HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME


image

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

Orginally published on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 6:48 AM
by Todd Rhoades


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'...

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...


This post has been viewed 1663 times so far.


  There are 38 Comments:

  • Posted by michael

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • 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.

  • Posted by Derek Vreeland

    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

  • Posted by bryan a

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by ryan

    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.

  • Posted by

    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).

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Brian L.

    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.

  • Posted by Faye

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by Scott W. Fisher

    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.

  • 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.

  • Posted by

    Until last year, I taught part-time in a high school.  I was (and am) deeply troubled by the amount of sexual material kids are constantly barraged with.  It’s THE theme of music, magazines, movies and pretty much anything else you can name.  I could type lyrics from mainstream songs that most parents are not aware of.  But the kids know every word.  Big controversy over Britney’s “Amy” song, but the kids love it.

    Even young kids are exposed to sexuality everywhere they look, from glimpses of nudity and sexual activity on TV to naked women on mudflaps and trucks with um...male anatomy.

    The church cannot ignore the unhealthy sexuality so prevalent in today’s society.  We have two options - just condemn it all or present a healthy alternative.  Probably the best approach is a proper amount of both.  And it seems to me that driscoll and others are doing so.

    And I can’t help wonder if JM is seeking some publicity of his own with his constant attacks on other pastors.

  • Posted by

    Faye,
    Do you really want to compare Jesus performing miracles to show he was the Son of God to churches putting up Bringing Sexy Back billboards and producing promo videos using middle school humor?

    Then when crowds did gather like we see in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Jesus gave them some hard teachings. When the crowd returned the next day after the loaves and fishes miracle to see what they can get from Jesus, Jesus told them that He is the Bread. Most of the crowd left that day and even the disciples told Jesus that it was a hard teaching. Jesus asked them if they wanted to leave also, but they replied, where would they go.
    The church’s message is not “Your Best Sex Life Now”. But it is The Gospel. What does it gain someone to be a better lover but yet not hear The Gospel? These sex series are a another church growth fad. They are done with the intent of bringing people into the church because at the end of the day these pastors do not believe in the power of God or the sufficiency of scripture to save sinners.

  • Posted by

    Rut Roh…

    John Macarthur would probably say that Sam has his ire up.

    Mark Driscoll would probably say that Sam has his panties in a wad.

    Either way, don’t get Sam going.

    smile

    Todd

  • Posted by Faye

    Sam, my brother-in-Christ, we are bound to disagree and that is such an awesome thing about the family of God! I can love you and love the passion with which you speak and still not completely agree with your message.

    You say that these series are only another church growth fad. Jesus taught that there would be tares in our wheat. Are they the ones who come to our churches because of the sex series or are they the ones who come because it’s the “right” thing to do?

    What I’m trying to express is what Paul so eloquently said in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23—we must, MUST do whatever it takes, short of sin (that which is described as sin by the Word, not Pharisees) in order to bring souls into a loving, living relationship with Jesus Christ.

    Thanks again, Todd for provoking discussion. Thanks again, Sam for furthering it. (Not to miss the rest of you—you guys rock, too!)

  • Posted by Shawn Wilson

    Maybe the question should really be, “What is the Sunday Morning Service for?  Or whom is it for?” Is it for the lost?  I would say NO!!  Church is for those who follow Christ to come together and worship Him and hear from Him.
    Today’s Christian thinks that evangelism is all about bringing people to church.  We should win them in the marketplace and then bring them to church and teach them how to live as followers of Christ!!
    Is sex a topic Christians need to talk about?  YEP!!  But do we throw the baby out with the bath water because a FEW go a little overboard?  NEVER!!
    Lets be honest, most people’s response to what God is doing through people like Mark Driscoll is envy and jealousy.  These men are winning the lost in places like Seattle that most Christians would run away from!!  Maybe a place of deep strongholds, needs strong warriors?

    Just my two cents

  • Posted by Josh R

    I went to the Grace To You website, looked up sermons by scripture and Mac has nothing listed for Song of Solomon. 

    I think MacArthur is correct in that Driscoll has gone over the line a few times in the past when teaching the Song of Songs..  The most blatant joke that he usually uses was omitted from this series however.  (ends with “Some churches give out tracts...” for the Driscoll literate folks reading this)

    Most of the more explicit content of the Peasant Princess series happened as a result of Driscoll answering his congregations lewd questions, sent in via SMS.  He rebuked the congregation for their selfishness as a result of those questions. 

    I do think that many of the Sex series that are rampant in the church are people centered, not God centered, and therefore they miss the point.  Driscoll however is not guilty of this.

  • Posted by

    I think when determining what the Sunday worship gathering is for we should look at the culture of the area.  Just because ‘come-and-see’ evangelism doesn’t work in certain southern communities doesn’t mean that it’s not working in other places (like Seattle).  Or sometimes ‘come-and-see’ evangelism may just work for specific topics?  I know that when we did a series answering some of the questions that came up from the book The DaVinci Code we had quite a good turnout of non-Christians who were curious and interested in the discussion. But, I’m sure we had a few other churches that thought we shouldn’t even be trying to dignify the book with a response (even though the book did create renewed secular curiosity on the subject of Jesus, and although the book’s assertions were far from Biblically accurate, we kindly and directly refuted the books claims while validating who Jesus REALLY was which ultimately led to many people choosing to follow Jesus now that they had a more accurate picture of Jesus).  It was great, but if we followed the, “Sunday serices are only for believers” then we would never have done that.  At the same time, if Sunday services were just for believers we wouldn’t present the gospel either because it would be assumed that everyone in attendance was already a Christian…

  • Posted by

    Q,
    No, we shouldnt look at the culture of an area when determining what the Sunday morning gathering looks like. We should look towards scripture. The PRIMARY purpose of the weekly gathering is to worship God and edify and equip the saints for evangelism out in the world. Yes, unbelievers may come into our services but the entire service should not be designed around attracting unbelievers to come to church. That is part of the problem of why lay people do not evangelize today because they equate evangelism with getting someone to church.
    We constantly need to be preached the Gospel. Another faulty mindset like Jerry Bridges has said, “we think the gospel is only for unbelievers and once we are saved we do not need it anymore.” It is not safe, especially in today’s church to assume that everyone in the audience is a Christian. AND there are so many christians that can not define what the gospel is. We ALWAYS need the gospel preached in the church. We dont need to learn to be better lovers, spouses, parents, etc. All that is meaningless apart from the Gospel.

  • Posted by

    Sam,

    Interesting take… I respect your candor.  I definitely agree that many of these ‘things’ are meaningless apart from the gospel but that’s not to say that they don’t have meaning (and I don’t think that’s what you’re saying).  They still have meaning, and they still have a place in reflecting the character of God.

  • Posted by

    After reading MacArthur’s article, I wouldn’t call this a tirade or even a personal attack on Driscoll as you’ve portrayed it. I think he’s raising a legitimate question about how we interpret the Song of Solomon. I’m not sure whether I agree with his conclusions, but I appreciate the question.

  • Page 1 of 2 pages

     1 2 >
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: