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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 be in?

David

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.

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

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

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

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

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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 Jesus.

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 Kingdom of God. My goodness gracious, and he’s never once spewed vile obscenities from the pulpit. Imagine that. What an “old guard” kind of guy….and the greatest evangelist, statistically, in the history of the human race.
Billy Graham understands 2 Timothy 2:16: “Shun vain and profane babblings.”

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!

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 in this sort of language that we see becoming more and more popular and acceptable coming from the pulpit today. It is certainly within the bounds of this discussion to mention Driscoll and the role that he plays in all of this.

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 to be exactly like the world outside the church, then what is the use of the church? If we import troublesome cultural traditions into the church in order to “reach” those outside of it, we have made the boundaries of the church so wide that it altogether loses its identity as a distinct entity. That is the absolute opposite of what we were told to do by Jesus himself. Our job is to bring redemption to the culture, and that cannot be accomplished by importing the very worst features of the culture into the church. We are not here to be cool – in fact, we are here to be the antithesis of cool. Christianity is not cool and never will be, and our effort to produce a culturally cool Christianity is merely heresy.

In fact, the particular heresy at issue here is one of the most ancient, Antinomianism. St. Paul preached against it. Jesus implied that it is heresy when he said our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. It is not legalism to suggest that Christianity demands a higher standard of behavior than that of the culture around us. The church has taught that from the beginning. Although there are a number of different takes on the relationship between grace and works, no one who can reasonably be described as orthodox (small “o”) denies that a better standard of behavior is demanded of Christians, and that some types of conduct are forbidden by their nature.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 =-.