19 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
User Gravatar
Bob Hayton said in April 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am

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.

User Gravatar
Keith Throop said in April 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

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

User Gravatar
Bernard Shuford said in April 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

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!

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Keith Throop said in April 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

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”!

User Gravatar
Keith Throop said in April 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

By the way, are you going to the Band of Bloggers meeting in Chicago next week? If so, maybe we could meet.

User Gravatar
Tertius said in April 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Scripture Zealot said in April 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

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

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

Keith,

While I’d love to, it won’t fit into the schedule. Chicago is about a 6 hour drive for me.

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

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.

User Gravatar
CD-Host said in April 16th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 16th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

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.

User Gravatar
Nancy said in April 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am

*; ) We are ALL bad…ALL BAD…Isn’t that the point of grace? Or… is Driscoll the “badest” of the good?

User Gravatar
Shaun Tabatt said in April 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

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 wanted to say thanks to Dr. MacArthur for tackling some of the questions that have been asked in the series of comments that have flowed here and elsewhere. The link to the quotes from the Scotland message this series take issue with is also greatly appreciated. The speech in that particular message was definitely more crass & shocking than much of what transpired in The Peasant Princess series. By comparison, I think The Peasant Princess series may exhibit some of the improvement that many are saying they’d like to see from Driscoll in this area. One could make the argument that he’s moving in the right direction. Throughout this entire series, I’ve been struggling to articulate exactly what Todd Burns stated above:

“Furthermore, I believe this again addresses the fundamental disconnect here. It is not that Driscoll is speaking in this manner to be hip or releveant, it is that he perceives a sexual confusion among his people about what is permissible and what is not (in the way of sexual activity) and so he chose to address this from the pulpit. You may disagree with the manner, but one would hope you do not disagree with the motivation.”

Whether you agree with the manner in which he does it or not, it seems that Driscoll is making an effort to deal with the sexual confusion that runs rampant in our society today. If many of you feel you can address these issues in a more appropriate manner, please do. Silence on these issues from the pulpit will not make them go away.

User Gravatar
kar said in July 26th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

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

 Name (Required)

 Email Address (Remains Private)

 Website (Optional)