# Mark Driscoll Rant



## Phil D. (Jan 7, 2011)

I must say that I'm generally not a huge Driscoll fan, but I did have to agree with the substance of what he has to say here. I even share his exasperation on the issues he talks to, although I could certainly do without the borderline terms that he always seems obliged to sprinkle his speech with (so be warned should you choose to watch).



[video=youtube;s_MLUuNKjZU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_MLUuNKjZU[/video]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 7, 2011)

I think he's right on. His conclusion is important, too: That what you believe about those things will impact how you live.

Just a question though... what "borderline terms" did he say? Maybe my ears have been cauterized due to my environment, but I didn't hear anything that I'd consider to be "borderline."


----------



## Jack K (Jan 7, 2011)

Nice rant. I too have encountered Christians who have the notion that if we really want to understand the Old Testament, the best way is to learn from a Jew. Well, technically I guess Jesus _is_ a Jew. But the way to truly understand the Old Testament is to learn it from Jesus and see it in light of Jesus.


----------



## MarieP (Jan 7, 2011)

I agree, he's spot-on! (and no I didn't hear any borderline terms either...)


----------



## TimV (Jan 7, 2011)

The borderline stuff is saying Jews aren't God's holy race. 30,000,000 Christian Zionists don't like that. I've been saying the same thing here for years, and I guarantee you millions of "Christians" would think him an anti Semite after hearing that. The guy has backbone, which is refreshing in this wusie world.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 7, 2011)

I like the part about his 7 year old should be running the website. Discernment is a good thing.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 7, 2011)

Mark Driscoll? Hahaha.... DRISCOLL? Really? LOL....


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2011)

It is a concern that anyone could find this rant profitable. What is said concerning tolerance and indifference is perfectly correct, but it is spoken as if the person is an adolescent addressing adolescents. The fruit of the Spirit is temperance. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. The rant displays an inability to wait with a mature deliberation upon the outcomes of Providence.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> It is a concern that anyone could find this rant profitable. What is said concerning tolerance and indifference is perfectly correct, *but it is spoken as if the person is an adolescent addressing adolescents.* The fruit of the Spirit is temperance. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. The rant displays an inability to wait with a mature deliberation upon the outcomes of Providence.


 
This is the problem that a lot of conservative reformed people have with M. Driscoll. They don't like the delivery, but there is usually some good content. Let's pray that he calms down a bit.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 7, 2011)

Rich Koster said:


> This is the problem that a lot of conservative reformed people have with M. Driscoll. They don't like the delivery, but there is usually some good content. Let's pray that he calms down a bit.


 
I thought it was fine. Showing a bit of restraint - or temperance - is kind of a relative concept, in my opinion. I mean: How much enthusiasm can one have before one is accused of being intemperate? Or how placid does one have to appear to be considered temperate? I don't know. But I do know that I'm convinced that an impassioned delivery is not necessarily indicative of a lack of the fruit of the spirit (though it can be!). Otherwise, Jesus turning over tables and driving people and animals out of the temple with a whip would indicate lawlessness.

As I watched it, he seemed to catch himself and measure his words. He was exercising self-control. (Which is temperance.)


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> I mean: How much enthusiasm can one have before one is accused of being intemperate?


 
Enthusiasm is not the problem; it is commendable when it is expressed with knowledge and discretion. The visible expression of frustration and exasperation, together with the encouragement to do what is contrary to law and morality, is a clear demonstration of intemperance. Calm, caring denunciation of compromise is what is needed, combined with merciful directions how to reform the situation. At a crash site you might find people expressing their emotions in ways that only serve to harm the victim and inflame the situation. The doctor translates his emotion into practical care. A little thought will reveal which one the pastor should be seeking to emulate.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> together with the encouragement to do what is contrary to law and morality



You certainly are entitled to your assessment and opinion of him, and I'm not going to question your sensibilities as to legitimacy of visibly expressing anger.

But for my own clarification, no leading, just simple curiosity on my part : Do you believe he was actually encouraging someone to break the law?


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> Do you believe he was actually encouraging someone to break the law?


 
He encouraged people to bring down a website and then said he would justify it in the name of Jesus. He also insinuated that he would do harm to a person who did not love Jesus who came to sit at his thanksgiving table. The fact that these types of things can pass by unnoticed shows how easily evil can be masqueraded by passion.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 7, 2011)

I just wonder what my congregation would think if I spend 8 minutes of a sermon illustrating a point. That's 1/5 of a sermon to illustrate a point! 1/10 for most American Evangelical sermons!!


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 7, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> Just a question though... what "borderline terms" did he say?



Well, I guess personally I don't think it is appropriate for a Christian - especially a minister of the Gospel - to refer to someone as a wh--- j--, knowing what it is actually slang for.


----------



## JM (Jan 7, 2011)

I get it, he was trying to make a joke about his frustration, the context is pretty clear.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 7, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> I just wonder what my congregation would think if I spend 8 minutes of a sermon illustrating a point. That's 1/5 of a sermon to illustrate a point! 1/10 for most American Evangelical sermons!!


 
Most evangelical sermons are 80 minutes???


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 8, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > I just wonder what my congregation would think if I spend 8 minutes of a sermon illustrating a point. That's 1/5 of a sermon to illustrate a point! 1/10 for most American Evangelical sermons!!
> ...


 

Didn't you know? There are a _lot_ of funny stories to tell these days.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 8, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...



Okay- I am no math whiz. It made sense to me when I wrote it: 

My sermons 40 minutes. Evangelical Sermons 20 minutes.    

Oh well. 

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 AM ----------




nleshelman said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > DMcFadden said:
> ...



1/5 and 1/3 (Dat right?)


----------



## Andres (Jan 8, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Just a question though... what "borderline terms" did he say?
> ...


 
it's slang for a crazy person...not sure what you're thinking of here...


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 8, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe he was actually encouraging someone to break the law?
> ...


 
I don't believe the man would attack a dining guest with knife and fork. I believe he was overdramatizing the point that his daughter is not to marry a non-Christian. The website comment should have been corrected with a "please don't do this, I'd just like to see this site go away" comment. I can see how a young zealot with little knowledge of the scriptures, who is tech savvy, may actually hack their site and think he/she is doing the Lord a service.


----------



## Philip (Jan 8, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> He encouraged people to bring down a website and then said he would justify it in the name of Jesus. He also insinuated that he would do harm to a person who did not love Jesus who came to sit at his thanksgiving table. The fact that these types of things can pass by unnoticed shows how easily evil can be masqueraded by passion.


 
I think he was being sarcastic there. Driscoll loves to overstate the case for effect. You might note the laughter after both of these statements.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2011)

I hate sarcasm; especially among preachers.

His hand movements sometimes resemble that of a pro wrestler. I can imagine him saying, "Snap into a Slim Jim!!!!"


I do like enthusiasm, however. I liked his basic points.


----------



## he beholds (Jan 8, 2011)

Andres said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> > SolaScriptura said:
> ...


 
I haven't watched the video, but I am so very curious what the phrase is he used! I don't know of a common phrase at all that's "wh--- j--" so I'm having trouble filling in the blanks. My only guess was a jewish prostitute. But that is A) not a known phrase in any circles B)incredibly wrong and C)not slang for crazy person...so can someone PM me what the words were, if they are too inappropriate to write here? I mean, it can't be my guess, because of Andrew's slang definition.


----------



## JM (Jan 8, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> I hate sarcasm; especially among preachers.
> 
> His hand movements sometimes resemble that of a pro wrestler. I can imagine him saying, "Snap into a Slim Jim!!!!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 8, 2011)

Andres said:


> it's slang for a crazy person...not sure what you're thinking of here...



Yes, that is what it has ultimately come to mean in some circles. Many assume it is simply a variation of being mentally "wacky." However, look it up in an urban slang dictionary and you'll find that the origins of the specific phrase in question are actually crassly sexual in nature. Given the range of how the phrase is used and perceived is why I would deem it inappropriate, or as I originally said, at least borderline. In any case, I fail to see how it is wholesome speech becoming of a minister. Folks may of course disagree with me on this.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 8, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > He encouraged people to bring down a website and then said he would justify it in the name of Jesus. He also insinuated that he would do harm to a person who did not love Jesus who came to sit at his thanksgiving table. The fact that these types of things can pass by unnoticed shows how easily evil can be masqueraded by passion.
> ...



That is how I saw it also.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 8, 2011)

I was raised in NYC. When I hear the term w(h)ack, I picture a few guys in pin striped suits carrying violin cases. Yeah, I know


----------



## Quatchu (Jan 8, 2011)

With Driscoll i find that i always agree with his messages at the core and that he often speaks truth, but some of his stuff just is littered with Driscoll's personal opinions and mannerism that its like taking the pure gospel and presenting it on a old trash can lid. 

For example I agree with Biblical manhood, however I often get a bit irked when i hear Driscoll talk about it because I feel that to him real Biblical manhood and the Societies idea of what a real man is are the same thing, and if your not beer chugger, watching football or some sport every weekend that your not a real man and living unbiblically. For people like me who don't care the least bit about sports and by worldly standards would be classified as a geeks, Driscoll has made Biblical manhood about what one likes to do in there spare time and physical looks then about a Biblical point of manhood that affects how we live.


----------



## Andres (Jan 8, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > it's slang for a crazy person...not sure what you're thinking of here...
> ...


 
Interesting... well I've only heard it to mean crazy person, but I'll take your word for it. I don't want to look it up if it's that crass. I agree his preaching is too informal for my liking. And I agree with Pergy about the flailing of the hands, etc. It was extremely distracting to watch him move about and to hear him talk through his teeth.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 8, 2011)

The only use I've _ever_ heard of whack job is in reference to a nut, a crazy person, etc., which is what Driscoll should be understood as saying if we have any charity.


----------



## Philip (Jan 8, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > it's slang for a crazy person...not sure what you're thinking of here...
> ...


 
Regardless of its origins, I know of no one other than yourself who considers the phrase borderline (I probably first heard it used by my parents with regard to far-right and left-wing politicians). Frankly, if you need proof, look up the long list of quotations using the term in recent politics (usually the other side of the political aisle).


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 8, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I know of no one other than yourself who considers the phrase borderline



Fair enough. I, on the other hand, have personally seen an irate person call someone this, accompanied by making motions commensurate to its urban slang meaning. So I'll stand by my previous comments.


----------



## he beholds (Jan 8, 2011)

OH!! I am pretty relieved. Yeah. Crazy person is totally all it means. Whacky? Whacko? That's Whack?


----------



## Montanablue (Jan 8, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> The only use I've _ever_ heard of whack job is in reference to a nut, a crazy person, etc., which is what Driscoll should be understood as saying if we have any charity.


 
I'm really grateful people don't take the time to look up the etymology of every word I use. One more reason to avoid fame...lol


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 8, 2011)

I'm genuinely sorry if I unnecessarily upset you, sister. 

I think it would be best if we all just dropped the matter.

Blessings


----------



## Montanablue (Jan 8, 2011)

Oh my goodness, Phil, I'm not upset at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I've looked up the origins of common American expressions and words before and a lot of them are untoward. I was just laughing to myself and thinking of how much trouble we'd all be in. That comment was definitely not directed at any person in particular - just a tangent my mind went on.


----------



## Herald (Jan 8, 2011)

Rich Koster said:


> I don't believe the man would attack a dining guest with knife and fork. I believe he was overdramatizing the point that his daughter is not to marry a non-Christian. The website comment should have been corrected with a "please don't do this, I'd just like to see this site go away" comment. I can see how a young zealot with little knowledge of the scriptures, who is tech savvy, may actually hack their site and think he/she is doing the Lord a service.




Rich, but here's the rub; as a minister of the Gospel he should be clear and concise in what he says. He should say what he means; not leave it open for just broad interpretation. He should exercise care and prudence in his words.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 8, 2011)

That is an old clip. 3+(?) years.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 8, 2011)

Herald said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe the man would attack a dining guest with knife and fork. I believe he was overdramatizing the point that his daughter is not to marry a non-Christian. The website comment should have been corrected with a "please don't do this, I'd just like to see this site go away" comment. I can see how a young zealot with little knowledge of the scriptures, who is tech savvy, may actually hack their site and think he/she is doing the Lord a service.
> ...


 
That's part of the "let's pray he calms down a bit" comment I made. He has a large group of listeners. Let's pray he goes confessional and humbly leads many to Christ. We all are a work in progress.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 12, 2011)

It strikes me that what is described as adolescent is quite in keeping with some of what can be heard in American comedians or talk radio hosts. Not that this makes it less adolescent - just that it fits with a wider trend.


----------



## LeeJUk (Jan 12, 2011)

1) We should interpret his words as they were meant by him, not in some obscure fashion going back to the original first case in which it was used. Wh--- Job means crazy person and thats the way it was used and it's not necessarily a curse word in today's society. I've have personally never heard any other interpretation of those words and I'm pretty sure neither have the majority of people. 

2) Mark overstates his case and gets pretty fired up against sin and heresy. This I personally think is a good thing and biblical. Jesus used pretty provocative language as did John the Baptist. 

3) His style is for the common man, you won't find it used in our circles but this doesn't however make it less reverent or sinful. All it means is that he's communicating to his current audience which is really what we should be aiming for. 

4) Lets be honest here Mark was not supporting criminal activity and I'm pretty sure he never would do. We need to give this man the allowances that we give other preachers. People are intelligent enough to know when Mark is being serious and when he's making a rhetorical point. His listeners aren't mindless zombies who are going to say "Well pastor Mark mentioned this last sunday lets hack a website..." Come on. 

5) This video is 3 years old. He has gotten more mellow over time and I think you can tell that when watching his series on Luke.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 12, 2011)

I find the crass etymology of "wack job" very unlikely. It seems far more likely that it is a combination of "wacko" and "nut job", with "nut job" coming from "nutcase" which is in turn is a variation of "headcase." I guess it sounds the same as "whack job," but I've never heard that term before and doubt it's widely used.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 13, 2011)

SRoper said:


> I find the crass etymology of "wack job" very unlikely. It seems far more likely that it is a combination of "wacko" and "nut job", with "nut job" coming from "nutcase" which is in turn is a variation of "headcase." I guess it sounds the same as "whack job," but I've never heard that term before and doubt it's widely used.



Scott - I'm in MD 3000 miles from Driscoll and have heard the term used widely on talk shows and on nationalwide cable (including use by 'conservative' tv hosts). There's nothing crass about the term.

Circles.

If your circle of communication isn't much bigger than your immediate church family, you're in a bubble and most of the rest of the culture in the other 49 states will seem foreign to you.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 13, 2011)

I am not familliar with Brother Driscoll and his manner of preaching,I have never heard him before except when he debated about the existence of satan on a nightly news program and your clip so I'm no expert about him or his Ministry. I have heard from some who know about him that say he preaches in a very difficult invironment in Seattle WA. and is having good success. I have preached in many Prisons and Jails since 1984 and I speak about things in a way I would not in a normal Worship service at my own Church. Being one who was saved while serving a prison sentence and coming form the hard inner city projects where growing up is hard I can relate to men and women and communicate in a way that may seem coarse and crude to those not rasied in such a situation. I use where GOD has brought me from to show the sinfulness of sin and its consequences by being very blunt and plain at times,yes even shocking to some. I don't use perverse language not do I get to graphic. But there really is no easy way to say that you have literally broken the sixth commandment and thats why your in prison where GOD in His mercy saved you. I'll not glory in my sin for I am ashamed of it but no doubt if I barely went into detail about all I ever did I doubt many of you would want to be my best friend or have me over for dinner with your Beloved wife or children. Maybe enough has been said to cause a hesitation to be one of my friends on line. But you all know very well what horrible pits many of GODS trophies of grace come out of. Mark is passionate,so am I,Mark is crude and coarse,so am I. But I sense he loves Christ and souls and is growing in his methodology and manner of preaching as I am. Pray for him and me that where we need to grow we will but don't spend more time focusing on our faults more than our graces. GOD bless you all.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 14, 2011)

Thinking more upon this subject, If we had lived in the days say of Luther during a time and in a Nation when so much pressure and hardship were upon our brother then I would think that in the heat of the battle words and actions spoken and taken might be shocking to us which were common in Germany at that time. In many cultures the substance and manner of speaking to the people of the things of GOD was at times surely less than acceptable. I know Culture is not to rule us in our speech but the Holy Spirit for Paul has much to say about our speech in his Letters to the Ephesians in Philippians & Colossians. James warns of the tongue as well and we would do well to heed his admonitions. In thought,word and deed we are to be a holy people in all our conduct and I commend right discernment and good council by you our Brethren of spiritual maturity for pointing out excess amound your Brethren and especially those who are Pastors,Elders and Teachers. I only encourage patience with Brothers like Mark who are maturing knowing that His Lord and ours is working in us to bring us to be as He is.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 14, 2011)

BlackCalvinist said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I find the crass etymology of "wack job" very unlikely. It seems far more likely that it is a combination of "wacko" and "nut job", with "nut job" coming from "nutcase" which is in turn is a variation of "headcase." I guess it sounds the same as "whack job," but I've never heard that term before and doubt it's widely used.
> ...


 
I don't think you understood what I wrote. I said I was unfamiliar with the term "whack job" as in the sexual homophone to "wack job." I've heard "wack job" as in "crazy person" many times.

It is confusing, because apparently, "wacky" and "wacko" can also be spelled "whacky" and "whacko" (I was not aware of this until I checked Merriam-Webster which lists these as alternate spellings). I suppose many people who spell it "wacky" would be tempted to spell it "whack job" instead of "wack job" because "whack" is already a word. A Google search for "wacky" and "whacky" and "that's wack" and "that's whack" seems to bear this out.

Now we don't have a TV that picks up anything other than static here (which is fine by me), but your insinuation that my "circle of communication isn't much bigger than your immediate church family" is not correct and is not warranted by anything I wrote.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 15, 2011)

SRoper said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > SRoper said:
> ...



Ohhhhh. My misunderstanding.

I apologize and retract my comment.


----------



## tommyb (Jan 15, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> Yes, that is what it has ultimately come to mean in some circles. Many assume it is simply a variation of being mentally "wacky." However, look it up in an urban slang dictionary and you'll find that the origins of the specific phrase in question are actually crassly sexual in nature. Given the range of how the phrase is used and perceived is why I would deem it inappropriate, or as I originally said, at least borderline. In any case, I fail to see how it is wholesome speech becoming of a minister. Folks may of course disagree with me on this.


 
I saw this same issue come up when a seminary student at Church criticized the President for saying on television that someone had "screwed" up. That the origins of the word, he said, were sexual in nature and it was inappropriate language. I, however, remember when growing up the term "screwy" or a "screwball" as being something or someone that was not right, messed up, twisted; which was pretty much the vein President was giving it in. In both this instance and in the "wack" example I wonder which came first, the innocent slang usage or the vulgarity - and should it matter with regard to whether we continue to use the words in daily discourse?


----------

