Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Church Office' started by Pilgrim, Feb 13, 2009.
Dust up over Baptist Press Article on Mark Driscoll One Pilgrim’s Progress
I have heard that Driscoll has started to repent of his past antics and taken the vulgarity down a notch or two.
Let us hope for both!
I pray that I will be as open to correction as he has been.
Another article about Driscoll......there was a thread about 2 weeks ago on this. I still say pray for him and send him letters of encouragement. We all need our rough edges polished off. Loving correction with encouragement will cause a person to grow. Harsh bashings from the blogosphere just raise the level of frustration and usually shut down the line of communication.
Great, more positive contributions from the Baptist Press.
I've listened to some of Driscoll's sermons, including some on his series from the Song of Solomon, and while explicit at times, I didn't find them unnecessarily vulgar or crude. But I'm sure that's very relative. I'm sure to young 20-something men in Seattle who are addicted to p*rn it's totally tame, but to fundy 60 year old SBCer's, to mention oral sex is probably considered X rated.
See here (comment #2) for a careful and comprehensive assessment of the issue.
Yes. This was a couple of years ago. Apparently Baptist Press and Slice of Laodicea haven't caught up yet.
This article is just an attempt by the SBC powers-that-be to discredit the scary scary Calvinism that they're afraid of. The logic of the article goes something like this . . .
1) Mark Driscoll has said things that some might consider "vulgar".
2) Vulgarity is bad.
3) Mark Driscoll is a Calvinist.
4) Calvinism is bad.
I've never seen Calvinism described as vulgar before, that is if that is what they are trying to imply.
With all due respect, Rae, this response is ridiculous. If you're not going to read the posted link, why respond at all? Given your simplistic knee jerk response, it's obvious you didn't read the BP article or the Slice post that was cited.
Driscoll has a site linked RIGHT NOW from his webpage called "Christian Nymphos" that defends sodomy and sells sex toys. Even the iMonk called it "a borderline p0rn site" and Driscoll's linking to it "a serious piece of stupid" and refused to defend him in this case. (Slice is a Calvinist site BTW.) The reporting is accurate (regardless of whatever motivated the timing) and it's not just dredging up "old news."
could you provide a link showing this?
i couldn't find one after a google search and a brief search on the resurgence site.
Here's the link to the Slice post referenced in the Baptist Press article, from which you can go to the page in question on the Mars Hill site. We can take the discussion into the Tool Shed if the mods deem it appropriate.
Slice of Laodicea Blog Archive **Updated**Defenders of X-Rated Driscoll, Meet the Remnant!
Here's the quote from Resurgence (Driscoll's site):
"We do not endorse everything on this website, but if you want to read some commentary on the issue from Christian married women, you can go to Christian Nymphos."
Hardly a glowing endorsement of the website.
I took a brief look at the website in question, too. It didn't look outrageous to me; just very explicit, like a sex manual. It makes very clear statements about sex being only between a husband and wife. The only big problem i can see it that it's open to anyone surfing the web, even children.
IMO if Driscoll has to give so many qualifications and warnings about the risks of sodomy, then maybe, just maybe that's an indication that it's something that ought not to be done.
Hi. I hadn't been back to this thread since my initial reply, so I hadn't seen this.
In fact, I had read the BP article and the Slice post beforehand, and (especially knowing the current struggle among big SBC names regarding Calvinism), I stand by my original response.
The issue has nothing to do with Calvinism whatsoever and IMO the blindness of those Calvinists who only perceive political motives in those who raise concerns is regrettable to say the least. (It's either that or the ridiculous assertion that the critics seek to impose "Old South" or 1950's mores.) But my experience with this controversy (as well as a few other factors), has me almost totally convinced that the SBC is not the place for me, although I will continue to serve in our local church until the Lord sees fit to move us elsewhere.
Moreover, until the BP article and one non-Calvinist SBC blogger raised concerns, the vast majority of Driscoll critics with which I was familiar were Calvinists.
You might want to read the article from Tim Brister that is referenced by the article posted above.
My Take on Baptist Press Throwing Mark Driscoll Under the Bus Provocations & Pantings
Some of you on this board are some of the most grace-LESS people I've ever seen when it comes to discussing things and people like Driscoll.
Brister nails it correctly when he says "Driscoll cursing was news....FIVE YEARS AGO".
With all due respect you are about five years behind WRT the blog conversations here. The issue in this case isn't cussing at all. You'd know that if you were paying attention instead of posting knee jerk responses. The response of Timmy Brister and others in trying to paint the BP article and other recent criticisms of MD as simply a rehash of the old "cussing" topic amounts to a politically motivated "Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil" approach.
I commented heavily on Brister's posts. But if you had read them you'd know that too.
Here's my final response to Timmy Brister and other defenders of Driscoll that you and others who haven't kept up with this might want to take a gander at:
Summary on the Mark Driscoll/Baptist Press/Young Leader Controversy
No, it's supposedly coarse language, use of inuendo and such. I'm quite up to speed, thanks. But it's usually all lumped together, since the issue continues to always be Driscoll's language.
I've been paying attention - same talk, different year. Just swap out the word 'cussin' for 'coarse jesting' and apply necessary scriptures condemning to make your point.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't read or I'm not paying attention.... it means I disagree with you. Your opinion isn't always truth.
"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
Praying for grace and discernment in our discussions here.
This is something we should all keep in mind.