Update: In order to pursue integrity with these series of posts, I am providing primary source material so that we can more helpfully understand each of our brothers without speculation. It is always safer to hear from them directly. Below is a second clip of Mark's public repentance before his congregation at Mars Hill. 
In this series on the controversy between Phil Johnson and Mark Driscoll, I’ve sought to provide the reader with some historical background as well as source material related to the debate. Since Phil Johnson preached his recent message “Sound Doctrine; Sound Words” or (On the Pornification of the Pulpit) in which he implicated Driscoll as one of a number of pastors who abuses the pulpit by using “unsound words,” Phil’s received both praise and criticism. But as far as I’m aware, Mark has chosen not to answer Phil’s criticisms directly. Instead, he’s chosen to remain silent for now.
Silence in the face of criticism can be a virtue (2 Samuel 26:11; Proverbs 11:12; 26:4; Isaiah 53:7; Luke 23:9; Acts 8:32). On the other hand, some may be tempted to interpret Driscoll’s silence as a tacit admission of guilt and stubborn refusal to repent. [1] There is some reason, however, to question such a negative construal of Driscoll’s silence. In point of fact, Phil Johnson is not the first to criticize Mark. A number of well-known, veteran pastors have lovingly confronted Mark about what they perceived as deficiencies in his ministry. Below is Mark’s public statement of repentance and expression of gratitude for those who have loved him enough to correct him.
It would be wrong to judge Phil’s heart and motives. Phil’s zeal for God’s honor and the dignity of the pulpit is clearly expressed in his sermon. We should assume that he’s concerned for Mark’s sanctification and usefulness. Some, however, question whether a spirit of gentleness and meekness have characterized Phil’s manner of correction. Since we don’t have the 6-page letter Phil sent to Mark informing him of his concerns about Mark’s preaching and his plans to address the subject at the Shepherd’s Conference, we can’t form a definitive conclusion. Whatever the case, this controversy should highlight the importance not only of a proper goal in biblical correction but also of a proper manner.
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted (Galatians 6:1, ESV).
1 Phil Johnson claims to have sent a 6-page letter in December, highlighting deficiencies in Mark’s ministry and use of language and asking Mark to reply to six concerns. Mark sent a reply a week before the conference, which Phil alleges “ignored” his concerns. This has led Phil to the conclusion, “Driscoll clearly does not take his critics very seriously. Communication with him hasn’t done anything so far to convince me that he understands (or wants to understand) the concerns some of us have tried to express to him.” (source)
9 comments:
This is fascinating! Thanks for posting this. After reading all of your posts it seems to me that Phil Johnson has not honored Mark Driscoll or treated him in a fair way. Listening to that sound bite shows that Mark is willing to receive criticism, but apparently not from Phil Johnson. I hope Phil will be more humble.
The discussion regarding trying to define the difference between what is happening in the camp of the reformed churches is valid one. I don’t know if I like being called a Reformed Fundamentalist but I will take it over being called a Reformed Contemporary. I agree that this is really at the heart of what is happening in the Reformed camps. I would observe that a lot of this has already taken place in modern evangelicalism and that it is spreading in the Reformed wing as well. Throw a little Calvinism in with it and you got a way of adding some course language with the reformed preaching that is a little bit in your face. I have taken and listened to quite a bit of Mr. Driscol’s preaching this night. I have viewed the Nightline clip. I have also listened to all of Phil Johnson’s sermon. (this is the first time I have ever heard him preach and I know very little about him) By the way you can find the MP3 of his sermon here http://www.thegracelifepulpit.com/philsermons.htm which is not missing the last 5 mins or so of the message. Just fast forward to about the 57 minute mark and you will hear what is missing in the missing 7th YouTube video. I can understand why Robert Briggs would like to see Phil’s preaching at this point but I believe the intonation of his voice is clear enough.
I greatly appreciated Phil’s message and he swayed my judgment by how he handled the Word of God and the subject. I know that Robert Briggs noted that he came very close to misrepresenting what Mark Driscol said regarding the Eccl passage when he said that that is a bad joke. This was in the Nightline clip and I found the whole question and answer thing that Mark Driscol does on YouTube and listened to it. Did Mark present it as a joke? Maybe not but he used it for reaction and he got laughter out of it and to me, my impression was that that was his purpose. The whole subject of masturbation and how he handled it I thought was fair even though I do not agree with his final assessment. I have also heard a Reformed “Fundamentalist” pastor preaching a sermon where it was one of the topics in the sermon and he handle it with far better skill and in a much more convincing and biblical way in its presentation. In my assessment Mark Driscol used the scripture in a very dishonoring way. Would he be able to use God’s word in that way if God were present in the form of our Lord or in the way Moses was with God? I would guess that he would say yes he could by how he handled other questions put to him by the reporter. However any man who has been in the presence of God in the bible has been on his face before him. Not using his word out of context in a joking way with a far different reaction. I truly believe it was right for Phil Johnson to go after that as he also did the triple XXX church and the man in Texas as well as the others. That is right and biblical.
Who of us could say we do not deal with our pride? I would venture none of us if we are honest with ourselves. In the Nightline clip Mark Driscol is asked that question in light of his great popularity and he states that he does have to struggle with it and work on it. I personally would not want to be in his shoes. I believe that Robert Briggs made the point about his position and the responsibility. We know that James wrote chapter 3 verse 1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. I would want to be very careful and concerned that all my works would be burned up like chaff.
I know that you are trying to be balanced and don’t what things like this to polarize people but I do believe that when one sees wrong and sin they should point it out publicly as Phil Johnson did because what has been done has been in public and not only to the church but the un-churched and pagans. Has this brought glory to God or has it brought shame and a snare? You have made the point on each one of the posts that you are waiting for Mark to respond and that you believe he is handling it well in not responding but you are still looking for that response and expect that he needs to respond. I wonder when he will respond and how he will respond. If it is as he did with Phil, after Phil gave him advance notice and asked 6 questions, without Mark answering any of them, and then sending a video in the way he did then I would be of the mind to expect the same from him on this as well. Of course I am not infallible; I don’t know the man nor do I know the man’s heart or his ways. I have only ever heard of his name once or twice in the past ( I know I am sheltered) however the way he did respond to Phil Johnson smacks of arrogance to me and not of one answering the questions and giving a defense of why or even coming and saying I hear you but I disagree. He did not do it in a God honoring way. His arguments of why he uses the language that he does and the other methods from the two clips from John Pipers conference don’t hold water with me either. Again Phil’s sermon was far more convincing and biblical to me. It held my conscience. I believe that if a man of Mark Driscol’s God given talent and gift could be changed he could be a significant tool in God’s hand. You might disagree and believe he already is by the numbers that follow and listen to him. Only time and the day of judgment will bear out if I am right or not in my thoughts and assessment.
Rob
I appreciate your comments. I would like to see those last five minutes on video. Hopefully they will post them on youtube soon.
There are many good things happening across the US in terms of Reformed truth but with that comes dangers and controversy.
Phil's marker is one aspect of the issue. There are other things in need of evaluation too. I think Jonathan's concern is for unity if at all possible. Something that fundamentalism historically is less willing to give its energy to.
May the Lord grant us wisdom to learn from the past and weigh out carefully what we say especially in controversy.
RB
Part 7 IS online and has been for days. What's the problem?
"Phil Johnson claims to have sent a 6-page letter in December"
it seems like you think there may be a reason to doubt the truth of that "claim"
can you fill us in?
My purpose was not to cast doubt. My purpose was to highlight the fact that Phil mentioned this on his own blog. I am sure in fact he did write this letter. Thanks for asking.
Thanks for continuing to put this info on your Blog...I really appreciate it.
I think that the issue of "fundamentalism" may present one valid concern for this discussion.
I see a danger that people who even agree on what is appropriate may be separated as some people are willing to have a degree of fellowship even with people they disagree with. I fear that some people may create an additional test of fellowship in which they not only want to know what you believe, how you conduct yourself, but also who you are willing to show charity towards. For my part, I am not going to cut off people because they take sides, or even disagree with me on this issue.
In your thinking is this part of your concern regarding polarization and division? do you have any thoughts on this?
Hey I found part 7 thanks Anonymous, do you have a real name?
Having listened again to Phil J I realise just how firmly planted his marker is on Mark Driscoll. It was even tougher on Driscoll than I first realised with the initial address.
I do believe that Driscoll should respond to it. It can seem wise to say nothing but for the sake of peace and unity it is something worthy of response whatever that may look like.
Concerning repentance, that entails some change right?
Driscoll hasn't budged in his methods, though he apologizes he in turn continues to do it over and over, if that wasn't bad enough (which all might fall into) he also defend his use of words and mocks his critics. Yet he'll praise Rick Warren!
Phil had biblical warrant to point out public issues and for the greater purpose of discouraging pastors from feeling like they need to use these things in order to be effective. That's the big picture at stake- Driscoll is usually invited to seminaries because he's their example of 'contextualization' and so many young guys (many of the same guys enjoying comedyCentral/MTV garbage) find this novelty very impressive (who needs to be taught to do this?? it's natural).
Phil CRUSHED the idea that you have to do this in ANY city in the world. That's Driscoll's selling point 'look at my big church, i'm reformed and i have mega-churc so let me teach you' yet history will show that's NOT true. Spurgeon REFUSED to dazzle people, Spurgeon reached the masses. Even MacArthur (who i rarely listen to) has reached poor and rich, rappers, rockers, thugs, business people and that with biblical expostion!
Boldness isn't about attitude it's about being bold to stand upon the scriptures.
Post a Comment