Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    “Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path…”

    Bookmark and Share

    Well… since you asked… here are some thoughts of mine on the ‘sex series craze’:

    1.  As with anything, you need to be balanced.  If you’re doing two series on sex each year, then you might be a little skewed.  Sex is an important Biblical topic to tackle, but not every other week.

    2.  Some of the campaigns (not nearly all) have pushed the line a little for (even) me.  That’s the way things roll.  You start with one church starting a series, and others copy and take it to the next level.  That’s the danger.  My advice… use a little discretion.  Otherwise we get go down the path of mykinkylustynightofpassion.com.  There… I’ll side with MacArthur.

    3.  MacArthur claims that the Bible has ‘no hint of sophomoric lewdness in the Bible’.  Well, the only word I would take issue with here is ‘sophomoric’.  Sophomoric is subjective.  Certainly, John isn’t saying that the Bible avoids telling us about lewd acts and sexual practices (both healthy and deviant).  In fact, the Bible, I’ve found is very graphic at times in matters of sex, murder, and the human story.  And the KJV is as ‘tell it like it is’ as any version.

    4.  It seems to me that MacArthur’s tirade would seem to have more credibility if the people he’s lumping together were teaching something that wasn’t Biblical.  He might not like the way the material is presented.  It may be sensationalistic to him.  But every sex series that I’ve seen or heard of comes down to this:  Biblical sexuality.  One man.  One Woman (no homosexuality, lesbianism, trannies, etc. allowed).  No pre-marital sex.  No extra-marital sex.  How to deal with lust.  Those topics, given our current culture, seem like admirable topics.  Oh, and yes… Biblical as well.

    5.  I find it somewhat ironic… no unbelieveably ironic that John names his article “The Rape of Solomon’s Song”.  What a provocative title.  Does John know what RAPE means?  Does John realize that the word RAPE is no where to be found in the Bible (at least the King James version).  What a sensationalistic title.  OK, maybe it’s not as sensationalistic as SolomonsBeenRaped.com; but I think you get the idea.  Why did John feel the need to use this title?  Could it be the same reason that churches use things like MyStupidSexLife.com.  It gets your attention.  And once you have attention, you can tell your story.  It’s the same thing, isn’t it?!

    Regardless...MacArthur is on a mission for the next few days:  “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.” So, I guess that John is now labeling himself a ‘significant’ critic that will raise some ‘serious’ objections (you know, since no one else will step up to do it).

    Yippee.

    What do you think?

    Todd

    PS—You can read all of MacArthur’s thoughts here...


    John MacArthur is at it again. This time, John is taking on sex in the church; or at least the 'talking about sex' in the church. And Mark Driscoll is in his sight this time: "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 [the pastor] 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." No offense to John, but I've never heard even one of these 'sex pastors' use the term 'well-nigh'...

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. michael on Wed, April 15, 2009

      read that article yesterday and was very disappointed.  especially after I read a great tribute to MacArthur on either Driscoll’s or one of the Resurgance blogs (part of the New Calvinist series).  Driscoll had some very nice things to say about MacArthur.

    2. DW on Wed, April 15, 2009

      Maybe we (younger pastors) tend to push the envelope a bit much when it comes to preaching about sex. I have felt this way for a while. The bigger issue however is preaching Solomon as our example for a great, healthy, biblical sex life between husband and wife. Are you kidding me! This guy had how many concubines and wives and mistresses? It’s like preaching Jonah as the model missionary…only worse.

    3. Daniel Goepfrich on Wed, April 15, 2009

      And yet, DW, we don’t want to disregard an entire life because of a specific period of sin.


      Sure, Solomon blew it at the end, but does that mean we forget that he started well?


      Sure, Jonah argued with and ran from God, but so did others that we hold so highly (OT and NT both).


      I don’t recommend that we embrace Solomon’s excursion into depression in Ecclesiastes, but since many in our churches are suffering the same things, we should certainly explore it openly.


      There is a line that we don’t want to cross, to be sure. But that line is different in each culture and congregation. We would do well to assume that each teaching pastor knows his congregation better than the rest of us.

    4. Derek Vreeland on Wed, April 15, 2009

      John MacArthur is a great bible teacher, but a horrible prophet. When I hear JM teaching the Bible, I think to myself, “This guy has a real gift.” Even when I do not agree with his conclusions, I cannot discount his amazing gift to parse a Greek verb with power! But when I hear him ranting about the latest “corruption” in the church, I just shake my head and think “oh my, my.”


      Teaching on sexuality in the church is one of those issues were missiology meets theology, where contextualization meet faithfulness to the text. And when this happens the sparks will fly. The truth is that our culture is over-sexed and people need help, Christians need help in sorting out all the issues related to sexuality….a bit like the church in Corinth. (Anybody remember those texts about burning with passion, shacking up with your mother in law, etc.?


      I think Driscoll did a great job with his Song of Solomon series. They saved the most explicit content for their website. I saw some real discretion there.


      In order to speak to our culture and the condition of the church, we must teach clear, compelling, biblical messages on human sexuality. And a joke here or there about sex is ok. I mean, c’mon you have to do something to loosen people up a bit. It is, after all, a pretty sensitive subject.  


      And oh Johnny Mac…what shall we do with you?


      Derek

    5. bryan a on Wed, April 15, 2009

      i’m with you Todd…

      McArthur is just as sensationalistic with his title. And personally I feel like it’s about time the Church start talking about sex openly and honestly. I’d rather them talk too much about it than not enough. It pervades the lives of EVERYONE in the congregation over the age of 14, like it or not, and misuse and abuse of sex has ruined more lives than just about anything else a church could talk about.

       

    6. DW on Wed, April 15, 2009

      I’m not advocating the disregard of anyone’s life. Everyone I’ve heard preaches Sol as this great lover with no mention of his perversion or the fact that the lover in Song of Sol may not even be Solomon. I’m not saying don’t preach Song of Sol. And I don’t think Ecclesiastes is the memoir of a depressed King. What I am advocating is more responsibility in our preaching.

    7. ryan on Wed, April 15, 2009

      Heard Johnny Mac teach/preach for the first time in person last fall at Straight Up Pastor’s conference @ Harvest. The man’s gotta gift. (See Mark Driscoll’s write-up about MacArthur for a brief but honorable run-down of one of the greatest Bible teachers of our time) I would agree with him that some churches have gone a little overboard with sex-talk. However, MacArthur really blows it by knocking Driscoll. MacDaddy is doing more harm than good with this article. And the overwhelming amount of unintentional irony in his article’s titles makes me want to vomit.

    8. jud on Wed, April 15, 2009

      I think sex definately a subject that the Church needs to address but the churches I see that are doing these series, are running from topical series to topical series. Looking, it seems, for what works in Atlanta or Dallas and hoping it works in their suburb. The first few churches that did this made a huge splash in the media and it seems that everyone else is following suit.


      I closely watched one mega church in the south east do one of these series and the Pastor spent about 25 of 40 minutes talking about himself every Sunday. Attempted punchline after punchline.


      The bottom line it seem is that if your INTENTIONS are good then you can do absolutely no wrong. I want to know, Is it Spirit led or is it focus group derieved (it worked there let’s try it here).

    9. Lori on Wed, April 15, 2009

      I agree with much of what Todd said.  I do think the topic of appropriate sex within marriage is a fair topic for a church to address.  However, I do agree some churches have gone too far.  For instance a friend of mine attends a mega church that offered a pole dancing/strip tease class for women to learn so they could “spice” up their marriages.  This is too far.


      I have read and listened to Dr. MacArthur for most of my life and think he is gifted.  I don’t agree with everything he says.  However, I take great issue with his title.  Any person who has been a victim of sexual assault will have a hard time with the title.  It is offensive to survivors.  I understand he is trying to show his level of disdain for these types of sermon series but it still is inappropriate.

    10. Brian L. on Wed, April 15, 2009

      The church needs to address the topic, and I applaud churches who do it.


      However, I think it would be more appropriate in a Sunday School/small group setting (where children would not be present) might be more appropriate.

    11. Faye on Wed, April 15, 2009

      Week in and week out, we vie for the attention of people whose nature is to go fishing, sit home & watch TV, go to the game, see a movie, whatever. Jesus did things to capture people’s attention. How sensationalistic was it to heal a man on the side of the road? How sensationalistic was it to call out the Pharisees on their own turf? Jesus was scandalous! Upon getting the attention of the people, he taught them TRUTH. He didn’t mince words.


      We have too little time to not do the same now. People are dying every day, going to hell because we, the church, have not busted through their everyday to sound like they might want to listen to the message of life and truth that we have.


      I may not agree with everything I see and hear about Mark Driscoll or any other pastor, but I will take note that there are souls that are no longer headed for hell because of the messages these bold pastors have shared and I will PRAISE GOD for them. Those who speak against them should remember they will have to answer for that. The only word I have for them is John 13:34-35.

    12. sam on Wed, April 15, 2009

      I think you have to look at the reason and motivation why so many churches are doing sex sermon series these days. The primary motivation appears to be church growth not addressing sex from a biblical nature. All of these “bringing sexy back” series with the silly in house promo videos ARE sophomoric. Then you have some pastors that act like middle school boys when they go through Song of Solomon. Do we really need a graphic description of some sexual act to speak biblically on sex? Do we really need 30 day sex challenges where the pastor talks with the local media about it all?


      On http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/missing-the-forest-for-all-the-trees.php


      This is being discussed today. I really like this excerpt:


        1. The emphasis upon sex has become so strong that it has begun to sound like our message. The danger here is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is regrettably assumed, neglected or forgotten. When many evangelicals begin to ride the waves of media popularity and are given a platform to speak, they sound more and more like sex coaches than ministers of a message. Somewhere along the way that which is of first importance gets shelved.


        2. Most of the way in which these pastors handle the text is just flat out troubling. Often times we are given a reading of a verse or a section and then the pastor launches off into sexual advice and counsel. And when there is something that is legitimately debated among Bible teachers the issue is not dealt with responsibly (in my view) but rather quickly. The text then, which has not been adequately unpacked within its context, is then made prescriptive for the Christian.

    13. CS on Wed, April 15, 2009

      The problem is that many churches in America have gone overboard with their sensationalist sex sermon series.  First it was ads with feet sticking out from under the sheets (Granger).  Then it was, “My sorry sex life.”  Then 7-day sex challenges.  Then 30-day sex challenges.  Then pastors talking about their desire for their wives in improper ways.  Then descriptions of individual positions and techniques.  What’s next?  Someone holding lingerie and, “enhancement devices,” on stages?


      And so many of these churches are using sex as the draw card for Christianity.  “Come to Jesus so that you’ll learn how to have great sex,” is what the ads are essentially saying.  So then the unsaved come pooling in, and when the whiz-bang messages stop, or if a message of conviction comes along (doubtful in some places), they leave once more.


      With all of this silliness, I can understand MacArthur’s overreaction and would side more with him, despite some of his sensationalism in his post.


      (And, Todd, what’s up with the dissing of the KJV?  I haven’t found MacArthur to be a KJV zealot.  Last time I checked, the MacArthur Study Bible came only in NKJV and NASB, matter of fact.)



      CS

    14. Scott W. Fisher on Wed, April 15, 2009

      Todd,


      I couldn’t resist commenting on this post. I’m 51 years old, pastor of a contemporary Nazarene church and grew up in the home of a Southern Baptist pastor. I think the way the church at large dealt with the subject of sex in previous generations was appalling. To take the position that sex is only for procreation, that the subject is too “off-limits” to discuss from the pulpit, to refuse to deal with biblical discussions of the pleasures of marital sex has done two things: 1) Made any discussion of sex from the pulpit completely irrelevant; 2) Forced congregants to seek information, counsel, and even curiosity from secular and non-biblical sources. I’ve dealt openly with sexuality from the pulpit—I’ve tried not to be “sophomoric”—but frankly, I LOVE sex with my wife and believe we have as active and healthy and passionate a sex life as anyone and better than most people. I’ve counseled dozens of couples over my thirty years in ministry who have come into my office to discuss their lack of sex—one couple were simply roomates with no sex for over 3 years! That is NOT normal and it is NOT biblical! Pastors can, and should, teach about the healthy sexual relationship between a husband and wife; they should model for their congregation a healthy marriage relationship. I’d rather high school kids in my church hear that sex is GREAT when done God’s way—from their pastor—than from learning about it wrongly from truly “sophomoric” friends with one goal in mind—getting into the girls pants! I teach my congregation that their sex life is a barometer of the health of their marriage. It is not an “off-limits” subject for me, and it shouldn’t be for any pastor.

    15. Russell Mckinney on Wed, April 15, 2009

      So many of my thoughts on this discussion have already been posted by others:


      1: I agree with Todd that MacArthur’s title is “ironic.” I would even call it hypocritical.


      2: I agree with Derek that “our culture is over-sexed and people need help.”


      3: I love Jud’s question, “Is it Spirit led or is it focus group derived?”


      4: In my opinion, the example Lori used about the “pole dancing/strip tease class for women” is why MacArthur is more right than wrong on this issue.


      I grew up in a church where sex was never addressed from the pulpit. That left me to find things out on my own as a teenager. Needless to say, that didn’t go well. I’ve felt for a long time that pastors need to do a better job of preaching this subject. But it isn’t hard for me to see the sinful excesses either. As with so many issues, this one calls for a good and spiritual balance.

    16. Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors