- 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 Cant 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 worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (169)
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
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.
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.
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).
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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 … :-)
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?
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.
The issue isn’t whether Scripture uses straightforward or direct language. The issue is whether Scripture uses course or foul language.
Wouldn’t it be hypocritical of God to command us not to use foul language, then He use foul language Himself in Scripture?
So I gave two passages above that use “course or foul language,” language that you would not accept from your teenager, I am quite sure. But yet God used it.
In answer to your second question, No, it would not be hypocritical. God is God. He does whatever he wants to do, and it is right. And what he commands us to do is what we should do. “He did it first” no more works with God than it does with your children. Since God did use language that most would consider “coarse” or “foul,” your second question actually proves your wrong, it seems to me.
With respect to Brian, “helping the gospel get accepted” is a pretty broad slam. It helps the gospel to “get accepted” when we speak in English (or whatever the native langauge of your audience is). It helps the gospel “get accepted” when you give it to people who are awake and listening to what you said. On the other hand, I don’t think we need profanity, any more than we need top 10 lists, or movie clips. I think we need to preach the gospel straight and clear, to show how it is relevant to every part of our lives.
As I said, I am not defending Driscoll, but you would be hard pressed to find a more clear and direct presentation of the gospel by any preacher anywhere.
Your admission that you have not read or listened to Driscoll tells me that you are unqualified to comment on whether or not he is doing that. You are forming your whole opinion on Tim’s mixed review. So I am not sure what motivates you to speak here on something you are admittedly ignorant on. Care to enlighten us?
BTW, Centurion, this book was not published “at or before his recent rejection of Emergent.” It was published in April 2006 (last month). He has been distancing himself from Emergent for several years. His first book called Radical Reformission was published about a year ago or more, as I recall.
I hesitate to say this much on here because some who don’t read closely will accuse me of defending Driscoll, and I am not (for the third or fourth time). But I have taken the time to expose myself to him and his ministry to learn about it.
BTW, Centurion, this book was not published “at or before his recent rejection of Emergent.” It was published in April 2006 (last month). He has been distancing himself from Emergent for several years. His first book called Radical Reformission was published about a year ago or more, as I recall.
I hesitate to say this much on here because some who don’t read closely will accuse me of defending Driscoll, and I am not (for the third or fourth time). But I have taken the time to expose myself to him and his ministry to learn about it.
And I am as far from postmodern as you can get, Brian.
“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.
“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.
LarryI 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
“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.
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.
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!
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.
I’ll second Jabbok’s comment. That is a Biblical, pastoral answer.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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?
“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?
“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.
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?
“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!
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.
OK, one more thought…really. God created a wife for Adam BEFORE he ever lusted. Therefore this cannot be the expressed purpose for marriage.