In a series of blog posts entitled The Rape of Solomon’s Song, John MacArthur addresses Mark Driscoll’s handling mishandling of Song of Solomon.
MacArthur begins by saying:
“Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. The defenders of this trend solemnly inform us that without such a strategy it is well-nigh impossible to connect with today’s “culture.” (In contemporary evangelicalism that term has become a convenient label for just about everything that is uncultured and uncouth.)”
MacArthur goes on to state that Driscoll’s approach to the Song of Solomon “is not exegesis; it is exploitation.”
“I keep encountering young pastors who are now following that same example, and I’m rather surprised that the trend has been so well received in the church with practically no significant critics raising any serious objections. So we’re going to analyze and critique this approach to Song of Solomon over the next couple of days, including a look at some specific examples where the line of propriety has clearly been breached.”
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 1)
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 2)
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 3)
- The Rape of Solomon’s Song (Part 4 – Conclusion)
Here are a couple of other posts with helpful thoughts on this issue:
- Irish Calvinist
Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Mark Driscoll and a Frat Party
- Tim Challies
Missing the Forest for all the Trees
- Expository Thoughts
A Word about Mark Driscoll
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Mike Clack http://beforefoundation.com/2009/04/macarthur-addresses-driscolls-handling-of-song-of-solomon/
http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/mark-driscoll-says-that-jesus-lusted-after-women/
Unlimited-limited atonement=Arminianism
Beware of the World’s Megachurches, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Know a tree by its fruit “If My Words abide in you you willbear much fruit…” Christ’s Teaching=Good Fruit
Bringing into question my Lord and Savior’s purity and challenging His sinlessness is bad fruit. Jesus knew what was in a man’s heart, questioning what’s in the heart of Jesus is humility?
Mike, I know I’m over a year late but I just came across this post. It is important for any reader here to understand that Driscoll says Jesus was TEMPTED to lust, and indeed he was, if you believe Hebrews 4:15. All the difference in the world lies between lust and the temptation to lust. Driscoll never accuses Jesus of actual lust, which is clear from the very quote you provided.
In response to your second quote, I ask you: does the Bible explicitly declare that Jesus could not have sinned? Not that I see. Driscoll makes the point further in the chapter that Jesus possessed the physical ability to sin. This physical ability makes his temptations real. If Jesus were completely, in every way (physically, morally, intellectually, etc.), unable to sin, his temptations would have been a mere charade, and we as His church would gain no comfort or strength whatsoever from knowing he suffered temptation the same way we do, as Hebrews 4 makes undeniable. I’m not here to make an uncritical or blind advertisement for Driscoll, but here are my thoughts on your thoughts. Take them or leave them.
Grace,
Nick