I have posted his story of repentance here. Please defer any further comments to that article.

I hold no personal dislike for Mr. Driscoll, and I pray for him. But loyalty most go first and foremost to Jesus and what He has specifically said in His word. The excuse I’ve often heard for Mr.Driscoll, even from friends of mine who attend his church, is that “he is young and still growing in the Lord, aren’t we all?”. Totally ignored is the clear requirement of God that an overseer must not be a novice, must be blameless, must have a good reputation with the unsaved (1Tim.3:1-7). Yet Mr. Driscoll’s popularity to the unsaved world is for his foul language. Even the world knows that isn’t Christian behavior. Even his followers acknowledge that. For that reason alone, he does not qualify to be an overseer, let alone to be in the pulpit. Judgmental you say? This is God’s rule, not mine. God also forbids coarse jesting (dirty jokes, etc.). Indeed He forbids any unwholesome words to come out of our mouths, yet I have personally been offended at Mr. Driscoll’s repeated sexual joking from the pulpit, and his use of totally unnecessary vulgar language. His is the exact kind of stuff I used to hear (and say) in my degenerate high school days. One wonders how anyone ever received the Gospel without resorting to such gutter talk. Jesus didn’t use offensive language in this sense, because He would be contradicting His own word in doing so (same applies to Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, etc.). People were offended at Jesus because He claimed to be God Himself. People were offended because He exposed their sins (and nowhere did He use gutter talk in doing so). And as I read this blog, I see many are offended at MacArthur because he is exposing some errors of Driscoll. Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his error. Paul sometines named names when he rebuked people in churches who were leading others astray, even naming some to be turned over to Satan so they would learn not to blaspheme (1Tim.1:20). The purpose of rebuke is to call to repentance. Not to condemn, but to correct them that they may be sound in the faith (Titus 1:13), which is what Mr. MacArthur has done. And Mr. MacArthur has done so publicly, because Mr. Driscoll has been diseminating errors publicly.

Jesus isn’t impressed by our claims, or by our works. He said many will call Him “Lord”, and even do many wonderful works in His name. What does He think of them? He says “depart from me, I never knew you, you who work iniquity” (Matt.7:21-23) To Jesus, it doesn’t matter if we claim to believe in Him, or even if we do ministry in His name. If we are also doing what He has forbidden in His word, He says we are none of His. It is unbiblical to say “hey, we all love Jesus, that’s all that matters”, because Jesus says that isn’t so. He says “if you love Me, keep my commandments”. In other words, talk is cheap, if we truly love Him, show it by being obedient to His word (evidence of true repentance). If a pastor uses forbidden speech as mentioned above, then no matter how many he is “reaching”, no matter how much he may insist “it’s all about Jesus”, he is showing his flagrant disregard for God’s word. And in doing so, he is presenting a “Christianity” that says it’s OK to do what God forbids, as long as you’re bringing them to Christ, and to affirm that you “love Jesus”. What crazy kind of “Christianity’ is that?

I’ve also been offended at the flippant, irreverent manner with Mr. Driscoll handles God’s holy word, turning much of it into standup comedy, (jokes about Noah being drunk in his tent, jokes about Jesus’ humanity, jokes about bible accounts being like “trashy daytime television talk show”, etc., etc., etc.). This isn’t “reaching the lost” by “contextualizing” the message. It’s sending an entirely different message altogether.

There seems to be a prevailing attitude that as long as people are coming to Christ, that’s all that matters. That, somehow, if a church is growing in numbers, it must be “blessed” by God. Have we forgotten that Jesus said Sardis had a name that they were “alive” (alive in Christ, perhaps a happening church that people were excited to come to), yet Jesus said they are really dead! He’s not impressed with numbers, marketing strategies to “take the city for Christ”, making the church “seeker friendly”, or making the Gospel attractive to the unsaved. He is most concerned about obedience to His word. He’ll take care of the rest. He will add to His church those whom He will.

This is not about two different styles of preaching. It’s not about pointing fingers and friendly fire. It’s about being faithful to God’s word (not a Pharisaical concept). It’s about repentance (and showing evidence of it), sanctification, obedience, loving God and His word above men, understanding the very character of Jesus, and contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

I pray for Mark Driscoll, and for John MacArthur. I love them both. But for the sake of the Gospel, Mark Driscoll needs to repent, pull all his offensive material off his website, pull material that teaches false doctrine off his recommended reading list at his Resurgence site, step down from the pulpit until such time that he can sufficiently mature to the point where he can preach God’s word in purity and truth.

For example let’s use a preacher who preaches a message about redemption or about the Christian’s struggle with, let’s say, pornography. During that message he makes a joke, or maybe not even a joke, but tells a story about something private between his wife and him. Is she wrong to criticize his use of that incident if the H.S. worked in the service and brought someone to a saving knowledge of Christ or helped someone understand how to overcome a lust drive for pornography? Would he be right in telling his wife that she should not dare criticize his preaching as long as people are being led to the Lord and he has advocated no heresy? I kinda don’t think so. Now broaden that to other misjudgments in the pulpit which involve other people or incidents or cross some biblical (though not necessarily heretical) line. Should not people tell their pastor, “Wait a minute”?

Take the Driscoll example. Driscoll apologized for “cussing.” He did so after rethinking its potential detrimental effect. But why did he rethink? It was because somebody brought it to his attention (actually many people). The result, then, was that good came from criticism despite all the enraged people who argue that Driscoll should be able to sin as much as he wants in the pulpit as long as some people get saved or helped.

Actually Jeff says he thinks Driscoll should be held to account if he commits a “grave” sin. And we know when it’s a “grave” sin because…um…well, I guess when the people in control tell us whether it is grave? Who decides? Many of the criticisms came from people who thought it was a “grave” sin for him to violate NT direction against crudity by presenting the Gospel with crudity. But Driscoll’s defenders say to leave him alone supposedly because the sin is not so grave. Again, who decides?

What bothers me, I guess, is that in Driscoll’s defense, pastors are arguing to just let it go. Makes me wonder whether their ministries will ever take a stand against sin, and, if so, how would they justify ignoring some sins while preaching against others.

I’m not a Driscoll hater. From what I understand, he provides a pretty good defense of some Gospel fundamentals. That’s great. I also don’t mind Driscoll doing things differently. And I would be just as quick (and have been) to take issue with MacArthur or anybody else who promotes doctrinal error or acts in an anti-biblical manner. This is not just about different styles as Jeff seems to think. If there is something biblically wrong–not just different, not just new–than it should be pointed out. But now it has been, and we can move on. I’m fine with dropping this topic and moving on. But the thing that keeps me coming back to it is not Driscoll but rather the vapid arguments of people trying to defend bad conduct by a preacher just because the guy is a preacher.

I do not advocate cussing, but cussing is language. Certain types of music are not my preference, but if music leads people to worship God then it good music. I wash my hands, but if I’m hungry I will eat even if my hands are filthy. Jesus consistently taught the religiously high minded that inside is what matters. He also taught that fruit, is how we should discern false teachers and anti-Christ. If Pastor Mark is feeding a flock with the word of God, leading people to saving faith and not committing heresy and grave sin, then let him preach and pray for his preaching.

If God is for us the who can be against us?

It’s the same way in sports. It’s ridiculous for coaches to actually expect players to perform well. The best thing a coach can do is gather everyone together and just rejoice that we all drop the ball. You see, that’s the only way for a player to grow–he needs to be surrounded by people who constantly talk about how they drop the ball. How refreshing! No more burden of having to try to catch the thing!

Actually, that all was sarcasm. But it was not intended as an attack against Driscoll. Driscoll seems to have apologized for some things. Driscoll is honest enough to say he has faults, but presses on to eradicate faults from his life. The above sarcasm, then, is not about Driscoll. It is directed at the silly arguments that some people put up to defend Driscoll. How strangely ridiculous for people who supposedly are Christians to insist that “how people grow” must be from seeing and hearing about how their pastor sins rather than their pastor merely doing his job of helping people focus their eyes on a perfect, sinless Savior.

Driscoll’s recent (past couple of years) criticism is not because he dared to be the only one in decades to approach the subject of pornography. It is his style, not his topic, that was criticized. That is what I meant by flaunting crudity. No matter how much we may like Driscoll, Ephesians does tell us not to be crude. And though Driscoll and his defenders appear to think that you can’t speak about crude subjects like adultery without being crude yourself, the Bible seems to demand the opposite.

When I argue that we should preach that “God wants us to deny ourselves and live a life wholly devoted to him” part of that may, indeed, be referencing specific sins. But if I am crude in my speech while telling someone else not to be crude in his/her sexual desires, I may lose rather than gain credibility, and I will definitely lose in a biblically-ordered life.

There is no doubt that certain pastors are not very good pastors. Therefore there is no doubt that the sexual sins amid some highly hypocritical congregations go unattended. But we have to take care not to fall victim to the pendulum principle. Errors at one extreme do not justify swinging to the opposite extreme. If one pastor does not address sexual problems, it does not mean that the next pastor should wallow in crudity in order to balance it out.

And just pointing to successes (people helped by Driscoll) does not justify his means any more than pointing to the one who has overcome sexual sin while under a pastor silent on sex justifies that ministry. Results don’t justify method. Following biblical principle both in what is taught AND in how it is taught should be the standard.