Shepherds’ Conference 2010 – Wednesday Morning Notes from John MacArthur

This week, David is attending the Shepherds’ Conference held annually at Grace Church in Los Angeles, California.  I’ll be posting some notes and photos.  If you would like to view the conference LIVE, go here.

The morning began with beautiful music from the men of The Master’s Seminary, followed by a solo from Jubilant Sykes.  John MacArthur was the first speaker this morning and the notes from his message follow.

Separation was a big issue during John MacArthur’s growing up years.  Today, we live in an age of tolerance and acceptance, so what is to be the relationship between believers and non-believers?

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1

This entire portion of Scripture is summed up in Chapter 7 verse 1: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

Separation is a cleansing from defilement both internally and outwardly. The distinction between being a Christian and being a non-Christian has been blurred.  These are two opposing realms; righteousness vs. unrighteousness, Christ vs. Satan.  They are distinct and different, they cannot work together, they cannot have fellowship.  One is earthly, the other heavenly.  Believers cannot exist in both worlds.  Friendship with the world is enmity with God.  “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your  mind.”  Romans 12:2  The Corinthians were trying to live in two worlds.

Paul poured a lot of his life into Corinth and he was realizing that Satan had come and attacked the church.  Demons were assaulting the church with a compromise of pagan religion and idolatry, all for the purpose of making Christianity more popular and more readily received.  There is nothing new.

Everyone’s behavior goes back to their view of God. II Corinthians 6:14 says we have to be distinct from the world.  This is a command.

What Paul is not saying is that we never talk to unbelievers, we are told to take the gospel to the end of the earth.  He is not calling for complete isolation.  He is calling for the church to be a separate entity.  The culture and the church are separate.  We must reach the people of this world, but you can’t marry the church to the culture.

False teachers always come in with a blend of teaching and the culture.

II Corinthian 6:14-18 presents five reasons for separation.

1. It is irrational.
   These two opposing views are pulling in opposite directions and are controlled by opposite leaders.  Paul begins with questions regarding this:
   What partnership have righteousness and lawlessness?
   “Partner” means to “find common ground”.  This is impossible!  Unbelievers are “without law”.  In Matthew 7:22-23 religious people are told “Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.”  They are disobedient to the law of God.  Again in Matthew 23:27-28 the Pharisees and scribes are guilty of “lawlessness”.  Hebrews 1:9 says “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.”  Ephesians 2:12 describes unbelievers as strangers with no hope and without God.  Whereas believers are righteous, forgiven, and  have a new nature.  Titus 2:14 says that believers are freed from every lawless deed.
   What fellowship has light with darkness?
   Light and dark are incompatible, they cannot coexist.  See I John and Colossians 1.  We have been called out of darkness into light.  

These first two questions have to do with our nature, the next questions have to do with the leadership of these two realms.
   What harmony has Christ with Belial?
   Unbelievers are subjects controlled by their father the devil. God uses Satan, but He does not associate with him.  The word “harmony” means coming together in a common cause.  “Belial” was used in OT and describes corruptions, a worthless person, Satan.  See Ephesians 2:2-3.  Satan is primarily religious.  Remember the story of Dagon in I Samuel.  There must never be fusion of God and Satan

.
   What has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Amos 3:3
2. It is sacreligious. I Corinthians 1
   There are just these two options.  You can’t mix devil worshippers with God worshippers.  A church is a defined group of people who have come together and separated themselves from the Satanic system.  There is no hope for commonality with the other realm.  2 Kings 21 shows the results of Manasseh reconnecting with the culture.  He put idols in the house of the Lord and made his son pass through the fire, practiced divinations etc…provoking God to anger.  Verse 9 says he seduced them to do evil.    

Pagans don’t mind joining Christians, they welcome it because Satan wants to infiltrate, and it gives them legitimacy.  We can’t join with unbelievers in any enterprise that involves God’s name, that is blasphemy.  Why?  Because we are the temple of the living God and the “Living God” is in contrast to dead idols.  Any joining of ourselves in any common enterprise with unbelievers is a sacreligion.  It is putting our God next to Dagon.  And its even worse to call them believers.  We are His dwelling place. Can we make spiritual heros of people who violate these commands? Church discipline is necessary in these situations.
3. It is disobedient.
   How do we separate?  “Don’t touch what is unclean”.  It is such a privilege to be the temple of God that it leaves us no alternative but to be obedient to Him.  Paul calls the Corinthians to break all ties.  Remember Revelation 18, a picture of the world under anti-Christ, the final false world religion.  What is the message for the believer for that day?   “Come out of her my people.”  This passage could describe this culture today.  We can’t make a truce with any culture.  It is commanded that we come out.  “Be holy because I am holy”.  To import the styles of the world, is to import the culture and destroy the church.  Don’t “touch” implies a touch of intimacy, it is saying don’t fornicate with the world.  It is a harmful touch.
4. It is unprofitable.
   If you want to experience the favor of God, don’t do this.  There can be no fellowship or blessing until you become separate.  There is immense reward for the Christian that does separate.  God embraces those who separate themselves.
   John MacArthur then said “I don’t want to come to the end of my ministry and wonder whether God did it or I did it.”  “I’m not narrow minded separatist.  I want above all to obey the Word of God and be in the place of blessing.  I don’t want to make decisions that can actually cut off divine blessing from my people.  I want my wife and family to know the favor of God.”
   Great promises were given to David, but Solomon forfeited all of it.  Look at I Kings 11resulting in a split kingdom, the favor was gone.  John MacArthur then also said “I want all the discipline I need to be holy and no more” – I want to experience God’s protective discipline but not the corrective discipline.
5. It is ungrateful.
   II Corinthians 7:1  We have all the promises of being a child of God. This verse moves beyond the commands and gives blessing for obedience.  God has poured out endless promises.  “I will dwell in them and walk among them…”  Ask yourself, “Do I want the accolades of man in exchange for the favor of God?”  There is only one true grateful response – cleanse ourselves.  Let us cleanse ourselves from defiling alliances.  

The question is then asked, “If we isolate ourselves won’t it be hard to reach the world?”  No, you can’t reach the world anyway, God does.  The whole purpose is produce holiness in our lives.  He is our full delight.  He called you to Himself; He expects you to be obedient; You owe Him obedience and honor.  When you do this, watch God embrace you.

What Christians Must Learn from the Bold Confrontations of Christ

Guest: John MacArthur, pastor, Grace Community Church

This program was originally broadcast on September 12, 2009.  Click here to listen and read preview and transcript.

The Manhattan Declaration: To Sign or Not To Sign?

Podcast: Download (8.9MB)

Recently, religious leaders from the three major branches of professing Christianity — Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Evangelical — drafted a document called The Manhattan Declaration in which signers commit to stand strong in the face of secular encroachment on three key issues: the sanctity of life, heterosexual marriage, and freedom of speech and conscience. Read more

Why I Am Not Signing The Manhattan Declaration – David Wheaton

The recent release of the Manhattan Declaration has generated a lot of interest in Christian circles and even in the secular media.  The framers and prominent signatories of the document are representatives of the three major prongs of the professing Christian church: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Protestant.  As of Wednesday, November 25th, the Declaration had over 100,000 signatures and this is sure to rise in the coming days and weeks.

What is the Declaration about?  You should click on the above link and read more of it but here is the opening section:

“Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” 

I wholeheartedly support the three points listed above and do what I can to advocate for them.  But I have decided not to sign the Manhattan Declaration.  Why?  Because there is an even more important issue than these three that I believe gets confused by the Declaration … the gospel message itself.

Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals have many significant differences in doctrine but there is one critical difference on the all-important, eternity-determining question of justification: By what means is sinful man reconciled to God?

The divide on this issue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox (who believe that man is justified before God through a process of faith in Jesus Christ plus the keeping of church sacraments and traditions) and theologically conservative Evangelicals (who believe that man is justified by God’s grace through repentance of sin and faith in Christ’s work on the cross) is historic, well-documented, and … mutually exclusive.

And that’s the problem with the Declaration for me.  The implied Christian brotherhood between Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical woven throughout the document leaves the impression of “different churches, but same family and destination.”

Chuck Colson, the main Evangelical involved in crafting the document, says as much in his column today,

“As I hope you know by now, last Friday, 20-some Christian leaders stood before the microphones at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Fox News, CNN, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and more were there with cameras and microphones.

There, we announced the release of the Manhattan Declaration. And we proclaimed to the church—and put our nation’s leaders on notice—that we would protect the sanctity of life, that we would uphold the sacredness of marriage as a holy union between one man and one woman, and that we would defend religious freedom for all people.

There, in front of all those cameras and lights, Christian leaders lovingly, winsomely, and firmly took a stand. I will never forget the picture. I stood between Archbishop Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia. I looked over at Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, and Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action.

To my left was the brilliant Bishop Harry Jackson, a man who has mobilized African American churches in the District to oppose gay “marriage.” And there was Fr. Chad Hatfield, chancellor of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary. I was missing only one man, my dear friend, the late Richard Neuhaus.

It was a foretaste of what we’re all going to see in heaven, when those of us who can truly trust the Bible, who love Christ with all our hearts, minds, and souls, are re-united in the presence of our gracious and loving God.” [underline emphasis mine]

Chuck Colson is an intelligent and caring man but claiming common eternal destiny in heaven for these Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical leaders fails the test of simple logic.  Either one is justified by faith alone in Christ or one is not.  How else can Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:4-5 and the many other Scriptural passages like them be interpreted?

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.  But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness…” (Romans 4:4-5)

Clarity of the gospel is of primary importance.  While I greatly respect many of those who have signed The Manhattan Declaration like Albert Mohler and James Dobson, I do not see in Scripture any precedent for joining in common spiritual cause with other Christian religions who hold to a “different gospel” (see Galatians 1:6-10).  Jesus Christ, His apostles, and the other writers of the New Testament never formed nor advocated forming a coalition with other religious leaders of their day, like the Pharisees or Sadducees, to push back against some moral failing of society or government.  Neither should biblical Christians today.

Wouldn’t it better to form a coalition with those who are united on the definition of the most critical issue — the gospel — so that important work on the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and freedom of conscience can be pursued without confusion … and with soul-saving effect?

=====================

Further reading on this topic…

Why They Did Not Sign:

• John MacArthur

• RC Sproul

• Alistair Begg

• Michael Horton

• Tim Challies

Why They Did Sign:

• Chuck Colson

• Albert Mohler

• Ligon Duncan

The Manhattan Declaration – Revisited (Tim Challies)

Last week saw the release of The Manhattan Declaration, a document crafted by Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George and signed by a long list of Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox leaders. I have not been able to gauge the interest in the Declaration or whether it has had an immediate impact. But I have seen a bit of buzz about it through the Christian blogosphere. Today I want to address it, even if only briefly.

Here is a brief description of the document:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

It is, then, a declaration on these crucial issues of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of religious liberty. Among the more notable signatories, at least to readers of this site, is Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Unfortunately a portion of The Manhattan Declaration site is down now so I cannot refer to the list of signatories to reference other names.

Some Evangelicals have chosen to decline signing the Declaration on the basis that it is a joint statement by Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox leaders. I am among those whose conscience will not give me freedom to add my name to the 100,000+ who have already signed.

Rather than write a lengthy defense of my refusal, I thought I would direct you to some useful articles.

John MacArthur offers this explanation as to why he will not sign. “It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct ‘communities.’ Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as ‘historic lines of ecclesial differences’ rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity. … [It would] relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time.”

James White writes “There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says ‘the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us’? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he ‘re-presents’ the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an ‘alter Christus’? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man’s false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the ‘right’ side of a vitally important social issue.”

Frank Turk also declines, saying “It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a ‘believer’, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the ‘whole scope of Christian moral concern’, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.”

To varying degrees I agree with each of these critiques though on the whole my thoughts line up mostly closely with John MacArthur’s. In my view, this line says it all: “Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.” It is good to speak of the gospel, but what does the term mean if used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? Each has their own understanding of the term—the term that stands at the very heart of the faith. I just cannot see past this issue.

I see that there is much more to lose than to gain in joining together across these denominational boundaries. I would not and could not sign it.

Works Righteousness: The Most Popular (and Damning) False Gospel

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Guest: Mike Gendron, director, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

TRANSCRIPT

Works-righteousness.  It is the unifying belief of all false religions that man can earn a better afterlife based on the good things he/she does on earth.

John MacArthur talked about it last Saturday on The Christian Worldview.  He said, “The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes of this day, this age or any age are those who misrepresent the truth. Those who proclaim, or purvey false religion, a false Christ, a false Gospel and there are a myriad: certainly you can start with the cults, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons who have a false God, a false Christ, a false Gospel, a false everything. Read more

What Christians Must Learn From the Bold Confrontations of Christ

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Guest:  John MacArthur, author, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore

TRANSCRIPT

“What would Jesus do?”  That is the question Christians ask on any pressing issue of our day.  The answer almost always given portrays a meek and mild Jesus, a lovey-dovey Jesus, and above all, a non-confrontational Jesus.

But is that a full representation of who Jesus Christ really was and is? Read more

A Father’s Counsel to Sons

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW:

Guest: David’s Dad

Father’s Day Weekend is upon us and that means it’s time for the annual Father’s Day program on The Christian Worldview where I interview my 77-year-old father, Bruce Wheaton.

Married for 55 years, the father of four and grandfather to six, my dad has been a stable and wise influence on our family.  A mechanical engineer by trade and a do-it-yourself kind of man, my father, most importantly, has been a follower of Jesus Christ for 50 years.

This Saturday on my wedding day, I will ask my dad about what advice he would give to younger men on a variety of topics – singleness, marriage, fatherhood, career, faith, and more.  I will be listening closely and hope you will too.

Missing the Forest for all the Trees

John MacArthur has kicked off a bit of controversy with his posts on Song of Solomon and, in particular, with his rationale for doing so—addressing pastors who, when preaching through the book, “employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon’s poem.” In his first two articles he has singled out Mark Driscoll as one he considers a prime offender. This will be the last time the name Driscoll comes up in this article; I really do not want his name to sideline any discussion.

As I wrote in yesterday’s A La Carte, I think this is a discussion that we will all benefit from. I look forward to hearing what Dr. MacArthur has to say about Song of Solomon and a proper, biblical way of understanding, interpreting and preaching it. I think his long and faithful ministry has given him the right to speak out and speak up. We’d be foolish to immediately write him off as old and irrelevant and out-of-touch (as some are doing, based on what I’ve seen in blog comments). There is no need to be defensive here! The men he is writing against are all big boys and can handle what he says and the discussion that will ensue.

And already I have read some interesting discussion. For example, Erik Raymond gave me some things to think about when he gave two reasons that he is uncomfortable with all the talk of sex coming out of evangelicalism today. Here is what he wrote:

1. The emphasis upon sex has become so strong that it has begun to sound like our message. The danger here is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is regrettably assumed, neglected or forgotten. When many evangelicals begin to ride the waves of media popularity and are given a platform to speak, they sound more and more like sex coaches than ministers of a message. Somewhere along the way that which is of first importance gets shelved.

2. Most of the way in which these pastors handle the text is just flat out troubling. Often times we are given a reading of a verse or a section and then the pastor launches off into sexual advice and counsel. And when there is something that is legitimately debated among Bible teachers the issue is not dealt with responsibly (in my view) but rather quickly. The text then, which has not been adequately unpacked within its context, is then made prescriptive for the Christian.

I have listened to a couple of sermons of the kind MacArthur is reacting against—sermons which tend to look at Song of Solomon line-by-line, expressing how each metaphor, each poetic device, describes a particular part of the body or a particular sexual act. I have been bothered by such sermons for two reasons. The first lines up with what Erik wrote above: the poor handling of the text. Turning Song of Solomon into a how-to manual that describes or prescribes certain acts is to miss the point of the book. As MacArthur says, “It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love—in language suitable for any audience.”

The other reason is one for which I’d be interested in feedback. Song of Solomon is poetry and as such, should not be treated, exposited, in the same way as prose. Not too many people would disagree with this. It strikes me as well that Song of Solomon is substantially different from other kinds of biblical poetry. If we compare one of David’s Psalms to Song of Solomon we see that they are tangibly different. So while it may make sense to progress line-by-line through Psalm 119, interpreting each line, it seems to me that Song of Solomon does not give itself to this kind of interpretation. Song of Solomon is an expression of wonder, an expression of joy, an expression of mystery. Or that’s certainly how it appears to me. I don’t think we are supposed to understand it in a word-by-word, line-by-line sense as we might the book of Romans.

MacArthur quotes a few lines. They are worth reading just for the beauty of the poetry and the creativity of the imagery:

A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
A rock garden locked, a spring sealed up.
Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates
With choice fruits, henna with nard plants,
Nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon,
With all the trees of frankincense,
Myrrh and aloes, along with all the finest spices.
You are a garden spring,
A well of fresh water,
And streams flowing from Lebanon.”
Awake, O north wind,
And come, wind of the south;
Make my garden breathe out fragrance,
Let its spices be wafted abroad.
May my beloved come into his garden
And eat its choice fruits!”

MacArthur says it right, I’m sure, when he says “Let’s face it: overall, the Song is about as far from explicit as the writer can get.” Had the author wanted to be explicit, he could have done so. Instead, he wrote in poetry, in metaphor, carefully crafting a poem that is full of mystery. “Song of Solomon is incredibly beautiful precisely because it is so carefully veiled. It is a perfect description of the wonderful, tender, intimate discovery that God designed to take place between a young man and his bride in a place of secrecy. We are not told in vivid terms what all the metaphors mean, because the beauty of marital passion is in the eye of the beholder—where it should stay.” To remove the veil is to remove the beauty!

So here is what I am wondering. Don’t we do damage to the Song of Solomon when we seek to interpret and explain every line? To use an old cliche, don’t we miss the forest for the trees? Isn’t it better to leave some mystery in the Song, understanding themes but ultimately finding satisfaction not in drawing a one-to-one comparison between metaphor and act, poetry and body part, but rather in seeing it as one man’s attempt at expressing the joy, the wonder and the mystery of sex and sexuality? Isn’t the very reason he had to use poetry was that prose just couldn’t express the wonder? The beauty and the mystery of the Song go hand-in-hand. To remove one is to remove the other.

“The Rape of Solomon’s Song”

John MacArthur wrote the first in a series of articles today on an issue we’ve covered a couple times in recent months on The Christian Worldview Radio Program — the current trend for pastors to be sexually graphic in their preaching.  I included the first two paragraphs of MacArthur’s column below (with a link to the full article — please read it) and then a comment I wrote in response on the Shepherds’ Fellowship blog.

MacArthur starts his column by writing…

“Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. The defenders of this trend solemnly inform us that without such a strategy it is well-nigh impossible to connect with today’s “culture.” (In contemporary evangelicalism that term has become a convenient label for just about everything that is uncultured and uncouth.)

Sermons about sex have suddenly become a bigger fad in the evangelical world than the prayer of Jabez ever was. Everywhere, it seems, churches are featuring special series on the subject. Some of them advertise with suggestive billboards purposely designed to offend their communities’ conservative sensibilities.”  Read full MacArthur column…

My post-column comment…

Mark Driscoll is so wrong on so many levels and he needs to immediately repent:

1. He’s gone way over the biblical line in dealing with sexual topics by uploading videos to YouTube about “biblical oral sex” for the general public to view, including children and singles, joking about masturbation on CNN, and by generally lowering the sacredness of Christ and Scripture. Al Mohler said it best, “We should be as explicit as Scripture is … and no more.” By account of any mature, Spirit-filled believer, Driscoll has transgressed this line.

2. Driscoll, who is 38 years young, knows very well that he is going against the counsel of far older, more mature and experienced shepherds of the faith like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Al Mohler. Only a pastor stuck in his own conceit wouldn’t heed the wise counsel of these older, godly men. In my opinion, John Piper is getting used by Driscoll and the favored line that “Driscoll has repented and is changing and John Piper is mentoring him” is baseless in reality. (Note to John Piper: if Driscoll stays on present course with you providing cover, beware lest your ministry and the glory of God be tarnished.)

3. Unless Driscoll is completely ignorant or so blinded by his own arrogance, he should know that his graphic content offends the consciences of weaker Christians, and if for no other reason than 1 Corinthians 10, he should clean up his act so that weaker brothers’ consciences aren’t offended. I am a Christian radio talk show host and when the head of a major Christian radio network emails me the night before I’m going to do a program on Driscoll and “the pornification of the pulpit” warning me to not offend the listening audience, and when I am personally convicted that I would be disobeying Scripture by playing sound bites of a Christian pastor’s content (i.e. Driscoll’s) on Christian radio, that pretty much sums up how wrong Driscoll is.

Finally, it’s irrelevant that Driscoll “has helped me so much spiritually” or “he’s reaching the young and urban generation” or “he’s started so many churches” — the same or similar could be said of Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller. The bottom line is that Driscoll is unrepentantly perpetuating extra-biblical sinful content and needs to stop sullying the holiness of God and Scripture and the pulpit … NOW.

Does anyone, including Driscoll, really think that if he toned it back to the biblical line that people wouldn’t listen to him or be reached? Please. There’s nothing new under the Seattle sun (or is it rain?) that wasn’t present in the hearts of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago that the clear and sound preaching of the gospel can’t redeem.

As for me, I will pray that Mark Driscoll stops causing this unnecessary division, that he will repent of his sinful ways, that he will listen to his elders in the faith, and that he will fulfill the pastoral potential that God has given to him.

« Previous Page — Next Page »