Would Mark Driscoll have been right in shattering the Crystal Cathedral?
Maybe it is because I am young, but I still like Mark Driscoll.
Even after the not so much a single mention of Hell in his sermon Sunday at the Crystal Cathedral and even though it will shock many people, I still believe that Pastor Mark is still a Christian. That sermon however was really bad.
But after reading some of the blogs I felt as if the tone in which they treated Mark Driscoll was inappropriate. Please understand I in no way defend Mark Driscoll for his less then stellar performance of his first sermonette at the Crystal Cathedral. I say first because according to Mark Driscoll he spoke twice.
“On Sunday, June 14, I preached two sermons at the Crystal Cathedral in Southern California. The trip went well. I paid my own travel expenses and preached without an honorarium as a way to ensure I was just serving Jesus. Everyone was super kind and allowed me to preach Jesus without edits. The sermons will be broadcast to 12 million people nationwide on the “Hour of Power” TV show, so please pray that people meet Jesus. They don’t have a firm date yet for when the show will be broadcast, but we’ll let you know on the Resurgence and on my Facebook and Twitter , so keep checking back. My first sermon was on Jesus’ claims to be God, and the second was a brutal tour of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in our place for our sins.” - Mark Driscoll
Now we on this side of TV land have no way, without actually being there, to determine what the content of the second sermon was or if the sermons were even preached to the same crowd. We should really hold back until we get more information and a response from Mark Driscoll about that..if we get one at all.
But this blog is not about the content of Mark Driscolls sermon. There is enough blogs on that…
I agree. The first sermon was shallow, was not his best and appeared to be cowardice in comparison to us brave soldiers who know so much more about the pressures of being in the public spotlight and would have personally stoned Robert Schuller if only we had been invited….but we were not and chances are we will never be. We can sit behind our blogs and wine and complain all we want. If I would have been there I woulda, we coulda, he shoulda… If only John MacArthur was there… If only Paul Washer was there… Oh wait…
Paul Washer was placed in a position where he could have turned the tables on TBN…but he didn’t. A few years ago Paul Washer sat on the same stage that has been used by the Crouches, Benny Hinn and Creflow Dollar. The entire time Paul Washer was silent on the word of faith issue.
Likewise just as Dricoll was…I believe Paul Washer was wrong. Yet no one would say that Paul Washer is a wolf in sheep’s clothing because of that would they?
However the tone across the blogosphere about Mark Driscoll was not the same as it was for other Christian leaders.
When Ray Comfort spoke at a WoF event he was hit hard by several bloggers about the issue in a humble manner. No one doubted his salvation, they were kind and Ray even wrote back responding to criticisms.
Yet look at the comments from the bloggers and commenter’s about Pastor Mark, these taken fromDefCon.
“Sadly, you were proved right: yes, Schuller is a heretic, and Driscoll has unambiguously proven himself to be a wolf is sheep’s clothing. So much for sound doctrine.”
“Perhaps now there will be a few, a precious few, that will see all of this for what it really is: apostates/heretics on parade.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but Mark Driscoll is no apostate. I may not agree on everything he does or everything he says, but he is no heretic nor is he a false teacher. He is a preacher of the Word. I have heard many of his sermons and in his own Church he preaches the Gospel. Which brings me to a question I think is vital that we answer, publicly…very soon.
There seems to be two trains of thought. On the one side you have people like me who if ever given the opportunity to preach at an apostate church will be like Ian Paisley in the midst of the Pope. Turning over the tables, rebuking the false teachings and demanding justice from God. I will preach anywhere as if I will never be invited back but I have the gift of Prophecy. I will boldly tell the truth wherever I go. It even gets me trouble sometimes with my own pride and jealousy. I to was watching Driscoll chewing on my Baja Blast straw hoping and praying that he broke the glass of that heretical glass cathedral and I was angry when it never came.
But I have to remember that there have been other great men of God, who are invited to a place and remain silent. Like I said earlier…Paul Washer on TBN, Ray Comfort at the WoF conference and John Piper when he was sitting right beside Rick Warren. However they all remained silent. These men who I believe are much smarter then me have decided on multiple occasions to stay on the side of wisdom. The wisdom goes like this “Preach the Gospel lightly without the fist pounding in hopes they look me up on the internet and are gently weaned into the Kingdom via solid preaching over time.”
I personally don’t know if that tactic is wise. It’s not what I would do but on the same scale I am still quite immature and react in ways that represent it. Yet, great Godly men are doing it. So the question that needs to be debated, wrestled with and fought over is “How do we handle this?”
How does one handle being invited to a place where they will be in the midst of wolves?
Is being silent and getting your name out there worthwhile pragmatism? Or should we ravage every single pulpit we go into that preaches something we don’t agree with, or just the rank heretical ones?
There may only be one correct answer, and I lean more towards option one for multiple reasons, but because one sides on the other does not make them an apostate. They need to be rebuked in love as Christian brothers. Not wolfs in sheeps clothing. Not at all like heretics.
We cannot use a brother in Christ as a demonstration, to show how we would have attacked a heretic.
So what will it be…since obviously reformed theology is becoming more and more mainstream, Praise God. We can expect our leaders to be invited places they should not go. So the question is if we go, how should we act?
A friend of mine tonight while talking on this subject said the following “If their not going to condemn the heresy, then they shouldn’t go at all.” That seems very wise to me, I can rest with that. How about you?
Tags: Apostate, Crystal Cathedral, Mark Driscoll, Robert Schuller, Sheeps Clothing, Wolf
August 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Thanks man. Seriously, how about the fact that Kirk Cameron regularl is a host on TBN! And he has had John Macarthur (who in a soft but direct way rebuked WoF without calling names or being mean). I think we should wait till his second message to really start criticising the man.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Here! Here!
August 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I think Driscoll's "mouth" is very tame when placed next to his critics. What passes today for "discernment" is something that should be called "gossip."
August 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Concerning Driscoll, I think wisdom would rather error on the side of Grace, rather than condemnation. Maybe this is why you see men of God silent when you think they should scream. If I was in their position I could NOT scream unless the Holy Spirit told me to. Wait upon he Lord.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Sometimes kicking down the door is not always in order, especially when the door's been opened for you. When you go out on the streets, nobody has invited you there so it's no holds barred. However, when someone offers you a hand and lets you into their home/church the scenario plays out a little differently. There has to be a little more decorum as they've been kind enough to welcome you – you must show gratitude for their hospitality. I would imagine – open to correction of course – that after sermon 1 which was not bad (I think many people judge 'good' on what they would say in his place, perhaps not what God led him to say – careful men that's dangerous ground) we will see a stronger position in sermon 2. The title of the sermon even hints at that.
While pointing out heretics and apostates may make sense at times, be careful not to sling those words around – falsely accusing a brother and possibly directing him to do the opposite of what he's been called to do in that situation. We can be as certain as we are able to be that Driscoll is a Christian by his testimony and fruits. The moment a man seems to slip in our opinion we are so quick to lead him to the cliff edge. Are we not to love one another (assuming we are talking about true brothers and sisters)? How then will people know we are Christ's disciples if we spend our time in a circular firing squad?
Calling Driscoll a wolf in sheep's clothing is remarkably slanderous. The judgment for this type of 'undercover' agent is dreadful, how dare some DefCon couch inquisitor decide that God's judgment is on this faithful man because he is not a carbon copy of the blogger. Or are we to be more like Rome, where every sermon outline, book, and teaching material is passed before a Congregatio Sancti Officii run by bloggers and everyone who crosses it is executed?
Forgive my passion, there are false teachers who need to be called out. But to level such charges against someone who has evidently taken so many hits from major denominations for his biblical stances makes me burn.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Interesting. I just read about the Christian's equivalent to Godwin's Law ("As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."). In the Christian version, replace "Hitler" with "heresy."
(http://donteatthefruit.com/2009/08/on-tornadoes-p...
IMHO, instead of calling out the host's heresy, maybe the Gospel should be preached in that place like it's never been preached before.
August 30th, 2009 at 2:32 am
I think Driscoll is simply being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, as the scripture calls us to be. Let's think about Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron a second. How many of us GNN, Way of the Master people, came to understand the gospel through WOTM that airs on TBN? I would say quite a few.
Now, I know there is a brief warning that TBN displays right before a show starts saying that the beliefs represented on the show don't necessarily represent TBN, but let's face it. The show is on a heretical station–the false prophet network or as some put it Total Blasphemy Network. What business does such sound teaching have, being on TBN? Is it bad to be associated with the network? I think it has its negatives and positives. But for those that came across Hell's Best Kept Secret while airing on TBN, I bet you (yes, I just betted) they wouldn't trade that knowledge for anything in the world.
I figured I would chime in a few thoughts on this one.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
This was a very thoughtful post, Marcus.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I certainly don't mean to be condescending, Marcus, but this was the first time I've looked your blog in a while, and was surprised (don't be offended…) by your candor and willingness to admit that while it could be easy to pretend there is a giant line that is extremely easy to discern on this issue, there is not, and you gave brother Mark the benefit of the doubt that he probably was settled in his spirit and his God-given conscience on what to say and what not to say. I also very much appreciate that you (along with many others, whom I believe are in the right) are quick to rebut those who would call Mark a wolf in sheep's clothing. We must be careful with our words…and those speak of the difference between one who is redeemed and one who is hell-bound. Teachers will be judged more strictly, but the same grace that forgives a layman's sin forgives a pastor's sin (be it omission or commission) as well.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
A man begins cutting his wisdom teeth the first time he bites off more than he can chew. – Herb Caen
February 16th, 2010 at 7:16 am
John MacArthur & Pretrib Rapture
Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google "Famous Rapture Watchers"), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if John has a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if he wants to have "security" for his retirement years and hopes that the big California quake won't louse up his plans, he has a decided conflict of interest. Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters – who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don't dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don't you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you're mulling all this over, Google "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 180-year-old fantasy.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
TBN's ministry has brought more people to saving knowledge of Christ than you will ever see in your life.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I do believe that you are required to back up such statements with some sort of proof. Now, I am not saying that there have been millions of people that would repeat a prayer. But repeating a prayer, tithing to a ministry or any of that stuff does nothing to save you. So yes, I agree TBN has done a lot of stuff to deceive people into thinking that they are saved. But the truth is many of those people will blindly walk into Hell because they have not truly been born again.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Nathan, you’re presuming that some of the bigger names on TBN such as Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, etc., are actually preaching the biblical gospel. You and I would both agree that there are true gospels that God will use to save, and false gospels that God will not use to save someone.
Therefore, what biblical reasons do you have for believing that a message which proclaims God’s desire for us to be healthy and wealthy is a message which is biblically accurate and which God uses to regenerate a sinful human heart?