- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (05/19)
- Next Post »Book Review - An Army of Davids
Confessions of a Reformission Rev.
- 05/19/06
- 169
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.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (169)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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-
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."
"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.
...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.
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
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.
Oh, man. After that excerpt you posted Tim C., I think I have to read that book.
Pure. Gold.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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."
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.