The Peasant Princess
Mark Driscoll has done it now.
For those of you unfamiliar with Mark, he’s the senior pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, a church which has thrived - despite its unwillingness to alter the beliefs of the church to fit its culture - in a twenty-something, pagan culture in this ultra-liberal city. While I don’t necessarily agree with parts of Driscoll’s theology (**cough** Calvinist **cough**), I have often found his teaching, his energy, his bluntness, his steadfastness and his depth something to be admired.
But now he’s walked off the map, if parts of the Armchair Discernment Media are to be believed. (Granted, they like him from time-to-time when he makes statements about their favorite targets, but those times are few and far between.) One rabid critic of Driscoll is Steve Camp (yeah, the warmed-over Christian musician from the 80’s who jumped the shark on a Christian cruise ship years ago), and Mark has him hopping mad now.
Why?
Because Driscoll has started a series on The Song of Songs. More importantly, Mark decided NOT to teach SoS as allegory, but instead as it has been treated for eons by the Jewish church and by the early Christian church, prior to Origen. Mark decided to teach a series (to a church full of twenty- and thirty-somethings) about the Biblical view of sex and sexuality, and to use the book of the Bible that explicitly addresses this topic as something non-Puritanical.
So, just to get this straight - The same folks who will declare you a heretic if you view the opening poem of Genesis as allegorical or semi-allegorical will also go into fits of apoplexy if you exegete another Biblical book literally instead of allegorically. Then, just to complete the smackdown, they’ll give you a hundred-plus-year-old Victorian exegesis from Chuck Spurgeon. OOOoooohhh, that’ll show him!
In reality, the Song of Songs is a poem, attributed to Solomon, which describes the relationship between a man and a woman. In some ways, the SoS can be treated allegorically, as love between God and Israel and as love between Jesus and the church. However, parts of it cannot really be viewed as allegory. In reality, though, these were used by Jewish families, particularly the newly married, as a way to view their own new relationship (since many were in arranged marriages, and may or may not have known their spouses before marriage).
Historically, Jewish boys were forbidden to read from the SoS until after the age of accountability, age 13, because of some of the imagery there, so I don’t see any problem in Youth Pastors in avoiding this text for lessons. However, with all of the unhealthy views of sex in society today, is this really something that our adult Christians should be ignoring - or allegorizing away?
September 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
It isn’t that Driscoll suggests that SoS a simple lesson in marital intimacy, the issue is his use of word pictures of believers in gay love with Jesus, and his use of coarse language and off color humor in communicating his view of SoS. And your use of a nickname with Spurgeon is a veiled attempt to diminish his view of SoS. Everyone can read my opinion of Driscoll and his methodology on Camp’s thread.
And I am not a part of the Armchair Discernment Media.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Having just listened to the sermon again, I missed the “coarse language and off-color humor” part of the sermon (apparently for the second time).
As for the “gay love” issue, if you treat SoS as if it must be allegorical, there are some sections you have to pretty much ignore to keep the allegory w/o adding in uncomfortable and weird imagery.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
As in the “Bride of Christ” (Paul)? The Marriage supper? The bridegroom? Those illustrative word pictures have never conjured up the things Driscoll so carelessly uses as some performance aids.
I also suggest that on blogs that do offer comments, that those whose disagreement is such that it necessitates a post (which is fine), should express their views on that blog as well. Jesus Himself said the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of Him, even when they are multi-tasking in their communication of truth. When Moses (?) says the seed of the women, he means more than male sperm.
The OT is replete with forward projecting word pictures that use common things to unfold supernatural truths. You do not need SoL to teach about sex and marital intimacy, the book stores are filled with solid teachings from Christian and secular authors who never reference SoL.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I’d prefer that nobody reference SoL…
As for SoS, though, I think that there are parts which work allegorically, but to treat it as complete allegory is to cast a blind eye to it…
September 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sol means SoS in that case. I am a confused old man.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
In an age w/o books and a single piece of literature memorized by its society, though, it is probably all well and good to concentrate on that particular topic.
As far as bookstores go, they can be helpful, but you still need to return to the Bible at the basis…
September 26th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Chris - of course it isn’t just an allegory, and it may reference Solomon’s relationship with one of his lovers/wives/concubines (which of course those who demand a focus on the facts as the books purpose refuse to bring that forward), but the book’s purpose in the canan is primarily spiritual and primarily relevatory of Christ and His church.
How does anyone teach monogomy or fidelity with SoS? I guess you can pick and choose. But if you insist on an allegorical purpose, you can freely admit that God uses imperfect moral behavior to unfold the mysteries of His gospel. With man, that is usually all He has to work with.
Perhaps Solomon learned some of his sexual behavoir and techniques from his father…
September 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Glad to see that in its superior erudition CRN.Info takes the high ground and avoids stooping to name-calling to make points like those awful ODMs always do.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Chris, seriously, tell my one sexual truth that Song of Solomon teaches that is a Biblical revelation that cannot be learned elsewhere?
Actually, the Song of Solomon is very limited in scope and doesn’t deal with hundreds of practical sexual issues. Several verses that use the word “breasts” and everyone goes all hugh hefner.
Didn’t Driscoll suggest one particular verse in SoS meant oral sex? If so, which verse was that? If SoS is primarily a practical sex book it is shallow, unspecific, blurry, and cannot be promoted as dealing with even the most basic of sexual issues in marriage.
If it is a book to deal with marital/concunbine sex, then we cannot add practical allegory to it concerning that same sex. We must take it literally and stay within the parameters of its specific teachings.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
SoS is not about sex. It is about a romantic relationship, which just so happens to include sex. At least for most of us, and only has as much to do with Christ and the church as romantic relationships do.
I look forward to the day that ODMs are able to have romantic relationships, it will make this issue so much easier to deal with.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“I look forward to the day that ODMs are able to have romantic relationships, it will make this issue so much easier to deal with.”
Speculative and irrelevant to the issue.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I don’t think he’s saying it’s supposed to be a how-to book on sex. Just that it’s celebrating it as something good.
As far as the oral sex thing, I think he’s referring to 4:16.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Neil - that isn’t exegesis, that is approaching a verse with a sexual topic and pounding a square doctrine in a round hole. So Driscoll doesn’t claim there isn’t any allegory in the SoS, just the allegory he sees (oral sex).
Come on, there is obvious romantic themes but to teach that verse is oral sex is reckless and indicates an agenda driven teaching.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Its far closer to a real exegesis than an allegorical explanation of SoS as a Jesus/church relationship which truly is an agenda driven teaching.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Jesus said the OT Scriptures speak of Him. So we should approach the OT with that agenda in mind from the lips of their Author.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
They do undoubtedly point to Christ as their fulfillment, but they also reveal the nature of God and creation. I think that SoS is primarily revealing the nature of marriage and why it is good.
Certainly declaring one of God’s gifts as good reflects back on Him as being good.
The Church is described as the Bride of Christ so I guess in a tangential way there are things from SoS that could apply to that relationship, but I have hard time believing that’s what it’s primarily about.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Phil - I believe Driscoll refers to the “Spurgeonesque” metaphorical interpretation of SoS as “wingnuts”. Am I mistaken?
September 26th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
So much for Sola Scriptura I guess!
So can I now use “The Shack” for a teaching on the Trinity because scripture is pretty moot on the point?
September 26th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The Trinity is exclusively Scriptural. Nature is not.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I don’t know, I haven’t listened to Driscoll in quite a while. I actually find him quite annoying, to be honest. It sounds like something he would say though. When Calvinists collide, I guess…
September 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“When Calvinists collide, I guess…”
Phil - Thou shalt not tempt me!
September 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
One thing I find ironic is that in a discussion a while back on Driscoll — I think it was here on CRN, not sure, but think so — I made some comment about the things Driscoll said making me blush and sort of look behind me to see if anyone was seeing me there listening to the video of his that I was watching on the computer.
I believe the response I received was something like “well, does SoS make you blush? it’s in the Bible!” and other things to the effect that my response to Driscoll’s communication was prudish, silly, and not valid in the debate. I think Rick even said something to the effect that there were greater issues at stake in the debate and not my blush response.
Which is probably true.
Really, my only point was simple: Driscoll says things that make me feel embarrassed and uncomfortable, much like when I’m watching something on a TV show that’s crude or overly sexual. I don’t know what else to say about Driscoll or those like me who get red in the face; I certainly don’t want it used as ammo for either the for or against crowd. Obviously, I’m not the target audience for his ministry, because I’d spend half the time in the pew sliding lower and lower with a red face.
I really don’t know much about Driscoll — not read his books and only seen those couple of videocasts that were in question in the post I referenced above — so I’m not going to make a grand statement on him. I just find this a sort of ironic full-circle, this discussion on his preaching SoS and how the existence of that in the Bible was earlier used as a kind of “proof” that my blush response to this very preacher was some sort of prudish thing that had no warrant in the discussion.
I think it does, but I’m not sure how to go about saying it it without being called a prude. And being referred back to SoS.
I’m curious: all these church sermons about sex and making sex better and the reality of sex, etc….what are your thoughts about preaching that explicitly in a room likely containing a large number of people who are in a position in life where they are not supposed to be having sex? If women are to dress modestly to prevent men from having to struggle with sexual thoughts — I don’t know, wouldn’t a whole sermon series on sex sort of make that a moot point for the unmarried guys in the audience? I’ve spoken with a few single guys who go to great, struggling lengths to control the sexual thoughts in their minds, and I wonder what they think when the preacher starts talking sex.
“Thanks a lot, preach.”
I mean, I have heard the argument “a sex life is a reality in life so we need to talk about it” but for some Christians…it shouldn’t be a reality yet, or if ever.
Just wondering how that works out in these churches that preach these kinds of sermon series, and the balance struck between what is seen as a need for a message and a need for these considerations.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Driscoll addresses both married and unmarried folks, particularly when there’s differences. (He’s also had some addressed specifically toward the singles in the church.)
Just wondering - how many of the commenters here listened/watched the particular sermon in question?
September 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I may have missed it, but I didn’t hear that in this particular sermon…
September 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
That’s correct, he was referring to people like me who interpret the book of Revelation differently than does he. But he did insiuate that many times, in the context of the Ted Haggard issue, the wife is to blame for not sufficiently satisfying her
masterhusband.Juile is very salient in her point, although I cannot remember her quote from me. I have always felt this way about Driscoll’s “methodology”.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I admit, I am having difficulty watching/listening to the sermon in question due to my “borrowed” wifi connection from the school across the street.
It’s sort of a spotty connection for that.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I’m checking out the links, though, Chris. The vids/mp3s are the only ones I have problems with.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I have watch approximately ten minutes of the verbiage in question some months ago. I have read many transcripts highlighting the questionable areas. Those are the issue.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Re: The Haggard thing - Mark actually deals with that in the linked sermon above, stating it in much better fashion this time around.
Here’s the thing:
The Armchair Mafia is always telling us how the only Biblical way to preach is expositional, verse-by-verse, through a book of the Bible.
Driscoll has chosen the Song of Songs to preach expositionally (having done Nehemiah, Philippians and Romans in recent history) over the coming months. He’s also taken the normal Armchair Mafia mode of interpretation - literal interpretation - for his expositional study. Now, they’re having cows, breach…
So, apparently, expositional preaching isn’t acceptable if the passage happens to deal with sexual issues…
September 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Here’s the audio feed link.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Driscoll’s dating outline is interesting.
I might not be in full agreement with it. I even have a few hearty disagreements.
But that’s OK, I guess.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I think I’ll start writing like ODM’s - and put a dozen hyperbolic-modifiers all strung together in front of each name just to make a belabored point…
September 26th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Julie,
That you blush when Driscoll talks about such things is fine and you should not be condemned for that.
However, couples should be able to talk about this with each other (and sometimes with a married couple or counselor if need be, but at least each other). Sometimes when preachers preach about the marriage relationship, including the physical relationship, it provides freedom for couples to work on intimacy. Which I believe SoS actually encourages, it’s not just about “sex” but about intimacy.
Also, from what I know of Driscoll’s church culture, this is teaching that needs to take place on a large scale. For most churches, this teaching needs to take place, but on a smaller scale or in a different setting.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
When someone (Camp) makes a major interpretive error and uses it twice - you know the thesis is shaky.
Mark was not making fun of our Lord, he was making fun of those who take SoS allegorically. It was Camp and his friend who were being made fun of - not our Lord.
Later:
I’m not sure I care for Mark’s introduction either - but we have two choices: 1) Camp’s bias has gotten the better of him and he now sees what’s not there - disrespect for Jesus, or 2) he see the plain meaning of Mark’s opening (to mock allegorical interpretations of SoS) and purposefully distorts it.
Either way - he’s wrong.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Not sure how I fit in long before I ever posted…
September 26th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Sorry Neil, I meant Phil.
Age, it’s a terrible thing to waste.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I object to mocking a sincere person’s view when it isn’t intended to injure people. When non-pretrib people moch pre-trib people by suggesting that their view can only be held by unsophistacted believers who cannot break free from their evangelical baggage it is unattractive to say the least.
So when Neil admits Driscoll’s intro was just a way to mock the allegorical crowd, Neil seems to suggest that isn’t as bad and should be seen in that light. That light is wrong as well since it not only exudes an air of elitism, it teaches others to do the same and enjoy it from their pastor.
In short, you wind up preaching the Bible in a Rush Limbaugh format.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
No problem - just kinda funny reading the thread coming upon that…
September 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
My point was not to justify Mark’s comments. I was pointed out the fact that Camp either is either wrong on something very very obvious, or deceptive.
If Camp had written that “mocking” is inappropriate, that would be a different story… but then Camp would have to edit out the name calling he does as well - I suppose
September 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I haven’t listened to the sermon yet, but I want to. My son is in the room with me right now playing PS2. Would it be alright for him to listen to the sermon with me? Or should I send him to the other room to watch Desperate Housewives?
jerry
September 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“Origen allegorized the SoS and castrated himself.” –From the sermon
Uh, I’ll take a literal SoS!!
live blogging of Driscoll’s sermon brought to you by…Rick Frueh!
jerry
September 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Paraphrase: “Having healthy sex brings joy to God.”
around 16:00
jerry
September 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
20 minutes in to the Peasant Princess and have yet to hear SoS quoted once. Referred to yes. Alluded yes. Quoted, no. Boring…
September 26th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“Paraphrase: “Having healthy sex brings joy to God.””
It seems as if men and women were able to sufficiently struggle in their journey of procreation, just barely making it to this generation with enough people to continue the human race. During the past several centuries the unenlightened and Puritanical communities were plagued by rampant divorce, social diseases, and pornographic imagery.
Miraculously, and just in time, we have arrived at this enlightened and informed generation and all those horrible trends have been reversed.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Rick,
I suggest you read some Jerome or Origen before making such comments. It may seem absurd to you, but there are many places and many times where sex has been wrongfully condemned.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
His joke about Jesus love was stupid and unfunny.
“The primary point of the book is literal, husband and wife, and after that there are allegorical things marriage, love and intimacy that do apply to the church’s relationship to God, but that is not the primary point.”
ALERT: relevant illustration around 28:00: Faith Hill and Tim McGraw! ALERT!!! ALERT!!!
jerry
September 26th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
“Christian women: more than welcome to go on offense.” (32:00)
September 26th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
“but there are many places and many times where sex has been wrongfully condemned.”
Not recently for sure. There is almost nothing that is condemned anymore. The statistics for adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, teenage pregnancy, abortion, are off the charts. And it would be disingenuous to suggest that we are not bombarded with information about sex both in and out of church.
It has not led to more fidelty and deeper romantic marriages, it has led to the sad spectacle of adults sexing up young girls as young as 10, it has led to challenges for married couples to have sex every day, it has led to an incredible rise in pastoral infidelity, it has led to basically the same teenage promiscuity in the church as out, and it has led to an almost equal percentage of divorces in and out of the church.
We need more
cowbellsex teaching.September 26th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
The lights changing colors in the background are rather annoying.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Rick,
I’m a little confused. Are you for or against teaching the literal, plain-meaning of SoS? Because your last response seems to advocate it, while your previous responses seem to condemn it.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
37 minutes in, and the problem is not that what he is saying is wrong, it’s that what he is doing is not exegesis of the biblical text. Sadly, for all the conversation here, I’m rather disappointed that I am not hearing any exegesis. Line by line explanation is not necessarily exegesis and exposition.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
My last sentence was tongue in cheek. We are drowning in sex teaching and sexual sin continues to rise.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
43:15: Jenna Jameson reference preceded by Lyndsie Lohan, Paris Hilton, Pam Anderson, etc. He is so relevant! No wonder people cannot make up their minds if they like or dislike him.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
44:00: is the way we dress really biblical exegesis? Sorry fellas, but I like sweat pants. 40 or 50 pairs of shoes? Hair cut every 2-3 weeks? I’m bald! His exegesis here, which is barely exegesis as I have pointed out, is very little do with Scripture and more to do with culture. And despite his loathing of the ‘cultural standard of beauty’ he is spending a large amount of time telling us the way we should should look, dress, and groom ourselves to meet that standard he despises.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It seems a little contrary to say “there’s too much sexual sin, lets stop talking about what the scriptures ssay about sex.”
September 26th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Bo - whatdo the Scriptures SAY about sex? The marriage bed is undefiled. Show me the supposed plethera of Scriptures that actually teach about sex and not the morality concerning its practice.
I’ll give you “kissing breasts”, now what else?
September 26th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I would suggest that more teaching about deepening our devotion to Christ, setting aside an hour or more for daily prayer, consuming the Word personally, removing all outward hinderances that may taint our spirits away from Christ, guarding our eyes from evil, watching our mouths, cleansing our hearts, and a daily walk of repentance may do much more to curb sexual sin in the church than more teaching on sex.
That’s just me.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Friends,
Well, I listened and watched. I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t think he took it so literally that he should be classified as a profound exegete, but he didn’t do any damage to the text. I disagree that SoS is ‘primarily’ about sex, but that’s just me and I haven’t written any books or spent significant time with John Piper.
The q & a was corny–esp when he asked his wife to answer questions, she did, and then he gave another 5 minutes on her answer as if her answer wasn’t good enough (oh, I was also amused that he had to announce that the preaching time was officially over so that his wife could join him on stage, and then he invited her to pray to close the service). I learned more about him than i cared to know. The q & a might work in Seattle, but I don’t know if the 15 widows in my congregation would care too much to ask those questions or hear the answers my wife and i might provide.
Eh, whatever. I don’t see what the fuss is all about. His exegetical skills are a little weak, and his 30 minute introduction seems to have a lot to do with culture at large and little to do with the Christian marriage that he claims SoS is ‘primarily’ about. No one denies that sexual stuff is too heavy in our culture, but how relevant is that too the Christian marriage? Again, he explained the text well, but he provided no real concrete application of the text other than ‘get naked and enjoy pleasure’ (at one point going so far as to claim that our ‘bodies are made for pleasure’; very Piperish.)
I think he misses the point. Israel was surrounded, as he noted, by pagan cultures where sexual perversion prevailed and was an indication of their reliance upon idols. Sexual perversion in the OT frequently, if not always, points to idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant God. How, then, would such a faithful expression of sexuality in SoS, between a husband and a wife, point Israel and Christians to faithfulness in our relationship with God and cause us to reject idolatry? (See Hosea, Ephesians 5 e.g.) Thus, I reject the idea that SoS is primarily about sex. It is primarily about a faithful sexual relationship within a marriage that points to faithfulness to God and a rejection of idolatry. I think he missed that.
That’s my .02. I suppose in Seattle, to a ’seeker’ audience, this sort of handling of the Scripture might work. But I really don’t think Driscoll has handled the Scripture very well here at all. Nor do I think for a minute it would pass muster with some of the folks Driscoll rubs shoulders with, i.e., DA Carson, David Wells, etc.
jerry
September 26th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Wow, evangelical scholarship really is suffering if all you can come up with from the whole of scripture is “kissing breasts” and “marriage bed undefiled”.
Sola scriptura indeed.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
As long as we’re on the issue, what is amazing to me is that evangelicals manage to work out all kinds of convoluted application based on very little scripture. What roles women are allowed to have, or not have down to some very exacting standards, exactly which english words are naughty, which candidate should be voted for, what constitutes a church service, and it goes on and on and on. Yet, when it comes to romantic relationships which do indeed include sex the most application that can be worked up without calling out the dogs is “marriage bed undefiled”.
Wow, color me blown away. In a world where the world “defiled” and its derivatives are reserved for vampire novels the sum total of evangelical advice is “marriage bed undefiled”. What a rich, deep well of wisdom is being drunk from.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Bo - beside your rant I am waiting for the list of Scriptures that describe and give advice on the act itself.
Does the Bible give positional advice?
Does it give frequency advice?
Does it give technique advice?
Does it give practical romantic advice?
Does it give advice on how far you can go when you are single?
Does it tell us the erotic zones?
Does it tell us what ages are the highest sexual desire in the genders?
Does it give contraceptive advice?
Does it give enhancement advice?
Music? Lotions? Toys?
**************
Before I became a Christian I did not need anyone to show me how to do things. And the Bible is very general on the subject, concentrating mainly upon the morality of sex and some very general guidlines for married couples (do not use it as a weapon, etc). Other than that, all teaching on sex is practical and derived by experience, but does not come from Scripture.
That is precisely why some jump on Song of Solomon because it contains a few verses that deal with romantic intimacy.
Does the Bible help us with impotency? How about some difficulties some women have? Does it deal with pre-salvation guilt? The use of alcohol as an enhancement? Self gratification? Breast augmentation? And hundreds of other issues?
So Bo, I am not a Puritan, but the Scriptures are basicall silent on these things. And when men like Driscoll find oral sex in an obscure Scripture it shows how desperate we are to find something about sex in the Bible. This is the first century that men and women could not be satisfied with themselves without a comparitive teaching that stes standards and teaches many things that are purely opinion and somnetimes lead to guilt and inqdequacy.
And to top it all off, these guys claim they are exegeting Scripture. Wow, just wow.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I have not heard the whole sermon, yet - thanks to Jerry for the running commentary.
Why all the discussion about sex teaching in the Scriptures - other than as a tangential thread?
The OP is about Camp completely misrepresenting Driscoll… to find fault with the sermon (e.g. Jerry’s critique) is one thing… to twist it into the claims of Camp is wrong. It appears Camp would rather play the emotion card instead.
If we want to take the Scriptures at their simplest level. It is obvious that SoS is about intimacy and love between man and wife. It involves sex, but it’s not about sex. It may serve as an metaphor for the church and Christ, but it’s not about the church and Christ.
Neil
September 27th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Rick,
You did not come anywhere close to touching my point. You adhere to a lot of theology that isn’t supported by scripture. You come up with “women can’t be deacons, elders or preach, or must be under a male authority” based on a verse that probably concerns polygamous elders. Southern Baptist churches call those who minister to children “directors” based on this same verse, there are entire books written on these very few verses, and currently the SBC is working itself up into a lather over orthodoxy on these very complex, some might say legalistic, theologies based on a bare modicum of verses at best.
And yet, somehow nothing more than more than “marriage bed undefiled” can be commented on when you’ve got Ruth, Esther, SoS, much of the OT Law, Jacob and his wives, Isaac and his wife, Hosea, Jesus’ teachings concerning marriage, and Paul’s admonitions.
Oh sure, if it comes to an argument about the nature of communion we can line up theologians on all sides and beat each other bloody with arguments. Women’s roles? Why that’s a matter of orthodoxy. The nature of baptism? That’s worth splitting churches over. Music styles? Better not have that evil backbeat in there. But talk about romantic love and you come up with three words.
The next time you want to complain about the sexual sin in the church just remember you nutty Protestants decided that all scripture had to say about it was “marriage bed undefiled”. Its hardly a big surprise that hormones of all ages find that to be a ridiculously unsatisfying way to view romance.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Welcome to post-modernism.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
why is Hank Hanegraaff (another good friend of Driscoll’s silent on Driscoll’s behavior and sermons
both Hank Hanegraaff and John Piper need to explain themselves for not speaking out on Driscoll’s smutty sermons and behavior
September 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
My only point in the running commentary is to point out that Driscoll may well be ‘literal’ in his explanation of the SoS, but he is hardly avoiding an allegorical reading of the text in his application. If exegesis is the attempt, using historically accepting hermeneutic skills, to draw out meaning, Driscoll failed the test (IMO). He told us what a face value reading of the text is, but he did not draw out the meaning beyond that face value reading. He application is weak–eg. his explanation of a woman being forced, carried, or led into the bedroom. Give me a break; that’s as allegorical as it can get!
Frankly, I don’t see what Camp should be upset about. Driscoll didn’t necessarily harm the text, but neither did he avoid the allegorical reading of it either. That is, I sincerely doubt the applications he made given the explanation of the text he gave. I hardly think that Solomon and his unnamed girlfriend or wife were thinking about sex practices of Christians in the year 2008. That is a serious, serious stretch of the imagination.
Besides, can we really trust a man who had 300 wives and 700 concubines? Seriously. That’s not someone I am looking for sexual advice from.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“Besides, can we really trust a man who had 300 wives and 700 concubines?”
Exactly. Solomon had a lot of wisdom, but that is one area where is was lacking. Like taking sexual advice from Hugh Hefner and claiming it is from God. The love David and Jonathan had was greater than the love between a man and a woman. Our love for Christ can be illustrated by roamntic love but that still needs the Spirit to lift it higher than our thoughts.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
J,
You wrote: “both Hank Hanegraaff and John Piper need to explain themselves for not speaking out on Driscoll’s smutty sermons and behavior”
I haven’t listened to all of Driscoll’s sermons, but the one we are discussing here was hardly ’smutty’ and his behavior was nothing remotely close to ’smutty.’
For the record, Driscoll is accountable for Driscoll; not Piper, not Hanegraff. Driscoll.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Driscoll surely isn’t accountable to me, he is accountable to his elders. I do not question his calling or him personally, I speak about the issue of methodology and exegesis.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
actually since Driscoll is close friends with Piper and Hank Hannegraff and hides himself behind them when he gets intro trouble
they are somewhat responsible for not speaking out.
BTW, has anyone read a related article on this called:
Would the Real John Piper Please Stand
Up?
http://defendingcontending.com/2008/09/25/would-the-real-john-piper-please-stand-up/
September 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It seems like whenever someone (almost EVERYONE) talks about Driscoll talking smutty and disgusting, they never actually state what exactly what it is that he said was disgusting. They complain that he should not be talking like that to a church audience or from the pulpit (as opposed to off the pulpit?), however, as I am learning in my pulpit speech class in school right now, one of the core tasks in giving a sermon is to know your audience. If I were to go speak before my class (all 24 years or younger) and speak in MacAurther or Washer style of language, most would tune out and/or find my examples vague and boring. It is not that they are horrible speakers, not at all, but rather that they simply do not relate well to younger people sometimes. Here’s a quote that I love that explains it:
“It is not the Word of God that fails to capture people, it is who the Word of God is going through that fails to capture people.” As an addition to that, is it really so unreasonable to think that someone WILL NOT reach everyone? Whoever I can reach, you may not. Whoever you may reach, I may not. Hence….both of us reach out.
In most churches that seem to use “coarser” language, they’re filled with younger people. Yes, our generation is over-exposed with sex, violence, corruption, temptation, abuse, etc, however, in that overabundance of crudeness and filth, we do also find (at the very least) a wider sense of freedom. The language useable without offending is wider, the examples given can be more exact as we are more comfortable discussing them, we are not as afraid to approach certain subjects with a light sense of humor as to keep the subject being talkable and not overwhelmingly serious and seemingly “so holy that mortal lips shall not speak of it”. If someone speaks in a way that someone else finds crude, but brings people to Jesus because of it, then I think that it is questionable as to whether or not it actually is crude.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Dr. Don Kistler on Foul-Mouthed Preachers such as Mark Driscoll
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/slicecast/2008/09/27/dr-don-kistler-on-foul-mouthed-preachers/
September 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
That author should stop attributing to the Spirit his own subjective feelings. The next time he gets gas I fully expect John Piper to be ex communicated.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
There does seem to be metamorphosis in Piper’s ministry. I can recall 5 or six years ago he seemed different. His humility seems at odds with Driscoll’s sometimes smugness.
Oh well.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
J - how about speaking for yourself?
Thus far, you’ve not cited anything from this particular sermon/OP as “coarse” or “smutty”, instead just posting Armchair Mafia links.
There’s a reason we upgraded the Submissions form to be visible only to the moderators…
September 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
BTW:
what is said at:
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/slicecast/2008/09/27/dr-don-kistler-on-foul-mouthed-preachers/
said it way better than I can.
we need to start havind godly preachers, not Preachers like Driscoll acting like raunchy stand-up comics
September 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
BTW what is wrong with preaching like Paul Washer or Chuck Spurgeon
or is they are too biblically conservative
September 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
rick who posted in a earlier is right but:
Driscoll has said he is accountable to national church leaders
(because he is not acountable to his local congregation,
nor his elders who he can fire at will).
Just watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE3FHMTAWHY
September 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
“nor his elders who he can fire at will”
Do you have proof of that, since that would mean they are not actually elders.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
rick, just listen to the clip at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE3FHMTAWHY
September 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I listened and you are correct. But I was already convinced of Driscoll’s smugness and careless humor and “Comic’s Night Out” style of preaching. If it is true that he has the power he says he does than he has set up his own church based upon his own opinion and power.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
it looks as if Mark Driscoll has some competiton in the being a relevant pastor in washington category:
http://www.eastlakecc.com/
September 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
BTW - Usuing the actions of Nehemiah in beating people as somehow reflective to the tone and manner in which we who follow Christ should act is another example of self serving and tortured exegesis.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
J,
This thread is not a submissions form. Please use the submissions page for your links.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
R - I didn’t realize we had any “competition” in the church. Also, I’d point out that Driscoll’s purpose isn’t being a “relevant pastor” - it’s being a pastor who is in tune with the heart of his own flock, not everyone else’s…
J - the next post of yours that consists of little more than a link goes into moderation…
September 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I read the Steve Camp’s article and believe that you have totally misrepresented what he said.
I wonder if others are reading his article for themselves or just taking your assessment.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
amy, what do you expect?
this CRN info blog is used to misrepresenting certain christians
for agenda reasons
anyone who is critical of Driscoll and Rick Warren and others like them automatically gets persecuted on here.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
chris, you said
it’s being a pastor who is in tune with the heart of his own flock, not everyone else’s…
then what U are saying and you maybe right
is that Driscoll’s congregation enjoys smutty language and his kind of antics
and is attracted to a church that will make them “feel-good” rather than teach them to be “holy”
if that is true than that proves that
2 Timothy 4:3-4
is happening
and that there are folks out there attracted to certain churches that will giving them itching ears
instead of good preaching and holiness
September 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I believe we’ve found a second princess in this thread.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
j,
you wrote: “anyone who is critical of Driscoll and Rick Warren and others like them automatically gets persecuted on here.”
This is simply not true. I have expressed my unhappiness with Driscoll here in this very thread and no one has said boo to me. If you also note the OP, Chris L said that he has issues with Driscoll too. We are not apologists for Driscoll, we are opposed and concerned to people making random drive by accusations and attacks without any factual data to support their assertions.
Please note my several comments in this thread where I have openly criticized the nature of Driscoll’s sermon and his handling of the SoS and not one of the other writers has persecuted me once. Please spare us your martyr complex. Deal with the post. Deal with the sermon in question then you will see just exactly how welcome you will be to share your opposing point of view.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Bo,
“I believe we’ve found a second princess in this thread”
Man, that’s cold.
lol.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Perhaps the next time you go to misuse scripture in this manner and slander a pastor you should pick someone who isn’t a theologically conservative preaching in the most progressive city in America.
Feel free to spread that tip around to your fellow liars and slanderers free of charge.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Well, to be kind, I didn’t address Steve’s petty complaints (like about how Mark doesn’t have enough notes with him for the sermon at the pulpit), and just stuck with his big bits of caterwauling, like the condescending:
Linked to a Chuckie Spurgeon sermon. Who cares?
Maybe Steve should just stick to lambasting his own pastor online, instead of whining about ones thousands of miles away…
September 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Maybe Driscoll’s language isn’t smutty? Maybe you haven’t bothered to listen to the sermon in question?
I’d be willing to bet money on that, since you won’t find “smutty language” there.
Yeah, you’ve definitely not listened to the sermon in question. Mark is pretty blunt, and he says a number of things to his congregation that I doubt make them “feel good” because they do call them to holiness.
Perhaps, as well, you’re not all that familiar with Mars Hill Seattle, which has been picketed on a number of occasions for its stands on homosexuality, women in leadership and personal holiness.
Go buy a clue, J…
September 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
FYI, Jerry -
The Q&A at the end of the sermon has happened every week this year, as they instituted a service where anyone at any of the campuses can text in questions during the sermon. One of Mark’s elders sorts through them and selects about 10-20 minutes’ worth and serves them up for Mark to answer impromptu.
I thought it was a pretty unique way of maintaining order while still trying to foster community interaction with Scripture and application.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“this CRN info blog is used to misrepresenting certain christians
for agenda reason”
That is a gross miscaricature and sweeping assessment. Most times they are fair, sometimes they are human. As you can see, I for one am allowed to post very strongly worded disagreements. That does not reflect some non-interactive blogs.
I will always disagree on some issues, but do not use that as a springboard to characterize the entire blog. All the writers love Christ and attempt to be fair. Look at Jerry’s critique, it isn’t in lockstep with some other writers.
I appreciate the writers here, they may not always feel the same with me. (maybe not always?)
September 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Chris,
I am aware of that. I just think that is one of those contextual things that works well in his environment, but it will not work well in every environment. That’s all I was saying. Although, it might be fun to try it in my church just to see what happens. Thanks.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
If guys like Driscoll don’t address this its just going to leave people to get info elsewhere. Most singles are sexually active so why is it so wrong for some pastor to talk about it? Most christians in singles groups are not virgins anymore. Let’s get real. The same people ranting against this kind of teaching are forgetting their own histories when they were single and how hard it is to stay a virgin before getting married. There is a lot of hypocrisy going on here where guys like Driscoll are just getting for real and trying to give some help.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
BTW Chris - I feel your pain.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Cheeno,
I don’t think that is quite the point here. I, for one, am not personally opposed to Driscoll addressing these issues–not even from the pulpit. I suppose he should and I too will rejoice that he has the nerve to do it. You may or may not have been addressing me, but from my point of view he just did not handle Scripture with much acuity. I’m with Rick on this one: there is just nothing he said that is of particular interest to the authors of Scripture. That is the thrust of my objection: His particular use of SoS was poor, his exegesis weak at best, and his application of his weak exegesis really distorted the otherwise beautiful message of SoS about faithfulness to God within a covenant marriage in the midst of pagan perversions of sexuality and rampant idolatry involving those sexual perversions.
Those who wrote Scripture were not thinking of the 21st century concerns of sexual singles in America. They were thinking of God and how God would set straight his world which we fouled up with sin. Sex may be a periphery issue in Scripture (Paul does address virgins, marriage beds, celibacy, and sexual purity among other things), but I seriously doubt that Scripture deals with sex the way Driscoll talked about in his sermon. It is just not there.
I would have no problem with what he said if he had not brought up Scripture to say it. The first 30 minutes of the sermon had little to do with THE primary point of Scripture (Jesus Christ) and his application of the Scripture to his topic was convoluted and abstract at best. I may as well have been listening to Dr Phil for all the lack of profundity from someone claiming to be on the cutting edge of Scriptural exposition and exegesis.
I think he shortchanged his audience–seekers as they were. Frankly, I think there is a much better subject to teach to young sexually active Seattlites and it may have something to do with finding wholeness and satisfaction in Jesus as opposed to sexual dalliance (as a good disciple of Piper would want to do). That would be a radical message. (And I’m sure Driscoll does that in other sermons.)
Even his point, that he repeated over and over, that everything he was saying was with respect to the marriage bed is lost if he was merely addressing sexually active singles at any one of the Mars Hill Campuses. His point should be that even in marriage sex is not the main point. Even in marriage our satisfaction comes first from Jesus Christ.
jerry
September 27th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
PS–I wonder if, following Driscoll’s ‘literal’ interpretation of SoS, I wonder…how would I preach this same Scripture to my congregation of widows and senior citizens?
And yet, I should preach it right?
September 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“Frankly, I think there is a much better subject to teach to young sexually active Seattlites and it may have something to do with finding wholeness and satisfaction in Jesus as opposed to sexual dalliance”
The core issue indeed, Great sentence that I had to read three times to digest.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I read Camp’s article and responded to it. He (camp) completely misrepresents what Driscoll did. Camp says Driscoll made fun of the Lord - He did no such thing.
Neil
September 29th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Just because someone makes an interpretive move with a text doesn’t mean that they’ve stepped into allegory.
Allegory is distinct category of reading that points away from any literal correlation. The texts, in an allegorical reading, serve to illustrate principles/theoretical concepts, etc.
For Driscoll to say that one verse is about oral sex is not allegory. He is interpreting a poetic passage that uses language about some kind of physical act in such a way to offer an explanation about a literal physical act.
This may seem like a technical issue, but let’s be technical about how we use a word like “allegory”, lest more confusion abounds.
If what you mean is that Driscoll is making hermeneutical decisions about the text and that, in principle, is no different than the hermenuetic decisions of a reader like Spurgeon, then your point is well taken…
but then it still leaves the questions in place here:
On what basis do you traffic in a “plain meaning” hermeneutic elsewhere, but not here in the SOS?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Maybe, maybe not… obviously different passages of Scripture have different audiences in mind.
I see three options regarding Sos and widoes and senior citizens; 1) skip it, 2) preach it literally even though it may or may not be relevant to the, 3) allegorize it to be the relationship between the church (and therefore them) and God…
In my estimation option three is least desirable since it does the most violence to Scripture.
Neil
September 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Allegory in Scripture are literal word pictures that point to literal truths. How can we know which is which?
* Does the literal hermeneutic make sense?
* Does the literal hermeneutic fit with other Scriptures.
* What is the overall purpose of the book.
* Is there other Scriptures that support the truth you are teaching?
To see oral sex in the SoS is just a reflection of a sex obsessed society and a careless exegesis by someone who draws controversy. It is curious that no one saw this deep spiritual truth before Driscoll who is known for his sensational exegesis and base language and descriptive terms.
I am sure Driscoll’s series will draw much attention because of his provocative style.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:31 am
It’s certainly not a hill I’m going to die on, but I can certainly see the logic in seeing that passage referring to something like oral sex. When you at other literature from that era, it isn’t uncommon to refer to female genitalia in floral terms or as gardens. It makes sense when think of how often terms like “seed” were used to describe the man’s contribution.
I’m not saying it’s a how-to manual, or that it’s a major point of the book. But it is there. It’s true that Americans probably don’t need much help in that area, but that’s not the point. It wasn’t primarily written with a 21st-century American audience as the primary reader.
To say that no one saw it is sort of an overstatement. There was a reason that Jewish boys weren’t allowed to read it until they were at the age of accountability.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
If it means what Driscoll says it is the only Scripture that says that so there is no other support. I guess God wanted to let everyone know he was in favor of oral sex. Of course God is not in favor of divorce, but we pick and choose what we like.
Do the Scriptures deal with anal sex? Or is God’s silence mean disapproval? Driscoll is exegetically provocative and in my judgment wrong. I have no idea what God thinks about oral sex - He didn’t say.