“Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path…”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, April 15, 2009
- Viewed 201
- (48) comments so far
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.
Dave Z on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
sam on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
Todd Rhoades on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
Faye on Wed, April 15, 2009
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!)
Shawn Wilson on Wed, April 15, 2009
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
Josh R on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
Q on Wed, April 15, 2009
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…
Sam on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
Q on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
bryan on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
Lori on Wed, April 15, 2009
You said “trannies” and, for some reason, that really cracks me up.
Lori (not the one who posted at 2:48) on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
Steve on Wed, April 15, 2009
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.
Peter Hamm on Wed, April 15, 2009
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!
bn on Wed, April 15, 2009
{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…
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment