Phil Johnson has long been critical of Mark Driscoll. As an admitted Driscoll fan-boy, this would bug me, particularly when he employed tactics similar to those who have a blind hatred for the man (and an utter distaste for actual, ya know, facts).
But on Friday, at the Shepherd’s Conference, Johnson tipped his hand and revealed to the world that he’s just been kidding the whole time.
Early in his message, Johnson quoted the opening sentence of the recent New York Times piece that was largely on Driscoll:
Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy to post on [an] evangelical Christian ‘family friendly’ . . . Web site.
This is an easily demonstrable lie. Well, perhaps the NYT writer wasn’t lying, but was just phenomenally ignorant of her main topic. *
But Johnson is not ignorant. He knows that that statement is false. And yet, he did nothing to discredit it.
Now, I wouldn’t dream for a second that Johnson would knowingly deceive his listeners just to bolster his point. And the clue that he wasn’t doing this is in the title of his message: “Sound Doctrine, Sound Words” and the Scripture (Titus 2:7-8) he used as his main text.
Knowingly deceiving your Christian brothers isn’t in the same zip code with sound doctrine (or sound anything for that matter). So he clearly was being ironic.
Good one, Phil. Ya got me.
* Insert your favorite “research” joke here.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
155 Comments(+Add)
Brendt,
Have you ever heard of an argument from lesser to greater? Apparently Phil thought that if an unsaved, NYT reporter thought MD’s content was too racy for an evangelical website then perhaps we all should…
I read posts all of the time, most notably on Slice, claiming that Driscoll’s sermons are racy and that he has a foul mouth. But then I watch his sermons and I just don’t see it.
Brendt,
I’m asking because I don’t know. How does Johnson that that statement is a lie?
clearly, so what you’re saying is that the argument is that if a NYT reporter believes something that’s not true, then perhaps we all should
I think it’s probably a safe guess that the majority of NYT reporters undoubtedly believe that Jesus was not the Messiah. So by your logic, perhaps we all should.
I’m not Brendt but let me answer. YES but that’s not what Phil did.
Not sure how you know the reporter was unsaved or Phil’s intent but I’ll play along. I generally don’t let secular media inform me of my spiritual decisions.
John, fair question.
Whenever confronted regarding his criticism about Driscoll, Johnson invariably gets asked if he’s even listened to Driscoll’s sermons or if he’s just relying on 73rd-hand info.
To his great credit, Johnson always states that he has listened to much of Driscoll. And he made such statements long before the whole SoS non-issue.
No one can listen to much of Driscoll and not know that the statement in the NYT is untrue. At least no one of any intelligence and honesty, and I personally feel that Johnson is abounding in both.
You know…
People can have a disagreement about this racy language issue, blah blah blah…
but I think we need to see it in proportion too.
In the grand scheme of things no one, I repeat, NO ONE has ever made the case as to why this issue should be such a deal breaker.
Second, even if MD engages in things you don’t approve of they aren’t the essential feature of his preaching.
Does he get crazy and overly vivid at times? Yes.
Is his preaching just a non-stop concatenation of such things? No.
Lastly, I really hate (not just strongly dislike, but hate) when people take a handful of cases or a prominent speaker and then extrapolate that to being a “trend” in the whole of a community–i.e. PJ’s claim that “many, many evangelical…” etc. etc. as if evangelicalism has always been a uniform monolith.
You want to talk about “irresponsible”?
That crap cuts both ways.
oh, yeah…2 more things:
1. I think it’s funny when PJ and that crew say they are speaking of evangelical churches as if they are a part…they’re really fundamentalists (or neo-fundamentalists?). That’s where I think you can draw a line in evangelicalism.
2. PJ still persists in his, frankly, ignorant useage of “contextualization” when the guy just doesn’t get it.
Clearly. And that’s where he does have some connection to just simply conservative evangelicals–they never lost the ability to create a new boogeyman flavor when it suited them, or they didn’t have something to be against.
Marc Driscoll is a foul mouthed preacher with a penchant for being controversial and flamboyant. His “style” overshadows his message.
For you maybe.
For me, not maybe.
I have not listened to MD enough to have an opinion. But it is kind of ironic that Phil Johnson used to have a website with an alter ego of “Hugh Jass” and posted on the Fighting Fundamentalist Forum many years ago as the same. The website was hilarious.
Amusingly a fellow poster at the FFF brought this up on the cussing pastors thread on Pyromaniacs and it was removed for “vulgar content”. Gotta love it!
This is old news. Mark has confessed as to being foul-mouthed and prideful before. I would venture to say that 90% of his critics don’t watch his sermons.
Watch the 1&2 Peter sermons that are going on right now and tell me the NTY article portrayed him fairly.
I don’t subscribe to everything he says and does, but the guy works harder than just about anyone I know at furthering the Kingdom.
Ethan, I would venture to say that your estimate is a lowball — it’s probably more like 98%.
But Phil is among the 2%. So he knows better.
(Not discrediting anything you said — just making a point.)
Before someone jumps on the fact that the Peter series wasn’t in existence when the NYT article was written, you can substitute any series before the SoS series, and get the same results.
(Just trying to save you a little off-topic baloney, Ethan. It runs rampant in this blog’s comment threads at times.)
You gotta cut old Phil a break. I mean if he didn’t condemn Driscoll then who would buy all the books he edits, or go to the conferences he speaks at? The man’s got to eat after all.
Similarly, before someone jumps on the fact that I said “before the SoS series”, I only take that series out of the loop to throw his critics a bone. I haven’t had much opportunity to watch too much of that specific series yet, but even if everything I haven’t seen would make porn stars blush (doubtful), the NYT statement is still mind-bogglingly inaccurate.
Bo, I imagine that comment wasn’t directed at me, but some of the commenters. Because my take is that Phil wasn’t condemning Driscoll, but was being highly ironic.
The alternative is unthinkable.
Brendt,
It is funny how quickly ADMs are willing to accept as Truth any statement they already agree with from any source at all.
I wonder how quickly PJ would accept something like climate change conclusions from a NYT reporter.
I suppose as long as the conversation is about Driscoll and the way he talks, the conversation won’t be about the actual content of what he says.
I think it is a far more interesting conversation to talk about what Driscoll says than how he says it.
That’s just me.
Luther pure and holy great reformer once said…
Warning: this quote contains strong language!
Yes do not be like Mark Driscoll, be more like Martin Luther!
iggy
Jerry,
Seriously. I agree.
There’s a ton worth talking about when it comes to his content.
Is that really true about PJ and the FFF?
Oh absolutely. “Hugh Jass”, whom some give him the credit of creating instead of the Bart Simpson show, had a great website lampooning anti-intellectual fundies. He had colorful characters like “Omar Gosh” and “Mick Stup” as well as other members of the “Jass” family with thematically correct first names (just can’t remember them now). Their pictures were of the most inbred types you could imagine. It was funny stuff.
Looks like PJ is doing his best to cover his tracks.
http://www.geocities.com/pastorjass/
Not only did he delete the page, but he left behind a robots.txt file that looks like it specifically directs deletion of the page by archive.org.
Will there be an apology? How about some repentance?
PJ has always struck me as pretty highminded.
But now I’ll just smile anytime he
goes off about this stuff.
Talk about having someone’s number.
Actually, has anyone here sent him an email about this and asked him about it?
It’s been my experience that email to Johnson is of no value. After a disagreement with Johnson once, I sent him an email that was half apology / half olive branch.
He b*tchsl@pped me with the olive branch.
nc,
I doubt it and I doubt anyone cares.
They forgive and give to whom they deem worthy…
iggy
They forgive and give grace to whom they deem worthy… yeah that’s what I meant…
I think PJ’s condemnation of Driscoll was a little drama-queenesque. Still a mighty fine and generally theologically conservative dude (even if he is a dispensationalist LOL).
As to the Luther quote, “So?”. Just because Luther did it doesn’t make it fine. Some examples are better left to the annals of history, never to be repeated.
K,
The point is that Phil and others often lift Luther up as some standard… and really he stated worse things than Driscoll as far as I have heard… yet, these people attack Driscoll…
The quote is about a Major player in Reformed history… he was not a lightweight… he is held as an authority by many of the ODM who are attack Mark for using course language…
So how does one, sweep history under the rug and ignore it? Should we do that with Hitler? Do you really believe that white washing history will make things better?
These people raise and claim to set a standard, yet ignore things like this… to me, that is hypocritical as can be.
iggy
“Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy…”
What is the number being implied here? It seems, given the unqualified use of the blanket term “sermons,” that the implication would all of MD’s sermons, in general, are “mostly too racy.”
So, since I have not listened a lot to MD, those of you familiar with his “sermons,” what say you? Are then indeed, generally, “too racy”? Or is this a matter of one sermon sprinkled among dozens if not hundreds, then another sermon somewhere delivered after a few dozen/hundred more?
RAbanes
A fine attitude to have, if you don’t disqualify all of Driscoll’s ministry because of language you don’t approve of. OF course, if you have, like the ADMs then you’ve got some consistency problems, and not for the first time.
Talk about funny…
the Itodyaso bit showed up as the first link back on the Pyro site piece about “preachin dirty”.
So at the bottom of the article and the comment threads the first thing you read is:
Phil Johnson loses his Hugh Jass! « The Online Discernmentalist Mafia
Delicious.
Richard,
As usual, that statement is an exaggeration, maybe to make a point, maybe out of ignorance.
But the large bulk of Mark’s sermons are spot on and Biblically sound.
I think (I might be mistaken) the title “the cussing pastor” was from one of Donald Miller’s books. If it was Donald, I’m sure he regrets putting that into type.
I don’t listen to Mark much any more. But when I listened to him regularly, and when I periodically listen to him now, I am edified and challenged by his preaching.
As Rick has demonstrated, his delivery may not be for everybody. But the statement, “Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy…” is entirely inaccurate, in my opinion.
I have heard plenty of Mark Driscoll sermons and I’ve never heard anything “racy.” Perhaps people take issue with the text message questions that he answers after his sermons, many of which are questions that you rarely hear at church. God forbid a pastor give honest, Biblical answers to issues that Christians are struggling with.
Rick Frueh is one that consistently claims Mark Driscoll has a “foul mouth,” a claim that I read on Slice quite often. But I never, ever, ever see specific examples. Is it profanity? I haven’t heard it, but maybe it was in a sermon I missed. Seriously, I want to know what constitutes a foul mouth.
Speaking of SoL…
Ingrid’s latest obsession about sex through people she thinks are obsessed about sex is up again.
Talk about missing the point of the news article.
The news article isn’t lamenting or even commenting on the validity of preaching about sex. It’s more about the effects of or resistance to certain topics in certain kinds of sub-cultures.
iggy,
Fair deal – however, it doesn’t mean, that b/c Luther is perceived to be some hero (I personally think he left a lot to be desired), that we should all go to foulmouthed tirades. Luther had problems – who doesn’t. I meant, in my last comment, that such things ought not to be emulated by anyone.
Comparing Hitler to Luther is a bit much though…
Ya know,
Why do I get the feeling that the PJ thing about Driscoll really stems from the fact that he sees himself as so important or having a kind of authority that Driscoll should care or bow to his critique?
I mean…the man took the time to write a 6 page letter to the guy….6 pages, people.
And Driscoll didn’t really give him any kind of response.
Why is it that this really boils down to a group of people that see themselves as self-appointed magisterium just being frustrated that the larger community doesn’t lay down and take it up the butt from them?
Seriously. Who cares about PJ and anything he has to say? Who is he and why should we even bother?
This all comes home even more in light of his Pastor Jass bit.
This current pious sanctimony of his just proves how the name Hugh Jass actually fit.
NC: Ingrid’s latest obsession about sex through people she thinks are obsessed about sex is up again.
RA: Interesting.
I wonder if she’ll do a post against her fellow ODM, Paula, over at purposedrivel, who seemed rather obsessed herself with my testicles (I kid you not) around last August. Very odd. It seems that racy for some is fine, while racy for others is not. Hmmm.
RAbanes
Let me just put in context my perspectives about Mauk Driscoll. I believe he is a brother in Christ, a faithful pastor, he loves Jesus, and orthodox in doctrine. So my idssues are purely in methodlogy.
I have no axe to grind. And for context, I find Z”painted girls of Sodom” to substantively trump the “s” word in common Christian parlance. I prefer neither though.
Luther is well know for his anti-semitism… and if you even do a superficial study you will find that many of the Nazi’s used Luther to validate and justify exterminate the Jews.
And I am not stating that because Luther did so should we by any means… my point is that on one hand they attack someone like Driscoll… on the other they sing the praises of foul mouthed Luther…
If anything, they should be humble about casting their stones instead of having such zeal in doing so.
Mark is still young… and even Spurgeon was considered “crude” (though maybe not in the same way as Driscoll) in his time by his critics.
So how would you justify lifting Luther as great with his crude language…
I mean on sex he stated:
Though I can’t find the exact quote, Luther stated of his wife Katherine that he wished to have “two more testicles sewn on” to keep up with her sexually.
Personally I have had many a good laugh reading Luther…
My new favorite is this one it is one of the last things he said to his beloved Katie:
I have no problem with “earthy” people or talk… Luther was real… Driscoll is real… and personally I see many that attack Driscoll as being afraid of being real.
iggy
I had to laugh Richard… I did a take on Paula’s testicle obsession…
She has yet to respond….
Ever holding up the standard they set for us!
iggy
iggy,
I agree with you in that case. Luther was a man with a million problems – so it disturbs me when they quote him like he was a saint. Granted – no one is perfect, but Luther definitely is not a rolemodel and was a terrible person in need of grace like all of us.
My thoughts as well. I’m still amused Johnson makes a big deal that MD replied to Mac’s letter from his secretary to his. Big deal? Who do these people think they are that others should genuflect to their jass?
I never work better than when I am inspired by anger; when I am angry, I can write, pray, and preach well, for then my whole temperament is quickened, my understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart.
- Martin Luther
Well, no wonder the Reformed camp is so angry all the time. They come by it honestly.
44:
for real.
That probably goes for some of the lurkers here too.
I’m totally ok with people having a difference of opinion, teaching their flocks such, etc.
But it’s very apparent that these folk have a profound sense of their own importance.
Never mind the deep lack of integrity on the part of PJ/Pastor Jass.
It doesn’t matter that he’s “stopped” and destroyed the evidence. The reality is that he did that same stuff and is acting like he’s never had the same issue.
He’s not qualified to speak to the issue.
And he’s blatantly misrepresenting himself as such.
there’s a ton of things he can and does speak to…why can’t he just stay there.
And these people who drink from that toilet say that the “immature/emerging/seeker sensitive” types are the ones who are sensationalist, etc. etc.
It is clear to me that PJ is a liar and an arrogant hypocrite. It matters not that he knows how to write with a tone and style that makes him sound academic.
He’s just an obscure, smarter version of Steve Camp.
You really know how to hit below the belt, don’t ya.
47:
Well, we all have sin…
I just don’t appreciate it when people act like their “dung don’t stink”.
…not even tolerated among pagans…
…not so much as names among the Gentiles…
…of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate…
…h¢tiß oujde« e?n toi?ß e¶qnesin…
John Hughes — #45:
Yeah, but doesn’t the Bible say something about “Be ye angry, and
be a jass notsin not” ? Oh wait, that was written by the same guy who wrote Galatians 6:1, and we all know that was a typo, especially that “spirit of gentleness” skubala.clearly (#49), i have to assume that your non sequitur references to 1 Corinthians 5:1 have something to do with Mark. Is this further expansion on your assumption that the NYT writer is unsaved? Or are we talking about some other “pagan”?
And either way, what actions “not even tolerated among pagans” are you referring to?
Clearly,
When Mark Driscoll sleeps with his father’s wife and then brags about it being covered by grace… then I will be first in line to call him out on that.
Really though much you quoted as little as it was, is way out of context…
1.
So when has Mark done that?
2. Paul is chastising the legalist that make the Gentiles enemies by their actions of making it harder for Gentiles to come to Jesus… These legalist made circumcision mean nothing.
Again, when has Mark done that?
Now the third one is a repeat… and since I don’t know Greek i will just bet that is just another repeat…
So again, all out of context… unless you have proof of your accusations Mark is sleeping with his father’s wife…
iggy
What? An ADM has no idea what scripture actually means, and quotes it to destroy.
Clearly,
IF you’re going to use scripture like this you’re better off not reading it at all.
Bo,
The more I talk to these guys the more I am amazed at the biblical illiteracy that runs through their camp! Not really as it takes grace to understand and receive the Holy Spirits teaching… so I can understand that God may be resisting the proud…
But really they cry out about how everyone else is doing such and such and when it comes down to the wire we have:
1. One guy preaching Arminianism as a Calvinist who insists that we must do a formula to be saved. And that we can receive forgiveness though it is not there to receive. Then twist everything to mean something else that others say… as well as practise doublespeak as an art form!
2. Another that states outrageously unbiblical things then when corrected get angry then denies it then claims that was what he meant and though he agree with you, or Bell or whoever he just attacked… he still lie about everyone despite the facts or truth.
3. We have someone defending ODM’s as they use Jesus and the Bible to abuse others and add to grace works of the flesh… and these defenders just say…”you do it too!” or “When are you going to bring up the painted girls of Sodom
4. We have the “I’ll get you with scriptures!” who quote things so out of context it is laughable… and sad at the same time.. worse they cast accusations that someone like Mark is sleeping with his father’s wife… and these people may not even know they even did that!
I am sure this list could be a lot longer… but this is what I have encountered from those on the other side of the “Truth War” that come to fight for their version of truth, justice (wrath, wrath let them all burn in hell!) and the American Gospel!
iggy
A guy with no clue and almost no luck decides to try to find answers in the Bible. So he opens it up, blindly sticks his finger on the page and reads Matthew 27:5 where Judas hanged himself. He figures that was a fluke, so he tries it again. This time his finger lands on the last part of Luke 10:37: “Go and do likewise”.
(Before some genius claims that I was recommending that clearly commit suicide, I was referring to his misuse of Scripture, not my prescription.)
Mr. A – “I have a problem with Mr. C’s theology and teaching. I’m going to write about a pretty tough rebuttal in my blog.”
Mr. B – “Now wait a minute. Well have you contacted Mr. C? You know Scripture says if you have ought against a brother you should go to him in private first. Then if he doesn’t respond take the next step. All people do is complain, complain, complain. Have you even contacted this guy?”
Mr. A – “Er, you’re right. I’ll write Mr. C a letter detailing where I think he was wrong”.
Later . . .
Mr. B – “You wrote a letter criticising Mr. C? Six pages?!? Who do you think you are, the Pope? Sheeshe. You got some nerve!”
This Truth War nonsense is getting on my nerves. It is as if the enemy has the (a small part) of the Church chasing its own tail. Jesus is the Truth and He needs no defence from us.
Eugene, there are many Scripture about the defene of the faith and several scriptures that state one of the main jobs of pastors is to protect the flock from false doctrine and false prophets.
I quess the rub comes in how people go about carrying out these admonitions. There does seem to be a lot of unbalanced approaches out there (truth vs. love, arrogance vs humility, hypocrisy, etc.) and unnecessary roughness so to speak. It is definately a problem, but the abuse of these Scriptures does not mean they are not needed.
John, I agree with you that we as pastors are given the job of protecting the flock. The thing is that we are not in a war against people! And these people that think that they are fighting this Truth War is shooting at the flock and the shepherds trying to defend what they percieve to be truth. They are calling pastors degenerate while many of them are not pastors of any flock and has not spent a day in real ministry caring for people with real problems (PB, I’m not talking about you here and this not meant of all). I would invite them to spend a few weeks with me caring for the flock but I fear they will harm the ones I love.
The tricky thing is that in our culture, with our media outlets, pastors who are shepherding one flock may be influencing other flocks as well.
This has its advantages and disadvantages.
I’m grateful to be able to listen to sermons online, to hear another teacher’s interpretations and understanding and revelations from the Word.
But this also creates a setting where other pastors or leaders, in an effort to protect their own flock from what they view as heresy or false teaching, also have a broader influence than their own flock. And their “warning” is out there for the entire world to see.
Call me naive (you won’t be the first) but I do believe that the motives of these online discernment ministries are pure. I don’t believe that in their heart of hearts, they are out to intentionally destroy another brother or sister.
I think their zeal goes overboard sometimes. I think they, in an effort to adhere to the scriptures, violate the passages about love and mercy and patience that, in my opinion, outweigh the passages that focus on theology.
It is also obvious that people, both odm’s and non, react defensively and take things personally which only escalates the situation.
Grace is needed on all sides.
Just my $ .02.
Eugene,
You and I were typing at the same time.
You bring up very valid points.
Keep pressing into the heart of our Shepherd, and may He guide and lead your heart to care for His sheep in a manner that pleases Him.
Be blessed, dear brother.
Shalom
I agree with you.
Call me naive but I do believe that many false teachers’ motives are pure.
Just my R0.02
When the Scriptures were written it seemed as if a local accountability was assumed when it came to false teachers etc.. But now with the global communications and the “everyone has a blog” phenomenon, there doesn’t seem to be any rules at all. I’ll give you an example.
As you know, I strongly disapprove of Mark Driscoll’s language and some exegesis. But I do not live in Seattle, and therefore I also do not know how many people have come to Christ through his ministry, or how involved they are in world missions, or how they minister to the poor and needy, or how many families they have helped, and almost anything good about them.
So, that means the totality of my impression of Driscoll is negative since I must rely completely on at least second hand information. Such is the essence of detached assessment through distanced information.
I believe the Scriptures were primarily directed to engaged believers who lived among each other and had a more comprehensive perspective of circumstances that needed addressing. But when we make assertions based on second hand and incomplete information, to say nothing of secular reports, it becomes like shooting fish in barrel of our own construction.
And as I hve said many times before, we seem to avoid shooting the fish in a barrell with our name on it. Case in point, how many self examining and even self criticizing posts do most blogs offer? Even the ones who consistantly point fingers at others never have the same effervescent aggression about their own sins and shortcomings.
Interesting…
Rick,
You may have answered this before, but have you ever listened to a Mark Driscoll sermon?
I think you would be edified.
John Hughes,
I think you might be attributing to me a belief that PJ should only address issues directly with Mark Driscoll. (i.e. Matt. 18)
I don’t really think Matt. 18 applies here.
However, if I’m wrong and it does, PJ is still the loser. A 6 page letter doesn’t qualify as steps 1-2 of Matt. 18 and I think there’s something to be said for face to face contact to with people who are actually part of ones local community. Otherwise, what’s the point of “bringing it to the church”? How does PJ’s “bringing it to the church” actually effect any move toward repentance? The clear assumption is that this process should be enacted in the context of a local congregation where the successive confrontations can actually induce repentance in a setting of pastoral care and oversight for the sake of restoration.
I don’t see this as just people complaining all the time. I see this as people have a self-inflated sense of their position and importance.
It doesn’t matter that he wrote the 6 page letter, other than to communicate that he believes he’s of the standing that a tome from him should count for something to people that don’t even probably know who the hell he is.
All that being said, I think that if he wants to take issue with Mark Driscoll, he’s got plenty of real substantive issues to go after with respect to the actual content of Driscoll’s teaching. (I mean, hello! “Stay at home dads get church discipline”? That’s just for starters.)
But this elevation of a non-salvific issue to the the level of contending for the faith is just more evidence of his own hubris.
Ultimately, none of what you’re picking at or even my answer matters.
Why?
Two words:
Hugh.
Jass.
buh-bye.
Dang fer-e-ner.
Trust me, John Hughes…
I’m no fan of Driscoll. He really pisses me off sometimes in what he says. And in the past I’ve been in his actual presence. Not ever impressed with the way he carries himself, his attitude, etc.
My point is that if someone wants to take MD on about his apparently “faith destroying” so called dirty preaching, the last person on the planet who gets to run his mouth his Pastor Jass.
OK, I have a question.
To ask it though, I’ll have to tip my hand and reveal that my original post was actually facetious. I know, what a shock.
Many of the people that the ADMs and their ilk criticize as being “false teachers” are classified as being “deceived by the enemy”. In other words, they don’t know any better. Or let’s be more callous about it, remove the ADM-ish euphemism, and say that they’re stupid.
So which is worse? A stupid, deceived man who disseminates falsehoods unknowingly, or an intelligent well-versed man who disseminates falsehoods knowingly ?
Which is worse?
person #2
There’s far too much lying, self-promotion, financial begging, arrogance, and general maliciousness to attribute anything but impure motives to the ADMs.
I always love to hear from them how Benny Hinn is a false prophet but then also hear about how God raised up these ADMs to do their work. There’s very little difference between the two groups. Both claim to be sent directly by God, both act in a remarkably unGodly way, both twist scripture to suit themselves. I suppose the only way they’re really all that difference is that Hinn has a huge audience.
Nathaniel – yes, I have. More than one. He comes across to me as arrogant, and his style lacks any humility. His Gestapo attidude about recalcitrant elders was breathtaking. But my previous comment was about my assessment being without knowing him personally, or seeing the other varied aspects of his ministry.
I could not sit under him, but I attempt not to dismiss his kingdom usefulness completely. Ultimately he belongs to God, and have more than I can say grace over concerning my own walk before that same God that owns me.
Fair enough, Rick.
71:
And the killer is that “recalcitrant elders” really means:
Elders who, on principle, unapologetically don’t think MD and a few personally handpicked partners should be able to consolidate power.
nc – that would be a great post here concerning the qualifications, role, and leadership of New Testament elders. We sometimes treat them as a deacon board, or as overseerers of a business.
* Are they equal, and if so, in what way?
)
* Should there be as litlle gift overlapping as possible?
* Women? (
* Should all preach?
* Should they enforce church discipline?
Etc.
It is an important subject.
Has that elder scenario been confirmed?
That seems so “wonky” to borrow an Iggy word.
I watched a message in which Driscoll suggests he alone can dismiss elders and had to dismiss two that week with forcefulness because, in his words, they should not even question him. He even, somewhat humorously, suggested using physical violence against them (Fight Club).
Wow!
I’ve not listened to him for awhile.
Part of me is not surprised, given his personality.
But I’m a little surprised, if it is that cut-and-dry, that he got away with it.
But as you said earlier, Rick, we are not in Seattle under his pastorate.
Rick,
The hilarious part is that ADMs didn’t seem to care at all about the dismissal of elders, a subject the scriptures touch on directly.
However, they decided to raise a huge stink over issues not directly addressed by scripture.
I’d be far more concerned if what you’ve said here is true than someone preaching in a style I don’t like. Of course when your motives are tied to the culture your grandpa grew up in, rather than to the commands of scripture, you end up with those kind of weird things.
I like Alex Strauch’s book on eldership.
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Eldership-Urgent-Restore-Leadership/dp/0936083115/?tag=fishtheabys-20
NC,
I am definately not necessarily at PJ fan. I have had many much more heated arguments with Calvinists than with anyone on this blog. I just find it humorus that people are criticized for not writing personally to some one regarding an issue and then criticizing them when they do write them. I agree with many of your concerns.
Rick – Do you have a link to the video RE: MD and elders?
Here is one of them. There is another where he suggests he should not question him. Here is a quote at the end of this one:
“I am a god, little g, I sit on a throne, I make commands, and I expect people to obey me.”
Here is another one where he says people who question him are sinning, and they should “shut up and do what you are told”.
I will await with bated breath for anyone to defend such self righteousness and wresting of the Scriptures as it concerns humble leadership. I consider his governing methodology to be ecclesiastical violence based upon power, fear, and force.
His portayal of the two elders in question seems painfully one sided and contoured to fit into his purposes. He shows no shepherd’s heart for these men, and he uses the unfortunate circumstances to foritfy his office, or more specifically, himself.
BTW – my past independant Baptist roots would rejoice, and Jack Hyles would have been proud of such Bourgousie authoritarianism.
That “little g” quote is far more disturbing than anything the ADMs have had fits over.
I always find it funny when preachers/ministers/pastors try to find refuge in the authority of their position. There’s no scriptural basis for the authority of the American-style preacher/pastor. I also wonder if they remember that Jesus was ultimately a servant, he washed feet, he died a humiliating death, he put aside the very power of God to assume the role of a human. Doesn’t sound much like “I’m a little g god who expects to be obeyed”.
#86 – Word – I do mean THE Word.
Whenever I see these things about Driscoll and church authority I always think of this:
I think what sets pastoral authority apart from the authority of someone like, say a boss or commander, is that there is really no way a pastor can force someone to respect him. It has to be earned. People aren’t forced to be part of a congregation and the church doesn’t own them. I’ve met many pastors who seem to forget this fact.
ummm…
“little g”.
like that makes it any better.
ick.
NC summed it up well: ick.
I read somehwhere that a shepherd gives his life for the sheep. Are not the fruits of the SPIRIT those characteristics which should highlight our ministers? Of course there are times of correction, but the heavy handed verbiage, complete with veiled warnings, of Mark Driscoll resemble George Steinbrenner rather than Jesus.
here’s another vid with some interesting text comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgzsND0-K80&NR=1
BTW – I am the elder of commenters, and I sit on a commenting throne, I give opinions, and I EXPECT agreement. Resistance is futile, and any opinion that does not exactly echo mine will be met with a verbal evisceration that will make Attlila the Hun look like a pacifist.
That is God’s way.
nc – power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But let us not forget that there are other ways to hold powerful sway over the spiritual proletartiat. Saying “The Lord told me to say that” or “I take direction from God alone” as a buffer to accountability is another form of totalitarianism. Many of the ODMs use that form.
ya know…I believe that truism about power is…well….true.
I also believe that for some people “power” merely brings out a corruption that already was there.
Here’s an interesting blog:
http://prayingheart.wordpress.com/
Does anyone have a link to the full sermon about god with a little g? The quotes in the earlier link are mixed from different sermons (based on clothes), posted by someone with a point to make, and the little god comment seems taken grossly out of context – it seems to be an explaination of what pride looks like (he says “pride, point x” right before it.
Deborah – after viewing it again, it is impossible to see the quote in context. I do not have the full message, perhaps their website. But the martial arts broken nose humor gives much the wrong impression as well, and that is in context.
Rick, I would agree with you about the martial arts comparison, however, adding the part from a completely different sermon, out of context and seemingly incorrectly insinuating something that MD did not intend, is flat out wrong.
The martial arts section should have stood on it’s own. The addition seems to be a delibrate attempt to deceieve the viewer – and given the comments above, it seems to have worked.
I would agree with your point. However there are a myriad of examples of Driscoll’s heavy handed ecclesiastical authoritarianism.
His obsession with testosterone leadership, not gender but force, is unfortunate.
That is very true. MD makes some good points and some bad points (or even some good points the wrong way). So far, he is very similar to every other pastor I know.
yeah, that would be shady if that section about “little g” was not in context and being manipulated to make him look worse–as if that’s possible.
At the same time, it’s really only icing on the cake…
RE:100
similar maybe in a general sense…but beyond that, well, you’ve probably read the thread.
I would generally agree. Though they are too quick to assign someone as not being a brother or sister – then attack.
Though they do seem to make a lot of posts condemning fellow believers…
What?!? Dang. Now you tell me.
nc, re:101
My point was that I have never seen a perfect pastor – they all have problems, except Rick
I agree, Neil.
I think one of the more grievous things about some of those articles and the verbiage used is that the author violates our Lord’s words that He will, in the end, separate the wheat from the tares and the sheep from the goat.
That, in my opinion, is most grievous.
#104 – Turn in your discernment credentials!
Rick, I figured I beat you to it.
Now I’m going back to lurking.
Well, I wish I could always say that. I guess I am a bit jaded, though. I know I can’t discern everyone’s motives perfectly, but I just think a lot of it comes down to power. Now, they may not even know that, and they think that they operating with the best intentions. But good intentions don’t mean much if your actions end up causing harm to others.
At some point you would think that they would take a look over their shoulders and see some of the carnage in their wake.
After viewing both videos linked by Rick I’d reject them both as evidence… not saying MD is “guilty” or acquitted” – just say’n neither of those clips show context or how he applies is point. That and both were obviously manipulated to detract.
The comment about little “g” would be disturbing if he was applying that to himself, but it’s impossible to tell from the clip.
104:
I guess the question is what kind of problems and to what degree are we willing to live with in a pastor? Followed by the question, on what basis do we prioritize those problems?
I used to serve in a church where the early 60’s hey day of over a thousand people attending was long gone and the authoritarian, graceless, controlling, and abusive mode of the pastor of that “golden age” was heralded by old guard members as the means to regaining it.
People didn’t like it when I said that if being an ass was really the hidden key to growing a church then I was happy to keep things small–and small here is a relative term since they were unhappy about a church of over 400.
Crazy.
I was raised in a congregation that was more concerned with being “right” than “the carnage in their wake.”
It seemed that the carnage only affirmed the separation.
And that separation confirmed the discernment.
It can be a self-fulfilling cycle.
Phil and Nathaniel – I would wholeheartedly agree. It is one thing to strongly oppose someone’s teachings or methodology, but to call a pastor a “goat herder” is hubristic erdution that reveals a disgusting dismissiveness based upon a disgusting self view.
Neil – even people that like Driscoll, like Deborah, admit he is heavy handed. Of course many of us assess things somewhat more negatively.
110: true. I wouldn’t trade my pastor for MD, but then again, I wouldn’t trade my culture for his.
There is a difference between things that work within a certain culture that are viewed as a problem outside of it.
MD has said some things that I have found really offensive – the whole anti staying at home dad thing (which also implies that staying at home isn’t really working), but given his culture, I can see where it comes from.
It’s like buying a different used car – it’s trading the problems you know or are used to for ones you don’t or aren’t.
Re: 113
Rick, I actually don’t like Driscoll. I take his good points and disregard his bad. He doesn’t answer to me. And for the record, I’ve defended Ken Silva here in the past, and I don’t like him either.
Re: 115 – I have found that with the abundance of information via books, CDs, and internet that there are people that do make the same points in a way which agrees with my spiritual constitution.
No doubt about that, Rick. If he actually said the little “g” thing about himself and meant it seriously- that I’d say was an issue.
My point was, from those clips you could not tell, and they were obviously manipulated to show him in a bad light.
Everyone has their own threshold on this stuff. If he offends you on that level, don’t listen to him – I respect that.
Sometimes it is useful to see things from another point of view. That is where I find him useful.
117 – that is what gets me, when people manipulate things or quote out of context to make someone look wrong.
It’s like when they were looking at backmasking in rock music. There was so much valid stuff to criticize when you listened to it right, who had time to listen to it backwards?
There’s a lady who’s sure,
All that glitters is gold,
And she’s buying
A stairway to heaven…
Minus 8,000,000,000,000 points to Rick (#85) for bringing Jack Hyles back to my memory.
I’ve been tp Pastor’s School in Hammand once, Brendt. Those were the golden years, fool’s gold.
Wow. If that’s really how the little “g” thing is being used then someone is being incredibly, and deliberately deceptive.
The comments grow so fast on this stuff that I cannot even keep up!
Okay, please don’t put words in my mouth – I’m not accusing Mark of incest. Sheesh. I was honestly making an allusion to the verse, not trying to import the entire Corinthian context into this discussion.
What I’m saying is that if the NYT reporter believed that Mark’s content was too racy, then perhaps Christian sensitivities have run amuck? Perhaps we have forgotten what it means to blush about sin, perhaps we have grown far too accustomed to speak openly about the things that are done in secret.
Maybe. Or maybe, the unsaved (how do we know this?) reporter’s sensitivity meter is out of whack because she’s not saved. Maybe she wouldn’t want us to talk about certain sins either. How far should we run with that. Why does this person get to decide? If she’s not saved, honestly unless she can point me to the where the Bible says what the man is doing is wrong, I just don’t care what she thinks.
Maybe it just means we like to blush about the wrong sins…
Seriously, it’s kind of amazing to me that the same people who wouldn’t trust the NYT if they wrote an article claiming that GWB’s tie was blue suddenly take its word as gospel if fits their agenda. I guess it’s the old “the enemy of the enemy is my friend”.
These are also the same people who bemoan churches asking unbelievers their impressions of Christianity…
Another thing to consider…
if an NYT person thinks most of Driscoll’s sermons aren’t “fit to print” for the evangelical world, that might have more to do with the impression that the evangelical world has given people of being stuffy, uptight and moralistic about…well….everything.
But, see, she didn’t. She (incorrectly) stated that most of Driscoll’s sermons were too racy for GodTube.
And so, people go off on this tangent saying that “well, if the unsaved think its wrong, it must be really, really, super-duper wrong in the eyes of anyone who loves Jesus”.
But the unsaved don’t think it’s wrong. It’s primarily wrong to people who have a problem with sex, but no problem whatsoever with massive copyright infringement.
Oooo, did I say that out loud?
129:
Oh, snap! Brendt. You went there.
Interesting, isn’t it, how Ingrid is so complimentary of Mormons, and Muslims and now PJ invokes the judgment of a NYT reporter.
Seems to me that given these predilections anyone who believes the ADMs are anything more than moralistic crusaders masquerading as heralds of the gospels is foolish.
Regarding the “little g” God clip, I think the point was that Driscoll illustrated pride as someone thinking they were their own god. Juxtaposed with his statements about using force to keep his elders in line, I think the point of the youtube video is that Driscoll’s pride is a huge issue. He openly admitted this during the Nightline interview (URL below) and in my opinion, this is an even bigger impediment to his ministry than his salty vocabulary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oyHtsU5z9U
So have I… I fought for him to comment here when others did not want him to…
WHAT WAS I THINKING!
j/k
iggy
Welcome to Friday the 13th. I’m going to walk my labrynth twice to ward off all the evil spirits!
Just curious. Brick, concrete or gravel?
These inconsistencies occur when the church gets involved with moral issues instead of the gospel of Christ. Are we to commend pro-life nazis? The devil is well equipped to project a pro-life position if that’s what it takes to affect the greatest ecumenical spirit.
Any group other than the church that holds some moral position as do we is purely incidental and to praise them only complicates the issue of redemption in the eyes of the world. We will never shout enough, march enough, vote enough, or give scientific evidence enough to ban abortion in America. The only hope if the gospel, and the only conduit for the gospel is us.
Our goal, if you will, should never be moral change within our culture, that can be seen as both humanism and self serving. Our “goal” must be to reach lost sinneres with the love of God as seen through Jesus Christ. Sinners act like sinners. They kill the unborn, they commit sexual perversion, they steal and lie and pursue wealth and success. That is what they do.
We cannot attack the behavior of sinners and attempt to change that behavior by scolding. Our message is their only hope, and it is indeed, in my life especially, the ONLY reason we are not abortion doctors, for example.
Morality is a mirage, grace is the reality.
In reflection of our conversation concernin Mark Driscoll’s view of leadership:
“I am convinced that in church leadership God doesn’t need more men with force and power, He is looking for men with humility and grace. And if we examine the life of our Master, we will recognize that humility and grace is force and power.”
Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009
To echo what Rick was saying, social change comes about because people in positions of authority look at how Christians live and wonder… not because we hold up signs and picket.
Blessings,
Mike
Mike,
Yes.
Neil
(You’ll have to excuse Neil. He’s pretty monosyllabic before that first cup of coffee.)
OK, be warned. Before this comment is over, I’m gonna pimp my own blog, but I’ll summarize for those that want to stay here.
Rick’s comment (#136) reminded me of something that I’ve thought about before.
Ken Graves is the pastor at Calvary Chapel Bangor (Maine). Ken is a very manly man. (Actually, he could probably take Driscoll with one arm tied behind his back.)
But, Ken is also one of the most gracious men I know — he speaks with equal reverence and admiration for the Jesus who wielded a whip to drive the moneychangers from the temple and the Jesus who wept over Jerusalem.
I heard my first Ken Graves sermon against my will (full story in my post), but I think the fact that a manly man actually had something to teach me is what later allowed me to give Driscoll the time of day.
Mark’s got a way to go in the humility department, but he’s already learned stuff in the last few years. And Ken is living proof that manliness and graciousness are not mutually exclusive.
Blog-pimping begins in 3, 2, 1 ….
For my full post (including a couple of pix of Mount Graves), check this out.
FYI – Listening to the opening of the “little ‘g’” clip, he frames this with “pride” and “number 7″, and then goes on with the “little ‘g’” item. Since I’ve got most of his sermons for the past 3 years in iTunes, I could probably find this (given enough time). However, it’s pretty obvious to a regular listener (that usually tosses what MD says about Calvinism, but agrees with much of the rest) that he is defining “pride” as a sin, and using the “little ‘g’” bit as an example of what pride is – not ascribing it to himself.
How about we not go all ADM on Driscoll, here, OK?
FYI – the entire “fight club” clip at the beginning of the video was an extended quotation of a martial-arts instructor, and the “break their nose” was part of the quote – not Driscoll. I also note that he interjects “that’s what was going on in Nehemiah’s day” (since this was part of the sermons series on Nehemiah).
Actually, at the beginning of the clip, he frames it with the reference to “grumbling”, as well. I believe I remember this particular sermon, and it wasn’t the mere ‘questioning’ that was the issue, but the refusal on the part of the people to submit to authority.
Granted, Driscoll’s demeanor flies in the face of our current culture’s limp-wristed sensibilities, but for the city he’s living in, I think he plays a vital and needed role.
isn’t it ironic how many syllables are in “monosyllabic?”
Does it matter that Driscoll actually said the break the nose thing?
The point is that he’s not critiquing it.
“limp wristed”?
so the answer is to go bat doo-doo crazy the other way around?
Chris L, I know you and I disagree on this stuff…but I kinda wish you would refrain from that kind of characterization.
why? precisely because I know you’re smart enough to not want to communicate that a principled disagreement with MD really ends up amounting to being “limp wristed”. MD flies in the face of decency a lot of the time…the “gender” card ends up being a cover for that, imho
I’m sure that’s not what you intend…
just my nickel…
That’s not the point of the quote. The point of his quote is that allowing open defiance (which is not just ‘questioning’, but ‘questioning’ with contempt) of authority leads to anarchy. The guy he’s telling the story about is a martial arts instructor, and his answer to being openly defied is to no longer hold back his full capabilities, and to give enough of a taste of his authority to bring the situation under control.
Had MD been telling a story about a corporate investment bank, the quote would have been “I take him down a notch” (being a less violent profession, most of the time).
Again, coming from the corporate world, anything in our culture that smacks of any raw sort of masculinity is normally derided.
And while the answer is not to go to the complete opposite end (and I don’t think Driscoll does so), I think much of the hand-wringing regarding Driscoll stems from our overly-feminized sensibilities.
” Driscoll’s demeanor flies in the face of our current culture’s limp-wristed sensibilities”
What in the world does that have to do with anything? What does the Scripture say about the demeanor of elders? Gentle, patient, apt to teach, not to metion the attributes of Christlikeness. Your “limp-wristed sensiblities” quip is Schlueter-esque, and in fact, irrelevant, also Schlueter-esque.
Yes, after someone else brought it up I’d begun to suspect I’d been taken for a ride on the little g quote.
I don’t know…
maybe I’ve just been really fortunate.
I’ve been in a ton of churches and I’ve never seen raw masculinity derided around me.
If anything I’ve seen way too much of this overly macho, “you’re not a man unless you…” fill in the blank with whatever stereotypes about activities, pass times and hygiene level you think fits…
Oh, well.
At the end of the day, anybody who tells me that my failure to enjoy UFC means I’m a feminized and therefore dishonoring to God…well…there’s are words in the english language that can summarize or express how I feel about that and the people who teach it, but I’ll refrain out of respect for Rick’s sensibilities about language.
And that’s exactly what MD promotes.
nc,
I pretty much agree with you. In all of the churches I’ve been involved with, I’ve never felt any of them struggled with making things too feminized. If anything, it was the guys who weren’t interested in playing tackle football at the retreat who were ostracized (and, yes I’ll admit that was me sometimes).
I think the whole feminization thing really applies to the mainlines more than to evangelical churches, really. It’s always kind of puzzled me, really that Driscoll makes such a big deal about it. Perhaps he feels he has to push back against a perceived tide of feminization in Seattle, but I still don’t get it. But then again, I’ve never understood a lot of macho things. I don’t understand how people can find things like the NCAA tournament interesting either…
I’ve got a penis.
And I’m trying, not always well, but I’m trying to honor Jesus and grow in his way.
That’s manly enough for me.
nc’s gentialian referrence aside, 90% of the gospel narrative of Christ’s life goes against the masculine, testosterone western description of what it means to be a man.
The manliness tremplate is irrelevant and counter Biblical, the agenderal description of what it means to mirror the character of Christ is laid out in Scripture completely counter to any western understanding of what it means to be a “man”.
When will we decipher Scripture absent the western prism of understanding?
Rick,
Its not just western understanding, its an understanding of the world. East, west, north, or south the understanding of Christ is one that serves, loves, and eschews prestige, power, and wealth. While different cultures have different ways of accumulating them, and different rules for how and why its done the way of Christ is one that doesn’t even factor that sort of thing into it.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that that was a rhetorical question. Because the answer is too depressing.
When we are no longer ‘westerners’. Until then, we are stuck.
“When we are no longer ‘westerners’.”
Or until we make an effort to counter our cultural biases.