I just caught this video blog from Ed Young Jr. dealing with the rise of pastors who cuss. He does a good job making the case for wholesome words without appealing to legalism.
It reminded me of this next video by Paul Tripp, where he explains why the heart motive behind cuss words is what matters most.
Now, I could imagine that Paul Tripp lost some “influence” in certain Southern Baptist circles and schools when that video made the rounds. Which brings me to the question behind this post title.
How much flexibility should we have toward fellow pastors who use blue collar language in their ministries?
Before you answer, check out one more video.
This one is from New Spring Church, where Perry Noble is the lead pastor. It’s the band’s opening song from their Easter service this year.
Then the sermon clips…
What do you think?
In my mind, vocabulary is a powerful tool to send messages in culture – both good and bad. A well-thought-out use of slang can open ears and break through the resistance of hearers. I’ve never found the right occasion, but wouldn’t rule it out. I’m glad the Gospel is being preached, even with AC/DC as the warm up.
First, I just want to say that anything that can be said out of the pulpit can be said in the pulpit.
Also, I believe it is not wrong to use strong language in order to make a strong point. “Strong language” does not necessarily mean me saying ‘cuss words’ from the pulpit, but for example, the word bastard can certainly be used appropriately.
Good post Tony.
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… Read more »
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 –… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
Les and Mark, As long as you agree that profanity for any purpose is unacceptable than I agree. What I do not like is the thought some have that four letter/profane language is okay outside of the pulpit, but not from within. We should not in any circumstance allow “Law” to come into play whenever it comes to ‘being inside a building we call church. But, perhaps, I am a foolish young guy that does not see a problem with strong language used in appropriate context. That being said, I appreciate you both very much and am glad to serve… Read more »
Debbie and to all,
“And Highway to Hell is not appropriate to use in either evangelism or the church”
Question: What is church: that some things are appropriate for believers when they aren’t ‘at church’, but not when they are ‘at church?’ It seems that we go with a concept of “Law” when certain things are allowed outside of church or outside the pulpit, but not in the church/pulpit.
I am not being sarcastic, but would like to hear a serious response.
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… Read more »
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… 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*… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… 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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.” Good word Todd. “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.” Great point Mark. I guess that is why i like this debate so much. There are… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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:
🙂
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… Read more »
“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?” Along with this I do think this issue has been blown out of proportion. When MacArthur spends his time attacking Driscoll, while Word of Faith people arent ever mentioned there is a serious problem. MacArthur has done well in handling some Emergent concepts, but I find his attacks on Driscoll to be a little pathetic. That is like trying to deal… Read more »
Todd,
I am not so sure that this is an ‘older vs. younger’ generational debate. Although, it is clear that a majority of the younger generation sides with Driscoll while the older with MacArthur. (I am merely using Driscoll and MacArthur to show the two sides.)
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?… Read more »
Mark, I would say because it is seen as constructive criticism that is done out of love. Piper has a personal, loving relationship with Driscoll. All MacArthur and Johnson have is distant criticism. People applauded Pipers loving criticism and most people, me being one, agreed with him. It doesnt matter if you get a criticism right and speak the truth if you do not do it out of love for that person. You can say MacArthur and Johnson did it out of love for Driscoll, but I think otherwise. If they really loved Driscoll and cared deeply for his soul… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
sam,
Amen!
David
Mark, I do not think Driscoll should get a free pass or is a “golden boy.” He should be examined, critiqued, and held accountable. Maybe I am judging motives a little bit, but it certainly appears, from the outside, that Piper criticized Driscoll in order to help him because he cared for him. MacArthur, who I greatly respect, came off like this. “I can’t believe the language he uses, get him out of the ministry.” 1 Timothy 3 is not something we look at and every time someone sins we say they should be removed from the ministry. If we… Read more »
To all, Can shock value never be used appropriately? Why is it bad for a pastor to say something vulgar in order to illustrate our freedom in Christ? Or watch a R-rated movie? or should we not do that for holiness reasons? My thought is this: Sometimes people need to be strongly told to get off their ass. If you say, get off your behind and do something… they will laugh at you. If you tell them to get off their ass, the shock value would get their attention maybe they would actually listen. This is especially true with teenagers.… Read more »
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… Read more »
David,
Thanks for the response. Would you not say that Driscoll normally uses strong language much moreso than vulgar language? I know he has used some vulgar language, but that only seems to be 10% of the strong language he uses. If what you said is correct, which I think probably is, then we are really only debating about 10% of Driscolls strong language.
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
David,
I think we have come to an agreement. 🙂
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Sam,
Do you realize Driscoll has apologized for the SoS in Scotland? Which is why he removed the messages from his website and asked for them to be removed from the Scotland website?
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… Read more »
Todd,
Amen! Amen!
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.… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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!
I think Todd has been making a great point.
MacArthur has admitted to only listening to Driscoll when people send it to him as “suspect.” That being true, wisdom tells me that MacArthur shouldn’t say anything! Why critique a man you are barely aware of, especially when what you are aware of happens to be the 5% of bad?
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… Read more »
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… 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… 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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Guys . . . I’m sorry I still don’t have threaded comments. It would have made this whole conversation better.
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
OK – I finally the theme upgrade and now we’re conversational.
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,… Read more »
I should add that video blogging while driving is more dangerous for the world than saying “poop.” That was my first idea for a post title after seeing the first video.
Well crud, Tony.
Stephen Newells last blog post..No, Mr. President
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
Yes, a joke can be sinful. No, I dont think Driscolls masturbation joke was sinful, therefore, he has nothing to repent of.
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
Mark, I think Driscoll’s masturbation “joke” is a good example for us to look at because for all intents and purposes it is fairly morally ambiguous. There are certainly contexts in which talking about masturbation may be inappropriate, but it is certainly not sinful to mention this act, and thus this alone cannot disqualify such a comment from being acceptable. Similarly, if we look at the intent of the heart, I again think there is room for acceptance. Some interpret Driscoll’s intent in saying it as being to get a cheap laugh at the expense of crass language and a… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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
For what its’ worth, the one MacArthur referenced (and hence likely the one most people are familiar with here) was the one made on television, but Driscoll has mentioned variations on this from the pulpit before as well.
[rq=4259,0,blog][/rq]Cynicism and The Sinner’s Prayer- Peter’s Instruction in Acts
Even….uh….better?
Thanks.
[rq=4419,0,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… Read more »