« Contextualization, Syncretism and Global Witness: Raising Concerns by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Calvinism: The Conflict That May Never Go Away »

Jan 16, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave Miller

I just have trouble understanding the reason a preacher would use that kind of language in the pulpit. Street cred? I just don't get it.

peter lumpkins

Dave,

I agree. I cannot accept the logic that either being relevant or even 'in your face' requires such inexcusable antics. If so, we are in really, really big trouble.

Grace. With that, I am ...

Peter

SelahV Today by Hariette Petersen

"But whatever comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this is what makes a man unclean and defiles him. For out of the heart come evil thoughts such as murder, adultery, sexual vice, theft, false witnessing, slander and irreverent speech." Mt. 15:18-19.

Obviously he does not care what his words reflect. But for certain, they do not reflect my Savior's heart. I praise God that it is not Driscoll that I look to for an example for living. selahV

volfan007

Peter,

This is indeed disturbing. We now have Pastors that are bellying up to the bar, using the F word in the pulpit, and who see no problem with accepting a Methodist baptism. What's next? Women Pastors? Ooooh, wait a minute.....anyhow.

So, SEBTS is inviting or sponsoring a conference with this man? How can they do this? Are they gonna accept his cussing from the pulpit?


Unbelievable.

David

scott shaffer

Peter,

Are you puzzled more by his visibility/prominence at these venues or that he is invited at all?

Scott

JIm Champion

Peter

I find your topics in two out of your last three posts very interesting. In both you are looking at cultures vastly different from the southern SBC culture, and looking at pastors/missionaries who are charged with bringing the gospel message to people whose hearts are very hard to the gospel.

To me the question with Driscoll is does it hurt his message to drop and F bomb or an S bomb on occasion. I imagine those words are part of the common vernacular up there (as it is here in not so sunny Texas lately), he is not using God's name as a swear word. If he were to drop an F Bomb in our church I think the congregation would get up and leave or send some of us deacons up to drag him off.

In my final analysis of Driscoll - swearing does not seem to hurt his ministry, I dont like it personally, but I'm not his target.

I have done my own little research poll - kind of like volfie did with his overweight poll, and talked to a few local guys that are former missionaries to the middle east. Some are/were SBC, a couple Wycliffe - to a man they said that they used the word Allah when talking about God. Like I said, very unscientific but at least to me telling.

Jim

Byroniac

I do not really know Mark Driscoll, except I know he is Reformed, so obviously that is appealing to me. However, dropping F-bombs or any other crudity/vulgarity from the pulpit is simply unacceptable. In my opinion, but I believe I am right, no pastor should engage in this, Reformed or not. And I could be mistaken, but I thought I had read somewhere that Mark Driscoll had a serious change of heart concerning this and repented? Or am I thinking of someone else? Or maybe I just dreamed this one night after a bad pizza??

BTW, Peter, I have searched my email in vain for the message I sent you, politely asking you to only blog for awhile on what I could mostly agree on. I surely must have sent it even though I my memory is too fuzzy to remember for sure, because there is no other explanation. ;)

Strider

I think we need to be careful here. God uses strange and broken vessels to teach us things. I think that Mark may have a message for the Church today. Our problem is that we always want all of our prophets to be infallible. They never are. The enemy often pushes someone whom God has blessed with an important message into some extreme position. Too often we say, 'Hey,that position is not from the Lord.' Then we dismiss everything he has to say. None of Israel's old prophets would have been welcome in our Churches. They were weird. Do you know what a camel hair outfit would smell like? Yet, God used them to deliver important words. My question is not, 'Does MarkD use profanity?' It is much more important to ask, 'What message is he speaking to the students at the seminary?' Is it a word from the Lord or is he a carpet-bagger that needs to be sent back north? I can overlook the F word to hear God's truth. I can not listen to a bunch of beautiful language that conveys the enemies lies (don't get offended anyone, that sentence is not directed to anyone in particular).

peter lumpkins

Strider,

Three things. First you ask, "My question is not, 'Does MarkD use profanity?' It is much more important to ask, 'What message is he speaking to the students at the seminary?' I agree with you wholeheartedly. What message is a church planter sending to seminary/college students who employs profanity, even in formal settings?

Second, you ask "Is it a word from the Lord"? It very well could be--a word from God that there is a growing sector of the church that has so succumbed to the fashion of this world that there is hardly a difference to be made between them and the world.

Finally, "I can overlook the F word to hear God's truth. I can not listen to a bunch of beautiful language that conveys the enemies lies..." Strider, that is plain non-sense, if you can overlook my bluntness. To juxtaposition the two as if hearing God's truth is acceptable in any wrapper we choose is the height of twisting Paul's principle of becoming all things to all people that many may be won.

The truth is, I've overlooked many times the F-Word for the gospel's sake--not to mention explicit prejudice, arrogance, hate, pride, etc, etc. But I overlooked it from unbelievers with whom I was attempting to reach with the gospel. I always had, as my working presumption, they are slaves to this world's system.

Interestingly, Strider, only last week you vehemently defended the use of "Allah" as a means to communicate to the lost. Now I hear you defending the F-Word to communicate to the saved. My wonder is, are there no acceptable parameters in communication theory about which we may all agree to express truth? My fear is, we've got a generation who's persuaded that no such parameters exist.

With that, I am...

Peter

scott shaffer

Peter,

Is it more troubling to have Driscoll or William Young speak to your church? Or, is this a false dichotomy?

peter lumpkins

Scott,

I am not sure either would be a choice I would consider. But that is only me.

With that, I am...

Peter

From the Middle East

Brother Peter,

Mark Driscoll was invited to speak at the 2008 Desiring God Conference by John Piper. Interestingly, his topic was harsh language in the Bible. The sermon can be found on Piper's website under resources:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2008/3261_How_Sharp_the_Edge_Christ_Controversy_and_Cutting_Words/

I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns here, but I do occasionally listen to Driscoll and have not heard profanity from him, though his words can be quite harsh from time to time. I suppose my disclaimer would be that I have not listened to his earlier stuff.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

peter lumpkins

Jim,

Your comment is confusing which usually is not your style. I have found you to speak clearly--and that expressing views I usually do not embrace.

Furthermore, to your conclusion "...swearing does not seem to hurt his ministry, I dont like it personally, but I'm not his target," I'd query, hurt his ministry to whom? And, since when does "hurt my ministry" become a top priority? How about "hurt Christ's Person"? or "hurt my testimony?"

Nor is it viable, it seems to me, to argue that one must "target" anyone particularly at a worship service. Besides, I thought biblical worship targets God as an audience, not us--the audience of One.

With that, I am...

Peter

SelahV Today by Hariette Petersen

I am totally and completely shocked that this man would be invited to speak at a SB seminary when he is known to use such language in a pulpit. He has knowingly and without regard to the hearers used unacceptable vocabulary. It's ridiculous. Plain and simple. If the seminary wouldn't offer manure ladened brownies to the attendees, why would they offer up such distasteful personalities? Are they paying Driscoll to speak? Will he receive an honorarium? selahV

peter lumpkins

FTME,

Thanks. It does not. Interestingly, Piper has apparently done an absolute flip/flop on his view. He has been very critical of approaches like Driscoll. It will be of great interest to see if John MacArthur follows Piper.

Nor, FTME, is it just "harsh" language. Rather it is base, vulgarity at its height.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

SelahV,

I think you are correct. Here is a good question for SEBTS: Would such language be acceptable in their chapel addresses? Or another would be: Suppose one of their risque students decides he/she would take up such a particular method during class? Or again, suppose a professor decides he/she would like to mix things up in class lectures? Is this acceptable? Why or why not?

With that, I am...

Peter

SelahV Today by Hariette Petersen

Peter: My thoughts and questions exactly. selahV

From the Middle East

Brother Peter,

You said:

Nor, FTME, is it just "harsh" language. Rather it is base, vulgarity at its height.

I'll take your word on that one since I have only been listening to him for about two years now. I have probably just missed the sermons you are referring to... I'm not his most regular listener.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

scott shaffer

Peter,

One of the issues is who shepherds allow to enter the pulpit. I think the criteria used by local autonomous churches is different than that of a seminary or other parachurch organization. Also, the purpose of the event and the audience should be taken into consideration. When you start thinking about all the possible scenarios you quickly see the need for godly wisdom.

A second issue concerns repentance and forgiveness. For discussion purposes, let's say that Driscoll has genuinely repented of this coarse joking and speech. Of course we are to forgive him, but at what point do we "restore" him and let him speak from our pulpits? "Restore" may not be the best word to use here but I'm drawing blanks on something better for the time being.

Scott

peter lumpkins

Scott,

I have no disagreement with suggesting that different criteria exists, in some sense, for speakers in seminary/college settings. Nonetheless, I insist that admitting such criteria does not alleviate the tension. There are, would you not agree, Scott, criteria that exists which would necessarily preclude a speaker from both seminary/college settings as well as church settings? The question is, do the present terms constitute such criteria?

In addition, your query pertaining to "repentance and forgiveness" is thoroughly moot. We're speaking here of a decided philosophy of ministry, not about restoring an "erring" brother.

I find it just shy of humorous that, on the one hand, you appear to be defending Driscoll's approach; but on the other hand, you raise the question of "repentance and forgiveness." If Driscoll's approach is morally defendable, why bring up "repentance and forgiveness" which presupposes wrong-doing of some type? You cannot, as they say, have you cake and eat it too.

With that, I am...

Peter

scott shaffer

Peter,

You assume way too much. I am not defending him in any fashion.

I agree with what you said in the first paragraph about alleviating tension, etc. I just wanted to know if you saw the tension. As to whether the "present terms constitute such criteria", well, I guess the proof is in the pudding as they say, at least with respect to the two organizations who have invited him to speak. Based on my knowledge, albeit limited, I wouldn't invite him to speak at my church and wouldn't be pleased if a seminary that my offerings helped fund, invited him either.

I'm not defending Driscoll's approach as you assumed. In fact, I find it despicable. Therefore, it was perfectly legitimate to ask the question about repentance and forgiveness. But, if it is easier, let's take Driscoll out of the discussion. My question is more general: At what point do we allow someone to speak from our pulpits? If someone repents of a moral failure, do we never let them back in the pulpit? If someone adhered to a faulty "philosophy of ministry", then adopts a more acceptable one, do we ever let them back in the pulpit?

Quinn Hooks

I was taught by my high school English teacher that the use of profanity showed a lack of vocabulary. I just believe the pulpit to be a sacred place and not the place for vulgar language.

Byroniac

Perhaps I am not being fair, but using cursing and vulgarity from the pulpit seems to me to symbolize pride and lack of discipline or self-control, nevermind worldliness which is its own problem by itself.

I am not trying to imply this of Mark Driscoll, and I am not assuming such of him, as I do not really know him or his ministry. I am saying that these are easy assumptions to make, fair or not. A good message can be tarnished with bad words, even if given with the right motives.

Frankly, Mark Driscoll's authoritarianism as spoken of in Wade Burleson's blog, bothers me also if true, but I will reserve any further remarks on it for that blog (just wanted to get that off my chest though).

peter lumpkins

Scott,

My mistake, Scott. Yet, I would go back through your comment thread here. If you find the alleged actions "despicable," I honestly did not gather such from your comments and would be interested to know if others who read them did.

Thanks. With that, I am...

Peter

theo

Hi. I just want to point out that the two examples brought up about Mark D cussing are from events well over 10 years ago. While he can still be a bit rough at times, I have never heard him use anything from the 4-letter variety in the seven years I've been listening him preach.

Here is what he has to say about it now:

"Sometimes when I get overly stressed, my mouth and anger gets me into trouble... I have come to realize that I speak for more than just Mark Driscoll. I speak for Jesus. I know I can't be this foul-mouthed, gunslinger for Jesus. I still think strong language and a prophetic edge is appropriate. But shock-jock language isn't."

This was taken from an interview done by Ed Stetzer that is widely available on the internet.

So there is some truth to the idea that he uses language considered normal and acceptable in Seattle that people in other regions find offensive, but it doesn't include dropping F-bombs and the like.

Thanks.

peter lumpkins

Theo,

I appreciate your contribution. Unfortunately, the aura still hovers--justified or not.

Jones' book was published less than a year ago. The incident was strangely included without the change of heart you mention.

Nor evidently was John MacArthur aware of such a change of heart from Driscoll as his interview with Hansen happened less than a year and a half ago. Nor apparently was Colin Hansen, for I do not recall him mentioning such in the interview, which surely he would have had he known.

I do raise questions about the continued assertion that Driscoll uses language considered "normal and acceptable in Seattle" but strangely assuming the language under consideration is not "normal and acceptable" elsewhere. For me, this is entirely presumptuous and cannot, without adequate justification, be taken seriously.

To suggest that Seattle is any different from Atlanta concerning the acceptability of base, vulgar language could be held only by those whose ignorance of Atlanta is self-evident. Vulgarity is no respecter of cultures.

This is the language of the street, not the assembly of God. In my own view, acceptability of such is more apt to be taught to rather than expected from the church of God.

With that, I am...

Peter

Tyler Jones

I don't post on blogs b/c the outcome is never Christ-centered but, I am compelled to here. Mark Driscoll grew up in inner-city Seattle where drugs, prostitution, violence and hatred were not only the norm but part of survival itself. Mark was saved by the grace of Jesus. Mark was called to plant a church and reach a dying generation. So, with no church background, with no seminary training Mark obeyed the Lord. He begins preaching and folks meet Jesus, repent of their sins and give their lives to His Lordship.

Mark cussed only because that was his background. As his service to the Lord increased, as his ministry increased, faithful men came around him and offered mentoring. One such man challenged Mark to honor Jesus and showed him the fault in cussing from the pulpit. Mark realized his fault and REPENTED. Mark has not cussed from the pulpit in years: you could listen to all of his 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 podcasts and not find a single example of him cussing from the pulpit.

The fact is you quoted very old data from pre-repentant times in Mark's life. I believe you have done the Kingdom a great disservice here. I pray that my final judgment will not be based on what I did as a 25 year old man but as a repentant follower of Jesus. Mark has repented. Mark loves Jesus. I thankful for him.

drew

Everyone should heed the words of Tyler above before accepting wholesale this incredibly unfortunate and misleading post. This is entirely old news and no one actually familiar with Driscoll would still bring this up in light of his repentance as Tyler notes. Akin obviously found him fit to invite back this year again since this will be his second time on the Southeastern campus. Shame on this libel.

Byroniac

Tyler Jones, thank you for your comment, as it puts my mind at ease. I thought I had heard this was the case, but I am cursing (forgive the pun) my memory.

Dave Miller

I just read the New York Times article and actually came away with a much more positive view of Mark Driscoll than I had from listening to what has been said about him.

I still think that foul language in the pulpit is not a good thing, but I understand it a little better. And, as some have mentioned above, he has repented of the more extreme "cussing preacher" days.

I think there may be a common theme here with some of the other recent discussions. We Baptists practice our faith in a certain culture - Bible Belt, conservative, Southern culture. When people minister to Muslim cultures, or to pagan Seattle cultures, they do so in ways that may traditional Southern Baptists cringe a little.

I have never listened to him preach, so I can't give a judgment on that. But after reading the NYT article, I see him as a man on whom God has done a great work, and one who is doing a pretty amazing work there in Seattle.

He uses a style that I'm not comfortable with, and I don't agree with some of his ways. (Personally, I think the recent trend of graphic sex-sermons is a little disturbing). but he seems to have a genuine heart for bringing people to God.

He seems to hold the line on truth, even if he does so in a way that makes us more traditional Southern Baptists cringe.

peter lumpkins

Drew, Tyler, et al,

I cited three sources for this post, the oldest of which was Don Miller's Old Like Jazz, which, by the way, I also credited as the first incident of the "cussing" descriptor.

Additionally, I quoted a credible book published in 2008 and an online article published in Sept, 2007 by a premier online/hard-copy journal, neither of which could possibly be considered "old news" or "outdated," sources.

Nor did either of these sources mention the change of heart that has been claimed here.

If anyone here would care to show me how I drew unwarranted conclusions from the sources I cited--and only the sources I cited, not sermons I've not--I'd be very open to hearing them.

Furthermore, if anything I've written here is "libel," "unfortunate," "entirely misleading," or "dishonoring to Christ," I most certainly possess no reluctance--albeit the personal embarrassment and real guilt, if true--in coming clean about it.

Nonetheless, know if such is the case pertaining to me, then please understand, I expect the good brothers here who've branded me with a "libelous," "unfortunate," "entirely misleading," and "dishonoring to Christ," post would also be willing to lay to Colin Hansen, Tony Jones and John MacArthur's account the very same alleged disgrace. I cited them and them alone as the sources for this post.

With that, I am...

Peter

mike

wow, did macarthur really say driscoll's disciples "will make little progress toward authentic sanctification?" sounds like a holy ladder-climbing mentality to me, which is sort of tell-tale in itself. do we make progress "towards" authentic sanctification, or are we sanctified when saved in Christ? i'm going with the latter . . . not the ladder.

Strider

Peter, To clarify: I never use vulgar language. I don't cringe when others do but I don't appreciate it either. It seems that it has been shown that MarkD has repented of his 'cussin' pastor' days. I don't blame you for not knowing that- I did not know either.
We should not be surprised though, should we? It seems that we Christians are the slowest to forgive or to believe the best about someone even though it is we who teach others about the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. It seems that the Spirit has transformed Mark- we are still waiting for Him to transform Strider and Peter!

peter lumpkins

Strider,

Thanks again. I assure you, my brother, our Lord is by no means through with my transformation--at least that is my profound hope.

For the record, it definitively has not been shown that "MarkD has repented of his 'cussin' pastor' days." Instead, it has been asserted that he has.

I also remain interested in precisely why, if this is so, neither Colin Hansen, Tony Jones nor John MacArthur's body is not wrapped in oil-soaked linen and set ablaze, for they are the apparent perpetrators of this "old data from pre-repentant times in Mark's life."

Of course, that is an assumption on my part. Perhaps one or even all of them have publicized later clarifications. If those clarifications exist, I'd appreciate someone citing the source so I could check it out.

With that, I am...

Peter

Tom Parker

volfan007:

You said to Peter:


"Peter,

This is indeed disturbing. We now have Pastors that are bellying up to the bar, using the F word in the pulpit, and who see no problem with accepting a Methodist baptism. What's next? Women Pastors? Ooooh, wait a minute.....anyhow.

So, SEBTS is inviting or sponsoring a conference with this man? How can they do this? Are they gonna accept his cussing from the pulpit?


Unbelievable."

David

Why in the world did you mention women pastors in your comment out of the clear blue. Personally I think you have an unhealthy fixation about this issue. Nobody is pushing it or in a position to allow it to happen. Please give this issue you a rest, it makes you look petty.

Todd Burus

Peter,
One would think it is a better idea to actually listen to Driscoll instead of upchucking other peoples thoughts about him. The cussing pastor moniker comes from Donald Miller's 2003 book, MacArthur's thoughts came from a 2006 article, and Tony Jones is hardly a reputable source seeing as he has some not-so well hid animosity towards Driscoll (just read his book and see how many shots he takes at Pastor Mark). My advice would be to listen to the first 10 minutes of Driscoll's sermon "The Rebel's Guide to Joy in Humility" from 11/5/2007 and then examine his body of work since then. This is really an unfortunate criticism that is being propagated by many evangelicals who are simply repeating what they've seen on blogs and not what the facts on the ground happen to be.

Dave Miller

Peter,

As I understand it, CJ Mahaney and John Piper challenged Mark Driscoll about his propensity for profanity, and he came to realize that it might not be the best way to communicate the truth of God.

I have read several blogs that talk about this repentance, which was evidently done publicly. However, I have not found specific source information - nothing that a researcher would accept as proof.

what comes across to me is that Mark Driscoll is a man under construction, who has the humility to admit mistakes and change his ways. I still don't agree with some of what he says or does, but I came to appreciate his willingness to change, to grow, to admit his own mistakes.

Chris Poe

See the recent Slice of Laodicea posts on Driscoll for ongoing behavior that many view as problematic at best.

BTW, Driscoll is "Reformed" to a degree and is often identified that way, but my understanding is that he is not a 5 pointer and that his view is what he calls limited unlimited atonement or "4 1/2" point Calvinism.

jason

Is this what we have come to? Are we really going to cause a stink about a pastor who has used foul language in the pulpit and admitted it was wrong?

Have you ever met a pastor who has ever said anything from the pulpit he wishes he could take back?

I have said things that I wish I could take back. I have also heard preachers say things that they should wish to take back.

As a young Southern Baptist pastor (31, does that still count as young?) I find the fighting amoung both sides to get old.

One of the toughest lessons I have learned and am still learning is what hills are worth dying on. I think we (Southern Baptists) have made every hill one to die on.

volfan007

Jason,

The problem would be if he's still using language like that from the pulpit. I cant speak for Peter, but I'll betcha that if you can prove to Peter that Driscoll has repented of using vulgar, nasty language in the pulpit, that Peter would be the first to say, "Yahoo, that's wonderful." But, do you not see a Pastor using such language as a problem? Would you want some preacher using the F word and the S word in your pulpit?

David

peter lumpkins

Todd,

You write: "One would think it is a better idea to actually listen to Driscoll instead of upchucking other peoples thoughts about him." Such is profoundly ridiculous. Equally to be rejected is the juvenile pooh-poohing of the sources I cited. If they are wrong, prove it; don't just denigrate...

Jason.

If you'd please demonstrate to me where this post has invalid reasoning, I'd be happy to listen...

David,

What Driscoll's defenders have not offered is Driscoll's own public retraction and/or change of heart in print. I have not seen such. And I'd be delighted to examine it and include it in a follow up statement.

With that, I am...

Peter

Tom Parker

Peter:

Did Driscoll use the F word from the pulpit and if so just once or multiple times? If it was multiple times I do not understand why he was not disciplined.

peter lumpkins

Tom,

Thanks. I am unsure. He evidently practiced enough vulgarity to earn him the nickname 'cussing pastor'. The sources I cited are the latest I've seen. Those defending him here, insisting he "repented" from such, strangely are not offering Driscoll's public statement about such. Instead, they simply assert "he's repented."

With that, I am...

Peter

Todd Burus

Peter,
With the exception of Tony Jones I wasn't meaning to point your sources out as wrong, I was pointing them out as dated. Miller's is going on 6 years old and is probably an observation from even further back. MacArthur's are over two years old now and are the comments Hansen referred to in his 2007 article. If you listen to the sermon I cited from 11/5/2007, a date later than the criticisms you cited, you will hear Driscoll's testimony of his interaction with Mahaney and his open repentance in front of his church. In my listenings I have not heard anything dated later than 2003 where Driscoll uses profanity in the pulpit (the B-word, not the F-bomb), and I have listened to hundreds of his sermons. I have never once heard Driscoll use the F-word while preaching.

On the Tony Jones issue, I know that this cannot be objectively proven true or false, but (1) to cite Jones as a credible source to support yourself in any argument, and (2) to deny Jones' obvious axe against Driscoll, seem irresponsible. Irregardless of his language, I would take Driscoll's theology any day over the garbage that Jones adheres to, and I would hope as a Southern Baptist you would too. Beyond that, read "The New Christians" and Tony Jones' blog and you will see a consistent thread of attempts to discredit and disgrace Mark Driscoll. I don't know what this stems from but it is clearly there.

Todd Burus

All,
For the people who doubt Driscoll actually repented publicly, please watch the first 10 minutes of the sermon linked below. After his introduction and prayer Driscoll confesses his sin in pride, actions, and words, asks forgiveness, gives his testimony about how God worked to reveal this in his life through the intercession of CJ Mahaney, and then apologizes again. Would that more pastors in America would display this level of integrity.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rebels-guide-to-joy/the-rebels-guide-to-joy-in-humility

Todd Burus

Chris,
Driscoll is for all intents and purposes a 5-pointer. His unlimited limited atonement thing is basically the "sufficient for all, effectual for the elect" idea that most modern 5-pointers adhere to so it's not that weird. But yes, he does call himself 4 1/2 point and sometimes even 5 1/2 point, which is more his showmanship than his theology.

Strider

The intro to this article on the website says, 'Self esteem. Self improvement. Self help. Self love. Self actualization. Self pride. It’s all self delusion.' If he wants to teach this to seminary students I am all for it.

Chris Poe

I still have concerns about him, but I've got to say amen to that message against the false gospel of self esteem, etc. that continues to have an influence through things like "The Secret," which is just an old lie repackaged. And I say why stop at seminary students? There is an urgent need for people in the pew and in general to hear that message.

peter lumpkins

Todd,

First, whether or not you meant to denigrate and diss the sources, that's what you did. Nor is your denial enough now.

I gave reason for quoting "the cussing pastor" from Miller's book in my post. So your attempt twice to qualify his statement is moot. I already did such.

Secondly, your date scheme is totally irrelevant. Tyler's dates go back as far as 2005. That's earlier than either Hansen or MacArthur.

Thirdly, if you can give me a clarification, correction, or qualification about Driscoll that either Hansen or MacArthur has publicly made, I'll be glad to consider it

Fourthly, I listened to your link--all the way up to him actually dealing with Philippians. Not one word was offered about his fling with vulgarity, the F-Word, s-word, d-word, nothing. Period. Not one syllable. If that's your idea of public repentance, I can appreciate, Todd, how we never seem to agree on very much.

With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. Please do not bring up Driscoll's 5P Calvinism or Non-5P Calvinism again. This has squat to do with this subject.

peter lumpkins

All,

Two things:

Please leave Driscill's Calvinism/Non-Calvinism for another day...

Please take the time to listen to Todd's link. This is apparently their idea of "public" repentance for the subject of this post.

Understand: I am not criticizing Driscill's words in the opening remarks in the link. In fact, his words are clear, good and most appropriate. Further he comes across as genuine and indeed a very good communicator. Nor is it healthy, in my view, to criticize one's prayers.

My concern is, whether or not these words which speak of his "pursuit of humility" justify his defenders' case that he has "publicly repented" of his vulgarity, asking forgiveness of his church. For me, if Todd's link stands as the evidence about which Driscoll's defenders are speaking, I can understand why confusion continues to dominate in this discussion.

With that, I am...

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.