OK…I know there is a lot of…uh…controversy surrounding Mark Driscoll. People don’t like his mouth…they don’t like his Calvinism…they don’t like that he hangs around with the so-called ‘big-wigs’ of the Reform party church, they don’t like that he talks about s** from the pulpit, and much, much more. The guy can’t win. I understand. Driscoll is a complicated kind of fella. Here’s where the irony comes in in this post.

Our good friend and truth defender Mike Ratliff wrote this the other day at Walk By Faith:

The vast majority of evangelical Christians exist in an extremely shallow spiritual condition. The Church worship they experience is man-focused. The sermons they hear from the pulpit are specifically designed to offend no one. There is little if any mention of sin, the need for repentance or Biblical discipleship. Their shepherds are guilty of being more concerned with numbers rather than the health of the flock. To these ministers, size matters. The larger the better, therefore, they preach vanilla, seeker-sensitive, feel good sermons that attract those who have no use for what the Bible says about sin and its consequences. They design their Sunday morning worship service to entertain the goats rather than to feed the sheep. The flock’s Bible knowledge is rudimentary at best. (My emphasis.)

OK. OK. So everyone, or at least the ‘vast majority’ of those of us who actually have the calling and nerve to stand behind pulpits and preach on Sunday mornings are white-washed here by Mr Ratliff–and, as you can see, our congregations aren’t any better. You know what they say about preachers. Those who can, preach; those who can’t sit in the pews and throw rotten tomatoes. It’s rather easy to do isn’t it Mike? What did the church do before we discovered the Holy Spirit given spiritual gift of blogging?

Then tonight, as if I am not stupid enough, I decided to go to Slice of Laodicea for a quick laugh before bed and I saw this: I’ve Had it with Mark Driscoll and His Mouth (posted by ‘admin’). When I clicked the embedded link it took me here: I’ve had it with Mark Driscoll and his mouth. Now it’s Personal. When I get there, I read this:

My wife told me about a sermon Pilgrim Radio was playing on the radio as she was returning home from the grocery store with our young children in the car. She said that the man preaching (she had no clue who he was) was talking about “prostitutes,” “whores,” and “lesbians” and that he kept using these expressions as if trying to be shocking.

Bingo! My wife who knows very little—if  anything—about Mark Driscoll hit the nail on the head in her evaluation of him.

She then told me that this same man began talking about wives in submission to their husbands and how oftentimes men abuse this. Instead of using an innocuous example to make his point, what did Mark “The Cussing Pastor” Driscoll do? Why, he did what apparently comes so natural for him: Driscoll expounded on such abuse by illustrating an example in which men misuse their wives’ submission by making them watch porn!

Are you kidding me? That’s the best example he could come up with? For crying out loud, my kids were in the car and heard this trash before their mother turned it off. Does this guy’s mind ever come up out of the gutter for air? (Their emphasis.)

Now for the record, I happen to agree that Driscoll’s ’sex sermons’ are, well, dumb. However, you know what? No one is forcing me to listen to them. I also understand that he is speaking to a specific audience.  And, to be sure, I don’t listen to ‘Pilgrim Radio’ so that’s not an issue either. I guess as the adult in my family, I have the right to censor what my children listen to also. We prefer listening to my own recorded sermons and I don’t let my wife go anywhere alone with my children. (*smile*)

What bugs me is that this person, the one hosting ‘DefCon’, gives us no context whatsoever for the words he cites as offensive. Interesting, isn’t it, that those words are offensive in a sermon but not in a blog post? And if it was offensive on the radio, how is less offensive to repost the same words on the internet where it is more likely that children will find them? I might need to put a net nanny on my computer to block DefCon and protect my children! Still, all jesting aside, what is the context of the sermon? Give us a link so we can hear it and see if you have judged Driscoll correctly.

Please, provide some documentation. As it is, this is just hearsay. Without context and documentation, none of us has any clue if you are telling the truth or just randomly attacking someone you don’t like. You mean this was the first time, you who had Pilgrim Radio linked on your blog, that you heard Driscoll at that hour? You mean you didn’t warn your wife before letting her go? I seriously don’t understand why you didn’t just warn your wife ahead of time to avoid that hour of radio broadcasting.

On another note, fact is there are a lot of whores in Scripture. It might be fun to do an entire sermon series on the whores of the Bible. We could talk about The Great Whore in the Revelation; Mary Magdalene; Rahab; Israel (as described by several prophets); the whore that anointed Jesus with her tears; the whore that Jesus saved from a stoning; the whore in the book of Judges who was cut up and mailed out to various parts of Israel; and so on. So many whores, so little time. (Oh, wait, that doesn’t sound right. Strike that last phrase.) Still, I guess if we are to follow the advice of DefCon, then we preachers must leave out a significant part of the Bible’s witness. ATTENTION ALL PREACHERS: Don’t use the word ‘whore’ in sermons because there might be women and children listening whose ears will fall off if they hear such words.

We live in an impure world. There are whores and queers and lesbians and dykes and transsexuals and crossdressers and pedophiles and prostitutes and alcoholics and murderers and thieves…oh, and the list could go on and on and on and on forever ad infinitum. Are you offended by words? Seriously? Then you should hide in a room with ear muffs. These are the very ones Jesus himself spent considerable time with during his earthly life. “The whores all seem to love him, the drunks propose a toast.” Only Rich Mullins could use the word ‘whore’ in a song and have it sound so elegant, so wonderful. (Better break all my Rich Mullins CD’s this weekend.)

I am angry; spittin’ angry. Let me ask you what is worse. Is it worse for a preacher to preach the truth and use words like whore, prostitute, lesbian, and porn (you know, words that Mike Ratliff wants to hear since these are words that describe ’sin’ he believes is missing from most sermons in American churches); or, is it worse to sit behind a computer monitor and blather on criticizing a man called and ordained by Christ to preach the Gospel because he does use words like whore, prostitute, lesbian, and porn?

I guess we’ll just forget about ever preaching from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Song of Solomon, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, the Prophets, The Gospels–ah, we may as well just forget about preaching anything from the Bible because there are all sorts of offensive words in the Bible, words like whore, death, murder, s**, prostitute, and so on and so forth. God once told Ezekiel to cook food over human excrement. What word does God use when he talks about human excrement? (Better throw away my Bible tonight so that I am not offended by God’s use, his own God-breathed use, of the Hebrew word for ‘human excrement.’ (See Ezekiel 4:12.))

So here’s my question, to either Mr Ratliff or DefCon, or anyone else who wants to answer: Are we preachers to be offensive or not? Driscoll clearly offended someone, and yet it was too much. What about the offense of the cross? Can we preach that? Oh, probably not since there were actually, shhhh!, naked people there being crucified. Can you people please make up your minds about what we preachers can and cannot say from the pulpit so that we don’t hurt your precious ears? Could you, like, write up a list of words your itching ears want and don’t want to hear? And Mike, if you are listening, I guess you should start listening to Driscoll. Since you want sermons that are designed to offend someone I’m guessing Mark’s your man!

The ADM’s of the world are fond of throwing out some Scripture on their blogs so as to prove their point. Well, I am a preacher so let me throw out some Scripture too:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Preach the Word, he wrote. He didn’t say leave any parts of it out of our sermons–All Scripture is God-breathed; even the parts we find offensive. Like when David’s son had s** with David’s wives in public!  He said ‘preach the whole counsel of God.’ I agree with this conclusion written to a very long essay on this very topic:

So, when we teach the whole counsel of God, we, like Paul, shall emphasize the things unique to Christianity and in the process give godly instruction about living by faith in this sinful world. The “all truth is God’s truth” credo is not helpful in this and often serves as a stumbling block. The question “is it true” is a good one, but inadequate in itself. More important is: did Christ command us to teach this?

Paul told the Ephesian elders: “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable.” He wrote this to Timothy: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2Timothy 3:16). Timothy was also ministering in Ephesus. It is clear that “all Scripture” is profitable and the Christian teacher and preacher should not avoid any of it. Though we may not be able to expound every single verse of the Bible in a lifetime (though surely a worthy goal), we should never avoid a verse or a topic for fear the audience might not like it. The whole counsel of God is relevant, applicable, and needful to every generation in every culture throughout the church age. There will be no situation in which it will be any less “profitable” than it was for those under Paul’s and Timothy’s ministries. May God give us grace, courage, tact, and insight as we set forth to proclaim the whole counsel of God. (Bob DeWay, at Critical Issues Commentary on line. From the essay, “The Whole Counsel of God: We must teach what Christ commanded to be taught; not what people consider “relevant)

Yes. Yes. Yes. Preach on! This is true! That means that occasionally us preachers are going to have to use words like whore, prostitute, lesbian, and porn in sermons because, evidently, even these words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or, if you prefer, God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). I guess you pew-sitters are gonna have to decide if it is better for those of us who are ordained and called to preach to obey our God’s call or back down in the face of your complaints. You seriously need to read Scripture some time–to your wives and children and yourselves. You need to be offended, and if you are not, I seriously doubt it is the Word of God you are reading.

PS-The author at DefCon was complaining because in Driscoll’s sermon, he was talking about porn. Re-read this:

She then told me that this same man began talking about wives in submission to their husbands and how oftentimes men abuse this. Instead of using an innocuous example to make his point, what did Mark “The Cussing Pastor” Driscoll do? Why, he did what apparently comes so natural for him: Driscoll expounded on such abuse by illustrating an example in which men misuse their wives’ submission by making them watch porn!

Are you kidding me? That’s the best example he could come up with? For crying out loud, my kids were in the car and heard this trash before their mother turned it off. Does this guy’s mind ever come up out of the gutter for air? (Their emphasis.)

Again, we have absolutely no context whatsoever for this assessment. Still, I wonder how this is different from this.

When we began dating, I noticed that he would never ever comment about a passing woman or look at an attractive female. In the mall, he deliberately turns his head away from stores that feature immodest and in some cases, pornographic displays. Nothing said, just quick evasive action. That sends a message to a wife that she alone is valued and cherished. (See also the last comment left by ‘Steve.’ I don’t see much difference except that Driscoll is in a pulpit and ‘Steve’ posted on a blog.)

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Friday, June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am and is filed under Church and Society, Hypocrisy, preaching. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

84 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 7:06 am

My opinion of Mark Driscoll’s ministry is well documented and remains the same. However I was amused to see that Ingrid commented on this post. Here are a couple of her statements:

“I am angered greatly at the fact that while we struggle as parents to keep our children from being hit in the face with filth from the world…”

Does Ingrid ever struggle to keep her children from all the hatred, self righteousness, hyperbole, demeaning language, and overall spiritual hubris she dispenses on a regular basis? Another statement:

“as a woman I feel degraded by these men”

Oh delicious irony, thou are sweet to the taste! Ingrid spends her entire life degrading men, but, as is her style, cries foul when anything offends her Puritan sensibilities (sans their well defined gender roles).

With an overwhelming menu from which to choose, I again draw your attention to one of Ingrid’s vicious statements concerning men. On one of her many and obsessive posts about internet pictures of Miley Cyrus, Ingrid noted that she knew why some of us criticized her unchristian and voluminous attacks on the mistakes of this 15 year old girl.

Ingrid openly implied it was because we were lusting after this very young teenage girl. I feel degraded as a man! Ingrid is to be appreciated for her continuing exhibition of a cry baby hypocrite.

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 8:10 am

Jerry – I have also noticed that most Calvinists preach about sin in an antiseptic, doctrinal sense. When someone like Charles Finney preached against sin with specifics, he is not appreciated in the C camp because he has some goofy doctrines. I also believe there is a distinct danger of being self righteous when you preach about sin without openly addressing your own sin.

John MacArthur preaches against the culture but leads extravagent “Christian cruises” which by any standards are cultural and hedonistic.

3   nc    
June 26th, 2009 at 9:36 am

Wow.

Mike Ratliff is quite impressive.

I mean he did an actual study of churches in America that was so comprehensive he not only was able to assess the pulpit by pulpit preaching, but was also able to develop new research methodologies that look into the heart and intent of preachers AND their congregations.

When’s his book coming out?

4   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 9:39 am

Hyperbole such as the Mike Ratcliff quote can be dismissed – it is as shallow as the preaching he complains about.

I agree there is plenty of shallow preaching… but his data is anecdotal… and anyone can be a Monday morning critic.

5   nc    
June 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am

I guess my question is this…

Is there really plenty of shallow preaching?

To be sure there have been shallow preachers that are popular (Osteen, Schuller, etc.).

But does that mean that there is a proliferation of shallow preaching in a majority of other pulpits?

I mean, I went to a private Christian school for a period of time and all I ever heard at chapel there was how so many churches are compromised and not preaching the Word…this was in the early 80’s…

so…I just have to wonder…if some people come from the 3rd or 4th generation of fundamentalist communities that gave the finger to “liberal” denomination…how do they know what’s going on in other churches?

really?

6   M.G.    
June 26th, 2009 at 10:33 am

The key in all of this is condemnation. Condemnation is the language of the Christian Tabloids, and as long as you are speaking it, you can use harsh language, offensive images, and the most worldly of tactics.

But the moment you stop playing the game, then you better quit talking altogether.

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 10:34 am

nc – Yes, there is a great deal of shallow preaching. However, the element that seems to be unnoticed is that many orthodox churches, even Calvinist, are doctrinally “pure” but spiritually dead.

Having the “correct” doctrine and teaching it is no proof that God’s Spirit is moving in your midst. In fact, many times it leads to self righteousness which is cultivated and grown by pointing out the shallowness in others.

Some anti-shallowness churches have their own set of Dagons. Specifically:

* hymns
* Calvinism
* expository preaching
* scholarship
* exegesis
* MacArthur and others
* fraternity mentality

We can never discern exclusively through a telescope; a mirror must be employed just as often.

8   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 10:44 am

I guarantee you that if Paul Washer had used the word whore in a sermon we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

9   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am

I agree there is plenty of shallow preaching… but his data is anecdotal… and anyone can be a Monday morning critic.

Yep. And they are usually the ones who end up getting preachers terminated or cause preachers to leave the ministry altogether. They love their own sense of indignation and self-righteousness better than the Word of God.

10   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 10:53 am

What’s worse, when folks like Kimball
and Foster
and Bell
and Peterson
and Warren
and Willard
and Claibourne
and Driscoll
and
and
and
actually call people to a new deeper discipleship,
when they call people to question their shallowness,
when they call people to question their reliance on modernity,
when they call people to question their association with politics…
What do they get?

They get bashed
and judged
and lied about
because they are not doing it the way that the holiest among us think it should be done.

Externals rule.
Faith is irrelevant.

I think they just like to complain…
they are happiest when they are miserable… there is nothing, short of their own narrow ethnocentrism (narrowness is fine when prescribed by the Bible), that makes them as happy as finding something to harp about.

11   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am

As one who has pointed out what I consider grevious error, I have never been able to come to an answer concerning these questions:

Does God ever call anyone to a ministry that is compeletly devoted to identifying people who teach error?

If not, how much time is approved by the Spirit to leave the preaching of truth in order to deal with the errors of others?

What safeguards are in place that prevent self righteousness to grow when a steady diet of “look at them!” is served?

12   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Another thing is – define shallow preaching. I’m part way through Clairborne’s “Jesus for President.” I have a hunch this is the WRONG kind of depth…

13   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 11:12 am

RE 11:

Clearly Paul devoted some time to addressing the error of others. But he was still characterized by joy – not anger… though he did not have the burden of propping up a Modernist Christendom like the ADM do.

Another distinction – Paul stuck to the essentials, he criticized error of doctrine and morality – not style and methodology.

Granted, the ADM’s make a point every once in a while; but if they stuck to the essentials as Paul did it would severely diminish their blog count.

14   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 11:15 am

Context, context, context.

When you use words are thy being used in the context of the message to bring out the truth of the passage or are they being used to hype or bring attention to the ‘coolness’ of the messenger or to make it more ‘relevant’.

I am sure that there are other words people can use to convey the same truth that will not get them the attention that they are seeking, or shock the audience in the same way, and that is why they do not use these words.

BTW, This post is pretty hypocritical. My friends and I were bashed for using words like this that were very appropriate for the context of the message, as well as the location. The young people took great pride in the fact that they were whores and adulterers at heart and fornicators and drunkards and homosexuals…etc. etc. etc. But the words were not used to add shock, they were quoted from 1 Cor 6:9-10 (among others) to convey truth and a need for a Savior.

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am

Paul was also given a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble. There are a dearth of thorns these days. Most discussions concerning Paul’s thorn centers on what was it instead of what was its purpose.

16   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:22 am

I believe the word “Sodomites”, which is used frequently on SoL, gives an inappropriate word picture to children.

17   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am

When you use words are thy being used in the context of the message to bring out the truth of the passage or are they being used to hype or bring attention to the ‘coolness’ of the messenger or to make it more ‘relevant’.

I’ll grant you that some guys are after the attention and coolness. But I doubt the numbers are greater than the fundamentalists who are after authority and power. Plus, how can anyone judge, from the outside, the motivations of a brother in Christ without knowing his heart.

“relevance” – sounds like a good motivation to me.

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am

The King James Version was a one time the “relevant” translation. On that basis it should have been rejected.

19   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am

I am sure that there are other words people can use to convey the same truth that will not get them the attention that they are seeking, or shock the audience in the same way, and that is why they do not use these words…

…But the words were not used to add shock, they were quoted from 1 Cor 6:9-10 (among others) to convey truth and a need for a Savior.

So, when you use them they are quoted from Scripture… but when they use them it’s for shock value. Hmmmm…

20   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am

Mark Driscoll is a “shock jock” to be sure, however to me his hubris and male castigation reminds me of someone else.

Perhaps he could be a ghost writer on SoL!! :cool:

21   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am

BTW, This post is pretty hypocritical. My friends and I were bashed for using words like this that were very appropriate for the context of the message, as well as the location. The young people took great pride in the fact that they were whores and adulterers at heart and fornicators and drunkards and homosexuals…etc. etc. etc. But the words were not used to add shock, they were quoted from 1 Cor 6:9-10 (among others) to convey truth and a need for a Savior.

No one here “bashed” you for the specific words you were using. What we found offensive was your misrepresentation of the Gospel and lack of love toward those you are trying to reach.

22   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 11:32 am

She said that the man preaching (she had no clue who he was) was talking about “prostitutes,” “whores,” and “lesbians” and that he kept using these expressions as if trying to be shocking.

This post is pretty hypocritical. My friends and I were bashed for using words like this that were very appropriate for the context of the message, as well as the location.

From the first quote I assume Driscoll was talking about actual prostitutes and whores. In your context, you where talking to promiscuous college students – were any of them actual prostitutes/whores?

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am

“The young people took great pride in the fact that they were whores and adulterers at heart and fornicators and drunkards and homosexuals…etc. etc. etc.”

That is the normal projection of the totally deoraved sinners whom God has not actually offered the free gift of salvation. In other words, it is the only fun the non-elect will ever have. Leave them alone. :cool:

24   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am

Mark Driscoll is a “shock jock” to be sure, however to me his hubris and male castigation reminds me of someone else.

Clearly using emotionally charged words like “whore” has more shock value than the tamer “prostitute.”

I just question Pastorboy’s ability to discern that those using the word are doing to simply to draw attention to themselves.

25   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am

By the way, since when are words like “whore”, “prostitute”, and “lesbian” considered bad words? (OK, “whore” may be somewhat borderline depending on the context)…

I guess not only do the ODMs want to make the rules and enforces them, but they want to be able to change them during the middle of the game as well.

26   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am

Context, context, context.

When you use words are thy being used in the context of the message to bring out the truth of the passage or are they being used to hype or bring attention to the ‘coolness’ of the messenger or to make it more ‘relevant’.

I am sure that there are other words people can use to convey the same truth that will not get them the attention that they are seeking, or shock the audience in the same way, and that is why they do not use these words.

BTW, This post is pretty hypocritical. My friends and I were bashed for using words like this that were very appropriate for the context of the message, as well as the location. The young people took great pride in the fact that they were whores and adulterers at heart and fornicators and drunkards and homosexuals…etc. etc. etc. But the words were not used to add shock, they were quoted from 1 Cor 6:9-10 (among others) to convey truth and a need for a Savior.

Context! Yes. I agree. Since you are friends with those people, ask DefCon for us to provide some context to Driscoll’s sermon so we can weed out the whining from actual discernment.

Your words. I don’t recall in the video clip we saw of you, which you used to promote yourself and not the gospel, that you actually used the word whore. I would have loved it if you had called some of those people whores. That would have been classic.

Driscoll is not necessarily the point of this post. The point of the post is that you ADM’s can’t make up your minds what we preachers are allowed and not allowed to say. The DefCon post came across as pure whining…not righteous indignation. And, you prove my point. If in fact you were using words like that when you went on vacation, why didn’t Ingrid, Ken, and DefCon call you out for it? Why is it OK for you to use them but not Driscoll?

Hypocrisy? Yes. Just not where you think.

He should have known the programming and warned his wife not to listen if he was that concerned. It strikes me as a story, made up so that he could whine. He had Pilgrim Radio linked on his site for crying out loud. You can’t tell me he didn’t know that Driscoll would be on at that time. I don’t believe it.

27   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:44 am

I still OPENY AND FORCEFULLY contend that I would much rather explain to my grandchildern the general meaning of the word “whore”, than explaining to them what someone meant when the called little girls waiting in line to buy tickets the “painted girls of Sodom”.

Not only would I have to explain the term, but how do I explain the purpose for such demeaning attacks????

28   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am

Rick,

Is there a difference?

jerry

29   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 11:52 am

Actually there is a difference. The word whore is an accurate definition of a woman, albeit a more demeaning descripyion that necessary.

“Painted girls of Sodom” is a lie about teenage girls that is only meant to hurt and demean because it has no truth.

30   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Oh.

I thought one was a poetic way of saying the vulgar thing. my bad.

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

One is a personally created invective designed to berate and demean young teenage girls using a term that is generally associated with a homosexual act. The phrase seems to be original, which indicates the ambiance of the place from which it came.

The other is in the dictionary.

32   Chris P.    
June 26th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

The point of all this is….?

33   nc    
June 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

On what basis do we establish that there is an epidemic of shallow preaching?

34   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

#32 – Televison, radio, books, the internet, and the churches we have visited. And throw in II Tim. chapter 4 and you have the perfect storm.

I do not consider Calvlism shallow preaching; it’s just plain wrong. :cool:

35   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

“The phrase seems to be original, which indicates the ambiance of the place from which it came.”

Rick Frueh circa A.D, 2009

* I give permission for all of you to use that sentence as it applies elsewhere.

36   Juice    
June 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

“As one who has pointed out what I consider grevious error, I have never been able to come to an answer concerning these questions:

Does God ever call anyone to a ministry that is compeletly devoted to identifying people who teach error?

If not, how much time is approved by the Spirit to leave the preaching of truth in order to deal with the errors of others?

What safeguards are in place that prevent self righteousness to grow when a steady diet of “look at them!” is served?”

As someone who does little else but sit on his butt and criticize “ADM”s at this blog, Rick, maybe you’re in the best position to answer the questions. Also, if you’re criticizing Mrs. Schlueter, you don’t know much about her “ministry” at all if you think that pointing out error is all she does. As for self-righteousness, Rick, you just about define it here at CRN.info. Anybody who doesn’t meet your righteous standards gets the wrong side of your tongue.

Finally, if you’ve seen the latest photo shoot of Miley Cyrus for her new movie–plastered on major news sites, wet t-shirt dripping, wrapping herself about her male-co-star while he holds her behind, you’d know that “painted girls of Sodom” seems kind of mild. You’re out of touch, old man.

37   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Also, if you’re criticizing Mrs. Schlueter, you don’t know much about her “ministry” at all if you think that pointing out error is all she does.

I agree. She also assigns motives, attacks personalities, ridicules children, etc. etc. etc…

38   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Rick, you just about define it here at CRN.info. Anybody who doesn’t meet your righteous standards gets the wrong side of your tongue. – Juice

Come to think of it, I’m not sure we have actually every defined self-rigtheousness… like the names/adjectives ADM’s use (post-modern, worldy, etc.) it’s used so often it almost becomes meaningless.

That said,

I think they just like to complain…
they are happiest when they are miserable… there is nothing, short of their own narrow ethnocentrism (narrowness is fine when prescribed by the Bible), that makes them as happy as finding something to harp about

.

39   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

Hey, it looks like DefCon wrote a reply at his own blog. Still hasn’t provided a link to the sermon in question. Hey Def…why not interact with us? Publish our replies…come over here…justify yourself and allow yourself to be challenged.

For the record, you might note that this post is not about defending Driscoll. I happen to agree that his sex talk sermons are dumb–I said as much in my post.

We’ll be nice. Come over. Talk to us.

40   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Hi, my name is Rick Frueh, what’s yours?

“Anybody who doesn’t meet your righteous standards gets the wrong side of your tongue.”

No, anyone who doesn’t meet my righteous standards gets the “righteous” side of my tongue. Since November 2, 2002 at 4:06 PM I have dwelt in sinless perfection and anyone who criticizes me must take it up with God. I give Him all the glory for my righteousness which either draws others who are righteous, or as in your case, repels the carnal. :cool:

41   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

BTW – I haven’t seen the Miley Cyrus photo to which you refer, could you send me a copy so I can lust?

42   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

BTW – I haven’t seen the Miley Cyrus photo to which you refer, could you send me a copy so I can lust?

I looked on the two big news sites and saw no ads. I googled the movie and lots of images came up – none that fit the description… not say’n it’s not there, I just didn’t find anything like Juice’s description.

43   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Is Juice commenting from a jail? Oh, not that Juice.

44   pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

I think juice hit the nail on the head as far as most of the authors and commentors on this site.

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

It’s amazing how far Ingrid’s apron strings reach. When will real men come forth? Complementarianism has officially been compromised.

I call them “clown complementarians”!!

46   Neil    
June 26th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

I think juice hit the nail on the head as far as most of the authors and commentors on this site.

All the questions and comments directed at what you said… and you choose to by-pass anything substantive to agree with a tired meaningless rant.

Why just post “I know you are, but what am I.” over and over and over and over

47   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

PB–please refer to comment #26. I’d appreciate if you could interact with some of my thoughts.

Thanks!
jerry

48   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

As to Chris P’s, Ken’s, Ingrid’s, Ratliff’s, Juice’s, Jude Newman’s,, PB’s comment in #35, it has nothing to do with my post. Why should we comment on it?

49   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

#47 – As you have noticed, when comments are so obtuse and absurd as is that one, I quickly resort to nuanced mockery. It helps me get through the day. :cool:

50   Joe    
June 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

You’re out of touch, old man.

Now, there’s some graciousness for you. And John ChisHam saying that you hit it on the head with that quote shows where he’s coming from.

51   ncgal53    
June 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

I believe the sermon Defcon’s Pilgrim is talking about is Mark Driscoll’s “Under Authority Like Christ”. It’s on the Mars Hill website.

52   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

“You’re out of touch, old man.”

thank you, Joe, for noticing the personal attack. It just reveals a lack of substance. I thought the older – the more spiritual.

“As someone who does little else but sit on his butt and criticize “ADM”s at this blog”

Another juvenile attack with no research or firsthand knowledge. But who cares about research when you can castigate with careless abandon. I would like “Juice” to exegete the Scriptures that command women to be keepers at home.

Those who excoriate others for parsing Scriptures to fit their own behavior seem to employ the same tactics when it suits them. There is a word for that which escapes me presently, perhaps someone could help. :cool:

53   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Is Christianity a set of definitions, neatly arrainged in systematic volumes of “ologies”? Are the fruits of the Spirit loveology, joyology, peaceology, …etc., or are they supposed to be tangible expressions of a life dedicated to follow the footsteps of Jesus Christ?

Entrance into God’s kingdom is purely by faith in Jesus Christ, but after one is translated from one kingdom into another are we supposed to reveal our experience by what we believe? The truths of Scripture are not academic tests that are graded exclusively by how we defend their doctrinal definitions, but the Bible is clear that God desires living epistles that are read of all men.

The hubros of doctrinal orthodoxy is counter productive to Christianity at its core. How does a person live the doctrine of the Trinity? How about election? How about the atonement? But we should all know how to live to reveal the Person of Jesus Christ and elicit a question that asks about hope.

Doctrine on paper without a life that substantiates that truth is nothing more than idolatry. And I learned a long time ago that my unsved friends did not care or understand about my separated lifestyle; they took notice of how I treated them and they were open to my sharing Christ because I loved them and they were willing to listen to someone who seemed to be more than a textbook of doctrines.

Christianity is much more than some set of doctrinal truths; Christianity is much more than exposing the errors in others; Christianity is lifting up and emulating Jesus Christ in everything.

54   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 26th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Rick,

You’re sounding positively emerging/emergent…

(and I mean that as a compliment, in this particular case)

55   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 26th, 2009 at 11:09 pm

Hey as far as “Juice” isn’t there rules about identity for this blog? Have we been able to run down his email?

56   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2009 at 1:57 am

There has always been something alluring, something Biblical in a lifestyle a la Shane Clairborne. If only I could see the clarity of redemption by faith in Jesus Christ, without the mixing of works, I would move to Philadelphia and rent a room.

But I grow weary of reading the so called devotional posts that outline doctrines and have the embedded swipe at the “target du jour”. The self righteousness is palpable even while “humbly” admitting their salvation and knowledge is “all of God” without any will of their own. It gets tedious to hear such hollow words.

And so many have created a fraternity based upon a selected set of beliefs which are used to display their doctrinal virtuousness and empolyed as doctrinal catapults rather than self purifiers. The cold, stark defense of truth is many times not a defense, much less a revelation, of the Person of Jesus Christ.

I will be among the first to confront any teaching that misses the core of redemption, but I cannot jump on the bandwagon that represents the faith as exclusively what we believe and not what, Who, and how we believe. Unless you walk around with your systematic theology glued to your clothes you are called to a life of service and humility that draws sinners to your faith.

The redundant drilling of the same old “a true believer looks like me” because I believe such and such is the reincarnation of Pharisitical way of religious life. And what is the world to think when the emergent guy gets his hands dirty by loving them and serving them while the orthodox guy judges them afar off?

The doctrine of redemption is paramount to the Christian faith, however if it is primarily a doctrine rather than the threshold that unfolds a life that is profoundly dissimilar than what is considered the norm in any culture, then it is a doctrinal museum where like minded gawkers admire their systematically framed exhibitions.

And usually the tour is a “members only” ride whose tour guides are either dead “members” or live members who follow dead members. And anyone who sees any impefection in either the portrait or artist or one of the tour guides is immediately expelled as unruly, or worse yet, not even a member. I have come to believe that the early church, as touted by some, never engaged in such doctrinal minutiae.

And after redemption itself, the absolute core of Christlikeness are love and humility. These are far from compromises, these are what make us Christians. Doctrinal tongues, attached to unchristlike lives, are nothing more than gossip about the Scriptures.

57   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
June 27th, 2009 at 8:20 am

Context! Yes. I agree. Since you are friends with those people, ask DefCon for us to provide some context to Driscoll’s sermon so we can weed out the whining from actual discernment.

I do not know defcon personally, but why would he publish and promote a piece that is so offensive. I would be angry also if I brought a child to church, for example, and he or she could not stay in there because of the content of the message. Radio you can turn off, but I do not think that is the point. We should be above reproach in all aspects of our ministry.

Your words. I don’t recall in the video clip we saw of you, which you used to promote yourself and not the gospel, that you actually used the word whore. I would have loved it if you had called some of those people whores. That would have been classic.

Well, that bolded statement is highly offensive. We promoted the gospel while in PCB, we recorded first for our protection and the protection of those around us, and as an encouragement to the church to preach the good news in the open air. I do not think I used the word whore, I do remember one of my friends using a phrase that some behavior he observed made them look like prostitutes or whores. Look, Jesus called out sin where he saw it. John the Baptist, Paul, etc. used strong language. But it was not like the modern movies or preachers where it is over the top and inappropriate. It was always appropriate to the situation.

Driscoll is not necessarily the point of this post. The point of the post is that you ADM’s can’t make up your minds what we preachers are allowed and not allowed to say. The DefCon post came across as pure whining…not righteous indignation. And, you prove my point. If in fact you were using words like that when you went on vacation, why didn’t Ingrid, Ken, and DefCon call you out for it? Why is it OK for you to use them but not Driscoll?

Context, Audience, and Calling sin sin, not celebrating it or using it for shock value, but identifing behavior with appropriate language within the context.

Hypocrisy?
Yes. Just not where you think.

Nope, definitely where I think. It is as though you OP writers sit around and hope that there is some form of controversy or division that you can exploit to prove your liberal licentious libertine false grace Gospel( a la Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Shane Claibourne, Greg Boyd…). You all are like snakes waiting for McArthur, Piper, Mahaney, or Driscoll to screw up or disagree so you can focus on the disagreement and blow it up and shove it in the reformed camp’s faces. Well we will just stick to the Bible, not to the wisdom of man, thank you very much.

He should have known the programming and warned his wife not to listen if he was that concerned. It strikes me as a story, made up so that he could whine. He had Pilgrim Radio linked on his site for crying out loud. You can’t tell me he didn’t know that Driscoll would be on at that time. I don’t believe it.

Valid point, except he cannot know exactly what Driscoll would say at that time. I like Mark, I like his style of preaching, he is usually dead on doctrine wise, I just would not use his coarse language. And I would listen to any message before passing it on to my wife or kids! (That is only because I am the gatekeeper, the priest for my little flock)

58   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2009 at 8:43 am

“You all are like snakes waiting for McArthur, Piper, Mahaney, or Driscoll to screw up or disagree so you can focus on the disagreement and blow it up and shove it in the reformed camp’s faces.”

There surely must be a stronger word than “irony” to describe that statement. How many ODMs scour the internet, including getting e-mail press releases automatically generated, just so they can pounce on any mistake by the usual suspects, obscure preachers and churches, or sinners in general?

And to suggest they blow up little disagreements while excusing someone like Ingrid who magnifies the smallest issue, well, it reveals a profound bias. Anyone who cannot see the inconsistency and unchristian verbiage from Ingrid Schlueter has absolutely no discernment legs upon which to stand and judge others.

“Waiting for people to screw up”. Wow, that is like Bernard Madoff accusing others of mishandling finances.

59   Bo Diaz    
June 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am

Well we will just stick to the Bible, not to the wisdom of man, thank you very much.

Then why do you call yourself the “Reformed camp”? You don’t base anything on the Bible, you base everything on the wisdom of a man – Calvin. And you attack the body of Christ in the name of the this man.

Onward Calvinist soldiers marching as to war
With the works of Calvin marching on before
Spurgeon the golden calf leads against the foe
Forward into battle see the Christians fall

60   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
June 28th, 2009 at 1:09 am

I could write lots of things here — attack, smack or otherwise — but whatever or however I would choose to write, if I cap it with a smiley face, I can back out of it or appease something somehow.

So… :-)

See?

Juice, you only forgot the smiley face.

61   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

Julie…your comments would be a lot more fun and productive if they actually contained something pertaining to the post. I mean, I appreciate the cool, cryptic, poetic Julie, but every now and again a meaningful comment that wasn’t a mere snipe would be nice.

So… :)

62   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
June 28th, 2009 at 11:36 pm

Brevity is the soul of wit.

But, if you’d like post-pertaining matter:

1. Write your post.
2. Let it sit in draft.
3. Come back to it in an hour or so.
4. Decide if you really want to post it.
5. Decide if you/someone else hasn’t already said it.
6. Delete (or “edit” if that sounds better) half of it.
7. Let it sit another hour.
8. Delete another half.
9. Finally, you have a post with a point.
10. Learned from experience.

Doesn’t seem to pertain to the post above? Actually, it does. Because what’s new here? Which is pot and which is kettle and who is black?

Here’s a post re-write, then:

It’s no secret Mark Driscoll is surrounded by controversy. Recently, Mike Ratliff wrote a post about sermons that do not offend, and how that offends him. I don’t know where I’m going with Mike Ratliff, here, but I threw him in because he’s one we go after. I’ll make it work in a minute; just hang tight.

Anyway, there was a blog post on how Driscoll caused some discomfort and anger in a radio listener. The guy didn’t have to listen; he could turn the radio off. Instead, he chose to write a long blog post about how disgusting he found Driscoll’s sermon. Much of his blog post was opinion and hearsay, which is actually what most blog posts are, including this blog post.

I’m not sure why this blogger had such a problem with the language Driscoll used, but he did. He seems to be a bit over-protected and finicky in this regard.

I’m going to try to tie in Ratliff here, because I’m going to do a little verbal semantics with his idea of “offensive” preaching even though I’m pretty sure he meant how offensive the message of the cross is and not discussion on sex and whores.

The reason I’m going to do this is so that the comments section can debate sex, Driscoll, and Calvinism and fill the weekly quota.

Begin.

(Did I leave anything out?) :-)

63   Joe C    
June 28th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

lol Julie…

Good one. The smiley face makes it even better.

64   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 29th, 2009 at 1:18 am

“(Did I leave anything out?)”

Yes, the luxury of an unexpressed thought and the evaluation of the posts on your own blog, which given the same scrutiny, might require a considerable amount of time.

:)

65   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 29th, 2009 at 9:35 am

#62: Wow – perfect!

Nail, meet head. Head, meet nail.

66   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Yes. Julie. That is very funny. And, as per your own quota, you have kept your name posted here so that people won’t forget you or your wit. :)

To your point, however, yes, you did leave something out of your re-write: the point of my post. My post wasn’t about sex, Driscoll, or Calvinism; it wasn’t even about Ratliff or DefCon per se; and it certainly wasn’t about filling a quota…as if Chris has given us all a contract and said ‘write this much or be kicked off the team.’

It was about preaching and preachers. You see, my friend, you are a younger version of what I deal with in person every Sunday and on a slightly smaller scale than Driscoll: angry and arms-crossed. Mike Ratliff is a male version of what I deal with every Sunday–although at least he wants to be offended. DefCon too. The difference is that here at .info I can speak up, protect, and defend preachers from unwarranted attacks such as these from Ratliff and DefCon and Ingrid and Ken, et al.

It’s just so easy for people to sit back and take shots at preachers and what they say and how they say it or how long it takes them to say it; to be offended for all the wrong reasons and not the right ones. So I have my own ten (sorry, eleven; I’m not as witty as you or brief) points for you.

1. Find a congregation that accepts women preachers.
2. Apply.
3. Get hired.
4. Set up shop for 3-5 years, making sure you did so with a husband and children who depend upon your income. That’s enough time for a honeymoon and divorce according to many statistics.
5. Listen to all the anger and hate that comes your way when you say something the congregation doesn’t like in the course of being faithful to preaching the entire counsel of God’s word.
6. Go back and preach the next week.
7. And the next week.
8. And keep on doing it until they renege on their promise to pay you, take part of your salary back, refuse to defend you from angry, bitter people who gossip and cause people to leave the church.
9. Go back and preach again on Sunday. And the next. And the next. Etc…
10. Come back here and start commenting or posting again.
11. Keep preaching.

Perhaps then you will understand why I am neither brief nor witty. Preaching is serious business and those critics need to be confronted. I will continue to do so.

PS–I re-wrote this 4 times. Deleted it twice. Thought about it. Decided to post it anyway–regardless.

:)

67   Neil    
June 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Driscoll is not necessarily the point of this post. The point of the post is that you ADM’s can’t make up your minds what we preachers are allowed and not allowed to say. The DefCon post came across as pure whining…not righteous indignation. And, you prove my point. If in fact you were using words like that when you went on vacation, why didn’t Ingrid, Ken, and DefCon call you out for it? Why is it OK for you to use them but not Driscoll?

Context, Audience, and Calling sin sin, not celebrating it or using it for shock value, but identifing behavior with appropriate language within the context.

Pastorboy,

Please to show where Driscoll used “whore” as a celebration of sin?

Please reveal how you are able to “discern” his heart, his motives – hoe do you know he uses them for “shock value?”

68   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am

I am openly giving an altar call for all to be converted to complementarianism.

Sign a membership card at the front. :cool:

69   chris    
June 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am

#62: Wow – perfect!

Nail, meet head. Head, meet nail.

Uh not quite.

7. And the next week.
8. And keep on doing it until they renege on their promise to pay you, take part of your salary back, refuse to defend you from angry, bitter people who gossip and cause people to leave the church.
9. Go back and preach again on Sunday. And the next. And the next. Etc…
10. Come back here and start commenting or posting again.
11. Keep preaching.

Exactly…

And that’s the point. We (those of who preach) know exactly what it’s like. Those who don’t sit back and take pots shots. So we (those who preach) defend others from it. Those who don’t call themselves the remnant and faithful. So we (those who preach) encourage our brothers and sisters. Those who don’t feign outrage over language. So we (those that preach) call them on their crap. Those who don’t rejoice in the persecution. So we (those that preach) keep on proclaiming the word. Those who don’t sit back and take pot shots….round and round.

Sorry I don’t possess sardonic wit. :)

70   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 29th, 2009 at 11:19 am

chris – perhaps there’s a fundamental problem with the church when the congregation pulls the strings and calls the shots. That’s not even Biblical (ie: pastors getting voted in and voted out). So, while I understand Jerry’s problem, it is more a denominational issue maybe?

But I see Jerry’s point in his list (#66) as well. It is very easy to sit back and be a commentator. BTW, I preach regularly and can relate with the stony-faced congregation when you don’t cater to them. Actually, yesterday we spoke about 2 Timothy 4: “Preach the word.”

To me, why I thought Julie’s comment was good was that a lot of posts (here and elsewhere) become somewhat transparent in their attempts to malign the “other”.

71   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am

” a lot of posts (here and elsewhere) become somewhat transparent in their attempts to malign the “other”.”

That is the statement of faith at SoL.

72   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

SoL has to be the best unintentionally acronym, well, about ever. If anything describes that particular brand of Christianity, it’s s.o.l…

73   chris    
June 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

chris – perhaps there’s a fundamental problem with the church when the congregation pulls the strings and calls the shots. That’s not even Biblical (ie: pastors getting voted in and voted out). So, while I understand Jerry’s problem, it is more a denominational issue maybe?

To be sure there is a major problem in the American Church. Partly it is what you have mentioned. But I would say that the ADM’s miss the mark when they arrogantly assume it’s because of watered down preaching or post modern thinking or language from the pulpit. Rather it is that very fact that congregations (read ADM’s) want to call the shots. Ingrid wants HER church and Ken wants HIS church and on and on and on.

So in one sense I agree with the ADM’s pastors cater too much to congregations but I don’t think the solution is aligning your preaching to the ADM’s standards.

74   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

It’s funny how no one thinks their pastor is the one preaching the watered-down sermons, for the most part (well, of course there are always the chronic complainers in every congregation…). But it’s kind of funny how people are like, “I’m glad my pastor doesn’t preach watered-down sermons like that guy over there…”.

I kind of think if the Apostle Paul were alive his message to the ADMs would something along the lines of, “mind your own freakin’ business!”. Honestly, I can’t figure why the people who write these hit pieces care one way or the other about the people they’re writing about. I guess there’s just a whole lot of people with too much free time on their hands…

75   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

chris – I believe that when the pastor has to dance to the congregation’s music, that church is automatically handicapped. This is a relatively “new” invention, where boards and trustees hold the keys, and it is anti-biblical a lot of the time.

In this much I think we agree.

On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that 2 Tim 4 has come into play in our day. People like to be entertained, and there are ministers that are only too happy to comply. This is also a problem. People don’t especially like being told how to live, what it means to follow Christ (”You mean I can’t continue in the same lifestyle I’ve always live?? I have to give something up?”).

The pressure from boards and trustees is similar from the pressures to bend-and-blend. All of the prophets, as well as the apostles, faced this pressure.

Please don’t drag me into an ODM debate here as I’m not advocating anything. Just commenting on the line of thought I started with.

76   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Living Message

A message that flows with the crystal clear redemption of Jesus Christ and its soul saving, life changing power that reaches every listening heart. It uses many different styles.

Dead Message

A redundant discertation of the systematic doctrines that inform the mind and help reinforce the self righteousness of its agreeing listeners. Expository preaching is an idol.

77   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Expository preaching is an idol.

I couldn’t possibly disagree with this statement more. I think your categories are way too narrowly defined.

Living preaching is made alive and brings alive the Word and words of God.

78   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

I did not mean that expository preaching itself is an idol, I suggested that some treat it as such, especially those that openly believe it is the only true way to preach.

79   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Let me say that true or false preaching aside, expository preaching is the only valid measure as to whether a man is called to the ministry or not. A man who preaches falsehood yet does so expositorily will be dealt more mercy than the man who preaches the truth, but does so extemporaneously. At least that much we should agree on.

80   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

No, I don’t think we agree on this at all Paul. Extemporaneous preaching is not the opposite of expository preaching.

False is false and it doesn’t matter if one gets there expositorily or otherwise. Sorry. I’m not certain where you got your ideas from, but I don’t think you are on the right track here.

81   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Just kidding Jerry. Honestly, I’ve never heard of anyone make this such a bone of contention before (not to say it isn’t in some circles). I just thought it was humourous that these types of things come up or that things can be so thoroughly reduced that these things actually become important distinctives.

So, for the record, #79 is completely a joke.

82   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am

Paul,
Please use smileys when you joke.
:)

We’re not very bright around here…speaking for myself.
;)

83   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am

Sorry Nathanael – will do so next time. I think I had Jerry severely worried for a moment. :)

84   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am

Jerry’s a donkey on the edge…please handle him with care.
:lol: