"The Cussing Pastor" Continues Influence Among Southern Baptists

Controversial Pastor, Mark Driscoll, teams up with two prominent Southern Baptist academics in back-to-back conferences next month.  The first one, Plant & Thrive, held on the campus of Vintage 21 Church, Raleigh, NC, features two tracks:  one for potential new church starters and one for church planters (1-4 years). 

Admittedly, the itinerary looks appealing.  However, that at least two prominent Southern Baptist educators are teaming with Driscoll appears, at least to me, a bit of an oddity.  I'll explain that in a moment.

Another conference is worth noting:  The 2009 20/20 Collegiate Conference sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Again, Mark Driscoll is a keynote, along with at least one other prominent Southern Baptist.

Now for the oddity. 

It stands as no secret that Driscoll is a firebrand among evangelicals.  One of his "claims to fame" is his apparent penchant for the proverbial sailor's cussing habit.  His friend, Don Miller, author of the best selling book, Blue Like Jazz, a staple diet among emergent/emerging Christians, was first to dub Driscoll "the Cussing Pastor" (p.134). 

In addition, veteran emergent author, Tony Jones, in his book, The New Christians, a book I reviewed beginning here, writes of his friend, Mark Driscoll, 

"When Brad Cecil invited Mark to guest preach at Axxess Church in Arlington, he explained to Mark that unlike Seattle, swearing from the pulpit in Texas just wouldn't fly, and he asked Mark to please keep his language clean.  Mark used the F-Word in the first sentence" (p.48, emphasis added).

Perhaps even more stiring is the estimation of John MacArthur.  In a Christianity Today online article penned by Colin Hansen, the author describes Dr. MacArthur's take on the controversial pastor now partnering with Southern Baptists: 

"Venerable Reformed expositor John MacArthur has complimented Driscoll's soteriology. He is thankful that Driscoll stresses substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone. But that doesn't make up for his "infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society," MacArthur wrote last December in Pulpit magazine.  [T]he lifestyle he models—especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world's filthy fads—practically guarantees that [his disciples] will make little progress toward authentic sanctification." /link

For me, I do not at all think oddity is an improper description to call this curious liaison.

With that, I am...
Peter    

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

JasonK,

Thanks again for clarification. And, I thoroughly appreciate the fact that your comments are spiced--both rightly and humbly, I might add--with a sense that you yourself have not arrived. All of us, I confess, need much more of that spiritual herb in our lives.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

[jasonk]

I'm honestly not accusing anyone of anything, not specifically anyway. I just remember what it was like when I was a pastor, railing against the sins of others, while in my own heart was enough sin to send the lot of us to hell. When God broke me of my pride and judgmentalism, I came to a place where I am slow to criticize someone whose methods are different than my own, especially when I don't know the entire story (and usually, I don't know the entire story). I have friends who follow the (former) example of Driscoll. Their language is "colorful" at best. But they are reaching people for Christ, people that would never darken the door of most churches. I can't explain it. It sometimes makes me cringe. But I ask myself, if a man uses a profane word, and I spread gossip, which is worse? I know which one many people would say is worse, but I'm not sure which one really is worse.
Here I am rambling again. But I hope no one thinks I am lodging accusations against anyone specific, other than myself.

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Thanks, my brother. I was beginning to think my 'blinders' were working overtime, driving my confusion...

Byron,

Grace, brother. Know I am scared stiff, frozen solid. Too much you are agreeing with me lately. Maybe I'm under a dark cloud of judgment ;^)

Always a privilege to have you here (David too).

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

JasonK, I'm with Peter and David on this one. You're right about the things a pastor should not do, but so are Peter and David. The culture has affected us as Christians so much that I believe we have relaxed our standards for men called of God to preach, often without realizing it.

While I cannot put it into words exactly what a pastor is to be, because I know men are called of God, gifted for the office, and molded into the people God desires them to be, I can tell you that I believe these men are called to personal holiness and separation from the world to which they witness. The world has its preachers in droves: six for a nickel and a dime a dozen. But I tend to pay more attention to those who live out the holiness of their calling and remain separate and undefiled by the world, not hating the people in the world, but loving Christ more than human opinion.

[volfan007]

Peter,

It's confusing to me, too.

JasonK,

we'd all agree that personalizing an illustration that you were not a part of is not good. We'd all agree that coarse jesting and slander and gossip is not good. Who said that they werent? That's not what we were talking about here? How did you make that leap? Are you accusing Peter, or me, or someone else in this comment thread of doing these things?

Peter is using facts. Peter is dealing with a man who is/was using coarse, vulgar, nasty language in the pulpit. And, you go off on Pastors who lie in thier illustrations and spread gossip????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

That's why I asked you if you were being a bit defensive, or trying to just defend a fellow, reformed brother? Jason, reformed, five pointers are guilty of doing bad things as well. They're not innocent, nor right about everything just because they're reformed in their theology.

BTW, when you said,"But mostly I just believe that it is God who saves, not us. If I witness to a man, and he repents of his sin and turns to Christ, I believe that God did that, not me. If he spits in my face and walks away, it was not because I didn't sell him on the product right. I've always felt that because I put it all into the hands of a sovereign God..." I agree totally with you!

David

[peter lumpkins]

JasonK,

Thanks. First, that " It is often subjective. And it isn't only about certain words in our vernacular." is irrelevant. We're not discussing abstracts but particulars. The specific words are cited. Plus, since we agree on the morally inappropriate use of the particular words, "subjectivity" is moot.

Second, your main point seems to be "I am referring to many of the people who would stand up and criticize one who uses profane language...It is going after the splinter in our neighbor's eye, ignoring the plank in our own."

Excuse me, JasonK, but what you appear to me to be doing is rebuking, in a round-a-bout way, the person's concerns--concerns with which I thought you agreed--raised pertaining to the use of vulgarity in the pulpit. To quote Jesus' "log in your own eye" wisdom pertaining to those who raise questions about such behavior is to rebuke the one who has raised the concerns as if they raised them illegitimately. Was this not the intent of our Lord? Unjust judgment?

If I am correct, what exactly is your point? For me, this is terribly confusing.

With that, I am...

Peter

[jasonk]

Thank you Peter. I'll address your comment point by point.

First, do I believe that people should avoid the use of profane language? Yes. Not just in the pulpit, but everywhere.

Second, the point of all this is the New Testament teaching on unwholesome speech, right? I mean, you will never find any place in the Bible where it says which words are proper and which are not. It is often subjective. And it isn't only about certain words in our vernacular.

Third, you ask "whose mouths? what lies?" I am referring to many of the people who would stand up and criticize one who uses profane language. We who act so shocked and offended, what offensive language is coming out of our mouths? Gossip, lies, course jesting? I think of the man who is so offended by a person who has committed adultery, who stands up and criticizes their lack of character, self-discipline, etc. Who rallies people together and raises the cry of criticism. And yet he is at the same time entertaining lust in his own heart for another woman. Jesus said that man is just as guilty of adultery as the man who actually committed the act.
I have been to the pastor's meetings, where gossip is passed around. I have sat in sermons where pastors use illustrations, and not just telling the story, but personalizing it, and it is so obvious that it is not true. Is this form of speech offensive? I think so.
It is going after the splinter in our neighbor's eye, ignoring the plank in our own.

[peter lumpkins]

JasonK,

I think David's point is entirely missed. He was responding to your statement: "...I don't see how it [using foul language from the pulpit] is any different than a pastor who steals his material, lies when he tells stories, or gossips." The fact is, JasonK, such response is often employed by those who are rationalizing a particular behavior. It reduces to "but you do too..." We're glad you are not doing that.

On the other hand, it's confusing when you follow up with "I would say that the "f" word is unwholesome....and I think that it would be better if one did not use them in the pulpit..." Be better? How about be against Scriptural teaching since "the New Testament... says that we are not to let any unwholesome words come out of our mouths"?

In addition, you write: "People who would tar and feather Bro. Mark Driscoll for using foul language... would not think twice about telling a "tall tale" from the pulpit, because it is a good and effective illustration. Who cares that it isn't true? Well, I do." No one here is advocating untruthfulness. Nor are sermon illustrations necessarily in the same category as you attempt to make extremely foul language.

And, contrary to your insistence on them being "true," illustrations--that is, points of light--are not intended to fit correspondence theory, unless, of course, one presents an illustration as time-space reality (think parables).

Finally, you assert "We act all offended at the former actions of a Mark Driscoll, when our mouths drip the foulness of lies, gossip, and course jesting." I have to ask: Whose mouths? What lies?

Even more, this same line of argument is once again used by those who'd rather no criticism be raised about particular actions of particular people. That's why, JasonK, David's point is clouded.

With that, I am...

Peter

[jasonk]

Not at all, David. I don't know why you call me a five pointer. 4.5 at best. But mostly I just believe that it is God who saves, not us. If I witness to a man, and he repents of his sin and turns to Christ, I believe that God did that, not me. If he spits in my face and walks away, it was not because I didn't sell him on the product right. I've always felt that because I put it all into the hands of a sovereign God, that makes me more reformed in my theology than most people around here. So no, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my theology.
And it has nothing to do with my attempt to excuse anyone's use of foul language. I think that language is often subjective. My wife, when riled, can spout off some words that will make a stable boy blush (God love her), but if I say the word "crap," she tells me not to cuss. I'm not sure that the New Testament deals specifically with using curse words, except for when it says that we are not to let any unwholesome words come out of our mouths.
Ah, so what are unwholesome words? I would say that the "f" word is unwholesome. George Carlin used to talk about the words that would get you into trouble--they're all unwholesome, and I think that it would be better if one did not use them in the pulpit, or in any other course of civil conversation. Like someone else here pointed out, it just reveals a lack of vocabulary if you cannot express yourself in a civil way.
But are there other ways we let unwholesome words come out of our mouths? Sure. People who would tar and feather Bro. Mark Driscoll for using foul language (a practice which I am convinced he has repented of), would not think twice about telling a "tall tale" from the pulpit, because it is a good and effective illustration. Who cares that it isn't true? Well, I do. Or when a pastor engages in gossip or course jesting, it is just as foul and undignified as cursing in the pulpit. Do you agree? I think it goes back to the words of our Master, who said that we would have a hard time condemning a murderer, when there is hatred in our hearts for another.
We act all offended at the former actions of a Mark Driscoll, when our mouths drip the foulness of lies, gossip, and course jesting. It just shows that we all have a long way to go.
That's it, David. No sensitivity or defensive posture here. Just a call to reality and honesty.

[volfan007]

Jasonk,

And your point is?

So, do you think that the things you mention excuse foul, nasty, vulgar language in the pulpit and insulting words? It almost sounds like you're defending and excusing this behavior because a fellow five pointer does it, and a non-Calvinist has pointed it out. You're not being a little sensitive and defensive, are you?

David

[jasonk]

Maybe Driscoll used foul language because he never learned to tell untrue stories from the pulpit, or to stand around at pastors conferences and gossip about other pastors, deacons, or mean-spirited people in the church.
After all, that's the traditional way many pastors let filth come from their mouth.
I admit that I am uncomfortable with the idea of a pastor using foul language from the pulpit, but I don't see how it is any different than a pastor who steals his material, lies when he tells stories, or gossips.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks, Byron. The issue as you say is insulting language...

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Steve, the blog post from February 22, 2008, has an excellent article by Carla Rolfe on this same subject.

[Byroniac]

Peter, good comment in #62. Though I no longer believe in Dispensationalism, and am no longer even premillenial, I am sensitive to insulting language, as I have friends who are Dispensationalist. Insulting the natives in faraway places is fine, but they might be watching you on YouTube and remember if you ever come to visit! (Disclaimer: I have not seen the video yet, so this is based on secondhand information).

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

I do not mind disagreeable commenting here. I put up posts that many times are fairly provocative. Hence, it can only be expected.

To my recall, however, I do not think we've ever had a discussion on my blog or elsewhere when, at the end, it fails to become personally about me--my integrity inevitably is always, for you, the issue. This has been the record of about three bloggers (including you) over a three year period. Not bad, all in all, I suppose.

Nonetheless, for edification's sake, I encourage you to find another place to log your dissent, dissent where you are not tempted to make the blogger, instead of the blog, the point of contention.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Nice to see you are not interested in actually facing this yourself. Tyler's date is the evidence coming forth to challenge MacArthur's criticism (and Hansen is just rehashing MacArthur so it's not a later date), but you aren't interested in checking up on it. I myself have listened to probably every Driscoll sermon delivered at Mars Hill going back to 2003 and it is only there in those earlier ones that you find any instance of a swear word. I would agree with Tyler that if you listen back to 2005 (all of which are available for free to the public, interesting concept) you would not hear any cussing. Anyways, most of MacArthur's complaint is about crass language, not swearing, which is an issue that Mohler took up on his show on September 19 in you want to listen to his opinion.

The fact of the matter is, Driscoll's public statement just wasn't good enough for Peter Lumpkins and so you are going to continue raking him over the coals. It is a question of "grace, transformation, and/or forgiveness." If Driscoll has repented and his life shows the change then the comments preceding this transformation should be viewed discerningly in light of that, which is not the route you took. This is like Acts 9 and it's a shame that you put your personal opinions and prejudices ahead of your integrity in continuing to propagate this type of uncharitable attitude.

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

Thanks for the link. Steve Camp's position is, in my view, much stronger than mine concerning this. I noted also no one accused him of, how can I say it?...oh yeah! An "ignorant mob mentality"!!
:^)

Hope things are well downunder...

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

The question is not about grace, transformation and/or forgiveness. Neither the sources I cite nor the conclusion I drew negates such. And to frame the debate in such terms attempts to put the critics on the defensive, rather than deal with the issue at hand. No thanks, my brother. Additionally, the situation with Driscoll and Acts 9 is not even close.

For the record--hopefully for the last time--the dates you offer do not add up. Tyler's date goes to 2005, Hansen, MacArthur, and Jones' remarks are after such. Perhaps they were wrong. Nothing has come forth to challenge them, however.

In conclusion, unless you have a public statement by Driscoll dealing with this, Todd, there is little remaining to discuss.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Steve]

I guess a good accumulation of evidence on Driscoll's behaviour would be found here.

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=Driscoll

Steve

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Since this apparently wasn't clear, the only source I "denigrated" was Jones. Miller's and MacArthur's statements are dated, i.e. they were made before the time of Mark Driscoll's public repentance, and therefore I asked you to take that into consideration.

This seems similar to me to the apostles being weary of Paul because they heard how he killed Jews and Barnabas having to come and vouch for him saying that his life had been transformed and they could trust him now (Acts 9.26-27). I am not denying Miller or MacArthur's criticisms, in fact I agree that those are accurate accounts of who Driscoll was at those times (2003 and 2006, respectively). However, what I am saying is that they represent a man who has since repented (whether it was adequate for you or not) and thus should be given a fair hearing for the evidences of change he is showing now. Isn't the Christian life all about grace , transformation, and forgiveness?

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Todd's statement to you is interesting: "Remember, he's not in West Tennessee preaching at a premillennial dispensationaist church. He's in Seattle, the capital of grunge rock and Starbucks..." Unfortunately, while he physically is in Seattle, UTube, his website, etc. etc make his ministry global, not just Seattle. Thus, Todd's retort is not well-taken.

Grace, David. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

I cited public information by reputable people, reputable whether or not you agree with their stances on any number of issues. Quoting sources responsibly should be encouraged, not denigrated.

To bring up that I or anyone else who questions a person's actions am "possibly acting outside of the biblical grounds for bringing a charge against an elder" is so fundamentally absurd, it's all I can do to acknowledge it. What you've just done is sliced your own finger, whittling against others who do not possess similar admiration for someone you obviously do. Indeed you have a pretty good track record slamming "elders" with whom you are not in agreement.

For the record: the only question brought up in my main post is this: the "cussing pastor" teaming with SB academics is surely an oddity if ever there was one.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

volfan,
No, I don't have any problems with his rapture comments because I know the larger body of his theology which this coming from. And his redneck comments, that's just what he says. Remember, he's not in West Tennessee preaching at a premillennial dispensationaist church. He's in Seattle, the capital of grunge rock and Starbucks, and he's seeing more transformed lifes than most any ministry in America today. Recently he shared a story about how a local amateur porn competition is using him and his church as the theme for this years entries. That means that he has people video taping themselves having sex on Mars Hill's property and showing his sermons in the background of their hardcore love scenes. That's the city he's in, it's not Nashville and should not be treated as such.

I do not expect everyone to like Driscoll, but what bothers me, what I called an "ignorant mob mentality," is the attacks on him by people who are only getting their information from second and third hand sources and, as I brought up, possibly acting outside of the biblical grounds for bringing a charge against an elder. We should not be so quick to black-list a man who is literally killing himself for the cause of Christ when most of us can't get away from our computers long enough to evangelize our neighbors.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Please be restrained from addressing "all" here as if the dominant position represented is one akin to me. To the contrary, there have been more "nahs" than "yeas" toward my position.

Therefore, your crude description about an alleged "ignorant mob mentality" present here kisses the threshold to a sub-Christian response and is entirely unfair to those few who have not only agreed with my concerns but those who, while not agreeing, remain much more neutral than I about it. Please consider such before you emotionally spew again.

Now to the point: Your every attempt to dismiss the sources I've offered have unfortunately failed. And, your one attempt at offering counter-evidence ends up hurting rather than helping your point, Todd. Sorry.

With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

"Ignorant mob mentality?" Todd, what? As for me, I was just asking did he say it. I had heard these things said about him before. Also, if he did, which Peter cites sources, I said that that was awful. Why would he even be asked to speak at SEBTS, if that's true about him? I then went to the sermon you told us to listen to. I heard nothing that showed that he was repenting of nasty, vulgar language in the pulpit. Yes, I did hear him say that he was sorry for not being more humble...that his actions and attitudes and words did not display humility. But, where was the confession about nasty, vulgar language in the pulpit? Todd, you're reading more into that than what's there. Seriously.

But, Todd, did you have to use "ignorant mob mentality?"

Anyway, did you have a problem with his rapture statements?

[Todd Burus]

All,
First, I do not know what more you guys are looking for in his repentance. He apologized for his "attitude," "actions" and "words." Now, I guess you guys are looking for him to say "I apologize for saying F--- from the pulpit," but I charge you guys (1) to actually find examples of his cussing so you have reason for your outrage, and (2) to deny that such language is covered by him repenting of his words as he did in the linked sermon.

Moreover, Peter cited Tony Jones as a witness of Driscoll using the F-word in the pulpit, and though I have questioned the credibility of Jones' criticisms, even still, aren't we to not admit charges against an elder that lack the witness of two or three (1 Timothy 5.19)? To my knowledge, Miller and MacArthur don't claim Driscoll used the F-word, but nonetheless this charge has been asserted multiple times above by commenters who probably haven't listened to Driscoll once, and are even less likely to have ever heard him swear. This is not biblical accountability, this is an ignorant mob mentality, and we should not be sucked into such pursuits.

[volfan007]

I just listened to Driscoll's sermon on humility...well, the first fifteen minutes of it...I believe that Todd told us to listen to the first 10 minutes, and we'd all hear the confession and repentance.

First of all, like Peter, I never heard him repent of using nasty, vulgar language in the pulpit. Todd, how can you get that out of what he said?

Secondly, I was a little disturbed at how he called people "lunatics," who had questions about the rapture. At the very beginning, where he's inviting people in his Church to ask questions that I guess he plans on answering in sermons, he asks people to vote, and vote out the rapture questions. In fact, he said that all the people voting must leave deep in the woods, and be lunatics...because they're asking questions about the rapture.
Weeeeellllll, does he realize that he probably just slapped some of the people in that very audience in the face??!!?? Does he not understand that some of the people who asked those questions, and who voted to hear those questions answered were probably sitting out there listening to him speak? And, why in the world would he think that people who are concerned about understanding the rapture are "lunatics?" I guess I'm one of those "lunatics," because I believe in the rapture????? Really??? Also, he just insulted country folks with his statement as well, or with his attempt to be funny for the crowd. He insinuated that "lunatics" that lived "deep in the woods" were asking such things. Well, another slam against country folks. Wasnt that nice?

David

[Byroniac]

Peter,

All I said was that you made reference to John MacArthur's estimation of Driscoll, and that incorporates what you said, that you quoted a portion of Hansen's article.

Though it is a side issue, I think it is relevant, and perhaps even interesting, at least to me. I do not understand why this issue cannot be or at least is not relevant to the discussion at hand. However, obviously I wish to respect your wishes on your blog. And on the matter of base vulgarity, we are certainly agreed.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Look again, my brother. I made no remark concerning Driscoll's soteriology. I quoted Hansen's article; that's all.

I do not care at this point whether Driscoll is a flaming Calvinist or a wild-eyed Liberal. The concern here is whether or not base vulgarity is appropriate or inappropriate as a means to communicate Divine truth.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter, just out of curiosity, why is Driscoll's Calvinism not relevant? You yourself make reference to John MacArthur's estimation of Driscoll, which included his soteriology. I understand soteriology is not the main idea here, but I personally would be interested in reading of differences in treatment from Reformed versus non-Reformed believers and reasons behind them. OK, I'm guilty of trumpeting a side issue, but I still would find it interesting.

[peter lumpkins]

pmc,

Two quick replies: 1) You are welcome to agree/disagree 2) You are not welcome to agree/disagree and remain anonymous. This site will not devolve into a G&T2U blog.

Have a great day. With that, I am...

Peter

[pmc]

How disappointing....Peter. You are better than this.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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,

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

[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

[SelahV Today]

Peter: My thoughts and questions exactly. selahV

[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

[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

[SelahV Today]

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]

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

[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]

Scott,

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

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]

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

[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).

[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. ;)

[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

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

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

Scott

[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

[SelahV Today]

"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

[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

[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.