John MacArthur on Vulgarity and “Grunge Christianity”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, March 01, 2007
- Viewed 1022
- (94) comments so far
Johnny Mac talks mostly about Mark Driscoll in his article (that you can read in its fullness here)…
I love it when he says “Some of the things Driscoll talks freely and frequently about involve words and subject matter I would prefer not even to mention in public, so I am not going to quote or describe the objectionable parts.”
He then goes on to link to two people who DO quote Driscoll’s, “vulgar flippancy”.
Maybe the title of this post shoulda been “John MacArthur Endorses People Who Link to Vulgar Preachers”.
I’m not saying that John doesn’t make some good points. And I’m not sticking up for ‘cussing preachers’… but…
MacArthur continues: “When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn’t adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God’s Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That’s to be expected. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).”
So, which is it? Did Paul speak the words of the Greek culture (without swearing, of course) or did he use language that didn’t fit the culture and play it safe?
Just a question… I’m assuming here that ‘grunge’ people need Jesus. (I hope I’m correct). Who will better reach them? Mark Driscoll or John MacArthur?
Let’s take it a step further… who IS currently reaching them? Driscoll or MacArthur?
And about the “world hating you” part… I wonder if John has put himself in Mark’s shoes? Driscoll’s had a lot of ‘hate’ showered his way lately by both the Christian and non-Christian community in Seattle.
All I’m saying is… John, man… don’t make me choose. Why does it have to be an either/or? You work at the work God has given you; and let Mark reach the people God hasn’t gifted you in reaching. And if a word slips out here or there, and yet a few more people make it into the Kingdom, I can accept that.
After all, those [expletive deleted] people need Jesus too!
Just my 2 cents…
Todd
I'm nothing if not an instigator. Here's a quote from John MacArthur for you to chew on... "I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be “culturally relevant” Christians should participate in society’s growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?"...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
mlouie on Tue, April 17, 2007
Hello all,
Videos of Sermons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For His Glory!
mlouie
mlouie on Tue, April 17, 2007
Ooops, here’s the link to the videos:
http://www.lightsource.com/ministry/grace_to_you/20070415/
For His glory!
mlouie
ld on Tue, April 17, 2007
I’m not in this discussion except to note that the above link does have lightsource listed as a member of the Salem Web Network and purposedriven.com is one of it’s sponsors. Hmmmm.
Al on Tue, April 17, 2007
Wendi,
You said: You see Dan, our problem (at least mine) isn’t with Mac’s admonishment to be careful how we talk, it is with his insistence in picking out a brother to use as an example of how “not” to be.
How would this be different then Paul using Peter as an example?
Al
wendi on Fri, April 20, 2007
Al -
The primary differences are these: Paul called Peter out in Peter’s presence, he admonished Peter for covorting with the Judizers in a church (Galatia) that Paul himself had planted and in which he had ongoing ministry; Paul had a personal relationship with Peter . . .
That is enough I think . . . to disqualify Mac.
mlouie on Fri, April 20, 2007
I’d like to know if anyone can point out two things for me:
- where it says in Scripture that we are limited because that the type of ‘relationship’ with a brother/sister limits the way we admonish eachother.
- can admonishing and rebuking someone be treated differently when sharing from a pulpit or from a letter or in one on one conversation?
I thought that because someone professes faith in Christ is the one and only reason that binds us all - in rebuking, admonishing, etc…
Any thoughts?
mlouie on Fri, April 20, 2007
... woops, bad editing on my english - typing/editing too fast. sorry.
mlouie on Fri, April 20, 2007
Well, this one I think is for DanielR (a diff daniel)… but for everyone interested in the Biblical declaration of the role of women:
See distinctive on: role of women
http://www.gracechurch.org/home/doclib.asp?ministry_id=1&dlyear=2004&dlcat=Distinctives&Submit=Search
Kent on Fri, April 20, 2007
Wendi says “Mac is causing terrible trouble in local churches. It is right for us to warn people about his divisive behavior, for the sake of our churches.”
The double standard here just makes me have to chuckle. Replace the “Mac” with “RW” and oh boy does the “right for us to warn” not only change from “right”, but would be considered “bashing” which seems to be the favorite word when RW’s words are compared to The Word.
Wendi on Sat, April 21, 2007
You do have a point Kent. My comment sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. However, I feel a little justified using school-yard tactics - “he hit me first!!”
RW wrote a book and developed the PD resources for churches. JM and others decided RW was “unbiblical, heretical, blah, blah, blah” He (JM) started using his platform to blast RW and “warn” Christians to examine their own pastors and leaders using his anti-RW/PD filter. He has pitted pastor against congregant (if that congregant happens to be a JM follower).
If he was simply preaching his unwatered down, pure gospel to his own congregation, writing books and articles full of his opinions, without naming those he disagrees with as heretics, then I would have a big double standard suggesting we warn our people about divisive behavior. But JM has insinuated himself into the role of pastor for people who already have a pastor. I think RW’s actions and work is different from JW’s actions and work.
If someone walked into your congregation and began causing division, you’d warn your people . . . right? I think this is nearly the same thing.
And Mlouie, I think you meant to say “John MacArthur’s INTERPRETATION of the biblical declaration on the role of women”
Wendi
Leonard on Sat, April 21, 2007
I just asked John MacArthur if I can post this, he said not it had to much vulgarity so I am out. (smiley face here)
mlouie on Mon, April 30, 2007
Hi Wendy,
I’m curious to know about your interpretation of the role of women in Christianity and its relation with God’s Word. May I ask you to post a reply on this?
mlouie
Wendi on Mon, April 30, 2007
Mlouie –
A great read on this subject is called “Women in Ministry: Four Views.” It is actually four essays from bible scholars who hold views from very conservative to the most liberal. Interestingly, the man who writes the most conservative thesis and woman who writes the most liberal have been faculty together at Wheaton College (how’s that for unity amid diversity?)
After each essay, the other authors weigh in and respond with a dissenting view, each solidly backing up their position scripturally.
In short, I consider myself a practical egalitarian. I believe the NT scriptural restrictions given to women serving in ministry to be descriptive and contextual rather than prescriptive, much like the admonishment that men keep hair short or woman keeping their heads covered in church. In order to insure the furtherance of the gospel, given the context in which he was serving, Paul placed restrictions on women which are not applicable today (any more than covered heads would be applicable). Today, restricting women from speaking or teaching, in a time when women are college presidents, CEO’s, secretaries of state, etc., would make Christianity unnecessarily offensive in the same way allowing them leadership would have been offensive in the first century. The furtherance of the gospel trumps.
Which is why I call myself a practical egalitarian. I don’t happen to believe a woman in the top job (Sr. Pastor) will be as effective in our western culture as a man in the same position. So we encourage baby steps, and allow the gospel to trump.
Hope that helps - Wendi
John on Tue, August 07, 2007
Lets get on the other side of the fence here.
How about Mark saying “John your right, I should be careful to speak as the oracles of God and to let my speech be with grace seasoned with salt not seasoned with the filth of this world.
You all could expect Mark to say that, but instead most of you all want to defend the indefensible, knock down John M and pretend that Mark doesnt have to ‘submit’ to John M just as much as he does his own flock.
Loving one another is more than John M doing his own thing and leaving others alone, if that can be called Christianity, its knowing that a reputable minister has publically asked you to watch your language and to be careful to rightly represent Jesus Christ who was no cussing Savior or Lord.
The issue is not about Mark and John being like one another, its about them both patterning themselves after Christ.
John
MG on Tue, August 07, 2007
Well said John. Considering the opportunity to fill a pulpit there is a thought that causes me to tremble and that is the fact that when I step into the pulpit, regardless of where it is and speak from God’s Word I am representing the God of Creation, the High and Holy One who alone is worthy of praise. A humbling thought indeed which causes me to tread carefully and study intently His Word so as not to twist Scripture or cast a stain on or shame the cause of Christ.
Page 6 of 7 pages « First < 4 5 6 7 >
Post a Comment