End Times Prophetic, Prophecy, Visions, Dreams, Revelation, Christian Blog

Christian prophecy for the church and for the nations from a servant of God called to speak God's word

Radio blocks Foul Mouthed Mark Driscoll Mid-show

Warning! This news article here contains explicit language concerning sexuality.

June 24, 2009 - Posted by endtimespropheticwords | False Prophets and Teachers, Mark Driscoll, News | , , | 19 Comments

19 Comments »

  1. Driscoll’s Edinburgh sermon included graphic detail to explain his idea that Song of Solomon 2:6 encourages husbands to stimulate their wives by touching private parts of their bodies. He said chapter 7 of the book gives biblical justification for spouses “stripping” for each other and quipped that while lovemaking is better than wine, “lovemaking is great with wine.”

    More trash from Driscoll. I guess just preaching from the bible is too boring for these youngin’s.

    Comment by Javanut | June 24, 2009

  2. Thank the Lord for men like MacArthur, unafraid to confront sin for what it is. Not to mention the misuse/misinterpretation of God’s word. The rest of the article reeked of pornography to me. We do not need the likes of Driscoll polluting and defiling the Body. May the Lord deal with him, correct him, restore him if he(Driscoll) is willing. Is that too harsh? I speak as one who was terrorized and molested sexually as a very tiny tot, and I recognize the evil spirit.

    Comment by Lynette | June 24, 2009

  3. I’m not sure I understand why Bott and many others think that only one sex act is pure and natural and the rest are impure. Wouldn’t this be for the couple to decide for themselves? That said, it seems pretty silly that Driscoll thinks that to justify a sex act he’s got to find it in a verse in the Bible. I didn’t realize that so many people still took that form of literalism seriously anymore.

    Comment by Matt | June 24, 2009

  4. I guess we’ll never see John MacArthur preaching on Ez. 23, at least if he does he won’t be quoting verses like 3 and 20 because stuff like that just isn’t in the Bible (he actually claims Ez 23:20 is not graphic). About Song of Songs, he fumbles around like someone embarrassed by sex, admitting the existence of poetic euphemisms and then telling us we shouldn’t try to interpret them because they’re secrets only known to the couple. Sorry Mr MacArthur, euphemisms are intended to fire up the old imagination. He actually claims that Song of Songs “is as far from explicit as the writer can get.” Perhaps someone could explain how he could possibly justify that statement.

    Comment by Matt | June 24, 2009

  5. Well Matt-
    I guess you are one of the young dudes who commented over at the Pulpit post. The reason MacArthur can say that the Song is Not explicit is because it NEVER talks about explicit sex acts-as Driscol so pathetically tries to do with the text.
    And then to say MacArthur fumbles around like someone embarrassed by sex???? So how’d you read that into anything Jm has ever written or said..
    I have Never found him reticent to talk sex when the text of Scripture talks sex. The difference between JM and Driscol is the potty language and cesspool tactics that MD uses.
    Young man–I assume that since young men seem to be the only ones defending this– please realize that Song never infers oral sex or any other sex act–you have to be either dishonest or mentally ill to find that in that book of the Bible, or any other book of the Bible!
    I do not know what MD’s problem is –but he sure has one–his teaching from this book of the Bible is PORNOGRAPHIC!!!!!!

    Comment by Victoria | June 24, 2009

  6. victoria: i’ve never read or posted at ‘pulpit’ and i’m not that young. how about addressing the points i made rather than being distracted by age or posting habits? it’s a good first step to make statements, could you back them up? if you read my comments again you’ll find that i find both jm and md a little bit ridiculous. ironically, md seems more the bible guy trying justify behavior by finding a verse for it while jm who claims to be more biblical seems to be reading his own feelings about sex into the text–ez 23:20 is not graphic?!

    Comment by Matt | June 24, 2009

  7. Mr. Driscoll sounds a bit perverted, IMO. Once, a respected minister, Lester Sumrall, said that our mouths ‘don’t belong down there’. And I tend to agree. Seems like the crator know what he was doing when he made a female and a male. The body parts just naturaaly fit into the respective places. And, isn’t life more than sex and trying to pervert it? Even electrical cords have a male and a female part. Go figure.

    Comment by j.doe | June 24, 2009

  8. Matt said:

    I’m not sure I understand why Bott and many others think that only one sex act is pure and natural and the rest are impure. Wouldn’t this be for the couple to decide for themselves?

    Actually no. You don’t get to decide what is right and wrong. God does. He wrote it all down for you in a book called the bible. You ought to try reading it once :)

    Comment by Javanut | June 25, 2009

  9. Javanut:
    Now that would be an interesting bible passage. Could you tell me where it is found? John MacArthur hasn’t been able to find it either.

    Comment by Matt | June 25, 2009

  10. Javanut:
    Now that would be an interesting passage. Could you please tell me where I could find it? John MacArthur hasn’t been able to find it either. I’m sure he’d be interested, as would Driscoll who seems really interested in such passages.

    Comment by Matt | June 25, 2009

  11. Ok, I’m sick. I have to admit to having been a little on the fence about Mark Driscoll for a long time. The Lord has been gentle in sanding away some of my rough edges, and there are times in which I am less offended my coarse talk than I should be. This is the last straw.

    I realize that there has been a negative trend in the church toward feminization, but Driscoll’s talk has been just plain offensive to women in the body of Christ. And this time, its worse than that.

    Does he not realize the heavy yoke he is putting on wives? It is one thing to say that the Lord permits a variety of private expressions of love between a husband and wife. It is yet another for a pastor to say that everything must be on the menu in order for a wife to be considered loving and submissive to her husband.

    There are some acts that have a strong suggestion of humiliation and degradation to some people. These are acts that prisoners force upon one another for the purpose of domination. They may not always carry this connotation, but for some people they will, and life experiences can magnify their significance. Between two married people, in their bedroom, these issues can be worked out, but for this man to use his authority as a pastor to jump into people’s bedrooms and create a hierarchy of loving submission based on the wife’s willingness to perform various sex acts, he is abusing his sheep.

    I fear so greatly that this man’s teachings will cause husbands to become discontented with their wives. I believe that it is very possible that a husband could be satisfied with his love life but then be stirred to discontentment because of the ideas, images, and standards that a preacher put in his head.

    I have scoffed before at the suggestion that Driscoll’s preaching was like pornography, but this is very much so. It draws the husbands heart away from his wife, it causes him to be dissatisfied with her, gives him license to be self seeking and self indulgent, harms the marriage bond and threatens the marriage. In these ways, it is very much like pornography, but it is worse, because it comes from a Christian preacher and is not only sanctioned by preached in the name of Christ.

    Comment by Sylvia | June 26, 2009

  12. Just wondering why Driscoll was counseling women about sex. In my past pastoral counseling experience, proper protocol is for women to counsel women regarding intimate matters and if a male is counseling another woman should be present. Seems like sexual exploitation and cruelty/manipulation to unsuspecting sheep. And churches wonder why many get frustrated and leave! God help us all.

    Comment by Lynette | June 26, 2009

  13. Good post, Sylvia! You said it well. I will add this. There are many, many, many women who have been molested, raped, sodomized (both orally and analy, to be blunt),and sexually assualted, raped, humiliated,etc. Many men as well, especially in the despicable prisons. (Why is it allowed??!!) For this clown to come out so gallantly and so, so dominating is utterly repulsive. WWJD?? Husbands, LOVE your wives, don’t humiliate them. Don’t degrade them. Love them. Honor them. I pray Mr. “Dirt Mouth’ Driscoll will get some compassion and wisdom and not pervert sex. It’s bad enough out thewre already, without more ideas put into sex-addicted men’s minds. Yes, God made sex. But, He didn’t plan for us to hurt each other with it.

    Comment by justavoice | June 27, 2009

  14. Also, if this is what the ‘church men’ now expect and demand from their wives, then who would want to be married anyway??? NO thanks.

    Comment by justavoice | June 27, 2009

  15. Sylvia

    Your comment is very good!

    Maria

    Comment by My Beloved is Mine and He is Yours too | June 29, 2009

  16. Lynette, great point. How did it happen that he was counseling a woman? I agree sometimes it is needed for a couple to counsel a woman to help her understand the relationship better but for a man to counsel a woman about sex seems inappropriate.

    I agree with Matt a bit – Bible does not describe which position is the godly one, or whether e.g. oral sex is bad and sinful. But these issues ought to be discussed and prayed for in a private and decent manner.

    Still, Songs of Salomon are written as a revelation of God, and they show the love between the Bride (Church) and Christ. As much as they also show intimate relationship between a man and a woman, they are not simply that – they are inspired and they show to us great truths about the Gospel.

    I highly recommend, as an example of discovering God in this book, the teaching on SoS
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AcpIxiof_w

    Driscoll is really making me sick sometimes. There must be a godliness in a language we use, and in our respect to one another. The passage from Ephesians used in this article is a great example.

    Comment by ... | June 29, 2009

  17. Oh, just one more thing about the article.

    ‘Nor does he discuss scriptural precepts that are at odds with his interpretation, like the Romans 1 warnings about anal sex — “natural for unnatural” — or the exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 4 about “sanctification and honor” in the marriage relationship, rather than “lustful passion, like the Gentiles.”‘

    I do not agree with Driscoll but in disagreeing we should not twist the Scriptures to our own use.
    Romans 1 do not speak about anal sex. It speaks about sex between a man and a woman as being natural. This passage do not suggest the technique.

    1 Thessalonian 4 – it is about our hearts, not about the set of rules that will make sex honourable. One can be led by lustful passion to perform ‘church approved’ sex (man-woman, traditional position).

    Nevertheless, I agree with them on the rest. Driscoll should not be a pastor with his attitude and lack of seriousness in dealing with Scriptures. I cannot imagine being counselled by him. Must be a terrible experience.

    Comment by ... | June 29, 2009

  18. I find that the bible does use quite a bit of sexual imagery.
    Doing a paper on this recently, the imagery that God used against Israel was to reveal her prostitution and wickedness to the nations.

    However, other imagery used by God does have a very husband-like romantic connotation. The Song of Songs itself is quite sexual in it’s imagery.

    However, sex isn’t sin unless it is abused. Sex is sacred and intimate, something that God only created a man and woman to have. Driscoll has it right in saying that the Song of Song’s is sexual, but his teaching on the matter is abusive.

    Sex is sacred. Abuse is sin.
    Too many abuse the sacred intimacies of sex.

    Comment by specksandplanks | June 29, 2009

  19. I think the best explanation of sexual imaginary in the Bible is given in the response to Driscoll by MacArthur

    ‘In fact, Solomon’s love-poem epitomizes the exact opposite approach. It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love—in language suitable for any audience.’

    And here is shown the difference between Driscoll’s and Piper’s attitudes on the same topic:

    http://gospelliving.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-piper-v-mark-driscoll-on-intimacy.html

    Comment by ... | June 29, 2009


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »