I actually attend Mars Hill church in Seattle. You don't really know what you're talking about. Perhaps you listened to Mark's sermons to hear the "bad" words, not to hear his message. That's kind of like reading through the Bible and searching for passages to support your point. You take him out of context. In the 6 months I've been going to Mars Hill I have heard him say the word "crap" once. And nothing worse. Mark wants only for us to love Jesus, love each other and spread the good news. Maybe he can be a bit crude, as you say, (I have never heard it myself), but his message and the love he imparts, far out weigh some unwise word choices.

I must kindly disagree with this article on this guy. This guy aparantly knows very little about the world and hasn't come from it. and if he did, he definitely wasn't "cool" or "hip" so i probably would have never spoken to him anyway. Just kidding.

His use of some of the terminology, blatant finger pointing, and use of what I like to call "secluded scripture used to accuse" was a real turn off and showed me that, the same as Driscoll, he is a flawed man who needs the love of Jesus in his life. (just like the rest of us).

when, oh when, will Christians stop the finger pointing in order to make themselves look more righteous?

When, oh when, will someone in the media in the United States actually write an article that is not biased? or at least states both sides to a story with out it being so obvious that he can't stand the way this guy does ministry.

I'm very very sorry that this is what the world sees in us...

"Grunge Christianity." It seems that John MacArthur truly is NOT "hip" or "cool" since the term "grunge" is only used by people over 50 to describe a certain generation.

Views like MacArhtur's would force one to become a conservative WASP in a suit and tie before they could be considered Christian.

I find it frustrating and ignorant when "pop theologians" like MacArthur fit "worldliness" and "holiness" into a box that basically means you must walk, talk and act like we do. It's a form of legalism that was prevalent in Paul's time and very much one that we face today. The language that MacArthur finds "vulgar" is often NOT seen as vulgar by a different generation. Some of the terms that _my_ generation heard growing up might sound offensive to the over 60 crowd but are a regular part of the language. I see Driscoll as using language to which his crowd is familiar.

MacArthur should also know that even the Apostle Paul used "bad" language.

What is it that is going to effect the next generation for Christ? 100 years ago, there wasnt rap music, so why did they believe? 1000 years ago, there were four letter words like we have today (atleast they werent cool), why did they serve Jesus as Lord?

The answer to teaching people about Christ, is not in cursing, or music, or even grand speeches. The keep to bring God to the nations is His message, His Son, His blood, His salvation.

The gospel, in 2000 years, had not lost its power. Jesus is still King, and still in charge. We have but to follow Him to bring others to His feet.

I pray that people do not follow culture, because culture will die. I pray they do not follow trends, because trends will fade. Fashion will go out of style, and what is cool will change. What will never change is our Lord.

What I think is awesome is that we have time to discuss this amongst ourselves. Mark Driscoll is instrumental in the salvation of a segment of the population that is otherwise entirely untouched by the Church, but we want to give him a hard time about his methods despite he fact that we couldn't possibly do better if we tried. All this proves to me is that the American Church needs a good solid dose of real persecution to help us get our people back on the same side and our priorities straight.

But that's just my opinion, and being a "grunge christian," I'm willing to live with multiple worldviews that don't necessarily include my narrow understanding of the world.

I wonder how many people who commented on this article have actually listened to Mark Driscoll's sermons?(or if John Macarthur listened to more then two) Because after I read this article about a week ago I went on to Mars Hill's website and in the last week I have listened to about 10 sermons(praise God for I-Pods)from Mark driscoll and in everyone of the sermons he is calling the people to repentance,Telling them that God hates sin and is explaining to them(Seattlites)the hard truth of what the Bible says about Homosexuality,sex before marrage,pornography,man as the head of the home, Which in Seattle(one of the most unchurched & liberal cities in America)takes a lot more boldness then in the Bible belt. And if you read his book(which I also did this week)he says that he made mistakes early on and gives examples of those mistakes,unfortanatly those are the examples most of his critics use as if that is what he does now which is very unhonest and misleading.Repent!
Jonathon Seaborn

There was a question as to where Paul used the phrase "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

Well, I think the person is correct in the literal since of things. Paul did not use the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" He used the phrase "Kingdom of God" but not with the word repent together with it. He talks many time about who would not inherit the kingdom of God.

Mt 3:2 - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Mt 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Matthew used the term "kingdom of heaven". I think he exclusively used this term.

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?section=8&sr=1&translation=esv&query=%22kingdom%20of%20heaven%22&st=21&l=en

Mark used the phrase "Kingdom of God"

Mr. 1:15 - and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Im not so much discussing the article, as I am the feedback that was left from watchman_Hab2:2. In his feedback about the article, he stated towards the end that Paul preached "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." I would like to know where in the bible Paul says Repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Paul was an apostle to the gentiles, under a new dispensation, the one of grace; which had been hid in God since before the world began. The body of christ will not experience the kingdom of heaven on earth because the body of christ will be taken in the rapture before the tribulation. I understand the word "rapture" is also nowhere in the bible, but it is a Latin word meaning "caught up" as paul explains. Also, during Jesus's ministry and sometime thereafter, it wasnt just repent, but repent and be baptized. Once again, Paul says Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. The difference; we're living in the dispensation of grace. II Tim: 2:15

I heard a good illustration from a respected Christian leader who compared reaching this generation to a box of wheaties. He asked the question of the audience "name me someone whose picture was on a box of wheaties in the 60's; and then he proceeded to get answers for the 70's, 80's, and 90,s. Then he asked, "Now tell me what was inside the box in all 4 generations?" The answer: Wheaties. I agree that we can sometimes change the presentation but we must never change the content of the message. Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. I agree with Pastor McArthur, we are compromising our message by acting too much like the culture. The apostle Paul may have spoken the language of the culture he was trying to reach and he may have used relevant illustrations such as he did on Mars Hill but His message remained the same. Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. We are to be a prophet to our culture not a product of it.
Rev David Whitaker, Jenkins Kentucky

I fully agree with MacArthur on this topic. God's spirit seeks to sanctify our whole being. Many scripture passages speak of the connection between the tongue and the heart. If what is coming out of our mouth is foul, then either God is still in the process of sanctifying our heart, OR we are just plain disobedient. Scripture tells us to be holy as God is holy. I'm not so sure we need to be so concerned about wrapping the gospel in all kinds of culturally relevant media and forms. God is surely sufficient to draw new comers to Himself. The question becomes are we sharing the gospel or sharing the culture -- what are people seeing and hearing when them look at Christianity today? Are they seeing the kingdom of God, the kingdom of the world, the kingdom of God impacted by cultural forms? Let's remember that unless the message takes root in good soil...it won't produce fruit. It's time to call for sanctification of our whole being. Let's repent for the Kingdom's sake.

Being a Pastor I would never bring anything such as cussing to the Pulpit, one of the biggest ways to get people to transform their lives for Christ is to show them that we(Christians) are different and not to belike the sinful world, if we are like the world why would someone want to change. Is the change just to get rid of the junk in their lives...is that the only message we are to give, because salvation is more then just giving God our junk. It is growning in Him and serving him. It's good to let people know we are real, but to change so dramaticaly to allow cussing in the pulpit, I would have to raise ?'s about motive, and warn of apostasy being infected into the church.
Are we also so unfaithful to God, to think that we have to change how the gospel is presented, that He will not move in His own power. We don't have the power to change people, that's God's work. This to me also could just be another attempt at "look at my big church" as churches compete with other churches.

Cussing and vulgarity is one thing, but dressing and speaking in a way that your listeners will comprehend is totally different. I don't believe that profanity in any form is how any person who calls themselves Christ-like should act, but I do believe that it's very important to reach people in every way possible within scriptural guidelines. Take John the baptist for instance. He was the son of a priest and yet you didn't find him in the temple preaching and dressing how all the other priests of the time taught and dressed. You found him out among the people wearing camel skin clothes and eating locusts and wild honey!! He didnt go to the many pools at and around the temple to baptise like all the other priests were doing. He baptised them in the Jordan! And even Jesus himself adopted ways of teaching people that would mean something to that specific crowd. He used symblosism from actors, farmers...you name it. And lets not forget that Jesus himself was and IS a friend of sinners!