It is so sad to watch pastor after pastor, and ministry after ministry acquiesce to or downright endorse Mark Driscoll.
It is with a heavy heart that I bring your attention to yet two more examples–two websites that I have long respected for their work, but now I can no longer endorse on DefCon.
The first one is Monergism. I have greatly enjoyed their Reformed resources but I have discovered that they endorse Mark Driscoll (as evidenced by their 163 links about him found on their website).
The other Driscoll endorsement was brought to my attention by DavidW, a regular reader and commenter on this blog. He pointed out this article from apologetics ministry C.A.R.M. in which the following quote was found:
Would I recommend anybody go to Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church? Absolutely yes. Not only will you get good teaching, but you’ll encounter a vibrant community of believers in the midst of a very unchurched society. Keep up the good work Mark.
It is so discouraging that there seems to be so little discernment within the Church today, even from those who in the past have exhibited great discernment. Times are getting grim.
At this time I have removed both of these ministries from DefCon’s category links and I will be contacting both of them. If my contacts are ignored or I’m told they’re going to continue in their endorsement of Driscoll, then you will see that their sites remain absent from DefCon. However, if they do change their stance on this man I will welcome them back with open arms and even announce DefCon’s endorsement of them in a future post.
Christ Alone Wyoming 
I stand with you on this.
However, I am hoping that with an explanation of just why it is Mark is deemed in error – they will acknowledge these concerns.
All the best.
LikeLike
Thanks for the heads up brother.
God bless
LikeLike
I am with you as well brother.
Stand firm!
LikeLike
This is a sad post for me. I have been benefiting from monergism since becoming reformed a year ago, and have bought tons of great books from them as well. Please keep us posted on their response, they have a great site, but I too share your concerns about Mark. I have had a few conversations with my pastor concerning him, I avoid any of his preaching or teaching. He is popular with the 20-30 something reformed guys, and no one I talk to seems as concerned as they should. I think the fact that John Piper supports him gives him a lot of credibility that he should not have.
Though this saddens me deeply, I applaud you being one of the few sites that will address this guy honestly. John Macarthur and Phil Johnson are the only two well known pastors I know of who have spoken out against him/ John Piper? Not a peep that I know of.
Please keep us posted brother!!
LikeLike
My Pastor of 10 years, Francis Chan, of Cornerstone in Simi Valley is now one of the many who find it necessary to align themselves with Driscoll. It makes me very sad. Why are Francis, R.C. and Piper all on the band wagon? Don’t they hear how Driscoll acts and teaches. Aren’t they friends with John MacArthur who wrote a telling article on Driscolls teaching in “The rape of Song of Solomon”.
http://thexchangeconference.com/
LikeLike
sigh
I noticed that Monergism’s bookstore recommends and sells Donald Whitney’s book “Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life”.
A good review of that book here: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue111.htm
No reformed person should provide any space or recommendations for that book.
Discernment is sadly lacking in many places where the dollar is being pursued.
LikeLike
Wow! Now that was a shock! I didn’t really expect to hear that about Monergism. I find it hard to understand why people want to align themselves with foul-mouthed pastors. What is it about this man, Mark Driscoll, that people think he is the best thing out there? I have heard his preaching and find it absolutely disgusting and distasteful. How is it that people listen to John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, then listen to Driscoll and say there is nothing wrong with him? Well, I must say I am disappointed to hear this but I pray your letter will give them pause to reconsider and do what is right.
LikeLike
Can anyone post more information of the problems with this person? I have a glance of his site and the only problem I’ve found so far is his belief in eternal security, i.e. once saved, always saved.
LikeLike
Not to butt in, just wanted to drop a sideline to Matthew Birch: You mentioned Francis Chan as recommending Driscoll. I just read his book “Crazy Love” and there is something worse in that book. Chan upholds Shaine Claiborne as an example of crazy love-living as Christ meant for us. That completely spoiled my view of Francis Chan. Anyone who recommends Claiborne is not to be trusted. Claiborne is a prime example of works-righteousness, not salvation by grace.
LikeLike
@stand
“the only problem I’ve found so far is his belief in eternal security, i.e. once saved, always saved.”
why is eternal security a problem?
If a believer is not secure then do you think you are not calling Jesus a liar?
LikeLike
My husband and I are friends with Matt Slick, the creator of CARM. When you email him, please keep in mind he gets thousands of emails a day, and I am sure he will respond as soon as he can. If he doesn’t, don’t assume it means he has nothing to say or is ignoring you. He also may not respond if he has already answered a similar question as yours. I think you can search CARM to see if he has received smiliar email questions like the one you would be asking. Matt also just had a recent death in the family, his father, so he has been away for awhile, so please extend some grace to him.
I asked my husband about Driscoll, and he read this article and he said this:
“Well Driscoll himself is perfectly fine in his theology and his exposition. It is his associations that are a little questionable. He still has relationships with peopel who promote seeker sensitivity, and emergent theology. I haven’t heard a thing from Driscoll that is apostate or heretical. He’s not a leper, we can’t throw him out simply because he’s come into contact with people who we don’t agree with. And even if he’s buddies with some of them, we don’t throw out people who have come in contact with Driscoll, and endorse him. How many degrees of seperation does there need to be in order for someone not to endorse someone. What if I liked a pastor who liked a pastor who liked a pastor who liked Kenneth Copeland? Do I reject that initial pastor? To me if Driscoll is teaching heresy, then I would let people who endorse his ministry know about it. If they continue to endorse Driscoll, then I would sever support to anyone who endoreses him. But I’m not going to play “how many degrees can I link someone to a heretic” game.”
I also think that Ligonier Ministries (R.C. Sproul) endorses Mark Driscoll.
Crystal <
LikeLike
Here is a audio link on John Piper’s response to John MacArthur stance on Mark Driscoll.
http://gospelliving.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-piper-on-macarthur-driscoll-and.html
LikeLike
Stand:
Mark Driscoll is clever enough to promote a sound doctrinal statement. And he is very good at flying under the radar. But embedded in his sermons are perversities, blasphemies, false teachings which clear display his gross lack of understanding of the Jesus Christ Who is described in the Scriptures. Consistent with the likes of McLaren, he fully engages in deconstruction theology, and is intent on re-imaging God, Jesus, the Church, and Christianity itself to conform to his version of what McLaren calls the “New Christianity”. Also, Mr. Driscoll outright, and boldly, defies the specific qualifications for elders given in Scripture. For more of the details of Driscoll’s errors, see some of the past posts about Mark Driscoll on this site.
LikeLike
What a paradox. I listened to the Piper response (thanks for posting it!) and find myself agreeing with MacArthur on Driscoll (but not on eschatology or covenants) and agreeing with Piper on those doctrines but not on Driscoll.
(But I don’t agree with either Mac or Piper on their positions in their churches or the size or organization thereof. But that’s a whole nuther enchilada.)
LikeLike
Thanks for the information y’all. I just did some research as is my husband on Driscoll. It appears that most of the issues with Driscoll happened early on in his career…but evidently he is growing and getting mentored by Piper and others.
I will continue to research him. The article on CARM was written in 2007, and was based on Matt’s sitting in one service of Driscoll’s at his church. I am not sure if Matt has researched him any further since then, because I know his big passion is exposing cults.
I think Matt might be back on the air sometime this week or next week…I could give him a call and ask him about Driscoll, or someone else can call him personally and ask him.
To call Matt Slick’s radio show:
Phone number to call the show is (208) 377-3790
it is on 7-8pm CST (Mon-Fri) I am not sure if he is still playing reruns, since his father passed away I think he has been away. I can ask my husband and see what Matt has said lately.
God Bless
Crystal <
LikeLike
I remain surprised and perplexed that so few people understand that Mark Driscoll has, according to the test of infallible Scripture, utterly disqualified himself from the pulpit by his own conduct and words.
Below is the entire text of an e-mail I sent to a well known Christian radio host, by personal request of the Pilgrim, on the subject of Mark Driscoll. Only the identity of the recipient has been withheld.
Perhaps it will help some of those who remain “on the fence” about Driscoll to re-evaluate him, and his ministry, in the light of scripture.
Good evening [identity withheld],
I and others have been covering Mark Driscoll for quite some time, and it has occurred to many of us that he exhibits several of the telltale signs of a spiritual abuser.
For example he reportedly preached this sermon moments before firing two older respected pastors from Mars Hill Church. Driscoll has also used the pulpit to bully those who questioned this matter within congregation, basically telling them to “shut up and do what you’re told“. YouTube user ReallySad1 has chronicled what appears to me to be Driscoll’s well established patterns of spiritual abuse here. See also Seeking Justice and Reconciliation at Mars Hill Church.
All this taken together with Driscoll’s seeming obsession with puerile raunch makes me wonder if he’s not a spiritual time bomb who’s ready to explode, and sadly it seems that most people are so busy applauding and celebrating him; being enthralled by his bizarre cult-of-personality, that few even recognize a problem, and fewer still are sounding the alarm.
For more information about Driscoll and his teaching (if you can stomach it) you can review the following links, should you have the time or inclination. I would be remiss if I didn’t warn you that some of these links contain teaching by Mark Driscoll that is so objectionable and suggestive that it might actually trigger your web browser’s parental control feature; I wish I were exaggerating, but I’m not.
Regarding Driscoll’s recurring use of Ecclesiastes 9:10 as the butt of a tawdry joke:
http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/ch5.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/pastor-dudes-mega-church-draws-crowds/story?id=6711206 (includes embedded abc video previously aired on prime time television)
John MacArthur on Driscoll:
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/posts.aspx?ID=4168 – The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 1)
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4169 – The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 2)
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172 – The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 3)
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4174 – The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 4–conclusion)
Phil Johnson on Driscoll:
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4082 – Sound Doctrine, Sound Words (Part 1)
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4084 – Sound Doctrine, Sound Words (Part 2)
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4085 – Sound Doctrine, Sound Words (Part 3)
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/Pulpit/posts.aspx?ID=4074 – Session 6: Phil Johnson
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/03/preachin-dirty.html – Preachin’ Dirty (Pyromaniacs)
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/10/fed-up.html – Fed up (Pyromaniacs)
John MacArthur and Phil Johnson on Driscoll:
http://shatteredpixels.net/media/SC_03-06-09_AM_Phil.mp3 – Sound Doctrine, Sound Words (mp3)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82409191398 – The Case Against the R-Rated Church (interview)
Baptist Press on Driscoll:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=30700 – EDITOR’S NOTE: This story contains explicit language concerning sexuality.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31103 – “Driscoll has expressed regret over his past usage of curse words. One of his most infamous episodes involved his use of the “F” word in the pulpit of a friend in Texas, despite the friend’s warning not to use such language.”
Driscoll on Driscoll:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dg4fc37g_6fjdd38c8&hl=en – Mark Driscoll – “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon (caution, explicit)
The material above is but a mere sampling of the myriad issues swirling around the problematic figure of Mark Driscoll. I’m both chagrined and grieved to be required in good conscience to place warning labels next to links that discuss the teaching of a professing Christian pastor!
The bottom line? I and others think that the man has a very, very serious spiritual problem; a sensual, worldly, fleshy fixation on all things lowbrow and seedy and profane. For a time I had written Driscoll off as a megalomaniacal flash in the pan “hipster” who would ride his glory train until the wheels came flying off and he drifted into obscurity, but now I’m concerned on multiple levels that he’s not that kind of person at all…in fact I’m concerned that he might be the kind of person that destroys countless lives along with his own, not merely through the unholy corruption of his speech, but through the temporal effects of his obsession with the flesh which, when mixed together, can lead to serious, crippling, and long term spiritual collateral damage for those closest to him.
Am I wrong? I surely hope so.
I pray that you’ll have a blessed Lord’s Day, in the Lord’s house, with the Lord’s people tomorrow as you worship and adore the Holy One of Israel.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
http://www.youtube.com/user/ReallySad1
Driscoll supporters say some things in the comments on the site above that don’t seem very “Christianly” if that is a word???
Don’t mess with the golden calf I guess???
LikeLike
Crystal Sewell:
You appear to be an honest person who truly wants to know and understand this whole deal with Mark Driscoll. I hope the above comment by Coram Deo served as an introduction. But there has been much more given about Mr. Driscoll on this site in past posts that I encourage you to also read. Were this site to list all Mr. Driscoll’s many blasphemies, heresies, direct violations of God’s word, gross misrepresentations of Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ, it would be very lengthy indeed.
Mr. Driscoll’s cleverness is in mixture. He is very adept at mixing truth with error. And that seems to fool an awful lot of people. People look at his basically orthodox doctrinal statement, the titles and synopsis of his sermons, etc. and think they understand Mr. Driscoll as a preacher of God’s truth. Tragically, that’s not the case. Truth plus error does not equal truth. A serious comparison of his teachings and behavior with the word of God makes it very obvious.
Nor is this a matter of what he “used to do early in his ministry”. He’s still living in disobedience to God’s word. Still leading astray. Mr. Piper’s “mentoring” hasn’t changed that.
Your husband made reference to not wanting to play a “game” of “how many degrees can I link someone to a heretic”. That’s not the case or intent here. If I endorse a false teacher unknowingly, I would want to be informed of it. If I continue with such endorsement, I am in disobedience to God’s word. I am not to be unequally yoked. If I send someone to a ministry that endorses a false teacher, I bear a level of responsibility for leading that person astray. Thus The Pilgrim, in love for God’s people, and not desiring to lead anyone astray, has posted this thread, and is giving these ministries opportunity to heed God’s word.
I am sorry to hear that your friend Matt has had a loss of a loved one. May the Lord comfort him during this hard time.
LikeLike
Thanks DavidW and CD for the information.
My husband agrees with your comment DavidW, as do I. We will continue to research Driscoll.
I found a link today that had lots to say in regards to certain things Driscoll has said in books he wrote and we (husband and I) were a bit taken aback by it all.
We are not supporters of Driscoll, and have only heard of the controversy surrounding him recently when my husband hear that Driscoll will be attending a conference at Rick Warren’s church. That in itself raised a red flag for us. We also knew he has been called the “cursing pastor”, but had heard a year or two ago that he had stopped doing that after being corrected by some notable pastors.
We knew that Driscoll was edgy and is a “button pusher” when it comes to tradition, but we were unaware of the crudeness he uses.
I will definitely check out the stuff that is posted on here about Driscoll. I can almost certainly say though, that me and my husband won’t stop supporting and endorsing John Piper’s ministry, Ligonier Ministry, monergism.com, CARM or the like because of their positions or lack of on Driscoll. But we can keep our eyes and ears open and contact those ministries that haven’t already given a statement on the issue to find out what their position is on the topic at hand.
Thanks again!
Soli Deo Gloria
Crystal <
LikeLike
I would be interested in hearing a Biblically based defense of Driscoll. There is enough of his materials and quotes out there that I think we can safely say his fruit is wide open for inspection. Why are his defenders usually of the “judge not” crowd rather than teaching us Biblically how his methods are upright and good?
LikeLike
Part of the problem is the attitude within evangelical Christianity that it is unloving and unChristlike to say anything negative about a fellow christian, even when it is appropriate and biblical to do so.
Coram Deo you are spot on with your comment and if anyone reading this post hears Driscoll’s vulgarity for themselves they would change their minds. It broke my heart to hear Phil Johnson talk about how Driscoll’s abuse of Ecc 9:10, which was Phil’s late mothers favorite verse is all he can think of when he hears the verse now.
Shane, I agree with you about the golden calf, evangelicalism is rife with sacred cows and golden calfs, give me the solas of the reformation and men who stand against the tide of the culture any day!
LikeLike
I do not understand why so many people pardon Driscoll’s vulgarity and poor choices he has made over the years. Driscoll is a dangerous teacher who is a classic example of one who is using the truth to mix in a tiny amount of leaven.
It’s truly a disturbing how some in the Reformed movement overlook and/or pardon Driscoll.
In time this wolf will expose himself to the point where those who know the truth will be ashamed that they did not put the red flag on Driscoll many years ago.
As a former emergent church guy, I fully understand how easy it is to get sucked in by false teachers. Some of my friends say that I’m a bit too paranoid, but by the grace of God I pray daily that He keeps me from falling under the influence of another wolf.
We need to pray for our brothers/sisters who are being deceived by Driscoll’s form of godliness.
LikeLike
to:shane
My understanding is ‘eternal security’ promotes once saved, you are always saved no matter what you do in the future. I have seen a lot of people accepting Jesus and they then renounce Jesus or believe in other religions. So I believe, believing has to be a continue process, not believe once and have security of salvation forever. I believe God will not remove your freedom to sin or follow the Devil if you insist. And Jesus says not all those who claim Jesus as their Lord can go to Heaven. Correct me if this is not the doctrine of eternal security. I beleive only a minority in the church nowadays will be saved.
LikeLike
they were never saved in the first place.
1Jn2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1Jn2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
John says that the ones that leave from us were never saved in v19. Then he goes on to give a contrast in v20 of the false believers in v19 to the true in v20 “but you have an unction from the Holy One.” The false believers did not have this “unction”.
A true believer cannot and will not walk away from the faith. A lost sinner is dead. When they become a believer they are given new life. That new life is eternal.
Eph2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
true saving faith comes from God.
Phi1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
that faith will continue.
bottom line is if someone claims to be a Christian but they do not show any evidence of a new life, then they are probably not saved anyways.
I could go on and on about the security of a true believer. I have been doing so on my blog. So I am not going to hijack the thread over “eternal security”.
LikeLike
I try to find discussion on unconditional eternal security here but could not. There are search results I can link on the net but as you say I do not want to steal this thread as well. However, I can see ES is used as a licence to sin for some people especially for the false teachers as discussed in this blog.
LikeLike
Brothers, I’m a bit concerned.
I love your site and always have ever since I heard of it and read it.
In this case, I wonder if you’re not going a bit far when you decide to stop endorsing such sources as CARM and especially Monergism just b/c they don’t dislike Driscoll. Not everyone can spend all the time you guys do on discernment type stuff. I’ve listened to Matt Slick interview Driscoll on his show, and comment on Driscoll a few other times on his radio show, and IIRC his approval of Mars Hill is based on ONE visit to Mars Hill in which Driscoll preached a good sermon on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He frequently reminds his listeners (I listen sometimes to his show) that he’s just one guy and doesn’t have a really extensive team, or at least not nearly as extensive as he’d like or need, to do all the research he wants. He pulls no punches on Pagitt and Tony Jones, calls them out by name, calls out McLaren, calls out The Shack both directly to the author and indirectly to his audience. He drops the heretic-bomb on each of them. He’s far from perfect, he’s not omniscient, but he’s not afraid, he’s not compromising.
My educated guess is that Slick just hasn’t had the time to research EVERYthing that Driscoll has said, and Driscoll has said alot of good things as well as bad things.
Could I ask your reaction to those comments and also to these comments?
Grace and peace,
Rhology
LikeLike
Dear Rhology:
It’s not a matter of ceasing my endorsement of these sites “just b/c they don’t dislike Driscoll.”
That is a very shallow commentary on our stand, suggesting this is like a high school dispute when in reality it’s a matter of eternal death or life.
Both CARM and Monergism don’t merely tolerate or have no opinion of Mark Driscoll, they both openly ENDORSE the blasphemer. And because of this we cannot and will not endorse them.
I know we will not ‘make friends’ when we draw lines in the sand like this (and we’ll even lose friends), but we must draw lines in spite of the myriad of voices saying we’ve “gone too far,” we’ve “cried wolf one too many times,” or any other attempts to persuade us to “all hold hands and forget our differences.”
I will continue to refuse to endorse anyone endorses those who mock our Lord. And I have not demonized CARM or Monergism, as they may not be aware of the issues with Driscoll, as you suggest. But what happens when they are made aware and yet refuse to stop endorsing him? Then what? Does that change anything?
I have contacted both sites to make them aware of the issues with Driscoll, but please understand, neither you nor the many others who wish to have us deviate from our commitment to separate from the profane will cause us to budge. Regardless of how many comments we get urging us to not be so radical, we understand that this path we’re on is a very lonely one paved with much ridicule, but with God’s grace we are willing to go it alone if we have to.
Sincerely,
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Sorry Pilgrim, I did not mean to communicate that I thought your stand was shallow. Please excuse me.
You said:
it’s a matter of eternal death or life
Is it, really? Do you really consider that Driscoll does not preach the Gospel?
Yes, I fully recognise that he tells dirty jokes, at very unwise times. Yes, his mouth is quite dirty and I am not at all sure he should be in ministry w/o cleaning all that up, and I am VERY sure that he should not be put up on the pedestal that he is. But you really think this is a matter of Gospel vs non-Gospel?
But what happens when they are made aware and yet refuse to stop endorsing him?
Yes, that certainly changes things, but I just wonder whether that would simply represent an acknowledgement on their part that Driscoll preaches the Gospel. Yes, he has tons of bad baggage. Yes, you can hardly ever mention the man without a “…BUT”. But…Gospel, you know?
separate from the profane
Are you not separated from the profane already? You actively call out Driscoll for his many sins, and that’s great, and needed. But did you read Phil Johnson’s piece that I linked to in my last comment, about guilt by association? Why use time on Driscoll that you could be using on someone who DOESN’T preach the Gospel AND IS ALSO widely accepted in the church of Jesus? I know you do that, and you do it a lot, and that’s awesome. But surely you have plenty of stuff to say on plenty more people who fall into that category. Why not spend more time on them rather than on criticising faithful brothers who think that Driscoll preaches the Gospel, because Driscoll preaches the Gospel?
Again, with great respect.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
LikeLike
Rhology:
If I may offer my 2 cents for your consideration (by the way, I’m not the same DavidW that is featured on your site).
Wouldn’t you say judgment works both ways? Isn’t it just as serious to “judge” or determine one is saved, or a preacher of the Gospel, as it is to determine they are not? You appear to have judged Mr. Driscoll to be a preacher of the Gospel. Yet, how does that match up with the whole of Scripture? Isn’t the very character and person of God Almighty, and of Jesus Christ, inseparably united to the Gospel? Isn’t it critical that we are speaking and referring to the same God when we speak of Him being our only Savior and Lord? Isn’t preaching a false Christ a denial of the true Christ? To present a “Christ” as anyone other than He Who is described in God’s word is to present a false Christ, and thus a false gospel (you can’t have both the true Gospel and a false Savior or false God attached to that gospel). Has not God’s word specifically condemned with anathema all who preach a different gospel? The words may be the same, but Mr. Driscoll has changed the meaning. Jesus didn’t tell us we would know them by their words, but by their fruit.
So, apart from Mr. Driscoll saying the basic words of the Gospel, what fruit do we see in him? Is that fruit consistent with a true Christian, a true elder, a true pastor? In many other posts on this site exposing Mr. Driscoll, there is abundant evidence Mr. Driscoll does not display the fruit of a true Christian, elder, or pastor. For starters, one cannot blaspheme the name and character of Almighty God and Jesus Christ and be a biblical pastor, or preacher of the true Gospel.
Jesus has specifically said in Matt. 7, that even if we call Him “Lord” and do many wonderful works in His name, we are not His if we do that which He forbids.
The wolves know what to say to fool the sheep. Their true identity is exposed when they do not behave as sheep, and lead away from the truth of the Scriptures, and the true Jesus as described in God’s word.
Thus, it is critical to warn the sheep to be wary of those wolves who is deceiving many. And to alert those ministries who, through lack of adequate discernment or understanding, are sending the unsuspecting to them. If we truly love the brethren, we will do this.
LikeLike
I am somewhat surprised by the defenses given of Driscoll under the argument that he is “mostly” on track. I would like to give an example that I think is fairly fitting (although a little gross). If someone came and offered you a nice jug of ice cold water on a hot day, you would be thankful. However, if they stated that the jug had just an eensy, weensie, tiny bit of urine in it, you would not touch it. Why not? It is “mostly” clean. Your body would easliy separate the foul from the clean. What could be the problem? Drink deeply!! Well……not for me, thank you. I will go find another jug of water without the foul additives. And to be honest, I consider my spiritual intake to be of more lasting importance than my water intake. Sorry, folks. The bad mouth isn’t the only problem, it is the indication of what lies under the surface (made evident by the bad mouth) that is the primary problem. I will not be drawing water from that well.
LikeLike
Well spoken, DavidW and ChurchSalt!
LikeLike
Dear Rhology:
No problem. Your comment certainly came across that this whole matter was trivial when you said:
I understand that you did not mean it that way, and I’m sure–looking at it in hindsight–you can see how it was easily construed that way.
As for the issue at hand, it’s quite simple. If we direct people to such sites as Monergism, and on that site they see an open endorsement of Mark Driscoll (by virtue of over 160 links in favor of him), then they began to drink deep of that well of “truth” mixed with deadly doses of error, I feel that I will be partly responsible.
If someone were to go to CARM since it was linked to by DefCon and then read Matt Slick’s words:
Then again, I’d feel partly responsible for being a direct conduit to someone who openly endorses Driscoll.
All the opposition from friends and foes alike will not cause me to retract. I hope you can understand this, and where we on DefCon stand.
As for Driscoll himself, can a thorn bush produce figs? Can a fig tree produce thorns? Can a bitter spring produce fresh water? Can a fresh water spring produce bitter water?
As ChurchSalt aptly said, I too will draw my water from a different well.
Sincerely,
– The Pilgrim
P.S. Oh, by the way, thanks for considering us one of your favorite blogs.
LikeLike
Hi DavidW,
I’m glad you differentiated between you and the other DavidW! I’d probably address you a TAD differently otherwise, haha.
Wouldn’t you say judgment works both ways?
Yes.
Isn’t it just as serious to “judge” or determine one is saved, or a preacher of the Gospel, as it is to determine they are not?
Ummm, I suppose, but in this case, Driscoll does in fact preach the Gospel. He ALSO engages in quite a few unsavory and sinful, even disgusting, behaviors. He ALSO preaches the Gospel. I hope I’m making myself clear. The dude is not Benny Hinn.
You appear to have judged Mr. Driscoll to be a preacher of the Gospel.
Well, yes. I don’t know what else to say other than I’ve heard him preach the Gospel. One who preaches the Gospel is a preacher of the Gospel. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
Isn’t preaching a false Christ a denial of the true Christ?
Quite. Now I’d suggest it’s up to you to show how Driscoll is guilty of this very, very serious charge you appear to be laying on him.
The words may be the same, but Mr. Driscoll has changed the meaning.
I’m gonna need to ask you to prove that.
Is that fruit consistent with a true Christian, a true elder, a true pastor?
Quite a lot of it IS, yes. He’s far more than dirty jokes and unwise pandering to talk show hosts. He also directs a network of church planters, stands for complementarianism, preaches about the Subst Atonement, and reaches postmoderns with the Gospel by the truckload. How about you ALSO look at the good things he’s done? No one’s asking you to ignore his dumb and bad stuff, but I’m asking you NOT to ignore his good stuff.
Hi ChurchSalt.com,
However, if they stated that the jug had just an eensy, weensie, tiny bit of urine in it, you would not touch it.
I would ask you to reconsider your bad analogy. Who among us is perfect? Show me the perfect pastor, who never pees a little bit of sin into the perfect jug of God’s inspired truth (to take your disgusting analogy a bit further). You’re suffering from a bit of an overrealised eschatology, friend.
Hi Pilgrim,
Yes, I certainly made a mistake, and I hope you can forgive me for it, given that I’ve apologised already, and will be so kind as not to keep bringing it up over and over again unnecessarily.
they began to drink deep of that well of “truth” mixed with deadly doses of error
What doses of error from Driscoll are “deadly”? Please be specific. Do you mean disgusting jokes told at bad times, and the juvenile, unwise, and profoundly unhelpful and unedifying frequency with which he seems to revel in marital sexual intimacy? All that is bad, I agree, but compared with the very Gospel itself, how big a deal is it? Or perhaps it’s sthg else of which I’m not aware.
read Matt Slick’s words
I’m sorry, brother, but you seem not to have taken what I said about Slick in my above comment into consideration. I really would like to know your reaction to what I wrote, not merely a repetition of what you’ve already said.
As for Driscoll himself, can a thorn bush produce figs?
So, no other man of God named/endorsed on either CARM or Monergism has ever done anything you believe to be an unbiblical teaching or practice? None? Not VanTil’s fairly well-known saying that God is both Trinitarian and Unitarian? Postmillennial brethren? Continuationist brethren? Theonomist brethren (or if you yourself are theonomist, non-theonomist brethren, haha)?
As always, with deep respect and love in Christ.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
LikeLike
Dear Rhology:
Why the chip on your shoulder?
I was merely addressing the issue and pointing out how the confusion came about. It was not a big deal, not a problem, and of course I forgive you. I just wish your tone wasn’t so biting.
We are really growing weary of going over this again, and again, and again, and again. Go to the top right of this blog. Type Driscoll in the search engine and read for yourself the copious amounts of material on Driscoll. And while you’re at it, make sure you take the time to listen to Phil Johnson’s message on Driscoll from last year’s Shepherds’ Conference.
I did and I made my point. If someone is directed to C.A.R.M. from here and READS MATT SLICK’S WORDS ENDORSING MARK DRISCOLL, then begins listening to MD based on this endorsement that they discovered via DefCon, then I will have been a party to this, and I am not willing to do that.
What part of my stance on this issue bothers you so much? Driscoll is a profane blasphemer of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now it’s let’s pick apart every man’s theology to find faults so that we can once again endorse those who endorse Driscoll? If it’s a serious problem and I am made aware of it, then I will address it at that time. And now that’s a moot point, isn’t it? As I have removed my endorsement of both of these sites.
I don’t know how else to say this, Rhology: I WILL NOT ENDORSE MARK DRISCOLL, NOR WILL I ENDORSE THOSE WHO OPENLY ENDORSE HIM.
In other words, you’re barking up the wrong tree. All your argumentation is not going to change my decision. As I said, the path of holiness, purity, righteousness, and separation form the world and the profane is very narrow, and it’s very lonely. And I accept that.
My recommendation is that if you’re so passionate about defending Driscoll, you take up that cause on your blog. We have made our stance here very clear, and we will not change that.
Sincerely,
– Pilgrim
LikeLike
I don’t know how else to say this, Rhology: I WILL NOT ENDORSE MARK DRISCOLL, NOR WILL I ENDORSE THOSE WHO OPENLY ENDORSE HIM.
Well, yes, I certainly realise that. 🙂 It’s pretty clear from the article and our interaction so far.
Please forgive the chip on my shoulder. It is not intentional.
I was just attempting to get clarification as to why, and to protest your guilt by association. I have been specific as to what I see Driscoll’s errors and sins to be. You have not. I too have listened to Phil Johnson’s message on/to Driscoll and followed all that stuff, and I have identified in my comments here what I understand Johnson’s main critiques to be. Does Johnson believe that Driscoll does not preach the Gospel? Do you believe he does not preach the Gospel?
What precisely about dirty jokes and overobsession with sexual innuendo is “deadly”, Pilgrim? I have not seen an answer to that, nor have I seen an answer to Phil Johnson’s article on guilt by association.
No one is questioning whether Driscoll is definitely unworthy of endorsement. The question before us is whether those who endorse him probably b/c of insufficient attention paid to his activities and mouth are worthy of losing our endorsement. You seem to be for all intents and purposes projecting Driscoll’s faults onto CARM and Monergism, and that is not right. That’s why I’m talking to you.
You said:
Now it’s let’s pick apart every man’s theology to find faults so that we can once again endorse those who endorse Driscoll?
Well, no, I don’t really want to do that! 😉
However, it seems that you have done that with a man who preaches the Gospel – Driscoll. He preaches the Gospel, and that’s why CARM, at least, endorses him. I fear you’re elevating abstinence from dirty jokes and coarse language to the level of whether a pastor preaches the Gospel or not, and that is fast approaching Pharisaism, brother.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
LikeLike
When a man claims to preach the Gospel, yet uses filthy language and sensual innuendos repeatedly, do you really think this man is useful to the Master? Does he live up to biblical guidelines for an elder when he refuses to follow them? Those who defend Driscoll use the standard argument, ‘he preaches the Gospel’, yet, they ignore the biblical guidelines this man falls under by claiming to be an elder.
From 1 Timothy 3:2, ‘A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach’. Blameless translates ‘unrebukable’. His use of sensual talk and foul language alone disqualifies him as an elder.
We have this command from Colossians 3:8, ‘But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.’ What does God mean when He says, ‘put off all these’?
This is from Eph. 4:29,’Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers’. Here is another direct command to rid ourselves of corrupt words, such as obscene, sensual talk.
This is from Eph. 5:3,4, ‘But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.’ This is very clear, not even a hint, or a trace, of any kind of impurity or obscenity should be found among God’s people. Those who preach the word are held to a higher standard than those who do not.
How can anyone defend Driscoll in light of these commands by God? Do we throw God’s word to the wind, just because one may throw in a tid of truth now and then?
When we defend unrepentant men, such as Driscoll, in spite of what God commands in his word, we are in disobedience; we uphold for flesh and blood over a Holy God who has set the standards for His people in His word.
Here is a stern warning from Eph. 5:5, ‘For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a man is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God’. This is why repentance is a MUST in the life of those who profess Christ. To excuse/uphold sin is dangerous.
Instead of the standard, ‘he preaches the Gospel’, use the Bible to defend this man’s speech.
LikeLike
To add to unworthy1’s comment, Romans 1:18-21 talks about continuing in sin without seeking forgiveness,
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
“because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
“because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
This is only the beginning because from there the sin continues to grow worse until they are completely perverted. Verse 28-32 continues with a list of those things that God sees as “not fitting”:
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
“being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
“backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
“undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
“who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
This is why it’s so important not to align yourself with someone who claims to be a “man of God” but shows forth with talk and/or actions that he is not. Filthy talk shows forth the spirit of Satan and is not becoming of a man of God. A blameless man does not mean sinless perfection…it does mean a man who is striving to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ and who is willing to put off the old man and put on the new man in his daily walk with the Lord. This man must be willing to seek forgiveness for even the slightest infractions because of the shame it would cause his Master if he doesn’t.
We should not be willing to endorse any pastor who is not seeking to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ in his every day life. The old-used question like, “Well, how do you know he is not seeking to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ?” does not really compute in this whole conversation. If he was truly seeking to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ, then he would apologize openly for his sin (since he sinned openly and if you notice, he’s done it since that last youtube post he put up several years ago) AND begin changing or excuse himself out of the ministry if he can’t accomplish this for God’s honour and glory. All of us know this hasn’t happened and all he is doing is bringing shame on the Lord Jesus Christ with his corrupt communication. He is making Christians look to be vile-mouthed. As the Bible says:
“For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”
This really shouldn’t be acceptable in any Christian…let alone pastors who are supposed to be training and equipping the flock of God to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ!
Sadly, discernment is not high on the list of most people who call themselves Christians and so, at the expense of purity within the church, they are willing to go with what seems like the gospel.
LikeLike
AMEN to what Pilgrim, Lyn, and DPW wrote.
Pilgrim ~
Have you seen any of the videos of Sproul & Driscoll? I forget who is interviewing who but it upsets me greatly to see Sproul doing something like that with Driscoll.
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the more I realize that using good logic, sound reasoning, common sense and a little gracious flexibility, there is absolutely no reason to condemn Driscoll, nor condemn those who support him. But logic, reason, common sense and flexibility are not what I am follow and obey. I am to obey Christ as revealed in the written Word, and the written Word says I will know someone by their fruit. It also says that I should not even eat with a man, or be associated with a man, that is in willful rebellion. This means that to be in association with Driscoll is rebellion against the written Word of God in its’ own right. And now this snowball of a problem comes to the third tier, in this case, this website. Will DefendingContending also embrace rebellion by endorsing those who are using logic instead of obeying? I, for one, am glad to see they are not. Sorry, Rhology. Your arguments are all based on reason and logic, which are great tools to be used while rightly handling the Word of truth, but can lead to a lot of trouble when separated from the Word of truth.
LikeLike
Do I believe MD preaches the gospel? Well, no. I believe he preaches a gospel but not the gospel and here’s why. It’s quite simple. MD preaches a Jesus that is tolerant of being mocked and blasphemed by MD. That is not the Jesus of the Bible. MD may say all the right words, but so can a Mormon and a Catholic. You can train a parrot to mimic words.
The proof is in the fruit. You cannot repeat “sound words” while wearing a Jesus as a DJ t-shirt, nor can you “preach the gospel” in one sentence while blaspheming the very Lord of that gospel in the next. Every good thing you can say is betrayed by what pours out from the abundance of the heart.
Even the slave girl in Acts 16 spoke some truth when she kept proclaiming, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation,” yet she had a demon!
Again, we fall back on the teaching of Christ that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
What I find very perplexing is this:
If a Roman Catholic were to get saved (e.g. he actually began reading the Bible and the Holy Spirit used that to birth him anew) it wouldn’t be long before he’d have to leave that Romish institution because the Spirit of God within him would be grieved every time the priest blasphemed the Lord Jesus via the Romish Mass.
Likewise, if someone truly became born again due to (or in spite of) MD’s preaching, then it wouldn’t be long before they’d have to remove themselves from under his teaching as well because the Holy Spirit in them would not permit them to remain under one who blasphemes the holy One.
So the question comes down to which “Jesus” does MD preach? If it isn’t squarely on the Christ of Scripture, but a “Jesus” who winks at profane language, sexual innuendos, and double entendres from the pulpit, I suggest to you that he’s preaching another “Jesus” which is “another gospel” not only by his words, but by his actions.
Additionally, as DavidW aptly pointed out in this previous post (citing sources), MD is in opposition to my position and ridicules that position because I consider myself to be a fundamentalist. Crazy isn’t it. What would he think of Paul?
– Pilgrim
LikeLike
Pilgrim said:
How about a lustful “Jesus” who desired to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage with strange women?
Or how about a fevered fantasy “Jesus” who engages in homoerotic encounters with glorified saints in heaven?
Many of us have learned the hard way that daring to “call out” or otherwise rebuke the cult-of-personality leaders within modern day Celeb-rianity is to incur the wrath of the party faithful.
“Touch not mine anointed!”
For some inexplicable reason Mark Driscoll is seemingly untouchable because he is adept at utilizing certain reformed and orthodox terminology, even as he regularly mixes the sacred with the profane, soiling the Name above every name as he works the crowds, and plays the “Big Name” celebrity evangelicals for fools.
Evidently broad swaths of the shallow evangelical sub-culture, even amongst those who profess orthodox Reformation theology, are so preoccupied with hip relevance and church growth statistics – not unlike the pragmatist, program driven, seeker-sensitive semi-Pelagians – that many are willing to accept carte-blanche whatever the popular, edgy, cool-dude celebrity preacher Mark Driscoll spews from his pulpit.
Moving a step beyond these blind being led by the blind we find the seemingly ubiquitous Driscoll apologists who expend no small amount of time and energy spinning plausible reasons for why Driscoll blasphemes God while, more often than not, hurling gratuitous ad hom towards, and/or imputing spurious motivations to those who point out Driscoll’s glaring inconsistencies and incongruencies all while engaging in po-mo handwringing over “tone”.
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”…“JUDGE NOT!”
I guess it just doesn’t matter to some people that the question of being disqualified from the pulpit by one’s own actions and words are at stake.
I guess it just doesn’t matter to some people that God’s name is blasphemed, and Christ’s name is shamed from the pulpit by a man who professes to be a Christian pastor.
I guess it just doesn’t matter to some people that among the Biblical qualifications of an elder is to be above reproach.
Blaspheme God?
Impute sinful sexual desires to the Second Person of the Triune One True and Living God?
Make God’s Holy Word the butt of a tawdry and reprehensible joke by using it to refer to masturbation?
Do such things matter anymore?
Sadly to many it seems they don’t.
And herein lies the saddest irony of all – the copious, verifiable, documented primary and secondary sources of information pointing towards Mark Driscoll’s fixation on all things smutty, lowbrow, and carnal are ALWAYS directly related to his “preaching ministry”.
It would be bad enough if he moonlighted as some sort of perverse stand-up comedian, but he performs his gutter-smut act from behind the pulpit as he purports to speak of the things of God Almighty.
It seems that God’s Word heralded forth in its simplicity, empowered by Spirit and Truth is insufficient in the upside-down, topsy turvy world of Mark Driscoll and his erstwhile hangers-on, sycophants and defenders.
It seems that unless something “edgy”, “hip”, “cool” or “relevant” is added to juice up the theopneustos scriptures that, well, otherwise we just couldn’t expect the kind of “results” that the “Cussin’ Pastor”, the “Reformissional Rev” is laying down up there in Seattle!
And so, instead of admonishing, rebuking, and finally turning away from such a thoroughly discredited, flesh-consumed and haughty windbag as Driscoll, the young up-and-coming wannabe hipster pastors, along with the desperate old-timers hoping to avoid becoming *gasp* irrelevant, are all too eager to belly up to the bar and sell their spiritual birthright for a worthless bowl of worldly pottage.
And if you should somehow find that you’re not deeply troubled in your innermost being by Driscoll’s tragic and poisonous apothecary mixture of the holy and the profane, then I’d suggest that you have a serious and spiritually dangerous soul-sickness, and that you need to carefully and prayerfully examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
CD wrote:
Nailed it.
There are stickier, far more difficult exercises in discerning goats from true sheep than Driscoll. This should be new-believer level discernment testing.
There is an established and repetitive history of the same dishonorable issues and fallacious repentence from MD. Discernment just seems to fly out the window in general as long as you are careful to dip your theology/ministry in Reformation candy-coating.
A head knowledge of some correct doctrine is not carte blanche to mock the King of Glory nor His word.
LikeLike
Hey, I remember the whole Driscoll DJ-t-shirt argument! People have been defending him on this site for a LONG TIME, now…
LikeLike
This is my first time posting here. Actually, I was led here by reading Rhology’s blog on Driscoll. This is not my fight in one sense, because I’m not a Protestant Christian. However, I have close friends of many years who are Reformed like yourselves, who have high regard for many of those who support Driscoll.
I decided to take a gander over at the site that Coram referenced under “Driscoll on Driscoll.” There I read the sermon on Song of Solomon and was utterly shocked. I could not even fathom how one who calls themselves a follower of Christ could say such things to their flock. How could this man blatantly tempt those in the audience who are single into sexual immorality? How could he turn the gathering of Christians into a spectacle of verbal pornography? I was so disturbed by what I read that I could not sleep half the night thinking of various Protestant friends of mine.
Anyone who has been made alive to God for as long a period of time as those men who support Driscoll have, should be ashamed to defend this man as a pastor. I will be sure to inform my Reformed Calvinist friends of the dangers of Driscoll.
In Christ’s Immeasurable Love,
Darlene
LikeLike
Brothers, Sisters,
I haven’t seen this from any of you, and I’m glad. I just wanted to doublecheck that nobody thinks of me as a Driscoll apologist. I hope you’ll see in my comments here that I fully recognise the extent of his sinful and disgusting practices. In fact, I think that some of your comments have been helpful for me to see why you are so critical. It would appear that I haven’t connected all the dots before, and haven’t made all the criticisms I should have. I will change.
Still, though, I would caution you about this talk of “a gospel”. Yes, MD has many many very serious faults of which he has not repented. Yes, he does not guard his words and is not qualified to be a pastor biblically. Not right now at least. But to say that a man’s faults in other areas of his life, even in other topics about which he speaks, means therefore that he does not preach the Gospel, is a serious matter that I don’t think you’re appreciating fully. The Gospel is objective, and it is a fixed message. If the man preaches it, it means something, it increases the man’s responsibility and burden to be holy, but it also means that he preaches the Gospel, that his messages are not totally devoid of value. It would be far better to listen to 20 MD sermons than many 1000s of ‘ministers’ throughout the world, b/c those many 1000s don’t preach the Gospel.
Anyway, I still cannot fully agree with the point of this post. This was not meant (as I understand it) as a referendum on MD. It was meant to express that you will no longer endorse otherwise outstanding ministries b/c (I presume) they have not fully apprised themselves (for whatever reason; as I’ve argued, in Matt Slick’s case it’s probably b/c of time constraints) of all of MD’s behavior.
I’d like to ask with respect how far you intend to take this de-endorsement. Will you refuse to endorse ministries that endorse CARM and Monergism?
Grace and peace,
Rhology
LikeLike
I am an elder in my Church.
What if one day I went out and got drunk…?
Am I still qualified to serve as an elder?
NO! I’m not !
I would need to repent, bringing my sin to the Lord and to my Church AND THEN STEP DOWN (or over…)
I would have disqualified myself. Period.
MD barely even gives lip service to repentance, and then becomes a repeat offender 5 minutes later.
He has disqualified himself from the pulpit and is not worthy of anyone’s endorsement. I am thankful to the crew here at DC for keeping that barrier in place and not providing a conduit that leads down to the MD sewer.
MD doesn’t need a wink and a pass. He needs to find different employment. And shame on us for serving as his enablers if we are.
LikeLike
Rhology:
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I don’t feel you’re understanding what we’ve been trying to say here. The Gospel is objective, very true. But in communicating that objective truth, the preacher must be in agreement with the whole of Scripture on the terms of the Gospel.
Certainly you must agree with Gal. 1 that there is such a thing as “another gospel” (which is not another, but any perversion of the true Gospel is “another” gospel). Which is why The Pilgrim said M.D. is preaching “a gospel” but not “the Gospel”. There is also such a thing as “another jesus” (2Cor. 11:4) and another spirit. And that’s a point of departure of Mark Driscoll. He may say the WORDS commonly understood as the orthodox “gospel”, but in re-defining the character of Jesus Christ, and of God Himself, though he preaches “jesus”, his “jesus” is not, by his descriptions, the same Jesus Christ Who is the sinless, non-worldly, non-fleshly, All-Holy Lamb of God. To put it plainly, MD preaches another jesus, one who is worldly, fleshly, a brawler, a sexual deviant, a buffoon and a jokester. And that changes his “gospel” from the one true Gospel to a perverse or “another gospel”. You cannot separate the identity of God from the message of the Gospel. In blaspheming the character of God, M.D. has changed the message. Because the Gospel message isn’t limited to what Christ did, but also must define Who He is in character, person, attributes. Any deviation from Who He has defined Himself to be in His own word is to present another god, another ‘jesus’, and thus another ‘gospel’ altogether.
Thus this is not a case where someone may have personal faults and sins, yet preaches the true Gospel. Even if he didn’t cuss, or tell perverse sexual jokes and the like, M.D. still does not preach the true Jesus of the Scriptures.
LikeLike
To Darlene:
Thank you for your comment. It’s refreshing to see someone who can call a spade, a spade. Perhaps it’s because you don’t consider yourself a Protestant Christian (you don’t bring preconceived notions to the table in this matter) that you can see the problem with Driscoll, and thus understand our reason for what we did (and it’s not an overreaction).
To whom it may concern:
It seems this subject has spawned debate elsewhere in the blogosphere. Sadly, the debate raging elsewhere is not about the disturbing issues regarding Mark Driscoll which has led to my decision to not directly support a ministry that directly supports him, but instead these other debates are about how wrong DefCon is for taking this stand, stopping just short of suggesting we’re in sin. Who would have imagined?
For some reason the absolute logic of our decision escapes those who have come out against us for making the decision, and opponents continue to muddy the waters of the debate by:
1). Alleging that we’ve done this simply because we don’t “like” Driscoll or because we simply “disagree” with Driscoll. So they make it appear as if this is like a high school drama situation that if some other ministry “likes” Driscoll then we’re taking our ball and going home.
2). Alleging that this is not such a big deal, Driscoll just has a little sin in his life like everyone else.
3). And diverting the issue by responding with “Will you stop endorsing everyone who endorses someone who endorses someone you don’t like?”
These arguments fail to address the real issues. First of all, throwing the issue back in our face by suggesting that we must “un-endorse” anyone who endorses these two ministries is a diversion. The issue is not who still stands by CARM or Monergism. The decision was made that if CARM and Monergism are going to openly endorse Driscoll, then we will not help by directly leading our readers to those sites.
What if I reciprocated the same diversionary question? What if tomorrow CARM endorsed Benny Hinn and Monergism linked to over 150 Kenneth Copeland sermons? Then what? If you were to remain consistent you’d have to still support these ministries, and even argue against those who pull their endorsements (otherwise you’d be a hypocrite).
Secondly, we do not feel that Driscoll is just sinning here and there and since we all sin, it’s really not that big of a problem. If you feel this way then you are either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorant about Mark Driscoll. It’s not a matter of sinning here and there, it’s a matter of blaspheming our Lord, twisting Scripture, mocking those who take the Bible seriously and live by its precepts (e.g. fundamentalists), and his overall perversity from the pulpit. We have gone over this ad nauseam on DefCon, and typing Driscoll’s name into our search engine will direct you to all you need to know.
You cannot simply dismiss the lifestyle of verbal perversity and blasphemy of Driscoll, and if you attempt to just gloss over it then there’s no point in even continuing this discussion, for this is the heart of the matter.
And as for the worn-out mantra that this is all divisive and we should put our convictions and disagreements aside for “unity,” I suggest you listen to Phil Johnson’s sermon Whatever Happened To Christian Unity?
Additionally, when you dismiss this issue and play it down to DefCon’s just not agreeing with Driscoll, and that more harm is being done to this (pseudo) “Christian unity” by taking this stand, you are inadvertently conceding that you do not see the problems with Dricoll as being that serious. And if that’s the case, then you need to perform a heart check. I imagine that you are not comfortable with the misrepresentation and blasphemy of God in The Shack. And you would not stand for an Atheist using (and twisting) God’s word to make masturbation jokes. Yet you wink and nod at Drsicoll, giving him a pass for doing likewise because he comes cloaked as a Calvinist and speaks “sound words” most of the time.
If this is not you, and who wholeheartedly agree with us about the leprosy in the church that is Driscoll, then why not spend less time attacking us and calling our action un-Christlike for taking a stand on this matter, (as we stand on the side of holiness and purity of Christ and His Bride), and start petitioning CARM and Monergism to stop directing the sheep to the wolf!
At this point I’m beginning to wonder why removing a couple links, with the hope that we can one day reestablish those links, has set off such a firestorm from certain people. Touching Golden Calves always upsets people, but it also always shows where loyalties truly lie.
I must also say that I do not have an axe to grind, nor do I dislike these two ministries (in fact, Monergism has linked to us as one of the blogs they recommend). And I can assure you that I am certainly not enjoying yet another fight, argument, debate, battle, and disagreement with Driscoll supporters (whether direct supporters or indirect supporters).
Also, I have not attacked CARM or Monergism, nor have I spoken any harsh words of condemnation against them. On the contrary, I am hoping to be able to endorse them again in the near future.
I simply removed the links from our categories lists and published a post explaining why. It was entitled Another Sad Day. It wasn’t entitled Aha! We Are Advancing Against Our Adversaries CARM and Monergism. We are not rejoicing over this. We are very disappointed that lack of discernment is so rampant in the church today (although some would argue authoritatively that these ministries are probably endorsing Driscoll out of ignorance, although no proof of this is provided, and we are not suggesting either way). Whatever the reason is that they are endorsing Driscoll does not matter. The links have been removed, the e-mails have been sent (still haven’t heard anything back yet), and we’re hoping for future endorsements to take place if / when they stop endorsing Driscoll.
This is not a popular stand. It‘s not making us friends (some have even turned on us, taking to the blogosphere to rail against us). It is, however, drawing one more line in the sand, and it is exposing how much leaven fellow believer’s are willing tolerate in their loaf of bread.
Hoping that all can be mended, but if not, here we stand, and stand is all we can do,
Sincerely and respectfully,
– Pilgrim
LikeLike
Keep taking that stand, Pilgrim! It is not to man that you will answer to one day and hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” or, “It really didn’t matter what man said…you didn’t follow Me, regardless of the cost and you were wrong.” We have found that most times it is so-called “Christians” that back stab a person when they take a stand more so than just people who don’t claim to be Christians. This is because either they are not true believers or their worship is on something other than God. Sadly, we will find out one day who the true believers are and who the tares are! Until then, we must simply do what is right no matter who gets mad and no matter what the cost!
LikeLike
Herein lies the problem with American Christianity, it’s not about standing solely for truth, denying self and following Christ; it’s about the ‘buddy system’. Defending your favorite preacher rather than upholding God’s word is much easier and less divisive than defending truth and exposing error. Who cares if he talks filthy or is sensual? Hey, he preaches the ‘gospel’! That is why I posted this- http://defendingcontending.com/2010/03/06/the-deceiver/.
I want to point out this line from that sermon from John MacArthur-“The Lord is not warning us against heretics, He’s not warning us against apostates, He’s warning us against people who sound like they teach the Gospel, who sound like Christians, who use the speech of the Bible, the speech of the Gospel, but it’s only a guise. They express orthodox terminology.” – this speaks volumes!
Bless you Pilgrim, you are not alone in your stance against compromise.
LikeLike
I see that James MacDonald (Harvest Bible Chapel/Walk In The Word) has linked arms with Mark Driscoll in Haiti relief.
http://www.churcheshelpingchurches.com/
LikeLike
Can anyone comment on Mark Driscoll interviewing R.C. Sproul?
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/mark-driscolls-full-interview-rc-sproul/
LikeLike
If someone is able to provide a response to Dave S. I’d sure like to hear one regarding R.C. Sproul and Alice Cooper. Why he would not have felt “obligated” to discuss Mr. Cooper’s “persona” as he terms it leaves me speechless and dumbfounded. Possibly he has since then and if so I’d sure like to hear about it.
LikeLike
Good question, brother Michael. A game of golf may not be an occasion to get in the face of someone you’ve just met. But I don’t play golf 🙂
Beyond that, why would anyone who believes in the Scriptures, especially from a reformed perspective (as Resurgence claims to be) have the mission statement, “The Resurgence is a reformed, complementarian, missional movement that trains missional leaders to serve the Church to transform cultures for Christ.”
It is not the mission of the church or any Christian to “transform the culture”. Pragmatic preachers and churches tend to put mission statements in terms of results. Reformed pastors tend to put such statements in terms of focus, such as “To Proclaim the Supremacy of Christ to All Men With a View Towards Biblical Conversion and Comprehensive Discipleship.” The object is to be Christ, not the culture.
LikeLike
Boy…I think I need a nap after reading all that. I am still relatively new to all of this concerning the EC movement and such but it seems to me, a blue collar janitor, that 99% of the comments are missing one true aspect: Jesus Christ is THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE, no man can come to the Father except through Him. What did Jesus teach? Repent, turn from our wickedness, love God with all of our hearts, and love our neighbours. I can’t help but think the enemy is working overtime muddying up the waters and complicating everything when it doesn’t have to be this complex. Are all these men and women who are branching out into left field following what Jesus Christ taught? According to Scripture no. End of story. We are told when one is found to be teaching a gospel contrary to what Jesus laid out in very clear terms, he is to be accursed (shunned, alienated, kicked out and excommunicated). ‘Nuff said.
LikeLike
Please actually read my comment before just deleting- I have read that you desire John Piper to repent, and if he does that you would be happy to embrace him as a brother (or a restored brother, depending on where you believe he is at). If that is true, then why is Driscoll referred to as a “foul mouthed pastor” in several places, when he has publically repented and asked forgiveness for his vulgarness in his youth. He has said that it was sin, poor judgment, and inexusable in several places, and has said that his vulgar speech is his greatest regret in life in many different areas. Why does he continue to be critiicized for things that he has repented of?
LikeLike
When someone actually repents (publically or not) don’t they usually stop doing what they repented of?? Not so with Driscoll. Repent and continue, repent and continue. That is not repentance.
LikeLike