Tuesday, December 27, 2011
One of the things that separate the church from all other organizations is that it is to be the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The congregation not functioning as the support and dispenser of truth falls short of the biblical criteria for a local church; therefore the assembly which does not major on truth does not fit the definition of a New Testament church. Its attendance may be “mega,” its programs prolific, its enthusiasm contagious, and its motives honorable, but if it is not the pillar and support of truth it fails in its job description as a church. Call it a club, a social gathering, a political awareness group, a socially concerned assembly, or an entertainment center, but don’t call it a church.
Gary Gilley, Think on These Things, November 2008
There are many mega-churches today which fit that description, and even many which aren’t “mega” yet, but are aspiring to be so. How about your church: is it a pillar of truth?
Monday, December 26, 2011
Religious shows leave a bad flavor. When they enter the holy place, they come perilously near to offering strange fire to the Lord. At their worst they are sacrilege; always they are unnecessary, and at their best they are a poor substitute for prayer and the Holy Ghost. Church plays are invariably cheap and amateurish, and in addition to grieving the Holy Ghost, those who attend them are cheated by getting wretchedly poor entertainment for their money.
A.W. Tozer (The Early Tozer: A Word in Season, p. 98)
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
A good article on Sola Sisters blog about Henry Blackaby and his “soft” mysticism. I came across his “Experiencing God” book a long time ago and learned it was typical aberrational teaching, leading me to say Blackaby’s teachings need to be avoided.
Can you imagine two heretics uniting for any purpose? Well, yeah - I can too. This time it is Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes - two mega-church goatherds.
Ed Young has many more problems than his fixation on sex; he is heading well down the road to apostasy, as reported by Erin at “Do Not Be Surprised...”
Moody Bible Institute is going the way of other Christian colleges and universities, selling out the faith for what feels good. They have now published a book on contemplative/centering prayer. Oh those itching ears!
The Pearls are in the headlines again. I have to agree that the Pearls’ book is not to blame for parental abuse; people should make their own decisions and some go much farther in punishment that what Pearl teaches. “Under Much Grace” has a good article with video clips of Michael Pearls’ interview with Anderson Cooper. I have to agree with Anderson when Pearl said “It’s about training” - Anderson said Pearl’s method was like training animals. The sad part is in the last video clip one of Pearl’s followers claims that training children and animals is the same thing!!! Since Pearl has claimed his book is “God’s way” of training children, I’d like to see biblical support!
Tim Challies has a great review of Mark Driscoll’s new book, Real Marriage. There are some real problems with the book as far as what Driscoll considers proper sexual behavior within marriage - among other things. Driscoll seems to have a fascination with all things sexual, as I’ve noted before - he can’t seem to talk about it enough. The man needs to focus more on the Word!
C. Peter Wagner is the man most responsible for the aberrant “spiritual warfare” model propagated by so many in the charismatic churches. He is also very much part of the aberrant “New Apostolic Reformation.” Herescope has a good article about Wagner’s false teachings, which should be a good reason for every discerning Christian to abandon him.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the sepulchre, whereas he was alive, demonstrating within the narrow tomb the power of Spirit to overrule mortal, material sense. ... Paul writes: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the [seeming] death of His Son...”
Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p.44,45
Let’s see; the Bible says Jesus was dead in the tomb and Eddy says he was alive. Then she added a word, in brackets, to Paul’s words to give credence to her teachings. Well, if Christ did not die, then our sins never paid for. What do you trust - the Word of God or the words of Mary Baker Eddy? I trust the Word of God, and I’d suggest you do the same.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Philip Yancey is a well-known Christian author of books and magazine articles. He writes on various subjects, but often not with a lot of theological “meat.” But there have been things about Yancey which have disturbed me over the years to the point that I decided to do some research to see if what snippets I’ve read about him are actually indicative of his belief system. I have to report that the snippets were indeed indicative of Yancey’s often dangerous beliefs.
The first place I looked was Yancey’s web site, where I read his responses to various questions. Here are a few of these for your review:
In regards to a question about trends in the U.S. churches, Yancey had this to say:
“I take hope in the fact that the Spirit always finds a new way of breaking out in the church. Remember the Jesus movement, in which hippies, the least likely group, led the way to Christ. And the charismatic movement, which has spread worldwide. Now the emergent church has emerged, which brings new forms to an old institution. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, and that gives me hope. God will always find a way; all God needs is willing hearts.”
Notice Yancey speaks with approval of these movements, which I find problematic because I don’t think the Holy Spirit was behind all this, especially the emergent movement! But the follow-up question was also disheartening:
Where do you think the Church will go in the next 10 years?
Sorry, I’m a freelance writer and not a prophet. You should talk to someone like Leonard Sweet or Phillip Jenkins.
I don’t know who Phillip Jenkins is, but that Yancey would direct anyone to Sweet, who is known for his New Age and Emergent leanings, says a lot about Yancey’s lack of discernment.
One subject which I find very disconcerting is Yancey’s stance on homosexuality:
Do I agree with gay Christians’ interpretations of the six passages in the Bible that may or may not relate to their behavior? No. They may be right, but so far I’m unconvinced. I also disapprove of sexual promiscuity, whether of the hetero- or homo- variety. I agree that the temptation and the homosexual orientation are not sin. Beyond that, I stubbornly refuse to answer. I’ll let others debate the morality and the biblical exegesis, and plenty of people seem willing to do so.
Yancey says these passages “may or may not” relate to homosexual behavior! And he refuses to take a stance to say homosexual behavior is wrong, which is something I came across often in my research.
Here is another example from his site:
What do you think about gay churches?
I’ve attended a few gay and lesbian churches, and it saddens me that the evangelical church by and large finds no place for homosexuals. I’ve met wonderful, committed Christians who attend Metropolitan Community Churches, and I wish that the larger church had the benefit of their faith. At the same time, I think it’s unhealthy to have an entire denomination formed around this one particular issue—those people need exposure to and inclusion in the wider Body of Christ. When it gets to particular matters of policy, like ordaining gay and lesbian ministers, I’m confused, like a lot of people. There are a few—not many, but a few—passages of Scripture that bring me up short. Frankly, I don’t know the answer to those questions. I’m a freelancer, not an official church representative, and I have the luxury of saying simply, “Here’s what I think, but I really don’t know,” rather than trying to set church policy.
Should the Church “find a place” for homosexuals? Yes - the same place they find for all other sexual sinners; fornicators, adulterers, etc. The place is at the foot of the cross as they repent of their sexual sins. What sort of “faith” do Yancey’s “gay” friends have if they think God approves of their sexual behavior? And he approvingly cites the Metropolitan Community Churches, bastions of apostasy that they are! He finds the subject of ordaining “gays and lesbians” as ministers to be confusing; has he ever really studied what the Bible says on this matter? It isn’t confusing at all!
Yancey gives tacit approval to the homosexual community as long as they claim to be Christian. Apprising Ministries has a good article about Yancey’s involvement with “Gay Christian Network”. And "DefendingContending" discusses the problems with Yancey being a keynote speaker at the 2011 “Gay Christian Network’s” conference.
Leanne Payne has an excellent article [link gone by 12/14/16] about the problem of using grace to excuse homosexuality, as she reviews Yancey’s book What’s So Amazing About Grace? Here is an excerpt:
Far more subtle is the influence of White upon Philip Yancey. The prolific writer featured White in his book What’s So Amazing About Grace?, showcasing White and his friendship with him as a powerful example of God’s grace. Though the author does not embrace all of White’s choices, Yancey highlights a man who has become the most influential gay Christian of our day. Inadvertently, the author provides an ungodly bridge between a false prophet (White) and thousands of readers seeking clarity in the area of homosexuality. Perhaps Yancey’s inclusion of White in his book is an example of one who has “secretly slipped in among” us in order to “change the grace of our God into a license for immorality” (Jude 4).
Grace without truth is deadly. It plays upon our sentiments. “I want to be a nice guy. I do not want to give a hurting person any more trouble. Didn’t Jesus include the outcasts?” Our desire to be merciful is understandable but uninformed. Sentimentalism distorts the essence of the homosexual conflict; it promotes a dramatic view of the self, which only distances the struggler from his cure.
And it distances one from the real good news of the Gospel. To be sure, Jesus first called the religious hypocrites to repentance. But He then called His followers to deal forthrightly with their sin (Luke 7:36-50; John 8:1-12). To ignore the latter is to scramble the witness of Christ and to set up vulnerable ones for deception.
Men and women facing profound same-sex vulnerabilities require the fullness of grace and truth. Without that fullness, we can readily mislead God’s people into powerful deception. What if I had gone to a Manning or a White at the onset of my healing journey? Perhaps we as Christians are far too naïve in what and who we take in.
Another review of What’s So Amazing About Grace can be found here. Notice the author not only mentions the problem of Yancey’s beliefs about homosexuality, but he also discusses Yancey’s problems with ecumenicism as well as his problems of associating with false teachers (e.g. Tony Campolo) and psychology.
Speaking of Yancey’s ecumenical stance, here is another response to a question on his site, in reference to politics:
What hopes do you hold for inter-faith communication in a world of political and spiritual division?
The three faiths of Abraham (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) have so much in common, including the entire Old Testament, shared stories, and a similar morality. For one thing, I wish moderate Muslims would speak out more openly against the extremists who are giving their religion a bad name (we Christians have had our turn, of course). And I wish Christians would be more humble in letting God pick out the weeds from the crops, to borrow a metaphor from Jesus. I don’t see Jesus twisting arms and imposing beliefs on people. He won their hearts in a different way.
His favorable support of Islam is unconscionable, and his ignorance of the teachings of Islam is blatant in his belief that there is such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.
Another example of this ignorance comes from an article in Christianity Today, where he again is calling an ecumenical movement void of doctrine:
Perhaps our day calls for a new kind of ecumenical movement: not of doctrine, nor even of religious unity, but one that builds on what Jews, Christians, and Muslims hold in common, for the sake of mutual survival. ...
As Heschel pointed out, Jews and Christians (and I would add Muslims) share the belief that this world with its history belongs not to us but to God. We disagree over important doctrines, but are united "in our being accountable to God, our being objects of God's concern, precious in his eyes." Indeed, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have much in common: They honor the authority of Moses and the Hebrew prophets; they believe in the Creator, the God of Abraham; they want to fulfill God's commands of justice and mercy; they see life as sacred. All three acknowledge that we must oppose evil with a holiness that begins with a proper humility before a sovereign God.
Tim Challies reviewed Yancey’s book, Prayer: Does It Make Any Difference? Challies discusses Yancey’s propensity to respect false teachers and dubious mystics:
A further disturbing theme in the book is Yancey’s respect for all manner of perceived spiritual authorities. He affirms Mother Teresa and Martin Luther as equal authorities on prayer, even in the same sentence (and I don’t think he quotes anyone with greater respect or frequency than Mother Teresa). He often quotes Jewish rabbis as if their theology of prayer should be taken as equal to those who love Jesus Christ and who have submitted their lives and their beliefs to the New Testament. A vast quantity of the answers Yancey provides are based on the writing of people whose beliefs would not align with historic Protestantism and hence with Scripture. And, while this book is not a “how-to” guide, it does include an appendix that lists a wide variety of recommended resources. Among these are a great number of books that promote mysticism, contemplative prayer, lectio divina, Roman Catholic prayer guides and the like. There is a recommendation to a book that “gives guidance to different personalities, following the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test” (something Jesus surely overlooked when teaching us to pray). In fact, the good resources are by far outweighed by the dubious or those that are just plain bad. For example, a section dealing with collections of prayers points readers to the Roman Catholic collection Christian Prayer: Liturgy of the Hours (which, as we might expect includes prayers to Mary) while overlooking classics like The Valley of Vision.
Further evidence of Yancey’s support for secular psychology and mysticism is the fact that he is friends with, and promotes, mystic Brennan Manning,[Yancey's site, link gone by 12/14/16] as well as being part of the Recovery movement. Yancey is also part of the Renovare group, which promotes contemplative prayer. And finally, more from Yancey’s own words about his support of mystics comes from The Berean Call, from which I draw this excerpt:
Now, Religion in the News, a report and comment on religious trends and events being covered by the media. This week’s item is from Publisher’s Weekly, August 28, 2006, with a headline: PW talks with Philip Yancey. The following are excerpts: Publisher’s Weekly: Many of your books have been about how Christians feel the burden of spiritual practice. Which writers most influenced your thinking about prayer? Philip Yancey: No Protestants come to mind, to be honest, so, much I have learned about prayer is from the Catholics. One book I discovered was by Mark Phibido, called, Arm Chair Mystic. Of course, if you want to go deeper, there’s Thomas Merton.
When Yancey has had questions brought to him about his association with mysticism, he has been against correction, even denouncing those who would dare suggest that he is promoting false doctrine. Again, The Berean Call has a report about this:
Unfortunately, Christianity Today seems to defend error instead of expose it. In a recent editorial, Philip Yancey rejects all correction as "Christian McCarthyism," the title of his article. Numerous leaders are defended for their false doctrine and not by dealing with the serious issues their critics raise, but by a dishonest whitewash. For example, Yancey says, "Richard Foster dares to use words like meditation ...which puts him under suspicion as a New Ager." In fact, Foster gave detailed instructions on how to practice Eastern meditation to the extent that the visualized image of Jesus comes to life: "you can actually encounter the living Christ in the event, be addressed by His voice and be touched by His healing power....Jesus Christ will actually come to you.” Numerous Christian leaders around the world have joined Foster in his Renovaré movement for reviving Eastern mysticism in the church. There is a similar exoneration of Karen Mains, who Yancey says has merely "written about her dream life." He fails even to mention the occultic delusion she promotes in her book Lonely No More.
The last evidence against Philip Yancey as a Christian teacher is an article from Biblical Discernment Ministries. [link gone by 5/14/18] It is a quite thorough article about Yancey’s false teachings and beliefs, which goes much beyond the few things I’ve itemized in this article. I think a major problem is exposed in this paragraph discussing apologist Gary Gilley’s review of What’s So Amazing About Grace?
In a report written by Pastor Gary Gilley of Southern View Chapel, Gilley writes: "Yancey has a fundamental flaw that runs throughout all of his writings -- he doesn't always draw his thoughts and principles from Scripture … this serious flaw of not basing his concepts squarely upon the Scriptures eventually leads Yancey astray. Yancey does not know the difference between tolerance and arrogance; between grace and license; between boldness and harshness. By Yancey's definitions John the Baptist and Elijah would be men of "ungrace"; but God did not seem to think so … Certainly Jesus loved and spent time with prostitutes, but He did so to call them to repentance, not to accept their way of living. Yancey's method of dealing with a homosexual, who is also a church leader, may seem like "grace" to him, it may seem like what Jesus would do, but it is clearly out of sync with the teachings and examples of Scripture."
My case against Philip Yancey has demonstrated him to be a follower and promoter of New Age mysticism in its many permutations, a teacher of unbiblical secular psychological theories, a teacher of varieties of ecumenicism; that he often fails to base his beliefs and teachings on the clear Word of God, that he defends homosexuality, approves of the Emergent movement, and has demonstrated ignorance of the Islamic faith. To top it all off, he rejects correction, denigrating those who would dare point out error.
So what do we do about Philip Yancey? Avoid him like the plague!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Personal Freedom Outreach is an excellent apologetics ministry, which holds a biennial apologetics conference I heartily recommend (the next one is in April 2012). They also publish what I consider to be one of the best apologetics magazines, The Quarterly Journal.
In the January-March 2012 issue G. Richard Fisher has an excellent editorial about the allure of cult leaders. Here is the summation of this editorial:
Let’s get down to what false teachers offer and promise, which then ties in to what followers are looking for.
1. They offer a place that seems to promise unchanging structure and safety. In other words, they offer a haven of sameness. The troubled and restless latch on to this quickly.
2. They offer a sense of having the inside track with God through personal revelations an authoritative voices from heaven. Claims of trips to heaven or even angelic visitations really impress the naive.
3. They offer their boldness in chaotic and frightening world.
4. They offer a sense of determined direction.
5. The false teacher has honed the ability to twist the Scripture and reality to fit into the group’s purpose. Even dramatic shifts in theology by the false teacher are simply reinterpreted as an attack of the devil or a test from God or maybe even suffering for Jesus’ sake.
6. The false teacher is able to convince the devotees that doubt is just giving in to reason and the carnal mind. The deep level of the spirit must bypass logical thinking.
7. The false teacher is able to blur the lines between God’s approval and the false teacher’s own approval. God’s approval comes through him alone.
8. Lastly, add to the above that the phony leader is able to convince them there are things in the Bible that are not just because he says so. His interpretations and additions are then considered “Bible.” ...
So now we can understand more easily why there is such an allure and why such strong attachments are forged between cult leaders and cult followers. In actual fact, the cult leader is an antinomian, without law, structure, or guidelines, running only on his personal subjective feelings, visions, voices, hunches, and sometimes outright fabrications and lies. When we see through the manipulations and attempts at mind control, it makes us less vulnerable.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Do we need The Prayer of Jabez or the Secrets of the Vine or the prayer rituals of Neil Anderson and Mark Bubeck? Do we ultimately need all the subjective and sensational books of Beth Moore or the mystical reflections and ramblings of Henry Blackaby? Some will tell us that the answer is the prophecies of C. Peter Wagner and his coterie of prophets in the New Apostolic Revival despite their often off-the-mark prophecies. Perhaps another will argue the ultimate secret is a Benny Hinn Miracle Crusade or the insanity of a John Crowder or Todd Bentley meeting. Then again it just may be the spiritualist meanderings and automatic writing of the perennial classic God Calling book. Who has that “something more” and where to find it reminds one of the old carnival wheels - spin and win - maybe, but probably not. Disgraced Family Radio leader Harold Camping thought he had it and so do other modern false prophets and date setters. Christianity is becoming like a carnival sideshow complete with barkers and ringmasters. ...
Either the whole Bible is enough for life and godliness or it is not. It is God’s gift for our growth or it is not. We need to follow “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). If the Bible is not sufficient for life and godliness, we should simply throw up our hands in despair over the confusing deluge of claimed revelations, contradictory visions, extrabiblical books, and cult heresies and admit we have no definitive answers. No one would know where the truth really is. We would have to conclude that there is no road map or guidebook. There is no lamp for our feet or light for our path and that there is no fixed truth or guiding plumb line. We would be on our own - lost and sailing adrift upon a sea of subjectivism and mysticism. It is the Bible or nothing. Nothing else makes any sense. The Apostle Paul charged that we are “not to think beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). Thus, we affirm that the Bible is enough. And enough is enough!
G.Richard Fisher, The Continuing Battle for the Bible, in Personal Freedom Outreach’s The Quarterly Journal, January-March 2012.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Let’s pray that God will bring conviction on the world. Let’s pray that He will send conviction back. Religion has become so popular now that it is shown in theaters, sung over radio and in barn dances. Just one more form of entertainment. We fundamentals and evangelicals just will not believe the truth about ourselves and the kind of people we are. So we have a popular religion but very little power because we have very little conviction, very little repentance and very little sorrow.
A.W. Tozer (sermon “Men Do Not Believe the Truth About Themselves,” John 8:38, General Council, as cited in Tozer on Worship and Entertainment, p.103)
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
I have been cleaning out files and came across an old article about the Gospel from the April 2008 Jews For Jesus newsletter. There are a couple references to the false teaching of John Hagee which I decided to post for everyone else’s benefit.
The newsletter cites Hagee’s book, “In Defense of Israel,” in which Hagee claims that “The Jews Did Not Reject Jesus as the Messiah”: It seems Hagee claims Jesus didn’t come to be the Messiah, so therefore the Jews didn’t reject what he offered to them. Of course he also believes Jews do not need the Gospel (the newsletter cites Charisma magazine of April 2004 for this).
John Hagee preaches the need for the USA to be friends with the nation of Israel, all the while he is an enemy of the Jewish people by condemning them to eternal damnation by teaching they don’t need the salvation offered by Christ.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
A Church fed on excitement is no New Testament church at all. The desire for surface stimulation is a sure mark of the fallen nature, the very thing Christ died to deliver us from. A curious crowd of baptized worldlings waiting each Sunday for the quasi-religious needle to give them a lift bears no relation whatsoever to a true assembly of Christian believers. And that its members protest their undying faith in the Bible does not change things any. A.W.Tozer, The Next Chapter After the Last, p.14.
When I read this I immediately thought of Willow Creek, Joel Osteen’s monstrosity, and lots of other entertainment-oriented “churches” I read about daily. Tozer was right - they bear no relation to a true assembly of Christian believers.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
I have said in a previous article [deleted 5/14/18] that Mark Driscoll is a teacher to avoid. It isn’t that he’s a false teacher when it comes to proper doctrine (well, he’s a Calvinist and I disagree with that doctrine), it’s that he has a lot of other problems, including rank immaturity. Another blogger recently called Driscoll one of the “top five pastors in America,” and when I challenged him on that claim several others came to his defense. Well, here I’m going to lay out the problems with Mr. Driscoll, and if you think he’s still someone worthy of listening to, let alone one of the top five pastors, then I’d be interested in knowing how you can maintain that position.
First, as noted in my original post, Driscoll has a habit of using crude language, contrary to Paul’s injunction against such language in Ephesians 4:29 and 5:4. There is no excuse for a pastor to be using such language; it is not “cool” or “hip” to do so. If one lacks a command of the English language, then perhaps they should not be in the pulpit.
A paper I linked to in my original article, written by Cathy Mickels, [link gone by 12/14/16] discusses some grave problems with Driscoll’s immaturity in regards to teaching about human sexuality. In referring to a book by Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, John MacArthur is cited as saying, “...there are statements in that book that are so sexually explicit and unnecessary and purely gratuitous humor at the basest level...” MacArthur is further cited as saying the same language and humor was on a video and later on Driscoll’s web site. MacArthur states that the attitude seems to be to identify with people at their sensual level: “And I think that baser approach - that’s something I’ve never heard of in my life - I’ve never, ever, in the name of ministry heard anyone who would speak at that level of explicit language with regard to things sexual...”
Describing an example of Driscoll’s treatment of sexuality, Mickels says, In Genesis 3, Satan's first line of attack against mankind was to undermine and call into question the authority of God's Word. Yet, it is this very book of the Bible that hits a funny bone for Mark Driscoll. According to Mark, this is where all "good comedy begins." First of all, in the story of Adam and Eve, Driscoll throws out a suggestive, sensual idea about Eve that I guess Mark thinks will amuse his male audience. He says "...God creates a perfect woman who is beautiful, sinless, and naked,- the same kind of woman every guy ever since has been looking for." (The Radical Reformission, pg.28.)
Later Mickels gives another example of Driscoll’s teaching on sex: Driscoll appears to have discovered early on that sex sells and that he could use it to draw a crowd. He writes, "I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horny, so I went out on a limb and preached through the Song of Songs. ....Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, foreplay, oral sex, sacred stripping, and sex outdoors, just as the book teaches...This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like 'penis' and 'oral sex' is unusual, and before you could say ‘aluminum pole in the bedroom,’ attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week." ... It is also curious that in spite of Mark Driscoll's acknowledgement that many of the young men at Mars Hill struggle with pornography, Mark would intentionally and frequently plant himself in a barbershop filled with pornography. In his own words, Mark describes his barbershop as "providing the finest selection of waiting area pornography in our city." But, isn't the word "finest" a rather odd way of describing perverted material? Would Mark recommend this same barbershop to other young men at Mars Hill? Since Mark details in his book, The Radical Reformission, that he even takes his own young son with him to his barber, a flamboyant transsexual, I will assume the answer is possibly "Yes."
Mickel’s description of a telephone call Driscoll relates which was between him and a man who was into pornography is horrible! Driscoll has no business counseling anyone in any sexual matter. Driscoll’s fascination with all things sexual (he claims the Song of Solomon is his favorite Bible passage) is really comparable to what you find with a high-school locker-room jock. Driscoll’s blog even suggests anal sex with one’s wife is perfectly okay, and then he links to a site called “Christian Nymphos.” Additionally, he advocates the use of “sex toys” and links to an ostensibly “Christian” sex toy site.
A January 23, 2008 ABC News article by Neal Karlinsky claims Driscoll admits that his preaching can “be summed up with two words: sex and Jesus.”
A now extinct blog, Slice of Laodicea, posted a quote from John MacArthur on 5/8/09, in which MacArthur addressed Driscoll’s teaching in regards to human sexuality: “For stronger reasons than simple modesty, certain acts involving fornication, autoeroticism, and other things people commonly ‘do in secret’ are shameful to talk about in any public context (Ephesians 5:12), much less a church service. They may be suitable subjects for a private counseling session, or the doctor’s office, or a college biology lecture, but they are not fitting topics for a worship service where God should be glorified, Christ should be uplifted, women should be shown respect, children’s innocence should be guarded, and single people’s prurient curiosities should not unnecessarily be enflamed. When a speaker deliberately arouses lusts that cannot possibly be righteously fulfilled in unmarried college students, or when his personal illustrations fail to guard the privacy and honor of his own wife, that is far worse than merely inappropriate. When done repeatedly and with the demeanor of an immature bad-boy, such a practice reflects a major character defect that is spiritually disqualifying. Any man who makes such things the main trademark of his style is quite simply not above reproach.”
Driscoll is also very irreverent (and even blasphemous in my opinion) as he often makes jokes about theological matters. An example I heard while personally viewing a DVD put out by his church was him suggesting that Jesus had a large tattoo on his thigh.
Mickels gives further examples of Driscoll’s irreverent handling of Scripture in The Radical Reformission: Driscoll sets the stage for more mocking of Scripture by describing the Old Testament as "a redneck hillbilly comedy." He finds humor in Jacob, Aaron, Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and Noah. For example, he undermines the seriousness of the messages of Jeremiah, a prophet of God, by describing him as someone "who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time." He laughs at Noah for getting drunk and ending up naked in his tent, and then compares him to "some redneck on vacation." Why would Driscoll find amusement or pleasure in seeing Noah's dignity reduced or undermined?
In his series on humor, the New Testament also gets a Driscoll face lift. Without shame, he turns the issue of circumcision found in Galatians 5 into a crude "cut off your pickle joke."
Also, unlike all the biblical scholars who have gone before Mark Driscoll, he comes up with another name than the one given in Scripture to describe the Holy Spirit. In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, he thanks "God the Ghost" for helping him write his book. In another part of the book, Driscoll just shortens it to "Ghost." For those who would be alarmed by this cavalier handling of God and His Word, Mark also has an arrogant, cocky response. He says, "...religious people are too serious.....judgmental.... they're such a joke." ....
Mocking and poking fun at Jesus and his family, Mark writes, ".....everytime they (the religious leaders) see Jesus, it agitates them that he is always surrounded by a crowd telling knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor because his perfection had to have included comedic timing." In other communications Mark refers to the King of Kings as "a dude" and uses word pictures depicting Him as "a prize-fighter with a tattoo down his leg..." In Driscoll's human attempt to make Jesus relevant, he turns the spotless lamb into a blemished lamb tarnished with the markings of the streets of Seattle. (The Radical Reformission, pg. 30.)
Discussing more irreverent teaching from Driscoll at Mars Hill, Mickels reports, One will hear things at this church never heard before about Christ. In a church video series regarding the humanity of Christ, Mark had fun with the question whether or not Jesus went "potty." In response, according to Driscoll, "...yes, Jesus went number one and number two," but he did it "perfectly....never got the toilet all wet."
I think you get the general idea of what Cathy Mickels reports on, but I really recommend you read the entire document. It paints a picture of a “pastor” with some serious problems, especially in the realm of teaching on sexuality, and totally irreverent handling of God’s Word. Much of it is relating things from Driscoll’s books, “The Radical Reformission” and Confessions of a Reformission Rev.” (Why anyone reading these books would still consider Driscoll worthy to be a pastor is beyond my comprehension.) Just that article alone should have droves leaving Driscoll’s church.
Mark Driscoll has preached at Robert Schuller’s “Crystal Cathedral” a couple times and yet has not preached a solid gospel message there - a “church” which needs the truth more than anything else. He has also associated with Schuller on several occasions, and has even congratulated Schuller for his ministry - congratulating a rank heretic for preaching heresy!
This year Driscoll has been claiming he receives direct revelations from Jesus. Interestingly enough, they usually have to do with sexual matters. This article gives the full text of some of Driscoll’s claims, which are nothing less than bizarre. In fact, as with his teaching on sexuality, some of these revelations are downright pornographic.
Lately Driscoll has been propagating a false spiritual warfare theology - including promoting false teachers in this subject - and claims he has even talked to demons. Not only that, he accepts what the demon says as the truth as to what the demon is doing. His description of his conversations with demons would be downright laughable if Driscoll wasn’t seriously teaching it as truth. His demonology includes ideas from the totally aberrational “deliverance ministries” and is totally unbiblical.
According to The New York Times 4-part article, “Who Would Jesus Smack Down?” Driscoll will allow no dissent. “In 2007 two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that...consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his close aides.” Their protests led to their excommunication, and when a member complained, his membership was suspended. According to the article, Driscoll said, “They are sinning through questioning.” I’d be interested to know where Driscoll finds that in Scripture!
As his schtick, Driscoll displays a persona of a “cool dude,” and has even said one could call him “Pastor Dude.” The New York Times said Driscoll has the “coolest style and foulest mouth of any preacher you’ve ever seen” and said he is the “cutting edge of American pop culture.”
Would you really want your pastor to describe Christ as "a classic underachiever with no wife, kids, stable career or even much of a home." I’d say this is downright blasphemous! Yet Driscoll also says that Jesus began his ministry as a bartender. Mickels also cites his books where Driscoll makes jokes about soiling his trousers. Driscoll obviously sees himself as a stand-up comedian, but is this the character of a shepherd of God’s people?
Let me sum up the problem with Mark Driscoll as a pastor:
He behaves in a very immature and arrogant fashion reminiscent of a high-school locker-room jock.
He appeals to the basest level in his teaching on human sexuality, and even teaches sexual perversion as being okay.
He uses coarse, as well as sexually explicit language, which gives him an undignified reputation.
He abuses the Word of God while promoting levity and irreverence for it.
He speaks and teaches blasphemously about Jesus.
He gives tacit approval to the teachings of heretic Robert Schuller.
He teaches falsely about spiritual warfare.
He claims direct revelation from God.
He claims to have conversations with demons.
He claims those who question him are sinning.
Paul details the qualifications for elders (including pastors) in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Among these qualifications are (HCSB): “above reproach,” “self-controlled,” “sensible,” “respectable,” “a good reputation with outsiders,” “not arrogant,” “loving what is good” - none of which are demonstrated by Driscoll.
I maintain that Mark Driscoll has a huge following not because he teaches solid meat of Biblical doctrine, but because he appeals the the basest fleshly attitudes of the world, making his services and books into stand-up comedy routines with much sexual titillation.