# Phil Johnson and Mark Driscoll, Part IX - Conclusion: Ten Lessons To Be Learned



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 7, 2009)

Not long ago, I recommended a series of posts by Jonathan Christman (pastoral assistant at Heritage Baptist Church, Owensboro) that closely follow the discussion that ensued Phil Johnson's public censure of Pastor Mark Driscoll in a sermon at a recent Shepherd's Pastors' Conference. The issue in debate involves the question of what is and is not appropriate language in the pulpit. Because both of these men are somewhat influential in Reformed circles and because the issue under discussion is important, I commended to you the series of posts by Jonathan as an even-handed and charitable reporting and analysis of the debate. I would now like to recommend the eleventh and final post on the topic, in which Jonathan seeks to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of both men involved and to underscore ten important lessons we can learn as pastors and as believers. I personally found Jonathan's analysis and exhortations very helpful and edifying. Rather than directing you to the RBS Tabletalk blog, I'll provide you a direct link to Jonathan's blog. 

*Phil Johnson and Mark Driscoll, Part IX - Conclusion: Ten Lessons To Be Learned
*
Blessings!

Your servant,


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm not familiar with the particulars of this situation and only familiar very generally with the two individuals mentioned as public figures.

As a presbyterian, I am thinking confessional standards, church discipline, and church government when reading something like this.

The Confessional standards summarize the doctrine of Scripture to say the third commandment requires:



> Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable Questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.



So, when our President's Pastor violated the third commandment from the pulpit, I wondered, where were the Elders? Was there no accountability at all in that local church. Did not one member of the congregation care it is wrong to curse God (repeatedly) from the pulpit, and bring it forward for church discipline. In the public discourse, that question did not seem to be asked.

In this case, a Pastor of one church is publicly rebuking another Pastor who apparently is not even of his denomination. (I'm not evaluating the underlying behavior here as I don't have basis enough).

Wouldn't the Elders or a like group go to the Pastor privately to deal with something like using profanity from the pulpit? Wouldn't discipline be done in-house? Is there a system of accountability? If there is, it would not seem, biblically, to come from someone on the outside, who makes (only?) a public declaration.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 7, 2009)

> Wouldn't the Elders or a like group go to the Pastor privately to deal with something like using profanity from the pulpit? Wouldn't discipline be done in-house? Is there a system of accountability? If there is, it would not seem, biblically, to come from someone on the outside, who makes (only?) a public declaration.



Paul dealt publically with them in Galations 2. I think there is good reason to do this publically, because Driscoll's sermons are very public. I have respect for him, but I think he crosses the line.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 7, 2009)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > Wouldn't the Elders or a like group go to the Pastor privately to deal with something like using profanity from the pulpit? Wouldn't discipline be done in-house? Is there a system of accountability? If there is, it would not seem, biblically, to come from someone on the outside, who makes (only?) a public declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul dealt publically with them in Galations 2. I think there is good reason to do this publically, because Driscoll's sermons are very public. I have respect for him, but I think he crosses the line.



But isn't the biblical principle that someone closely affected goes to the person first? Isn't he accountable to his local church government first? Doesn't church discipline begin there?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm just sayin' it seems like Paul rolled up on them. We don't know that Phil didn't say something to him first. But, as far as going to the elders, I'm not sure how that would work in this situation. It's almost like two people debating over an issue. Driscoll thinks it's alright to curse somtimes in the pulpit and Phil doesn't. Phil is letting everyone know why he is right and Driscoll is wrong. Phil Johnson doesn't go to his church. They are in a different denomination. And Driscoll's elders don't seem to have a big problem with him cursing from the pulpit. (Just my guess.) I don't think Johnson is sinning, he's just calling Driscoll out.


----------

