John MacArthur on Vulgarity and “Grunge Christianity”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, March 01, 2007
- Viewed 382
- (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.
Wendi on Sun, March 04, 2007
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
Kevin on Mon, March 05, 2007
The foolishness of the Gospel preached has always been a stumbling block to those who are perishing. It is Christ whom we must imitate and not the cultural vagaries of wicked men. If conformed to the practices of the lawless, dark and dead, how can we proclaim the positive value of law, light and life in Christ?
Is it not unfathomable that a Holy God would approve the application of satanic means to gather His holy flock?
Does Scripture ever teach that God draws men into holiness by indulging the wicked cultures of the pagan world? Have Christians forgotten that they are to be distinct in their absence from the cultic practices of the illegitimate religions and cultures that surround them?
The fruits of the dead display what is in them regardless of intent: Their best works and worship being an abomination unto the LORD,” Proverbs 15:8
The American culture is a polluted buffet of chaff and carnality that has presumed the equivalent status of religion. The false church endears pagan practices to find its membership, fill its tombs, and entertain its financiers. It enjoys the “strength” of the multicultural Gestapo to support is wolfish practices while decrying the submission and faith of the elect.
However, blind watchmen and compromising sentinels of Christianity encourage the pagan hordes in their war against the elect and strengthen their ambition to conquer the Christian religion. What will our posterity inherit if we abandon the Christian religion to the cultural relevance of a satanic world?
There is no neutral ground in this battle.
The reformation rescued the Christian religion from men who had set aside the Commands of God for carnal wisdom and rituals of men. Shall Christians again be intimidated by multicultural elitists to exchange the Life-Saving Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sewage of pagan philosophy, liberalism and carnal wisdom?
Unregenerate men are at war against God and are actively building a culture hostile to Christ and Christian principles. Simply examine the daily presentation of filth on TV, Radio, and internet. America’s culture is not supported and programmed by Bible believing men and women bent on glorifying God, but by ministers of satan who promote self-absorption, self-glorification, and self-aggrandizement. American culture is rife with paganism, idolatry, and satanic practice and has become as illegitimate and wicked as that of the Hittites, Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Yahweh did not command Israel to adopt the satanic and illegitimate practices of cultural relevance. He commanded His people to Holiness for HE is Holy.
Adopting the culture around us is not a means of leading sinners to Christ, but of driving men along a broad path into the gaping maw of hell.
Todd Rhoades on Mon, March 05, 2007
...Driving men along a broad path into the gaping maw of hell…
wow… drink some coffee, man.
Will Clegg on Mon, March 05, 2007
What or who will all this debate change?
Jim on Mon, March 05, 2007
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 on Mon, March 05, 2007
Thank you Wendi for the reply. In my last post, I went into some detail about J.Mac. It was prompted really by your statement below:
“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.” (Wendi’s post, see saturday march 3 post).
I wanted to share a little in defense of J.Mac’s ministry because as stated above - we’re just immature Christ followers who cannot justify our behavior biblically. I’m not sure if you really meant that, hence my defense in my last posting about being fed the “meat of Scripture”. I like your bulleted points, but my defense was not to compare J.Mac’s attendees vs. Driscoll’s attendees. I do not know about Driscoll very much and not as well as I know about J.Mac. That would not be a fair assessment for me to make. I urge you to re-read my post with the perspective that it is a stand alone statement in defense and not as an attack. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear about that.
At this point, we should not open another can of worms regarding: pre/post-trib, pentecostal, dispensations vs. covenant theology… and to stick with our original topic. About things that Scripture does not elaborate on (specifics on dating, having conferences, etc)… a perspective I’ve learned is analyzing things to see if it glorifies God. You stated that you cannot see just how Driscoll is sinning. I just see that it is possible to cause others to stumble. I pose this question below:
Why do unregenerate people even try to prevent their unregenerate children to “cuss”? In the case of fallen people, cussing is showmanship… in the ghetto, it is about facades and superficiality… or about bullying. Sharing the true Gospel is a shock because the Word does not come back void. Adding the “cussing” is a fallen way of “trying to help” God’s Word… just my 2 centavos.
I wanted to address the “watchdog” comment later today. Lord willing, I’m hoping to contribute some thoughts.
mlouie
Jesus freak… living by His grace for His glory
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Mon, March 05, 2007
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?
mlouie on Mon, March 05, 2007
Well Daniel R (a different Daniel), I wanted to say in case you did not get a chance to view the “page 1of 2 blogs”… to please view them. If you have viewed them and have come to the conclusion that your comments still stand the way you’d like them to stand… then ok, I will try to answer you also this evening when I’m off work.
Being sanctified by His Word, for His glory,
mlouie
Larry on Mon, March 05, 2007
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.
Dan Moore on Mon, March 05, 2007
Sorry Wendi I disagree with you. I used Scripture properly to make my point. I did so with great care. I believe MacArthur is not meddling. He is being faithful to Scriptural examples as pointed out by some of the others in this blog. I’m glad some brought up examples from church history of those who spoke up.
J Mounts on Mon, March 05, 2007
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.
J Mounts on Mon, March 05, 2007
All I’m saying is… if a lustful look slips out here or there, and yet a few more people make it into the Kingdom, I can accept that.
Todd Rhoades on Mon, March 05, 2007
I love it when our posts get picked up by other ‘discerning’ websites. It makes the conversation oh so much more amicable.
http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
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. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
Todd Rhoades on Mon, March 05, 2007
I understand your concern here J; and your use of sarcasm is not lost on me (I love sarcasm… so does Driscoll).
*wink*
Todd
Leonard on Mon, March 05, 2007
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.
Page 3 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment