comment was removed by user

Thank you, pastor John, for masterfully handling yet another portion of Scripture with the accuracy and holy reverence the Lord of Scripture deserves!!

Hmmm.....everything John MacArthur has to say about this book and/or this particular section of it above is crystal-clear and quite understandable...and that without needing a single, gutter-level interpretation or application. Who would have thought it, especially these days when nearly every last outpost of evangelicalism is on the rapid slide into the swamps of despair and compromise. I'd say the above discussion of Song of Solomon is rated G (for everyone), and far more profound than "preaching" that might as well be stand-up comedy that aims for its biggest laughs through its most outrageously obscene . Wow, it is just amazing what can happen when a pastor's handling of the Bible actually reflects: 1. a depth of knowlege in Scripture; 2. a holy reverence/awe of Scripture (and the God of Scripture); 3. an accurate eisegesis applied to Scripture; 4. a Spirit-led interpreation of Scripture; and 5. a non-worldly and/or non-carnal application to Scripture....instead of dreadful, shallow, shameful attempts at trying to be "relevant," so-called.

I am sure that the key to the "controversy" lies with the Heart attitude with which the Expositor approaches and expounds the Scripture. Be it Mr Driscoll or any other person.

Another noteworthy point is that requirement of YAHWEH in Scripture for Pastor-Teachers:
1 Timothy 3:2-8
"A bishop then MUST BE BLAMELESS...TEMPERATE, sober-minded, OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR, hospitable, able to teach;...but GENTLE, NOT QUARRELSOME [Give reason for quarells]...one who RULES HIS OWN HOUSE WELL, having his children in submission WITH ALL REVERANCE(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. MOREOVER HE MUST HAVE A GOOD TESTIMONY AMONG THOSE WHO ARE OUTSIDE [The Church/Elect], lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

LIKEWISE deacons MUST BE REVERENT, NOT DOUBLE-TONGUED..."

I believe that Pastor MacArthur has a very valid point in this portion of his addressing the problem created by Mr Driscoll; Mr Driscoll has given reason for offence Inside the Body of Christ AND EVEN IN THE SECULAR MEDIA - therefore bringing reproach upon himself, his office as an Elder/Pastor/Teacher and most sadly upon the LORD our Almighty Great I AM.

I would that men in such circumstances be HUMBLE of heart and not puffed up with pride, that they would repent and submit to the Authority of the LORD and His Scriptures' requirements for those who are to act as His Ambassadors (Especially in the face of the Public Media).

Mr Driscoll would do well to consider the requirements of the LORD upon him and his bearing the responsibilities of that fearful office of a teacher. May the LORD grant him repentance and humility to act according to the Word of the LORD for the honor of His Body and to remove the hinderance and stumbling block of offence created by his own actions (Romans 14 & 15).

Your slave for the Name that is above every name, the LORD of lords and King of kings whom is our Master, for the glory of our Triune Great I AM Alone,
W

Friends, before we consider Mark Driscoll's errors can we first consider our own?

It seems to greatly lack humility to accuse someone else of not being humble without acknowleding your own deficiency. (I can only say this because I myself am the worst at it!) Can each of us actually take out the log in our eye in our comments?

Few who will comment will have stood up and talked about oral sex at church, I know. Have we ever gone beyond the Bible because of our own personality? For example did we say that “do not be drunk” meant “be tee-total”? For if we did we need to repent, and we need to repent well before we need to critique Mark Driscoll.

Now here's my bit, I listened to the Song of Solomon series Mark Driscoll did, not being married but engaged to be married in the summer. In the end I stopped because I felt I got a little too much information from it.

I don't want to ascribe the fault wholly to Driscoll. It is more with my sinful heart. I turned the preaching into pornography.

Nevertheless, I do look forward to hearing MacArthur's interpretation as it will be interesting to see how the Song of Songs should be preached and interpreted.

I would say that MacArthur's comment that Driscoll separates the sexual act from his wife is actually not true.

Driscoll started with what the audience wanted (great sex), showed that the Bible didn't say it was wrong but rather stated that it was to be the union between a man and a woman who love each other very much. If you listen especially to the Q&A sessions after you will here Driscoll constantly criticise men and women for selfishness in the sexual relationships. He says sex should be a service. I think it is rather uncharitable to accuse him of pornography.

Why don't we just cut the over-provocative language and just deal with the interpretative issues hey? I think MacArthur's right, the song is quite hidden and we can say sexual service and enjoyment of another person is good without having to get too explicit.

So in summary: 1) We are guilty of this sin. 2) Song of Songs should be kept symbolic especially in a congregation where unmarried people like myself may be moved to lust.

As I read this meditation from Brother Charles Spurgeon it clarified a lot about Song of Solomon (Especially for me as someone saved from Sexual Idolatary)

http://www.gracegems.org/
Grace Gems (choice ELECTRONIC books, sermons & quotes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ's garden

(Charles Spurgeon)

"I have come into My garden--My sister, My bride!" Song of Solomon 5:1

The heart of the believer is Christ's garden. He bought it with His precious blood, and He enters it and claims it as His own.

A garden implies separation. It is not the open common; it is not a wilderness; it is walled around, or hedged in. Would that we could see the wall of separation between the Christian and the world made broader and stronger. It makes one sad to hear professors saying, "Well, there is no harm in this; there is no harm in that," thus getting as near to the world as possible! Grace is at a low ebb in that soul, which can even raise the question of how far it may go in worldly conformity.

A garden is a place of beauty, it far surpasses the wild uncultivated fields. The genuine Christian must seek to be more excellent in his life than the best moralist, because Christ's garden ought to produce the best flowers in all the world. Even the best is poor--compared with Christ's deservings; let us not put Him off with withered and dwarf plants. The rarest, richest, choicest lilies and roses--ought to bloom in Christ's own garden!

The garden is a place of growth. The saints are not to remain undeveloped, always mere buds and blossoms. We should grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Growth should be rapid where Jesus is the Gardener, and the Holy Spirit the dew from above.

A garden is a place of retirement. So the Lord Jesus Christ would have us reserve our hearts as a place in which He can manifest Himself, as He does not unto the world. O that Christians were more retired, that they kept their hearts more closely locked up for Christ! We often worry and trouble ourselves, like Martha, with much serving--so that we have not the room for Christ that Mary had, and do not sit at His feet as we should.

May the Lord grant the sweet showers of His grace to water His garden this day!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear brother Timothy,
Whilst we are ALL sinful by nature, it would be rather irresponsible for us to say WE judge anyone according to OUR own standards of RIGHTEOUSNESS - This much is true and Scriptural.

But lest we allow others to continue in sin, should we remain silent; that they may heap up further judgment upon themselves from the LORD? Or worse heap up judgment upon Christ from those on the Outside who remain dead in their sins and trespasses and use this as an excuse, BECAUSE they see NOTHING DIFFERENT (Holy/Set apart) about the elect of the LORD in His Body?

Lest we forget WE CANNOT judge according to appearances - This is true.
But we MUST judge the FRUITS or Works of people according with the Standard of Divine Counsel (Scripture), to instruct, exhort, correct or rebuke them with the Authority of Scripture Alone, as the Only Divine Standard of Righteous Judgement - As Christ instructed us to judge with this measure.

Our motive for using Scripture to Judge and Discern anyone or anything is also to be considered - AND THIS IS THE CRUX of the matter:
Is our motive PURE, BLAMELESS and RIGHTEOUSS - Where does this motive ORIGINATE from?
If it originates from our OWN SELVES (Self righteousness) - WE sin.
If it originates from DIVINE Authority Alone and is done in LOVE to correct, rebuke or instruct - Well Christ made it plain: He will Judge and we must judge ONLY as He does - with His Righteousness - By His standard - With His motive of loving discipline unto repentance and correction (No matter who is concerned).

If the LORD chastises those whom He loves - by His Word - is that wrong?
NO
IF we chastise because we are angered or upset - without or outside Divine Counsel and Authority - is that good?
NO - THAT IS Sin on our part.

Be sure to use the Divine Standard Alone, with the correct Motive/Attitude for the benefit of the LORD and the person/s concerned, whoever they may be (Our own selves being the starting point and the purpose being the sanctification or even perhaps justification of others, for the glory of the LORD Alone).

In Messiah's Righteousnes Alone having NONE of mine own,
Your slave for the glory of the LORD Alone,
W

It's interesting that these 2 posts have some 40 comments already and yet "The Power of a Holy Life" receives only 1. If we apply the "Holy Life" posts to our lives first, then much of this will be taken care of.
Sure, we will still sin, sure there will be wrong motives, sure people will say things they would rather not have said, but our righteous lives will lead others to the cross because we are different than most everyone they come in contact with, including those in the churches they attend each week.
I have employees who attend Mr. Driscoll's church faithfully. Judging by their fruit they are not much different than the world. They talk frequently about how "good" he is, about this great sermon or that, but what I desire to see in my own life, and in theirs, is the power of the Word to change my own heart and life, so I can be a bright light in a dark world.
My 25 year marriage, to my high school sweetheart, is part of that light, but God's transforming power in my public life is a bigger part. Whether or not I am a great lover has no real impact on how much light the world will see.
I have plenty to work on personally, but the thing I need most is holy living. The thing I need to see live out in front of me is holy living. The thing the Church needs to see is leadership that is growing in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and living it out in purity so we can say, and our kids can say, "I want to be that righteous; I want to be that holy; I want to be that lovely, and I want to be that bright".

Brother Chuck,

Woenderfully said and applied.

All glory to our Transforming LORD Alone; whom is doing this by the power of His Spirit through the truth of His Word!

As a young, single man who is in the beginning years of ministry, the ministry of John MacArthur has been invaluable to help guide my foundational theological beliefs. His knowledge of the Scriptures and passion from the Lord has been an example to many, myself included.

At the same time, the ministry of Mark Driscoll has been incredibly helpful to me as well. As one who has been to Mars Hill, been to an Acts 29 Boot Camp, and spoken with Mark, there is no man save the God-man who has changed my life so dramatically.

Perhaps it seems that learning from both MacArthur and Driscoll must be held in strong tension, or even opposition, but I have never viewed it this way.

Ironically, I listened to Driscoll’s message of which MacArthur speaks of just a few weeks ago. And as a single man, I was compelled to turn the message off due to the graphic and sensual content. I was shocked, to say the least. The tone of this message was very different from his Song of Solomon series (which was very very far from what MacArthur’s words would lead us to believe used shocking marketing tactics and calls for everyday sex).

The fact of the matter is, I obviously wasn’t the only person to listen to this message. But when criticism came, Mark Driscoll took this message down. You can read about it here... http://theresurgence.com/spring_cleaning. Driscoll says this, posted April 6th:

"One, I am not mentioning my critics, my friend who brought this to my attention, or the content for gospel reasons. I don’t want to speak ill of my critics, I don’t want to drag my friend into something that does not directly involve him, and I don’t want to draw attention to the content because it will only cause those who have not listened to it to flock to it.

Two, I want to thank my critics for teaching me that I have multiple audiences and that in addition to the room I speak to I am often also speaking to the world and need to keep repenting, learning, and growing in this skill for the sake of the gospel. In that way, my critics are helpful, and for them I am grateful."

Driscoll does cross the line sometimes, as we all do in different ways. But he takes responsibility for his faults, and seeks to change and be mentored by men who deeply love him, both in times of encouragement and rebuke.

If we are to fault him in this area, perhaps we should also consider the very title of the series we are all reading, “The Rape of Solomon’s Song,” a provocative title which no doubt lures in readers.

This is wonderful. Very good teaching from Dr. MacArthur and some excellent comments.

Jason, very well said. Thank you.

I applaud Dr. MacArthur for his well stated objection to crass language in handling God's inerrant word. Sadly, I all too often see posts prefaced with something like "let's not judge...a humble approach would be...etc". In all candor, brothers, when a man takes the pulpit, he stands coram deo (before the face of God) and he must handle God's inerrant word with dignity, precision and respect. The pulpit is a public venue and threfore reproofs to thos who abuse the pulpit are appropriately public as well. I would strongly suggest the "humble" crowd refer to James 3:1ff. Yes, the one who handles the word is held to a higher standard, based on God's own word. "Judging"? May I refer you to 1 Cor. 5...we are to judge those who are "inside" (i.e. the Church), otherwise what would be the basis for church discipline?

Crass language? Please see Ephesians 4:29 and 5:4.

What standard for the elder/pastor-teacher? Above reproof. 1 Tim 3.

We live in a world of no-accountability sadly, and the purity of the Chuch has been the loser in the process. Please refer to 2 Cor. 11:2. What was Paul's passion? To present the believers a pure virgin to the bridegroom. Do we really need to lower the standard of the pulpit in order to achieve this end? No.

Pragmatism is no excuse for crass language. The Holy Spirit works by and with the Word to achieve the ends for which God sent it. We must not make the tragic error of assuming we can or should attempt to bridge cultural gaps by lowering the standard of the pulpit. That mindset betrays a woefully inadequate view of the convicting power of the Spirit of God and the way He applies the word in our lives.

Dr. MacArthur is spot on as my UK friends would say. Thank you Dr. MacArthur for modeling for us the manner in which the pulpit is to be guarded and God's holy word exposited.

"Nothing requires the exegete to take it any further than that. Scripture itself doesn't go further than that."

I think the preacher can surely expound upon the Song of Somgs. For instance, where it says, "your hair is like a flock of goats": My image of a flock of goats isn't beautiful, however this image is supposedly beautiful in some manner for the writer of the book. The pastor surely can expound on this. And so the teacher should be able to explain all the verses, and yet remember to be godly, and let his words be sensative to the Lord's children.

Mark Driscol seems to have gone over the line. Some testimonies on this thread have bore witness to this fact. I pray he sees his error, and simply admits it, and asks the Lord for His grace to learn from it, and so become a more mature pastor and preacher of God's holy Word and truth. Amen.

Surely in more private settings a pastor can deal with sexual issues, I know my pastor does. But not in the pulpit, or even in books so much. There's a time and place for everything under heaven, "A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak".

BTW, this was an excellent post, and series. Thanks for posting Pastor MacArthur's teaching and exhortation.

The Song of Solomon itself is an age-appropriate book that can't honestly be explored with children in its raw form in our culture. It is a book about the beauty and approval of a vibrant sex life between a husband and wife. I actually do not know if the perversion of sex has caused this to be a taboo subject in its Godly state, but it is a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex.

comment was removed by user

Dr. MacArthur,
I find myself very torn by your statements and behavior on this issue. I feel that you are not fair/honest about the nature of your disagreement with Driscoll and his attitude and actions in it all. You state that Driscoll's Scotland message "is primarily the reason [you're] doing this series," but you failed to make mention (and maybe you were unaware) that Driscoll has addressed this issue himself just recently here. If you were aware of this I think it would be unfair of you to use it against Driscoll in the same manner as you would if he had not spoken up already.

I also think it is somewhat dishonest that you mention pastors giving "sex challenges" or saying that they neglect the intimacy and marriage aspect of the Song and then proceed to speaking about Driscoll without qualification as if that characterizes his ministry. To my knowledge from listening to all of his work, I do not recall Driscoll ever issuing one of the infamous "40 days of sex" challenges that other pastors have promoted to drum up publicity, and he certainly cannot be faulted for neglecting marriage, as his sermon series at Mars Hill on Song of Solomon was a 10-week apologetic for strong, committed, intimate, Bible-saturated marriages. If all you have listened to is his Scotland message I think it would be dishonest to not clarify this since he has spent considerable time in those Scriptures recently in the states and that is the discourse that most listeners are familiar with.

In the end, I think Pastor Danny Akin offers the best understanding of Driscoll and why he seems out of line to many older servants of the Lord, and that is because he is simply better in touch with the concerns of the younger generation when it comes to sex. This is not contextualizing, it is pastoring. Maybe people may object to his doing it on Sunday morning and over the internet, but considering the make-up of his flock and considering the sexual confusion that fundamentalist prudishness mixed with worldly hedonism has caused in todays young adult population, I believe with Dr. Akin that Driscoll is just doing what he feels led to do by God as a shepherd of his people.

I look forward to what you have to say in this series, but I am also a little fearful at the direction if there is not greater charity and communication displayed. Thank you for your service. Though I disagree with you often, I have also benefited from your greatly.

"that Driscoll has addressed this issue himself just recently here. " -Todd

Thanks for the link. That helps. We also need to remember the devil is subtly roaming about here, seeing whom he may devour.

Jesus prayed for us: "I pray..that they all may be one; as You. Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that You have sent Me. ...I pray not that You should take them out of the world, but that You should protect them from the evil one."

I agree with Todd's comment above. It's not that there are not legitimate objections to treating sex and the Song of Solomon in a cavalier manner from the pulpit. It's not even that Driscoll hasn't erred in the past in that regard. My problem is that he is being misrepresented with regard to the most recent sermon series on the Song of Solomon. Some of the exegesis and interpretations can validly be criticised, but he is not alone in those interpretations. I remember reading The Act of Marriage by the LaHayes, which takes a similar take on the Song. And other evangelical scholarly commentaries back some of Driscoll's observations. What's more, he from the beginning mentioned that the Song has more to offer than just advice on marriage, but he was mainly preaching on the marriage aspects of the Song.

Where he has removed a sermon and explained his actions, he is not given credit in this series. Further this series is implying that Driscoll is all about sex, and that his sermons encourage a daily sex pledge or some such nonsense, when they don't. I am appreciating the discussion about how to preach and apply the Song of Solomon given here by John MacArthur. But MacArthur hasn't preached through the Song of Solomon to provide a positive example for young pastors to emulate. At least no sermons appear in the "sermons by Scripture reference" search at grace to you's site.

Driscoll may need further admonition and correction, but it only seems right to be careful about not misrepresenting him and not giving him credit for times he acknowledges criticism and changes course. From the sound of it, the single sermon which was inappropriate was not repeated with the Peasant Princess sermon series on the Song of Solomon.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

Thanks to Pastor John MacArthur for calling out those who make crude the sacred and delicate writings of scripture. Yes, sex is in our face from every angle now, a fact that coarsens and numbs our culture in the United States. "Sex sells", and now it is being exploited for personal notoriety for pastors that obviously seek additional recognition by being on the shocking-edge of preaching. In Driscoll's case one might draw a future parallel to the rise and fall of Pastor Ted Haggard, who was openly "talking sexy" in his public remarks, to eventually find out that hypocrisy was running deep within him exposing his homosexual deviancy. We reap what we sow. No pastor should toy with the prurient tendencies of the human heart...

One little note, the post Todd linked to so helpfully above, apparently was posted on Mark Driscoll's blog on 4/6/09. The date shows up in my feed reader, the blog itself doesn't show dates on the posts. This date helps us see the context, that Driscoll actually pulled that sermon down a week prior to this series.

"In Driscoll's case one might draw a future parallel to the rise and fall of Pastor Ted Haggard, who was openly "talking sexy" in his public remarks....".

I don't even know how to address that without my comment being deleted But I'll try. So far the comments, for the most part, have been helpful and thoughtful but the statement quoted above is just sad. I'll be the first to admit that tomorrow, next week or whenever Pastor Mark, myself or even you Bruce could fall pray to our depraved selves and Satan's hands. I certainly hope we could repent and seek help in restoration from God and even our brothers in Christ. I can't see how that statement could help anybody

Scott

Inside every evangelical Christian is a pervert in waiting. There are do's and don'ts in the struggle to be sexually pure. It is an accurate criticism of the church (small c) to observe that preaching the don'ts have eclipsed the do's, leaving outsiders an incorrect impression, and insiders with little help in struggling with a virtually universal temptation. I don't know of any other area that is more greatly mishandled by sincere people trying to do Gods work, probably in part because of the conviction that it surely must bring up in most every heart. No pulpit but one has ever been occupied by a man who met Gods standard of sexual purity to a pretty significant degree, and I think there is a lot of goofiness on the subject as a consequence.

After reading part 1 yesterday, I was hopeful that part 2 would offer something specific and constructive in the way of critique for Mark Driscoll’s 2008 sermon series on the Song of Solomon titled The Peasant Princess. Unfortunately part 2 of the article is just as disappointing as part 1. MacArthur has offered next to nothing specific in the way of objections to Driscoll’s messages on the Song of Solomon. If MacArthur wants to critique Driscoll, he needs to be more direct. I can’t help but feel that MacArthur is going out of this way to paint Driscoll in the worst light possible by implying much, but in reality saying very little specific to Driscoll or his sermons. As I said in a comment to part 1 of the article yesterday, this seems to be more of the on-going anti-Driscoll rant coming from the Grace Community Church crowd. It appears that Mark Driscoll is not worthy of receiving any grace from the team at Grace Community Church.

All,

I have read two of Driscoll's books, and listened to many series he has preached. I also graduated from the Master's Seminary and have a great appreciation for Dr. MacArthur as well. Dr. MacArthur does not use the computer much at all so I am sure that He did not know of Driscoll's retraction of such a sermon but probably was writing these articles based on the information he had. Driscoll should be careful with his words, and if he learns that then it will be worth it.

One question to ask yourself though, why did Mark Driscoll find it necessary to preach ANOTHER series of the Song of Solomon less than 10 years into his ministry??? He preached this type of series many years ago and knew it was controversial. (Read about it in his book Confessions.... Reformissional Reverend) I find myself in awe of the scope of Scripture and never at a loss for what to preach and not go back to books I have preached for some time. Could this be a blind spot for Pastor Driscoll??

Shaun,
Here is the dilemma faced by Pulpit. To give direct quotes from the sermon would be to perhaps violate the very principles of decency MacArthur is talking about. I can assure you that the quotes are way worse than anything you are imagining. When I first heard about the message, I thought that it would be similar to what he preached recently in his church. The reality is that it is much, much worse.
Jesse

To those who are mentioning Driscoll’s “Spring Cleaning” post:
I am confused about it. When he originally posted it, he said the content he removed was from a “private discussion” with “older, more mature” people. It was natural to assume he did not mean the Sunday morning sermon he preached, or the identical sermon he preached at another church on a Sunday. Now, however, those phrases are gone from the Spring Cleaning post. But the third point on the post says that the post has not been edited. So is the current post edited, or not? Was this sermon what he repented of? If so, why did he call it a private discussion? Why does the current post still say it has not been edited, when it obviously was because it has been changed?
Jesse

Shaun,

He is not critiquing that series but a message he received on cd as he has stated in this article. The message was preached overseas and Driscoll has talked about some of the regrets he has in the way he addressed the topic. Dr. MAcArthur was very specific in this article, go back and read it. He disagrees with Mark's interpretation of the Song of Solomon 4:12-16. If you want to hear this sermon, go to the Destiny Church website in Edinburgh (sp?). Frankly, I couldn't finish it because it was pretty bad.

Be careful not to be into the party spirit. (1 Cor. 1:12-17)

PS I have personally received many expressions of Grace from the people of GCC.(I could fill the page with them) How long have you attended there? I am sad to see that they must have changed so radically sine I left 4 years ago to Pastor a church. Remember, it is not ungracious to point out something that is wrong. (1 John 4:1-6)

I will be following this series with great interest. I haven't yet listened to Mark's series on the Song of Solomon entitled "The Peasant Princess," but I intend to. I wonder, however, if this series contains all the issues that bother John, or if the problems have mostly to do with the CD that John received of a teaching in the UK. It could be that the CD containing this public teaching in the UK is worse than anything in "The Peasant Princess" series. If this is the case, it may be helpful to give more specific examples and to say which source they come from.

Of course, I understand the problem with getting too specific with examples, namely that it would involve John in the very kinds of inappropriate langauge that he sees as the main issue here. Thus, John is in a bit of a "Catch 22" situation, it seems to me. Many folks may want/demand the kind of specifics that decorum will not allow, but not including such specifics will leave the appearance that John is being unfair. This is a tough situation for anyone to be in, especially when he sees the need and feels the obligation before God to say something rather than nothing.

I, for one, have been familair enough with John's ministry over the years to be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

May God grant that the truth will be manifest to all of us as we seek His guidance in the matter.

Keith

"why did Mark Driscoll find it necessary to preach ANOTHER series of the Song of Solomon less than 10 years into his ministry??? He preached this type of series many years ago".- Hayden Norris

Good to hear from you Hayden. I sent an email a few weeks ago but never heard from you.

Less than ten years ago or many years ago, either way it is a long time, especially in the context of Pastor Driscoll's ministry. A couple reasons he would do another series comes to mind;
1.At 38, nearly ten years is a very long time for Pastor Mark. At 42 and a layman I can only imagine how much I will grow in the Lord and his Word. Same could be said for Pastor Mark. So another sermon series makes sense.
2. His congregation was a fraction of the size it is now. More people that need the teaching.

Could you explain what you mean by, "Could this be a blind spot for Pastor Driscoll??

Cheers,

Scott

comment was removed by user

Jesse,

If it was clear from these two posts that MacArthur is objecting just to that one sermon of Driscoll's that would be one thing. Instead the implication received from these is that this is how Driscoll always is when speaking about the Song of Solomon. The recent sermon series on the Song of Solomon by your own admission is much different from that sermon. Yet that series which is much more publicized is what is in everyone's mind when they read MacArthur's posts.

Further, MacArthur singles out Driscoll and the recent sermon series in particular. He claims:
Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path. He is by far the best-known and most prolific popular proponent of handling the Song of Solomon that way. He has said repeatedly that this is his favorite passage of Scripture, and he has come back to it again and again in recent years, culminating in a highly publicized series released on video via the Internet last year.

This after he mentioned sex pledges, which to my knowledge Driscoll has not done.

There seems to be mixed messages here, and there isn't a care to explain exactly what MacArthur is objecting to. I listened to the entire princess series on the Song of Solomon, and there are very few lines that would be inappropriate in this context, given other quotes he has already provided. Some of the Q & A at the end of the sermons may have been more explicit, but even what I heard there was pretty mild and appropriate for mixed audiences.

This series just seems to muddy things and is not careful enough to explain that Driscoll's recent messages were much better than that one that MacArthur heard. Therefore the new messages almost are proof that Driscoll has changed in that they weren't a repeat of a bad and offensive kind of preaching through the Song.

If clarification and explanation can be provided in a post or even a note to a post, that would be greatly helpful. As it is, many will be misled by the content of MacArthur's posts, assuming Driscoll is the leader in a world wide movement to emphasize sex, when in truth, he is very boldly standing up for a Christian moral standard in clear opposition to the spirit of our age (no extra marital sex at all, no pre-marital intimate touching at all, no masturbation at all, etc.).

Todd Burus: "Driscoll has addressed this issue himself just recently here. If you were aware of this I think it would be unfair of you to use it against Driscoll in the same manner as you would if he had not spoken up already."

Shall we examine that point?

The Scotland sermons (both titled "Sex: A Study of the Good Bits") have been on line in both video and audio format for more than a year. Far from "addressing" the issue when he removed them last week, Driscoll purposely tried to obscure what those messages were and why he removed them. The first edition of his "Spring Cleaning" post said, "The message was for a smaller, more private, and older audience, and I would not have wanted it posted online in the same way that I would not want some personal conversations that I have in my counseling appointments posted online." In reality, those sermons were preached in two churches, recorded (one of them professionally videotaped) with the express purpose of putting them on line, and they were both on line and freely available from the sponsoring churches for many months. Moreover, there were children as young as eleven (not to mention many single young adults) in attendance when Driscoll gave these messages.

After his "Spring Cleaning" post moved past the top position on his blog, he quietly altered is to say what it now says, removing some of the most obvious inaccuracies.

But that blog-post still doesn't give an accurate account of what those messages were or why they were suddenly removed. If Driscoll's removing them was meant to be taken as an admission that those messages in that context were grossly inappropriate, Driscoll himself gives absolutely no indication of that. So to refer to that post as a token of "repentance" (as some have claimed) is a huge stretch. This way of "address[ing]" these issues is notably lacking in Driscoll's trademark candor.

Todd: "I also think it is somewhat dishonest that you mention pastors giving 'sex challenges' or saying that they neglect the intimacy and marriage aspect of the Song and then proceed to speaking about Driscoll without qualification as if that characterizes his ministry."

Really? In point of fact, Driscoll issued several "challenges" to women in those Scotland messages, most of which cannot be quoted here for propriety's sake. What he has done and said is far more grotesquely inappropriate for mixed audiences that any of the highly publicized "sex challenges." It's not at all inappropriate to draw a connection between what he has done and what the sex-challenge churches are doing.

See, for example, this message, which was not expunged with the Scotland sermons. The second half is similar in content to the Scotland lectures, only toned down somewhat. It's significant that two young single guys who have posted here in defense of Driscoll admit that they could not listen to his teaching on these subjects because the content provokes sinful lusts. Since that is precisely John MacArthur's complaint, what is all the fuss about?

Todd: "In the end, I think Pastor Danny Akin offers the best understanding of Driscoll and why he seems out of line to many older servants of the Lord, and that is because he is simply better in touch with the concerns of the younger generation when it comes to sex."

To quote a commenter at Challies, "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."

And to other commenters who keep making the claim that MacArthur's use of the word rape somehow violates the principle he is defending, here's a reply adapted from a comment I left earlier at Challies:

The feigned outrage over the word "Rape," miss the point completely. MacArthur has never objected to "strong" 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 has obscured that distinction. In my judgment he mangled the whole issue in his message at DG last year because he lumped strong language and vile language together as if they were the same.

But there is an important—and biblical—distinction between strong speech and lewd speech. Ignore that distinction, and you can't make any sense of Ephesians 5:4. Indeed, lots of people these days simply wave that command aside, claiming they can't make sense of it because the Bible never gives us any list of forbidden English words.

Moreover, you can pretend to be outraged over the mere mention of "rape" (which, BTW, was explained by MacArthur in his first article), or you can criticize someone else for being a Victorian prude. But you can’lt really have it both ways.

Eric Z.: "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"

Read again. MacArthur said nothing about "read[ing] . . . and leav[ing] it at that." In fact he quoted a sample section of the Song and gave a brief exposition of it. What he said is that to find things like oral sex in a tree image is a huge speculative reach, and if such speculation takes you into a realm of intimate detail Scripture has deliberately left in obscurity, it overthrows the whole point of the poetry.

This is not a complex point, Eric. It's certainly not beyond your skill level.

Shaun,

When a trademark characteristic about a man's "preaching" and/or the way he handles specific subject matter is known by secular media (and the evangelical world), as Driscoll's is, then wouldn't you say it is a moot point to devote time and energy into public extrapolation of his sermons in a forum like this...merely to "prove" what everyone knows is indeed what everyone knows? Really, much of it is promoted by the "cussing pastor" himself, as he seems to enjoy his avant-garde position, especially in media. To be sure, Dr. MacArthur (or Phil Johnson) does not speak on a matter without first knowing the facts and applying careful, prayerful study. To make the criticism he has here of a fellow pastor (who is also prominent and well-known), in terms of an unorthodox approach and content that even pagans find surprising, is not only Biblical but is expected by the vast number of believers who wait to hear what a leader like Dr. MacArthur has to say. Hence, for such a shepherd, it is his responsibility to do this, and it should be the responsibility of a true brother in Christ to receive such criticism in a manner unlike that which we have seen by Mr. driscoll if indeed the criticism is Biblical (Jesse Johnson posted a link to the sequence of events involved with John Macarthur's and Phil Johnson's attempts to contact pastor Driscoll in a Biblical manner). It is nothing but a mere smokescreen to divert attention away from the matter at hand and onto the process. Lastly, nowhere in Scripture do we find grace awarded to unrepentance--that particular sin which restricts the flow of grace granted to every believer for every other sin committed. It should also be noted that he, in and of himself, is not worthy of grace any more than any of us are. Surely, Mr. Driscoll, like any of us, can receive grace from our Lord; however, like any one of us, we receive grace when we repent. Dr. MacArthur is showing great love for Mr. Driscoll, and the Lord Jesus Christ, by addressing this stain Mr. Driscoll is making on the presentation of the church to a watching world. We all need to repent daily, and what a blessing it is to have Godly men rebuke us when it becomes necessary.

comment was removed by user

Robert: "If it was clear from these two posts that MacArthur is objecting just to that one sermon of Driscoll's that would be one thing"

Well, if it were just "one sermon of Driscoll's," I doubt MacArthur would have dealt with the topic.

That "one sermon" is simply a good, condensed sample of Driscoll at his worst. Put that together with some of the material in "Porn Again Christian," various Q&A sessions, the tape I linked to above, and even some of the toned-down content of the "Peasant Princess" series, and it reflects a fixation that is frankly more than just a small concern.

Since Driscoll's style of constantly dealing with sexually-graphic thematic material in such raw terms is being aped and amened by who knows how many younger men pursuing full-time ministry, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it all boils down to a single sermon. That sermon just happens to epitomize the problem—and with examples of impropriety so egregious it's hard to imagine anyone even trying to make a serious, reasoned, biblical defense of it.

" Since that is precisely John MacArthur's complaint, what is all the fuss about?"

Thanks Phil for chiming in. As usual, you bring clarity. It is simple and clear. The flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing. I hope Mark will discard his teachings which are not within the scriptural boundaries. May the Lord open his eyes to see that he has maligned the Word of God. Error isn't heresy, but it needs to be put away just the same. And then move on, and keep on preaching the Gospel, and the pure word of the Lord.

Phil Johnson: “It's significant that two young single guys who have posted here in defense of Driscoll admit that they could not listen to his teaching on these subjects because the content provokes sinful lusts. Since that is precisely John MacArthur's complaint, what is all the fuss about?”

You’re right, it is significant that the single guys comment on this, and as one of the young single guys whose comments you speak of, I’d like to clarify just one thing.

While the particular sermon we speak of became inappropriate for me, at the same time it is Driscoll’s teachings on sexual purity that have been tremendously helpful to me personally, as I believe is likely the case for many other single men. Driscoll's writing and sermons have produced in me and many others a passion for Christ and for purity.

This message, however, was certainly directed more toward those who are able to fulfill sexual passions, and not singles who need wait until marriage. That is why I was unable to listen.

Jason,
He preached it Sunday morning, at a worship service with children at it. Who did not have the ability to erase it from their I-pod, or their memeory. Ever. You could turn it off and walk away. They didn't have that option. That is what the fuss is about from our end.

Jesse

Scott,

Sorry about not responding, ministry has been very busy.

All I meant by my comment 'it might be a blind spot' is that it seems to me that Driscoll seems to embrace controversial topics for the sake of controversy. To me an extended series on one of the Gospels is much more important than these forays into sensationalism. I liked his series on Philippians because it was Biblical. Even his series on Doctrine was pretty good.

Look, I am a pastor outside of one of the largest Universities in the country (Go Gators!!!). This place is thoroughly pagan in every sense of the Word. My focus has been to really work on making sure that the people the Lord allows me to shepherd know the Gospel and can present the Gospel and are living out the Gospel. Doing this work will take me far past the 10 year mark. The whole shtick about having to speak to college people and singles in a specific way is just not accurate. They understand the difference.

To me, the best way for him to help the people of his church is to focus on Jesus. He preaches about Jesus a bunch, why not preach him as he is seen in the Gospels???

Spurgeon said it best when He said "I believe that the one reason why the church of God at this present moment has so little influence over the world is because the worlds has so much influence over the church… Put your finger on any prosperous page in the Church’s history, and I will find a little marginal note reading thus: “In this age men could readily see where the Church began and the world ended.” Never were there good times when the Church and the world were joined in marriage with one another. The more the Church is distinct from the world in her acts and her maxims, the more true is her testimony for Christ, and the more potent is her witness against sin."

Mark is better than this!

Scott,

I have changed email accounts so I never received your e-mail. Sorry. My email is hnorris1973@yahoo.com

If anyone is curious, here is the orriginal "spring cleaning" post:
http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Ftheresurgence.com%2Fnode%2F1495&u=theresurgence.com/node/1495&d=bRlNfUxISmWk&icp=1&.intl=us

The current post, linked in an earlier comment, is obviously different (although it claims not to have been edited, which is kind of funny). If you can read the original post and get the impression it was a show of repentance about a Sunday morning sermon he preached at a large church, and then again that night at a different large church, you have more insight than I do.

Jesse

Hey Hayden, Thanks for the post. Yeah, I can't remember if I sent it off the Shepherds contact page or off the address at your churches website. I'll send another later, brother.

"Never were there good times when the Church and the world were joined in marriage with one another".

At this point I'm trying to figure out if that is what's going on. I'm still figuring out were I stand but if there is correction to be made Pastor Mark has made it clear in the past he can repent and learn. That's one thing I hope I can get better at. The one thing I know is I've learned so much from Pastor Mark and his outstanding Biblical preaching and I can't wait to hear from him and the other leaders at the GCC.

To others: At this point are people calling Pastor Mark deceitful and insincere?



Cheers,

Scott

"At this point are people calling Pastor Mark deceitful and insincere?"

Nope.

He's, for whatever reason, immature in a certain area. I remember when i thought I was plugging right along as an elder, and mature in the Word, and so forth, until I had to serve along side a much more seasoned and mature pastor, and then i realized how immature I was, and so i prayed that the lord would help me grow in His grace, and He has. I'm stii way immature in certain aspects of my walk in Christ, but God is a loving Father, and He will never leave us, nor not discipline His own. Those who are illegitmate will go astray without discipline, and so they usually go our from us, becuase they were not of us.
Mark is of us, and the Lord's vessel, and we need to love him and support him with prayer.

Hello all,

Reading this latest installment, I have a couple of observations.

Many of us (who are single as I am) who have been in sexual sin before the appropriate time, it is very easy for us to take those metaphors and privately see them as they may have been intended for a marriage relationship.

Can I be very honest, I know many people who are uncomfortable with the PUBLIC READING of SOS much less the exegesis of it, including myself. My very conscience convicts me of sexual sin from the past. Even those who are walking with God have admitted to me that they are sometimes aroused while reading this book. WHY LIE? Let's examine OURSELVES before we start pointing our fingers to one teacher or the book itself... which whether we like it or not IS THE WORD OF GOD.

These feelings of arousal we may feel as we are reading this book are a consequence of our sin for some, and a natural response from sinful human flesh which tries to pervert anything that is of God. THINK ABOUT IT. For others in a marriage relationship, a natural response to this would follow. In an age of innuendo and overtly sexual suggestiveness, I think there should be great care in exegesis of this book, as Dr. MacArthur has expressed, however I have this problem with what has been mentioned... we in our minds (those who have had sexual experiences whether lawfully or unlawfully) as we read that book KNOW WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT. Do I think MD should be mentioning these things or even alluding to them in the pulpit to those who do not have a clue? In short... NO. Should I not try to understand scripture and look for deeper understanding? (such as the relationship between Christ and his bride the Church) No. I think the argument that the book should not be looked at for deeper meaning falls short when considering both sides of the coin... especially concerning the Christ.

Our consciences convict us of fornications and adulteries we have ALREADY committed in our minds and in deed when we read that book. It takes us to those places we know in our hearts we should have never ventured to go. Is that SOS's fault? Nope.

I'm not here to defend a preacher. I am here to defend the word of God. EXAMINE YOURSELVES.

That is all :)

"One question to ask yourself though, why did Mark Driscoll find it necessary to preach ANOTHER series of the Song of Solomon less than 10 years into his ministry??? He preached this type of series many years ago and knew it was controversial. (Read about it in his book Confessions.... Reformissional Reverend) I find myself in awe of the scope of Scripture and never at a loss for what to preach and not go back to books I have preached for some time. Could this be a blind spot for Pastor Driscoll??"


Why preach another series on Revelation, or the Gospels, the OT or any biblical book? That question doesn't hold water to me. Why TEACH ANY BOOK ON THE BIBLE AGAIN... we need to renew our minds with the word of God.

"Further this series is implying that Driscoll is all about sex, and that his sermons encourage a daily sex pledge or some such nonsense, when they don't."

The man had HUNDREDS of sermons on his website. This SOS one, while I think he does need some prayer and correction, is really straining a gnat...

Asia,

Notice the qualifier 'in ten years'. Pastoral ministry is about teaching the depth and breathe of the Scripture. All of it, not just some topics. I have only been preaching for 4 years now and know that I would not repeat a series this soon. Just an observation from one Pastor about another Pastor.

PS I actually appreciate other things about Mark as well, but this is far from straining at a gnat. Just listen to the series entitle Vinatge Jesus, and then the one entitled 'Humor' as well. It is a pattern and I hope he breaks out of it!

While thinking through this discussion a thought came to my mind and I wonder what many of you think about it.

When Paul addressed the issue of meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians he takes the potential stumbling of his weaker brother so serious that he says, “…if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (8:13).

How do you think Paul would react to the testimony of our single brothers above who attest to their having to stop listening to a sermon for fear of stumbling? Of all places, how can one defend the pulpit as a place where this can ever happen?

Jesse Johnson,
From our discussion at challies.com: "I do have a question regarding your comment. You noted that you are not sure if these examples would ever be posted. Whenever Pulpit, or MacArthur, address bad theology or outright heresy they have never before hesitated to quote the offending party. In my estimation the prosperity gospel, easy-believism, and pop psychology are far more dangerous than a sexually provocative explanation of Scripture. What is it about these statements that make them far more evil than quotations of individuals promoting a false gospel?"

Thanks for your help.

TWO final thoughts from me on the subject matter:

1) Dear brother Todd Burus and ALL; John MacArthur writes these articles but Pastor MacArthur does not actually USE the INTERNET - Or at least not untill reacently - As pointed out during some interviews with him. These articles are published by our brothers from TMS and The Shepherds Fellowship who are personally involved with Pastor MacArthur in ministry. (I guess what i am trying to say is: Don't argue with Pastor MacArthur here; rather discuss the merit or non-merits of the point under discussion.

2) It is sad to see to many of us and too often we do NOT refer to Scripture as that Final and Binding Clear and Authoritive Verbim Dei which we all (I hope) confess to be all we need for life and godliness. I would that even I would add more of the "salt" of the Scriptures to my own commentaries, but that I would be humbled by the grace of teh LORD sufficently enough to limit my personal commentaries and thoughts to That Standard of ALL Spiritual and Moral truth which is Scripture.

May we well leave the towers of our own opinions and emotions and rather flee to the safety of The Rock and hide in the cleft of His Word which He delivered at the blood of the martyrs so that we MAY seek His Counsel about any and every thing that concerns our lives.

SOLA Scriptura.

Your servant by grace Alone for the glory of our great King Alone,
W

The issue with the kind of preaching that exploits SoS is two-fold. One, it is not doctrinally accurate. If it stopped there, you are right, there would be no problem giving exact quotes. But the second issue is that it is harmful because it creates sexual imagery in people's minds that is not appropriate. The whole point is that what he says should not be said by Christians in a worship service, and some of it is out-of-bounds entirely. So to then post the examples of that could, potentially, cause a weaker brother to stumble in his own thinking. Keith, do you see the difference? Reading about the prosperity gospel is not going to get you to go think all of your fillings will turn to gold. Reading some of Driscoll's quotes could potentially cause someone to commit adultery in their minds.
At the same time, I am not the one making the decision about if they should be posted, and I would completely understand the benefit of posting some of his quotes to show why they are incorrect. Certainly you understand the tension though.'

Jesse

I assumed that was the reasoning behind this decision. Thanks for the clarification.

It seems that Pastor Driscoll and Dr. MacArthur have something in common. Driscoll preached a sermon on sex in which he employed illustrations that distracted from, even hindered the effect of the message. Now Dr. MacArthur has posted two articles in which he uses and illustration (Mark Driscoll) that has effectively distracted from the point of his message. Unless of course his message was to attack another fallen human being who is preaching the gospel...which I highly doubt. Since neither Driscoll nor MacArthur fall in the line of a false teacher, shouldn't the worse case reaction mirror that of the apostle Paul in Philippians 1:12-18? There are enough obvious false teachers around without having to take pot-shots at those who seem to be genuine in there efforts. It seems that one thing Christians have always been good at is shooting their own.

I guess to sum up the comment: MacArthur's good point can be made without the controversy.

Let me try it this way...I had a far easier time as a pagan expressing myself sexually (appropriately and inappropriately) than I have as a Christian. Like eating, sexuality is a normal act that is easy to abuse and defile. Sexual temptation seems unique in its intensity, and proper sexuality in its fulfillment when expressed God's way. Is there a book dedicated to good health?? How about one on the blessings of wealth??? Nope. The Song of Solomon stands out alone in the celebration, encouragement, and approval from the Lord in the sexual nature of a marriage. It was given for man, not the other way around. Sin has really goofed up a great God-given gift, and I for one am truly grateful for a Godly pep-talk on the matter. The only way not to conjure up sexual imagery from the reading of this great book is to change it's meaning. I guess its really a book to and for Husbands and Wives. There are 65 other books for everyone else, man! For what it's worth.

Does it matter to anyone that MacArthur's interpretation (and obviously Driscoll's, as well) of this book differs from many great men of God down through the centuries--i.e., many of the Puritans, Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, Lloyd-Jones and many, many more and that MacArthur states (in his Daily Bible) that their intrepretations are misleading ideas? Why doesn't this concern any of you? These men knew God and knew the Word of God, as well, if not better then MacArthur does. Perhaps, if more would actually see the real beauty in this book, they would spend more time in learning about the "Mystery" Paul talks about when he is describing the relationship between a man and a woman in marriage and Christ and His church. Frankly, I feel sorrow for all who have turned this into a "self-help" book on Marriage-- which is what these two men have done. If you can learn the real beauty being taught in this book; your marriage would improve greatly because you would be less focused on self and more focused on Christ.

"The Song of Solomon is undoubtedly a picture and a prophecy of the relationship between Christ and his church. Written in a poetic, dramatic form, it is a perfect representation of the church as the bride of Christ. This is a New Testament term but the Song of Solomon sees it long before it came to pass. This is how Solomon describes God's overflowing love: 'He brought me to the banqueting house. . .' and that is where He always brings us. It is not to some kind of 'soup kitchen', or to some temporary place where we can be given just a little food to keep us from starvation. No, no! It is a 'banqueting house'! . . . and His banner over me was love. Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples, for I am sick with love' (Song of Solomon 2.4-5). There is so much love that it is almost overwhelming me."--LLoyd-Jones.

Perhaps if we actually understood this book the way God intended, we would be having a different discussion:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

I don't mean to be disrespectful--but it has been my observation that Dr. MacArthur does not care much for "mysteries".

D. L. Kane,
You bring up a good point. I hope that as this series progresses that it becomes clear why both highly sensitized and hyper sexualized interpretations are incorrect and how we out to regard this text. At the same time while Paul does say, “I speak concerning Christ and the church,” I doubt you would deny that the text is giving instruction on marriage as well. Perhaps we need to understand SoS in such a twofold fashion as well.

D.L. Kane, et al.,
Actually, Mark Driscoll's interpretation does not differ from men like Spurgeon and John Owen so much, he just believes it goes even further. Several times in the "Peasant Princess" series (which btw, if he was trying to be provocative, that is an awfully unprovocative title to the series) he states that SOS can be interpreted in light of Christ's loving relationship to the church. He however chose to go at the level of the earthly marital relationship because it was most appropriate with what his congregation needed. And I'll be honest, a number of the things he talked about involving romance and the way a husband should love their wife (not to mention, the way a father should love/raise his daughter), really struck a chord with me and encouraged me to better honor my wife as Solomon honored his.

Which brings me to a question I raised that I really feel a lot of people are ducking, and that being, if his people are confused and struggling with what is permissible and what is not, what is expected and what is not, in marital relationships, doesn't Driscoll have a responsibility as a shepherd to help them sort through this stuff biblically? There is a place for faithful expositing, but there is also a call for pastoral care and loving oversight (1 Peter 5.2-3) that many seem to ignore, to the detriment of the flock among them.

Todd,
Yes, Driscoll is responsible for shepherding them through that biblically. I think in an oversexed culture such as ours we need helpful guidance as to what God-glorifying marital sex looks like and what God-glorifying marriages look like. I hope we would all agree with that; if not then we need a separate post to discuss pastoral ministry. I think the debate here is whether or not SoS answers those questions or not. I think that unless we are able to dig into the text over a lengthy, and likely technical, series of posts then that question, I fear, will not be answered. Until then I am trying to hold off on my critique of either party.

Keith,
I understand where you are coming from. I do not mean to critique MacArthur as not pastoring appropriately, I just wish to point out that I feel this is largely what Driscoll's motivation appeared to be, and not the "sex sells" marketing that many here (maybe even MacArthur) are accusing him of. If we understand that Driscoll is approaching this as a perceived need in his congregation then maybe silly arguments like "he preached it twice in 10 years" will be nullified and we can really deal with the issue at hand.

I am encouraged. Let's face it--if men are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, we have a great deal more to learn about Christ's love from His Word then how to "rekindle" passion for our wives. The secondary will flow as a natural result of the primary and perhaps that is where the focus of this book should be as we learn from it; teach it, and preach it.

William,

I agree wholeheartedly. However in the same sermon Jesus says we should look out for wolve's in sheep clothing (the Sermon on the Mount) he also tells us that we should take the log out of our eyes.

I worry when we spend our whole lives critiquing others and not ourselves. If Driscoll is wrong, it is right that MacArthur points out his faults. However, I do wish that he and all of us would look at our log first. This doesn't mean we don't take out his speck (7:5), but it just means we deal with our sin first. For (by the Spirit's power) we can do more with our own sin than others.

I agree with your spirit of discernment though.

In Christ
Tim

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

comment was removed by user

Todd,
"I do not mean to critique MacArthur as not pastoring appropriately." I never took you comment to mean that, sorry if my response came across that way. I was actually trying to defend Driscoll's responsibility to guide his congregation in regards to their marriages and sex lives.

I too find the "he preached it twice in 10 years" argument to be silly, unless of course your church only has weddings once every ten years. But seriously how many sermons on justification or salvation does the average pastor preach in 10 years? More than one I hope. That is a silly argument and does not hold weight if we apply it to other areas.

Keith,

If that was the whole argument that I made then I agree that it would be silly. It was not! Please go back and read the context and then comment on it.

What I clearly meant is that it seems to be that he has a pattern for the sensational. (That was the clear context of the comments) Here they are over two blog posts:
---
One question to ask yourself though, why did Mark Driscoll find it necessary to preach ANOTHER series of the Song of Solomon less than 10 years into his ministry??? He preached this type of series many years ago and knew it was controversial. (Read about it in his book Confessions.... Reformissional Reverend) I find myself in awe of the scope of Scripture and never at a loss for what to preach and not go back to books I have preached for some time. Could this be a blind spot for Pastor Driscoll??

And...

Notice the qualifier 'in ten years'. Pastoral ministry is about teaching the depth and breathe of the Scripture. All of it, not just some topics. I have only been preaching for 4 years now and know that I would not repeat a series this soon. Just an observation from one Pastor about another Pastor.

PS I actually appreciate other things about Mark as well, but this is far from straining at a gnat. Just listen to the series entitled Vinatge Jesus, and then the one entitled 'Humor' as well. It is a pattern and I hope he breaks out of it!
----
You can think it a silly point if you like. I for one am trying to preach the 'whole counsel of God' (2 Tim 3:16, 17) and would be very reluctant to repeat a book so soon.

Ask yourself is a message on sex as important as a sermon on justification or salvation??? That should give you an answer as to how much you should preach on a topic.

Hey Hayden,

I hear where your coming from and understand the concerns and this is not a comment about the issue Dr. MacAthur has raised. Like me you have listened to many Pastor Mark sermons. Of the ones I've listened to, Pastor Mark has always centered and made a "bee line" for Jesus and the Cross and has always brought the sermon around to repentance, justification and salvation through Jesus Christ. Regardless of what he is teaching on that is the main message. That is one of, if not the main reason, I appreciate his teaching.

Grace and peace to you,

Scott

Scott,

I agree and that is the thing that has caused me not to 'throw in the towel' with him. When he leaves the childish humor at the door he has preached some great messages that are Gospel centered. Absolutely, no doubt

What do you guys think Jesus thinks of all this bickering? goodness you got to be kiddn me right? sounds like some college debate here.. lol. Who is glorified in all this? Would you love one another? Would you love your enemies? no one is perfect but God.. I wouldnt kick Driscol out of church.. he may need help.. would you? I really cant believe this..