Fishon –

I wouldn’t argue with you about conflict which might come about in your church as people read and listen to various Christian writers and speakers.  However, you are speaking about teachings, and the guys you name (Driscoll, McLaren, Bell) are on very different theological pages.  Driscoll is indeed very intentional about relevance, but couldn’t be more theologically conservative – with quite different views from the other two.

But there remains a big difference between these guys and MacArthur (and the other evangelical watchdogs).  The guys you mention and others who might fit the “seeker” or “emergent” label simply teach and write what they believe.  They don’t go after anyone personally.  On the other hand, MacArthur, his “groupies” and other watch dogs publicly disparage people by name.  I cannot imagine how a mature Christ follower could justify such behavior biblically. 

Isn’t it interesting that the NT isn’t full of warnings about not following this person or that person?  False teaching and incorrect understanding certainly abounded.  Doctrine was passed from Jesus to the disciples to the church, mostly orally, across thousands of miles, probably taking months and years to communicate.  And the written communications that eventually became the scripture was passed among the churches with great difficulty.  If the church and orthodoxy could survive the 400 or so years before the bible was canonized without lists of who is right and who is wrong, surely we can do the same today.

Years ago I used to listen to Chuck Colson’s radio show, as it came on during my regular drive time.  One day on air he berated another nationally known Christian leader for a decision he’d made (BTW – it was something I agreed with Colson about).  I was soooo disappointed, and lost much respect for Colson.  Made a mental note not to listen to him anymore, but the next day the show came on before I could turn the channel.  Colson’s first words of the day were to beg forgiveness from his listeners, having already called to beg forgiveness from the person he’d berated the day before.  That was the right thing to do, and he regained my respect.  I might regain respect for Mac if he did the same . . . but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Wendi

Fusion –

I appreciate your consideration of another perspective.  Of course there are times when naming names is appropriate and necessary.  But my opinion is that Mac and many other American Christian watchdogs have crossed WAAAAAY over the line here, and it’s damaging the church. 

Plus, as I stated (or eluded to) earlier, every ounce of energy one spends worrying about whether another Christian leader is doing things the right way, is an ounce that isn’t spent helping lost people find their way into the kingdom.  I think the latter is much more important.

Blessings on your church and ministry Fusion - Wendi

Mlouie,

I too appreciate your concern that we argue with scripture as our basis.  There are many things about which scripture is very clear, but there are also many things about which it is not: hymns or worship choruses, pews or chairs, small groups or SS classes, expository or contextual (parable) preaching, thousands more . . . And along with these methodological differences about which scripture leaves us the choice, there are many doctrinal issues about which scripture is unclear; pre or post trib, tithing or not, dispensational or Pentecostal, on and on . . .

I mention this to say that I don’t see how we (or JMac) can make a clear case that Driscoll is sinning.  I too, used scripture to make my points in my previous point, yet you and I have completely different views on this issue. 

My comment about your use of the seven churches as an example is this – Jesus was instructing specific churches and specific people in those churches, in letters written to those churches.  That is not to say that the instruction isn’t relevant to local churches today, indeed it is.  But I cannot see how these passages (or any) instruct a pastor from one local church to evaluate and admonish the pastor of another local church, one that he (the former pastor) doesn’t attend and isn’t involved in.

You rightly point out the JMac is submitted to the authority of his elders.  And so is Driscoll, McLaren, Warren, Hybels, and every other pastor that JMac has blasted over the years.  The people in his listening and reading audience are (should be) submitted to the leadership of their own churches.  But JMac admonishes them to constantly question that authority.  IMO he has usurped (or attempted to) the God given authority in each local church he rails against.

No one is questioning JMac’s commitment to the word.  Your following statements carry with them implications about those of us who disagree with you or our churches:
• J.Mac lives by the example set by the apostle Paul – and those he criticizes do not.
• Scripture and Godliness is what guides J.Mac’s actions and methods – but not the actions of those who disagree with him.
• The saints at J.Mac’s church are well fed – the saints at Driscoll’s are not.
• He is faithful to God and His word – Driscoll and others are not.
• If you guys are faithful to Scripture, you will see J.Mac’s faithfulness – so if I have issues with him, I’m not faithful to scripture.
• J.Mac loves the Holy Triune God – and we don’t???

I admit that the personal pain I experienced because (IMO) of JMac’s behavior make me more critical of him, and more zealous in my critique.  But if I ever question his love for God or his devotion to scripture, you would be right to call me on it.

You make one other comment which I question, [so being a watchdog is what is
commanded by Scripture.] I think scripture indeed commands us to be watchful within our family and our on church, but I don’t think it gives an admonishment to “watch-dog” every pastor out there, unless clear lines of historic Christian orthodoxy are crossed, which Driscoll certainly has not.

Wendi

...Driving men along a broad path into the gaping maw of hell…

wow… drink some coffee, man.

This discussion reminds me of when I was a Youth Pastor, I was “talked to” by the senior Pastor about using some word that is considered Christian swearing, I don’t even remember the word that I used, Meanwhile the head deacon of that church who was a famer often used the word “sh*t “ while in church, and it was considered ok because that is what it is. It is interesting how things like language is accepted or not accepted in different parts of the country.
Who was that famouse speaker a few years back who when speaking at a Christian college said a curse word and then commented, “There are people here who are more concerned about the word that I just used then they are about the people around them that are going to Hell” Not an exact quote, I believe that God’s word teaches against using profanity, but the speaker had a point. You can also “Be all things to all men, to reach some” without comprimising holiness
I know ,I have been doing it for the last 15 years

mlouie, you ask “Why do unregenerate people even try to prevent their unregenerate children to “cuss”?  WTF?

I thought the question was why does Mark Driscoll cuss and is that justification for calling for Christians not to listen to or follow him?  Is MD’s use of foul language justification for accusing him of false teaching?

I think the reason MD cusses is obvious, he is attempting to relate the Gospel to the lost in language he believes they speak and will understand. Now he may be wrong about what people will and won’t relate to, but I don’t think you can really accuse him of false teaching for the language he uses.  What language should he preach/tech in? The Queen’s English, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin?

Listen to MD’s teaching, if you’re not afraid, and see if what he’s teaching is wrong.  Podcasts are available online.  Get past the language to the meat of what he’s teaching.

The problem I see is that you don’t disagree with Mark’s theology, you disagree with his style.  (I disagree with some of his theology but that’s a different story.) Mark Driscoll preaches in Seattle, one the least church-friendly cities in the country, and he’s reaching the lost by the thousands.  If he’s so wrong, why isn’t someone else reaching the people he’s reaching?  Why is John McArthur telling the lost in Seattle to stay lost rather than listen to Mark Driscoll?  If he’s telling people not to listen to MD he’s also speaking to those MD is reaching and trying to reach and, in effect, telling them not to listen and to stay lost.

Isn’t what JM is basically saying “you’re lost, I have the truth that can save you, but if I can’t reach you or you’re not going to listen to me then don’t listen to anyone else and just stay lost”?  Is that what we, as Christians, should be telling the lost?

It is easy to take sides on this discussion because of the personal views we all hold,however one of the first thoughts that occurred to me was from God’s word (Romans 12-:1,2). It is our tongue that gets us into trouble most of the time and it is a member of our body. The portion of that scripture most incisive to me was the part about being not conformed to this world but being transformed by renewing our thinking so that it coinsides with the mind of Christ. Jesus hung with sinners for sure,but I don’t think he was going to do anything that would be detrimental to spiritual growth. What is cursing anyway but a base altering of language.  Paul, I believe didn’t adopt base language but did talk in common language others understood.

You know what, you’re right.  God doesn’t care about that.  Even at the expense of of His holiness, let’s do anything to jam people into the Kingdom!  After all, all this is all about mankind, mankind, mankind!  God will get His glory will come on judgment day - it’s selfish and ridiculous to suggest we should honor glorify Him here on earth at the EXPENSE of wicked men getting some excitement that leads to salvation!  Who is this MacArthur joke?

Take my church for example, we’re going to have some half naked women behind the pastor this upcoming Sunday (he’s going to be talking about temptation).  I should spruce things up a bit.

I love it when our posts get picked up by other ‘discerning’ websites.  It makes the conversation oh so much more amicable.

Some of you guys are making JohnnyMac proud!

I love how I’m accused on other sites of taking great leaps to come up with what I write; then people come here and write that they’re doing a sermon on temptation featuring half-naked women.

Yep, that’s where we’re headed.  We need to be more guarded in our discussions here friends… our discerning friends have done did discerned where we’re takin’ this thing.

Gotta love it. 

Todd

This is getting fun.  What constitutes vulgarity?  Is it the subject or is it the tone?  Is it the use of slang or the use of profanity?  Spurgeon was accused of being profane because he spoke the language of the day.  Some early hymns were considered profane because they were sung to the tune of bear songs.  If a pastor mentions masturbation from the pulpit is he profane?  What if he speaks about lust and the inevitable act of self pleasuring?  For Crying out loud this is not about Driscoll dropping the f-bomb in church.  Mac is convinced that guys who do not preach expository messages do the bible a disservice.  I know because he calls them out.  He believes that too casual of a church is bad, he believes that any person speaking in tongues, is wrong, he believes that pastors who do not study 30 hours a week do a disservice to the cause of Christ How do I know?  I heard him say so or read it in one of his books. 

His propensity to call people out and decry their leadership is becoming for anyone not like him.  I am neither profane (in public) but I do not speak expository messages and I do use some of the vernacular of the day.  I know for a fact I do not pass muster on Jonny Mac’s scale of holiness and standards of ministry. 

I think some of what we say is vulgar is not.  Some of what we say is profane is not.  Just because some person in SoCal is not comfortable with how Driscoll has impacted the culture of Seattle youth, does not mean Big Mac is correct.  Frankly think Mac Daddy is out of touch with where the church is going and where culture is going.  He is still pastoring and leading in a way that you did 30 years ago not in a post Christian secular culture.

Mlouie – Of course we shouldn’t get off on a discussion of pre or post trib, dispensational theology, etc.  My point for bringing these up was in response to your March 2 post when you said: [GOD has left us HIS WORD for all situations!  ALL!!!] I assumed that you were implying scripture unequivocally answers every single question we might have about every single situation – which is simply not true – evidenced by the fact that some questions remain unclear some 2000 years after the words were penned.

Dan Moore – I’m wondering then.  If you believe JMac has the biblical mandate and authority to call out a pastor from Seattle with whom he has no relationship, are there any appropriate biblical restrictions to one Christian publicly accusing another?  I’ve never met you or been to your church, but I guess if I downloaded a few of your sermons and decided you made some comments which I think (according to my own interpretation) are sinful, it is biblically justified, even encouraged, for me to start a public campaign against you and your church.  Right?  If not, what do you see as the line I’d be crossing which JMac has not crossed in relation to Mark Driscoll?

Will Clegg asks: “Who or what will all this debate change?” Maybe church leaders will be more on guard about the dangerous and divisive influence JMac can have on their congregants.  There are some things we’d have done differently if we really understood just how damaging this group could be.

For me, when I think about the damage JMac and other watchdogs are doing within the kingdom, I am ever more conscious of my influence, and how even a passing derogatory comment I might make about someone, can color the opinion of someone who looks up to me. 

Wendi

“Some early hymns were considered profane because they were sung to the tune of bear (sic)songs.”

Leonard, I’m assuming that you mean BAR songs.  If that is the case, how much longer are uninformed people going to keep trotting that one out?

The hymns were written in bar FORM, ie the construction of the music is what is referred to.  Luther was, in fact, extremely averse to secularism in music, and it is usually with his hymns that this misunderstanding arises.