Ingrid Schlueter on Mark Driscoll, John Piper & The Language Debate
[See related subsequent posts here and here.]
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/emerging-church/pulpit-magazine-on-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/
A good friend of mine sent me the above link yesterday and asked for my thoughts. Ingrid Schlueter links to an article by Nathan Busenitz addressing Mark Driscoll, John Piper, the upcoming Desiring God National Conference and the issue of harsh language. I had already read the article and Doug Wilson’s response to it.
Busenitz believes Driscoll’s harsh language is inappropriate. I think Busenitz makes a legitimate and compelling argument. While I do like Driscoll, I am at times a bit uncomfortable with his blunt language, particularly when employed in front of large church audiences and invariably repeated to a (much) larger electronic audience. (This is, actually, my chief – perhaps only – gripe with Driscoll. I haven’t personally found anything he’s said intrinsically sinful, but I do think some of his franker discussions might be better had in less public settings.)
I appreciated Busenitz’ charitable and reasonable tone. He forced me to think and rethink my position on this touchy issue. Busenitz seemed to me clearly interested in lovingly admonishing a brother in Christ regarding a less-than-essential (though certainly not trivial) matter. Contrast this with Schlueter’s “Additional Note” to this post:
Having just watched a Mark Driscoll video linked in this article below, I can no longer recommend or link to John Piper who continues to justify his inclusion of Driscoll at his conferences. If Rev. Piper is so lacking in discernment that he can justify this by a “pastor”, I can’t take Rev. Piper seriously any longer.
Wow. Having read this divisive over-reaction, I am uncertain I can justify continuing to waste my precious cyber-minutes at The Slice. I admit my bristling at this comment arises in large part from my affinity for Pastor Piper, and my involvement at Bethlehem Baptist Church. But, good grief! First off, Piper has expressed many of the same reservations about Driscoll’s (and others’) use of harsh language expressed by Busenitz. Second, is this not a secondary tertiary quaternary issue? I find it interesting that none of Driscoll’s critics take issue with the content of his preaching. Is not Driscoll a passionate expositor of a Reformed theology? Is he not contending for the Gospel – for the whole counsel of God – in an age where this is a rarity? The answer is yes, he is. This is why Pastor Piper includes Driscoll in these conferences.
And referring to Driscoll as a “pastor”? What’s that supposed to mean? Is he not a pastor, Ingrid? Good grief.
Again, I am not defending Driscoll’s every utterance. I believe there are legitimate issues here. Men like Busenitz, Piper and Wilson are helping this conversation along. Schlueter and The Slice are not.
I find it sad but telling that American Christianity has become so emasculated and effeminized that men-in-skirts spiritual sissies refuse to take a bold stand for Biblical purity and instead neglect (abdicate?) their scriptural responsibility leaving the work for godly women like Ingrid.
Friend, if you’re active at Bethlehem as you claim then you have a personal spiritual duty to the local body to express your scriptural concerns about Driscoll to your elders and your pastor. I’m praying that John Piper will listen to godly counsel and take appropriate measures to eschew all appearance of evil and that he might offer loving but stern correction to Driscoll and of course separate himself from the man if he fails to repent and turn away from his sin.
Unrepentant, unbroken patterns of sin and rebellion against God’s Word aren’t trivial and aren’t the sign of a true born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, rather they’re a sign that one’s faith may in fact be demonic.
In Christ,
CD
CD:
You said:
“I’m praying that John Piper will listen to godly counsel and take appropriate measures to eschew all appearance of evil and that he might offer loving but stern correction to Driscoll and of course separate himself from the man if he fails to repent and turn away from his sin.”
Is this what Mrs. Schlueter has done with her outcasting of John Piper? Essentially banishing him for his association with a brother in Christ, whom he has been giving godly council and correction to for several years, while refusing to say anything about the ministry of Desiring God or Bethlehem Baptist Church. Come on!
Let us not forget the grace that Paul showed the church at Corinth. In his letter he not only rebuked their sinful behavior, but also encouraged them at the same time. We are all a work in progress and I don’t see how the judgmental overreaction by Ingrid is in keeping with the characteristics we see in Paul’s response to the Corinthians.
John Piper has a passion for God that quite frankly is unmatched by most pastors in the WORLD today. This is not an “American Church” issue. Quite frankly, there is only one bride of Christ, and you are either part of the body or you are not. John Piper and Mark Driscoll are both very instrumental parts of the body. They both make no apologies for speaking the truth. Whether they are attacking the lies in the prosperity gospel or responding to the ever growing post-modern ear-tickling false teachers these godly men are standing up for Truth in this fallen world and God is blessing both of their ministries.
John Piper has not only shown his humility and reverence for God’s word, but preaches it without shame. I think before we cast out everything he says and does because of another person’s behavior we must first look at the long history of Dr. Piper’s ministry and the fruit to which it bears.
For His Glory,
Jason
Jason,
I’m not here to defend Ingrid Schlueter since she’s more than capable of taking care of herself. In fact (and borrowing from your phraseology) I’d say that in this matter she’s the secondary, nay tertiary, nay quaternary issue at hand. The problem here is sin – Mark Driscoll’s sin to be precise and how that sin is addressed is the real and pressing issue.
Sin must be dealt with and by continuing to extend invitations to an unrepentant sinner who continues in patterns of unrepentant sin and rebellion John Piper is guilty of enabling sin, and giving it a platform at one of his conferences no less! This is a serious matter, Jason.
At best John Piper is giving an occasion for those weaker in the faith to stumble, and at worst he’s a partaker of Driscoll’s sin by unequally yoking himself together with a man who is in active rebellion against God’s Word.
You mentioned the grace Paul gave to the church at Corinth and this is a glowing example of a loving and godly apostle extending incredible patience and grace to a church that frankly most of us today would write off and ostracize without a trace of remorse and without a second thought. Rampant sexual immorality up to and including incest?!? Egads!!! Yet on the other hand 1 Cor 5:5 is an object lesson in church discipline which contains an incredibly stern rebuke to “deliver” the offending party “to Satan” (and let us not forget that the apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit). The grossly distorted idea that somehow a warm, fuzzy, and often man-centered conception of “grace and love” are to supersede, trump, or otherwise displace godly rebuke and scriptural discipline is among the distinguishing marks of the apostatizing broader professing “American” church. What love is this?
While believers in India are being burned alive by Hindus and hacked to pieces by Muslims and animists in other parts of the world today potty-mouthed prodigies like Mark Driscoll are getting plum offers to appear at big-time conferences by John Piper. This ought to be troubling to the body (the true bride of Christ) and it ought to be especially troubling to the local body located at Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Jason you point towards the fruit of John Piper’s life and let me tell you in all truth that the Lord knows that though I’ve never met him I nevertheless love and admire John Piper and his ministry. I share in your enthusiasm for the man and in fact it’s with a heavy heart and much sighing in my spirit that I wrestle with his uncharacteristically unbiblical behavior in the very real and very serious spiritual matter before us.
It pains me to conclude that in the light of revealed scripture John Piper is in violation of the Word by not openly correcting and rebuking, in truth and love, Mark Driscoll’s brazen and continual sin. I pray that you’ll hear my heart on this matter and receive my comment in the spirit in which it’s intended which is the desire for believers to be faithful to the Word above all else. I’ll close with quotes from John Piper himself on this selfsame subject as contained in Nathan Busenitz’s article entitled John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Harsh Language which you have most likely already seen for yourself.
In Christ,
CD
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]
Does Mark Driscoll Belong at John Piper’s Conference?
Source: Editors at Lighthouse Trails
I just came from hearing Driscoll speak at Northwestern College this evening on Christians’ use of the media. He said a few things that I think are fully relevant here.
1. He noted a few times that he has used inappropriate language in the past to try to make a point and noted that what he has said is permanent. His reflection on that was that it’s good for him to be reminded of the pride that can easily creep into his life.
2. He spoke of those who spend much of their time doing little more than attacking those who they believe are “doing Christianity” wrong.
Has Mark Driscoll said some stupid things? Yes. Has John Piper said some stupid things? Yes. Has John MacArthur said some stupid things? Yes.
The fact is, Mark Driscoll has probably exposed himself – through his publication of sermons, seminars, books, blogs, articles, etc. – as much or more than anyone else out there. You will find a problem in something he’s said somewhere along the way.
It baffles me that people who claim to follow Christ can spend so much energy trolling the web to find problems with everyone else who claims Christ. Criticism is necessary (Driscoll made that point tonight), but completely denouncing a person’s ministry and character over one paragraph of one sermon out of the millions of paragraphs and minutes of material that he has produced…that’s low.
(In other words, I agree with Jim.)
And Still…The grace of fellow Christians continues!
CD,
First, thanks for commenting! This is, I believe, an important discussion.
Agreed. And I find it ironic that one of my favorite aspects of Driscoll’s ministry is his masculinity. I’ve heard him several times address this very issue.
Wow. So, you’ve outdone Ingrid by not only challenging his status as a pastor, but questioning his salvation and suggesting he may be demonized? Yikes!
These are very serious accusations, CD. What, exactly, has Driscoll said or done that you believe is undeniably SIN? And how has Pastor Piper enabled this sin? You do realize you are publicly accusing John Piper and Mark Driscoll of sin, don’t you? Do you know what their personal relationship looks like? That entire Piper quote should give you some idea.
RE: Thomas Merton and Alan Jones
The link you posted is just plain silly. What evidence do you have that Driscoll is “aligned” with Merton or Jones? I read, enjoy and am encouraged by G.K. Chesterton, a Catholic. I would recommend his books, Orthodoxy and Heretics. Would you infer from this that I am “aligned” with Rome?
C.S. Lewis was a big fan of Merton’s writings as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean he endorsed his overall theology or worldview. Was Lewis a heretic? (Yes, I recognize the doctrinal failings and imperfections of Lewis, but most solid, Reformed Christians I know have benefited from his writings as I have.)
In all seriousness, I would tread lightly here. You’ve publicly leveled some very serious accusations. If you’re wrong, YOU could be the one sinning.
God Bless
Jason,
Ugh. I read the Steve Camp piece. To insinuate from Driscoll’s comments that he was “making fun” of Christ is beyond uncharitable. It seems some of these folks are hell bent on casting these things in the worst possible light.
As one familiar with the International House of Prayer (IHOP) and their Bridal Paradigm, I completely agree with Driscoll’s comments regarding an overly allegorical reading of Song of Songs. There are actually groups out there (not IHOP, to my knowledge) who practice “wedding ceremonies” with Christ. I think the silliness of this is effectively addressed by humorously exposing it. Driscoll was not “making fun” of Christ. He was poking fun at a particular (and biblically unsupported, I might add) view of this romantic book of the Bible.
I’ll say it again: Good grief!
CD,
If you’re still around, I wonder what your feelings are about Martin Luther. By any objective evaluation, Luther’s language was considerably coarser and harsher than Driscoll’s. I don’t make the comparison to get Driscoll off the hook (if he is in fact on one) – sin is sin. But my hunch is that most of Driscoll’s fiercest critics don’t have any problems with Luther’s language. (Maybe because it was aimed at those lousy Catholics?)
And that seems uncharitably inconsistent to me.
God Bless
Jim,
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue and please understand that I’m in full agreement with your assessment of the importance of this discussion. John Piper is one of the most influential voices and recognizable figures within the Lord’s church today and it’s because of his position that his tacit approval and endorsement of Mark Driscoll is so very troubling to so many of his co-laborers in Christ.
In the Bible the Lord’s half-brother James spends copious amounts of time under inspiration of the Holy Spirit exposing of the reality of religious self-deception and warning false teachers of the greater condemnation to come (James 3:1). James also has much to say about the world of iniquity known as the tongue. Furthermore believers are commanded to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:14-15) and to examine the reality of our faith (2 Cor. 13:5). These admonitions are for the benefit of believers with the intent that we exercise spiritual discernment of teaching (Acts 17:11).
The reason for citing these verses isn’t simply to bury you (or anyone else) in an avalanche of proof texts, but rather to make my point as clear as possible. I’m not nor have I ever suggested that I know the eternal trajectory of Mark Driscoll’s soul. I don’t. I don’t know his eternal destination any more than I know yours or anyone else’s. God alone is the judge of the heart and eternity, however while we are not to judge the heart Christians are commanded to judge the actions of other professing believers, otherwise there would be no such thing as church discipline.
Despite the apparent attempts at blame shifting (it comes so naturally doesn’t it?) at the base of this issue isn’t – as some seem to want to suggest – whether or not Mark Driscoll, or John Piper, or John MacArthur have ever “said anything stupid” or committed sin – they surely have – just as all men apart from Jesus Christ Himself have done. At issue is the evident fact that Mark Driscoll – because of his well established pattern of filthy Christ-dishonoring communication – is in open, wanton, active rebellion against God’s Holy Word and therefore must submit to the authority of scripture, repent of his sin, and turn away from it or else he must be disciplined and considered as a restoration/witnessing prospect (Matt. 18:17). By failing to follow the clear commands of scripture in the Driscoll matter John Piper stands in violation of scripture.
Furthermore avoiding the fundamental problem of Mark Driscoll’s well established pattern of very public and sinful communication by comparing him with others and complaining; “Yeah but…he’s not as bad as that guy!” is to miss the point altogether. In point of fact according to scripture believers are not to measure ourselves against one another, but we are to measure ourselves against Christ and His righteousness. How woefully we miss the mark! Yet herein lays our hope of glory – His amazing grace alone! Sadly Mark Driscoll has chosen to use his Christian liberty as an occasion for the flesh (Galatians 5:13).
In closing I’m sorry that you found the link exposing Mark Driscoll’s connection to proponents of contemplative heresies to be “silly”, but regardless of your personal feelings the facts remain. I would simply ask how much heresy is “too much” for a Christian to dabble in? How much spiritual poison is acceptable for a spirit-filled, born again, blood bought child of God to imbibe? Who gets to decide? The crystal clear Biblical answer for these questions is absolutely none because God has already decided (2 Cor. 10:5).
Would the Real John Piper Please Stand Up?
In Christ,
CD
CD,
1. Are you the author of the DefendingContending blog?
2. While you contend you are not judging Driscoll’s soul, you are coming as near to it as we Christians can this side of eternity. If you view Driscoll as a “restoration/witnessing prospect”, then you must necessarily view him – for all practical purposes – as an unbeliever. You don’t witness to believers, do you?
Is John Piper also a candidate for “restoration/witnessing”?
3.
This may be a bit much to ask, but could you cite 2 or 3 examples of Driscoll’s most egregious sins, so that I might know exactly what we are talking about? For example, the recent hubbub about Driscoll “making fun” of Christ by humorously critiquing an overly allegorical reading of Song of Songs is a fine example of what I perceive to be a series of ginormous over-reactions in this debate. Perhaps there are other, more extreme, offenses. I will admit to only a casual interaction with Driscoll’s teaching. There may be stuff out there I am completely unaware of.
4. I think you’re dodge of the Luther challenge is… well, a dodge. The point is not to compare Driscoll and Luther in order to demonstrate D is no worse than L, thereby clearing D of any charges of sin. We agree that Scripture is our only rule of faith and practice. The point is to demonstrate a potential hypocrisy. Unless we are willing to look back at Luther and place him outside the faith for his “well established pattern of filthy Christ-dishonoring communication”, his “open, wanton, active rebellion against God’s Holy Word”, then we must demonstrate why Driscoll’s language is damning, while Luther’s was not.
BTW, I have issues with both men’s use of harsh language. I simply don’t think it is an issue of “open, wanton, active rebellion against God’s Holy Word”. I believe it is an issue of wisdom and courtesy.
5. Regarding Driscoll and his supposed “alignment” with contemplatives: I tried in vain to find this supposed “Recommended Reading List” at either the Mars Hill or Resurgence website. Could you point me to it, or show me exactly where and how Driscoll recommended these folks? It seems dangerous to level these kinds of accusations without some kind of proof.
God Bless
Jim B – It seems more than obvious by our exchange that we don’t see eye to eye on this matter and it’s abundantly clear that we’re simply going to have to disagree. At issue is the matter of Mark Driscoll’s very public and well documented sinful communication. His affinity towards contemplatives, though relevant, isn’t the primary focus at hand. With all the very public information available on Driscoll’s error I’m a bit surprised by your request for a “short list of sins” and at any rate will not comply with any such request. His error is manifest.
The truth is the truth and sin is sin and the tacit approval and/or endorsement by John Piper for the type of unrepentantly sinful vulgarity that consistently spews forth from Mark Driscoll is shameful and ought not to be so.
The intent here isn’t to tear John Piper down but to bring to light a serious matter of enabling (some might say celebrating) sin and giving credence to a man (Mark Driscoll) who ought to be lovingly rebuked. This isn’t a case where someone said something one time that was off color, in error, or unbiblical that was repented of and not repeated. This is a case where someone (Mark Driscoll) has built an entire ministry by employing “shock-jock” tactics, scatalogical references, unclean and immodest language, and even (almost unbelievably) homosexual references toward the Risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This is what Mark Driscoll is known for. It’s not a secret or a case of a simple slip here or there, it’s the conversation of his life.
I ask you Jim, if you didn’t know anything about Driscoll but simply adored and loved John Piper would you like to be warned before you go to a Desiring God Conference with your spouse and/or children that one of the speakers invited has a history of regularly using foul, smutty, gutter slime language and regularly employing crude, unseemly sexual references in his sermons even going so far as to jest about exploring homosexual encounters with Jesus Christ in heaven from the pulpit?
Is this what you expect to hear from a pastor/teacher of God’s Holy Word?
Should people be warned about a man like this?
Should John Piper be inviting a man like this to speak at his conference?
This ought not to be named among those who claim Christ.
I love John Piper and his ministry and have been blessed of the Lord through both. In fact I’m deeply grieved to see him upon the slippery slope of relativism on this matter with Driscoll.
The means simply don’t justify the ends my friend and this whole sad debacle smacks of pragmatism at its worst. I wish I didn’t have to write about this because it’s heartbreaking for me personally, but I love the Lord Jesus Christ and his church and sincerely believe that His servants ought to be far more committed to the purity of the church which He purchased with His own sinless blood than they are to the sensibilities of men.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
Therein lies the problem; I (and many others) don’t find his error to be manifest. You (and Camp and others) have recently been citing Driscoll’s “jest about exploring homosexual encounters with Jesus Christ in heaven”. I’ve actually addressed this above. While you and I likely share a stylistic distaste for jokes and the use of the word “dude” from the pulpit, I think you’ve completely missed the point of Driscoll’s “jest”. There is a stream of American Christianity that takes the Bride/Bridegroom imagery of Christ and the Church VERY seriously. They interpret Song of Songs hyper-allegorically. Some even conduct wedding ceremonies with Jesus. They not only believe Song of Songs is an allegory of Christ and the Church, but also between Christ and individual Christians. DRISCOLL WAS POKING FUN AT THIS ODD VIEW OF SONG OF SONGS. HE WAS NOT POKING FUN AT CHRIST OR JESTING ABOUT “EXPLORING HOMOSEXUAL ENCOUNTERS” WITH CHRIST.
(Search “bridal paradigm” here or on Google.)
Again, you and Camp, et. al. are going out of your way to read these comments in the most heinous light possible. And to refuse to list even a few examples of this supposed sin, whilst publicly defrocking and excommunicating the man is… sinful. I know Driscoll is “known for” rougher language. But, you have to actually demonstrate from Scripture that particular things he’s said (and not apologized for) are actually sin. You, Camp, et. al. seem content to merely allege that such-and-such language is sin, as if your collective proclamation decided the matter.
We do have the one example above. Maybe we can make some ground there.
God Bless
P.S. I find it curious that you’re still avoiding the Luther question. It really wouldn’t take more than 2-3 sentences. Obviously, you think it’s a non-issue, but I and others don’t. Do you disagree that Luther’s language was extraordinarily harsh? If not, do you recommend, enjoy, benefit from, etc. Luther’s writings?
P.S.S.
Are you associated with the DefendingContending blog?Yes, you are. That’s not a problem. I was just confused when I read your comment above verbatim at the DefCon site. Now, I’m not confused!Jim,
I think we’ve reached an impasse. This is your blog and I didn’t come here trolling for a fight. I pray that I’ve not offended you with any of my comments and if I have I sincerely apologize.
So far you’ve accused me of dodging and (at least in my mind) you’ve engaged in blame shifting and you keep trying to change the subject all in an apparent effort to defend Mark Driscoll and/or John Piper from criticism. This behavior in and of itself speaks volumes.
I’ll close by gently encouraging you to carefully review the combox over at Steve Camp’s blog post on this subject since the bulk – if not all – of the objections you’ve raised here have already been (and continue to be) addressed there. No one is “out to get” Driscoll or Piper here Jim, on the contrary many, myself included, are heartbroken over their continual unrepentant embrace of error and a godly desire to see them change their present course by submitting to and obeying the commands of scripture instead of standing in obstinate defiance of the Triune One True and Living God.
‘Til He returns or calls me home,
CD
CD,
Who’s fighting? What would lead you to believe I’m offended? It seems your dodging again. I have read the comments section at Camp’s blog. I’ve asked several specific and pertinent questions here and you’ve answered ZERO. You’re adept at finding reasons to not answer questions. I’m not fighting. I’m seriously trying to figure out where you guys are coming from, but whenever I ask a specific question about this issue, all I get is, “Well, it seems we have to agree to disagree… blah, blah, blah… that’s not really the issue… blah, blah, blah…”
This isn’t a game. You’re accusing a man of serious sin and essentially suggesting he be excommunicated if he doesn’t respond appropriately to your criticisms! And you’ve elected to communicate this ON THE INTERNET, THE MOST PUBLIC OF FORUMS! You should be prepared to defend these claims with specific facts, arguments and scriptures before heading down this road.
You didn’t even attempt to answer my objection to your objection to Driscoll’s controversial Song of Songs comment. I can’t see how this conversation could be any more relevant than that.
If you decide to man up and answer some of my questions on this issue, I’ll be here.
God Bless
Jim,
You asked: “Who’s fighting? What would lead you to believe I’m offended?”
Maybe I’ve misinterpreted the tone of your posts. Maybe you don’t intend for these types of unnecessary ad hominem comments to come across as “less than charitable” or “overly divisive”, but I can assure you that they certainly do and this is why instead of continuing down this path to nowhere I’m instead choosing to leave you in your echo chamber:
“The link you posted is just plain silly.”
“Again, you and Camp, et. al. are going out of your way to read these comments in the most heinous light possible”
“all I get is, “Well, it seems we have to agree to disagree… blah, blah, blah… that’s not really the issue… blah, blah, blah…”
“If you decide to man up and answer some of my questions on this issue, I’ll be here.”
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)
A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle. (Proverbs 18:9)
In Him,
CD
Wow. An ironic hypocrisy, given the topic of conversation, don’t you think? You know, if you’re going to take it upon yourself to defrock and excommunicate a
brother“restoration/witnessing prospect” from behind your laptop, you should probably develop a bit thicker skin. I figured we abandoned niceties back in your first comment when you suggested Driscoll might be demonized.And who’s fostering an echo chamber? I’m the one trying to have a conversation. You’re the one dodging questions and running home in tears, accusing the other kids of being mean.
God Bless & Good Luck
In case anyone is interested in Mark’s message from the DG conference here it is. Hopefully it will shed a bit of light on the fullness of his ministry and all that he has to endure for the sake of the cross:
1. His Heart
2. His love for God’s word
3. His passion for the unsaved
4. His hatred for evil and the wolves who attack his sheep
5. His repentance and humility in dealing and addressing his humanity
I encourage everyone to watch this and then prayerfully think about how we should respond to our brother in Christ Mark Driscoll.
“You’re adept at finding reasons to not answer questions. I’m not fighting. I’m seriously trying to figure out where you guys are coming from, but whenever I ask a specific question about this issue, all I get is, “Well, it seems we have to agree to disagree… blah, blah, blah… that’s not really the issue… blah, blah, blah…”
Welcome to the “echo chamber” (excellent and very applicable term) that is Defending Contending and most, if not all blogs associated with it.
Jim,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with what you say. I think this whole thing is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Driscoll is in the public eye “so-to-speak” and it always means he is going to get more critics than the little church pastor. These guys are picking on a sin without realising the sin in their own ministry. I really do think this is now a case of speck of dust and a plank; it’s bordering on ridiculous. I recommend to you a sermon/talk given by driscoll at the South-Eastern Baptist convention (or something like that-i could be wrong)….you can get it on itunes and its entitled “Mars Hill Church and the Emerging Church”……i listened to it last night and I have to say it made me see the sincerity, passion and love Driscoll has for Jesus and the lost all the more. People have a problem with him cos he does church differently and isn’t afraid to hold back in what he says. He tells the truth as it is….about life as it is in this changed world…and he is just a normal guy who isnt some 50 year old, academic snobby pastor. Unfortunately there are too many of those pastors in my opinion and in my own country young people don’t want anything to do with them..they feel looked down on and as if they can’t approach the pastor’s for help or guidance and quite frankly most of them are “too busy” to spend time answering the doubts of this generation. That’s what i see in my country and it’s why young people are leaving the church. The pastor’s have no idea about the youth culture so the younger generation just don’t get it. The bottom line with Driscoll is this….people are coming to faith left, right and centre through his ministry and seemingly they are genuine conversions. He is reaching a generation that other’s can’t. He knows the culture in which he ministers and quite frankly he is relevant, whilst not becoming compromised in his message and gospel. He explains this in the talk. Seriously……you should listen to it!!
I think with regards to this whole thing though it is best to say nothing. It’s turning into a round-about argument that is neither edifying nor loving. It’s becoming idle talk (1 Tim 1:6). Also what about 1 Tim 5:1-2….Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers……and what about 2 Timothy 2:23-26? “But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes knowing that they generate strife and a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all.” This treatment of Driscoll…a genuine Christian brother and passionate proclaimer of Christ is neither gentle nor loving and is simply generating strife. I for one wont be contributing anymore to the discussion cos its just becoming silly. Yes Driscoll needs to wise up with the coarse language at times..but know that doesn’t mean he is a false teacher like Rob Bell, Brian Maclaren or Doug Pagitt etc.
Thanks again for your comment and if you put the deleted comments up let me know!
In Christ
RP
Thanks, Pilgrim! I’ll try to find that Driscoll sermon. Ironically, I’ve been inspired by the DefCon boys to listen to more Driscoll in the last week than I had ever previously listened to. I now subscribe to his Mars Hill and Resurgence podcasts!
I’m in total agreement with you here. About 90% of the content at slice is good, but I think that in the 10% it comes down to over-reactions.
“Ministry”
Thanks for the link, nc. I hadn’t heard of CRN.info, but am glad to see there are some out in the blogosphere “watching the watchers”. I added the CRN podcast to my Zune and look forward to diving into it later this week.
God Bless,
Jim B.