- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (4/15)
- Next Post »A La Carte (4/16)
Missing the Forest for all the Trees
- 04/15/09
- 170
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.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (170)
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!)
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!
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.
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
"..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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?!?
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.
BernyDon't fret brother if you have 'original' insights then it's probably no good. There are plenty enough pyscho-influenced teaching out there.to allThe 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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.)
"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".
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?
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?
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
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)
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.