And in this Corner . . . – MacArthur Throws Heavy Punches at Mark Driscoll

The other night my good buddy Keith posted a comment enlightening me to a series of posts which Dr. John MacArthur was starting to deal with his views on Mark Driscoll’s ministry, particularly focusing on  a mysterious sermon Driscoll delivered in Scotland in 2007 over the Song of Solomon.  Well, this series has just concluded and I thought I would post links to all four parts for you guys to read through (1, 2, 3 and 4).

Now, in order to not have PETA coming after me for beating the same old horse, I will refrain from commenting much on this series (though if you are really interested in what I think you can read the comments after MacArthur’s above posts).  I was glad to finally hear from MacArthur himself on what he feels since his silence following a set of 2006 remarks has been particularly bothersome to me.  I will also say, I think a much better job of dealing with this topic was done by Southern seminary president Al Mohler on his radio show back in September.  If you want to listen to that it can be linked through a previous post of mine here.

This debate is far from over.  Driscoll has not yet responded, and I do not know if he will, but with the weight of John macArthur being put behind these words we are sure to see  them quoted over and over again in the fundamentalist literature just like his 2006 remarks.

3 Responses to “And in this Corner . . . – MacArthur Throws Heavy Punches at Mark Driscoll”

  1. Keith Walters Says:

    My thoughts are very random, I hope it all makes sense.

    Throughout the OT the various literary types employed there have other Ancient Near Eastern counterparts to which they correspond and therefore understanding these texts aids us in understanding the literature of Scripture. For example suzerainty treaties, used by Hittite and other cultures, help to shed light on the construction of Deuteronomy. The Hammurabi law codes have literary parallels with the Torah. Song of Songs has literary parallels with Egyptian love poetry. I am not an Egyptologist and cannot help you here; however, a study of the content of such poetry could give us clues to the metaphors used in SoS.

    I understand SoS to be divided into two main sections (although it could be further divided)
    I. Courtship (1-3:6)
    II. Marriage, Consummation (see 4:16), and Beyond (3:7-8:14)
    Because of this I find it hard to interpret anything before 4:16 as a reference to sex or foreplay. I have listened to some of, but not the entire, Peasant Princess Series so I do not know how he interprets every aspect of this text. However, I will say that I think that it seems logical to find sexual references beginning in 4:16. If that is what the text says then we must preach it!!! But the question remains “how explicit is the text?” I can’t say, I have not studied it enough. Some of the references seem obvious to me; however, I do not want to read my perspective into the text and so for now the jury is out.

    I don’t have any particular objections to teaching this if that is what the text says. I do not have any objections to teaching on it in with children present; they are not innocent, they are sinners. I learned of sex from an older friend when I was in 1st grade. By 6th grade many of my friends were sexually active and they did not wear scarlet letters as in ages past. My brothers middle school actually sent letters to the parents because parents were holding parties that basically amounted to orgies. It has been a while since I was in middle school and I think the culture has declined since then. I think there is a valid point in noting that every culture has been obsessed with sex. At the same time I think we have to acknowledge that the culture is going to bombard our church members with a false theology of sex and they are going to do so at a very young age and we need to give them a biblical model. I agree that this may not be the best forum and that we may need a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their children a biblical theology of sex. But with things like this (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=794) going on I do not think this is an issue you can avoid as a parent any more.

    I think it is evident from his preaching that Driscoll is diligent in his studies, I think he demonstrates a pastoral concern in the things which he preaches on, he preaches expositionaly through books, his church is soteriologically reformed and elder led. I think there is a lot that we can be thankful there. I also think there are some areas he needs to work on.

  2. Todd Burus Says:

    Keith,
    Thanks for your comments. I totally agree with you on the need for a biblical theology of sex. It hurts young people and it hurts intimacy in marriage when fundamentalists treat sex as a dirty thing not to be talked about and liberals treat it as a thing of personal conviction without consequence.

    I also agree with your last sentiment and say that one thing that was sorely missing from MacArthur’s commentary was a single kind word about what’s going on in Seattle. Maybe he thinks it is that bad, but it seems like their should be something redeeming that he could point out instead of totally dismissing Mark and his ministry.

  3. stephanie Says:

    Several friends of mine have been emotionally and spiritually wrenched from attending and also working at Mars Hill church. This blog has been started to seek healing, in case you want to take a look at it: http://marshillchurchabuse.blogspot.com/

Leave a Reply