First of all I want to thank all of you that posted and commented. I didn’t think my little post would garner so much attention from such a wide audience. Every comment that was submitted got published unless I was otherwise directed, so thanks for behaving yourselves!
To begin I want to start with a little timeline I constructed, based on John MacArthur’s posts as well as Mark Driscroll’s posts and his own words:
- September 30th, 2007 – JMac sends his letter to Mark
- November 18th, 2007 – Mark gives the Song Of Solomon lectures in Scotland
- March 9th, 2009 – Phil Johnson publicly attacks Mark during the Shepherds Conference in a message called “Sound Doctrine; Sound Words.”
- March 26th, 2009 – Mark posts “John MacArthur On Bible Teaching” in which he adds JMac to the growing list of those who are part of the “New Calvinist” movement. He also applauds JMac for his longstanding devotion to defending scripture.
- April 5th, 2009 – Mark posts “Spring Cleaning” in which he realizes that his lectures “out of the country” were inappropriate for the internet and were meant to be private. He shares that he wants the lectures removed and that he appreciated his critics bringing this to his attention.
- April 14th-17th, 2009 – JMac launches his attack on Mark’s lecture via “The Rape of Solomon’s Song”
So, I am going to base my conclusion based on those events.
1. Mark’s Scotland lectures, messages, sermons or whatever you want to call them were not intended for public use and for JMac to construct his 4 articles around those lectures was not the wisest idea. It seems to me JMac picked the most inflammatory example he could think of in order to paint and cast Mark into a filthy, vile and despicable preacher and in order to satisfy the demands of those that sent him the recordings in the first place. It also makes me think he was hard pressed to find other evidence that could not be easily defended by Mark or others who would question JMac’s objectivity in his writing.
2. Mark’s Scotland lectures, messages, sermons or whatever you want to call them were bad exegesis. Mark went too far in interpreting the various symbols and such into body parts and various kinds of sexual activities. I think his attempt to have them removed didn’t go far enough. He needed to state in no uncertain terms that those lectures were not appropriate and that he has since revised his understanding of the Song of Solomon. And if Mark thinks he interpreted those passages correctly in that lecture and that turning symbolism into commands is okay then that is a problem worth noting.
3. Over the past few months Mark has received tons of media coverage and I think that makes JMac nervous, and for good reason. Mark is a young, vibrant energetic preacher and lots of us young kids have enjoyed learning and growing from Mark’s teaching over the years. But Mark sometimes has a Peter complex: he speaks without choosing his words carefully and sometimes is to impetuous to think through what needs to be said rather then what he wants to say. From my own observations I’d say Mark has grown significantly in this area which is a real tribute to how the Lord can still grow and change even a pastor of a mega-church. However, JMac’s concern seems to be that Mark has compromised his qualification to be a preacher because of the things he has said and at any moment is going to launch a “cussing preachers” movement that will corrupt the minds of the folks at TMS and TMC. But JMac should know better. He has trained those who have or are attending TMS or TMC to hold scripture as the ultimate authority and that no one, not even JMac gets a free pass if they are doing preaching things that are contrary to scripture.
4. I think JMac’s approach in these articles was bad. He sounds like a grumpy, angry, uptight, legalistic Father that needs to take a Prozac. Instead, JMac should have taken the approach of a loving Father and rebuked Mark for being careless in allowing those recordings to be made and distributed as well as not being quicker to see that he had erred in his exegesis. JMac needed to show humility and gentleness in his understanding of the situation and instead of using a letter sent almost 2 years ago as a warning. He should have made further attempts to seek out Mark’s heart. JMac’s words sound like an exasperated father who has written off his son as irredeemable, especially with his “Enough is enough” comment in his final post. Does JMac realize his unChrist-like statement? Does God ever say “Enough is enough” to JMac? Will God ever say that to one of His children who struggles with their sin? NEVER! God shows us Grace! God even shows JMac Grace! So why is JMac exempt from showing Grace to this young son?
My final point is this, I am willing to believe that JMac can change. I am willing to believe that the next time some preacher or ministry has strayed from the narrow path (even if it’s JMac’s own narrower path) that he can and will adopt a tone of Grace and Humility but will remain firm in defending Scripture. I’m know that JMac can be a loving and gracious person and have seen that repeatedly in his interaction with TMC and TMC students. He loves them, shepherds them and even extends grace to them when they err. He even extends grace to them if the err again. So why should someone else only receive one, six page letter before he is mercilessly and publicly rebuked for twelve pages two years later? If JMac and his followers continue to rebuke minsters of the Gospel using this method, then they need to change the name of their ministry from “Grace To You” to “Grace To Some.”
Thanks, Cliff! I am in agreement with your conclusions. I know so many people who have jumped in either the MacArthur or Driscoll “bandwagon” without paying attention to the actual issues at hand. It is easy to condemn one individual and excuse the other, when the reality is that both have sinned in some way or other — and are FORGIVEN BY THE GRACE OF GOD.
Thanks for thinking this through and sharing your thoughts!
I never really followed the whole controversy, but it seemed odd to me that JMac made such a public condemnation of Mark based on one sermon series. If he was really going to comment on bad doctrine, why not attack Joel Olsteen, who pretty much preaches the prosperity Gospel.
Though I’d rather see these public criticisms mostly focus on the content and not the person.
Cliff,
Thanks for your insights; but, I think the problem is different then you describe. We both understand the history of Fundementalism, and how they disengaged from the culture. Driscoll is attempting to invade every culture with the gospel, thus his metods are unorthodox. This isn’t to say I agree with him on every method he uses. But, we both know, Dr. Macarthur is part of the IFCA and is a Fundementalist; though I would not consider him a legalist of any sort. The problem with Grace, is they have so focused on a middle class Anglo-American culture, they believe the gospel needs to be represented that way to everyone. Don’t believe me?
John Piper in 1998, at the Shepards Confrence, tried to speak on Racial Harmony at GCC. You can’t find his message (as Grace has not allowed it to be published), and GCC wanted him to speak on the Supremacy of God. As a result, Dr. Piper, wasn’t asked back until 2006.
This is the greater problem at grace, and well-known pastors recognize it. Also, two seminary professors at Master’s Seminary, feel exactly the same way. I will not mention their names for obvious reasons.
This is Grace’s problem, and dont get me wrong, I am not accusing anyone of racism. I am only accusing grace of thinking that not everyone is a suit-wearing middle class citizen; that is ridiculous.
Ever wonder why TMS and TMC rarely attract other nationalities? Because of the culture, and this is the greater issues. This is why Dr. Macarthur disagrees with Driscoll because, unknowingly, he can’t see beyond the culture of his own church.
It is also noteworthy to mention, C.J Mahanney in his book “Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God” says the exact same things as Driscoll, in his book. Yet, no one will criticizes Mahaney. Check the book out, and you will see.
Good points Mark,
I’m not that familiar with Grace or JMac, except for the few things I read on the blogosphere. But I do think you make very valid points about criticisms of “unorthodox” methods. If you look at most of the criticisms on the emerging church movement (no matter their theology), it tends to come from middle class (and usually middle-aged) white men.
Mark,
I am not sure where you are getting your information about GCC, but you could not be more wrong about its ethnic makeup. GCC is very ethnically diverse I attended there for 4 years before moving away from Southern CA. I am not sure about your other comments about Piper and TMS profs, but your accusation against GCC is unfounded and troubling. Their college group Crossroads is over half Asian for crying out loud. They have started seminaries in dozens of countries – training pastors to minister in their own “culture” and country. Now I am not saying that I agree with every method or criticism that comes out of GCC, but to say that they are only packaging their message to middle class whites is utterly ridiculous. Your so-called proofs are speculative at best and you would do well to look at the church itself before making comments regarding its ethnic makeup. Whether you call it racism or not – you are basically calling GCC a racist church in its missional outreach. That’s an outrageous accusation that should not be reached because you feel a need to defend Mark Driscoll and his ministry.
Chris
Chris,
I appreciate your insights, and thanks for your response. I hope I can humbly address your issues. I am not ignorant of GCC, I was member for over 7 years, and a graduate of TMC. I understand the inner-workings of Grace, and the community they have.
1. I have spoken personally with TMS professors. Bear in mind, there are only about three minorities that are professors at TMS, and I’m sure you can figure out who I am speaking of. Don’t believe me? Ask them.
2. You have failed to address, John Piper who spoke in 1998, and the message is no where to be found. Please note, he spoke on “Racial Harmony” at Grace. Please ask the elders at Grace, if you think I am making bogus accusations. They asked Piper to speak on “The Supremacy of God”, but he felt the need to speak on “Racial Harmony” –Just another example of a well-known pastor/theologian who has recognized one of Grace’s problems. I challenge you to ask around, and even look on “Shepardsfellowship” website for the message; you wont find it. You will only find one message by Piper, and his second message will not be there.
3. I have never defended Mark Driscoll, and I only made a point historically about fundamentalism. In fact, by my very notion of the term “unorthodox” that implies I don’t completely agree with everything. You must address the Fundementalist problem first, before you can understand the methods of Driscoll. Because, that is exactly what he is attacking.
4. I know very well the ethnic makeup of Grace. Until very recently, all pastoral staff were Anglo-Saxons. Now I don’t consider this a problem, but it does send a message to the congregation. In fact, you will find some African-American seminary professors frustrated over this. Please ask them, if you don’t believe me.
5. I challenge you to do a demographic of Grace, and their corresponding socioeconomic status, you will find they are mostly middle-class Anglo-Saxon citizens; that is a fact. Many of the attendees of GCC are from the Santa Clarita valley, and you know very well this is a middle-class ethnic group.
Let me be clear, I do not want to be misunderstood, and I am not claiming it is wrong to have a socioeconomic group of middle class citizens. I am simply saying–Ministry is not always the same in each group. Yes, I understand the power is in the gospel; but, I understand each people has their own identity and culture.
Grace has theirs, and the urban city has theirs. Let me give you an example, if someone from an urban community gets saved and attends grace. He will have to completely change his ethnic background. If he wears a doo-rag its gone, if he wears urban clothing its gone. Why is that? it isn’t right, and this is the mentality at Grace. You have to give up your cultural identity and have theirs. If he speaks with an urban vernacular, it will be condemned. That is the gospel, and the gospel is about redeeming a people of an evil in their culture, not their identity in that culture; this is why Dr. Macarthur and Driscoll have problems.
Dr. Piper recognized this, and attempted to address it. I am sorry but you are greatly misinformed. Take my challenges, go to an elder, and ask them.
P.S I never mentioned GCC was racist, in fact, I said the exact opposite.
I hope I have responded graciously to your questions
Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I will also attempt to talk about this humbly – especially because written comments can be taken much more harshly than verbal. I am also a TMC grad (04). I am sorry for assuming that you had not been to GCC. Your conclusions seemed to show that you had not. Forgive me for being too hasty and overly critical in my reply – I should have been more humble and thoughtful in my reply. What you are accusing Grace of is not as outlandish as what I imagined. Yes they have problems in this area. (Although you did not even comment on what I provided as proofs for their culture awareness – namely missions and the half Asian college group.)
I still think that GCC is more ethnically diverse than what you give it credit for. However, I can’t totally disagree with the core of your argument – but I think that it may be more of John MacArthur’s personality than anything else that colors the church’s methodology and diversity of membership. Could it be more diverse, more open to contextualization? For sure – as you have said the TMS profs have mentioned this – but for all its faults it is one of the most biblical, godly churches out there.
The Piper sermon exclusion seems to be a bit of a reach. Especially since the sermons at shepherd’s conference are not directed at GCC but incoming pastors. I don’t think it is possible for us to know the motives of Piper or the motives of GCC for not keeping his sermon in their archive. I just don’t believe that Piper was directly trying to counteract GCC’s ideology:
1. GCC church is not even in attendance for most of the sessions at Shepherd’s conference – its not directed at GCC or MacArthur.
2. The messages are for pastors in general who needed to hear the message of racial harmony.
As far as your challenges – that will be pretty difficult since I live in Israel.
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for you reply. My intention was not to make GCC a more ethnic church; I only stated their demographics for the sake of contrasting, Driscolls and Macarthurs
Bear in mind, Driscolls and Macarthur’s demographics are radically diffrent, and therefore, the methods used will be different. I am not claiming to change the essence of the gospel, nor am I claiming, you must be so relevant you lose the gospel.
All I am saying is that Driscoll has been accused of being to relevant, and as Dr. Macarthur has stated:
“but the lifestyle he models—especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world’s filthy fads—practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification.”
This was posted, on Pulpit magizine blog, almost three years ago. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/11/grunge-christianity/
I am not claiming GCC hasn’t made valid claims; however, they fail to recognize Driscoll doesn’t have the same demographics as grace. Practically speaking, his methods will differ, but his theology is precise.
As for Piper, almost everyone who attended the conference knows about it. Email Phil Johnson, or Piper himself doxa@desiringgod.org
Maybe it was before your time, but it still occurred, and I was there. Subsequently, Piper was not allowed back till 2006, and did not speak that year due to the impending death of his father.
Thanks again,
Mark-
Unfortunately it seems you have bad information. I just signed up to the Shepherd’s website yesterday and found the sermon that you are talking about. It was called “Christian Hedonism” and was listed among all of the other messaged given that year. For the first 10 minutes Dr. Piper talks about how he had intended to preach on “Racial Harmony” but that through the leading of the Holy Spirit and others was asked to preach on “Christian Hedonism.” As a result he prays, preaches on “Racial Harmony” for 10 minutes and then moves onto “Christian Hedonism.”
Just so there is no confusion, here is a link to the first 10 minutes: Session 8 – “Christian Hedonism” (Excerpt)
Again this was available with all other 2001 Shepherds Conference Recordings for free.
Mark, you need to repent of your claim brother:
“John Piper in 1998, at the Shepards Confrence, tried to speak on Racial Harmony at GCC. You can’t find his message (as Grace has not allowed it to be published), and GCC wanted him to speak on the Supremacy of God. As a result, Dr. Piper, wasn’t asked back until 2006.”
i dont know man, you seem to be coming down really hard on MacArthur and trying to give as much grace and leniency to Driscoll on the other hand. I know there are timelines and blogs but you gotta know that there is probably more to the story than you can read. what i understand, and other’s have said this to, of JMac is that he cares about the word Driscoll is preaching and how it impacts the believers, is it wrong for JMac to call Driscoll to the high standard of teaching that we read about in the Bible, keeping in mind that what Driscoll says can be implying unnecessary innuendos, attributing off the wall metaphors to Christ (if even in jest), and leading congregations to think about and dwell upon unwholesome thoughts (as he goes into depth on things that he interprets from Song of Solomon).
It’s messy to say that one person is right and the other wrong, and yet fun to do. You made a comment about JMacs style of preaching not fitting in up in Seattle, but JMac is in the heart of Southern California and his preaching and leadership of TMC and TMS have had a huge impact, and it is devoted to integrity. I too have benefited from Driscoll’s preaching, but he has to keep his integrity too. I wonder sometimes if Driscoll likes the thrill of saying the next shocking statement or being the talk of the town just a little too much.
TO: pb&j an brother’s surgery
I am more than willing to post your comments however I need valid email addresses and at least real usernames. I will not publish your email address, its merely so that I have a way to contact you and verify that you are a real person. In addition, I need real names because the names you provided attract spam when posted. If you want to use an alias that’s fine but at least make it a real name like Bob or Zerubbabel.
In addition, even though your comments don’t support my view please don’t be afraid to tell me who you really are. I’m not some jerk that isn’t willing to listen to opposing view points or even have my error and sin pointed out to me. Both of you have provided new and important information that I think everyone deserves to read and know about especially because it has made me rethink some things. So please, if you can, don’t be afraid to declare who you are.
Cliff, for the first time, I am disappointed.
I struggle to find the words to write this because I want to make sure that you know that everything here is written as brother to brother. However, I feel you have made some claims that are over the top, for lack of a better term.
First of all, though I have attended GCC many times, I would not consider myself a “MacArthurite” as some have labeled those he shepherds. However, I do feel that he has faithfully represented the teachings of scripture for longer than twice my lifetime. Obviously, he has probably made mistakes; that is not the point. Overall, I would have no problem characterizing him as an extremely godly teacher and a man of God.
Unlike many of the posters on this board, I have met MacArthur, he is good friends with my parents, and I have had a few conversations with him in a much more personal setting. Which brings me to the reason for this post. Tonight, I attended a small gathering with friends for dinner at one of the TMC professor’s homes. MacArthur was invited for a night of casual conversation, question and answer. Over the course of the night, we spoke on what each of us appreciated about Master’s, in order to encourage a man who is often persecuted (yes, I fully understand the meaning of the word and use it on purpose).
Near the end of our time with MacArthur, the question was asked whether he used the internet to further his sermons. He brought up the blogs regarding the Driscoll sermon, and, when none of us seemed to know the context, explained the story to us.
Upon returning to the dorm, I immediately did a search for the blogs and the original transcript of the Driscoll “sermon.” Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything of the original lecture save for that which is linked from MacArthur’s blog itself.
When I read what I found there, I was shocked, appalled, even horrified. Never in twenty years of being a pastor’s son had I ever heard of such an outrage committed by any pastor. Granted, I lived a more sheltered life than some, but the contents of that sermon caused me to shudder in disgust.
What was said from the pulpit by Mr. Driscoll would rate hundreds of hits on a common pornography site in a matter of hours. The details that he gives are so graphic that nothing, NOTHING, is left to the imagination. How is this profitable to a believer in church? How does this help? How is a sermon benefited by including “shock” words that should NEVER be said from the pulpit.
if I had kids, I would never want them to hear what I just read there. And unfortunately Cliff, there is nothing in your posts that would lead me to believe that you would feel the same way.
In light of all that I have just written, I find it highly offensive that you would say, “Mark has received tons of media coverage and I think that makes JMac nervous.” The John MacArthur that I know would never be “frightened” or “nervous” about another pastor getting more coverage than himself. Even tonight, while talking with him about the situation, the only thing he was concerned about was the minds of the students he feels responsible for. There was no mention of Driscoll getting more media coverage; there was only the desire for the minds young people like us to remain pure. For you to say that he would be concerned at the hit to his own popularity the situation may generate is a gross mis-statement. Baseless statements like this serve no purpose other than to undermine the cause of christ and cause division in the church.
Secondly, you stated that Driscoll’s sermons were never intended for public use. Unfortunately, it is common knowledge that a sermon given publicly is going to be used publicly. I suppose you would have to define “public” because I would consider a church santuary filled with 300-400 people as a pretty “public” place.
Unfortunately, as MacArthur told us tonight, upon being informed that MacArthur planned on posting blogs to refute the sermons, Driscoll immeditately posted on his own site explaining that the sermons had been given in a small, private setting with only older folk in attendance. When MacArthur informed his supporters that this was obviously a lie, and that he had a DVD of the sermon to prove it, Driscoll immediately revised his statements.
Sadly, this does not seem to be any indication of a “repentant” heart. Rather, it exposes a heart that desires to cover up instances of past mistakes and bury them.
Finally, I see nothing wrong with MacArthur’s tone in these posts. There is nothing wrong with how he addresses the situation. Cliff, you make it sound as if MacArthur is making the personal judgment call to remove Driscoll from pastorship. I find that nowhere in his blogs. Please, if I have missed it, point it out; I am willing to be corrected.
MacArthur has not “given up” on Driscoll, but it does seem as if this young pastor’s track record shows a blatant disregard of older advice. Notice that the sermons in question were given a mere month and a half after MacArthur sent the letter to Driscoll regarding his foul mouth from the pulpit, almost like a slap in the face for MacArthur. When the blogs refuting the sermon were proposed, Driscoll tried to explain away the sermons; not the most repentant action he could hav done.
Unfortunately, I feel that your comments regarding MacArthur are saddly biased against him, and that you have missed the point.
Would you agree that the things Driscoll said from the pulpit were inappropriate? Would you agree that they had no constructive effect on the body of Christ?
If you cannot agree to these two simple questions, I fear we are much more different from one another than I thought.