With the nation focused on the November elections, we thought a post on politics might be appropriate. The point of this article is not that we should abstain from any participation in the political process, but rather that we must keep our priorities straight as Christians. After all, the gospel, not politics, is the only true solution to our nation’s moral crisis.

We can’t protect or expand the cause of Christ by human political and social activism, no matter how great or sincere the efforts. Ours is a spiritual battle waged against worldly ideologies and dogmas arrayed against God, and we achieve victory over them only with the weapon of Scripture. The apostle Paul writes: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5).

We must reject all that is ungodly and false and never compromise God’s standards of righteousness. We can do that in part by desiring the improvement of society’s moral standards and by approving of measures that would conform government more toward righteousness. We do grieve over the rampant indecency, vulgarity, lack of courtesy and respect for others, deceitfulness, self-indulgent materialism, and violence that is corroding society. But in our efforts to support what is good and wholesome, reject what is evil and corrupt, and make a profoundly positive impact on our culture, we must use God’s methods and maintain scriptural priorities.

God is not calling us to wage a culture war that would seek to transform our countries into “Christian nations.” To devote all, or even most, of our time, energy, money, and strategy to putting a façade of morality on the world or over our governmental and political institutions is to badly misunderstand our roles as Christians in a spiritually lost world.

God has above all else called the church to bring sinful people to salvation through Jesus Christ. Even as the apostle Paul described his mission to unbelievers, so it is the primary task of all Christians to reach out to the lost “to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me [Christ]” (Acts 26:18; cf. Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9).

If we do not evangelize the lost and make disciples of new converts, nothing else we do for people—no matter how beneficial it seems—is of any eternal consequence. Whether a person is an atheist or a theist, a criminal or a model citizen, sexually promiscuous and perverse or strictly moral and virtuous, a greedy materialist or a gracious philanthropist—if he does not have a saving relationship to Christ, he is going to hell. It makes no difference if an unsaved person is for or against abortion, a political liberal or a conservative, a prostitute or a police officer, he will spend eternity apart from God unless he repents and believes the gospel.

When the church takes a stance that emphasizes political activism and social moralizing, it always diverts energy and resources away from evangelization. Such an antagonistic position toward the established secular culture invariably leads believers to feel hostile not only to unsaved government leaders with whom they disagree, but also antagonistic toward the unsaved residents of that culture—neighbors and fellow citizens they ought to love, pray for, and share the gospel with. To me it is unthinkable that we become enemies of the very people we seek to win to Christ, our potential brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Author John Seel pens words that apply in principle to Christians everywhere and summarize well the believer’s perspective on political involvement:

A politicized faith not only blurs our priorities, but weakens our loyalties. Our primary citizenship is not on earth but in heaven. … Though few evangelicals would deny this truth in theory, the language of our spiritual citizenship frequently gets wrapped in the red, white and blue. Rather than acting as resident aliens of a heavenly kingdom, too often we sound [and act] like resident apologists for a Christian America. … Unless we reject the false reliance on the illusion of Christian America, evangelicalism will continue to distort the gospel and thwart a genuine biblical identity…..

American evangelicalism is now covered by layers and layers of historically shaped attitudes that obscure our original biblical core. (The Evangelical Pulpit [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], 106-7)

By means of faithful preaching and godly living, believers are to be the conscience of whatever nation they reside in. You can confront the culture not with the political and social activism of man’s wisdom, but with the spiritual power of God’s Word. Using temporal methods to promote legislative and judicial change, and resorting to external efforts of lobbying and intimidation to achieve some sort of “Christian morality” in society is not our calling—and has no eternal value. Only the gospel rescues sinners from sin, death, and hell.

(By Nathan Williams)

Unless you’ve been hiding in a cave for many years you understand how important athletic competition is to our culture. I can’t even begin to count how many hours I spent during the first 18 years of my life playing or watching sports. My dad was the athletic director at my school and the varsity basketball coach. When my brother and I weren’t playing basketball, we were probably playing soccer or baseball. If for some reason we weren’t participating in a sporting event, it’s no doubt because we were watching it live or on television.

I’m pretty sure my experience was not abnormal. Our society is consumed with sports. Parents push their kids to reach the limit of their athletic potential and children dream about one day being professional athletes.

With so much emphasis in the broader culture given to sports, it’s amazing that Christians haven’t given more time and effort to discussing the place of athletics in the life of the believer. That’s why I am so thankful for Stephen Altrogge’s book Game Day for the Glory of God.

In this book, Altrogge guides the reader through a number of biblical principles that directly apply to sports. He helps us to think biblically about athletics and not to simply adopt the mindset of the culture. As he discusses these principles he provides powerful examples from the world of professional sports and takes the reader into his own struggle to think biblically about athletics.

As I read this book I found myself consistently thinking how valuable it would have been for me and a host of other young people who consistently failed to honor God with the way we played sports. Early on, Altrogge reminds the reader that God genuinely cares about the way we play sports. God cares when we play with humility and kindness. It honors Him when we reflect Christ on the court or the field. It also glorifies Him when we play hard. God isn’t pleased by a lazy athlete.

Altrogge helps the reader understand that God is the source of all talent and physical ability. From the Super Bowl to the backyard Thanksgiving football game, sporting events are filled with pride over self-accomplishments. Pride and athletic accomplishment are so intertwined in our society that it may even be difficult for some readers to understand how one can play sports without an arrogant, all-about-me attitude. Of course, it is possible to play sports to the glory of God and only then will Christians truly enjoy the abilities God has given them.

I would certainly recommend Game Day for the Glory of God to Christian athletes, but would also challenge coaches to read it with their teams. The coach of a team sets the tone for the attitude of the team. With the proper perspective on the season and what God wants to accomplish through the players, a coach can dramatically impact his players for Christ.

This book should also be required reading for every parent whose child will participate in sports at any level. Many times parents are worse sinners when it comes to sports than their children. At the end of this book there is a chapter written by C. J. Mahaney on fathers, sons, and sports. It is an excellent look at how C. J. walks his son through thinking biblically about both playing and watching sports.

Overall, Game Day for the Glory of God is a concise and helpful read that will inform your thinking from Scripture on this crucial but rarely addressed topic.

(By Jesse Johnson)

What happens when cultural contextualization goes too far?

The LA Times recently answered the question with this article, which has one of the most interesting headlines I have ever seen: “Pastor pleads not guilty in biker brawl case.”

The gist of the incident: in Southern California there is a large population of Hell’s Angeles, and so it was of course necessary to have a church that targeted those people. The pastor, obviously, had to act like a Hell’s Angel in order to reach Hell’s Angels.

His website describes those in his church as people who “love Jesus and love to ride hard.” The Set Free Soldiers, as the church is called, describe themselves as “too good for the bad guys, and too bad for the good guys.” How Pauline.

Eventually their contextualization got the better of them, and a bar fight broke out between the Set Free Soldier’s and the real Hell’s Angeles. In the course of the fight, two of the Hell’s Angels were stabbed. (You have to love a church that fights the Hell’s Angels and wins.) Details are not given, but I’m sure it was very Elijah-like.

The police responded, and their investigation led them to the pastor’s house, who along with four other members of his church, was arrested (they practice church membership!!). The LA Times describes a pre-dawn raid which netted the police “dozens of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition at four homes owned by Set Free.” Why exactly the church owns four homes depends on if you believe their pastor—who says they are to help rehabilitate released convicts; or the police—who say they use them for “gang activity.”

The pastor, Phillip Aguilar, was arrested when police found brass knuckles and a gun in his home. As a convicted felon, that is a no-no. Aguilar, who is 61, claims the weapons are not his, and that they belong to his son who still lives with him (his son is 29).

Here is where the case gets interesting. Prosecutors are charging that the church is actually a gang. The church’s defense is that they are a ministry comprised of former gang members. The church’s attorney says the church members don’t have “the background that you traditionally see in gang cases.” The reporter for the LA Times notes that when Aguilar appeared in court, he was “wearing black, plastic-rimmed glasses, with a web-like tattoo around his left eye and a dyed blond buzz cut.”  If their defense is that he looks more like a pastor than a gang member, then this could be a short trial.

In case it matters, the church has thousands of members, and they hold weekly services.

Dangerous things happen when you set aside the clear requirements for church leadership. The Bible says that elders are supposed to be above reproach, not violent, and not quarrelsome. An elder is to “manage his own household well . . . keeping his family in order . . . he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that the he may not fall into disgrace” (1 Tim 3:2-7).

The idea that a pastor can bypass those clear guidelines because, after all, there were prophets in the Old Testament that used violence, that did not have submissive children, that were not well thought of by outsiders, etc., is a non sequitur. To say that because a pastor is ministering to people from a rough background, so they would not be able to relate to a pastor that actually followed the guidelines in 1 Tim 3, is to argue the exact opposite of what Paul tells Titus in Titus 1; because of how sinful the Cretans are, it is all the more important for elders to be dignified, upright, and holy.

When a person says that ignoring explicit commands of the New Testament is okay because of the community that a pastor is in, or because of how sinful the culture is, or because prophets likewise did not fit into what Paul commands pastors to do, that person is using absolutely absurd (and dangerous) logic. 

Pastors should not reflect the lowest common denominator in their culture–in the name of contextualization or otherwise. They should reflect the qualifications of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. This is true under normal circumstances, and is all the more true when the culture is sinful.

(By John MacArthur)

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. (1 Tim. 6:17)

A very real danger facing American Christians is the temptation to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches. To base their hope on the uncertainty of riches, instead of God, is foolish. Proverbs 11:28 warns that “he who trusts in his riches will fall.” Proverbs 23:4–5 adds, “Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, cease from your consideration of it. When you set your eyes on it, it is gone. For wealth certainly makes itself wings, like an eagle that flies toward the heavens.”

Rather than trusting in riches, believers are to fix their hope on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. God provides far more security than any earthly investment. Psalm 50:10–12 describes His incalculable wealth: “Every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and all it contains.” God is not stingy; He richly supplies His children with all things to enjoy. Ecclesiastes 5:18–20 reads,

Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. For he will not often consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart.

The highest form of joy for the believer is to bring glory to the Lord. True gladness, then, comes when believers give heed to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:19–21:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Later, in that same passage, Jesus gives the command three times not to be anxious (vv. 25, 31, 34). When we trust in God rather than riches, we have no reason to worry.

Today’s post adapted from John’s commentary on 1 Timothy (Moody, 1995).

(By Martin Luther) 

For any who might suppose that Martin Luther’s 16th-century “harsh language” justifies 21st-century frivolity or filthy talk (especially from the pulpit), we offer these thoughts from Luther himself. The following comes from his sermon on Ephesians 5:3-4. 

. . .

“Filthiness”—scandalous talk—is unchaste language suggestive of fornication, uncleanness and carnal sins. It is common in taverns and generally found as accompaniment of gluttony, drunkenness and gambling. Especially were the Greeks frivolous and adepts in this respect, as their poets and other writers attest.

What Paul refers to in particular is the lewd conversation uttered in public without fear and self-restraint. This will excite wicked thoughts and give rise to serious offenses, especially with the young. As he states elsewhere (1 Cor 15, 33), “Evil companionships [communications] corrupt good morals.”

Should there be any Christians forgetful enough to so transgress, the offense must be reproved; otherwise it will become general and give the congregation an ill repute, as if Christians taught and tolerated it the same as the heathen. 

. . .

“Jesting” has reference to those conversational expedients which pander to gaiety in the form of scandal; they are called among us banter and badinage. Laughter, mirth and gaiety is their purpose, and we meet with them generally in society and high life. Among the heathen, jesting was counted a virtue, and therefore received the title “eutrapelia” by Aristotle.

But Paul calls it a vice among Christians, who certainly may find conversational expedients of a different kind, such as will inspire a cheerful and joyous spirit in Christ. True, Christians are not all so pure but that some may err in this matter; but the Christian Church does not command jesting, nor suffer any member to abandon himself to the practice. It reproves and prohibits it, particularly in religious assemblies, and in teaching and preaching. For Christ says (Mt 12, 36) that at the last day men must give account of every idle, unprofitable word they have spoken.

Christians should be a very firm, though courteous, people. Courtesy should be coupled with seriousness, and seriousness with courtesy, according to the pattern of the life of Christ supplied in the Gospel.

Online Source

Perhaps Doug Wilson said it best last week when, in a comment on his own blog, he wrote:

Just for the record, I draw a distinction between what is appropriate in the pulpit and elsewhere . . . . [T]he 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.

The distinctions Wilson draws are critical, and the second one in particular is something I should have clarified better in my post last Wednesday.

Hence today’s follow-up post.

- – - 

Regarding the Confrontation of Sin and the Condemnation of Error

There is a legitimate form of “harsh language” that Christians can and should use. Such language encompasses the courageous confrontation of sin and hypocrisy along with the clear denunciation of false religion and doctrinal error. It does not involve profanity, silliness, or reckless vulgarity, yet it might be rightly regarded as “harsh” because it is tenaciously intolerant of error. It speaks the truth directly and without apology—saying what needs to be said, even if doing so results in being unpopular or unliked.

It means refuting those who contradict (Titus 1:9, 13); reproving the worldly deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11); shunning false teachers (2 John 10–11); casting down false arguments (2 Cor. 10:5); exposing the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1, 6); calling dissenters to repentance (2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:10); and warning apostates of the sure and terrible judgment that awaits them (cf. Matt. 23; Hebrews 6:4–8; Jude 8–13). Such speech was not only modeled by Christ, but by every Old Testament prophet and every New Testament writer. It is speech that contends earnestly for the faith (Jude 3–4), and as a result denounces every form of deception.

Insofar as Mark Driscoll limits his definition of “harsh language” to this kind of speech (as in this video), we gladly agree with him.

- – - 

Regarding Flippancy, Frivolity, and Filthy Talk

But there is another kind of “harsh language” far different than the above. It is, as Wilson calls it, “pomo bad boy usage.” Such language encompasses sensuality, silly talk, and coarse jesting, and includes things like laughing at sin or jolting an audience with risqué images. It is unwholesome, distracting, degrading, and inappropriate. This kind of “harsh language” is explicitly prohibited by the New Testament in places like Ephesians 4:29; 5:3–4; Philippians 4:8; and Colossians 3:8. Charles Spurgeon included this kind of “lewd speaking” in his definition of “profane language,” about which he said: “I am unable to frame an excuse for profane language: it is needless willful wickedness.”

Insofar as Driscoll models this kind of “harsh language” (as in this video on humor or this video on birth control [warning: explicit content], both from Sunday services earlier this year), we sharply disagree with him. A third more recent example can be found here.

(Also, for a couple other more well-known examples, this time from his books, see here and here.)

In the video on humor, after discussing Aaron’s excuse for making the Golden Calf, Driscoll illustrates his point by laughingly drawing a parallel with fornication . . . after which he openly embraces his own use of “poopy comedy.” He says:

It’s like a dad walking in on his high school daughter with her boyfriend and they’ve got no clothes on and they’re like, “We don’t know what happened. We were talking and all our clothes fell off. I’ve got no idea. We’re victims. The belt’s defective.” I mean, it’s just, it’s funny.

The Bible also includes something that The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery calls “scatological humor.” I’ve been accused of this and it’s biblical. “Scatological humor” for those of you who are in public school, scat-a-lo-gi-cal – poopy comedy. That’s what it is, scatological humor.

Driscoll continues by defending scatological humor from supposed Old Testament examples. In so doing, he attempts to make the case that this type of ”harsh language” is a legitimate form of pastoral communication.

We are not convinced. Hence our article last week.

(As a side note, those interested in more discussion on this issue will enjoy Al Mohler’s radio show from last Friday.)

- – - 

A Final Thought

As a young man myself, I understand why Mark Driscoll’s ministry is attractive to many within the next generation of evangelicalism. He is energetic, articulate, and bold. He has a zeal for impacting his community, and he’s willing to do so in ways that are creative and cutting-edge. (My wife is from Seattle, so I know the area well.) There is no question that he is a gifted and clever communicator which when joined with his evangelical theology makes for a compelling combination.

Yet there is one major asterisk that hovers over his ministry. And it is primarily seen in the “pomo bad boy usage” of the harsh language he sometimes employs.

Cultural contextualization is often cited as a justification for this kind of language, but contextualization is never justifiable if it takes us beyond the bounds of New Testament propriety. Moreover, the true power of any ministry is found not in clever speech (1 Cor. 1:17: 2:1–5), but in the faithful proclamation of the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16).

As heralds of that gospel, we must watch our words carefully (cf. James 3). They represent not only us, but our holy Savior as well. Thus, we are called to conduct ourselves in a way that is honorable and above reproach. This includes modeling godly speech (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:16). As Paul told Titus:

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. (Titus 2:7–8)

- – -

(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.

Although women have traditionally fulfilled supportive roles in serving the church and gained their greatest joy and sense of accomplishment from being wives and mothers, the feminist movement has successfully influenced many women to abandon these divinely ordained roles.

Unfortunately, this movement has made headway even in the church, creating chaos and confusion regarding the role of women both in ministry and in the home. Only in Scripture can God’s intended design for women be found.

The Old Testament and Women

In the creation account of Genesis 1, God’s first word on the subject of men and women is that they were equally created in the image of God (v. 27). Neither received more of the image of God than the other. So the Bible begins with the equality of the sexes. As persons, as spiritual beings standing before God, men and women are absolutely equal.

In Genesis 2, there is a more detailed account of the creation of the two equal human beings that reveals differences in their God-given functions and responsibilities. God did not create the man and the woman at the same time, but rather He created Adam first and Eve later for the specific purpose of being Adam’s helper. Eve was equal to Adam, but she was given the role and duty of submitting to him. Although the word “helper” carries very positive connotations — even being used of God Himself as the helper of Israel (Deut. 33:7; Ps. 33:20) — it still describes someone in a relationship of service to another. The responsibility of wives to submit to their husbands, then, was part of the plan from creation, even before the curse. The first books of the Bible establish both the equality of men and women and also the support role of the wife (see Exod. 21:15, 17, 28–31; Num. 5:19–20, 29; 6:2; 30:1–16).

Throughout the Old Testament, women were active in the religious life of Israel, but generally they were not leaders. Women like Deborah (Judges 4) were clearly the exception and not the rule. There was no woman with an ongoing prophetic ministry. No woman was a priest. No queen ever ruled Israel. No woman wrote an Old Testament (or New Testament) book. Isaiah 3:12 indicates that God allowed women to rule as part of His judgment on the sinning nation.

Jesus and Women

In the midst of the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, which viewed women almost on the level of possessions, Jesus showed love and respect for women. Though Jewish rabbis did not teach women and the Jewish Talmud said it was better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman, Jesus never took the position that women, by their very nature, could not understand spiritual or theological truth. He not only included them in His audiences but also used illustrations and images that would be familiar to them (Matt. 13:33; 22:1–2; 24:41; Luke 15:8–10) and specifically applied His teaching to them (Matt. 10:34ff.). To the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), He revealed that He was the Messiah and discussed with her topics such as eternal life and the nature of true worship. He also taught Mary and, when admonished by Martha, pointed out the priority of learning spiritual truth even over “womanly” responsibilities like serving guests in one’s home (Luke 10:38).

Although men in Jesus’ day normally would not allow women to count change into their hands for fear of physical contact, Jesus touched women to heal them and allowed women to touch Him (Luke 13:10ff.; Mark 5:25ff.). Jesus even allowed a small group of women to travel with Him and His disciples (Luke 8:1–3), an unprecedented happening at that time. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and sent her to announce His resurrection to the disciples (John 20:1–18), despite the fact that women were not allowed to be witnesses in Jewish courts because they were considered liars.

In Jesus’ treatment of women, He raised their station of life and He showed them compassion and respect in a way they had never known. This demonstrated their equality. At the same time, however, Jesus still did not exalt women to a place of leadership over men.

The Epistles and Women

In the Epistles, the two principles of equality and submission for women exist side by side. Galatians 3:28 points to the equality, indicating that the way of salvation is the same for both men and women and that they are members of equal standing in the body of Christ. It does not, however, eradicate all differences in responsibilities for men and women, for this passage does not cover every aspect of God’s design for male and female. In addition, there are many other passages that make distinctions between what God desires of men and what He desires of women, especially within family and within the church.

The Family

While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), four passages in the New Testament expressly give to wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1). This voluntary submission of one equal to another is an expression of love for God and a desire to follow His design as revealed in His Word. It is never pictured as demeaning or in any way diminishing the wife’s equality. Rather the husband is called to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25) and to serve as the leader in a relationship of two equals.

While husbands and fathers have been given the primary responsibility for the leadership of their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:4–5), wives and mothers are urged to be “workers at home” (Titus 2:5), meaning managers of the household. Their home and their children are to be their priority, in contrast to the world’s emphasis today on careers and fulltime jobs for women outside the home.

The Church

From the very beginning, women fulfilled a vital role in the Christian church (Acts 1:12–14; 9:36–42; 16:13–15; 17:1–4, 10–12; 18:1–2, 18, 24–28; Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 1:5; 4:19), but not one of leadership. The apostles were all men; the chief missionary activity was done by men; the writing of the New Testament was the work of men; and leadership in the churches was entrusted to men.

Although the Apostle Paul respected women and worked side by side with them for the furtherance of the gospel (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:3), he appointed no female elders or pastors. In his letters, he urged that men were to be the leaders in the church and that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Therefore, although women are spiritual equals with men and the ministry of women is essential to the body of Christ, women are excluded from leadership over men in the church.

Men and women stand as equals before God, both bearing the image of God Himself. However, without making one inferior to the other, God calls upon both men and women to fulfill the roles and responsibilities specifically designed for them, a pattern that can be seen even in the Godhead (1 Cor. 11:3). In fulfilling the divinely given roles taught in the New Testament, women are able to realize their full potential because they are following the plan of their own Creator and Designer. Only in obedience to Him and His design will women truly be able, in the fullest sense, to give glory to God.

(By Nathan Wiliams)

Last time we looked at the first responsibility a Christian has to his government, submission. This time we’ll take a look at another duty believers have to the state — paying taxes.

Reports tell us that more people every year are not paying their taxes. A couple of months ago I interacted with several Christians on a blog over the issue of Christians and taxation. Their responses and anger over paying taxes to what they considered an “unjust” government shocked me. They felt Christians aren’t responsible to pay taxes to our government because the tax rate is (in their opinion) unfairly high. I strongly disagree with those sentiments and believe Scripture teaches the payment of taxes to be a biblical injunction.

We’ll find in Romans 13:6-7 that we are commanded to pay taxes for conscience sake because we live under divinely ordained authority. These verses remind us that rulers are servants of God. In verse 7 Paul uses the word render. We’ll see this word used again in a minute when we discuss what Jesus had to say about taxes. This word doesn’t mean to give as a gift. When we pay taxes we are not taking some of our money and giving it to our government against our wishes. Paul uses the word render because he wants us to understand this money belongs to the government, and we are simply rendering it back to them. Paul commands believers to “Pay to all what is owed to them.” We are stealing money from the God-ordained institution of government when we refuse to pay taxes.

Matthew 22:15-22 also addresses the issue of paying taxes. This is probably the most well known passage dealing with the Christian’s relationship with government. This story, found in these eight verses begins a section where the religious leaders ask Jesus a number of questions trying to catch him in his words.

Before they ask the question, these men, sent by the Pharisees, flatter Jesus in four different ways. They tell him He is a teacher, He is truthful, He defers to no one, and He is not partial to any person. They are trying to set Him up and boost His pride as they get ready to ask their question. They believe Jesus will give them an honest answer regardless of who He will offend. Their question sounds impossible to answer. Why? Well many of the Jewish people believed, based on Deuteronomy 17:15, it was wrong to pay taxes to ungodly leaders.

The Jews despised Roman authority and hated paying taxes to support a Roman government. If Jesus said it was lawful to pay taxes, he would be angering the Jewish people with whom He was so incredibly popular. If He said it was not lawful to pay taxes and the people should not be required to pay, he would be speaking out directly against the Roman government, which would get Him in trouble with them. It was a classic catch-22.

Christ confronted the sinfulness of their hearts in verse 18. Then He demanded to see one of the coins used to pay the tax. This denarius was equal to about a day’s wage. After confirming that Caesar’s inscription was pictured on the coin, our Lord taught that some things must be rendered to Caesar and some to God. Again, the word render is used here. This word gives us the picture of giving someone what is due to them. If I borrow $10 from a friend for lunch, then I owe him that money. When I place the money in his hand, I have not done him a favor. I have simply rendered to him what was due to him.

Christ reminded his hearers that we have obligations to the state as well as to God. Obviously, when these two obligations conflict, we obey God rather than men. However, part of obedience to God is obedience to the state through the payment of taxes, even when the government we are under is corrupt. We are still responsible to pay the government what we owe, because that is exactly what God has told us to do.

When we do so, we are not only being good citizens of earth … we are being good citizens of heaven.

Yesterday, we looked at a couple of reasons why we have government in our lives. Those reasons included (1) the fact that God ordained that the state exist and (2) that the state is given to us to restrain evil and promote good. In this article, I’d like to look at one of the responsibilities the Christian has toward government.

Perhaps the most important and certainly the most extensive text dealing with the Christian perspective on government is Romans 13:1-7. As we seek to understand the implications of this text in our daily lives, we must understand these verses in their proper context.

The first verse of chapter 13 takes us back to the first two verses of chapter 12. We find out that it is our responsibility to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. We are not to be conformed to this world, but are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we can live out God’s will in our daily lives.

These are among the most beloved verses in all the Bible for many Christians. They lay out our duty so clearly and challenge us to give everything to God in order to live in a way that is pleasing to Him. These verses set the stage for a series of commands given in chapter 12. Verse 3 tells us not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think. Verse 6 instructs us to exercise our gifts for the good of those around us. Verse 9 says to let love be without hypocrisy. Verse 16 says to be of the same mind toward one another. Verse 21 says to not be overcome with evil, but to overcome evil with good. For some reason we tend to stop there, but in the original documents there was no chapter break between 12 and 13. We should continue right into chapter 13. This chapter begins by telling us that we all must be in subjection to the governing authorities.

In other words, to fulfill the command in chapter 12:1 to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, you must obey the command in chapter 13:1. The way in which you relate to your government is extremely significant in terms of your relationship to God. To put this another way, your personal sanctification includes how you submit to your government.

We have a specific command here to submit ourselves to our governing authorities and this is the first major responsibility a Christian has toward his government. Submission means much more than grudgingly obeying civil laws. This is the same word that is used in Ephesians 5:21 where we are commanded to submit to one another. Submission means literally to subject oneself, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice. We are to arrange ourselves under the leadership of the state in our lives in an attitude of submission and respect with the purpose of obedience for the glory of God.

Several other passages also make this requirement of Christians very clear. First Peter 2:13-17, for example, tells us basically the same thing.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Next week we’ll discuss two more important responsibilities the Christian has toward government.