Galatians 5:13
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only DO NOT use liberty as AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FLESH, but through love SERVE ONE ANOTHER."

Matthew 12:36
"But I say to you that for EVERY IDLE WORD men may speak, they WILL GIVE ACCOUNT of it in THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT."

Hebrews 10:30
"For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “YAHWEH WILL JUDGE His PEOPLE.”"

James 2:12
"SO SPEAK and so do AS THOSE WHO WILL BE JUDGED BY THE LAW OF LIBERTY."

James 3:1
"My brethren, let not many of you become TEACHERS (Pastors/Preachers), knowing that WE SHALL RECEIVE A STRICTER JUDGMENT."


Mr Driscoll and those who seek the praises of men would do well to be blameless before the Majesty on High Who is our Great I AM. The ALMIGHTY who Judges ALL; but even more strictly His own Body (In relation to the truth) and in Particular His Elders/Pastors, who are given the charge and responsibility of being Oracles of His Word to His flock - for their care and Holiness of conduct amongst a perverse generation; out of which we have been called.

Titus 1:5-16
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should SET IN ORDER the things that are lacking, and APPOINT ELDERS in every city as I commanded you— IF A MAN IS BLAMELESS, the husband of one wife...For A BISHOP MUST BE BLAMELESS, as a steward of God, NOT SELF-WILLED...a LOVER OF WHAT IS GOOD, SOBER-MINDED, just, HOLY, SELF-CONTROLLED...that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort AND CONVICT THOSE WHO CONTRADICT.

For there are many INSUBORDANITE, both IDLE TALKERS and deceivers...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to...commandments of men who turn from the truth. To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even THEIR MIND AND CONSCIENCE ARE DEFILED. They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work."

2 Peter 2:18
"For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, THEY ALLURE THROUGH THE LUSTS OF THE FLESH , THROUGH LEWDNESS, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error."

"So we're going to analyze and critique this approach to Song of Solomon over the next couple of days,"

Sounds good.

May Mark mature and see his error, and become more godly in his preaching, and more sensative to the Body of Christ, and so a brighter shining light in a dark sex-crazed age. Amen.

I was very hesitant when listening to Driscoll's series on the Song of Solomon. I was expecting over the top language, inappropriate innuendo and jokes, etc. I was absolutely stunned, however, when I listened to that series. There were a couple of places where the joke was inappropriate in my opinion, but not much more than a couple. What struck me was how important everything was he was sharing. Most of the messages didn't deal with sex outright. They dealt with marriage according to the Biblical pattern and ideal. At times it was a hard hitting, challenging series of messages. It was very helpful and full of God-centered advice. I honestly haven't heard the like in a series that addresses all the elements that need to be addressed when it comes to marriage.

Driscoll also points out that he doesn't know of very many conservative preachers that bother to preach through the Song of Solomon at all. Our culture screams sex from every billboard, shopping mall, and TV commercial, yet conservative Bible preachers barely address the topic. Regardless of your opinion of how Driscoll deals with the subject at least he is doing so with a Biblical stance. He may not have preached the perfect sermon series, but he tried. Others are silent.

To say that Driscoll has led the charge to make sex the theme of our pulpits, seems an overstatement. The sex pledges and stuff like that totally did not originate from Driscoll. He made no call for daily sex in this series. He knew it would get people talking and drive website traffic and church attendance. So he purposely preached the gospel for the entirety of one of the sermons.

To attack Driscoll's treatment of the Song of Solomon, you have to disagree with C.J. Mahaney's treatment of the book too, as seen in his excellent book Sex, Marriage and Romance for the Glory of God. And there are scores of generally faithful Bible commentators who would agree with some kind of position similar to Driscoll's take on Solomon. Further, he doesn't say the whole book is about sex, but emphasizes it also pictures Christ and the Church.

I fear this whole series is just an attack on Driscoll, because he is a threat. He is conservative enough that young guys like me will give him an ear. It approaches the tactics of fundamentalists, the group I was raised in. Rather than teaching discernment and helping us be rooted to Scripture more than to personalities, this series and several others will blow small things out of proportion in an attempt to make Driscoll look bad so we won't want to listen to him. And even if this series is more careful in that regard, the blogs which will link here will take that approach. Driscoll seems to be teachable and is trying to be humble. My pastor, John Piper has reached out to him and found ways to meaningfully help Driscoll reform in important ways. Lobbing grenades from the sidelines is not an effective way to bring meaningful change to guys like Driscoll.

I don't really have a stock in this fight. I'm just sharing my thoughts on this. I'm not committed to Driscoll, or to Piper or to MacArthur. I want to be careful in how I build my life on Scripture, and I want to follow God's leading for my life. I think if anyone gives Driscoll an honest hearing through the sermon series being picked apart here, they will be truly blessed and challenged. We should at least own up to the good things he has to say and acknowledge the evidences of grace that are very apparent in his ministry.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton
Fundamentally Reformed

To Bob Hayton, Thanks for your thoughts. Well said. I am adding what I just posted on Tim Challies blog;

I'm glad Dr MacArthur is personally taking this on again. I have found were he takes Pastor Mark to task in Dec. '06. Does anybody have a link to any other time Dr. MacArthur took up a subject along these lines and singled out Pastor Mark?

I look forward to the rest of the series by Dr. MacArthur. The timing is excellent since the Gospel Coalition Conference(GCC) is next week. I will be attending and I hope this issue is addressed. I thank God for Dr. MacArthur and I thank God for Pastor Mark and this issue needs to be resolved, especially from the leaders I love and respect in the evangelical community.

This topic has me very confused, sad and unfortunately agitated. I feel this issue has the potential to divide and destroy such a wonderful community and movement that is spreading the Gospel in amazing ways. If the leadership at the GCC does not address this head on and explicitly (a rebuke and repentance exchange, sorry guys I hope that is the correct verbiage), then I will continue to sit under the teaching of Pastor Mark as well as Dr. Mohler, Pastor Piper, Dr Carson, Dr Duncan, Dr. MacArthur etc. If Pastor Mark is such a stumbling block to The Gospel and discipleship then these other great leaders of ours must come together and let us know in no uncertain terms (maybe they have and I just can't get it through this thick head of mine). In the past three years I have learned so much from Pastor Mark's (and the others mentioned) teaching. I have never been so focused on The Word Of God. Pastor Mark (and the others mentioned) have so much to do with that.

If anyone can direct me to a link that any other highly respected, nationally visible leader (such as the ones listed above) in the evangelical community has taken Pastor Mark to task personally please let me know. I have read and respect Phil Johnson's exegesis and thoughts but I'm looking for others.

Grace and peace to you,

Scott

Bob,

This series is the furthest thing possible from an attack on Driscoll simply because he is a threat. You must have missed the purpose of this series which was clearly stated in the article. The purpose is to analyze the way Mark Driscoll has been handling the Song of Solomon. It is an issue of proper interpretation and integrity in the pulpit rather than an issue of personality differences. Please read the entire series before claiming you know the motive behind it.

Nathan Williams

Nathan,

I do hope I'm proved wrong. I respect MacArthur greatly, and I do think exegesis and the handling of the Song of Solomon is important. Truth be told, I think the Christological parallels in the Song of Solomon are ignored by far too many today. Older commentators emphasized the teaching about Christ and the Church in the Song of Solomon.

I do think there are many in evangelicalism today which are using sex to draw crowds and have a wrong-headed approach to this topic which leads to such crazy and unhelpful (in the eyes of the world perhaps even more so than in the eyes of the church) things as these pledges to have sex daily, etc. That does need to be addressed, and perhaps that is what this series will focus on more so than Driscoll. In truth, Driscoll's treatment and these others differs greatly, and that is not expressed in this first post.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Scott,
mark has said some crude things in the past. He also has been a gifted speaker as well. The crudeness of Mark is his immaturity as a young pastor. His giftedness is very evident, and I pray he would continue to be molded into the image of Christ, and that this crudeness would become godliness. And also he would grow in his ability to read, study, and teach the Holy Scriptures. The Lord surely has worked great things through Mark. May the Lord's greatest works with Mark be yet to come.

To Don sands, Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful comment. I too pray for greater things to come from Pastor Mark, Dr. MacArthur and others. These are amazing times.

Blessings,

Scott

Mark Driscoll certainly has struck a chord with the Song of Solomon sermon series (The Peasant Princess) he delivered back in 2008. I get the impression that this sermon series was more readily received by those in their 20's and 30's. Most of the press on this sermon series implies that it was solely about sex. While that was certainly a focus, there was also a focus on the marriage relationship. I was challenged by several of the messages to step it up a notch or two in the amount of time and effort I put into my relationship with my wife. As part of the demographic that seems to have received this message well, I have to wonder if it has been received better due to a lack of discernment or possibly a sometimes apathetic and indifferent attitude towards explicit language, because we've been culturally entrenched in it since our early teens. If MacArthur wants to pick apart Driscoll's Song of Solomon series, I hope he brings up some specific and constructive arguments / objections. The last bit of this article implies a lot about Driscoll without actually attributing it specifically to him. If the articles that follow are equally as vague, I can't help but feel that this is just more of the on-going anti-Driscoll rant coming from the Grace Community Church crowd. At the same time, I realize that I can sometimes be a bit of a Mark Driscoll fan-boy, so I'm open to feedback.

Bible Geek Gone Wild

While I have really appreciated Driscoll's teaching, especially given the context of other "culturally relevant" teachers amongst us, he does tend to use language and or context that can be a little uneasy for me. I have no problems with one trying to communicate, explain, breakdown to those that haven't been brought up in the same way and / or churches that I have, but just like literature and art and music is critiqued, I think sermons can be as well. Is it truly as edifying as it can be? How does one treat the material or sin that is being discussed, etc. I think the sum of the observations on Driscoll (since he's apparently the one standing out here as a leader) is that it can be better. I would hope he'd agree to that just as any pastor or Christian that is constantly a work in progress would commit to saying. I think it's healthy that Christians have these open and loving discussions (I'd be careful to judge Grace Community or John MacArthur out of the box until we hear the analysis out) in order to sharpen the iron so to speak. As a matter of fact, all Christians should be focused on getting God's Word out above all else, and we all should be banding together to help one another do that better all along the way.

Additionally, since I'm a female, I thought it would be worthwhile to mention that even in the context of marriage and so forth, that some of the language addressed my Pastor MacArthur's observation above is worrisome to a wife. To even joke about something being "dirty" as being okay for the wife to partake in is not honoring or respecting her. Communication is first and foremost in any marriage relationship, and if there's even a perception on the female's part that some act is "dirty" one must honor that and work with that. It may not be in and of itself. But, in all practicality, it didn't become "dirty" outside of worldly handling and/or "marketing" of whatever sexual act is being reviewed. That, in and of itself, should make us wonder if the act is conducive for more intimacy or actually destructive. For anyone, especially pastors in the pulpit, to overlook that idea, is not helpful to say the least (joking or no joking).

I again am not impressed by the MacArthur bunch. It seems as though Phil Johnson has found his cohort and the attacks on Mark Driscoll just keep on comin'. Yet who established Mars Hill? Spurgeon? MacArthur? From these relentless jabs at Mark Driscoll, why does not another one of these go to Seattle to plant a church in the same fashion.

Mark Driscoll is not my favorite but he is up there. With this article and Phil Johnson's rants, from the pulpit no less, who do we think we are? Seriously, who do you think you are to criticize another in public as such? Have you personally spoken with the one whom you are attacking and "critiquing"? If contact is tough, go visit them in person before these things are done. If no contact can be made, keep quiet, hit your knees and pray.

And if this is seen as a critique in public, there you go but the contact information in navigation is sparse to say the least. We have much, much better things to do and more things to be uncomfortable about - such as the martyrdom of the saints and the starving nations and how generous we are personally than how Mark Driscoll preaches.

(Repeated from my own site, FaithFusion.net. ...)

I am grateful to Pastor MacArthur for addressing this issue and I look forward to reading more from him. And I am also grateful that he is not falling into the tempting trap of presenting Big Bad Examples of the sin so we can all see how bad it is, which kind of defeats the whole point.

In recent years, it seems this whole outdo-in-lewd-and-crude approach has been based on immaturity and a rather gleeful attitude of libertarian antinomianism as well. (I am not as familiar with Mark Driscoll, yet unlike some others at least for him the attitude is contrary to his professed strong Reformed stance.) Why can Christ-followers not adopt a more Puritan (not less!) attitude toward intimate relations in marriage — with a balance of guarding their sacredness yet also not being ashamed? Why must church leaders jolt from one extreme to the other?

Men such as MacArthur, John Piper and CJ Mahaney have done well addressing the subject of sex with the appropriate blend of restraint and yet clarity. Intimacy in marriage is a beautiful thing, but now too many churches are falling all over themselves to talk about it as if they’ve been muzzled for far too long and by golly now is the time to Show All the World That We Are Just as Crazy About Sex, too.

“Hee hee hee, look what Iiiii’m doinnnng, I’m talking about se-exxx! Oh, I am such a ‘bad boy,’ I am quite the naughty evangelical, aren’t I?”

Come on. Big deal. It won’t take long before the gimmick of this has worn off and all those “naughty evangelicals” will look around and see that it’s not so supposedly naughty anymore because everybody is doing it. Rumors of all these imaginary-enemy Puritan Legalists glaring in the general directions of married couples’ bedrooms have been greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, what is the deal with pretending like it’s all naughty in order to enjoy it? That’s just strange and twisted — and perhaps it demonstrates that they haven’t gotten rid of their hangups nearly as much as they say.

While mindful of Christ and propriety that honors Him and His institution of marriage, can we not be simply “too cool” to fall for all this dumb cackling about it? From what I have read so far, the Puritans did not frown upon pleasure, they safeguarded it from this kind of insipidity. So if you’re making a big pretense about rebelling against “Puritanical” attitudes, sorry, you’ve got the wrong straw man.

Such haw-haw nudge-nudge crude locker-room-speak about the subject is absolutely against the restrained-yet-passionate nature of Song of Solomon, and also transparently eye-rollingly absurd to those with a more Biblical balance. But worse, as Phil Johnson pointed out in his excellent March 6 sermon, it dishonors Christ, ignores the clear instructions of Titus 2 to forbid profane talk and crude joking, and fails to uphold the wonderful sacredness of intimacy in marriage.

"Mark Driscoll is not my favorite but he is up there. "

Who would be your favorite, or favorites Peter? If you don't mind me asking. Just curious I guess. BTW, Phil Johnson did contact Mark. He does care about the Church all over the world, and perhaps he is praying for Mark. Your comment is very judgmental of others judging.
The truth, and keeping the Word of God sacred and contending for the faith is the most important calling for us Christians, especially the shepherds of the sheep. They better be feeding and tending the Lord's sheep speaking the truth in love, building up the Church, and also protect the sheep from error. Not heresy every time, though there are also wolves to be contended with, even wolves in sheeps clothing.

There's always been false jesus', gospels, & spirits to stand against, and always shall be. But there's also error that needs to be confronted.
Paul confronted Peter, Baranbus, and the others. Whitefield confronted Wesley, though they labored together for the Gospel. It's an essential experience that goes on in the Body of Christ, and the kingdom of heaven.

Have a blessed day.

I dearly wish Pastor MacArthur would not continue these online discussions, but would instead contact men such as Pastor Driscoll in person. I do not think this kind of in-fighting is helpful to the body of Christ or our Christian witness.

Second, after listening to the Peasant Princess series, I honestly do not think Pastor Mark planned the series to be "hip," etc. His church ministers to all sorts of people that would never set foot into GCC--people with all kinds of problems and addictions, many of them concerning issues of sex. As pornography problems and sexual addictions are absolutely rampant in the church, his messages about a biblical view of sexuality is desperately needed by many people.

Furthermore, in the series, Pastor Mark is surprisingly careful to avoid distasteful explicitness, repeatedly saying that when an interpretive passage gets tricky (exemplified in verses such as "his fruit was sweet to my taste," etc), he will quote other people.

As a newly engaged person, I found the series immensely helpful. I fear that Pastor MacArthur is just lumping in Pastor Mark with the "sex challenge" folk when this may be an unfair overstatement. I do wish he would listen to the series, and give specific examples of where he believes Pastor Mark is in error. I do hope that his take on Pastor Mark will be fair and balanced, giving helpful critique while also being able to recognize the immense good that such a series has done and may do.

Pastor Driscoll is not a perfect preacher. His language is sometimes crass, reflecting his rough background and desire to connect with young, rough-edged men--those who are most unchurched. This may not, of course, ultimately justify the use of crass language. However, I think Pastor MacArthur should take comfort in the fact that Mark Driscoll has shown willingness to learn from other pastors, such as John Piper and C. J. Mahaney. One evidence of this is that Pastor Driscoll's language has become much more circumspect in the last year. He is also doing great work for the kingdom. He is helping to win converts, make disciples, and plant churches. He makes everything about Jesus, giving Him priority and praise. Furthermore, he has stated that he has great respect for Pastor MacArthur, as he was able to grow a lot from MacArthur's books and messages. Please, let's not shoot our brothers and create division and enmity in public forums such as these.

If Mr. Driscoll's sermons regarding sex were confined to his local church, then perhaps the argument that he is simply appealing to the congregation that is unique to Mars Hill, i.e. ones with difficult backgrounds, may seem reasonable. However, his messages are not confined to Mars Hill; they are easily availabl, and they are getting into the hands of teenage boys. If Mr. Driscoll is free to use the internet to present his material, then is not Dr. MacArthur free to use the internet to discuss them?

I recently had a young man of 20 send me some of the material, called "Porn Again Christian," asking my opinion of it. It was full of language and allusions that only encouraged this young, single man to dwell on sexual matters. While the topic was certainly a valid and important one for boys, it was done with a college fraternity house tone to it. Our young men don't need any more fodder for demeaning sex any more than is available to them in the media or worse, in schools. While teaching young men about sex is important, I also see a great need for young men to be taught to be leaders and godly men. Why the huge emphasis on sex? Better to combat the profane images they are being force fed.

I have two teenaged boys and my husband and I are in charge of the youth ministry at our church. We would never allow Mr. Driscoll's material in our group, and if young men ask about his sex-related material, we discourage them from availing themselves of it.

comment was removed by user

Mark Driscoll is so wrong on so many levels and he needs to immediately repent:

1. He's gone way over the biblical line (http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/1613) in dealing with sexual topics by uploading videos to YouTube about “biblical oral sex” for the general public to view, including children and singles, joking about masturbation on CNN, and by generally lowering the sacredness of Christ and Scripture. Al Mohler said it best, "We should be as explicit as Scripture is ... and no more." By account of any mature, Spirit-filled believer, Driscoll has transgressed this line.

2. Driscoll, who is 38 years young, knows very well that he is going against the counsel of far older, more mature and experienced shepherds of the faith like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Al Mohler. Only a pastor stuck in his own conceit wouldn't heed the wise counsel of these older, godly men. In my opinion, John Piper is getting used by Driscoll and the favored line that "Driscoll has repented and is changing and John Piper is mentoring him" is baseless in reality. (Note to John Piper: if Driscoll stays on present course with you providing cover, beware lest your ministry and the glory of God be tarnished.)

3. Unless Driscoll is completely ignorant or so blinded by his own arrogance, he should know that his graphic content offends the consciences of weaker Christians, and if for no other reason than 1 Corinthians 10, he should clean up his act so that weaker brothers' consciences aren't offended. I am a Christian radio talk show host and when the head of a major Christian radio network emails me the night before I'm going to do a program on Driscoll and “the pornification of the pulpit” (http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/1613) warning me to not offend the listening audience, and when I am personally convicted that I would be disobeying Scripture by playing sound bites of a Christian pastor's content (i.e. Driscoll's) on Christian radio, that pretty much sums up how wrong Driscoll is.

Finally, it's irrelevant that Driscoll "has helped me so much spiritually" or "he's reaching the young and urban generation" or "he's started so many churches" -- the same or similar could be said of Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller. The bottom line is that Driscoll is unrepentantly perpetuating extra-biblical sinful content and needs to stop sullying the holiness of God and Scripture and the pulpit ... NOW.

Does anyone, including Driscoll, really think that if he toned it back to the biblical line that people wouldn't listen to him or be reached? Please. There's nothing new under the Seattle sun (or is it rain?) that wasn't present in the hearts of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago that the clear and sound preaching of the gospel can't redeem.

As for me, I will pray that Mark Driscoll stops causing this unnecessary division, that he will repent of his sinful ways, that he will listen to his elders in the faith, and that he will fulfill the pastoral potential that God has given to him.

Hello,

I need some help. As I posted earlier I'm looking for posts by other leaders, such as Dr. Mohler and R.C. Sproul who have taken Pastor Mark to task publicly. I have read Dr. Mohler daily for the past couple of years and have searched his blog site and have found nothing concerning this subject that mentions Pastor Mark specifically. I've also searched Dr. Sproul's Ligoniers site and have not found anything there either. Just trying to find other leaders who have taken Pastor Mark to task publicly besides Dr. MacArthur, Phil and TeamPyro (who by the way I respect and learn a great deal from too). TIA for any help.

Cheers,

Scott

comment was removed by user

Dear Scott,

I would not be so bold as to classify myself as a "leader" but I have posted 2 articles about Mark Driscoll's approach to preaching on my ministry website. They can be accessed on

http://www.takeheed.net/CurrentConcerns_2/Mark_Driscoll_article.htm
http://www.takeheed.net/CurrentConcerns_2/MarkDriscolls.htm

I trust they may be helpful and above all Christ-honouring

In Him

Cecil Andrews
'Take Heed' Ministries
www.takeheed.net

Dear Cecil,

Thank you for you kind and thoughtful response. I look forward to reading your articles.

Also, for anybody attending the Gospel Coalition Conference, drop me an email off the contact page if you'd like to get together for fellowship. Thanks

Scott

comment was removed by user

Emma, et. al.,
There has been an attempt to contact Mark Driscoll. The odyssey of that endeavor is chronicled here:
http://epangelia.blogspot.com/2009/04/phil-johnson-and-mark-driscoll-part-ix.html

Thanks,
Jesse

Emma,
I'm not sure I buy the whole "he ministers to people who would never set foot into GCC" line. It is the Gospel that draws people, not the style of a pastor. As the local outreach pastor at Grace, I can testify to the fact that people "with addictions" do get saved here. Not because they somehow resonate with John's style, but because the Gospel saves people.

Jesse

I feel extremely blessed. This type of preaching is unheard of in my town and I wouldn't have been aware that this had become a fad had I not read of it here. I would thank you for enlightening me but I think I would just assume remain ignorant of this nonsense.

comment was removed by user

Thanks John,
I haven't personally listened to Driscoll's series on the Song of Solomon, but what you had to say here about it is absolutely right. The human authors of the Bible would be shocked and disgusted by the way scripture is being used today. We can and must preach about human sexuality as God has written about it with the emphasis and propriety that the Bible is written with.

God bless

Will

comment removed by administrator

comment removed by administrator

Imagine the comments a post like this would garner; if Spurgeon had a blog. Thought you all might find Spurgeon’s take on this interesting. (Excerpt from Sermon (No. 558) delivered on Sunday Morning, February 28th, 1864.)

Certain Divines have doubted the inspiration of Solomon's Song; others have conceived it to be nothing more than a specimen of ancient love-songs, and some have been afraid to preach from it because of its highly poetical character.

The true reason for all this avoidance of one of the most heavenly portions of God's Word lies in the fact that the spirit of this Song is not easily attained. Its music belongs to the higher spiritual life, and has no charm in it for unspiritual ears. The Song occupies a sacred enclosure into which none may enter unprepared. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground," is the warning voice from its secret tabernacles.

The historical books I may compare to the outer courts of the Temple; the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Psalms, bring us into the holy place or the Court of the priests; but the Song of Solomon is the most holy place: the holy of holies, before which the veil still hangs to many an untaught believer. It is not all the saints who can enter here, for they have not yet attained unto the holy confidence of faith, and that exceeding familiarity of love which will permit them to commune in conjugal love with the great Bridegroom.

We are told that the Jews d id not permit the young student to read the Canticles—that years of full maturity were thought necessary before the man could rightly profit by this mysterious Song of loves; possibly they were wise, at any rate the prohibition foreshadowed a great truth. The Song is, in truth, a book for full-grown Christians.

Babes in grace may find their carnal and sensuous affections stirred up by it towards Jesus, whom they know, rather "after the flesh" than in the spirit; but it needs a man of fuller growth, who has leaned his head upon the bosom of his Master, and been baptized with his baptism, to ascend the lofty mountains of love on which the spouse standeth with her beloved. The Song, from the first verse to the last, will be clear to those who have received an unction from the holy One, and know all things.

"are for mature audiences only."

This to me is absurd for a shepherd of Christ to say to his flock. Crazy. Pastors are to preach the Word to the Body of Christ, not R-rated sermons.

There's a place for talking to adults about sex, but not in the pulpit.

Mark Driscoll in his book, Vintage Jesus, which my pastor asked me to read, and i did, compares the Cross of my Savior to a "used condom". Mark needs to mature. he is a gifted brother in Christ, and I pray, i really do pray for him, that he would mature. No more, this is for "mature audiences", please. Preach the truth in love to everyone from 4 years old to 94 years old. It's wonderful to hear the truth of God's Word!

Looking forward to Pastor MacArthur's follow up to his initial post.

Lord bless.

Micah Buckley,

Your comments were removed in part because of your tone, but primarily because you have not retained your SF membership. To comment on the blog you must be an active SF member.

Pulpit Staff

comment was removed by user

I have seen Driscoll's series on the Song of Solomon, while I do agree that some of the joking in the series was a bit "different" and at some points (I can only think of a couple myself) that border on inappropriateness, I applaud the man for at LEAST being brave enough to teach the entire counsel of God's word. Whether folks want to admit it or not, in this sex crazed society I know the church wants to stray away from frank sexual discussions and I have no issue in that, but this is the FIRST TIME in my 10 + years of Christendom that I have seen a preacher attempt to properly exegete this book. He does not talk about sex in a bad way, and is not lewd. Parts of the series do not focus on sex ONLY he also talks about other underlying issues in the text.... it is very tactful and tastefully done if you ask me. I really think folks pick on Mark Driscoll because he looks like a Emergent and doesn't "look" like other preachers, I think folks need to stop with pre-conceived notions and really hear the man speak and teach the word of God.

I sincerely hope that everyone is checking their motives when they go after this man. It is so easy to do to bunch someone in a group because it is convenient for us without checking ourselves and our hangups at the door. However while he has said things in the past that have ruffled my tail feathers (I do not deny that) who here is without sin? He is a relatively young pastor who is trying to adhere to the old way while teaching a new generation of believers. PRAY for him. I hate to think what accusations like this (which in this case are about 90% unfounded) are doing to this man and his ministry. I have the utmost respect for John MacArthur and his preaching, but respectfully I have to disagree about your point with Driscoll "leading" this movement of sexual inappropriateness in the pulpit.

I DO AGREE however with the increasing lewdness that continues to plague us in some of these modern churches. I once saw a pastor do a reenactment on stage with his wife... I will not say the rest. Absolutely disgusting. I think SOS way of handling the graphic nature of sex is profound, and frankly people don't like to talk about it in American society, mainly because we are loaded down with these very sins because of the sensationalism and exploitation of it in our culture, but sex is NOT a bad thing when it is in the proper parameters of a marriage. It is a private thing and I don't need details or frank commentary on it as a single woman per se, but I do need to know my scripture. Can you deny that there are parts in SOS that do refer to some forms of sexual contact? I think the bible is too real for many... even for us super saved. ;)

Good night all :)

To Don,

All subjects are not for childrens ears. The content may not be suitable for youth. Would you want your 4 year old to know that SOS is talking about sex? Or that Jesus is revelation slaughtered his enemies to the point their blood came up to about four feet (a horses bridle)? What is that to them? An adult however may be ready and mature enough to hear about those subjects. I think calling his sermon "R-Rated" is being sensational.

Tremendously thankful to Phil Johnson for every necessary word he delivered at the conference on this matter, and to John for taking the baton into yet another region of the vastly-increasing battlefield of this war on Truth that has been waged against the church of our Lord Jesus Christ! To those who essentially consider the Bereans' model of searching the Scriptures or Paul's model of rebuke divisive in some fairy-tale expectation that tolerance should supercede truth, I'd humbly suggest that Phil or John would probably much rather spend 100 percent of their time and energy simply mining the rich depths of Scripture for the sheer joy of it, and to magnify the Lord for His greatness in every minute spent in His Word...period. This as opposed to so much time in their studies being devoted to countering wave after wave of brazen and blatant falsehoods that attack the purity of the church--falsehoods, I might add, that they did not conjur up in some bizarre attempt at "relevancy," but are simply compelled by the Spirit to respond to what they see others doing in order to achieve such purposes in an un-Biblical manner. As good shepherds, these men know their calling; they know the Bible describes, warns against, commands church leaders to protect their flocks from, and spells-out consequences for the varied manifestations of apostasy and/or carnality we see paraded so obviously in these last days. Furthermore, it is only because the word "love" (or "lovingly") has been turned upside-down through postmodern wordplay of the late 20th-21st century, both in society at large and even in the church (sadly), that Phil's or John's addressing of problems like this could be seen as anything but loving, as they do so in the hope and purpose of Biblical restoration, not ridicule.

"All subjects are not for childrens ears." -Kelly

My point was that the pulpit should never be R-rated. There are other ways to preach the fullness of God's Word from the pulpit to all God's children, no matter what age.

In Part 2 of this discussion Chuck Weinberg makes a VERY GOOD point for each of us to consider...

Shouldn't that scripture reference "be fruitful and multiply" be Gen. 1:28?

William,

I agree. Chuck makes some excellent points on PT. II indeed! However, I might add that YOUR opening comments on this thread are superb...and necessary!

First of all, to the Pulpit Staff, I do have an active Shepard's Fellowship account. My log-in name is mjbuckley. Secondly to remove my comments because of their scathing tone is uncommonly hypocritical. There are a number of merciless attacks on the ministry of Pastor Mark Discoll within the responses to this blog, and yet none of them have been removed, however misplaced, disrespectful, or severe. Pastor MacArthur himself has been disrespectful to a fellow shepard of God and has seriously and wrongly maligned him. I am not anti-MacArthur. Goodness gracious, my Bible is a John MacArthur New American Standard Study Version. I only ask that Pastor MacArthur, the Pulpit Staff, and all of those who follow his teachings examine the Word of God closely. If they do, they'll find that the Song of Solomon is a very fully explicit, erotic book, which is poetic and yet straight forward about sex, and Pastor MacArthur owes Pastor Discoll an apology, whether written or verbalized, for his uninformed accusations. Thank you.

And although they might be removed again, I'll post my comments once more and hope that they will fall upon ears that are humbly opened to listen.

I won't lie, I'm somewhat furious over this. Are we serious right now? Is this what "leadership" in the Body of Christ acts like?

Pastor MacArthur, have you even listened to the entire "Peasant Princess" series by Pastor Mark Driscoll on the Song of Solomon, or followed the teachings of his ministry? I don't believe you have, sir, because if you took the time to do so, you would find that Mark Driscoll is one of the most uncompromisingly Christ-and-Bible-centered teachers in Christendom. The foundation of his sermons on the Song of Solomon is the GLORY OF CHRIST, and how Jesus is to be lifted high in whole, joyful, and sexually-fruitful marriage. Within these messages, Driscoll rails against every kind of fornication, sexual sin, and immoral sensuality.

He is also explicit and specific about correct sexuality; explicit AS THE SONG OF SOLOMON IS EXPLICIT ON THE JOYS OF LOVE AND SEX IN MARRIAGE. No sir, he is not more explicit than this book of scripture. My goodness, in certain cultures the Song of Songs was banned until readers came of age because it is so EROTIC. Let's quote a few verses:

Chapter 1, Verses 2-4, "May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine. Your oils have a pleasing fragrance, your name is like purified oil; therefore the maidens love you. Draw me after you and let us run together! The king has brought me into his chambers... "

Chapter 1, Verse 13, "My beloved is to me a pouch of myrrh which lies all night between my breasts."

Chapter 2, Verse 3, "Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men, in his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste."

Chapter 4, Verse 5, "Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle which feed among the lilies."

Chapter 4, Verse 10-11, "How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than all kinds of spices! Your lips, my bride, drip honey; honey and milk are under your tongue, and the fragrance of your garments is like the fragrance of Lebanon."

Chapter 4, Verse 16, "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!"

Chapter 5, Verse 1, "Eat, friends; drink and imbibe deeply, O lovers."

Chapter 5, Verse 14, "His hands are rods of gold set with beryl; his abdomen is carved ivory inlaid with sapphires."

Chapter 7, Verse 1-2, "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet, which never lacks mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies."

Chapter 7, Verse 7-8, "Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.'"

Alright, now let's review. In these few verses, the author has mentioned specifically: love and sexuality that are better than alcohol, deep indulgence in the passions of love, the intoxicating smell of bodily oils, kissing and tasting of mouths and tongues, detailed descriptions of the sexual body parts of the lovers, tasting of those body parts ("your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks mixed wine"), and sexual actions, i.e. a husband taking hold of his wife's breasts!

Pastor MacArthur, how can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but

"fully explicit"? There are no other terms for it, sir. The Song of Solomon does not beat around the bush when it comes to godly sexuality, and thankfully neither do pastors like Mark Driscoll. When he gave these sermons, he made his congregation and those watching him over the internet completely aware that the topics of sexuality are for mature audiences only. He is equipped by the Word of God and the authority of Christ Jesus to spread the Gospel, and he is reaching masses of people for Christ in perhaps the most openly pagan area of the United States.

Therefore, sir, if you have a doctrinal issue with Pastor Driscoll, then I ask respectfully that you reach out to him humbly and speak to him privately of your concern, always having within you the heart of the Master that washed the feet of His sinful, rebellious creation. Then, if you find Driscoll's demeanor to be hardened or uncaring, and you find that he cannot Biblically defend his positions on this portion of scripture, go to men that he trusts, whom you know very well (Piper, Mahaney, etc.), speak to them, and confront him together. Lastly, if he will not hear you and he is in clear, undisputed error, renounce him publicly. But please, sir, have the decency as a seasoned elder of the Body to care for him in pastoral relationship before you, as a highly influential leader, belittle and insult his ministry in this manner. Thank you, sir.

~ Micah Buckley

"for mature audiences only."

R-rated sermons?

Micah,

Read 1 Corinthians 1.

Or.....read about the churches of Laodacia, Thyatira, Pergamos, or Sardis.

Beloved brother Christopher Carney,

I am but a pitiful worm raised up by unmerritted mercies and grace, but I thank you for your kind note.
I am not even desirious to listen to Mr Driscoll's talks, by the mere fact that the LORD has dealt so very mercifully with my sins of Sexual Idolatary, that my conscience and mind had been so seriously and severely corrupted by pornogaphic words, images and inuendos that Indeed it is even dangerous for me to read some of the comments left here that ONLY point to sexual inuendo being used as a means of "exposition".

Someone has truthfully noted that the "Stronger brother" is charged with a duty in Romans 14 & 15 to remove ANY REAL stumbling block that may be caused if a "stronger brother" feels the need to exercise his liberties in Christ, which to that "stronger brother" are more important that the "Weak brother's" conscience, heart and sinfulness.

I am convicted by Scripture that when I have caused a brother to sin against his conscience that that guilt will be mine to own before our Almighty. That I will give an account for abusing my liberties in Christ in violation of the Second part of the Law of love: "Love your neigbour as yourself". It is my sincere desire and hope that IF and WHEN I ever have or might inadvertenly cause a brother to transgress his conscience; that he would speak up before I go any further in my liberties, that I may humble myself before the LORD to lay down my life, take up my cross and follow after Christ in self denial.

May Mr Driscoll be convicted according with the FINAL Authority of the Scriptures by the Spirit of grace and truth and repent publicly as he has acted publicly, perhaps he unintentionally violated other's consciences by abusing his own liberties and that LORD may grant him repentance and mercy that will cover multitudes of sin.

Humbled by Sovereign mercy, fearful of offending our Great I AM, fearful of causing any other little ones to stumble, for love of our Triune God, and the honor of all mankind.
W

Micah Buckley wrote to MacArthur: "Therefore, sir, if you have a doctrinal issue with Pastor Driscoll, then I ask respectfully that you reach out to him humbly and speak to him privately of your concern, always having within you the heart of the Master that washed the feet of His sinful, rebellious creation."

Aside from the fact that MacArthur, Johnson and others have tried to comunicate with Driscoll privately, it seems to escape many of Driscoll's more strident supporters that he has posted his messages and books in a widely public forum. No pastor or theologian who speaks publicly in a classroom or from a pulpit, posts his messages on the internet, publishes books, and goes on the public airwaves has any legitimate expectation that those who take issue with his positions or behavior must communicate their disagreement or critique privately. MacArthur knows this better than anyone and he has received a great deal of public criticism from his theological opponents. I've never heard him complain about this. In fact, he has warned pastors (especially those with wide audiences) that they are fair game for public criticism. Also, pastors and teachers are held to a higher standard, especially in regard to their use of language (James 3:1ff).

Now I hope and pray that Pastor Driscoll is changing his manner since this is not a minor issue, and he is obviously a high profile minister with tremendous influence. It doesn't take many slip ups before a man has disqualified himself as an elder (I Tim. 3:1ff; Titus 1:5ff).

Mr. Buckley, you have accused Dr. MacArthur of maligning Mark Driscoll, making uninformed accusations, of arguing that the SoS is not a holy book. You also stated that MacArthur has belittled and insulted Mark's ministry. To top it off, you imply at the end of your post that Pastor MacArthur lacks the decency of a seasoned elder because he has not approached Driscoll in a manner you deem appropriate.

I suggest Mr. Buckley, that you might be a bit embarrassed with your responses here after you've had time to cool down a bit.

Respectfully,
Steve Lamm

First things first. I need to apologize to every member of this forum. I was wrong to address Pastor MacArthur's words in a snide tone. He is my spiritual father, and above me in authority, and so I repent publicly.

Secondly, to Don Sands, I would say that there are absolutely parts of the Bible that should only be expounded upon to mature audiences, or "rated-R sermons"; sometimes parishioners must reach an age of mental and spiritual development to handle the fullness of the vivid truth of the Word of God, which is often unashamedly blatant (Ezekiel 23:3, Ezekiel 23:8, Ezekiel 23:20, Song of Solomon 7:7-8, etc.) My goodness, Ezekiel 23:20 compares the sperm of the men of Egypt to that of horses. I don't think there is such a thing as being "more explicit" than that, and yet it is the Holy, revealed Word of the Lord. But you wouldn't preach that passage to little children, and you wouldn't take your babies to go see the visual suffering of Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ", because there is some scriptural content that should be expounded upon only to believers who have come of age.

Third, to Steve Lamm: Brother, you were right to say that I needed to cool down. I am young and passionate, but that is no excuse. However, the path of rebuke that I am suggesting that Pastor MacArthur take when dealing with this fellow servant-in-the-Faith is purely Biblical, commanded by Christ in Matthew 18:15-17. First, the personal correction ought to be private, then within a group of trusted confidants, and only after that should there be an open denouncement of a specific person. The widely public or intimately private nature of the mistake made has nothing to do with the proper order for correcting that individual. You may denounce their deeds, but to call them out by name is highly unnecessary unless they are a heretic, an unbeliever, and/or a danger to the Faith. Mark Driscoll is none of these things, and, in point of fact, he has already publicly repented at the advice of his critics, and removed the most uncouth of his material on the Song of Solomon. Here's the link to that apology, brother: http://theresurgence.com/spring_cleaning

Lastly, I never said that Pastor MacArthur argued that the Song of Songs was not Biblical. Quite the opposite, I am fully aware of both MacArthur's and Driscoll's high reverence for every book of scripture as the final, authoritative Word of God. What I am saying is that I do believe Pastor MacArthur made a poor, uninformed choice when he singled Pastor Driscoll's entire ministry out, having not followed the guidelines of correction for the Body laid out in Matthew 18, and having not taken the time to see that Driscoll was acting and has acted in good faith and humility toward this issue. As a strong leader, MacArthur's word about this man has influenced and determined a host of people's opinions, and his assessment of Driscoll's "Peasant Princess" series, as well as the method of the assessment, were wrong. Whether publicly or privately, he needs to apologize.

God bless you, dear sirs, and may the Lord keep our hearts from wandering, as they are so prone to do. Amen.

~Micah Buckley

"I would say that there are absolutely parts of the Bible that should only be expounded upon to mature audiences,"

I'm saying that on Sunday morning, the Sabbath, when all God's children come to worship the Father in Spirit and truth, should there be a sermon that is R-rated, or even PG-13? No. That's absurd. God wants His people to be together so He can bless us, and so we cna be edified, and so we can serve one another. A genuine pastor of the Lord knows how to handle the Word of God in the midst of his flock. Mark messed up big time, and I think he has realized that.
God wants us to be encouraged as we walk in the light as He is in the light, and for those who are playing in the darkness, God will convict them, and bring them out of that, and back into the light where we can have fellowship with one another.

I will add something personal at this late stage:

I have not and CANNOT Even fully read this article because Mr Driscoll' speech herein conjures up past experiences of exploitation of my person by Homosexuals and Paedophiles.

Just the basics quoted here is irreverent, despicable, crude, insensitive, crass, horrific, sensual, debased and from Hell itself.
It makes a mockery of the reverence that ought to be shown by the Oracles of the LORD when acting as those entrusted by Him for the delivery of His Word and will surely offend (Needlessly) many people whom have been sexually exploited as I had been (Inside and Outside the household of Faith).

MARK DRISCOLL:
If you have read this or someone tells you about this – I FEAR FOR YOU, may the LORD grant you repentance and humility becoming a Self-Disqualified Oracle of the LORD whom has sinned against his weaker brethren, the lost and more importantly against the LORD Himself. Just the mere mention of these thing has made me sick and have conjured up sins from the past that the LORD has put away.

EPHESIANS 5:2-4
“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
But FORNICATION and ALL UNCLEANESS or covetousness, LET IT NOT EVEN BE NAMED AMONG YOU, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor FOOLISH TALKING, nor coarse jesting, which ARE NOT FITTING, but rather giving of thanks.”

You have shamed Christ Himself and me as a brother, by even just the above quoted irreverent foul and horribly despicable speech proceeding from your heart.

I call YOU MR DRISCOLL TO SUBMIT TO the LORD in humility and in a contrite heart, to step down as Elder/Teacher in violation of Ephesians 5:2-4, 1 Timothy 3:2-8, Romans 14 & 15, Galatians 5:13, James 2:12, Titus 1:5-16 & by your conduct conforming also to this pattern in 2 Peter 2:18.

SHAME UPON YOU Mr Driscoll.

Bought at a price, not casting pearls before swine or before any who would trample the mercies of the LORD toward us underfoot as a common thing.
W

Hayden Norris,
I completely agree that we must preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). I too am a fan of long expository series. We just finished a study through James that lasted over year and a lengthy study through Titus and are now beginning what will be an even longer study through Mark. However, we must consider Paul’s statement to the Ephesian elders in its context and not impose our expository standers on Paul’s statement. During the three years of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus he was able to declare the whole counsel of God. Therefore, what Paul, and subsequently Scripture, mean by declaring the whole counsel of God is something different from the phrase’s use in most expository preaching text books.

With regards to your comment I understand that you feel that Driscoll continually returns to such a series because it is controversial. I think we must remind ourselves that while some of us may find this to be controversial his congregation apparently finds it to be beneficial. They found it so beneficial in fact that he decided to return to the text within a ten year period, which is quite understandable as over the course of those ten years many more will have joined the church, many more will have married, and many more are eligible to marry. If, because of our over sexed culture, Driscoll feels that shepherding the flock requires him to reminding them of what Scripture teaches on sex then such a series is critical to their spiritual maturity and development.

You said, “Ask yourself is a message on sex as important as a sermon on justification or salvation???” At first glance no. Salvation and justification is far more important. However, if I am shepherding a congregation of theologically sound soteriologically reformed Christ followers who have a firm grasp on justification but their sex lives are not glorifying to God then preaching on sex become more important for their spiritual growth.

The problem with all of these questions and the many questions on this forum like them is that they attempt to assess Driscoll’s motive. I think we have to focus on discerning if he is faithfully preaching this text and stop trying to criticize his heart motives.

Keith,

I agree, I was assigning motives.That is hard to do when I do not even know my heart (Jer 17:9). I repent. (See how easy it is to say)

By the way, I have friends that attend Mars Hill and your statement "however, if I am shepherding a congregation of theologically sound soteriologically reformed Christ followers who have a firm grasp on justification but their sex lives are not glorifying to God then preaching on sex become more important for their spiritual growth." is not accurate. Mars Hill is full of brand new Christians that need the doctrines of grace expounded to them. The only answer for sexual sin is the Gospel. The only answer for marital discord is the Gospel. The Gospel is the answer for every problem that the church faces.

Hayden,
Thanks and good point about young believers.

'unmentionable body parts'? why unmentionable? God made them, didn't he? Is God's creation too 'dirty' for us to talk about?

comment was removed by user

God degrading and blasphemous speech

Again John and Phil have done an excellent job of proclaiming the truth. I pray that Mark repents of his impure and blasphemous speech. Below is my defense of accusing Mark of speech that is blasphemy.

Explicit and even most implied descriptions of sexual acts are nothing more than verbal pornography designed by the speaker to titillate the hearer. It is fact that Jesus nor any of the prophets ever spoke like Mark Driscoll's polluted speech. Even if Mark is correct that these sexual acts and body parts are implied in the Song of Solomon (which is debatable) it is certain they are implied and not explicit, therefore it is certain that he goes beyond Scripture; going beyond Scripture is something that is error.

Mark's comparison of Jesus to a man who has sexual attraction to other men "putting his hand up his shirt" is nothing more than blatant blasphemy of Jesus and implied homosexuality. One might try to say Mark is not accusing Jesus of homosexuality with himself and the men of the church, yet this statement does not leave out the implied possibility of fornication (premarital sex) with his future bride. (Implying Jesus tried to and got to 'second base' with Mark) Either way it gives the appearance of evil to Jesus and makes Mark look like the pure one, "I'm just not into that." This degradation of Jesus can be nothing else but evil and a terrible taste in God's mouth. This is only one of many foul things that Mark has said that have brought dishonor on Christ. Unless Mark has also now decided that fornication is something that is not wrong to do either with his going beyond scripture.

I want to know if the commenters who are defending Mark talk just like him or worse? I also want to know if they (those who defend Mark's foul speech or their own.) think sex outside marriage (fornication, adultery, homosexuality) is worthy of God's wrath and sentencing to Hell?

Brother MacArthur, I'm not going to address the rest of it (not worth my time) but I will say this. If you'd ever been raped, you wouldn't use the term so casually.

As an ex member of the Children of God sex cult (for 19 years, so I know what I'm talking about!), Mark Driscoll's sermon on the Song of Solomon was identical, and in places even worse, than David Berg's (the self-styled leader/prophet of the COG) teachings on sex. Like Berg, Driscoll has no respect for women, and even has the nerve to say that Jesus expects the woman to 'pleasure' the man in whatever way he wants, (just as Berg did, causing great confusion and hurt in many vulnerable young women). I am by no means a prude, but when I read Driscoll's sermon I felt that not only was it crude and vulgar, but it exposed a serious problem in the man himself. I'm not a psychologist, but it doesn't take one to realise that he gets one heck of a kick out of displaying his mysoginistic and lustful attitude to women. Like Berg, he displays an unholy pleasure in domineering and control using sex, and in teaching others, some very vulnerable, the same thing.
There is a place to teach explicit sex to help married couples enjoy their sex life, but it isn't in a mixed gathering in a church setting.

I have read, and am quite familiar with my Bible, hence the following...

As a long-time Christian, I am blessed by the labors of several ministries, Pastor MacArthur and Pastor Driscoll included. I have read several books by both, listen to teaching by both. Both are engaging speakers, used by God.

There seems to be a majority of folks posting here who are unaware of the development/history of Pastor Driscoll. He started his church without ANY seminary/formal training...simply a missional/evangelistic mindset...Matt. 28:19. His only goal is(and has always been) for people to be saved and changed by the gospel. He was loosely associated with the Emergent crowd early on, and has since distanced himself and used scripture to point out their folly, as has Pastor MacArthur. His early preaching, which is what put him on the radar, is filled with scripture and ranting....and yes some cussing and miscues in terms of word selection. He has been in seminary the last few years, and has sought counsel and influence from Mighty men of God...such as J I Packer, Pastor D A Carson, Pastor John Piper, and many others. As a result, there has been a noticable change in his style, and even more scripture in his preaching. He has also asked forgiveness from his congregation, and repented of those thigs. No, he doesn't wear suits a lot, and he does occasionally regress into some of his poor phrasiology/ranting. However, there is fruit in his ministry and He is one of the newer, loud voices proclaiming the gospel.

Pastor MacArthur has raised valid issues, and I hope he and Pastor Driscoll get together, and resolve this family fued. You folks who seem to think he's should be disqualified need to meditate on Matthew 23...we must be careful, and not blindly condemn one antoher.

Pastor MacArthur, GREAT series of Posts. I hope there has been some dialogue and prayer between you men by now. May God continue to blees your ministries...GTY and Mars Hill.

In Christ,

SN