The Cussin’ Preacher

mark-driscollI had  a whole other topic in mind for today, but I’ll save it for tomorrow since it might irritate Mrs. Blue and Miz Pink anyway, and I don’t need that.

Instead, I’m going to follow a lead kindly provided by Big Man of Raving Black Lunatic (if you haven’t ever done so, visit him…NOW…he has good shit to read on his blog…OK, visit him AFTER you read this post then…).

Here’s the link (it’s an article from the New York Times Magazine, and it’s longish, but it’s entertaining, interesting and worth the time to read, trust me): www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?em Mrs. Blue had also hipped me to this story, but she neglected to send me a link, so Big Man gets the credit.

Anyway, the article is about Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church, a Seattle-based preacher that has earned the enmity of both conservative Christians and liberals, and is known as the “cussing pastor.”

Look, I can’t do justice to this guy’s personality and the controversy around him in this post. You have to read the article (and you should probably check out Mark Driscoll’s blog sometime, too, though it isn’t nearly as interesting or fiery as his sermons). But suffice to say he’s attracted quite the following of alternative types in Seattle that don’t thrive in the traditional church environment. He preaches on topics like “Biblical Oral Sex” and “Pleasuring Your Spouse.” Right there, you have to know I’m going to have some kind of soft spot for the guy.

Which isn’t to say he doesn’t scare me a little too, because he does, but more on that later.

First, I want to say that his rougher and more raw approach to preaching, along with his assertion that Jesus was far from some weepy wimp, are things that I wholeheartedly support myself. And it’s a slowly growing trend. I mean, how many people in Generation X, much less Generation Y, really want to go to the traditional church services filled with old-ass hymns? Some, sure, but most, not.

Even when pastors don’t go for the foul-mouthed, snarky approach like, for example, that I use here, there are still signs that more and more, especially younger ones, are embracing change.

Sometimes, that’s as simple as updating the music to include more modern things like rock and R&B or even jazz and punk. Sometimes it means making sermons more adult or more relevant, instead of ephemeral and, well, “preachy.”

I believe in holding to the Word of God and preaching the Bible. That said, there are always areas where interpretation is fluid and where things can (and sometimes should) be adjusted for modern realities. In other words, the practice of churchgoing, and of preaching, needs to adapt. Let’s face it: Our grandparents’ and great-granparents’ churches, no matter how “traditional” we think them to be, were not the same as the churches of the 17th century. Nor where those churches anything like the early church shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. Change is both necessary and inevitable.

I am not always proud of the language I use here. And sometimes I wonder if my subject matter is appropriate. But at the same time, I started this blog under prayer, and by the calling of the Holy Spirit, and if God wants me to stop doing this, I fully expect (and hope) that He will make that clear. Until then, I will assume that I fill a necessary niche for both believers and non-believers and possibly-yet-to-become-believers. In the same vein, Mark Driscoll fills a necessary place.

But, as I said, he does scare me a bit on some points. So here’s my take on the guy. After all, I have skewered Joel Osteen, the smiling pastor, several times for his Word of Faith based tomfoolery. Just because Pastor Driscoll cusses doesn’t mean I’m going to give him a pass.

The Swearing and the Racy Topics. Hell, I’m in favor. It’s who he is, and he draws a strong following for it. In other words, there is an audience for his style and message. I will not side with the Christian mouthpieces, pundits and leaders who say he’s wrong for using harsh language or being rough around the edges. It takes all types of preaching to get the gospel out there.

The Casual Dress. This is a guy who will often preach in a T-shirt. I’m cool with that, too. I don’t think that we have to put on dresses and suits to honor God. We honor Him with our praise, our love, our faith and sometimes our actions. We came into this world naked and we leave behind molding, decaying corpses. Some of us are ugly and some of us are good looking. God is far less concerned with our outward appearance than we like to think He is.

His Support of Traditonal Gender Roles. OK, I’m iffy on this. I do believe that the husband/father is the spiritual head of household. But I think we need to tread carefully about the whole “submitting to the husband” thing. Marriage is a partnership. When something impacts on the spiritual well-being of the family, the man should get the final say unless he’s a spiritually clueless idiot. On other matters day to day, I don’t think it’s just “Do what the man says.” Driscoll strikes me as leaning toward the idea that women should ultimately do what they’re told by their men, and that’s a dangerous road. If I get him correctly, he doesn’t believe women can preach. I believe that is wrong and I think they should indeed preach. I’m still somewhat on the fence about the women as pastor issue, but am not opposed to it completely.

His Assertion That Jesus Was Macho. Hell yes! Jesus was tough physically and emotionally and he could sometimes be tough on people. He could be sarcastic. However, Driscoll likes to throw around comments about how most of us have “feminized” the church and turned Jesus into some limp-wristed hippy type. These kinds of comments make me think Pastor Driscoll is a raging homophobe perhaps. I’m not against preaching homosexual sex as a sin, but I am highly and vociferously against homophobia. Some of my best friends (truly) have been and continue to be homosexual, and very few of them are “limp wristed.”

His Neo-Calivinist Doctrine. Aw, damn! Hold the motherfucking presses! Calvinism! Shit, Calvinism? I shouldn’t be surprised, because I see hints of this among many of the more conservative Protestants, even those who don’t outright preach Calvinist thought. But John Calvin was responsible for some people being burned at the stake for disagreeing with him, so he’s not someone I want to uplift in name or in doctrine. Also, I have a big beef with Calvinist thought on the whole idea of predestination. The idea is that God has already decided in advance who’s going to Heaven and who’s going to Hell, and he picked a pretty small number to go to Heaven.

I have several problems with this.

First, why would God simply want to be a puppetmaster? This flies in the face of creating humans “in His own image.” Free will is an intrinsic part of being human. If God simply wanted more servants, He could have simply have never created Adam and never created the split with Lucifer and had a bunch of lovely obedient angels and no war in Heaven. To think that God has mapped out our end in advance, and we have no part in how we turn out, doesn’t make a lick of fucking sense.

Second, how could our Father in Heaven wish that no one would go to Hell if possible, as Jesus told us, if He’s already decided to personally mark people in advance to go there? Salvation seems meaningless to me if it’s being handed out willy-nilly. If that’s the case, Jesus made no sacrifice for us at all, because it wasn’t for all of us and it was already mapped out. In my mind, Jesus had free will not to die on that cross, and I think he would have gone to Heaven, being sinless. The rest of us would have been screwed though.

Finally, why preach the gospel if our eternal fates are preordained? Jesus calls upon us to spread the good news, but if it’s not for everyone, how good is it? And if God has already decided who’s going to Heaven, why preach about Jesus? After all, we have no influence, we don’t really choose God (He chooses who will choose Him), and there is no choice. So knowing about the Gospel would be pointless, and teaching others more pointless still. Again, I call bullshit on this.

So, while I like Driscoll’s general approach, I think he’s preaching some dangerous dogma, and I cannot support him personally on a doctrinal level. But if he can bring some souls to Christ, fantastic. As much as I also don’t like Joel Osteen on the other end of the spectrum, I won’t totally and completely argue with his approach nor dismiss it entirely out of hand if it saves some souls.

I will argue, though, with teaching things that put people on a bad path in life. And both Driscoll and Osteen are guilty on that in my opinion.


8 Responses to “The Cussin’ Preacher”

  1. 1 societyvs
    January 14, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    I got one problem with Driscoll – and its enough of a problem for me to know he needs to step down form his platform…he cannot tolerate others ‘questioning’ – him or his church. Every other question for him starts right there.

    This is a person that ostracized 2 people in his congregation because they refused to follow his personal agenda – so he removed them. What was his basis? They questioned him – and that was a ‘sinful’ thing to do. If this is so – then Driscoll needs to take a serious look at his humility and actions towards others – because he seems to be losing a semi-grip on reality. He is becoming a fuhrer.

    Now I don’t care what he says – although I am sure I don’t like it already from his actions – but he is in need of serious atonement for his actions towards those 2 people. I am merely trying to put myself in the shoes of the people ‘shunned’ – and I feel very sorry for them. I don’t feel sorry for Driscoll – he is in the wrong on that.

    Why is it when some Christian pastor gets some acclimation – we find they treat people with some serious question marks? I go the answer. Love God – love your neighbor second – right…this puts the focus on doing right by God and not by our treatment of others – so a Pastor can pretty much get away with anything – just say ‘God told me’.

  2. 2 Deacon Blue
    January 14, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    I’m totally in agreement with you, SocietyVs, and I’m glad that you brought that up, since it was a point I failed to cover and probably should have.

    Dealing so harshly with dissent isn’t at all right. I’ve seen it first hand in a small church my wife and I liked at first but that is almost cultish now and fiercely into the Word of Faith. In some ways, the pastor was like Driscoll…personable in many ways, charismatic, casual, liked rock music, was into coffee (no profanity though)…and he kicked out a couple people who questioned him on shaky doctrine.

    So, in no way do I lift up Driscoll as a model. I would probably put him on par in my esteem with Joel Osteen, whom I think has gone far astray, just in a very, very different fashion.

    Thanks, man, you’ve rounded out my post where I missed a spot.

  3. January 14, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    I wasn’t nearly as bothered by this dude until I got to the part in the article about Calvinism. That changed my whole outlook on his ministry.

    Teh whole think sounds like some random cult. Seriously, the Calvinism approach appeals to all the cult instinct:

    1. Your special
    2. Other people are not
    3. Only “we” understand what’s really going on
    4. Only “we” will be properly rewarded.

    Every cult has these four practices at its core, without fail. Now, most religions have aspects of these things as well, but in cults they are pushed well into the forefront. The focus in more on what makes us so special as opposed to how do we welcome other people and save them from doom.

  4. 4 Deacon Blue
    January 14, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    As much as I cringe at the Word of Faith movement, I think Calvinism may irk me more. As I see its tenets crop up more and more these days, it really sticks in my craw because I just don’t see how anyone can reconcile Calvinism with at least 80% of the New Testament.

    So, I may have to do a new Shit List soon and put New Calvinism right at number one.

  5. 5 thewordofme
    January 15, 2009 at 12:42 am

    Hi Deacon Blue. I hope you are well.

    You write:
    “First, why would God simply want to be a puppetmaster? This flies in the face of creating humans “in His own image.” Free will is an intrinsic part of being human. If God simply wanted more servants, He could have simply have never created Adam andand had a bunch of lovely obedient angels and no war in Heaven. To think that God has mapped out our end in advance, and we have no part in how we turn out, doesn’t make a lick of fucking sense.”

    There are many verses in the Bible that support both Free Will and Predestination. Which ones should a Christian person believe? I am continually baffled by so many diametrically opposed subjects having supporting scripture.

    Split out from above”
    “never created the split with Lucifer”

    So is it your (or your churches exegesis) that God created the drama we are supposedly playing out, by setting up Satan for this role? Somehow my idea of a loving God, or just a ‘good God’ does not envision his scripting a drama like this. Surely God would not play with his creations(us)in the manner that we have seen.

    I don’t presume that I could ever know the mind of a God…but, one thing I can know is that logic is logic no matter who is using it…Man, God, or Little Green Men(LGM’s) with buggy eyes. If “God” has let this play go on for laughs, or He set it up so that our history would unfold as it certainly has…this is not a loving God no matter what you say.

    If it is an unexpected result of his messing around with humanity…this is even more serious because He obviously is uncaring for letting all the crap happen to us through all the years in our history…and most importantly, He cannot predict, or doesn’t know what He is doing.

    So for me, if you follow the theology that most Christians and Muslims and Jews believe…you are not using and not attributing logic to the God you envision.

    Just my opinion mind you. 🙂

  6. 6 Deacon Blue
    January 15, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Well, I’m not expecting everything to be a puzzle-tight set of logical connections mind you. Life is messy that way.

    But I can’t criticize God for having created a situation in which there could be potential conflict. If the only choice is God, then what alternative do we have. How can we choose him with love and choose him willingly if there is no polar opposite to his path? And I don’t think the events of the world and our pain amuse him. Remember, events in a lifetime on Earth compared to the implications of eternity would be a tiny fraction by comparison.

    I don’t pretend to be able to understand God. I wouldn’t try to presume that I know better than Him. But at the same time, I would expect that if God has made convenant with humans that there is a point of connection and an ability to have some understanding and a likelihood that things aren’t going to be completely random and without a long-term plan.

    As for presdestination vs. free will, I think people overstate predestination too much. I don’t think it means God has mapped out our future. I think it’s entirely possible He knows what will happen, but that isn’t the same as causing it to happen. And yes, there is fiddling in the events of the world on some level and at certain points, but I wouldn’t want or expect God to fix everything with a wave, because that absolves us of our responsibilities and is an enabling kind of thing that would only encourage us not to care what we do becuase God will simply fix it.

    But I know you come from the non-theism position, so I’m not trying to convince you but only point out my own thought processes here.

  7. January 15, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    You know I agree with your explanation of free will and predestination.
    And I apologize for all the ridiculous typos in my earlier comment. I must have been having a brain freeze.

    Anyway, can you explain the Word of Faith doctrine?

  8. 8 Deacon Blue
    January 15, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    First off, I expect typos in comments. What blogger or reader of multiple blogs has time to properly edit their comments? I know I rarely do. 😉

    “Word of Faith” movement is pretty much the same as “Name It And Claim It.” If you have proper level of faith and you pray and don’t doubt, what you want will come to you. If you don’t get what you want (e.g. you remain broke, you get sick, people treat you bad, etc.) it’s all because you didn’t have enough faith. Joel Osteen (whom I often criticize) isn’t full-on, hard-core Word of Faith, but he’s close enough to bother me…plus he veers to much toward pop-psych oriented positive thinking stuff and doesn’t spend enough time on God’s word or talking about Jesus IMHO.

Comments are currently closed.

Deacon Blue is the blogging persona of editor and writer Jeffrey Bouley. The opinions of Jeff himself on this blog, and those expressed as Deacon Blue, in NO WAY should be construed as the opinions of anyone with whom he has worked, currently works, or will work with in the future. They are personal opinions and views, and are sometimes, frankly, expressed in more outrageous terms than I truly feel most days.

Jeff Bouley


Jeff Bouley

To find out more about me professionally, click here. To find out more about me generally, click here.



You can reach Deacon Blue/Jeff Bouley at deaconbluemail@gmail.com.



For my public profile, click here.


Tales of the Whethermen

My superhero fiction blog, click here


Raising the Goddess

My parenting blog, click here

Copyright Info and Images

For more about images used on this site, and copyrights regarding them, as well as usage/copyright information about my own writing as posted here, click here.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 833 other subscribers
January 2009

%d bloggers like this: