Friday, April 17, 2009

MacArthur on Driscoll (his filth should not surprise anyone, least of all Tim Challies)

All four parts of John MacArthur's series on Mark Driscoll's raping of the Song of Solomon are listed below.

Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4

Mark Driscoll said in his book "Vintage Jesus" that Jesus:

“[tells] a leper to shut-up

does the equivalent of breaking into a church on a Sunday morning to make a sandwich with the communion bread..”

needs Paxil

needs sensitivity training

“has his guys take a donkey without asking like some kleptomaniac donkeylifter

“[Is] an obvious workaholic who needed to start drinking decaf and listening to taped sounds of running water while doing aromatherapy so he could learn to relax.”

Jesus’ humor was often biting and harsh, particularly when directed at the Pharisees. For example, he called them a bag of snakes, said that their moms shagged the Devil, and mocked them for tithing out of their spice racks.” (pp. 40-41) [Do you realize what "shagged" means? It means intercourse.]

"Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus' mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was often mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted the crazy story to cover the fact she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom." (p.11)

For more quotes and why Driscoll proves to be unqualified go here.

Challies did a book review on that very book just mentioned, back in 2008, yet now he claims to be shocked by Mark Driscoll? Its ridiculous that ANYONE should be shocked by that foul-mouthed man. Why are they shocked? We've seen Driscoll's putrid behavior repeatedly in the last several years. Is not Driscoll’s debased and trivial and unholy way in how he speaks of the HOLY HOLY HOLY God the Son horrific enough to reject him, not to mention how he destroys Scripture by taking it out of its context?

Seriously, why is anyone surprised with how he deals with that book when he says the above of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mark? If this is Driscoll’s take on the GOSPEL and Person of Jesus Christ, then his take on anything else is going to be filthy too.

I noticed the defense of Driscoll by the commenters of MacArthur’s articles. All but a few justified or excused Driscoll. But this also doesn’t surprise me because people like Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Chuck Coleson, and JI Packer endorse that garbage of a book (their endorsements are on the book which you can see at Amazon.) And of course there’s John Piper who continues to defend Driscoll and offer his putrid and sick views to his Desiring God conferences. More on that here.

Despite the horrific portrayal of the Holy and Righteous Son of God, Challies manages to give Driscoll high accolades:

“The bulk of the book is simply straightforward, biblical teaching about the person and work of Jesus Christ. It also engages in some light apologetics, defending Jesus against the countless caricatures of Him that have arisen through the history of the church. The book offers “timeless answers to timely questions” and in that way is meant to speak to some of the strange and unorthodox teaching that we see in the church and outside it today.”

“Like many who will read this book, I appreciate how Driscoll is able to communicate real truth in a way that is accessible and funny. He is able to poke fun at the way people think about Jesus and do so in a way that makes those beliefs seem so utterly ridiculous. He has his finger on the pulse of this culture and is able to speak to it.”

Saying Jesus needed Paxil and was a workaholic is DEFENDING Christ against caricatures? With defenses like that, no one needs enemies! On the contrary, what Driscoll offers is nothing but UNHOLY caricatures of Jesus Christ.

How is Driscoll's description of Jesus in the above quotes communicating REAL TRUTH? Go back and read those quotes again. And WHY does one need to be funny about Jesus Christ and His Gospel? Is the way Scripture proclaims Truth not enough? Can others better God???

You can be sure that Challies and his readers will still find "truth" in Driscoll and they will not outright reject the man or his teaching. They will just merely "disregard" the bits that personally disgust them, but hold on to the "gold" Driscoll offers.

Instead of having the appropriate response to Driscoll as a man who is disqualified for the office of elder, who is fleshly in his thinking, speech, and behavior, his defenders reveal their liberalism by trying to point the fingers back at everyone else.

Here are some comments by people to MacArthur's article. My comments in regard to these are italicized:

"Friends, before we consider Mark Driscoll's errors can we first consider our own?... Can each of us actually take out the log in our eye in our comments?"

Pink said it better than I could:

If pride and haughtiness are to be reprehended; then mock humility or even an undue occupation with our own frailty and faultiness, is not to be commended. If we must wait until we are blameless, then there are many precepts of Scripture we cannot act upon.

If we must tarry until our own character and conduct be faultless, then we are disqualified from rebuking anybody. We greatly fear that many have created their own difficulty or deterrent through a wrongful appropriation of those words "he who is without sin—let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7). How often have we heard professing Christians say, when it had become their manifest duty to admonish another, "Who am I—to cast stones at others?" It should be remembered, that John 8:7 was not spoken to conscientious saints, jealous of the honor of the Lord, anxious to promote the good of others—but to hypocritical pharisees, who were deliberately seeking to ensnare Christ.

Hence the force of "bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2); yet that must not be twisted into "winking at one another's faults" or condoning sin—under the pretense of love.

Here are more comments:

“At the same time, the ministry of Mark Driscoll has been incredibly helpful to me as well. As one who has been to Mars Hill, been to an Acts 29 Boot Camp, and spoken with Mark, there is no man save the God-man who has changed my life so dramatically. Perhaps it seems that learning from both MacArthur and Driscoll must be held in strong tension, or even opposition, but I have never viewed it this way."

How is arrogance, continual filthy language, and course jesting "incredibly helpful"? How in the world can someone put MacArthur and Driscoll on the same level? This smacks of double-mindedness and instability, and a lack of wisdom and discernment.

“"Driscoll does cross the line sometimes, as we all do in different ways. But he takes responsibility for his faults, and seeks to change and be mentored by men who deeply love him, both in times of encouragement and rebuke.”

Sometimes? He has boldly crossed the line continally for YEARS. And please, don't put us all in Driscoll's camp! That's just plain wrong. Driscoll doesn't take responsiblity for his sin (its not merely a "fault" but SIN). He plays the humble card but only in words. His book and his repeated speech smacks of unteachability and unrepentance.

“"Regardless of your opinion of how Driscoll deals with the subject at least he is doing so with a Biblical stance. He may not have preached the perfect sermon series, but he tried. Others are silent."

Driscoll is an Emergent, filthy mouthed man who has a VERY LOW VIEW of Christ and His Word. We are to reject such men, for they are not of God. We aren't to compromise because he does "sex" well. Come ON. How low must you people go? Here is MacArthur (and others who clearly ARE qualified men of God) and yet you embrace an illegitimate man. Unbelievable.

"Mark has said some crude things in the past. He also has been a gifted speaker as well. The crudeness of Mark is his immaturity as a young pastor. His giftedness is very evident, and I pray he would continue to be molded into the image of Christ, and that this crudeness would become godliness. And also he would grow in his ability to read, study, and teach the Holy Scriptures. The Lord surely has worked great things through Mark. May the Lord's greatest works with Mark be yet to come."

Mark continues to say crude things. This is an ONGOING ISSUE, not a past issue. This is a heart and spiritual issue, not a maturity issue. The guy is nearly 40 years old. He is NOT a "young" pastor at all. ALL true pastors called by God are to be mature. Check out all the "MUST BE" and "MUST NOT" commands of elders as well as deacons in Scripture. If a man claims to be called by God but has no self control over his tongue, his heart, can't study Driscoll gloats in being unprepared and just wings it on Sundays: here are a few quotes from Driscoll:

"He goes on for an hour, sometimes an hour and a half, mostly off-the-cuff. "Nothing is conscious when I preach," he says. "I just do. I study the Bible all week, pray to the Lord, and then I speak from my heart. It's all about brutal honesty."

"He says he didn't have a drink until he was 30, never tried drugs. But he always had a temper. "If you pissed me off, I beat you up."
- Source (This was said in the interview when he was 33 years old--read the qualifications all elders MUST HAVE again)

"Driscoll admits his preaching can sometimes be summed up with two words: sex and Jesus. "I like both ... for the record," he said. "Sex with my wife. And I dig Jesus. Absolutely." '

As I have said before, this isn’t an immaturity issue. This is a CHARACTER and SPIRITUAL issue. Driscoll fails the qualifications of elder:

Tit 1:7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
Tit 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Tit 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.

These are marks of mature believers. Driscoll fails on several of these “MUSTS”. Or are these now just opinions or suggestions from God as to who is qualified to lead? If these are optional, then so is being a male in leadership. Just how low are people’s view of Scripture, especially those who claim “Sola Scriptura”? Why call Jesus "Lord" if you reject what HE says and do things your own way?

How many MORE YEARS will people say Driscoll is merely immature? Driscoll has been told about his sin and yet he hasn’t repented; he continues in it. An apology is NOT repentance.

If this was the case of immaturity, then why did Piper go to Driscoll for wisdom on the words we use? Afterall, Piper himself admitted he doesn't know what's appropriate or going over the edge (Piper also used Paul Tripp who LOVES to use the s*** word in the Desiring God promotion video). No, his bringing in Driscoll to this year's Desiring God conference on the use of "words we use" shows that Piper thinks Driscoll IS mature in this area...and has wisdom above himself, a pastor of thirty years. How can this been seen as wise and discerning, to go to a filthy mouthed, unrepentant, worldly man for advice on the appropriateness of words?

As Thomas Brooks said, “Most professing Christians have not the right art of mortifying sin. All their attempts are to hide a lust, not to quench it.”

He also said, “Remember this, nothing below the conquest of bosom sins can make a jubilee in the heart. It is not a man's whining and complaining over sin--but his mortifying of sin, which will make his life a paradise of pleasure!”

David Wheaton's comments to MacArthur's Solomon articles were so good, I wanted to quote him:

Mark Driscoll is so wrong on so many levels and he needs to immediately repent:

1. He's gone way over the biblical line( in dealing with sexual topics by uploading videos to YouTube about “biblical oral sex” for the general public to view, including children and singles, joking about masturbation on CNN, and by generally lowering the sacredness of Christ and Scripture. Al Mohler said it best, "We should be as explicit as Scripture is ... and no more." By account of any mature, Spirit-filled believer, Driscoll has transgressed this line.

2. Driscoll, who is 38 years young, knows very well that he is going against the counsel of far older, more mature and experienced shepherds of the faith like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Al Mohler. Only a pastor stuck in his own conceit wouldn't heed the wise counsel of these older, godly men. In my opinion, John Piper is getting used by Driscoll and the favored line that "Driscoll has repented and is changing and John Piper is mentoring him" is baseless in reality. (Note to John Piper: if Driscoll stays on present course with you providing cover, beware lest your ministry and the glory of God be tarnished.)

3. Unless Driscoll is completely ignorant or so blinded by his own arrogance, he should know that his graphic content offends the consciences of weaker Christians, and if for no other reason than 1 Corinthians 10, he should clean up his act so that weaker brothers' consciences aren't offended. I am a Christian radio talk show host and when the head of a major Christian radio network emails me the night before I'm going to do a program on Driscoll and “the pornification of the pulpit” ( warning me to not offend the listening audience, and when I am personally convicted that I would be disobeying Scripture by playing sound bites of a Christian pastor's content (i.e. Driscoll's) on Christian radio, that pretty much sums up how wrong Driscoll is.

Finally, it's irrelevant that Driscoll "has helped me so much spiritually" or "he's reaching the young and urban generation" or "he's started so many churches" -- the same or similar could be said of Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller. The bottom line is that Driscoll is unrepentantly perpetuating extra-biblical sinful content and needs to stop sullying the holiness of God and Scripture and the pulpit ... NOW. Does anyone, including Driscoll, really think that if he toned it back to the biblical line that people wouldn't listen to him or be reached? Please. There's nothing new under the Seattle sun (or is it rain?) that wasn't present in the hearts of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago that the clear and sound preaching of the gospel can't redeem.

As for me, I will pray that Mark Driscoll stops causing this unnecessary division, that he will repent of his sinful ways, that he will listen to his elders in the faith, and that he will fulfill the pastoral potential that God has given to him.

End quote.

Here's one other comment that has biblical sense:

"We live in a world of no-accountability sadly, and the purity of the Chuch has been the loser in the process. Please refer to 2 Cor. 11:2. What was Paul's passion? To present the believers a pure virgin to the bridegroom. Do we really need to lower the standard of the pulpit in order to achieve this end? No. Pragmatism is no excuse for crass language. The Holy Spirit works by and with the Word to achieve the ends for which God sent it. We must not make the tragic error of assuming we can or should attempt to bridge cultural gaps by lowering the standard of the pulpit. That mindset betrays a woefully inadequate view of the convicting power of the Spirit of God and the way He applies the word in our lives."

Thank you to the few that took bold stands against Driscoll and his defenders. We as biblical Christians are NOT to cover evil and call it "love" for love does NOT REJOICE in evil. Rather we are to expose the deeds of darkness, warn the sheep, so they don't imitate what is evil. I can't believe we even have to clarify this with "Christians" much less "elders".

A note to you Reformers: as pointed out, Driscoll is MAN-CENTERED and pragmatic, wallowing in the flesh and the world, trivializing Christ and Scripture, full of arrogance, and merely pays lip service to his raunchy mouth. You cannot call what he does and says as Christ-honoring or of the Doctrines of Grace at all. I suggest you go read A.W. Pink's "Reproving Love" article if Scripture isn't enough for you.

But saying he's Reformed sure will give him a free pass for all his sin. Now THAT'S greasy "grace".

No comments: