Phil Johnson on the Pornification of the Pulpit
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
To be perfectly honest, if I put some of them here, as a former mod I think I would probably deserve to be infracted if not suspended. Some of it is really Tool Shed material in my opinion.
Let me put it this way--if our mutual friend Eddie E. (who, if you know him very well, you'd agree that he can be rather "edgy" compared to many in our circles and certainly isn't out to impose "Old South" or 1950's mores) believes that he goes way over the line at times and thought that I made good points a few weeks ago when the controversy over the Baptist Press article erupted, that ought to tell you something. (See my post here and the comments.)
Why not listen to the message when you have a chance? It will make it abundantly clear, even though Johnson was quite restrained in what he related.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Yep, and If I were still a mod I would join in the suspension. Some of his 'sayings' go far beyond the line. And, I am no prude. I've been accused of crossing the line of propriety in the pulpit occasionally and frankly Driscoll has made me blush more than once.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Pergy, pro-sodomy "within the sanctity of marriage" comments are illustrative of Driscoll's vulgarian edginess. Most of us still consider reading-while-waiting to "do our daily business" the only permissible recreation when dealing with the bottom end of the alimentary tract. I, for example, always keep my Weekly Standard handy for reading in the morning.
Hmmmm. As a mod, I hope that was oblique enough to meet the threshold of propriety.
Hmmmm. As a mod, I hope that was oblique enough to meet the threshold of propriety.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Alex,
Was I too obscure? Don't you think that discussing what I included in my post prior to your comment "inappropriate"? His web site has not only linked to sites noted for salacious content, but engaged in Q&A (with approval) on the "nitty gritty" of what some of us consider pretty gross and immoral, even "within the sanctity of marriage." I have benefited from Discoll's preaching but have not heard enough of it to speak definitively to what he SAYS in the pulpit vs. what he says on his web site. Perhaps there is a distinction here???
In one of my pastorates, we had a very staid physician (still single in her late 50s or early 60s) who was nevertheless frank about biological and medical functions. When asked by an older person in the Sunday school class she was teaching about certain practices common in the gay community, she answered without embarrassment: "God did not design the p**** to go into the rectum."
As to the larger issue here, realize that some of this is not really about what it appears to be about. In other words, Driscoll is a polarizing figure within SBC circles, as much because of his Calvinism as his so-called emergent tendencies. People who take swipes at him and dredge up dumb comments he and his wife offered in response to a "frank" Q&A on their web site about any manner of specific sexual behaviors, are not inaccurate so much as the picture they paint may be untrue. If I say that you have not been arrested for murder . . . yet, that might be a completely "accurate" statement, however it would leave a very untrue impression.
Driscoll is edgy and attempts to reach a younger generation with the Gospel of Jesus Christ along some pretty gutsy Calvinist lines. I am not willing to relegate him to the nether regions for offending my sense of order in worship. However, neither am I willing to give him a pass on discussing (with tacit approval) certain forms of degrading behavior.
A few years ago, John MacArthur confronted him for his reputation as the "cussing preacher." Mark received the rebuke in a godly manner, repented, and corrected his practice. Rather than throwing him off the boat, I would hope that some mature Christian leader in his circle of influence would take him aside and have a frank discussion about the birds and the bees in the pulpit and the pew.
Was I too obscure? Don't you think that discussing what I included in my post prior to your comment "inappropriate"? His web site has not only linked to sites noted for salacious content, but engaged in Q&A (with approval) on the "nitty gritty" of what some of us consider pretty gross and immoral, even "within the sanctity of marriage." I have benefited from Discoll's preaching but have not heard enough of it to speak definitively to what he SAYS in the pulpit vs. what he says on his web site. Perhaps there is a distinction here???
In one of my pastorates, we had a very staid physician (still single in her late 50s or early 60s) who was nevertheless frank about biological and medical functions. When asked by an older person in the Sunday school class she was teaching about certain practices common in the gay community, she answered without embarrassment: "God did not design the p**** to go into the rectum."
As to the larger issue here, realize that some of this is not really about what it appears to be about. In other words, Driscoll is a polarizing figure within SBC circles, as much because of his Calvinism as his so-called emergent tendencies. People who take swipes at him and dredge up dumb comments he and his wife offered in response to a "frank" Q&A on their web site about any manner of specific sexual behaviors, are not inaccurate so much as the picture they paint may be untrue. If I say that you have not been arrested for murder . . . yet, that might be a completely "accurate" statement, however it would leave a very untrue impression.
Driscoll is edgy and attempts to reach a younger generation with the Gospel of Jesus Christ along some pretty gutsy Calvinist lines. I am not willing to relegate him to the nether regions for offending my sense of order in worship. However, neither am I willing to give him a pass on discussing (with tacit approval) certain forms of degrading behavior.
A few years ago, John MacArthur confronted him for his reputation as the "cussing preacher." Mark received the rebuke in a godly manner, repented, and corrected his practice. Rather than throwing him off the boat, I would hope that some mature Christian leader in his circle of influence would take him aside and have a frank discussion about the birds and the bees in the pulpit and the pew.
Last edited:
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
The question that "some of us" need to ask ourselves, then, is whether that belief can properly be deduced from Scripture, or if it comes from some other, non-biblical source. Either one is fine, but the only one we can bind anyone else's conscience by (including Pastor Driscoll's) is Scripture.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rae, fair enough. But, please catch the edited version of my post to get my fulller feeling on the subject. I evidently was adding while you and Chris were posting.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
I have only listened to a relatively little bit of Driscoll. I don't know if I happened to hear messages that unfortunately shared inappropriate content simply by coincidence, or perhaps a lot of his material is in fact adult oriented. I don't know. Honestly though, I like the guy! It's just that some of what he has said troubles me to a certain degree. It is one thing to address mature issues in the pulpit; it is another to make unnecessary crude jokes, perhaps for shock value or to "keep the audience interested." 
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
We had a guy visit Grace while MacArthur was on sabbatical one time mention something about a conversation heard while "covering his feet." You could have heard a pin drop. Even that was considered inappropriate. Another bragged about his nocturnal prowess, in a round about way - again, silence. If it's in the text, deal with it. But this sort of shock affect and personal gratification is for locker rooms, not heralds of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And, yes, Lawrence shocks me quite often.
And, yes, Lawrence shocks me quite often.
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
We had a guy visit Grace while MacArthur was on sabbatical one time mention something about a conversation heard while "covering his feet." You could have heard a pin drop. Even that was considered inappropriate. Another bragged about his nocturnal prowess, in a round about way - again, silence. If it's in the text, deal with it. But this sort of shock affect and personal gratification is for locker rooms, not heralds of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And, yes, Lawrence shocks me quite often.
Reminds me of an IFBkad pastor I heard about.
Doesn't Lawrence shock us all?
Read Lawrence's blog after listening to Phil Johnson's sermon. Scroll down to March. I was really hoping Johnson was engaging in some hyperbole.
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
I listened to the entire series that has been (slandered) as being "pornographic".
I challeng anyone to produce a quote from the sermons themseves that would be worth bleeping out. I just don't think you can. his link policy may need revision (not my call) but it was clearly identified as to what it was & who it was for.
In the online dust up there has been a conflation of what Pastor Mark himself said & what was in an unrelated website.
I would like to see people simply disagree & dispute his view from scripture rather then use a wink & a nod to communicate an implication.
I challeng anyone to produce a quote from the sermons themseves that would be worth bleeping out. I just don't think you can. his link policy may need revision (not my call) but it was clearly identified as to what it was & who it was for.
In the online dust up there has been a conflation of what Pastor Mark himself said & what was in an unrelated website.
I would like to see people simply disagree & dispute his view from scripture rather then use a wink & a nod to communicate an implication.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't know which series it is that you are referring to Kevin, but I do know that Phil Johnson mentioned one of the jokes I heard in a Driscoll sermon on YouTube. If you listened to Johnson's message, it was Driscoll's joke from Eccl. 9 in reference to masturbation. 
That is just one of many examples. And again, I like Driscoll! However, all of his vulgar "oopsies, my bad" moments in the pulpit need to stop. Please Driscoll, I beg you.
That is just one of many examples. And again, I like Driscoll! However, all of his vulgar "oopsies, my bad" moments in the pulpit need to stop. Please Driscoll, I beg you.
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
I don't know which series it is that you are referring to Kevin, but I do know that Phil Johnson mentioned one of the jokes I heard in a Driscoll sermon on YouTube. If you listened to Johnson's message, it was Driscoll's joke from Eccl. 9 in reference to masturbation.
That wasn't a joke. He was telling a true story (that happened to be humorous) about the lengths people will go to in order to justify their sin. Is that vulgar?
- Status