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(http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/1613) 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” (http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/1613) 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".
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Driscoll. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Driscoll. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
MacArthur: Dealing With Driscoll Is Way Past Time; Dealing With Public Teachers
**UPDATE*** CAUTION for Driscoll defenders or those ambivalent to his garbage:
Baptist Press reports:
[A picture shows] Speaking in Scotland, Mark Driscoll dramatizes how he counseled a (new Christian) woman to pull down her husband's trousers and perform oral sex on her unbelieving mate – because she was a "repentant woman" who is "supposed to be a biblical wife."
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (BP)--One of America's largest Christian radio networks interrupted one of its programs in mid-show because it featured the controversial Seattle, Wash., pastor Mark Driscoll.The Bott Radio Network then cancelled another interview with Driscoll that had been scheduled. The Bott network provides conservative Bible teaching, news and information to a potential audience of more than 40 million people in 10 states.
Driscoll went on to tell an anecdote about a wife who he said won her husband to Christ by performing oral sex on him. Driscoll said he told her that giving him oral sex would be following the admonition of Scripture. A transcript of the sermon quotes Driscoll saying he told her, "1 Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness," referring to oral sex. Verses 1 and 2 of that chapter, however, tell wives it is their "pure and reverent" conduct that will win their unbelieving husbands.
End quote.
Eph 4:19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!--
Eph 4:21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
******
The Truth
On how John MacArthur dealt with Driscoll, Piper, and Mahaney regarding Driscoll's course language, topics, and demands of the women in his gathering:
Quote (bold, mine):
In the sermon that prompted this series, Mark Driscoll (speaking specifically to wives in the congregation) made several comments that were far, far worse than the seamiest sex challenges. Furthermore, Driscoll's edicts to married women were not mere "challenges" but directives buttressed with the claim that "Jesus Christ commands you to do [this]." That material has been online and freely circulated for more than a year. But you’ll be hard pressed to find even a single Web forum where anyone has demanded that Driscoll explain why he feels free to say such things publicly.
I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums.
(To be clear: I’m not suggesting that anyone needs to contact me privately about public remarks I have made. Quite the contrary. But those who insist such disagreements should be handled privately reveal the hypocrisy of that claim when they use a public forum to berate and accuse a pastor whom they disagree with.)
When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses.
Nevertheless, I have written Mark privately with my concerns. He rejected my counsel. As a matter of fact, he preached the sermon I have been quoting from seven weeks after receiving my private letter encouraging him to take seriously the standard of holiness Scripture holds pastors to. Here is a small selection from the six-page letter I sent him:
"[Y]ou can[not] make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads—especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display. At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions; we must be in the world but not of it. . . . . It's vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness. "
Mark Driscoll’s response to that admonition and the things he has said since have only magnified my concern.
Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings.
It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.
Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin. In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough.
Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog.
To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them.
End quote.
Baptist Press reports:
[A picture shows] Speaking in Scotland, Mark Driscoll dramatizes how he counseled a (new Christian) woman to pull down her husband's trousers and perform oral sex on her unbelieving mate – because she was a "repentant woman" who is "supposed to be a biblical wife."
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (BP)--One of America's largest Christian radio networks interrupted one of its programs in mid-show because it featured the controversial Seattle, Wash., pastor Mark Driscoll.The Bott Radio Network then cancelled another interview with Driscoll that had been scheduled. The Bott network provides conservative Bible teaching, news and information to a potential audience of more than 40 million people in 10 states.
Driscoll went on to tell an anecdote about a wife who he said won her husband to Christ by performing oral sex on him. Driscoll said he told her that giving him oral sex would be following the admonition of Scripture. A transcript of the sermon quotes Driscoll saying he told her, "1 Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness," referring to oral sex. Verses 1 and 2 of that chapter, however, tell wives it is their "pure and reverent" conduct that will win their unbelieving husbands.
End quote.
Eph 4:19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!--
Eph 4:21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
******
The Truth
On how John MacArthur dealt with Driscoll, Piper, and Mahaney regarding Driscoll's course language, topics, and demands of the women in his gathering:
Quote (bold, mine):
In the sermon that prompted this series, Mark Driscoll (speaking specifically to wives in the congregation) made several comments that were far, far worse than the seamiest sex challenges. Furthermore, Driscoll's edicts to married women were not mere "challenges" but directives buttressed with the claim that "Jesus Christ commands you to do [this]." That material has been online and freely circulated for more than a year. But you’ll be hard pressed to find even a single Web forum where anyone has demanded that Driscoll explain why he feels free to say such things publicly.
I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums.
(To be clear: I’m not suggesting that anyone needs to contact me privately about public remarks I have made. Quite the contrary. But those who insist such disagreements should be handled privately reveal the hypocrisy of that claim when they use a public forum to berate and accuse a pastor whom they disagree with.)
When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses.
Nevertheless, I have written Mark privately with my concerns. He rejected my counsel. As a matter of fact, he preached the sermon I have been quoting from seven weeks after receiving my private letter encouraging him to take seriously the standard of holiness Scripture holds pastors to. Here is a small selection from the six-page letter I sent him:
"[Y]ou can[not] make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads—especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display. At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions; we must be in the world but not of it. . . . . It's vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness. "
Mark Driscoll’s response to that admonition and the things he has said since have only magnified my concern.
Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings.
It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.
Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin. In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough.
Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog.
To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them.
End quote.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Mark Driscoll's "Vintage Jesus" isn't the True Jesus
I read a review of Mark Irreverent Potty Mouth Driscoll's latest book, "Vintage Jesus" which hardly seems to reflect anything close to the True Jesus and thus which doesn't elicit any fear in Driscoll. Erick Raymond's article is posted at Camp On This. I have to say that it seems to parallel the same obnoxious twisting of Mary that Emergent Scot McKnight does in his book "The Real Mary".
Sadly too many Christians were/are hoping for improvment with Driscoll, but what they don't realize is that the man is speaking things that flow from his heart. He won't get better until he has a new heart of flesh. Why "Reformers" don't get this (when they DO get it with others) is weird.
Erick Raymond lists some of the more offensive Driscoll quotes in his review:
For example, Driscoll, in his run through The Gospel According to Mark, describes Jesus as a guy who,
“[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.”
Sounds more like Kenneth Copeland's view of God--the irreverence is alarming. Criticism is reserved for Copeland who says that Jesus had taken on a sin nature and be born again in hell, but what Driscoll says is just as atrocious. Guess Driscoll gets a free pass because he mouths "TULIP" or "Reformed"? This is absolutely HORRIBLE!
More quotes from Driscoll:
“Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the ‘fact’ she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.” (p.11)
“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)
“Joining them later at the party at Matthew’s house was nothing short of a very bad hip-hop video, complete with women in clear heels, dudes with their pants around their ankles and handguns in their underwear strap, lots of gold teeth, bling, spinners on camels, cheap liquor, and grinding to really loud music with a lot of bass. When word got out to the religious folks, they were perplexed as to how Jesus could roll with such a jacked-up posse. Jesus’ answer was purely priestly. Jesus said that they were sick and needed mercy.” (p.77)
“Some Catholic theologians taught that Jesus was not born in the normal fashion through Mary’s birth canal. Rather, they say he was born via something much like a miraculous C-section, as if Mary were some Messiah-in-the-box, and Joseph cranked her arm until the Messiah popped out of her gut.” (p. 93)
"On the cross as our substitute, Jesus was made to be the worst of what we are. This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned. Rather, it means that he was made sin. As a result, in that moment when Jesus cried out that he had been forsaken by God the Father, Jesus became the most ugly, wicked, defiled, evil, corrupt, rebellious, and hideous thing in all creation. In that moment, Jesus became a homosexual, alcoholic, thief, glutton, addict, pervert, adulterer, coveter, idol worshiper, whore, pedophile, self-righteous religious prig—and whatever else we are.” (p. 114)
Steve Camp wrote on Mark Driscoll and his blasphemy.
Driscoll also says in his book: "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."
Yet this is whom John Piper endorses and defends for repeatedly sharing the pulpit with him.
Scripture says we are to fear HIM:
Ecc 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
Eph 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Psa 36:1 Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes.
Lighthouseresearchtrails : "Those who Driscoll admires were some of the greatest enemies of Christian doctrine of the 20th century." Driscoll has continued to promote the Emergent Church Movement garbage. Lighthouseresearchtrails has some VERY good information on Driscoll.
More horrific quotes by Driscoll here.
Driscoll is poison to the Body of Christ and John Piper is helping spread his poison willingly, as are other reformers (you know, those who say well, yes Driscoll's langauge isn't all that great, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water....after all, he's one of US!" types). Yet these reformers are the same types who rip on Benny Hinn, but there's no difference, except maybe, in subtlety.
Driscoll has NO FEAR OF GOD in his eyes. NONE. He violates Scripture in continuing in course words and unfit language. He destroys the HOLINESS and FEAR for Christ Jesus. There is nothing worth taking from Driscoll's pig stye to sift through and find truth. Go to Scripture and find the pristine reverence for Christ, held up above all people and all of Creation, set apart as Master, Righteous One, and without spot or blemish, never acting like the pigs, dogs, and vipers of His day.
Scripture says of men like Driscoll:
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known."
Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
Jud 1:18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." Jud 1:19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
Sadly too many Christians were/are hoping for improvment with Driscoll, but what they don't realize is that the man is speaking things that flow from his heart. He won't get better until he has a new heart of flesh. Why "Reformers" don't get this (when they DO get it with others) is weird.
Erick Raymond lists some of the more offensive Driscoll quotes in his review:
For example, Driscoll, in his run through The Gospel According to Mark, describes Jesus as a guy who,
“[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.”
Sounds more like Kenneth Copeland's view of God--the irreverence is alarming. Criticism is reserved for Copeland who says that Jesus had taken on a sin nature and be born again in hell, but what Driscoll says is just as atrocious. Guess Driscoll gets a free pass because he mouths "TULIP" or "Reformed"? This is absolutely HORRIBLE!
More quotes from Driscoll:
“Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the ‘fact’ she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.” (p.11)
“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)
“Joining them later at the party at Matthew’s house was nothing short of a very bad hip-hop video, complete with women in clear heels, dudes with their pants around their ankles and handguns in their underwear strap, lots of gold teeth, bling, spinners on camels, cheap liquor, and grinding to really loud music with a lot of bass. When word got out to the religious folks, they were perplexed as to how Jesus could roll with such a jacked-up posse. Jesus’ answer was purely priestly. Jesus said that they were sick and needed mercy.” (p.77)
“Some Catholic theologians taught that Jesus was not born in the normal fashion through Mary’s birth canal. Rather, they say he was born via something much like a miraculous C-section, as if Mary were some Messiah-in-the-box, and Joseph cranked her arm until the Messiah popped out of her gut.” (p. 93)
"On the cross as our substitute, Jesus was made to be the worst of what we are. This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned. Rather, it means that he was made sin. As a result, in that moment when Jesus cried out that he had been forsaken by God the Father, Jesus became the most ugly, wicked, defiled, evil, corrupt, rebellious, and hideous thing in all creation. In that moment, Jesus became a homosexual, alcoholic, thief, glutton, addict, pervert, adulterer, coveter, idol worshiper, whore, pedophile, self-righteous religious prig—and whatever else we are.” (p. 114)
Steve Camp wrote on Mark Driscoll and his blasphemy.
Driscoll also says in his book: "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."
Yet this is whom John Piper endorses and defends for repeatedly sharing the pulpit with him.
Scripture says we are to fear HIM:
Ecc 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
Eph 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Psa 36:1 Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes.
Lighthouseresearchtrails : "Those who Driscoll admires were some of the greatest enemies of Christian doctrine of the 20th century." Driscoll has continued to promote the Emergent Church Movement garbage. Lighthouseresearchtrails has some VERY good information on Driscoll.
More horrific quotes by Driscoll here.
Driscoll is poison to the Body of Christ and John Piper is helping spread his poison willingly, as are other reformers (you know, those who say well, yes Driscoll's langauge isn't all that great, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water....after all, he's one of US!" types). Yet these reformers are the same types who rip on Benny Hinn, but there's no difference, except maybe, in subtlety.
Driscoll has NO FEAR OF GOD in his eyes. NONE. He violates Scripture in continuing in course words and unfit language. He destroys the HOLINESS and FEAR for Christ Jesus. There is nothing worth taking from Driscoll's pig stye to sift through and find truth. Go to Scripture and find the pristine reverence for Christ, held up above all people and all of Creation, set apart as Master, Righteous One, and without spot or blemish, never acting like the pigs, dogs, and vipers of His day.
Scripture says of men like Driscoll:
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known."
Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
Jud 1:18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." Jud 1:19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Mark Driscoll, Tim Challies, and the Rest of the Reformers: we told you so
Challies has written a piece called
"Character is King" regarding Driscoll and the mess in Seattle. I've
been restraining myself from commenting on the Driscoll debacle for several
days, but today, a few thoughts. Challies writes, "As the situation comes
into focus through scandal after scandal, it becomes increasingly clear that
there are, and always have been, systemic issues at Mars Hill. Many of those
issues are directly related to the sins and weaknesses of the church’s founder
and leader."
She said it better than I did, but we said the same thing. I put the blame for Driscoll's popularity in large part at the feet of the Reformed crowd who told people like us we're just catty, cackling, discerning women bloggers who OBVIOUSLY didn't know what we were talking about---"screetching" about something so inoculous as a dear brother, Mark Driscoll. Wait and see they said. Wait and let Piper mentor him. Yes, indeed that's what they did and low and behold, not only did Driscoll NOT improve with time, not only did Driscoll influence millions, but even his beloved mentor has ended up being the one learning and mimicking from the unholy wretched man himself--not the other way around. Bad company corrupts good morals, Scripture states. Indeed it does. The doctrine of separation (and rejection) is a command for a reason. A "little" leaven (much less a LOT OF leaven) leavens the whole loaf.
When I and others warned about Driscoll back in 2004 on our
blogs and in my case, on the radio show I hosted, we were roundly sneered at by
the Reformed Club of Bloggers and the Driscoll fan club. It took about one
tenth of a teaspoonful of discernment to see what Driscoll was in 2004. He
reeked of anger, immaturity and pride, and the fact that he early on earned the
label the "cussing pastor" spoke for itself. So now, in 2014, as
countless victims have limped away from the spiritual abuse Driscoll engaged
in, their families and faith damaged, Challies and company have decided that it
is now, "increasingly clear that there are, and always have been, systemic
issues at Mars Hill...many of those issues are directly related to the sins and
weaknesses of the church's founder and leader." Mr. Challies, I have one
word for you and the others who failed to speak out on Driscoll. Duh.
To those calling for an end to public discussion of Driscoll's
collapse, I have a word for you. Driscoll wasn't just a pastor of a local
church, minding his own business with his own authority (!) structure in place
to deal with any problems. He was promoted and touted as an international
celebrity of the Reformed world, and he made millions from the books,
conferences, etc. that were marketed to the masses. The swaggering,
swashbuckling poster boy for the Young, Restless and Reformed crowd, the one
who would take Calvinism to a new generation. This is why it is all of our
business. If you want to live on the Internet, on social media, and at
internationally promoted conferences attended by tens of thousands who have
nothing to do with your church in Seattle, you can expect to have your behavior
addressed by the same. It amuses and disgusts me to hear claims of, "Oh,
this is a private, in house church issue" when the issue is a celebrity
pastor run amok. If these men wanted to be just local pastors they had no business
selling themselves, their books, t-shirts, mouse pads, key chains, coffee mugs,
conference tickets and life sized cutouts to the masses. You cannot have it
both ways.
I have also seen urgent requests for prayer for Mark and his
family. At risk of being redundant, let me urge prayer for his victims, as
well, while you're on your knees. The ones with their faith nearly destroyed,
the ones who were bullied, who spent years in that church thinking they were
serving God, only to be shunned and discarded by the personality cult leader at
Mars Hill. They are the ones I am concerned about. Mark has made enough money
in one year to do just fine for the rest of his life. Those whose testimonies
fill the Mars Hill abuse blogs are the ones on my heart, and those are the ones
who deserve our prayer.
As
for Challies and the Reformed Club of Bloggers who enabled Driscoll by their
silence and delicate, nuanced criticisms (if they existed at all), I say, shame
on you. We were right all along. And none of you will have the testosterone to
admit it.
She said it better than I did, but we said the same thing. I put the blame for Driscoll's popularity in large part at the feet of the Reformed crowd who told people like us we're just catty, cackling, discerning women bloggers who OBVIOUSLY didn't know what we were talking about---"screetching" about something so inoculous as a dear brother, Mark Driscoll. Wait and see they said. Wait and let Piper mentor him. Yes, indeed that's what they did and low and behold, not only did Driscoll NOT improve with time, not only did Driscoll influence millions, but even his beloved mentor has ended up being the one learning and mimicking from the unholy wretched man himself--not the other way around. Bad company corrupts good morals, Scripture states. Indeed it does. The doctrine of separation (and rejection) is a command for a reason. A "little" leaven (much less a LOT OF leaven) leavens the whole loaf.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
And You Look To Driscoll For Wisdom?
Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!
This is the man so many pastors and leaders and public figures claim they fave fellowship with and can learn from (italics are my own subtitles, the rest of the text are direct from Cathy Mickle's document; emphasis is mine):
Driscoll repeatedly has found the things in Scripture as hilarious entertainment, not serious holy things:
In Genesis 3 ” According to Mark, this is where all "good comedy begins."”
Driscoll sets the stage for more mocking of Scripture by describing the Old Testament as "a redneck hillbilly comedy." He finds humor in Jacob, Aaron, Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and Noah. For example, he undermines the seriousness of the messages of Jeremiah, a prophet of God, by describing him as someone "who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time." He laughs at Noah for getting drunk and ending up naked in his tent, and then compares him to "some redneck on vacation." Why would Driscoll find amusement or pleasure in seeing Noah's dignity reduced or undermined?
Similarly, why would Driscoll compare a story in Scripture to a Monty Python skit and even elaborate on what he describes as the "scatological humor" or "poopy comedy" he sees in Ezekiel 4?
Without shame, he turns the issue of circumcision found in Galatians 5 into a crude "cut off your pickle joke."
For those who would be alarmed by this cavalier handling of God and His Word, Mark also has an arrogant, cocky response. He says, "...religious people are too serious.....judgmental....they're such a joke."
Also, unlike all the biblical scholars who have gone before Mark Driscoll, he comes up with another name than the one given in Scripture to describe the Holy Spirit. In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, he thanks "God the Ghost" for helping him write his book. In another part of the book, Driscoll just shortens it to "Ghost."
This pastor (remember, they MUST be mature, above reproach, able to teach, teaching Scripture AS WRITTEN, self-controlled) MOCKS Christ Jesus the Lord:
Mocking and poking fun at Jesus and his family, Mark writes, ".....everytime they (the religious leaders) see Jesus, it agitates them that he is always surrounded by a crowd telling knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor because his perfection had to have included comedic timing."
In other communications Mark refers to the King of Kings as "a dude" and uses word pictures depicting Him as "a prize-fighter with a tattoo down his leg..." In Driscoll's human attempt to make Jesus relevant, he turns the spotless lamb into a blemished lamb tarnished with the markings of the streets of Seattle. (The Radical Reformission, pg. 30.)
In the words of Christ to Nicodemus, Jesus said, "You must be born again. " But without shame, Driscoll recklessly destroys the words of God and their intended meaning for the title of his new book called, PORN-AGAIN Christian. The cover on the book is also meant to shock.
Who would tamper with the Words of Light and then use them as an introduction to a discussion on the perverted world of pornography and masturbation? For sure, the enemies of Christ take pleasure in any seed planted that undermines a respect and reverence for God and His word.
…Mark had fun with the question whether or not Jesus went "potty." In response, according to Driscoll, "...yes, Jesus went number one and number two," but he did it "perfectly....never got the toilet all wet." What was the congregation’s response? They laughed.
He gives sexual insinuations with Jesus:
For instance, in Driscoll's book, The Radical Reformission, he insinuates a perverted homosexual idea regarding Christ. In Chris Rock style, Driscoll states he had to learn "to love Jesus without feeling like we had a thinly veiled homosexual relationship." On another page, he paints a similar dishonorable thought saying one of his former pastors taught him "to have a relationship with Jesus that did not feel like he was my lifelong prom date." (The Radical Reformission, pg. 14-15).
Other reckless descriptions about the life of Christ surface in Mark's book stating that by the time Jesus was thirty years old He was "a classic underachiever with no wife, kids, stable career or even much of a home."
Jesus as a bartender and promotion of hanging out at bars, drinking beer, and talking theology:
Then he plants a less than honest idea about the ministry and character of Christ saying, "....God came to earth and he kicks things off as a bartender...." This inaccurate description of Jesus the bartender feeds into other controversial aspects of this ministry, which includes Driscoll's promotion of men gathering in bars to drink beer and talk theology. (The Radical Reformission, pg.30.)
Jesus as a dude, heterosexual, and ultimate fighter
In a Christianity Today article titled, "A Jesus for Real Men," Driscoll is quoted as saying that "real men" avoid the church because it projects a "Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ." However, according to Driscoll, "real men" - like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists- are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes." The article states this is the sort of Christ men are drawn to- what Driscoll calls "Ultimate Fighting Jesus." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html
~Source
So what could you possibly find beneficial from such absolute dung? And WHY would you bother to go there?
This is the man so many pastors and leaders and public figures claim they fave fellowship with and can learn from (italics are my own subtitles, the rest of the text are direct from Cathy Mickle's document; emphasis is mine):
Driscoll repeatedly has found the things in Scripture as hilarious entertainment, not serious holy things:
In Genesis 3 ” According to Mark, this is where all "good comedy begins."”
Driscoll sets the stage for more mocking of Scripture by describing the Old Testament as "a redneck hillbilly comedy." He finds humor in Jacob, Aaron, Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and Noah. For example, he undermines the seriousness of the messages of Jeremiah, a prophet of God, by describing him as someone "who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time." He laughs at Noah for getting drunk and ending up naked in his tent, and then compares him to "some redneck on vacation." Why would Driscoll find amusement or pleasure in seeing Noah's dignity reduced or undermined?
Similarly, why would Driscoll compare a story in Scripture to a Monty Python skit and even elaborate on what he describes as the "scatological humor" or "poopy comedy" he sees in Ezekiel 4?
Without shame, he turns the issue of circumcision found in Galatians 5 into a crude "cut off your pickle joke."
For those who would be alarmed by this cavalier handling of God and His Word, Mark also has an arrogant, cocky response. He says, "...religious people are too serious.....judgmental....they're such a joke."
Also, unlike all the biblical scholars who have gone before Mark Driscoll, he comes up with another name than the one given in Scripture to describe the Holy Spirit. In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, he thanks "God the Ghost" for helping him write his book. In another part of the book, Driscoll just shortens it to "Ghost."
This pastor (remember, they MUST be mature, above reproach, able to teach, teaching Scripture AS WRITTEN, self-controlled) MOCKS Christ Jesus the Lord:
Mocking and poking fun at Jesus and his family, Mark writes, ".....everytime they (the religious leaders) see Jesus, it agitates them that he is always surrounded by a crowd telling knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor because his perfection had to have included comedic timing."
In other communications Mark refers to the King of Kings as "a dude" and uses word pictures depicting Him as "a prize-fighter with a tattoo down his leg..." In Driscoll's human attempt to make Jesus relevant, he turns the spotless lamb into a blemished lamb tarnished with the markings of the streets of Seattle. (The Radical Reformission, pg. 30.)
In the words of Christ to Nicodemus, Jesus said, "You must be born again. " But without shame, Driscoll recklessly destroys the words of God and their intended meaning for the title of his new book called, PORN-AGAIN Christian. The cover on the book is also meant to shock.
Who would tamper with the Words of Light and then use them as an introduction to a discussion on the perverted world of pornography and masturbation? For sure, the enemies of Christ take pleasure in any seed planted that undermines a respect and reverence for God and His word.
…Mark had fun with the question whether or not Jesus went "potty." In response, according to Driscoll, "...yes, Jesus went number one and number two," but he did it "perfectly....never got the toilet all wet." What was the congregation’s response? They laughed.
He gives sexual insinuations with Jesus:
For instance, in Driscoll's book, The Radical Reformission, he insinuates a perverted homosexual idea regarding Christ. In Chris Rock style, Driscoll states he had to learn "to love Jesus without feeling like we had a thinly veiled homosexual relationship." On another page, he paints a similar dishonorable thought saying one of his former pastors taught him "to have a relationship with Jesus that did not feel like he was my lifelong prom date." (The Radical Reformission, pg. 14-15).
Other reckless descriptions about the life of Christ surface in Mark's book stating that by the time Jesus was thirty years old He was "a classic underachiever with no wife, kids, stable career or even much of a home."
Jesus as a bartender and promotion of hanging out at bars, drinking beer, and talking theology:
Then he plants a less than honest idea about the ministry and character of Christ saying, "....God came to earth and he kicks things off as a bartender...." This inaccurate description of Jesus the bartender feeds into other controversial aspects of this ministry, which includes Driscoll's promotion of men gathering in bars to drink beer and talk theology. (The Radical Reformission, pg.30.)
Jesus as a dude, heterosexual, and ultimate fighter
In a Christianity Today article titled, "A Jesus for Real Men," Driscoll is quoted as saying that "real men" avoid the church because it projects a "Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ." However, according to Driscoll, "real men" - like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists- are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes." The article states this is the sort of Christ men are drawn to- what Driscoll calls "Ultimate Fighting Jesus." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html
~Source
So what could you possibly find beneficial from such absolute dung? And WHY would you bother to go there?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Where Is the Memo of Outcry To Desiring God Ministries and John Piper?
Lighthouse Trails is very disappointed in the men who are participating at the 2009 "Entrusted with the Gospel" National Conference, knowing that Mark Driscoll will be one of the featured speakers.
While Driscoll's crass speech about sex may perhaps not bother these men, his manner is degrading to women and children--and godly men are required of the Lord to defend and protect women and children according to Scripture.
Contact: Cathy Mickels, 360-387-8150 SEATTLE, Jan. 14 /Christian Newswire/ --
Concerns about Mark Driscoll, the controversial pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church, are being circulated in an eleven page memo raising many questions regarding why Driscoll will be speaking on "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" at The Gospel Coalition's Conference this coming April 21-23 in Chicago. (See http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about)
[To get the memo by Cathy Mickels, go here.]
In response to those who will claim Driscoll is doctrinally sound, Mickels states, "Since when is it doctrinally sound to refer to Jesus as some 'dude' who tells 'knock-knock jokes'?" Since when does Biblical doctrine tolerate the description of the Old Testament as 'a red-neck hillbilly comedy' containing mocking comments about Noah and Jeremiah?"
Quoting from Driscoll's book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Mickels states, "It also appears Mark Driscoll discovered early on that talking about sex could help him build his church. In fact, Driscoll wrote, 'I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horney, so I went out on a limb... Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, ... oral sex, sacred stripping and sex outdoors...This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like penis and oral sex is unusual, and before you could say aluminum pole in the bedroom, attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week.'"
The memo details that in one of Mark Driscoll's most recent projects, he undermines and corrupts gospel truth. For example, Christ said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again," but according to Mickels, without shame this pastor recklessly undermines the words of Jesus for the title of his new book called, PORN-AGAIN Christian. Mickels asked, "Who would tamper with the words of Christ and then use them as an introduction to a discussion on the perverted world of pornography?"
End quote.
The memo says in part:
Oddly enough, it was a stand-up comedian, foul-mouthed Chris Rock, whom Mark Driscoll credits with teaching him how to preach. Mark claims this comedian was "a better study in homiletics than most classes on the subject." (Confessions of a Reformed Rev, pg. 70). Therefore, would he think others should also follow his example, which will require them to fill their mind with curse words and smut in order to learn how to effectively deliver a good sermon?
Admittedly, Mark Driscoll states he is reformed in his thinking, and he can deliver a sound sermon if he wants to. But, that does not negate his reckless, irreverent treatment of God's Word, and the crude language that proceeds out of his mouth. This only makes his ministry more dangerous. If an enemy of the faith had used the same comedy to mock and pervert the Word of God, we would see this attack for what it is. Moreover, throughout the history of the church, vulgarity and playing fast and loose with Scripture would have immediately been identified as falsehood, error, or a serious character flaw. However, for some reason, today many in the Church are compromising and excusing ungodly behavior coming from the pulpit.
For those who would be alarmed by this cavalier handling of God and His Word, Mark also has an arrogant, cocky response. He says, "...religious people are too serious.....judgmental....they're such a joke."
End quote.
There are some HORRID quotes by Driscoll, but you can to go to the link to read them in full.
At least John MacArthur takes a stand regarding such filth. You can find his quotes in the memo, too.
I'm also glad some folks are expressing their disgust with him like Slice of Laodicea and Lighthousetrailsresearch.
However, my concern is why does JOHN PIPER ENDORSE DRISCOLL?
WHY DID JOHN PIPER HAVE DRISCOLL SPEAK ON THE ISSUE OF "The Power of Words and the Wonder of God"?
What about Piper endorsing Paul Tripp and his filthy language? Go here for his s*** use in a promo video for the "Power of Words" Desiring God conference.
Why are folks not upset with PIPER?
Where is the memo to Desiring God conference and ministry?
Friday, September 05, 2014
It's No Longer An Issue of Mark Driscoll's Continuing Scandals, But An Issue Of Everyone Else and How They Deal With His Corruption
photo source
Below is a large excerpt from Janet Mefferd, the radio talk show host who publicly and directly challenged Mark Driscoll on his plagiarism. She says so much that is right, that I wanted to include it all, but please read the entire article for the context.
Quote:
That wasn’t the end, of course. Over the last nine months, there were endless Driscoll scandals that followed: There was more plagiarism to be revealed (at last count, nine books’ worth, along with sermon material), the ResultSource scandal, the accusations of verbal and spiritual abuse against his Mars Hill family, the vulgar William Wallace II rant, the church protests, the staff and board resignations, the ousting of Driscoll and Mars Hill from his Acts29 church-planting network and several conferences, the charges brought by former Pastor Dave Kraft, the charges formally brought against Driscoll by 21 former Mars Hill pastors.
Mars Hill members also released horrendous online testimonies, describing the kind of abuse they claimed to have suffered at the hands of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. Except those tales were often undermined by the very writers themselves, who often ended their terrible accounts of spiritual abuse with strained accounts of “love” for Pastor Mark and his soul, along with some very unnecessary self-flagellation. Things like: “The bottom line is that I love Mark, and I wish the very best for him, and after all, I’m a terrible sinner — a really bad, bad sinner — too!” And I thought, “Why are these testimonies ending like this? I don’t get it. There’s no moral equivalence here.”
Sure, there were a few more pseudo-apologies from Driscoll, which were never real instances of godly sorrow and thorough repentance, but the Internet would be awash in cries for mercy: “Seeee? It’s time to heeeal and restoooore Mark Driscoll!” Then another scandal would break, and we’d go through the same cycle, AGAIN, ad nauseam.
Driscoll offered his last public mea culpa lite last Sunday (with some help from his newly hired PR firm, of course), and he announced he’d step away for a minimum of six weeks as his hand-picked Board of Advisors and Accountability reviews the charges against him — tantamount to a defendant picking his own jury. So, the bottom line? See you in six weeks, Pastor Mark! Have fun during your time off, and get some rest so you can make your triumphant return!
No surprise, then, that another bombshell followed today, when I received the letter from the nine pastors. More deceit, more evidence, more bombshell quotes, more, more, more.
And at this point, I decided, I just feel … done.
Why is this endless cycle necessary?
I’m all for grace and forgiveness, but let’s not be foolish here. Mark Driscoll shouldn’t be a pastor. And we didn’t need all these scandals from the last nine months to figure that out. Because the truth is that any intelligent Christian with the ability to read and understand the Bible could have and should have discerned who this man was years ago and abandoned ship.
Pick your moment of revelation: Should it have been when Mark Driscoll claimed that God called him to be a pastor in a “weird charismatic moment?” How about when Donald Miller dubbed him “the cussing pastor?” Or maybe when he started having “pornovisions” or angrily screamed, “How dare you? Who the (blank) do you think you are?” at his church members? How about when he referenced the “pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus” that would result from people not getting on board with his “vision?” The pile that “by God’s grace … will be a mountain by the time we’re done?” Or the Elephant Room 2 debacle — might that have been a good time to abandon support for Pastor Mark and his cult of personality?
I simply don’t get it. Why didn’t the entire membership of Mars Hill get up and head for the exits at any of those points? Why didn’t his Christian fans unfollow him on social media, stop reading him, stop watching him and stop listening to him?
More significantly: Why didn’t any of Driscoll’s Big Name enablers — and you know who you are — look past his doctrinal statement to the man’s obvious character, ponder I Timothy 3 for a nanosecond, and think, “Hmm. Something’s off here?” And assuming some of them did have that thought at some point, why didn’t they get up and head for the exits before recommending this man to anybody in the church at large? And why didn’t any of them stand up months ago and apologize to the church for previously endorsing this man?
Why didn’t the Christian publishing world, the Christian big names, the Mars Hill membership and the church at large head for the church/social media/conference exits when they found out Mark Driscoll plagiarized a number of his books? Was that just … all right with you guys?
Why have so many Christians — in so many different pockets of the church, for so long — defended him, enabled him, oozed gushy love statements about him and continued to prop him up, against all evidence, against clear biblical admonitions and against all common sense?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Eastern Mysticism Still Promoted by CalvinistPiper's Friend Mark Driscoll A Calvinist
Contemplative Spirituality promoted by Driscoll, Acts29, Rick Warren, etc. In part Ken Silva reports:
Quote:
The point is not that we experience God, instead what we’re discussing revolves around concerns about how the Lord told us in the Bible that we should experience Him; and make no mistake, this is going to be a defining doctrine of our generation. For example, one of the speakers for Radicalis will be Reformed pastor Mark Driscoll of Acts 29 Network. From the Lighthouse blog of Lighthouse Trails Research (LTR) recently ran a post called Mark Driscoll IS a Contemplative Proponent. In it LTR points out:
And you should know that Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP) is indeed the crowning jewel of CSM; it’s actually a form meditation in an altered state of consciousness, in other words CCP is transcendental meditation lightly sprayed with Christian terms. LTR then goes on:
End quote.
Read the whole article here.
Is Eastern mysticism merely an option for Christians to practice or not practice? Is it merely an option for Calvinists? Its ok to mix occultic Romanism with Truth and say its sanctified and approved by God? Remember 2Cor. 6. Remember how God struck an entire nation for thinking they could adopt pagan practices into worship of Him.
How easily people are swayed by the double-tongued men who seek man's approval from all corners. Instead of not judging by appearance (they look like Christians, they sound like Christians, they say they believe the Bible, they say they believe in Sola Scriptura), we are to judge RIGHTEOUSLY (fruit inspectors require examining the fruit carefully; dig deeper than the mere claims they give; note who influence them, what are they reading and promoting, how are they living, what are they teaching and testing that against Scripture).
After all, Mormons say they are Christians, but they aren't.
Roman Catholics say they are Christians, but they aren't.
Benny Hinn says he's a prophet of God, but he's not.
We see examples over and over of what people claim versus what they really are. How do you suppose false teachers secretly sneak in among you? Why do you think they are called "hidden reefs" among your love feasts?
Are you going to be easily swayed by what a false brother or a false teacher tells you ? Are you more willing to listen to such a person yet reject a true Christian who warns you of such hidden reefs? If so, you better examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.
1Ti 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1Ti 1:6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,
1Ti 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
Quote:
The point is not that we experience God, instead what we’re discussing revolves around concerns about how the Lord told us in the Bible that we should experience Him; and make no mistake, this is going to be a defining doctrine of our generation. For example, one of the speakers for Radicalis will be Reformed pastor Mark Driscoll of Acts 29 Network. From the Lighthouse blog of Lighthouse Trails Research (LTR) recently ran a post called Mark Driscoll IS a Contemplative Proponent. In it LTR points out:
Although Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Fellowship in Seattle Washington, is said
to have denounced certain aspects of the emergent church, Driscoll is a
proponent of the main element behind the emerging church – contemplative prayer.
(Online source)
And you should know that Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP) is indeed the crowning jewel of CSM; it’s actually a form meditation in an altered state of consciousness, in other words CCP is transcendental meditation lightly sprayed with Christian terms. LTR then goes on:
In an article written by Driscoll himself, ironically titled Obedience, Driscoll tells readers to turn to Richard Foster and contemplative Gary Thomas. Driscoll states:
If you would like to study the spiritual disciplines in greater detail … helpful
are Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster, and Sacred Pathways, by Gary Thomas…
As for Gary Thomas, in his book Sacred Pathways (the one Driscoll
recommends), Thomas tells readers to repeat a word for 20 minutes in order to
still the mind. This is the basic principle in all Eastern and occultic methods.
(Online source)
End quote.
Read the whole article here.
Is Eastern mysticism merely an option for Christians to practice or not practice? Is it merely an option for Calvinists? Its ok to mix occultic Romanism with Truth and say its sanctified and approved by God? Remember 2Cor. 6. Remember how God struck an entire nation for thinking they could adopt pagan practices into worship of Him.
How easily people are swayed by the double-tongued men who seek man's approval from all corners. Instead of not judging by appearance (they look like Christians, they sound like Christians, they say they believe the Bible, they say they believe in Sola Scriptura), we are to judge RIGHTEOUSLY (fruit inspectors require examining the fruit carefully; dig deeper than the mere claims they give; note who influence them, what are they reading and promoting, how are they living, what are they teaching and testing that against Scripture).
After all, Mormons say they are Christians, but they aren't.
Roman Catholics say they are Christians, but they aren't.
Benny Hinn says he's a prophet of God, but he's not.
We see examples over and over of what people claim versus what they really are. How do you suppose false teachers secretly sneak in among you? Why do you think they are called "hidden reefs" among your love feasts?
Are you going to be easily swayed by what a false brother or a false teacher tells you ? Are you more willing to listen to such a person yet reject a true Christian who warns you of such hidden reefs? If so, you better examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.
1Ti 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1Ti 1:6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,
1Ti 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Steve Camp Back Peddals On Mark Driscoll
"The church has lost her testimony. She has no longer anything to say to the world. Her once robust shout of assurance has faded away to an apologetic whisper. She who one time went out to declare now goes out to inquire. Her dogmatic declaration has become a respectful suggestion, a word of religious advice, given with the understanding that it is after all only an opinion and not meant to sound bigoted.""Pure Christianity, instead of being shaped by its culture, actually stands in sharp opposition to it." -A.W. Tozer
What an utter shame that the righteous fall before the wicked. Compromise because of friendship with a man who is impure before man and God, without a clean conscience, is truly disloyal to Christ.
I saw a recent post at Steve Camp's website on how bloggers should be careful when criticizing Christians and to be cautious with the words we use, etc. Last night I figured out why he posted that. He sadly did a back flip with regard to Mark Driscoll and took full blame for all he said in the past regarding to Driscoll's horrific language and treatment of Scripture. Instead, while saying he believes pastors are to be careful with their language, declared himself to have been the one in sin. So now he's going to try to give wisdom those who refuse to cave to such raunchy behavior because he has a new friend in the putrid-mouthed man, Mark Driscoll. I lost respect for Steve and it grieves me deeply. In fact I was very upset last night and then again this morning when I woke up to get ready for church.
A friend of mine rightly said to me today in an email as she pondered his turn around: " Did he take heat? So what. Sometimes doing the right thing takes great strength and IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Why do we always look back instead of forward?"
Why indeed? Are we not to count everything loss for the sake of gaining Christ? Does HE not demand purity? Why is it so hard for so many Reformers (Driscoll says he's a reformer) to reject a false teacher entirely instead of hanging on to the fleshly corpse of false brother?
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
Jud 1:12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
Many will say "Lord Lord did we not perform miracles in your name...." Did Jesus say, "Well, I know your heart and meant to do good" and let them into Heaven? "Well I realize no one has perfect doctrine or behavior, so that's ok, come on in"? NO! He said:
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Its almost like so many professing Christians, even Reformers, deny this passage. They can't see that such men are in their own camp (this is pride).While looking down at Arminians who often say, "love the sinner, hate the sin", they love the false teacher, but just hate his false teaching. They cannot bear to reject a man entirely (unless its a Charismatic nut or a pre-mill Christian--hence the hypocrisy), just the bits they disagree with. But God calls us to a higher standard.
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Where do they think false prophets come from? They come from their own churches. 1John 2:19 describes this as well. They were never true believers, but yet Christians will continue to call them "brother" and slap the name of Christ Jesus onto a dead, decaying, rotting corpse and rejoice in that!
Mar 7:20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." (1Co 15:33)
It seems to me, the more tolerant people become of men like Driscoll, Piper, Tripp, etc., the more they will accept them and their corruption. There's a reason God said do NOT BE DECEIVED: BAD COMPANY RUINS GOOD MORALS. This truly dishonors the Lord. Just read 2 Cor. 6. One CAN be deceived into thinking that hanging with foul-mouthed and brazen fleshly men won't change them, but Scripture says IT SURELY WILL.
3John 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
In verse 2, the word "insincerity" is hupokrisis, which means hypocrit. "Seared" is kauterizao, which menas to brand as with a hot iron. A seared steak is not soft on the outside anymore. Nor is a seared conscience. Its a type of hardening. One with a seared conscience is a hypocrit and speaks lies and will continue to do so, while claiming Christ Jesus, because they are hardened to the Truth. They do NOT have a clear conscience before God and man.
And where these men are oh-so-tolerant of a disqualified pastor, they are quite INtolerant of those with discernment, exposing the deeds of darkness.
How much do you REALLY believe HIS Word? If you defend Driscoll, then you don't really believe what HE said, and you too, are deceived and your conscience is being seared.
Agape love does not rejoice in evil, but with the TRUTH.
"I believe that one reason why the church at this present moment has so little influence over the world, is because the world has so much influence over the church! Nowadays, we hear professors pleading that they may do this, and do that--that they may live like worldlings. My sad answer to them, when they crave this liberty is, "Do it if you dare. It may not cost you much hurt, for you are so bad already. Your cravings show how rotten your hearts are. If you are hungering after such dogs food--go dogs, and eat the garbage! "– Spurgeon
**Update**
As a reminder I'd like to repost to Slice's article from January 2009 which reflects the heart of what I'm saying.
Cathy Mickles offers insight:
“I am astonished that evangelical pastors would highlight a pastor not only known for his crudeness and careless handling of Scripture, but a pastor who also credits foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock with teaching him how to preach,” stated Cathy Mickels, former Washington state president of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and co-author of Spiritual Junk Food: The Dumbing Down of Christian Youth.
In response to those who will claim Driscoll is doctrinally sound, Mickels states, “Since when is it doctrinally sound to refer to Jesus as some ‘dude’ who tells ‘knock-knock jokes’?” Since when does Biblical doctrine tolerate the description of the Old Testament as ‘a red-neck hillbilly comedy’ containing mocking comments about Noah and Jeremiah?”
Quoting from Driscoll’s book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Mickels states, “It also appears Mark Driscoll discovered early on that talking about sex could help him build his church. In fact, Driscoll wrote, ‘I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horney, so I went out on a limb… Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, …oral sex, sacred stripping and sex outdoors…This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like penis and oral sex is unusual, and before you could say aluminum pole in the bedroom, attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week.’”
“It is just as puzzling,” observes Mickels, “why a pastor, who warns young men about the dangers of pornography, admits to frequenting a barbershop Driscoll describes as ‘providing the finest selection of waiting area pornography in our city.’”
Mickels concludes, “Instead of a pastor spiritually lifting up the Body of Christ to a higher standard, Mark Driscoll is dragging the Church through the gutter. Is it any wonder we are losing spiritual ground in this country?”
End quote.
Then Slice rightly comments:
Mark Driscoll should be shunned by decent people everywhere. There are Mormons and certainly Muslims who have more of a sense of decency and propriety in sexual matters than he does. There is a filthiness about this man that evokes a strong desire for a disinfecting bath after watching him. This is not the spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of the age.
Equally guilty are the pathetic, sniggering, middle-aged pastors who refuse to rebuke him, but rather see him as a doctrinally orthodox Sexpert for the young, who, as we know, must discuss every bodily function, fluid, and sexual detail in vivid color in order to be “real”. What we really have is a nation of vulgarians, both inside the church and out. What does Scripture say? Don’t fornicate, don’t commit adultery, keep your mind pure, honor your marriage vows. Absolutely none of the prurient detail explored by Driscoll is necessary. None of it. But Mark Driscoll enjoys his role as Sexpert. It gets him attention, you see. There is no other explanation for it. And it’s time we turned our back, collectively, on such exhibitionist behavior.
Unquote.
Absolutely women! You are both right on.
What an utter shame that the righteous fall before the wicked. Compromise because of friendship with a man who is impure before man and God, without a clean conscience, is truly disloyal to Christ.
I saw a recent post at Steve Camp's website on how bloggers should be careful when criticizing Christians and to be cautious with the words we use, etc. Last night I figured out why he posted that. He sadly did a back flip with regard to Mark Driscoll and took full blame for all he said in the past regarding to Driscoll's horrific language and treatment of Scripture. Instead, while saying he believes pastors are to be careful with their language, declared himself to have been the one in sin. So now he's going to try to give wisdom those who refuse to cave to such raunchy behavior because he has a new friend in the putrid-mouthed man, Mark Driscoll. I lost respect for Steve and it grieves me deeply. In fact I was very upset last night and then again this morning when I woke up to get ready for church.
A friend of mine rightly said to me today in an email as she pondered his turn around: " Did he take heat? So what. Sometimes doing the right thing takes great strength and IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Why do we always look back instead of forward?"
Why indeed? Are we not to count everything loss for the sake of gaining Christ? Does HE not demand purity? Why is it so hard for so many Reformers (Driscoll says he's a reformer) to reject a false teacher entirely instead of hanging on to the fleshly corpse of false brother?
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.
Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
Jud 1:12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
Many will say "Lord Lord did we not perform miracles in your name...." Did Jesus say, "Well, I know your heart and meant to do good" and let them into Heaven? "Well I realize no one has perfect doctrine or behavior, so that's ok, come on in"? NO! He said:
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Its almost like so many professing Christians, even Reformers, deny this passage. They can't see that such men are in their own camp (this is pride).While looking down at Arminians who often say, "love the sinner, hate the sin", they love the false teacher, but just hate his false teaching. They cannot bear to reject a man entirely (unless its a Charismatic nut or a pre-mill Christian--hence the hypocrisy), just the bits they disagree with. But God calls us to a higher standard.
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Where do they think false prophets come from? They come from their own churches. 1John 2:19 describes this as well. They were never true believers, but yet Christians will continue to call them "brother" and slap the name of Christ Jesus onto a dead, decaying, rotting corpse and rejoice in that!
Mar 7:20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." (1Co 15:33)
It seems to me, the more tolerant people become of men like Driscoll, Piper, Tripp, etc., the more they will accept them and their corruption. There's a reason God said do NOT BE DECEIVED: BAD COMPANY RUINS GOOD MORALS. This truly dishonors the Lord. Just read 2 Cor. 6. One CAN be deceived into thinking that hanging with foul-mouthed and brazen fleshly men won't change them, but Scripture says IT SURELY WILL.
3John 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
In verse 2, the word "insincerity" is hupokrisis, which means hypocrit. "Seared" is kauterizao, which menas to brand as with a hot iron. A seared steak is not soft on the outside anymore. Nor is a seared conscience. Its a type of hardening. One with a seared conscience is a hypocrit and speaks lies and will continue to do so, while claiming Christ Jesus, because they are hardened to the Truth. They do NOT have a clear conscience before God and man.
And where these men are oh-so-tolerant of a disqualified pastor, they are quite INtolerant of those with discernment, exposing the deeds of darkness.
How much do you REALLY believe HIS Word? If you defend Driscoll, then you don't really believe what HE said, and you too, are deceived and your conscience is being seared.
Agape love does not rejoice in evil, but with the TRUTH.
"I believe that one reason why the church at this present moment has so little influence over the world, is because the world has so much influence over the church! Nowadays, we hear professors pleading that they may do this, and do that--that they may live like worldlings. My sad answer to them, when they crave this liberty is, "Do it if you dare. It may not cost you much hurt, for you are so bad already. Your cravings show how rotten your hearts are. If you are hungering after such dogs food--go dogs, and eat the garbage! "– Spurgeon
**Update**
As a reminder I'd like to repost to Slice's article from January 2009 which reflects the heart of what I'm saying.
Cathy Mickles offers insight:
“I am astonished that evangelical pastors would highlight a pastor not only known for his crudeness and careless handling of Scripture, but a pastor who also credits foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock with teaching him how to preach,” stated Cathy Mickels, former Washington state president of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and co-author of Spiritual Junk Food: The Dumbing Down of Christian Youth.
In response to those who will claim Driscoll is doctrinally sound, Mickels states, “Since when is it doctrinally sound to refer to Jesus as some ‘dude’ who tells ‘knock-knock jokes’?” Since when does Biblical doctrine tolerate the description of the Old Testament as ‘a red-neck hillbilly comedy’ containing mocking comments about Noah and Jeremiah?”
Quoting from Driscoll’s book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Mickels states, “It also appears Mark Driscoll discovered early on that talking about sex could help him build his church. In fact, Driscoll wrote, ‘I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horney, so I went out on a limb… Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, …oral sex, sacred stripping and sex outdoors…This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like penis and oral sex is unusual, and before you could say aluminum pole in the bedroom, attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week.’”
“It is just as puzzling,” observes Mickels, “why a pastor, who warns young men about the dangers of pornography, admits to frequenting a barbershop Driscoll describes as ‘providing the finest selection of waiting area pornography in our city.’”
Mickels concludes, “Instead of a pastor spiritually lifting up the Body of Christ to a higher standard, Mark Driscoll is dragging the Church through the gutter. Is it any wonder we are losing spiritual ground in this country?”
End quote.
Then Slice rightly comments:
Mark Driscoll should be shunned by decent people everywhere. There are Mormons and certainly Muslims who have more of a sense of decency and propriety in sexual matters than he does. There is a filthiness about this man that evokes a strong desire for a disinfecting bath after watching him. This is not the spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of the age.
Equally guilty are the pathetic, sniggering, middle-aged pastors who refuse to rebuke him, but rather see him as a doctrinally orthodox Sexpert for the young, who, as we know, must discuss every bodily function, fluid, and sexual detail in vivid color in order to be “real”. What we really have is a nation of vulgarians, both inside the church and out. What does Scripture say? Don’t fornicate, don’t commit adultery, keep your mind pure, honor your marriage vows. Absolutely none of the prurient detail explored by Driscoll is necessary. None of it. But Mark Driscoll enjoys his role as Sexpert. It gets him attention, you see. There is no other explanation for it. And it’s time we turned our back, collectively, on such exhibitionist behavior.
Unquote.
Absolutely women! You are both right on.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Matt Slick Highly Recommends X-Rated Pastor Mark Driscoll
CARM's Matt Slick highly recommends X-rated pastor, Mark Driscoll, one of the most foul-mouthed, sexed-obssessed, inappropriate, ungodly men around today, who has been a leader in the Emergent Church Movement for years.
Last year Dr. John MacArthur showed just how unbiblical and really, uncouth, Driscoll was in his raping of the Song of Solomon. I've posted on this here. I suggest reading this article which includes some good insights from a couple of solid men who commented on this whole issue.
Driscoll treats that which is holy as if its unholy. His "Vintage Jesus" is a good example of this. A thorough treatment of the vast problems of this unqualified, carnal man who heads up Mars Hill Church is here.
This comes as no surprise, given the fact that Slick has said that a person can be saved even though they don't have faith in the Resurrection, contrary to Scripture like Rom. 10:9-10, since the Gospel that saves includes His resurrection; indeed this is of "FIRST IMPORTANCE" unlike what Slick has stated repeatedly.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures....
Here is what Driscoll offers--the man Slick says, has a "good understanding of Christian theology"---on "Spiritual Disciplines" Driscoll offers:
- Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life (Donald S. Whitney)
- Celebration of Discipline (Richard Foster)
- Sacred Pathways (Gary Thomas)
- Life Together (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
For Dietrich Bonhoeffer concerns here.
Serious concerns regarding Gary Thomas here.
There are many videos that also reveal Driscoll's incompetance in handling Scripture on various issues, while trying to come off as some stand-out leader with guts. What he shows is he's just unqualified to be behind a pulpit.
It is clear that others who have dug deeper than the surface (because the surface itself was so unbiblical), have seen the multitude of doctrinal and practical error of Mark X-Rated Driscoll. A man can claim a lot of "right" theology on the one hand, but then deny it with the other hand. This is what Driscoll, who is the epitome of Post-Modernism, has done. Those easily satisfied with Christianese will accept the wolf and offer the sheep to him as if he's there to feed them. What people like Slick has done is just handed over people to be ravaged by the wolf himself.
Here's the question, just how do you think that false teachers "secretly creep in among you"? Consider that its by those who approve of and invite in the wolf himself because they had little to no discernment at all, or just wanted to be friends with such traitors of Christ.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Politics or "Christianity": Liberals Do The Same Thing By Attacking Those Who Challenge Them
I have often said that what happens in politics is what is happening in "Christian" circles. Remember the arguement over whether the Constitution of the United States was a "living and breathing document" or whether it was unchangeable, with the writers writing "in stone" if you will, what they saw as necessary? It was during the impeachment of President Clinton.
Those arguements used for and against the Constitution sounded just like those used regarding the Bible: what did God mean in Scripture? Is Scripture changing with the times and cultures? Can we say dogmatically what the authors meant?
I often see the parallels between the two arenas, and found it again in the following statement in regard to the Homeland Security report on 'Right Wing Extremists' who are considered a risk to our security. Apparently I along with millions are risks to the very country we love:
Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee responded:
"The report purports to analyze 'rightwing extremism' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the report, 'rightwing extremists' could include groups dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration as well as those who may not agree with the new administration's 'perceived' stance on several issues including illegal immigration and restrictions on firearm ownership.
"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted administration policy – in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote.
Source here.
This is the same issue in regard to Tim Challies' recent sweeping rejection of all online discernment websites as having "no value" and encourage ungodly behavior in their reporting of commonplace or increasing commonplace theology and practices of churches and pastors around America. He refused to give any specifics at all. I'll just switch a few words around and you'll see just how similar the problem with liberalism is:
"The blog purports to analyze 'online discernment ministries' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the commentary, 'online Discernment ministries' could include groups dedicated to opposing Roman Catholicism, or the Occult, as well as those who may not agree with the popular "reformed" 'perceived' stance on several issues including unbiblical baptisms, works salvation, homosexuality acceptance, Creation, cussing pastors, the Emergent Church, Arminian pastors, or the use of Eastern Mysticism .
"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted other well-known pastor's views --in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote. "
**Update**
I just came across an old post at Slice of Laodicea that shows the hypocrisy and liberalism of Challies:
Quote:
If you read Tim Challies’ weak treatment of Mark Driscoll’s foul mouth in his review of Driscoll’s latest book, read Steve Camp’s excellent assessment of the problems with Mark Driscoll and the whole cult of personality that grows up around these emerging church celebrities. Steve Camp decided to try a test. He went to the comment section on Challies’ Driscoll piece, and using some of the same speech and phraseology that Driscoll had used about Jesus, he directed it toward Driscoll. Predictably, his comments were deleted as Driscoll fans waxed hot in anger that anyone could say such things about their guy....
And by the way, Tim Challies, Driscoll’s talk is not wrong because it violates good taste but because it violates Scripture’s commands against coarse jesting, filthy talk, and corrupt communication. Weak-kneed responses from Christian men are allowing this kind of thing to worsen. At one time even secular men would have seen a woman in their presence and told a foul-mouthed colleague to watch their talk. Now “pastors” spew this filth from pulpits and their books, and the best Christian men bloggers can do is to say it’s in “poor taste”. No, actually it’s sin, and as a Christian female, I’m sick of hearing it from Christian pastors and having to write about it, frankly. Calling all Christian men (especally bloggers)–take a stand! Thank you so much, Steve, for standing up for what is right. Christian decency is not dead yet.
End quote.
Amen Ingrid. And all the more true today with Challies' feined "shock" with Driscoll's teaching on the Song of Solomon.
Those arguements used for and against the Constitution sounded just like those used regarding the Bible: what did God mean in Scripture? Is Scripture changing with the times and cultures? Can we say dogmatically what the authors meant?
I often see the parallels between the two arenas, and found it again in the following statement in regard to the Homeland Security report on 'Right Wing Extremists' who are considered a risk to our security. Apparently I along with millions are risks to the very country we love:
Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee responded:
"The report purports to analyze 'rightwing extremism' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the report, 'rightwing extremists' could include groups dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration as well as those who may not agree with the new administration's 'perceived' stance on several issues including illegal immigration and restrictions on firearm ownership.
"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted administration policy – in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote.
Source here.
This is the same issue in regard to Tim Challies' recent sweeping rejection of all online discernment websites as having "no value" and encourage ungodly behavior in their reporting of commonplace or increasing commonplace theology and practices of churches and pastors around America. He refused to give any specifics at all. I'll just switch a few words around and you'll see just how similar the problem with liberalism is:
"The blog purports to analyze 'online discernment ministries' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the commentary, 'online Discernment ministries' could include groups dedicated to opposing Roman Catholicism, or the Occult, as well as those who may not agree with the popular "reformed" 'perceived' stance on several issues including unbiblical baptisms, works salvation, homosexuality acceptance, Creation, cussing pastors, the Emergent Church, Arminian pastors, or the use of Eastern Mysticism .
"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted other well-known pastor's views --in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote. "
**Update**
I just came across an old post at Slice of Laodicea that shows the hypocrisy and liberalism of Challies:
Quote:
If you read Tim Challies’ weak treatment of Mark Driscoll’s foul mouth in his review of Driscoll’s latest book, read Steve Camp’s excellent assessment of the problems with Mark Driscoll and the whole cult of personality that grows up around these emerging church celebrities. Steve Camp decided to try a test. He went to the comment section on Challies’ Driscoll piece, and using some of the same speech and phraseology that Driscoll had used about Jesus, he directed it toward Driscoll. Predictably, his comments were deleted as Driscoll fans waxed hot in anger that anyone could say such things about their guy....
And by the way, Tim Challies, Driscoll’s talk is not wrong because it violates good taste but because it violates Scripture’s commands against coarse jesting, filthy talk, and corrupt communication. Weak-kneed responses from Christian men are allowing this kind of thing to worsen. At one time even secular men would have seen a woman in their presence and told a foul-mouthed colleague to watch their talk. Now “pastors” spew this filth from pulpits and their books, and the best Christian men bloggers can do is to say it’s in “poor taste”. No, actually it’s sin, and as a Christian female, I’m sick of hearing it from Christian pastors and having to write about it, frankly. Calling all Christian men (especally bloggers)–take a stand! Thank you so much, Steve, for standing up for what is right. Christian decency is not dead yet.
End quote.
Amen Ingrid. And all the more true today with Challies' feined "shock" with Driscoll's teaching on the Song of Solomon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)