John MacArthur has kicked off a bit of controversy with his posts on Song of Solomon and, in particular, with his rationale for doing so—addressing pastors who, when preaching through the book, “employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon’s poem.” In his first two articles he has singled out Mark Driscoll as one he considers a prime offender. This will be the last time the name Driscoll comes up in this article; I really do not want his name to sideline any discussion.
As I wrote in yesterday’s A La Carte, I think this is a discussion that we will all benefit from. I look forward to hearing what Dr. MacArthur has to say about Song of Solomon and a proper, biblical way of understanding, interpreting and preaching it. I think his long and faithful ministry has given him the right to speak out and speak up. We’d be foolish to immediately write him off as old and irrelevant and out-of-touch (as some are doing, based on what I’ve seen in blog comments). There is no need to be defensive here! The men he is writing against are all big boys and can handle what he says and the discussion that will ensue.
And already I have read some interesting discussion. For example, Erik Raymond gave me some things to think about when he gave two reasons that he is uncomfortable with all the talk of sex coming out of evangelicalism today. Here is what he wrote:
1. The emphasis upon sex has become so strong that it has begun to sound like our message. The danger here is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is regrettably assumed, neglected or forgotten. When many evangelicals begin to ride the waves of media popularity and are given a platform to speak, they sound more and more like sex coaches than ministers of a message. Somewhere along the way that which is of first importance gets shelved.
2. Most of the way in which these pastors handle the text is just flat out troubling. Often times we are given a reading of a verse or a section and then the pastor launches off into sexual advice and counsel. And when there is something that is legitimately debated among Bible teachers the issue is not dealt with responsibly (in my view) but rather quickly. The text then, which has not been adequately unpacked within its context, is then made prescriptive for the Christian.
I have listened to a couple of sermons of the kind MacArthur is reacting against—sermons which tend to look at Song of Solomon line-by-line, expressing how each metaphor, each poetic device, describes a particular part of the body or a particular sexual act. I have been bothered by such sermons for two reasons. The first lines up with what Erik wrote above: the poor handling of the text. Turning Song of Solomon into a how-to manual that describes or prescribes certain acts is to miss the point of the book. As MacArthur says, “It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love—in language suitable for any audience.”
The other reason is one for which I’d be interested in feedback. Song of Solomon is poetry and as such, should not be treated, exposited, in the same way as prose. Not too many people would disagree with this. It strikes me as well that Song of Solomon is substantially different from other kinds of biblical poetry. If we compare one of David’s Psalms to Song of Solomon we see that they are tangibly different. So while it may make sense to progress line-by-line through Psalm 119, interpreting each line, it seems to me that Song of Solomon does not give itself to this kind of interpretation. Song of Solomon is an expression of wonder, an expression of joy, an expression of mystery. Or that’s certainly how it appears to me. I don’t think we are supposed to understand it in a word-by-word, line-by-line sense as we might the book of Romans.
MacArthur quotes a few lines. They are worth reading just for the beauty of the poetry and the creativity of the imagery:
A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
A rock garden locked, a spring sealed up.
Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates
With choice fruits, henna with nard plants,
Nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon,
With all the trees of frankincense,
Myrrh and aloes, along with all the finest spices.
You are a garden spring,
A well of fresh water,
And streams flowing from Lebanon.”
Awake, O north wind,
And come, wind of the south;
Make my garden breathe out fragrance,
Let its spices be wafted abroad.
May my beloved come into his garden
And eat its choice fruits!”
MacArthur says it right, I’m sure, when he says “Let’s face it: overall, the Song is about as far from explicit as the writer can get.” Had the author wanted to be explicit, he could have done so. Instead, he wrote in poetry, in metaphor, carefully crafting a poem that is full of mystery. “Song of Solomon is incredibly beautiful precisely because it is so carefully veiled. It is a perfect description of the wonderful, tender, intimate discovery that God designed to take place between a young man and his bride in a place of secrecy. We are not told in vivid terms what all the metaphors mean, because the beauty of marital passion is in the eye of the beholder—where it should stay.” To remove the veil is to remove the beauty!
So here is what I am wondering. Don’t we do damage to the Song of Solomon when we seek to interpret and explain every line? To use an old cliche, don’t we miss the forest for the trees? Isn’t it better to leave some mystery in the Song, understanding themes but ultimately finding satisfaction not in drawing a one-to-one comparison between metaphor and act, poetry and body part, but rather in seeing it as one man’s attempt at expressing the joy, the wonder and the mystery of sex and sexuality? Isn’t the very reason he had to use poetry was that prose just couldn’t express the wonder? The beauty and the mystery of the Song go hand-in-hand. To remove one is to remove the other.
Comments (170) »
1. Michael Duenes
April 15, 2009
10:22 AM
Good points, Tim, and I largely agree. My only thought on MacArthur, which I stated in my comment on your original post and would reiterate here, is that he is not careful enough, and I have found this to be true about him in other areas as well.
2. Justin Taylor
April 15, 2009
10:24 AM
I think the question of the extent one talks about sex is one issue, but I don’t follow you on the interpretation of poetry. Would you make this a general rule that poetry should not be interpreted line by line?
JT
3. Nick
April 15, 2009
10:31 AM
Hey Tim,
I’m kind of wondering the same thing as Justin. Also, I agree that part of the beauty is in the veiling but how are we to explain what Solomon meant to people in the 21st century? Do we just leave the language veiled and then hope people can express sexual union in similar ‘veiling’ terms?
4. Josh
April 15, 2009
10:40 AM
I would be very careful in ever saying that “MacArthur is not careful enough.” Also, Driscoll does need to come up in this treatment because he has sidelined nearly all careful and restrained discussion of the matter all by himself.
5. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
10:40 AM
JT,
I think there must be a difference between the poetry of the Psalms and the poetry of Song of Solomon. I can’t point to a particular biblical injunction that would tell me this, but I think the genre or the subgenre dictates it. Reading Psalms in the same way as Song of Solomon or Song of Solomon in the same way as Psalms strikes me as violating the author’s intent.
I’m not sure if that makes sense. I’m eager to learn here.
6. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
10:43 AM
I think the question of the extent one talks about sex is one issue
A question I’d ask you is this: if Solomon really was referring to one act or one body part per line or per metaphor, or if he really did want us to search the poetry and understand exactly what he was referring to, what would then stop us from talking about sex to the furthest extent? What harm would there be, then, in explaining it in all its detail?
7. Whitney
April 15, 2009
10:48 AM
I read the McArthur note yesterday and at first was surprised. I see nothing wrong with using the Song of Solomon as a launching point, if you will, to talk about sex. What he considers graphic I think is somewhat generational. I haven’t heard anything from any of these preachers that is obscene or inappropriate. Maybe that’s my age speaking, but I think people need to hear this! There may be a problem if this is the only way someone is talking about the Song of Songs or if they are not approaching it with proper hermeneutics. But the age/generation/culture thing keeps coming back to mind - I think this is key here.
8. J. P. Hession
April 15, 2009
11:02 AM
My perception is that we have more to be sanctified from in how these men (Driscoll and McArthur) and others respond to the specific issue at hand than we do in whatever theological resolution might come of this. What a small theological question this is at its core! Should we be semi-graphic or mysterious when discussing the gift of marital intimacy? That is all it is. These are two men, that in my opinion, make the Gospel powerful and central in almost everything they do. Pray that neither of them should hint that the other is not doing this as the community quibbles over such a small thing.
I have listened to the Driscoll series, and while I would not direct everyone to it, I found it to be a blessing for me (who is married). I do not think the series was in bad taste or unnecessarily explicit, though I do think it is not PG. But, quite frankly, the Bible is quite graphic in some areas. There would be portions of Scripture (most of them in the Old Testament) that I would have a hard time reading to my kids. All this is to say that a wise preacher is discerning in both who his audience is and what it is they need to hear.
I have been out to Seattle. It is a dark, dark place. Driscoll’s intensity is a providencial blessing to that city, even if it sometimes feels out of place for some of us. And it is perhaps the wide exposure of his preaching that means some ears will be offended.
We must remember that both of these men are flawed. They do not always treat issues wisely, and this goes for both of them. Pray that they have some grace toward each other. I’m not sure how Driscoll has responded to all this yet, but I am just detecting a sense of tone from MacArthur on this one that is unnecessary and unfortunate. Maybe I am wrong and missing a bigger issue too, though.
9. Michael Duenes
April 15, 2009
11:10 AM
Again, I would like to see someone give me an explanation of just what Solomon’s words would have conveyed to HIS original audience? In other words, would they have thought of it as highly veiled and euphemistic? What would they have thought of as “explicit” and “lewd?” What would be a similarly metaphorical use of language for us today since we don’t talk about women using agrarian images? I’m sure there are commentaries that discuss this, but I would like to have seen at least some explanation of this if one is going to say that Driscoll is stepping over the line. In other words, if Driscoll steps over, what then would be the language of proper restraint?
10. Steve
April 15, 2009
11:16 AM
How about a more basic issue. I’m not sure why one would preach from a pulpit the Song of Solomon. I think it is poor judgment on a pastor’s part to deal with that book in a public setting. Not all parts of Scripture are necessarily preachable. For example I would not want my people to have to endure a verse by verse exposition on Leviticus. While the Song is Scripture and is ‘profitable for doctrine and teaching…’ It doesn’t follow that it is for a group setting.
11. Tim Wood
April 15, 2009
11:18 AM
Let me start off by saying I respect both MacArthur and Driscoll.
I really respect John for his biblical teaching and his carefulness with the Word. My own church has benefited greatly by having a Master’s Seminary graduate as pastor. My only real complaint against him is that he often portrays a “perfect” persona. Though he often rightly preaches about repentance, it seems a very rare occasion in which he leads by public example. Until listening to his Together for the Gospel address on 40 years of ministry, I was unconvinced that he ever dealt with personal sin. I see the painful affects of this tendency in some of the lay “MacAuthurites” that never seem to struggle with sin or even admit to enjoying any kind of liberties in Christ. It makes those of us who are very aware of our sin, a little nervous about repenting publicly when required or even asking for prayer, encouragement or help. Thankfully, God is gracious in growing my local church in grace, forgiveness and repentance. But I digress…
I also respect Driscoll for his frank dealings with the Word. Does he occasionally use techniques and terminology that would cause the fundamental, conservative, Bible-belt set to flinch? Occasionally. Then again he is preaching to a younger, liberal (politically, not theologically) Northwest demographic. But what I appreciate about his methodology is a willingness to repent publicly of sin both from the pulpit and in the written form.
Specifically, I believe Driscoll has addressed this very issue on his blog:
http://theresurgence.com/spring_cleaning
Also impressive is Driscoll’s thankfulness for good, solid, Bible-believing critics. In a mature and apologetic mark of grace, Driscoll listed MacArthur during his extended biographies of “New Calvinist” on the resurgence. He put MacArthur in the same category as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, Brainerd, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and the Reformers. The post is at:
http://theresurgence.com/new_calvinism_macarthur_on_bible_teaching
My prayer for both men and those who listen and respect their teaching is that we would be able to learn not only from their teaching, but also from their lifestyles of repentance and grace.
12. Matthew
April 15, 2009
11:19 AM
I’m with #3— it seems to me that there are so many lies about sex in the world today (some of which, sadly, have originated from quasi-Christian teaching or distortions thereof.) Marital sex is beautiful and mysterious, but I think that in preserving that beauty and mystery we have to unpack the meaning of a text like the Song so that modern readers can appreciate the glory of the poem. If we just read through the Song without context or exposition, it might be easy to think that it’s just weird or difficult to understand. I think that the original readers of the text would have understood the euphemisms very well and appreciated their graphic nature in the same way as we might if we read a poem with a clever innuendo. Metaphors & mysteries are only fun as long as you can still understand them at least partially, so it makes sense to unpack them and then leave the rest to the Holy Spirit! So as long as we repack after we unpack (hope that makes sense), I think we still do the text as poetry justice.
To extend your analogy— we appreciate the forest for the trees best, I think, when we zoom in and examine the trees but then step back at the end.
Also, I think a lot of married couples are blessed by detailed discussions of the subject. It is very evident that Driscoll has done much counseling over the years and much of his pastoral concern on this subject is borne out of wanting to bless his people with solid teaching on sexuality. Whether or not the pulpit is the most appropriate place for such teaching is a whole ‘nother discussion, but I think we do have to appreciate the heart of such pastors in the matter (and certainly also MacArthur’s heart that Scripture be rightly honored and the Gospel proclaimed— at least in Driscoll’s case I think it is evident that sex has not obscured his passion for the proclamation of Christ!)
13. Chris Borah
April 15, 2009
11:19 AM
The only note I will write concerns my sermon-listening regimen. I have been reading/podcasting Driscoll for over 2 years and the only sermon series that I stopped listening to after the first 2 or 3 messages was the SoS series. Driscoll is a master at teaching a text and seeing that text point to Jesus. I feel as if he might have not done this as well in SoS.
I am married and 25 some I’m “younger.” My wife and I recently visited Seattle and sat and listened in the context Mark preaches in. I think maybe some of the tone and message gets lost on a national audience. For that crowd, a bunch of 20 somethings in urban Seattle, I feel as if I might need to re-listen to the SoS series with them in mind.
Cheers!
14. Whitney
April 15, 2009
11:21 AM
I strongly disagree that this shouldn’t be preached in a public setting. Why not? Because of children? They are going to hear it other places. We should give them God’s Word on the subject. Will it offend single people? It shouldn’t. Scripture is profitable and just in private. A teacher/preacher should proclaim its message loud and clear to all.
15. Scott
April 15, 2009
11:22 AM
J.P., Thanks for the great post. Well said!
Tim and Justin,
Would this be something that would be helpful to bring up at the GCC? You will both be present at the Band Of Bloggers event, correct? Maybe with the sphere of influence you guys have a helpful discussion could possibly be arranged. I’m looking forward to attending and for the teaching and fellowship. Thanks for all you guys do!
Cheers,
Scott
16. donsands
April 15, 2009
11:29 AM
”..they sound more and more like sex coaches than ministers of a message.”
That stinks. There are many teachers who shouldn’t be teaching. “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. “
I agree with others that a genuine preacher, pastor, or teacher of God’s word will exposit each verse from the Song of Solomon in a godly way, and a sensative way, and yet not shrink from speaking the truth in love, because he will have a fear of the Lord, and a love for the Savior and His truth.
Like the “hair being like a flock of goats” supposedly being a beautiful thing, and me thinking no way this can be beautiful hair. We need to understand it as best we can, and then leave it alone.
17. Jason Chamberlain
April 15, 2009
11:29 AM
I see the job of the pastor is to exposit the text for his people. Some of that will be unpacking Paul’s discussion of justification in Galatians. Some of that will be unpacking the imagery used in a poem like Song of Songs. This is especially valuable when a pastor has a congregation with a very warped view of human sexuality because it is so steeped in the local culture.
I am reminded of the scene in Bull Durham where they are in the locker room the day after Nuke’s debut. He had stayed up all night having Walt Whitman read to him and needed help understanding it.
Poetry of any kind is full of imagery and figurative language. If we believe that text conveys meaning based on authorial intent then it seems to me that it is the job of the pastor to help the people understand that meaning.
I had written some about the “Peasant Princess” series, but I want to respect Tim’s wishes on this.
18. Jody
April 15, 2009
11:30 AM
As I read today’s post my initial thought was a quote I read from Christian George’s book-“We must make Jesus sexy.” In his book, which wouldn’t be for everyone, written for 20-30ish population, Sex, Sushi, and Salvation he addresses the idea of what evangelical churches in America are doing. We forget that worship is not about us but about our great God and we exist for Him. This post is a bit off topic regarding what McCarthur and Driscoll are doing, and will not criticize either one, I’m the wife of a very hardworking, God- fearing and God- loving pastor, but I think some intimate, explicit topics should be left for smaller groups. I also agree that we shouldn’t get side-lined in the discussion in using particular names, and agree that McCarthur has been around long enough for us to merit listening to this humble servant of God.
19. Berny
April 15, 2009
11:31 AM
I’m going to respost my comment earlier under this post since this seems like the proper place to discuss the issue. I’d also like to add that MacArthur is not a Hebrew scholar. How good of a grasp does he have on oriental poetry to speak confidently about generic considerations? Further, his commentaries are not exegetical but expositional. In fact, his expositional approach is closer to systematic theology than exegesis. Driscoll is not a scholar by any stretch, though Driscoll’s not the one challenging the interpretations of MacArthur, but the other way around. And as I’ve hinted above, to explore exegetical matters and form conclusions responsibly requires either a first hand mastery of the OT exegesis or a second hand grasp of exegetical principles drawn from the best exegetical scholarship. I’m not saying that MacArthur is wrong, but that articles like this reveal an exaggerated sense of interpretive competence.
On to my original post.
MacArthur’s thinly-veiled offensive against preachers who speak frankly about sexual matters betrays a lack of self-awareness. He waxes indignant over preachers who mention “unmentionable body parts” and nevertheless titles his post “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” — linking their expositions of certain passages with the criminal act of sexual violation and assault against a person’s will. I don’t have a problem with such imagery — the Bible employs figurative language just as graphic. My problem is when Christians masquerade their prudish, Victorian sensibilities as pietistic adherence to the Scriptures.
Sexuality has become pervasively entrenched in every area of our societal landscape. Confusion over sexual matters abounds in our culture. The Puritan approach is no longer appropriate. To be different with regard to this matter no longer means a willingness to leave the discussion over sexual matters as a symbol of the church’s separation from the world, but a willingness to come to the table to address these matters in a frank and biblical way.
I’d add that MacArthur types are ignorant of the way that personality traits help to shape our moral sensibilities. I am waiting for someone with a magisterial command of both psychology and theology to help communicate to the church just how interconnected morality and personality really are. This doesn’t mean that our personalities determine our moral senses, but they color our apprehension of Scripture’s commands in drastic ways. I would say more on this matter but I do not want to give away original insights that I am planning on developing further.
20. julius mickel
April 15, 2009
11:49 AM
What saith the scriptures??? “i think,,, i like…I listen to…” has no weight whatsoever. MacArthur makes clear how the scriptures approach marriage and intimacy (deal with those texts,,,and when you want to object, then i woud ask again did you deal with the texts that build a biblical model).
All scripture is profitable… EVERYTHING can be taught in the pulpit unless you make it say something that it doesn’t say.
GENERATIONAL??? Really, are we the only culture to be obsessed with sex? These arguments don’t even make sense, ‘there’s nothing new under the sun’. Our culture does not demand a ‘new’ interpretation of scripture which is contrary to church history. MD has totally missed it, and his selling point is a mega-church in rough and tough Seattle.
Of the effective preachers I’ve seen in the hood, preaching to thugs and prostitutes i’ve never seen a need for crudeness or explictness, it’s NOT needed. Nor of the biographies of ministers in red-light districts, sex-craved tribes, not ANYWHERE have i EVER read of such a need to be explicit (you wanna talk about happy an healthy marriages then we need to go back in time for advice)
21. Sue
April 15, 2009
12:03 PM
I take issue to the people who think that if SOS is preached it should be only for married people. Single people are ADULTS too. I have two single little sisters, both from fundamentalist backgrounds. One wants to get married…but doesn’t want a physical relationship with her future husband. The other talks to her church friends who think that intimacy is miserable…so anything sexual that is “fun” leading up to that must be okay to do outside marriage. And to say that a topic like this should only be discussed in small groups….how many people are truly comfortable discussing this topic one-on-one or in a small group where they know everyone?!?
22. Alfie
April 15, 2009
12:11 PM
Any pastor can look out at his congregation, and especially his culture, and see a bunch of sexually dysfunctional people, but not by the world’s standards. They are sexually dysfunctional by God’s standards. In our world, sex has been completely divorced from God’s holistic design (body-soul-mind-heart intimacy within heterosexual marriage) and is all about self gratification of the flesh alone. Every perversion is out in the open, talked about, even promoted and celebrated. There is zero mystery, zero purity, zero chastity. There is no commitment and no trust. There is baggage and false ideas and unrealistic expectations. Even if one keeps themselves a virgin physically, one’s heart can be contaminated with every kind of sexual evil. In this context, sex is biblically dysfunctional, and it causes all kinds of problems in relationships, including Christian marriages. So all these people in church, decent Christian couples, are searching for ways to make sex all they think it’s supposed to be.
And so it’s a hot topic; one that Churches and pastors MUST address. But please, let’s keep the mystery. Let’s keep the purity. Let’s not get dragged into the filthy cesspool of the world… We forget that great sex, as God designed it, is perfectly natural, yet full of mystery and wonder. Proverbs 30:18-19 says it this way: “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yes, four which I do not understand: The way of an eagle in the air, The way of a serpent on a rock, The way of a ship in the midst of the sea, And the way of a man with a virgin.” The idea is that sex is natural and mysterious, like “an eagle in the air”. When pure and undefiled, sex is wonderful, satisfying, and glorious.
23. julius mickel
April 15, 2009
12:14 PM
Berny
Don’t fret brother if you have ‘original’ insights then it’s probably no good. There are plenty enough pyscho-influenced teaching out there.
to all
The only thing that has become obselete in our culture is holy living. Texts like ‘flee from….’ or ‘abstain from the appearance…” don’t seem too ‘hip’ today. The Younger generation is ENCOURAGED to speak about shameful things, ENCOURAGED to watch filth so they can converse with the culture, Encouraged to do all the things these fruitful ‘dinosaurs’ have warned against, even Piper (who regardless of why he associates with MD has written incredible amts of material that would oppose the way he ministers-supremacy of God in preaching is 1) admitted before MD that if he followed his pattern that his faith would shrivel.
Welcome to the new gen of reformed people who look and talk like the world but man do we know our doctrine. Thanks be to God, that He must be doing something ‘new’ (sounds like Benny HInn) and yet the World is finding amusement out of these topics.
A worthy example? So we should be so explicit to make even our wives blush to the point where they ‘get used to it’ (as MD’s wife testified). That’s NOT an example young preachers need!
To Macarthurs credit, he is one PROOF among many that you don’t need to be like the culture to reach it. He’s had no problem in reaching all types- of course my understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit and Sovereignty of God leads me to not be suprised. (and no i’m not a Macarthurite, i rarely read or listen to him)
24. Alfie
April 15, 2009
12:17 PM
My conclusion (didn’t mean to post so soon):
There is no need to be lewd and explicit when talking about sex. That’s part of the reason we’re sexually dysfunctional… Within the proper biblical framework of marital purity and chastity, great sex comes naturally, and is blessed and smiled upon by God.
25. Dan
April 15, 2009
12:18 PM
I find it ironic that McArthur is upset that some pastors are too graphic and sentationalistic with their dealing of SoS…and then he titles his article “The RAPE of Song of Solomon”. Isn’t that equally as over the top?
26. Phil Johnson
April 15, 2009
12:24 PM
Berny: “My problem is when Christians masquerade their prudish, Victorian sensibilities as pietistic adherence to the Scriptures.”
Remarks like that, combined with the feigned outrage over the word “Rape,” miss the point completely. MacArthur has never objected to “stong” language, nor has he defended “Victorian sensibilities.” Anyone who ever bothered to listen to him would know that.
Strong language and lewd language (including filthy words) are not necessarily the same. Driscoll obscured that distinction and thus mangled the whole issue in his message at DG last year. But it is an important—and biblical—distinction. Failure to acknowledge such a distinction makes it impossible to make any sense of Ephesians 5:4.
You can pretend to be outraged over the mere mention of “rape” (explained, BTW, in MacArthurs article), or you can criticize someone else for being a Victorian prude. But you can’t really have it both ways.
27. Josh R
April 15, 2009
12:41 PM
I didn’t have time to read all the comments so if someone has expressed this thought, then I am sorry for repeating it.
Regarding the poetry of Song of Solomon, it would be important to keep in mind that the original audience may or may not have understood the mystery of the poetry. If they would have clearly understood the meanings of the imagery, then I can see why trying to uncover the meaning line by line would be important. If they, too, would have been left with mystery, then I think we should do the same.
All I’m trying to say is that the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate truth and I think it may be helpful to try and figure out what the original audience would have understood the Spirit to be saying through Solomon. Would they have understood it to be euphemism or imagery for specific sexual activities…or would they have understood it to be a language that beautiful portrays the love and passion one has in love.
I definitely don’t have the answer. But if you see it like McArthur sees it, you will preach it one way. If you see it like Driscoll sees it, you’ll preach it another. I wouldn’t impune the motives of either Pastor and I am sure that both desire to remain faithful to the text.
28. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
12:42 PM
I love the heart behind what is said here. I appreciate the high regard for proper exegesis. Still, as one who has listened to the entire Peasant Princess series by Driscoll, I can tell that you have not, as all of these things are addressed thouroughly in the in-depth series. It literally took days to listen to them all, because he covered so much ground. It’s not all about oral sex, etc. I found that he actually did the book justice by speaking frankly about the things that are quite obvious, as well as addressing the fear-based reactions to this book throughout history.
When I was a child, I can remember reading through the Song of Solomon, and getting quite aroused, and then feeling sort of ashamed about the fact that the bible just turned me on sexually!
Even as a child, I understood that pomogranites meant breasts, and much of the other metaphores.
What you are calling “mystery”, I understood as a small child. Driscoll’s teaching highlights the mystery of marital intimacy, rather than taking away from it.
Listen to the entire series, and then you can properly judge where or not McCarther is “irrelevant”, or not.
29. Berny
April 15, 2009
1:00 PM
Phil, apparently you hop-skipped over the sentence that read “I don’t have a problem with such imagery — the Bible employs figurative language just as graphic.” There is no “feigned outrage” on my part. So let me repeat, I don’t have a problem with the article’s title qua title — my point was to illustrate the unintentionally ironic disposition on MacArthur’s part to cast what he perceives to be a misinterpretation of a Scriptural text in rapist language. Is he oblivious to the graphic nature of his characterization? Or is he content to construct explicit sexual imagery as a metaphor (his title) though not to extract explicit sexual imagery from a metaphor (Song of Songs)? It’s MacArthur who can’t have it both ways.
As far as the difference between strong and lewd language, I agree that there is a distinction. This is one area where the Holy Spirit seems to grant common Christians intuitive awareness sufficient to make this distinction in ordinary communication. But making this distinction on a theological level requires doing exegetical leg work that, in the past, has not by and large exhibited a nuanced appreciation of relevant subjects to this issue.
30. dave bish
April 15, 2009
1:12 PM
Matthew Henry says the Song is just like Psalm 45 and from there goes on to reason that it’s primarily about Christ and the church, something Driscoll sadly dismissed as a joke. I like a lot of what Driscoll is doing but this was not really handled well imho. Lots of the marriage applications are great, but surely there’s more to The Song than that.
31. Eric Z
April 15, 2009
1:14 PM
I’m frankly a little surprised to have heard MacArthur (and Tim) make this particular argument. They seem to be saying that we should just read Song of Solomon and leave it at that, and attempts to explain the figurative language are inherently inappropriate. But if that was true, would that not call into question MacArthur’s entire ministry, which has been devoted to faithfully explaining the words of scripture? In fact, MacArthur has a commentary on Revelation in which he attempts to explain figurative language, and I’ve heard him preach sermons on passages like Psalm 19 and Ecc. 12 where pretty much the whole sermon involves unpacking figurative language and explaining to his audience in their own terms what the language of scripture means. So, without trying to enter into the Driscoll debate I think this specific argument being made by MacArthur and promoted by Challies falls pretty flat.
32. Reformed Book Guy
April 15, 2009
1:15 PM
Tim, great post. I recently have given this topic much thought and study. While I respect MacArthur and Driscoll as two pastors who are Gospel centered (and much smarter than I) I think Titus 2:7-8; Eph. 4:29, 5:4; 1 Tim. 4:12 and 1 Pet. 3:15-16 among other verses answer the first part of the question. Christians speech is to be dignified, gracious and gentle at all times. Not course, crude, slanderous or malicious speech for the sake of the Gospel and our testimony. We must hold a high view of Scripture or any false teaching can be tolerated. Men who stand in the pulpit and proclaim the Word of God are to be an example to the flock. There is no room or excuse for crude language or joking in the pulpit, it is disrespectful to God at best, and blasphemous at worst.
Moreover, I do not accept contextualization as an excuse for crude language. Paul is speaking in 1 Cor. 9 about the Gospel being offensive enough, we do not need to add to the offense of the Gospel with our actions. However, contextualization is never an excuse to sin. Furthermore, in these cities were “crude” language is all people “understand” therefore we must talk that way in the pulpit—I am sure if we went into a second or third grade classroom the teacher would not be using crude language because that is all the students understand.
I am looking forward to reading the comments about if we should exegete poetry the same as other genre. Thanks for the post!
33. Alexander M Jordan
April 15, 2009
1:17 PM
Many historical commentators on Song of Solomon have seen it as an allegory of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Since Paul also draws a parallel between the husband and wife relationship and the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church, this may be a valid interpretation. But if SoS is being presented as primarily a kind of sexual technique manual, its more transcendent message about the beauty of the relationship between man and woman in marriage, with its possible parallel to the the intimacy between Christ and his bride, will be missed.
As others have noted, the world has degraded sex enough. To reach the world, must we lower the level of the conversation about sex to satisfy its coarse ears and desires?
As a sexual sinner and a Christian, I want to be challenged and helped to see something higher- a more lovely, pure and excellent sexuality, an understanding that sex in marriage is not primarily about mutually satisfying physical gratification, though that is unashamedly part of it, but about expressing loving intimacy.
34. Jason Chamberlain
April 15, 2009
1:36 PM
I think that SoS can be interpreted with a both/and approach. I don’t think that the original readers would have seen Christ in it, but as we now have a closed canon with Ephesians 5:25-33 we can see the parallels.
This debate seems to keep coming up and I have the same question every time. Who gets to define what is “crude” language? I listened to the whole Peasant Princess series and was never offended. Plus, as someone who once struggled with pornography I am pretty prudish when it comes to sex. I don’t watch TV for that very reason and I very rarely watch any movies.
Generally speaking, when this debate comes out it seems like there is no question that MD uses “crude” or “inappropriate” language. My take on it is that he is frank, but nothing he said was inappropriate to me.
35. Mike
April 15, 2009
1:38 PM
“In his first two articles he has singled out Mark Driscoll as one he considers a prime offender”
Really a shocker here.
Tim, you might not want the discussion to be sidelined by continuing going back to Driscoll, but MacArthur and friends certainly do. I’m all for a Pastor defending his sheep, but this is all a bit over the top.
Further, MacArthur does his congregation no good by continuing to skirt the issue of sex, with a particularly strange appeal: “Indeed the Bible does talk about it, and the Physical relationship between a couple is front and center of an entire book, but because of the genre, it is best if we actually try to avoid any direct handling of the topic.”
If only MacArthur and friends would use the same logic when it came to apocalyptic genre. I think a MUCH stronger case could be argued against reading an absurdly literal meaning into each line of revelation, than could be made against describing what the author is actually talking about in Song of Solomon.
Since when is the expositor supposed to not dig deep into the meaning of the texts. When we find metaphors and similes in the rest of Scripture, we do not fail to expound on them for our audience.
The appeal to “genre” for a reason against this appears disingenuous. It seems much more likely that it is a topic that MacArthur is uncomfortable talking and therefore wants to do the most minimalist job possible when it comes to expounding the text for his audience.
As much as I once respected this man and the community he represents, I find that I lose just a little bit more of that respect with each new bit of information that comes out. Luckily for me, I’m not doing as much as Driscoll, so I don’t have to worry about being berated in one of his sermons and blogged about by his faithful disciples.
36. Matthew
April 15, 2009
1:38 PM
I can’t believe that just a couple days after Mars Hill Church baptizes over 300 people on Easter Sunday, we’re sitting here arguing and criticizing people over how to handle a text like this. I listened to the entire series Driscoll did, and I didn’t think it was ever crass or crude.
In my opinion, most of that is MacArthur being a little older and disconnected from the next generation. There’s nothing wrong with that. He doesn’t resonate with younger people for the most part. The problem is when you try to enforce your definitions of what is crass and crude without understanding you don’t have a monopoly on those ideas. Most people don’t have a problem with a lot of words that would have been considered crude in the past. Those things change.
The bible never says to not talk about sex. I find nothing wrong with how Mark did it (I do have a problem with the silly “sex challenges,” but that’s entirely different, and something Driscoll never did). I don’t think it would have been helpful to many of his people who are really struggling with sexual issues to just leave the “mystery” as is with no explanations. Yes, it’s beautiful, but it’s also scripture, which is useful for teaching and rebuke. Most of what Mark talked about was a rebuke of the way sex is portrayed in our culture. In 2 posts so far, MacArthur has failed to point out any real specifics of what he finds over the line. We’re just getting vague “you shouldn’t explain the text at all” comments.
Driscoll isn’t perfect, and I’m sure he would appreciate some advice on how to improve his preaching, but MacArthur is nothing but polemic every time he talks about anything, and it leads to arguments like this. Had he brought it up in love and had it felt like he was reaching out to correct a Christian brother, this conversation would be going quite different.
37. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
1:50 PM
MacArthur is nothing but polemic every time he talks about anything…
Of all the broad statements I’ve read today, that must be the most!
38. mike
April 15, 2009
2:01 PM
Of all the broad statements I’ve read today, that must be the most!
Obviously Matthew has exaggerated the point here, but that does not dismiss the point in general. We could debate all night long on whether MacArthur is polemical 92% of the time he talks about this or whether 71% is more accurate, etc.
The point, unfortunately, however, is that MacArthur and his close associates have been so polemical when it comes to Driscoll that many people have taken note and indeed he is becoming known for it. This is a problem, especially when looking at his arguments on these issues.
If he wants to come up with some argument that Song of Solomon is such a special and original genre that we do not dig deep into, then that is fine. But when he finds away to take that logic and use it as a way to further single out Driscoll, he has crossed the bounds of appropriate ministry.
39. FrankFusion!
April 15, 2009
2:03 PM
I’m glad to see most of the conduct here has been civil. (Thus far!) I should say I have friends my age (I’m soon to be 28) who love going to Grace Community CHurch and have also loved Driscoll’s stuff. So I don’t necessarily think it has all to do with age. It does have to do with preference to an extent and perhaps misunderstanding. Most people who have heard the SoS series Driscoll did mainly have praise for it. All of it. It would be a bit unfair to peg something on Driscoll when it wasn’t the whole of the message. Wherever Macarthur goes with this, I hope he can give us concrete examples and exegesis and not just pure polemic (and it woudl seem he did). And as someone else noted, next week is the Gospel Coalition event where Driscoll will be speaking. It would be nice of him to help clear things up. Indeed it would be a place for him to show some mautrity.
40. chris
April 15, 2009
2:10 PM
I dont Know if this has been said but Driscoll is reaching a different people group than Johnny Mac does ,However ; I think we need to be careful, How we talk about sex but don’t think that, we as Chistian should shy away from Talking about sex . I think this is good to talk about ; Final Maybe the Church can tell the culture what and How sex is instead of the Culture telling the Church. Lets us also Thank God for Guys like Johnny Mac and Mark Driscoll though we may not agree with them , They Help us become Better christian . They Make us USE OUR BRAINS and not let someone else think for us.
41. Matthew
April 15, 2009
2:17 PM
MacArthur is nothing but polemic every time he talks about anything…
“Of all the broad statements I’ve read today, that must be the most!”
——————————————-
Sorry Tim. You’re entirely right. Please excuse my hyperbole. Also please understand I make that statement as someone who has actually learned an immense amount from MacArthur in the past. My point was just to say that the only time you really hear much from MacArthur anymore, it seems to be in the form of an attack against something. I just think he could do so much more good and have the kind of positive influence he wants if he wasn’t so combative with his Christian brothers. People (myself included) want to listen to him, but it becomes much harder when he’s so harsh most of the time.
Again, sorry for the overstatement, though. That clearly wasn’t fair to MacArthur either.
42. dac
April 15, 2009
2:27 PM
Does no one see the irony in this?
A pastor who has made his career drilling down into verses to teach in the expository manner thinks that Driscoll is wrong for doing exactly that
que Alanis Morissette
43. Jesse Johnson
April 15, 2009
2:41 PM
Chris,
“Driscoll is reaching a different people group than Johny Mac does.”
I confess to being a bit mystified by that statement, especially in the context of how to rightly interpret a book of the Bible. Assuming that it is true (which I don’t), surely you are not implying that a right understanding of a passage is based on what “people group” you are reaching. Or are you?
I must say, working at GCC, that MacArthur is reaching all kinds of “people groups.” LA is pretty eclectic. But I can assure you that nobody comes here because of MacArthur’s style, but rather it is the Gospel that draws them, and the Gospel draws people from all kinds of “people groups.”
44. Lori
April 15, 2009
2:45 PM
To those who keep referring to “the Peasant Princess series”: MacArthur says clearly that he is NOT talking about that series.
“Mark Driscoll told a Sunday congregation in Scotland just less than 18 months ago… (A CD copy of that shocking message, entitled Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon, was recently sent to me by some deeply offended and concerned Christians in the UK. It is primarily the reason I’m doing this series.)
45. donsands
April 15, 2009
2:50 PM
“I listened to the entire series Driscoll did, and I didn’t think it was ever crass or crude.”
Didn’t Mark begin the series saying that theologians have in the past saw SoS as a mataphor for the Church and our Lord, and then joked about how he hoped not when we get to heaven with the Lord they were right.
I turned him off right there. It’s bad, and wrong. He thinks he’s right, but the SoS may well be showing us the intimacy of the Lord and His Church.
Mark gets what he believes is the right interpretation and runs with it, and others are wrong.
And in the language of SoS even the best Hebrew scolar won’t be sure.
There’s a way to teach the Word of God that edifies the people of God, and glorifies Christ. Mark does this sometimes, and other times he doesn’t.
God will judge the teachers more harshly, and so “be not many teachers”.
46. Roger
April 15, 2009
3:06 PM
It’s bad, and wrong. He thinks he’s right, but the SoS may well be showing us the intimacy of the Lord and His Church….
…Mark gets what he believes is the right interpretation and runs with it, and others are wrong.
————————————————————
So do you believe you’re right and Mark’s wrong?
47. mike
April 15, 2009
3:16 PM
Mark gets what he believes is the right interpretation and runs with it, and others are wrong.
Is this any different than anyone else? Especially the pastor whom is the main subject of this post?
48. Chris
April 15, 2009
3:27 PM
Jesse,
I didn’t say that the Gospel changes .Both johnny mac and DRiscoll preach the Gospel well but have very different Methods . Hence different People groups
49. sam
April 15, 2009
3:54 PM
donsands,
In comment 45 you are correct. I think Driscoll crossed the line here. I think it is inappropriate to talk imply performing homosexual acts with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
“DRISCOLL: “Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book, and we will teach it, but we’re gonna teach it allegorically.” And there’s a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They’ll say, “Well the allegorical interpretation, it’s not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it’s about us and Jesus.” Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I mean it’s gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I’m talking about. You’re like, “No, I’m not doing that. You know I’m not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that.” [Laughter from crowd]” source: (from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess” - start at 27:15)
50. Cathy
April 15, 2009
3:57 PM
Whenever I’m considering a life issue, I ask myself what the overall message of the NT is on that topic. So what’s the overall message of NT writers on the topic of sex? As has been stated, the NT writers were circumspect and clear about the proper place of sex, but they didn’t feel the need to go into specifics. Certainly their approach wasn’t because they were “generationally disconnected” from their readers or because their readers in Corinth, Ephesus, etc. were any less dysfunctional that we modern readers are. I draw the conclusion that the NT writers felt that basic instructions were enough along with prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit to deliver and bring wholeness to the area of sex. If pastors would just follow the NT pattern, there’d be no disagreements at all.
51. Matt Foreman
April 15, 2009
3:59 PM
Does anyone know if the message MacArthur is referring to is the message that Driscoll removed from his website and apologized for? If so, I think MacArthur’s obvious focus on Driscoll is ill-timed and unhelpful.
My wife, who is the “purest” woman I have ever met and I celebrate her for it, actually began to listen to Driscoll’s Peasant Princess series and asked me to listen to it. Neither of us are regular Driscoll listeners by any stretch of the imagination. But she found his series very helpful to her personally and not objectionable in the least. I have only listened to three of the series, and found them very helpful and didn’t find anything objectionable or crude. In fact, I could see how they could be very helpful to many people in our culture. Driscoll does a great job of affirming biblical manhood and womanhood, calling on men to be leaders in their marriages, and calling on singles to be pure before marriage.
Since the Peasant Princess messages are his most recent and Driscoll himself has acknowledged areas he has needed to grow in the past, it seems to me unfortunate that MacArthur should take the approach he has.
52. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
4:07 PM
Actually, i think that J.P. Hession said it best (8th comment, above).
53. Jesse Johnson
April 15, 2009
4:13 PM
Matt,
I suggest you read the today’s pulpit post (linked by my name) for a few reasons. One: it answers your question. Two: one of the comments, left by Phil Johnson, points out what the “spring cleaning” post orriginally said (before it was changed sometime recently) and how that does not really seem to be an apology as you implied.
But the real reason to read it is exactly because of what this blog is titled. It is an attempt to look at the forest. What is the right way to understand SoS, and how should it be preached?
Jesse
54. Susanna
April 15, 2009
4:22 PM
In a collage group I once attended, we watched a series on Songs of Solomon done by Tommy Nelson. He went through it pretty much line by line and let me just say that I found his style of presenting the book very troubling and inappropriate. He went so far as to talk about his honeymoon night with his wife and how he felt as she took of different items of clothing, etc. I didn’t want to here that then. I wouldn’t want to now. That should be kept between he and his wife.
Many people in the collage group made fun of me when I said I didn’t want to watch the rest of the series…they thought I was acting like too much of a “square” I guess. But in my mind, Songs of Solomon was not written to make us sin in our minds and imaginations as Nelson seemed to be making us do through his very explicit analysis. Anyhow, so I probably agree with MacArthur more than others. We need to be so wise and careful how we address this book and not highly sexual it. IT might make it more “exciting” to some but it only leads to sinful thoughts in the minds or readers/hearers.
55. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
4:23 PM
Well said, Matt. It really is unfortunate. My wife, as well, has really enjoyed the series. It took me like 2 wks to listen to them, but it was well worth the time. I don’t know of anyone who holds the scriptures as high as Driscoll does, so yea… it really is “funny” to find such “godly” men resorting to such fear-based tactics. Still… it’s all kind of predictable, isn’t it?
56. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
4:29 PM
Susanna,
I think that you do not understand the nature of sexual sin. Do you think that it is a sin to be sexually stimulated?
(If so, it’s not.)
What about being “turned on” when reading SoS?
(Still, this is not a sin.)
It might make you feel a little bit “shameful”, however that shame is not a result from sin, but rather from your own past experiences that are influencing your ability to connect with your own body.
What I am saying is simply this: there is a difference between temptation and sin.
Without an understanding of this, I can see how you might say these things.
57. donsands
April 15, 2009
4:30 PM
“So do you believe you’re right and Mark’s wrong?”
Nope.
I see that Christ and the Church , His Bride are a mystery of waht maariage is a shadow of. Also, i see the SoS as a poem of intimacy of a man and his spouse.
mark simply nails those who see this book of the Bible as an allegory as dumb, and then mocks.
Thanks Sam for sharing that comment.
Mark has some crude ways about him, and he also did a shallow teaching of SoS, and there are other details of what he says, that i just don’t care to discuss.
If he wants to preach to his congregation about all kinds of ways to sex, that’s between him and our heavenly Father. I hope he represented what God wants His beloved children to hear.
I haven’t listen to the whole sermon after I listened to the begining, because I know Mark’s crudeness: I read his book ‘Vintage Jesus’.
I also like Mark. He had an interview with Peter Jones, that I put on my facebook, and my blog. It was excellent. Mainly Peter Jones’ teachings and things he spoke, but also Mark did a fine interview.
The flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing. We all need to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and become more overwhelmed with Him, and by Him, and then we will be more godly and righteous in this age, as we shine for our Father’s glory.
58. snikrap
April 15, 2009
4:32 PM
http://www.destinyedinburgh.com/m3uPage.aspx?mp3=Sex,_a_study_of_the_good_bits_from_Song_of_Solomon_by_Mark_Driscoll.mp3
Above is a link to stream the Edinburgh message mentioned above. The church, Destiny Church, has pulled the message from their current site, though the originial description was:
“Mark Driscoll is pastor in Marshill church in Seattle, one of America’s fastest growing churches. In this message pastor Mark shares from the Song of Solomon in a very honest, frank and explicit way about God design for sex. Mark talks very honestly about how sex can be thoroughly enjoyed in creative ways in the context of marriage .”
I’ve quite enjoyed some of MD’s messages, such as the Doctrine series. I also see him push the envelope as far as he can. The latter is what concerns me. What is the God-glorifying motivation for that? We Christians are to be sensitive to culture but not enmeshed in it. The Gospel always has and will be counter-cultural because its Truth flies in the face of everything the world reveres, worships, and holds dear. To write it off simply as Seattle being a different culture is not sufficient. Christ Jesus is our example and to what we are to strive. Our (post)modern ears have been dulled by our culture, but we are to “be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Eph 4:23-24) The fact that culture continues to degrade doesn’t mean we lower our standards to “reach” the lost. God does that. We are to preach the word, in season and out of season. I understand there are different interpretations on SoS, but each of the plausible arguments should be given their due, instead of dismissing one out of hand (that goes for both the JM and MD camps).
59. Jeremy (UK)
April 15, 2009
4:38 PM
Nice try to let this not be about Driscoll!
Both MacArthur and Driscoll are modern day heroes of mine and I have been blessed by both their ministries and had the privilege of meeting both of them.
I listened to the whole of the SoS series and I dont recognise the comments MacArthur makes from that series.
I have not listened to the Scotland one though as is mentioned above, Driscoll has apologised for that message and said it was not helpful.
That said I was pleasantly surprised by MacArthur’s comments, I was expecting him to come over very “traditional” and proposing a more allegorical interpretation, however I think his comments produce some helpful balance.
60. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
4:41 PM
Is anyone else wondering how many times “Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon” has been searched in Google today?
61. donsands
April 15, 2009
4:44 PM
“Do you think that it is a sin to be sexually stimulated? ” -J
It’s a sin to have lust in your heart. The flesh is weak. We are to seek His righteousness and kingdom first, and flee fornication.
I think Sussana was righteous in what she did.
Sure we can talk about sex. But it should be a sensative subject for sure.
The world loves to promote fornicating. The Church should hate it.
A husband and wife are a shadow of Christ and the Church, and it’s a mystery. It’s holy and godly and wonderful. Sexual behavior between a husband and a wife is a sacred thing that God created, and we who teach the truth about it, whether it be from SoS, or throughout the Bible, remember, “be not many teachers”. That should cause us to fear in the way we teach the Holy Word of our Lord.
However, there’s not much fear today, is there? Fear is the begining of wisdom. No fear, then no wisdom, except human flesh-filled wisdom.
62. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
4:45 PM
Donsands / Snikrap,
If you both had actually listened to the entire Peasant Princess series, then your assessments would carry a little more weight. Just listening to snippets, and then quickly making judgments is one thing, but then publicizing these baseless opinions about that which you have not fully reviewed is not what I would call prudence.
It is obvious that you may have already made presuppositions about MD’s ministry / character based on one book that he co-authored. If you really want to know his heart, do your homework. Listen to some podcasts, watch some videos, and read a different book other than VJ. (I would recommend his first two books!)
Those who have followed MD more closely will tell you that HE is the first to admit that he struggles with controlling his “tongue”. That said, I have seen a vast difference as God has worked inside him over the past 4 years. As he contends for the Gospel, he does so in the authority of Christ, pulling no punches, and calling folks out by name. He is in good company (i.e. Paul, Jesus, etc.)
63. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
4:53 PM
Donsands:
Oh, is that what you believe? Then you would LOVE the Peasant Princess series! But of course, some folks would rather criticize what they haven’t fully reviewed. That is expected.
It’s funny that you (Dondsands) didn’t even acknowledge my quote that you were supposedly replying to. Do YOU also think that it is a sin to be tempted sexually?
Actually, the word “fear” in this context isn’t like fear as we would use it. Rather, it refers to a deep respect.
The kind of fear that you describe, the bible actually sets up as the opposite of love. Perfect love drives out fear.
Likewise, fear kills love.
In this context, we are watching as fear-based Christians, uncomfortable with talking about sex (shame), are criticizing a man of God is has ZERO shame on the subject.
Shame is a result of sin, bro. We have been redeemed from both sin, as well as shame.
In the Peasant Princess series, he actually lays out a strong case for the stifeling of sex-talk within the church, and he also show how this resulted from poor exegesis, and fear-based theologizing.
64. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
4:58 PM
Donsands,
Of course it is a sin to have lust in your heart. That is obvious?
The question is not “is it a sin to lust?”.
The question was “is it a sin to be tempted to lust?”
Can you rightly understand the difference?
We cannot know for sure, but it sounded to me as if Susanna was mistaking temptation for sin, thereby being bound by unneccessary shame… not to mention, missing out on a very good biblical series.
We should not confuse “holiness” with blushing at sex-talk. Christ-followers should be free enough to speak about such topics freely, without feeling embarassed. At least, it is a good goal. Don’t you think, brother?
65. Keith Walters
April 15, 2009
4:59 PM
I want to preface my comment with the following caveat. I own nearly every book that both MacArthur and Driscoll have written; yes my MacArthur books require their own bookshelf! I dearly love both of these godly men and both have aided my studies. Because of this I find myself both appreciating and being disappointing by both of them in how this issue is being handled.
Do I think that in a short amount of time Driscoll has had a profound impact on the shape of Christianity in America? Yes. Do I think that this impact is a positive one? Yes. Do I think that he has done much in the way of church planting, evangelism, and contextualization? Yes. Does he stand for and boldly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ? Yes. Have I found Driscoll to be very helpful in my own life and ministry? Yes. Do I find some Driscoll’s sexual references unnecessary? Yes. Do I think that at times such comments detract from the meaning of his books or of biblical texts? Yes.
Do I think that MacArthur has faithfully served and profoundly affected the church during his 50+ years of ministry? Yes. Do I think that he has done much in the way of training up future generations of faithful expositors? Yes. Has he, over these 50+ years, taken a stood for and boldly proclaimed the gospel? Yes, absolutely. Are his commentaries always the first ones off my shelf when I begin to study a text? Yes. Have his writings and sermons affected the shape of my life and ministry? Yes. Am I disappointed that MacArthur has not taken greater care in these articles to distinguish between the actions of Driscoll and others who are featuring “40 Days of Sex” and “sex challenges?” Yes. Am I disappointed that MacArthur has not mentioned Driscoll’s admittance that he did not handle the text well while in the UK and has subsequently done a better job expositing it? Yes. Am I disappointed that MacArthur describes the sexual imagery within Song of Solomon, which takes place within the confines of marriage, as “soft porn?” Yes.
I hope that this discussion will yield humility and reconciliation from both parties involved. I also hope that in the tradition of Grace to You that MacArthur will unleash God’s truth from Song of Solomon one verse at a time. I hope that is the direction that this series is heading and I hope that this discussion between Driscoll and MacArthur proves fruitful for the entire church.
66. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:03 PM
Does Keith like to ask questions, and then answer them?
Yes.
67. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:04 PM
Keith,
Seriously, though… I could not have said it better myself. Thanks for being so balanced.
-JS
68. snikrap
April 15, 2009
5:20 PM
J.Slajchert
If, in fact, you had read my post you would know that I never mentioned the Peasant Princess series. So, it seems that your hasty judgments and baseless opinions have actually been publicized. I believe you should recant that. I have watched and listened to MD and enjoyed him greatly on a number of occasions. I referred to it previously but personally feel that the Doctrine series is his finest moment in the pulpit.
My point is what is glorifying to God? Being close to the world and having your legions justify it by saying Seatlle is different/younger generation/other ruse, or being holy for God is holy? I know I fall woefully short of the latter, but God by His grace has grown me much from what I was.
69. Jesse Johnson
April 15, 2009
5:21 PM
Challies,
Pulpit has yet to post some examples from Driscoll sermons that I think are wrong interpretations of SOS, and an example of how not to preach SOS (I’m not sure if they will ever post them). If I put one or two of the most outrageous ones here, would you strike them? I don’t want to step on your editorial ability. Keith suggests that Pastor Driscoll has not issued his own “sex challenge.” The comment I’m thinking of posting is the one where he challenged wives on what to do before the alarm clock goes off.
This is an intentional bind, as he preached them in a Sunday morning worship service, which certainly has a higher standard of propiety than a blog (with all due respect to yours:). But at the same time, I can’t imagine a more clear picture of that particular appraoch to preaching SOS.
Jesse
70. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:26 PM
This entire post and all the comments therein are in the context of this sermon series, as it is what is being criticized.
(Earlier in the comments, many have deliberately excluded the “other” sermon (UK), since MD himself has admitted that it is not helpful.)
So, I am not sure what I should recant, although I do apologize if I got your comments mixed up with donsands. I wasn’t really trying to single you out, but just add to the discussion.
So, if something that I said doesn’t apply to you, then just filter it, bro.
71. Dean
April 15, 2009
5:30 PM
Tim: Very fair & well done. However, in saying that this would be the “last time” in your blog that you would mention Mark Driscolls name, don’t you also run the risk of coddling him? I agree with you, he is a big boy. But many people don’t feel that. Everyone keeps pointing out his age, the age of his congregation, the city he preaches in etc. Pretty soon that argument will be tired as Mark Driscoll is approaching 40. The excuses for Driscoll are running thin now. As much as we hate the thought of the older men like Piper, Sproul, MacArthur etc. aging & perhaps winding down in ministry, may I suggest that we don’t just elevate the younger & promising ones without biblical scrutiny? How are these young preachers presenting the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)? Are they presenting it rightly (2 Timothy 2:15)? Are they glorifying God (1 Corinthians 10:31)? This is more than siding with Driscoll or MacArthur. This is elevating & rightly representing Jesus. There is no higher calling.
72. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:35 PM
Snikrap,
Also…
I think that you are right that simply justifying certain biblical interpretations with cultural differences (i.e. Seattle, young single postmoderns, whatever) is not enough.
After listening to the entire series, I found it all together, as a whole, to be very balanced. I am not sure if anyone has ever done a better, more thorough job, honestly.
The series is worth your ear, man. It is obvious that none of his critics (to include JM) has not listened to this. I have yet to meet a critic of MD who doesn’t continually take his words out of there proper context.
I get tired of that, dont you?
Regardless, at the heart of this “war” is the subject of biblical exegesis. How should we properly exegete SoS?
The hypocrisy of not doing so “line by line” has been layed bare. Truth is, Driscoll did a fine job, and it made the religious folks mad.
So, all in all, Driscoll looks a lot like Jesus (making religious people uncomfortable), and McCarther looks like a pharisee, as it were (taking double standards in order to remain comfortable). May God help the guy out.
73. Hayden Norris
April 15, 2009
5:39 PM
J. Slajchert,
I have listened to Driscoll for over 3 years now and have many of the same concerns that have been expressed here. Either all of us that have concerns about Driscoll are Pharisees or brothers, which is it????
PS Please deal with substance and avoid the sin of 1 Cor. 1:12-ff.
74. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:46 PM
Dean,
You are exactly right.
However, if you had actually listened to the entire Peasant Princess sermon series, then you would realize that MD does exactly that. Knowing that the series would be highly publicized, he actually took one of the sermons to just preach the Gospel. Truly, Driscoll contends for the Gospel as much as any other preacher I know of.
Listen to the series before you start talking about how he “doesn’t present the gospel”, and how his “excuses are running low”.
Just because a few comments seemed to be grasping at straws, doesn’t actually mean that Driscoll needs any excuses. He has always done a fine job of preaching the Gospel.
So, you are right that contending for the Gospel is far more important than simply “taking sides”.
The thing is, if you had actually listened, you would realize that MD does exactly that, and then you would take his side.
75. snikrap
April 15, 2009
5:48 PM
Is Tim pulling a “sweeps week” stunt here to boost ratings? You’re numbers are already high. This may outdo the Tony Jones atonement discussion over at JT’s. ; )
76. Keith Walters
April 15, 2009
5:52 PM
Jesse,
If Challies will not allow you to post them then you can send them to me by commenting on my blog. All first time comments are moderated and I can delete your comment without it ending up on the web or you can simply leave a blank comment, which requires entering your e-mail address, and I will e-mail you so that you can send them to me in a reply.
I do have a question regarding your comment. You noted that you are not sure if these examples would ever be posted. Whenever Pulpit, or MacArthur, address bad theology or outright heresy they have never before hesitated to quote the offending party. In my estimation the prosperity gospel, easy-believism, and pop psychology are far more dangerous than a sexually provocative explanation of Scripture. What is it about these statements that make them far more evil than quotations of individuals promoting a false gospel?
77. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:57 PM
Hayden Norris,
Notice that I didn’t say that everyone who disagrees with MD at all is a pharisee. I specifically refered to the hypocrosy of saying what JM has said: that SoS should not be preached “line by line”. He, and others have made the argument that SoS should be treated differently than other biblical books within the same genre of literature.
So no, I am not calling you a pharisee. Pharisees, as recorded in the gospels, were constantly living in fear, rather than love.
Fear motivates people to live a sort of psudo-holiness, where behavior modification gets God to “owe” us something.
Love motivates people to respond with a life of worship, where they live out of a new heart that actually desires to please God.
Moralistic teaching uses fear to drive the believer into good living.
The Gospel is a love story - God’s rescue mission - that has the power to change hearts, rather than merely behavior.
Love is a much better motivator than fear. Now, maybe you can tell me if you are one of those [pharisees], or not.
78. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
5:59 PM
Keith,
I love your question, man… (can’t wait to hear the answer!) lol
79. Rachael Starke
April 15, 2009
6:01 PM
Tim -
Re: approaching SoS as a unique kind of poetry that is more obscure and thus able to be legitimately “glossed over” -
Would you advocate that same approach for the even more obscure prophetic passages in Ezekiel? To be honest, I find those passages tremendously intimidating and difficult to study. And yet, as DAC says, pastors like MacArthur faithfully preach them line by line, sometimes for weeks at a time.
Is it possibly because it’s what the book obscures that makes us uncomfortable? I have to confess to reading passages like the one you quote above and not having much difficulty in figuring out what their literal meaning could be. But because I do also believe that all Scripture ultimately points to Christ, it’s that interpretation that I need help with, and would benefit from learning from….someone.
It seems like He Who Shall Not Be Named gets hung up on the literal interpretation, while MacArthur’s solution is to, for just this one book, be all gauzy and mysterious.
80. Jesse Johnson
April 15, 2009
6:10 PM
Keith,
That would be a better question asked at Pulpit. This post is about SOS. If you ask it over there, I’ll answer it over there.
Thanks,
Jesse
81. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
6:14 PM
Jesse,
Dangit! And dissapoint our lovely audience here?
JS
82. Abigail
April 15, 2009
6:21 PM
Amen Rachael. Ditto.
83. donsands
April 15, 2009
6:48 PM
“Actually, the word “fear” in this context isn’t like fear as we would use it. Rather, it refers to a deep respect.
The kind of fear that you describe, the bible actually sets up as the opposite of love. Perfect love drives out fear.” -J
I beg to differ J.
Fear [Yare: Hebrew] is to be afraid. We are to fear the Lord, because He is a consuming fire. And we who are redeemed need not fear the Lord, becasue He has called us by name.
Jesus said to not fear a man who can kill your body but cannot kill your soul, but fear Him who can throw both body and soul into hell.
Fear is fear. And there’s a difference when we become a child of the Lord, becuase Jesus also says, “Do not fear, for we are worth more than many sparrows, and the hairs of our heads are numbered.
I don’t need to watch Driscoll’s teaching. I watched the begining, and that was close to blasphemy, and so why should I watch it. That’s an absurd statement.
He’s my brother in Christ, and he needs to grow in this certain area. I pray God will help him grow, and help me grow in my immaturity as well. Our heavenly Father will always discipline His children, and he will never leave us. Those who are not disciplined are not His, and they will go out from us.
Mark is of us, and he is God’s vessel, and we need to love him and pray for him.
There are others in the Church who are teaching about sex in a dangerous way, not Scripturally, and not with sensativity.
If a pastor needs to get very specific with some of his congragtion about sexual teachings and desires, then he needs to do so with descretion and without any gossip or slander.
I was an elder and we had to deal with a few in the church who were very weak in the flesh, and needed much fasting and prayer. Satan is using fornication, and has always used this sin, to bring great damage to the Church, and to hinder the Gospel.
Jesus said, “Count the cost.” That’s where fear should be in our hearts, along with love for Christ and His truth.
I am fearful to say, or teach something of God’s Word, and not teach what he has wanted me to.
Would I want someone to miss speak for me, or even haphazardly go about telling things about me that were not true?
How much more the Holy One of all creation.
I’m sort of rambling. Sorry.
have a blessed evening.
84. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
6:51 PM
Jesse - If you think they’ll contribute to the discussion on SOS, then do post. I’d just ask that you use wisdom and discretion…
85. Luke
April 15, 2009
7:08 PM
I think it’s a storm in a tea-cup. I also think it’s on the record now that the long post-Augustine “don’t-mention-sex-in-church” regin is over. Next year there will be new controversy to deal with and new issues to weigh up.
86. Jesse Johnson
April 15, 2009
7:25 PM
Here is my comment:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg4fc37g_5dp4rbwgv
You tell me if it is appropriate to post on Challies. If I don’t hear from you soon, I’ll take this link down.
Thanks,
Jesse
87. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
7:32 PM
Donsands,
I can see your heart in your writing, bro. I know that you desire to please God, and to see preachers represent Him well.
I really believe that if you would have given the Peasant Princess a chance (ALL OF IT), you would have actually really enjoyed it.
Maybe not.
We’re all different, some of us more than others.
But I, too, contend for the Gospel, and I believe that He did a fine job. I can say that, because I have actually listened to it.
That’s all I am saying to you, man: that your words don’t “wiegh” that much, because you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
Take a few days to listen to the series. It won’t contaminate you, lol. Remember what Jesus said, it’s what comes out of a man that that corrupts him. If it is wrong, then I am sure that you will know it.
The bottom line is that he is rough around the edges. You gotta expect that going in. But he is no more rough than Luther was when contending for truth. Have you read Luther’s letters? He was ferocious in debating, and preaching.
Paul was no different, using words that were culturally inapropriate in a Greek context (skubalon). Even God used harsh language to get his points across.
“Use good words for good things, and bad words for bad things.”
What, specifically, do people actually have a problem with? What is this “blasphemy” you are speaking of?
88. donsands
April 15, 2009
7:52 PM
“What is this “blasphemy” you are speaking of?”
Mark alludes of homosexual intimacy with Jesus.
I suppose you may like the link of Mark’s teaching that Jesse has provided, but I think this is grave error, not mention ungodly. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit of Christ is speaking the words through Mark, especially in a Sunday morning service.
Ridiculous.
May we all learn to fear the Lord, who can throw both body and soul into hell, so that we don’t need to fear Him.
All for the Cross. Galatians 6:14
89. Dan Sudfeld
April 15, 2009
7:53 PM
Wow! I think I need to replace the scroller-thingy on my mouse.
Just wanted to attempt to answer Challies’ original question about poetry… with another question.
When Ezra was reading the Law (Neh 8), the Levites were wandering around the crowd to “help people understand the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that people understood the reading.” The Law was presumably what we now know as the Pentateuch, which is mostly narrative, but also includes some poetry - Exodus 15 and Numbers 6:24-26 come to mind.
I see preachers as having that same sort of role - helping people understand, giving the sense.
Question: Can we ‘give the sense,’ when we preach poetry without doing, verse-by-verse, precept-by-precept exposition? Or is it better to just leave it “carefully veiled,” as MacArthur writes?
Tim asked, Don’t we do damage to the Song of Solomon when we seek to interpret and explain every line?
My understanding of poetry (speaking as an absolute non-poet) is that we need to try to understand the relationship between the lines, whereas in prose, we try understand the relationship between clauses. If that is true, then might it be best to let the individual metaphors maintain some degree of mystery and thereby also retain their beauty ?
We might to need to invoke someone like Karsten Piper to help us here.
90. humanitas remedium
April 15, 2009
7:59 PM
Would like to thank Tim for posting on this because it got everyone talking about how to handle texts and about how to address the topic of sex in a way that honors the Lord. in light of the numerous commentators who have gone before me on this one, all I can say is,”I will take these things to the Lord.” Again, thanks for posting on this and thanks for the dialogue that is persevered here in the comments. really thoughtful stuff to consider.
91. Ryan Kearns
April 15, 2009
8:07 PM
Tim, I think you bring up a great teaching question in asking how we handle a text like Song of Solomon. Going back the the great Haddon Robinson, there are only three things we can do to a text; explain it, apply it, illustrate it. That’s it. I wonder what you think we should do if we are to refrain from telling people what the author means, because if we do not want to do that, we certainly would probably refrain from illustrating it…
92. Dan
April 15, 2009
8:13 PM
Luke says, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).
Is Song of Solomon included in “all the Scriptures” here? If so, what would that mean for our interpretation of the Song?
93. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
8:15 PM
Is Song of Solomon included in “all the Scriptures” here? If so, what would that mean for our interpretation of the Song?
I think we understand how marriage (and, hence, sex) all finds its meaning and fulfillment in Christ when we read the New Testament. So if Christ did talk to them about Song of Solomon (nothing something he had to do to fulfill the word “all” I’m sure) I would guess this was what he said to them. Where is Christ in Song of Solomon? He is above and over and around all of it!
94. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
8:20 PM
Jesse - I’ve got no real problem with you posting that. I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that, but I think that’s already well-documented in my original post. To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just…again, words really fail me here.
95. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
8:25 PM
I could not access Jesse’s link from here.
If it is his message from Edinburgh (Sex, A Study of the Good Bits of SoS), then he himself has repented publically of this.
It would be mean and senseless to keep throwing this mistake in his face.
His redeeming peice is the Peasant Princess. In it, there is no blasphemy.
Driscoll would never allude to anything resembling what you mentioned. That is ridiculous.
You keep talking about “fear”, as if to respond to my original comments about “fear-based Christians”. Maybe you have never encountered fear-based Christianity before. The only solution for this is an understanding of grace. Your talk of “fearing the Lord” doesn’t really pertain to anything that has been said. I think you may have missed my point.
Do you think that sex should be discussed in church?
In a culture’s that is sex-obsessed, it would be a terrible mistake to play “virgin ears” with them.
It’s time that we, as the Church, grow some tough skin, and talk about things that make us uncomfortable. Refusing to get your feathers ruffled, let us be an immovable rock in our sphere of influence. If someone offends you, shake it off. Master the art of filtering the languages of man, zeroing in to the “heart” of every matter.
Fear-based Christians do not love very well, because fear drives out love.
“Hate is not the opposite of love - fear is.” - The Apostle Paul
96. Jesse Johnson
April 15, 2009
8:29 PM
Ok, I’ll leave the link then for the rest of the day.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg4fc37g_5dp4rbwgv
Just to clarify, these are not my words, but they are from an example (Driscoll, of course) of one approach to preahing SoS that I obvioulsy disagree with.
By the way, some people say Driscoll repented of this, but I don’t see where. When he orriginally posted the “spring cleaning” post, he said it was relating to a lecture he made to a private and older group, so I don’t think it was a reference to a Sunday morning service.
Jesse
97. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
8:38 PM
Tim,
We all know that you are very disturbed by the UK sermon [for which MD has already repented], but have you even listened to his redeeming work, The Peasant Princess.
Before you go on assuming that MD would ever teach such a thing [forcing one’s partner to do degrading acts], I plead with you to actually listen to the series at hand. He actually, quite humorously, makes fun of this idea, tearing down any notions that some husband might go up to his wife after the service, saying “I’ve got a verse!”.
Seriously, many words have been spilled today about that which the “spiller” has yet to properly review. That would be like me writing a book review about a book… even though I have only read the first chapter. Can you imagine such a thing? I would have no right to speak of that which I know nothing about.
Since, most people repeatedly bring up the UK sermon, but have failed to listen to the most relevant series on sex by the same, things continue to spin further, and further from McCarther’s original words.
I apologize for being redundant. I have enjoyed reading everyone’s comments today.
May the Gospel continually be on our lips, and may we each continue to grow in the knowledge of Christ.
Thanks, Tim, for allowing such dialogue to prevail on your site. I have experienced growth today, if no one else has.
-JS
98. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
8:47 PM
Jesse,
Thanks, brother. (I will try and listen to it when I get home from work.)
You know, I really don’t know about this either.
I have heard this, too, but haven’t actually seen it.
I have seen other apologies, however, that resembled such self-scrutinizing examinations of his “one flaw” (taming the tongue). However, this was about 2 years ago. As I have followed his minstry closely, he seems to be a man who admittedly struggles with pride, but is in pursuit of humility. I can identify with this. I can also identify with his eagerness to share, and his regret as he wishes he could have worded things better.
At the end of the day, he is only a man.
Flawed to the core, just like us.
I know that’s obvious, but i think it is worth saying “outloud”.
99. Hayden Norris
April 15, 2009
8:59 PM
j.,
So you are saying that MacArthur is a Pharisee and is living in fear and not love for his critique of Mark Driscoll. I see, that is much better.
PS Make sure that this does not degenerate into a name calling and motive assigning thing. Also make sure that in your defending of Driscoll you do not denigrate a man that has been in ministry longer than you have been alive and also been faithful in said ministry.
100. Jason Chamberlain
April 15, 2009
9:02 PM
Tim —
I’m a little confused by your comment in #94. If that is indeed the meaning behind the imagery, then isn’t it the preacher’s job to unpack that for his congregation? How can the preacher explain the imagery to his people without using some anatomical language?
donsands — I’m not sure how his comment regarding Jesus was heretical. He was making a joke based on how many today hear a comment that one man loves another. If anything, I would say that his joke showed a proper attitude toward Christ.
101. Tim Challies
April 15, 2009
9:18 PM
I’m a little confused by your comment in #94. If that is indeed the meaning behind the imagery, then isn’t it the preacher’s job to unpack that for his congregation? How can the preacher explain the imagery to his people without using some anatomical language?
Well, I guess it hinges on the if. If that is what Song of Solomon actually says, than the preacher is free to preach it. If, on the other hand, that is not a fair reading of Song of Solomon, than the preacher may be burdening people with rules they have no need to follow…
102. donsands
April 15, 2009
9:29 PM
“I’m not sure how his comment regarding Jesus was heretical. ” -Jason
It wasn’t heretical. It was blasphemous.
You don’t speak about going to heaven and having sex with with Jesus as another man, and joke about it.
I hope you can see that. Not to mention Mark is mocking homosexuals, who don’t deserve that kind of mocking. I try to reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel, and share that they need to repent, and it’s not right to make fun of their powerful sin they are under.
Bad. Wrong. Mark needs to repent and grow up in the grace of God and godliness.
I’m believeing he will. he will put all this behind him, and God will do a great work of grace in his heart.
Those who are taking up for him, are the ones who may cause his repentance to be hindered. You’re not loving Mark.
I love my brother in Christ. He is apstor with a lot of power, and he needs accountability, I hope he has it. We all do.
Where do you attend church Jason? If you don’t mind me asking? Are you submitted to your elders and pastors? We all need to be submitted and committed to a church with godly leadership.
Don’t you agree.
103. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
9:46 PM
Hayden Norris,
Well said. You are right about the tendency, when defending one “side”, to use destructive words for the other.
If I have started down that path, I thank God that you pointed it out. I have nothing negative to say about McCarther, generally speaking. I have only read one book by him, and it was all about Jesus. Despite a mouth full of bones, I was able to be nourished, as it were. I think that is why I feel a sense of dissapointment concerning these things. Nonetheless, I do not doubt that he means well, and is contending for the truth of the Gospel. Both men have a high view of scripture, which is the most obvious common ground that I can see.
Thanks for keeping my in check.
104. donsands
April 15, 2009
9:46 PM
“Driscoll would never allude to anything resembling what you mentioned. That is ridiculous.”
from #49 sam (thanks again sam)
“DRISCOLL: “Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book, and we will teach it, but we’re gonna teach it allegorically.” And there’s a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They’ll say, “Well the allegorical interpretation, it’s not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it’s about us and Jesus.” Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I mean it’s gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I’m talking about. You’re like, “No, I’m not doing that. You know I’m not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that.” [Laughter from crowd]” source: (from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess” - start at 27:15)
105. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
9:52 PM
Donsands,
Let’s just say, for a minute, that Driscoll, in fact, did make this blasphemous remark.
Do you think that this man was trying to disrespect Christ in any way?
If this one joke was off color, is that something that you can overlook, in order to hear his “heart”?
Have you, as a preacher, ever said anything that you later realized was off color? (I sure have…)
Despite this hiccupp, was there enough love in your heart to cover this sin of his, or did you simply miss the whole point of his message?
Do you think that it is wise to focus on one statement, when this blog post is really about “how to approach the biblical text of SoS, and exegete properly”…? Do you think that DM preached the text correctly? Why / why not?
-J
106. donsands
April 15, 2009
9:54 PM
“Let’s just say, for a minute, that Driscoll, in fact, did make this blasphemous remark.”
(from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess” - start at 27:15)
He needs to repent.
107. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
10:15 PM
Donsands,
Alright, I am with you now.
This joke that you have taken out of its context, rather than implying anything homosexual about Jesus, was declaring the opposite. While he said it in a very sattirical way, the take-home message was that Jesus is NOT gay. Everyone there got the joke… that’s why there was so much laughter.
Still, I think that I can see how this joke would offend you. I suppose that this sort of humor is not for everyone, right?
Still, I think that you could loosen up a bit. Just being honest. I’m not asking you to take everything lightly, or anything resembling changing your personality. I just think that if you don’t, you will find yourself at the butt of even Christ’s jokes. Have you ever studied the humor of our Lord?
108. JN
April 15, 2009
10:15 PM
The Johnson’s defending MacArthur, HOW ORIGINAL!!!
Nonetheless…… Jesse’s link with Driscoll’s quotes are a no-brainer. Theologically, he’s embarked on relentless eisegesis, and to use SoS as prooftexting to mandate marital sexual behaviour is heretical and introduces a form of spiritual bondage. On the other hand, the early theologians’ interpretation of the two breasts symbolizing the two covenants, is equally preposterous and ridiculous.
MD’s linguistic eccentricities point to erotomania. After all Driscoll calls SoS ‘biblical erotica’. I’m not sure if this is biblification of porn or pornification of the Bible. One thing I am sure of is that, it is glorification of sex. Ironically, the Bible’s ‘silence’ on explicit sexual conduct within marriage shows that we have liberty in Christ to engage any way we like, guided by biblical principles, common sense, mutual respect between our wives/husbands and a sense of decency.
I can’t imagine for the life of me any of the Apostles teaching on the subject in such detail. You’d have to evacuate the auditorium from singles, under-aged, divorcees and perhaps elderly. You are then left with a ‘niche’ audience. iMonk recently commented that ‘in a Corinthian church you need to preach Corinthian subjects’. Fair comment, but even the lascivious Corinthians were never made privy to such sex-ed from Paul.
109. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
10:17 PM
Donsands,
You know, you never answered any of my questions, buddy.
-J
110. julius mickel
April 15, 2009
10:24 PM
Any preacher knows it’s his duty to preach the word, to study the text and to expound upon it. What has been a MAJOR safeguard for preachers when you approach ‘controversial’ or ‘obscure’ passages?????
Godly men and their examples from the past! Old sermons and old commentaries: yet if you find that what you have ‘discovered’ is fresh and original then perhaps apply for a position on TBN!
The gospel is offensive ENOUGH! As i try to state until i’m blue in the face, i think the only people who justify such stuff by the excuse that ‘well this is what it takes to reach these people’ are people who don’t live among such people (or don’t witness at all) and so you ‘buy’ this, but let me take you to the books to Church history and i’ll show you different. If that’s not good enough then i’ll take you (though i’d rather recommend 10 thousand better than me) to the ghetto or the jails and SHOW you that this is NOT necessary
Our problem in our culture has much much more to do with a lack of loving our wives, of cherishing them (we don’t lack any advice or imagination in the bedroom and for all the confusion from the past we only need principles).
111. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
10:32 PM
“you need to preach Corinthian subjects’. Fair comment, but even the lascivious Corinthians were never made privy to such sex-ed from Paul.” JN
In 1 Corinthians, Paul says “in my previous letter, I told you not to associate with any sexually immoral people, but I did not mean the sexually immoral of this world…”
Notice, “in my previous letter”.
Has anyone ever layed eyes on this letter?
Of course not. That is because, for whatever reason, it is missing from the bible.
So, it is not really fair to say that “even the lascivious Corinthians were never made privy to such sex-ed from Paul”.
If Driscoll crossed some lines, then so has God. Has anyone actually read SoS? I understood how graphic this was the first time I read it (around age 10). I didn’t need anyone to explain the metaphores to me. It was a mystery, but not altogether obscure.
However, it wasn’t until I was immersed in “christian culture” that I learned the rules:
- thou shalt not talk about sex
-don’t preach about SoS… but if you DO, preach it as an allegory
- if you mention sex, be sure to describe it in the most somber of prose, so as not to “awaken love before its time”
(Maybe some of you experienced the same, subtle brainwashing too?)
However, it wasn’t until I encountered the Fathers of the reformation that I realized that you could be passionate about Christ, as well as the earthly pleasures he has given us to enjoy.
Certainly, do not worship sex. I have heard this more from Driscoll, than any other preacher.
Still, worship is not the same as really REALLY ENJOYING it.
That, my friends, is a gift from God. This should not be belittled, for his example is a tremednous light to a christian culture who has long been afraid of sexual passion.
It’s about time someone got up and preached about sex from the bible, in the authority of Christ.
Let us be mature enough to filter a few bad jokes, in order to catch the heart of God as revealed in the Peasant Princess series.
112. J. Slajchert
April 15, 2009
10:36 PM
Julius Mickel,
Great… another guy who hasn’t listened to the Peasant Princess series in full.
Oh please, go on…
113. JN
April 15, 2009
11:32 PM
J. Slajchert Not sure how to respond without offending you, but I think you’ve lost the plot in this discussion. You’ve taken it to an extreme that the original post never suggested.
We’re not suggesting NOT to talk about sex among Christians, we’re simply questioning HOW it ought to be presented. Rauch and shock factor always guarantee attention, controversy and cheap laughs. It’s greasy grace.
And if you’re trying to compare Paul’s sex references to the Corinthians with Driscoll’s homilies on what’s under the clitoral hood, I think you are miles off target.
To ‘unpack’ the SoS poetic metaphors is to go ‘beyond what is written’ (slightly out of context here but you get my point). The SoS can certainly awaken a dormant imagination, is subtly sensual and emotionally intense. But its subtleties and symbolisms insist that we watch the play unfold with the curtain drawn. Driscoll insists on pulling the curtain back. Theologically he insists on filling the blanks and I don’t think anyone is biblically authorised to ‘fill in blanks’ with such precision.
I agree with a previous comment that it violates the author’s original intent. Leave the mystery, the enigma and the power of the imagination in tact. If God wanted us to know the exact meaning of the metaphors He would have included another explanatory book in the Bible to tell us. Scripture interprets Scripture (as per examples in 1 Cor 9:9-10, Gal 3:16, Gal 4:24). Where it is not explained, we have no right indoctrinating it!
114. donsands
April 15, 2009
11:51 PM
“Jesus is NOT gay. Everyone there got the joke… that’s why there was so much laughter.”
What does God the Father of Christ, His Beloved Son, whom He gave to be tortured, spit upon, slapped, have thorns beaten into His brow, and nails hammered through His precious feet, think of this joke?
115. Paul
April 16, 2009
12:42 AM
I’m just wondering why MacArthur didn’t go to Mark Driscoll directly and discuss this. They are even on the same coast so it isn’t that far. In the past we’ve seen other respected men pull Mark aside whether by phone or in person and correct him (C.J. Mahaney, John Piper) and he usually responds better than I think most of us would given the circumstances. Mark screws up and not only does he get hate mail and blog posts about his failure, but then he has to hear about it from men he desires to imitate. Yet he seems to respond humbly every time. I respect both of these guys, I am going through the Peasant Princess right now, and while I was bothered by a few things Mark said, the majority of it has been beneficial for my marriage. Do I think Mark has the interpretation nailed down or that MacArthur is infallible at interpretation? No. But I can still learn from both of them. I just need to put my Berean hat on!
In other words, I just wish these men would get together and discuss this and then share the results with their churches afterward. We can all get the skinny once they agree or agree to disagree.
Does anyone know if any communication has been established between these two outside of blog posts? Maybe Phil Johnson has the insider info….
116. Daniel Abbey
April 16, 2009
2:07 AM
phil johnson and johnny mac have attempted to communciate with driscoll over this: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/03/preachin-dirty.html
#36 - In my opinion, most of that is MacArthur being a little older and disconnected from the next generation.
i don’t agree.
and yet, even IF macarthur were disconnected from modern youth culture, as long as he stays true to the Word - which is relevant no matter the age or culture - he’ll be fine. he just has to keep doing what he’s been called to do, which is preach the Word, preach the Word, preach the Word.
same goes for Mark. he should simply keep preaching the Word. so seattle’s a dark, unchurched place - God speclializes in regenerating the darkest cities. nineveh turned in 40 days. corinth became churched. it doesn’t say in the Bible that Jonah and Paul used crass language to reach the lost in those cities. they simply blistered the crowds with an unadulteraded call to repentence.
pastor mark just needs to clean up his speech. i mean, i’m 31 and when i listened to him answer a question about oral sex and he mentioned two specific words (a particular sex act) in the course of speaking, i had images flood my mind that i prefer didn’t happen.
117. Mark
April 16, 2009
4:56 AM
I went outside the other day, and the rain began to fall. There is a smell that accompanies the rain that specifically reminds me of God’s love, grace, and provision. This day in particular, I felt an overwhelming sense of God’s presence, and if I were to express this as poetry, I may write,
God’s presence is in the scent of the first rain.
I am in no way inspired, but Macarthur and Driscoll would both probably interpret me to be saying God’s presence enters the nose.
I believe you are right, Tim, when you say poetry is something entirely different. It takes things that are common and presents them in an uncommon way, to induce feelings, and make you think. It also, I think mainly, is a way for the author to express the inexpressible. How do you describe sex? you could say, “It is awesome!” Or you could think of all the awesome things you know, and vividly describe them, like intense flavors of the mouth, a garden on the nose, a sunset to the eyes, a symphony to the ears, and a blanket of silk to the touch, and say it is like that! I am not being intentionally mysterious OR defining something outright.
So the best way to expound poetry is to tell me what cinnamon, saffron, calamus, and frankincense are, tell me what they taste like, look like, smell like, and then let me feel the poetry, make the things that are meant to be common, common to me, then I can understand the connections being made.
118. Jason Chamberlain
April 16, 2009
8:16 AM
donsands — I attend a local non-denominational church and am under the authority of my pastors and elders. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Nor do I see how Mark Driscoll making the statement that neither he nor Jesus is gay is blasphemous.
I really think this discussion goes back to one of my previous comments. We all have an informal list of what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. Driscoll’s critics take it as a given that he is crossing the line. While I admit that he gets close to it on occasion, I don’t think he’s crossed it in the dozens of sermons I’ve listened to. You think he has and therefore he needs to repent. That seems to be the core issue that we are debating here regarding his preaching.
Tim — you’re right that it all hinges on the if. I maintain that the pastor should unpack the poetry of SoS just as much as he should unpack the poetry of Psalms. I don’t see what the difference is.
119. Hayden Norris
April 16, 2009
8:43 AM
J Slajchert-
Here is a list of MacArthur books that I would recommend. (You said that you have only read one of his books so I want to point you to some of the best)
1. The Gospel According to Jesus (Read this to see MacArthur defend the Gospel against easy-believism)
2. Hard to Believe
3. Twelve Ordinary Men
4. Fool’s Gold
5. Truth Matters
This is just some loving Pastoral counsel my friend. These are important works and I believe that many would agree.
John MacArthur is an important voice in Christianity and so is Driscoll. MAcArthur has faithfully exposited the Scriptures for many years and so his counsel should not be so easily dismissed as being out of step or old fashioned.
DA Carson had it right when he said this about Driscoll (I wish I had the exact quote)- I don’t like where he has been, I don’t like where he is now, but I am hopeful for where he is going. (He said it better than that, and I agree with this as well)
120. Nick MItchell
April 16, 2009
9:24 AM
Wow some of you guys were really at this all night! I had to go renew my license plate……yaa hoo!
121. Donovan
April 16, 2009
9:45 AM
Hayden - I think that was Piper, not Carson. I’m pretty sure.
122. TMA
April 16, 2009
10:07 AM
Donsands
#114 says it all…..
Thank you
123. Cathy
April 16, 2009
11:52 AM
I’ve read every comment here and on the other side. Many of the comments demonstrate a sorry trend of defending this pastor, no matter what. It seems weird that there’s such a groundswell of support for him in the face of a long-documented ministry period of the kind of problems Dr. Mac is drawing attention to. Why do people seem to avoid or excuse these problems? We understand that MD’s ministry bears fruit, but that shouldn’t mean the problems can be endlessly ignored. Not only has there been a long period that this has been going on, but as Dr. Mac mentioned, MD’s influence is huge—well beyond the borders of his Seattle church. Further, MD has apparently continued in his “style” many times after being corrected or discipled by his supposed big-time mentors. Why isn’t it seen as a problem that MD continues to wink at correction? He says he’s sorry, but then the problem keeps popping up here and there like wildfire behind the mentors’ backs. This defiance seems like a problem in and of itself. The explicitness and over-application of MD’s line-by-line teaching isn’t the problem; the problem is his apparent cocky, smutty attitude in hugely-public forums when dealing with the topic of sex. Add to that his unwillingness to back off when so many have said they’re offended or tempted by his style. Shouldn’t he care about these many weaker brothers and sisters? Again, there’s an obvious problem in that attitude. Lastly, many commenters have used words like puritanical, shame-based, and fearful regarding the conservative position. It has nothing to do with those concepts; it has to do with a natural, God-given modesty regarding a subject that God deems somewhat mystical and intensely private! This all seems so obvious! I’m saddened by so many believers and even pastors who demand their “rights” to discuss anything anytime anywhere. What a sad day and age we find ourselves in!
124. Victoria
April 16, 2009
12:04 PM
I have read as many of these responses to Tim’s article as I can bear!
I am a 60 year old woman who was raised as a teenager in the hippy ,drug, sex years of the Sixies, so I am not a prude about sex .
All you young men (many of you reformed) who have such a problem with the CLEAR thinking presented in JM’s posts surprise me, and may I say bring some real disappointment to me.
JM is right to call that kind of language out of the pulpit “GRUNGE”.
The apostle Paul lived in the most pornographic culture (Greek -Roman) in the history of the world, yet NEVER does he talk in obscene and graphic sexual language. The Bible( both old and new Testaments )is not a sex manual and God never meant for it to be used that way.
What is wrong with you, young Christian men, are you all such a product of this vile and filthy culture that you REALLY believe this kind of talk from the Pulpit is right and good?
This stuff is, to me, just as bad as the horrendous false doctrine that comes out of the Charismatic church.
To make inferences from any pulpit about anal and oral sex stinks. If this is the direction young reformed men are going to take the Church—then the future looks bleak indeed!
125. Phil Johnson
April 16, 2009
12:39 PM
Here’s a comment I left several days ago on a Reformed Baptist blog where these things were under discussion. The comment got censored so you will not find it over there, even though the blogger at that site had insisted throughout the discussion that his aim was to be objective.
Profanity is defended angrily; dissenting views get censored. Cathy’s and Victoria’s comments made me think of this again. I wrote:
________________________
I’m appalled at how casually young ministers dismiss Driscoll’s filthy language, sexual obsessions, and toilet-humor illustrations of the humanity of Christ as petty issues, unworthy of controversy. (Especially Reformed Baptist guys. I remember when RB bookshops wouldn’t even sell books with pictures of Jesus on the cover, lest they violate the Second Commandment.)
Ask any woman who has ever been forced to sit through one of Driscoll’s sex talks if she thinks this is “at best, an unnecessary distraction.” Virtually all the single women, wives, and mothers who have weighed in on this controversy here and around the Web overwhelmingly agree that the issue is of major importance, with serious ramifications for the holiness of the church. A few of our sisters have rightly dropped major hints about the collective duty of Christian men (seminary students included) to be more sympathetic to the plight of pure-minded women who rightly object to having their ears and minds assaulted with filthy jokes and explicit sexual themes—especially in a sermon.
Since we’re drawing “pastoral conclusions” now that this exercise is over, that’s surely a point worth stressing.
______________________
Evidently, it’s OK use the pulpit to titillate people’s already-hypersexed imaginations, but you can’t plead for sanity and dignity in some Reformed Baptist circles without being censored. This is the bizarro world of the “New Calvinism”—which (I’ll say it right now) reminds me of the “New Coke.” I. e., I think it is destined for obscolescence very soon.
Meanwhile, I’ll stick with the old flavor. Thanks.
126. Paul
April 16, 2009
12:40 PM
Thanks for the link Daniel. I can appreciate the effort made on JMac & Phil’s part. However, something just doesn’t seem right about what I’m reading in a lot of these comments. I must be listening to a different Mark Driscoll than a lot of you. Does the Peasant Princess define this man’s ministry? I’ve listened to various other series of his in the past and find myself to be very confused when I read these comments attacking him. Maybe I don’t know what “crude” language is, but I don’t feel like I hear what a lot of you are hearing. So the guy may have missed the mark of the text in SoS, and he used some poor choices in how he related his interpretation, but I don’t understand why there seems to be such disgust over this man’s ministry. I’m not trying to defend him because I don’t go to his church and do not know him personally, but some of these comments seem downright deplorable to be made against another believer. Correction is good, but some of this doesn’t seem very corrective. Maybe for some of us he is so far gone that we’ve given up hope.
And Victoriav, I’m much more concerned that only 1% of college students and youth have a biblical worldview than I am about some wayward Reformed young people. Maybe if we confronted the world as much as we are confronting Driscoll the future wouldn’t look as bleak. Then again, with Christ there is no such thing as a completely bleak future now is there?
All in all we have gone off the path that Tim set for us and that revolves around interpreting a text, not a man.
127. Mik Harewam
April 16, 2009
12:42 PM
I haven’t encountered carnal jokes and inappropriate humour in sermons before this year. And it seems to be happening more and more. I feel it’s very good idea to address it. I don’t think it justifiable to say, “but it was ONLY one bad joke in a whole series”. It still needs to be addressed. One bad egg in an omelette makes a bad omelette. It’s pretty obvious to see that we’re in a very precarious situation in this age – its easier (and more and more tempting) to do church man’s way than God’s way. And God is not happy when his people offer him strange fire.
Bless you people.
128. Victoria
April 16, 2009
1:28 PM
Paul- I never used any man’s name in my response to Tim.
And may I ask you what kind of worldview you think Christians have that listen to risque and crude talk from their pastor.
You said that only 1% of collage students and youth have a biblical worldview—-that sir, is because they are not Christians.
This is the problem: with that kind of obscenity coming from the pulpit-the world will NEVER be confronted—because we have put on the world instead of putting on Christ!
129. Paul
April 16, 2009
1:53 PM
Interesting post Phil. I disagree about “virtually all wives” disliking Mark’s messages on Song of Solomon (if that is what you mean by “sex talks”). I have asked my wife repeatadly while we do this series if it is at all damaging her purity. My wife has expressed some concern over certain ways things were phrased, but overall she has felt very edified. We try to use our best discernment. She especially appreciates the input of Mark’s wife at the end of each sermon. I have heard this from numerous married couples in our church as well. Although maybe we are going to a bad church if it encourages married couples to watch such filth while exercising discernment.
Victoria - I can only speak from my personal experience. In the sermons that I have listened to by Mark Driscoll, I have not heard the crude and vulgar language that others are commenting on. His sermon series on Song of Solomon does contain a few slips of the tongue that I didn’t agree with, but I found the content of the sermons to be biblically helpful for my marriage. For instance, last night my wife and I watched one of his sermons from the Song of Solomon that dealt specifically with marital selfishness. I believe that he dealt with the subject biblically and in a way taht was confrontationally helpful.
Perhaps you could clarify where you are hearing this obscene preaching from if not from Mark Driscoll. I mean no disrespect by my comments either.
One more question for everyone. Would this material be better suited for a book rather than the pulpit? If Mark had written the Peasant Princess instead of preaching it, would we be having this discussion? I have seen some pretty vulgar stuff in books that no one seems to have issues with, but when it is verbalized then it is a problem.
130. Scott
April 16, 2009
2:03 PM
To Pastor Phil (Johnson)
Like many I’m sure, I find myself in an awkward position. I appreciate and learn a great deal from you teachings and ministry as well as the teachings and ministry of Pastor Mark (Driscoll). I highly respect both of you.
Since this has come up again with such intensity a week before the Gospel Coalition Conference (which I will be attending) would it be possible for you to speak with the leadership that will be presenting next week and see if you couldn’t attend and possibly have a forum to discuss this important matter (assuming you would even have time in your busy schedule). Thanks for your time and consideration and for all you do.
Grace and peace to you,
Scott
131. donsands
April 16, 2009
2:53 PM
“I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.”
Having elders and pastors you are accountable to is a blessed thing, and an essential part of being a member in the Body of Christ. It’s very important to the Lord.
There are lone rangers out there, who don’t like leadership, nor authority. And God wants us all to submit to our leaders and rulers (Hebrews 13:7, 17). I think it says a lot about you Jason. It’s a big deal for us to have a humble attitude in the Western Church.
“Nor do I see how Mark Driscoll making the statement that neither he nor Jesus is gay is blasphemous.”
It’s the whole way he did it. If mark would have said Jesus wasn’t a homosexual, because someone was claiming He was, that would be different. And for me, when others malign the character of our Lord, to be honest, I get angry.
His name is the name above all names, holy and majestic is the name of Jesus Christ.
There are some other quotes you may want to read at Pulpit Magazine as well.
Mark needs to repent, if he hasn’t already.
I pray he would find God working in his heart with the power and grace, that will help Mark put all this ungodliness behind him.
he has so much giftedness and he is my brother in Christ, and I love him, and pray he would here what the Spirit of Lord is saying. Amen.
132. Phil Johnson
April 16, 2009
3:22 PM
Scott:
Thanks for your feedback. I wouldn’t insinuate myself into someone else’s conference like that. Plus, there’s a reason the Gospel Coalition is featuring the lineup of speakers they have chosen, and it’s undoubtedly the same reason, none of the key figures in that group has specifically weighed in on the issues I raised at the Shepherds’ Conference. I think it should be fairly clear that most of them hold the view that public discussion of a matter like this ought to be suppressed for the sake of solidarity regarding the gospel.
That being the case, they certainly don’t want a debate of this nature to dominate their conference—nor would I be someone they would invite to represent the contrary point of view, even if they were inclined to open the topic up for some kind of panel discussion.
For reasons I’ve already explained, I strongly disagree with the claim that something like Driscoll’s irreverence in the pulpit is so unimportant or insignificant that all public discussions of it must be suppressed for unity’s sake. And I’m willing to discuss the matter any time and with anyone who might be willing.
But it would be entirely inappropriate for me to try to insist that someone else owes me a platform to express my views. It irritated me when Driscoll ignored the questions I sent him via a private letter and the only “answer” he gave me was a video addressed to the attendees at the Shepherds’ Conference, expecting me to yield ten minutes of a plenary session to him. I’m not going to commit a similar offense by pretending I have a right to be heard at someone else’s conference.
Besides, even I don’t think the Gospel Coalition meetings would be the appropriate venue (especially at this late hour) to invite a venting of the kind of fervent passion and that has been expressed here or in the comments at the Pulpit blog this week.
I hope their conference goes well, and I have every hope that they will strive to exalt Christ. I’ll be following it on line because I can’t be there.
133. Tim Challies
April 16, 2009
3:43 PM
Great… another guy who hasn’t listened to the Peasant Princess series in full.
Seriously. You don’t have to listen to the full series to be able to comment. That’s like saying that if you haven’t read Nahum you can’t comment on the Bible.
One thing I want to say to those who are huge Driscoll fans: You know, you can still love him and yet disagree with him on this. Loving the dude for what he does well doesn’t mean that you are in some way obligated to defend his every move. He’d be the first to say that, I’m sure…
And finally, thanks for (mostly) keeping this on track and (mostly) keeping it civil. J. Slajchert, I’m thinking this may be a good time for you to step away from the conversation since I really think you’ve said what you want to say and it seems that you’re getting snappish in your replies. Not a command, just a suggestion…
134. Ken Davis
April 16, 2009
4:11 PM
Tim,
Thanks for that last comment - # 133.
135. Scott
April 16, 2009
4:22 PM
Thanks for the reply Phil, good points. I appreciate your thoughts.
Cheers,
Scott
136. Jim Butler
April 16, 2009
4:49 PM
I thoroughly appreciated Phil Johnson’s comments.
Thanks,
Jim
137. Paul
April 16, 2009
5:14 PM
Tim, thanks for you last comment.
I suppose I find myself in a tough spot. Currently I am halfway done with watching the series with my wife and a marriage small group I lead. I respect MacArthur and so I want to listen to what he is saying, but at the same time I have seen the PP series be of help to the married couples I lead. I’ve found that his marital advice during the series has been what most of us have learned from even more than any of the points he makes on sex. In all, it feels more like a marriage series than a sex series. Still, I suppose I’m sort of in the middle and will have to remain there until I can make a decision that doesn’t go against my conscience. While I see some danger in the series, I can’t help but see the benefit first hand as well. This is a tough one for me, and while I sort of defended Mark in prioir comments I really do find myself on the fence.
Oddly enough I found this clipping from the NY Times about Spurgeon that sounded vaguely familiar. I don’t like to link in comments but I thought this was appropriate. Tim, feel free not to post this comment or to delete it because of the link. :-)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5Q_rbl0hL2A/SA93gsyaRnI/AAAAAAAAAFw/Mz5rooExJRE/s1600-h/Spurgeon+August+8+1857.jpg
138. Jennifer
April 16, 2009
6:10 PM
Tim,
I’m struggling with your Bible analogy of:
“Seriously. You don’t have to listen to the full series to be able to comment. That’s like saying that if you haven’t read Nahum you can’t comment on the Bible.”
I would say a more accurate analogy is “Can someone comment on Romans after reading only chapters 2 and 9.” The answer there would be, no they cannot comment.
The Bible analogy would be accurate if the earlier comment had demanded that you listen to and/or read everything Mark Driscoll has ever spoken or written in order to comment. The commenter, however, did not say that.
I’m truly disheartened by the back and forth. It’s apparent who likes Driscoll and who likes MacArthur. I can almost hear “I follow Paul!”, “I follow Peter!”.
If one of these men is guilty of heresy and leading people to hell, please fight tooth and nail. If not, then is this furthering the Kingdom of God?
Please hear my heart… where I presently live I am fighting a daily battle against the emergent’s influence over people I know and love who grew up in the church and frankly should know better. They are being taken captive and are heading into a very dark place, all the while thinking they have finally found what God truly intended the church to be. They would use this blog posting and these comments to prove their point as to what is wrong with the Church and justify their position.
139. donsands
April 16, 2009
6:15 PM
“They would use this blog posting and these comments to prove their point as to what is wrong with the Church and justify their position. “
How so?
140. Scott
April 16, 2009
8:11 PM
Jennifer,
I hear your heart and God bless you. I’ve seen the ravaging effect of the worst of the emergent movement myself and it grieves me so. It is a poison and a cancer spreading for too much in and out of our churches.
donsands, how so?
To put it as simply as I can the worst of emergent would say; “See, that’s what theology, doctrine and that whole infallible, inherent Bible talk will get you”. It’s an inadequate description but the best I can do in a few sentences. Maybe others will chime in that can put there thoughts together better than I can.
Grace and peace to you,
Scott
141. jennifer
April 16, 2009
8:44 PM
I do not believe that John Macarthur has created any division by his posts. I think, as evidenced by the many and opposing comments on any blog commenting on the Pulpit posts, that the controversy and disagreement is well and truly out there. The person who brings this to the light is not the one who creates it. As a personal example, I became aware of Marks influence a couple of years ago. As I listened to his sermons and read things he had written, while a lot was good, there was also much that troubled me. My concerns had nothing to do with John Macarthur, but came out of my own listening and reading. John has merely brought to light the division that already exists in the church about these things.
I was surprised to read that the Song of Solomon now has its own dedicated Conference circuit! I have yet to read of the Romans Conference, or the 2 Kings Conference. Mark is one of the featured speakers at these conferences which on its website says “(The Song of Solomon) has the distinction of being the only book of the Bible that seems to have been edited and censored by the Church” (Tommy Nelson). The site then goes on to say that at this conference you will find that it is “now unedited and uncensored”. It seems to me that John has a very valid point to make about the current trends in exegeting the Song of Solomon.
142. jennifer
April 16, 2009
8:47 PM
Sorry, just for clarification, perhaps I should have called myself Jennifer2! I am a different Jennifer to the one who recently posted. Sorry for any confusion
143. David Kjos
April 16, 2009
8:50 PM
Tim is right. Let’s do away with the notion that one has to listen to the entire series in order to comment on it. That’s just too absurd to be taken seriously. I’ve heard (and told) enough dirty jokes that I can recognize one without waiting for the punchline. Or, if you don’t like that comparison, try this:
If I’m riding with someone to Bismarck (ND), which is east of here, and my driver takes the westbound ramp onto I-94, I don’t have to just sit there and see where we end up. I know he’s going the wrong way. I don’t have to wait to see the destination, his direction tells me all I need to know.
Of course, if I’m wrong, everyone should just hold their comments about MacArthur’s posts until he’s finished tomorrow. Because, you know, what he’s saying is such a big mystery at this point.
144. Mike
April 16, 2009
9:15 PM
The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning
Am I the only person who had a major problem with this comment from Tim?
What if we said something like:
“The apocalyptic nature of the revelation is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning.”
I think all of the conservative watchbloggers out there would spring into action and question my commitment to Scripture. But if it means that we don’t have to talk about sex, then it is okay.
Maybe I’m the only one who sees it like that.
145. David Kjos
April 16, 2009
10:27 PM
Am I the only person who had a major problem with this comment from Tim? What if we said something like: “The apocalyptic nature of the revelation is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning.”
I have no problem with Tim’s statement, or with your comparison. I’ve heard preachers do exactly that. Did you know that locusts in Revelation are actually Soviet helicopters? Neither did I. I’d say, “The apocalyptic nature of the revelation is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning.” That is exactly what Driscoll is doing to Song of Solomon.
146. Mike
April 16, 2009
11:16 PM
That works for me.
If I never have to here another ultra conservative nuance every last bit of revelation and then call me a liberal because I don’t agree, then I’m fine with this approach to SoS.
147. Jennifer
April 17, 2009
1:21 AM
Scott,
Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. Your explanation was well said.
Jennifer (the first one)
148. Tim Challies
April 17, 2009
7:46 AM
I respect MacArthur and so I want to listen to what he is saying, but at the same time I have seen the PP series be of help to the married couples I lead.
That is well and good. But we have to guard against falling into this frame of mind which says that the end justifies the means. “The PP series has been of help, therefore I know that it is biblical.” That is always a temptation, but first and foremost we need to be consistent with Scripture.
149. Victoria
April 17, 2009
9:00 AM
I still can’t believe some of the responses here.
This whole controversy has Nothing to do with SEX! It has everything to do with perverse speech from the pulpit.
To tell a woman that Jesus COMMANDS her to get in a certain position and perform oral sex on her husband is none of Mark’s business and in my opinion equals pastoral abuse. And then for him to say he gets this from the scripture—that is either total ignorance or just a lie! Whichever is true -it is wrong, and pretty unbelievable from a pastor.
If you had told me 20 years ago that this issue would ever have to addressed, I would not have believed it-let alone that there would be such division in the church and that anyone would be defending such talk.
For anyone to compare this discussion to one being of Peter and the other being of Paul—is just wrong thinking.
I am so glad that JM has addressed this whole issue. I believe he has been charitable in the way he has dealt with MD.
This kind of filth from the pulpit is madness and it has to stop.
I can’t tell you how sick I feel at the way some young people in particular seem to have NO discernment.
150. Victoria
April 17, 2009
10:20 AM
I apologize to anyone that my remarks have offended-I have no desire to be crude or divisive.
I am so passionate about this issue because I lead and teach the women’s bible study in my church. I also have a lot of young women coming to me for help in their marriages. Some of those women are dealing with Christian husbands who have gotten into internet pornography. How does this happen to Christian men? I do not know all of the answers-but I can tell you this much for sure: the kind of speech that many of us have heard from the Scotland sermon by MD leads to young men and women being desenitized to the filth of our culture.
I personally know of supposed Christian men who have required their wives to view pornography with them.
I am telling you young people that this kind of talk from the pulpit(MD or any other pulpit) is desensitizing you to the vile culture that you need to be a light to.
151. Grant
April 17, 2009
11:21 AM
Off the topic but
Victoria you might find this series on Pornography from Capitol Hill Baptist helpful :
http://www.chbcaudio.org/
152. Walter
April 17, 2009
11:44 AM
John says he doesn’t own a computer, yet he endorses Logos Bible software? I don’t get it - what am I missing?
153. Jackie
April 17, 2009
1:09 PM
What an amazing amount of traffic on this post!
David Kjos, good points in post #143, and LOLs on the final comment in post #143.
And post #117, is that Mark Driscoll posting?!? Good post - nice poetry and imagery whoever you are.
154. Douglas K. Adu-Boahen
April 17, 2009
2:56 PM
Well maybe as a 18-year-old young man living in a suburb of London in a culture (or sub-culture) influenced by hip hop music I can give my perspective on the issues raised by Dr. MacArthur.
For a start, I will gladly admit it - I love Dr. John MacArthur. His ministry demonstrated (and still demonstrates to me) what faithfulness to the text can do in the life of a church as well as in one’s personal life. His book The Gospel According to Jesus was (and still is) instrumental in helping me see the how the indicatives of the Gospel message work themselves out in imperatives for daily life. Even though I am amillenial, I’m still telling people to buy his study Bible - because he is a man committed to one thing: TRUTH, not CULTURE. That, for me, makes the issue of his age an irrelevance to the discussion.
That said, I will also admit it: I love Mark Driscoll. In fact, during his last visit to London, I went to hear him speak at St. James Clerkenwell and was truly encouraged to continue sharing the faith in my urban context. I will say that not all his material is evil. I’m listening to his study through Peter’s Epistles and they are striking chords with me, left, right and center. I continually thank God for his work with the Acts 29 Church Planting Network, which I do believe are doing a great work.
Now, having said all that, I do believe that as a young man (and I can only speak for me), his sermon series on the Peasant Princess was grossly unhelpful. Firstly, what good is a graphic sermon series like this to a young man or woman battling with a former life of sexual sin, striving for purity now that they are saved? I listened to the entire sermon series and to be frank, I wasn’t edified by some of his comments - rather, I was disturbed. A passage of Scripture come to mind over this issue:
While what is true, honorable, just, etc. may vary from person to person as far as they are maturing in their Christian life, we do need to acknowledge that sometimes such subject matter is neither helpful or edifying for younger listeners (who paradoxically are told to abstain from sexual activity prior to marriage only to be bombarded with it from the preacher) or to those who are struggling in general with sexual sin.
Further, I have to wonder whether the public pulpit is the place for frank discussion of sex, even if among married people. Granted - I’d rather hear it from my pastor than a godless school teacher, HOWEVER does such material, of necessity, need to be preached openly. Now bear in mind, I am not a Victorian prude who believes in NEVER discussing such things. I simply wonder if their place is actually in the pulpit! Do such things REALLY need to be preached openly to the single and married alike? Call it immaturity due to my age, but surely they are better ways to go about it.
I, as a teenager, am GRIEVED that we think it’s OK for a preacher to be sexually frank, just because he’s speaking to married people. But then, Brother Mark is simply treading the same road of progressive sanctification we are all on. He’s a good man and my fellow brother in the Lord Jesus, and I pray that he matures in his faith, he will also take stock of his sermonic content
155. Caleb Kolstad
April 18, 2009
9:17 AM
Thanks for your blog post Tim. Paul Lamey gives some good thoughts on this subject here http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
156. Amy
April 18, 2009
9:51 PM
Driscoll took down the most offensive sermon last week and wrote publicly his regrets for speaking it and posting it. He also said he was working on doing a better job with the SoS text. I don’t understand 2 things.
1) Why post a link in Dr. M’s article to a sermon that has already been taken down? Driscoll said in his article, “I don’t want to draw attention to the content because it will only cause those who have not listened to it to flock to it.” If it was offensive and it has been taken down, why REPOST it at MacArthur’s blog? That seems really inappropriate to me.
2) Even if Dr. M thinks Driscoll’s “repentance” in this article isn’t enough, why not meet him where he is and prompt him to take further measures? Driscoll says, “Some of my critics were concerned by the older content, and I think there is wisdom in some of their concerns. So we have pulled that content.” Instead, Dr. M dismisses this admission on Driscoll’s part. Why not praise God that Driscoll has taken this step and then encourage him to greater examination of himself?
I’ve read many comments on several blogs on this issue and remain very troubled by how this has been handled. In particular, if someone says something in the comment section, many people just believe it is true. I’ve read many comments about Driscoll that I know by fact to be false. But they stand and are believed—this reflects that blogs with open comments are NOT the way to handle this biblically. Driscoll has sinned, and what has followed by his critics is equally offensive to the gospel.
157. Jesse Johnson
April 18, 2009
11:25 PM
Amy,
Where did he post that?
If you are talking about the Spring cleaning post, this was earlier in the comments thread, and dealt with over at Pulpit. But to repeat it, I don’t think it was about the Scotland sermon. When he posted Spring Cleaning, he said it was in reference to a “private” lecture he gave to a group of “older more mature” people, and that he never wanted it posted on-line, where it ended up accidentally and recently (hence the title “spring” cleaning). The Scotland sermon that is linked was preached at a Sunday morning service, with children present, and had been on line for over a year.
By the way, when you go to Spring cleaning now, Dricoll has changed the language on it, but it still says it has not been edited, which is strange.
Even if it was about the Scotland sermon, I don’t see where he said what he preached was inappropriate, sinful, and cause for repentance.
Do you think the Spring Cleaning post was in reference to this sermon? Why? And where did he repent?
I have asked that question multiple times on multiple blogs, and nobody has yet to answer it. Can you help me out?
Thanks Amy,
Jesse
158. Amy
April 18, 2009
11:46 PM
Yes, Jesse. I think the Spring Cleaning blog was about the Scotland sermon. If I connect MacArthur’s timeline with Driscoll’s, it seems that MacArthur let other older leaders know his plans for this series of blog posts. Then, I THINK someone from this group then confronted Mark in a private, fatherly way. In response to that, Mark asked all those with links to the sermon to take them down. I can only quote exactly what Mark says in that post—that there was wisdom in the concerns voiced to him.
Should he do more? Certainly. He should seriously consider what he said and why it caused offense to so many and what he can do to repair it. But should what he did in that post be cast aside as irrelevant? Absolutely not!! Obviously, the seeds of change have been sown. Water it. Help him. Speak words that minister grace to him that he would grow and change more. But don’t discount these first fruits of change. That is corruption that tears downs instead of builds up. It sucks the grace right out of the room instead of ministering grace to the hearer. And it grieves the Spirit.
I don’t agree with the public nature of Dr. M’s blog posts and think they are not the God-ordained methods for confrontation. But on top of that to allow people who know NOTHING of the true details to comment at will and perpetuate lies about the person being called to repentance is beyond offensive. It’s just hanging a millstone around someone’s neck and expecting them to somehow swim to the shore. These blog posts have set up people to sin—by listening to a sermon already deemed inappropriate by the speaker and by repeating the untrue statements of ignorant commenters.
159. Jesse Johnson
April 19, 2009
12:35 AM
Amy,
I appreciate your comment. I think your timeline may be true, but then again we don’t know. What we do know is that Mark said whatever he was taking down was:
A. A private lecture.
B. Posted a month ago
C. For a smaller, older audience.
D. Compared to “personal counseling appointments.
The link where he describes it like that is linked from my name, if you want to check it out for yourself.
To match that to a public sermon online for over a year, at a church of 300 people (according to thier website) with children in it, based on a time line, to me that is a stretch.
But even so, I still don’t see where he says what he said is sinful. As Phil Johnson pointed out, the main lesson he seemed to learn is that he has a worldwide influence. I’m glad he realized that after he filled the pulpit in Scotland.
Biblical repentance involves confessing sin and changing behavior. Putting off, and putting on.
To say the kind of things he said in that sermon, and put a blog up year later that says what Spring Cleaning says, and expect readers to construct a timeline and deduce what he is covertly trying to say, that is just simply not repentence. It doesn’t even ammount to an “I’m sorry.” And that is IF your timeline works out.
Thanks Amy
160. Jadi Finley
April 19, 2009
12:39 AM
During the past few days, I have been reading a number of the central blog threads on this topic from a distance - no commenting, until now… I am compelled to share how my spirit is burdened by the overall tone and content of these discussions. Unity among believers (and most especially between Godly leaders within the church) must prevail and in all matters of disagreement, our speech should be filled with grace, seasoned with salt, loving one another earnestly as we are all being sanctified along the journey. It is good for us to sharpen one another through our disagreements, but if the matter of discussion is not a central tenant of the Christian faith may we not let our common enemy have a foothold here. My concern is these discussions lead many to say “I follow Dr. MacArthur” or “I follow Mark Driscoll” when we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder as we say “We follow Jesus Christ” - in our disagreements, may we not be distracted by petty issues that are not central to the Gospel.
161. Jennifer
April 19, 2009
2:32 AM
Jesse,
I just read the Spring Cleaning blog from Mark Driscoll. Thank you for linking to it. In it he says it was from a lecture out of country from 2007. He says it was posted a month ago with a back log of other material. That seems to me he’s referring to his Song of Solomon talk in Scotland, though you’re right, he doesn’t specifically mention where out of country.
Jadi, I couldn’t agree with you more. After the past several days of reading all the posts and comments both here and at MacArthur’s blog, my prayer is for unity.
162. Victoria
April 19, 2009
8:45 AM
WOW! It is utterly amazing to me how anyone could call what Pulpit and Dr. Mac have posted “corruption” in defense of MD.
It is also insinuated that people here that are commenting have never even heard MD say these things and are sinning and spreading lies. I have personally heard and read all I could stand from MD!
Another calls for unity and grace from the lips of leaders in the church—Will you folks PLEASE write to Mark Driscoll with the same fervor, and beg him in the name of love and unity, to have speech “filled with Grace always seasoned with salt????
If MD would listen and use “speech filled with Grace always seasoned with salt”—there would be no further discussion!
163. Amy
April 19, 2009
10:13 AM
Mark Driscoll’s sin doesn’t justify us to sin against him in response. It’s that simple. There are Biblical methods of confrontation, and these aren’t them.
164. David Kjos
April 19, 2009
11:10 AM
Amy, this isn’t a confrontation of Mark Driscoll, it’s a public discussion of an issue that is currently at the forefront in the church today. The fact that Driscoll has brought it to the forefront and made himself the poster-boy for this particular sin is really incidental. With that said, what’s your point? Do you think it’s OK to turn Scripture into pornography? If not, is it OK to say so publicly?
165. Victoria
April 19, 2009
2:02 PM
Just to add something about the timeline and JM’s link to the Scotland sermon in his first or second post .
The day that link was posted in Pulpit-I followed it and was able to listen to the Scotland sermon(at least all I had the heart to listen to).
As of Saturday the sermon has been removed—so to infer that that sermon was removed and unavailable BEFORE Dr. Mac’s post is simply untrue—-I heard the sermon from the Pulpit link. That sermon was taken down sometime before the last Pulpit post!
I do not intend to comment again-thank you to the Godly men who have taken MD to task over this very disturbing trend involving perverted talk from the pulpit. Thank you pastor John MacArthur—thank you Phil Johnson-and thank you to all the godly men at pulpit magazine who decided that this should be addressed.
166. Amy
April 19, 2009
2:41 PM
To address Victoria’s timeline—the sermon apparently was posted several places and Driscoll says in his spring cleaning post that he had removed it from the Resurgence blogs and was pursuing removing it wherever else it was.
To David, there is no way you can say this isn’t a confrontation of Mark Driscoll. If it was intended as a generic exhortation on the subject, then Mark’s series of sermons wouldn’t have been singled out and quoted extensively and linked to on the blog and so forth.
This was a confrontation held in the public square where anyone can accuse of anything they want. And accusers are allowed to come out of the woodwork and pile on accusations—many of them unsubstantiated and some downright false—without any accountability.
I only have one simple point and I’ll repeat it again. Mark Driscoll’s sin doesn’t justify us to sin against him in response. It’s that simple. There are Biblical methods of confrontation, and these aren’t them.
167. David Kjos
April 19, 2009
4:44 PM
To David, there is no way you can say this isn’t a confrontation of Mark Driscoll.
And I repeat, this is not a confrontation of Mark Driscoll. It is a confrontation of the practice of talking dirty, and Driscoll just happens to be (currently) the most notable offender. And even if it did apply only to Driscoll, it would be no sin to publicly call him out on it. He has been privately admonished, and yet continues unrepentent. That being the case, a public rebuke is not only appropriate, but necessary, for the sake of the entire church.
168. Amy
April 19, 2009
7:04 PM
“He has been privately admonished, and yet continues unrepentant.”
This statement is just plain false. You may not think he had gone far enough, but he obviously had begun movement in the right direction. And instead of fostering the conviction he was already feeling, these posts have been stumblingblocks causing great clamor and anger from both sides, which according to Ephesians 4 grieves the Spirit from Whom authentic conviction comes.
169. David Kjos
April 19, 2009
8:06 PM
“He has been privately admonished, and yet continues unrepentant.” This statement is just plain false.
Well, I’m sorry. Maybe you can give me a link or at least a quote where he confessed his sin (directly, unequivocally, and actually using that word) and resolved to turn from it. I’ll be glad to hear it.
170. Calvin
April 21, 2009
8:27 AM
I agree, we miss the mark if we look at Song of Soloman as a step by step guide to marital bliss rather than the poetry it is.