Definition of False Teacher: One who presumes to teach in the Name of the Lord when God has not sent him.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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, you’ll 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 (covered below):

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 philosophy….

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!!!

Victor’s reply:

“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 MKJV).

“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, and philosophy.

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 way?

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 mind disinfected.

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, too).

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.

Driscoll speaks 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 ever fails.

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 from me.
(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 me.
(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 of weakness, 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 Christ-bloodless yourself.

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 the Church!!!!

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 free rein?

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 disgusting!!

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 3:3 MKJV)

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 everyone else.

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 and repent.
(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.

Victor Hafichuk

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Provide your email if you would like to receive periodic correspondence from us.

You can leave a comment herex