This Page

has been moved to new address

MacArthur is still upset

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Wide White: MacArthur is still upset

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

MacArthur is still upset

Two weeks ago Mark Driscoll honored John MacArthur in a blog post, despite MacArthur's past criticism of Driscoll.

Yesterday, MacArthur slammed Driscoll in an article titled, "The Rape of Solomon's Song."

Rape?

Seriously?

I haven't listened to Driscoll's sermon series on the Song of Solomon, but my wife and other friends have and I haven't heard any reports that warrant that kind of accusation.

MacArthur adds that Driscoll has "boldly led the parade down [a] carnal path."

Having visited Driscoll's church and listened to him speak a few times doesn't make me a Driscoll expert and I do have serious reservations about him. He has weaknesses with pride and bridling his tongue that I don't think can be overlooked (and in fairness, I don't think he overlooks) and have damaged his ministry.

But MacArthur's handling of Driscoll - especially in comparison with how others such as my own pastor (John Piper) have treated him - have only served to give me greater reservations about MacArthur.

23 Comments:

Blogger watchman declared,

MacArthur is the pastoral equivalent of the ornery guy down the street who waves his cane at the young whippersnappers and their rock & roll music.

"Quiet down with carnality! Lawrence Welk is on!"

4/15/2009 11:48 AM  
Blogger ron declared,

This comment has been removed by the author.

4/15/2009 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

In response to "watchman," who said, "MacArthur is the pastoral equivalent of the ornery guy down the street,..." I say, "Please do your research before slamming a godly pastor, who has the courage to declare it is not fitting for a pastor to add figments of this OWN sexual imaginations to the Word of God!" As also posted at the Mars Hill blog by Driscoll are his recommendations for an*l sex, sex toys and Christian Nymphos. So Watchman, you have no problem with this? Do you also have no problem with Driscoll bragging that he knows all the "breast verses" in the Bible because men like breasts? What is the response of the audience when he talks like this? They all laugh. Are you laughing too? ...Driscoll is taking men through the gutter and you don't even discern what is happening. Driscoll brings shame and discord to the Body of Christ by his offenses. For sure, he also owes Christian women an apology for trying to lay a guilt trip on them if they feel uncomfortable or "dirty" about engaging in his sex toys and HIS other sexual ideas, such as women stripping to Marvin Gaye. I guess John Piper would rather be popular with the young men, who cant seem to discern that they have been seduced by the culture, which includes a liberal education system that would agree with Driscoll's opinions on an*l sex and sex toys. Watchman, you have a lot to learn!

Cathy

4/16/2009 1:51 PM  
Blogger ron declared,

Yikes Cathy. In a certain way you're saying what I'm thinking. I think Driscoll's style is somewhat representative of the larger juvenile trajectory our culture is on.

In the end there should be healthy talk of sex, but I tend to agree with you. Driscoll likes to get a laugh and seems comfortable using juvenile language. Those who defend him claim a generational or cultural gap - MacArthur's offended because he's old and out of touch. Well, I call that maturity.

I will say though that Driscoll has shown willingness to listen. And I will admit I just don't understand some of his rationale for how he preaches (in my mind contextualization run amok), but I've not yet resolved what I think about that.

4/16/2009 4:32 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Wow, talk about misinformed. Driscoll has a link somewhere on his site to another site that has a product line including sex toys, but I've never seen him endorse anything to the extent that Cathy alluded to. Besides, I can't exactly give Cathy much of an "amen" when she slams my pastor like that...

I agree with Ron in that I have my reservations about Driscoll, but I'm not even close to being on the same page as Cathy.

And now I need to go look up Lawrence Welk to find out who he is...

4/16/2009 5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

Guys,....do your homework!

Check out these links at Mark Driscoll's church blog. Note the link to Christian Nymphos. See the different sex toys he is recommending.

http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/11/30/question-21-can-i-perform-anal-sex-on-my-wife/

http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/11/30/question-22-can-we-use-sex-toys/

Here is the professional opinion regarding Driscoll's ideas from Dr. Judith Reisman, an expert on the influence of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey is considered the father of the sexual revolution and his ideas became the basis for liberal sex education in this country.

"Well, this is, at best, tragic. I don't know if it is worse to think that
these are phony church sites put out by pornographers or that they are real
church sites put out by pornified churches.
Words can not describe the ignorance, arrogance and flagrant homoeroticism
of these sites...."
JA Reisman, PhD

Here is the link to the sermon Driscoll gave bragging how he knew all of the breast verses. I realize Driscoll took off the Scotland sermon he gave in 2007, which was over the top, but that was only surface cleaner. This sermon is still on his church site.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/proverbs/lovemaking

If you guys cannot see why this is wrong from a biblical stand point, and also cannot see the negative ramifications of Mark Driscoll putting his stamp of approval on homoeroticism and announcing to the world he likes breasts, there is not much more I can say. I have warned you.

If your pastor is validating or ignoring this "other side" of Driscoll, or making excuses for him, it may be time for you to look for another pastor. I apologize for being so brutally honest, but as a Christian woman, I am flabbergasted that you men are not demonstrating more discernment and leadership qualities. Mark Driscoll is taking the church through the gutter and few have the courage of a John MacArthur to risk everything for the purity of the Church.

God help us because we are in over our head,
Cathy

4/16/2009 11:10 PM  
Blogger Mitch declared,

Cathy,

Thank you for pointing out Judith Reisman. The following is an excerpt from her wikipedia page with the related sources:

Reisman says that there are chemicals in the brain, which she has dubbed "erototoxins,"[5][6] that are produced by watching pornography and that have toxic influences on the brain.[7] Reisman lists these "erototoxins" as testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, glucose, dopamine, serotonin, and phenylethylamine.[6] While some of these chemicals are related to arousal or orgasm, none are specifically associated with toxicity or the viewing of erotic images.
5 ^ Drjudithreisman.com Archives
6 ^ a b Testimony before the United States Senate, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on "The Brain Science Behind Pornography Addiction and the Effects of Addiction on Families and Communities" November 18, 2004
7 ^ Erototoxin Dr. Judith Reisman. Accessed 13 February, 2007

4/17/2009 8:12 AM  
Blogger ron declared,

I've not listened to or read much of this side of Driscoll. There is a tendency on my part that if I don't like something it must be wrong, and I need to be careful about that.

On the other hand the links you provided are disturbing. I agree with MacArthur that the subject matter is not pulpit material or for large public consumption; it is better left in private settings. Even more disturbing though are the opinions on certain sex acts and behavior.

I suppose a person could argue Driscoll's finally getting it right, for at one time it was sinful to stray from the missionary position. Something tells me that's not the case here.

4/17/2009 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

Joey,

If you care about Mark Driscoll,... until he cleans up this "other, dark side,"... I encourage you to please remove his blog from your list of the blogs you visit. You are sending a very mixed message. Do you agree with this "other side," not to mention all of the other irreverent ways he handles the Word of God?

Men, like John Piper, should be obeying Scripture when a pastor is walking or talking in a manner like Driscoll.According to Scriptural standards, he is not fit for the pulpit. If Piper is taking credit for mentoring Driscoll, wow, he isnt doing a very good job. Instead,... after this dirty side of Driscoll comes to the surface,Piper continues to provide cover for Driscoll. Hence, Driscoll is not forced to repent of planting his filth in the minds of young, impressionable men or of abusing women. To make matters worse, men like Piper are highlighting Driscoll at next week's Gospel Coalition's conference.

On national TV Driscoll was asked his opinion of those who describe his teachings as "the pornification of the church." He said, "They are women over 60 who live in the woods and do not understand what I am trying to do." Well, in response to his put down, I say, "Mark, many of us women have been around the block a few more times than you have and we know exactly what you are doing."

Is it any wonder the culture is going down the tube when we now have pastors like Driscoll adding their kinky ideas to a book of the Bible and telling Christian couples to pray about whether or not to engage in homoerotic sexual behavior?Once Driscoll has opened the door of Christian minds to accept this perversion, we all know the next step. Homosexuals must be laughing.

To Watchman: If I have a choice between Driscoll and Lawrence Welk, I pick Lawrence Welk. At least that generation had enough sense to know when it was time to come in out of the rain!

I pray some of you men will read the book of Jude because we are living it.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share the heaviness of my heart. Words cannot express how grateful I am for John MacArthur. Few men display such courage in the face of a carnal church.

God help us,

Cathy

4/17/2009 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Mitch declared,

I don't know why you continue to insist that Driscoll approves of homoeroticism. Can you explain how the belief that marriage between a husband and a wife is the only place for sex is homoerotic? Are you all sure you know what homoerotic means? The fact that Driscoll went farther than most pastors would have to dispute the Christ and the individual mythology is an understandably offensive overstep. The fact that he continued to dispute this mythology in these terms is an understandably offensive thing. But to suddenly make the leap that he is in favor of homoeroticism is a blantant untruth.

4/17/2009 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

Mitch,

This is not a comfortable area we are now in. Therefore, to help you understand homoeroticism, please contact Dr. Judith Reisman. She is very accessible and she can explain why she descibed those particular sites of Driscoll's as homoerotic. I have some articles she sent me but I cant quickly locate them on my computer and I need to leave for a while.

In the meantime, here is an article she recently wrote titled, "Kinsey's Sex in the Pulpit." Driscoll is mentioned in her article at
http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-4782/Brannon-Howse/Judith-Reisman

Dr. Resiman is considered one of the most informed expert witness in the country on these subjects. If she says these sites are homerotic, I would not ignore her concerns.

Cathy

4/17/2009 10:37 AM  
Blogger ron declared,

homoerotic: marked by, revealing, or portraying homosexual desire

Driscoll is endorsing that.

That being said, there are many things that don't make sense here. Driscoll has gone too far with certain things and it needs to be addressed. I do think Piper and Mahaney should respond.

4/17/2009 10:39 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I'm reluctant to join in the conversation since this isn't what I intended to start with my post.

But since this is my blog, I suppose I should respond.

1. Regarding the two links from Cathy to Driscoll's blog, I find nothing wrong with the content of those posts and Driscoll says, "We do not endorse everything on this website" before providing the link.

2. I listened to the audio link and wasn't comfortable with everything presented, but I'm also not convinced I can call any of it sinful in and of itself. I also have to consider that the sermon was 7 years ago and Driscoll has certainly matured since then.

3. I've never found any example of Driscoll endorsing homoeroticism and would like to see the evidence of that accusation.

4. The witch hunt has got to stop, and that was really the point of this post in the first place. The fact that a previous commenter knew the Marvin Gaye reference says that she probably sat and listened to that sermon, picking apart pieces she didn't like. This strikes me as rather spiteful and a waste of hours of her life.

I'm not a Driscoll apologist by any means. But I'm tired of the witch hunt to dig up any dirt that can be dug up on him and other Christians.

Too many bloggers and others take joy in finding who's on the wrong side of every issue, condemning them for being on the wrong side, and extolling the virtues of everyone else who joins them in their condemnation. I don't believe this brings glory to Christ.

4/17/2009 10:56 AM  
Blogger Mitch declared,

Thanks Ron your definition is a bit different than the one I found and I can see what you could be talking about. I still don't think he's endorsing it. He put quite a few qualifiers on it and honestly I don't think many couples could make it through all the qualifiers. I do think he should show more judgement as to what is published and what comes out of his mouth. The Q&A thing is a good idea in principle, but caters to a weakness that Driscoll has admitted to.

4/17/2009 11:14 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

"I do think he should show more judgment as to what is published and what comes out of his mouth. The Q&A thing is a good idea in principle, but caters to a weakness that Driscoll has admitted to."

Well said Mitch.

4/17/2009 11:19 AM  
Blogger ron declared,

Oops. Sorry. I meant to say Driscoll isn't endorsing that.

4/17/2009 11:44 AM  
Blogger ron declared,

"But I'm tired of the witch hunt to dig up any dirt that can be dug up on him and other Christians."

Joey, there is no dirt digging going on. Driscoll has placed it in his front yard for all to see.

4/17/2009 11:46 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I guess I was thinking more of comments like the one about the Marvin Gaye song, 40 minutes into a 7-year-old sermon. That strikes me as dirt-digging.

There are a lot of people going to a lot of websites and running a lot of Google searches to find material that will help them shape a case against Driscoll.

Having said that, you're right: the front yard has dirt and I think he's at a point where no matter how many times he acknowledges his weaknesses and repents for things he has said, they will follow him to his grave.

And like I said, I just haven't listened or read him enough to even have a very well-informed opinion in the first place. One of my old pastors is now a pastor at his church though and my current pastor is friends with him and I've never had a reason to doubt the judgment of either of those pastors.

It's just amazing to see the spike in blog traffic when his name is mentioned. I've mentioned him 3 times in the last few weeks and each time it's been met with numerous Google hits and comments.

4/17/2009 12:10 PM  
Blogger Mitch declared,

Ron,

I hate to put words or ideas into Joey's mouth, but I think Joey is referring to the attitude that comes with listening to hours of sermons just to find 10 second snippets to call for the man to step out of the pulpit. That is dirt digging.

4/17/2009 12:13 PM  
Blogger Mitch declared,

I see that in the time I read your comment and posted Joey did say that is exactly what he meant.

4/17/2009 12:15 PM  
Blogger ron declared,

Mitch and Joey, I agree, there are too many people looking for trouble. I don't think this issue at large represents that. Driscoll's words have made it public. In reality I do believe Driscoll needs to adress the issue in a serious, cogent way. And you see, that's part of the aura he's created. I'm almost expecting a defense that will get all the hipsters chuckling at the old man MacArthur. Maybe not, but you get my point.

Also, I know Piper has befriended Driscoll and for that I'm glad. I do hope though that the friendship doesn't restrain what may be good for Driscoll to hear and heed. I suspect we may hear from Piper on the issue, but maybe not. I think it would be good for those of us who hold him in such high regard. And if they are public words that are hard for Driscoll to hear so be it. Then again, maybe he'd produce a rousing defense of Driscoll and we'll all be looking for new experiences SoS has stored in its verses, but I wouldn't bet on it.

4/17/2009 1:46 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Good summary Ron. Thanks for the input and dialogue. I agree, it would be great to hear from both Driscoll and Piper on the issue and I've debated asking Pastor Piper about it at church. Part of me wonders, though, if that would only serve to feed the piranhas...even if it would, I'd still be interested to hear a direct response.

4/19/2009 8:48 PM  
Blogger watchman declared,

Sorry that I missed out on this conversation. It turned out hilarious. I always enjoy the awkwardness of fundamentalists talking about sex.

Cathy said,
"As also posted at the Mars Hill blog by Driscoll are his recommendations for an*l sex, sex toys and Christian Nymphos. So Watchman, you have no problem with this?"

Nope. Your marriage is yours. You work it out with God. Same for Driscoll. Also, Christian liberty seems to be more in line with what Driscoll was saying. Although, I see that such Liberty is not well respected, of late.

Cathy said,
"Watchman, you have a lot to learn!"

Truer words have never been spoken.

7/14/2009 10:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home