- 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)
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)…
Remember the Mark verses above are in the context of Jesus being accused by the Pharisees for improper conduct…
“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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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…
You’re the most judgmental bunch of judgementally judging judgers who ever judged. But thats just my judgment.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
If marriage is the answer for lust…then why is there so much adultery?
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.
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.
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.
“… 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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.]
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 .
Christ become angry for sure.
Will study on what you said about the text.
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.
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?
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!
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
Scott,
Thank you for the address….and the support :)
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.
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.
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?
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?
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, putrefied2)corrupted by one and no longer fit for use, worn out3)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…
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???
I wonder if Galations 5:12 would elicit this number of comments if the apostle Paul was around today?
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!
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.
Anonymous-
Yes, you are absolutely correct. However, our culture DOES define the words under discussion as vulgar.
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.
>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…
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
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?