I do not doubt Mac has zeal to protect the church but he does so by building an argument based upon half information.  No one I know of here at MMI believes cussing from the pulpit is okay, nor does driscoll.  That quote is from Donaldl Miller and Driscolls recollection was that it happened over dinner.  Mac implies and maybe even directly states it was from the pulpit.  I think mac thinks he is protecting the church but I am not so sure anymore.  I think he is protecting his view of doctrine as though it is completely right and protecting his methodology as though it is right.  Not just here but with his statements about expository preaching being the only way to teach the word.  Mac is okay with methodology as long as it is his. 

He states that Driscol cannot get to sanctification from justification because of his methodology.  That is just opinion not fact.  He states it on the basis of conjecture and half information not personal experience.  This is my problem with MAC.  If you knew the people here you would discover that few of us are in either camp, D’s or M’s It is not demonizing to say Mac is wrong here. 

James, you are preaching to the choir here.  I attended Macs church and met people who were unchanged over time, they go to my church and your too.  Neither Mac or Driscol thing that people should not grow.  But mac seems much more inclined to say what growth is and what it is not. 

I worked with Gangs for several years.  They would come to know Jesus and some would change overnight and others over a couple years.  It was sanctification none the less.  Are we to believe that Sanctification is not happening at Mars hill?  Are we to believe that this is not important to Driscoll?  If you do then you have not heard him preach or read his writings. 

We might disagree as to what is respectful or not and as to how dismissive to mac these names are, so for that I apologize to you for the MACTHEKNIFE comment since it came from me.  I assure you I meant no disrespect to Mac.

What startles me is the rapidness with which this has become a question of “what works?”.  As if to say that the only difference in JM and MD (used here only as an example, people) is a methodology; a way to approach the spreading of the gospel, if you will.

I mentioned previously this issue of seeker-senstitive churches.  Churches that have a come just as you are, God loves you just as you are and after you get saved you can stay just as you are because God loves you just as you are philosophy (Yeah, I know all of that probably should have been hyphenated, but seriously...)

The problem with this approach is that it is not the BIBLICAL methodology.  It doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t JM’s or MD’s (again… example only), it only maters that the approach is not Biblical.  And, ultimately, the only thing that ever “works” is the Bible.

James

Leonard...to be fair to James...while I don’t know of any seeker churches that would say what James says either...fact remains that this seems to be the unspoken end-result in many of those churches...and why many maturity-seeking members of these churches leave (another subject).

Now...having said that...I agree with most everything you said, Leonard...with a twist.  James...there are very few methods that are “biblical”.  Using a building that is not your home or a local synagogue is not biblical, technically. 

If you feel I’m wrong about this, PLEASE spell out in detail the methodologies that are biblical with proof texts included.  Or...please spell out in detail the methodologies employed by churches that are non-biblical (cited as wrong in the Scriptures) with texts included. 

James...I feel we would agree about things churches do that annoy us...I’m annoyed by many practices in the modern church...but I’m not going to call them non-bibilical.  I’ll build an argument that appeals to wisdom...not some right/wrong standard that doesn’t exist in the scriptures.

Richard,

You said: “I have listened to Dr. MacArthur for many years and I love his teachings because they are 100% biblical.”

Well, bother if he is 100% what is there to debate?  In fact for that matter what is there to question in regards to JM at all?

Point - no one is 100% doctrinally pure, no one, not even JM.  Some of us on the other side of the theological isle actually think he is way off in his understanding of theology!  But I still consider him a brother and appreciate his clear devotion to our Lord, whether he would apply that same consideration to me – I kind of doubt it.

Al

Todd,
I don’t remember much about the Driscoll piece, but I have to agree with MacAuthur.  I have said for years that we don’t have to look like—smell like-- talk like—the “world” to win “the world”.
I believe there is a sanctification issue—yes progressive but none the less growing.  I appreciate the comments but we need to be careful that we are not disrespectful in the process.
We ALL are going to be surprised when we get to heaven.
Ron

Holiness is not withdrawal. Jesus Himself was hated by the self-righteous religious crowd because He hung out with sinners, drunks, and prostitutes. I went to MH for a couple years. If you want to talk about sanctification then go to a MH men’s retreat. Until you’ve been to one, and JM has been to one, I need not say more and neither should JM. I have heard MD say “damn” from the pulpit. It’s the only time I’ve ever heard him “cuss” from the pulpit. The context was about some church member giving their blood, sweat, and tears to serve the church and some don’t do a damn thing. It was a rebuke to his own congregation. I love MD and JM. They have both changed my life. But one things for sure. If we don’t learn to grasp the arts with Christianity, then a dying world will fail to see Christ as meaningful and beautiful. But engaging the arts, as MH does, is not something that should be forced, but natural. The arts is the Christian’s mother calling him home.