First, a quick summary: Three weeks ago, Phil Johnson gave a lecture at the Shepherds Conference. Among other things, the message seemed to be directed toward to Mark Driscoll. I listened very carefully to this lecture, and while he did not refer to Mark Driscoll directly, he did in fact allude to Mark Driscoll by saying,"The New York Times Magazine recently did a feature article on Mark Driscoll in which this was a major theme. "Who Would Jesus Smack Down?" was the title of the article. Here's the lead sentence: "Mark Driscoll's sermons are mostly too racy to post on [an] evangelical Christian 'family friendly' . . . Web site." (source)
Three days after this lecture, Johnson wrote answers to objections and questions he received regarding that lecture. Johnson's post, entitled, "Preachin' Dirty" is the account of those answers.
What I am seeking to do in this series of posts is to provide a careful account of what has been said, so that we can render an informed opinion about the matter. In fact, my desire is to honor God by carefully tracing the events as they happened, and then render some biblical conclusions. Integrity and charity are always at stake, so I want to be careful.
In the first post I provided a bit of the history behind the relationship and correspondence between Phil Johnson and Mark Driscoll, from Phil's perspective. But that leaves us with Mark. What does Mark have to say? Well, this is a bit tricky. It appears that Mark has been rather silent on the issue. While Mark has done some serious thinking about his use of language in the pulpit, he does not seem to have said much (if anything) regarding his attitude or thoughts toward Phil Johnson. With that said, there is one interesting comment from Mark Driscoll.
It appears that a few hours after Phil Johnson gave his talk Mark Driscoll posted this comment on his Twitter site: "Mark Driscoll is meditating on Proverbs 26:4". (source)
Now, I am not implying that this is Mark's clever response to Phil Johnson. It may be. But then again, it may have nothing to do with it. Can we assume a relationship between Phil's talk and Mark's post? I do not know. I simply do not want to conjecture. It is interesting to note, however, the timing of Mark's comment. Phil Johnson, gave his plenary lecture at 9:00 AM (PDT) and Mark Driscoll left his comment at 1:07 PM (PDT) on the same day.
Besides this comment, Mark has said nothing in response to Phil Johnson. I am not sure he will. This may very well be to Mark's credit. One possibility may be that Mark is seeking to honor God by avoiding the polarizing effect this might create, "I'm of Phil", I'm of Mark" etc. If that is the case, what Mark has done seems to be wise and commendable. At the appropriate time, I do hope he responds.
Now, having said all that, Mark has responded many times and in many forms to other such criticisms of his preaching. In my next post, I will be highlighting some of Mark's answers to critics like Phil Johnson.
Update: Some have asked how John Piper feels about Mark Driscoll. After the DG conference in 2006, many attendees probably heard John Piper offer some public exhortations/criticisms of Mark Driscoll after he left the conference.
In summary, he was concerned that Mark tried to be too clever and that this could diminish his preaching of the gospel and he was also concerned that other preachers would try to emulate him, with negative effects. However, so that others would know, Mark Driscoll posted a blog entitled, "Thank You, Dr. John Piper" on October 4, 2006 as a means of affirming his love for John and to indicate that there was no breach in their relationship.
I still have an e-mail correspondence from October 1, 2006, between John and Mark which I gathered from the Resurgence. Apparently, it is no longer available. I am not sure why. According to Steve McCoy, John gave Mark the green light to post it on his website. If you are interested in that exchange, let me know. I will be happy to share it with you.
Update II: Driscoll's latest Twitter comment is interesting. It reads, "PastorMark is knocking out the sermon 4 tomorrow btween Little League practices, listening to Jimmy Eat World, pondering good counsel 2day from John Piper." March 21, 2009 12:10 PDT (source)
8 comments:
Following on Jonathan,
I am glad and I did know that John Piper is working with Mark. I do believe having read 'Confessions of a Reformissional Rev' that Mark is moving in the right direction but that he also needs to be careful in the way he expresses himself.
I am aware of conversations with some of the well-known men behind close doors that indicate a need for Mark to grow in certain regards. Who does not need to grow?
My only concern as I stated on RBS Tabletalk is the importance Mark needs to see in the profile he now has. With privilege comes responsibility, he needs to understand this and act accordingly.
These are exciting and encouraging days. Our focus must be as you said honesty and charity and hopefully commitment to unity without compromise.
In ten years, MD will no longer be in the news. Unless there is a change in the churches here in America, men in the pulpit will be even more outrageous and ridiculous.
dc
Driscoll isn't answering Johnson because he can't biblically do so. Phil has "shut his (Driscoll's) mouth"
Jonathon, thanks for trying to show both sides of this issue. I have listened to Driscoll, and benefited from a lot of his ministry. But I think that he steps over the line on occasion. Like others I am happy that he is having contact with some older/wiser men int he ministry. In a number of ways, his speech reminds me of some of the things I have read from Martin Luther (who I also believed stepped over the line).
I also listened to Phil Johnson's talk, and though I agree with much of what he said, I scratched my head about his remarks concerning Driscoll, because I have actually listened to quite a few of his messages and felt like he (PJ) did not accurately represent his (MD's) ministry. I think that it is a shame that there are probably Christians who will only hear one side of the issue and end up making a decision without all the facts. This is all the more serious because at one point Phil Johnson made reference to separating in fellowship from certain people...He didn't say Driscoll was one of those, but it was just vague enough that someone could misunderstand. I think that if someone wants to suggest to the church that they should cut off someone from fellowship then the burden of proof is VERY high.
Paul said, "as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just." (Romans 3:8) I think we need to be very careful when we quote other Christians that we do not break the 10th commandment while trying to protect the other ones. I think that putting the clips on your blog is a good way for people to hear for themselves. I am not aware that there are clips of the talk from the shepherd conference, but that would be good to have as well, so that people can listen to them together.
Thanks Matt. I have posted a link to Phil's talk in video form. Were you referring to something else?
Thanks Jonathon, I see the clip now and appreciate it. This is a good way to see both sides.
Perhaps my opinion would be discounted as undiscerning as I have not yet been offended (rather, sanctified) by Driscoll's speech or written word. Here is a man honest enough to speak what so many other pastors are thinking anyway! For this, he is criticized by many who wish to keep that cup 'washed on the outside'. Sometimes I am convinced that christians have made themselves 'holier than God'...I have read countless controversial passages in my own Bible and I'm surprised it's still acceptable reading in many churches. This is just one of those times when I am ashamed; and it's not of MD.
I am listening to Johnson's message on YouTube, and I have noticed several reference to Seattle. Isn't that where Driscoll is located? Wouldn't these references also be aimed at him?
Post a Comment