Mark Driscoll's defense centers on his retention of Reformed soteriology despite Mars Hill's 2014 separation, arguing his resignation followed a rejected two-year restorative plan rather than biblical disqualification. The host counters claims of embezzlement regarding his $10,000 book purchase as strategic business moves and dismisses "mean" reputations as insufficient grounds for removal under 1 Timothy 3. While debating minimal church requirements and Nephilim theories, the segment concludes that Driscoll's orthodoxy and charismatic gifts remain valid, suggesting counter-signaling against him is unwise given current spiritual leadership options. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Why We Ask for Reviews00:14:25
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform.
I get it.
It's annoying.
Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.
You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
Pastor Mark Driscoll.
That's what we're going to be talking about today.
The reason why this is kind of coming back into.
The Twitterverse, at least one neck of the woods of the Twitterverse, namely the Reformed ghetto, it really is a ghetto, the Reformed deep state, if you will, is because Pastor Mark Driscoll has been on the conference circuit for a while, for multiple years.
But a lot of the different platforms and conferences that he's spoken at in recent years, since the imploding of Mars Hill and his past vocation and pastorship there, a lot of these conferences since then have been distinctly outside of the Reformed Protestant.
World.
And so you have your typical Reformed guys who, even though Mark Driscoll hasn't been doing anything near Reformed guys, they still just every single day have to put out, you know, a negative tweet about Mark Driscoll as a part of their Reformed penance, I guess, you know.
Maybe even two tweets since John MacArthur died, you know, just to honor John MacArthur.
John MacArthur, he loved Christ.
He really did.
He was a good man.
He also loved Israel.
Not so much a fan of that.
And he hated Mark Driscoll.
Those are like three things, you know, three hallmarks of John MacArthur love Jesus.
Loved Israel, hated Mark Driscoll.
So, you know, so there's been within the Reformed world, you know, regular tweets, this, you know, steady trickle every day.
Hey, Jesus is Savior, Reformed soteriology, and Mark Driscoll is terrible.
That's just kind of what you can expect from some guys, not everyone, but some guys in the Reformed world.
But the last few days or so, there's been an uptick within the Reformed ghetto, the Reformed deep state of guys, you know, reminding everyone of what happened now at this point, I guess, 11 years ago.
It was 2014, of, you know, Driscoll.
Um, resigning at Mars Hill, the church that he pastored in Seattle, and being kicked out of Acts 29, which was a church planting network that still is alive.
I can't say alive and well, but you know, barely alive today.
Uh, that he founded.
Uh, well, he founded it with another guy who helped him.
Um, but uh, but he was removed from that institution.
And so it's been 11 years at this point.
And so it's like, why is there an uptick of reformed guys, you know, reminding everyone, you know, re litigating the history of what happened 11 years ago with Mark Driscoll?
Well, it's because.
Although he's been on the conference circuit already, as I already established, a lot of those conferences are distinctly outside of the Reformed world.
They're not Reformed conferences, but he has been slated for, I believe, March of next year, the year of our Lord 2026, to speak at a conference.
It's going to be hosted by Clear Truth Media.
And Clear Truth Media is not necessarily like distinctly Reformed, right?
It's not called the Five Points of Calvinism or Tulip Media, but it has a lot of individuals who started the organization, the ministry, Clear Truth Media.
Who are reformed in their soteriology?
They're either reformed Baptist or reformed Presbyterian.
And so, for them to invite Mark Driscoll, a kind of, you know, at least somewhat reformed ministry, holding a somewhat reformed conference and inviting Mark Driscoll, has reinvigorated all the John MacArthurites, you know, who are like, you know, John MacArthur, his body, you know, it's barely even cold.
And the reformed world is inviting back Mark Driscoll.
And so, we're going to chimp out.
So, that's where we are.
That's what, you know, provoked, if you're wondering why now.
Why an episode?
You could have done an episode on Mark Driscoll for the past 11 years.
You could do it, you know, some point during the next 11 years.
Why today?
Well, that's the reason for the timing today.
So I'm going to tell you guys, you know, in this episode through the various segments.
We'll have three segments.
At least one of the segments, we'll just talk about who Mark is and some of the history and what went down with Mars Hill and Acts 29, those kinds of things, and why people, you know, in the reformed world have a problem with him.
And then, you know, first, or maybe we'll wait till the second segment, I'll give you guys a little bit of my story.
I've never met Mark in person.
I'd be happy to.
He seems like a great guy.
I think we'd get along just fine.
We'd probably differ on some things, but I think we would get along just fine.
But I don't know him personally, but I was a pastor in Acts 29, which is, again, an organization that he started.
The irony is that I came into Acts 29 and pretty much, you know, literally walked past Mark Driscoll as he was on his way out.
So the same year that Driscoll was kicked out of Acts 29 was a year that the church that I was pastoring in California that we entered.
Into Acts 29.
So I'll talk a little bit about Acts 29 and the way that Acts 29 spoke about Driscoll, the way that they referenced Driscoll when I was coming in and he had just been removed.
I will say this Acts 29 is exceedingly woke, exceedingly woke.
And it was not woke when Driscoll was there.
So you do the math, right?
So you have Driscoll there and people have all their criticisms.
They would say Acts 29 is immature, or Acts 29 is harsh, or Acts 20.
But I'll tell you what it wasn't it wasn't woke.
Driscoll leaves, and all of a sudden, Acts 29 is doing calls of repentance for white pastors, you know, and their wives to repent for the ways that they've somehow, without even being conscious of it, oppressed black people.
And then also, you start to see, you know, women being more platformed in quasi pastoral ways.
So, an embrace of wokeness, embrace of feminism, all those things, Acts 29 undoubtedly embraced, but coincidentally, not when Driscoll was there, but pretty much immediately afterwards.
So, we'll talk about Acts 29, my experience with that, and how it relates to Driscoll.
And then we'll just kind of give our thoughts in that second and final segment of how we feel about Driscoll.
And I'll just, you know, from the outset, in a general sense, 30,000 foot view, I'll say that I like him.
I don't have a problem with him.
I don't think that Driscoll is like the world's greatest theologian, which I think if he was sitting here, he'd say, yeah, I've never claimed to be that.
But I think he's a phenomenal communicator.
I think that he is actually a very gifted leader.
Whether you like it or not, you can't deny the fact that he has built several organizations successfully.
So, I think he's a good builder.
I think he's a good leader, a phenomenal communicator.
And I do believe that he is a faithful preacher, at least just in a general sense, that he preaches through books of the Bible.
I think he has generally good exegesis.
It may not be exceptionally deep on this point or that point.
And guys are like, well, he abandoned Reformed theology and turned on a dime the moment that he was allegedly running from church discipline.
And that shows that he was never really committed, that he's just an opportunist.
He was just taking advantage the whole time.
We'll talk about that a little bit, but right here from the outset, I can at least give you this.
That's not true.
Mark Driscoll did not abandon Reformed theology once he was on the ropes with the elders from his church in Mars Hill and with Acts 29.
The truth is that Mark Driscoll did not abandon Reformed theology because Mark Driscoll was never Reformed.
And I don't say that as an insult.
I say that because I think that really is fair to his position.
Acts 29, I remember finding it curious that in Acts 29, they would boast of their Calvinistic.
You know, reformed soteriology.
You must be reformed in your soteriology, your view of your doctrine of theology, of salvation, in order to be a part of Acts 29.
But they always had this one exception that I found ironic.
You know, you could be a four point Calvinist instead of five.
And the one point that you could deny was limited atonement.
And I remember even R.C. Sproul would say, you know, back in the day when he was alive, one of his jokes that I thought was true and hilarious because it was true is he would say, you know what we call a four point Calvinist?
An Arminian.
And I'd be like, so true, King.
I agree that, like, four point Calvinist, you're just an Arminian.
You're not a Calvinist.
You're not reformed.
Not even your soteriology, not in any meaningful way.
So Driscoll really did not abandon reformed soteriology.
He only ever held, during even his alleged reformed days, he only had held to a partial reformed soteriology.
And since then, as far as I know, he has not abandoned, in an objective public sense, any of those doctrines.
That the other four points of Calvinism, whether it be irresistible grace or unconditional election.
But what's changed is not so much his theology, but just his emphases.
He's just not going to be the reformed guy.
So he's not using that word.
He's not using the label Calvinism.
He's just preaching through books of the Bible.
And I think he very much feels called towards it.
He said this and he even dresses the part and all these kinds of things.
He's just kind of a blue collar pastor.
That's what he wants to be.
He wants to be an every man's pastor.
Right, and every man's pastor, and so he's not going to use huge theological terms.
Um, he's not going to say, I'm reformed or I'm a Calvinist or go over the you know the five points or this, that, and the other.
He's just going to preach through books of the Bible in an everyday, applicable, relevant way.
But as far as I can tell, um, he does still hold to uh the four of out of the five points of Calvinism and uh has not actually abandoned those, he's just stopped emphasizing them or using the labels.
And um, and he was never a five point Calvinist to begin with.
So, anyways, all that being said.
I don't think that Driscoll was a monster.
I never thought he was a monster.
I think that there may have been some mistakes, and we'll get into some of those in the episode today.
But one way or the other, whether you love him or hate him, or whether you're indifferent, Driscoll has, for a few years now, been making a very clear, undeniable comeback.
And I think there's a reason for that.
And I don't think it's just because he's a grifter or he's an opportunist.
I think it's because he has his fingers on the pulse of something that is significant and vital in America.
I think that he speaks to the every man.
In every man's terms, every man's lingo.
And he does so that shows grit, that shows masculinity, that shows spine, that's applicable, that's relevant.
And I think that he is a force for much good.
And so we're going to provide in this episode a defense of Mark Driscoll.
Tune in now.
All right.
Well, something this generation kind of, if you're younger, a lot of our audience is younger men that you may not have been around for.
I actually, this was a little bit before my time, is that one of the biggest movements in the early 2000s was the New Calvinist movement.
Time magazine in 2009, they ranked New Calvinism as the number third movement changing the world.
It exploded.
And so this is 2009.
Driscoll had just started Mars Hill really in 1996.
So 1996 to 2009, you're talking about 13 years to the growth, huge.
You have satellite campuses.
You have at one point, I think, elders, 50, 60, 70 elders, a huge church with satellite campuses.
And Mark Driscoll did it, let the record state, in Seattle, Washington.
So, this is not the guy who came down to Alabama or came down to Florida and planted a church in the Bible Belt.
He was actually the first successful pastor to plant a church that was stable, that was healthy at the time in the very agnostic, very secular Pacific Northwest.
And so.
Let me pause real quick.
That's part of my theory, my working theory for why things go wrong.
I like this theory a lot.
Yeah.
When I think of Driscoll and I think of Chandler, I think that there is very little difference between the two.
In fact, I think there is some difference, but the difference that actually could be described would be simply Driscoll being better than Chandler in every single way.
So, whatever difference there is between Driscoll and Chandler, the difference would be Chandler's woke and Driscoll's not, right?
It would be things like that.
Right.
But for anybody who says, well, Chandler is fine.
But Driscoll is harsh.
You can watch clips of Chandler and anything like where Driscoll's, how dare you?
Well, you can see the clip where Chandler says, write your name.
If you're going to send an email to the elders of the village church with a complaint, write your name.
Don't do it anonymously so that I can come and grab you.
So for every instance of Driscoll being heavy handed or harsh behind the pulpit, you can find just as many of Chandler.
So then it's like, well, what's the difference?
Well, I think one difference, one key difference.
Is context.
Chandler was in Texas, where there's, you know, there's per capita men who have a higher grip strength, right?
Who have a little bit higher T count, who, you know, see some more sunlight.
Yeah, who see some more sunlight.
And Driscoll was determined.
Now, this is Driscoll's doing.
So, you know, you can maybe chalk this up to some lack of discernment or just not seeing the plan all the way through or whatever.
But Driscoll was insistent of doing what he did in Seattle.
And Seattle is, when I think of least masculine men in the world, I think of Portland.
And then close second would be Seattle.
And I think that that's, and so that's just the culture, political climate, cultural climate.
But then, last piece, real quick, with the context of being in Seattle, economic climate.
So, think about this Driscoll was really big on wives should be able to stay home, be keepers at home.
All right.
Don't rely on a two income household.
Men, you got to work hard, right?
You go to sleep, you go to sleep tired, you wake up, you clock in 10 hour days, 12 hour days, do whatever you have to do.
Now, and then he was also an advocate of being fruitful, which these are all good things.
I agree with these things.
But he's like, so you don't just need to have 1.5 kids.
You know, like, children are a blessing from the Lord, right?
The Irony of the Jezebel Spirit00:15:11
A heritage from the Lord blesses the man whose quiver is full.
So you need to be aiming for multiple children.
The more the merrier.
Wives being keepers at home, keeping the children, taking care of the children, and therefore relying on a single income.
And, but here's the fine print.
And you got to be able to do it in Seattle.
So, Chandler, same kind of values, but you have to be able to do it in Plano, Texas.
I mean, just at the time, and this is, again, this is early 2000s and then 2012, 13, 14, leading up to Driscoll's exit.
At that time, you go back, look at the house prices in Seattle, and then look at the surrounding house prices in Plano, Texas, right?
Look at the grocery prices, look at the gas prices, look at what it costs to live.
So they both have the same standard for men, and as it translates to provision, income, economics.
But Driscoll is saying you got to do that in a place where it costs twice as much.
And so what you're going to have with those men is twice as much exasperation.
Which is actually, and here's the irony and how I feel like I can understand this.
This is my story.
This is precisely one of the chief reasons why I left California.
I left California because as I came more and more into masculine convictions, patriarchal convictions, these kinds of things, I realized that basically every sermon that I was preaching on the Lord's Day, the title of the sermon should have been Five Reasons Why You Should Leave My Church by Virtue of Leaving the State of California.
And so then I realized if I preach these things, which I believe to be true, I'm going to preach my church empty.
Right.
Or I can lead those who are willing to follow out of my church and out of the state and start over.
But Driscoll was unwilling to do that.
And I think the one thing that he really missed, I think one of his biggest mistakes was he was such a high caliber guy, able to work, you know, 15 hour days and all these kinds of things.
And he's sharp.
He's got just a natural instinctual business sense and phenomenal communicator, great leader, great builder.
And so he's like, look, You've got to be able to do it all.
You need to be the superman.
You need to be able to have five kids like I do.
He has five kids.
I have five kids.
So, speaking Driscoll's voice, you need to have five kids like I do.
Your wife stays home, a full time caretaker, not supplementing your income.
So, you're making all the money.
And there's no reason that you shouldn't be at what?
Like, why can't you make, you know, $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 like I do?
And that is a recipe for disaster.
So, I think in that sense, I think that's the big thing that the values and the virtues and the expectations that he was preaching.
I think they were biblical and they were faithful.
But I think that what Driscoll kind of missed is our country is run by a managerial class that hates the common man and has made it virtually impossible, especially for younger generations, to be able to do what Driscoll was able to do in Seattle economically in terms of provision.
And so Driscoll is insistent about saying in Seattle with this missionary mentality, because there's a bunch of leftists in Seattle, there's a bunch of non Christians, and we want to reach the lost with the gospel.
So, we got to be in Seattle with the missionary mentality, but you also have to meet all these biblical masculine standards in Seattle.
And financially, most men couldn't do it.
Most men, if they want to do all these things that are inherently good things, like provide for their family, protect their family, have multiple kids, and make a way for their wives to stay at home and be a caretaker full time, those are good things.
And I think men are called to do it.
But most men will not be able to do it, not because of a lack of virtue or character, but just economically.
Will not be able to do it in a place like Seattle.
And I think that's ultimately, in the end, what crushed him.
He exasperated guys, telling them to do something in a context where it couldn't be done, and they eventually turned against him.
And so that's the context.
This is not a guy who started a church that got a thousand people.
There's tons of guys, not tons, but there's a number of men who started churches that have been successful.
They've written books that have sold a number of copies.
We're talking about the progenitor of an entire movement that really, in many ways, changed a generation.
It changed Seattle very much so while he was there.
Acts 29 was a big movement in its heyday.
It's very much so declined from that now.
But I mean, this is the guy I personally, for example, I've maybe heard three to four Driscoll sermons.
I just, I was probably in my very, very early 20s, if not in my teens, when he was at the height of his preaching.
So, I'm not the guy who sat under Driscoll, but I sat under men who listened to Driscoll.
And so, for a number of you, if you're Protestant, especially if you're Reformed, so much of what you know now, even if it's not entirely Driscoll, maybe there's different elements that you took from other guys that were Reformed.
I mean, this is the guy that spawned an entire movement that in the 2010s was supremely influential.
And that matters.
And we have to remember with getting to his departure, for context, whether you think it was justified or not, this is not a guy who was disqualified because.
He cheated on his wife.
This was not a guy who embezzled funds from the church.
This is not a guy who.
And real quick, we'll get to that one because people say that he did with the whole book thing.
Right.
But we'll get to that one.
But yeah, this is not a guy who ran away with the secretary.
It's not a guy who had an affair.
It's not.
Mark Driscoll was a guy who, I think, you know, he's had a beer.
That's about it.
Yeah.
I don't think he's, like, literally, I. Early 2000s.
He cuts to him.
Correct.
Early 2000s.
But he said that was wrong.
But, like, never smoked a cigarette.
Um, I'm pretty sure, uh, married, uh, you know, Grace is the name of his wife.
Um, I think she was like, uh, was the first or you know, very early on, uh, like one of the first couple girls that he ever dated.
So, this is a guy who didn't really have a moral scandal in his past, which that's what was so peculiar about it because lots of guys, you know, they end up falling because they embezzle money or they have an affair or something like that, right?
But with Driscoll, it was kind of like death by a thousand paper cuts, it was like he was mean.
Okay, well, that's not enough.
But then, if you, you know, over 15 years, get a thousand people to come out and say, he's mean, he's mean, he's mean, he's mean.
Even if none of them can actually prove each instance, it's just, well, but enough people are saying it.
Consensus matters.
It must be true.
Right.
And there's sins that are real sins, but they're not disqualifying.
So it could be an elder, hey, you did this.
And it really is a sin, according to God's standards.
However, it doesn't rise to the level to say, this man is now disqualified from the office.
Because that's what's happening right now a lot of guys are saying, Driscoll is.
Permanently disqualified.
I've seen people arguing that.
So there's permanently.
Right.
There's sin for an elder that's not disqualifying.
There's sin for an elder that is disqualifying.
And then I do believe there's some sin for an elder that's permanently disqualified.
And what guys are arguing is it's this third tier.
And for me, I've yet to see that case produced.
I've yet to see a case produced that's objective enough to even say that he was disqualified, much less permanently disqualified.
That's a heck of a case.
Could I make the argument to you of a 10 part Christianity Today series in which they called it mean, but in 10 episodes in a row?
That was Christianity Today, the rise and fall.
Well, and I'll be honest, it's funny you mention that because ironically, I would say that that actually is the source of, in large part, of Driscoll's comeback.
When Christianity Today, Mike Kosper, one of the gayest men alive, when they produced that series, 10 part series, that basically was just 10 episodes of Mark Driscoll is mean.
When they did that series, And people listened to it, right?
It got a lot of listens.
When they produced that series and people listened to it, a lot of people who did think that Driscoll was harsh listened to that series with a bunch of left-hards with Christianity Today calling him harsh and realized, I don't want to be in the boat with Mike Cosper and Russell Moore.
And they listened to the evidence produced in that series for why Mark Driscoll was objectively sinfully harsh, and not just sinfully harsh, right?
Not just harsh because Jesus was harsh at times, but sinfully harsh, and not just sinfully harsh.
But sinfully harsh to the degree of being disqualified.
And not just that, but sinfully harsh to the degree of being disqualified permanently.
And as people listen to that series, they're like, you did not make that case.
If anything, you have persuaded me now that I actually, you know, I was indifferent to Driscoll, or maybe I even didn't like Driscoll.
And after 10 hours of Christianity Today, one of the most compromising Christian organizations currently in America, telling me that I shouldn't like this guy.
Well, I didn't want to, but now I feel like I have to like this guy.
Yeah.
It was 10 episodes of just based Mark Driscoll clips.
And so that's, I think, for the first segment, that's kind of the encapsulation.
This is a guy who started a huge Protestant, kind of Protestant resurgence.
Certainly it's been called the Reformed Resurgence in Northwest Seattle.
He built Acts 29, he built a couple other organizations.
And in 2014, If you remember, it was Paul David Tripp.
So there's a guy, if you guys aren't familiar with him, the epitome of Mr. Soft Spoken, Mr. Nice, Never Harm a Fly.
It was his testimony, I think, when he came to the church and listened to some of the stories.
He's like, oh, this is a toxic.
He was really, Paul David Tripp was really the nail in the coffin.
I remember for a lot of guys, even, and shamefully, I have to admit, even for myself at the time, 2014, it was like everybody was kind of on the fence, you know, like, like, That the elders of Mars Hill had come out and they had written their statement and these kinds of things.
And guys are like, Yeah, but is he really disqualified?
And what if it's a coup?
What if the elders are just turning against him and they're taking something that may be sinful, but they're exaggerating it and making it disqualifying?
But at that time, today, Paul David Tripp, nobody really takes him seriously.
He's literally an elder at Eric Mason's church in Philadelphia.
Eric Mason being the author of Woke Church.
Woke church, um, who has been, you know, I mean, basically dismissed in disgrace by this point.
No conservative Christian, um, would think, uh, anything fondly about Eric Mason, and by you know, virtue of Paul David Tripp's connection with him, and then things that Paul David Tripp himself has said that are very feminist and very woke, uh, Paul David Tripp has absolutely fallen from grace in the minds of many conservative Christians today.
But back in 2014, he carried more weight, was viewed as more conservative and thoughtful and wise.
And so, when he went and did his field trip on the ground at Mars Hill in Seattle and surveyed the staff and surveyed the climate of the church and these kinds of things, and then gave his very short report, this is the most toxic environment I've ever seen.
For a lot of guys who were on the fence, like, do I believe Mark or do I believe Mark's elders?
Paul David Tripp tipped the scales.
Yeah.
And now we're here, 2014, as you said, 11 years later.
And you can kind of look at the tail of the tape.
It's like, okay, Paul David Tripp, what's been the fallout since then?
What has he gone on to do?
Oh, he very much so led the church in its embrace of wokeness.
And we turn around and we look up Mark Driscoll.
Well, he's still a family man, as it turns out.
So most of his sons are older now.
I think a decent amount of them are married.
And as best I can tell, as I understand, they're all in the Christian faith.
So you've got a man continue to be a faithful husband, a faithful father.
His children, the best evidence of a man's life, they're turning out really well.
Like your children are going to reflect.
There's no, well, you know, I had some bad moments.
Like, no, you had 20 years with them.
They're going to be a reflection of you.
So, his kids are turning out well.
He's continuing to maintain orthodoxy and courage.
And that's, we have some disagreements with him, but courage on issues like masculinity, femininity.
He had a series about a year ago at this point on the Jezebel spirit.
So, talking about feminism in the church and women taking charge.
And with that, so like Mark Driscoll, he's a man, right?
He's human.
So, I think there's some great things.
And then there's also some things that's like, yeah, I want to do that.
Like, so with the Jezebel spirit book, right?
It made sales, it was a hit.
And I read little portions of it, excerpts.
And from what I read, it was good.
Like it was good.
And you're absolutely right.
Mark Driscoll has never, I've never seen him say something I'm like, that's heretical.
So he has always stayed in the bounds of orthodoxy.
I would say that he is kind of normie evangelical, but the best of normie evangelicals.
But my point is, like, even with the Jezebel book, so how did he launch it?
What was the kickoff?
Oh, in his typical kind of Mark Driscoll way, I don't think it's a coincidence.
I think this is what he does.
I'm not saying it's inherently evil, but I don't like it.
I don't find it particularly tasteful, but that doesn't mean that it's sin, and it certainly doesn't mean it's disqualifying.
But even with that book, Mark Driscoll, you know, he put some pizzazz on the launch of that book.
How did he do it?
He was invited to a conference for men.
It was a men's conference, not reformed outside of that, just kind of normie evangelical men's conference.
And one of it is pretty, I mean, it was pretty weird.
But one of the things they had like a monster truck rally and they had, you know, they had certain like entertainment and shows in addition to the speakers.
And one of the shows was like some, you know, acrobat, sword thrower, swallower, you know, whatever kind of guy who was like, At a certain point, it was like climbing up a pole with a sword and doing it all with his shirt off, which for a men's conference, I'm like, Jezebel spirit is not where I would go.
I would just say, that's gay.
That's gay.
I'm at a men's conference.
I brought my sons with me, which I never would have gone to this conference, but I'm at a men's conference.
I brought my sons with me, and there's a shirtless Chippendales guy who got converted 15 minutes ago climbing on a stripper's pole.
I mean, it was super gay.
So what Driscoll said about it, I actually don't mind what he said.
But I'm just saying here's the pizzazz, kind of the showmanship of Driscoll, which again, I'm not saying is inherently wicked and evil, but he is a business guy.
He is a business guy.
And so Driscoll follows up that act.
It's now his turn to speak.
And he kind of does this very kind of dramatic he's like, hey, I'm here to speak, but before I do, guys, we got to make some things right.
And so he comes down to like one knee, like this dramatic pose.
He's like kneeling on one knee, you know, and uh, and uh, and he's like looking up to heaven, kind of like a professional NFL guy who just scored a touchdown.
He's like, Uh, first, we've got to ask the Lord for forgiveness and repent because the Jezebel spirit was just here.
You just saw it on this stage when a man, you know, without his shirt was climbing on this stripper pole.
And uh, and then the guy who was hosting the conference, you can hear him in the background.
He's like, He's like, That you're done, that's enough.
Like, you're insulting my conference publicly that you were invited to.
And then Driscoll walks off the stage and it's like, Wow, that was random, what's that about?
Very next day.
So, my book that's already completely written called The Jezebel Spirit is like, ah, there he is.
There's the Driscoll we all know and love.
So, that was a classic Driscoll move and it worked.
What he does works.
Valid Positions on Disqualification00:03:56
So, but the book, it's not heresy.
It's actually really good.
The dude stripping on the pole was super gay.
Right.
I don't know if I would have called it a Jezebel spirit, but super gay.
Shouldn't have been done.
The showmanship and the timing of I'm calling this thing out publicly at a conference with a clip that's going to go viral.
Inevitably, and then I'm launching a book the very next day.
Well, that's that's uh, you know, a little bit uh, curious, but sure, anyways.
And in all of that, I think it's fair, totally fair if someone would say, Hey, I saw the evidence as it was coming out, and I do think, per the biblical qualifications, I think he was disqualified at Mars Hill.
Now, here's the deal uh, Mars Hill is its own church.
We're Baptist, we believe in the authority of the believers, so the church, as the believers, they're the ones that have the authority.
So, really, local church autonomy, yeah, local church that's actually whether it be elder ruled, so the elders of the church that have been appointed by the congregation or the congregants themselves, and a democratic vote.
They're the ones that have the authority.
So you're welcome to have your opinion.
Hey, he was disqualified.
He was not disqualified.
We're leaning towards, hey, it would seem perhaps he was not.
But the point is, either one of those I think are fair.
To say, no, I think, yeah, maybe on the level of biblical qualifications, he failed here.
Or to say, no, actually, the biblical qualifications matter.
And in each of these, it is defensible and the church renders the final verdict.
No, I don't actually think he was.
Right.
Both of those are valid.
Both of them are valid.
So let's give an example of what's not valid.
What would not be valid.
So saying, I think he's sent, but he's not disqualified.
All right, valid.
I think that he sinned and that he is disqualified.
Valid.
Here are two, that's like the two center, center left, center right.
Here are the two polar opposite ones.
And both of these I think are absolutely invalid.
Okay.
One would be I don't think he, not only was he not disqualified, sinned and not disqualified, I don't think he ever sinned.
I don't think he ever was harsh or ever said a single wrong thing in the pulpit or ever like, okay, so you think he's Jesus Christ.
Okay.
So that's not a valid position.
All right.
So nobody on this podcast is holding that position.
And then the other one would be not only did he sin and was disqualified, but he sinned and he's permanently disqualified.
And so, therefore, even the fact that he's at another church, it's 11 years later, his leadership is vouching for his qualifications now.
And even though it's a Baptist church with local church autonomy and the leaders there are the final ecclesiastical authority for his qualifications, I still am going to say, I don't care.
You see what I'm saying?
He's forever disqualified.
So, I think that's insane.
So, he's forever disqualified.
I don't think that's a valid position.
He never even sinned.
I don't think that's a valid position.
I think it's got to be one of these.
He really did sin.
He is a sinner, just like I am.
I've sinned pastorally.
I have.
Every pastor has.
So he sinned, but not disqualified.
The other one, he sinned, but was disqualified, but not permanently disqualified.
I think you could hold either of those positions and it's tenable.
But on X, you get some really dramatic results.
Anything other than option four, permanently disqualified for the rest of his life.
Even his sons can't be pastors.
Anything less than that is.
Yeah.
I mean, that's pretty much what you see on X. You see John MacArthur Bros. Who I don't know if it's just, you know, in the last six months to honor John MacArthur.
It's like John MacArthur passed away, and I know, you know, I didn't talk to him, you know, in his last moments, you know, before his death, but I know that his dying wish was probably that I tweet mean things about Mark Driscoll.
And so I'm going to take up that mantle and I'm going to honor John MacArthur by holding the position that even though there's not really anything objective, Mark Driscoll is not only disqualified, but he is eternally disqualified and also to the fifth and tenth generation.
Yep.
That's what you see on X, which is silly.
All right, well, let's go ahead and hit our first commercial break.
We'll be right back.
The silver is mine and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts.
Backwards Financial Planning00:03:13
Yet your retirement dollars keep shrinking daily as Washington prints money out of thin air.
Genesis Gold Group aligns financial guidance with godly principles when others serve only profit.
Their faith centered approach to gold IRAs stands apart.
In an industry that has forgotten what true stewardship actually means, why gamble your family's future on Wall Street's paper promises?
Your 401k and IRA deserve better protection.
Genesis Gold Group transforms your vulnerable retirement accounts into physical gold, something real, something tangible, something that God created with inherent value.
Their faith driven experts walk you through every step, helping you shield your life's work.
From the financial storms up ahead.
No high pressure tactics, no hidden fees, just guidance rooted in timeless principles of sound stewardship.
So, the decision is simple.
Watch your retirement evaporate through inflation or secure it in God's precious metal.
Take action now.
Go and visit WrightResponseBibleGold.com.
You can visit today for your free book, The Bible and Gold, and join the thousands of believers who sleep soundly knowing their future is anchored in something unshakable.
Again, that's WrightResponseBibleGold.com.
Safeguarding your legacy with God's timeless treasure.
When it comes to your financial future, are you planning forward or backwards from your desired results?
What type of financial culture do you want to create for your family and for your children's children?
We are not called to be wise as doves.
Therefore, simpleton planning simply won't cut it.
Joe Garrison helps families develop and implement a long term culture of excellent financial management.
He starts with your goals, your tithing plan, your retirement, and the legacy that you want to build for your generations.
And then he works backwards to build a real actionable plan to get your family on track.
Now, many of my personal friends have benefited from the financial wisdom of Joe Garrison that he shared for their specific situations.
Do you want to work with someone who strives for alpha with your investing, hates taxes, and brokers insurance?
Start planning smart.
Call Joe Garrison at six one five seven six seven two five five.
Again, that's six one five seven six seven two five five five.
Or you can find him by going to backwards planning financial dot in M dot com.
Again, that's backwards planning financial dot in as in Nancy, M as in Ministries dot com.
Changing the Campus Model00:08:06
All right, two more important details that I want to deal with in this second segment.
But I'm going to just deal with these two.
There's so much that could be said, but I'm going to deal with just these two details as clearly and accurately as I can.
Try to keep it efficient and brief because then we want to go to our third segment and leave extra time for that to be longer because there's a lot of different questions and comments in the chat.
And we want to be able to interact with you guys as much as possible.
Real quick, though, let me say there's a ton of questions.
And so, unfortunately, because of the sake of time, we are going to have to, as much as we can, prioritize the super chats.
The guys who are putting forth a little bit of generosity and seeking to support this ministry are going to get priority.
So, we're going to do the super chats.
If we have more time, we'll get to the non super chat questions.
And I think we'll be able to get to some of them.
But if you're sending in questions now at this point of the episode, and it's not a super chat, I can just tell you we've got enough questions already.
We will probably not be able to address your question.
If you want it to be addressed for sure, Then send it as a super chat and we will do that.
All right.
So, two details.
One, Mark Driscoll was not defrocked, he resigned.
And that does matter, right?
The actual public record, the public history of what happened and how it happened actually does matter as it pertains to his future and ongoing ministry.
So, what happened was this Mark was confronted by all of his elders.
And this is one of the peculiar things.
So, I mean, there's so many things I said.
And a lot of these are practical things.
There are theological implications, to be sure, one of them being ecclesiology, and that's certainly theological.
But these, again, these aren't to the level of heresy.
They're not major moral failures.
But they are things that I think practical ways that he actually set the stage, ironically, for his own dismissal.
So, one, the fact that he's preaching masculinity and a lot of that having to do with provision, financial provision, in the context of Seattle, where it's incredibly hard.
And a lot of men are just going to be exasperated.
Like, hey, you've got to be able to provide for a big family with a wife who stays home.
And kids who don't use the public school district, and all those things that we agree with.
But it's one thing to preach that in Texas, where things are still expensive, versus preaching in Seattle, where it's ungodly expensive, right?
That's one thing.
Here's another satellite campuses.
That was another part of it.
So think about this you have elders set up in other campuses, and eventually Mars Hill spread to the point where it was not just in Seattle or not even just in Washington State, but they had a campus in Arizona, they had a campus in California, like in the Where it was, Orange County, in Orange County, California.
And so when you have elders for your technically one church, but who are in different campuses of that one church, but they are elders of that one church, so they actually have authority to remove you or at least rebuke you, correct you, and yet they're, you know, 800 miles away, 900 miles away, you're seeing them maybe a couple times a year.
You can't foster a really intimate, genuine, deep relationship with these guys.
And so, you're giving a lot of power to guys that you don't have a lot of relationship with, right?
Everyone wants accountability.
Pastors should desire accountability, but they should also desire accountability from people that they have a genuine relationship with.
I don't want to give away power to people who don't know me, don't know my wife, don't know my kids, don't love me, don't have friendship with me, but oh, by the way, I'll give you the keys to the engine and control over taking away my job.
That's just a suicidal recipe.
So, for Driscoll to be Preaching the things he was in Seattle, strike one.
To do a multi campus model with guys really far away, but who had power over him, but really far away.
And so then a lack of relationship, strike number two.
Number three, with this satellite campus model, he was screening in his sermons, right?
So you've got guys who are called to be pastors in these satellite campuses, meaning it is in their heart to shepherd people.
And the lead avenue, the primary avenue where a pastor shepherds people, yes, you do that throughout the week.
With counseling, you do it with officiating marriages and officiating funerals and all these kinds of things.
But the primary context where a shepherd shepherds the sheep of God is through the preached word on the Lord's day in the pulpit.
And Driscoll, these guys, they're shepherds.
It's in their heart to shepherd their local campus.
These are the people that they know.
They're the ones, not Driscoll, but these local pastors at these local campuses, they're the ones who are doing the marriage counseling.
They're the ones when there's a death, you know.
Of a child with one of the families and the membership.
They're the ones who are doing the grief counseling, all these kinds of things, officiating the funeral.
They know the people.
They have their fingers on the pulse of that individual congregation.
And I think we'd be just naive and stupid to think that these men didn't want to get up on the Lord's Day and be able to preach the word to the people that they know, that they love, that they're shepherding.
But instead, they get up and they get to do the announcements.
And then they have to walk off.
From behind the pulpit, and Driscoll gets to come on the screen.
And so I think that, like that recipe, I'm going to give guys power over firing me, but I'm going to set them up 900 miles away without the intimacy and relationship and trust.
And the very thing that's in their heart to do, I'm going to rob them of that.
They get to do all the hard pastoral work, but the chief pastoral piece of preaching, they won't get to do that, or at least very rarely, because I'm going to do it through a screen most of the time.
And I'm also going to have HQ in Seattle, one of the most effeminate, limp wristed places.
In the country.
Yeah.
And I'm going to be known for masculinity.
I mean, Mark Driscoll, his, his, his, literally his church plan should have been three steps to being fired within 15 years.
And he nailed it.
You know, he nailed it.
But none of that, again, I want defending Driscoll, none of that means that he actually was disqualified or that he actually had a moral failure.
That's disqualifying to plant a church in Seattle.
That's right.
It's not, yeah, that's not disqualifying.
That'd be silly.
I think a campus model is stupid.
I wouldn't say it's disqualifying.
I think that that's something that a minister could realize the error of his ways, repent of that, change the model, and he wouldn't have to step down.
For ministry.
So that's one thing.
Number two, like I said, Driscoll resigned, and that's a key detail.
So, what happened is that when all the elders in all these various campuses, it was like 47 elders or something like that at the time, when they all came against Driscoll and confronted Driscoll, they did not say, You're done, or You're disqualified, or We're defrocking you, removing your ordination.
Instead, they laid out for him, they confronted him and laid out for him a two year restorative plan of repentance.
And then Driscoll looked at that plan and recognized it, I would argue, very likely for what it was a coup, and said, no thanks, and resigned.
He was never actually removed.
He was never removed.
And that matters.
He was, he voluntarily chose to resign.
So that's one key.
Last thing that I want to, there's so many things, but last thing I want to put in, and then we'll go to our third segment because there's a ton of questions already.
But in regards to the book, so Wesley briefly mentioned, You know, it's not like he embezzled money.
Well, I recognize playing the devil's advocate that some guys would say, yes, he did.
Yes, he did.
Okay.
Try to step into this picture that I'm going to paint.
Okay.
Let's try to be as objective as possible.
Put aside your biases, whether you're for Driscoll or against him, try to think about it without the biases, without the emotion, as objective as possible.
Okay.
Resignation vs Removal00:15:25
You're Mark Driscoll.
You are.
Like, I mean, you have been listed as like top 20, or it might have been top 10 in Seattle Times most powerful, influential men.
You are a rising star.
You've written several books already.
You pastor a church with like 14, 12, or 14 campuses, something like that, that boast of close to 12 to 14,000 people in weekly attendance.
You personally have baptized well over a thousand people.
You started the Resurgence magazine.
So you've got the church, Marcelle.
Resurgence magazine with its various conferences and a church planting network, Acts 29, that now has a couple hundred churches, you know, under that banner.
It was a men's thing too at some point where he's doing men's conferences.
Right.
I think that was Resurgence, but it might have been a fourth thing.
I can't remember.
So, all that being said, you're, you know, it's like Ron Burgundy.
I'm kind of a big deal.
Yeah.
You know, so like generational run, honestly.
Driscoll was on a generational run.
He really was.
And so you're Mark Driscoll, and you've already experienced success.
You know that pretty much anything you do and put your name on, Is going to get some mileage, some success.
And you've just written a book on marriage.
And you know that one of the chief problems in America at large within the church and out of the church is divorce.
Divorce, the metrics are astronomical, and you have all these broken homes and children growing up without fathers and all these kinds of things, and then all the implications of what that leads to, you know, crime and this and that and the other.
And so, you just wrote a book on marriage, and it's in typical Driscoll fashion, it's an every man's guide to marriage, right?
It's not, you know, heady ivory tower theology.
It is biblical, it's rooted in the scripture, but it's very practical and something that's in the layman's language.
And so, you feel like this really will help.
People, not just it could be successful and do numbers and make money, but it really will be helpful.
I believe in this book.
And, you know, Driscoll being very strategic on the business side.
I mean, he has a lot of practical business savvy, entrepreneurial, and he's thinking, well, I know how to get on the New York Times bestseller list.
I mean, it's a simple algorithm.
It really is, right?
It's just a numbers game.
It's selling a certain number of copies, not in total, not just eventually, but within a very short window of time.
From the time you launch the book, If within those first couple of weeks you breach this number of sales, then you will be on the New York Times bestseller list, unless the book is against Zionism or something like that, which Driscoll is not in any danger of.
So we wish he was, but he's not.
So you just wrote a book on marriage.
The country has a bunch of broken marriages.
We're hurting for stronger marriages.
And you know that if you sell enough copies, you'll get on the New York bestsellers list.
Which gives you, right?
It's kind of like the snowball effect, which makes more people aware of the book so that you sell even more copies.
But the redeemed side of that is not, oh, so I make more money, but more people will get help with their marriage.
Right.
I doubt that in the middle of the night, Driscoll went into the vault of Mars Hill and broke in and he was climbing over the laser and security system and took all the tithe money from the last six months and then took it over to the publisher and put it on the table and said, I want to buy.
You know, 10,000 copies of my own book, you know, to scam the system.
That's not how it happened.
I guarantee you, Mark Driscoll did this with approval.
Now, did he have the approval of all 47 elders in every single campus?
Probably not, because, like I said earlier, that's bad ecclesiology.
That just, there's probably a ton of decisions they made that they didn't have unanimous approval with all the elders in these local campuses, because it's 47 elders and some of them live 800 miles away.
It's, and like I said, they shouldn't have had that system to begin with.
That's a bad system.
But what they did because that system was bad is they got a little less ecclesiology and a little bit more businessy, which this isn't business isn't wrong.
That's great, but it blended into the church sphere, and that was the problem.
And so they said, Well, we've got so many elders with so many campuses.
And instead of thinking, Well, maybe we have bad ecclesiology, instead they thought, Nope, that can't be it.
We just need to adopt, we've already adopted some business world practices that are making it difficult for us.
So let's adopt even more business world practices into the sphere of the church.
So what they did is they had a They created a new tier of elders and they called them executive, the executive elder team.
And it was three guys Driscoll and two other guys.
And that team was able to make fast paced decisions without having to get the approval of all the other elders.
Okay.
And the bylaws allowed for this.
And so what Driscoll and those guys, it wasn't just Driscoll sneaking into the Mars Hill, you know, bank vault and stealing the tithe.
It was Driscoll with those guys making this decision on a fast play because the idea came, time is of the essence.
And they're like, dude, let's do this.
We'll spend church money.
And think about this again, steel manning it.
This was probably the plan.
We're going to use church money to buy these books.
And you know what we're going to do?
We're going to give them to members of the church for free to be a blessing to them.
So, yes, we're going to use church tithe to buy this book to give as a free gift.
We're not doing it to be rich.
We're going to buy the book at cost, at cost, not trying to make a huge profit, at cost, just to rack up the sales so it'll be a bestseller on the New York Times so that more people will see it, so that they'll buy it, not just so that we can be rich, but so that people can have good marriages.
We're going to try to help people.
And so, we're going to buy it at cost and we'll give it as a gift to members in our church.
And not Driscoll in isolation, but with the executive team making that decision.
So that could be a bad decision.
I'm not saying that was great, but to pretend as though Driscoll did this single handedly, all by himself, in the middle of the night, robbing little old ladies, sitting on the front pew, reaching into their purse during the worship songs, that's just a lie.
That's slanderous.
So if you're two cases for Driscoll, because there's no affair, There's no substance abuse.
There's nothing like that.
So, if your two cases are he was mean, and then guys who have already heard us talk about that, well, he wasn't just mean, he also embezzled.
Well, there's your embezzlement.
Yeah.
And embezzlement is disqualifying.
One of the qualifications for elder, but what I described is not embezzlement.
Exactly.
It could be a bad decision of these elders, but it's not embezzlement.
It does not seem at the time that Mark Driscoll, it's like, all right, for eight years, I've been stringing along on 50K a year, and here's the big plan.
We do pull off this heist.
I'm going to get half a million dollars and that's it.
I'm going to ride away to the sunset.
He was not hurting for money.
This wasn't aligning the pockets.
So, when it comes to the biblical qualification that an elder cannot be a lover of money, this is what they would have to rise to.
And if a pastor stole money, embezzled, then yeah, you would say you stole sin and you're a lover of money.
You are disqualified.
Nothing that you described falls into that category, though.
Correct.
He's not hurting for money and like, how can I get it from the church?
I'm going to do it this way.
It doesn't seem like that was the case.
Right.
Exactly.
So, all that being said, the embezzlement thing, you can say, I don't think that that was a wise decision.
You know, Timothy Keller at the time said, like, it's not fair because it's an artificial manipulation of the New York Times bestseller list that takes someone who may be a really good communicator, but then is not as good of a writer, and but then misportrays, mispresents him as a stellar author, as a better author than he actually is.
And so, in that sense, it's dishonest.
Right.
Right.
So, I know that, you know, some people made that argument.
That's a fine argument, but notice that's not an argument of a disqualifying moral failure of embezzlement.
Right.
So, there's the embezzlement thing.
Also, like I mentioned, it's resigning, not being removed, resigning, not being removed.
And then the multi campus thing and all the, you know, in the context of Seattle, all these things together, I think, culminated in, and just during this time, remember what years this was.
This was in the height of leftism takeover, kind of the high watermark of the left with feminism and wokeism is rising, all these kinds of things.
If Driscoll had started, he started in 1999 with Marc Hill.
If he had started in 2015, And he reached his zenith with Mars Hill, got through the dark years of 2020 through 2024, and it's now 2025, and he's still on his, not his second church, but his first church, his first rodeo.
He would have made it through the storm and he would have been fine.
So part of it is also timing and some of the things that you guys, who are like, I'm based and I'm just standing my ground.
Yeah, praise God for you.
That's great.
I would fall into that category.
But we do need to recognize that the Overton has shifted in our favor.
Driscoll did not have that at the time in 2014.
The Overton was still moving, it was still moving in a landslide towards the left.
So, there's all these factors of the timing, the context, the place, Seattle, the manner of church governance being multi campus.
All these things, I think, in large part, are what contributed to why things went down the way they did.
And it's helpful to see real disqualifications that have occurred since that time.
So, guys that he was on the conference circuit with since 2015, I think of James McDonald, unrepentant anger.
Ravi Zacharias, obviously, he passed and we found out the extent of his sin.
Affairs and homes and hidden apartments.
Steve Lawson.
An affair.
We have tons of different cases where we look at those and we go, yeah, that's actually really clear.
And then with this one, well, I think the authority of the church is the best one to go to.
It could go either way.
Like we said, some of you in the chat, I still think he's disqualified.
Okay, that's a fair view.
I don't think it quite rose to the level.
That's fine.
Okay, well, the local church would deal with that.
But in all these other cases, what real disqualification looks like, it's actually pretty obvious.
You don't actually have this kind of like back and forth.
Like with Steve Lawson, it's not like, I don't know.
Like, no, this is clear, unrepentant sin, and it is.
Is disqualifying.
You're done.
You're off the circuit.
Amen.
And here's another thing that you shouldn't even have to say, but it's just people are ridiculous these days.
So it needs to be said.
You do not get, whether it's a member or an elder or a deacon, a member of the church or officer of the church, you do not get to render an official ecclesiastical judgment retroactively.
See, the elders of Mars Hill, they had their shot.
They had their shot.
They said, to stay as a pastor, you have to submit yourself to this two year restoration process.
Which Driscoll saw as not repentance but penance, and that he thought was a coup and that it was artificial and manufactured and unjustifiable.
And so then he resigned, said, I'm not going to do it, I'm going to go.
Now, right then, here's my point right then, the elders of Mars Hill could have said, No, you're actually not allowed, we do not receive.
A resignation takes both parties to agree upon.
One party renders the resignation, the other party has to receive it.
They received it.
They could have said, No, you're not allowed to resign.
You must do this, right?
You could say, I don't want to be an elder anymore, but you must still, even if you do resign, you must go through this two year restoration process with us in order for us to be able to receive your resignation on good terms.
Other than that, you're not resigning.
You're going to be defrocked.
You're going to be removed.
But the public record matters.
And the public record was not that Mark Driscoll was defrocked, he was not removed.
He said, they said, you've got to do, jump through these hoops.
Dance monkey, right?
The elders of Mars Hill said, Dance monkey.
Mark Driscoll said, I'm not going to dance, but I know what you really want.
You just want me out of the way.
So here's my resignation.
And he called their bluff and he called it correctly.
They didn't actually think that he was in disqualifying sin because if they did, they would have been consistent and not received his resignation.
They would have actually removed him.
But they got what they wanted and it kind of showed their hand.
They're like, oh, he's going to leave.
Yeah, we'll take it.
So, what they didn't do is fire him.
What they didn't do is defrock him, remove him.
So, the public record currently rests with Mark Driscoll that he has never been removed from eldership by any local ecclesiastical body of elders.
That's the deal, right?
Same with a member.
You can't have a member who you talk to, you know, you correct or you disagree with, whatever, and then they say, you know what, Pastor, I just, it's more trouble than it's worth.
I don't want to cause trouble for you in the church.
And so, I'm just going to go on my merry way.
And then they do something later on in retrospect, you know, on the internet, they post something or whatever and say something maybe about the church that you don't like, that you don't think reflects positively about you.
And so, you know, they left the church two years ago, but then you're going to retroactively now excommunicate someone who already resigned their membership and a resignation that you received, that you accept.
Can't do it.
You don't get to retroactively excommunicate.
You also don't get to retroactively defranc from the clergy.
You don't get to do it.
So they had their shot.
The elders of Marseille had their shot.
They didn't take it.
And I'll tell you why they didn't take it because they didn't believe it.
If they believed it, they would have done it.
But at the end of the day, they did not believe.
That Mark Driscoll, for the safety and the security and the benefit of the capital C church at large, that he needed to be defrocked.
That actually is not what they believed.
They said they believed it, but what they really believed is we don't like him and we want him gone.
And his resignation, that gets us what we want.
And so they received his resignation and they did not remove him, and you don't get to do it retroactively.
So Driscoll has never actually been defrocked, and that record matters.
And a local church has called him to be their pastor.
Correct.
They've deemed him qualified, he is ministering there.
It's amazing to me.
Protestants hate the idea of a pope.
They don't like the idea of a pope that's over, he's across the ocean, and he's kind of the vicar of Christ.
He's the representative of Christ on earth.
But they'll hate the idea of a pope and then turn around and go, forget that man in the funny hat making decisions.
I will be making decisions on everyone who's qualified and disqualified.
They will literally act like their own pope and say, well, he's disqualified, and you have to submit to my subjective judgment for it.
Whereas we would say, with our ecclesiology, No, the church rendered it.
Now, we could certainly say, hey, I think that church got it wrong.
Yeah, you can say that.
But you cannot dictate by fiat.
You're not the vicar of Christ.
Neither is the Pope.
I don't get to sit up here infallibly and say, the Pope is not the victor of Christ, and you aren't either.
But that is worth noting.
Not only are we saying, hey, Mark's current local church is vouching for him, that's not our argument.
Our argument is that, plus, Mark's previous church, even they did not ultimately defrock him.
They could have and they didn't.
Those are important details.
Defending Against Cosmic Treason00:06:30
Let's go to our last commercial break.
We'll come back.
Got a lot of questions in the chat.
Remember, we are going to prioritize the super chats because we got a lot today.
If it's not a super chat, chances are we won't have time to deal with it.
So if you really want your question to be answered, then go ahead and send it as a super chat and we'll do our best to get to it.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to our last commercial break.
Hey, friends.
Gray Toad Tallow is a family business making skin care the way that it should be simple and clean.
The company began as a personal mission to find Healthier, more affordable solutions to common skin problems without the chemicals that are found in most products today.
Now, that search led to crafting balms from grass fed, grass finished animals that were naturally rich in vitamins and healthy fats, which is exactly what your skin craves.
These balms fight dryness, they calm eczema and psoriasis, along with other stubborn skin issues, without containing all the nasty toxins.
Gray toed tallow.
Output transcript Offers everyday soaps, balms, and beard balm for men.
To experience some of their products, grab a balm sample pack.
Each batch is made with care in their home and shipped directly to their customers.
For skin care, the way that God designed, natural, clean, and effective, visit graytoedtallow.com.
Use code WRITE15 for 15% off your order.
Today.
Again, that's graytoedtallow.com.
And if you want 15% off, then add the promo code WRITE15 today.
The danger of centralized power is often represented by the word king.
As Americans, we hate the word king.
Civilian ownership of body armor is about helping people to have increased power to resist tyrants and criminals.
And so, Armored Republic is about helping you to preserve your God-given rights to the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the king of kings and he governs kings and he will judge them.
This is Armored Republic.
And in a republic, there is no king but Christ.
We are free craftsmen, and we are honored to be your armor spread of choice.
All right, we are back.
Some would say so.
Back, we're going to go ahead and deal with the chat now.
I'm going to take two questions that are not super chats because they're really good.
And I think it'd be helpful, not just for these two individuals, but all of our listeners at large.
And then we're going to spend the rest of our time on the super chats.
All right, so here's the first one.
This comes from Cosmic Treason.
Cosmic Treason, I hope you're still here.
I hope you're listening.
I want to say a couple things to you personally.
Cosmic Treason did not just find us 15 minutes ago as our ex account started growing and these kinds of things.
Cosmic Treason has been following us.
I believe that he's even financially supported us in the past at times.
And he has had thoughtful encouragement and thoughtful criticism all along the way.
And so I just want to say lately, he's struggling with us lately.
You know, I think just because, you know, some of the positions and some of the direction and those kinds of things he's struggling with.
But here's my point somebody who just hops in, we've never seen you before, and it's so obvious you're just being a troll.
Yeah, I have very little tolerance for that.
That's not true.
I have zero tolerance for that.
Zero tolerance.
That's how little.
That's not cosmic treason.
And so the reason why I want to deal with it, and his question is perfectly respectful, but every now and then he'll have some comments where, like, I think he had a comment on the chat today where he's like, Joel, like, why?
You know, like you've said some positive things about Nick Fuentes.
You don't need him.
Right.
Right.
And just for the record, I haven't said positive things about Nick Fuentes because I think I need him.
But people say that of Driscoll, too.
Right.
And they, well, cosmic treason.
So he's like, why are you.
Like, he's not gonna date you, bro.
You know, kind of like a defense of Mark Driscoll, right?
Because that's in our thumbnail for today's episode.
And it's like, are you hoping?
I hope he sees this, bro.
You know what I mean?
And I understand that sentiment is like, what's your angle here?
Why are you doing this?
Why'd you do an episode a few months ago that said, Nick Fuentes is right and we're tired of pretending he's not?
Now, if you watched the episode, of course, we flashed that out and said, Nick Fuentes is infallible and right about everything.
No, we said he's right about these things.
And we felt like, give credit where credit is due.
And then there's plenty of things that we think he's wrong about.
Same that we're doing with Driscoll.
But I do understand where cosmic treason and others are coming from.
So if this, you know, if the shoe fits where, right?
If this describes you and you're like, Joel, like, dude, God's blessing you.
You're a valuable voice.
You're not like Fuentes.
You're not Catholic.
You're not 27 years old and single.
You're a pastor.
You're a husband.
You have five kids.
You're not a grifter.
I feel like Driscoll is too much of a showman and it seems too businessy at times.
And you're not like that.
So don't hit your wagon to some of these shooting stars that.
That are not our favorite, not our cup of tea.
It's shooting stars that we predict are gonna blow up in the next 15 minutes.
So, my point is, I've seen some of that criticism over the last few months and even in the chat today, and I saw some from Cosmic Treason.
And I just want you to know, I interpret that as love.
I really appreciate it because I don't interpret that as you being a troll or just being disagreeable.
I really think, and I appreciate you taking the time to communicate it clearly.
I interpret it, hopefully I'm right about this.
I think I am.
You saying, Joel, I don't like today's episode.
And I don't like some of the positive things you've said about Fuentes and the things you're saying positive about Driscoll today because I love you.
And I don't want you to go down with the ship.
I don't want you attached to it.
I actually think you're different than those guys.
I've been watching your ministry, I've seen how it's grown organically, that you haven't gotten onto a New York Times bestseller list by using church funds to buy 10,000 copies of your own book or what.
Reputation Among Outsiders00:15:00
And so for you guys who are concerned about us, And that's why you're kind of pushing back because you actually love us.
I just want to say, you know, it sounds a little gay, but I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
We love you too.
We appreciate that.
Just keep praying for us.
Feel free to shoot us an email.
We read those.
We will consider your criticism, take it to heart.
And the best thing you can do is just pray for us that God would give us wisdom, that we would remain faithful and exercise discernment.
And we appreciate it.
So this is from Cosmic Treason.
He said, so he said, in light of everything you said on today's episode, it seems like, you know, the real question is this Does the Bible say that disqualification in the case of elders?
So, I'm thinking of 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, but then also the big one would be 1 Timothy 5, because that's where it says, if an elder persists in sin, right?
It says, like, rebuke him in the presence of all that they may stand in fear, right?
So, if an elder is in serious sin, he doesn't just get a private, you know, come to Jesus moment, but it's a public rebuke, public correction.
Rebuke him in the presence of all so that the rest may see that example, so that they might be deterred from committing that same sin, stand in fear.
And it says, and if he persists in sin, So there's a public rebuke, not just for sin, but a certain, by way of implication, a certain degree of sin.
And then what's explicitly, not just implicitly, but explicitly said, is a persistence in that sin.
So if he persists in a certain degree or kind of sin, then it merits a public rebuke.
Even there, it doesn't necessarily say that he is immediately removed, but a public rebuke.
And then I take that to mean, and then if he persists more, then he would be removed.
So that's the 1st Timothy 5, which is probably the most thorough.
Biblical text in terms of rebuking, correcting, and implicitly removing an elder.
And then we have the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and also in Titus 1.
So, again, the question from Cosmic Treason is Does the Bible say that disqualification is temporary or always permanent?
And the answer is, and I know you won't like it, but I really am trying to be, not trying to be cute, but trying to be biblically faithful.
Biblical faithfulness requires speaking the hard things of the Bible, even when it goes against your own preference.
But biblical faithfulness also requires not speaking when the Bible doesn't speak.
And here's the deal.
The answer to the question is, biblically speaking, I don't know.
The Bible doesn't say.
1 Timothy 5 doesn't say that.
1 Timothy 5 does not explicitly say one way or the other that you rebuke the guy publicly if he's persistent in sin so that the rest would stand in fear.
And then implicitly, I think this is a safe, implicit assumption.
If he continues in that, then he would be removed.
But then you'd have to go not just from explicitly, which is rebuke him publicly if he persists in sin, implicitly, If he continues to persist in sin, remove him, then you'd have to go implicitly of the implicitly.
And if he's removed, he can never come back.
And the reality is that that's not just an implicit assumption from what's explicitly stated, but that's another assumption from what already we're assuming implicitly.
The Bible just doesn't say.
I think that you could definitely argue there are for sure some, and it's a very short list of sins that are permanently disqualifying.
I think of, for example, if a man was previously a Muslim, And he was married to multiple women and came to Christ, he would not meet the qualification of being married to one woman because he should continue to care for her.
It is still, we talked about this in an episode, don't have time to go into it.
But as long as he's married to two women, he cannot meet that qualification.
So on a permanent basis, he is disqualified.
That's right.
It would be the same thing, I think, if one of his children was an unbeliever.
As long as that child persists in that rebellion, I think you would look at that man and say, per the qualifications, you are on an ongoing basis disqualified.
I think of crimes that are serious.
Those would probably.
Look, I'm sorry.
In this life, you've repented, you're walking in repentance.
This crime is so serious, it had prison time attached.
Robert Morse would be an example a sex offender with a minor.
Yep.
You just, you can't ever come back.
That's right.
So, yeah, if you have more than one wife, then it's not just that you're removed, you should never be installed, right?
You don't meet the one wife, one woman, man qualification in 1 Timothy 3.
And then also a child.
If you have an unbelieving child who is a blasphemer, you know, who's publicly rebellious, right?
Because Titus and Timothy, it's different variations, but they basically say the same thing two things.
It's that his children must be believing and submissive.
Right.
So, not just that they have a profession believing, but also obedience.
Right.
Because if they claim to be believing, but they're just living a public, open life of debauchery, in other words, it's not talking about, well, this my pastor preached a sermon that I don't like.
So, I'm now looking for an out, I'm looking for an excuse to defrock him.
And he has a two year old who, in our family integrated worship services, occasionally disobeys and his wife has to take him outside for discipline.
And so I'm going to say that that's an unsubmissive child, and therefore he doesn't meet the qualifications of Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
All right, that's BS, guys.
Seriously, that's demonic.
That's wicked.
That's malicious.
Stop that.
Stop that.
What that qualification, in terms of the children, what that's getting at, I believe implicitly, but obviously implicitly, is older children.
So you want to know who should not be an elder based off of that?
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Not Mark Driscoll, John Piper.
John Piper has a son, namely Abraham Piper, who has over a million TikTok followers.
So it's not just privately, he no longer professes to be a Christian.
And he's on TikTok.
But he kind of adds into this.
Seriously.
So he's gay.
Right.
And he also has long hair.
So he's gay twice.
But it's not just that he has a son who no longer makes a profession of faith or attends church, but he keeps his head down, doesn't want to bring public shame to his father, who is a notorious, famous minister.
No, Abraham Piper has used his father's credibility and name.
In order to build his own platform, blaspheming Christianity, he is literally on TikTok, not with 27 followers, but with over a million followers, daily recording videos telling young people that they should not be Christian and telling young people who are Christian how they can leave the Christian faith.
And it's not something he did and then came to repentance.
No, he is currently doing.
So John Piper should not be preaching in churches, he should not be preaching at conferences, he should not be filling the office of elder.
I think, I actually think, objectively speaking, everybody who's, you know, chimping out about Driscoll right now, for every tweet you put out about Driscoll and how he's permanently disqualified, I need to see 10 tweets about John Piper.
Because Driscoll's kids are the ones that are adults following Christ.
Correct.
And there's, my point is, there's a more airtight biblical case to make for John Piper's disqualification than Driscoll's.
Go ahead.
I was just going to say, so on that continuum, we listed sins.
They're so serious.
You would just have to say, this man cannot hold the office of elder ever in his life.
Then let's take some of the sins, but they're not as destructive.
Say the love of money.
Say a man that's qualified in every other area says, Hey, the last year I have idolized riches and I'm going to step down from the office for a time.
So it's a real sin and he really is disqualified.
He's coming saying, In my conscience, I cannot, I love money too much.
So he steps away, he deals with it.
Is he permanently disqualified in the same way a Robert Jeffries is?
No.
So you have a continuum.
Where certain sins fall is a great place for the wisdom of the local church with the exact situation.
To make the determination permanently to not.
You lean towards not permanently, generally speaking, but the church then decides this is too serious.
This man lived a secret gay lifestyle for multiple years.
We're sorry, you're permanently disqualified.
And to flesh it out so you can.
You got a little bit more leaning on the Bible for anyone who heard what Wes just said, which I agree with, but feels like, but that just feels still a little bit too arbitrary.
Is there any way you can use the Bible?
Well, what I would say is for these sins that may be permanently disqualifying, if you want to root it in a text, the best way to probably do it is to look at these sins and then somehow root them into a way that that man, because of this particular sin, Can indefinitely moving forward no longer meet one of the qualifications.
Right.
Right.
So, for instance, good reputation with outsiders.
Right.
It's going to be real hard for a child molester tried and found guilty in a court of law sex offender to have a good reputation with outsiders.
And it's not like, oh, in five years he could, like, no, that's always on his record.
He will never be able to have a good reputation with outsiders.
Even if repentant.
Even if repentant, he's not going to be able to change the record.
It's still who he is.
And so that would be a good example.
Now, that said, some would look at that and say, well, Driscoll doesn't have a good reputation with outsiders because he's viewed as harsh and quarrelsome.
Well, here's the deal the same guy who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, namely the Apostle Paul, who wrote Titus and Timothy and wrote these qualifications, one of which being must have a good reputation with outsiders.
Elsewhere in the book of Acts, it says that he was known by outsiders as one who stirs up riots.
There were thousands of people, arguably tens of thousands of people, outsiders, who they viewed Paul in his reputation as being a quarrelsome, not just quarrelsome, like he likes to get in arguments, but viewed him as he is a rioter.
He goes town to town stirring up riots.
And yet, whatever Paul meant by must have a good reputation with outsiders, he did not mean, I think we can assume this, he did not mean that he himself, as an apostle of the Lord Jesus, did not meet that own qualification that he wrote.
So the apostle Paul, on the one hand, is known by thousands of people, thousands of outsiders, as one who stirs up riots.
And yet, at the same time, says you can't have a bad reputation with outsiders.
And we're meant to assume that he thinks thousands of people thinking that he's a riot starter.
Does not somehow breach that requirement.
Because he's being faithful in that role.
So, bad reputation for doing terrible things is not the same as a bad reputation for being a faithful minister.
Exactly.
So, outsiders think that you're a rioter, outsiders think that you're quarrelsome.
You're mean at the abortion mill when you preach against abortion.
It's qualified.
Yeah.
So, if that's all it means is just enough people have said something, and so you have a bad reputation, well, then John MacArthur was disqualified.
Right.
Charles Spurgeon was disqualified.
Jesus was disqualified.
I mean, think it through, guys.
Think it through.
So it has to be outsider.
It's not just outsiders don't like you because Jesus himself said that the world will hate you on account of me.
If the student is not above the teacher, the slave is not above the master.
If the world hated me, then the world will hate you, right?
Jesus did not have a good reputation with many outsiders.
Some of the crowds loved him, but there were a lot of people who hated him, enough people who hated him to kill him.
Right?
Spoiler alert, that's the end of the story.
If you haven't gotten to that part of the story yet, Jesus dies and he's killed by outsiders, people outside of his disciples who hate him.
And yet, Jesus, I believe, is a crazy, crazy position here.
Joel Webbin, right?
Mark it down.
Joel Webbin believes that Jesus is qualified to be an elder in Jesus' church.
Crazy.
Okay.
So, Mark being known by outsiders as being mean does not objectively mean that he's disqualified.
Robert Moore's being known by outsiders, having a bad reputation with outsiders, and then the follow up question being, for what reason?
And the answer to that being, because he diddled kids.
Right?
Can we see how that's different?
Seeing a bit of a difference here.
Can we see how that's different?
Come on, guys, we can do this.
All right.
So that's all I got for you.
Unfortunately, cosmic treason.
I don't think that there's a clear text in scripture that says this list of particular sins is permanently disqualifying, this other list is temporally disqualifying.
I would say that if there's any biblical answer to the question, other than prudence and wisdom, is it a particular sin that puts you now in a state, a station of life?
To where you're no longer meeting the Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 qualifications.
And in the case of Driscoll, I don't think that that's happened.
Okay, now let's do one more and then the super chat.
So this is Thomas W. Edwards.
Will you read it, Wes?
All right, I'll read it and I'll take a first stab at it because it's actually a pretty simple answer.
So, all right, so Driscoll, good reputation.
What about the requirements to be gentle?
Thomas asks.
1 Timothy 3 2, reading the verse, therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober minded, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard.
This is the key phrase.
Not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money.
I don't prefer the way this is the ESV.
I don't prefer the way the ESV renders it.
It's not bad though.
It doesn't say not quarrelsome, but gentle, not violent.
That is getting closer to the point.
It brings them together.
So the two words that are used there are the word for patience, and that has the idea it's of moderation and gentleness.
So James, Peter, Philippians also use the word.
So let's take that first idea, patient.
That is a good thing.
That is a fruit of the spirit, gentleness.
The second one, the King James renders it as And literally, what it means is just not given to literally fist fighting.
So, what is not being said here is every pastor must never take his voice above 60 decibels, that he can never be, you know, polemical in the pulpit.
Think of the Presbyterians, for example, with the Revolutionary War.
These guys would preach sermons, then they would take off their robes, pick up their rifles, and go to war.
If that word not violent means they can never initiate, never defend, never participate in a just war, then I mean.
Then the Black Robe Regiment was just.
You have the Black Robe Regiment, you have.
Pastors in churches in the Middle Ages and Europe that would be disqualified.
What it's getting at there, I really think, is he has to be a patient man.
He cannot fly off the handle.
He has to exercise all things in moderation.
He also must not be a guy who regularly punches people in the face, right?
St. Nicholas, hardest hit.
He punched Arius first council.
Driscoll, not disqualified.
Building a Better YouTube Channel00:15:11
Right.
Santa, hardest hit, right?
St. Nicholas, he did punch Arius in the face.
But even in that case, It's one instance.
Right.
Like the follow up question would be how, right?
You're marked by this.
It's a regular occurrence.
So, my question to good old St. Nick would be how many guys have you punched in the face?
Oh, just the one?
Who was the one?
Arius?
I would have punched him in the face.
All right, let's go.
We're good.
Yep.
But in Driscoll's case, do we have a half dozen testimonies of him physically punching people, fighting?
Zero.
We have zero?
What are we talking about?
Yep.
And so then, as long as he's patient and self controlled, per the verse that he says, at least on this tenant.
And again, you may disagree with us.
We've been very clear.
Hey, I think he's disqualified.
Not the end of the world.
We would maybe disagree.
Not the end of the world.
But per violence, gentleness, it would not seem there's any credible evidence to say he's disqualified on that basis.
All right, super chats.
Here we go.
Let's go to the top.
We've got this dude rocks $10.
He said, Joel and Wes, in your best guess, why do you believe that God, in his providence, chose not to inspire New Testament scripture like the Ten Commandments for things like infant baptism?
Okay, or denomination schisms.
I don't.
That's a good question.
Thoughts?
Wish you did.
Yeah.
Wish you did.
There's definitely a wisdom in the New Testament of what it lays down and doesn't, so that Christianity could operate how it has.
So it doesn't give us an order of worship, for instance, of you must sing this number of songs, and the preaching should be this amount of time.
In different places, in different times, with different people.
Probably the closest thing to begin is 1 Corinthians 14.
Two or three should speak at most, and not simultaneously, but one at a time, so that the listeners can interpret what is saying.
Yep.
So it lays down first principles.
It's got to be orderly, it cannot be raucous.
There should be no speaking in tongues if there's no one there to interpret.
It is shameful for a woman to speak in church, also 1 Corinthians 14.
So there are some things that are explicit.
We know that we shouldn't have 12, we shouldn't sit in a circle and everyone gets to take two minutes to share.
Nope, two or three should speak in the entire church service.
And we know that those two or three should be qualified men, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, 1 Corinthians 14.
Yep.
So we do have some principles, but then as it relates to time, as it relates to order of service, And where this really works well, and I'll just give this example, I think it helps illustrate it.
America was settled, to be honest, by Baptists and Methodist circuit riders.
It was settled by frontiersmen.
These frontiersmen did not have clerical robes.
These frontiersmen probably didn't have psalters.
Many of these guys were not trained in different languages.
There was a certain adaptability needed to take the gospel to go out on the frontier and settle and build churches all across America.
And they did a great job.
And I actually think kind of the low church should ideally be replaced by a higher church model.
A town as a civilization matures and gets older.
It has the resources for that.
But the Bible, in its wisdom for some of these things, does not come out and say, and it should be exactly like this.
And you should not have this.
No, you're right.
Providentially, it was a massive blessing in the early settlement of the United States when people are going west.
And it was an incredible blessing that a preacher with nothing but a Bible and a horse could ride town to town to town because there are Christians there that need the Lord's day, that need the preached word, and they need the sacrament.
And the beauty of the Christian faith is it doesn't require an inordinate temple made of gold with an altar and this and that.
Like, what does it take to do church?
It takes one biblically qualified man.
Technically, if we get down to like what's the base requirements, it's great to have a plurality of elders.
I understand that's ideal.
But what does it take in terms of the minimal requirements?
One biblically qualified man, a Bible, bread, and wine.
And if you don't have bread, and two or three.
If you don't have water, you're literally in a desert and you're starving.
Right.
You need two people, one man being qualified, a Bible, and that simplicity.
And water and wine.
And even with the denominational schisms, like, let's be honest, Methodism is not going to last till 2500.
So it's like, well, why in the Bible do we not see more clearly laid out so it'd be obvious these people are wrong or these people are wrong?
Well, we are going to see that, but the Holy Spirit's going to work in history to do that.
And so, in some ways, we have to be patient.
At the end of the day, when Christ consummates his relationship with the church and history ends, infant baptism or pedo baptism, one of those is going to work out.
Win out if you're post millennial.
Like one of those is going to win out.
So, in time, the Spirit working through the church, through the Bible, is going to help us arrive at those and will actually probably be more mature for it.
So, it's like, why don't we do this anymore?
Well, we did this one for 2,000 years.
I don't know, whatever practice, Marian dogmas, maybe.
We disagree with them.
Well, why don't we believe this?
Well, for 2,000 years, we did.
And as we labored and as we taught and preached and studied and debated, we came to the conclusion that God did not say that.
And that's not true.
And so, we arrive, the church perfected.
With all of these things, not that she was handed.
Consensus over centuries matters.
Yep.
She arrives with these truths, not that she was handed on a silver platter right at the beginning, but truths that she's worked through and knows deep in her bones.
Yep.
Well said.
This dude Rocks follows it up with another $5 super chat.
We appreciate that.
He says John Wellnick, aka Charismatic Calvinist, is a friend of Mark Driscoll's and is very ecumenical.
Plus, he's a Christian nationalist.
You should talk to him sometime.
I'll look into it and see if I can make a connection.
Then we have MB East, $5 super chat.
Thank you.
We appreciate it.
They said, We have you, Pastor Joel, as a patriarchal reformed pastor.
Implicitly, she's saying, So we don't need Driscoll.
Driscoll, she continues, is a businessman.
That's fine.
He should do that instead.
What I would say in regards to that is number one, thank you.
I appreciate your encouragement to me personally.
But just to kind of further validate what I said earlier, this actually, I think, is a great point, you know, a case in point.
You want to build a YouTube channel?
Just pick big name guys bigger than you and say negative things about them.
Right?
That's how you do it.
Honestly, that's how you do it.
Be a discernment minister.
You want to build a YouTube channel quick with very little substance?
Just be a discernment minister.
And that's how you justify it.
You say, well, what I'm doing isn't gossip, and what I'm doing isn't tearing down, and what I'm doing isn't sowing division, it's discernment.
So, I'm a discernment minister, and every thumbnail and every title of every video I do just happens to be coincidentally some of the biggest names that people would recognize with the most views, the most notoriety, and then me telling you why they're bad and you should listen to me instead.
That's a great way to build a YouTube channel.
You know what's not?
Saying, hey, this other guy that a lot of people currently think is disqualified, who's actually really gifted in a lot of ways and a great communicator.
And, but, you know, one of the reasons he's not even bigger than he already is is because a lot of people think he's disqualified.
Well, I'm going to go do a whole episode defending him and telling you why I think he has some faults, but he's ultimately not disqualified so that, you know, some of the people who currently listen to me might start listening to him instead.
That's not how you build a platform.
Right.
So then why do you do it?
Because it's right.
So I appreciate the comment because the first half of the comment is I know what you're doing.
You're trying to encourage me.
Appreciate that.
It really means a lot.
You know, we have you, Pastor Joel, as a patriarchal reformed pastor.
We have you as an example.
We have you as a teacher.
We have you as a public influence, and you're good.
Thank you for saying that.
That's very kind.
But then you followed it up by saying Driscoll is a businessman, right?
He's good in business, but he's not a pastor.
And so he shouldn't be a pastor.
He should do business instead.
For me, if I was seeking to just, you know, to be self serving, I would say, So true, Queen.
It looks, you know, it's a picture of a female in the profile.
So I'll assume it's a woman.
So true, Queen.
Driscoll should just do business and he should stop preaching so that my competition would be whittled down and I can build my own platform.
Right.
But I don't think that that's fair.
I don't think it's true.
There are plenty of guys who I actually do believe are disqualified.
And when it comes up and it's relevant, we'll point it out.
But in the case of Driscoll, I'm not listening to Driscoll all the time because I think he's a great communicator, but it's pretty generic and kind of just simple, kind of more milk rather than meat for a lot of normie evangelicals.
So I would prefer to listen to somebody else who's.
A little deeper, a little more thoughtful, a little bit more, maybe classically trained, blah, blah, blah.
So I can say from a preference disposition that I don't really listen to Driscoll.
And for a lot of our audience, you're probably going to prefer us.
If you like us, you would listen to Driscoll and be like, he's a good communicator.
I see what you're saying, Joel.
He's gifted, but it's pretty simple.
And I think I'll stick with Joel Webb.
That's fine.
But the purpose of the episode is to say, Not to say Driscoll's the best thing since sliced bread, or he's the most theologically sappy person in the world currently alive today.
That's not the purpose of the episode.
The purpose of the episode is to say Driscoll's making a comeback.
He's now been invited to at least a somewhat reformed conference.
In light of that, a bunch of reformed guys are saying he's disqualified.
And I personally don't believe that's true.
Yeah.
And he's moving in circles that we're not in.
So he helped co host the TPUSA show shortly after Charlie Kirk was shot.
He's been to the White House and prayed with Donald Trump.
And what we're kind of saying is, all right, so this guy is here and he's influential and he's patriarchal and he's orthodox.
And when you go and look at the tape, it's actually very likely that he was not biblically disqualified.
And so you have a guy that was not defrocked, but he resigned from a church that is pastoring in good faith, a church over here.
He's a faithful husband, faithful family man.
His children are turning out okay.
And he has significant influence.
He's getting invitations to the White House.
Guys, here's the deal.
Like, you can purity spiral.
He's still disqualified from 11 years ago.
And, and, You can purity his life.
And that's not what MB East is doing.
No, no, you're not.
But some guys are.
Yep.
And here's the deal you can do that.
But can we just all just be honest for a moment and say, who would you rather be shaking hands with Donald Trump and in the Oval Office, giving him spiritual advice?
Paula White or Mark Driscoll?
And I understand, you know, that some guys would, neither.
Okay, well, but neither is not an option.
Right.
It will be someone.
And honestly, I'm not going to shoot.
You know, fire on my own troops.
I'm not going to shoot one of the best options that we currently have.
Would I like an even better option?
Would I prefer it to be Mark Driscoll or Brian Sauvay?
Sure.
Brian Sauvay.
But guess what?
Brian Sauvay, and much to my own chagrin, I don't know why, but I, you know, I think they're crazy, but I still haven't gotten the personal phone call yet.
You know, I'd like it to be Joel Webbin, but it's not.
It's not.
I'm not being invited to the White House.
Maybe one day I will, but as of now, I'm not.
Brian Sauvay is not.
Right, Stephen Wolfe is not.
Driscoll is.
And of the guys who are getting invited to the White House, I think we should be able to admit that that list is pretty pathetic.
Right, it's pretty pathetic.
Paula White is the chief spiritual advisor, it's a pretty pathetic list.
And so, on that pathetic list, Driscoll is a giant.
And you might say, well, he's only a giant because by comparison, he's standing next to a bunch of spiritual midgets.
And I would say, so true, King.
But like, let's put our best man forward.
And if he's the best, and I think he is in these circles, one of the best in these circles, getting these kinds of invitations, let's not take out our best guy until we're sitting on a smorgasbord of alternatives who have risen to that stature, who they are now in the Oval Office.
Like if we get to the point where Donald Trump is surrounded by Brian Sauvay and Andrew Isker and Joel Webbin and Stephen Wolf and Mark Driscoll, then yes, in a You know, when Driscoll goes out of that room, it's the five of us.
It's me, it's Sauvay, it's Wolf, it's Isker, and it's Driscoll in the Oval Office.
I give you my word that when Driscoll goes out of the Oval Office to use the restroom, the four of us will tell Trump, don't listen to him, listen to us instead.
Okay.
But we are nowhere near that.
So for now, Driscoll, may God enlarge his territory.
Yeah.
And we need masculinity.
We do.
And to be counter signaling Driscoll in 2025.
Right?
As he's being invited to talk to Trump or invited to TPUSA, to be counter signaling Driscoll in 2025 is simply retarded.
Don't do it.
Be smarter.
Be shrewd.
Be wise.
Don't do it.
Okay.
All right.
Answers in Genesis sent $50.
Very kind.
Thank you so much for your support.
Good question here.
They, I'm guessing it's a him, but already your haters took the chum bait headline.
I get your analysis and it's really good.
Appreciate that.
But Driscoll is NAR, that stands for New Apostolic Reformation, charismatic, and swings at reform pastors as heretics regularly.
I get you guys, but the rest of the world is learning.
Love you.
I would quibble.
I appreciate the comment, and it was very charitable.
That's great pushback.
Like, hey, I know what you're doing.
I think these areas, like, you're kind of shooting yourself in the face.
Let me say this real quick you push back with $50, and we will appreciate that pushback.
I don't care if it's the meanest.
No.
So, charismatic, yes, he is.
We are not charismatic.
So, we have that difference there.
NAR, New Apostolic Reformation, this would be more your Bethel, your International House of Prayer.
Would that be?
IHOP would be one of the examples of it.
This movement more specifically believes that there are actual modern apostles today.
So it's not just you had the 12 original apostles and Paul, but you have modern ones today.
You have your Bill Johnsons at Bethel.
And Driscoll's not really a part of that.
So he is not like saying, hey, and Paula White's a new apostle.
He, of course, would oppose her being in the pulpit.
And so he certainly has some overlap because he's charismatic.
His church that's there in Arizona, Trinity, They're a charismatic church, and so they're going to have some overlap with the type of people that are in the NAR, but formally as a doctrine.
He's not big on that.
Right.
And then the second part.
He's certainly not word of faith.
Nope.
And a lot of those guys, Bill Johnson, those guys, they are word of faith, and Driscoll's not.
But he is charismatic.
Giants, Floods, and Nephilim00:13:11
He's not denying that.
And it says swings at reform pastors as heretics regularly.
I wasn't able to find, nor am I aware of him calling reform pastors heretics for just being reformed.
I saw one clip.
I think it was early on when, understandably, he was angry within the first couple years.
I know the one you're referencing.
So it was within the first couple years.
Where he felt like he was ostracized and canceled by the reformed world largely.
And so he's frustrated and those kinds of things.
And he kind of goes off a little bit.
But I haven't, the regularly piece is what I would quibble with that he's regularly doing this.
Maybe he is.
If so, feel free, answers in scripture, to email us and just send us.
If it's regularly, then I would appreciate if you sent me maybe 10 different clips, like 10 links to clips in the last couple years.
But, and then I'll come on and correct it and say I was wrong.
But I'd be surprised if you can find 10 examples in the last couple of years.
And if you can't, then I just want to say regularly.
I would say he has done this.
And if it's something that he merely has done, I wish he didn't.
I'm with you on that.
I wish he didn't.
But I just want to say regularly as though it's a continual pattern.
Yeah, in 2019, he went on a podcast and he said, you know, Calvinism is for guys that have a dad complex.
Their dad wasn't around.
And so they've made God out to be this distant father.
Eh, not the greatest take.
Not the greatest take, but also kind of true.
I mean, like, you know, so I don't know about the dad complex, but I would say this.
I've said this before as a guy who's reformed.
I've said, Calvinists, not so much the Calvinists themselves, but Calvinist ministers, almost 100% of the time.
Now, I say almost because I'd like to think that I personally don't fall into this category myself, but at a pretty high, I'm talking like 80, 90% of the time, Calvinist ministers are guys who were scrawning, small, short, and weak, and got beat up on the playground.
But they had intellect and they gravitated later in life, in adulthood, Toward a position where their intellect served them because Calvinist doctrine is a little bit more heady, you know.
And so they gravitated towards a spiritual position where their intellect would cause them to excel so that all of a sudden they now would have authority.
And I have seen some of those guys, it does seem like at times, like they're just kind of living out their personal vengeance story on all the vicarious bullies who once upon a time beat them up on the playground in fifth grade.
Like, so it's like, I'm a nerdy Calvinist pastor, but I'm the pastor now.
I'm in charge now.
See this?
I'm the captain now.
I memorize Westminster Confession.
Right.
And there's some blue collar, salt of the earth, works with his hands, construction worker at church who thinks that Adolf Hitler was maybe not the last Christian prince, but also not a monster and the worst person who's ever lived.
But he really, his physique and just his build, he really looks like that guy who back in fifth grade beat me up and took my lunch money.
And so I'm going to now, because I have the authority, excommunicate him.
I do see that within Calvinism, within Calvinist ministers.
So Driscoll was saying that Calvinism as a doctrine, not because there's something inherently wrong with it, but it does tend to kind of attract like a magnet a particular type of man with a particular build, a particular disposition, a particular personality, and that that guy tends to be less practical, less masculine, more nerdy, and in some cases effeminate.
And he uses that pastoral authority.
In less than ideal ways, and I would say I agree with Driscoll.
Now, I remember the clip.
Did he go further than that?
Yes, he did.
Do I appreciate the fact that he went further than that?
No, I don't.
Is it a regular pattern that he's doing all the time?
Not that I've seen.
Fair enough.
All right.
Let's finish it up.
Joel, do you think that Mark Driscoll was told things by the Holy Spirit about abuse of his congregants and other revelations?
And Mark, this is from Mark Fuentes.
He sent $5.
Very kind of you, Mark.
Thank you.
Not Nick Fuentes.
Mark Fuentes.
I don't quite understand the.
The question.
There was a time, I think it was still at Mars Hill, and he said during a sermon that the Holy Spirit would give him visions of congregants that were fornicating or doing things incorrectly.
I remember that.
Yep.
It was weird.
I don't, to be honest, I don't know what to think of it.
Yeah, I don't think so.
Tend towards no.
I tend towards no.
This is what I think with a lot of charismatic guys.
I used to be charismatic.
I used to be, you know, like I was raised in a vineyard church.
That was my childhood and background.
This is what I've come to in hindsight, you know, in adulthood.
At this point, I've been.
In the cessationist camp, not autistic cessationist, but like God still heals, but I don't believe in healers, right?
Think we're passing around handkerchiefs, you know, and shadows that you know, like, like it's not like the apostles, uh, but I do think that that, um, God in his sovereignty, he's not obligated to, but at times he does heal and he does so when the church prays.
So it's not a healer, but he leans at times under the sovereignty of God.
So we pray for healing in our church, those kinds of things.
But in terms of extra biblical revelation, truly being a revelation from God, uh, new revelation, um, I stand firmly against new revelation.
Um, so what I've noticed from my personal experience in hindsight.
Is it certain things that back in the day I would have chalked up as a word of knowledge or a word of wisdom or, you know, under this larger banner of a lowercase p prophetic?
I've realized now that a lot of those guys, including even myself, really were just unique guys who had some, what I now look at, it wasn't supernatural, but just some natural gifting.
Like, okay, so like there are atheists who are FBI interrogators.
They're not even Christian.
They don't have gifts of the Spirit because they don't have the Spirit.
They're not saved.
They're atheist.
And yet they're able to sit in a room with somebody who speaks another language and watching their body behavior and patterns and these kinds of things are able to pick up on certain social cues and this and that and conclude certain things that are just amazing.
There are magicians who work a crowd and they ask certain questions, are able to ascertain from the answer to this and that.
Implies a probability of that.
So, my point is, I think that there really are a lot of practical explanations to these things.
And so, what I would say with Driscoll being as high caliber of a man as he is, he really is just naturally gifted, really naturally gifted.
I would say, so I'm not saying, oh, this was from Satan or it was demonic.
And I'm also not saying, oh, you know, he was just shooting in the dark and 99% of the time he was wrong.
My guess is that in pastoral settings with counseling, Driscoll being a high caliber man, And spending hours and hours and hours a day with people, right?
Probably was picking up on some things naturally in the world that God made.
Remember, God made a world where an interrogator could pick up on social cues and certain patterns and movement of the hands or looking to the left when you answer a question or that, this or that, blinking of the eyes and be able to ascertain certain things.
That's God's world that He made, right?
So this isn't demonic spirits, you know, whatever.
I think that Driscoll is naturally gifted enough, coupled with years of experience in the counseling room, these kinds of meetings and dealing with people.
That he was just able to naturally pick up on a lot of things and probably had a high accuracy rate with some of his conclusions and insights.
And because his theological framework is charismatic, he placed those kinds of experiences underneath the lowercase p prophecy label.
But I would not call that prophecy.
So that's how I would answer it.
Okay, is that it?
Final super chat.
This dude rocks, gave another $10.
Very kind.
What is God saying in his story?
So, he's getting back to our earlier kind of answer that sometimes God works through the church overcoming obstacles, learning, maturing.
So, he says, What is God saying in his story by allowing angels and humans to sin by begetting Nephilim after the fall?
And why did he erase evidence of their existence globally from historians outside of scripture?
Well, I don't think he erased the evidence.
I think the Smithsonian did that.
Dude, I am a Nephilim appreciator.
You're a Nephilim respecter.
Yeah.
Now, I don't appreciate nor respect them in a literal sense.
I think they're terrible and wicked and evil.
But.
I absolutely believe that Nephilim was not just, you know, the line of Seth, you know, marrying, you know, the daughters of Cain.
I really do believe in fallen angels and seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took them as wives and created a hybrid, you know, humanoid line of Nephilim.
And then furthering from the Nephilim, I think that's where you get giants.
I think that Goliath was actually, I don't think he was 6'6, I think he was 9'6.
It's, you know, the Hebrew cubit versus, you know, whatever.
So I think, you know, Goliath was nine feet tall with some change.
And I think that he was a small giant descending from the line of Anak.
And I think they got smaller and smaller the further they removed from their Nephilim fathers.
But I think that giants were real.
I think some of those giants could have been, you know, 15 feet tall, maybe even taller, as tall as, what is it?
It's a tree, Amos, I believe, chapter two or chapter three.
Cedars.
Cedars.
As tall as cedars.
And that region, if you just Google it, you have to look at that region in the time.
It's like 40 feet.
Now, I understand.
I understand metaphor.
And the West is sitting over here just cringing right now.
But I'm.
I'm going to go literal on that one.
I believe in 40 feet giant.
Why?
Because I believe the Bible.
Is that the only reason?
No, because it's also freaking cool.
Like, I admit, it's freaking cool.
I, but I think it's true.
I believe in unicorns.
I believe in dragons.
I believe in fairies, the fae folk.
I believe in it.
I believe, I believe in mermaids.
And I've gotten a lot of flack, but I'm still going to go.
I'm with you on the dragons piece for sure.
Okay.
That one's easy.
But yeah, I, I believe in all this stuff.
I believe in a crazy world that God made.
That being said, I don't think that God wiped out, if you're alluding to God sovereignly doing it through the flood, no, I don't think that, uh, That God wiped out all the Nephilim because we know that they were on the earth before and after the flood.
The Bible explicitly says that.
Numbers chapter 13 talks about Nephilim being among the citizens of Jericho, you know, that Joshua has to face.
And then we know Goliath, I think, was a descendant of Nephilim, you know, and that's even, you know, centuries after Joshua all the way down now to David.
So I think that giants being, you know, descendants of Nephilim and then the Nephilim themselves being the first generation of a fallen angel with a human wife.
Their offspring.
I think that this was before the flood.
I think it was also after the flood.
I don't think that God erased all the evidence in some supernatural, constant way.
I think that the evidence was still periodically found by people.
I think that this is part of Roman and Greek mythology and folklore where, you know, people, you know, like stories of like Hercules.
So, Hercules, he's like, he's part son of the gods, but he also is immortal, you know, so he's part human, part God.
So, he's not a God, he's not a human, he's a demigod, like part lowercase g God, part human.
Does the Bible have a category for that?
Yes, Nephilim.
I think Hercules was a Nephilim.
I think that he was supernaturally strong.
I think he was probably really big.
And he went around killing dragons and monsters.
I think that Hercules was, I actually think, yes, I think things were embellished, you know, like history becomes myth, myth becomes legend.
I understand the telephone game and how it goes.
And so I think that certain pieces that we have today are embellished.
But I think that there is truth to some of these things going and exploring and finding deserted islands where there's a cyclops that lives in a cave.
How do you account for that?
I think it was a giant, a descendant of the Nephilim that already had one eye removed, or because these giants in Nephilim, they wanted to keep their bloodline pure, you know, so that they wouldn't get smaller over time.
They would maintain their power.
I think there was a lot of intermarriage.
And so I think they would maintain their height and stature and strength, but there would be certain birth defects, like maybe one eye instead of two.
Yeah, I think this stuff is real, guys.
I know it's wacky.
I think it's real.
But the point is, I don't think that cataclysmically, in God's providence, in the flood, that all the evidence was wiped away.
The Nephilim were there before the flood and after the flood.
And I think the evidence of Nephilim and their sons and daughters' giants was found and has been found in various places all over the world, including America.
Look it up.
The burial mounds in America, lots of giants found even as late as the early 1900s.
And not just, you know, hey, this is a giant.
He's seven feet tall.
People say, oh, we still have giants, Joel.
They're called NBA players.
Wisdom Regarding Alcohol Consumption00:02:47
No, no, no.
I'm not talking about people who are six foot 10.
I'm talking about nine feet, 10 feet, and even 15 to 18 feet.
There are reports.
You can look at the newspaper clippings.
They're hard to find, but you can find newspaper clippings from the 1920s in America, and especially the late 1800s, 1880s, 1890s of a farmer.
Was digging a well and discovers an 18 foot human skeleton 10 feet under the ground in his backyard.
And you can just say it's all BS, that's fine.
Or you can also say that secularism hates God, doesn't want anything that would validate the biblical worldview, like a flood or like giants or any of these kinds of things.
And that this was common knowledge, actually, for a lot of people early on.
And they erased the evidence, they incinerated giant bones with the Smithsonian that is God hating and leftist.
Macro evolution, all these kinds of things.
And that is my position.
Unhinged, albeit.
But it is my position.
All right.
And my kids love it.
I have five little kids, seven years old, six years old, four, three, and zero.
And they brag at their Christian school.
They're like, yeah, my dad believes in fairies and it's awesome.
So there you go.
Last one.
$9, just bottom of the ninth.
Incredible.
You were wrapping up the last sentence.
It came in, but we want to honor it.
Victor, Trina, $10.
Thank you, Victor.
Under what circumstances would a DUI conviction disqualify an officer of the church?
I would say, like, it does happen that a man has two beers, which I don't think rises to the level of drunkenness and sin.
And it is right there at the legal threshold, 0.08.
He doesn't get in an accident.
He was driving safely, but he got pulled over, and technically, the breathalyzer, you know, like, maybe he weighs 130 pounds, you know, instead of, you know, 300 pounds, like most ministers.
Yeah, it's like you've got 130.
It's like, why are you disqualified?
Well, sir, people say it's because of substance abuse, but the real reason I'm disqualified is because I'm not a fat lard like most pastors in the pulpit today.
You're right.
And even then, it would be a breach of wisdom.
If you're 130 pounds, don't drink three whiskeys.
So even there, it's still, you don't just get a DUI because you had a sip of wine.
We've been on this podcast for two hours, and I am still sipping my one and only whiskey.
Incredible.
Incredible.
Yep.
It's just so much self control being exuded.
Right.
That would not get you a DUI.
So it would be some level of a breach of wisdom.
No, I did pour it to the top of the rim.
I've only had six ounces.
So, same thing as permanently disqualified.
There's a continuum.
Are we literally talking about, man, this dude literally had two beers, whatever it would be?
He got nailed.
He wasn't driving erratically.
He didn't cause an accident.
He doesn't even drink every week to all the way over here.
The Four Pillars of Fascism00:03:11
Oh, snap.
He's been drinking on the job, came home from work, hit another car.
Where does he fall on the continuum?
Swerving all over the place, absolutely reckless, kids in the backseat.
Disqualified.
He's given too much wine.
He's not above a price.
But even that, then it goes to the question is it?
Permanent disqualification.
Sure.
And I don't think it is.
I would agree.
I don't think it is.
I wouldn't think so either.
So, yeah.
So, the answer to it, unfortunately, this is the answer to a lot of these questions prudence.
Prudence is part of it.
Okay.
They keep coming in.
Last one.
Last one for real.
Swinters 07 thoughts on the possibility of Barron Trump taking a top position, board position at TikTok?
Yeah, sure.
I think that's being floated.
I wonder if you're asking about the possibility.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, the likelihood of it happening.
Okay, sure.
In terms of, yeah, I would be for that.
Will it happen?
You know what?
We live in a crazy world.
I put it at a 50 50.
I can see it.
I cannot see it.
That's it.
That's all we got for today.
Thank you guys for tuning in.
We've got a pre recorded episode, but it is a banger for Wednesday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
It'll be broadcast live on both YouTube and on X. Make sure to follow us on X.
The handle is at RightResponseM, M as in Ministries, at RightResponseM.
And if you're on YouTube right now, do us a huge favor, subscribe and click the bell.
It's not enough to subscribe, click the bell as well.
It'll be Wednesday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
The title of the episode is What is Fascism?
What is Fascism?
Oh, snap.
They're going there.
We are going there.
So, we're dealing with fascism, an episode that's been in the making for quite some time, a long time coming.
It's going to be a great episode.
And then we're going to run it back on Friday because we've got different things going on.
So, on Friday, we are going to do a rerun of an episode we've only aired once.
It was somewhat recent, like maybe at this point two months ago, but got a lot of attention, negative attention, but also a lot of positive attention.
And so, that episode is infamously titled The Four Pillars.
The four pillars and the four pillars being explicitly Christian, patriarchal, biblical patriarchy, race realism, and anti Zionism.
Four pillars that we think are integral to the new Christian right that we think God sovereignly and providentially is using in many ways.
So, that episode of defining what it looks like, this new Christian right, and what are some of the marking characteristics of this new movement that the Lord is using?
Well, it's unapologetically, explicitly Christian, it's also unapologetically patriarchal.
It is not race essentialist or race determinist, but a race realism.
And then also, lastly, anti Zionist.
And so that's going to be a rerun on Friday at 3 p.m.
So our schedule is three episodes every single week Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
Today is Monday.
Wednesday, we've got fresh content for you What is Fascism?
And then Friday, we've got one of our best episodes we've ever done, rerun The Four Pillars.
All right, so stay tuned this week, and we're excited.