A Word of Balance!

I am concious that John Macarthur and his "Strange Fire" conference has provoked me back into blogging thoughts but that I may have become guilty of becoming a "charismatic Macarthur" - i.e. I hate his absolute, judgemental and unloving language (and always have done since the days I read "Charismatic Chaos" in Dunstable).

I was determined therefore thanks to yet another sleepless night to expose myself to Macarthur's broader ministry and thoughts - of which I know not a great deal.  I found this video during a conference where Phil Johnson interviews Macarthur on a few points:



Points of agreement:

1.  The New International Version (in relation to Macarthur being invited to write an NIV Study Bible)

PJ:  It is (NIV) not your favourite translation?

Macarthur:  It is NOT my favourite translation.  The question is ... does anyone reading the NIV actually care what it (the text) means?!

I wince at (again) Macarthur's broad suggestion that all NIV readers are ... less than theological (although I confess to laughing).  I too dislike the NIV and prefer (and always have) the KJV or the NASB!

2.  Mark Driscoll and his comments/book on marriage and sex.

I've never made any secret of being less than a fan of Mark Driscoll.  I have no doubt his unique ministry is spreading the gospel and reaching the lost in his way.  I just hate his macho-school-bullish-rude attitude and behaviour.  His recent publicity stunt at appearing at the "Strange Fire" conference less than impressed me either.  I thought it hilarious that security (he claimed) confiscated his books, but was again shocked he distorted the truth seemingly.  But also his views on the Song of Solomon and marriage - disturb me.

PJ:  You didn't make any recent comment about Mark Driscoll's recent book "Real Marriage" - do you want to?

Macarthur:  Commercialism.  There is such a beautiful dignity to the way the Scripture speaks of marriage, such a precious veiled way in which even the intimacies of marriage are alluded to in Scripture.  That maintains it's intimacy and personal nature and beauty without painting it in commonly used pornographic laungage.  I think these are things that shouldn't be said, don't need to be said and pander to interests in the part of people.  The last thing you would ever want for the people who gather before you to hear the Word of God is to have their minds filled with your sort of uncouth, unclean speech and images that go with it.

There I COMPLETELY agree!  That is the way I was brought up under Dr Stanley Jebb.  That's the way I was raised to view marriage as beautifully portrayed by my parents.

Another fascinating Q and A session I found from the Shepherds Conference focuses around John Macarthur, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan's preference for using a pen to prepare a sermon rather than a computer!  As a geek - I stand convicted (not that I prepare sermons!).

Reflections on the Church in Great Britain

Some may remember Mark Driscoll's (the ex-head of Acts 24 ministries) comments made in an interview on the state of the church in the UK - my home country. The comments were less than complimentary. I was encouraged to read that D A Carson had reflections of his own on Driscoll's comments and they are helpful - brave is the man who takes on Carson's intellect!;

"In light of my friend Mark Driscoll's recent comments about pastoral ministry in Great Britain, I wanted to share a few of my own reflections on the diverse ministries that have prospered, or floundered, there. Between 1972 and 1996, I spent nine full years there, scattered over that range of years; and since then, I have been in the UK between two and six times every year. I am neither boasting nor complaining; I'm merely establishing that my knowledge of the country is not entirely superficial. I have no reason to doubt Mark's sincere concern for the gospel in the UK and for young ministers there. Nevertheless, you might be interested in hearing another perspective.

(1) Mark correctly observes the low state of genuine Christian confessionalism in the UK. Still, it varies considerably (as it does in the United States, though with lower figures over there). There's a ring around London in which close to 10 percent of the people go to church, many of them evangelicals; the percentage in Northern Ireland is higher, though falling. By contrast, in Yorkshire the percentage that goes to church once a month or more is 0.9 percent; evangelicals account for only 0.4 percent. Both figures are still falling. This is comparable to the state of affairs in, say, Japan.

(2) The phenomenon of the state church colors much of what is going on. Whether we like it or not, in England itself (the situation is different in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) the Church of England is the source of most heterodoxy and of much of the orthodoxy, as well as of everything in between. It has produced men like Don Cupitt and men like Dick Lucas. Exactly what courage looks like for the most orthodox evangelicals in that world is a bit different from what courage looks like in the leadership of the independent churches: their temptations are different, their sufferings are different. Although I have found cowardice in both circles, I have found remarkable courage in both circles, and the proportion of each has not been very different from what I've found on this side of the Atlantic.

(3) As for young men with both courage and national reach: I suppose I'd start with Richard Cunningham, currently director of UCCF. He has preached fearlessly in most of the universities and colleges in the UK, and is training others to do so; he has been lampooned in the press, faced court cases over the UCCF stance on homosexuality, and attracted newspaper headlines. Then there's Vaughan Roberts, rector of St Ebbe's, Oxford, in constant demand for his Bible teaching around the country. I could name many more. In Scotland one thinks of men like Willie Philip (and he's not the only one). Similar names could be mentioned in Wales and Northern Ireland.

(4) More important yet, the last few years in England have seen the invention and growth of the regional Gospel Partnerships. In my view, these are among the most exciting things going on in England at the moment. They bring together Church of England ministers and Independent ministers who are passionate about the gospel, who see the decline, and who are crossing many kinds of denominational and cultural divides to plant churches (regardless of whether the new churches turn out to be Anglican or Free), and raise up a new generation of preachers. They are broadly Reformed. They are annoying the mere traditionalists on both sides of the denominational divide; they are certainly angering some bishops; but they press on. In the North West Partnership, for example, they've planted about 30 churches in the last eight years, and the pace is accelerating. That may seem a day of small things, but compared with what was there ten years ago, this is pretty significant, especially as their efforts are beginning to multiply. Elsewhere, one church in London has about 17 plants currently underway, all led by young men. The minister at St Helen's-Bishopsgate, William Taylor, was formerly an officer in the British Army: there is not a wimpy bone in his body. The amount of flak he takes on is remarkable.

(5) But there is a bigger issue. We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success. We must avoid ever leaving the impression that these equations are valid. I have spent too much time in places like Japan, or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the world stage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I am grateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I am no less grateful for Baptist ministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very little fruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison (their sentences totaled eight years between 1950 and 1952). I find no ground for concluding that the missionaries in Japan in the 20th century were less godly, less courageous, less faithful, than the missionaries in (what became) South Korea, with its congregations of tens of thousands. At the final Great Assize, God will take into account not only all that was and is, but also what might have been under different circumstances (Matt 11:20ff). Just as the widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than many multi-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan, or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise on that last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world where there was more fruit. Moreover, the measure of faithful service is sometimes explicitly tied in Scripture not to the quantity of fruit, measured in numbers, but to such virtues as self-control, measured by the use of one's tongue (James 3:1-6).

(6) Even where some ministries are wavering, it takes rare discernment to sort out when there should be sharp rebuke and when there should be encouragement. Probably there needs to be more of whichever of these two polarities we are least comfortable with! But I would not want to forget that the Jesus who can denounce hypocritical religious leaders in Matthew 22 is also the one of whom it is said, "He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he has brought justice through to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope" (Matt 12:19-21)---in fulfillment of one of the suffering servant passages. My read is that in some of the most challenging places of the world for gospel advance, godly encouragement is part of the great need of the day.

Times of Shaking?

I've been feeling this personally for a few months but it seems it's happening in the organised religious world as well. Interesting times. I have made no secret of my just-tolerance of Mark Driscoll and some of his mannerisms - but I saw this via some of the SGM blogs I read.

Mark Driscoll: "Recently, I sensed that not all was well in Acts 29 ... Together, we decided, in light of all the complexity we’re facing, that the best thing for Acts 29 going forward would be for Matt Chandler to assume the presidency, move the network offices to Dallas, and select his Acts 29 staff".

But that's not all;

Don Carson and Tim Keller (heads of the Gospel Coalition) announced:

"Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has recently announced he is stepping down from the Council of The Gospel Coalition. Mark let us know in advance of his intentions, part of a major reorganization of his priorities and a changing of the guard in Acts 29. We are saddened by his departure but understand that all busy people must establish priorities".

I think these are good times. I grew up into a "celebrity-pastor" culture that built men onto pedestals that they could not stay on. The loudest shouts on the internet at present divide between the "Mahaney" fans, the "Driscoll" fans etc supporting theirs - and on the other side, those who have been hurt by the effects of the ripples of such ministries.

I still sit as an observer - wondering what's happening to the Gospel (true) message and it's true impact for the lost?

Leadership Skills According to the Iron Lady

I originally intended to come back from the cinema 2 days ago and write a post reflecting on leadership skills in the church based on the awesome film; "Iron Lady". However my apartment was broken into and we had some very valuable things robbed including my iPad - so that distracted me somewhat! Then I woke up yesterday ready for a long day at work and was in the wrong place to read Mark Driscoll's rather unfortunate assessment of preaching and teaching in the United Kingdom.

I was thinking about his comments at work and wondering if I was overly harsh - but I think not. Many excuse Driscoll on "his age" or "social situation" - but I do think that leadership demands an element of responsibility. Unless Driscoll is extraordinarily naive or foolish - he will be aware of his fan-base across the world, so therefore must be aware (thanks to social networking) of the impact that a throw-away comment such as he allegedly made, would have.

My philosophy is still simple. As the many brilliant consultant surgeons and physicians in healthcare quite rightly take a large salary for their responsibility of the patients under their care - so "mega-church pastors" who take large salaries as well as book royalties (such as Driscoll, C J Mahaney or even John Piper) must also take responsibility for the impact of their words. In a sense - their words can damage even more than the doctors I encounter because the words of church leaders can damage spiritually as well as physically.

But onto "the Iron Lady".

I have always been a fan of Margaret Thatcher since I was young (as the photo taken by my friend Mark Heath demonstrates! Check out the postcard of Thatcher in my office in the bottom right hand corner) - so I was eager to see how this film depicted her. I greatly enjoyed the film but found it sobering too. Whatever one may feel about Thatcher's methods - you cannot deny her commitment and determination to see what she believed right brought about. Two scenes particularly brought me out in goosebumps;

1. The moment when Thatcher had to decide whether or not to take aggressive action against the Argentine battleship that was circling the Falkland Islands at the beginning of the war. Whether or not this was the way it happened - the film has it visually grippingly depicted! Thatcher is surrounded on one side by her military commanders who have told her what can be accomplished if she wishes. On the other - her civil servant advisers who continually advise "caution" and "negotiation". The viewer can see Thatcher's manicured nail tapping on the table and you hear the monumental lines; "Sink it". What is further gripping is that you see her tears and agony at the impact of her action - the British lives lost as a result.

2. The other was the moment when Michael Hestletine's betrayal (in Thatcher's view) became real to her, and she realised she would have to leave power. She said in the film; "But I am Prime Minister!". It made me realise that any leader - whether in church, or in state - are still human beings with real emotions, vulnerabilities and can be hurt. It was this moment that brought tears to my eyes for what I imagine C J Mahaney must be going through at this time. I have made no secret of my dislike of his methods and decisions - but I realised in the cinema, what utter hurt Mahaney must feel in his mind - at the way that certain leaders have "turned on him". Thatcher used to lead the United Kingdom. Mahaney used to lead SGM. Both human.

However:

The one concerning thing I noticed was the very similar tactics used by both Thatcher and her politicians, and much of "celebrity" church leadership I see today. I'm not quite sure of the difference anymore - other than one leader leads a country, another leads a church (or group of churches). Forgive me for sounding dated - but I think what is missing from much of church leadership that is in the public eye is "the anointing". I still remain very committed to Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones' description of the "sacred unction" that is needed (and missing) from so much of preaching.

Don't get me wrong - I love social networking, Twitter, the opportunities that the internet brings to spread the word of the gospel far and wide. But I still am not persuaded that these "modern inventions" (as the Doctor would call them!) are necessary to bring about a revival of spiritual power that we so desperately need. I think it's great the way that Mark Driscoll in Seattle, Nathan Smith and Pete Bowley in Bristol (in my opinion one of the best churches in the UK using social networking - alongside CCK in Brighton) and others particularly have really jumped on board and are using Twitter and the internet to spread the word that church is available and where they are! But I do hope that Mark Driscoll (I know the Bristol leaders wouldn't) become dependent on his flashy back screen while he preaches to think that is essential to bring in the crowds.

This is why Terry Virgo's ministry (alongside others such as Rob Rufus) means so much to me. You can still sense the anointing on him when he preaches - and surely this is the example to seek to emulate. Not investing tithes in mediation fees or new technology for your church.

A quote from Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones to close;

“When the Holy Spirit comes in revival there is a great anointing, and it shows itself in many ways. You read of men who had believed the truth, and who were preaching faithfully and regularly, but who were ineffective and lacking in power. Suddenly they are filled with power. They speak with boldness and with power and with great authority. That is the anointing of the Spirit . . .

But this anointing is not confined to revival. I use that simply as an illustration. Thank God it is given at other times. Any man who has ever preached should be able to testify to this. There are times when, entirely outside his own control, he is given a special authority, special power, an unction which is unusual. And there are good reasons for its bestowal. There are circumstances which he himself is not always aware of, which he only discovers afterwards. Somebody may have come to the congregation who needed a particular message or word, and the preacher, without knowledge on his part, is guided to say something which is just appropriate to that particular state and condition. There is, therefore, this special enduement of power which is called ‘the anointing’. It is something that one should seek and covet, it is something for which one should be constantly praying . . .".

(HT: Adrian Warnock - emphases mine - David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Christian Soldier: An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 20, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA, 1977, p.115)

Toilet Mouth Driscoll is at it Again

Most know I have made no pretence of my dislike for Mark Driscoll. His efforts to appear "manly" (putting down women, swearing in pulpits, wearing a Mickey Mouse T-shirt) really do less than impress me. However - I have tried to see the good in his ministry. Terry Virgo - a man I hugely respect - has had some interaction with him and I've tried to appreciate that.

But Driscoll just won't shut up and go away. Not only has he know produced a "soft-core porn" sounding book on marriage and intimacy - which I fully admit I haven't read (and don't intend to - Tim Challies fair review was enough) but apparently he has also written off most of the United Kingdom evangelical preachers!

Here;

“Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren't telling the truth.”

It doesn't bother me personally. I'm not "young" or a "Bible teacher". But I wonder how the many fans that Driscoll has over here in the United Kingdom will feel about being assessed as "cowards who aren't telling the truth". I wonder about Joel Virgo at CCK who I think is a fan, or Adrian Warnock or the many other Newfrontiers preachers who got excited about Driscoll's visit to the Newfrontiers Brighton conference recently? I wonder about the SGM young excellent preachers in both Bristol and Newport who would surely fit closely theologically with him as Calvinist and Reformed? Or as Krish Kandiah (who reviewed Driscoll's comments) also notes;

"It doesn’t sound like Driscoll is rejoicing the ministry of Mike Pilavaci, Andy Croft, Jo Saxton and the impact these preachers are having on tens of thousands of young people each summer at Soul Survivor. Doesn’t sound like he’s particularly appreciative of Rico Tice coming from the other end of the theological spectrum whose course is being used by hundreds of churches. We can’t call Nicky Gumbel young anymore but I haven’t heard a lot of love coming from Mars Hill for Alpha either. Apparently he hasn’t got anything good to say about Karl Martin in Edinburgh nor Pete Greig at HTB or Ness Wilson in Loughborough".

Oh Driscoll has begun to try and retract his words already apparently (as he does quite frequently when he mouths off and then realises he has put his big size 10's in it). I was more interested in the fact that he and his wife have a degree in communications rather than his "words of context" - that accuse the Christianity Today reporter of seeking to "inflame" his more controversial aspects to his ministry.

This hasn't really helped my attempts to see the good in Mark Driscoll's ministry. I don't think we even bother wondering whether John Piper and C J Mahaney (who has far too many of his own troubles to be reigning in Driscoll) help "father" and "pastor" him anymore. I am sad to say that all I see is an arrogant chauvinist who is working the media well (through his degree in communications) to stay famous, sell books and create newspaper headlines. Maybe he's a potential candidate for next year's "Celebrity Big Brother".

However I will try not to huff off - offended for my country - but end with a fair review assessment;

"There is lots to commend about Pastor Mark’s ministry – there is an evangelistic fervour, a cultural connectedness to their praise and worship that i have not seen anywhere else and passion for church planting which I can rejoice in. But please Mr Driscoll its time not just to “Man up” but “Grace up” your brothers and sisters in the UK need less judgmentalism and more encouragement".

A Rant Averted!

I was told in a recent email that one of my readers "misses my rants" and thinks I've grown up! I was going to prove them wrong with a rant about a recent tweet by Mark Driscoll. I've started following the bloke in an attempt to appreciate his giftings. And the other day he posted this;

I hardly need elaborate on some of the things I was going to say about Driscoll and his views on macho man-hood. But I've decided not to! Maybe I have grown up a bit since this blog began. I was cooking in the kitchen listening to an old sermon of Rob's - he was speaking at the Glory and Grace Conference in 2007 - the glorious conference I was able to go to.

And the truths he was bringing about "Staying Sane in a Revival" (audio version here!) were so true. I long for nothing more than a massive corporate outpouring of the Spirit of God. And yet can see that Rob's wisdom is so right! I can already see the dangers in the Bay of the Holy Spirit outpouring. Nathan Morris - the incredible evangelist there that God is using so mightily - hasn't seemed to have had a rest for days. So instead of ranting - I want to re-post this sermon! In a hope that this is a tool that we can use and hear - should God answer our prayers and pour out His Spirit - here's my notes I took from the session;

Thursday 25th October 2007 - PM Session - Rob Rufus

Following on from the outstanding Question and Answer session, we moved into a very powerful and God-visited time of worship. I remember standing with my arms raised during it thinking of the years and years of God-absent worship that I have been in and thinking - never again will I settle for somewhere where the Spirit of God is not welcome! Rob's message was once again vintage and much of what he preached totally answered my feelings during the worship. I cannot emphasise what a key message it was for the conference. From anyone else it may have been seen as an attempt to control the awesome Presence of God but from Rob it was a wise, shepherding, loving, fatherly message to keep the revival going!

For those again who are interested in the nuances of Rob's theology he went into a masterful treatise on the book of Hebrews and the warning passages within it. Any student of theology will know what a difficult area this is - and Rob dealt with it masterfully. Furthermore he had me almost leaping off my seat with joy as he dealt again with the issue of the type of the Promised Land and how the Land can NEVER represent heaven in type. It seemed to me again that Ern Baxter had returned from the dead and was preaching!

"Religious sub-cultures do not respond to the nuances of the Spirit of God but they try to mimic the same thing again and again. God has a multi-dimensional throne room with angels and elders and living beings and colours such as emerald rainbows! The Church for too long has been one dimensional. Jesus came as Apostle/Prophet/Pastor/Evangelist but He is primarily a Shepherd.

The apostolic ministry is still very embryonic and if we seal it and stop it now we will secure a brand of infantile apostles. Just so with prophets.

We need to hear the Word to keep digging wells until we have peace. The anointing refreshes your spirit but your body can get quite tired! The earthern vessel will always be a mortal body. Jesus Himself fell asleep on a boat and was grumpy by being awoken! Under the anointing strange things can happen! The Philistines couldn't work out the secret of Samson's strength so we can guess that he probably was a small man.

Many revivals burn out because people are so exhausted.

You forget that Romans 8 says we are waiting for our immortal bodies. When revivals come we mustn't kiss good theology goodbye! Let's be sane! Revivals are so intoxicating that we get hi-jacked into a strange world. We do have mortal bodies still! The "Manifest Sons of God" doctrine came out in the 40s and 50s and was heresy but driven by this hatred of our mortal bodies.

The answer to abuse is not no use but RIGHT USE!!

If some people get weird in signs and wonders and find their identity in that then the devil has a hook on them. You don't need a balance - but this move of God on the planet is increasing and is meant to increase until Jesus comes again! These 3 days of the Grace and Glory Conference are tame compared to what is coming!

But because of that we must keep good theology and tired people who don't take a rest become vulnerable. Sometimes the Word of the Lord is "go to sleep!". Someone phoned Kenneth Hagin and 03:00 and asked for a prophetic word. He said; "Bless your stupid head and your darling heart - go to bed".

The revival needs to be stewarded by sanity and heavenly ambassadorial dignity. Kathryn Kuhlman would come out of some meetings weeping saying; "They have taken my Jesus away".

One of the dangers of the anointing is that you become in high demand and people make the mistake of thinking you are invincible.

May the church become a place where our weaknesses are welcome! Everyone on this planet we think is anointed is still human and when they die they will leave their mantle on the earth. The higher and more powerful the anointing the more people will come to you. You will ask "Doesn't anyone love me for who I am or for what I can do?". It is sad that revivals aren't long-living because we don't get hierarchies and mortality sorted out.

Alexander Dowie and William Branham died prematurely because they didn't get law and grace sorted out and this issue of where you get your identity from.

We are not going into revival - we are in revival now! Never go back to dryness! Keep moving on until you find people who will sell out for revival! The only way to help nervous people come into revival is to show mighty signs and wonders in santity and freshness and longevity. Sometimes in revival we need to cut a cleft in the river and collect freshwater pools to let them drink from.

(Hebrews 6:4) - Some people see Hebrews 6 as the biggest stumbling block on grace. (v4-6) - There are 13 different theological views on these two verses! These people who are described here are clearly saved. But then it is taught if you re-dedicate your lives again you can be saved again. But here (v4-6) say it is impoosible to restore again to repentance.

That must be the devil's favourite interpretation for then he can bombard their minds that they have crucified the Lord of glory again!

How do you know when you have crossed the line? The Holy Spirit is the only One who can bring you to the Forgiver so when you resist Him, He can never again bring you to the Forgiver.

The main theme of Hebrews is the superiority of grace over law and New Covenant over Old Covenant. Hebrews is about inheritance on earth!

Those who teach that the Promised Land represents heaven are in error. The Promised Land had giants! It was never meant to be a promise about heaven or hell.

We get the promises of inheritance through faith and patience. Hebrews is a book about oaths. If God lies under an oath then His integrity is compromised and He can swear by no one higher than Himself. All nations will be blessed through Abraham because God took an oath! It is a gurantee that will happen. Sometimes storms are the devil's and sometimes they are God's. God will not back off from that oath - for instance He took an oath that Messiah would sit on David's throne and whatever David did it would happen.

David committed murder and adultery but Jesus sits on David's throne today!

When Israel came towards the Promised Land - God had not made an oath that generation would enter it but a promise. It was never made on oath that they would get their inheritance on earth. (Hebrews 2) - They didn't inherit because of unbelief. On the 10th time they vexed God - He had enough. Moses was humble enough to plead for their lives but He swore an oath that the generation would not inherit the land. When God takes that oath you can repent as much as you like but you will not change His mind. That generation had to return into the wilderness to die.

Even Moses didn't go in because 1 Corinthians 10 was showing that the Rock was a revelation of who Jesus was. If we pervert prophetic pictures about the Son of God then God isn't happy. A sprinkling on the forehead perverts the symbolism of baptism because it doesn't show burial.

What is the inheritance of the church? Nations, signs and wonders and glory! When Jesus takes His candlestick from a church or denomination then they can repent as much as they like but they will not go into their inheritance.

Don't be afraid! Live in the grace of God and keep your heart open to His Spirit! The problem isn't trying to be free from law but embracing law and building an inflexible theology to a point where God will release you to go to heaven but you won't inherit your inheritance. When you sin without the grace of God you are piling up judgement but under grace you are FREE! (Romans 7:1-3, 3:19-20). "Through the law we became knowledgable of wrath". The law has no power to make you righteous - but just to point out your faults. You can't divorce from the Law! The only way you can be free is for the Law to die but the law will never pass away!

So what is the answer? (Romans 7:4) "You died to the law ... that you might belong to Another". When you came to Christ you died to Christ and God cancelled for you the writing of the 10 Commandments. You DIED to the Law! The Law doesn't die - it is still around for the lost!

If you are dead to something then you are dead! But you are alive to a different Husband who has sympathy with your infirmities and He mediates a covenant depending on HIS performance! This Husband doesn't point your faults out!

The Gospel isn't a revelation of what's wrong with you but how right you are with the Father in Jesus Christ!!

If you feel condemnation then you are living under Old Covenant mentality. If you feel that you are yo-yo'ing between the two Covenants then you have a Husband issue. The spirit of religion is so ungodly and so powerful that Hebrews warns some Christians that choose to stay with the Law that will rape and abuse them but the broken heart of the Father can't lift the peripheral fence and let them into the glory.

They will go to heaven but they will never recieve their inheritance. A person under law has an ideal self that they are trying to live upto and fall so short that they feel they deserve the abuse of the law. God will never punish you again because all punishment was poured out on Jesus.

But God cannot allow you to inherit New Covenant life under law. If you commit adultery - stay under grace! God knows how to restore adulterers! He knows how to love adulterers! He wants heart transformation not behaviour modification.

The Resurgence Interview: Mark Driscoll with Terry Virgo

I must admit the friendship between Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo was not one I was especially thrilled with - given my caution with Driscoll's rather chavinistic brand of ministry. However Terry Virgo is a man of God I trust implicitly and if he sees something in Mark Driscoll, then I'd hate to miss out on that. That being said - it wasn't enough to make me sit down and start listening to Mark Driscoll's preaching (I wouldn't go that far).

But when Terry posted this interview between him and Mark I felt this would be a good place to start. Many know I have a deep love for the interview format. I think you can learn far more from interviews than many lectures or sermons because you are capturing the man of God or woman of God in a spontaneous conversation. Here's the transcript I typed up - the video is below;

Mark Driscoll (M.D): Thinking of leaders, particularly younger leaders and emerging leaders - people who are starting in ministry voluntarily or vocationally, what would you say about the ministry of the Holy Spirit to lead the leader? In the classic sense so much of Christian teaching on leadership really borrows from secular practices on how to be a good leader. And there are some good things to be learned in God's common grace. But very little is written about being "led" by the Holy Spirit so you are then able to lead God's people in the things of God. Could you talk a little bit about what it means to be a "Spirit-filled leader" or a "Spirit-led" leader?

Terry Virgo (T.V): I would put together the grace emphasis I guess with the enjoyment of God's love. So for myself I have always tried to engage with the Spirit.

M.D: What does that look like in real life? You know for the average Bible college guy who's up in his head. What does that look like?

T.V: Yes I can only illustrate that from my own experience. I am in the Word each day - I am saying "Lord this is Your Word - I want You to speak to me". So I am looking to feed on the Word. At the moment I am using the Murray M'Cheyne reading plan - that is a recent thing for me over the last 3 years. I think it's good to switch around from the way you read the Bible. But then I am looking to Him to fellowship with Him and talk to Him. I sing to Him - I enjoy fellowshipping with Him so I am looking to sing to Him. I sing songs, I sing in tongues, I sing expecting and enjoying God being with me. It's out of that celebration of His kindness and His love that very often leads me to the Cross again and the wonder of who He is and the phenomenal thing that He has done for us.

Then I find myself beginning to ask and pray for things. So I felt from an early age, Lloyd-Jones's emphasis on prayer really influenced me - and other guys - so yes, praying with the energy of the Spirit. Paul says; "Praying in the Spirit" and sometimes you are praying about something. And I read Don Carson once said; "Pray yourself into prayer" - it is a Puritan quote actually and sometimes you are praying and your brain is going everywhere and then other times you find a caring that you didn't know - and you find yourself going; "Hey - there's more in me" and I believe it is the Holy Spirit making you care more about something and that stirs my faith! I think "Hey - God cares about this more than I do".

You want to fellowship with the energy - you feel God is kicking in, in your heart. I find other times fellowshipping in the Spirit can be more in the corporate group. Sometimes there have been visions, prophecies and things that we feel God has been sharing and they have influenced decisions we've made. Rather like Paul who wanted to go north and the Spirit forbade him, he wanted to go another way and then there was that Macedonian call. It seems to me that the Spirit was showing him which way to go. Over the years as a movement we have gathered guys to pray a lot. Three times a year in the UK we gather all our leaders for two days of prayer and fasting.

M.D: So many people for two days of prayer and fasting!

T.V: Well the first time we did it, there was about 20. And last time 750. So three times a year it has just grown and it is all because I mis-read a Scripture that says; "Three times a year you shall gather your men" and it says; "They shall not come empty-handed". And I read; "You shall come empty-handed". And I thought; "What's empty-handed? No agenda. No food". And some guys have never forgiven me! So we gather for two days and we fast and we pray for two hours and break for an hour and pray for two hours and break for an hour and pray for two hours and break for an hour. These days we hire a big church and all go out to different hotels and then come back again the next morning and again we pray and break and we worship. We pray for different things we are doing - maybe there's a crisis in a nation, we pray for India or we may pray for famine in Kenya. So we corporately pray. Sometimes small numbers and sometimes "Korean-style" in big numbers as we think of it.

Sometimes someone will come and lead us from the front and sometimes we will pray in twos or threes. So over many years now we have prayed together corporately. Then that goes back out into the churches and church plants - teach your people to pray. Believe for buildings, believe for new elders to be raised up. So prayer has been quite a big emphasis in my life probably from my early pastor and my early influences. And when I felt led to put down secular work - I actually felt the call was to have more time to pray. So prayer has always been a personal emphasis in my life. But at the beginning it was a bit condemnation-driven and I felt God released me from that and now I enjoy it and still feel I want to pray.

M.D: Yes when I was talking with Joel and said; "So what do you remember about growing up with your dad when he took over the church in Brighton?". He said; "I remember often my dad sitting in the other room singing and praying". He said; "My dad sings and prays through everything!". That stuck with him. Then I was talking to one of the younger worship leaders and I said; "What's your favourite part of being in that Newfrontiers church?" and he said; "Oh the mid-week prayer meeting! That is the best thing of all because we just sing and pray and sing and pray. That's where we hear God speak to us and guide us and where He's leading us. You don't want to miss the prayer meeting".

In the States that's something quite frankly you wouldn't hear a lot - I am a Reformed, Bible-teaching evangelical who says; "In the Holy Spirit" in my prayer times but that's about it. Why do you think those two don't come together as often as they should?

T.V: I guess it's been who we have been for a long time and I guess it's easy to be impressed by management skills and I don't despise planning - but I think you can put all your eggs in that basket. I want to be confident in God and I know the big breakthroughs have been faith issues. There have been times when we have been refused - "No you cannot have this building - no you can't do this or that" and there's no way that you can plan through that. You have to believe God and pray though it - and it's been exciting to be honest over decades to see God do amazing things for us through prayer. I think we have a heritage in the UK when reading men like Hudson-Taylor who said; "I want to move men to God through prayer alone" and you read these biographies of great men. I used to commute to London an hour every day and I used to devour biographies - especially praying missionary guys. A man called J O Fraser who worked in China and his exploits through prayer. He said; "I want to be like a businessman who has found a line that really works" and he said; "Prayer really works" - and that really grabbed me and I thought; "I want to be like that".

M.D: Do you "like" God?

T.V: I love God! I love worship! It sounds awfully pious when you are asked; "What do you enjoy?" but it is true - I enjoy being with God. I enjoy being with the saints when worshipping. I love the Lord!

M.D: Do you think that's the key to prayer? If you like God and enjoy God then prayer is what happens?

T.V: Yes I suppose I don't think of prayer as much in that way but when I am trying to engage with God.

M.D: When I have worshipped with you and your people, they like God. A lot of places I go to - they believe in God but I'm not sure they "like" Him. They can get a little stiff and unhappy and dull but when there is a people who like God and believe in Him then there is a joy there and a unity and the people tend not to gravitate towards legalism and the leaders don't need to become heavy-handed because that is not the spirit.

T.V: A combination of believing the grace of God - for me, when I really believed that I was accepted and saved - I then learned that I was free but you had to do this and had to do that and pray more and I thought "Am I accepted or am I accepted if I do all these things?" and then it dawned on me; "I am accepted!" and it was like getting born again! They said after the resurrection; "They could not believe for joy" - and that was the way it was with me - I thought this is amazing! That has transformed my life to know grace is so free!

The Holy Spirit and enjoyment of the Presence of God and you combine those two and it is electric! It gives us purpose on a world mission to glorify Jesus - Lord we want to glorify You - we are about a serious work and I find that is a really dynamic mixture!".

Deifying Human Beings?

I have been reading J Lee Grady's book; "The Holy Spirit is NOT for Sale" and must be honest - some of it makes for painful reading. Grady is criticising some of the charismatic movement's excesses in the book - however I must say this. It is easier to accept criticism from someone who is "in the family" (i.e. a charismatic themselves). I have been over familiar with John MacArthur's vitriolic criticisms of all things charismatic for too long and have largely ignored what he said - because the man is a self-confessed cessationist and I doubt has ever had a spiritual experience of God in his life. Grady's criticisms while hard to hear can be more easily understood.

His latest chapter addresses Paul Cain - a well-known and at times controversial servant of God. I found this chapter painful because I know that some of Paul Cain's prophecies have had tremendous impact on churches and people I love - such as Newfrontiers ("changing the expression of Christianity around the world"). Grady had sat in one of Paul Cain's meetings in 1989 and documented and evaluated the prophecies Cain brought and suggested that they were false (such as wondering whether Cain had access to church directories - hence he could quote people's names and addresses).

To be honest - I don't know. I've heard very accurate prophecies quoting names and addresses from people like Paul Cain, Todd Bentley and Joshua Mills at the Glory and Grace Conference in Hong Kong. Could the prophecies they brought have been falsified and made up? Sure. Could they have been of God? I think so. We just don't know. Does that uncertainty nullify the gift of prophecy? NEVER!

Let me say this clearly - it is the most stupid and heinous error to state the gift of prophecy (or any other spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit graciously gives) has ceased - just because of the errors and excesses of some Christians.

But I think Grady brings a really helpful series of recommendations to this issue of servants of God who perhaps display the gifts of God in a less than "perfect" manner. His first point is not limited to the charismatic movement I strongly believe - followers of the "New Calvinist" movement who similarly deify non-charismatics such as Mark Driscoll, John Piper and C J Mahaney;

1. Don't deify human beings.

Grady writes; "Thousands of Christians had put Cain on a pedestal where no man or woman belongs. People expected him almost to be like God. It was a setup for disappointment - and ultimate failure".

I have observed some disappointment and uncertainty creep in with John Piper's very honest decision to take a sabbatical. Some of his "followers" have criticised him and others have wondered if he is in trouble. I wonder what would happen to the loyal SGM masses if C J Mahaney were to fall morally? I know he preaches often about humility and states he is the "worst sinner he knows" but would his followers and SGM survive? The fact is this - these men are ALL human beings. ALL are prone to sin. ALL are prone to mistakes. And ALL have been saved by grace and grace alone. BUT .... ALL can be used awesomely by God.

The genuine words that Paul Cain brought such as "changing the expression of Christianity" are not nullified in my eyes by his humanity. Because that was a word from God to Newfrontiers which they have responded to in faith and is being fulfilled steadily.

Don't abandon the prophetic words brought by human prophets just because they are human and may make mistakes. God is the same - and the word of love He brought still stands.

2. Don't Elevate Anointing over Character.

Grady said; "When Paul instructed Timothy to choose leaders for the churches he had planted, he gave a long list of qualifications. None of these had anything to do with supernatural anointing. Paul did not tell Timothy to choose men who could heal the sick, raise the dead or interpret dreams and visions. In fact the only anointing he required was to teach the Scriptures".

He goes on; "What this shows us is that while spiritual gifts are needed for the advancement of the Kingdom, they don't authorize people to be out front. Just because a person has a powerful anointing doesn't mean they should be given a role of influence in the church".

3. Dismiss the Sensational.

Grady quotes Todd Bentley and the 2008 Lakeland Revival in a critical manner - he clearly does not like Bentley's modus operandi. Again - I found this difficult to read because on the one hand I do agree that Bentley had some unfortunate methods. But I watched the Lakeland Revival avidly during early 2008 and I do believe that God was at work during that time. Some people I greatly respected from Rob Rufus's church in Hong Kong went to visit Lakeland and brought back a "good report" - they're not the kind of people to be swept away by emotionalism. So - let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater - like Paul Cain, Lakeland wasn't all bad.

But Grady's summary was good; "When a carnal man gets involved in the miraculous ministry of the Spirit, he will try to sensationalise it, bottle it and sell it. We should never support this kind of charismatic circus sideshow".

4. Teach and Practice Discernment.

Grady writes; "We cannot avoid deception without the Holy Spirit's supernatural work among us. Discerment is something we learn by experience as our spiritual senses are trained ... Discernment is manifested by a "knowing" - a deep, gut-level sense that something is off-base".

Once again Grady cites the manifestation of gold dust in a critical manner and praises a pastor who allegedly had it tested prior to a meeting and found the gold dust was plastic. Because the said pastor cancelled the meetings where the gold dust was appearing, Grady said the pastor protected the church from "spiritual pollution". Maybe some gold dust is plastic. Maybe some of it is from heaven. I suspect that there are some genuine experiences where gold dust may appear - but from those genuine experiences, stems a desperation for it to appear.

True spiritual discernment does not come from despising anything "odd" - but rather keeping the focus on God. Don't pray for gold dust to appear. Pray for God Himself to be welcome.

5. Enforce accountability.

Grady writes; "Because so many charismatics have left their established denominations and developed a distaste for religious control, we now have the opposite problem. Our movement is too independent ... Ministers who refuse to submit to standards of accountability are spiritual renegades - and God says rebellion is the same as the sin of witchcraft".

Interestingly in another chapter Grady writes disapprovingly of the Shepherding Movement and the call of Ern Baxter and his brothers to see such accountability among churches. So one presumes he sees something of a need for a balance. The Shepherding Movement was roundly condemned - but what Ern Baxter, Don Basham, Charles Simpson and Bob Mumford recognised was that church movements were all shaped like pyramids with "one man" at the head. Their aim was to bring those leaders together in a relationship of accountability. I don't see the problem resolved despite the condemning of Baxter et al's attempt. Newfrontiers has Terry Virgo at the head. SGM has C J Mahaney at the head. Mark Driscoll is at the head of whatever he heads. And so on. These men may protest that there is accountability "within their ranks". But it would be a brave man who would call a C J Mahaney to task - particularly when he has been put where he has by C J Mahaney.

As you may be gathering - I am enjoying the issues that J Lee Grady is raising but don't agree with them all. I don't like some of the examples he uses - but this issue of "deifying human beings" is a vital one.

A Respected Intolerance

I had two posts in mind stemming from today - one is about fathers. I find it difficult - to be frank - relating to God as my Father. I don't quite know why that is. Maybe it's partly because I found it difficult to get on with my earthly dad. We are very different people emotionally. He is a man's man. I am an emotionally unstable soul - up or down but never in-between. I thank God that I have a measure of friendship with him now but childhood and teenage years were not easy. So does that disqualify me from ever enjoying God as heavenly perfect Father? Of course not - no earthly father is perfect. The key is to realise that any poor or bad relationships don't set the model for God - we have to be prepared to learn again and learn from new.

So I turned to the Song of Solomon today! I did so deliberately and without really much thought. It just seemed natural to me that if I wanted to learn what God is like as a heavenly Father. I'm in good company - C H Spurgeon's solid gold sermons on the Song of Solomon (gathered together masterfully in; "The Most Holy Place"). Who better than Spurgeon to teach about this book?!

However I was distracted by C H Spurgeon's rather "un-P.C" discussion of those who would hold views of the Song of Solomon that he would not agree with. I like that fresh approach! In this day and age I notice that the Christian church has become affected by the community. Disagreeing with someone isn't acceptable and it doesn't go down well. One of the things I liked about Spurgeon and the Puritans was that they were not afraid to state boldly their views and disagree carefully and thoughtfully where they felt someone was wrong.

So here is C H Spurgeon's statements on the Song of Solomon and those he would not agree with. He starts the sermon by discussing the view that men such as Mark Driscoll and C J Mahaney would hold - namely that the book discusses Solomon's marriage to Pharoh's daughter (as is thought). Spurgeon states;

"Now as I am sure as I am of my own existance, that this is one of the grossest mistakes (the Driscoll/Mahaney view) that was ever committed ... If you look all through the song you will find that this is so; in the very beginning she is compared to a shepherdess. Now all shepherds are abominations to the Egyptians; do you think therefore that Solomon would compare an Egyptian princess to the very thing which she abominated? In one place Solomon compares her to a company of horses in Pharoh's chariot. Now horses were among the Israelites, common things; and what would Pharoh's daughter have said if Solomon compared her to a company of horses?".

So there are a couple of excellent Spurgeon rebuttals to obvious glaring problems in "humanising" the Song of Solomon. It just doesn't quite make sense. Spurgeon then goes on;

"The fact is that this book is a puzzle to many men for the simple reason it was not written for them at all. Learned men and wise men find this a stone which they are broken to powder just because it was not written for them. Men who are disposed to laugh at Scripture find here an opportunity to exercise their profane wit, just because the book is not written for them".

One cannot help but think of Mark Driscoll's "jokes" about the Song of Solomon.

"The true believer who has lived near to his Master will find this book to be a mass, not of gold merely, for all God's Word is this, but a mass of diamonds sparkling with brightness ... If I must prefer one book above another, I would prefer some books of the Bible for doctrine, some for experience, some for example, but let me prefer this book above all others for fellowship and communion. When the Christian is nearest to heaven, this is the book he takes with him.

There are times when he would leave even the Psalms behind, when standing on the borders of Canaan, when he is in the land of Beulah and he is just crossing the stream, and can almost see his Beloved through the rifts of the storm-cloud, then it is he can begin to sing Solomon's song. This is about the only book he can sing in heaven".

I state all this again not to take one jot away from Driscoll or Mahaney's ministries. I know many people receive much from them. But for me - I feel more comfortable taking a hallowed approach to the Song of Solomon - it isn't funny. And it shouldn't have jokes made about it. I come to this book as a hungry learner - desperate to learn how a son should relate to his Father.

"Love the Church: Lyrics of love" - Dave Bish

Following on from yesterday's Spurgeon sermon, I was thrilled to hear from Dave Bish - the well-known Bluefish blogger. He and I have shared thoughts on the Song of Solomon for some time now and he's encouraged me many times on his insights on this beautiful book of the Bible.

Dave spoke on the Song of Songs to his UCCF team recently. Here is the link to the notes from the session:

"Love the Church - Lyrics of Love".

Dave accurately sums up the two positions on how to view the Song;

"There are two broad camps of understanding about The Song. Those who say it is about marriage – as it appears at first reading, and those who say it is about Christ and the church, as I’m going to argue. Of course it is both, but which we give priority really effects how we proceed".

That last point is key to my whole understand of this book. I don't have a problem with married couples reading and learning from the love expressed in the Song of Solomon. What a better model to follow? But I do believe that if Christ and His church is isolated from this book (as per Driscoll/Mahaney etc) then a substandard love will result both for Christ in worship and indeed in marriage. As Dave says - what we give priority to will effect how we proceed.

Dave responds to Mark Driscoll's "icky" dislike of seeing corporate love in the Book by reminding us:

"Driscoll’s key argument is that it’s just too icky if this is about “Jesus and me”, I agree but whilst its true that Jesus gave himself up in love for me, we also know “Jesus gave himself up for the church” – and that a corporate reading is more the norm in Scripture. The bride is not individual believers but the church as a whole. Us not me, our husband not my husband".

He then splits the Song of Solomon up very helpfully by "tracks" of lyrics;


Track 1 (1:1-2:7) - Delights.


Track 2 (2:8-3:5) – Desire.


Track 3 (3:6-5:1) – Wedding.

"I find myself thinking – if he loves the church like this I want to know that love, to be found in the church and feel this love by the Spirit. To know his love as Ruth experiences the LORD’s love through Boaz. That means being found among God’s people not being alone. I am not his bride, the church is – it is the church whom he loves like this".

Track 4. The fourth song (5:2-6:1) – Loss


Track 5 (6:2-8:4) – Grace


Track 6. (8:5-8:14)- Home

Dave concludes wonderfully;

"This brief overview is designed not entirely to convince you to read the Song as about Christ and the church but to tug on your heart to love the bigger story of Christ and the church. To want to be found in her to know his love for her, and to grow with the church to love him as she does".

A Spurgeon Sermon on the Song of Solomon

Many know by now that the Song of Solomon is become an "issue" to me. The modern teaching popularised by Mark Driscoll or C J Mahaney has bothered me, and I've made no secret of that. But I was challenged recently that it's no good being "anti" everything without examining what I DO believe. So I am writing my own commentary of sorts on the Song of Songs - and reading everything I can lay my hands on.

C H Spurgeon preached a great number of amazing sermons on the Song of Solomon but this one in particular caught my eye. It wasn't just the way he touched on this wonderful book but it was his teaching on the Presence and glory of God that thrilled me. C H Spurgeon is popular among evangelicals - mainly for his gospel-centred preaching. Maybe this one was overlooked.

Sermon: "The Real Presence, the Great Want of the Church".

Text: Song of Solomon 3:4-5 -

"It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me. I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please."

Brethren, if a church be without the Spirit of God in it, it may have a name to live, but it is dead, and, you know, that after death there follows corruption, corruption which breeds foulness and disease. Hence, those churches which have turned aside unto error, have not only lost all power to do good, but they have become obnoxious and the causes of great evil in the midst of the world.

Let the Spirit of God be in the church, then there is power given to all her ministries; whether they be ministries of public testimony in the preaching of the word, or ministries of holy love amongst the brethren, or ministries of individual earnestness to the outside world, they will all be clothed with energy, in the fullness of the power of the Lord Jesus. Then her ordinances become truly profitable, then baptism is burial with the Lord, and the sacred supper is a feast of love; then the communion of the brethren in their solemn prayer and praise becomes deep and joyful, and their whole life and walk are bright with the glow of heaven.

In the presence of the Lord the graces of the saints are developed; the church grows rich in all spiritual gifts; her warfare becomes victorious, and her continual worship sweet as the incense of the golden censor.

I. And first, we learn from the text that before ever we can bring the Well-Beloved into our mother's house, the church, WE MUST FIND HIM PERSONALLY FOR OURSELVES.

I am not now about to speak of the need of conversion; we all know that no spiritual act can be performed until we become spiritual men; but I am now speaking about something higher than bare conversion. If we would bless the church, we must ourselves occupy a higher platform than that of being merely saved; we must be believers, walking in fellowship with Christ, and having, in that respect, found him whom our soul loveth.

There are many believers who have only just enough grace to enable us to hope that they are alive; they have no strength with which to work for God's cause, they have not an arm to lend to the help of others, neither can they even see that which would comfort others, for they are blind, and cannot see afar off, they want all their sight, and all their strength, for themselves. Those who are to bring the Well-Beloved into our mother's house, must be of another kind. They must get beyond the feebleness which is full of doubting and fearing, into the assurance which grasps the Savior, and the fellowship which lives in daily communion with him.

Pray ye for Laodicea in her lukewarmness, and Sardis in her spiritual death; but you will only prevail in proportion as your inmost soul loves the Redeemer and abides in his love.

In seeking our Lord we must use all ministries. The spouse enquired of the watchmen. We are not to despise God's servants, for he is usually pleased to bless us through them, and it would be ungrateful both to him and to them to pass them by as useless.

But, while we use the ministries, we must go beyond them. The spouse did not find her Lord through the watchmen.

But she says, "it was but a little that I passed from them, that I found him whom my soul loveth." I charge you, my dear hearers, never rest content with listening to me. Do not imagine that hearing the truth preached simply and earnestly will of itself be a blessing to your souls. Far, far beyond the servant, pass to the Master.

Oh, for more Enochs, men who walk with God, whose habitual spirit is that of close communion with Jesus, meditating upon him, yea, more than that, sympathizing with him, drinking into his spirit, changed into his likeness, living over again his life, because he is in them the monarch of their souls. O that we had a chosen band of elect spirits of this race, for surely the whole church would be revived through their influence.

II. This brings us to the second point of the subject. If we would be a blessing to the church, and have already found Christ, WE MUST TAKE CARE TO RETAIN HIM.

To come to Christ, and to sit down at his feet, is a simple thing enough for believers, and many of us have attained to it; but to sit day after day at the Master's feet is quite another matter. Oh, could I always be as I sometimes am! Could I not only rise above but remain there! But, alas, our spiritual nature is too much like this weather—it is balmy to-day; one would think that spring or summer had come; but, perhaps, to-night we may be chilled with frost and tomorrow drenched with rain. Ah, how fickle are our spirits. We are walking with Christ, rejoicing, leaping for joy; and anon the cold frosts of worldliness come over us, and we depart from him.

Mark, that according to the text, it is very apparent that Jesus will go away if he is not held. "I held him and I would not let him go;" as if he would have gone if he had not been firmly retained.

But note, next, he is very willing to be held. Who could hold him if he were not? He is the omnipotent Savior, and if he willed to withdraw he could do so: let us hold him as we might. But, mark his condescension. When his spouse said, "I held him, and I would not let him go," he did not go, he could not go, for his love held him as well as her hands. Christ is willing to be held.

He loves that sacred violence which takes him by force, that holy diligence which leaves not a gap open by which he may escape, but shuts every door, bars every bolt, and saith, "I have thee now and I will take care that if I lose thee it shall be through no fault of mine." Jesus is willing enough to be retained by hearts which are full of his love.

III. It appears from the text that, after the spouse had thus found Christ for herself and held him, SHE BROUGHT HIM INTO THE CHURCH—"I brought him to my mother's house."

IV. This leads me to the last point, which is this, to CHARGE THE CHURCH THAT SHE BE CAREFUL NOT TO DISTURB THE LORD'S REPOSE, if we have been enabled by divine grace to bring the Lord into the chambers of our mother's house.

May you stand as a sparkling pile of precious gems, inhabited by the eternal Spirit, to the praise and the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved. Amen.

Dave Bish on the Song of Solomon

Dave has written an excellent post recently that thanks to Twitter I noticed. He interacts with Tom Gledhill, author of the BST Song of Songs and the article on it in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology and Gledhill's views on this beautiful book. Gledhill follows (or maybe is to blame) for Mahaney, Driscoll et all and states;

"... there is some biblical justification for a moderate typological approach. But the danger of this hermeneutic is that of thinking that the relationship between the believer and God is highly emotional or even erotic".

He then goes on to state that it is "safer" to "the straightfoward and explicit admonitions of the NT". Dave responds;

"So Gledhill says a moderate typology is fine, but we're to abandon it because:

a) we might take it too far, but can we not restrain ourselves? And what if we permit ourselves to ask whether a less cautious hermeneutic might be fruitful? I'm not saying be wreckless, but let's not run scared. Sounds like an argument for abstinence from alcohol for risk of drunkeness...

b) the NT gives us 'straightfoward' words but Matthew Henry suggests: "when the meaning is found out, it will be of admirable use to excite pious and devout affections in us; and the same truths which are plainly laid down in other scriptures when they are extracted out of this come to the soul with a more pleasing power" Can we not have poetic theology?

c) it's prone to excessive allegoratization, but it's ok for Mark Driscoll to follow Gledhill's lead and interpret the foxes as sexual temptation? Excesses all round I guess, but might we miss some of the riches if we pass over details?I appreciate there are dangers, but I think Gledhill over reacts. Given he concedes there is some basis for this typological approach it seems a shame to throw away the opportunity for this book to testify about Christ and the church for fear of getting carried away with it. I accept it's possible to over-read the text, but perhaps we're more likely to under-read it...".

I don't think I need add anything to this outstanding rebuttal. Once again the danger of no use because of overuse - when rather we should be holding to right use. Fantastically written and I urge you to follow Dave's blog and his teaching.

Dr Peter Masters is Right!!

Well this is now the third part in an inpromtu series sparked off by Mark Driscoll and his rather colourful words on the Song of Solomon. The first was Dr John MacArthur's reaction to Driscoll here and the second was Rob Rufus's wonderful inspired words on the Song of Songs at "Glory and Grace" in 2007. I guess that part of the motivation behind why I feel so intensely about this could be explained in my post; "Speak Tenderly to My Bride". It's my conviction that something had gone drastically wrong when a preacher is laying down rules and regulations on what Christian wives "should do" in the privacy of their bedroom - with the end result of guilt and condemnation if they even feel they do not want to do what their husband is demanding.

So yesterday on the back of a recurrent dream I have been having I travelled down to London and went to the outstanding Evangelical Library. I was hoping to spend time in the periodicals and journals that they have but they are currently in storage. Instead I spent my time in the commentaries on the Song of Solomon. And I found a quote by Watchman Nee that made me think. Underneath the mocking of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon - I believe there is actually a problem with believing that God can feel so intimately about them. Why? Because they believe that they still have sin within them somewhere that the blood of Jesus Christ didn't quite cover and thus deserve something of the wrath and judgement of God.

In short this issue of how you understand the Song of Solomon is not just some secondary issue that can be ignored. Understanding that book rightly has implications on worship, on intimacy with God and the gospel itself. Because we will never be able to access the full glory, weight and wonder of God's love and passion for us conveyed through the Song of Solomon (among other Scriptures) until we understand the Gospel of grace properly.

Here's the quote from Watchman Nee;

"The book's (Song of Solomon) innermost heart speaks of spiritual communion. It is a book for the heart ... The book addresses itself to those who are already regenerated by the Spirit of God and who are awakened to longings for a fuller experience of Christ. There is not the slightest mention of things pertaining to salvation. The emphasis is not on matters relating to the sinner but rather on those concerning the advancement of the believer. It does not address itself to those outside of Christ but to the Lord's own people.

Consequently there are no instructions given as to how one may be saved but it tells of the longings of a believer for deeper experiences of the Lord. It does not speak of faith but of love. Love floats like a banner over the whole Song ... ".

And that's when I got my shock. Searching more through the shelves of the Evangelical Library I found a commentary on the Song of Solomon by Dr Peter Masters - the senior minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle. I am ashamed to say that Dr Masters is another individual I classed along with John MacArthur in the "rabidly anti-charismatic, anti-everything" camp. And that's true - he is. But I sat myself down and read his commentary. It was excellent. Here's the basis of his argument which I hope will be helpful;

1. The Title Points to Christ.

Firstly the original Hebrew is "Song of Songs" meaning the best of all possible songs, or the supreme and most beautiful song ever composed, an extravagant title for the love of ordinary human beings. Such a title best refers to the love of the Son of God for His people and their responding love to Him.

2. Solomon is Not a Model for Marriage.

Secondly Solomon, the inspired author, would hardly be the ideal channel for lessons on love and marriage in view of his having acquired a thousand wives and concubines who turned away his heart from God.

The life of the teacher must surely commend his message. If Solomon wrote about his own first courtship and marriage, how could this be described as the best song and put forward a model when it quickly became a betrayed relationship? A repentent sinner however is an acceptable person to write about the mercy of Christ to His church and Solomon became such a person after His restoration to God (reflected in Ecclesiastes).

3. There is No Wedding.

A third reason why we must see the Song as an allegory of the love between Christ and His church rather than a manual on married life is that there is no wedding in it.

It is a fact that the bride and groom are viewed throughout the book as not yet fully married, this being one of the compelling dramatic features. Modern writers tend to marry the couple off at an early stage so they view them as husband and wife, complete with physical intimacy and marital tiffs but this is read into the song. The reality is that the bride and groom had engaged in the first stage of an ancient Jewish betrothal so that they were wholly committed to each other but they did not yet live together.

Throughout the Song the bride and groom are seen waiting for the day of the wedding ceremony with it's great marriage supper and they are still looking forward to it with great desire at the end. This is powerfully prophetic providing an exceptionally close union between believers and their Lord as they wait for His coming at the end of the age and the great bridal supper of the Lamb.

C H Spurgeon said; "As a believer draws near to Heaven, this is the book he takes with him".

If we miss this the Song has ... nothing to say to our spiritual lives.

4. Love Terms Cannot Be Real.

A fourth reason for the superiority of the grand old view is that many expressions of admiration used in the Song are simply not credible for human love, such as when the groom tells the bride she resembles Pharoh's horses or that she has a neck like the squat, rough Tower of David, plus other equally jarring descriptions.

If however the poem is an allegory of the love between Christ and the church, these sentiments come to life, describing the privilidges and characteristics of saved people. The love poem is only the "vehicle" for the message. The descriptions were never meant to be wholly realistic or to be taken literally. As the old saying goes - an allegory says one thing but means another. We must see the deeper meaning.

5. Great Prophecies are Here.

A fifth reason for taking the groom to be Christ and the bride to be the Church, is the amount of prophecy which becomes obvious through this interpretation. It is no coincidence that many passages picture well the incarnation of Christ, His saving work, His resurrection, the establishment of the church age, the calling of the Gentiles and the future heavenly kingdom.

One modern evangelical Bible dictionary says rather surprisingly that "there is little in the book that is explicitly religious". This is only true if one takes the fairly modern view that this is a literal love story. However if we take the older view that this book is a guide to spiritual love then we see Christ and His work prophesied throughout it's eight chapters.

6. Allegory is Solomon's Speciality.

A sixth reason for believing that Christ and His church is the subject of this poem is that the Bible tells us that a parable style was the principal feature of Solomon's writings. He issued 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32) many of the proverbs being in the book of Proverbs. A proverb is (in the Hebrew) a rule or a comparison, ranging from a short, pithy comparison to a full-size paralell or allegory. While we are told that Solomon specialized "comparisons" (teaching truth by means of a fictional story) and also in songs,

We are not told that a major part of his work was a marriage guidance manual.

When Rob Rufus Gets It Right!!

There have been some really awesome comments on my previous post; "When John MacArthur Gets It Right!" - which I'm so grateful for. I think we all appreciated my non-Christian friend's input and frankness! All Christian husbands need to never, ever forget that sexual intimacy means that wives should be enjoying it too! But I carried the conversation on at home with my mum and dad when I met them for coffee yesterday. It's something I really love and appreciate about Mum and Dad - they are willing to listen to whatever's on my heart. The benefit of discussing this Driscoll/Song of Solomon thing is that I've come to appreciate how important Christian married couples long for some Biblical teaching and input on their intimate lives.

But I think Sheila makes a vital point too - we don't need schoolboy toilet (or bathroom) humour or language to get that point across. And while I am sure Mark Driscoll is an incredibly unique person - his behaviour doesn't necessarily have to be prescriptive to try and emulate the kind of success God is giving him at the moment. My heart still is for Christian women - sisters in Christ. And so I was thrilled driving back from Bristol to be reminded of something Rob Rufus said in a prayer at "Glory and Grace" when I was there in 2007.

Here's what he said - and it's absolutely on-topic. One might have thought he knew of the debate!

"The Bible in Song of Solomon and many other places talks about us being the Bride and being loved and ravished by heavenly romance with a Bridegroom that is so in love with us! Your love is better than wine. Come away with Me, My beloved!

Forgive us for taking the culture of the world as men - Lord! So afraid of intimacy. So afraid of closeness. So afraid of emotion. We thank You for the example of David - Lord. A real man, a masculine man, a warrior, a mighty warrior! A man who killed many people in battle, a great warrior in the army of Israel! A king! Yet a sensative, tender poet. A romantic. A lover! A tender-hearted man!

Oh give us men like that in the world today! Warriors who will stand up and fight yet know tenderness and intimacy! Jesus the Son of God who stood against the most evil force on the planet - religious demons behind Pharisees - and He stood against them alone and would not buckle under their intimidation or pressure. What a man! Yet He could stand before Lazarus's tomb and weep and shed tears and say "Let the little children come to Me for such is the Kingdom of heaven".

Jesus who could look at a woman caught in adultery and say "Woman where are your accusers? Neither do I accuse you". Such tenderness in this Man! Jesus of Nazareth! Fully God and fully Man! Weeping with compassion! Showing such kindness! But even on the Cross and dying for our sins, He looks down at John and said; "John behold your mother" - pointing at Mary. Thinking about His MOTHER! While He is on the Cross He is still wanting to make sure His earthly mother is looked after by His disciple John - the man He loved!

What kind of Man is this?! So full of masculinity and male authority yet so tender and intimate. He let John the apostle put his head on His chest at the Last Supper and was not embarressed by the contact of a physical man touching His chest in public - so innocent and pure. What happened to the church? This Bridegroom does not need our love but He desires it with a passion!".

I think that last point for me answers one of Driscoll's most distressing comments where he mocks those who see certain allegories in the Song of Solomon and says;

"Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]"

Whether it was meant as a joke or not (and an extremely bad one if it was) - the fact remains that Jesus Christ the Man had absolutely no problem in loving one of His disciples and welcoming His disciple's love and longing for closeness in absolute innocence and purity. I must confess one of the thoughts that has most often gone through my head when I first lay eyes on the Risen and Exalted Lord Jesus Christ for the first time is a longing that I will be able to run into His arms and do the same thing. Let's recover that innocence and purity. As Rob Rufus said;

"What's happened to the Church?".

When John MacArthur Gets It Right!!

One of the joys of being a constant student and son of God is that the Holy Spirit is constantly tweaking and adjusting prejudices in my life and I always know when it is Him. Because He does so, so utterly gently and tenderly. After leaving Bristol (as many know) I struggled a lot with unforgiveness and bitterness towards Sovereign Grace Ministries and the church in particular for their harsh legalism. And if I dared to share what I was struggling with, I was told (mainly by SGM-ers) that I should "just get over it". I am indebted still to Pete Day for dealing with this excellently in a blog post.

But probably in the last 18 months or so I've discovered that the Holy Spirit has taken away that bitterness and that anger without me even noticing or making any attempts to "just get over it". That's true sanctification surely! That as Ryan Rufus said in his sermon on Sunday - God wants us to focus on Him and His heart and then He will adjust the externals that He wants changing. Rest! Anyway that's a bit of an example as to how constant gentle change goes on in our lives so gently by the Spirit within us.

I've never had much time for John MacArthur since reading his "Charismatic Chaos" back in the days when our home church was marching steadily towards a functional and theological cessationist position. I hated his aggressive attitude and judgemental intolerance of charismatics (ironic that the Holy Spirit's gently pointed out in my life recently how aggressive and judgementally intolerant I have become of those I didn't like for being such!!). However I was very impressed with some articles that MacArthur published earlier this month dealing with the Song of Solomon - and in particular Mark Driscoll's approach to them.

Here's a brief summary of what MacArthur wrote;

1. "The Rape of Solomon's Song".

"Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service ... These are schemes that make daily sex obligatory for married couples over a specified time—usually between seven and forty days".

This was exactly the question I asked my family at dinner last night. "Relevance". I was shocked to hear that Driscoll's worship pastor used a swear word from the CCK platform when he was there for the Worship School recently. Now I am no prude! I'm a nurse and am well aware of swear words. Like Rob Rufus said once - I too can swear like a poet if I am so inclined. But I was asking my family if we need to use such words in church to be "relevant"?

MacArthur isn't saying we should stay in the Dark Ages of Victorianism and avoid sex in church;

"So there's simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning sex. But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit".

He then went on to get more specific with the way that the Song of Solomon is used in this "relevant" approach to sex;

"But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon's poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined ... We're assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren't merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon's Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife's own desire or conscience.

I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, "Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you're being dirty, he's pretty happy." Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.” That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way".

That was exactly my concern and my heart when I wrote my blog yesterday. Something is wrong when women who were created and given to be protected by man are being treated like this surely?

Anyway MacArthur ends the first part by mentioning that he feels Mark Driscoll is the main proponent of this view and treatment of the Song of Solomon. That may be true - I don't know. But in my opinion it was C J Mahaney who first brought this to the discussion table.

2. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 2".

Again I couldn't agree more with his opening lines;

"It's frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable".

MacArthur quotes Tremper Longman saying;

"Tremper Longman III says this about preachers and commentators who interpret the Song's poetic imagery in overtly explicit ways: "[Their] free association with the images of the Song is so prevalent that we learn far more about the interpreters than we do about the text".

He then goes on with some more specific comments about Driscoll which can be read but aren't the object of this post. This isn't meant to be a dig at Driscoll. I don't like the guy but I know he is touching thousands with his style and that's great! My querying is more about this issue of do we have to become like the world and speak like the world to attract the world? Or should there be something rather different about us?

3. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 3".

MacArthur makes some comment on the interpretation of Song of Solomon that I'm not quite sure about. He says;

"I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning. Solomon's Song is, as I've said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text".

I agree that it's not helpful to take everything in an allegorical fashion. But my gut feeling is that we must see marriage as it's God-given intention - that of a picture of Christ and His Bride! The supremacy of the relationship between God and us surely sets the tone for everything else. After all - why else would there be no "giving and receiving of marriage" in heaven? If marriage was that supreme then surely it would go on into eternity? Why does God get so upset in the Word of God when His picture of marriage is abused through sexual sin? Because it reflects on Christ and the Bride. Why did Moses get forbidden from entering the Promised Land? Simply for abusing a picture of Christ on the Cross.

MacArthur quoted Driscoll saying this about the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon;

"Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way."

MacArthur goes on;

"Driscoll has said almost the exact same thing in at least three other sermons. For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.”

Some of Driscoll's supporters have tried to stand up for him saying that he's toned down in his recent "Peasant Princess" series that some of my family have liked so much. MacArthur thinks not - quoting Driscoll;

"Now what happens is some say "Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically." And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, "Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]"

Er ... no. This "dude" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. But I won't go on otherwise I'll be writing stuff that I will later regret. MacArthur (while not taking the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon) writes something that I really found helpful and interesting;

"Thus even a non-allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, (simply taking the love-song between Solomon and the Shulamite at face value) ultimately points us to Christ and his love for the church. The text ought to be handled by the preacher accordingly, not as an excuse to bathe in the gutter of our culture's easygoing obsession with crude sex-talk and graphic sexual imagery".

I think if Mahaney and Driscoll had pointed to Christ and His love for the church then I wouldn't have had half the problem I do with the "literal" approach.

4. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 4".

In his final article MacArthur begins by responding to questions that arose from the many comments left as a result of these articles on his blog. Just prior to that MacArthur quoted Tim Challies who's reaction to this view of Song of Solomon was;

"I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that . . . . To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just … again, words really fail me here".

One interesting question I noted was this (followed by MacArthur's answer);

"2. Song of Solomon is a very explicit erotic book. How can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but "fully explicit"? Isn't it a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex?

explicit -- ek ● SPLIS ● it -- Distinctly expressing all that is meant; leaving nothing merely implied or suggested; unambiguous

Since there is not one explicit mention of a reproductive body part or sexual act in Song of Solomon, no credible commentator on the Song would ever make such a claim about that book. Furthermore (and this is the key point of the whole discussion) Song of Solomon is not "erotic" literature in any sense—i.e., it is not intended to arouse readers sexually. Clearly it should never be preached in a way that has that effect. That is so obvious a point that only an exploiter of the book would ignore it for prurient interests".

One important question was raised;

"4. Could it be that your scruples about graphic descriptions of sexual acts are cultural and generational? Perhaps the culture in which you minister isn't as uninhibited as the subcultures other preachers are trying to reach".

This surely is a fair point. MacArthur is a lot older than Driscoll. However I think Mahaney isn't that much younger than MacArthur and he seems to be very much in agreement with Driscoll. But even though I'm 31 - and I don't have scruples about discussing sex - I still have the same problem in graphic descriptions of sexual acts from the pulpit. How on EARTH is that fulfilling the Ephesians 4 mandate that these gifts of the ascended Christ are meant to be doing? To bring the body of Christ to maturity? To giggle in repulsion at the idea of the glorified and risen Christ trying to "put His hand up my shirt" sounds like it belongs in the gym changing room at school. Not the church. And certainly not from the platform.

Anyway. I promised myself I wouldn't get into a rant. Here's MacArthur's answer to that question;

"Sex is not something new in the postmodern era. Every culture and every generation has dealt with the same obsessions and perversions as today—though not always with the same unbridled self-indulgence our culture encourages. Every Christian has always faced the same lusts and temptations that assault us: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Those who think pornography and unrestrained debauchery weren't commonplace in the pre-Internet era ought to visit the ruins of Pompeii and see what life was like in the culture of Rome during the apostle Paul's generation. Paul ministered in cultures that were far less “inhibited” than ours. Yet when he found it necessary to deal with sexual topics—whether giving positive instruction about the marriage relationship or a negative exhortation about sexual sins—he never spoke in sexually graphic terms".

In many ways our generation is more prudish than some of the generations that MacArthur mentioned. MacArthur makes a very important point;

"The truth is that God’s Word never gives specific instruction about the details of a married couple’s personal preferences in their sex life. Sermons that pretend to find such instruction, like the sexual preoccupation demonstrated in these assaults on the Song of Solomon, are more damaging than helpful—because they elevate the imagination of the preacher to a higher position of prominence and authority than the true revelation of God".

This is something I've worried about time and again. The two churches that formed the bulk of my Christian experience were both led by very dominant (some might say domineering) church pastors. Even if they didn't intend it - there was a culture in both churches where church members would take the word of the pastor as the Word of God. And that wasn't just the preached word. That was throw-off comments and opinions that said pastors had.

We discussed Driscoll's views on the Song of Solomon last night (mainly me and my mum) and this question actually came up in conversation;

"6. Was Driscoll’s sermon really as bad as you say? Aren’t you overreacting to what is ultimately just a difference in style?".

MacArthur gives a link to the two sermons Driscoll preached in Scotland - and I duly read them. Why is such an issue made of this? Well here's why according to MacArthur;

"That’s why I am making such an issue of this. Because the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough".

Finally someone asked MacArthur why he is dealing with this matter publicly and why he hasn't approached Driscoll privately (he has and was ignored). The questioner knew that both John Piper and C J Mahaney are having some degree of input into Driscoll's life. Here's what MacArthur said;

"I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums".

He quotes Scripture to back this up;

"When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses".

On Driscoll's tongue, MacArthur said;

"Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings".

That's something I've noticed. I know a church in Wales that has adopted the "Driscoll-style" in church life (and the pastors certainly aren't immature) and I've heard the MP3's and the same cursing and joking seems to crop up there too.

And finally on Mahaney and Piper's involvement;

"Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin.

In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough. Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog. To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them".

I'm glad that someone of MacArthur's statesmanship wrote these articles. Not because I am rejoicing that someone else is taking a pop at Driscoll - because I said before that wasn't my concern. He is who he is. And God can work all things together for good. But because the whole issue of Song of Solomon is being dealt with properly and in a concerned manner for the glory of God and for His Name and for His fame.

The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking in a smutty manner. They can do it far better than the church ever can. The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking explicitly about sex - not when explicit sex is available anywhere and everywhere. In my experience non-Christians expect the church to be different. And when they are not - even non-Christians know something is wrong.