First you should read the following full articles written by John MacArthur: Shepherd’s Fellowship: “The Rape of Solomon’s Song – Part 1″
Shepherd’s Fellowship: “The Rape of Solomon’s Song – Part 2″
Shepherd’s Fellowship: “The Rape of Solomon’s Song – Part 3”
Second, here the excerpt that is most relevant to my post:
I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, “Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you’re being dirty, he’s pretty happy.” Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.” That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way. Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path. He is by far the best-known and most prolific popular proponent of handling the Song of Solomon that way. He has said repeatedly that this is his favorite passage of Scripture, and he has come back to it again and again in recent years, culminating in a highly publicized series released on video via the Internet last year….
All a careful interpreter can say with certainty is that Solomon finds his bride pleasurable to all his sensory perceptions. He therefore likens her to the most pleasant and beautiful imagery he can think of—ointments and fragrances and visual delights—all concentrated together in one well-cultivated spot. A garden. The garden is “locked,” which, again, underscores the intimate privacy of pure marital love. Nothing requires the exegete to take it any further than that. Scripture itself doesn’t go further than that.
“It’s frank but not crass,” Mark Driscoll told a Sunday congregation in Scotland just less than 18 months ago. But then he continued by paraphrasing Solomon in a way that was totally crass and not even remotely close to what the Holy Spirit intended. (A CD copy of that shocking message, entitled Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon was recently sent to me by some deeply offended and concerned Christians in the UK. It is primarily the reason I’m doing this series.)
Third, you need to read Mark Dricoll’s own words about his own words: The Resurgence: “Spring Cleaning”
Fourth, here is the excerpt that is most relevant to my post:
After finishing my fourth and final sermon of the day at Mars Hill Church and before heading home to kiss my children before they went to bed, I received two emails from an older pastor whom I respect very much. In love, he brought to my attention a piece of content from me online that some of my critics have picked up on. It was a message I did out of the country a few years back on the more controversial sections of the Song of Songs…. I want to thank my critics for teaching me that I have multiple audiences and that in addition to the room I speak to I am often also speaking to the world and need to keep repenting, learning, and growing in this skill for the sake of the gospel. In that way, my critics are helpful, and for them I am grateful.
Fifth, here is another blog that picked up JMac’s comments and asked a few good questions: Monday Morning Insight: “Mark Driscoll Has Boldly Led The Parade Down This Carnal Path”
Sixth, here are a few of those questions most relevant to this post:
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?!
Finally, here are my own thoughts…
Unfortunately, John MacArthur is out of line this time by specifically targeting Mark Driscroll because of a personal dislike for his methods rather than a true concern for the content of his teaching. This is evident because Mark has already posted a repentance of his comments on the recording in question as well as for the language used during his sermon series. He did so on his blog (linked and quoted above) and vocally to his congregation in at least two of his last five sermons in the past month or so (when I find the links I’ll post them). He has also done all he could to to have the link removed from the internet. However, JMac has seen fit to post a link to the “crude” teaching he so outspokenly is complaining about.
Once again, sheep attacking other sheep. JMac has been one of Mark’s biggest and loudest critics and so have his followers like Phil Johnson and others. A session at the recent Shepherds Conference was devoted to tearing down Mark. My challenge to them would to spend a week in ministry in Seattle and see if their uptight fundamentalist approach to ministry would be effective or damaging to the Gospel. Their true problem with Mark is not the content of his teaching but his style and method of contextualizing the Gospel for the radically unsaved and pagan city of Seattle. To JMac and his followers it appears that contextualizing the Gospel has no place in the American Church and those that do so are bound to end up in their slanderous blog’s gunsights.
How dare they take the time to carefully and methodicaly plan out 3-4 blog posts devoted only to slandering another minister of the Gospel! What purpose is this serving JMac? I noticed in his most recent post that he is quick to belittle Mark’s motives for writing books an then shamelessly plugs his MacArthur Study Bible. How is that serving the Gospel and promoting unity among believers? Furthermore, if these UK believers are so offended by Mark’s teaching, they are Biblicailly mandated to take it up with Mark personally rather then fan into flame gossip and slander. JMac should know better and should have rebuked them for sending him the tape and not addressing Mark personally. Instead, JMac has taken this opportunity to be used as an instrument of division rather than unity. JMac’s legalistic side is brutally ugly in all of these articles and his attacks are not Spirit led.
Why can’t JMac spend more time encouraging Mark for what he’s got right? Such as the authority and supremacy of Scripture? Or the importance of preaching through the word book by book rather then topic by topic. What about the things they agree on such as creation, homosexuality and yes even the definition of marriage?
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…
Cliff my boy! I agree. I think it’s really sad, especially since MD isn’t calling the GCC/GTY boys out publicly all the time (Phil Johnson uses every big message he gets on Driscoll…hmmm) It is totally a matter of methodology. Driscoll tries to remove hindrances to the gospel. Sure, sometimes he creates them. JM tries to do the same, only on the other end of the spectrum. And, believe it or not, sometimes his methods create hindrances too!
I think these 2 (well, just one side is complaining) should simply pull a ‘Paul & Barnabas’, split ways, and shut up!
I had heard a bit about this controversy before reading your blog and I fight it kinda sad. I commented on Google Reader about your MMI shared blog as well.
Basically I think JMac is doing more harm than good. In fact, I think criticisms like his do more to push people away from Christ than bring them to Him.
Good post. Its absolutely stunning that John Macarthur is doing this. Good points about the irony involved here, there is quite a bit of hypocrisy. I hope that this is resolved because many people including myself respect these men and Macarthur/Johnson are doing nothing but harm. Since when did this become a hill to die on. I have heard countless sermons on choosing “hills to die on” out of grace and none of those reasons related to this. They need to listen to their own sermons, Macarthur will let Sproul (a postmillenialist) Mahaney (a charismatic) and countless Amillenialists preach in his church (all of which effect hermenuetical values) but when Driscoll “misinterprets” the Song of Solomon and speaks in everyday language about sex this suddenly becomes Gettysburg. Very odd given their track record of faithfulness and clearheadedness. TMS just took a huge hit and its grads will now be further stigmatized.
I don’t have time to read all that you’ve written, but I scanned it after listening to the message.
Mostly I think you’re right! I mean, his (Mark’s) message was very biblical as far as I could tell. It’s definitely refreshing and helpful to have specifics like Paul was giving in his writing for actual, real application of Biblical teaching.
On the other hand, he was a little heavy on the innuendos and stuff like that, which I didn’t like or need to hear. But like you said, he’s not hard-hearted about it, he’s realizing that he’s not perfect and trying to do the right thing I think.
I appreciate how you provided the sources of these and then quoted some specifics… and if it’s as you’re explaining it, then I’d have to say that I’m sad to see MacArthur taking up such issue with what Mark is doing. But although I can’t say I’m educated on this issue enough to know who’s right, one thing I should point out is that for me being a young, single, Christian guy striving to live with a mind that thinks on uplifting things, I would be wrong to let myself dwell on the things Mark Driscoll seems to be pretty excited about here. Sure, at a later time in life when I’m married, bring that on, but now? (And if I heard correctly, did Driscoll already apologize about that? If so forgive me for going back to that issue). And I’m not sure if that’s deeper than a “weaker brother” issue; it seems more of the right thing for someone in my position [young, single, male, Christian] to do.
If it’s an issue of myself not being mature enough to handle dwelling on the things Driscoll is talking about, then I hope I can become more mature [and naturally means I would hope MacArthur also sees where he is at fault].
But I believe you’re focusing more on the problem of one person attacking another; that shouldn’t be going on (not a “hill to die on” for Christians).
-Daniel
I saw some of my friends commenting here, so I thought I would too. I thought about the spring cleaning post, but why do you think it is connected to the sermon Pastor John is talking about? When Mark first put it up, he said that it was in reference to a “private lecture given to a group of older people” that “was never intended to be put on line” and that was only recently and accidentally put on line. The sermon the Pulpit stories reference was preached multiple times, in multiple places, and has been online for over a year. There is video of one of the sermons, and you can see kids in the audience, so I don’t think there is anyway Driscoll is talking about that sermon.
So, why do you think it was a reference to the same sermon John is talking about?
Also, even if you have some knowledge that it is, where in Spring cleaning did he repent?
Finally, if you think Mark’s message is biblical, I don’t know if you are thinking of the same message that I am. Let’s just say that what he preached in Seattle was radically different.
So, if you were the president of a seminary and a college, and there was someone who was gaining a following with your students, and you were convinced that it was bad thing–like harmful spiritually–what would you do?
John has written to Mark several times, and Mark has not responded. So what next?
More about Spring Cleaning:
I noticed you have linked the post to the updated “spring cleaning.” That was changed, I think, after MacArthur series started, making it sound possible that Mark was talking about a sermon in a church rather than a private lecture to older people. But it still says at the bottom of the page that it has not been edited, which is sort of strange.
Here is the original one, which you might link to in your post instead of the current one. After all, it does not seem fair to critique John for not responding to something that Mark did after John started his critique. Does that make sense?
http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Ftheresurgence.com%2Fnode%2F1495&u=theresurgence.com/node/1495&d=bRlNfUxISmWk&icp=1&.intl=us
Thanks for letting me comment here,
Jesse
Cliff,
Thanks for posting this. I hadn’t heard about this, but now I am curious to see both sides. Our pastor is going through a sermon series on Song of Solomon right now, and we have been enjoying it immensely.
As a Christian, married woman, it breaks my heart to see a lack of intimacy and joy in many marriages. I’ve been thinking about doing a serious post on the issue and being honest, but…I’m still in the thinking stage.
I enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work!
“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?”
I would just like to say saying someone has a legalistic know-it-all approach and then calling them to repent of their pride sounds on the surface a little hypocritical. Anyone who has ever met John MacArthur knows that he is a humble man. I also know for a fact that he wrote a letter to Mark telling him of the things he was doing well and at the end of the letter showed him from Scripture were Mark fell short.
The argument here is not ever preference. It is over speech. No one is mad at Pastor Mark for wearing jeans, people are upset that he is not using pure speech. I like Mark Driscoll and want to see God bless his ministry. I think many people have come to Christ through his ministry.
I go to Grace Community Church and I know for a fact that Grace Church has very different stylistic preferences than Mars Hill, they are not ripping on style, MacArthur and Phil Johnson are saying that Mark’s speech is not glorifying to God, that is not a preference argument.
Cliff
Brother are you sure you wanna get in the middle of these two? Do you think you can single handedly take on the most popular fundamentalist preacher in Southern California? What are you hoping to accomplish?
Brother who appointed you as Mark’s advocate? Did he call you and ask him to defend him? Are you personal friends with him? Who asked you to defend Mark’s name?
Brother it appears you don’t even go to Dr. MacArthur’s church so what is the big deal? It looks like you’re affiliated with The Master’s College or Seminary so maybe that’s it, but if you are a part of those organizations then you are subject to Dr. MacArthur’s authority.
Brother don’t give in to the temptation to defend someone you don’t know or haven’t met. It’s not your responsibility and in all likelihood it’s unwanted. Let Mark defend Mark. Your intentions may be honorable, but no one is going to hold you accountable for whether or not you defended him.
I first read this blog last night before the final installment in the blog series had been completed. I did not have the time to read all of Dr. MacArthur’s posts and wanted to wait till I was able to before responding. I am glad that I did. It was almost like John MacArthur wrote his last segment in response to Cliff’s post. I strongly recommend that you read all of Dr. MacArthur’s posts before considering Cliff’s objections. I think you will find that they have been satisfactorily answered.
I do however want to comment on a few themes here that merit noting. First, the standard to which heralds of the ministers are called is high. What may be acceptable from the mouth of a layman is unacceptable from the pulpit. A Pastor ought to guard his word carefully. Dr. MacArthur believes that Mark Driscoll is has failed in this regard.
Secondly, contextualization is no excuse for crudeness. It is one thing to explain the gospel in an accessible way, something no one could argue John MacArthur is incapable of, it is another entirely to soil it by mixing it with the base things of this world for the sake of increasing its appeal. (Have we forgotten the Gospel is offensive?)
Another point in that same vein, that John MacArthur’s “uptight fundamentalist approach” would not be effective in Seattle, is absurd. Grace Church is in Sun Valley California, no where near the bible belt, in fact it is less than 20 minutes from Van Nuys California, Pornography Capital of the world. You judge how “damaging” to the gospel his approach has been in that context!
Finally, I want to say that attacking error is not damaging to the gospel. Defending the sanctity of the ministry of the gospel serves to advance gospel. It shows that we are serious about the standards to which we are called.
Here are a few comments I’m migrating from Facebook and GoogleFeedReader:
Rebecca Millsap – April 16th, 2009
We love the Bible based teaching rather than the topical messages. I don’t know who Mark Driscoll is and will need to read up on his fundamental beliefs. I do believe though that it’s ok to set apart Pastors from each other, they dot have to be united on everything. 2 Peter and Jude are full of warnings on how we need to be aware of false teaching who come in looking like children of light but change the gospel or change Jesus! Teachers too will be held to a higher level of accountability by God so they really do need to be careful what they teach as truth. I respect John MacArthur and his teachings and for calling this man out!
Kenny Johnson – April 15th, 2009
You know, I’m sure JMac is a good guy, but this is just ridiculous. This kinda criticism, and dare I say prudishness is what drives people away from Jesus, not to Him.
Aaron Anderson – April 16th, 2009
challenging stuff dude… it’s that balance we all hold, are we going to engage the world by vocalizing what we’re vehemently against, or be known by what we passionately stand for?
I think one way we’ll see who’s more in line here is to see where their respective ministry styles are in 10-20 years… I have my own thoughts on this
Enough has been said about this issue, and I’m tired of following the blizzards of blogs. I do want to say about my above post- I do not agree with Cliff on every issue he laid out, but I do agree with the general opinion that JMAC has gone a little far in the extreme criticism of Driscoll. I admire both greatly and have benefited from both despite their very obvious and public errors.
Maybe we could recall 1 Cor 1 and remember that we are not ‘of Paul’ or ‘of Apollos’ etc etc etc. I am not a Driscollite. Nor a Macarthurite. I am a Christian. (reminding myself more than I am you!)
I feel like I have been playing for the wrong team and didn’t realize it. Some advice from a friend along with the link that Mac provided https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dg4fc37g_6fjdd38c8&hl=en on his recent post have brought me to the realization that Driscoll is completely and utterly wrong in this instance. That link was shocking (even the joke that I thought was ok seemed perverse in the context). I can’t believe the graphic nature of his sermon and not just once or twice, but dozens of times.
Most of what he said (save the faulty exegesis of SoS that it is very plain from the excerpt of the sermon) I would not disagree with as a suggestion for married couples, but not a mandate as if SoS and the Bible as a whole were imperatival functionally since they are God’s Word. And I would be very offended had he said these things with my wife in the audience – if he is speaking to a group of mature believing husbands that’s one thing, even if he cut his language back a little this material is not appropriate for singles – I know I would struggle with what he said if I was single. Also your point of emphasis is very valid – Driscoll is focusing on the action (even then its very debatable that the text is even speaking of an action) over the purpose of the literature. It would be like a sermon on Mark 4 that focused on farming instead of genuine and false repentance.
This causes me to question Driscoll’s ministry, exegesis, and maturity (despite his many good qualities and the very solid sermons that I have heard). Without question this tarnishes his image as a Christian, and Christ’s image in the eyes of the world (1 Cor 10:28).
I wish Mac would have laid this out at the beginning – without context it was hard to understand what he was accusing him of. It seems that the issue is obscene language over harsh language.
Also its unclear what Driscoll repented of in his spring cleaning blog, whether he repented of his language or the fact that it was on the internet. Hopefully it was both, but from what he said it seems like he was more repenting for it being out than for what he said. If that’s true – he’s very wrong indeed.
Praying that Driscoll changes for the glory of the Lord – he is too gifted. I pray that Satan will not be allowed to destroy such an amazing ministry.
JOHN PIPER ON MARK DRISCOLL SERMON JAM