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!).

Dear C. J. Mahaney...

Dear C. J. Mahaney...

I really WANTED to like your book (Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God)—after all, I did pay $7.99 for it. I actually think I WILL like your book, unfortunately, the wheels came off from the get go. You give me five reasons why you are going to try and persuade me that the Song of Solomon is all about sexual intimacy within the covenant of marriage.

Reason One: Solomon's topic was obviously sex.

Um, C. J. did you take a lit course in college? Have you ever read "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost? It's all about stopping by the woods on a snowy evening and watching snow flakes, right? No! It's poetry. Stopping by the woods is a metaphor for life and the ever present pressure of time and life moving on and...well, I won't bother with a literature analysis but you (don't) get the point. It's poetry! It's metaphorical. Poetry is SUPPOSED to be metaphorical. It's supposed to reach below the surface to some deeper meaning (and no, I do not spiritualize every little part of the Song of Solomon).

Reason Two: The Bible never suggests that this book isn't primarily about sex.

Seriously? An argument from silence? The Bible never suggests that it IS all about sex because the rest of the Bible NEVER REFERS TO IT! This is a terrible argument, you should have just stuck with four.

Reason Three: God's relationship with man is not sexual.

Point granted. Let me see, if I were the wisest man who has ever lived, specially gifted by God with wisdom and I wanted to come up with some type, some metaphor that best worked out the intimate relationship between Israel and God, what might I think of? Wait a minute. There is one that is all around; that everyone immediately identifies with; that everyone intuitively understands, the relationship between a man and a woman. What a perfect metaphor!

Reason Four: Spiritualizing the book doesn't work.

Agreed, and as anyone who has ever studied poetry knows, one doesn't have to make metaphors of every possible word in the poem. Indeed, one of Robert Frost's poems hung metaphorically on one line of perhaps 25. Were it not for that line, we might really think that Mr. Frost was speaking of orchards, and autumn leaves, and the smell of apples; as my English Lit professor correctly pointed out, Robert Frost won't let us take his poem literally. If thus Robert Frost, even more so Solomon.

Reason Five: We Need Instruction on Sexuality.

But, this C. J., is the brilliance of the Song of Solomon. We receive a beautiful look at the intimacy involved in marriage—and are thereby instructed—when the metaphorical meaning of the eastern love poem goes far deeper. It's brilliant! Only Solomon could have come up with it and carried it off, but then you missed the deeper meaning. So sad.

Oh, and by the way, I have a couple of questions for you.

Question one: Can you name one commentator who agrees with your position that was born before 1900?

Question two: Solomon uses the term "my beloved" again and again in the Song of Solomon. Did you bother seeing how that term is used in the rest of the Old Testament. I'm willing to bet you didn't. I've never heard anyone who holds the "Marriage Manual" interpretation of the Song of Solomon address it.

I'm going to finish the rest of the book, and I suspect I really will like it. But here we have the wisest person who has ever lived write poetry and he does not have any metaphorical purpose in mind at all? Really?

Your friend,

HT: High Fliers.

Don't Delay - Move on!!

I read a fascinating Twitter comment from Al Mohler this morning before leaving for work - it linked to a book review of a book called; "Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers" by sociologist Mark Regnerus. His point is simple, shocking and sincere;

"Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s.Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of them. And I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It's battling our Creator's reproductive design".

Now let me be clear, I haven't read his book - only Mohler's review. But I must admit as a single person (and one that is sometimes slightly anti-cliche Christian marriage) I found the review and the concept he presented intriguing and stirring. I don't quite see it as far as Mohler states;

"As men and women, we are made for marriage ... Marriage is the central crucible for accepting and fulfilling the adult responsibilities of work, parenthood, and the full acceptance of mature responsibilities".

As excellent a scholar and theologian as Mohler may be - I would argue he has forgotten that Paul makes explicit room for celibacy. Maybe Mohler is reflecting the modern Church he represents, who have also forgotten that Paul made explicit room for celibacy. Rather most single people get treated as odd, different and not quite making up even numbers at dinner parties or social events. Anyhow - back to the book review.

Mohler concludes;

"Mark Regnerus certainly drives the point home when he argues that "when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex." Nevertheless, Christians are called to a moral standard that, by any secular standard, is profoundly unreasonable. I would prefer to argue that the delay of marriage is unwise, not only because of the demonstrated risk of sexual immorality, but because of the loss of so much God gives to us in marriage".

Probably the cruelest thing that any church leader can do is to deny a couple the chance or opportunity to get married or to delay their wedding. You may argue you have never heard of this happening in the 21st century Christian church. Well I have. And not only that, it is also mentioned in the New Testament;

1 Timothy 4:2-3; "(Such teachings come) by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron - they forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth".

In the Expositor's Bible Commentary Ralph Earle comments on this often-forgotten and rarely taught on verse;

"The apostle uses strong language in describing the teachers of the false doctrines he is about to mention. He declares they are "hypocritical liars" (the teachers who forbid marriage); this implies that they know better but they have deliberately forsaken the faith and teach falsehood ... Paul now mentions two of their false teachings; forbidding marriage and ordering people to "abstain from certain foods" ... what these false teachers forgot is that marriage is an institution that God established as the normal thing in society ... the apostle struck out forcefully against it as a negation of our freedom in Christ".

Marriage is one of the most beautiful and complete expressions of the grace of God that He can give. What can get closer to the image of His love, desire and passion for His Bride than that of marriage? In marriage, God has given mankind the opportunity to get a taste - just a taste of what we will enjoy at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Why am I so utterly passionate about the Song of Solomon being understood in it's true Biblical context? Because nothing excites me more than considering the tangible expression of love and glory that will be ours on that Day when our glorious Bridegroom returns. The glory will be such - we are told - that human marriage will not be in heaven. That's not something to mourn because the wonder of marriage that Christian couples enjoy now is nothing compared to what will be. That is why I so vigorously contend against the false emphasis that men like C J Mahaney and Mark Driscoll put on the Song of Solomon. Such teaching is distracting and putting too much emphasis on human marriage and too little on ultimate marriage - Christ and His church.

I wonder if that happened because too much emphasis was put on human marriage. Christian marriage is a serious undertaking because it is for life, it is done in the sight of God and man - but let us not forget that the apostle Paul himself said;

"But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion".

He's not down-grading the sanctity of marriage. But he is also not unnecessarily over-exalting the sanctity of marriage to a near-gnostic level so that marriage is forbidden unnecessarily and thereby sinfully exalting lust. Any leaders who do forbid marriage surely stand before God in accountability for causing those under their care to fall. All that aside - I stand convinced by Mohler's review of this book. Maybe the church has over emphasied too far in one direction and it is time to have the balance of truth adjusted somewhat. Young people!? Get married!!

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.

Speak Tenderly To My Bride ...

"You have made my heart beat faster, my sister, my bride; You have made my heart beat faster with a single glance of your eyes" - Song of Solomon 4:9

I've just come back from a lovely evening with a small part of my family - Mum, Dad and my three younger sisters. The object of my trip was to collect my laptop that I left there during Easter - hence a small break in transcribing! We enjoyed a KFC and some fascinating conversation. I've noticed that whenever I spend time with the women in my life whom I love and adore, I always come back feeling extremely protective towards them. I think that's why God hasn't let me get married actually. If I did get married, chances are that I would become over-protective towards my wife and maybe over-idolise them. At the present I am so blessed to have six sisters and countless "adopted" sisters in Christ!

As I was driving back I was listening to Isi de Gersigny's first session at "Glory and Grace 2007" and forgot totally that during the ministry time Fini led a time of blessing to the women at the conference. I understand he did the same thing at "Glory and Grace" this year too.

And I got thinking. Why does it drive me so absolutely crazy with anger when I hear about a church pastor manipulating and abusing one of my sisters? Why does it drive me crazy when I hear men teaching and preaching and instructing women what they should be doing externally to allegedly please God - such as what to wear? Why are women being forcibly subdued in church and being prevented from moving into powerful ministry because they're expected to "submit" - while their male counterparts aren't loving them "as Christ loved the church"?

I think a balance needs to be struck here. I've always reacted against the chauvinistic call to "manhood" trumpeted by men like C J Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. Comments like "real" men shouldn't have any fashion sense and Driscoll's more unspeakable ideas on what "real" men should be doing to their wives sicken me to my stomach quite frankly. But I heard Rob Rufus speak recently on the need for "real" men and it made me re-think my hasty angry conclusions! I know - many may say how come Rob can make you re-think when the other two can't? Well because Rob has demonstrated in his life that he's a man's man (enjoying running very fast!) - but can also unashamedly weep, express his love for Glenda and other things that "men's men" don't seem too good at. Men need to get this balance. It's desperate! And the answer doesn't lie in endless courses and "marriage specialists". It lies in a true grasp of the Gospel.

Nothing makes me rejoice more than seeing women released in ministry and setting the church ablaze. Some of my heroes are Kate Simmonds, Darlene Zschech, Isi de Gersigny, Glenda Rufus, Wendy Virgo, Julie, Lydia, Ursula, Nick and Sheila! And on behalf of my gender I want to apologise to women for the hurt and pain that men may have inflicted on women. Especially Christian women. I'm so so sorry beyond words for the emotional, physical and sexual abuse that may have been inflicted in the name of "submission". I know that God's heart couldn't be further from that.

And I listened and learnt a new song at home on a CD - from the amazing Hillsongs. It's called "At the Cross" and I found the video on You-Tube and was mesmerised by the women worshipping as they sing it. I think in worship women almost look like angels lost in the glory realm - so I post this and dedicate to every Christian sister reading this. May today you know the love and intimacy of the true and best spiritual Husband ever! Who will NEVER abuse you! Who will NEVER point out your faults or flaws! Who will NEVER do anything but adore you and delight in you and wonder in you and excite over you!



Tomorrow .... a first. I agree with John Macarthur! :-o (that's an emoticon btw!)

What Song of Solomon Has to Teach Us!!

One of the fascinating conversations I had on my recent visit to Bristol to see my dad was regarding one of our favourite books in the Bible - the Song of Solomon. It was provoked because I brought him C H Spurgeon's sermons on this wonderful book entitled; "The Most Holy Place". I've argued before what my position is on this glorious book - so don't need to repeat that at length. Suffice to say that I couldn't be further removed from C J Mahaney's odd views and tend to stand in the more traditional historical view that first and foremost this book (like Christian marriage) is a picture of Christ and His Bride - the Church.

What my dad and I were discussing and unpacking was what teaching a biblical approach to this book can and will do for the Church. Some of the historical divines said this of the Song of Solomon:

"This is spoken in the person of the Church, or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loves". (from the Geneva 1599 Bible Notes)

"It treats of Christ and his Church, in their most glorious, lively, and lovely actions, to wit, his care of, and his love unto his Church, and that in its most eminent degree; and also, of her love to him". - James Durham (1622 Puritan) who incidentally C H Spurgeon described as "that master of masters".

On Song of Solomon 2:1 - "If these are the words of the Well-beloved,—and I have no doubt that they are —then it may be suggested by some that here we have the Savior praising himself; and it is true; but in no unworthy sense, for well may he praise himself since no one else can do it as it should be done" - C H Spurgeon.

And finally the great Jonathan Edwards said;

"The name by which Solomon calls this song confirms to me that it is more than an ordinary love song and that it was designed for a divine song and of divine authority for we read in 1 Kings 4:32 that Solomon's songs were "a thousand and five". This he called the "Song of songs". That is the most excellent of his songs ... because it was a song of the most excellent subject treating of the love, union and communion between Christ and His spouse of which marriage and conjugal love was but a shadow. These are the most excellent lovers and their love the most excellent love".

More recently theological scholars have said:

"The Song is more than a canonical sex manual as some recent treatments have implied" - Tremper Longman.

So what does holding this biblical view do for our Christian lives?

1. It Increases Affections for God.

As a single man I confess I have tried reading the Song of Solomon with Mahaney's interpretation in mind and I have felt nothing than a grudging resentment that I am not married. Whereas when you allow the Spirit-inspired words that are "profitable for teaching" to sink into your heart then they cannot help but provoke feelings of awe and wonder. For example;

"Your love is better than wine, your oils have a pleasing fragrance, your Name is like purified oil ...".

And then the Bridegroom Himself actually speaks ... to us! To me!

"To Me, My darling ...". (GOD calls ME darling!?!?). "Your cheeks are lovely ... My beloved ... My beloved ... how beautiful you are My darling! How beautiful you are!".

How can we but respond?

2. It inflames Worship to God.

Get this widget Track details eSnips Social DNA

I'm not sure you can sing a beautiful song like "Draw Me Close to You" (which is one among many songs of intimacy I love) without touching the passion of God for us. Pete Day's recent blog post is a vital foundational grace truth - that condemnation MUST be removed. Because while we tolerate condemnation in our lives then we never will quite believe that God is so passionately for us. How long should we bear guilt!? Not for a MOMENT! Why? Because once it's gone - our worship will rise like a fragrant incense!

Song of Solomon itself expresses something of the response that should be the Church's;

"Listen! My beloved! Behold He is coming! Climbing on the mountains! Leaping on the hills! ... My beloved is mine and I am His!"

And by contrast something of the heartache that should characterise us when His manifest Presence is not felt among us personally or corporately;

"I sought Him whom my soul loves; I sought Him but did not find Him, I must arise now and go about the city ... I must seek Him whom my soul loves".

3. It Revives Marriage between Husband and Wife.

Let me say again that I do applaud C J Mahaney's heart to infuse a God-honouring passion back into Christian marriages. I just wish he hadn't tried to impose his views to twist Scripture to try and back up what he was saying. That wasn't necessary. And I wouldn't limit Song of Solomon either to purely representing Christ and His Bride (as perhaps some of the Puritans tried). Because Christian marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and His Bride - but it is that which will last for eternity!

For example Ephesians 5:31; "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church". And slightly earlier in Ephesians 5:22; "Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is also the head of the church, He Himself being the Saviour of the Body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be to their husbands in everything".

It's my observation as a single guy that most Christian men have stopped there in their theology and experience - nodding and agreeing with Wayne Grudem. But Sam Storms says quite rightly;

"Headship is a responsibility - not a right".

It is my conviction that if I were ever to be married - I would not dare try and expect my wife to submit until I had fulfilled the next verse;

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her ... so husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself".

Maybe if more husbands loved their wives "as Christ" then it wouldn't be such a controversy expecting wives to "submit"!

So it's my prayer that the Song of Solomon is rightfully claimed back! I have to confess something - I've always hated a lot of "couples" teaching you hear that goes on in the Church. I will fully admit I am bitter and jealous of those who are married. What an awesome blessing! I would love to share my life with someone! And much of the teaching that you hear makes me ... frankly want to puke. I am sure they love each other but it doesn't help me being single hearing them wax eloquent. Oddly enough though since encountering Rob and Glenda Rufus I have benefited so much in gaining a more godly attitude about marriage. I love watching a couple who have been married faithfully for 30+ years - still totally in love with each other. I hope Rob and Glenda share some of their wisdom soon about marriage in book form.

On that note Rob Rufus spoke recently about the Song (and wonderfully he agrees with myself and most of church history!). It's an awesome place to finish my meandering thoughts - because it is a testimony of how the Song of Solomon (rightfully preached) saved 30 of his soldier collegues!

"I am a bit passionate about this! Here is the mystery of the Bridegroom and the Bride! I have deliberately left out some passages because some of you would blush. These passages were written by the Holy Spirit and you are not as holy as the Holy Spirit as He expresses intimacy and you can't handle it. In the military where atheists become Christians on the Angolan border, and they usually read pornography books - so one night I opened the Song of Solomon and they all usually want to borrow each others books. I put my candle on and I read the parts which I can't read to you because you are saved people. I read it to them because they were reading pornography so they could cope with it but you are Christians and you are holy and you can't! I didn't tell them it was the Bible and hid it below my sleeping bag! And they said; "Wow what book is that - can I read it after you?". I said "Yes it is the Bible!". I wish I had captured on video their faces! They said "No!". Suddenly they all wanted to read the Bible and they realised that the Bible had been mis-represented by Christians!

30 of those swearing blaspheming troops got saved and many of them are still going on with Christ today! I wasn't a Christian - I was a son! And I showed them that this is the mystery of God and His Bride! I told them "Don't go to church to check this out because you won't see it - you will see no passion or heavenly romance". Song of Solomon chapter 1:1;"Let him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth for your love is better than wine ... let him bring me into his chambers". That is the King to the Bride!

Go down to (v12); "My lover is to me ... how beautiful you are my darling oh how beautiful". Then the church says back; "How handsome you are my lover!". This is church - Sunday morning! "Oh how handsome you are". All through the week I have been encountering your love, all through the busy week I have been concious of heaven! 2:3; "Like an apple tree ... I delight to sit in His shade .. His banner over me is love". The prophetic word God spoke to us today! "I am faint with love". How many of you have felt FAINT with love for Jesus? "I charge you by the gazelles ... do not awaken love .... here He comes! (Jesus!) bounding over the hills ... Arise my darling!" - talking to the church!".

Why I Love John Piper

I love Mark Dever's tribute to Dr John Piper in their recent book, "Preaching the Cross". He wrote;

"While too many of us are saying a lot of things quickly and running onto the next, John stops and stands and stays and stares at God's Word. Sometimes he stares at something that seems so obvious, but he keeps staring until it begins to expand and fill the horizon of his sight. It becomes rich and detailed and luscious and intricate and full and demanding and hope-giving and life-affirming and sin-denying and sacrifice-requiring ... John prays and thinks until a part of God's Word which seemed simple and obvious becomes fresh and powerful".

I've witnessed that become true again in the videoclip that I have successfully (I hope!) posted from the mind-boggling You-Tube below. Like Luke and others, I was touched by Terry Virgo's recent blog post, "Amazing Grace". It is incredibly powerful to read of insights and personal stories of a man that is my biggest living hero and fathers the family I am so proud to be part of. However I must be honest. Part of me sighed deeply when I got to the bit where Terry wrote, "let me recommend marriage to you".

It sounds so simple doesn't it? I can imagine Terry saying it and I know the love and affection in his heart as he wrote it. However I've heard quite a lot of encouragements to just "go out and do it". Maybe it is that simple. But I've always had the suspicion and fear that marriage is being exalted beyond a station it was never meant to be exalted - hence my persistence in the whole Song of Solomon debate. Therefore I was thrilled to hear John Piper say this in the video clip;

"Do not elevate natural processes like procreation and childbearing and marriage to anything bigger than what they are - temporal, physical means of keeping the world going and illustrations of Christ and the Church - which when He comes will fade away".

Don't get me wrong. I love weddings and I love reading about them. I rejoice whenever a Christian wedding happens because it is another step towards stemming the tide in the godless age when marriage is seen as irrelevant. But let's heed John Piper's "cosmic vision" (which so reminds me of Ern Baxter by the way). Marriage is a sign - a symbol of a greater, more wonderful thing. Christ and His Bride! Let's allow every wedding to indeed make us ponder on the amazing grace that He would chose a Bride for Himself who will one day be glorious and spotless - ready to be presented to Him.

So over to John Piper:

To Be Single is Better?

I usually tried to avoid as much as possible discussions about marriage/singleness, but in a theological world where biblical manhood and womanhood is a hot topic, it's nigh-on impossible. I guess I always feel as though my hands are slightly tied. After all - I am not married so what business do I have contributing to discussions on marriage? My home church held quite a good position on it I think. My pastor used to tell the men of the church to resist ministry and marriage as long as was humanly possible and if you ended up in it - it was probably of God! Then moving to Bristol and into SGM I found the topic of marriage much higher on the agenda and much more present in the church. I heard some stuff said about getting married which was at best insensative and at worst rude. So I am far from objective in the whole discussion!

Thus I am always thrilled when a hero of calibre like Dr John Piper has something to say. He preached a sermon; "Single in Christ: A Name Better Than Sons and Daughters" at Bethlehem and it was vintage. He said;

"My main point is that God promises those of you who remain single in Christ blessings that are better than the blessings of marriage and children, and he calls you to display, by the Christ-exalting devotion of your singleness, the truths about Christ and his kingdom that shine more clearly through singleness than through marriage and childrearing".

More succinctly;

"To say the main point more briefly: God promises spectacular blessings to those of you who remain single in Christ, and he gives you an extraordinary calling for your life. To be single in Christ is, therefore, not a falling short of God’s best, but a path of Christ-exalting, covenant-keeping obedience that many are called to walk".

So I guess it was quite understandable that someone (probably like me) wrote to him asking; "If what you say about the blessing of singleness is true, then why would one even want to be married?". In true biblical wisdom, Piper responded with the following letter: "Married or Single: For Better or Worse". I really appreciated much of what he had to say about marriage because it backed up a lot of what I have felt deeply. Namely that marriage is intended to: "To display his covenant keeping love between Christ and the church". This has particular bearing on the discussion about the meaning of the Song of Solomon. But Piper's wise conclusion to the question is excellent.

"Marriage may prove to be gloriously happy, or painfully disappointing. Singleness may prove to be gloriously satisfying or painfully disappointing. Only God knows which it will be for you".

Basically it all comes back to faith again. We shouldn't be panicking rushing around looking for the "right" partner, nor should we be rudely rebuffing the clear signs of attraction when it's plainly obvious. If we really do indeed call Jesus Christ our Lord then our marital status rests in His divine hands along with every other aspect of our lives. And what a comfort that is!