Confessions of a Reformission Rev.

Interesting review and comments. I have the book, but have not had time to read it yet. I found Mark several years ago and have listened to him fairly religiously since then. In fact, between playing golf, working out, and getting dressed, I have probably heard 90% of his messages in the past two years . I have read Radical Reformission, been to the Acts 29 Boot Camp, and interacted with members of his church. As a fundamentalist, I was definitely out of my element there.

I am concerned by the roughness of Mark’s language. I see no cause for the use of profanity or slang in the pulpit. I would hesitate to read as much into it as some here have. At the same time, he does have a way with words that gets attention and focuses on the real problem. It seems that in recent times he has moderated his use of words that are considered profane. He still walks right on the edge, too much in my estimation. He could do better. The sarcasm is not a problem for the most part. Humor and sarcasm are valid methods of communication. And don’t forget, Scripture uses some pretty rough language.

The story about the midnight phone call is one of the funniest things I have ever heard, and I heard him tell it and I have read it as well. First, consider the point he was making: It is easy to get burned out if you don’t guard yourself and your relationships. Second, consider the theology he was teaching. If you have heard Mark preach, “Deal with it yourself” makes sense. He was essentially repeating 1 Cor 7, that to avoid fornication, get a wife. He has said before that if a single guy struggles with immorality, he doesn’t have a sex problem, he has a marriage problem. God gives wives to deal with that, not midnight phone calls to pastors. Obviously, he is dealing in generalities, not making a statement for everyone. Mark was rough in the way he put it, and perhaps years of passing time cause his presentation of it to be rougher than it was, or perhaps he has matured in this area. And I do think Mark probably uses certain speech for effect, but he is not alone in that. Those on the far other end of the spectrum do the same thing.

Someone mentioned his last address at the Boot Camp in February. It was hands down one of the best addresses on that topic that I have ever heard. It did have his usual over the top banter in it, but it had great insight as to the way that we live our lives and how to evaluate them and pursue things that matter.

He does seem to have a lack of spiritual discernment, in his writings on his blog about Schuller, Dog, Bono, etc. But I think his association with Piper is due to his clear, dynamic exposition of Scripture, and his commitment to theology and ministry. I have not sensed a devotion to numbers. His church has simply grown. I think he says they have never done any advertising, and he preaches very hard, for more than an hour at a time. It is not a textbook way to build a church.

But if you love the gospel, you will be hardpressed to find someone who preaches it more plainly and clearly than Mark does. I don’t agree with some of what he does, nor with some of his theology. But I have benefitted greatly from his ministry. I am looking forward to reading the book.

Wasn’t it Ezekiel who appealed to the genitalia of donkeys and seminal emissions of horses? (Ezek 23:20 for those who are interested). There are some very explicit passages in Scripture. Paul talks off cutting off your genitalia in Gal 5.

That’s not to defend Mark. But those who claim that Scripture never uses straightforward and direct language such as this are simply incorrect.

Mark too often crosses the line. But you don’t have to listen to Mark for very long to realize just how countercultural he is in some ways.

His message to the young man on the phone was “stop. Don’t do it again.” What does the world say? No big deal. Watch porn. Masturbate. Find a girlfriend or boyfriend. So what Driscoll said was very counter cultural, very unlike the world (cf. Rom 12:1-2). His point seemed to be, “Why are you calling me now? If you were serious, you should have looked for help before you did it.” Too many Christians are like the young man. They want a counselor and prayer after its over. We need more people to speak straight. Life is too short to beat around the bush, it seems to me.

Those who want Scripture to defend Driscoll (I have none) will not find Scripture that condemns what he says. You have to take a principle and draw a specific application. That is hardly meeting your own criteria.

So again, I think Driscoll too often crosses the line. I would not be comfortable in his church for many reasons. But I think this world could use more people who are willing to speak truth into people’s lives as Driscoll does.

Just curious … How many of you have listened to him much? Or read his book? I am just wondering how many people are condemning him based on this very small sample that Tim gives.

The issue isn’t whether Scripture uses straightforward or direct language. The issue is whether Scripture uses course or foul language.

Wouldn’t it be hypocritical of God to command us not to use foul language, then He use foul language Himself in Scripture?

So I gave two passages above that use “course or foul language,” language that you would not accept from your teenager, I am quite sure. But yet God used it.

In answer to your second question, No, it would not be hypocritical. God is God. He does whatever he wants to do, and it is right. And what he commands us to do is what we should do. “He did it first” no more works with God than it does with your children. Since God did use language that most would consider “coarse” or “foul,” your second question actually proves your wrong, it seems to me.

With respect to Brian, “helping the gospel get accepted” is a pretty broad slam. It helps the gospel to “get accepted” when we speak in English (or whatever the native langauge of your audience is). It helps the gospel “get accepted” when you give it to people who are awake and listening to what you said. On the other hand, I don’t think we need profanity, any more than we need top 10 lists, or movie clips. I think we need to preach the gospel straight and clear, to show how it is relevant to every part of our lives.

As I said, I am not defending Driscoll, but you would be hard pressed to find a more clear and direct presentation of the gospel by any preacher anywhere.

Your admission that you have not read or listened to Driscoll tells me that you are unqualified to comment on whether or not he is doing that. You are forming your whole opinion on Tim’s mixed review. So I am not sure what motivates you to speak here on something you are admittedly ignorant on. Care to enlighten us?

BTW, Centurion, this book was not published “at or before his recent rejection of Emergent.” It was published in April 2006 (last month). He has been distancing himself from Emergent for several years. His first book called Radical Reformission was published about a year ago or more, as I recall.

I hesitate to say this much on here because some who don’t read closely will accuse me of defending Driscoll, and I am not (for the third or fourth time). But I have taken the time to expose myself to him and his ministry to learn about it.

BTW, Centurion, this book was not published “at or before his recent rejection of Emergent.” It was published in April 2006 (last month). He has been distancing himself from Emergent for several years. His first book called Radical Reformission was published about a year ago or more, as I recall.

I hesitate to say this much on here because some who don’t read closely will accuse me of defending Driscoll, and I am not (for the third or fourth time). But I have taken the time to expose myself to him and his ministry to learn about it.

And I am as far from postmodern as you can get, Brian.

Wendy,

It would be greatly helpful if you would either carefully, or stay out of this conversation. I have not defended mark’s choice of words. I merely pointed out that Scripture says some things that would be very distasteful in modern conversation. And the NIV hit the nail on the head in its translation.

And what I begged you to do was consider the context. Driscoll was talking to a young man who willfully and repeatedly (most likely) involved himself in porn, then called after it was over for prayer. What did he want prayer about then? It’s too late. And that’s exactly what Mark said. He also told the guy how to deal with it.

You say I lack discernment. How so? I have merely clarified some errors in thinking and accusations that were being made here. That is hardly a lack of discernment. I have said several times that Mark is over the top with his language. It is unnecessary and inappropriate. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. So please read more carefully.

If using course language is a sin, and you accuse God of having used course language, you’ve just accused God of participating in sin. Yet He cannot and will not do that. To advocate God can do things He forbids us to do is poor theology and a pretty low view of God

I am not the one who said that “coarse language” is a sin. That was someone else. I simply quoted where God used language that would be considered coarse. I agree with you that While the Bible does actually describe course and reprehensible things, it doesn’t violate its own commands regarding foul language. So please be careful to respond to what is actually said.

To the point directly, “coarse” language is often a matter of context. I would not say what Mark said. I would not defend it. It was out of line (why do I have to keep repeating myself here … Please learn to read accurately).

I think Mark’s post presents a topic worthy fo discussion: What language is prohibited by Scripture. Where do we derive our standards?

We have had a lot of people throwing “holiness” around, but very few defending it with the actual use of Scripture.