptures. Even if this were true, Pastor Mark does not even follow his own teaching on the frequency of this kind of talk. I have heard him say on a couple occasions, after speaking in this manner, “Oh come on. You know it’s why you came. It’s why you brought a friend!” He is not practicing what he preaches and admits to the (crowd gathering) shock value of his words.
I do find it encouraging, though, that he has truly been giving this more and more serious thought through his own studies and under the mentorship of older godly men. I hope and believe that Pastor Driscoll will repent from his inappropriate language and desire to be an “example to the believers in word..”
Grace and peace,
Keith
Just to support something that Karie said, I used to be a very (sexually) lustful man before I came to know the Lord. I still struggle to keep those kind of thoughts captive for Christ. Mark Driscoll’s language does the opposite of help me.
Grace and peace,
Keith
Dear brother Nathan and Pulpit Magazine, I have been troubled, disturbed, distracted, frustrated and yes angry at times in this conversation, forum, debate, whatever we will call it. I read and thought about those in opposition of said and considered their points, I have been troubled and gone to my husband asking him for insight and help regarding this issue and confirmation or affirmation that what I am learning and discerning regarding MD and JP is true. I have been praying about this for a few days and asking the Lord for insight to see if I am seeing clearly or if I am just a pharisee, blinded by my own opinions and views. I keep researching and investigating MD and Mars Hill and I keep coming up on troubling, questionable things. So, this morning I consulted the Lord regarding my involvement in this discussion, what I should do, should I continue to engage and report and yes, suggest caution and warn to be more discerning regarding whom we defend and look to. To feel like giving up, what’s the use, the church is defecting, weakening, being diluted, and tainted brings a deep troubled feeling in my spirit. Which has in fact confirmed that this whole thing is not of the Lord, See James 3. Where is wisdom and discernment, maybe it’s the worlds wisdom, 1st Cor. 1&2 that those who mock us are appealing to. Nevertheless, this brings me to the answer the Lord brought to me this morning for encouragement and reinforcement Nathan, for me, for you and others who are deeply concerned. I leave this conversation with a Thank You to Dr. MacArthur on his new article and reminding us of the war, the battle, the soldier, the warrior of the Lord. Last, a strong suggestion for all of us on both sides to linger and meditate and consider Ezekiel Chapters 1-3. Only desiring to Worship the Holy One in spirit and truth…Karie
Nathan,
After listening (you have to listen to hear the comment…the video did not catch this) to the first Q&A with Mark Driscoll from Piper’s conference, I’m sick.
Mark is asked about his comments on his blogpost about loving John Piper and MD says, “But not in an Episcopalian way (lots of laughter from the audience). (MD then says to Piper) “You didn’t think that was funny? And Piper responds, “It’s hilarious!”
It’s so confusing to those of us who have always looked up to Piper.
We thought JP was mentoring MD, but comments like this makes us wonder.
Thoughts?
Mac
I have just returned from visiting my in-laws in east Malaysia and was blessed by the preaching of a old pastor of a small (25 people) local reformed church. Preaching that was biblical and piercing the heart. Oh, how rich of a crown will the reward be for this old preacher on that day. Do any of you know him? Of course not. There are many like him all over the world; just toiling for the Lord daily and who will unlikely be praised by man.
Unlike our american “football” mentally christianity - oh how we love our Quarterbacks. We praise them and rally for and against them. We have QB JP mentoring QB MD, and if QB MD would just improve on that quick release he’ll really put the team on track towards a super bowl. There’s gonna be a conference where all the great QB and RBs are going to provide insights to the game here and there, and all you fans are going to benefit so be sure to mark in your calender for this event and that.
Just 2 cents for perspective and prayer for your “unkown” pastor.
Sorry that I am late to this discussion. Let me only note that Mark Driscoll earned the label, “cussing pastor.” The term “irreverent” speech is a mild description of some comments he has made in print and on tape. Characterizations and speech that NEVER belong in Christian circles.
If I were within earshot of some of Driscoll’s disturbing remarks I would call him aside to admonish and rebuke him sharply. If he was not repentant I would rebuke him openly.
IMO, Driscoll must think using that language will help make him culturally relevant and get him a better hearing. Where in Scripture does the Lord instruct disciples to become culturally relevant, like the world, to reach the world?
Maybe Dr. MacArthur will add an appendix to The Truth War to address Driscoll’s methodology as a warning such as the likes of which he (JM) gives in regard to Rick Warren’s methods.
LM
BTW, John Piper has also used some very course language in public discourse. Seems he is growing fond of what Driscoll uses in speech choices.
Nathan/All:
I have taken this discussion to and up with members of the Sharper Iron blog.
See- http://sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8739
LM