Definition of False Teacher: One who presumes
to teach in the Name of the Lord when God has not sent him.
False Teacher - Mark Driscoll
A Flesh-Powered Pastor
Mark Driscoll preaches a carnal gospel that supports confidence in the flesh and not in the Spirit of God. The two are diametrically opposed to one another, so despite all his dynamism and appeal, youíll not find, or be led to, the Kingdom of God at Mars Hill or any affiliated works.
We got this note from a site reader about Garry
McDonald with Metro
Church, Joseph Prince, and a new False Teacher to our list, Mark Driscoll
Hello Dear Brother in Christ!!
Thanks alot for this website it totally confirmed alot of things that
I had noticed at Metro Church. I was attending the Church with My parents
who are God Fearing Christian Ministers. We recently moved here from
America and some how were lead to Metro Church.
While sitting in
the services it amazed me that a man could preach a message nearlly
scripture for scripture and catch phrase for catch
phrase from another Pastor. The Sermon was titled "DESTINED TO
REIGN" while sitting in the audience my dad typed it into google
on his IPHONE!! The very first thing that came up was JOSEPH Prince
Destined to Reign..what a joke..he used all the same scriptures which
were falsley interpreted by JP and he preached the same exact message
what a JOKE!!!
I later tried to
start a BIBLE study because there is no real BIBLE teaching, I wanted
to base the study on Mark Driscols Vintage Jesus
book, I mentioned it to my young adult pastor and he said that he had
to run it by the Pastor...the pastor then said no we dont really like
that kinda of teaching its to Legalistic..and this is a house of Grace...its
pretty shocking...it took me 6 months to figure out what he was about
and now Im leaving but I have alot of INfluence...I disagreed with
the pastor and he basically told me, "this church is not for everybody
so you need to figure out whether or not you need to be here" (its
a CULT) I was amazed at the Hypocracy!!
He preaches Grace GRACE but if you disagree he tells you to get the
out the Church!!!! Amazing!! We tried to start discipleship too and
he said NO??? I later have found out that he is writing Discipleship
material(because I got so many people asking for it)!! I then found
out that everything that gets taught at the Church has to be Written
by HIM??? Even scarier!! All foundations material, discipleship, bible
college everything is written by him.
I also read his book Young Lions and nearly half of his revelations
were all from Joseph Prince, yet he didnt mention JPs name one time!!!
During the service he would often talk about religious people and rail
against how bad the Catholic Church was and yet he acts just as if
he were the POPE of Metro. Basically you cant teach or read anything
unless he writes it or approves it??!! He hasnt even studied theology
its so disgusting!!
I also noticed a couple in Leadership left the church, He had them
on stage and prayed for them, he told everyone that they were starting
their own Ministry!! I later found out that the couple was attending
another church and that the real reason they left was over a disagreement(this
leader was a Mark Driscol Fan too?). It amazed me that he could LIE
to the WHOLE church and yet be so decieved to think that the problem
is with everyone else. He also told my parents in a meeting that the
Holy Spirit does not convict him of sin but rather only of Righteousness,
this is also a common Joseph Prince teaching.
Another thing he told my parents was that because Jesus died for all
sins past, present and future there was no need to REPENT. He also
never preached about Sin or Judgement which is also a Joseph Prince
Conclusion: Not only is he a False Teacher, he is a Wolf and a Hireling!!
Never once did he encourage the church from the pulpit to study the
WORD, he is probably afraid that if people did they would see him for
who he really is a FALSE TEACHER!!!
“Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith, prove your
own selves. Do you not know your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in
you, unless you are reprobates?”
(2 Corinthians 13:5 MKJV)
Yes, Kurtis, you’re
talking about a false teacher, of which there are many thousands, many
of whom are much closer to home than
the one you’re talking about from Metro Church.
Closer to your home, you say you tried to introduce Mark Driscoll’s
material in a Bible study. He is also a false teacher, didn’t
you know? While he disdains “sissy” or other false pastors,
he fails to realize they aren’t false because of the way they
think, dress, speak, or act. They do these things because they aren’t,
and never were, anointed pastors sent of the Lord. If Mark Driscoll
were a true pastor of the Lord, he would automatically know that and
tell them so. Instead, he speaks of carnal strengths and qualifications,
none of which has anything to do with God’s ministries.
Mark Driscoll is famous and popular, appealing to the flesh. Are true
men of God so? Not according to the Scriptures they preach.
“And He said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves
before men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is highly esteemed
among men is abomination in the sight of God’” (Luke 16:15
“And you will be hated by all for My Name's sake, but he enduring
to the end, that one will be kept safe” (Mark 13:13 MKJV).
Mark is a hero to many, the very stuff of Baal worship. It’s
easy to like the guy, though, and I see how people are attracted to
him. I have to say that I do appreciate his boldness and some things
he has to say. I appreciate his sincerity and willingness to stand
and take heat, but I disagree with much of his doctrine, practice,
The internet has mounds of reasonable evidence stacked up against
Driscoll, so I needn’t get into most of it, but there are a few
items worth mentioning, samples to indicate the source and nature of
the rest of his product. For example, he condones
oral sex in marriage.
Let’s get blunt here: Mark, are you saying it’s just fine
to put your penis in your wife’s mouth? Is it fine to ejaculate
as a result? Do you withdraw before your semen enters her mouth, or
seeing it’s okay for your penis to be there, it’s also
fine to follow through all the way?
And is it fine for you to put your face in her crotch, your mouth
on or near her instruments of excretion of urine, gas, and feces? Is
this an example of pious conduct God requires of His sons and daughters?
Would you call that “holiness”? Does “oneness” of
husband and wife justify the means? Will you get true “oneness” that
I find it hard to believe you think so, but if you do, you’re
well beyond the line of healthy and respectable conscience and decency
among even many unbelievers, much more before God. Who but the lustful
and dead will you convince of such vileness?
Tell me, would you kiss your wife after putting your penis in her
mouth? And would she kiss you after you’ve done your thing with
her? Or would you first rinse your mouths out with soap and water?
Just speaking of these things makes me feel like I need my mouth and
I confess I’ve been tempted to do such acts in my marriage on
occasion, but when I look back at those times, I’m so thankful
I didn’t subject my wife to the depravity and humiliation (not
saying my wife would have agreed to it). Just the thought of the possibility
of having done it makes me shudder and hang my head in shame. I’m
so thankful God gave me the grace to restrain myself.
Perhaps you would tell others (like the egomaniac vagabond Deepak
Chopra told you), it’s all about where you’re at personally
on matters, or as you would perhaps put it, a matter of conscience.
Meanwhile, you and your wife rightly argue with Chopra that it’s
not about what we find ourselves comfortable with, but about the sure
standards of God to be honored.
Perhaps you’ll consider me an unmanly, sanctimonious prude or
someone with a weak conscience who can’t eat meat. But, Mark,
how can you condone such conduct, even though you do limit it to marriage?
I say you’re not only not a man of God, you aren’t even
born-again. You have no part in the Lord Jesus Christ. With you, there’s
energy, but no holiness; principles and convictions, but lawlessness
before God; zeal, but with carnal knowledge and understanding.
Kurtis, Mark Driscoll rightly ties in masturbation
with porn and says
lust is at issue (though obviously porn isn’t necessary for the
act). However, in his off-the-cuff answer, he ends up condoning masturbation
for singles, provided they “don’t feel compelled by lust
or indulge in porn.” I fail to see how masturbation is motivated
by anything other than lust of the flesh. I think you’d agree
it certainly isn’t lust of the spirit.
Still, Driscoll acknowledges that psychologically and biologically,
some masturbation can lead to more until compulsion and habit ensnare.
It’s obvious Mark has answered the question without understanding
or thinking it through sufficiently.
I was addicted to masturbation (until the Lord delivered me of its
power when I first believed), and my habit was without porn (except
by imagination). It would have been much better had I never started.
To give in to some lust that can easily addict, but which isn’t
necessary, like smoking and drinking, is unwise (I got caught there,
Masturbation seems particularly unclean, however. God didn’t
give us our reproductive powers to waste, abuse, or make light of,
but to bring forth life and nurture it. Nor did He make us so that
we are compelled to masturbate, like it or not, married or not.
I can understand people giving opinion, as Mark is swift to give,
without prayer and sober consideration; however, no true pastor of
God has the right or spiritual inclination to give opinion. Men of
God deal in truth, not in opinion, especially on matters that can have
such significant impact on people. Driscoll’s is not godly conduct.
of a time when Grace, his wife-to-be, was assigned
to a men’s dormitory at college because there were no other facilities
available. Mark was perplexed by that and immediately drove to the
university and knocked on every door of all the guys on her dorm floor
and said, “Hi, my name is Mark; I love
this woman. If anyone touches her, talks to her, thinks about talking
about touching her,
I will beat them.”
He says, “Literally, I threatened twenty
guys. Just knocked on every door. No way she’s gonna get messed with! No way.”
I have no doubt he would have beaten anyone who tried anything, and
I’d be the first to say they deserved it and I would feel like
doing the same if I could. But is it right for me to do that? Is it
right for a man of God to be teaching violence and vengeance or taking
justice into one’s own hands? I haven’t known that to be
the Mind of the Lord and I don’t see this attitude and system
of thought anywhere in the Scriptures. Mark expresses reliance on brute
force, rather than on the One Who says, “Vengeance is Mine; I
will repay” (Romans 12:19).
He defends his position, saying God expects husbands to protect their
wives, as an integral part of loving them. However, protecting them
in the Lord’s way and in man’s wisdom are two different
matters altogether. God’s way ever succeeds and man’s way
Mark praises Jesus for being manly, citing Jesus was a carpenter,
as often speculated because his stepfather, Joseph, was a carpenter.
Does anyone really know if Jesus was? How can Driscoll do a character
sketch of the Lord and pattern himself on speculations by things not
mentioned in Scripture? Obviously, it wasn’t a detail of Jesus’ life
God deemed worthy of mention. And if Jesus was a carpenter, did He
have to be a tough guy? I know seasoned carpenters who aren’t
that way, yet they’re good carpenters.
Is God’s ministry about, or enhanced by, being physically robust?
Is everyone built like, and as tough as, Mark Driscoll? What if Mark
was born of small frame? Would God disqualify him as a pastor? Has
Mark considered this? Apparently not. Or is it just carnally strong
men God calls? It seems Mark has never understood the significance
of these words:
1 Corinthians 1:25-29 MKJV
(25) Because the foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and the weak
thing of God is stronger than men.
(26) For you see your calling, brothers, that not many wise men according
to the flesh are called, not many mighty, not many noble.
(27) But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound
the things which are mighty;
(28) and God has chosen the base things of the world, and things which
are despised, and things which are not, in order to bring to nothing
things that are;
(29) so that no flesh should glory in His presence.
Mark suggests that all husbands should be tough - tough enough to
do their duty properly in protecting their wives physically from harm.
Shall scrawny husbands match muscle for muscle and skill to skill to
defend their wives against trained terrorists?
Mark reminds us that the apostle Paul did time, as though that proved
he was manly. Was Paul a strapping bruiser before he was arrested?
Or did Paul toughen up in jail? Are there no small, weak men in prison?
Does Mark think Paul would have been a poor witness of Christ in prison
if he was physically infirm, if even in minor ways? But Driscoll glorifies
the flesh, supposing this is a reasonable, if not essential, quality
of a spiritual ministry. Now here’s what Paul said at one point
to those he had won to Christ:
“And I, brothers, when I came to you, did not come with excellency
of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God. For
I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and
Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear,
and in much trembling [not the sort
of character Mark seems to have a lot of use for]. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of
man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1
Corinthians 2:1-4 MKJV).
“Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is caused to stumble, and
I do not burn? If it is right to boast, I will boast of the
things of my weakness” (2 Corinthians 11:29-30 MKJV).
But Driscoll seems to boast of the things of his strength. It is in
a man’s weakness, not his strength, that God is glorified, according
to what He said to Paul at one point:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10 MKJV
(7) And by the surpassing revelations, lest I be made haughty, a thorn
in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me,
lest I be made haughty.
(8) For this thing I besought the Lord three times, that it might depart
(9) And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My
power is made perfect in weakness.’ Most gladly
therefore I will rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may overshadow
(10) Therefore I am pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities,
in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak,
then I am powerful.
Of Christ, Paul says: “For even if He was crucified out
yet He lives by the power of God. For indeed even we are weak in Him,
but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you” (2
Corinthians 13:4 MKJV).
Mark Driscoll revels in the pride of life (1 John 2:16). He needs
to come to the cross, repenting of his strength, that he might have
the strength of God. He errs - very much so. His confidence and glory
are in the flesh. He is no shepherd of God.
Perhaps Mark’s point is that not anybody can be a pastor simply
because he chooses to be, or that pastoring isn’t for sissies
(and I’d agree with him). However, I don’t see his home
base of decision-making established by recognizing the absolute necessity
of God’s calling and anointing of one for ministry. It’s
evident (to those who are called and chosen) Mark is doing what he’s
doing in his own strength and expects the same of others. God’s
Kingdom doesn’t work that way. The cross says so. Jesus says
so. On that, the Bible is clear, as is our experience in Christ.
Mark is pleased in carnal strength, in virility and manliness. This
is not the understanding of the Spirit of God. It’s the opposite.
(Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against manliness,
but I do have a problem with one presenting manliness as a requisite
for being a pastor or godly minister. No man of God does that, knowing
better according to the Scriptures and the Spirit of God.)
Which brings us closer yet to your home, Kurtis. What were your parents
doing at Metro listening to Garry McDonald? Did God send them there
for some particular purpose (which we acknowledge He could have), or
did they not know what was going on there and were spiritually naïve
enough to try the place for worship and fellowship? Could it be that
after you all went there, you found our site on McDonald, wrote us,
and now you hear the truth from us?
You say your parents are “God Fearing
Christian Ministers.” Perhaps
they are, and you aren’t in agreement in spirit with them. But
again, are you speaking of your mother helping your father, or perhaps
of her having an anointing from God to instruct women and children,
or minister without spiritual authority to saints - any of which is
okay? Or, on the other hand, are you speaking of your mother having
an equal partnership with your father, or of your mother having an
independent role as one of the five ministries Paul mentions (Ephesians
4:11), which are God’s callings on men only?
If they are “God Fearing Christian Ministers,” as you
say, they wouldn’t be naïve about McDonald and Metro, and
they wouldn’t permit you to be deceived about that church or
fail to counsel you against trying to work there. And if they are as
godly as you say, you would be listening to their counsel to run from
that place, that is, to flee fornication, which is precisely what Metro
is all about, even as you describe.
You were offended and critical of the pastor when he refused your
introduction of Driscoll’s material. How so? Isn’t it his
church, to do as he sees fit? Do you seriously think he should permit “every
man to do that which is right in his sight” (Judges 21:25) and
not shepherd according to his convictions? Would you expect a true
pastor to permit all his sheep to do as they pleased? Had I been the
pastor, I would certainly have refused you, obviously.
So what is the problem? Kurtis, the problem is with you, not with
Metro, where you’re focused. You have it all backwards. You expect
blood of stones, and you’re indicating to us that you’re
You’re on a journey without a map or compass, and you have unrealistic
expectations of others. You’re cynical, critical, and you have
great need of instruction, as do your parents, or they wouldn’t
be leaving you with your great lack of understanding, certainly not
if they were godly, as you say.
Here are more examples of your state of darkness. You say of the pastor, “He
preaches Grace GRACE but if you disagree he tells you to get the out
What’s wrong with that? If sheep disagree with their shepherd
and insist on their own way of seeing and doing things, what do you
expect a shepherd to do? Didn’t the apostle Paul preach grace,
as well? Didn’t he have offenders expelled if they persisted
in doing their own thing or embracing faulty doctrine, instead of letting “grace” have
Just what do you think grace is, anyway? Lawlessness? Are you suggesting
there’s no place for Law? How did the grace of God work with
Ananias and Sapphira, for example? (See Iniquity,
Law and Grace, and Grace – The Reality.)
You say, “Basically you cant teach or
read anything unless he writes it or approves it??!! He hasnt even
studied theology its so
What is your problem there? Isn’t it up to a pastor to decide
what is allowed in his congregation and what isn’t? If you don’t
agree with him, he isn’t your pastor.
“Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos
If he isn’t your pastor, you have no business there, unless
you’re sent by the Lord to speak to the people, which you aren’t.
Do you simply wish to defy McDonald?
So “he hasn’t even studied theology.” Can you tell
me which of the prophets, apostles, elders, or Spirit-filled men, like
Stephen and Phillip, studied theology? Paul called all his study of
theology “dung,” didn’t he (Philippians 3)? It appears
your faith is in dung, certainly not Christ. I would think your parents
have studied theology, too. Which means their trust is in man, not
God; in dung, not revelation of the Spirit; and in man’s ordination,
not God’s anointing.
You say of the pastor, “It amazed me that
he could LIE to the WHOLE church and yet be so decieved to think
that the problem is with
It’s good to be able to see falsehood, but you don’t see
how to deal with it, being in desperate spiritual need yourself. You
are the man, Kurtis; you need to see to yourself, and your parents
need to see to themselves.
So you see, you have nothing to offer on behalf of the Lord to others.
How great the darkness in you! If you can call your parents “God-fearing
Christian ministers,” and you’re their fruit, we must conclude
their fruit isn’t good, and they need repentance and instruction
every bit as much as you do. You are all in darkness.
Revelation 3:17-20 MKJV
(17) Because you say, I am rich and increased with goods and have need
of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and
poor and blind and naked,
(18) I counsel you to buy from Me gold purified by fire, so that you
may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed, and so
that the shame of your nakedness does not appear. And anoint your eyes
with eye salve, so that you may see.
(19) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; therefore be zealous
(20) Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice
and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and
he with Me.