I first must say that I have enjoyed reading your blog every once in a while. You have a way with words that allows your readers to see your heart even when you don’t completely express it. And it is really neat to go back through the archives and see the different areas you have grown in over the years.

That said, words are powerful things. When you really think about it, most of the time in life, we’re not completely/brutally honest with people. Though it may be hard at times, there is a reason for that: we are called to build others up rather than tear them down.

My advice to you would be this: be as honest as you can without causing discouragement to others. Write the things that will build others up. Now obviously, life is not always candy and roses, so what do you write then? As I read your entries regarding your mom, I was constantly struck by the way that you always brought the focus back to the Lord; that is what was encouraging! Even in a trial, you encouraged me with the things you said. Keep writing those things, because you never know who you may encourage.

Something that I have begun recently and have found immensely helpful is the practice of journaling. I went through many of the same questions you are asking only a few months ago, and I decided that in my case, the best option would be to write my thoughts in a place where I could regulate who read it. I may never show my journal to anyone, but it remains as a way to unload those thoughts from my head that I need to get out. And, it serves as a timeline of my growth in Christ.

I respect you a lot, and I’ll be praying for you and the decision you make

James Phillipps

P.S. We need to hang out sometime

I know that journaling which is now blogging online is very therapeutic. You have always been a reader and writer and communicate very well in written and spoken language. Words have always had a great way of allowing you to outlet and think through things. I think that it’s great you have a way to think through things and work out solutions to life’s travels, as you have put it. I know too that it feels good sometimes to let people in and get feedback, ask for prayer and fellowship in those travels whether extremely joyous, difficult or even the everyday. I think you are right in seeking balance though. Not just because it will make others happy, but because it’s good for YOU!

I actually think I like Amos’ suggestion the best. Write to your heart’s content as you blog and then decide one of three things:
1) Keep this post completely to myself. This may be a choice that can allow you to find therapy in just getting your thoughts out on paper before yourself and God.
2) Share this post with close family and close friends whom you can trust.
3) Share this with the WORLD. – Remember though that the world is a very very large place and though we should trust God with all things we should not be irresponsible either. Think of it this way: I know I should trust God with my money but posting my social security number on the side of my car would be unwise.

One other thing, I think what Emily said about keeping some things on a conversation only basis may be good too. Writing isn’t the only way to let things out. Sometimes you may not want to share with even some of your family or certain friends what you are thinking or feeling about specific topics, but you need someone to use as a sounding board and to ask for prayer maybe. Those are the posts you keep private if you feel the need to get it out in writing and then share in person with a person whom you want to seek counsel or prayer from.

I know you and I know that you need an outlet, everyone does and yours just happens to be writing and sharing. Again though I think it’s wise to seek a balance between sharing your “social security number with the world” and being so closed up that no one knows who you really are and what you really think about anything.

I feel like blogging has been a good outlet for you even if you have felt frustrated at not being able to fully express everything at times. I would keep it if you still find it therapeutic and helpful for working out your thoughts. What Kenny said above is a great point, though–I would be careful what you post because information sharing is crazy. Some employers DO check blogs, etc. My mom always said, “Never put down in writing something you wouldn’t want the whole world to know”–wise words I’ve always kept at the back of my mind and that I do let control my actions. My most private and intimate troubles and conversations are kept verbal with trusted friends. I’m not saying this is necessarily the path *you* should take, but it’s one I think wise.

As far as sharing everything, including information about other people… simply be cautious not to gossip, share private information, or things that would embarrass others. That is never good, kind, or Christ-like… even if that person wronged you. If you MUST share a story because it inextricably involves you and you HAVE to blog about it, perhaps censor the names of others in a way that keeps them perfectly anonymous. If that is not sufficient to disguise their identity, then password protect it for yourself or perhaps don’t post it.

Just some thoughts!

~*Emily*~

I know you’re looking for suggestions here, but I don’t know that I can offer much. I think you have to do what seems best to you. I don’t think censoring yourself is bad — as long as you can be real and open with someone (it doesn’t need to be the world). I also don’t think sharing is necessarily bad, but I think it can be. So I guess I’m #8. Not because I don’t enjoy reading your thoughts, but because ultimately I’m not invested in this blog like you are — and I think it’s ultimately your choice.

I would like to see a hybrid of those options, as a suggestion of my own.

Use the blog, dont give it up. I know it is very hard for me to write sometimes, but I have found that often times if I come and read what other people have written, it sparks my own thoughts, and I have come to really appreciate that about your writing.

That being said, I would suggest that you keep on writing, and as you write certain things you want the whole world to not know, they should be password protected. Make it selective, but try to write some posts that everyone can see.

Also as you pick topics and thoughts, try not to dredge up too much of the past. I know for me personally there are many times where if I am exploring where I am at right now, I can very safely say almost everything I want to. Granted there are days where I write whole posts and then never publish them for some of those personal reasons, but as a rule I have found that just by writing it out I have managed to purge some of those frustrations and pains from my system for a while.

I would say just to write what comes to mind, and after you have finished a post, go back through it and see if you want the whole world to read it, or maybe just that select group of family and friends that have been given permissions.

As always I am more than happy to get together with you and talk in person!!

Paul oversaw the murder of Christians and then became one of, if not the, most influential leader in the church.

Chuck Colson is a convicted felon.

I think no one should ever be excluded from ministry. From serving the body or others. Leadership is tricky though. . . Paul at least had an encounter with God that was undeniable.

Colson became a Christian, I believe, after he did the stuff that landed him in prison.

I think cheating on your wife may need more than 8 months of time off, though. Haggard at least has had nearly 4 years since his scandal.

I can not say that I know how you feel, because I don’t think I can possibly know that. I can only know that your words written here resonate with me. They feel like words I could have written many times. And I do not want to give any empty advice or words. I don’t know that there is anything I could to offer healing.

I know you, so I want to offer an ear to listen and a shoulder to cry on.

I have had a lot of suffering over the last few years — and I generally didn’t want to hear things like “God has a plan” or “this will work out” or anything like that. I just wanted someone to understand my pain and acknowledge it was real.

Well I acknowledge yours. I’m sorry. I hope things get better soon. I will pray for you…

I think it’s great you found peace in your pain and suffering, but know that some people have not and not everyone is ready for your message. I’m not.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Thanks for writing!

Thanks for posting this. I know things have been rough, but it is so encouraging to see where you are coming out of this so much stronger because of it.

You cross my mind every so often and I am looking forward to seeing you again once the hectic holiday break schedule settles into the semester.

Love you, and love hearing about what you’re up to, dude!

It’s a Piper sermon. Different Psalm, but same subject.

You are such an AMAZING writer! Well spoken and I loved the verses. I am so sorry about your Aunt I will keep her in my prayers.

Love,

Kathy

I actually prefer the way The Bible In 90 Days approaches this better: Cover to Cover.

Why? Because of context. I think it would be much easier to get and understand not just the immediate context of what you’re reading, but also the grand context (The redemptive history of God) by reading it start to finish.

I actually just ordered The Bible in 90 Days — which is just an NIV split into Daily sections of 12 pages each along with the workbook and Weekly DVD lessons. I get a nice discount from Zondervan.

I plan to start soon, but was doing a little pre-reading of exegesis and hermeneutics before I started (though there won’t be much time to anything in-depth with the text, when you’re reading at the pace required).

On my end, I harbored no ill feelings towards you, Dr. MacArthur, or Mark Driscoll based on your posts. If anything, your posts stirred in me an interest in the topic and a desire to look into it more if I found the time. I have learned not to overreact to things I read on a blog/on the Internet (I still do, sometimes because I’m a sinner and fallen) because the person who posts can only research so much and are sharing from their point of view.

Your apology was beautiful, and I hope people will have the wisdom to accept it and let things be.

Sincerely,

Corinne

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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,

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

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

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

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.

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.

Though I’d rather see these public criticisms mostly focus on the content and not the person.

Most of what he said (save the faulty exegesis of SoS that it is very plain from the excerpt of the sermon) I would not disagree with as a suggestion for married couples, but not a mandate as if SoS and the Bible as a whole were imperatival functionally since they are God’s Word. And I would be very offended had he said these things with my wife in the audience – if he is speaking to a group of mature believing husbands that’s one thing, even if he cut his language back a little this material is not appropriate for singles – I know I would struggle with what he said if I was single. Also your point of emphasis is very valid – Driscoll is focusing on the action (even then its very debatable that the text is even speaking of an action) over the purpose of the literature. It would be like a sermon on Mark 4 that focused on farming instead of genuine and false repentance.
This causes me to question Driscoll’s ministry, exegesis, and maturity (despite his many good qualities and the very solid sermons that I have heard). Without question this tarnishes his image as a Christian, and Christ’s image in the eyes of the world (1 Cor 10:28).
I wish Mac would have laid this out at the beginning – without context it was hard to understand what he was accusing him of. It seems that the issue is obscene language over harsh language.

Also its unclear what Driscoll repented of in his spring cleaning blog, whether he repented of his language or the fact that it was on the internet. Hopefully it was both, but from what he said it seems like he was more repenting for it being out than for what he said. If that’s true – he’s very wrong indeed.

Praying that Driscoll changes for the glory of the Lord – he is too gifted. I pray that Satan will not be allowed to destroy such an amazing ministry.

Maybe we could recall 1 Cor 1 and remember that we are not ‘of Paul’ or ‘of Apollos’ etc etc etc. I am not a Driscollite. Nor a Macarthurite. I am a Christian. (reminding myself more than I am you!)

Rebecca Millsap – April 16th, 2009

We love the Bible based teaching rather than the topical messages. I don’t know who Mark Driscoll is and will need to read up on his fundamental beliefs. I do believe though that it’s ok to set apart Pastors from each other, they dot have to be united on everything. 2 Peter and Jude are full of warnings on how we need to be aware of false teaching who come in looking like children of light but change the gospel or change Jesus! Teachers too will be held to a higher level of accountability by God so they really do need to be careful what they teach as truth. I respect John MacArthur and his teachings and for calling this man out!

Kenny Johnson – April 15th, 2009

You know, I’m sure JMac is a good guy, but this is just ridiculous. This kinda criticism, and dare I say prudishness is what drives people away from Jesus, not to Him.

Aaron Anderson – April 16th, 2009

challenging stuff dude… it’s that balance we all hold, are we going to engage the world by vocalizing what we’re vehemently against, or be known by what we passionately stand for?

I think one way we’ll see who’s more in line here is to see where their respective ministry styles are in 10-20 years… I have my own thoughts on this

I do however want to comment on a few themes here that merit noting. First, the standard to which heralds of the ministers are called is high. What may be acceptable from the mouth of a layman is unacceptable from the pulpit. A Pastor ought to guard his word carefully. Dr. MacArthur believes that Mark Driscoll is has failed in this regard.

Secondly, contextualization is no excuse for crudeness. It is one thing to explain the gospel in an accessible way, something no one could argue John MacArthur is incapable of, it is another entirely to soil it by mixing it with the base things of this world for the sake of increasing its appeal. (Have we forgotten the Gospel is offensive?)

Another point in that same vein, that John MacArthur’s “uptight fundamentalist approach” would not be effective in Seattle, is absurd. Grace Church is in Sun Valley California, no where near the bible belt, in fact it is less than 20 minutes from Van Nuys California, Pornography Capital of the world. You judge how “damaging” to the gospel his approach has been in that context!

Finally, I want to say that attacking error is not damaging to the gospel. Defending the sanctity of the ministry of the gospel serves to advance gospel. It shows that we are serious about the standards to which we are called.

Brother are you sure you wanna get in the middle of these two? Do you think you can single handedly take on the most popular fundamentalist preacher in Southern California? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Brother who appointed you as Mark’s advocate? Did he call you and ask him to defend him? Are you personal friends with him? Who asked you to defend Mark’s name?

Brother it appears you don’t even go to Dr. MacArthur’s church so what is the big deal? It looks like you’re affiliated with The Master’s College or Seminary so maybe that’s it, but if you are a part of those organizations then you are subject to Dr. MacArthur’s authority.

Brother don’t give in to the temptation to defend someone you don’t know or haven’t met. It’s not your responsibility and in all likelihood it’s unwanted. Let Mark defend Mark. Your intentions may be honorable, but no one is going to hold you accountable for whether or not you defended him.

I would just like to say saying someone has a legalistic know-it-all approach and then calling them to repent of their pride sounds on the surface a little hypocritical. Anyone who has ever met John MacArthur knows that he is a humble man. I also know for a fact that he wrote a letter to Mark telling him of the things he was doing well and at the end of the letter showed him from Scripture were Mark fell short.
The argument here is not ever preference. It is over speech. No one is mad at Pastor Mark for wearing jeans, people are upset that he is not using pure speech. I like Mark Driscoll and want to see God bless his ministry. I think many people have come to Christ through his ministry.

I go to Grace Community Church and I know for a fact that Grace Church has very different stylistic preferences than Mars Hill, they are not ripping on style, MacArthur and Phil Johnson are saying that Mark’s speech is not glorifying to God, that is not a preference argument.

Thanks for posting this. I hadn’t heard about this, but now I am curious to see both sides. Our pastor is going through a sermon series on Song of Solomon right now, and we have been enjoying it immensely.

As a Christian, married woman, it breaks my heart to see a lack of intimacy and joy in many marriages. I’ve been thinking about doing a serious post on the issue and being honest, but…I’m still in the thinking stage.

I enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work!

So, why do you think it was a reference to the same sermon John is talking about?

Also, even if you have some knowledge that it is, where in Spring cleaning did he repent?

Finally, if you think Mark’s message is biblical, I don’t know if you are thinking of the same message that I am. Let’s just say that what he preached in Seattle was radically different.

So, if you were the president of a seminary and a college, and there was someone who was gaining a following with your students, and you were convinced that it was bad thing–like harmful spiritually–what would you do?

John has written to Mark several times, and Mark has not responded. So what next?

More about Spring Cleaning:
I noticed you have linked the post to the updated “spring cleaning.” That was changed, I think, after MacArthur series started, making it sound possible that Mark was talking about a sermon in a church rather than a private lecture to older people. But it still says at the bottom of the page that it has not been edited, which is sort of strange.

Here is the original one, which you might link to in your post instead of the current one. After all, it does not seem fair to critique John for not responding to something that Mark did after John started his critique. Does that make sense?

http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Ftheresurgence.com%2Fnode%2F1495&u=theresurgence.com/node/1495&d=bRlNfUxISmWk&icp=1&.intl=us

Thanks for letting me comment here,

Jesse

If it’s an issue of myself not being mature enough to handle dwelling on the things Driscoll is talking about, then I hope I can become more mature [and naturally means I would hope MacArthur also sees where he is at fault].

But I believe you’re focusing more on the problem of one person attacking another; that shouldn’t be going on (not a “hill to die on” for Christians).

-Daniel

Mostly I think you’re right! I mean, his (Mark’s) message was very biblical as far as I could tell. It’s definitely refreshing and helpful to have specifics like Paul was giving in his writing for actual, real application of Biblical teaching.

On the other hand, he was a little heavy on the innuendos and stuff like that, which I didn’t like or need to hear. But like you said, he’s not hard-hearted about it, he’s realizing that he’s not perfect and trying to do the right thing I think.

Basically I think JMac is doing more harm than good. In fact, I think criticisms like his do more to push people away from Christ than bring them to Him.

I think these 2 (well, just one side is complaining) should simply pull a ‘Paul & Barnabas’, split ways, and shut up!

And Mark said,

Loving is for sissies, and Jesus was a dude–
I don’t just mean he had a pair, I mostly mean he’s rude.

Acts of sinful nature are transformed in my eyes
To manly concupiscence, so I extol them to my guys.

I’ve got “daddy issues,” the likes you’ve never seen.
So I ignore all fruit of Spirit and insist real men are mean.

I’m groping for my manhood, but not inside my slacks
For I prefer the lies of culture to all the Bible’s facts.

I call Jesus “Macho Man” and re-cast him in my fears,
And I won’t admit my problems, ’cause problems are for queers.

I posture on the podium, and posture in the home!
And I posture in the coffee shops and posture on the phone!

I’m a man, O yes, I am! Don’t say that I am meek.
Jesus said that he would bless them, but it’s not Him I seek.

It is the image in the mirror that’s all I need to know,
Plus a little crush on Calvin to put on a good show.

Grace is crying in the kitchen but I’ll turn the other cheek–
For now that I am famous, she knows better that she’s weak.

Love for Jesus is for chicks–and I’ll not say “I do.”
I’m no Bride of anyone–especially a dude.

Just try it, Jesus, go ahead–I’ll punch you in the eye!
Don’t talk of love and unity and how for me you died.

A different Jesus! That’s for me–a bully like myself.
“Relationship” is for the girls, and machismo is true wealth.

I won’t love you! No I won’t! Don’t say that you’re the Groom.
I’d rather have you emasculated, then put back in the tomb.

And it came to pass, that the audience of Mark Driscoll could no longer put up with the preaching of a “different Jesus” as the Corinthians had, and so they feared God and repented of their idolatry. And some of them were courageous and confronted Mark as did the brave priests in King Uzziah’s time, but they were persecuted and sore abused. They continued to intercede for their deceived brother, but Mark’s sin had not yet reached full measure and the outcome of their intercession was not yet known . . .

It’s true that God can use evil to do good. But that does not mean he wills or desires evil.

Answer to the rhetorical: I can tell you that I do not want to have a God that delights in evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCogQXjKoco

thank you so much that you didn’t. there are so many things wrong with this movie…

“Son, when you get to the hotel room…Call me”

Hours later he gets to the hotel room with his beautiful blushing bride and he calls his father,

“Dad, we are the hotel, what do I do?”

“O.K. Son, listen up, take off your clothes and get in the bed, then she should take off her clothes and get in the bed, if not help her. Then either way, ah, call me”

A few moments later…

“Dad we took off our clothes and we are in the bed, what do I do?”

O.K. Son, listen up. Move real close to her and she should move real close to you, and then… Ah, call me.”

A few moments later…

“DAD! WE TOOK OFF OUR CLOTHES, GOT IN THE BED AND MOVED REAL CLOSE, WHAT DO I DO???”

“O.K. Son, Listen up, this is the most important part. Stick the long part of your body into the place where she goes to the bathroom.”

A few moments later…

“Dad, I’ve got my foot in the toilet, what do I do?”

It is hard (impossible?) to will ourselves to give everything to God by ourselves, but we do have times where our attitude is right and we want to give everything to him, and he can use that and change us still!

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Glad to meet you! *Virtually shakes your hand*

Your writing on 9-11 is a wonderful reminder of the healing and peace God can bring. I wanted to thank you for your encouraging words… You have exhorted me today (a perfect stranger!).

Oh, and you list my pastor’s blog under “Church leaders”. Coolness.

<3

I have one question, why wouldn’t you want to pursue the spiritual qualities it takes to be in leadership in the church? I don’t see my self necissarily in any kind of church leadership in the future, and don’t feel necissarily called to it, but I still feel like it’s important in my sanctification to strive for it, and with God’s help, and his calling perhaps end up in the place where I could help someday.

Basically, I don’t understand where it even matters whether or not you might be in leadership someday. If you’re not pursuing those qualities for leadership specifically I hope you’re still pursuing them for your own sanctification and the ability to lead in small capacities with the others you know personally.

Vantage Point was a cool idea that way overused its style of shooting

Finally Dark knight was amazing and I could only sit back and enjoy
THe Rest I have not seen but most of them are supposed to be good

i HIGHLY recommend seeing the Dark Knight in theaters. it’ll probably be good either way, but it was incredible on the big screen.

Juno is good. it might make you a little uncomfortable, but it’s good in the end. doesn’t really hold up to Christian morals, but that’s to be expected i think. it’s cute but not life changing.

Hope you’re doing well.

Juno – Better than I was hoping for – good characters.

Zodiac – The trailers lied – don’t expect anything specific and you’ll probably enjoy it more than I did.

There Will Be Blood – You NEED a good sound system for this. I saw it in a theater where the speakers were too loud and bad quality and the sound over-powered everything.

Those are the ones I’ve seen. ^_^

Juno – Cute but very frank

Live Free or Die Hard – awesome movie, I liked it

Dark Knight was brilliant and amazing and definantly worth your time to go see multiple times . . .

Kite Runner was also very good, a captivating story that focuses on the struggle of friends in a multi-class culture.

Also by “12″ did you mean “21″?? Ive not seen it, but I have heard that it isnt breathtaking, but still good.

Juno has been suggested to me by several people, but Ive not had the time nor really the desire to watch it, so I still have to get around to seeing it.

and . . . yeah . . . thats that . . .

see ya round!

After I read this entry, I took a shower and started thinking… and decided I’d post a response that may be obvious, but I thought I’d share anyway.

I know you said you were going to be experimenting, but I thought that you should at least have a basic idea of what type of blog you want. There 2, maybe 3 core categories (or from biology Kingdoms) of blogs:

1. Personal – The intended audience is family and friends and the content is generally limited to things only family and friends would care about. Let’s face it, the general population doesn’t care that the you lost your job, got sick yesterday or was cut off on the freeway — but your friends might.

2. Commercial – The intended audience can be broad or narrow but the content is generally there to bring in or keep readership in order to sell ad space.

3. Other – Generally these blogs are part of a larger (commercial or non-profit) organization and the intent is generally to inform it’s users, members, etc of news (i.e. the Hulu Blog, Google Blog, church blogs, etc).

So first, you should figure out which Kingdom your blog will belong to.

Then, you need to decide on a Phylum:

For Personal you have:
1. Introspective/Philosophical – more about thoughts than about actions.

2. Log – what did you do and when did you do it.

3. Family – like a Christmas newsletter but more often.

For Commercial there are just too many to name:
movies, music, video games, politics, religion, etc. You also have commercial blogs that are essentially successful #1/#2s from the Personal Kingdom.

Thanks for working it out . . .

I’m an investor in the stock market and have started to build a position in Bank of America. One of the few 500 lb. gorillas left in the room. Every dip, I pick up more shares. I don’t think there going anywhere, but you never know. Investments are all risky.

I never thought I would see this happen here in the USA, but here we are….let’s all cross our fingers.

petes2cents.com

1 Praise the LORD, O my soul;
all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

2 Praise the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits-

3 who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,

4 who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion,

5 who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

6 The LORD works righteousness
and justice for all the oppressed.

7 He made known his ways to Moses,
his deeds to the people of Israel:

8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
slow to anger, abounding in love.

9 He will not always accuse,
nor will he harbor his anger forever;

10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve
or repay us according to our iniquities.

11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;

12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

13 As a father has compassion on his children,
so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him;

14 for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust.

15 As for man, his days are like grass,
he flourishes like a flower of the field;

16 the wind blows over it and it is gone,
and its place remembers it no more.

17 But from everlasting to everlasting
the LORD’s love is with those who fear him,
and his righteousness with their children’s children-

18 with those who keep his covenant
and remember to obey his precepts.

19 The LORD has established his throne in heaven,
and his kingdom rules over all.

20 Praise the LORD, you his angels,
you mighty ones who do his bidding,
who obey his word.

21 Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts,
you his servants who do his will.

22 Praise the LORD, all his works
everywhere in his dominion.
Praise the LORD, O my soul

What stands out to me is verses 10-13 . . . but the whole passage is encouraging.

This summer, I am preaching through Hebrews 11 and it has been really encouraging to study the men and women who have gone before us with such incredible faith. They lived in times when life was confusing and painful and yet “they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” They looked beyond their circumstances to a heavenly reward. In fact, Abraham knew that heaven was more real than the promised land he had traveled to.

I say all of that just to encourage you to press on to believe, to have faith in what your loving Father is providing for you. It may not make sense right now, but it will in the end. I will be praying that your hope would be set on another world.

~Kim

So crazy cool . . . if only I could build something like that . . . hmmmm . . .

lol

nice blog!

Sweet hour of prayer, sweet hour of prayer
may i thy consolation share
till from Mount Pisgah’s lofty height
i view my home and take my flight
this robe of flesh I’ll drop and rise
to seize the ever lasting prize
and shout while passing through the air
farewell, farewell sweet hour of prayer
and shout while passing through the air
farewell, farewell sweet hour of prayer.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

i hope oklahoma is going well. do you realize you’re further east than me right now?

I totally could get into reading your blog. the one from a while ago about the breath of God being both the life giver of man and the bible really blows my mind. I’ve never made that connection before.

See ya round.
~Amy

I agree with you about the lyric change in this case. Especially since “Holy is the Lord” is such a well-known song, and the songwriter is still around to see his lyrical offering used in worship, and the reason for changing the lyric is not to correct or clarify a theological concern, it seems improper, even distracting to change the lyric. Like you said – there are plenty of other songs out there that would suit the need and not require a change.

At my church in Kansas we change the lyrics of at least one song that I know of (“And Can It Be”), but it is an old hymn under public domain, and because of where the change takes place (“Emptied Himself of all but love” becomes “Emptied Himself out of love”, the word Himself picking up the beat for “of”), I have found in leading worship that it is neither obvious nor distracting. Perhaps in cases like this it might be more appropriate.

I once heard an adress by Keith Getty where he shared his perspective about those who change lyrics that his ministry produces. It was pretty interesting, since it came from a songwriter’s heart, and referred to a negative theological change of none other than “In Christ Alone”!

That’s my two-bits. Very interesting topic.