I agree with Phil
Phil Johnson has done it again. He took the words right out of my mouth:
"On a side note, but a related subject I thought in the interests of balance, after hearing that sermon by Bell, I ought to listen to a sermon from the "conservative" side of the Emerging movement. So I listened to this one by Mark Driscoll. I wish I hadn't. Driscoll's smutty language and preoccupation with all things lowbrow are inappropriate, unbecoming, and dishonoring to Christ. I completely agree that many Christians fail to appreciate the true humanity of Jesus. But it's not necessary to get vulgar in order to communicate the truth about His humanity.
This is the first time I have ever posted anything critical of Driscoll. I have appreciated his defense of the atonement and his willingness to confront the neo-liberalism of other Emerging leaders honestly. But I don't think his perpetually coarse language in the pulpit and his apparent preoccupation with off-color terms and ribald subject matter are merely minor flaws in an otherwise healthy ministry. It is a serious shortcoming.
No, it's actually worse than that, because it blatantly violates the clear principle of Ephesians 5:3-4. It is shameful (v. 12) and therefore a reproach. It's characteristic of the old man and one of the fleshly behaviors we are expressly commanded to put aside (Colossians 3:8). Scripture even seems to indicate that unwholesome language signals an impure mind (Matthew 12:34). And yet this seems to be a deliberate, calculated, and persistent practice of Driscoll's. It is practically the chief trademark of his style.
That's troubling, and even more troubling when I see young Christians and older believers who ought to know better mimicking the practice. If this is the direction even the very best Emerging-style ministry is headed, it's not a trend any Christian ought to find encouraging, much less one we should follow." (Bold Emphasis Mine).
The point is obvious: when Driscoll (who represents the best the Emerging Church Movement has to offer) produces this kind of garbage, it makes ya wonder why anyone chooses to associate with the movement.
For years, advocates of Mark Driscoll who choose to ignore Driscoll's Emergent-ness, have recommended that I listen to his sermons (no, not everyone who's recommended his sermons falls into this category - there's my safety net =)), as if to say that I'll be proven wrong about the man after listening to him preach. Yet when I listen to his sermons I am repulsed. Mark is known as "the cussing pastor" for a reason ... because he cusses during his sermons! He cusses outside of church. But also, he is crude. My challenge to Driscoll advocates - listen to the recent sermon Phil Johnson discusses and tell me you're not repulsed by some of the things he says. It is distasteful. And that's being kind. Where is the reverence in Driscoll's sermons? I wonder how seriously Mark Driscoll takes the eldership?
Again, why do I bother writing about Driscoll? I'll get straight to it: I want to warn folks about the dangers of Driscoll's kind of ministry. I want to warn folks about the poor example Driscoll sets. I pray that Pastor Driscoll cleans up his ministry so he honors Christ in all that he does.
Dba dba dba dba dba, that's all folks
Stay kewl kats,
Case of Base
posted by rustypth @ 7:00 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Steve Camp left this comment on Phil's entry:
"Very good post brother... spot on and thank you.
I think some are finally coming to see that Driscoll is just not that important and certainly shouldn't be taken seriously. There's nothing really profound about him and his shock-jock approach to the handling the Word of God while at the sacred desk; it is a tragedy and not worthy of praise.
He's nothing like Luther or Spurgeon. He's more like Sam Kinison
The tragedy in all of this, is that a fine man of God like Dr. John Piper has embraced Driscoll in a wholesale fashion. His lack of discernment on Mark's ministry is perplexing; his casual humorous introduction of Mark at his recent DMG Conference while referring to Mark's scatological use of language is shameful; and his desire "to be cool" (I think those were his words) like Mark is embarrassing.
If a brother like PIper can be charmed and fascinated with the likes of Driscoll, then does it come as any surprise that the broader landscape of evangelicalism has?
Lastly, where is the eldership of Mars Hill Church in all this? Are they nothing more than Mark's sycophants or men of God? They are aware weekly of the controversy that surrounds Mark on these issues, but they let him continue on without fear of church discipline or public rebuke.
The thing that makes Driscoll dangerous is not that he is a man of God who is dynamic in the Word, boldly preaching gospel; but that he has convinced so many that he is a reformed pastor, when really he's just the oldest youth group leader in the country who can't accept the fact that high school is over and that it is time to put away childish things.
We should know by now that the emperor has no clothes."
Phil responds to one of the comments:
"What makes Driscoll "Emerging" is the philosophy that underlies his deliberate public use of such language and lowbrow cultural references. He seems driven by the notion that the Christian message must be "contextualized"—or translated in a way that suits not merely the language but also the cultural preferences of the target society.
The society he is trying to reach is the infamous Seattle grunge community. (It's more of a dysfunctional subculture than a foreign culture or language group, but that's beside the point.) His target demographic must define and determine his style. Notice: Driscoll's strategy for "contextualization" is driven by generational differences, stylistic issues, and fads. So we're not really talking about cultural or linguistic differences such as those that arise from centuries of unique traditions, like a missionary from Mississippi would face in trying to reach North Koreans or whatever.
But anyway, we have to be "missional" and seem "relevant" and "contextualize" everything for whatever culture we are trying to reach. That presupposition is deemed self-evident these days. No one in the know would ever dare question it.
Just ignorant bullies like me.
Whenever evangelicals have tried to "contextualize" their message for a particular generation (as opposed to a legitimate culture or language group, the result of the philosophy is always the same: Their primary goal becomes a desperate attempt to make Christianity seem "cool." Driscoll is head-and-shoulders better at this than anyone.
I count Driscoll as "Emerging" because he was one of the movement's founders and chief advocates until roughly six months ago. He still seems to be aiming at a kind of "contextualization" that is driven by postmodern sensitivities rather than by biblical convictions."
"The point is obvious: when Driscoll (who represents the best the Emerging Church Movement has to offer) produces this kind of garbage, it makes ya wonder why anyone chooses to associate with the movement."
This is a question many have been asking.
It really is disheartening to see so many come to the defense of the indefensable, and make every effort to justify the non-justifiable.
THANK YOU for this post. It's refreshing.
SDG,
Carla
Casey,
Thanks for this post! The whole Driscoll thing truly saddens me. Even to suggest that he is in error has become taboo for many. I too am thankful for Phil and Campi.
MarieP
Carla, Mariep!!! Thanks for the encouraging words =).
I hope that there's room for a voice of dissent here. :-) I left a similar comment to this over on Phil Johnson's post . . .
So, God has tremendously blessed, encouaged, and convicted my of sin through my listening to Driscoll's sermons. I've personally never been offended by his more "off-color" remarks and have rather enjoyed them at times, as a matter of fact. That might be indicative of a need for sanctification on my part, but I digress.
Anyway, Phil probably could have found a better example of Mark's "offensive" speech, because there have indeed been times that he's "cussed" during his sermons. Usually in forms of the word "hell" (for example, when decrying domestic abuse, he has spoken of sinful husbands who have "beaten the hell out of" their wives). The "worst" (and probably the funniest) I've heard was when he used a certain euphemism for female canines when describing something that Christians do best - complaining. Admittedly, he likely crossed some imaginary line there, but it got a laugh out of me.
To address Steve Camp's question regarding Mars Hill's other elders and Mark's accountability to them: Driscoll recently recounted a story when he was asked by a fellow elder in his church what he'd like to be remembered for. Mark answered something like "as a guy who loved Jesus and who helped to plant a lot of churches". The pastor retorted "well, you're quickly becoming known for your temper and your foul mouth". This served as a wake-up call. This was a few months ago, and as someone who has listened to Mark's sermons weekly for over a year now, I can tell you that the incidences of actual "cussing" have practically disappeared.
I'm not making excuses for the man, as the Lord is progressively making all of his children more holy, including pastors. The fact that a man may use language that some folks may find a little "saucy", however, doesn't necessarily mean that he "shouldn't be taken seriously". As God's people, we're naturally called to be on the lookout for sin, but there seems to be an unhealthy level of focusing on the negative within the body of Christ these days.
Rae,
Thanks for the comments.
I think the examples that Phil provided from even that one sermon are sufficient to demonstrate that Mark Driscoll uses crude language during his sermons. Crude and rude language have no place during the sermon. The pulpit and bringing God's Word to His people should be taken much more seriously than Driscoll does.
Thanks again.
Casey
Hello Strongbow,
You said, “Personally, I've never heard him use an offensive word.”
Did you consider any of the language or examples Mark Driscoll used in the sermon this entry is discussing offensive and crude?
You asked, “Are you saying that you're 100% pure and holy in words, deeds, motives and actions? Well, God bless you then!”
I am certainly not sinless in my every day life. But I will tell you this – I would hold the same standard to myself that I do towards Mark Driscoll. I don’t believe Christians should use foul language. It is because of this belief that I try to watch what I say. I believe Mark Driscoll should watch his language as well. Now with regards to preaching, one ought to be all the more careful because of the responsibility that comes with such a privilege. A preacher, delivering God’s Word to His people, ought not to use foul and disgusting language. Wouldn’t you agree with me on that?
You stated, “Christ is glorified at Mars Hill, the Gospel is preached every Sunday. All you people are focusing in on is Mark's shortcomings, which God is still working on. Shame.”
As I have stated on this blog (recently, and over the years), Mark Driscoll does some wonderful things. But my criticism of Mark Driscoll is about specific views he has of evangelism and of the local church. Am I not allowed to disagree someone who, until recently, was considered to be the leader of the Emerging Church Movement?
You said, “How about offering some encouragement for the brother or heck, saying that you're praying for him (and yourselves). Novel concept, eh?”
I have prayed, and will continue to pray that Mark Driscoll cleans up his ministry. I pray he repents from his Emergent ideals about the local church. So I have prayed, and I will continue to pray.
Casey
Post a Comment
<< Home