Tuesday, December 12, 2006

John MacArthur on the Emerging Church and Mark Driscoll

It is about time that Pastor John MacArthur spoke up about the Emerging Church Movement and the infamous Mark Driscoll.

“We keep hearing from evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture. You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can’t minister effectively if don’t speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don’t vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christianity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times.”

I vividly remember hearing these arguments for the very first time. It was a horrifying experience to hear a friend of mine defend the idea that our churches should adopt postmodern so we can be more “relevant” in reaching the lost. Do you remember where you were when first confronted with Emergent arguments? I do. I was sitting at Bucks when I was given my first written work by Driscoll. How ironic that the first Emergent book I read was written by someone on the far end of the conservative spectrum.

“Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are worldly. They just don’t want to be thought uncool.”

Sadly, this is exactly what we see from most who claim to be Emergent. The primary concern is having the appearance of coolness, while the clarity of the gospel comes in second. My criticism is not simply that these priorities be reversed, but that coolness not even be a concern. Besides, as Pastor MacArthur later points out, if the world hates you, remember that they hated Christ first.

“Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.”

It is greatly encouraging to know that I am not alone in my assessment of Mark Driscoll. Right from the off I took a hard stance against his views at a time when he was uber popular, which was not easy. Thankfully, in my circle of friends right now, his popularity is at an all time low =). In fact, I knew that once folks began to realize the kinds of results the ECM produces, they wouldn’t take to it. Having said that, there will always be those who fall prey to a smooth presentation like Driscoll’s. But these folks were already susceptible to other spiritual dangers.

If you carefully read how MacArthur described Driscoll, it is along the same lines of what other incredibly gifted men of God have said: James White, Phil Johnson, Steve Camp and countless others. The only folks who disagree with the above description fall into one of two categories: (1) those who are not familiar with Driscoll’s books and sermons; (2) those who are themselves Emergent/Emerging.

Finally, I’ll end with MacArthur:

“I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be “culturally relevant” Christians should participate in society’s growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?”

11 Comments:

At 8:29 PM, Blogger MarieP said...

Casey,

I too was very pleased to see MacArthur's article. As you can tell by the comments, though, it remains a hot topic. I pray that the Lord will bring conviction of the dangers of emerging/emergent and that the church will again be content to pursue holiness instead of "relevance."

Thanks,
Marie

 
At 8:29 PM, Blogger MarieP said...

PS- I can post now that I upgraded to Blogger Beta...

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Isaac said...

I agree that pursuing holiness is far more important than pursuing relevance, but does one have to come at the expense of the other? I've seen several examples of churches this year that take both righteousness and relevance very seriously, Rock Harbor in Costa Mesa, and Ecclesia in Los Angeles, to be specific. Both of these churches take the truth of the Bible and doctrine very seriously, while also being engaged in modern culture and having a reasonable understanding of the world outside of the church walls. I agree that being 'cool' is a silly goal for the church. I cringe whenever I hear about the "awesome rock concert style services" or "multi-media presentations" at churches. It's not that the inclusion of these particular devices automatically means that truth is being compromised, but very often they accomplish the opposite of their intended goal and come off as embarrassingly out of touch and straight-up dorky. It’s ridiculous for the church to try and dress up like modern culture, but I think it's important to make an effort to understand the culture and be an active participant in it. In many ways, I think we need to follow the example of missionary organizations. When we send missionaries to other countries to preach the Gospel, we make sure to train them to be sensitive and respectful to the country’s culture. When one church several years ago sent a group to Thailand, they asked that the men grow beards, which was often seen as a sign of maturity in the city that they were serving in. The point here is to keep the message of the Gospel from automatically being dismissed by a segment of Thai people that value a particular style of grooming. Missionary groups are also quick to warn against forcing newly established churches in foreign countries to automatically engage in western-style worship music. The point being that the worship needs to seem authentic to the people engaging in it, so they don’t feel like they’re just ‘parroting’ American worship. Why is it that we don’t think these same principles are important in our own country? I don’t condone pastors name-dropping rap songs in their sermons or using extreme language - again, both of those tactics are desperate and cringe-inducing anyway – but I do think that some churches put far too much effort into maintaining a 1950’s-era Southern Baptist atmosphere that’s probably about as authentic to their congregation as a trip to Cracker Barrel. I’m tired of hearing a frightened “What should I wear?” when I invite non-Christian friends to church. I’m tired of hearing about youth pastors wasting entire sermons on telling kids to stay away from rap music and R rated movies instead of helping them recognize what’s true and what’s false in contemporary popular art. I'm tired of young people in American churches feeling like they have to trade their God-given personality and style for a cheesy, dishonest, one-size-fits-all persona every Sunday morning. My hope is that emerging churches that have gone overboard with a reactionary response can meet halfway with traditional churches that no longer live on the same planet as the people they’re trying to communicate with. Can we make it a goal to be righteous and relevant at the same time?

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger rustypth said...

Isaac,

Because of its length, I posted my response as a new entry.

Thanks,
Casey

 
At 6:50 PM, Blogger J. K. Jones said...

I understand the reluctance to embrace crass talk, but sometimes “shucky-darn” does not carry the weight.

 
At 12:20 AM, Blogger rustypth said...

J. K. Jones -

I'm not following you... could you explain what you mean?

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Dave D said...

I wonder if John MacArthur thinks that missionaries should only speak English when they go to foreign countries and try to plant churches rather than learning to speak that country's language. Of course that is ridiculous, so is expecting 'traditional' forms and language to work on people that can not relate to them. That is all being relevant means: knowing who you are trying to reach and using effective means to reach them. Anyone not seeking to be relevant needs to rip I Corinthians 9 out of their Bible. Without relevance, you can not relate to people. Without relating to people, how can you show them Jesus??

 
At 7:24 PM, Blogger Sarah Antonelli said...

Thank you for writing your post. A friend of mine recently introduced me to this post-modern emerging movement. I hadn't heard of it before and I'm disgusted with what I'm reading online. This all came up for me when I recently volunteered to teach Children's Sunday School at church. The curriculum they gave didn't mention Jesus...but seemed to alter the secular world to make it relate to the bible.

Anyway....I appreciate your comments.

Sarah

 
At 4:23 PM, Blogger Tony said...

With regard to David's earlier post about I Corinthians 9:22, Paul indeed tells us "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." However, this is where most people stop short to prove their point scripturely re: relevance. To fully understand Paul's goal, read not only the end of that verse, but also v. 23 which he writes "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

What is Paul’s message to the Corinthians and for us as Christians? It was to focus on winning people to Christ and doing this for the sake of the Gospel. Sure, it’s important to understand the culture you are in, and Paul obviously understood that in order to minister effectively to people, you need to be able to relate to them. However, relevance itself should NEVER be the focus, which is the Achilles’ Heel of the Emerging Church (“EC”) It’s too concerned about relevance, rather than focusing first and foremost on Jesus Christ.

Jesus tells us in John 12:32: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me.” This is such a clear message, yet I think people totally miss the point by focusing too much on the whole relevancy issue. Focus on lifting Christ up, not issues of relevancy.

God further tells us in Isaiah 55:11 that His Word will not return void, but will accomplish what He desires and will achieve the purpose for which He sent it. Moreover, Hebrews 4:12 tells us “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” What we see here is that God’s Word will accomplish what He desires it to accomplish, and is just as alive today as it was over 2000 years ago. It still convicts, it still judges man’s thoughts and his heart. That being said, why are people so controlled and focused on relevancy in the “post-modern” era? God’s Word is relevant no matter what era you are in...whether post-modern, modern, middle Ages, Renaissance, whatever. If it weren’t relevant, no doubt it wouldn’t be around. Further, it doesn’t matter if your Caucasian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, African or Trash Can, God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. If you want to seek relevancy, go to God because HE is relevant in all ages.

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger jbird22324 said...

May you continue contending for the faith and keeping to sound doctrine. "And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

 
At 8:27 PM, Blogger Ingy said...

Mark Driscoll is not part of the emerging church. He has disassociated himself with them when he realized that they were so into "relevance" that they were compromising on biblical authority. He is a loose cannon at times but is doing quite a great work in Seattle. He is teaching kids who never knew anything of Christians homes or morals or about how a Christian life is lived. Some of them are kids brought up in Christian homes but recieved very little teaching about Biblical morality. Seattle has lots of folks that are 3 generations away from anyone who darkened the door of a church. He reaches the nose ring crowd that more tidy churches would feel uncomfortable about. Some of the kids that come are from the most base lifestyles that when Mark preaches about sex etc they dont bat an eye cause its where they live. I have heard him preach on several occasions and have found him to be very conservative in many of his views. He gets in more trouble in Seattle amoungst other Christians for his views on "gender roles" in the bible than anything else. I say, no one is preaching that these days. He also tells the "Peter Pan" generation of guys to man up and settle down with some responsiblilty and quit playing adolescent till they are 32. He does seem to keep putting his foot in his mouth but I think he's doing better and fortunately he has some great mentors in John Piper and Tim Keller. I have neices and nephews who have profited greatly from his teaching.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home