This was a heart-wrenching day yesterday watching the above video promo. Not judging motives, but only being concerned with what I actually watched, several emotions came to mind:
1. Shock 2. Sadness 3. Tears 4. Righteous indignation 5. Outrage 6. More Outrage 7. Are you going to do something
I wrestled all day yesterday with whether I should post this here. But after seeking valued pastoral counsel and talking to a few other bloggers and ministries, I came to the conclusion that it is regrettably necessary. Necessary that you see firsthand what the concerns are surrounding this brother and his church. Necessary, for what's at stake is the worship, honor, reverence and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ in ministry. Necessary, because young pastors are being influenced by this and to model this in huge numbers. Necessary, because God's Word is being twisted to justify the ribald roughness. And necessary, for in a real way the future of the next generation of local church leaders is at stake. It is very necessary beloved.
May I encourage you to be a Berean today. Examine its claims with the Word of God and then let me know your thoughts. And be forewarned: the way Mark refers to the Lord Jesus Christ is blasphemous; the way he wrests Scripture is unnerving; and the way he views the text of Song of Solomon is pornographic.
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
I didn't hear him make a joke. I heard him mention an idea that others have that he doesn't think is true (and thinks it's ridiculous, so he finds the idea to be humorous), and I heard him not understanding how SoS could relate to Christ and the Church, and so make an extreme/outlandish statement based on his misunderstanding.
But I think *most* people don't understand SoS. So while I think he's missing a lot here, I'm not going to criticize him for it. I'm actually rather sad that he doesn't see the richness and depth in the book.
I'm a single woman who, as recommended by a trusted friend and counselor, read only SoS for 2 weeks when I was freaking out about moving across the country. I thought it was a ridiculous idea, but I did, and it brought a lot of piece and calm to me, hearing about God's deep love for His people -- for me.
I think SoS is a difficult book to "tackle" in our sex-obsessed society. There's so much garbage in our minds that we have to wade through when encountering this book. I feel like he shows some of that with how he jumps to certain conclusions if the book is talking about Christ and His people, and possibly when those comments get to people. To me it just shows a lack of understanding of what it means to be intimate with Jesus. Physical intimacy is not the only kind, but often I think people's brains jump there.
By God's grace, my mind has been kept pure in this area so I've been able to read SoS (and listen to this message) without any funny business in my mind. And I've essentially created a wall in my mind from going places it doesn't need to go. When a stray thought goes in that direction, I firmly cut it off and reign my thoughts in. Click here to reply to this post
Hold On
Posted On: 03/13/08 10:59:02 PM
Age 16, IN
Have you read these posts yet? If not, I recommend you do so, there's quite a backlog of debates to read. Click here to reply to this post
Restricted Study
Posted On: 03/09/08 03:59:55 PM
Age 16, IN
Does it strike you as odd that Steve says to examine SoS for ourselves, but sets us up for failure by placing restrictions on our study? Click here to reply to this post
I am afraid for him.
Posted On: 03/09/08 12:38:43 AM
Age 45, TN
If he is indeed a brother, and I really think he is, then he is REALLY asking for a big ole back-hand from the Almighty. Mark, please, PLEASE learn not to blaspheme before God has to discipline you. I am NOT KIDDING.
On the other hand... if he is just another poser, time will tell. He will continue to blaspheme, grow increasingly popular, make tons of money, write a few best-sellers, lead a bunch of folks to hell and die in the bulls-eye of God's wrath. Click here to reply to this post
Mark Driscoll
Posted On: 03/08/08 10:53:46 AM
Age 27, FL
I'm really pained to see this continued "outrage" and "more outrage" against Mark Driscoll. This is a man who with his wife and no money started what's become a very successful church in Seattle. Wait . . . not successful because lots of people show up, successful because he preaches God's word, he preaches against sin, he preaches the exclusivity and sufficiency of salvation in Jesus. Because of it he has been attacked, both spiritually and physically, on several occasions.
And to make all these worse, he's got his brothers in Christ scouring Youtube for reasons to criticize him. Please, pick any sermon, and listen to the whole thing. You will hear him preach, probably expositionally, from the Bible. The amount of painstaking study that goes into each sermon will be evident. You will hear him unapologetically condemn sin, and lift up Jesus Christ as our all sufficient savior. And you will thank God that he's raised up men like this one to take his Gospel to the Godless parts of his country.
Or . . . you can refuse to do those things and write articles attacking him at every opportunity.
Song of Songs - is not pornographic. It's a vivid illustration of a man and wife physically enjoying each other, an integral part of God's design and a rich illustration of God and his Church. When you remove the man and wife from Song of Solomon, as so many pious, virgin-eared interpreters have done, you are left with the absurd notion that God and the Church are enjoying each other physically. Driscoll is going to preach *From the Bible* on this matter, and simply pointed out the absurdity of the re-interpretation. I can see how you would be shocked at him taking the interpretation to its logical conclusion. Maybe you could write him an email, as a brother in Christ, and dialoge with *him* about his error.
Or you could continue to lambast and borderline- slander him on Christian Worldview Network while he's fighting for the gospel in a God-hating city. Click here to reply to this post
Should Christians Dialogue?
Posted On: 03/10/08 12:11:53 AM
Age 39, WA
A Christian does not 'dialogue' to consensus with anyone; (( Maybe you could write him an email, as a brother in Christ, and dialoge with *him* about his error)) but as Christ did, use the Word as the sword and let your 'yes' be 'yes' and 'no' be 'no'. Dialogue was Satan's idea, so common now even in church's, but first seen in the garden- with the snake~'hey Eve, lets talk about this, did God really say?.....We have no business going to this pastor to discuss his 'why's and how's', but tell him the truth from God's Word- we are not big enough to take God's place, and using man's wisdom to 'evangelize'is no wisdom at all. The bottom line is this, I am filled with the Spirit of Holy God, and as others commented, also have His Spirit-we are very uncomfortable with Mark's method's, his word's and his 'humor'; it is coarse and crude, and does not bear witness with the Word or my Spirit. Point in case, particularly the 19 year old's comment- it sure didn't edify s/he....to even bring ideas like 'gay' and the image, and the other 'visions' to mind are no different than the various other airwaves of the world, and this is not of God, my mind and heart didn't become more purified, more inclined to surrender, holiness and repentance, my mind was raped by perverse thoughts I had to rebuke- his message was just as much something I would keep my kids from as the California public schools. He is using God's Word as the 'good' to get away with this rough 'teaching', not unlike homosexuals wanting their lifestyle taught to 6 year olds so they can better understand, and market it as wholesome reality-way of the world. Garbage!!! Read 2 Peter 2:1-22
BTW-50,MN~ How does the fact his wife was a pastors daughter lend any credibility tothe man? Be not a respector of person's. We all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God- we all must go through the blood and repentance for salvation, she is no more righteous in Christ than any other life given to Him. She has a free will to sin as anyone else.....We do not know her condition. Sadly, that Mark is her head I am concerned with her 'solid foundation' as you would describe. Their situation sounds much like Casey Treat-Christian Faith Center, Seattle, he too was brought to the cross by his future wife....
I have a couple friends in 'Mars Hill', all I can say is that I shudder and pray at the lack of fear or regard for the holiness of God and no fear for the sins of our nation and destruction for her sins...all I can pray is for true PASSION for GOD to fill their hearts. I see a passion for everything around about God, but a lack of personal passion to serve him- HIS way. Only God knows their true condition, but again it comes to bearing witness.... Click here to reply to this post
Good works doesn't justify lame jokes
Posted On: 03/08/08 03:15:12 PM
Age 31, CA
While I agree that he has a successful church, this joke was just lame and I hope he apologized for it.
He can do all the right things, but then you can negate it all with comments like this.
His "I am a hip pastor" schtick is really lame and it diminishes from his messages. I can get the same message from other pastors who treat the word of God with more respect.
Also, I don't just post here, I do go out and share my faith and people like him make our job harder because he preaches a good word but then acts like an stupid sometimes with "I am a hip pastor" routines and totally failed in this instance. If he apologized, then cool. Otherwise, he deserves the slack he gets. Click here to reply to this post
RESPECT for GOD
Posted On: 03/06/08 09:47:43 AM
Age 46, TX
There is a wide gap between opinions and they point to the fact that many respect and fear GOD more than others.
This condition of the heart was prophesied many years ago in the Bible and it's coming to pass daily.
For Mark Driscoll or any other "Emergent church" admirer to use or defend this type of communication is simply revealing the pitifully true condition of their poor, blind and naked souls.
It doesn't take any wisdom to see Mark is directing this talk to worldly, unregenrate people. (Some call it sophisticated, relevant or contemporary language).
I call it crude, rude and obnoxious slang!
He wants to be perceived as cool or smart, but he comes off as disrespectful.
I mean why else would he or anyone talk like a pagan (people who have never repented of their old life and old ways?)
This video message is just a sign of the times we live in where religion is being melded together with those who love the world and its ways so much that they will "allegorically" crawl into bed with them and lay their sleeping souls down with the wicked and believe everything is well.
This is why the Bible states,
In the last days men will not ENDURE sound doctrine, but gather unto themselves teachers having itching ears telling them what they want to hear. They have no reason to treat GOD with respect and so they do not treat HIS word with RESPECT.
In essence they want acceptance of man, rather than RESPECT for GOD. HOW CRUDE! Click here to reply to this post
Mark Driscoll
Posted On: 03/05/08 05:52:25 PM
Age 61, MO
Mark Driscoll is a disgusting punk who cheapens every Biblical subject I've heard him speak on. He should keep his filthy thoughts to himself. I believe he purposes to talk the way he does so he can create a market for himself among a group of people that think such talk is cool. Whether or not we see the Song of Soloman as literal or figurative or both, it is a piece of beautiful poetry that does not deserve to be debased, thus blasphemed, in the manner Driscoll has chosen to do. George Cancilla Click here to reply to this post
Disgusting Punk
Posted On: 03/06/08 05:52:56 PM
Age 50, MN
You may not agree with Mark' methodology - but he IS a brother in Christ and it doesn't take listening to him long to realize that. You and he would most likely agree on almost everything theological you would discuss. To call a brother "a disgusting punk" is really pretty stunning and I would say tops pretty much anything you feel is out of line that has come out of his mouth. Click here to reply to this post
Hmm...
Posted On: 03/06/08 12:09:36 AM
Age 16, IN
You seem not to be reading these posts, Mr. Cancilla...
When it comes to Mark "cheapening every Biblical subject [you've] heard him speak on," let me ask you this: is this the only subject you've heard him speak on? While I agree that he should not have been so graphic in his introduction of a sermon series, it is evident in his sermons that he has a passion for Christ and would not intentionally blaspheme Him. The comment about Jesus being homosexual was not his personal stance, Mark was just taking the interpretation to its conclusion.
Before you make any other personal attacks on Mark, I recommend you listen to more of his sermons on a wide range of subjects at media.marshillchurch.org, under "Sermons" Click here to reply to this post
Sorry, but...
Posted On: 03/06/08 11:27:31 AM
Age 47, MO
Didn't Mark say that he is gay? He didn't say it with a tone of revealing personal sin, but as a matter of fact. If Mark retains his homosexuality as fact, how can he know Christ? Is a vessel both pure and impure? Can the HS exist where there is unrightousness? Mark may talk a good talk but he himself is living a lie. John Click here to reply to this post
We've got to do better
Posted On: 03/06/08 04:30:00 PM
Age 50, MN
Mark Driscoll has been married to a pastor's daughter, who helped lead him to Christ many years ago and they have at least 2 children. He is more conservative on sexual issues than most evangelical pastors, believe it or not, and believes homosexuality is sin. // Really this is the kind of misrepresntations we always want to accuse the left of, but yet we feel free to pass on ridiculous rumour and inneudo without even a second thought. Very shameful! Click here to reply to this post
Mark did say
Posted On: 03/07/08 02:20:56 PM
Age 47, MO
he is gay, which I heard distinctly, but just prior to that he said: "Other may say..." Sorry, I didn't hear that comment first go around, so you are correct. I don't know the man so I can't attest to his private life, only what I thought I heard him say...my bad. However, he was making an obsurd allegorical comment that some, including myself, find offensive. It seems that holiness and purity of truth that leads to a circumsized heart, is thrown out the window in favor of cultural relevence. But hey, he sure sounds cool. God would be so pleased!? I find your response stating: "Really this is the kind of misrepresntations we always want to accuse the left of, but yet we feel free to pass on ridiculous rumour and inneudo without even a second thought." to be quite interesting when I said: "Didn't Mark say he was gay?" A simple fact check would verify the veracity of that statement, though he stated it alegorically. Friend, you are quick to jump to the defense of a hip, cool, foolish "pastor" without a second thought. Perhaps you should rethink your position. John Click here to reply to this post
no regrets?
Posted On: 03/07/08 04:34:17 PM
Age 50, MN
a simple fact check - exactly, didn't you owe him and yourself that? - before you wrote what you did and if I hadn't responded how many people would of been misled by your statements? It appears no regrets on your part because it's all justified because you have an issue with his methods. //Again if you hear him preach or know what he believes I would bet you would have very little differences with him theologically - so if it's all cultural -who really has the problem and needs to rethink? Click here to reply to this post
The real issue is this.
Posted On: 03/08/08 10:32:47 AM
Age 47, MO
You wrote: " I would bet you would have very little differences with him theologically - so ... it's all cultural." Let's discuss your theological cultural distinction for a moment. Liberals in politics like to say they don't wear their faith on their sleeves. They like to say that their personal faith is just that, personal, and that it doesn't affect their governance or their politics. However, what is a man? Is he not a living soul in a tent of a body of dust? So the soul governs the body, and the spirit (if it's alive) has all authority. So then, man is his soul since the body will return to dust. The soul is our dreams, our hopes, our education, our experiences, our thoughts, our sins, our words, and our actions. Since our God; whether it is acceptance, alcohol, drugs, or Jesus, is "that which no higher can be thought," then indeed our theology and our cultural relevence are inter-connected. Basically, we are what we eat, think, and do. So no, Mark and I would not agree theologically and yet remain culturally diverse. Mark lives his theological conviction and it does not agree with mine. He may think of God as savior but not as LORD. Hope this helps clear up the difference. John Click here to reply to this post
Culture
Posted On: 03/11/08 09:41:45 AM
Age 50, MN
I don't totally understand your post - maybe we should just agree to disagree. Would I be correct in assuming then that you would not accept a American-Liberian Christian Church which looks totally culturally different or a Quaker Christian Church which is also very culturally different. I could give many more examples. I believe their theology is very orthodox, as I believe Mars Hill's is. //It seems most people's issue with Mark is he is 'trying to be hip' - he lives and breathes and was raised in a different culture than a lot of white middle class Americans - that doesn't compromise the gospel by itself anymore than be raised in a raucous Liberian church or a ultra conservative mennonite or quaker church.// It is the message, not the medium. Click here to reply to this post
Hope this helps
Posted On: 03/11/08 05:45:33 PM
Age 47, MO
The jist of what I was trying to say has nothing to do with religion or culture, Peter was a smelly fisherman, Paul was an elite pharisee, both quite diverse, yet you wouldn't be able to tell 1Peter from Philippians if you didn't know the author. This is because the author is Christ and Christ's words have nothing to do with cultural relevance but truth. Truth is relevant to all cultures and doesn't have to be cool to be true. If we try to make it cool, we actually subtract from it's truth, not add to it, since Christ's truth is already 100% true. We Christians are tasked to deliver the truth to the culture but in a way that honors our LORD, and in a way that the hearer is prepared to receive it. This is what Paul meant to become all things to all people. It is not what goes into the mouth that makes the person unclean, but what comes out. You said "It is the message, not the medium." You are correct, and Mark played the fool's role of a medium (performance actor) instead of messenger (servant) of God. John Click here to reply to this post
If the Message is the same?
Posted On: 03/12/08 09:48:54 AM
Age 50, MN
I guess I'm just not willing to say it's an "act" anymore than the Liberians dancing in the aisles or the Mennonites having females sit on one side of the Church and males on the other. I think he would be 'acting' if he put on a 3 piece suit and starting speaking in King James English which some pastors feel they have to do to be accepted by some congregations. //Jesus didn't change his approach for his audience, which is why he was hated by the organized church and loved by the people - sound familiar? Click here to reply to this post
Out of Context
Posted On: 03/06/08 03:47:09 PM
Age 16, IN
Saying that Mark has just stated that he is gay is to take his words out of context. In the same way, by taking Scripture out of context, I can say that the Bible says "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1, 53:1) Click here to reply to this post
Et Tu MO?
Posted On: 03/06/08 03:37:17 PM
Age 16, IN
Like I said, he is not stating that he is gay, but making point about how silly that interpretation of the text can become. In every one of his sermons related to the fact, he speaks against homosexuality, and from what I've heard, the Northwestern gay community hates him like every other God-fearing pastor!
-Proverbs 29:20 Click here to reply to this post
response
Posted On: 03/07/08 02:31:29 PM
Age 47, MO
Read my reply above and you will see how I derived my error. However, I do want to take issue with something you wrote in your response to George Cancilla. You wrote: "It is evident in his sermons that he has a passion for Christ and would not intentionally blaspheme Him." You don't see blaspheme in Mark's obsurd illustration? You see reverence, holiness, Creator-created distinction? I see new age pomp of Jesus as friend, lover, and our equal. Jesus said: "those who love me, keep my commands." Not, those who love me partner with me and are really cool. John Click here to reply to this post
Ahh...
Posted On: 03/09/08 03:56:25 PM
Age 16, IN
I do see your point, and I agree, but the manner in which he spoke in this ad struck me as strange. Compared to all the sermons I've heard, this sounds like he made his first foray into "mainstream" advertising and made a fool of himself in the process by trying to be "shocking." (Controversy makes for some of the best advertisement...) Click here to reply to this post
Indeed
Posted On: 03/10/08 08:52:00 AM
Age 47, MO
You think well and I hope the Lord continues to give you discernment throughout life. Thanks for correcting my oversight for it was unintentional.
BLESS GOD! John Click here to reply to this post
Maybe off base?
Posted On: 03/05/08 12:56:11 AM
Age 45, CANADA
Steve, I don't know too much about Mark Driscoll but this is what I discerned from the video:
1) Mark is correct in stating that the Song of Solomon is often allegorized/spiritualized when there is nothing in the text to indicate doing so (basics of hermenuetics; plain reading of the text when called for), therefore some teachers have come up/could come up with inappropriate allegories. In using the husband resting his head between his wife's breasts passage, could Mark have used a different example other than Jesus to cite an example of NT/OT allegory? Probably should have, BUT he wasn't saying that Jesus was gay but that that was what the allegory could come off sounding like.
2)I agree with some other posters that Mark probably should have skipped the whole explanation of what is being described between husband and wife but it seems that he was trying to make his point that that is what the text is describing, not an allegory of something else.
3)He seems to be a little rough around the edges and maybe undiscerning in what not to say or how graphic to get but I didn't hear anything blasphemous. This would seem to be a situation in where a brother/brothers in the LORD could take him aside and exhort him with the word.
Steve and posters, you might be interested to hear Mark give his testimony and speak on the emergent church movement at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2007 here:
http://www.sebts.edu/chapel/listenNow.cfm?FileID=396 Click here to reply to this post
Blunt, not blasphemous
Posted On: 03/04/08 11:17:16 PM
Age 19, CA
First, the blasphemy charge is against a joke made about the allegorizing of Song of Solomon. Mark wasn't making fun of Christ, he was making fun of the Christ of a false interpretation of Scripture. That doesn't seem to be illegitimate (unless Steve holds to this interpretation, in which case I could understand his concern). I still think Steve would be wrong. Nothing in Song of Solomon warrants allegorization.
Second, I appreciate Mark's willingness to not shush sexual topics. They seem to be taboo in the church and I don't think this is positive.
Third, Mark was too blunt with his words. It's enough to say that the book is sensual without telling me EXACTLY what kind of sensuality is going on. Look, I'm 19. I'm not exactly getting married tomorrow, so I'd appreciate it if images weren't put in my head. Click here to reply to this post
HMMM
Posted On: 03/08/08 03:20:25 PM
Age 31, CA
The way he went about it irritated me and does make it blasphemy.
He could've done so much better but wanted to sound hip and cool Click here to reply to this post
How dare he speak of the Lord Jesus like that? HOW DARE HE?
And this is the man that John Piper had come and speak at his conference?? Click here to reply to this post
Steve, you're off base here
Posted On: 03/04/08 03:11:59 PM
Age 49, VA
I think Steve is off base here. This may have been an unconventional way of speaking or explaining about SOS but I do not see the blasphemy you are refering to. I would prefer to read the views of the Pastors and bloggers you consulted and please identify them as well. Click here to reply to this post
