Apr 14, 2009
I doubt MacArthur would be impressed with my motivation for almost agreeing with him.
Like this post?
I came very close to resonating with MacArthur’s annoyance today simply because he respects his readers enough to use paragraph breaks liberally.
* * *
Related:
• Not pressing Enter is rude.
• Thinking about how to use paragraphs.
* * * * *
Is this the only thing you almost agree with MacArthur on? He surely does write with true “Abrahamic” style. Great observation. Not so great article.
The article by J. MacArthur really stunk. Seems as though Phil Johnson has teamed up with another.
The article had – opening, here are my points, Mark Driscoll was wrong in two sentences, closing paragraph. It seems as though America should be uniform in the way it presents every single topic from the pulpit – even to the most godless (sarcasm).
Watch and observe the sermons yourself, what MacArthur claims is going on is not going on. He shouldn’t clump Driscoll in with the rest of the pastors across the country who are just trying to get attention and attendance. Driscoll actually wants to help people understand what the Bible says about sex and marriage.
It’s interesting to see how two different pastors have encouraged and or lambasted younger upcoming pastors. MacArthur needs to realize that he won’t be around forever and its good to invest and help. I know of another pastor who has been helpful in developing Driscoll (last name starts with a P).
I agree…that article is visually refreshing.
Don’t love the article, but the layout is refreshing with the more appropriate use of paragraphs. However, you should note that technically a paragraph requires three sentences to be complete. Some of the paragraphs don’t quite make the cut.
I like your blog so much because in just 22 words you make me think every single day. It is refreshing compared to the 1200 word blogs.
Wait…what? You all are joking, right?
I’m hoping that I’ve simply missed something here. What exactly is the problem with this article that has you all being so unreasonably snarky?
What I’ve gotten is that MacArthur seems to be having problems with something that he is seeing as a troublesome fad, which chooses to use unnecessarily explicit language simply to appeal to the flesh of the listeners rather than treat the Word of God with the respect it certainly deserves.
The summation (and that’s really what this article is) is simply stating his intent and reasoning to go through the Song of Solomon in order to make a case against and an alternative to the situation, that God’s Word is being dealt with in a way that does not Glorify God, as His Word is intended to do.
If you’re going to criticize and undermine him, the least you could do, considering that you’re actually going to *MacArthur’s* website to access the information in the first place, is to let him at least complete his argument before you come out with such bold and disrespectful commentary.
I mean come on, has he already made some egregious statement here that would justify cutting him off so soon?
Otherwise, you really sound foolish and irrelevant.
Agree or disagree with MacArthur as we may, that was the easiest-to-read long blog post I can remember seeing. (I think that *may* have been Abraham’s point in linking to the article. Not so much the content itself.)
Liberal paragraph breaks are divine. Short paragraphs are divine. As well as short sentences. And short words. MacArthur is getting there….
But MacArthur is dead on in pointing out the nuclear arms race that’s occurring over sex in the pulpit. To out do the last preacher, one has to state something more vivid.
What happened to one man and one woman for life?
And why is it the preacher’s responsibility to tell me that it’s okay for my wife and I to have oral sex?
Moreover, why is the preacher challenging me to have sex for 30 days?
He’s a preacher [ie, minister of the Gospel] not a counselor. He’s responsible for my soul. Not my sex life.
I agree with Barnabas–more to the point of, “look how nice paragraph breaks are in a blog post.”
I think Abraham might be pointing out that paragraphs are so nice, they can even be a healing balm for the sores of contention. But maybe not as sappy as I just said it.
Let’s see…
I don’t agree with MacArthur’s evaluations of Driscoll. They seem based on bias and tradition more than Scripture.
I did like the paragraph breaks. Oh yeah, and I enjoyed reading others’ opinions of both the content and its easy-to-read-iness. :)
Paragraph breaks = good
Half-baked rant against Driscoll = not so good
I agree about the paragraph part, but now you have me intrigued as to what you disagree with.
I prefer walls of text that refuse to let me even consider digesting the smallest amount of information and run-on sentences that seem to go on forever with little or no consideration for the audience’s attention span or ability to follow thought-patterns that may or may not be an honest evaluation of a teacher with whom the said author has a history of bashing for things that we as Christians, regardless of our position would do well to at least think through and formulate an opinion on because, as you may have noticed, effective communication is key.
It’s dissapointing that Mac fails to mention the numerous good things that Driscoll’s ministry is producing. We Christians have enough trouble fighting against Satan and the forces of darkness…why vehmently attack a Bible believing, Christ magnifying pastor like Driscoll?
The comments under the Mac post Abraham linked accuse Driscoll of “seeking the praise of men”. Preaching Christ as the only way for salvation, advocating Biblical views of manhood and womanhood, preaching against sex before marriage, etc. are hardly “praise-worthy” in the eyes of the world.
i like the article layout and content.
i hope Driscoll gets what MacArthur is saying because he is saying something important and helpful
*(comment by a person who likes Driscoll)
What
I
learned:
Many
short
paragraphs
make
reading
easier.
Sermons
on
sex
make
Church
attendance
higher.
I am disappointed to see Dr. MacArthur linking Driscoll with the other churches who have had the sex challenges and inappropriate billboards put up.
If he wants to critique Driscoll specifically, and not the slew of sex sermons in general, he should stick to only discussing what Driscoll has actually done and not lump him with the others. I sincerely hope his future posts are more fair to Driscoll’s actions and positions.
After reading John MacArthur’s article (which was paragraphically pleasing, I might add) I was even more disappointed reading through the comments that followed. Christian in-fighting is so gut wrenching. While I appreciate MacArthur’s always-high view of Scripture, I am not a fan of the way which Driscoll was thrown in–like an off-hand comment that detracted from the broader purpose of his article. I agree. Churches often utilize sex sermons to a disgusting degree. I don’t think any commenters disagree on that point. But listing Driscoll’s name in the article without giving facts or details seemed…inappropriate. Interested in hearing out MacArthur and what else he has to say…
And…I realize I didn’t use paragraphs correctly in the above comment. My apologies. :P
Classic MacArthur. Been thinking a lot about this sort of rhetoric lately. Brewing a post on it. The problem is … I agree with MacArthur to a certain extent, but have come to think his rhetoric may be worse than any of the problems he so diligently ferrets out.
There is a sort of truth and falsehood in rhetoric as well as in interpretation — be it properly paragraph broken or not :-)
i’ve missed myrddin’s comments so that (sometimes anyway) i can say “yup, i agree” and not have to come up with stuff myself. this is one of those times.
Shawn, MacArthur’s concern is not the issue, it is his diagnose-and-distance approach. And no, Driscoll is not beyond reproach in this matter.
Abraham,
My question would be the same as the first comment. Why only “come close to reasonating”? Either what he’s saying has credance or he can be written off as “old school”. I think he’s saying some things that need to be said. Driscoll can be very helpful in some areas, but he is way too flipant with his words. Phil Johnson’s message at the Sheperd’s Conference on Driscoll’s flipant use of a verse in Eccclesiastes is good example of this problem.
JoeS,
Diagnose and distance? It looks more like he’s diagnosing and treating. In what way is MacArthur leveling a criticism and running away?
The way I read it, and all the more easier with proper paragraph breaks, is that he’s identified the problem and is now going to present an alternative.
He’s clearly putting his hands right into the patient’s guts and opening his perspective up to criticism.
The irony in your response is that people see Driscoll’s name associated with a negative criticism and immediately want to, often violently, distance him from the issue entirely.
Once MacArthur has laid out his alternative, and “you” (I mean you generically, not personally, JoeS) still insist that all he’s doing is picking on that poor saintly Driscoll, then debate about how MacArthur’s presentation of the Song of Solomon is inferior to Driscoll’s and be specific as to why.
Blanket statements such as “that stinks” or “MacArthur is this or that” without explaining your position is empty rhetoric not productive argument.
“In what way is MacArthur leveling a criticism and running away?”
In the same way he always has, by making it almost impossible for those who are the target of his diatribes to engage him in fruitful dialogue. When you begin with something like “only a flaming, heretical advocate of sex-hungry porn would say….” How do you engage someone in dialogue?
Macarthur’s is a rhetoric of violence and only invites violence in return. I like the phrase “diagnose and distance.”
I don’t, by the way, think that Driscoll hits the mark on this very well either. Somehow we just need to find a way to have these conversations differently, for God’s sake — literally.
It has to start with a distinction between first and second things. Explicating the Song of Solomon or using a swear word in a sermon are secondary things.
Shawn. I think I have to break from 22 word answers… I have been paying attention to this disagreement for a while, and I do believe that MacArthur and Phil Johnson are within their rights to be concerned. I found myself less interested in Driscoll’s sermons once the “controversial” stuff was over. And John MacArthur has a solid history of diagnosing false teaching and holding up the Gospel as the standard.
But Mark Driscoll is not a false teacher. He has some very clear areas where growth is needed, and there are many pastors who have come along side him to encourage him where he needs it and rebuke him when he needs correction.
John MacArthur, on the other hand, takes issue with Driscoll’s methodology, has expressed his disagreement, then pushed Driscoll into the camp of “pastors who are exploiting the Gospel for their own glory and bringing carnality into the Church.” He isn’t running away, but seems to be putting Drisocll outside the camp.
I know that MacArthur and Johnson have expressed their concern to Driscoll privately, and Mark’s response was not timely or well aimed. I just don’t see why MacArthur continues to call him out as the representative of this whole trend, but won’t call out the others who are sensationalizing sex but forgetting the Gospel.
I hope that was more clear than my 22 word response earlier.
If someone had no idea that MacArthur was referring to other pastors alongside Driscoll … the article could easily be construed as Driscoll doing all the things mentioned, as he is the only pastor named.
It is low form to call someone out for anything other than sin. Anyone who would need to have such information would already know what is being referred to. It’s too bad. Having never heard Driscoll preach, I won’t defend him. But as a believer, it was a low blow article to read.
(an attendee of a church pastored by a Master’s graduate)
The interesting thing to me is everyone who calls YOUR dad into question because he’s friends with Driscoll… how does THAT work?
Hannah’s comment above about Christian-Christian warfare really said it… it IS gut-wrenching to read. But the upside is that after all that I am even more impressed with Jesus Christ for being strong enough to bring us to glory in unity.
I’m thinking that second to meeting my Savior, I’m looking forward to seeing Phil J, John Mc and Mark D give each other big, holy, glorified hugs (big cheeky grin)
Listen, I’m an utter fan of Driscoll, but I think as JoeS pointed out, Driscoll is being confronted by a pillar of the community and turning a deaf ear.
MacArthur is simply following biblical steps of discipline here, so he’s not out of order calling him out.
People are being influenced by what Driscoll is doing, and going by the title of MacArthur’s article “The Rape of Solomon’s Song,” MacArthur feels that Driscoll may be skewing doctrine.
That’s a serious charge that I think deserves a serious answer…one Driscoll hasn’t produced yet.
So I’m interested in seeing how he’ll respond to MacArthur’s series of articles.
Thanks a bunch for taking the time to respond, JoeS. I really appreciate that and it does clarify what you were saying for me.
Whether Driscoll is a false teacher or not, I wouldn’t know as, I’ve never listened to him, so I’ll take your word for it.
I simply know that I didn’t walk away from the article with Driscoll on my mind, even though he was held up as an example of what MacArthur was talking about.
Just for the record, I LOVE the word “snarky”.
Good accountability isn’t submitting yourself to anyone and everyone who is older in the faith than you. It’s deliberately submitting yourself to specific men that you trust and that love you. I believe Driscoll has very much done that.
My guess is that he won’t respond to any of this, and I hope he doesn’t. His job is to serve his church and listen to the advice of the Godly men that God has put in his life.
If he spent any time at all responding to every internet rant about him, it would be a full time job.
That being said, I think Abraham really did post this to talk about paragraphs. I like them too.
I like paragraphs. :)
“That’s a serious charge that I think deserves a serious answer…one Driscoll hasn’t produced yet.”
Driscoll owes Macarthur no response in principle. As Chris so well points out. Does Macarthur really believe in the local church as much as he says he does? You can’t have your ecclesiology and eat it too.