more about “John Piper on Mark Driscoll & John Ma…“, posted with vodpod
At the 2009 Basics Conference, John Piper was given the opportunity to respond to John MacArthur’s recent criticism of Mark Driscoll. I am grateful for godly men like Piper who are willing to speak about this issue with truth, wisdom and grace.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Keystone
Is there a transcript for this available online?
Deaf and the Hard of Hearing have no use for Ipod or VideoPods. or even a radio for that matter. We must read.
I do not seek they be abolished, for my friends who are blind need this medium to be informed. Spiritually, the entire audience may be deaf and blind, so reach both, with written and oral presentations of any message.
I would like to read what was said in this topic.
I am grateful for any help you provide toward that endeavor.
Elsewhere online, I am reading of “John MacArthur on Marc Driscoll”.
And then, I read about John MacArthur and John Piper on Driscoll, which led me here. Apparently, that subject is misleading, as YOUR title here has Piper speaking on BOTH men, not just Driscoll.
I have no way to compare or be informed, as I do not hear.
A transcript would be appreciated.
Ps. These Ipods and Video Pods are a great way to ignore anyone who is losing hearing, or has lost it entirely. As the population ages, use of these tools will allow more and more folks to be excluded….please consider that as you go to voice only.
And Pastors, please consider standing at the podium so your lips can be read.
The need for physical exercise during service, by racing from one side of the platform to the other has you turning your back on 90% of the audience, no matter which direction you run. Stand firm!…and at the podium, so we who do not hear can read your lips, or in this case online, a transcript after the fact.
Thank you.
October 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Aaron Armstrong
Hey there – I don’t have a transcript available at present, but you definitely make a great point about the importance.
October 9, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Keystone
Thank you for your reply.
Perhaps staff can write this out from the presentation apparently available for “all who have ears to hear”. That is not me, however.
I will check back to see if any written presentation of those words comes later, and meander through other areas of interest on the Homepage. I pray they are not all voice only.
Blessings to you this day.
October 9, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Peter
Keystone. I just typed this up, so it’s not an official transcript but it should give you the gist of this talk. Keep in mind that John Piper sounds very kind throughout and there is a lot of good humoured response to him from the audience. God bless.
—–transcript of video follows—-
Question: Thank you for Pastor John. Wanted to ask you, this is a pretty big subject in the church today, the idea of Pastors and lay leaders even, using perhaps more course language from the pulpit, kind of bringing things down a level and not being holy in their speech, and it seems to be a bit of a problem, and somebody may call us nitpickers for wanting the speech coming from the pulpit to actually be glorifying in every way, and I just wanted to get your opinions on that. There’s a lot of stuff on the Internet, bantering back and forth, back and forth and I just wanted to get your opinion on it, thank you.
John Piper: Oh I’m right in the thick of it. And the two people of course are John MacArthur and Mark Driscoll, right? I assume that’s where you’re going. And everybody knows that I’ve been friendly with Mark Driscoll, because he’s been at two of our conferences and I’ll be with him in two weeks. And I love John MacArthur with all my heart and I’m going to be with him – if he’ll still have me – in June. So, I love him, love him, what a grand, great, 40 years. So, amen!
So, he spent 4 blog posts criticising Mark Driscoll two weeks ago, and Mark has stuck him foot in his mouth quite a few times. I would encourage nobody to become course, filthy, ugly, trashy. I’ve had to repent… I could tell you the worse word I’ve ever used in a sermon but if I did I would get in trouble to say it. It isn’t a four-letter word, it’s … I forget how many letters it is… it’s like one of those.
So, I’ve been there, and I know how easy it is to create effect. And with a certain young crowd, it’s hip, it’s cool, it’s the way you feel. You know, you dress a certain way, and you watch certain movies, and you talk a certain way and then you’re hip, and thus attract a certain crowd. So I don’t think your mouth needs to be dirty in order to relate to 20-somethings in Seattle. And I think Mark knows that, I think Mark knows that. I assume he’ll hear this, probably, what I’m saying right now. I count him as a good friend. I spent an hour with him two weeks ago, at the Gospel Coalition, talking about these things.
The difference between me and MacArthur at this point is: I’m not drawing the line that John [MacArthur] has drawn from the imperfections of Mark’s ministry to his unfitness for ministry. Because that’s where it seems John has gone, he says: “It’s over. Marks should resign. Nobody should go to his church. He’s unqualified for ministry” and I’m not going there. Not at this point anyway. I’m going to Mark directly. I’m getting in his face. I’m talking about… I’ve got more issues than just language, that I’m talking about, in his face, pleading with him: “look guy, you’ve got an influence that’s absolutely incredible”, and he knows that, [that's] part of the problem. “And I want you to be a good steward of this. I’m old enough to be your dad.” I am. I have a son older than Mark Driscoll, wait a minute, Mark Driscoll is 38 now I think, so my son is one year younger, so I’m old enough to be his dad. And he knows that, I’m in his face, ’cause I’m saying: “Look, come on. Just clean this up.”
Let’s get real specific for a minute, you ask how I’m dealing with this. When I was sent, by John MacArthur, the fated Song of Solomon, Edinburgh sermon that John critiqued two weeks ago online, I listened to it and thought it was horrible. I got on my Internet and wrote a three page single page letter to Mark Driscoll: “.. this is horrible…. and here are my 8 exogenical [i think] reasons … and then a few pastoral reasons ….. ” Within one hour that was off the Resurgents website, and an email had gone to Edinburgh and Glasgow to pull it down. That’s significant. That was a son-like response to this fatherly: “Come on! That’s over the top….don’t… that’s not the way to do it.”
Now he preached on Song of Solomon two years later, that was the 2007, at least a year later. I think what he did with his Church was way more mellow, and way more acceptable. Which simply says to me: Mark is growing. And he’s walking a very fine line, because he is rock-solid doctrinally, and he is accomplishing things in Seattle nobody else is accomplishing, in winning to Jesus Christ… they had 400 baptisms on Easter Sunday morning, this year! And these people, would.. just weird people.. coming to, coming to his church. People that… I mean look at me, look at this, this is so weird. They wouldn’t come hear me for anything. They wouldn’t go to my church, but they’ll go to his church. So, I’m cutting him a lot of slack because of the mission. So, it’s kind of a both end for me. You don’t need to go as far as you’ve gone sometimes with your language, but I understand what you’re doing, missiologically [I think] there and I have a lot of sympathy for it because I’d like to see those people saved. And yet I don’t want to see, either doctrine watered down – which he doesn’t at all – or, holiness watered down, which is John MacArthur’s big concern and I’m concerned with him…. That’s enough of that… unless you want to go further? I’ll just.. no I can’t say any more. Watch for more, on the Internet.
October 9, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Aaron Armstrong
Hey Peter, thanks for taking the time to do transcribe this – it’s much appreciated.
October 9, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Keystone
It is 11:30 pm on the eve I requested a written format of Mr. Piper’s opinon.
That is quick work guys, and I am gratefui. Thank you.
I hope this becomes standard procedure in other blogs to remember some folks are blind, some deaf, but all deserve to hear in their own way, so present your words many ways.
I had read this discussion in a Canadian blog, in which the blog family is pro Driscoll almost to an obsession, citing his theological correctness. His methodology gives them no pause for thought. I can not comment there until I know the remarks of all parties; thanks to you I do.
Meanwhile, to the south, we have Perry Noble and Tony Morgan going in a different direction of discussion and Noble reminds me of Driscoll.
Morgan seems less consequential daily and more businessman, than man of God.
Locally, our community has a blog aggregator of all in the community who blog on anything. One of these, was a 17 year old girl, in lament at lost love.
I declined to comment on her blog until she is 18. However, she referred to Driscoll as a “Pastor who rocks”, since “he is the only one she knows who talks about sex”. Sex is high on teen agenda, but the reputation of the church on talk of sex can be summed in one word: “NO”, (to teen minds). Consequently, kids have nothing to do with church, everything to do with sex, or play hypocrite at both.
I recently ordered a half dozen Piper books from Alibris to get a sense of him, and I am grateful you preceded the summation above with a small blurb on how John talks, etc. His son Abraham has married a wonderful gal, and often blogs from MN. This is a family I often am called to pray for,….. and do not know why, but obey and pray.
Join me in prayer for Abraham and Molly, his wife. God will tell someone why; moreover, He will listen to everyone in prayer for them.
I am less concerned for Noble, Morgan, and the southern preachers, for I have heard many sermons (especially in Florida, more than SC) that Christ dealing with their false preaching exceeds anything I could say, but people are deceived weekly.
(Jump over this military sword and you will be saved” sums a sermon on the Armor of God, I heard in Florida. Folks jumped the sword and waved in glee, unaware their pastor is a fool.)
Driscoll does not remind me of Christ in any way shape or form. However, Christ came to save the Lost, and I do not confine Christ to a sole way to do that. I love to listen to Billy Graham in days of yore, but never saw Christ do a “head count”. And I never understood a lack of baptism on the spot by Graham, as the early Disciples were want to do to “you and your households”.
But Christ has defined in the NT a particular style of approaching the world, drawing them to Him, and remaining separate from the world while doing this.
Perhaps more emulating that style is in order.
We have free will to choose or reject. We are quick to applaud acceptance of Christ, and just as quick to condemn a gift God has freely given,….
man to reject Him. He told disciples to kick the dust off their sandals and move on, not putz around as we do today.
Too much of what I read on Christian oriented blogs and domains tends to be “applaud me” as a writer, and I seek “Followers” so sign on.
This is a long way off Christ’s mission, [Follow Him] and when the doors of heaven close, i suspect many of these will hear “Get away from me, I NEVER knew you”.
So all of that is a long way off a simple “Thank You” for transcribing as best as you could. It sounds like Piper hedged a bit between both men, while MacArthur is leaving no doubt on his stand toward Driscoll.
Seattle is truly a heathen town, but I question as a Christian, the need to become heathen, to attract to Christ. Surely the Holy Spirit is grieved when we utter words the Lord would never choose, to attract to the Lord. Could it be a false attraction?
But all-in-all, you have given me substance to reread, attempt to understand, and as Peter admonished “Always be prepared to give the reason for our hope, but do so with gentleness and respect”. I have the former down just fine, but the latter part requires more information such as you have provided me this day.
Well done good and faithful servants.
Now, let those with ears to hear, hear.
And, let those without ears to hear, …..also hear….thanks to you guys.
Thank you.
October 10, 2009 at 6:21 am
Peter
Keystone, I feel that I should tell you that I have nothing to do with this blog and can’t take credit for any of the work they do for the sake of Christ. This is my first time visiting here, and after listening to Piper, I noticed your comment.
I think Piper is very good at living out the truth that we all benefit from extending grace, upon grace. Forgiving as we have been forgiven.
God bless.
October 10, 2009 at 7:03 am
Keystone
Dear Peter,
In the arrest of Christ in the Garden, it was a Peter, who drew a small sword and sliced the ear of the arresting officer, named Malchus.
In a final and largely ignored miracle, Christ restored the ear, and the hearing,
for bloodshed was not to be His way.
But this day, in an attempt to understand ministry gone awry, and make sense of it, it was a Peter, who restored my ability to “hear”, albeit with my eyes.
Whatever motivated you to do this for me, I am grateful.
It will be remembered.
It is my first visit here too, on this page for this blog.
I fully intend to read more.
As for Mr. Piper, I have just received 6 of his works from Alibris and look forward to reading his gentle sunshine, versus the blowing winds, to make a traveller remove a cape.
I encourage you to pray for Abraham and Molly Piper too.
God be with you.
October 10, 2009 at 3:21 am
Prairie Chick
Dear Keystone.
I write here because you leave no way to communicate with you except for where you leave your comments. Otherwise I would write you privately.
Clearly only you and I (and Aaron) are aware that you are refering to me in the statment about the Canadian blogger who is, in your words, so pro Driscoll almost to the point of obsession…
I don’t take offense at this. But I do take issue with it. Your judgement of me does not hurt me, but I would like to clarify a few points with you, if I may.
I am no more pro Driscoll than I am pro Keystone, or pro any other believer who is my brother/sister in Christ.
I have never posted anything about Mark Driscoll on my blog before, except to have a standing link to his website in my sidebar, but I have a standing link for a lot of things/people/places in my sidebar as well as “follower’ links to all the dear people who fellowship with me on this journey of discovery and growth. Not because I’m “proud” to have followers, but because I’m “honored” to have brethren.
Back to Driscoll. I wonder if you noticed that I wrote I honor and respect Piper and MacArthur and that I dot, dot, dot respect Driscoll. I think Driscoll has alot of maturing to do, as do I… as do we all. After reading MacArthurs diatribe against Driscoll I think MacArthur has alot of maturing to do (in expressing grace and love, kindness, gentleness). If there is anyone I should have been accused of obsessing about in my last blog post it would have to be Piper, as my heart feels the most honor towards him and respect towards him because it is he that I see exercising the most fruit of the Holy Spirit in this situation. But I’m not obsessed with any of them. I’m obsessed with observing, and growing from all I observe.
Keystone, for the record my post was not a diatribe in defense of Driscoll. It wasn’t about lauding his gifts as a preacher. It was not to put any one of those men on a pedestal or condemn them either. It was a personal observation and study on grace. All the rest was just background.
You referred to my family as having no pause for thought about Driscoll’s methodologies. May I point out you are very brazen and bold to make such a judgement call? For the record, you couldn’t be further from the truth. We have long and lengthy discussions in our home about his methodologies and the ways that they run contrary to our own paradigms and experiences and cultural upbringing.
You seem to take issue with me everytime I ever reference an author or pastor, like I am putting them on a pedestal and oblivious to their faults. I am just a prairie pilgrim seeking to grow in grace and peace and ALL the fruit of the spirit. God ministers to me daily, through His word, through His presence and yes, often also through the things He is doing in the lives of HIs other children. It is not a sin to be challenged, encouraged or spurred on to growth by the testimony of God’s work in the life of another human… I’m sorry you seem to think that one can’t appreciate that without being a blind “fan” obsessed with a fallen human.
I do see Christ in Driscoll. And I see him in MacArthur and most beautifully in Piper, and I see Him in you. I also see how far we have to go. To each of us our own. Our own weaknesses, our own vices, our own stumbling blocks. Romans 14 is a weekly read for me.
Grace and Peace, Keystone. May they fill you to overflowing and in doing so, grace the lives of those around you.
October 10, 2009 at 5:49 am
Keystone
Dear Prairie Chick,
Many of the statements you make in your comment are at varianvce with the truth. I regret that coming from you. But since you chose to write here, I choose to respond here. Indeed, I do not know where “here”: is, for I only followed a link from within your post on Prairie Prologue, and in looking back there this day, I find Aaron has said thanks for the link, so we must be at Aaron’s. I have no doubt you will correct me if that assumption is false.
I have previously extended thanks to the authors of this blog, for turning sound, into the written word, due to a hearing impairment of mine. Further, i was impressed with the speed it was done, and a willingnes to do so for others in the future. It is nerve wracking to hear nothing, when a link takes you somewhere you expect to read.
You claim you have no way to reach me Prairie Chick, save this venue.
That is false. I write often and we met at “Girl In a Glass House” blog, and given my ubiquitous commentary there, a simple line from you to me to share an email would suffice. Indeed, I am substituting for her as “Guy In a Glass House”while she spends time in discussion with God, at great length.
I believe you could commented to me for my email to you, and also have given your email to her, and asked that I write you privately; another source you overlooked.
Moreover, I have posted commentary at another blog you run, Prairie Passages, a Bible study. It would have been easy for you to request an email, or request I contact you privately, and avoid this space entirely had you chosen.
Due to your nature of saying this is the only forum possible, I must state categorically that is not true.
At no time did I identify either of your blogs by name, simply referring to a Canadian Blog. I also know of no Aaron until this day, and that is due to your link. So getting riled up about the three of us knowing a reference was made to you as the source of discussion is moot; YOU made the link to this venue. And only hubris would allow you to believe you are the only Canadian Blogger with words on Driscoll, or Piper, or MacArthur.
You seek to explain and be informative, but that is hardly the case when you explain. The explaining obfuscates often.
You say:”I am no more pro Driscoll than I am pro Keystone, or pro any other believer who is my brother/sister in Christ.”
Here is your post for readers at this site to conclude for themselves all of the variances you now make, and attempt to justify.
http://prairieprologue.blogspot.com/2009/10/grace-wins-john-macarthur-and-john.html
You write here :
“Back to Driscoll. I wonder if you noticed that I wrote I honor and respect Piper and MacArthur and that I dot, dot, dot respect Driscoll.”
NO I did not notice that in the least! And I doubt any reader, read into it, what you now claim (MacArthur an Piper scoring ‘honor and respect’ while Driscoll is left to thrash around with a simple “… respect”
The reason I did not notice it is your own emphasis.
The topic title suggests the way your aricle will be presented, but you reversed it, and went right into praises for Driscoll, his sermons, making you think, cry, and all the rest.
You have taken a most firm stand on Mr. Driscoll thology, saying:
“His sermon series “Christ on the Cross” is hands down the BEST sermon series I have ever listened to when it comes to understanding the doctrines concerning Jesus. I’m a bit of a doctrine junkie. I want to know what I believe and why.”
No mistaken inference can be found by anyone on that view, Prairie Chick.
But on methodologies by Driscoll, THAT happens to be what all parties concerned are discussing. BIG TIME!
And this by you:
“You referred to my family as having no pause for thought about Driscoll’s methodologies. May I point out you are very brazen and bold to make such a judgement call?”
I can only kindly suggest “NO, you may not call me brazen, though bold is not bad at all”. Why? I am unable to read minds. I must make my judgment NOT on what goes on in your household, but on what you write in your blog, and nothing more.
This is true for ALL readers at your site. We are not in your living room or bathroom, we are on your blog page. Were we standing in your home, the mind reading you accrue to all would likely still fail.
I was not blessed with omniscience you attribute to me.
You were most succinct on your view of the methodologies of Mark Driscoll, and at a modicum, at variance with Piper and far too many theologians for me to list, so lets say “just about everybody outside of Seattle”
Here is YOUR asessment of Driscoll’s methoology:
“Shocking… but refreshing.”
And on the basis of that terrible misjudgement, I respectfully disagree with YOUR assessment on Driscoll’s methodologies, as does most of his peers and many contemporaries. Indeed, his methodologies are the basis of so much
fierce opposition to the man. Few debate his credentials on theology alone.
YOU find his methodologies “refreshing” and I find that assessment appalling.
(From what I read of the Piper translation above, a little time in the woodshed for Driscoll doesn’t sound out of line from Piper either, albeit he gives more grace than MacArthur. But MacArthur has stirreda hornet’snest on Driscoll with the truth of his series. High notice is being taken, but the softer approach of Piper seems to yield results of change in the errors espoused by the “Pied Piper”, er rather, “Pied Driscoll” of Seattle.
You state more mistruth and misleading as you write;
“I have never posted anything about Mark Driscoll on my blog before, except to have a standing link to his website in my sidebar,”
This audience may be unaware that you have OTHER blogs as well as Prologue. One of those is the first entry I made into your quarters. It was a post on Leviticus 4, a simple Bible study. I had hoped to find a place online to participate, and actually gave several lengthy comments on the topic.
In reply, you proceeded to skip Leviticus 4 entirely and debate the merits of Joel Osteen (bad, bad, boy) and Rick Warren (How can anybody on Earth fail to see his angel wings) would sum your feelings in Leviticus 4 discussion.
After several comments by me in a row on the actual topic, Leviticus 4, you meandered all over the wall, inclusing a strong defense of Rick Warren (though many in this country find him the same as Osteen and his Gospel of Prosperity nonsense. Pockets are prospering with both of those men. You delighted in declaring that true for Osteen, but went blind to any insinuation that Warren is in the same boat (he is attacked nationwide for many items, fair and unfair; it comes with the territory of megachurch. I think he even has ATM machines in the lobby for your “giving” pleasure at Saddleback.
Next, on Leviticus 4, you find it essential to debate the merits of a paraphrased Bible by Eugene Peterson. You note your original dislike of Mr. Peterson’s ‘The Message”, transformed to praise of the Message. I suggest the Word of God rightly points out “nothing can be added or subtracted from the Bible”….not a direct quote, just a gist, so do not beat me over the head on that.
The point is your very blog post on Leviticus 4 as a Bible study was in discussion by only one person that day; me. You were all over the map on anything but the topic.
Why should I declare that when readers at this venue can make up their own mind which of the two of us is speaking the truth here:
Leviticus 4 on Prairie Passages by Prairie Chick:
“http://prairiepassages.blogspot.com/2009/08/leviticus-4.html
See who is on topic there folks.
And Prairie Chicks “lost comments” were lost indeed, but not on Google Reader, which was my source for response……response on the actual topic.
I did write of Driscoll in a comment there, so he is in more spots at Prairie Chick than she alludes above:
ME: “Driscoll preaches sex, sex, sex in a heathen city, and I found his sermons off the wall….” followed by two more paragraphs on Driscoll.
Prairie Chicks rebuttal is lost.
However, I ended it all since Leviticus 4 was getting short shrift, and pointed Prairie Chick to a book by John Bevere entitled “The Bait Of Satan”, with the number one bait being a “getting believers to take offense at one another”.
It seemed to calm the discussion, and when I was informed Prairie Passages was mostly a journal between Mrs. Chick and a “very Berry” if i recall — it is a lost comment folks, but that is the name I recall as partner to bible study there, so I promptly bowed out and STILL seek a Bible study online that has no part of the blind leading the blind, or at a modicum, discusses the actual topic of the day.
Finally is this falsehood here;
Ms.Chick: “You seem to take issue with me everytime I ever reference an author or pastor, like I am putting them on a pedestal and oblivious to their faults. ”
This is so far off base I do not know how to respond.
The best I can say is that whether it was Warren, Osteen, Driscoll, or any topic or person, I was met with an immediate rebuttal by Prairie Chick as to
the “error of my thinking” (exception Osteen,….she finds him a dud too, so we had common ground…..mine based on a personal witness of Joel in action in Tampa). I have no clue why Prairie Chick finds Osteen anethema
(and I agree), for as I stated above, I read from her blog, not from her mind, as she attributes to me so often.
To the owner of this blog, I thank you for getting me a print to read on Piper. I had hoped to use it to respond to Prairie Chick at her blog, AFTER I knew what Piper said. I thoroughly enjoy John, Abraham, and Molly Piper and each of their blogs as well.
This comment, and Prairie Chicks comment belong on her blog. I thank you for the space to reply to several misleading statements se has made about my comments here, and at her site. Further, I have no prior knowledge of Aaron knowing Prairie Chick, giving reference solely to a “Canadian blogger”.
I encourage all to simply read the links I have provided from her Blog Post on Leviticus 4, and her post on the topic of Driscoll, MacArthur, and Piper (also linked to this page. After you read both, you will see why I feel her commentary above is misleading and inaccurate to me.
I have already bookmarked this blog for future reading to see what else you folks discuss. I regret this imposition here.
God Bless You Abundantly.
Keystone
October 10, 2009 at 6:09 am
Keystone
The link to Leviticus 4 was ruined by my quotation mark:
It is hopefully here:
http://prairiepassages.blogspot.com/2009/08/leviticus-4.html
If that fails, my contentions above on Leviticus 4 and Prairie Chick’s variance can be found via her Home Page, clicking the tab marked “My Faith” which is the blog, Prairie Passages.
Scroll back in time to August 24, 2009 and the comments we shared.
There is no spell check in this format, so please forgive my numerous atrocious spelling, but the gist remains on my contentions.
Thank you again.
October 10, 2009 at 11:20 am
Prairie Chick
Aaron, my sincere apologies for this exchange. I will move this to my blog. Keystone, I was not riled when I wrote what I did, but admittedly I am a little now. I will copy this exchange to my blog post in question and dialogue with you there.
October 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Aaron Armstrong
No worries, stuff like this happens. Thanks very much for moving it over. Have a great day.