One of the things I know in this world is that entertainment and religion do not mix. I have received this orthodox teaching from the Bible, my time at Central Seminary, and from Tozer. I have also received this teaching from John Piper. I grieve that there are accepted Christian leaders who believe that they must put on a show, all baptized under the auspices of evangelism. I grieve that this true of Mark Driscoll.
On Saturday afternoon I heard Driscoll speak in person. I really did not know much about him. My only real knowledge of him came from watching a couple of his “vodcasts” leading up to the conference (watching those, I was not much disposed towards him). I had no idea that he was known as the “Cussing Pastor.” Cussing Pastor indeed. Piper was the first to tell me this (or all attending the conference) moments before Driscoll spoke. Evidently Driscoll has repented of this. I hope so, and with tears.
Mark Driscoll is an Entertainer, an Impresario. His sermon started (and continued) more like comedy routine than a sermon about the gospel. My more “evangelical” friends tell me this is how he relates to this culture. That, of course, is rubbish. Did ancient Christians know no humor? Did they not appreciate good jokes? Or did the larger Graeco-Roman culture not laugh? On the other hand, perhaps they did know of humor, but did not see how levity and foolishness and being funny related to sacred and holy things; instead they looked at this short life we live on earth in dead earnest, pressing on into the city whose builder and maker is God. I posted my Thursday evening post, “No Place for levity,” before I even knew I was going to this conference. How ironic.
Read that post again, listen to Driscoll, and then read the post again. What dire times we live in.
I thought John Piper was on my side on this issue. Consider for example, some of the quotes (here and here) of Piper I have quoted in the past. Now I wonder if Piper is such a kindred spirit after all. In the sermon that he preached Sunday to conclude the conference (which I could only listen to), he sounds silly apologizing to us for not being “more relevant” like Driscoll. How sad! Driscoll is not relevant. He will not be wearing that silly thing around his neck 15 years from now. He will not be talking about the Simpsons and Madonna. He will have to keep changing, and his ministry will have to keep changing to prevent itself from falling into the irrelevance that characterizes the now passe seeker movement. If Piper only knew how relevant his preaching is. He through careful thought and study has keen insight into the human condition, demonstrating an apt ability to penetrate with his preaching, and all without talking about the latest movies and cable television shows. One of the things that has drawn me to him is his deep love for the gospel and his renunciation of all the things in this world. He did it more often and better than fundamentalists! And then he asks a man like Driscoll to come, who tells us “Jesus is as hot as ever” because hollywood stars are wearing “Jesus is my homeboy” shirts. Anybody else see the disconnect here?
He invites Driscoll (at the risk of my sounding angry, please allow me to continue), a man who thinks “incarnation” is another word for Jesus’ full humanity and “exaltation” is another word for Jesus’ full deity (the word “incarnation” is not about Jesus’ humanity, but about God becoming a man, and the exalted Jesus in no way leaves his humanity behind), who thinks the the fact that the gospels were written for different audiences vindicates the concept that we need to be relevant, who jokes about the virgin birth and hell and sodomites and Jesus destroying his enemies, who thinks that you can’t worship a Jesus you can beat up as that makes him some kind of wimp (just a reminder, we worship him because he was “beat up”), who “adores” the Passion of the Christ, believes Christ is “all tattooed up,” likens hell to God kicking your head with a boot, wonders (outloud) how the Jewish people “checked” if you were circumcised, and growls like a dog in the middle of his “sermon.”
As I said, this is something to grieve over.
“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, . . . sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable.” – the Apostle Paul
“Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.”
If we are against the syncretism of Christianity and Islam (of course, not all evangelicals are against even this anymore), why should I be expected to listen to someone who syncretizes Christianity–even Reformed Christianity–with the comedy or night club? Is there nothing sacred? Mark Driscoll, if you read this (which is improbable, but I must say this nonetheless), I implore you with humility, for the sake of the gospel and the Lord Jesus Christ, to stop the jokes, stop the silliness, and stop the entertainment. Do not make profane the holy things of the Lord Jehovah. You are a holy priest speaking the oracles of Christ. You find it unbelievable that people deny traditional Christian doctrines like hell; well, with respect, I find it unbelievable that people deny traditional Christian mores such as reverence.
I was there on Saturday as well and also knew very little of him prior to that… I hear what you’re saying about the complete levity of the talk. At the same time it raises a question in my mind: How do you suggest contextualizing the Gospel? Did not Paul change his approach when speaking in the areopagus from how he addressed the Jews in the Iconium synagogue and from how he addressed the pagans in Lystra? Should that have any normative bearing on our considerations of methods of evangelism and preaching in general? … I guess, how do you envision the kind of contextualization that Tim Keller was suggesting especially as it related to “Gospel communication” where he encouraged intelligibility, plausibility, credibility, and communicability?
The current pre-occupation with contextualizing the Gospel, I think, is most beneficial, not as a way of helping us conform the Gospel to address particular kinds of persons, but as a way of showing us where we have gone overboard. Obviously, most do not look at this way. At the risk of oversimplifying this question, which I think is a legitimate concern, I believe we should have genuine concern for the unregenerate as a person. We should show them Christ. Christ is the most desirable thing in the world, and we only show our unbelief when we shirk from showing him. How do we show people Christ? By loving the Triune God radically, showing them Christ’s high demands of repentance and faith, serving them and those around us, persevering joyfully through suffering–by living the genuine life of faith. The last thing I want to do is show them Ryan Martin. I want them to see Christ, and I do not mean this in a cliche way at all. Practically, I think Keller is right in that for most people we will have to take much more time in sharing the Gospel. This is a generalization, but most people do not have a clue about Christianity (does this include many Christians?). It’s a no-brainer that they won’t understand the first thing about Christ’s death appeasing God’s wrath, and that we will need to slowly explain this. But this will change from case to case, and our attempt to get into their lives will help us better understand where we should begin and what we should cover in evangelism. In the end, I would (hopefully) tell an executive at my office, the warehouse worker in our company warehouse, and my somewhat in the middle co-workers the same thing: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. He was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. The content does not change at all. Christ does not need to be more “hip” or “trendy” for any of those three groups. Why do I want to preach the Gospel to all these groups? Because I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Sorry about the rambling.
I also was at the conference and had similar reactions to Driscoll. I still feel like I’m processing his words and Piper’s reaction to him.
What surprised me most was that no one (in the pulpit, at least) seemed to think entertainment (as in movies, comedy clubs, television, and so on) could be sinful. It was as if they were non-moral issues that could be used for God.
I appreciate Driscoll’s passion for evangelism–but what kind of Gospel brings people in without urging them to change?
[...] Ryan Martin reflects on his experience at the Desring God Conference this past weekend [...]
[...] Frankly, I’ve been thinking a fair bit about this since reading these two posts (Immoderate: Mark Driscoll The Impresario and Tall Skinny Kiwi: John Piper and the Desiring God Conference – as well as others, however these are the best representatives of the views I have come across.) I have a great respect for both of these bloggers, although I know neither personally and their views are vastly different. [...]
No pun intended, but after hearing Driscoll’s message, I say: “What a JOKE!” Driscoll is not “a holy priest speaking the oracles of Christ”, he’s a blasphemer who is using Christ & Christianity to promote his name,fame, and particular ideology. Just because Piper promotes him, doesn’t lend true validity to Driscoll. Sadly, many will think Driscoll is great because of Piper’s promotion and inclusion of him at the Supremacy of Christ conference. Piper just shot down the entire theme of the conference by inviting Driscoll and his “message.”
Ryan said: “at the risk of my sounding angry”
Brother, you have every right to be.
I was not at the DG conference, and I have not listened to his message from that conference, but I have heard about the conference, and I have read driscoll’s blog and piper’s email and all that.
And having read this post and several of your remarks, I think you all may be in danger of missing the point of the Gospel, you may even be misreading what Jesus said and did. I don’t want to flame anyone, but Jesus came to earth and spoke in ways that the pharisees didn’t like, he related his parables to the culture of the time, and if you read really closely, he uses a lot of sarcasm, puns, and just out right wit.
If you can’t enjoy preaching the gospel then why do it? I live in Seattle, and I listen to the the MH podcast and maybe I’m just used to his style and personality, but I implore you. Lighten up and enjoy the faith that we are living in. To call Mark Discoll a blasphemer is really, really pharisaical (sp?) and you need to watch out for that kind of attitude. Jesus spoke harshest to the religious folks and he laughed and went to parties with the sinners.
Christ’s use of parables was not for understandability–rather it was part of hiding some of His meaning–essentially, He began using the parable more after His divine acts of healing were attributed to Satan. There is a marked difference in Christ’s interaction with the leaders, and with everyday Jews overall. He explained the parables to His disciples, and left the others to figure it out. The parables were only “relevant” to the culture in that the “culture” was rejecting Him and attributing His works to Satan.
Having heard much of Driscoll, I find his efforts typical of the decline of American Christianity–Christ’s use of literary and rhetorical skills cannot be compared to some of Driscoll’s debased morality, incautious word choices or his seeming inability to make an argument without using profane words/themes. He would do well to find a thesaurus. I questioned Piper’s wisdom in inviting him–glad I did not go at this point.
Jason said: “To call Mark Discoll [sic] a blasphemer is really, really pharisaical”
In what way is it being like a Pharisee to call someone a blasphemer who openly endorses shows like the Simpsons that portray Christ in an unholy way (and by the way, Driscoll laughs at it) or promotes the blatantly Catholic “Passion of the Christ” that Mel Gibson directed and says that movie was great. I pastor a church in northern Maine that is in a town which is 99% Roman Catholic. I’ve been to many services for funerals in the local Catholic church for family members of my church. Everytime I see what the priest does reveals Rome’s blasphemy of Christ. For someone to endorse such things, though he may never partake in them physically, is a blasphemer.
Driscoll made light of the cheapening of Christ that’s been done by the unsaved. That’s not preaching God’s Word.
Although I did not attend the conference, I hungrily ran for the table scraps, blogs, downloads of anything I could get my hands on from the conference. I am really enjoying listening to and reading them. I too was surprised that Pastor Piper would invite someone like Pastor Mark Driscoll to preach at this conference but after listening to the sermon I found much of what Pastor Driscoll said, however laden with comedy his presentation may have been to the blogger, to be very accurate with his observation of the essentials and dividing nature of the church and culture. I am not a huge Pastor Driscoll fan yet and until a couple of months ago has no idea of who he was.I like most of the preaching I have recently downloaded from the Marshillchurch.org website.
As far as the levity goes, those heavenly minded in the audience did not have to laugh if they did not think it was funny. They sure were laughing though. I am sure there were very few cue cards prompting the response from the audience. I also think you have misinterpreted his use of Madonna and the Simpson’s. As I listened I remembered sometime ago standing in line at a grocery store and seeing the guy in front of me buying that Rolling Stone with Kanye West on the cover with in a mockery of our Lord. I remember becoming angry at the image and at the same time wondering why would someone by actually pay for that kind of garbage but nonetheless it is there, no justification or implementation me, but there was for me to use to question the man or let it go. Ashamedly, I admit I let it go, rather than do what I knew I should do. I believe what Pastor Driscoll wanted to express was how Christ or depictions of Him in distorted image, whether it be in disgusting mockeries or wicked representations on television or movies, is in and on the mind of the culture whether we take notice or not, that we and our preaching should counter this portrayal in the culture.
Along those lines I found his message and a recent download from the marshillchurch.org website titled Death by Love to express this same dissatisfaction with our cultural depictions and even sometimes weak local church representations of a less than masculine, fully divine, Savior, King and God of Wrath. I can’t really speak for Pastor Driscoll but I am thinking he is actually frustrated that the church is not louder in the pulpit about this irreverence in our culture and in our churches. I believe he truly does want people to repent, not change, not conform to a fundamentalist standard or hold on to some standard as some kind of righteousness acceptable to God, but fully believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified, resurrected and seated in Glory, ruling and reigning until the day of His wrath.
So you are saying it is wrong to call for pastors to contend for:
1. Scripture
2. Sovreignty of God
3. Virgin Birth
4. sinful humanity
5. substitutionary atonement
6. Exclusivity of Christ
7. Male and female gender
8. A real eternal Hell.
9. The kingdom is in priority over culture.
That is what I heard. Maybe I am missing something, but that is what I hear Mark Driscoll calling for pastors to proclaim boldly. His syle is not my style, but what he called for was something that I see as vital to the preaching of the whole counsel of God.
You need to clean out your ears man and start tuning them into God instead of whatever else you’ve been listening to. To say that the Gospel shouldn’t be made relevant to the culture that we are trying to plug into is totally off key and it is because of people like you that the Church is in decline.
Mark Driscoll is actually restoring the church to what I believe Christ is calling and always has called it to be. He places Christ as the head of the Church not traditions or religious bigot agendas.
Sure, Mark has a different style and approach that you may not agree with, but look at the 5000 people that he is reaching in Seattle and the 1000’s more he reaches through his Acts29 network, resurgence conference and his podcasts. The reason why, because Mark is just being who God designed him to be and he is able to reach a group of people that alot of other pastors can’t.
Clean out your ears, start listening to God and repent.
Brad said: “it is because of people like you that the Church is in decline.”
I disagree. The Church is in decline because it looks like the world, acts like the world, and thinks like the world, in order to try to “win” the world. In a nutshell, the Church enjoys the world. We’re to be “in the world, but not part of the world.” We’re not to adopt it’s philosophy in order to attract them. We’re to be separate in order to show a dying world the beauty of living unto Christ.
It’s easy to be a saint,
Who sits on a mountain top,
Much harder to show restraint,
While waiting at a bus stop.
The Word is the Word, we know,
But paths, there are so many.
Where paths cross, our words must show,
The Way is reached by many.
Wow,
I thought for a second I was at FBC Hammond Indiana! So, the legitimacy of Driscoll’s incaution is that there are NUMBERS? I had to clean out my eyes in reading that one…How many buses are they running there?
The context of the Gospel is the same from age to age–our point of contact is not the culture, it is the nature–specifically the sinful nature of human beings. Contextualisation principles are evident in the NT, and appealing to the sinful nature is not lifted up as the point of contact, rather, confronting the sin nature is part of the connection that is attempted.
“The majestic testimony of the Church in all time is that its advances in spiritual life have always been toward and not away from the Bible, and in proportion to the reverence for, and power of realizing in practical life, the revealed Word.” — Caspar Wistar Hodge, son of Charles Hodge
Notice the phrase that the Church advances in spiritual life “in proportion to the reverence for,… the revealed Word.”
‘Nough said!
Wow — I finally had a chance to listen to what was said, and I must say this is an incredible over reaction. If you would actually listen to what he was saying and not get hung up on who he refrences Driscoll was not endorsing all of the cultural references to Jesus, he was just marking that the Culture is talking ABOUT Jesus ALREADY. Jesus is just as hot today as ever! And we should be rejoicing that Jesus is being talked about because that tells us that he’s being thought about, and while some people might mock, others might question and investigate. IF God wanted us to be completely seperate from the world then Jesus wouldn’t have come and lived among us, but we follow after Jesus’ example and try to take the Gospel to the Culture.
Some one said that the parables were told so that the world would be confused by them, but let’s be honest, how confusing is The Kingdom of God is Like a shepherd who lost a sheep and went looking for it.
The religious people missed it because they wanted everyone to come to them, but Jesus came to us, and we need to go to the lost. If you want to live completely seperate from the culture, and never engage culture than you will miss what may very well be some of the most oportune times to proclaim the Gospel. So don’t close your eyes and don’t run away. And don’t get in a Tiff because some one made a joke during a sermon, or because some one referenced Madonna. Relax and trust the Spirit of God that, He’s building His Kingdom and He’s using the materials available.
The gospel is relevant. We don’t need to make it relevant. We need only to demonstrate its gospel’s relevance by revealing man’s need for God.
Umm, no one has really said not to take the gospel to the culture. Some of us just said that the culture is not the point of contact, mankind’s sinful nature in need of salvation is the POC. This fact ALONE, the inherant depravity of man, always makes the gospel relevant without some capitulation to the sins of the culture. That is what we are trying to get at. To claim that Ryan, (or any of us who are troubled by some of Driscoll’s methodology) is willing only to “live completely separate from the culture” is ridiculous–no one has said that. But the notion that God is always pleased when we use whatever “materials [are] available” is unbiblical and ill-concieved.
Re: the parables being easily understood–there were times our Lord explained them–there were times they were transparent to the listeners–there were times when he only explained them to the disciples. As to His reasoning– “And He said, ‘To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.’” Luke 8:10 NASB The “rest” are not simply the apostate religious leaders, it includes the common people; look at the context of that passage. He makes a similar statement in Matthew 13, stating that the disciples were ordained to know kingdom mysteries, but in 13:13, He says that the crowd (”them” – ref. to v. 2) in general, has not had such illumination granted them, and thus all they get are parables. Some may understand, but the bulk of them did not. His use of parables actually was to obfuscate the truth (at least that’s what the Holy Spirit said), not to be “relevant” to Jewish culture.
Saying all of this does not mean that I do not try to meet people where they are, but it means that I am trying to challenge culture’s way of thinking with God’s truth. I am a church planter–we strive to bring no offense to people except the offense of the Gospel–but neither do I want to offend my holy God. And being pleasing to Him, is first and foremost. Driscoll may be striving to do the same thing, and what his threshold or understanding of what pleases God seems to be different than mine. I am glad he is doing gospel work, but it is not unchristian to wonder if there are not more Christ-pleasing ways to do so…And I know he is not entirely of the emergent crowd, but I am always amazed at the toleration speeches which come from the EC, but more amazed at the intoleration for those who might want to call some things into question. Questioning is not pharisaical, it is just caution.
Ryan,
Please email me (if you are willing) at marcdav@earhtlink.net. I have something to say to you that is not appropriate for an open forum.
-Marc
Marc, you can send me an email by clicking under “email the author” on the top part of the right sidebar.
Sorry, Ladies and Gentlemen, but I have had very little “connectivity” over the past several hours, and this will be true for several days to come. If I missed Driscoll’s point in the first fifteen minutes of his message, it is understandable, though I seriously question whether pop culture’s continued misrepresentation and (frankly) mockery of the Savior means in the least that “Jesus is hotter than ever.” Frankly, I do not care in the least whether or not Jesus is hot, and would prefer him not to be. Having said this, in my original post, I kept that part of my analysis to a direct quote.
For those of you who have been speaking with me on this, I am thankful for you. For those of you who do not, I would simply like your take on the two verses I cited in the post. Why do they not apply to Rev. Driscoll?
Let me first say that I am sincerely impressed with the knowlege that everyone who has posted here seems to possess. I am also impressed with the passion for our Lord Jesus and for His Gospel.
However, I agree with Jason, after hearing the entire message of Mark’s talk last night to grasp what all the hub bub was about, I came away pretty impressed with Mark too and wondering about you brothers.
I heard a lot of judgement towards Mark, but no love. I heard frustration with some of things that SEEMED to be irreverent comng from him, but on closer examination were not. What concerns me most is that non-believers are looking at this site too. I found this site because Ryan’s post was being promoted by WordPress as one of the “top posts” around WordPress. So I am pretty sure non-believers took a gander at this too a saw this embarrassing travesty of brothers bashing brothers. This saddens me to no end. Jesus is NOT being glorified here.
Finallly, to those of you who think that the Gospel does not need to be taken to the culture and that the Gospel does not need to be contextualized, please read 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
Brothers and sisters, please consider why Piper invited Driscoll in the first place. Consider how Piper responded overall to Driscoll’s style and the relevancy issue. Consider the emails that were exchanged by them. Then speak. Don’t disrespect your own man. Both of these men are worthy of double honor.
I believe Pastor John would defend that those two verses absolutely apply to and are espoused by Pastor Mark.
We are all sinners here and I do not see how this blog post and comments are helping us encourage one another, submit to and honor our elders, and/or avoid temptation to sin.
As a MarsHill member I have often left services with the very same reaction that many of you had to Driscoll. If I had a blog you would see 3 years of posts filled with Driscoll-bashing and prayers that he would read ‘The Supremacy of God in Preaching’ or something similar and get convicted to stop cracking jokes. However, you would see the last year full of confession, tears, and repentance that I myself did not offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe. For our God is a consuming fire – and my hypocritical, pharisitical heart froze me from feeling and seeing how Christ was getting glory through Driscoll’s pulpit.
I really hesitated to post here. I appreciate much of what you say, Ryan. I was at the conference and saw Ryan immediately after Driscoll spoke, so I had an inkling of his take, just from his facial expression.
Ryan said “For those of you who have been speaking with me on this, I am thankful for you. For those of you who do not, I would simply like your take on the two verses I cited in the post. Why do they not apply to Rev. Driscoll?”
Ok. Lets take the second one. Of course it applies. I think that the problem is that “acceptable worship” in your estimation is only defined by you, with ancient music played on an organ and piano, or by an orchestra. In short, it must be classical type music, sourced in the middle ages. On the other hand, you will not allow Mark Driscoll to bring acceptable worship in the way that he interprets it, with a sound that is more familiar to the people he is trying to reach. My question is going to be very direct and twofold.
How many people are you reaching, and do you think that the people he is reaching are being truly converted? I am not attempting to justify worship styles based on pragmatic success, so please do not interpret my question that way. That is another discussion altogether.
Bob, how else can your question be interpreted? What relevance does it have whatsoever?
The issue with anything we do is not how many we are reaching but whether we are pleasing God or not. Mt 7.21-23
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Since the church and its leaders have incorporated entertainment into what should be holy, I’ve noticed it falling more and more into the world; becoming “of” the world instead of “not of” the world. I am reminded of , “Ye are in the world but not of the world.”
By incorporating the world’s entertainment into Christ’s church, they are implying that the sins of entertainment are acceptable: especially impacting our youth. It might appear they are reaching tons of people, including the young, and their churches are becoming mega-churches; but, I am reminded of God’s numbering of the wicked in these last days: “as the grains of sand” in comparison to Christ’s “small flocks.”
Deceit is deceit, whether it is verbalized or implied; and, we all know who is the author of deceit.
Visit me sometime at http://bonnieq.wordpress.com
Love in Christ,
BonnieQ
Truth Seekers and Speakers, link in blogroll
Unicorn Haven, link in blogroll
Don,
Are you saying that Mark is not pleasing to God and is not God’s servant? Okay, he is certainly not perfect, but none of us are. That is why are called to be patient with another and forgive each other as Jesus has forgiven us.
And Bonnie, trust me, I am not into entertainment either, but is that really what Mark was doing? My sense was that he was merely “exegeting” the culture. Further, in listening to the excellent sermons by Tim Keller and Voddie Bauchaum (sp?), they certainly were funny too. I think I got the biggest laugh from Tim. Further, it certainly seemed that they were both attempting to be humorous too. Is that wrong?
Certainly, I don’t think humor within the church is wrong. After all, I feel that God has a sense of humor, at least I know he chuckles at me on my ditzy days. And, I’m able to laugh my way through pain and trials, which ability comes only from God.
What I feel is wrong is the bringing in of the world and it’s glitzy entertainment and gaudy stars. Alas, everything the church is doing today is all about greed and THAT is to be of the world. If people had a better grasp on what are the synagogues of Satan, they would in no way even be in the midst of corporate Christendom: from which has directed, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and her plagues.”
Not one Christian denomination fits the Biblical description of Christ’s church, and never shall they. Unfortunately, what little truth they impart is severely riddled with lies in Christ’s name.
Love in Christ,
BonnieQ
Oops! This must be a ditzy day. That one line should have read, “from which GOD has directed, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and her plagues.”
BonnieQ
Don’t twist the question, marcdav. Please read the post above mine to see what I am responding to. Numbers and crowds are meaningless as a barometer of faithfulness.
It is, however, quite likely that Driscoll is not pleasing to God, but that is not what I was pointing to.
Don,
Suggesting that I am “twisting the question” comes across as if I am being dishonest and manipulative. I don’t think you intended to suggest that, but that is how it comes off. I for one was not attempting to twist anything. I had an honest question, do you think that Driscoll is pleasing to God? Do you think that he over contextualizes? Further, does large numbers and crowds suggest to you ipso facto that someone is playing fast and loose with the truth to get those numbers? Finally, is contextualing the Gospel ever legitmate in your view, and if so how?
Yes, twisting the question is dishonest and manipulative.
Yes, you were twisting the question.
Please read the context of my question, the post that prompted it and the question. If you still don’t get it, I guess there is little that can be added.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Has anyone watched this? http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview15.mov
It’s thought-provoking.
Yes indeed – although it makes him sound like he’s ‘for’ all those things even though if you listen to his sermon on 1 Cor 10:23-11:1 you’ll hear him flush out the idea that not everything is beneficial even though it may be permissible..
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/060716_1Cor_24_16k.mp3
Thank you for that link. I’m listening to it right now and finding it very helpful/clarifying.
Don,
I recognize what you were attempting to do, but your response to Bob begs the question that I was asking you. Especially given the fact that the original post is diatribe against Mark. Further, I am neither manipulative or dishonest. I have legitimate questions. If you don’t want to answer them, well, that is your prerogative. But I have the right to query you and to extend the conversation by asking you clarifying questions to see where your thinking is at on this matter. My hunch is that you do not think that Driscoll is pleasing to God and you don’t think that contextualizing the Gospel is legitimate at all. I was just wondering if that is where you really stand, hence the questions. I did not want to presume that I knew where you stood.
i stopped reading the comments quite some time ago but have read enough to want to post this.
Mark Driscoll is now my pastor. i have read his books and listened to countless sermons of his. he speaks truth. good strong, christ exalting, hard to hear because its humbling truth. will everyone like his style, no. thats clear. but to say that he is “whats wrong with the american church” is ridiculous. he preaches jesus week in and week out. tells people there is only one God and one saviour, jesus. that the problem is sin. that men are leaders of the home and church.
he gets attacked by fundies for his style, gets attacked by liberals for his substanced.
are numbers important. yes in a way. if a church is only 50 people because they refuse to GO and share the gospel with ordinary folk than yes numbers matter because its clear by their numbers that they are sinning by not doing enough. are numbers everything, no because the majority of the world will go to hell so you can get so called churches the size of joel osteens who dont to anything let alone preach the gospel. but the truth is that Mars Hill Church in Seattle where driscolls pastors has over 5000 people. the majority of which who are trusting jesus, loving him, repenting of sin and seeing real life change.
for those of you who are blasting driscoll. what is your church doing that you lead. are they seeing the change that mars hill is. especially in one of the least churched, most resistent places to the gospel in america.
Mark is a good man and a good pastor. do not malign his name.
Hi ryan s.,
Brother, I am so sorry that a thread like this even exists. I agree, from what I have seen, Mark is a good, godly man, attempting to stand up for Jesus in a very difficult place like Seattle. Why his own brothers and sisters in the faith would take potshots at him makes no sense to me.
Blessing to you and your pastor my friend.