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 1664 times so far.


  There are 38 Comments:

  • Posted by Lori

    You said “trannies” and, for some reason, that really cracks me up.

  • Posted by

    Sam,

    I agree that apart from the Gospel, life is meaningless.  However, the latter half of the Great Commission says, “..teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;”

    Jesus taught on divorce, adultery, loving your neighbor, how to treat each other in church, how to treat the world, the poor, the sinners, His return, worrying, fasting, I could go on.  Suffice to say that these subjects are to be taught in church.  As most churches have their greatest attendance on Sunday morning, these areas should be addressed.  I do believe, that a pastor should not miss the opportunity to give the Gospel as well.

  • Posted by Steve

    As the father of three teenagers, I could not be more pleased to have pastors speak clearly and plainly about sex, both as a blessing in the right context and as sin in all others.  I’d WAY rather someone err on the side of crudeness teaching sexual purity that tiptoe around the issues and leave people guessing.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Jud writes [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).]

    Pinch yourself before you hear me say this… Jud, you are spot on on that.

    Knowing what kinds of things matter to people and teaching them things that help them with that, like maybe doing a teaching in your church on finances and the biblical instructions for them, or maybe doing the kind of topical teaching that Jesus did in the parables.

    But for those churches who merely teach a provocative series on sex because it will “sell"… I’m not there.

    There, Jud, I agree with you. Also with a bunch of stuff Sam said…

    Wow… what a day!

  • Posted by

    {sigh} the American Church has a bad case of Me-Tooism. One preacher does a scandalous ‘sex series’ , seems everyone else has to copy or try to top them…

  • Posted by

    I’m pinching myself !!!

    It seems to me that John MacArthur makes a lot of Pastors uncomfortable. I don’t really believe it’s because he “thinks he’s the only one who has it right” (to paraphrase a common jab at the man). I think it’s because the guy probably out prepares or studies any other pastor out there… and he’s done that for years. i have sat under numerous pastors who have a similar ethic about preparation. I’ve also sat under a number of pastors who spend the week politicking with either “important” or well monied residents, slugging down lattes at the coffee shop with their buds, spending HOURS trying to produce some kind of Rob Bell video clone. heading cross country for another conference and so on…

    With SO many churches putting their audio/ video online, I challenge anyone here to find a pastor who doesn’t spend the first 15 minutes of his 25 talking about himself, his kids, his week etc. It’s filler !! It’s a very revealing indicator of the seriousness many of our leaders place on the precious few minutes of instructional time they have with the flock ! Not much there FAR too often.

    It clearly shows the shift away from Biblical emphasis to the belief that Christians can simply be grown by a “relational” approach.

    I have left many a service knowing much more about the man under the lights than Jesus Christ and his coming Kingdom.

  • Posted by

    HEY JUD, YOU ARE RIGHT. I hate it when Jesus talked about farming, and camels, and vines and branches. I wish he did away with all that “filler” and just taught the truth. He’s just like these modern day fluff preachers.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Jud,

    NOW you lost me…

    I don’t think that MacArthur-style expository preaching (the kind rarely if ever practiced by Jesus) is the only way to go, and John thinks that.

    I think there is nothing wrong with a pastor spending significant amounts of time out of the office in coffee shops and restaurants and “third places” to be with the people in his community, and I think preparing 30 hours or more for a sermon is a worse situation, because it totally isolates the pastor from the people he’s speaking to.

    I think there is NOTHING wrong and everything right with using my life as an example in a sermon, especially in the ways I fall short.

    And I think that the best way to grow Christians is a relational approach…

    So, we’re back to square one, but I love you anyway!

  • Posted by Cliff Ames

    RT: http://talesfromtheyellowbrickroad.com/blog

    At the end of his most recent post JMac said:

    Several questions have come up repeatedly from people who have commented on these articles, and in tomorrow’s final installment, I want to answer as many of them as possible.

    I hope some of those questions are:

    1. Why post a link to something you consider to be “crude”? Isn’t that just as bad as saying it yourself?

    2. Why have you ignored Mark’s post about his repenting of the recording that caused you to start this whole series?

    3. Why must you use a “know-it-all” legalistic approach to your post, rather then a humble, loving tone that even Mark has used to address critics like you? (See: The Resurgence: “John MacArthur On Bible Teaching”)

    If JMac refuses to answer questions like these then there is only one thing to say…
    John MacArthur… you need to repent!

  • Posted by

    John’s study doesn’t make me uncomfortable.  He is who he is and I would trust that he does what he believes he should do in his studying.  I know many pastors who do this as well.  I am not sure he out prepares all those other pastors.  This is simply rhetoric and unverifiable posturing.  It is the fall back to those who defend John M for his attacks. 

    I do agree that some churches have gone to far in the teaching of sex, but to lay that t the feet of Driscoll is irresponsible.

  • Posted by

    Leonard,
    I agree that it is not right to blame Driscoll for all of the far out series on sex that have spread through the nation’s churches. However, you can not deny his influence among young pastors throughout the nation. There are scores of pastors out there that imitate Driscoll on a weekly basis.

    I do not think he is fully responsible but I do hope that he is fully aware of the influence he wields and recognize the responsibility that comes with that

  • Posted by

    I agree Sam, but the people doing the sensational 30 days stuff are probably not Driscolites.  Ed Young, Granger… I think these people need to re-examine some things concerning these kinds of series. 

    Driscoll recently said he is repenting and learning concerning who hears him and the impact of that. 

    I never hear John M say anything like that.  In fact for the 35-40 years I have heard him, I cannot recall a single instance where I have heard anything remotely like this from him.  I have from RW, Driscoll and several other prominent preachers.  Maybe he doesn’t make mistakes.  Must be all that studying he does.  smile

  • Posted by

    I’m so sick of seeing “pastors” acting like shock jocks to draw attention to themselves and “their” church. It’s time to stop the gimmicks.

  • Page 2 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: