Good ol’ Driscoll – Tolerance Rant

Yeah, he’s usually pretty chill. His theology is solid, but sometimes he does some shock factor stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8

I don’t dig that (above). Whether he’s right in his ideology or not, his methodology is a little skewed.

No, no, I have no problem with him having a severe problem with guys remaining boys and not striving to be men. That’s a real issue in the church, and definitely should be addressed.

He lost it, though. In front of his congregation. At the end of the day, whether his often severe style is good or cool or not, if we wanted to rebuke the men publicly (in front of the ladies) he went too far. His public display of severe anger and contempt would have had place at a men’s conference or even in smaller discipling.

But even then, the “How dare you? Who in the hell do you think you are?” is shock, even though the comments are well deserved I have no doubt, especially considering the issue.

I guess then comes the real question, is a severe, yelling and shouting public rebuke like that appropriate for corporate worship?

Despite the issue’s definite importance, I don’t think so.

If that is acceptable, then couldn’t any pastor get up on stage and go “I know there are guys here in the congregation that lusted this past week. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!? VIEWING THAT GIRL LIKE AN OBJECT, A PIECE OF CRAP (or insert other expletive)!! You need to STEP UP and be a MAN!!” and then say “if you’re mad at me for saying that, it’s the holy spirit.”

I think that’s dangerous. If a guy did that, filled rebuke with unnecessary shock, I wouldn’t be happy to him, and, roast me if you want, I don’t think that all those feelings of discomfort would be the Holy Spirit.

I guess. If that was really the anger of God, then his anger had a place. If it was personal anger, then it didn’t. I think that’s what it boils down to as far as the anger goes. There’s not way to really judge that. Personally, I’m a little skeptical believing that that was really necessary to get his point across. If a pastor even said the comments at the beginning of the video, I’d be shifting in my seat.

Making people uncomfortable I think we can all agree is not the main goal, spreading Truth is. But that can easily be an argument for just “anything goes” in addressing Christ’s bride, which I really don’t think works, i.e. walking up on stage and going “Did anyone in here sin this past week? *pause*… IF YOU DID YOU’RE ACTING LIKE ****!!!!!!!” Truth, maybe, but appropriate?

And as far as the sword analogy, I’ve heard the sermon. It’s good. But what happens when the sword cuts the people and not the sin (assuming the people are Christians)? Do we just say that they’re ignoring truth if we’re yelling at them, cursing at them, etc. and they don’t like it?

I know I’m picking at him a little more than necessary, and to respond to your “I’m not a Driscoll fanboy” statement, I’ll say “I’m not a Driscoll hater.” The guy preaches the gospel, and has his head screwed on straighter than many other preachers who sacrifice truth for nice. I dig the guy, which is why I posted the original video.

I realize the sermons are not in context. My problem (not really a big problem, I’m just nitpicking) is that he yelled unnecessarily. Again, I agree with the ideology, but not the methodology. This question I believe is a good one: “If one can get the point across of the severity of the problem and the necessity of Truth, is superfluous anger necessary? Am I still communicating love for my flock? More importantly, am I communicating the true essence of the gospel, i.e. yes, you are sinful, but there is redemption in Christ?” If I can do those things without treating people like crap, then excessive severity can cloud my Truth just as easy as lax severity.

Just some general statements. As far as they relate to the yelling message, my issue is could that message have been conveyed without the yelling, screaming, and cursing. (I guess ‘who in the hell’ is not really cursing, but it’s not something you’d want your kids repeating on the playground).

Haha, I gotcha. I can understand why. It’s obviously a serious issue.

Don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I can’t seem to reconcile wrath-based public rebuking with the messages in the Pauline epistles:

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
—Ephesians 4:26-27, 31-32

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
—Colossians 3:8

Obviously, rebuking is biblical. And rebuking even in righteous anger is right. But that should be in balance with a tender heart, forgiveness, and love. Not that we should be soft on lukewarm ‘men,’ but that we should rebuke them with righteous anger but a tender heart. I don’t see yelling and ‘obscene talk’ as playing a part in that, at least not at a congregation.

Again, not trying to beat a dead horse, but this is a good discussion. I often times am legalist so forgive me for that. And, again, it’s the less-important methodology I’m discussing (which is a tertiary issue) rather than philosophy or theology (which are more central issues).

Trey, I agree with you definitely. It really is a battle and struggle and requires true Holy-Spirit-given discernment.

Just to clarify, my comments were not about his choice to rebuke his flock, whether the rebuke was in context, or about what his message was about at all, my comments were about that one little section in which he yelled, in my opinion unnessecarily. The “Who in the hell do you think you are?” comment I really don’t think had a place. Maybe that’s just me. I don’t have a problem with (righteous) anger. I don’t have a problem with displaying that (righteous) anger. I do, however, think that he got up on a soapbox there, and I’ll explain why.

The comments he made after his rebuke weren’t accompanied by Scripture. Whether I’m taking him out of context or not, that video clip is long enough for him to have thrown in at least some scripture into his rebuke. I think his rebuke would have “earned more points” in my book if he had used scripture. Secondly, I really can’t seem to justify the ‘who in the hell.’ Yeah, I’m a church boy. Yeah, I’ve had my mouth washed out with soap for even saying something near that. But still, I don’t think that’s a good idea. Lastly, I really don’t know how much I agree to the statement that if that made my uncomfortable and if I didn’t appreciate that then the Holy Spirit is convicting me of abusive sin. A general statement like that is dangerous. Also, I think statements like “Shame on you if you’ve been coming to Mars Hill (and abusing a woman)” and “Shame on you if you are not become a member (of this church)…” really are out of place. I get the point, but does that mean people in abusive sin shouldn’t come to church? (btw, I know what he’s trying to say. I just don’t agree with methodology here.)

Just saying. I know I’m prolonging this discussion, but I just wanted to clarify my points. I have NO problem with mots of his statements. They are truthful, they are relevant, they are necessary. The excessive yelling, the language, the ranting (all methodology, not philosophy) I can’t seem to fully justify.

Again, maybe it’s just me.

Trey, if you believe that Driscoll has his methodology down all the time you haven’t listened to enough of his stuff. That’s not a put-down, but I’ve heard (and simply heard about in areas where I don’t want to listen) messages that are off-the-wall, things that go way too deep and graphic into marital intimacy (on sunday morning), and messages that serve primarily as pulpits for simple ranting. I know no pastor is perfect, but this guy has some serious issues I pray he resolves. Whether you agree with rebuking or not is not the question in my opinion. We all agree with rebuking here and we all agree with even harshly challenging guys to be guys. Again, what I don’t like is the unnecessary yelling, and I think claiming the authority of the Holy Spirit in his yelling methodology is EXTREMELY dangerous.

My dad and I were talking about this tonight. I defended Driscoll’s methods, playing his advocate, trying to see what theology my dad could offer that would affirm or debunk Driscoll’s questionable preaching. My dad said the guy isn’t crazy, but he’s off in numerous areas. The guy has talked about really obscene stuff to his flock. My dad made also a good point. The pastor has the responsibility of being role model as well to his flock. Often times, if the pastor does A, the flock will go ahead and do both A and B. The pastor walks a fine line as role model.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1642782-piper-on-driscoll-and-macarthur

Listen to that, it’s Piper talking about Driscoll and talking about Macarthur’s attacks on Driscoll. It’s worth listening to, since you’re a big Piper guy.

Gosh, I wish I could communicate this better. Piper says it well “He’s walking a fine line.” He’s almost perfectly solid theologically, but he’s playing with fire when it comes to how he preaches and what he endorses.

If you want an extremely sound message on Jesus, on ministry, on manhood, go to Driscoll. But if you think that Driscoll is where it’s all it, you haven’t heard enough.

As far as the yelling at guys, I guess we just need to put that one down. I don’t agree with that methodology, but we can keep talking about that if you want. But that being said, as Driscoll as a whole, the guy’s got a good way to go before he gains my vote.

Not to mention, with all due respect to you my brother, I think that argument you made on Thinklings may be flawed. If you think that phrases like “Who in the Hell” and words like “Damn” or “Sh*t” etc. are necessary to convey strong messages, aren’t you undermining the standalone power of the Word and of the Holy Spirit? Not saying you are, but I think that argument might be if I am understanding you correctly. If I need to tell my flock “Hey guys, present yourselves as holy, and flee sin!” what am I gaining by saying “Hey guys, don’t act like sh*t this week and damn sin again!” If the answer is impact, I think there is something theologically flawed with that statement. That means that the power of our rebuke and the power of our biblical authority is actually improved and dependent on cultural words and phrases. That just doesn’t make sense.

Thoughts? Maybe I am wrongly judging your argument.

And, by the way, this is all constructive. Not a personal attack.

Here’s something to think about, and will be my last point before I’ll let you or others respond.

In the same way we often sugarcoat the gospel and biblical messages, I think we can just as easily (especially now in a culture that wants to be shaken up) sourcoat it.

That doesn’t mean we need to lessen the spiritual authority and conviction of the Word or of our teaching, but it means that adding an extra dose of “sour” to our expository preaching means we’re on the other end of the preaching spectrum, which is also I believe a dangerous place to be.

At the end of the day, if our ‘spiritual’ impact is dependent on strong words and phrases, or sourcoating rebukes and preaching to elicit reaction, I have trouble fully believing it’s spiritual.

The goal I believe is explanation, not supplementation. The call of the preacher is to present the Word and explain it’s application, but not to supplement it with what I believe are often unnecessary sours or sweets. If we do that, we play with serious fire.

Not saying we shouldn’t use words like “hell” or “damn” or etc. in a sermon, but at the end of the day, do the words supplement the word or are they explaining it? Are you supplementing scripture with sour syrup or sweet syrup? Or are you giving your congregation the sole word of God and it’s explanation, without the added flavoring?

I think those are questions we should always consider.

Thoughts on any of what I’ve said?

And just to clarify, “Hell” and “Damn” would be two words I’d be okay with using, in a biblical context. As in “The wages of sin is eternity in hell” rather than “what the hell” or “to hell with that,” or “humans are born into sin; facing future spiritual damnation” rather than “i don’t give a damn” or “damn it”

Haha I gotcha. I’ve heard Driscoll’s stuff on strong language at a conference with Piper. He has good proof.

I’m definitely not saying there’s never a time for harsh language. But I’d have to be preeeetty entangled with the Spirit of God and incessantly on my knees to even consider saying something like “damn him.” I know what you’re saying though. It is not impossible. But the prerequisites for harsh, strong, condemning language coming from a person’s mouth form a pretty long and serious list.

The emasculation I think is a different story. There’s nothing superfluous in that statement I believe, he seriously means: if you guys can’t get it together and stop messing around, just defenestrate it all. I think he could have been a lot more graphic in that statement right there, but he wasn’t.

My issue really isn’t with harsh or awkward concepts (like emasculation, sexual intimacy in S.o.S., literally cursing someone, etc.) my problem is with the way those things are conveyed. While you shouldn’t preach in a way that keeps the crowd “okay” or “satisfied,” I think offending people should be the farthest thing down your list.

I guess summing it up from my POV, if you can get the Truth across in an understandable but raw, compassionate but rough and harsh at times, without completely ripping your congregation’s faces off, you’ve done the right thing. If you need to rip someone’s face off with crude language and crude descriptions of subjects, that person probably isn’t giving enough attention to the true meat of the subject, instead you’ve caught him on the intensity of your language.

In the end, it really does come down to the issue of heart (even though since I struggle with being legalistic, that bothers me sometimes). If God has given you authority and tells you to rip a face, you rip a face. But I think that those instances are few and far between, and I doubt they come in steady streams. That doesn’t mean you can’t own someone up with the Word, rebuke someone, condemn someone, preach on S.o.S. (as long as you remove youngins including myself from the room), rag on guys, rag on your flock, even get mad. But to play with the fire of crudeness and profanity (even if it is often defined by culture), would require me to be purged of any desire I had to “shake someone up,” not to mention always being on my knees weeping with compassion for my flock and in constant, humble, ready submission to the Father. That’s a pretty serious laundry list before dropping harsh language.

At the end of the day I think we’re on the same page, we just have different preferences and needs. I don’t disagree with any of the proof you’ve presented. And for the record, I like me some harsh preaching. That’s what got me listening to Driscoll’s (age appropriate) stuff. That’s why I posted the Tolerance Rant (even though that was fairly humorous), because I like some in your face smackdown (stories). I listened to enough of his work to realize that the guy was (as Piper says) “100% correct doctrinally” but I also listened to enough to realize some of his methodology made me want to pull our my bible and do some critical thinking, consulting, and praying.

“The emasculation I think is a different story. There’s nothing superfluous in that statement I believe, he seriously means: if you guys can’t get it together and stop messing around, just defenestrate it all. I think he could have been a lot more graphic in that statement right there, but he wasn’t.”

To comment further on this, I know someone will respond saying that Paul’s statement is already really graphic. Yes, it is. That’s a pretty serious, graphic (and painful) statement. What I meant was that Paul didn’t say something unnecessarily crude. I think he was echoing Jesus from Matthew 5:29-30. If your body is causing you to sin, get a grip, or completely remove that temptation. That was a harsh, edgy, but not superfluously crude statement. It could have been much more descriptive.