The blogosphere has been abuzz this week with a new series of articles by John MacAruther titled The Rape of Solomon’s Song. After reading part 1 yesterday, I was hopeful that part 2 would offer something specific and constructive in the way of critique for Mark Driscoll’s 2008 sermon series on the Song of Solomon titled The Peasant Princess. Unfortunately part 2 of the article is just as disappointing as part 1. MacArthur has offered next to nothing specific in the way of objections to Driscoll’s messages on the Song of Solomon. If MacArthur wants to critique Driscoll, he needs to be more direct. I can’t help but feel that MacArthur is going out of this way to paint Driscoll in the worst light possible by implying much, but in reality saying very little specific to Driscoll or his sermons. As I said in a comment to part 1 of the article yesterday, this seems to be more of the on-going anti-Driscoll rant coming from the Grace Community Church crowd. It appears that Mark Driscoll is not worthy of receiving any grace from the team at Grace Community Church. I’ve included links to parts 1 & 2 of the article below:
Related Articles
19 users responded in this post
I fear you are right, Shaun. Let’s hope for better things to come from all of this. May Christ receive glory and may young guys like us learn and grow.
I don’t think for a second that John MacArthur “hates” Mark Driscoll, and I don’t that the title of this post is being all that fair to him, since it implies that he may hate Mark.
I will be following this series with great interest. I haven’t yet listened to Mark’s series on the Song of Solomon entitled “The Peasant Princess,” but I intend to. I wonder, however, if this series contains all the issues that bother John, or if the problems have mostly to do with the CD that John received of a teaching in the UK. It could be that the CD containing this public teaching in the UK is worse than anything in “The Peasant Princess” series. If this is the case, it may be helpful to give more specific examples and to say which source they come from.
Of course, I understand the problem with getting too specific with examples, namely that it would involve John in the very kinds of inappropriate language that he sees as the main issue here. Thus, John is in a bit of a “Catch 22″ situation, it seems to me. Many folks may want/demand the kind of specifics that decorum will not allow, but not including such specifics will leave the appearance that John is being unfair. This is a tough situation for anyone to be in, especially when he sees the need and feels the obligation before God to say something rather than nothing.
I, for one, have been familiar enough with John’s ministry over the years to be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
May God grant that the truth will be manifest to all of us as we seek His guidance in the matter.
Keith
I don’t think Mac hates Mark, at all. I am baffled, to be honest, at Mark being the target. Why not pick on Ed Young, Jr. or Perry Noble, whose “sex” series’ have been much more “pressworthy”. I agree with MacArthur a LOT about the general attitude, but I am baffled by his calling out of Driscoll while other (IMO worse) offenders get off scot free.
Keith,
The title to this post is a bit tongue in cheek. Historically there has certainly been a concern about Driscoll coming from MacArthur and it continues on and on and on. I feel that if you’re going to bring up an issue with a particular speaker’s or writer’s work, you should be clear on where they’ve erred. It would be a convenient argument to say that you won’t stoop to their level by using their language. I’d like MacArthur to point out the specific concerns and quote them in a bit of context, so we’re all clear what he’s talking about. The two articles that have appeared so far have lots of general statements that appear to be tied to Driscoll by how the article is written. I feel that this is a bit unfair. I continue to hope that MacArthur will voice specific concerns and objections as this series progresses. Time will tell. Have a blessed day!
Bob,
While the title to this post is a bit tongue in cheek, I can’t help but feel like this is part of the ongoing rant / concern we’ve seen from MacArthur over the past few years. I remain hopeful that the remaining articles in this series will offer something specific and helpful in the way of discussion. Time will tell.
Bernard
I am baffled as well. I had hoped this series would focus on more than just MacArthur’s vaguely stated concerns with Driscoll. There have been a lot of general statements in these two articles about this perversion of the Song of Solomon being all the rage amongst the younger pastors, but so far he’s only specifically mentioning Driscoll. I remain hopeful that the following articles in the series will give us more to consider and discuss.
Thanks for the clarification, Shaun. Although I understand the dilemma for John, I too would like as much specificity and context as he could possibly give.
I have just found your blog listed on the Band of Bloggers directory, and I look forward to following it in the future.
Also, it is one of the best looking blogs I have ever seen! I guess you can really back up your claim to be a “computer geek”!
By the way, are you going to the Band of Bloggers meeting in Chicago next week? If so, maybe we could meet.
I’m not sure he hates him per se, but it seems that he should start with acknowledging Driscoll’s heart for evangelism and how the Peasant Princess series did frequently rebuke men sleeping w/their girlfriends, called people to repentance, noted that the ONLY perfect marriage is Christ to his church and that we must be submitted to Christ as men who are husbands to one wife, loving and cherishing her as Christ did the church.
Instead he seems to cherry pick incidents with no grace for praising things that are commendable.
I felt that he was more specific in part two and that if he was any more specific he would have to describe in more detail than he wants of what Mark Driscoll said.
I agree with John MacArthur in general on this but think he should address the need for more talk about physical intimacy and try to mention anything positive Driscoll has done. I think Porn Again for example is a tremendous resource.
Also realize this isn’t anything unusual for Mr. Mac. He usually manages to blast about three groups of people within the first third of his sermons.
Jeff
Keith,
In my day job I’m a technical support manager, but historically I’ve been a technical support engineer / hardcore computer geek. The particular theme I’m using was designed by Roam2Rome. If I could be doing anything I’d be back in graduate school and pursuing my lifelong dream of being a professor at a college or seminary.
Keith,
While I’d love to, it won’t fit into the schedule. Chicago is about a 6 hour drive for me.
Ken,
I would agree that it seems to be rather selective and doesn’t cover what most would label as more positive elements of The Peasant Princess sermon series.
Jeff,
You make some good points. MacArthur does point specifically to Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon in part two of the article, but only says that some were deeply offended and concerned. I too would like to see mention of some of the positive things we see coming from Driscoll, especially in this subject area. I also agree that The Porn Again Christian is a great resource. I’m glad that they’ve made it available for free as an e-book. Every Christian guy should read it.
Just read MacArthur’s Truth War. He writes a book on postmodernism consisting of nothing but a bunch provably false ideas and from reading the book I don’t get the impression that either he or a member of his staff ever read a post modern writer; or even the founding ideas like Heidegger or Sarte. He simply makes up stuff that is critical and says it really loud.
Driscoll is consistent with most scholarship today Adele Reinhartz opens his analysis with “The Song of Songs is the bible’s only extensive discourse on human, erotic love.” The idea that this is some innovation of Driscoll is nonsense. One can disagree but this phrasing of the disagreement is simply dishonest.
I haven’t read Truth War, but I do have another book by MacArthur and his staff in my review pile (Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong: A Biblical Response to Today’s Most Controversial Issues). I’m hopeful, but cautious. To a large degree it seems that MacArthur just doesn’t get Driscoll at all. I see so much negative press on Driscoll coming from the Grace Community Church crowd. It’s like they think Driscoll is bad, all bad.
*; ) We are ALL bad…ALL BAD…Isn’t that the point of grace? Or… is Driscoll the “badest” of the good?
Nancy,
You’re so right. At the end of the day, each of us comes up very short in God’s eyes on our own. I’m pretty sure Pastor Mark isn’t striving to be the “Token Evangelical Bad Boy”. Here’s my final comment on part 4 of MacArthur’s The Rape of Solomon’s Song.
I am upset that John MacArthur would write this…AND HERE’S WHY: Driscoll gave that talk in 2007. Others confronted Mark and he repented by removing the sermon from his site, apologizing, and asking the church in Scotland to also remove it. He also asked that it not be circulated. But, for some reason, MacArthur deemed it appropriate to drudge up Driscoll’s past sins. He seems to have a long-standing personal angst with Driscoll. His behaviour in the matter has completely dissallusioned me from his leadership. Behaviour like this is why non-Christians hate the Church. What happened to living out the Gospel amongst each other? Don’t misundersand me-speaking truth is necessary, but was it really necessary for MacArthur to single out Driscoll and drudge up something he’s already apologized and repented for?? THAT is not the Gospel.
Leave A Reply