For those of you who are tired of the shallow Driscoll-influenced scatological speech pulpiteers who like to use four letter words and smutty humor in trying to relate to their audience thinking they are making a profound biblical point, then be prepared to be shocked again. Tripp says the "s" word a lot in this short video clip. I don't have virgin ears and I don't have virgin lips. But remember, this is a man who is a well known Bible teacher whom at this conference will be instructing many other pastors as well from the pulpit on this subject. Has preaching God's Word so degenerated to the lowest common denominator of soiled nomenclature that Tripp's words are now considered acceptable speech in describing the glory and wonder of God? Could you imagine Spurgeon, Owen, Watson, Edwards, Paul, Peter, or the Lord Himself using language of this sort? Totally unnecessary; and totally uncool.
From the Meta:
"Hey, I've got two pre-schoolers,
one of which is in the process of leaving diapers.
Trust me--we're knee-deep in scatology here.
But even they know how to be appropriate.
I asked them the other day,
"Where do we talk about [this topic]?"
"In the bathroom," they answered.
"Do we talk about it at church?" I asked.
"No," my 5-year-old said reprovingly.
"We talk about the Lord at church."
FYI: this is one of the promo videos for Piper's upcoming DG Conference "The Power of Words and the Wonder of God" at the end of September produced by his ministry. They had to put a disclaimer at the front of this video because of its bad language. But even then, Piper is Clintonian in not really owning it calling the "s" word "...potentially offensive, four letter language..." Personally... I'm staying home. I don't need to pay 175 bucks to hear some impolitic not preach faithfully the Scriptures and dance around what "wholesome speech" might mean to them so they can wrest the Word to accommodate their own guttural proclivities and justify the use of the "s" word in ministry. Furthermore, when you invite men like Tripp and Driscoll who obviously have this bent in ministry for smutty speech rather than proven expositors of God's Word like MacArthur, Sproul, Mohler, Duncan, or Begg - then something is amiss; or in this case, a mess. I don't need beloved, an excuse by any Bible teacher to use ribald speech and cuss; I need to be challenged to be more like Jesus Christ and obedient to His Word.
However, the one shining light among this otherwise line up of lightweights will be Dr. Sinclair Ferguson. He is brilliant, biblical and reverent. You can order his MP3's and save yourself some hard earned legal-tender and the embarrassment of seeing a few middle-aged men trying to relate to a pomo culture.
Anyone seen the real John Piper lately? If you do, tell him that he is missed and that we want to hear him just preach the Word again and leave behind his fascination with this high-school, emerging, juvenile, lascivious mentality once for all.
However, the one shining light among this otherwise line up of lightweights will be Dr. Sinclair Ferguson. He is brilliant, biblical and reverent. You can order his MP3's and save yourself some hard earned legal-tender and the embarrassment of seeing a few middle-aged men trying to relate to a pomo culture.
Anyone seen the real John Piper lately? If you do, tell him that he is missed and that we want to hear him just preach the Word again and leave behind his fascination with this high-school, emerging, juvenile, lascivious mentality once for all.
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths,
but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion,
that it may give grace to those who hear.
-Eph. 4:29
369 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 369 of 369"But I have a hard time understanding why the s word could ever be considered in an edifying way. I've only ever heard it used as a curse word."
I have a pastor friend in Nepal, who is a Nepali. He is a godly wonderful amn of God, who the Lord is doing great things through.
He wrote me a letter, in English. It was such a blessing to receive it. He shared about his church, and how in a small town where Christ has never been preached, Jesus is saving souls, and the name of Christ is being glorified.
he also shared of a demon possessed man, who was defecating throughout his house, and he used the s-word.
Jivan did not know the what English word to use, so he shoce that word.
And there have been many times when new believers still use this word in a way that is not cursing.
However, Steve is calling for pastors to not use these words, and I think I agree.
I don't see what Paul Tripp did as sin, for I'm sure his heart is to glorify Christ his Lord, but he could have made a mistake.
I appreciate the discussion here.
I go back and forth with all the good thoughts.
May the Lord Jesus be pleased with our interaction. And may we learn how to truat in Him more, and so become more like Christ. Amen.
donsends
Excellent brother and thank you for your wisdom voiced here in verbiage that honors the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel.
After all, that IS the primary concern isn't it? I find it interesting that not one of the emerging or pseudo reformed posters here have answered one question I have asked them about Tripp's use of the the s word in how does him using it glorify the Lord? Or further ones sanctification? Or compliments the gospel? Or exalts Jesus even more?
They are silent which speaks volumes.
Authenticity in ministry does not come from being guttural, but biblical.
Campi
The overall concern again on Tripp, Driscoll and sadly, now Piper - and those who think that effective ministry models and methodology requires off color language, degrading stories, obscene talk and even the Lord's name as their punchline to be used to communicate truth must be declared to be completely out of bounds biblically for the man of God called to preach His Word.
The young and reformed and undiscerning group that is trying to make their case here but miserably so, are 95% heat but only 5% light. Typical for the Driscollites and the pseudo-reformed.
That is why the constant encouragement to those who are blinded by this paradigm of thinking needs to be: think biblically not culturally.
Guard the Trust...
Interesting comments. I would say Tripp's word is worse than Paul's word "rubbish" in Phil 3:8, even though I think some people would condemn the Apostle in the same manner they condemn Tripp.
I still cannot believe that Steve posted a video on his blog that said s--- several times. Was there no other way to speak out against it? If it's not okay to say, or to purposefully listen to, why is it okay to repost? Should Carla's bad dream of Christian explicit material ever hit the net, will there be enough googlable material or hyperlinks on this blog to aid in transporting someone to it? I recognize we are all responsible for our own actions, but in this multimedia age, don’t assume our warning observations through the lattice are not advertising and showing the way to sin, regardless of our intentions.
There are very few passages in the Bible that touch on the topic of “harsh” language, but the Bible is not CHARACTERIZED by it yet the ministry of Driscoll and others like his are intentionally characterized by it. Why? Is it really necessary? Is someone going to say, “Jesus didn’t reach me because his ministers never said the s word in a sermon?” This controversy could all be avoided if they simply chose not to engage in the UNNECESSARY language like most other ministries do. Why do they choose to die on that hill? I don’t understand. I absolutely love Piper, but this is truly disappointing.
It's interesting. I made the first comment on this thread and said it would only be a matter of time before people brought up Paul's use of the however-you-want-to-translate-it word, Luther, etc. in order to defend usage of words that even the world (usually) bleeps in official settings. Set your watch. Yup, it happened. And anyone who disagrees is a legalist.
My original point was that even my little children are able to discern what is and isn't appropriate and in what setting.
And, as I said at the beginning, I'm still confused. Why would anyone fight to use questionable language in the pulpit? I still don't have a satisfactory, biblical answer. Here's another thing I've found--every time I fight for my rights, my joy goes down significantly. Are we seriously now fighting for the right to say this stuff and arguing over silly lists of approved words? In the pulpit? As my dad would say, "Stop the world. I want to get off." Or as the apostle John said, "Even so, come Lord Jesus."
Seth, you said, "skubalon" is very close if not a direct usage of the term "s" that is seen in the English language. This doesn't mean that I run around and use the term without care, but it is to show the filthiness of our self righteous sin.
So, there, I defended the term biblically, your turn to defend why I can't use the term biblically. Remember to do it exegetically. Your comments are absolutely ridiculous! Actually your Greek word, σκύβαλον
means something that is thrown to the dogs; that which is worthless. So you in no way defended the 's' word exegetically nor biblically. You have also missed what this entire post has been about. The entire point of this post is not what words are okay to use and which ones aren't, it is that the use of vulgarity should not be tolerated to try and teach a Biblical truth or used period.
You also said in an earlier comment, Also, do you have a list of words that are acceptable and those that aren't allowed? I would like to see it if you have one? Vulgarity is never okay in any context, even if YOU think it is acceptable it is not. You also made a point earlier about the Greek language and the "s" word could not be defended biblically because it is not a Greek word. To me, my friend, that is an absolute straw man comment. The bible doesn't specifically say that we cannot stick needles in our arms to inject drugs, or it does not address SPECIFICALLY smoking crack. However, we still know that it is wrong and destructive. The bible has much to say about the tougue (see the book of James) and we should be careful which words we use. Words DO have both meaning and intent, and both need to be considered before we use them.
Just a few words to think about.
rem
I still cannot believe that Steve posted a video on his blog that said s--- several times. Was there no other way to speak out against it? If it's not okay to say, or to purposefully listen to, why is it okay to repost?
Point well taken and thank you for making it.
I did wrestle with this... But my experience has been on issues like this involving the emerging, pragmatic or pseudo-reformed adherents is that if you don't have the actual MP3, vodcast, or article front and center, they claim that you are fabricating the information.
Thus, to be "fair and balanced", I hold to the principle that it is best to make available primary source information so all can evaluate first hand the issues being addressed and to do so from a biblical worldview.
I do appreciate your concern though - it is one I also wrestle with.
chris
This controversy could all be avoided if they simply chose not to engage in the UNNECESSARY language like most other ministries do. Why do they choose to die on that hill? I don’t understand. I absolutely love Piper, but this is truly disappointing.
BINGO!
the heretic
The entire point of this post is not what words are okay to use and which ones aren't, it is that the use of vulgarity should not be tolerated to try and teach a Biblical truth or used period...
...The bible has much to say about the tougue (see the book of James) and we should be careful which words we use. Words DO have both meaning and intent, and both need to be considered before we use them.
Exactly. Wise words for us all to honor.
Steve
alice
It's interesting. I made the first comment on this thread and said it would only be a matter of time before people brought up Paul's use of the however-you-want-to-translate-it word, Luther, etc. in order to defend usage of words that even the world (usually) bleeps in official settings. Set your watch. Yup, it happened. And anyone who disagrees is a legalist.
My original point was that even my little children are able to discern what is and isn't appropriate and in what setting.
Prophet.
Alice, I have a really good idea. Maybe your children could speak to some of the commenters here who condone the use of smutty language in communicating the Word of God. But you'd have to warn them ahead of time that practical, godly, biblical logic will not have much influence :-).
“Was there no other way to speak out against it? If it's not okay to say, or to purposefully listen to, why is it okay to repost?”
You know, I guess Campi could have simply told us about it; described it, but then it may have remained at a level of surrealism; for me, actually seeing/hearing it really brought it home. (For the same reason that seeing photos or videos of partial birth abortions, while grotesque, need to be seen, so that all can fully grasp the horror and inhumanity of the murderous procedure….some have no idea what is truly involved).
In my case, with the video clip, each utterance of the word was a gut check, and with each blow I gradually went from surprise, to disbelief, to concern, to disgust, and finally outrage. Yes, I really did just see & hear what I thought I did. Yes, this was actually a minister, behaving as though he’d just learned his first naughty-word. Check the forecast; grab your umbrellas, folks…..it’s raining postmodernism.
Wow! He has changed a lot since the video series "Shepherding a Child's Heart". Looks like he had a makeover by "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or some other metrosexual salon. :-)
What is with the untucked dress-shirt? Is that because it goes along with the cool swearing? How old is he? Don't get me wrong, I believe that we can be fashionable but we should be age-appropriate.
What I really like is how he believes that he has a right to use such language but he is sacrificially laying aside his rights to swear for our redemption. Huh?
This is sacrifice? I guess I can stop asking God to forgive me for exercising my right to swear and stop feeling so guilty about my flesh getting the better of me at times. I have been "suffering" under a false sense of shame all these years, it seems? Swearing was a part of my life BEFORE Christ and the Holy Spirit impressed upon me that this was not acceptable speech for a child of God.
It looks like one has to become more hip and trendy in order to stay at the top of the theological heap.
It makes me appreciate my Bible even more. I love that the Lord didn't have to be hip in order to be relevant. I felt a sense of embarrassment for him and Piper just watching this clip.
It sure gives a new spin on the old saying, "He/She wouldn't say s&*t with a mouth full."
Corrie
Thanks for your comments here. Just great!
One quick correction: your first comment confused Tedd Tripp with Paul Tripp.
You also said, I guess I can stop asking God to forgive me for exercising my right to swear and stop feeling so guilty about my flesh getting the better of me at times. I have been "suffering" under a false sense of shame all these years, it seems? Swearing was a part of my life BEFORE Christ and the Holy Spirit impressed upon me that this was not acceptable speech for a child of God.
It looks like one has to become more hip and trendy in order to stay at the top of the theological heap.
It makes me appreciate my Bible even more. I love that the Lord didn't have to be hip in order to be relevant. I felt a sense of embarrassment for him and Piper just watching this clip.
Amen!
"sacre bleu"
Steve,
Re: Albert Barnes' comments on James 1:26
Without doing a complete exegesis right now, I would say that Barnes' comments on James go beyond the Scripture, and are reckless toward the conscience of a true believer who's "besetting sin" may be verbal.
Barnes seems to indicate that a failure to properly rein in the tongue (which James admits is often a difficult thing to do) indicates an unregenerate person.
That's quite different than James' point that outward indications of one's religion don't mean anything if there is NO effect on the tongue.
It's similar to John (in 1 Jn.) saying that a regenerate person does not "sin" [Gk. present tense]. Of course they will commit sin, but John's point is that they don't [present tense] CONTINUE in it without ANY repentance.
Barnes' wording has the potential of going beyond "conviction" to "condemnation" for believers who may have a weak conscience.
Or to put it another way, sin of the speech is just as forgiven as any other sin for the born again believer (who, of course, hates his sin if he is indeed born again, and can cry with Paul, "I do the very thing I don't want to do").
That's why being filled with the Spirit, and walking by the Spirit, is so important, since while walking by the Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh (including verbal).
I'm sure you agree with what I'm saying here, but I just wanted to clarify so that no true believer is brought under condemnation.
BTW, I'm a little surprised at the opposition to your attempt to clean up Tripp's potty mouth. Good grief.
Calling good evil, and evil good.
Blessings,
Terry
"Calling good evil, and evil good."
-Terry
I didn't see this myself.
It may be a little over the top statement to apply that verse to the commentors here.
"Woe unto them that promote iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope:
That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:18-21
Similar words were spoken to the Pharisees by our Lord.
I don't see that spirit here.
Donsands,
Thank you for your response to my statement regarding using the s word in an edifying way.
I have no problem with someone using the word in its actual definition when English is not their first language and they haven't learned a more socially appropriate term.
But that still doesn't make it edifying in any way.
John Piper has not forgotten his Bible and is not emergent. Piper preaches by opening the Bible and reading a passage and talking about it. Now that he has a conference of Christians to talk about language you're throwing eggs at the previews before they actually lay out their biblical cases.
If you believe that Piper is just trying to maintain an audience, maybe you should delve into his actual teaching. Calvinism isn't popular in mainline evangelicalism. Most of my friends who have heard of Piper say, "he is too deep for me." The reason people like Piper so much is because he preaches the Bible and not the washed up self-help sermons we younger generations have grown up in.
You could make the same argument that blogs like these need to maintain an audience by throwing eggs the second you hear something that doesn't tickle your fancy. Piper, Driscoll and Tripp teach doctrinal and true Christianity. They obviously are not ignorant of the passage to not let any unwholesome talk come out of their mouths. What they are addressing is what wholesome language actually is. Tripp and Driscoll make the claim that wholesome language is not a vocabulary problem, but a love/grace problem.
So stop undermining the combined decades of genuine, doctrinal, Biblical Christian ministry by feeble and slanderous accusations of Piper being emergent, relevant, or anti-biblical.
founder: "you're throwing eggs at the previews before they actually lay out their biblical cases."
Ummmm, isn't that what a preview is for? To demonstrate to prospective participants in microcosm what they can expect to be taught/have discussed at the conference?
As to referring to Dr. Piper as emergent, Campi hasn't done that here.
For myself, I have tremendous respect for Dr. Piper and have profited greatly from his teachings and reading material.
I even had the pleasure of consulting with him in the mid-1990's regarding the works of Jonathan Edwards as it related to a project I was part of at the time. Dr. Piper very graciously and generously made time to teleconference with me in the midst of what must surely have been a very busy Pastorial calendar.
With that in view, his giving platform and place to potty mouth teaching and the men who seem to believe it is appropriate from the pulpit, I'm growing even more confused as to why and what edifying purpose it could possibly render to the Church.
I just can't concur with Dr. Piper in any way, shape or form where giving platform to potty mouth teachers is concerned. This comes on the heels of a recent teaching by Dr. Piper I am still waiting for further elaboration on regarding our Lord Jesus Christ and the cross and crucifixion.
Deb:
I agree that giving "potty mouths" a platform to speak can implicitly endorse them and that we should not encourage this kind of thing, but I think this whole incident has exposed a lot more about the critics than it has with Tripp, Piper or Driscoll.
For example: Changing Dr. Tripp's name to Tripp-ing in the title is rude and slanderous. He follows it up with accusing one of America's leading Bible expositors of forgetting his Bible or losing his mind. He then falsely accused Tripp of cussing because it is "cool," which has nothing to do with what it. He then writes a fecal-centric blog post to demean these pastors for saying a word that literally means the same thing! He accuses Driscoll of not preaching the Bible, though a brief visit to the Mars Hill website will show otherwise (Driscoll's Mars Hill, not Rob Bell's). This speech is not edifying in the slightest.
The mere fact that Piper decided to host a conference about the power of words is a clear indication that they are intentionally discussing the issue of harsh/profane language in a way specifically designed to be edifying. In one of Driscoll's videos he demonstrated how harsh language in the Bible occurs mostly when spoken to religious hypocrites to cut away pretenses. I think people's preoccupation with the "s" word has blinded them to the whole point.
As a side note, Campi does mention "emerging" in one of the adjectives that he claims Piper is fascinated with, which I totally disagree with. I also find it completely weird that you would end your post by wondering what Piper would say about the cross and crucifixion. Every sermon I can remember Piper preaching talks about crucifixion. He loves it. He loves the resurrection and the gospel and forgiveness of sins and especially the joy of being with Christ eternally (which he calls Christian hedonism, and he explains clearly before anyone attacks this, it isn't philosophical hedonism).
Thank you for your reply to my post.
"...but I think this whole incident has exposed a lot more about the critics than it has with Tripp, Piper or Driscoll."
I always hear [or read, as the case may be] that when these types of issues arise within the Body of Christ. We are always viewed through the narrow lens of "critics". Okay, so be it then.
In which case, I always wonder what we are then to make of those who criticize the critics. :-)
Much as I'd like to forge ahead with all haste in my comments here, I know this is an instance where I need to have a prayerful pause and take opportunity to thoroughly discuss my subsequent post with my beloved later this evening before smiting "publish this comment".
As to the additional allusion, it refers to a troubling recent teaching by Dr. Piper which is not part of this thread. If you so wish, I'll pull and privately forward the specific resource citation for you.
I made the allusion which raised yet another grave concern in my initial response only because it, coupled with inviting potty mouths to share a platform/pulpit, has only served to add to my growing perplexity and confusion.
Until later this evening, Lord willing, it is best I stop here for now.
I appreciate your maturity in this issue Deb.
I am usually the one who hears the "judge not" lectures too, because I raise my voice against heretical teachers all the time, but in this case I am siding on the defense and not on the attack, but I truly view these attacks on Piper, Tripp, and Driscoll as personal character attacks that ridicule true Bible teachers. It seems like the critics should take issue and voice their Biblical disagreements in a way that does not undermine their ministries or accuse their motives.
To be honest the only Bible that was brought up was sincerely self-convicting, Eph 4:29 because this blog post was not meant to build up, but to tear down. Driscoll, Tripp, and Piper are not ignorant of this verse and they obviously are explaining what they mean.
Feel free to contact me through my blog.
"But that still doesn't make it edifying in any way."
No, it's not edifying. It's just a word he used to express what this man, who was demon possessed, did.
BTW, he was married to a member of Pastor Jivan's church, and through fervent prayer this man was delivered.
That's edifying, and actually glorifies the Lord. But the word , in this case was just one of the many words in his letter to me.
Thanks Jen for the response, and for all your good thoughts here, and else where. You were the second person to visit my blog way back on Sept 11th 2006.
You are an encourager. Keep on.
Don, that's beautiful! Praise God the man was delivered!
I haven't been by your blog for some time. I'm just now more freed up in our seasonal business and able to get 'out and about' more. I'll have to stop by to see what you're posting these days. I've appreciated reading your viewpoint on various blogs before too, my brother! :)
I never ceases to amaze me that when some one rightly calls evil evil then he is slandered for being self-righteous. This is a serious thing folks. We are not talking about Saturday night sinners and Sunday Morning Christians. We are talking about the men behind the pulpit who are called by God to stick to the Word and nothing but the Word.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
HI Steve,
My question to you is that. Is it possible for a christian to use the "s" word out loud in any context, and it be edifying?
I believe if you say no then that is legalism. Yes, it would be very rare and far and few. But to say that you could "never" say that word is legalism, unless I misunderstand legalism.
Love in Christ,
Troy
only look
I never ceases to amaze me that when some one rightly calls evil evil then he is slandered for being self-righteous. This is a serious thing folks. We are not talking about Saturday night sinners and Sunday Morning Christians. We are talking about the men behind the pulpit who are called by God to stick to the Word and nothing but the Word.
That is exactly correct. Men of God called to preach the Word but feel the need to pepper up their pulpiteering with ribald speech like this are really denying the sufficiency of Scripture by thinking their sordid language somehow makes it more relatable and powerful.
Thank you brother for your wise words here.
troy k
My question to you is that. Is it possible for a christian to use the "s" word out loud in any context, and it be edifying?
Good question and I appreciate it greatly.
Words in and of themselves have meaning. This word under discussion has one meaning. It is not meant to edify or encourage. It is designed to shock and offend.
But here is the key thing: as only look above was saying, these are preachers and teachers of God's we are talking about here who think it necessary to use this to somehow instruct us in the truths of Scripture.
Balderdash! (a great btw).
I believe if you say no then that is legalism. Yes, it would be very rare and far and few. But to say that you could "never" say that word is legalism, unless I misunderstand legalism.
Legalism by definition is turning man's own personal standards of holiness into doctrines that others must obey to be close to God and honor Him with their lives.
I think the shoe might be on the other foot here brother. It is the young, restless, reformed, emerging folk that are legalistic - thinking this kind of language is necessary to relate and communicate to this dying world. In doing so, they really deny the efficacy and power of the gospel and the Word of God.
They are the legalists adding to Scripture. And we all know what that is... :-).
Hope this helps and I appreciate your comment very much.
Steve
Don,
I wasn't specifically applying the Isaiah verse in saying "calling good evil and evil good", since it is an Old Covenant prophecy specific to Israel.
I was applying the "principle" of calling evil good. That's my take on the amazing lengths people will go to in justifying the use of foul language among followers of Christ.
We have all misused our speech. Repenting of that is one thing, justifying it is "calling evil good".
I'm an optimistic guy in many ways, but I'm not optimistic about the last of the last days. Read 1 Tim. 3. Believe me, today the "s" word, tomorrow Christians will be on COT defending more corrupt language.
Livin' in Laodicea, my friend. This shouldn't even be an issue, Don.
Lord have mercy! (Thank God He does).
Terry
founderandperfector
Just saw your comments. Thank you for posting here.
Let's clear up a few basic things here:
1. Changing Dr. Tripp's name to Tripp-ing in the title is rude and slanderous.
No it is not--not even close. It is a play on his name which means etymologically that he must be out of his mind - he's tripping to use this kind of smutty language to in any manner teach God's Word.
2. Piper, Driscoll and Tripp teach doctrinal and true Christianity. They obviously are not ignorant of the passage to not let any unwholesome talk come out of their mouths.
But this is exactly what Tripp did. Piper produced and promoted it and Driscoll is famous for this kind of shock jock approach to ministry. Piper has been greatly influenced negatively by Driscoll and it is a shame to watch unfold.
Piper is just a man my friend. And as all of us are, a sinner. On this issue, he totally missed it and should be held accountable for his purposed and arrogant use of degrading and smutty speech as a means to promote his conference and think it adds in the exposition of Scripture.
May I ask you, what verse do you have to support the use of seedy language like this by a pastor in the teaching of God's Word? There is none; and frankly, your relaxed and supportive reaction to Tripp's language is appalling.
Are you a pastor? Do you preach the Word? If so, have you used language like this unashamedly from the pulpit and people appreciate the rawness of your words?
I have been in ministry for over 30 years and have sung and spoken before Kings and heads of state all over the world and have preached in some of the finest pulpits in the land. If I were to use this word under discussion here in front of the Queen of England for example, I would have been yanked off the platform and never allowed back. How much more when handling the holy Word of God and representing the King of kings and Lord of lords should not our speech reflect Him and bring praise to His name?
Do you think our Lord use this word? Could you hear this seedy nomenclature pass His sacred lips in a sermon? Never! But yet you are here to defend Tripp and Piper and Driscoll on this issue for embracing this kind of language?
I am sorry, but your loyalty should be to no man save Christ jesus and His Word! But apparently your loyalty or fan admiration runs for these men to the degree that it has eclipsed the very One to whom they will give an account for their seweresque talk...
3. He then writes a fecal-centric blog post to demean these pastors for saying a word that literally means the same thing! He accuses Driscoll of not preaching the Bible, though a brief visit to the Mars Hill website will show otherwise (Driscoll's Mars Hill, not Rob Bell's).
This is not only untrue, but fabricated and reveals a lack of careful research and study.
I have listened to every sermon Driscoll has taught in the last three years - and he should step down from the pastorate until he repents and returns to reverencing the Lord and His Word from the pulpit. He is shallow, flippant and all about himself. A lightweight... I am not alone my friend in this appraisal. Men of God and dear friends like John MacArthur, Jerry Bridges, and several others are deeply concerned that this man is even given a platform to speak the filth and degrading speech he does.
Does it not bother you that he uses the Lord's name as a punchline to his jokes? That he uses perverted sexual humor of graphic nature in a cute fashion while preaching?
You need to do your homework a bit more thoroughly. Have you been to his church? I have. It is a movement, not a service of worship and Driscoll is the star not the servant of the Lord.
For example: do you approve of him saying, "If the Song of Solomon is a metaphor about Christ and His church, then I'm gay and Jesus keeps making out with me." Are you not offended by this perversion?
Please think on these things...
Steve
2 Tim. 4:1-5
Terry
BINGO!
If this is acceptable today, then what is next? Tripp using the F word to talk about the seriousness of teenage pregnancy?
We are seeing before our very eyes the numbing of the American Christian mind!
Phil. 4:6-8
Am I missing something here? I find myself amazed that the same people who will defend the right of men to say nasty, degrading things from the pulpit (sometimes even about our Holy Lord) have trouble with some very easy going comments made by Mr Camp about mere men?
It's 'rude and slanderous' to Mr Tripp to say 'Tripp-ing', but it's defensible to say nasty things from the pulpit?
Who set up this wacky double standard?
Jen
I have wondered the same thing myself today...
Thank you my friend.
Steve
Hi Steve,
It seems to me but I could be wrong that Tripp did not intend to shock and offend. All believers have mixed motives. It seems to me that you are judging his motives. you may be right, but it looked to me like when he used the first "s" word that it was in an edifying and encouraging way, a small way, yet he could have said the "the "S" word" instead of the actual word. But to clarify he actually said the word, which does have meaning.
The meaning is in the context. Tripps context seems to me to be at the dinner table talking about words that are just words with meaning and God judges the heart. Words are just sounds.
I believe Gods standard of holiness begins in the heart.
I think Tripp meant ( albeit you and I both know that his real motives were mixed and could only be mixed and not totally pure)to edify and encourage and by saying the word itself, was making his point.
Im not saying Tripp was totally right in all he did .
My question is that according to your definition of legalism. I have a yes or no question.
Do you believe that there is "never" a context in which saying the s word could be edifying? or done in faith, humility and in a way pleasing to the lord.
It may be rare like one in a million.
Now if you impose this on everyone then isnt that "turning man's own personal standards of holiness into doctrines that others must obey to be close to God and honor Him with their lives."
Love in Christ,
Troy
Wether or not Tripp did was right or wrong.
He was trying to make a point that the bible teaches that God looks at the heart and man like the pharisees clean the outside of the bowl and neglect the cleaning up the inside wrong motives, unbelief and pride.
He realy did not make that point using the best of words but his point is biblical.
When educating your kids I believe it would clearly be putting rules without exception (legalism put another way) on them to say " you can never use the s word"
but to say eph. 4:29 is great
If you albeit rare truly believe in your heart that saying the s word would be edifying and pleasing to the Lord in whatever rare context it may be then God would be glorified.
Maybe two mature christians in a room talking alone to one another about this blog, without a weaker brother in the room may use that word once in an edifying way and then not abuse thier christian liberty. This may not be the best example of an exception to the rule of not using the "s" word.
Again is it not legalism to blanket it across the board. "never can the external sound of the "S" come out of the mouth of a christian."
Im not talking about Tripps actions. I just want to know if emposing the absolute rule without ever any exception on others that "they can never ever, ever, ever, ever, say the "s" word" though there never may be a context in which they could say it in their lifetime. But somewhere sometime there may be a rare occasion where with the motive of edification it would be okay. Maybe a courtroom setting where something needed to be repeated or maybe someone out there could come up with a better exption to the rule so we all dont become legalistic in our thinking.
Leaning on the Everlasting arms,
Troy
Camp:I caught the play on words, but repeating your stance is not defending your point. Even if Piper is wrong (which I don't believe) in hosting these speakers, even Peter was wrong when he submitted to Judaizers and Paul rebuked him, but he did not ridicule Peter or undermine his ministry or mock him. Peter repented and life went on. Why not cut the bitterness out and rebuke with kindness if you disagree.
The thrust of your accusations is that the Bible says to let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth. Everyone agrees that the Bible says this. Tripp and Driscoll are making the distinction that vocabulary is not the issue, but the heart. Mary rode on... an ass. God damns people to Hell. Dog breeders put bitches (female dogs in heat) with the males. Sean Connery is free to tell his dog to sit and pronounce the 'sh'. The vocabulary is not the issue. The issue is the heart.
Yes, Piper is just a man. But Piper is also a Holy Spirit-empowered, God-anointed, expositor of the Word of God. To undermine his ministry over this is ridiculous.
Do I curse? No. In my entire life, I have said, in the context of their profane meanings, perhaps 5 "cuss words." One was when I was in 5th grade and angry. Once I was repeating a song lyric by accident. The other times have been directly for the purpose of providing edification to people. I wish I could remember the exact context, but I thought hard about my choice of word before I spoke and spoke to someone's encouragement in grace, and the individual was encouraged. I do not believe that Christians should be using these words left and right, but I, like Tripp and Driscoll, believe that under certain rare circumstances certain words are appropriate. Obviously in front of a Queen, this type of language is not appropriate, no one was claiming it was. Tripp was not making a statement that Christians should say sh^& haphazardly. Tripp was trying to move away from the idea the the problem with our speech is our vocabulary rather than our hearts.
So good for you gritting your teeth and taking notes on every sermon Driscoll preaches for the purpose of pulling the skirt over the head of another "relevant" teacher. The "relevance" movement is not bad because of "relevance" it is bad because it sucks the gospel (the actual relevant thing) out of the message. Driscoll proclaims the gospel and unashamedly preaches the Bible. Relevance is not the problem.
"This shouldn't even be an issue, Don."
But it is.
I would guess Paul Tripp would say, "I knew this would be an issue, but I was hoping it wouldn't be."
I'm just trying to think as such a good brother in Christ would think, who did what he did.
I do feel he should have not verbally pronounced the word in question, and maybe he will will come to the conclusion he was wrong, I don't know. maybe he will stick to his principle, and think he was doing the Lord's will.
I know for me, I wouldn't have done it. Am I a prude? Am I too sensitive? Am I self-righteous?
I think I just have different convictions.
but I'm still listening and learning from our Lord in all this.
have a blessed evening.
Jen: "Who set up this wacky double standard?"
Awww, Jen, I want to, I want to, but, alas!, I have to refrain from posting more in-depth at least 'til the morrow.
My beloved and I have gone over my latest virtual verbiage and agreed it best I have more prayerful consideration and kind of "sleep on it", if you will.
In Christ Alone, Love,
Deb
Deb,
I anxiously await your thoughts.
:)
I would like to add another log to the fire. Nowhere in the King James Version do we find the word "sex" or "intercourse" or any similar variations. As such, it follows that modern translations that do use those words are an evil accommodation to the vulgar, lascivious modern culture that defiles the holy Word of God.
I humbly submit that we should resolve to stand firm against any use of the word s-e-x and its derivatives, and instead return to the purity of sanctified phrases like "knew her", and "lie with", etc. After all, we who treasure the purity and sanctity of Holy Scripture cannot stoop in deference to our morally bankrupt culture for the defining of our terms. After all, WORDS HAVE MEANING.
Who is with me?
So when did the KJV become the standard?
Wow I totally missed that video. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. His thoughts on focusing on the intention of your words are great. I'm thinking of how to communicate this to my kiddos. Thanks Steve!
Jen: "I anxiously await your thoughts."
They have to make it through much prayerful contemplation tonight.
Whilst not in any way directed at the brother with whom I began additional dialogue earlier this evening, but rather focused on what a sorry state we, the Body of Christ, seem to be reduced to here in America, methinks I'm about to conclude it nigh on impossible for me, personally speaking, to "be angry and sin not" ... even in what I perceive to be the most righteous and noble cause of Christ and Him crucified.
I am angry and perplexed beyond just the potty mouth (though that is ... well, you know, best I leave that lay for now) at where we have got to today.
Isaiah 6 always leaves me in the dust. I think it's very healthy, spiritually speaking, to have holy fear. After all, fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Something I learned in an analogous sense in our "seen realm", sister mine by grace, when the beloved matriarch of the family adopted and raised me after being orphaned in young adolescence. My late Granny loved me dearly and I her as well ... but I had a good, perfectly healthy dose of fear in that relationship.
Fear which stemmed from an understanding of what was likely to happen if I violated trust and did that which was forbidden under her roof, if you get my drift. Not that she would stop loving me or that I would stop being both her granddaughter and adopted child, mind you.
I use that analogy in the natural sense because I often hear about how God is love (which of course He IS) ... but He is also HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, righteous, just, merciful, judge and did I mention, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY?
Yes, He has apprehended and saved me to the uttermost - I have been saved, I am saved and I shall be ultimately saved when I blessedly put off this sinful mortality and put on immortality in His time.
Yes, I understand by grace that I have not received a spirit of fear leading again to slavery, but a spirit of adoption by which I have the blessed privilege of crying out Abba! Father, but He is still the majestic, just and HOLY, HOLY, HOLY Lord of glory. As such, He is to be rightly revered, honored, praised and glorified in and through our hearts and lives.
Speaking of Abba! Father, if I understand my Greek correctly (something I struggle mightily with in my studies thereof for some inexplicable reason), it is used only ONE other time in all of Scripture.
Our Lord Jesus Himself refers to God, our Father, as Abba! in the Garden of Gethsemane as He fervently prays the night before that awful day on Calvary when He would offer Himself for you and me and our brothers and sisters.
I am weary of cheap grace and presuming upon our most holy Lord; the taking of sin too lightly - I include my OWN deceitful, wicked and all too sinful heart here too, my sister.
I kind of "live" in Romans, methinks. (Although my beloved says I must surely park the "car" in the garage over at Psalm 119) [::bemused smile emerges::]
Enough for now, my dear sister.
May our glorious Lord bless and keep you and yours and all participating in the vigorous discussion on these weighty matters.
In Christ Alone, Love,
Deb
jen elslager said...
So when did the KJV become the standard?
Um,1611 if you must know :-) That's 397 years and going strong, by my reckoning ;-)
Ha ha ha. Interesting Chad. One would tend to think the original manuscripts might be the standard. Or a more solid word for word translation such as the NASB or the ESV. But ok, if the KJV is your standard...
Deb, thanks for sharing. :) I'm with you.
jen elslager said...
Ha ha ha. Interesting Chad. One would tend to think the original manuscripts might be the standard. Or a more solid word for word translation such as the NASB or the ESV. But ok, if the KJV is your standard...
Jen, your appreciation for my humor is heartening. I wholeheartedly agree, that the original texts in the original languages are the true"gold standard". Where we go from there, and how that is influenced by the etymology and cultural norms of the day...that's the tricky part that I was trying to "subtly" hint at. I'll confess at this point that I'm (obviously) not KJV-only, but trying to steer the conversation toward parsing what is truly inspired and what is a safe rendering for our modern sensibilities. I have no research to stand on, but my hunch is that using the word sex + intercourse in 1611 would have been nothing short of scandalous. I leave it up to more informed folks than myself to weigh in on that point!
Grace and peace,
-Chad
founderandperfecter
Yes, Piper is just a man. But Piper is also a Holy Spirit-empowered, God-anointed, expositor of the Word of God. To undermine his ministry over this is ridiculous.
Piper underminded his own ministry by this - not me. If he is as anointed as you claim, then he should have recognized the fallacy and foolishness of this kind of pragmatic tactic.
Piper has been heading this direction for sometime now. This is simply the fruit of his poor decision to align himself and be influenced by Driscoll.
I have appreciated many of John's writings in the past. How sad to him lower the standard to accommodate this kind of skewed and scatological manner.
I would encourage you my young friend to set your sights much higher than the shallow teachings of Driscoll.
May I suggest you begin with Spurgeon. He will not drag you down into the gutter, but will lift your eyes to the Lord.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Steve
Steve - would you be so kind as to give your thoughts on my comments?
To All
This is copied from another thread here and written by a commenter named Cathy Mickels. She has done an excellent job in pinpointing the wheelhouse of concern. It is disturbing and powerful.
Read it carefully and you will see the red flags this kind of pulpit antics brings. And remember as you are reading this below, this is who Piper chooses as one of his close friends in ministry.
2 Cor. 4:5
Steve
___________
What are the other things Mark Driscoll has to say about the King of Kings?
Mark says he had to "learn to......love Jesus without feeling like we had a thinly veiled homosexual relationship." ......(Why would he ever want to make such a degrading statement, or even plant such a perverted thought into the minds of his audience?)
Mark also describes Jesus as "a classic underachiever with no wife, kids, stable job, career, or even much of a home."
Mark says, "...everytime they see Jesus, it agitates them that he is always surrounded by a crowd, telling knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor (because his perfection had to have included comedic timing)."
In a Vintage Jesus series, Mark jokes around with the question about whether or not Jesus went "potty." His answer was, "Yes,....Jesus went No.1 and No.2 perfectly,....never got the toilet all wet." Mark also had to add, "He had the boy part."
Driscoll says we need to take a fresh look at Jesus in the New Testament: "In Revelation Jesus is a prize-fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I want to worship."
"According to Driscoll, 'real men' avoid the church because it projects a 'Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ' that ' is no one to live for [and] is no one to die for; Driscoll explains, ' Jesus was not a long haired ....effeminate-looking dude'; rather he had 'callused hands and big biceps.' This is the sort of Christ men are drawn to- what Driscoll calls 'Ultimate Fighting Jesus." Driscoll claims, "real men"- like Jesus, Paul and John the Baptist - are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes."
(Christianity Today, "A Jesus for Real Men.")
Mark says God came to earth, "and he kicks things off as a bartender." (Maybe this helps explain Mark's recommendations for possible future brew names; "Alleluia Ale" and "Lucifer Light." )
Furthermore, Mark writes, "And to top it off, ... He has a mom whom everyone thinks is a slut, a dad whom they think has the brilliance of a five-watt bulb for believing the 'virgin birth- line, and brothers who likely pummel him frequently, because even God would have to get at least one wedgie from his brothers if he were to be fully human..........Doesn't the story sound like the plot of a trashy, daytime television talk show? The God-Man is born to a teenage virgin in an animal stall, grows up with a blue-collar dad in a dumpy rural town, and has a weird cousin named John, who lives in the woods and survives on a steady diet of bugs, sugar and repentance."
But, it's not only Jesus who Mark re-creates according to some figment of his imagination and who become the brunt of his jokes. ....He describes Jeremiah as someone "who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time," and he laughs at Noah "who nevertheless ends up having a bad day, gets drunk, and passed out naked in his tent like some redneck on vacation."
What does Mark say about Eve? Well, she was "beautiful, sinless and naked- THE SAME KIND OF WOMAN EVERY GUY EVER SINCE HAS BEEN SEARCHING FOR."
Scripture declares we are to "rightly divide the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15. According to the MacArthur Study Bible, rightly dividing literally means " 'cutting it straight'- a reference to the exactness demanded by such trades as carpentry, masonry.....Precision and accuracy are required in biblical interpretation beyond all other enterprises because the interpreter is handling God's Word. Anything less is shameful."
Yes, it is shameful that Mark Driscoll not only attacks Scripture but undermines the character of Christ. When I told my 84 year old friend that Mark Driscoll describes Jesus as "a dude," she quickly responded , " Jesus was not a dude....He was a King!!"
Interestingly, Mark is scheduled to speak in 2009 at The Gospel Coalition's annual conference on "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth."
Chad said...
Steve - would you be so kind as to give your thoughts on my comments?
...or not?
Chad
I thank you for your comments here dear brother and I am sorry that I have not responded to you yet. As you can imagine, it has been a bit busy around here the past few days.
Question for you so I can further understand your heart's burden: are you a KJV only adherent?
I agree with you that words have meaning. So a follow up question: are you saying that if a word or term the KJV did not use but others have, because it is not included in the KJV then we should ignore that term or terms because the KJV is the standard for all such determination?
And lastly, you are relating this to this post in that the word Tripp chose were not only shortsighted, but not consistent with Scripture or more specifically, the Scriptures of the KJV. Is that correct?
I don't want this to be a rabbit trail, but I needed a bit more help from you to further understand your words.
Thank you Chad,
Campi
Oh Campi, I'm nauseated and almost in tears...
I've only read bits and pieces of Driscoll's blasphemy here and there, but never so much at one time. How terrible it would be to hear a steady diet of that...
The King of kings deserves so much better than this mockery. Does Driscoll just want to be a stand up comedian?
Jen
That is the correct response.
It should cause us to pause and consider that these are the words of a pastor in his pulpit week after week after week after week. Can you imagine what it is doing to his own congregation?
You have sadly seen some of that fruit on this thread by followers of him.
As the prophet Hosea says, "like people, like priest."
Steve,
Thank you for your gracious response to my comments. With the great amounts of comments this post has generated, I do thank you for considering what I'm trying to convey. I'm not trying to get off on a rabbit trail, but what I'm trying to convey is that we all agree that the original text and even the precise words in their original language are 100%, irrefutably inspired. So, with that established, what do we do with respect to the translation process and the influence of the lingua franca that we have to reckon with? I hesitate to say it, but p-i-s-s is considered to be quite a crass term for our day, yet there it is in the KJV. Perhaps it was a failure in the translation of the time, but from what I understand there wasn't the cultural stigma of that word that we have now. Strangely, for me, modern translations that render it as urine don't leave me feeling any more comfortable with the meaning it conveys. So, that takes me to a place where - though I am in no hurry to make concessions to culture - I have to come to grips with the fact that we're confronted with a couple of different terms that refer to the same liquid waste. And of course, I'm not trying to reduce this to semantics of how to best translate "skubala" - but rather I'm trying to pinpoint what is a biblically sound way of ruling words in or out of a mature believer's vocabulary when the word in the original language is meaningless to us in English. Should we as believers be holy by referring to bodily waste in inspired Hebrew terms? Wow, where does that leave us? That idea seems akin to creating a new English word a la baptism to get around the immersion/sprinkling debate that was going on in 1611. Anyway, thanks for letting me think out loud - or at least in print :-)
Grace and peace brother Steve,
-Chad
Steve,
After a little more thought I came up with a better rare senerio.
If Im in an English as a second language class and a student coming to the church just learning english picks up the "s" word from friends outside the church and then uses it in conversation. Then I say you shouldnt use that word.
He says what word? Now out of love to him and to edify him and give him grace if I just wrote the word out he may not get it. I believe it would please the Lord to pronounce it out (not in a lighthearted fashion or laughing but more serious and solemn), for his sake and Christs sake, especially if he was a christian. Correct me if Im wrong.
Thanx,
Troy
Troy, you said,
I just want to know if imposing the absolute rule without ever any exception on others that "they can never ever, ever, ever, ever, say the "s" word" though there never may be a context in which they could say it in their lifetime. But somewhere sometime there may be a rare occasion where with the motive of edification it would be okay.
Troy, the edification would come from the hearer of the foul word, not from the one who says it. The one hearing the foul word, especially if a Christian, would gently correct the other person, forgive him, pray for him, love him and attempt to teach him from the Scriptures the right way to speak.
You also said,
...or maybe someone out there could come up with a better exception to the rule so we all don't become legalistic in our thinking.
Troy, if you're worried about legalism, it's not legalistic to encourage someone not to sin.
I honestly do think that perhaps you are recovering from legalism, especially after reading your latest analogy about English as a second language class.
In this analogy you gave, the person is obviously speaking a foul word out of ignorance, and not deliberately.
And if your concern is in telling him so, I'm sure you'll figure out how. Common sense tells you that if you need to make him aware of that word, that is totally different than what has been discussed here. In Paul Tripp's (and Driscoll's) case, it just wasn't necessary.
I think the problem goes deeper than seeking the meaning of words. I think these people are seeking meaning in life.
If Christ is not your Life, or you're not enjoying your relationship in Him, I think you will seek it in "words", instead of in Christ Who is The Word.
Instead of trying so desperately to know "words", maybe they just need to spend more time knowing Him. That is where our edification comes from. It comes from Him.
The focus of Piper's conference should not be "The Power of Words" but rather "The Power of The Word".
In His Love,
Michele
Some Scriptures come to mind about this:
"As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him...
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power."
-Colossians 2:6-10
The Paul Tripp video clip reminded me of a class I took at a secular college, Philosophy 101. That's what brought these Scriptures to my mind.
Well then at this point I am just going to leave it at the fact that I am thoroughly unconvinced.
I think you are going out of your way to hate on these pastors.
I saw it coming. First my son told us of a pastor in the church he was going to use a cuss word. Then, the "c" word was sanctioned in a home group we were attending, and suggesting that others who wouldn't use it as "religious" or "legalistic." (The devil is creative in his devices he uses to entrap, which we are told to be aware of) With each "stepping over the line" displayed by those who call themselves His, comes a destructive polluting of the soul, not only to the speaker, but to the hearer, if they are not securely attached the the Vine. (who is Jesus, the truth) If they are, they can seperate themselves and "come out from among them." I think there was a message when the pigs, who were demon-possessed, went over the hill and were drowned: the "herd mentality" can kill you! Be connected to the Head first and you will not be led astray, but if you follow the example of man and are swayed by it, then you are in danger of deep deception. Yes, this is more than just using certain words. It is a spiritual indicator. Jesus came to bring division (a sword.) There are going to be many, many areas of division before He comes back, with this being but one. I am seeing the same things being divided in my own family.(Jesus told us about this too.) We used to be on the same page on things, but now we aren't. I haven't moved. They have gradually compromised and are in the ocean. I am standing on the beach and can see the undertow moving them further and further away. It's frightening, sad, and grievous. These last days will be hard. We will have to see the lack of discernment happening, and the only thing I know to do is to pray that "the scales will fall from their eyes." Or, has it gone too far and has God given some over to a delusion because they didn't love the truth, but suppressed it in unrighteousness?
founderandperfecter
I think you are going out of your way to hate on these pastors.
Spoken like a true emerging, Driscollite. When you guys can't make the case biblically or respond to the evidence presented, all you can do is resort to this kind of juvenile innuendo.
I don't allow drive-by comments here at this blog. You can say what you will, honor the rules, but you have to make your case.
So make it or begone for I am very weary of you.
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Steve
Patti
Well said and thank you for your comment.
Steve
Michele
The Paul Tripp video clip reminded me of a class I took at a secular college, Philosophy 101. That's what brought these Scriptures to my mind.
That might be a slam on your philosophy class :-).
Tripp is a smart man and Bible teacher. That is why this video and Piper's full endorsement and dissemination of it is so disturbing.
But what really is disturbing is the effect that this has been having on young, reformed pastors. My heart breaks for the many undiscerning ones that are buying into this kind of philosophy of ministry.
Give me the models of Whitefield, Owen, MacArthur, Sproul, Watson, Spurgeon, etc. and leave in the dust these cultural glory boys of today. IOW, let's have biblical ministry once again!
Hi Michelle,
Thanx for you respond, I appreciate all you said.
Yes, I have came out of legalism, We all did when we were born again. From under the law to grace. I also did struggle with it for 3 years in my sanctification. to many with good intentions were putting a yoke of rules with no exceptions on me and others. Focusing on the outside and not the "inside of the bowl"
Which was Tripps point as well, Though I agree he didnt do it right. I am just concerned that others will miss his point just like his kids did and Tripp even admitted they missed the point.
I believe Tripp wrongfully thought it was "necessary". to use the s word.
I am very concerned for anyone that thinks that there are no exceptions to the rules/precepts without exceptions.
One of the points Tripp was trying to make is that there are exceptions to cultural rules. Like Jesus said in Luke 6:3.
I go to Mac Arthurs church and he comments on this verse that out of mercy and love to David because he was hungry that it was okay to break the precept that it is lawful for only the priests to eat the bread.
Now someone that doesnt understand the principle of love would see David eating the bread and think he was sinning.
I think to many see Tripp using the "s" word and judge him sinning immediately without asking themselves first, "Is it possible for him to be doing this and not sin" Then after hoping the best 1 cor. 13:7, judging with grace and mercy, so God will judge us with grace and mercy Math 7:2, and searching ourselves for the same sin Gal. 6:1, then we could biblically take the speck out of someone elses eye.
Although many had good points to make about the wrong in the video, it was rare for me to see someone saying anything good about Tripp. He was trying to make a biblical point of living your life by the principle of love. He said God judges the motive of our heart. And there can be a good motive and a "bad" word and it edify and encourage. I know that if I pronounced to an ignorant foreign student the exact word he should not say. He would then thank me, be encouraged, edified and sanctified. And thats an answer to Steve Camps question that no one was answering. He asked "How does saying a four letter word help to edify, encourage and glorify God." I my sernerio, I do humbly suggest, that all of that would happen. I do think Tripp should have used a different illustration and differrent words to express his point, then his kids may not have missed his point.
I know from personal experience that this is rampant in the church today. Our own pastor John Mac Arthur rebuked the whole church in a sermon on the church of Ephesus, that we have lost our "first love" for external laws and head knowledge. Im still struggling with this and am very afraid that many others are there and dont know it.
I think if they rightly understood legalism in the christian life that they would be set free to Love God and others so much better.
I think I may be rambling now so Ill quit.
Everlasting Love in Christ,
Troy
Little gal,
Steve, I thought, answered the question particularly well. I am happy it was a struggle for him to post this.
I still think we need to be purposefully, intentionally and designedly vague in the same manner that the Bible is in regards to the vivid details of evil. Scripture gives us necessary info on David/Bathsheeba, Ammon/Taman and Onan and no gratuities beyond that, unless it is called for, like Ezekial 23. While I agree that actually seeing/hearing it really brought it home for you and others, there are instances where seeing/hearing it makes it sin. Wisdom is discerning what should and shouldn't be posted, which is a case by case basis. We aught to want to rebuke sin like Paul, without introducing it like Ham, which btw, is not who I am accusing Steve of acting like here. It’s a judgement call, and those never please all.
I do have mixed feelings what is outrageous for you. Tripp shouldn't have said the word, a correction is definitely needed. However, I keep missing the ongoing deserved biblical outrage regarding desk homosexuals/feminists/sodomites like McLaren, Campolo and the like. Yes, the Apostle Paul would have corrected the likes of Tripp, no question. But the fact that the former are running wild, free and promoted in the Evangelical world and have zero problem devouring you or I with false doctrines is a bonafide emergency. Granted, in the biblical model I see elder to elder rebukes, but I am overwhelmed with the continual never ending out loud effort in warnings against ravenous false prophets. I could be wrong, but I think we love these necessary showdowns with the questionable Mohler/Piper/Driscoll, primarily because we are quick to pull a one & done act for unquestionable ravenous wolves like Campolo. Scripture emphasizes what it emphasizes for a reason.
I think this amplification of every elder to elder/brother to brother rebuke proves we are not as bold as we think. And I want to be wrong on the fact that I think it’s a smokescreen for our cowardice or slack in another direction toward false prophets, which is biblical, nonstop and overwhelmingly obvious.
Steve said:
"What are the other things Mark Driscoll has to say about the King of Kings?"
I read this and with every line I read I felt like I was being punched in the stomach! How can he profess to love Jesus and then say things like this? So degrading!
Instead of striving to become more Christ-like, he is striving to make Christ more Driscoll-like!
Appalling and sickening! He shouldn't be allowed in the pulpit!
It's hard to believe that anyone who loves our Lord Jesus would defend men like this!
Karen
jen elslager said...
I've only read bits and pieces of Driscoll's blasphemy here and there, but never so much at one time. How terrible it would be to hear a steady diet of that...
The King of kings deserves so much better than this mockery. Does Driscoll just want to be a stand up comedian?
Jen, I'm with you on this. Sickening! I had heard bits and pieces too, but this... And if he does want to be a stand up comedian...well, try as hard as he might, he's not the least bit funny, is he?
God bless!
Karen
Isaiah 59:21 (English Standard Version)
21"'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore.'"
Current discussion topic notwithstanding, is this not a beautiful promise?
He has promised to preserve His word in our mouths, from “this time forth and forevermore.” I simply cannot believe that He would put obscenities there; I just don’t think expletives come from Him!
BTW, part of John Calvin’s commentary on the verse referenced in my previous comment:
“Finally, he foretells that the Lord will never forsake His people, but will always be present with them by ‘his Spirit’ and by ‘the word.’ The ‘Spirit’ is joined with ‘the word,’ because, without the efficacy of the Spirit, the preaching of the gospel would avail nothing, but would remain unfruitful. In like manner, ‘the word’ must not be separated from ‘the Spirit’ as fanatics imagine, who, despising the word, glory in the name of the Spirit, and swell with vain confidence in their own imaginations.”
From Somewhere "Celestial-side" of the Wicket-Gate,
LG66
P.S. A prayer from Psalm 19:
14”Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O LORD, my rock and my redeemer.”
littlegal: "From Somewhere 'Celestial-side' of the Wicket-Gate"
A personal favorite. :-)
Needs repeating...
Isaiah 59:21 (English Standard Version)
21"'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore.'"
littlegal: "Current discussion topic notwithstanding, is this not a beautiful promise?
He has promised to preserve His word in our mouths, from “this time
forth and forevermore.” I simply cannot believe that He would put
obscenities there; I just don’t think expletives come from Him!"
WOW!
Thanks for "repeating" it Deb_b. :-)
I thought it was an incredible passage, (and a personally convicting one for me, as well; my tongue has definitely been less than edifying on occasion.......)
To All
Here is a defining obvious question that I am concerned we get to: would the "s" word be considered in Paul's day offensive, ribald, smutty, out of place, filthy speech?
And by that, I mean the slang equivalent of his day... which is not skubalon.
I am interested to hear your thoughts...
Campius
Why must it be looked at as hating a pastor if you speak out on something very wrong that he's saying? I think that's a very odd conclusion to draw when what we are saying is in response to knowing that our Holy God is being completely disrespected by these men.
I don't hate Driscoll or Tripp. But I am deeply grieved by their actions.
Mr Camp, I for one don't know how to answer that question. But what I am convinced of is that Paul would never, ever come off sounding like that last group of Driscoll comments.
Spoken like a true emerging, Driscollite. When you guys can't make the case biblically or respond to the evidence presented, all you can do is resort to this kind of juvenile innuendo. Perhaps, that is just the way that I speak. It's not like I have analyzed 3 years of Mars Hill sermons or anything.
Camp, the sum of your "biblical" case is to not let unwholesome talk come out of your mouth. I have said again and again, that vocabulary is not equal to unwholesomeness. I am not "emerging" nor am I a Driscollite. Insulting me and other pastors is unwholesome. If you want to disagree with me, quote another verse that specifically implies that unwholesome speech is a matter of vocabulary. I am not defending unwholesome speech but I am contending that vocabulary is not the issue here.
On the contrary, from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt 12:34). Consequently, Jesus speaks this immediately after calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, which from what I gather, is not a particularly "nice" phrase, probably not too different from the word sh*&. Now was Jesus sitting around calling Pharisees broods of vipers for the sake of being culturally relevant to a crass people group? No. Neither is Driscoll. They were driving home their points more clearly.
Holy-ish pretenses don't please God quite like holiness does. To be honest I don't see the love in your speech that is supposed to be characteristic of a brother in Christ, quite like I do in Driscoll, Piper, or Tripp. If you think it is pleasing to God for you to be so bitter and ad hominim in your attacks, I think you should use God's law as a mirror instead of belligerently and haphazardly rebuking everyone you disagree with.
founderandperfecter
It's not like I have analyzed 3 years of Mars Hill sermons or anything.
But you assert yourself in definitive terms when defending Mark. That is why before you speak with any amount of authority again you should really do your homework. Read all of his books; read his web blog for the past two years; listen to at least 100 sermons to really get the flavor; and then review interviews.
You really might have a more clear idea of what is being done out there in Seattle in the name of the Lord.
I am not defending unwholesome speech but I am contending that vocabulary is not the issue here. On the contrary, from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt 12:34).
Oh but it is. The heart is the well, but the vocabulary is the evidence of the polluted spring. Tripp is really got this wrong. WORDS MATTER. Say it with me.
When I use a term like grace or sin or substitution or propitiation or justification or imputation - those words are critical to understanding the gospel rightly.
But you are Clintonian not certain of the meaning of the word s___ and its unwholesomeness.
Here are a few more verses for you to ponder:
Colossians 3:8
"But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth."
Ephesians 5:4
Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
Jesus speaks this immediately after calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, which from what I gather, is not a particularly "nice" phrase, probably not too different from the word sh*&.
Oh my. They are not the same - not even close.
Here is John Gill on Matt. 12:34.
"Verse 34. O generation of vipers,.... Though they boasted of their being the seed of Abraham, yet their immediate ancestors were no other than vipers, deceitful, hurtful, poisonous creatures; and they were exactly like them: for though they made a fair show in the flesh, and outwardly appeared righteous, yet were inwardly full of the poison of wickedness, envy and malice; and which their pestilential breath, their blasphemy against the Spirit, fully discovered; and gave just cause and reason for so severe a reproof, and such resentment, as here made by Christ.
How can ye, being evil, speak good things? This is not to be expected, nor is it commonly and constantly done; an evil man may sometimes speak good things, or which seem to be so; but these are not his common talk; as he is, so, for the most part, is his language; his speech betrays him: and since these men were by nature evil, were destitute of the Spirit and grace of God, had no good thing in them, how should any good thing come out of them? And since they were so full of wickedness, spite and malice, it is no wonder that they belched out such blasphemous expressions concerning the miracles of Christ;
for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh: a phrase much like this is used by the Septuagint, in Ecclesiastes 2:15. "I spoke abundance," or "much in my heart"; dioto o afrwn ek perisseumatov
lalei, "for the fool out of his abundance speaketh": as there is abundance of folly in him, there is much delivered out by him; and where there is abundance of wickedness in the heart, if the grace of God is wanting to restrain it, much of it will come out by the lips; as is a man's heart, ordinarily is his language."
Will pick up in a bit after you think on these things...
Steve
Jen
Why must it be looked at as hating a pastor if you speak out on something very wrong that he's saying? I think that's a very odd conclusion to draw when what we are saying is in response to knowing that our Holy God is being completely disrespected by these men.
Well said and I wholeheartedly agree.
Jen: "I don't hate Driscoll or Tripp. But I am deeply grieved by their actions."
Amen.
Mr Camp, I for one don't know how to answer that question. But what I am convinced of is that Paul would never, ever come off sounding like that last group of Driscoll comments.
Fully agree. Paul not only warns against unwholesome speech, but obscene speech as well.
There is no "laundry list of words" that Paul or any of the Apostles created that some of our pomo friends want to point to to justify either legalism on our part or saying the absence of such a list means that all words are only a matter of intent, individual bias or cultural sensibilities.
And they are wrong on all three counts. The man of God preaching His Word is to be above reproach with not even a hint of this associated with him.
I find it interesting that some of today's preachers pride themselves on their "freedom" to speak like this rather than feel shame for evening associated our Lord and the ministry with such degrading language.
Words matter...
Steve
To All
Would anyone feel differently about the Tripp/Piper Video if he used the f word?
I am trying to determine how far the pomo-emerging-pseudo-reformed Piper embracing-Driscoll loving crowd will go with their "it's not the vocabulary but my intent that matters" logic?
I want to know...
Campius Maximus
2 Cor. 4:5
SJC: "Would anyone feel differently about the Tripp/Piper Video if he used the f word?"
Nope. It's all egregious, offensive and needless.
"Would anyone feel differently about the Tripp/Piper Video if he used the f word?"
I said that in an earlier comment that when he spoke about words with sexual connotation, and if he would have said these four letter words, then I would have been very offended, especially my wife, who I asked to watch the video.
Also when he explained it was wrong to say "God Damn", I was a bit thrown back.
i guess it's just a reflex.
the worse is when I hear people use the Lord Jesus' name in vain.
And I asked my pastors if they would use this word in the way Paul Tripp did, and they said no. But they like what Paul Tripp taught.
Would anyone feel differently about the Tripp/Piper Video if he used the f word?
I think it would be a little worse, but only by slight degrees. Somehow that word is one of the lowest of the low, IMO.
But I tend to think it's coming. As the church becomes more and more like the world? It's coming.
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, oh Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.
Prof. Campius: ".....would the "s" word be considered in Paul's day offensive, ribald, smutty, out of place, filthy speech?"
(OK, Maybe I'll get to the newly-posted f-word question later, just now got around to trying to answer this one. :-)
I think people in Pauline times were somewhat similar to us today, although certainly we would all be considered much more literate than many of them had the opportunities to be. Still, I think the reactions would be similar to what we're seeing on this thread.....I think a large segment of the population would find it revolting, while most likely another segment would rationalize and attempt to justify the use of the word, not able to understand why anyone could take offense to it. The percentages of people within each segment might be different, but I still believe there would be some who would have considered it acceptable. However, I don't believe its fabricated redemptive qualities would be open for debate or discussion.
So, yes, offensive to some; no, not a big deal to others.
deb_b
Nope. It's all egregious, offensive and needless
I meant more offensive; would some now consider it really too excessive and finally cry foul?
And then the follow up to them would be: why now? what is your standard as to now being offended? and what Scriptural context are you basing this on?
To Steve,
I think in the context Tripp was in the only words that would not offend anyone would have to be pretty much only pronouncing out loud in their entirety "God and Jesus"
Swear words that are counted swear words always like the s and f word should very, very, very, rarely used. only in rare extreme, necessary cases.
Jesus and God are counted good words, but said in vain or sinfully can be profanity.
A good word can be used in a profane, non edifying way and a bad word can rarely be used in an edifying way. ( I gave my example of the christian foreigner senerio before)
The most common misuse of the Lord name is saying "in Jesus Name" at the end of your prayer only cuz other do it and not with understanding but in vain.
All this to say that I believe Tripp should not even more so use the f word in that context.
In the context that we are in it seems acceptable to most to write the "f word" rather than spelling it out.
If thier can be a worse word, the f word seems to be worse than the s word, so Tripp should even more so avoid using it.
Some people say "gosh" rather than God when they are mad, either way they are mad, angry and offending God. But we do seem to make it worse to say God rather than just gosh.
If you are trying to communicate a word or idea to someone to edify them on a subject we can either just write "the s word" or write it out completely. Still what God will judge is still the same, my heart motive of edification. Who knows maybe soon, me writing the letters "the s word" may be offensive and we will have to stop using that way of communication.
My conclusion is that he should even more so avoid using the f word, that is how I would feel differntly about it.
Love in Christ,
Troy
donsends
And I asked my pastors if they would use this word in the way Paul Tripp did, and they said no. But they like what Paul Tripp taught.
Fair response; but it was hard to justify what he taught and the conclusions he drew with the means he chose to do it. IOW, if the principle he was really teaching holds true regardless of the words used, he could have chosen different words - for that matter any word - to drive home his point.
But I really think his point is only valid in his world, when you have to soil the principle (pun intended) with seedy language.
What say you my brother?
As always I appreciate you Don.
To Steve,
from your follow up to deb_b
Why now offended when using the F word.
God calls us to take each situation in its context then act biblically.
The f word in our culture has more force. Some may not think so saying that they are all profane, but most would agree that the f word is worse, so then the context would change and therefore wether or not it could be use may change.
The need of the moment changes is the scriptural context Im basing it on. 1 sam. 1-6
When david was needing food it was then okay to break the law and give him the showbread to eat.
In some rare circumstance it would be biblical to break the general rule that we should not use bad words.
The bible makes exceptions for precepts not moral absolutes.
The precept/law in question is "the s word should never be said outloud"
The moral absolute is love.
If in some rare situation we would have to break the letter of the law in order to maintain love then and only then would saying a bad word be appropriate.
Now we as Christians should always go by the spirit of the law not the letter.
Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that in Tripps context that it would be appropriate.
"But I really think his point is only valid in his world, when you have to soil the principle (pun intended) with seedy language.”
Exactly. The “other” Paul, the apostle Paul, in the two scriptures he penned that Steve has posted (Eph. 5:4; Col. 3:8) reveals that he didn’t feel the necessity to actually employ the use of the obscene word in order to get his point across.
Notice he didn’t write:
"But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and ‘words like (insert word in question)’ from your mouth."
Or:
“Let there be no (insert word in question) nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
He didn’t have to say the word (equivalent word of his day) to prove his point.
"But I really think his point is only valid in his world, when you have to soil the principle (pun intended) with seedy language."
Suppose Paul says, "I used the s-word to show my children, and to teach my children a principle of God"?
Then his teaching, which is, it's what the heart speaks from the heart which the Lord will judge. It's not the outside of the cup, which may appear clean, but inside is dirty.
I think this is where my pastors are with Paul Tripp.
teaching the Word, whether from a pulpit of video, or wherever, pastors need to weigh every word carefully.
Sometimes the best pastors will blow it. And then they surely can make good on their mistake, and even bring more glory to our Lord.
I have seen the Lord's grace and forgiveness work in this way, and it is the Gospel light shining brightly.
I think Paul is a fine brother in the Lord. He thinks obviously believes this word is a word that can be spoken, and discussed. Whereas he drew the line with many other words.
Perhaps the Lord Jesus will manifest to Paul His perfect will in all this. I pray He does. Amen.
For Part 1:
SJC: "I meant more offensive; would some now consider it really too excessive and finally cry foul?"
I know and, yep, you knew/know, as I did/do, most will indeed cry foul ... underscoring which end of the spectrum is sadly and unfortunately ensnared by a form of legalism, strange as that may read to some here.
'til later on the second part.
:-)
Okay, as I have read the last two days comments I have to say one final thing before I leave it alone:
I am confused as to why many are confused about being confused of why any kind of vulgarity is used to "edify" someone. Edify? You folks can't be serious! I thought the whole point of this post was pretty simple:
When in Rome, DON'T do as the Romans do.
Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.(1Pe 1:17)
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will (Ro 12:2)
Sorry folks, conformity to Christ rather than to the world makes perfect sense to me.
the heretic
I am confused as to why many are confused about being confused of why any kind of vulgarity is used to "edify" someone. Edify? You folks can't be serious! I thought the whole point of this post was pretty simple:
When in Rome, DON'T do as the Romans do.
I thought it was pretty obvious myself. I have appreciated your posts on this thread.
Thank you my brother...
deb_b
...underscoring which end of the spectrum is sadly and unfortunately ensnared by a form of legalism, strange as that may read to some here.
I have thought that as well for some time and have argued as much. Well done...
Steve,
That might be a slam on your philosophy class :-).
That's okay. It was a long time ago. :)
You said,
But what really is disturbing is the effect that this has been having on young, reformed pastors. My heart breaks for the many undiscerning ones that are buying into this kind of philosophy of ministry.
I know this is your passion and a large part of your ministry...to make Christians aware of deception in the Church.
When you said, regarding Driscoll's Mars Hill in Seattle, that "it's not a church, it's a Movement", I believe that comment you made went over most people's heads.
As you know Terry and I have repeatedly mentioned on this blog that there are actually four Movements that are redefining Christianity, and infecting our Churches, and that most people that are in these Churches don't even know that it is happening to them.
You and others have said that Mark Driscoll came out of the Emerging Church Movement. If he did, he is apparently still infected with it.
I, and others who used to be in the Charismatic Movement, have noticed that our thinking is still infected by it.
So, I think that the worst problem about these Movements is that even if you are not in them, your Church may still be infected with their thinking. Or if you used to be in them, your thinking may still be infected by them.
And I think that is what we're seeing with all these once-reputable teachers. They are sliding into the deception of all these Movements.
Again, it's either the Church Growth Movement (Rick Warren), the New Perspective on Paul (neo-legalism), the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement, or the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).
And my other concern, as I stated in previous comments, is that true spirituality is suffering because of this. The Church is not being taught, for the most part, how to have the mind of Christ, how to walk by the Spirit, how to appreciate the fact that we are new creations in Christ and to put on the new man, and how to live by grace, and not by works.
I had asked if anyone hears these things taught in their Church and no one responded. It leads me to believe that it isn't even on the radar of their thinking...that they don't even recognize that these teachings on biblical spirituality may be absent from their pulpit.
Where there is a vacuum created because of a lack of these biblical teachings, it will be filled with worldly teachings, "philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:6-10)
Michele
donsends
Then his teaching, which is, it's what the heart speaks from the heart which the Lord will judge. It's not the outside of the cup, which may appear clean, but inside is dirty.
I think this is where my pastors are with Paul Tripp.
I can respect your Pastors on that though I disagree with the method that Tripp employed. IOW, your Pastors were blessed not because of but in spite of...
Fair enough?
little gal
Exactly. The “other” Paul, the apostle Paul, in the two scriptures he penned that Steve has posted (Eph. 5:4; Col. 3:8) reveals that he didn’t feel the necessity to actually employ the use of the obscene word in order to get his point across.
Once again - godly wisdom.
Troy k
I have really appreciated your thoughts on this thread brother. Thank you greatly for the constant blending of biblical truth and its application of wisdom here.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Michele
So, I think that the worst problem about these Movements is that even if you are not in them, your Church may still be infected with their thinking.
BINGO!
Dear Mr. Camp and others
I read your blog and responses, and for honesty sake I did respond on another blog about the article in another context it was listed there. When I first became a "Christian" my foul mouth went away, when I developed symptoms of extreme physical pain that flairs up to a level comparable to kidney stones and remains chronic for days if not weeks I will admit to using foul language under my breath. In no way is this an excuse as I am wrong in doing it, but the habit did take root and found myself thinking it or saying it I E mouthing it under my breath, which is still cussing and dishonors God.
I do think physical issues can lower our ability to fight these issues, again not an excuse, there is no excuse for making mistakes or sinning. I have not struggled to blood to not do this. I think the man saying what he said was trying to develop a principle to teach his children, maybe it was done poorly but that is how I saw it.
Again I did respond on another thread about this an mentioned about things that are not listed in the bible in a specific sense but are still part of our daily life and that seems to be where we apply principles to follow Scripture in areas not directly mentioned in Scripture. If that makes any sense.
I do hope you and your families are well.
Brian
Thank you for sharing your story with us here. I am humbled by your honesty and transparency.
In my post I am not addressing those kinds of situations. We all have said a word sometimes that we regret in moments of pain, anger, frustration, tiredness, anxiety, etc.
What this is directly about, as you know, is a man who is a Bible teacher and given a place of authority to teach the Scriptures using speech in this manner. There is a difference and it is profound.
God's servant who is called to preach and teach His truths must use his words to expound the text and give the sense of it. That does not involve obscene smutty language. It adds nothing to the Word of God in how it is communicated and received by others.
I have ministered all around the world to every kind of people group you can think of from skin heads on the streets to heads of states and I have never once had to lower the gospel or the person of our Lord Jesus Christ by using four letter words when preaching or singing in order to be more relevant or "point to a profound Biblical truth."
So while Piper and Tripp are men of God who I have been blessed greatly by in the past, this is the wrong way to go and is an unfortunate happening for them to adhere to. Driscoll - no one would be surprised at. He is still immature in his thinking and approach to ministry. But Piper and Tripp know better...
Does that make sense?
Thank you again for sharing your story here tonight...
Steve
Um, didn't you say in your last post that Christian bloggers shouldn't write about the sins of other Christians?
I guess you didn't even read the post title. He said we shouldn't write in a tabloidesque manner.
Wow. That's constructive. ;-)
You are critical of the blog author therefore you don't know how to read.
Hm. Do you know how to read? I didn't say that. I said I guessed you didn't read it -- didn't say you couldn't read.
:)
My apologies if I've seemed disrespectful -- that wasn't my intention. I was joking.
Dear Mr. Camp and others
Gave me alot to think on, cant say I agree but I do understand more. The part about not lowering Gospel standards struck a deep nerve, I cant say that, I have lowered my standards on some occasions.
We met once only briefly, you sang a concert in San Jose some many years ago, I had brought six or seven young folks with disabilities and we were sitting behind you. You stopped us and wished us well, we were in a white van. I still remember that to this day.
I am much more liberal in many ways and admit that, and honesty says I dont see eye to eye, I will admit I may well be wrong. Thanks for your kind answer.
"Fair enough?"
Yep.
I know for certain the the Lord wants His children to be one in Christ. We will always have differences, even looking at the same Scripture passages, but we can always still love and respect one another.
And we can do this because our common ground is the Gospel, and the glory of God.
Have a great Lord's day Campi.
Wow.
I admit I have not read all the posts here - it's just not possible, they are way too long.
I think the consensus I am seeing here is that you don't disagree with the point he was making in the video, just his choice in how he did it. Is that correct?
Steve, I remember about 23 years ago when you chose to use an even stronger version of the word in question here in an interview with the biggest Christian magazine at the time. The controversy was enormous, to say the least. It seems you were on the other side of the argument at the time. I know that was a long time ago, but I agreed with that side of the discussion then and I still do today.
Would you care to comment on that?
Hi Steve,
I would greatly appreciate one more clarification. you said yesterday in response to my posts
"Thank you greatly for the constant blending of biblical truth and its application of wisdom here."
Do you mean that your grateful for my constant blending of biblical truth and coming up with an application, meaning that wether or not the application was right or not it is good to come up with an application
or
that the constant blending of biblical truth and its application that i did was a correct application of biblical truth?
Thanx for all your love in the Lord,
Troy
S.J.
Isn't it always a good policy that if you can not say it around children then do not say it? Perhaps it is not always the most practical but I think that everything that is said using offensive vulgar language can be framed, non offensive words that convey the same message, in such a way that anyone can hear it, obviously this takes work and some time but I think the fruit of it is worth it all.
As far and Piper is concerned and delving into this type of thing, I see it as if he is taking the holy golden goblet and dipping it in sewage and saying drink. What a great disappointment!
Troy,
You are a treasured brother in the Lord. Thank you so much for your posts here in this thread.
In Christ, Deb
Dennis--
Has Paul Tripp admitted that his language was inappropriate and issued a public acknowledgment/apology for his public use of the word? If so, please direct us to the text of the apology, or if you could provide it here, that would be great.
(And I'm not attempting to be facetious, here. If Paul Tripp has renounced his abundant use of the word, it might give things a different angle, and the thread may take a different direction).
Thanks,
LG66
"Isn't it always a good policy that if you can not say it around children then do not say it?"
Evidently Paul Tripp would agree but in a different sense. I think that's what he was saying to his "children".
Strange really.
I guess for me, I'll see how things develop after the conference. I pray the Lord would greatly bless this gathering of His saints for his glory and the good of those who come to hear His truth taught and preached. Amen.
I am sure that Tripp, Piper and Driscoll might justifiably throw out:
1 Corinthians 4:3-5
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
Perhaps they all feel they have nothing “against themselves”. Therefore, I will heed Paul’s advice and not judge them.
However, there is nothing wrong with DISAGREEING with their interpretation and application of:
Ephesians 5:3-4
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
Colossians 3:8
8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
Why do I disagree and why would I (as a current pastor) never, ever use the “s” word or any other culturally “suspect” word in the pulpit or anywhere?
Because of:
I Cor. 4 above…”I am not thereby acquitted.” I may be wrong in my motives and my intent if I use the “s” word no matter how loud I scream that I am justified in using it. It is clearly a word in our culture that is offensive to many people. Why else would unbelievers find it necessary to “beep” out its use on public TV or during sports programs or awards shows? There is clearly a risk in using the word. Our culture has labeled it as obscene.
And because of:
James 3:1
3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Why, oh why, would I want to risk this over the use of one word?
And because of:
Matthew 12:35-36
35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Again, why take the risk that what I am saying (no matter what I think my motives are) is careless before my Lord and Master?
And because of:
2 Corinthians 5:9-10
9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
I am not sure that using a word such as the one we are talking about is going to please Him. PLUS – I don’t want to stand before Christ and find out that what I thought was ok to say was actually “evil.” Praise God I am forgiven, but again, why risk it?
And finally:
Revelation 1:12-17
12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
My Savior is so awesome, so holy, so perfect, so wonderful, I would not dare say anything that would offend Him or dishonor Him. Which sadly, I know I have done far too many times in the past. If it is borderline and can garner this much space on a blog, I am staying away from it.
These are my thoughts (and application of the Word of God to my life) and not a critique or judgment of anyone else.
In His Grace,
Greg
To Steve and others,
My question is that if I have a rule
"that you can never pronounce out loud the s word and it not edify, encourage and give grace"
And emposing that rule to others, without exception, would I be acting legalistically?
A rare example of an exception:
Say Im a foreign christian learning english and you are teaching me english.
While with friends I pick up the s word from conversation or on tv.
I think its okay, so I say it next time we talk.
You tell me " You shouldnt use that word"
I say "what word"?
You say "that S word"
I still dont understand. "What shouldnt I say?"
So you figure it best to pronounce it out and then tell me "thats a bad word and you shouldnt say that."
I believe this is in perfect application of eph. 4:29 and would encourage, edify and give grace to the hearer. Yes/No
Love in Christ,
Troy
Troy
"that you can never pronounce out loud the s word and it not edify, encourage and give grace"
And emposing that rule to others, without exception, would I be acting legalistically?
I am referring to the context of pulpit ministry from a preacher and teacher of God's Word. I am not saying a principle for all occasions everywhere all the time.
That has been the outrage here - not that a Christian used the term... but that a Bible teacher of God's Word chose to use it to make a profound biblical point when the point could have been made without it. Why didn't he choose a different word? Enter Driscoll and company, the emerging church and postmodernism and Piper's proclivity to be outside the box.
Steve
Greg
Well done my brother! I thank you...
Steve
G-Man
As far and Piper is concerned and delving into this type of thing, I see it as if he is taking the holy golden goblet and dipping it in sewage and saying drink. What a great disappointment!
Precisely. I really appreciate so much of Piper's ministry, but this is a place within the teaching and preaching of God's Word that he doesn't need to go.
IMHO
Campi
To Steve,
Thanks for the last post. Many of the christians Ive been talking to missed the point that Tripp was trying to make that there may be a context in which to pronounce a bad word out loud and it be okay.
I believe that was his point. Illistated by his use of the word "if" a few times as he was talking.
But its ironic that what Tripp failed to do was a right application of the biblical truth he was trying to teach.
If people understand the biblical principle then learn how to use it in the right context, then sin will not happen.
Jesus was tempted by satan. by satan, in the garden, telling Jesus truth, but wanting him to apply it in the wrong context. This truth is very profound. Think about, it has much application.
Love you much brother Steve, called by the Lord to shepherd the flock.
IN Christ,
Troy
I recommend that everyone watch the whole series by Tripp and see how skewed these accusations are.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=31649D51E66C709A
founderperfecter
I hear what Tripp is saying and sounds like what he is conveying is very sensible and reasonable. The problem is that you have to stoop well below the Holiness of God to address the issue of graciousness by using the s___ word or any other word like it! Men of this caliber ought to know better, children know better. To be fair though, I would love to hear your justification of Tripp's tripe.
Troy: "But its ironic that what Tripp failed to do was a right application of the biblical truth he was trying to teach.
"If people understand the biblical principle then learn how to use it in the right context, then sin will not happen."
What an absolutely wonderful grasp of practical Godly wisdom and understanding you have, Troy.
It is truly a joy to read your posts here!
Love in Christ,
Deb
I finally held my breath and watched the video today. I can see the point he was trying to make, but gigantor just nailed it as to why the method was inappropriate. Stooping below the holiness of God...
I admit I was concerned that he was laughing while his children used the word. I have laughed many times at the antics of my children, but would never find it amusing to hear them playing fast and loose with such language. They've been called down on much lesser words.
But again, the point made was good, once I got past the language. It was quite distracting.
I can still find no justification for it.
Jen: "I can see the point he was trying to make, but gigantor just nailed it as to why the method was inappropriate."
Aye, G-Man always has a way of boldly proclaiming Biblical truths that ensures the point lingers a while in the mind, for sure.
FYI, Jen, I'm still hanging on to my initial thoughts. It'll keep a while longer.
Have a wonderful weekend, what's left of it!
Love in Christ, Deb
gig
"The problem is that you have to stoop well below the Holiness of God to address the issue of graciousness by using the s___ word or any other word like it."
Campi:
"I am referring to the context of pulpit ministry from a preacher and teacher of God's Word.That has been the outrage here - not that a Christian used the term...but that a Bible teacher of God's Word chose to use it to make a profound biblical point when the point could have been made without it."
Exactly, dear brothers. How low do you have to take your view of God to illustrate a point? Will a minister someday find it neecssary to put photos from Playboy or Hustler up on the church Powerpoint to illustrate what defines "porn?"
more Campi:
"Enter Driscoll and company, the emerging church and postmodernism and Piper's proclivity to be outside the box."
To view this technique in action in an actual pulpit, check out this sermon (by Pastor Matt Brown, of Sandals Church) on words we use as Christians (from April of last year).
In the message, entitled "Mark My Words," Pastor Matt manages to fit in the s-word (several times), imagines the names James might have teased Jesus with, jokes that he can preface the s-word with "holy" because he is a pastor, and puts his spin on many of the scripture passages we've referenced in this thread (going so far as to say that to criticize him for swearing from the pulpit is to let corrupt talk come out of the mouth).
(FYI-There is a pause button on this video, but no way to rewind it if you don't quite catch something he says, without starting it over from the very beginning).
Original Post deleted to amend.
littlegal: "Pastor Matt manages to fit in the s-word (several times), imagines the names James might have teased Jesus with, jokes that he can preface the s-word with "holy" because he is a pastor, and puts his spin on many of the scripture passages we've referenced in this thread (going so far as to say that to criticize him for swearing from the pulpit is to let corrupt talk come out of the mouth)."
Aye, sister mine, and once Pastor Matt justifies foul language, assuming he were my pastor, which he isn't (nor, as you know, do I condone such filthy language in the Church), what standing would he have to tell me I couldn't use even more filthy, foul language if in doing so I was making a viable Biblical point?
He, nor Driscoll, nor Tripp nor any of the other proponents of this appalling endorsement - and use of - profanity could do so without setting out a LIST of what filthy, profane words were acceptable and which are not.
We call that legalism.
This is but one of the difficulties inherent in attempting to culturally "relativize" the great doctrinal truths of Scripture in our PoMo society.
When you build a ministry around this kind of thing - utterly foul, filthy speech and explicit sexual allusions - no matter what justification you use, no matter what Biblical truth you are expressing with it, you are corrupting and perverting and making void the inerrant, plenary inspired word of God.
"'You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.' And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!'"
[Mark 7:8-]
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
[John 1:1-4, 14]
I'll refrain from going further at the present ... since I'm still pretty angry about the sorry state we've got to in the professing Body of Christ here in America today. Having said that, virtually speaking, I understand it is all too easy to think one's anger is righteous, only to be smitten later with the blessed convicting power of the indwelling Holy Spirit that it isn't/wasn't.
That concern is holding back my further thoughts in the matter, sister mine by grace.
Love in Christ alone, Deb
deb_b:
This is but one of the difficulties inherent in attempting to culturally "relativize" the great doctrinal truths of Scripture in our PoMo society.
When you build a ministry around this kind of thing - utterly foul, filthy speech and explicit sexual allusions - no matter what justification you use, no matter what Biblical truth you are expressing with it, you are corrupting and perverting and making void the inerrant, plenary inspired word of God.
"'You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.' And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!'"
[Mark 7:8-]
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
[John 1:1-4, 14]
Exactly! Thank you Deb, you said that perfectly!
I went over to YouTube and watched the whole series...funny, the one with the "s" word wouldn't load up for me this time, but that's okay, I didn't want to see that one again anyway. He could have made his point just as well by not stooping to using that word or any other bad word. There is no justification for that, I don't care how much anyone argues that there is.
God blessings to you today and everyday!
Karen
littlegal_66:
Exactly, dear brothers. How low do you have to take your view of God to illustrate a point? Will a minister someday find it neecssary to put photos from Playboy or Hustler up on the church Powerpoint to illustrate what defines "porn?"
I wouldn't be surprised if it did nowadays, and that's a sad thing to say. What's worse, I fear, is the day when Christians no longer notice it when it does happen.
I'm going to go watch the video you posted about now.
Blessings to you,
Karen
littlegal_66, I watched the video. Wow! He could have done so much with that teaching and it would have been great without using the bad words. At least he warned parents to get their children out of there before he began to preach, although he did infer that they would be traumatized because Jesus cussed on stage. Uh, he's not Jesus, but he did say a few times that Jesus did actually use cuss words. Sigh...
I feel like we're being conditioned by these pastors so that when they do these things we won't care...kind of like children watching violent movies and then go out and repeat what they've seen over and over again in those movies and can't figure out why it's wrong to kill someone. I hope that made sense. I'm not very good sometimes at expressing myself. :-/
Karen
Clearly, it's desensitization that is happening here. Are consciences being seared?
Jen,
You're awesome! :)
That is the word I was trying to come up with. Yes! Desensitize. That is what is happening, I believe.
God bless!
Karen
Karen,
Thank you for your kind words seasoned with so much grace - 'tis greatly appreciated!
You expressed your Biblical worldview splendidly, my sister, not to worry. Jen followed it up equally as well!
Thank yous to littlegal, Michelle and Jen as well for each of your respective insights, coupled with boldness in standing firm by grace.
May our glorious Lord bless and keep each of you ladies and yours, along with all our other brothers and sisters posting in this thread! May our Lord be glorified in and through each of our hearts and lives daily.
In Christ Alone, Love, Deb
Wow, I would never thought of hearing something like this with John Piper. I was also not aware of Mark Driscoll using such tactics as well. And to think I was just today speaking well of both Piper and Driscoll. Now I'm going to have to pray for these men and retract what I said and find these folks that I was talking with to let them know that I have some disappointing news. And these people have always trusted me in the past when discussing certain Bible teachers. Anyhow, this is truly disappointing. Now what do we do???
Thanks Steve for keeping us in tune with what is "really" going on out there.
Grace and Peace,
Chris
Hi Deb, and to all,
In volume one page 410 of the two volume set of the "works of Jonathan Edwards"
It seems he had the same problem in his time.
commenting on the "adaptation of wrong principle" he states that "worms of the dust" do not have the same authority of Jesus to call anyone a "brood of viper"
And "Alas, that it shouldnt even enter into the hearts of worms of the dust"
( the last paragraph on that page)
Love you all in the Lord,
Troy
Troy: [referring to Jonathan Edwards] "commenting on the "adaptation of wrong principle" he states that "worms of the dust" do not have the same authority of Jesus to call anyone a 'brood of viper'"
The section you reference from Jonathan Edwards' writings should be looked at more in-depth in this particular circumstance.
The copy I will be referencing in subsequent posts is the unabridged works, the reprint in January 1834, which incorporated the original extracts from the diary and papers of Jonathan Edwards, which were first published in America by his descendant Sereno E. Dwight in 1830.
Since there are numerous reprints of Jonathan Edwards, both abridged and unabridged with varying standards for modernization of some of the language, etc., I wanted to clarify which unabridged edition I'm working from.
Your abbreviated Edwards' quote - and thank you very much, Troy, for the specific citation and page info - is one from a section of his writings I am very familiar with.
I'm tied up until a bit later this evening, but will comment further soon.
In Christ Alone, Deb
Deb and Troy--I am looking forward to this...thank you, Troy sharing this, and thank you, Deb for taking the time to give this diligent study & commentary; Edwards is a favorite, and I'd love to delve into this material myself tonight, but I've had pressing matters with my two boys all afternoon & night---(one a birthday celebration and the other the last baseball game of his fall season), so alas, other than our Bible study, prayer time, and nightly reading from Pilgrim's Progress, we are expended for the duration of the evening. So, I'll just feast on your study and what you bring to light..
Thanks again,
Steph
I keep seeing the Magisterium Mentality here by some people.
I would challenge folks to re-examine their support of men who condone, defend, or share the pulpit with men ("pastors") whose mouths reveal a dark heart. Also see this by Spurgeon: http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg03.htm
Why rally around men just because they are your favorite author/speaker/pastor, when they are downright disobeying The Master? Their fame has no bearing on whether they are right or wrong. Famous men CAN and HAVE BEEN deceived.
By defending those who cuss or use course joking/language, they are at the very least, causing brothers to also violate Scripture (like Eph. 4:29-31; 5:3-11; Col. 4:6;)
Is not our loyalty to Christ and HIM ALONE? Why defend one of "the boys" when they clearly violate the clear commands of God? The ones pointing out the error are NOT the ones you should be upset with: you SHOULD be upset with those who continually and deliberately shove their fist up at the Master so they can be "relevant".
Please carefully consider these passages:
Gal 4:16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Gal 4:17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.
1Co 2:4 and my SPEECH and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but IN DEMONSTRATION OF THE SPIRIT and of POWER,
2Co 6:3 WE PUT NO OBSTACLE IN ANYONE'S WAY, so that no fault may be found with our ministry,
2Co 6:4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities,
2Co 6:5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger;
2Co 6:6 by PURITY , knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love;
2Co 6:7 by TRUTHFUL SPEECH, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left;
1Ti 4:12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an AN EXAMPLE IN SPEECH, IN CONDUCT, in love, in faith, IN PURITY.
Tit 2:6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.
Tit 2:7 Show yourself in all respects to be A MODEL OF GOOD WORKS, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity,
Tit 2:8 and SOUND SPEECH THAT CANNOT BE CONDEMNED, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.
2Co 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he IS a NEW CREATION. THE OLD HAS PASSED AWAY; behold, THE NEW HAS COME.
We are to speak as a new man, because we have a new heart& we are renewed in mind daily as we are in Scripture and keep in step with the Holy Spirit. In addition, we are held accountable by our local church.
If a person has issues with their tongue (see James 2; Eph. 4-5)), then he needs to be discipled and possibly disciplined if he will not practice the Fruit of the Spirit, Self-Control.
Driscoll, Tripp, and others don't have immaturity as the issue. These are supposed to be mature believers according to the requirements of elders in Titus 1 & 1Tim. 3.
Tit 1:7 For an overseer, as God's steward, MUST BE ABOVE REPROACH. HE MUST NOT BE ARROGANT or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
Tit 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of good, SELF-CONTROLLED, UPRIGHT, HOLY, and DISCIPLINED.
Tit 1:9 He MUST hold firm to the trustworthy word AS TAUGHT, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Tit 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, EMPTY TALKERS and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.
Tit 1:11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
So, if Piper and others want to excuse repeated, deliberate sin under the labelof "immaturity", then they have just shown the disqualification of such a "pastor".
littlegal, Steph,
Thank you. I'll get back here with additional comments either later, perhaps much later, this evening or sometime tomorrow, Lord willing, time-wise.
In Christ Alone, Love, Deb
Who has spiked the water in Minnesota?
I dunno. We have a water treatment system. Maybe that should be required for all Christians in this area. Too many nitrates in the water...?
I have listened to countless sermons Paul Tripp has given in his role as a
teaching elder at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, a respected church
where God's Word is preached. The Rev Tripp has constantly exalted Chirst in
his sermons. The comments in this blog really saddens me in the way it pillories
a servant of Christ. How about raising the bar in the way we treat other
believers?
THe bible surely condemns profanity and swearing (see the stack of references throughout previous posts) and extolls us towards self control, and in general glorifying the Father, Son and Spirit.
This is a black and white issue.
However somthingi believe that has been failed to be addressed is what constitutes a profane/swear or cuss word? This is much more a gray area. Of course there is the wisdom of being considerate for weaker brothers and sisters.
He used a word which some people hold to be a "swear word", and he probably could have gotten his message across without speaking it. Sure it is not exactly wise but i would be very careful in ascribing sin to others without first examining oneself.
As an outsider, the tone of this blog/thread has been quite judgemental rather than gracious and humble. I understand where you are coming from, however your response in condemning him (and associates) seems to come across with a level of pride that seems also in need of repentance.
Thankfully Jesus is gracious and mighty to be able to expiate our sins and help us to be sanctified.
I myself am convivted that my own language is often far from perfect as can be my tendancy to judge.
My prayer is for Tripp and us all to be more concious in our language and also that we may be granted humble hearts.
May God bless you all in the work he has given you.
(I apologise if i have misread the tone of peoples posts as this is somthing easily done.)
OK, I didn't read all 348 comments, and I don't expect everyone to read this one ... but here goes anyway.
If you are offended by what Paul says, you don't get what he is saying. You can keep your language "clean" and be so guilty of judging your brother a fool, and you can say all the right words with no meaning behind them. It seems pretty Pharisaical to condemn Paul for what he says here. Words do not have magic power. Just uttering the syllables does not indicate wrong motivations or desires. Certain words may be culturally offensive but be morally neutral - like this one - and may be used rightly to shock a listener out of their legalistic stupor. You may choose not to offend another and avoid such words, but sometimes there is reason to offend - when someone's overscrupulous conscience is attempting to bind others where God has not ...
Just a thought. Out of the millions of words that can be employed to "edify" another person what kind of mind thinks "Can we use S#!t to edify someone?" and "Why not hold a conference, make people pay money and we talk about whether we can use S#!t to edify people."
Tha's just sad.
I am appalled that Paul Tripp would even use this kind of language, especially after his conference on the "War of Words"...the s word is offensive, no matter how it is used. I think he is maybe overthinking this whole vocabulary thing.
At the same time, I find the the blogger's comments about Mr. Tripp...specifically this one "he giggles like a red-faced school girl" to be offensive too. I think we need to be careful when we are trying to critique a brother or sister in Christ. If we want to rebuke Tripp then thats good...I hope he realizes that its wrong to speak that way and makes a public apology for it. But lets not all jump on the bandwagon to gang up on him either. If you think about it...a comment like "he giggles like a red-faced schoolgirl" is intended to be disrespectful to Mr. Tripp. God is no respecter of people...Tripp will answer to God for his words, just as we all will for the things that we pass on to other people through our speech. I dont get the point of this blog at all. Lets go to Tripp in love with our concerns rather than sit around and talk about how wrong he is.
Just my two cents as a passerby.
Steve,
Thanks for the interesting post.
I believe the most proper response to such a disappointment (to some) or encouragement (to some) is to pray for Paul Tripp and the other shepherds (Ephesians 6:18).
Keep the faith,
Paul L.
This is a prime example of people reading their own culture into Scripture. Scripture never tells us what words are wrong, or even that certain words ARE wrong. Instead it says that we should use language that will build each other up and encourage one another. While you may not want to hear the word sh*t, or any other words that would be considered "wrong" in our culture, others would not hold the offence you do.
This is also a prime example of the kind of "Christian" behavior I have to apologize for over and over again. We want to impose our made up standard (NOT GOD'S STANDARD) on the rest of the world and this is so often the cause of their misunderstanding of our God - because we ourselves misunderstand our God.
Let's try to take care of the planks in our eyes before we start gouging out Paul Tripp's. Did you even listen to what he was saying or could you not hear over your own offensive? It's so easy to judge other's when you haven't taken a good look at yourself.
Help us, Jesus!
For more on Mark Driscoll and Phil Johnson, see:
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
Part IX
Most of you are missing the point, because you cannot see past the typical evangelical cloud - why look to the intent? Because there is not a single thing you say or do that does not originate from your heart. I feel certain that Jesus talked quite sufficiently on the fact that God is not solely concerned with what we do but just as much WHY we do it.
It is not as simple as "don't say bad words". That is naive and unfortunately what too many people have thought for far too long. Scripture says do not let anything unwholesome come out of your mouth, not "don't say bad words". Unwholesome means a myriad of things - not just swear words. If we are so quick to discount a deeper understanding of what we say and why we say it, then we are failing miserably. Someone please tell me what it means to be Christ like? What does it mean to be in relationship with God? Because if what goes on in our hearts is of concern to our heavenly Father should it not be a concern to us?
Much of this post, written to condemn Paul Tripp's book/video/views/theology/whatever,is written in a mean-spirited, sarcastic, and mocking way. That is unwholesome, as far as I can tell.
James 3:8-10
...but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
A last word here...Alice said, " Again, less about feelings and what everyone's intention is, and more just straight obeying Scripture." This is impossible - why did God send his Son? Because we can't just straight obey the Scripture! Because of sin, our hearts are far from God, and even once we are saved sin is a very real struggle. We MUST be concerned with our intentions and not simply our actions, because seemingly good actions can come from sinful hearts. I will give a very simple example. My son loves to help his sister play video games. He offers his assistance every chance he gets, an action that appears loving on the outside. But we have learned that he doesn't really care about helping her - he wants more time to play! His heart is wrongly motivated but his action is seemingly loving. It is simple and yet complex. It is that way for us all.
Just from this 5 minute video, I can't really say much against Tripp's conclusions. I've tried to avoid coarse, profane speech in my daily life no matter the "intention", however I do understand the distinction Tripp is attempting, since I've been to some churches where "gosh", "golly" and other such words are viewed as wrong as sh**. HOWEVER, what Tripp is saying (at least in this video) and what I've see Driscoll do with profanity is two different things. Driscoll simply likes to shock.
I am left wondering how this post (and the associated comments) brings glory to the Lord?
Matthew 7:3 Just sayin'...
God chose David. Are you going to judge God on that choice as well? You know, David the murderer and adulterer...
-DJG
Wow. I'm shocked at how many people are in support of the author of this blog. Folks, the issue here is not dirty words. It's an issue of the heart. If I say crap out of anger that is no different in God's eyes than I giant F bomb. Yes, our words should eddify, that IS Tripp's point here.
God isn't less disappointed in you for saying replacement words for what you call "filth". The issue at hand is a sinful heart, not the words themselves that exit. Saying dang is no different than the other word. It just seems that way.
I live in Australia and am an evangelical conservative (if I must "box" myself!) Christian, though I have friends who attend a range of churches, not just ones like mine.
I've been a little confused and discouraged by reading this bog post and the ensuing arguments. Maybe I don't know enough about the church culture in the US...
It seems, after reading all this, that there are different "types" of Christians in in US... As there are in Australia, mind you! Here, there is some division between conservative evangelicals (who focus on Biblical exegesis, are considered culturally "backward" by many for holding true to the tough, "outdated" teachings in Scripture), Liberals (who are great at social justice but deny some of the basic truths of the gospel eg that Jesus rose from the dead) and Pentecostals (who emphasise experience and the Holy Spirit and exuberant worship but sometimes preach from the Bible out of context, in an attempt to make it culturally relevant.)
In reading this blog post about Paul Tripp (and John Piper and Driscoll) it has struck me that tensions were already high regarding the ministries and messages preached by "people like them".
It has also struck me that emotions run high when discussing Paul Tripp's video on the use of language.
I suppose I'm most surprised because I have found his teaching to be very conservative, gospel-focused and Biblically sound. His videos on marriage and parenting have really helped my husband and I "get to the heart" of how we approach life.
One aspect of Paul Tripp's style that struck me was this: He seemingly deliberately veers away from giving clear cut instructions or "rules" or guidelines to follow. Instead, he focuses on the principles found in the Bible and let's us work out how to apply those principals in our lives, according to our own context.
I have appreciated this aspect of Tripp's teaching style as it has always left me thinking about Bible verses and how to apply them in my own marriage and family, rather than giving me a list of dos and don'ts to follow.
So when I watched the video with him using the S word to illustrate a point, I was a little surprised to hear him use it, yes, as I don't swear and neither does my husband or any Christians I know. And our ministers / pastors never use this type of language either!!
But as I kept listening to his whole anecdote, I got the hang of what he was saying. As a parent of a preschooler and a baby I haven't yet encountered such tough questions from my children. My son asks Why? all the time but not about things like "Why are some words bad and others ok?"!!
I think there are two ways you could approach answering this child's question about "bad words": you could say something along these lines: Some words are bad and they're called swear words, and you know which ones not to say because they're the ones Mum and Dad don't use, or because Jesus wouldn't have used them, or the Bible says to keep unwholesome talk from your mouth.
But why are the words bad? They're offensive. Why? It wouldn't answer the question. Paul decided to go for a different approach: looking at what the Bible does say about our words: we should use them to edify others. So he was taking the focus off the words themselves and making them think more deeply about what their words are communicating. I think he laughed after telling his story about each of his three kids using the S word NOT because he thought it was cool, but because his kids had missed his point!!! They'd taken his "qualified permission" to use "bad words" at face value and not even thought about what he actually said. I bet his kids don't swear now, and not just "because it's bad" and they want to "be good." I'm guessing his grown up kids, if they actually heeded his teaching, would be people who think not so much about "right and wrong" or "good and bad" but about "glorifying God or not?" And "edifying others or not". This seems less legalistic and less works-oriented to me.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear some thoughtful insights into Christian culture in America. What I can hear loud and clear is that the use of the as word, even though it was just for illustration, was really unhelpful for many American Christians to hear. (It didn't grate on me much at all, but not because I'm not a mature Christian, I think it's maybe because swearing may be less of a heated issue to Christians in Australia???)
And I'd like to encourage those of you who were offended by Tripp's illustrative use of language to follow Jesus' and Paul's instructions on how to deal with a brother who offends you.
Let's not be so wrapped up in being "right", or defending what is right and true, that we forget to confront one another directly, in truth AND love, with gentleness and respect.
It felt a little bit like I was reading a sibling squabble or dispute. Surely we can be outspoken for the Gospel, and surely we should and must defend the Gospel message of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. But why must we fight amongst ourselves?
If someone could fill me in on any cultural context that I'm missing out on, it would be great.
Some passages on divisions in the church during New Testament times come to mind:
1 Cor chapters 8-10 re different Christians' responses on whether or not to eat food sacrificed to idols (a peripheral issue, not a make-or-break Gospel issue)
1 Cor 3 re which men of God we follow
Acts chapter 15 where Peter and Paul have to sit down and talk out a disagreement
Oh, I can't find it but it's also in Corinthians and it's where Paul is talking about false apostles. His conclusion at the end is along the lines of, Well if they're preaching Christ, that's a good thing (even if it's for dishonest gain.)
So I suppose I'm trying to say: please let's stop bickering amongst ourselves!!! Let's spend our energy proclaiming the gospel of our Lord. Let's defend the core truths of Jesus' death for our justification and his resurrection that brings us into eternal life and a new relationship with God.
Jesus himself said the world would know we are his disciples if we love one a other (as Christians) and that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Let's fight the good fight and learn to distinguish what is a peripheral issue and what is a core.
Do these guys (Tripp et al) preach the gospel? Do they preach Jesus Christ crucified for our sins and raised to life for our justification?
Well, if they do, regardless of their style, why do we fellow Christians seek to cut them down? I really don't get it.
I have been deified by Tripp and Piper's teaching. It has drawn me closer to God and deepened my understanding of the Bible and continually refocused me on the Gospel. I'm just trying to tell the truth in love. Please don't think I'm trying to be contentious or a smarty pants or rude or obnoxious. I'm genuinely concerned and baffled by the heated divisions and it really sounds like legalism and self-righteousness - the "old religion" of the law rather than the new way of the Gospel of grace.
But as I said I'm looking in from a different culture. So any explanations or insights I'm missing would be welcomed. Maybe some of you need to write to Paul Tripp with gentleness and respect and explain to him why his words offended you. See how he responds. Think first about whether or not he is a brother in Christ. Is he preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let's not nit pick and fault find. He's a person, a brother in Christ. Fallible as you and I are and needing God's daily forgiveness and grace like the rest of us. I'd love to hear how he responds to a heartfelt, kind, humble expression of how you've been hurt. Perhaps he'll decide in future that using a word like the S word, even when it's just to illustrate a point, is unedifying and unhelpful, and perhaps he won't do it again in future, considering how it affected his fellow brothers and sisters. You never know!
* deified should be edified. Silly autocorrect!!!
Stock Homes Institute Best Stock Market Training Institute In Indore.Join To Get Affordable Courses & Get NISM Certification Diploma
Best Seo Company in Lahore
Best Seo Company in Lahore
Dedicated Remote Resource Provider
Best seo company in lahore
Best seo company in lahore
Best seo company in lahore
Best seo company in lahore
Sugoi dekai meaning
sugoi dekai meaning US Sugoi Dekai is a Japanese saying or phrase that means “Very much so”. The phrase "Sugoi Dekai" contains two words' Sugoi '&' Dekai'.Sugoi means great, strong, great, wonderful, wonderful, and wonderful. Also, Dekai means great, great and great sugoi dekai meaning.
Post a Comment