 |
29 May 2009
John Piper was recently asked to comment on the brewing controversy about John MacArthur’s public rebuke of Mark Driscoll, which focused mainly, but not exclusively, on his lewd sermon on the Song of Solomon (I am using "sermon on" quite loosely). In the course of saying some very helpful things, Dr. Piper also described Mark Driscoll as being “rock solid doctrinally.” This seems to be one of the core defenses of Driscoll, perhaps second only to something like, “You don’t understand the context within which he is ministering” (which shows up in Piper’s answer as well). I have to say that I am not convinced that Driscoll is rock solid doctrinally, at least not when he preaches and writes on doctrinal issues. Sure, he may have an orthodox creed, but what comes out can range from pretty weak to flat out wrong. Consider some of the flawed stuff in Vintage Jesus (as just one example). Or his peculiar stuff about kings, priests, and prophets in the church. I would not consider his answers during the Nightline face-off on the existence of Satan to be rock solid doctrinally. I know it is probably a very pressure packed context, but his explanation regarding evil-virtue-freewill-choice-love was very weak. (Although I was impressed by his ability to resist putting a smackdown on Deepak Chopra—to borrow a saying from Les Ollila, that guy can make you mad enough to mug an Avon lady!) Also, when did we arrive at the conclusion that behavior is a non-doctrinal issue? I think that Phil Johnson did a very good job showing the importance of the connection here, One money quote: “Paul's point is that sanctified behavior is the essential companion to authentically sound doctrine. You may verbally affirm the finest confession of faith ever written, but if your words and deeds deny it, Paul would not have affirmed you as an authentic Christian at all.” This just seems like a very weak line of defense regarding Mark Driscoll’s ministry. His doctrinal teaching has, at the very least, some very rough edges precisely because of his efforts to be edgy and relevant. The issues that men like MacArthur and Johnson have raised about his speech and conduct have doctrinal ramifications. The fact that Driscoll is putting himself forward as an authoritative voice on doctrinal matters, through his books, makes this even more concerning. The trajectory seems dangerously off course.DMD @ 09:23
