A La Carte (1/17)

As a charismatic with emerging church leanings, I'm rarely on the same page as MacArthur - but to his recent articles, I can say a hearty AMEN! Not only do I agree with his points, but the attitude with which he has addressed the issue has been exemplary too. I respect Driscoll for a lot of things, but his preaching on SoS's is way over the line (particularly the Scottish version) and inexcusable. I believe in years to come, he will be exceedingly embarrassed about this whole episode.

Jackie,

Just visit the site for Shepherd's Fellowship and go looking. You'll find all four parts there.

When I first wrestled with the apparent 'genocide' of the Canaanite peoples, I found this to be a very thorough examination of the subject:http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

One of the most important points I took away was that the Israelites actually did very little of the sacking, because they didn't have to. God tells the people over and over that He will drive the Canaanites out ahead of Israel. The Canaanites were fearful of the approaching Israelites, and were aware of what God had already done for them along their way.

Indeed, for the most part, the Canaanite nations were destroyed as political entities, but most of the individual Canaanites peoples survived. (Sadly, presaging the eventual Israelite decline into Canaanite paganism.)

Of course, there are also those like Rahab, who believed and was accepted into the covenant community (she was even in the lineage of Christ!), so it's reasonable to conclude that the Israelites absorbed other believing Canaanites.

Hey i thought it was april?

"I have come away from this a bit disappointed in MacArthur, not because of his bringing up an important issue that has come to the forefront, but for attacking another brother in the Lord with so little grace."

1. Driscoll's tweet of a Proverbs passage during Phil Johnson's Shepherds Conf. talk called Johnson in essence a fool. How full of grace is that.

2. If you think MacArthur was not graceful when attacking error, wait until his next book that shows Jesus' own remarks against those religious leaders who promoted error. Those very leaders would have accused Christ of being full of so little grace.

Thanks, Tim, and thanks to Dr. MacArthur. His response here was gracious and helpful.

Having read Mac's conclusion and listened to major potions of Driscoll's "sex" series if you wish , I have 2 conclusions. The first is that Driscoll reads way too much into the Song of Solomon to be as literal and graphic as he made it. Poetry can veil many things and when ever I write to my wife a poem of love, I would use all manners of speech to explore my love for her . Now someone could read that poem and think I meant something quite literal when they could have completely missed the mark. I do agree that the book is primarily a book concerning courtship and love but he takes it too far.The second thing is I believe that Driscoll is being shaped by the culture more than he thinks with his use of edgy images and language. He continues to say how in Seattle its so pagan. Well I live in New Minas , Novas Scotia and guess what, drugs ,illicit sex,unbelief ,a growing interest in Wicca etc..well you get the picture thrive here as well. We are pilgrims , strangers in this land . By acting and talking like the surrounding culture to try and connect, dumbs down our witness . Last thing , I do think Driscoll is a diamond still in the ruff . He has a passion for the gospel , to proclaim the good news , no question but needs to clean up the language a bit. I'm no prude and have even thought that way too many Christians have very wrong views of sex and God's plan for it but still think Mark crossed the line a bit .Hopefully this will lead to a fruitful dialogue between these two men of God and reconciliation can occur .

Thanks for the response, Jill.

It is interesting that you mention the Phil Johnson controversy, which as I see it, is very connected to all of this, but I think you're reaching a bit on #1. I think most readers probably do not realize that MacArthur's articles are not the first time this issue has been brought up. Driscoll has dealt with a very long history of being publically confronted (with very little grace) for his use of language. MacArthur is coming in from a position of adding more fuel to the accusations. Driscoll has been fairly silent and gracious towards his critics despite his disagreement with them on use of language. My own conclusion of all this is that I agree with Reg wholeheartedly (#14) about Driscoll, he is a diamond in the rough. And while I think MacArthur has brought up an important issue, he ahs not handled this with appropriate grace.

Again, this is not a new issue. MacArthur is not bringing to light an aspect of Driscoll's preaching that most of us were unaware of. So as MacArthur takes his turn on the heals of Phil Johnson in addressing this topic, I find that there is more new information to learn by looking at the tone of MacArthur's correction, since he is bringing up something I already know about Driscoll.

Anyway...that's just my 2 cents.

With regard to the Canaanites, most rational people can get past the idea that a holy and authoritative God could destroy a person (or people) who are wholly despicable. What usually becomes the sticking point is that the Israelites were commanded to slay even the children:

"But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God."

How is a child going to lead God's people astray? But the answer given by Johnson, i.e. that they were an abomination before God, only applies to the Canaanites. Israel was also given instructions concerning other cities who were [i]not[/i] described as abominable:

""When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you."

So, basically, if a city won't agree to enslave itself, kill all the men and take everything else. Now, I get that this was a violent time, and that God was working here to build Israel into a great nation. Then again, I don't get why he chose to do that by having them conquer cities (for plunder and servants) that were not especially abominable. This is the God who fed them for forty years with mana from heaven. Could he not have provided without the need for so much bloodshed?

Loved the link on intentional mothering. And those of us who watch ESPN hockey coverage are more than familiar with Don Cherry and his eye-watering collection of ties and sportcoats!

The Don Cherry quiz was hilarious. :) I'm not Canadian (I live in Massachusetts,) but I grew up near Detroit, where Hockey Night in Canada was a regular staple in my house. At my parents' house, it still is. I still miss CBC, even though I haven't lived in Michigan since 1997. :p

Perhaps they should include the Don Cherry exercise in the citizenship test?

John and Scott,Challies' first post on this linked to Pastor MacArthur's first and second posts. The second post specifically mentions and discusses the sermon in Scotland. So it was actually brought up in the beginning. Perhaps you both missed that.

Lori,

Yep, he mentioned it. The link to the full highlighted transcript was not provided when the posts by Dr. MacArthur started. In the second post he did mention a "Sunday congregation in Scotland".

A link to the full highlighted transcript from the onset would have been much more helpful.

Thanks for the comment.

Cheers,

Scott