Tags
Acts29, Basics Conference, John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill, Rape of the Song of Solomon
The remarks begin at around the :37 minute mark.
Here’s a link to the .mp3
“Mark has stuck his foot in his mouth quite a few times….I would encourage no one to become coarse, filthy, trashy…”
“With a certain young crowd, it’s hip, cool…I don’t think you’re mouth needs to be dirty to relate to twenty-somethings in Seattle.”
“The difference between John MacArthur and I at this point is I am not drawing the line that John has drawn from the imperfections of Mark’s ministry to his unfitness of his ministry. I’m not going there at this point. I’m going to Mark. I’m getting in his face now…”I’m old enough to be his dad, he knows that, and I’m in his face, pleading with him…and saying ‘You have incredible influence’…and that’s part of the problem….”
— John Piper
Related Posts:
Mark Driscoll and the Absence of Reproof
Dr. John Piper to Respond Concerning Mark Driscoll
Mark Driscoll Responds to Phil Johnson
Why Haven’t Piper And Mahaney Responded To John MacArthur’s Request to Address Mark Driscoll?
John MacArthur: Ask Piper And Mahaney Why They Haven’t Addressed Mark Driscoll
Since we were discussing this just yesterday. I concur with Dr. Piper, not yet willing to leave Driscoll.
Wait, Hans – Donna asks a valid question. Seeing as how I’ve been hearing about this issue for at least 2 years, just how much longer is this behavior to be tolerated? If this person was guilty of adultery, pedophilia, prostitution, slander, or backbiting would it take 2+ years to discipline the person? Why isn’t it that anyone cares about slinging filth on the face of Jesus? Why is it okay for a leader in the Church to behave in this fashion and anyone who has wearied of the behavior is called a ‘clanging gong’?
Why are you having trouble discerning the difference between a brother in Christ and a Under-shepherd for Christ, Hans? Why are you having trouble understanding the book of James – that pastors are held to a HIGHER standard, not lower as you’re advocating. Hans, you may be correct about tone but that is only valid for so long and in some instances it’s ridiculous.
Two years is more than enough time for a pastor to repent of his behavior or sit down.
Colossians 3:12 clothe yourself with compassion, humility, gentleness and patience, Bear with one another and forgive whatever grievance”
Did Christ give you 2 years? are there sins such as anger, sloth, greed, impatience that maybe Christ is STILL working on in you….how long is enough for you to stop sinning!
My weaknesses are not yours and vice versa… again it is not mine to tell Driscoll what to do, as I said the sex sermons are wrong, yet there is much wrong in my life does that make me not a saved person?
sin is sin and all is lawlessness, I pray for his revelation from Christ as I do for our Pastors today.
What a sad response. How long does it take to get “in his face”? Give me a break Piper. You have known about this for years (Mark did not start talking like a strip club mc yesterday). Piper is a chicken. He isn’t worried about God’s glory, just potty mouth pastor’s feelings (and maybe his influence and how if Piper rebukes him as he should, he might not be so well liked).
May the Lord continue to show this garbage and weak heartedness for what it is…
double minded nonsense and confusion.
Now, now…that’s a little harsh isn’t it? -JT
Donna makes my point. Truth without love…clanging gong. To say Piper is not concerned with God’s glory is just wrong and comes across as just plain mean.
We can be discerning, holding to truth and be gracious, kind, patient and yes even long suffering with those not there yet. I pray that those whose lives have been more fully made into the likeness of Christ will have grace and mercy with me as I grow. And that they will not talk about me as Donna does a brother in Christ.
As someone who has honestly found great comfort in much of Mark Driscoll’s ministry, I honestly hope we will all pray that God will mold him to be of the best possible use for His kingdom. I believe that there is still plenty of time for Mark to do some incredible things for God.
Zac…Your soul is literally at stake. Grace was given to us as a gift for eternal life, and at a high cost. Jesus taught His disciples how to follow Him…by the complete denial of self, picking up the cross daily and being just like Jesus. God said that the path is narrow, and few find the way to heaven. Paul said that it’s like running a race and takes strict training. There is no such thing as identifying with your culture with Jesus. You have to completely leave it behind. There is no half way point, or laying back. It is a fight to leave behind the flesh and you have to be ‘on it’ daily.
I’m fairly young (by my own definition) and haven’t yet experienced a contreversy like this (between such large leaders). Still, I wonder if my opinion on this holds some weight. I recall a video of a discussion panel where only MacArthur and Piper sat. They were both asked the same questions but their responses were far different. It reminded me of the diversities of gifts to the church.
John MacArthur appeared to be very strong, bold, and really unshaken by anything in this world, even death. It was as if you could put a gun or a subway sandwich to his face, far different situations, yet have the exact same response from him. John Piper, on the other hand, appeared to be very sensitive. He wore his emotions on his sleeve. Putting a gun or a subway sandwich in his face is like day and night.
Now, I don’t mean to say that MacArthur is stiff-necked or insensitive or that Piper is a cry-baby and timid. What I am meaning to point out is that these two men bring something to the body of Christ that is far different. I’m sure that they both approach church discipline biblically, but may carry it out quite differently.
That being said, MacArthur’s approach may have been much more stern and quick. Piper’s might have been much more personal and gentle. Both ways are good and both are acceptable (in my opinion), but they are uniquely different. For this reason (and because Piper has a closer relationship with Driscoll), Piper may have more patience on the matter. He may know more than MacArthur. I’m sure that Piper is taking care of this as best as he can considering his busy schedule and what not.
The only thing that I am finding strange right now is that Piper has only mentioned Driscoll’s use of “filthy words” but not his interpretation of the Songs of Solomon. I would assume that the more important issue what Driscoll said the Scriptures mean. I also think that was MacArthur’s primary concern. I’m sure that more will be said on that from Piper in days to come.
This is just my thoughts. I’m not really qualified to have any real ideas on this, but I was anxious to see if any others may share these thoughts on the matter. Take care.
Two things I am not hearing in this conversation. First, where does MacArthur draw the line on communicating to the culture? Is every attempt to communicate to sinful people a compromise? I don’t hear Mac saying this, but some of his followers seem to be. Second, who gets to draw the line? Is there a solid line in every setting? I am not encouraging relativism, simply pointing out that MacArthur seems to have the corner on the market as far as determining when something is over a line.
What bothers me is that there are a number of Christians who see MacArthur as an uptight, suited person unwilling to bend at all to communicate to people. Others see Driscoll as a vulgar, harsh man who is simply trying to be popular. I don’t think these men, the truth, or our God is served by these generalizations.
Ultra-conservatives are a little too disjointed about this. Think Corinthian church. They had much worse problems than a ‘potty mouth’ (which hasn’t been much of a ‘potty mouth’ in a long time).
I’m no Driscoll apologist, and I don’t agree with everything he says and does, but this is just ridiculous.
Ironically, I wish John Piper’s word were stronger (though I do note a difference between course language and strong language) in regard to Mark Driscoll both for Mark & for the witness of the church (even granted that JP doesn’t yet consider MD to be disqualified).
Piper sympathized with the temptation to use an inappropriate word to create an affect & noted an occasion where he (John Piper) had to repent. That said, JP isn’t known and doesn’t have a reputation for coarse jesting. Driscol, however does have a reputation for course jesting and inappropriate speech both from the pulpit and in public (it has become a bit of a trademark) & he hasn’t repented (rather he seems to defend his actions and speech).
JP did seem to acknowledge that MD does have speech that needs to be cleaned up or that is dirty. However Piper said he thinks Driscoll is growing because he: 1) Responded to Piper’s correction by removing the Edinburgh SoS message from Resurgence & by requesting it be removed from two other locations & 2) that MD’s later teaching on SoS was more acceptable.
(It is important to note that while the message wasn’t as bad, it wasn’t good either and did still involve coarse jesting. Also, taking a message off a website & limiting one’s coarse jesting on a passage isn’t repentance. True growth should include repentance which includes acknowledging that one was wrong in addition to turning from the wrong behavior.)
The theological and doctrinal question that wasn’t answered was: Should an elder be above reproach in regard to speech and conduct? Another question follows, if elders aren’t above reproach in this area, doesn’t this affect the holiness of the church and our witness before the world?
Being above reproach isn’t perfection as noted above, but there is a marked difference between John Piper and Mark Driscoll. It isn’t surprising when MD makes inappropriate statements from the pulpit and in public, doesn’t repent, and instead defends his words.
A third question would be, how do these questions or the answers to these questions apply (or not apply) to Mark Driscoll in light of Ephesians 4:29, Ephesians 5:4–5, 1 Thessalonians 4:7, & Titus 2:6–8, particularly when John Piper did seem to acknowledge that Driscoll needed to clean up his speech? (note: he did say that he thought Driscoll was growing, but also made it clear that there were still things he was getting in MD’s face about).
Doesn’t seem like Piper has addressed the holiness part yet (other than noting that it was a concern for him) or answered questions like I mentioned above, this could be a major part of the more to come on the internet that Piper mentioned (I hope it is). It might help me make better sense of why Piper cuts Driscoll more slack in an area that I believe would affect one’s qualification to be an elder and preacher of God’s Word and that I believe will have an impact on the holiness of the church.
Overall, my concern with John’s initial response was that holiness was minimized (though mentioned) and pragmatism was spotlighted in John Piper’s answer. Important Caveat: Time was short and John Piper has more to say.
Doesn’t make sense to me yet, but I do love John Piper and his preaching and am praying for wisdom for him and I hope in God. God is good!
I just finished reading Cathy Mickles Memo entitled “Mark Driscoll: Is He Qualified To Lead?” You can read her memo on David Wheaton’s Website, thechristianworldview.com displayed on the January 17, 2009 program. I was almost in tears at perverted things that Mark Driscoll has spoken about. I felt sick to my stomach when reading his interpretation of scripture. Is Mark Driscoll saved? How can John Piper support this man. I thank God for John Piper and his reverence for God’s word, I just cannot understand why and Man of his character could even allow such a fouled my person to deliver a message at his conference. He needs in my opinion to make a definite stand as John Macarthur did, and tell Mark Driscoll to sit down.
Hope,
Amen to what you said.
My wife also read Cathy Mickels article and became physically sick. She could not believe that a man speaking on behalf of God could say such things from the pulpit. I also agree that a man that has been as faithful as John Piper for so many years would ever support a Pastor the likes of Mark Driscoll. I do not understand it. I think his passion for souls may making him blind to the pragmatism he is supporting.
To all who have read Cathy Mickel’s article:
It is good that you are going to other sources about this issue. It is bad that you take her word for it. How about listening to a couple Driscoll sermons?
If your mind automatically went, “NO he’s of the devil!! I could never!”…then I’ve proved my point.
In reply to Hans Petersen,
Dude, you are taking scripture out of context. Pastors are held to a higher standard. Also, we are not questioning whether a Christian can mess up and still be saved, we are asking why hasn’t the body of Christ sought to correct someone who is flying in rebellion to scripture with others covering his back and defending him.
Running with your “truth without love = clanging cymbals” remark, are we just to stand by and watch people defy scripture and say nothing? Is that love? I think not. What about the many, many instances concerning protecting the faith and rebuking those who are in sin, and welcoming them back when they repent but turning them out when they refuse?
You conveniently forgot those instances. Dude, front to back. The Bible must be read from Genesis to maps and used in context. Be careful about throwing around verses. Throw around Books or chapters. Avoid single verses…
Peace,
T.
Dude?
You sound like my OLD son. I agree that it is dangerous to use scripture (singular) to make points. My only point is that grace is given. I see to much vitriolic in defense of a position. Mark’s Song of Solomon is wrong in my view and in view of scripture (I believe). Yet, I will not divorce myself from him over it, rather be discerning and pray for maturity.
I have seen this same attitude towards Matt Chandler and it is wrong. The blogs that so easily police others while not doing anything. Nowhere is being a critic alone allowed. Do not stand by, but do we need to eviscerate?
Thanks for the critique on the single scripture, you are right.
VERY RELEVANT!
Wow… a year later and we are still discussing this. Even so, I did not take John MacArthur’s advice about not opening the link to the Edinburgh sermon. It then became crystal clear why we should heed the admonition to guard our minds. I was absolutely and completely appalled! You would NEVER get me into a church led by Mark Driscoll and I’d not go to listen to him at a conference either. Simply disgraceful. I kept asking myself, would Jesus talk to us this way? Nope, I think not.
As to John MacArthur and John Piper, I can only say that I enjoy them both immensely. They are different in their approaches to speech and ministry, but they are both completely in love with our Savior. I have not a doubt that I could listen to them both on any given Lord’s day and come away edified. I don’t have any difficulty at all recognizing that they are different people in their approach to people, but neither is objectionable in any way.
I would only say this: Mark Driscoll does not seem to be responding to either style of correction. I do not think that Mark Driscoll should leave his ministry, but perhaps a break to comtemplate his motives might be in order. I cannot think of two more qualified people than John Piper and John MacArthur to shepherd a young man who needs Godly counsel.
I think John MacArthur should apologize to Mark Driscoll for judging and condemning Mark’s ministry by non-scriptural standards.
John, unless you are being sarcastic, you need to Bible-up, hombre…
Joel, The tone Mac Arthur uses with those who believe in old earth, anything non pre-mil, is arrogant. Listen to his sermon recently where he says you can’t be a Calvinist and Amil etc. In other words believe as I do or you are not following Christ.
I find him to be lacking the grace he so claims to proclaim.
Driscoll was wrong on this in my view, yet so many say not even a Christian, what non-sense. I went to service where a minister from the Masters Seminary was openly ridiculing Driscoll for liking UFL???? Not doctrine, not heresy, rather that Driscoll likes a sport that is fighting. So where does it stop?
I am a follower of Christ, period. I do not want to be known as a Calvinist, Baptist etc. THe only label that should stick is that I am a follower of Christ and my life exhibits a difference from those that are not followers of Christ. I can be a Baptist and not be saved, pretty hard to be a follower of Christ not saved.
Hans, I wonder if MacArthur’s tone is misunderstood. He is a man of deep convictions and I hear him speaking of teachings that are set in his mind. The tone, maybe of strong conviction, is not of arrogance (ie: “I have it right and you are wrong.”). Rather, he speaks as if he is totally convinced. I would think, at least for me, that concluding that he is arrogant might be … well, arrogant. For me it would be (please don’t think that I’m trying to accuse).
I do understand your point about Master’s Seminarians (or leaders) making such a big deal about Driscoll liking to watch fighting. But, maybe they have a good case. Is it really healthy that Christian pastors (ones that model for the church to follow) like to watch fighting – even sports fighting? Maybe these people are concerned that Driscoll is giving his watchers the wrong impression about certain behaviors? I’ve learned myself that being in a public and leading position requires that I must let go of many things that I am at liberty to like or do. Often, as possibly in this case, leaders should be extra careful about what they say and do since they are acting as the one to be modeled by others. While certain things are permitted, they are not always healthy or edifying for all.
Just some thoughts. Sorry to butt-in.
would concur if it were limited, however his statements went far beyond conviction. We have so many issues I would concur if his comments were limited, they went way beyond conviction. THat said my concern is we have so many issues that are so far beyond UFL, old earth vs. young earth etc.
I want to take what good ALL these men of God offer and move forward. We risk becoming a bickering, fighting Church vs. praying that we move on to maturity. So much of what passes for “lack of …” is really lack of maturity/understanding. The ELCA post on 5 pts.,is NOT a lacking issue it is a rejection of Christ issue, imo.
Paul Washer would be my example of a better way. I never hear much from him criticizing on issues such as The Revelation, old earth, etc.. he stays focused upon Christ, prayer, our utter need for Christ etc. That is is why I enjoy his preaching above all those on the internet.
Lastly, my Joel’s beloved Hogs beat the Crimson Tide this weekend. I do believe on that we can agree 100%.
And I apologize if arrogant in any way, I want to grow in love, truth and hope. And all these are found in Christ of which I am lacking enough of presently.
On Sep 24, 2010, at 9:24 AM, 5 Point Salt wrote:
Hans,
You sound like a Rodney King type (why can’t we all get along) to me. The problem, my friend, is that Driscoll’s cursing and coarse sexual talk in mixed company with younsters around are significant issues to be addressed according to the New Testament.
I have heard lots of well-meaning folks over the years say “let’s give in on this issue to keep peace” whicj is what I hear you saying. Incrementally, we have given in way, way too much. Rick Warren and others exist today because the last generation compromised on truth.
MacArthur does a really good job of holding fast to context-intact Bible teaching. I don’t always like what I hear either but after claose examination…well, you get the picture. J Mac is right more than he is wrong.
Peacenicks will always give away the farm in order not to have to fight. The enemy is always at our door so we either fight Biblically or we give in so JT and others have to do it all… Don’t give in on Driscoll. He should be held accountable just like everyone else must be held accountable.
What about Pagitt and McLaren, Hans? Are you willing to let them slide so as not to “judge” them? I certainly hope not. What about Piper saying RW is sound Biblically? Where do you draw the line, homes?
Don’t take my tough love approach as mean spirited. Much of my schtick is tongue-in-cheek. I mean what I say however…
Thanks for the discussion.
Well you are the first person in my 54 years to equate me with “can’t we all get along”…more often it is bomb thrower, rigid, black and white etc. There are clear lines and Pagitt and crowd is clearly where I leave. I believe in accountability also….YET…let us not destroy, tear down over immaturity vs. heresy as the former clearly suffer from.
Peaceniks, another phrase never equated yours truly, I pray earnestly for truth in love (doers of the word not just hearers).
Johnny Mac is right more than often,(I have most of his books..) I have become less inclined lately however with his tone towards secondary issues and making them primary.
And if you read my reflection on Driscoll it was confined to local preacher denigrating/mocking him for liking UFL?? Come on, let us agree that from a pulpit that is unnecessary and not useful. Christ is the issue and are being transformed into His likeness? He is and remains my sole focus.
I used to employ several hundred “homes”…..
I have been listening to John MacArthur for 20 years and have heard hundreds of his sermons. Over the years it is easy to get a sense of where someone is spiritually and emotionally by asking them what they think of John MacArthur. Liberal Christians cannot stand him period. Others are jealous of his incredible biblical insights into the scriptures. He is one of the most sincere, biblically educated, and men of God who has lived since the 20th century.
The bible is the measuring stick, not John MacArthur. John Macarthur did not “judge” Driscoll by his own standards, he used the bible’s standards. If you don’t like what MacArthur has done, don’t blame the waiter…blame the cook…your argument is not with MacArthur, its with God.
May the Lord continue to give John one of the greatest and successful ministries that has ever existed on Earth.
Amen
I have listened to lots of Mark Driscolls sermons including songs of songs………. I agree that he is straight talking and doesn’t hold back but i realy dont see him saying anything strikingly awfull , truth is that sex is a major issue that has (because used in the wrong way) polluted the majority of people (at least the people i know) on this planet. I believe Mark is just getting straight to the point and speaking on the level that the majority understand. Jesus was involved in culture so people who say Marks TOO involved need to rethink it because Christians ( to my knowledge) are called to reach sinners, and there is simply no other way to do that, apart from communicating clearly to them. These comments are causing me to rethink my own personal view of Marks sermons and influence, but i feel affirmed after listning to yet another of his sermons that he Loves Jesus and Jesus has caused him to Love all people. I pray people hear what marks sermons say themselves and consider wether it’s out of Love or not. better hearing it first hand than “chinese whispers”