Maybe you've seen it already, but a new article has been released criticizing the ministry of Pastor Mark Driscoll. It rides on the heels of a column that Pastor John MacArthur wrote a while back, sometime in 2006 (one of the biggest problems with MacArthur's ministry's website is that none of the resources have dates on them). I don't want to quote much from either of these. By and large, I don't think they're helpful. They're primarily arguments from authority, that is, they pronounce judgment, maybe state a Bible verse, and then leave their word in the lap of the reader, not explaining why what Pastor Driscoll is doing is wrong. For example, in the article I mention, Mrs. Cathy Mickels' article, her primary accusation against Driscoll is that he talks about sex. The whole time I was reading her article, I was wondering, Why does she have a problem with him talking about sex if the Bible talks about sex? It was true, he does talk about sex, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I don't want to quote too much from them. At the same time, I find myself hesitant to endorse Driscoll, mostly because of the contempt he shows for his opponents, and the quantity of humour that he uses, from the pulpit. That said, I find it really easy to see faults in people, while looking past their strengths. And I certainly do that with Driscoll. So, I'm going to try to do the exact opposite hear by sharing what I respect in him. He's frequently being praised for being theologically conservative, and I could join in that choir, talking about how the four doctrines I used to most enjoy talking about (baptism, spiritual gifts, God's sovereignty and gender) he and I would agree on—which I do greatly appreciate, but I want to point out another strength of his which goes less spoken. The things that Driscoll is being criticized for are things that he thinks aren't forbidden in the Bible, which others might. He sees no evidence in Scripture that humour is wrong, so he tells lots of jokes from the pulpit. He sees Jesus insulting the Pharisees, so he openly mocks his critics and opponents from his pulpit (to be fair, I've never heard him do it by name). That said, he has an amazing confidence in the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone. If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, it ain't wrong. We don't need tradition or culture to tell us what's right and wrong, or to tell us about God. Only the Bible has authority to speak on God, faith and practice. I'll give an example. The Southern Baptists, whom Driscoll frequently praises, in most corners of their ministry have a vow of temperance (abstinence from alcohol). Driscoll says that since Jesus made wine, he's going to feel free to drink. Another example. Many reformed pastors (e.g., Mohler, Piper) speak of not making pictures or paintings of Jesus because it borders on violating the Second Commandment, not to make an image of God (Ex. 20:4-6). Driscoll on the other hand, has worn T-shirts with Jesus' face on the front, saying that since God did have a face at one point, it's not blasphemy to try to capture that face in art. Agree or disagree, Driscoll's example shows that the Scriptures are enough. That Truth changes everything. It means that you don't need to worry about whether it's wrong to have a vacation. You don't need to wonder whether you're sinning by taking two days off per week instead of one. Driscoll does a fantastic job of making that clear. He understands the relationship between the sufficiency of Scripture and the believer's freedom in Christ. I admire his desire to do only what the Bible tells him to do. -- The title of this entry is not meant to imply that I am less of a sinner than Driscoll. I'm certain the opposite is true. But, as I'm sure he'd agree, he's also a sinner. In this post I'm trying to not focus on where I disagree with Driscoll, thus seeing the good in the sinner. Update: There's been a bit of controversy on this post in the comments section, particularly over my assertion that Dr. MacArthur's column is largely an argument from authority. So please refer to the comments. If I haven't already, I will soon respond. Update: I scratched off a chunk of the entry because it was unfair. See the comments for why this came about.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
P Eddy,
this may be a defining post on this blog...not because you've written about how you appreciate driscoll, but because there is a huge sense of humility that really radiates from it.
good times.
Thanks, Lydia. That's high praise.
peddy, i agree with you about not just looking at the bad, but i do wish something to be on the record:
macarthur's point is not that humour or talking about sex is wrong, but that crude humour about masturbation and blowjobs and calling people homosexual passengers on the short bus is not correct way to get engage with the congregation from the pulpit.
Macarthur does document this in his article and point to specific sermons/books. He then provides an argument for why its wrong, which is that using sin to engage with sinners does not conform to the Biblical example of how we are to respond to the depravity of unbelievers. It is false to accuse Macarthur of simply appealing to authority. (other people, please read the article yourself, and try to understand the flow of the argument)
Thank you for your helpful response to my "false accusation" against MacArthur. I've reconsidered what I said.
First, I admit that I was overly hard on both their articles. I think that Mrs. Mickels article criticized Driscoll for being willing to talk about sex (e.g., him being willing to answer questions from his congregation on sexual positions) without warrant. I don't think that it's wrong to talk about sex in the pulpit. As I argued in the entry, if the Bible talks about sex, there should be discussion of sex from the pulpit. (To clarify, Dr. MacArthur never explicitly addresses Driscoll's sexual references. It was only Mrs. Mickels.)
Looking back it really coloured the way I read the rest of her article. What I think she should have said was that the Bible never uses sexual humour, nor scatological humour, so since they are inappropriate in our society there's no reason for them to be coming from the pulpit. But she didn't.
Here's another example: She said, "What will be the results of the clock turning back to what Mark describes as 'the glory days' when men meet in the bars and their wives stay home taking care of the kids? What message is he sending to young men? It is not too far off base for me to suggest that the message sent is men drinking beer and male crudity is cool." How does she get from this that Driscoll thinks that male crudity is cool? When she exaggerates her conclusions, it makes me weary to trust the rest of what she said, even though it is largely good (in contrast to me saying before that it's by and large unhelpful).
It also overflowed to me saying that of MacArthur's article. I think that he could have been more clear in his article, but the article is ultimately helpful.
I liked what MacArthur said about the irony of following a culture into its sinful ways to try to expose the sinfulness of their ways. It's a good explanation of why churches should not be worldly (i.e., sinful).
I think that my biggest problem with MacArthur's column, though, was that it never explained why what Driscoll was doing was wrong. It calls him worldly, saying that he watches MTV and South Park, but doesn't explain why that's wrong. For example, I'd expect MacArthur to say that it's okay for some people to watch that stuff, if for no other reason, to be critical of it to warn the rest of Christ's flock. No question, Driscoll doesn't warn against watching the stuff, and implicitly does the exact opposite, endorsing it by quoting it without comment. But my point is that it's not sinful for all so MacArthur needs to be more clear on why Driscoll should not quote it from the pulpit, especially since Driscoll would respond that if watching South Park is not sinful, it would be just as sinful for Driscoll to quote South Park from the pulpit as it would for Paul to quote Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17:28.
Another reason why I think I so quickly dismissed MacArthur's column was because of what Driscoll said about it. In Young, Restless, Reformed Driscoll was quoted as saying, "If John MacArthur would have called me or e-mailed me, I would have got on an airplane, flown to Los Angeles, and welcomed his counsel, because I want to do a good job serving Jesus honestly . . . And if somebody who's been serving Jesus faithfully for a long time has some helpful advice, I would welcome it, because I'm on my own. I don't have a denomination. I'm just making it up as I go by God's grace" (pp. 145-146).
With that comment in mind, I've wondered for a long time whether MacArthur's comments were inappropriate. On one hand, if MacArthur was right, then Driscoll's bad content was spreading in the public. On the other hand, it would seem he never tried to help Driscoll before criticizing him publicly, which seems unloving. I should have said that instead of saying that it's unhelpful.
Hopefully this appeases your wrath against me for maligning John MacArthur. I've altered the entry to reflect this change of heart. I hope that you'll feel free to correct me on all other content on my blog.
haha, i don't have any wrath against you. i just think that people should see the good in John Macarthur as well, and was worried that some other people might think it as more proof that Macarthur is a meanie.
I think you may not see Macarthur's argument, not because you are a bad reader, but because it is not very clear. Mac says there is an appropriate and Biblical way to respond to the culture, and that Driscoll does not follow it.
In case anyone is interested (not too likely), they should know I haven't reached any good conclusion on whether I agree with his argument, though I lean towards Macarthur.
Thanks for listening, Peter. Let's talk sometime.
I wrote above, "it makes me weary to trust the rest of what she said." I should have written "it makes me wary to trust the rest of what she said."
Again, do correct my spelling when I err.
Post a Comment