rjcruiser
Senior Member
John Piper, Mark Driscoll and Harsh Language
by Nathan Busenitz
It was June 15, 2000—just over eight years ago—when James Montgomery Boice entered his heavenly rest. That same day marked the beginning of that year’s Ligonier National Conference in Orlando, Florida. The theme was “Upsetting the World” and the speakers included an all-star line up as men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson, Douglas Wilson and Al Mohler addressed those in attendance. By all accounts, it was a uniquely emotion-filled conference, and understandably so. One of evangelicalism’s foremost pastors, scholars, and statesmen had just gone home to heaven.
During the conference, in the first Q&A session, a memorable interchange took place between two of the keynote speakers. The first, Doug Wilson (whose magazine Credenda Agenda is known for its sharp wit and biting commentary), was asked to defend the sarcastic rhetoric that characterized his ministry. Wilson responded by pointing to how Christ used language to confront the Pharisees, contending that because Christ used “sarcasm” and “biting cultural criticism” we should too, since “we are called to imitate Christ in all that He does.” (Wilson also noted the polemic of the Old Testament prophets, suggesting that a similar polemic should be used by pastors today.)
The second, John Piper, disagreed; and he did not hesitate to offer a rebuttal. Graciously but firmly he warned Wilson of the dangers that come with an over-fondness for sarcasm:
John Piper: I want to go back to Doug’s defense of sarcasm and irony and balance it. One of the reasons I have a problem with simply “Do what Jesus did” is there is one huge difference between me and Jesus and that is sin in me. There are others. And that one is picked up by the Apostle Paul because when he argues for tenderheartedness and gentleness and forbearance he grounds it in the fact that you were forgiven, therefore forgive. In other words, Paul draws attention to the very thing that distinguishes me from Jesus when he’s arguing for my tenderheartedness towards people. . . .
Now Doug Wilson is absolute genius at sarcasm and irony. And I would just wave a little yellow flag . . . [because] you can’t exalt Christ and commend yourself as clever. . . . So that’s an exhortation, a warning, really to everybody who clapped for Doug when he said what he had to say, and for you [Doug], and for me, because frankly I think I need to say that because I am wired to be a person who puts down stupidity [in a way that is sarcastic or harsh], and I have to work really hard to manifest tenderness.
Doug Wilson: I appreciate that very much. I do want to encourage you, it may not encourage you, but every time you read something in Credenda Agenda, just tell yourself, “They’re holding back.” [Laughter from audience]
John Piper: And that worries me. That worries me. [1]
Fast forward eight years to the upcoming Desiring God National Conference (September 26–28), where the ever controversial Mark Driscoll will advocate the use of sarcastic and biting speech in pastoral ministry (in a session entitled, “How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words”). Like Wilson, it seems that Driscoll will appeal to the polemic of Christ, Paul, and the Old Testament prophets to make his case. But unlike Wilson, Driscoll will be defending much more than just prophetic sarcasm. Based on his reputation for locker room humor, crass allusions, and sexual innuendo, Driscoll’s definition of “harsh language” pushes the envelope farther than Credenda Agenda ever did . . .
. . . which brings up an interesting question as to how Driscoll’s presentation will be received when it is delivered in Minneapolis next week. (For those wondering why John Piper invited Mark Driscoll to speak on this topic, you can see his answer here.)
Mark Driscoll’s edgy approach to ministry is widely known for its use of provocative, sarcastic, and earthy speech from the pulpit. Few would deny that his colorful style sometimes falls outside the boundaries of pastoral propriety—at least as normally defined in evangelical circles. Though he denounces “shock-jock language” as inappropriate [2], this “smart-aleck former frat boy” [3] has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t shy away from saying things that many would consider overly crude and irreverent. [4] (Driscoll himself recognizes the fact that much of his content, such as the MH-17 adult-only sermon videos on his website, fits “into two categories: offensive and really offensive.” [5] Or as Christianity Today notes about him, “If he hasn’t offended you, you’ve never read his books or listened to his sermons.” [6])
But what does Mark Driscoll think about those who are critical of the “harsh language” he uses?
“I would push back and say that some of them are cowards,” he says in a recent interview, highlighting his upcoming message at Desiring God. “They don’t go far enough. Some of them are people pleasers and they’re worried about their ratings and approval as opposed to the truth.” [7]
Though he admits (in the same video) that “some guys like [him] go too far,” Driscoll ultimately justifies the use of harsh language in pastoral ministry by appealing to several Old Testament prophets (specifically, Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel) and two brief comments in the letters of Paul. At the beginning of the video, he states:
The Bible has some very strong language. The opening of Galatians where he [Paul] tells a bunch of guys who are into circumcision to go all the way and emasculate themselves, probably not something that you’re going to have on the flannel-graph for the children in the Sunday school. Ezekiel telling the Israelites that they are whoring after certain people and gods because of the size of their genitalia and the experiences they enjoy is very strong language. When Isaiah says that a righteousness is like bloody tampons and Paul says it’s like a steaming pile that a dog leaves in the yard, the Bible is using some very strong language.
The question is, is that okay? Well, all Scripture is God-breathed, and if that’s how God speaks that’s how we should speak.
Later Driscoll notes that, though God’s Word uses this type of language infrequently, “that doesn’t mean we never use perhaps even strong language, harsh tones, cutting remarks, biting sarcasm, devastating uses of humor and irony, ‘cause God does.”
And so, contends Driscoll, pastors today not only can, but should, use provocative and offensive speech because that is how God’s spokesmen have communicated at times in the past.
But does this line of argumentation really justify the kind of harsh language that has earned Driscoll a reputation for being “bold, brash, sarcastic, opinionated, and blunt,” “intentionally irreverent,” and comfortable using “language that will offend those whose scruples are sensitive”? [8]
Personally, I am not convinced. Here are three reasons why:
1. First, Driscoll’s argument ultimately comes up short unless he can demonstrate that the way in which the OT prophets, Christ, and the NT apostles used “harsh language” (especially as it related to the cultures of their day) is directly parallel to his own penchant for lowbrow humor, coarse rhetoric, and sarcastic wit. But Driscoll’s track record hardly seems to fit the patterns established by these biblical examples. For starters, their speech was neither lewd nor flippant, and it was certainly not motivated by an effort to be culturally relevant. Moreover, when Christ (being God) and the biblical prophets (writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit) said things that offended others, they did so in ways wholly absent from fleshly motives and sinful pride. We must take great caution in thinking we can do the same (per John Piper’s warning to Doug Wilson).
2. Second, Driscoll’s argument assumes that because some of the biblical prophets used harsh language (on limited occasions), then today’s pastors can and should use harsh language as well. But this type of reasoning presents a problem if taken to its logical conclusion. After all, wouldn’t this make every kind of prophetic behavior (no matter how infrequent) a paradigm pastors should follow today? Isaiah, for example, prophesied naked (perhaps in a loin cloth) for several years, in keeping with God’s command in Isaiah 20. And Elijah killed the prophets of Baal after he mocked their false god, according to 1 Kings 18. Are such actions to be imitated in contemporary ministry? And if not, why not?
3. Finally, and most importantly, Driscoll’s argument places the implicit examples of Old Testament prophets above the explicit commands of the New Testament Scriptures. If the New Testament were silent about the speech of believers, especially pastors, Driscoll’s line of reasoning might be sustainable. But in this case, the New Testament (in particular, the Apostle Paul), could not be clearer:
Ephesians 4:29: Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 5:3–4: But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
Paul’s instruction to Titus, as a pastor, is perhaps even more to the point:
Titus 2:6: Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.
(We might also mention the warnings to teachers about the tongue in James 3.)
It is hard to see how being characterized by dignity and sound speech fits into Driscoll’s provocative paradigm. Even if reasons 1 and 2 (above) could be sufficiently answered or dismissed, number three shuts the door and closes it tight. Principles implicitly drawn from descriptive examples cannot trump the explicit commands given to us in prescriptive New Testament texts.
Consider, as an aside, John Piper’s insightful comments on a couple of the passages cited above:
Regarding Ephesians 4:29: [Another] kind of language I think Paul would include in his command not to let any rotten talk come out of your mouth is vulgar references to sex and the human body. . . . I recall a couple of men in graduate school in Germany who seemed to carry the aroma of vulgarity about them. All they ever seemed to laugh at was sexual innuendo. The pitiful thing about it was that the nearer they got to the gutter, the more they laughed. With their mouths they created an atmosphere like a stinking locker room. It was unpleasant for everybody but themselves. And it made noble and high and worthy thoughts all but impossible. It’s hard to savor beauty from a garbage dump. [9]
Regarding Ephesians 5:3–4: Paul seems to be concerned mainly about two related errors: treating things as gross or treating things as trivial; filthiness and flippancy. There are people who are so dirty inside that they can hardly refer to a tree or a cloud or a fish hook or a brake pedal without treating it as filthy: they may do it with some gross language or simply with a despising attitude and demeanor. And there are people whose vision of the world is so superficial that they trivialize everything. Paul condemns both of these and says, “Get rid of all filthiness and coarseness on the one hand, and all foolishness and levity on the other.” [10]
And in another place (regarding Colossians 2:1–8): How can we guard ourselves against a foul or frivolous mouth? How can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is foul with criticism and bitterness … and sarcasm and disrespect and ridicule and cynicism? And how can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is just flippant and trivial and silly and petty? The answer to both questions is, Fill your mouth with thanksgiving. [11]
To be fair, Mark Driscoll has not yet given his message at Desiring God. Perhaps it is too early to critique his defense, since he has only given a brief overview of what will surely be a much more comprehensive and nuanced discussion.
Maybe he will address some of the concerns we’ve outlined above. Or maybe he’ll differentiate between what might be rightly called “prophetic,” and what some have described as nothing more than “the gutter language of anti-social people.” [12] In any case, we’ll know for sure in about ten days.
In closing, I’d like to cite a few more paragraphs from John Piper. I include them, not because I disagree with Dr. Piper (a great man of God whose ministry I highly respect), but because I think he is absolutely right; and because I think they make his invitation to Driscoll all the more curious:
I remember one time as a child that my mother actually washed my mouth out with soap. She took me to the bathroom sink, rubbed the bar of soap around in my mouth, and then rinsed it out and made me go to my room. Do you know what I had said? I think I had said, “Shut up!” to my sister.
Now why should my mother wash my mouth out with soap for saying, “Shut up!” to my sister? She did it because she believed Jesus when he said, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11).
I had made myself dirty by saying, “Shut up,” to my sister, and my mother had a white-hot zeal for my purity. So she used an unforgettable object lesson. I think she did right and I have risen up to call her blessed even this past week on her birthday.
“But really!” someone will say, “What’s the big deal with saying, ‘Shut up,’ to your sister? It’s not swearing. It’s not taking the name of the Lord in vain. It’s not a dirty word. Why get so worked up? What’s really so bad about it?”
The answer is that when I said, “Shut up!” to my sister, it was mean. There was no affection and no good will and no kindness in it. It was ugly. There was no moral beauty, no holiness, no love. To use Paul’s phrase in Ephesians 4:29, it was a “rotten word.” It came from a garbage pile of pride and one-upmanship and anger and resentment—all very normal between siblings, and all very sinful. Beware lest you grow accustomed to sin because it is so normal! [13]
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/
by Nathan Busenitz
It was June 15, 2000—just over eight years ago—when James Montgomery Boice entered his heavenly rest. That same day marked the beginning of that year’s Ligonier National Conference in Orlando, Florida. The theme was “Upsetting the World” and the speakers included an all-star line up as men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson, Douglas Wilson and Al Mohler addressed those in attendance. By all accounts, it was a uniquely emotion-filled conference, and understandably so. One of evangelicalism’s foremost pastors, scholars, and statesmen had just gone home to heaven.
During the conference, in the first Q&A session, a memorable interchange took place between two of the keynote speakers. The first, Doug Wilson (whose magazine Credenda Agenda is known for its sharp wit and biting commentary), was asked to defend the sarcastic rhetoric that characterized his ministry. Wilson responded by pointing to how Christ used language to confront the Pharisees, contending that because Christ used “sarcasm” and “biting cultural criticism” we should too, since “we are called to imitate Christ in all that He does.” (Wilson also noted the polemic of the Old Testament prophets, suggesting that a similar polemic should be used by pastors today.)
The second, John Piper, disagreed; and he did not hesitate to offer a rebuttal. Graciously but firmly he warned Wilson of the dangers that come with an over-fondness for sarcasm:
John Piper: I want to go back to Doug’s defense of sarcasm and irony and balance it. One of the reasons I have a problem with simply “Do what Jesus did” is there is one huge difference between me and Jesus and that is sin in me. There are others. And that one is picked up by the Apostle Paul because when he argues for tenderheartedness and gentleness and forbearance he grounds it in the fact that you were forgiven, therefore forgive. In other words, Paul draws attention to the very thing that distinguishes me from Jesus when he’s arguing for my tenderheartedness towards people. . . .
Now Doug Wilson is absolute genius at sarcasm and irony. And I would just wave a little yellow flag . . . [because] you can’t exalt Christ and commend yourself as clever. . . . So that’s an exhortation, a warning, really to everybody who clapped for Doug when he said what he had to say, and for you [Doug], and for me, because frankly I think I need to say that because I am wired to be a person who puts down stupidity [in a way that is sarcastic or harsh], and I have to work really hard to manifest tenderness.
Doug Wilson: I appreciate that very much. I do want to encourage you, it may not encourage you, but every time you read something in Credenda Agenda, just tell yourself, “They’re holding back.” [Laughter from audience]
John Piper: And that worries me. That worries me. [1]
Fast forward eight years to the upcoming Desiring God National Conference (September 26–28), where the ever controversial Mark Driscoll will advocate the use of sarcastic and biting speech in pastoral ministry (in a session entitled, “How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words”). Like Wilson, it seems that Driscoll will appeal to the polemic of Christ, Paul, and the Old Testament prophets to make his case. But unlike Wilson, Driscoll will be defending much more than just prophetic sarcasm. Based on his reputation for locker room humor, crass allusions, and sexual innuendo, Driscoll’s definition of “harsh language” pushes the envelope farther than Credenda Agenda ever did . . .
. . . which brings up an interesting question as to how Driscoll’s presentation will be received when it is delivered in Minneapolis next week. (For those wondering why John Piper invited Mark Driscoll to speak on this topic, you can see his answer here.)
Mark Driscoll’s edgy approach to ministry is widely known for its use of provocative, sarcastic, and earthy speech from the pulpit. Few would deny that his colorful style sometimes falls outside the boundaries of pastoral propriety—at least as normally defined in evangelical circles. Though he denounces “shock-jock language” as inappropriate [2], this “smart-aleck former frat boy” [3] has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t shy away from saying things that many would consider overly crude and irreverent. [4] (Driscoll himself recognizes the fact that much of his content, such as the MH-17 adult-only sermon videos on his website, fits “into two categories: offensive and really offensive.” [5] Or as Christianity Today notes about him, “If he hasn’t offended you, you’ve never read his books or listened to his sermons.” [6])
But what does Mark Driscoll think about those who are critical of the “harsh language” he uses?
“I would push back and say that some of them are cowards,” he says in a recent interview, highlighting his upcoming message at Desiring God. “They don’t go far enough. Some of them are people pleasers and they’re worried about their ratings and approval as opposed to the truth.” [7]
Though he admits (in the same video) that “some guys like [him] go too far,” Driscoll ultimately justifies the use of harsh language in pastoral ministry by appealing to several Old Testament prophets (specifically, Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel) and two brief comments in the letters of Paul. At the beginning of the video, he states:
The Bible has some very strong language. The opening of Galatians where he [Paul] tells a bunch of guys who are into circumcision to go all the way and emasculate themselves, probably not something that you’re going to have on the flannel-graph for the children in the Sunday school. Ezekiel telling the Israelites that they are whoring after certain people and gods because of the size of their genitalia and the experiences they enjoy is very strong language. When Isaiah says that a righteousness is like bloody tampons and Paul says it’s like a steaming pile that a dog leaves in the yard, the Bible is using some very strong language.
The question is, is that okay? Well, all Scripture is God-breathed, and if that’s how God speaks that’s how we should speak.
Later Driscoll notes that, though God’s Word uses this type of language infrequently, “that doesn’t mean we never use perhaps even strong language, harsh tones, cutting remarks, biting sarcasm, devastating uses of humor and irony, ‘cause God does.”
And so, contends Driscoll, pastors today not only can, but should, use provocative and offensive speech because that is how God’s spokesmen have communicated at times in the past.
But does this line of argumentation really justify the kind of harsh language that has earned Driscoll a reputation for being “bold, brash, sarcastic, opinionated, and blunt,” “intentionally irreverent,” and comfortable using “language that will offend those whose scruples are sensitive”? [8]
Personally, I am not convinced. Here are three reasons why:
1. First, Driscoll’s argument ultimately comes up short unless he can demonstrate that the way in which the OT prophets, Christ, and the NT apostles used “harsh language” (especially as it related to the cultures of their day) is directly parallel to his own penchant for lowbrow humor, coarse rhetoric, and sarcastic wit. But Driscoll’s track record hardly seems to fit the patterns established by these biblical examples. For starters, their speech was neither lewd nor flippant, and it was certainly not motivated by an effort to be culturally relevant. Moreover, when Christ (being God) and the biblical prophets (writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit) said things that offended others, they did so in ways wholly absent from fleshly motives and sinful pride. We must take great caution in thinking we can do the same (per John Piper’s warning to Doug Wilson).
2. Second, Driscoll’s argument assumes that because some of the biblical prophets used harsh language (on limited occasions), then today’s pastors can and should use harsh language as well. But this type of reasoning presents a problem if taken to its logical conclusion. After all, wouldn’t this make every kind of prophetic behavior (no matter how infrequent) a paradigm pastors should follow today? Isaiah, for example, prophesied naked (perhaps in a loin cloth) for several years, in keeping with God’s command in Isaiah 20. And Elijah killed the prophets of Baal after he mocked their false god, according to 1 Kings 18. Are such actions to be imitated in contemporary ministry? And if not, why not?
3. Finally, and most importantly, Driscoll’s argument places the implicit examples of Old Testament prophets above the explicit commands of the New Testament Scriptures. If the New Testament were silent about the speech of believers, especially pastors, Driscoll’s line of reasoning might be sustainable. But in this case, the New Testament (in particular, the Apostle Paul), could not be clearer:
Ephesians 4:29: Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 5:3–4: But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
Paul’s instruction to Titus, as a pastor, is perhaps even more to the point:
Titus 2:6: Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.
(We might also mention the warnings to teachers about the tongue in James 3.)
It is hard to see how being characterized by dignity and sound speech fits into Driscoll’s provocative paradigm. Even if reasons 1 and 2 (above) could be sufficiently answered or dismissed, number three shuts the door and closes it tight. Principles implicitly drawn from descriptive examples cannot trump the explicit commands given to us in prescriptive New Testament texts.
Consider, as an aside, John Piper’s insightful comments on a couple of the passages cited above:
Regarding Ephesians 4:29: [Another] kind of language I think Paul would include in his command not to let any rotten talk come out of your mouth is vulgar references to sex and the human body. . . . I recall a couple of men in graduate school in Germany who seemed to carry the aroma of vulgarity about them. All they ever seemed to laugh at was sexual innuendo. The pitiful thing about it was that the nearer they got to the gutter, the more they laughed. With their mouths they created an atmosphere like a stinking locker room. It was unpleasant for everybody but themselves. And it made noble and high and worthy thoughts all but impossible. It’s hard to savor beauty from a garbage dump. [9]
Regarding Ephesians 5:3–4: Paul seems to be concerned mainly about two related errors: treating things as gross or treating things as trivial; filthiness and flippancy. There are people who are so dirty inside that they can hardly refer to a tree or a cloud or a fish hook or a brake pedal without treating it as filthy: they may do it with some gross language or simply with a despising attitude and demeanor. And there are people whose vision of the world is so superficial that they trivialize everything. Paul condemns both of these and says, “Get rid of all filthiness and coarseness on the one hand, and all foolishness and levity on the other.” [10]
And in another place (regarding Colossians 2:1–8): How can we guard ourselves against a foul or frivolous mouth? How can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is foul with criticism and bitterness … and sarcasm and disrespect and ridicule and cynicism? And how can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is just flippant and trivial and silly and petty? The answer to both questions is, Fill your mouth with thanksgiving. [11]
To be fair, Mark Driscoll has not yet given his message at Desiring God. Perhaps it is too early to critique his defense, since he has only given a brief overview of what will surely be a much more comprehensive and nuanced discussion.
Maybe he will address some of the concerns we’ve outlined above. Or maybe he’ll differentiate between what might be rightly called “prophetic,” and what some have described as nothing more than “the gutter language of anti-social people.” [12] In any case, we’ll know for sure in about ten days.
In closing, I’d like to cite a few more paragraphs from John Piper. I include them, not because I disagree with Dr. Piper (a great man of God whose ministry I highly respect), but because I think he is absolutely right; and because I think they make his invitation to Driscoll all the more curious:
I remember one time as a child that my mother actually washed my mouth out with soap. She took me to the bathroom sink, rubbed the bar of soap around in my mouth, and then rinsed it out and made me go to my room. Do you know what I had said? I think I had said, “Shut up!” to my sister.
Now why should my mother wash my mouth out with soap for saying, “Shut up!” to my sister? She did it because she believed Jesus when he said, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11).
I had made myself dirty by saying, “Shut up,” to my sister, and my mother had a white-hot zeal for my purity. So she used an unforgettable object lesson. I think she did right and I have risen up to call her blessed even this past week on her birthday.
“But really!” someone will say, “What’s the big deal with saying, ‘Shut up,’ to your sister? It’s not swearing. It’s not taking the name of the Lord in vain. It’s not a dirty word. Why get so worked up? What’s really so bad about it?”
The answer is that when I said, “Shut up!” to my sister, it was mean. There was no affection and no good will and no kindness in it. It was ugly. There was no moral beauty, no holiness, no love. To use Paul’s phrase in Ephesians 4:29, it was a “rotten word.” It came from a garbage pile of pride and one-upmanship and anger and resentment—all very normal between siblings, and all very sinful. Beware lest you grow accustomed to sin because it is so normal! [13]
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/
