Do Potty-Mouthed Pastors Belong In The SBC?

The Church band singing “Highway to Hell” to start off worship is appropriate?

Wow! That’s all I can say at this moment….Wow!

David

I’m not one of those who uses strong language from the pulpit – it would be my last Sunday if I did. But I think there is a point here that needs to be heard. Some of the bloggers I have seen who have been the hardest on Mark Driscoll have also been people who engage regularly in harsh criticism and derogation of others.

It is the common effort of legalism to substitute a simple rule for a godly attitude. In other words, I can engage in gossip, slander, backbiting, harsh and unloving speech, but as long as I do not use the “seven words” I’m alright.

I do not advocate the dirty words. But there is much more to godly speech than just not using four-letter words.

Or, to put it another way, I know several folks who refuse to speak four letter words – including love!

Dave Millers last blog post..The Best Preaching Ever?

Never mind the fact that the song was based on an actual highway in Australia that had that nickname (which people conveniently ignore). Can anyone disagree that with a Christian perspective that song is the perfect illustration of the second half of Romans 1? I correct myself, does anyone who actually knows the lyrics disagree? 😉

That’s an extremely appropriate intro to a sermon on said text or even to a sermon/series on hell. Don’t agree? Go look up the lyrics, then read the second half of Romans 1.

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

I don’t that strong language is really the issue of the current debate on language. I believe it has more to do with lewdness.

For example, if I were to say that some in the congregation may want to check themselves and how they dress. Recently some women have been wearing skirts that you can see right up when sitting down and tops that expose too much. Etc…etc.

Is that understandable? Is there any sub-culture in America, whether agree or disagree, that would really have trouble understanding?

—Below is for illustrative purposes only—

Now, what if I instead said – I want to encourage some of you women out there to put more clothes on your x-rated parts. We don’t need to see your crotch and your behind when you sit down. And we don’t need to see your t*ts. Now cover up!
—end of illustration—

Now, was the second way of stating the issue really necessary?

Mark

P.s. The Highway to Hell song was a bit much. I think I understand the point, but it seems to not glorify in the area where worship is taking place. At the same time, pastors do use illustrations in speech to make points in their sermons. Music just has a more powerful influence though.

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Interview with Mark McCallum Author of Taking Three

Stephen,

AC/DC used to be one of my favorite bands when I was a teen. In fact, I still like them….the good songs they sing..which arent many. I also owned the 8 track of AC/DC’s Highway to Hell. I used to listen to it often as I was on my way to Hell. I would party with my friends, drinking liquor and smoking weed, as we listened to AC/DC. So, I think I know AC/DC pretty well. And, Highway to Hell would never be appropriate for worshipping God.

Here’s a sample of the lyrics….”Hey satan, payed my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey momma, look at me
Im on my way to the promised land….”

Real good stuff to worship the Lord with…..hummmmm?

David

I think any language is fine…so long as it lives up to the four tests of Eph. 4:29:
1. Is it “corrupting talk?” If so, then it’s out. If not, then proceed to #2.
2. Is it “good for building up?” If so, then it’s okay. Proceed to #3.
3. Does it “fit the occasion?” If not, then it’s out. If so, then proceed to #4.
4. Does it “give grace to those who hear?” If so, then speak it. If not, forget it.

Deek Dubberlys last blog post..5 Things I Miss About Home; 5 Things I Like About Here

I think that maybe I will preach on sex next week at my church. I will start off the service with AC/DC’s “You Shook Me All Night Long.” How appropriate do yall think that would be? It deals with the subject matter. It will shock people into listening to the message.

What do ya think?

David

I saw this AC/DC performance a couple of weeks ago as it began to circulate around the web. Everything within me tells me this brings no honor to God. I am open though to be persuaded otherwise. I checked out its place in the order of service, and it was the lead into the corporate worship (at least on the video on Newspring’s site). The on screen presentation was the only thing presenting a correction to the song. I assume the pastor addressed it in the sermon, but I do not have much time to devote to Newspring sermons.

So after examining some of the context, here are some questions and thoughts I have:

Although it appeared the congregation did not sing along (thank goodness), the lead singer seemed to be enjoying the song thoroughly. How does that work?

With what appeared to be no explanation other than the text on the screen, as a viewer, I am confused. Highway to Hell is not a good thing according to the message on screen, but the band performed so passionately.

How does the singer separate himself from the words of the song? I am not aware if the singer himself made any vocal correction to the theme of the song.

I really tried to push myself on this issue. And the closest thing I could compare it to is when preachers commonly quote something we disagree with and then make the biblical correction. Here we have something sung which we hopefully disagree with, then a biblical disagreement was put on the screen.

There seems to me to be too much disconnect here.

Stephen, I looked up the lyrics and could not disagree more. The song itself is not praiseworthy. It praises hell as the promised land. The Scripture is praiseworhty because it not only gives the problem but it applies the remedy. The song praises the problem. I cannot see how it gives honor to God.

Please, give some push back.

Jason

One’s gotta love Paul Tripp. He views the Bible not defining wholesome communication in a “vocabulary way” but in a “intentionary way. In other words, if I intend grace by my words, they are appropriate words: “The Bible says, ‘wholesome communication is intended to give grace to the hearer.’ Wowie, Zowie!”

Hence, the S-word is a perfectly legitimate conversational venue if it can be spoken in a grace setting. “I I could use the word, S—- in a way that could give you grace, I’d say it.” Contrarily, if a context exists where grace cannot be ministered to another for edification, it should not be used. Tripp sums it up by affirming, “the intention is the issue there; I’m called to love you like Christ loved me.”

The immediate problem is Tripp’s self-defeating assertion: if the issue truly is intention, as Tripp suggests, then no amount of contextual matters cancel out the use. In other words, if one employs the S-word with the sincere intention of speaking grace to another it makes no difference if the plan failed to offer grace; it was the intention which was, for Tripp, the issue at stake. One is reminded of the old adage, ‘one can be sincere but be sincerely wrong.”

With that, I am…
Peter

peters last blog post..The Culture of Death Continues Its March by Peter Lumpkins

Is there dirty language in the mouth of God through the OT prophets and through the mouth of the Holy of the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul?

Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak

Peter,

Why don’t you take your S******** down the road. Then, maybe our conversations can be more gracious.

What
did
I
actually
say?

Why don’t you take your Starbucks down the road. Then, maybe our conversations can be more gracious.

See, by down the road I mean somewhere between our homes in the metro-Atlanta area. Then we can be gracious over a cup of java.

I tried, but ended up using the wrong s-word. Guess you’re right!
🙂
Mark

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Bodies The Exhibition Visit

No, in my opinion, Potty-mouthed Pastors do not belong in the SBC. And Highway to Hell is not appropriate to use in either evangelism or the church. And…for the very reasons that Peter and David(volfan) have given. Scriptures are clear in my opinion. If we are to be who we are in Christ, the above has no place in our lives. It is the very thing Christ saved us from hell and potty mouth.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..John MacArthur’s Response To Christians High Divorce Rate According To A Poll, His Response May Surprise You

I also understand the argument of the number of supposed converts that ministers using this method are having, but I would question how many are “converted” because of the music and the language used, and how many are truly converted because they recognize they are sinners in need of a Savior.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..John MacArthur’s Response To Christians High Divorce Rate According To A Poll, His Response May Surprise You

I can’t believe that this topic is even up for debate. Like it or not, pastors are supposed to be role models, not culturally cool. Profanity from any pulpit for any purpose is unacceptable to me.

Les Puryears last blog post..Why I Signed the GCR

Les,

I can’t help but agree with you.

Mark

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Dynamite Sermon Illustrations

Matt,

I can think of a lot of things that are not appropriate in the pulpit, but they are very appropriate outside the pulpit. Things like going to the bathroom, a man and his wife smooching and more, eating a big steak, and much, much more. Right?

But, I agree that we should try to be holy and stay close to God in the pulpit and outside.

David

Like Les, I’m a bit surprised this is even being debated. Look to the example of the sermons of Christ… very strong content but nothing approaching potty-talk. And what is the purpose of corporate worship… praising God or relating to sinners? It is the assembly of God’s people to hear His Word. Certain words and certain songs should not be used, in private or public.

Matt,

I don’t think profanity for any use is acceptable. Then we are probably left with defining “use”.

Since we are talking about the pulpit the view is a bit different. An elders qualifications are based on his character prior to the pulpit. It seems that God doesn’t want pastors who are just “pastors” behind the pulpit. So yes, my objection extends to all of life.

Even so, if a friend of mine were to use such language regularly I’d call him out. How much more a pastor?

Mark

P.s. This doesn’t mean I opposed to strong language. Again, it’s the lewdness, the profanity.

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Interview with Mark McCallum Author of Taking Three

Peter et al., Paul Tripp is 100% correct when he says that profanity is based on intention and not on vocabulary. In fact, it is completely indefensible to say that the Bible defines wholesome speech in vocabulary way because of the way that language shifts. Profanity (and as Tripp argues for even sarcasm) is cultural based. Thus it would be anachronistic to say something like “We never see Jesus say the F-word” since even if he had, the F-word was not a vulgar thing to say until the Middle Ages. When you say, “[According to Tripp,] if one employs the S-word with the sincere intention of speaking grace to another it makes no difference if the plan failed to offer grace,” you are setting up a strawman. Intending to speak grace to a person comes with the reasonable expectation that that grace will be received. Thus, if I sincerely want to use the S-word to speak grace to someone but I have reason to believe that they will receive that word as offensive then it would be a lie to say that if in using it I am “intending” to speak grace. A good example I see of this is the word ‘sucks.’ For many older people this immediately connotes oral sex. However I cannot tell you the last time (if ever) that association came to my mind from this word. ‘Sucks’ in the environment I’m from is analogous to ‘really stinks’ which itself is slang for ‘something that is not very good or desirable.’ Thus, if I say ‘sucks’ around a 50 year old woman I always run the risk of offending her, but if I say “Sometimes I really suck at following God’s will” to a class full of 20-year olds everyone will understand what I’m saying and is not very likely to get offended by it. (And no, like many people want to argue, this is not just “trying to be cool.” Such a ridiculous assumption.) And don’t say, “Well, if you have to change your vocabulary in a certain environment then you should just not say it at all” because then you would never be allowed to say ‘propitiation’ since only about 15% of your hearers (even in church) will understand you. Context and discernment are key. Of course, it really doesn’t surprise me that many Southern Baptists miss this point, since it is basically the… Read more »

This is clearly a Garden of Eden debate: “Did God *really* say….?”
In Ephesians 4:29, the answer is loud and clear: Yes. He. Did.
That ought to settle it. For this minister, it does.
But for others, it won’t settle it. There is, I have noticed, a tendency now by some pseudo-evangelicals in the SBC to veer into supra-biblical appeals to human authority reminiscent of other denominations (Catholics: popes, Lutherans: Luther, Methodists: Wesley, SBC Calvinists: Calvin and the Puritans). So even though God’s Word itself is crystal-clear on this point, Eph 4:29 itself won’t suffice for the “did God *really* say” folks. So much for sola Scriptura.
So let’s take it down a notch and also throw in an appeal to human authority: no less a biblical authority than John Piper, who was at the same “Desiring God” conference as the one where potty-mouthed Paul Tripp’s You Tube video came from. Piper does, I believe, an excellent job of explaining Eph 4:29-30 in “Make Your Mouth a Means of Grace,” a sermon preached Oct. 12, 1986, at Bethlehem Baptist.
Here is the link:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper86/jp860005.htm
Piper is on target with his handling of the Greek text. “Sapros,” for “unwholesome,” means rotten. Rottennness is independent of “intent.”
And speaking of rotten, beware of “strange fire” in worship. The alleged pastor who used “Highway to Hell” as a bridge to his sermon probably should have preached on Leviticus 10:3 that day!
Selah.

Colossians 3:8
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

I guess the filthy communication would cover words like s***, and G**d**n, and making jokes about masturbation in or out of the pulpit, or talking about committing sodomy with your wife…dont you think?

David

Or, is it legalistic to try to obey the Scriptures.

lol.

David

So, do you guys think that there is anyone here denying that Ephesians 4.29 or Colossians 3.8 are in the Bible? I can’t imagine anybody on this site takes issue with those verses, but it’s possibly the application that leaves something to be desired. My question is, from a linguistic point of view, just how clear is Ephesians 4.29? Some apparently think it is crystal clear, but I would certainly challenge that.

Rottenness may be independent of intent as was just mentioned, but the question is how does that speech become rotten? Words in themselves are morally neutral, a string of phonemes connected together whose sound is associated with a specific mental concept. Thus the speech is only rotten if it’s intended to convey rotten concepts. In fact, if you look at the text of the Piper message referenced by John you will see that he says,

“What’s the big deal with saying, ‘Shut up,’ to your sister? It’s not swearing. . . Why get so worked up? What’s really so bad about it? The answer is that when I said, “Shut up!” to my sister, it was mean. There was no affection and no good will and no kindness in it. It was ugly. There was no moral beauty, no holiness, no love.”

That is an expression of intent. Likewise he later goes on to say, “The final kind of language I think Paul would call rotten is mean-spirited language—like, ‘Shut up!’ The words themselves are untarnished. But the usage is vicious and loveless.” This is where we are at. No one can seriously stand here and say “F- you” for Jesus. But, when it comes to things like ‘sucks’ or ‘shut up’ or ‘crap’ we are entering that dreaded area where we actually have to use our brains and discern right from wrong.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Faith in the Time of Pluralism- Obama Communicates the Mantra of the Masses

David,
I wonder how seriously you take Matthew 18.15-17 or 2 Corinthians 12.20? I guess these passages get flouted when one considers the incessant passive-aggressive gossip being uttered about Mark Driscoll.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Faith in the Time of Pluralism- Obama Communicates the Mantra of the Masses

Todd, We are talking about potty mouthed Pastors, not Mark Driscoll, nor Matt. 18, nor 2 Cor. 12. Although, I guess you could add Mark Driscoll into this discussion, as you did, and we could add him into this discussion very easily because he does use words and say phrases that are vulgar and nasty. I have nothing against Mark Driscoll personally. I dont even know the man. But, I do know some of the things he has preached from the pulpit, and I would encourage him and anyone else to not say things like that in the pulpit. And, yes, Todd, when we use words..in our culture….like s***, and GD, and call someone a Bit**, those would certainly be dealt with in Col. 3 and Eph. 4. Todd, dont you think that cusswords were around in the day of Jesus? I’d imagine so. Right now, you can go to other cultures, and they have cusswords in thier language…words and phrases that would be considered vulgar, nasty, and cussing. I would imagine that they had those words in Jesus day as well…..maybe we dont have them written in the NT for a reason?????? But, yes, there are many words that we say, and we dont think of them as as bad as other words. You bring up some good examples, like crap, and darn, and dang, and shut up, etc. Those are words that have become acceptable in our culture. Just like in the South, someone might say, “That cotton-pickin’ snake tried to bite me.” “Cotton-pickin'” is not a bad word. Of course, it means picking cotton. How it came to mean something bad….I have no idea. But, it’s used that way in the South, and it’s not considered vulgar, nasty, or crude. But, if you talk about having sex with your wife…in detail….that is considered filthy talk. So, I guess what I’m trying to say is….yes, a lot of times the culture does dictate what is considered nasty, filthy communication. But, whatever it is in that culture….we shouldnt do it. Dont you agree? If I’m in Zambia as a missionary. And, they think that calling someone a “monkey’s uncle” is awful and mean spirited…then I shouldnt say that…should I? in Zambia? But, Todd, I think that you would have to agree that some talk and joking is nasty and vulgar and filthy in whatever language or culture you might… Read more »

Funny. There is a level of intention in our language. Tone may play a role as well as our choice of words.

An example of vocabulary coming into play. I’ve had two years of Spanish in high school and one year of Japanese in college. What do you think the first words we new language students wanted to know? Cuss words! And guess what? Those native speakers of the language we found had no trouble relaying those very words. It wasn’t some extraneous task of interpretation and de-contextualization.

We certainly live in such a world that the developed parts understand the language coming out of the USA. I doubt there is much question as to what our cuss words mean and imply.

The other aspect is that even if purely cultural those verses of warning are in our Bible. So they must mean something to someone. That someone is us and I believe we know exactly what they mean.

Why do you think you hear unbelievers who are attracted to a certain pastor in a certain sub-culture say something like, “I didn’t know pastors could talk like that!” It’s because even those unbelievers understand the difference in language.

I get essentially the same TV networks, movies, video rentals, news and pay channels here in GA as someone in WA.

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Book Review and Giveaway: Taking Three

David,
I fully agree with you that there would have been certain profane words in Jesus’ time. My point is, what was profane in that language is not necessarily profane in ours and vice-versa, nor is what is profane at a given time necessarily profane later.

You know this, just from the simple fact that it was not okay for observant Jews to say the Tetragrammaton Yahweh during biblical times, but now it is no longer considered profane to utter God’s name. Or better yet, in Quebec, the strongest profanities are words associated with the Catholic liturgy. My point being, we can’t just decry all things we think are potty-language without discernment, but that tends to be the overall push from most (all?) the people who are raising these complaints.

As for your question of if I agree that we shouldn’t say things that the culture deems vulgar, I do agree. My contention has never meant to be against this, my contention is that we need to take care that we actually know what the culture deems vulgar before cannibalizing people, since in my experience the church (and the SBC in particular) tend to have a bad read on the culture even when it’s the one they’re living in.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Faith in the Time of Pluralism- Obama Communicates the Mantra of the Masses

Potty mouth is a sad commentary. We all, I rather suspect, suffer from the urge to utter expletives deleted remarks. But it ought to make us weep as poor representations of our Savior. Personally, I hate it when I am moved to use such terminology. I try to avoid it like the plague. I slept in the same room for 11 yrs. with a man with the mind of a six yr. old who raved and cursed for hrs. on end, day and night. It is enough to make one weep for all of us, male and female, young and old, educated and uneducated, that the whole nation has come to the point where gutter language is so freely used. I do know that graphic words can accomplish purposes. I was once saved by a man yelling curses at a dog that was trying to chew me up. On the other hand, the violence and other evils so often incidental to such language ought to grieve us so that we strive to never use it. The presence of the Holy Spirit is a decided deterrent to such linguistic failures. God have mercy upon each and every one of us, our homes, communities, nation, and world, and deliver us from the curse and evil of foul mouths.

Matt,

Yeah, it can be tough. I think we make it tougher than it actually is concerning which words are what.

The fact that any of us can even respond one way or another means we agree that the concept and idea of “potty-mouthed” actually does exist.

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Book Review and Giveaway: Taking Three

Wow. That’s all I can really say to this thread. Wow.

I’m guessing no one bothered to do as I suggested and actually compare said song to the second half of Romans 1.

I’m also guessing some can’t — or are unwilling to — even consider the possibility that such a song could be (as I suggested) illustrative of such a text/sermon topic.

There’s a major difference between being “potty mouthed” (of which there is zero in said song) and being illustrative. And as I think a lot of commentators here have demonstrated, it’s possible to be illustrative without being potty mouthed. Which was my entire point concerning said song.

But then again, I suppose listening to such a song before a sermon will lead me to get drunk, take a few hits of weed, and look for loose chicks to score.

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

Stephen,

Now, you’re just being ridiculous. Of course, a song wont make you smoke weed, nor drink, nor chase chicks. But, I was just letting you know that I do know the group. I do know the song. In fact, I quoted some of the lyrics to you. They were about Satan being the one he follows. Good stuff for a worship service in Church. I wonder if the people in the crowd cheered and maybe even lit thier bic lighters and swayed to the music?

David

Stephen,
I’m up in the air about the song. It’s not really about content it’s about context. Are you in a place where that content is contextually appropriate? That is the question to be asked when nothing is prima facie wrong with it. I believe there are worship contexts in which even Christian songs such as “Wedding Dress” by Derek Webb would be inappropriate. That is what makes following Christ difficult: there are a lot of things that appear in daily life where you can’t just shutoff your brain and say “This is always wrong” and “This is always right.” Neither an argument from legalism nor antinomianism is appropriate when dealing with the full scope of language or music.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Faith in the Time of Pluralism- Obama Communicates the Mantra of the Masses

I’ve enjoyed these comments, but haven’t had much to add. It’s no simple issue and requires wisdom.

Thanks for all the comments!

Tony Kummers last blog post..Funny Job Requirements For Children’s Ministry

I’m just interested. Would there ever be a context where the song “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap” by AC/DC be appropriate for the worship service? or, how about “Brandy” by Looking Glass? or, “Breathe” by Faith Hill?

Oh, I know, we all ought to play “Honky Tonk Badonkadonk” by Trace Adkins? That one ought to shake up the crowd. That one will make us look cool to the crowd. But, what will the title of the sermon be? We must have a good sermon title to go with it? to make the song appropriate? Well, maybe it’ll come to me in a moment.

David

Todd:

It’s not really about content it’s about context. Are you in a place where that content is contextually appropriate? That is the question to be asked when nothing is prima facie wrong with it. I believe there are worship contexts in which even Christian songs such as “Wedding Dress” by Derek Webb would be inappropriate.

Exactly. Directly on the nose.

That is what makes following Christ difficult: there are a lot of things that appear in daily life where you can’t just shutoff your brain and say “This is always wrong” and “This is always right.” Neither an argument from legalism nor antinomianism is appropriate when dealing with the full scope of language or music.

Again, bulls-eye.

Why would I want to waste my time trying to make legalists and antinomians happy? That’s all such a discussion attempts to do. If we try to defend against “legalism,” we’re merely trying to “look cool,” if we try to defend against “antinomianism,” we’re being “ungodly.” There’s no sanctifying end in this sort of discussion.

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

Stephen,

I’m sorry brother, but I have to sing the Strawman Theme to you. The song hasn’t even been in play as much as the language itself. You’re objections seemed an overreaction, especially, this comment:

But then again, I suppose listening to such a song before a sermon will lead me to get drunk, take a few hits of weed, and look for loose chicks to score.

🙂

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Book Review and Giveaway: Taking Three

Stephen,
I largely agree with you. In reality I see this debate as just being an excuse from the older generation as to why they can’t pass off the torch to the younger generation and go quietly into the night. Obviously that is an overgeneralization and there are some sins and excesses that need to be addressed, but honestly there does seem to more of a dire warning characteristic to the criticisms than there is a Godly discipling tone. Let’s not forget, for all intents and purposes the people whose language we’re attacking are us, not them, and there is a large difference between solid people using questionable language (i.e. Mark Driscoll) and blatant heretics that we don’t even call out. Just wondering, how many of these pastors criticizing bad language are allowing their Sunday School teachers to show Nooma videos or do “The Shack” and “Velvet Elvis” reading groups? Isn’t that a bigger problem than someone using scatological words?

Todd Buruss last blog post..Faith in the Time of Pluralism- Obama Communicates the Mantra of the Masses

Mark,

I’m sorry brother, but I have to sing the Strawman Theme to you. The song hasn’t even been in play as much as the language itself. You’re objections seemed an overreaction…

My objection was not an overreaction, but intentional. David likes to answer with strawmen (see his comments early in the thread about what he did while listening to said song), so I gave him his own strawman right back. 🙂

And that’s a funny song. 🙂

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

Todd,

In reality I see this debate as just being an excuse from the older generation as to why they can’t pass off the torch to the younger generation and go quietly into the night. Obviously that is an overgeneralization and there are some sins and excesses that need to be addressed, but honestly there does seem to more of a dire warning characteristic to the criticisms than there is a Godly discipling tone. Let’s not forget, for all intents and purposes the people whose language we’re attacking are us, not them, and there is a large difference between solid people using questionable language (i.e. Mark Driscoll) and blatant heretics that we don’t even call out. Just wondering, how many of these pastors criticizing bad language are allowing their Sunday School teachers to show Nooma videos or do “The Shack” and “Velvet Elvis” reading groups? Isn’t that a bigger problem than someone using scatological words?

Once again you hit it squarely on the nose.

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

Matt,
I don’t believe that it is necessarily a generational debate per se as much as it seems that the ones who are raising a fuss all belong to an old guard of the convention (and in MacArthur’s case American church) in which they are highly resistant to change and highly critical of any young up-and-coming leaders who don’t conform to the old Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, and W.A. Criswell breed of Southern Baptists. The tune may be new, attacking language instead of worship music or what not, but the song remains the same.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Faith in the Time of Pluralism- Obama Communicates the Mantra of the Masses

Todd,

Am I the older crowd? I’m 47. I like contemporary praise music. I love expository preaching. I hate wearing ties, and wear one only when I feel that I must in the culture in which I live. I’m not against changing things that really need to be changed.

Do I fit your view of the old guard? because I like John McArthur? because I dont like Highway to Hell to start off a worship service?

BTW, I like a lot of Driscoll’s sermons, too.

David

Stephen,

Brother, I’m glad you took my song in the spirit it was meant which was having fun. I was afraid of singing it to Volfan007 as he might accuse me of being high. 🙂 Kidding!

Matt,

Let me throughout a nuance here. You mentioned the word-faith folks. I *think* MacArthur has mentioned them. However, I believe TD Jakes not only falls in the word-faith camp, but modalism as well. Add Schuller too. Would it upset people if MacArthur “went after” Jakes and Schuller and ended up having Driscoll in his sites due to past conference(s)? What do you think?

One more. Piper clearly said he has issues with some of Driscoll’s *stuff*. When others whether it be MacArthur, Johnson or a little less confrontation on blogs take the same position as Piper they don’t get a pass. Why? Piper was very clear at the basic conference. He didn’t say anything any different than the other critics.

Why does Piper get a pass when he offers constructive criticism of Driscoll?

Just asking…

Mark

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Book Review and Giveaway: Taking Three

Matt,

First, you didn’t touch my question concerning word-faith with Schuller and Jakes. That’s okay though. 🙂

You are now judging motives by not giving your brothers in Christ, MacArthur and Johnson, the benefit of the doubt. It’s such a cop-out to excuse one way of communication and not the other. Besides, they didn’t start in the blogosphere.

If I am beating my wife and it’s clearly wrong does it matter who or how someone tells me to stop? This is just a classic case of the cult of personality. For some reason, and I say this as one who likes Driscoll, he has become an untouchable golden boy.

The other side of this is if Driscoll is so “right” in the way he handle everything from the MacArthur camp then why did he response in “like fashion” by sending back a video response? Again, he gets the pass. Forget about the guy whose been a respected pastor for 40 years or whatever.

See, Driscoll can do “ministry” with TD Jakes and Robert Schuller and call out emergent pastors publicly and we’re still in Mayberry. Let MacArthur say a few things against Driscoll and we’re in Sin City.

Besides, shouldn’t Driscoll, given the culture in which he thrives and communicates most effectively, have taken more to MacArthur than to Piper? Isn’t that the argument for his whole approach to ministry? The edgy, in your face, call ’em like I see ’em kind of approach?

I’m the cult of….personality….

🙂

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Book Review and Giveaway: Taking Three

Wow, where is the hostility coming from for the older generation? They should pass the torch to the younger generation and then go quietly into the night? Should Piper and MacArthur now suddenly turn their pulpits over to members of the younger generation and go quietly into the night? What arrogance!

I think what we see when it comes to language is in response to the pendulum swinging from previous generations within the church being raised up in legalistic backgrounds. Now, freedom in Christ is in the forefront, as it should be because the legalistic, following extra biblical rules was never the gospel. However, what i think is being lost in this pendulum swing is the idea of personal holiness. That is where MacArthur is coming from when he addresses concerns about Driscoll. And the language we use should be part of us practicing personal holiness. Often times pastors that i have seen use certain words for shock value rather than trying to reach other generations or cultures.

Now, as far as Highway to Hell being used. There is zero place for that song in a worship service. Bottom line is this, how does that song in and of itself bring glory to God? The Worship Service is intended, first and foremost to be a gathering of believers where God is exalted and glorified. Highway to Hell does neither of those. And spare me the unbiblical pragmatic church growth defenses of using this song and others like it in church services.

sam,

Amen!

David

Matt,

I agree that we there are times when we should speak very bluntly and strong….like the prophets….like John the Baptist. But, being vulgar and using nasty language is not the way. Are there times to speak strongly….of course! But, our speech should always be seasoned with grace, and we should speak the truth in love.

I mean, I can think of Jesus calling the Pharisees a brood of snakes! open tombs with decaying bodies! And, let’s not forget Peter and his sermons…wow. But, if you will notice, they did not use nasty, vulgar language in order to speak strongly to people.

One time, I was trying to witness to a man, who had had a severe stroke, and he had other critical, physical issues, as well. I shared the Gospel with him. But, all he could do was mock and ridicule Pastors… bringing up Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker and some of those other yay hoos. So, after a while of this, I decided that it was time to get very blunt and direct with this man. I told him that hell was real, and that he was going there unless he repented and put his faith in Christ. I told him that all the bad things that had happened to him should make him think more about his soul, and eternity. Now, I wish I could say that the man got saved that day, but he didnt. As far as I know, he went out into eternity lost. But, at least, his mocking calmed down. He listened. And, I didnt have to cuss at him to get his attention.

David

Matt,

You might be right about the percentage. I dont know. But, hopefully he will see that even that much vulgar language…..especially in the pulpit….is not good. Strong language is fine…when it’s wise to say things bluntly and strongly.

David

Does anyone have a thought on just plain’ol confusing the simple lost man on the street who comes into our churches and hears the same music from the bar…in the church? Just asking…

amys last blog post..I Won!!!!!!!!

sam,
In response to your trying to turn the “old guard” comment around on me, I think it is pretty clear which pastors are interested in developing the next generation of young leaders and allowing the spirit to lead growth even if it is not in the direction that their own ministry started and has been focused (i.e. John Piper) and those pastors who aren’t interested in building up future leaders or if they are its only in creating clones of their self to push the same agenda that probably wasn’t even that relevant 25 years ago when they started it (i.e. W.A. Criswell). “Old guard” is a way of thinking not an age reference. And remember, I acknowledged that my comment was an overgeneralization while still believing that it is a valid observation.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Why Old Southern Baptist Dogs Need to be Sent to the Farm- Wiley Drake Embarrasses Us All

If you read MacArthur’s series on Driscoll’s sermons on the Song of Solomon, it goes beyond the point of just Driscoll’s language that he uses. I think you over simplify and minimize MacArthur’s point in writing the series on SoS when you say MacArthur wants to see Driscoll removed from the ministry because he uses stronger language than most.

AND I disagree, a pastor just shouldnt be evaluated on the biblical qualifications before he becomes the pastor but should be continually living up to the biblical qualifications of a pastor less he disqualify himself from ministry. You are right, every sin should not be an immediate call for dismissal but constant, unrepentant sin should be addressed and his fitness for ministry should be evaluated because the cause of the gospel is at stake.

MacArthur is asking the question if Driscoll is beyond reproach. MacArthur also takes issue with, as do I, Driscoll use of homosexual imagery when he sarcastically mocks those that believe that SoS is an allegory of us and Christ. Also, MacArthur takes issue with Driscoll exegesis of SoS where Driscoll in his Scotland SoS sermon reduces it basically to a sex manual while using graphic sexual imagery.

AND furthermore, when Driscoll is given a national forum on TV on the DL Hughley show, Driscoll uses the moment to tell a joke about masturbation. MacArthur has always been concerned with Driscoll in the area of personal holiness and sanctification and that of Driscoll’s church members.

I apologize for focusing on Driscoll but I just want people to see that it is much more than Driscoll using strong language from the pulpit that MacArthur takes exception with.

What Driscoll said on Hughley wasn’t a joke about masturbation, it was a (sad) commentary on most American “Christian’s” understanding of the Bible. If you don’t get that then it is no small surprise one wouldn’t get Driscoll’s ministry as a whole.

As far as exegesis, I think it is ludicrous to suggest that MacArthur’s beef with Driscoll is about exegesis. He may disagree with his view on SoS, but that disagreement is nothing worth disqualifying a minister over. The issue is all about style and preference, which has been evident ever since MacArthur opened his mouth in 2006 to Pulpit Magazine and criticized Driscoll using poor information and a minimal understanding or experience with his preaching. MacArthur himself admits that he has only listened to things by Driscoll which people have brought him because they found it objectionable, which is a poor way to run any type of fair analysis. If you want to start disqualifying ministers over self-selected soundbytes instead of their body of teaching God help all of us. I think (King) David himself would fail this test, no?

Todd Buruss last blog post..Why Old Southern Baptist Dogs Need to be Sent to the Farm- Wiley Drake Embarrasses Us All

Matt, That was far from an apology for the SoS series in Scotland. It was more like “i am sorry if YOU were offended” AND the very fact that he would “preach” in that manner in Scotland validates MacArthur’s concern of Driscoll. Driscoll’s ” apology” doesnt unring the bell or justify Driscoll’s language and exegesis of SoS in his Scotland talk. The fact that Driscoll would use SoS as a sex manual to suggest and encourage wives do do certain sexual acts to their husband is a clear indication that MacArthur is valid in his concerns. Todd, Please spare me. I watched the Hughley segment and Driscoll played that as a joke for laugh. He was no way trying to make a statement to hughley as to the lack on biblical understanding that American Christians possess. The statement was not neceassary for Driscoll to make because Hughley asked Driscoll what the Bible said about masturbation. Driscoll took it as an opportunity to make a joke about it. I get that Driscoll likes the limelight and likes to make people laugh and to shock people to some degree or another. I get that Driscoll thinks that young pastors should study comedians on how they capture an audience’s attention. I get that Driscoll is a fan of Chris Rock. I also get that Driscoll is way too intelligent and theologically knowledgeable to have to resort to the type of language and imagery that he uses. Again, he doesnt have to resort to such tactics to reach the crowd he reaches but his defenders always seem to use this defense. Fair enough. There is enough evidence over Driscoll’s ministry that would validate MacArthur’s concern. Also, you act as if a one time act could not disqualify a minister. I know you do not really agree with that. Again, if you take a biblical look at what it means for a pastor to be beyond reproach you would really need to see if Driscoll meets that qualification. And I think Driscoll’s exegesis of SoS is a big concern of MacAthur otherwise he wouldnt have titled his series ” The Rape of Song of Solomon.” The way Driscoll reduced SoS to a sex manual is poor and irresponsible not to mention leading people to stumble by his irresponsible speech when talking about oral sex and lap dances. Not to mention his homosexual imagery talking about… Read more »

sam,
I wonder how much of any of his SoS material you have listened to? Yes, as people across the board, including Driscoll, have acknowledged, the Scotland message was out-of-line. However, his series on the book in his church this past fall (which I would estimate probably 10 times as many people have listened to) was far from a sex manual. However, guys like MacArthur don’t even know this because they haven’t listened to it.

I agree that a one time event can disqualify a pastor, but not this. Come on. And I have not used the “this is how he reaches people” argument defending Driscoll. Honestly, those are words I hear Driscoll’s critics put in people’s mouths more than I actually here his supporters use them.

Unfortunately it sounds like you are regurgitating the same anti-Driscoll rhetoric (masturbation, SoS, Chris Rock) that we could get anywhere else, so please stop. If you want to be constructive then we can talk about it, but there is enough bashing out there to not want to sit here and condone it any longer (which, by the way, is what I think MacArthur’s sin in all of this is– carelessly instigating the bashing and unbrotherly conduct).

Todd Buruss last blog post..Why Old Southern Baptist Dogs Need to be Sent to the Farm- Wiley Drake Embarrasses Us All

Notice how quickly this became a Driscoll pile-on instead of addressing the actual content of the post. This always happens. Which makes me wonder why we even bother with this subject sometimes. But I digress.

Notice how, even though I said no such thing, suddenly it’s been implied that I think the song mentioned above was praiseworthy or glorifying to God, or would put butts in the seats simply because I said it could be used as an illustration. Scripture uses plenty of things that are not praiseworthy as illustrations, yet we don’t condemn them. Even Christ used examples of ungodliness to make points from time to time, yet we don’t accuse Him of thinking those things were praiseworthy.

But this is the exact knee-jerk reaction I’ve come to expect whenever this sort of subject comes to the fore. “I’m right, you’re wrong, grow up and accept it.” Pitiful.

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

Biblical qualifications for ministers include being blameless and holy (Titus 1:6-8), and Christians in general and teachers in particular are strongly warned in James about taming the tongue (James 3:1-11). And my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said that what comes out of the mouth is an accurate barometer of what’s in the heart (Matthew 15:11, 18). If vileness is on the lips, it’s because the whole soul is seriously, if not terminally, ill. James 3:6 is explicit that the tongue is the “highway to hell” of which some posters here seem to be so fond. Damnation is no laughing matter. It’s not cute, and it’s not something to be glamorized. Which all means this: If you can’t control your tongue, if what is coming out of your mouth is not blameless, pure, holy….you should do the body of Christ a favor and STAY OUT OF THE PULPIT. Please note: The above was not referenced to any particular well-known ministerial personality, nor is it meant to apply only to 25-year-olds, or 50-year-olds, or 75-year-olds. I see nothing in the original Greek manuscripts or any of the English translations of those verses that cites any kind of human authority, only divine authority, nor do they cite specific age groups (the Bible is, however, pretty clear in places like 1 and 2 Timothy that Christians who are older than us are to be looked to as a source of edification, rather than enemies to be neutralized). Since some posters are, however, have a postmodern relativistic preoccupation with fickle, ever-changing human authority rather than the unchanging eternal authority of God’s Word, and are trying to divide the body of Christ based on age distinctions (which God will assuredly judge), how about one age-neutral human example that even unbelievers almost unanimously admire: Billy Graham. As a young man, Billy set the ministerial bar for purity and being “beyond reproach” VERY high indeed in the “Modesto Manifesto.” As a middle-aged man, when a talk-show host (Dick Cavett) snidely asked him what he’d said say if he hit his thumb while hammering a nail, Billy brilliantly, winsomely, with a smile on his face but the Holy Spirit in his heart, told millions of TV viewers simply and succinctly, “Ouch.” And neatly dodged the Tempter’s trap. As an old man, he is continuing to lead hundreds of thousands of people, many of them quite young, into the… Read more »

Clarifying–should have referred just to “the original Greek language” in what I just posted. I know we have only copies, albeit it very good ones, of the no-longer-extant original NT manuscripts. Please pardon the imprecision (that’s what I get for having passed my 30th birthday, right?)–and fortunately, God’s Word, unlike John Mueller, has no such imprecision!

John,
Congratulations for constructing a systematic theology of pastoral qualifications that has no room for grace! All that you have said is accurate but seems to be wholly man/self-will centered. That is a problem. It seems like the philosophy is that as long as it is not the sin that is besetting me then I can find ironclad Scriptural evidence to prosecute it to the fullest extent. I would be interested to see the saint that some of you sit under as your head pastor.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Why Old Southern Baptist Dogs Need to be Sent to the Farm- Wiley Drake Embarrasses Us All

Todd, I did listen to Driscoll’s Scotland message as well as his The Peasant Princess series. In his Peasant Princess series Driscoll had this to say: ” “Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book, and we will teach it, but we’re gonna teach it allegorically.” And there’s a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They’ll say, “Well the allegorical interpretation, it’s not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it’s about us and Jesus.” Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I mean it’s gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I’m talking about. You’re like, “No, I’m not doing that. You know I’m not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that.” [Laughter from crowd]” source: (from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess” – start at 27:15)” How is this edifying, instructive, or God glorifying when Driscoll is making homosexual jokes regarding Jesus? MacArthur directly quoted from one of the Peasant Princess sermons in part 3 of his series. Where is your source that MacArthur did not listen or read the transcripts from any of Driscoll’s Peasant Princess series? Lets see what you had to say in defense of Driscoll in the comment section of MacArthur’s series: “Lest we forget, he is the one who felt called to preach and pastor the flock in Seattle, not us (probably, I do not know where each of us is at), so we should allow him some charity in knowing what is and is not appropriate for his people.” I only listed the defenses of Driscoll that i hear from his supporters ALL the time. I have not said anything that i have not heard REPEATEDLY. So giving examples of language that Driscoll uses is considered “bashing” and is somewhat out of bounds in a discussion on language used in the pulpit? Lastly, I find it highly ironic that you paint MacArthur as being careless as you defend Driscoll’s carelessness with his speech. How funny. Stephen, I thought this was a discussion of language used in the pulpit by pastors today. Driscoll is the most well known and most influential pastor that has had a part of ushering… Read more »

sam, Interesting that your example of having listened to Driscoll is yet again a cliched example that has appeared elsewhere? As well, if you look at that quote of mine in context you will see that I am actually saying the opposite of what you are accusing me of saying: “The ‘extra-biblical morality’ I was referring to was the same reading in of ones personal convictions to impugn the motives of Mark Driscoll. It feels to me like many people here have named themselves final arbiter of what is allowed and what is not and are not giving credence to Driscoll’s own personal convictions on the matter. Lest we forget, he is the one who felt called to preach and pastor the flock in Seattle, not us (probably, I do not know where each of us is at), so we should allow him some charity in knowing what is and is not appropriate for his people. ” [quoted from comments of The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 3)] Thus when I say people are “reading in” their own “personal convictions to impugn the motives of Mark Driscoll” that refers directly to the issue of people saying he is only doing this to “be cool” and to “reach people.” My reply is that I think we should have charity to assume that he is making his best effort to be pastoral and doing that which is actually appropriate for his context. The point being, we cannot write off his actions simply because we disagree with them if our disagreement is not Scripturally based. This is not a defense of what he’s doing, it’s a call to charity and discernment before sniping him. In fact, I had made repeated calls in that thread saying, “we need to be careful not to project our own biases into this and declare Driscoll as belligerent because he is transgressing our personal convictions.” I then referred us to a third-party source, Al Mohler, to give an outsiders set of eyes on the debate. Again, this was not a defense of Driscoll, it was simply an attempt to call people back to criticially thinking the issue through and not making rash judgments on what may or may not be solid biblical grounds. Maybe you don’t see this, but please try to represent quotations more accurately. Todd Buruss last blog post..Why Old Southern Baptist Dogs Need to be… Read more »

How sadly, tragically, eternally blind that simply quoting God’s Word can bring a ad hominem charge of “wholly man/self-will centered. ” Is there at least a possibility that the polar opposite might be the case? Just what parts of the Bible *do* you believe might apply to you personally, if any? If “grace,” is to be the watchword here, Romans 6:1 is a pretty good starting point; and again, since the Bible appears to deeply offend you as a basis for authority and since only frail, mortal, sinful, fallible human beings appear to be worth quoting, try listening to Dietrich Bonhoeffer on “cheap grace” before proceeding further. One has to ask how the song “Highway to Hell” glorifies God? I am inclined to think that the purpose of worship is to do just that, As always, there will be some disagreement about such things, but it is necessary to have some sort of consensually validated boundary: this thing is on this side and permitted, that thing is on the other side and is not. The boundary set by the proponents of this sort of blasphemy seems to be that anything goes in worship as long as some rationale for its usefulness can be given. I am inclined to believe a higher standard applies: what is permissible in worship is only those things that in themselves glorify God. “Highway” might have some plausibility as an intro to get the congregation’s attention and set the stage for the sermon theme (as seems to be true in this case), but it does not in itself glorify God. There is no mention of the redemptive power of the Cross, no mention of Jesus, no praise to God for his mercy, no doctrinal statement of any kind — and on Easter, no less. And since the song actually celebrates sin, it really constitutes the opposite of what ought to be done in worship. That makes it blasphemy. And blasphemy, according to the Bible, is a very serious sin. And any kind of sin, according to the Bible, is wrong–so wrong that it is indeed a highway to hell. That is why we need a Savior–one whom we will do our best to serve as Lord. Calvary is all about grace, but our response to that grace is not supposed to be chronic, cavalier disobedience such as premeditated blasphemy. If our intent in “doing worship” is… Read more »

Antinomianism is what’s going on in the SBC today amongst a certain crowd of people. We are seeing some people overreact to the legalistic preaching that has taken place in the past, and they are swinging too far the other direction…which often happens when people resist something “wrong.”

David

So cliche. Antinomianism is what we see in all the Arminian Carnal Christianity churches in the SBC, not in the churches like Mars Hill that are being accused of playing to the culture yet surprisingly have a robust doctrine of church discipline. Once again, it is preference dominating theology. Law dominating grace. There has to be moderation, it’s what the Bible teaches (cf. John 1.14, Romans 15.1-7). So many people want to illegitimize the changes in the church by accusing them of being antinomian and saying, “How sadly, tragically, eternally blind that simply quoting God’s Word can bring a ad hominem charge of ‘wholly man/self-will centered'” (which, can you even type that sentence properly without being in a full suit-and-tie?). I’m sorry, it’s pathetic, and until people can learn to reach across the aisle here, both sides, and try to understand before condemning we are only going to see more divide and an ever weakening SBC.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Ringing the Man-Centered Bell Again- Jerry Vines and His Great Commission Caveat

Todd,

What is cliche, to be sure, is your post modern attempt to make language “relative” and not wanting to hold to any standard. I read all of the Rape of SoS threads and saw repeatedly where people answered your questions but you continued to beat the drum of post modern relativistic thought. SO cliche. And why is it when presented with a scriptural argument from John do you not address the scripture being presented but instead try to side step and make snide remarks about John’s position lacking grace and make a sarcastic remark about wearing a suit and tie? Where is YOUR grace for your brother? Why do you feel that you must resort to such tactics? Can you not defend your position and critique John’s argument without lowering yourself ? It was the same way in your post that you removed from the Rape of SoS thread where you were called on your speech and lack of grace if i might add.

There is a biblical standard that pastors are charged to maintain. This is no preference over theology in practice here. You keep speaking of grace but there can be no grace in a vacuum of truth.

Why dont you ask the Elders that Driscoll removed from Mars Hill about the way Mars Hill practices church discipline. Ask them about how much “grace” they were given by Driscoll.

How much “reaching across the aisle” are you practicing by refusing to specifically address John’s concerns while mocking him and dodging his questions? I would suggest that you first practice that of what you recommend. AND who is condemning anyone? more hyperbole. Questioning whether Driscoll is beyond reproach is far from condemning him. Is this the cliched part where I get labeled a hater or a driscollphobe? Stopped the cliched tactic of trying to marginalize those that you disagree with.

sam,
First, I believe that you are confused about what postmodernism and relativism are, because I in no way embrace those philosophies. I believe that speech is imbued with its meaning not solely by the nature of the words used (i.e. not that words have any inherent meaning in a vacuum) but by the way they are employed (i.e. pragmatics/illocutionary acts). Thus there is specific meaning (and so not relativism) and that meaning comes from the user and the environment in which he uses the language. The job of the hearer is to must work in discerning these things to understand the speakers meaning. Postmodernism as a critical theory says that meaning comes from the hearer and how he interprets what has been said apart from context or the speakers intent. That is about as drastic a difference in philosophies as can exist. If you are actually interested in this I would suggest that you read up on John Searle and speech-act theory.

As to your other comments, yes, I did acknowledge my lack of grace during the SoS debate and chose to remove a post I had made, apologizing for any offense it may have caused. Do you consider that repentance for that act?

I have engaged here on the level of Scripture. As a matter of fact, I have called us to engage on an even higher level of Scripture than we have been, focusing beyond simply the use of language and referring back to the necessity to live in both truth AND grace. Beyond this, I will refrain from comment because I think my previous remarks speak for what I would say in reply.

Todd Buruss last blog post..Ringing the Man-Centered Bell Again- Jerry Vines and His Great Commission Caveat

So now, we have seen it implied that I (and others) embrace postmodern relativistic thinking, are trying to divide people based on age, seeing damnation as a cute, laughing matter, being a proponent of blasphemy, and even being antinomian. Yet I have said absolutely nothing to warrant such charges.

Even more interesting is that the same individual bringing these charges has actually agreed with the only point I actually made! See for yourself:

“Highway” might have some plausibility as an intro to get the congregation’s attention and set the stage for the sermon theme (as seems to be true in this case)…

Thank you, that’s all I’ve said about the song, period. It is an illustrative song. I’ve said nothing about its praiseworthiness. It’s nice to know you agree. The entire discussion could have ended at that point. But no.

Now, knowing that you agree with my point, and knowing absolutely nothing about what I believe, how do you justify making the insinuations about me (and others) that you have done?

This discussion has become one where it would be better for us to kick a skunk – we’d stink less and it’d be more sanctifying.

Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President

Matthew 7:15-23 has plenty to say on the subject of bearing good fruit and those who practice lawlessness, and I don’t think a secular linguistics degree is needed to determine what God is driving at in this passage of Scripture or any other. Obscene language (even by secular standards) and love songs to the devil are prima facie rotten fruit and lawless behavior and have no place whatsoever in the body of Christ. It’s truly amazing that this topic is even up for debate (or, more accurately, sophistry).
However, despite human assaults on the relevance of the Bible to actual human behavior, my God is more than able to defend his holy, pure, timeless, unchanging and inerrant Word, as Paul did in Acts 17 (speaking of Mars Hill) against the pagan philosophers who sneered at the truth. Far better to be a Berean than an Athenian in Acts 17!
A friendly word of advice, in closing, to one of the posters who plans to attend Southern Seminary, where I graduated three weeks ago with an M.Div.:
What I have tried to share in these four posts is totally in sync with what my godly professors have taught, and what they teach is in sync with the seminary’s doctrinal statement, the so-called Abstract of Principles that they voluntarily sign when making a long-term commitment to the institution. And the very first article of that doctrinal statement, which will certainly strike fear into the “emerging” hearts of those who loathe doctrinal statements because they prefer to embrace ambiguity, is simply this:
“The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.”
Only. Certain. Authoritative. All. Obedience.
As a great seminary professor and former pastor of mine is fond of saying, the two greatest enemies of the church are legalism and liberalism. Both are deadly, and simply replacing one with the other is no solution at all.

Tony,
You’ve been saying that, but I still don’t see any changes. I’m not sure that you are truly repentant of this. Looks like it’s just worldly sorrow to me (j/k . . . ; ) )

Todd Buruss last blog post..Ringing the Man-Centered Bell Again- Jerry Vines and His Great Commission Caveat

Youy fellows sure do a lot of head bashing and judging. I think that is a grief to who love the Lord Jesus. Spend about two yrs. and 2000 5×8 notecards on the pericope on Agape Love in I Cors. You fellows need to be as compassionate toward one another as your Lord and Savior was and is and will be to you. The attitude toward a beloved family member who is suffering difficulties in thought, etc., should be like that of a child who was of borderline intelligence and suffered from birth injuries. she one said to her mother, You must love ___, ___, ___ (her brother and two sisters) more than me, because they are so much smarter than I am.” The mother wisely answered, “I don’t know but what i love you more, because your try so darn hard.” I seriously doubt any of the other siblings would have objected in the slightest to their mother’s reply to that child. All of you need to realize that as you are bashing at one another that the Lord is bestowing such love and confidence upon you. How about a little of it for each other. After all, you could be as I was three weeks ago – at death’s door, thinking it might be your time to go through. I sure hope the Lord forgives me for being too judgmental as I was in my younger days.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

This is timely:

http://www.garylamb.org/2009/06/07/hardest-post-ive-ever-written/

Here we have one of the “potty mouthed” pastors who did not pursue his own personal holiness and now has disqualified himself from ministry. This is what MacArthur talks about when he comments on Driscoll and the pursuit of personal holiness.

A few questions to try and get us back on track.

Is there ever a time when a joke/language is sinful? How would you “prove” that it were so? Is there ever a time where a joke/language would disqualify a pastor? How would we discern this? Have an example?

🙂

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..IssuesEtc on Free Will

Matt,

You talkin’ to me? I’m not asking about Driscoll. Even so, can you unpack your assertions? How can you tell if a joke is sinful?

Same questions apply. 🙂

Mark Lamprechts last blog post..IssuesEtc on Free Will

The word, “HELL” is in our translation of scripture. I think it is richly ironic for “Highway to Hell” to be used at an outreach service. Did you listen to the words they were singing? They all rang true. What frustrates me is some of the older generation who elevate their personal preferences to the level of God’s word. The Bible has dirty jokes in it. Just read the book of Judges sometime. We love telling our children about Samson, at least the sanitized version, but if all scripture is God-breathed and profitable, that has to include the racy portions, too. Now, just because scripture can be racy in its own context does not mean that we have carte blanche to have foul mouths. But I see NO harm, and much good in using “Highway to Hell” illustratively, and I believe that God is glorified when sinners consider their ways and repent, and this use of that song is just the kind of thing to startle unbelievers into doing just that. Certainly more thought and purpose behind the decision to sing an AC/DC song in church than most of the feminized, fluffy, meaningless, “Jesus is my boyfriend” “P&W” tripe that has a stranglehold on evangelical churches.

A joke about masturbation from the pulpit like the one that Driscoll told was bad taste, showed a real lack of wisdom on his part, and was too vulgar…especially in a crowd where women were attending. And, were their children in attendance as well? I dont know. If they were, then it went way across the line.

I really cant understand anyone defending that nasty joke told from the pulpit.

David

GF,

I have no problem whatsoever teaching what the Bible teaches about sexual things. Like, with Lot and his daughters, Samson and Delilah, etc. But, there’s a huge difference in preaching what happened and in making jokes about sex and masturbation, or talking coarse and using vulgar jesting. If you cant see the difference, then I dont know what else to say.

Also, are you saying that there are dirty jokes in the book of Judges? Pray tell, what are they? Can you share with me where to find those? I have read the book of Judges straight thru at least 15 times in my lifetime, and I have studied it on numerous occasions. Where are these dirty jokes?

Also, GF, when the Bible talks about Hell, it’s not singing about how glad someone is about going there, nor with glorifying the rebellious attitude about living in sin that one has in order to go there…instead, it talks about how bad it is, and that it’s a place of punishment. The Bible is talking soberly about Hell. And, pray tell, how in the Tennessee hills can Highway to Hell be worshipful? used in worship of God? as it sings about how much it wants to live sinfully and go to Hell?

David

“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Luke 14:34-35
Unfit for even the manure pile would be an apt description for some of the arrogant postmodern nonsense that’s appearing on this post. What’s sad is that you probably really do believe it and attempt to rationalize it as a young-old issue–ignoring the many fine Christians in their teens and 20s who *do* believe that holiness and purity are more than just outdated slogans trying to keep y’all from turning your local church into Comedy Central. So tell me, Bible scholars….in Jesus’ sermons, in Paul’s sermons, in Stephen’s sermons, in Peter’s sermons….in any biblical sermons, for that matter….do you see obscenities, profanities, double entendres….or for that matter, any jokes at all, even clean ones? Oh, wait, that’s right…Jesus, Stephen, Paul, Peter…those guys are all from the “older generation.” Better ignore them. Back to the manure pile. LOL.

Well, Paul sarcastically wished that the Judiaizers who wanted everybody circumcised would finish the job and cut their own testes and/or penises off. Samson in Judges 14 accused the Philistines of having slept with his first wife with some pretty crude language. That is just off the top of my head.

To be fair to Driscoll, the masturbation joke was on national TV. It was not in the pulpit. Maybe I’m missing something and there was one told from the pulpit. Yes/no? I don’t know.

Todd, I’m still thinking about this and do have some more thoughts. Hence, I’m still thinking. 😉
[rq=4125,0,blog][/rq]IssuesEtc on Free Will

Sigh.

AGAIN, people, no one (not even Guillaume above) is disputing that “Highway to Hell” — or even similar songs, for that matter — is in and of itself “praiseworthy, worshipful, glorifying to God,” etc. etc. etc. Let us please get this through our thick Baptist skulls. Have you done that yet?

Such a song is an illlustrative picture. It is illustrative of the second half of Romans 1. Further, to completely rebut David’s likely overlooking of Scripture, I’m positive he has forgotten, for example, Luke 12:13-21. A song such as the one mentioned in this long meta (which has gotten rather ridiculous) is also illustrative of such a text! The man mentioned in the parable has glorified his life of sin! Or what about the Scripture “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?”

Can that be simply grasped? Understood? Agreed upon?

If it can, why in the world are we majoring in a minor here?
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..No, Mr. President =-.