As long as you’re not categorizing me as one of the ‘argumentative people’, sure.  My point, extactly, is that Johnny Mac whould do what God’s called Johnny Mac to do; all the while allowing Mark Driscoll the liberty to do what he feels God’s called him to.  I think that’s a nice start.

Todd

Recently read this statement by JM on Christian Rock Music..

“one of the things that I just can’t comprehend in “Rock” music is to take profundity and trivialize it with the kind of music that is trivial. Or worse (I guess) is to take profound lyrics and profound theology and put them to cheap musical style, that is not lofty in terms of it’s musicianship; it’s not lofty in its terms of its ability to comprehend music as such”
(http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/godmusic.htm)

Seriously the guy has no idea of the principles taught in Acts 17. Todd you are way too nice!!! Somewhere along the way, he appointed himself to be the theological policeman of the whole world.

While I was commenting Mark Broadbent posted his comment about Johnny Mac thinking he’s the theological policeman of the world, but that’s exactly who Driscoll thinks he is.  I think we may be looking at a showdown over position (both theological and on the Force).  Sorry for the double comment.

“My point, extactly, is that Johnny Mac whould do what God’s called Johnny Mac to do; all the while allowing Mark Driscoll the liberty to do what he feels God’s called him to”

Liberty to serve God yes, but liberty to be vulgar?  Nah, don’t think so.

I am pretty sure I have listened to over 50 hours of Driscoll sermons, and I still have yet to hear him do anything I would call cussing.

In his attempts to make clear the idiotic nature of this culture’s thinking, he does occasionally say some things that are somewhat politically incorrect.  I think he is actually quite humble in admitting that he says some things that he shouldn’t say, and sometimes he says things that he should say, but in a way he shouldn’t have said them.

Has anyone except Donald Miller ever heard Driscoll cuss?  Mark’s recollection of his encounter with Miller that got him that nickname was that something was said in a restaurant, not the pulpit.

It is always a thrill when somebody famous asks “What’s his name again” about you. 

In my opinion John Mac is a cultural elitist. Sorry. Just how I’m calling it. I think ministry needs to oppose vulgarity. But to be incarnational (which I think is a very good thing) we must be concerned with what is vulger in the culture we minister to. So what would have ruffled feathers in Victorian England is different that in JM’s congregation is different than in MD’s congregation.

A couple of readers have said they’ve never heard MD cuss in the pulpit. I’ve listened to a number of his sermons too. I’ve never heard anything I thought was out of line. But I’m in my early 30s. If I gave the same sermons to my grandmother - she’s think they were obscene. And if she knew how to blog or anyone cared to interview her - she’d tell you he was obscene in a sermon.

JM’s not my grandmother’s age. But I have found in dealing with people from his generation, they have a different view of what constitutes “reverence”. I think I agree with Todd. We need to leave each other alone (even encourage one another) to do the ministry God calls us to. The more disturbing questions it raises to me are things like: Is cross generational ministry really possible? Is multi-cultural ministry really possible? If we are all so offended by one another’s way of expressing… how can we worship together without ending up with pathetic watered down communication style which bores everyone to tears?

Doctrine Schmoctrine.

no seriously… people read way too much theology into the Bible sometime. Are you saved by what you believe or who you trust? Is the Holy Spirit big enough to guide believers into all truth without having the theology police dictate exactly what one is to believe as if they have a better understanding of the Bible than anybody else who’s ever lived? Sheesh…

Right on Peter, right on…

You may have missed MacArthur’s point. First, he is simply emphasizing the fact that methodology does not save people. God uses the proclamation of His Word to save people (Romans 10:17). Second, he claims that personal holiness is deemphasized by Driscoll. Holy living should be a significant and increasing part of the Christian life (1 Peter 1:15-16). I would like to hear your arguments critical of his concerns rather than against a straw man.

I think many of the people here are being quite unfair and disrespectful toward John MacArthur.  Agree or disagree with him, he still has been a faithful preacher of God’s word, and has been greatly and widely used by God.

I think, also, that many are ignoring MacArthur’s point: Sanctification is not an option.  There is no justification without sanctification.  Or, to put it another way, those whom God justifies He also sanctifies.  It seems to me that MacArthur was simply making the point that we should not content ourselves with questionable language in our life (and, especially, from the pulpit).  It’s not a quest for absolute perfection, but we should be conforming more and more to Christ, shedding sinful habits (or questionable practices) as time goes by.  I don’t think we can justify, from Acts 17, being like the world in order to reach the world, and yet, some of the writers here seem to be advocating such an approach.  That approach ignores sanctification.  And a “doctrine” of justification which allows one to ignore sanctification is not a biblical doctrine of justification.

Truly, I don’t read MacArthur as trying to attack Mark Driscoll as much as I see him trying to defend the integrity of the Church of Jesus Christ (which is part of the responsibility of elders/pastors/shepherds).  And, from what I’ve read from Driscoll, it seems to me that he would respond far more charitably to MacArthur than many of you do.

Wyeth Duncan

DJChuang,

Do you think Jesus’ parable of the talents (in Matt. 25) might apply as to why some who are just as passionate and faithful don’t prosper as well as Driscoll, Macarthur, et al? Maybe some (Driscoll, Mac) were given 10 talents, Todd Rhodes got 5, and I got stuck with two or maybe even one. Not knowing what language to use to express this, I’ll say it this way: Our most faithful and best and Spirit-filled efforts won’t turn a two-talenter into a 10-talent, but doubling the investment (two talents bringing in two more) is really all he asks. Maybe running less than 8500 isn’t a sign of failure, nor is running less than 85. The only discipline came to the one with one talent; not because he only had one, but because he did nothing with it. I’ve often wondered what the master would say to the one with two talents, who took a chance to multiply it into six talents but lost it. I think a lot of us would fit into that category!

Tom,

I stand by my statement. But… I never said doctrine is not important or should be thrown away. I don’t think it should be set aside for the freedom of the believer (which is not what that means anyway...)

I DO however think that there is a VERY great danger in any teaching that likens right thinking about specific doctrinal points with the salvation of my soul. If my theology is messed up (I really don’t think mine is very much...) but I trust Christ and His Holy Spirit lives in me, doing the work of transformation which equals sanctification, then I’m still in. I’ve heard too many who criticize individuals and denominations who have doctrinal points “wrong” (like Oneness pentecostals or Catholics) as not possibly saved because of wrong thinking.

Also, Tom, those exhortations are VERY good quotes… and both written to pastors. Sometimes I think we who are pastors think that our congregations should be as steeped in complete and correct doctrine as we are. I have experienced that that is asking too much.