While I understand your concern about Driscoll’s statement and demeanor, I’d like to respond with a few comments.

1. Let me start by saying that I would not use that sort of language (or demeanor) in the pulpit, nor do I think it is the wisest thing for Driscoll to do no matter what the context. However, I think when we focus on what in kingdom terms is very minor compared with what Driscoll, Mars Hill, and Acts29 are doing for the Gospel and for the church we are missing the big picture. Driscoll et al are doing a wonderful job of planting gospel centered churches around the country, giving others tools to use in contextualization (tools many SBC churches could probably use), and lifting up Jesus in everything he and his team does. I don’t think it is particularly helpful to “major on the minors,” which I think is what the GCR is also trying to avoid in the SBC.

I think a helpful illustration (one that is probably very overused, but helpful nonetheless) is the one about the pastor who stands up and says to his people, “There are 2 billion people in the world who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ and you don’t give a damn. And the saddest part is that you care more about the fact that I just said ‘damn’ and not that there are 2 billion people who have never heard the gospel.” What we need to focus on is the great example Driscoll provides in proclaiming the gospel to a lost and dying world, not on the lesser matters of our own 21st century oral Torah.

2. I also think we need to recognize the fact that we are all sinful men and therefore all make mistakes. Mark Driscoll is not perfect, nor is John Piper or Danny Akin or Steve Gaines or Jerry Vines or Tim Keller (and I believe all these men would of course affirm that fact). The point is, we all are going to sin, and that includes when we preach. Just because someone messes up doesn’t mean we should not still be able to learn from them and even perhaps partner with them in some areas for the gospel.

3. I’ll conclude by saying this: while I want to again affirm the fact that I would not use that language in the pulpit and do not think Driscoll should, I do not think it is helpful for us to point out the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the log in our own. Instead of pointing out what is comparably very minor in Driscoll’s preaching, why should I not instead be looking to my own preaching (and for that matter, my whole life) and asking if I am lifting up Jesus in all that I say in my sermon, if I am proclaiming the truths of Scripture to my people, and if I am living as a dying man among dying men in need of a Savior? I personally think Driscoll does these things consistently, and I think we would be wise to focus on that and not on the comparatively minor things with which we do not agree.

In Christ,
Matt

Brother, don’t be that guy.

However charitable you want to make your concerns, they are picky and critical. I understand where you are coming from but I don’t think it is a service to the readers, nor to the subject of Dr. Akin’s post.

If you really want to help him perhaps a personal letter would be best. I can assure you that he would humbly receive your concerns.

“In particular, I disagree with some of the language he has used in the pulpit in the past (though not in several years!) and I am uncomfortable with his position on beverage alcohol.”

Dr. Akin said that Driscoll had not used any inappropriate language from the pulpit in several years. However, Driscoll’s recent tirade to the men of his church tells a different story. Even Dr. Akin in his response conceded:

“I would not nor have I used the “who in the hell…” type of rhetoric in the pulpit and would discourage it.”

My point is if Dr. Akin is going to exhort his readers:

“First, make sure your criticisms are up-to-date rather than rehashing issues that were settled several years ago.”

Dr. Akin does not need to make statements about Driscoll such as he has not used inappropriate language from the pulpit in several years when that is not accurate.

And Dr. Akin states that:

“And, I have listened to the entire Peasant Princess series and I also am aware of the Scotland addresses which Mark pulled from his Website and asked others not to pass around since he acknowledged he was unwise and even inappropriate in some of the things he said. That was, by the way, in 2007 before I had even met Mark for the first time.”

The interesting part of this is that Driscoll preached the Scotland SoS message in November of 2007 AFTER he spoke at Akin’s seminary in Sept 2007 at the Convergence conference. Seems that Dr. Akin’s chronology is a little out of whack. Are we left to believe that Akin did not meet Driscoll at a SEBTS conference?

If Dr. Akin is going to ask for accuracy in people’s concerns with Driscoll then I would implore him to present the same accuracy in his actions as well.

I want to personally answer Robert Masters’ very good question. BtT has checked into Dobson’s position on gender roles. Some sources have claimed he is an egalitarian concerning women in pastoral ministry (though we cannot find a first-hand admission). We know he is definitely a complementarian in terms of family roles and publicly defended the 1998 family amendment to the BF&M.

But your point is well taken, so to avoid any confusion, the original post has been edited with Dr. Akin’s permission. The fact that Dobson is Nazarene makes the point that we have invited speakers with whom we disagree to address the SBC annual meeting.

Thanks.

NAF

Thank you for your clear, gentle, and transparent leadership, especially when responding to those who attempt to take you to task. Your forthrightness tempered with what appears to be genuine, biblical love for your brothers and sisters in Christ is a fine model for all beleivers, especially a young (27) and sometimes arrogant Southern Baptist pastor like me.

Thanks again.

Ryan Lyons

Rob