Mark Driscoll is one of those guys I just cannot figure out. Despite being only thirty-six years old, he pastors a church of over 3,000 people, is President of a major church-planting network and is considered one of the fifty most influential pastors in America. I am not the only one confused by Driscoll who is varyingly described as emerging, missional, Reformed, sarcastic and vulgar (all of which are true of him). He is immortalized in Don Miller’s Blue Like Jazz as Mark the Cussing Pastor (a title Mark seems to feel is both funny and well-deserved), but is increasingly being asked to speak at events alongside people I simply cannot imagine either cussing or delighting in such a reputation (he will, for example, appear along with John Piper, D.A. Carson and others at the 2006 Desiring God National Conference).
It was with great interest, then, that I began Confessions of a Reformission Rev., a book which is partly autobiographical and partly a biography of Mars Hill Church. And indeed Driscoll and his church are, in many ways, inseparable. The book begins with “Ten Questions,” a chapter which defines various important terms and introduces the concepts Driscoll wrote about in his first book, Radical Reformission. The remainder of the book follows the growth of the church from 0 people to the future where Driscoll hopes to have at least 10,000 people attending each Sunday. The chapter titles and structure are as follows:
- Jesus, Our Offering Was $137 and I Want to Use it to Buy Bullets - 0-45 People
- Jesus, If Anyone Else Calls My House, I May Be Seeing You Real Soon - 45-75 People
- Jesus, Satan Showed Up and I Can’t Find My Cup - 75-150 People
- Jesus, Could You Please Rapture the Charismaniac Lady Who Brings Her Tambourine to Church? - 150-350 People
- Jesus, Why Am I Getting Fatter and Meaner? - 350-1,000 People
- Jesus, Today We Voted to Take a Jackhammer to Your Big Church - 1,000-4,000 People
- Jesus, We’re Loading Our Squirt Guns to Charge Hell Again - 4,000-10,000 People
As is suggested by the title, the book is confessional. Driscoll is transparent in discussing his own shortcomings and failures and in accepting blame for many of the problems the church encountered through the years. He was, after all, immature and unprepared for the task that lay before him. In many ways the church grew through trial and error. Often Driscoll encountered a particular question or problem and wrestled with Scripture to understand what the Bible taught on that subject. He shares many of these in this book. Among the issues he discusses are ecclesiology (the organizational structure of a church), reformed theology, expository preaching, and the role of women in the leadership of the church. On the whole it seems that, when faced with such challenges, he was faithful to Scripture. These times of seeking after God’s will for his church shows that he truly does seek to honor God.
Mark Driscoll was one of the early leaders in what has come to be known as the emerging or emergent church. He is careful to define both terms, suggesting that he still believes in the principles upon which the emerging church was founded, but deliberately separates himself from the emergent crowd and such men as Brian McLaren. On pages 21 and 22 he says that “the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that old liberalism accomodated modernity and the new liberalism accomodates postmodernity.” As for Driscoll, he “swim[s] in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church.”
He also discusses issues of cessationism and continuationism, though not in those terms. He comes out clearly in favor of the continuing gifts. “Up to this point,” he says, “I had been basically a theological cessationist and a fan of fundamentalist straw-man attacks on charismatic Christians. It wasn’t until some years later, however, that I came to see the cessationists’ interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14 as the second worst exegesis I have ever read, next to that of a Canadian nudist arsonist cult I once did some research one” (121). He often speaks of visions, dreams, healings and prophetic words which continue to guide him to this day.
There is much in this book that is very good. Driscoll has some very good insights into culture, Scripture and human nature. These are just a few of the many quotes I marked as being particularly interesting, thought-provoking or insightful:
- “I’m still not sure if most pastors are aware that their churches are comprised of people they don’t yet know. Those people will never come to the churches, so the pastors need to go to those people” (61).
- “The professor wound up getting divorced a few times, which just proved to me that often people who mess with the Bible want to sin instead of repent, which explains why they bury Scripture under philosophical fads (Rom 1:18)” (78).
- “I was wrestling through some theological issues, such as election, predestination, and other matters generally known as reformed theology. So I taught through the book of Romans on Sunday nights, which helped to clarify our doctrinal convictions as a church and cemented us as a church with a reformed view of God and salvation. If you don’t know what that means, the gist is that you people suck and God saves us from ourselves. For more details, you can read the book I’ll write on it in the future or just accept a plain, literal reading of Romans, particular Romans 9-11” (85).
- “I feared that if we did not put our marriage and children above the demands of the church, we would end up with the lukewarm, distant marriage that so many pastors have because they treat their churches as mistresses that they are more passionate about than their brides” (102).
- “As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote” (103).
Despite the many great quotes, there were a couple which I felt showed lack of discernment in theology, and equally troubling, several that which I felt were in poor taste, displaying the vulgarity for which Driscoll has formed something of a reputation. There are a few that are similar to this, using a pejorative term where a more tasteful one would have been, in my opinion, more appropriate: “Every one of them was older than me, a chronic masturbator, a porn addict, and banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze…” (128). I also found this one quite disturbing:
This was drilled home for me one night when the church phone in our house rang at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3:00 a.m. I answered it in a stupor, and on the other end was some college guy who was crying. I asked him what was wrong, and he said it was an emergency and he really need to talk to me. Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned. I asked him what was wrong, and he rambled for a while about nothing, which usually means that a guy has sinned and is wasting time with dumb chitchat because he’s ashamed to just get to the point and confess. So I interrupted him blurting out, “It’s three a.m., so stop jerking me around. What you have done?”“I masturbated,” he said.
“That’s it?” I said.
“Yes,” he replied. “Tonight I watched a porno and I masturbated.”
“Is the porno over?” I asked.
“Yes,” he said.
“Was it a good porno?” I asked.
He did not reply.
“Well, you’ve already watched the whole porno and tugged your tool, so what am I supposed to do?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” he said. “You are my pastor, so I thought that maybe you could pray for me.”
To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind. “Jesus, thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen,” I prayed.
“Alright, well you should sleep good now, so go to bed and don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry,” I said.
“Well, what am I supposed to do now?” he asked.
“You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up, man. I don’t have time to be your accountability partner, so you need to be a man and nut up and take care of this yourself. A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright?” I said.
I cannot understand why he feels this type of quote is necessary. While this book is filled with confession, the one thing Driscoll does not seem to regret is his reputation as a loose canon and a man whose mouth is often filthy. I wonder if this will be the subject of another of his biblical studies. I hope it will be, for whatever he may feel he gains through this crudeness, it simply cannot be God-honoring. Scripture affirms many times that what comes out of the mouth is a sure indication of what is in the heart. Thus we have good reason to examine what we say and how we say it, for words are merely symptoms of what lies inside.
In the end analysis, I really did enjoy Confessions of a Reformission Rev.. There is much in this book that is edifying. It helped me understand Mark Driscoll and showed how he grew a megachurch in a largely unchurched city in only eight years. He is clearly a passionate, focused man who is genuinely seeking hard after God. He has much to offer the church. I wonder, though, how long his message will be heard as long as it is wrapped in a sometimes vulgar, always sarcastic, package. It may endear him to some, but it will surely alienate him from far more.
Comments (169) »
1. marc
May 19, 2006
10:36 AM
Tim,
I read the book and those two last examples you cited stood out to me as well. I wonder, while his language/ illustration here is crude, it serves as legit hyperbole. Maybe the frank language will cut through a person’s defenses where other milder words may fail. Just a theory, I’m not advocating this as a means. These are just some thoughts I had after reading those passages last week.
Also, for what its worth, I thought the book was excellent.
2. Bibliomaniac
May 19, 2006
10:49 AM
As I read your post, 1 Corinthians 10:31 came to mind (do all to the glory of God) and Paul’s admonishment that overseers are to be blameless. While no pastor is perfect, I have to admit I am disturbed by some of what I see coming from Driscoll. Some may view it as “being honest and transparent,” and that we need more of that today. I’m sorry, but at least from my take on Scripture, a church leader should be zealous to live as an example before others and be able to say, “Follow me as I follow Christ.” I get the feeling some of what comes from Mark isn’t among the things Mark is picking up from following Christ, but rather, from exposure to the culture around him.
3. gavin brown
May 19, 2006
10:56 AM
I have not read this book, only a few interviews with Driscoll about Mars Hill. He was pretty hard on that college kid. Oviously, his comments were greatly influenced by it being three in the morning, but his sarcastic prayer about God not killing that kis for being a perv was tasteless and sinful, no matter what the time.
4. Kobby
May 19, 2006
10:59 AM
I’LL NEVER READ THAT BOOK. In my opinion, we should be wary of listening to pastors whose main aim for building churces is numbers. Neither should we take seriously a preacher who cusses.
5. wfseube
May 19, 2006
11:00 AM
I cannot understand why he feels this type of quote is necessary.
You don’t understand it because it is NOT necessary. One can express themselves without sarcasm and 4-letter words.
Once upon a time, someone told me that people curse because they’re not smart enough to express themselves in a more appropriate way. My grandfather was an English professor at several colleges & universities, and he was able to win arguments and put people in their places without resorting to such juvenile communication. He wielded the English language as an appropriate weapon without cursing, tearing down, or belittling while making his case.
Those who will justify Driscoll’s method of communication will claim “but it’s how we communicate in our culture”. To that I respond that, as Christians, we are tasked with not conforming to this world. We should be above the world and not try to be like it, particularly in the way we communicate.
Now sit back and watch the smug sympathizers swoop in and say “I told you so! I knew the TRs would criticize Driscoll because of how he communicates”. And I wonder why they thought that? Perhaps because they know in the back of their minds/hearts that it is worthy of criticism? It’s a shame that someone who obviously has good things to say has to express themselves in a way that takes the focus off the content. It’s like good food that is slathered in bad seasoning - it was great until they put all that other gunk on it.
It’ll be interesting to see if Driscoll holds to that form when he’s at the DG conference…
——
bill
6. Tim Challies
May 19, 2006
11:13 AM
“It’ll be interesting to see if Driscoll holds to that form when he’s at the DG conference…”
That is a good question. I suspect he will not, which may just prove that his crudeness is some kind of schtick that he can turn on and off at will depending on circumstances.
“Also, for what its worth, I thought the book was excellent.”
As did I, in many ways.
7. David
May 19, 2006
11:16 AM
Speaking of a lack of discernment: I cannot understand why you, Tim, feel this type of language is worth repeating. Frankly, it disturbed me. Perhaps you should consider offering an R-rated edition of your blog.
8. Peter R.
May 19, 2006
11:22 AM
Personally, I see a lot of myself in the pathetic kid who called Driscoll in the middle of the night after watching porn, and I can vouch for the fact that a pastoral kick in the teeth of the sort that Driscoll delivered is exactly what some people need.
The criticism of Driscoll’s word choice is a good indicator of the widespread influence of feminism within the church. We’re more concerned with maintaining polite conversation than we are with confronting and rebuking sin. If you think Driscoll is offensive, go read a literal translation of some of the things God said about Israel through the prophets, or Paul’s letters, or Jesus’ words. Sin is vulgar to God, it should be equally vulgar to us. In my view, Driscoll’s aim is to call the ugliness of these acts out from under their veil of attractiveness, and he succeeds brilliantly.
9. Irish Calvinist
May 19, 2006
11:32 AM
Personally I enjoy a lot of the things that Driscoll has said and written, how he has intentionally and fearlessly brought the gospel to so many who are “alienated” from the evangelical community (i.e. tattoo artists, bar owners, graffiti artists, etc..).
However, the language is curious and unnecessary. He has surely been successful in branding himself with this homiletical vulgarity. I do not know his motives, but do find it distracting from the overall message—it almost becomes entertainment rather than edification�dangerous in light of the calling to herald Christ (2 Tim.4.2; 1 Tim. 4.12,16)
Speaking of discernment. I find it curious as to how Driscoll can be running with the Piper’s, the Carson’s, and the Harris’ while at the same time sharing pulpit space with Robert Schuller (http://theresurgence.com/lunch_with_schullers) and even maintaining a continued partnership with his son. To me this is more troubling than the language, but may be systemic of the larger issue.
-erik-
10. Ochuk
May 19, 2006
11:57 AM
An “R” rating for Challies’ blog?
“No one under 17 may read this post and if you see yourself having lots of “discernment” (read: hypersensitive) you better have your parents read it with you.”
11. Tim Challies
May 19, 2006
11:58 AM
“I cannot understand why you, Tim, feel this type of language is worth repeating. Frankly, it disturbed me. Perhaps you should consider offering an R-rated edition of your blog.”
I actually wasn’t crazy about the idea of reprinting some of it on my site, simply because it is crude. However, I thought that it was worth repeating to prove the point. I apologize if others are offended by this.
12. david
May 19, 2006
12:08 PM
…you need to be a man and nut up and take care of this yourself.
That isn’t just vulgar, it’s horrible theology. A man who is truly regenerate is dependent on God and filled with the Holy Spirit. He is not “taking care of it himself.” What a ridiculous statement and useless, damaging counsel from someone who claims to hold Reformed Theology.
13. wfseube
May 19, 2006
12:12 PM
Peter R. said The criticism of Driscoll’s word choice is a good indicator of the widespread influence of feminism within the church. We’re more concerned with maintaining polite conversation than we are with confronting and rebuking sin.
Baloney. It is a good indicator of the breakdown of civilized discourse in our society. Rather than try to communicate in a measured, polite fashion, people now feel that they must be crude and impolite to make a point. And most people are so desensitized to it, it doesn’t bother them.
To imply that one must curse and speak rudely to “be manly” is sexist, among other things. The perceived need to use trash talk is directly indicative of a lack of vocabulary as much as than anything else. It’s also much like how a child uses 4-letter words to try to be cool. But in the end it simply reveals that one is not adult enough to communicate like an adult.
——
bill
14. pr
May 19, 2006
12:17 PM
I am sometimes prone to leap headfirst into Driscoll’s pastoral philosophies. I’ve also been intrigued to read this book. Thanks for the clarifying, outside observation.
15. Kurt Nordstrom
May 19, 2006
12:18 PM
Oh, man. After that excerpt you posted Tim C., I think I have to read that book.
Pure. Gold.
16. Ochuk
May 19, 2006
12:21 PM
How anyone could blame “feminism” for Driscoll’s outrageous public discourse is a commentary in of and itself on what we think feminism really is. In this context, feminism is seen as whatever shuns crass language. Since feminism is bad we need to bring crass language back to counter it.
That is as a melodramatic analysis of public discourse as it is fallacious.
17. Nathan Colquhoun
May 19, 2006
12:25 PM
Good review Tim.
I enjoyed your balanced opinion.
Out of curiousity, why was that quote even there? Was there a point behind it or was he just saying a messed up story for shock value?
18. billmelone
May 19, 2006
12:32 PM
Sorry to disagree, but I looked over the quotes a couple of times, and I’m having a hard time finding what exactly is offensive. Maybe I’m unregenerate but I can’t see how telling a guy to nut up is sinful. And I think thanking God for not killing a guy for being a pervert is a perfect way to shake a guy up into godliness. And its not like he was advocating banging girls—entirely the opposite. I don’t find the quotes here to be tasteless—actually the taste of them is that Mark hates sin.
19. JohnH
May 19, 2006
12:33 PM
David:
You may be reading too much into that phrase: take care of this yourself. It might mean, go repent and read your Bible. Might that be consistent with reformed theology? Without knowing more (he might have had a long history with this person), I think it’s a little over the top to be judging the content of what he said. Perhaps the specific words used, but, aside from that, I personally like the direct approach.
20. Tim Challies
May 19, 2006
12:38 PM
“That isn’t just vulgar, it’s horrible theology.”
In Mark’s defense, this happened early in his career, before he adopted Reformed theology (I think).
“Out of curiousity, why was that quote even there? Was there a point behind it or was he just saying a messed up story for shock value?”
I believe he was attempting to show that he was getting burned out and had overextended himself. He may also have been showing that he wasn’t much of a pastoral pastor.
21. gavin brown
May 19, 2006
12:38 PM
David,
In defense of Tim, its not like these are his quotes. If anything, his review of this book will positively influence you not to waste your money on what you now think is such a terrible book. Lighten up.
22. Phillip Winn
May 19, 2006
12:39 PM
I guess the question for me is, “Who is the intended audience?” If it is other pastors, Driscoll seriously erred in thinking his honesty and vulgarity would endear him to them. I doubt other pastors were his target audience. If it is unchurched people, he will probably have a readership where most preachers never will. It is easy for those in ministry and those who surrounded themselves almost exclusively with Christian to underestimate how much value unchurched people often place on “being one of the guys,” and how many doors that opens to conversation about who really matters, Jesus Christ.
Not the best example of becoming all things to all people, perhaps, and not the answers I would have given or the book I would have written, but it is definitely on my “must read” list. Thanks for the review!
23. Bibliomaniac
May 19, 2006
12:41 PM
Peter R said, “I can vouch for the fact that a pastoral kick in the teeth of the sort that Driscoll delivered is exactly what some people need.”
The manner in which Driscoll conducted himself was not called for. The apostle Paul was stern with plenty of people, giving them so-called pastoral kicks in the teeth, if you want to call them that. But in every admonishment, Paul was blunt yet gracious, never conducting himself in a way that is unseemly for a Christian.
And that it happened at 3:00 a.m. is no excuse. Driscoll’s been a pastor long enough to know better.
24. Tim Challies
May 19, 2006
12:42 PM
“Who is the intended audience?”
That’s a good question. I would think the audience he’d really like to hit is the people who want to be just like him — young men who want to be pastors and who may be looking into his Acts29 church planting network.
25. billmelone
May 19, 2006
12:47 PM
Was the manner in which Paul called for the lopping off of you-know-whats called for? Was it unseemly—especially compared to Driscoll’s words? I don’t see much of a difference.
26. Bill Barnes
May 19, 2006
12:48 PM
Another, very interesting post. It amazes me how I can never read one of Tim’s posts without having to noodle somewhat strenuously over the subject. I also find myself having to look very deep into my own heart to try and understand where I come out. A couple of weeks ago I felt Tim was a bit sanctimonious (I also love the fact that we can use big words on this site) for suggesting it was sinful to watch a movie like “Crash”. Now he’s getting pilloried for quoting bad language. Cool. Having come from a very profane background - 5 years as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps, I would like to say that I think it is completely inappropriate, unbiblical and well, sinful for Driscoll to use the sort of vulgar language he does. But, he seems to be someone who is truly doing the work of the Kingdom. Hmmm…like I say this site finds the ponderous stuff. As for equating masculinity with profane language - say what? No one was more of a man than Jesus and that sort of stuff just never came out of his mouth. Rather, to paraphrase, I would say profanity is the last refuge of the faux macho.
27. bill streger
May 19, 2006
12:51 PM
Tim, is that to say that all Acts 29 guys “want to be just like him”? I’m sure that’s not what you meant.
Mark is a friend of mine, and I’m part of the A29 Network. Good to see the book getting reviews. There were some things I read in the prepublication copy that I weren’t sure would make it past editing but did - and so we end up with a pretty raw, uncensored look at Mark and Mars Hill’s jouney over the past decade. Much of it was not pretty, but was helpful.
As a church planter, it is great to read a guy telling of his failures and shortcomings as well - often church planting books only discuss the high points and ideology. I think in many ways Mark lays out his mistakes and faults (particularly in the early years) as examples of sin and pitfauls to be on guard against - not as a model to be copied.
28. s. zeilenga
May 19, 2006
12:59 PM
I understand what you are all saying about the conduct of a pastor and stuff and, yes, I agree, but I wonder if it was effective.
I mean, if I was that kid, (rude enough to call in the middle of the night) and I had a pastor say that to my face I probably would have agreed with him and gone home kicking myself in the butt. I think the language and the approach can be looked at in hindsight and debated over, but I bet that kid went home with a new insight into his sinfulness.
I mean, I am no pastor, but I had to speak harshly and directly to my friend when I found out he went to a stripclub. Sometimes our flesh gets the better of us and a hard word from a friend, a pastor, or the Holy Spirit is the only thing that will knock us back into line.
I don’t know. I will check out the book though. It sounds interesting for sure.
z.
29. billmelone
May 19, 2006
1:05 PM
Profanity is not the last refuge of the faux macho, sinfulness is. And I haven’t seen anyone equate cussing with macho—its been projected that people will say it but I haven’t seen it. Equating profanity with sinfulness misses the big qualifications of 1) what vulgarness represents (its the heart thats the issue not the vulgarity) 2) a bigger qualification that using God’s name in vain is incredibly worse than 4 letter words. 4 letter words are a matter of culture (though our culture deems some of them mostly unhelpful, so it is probably unneeded, but I wouldn’t say sinful unless you know Mark’s heart was to be overly aggressive—the heart behind it. The heart behind most of what Mark says is not aggression towards people but aggression towards sin).
30. Peter R.
May 19, 2006
1:07 PM
Bill - my point had nothing to do with “manliness” and everything to do with the modern church’s tendency to use a glossed-over vocabulary when we talk about sin. If you do some reading on church history over the past 100 years, you’ll find that this is directly attributable to the rise of feminism in the late 1800s.
And again, I’d encourage you to go read your Bible and pay close attention to the language it uses when talking about human sinfulness and our attempts to reach God through our own effort. Look up the literal meaning of “filthy rags” in Isaiah 64:6. “A screen door in a stiff breeze” pales in comparison.
31. Jabbok
May 19, 2006
1:11 PM
Everything about this angers me.
If the other men you mentioned stand beside this wolf at the next Desiring God conference, I’ll be angered more.
Some folks think that playing the heathen places more authority behind their words of councel. How idiotic.
grrrrr…..
I gotta go….
32. Jonathan Christman
May 19, 2006
1:15 PM
Tim, I have read and profited from his writings. I agree with your assessment. He is often not careful with his speech. I think he is doing the right stuff, I agree with his basic methadology and approach to life and ministry; however I continue to feel that he is the type of person we need to engage and press the typical reformed pastor to consider more radical reformissional ministry and he is not helping his cause when he talks like this. It dissapoints me, because he has so much to offer, and it is not necessary to alienate men who could otherwise be positively influenced. It takes a gracious heart and spirit to read a profit form Mark. He should back off the inflamitory language and he would be even more useful and helpful.
33. david
May 19, 2006
1:17 PM
David:
You may be reading too much into that phrase: take care of this yourself. It might mean, go repent and read your Bible.
Maybe so, but what he meant is entirely irrelevant. What he said is what was heard. If we have to assume he meant something else, then language is useless; and if there is more to the story that would explain it better, it still doesn’t matter. Driscoll didn’t tell that part, so this is all we have to go on.
Furthermore, before Driscoll can tell someone else to “be a man,” he needs to stop talking like an unregenerate adolescent boy and clean up his filthy language.
34. Bibliomaniac
May 19, 2006
1:22 PM
Some here don’t see much of a problem with the way Driscoll speaks or conducts himself—that it’s rather inconsequential in the big scheme of things.
But we cannot forget that that which comes from a man’s mouth is a reflection of the condition of his heart.
And what does come out is oftentimes just the tip of the iceberg.
35. David
May 19, 2006
1:29 PM
Okay, I see that I might (?) have come across as a knee-jerk jerk. Sorry for disrupting the civil tone of the discussions. And I apologize to you, Tim, for what might have been construed as a personal attack. I really do enjoy your writing. I’m a reformed believer (who’d have guessed?), and my “besetting sin” is in the area of lust. I confess that I should have stopped reading at the first offensive word, as words and images like that stick in my mind like molasses. My poorly-communicated point was that I didn’t see the need to reprint the exact phraseology used by the author. Long ago, movie makers panned the camera away from the embracing couple, assuming the audience was intelligent enough to read between the lines. Am I off-base expecting the same from Christian authors? Again, sorry for the fleshly outburst.
36. wfseube
May 19, 2006
1:40 PM
I will prefix this by saying: I struggle with speaking in a crass, profane manner occasionally. It is wrong, and I pray that God will rid me of it eventually. I think it is typical of a persistent sin that Christians sometimes posess - it’s one that I’m attempting to repent of and shake, but God has not yet enabled me to completely get rid of it.
That said, two points:
1) It is quite obvioius from this exchange that Driscoll’s message is sometimes (here, in particular) obscured by the method by which he delivers it. Too bad - I think he has some good things to say. The similarity I was thinking of was that of some of the oafs that frequent the bleachers in major league baseball parks. They hoot and howl and scream obscenities in criticism of players on the field. Do they have a valid point about how xyz player is performing? Yeah, occasionally, but the method of delivery completely obscures any nugget of truth that their diatribes may contain.
I saw this occur recently in a pair of responses from an individual who posts on the Boar’s Head Tavern and a subsequent response from that same individual on David Wayne’s Jollyblogger site. He was commenting on /objecting to the T4G Affirmations & Denials. His response on BHT was rather unkind, uncharitable and unlovingly delivered. However, a couple days later he also posted on Jollyblogger in a way that was totally different and much more civil. And while I disagreed with his point in both cases, I was able to at least listen to (read) what he said in the latter postings. But his manner in the BHT entries was so nasty that I quit reading a few sentences into it.
2) I think we can evaluate our communication by the way it reflects the fruits of the Spirit. Are we being loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, etc. in how we communicate? Take a look again at the quote Tim included from Driscoll’s story. Did he display the Fruits of the Spirit in his exchange with that young man? In my opinion, mostly he did not. I don’t care if you’re Reformed, Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, etc. (well, I do, but that’s another story…) That standard should stand no matter what.
Again, I will plead guilty on all charges of being uncharitable and unkind occasionally and definitely of not being the best portrayer of the Fruits of the Spirit. But at least I admit that I have a problem… ;-)
——
bill
37. Bill Barnes
May 19, 2006
1:49 PM
Peter R./Billmelone:
O.K., I’ll try and find out what filthy rags means, apparently something more profane than “filthy rags”.
Could you help me with what this means:
Colossians 3:8
“But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.”
I’ll admit that I do trust in the translators of the NIV. But doesn’t it seem to you that that Paul is prohibiting filthy language? Wouldn’t that mean he views filthy language as a sin?
38. Peter R.
May 19, 2006
1:52 PM
Clearly, Paul didn’t view “filthy” language used in the description of sin to be a sin, since he used it himself with some frequency.
39. Bibliomaniac
May 19, 2006
1:59 PM
Peter: I wasn’t aware paul used filthy language with frequency. You’ll have to enlighten us as to where this happens…
As for Colossians 3:8, Paul clearly condemned “foul-mouthed abuse,” as it could be rendered, or “foul language.” Ephesians 5:4 says “there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or course jesting, which are not fitting,” and Matthew 12:36 says, “Every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment.”
40. Peter R.
May 19, 2006
2:13 PM
Biblio:
Phillippians 3:8 - what the NIV translates “rubbish” literally means s*** (as in excrement).
There are several examples where he’s talking about circumcision where he uses a term roughly equivalent to d***head.
That’s what I can think of for Paul off the top of my head. I’m sure there are other examples. Additionally, Jesus uses the term s***hole in Mark 7:19, and as I alluded to earlier, there are a number of examples in the prophets where God describes - in graphic detail - the adulterous acts of His people.
I’m not arguing that it’s okay to use the f-bomb when someone cuts you off in traffic. All I’m saying is that, based on the example of the Bible, we aren’t in a position to categorically rule out the use of strong langage when we’re talking about sin.
41. Carla
May 19, 2006
2:17 PM
Tim…
well, I can’t say I’m too surprised. Disgusted? You bet. Instead of ranting here about it I ranted on my own blog.
I can say however, it’s rather disappointing to read here just how many people (professing believers I assume?) don’t have an issue with the way Driscoll speaks.
Something is just very WRONG with that.
Never thought I’d see the day when I had to warn anyone about a link to your blog Tim, but all in all, I’m glad you posted what you did.
SDG…
Carla
42. Kathy
May 19, 2006
2:19 PM
Do these scriptures have any bearing at all on the situation described? Even just a little bit … in any way?
“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.” Mt 15:11
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. Eph 5:4
Out of the same mouth come praising and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?
James 3:10
For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. Mt. 12:34
Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with the inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his” , and “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
43. Bill Barnes
May 19, 2006
2:24 PM
Peter R.
Alright brother, but I think you might want to consider your position a bit more. So far here’s what I have:
1. It’s O.K. to use filthy language in describing things that are filthy.
2. An example of this is the “filthy rags” in Isaiah.
3. Paul used filthy language frequently.
I don’t see much evidence of “1”. Why does Paul use “fornicators” instead of something far earthier? The Old Testament also uses gentle language to describe quite heinous behavior: Genesis 19:33 “That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. ” We are not told, for instance, that “Lot banged his daughters like screen doors”. Forgive me but I am trying to make a point.
I’ll give you “2”. So if you say filthy rags in front of me I won’t be offended.
“3” I just can’t give you, there’s simply no Biblical evidence.
44. Paul Lamey
May 19, 2006
2:26 PM
To the hardened rebel culture of Ephesus Paul said, remember “that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” and to the folks in the pagan town of Thessalonica he said, “We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” This balance seems to be missing from Mr. Driscoll’s program. Maybe the next radical reformission needs to take place in his understanding of pastoral care. I am concerned that young pastors will think that Driscoll is a fine example of how to handle the flock when in fact it is a total disregard of Peter’s exhortation in 1 Peter 5.
45. david
May 19, 2006
2:34 PM
Peter R.,
The claims that Paul or Jesus used vulgar language are old and tiresome. There is no reason to replace what Paul really said with the most vulgar possible replacements. That is, in fact what you are doing.
You wrote:
…there are a number of examples in the prophets where God describes - in graphic detail - the adulterous acts of His people.
Suppose I quote you, but replace “adulterous acts” with a common obscenity. Wow, you have a dirty mouth!
46. Kathy
May 19, 2006
2:34 PM
I found this information on the Christian Courier site:
The Scriptures speak of “filthy” talking (Eph. 5:4). According to Greek authorities (see Baur, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testment, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 29), the term “filthy” (aischrotes) entails “behavior that flouts social and moral standards, shamefulness, obscenity” while “shameful speech” (aischrologia - Col. 3:8) denotes “speech of a kind that is generally considered in poor taste, obscene speech, dirty talk.”
“Lascivious” speech (cf. 2 Pet. 2:18) is that designed to conjure up illicit sexual images and ideas. “Corrupt” (morally unwholesome, harmful) communication (Eph. 4:29) is likewise condemned. “Foolish (literally, moronic) talking” is speech that reveals a stupid mentality, while “jesting” suggests off-color humor (cf. Eph. 5:4).
47. joel hunter
May 19, 2006
2:37 PM
I saw this occur recently in a pair of responses from an individual who posts on the Boar’s Head Tavern…. His response on BHT was rather unkind, uncharitable and unlovingly delivered.
bill, that person is me, and I want to make it known that after a few days I addressed this in a follow-up post. You are actually gracious in your qualification of my response as “rather” x, y and z. I appreciate that. We will still disagree, no doubt, about the substance of the matter, but I don’t want to leave the impression with you that I have spoken out of both sides of my mouth or shirked responsibility for my words.
48. Peter R.
May 19, 2006
2:51 PM
Bill, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I said anywhere that we always must use vulgar terms to describe things that are vulgar. Sometimes the Bibles speaks this way, sometimes it doesn’t. Ergo, sometimes we should speak this way, sometimes we shouldn’t. Regarding your Genesis example, we’d need to look at the original meaning and use of the word we translate “lay with” in order to figure if it’s a vulgar slang term or not. In either case, it really has no bearing on my argument.
David, if what Paul or Jesus really said was vulgar, we should translate it as such. My study of the examples I provided has convinced me that from time to time, they did use language that we would consider offensive. As well they should have, given the subject matter being discussed.
49. Wendy West
May 19, 2006
2:58 PM
Tim:
Thanks for the acknowledgment to those who found Driscoll’s words offensive. It was to me and David and others have pointed out why. I didn’t see much if any scriptural support regarding the “rightness” of such language. Peter R.’s argument is flawed in the sense that it is Paul who condenmed the use of vulgar language. So how can it be that he used it elsewhere. This idea of using vulgarity to reach the vulgar and worldliness to reach the worldly holds no scriptural water. It is a twist of Corinthians 9 and is well entrenched in the CGM and ECM.
My conviction stems from such passages as Phil 4:8; Eph 4:29-5:6; James 1:19, II Tim. 2:14-16. The Holy Spirit convicted me of the sin of hearing and reading such language through these passages. Just what part of “no” do we not understand? (No filthiness, no impurity, no coarse jesting…)
There is another issue I wish to raise in terms of the “to quote or not to quote” issue. It is found within Romans 14: 14 - 15:13 and I Corinthians 10:23-33. In essence these passages teach that the mature believer is to not cause the weaker brother to stumble. Perhaps Tim and others feel at liberty to read and quote vulgar, coarse jesting and impure speech but Paul exhorts those mature believers to set aside such liberty for the “weaker” brother and not cause him to stumble. I fret that any weaker brother who visits here may indeed stumble. Those who follow Christ are called to a higher standard.
One last comment, I await Frank Turk’s take on this post….
Grateful for His Grace.
50. david
May 19, 2006
3:21 PM
David, if what Paul or Jesus really said was vulgar, we should translate it as such. My study of the examples I provided has convinced me that from time to time, they did use language that we would consider offensive. As well they should have, given the subject matter being discussed.
I hardly see how any serious scholarship could lead to either of these conclusions:
1. Paul or Jesus used vulgar language.
2. They “should have”, under any circumstances.
Because,
1. There is no reason to believe that Paul said anything more vulgar than “manure” (not s***), and the same reasoning goes for your other examples, as well.
2. Scriptures have already been quoted in this thread demonstrating that there is never a time when anyone “should have” used foul language. Where does the notion come from that a dirty mouth is necessary to show that one is really, really serious?
Of course, whatever Jesus and Paul said should be translated accurately. Perhaps you can explain to us what you know that every serious Bible translator thus far has missed, because none of them seem to agree with you.
51. wfseube
May 19, 2006
3:23 PM
joel said: bill, that person is me, and I want to make it known that after a few days I addressed this in a follow-up post.
Joel, thank you for posting the followup. I did much appreciate the way you voiced your opinion on Jollyblogger and how you acknowledged how your BHT post may have not been perceived in the greatest of light. If only I would always be that humble! :-)
I really do believe that this is a good illustration of what is in question here - the more gracious and Spirit-filled we are in how we present ourselves, the better our point is received, even if we disagree. Yes, at times Jesus was quite “emphatic” in delivering His message with groups such as the Pharisees, but He is God and delivers His message in a way that is 100% holy. When I deliver my message in a way that appears harsh, it is almost certainly not according to the Holy Spirit and probably not holy.
——
bill
52. Greg in Colorado
May 19, 2006
3:23 PM
I Timothy 4:12
“Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”
As a 37 year old and a pastor (in my 6th year at the same church), I have found that I have not always been the example I was called to be…
I do not have a “rough” background, so I doubt I would ever SAY the things Mark says BUT I can guarantee that I have THOUGHT things about a “pastoral responsibility” that would not be considered gracious, especially when I am tired.
I am not excusing his words. All pastors have a tremendous challenge and responsibility. I may be way off here…it is just my opinion…but I do pray that he will have the discernment and wisdom to continue challenging the “system” without being so controversial.
53. Larry
May 19, 2006
3:29 PM
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.
54. 4ever4given
May 19, 2006
3:35 PM
I started at Carla’s site… read her warning and thought, “It is Challies blog… it can’t be that bad.”
So I read.
I got nauseaus.
I wish I had not read it.
I don’t like things like this in my mind and would prefer to be ignorant.
I wish I would have heeded that warning.
Am I disappointed? yes.
Does that matter to anyone that I am disappointed? not likely (…especially not to Frank Turk).
55. wfseube
May 19, 2006
4:12 PM
For those of you who prefer the “Patton treatment” for sinners, such as that described by Driscoll, can you tell me where Jesus used that technique with sinners? Did he slap them and tell them to “be a man”, or did he act with compassion and tell them to “go and sin no more”?
——
bill
56. sk
May 19, 2006
4:16 PM
“Scripture affirms many times that what comes out of the mouth is a sure indication of what is in the heart.”
Scripture also says don’t be a whited sepulchre, which is what is mostly being promoted when one hears moralists complaining about language.
Scripture also says don’t be lukewarm.
Shocking people awake sometimes requires the use of language in a way that will shock moralists.
57. 4ever4given
May 19, 2006
4:19 PM
Kristie: “Unfortunately we have been so influenced by pop christian psychology that wants us to pamper and baby sexual perversion, that we don’t deal with these things in a more straightforward manner. Or worse yet, we live in a bubble and think this scenario of the young man watching porn is the exception, and we just don’t ever talk about it. “
I so totally disagree with you. We do not need to get vulgar and perverted to deal Biblically with perversion. It is not about being in a “bubble” or thinking that this is an exception to be glossed over. It is about keeping your thoughts pure… and you do not have to become filthy to confront filth.
58. Drew Sauder
May 19, 2006
4:19 PM
I really don’t understand the outcry.
What if we just say “Mark Driscoll is not perfect” and move on with our lives? Why not do this? He’s a sinful human being, just like the rest of us. For that reason, I’m sure he has some good things to say, and some bad things. Let’s thank God for the grace that’s evident and the good work that has been done, pray for it to continue, pray for him and his ministry in whatever ways we think he may need it, and move on.
59. Drew Sauder
May 19, 2006
4:19 PM
I really don’t understand the outcry.
What if we just say “Mark Driscoll is not perfect” and move on with our lives? Why not do this? He’s a sinful human being, just like the rest of us. For that reason, I’m sure he has some good things to say, and some bad things. Let’s thank God for the grace that’s evident and the good work that has been done, pray for it to continue, pray for him and his ministry in whatever ways we think he may need it, and move on.
60. 4ever4given
May 19, 2006
4:27 PM
Because Drew… this has something to do with the seemingly subtle mixture of compromise of truth with truth, “not discerned and distinguished, that the devil has had his greatest advantage against the cause and kingdom of Christ.”
61. david
May 19, 2006
4:41 PM
Shocking people awake sometimes requires the use of language in a way that will shock moralists.
That would be more helpful accompanied by a Scripture reference - one that one that includes profane, obscene, or vulgar language.
Emphatic speach is not the issue, as someone else has pointed out.
62. Kathy
May 19, 2006
4:43 PM
“Scripture also says don’t be a whited sepulchre, which is what is mostly being promoted when one hears moralists complaining about language.”
SK: Will you elaborate on your statement further? How do you know this?
When I read, “Be holy because I am holy” and other scriptures that tell me how to live the Christian life, including what my language should be, I really do want to live that way for God. I don’t do it for show.
I don’t see the authority granted to discount scripture if we think we can get better results another way, although that does seem to be a common practice these days.
63. Wes
May 19, 2006
4:49 PM
‘It (Driscoll’s vulgar speech)may endear him to some, but it will surely alienate him from far more.’ -Tim
It depends on how ‘some’ is defined and how ‘more’ is defined.
I agree, ‘more’ nice, christiany, never laid foot outside of the church people will be hurt by such ‘harsh’ speech, then alienate Driscoll from far more.
I agree ‘more’ non-believing, sinners , believers tired of modern american chrisitianity, will NOT alienate Driscoll because of his speech but instead will invite others to step outside of the camp of the safe language of churchiness.
In spite of all the nice people alienated him from far more because of the tough language, the God-centered gospel is being preached and people are being saved.
64. Wendy West
May 19, 2006
4:55 PM
It is so grievous to me that the Word of God is no longer the standard for Christian behavior. As some are trying to point Scripture never gives a believer the “ollie ollie in free pass” to behave, speak or think like those in the surrounding culture. The very problem with Christianity is we have become so earthly minded as to be no heavenly good.
Romans 12:1-2 indicates that we are not to be conformed to the world, but transformed by the renewing of our minds. In essence, Christians should live differently from they way they lived before they were saved and from those of the WORLD around them. In short, we are NEW creatures in Christ. If the unbeliever can’t tell a difference in us, then we disparage the holiness of Christ.
65. Larry
May 19, 2006
5:07 PM
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.
66. centuri0n
May 19, 2006
5:09 PM
Tim —
I haven’t read Driscoll’s book. It was published at or before his recent rejection of Emergent, and I still have questions about Pastor Driscoll’s, um, sanctification (for lack of a better term).
I think one of my problems, for the record, is that he’s a lot like me. And when you see yourself in the mirror, it’s anot always the most edifying experience — it’s usually a somewhat embarassing experience. You don’t think so? Step in front of the mirror as you get out of the shower and turn sideways.
So anyway, I’ll probably read this book when I get to it. If Tim has a spare copy he wanted to send me to review in comparison to my last review of Mark Driscoll’s work, it might speed up the process … :-)
67. Bibliomaniac
May 19, 2006
5:18 PM
Larry said: “But those who claim that Scripture never uses straightforward and direct language such as this are simply incorrect. “
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?
68. Brian Thornton
May 19, 2006
5:21 PM
Here we go again…
Trying to do things to help the gospel get accepted…yep…that poor little pathetic, anemic, culturally irrelevant gospel. These people won’t listen to me unless I cuss and swear and sound like the world.
I don’t know what motivates Driscoll, I’ve never read his works, and quite frankly have no desire to. I have enough trouble keeping the world out of my thoughts without having to wade through the worldiness of some hip rev.
Those of you trying to defend Driscoll…shame on you. Take off your post-modern glasses and see the true truth.
69. Larry
May 19, 2006
5:30 PM
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?
70. Larry
May 19, 2006
5:34 PM
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.
71. Larry
May 19, 2006
5:34 PM
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.
72. sk
May 19, 2006
5:39 PM
“Scripture also says don’t be a whited sepulchre, which is what is mostly being promoted when one hears moralists complaining about language.”
SK: Will you elaborate on your statement further? How do you know this?
Kathy, it’s not what goes into you that defiles you, it’s what comes out of your heart that defiles you. Being worried about other people’s language is moralism and is not the faith. Yes, you can justify your moralizing and outrage a million different ways now (“Well, I have children, so, excuse me, but I won’t stand for…” etc., etc.)…
It’s shallow and fake to be concerned about other people’s language when your own heart contains the innards of a sepulchre.
Policing language is also a means the world - yes the world - uses to keep Christians lukewarm.
You just have to see where the burden lies. It’s on you, not on ‘others’. Don’t care about other people’s language. It can’t defile you. What is in your heart can defile you.
And remember that language is the most relative thing around. The simple word ‘sir’ can be totally respectful coming out of one mouth and totally sarcastic and mocking coming out of another mouth, with the tone in each case remaining relatively the same. It’s the same word. Some people use language more skillfully and effectively than others and ‘bad words’ out of one mouth may indeed be cheap and vulgar, but don’t take such words off the palette when there are artists around who can use the same colors to God-glorifying effect, even if it’s currently beyond your ability to understand. Don’t worry about what goes into you. It’s what comes out of your heart that defiles you.
73. Allan
May 19, 2006
6:25 PM
“Out of the abundance of the heart……..”
Tim, did you choose to give us two of his quotes on Masturbation, or is it something that Driscoll himself repeats unnecessarily? (Perhaps he has said many other such things but you rightly felt these well described the man’s communicatory ‘wisdom’ (heart?!)
He certainly is the star of his own book, and wants to shock so as to get attention (on himself?)
And even you fell into the trap of giving him (dubious) promotion by saying that ‘HE’ had grown a large church.
Funny, I thought JESUS said, “I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH” and furthermore implied in many ways both verbal and by example that HIS servants would NEVER take the credit from Him and say that in fact THEY had ‘grown’ (built) it.
74. Wendy West
May 19, 2006
6:32 PM
Larry
I guess “tugged your tool” (Mark Driscoll reference to masturbation) is equivalent to Ezekiel 23:20: “She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses?!!!” Are you kidding? By the way Larry you quoted the NIV and there are some people who aren’t King James only but who do take issue with the dynamic equivalents.
And is there any consideration of context? Let’s see Mark Driscoll was talking about porn and asking a congregant if it was “good porn” and Ezekiel is referring to Israel’s spiritual harlotry. Your lack of discernment continues to stun me.
And I get really weary of the “holier than thou” moralist attack. Christians are called to holiness plain and simple. Some of us take that very seriously and literally.
75. greg in Colorado
May 19, 2006
6:33 PM
While many (not all) seeker friendly pastors are ridding their worship centers, I mean sanctuaries, I mean auditoriums of the CROSS and the message of the cross to appeal to the “needs” and “desires” of the seeker without EVER clearly explaining how LOST, DEAD in their SIN AND ETERANLLY CONDEMNED each and every person is before a holy GOD, I am reminded that Paul rejoiced in Philippians 1:18:
“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes and will rejoice.”
Larry is right. I have read the Radical Reformission and am familiar with Mark’s ministry.
Brothers and Sisters, Mark Driscoll preaches the TRUE GOSPEL.
Let us at least rejoice in that and let God sort out the motivation and the distaste we might have in the total package. I too am not defending him, but I can tell you there are FAR WORSE men pretending to preach the gospel, who water it down so much, no one would ever suspect they have something terribly wrong in their lives that separates them and makes them an enemy of God.
Mark WILL stand before the Lord and give an account of every word and every deed as will you and I.
Mark is not ashamed of the gospel. Are we? How many pastors will stand in judgment of Mark, condemning him for his actions and words all the while they compromise and preach another gospel?
Who gets anathamized in Scripture? Those who maybe need to mature a little but preach the gospel OR those who look and act mature but don’t preach the gospel?
76. david
May 19, 2006
6:34 PM
But those who claim that Scripture never uses straightforward and direct language such as this are simply incorrect.
No one has made such a claim (as has been stated at least twice already), so let’s do away with that red herring. The issue is filthy language, which Scripture deals with very clearly.
This is also not about policing language. If you think you’re more eloquent with filth on your tongue, cuss away. However, policing language (and other sinful behavior) has its place. Read Matthew 18. If Driscoll used that language in this forum, it would be censored, and any church that practices Biblical discipline would discipline him for it.
Meanwhile, the world laughs when they hear one who claims to be a Christian talk just like they do.
77. Debbie
May 19, 2006
6:45 PM
This is a perplexing discussion. The subject matter would be offensive to most of the women I know Christian or not. I was quite shocked to read this post and I pray that Tim would delete the offensive material. It is not necessary to be this graphic to make the point.
78. Brian Thornton
May 19, 2006
6:53 PM
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?
I don’t have to drink poison, either, to know that it is harmful to me.
No, I haven’t read the entirety of Dricoll’s works, but I don’t think that disqualifies me from commenting. And I did NOT form my opinion from Tim’s review…I formed my opinion from the quotes of Driscoll. So, unless, Tim misquoted him, I have plenty there to form an opinion.
And, to correct your assertion…I HAVE read Driscoll, just not ALL of what he has written…but believe me…the little bit that Tim posted in his comments is all I need to discern that he is not worth the time…no matter whatever else he has to say.
I only have so much time here on this planet to live for my Lord…why would I want to waste some of it having to wade through and filter out the kind of garbage Tim quoted? I can get the same truth (whatever of it Driscoll professes) from other teachers who don’t have to stoop to the word antics that Driscoll does.
Thanks, but no thanks.
79. sk
May 19, 2006
7:02 PM
David, as Bunyan tried to teach Christians, the Village of Morality is not on the Way that leads to the Celestial City but is a detour and a dead end.
80. Bibliomaniac
May 19, 2006
7:17 PM
Larry said: 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.
Very briefly: 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.
While the Bible does actually describe course and reprehensible things, it doesn’t violate its own commands regarding foul language. Just as in English we have appropriate words for describing course things, and we have inappropriate words for describing course things.
81. Carla
May 19, 2006
7:24 PM
Daniel at duologos recently posted about this kind of language - and I said there what I will repeat here:
EVERY time a Christian speaks up about offensive, vulgar, profane, disgusting speech coming from other Christians, the ones speaking up about it are the ones who become the villians.
Good grief, have we all lost our minds? How can anyone professing Christ sit there and defend this kind of language?
It boggles the mind, to be sure.
Just for the record, for those of you that have spoken out against this, there are others out there that share your convictions over what the Scriptures say about holiness and filthy communication.
SDG…
82. sk
May 19, 2006
7:44 PM
“EVERY time a Christian speaks up about offensive, vulgar, profane, disgusting speech”
And to self-justify your desire to moralize you cast what has been said into such absolute degree. Did Driscoll praise genocide as well?
Listen, both sides of this subject need to be stated. Moralizing is not the faith, and common, useless, vulgar language is no more useful to anything than the body odor of those who refuse to bathe. The body odor though has nothing to do with the faith and with what is in your own heart. It can’t defile you like your own heart either.
83. Jabbok
May 19, 2006
8:09 PM
Kristie said,
What i’d like to hear is what you all think Driscoll should have said?
This will probably start a new wave of discussion but I think Kristie asks a valid question.
Driscoll should have told this young man that sins committed in secret should be confessed to the Lord privately. God does not require us to hang our dirty sheets on a line for all to see.
He should have told him that these temptations are not unique to him and the Bible tells us to flee youthful lusts.
He should have told him that Christ already suffered for his sin and it serves no end to beat yourself up over something you’ve done. Repent, confess and trust in the goodness and forgiveness of the Lord.
84. Dan Hames
May 19, 2006
8:19 PM
I’m a little bit surprised that people are claiming to be nauseated and disgusted and shocked to see these quotes from Mark Driscoll. If we are living in the world, we ought to be ready to meet this kind of talk. We can’t afford to be so surprised about it.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t see it as sinful, and therefore hate it; I’m not justifying it, and I don’t think it’s the kind of language that ought to come from the pulpit or from a leader to his sheep. But let’s not pretend that such language doesn’t exist: whether it comes from Mark Driscoll or the kids in bars in town.
Language is arbitrary in some ways. There are some words that will not offend my friends or parents, but would mortify my grandparents. Most words have a whole range of varying degrees of social unacceptability and we all draw lines in different places as to where they stop being ok to use. Poop… crap… where do I stop? Some of you are already offended that I used those two words- some of you think they aren’t rude at all. It’s not very easy to measure. Language CAN be relative. What IS absolute is my intention. If my intention is to talk about subjects that are unhelpful, or make jokes that are crude, then whatever language I use, I’m sinning. It’s possible to tell an awfully rude joke with a perfectly clean and respectable choice of words!
I personally wouldn’t use Mark’s language here, but he is nonethess simply addressing the subject with someone who struggles with it; it’s not joking or loose talk. He’s using expression that is relative and probably that the young guy can relate to.
I think that publishing that in a book is another matter- it WILL undoubtedly offend people, so I think that was a silly thing to do.
Sorry for the slightly random nature of this comment- it’s late!
85. david
May 19, 2006
8:20 PM
David, as Bunyan tried to teach Christians, the Village of Morality is not on the Way that leads to the Celestial City but is a detour and a dead end.
Please, do try to stay on topic.
The issue is not whether obedience to Scripture is a ground of justification, but whether filthy talk is sin, and whether a Christian can, for any reason, justify his sin.
Those questions have been answered well by a few people. I’m sure there are several more “yeah, but…” statements to come, but they’ve been answered.
86. david
May 19, 2006
8:24 PM
I’ll second Jabbok’s comment. That is a Biblical, pastoral answer.
87. sk
May 19, 2006
8:28 PM
Sure, it’s off topic, right. The fact is, there are many, many self-identified Christians who are stuck in the Village of Morality and think that is the faith. The practical negative effect is it keeps you from the efforts necessary in your own active, progressive sanctification. Bunyan knew it and described it. It is universal for all time and for human nature in general.
88. Larry
May 19, 2006
8:35 PM
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.
89. Lisa
May 19, 2006
8:40 PM
I am not here to stroke Carla’s back… but that woman often speaks my mind way better than I do.
(If I could only sit and chat with that girl face to face!!!)
I understand your concern Kristie, regarding the masturbation thing. It is sin that needs to be confronted… but again, we do not have to confront filth with filth… and that is what Driscoll has done, and apparently does on a continual basis. The concern on this thred is rightly the Biblical approach to such necessary confrontation.
YES we should confront sin BOLDLY with LOVE. He confronted that guys garbage with more garbage. A tainted truth is not truth.
What I mean is this, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest expression every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.” -Martin Luther
Driscoll is taking on the appearance of the world in his use of crude words and illustrations and the world LOVES IT…
If you think God NEEDS anything, anyone… you are off the mark. God desires for us to be holy, and obedient, and like His Son.. to be full of compassion and a love for Him so overflowing that we CANNOT HELP but share the only source of hope. Yes, some people need to be hit upside the head with the obvious… but even that can be done in love without being profane. Ah… the need for discernment…
Confusing the goal to be holy with holier than thou morality is lame. That is SO not what this is about. This is NOT about “legalism”, this IS about defending the truth for the sake of the Holy Gospel of truth out of love for the one who first loved me. No, I cannot stand it when people candy-coat the truth. We are called to be discerning, to judge righteously and to boldly, out of love refute error and sin without compromise truth… without compromising the character of Christ.
90. Larry
May 19, 2006
8:41 PM
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).
91. Kathy
May 19, 2006
8:57 PM
SK,
So, if I comment on someone else’s bad language
(believing such language is wrong), I am what you negatively call a “moralist”, but if you point out that I’m pointing out someone else’s bad language (believing that pointing out such language is the true sin), then are you not a moralist yourself? I’m not even sure that I’m upset that you think I’m a moralist. My dictionary says a moralist is a teacher or student of ethics.
But, you must recognize that you are doing the very same thing that you think is wrong. You are looking at other people’s behavior and commenting on it, instead of being ONLY concerned with your OWN behavior, as you previously stated was the right thing to do.
We can’t just look at our hearts ourselves to see who we are. What comes out of our mouths gives us a big hint of who we truly are: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jer. 17:9
92. Mark Lauterbach
May 19, 2006
8:57 PM
Tim
Looks like you hit a nerve!!
Excellent and fair post. This is certainly a case of a man with clear orthodoxy and a commitment to godliness whose life, in use of language, is crude. God owns his ministry and those whom I respect and have seen it would say the same. What are we to make of this?
Here is an interesting subject to blog about — what language is prohibited by Scripture? I ask that because I have read the OT in the Hebrew and read Luther too. If one reads Song of Solomon literally, it is pretty earthy. Our translators tone it down a great deal. And Luther is Luther. Not that this would excuse sin.
Where do we derive our standards for profanity and crudeness? What are the specific rules of Scripture? What has been the thought of history on this — go to godly men outside of American culture and see what they say.
I am not advocating a position, just raising a question.
I would also encourage a personal note to Mark Driscoll. I think that if we will take on someone’s book in public, we owe them a place to hear our concerns in private first.
Mark
93. Larry
May 19, 2006
8:58 PM
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.
94. Kenny Archbold
May 19, 2006
9:13 PM
In the name of being open and honest and transparent when we all get together in God’s great and Holy Kingdom of Heaven and we are all sitting around discussing how thankful we all are for God’s infinite grace and mercy towards us will it be necessary (remember we are being “open and honest and transparent” here) for us to describe our sinful state in such extremely vulgar terms:
I used to @!### *$#@@ **!!! (edited for content)when I was a sinner and I praise God for redeeming me from all that @@!**##.
Then why do so many people try so desperately hard to justify it now. Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Have we absolutely no shame ? Has Christianity lost all its inhibitions?
95. Scott
May 19, 2006
9:14 PM
“You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up, man. I don’t have time to be your accountability partner, so you need to be a man and nut up and take care of this yourself. A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright?” I said.
So his answer to porn is to trade porn for a wife? Just have the same attitude about your wife that you have toward the porn star? Is this guy married and still alive?
96. sk
May 19, 2006
9:35 PM
“But, you must recognize that you are doing the very same thing that you think is wrong. You are looking at other people’s behavior and commenting on it, instead of being ONLY concerned with your OWN behavior, as you previously stated was the right thing to do.”
Actually I’m not. I’m showing you that you are being more worried about what goes into you than what comes out of your own heart. That behaviour of yours is not something that threatens me (real, perceived, or any other way).
Overall I’m describing a common stumblingblock Christians fall at. It’s very common for Village of Morality Christians to consider such things as policing bad language to be what the faith is about. Village of Morality Christians are notorious for denying effort in the faith (it’s called active, progressive sanctification done on the foundation of regeneration). One way they succeed in keeping such effort out of their minds and life in general is to be very busy being concerned about such things as other people’s language.
97. Wendy West
May 19, 2006
9:49 PM
Carla is right It is mind boggling for some to defend such vulgarity. The real tragedy is that some don’t know vulgar when they see it. They also don’t recognize “filthy langauge” as sin even though the Bible is clear (whoops for some that is). This is so sad to see professing Christians who cannot recognize impurity, coarse language, filthiness, etc If we really need a “discussion” (sounds really close to a “conversation”) to define what language is appropriate for Christians, the state of Christianity is far worse than I thought.
Larry: I did read your comments very carefully. I understood what you said and I disagree with you. I am curious on what basis you felt like you could ask me to leave a blog comment section not run by you?
98. Tim Challies
May 19, 2006
9:52 PM
“I’m a little bit surprised that people are claiming to be nauseated and disgusted and shocked to see these quotes from Mark Driscoll.”
I’ve got to say - I felt the same. I know that Driscoll’s words were vulgar, but I was surprised that anyone would find it nauseating. Still, I suppose some people are more sensitive to these things than I am…and I can’t say that this is necessarily a bad thing!
99. Scott
May 19, 2006
10:01 PM
One more thought on the 1 Corinthian 7 passage. Driscoll (and supporters) seem to take this passage as talking to a single guy with no woman in the picture. He is just going around burning with passion and needs to find a wife, like some caveman, to release his sexual urges. One comment earlier actually stated that God gave men wives for this expressed purpose…to fulfill us sexually. 1 Corinthians 7 is dealing with a man and a woman who are both burning with passion for each other. It is to this that Paul is commanding marriage. Marriage is not the solution to lust. Married men still can struggle with lust, pornography, you name it. The answer to lust is what it always has been…Jesus on the cross.
100. Scott Welch
May 19, 2006
10:04 PM
OK, one more thought…really. God created a wife for Adam BEFORE he ever lusted. Therefore this cannot be the expressed purpose for marriage.
101. sk
May 19, 2006
10:11 PM
Mark 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Now, look at that litany. Did Driscoll manifest any of it with the language some of you are so upset with? The point here Jesus is making is focus on what is in your own heart because it is THAT which defiles you, not what comes into you from outside (in this case perceived ‘bad language’ spoken or written by another person).
Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Again, practically this whole subject involves the very, very common neglect (even disdain) of effort in the faith (in one’s own sanctification, i.e. the disdain of the active, progressive sanctification that calls for effort from the believer) by people most associated with policing things such as other people’s language.
Condemning other people’s language won’t develop you in your sanctification one wit. Christians aren’t complete when they are sheltered from the traffic of life (or shocked or outraged by it all the time) any more than when they are shallow regarding influences such as art, music, history, imaginative literature, science, philosophy, and religion in general (Chrsitianity is not a religion, it is reality, for the record)…
102. sk
May 19, 2006
10:13 PM
Remember the Mark verses above are in the context of Jesus being accused by the Pharisees for improper conduct…
103. Kenny Archbold
May 19, 2006
10:15 PM
“I’m a little bit surprised that people are claiming to be nauseated and disgusted and shocked to see these quotes from Mark Driscoll.”
It is not so much nauseating to hear such talk. I have become mostly desensitized to it because of its overuse in society. It doesn’t even surprise me to find a Christian slip up and become vulgar. We still have a carnal nature and we do not always resist. What is nauseating is to have such a large number of “Christians” promoting this kid of vulgarity in the name of openness and transparency (and of course we must be “relevant” to our culture) as if it benefited our message! It is nauseating to hear of brethren promoting sin and carnality saying right is wrong and wrong is right..
104. Larry
May 19, 2006
10:43 PM
Larry: I did read your comments very carefully. I understood what you said and I disagree with you. I am curious on what basis you felt like you could ask me to leave a blog comment section not run by you?
So you read them carefully and then said what you said anyway? You intentionally misrepresented my comments? That’s even worse, Wendy. We can do better than that. I think we should.
And I didn’t ask you to leave. (Another example of you not reading carefully.) I said it would be helpful for you to read carefully or stayout of the conversation.
I don’t run this blog, and I don’t ask anyone to leave. I am all for open conversation. But I do believe in reading carefully and responding to what people actually say.
105. Larry
May 19, 2006
10:49 PM
Scott,
I think you are misunderstanding 1 Cor 7. It is written to married people. But Paul makes it clear that his comments regarding having a wife are for all. He says, I wish that all were as I (meaning unmarried). Yet to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife. When you say that it is for a man and woman burnign with passion for each other, you are correct. That is not limited only to marriage. Clearly the principle is that marriage is part of the answer to fornication. So yes, part of marriage is the righteous fulfillment of sexual desire. That seems hard to deny.
In addition, I don’t think that Driscoll said anything about going around like a caveman. Having heard him speak on this topic several times through his preaching, I am pretty sure that your presentation is far different than his.
Again, not to defend him, but simply to clarify some things for the sake of the truth.
106. joythruchrist
May 19, 2006
11:07 PM
Frankly, I guess I don’t get out much, but I never heard of this guy until Tim posted this. But I’ll agree with a poster above who said I don’t need to drink poison to know it’s bad.
I can’t imagine a man of God speaking the way he did to the college student, even at 3am. Why did he say to get a wife? Like that’s the solution to sin? Why was there no leading the young man to the scriptures? I can think of several he could have reminded him of instead of being so gruff. Why did he not pray with the young man? Why did he say he had no time to be his accountability partner, and then not suggest he get one? I’m not saying that you never need to get tough on sin, but I am in full agreement with the use of the scripture about letting no unwholesome talk proceed out of your mouth!
And by the way, though he probably didn’t name the young man, isn’t it still a breech of confidence to tell the story?
107. Larry
May 19, 2006
11:25 PM
I meant to address the poison comment earlier. That was a misguided response since poison has nothing to do with this conversation. Poison is universally bad. Driscoll is not. He is for the most part solid, particularly on sin, man, Jesus, and salvation. He has a unique preaching style that isn’t everybody’s cup of tea (but who is).
My recommendation was spend some listening to Driscoll, studying his church, reading up on him before you form an opinion. I think if you took the time to listen to some of his preaching, you would see a different side than the one story that is getting all the PR here.
I was greatly encouraged to hear Driscoll’s strong preaching on sin and man, on repentance and faith, on Jesus and salvation.
For my dollar, I think the preaching of the gospel is of great importance so that while I would disagree with some of Driscoll’s methods (at least I know enough to disagree knowledgeably), I also realize that the gospel is being preached and people are being saved through his ministry there.
The “accountability partner” thing was an interesting point. If you listen to when he talked about at the Boot Camp (I don’t konw how he presents it in the book), he was talking about giving out your phone number. He was saying that in a large church you can’t give your phone number to everybody because you end up with calls at all hours of the day and night. It robs you of your family time, your study time, etc. As I recall, there is where this story was told in the presentation he gave orally. A pastor of a church cannot be everybody’s accountability partner. That’s just practicality.
108. nonchristian
May 19, 2006
11:29 PM
“Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged by God with greater strictness.” - James 3:1
“Avoid all perverse talk; stay far from corrupt speech” - Proverbs 4:24
“If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are just fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless.” - James 1:26
“Those who control their tongue will have a long life; a quick retort can ruin everything” - Proverbs 13:3
Simply throwing out several related verses. Respectively.
109. billmelone
May 20, 2006
12:08 AM
Mark Lauterbach #96 is cool, Mark or Tim, one of you should do a more extensive study of scriptures earthy words. And I forgot about Luther, he should be considered in the study too. Please do a more extensive study.
Seriously though, what is nauseating about ‘tugging your tool’? Its only nauseating if you imagine the picture it describes but there you have it if you talk about anything sexual. The horse emissions part of Ezekiel is crazier than tugging your tool, not least for the fact that the BIBLICAL passage is about the SIZE of horse emissions. And if you’ve ever seen that part of a horse, I can’t imagine…
And maybe you think thats vulgar but its precisely the image that Ezekiel and God are putting in our heads.
Banging girls like screen doors is offensive because we are offended by the idea that men sinfully bang girls listlessly (as listlessly as a banging screen door bangs). The sin it describes is offensive, but I’m glad that the quote accurately describes the sin that exists (and really, the word ‘bang’ is not that bad).
I always thought that Paul really meant to say ‘s***’ in that Philippians since he’s so passionate and high flown about the gospel and Jesus and then all of a sudden he uses a proper british word to describe his feelings toward things he rejects because they are not of Christ? Please.
Tim, please do a study on words in the bible (maybe a joint one with mark lauterbach), I’m sure it would be better than me and the rest of us. And maybe you would only allow people with degrees in Greek or Hebrew to comment or something.
110. Brian Thornton
May 20, 2006
12:21 AM
I meant to address the poison comment earlier. That was a misguided response since poison has nothing to do with this conversation. Poison is universally bad. Driscoll is not.
Come on, Larry…surely you recognize what I was getting at by saying that I know poision is bad without having to take it. I wasn’t making a 1 to 1 correlation with Driscoll to poison, but was making the point that I don’t have to read up on someone to have an opinion about him.
I mean, how many people reading this have formed an opinion about The Da Vinci Code without having read the book?
And I also disagree with your last statement that I quoted above about Driscoll not being universally bad. I think, to some degree, he is…because his language and demeanor taints everything else he says and does. But, hey…maybe I’m just the weaker brother in this instance.
And, to the person who said the we should contact Driscoll privately…there is no need for that. He has written and publicly published…there is nothing wrong with addressing his writings in a public forum.
111. bill streger
May 20, 2006
12:42 AM
“was making the point that I don’t have to read up on someone to have an opinion about him.”
Now, I know I’ll get blasted as a “Driscoll supporter” about this, but I think this is true no matter who we are talking about - from Driscoll to the Dali Lama. The above statement is true. You don’t have to read someone’s work to have an opinion about them. BUT you do have to have read the work to have an informed opinion about them.
The problem is, most of us are content to read some else’s opinion, adopt it as our own, and say that we have come to a conclusion. I’m not saying that you have to read every word someone has ever written, but more than a page worth’s of quotes.
Honestly, Luther said some pretty raunchy and amazingly controversial things - what if no one ever took the time to read more than a few his worst quotes collected in one place and formed an opinion that he was not a godly man, acting like an unregenerate teenager, and probably leading many astray with his horrible pastoring. Commentary on Galatians? Bondage of the Will? Using the same logic, someone could disregard these works entirely.
As I’ve said before, I’m not a fan of Driscoll’s edge at times. But come on folks, the poison argument simply doesn’t fly in this situation.
112. sk
May 20, 2006
12:43 AM
Nonchristian, a pure tongue, in the biblical sense, presupposes a pure heart. It’s not about merely speaking in a manner that offends no one (that is a whited sepulchre standard). That is not the subject here. The subject here is Christians who live in the Village of Morality who mistake moralising for what the faith is about. What does Christian X have to do with Mark Driscoll’s heart? The accusing and policing are the past time of Village of Morality Christians, meanwhile these same Christians are notorious for denying effort in sanctification (even when their own theologians patiently explain to them the difference between definitive and progressive, passive and active sanctification). Of course they do because to them the faith is about policing other people’s mouths and what not.
Kind of the same thing non-Christians like yourself (you calling yourself Nonchristian) do in their own secular way. Political-correctness and similar accusing/policing…
113. marc
May 20, 2006
12:54 AM
You’re the most judgmental bunch of judgementally judging judgers who ever judged. But thats just my judgment.
114. andrew jones
May 20, 2006
4:11 AM
good review, tim
tell you what i like about mark d:
he writes like he talks like he preaches. i bet there are one or two pastors who have commented above who have double standards in their conversation and their preaching. polite talk from the pulpit or in prayer to God, and more colorful in topic and vocab over a coffee at Starbucks.
mark might be a bit crude, even a lot crude, but he is real, and vulnerable and honest. and i would prefer that to a man of double speech. i would rather be offended by a few words than by deception.
115. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
4:20 AM
Actually, poison is not universally bad… it gets rid of unwanted vermin; but that’s neither here nor there.
I didn’t mean to compare the guy to poison; it’s not about comparison. It’s merely the concept that I don’t have to experience taking poison, or doing coke, or drinking liquor, or attending a 40 days of whatever Bible study to know that it would not be good for me.
The issue is that blessings and cursings should not come from the same mouth. Good water can’t flow from a bad spring. A little leaven… well maybe you get the idea.
And for the record, I didn’t say he should be the guy’s accountability partner. I realize that is more than a pastor of a church of 3,000 could handle. I was saying that maybe he could get him hooked up with one, or at least suggest he get one?
116. David Fairchild
May 20, 2006
4:27 AM
I was just listening to a sermon by John Piper at a CMA conference where he described people in the audience who are wasting their time buying their motor homes and traveling instead of seeing the gospel move forward as “asinine.” I was shocked that he used that word, but you know what? It got my attention and he was right. I can’t think of a better word to describe such apathy and stupidity but “asinine.” Now, this word I’m sure could be considered “inappropriate” being used the way it was, but it’s affect on me was profound. If someone were to say to me “why did he use such a word?” I would respond “you missed the point of the message.” In another message Dr. Piper used the word “crap” to describe open and process theology. Many I know consider that word pretty close to s__t. I also remember a sermon where Dr. Piper was describing the Pharisees chiding of Jesus where they tell him in John 8 they were not born of fornication. Dr. Piper said “if we were there hearing what these men were really saying, we would see they were telling Jesus that he was a dirty bastard.” Now, this sounds rough, harsh, edgy, difficult on sensitive ears, but it captures what needed to be communicated. I use Piper only as an example because he is someone that is quite godly and frankly quite a bit more conservative than I am. I could use the example of many others in their word choice but let me just offer Luther. In Table Talk, Luther has to defend why he uses harsh and course language. His response is exactly how I feel:
I was, said Luther, very lately sharply reprimanded and taxed by a Popish flattering Courtier, a Priest, because with such passion I had written, and so vehemently had reproved the people. But I answered him and said, “Our Lord God must first send a sharp pouring shower, with thunder and lightning, and afterwards cause it mildly to rain, as then it wetteth finely through. In like manner, a willow or a hazel wand I can easily cut with my trencher-knife, but for a hard oak a man must have and use axes, bills, and such-like, and all little enough to fell and to cleave it.”
In our context today I believe axes are necessary. You may have a more optimistic view of our time, culture, and congregations, but I am doing the ministry and know who is there and know the pulse of our church and culture. You can only imagine how many emails, phone calls, letters and comments I receive all trying to help me speak in a way that is more palpable for them. When I preach I’m not terribly concerned with how every person is going to respond, I care more about whether I am preaching with clarity, passion, and conviction I feel is necessary for whatever topic or passage God has given us to discuss. Sometimes these are words of great encouragement, and sometimes these are difficult words that hurt, shock, trouble, and even irritate individuals. I believe soft words produce hard people and hard words produce soft people.
I think the issue at hand is our inability to artiuculate clearly what “swearing” is. For example: you may believe that “pissed” (which is a phrasal verb meaning to make or become angry), “bitching” (in regards to what one does in excessive complaints without warrant), or “damn” (which is an interj. used to describe anger, irritation, contempt or disappointment), is considered swearing or cursing. I do not agree that these words are “swearing.” To swear, according to a standard dictionary, is described as “using profane oaths; to curse.” “Cursing” is then described as “a profane word or phrase; a swearword.” Or it could mean “to want evil or misfortune that comes in or as if in response to such an appeal.” It can also be “an appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something.” So the issue then becomes how you define “swearing.” The issue, unfortunately, isn’t as nice and tidy as you might prefer or hope. An assumption that “pissed” is a curse word, or “damn,” depending upon the context, or even “bitching,” is a curse word, is not accurate. If these words are not profane or used as a curse towards someone, then they must be left within their context (I’m only using these as relatively safe examples). If I take the pulpit and use profanity (which would be abusive or vulgar speech) then I certianly would understand whatever outcry or concern it creates. There is a difference between culturally contextual slang, (slang being “a kind of language occurring chiefly in casual and playful speech, made up typically of short-lived coinages and figures of speech that are deliberately used in place of standard terms”), colloquialisms, and “curse” words, “swear” words, and “profanity.” Culturally contextual slang, I believe, is the appropriate description of this type of language. Could it be that slang mixed with colloquial (informal language that is not used in formal situations), is being confused with the kind of swearing that has yet to be defined on this post? I think there is a confusion of these forms of speech.
117. David Fairchild
May 20, 2006
4:39 AM
joythruchrist,
If blessing and cursing should not come from the same mouth (in the way you are applying this to pastor Mark) then what do you do with Galatians where Paul calls anathema (condemnation, eternal cursing) upon anyone who opposes the one true gospel? How about the role of a prophet who’s job it was to pronoune blessings and cursings? Again, we must define our terms before we throw them around. You have to define “curse” or “cursing” in a way that is faithful to the intent of the author. I don’t see Mark’s comment’s as “cursing” in this way. Again, using words likes “swear,” “curse,” “profanity,” or “vulgarity,” can be quite dangerous without defining what you mean by such words. In using these words loosely you are laying upon Mark a description of intentionality that I don’t think is appropriate.
118. Caleb
May 20, 2006
4:48 AM
haha, the comment above by ‘marc’ is hilarious.
It is amazing how people have jumped to conclusions about Driscoll after reading a few quotes of his.
Mark Lauterbach’s idea of studying the words used in Scripture is a great one. It would be good to learn if the words in the Bible would have been considered ‘vulgar’ when they were written. Rather than merely asserting a position, it would be nice to see some scholarship. And if some of the comments are based on sources, then let them be known.
I love the discussions that go on in the comment sections of Tim’s blog. They are usually very edifying and thought-provoking, and I am very thankful for that.
119. jmark
May 20, 2006
5:24 AM
Has anyone here read Driscoll’s apology on his own website where he says he has been reprimanded by his elders for becoming known as foul mouthed?
I think we are seeing a work in progress as we watch Driscoll.
http://theresurgence.com/apology
120. Scott
May 20, 2006
6:36 AM
“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.”
Larry,
Thanks for pointing out my need for clarification. It was this comment that got the “caveman” comment. And just so you will know, my wife coined it when she read it. Guys, the easy test is to read this stuff to your wives. Check out most (about 95%) of the comments from women on this particular blog: their response is not positive. But hey, I guess that is because of the feminization of those who are supposed to be feminine.
121. Scott
May 20, 2006
6:37 AM
If marriage is the answer for lust…then why is there so much adultery?
122. Larry
May 20, 2006
7:26 AM
Scott,
Marriage is not “the answer” for lust. Marriage is the legitimate relationship for the outlet and expression of sexual desires. Much lust comes when those desires are not being met by a spouse. That’s why God gave your body to your spouse, and that’s one reason why God gave marriage. Adultery is the pursuit of lust outside of marriage.
123. makena
May 20, 2006
8:44 AM
Tim,
I know you have connections with Piper. (Arn’t you blogging this conference?) Could you please find out what the deal is here? That, to me, is the most upsetting part of all this. I have been so blessed by Pipers ministry…..and now it seems he is condoning this. It doesn’t make any sense to me. We are supposed to be “telescopes” of God’s glory to the world. That is what we just learned from his “Burning Center” DVD’s. Does this kind of talk really do that? Does it show people the glory of God? I don’t think so.
And one more thing. Being a woman, I find Driscolls comments very degrading. Especially this one:
“… and banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze…”
Do any of you have young daughters? Doesn’t this disturb you a little? I wouldn’t want to be in church with my 6 year old and 11 year old daughters (not to mention my 13 year old son) and have them listen to this kind of stuff. It’s exactly the kind of mentality I had to deal with in highschool. That is all girls are to most boys…. Something to “bang.”
It sounds like he’s saying, if you have a problem with porn, just get a wife so you can bang her. C’mon! What is wrong with this picture people?
Maybe he does have a lot of good things to say. But at least call this kind of talk what it is…….don’t try to gloss over it and make excuses for it.
And again, why is Piper aligning himself with this? That is my big question. I thought of writing to him but could not find an email address on his Desiring God web sight.
124. Mark Lauterbach
May 20, 2006
9:18 AM
I want to add one more set of thoughts here.
1. I go back to what I said to Tim and it applies to us all — has anyone spoken with Mark directly? he is our brother in Christ and some of the comments on this blog are ripping him to shreds. That would be the sin of slander (speaking of sins of the tongue). I might also add that comment 124 tells us there is reason for charitable judgments here. Has anyone written to the publisher?
2. I will simply note one more point: how do you feel when you read a very orthodox book, with entirely appropriate language, written by someone who is indifferent to the lost and does nothing to advance the Gospel to the unbelieving? Which is a greater sin? I imagine the Pharisees did not cuss and Jesus called them white-washed sepuchres — they had no interest in seeking the lost, only in preserving their borders.
I ask the second question because at this stage of life and ministry I would sadly say that many of the men who write would be great public sinners — they sin by neglecting the eternal souls of those who live near them. I can hardly remember a pastor telling me about someone he had in his home to share the Gospel, aside from professional opportunities. Yet their blood God will require of us. But that sin is not so apparent, so we read their books and consider them great examples.
Shall we not be consistent?
3. It is very easy to react to Driscoll emotionally — these words are certainly ones my mother would have attached by putting soap in my mouth. But — my mother is not God. There are passages to be studied. If you want to see what sort of vulgar language is in Scripture — how offensive it can be — I might suggest starting with the Gen 38 and the story of Onan. Then proceed to Is 64:6 in the orginal (it is a menstrual cloth). We may also look at the number of times there is reference to “dung” in the prophets. Ot just read the original of Ezekiel 16 — no, read it out loud to your wife in the english — and see if it is palatable. The words related to “whoredom” occur 91 times in the OT. I could go on. The law has lots of crude language in it. Or read Ps 137 — happy are they who take your little ones and dash them against a rock. How crude!
Galatians 5:12 is fairly vivid too. I could go on — refer to Marvin Pope’s study in Song of Solomon to get at the linguistics (not the critical approach), which is a far more explicitly sexual book than we think but is not dirty.
I say all this because there is a great difference between etiquette and godliness. I am not defending Driscoll. His elders have served him well by correcting him. If we are going to be shocking let us do it wisely and with counsel. Let us study Scripture so we do not mistake the etiquette of American middle class culture for godliness. I have preached almost all those passages referred to above and I was so filled with the fear of man that I blunted their hard words so as not to offend my sensitive audience.
125. Larry
May 20, 2006
9:23 AM
“… and banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze…”
… That is all girls are to most boys…. Something to “bang.”
Isn’t that exactly what Driscoll is addressing? He is addressing weak willed girls and immoral boys, both of which contribute to the problem. He is saying it is wrong for that to happen. Again, his language is over the top, but his congregation is also mostly college age and 20 somethings. It is not mostly children. He puts things in a way that grabs people’s attention and doesn’t let go.
It reminds me of a story he told about a pastor came to him and said he heard that Mark was encouraging premarital sex. Mark replied that he didn’t know that premarital sex was so down needed any encouraging. He said that they had people coming to church who were engaged in premarital sex and they put a Bible in their hands and told them to pull their pants up.
Whatever else you can say about Driscoll, he is not afraid to call it like it is and confront people in their sin.
It sounds like he’s saying, if you have a problem with porn, just get a wife so you can bang her. C’mon! What is wrong with this picture people?
What’s wrong to me is that people are drawing their conclusions about Driscoll’s ministry based on one short story that was at best ill-advised to have happened the first time, and unwise to have repeated it.
Again, i am not defending him for this choice of words, but look at the whole context of his ministry. Listen to him preach on sex and immorality. You will find that he takes a back seat to no one in calling it sin and calling people to repent from it.
126. 4ever4given
May 20, 2006
9:40 AM
Mr. Archbold said: “What is nauseating is to have such a large number of “Christians” promoting this kid of vulgarity in the name of openness and transparency (and of course we must be “relevant” to our culture) as if it benefited our message! It is nauseating to hear of brethren promoting sin and carnality saying right is wrong and wrong is right.. “
EXACTLY!!!
127. 4ever4given
May 20, 2006
9:49 AM
Kristie wrote: “Lisa, perhaps you meant no harm to me and I am just taking it the wrong way….”
I meant no harm to you at all. I was given advice when I first started blogging to never take things personally. I only take things personally when Christ’s reputation and honor is at stake. No need to defend yourself personally. I can understand what you are saying, Kristie. Though I do not fully agree with you, please understand it is not personal. It is good to work these things out. To be challenged to be able to defend what you beleive and why. May we do this for His glory, not ours. And if I have failed you in this Kristie, I sincerely apologize.
128. Dea
May 20, 2006
9:56 AM
I’m not a blogger :) But I do read many of your blogs and this conversation is really eye opening to see the varied opinions. I don’t have the writing skills that many of you do, but hope it’s ok just to give you my own viewpoint, although not nearly as witty as most of yours :)
I can understand the frustration of a pastor just like any human in being tired of phone calls in the middle of the night by a repeating sinner. What bugs me is the feedback - the pastoring he gives to the young man.
Why do so many in his position have to take things outside of scripture and add their own sinful (awakened and you’re angry - yea, it’s still sinful to be angry) ? By that I mean not just sticking to what God says.
There’s nothing that God didn’t talk about. Read Genesis 38, 8-10. It’s about Onan - look up the word onanism in the dictionary. God didn’t say anything about go get a wife and ask her to get naked. He just said it’s wrong - and being in the OT, judged on the spot. So now here we are living in the NT and God doesn’t judge on the spot any longer - but He will one day.
Bottom line for me is just deal with the sin straight from God’s Word and let the Holy Spirit keep convicting.
Mixing bad theological advice with pointing out sin only causes confusion, bad marriages and a host of other non edifying behaviour.
Just my thoughts.
129. Mike
May 20, 2006
10:18 AM
I started to say something here but stopped when I realized my comment was going to be longer than the original post. Personally, I (a) don’t like it when people do that at my place, and (b) don’t read them.
If anyone’s interested in my typically insightful, mature, godly, and final-word declaration on this matter, you can find it at “Is the Bible a ‘Dirty Book’?”.
[Warning! My post is rated “B” for words and descriptive language found in the Bible.]
130. Larry
May 20, 2006
10:25 AM
First remember that being angry is not a sin (Eph 4). It is unrighteous anger that is a sin. This may well be sinful anger, but anger at sin is not sinful. Christ himself got angry.
Second, the sin of Onan was not masturbation. That has been a commonly promoted but incorrect application. His sin was failing to give children to his levirate wife. (Something that, ironically, would be extremely vulgar in today’s society.) That is not to defend masturbation. But we should not misapply the text to condemn it .
131. Dea
May 20, 2006
10:29 AM
Christ become angry for sure.
Will study on what you said about the text.
132. Jeri
May 20, 2006
10:51 AM
It’s just hard to believe there’s any doubt that Mark Driscoll should not talk this way! That he does doesn’t mean that he is disqualified, but I do believe he is wrong. Why would we find this particular style of being relevant to the culture any more acceptable than was the seeker-sensitive marketing and entertainment style?
Any man, no matter how gifted and called, can be wrong. No matter what Luther or any other past or present man of God did or said, they were all just men, too. We are right to look to the shepherds and elders God has called, but we look to them as under-shepherds, knowing that if they fall short of “holding fast to the Head,” we need to continue in what we know to be right and true. Hopefully there are men in public positions of ministry willing to interact as Paul and Peter did, when Paul confronted him over his hypocrisy with the Judaizers, and Peter repented. We should pray for Mark Driscoll, write him a loving letter of concern, write to other influential leaders our concerns, too.
Rick Warren brought us purpose-driven marketing, believing that to do so was a good way to get the attention of the unchurched. Does Mark Driscoll bring crudeness and sarcasm, believing that to do so is a also a good way to get the attention of another segment of the unchurched? To me it seems very similar.
133. Kathy
May 20, 2006
11:12 AM
Does the admonition to go first to your brother who has sinned against you privately apply in this context or in other public situations? The book and the words in it (and what those may reflect about the person) are what is being discussed. The book was made available to the public by the author.
If the scripture does apply, then none of us should really be commenting here about either the words of the book or the words in any of these posts, until we go privately to the persons who have commented, right? Therefore, this type of communication should not exist?
So, I’m thinking there may be a different context for applying the scripture about a brother who has sinned against us? Is that an accurate understanding?
134. Timothy J McNeely
May 20, 2006
11:14 AM
I flip flop on Mark. I see some good, I see some bad. Someone said work in progress and I think that’s a good way to view him.\
His mouth is foul. He needs to clean it up. He is in a leadership position and needs to be held to high standards.
From talking about strippers, to cussing, to flaunting his past…Hi is odd..
But he is growing. I saw a post the other day about Mark talking about Wright and his comments about not having to believe in the resurrection to be saved. Slowly but surely…
Let’s keep praying for Mark. I know he along with others are in my prayer list.
Thanks for that great review Tim!
135. Scott
May 20, 2006
12:04 PM
Makena,
Thank you for saying what I have been trying to say all along. Here is the email you were looking for:
mail@desiringgod.org
Scott
136. makena
May 20, 2006
12:28 PM
Scott,
Thank you for the address….and the support :)
137. donsands
May 20, 2006
12:40 PM
Good discussion. Man, that was a lot to read. Why are some subjects more “discussingly popular” than others?
That’s a whole other discussion, I guess.
138. Van H. Edwards
May 20, 2006
1:09 PM
I’ve been listening to Mark Driscoll’s sermons from the past year and I have yet to hear one foul word from his mouth. I believe his reputation as “Cursing Preacher” is based on a persona that seems to be much in the past. I have however heard him utter a few unfavorable, although not 5-star quality, words during a seminar he gave several years ago. He has apologized and repented publicly, so perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt.
I’ll say two things about Driscoll. He has a suburb grasp on the culture. But again, that depends on what value you place on culture and reaching those in it. Read his book Radical Reformission to see how well he understands it. He also understands the Gospel and how to relate Jesus to a culture that’s going nowhere near a church. How far would you go to show a lost friend that Jesus loves them? Would you go with them to a gay bar? Driscoll did. Not to condone them, but to bring the gospel to a place that most upright Christians wouldn’t think of going.
Also, Mark Driscoll, as cocky as he comes off sometimes, understands grace and often extends grace to those on the outskirts of society - Christian or otherwise - who are not used to seeing it. This is more than I can say for many Christians who simply shut him off simply because they heard he cussed one time.
His “real life scenarios” are distateful. I’ve actually heard him use that same example while speaking to a group of pastors at an Acts29 event. Obviously, he finds it both humerous and sad. Having been on the elder board at my church, I’ve heard a lot worse. I’m not excusing his use of them in his book, but these are the struggles he’s had starting a church in Seattle - an unquestionably liberal and “ungodly” town. I would think most missionaries would rather go to a foreign country than a lost American city like Seattle.
Mark Driscoll is a flawed man. He’s also a flawed man who’s apparently proclaiming the gospel to a lost city. As far as theological work, I’ll stick with Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Owen, Edwards, Ryle, Spurgeon, et.al. Driscoll presents a pastoral point of view that most of us don’t have and don’t (won’t) share.
I intend to read this book and I hope to hear his message at the Desiring God conference.
139. Mike
May 20, 2006
1:48 PM
Kathy:
If your sin or error is public, so your rebuke will be public. Jesus called Peter “Satan” in front of the other disciples after he had rebuked Him in front of them; Paul rebuked Peter before a crowd after Peter publically distanced himself from the Gentiles.
Poor Peter: first Jesus, then Paul. What’s a pope to do?
140. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
2:04 PM
David Fairchild,
Ok, whether you believe that I used the verse from James about blessing and cursing out of context or not, and really I don’t believe I did, how about what’s been said earlier about no unwholesome talk coming out of our mouths?
The greatest concern I have in this situation is about matters of conscience.
In a post above, David said, ” I’m a reformed believer (who’d have guessed?), and my “besetting sin” is in the area of lust. I confess that I should have stopped reading at the first offensive word, as words and images like that stick in my mind like molasses. My poorly-communicated point was that I didn’t see the need to reprint the exact phraseology used by the author.”
I am deeply concerned about how Driscoll’s speech affects certain brothers and sisters. Perhaps some of you do not feel it was problematic, but as some others do, can we not try to remember passages like Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8?
From Romans 14:
15Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
21It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
From 1 Cor. 8:
9But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.
12But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
Also, Peter R. said, “We’re more concerned with maintaining polite conversation than we are with confronting and rebuking sin.”
It’s not a matter of “polite conversation”. I believe wholeheartedly in being quite tough on sin, starting with and especially my own. I just don’t believe we need to use the language of worldliness (popular, cultural slang) to do so. How do they know we are different, a peculiar people, if we sound just like them?
141. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
2:47 PM
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.
4550 sapros { sap-ros’}
from 4595; TDNT - 7:94, 1000; adj
AV - corrupt 7, bad 1; 8
GK - 4911 { saprov” }
1)rotten, putrefied
2)corrupted by one and no longer fit for use, worn out
3)of poor quality, bad, unfit for use, worthless
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
Just wanted to say a little bit further about the corrupt communications. Perhaps definition #3 fits the situation here?
I, and some others who have posted here, certainly did not feel edified by his speech to the young man. And I’m just guessing the young man didn’t either.
Also, are we not our brother’s keeper? It concerns me that he callously dealt with the young man, telling him to take care of this himself. Did he wound the young man’s conscience as well? Does the young man now think that he shouldn’t bother being accountable to anyone? Does he now internalize his sin, and is he thus searing his God-given conscience?
And by the way, speaking of a comment that is absolutely worthless, just what is “good porno” anyway? Sounds like an oxymoron to me…
142. "ourmindmatters"
May 20, 2006
5:46 PM
It would seem to me that some of us as Christians (those reflecting Christ on earth) are becoming more and more desensitized to Christ’s commands. I would like to reiterate something from “joythruchrist”:
1Cor 8:12
“But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, YOU SIN AGAINST CHRIST.”
God’s Word makes it very clear that the way we use our words will be judged in the end. Each and every one of them!
Mt12:35-37
“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
If we can’t see that those in leadership are offending Christ we all will follow suit. Where will we stop when just anything is accepted? Let us continue to argue that we can say anything we want that mimics the world’s language of today. But unless we are searing our consciences like it or not we must admit that today’s language (every word) carries it’s own implications and connotations. Can you see that our very arguing for “liberty” here is being used as a hot iron to sear our minds from what our consciences should clearly be informing us is offensive? This that does not edify His Body or glorify Christ. I personally do not know this man other than what he has been quoted to say. And whatever glory he has in the eyes of men means nothing to me. Whatever else he says that is impressive from the scriptures has lost its value in a way that is revealed by Solomon. The acceptance of this “liberty” is looked at by those who accept the facts of conscience towards our known language and it’s meaning in our culture as:
Ecclesiastes 10:1 “Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment, And cause it to give off a foul odor; So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.”
If we could see that our arguing for this liberty is offending the weaker brethren we would realize that we are sinning against Christ. Let us talk about being tough on sin. How about this sin against our precious Savior, Christ Himself???
143. Rob Hyde
May 20, 2006
6:41 PM
I wonder if Galations 5:12 would elicit this number of comments if the apostle Paul was around today?
144. anonymous
May 20, 2006
6:47 PM
Oh please. Whatever defines “cursing” and “vulgarity” is defined by arbitrary culture. A word is not “good” or “bad” in and of itself. Grow up people!
145. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
6:52 PM
Peter R. said, “Look up the literal meaning of “filthy rags” in Isaiah 64:6. “A screen door in a stiff breeze” pales in comparison.”
You forgot the rest of Driscoll’s comments. “Every one of them was older than me, a chronic masturbator, a porn addict, and banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze…” Everything about this comment is crass, and unecessary. Our righteousness being compared to filthy menstrual cloths is a far cry from the crassness of Driscoll’s full comment.
And then further on Peter R. states, “Phillippians 3:8 - what the NIV translates “rubbish” literally means s*** (as in excrement).
There are several examples where he’s talking about circumcision where he uses a term roughly equivalent to d***head.
That’s what I can think of for Paul off the top of my head. I’m sure there are other examples. Additionally, Jesus uses the term s***hole in Mark 7:19, …”
I’m just curious as to which version you read? I didn’t find anything like the term you say Jesus used in Mark 7:19 in the KJV, the NKJV, the 1901 ASV, the NLT, the RSV, the NRSV, Phillips, the NEB, the NIV, the NCV, the TEV, Green’s Literal, or in the original Greek. I didn’t even find it in the Living Bible or the
MESS-AGE! Most of these indicate that what leaves the body goes out into the sewer. It doesn’t seem to indicate a term for the orifice from which it exits, so why attribute the use of such a term to our Lord?
Also, Phil. 3:8 in my Green’s Literal and Greek NT states the term “trash”. NKJV says rubbish, and KJV says “dung”. Anyway, the point is, I don’t see the word “s***” in any translation.
As to Paul’s use of the word “roughly equivalent to d***head”, as you didn’t include references, and I am reasonably sure I won’t get anything if I do a search using that term, I would love to know what you are referring to.
So all in all, I’m not sure why you reference these passages in defense of Driscoll.
SK said, “Policing language is also a means the world - yes the world - uses to keep Christians lukewarm.”
I have to disagree completely with you on this one. It is the Word of God that is and should be our example, and as has been stated numerous times on this discussion, we are taught to watch our language, while at the same time remaining tough on sin. Perhaps not always an easy task, but didn’t He promise trials?
Oh, and thank you Brian Thornton for post #71, Wendy for #51, #67, and #78, and ourmindmatters, for post #147. Very succinct.
succinct.
146. Scott
May 20, 2006
7:02 PM
Anonymous-
Yes, you are absolutely correct. However, our culture DOES define the words under discussion as vulgar.
147. Amy
May 20, 2006
7:10 PM
I’m amazed by this comment above:
I love the discussions that go on in the comment sections of Tim’s blog. They are usually very edifying and thought-provoking, and I am very thankful for that.
Funny—I have exactly the opposite reaction. Every time I come to Challies.com, I find myself edified and my thoughts provoked by the original post (thanks Tim)…and then, almost without fail, I come away disgusted by a comment thread. A bunch of Christians who do nothing but fight and snipe at each other…very little charity, humility or cross-centeredness to be seen…it leaves me nothing but frustrated with the church. Don’t we have better things to do/more important battles to fight?
I guess I just need to either stop visiting Tim’s site altogether, or just read his posts and resist the urge to click the comments link, regardless of the curiosity that arises when I see how high that number is.
Meanwhile, I hope you’ll all go check out Mark Lauterbach’s post on this issue. A prime example of why I love his blog.
148. sk
May 20, 2006
7:10 PM
>SK said, “Policing language is also a means the world - yes the world - uses to keep Christians lukewarm.” I have to disagree completely with you on this one. It is the Word of God that is and should be our example, and as has been stated numerous times on this discussion, we are taught to watch our language, while at the same time remaining tough on sin. Perhaps not always an easy task, but didn’t He promise trials?
Right. Watch YOUR language. Not other people’s language. Don’t worry about what goes into you, it can’t defile you. It’s what comes out of your heart that defiles you. Spend your time policing other people’s language and you’re only doing two things: avoiding effort in your own sanctification and policing people so that they either come to where you are or stay where you are. This is all the activity of people who live in the Village of Morality…
And if you’re incapable of seasoning your language with salt without uttering empty curse words (which is not what Driscoll was doing in those quotes) then leave the language and communicating to others…
149. David Fairchild
May 20, 2006
7:16 PM
Just a thought,
Have we stopped to consider that self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and Pharisaical judgment of others was the main focus of Christ’s public disputations? The woman caught in adultery, the samaritan woman at the well, the hooker who washed Jesus feet, the tax collector, were loved and ministered to by Christ, but the elder brother in the prodigal story, Christ blasted with both barrels. I say this only to call us to some sanity on this post. Brothers and sisters, you are not pastor Mark, and truth be told, if we are really, really, honest about ourselves, we must confess that we are much worse than he. The hope of the gospel for our brothers and sisters in Christ is such that we can speak truth in love, and have it wrapped in courage and humility. Courage because we represent our King, and humility because we are simultaneously sinners and saints. I don’t see much humility in the attacks upon pastor Mark. I don’t see much charity, much patience, or much in the way of brotherly correction. What I see is a group of individuals that are more sensitive to language issues than others, who all agree that Mark is wrong and they are right, and who are all quite happy to repeat it 148 times.
Do you believe in a sovereign God who bestows sovereign grace? If so, then we should be on our knees in prayer for our brother if we feel that he is truly in error. We should weep over not only his sin, but our propensity to self-righteous aggrandizement.
In Jonathan Edwards resolutions, one which struck me in the heart, and has greatly affected me over the last few years is resolution #8:
# 8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God. July 30.
May God forgive me of my wandering heart, self-righteous motivations, and desire to be right, rather than be godly.
SDG
150. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
7:25 PM
So is Driscoll then living in the “village of morality” because he told the young man to stop viewing porn?
Are you living in the “village of morality” when you tell me to stop “policing” other people’s language?
I think that “policing language” is perhaps the wrong terminology in the first place. How about “we’ll know them by their fruits” or it is for us to judge those in the church, not those outside the church?
151. sk
May 20, 2006
7:31 PM
Agree, David Fairchild. More Bunyan (and Edwards), less Church Lady.
Practically what this means: accept that santification calls for effort on our part. The active, progressive side of sanctification calls for effort.
See in yourself what you dislike in others. Use the world as a mirror for clues as to what you currently can’t see in yourself.
Follow Pink’s advice in this very, very short piece on practical godliness:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/practical_godliness.htm
152. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
7:36 PM
By the way, I’d like to add that I am completely calm here. Absolutely no intention of sounding like I’m sniping. I thought the idea of this was to discuss scripture and our differing views.
I could go into a detailed account of my own sins and failures just to prove I’m not a Pharisee, but that would obviously not be productive. The reason these comments are being made is because this man is a public figure who has opened up his life and his failures for all to see in a published book.
I have read that he has changed these things in some ways, and that is a good thing, isn’t it? Yes, we all learn, change, and grow. The difference is that fewer people will be affected by my shortcomings simply because I am not in the public realm. This of course does not let me off the hook for anything. But please don’t think I am a Pharisee because I hold leaders in the public eye to a high standard. I hold myself to a high standard as well.
My apologies to anyone to whom I seemed unloving… Since you don’t know me you can’t know how I really am. My statements were out of love for some possibly weaker brother or sister.
Blessings to all…
153. Dan Hames
May 20, 2006
7:57 PM
Anonymous-
You (kind of) quoted me:
‘Oh please. Whatever defines “cursing” and “vulgarity” is defined by arbitrary culture. A word is not “good” or “bad” in and of itself. Grow up people!’
I think that’s true. The KJV uses the word “piss”, and today in the UK, that’s regarded an objectionable word. Equally, some of the words that are freely used today would have been frowned-on a few generations ago. How do you explain this?
Each culture has it’s naughty words, and they’re all different. In the USA, a “bugger” is something that comes out of your nose, but in the UK, it’s a strictly regulated sexual act. Was it sinful of the visiting Australian youthworker at my friend’s church to announce to the congregation that he was “taking the little buggers [children] out to Sunday school” during the next hymn (he didn’t know what it meant!)?
Rude words in all our cultures come from the areas of social taboos- in Western culture, it’s mainly things to do with bodily functions, sexual acts and religion. Elsewhere, it’s different. So we can’t really pin sin on words, as it’s all a bit fluid. Sin isn’t relative, but language certainly is. The potential for sin in this area is surely more about how we express ourselves, handle subjects that deserve sensitivity, show concern for the offence/boundaries of others. As far as I can see from these quotes, probably Driscol has been loose here, but I think it’s not simply a matter of “bad language” so much as sloppy handling of the subjects he’s dealing with (and he’s recounting a past conversation, right?).
While I’m here, Mark (#129)- great comments about making judgements on Driscoll without really knowing him. I guess equally I’ve defended him without knowing him as well… we all have to be careful.
And Andrew Jones: right on! Thanks. Am I allowed to agree with you? ;o)
Blessings to all,
Dan
154. joythruchrist
May 20, 2006
8:41 PM
Wait a second… I just thought of something.
Because I am so quick to examine myself in regard to sin, I very quickly took some words recently posted to heart. But after a bit more thought, I am wondering a few things.
Some on this board are being spoken of as being
unloving or Pharisaical because we have spoken of what we consider to be the wrong of language spoken by Driscoll. But is Driscoll unloving in the way he dealt with the student? By his own account of the story, it kind of looks that way.
He says the phone rang “at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3:00 a.m.” He says “Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned.” He then goes on to say “To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind.” He then goes on to say “don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry”.
Somehow none of this seems very loving to me. Many of the posters here have said that he handled it well and that you have to get tough on sin and sometimes a kick in the teeth is helpful. That Driscoll himself is quite tough on sin.
I am unsure why those of us who see the language used as sinful, and have said so, are considered more unloving than all of you who said we should be tough on sin?
155. Amy
May 20, 2006
10:28 PM
let me clarify my statement above, before the log protruding from my own eye knocks any of you out:
much of the disgust I come away with after reading comment threads like this is directed at myself. I see a great lack of charity and an ugliness in my own heart. these kinds of debates just don’t seem to bring out the best in most of us—myself included.
156. Brendt
May 20, 2006
11:26 PM
WOW !! Anyone else think that the comments section here contains lots of stuff that’s far more offensive and unChristlike than anything Driscoll has written?
157. Brian Thornton
May 20, 2006
11:39 PM
Tim,
You might want to consider putting a post limit on each of your threads…that may help prevent the type of insane repetitiveness and going in circles such as can be found on this particular thread (maybe limit them to 50-60 posts).
If there is a “most ridiculous” blog award for comments to a post…I believe this one would win hands down.
Good grief!!! 161 comments and counting on the subject of Chrisitans and their right under grace to cuss and be crude like the world…man, we sure love our vices, don’t we…
158. wfseube
May 21, 2006
12:09 AM
Brian wrote: Good grief!!! 161 comments and counting on the subject of Chrisitans and their right under grace to cuss and be crude like the world…man, we sure love our vices, don’t we…
Amen, brother. How absurd is it that, on a Christian blog, there are Christians trying to justify using foul language? Pretty hard to believe, but then again, the gap between the world and the Church is becoming smaller and smaller, so that should not be a surprise.
Brendt said: Anyone else think that the comments section here contains lots of stuff that’s far more offensive and unChristlike than anything Driscoll has written?
No, not at all. The vast, vast majority of this thread (contrary to your and Amy’s opinions) has been quite measured and civil and within the bounds of Christ-likeness, especially compared to some of the exchanges we’ve had about Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, etc. over the last couple of years.
Objecting to Mark Driscoll’s language does not mean one is objecting to the message he delivers - I’ve heard virtually no one make that assertion. And as a prior poster pointed out, Driscoll himself has recognized that he has a problem with the “cursing pastor” persona that he is developing. So it’s not like this is new news. He is obviously concerned about it himself - as well he should be, just as any of us should if we are found to suffer from the same “issue” (myself included).
——
bill
159. Timothy J McNeely
May 21, 2006
1:44 AM
Your comments on the gap between the world and church growing smaller makes this ring even more true.
“The biggest mission field in America is professed Christianity.”
-MacArthur
160. "ourmindmatters"
May 21, 2006
1:54 AM
As we all know, we should be considering what God say’s about these things. I don’t go for anyone telling me there own opinions with no valid scriptural basis. That is how we all get misled. We are looking at and examining a “topic” of concern. It happens to have come out via a “popular” person in the church who has decided to publically publish his words for ALL to see. Therefore ALL SHOULD JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT. Judgement is not reserved for the Pharisees who ignorantly and falsely judge without knowing God’s Heart. We do know them by their fruit. Or can we say that we discern them by their works? This man may actually be a very nice man who does many works in God’s Name and even understands nearly all mysteries and all knowledge. He may prophesy God’s Word with great insight. But the issue, he has chosen to reveal on his own accord, is there and can’t be ignored and obviously isn’t here ignored. He may have even repented of this by now as someone has mentioned before. Even some of those defending him have in their words confirmed that he has sinned here. The man is not to be judged here as much as his actions. In other words this is an “issue” of godly or ungodly speech, is it not? Why don’t we stop seeing this as judging a man and see it for what it is at a greater level and that is: judging what is proceeding out of the mouth? Maybe some of you on here can relax over your concern that a man you admire who has chosen to be in the limelight is being wrongly judged. Do you all realize that probably EVERYONE of you on this thread has been judging here in one why or another one person or another? I’m not saying this is wrong if it is done rightly. I am saying that if you judge others judgements YOU are judging. And if you don’t judge it you are heading for trouble somewhere.
If we truly are Christians, we are all called to know for sure what God’s Word means not just what it says. The spiritual man judges all things yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
Ep 5:11-12
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is SHAMEFUL EVEN TO SPEAK of those things which are done by them in secret.”
OK, we are supposed to expose these things but not speak of them. What does this mean?
Please consider this Believer’s Bible Commentary:
“Now the apostle explains why the Christian must have no complicity with moral corruption and must rebuke it. The vile sins which people commit in secret are so debased that it is shameful even to mention them, let alone commit them. The unnatural forms of sin which man has invented are so bad that even to describe them would defile the minds of those who listened. So the Christian is taught to refrain from even talking about them.”
And Matthew Henry:
Observe, A good man is ashamed to speak that which many wicked people are not ashamed to act; but, as far as their wickedness appears, it should be reproved by good men. There follows another reason for such reproof: But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, v. 13. The meaning of this passage may be this: “All those unfruitful works of darkness which you are called upon to reprove are laid open, and made to appear in their proper colours to the sinners themselves, by the light of doctrine or of God’s word in your mouths, as faithful reprovers, or by that instructive light which is diffused by the holiness of your lives and by your exemplary walk.
Does this passage not instruct us to be careful “how” we speak of sin?
And, as we have brought out earlier, is this not a matter of “liberty” and “clear conscience” and the concern and love for those younger and more sensitive brothers and sisters in the Lord for whom Christ died? Do you have any sensitivity for those who don’t know what you know yet or do you wish to trample the weak consciences of those that could be emboldened to sin in this way? Those saying that we who have spoken out against this are unloving and know nothing just might need to be honest with themselves in this judgement. If we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God what are you “DOING” about the words we have reminded you of here?
Please, I say this with a heart of love and concern for us understanding what tough love really is.
Please study this, pray and be honest with yourself before God and see what you come up with in this.
Thanks for considering.
161. Merilee
May 21, 2006
9:24 AM
SK- You quoted from Mark 7:14ff where Christ speaks of that which defiles a man. Please note that the Pharisees’ issue with Jesus’ behavior was that some of His disciples had eaten bread with unwashed hands. To deduce from this passage that God is unconcerned with what we take into our bodies, hearts, and minds is not taking the context into consideration.Intentionally or not I don’t pretend to know, but I believe you are throwing out a red herring here. You refer to this one Scripture over and over while ignoring numerous other portions of Scripture that would be relevant to Mark Driscoll’s behaviorand our response to it. We cannot take one verse that supports a pet idea (and it sounds as if legalism is a pet peeve of yours- rightly so) but then fail to look to the whole counsel of God. Mark 7 may be instructive, but it is not all that the Bible has to say on this subject. Doubtless, there are many verses which have relevance to this subject, and I think it would be a profitable exercise for all who are participating in this thread to use more Scripture and less opinion when seeking to make our points.
Here are a few verses that I think have particular bearing on this topic:
Proverbs 25:26 Like a muddied spring and a polluted well, so is a righteous person who gives way before the wicked.
Titus 2:1 But as for you, communicate the behavior that goes with sound teaching. 2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in endurance….2:6 Encourage younger men likewise to be self-controlled, 2:7 showing yourself to be an example of good works in every way. In your teaching show integrity, dignity, 2:8 and a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us…..2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. 2:12 It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 2:14 He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good. 2:15 So communicate these things with the sort of exhortation or rebuke that carries full authority.
SK, I am not meaning to be your critic. It sounds to me like you’ve had a bad turn with some pharasaical folk at some point, and I can see where it would be a real turn off. I can see how you’d go on the attack of anything that resembled it. Been there, done that. But, I do hear in your comments, what sounds like a sincere desire to see the gospel preached, and preached in a way that is relevant. So, I cannot dismiss you. But please do consider some of the above verses and let me know your thoughts.
Does anyone else have Scripture that could help us all to sift through this in a way that honors God and in which we can spur one another along in godliness?
162. Kathy
May 21, 2006
2:19 PM
Merilee, this is one scripture that I like because it reminds me that there is another facet to grace that is very important:
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:11-14
163. joythruchrist
May 21, 2006
4:44 PM
Merilee said, “To deduce from this passage that God is unconcerned with what we take into our bodies, hearts, and minds is not taking the context into consideration.”
Thanks Merilee, I was going to address this one, but I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Thanks to both you and Kathy, and to everyone else who spoke grace to this situation.
Amy remarked on this quote somewhere above:
“I love the discussions that go on in the comment sections of Tim’s blog. They are usually very edifying and thought-provoking, and I am very thankful for that.”
I can echo the comment in the regard that the differing views expressed here have certainly caused me to be in the Word even more than usual, and consequently, I have grown myself. Not a bad thing, I’d say…
We all come from different perspectives on things, and if someone else knows something I can learn, great! If I know something someone else can learn, great! Iron sharpens iron, right?
Blessings to all!
164. Kathy
May 21, 2006
5:18 PM
This is embarrassing. I thought I had read Merilee’s comments quite carefully and yet I repeated a scripture she had already posted! Maybe that scripture was so applicable that it needed to be repeated here? ;-)
165. Brendt
May 21, 2006
5:28 PM
wfseube said: The vast, vast majority of this thread has been quite measured and civil and within the bounds of Christ-likeness…
Let me give some examples of that civility and Christ-likeness:
#5 — smug sympathizers swoop - While this is killer alliteration, it’s not very charitable to assign smugness to anyone who disagrees with you. One might even say that it is rather smug to do so.
#13 — Baloney - Yeah, there’s a charitable and Christ-like response. (Be honest: were you really thinking “baloney”?)
#31 — this wolf (refering to Driscoll) - Getting more charitable by the minute.
#33 — what he meant is entirely irrelevant - Because that’s how the commenter interpreted it, and if someone else claims to have gained something from it, they’re wrong.
#52 — Perhaps you can explain to us what you know that every serious Bible translator thus far has missed - “Hey mama hey mama lookee what your little babies all have become”
#77 — He certainly is the star of his own book, and wants to shock so as to get attention (on himself?) - Interesting sweeping analysis by someone who (one paragraph before) admitted to not having read the book.
#78 — Your lack of discernment continues to stun me. - Personally, I think I’d rather be told to “nut up”
#107 — “Christians” - Wow, those quote marks assume a lot!
166. Brendt
May 21, 2006
5:30 PM
Amy said: Every time I come to Challies.com, I find myself edified and my thoughts provoked by the original post (thanks Tim)…and then, almost without fail, I come away disgusted by a comment thread.
For me, I wouldn’t classify it as “almost without fail”, but I am in total agreement with you, otherwise. I had to take this site off my blog-roll today. I am saddened by that fact, as much of what Tim has to say is nothing short of golden. Fortunately for him, I get so little traffic, that not blog-rolling him won’t decrease his traffic at all. ;-)
I guess I just need to either stop visiting Tim’s site altogether, or just read his posts and resist the urge to click the comments link
I subscribe to the blog, so I only get the good “Tim stuff”. I just heard elsewhere about this particular comment thread and my schadenfreude got the better of me. But ordinarily, I’m not “tempted”.
167. Brendt
May 21, 2006
5:32 PM
Why does David Fairchild keep injecting thought-out and well-phrased sanity into the conversation? I’m suspecting that “David Fairchild” is just a pen name for Tim Challies. ;-)
(That’s only a compliment to Tim; not a slight to David)
168. Brendt
May 21, 2006
5:37 PM
wsfeube wrote: (contrary to your and Amy’s opinions)
Maybe I’m reading to much into it, but did we just get criticized for being offended by the way some people have been talking about being offended?
169. david
May 21, 2006
6:21 PM
As it seems that this thread has outlived its usefulness, I’m closing the comments for now.
Cuss amongst yourselves…