I went out to eat with my wife this evening and when the food was done we ended up at the Half-Price Bookstore–which is like a cigarette after s**. Oh, :)

While at the Half-Price Bookstore, I picked up a brand spanking new hard cover copy of the ESV–the latest rage among the neo-Reformed. It sure is pretty.–inside and out; I love it.

Seems there is a lot of conversation lately about the proper use of words and what words we are allowed to use when we speak or preach. Some preachers have been taking a real hit from some who think their words are too, uh, vulgar. I have already blogged about this just a bit; some of you have commented.

Lately, I have been reading the Prophet Ezekiel. I thought you might also enjoy this chapter of Ezekiel, 23,  that I read tonight because it speaks to our time, our day, our culture, and our church. I have left the footnotes intact for your benefit.

Oholah and Oholibah

1The word of the LORD came to me: 2(A) “Son of man, there were(B) two women, the daughters of one mother. 3(C) They played the whore in Egypt;(D) they played the whore in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms[a] handled. 4Oholah was the name of the elder and Oholibah the name of her sister.(E) They became mine, and they(F) bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah is(G) Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.

5“Oholah played the whore(H) while she was mine, and(I) she lusted after her lovers(J) the Assyrians, warriors 6clothed in purple,(K) governors and commanders,(L) all of them desirable young men,(M) horsemen riding on horses. 7She bestowed her whoring upon them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them, and she defiled herself with all the idols of everyone after whom she lusted. 8She did not give up her whoring(N) that she had begun in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their whoring lust upon her. 9Therefore(O) I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians, after whom she lusted. 10(P) These uncovered her nakedness;(Q) they seized her sons and her daughters; and as for her, they killed her with the sword; and she became(R) a byword among women,(S) when judgment had been executed on her.

11(T) “Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became(U) more corrupt than her sister[b] in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister. 12She lusted after the Assyrians, governors and commanders, warriors clothed in full armor, horsemen riding on horses,(V) all of them desirable young men. 13And I saw that she was defiled; they both took the same way. 14But she carried her whoring further. She saw men(W) portrayed on the wall, the(X) images of(Y) the Chaldeans portrayed in vermilion, 15wearing belts on their waists, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them having the appearance of officers, a likeness of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea. 16When she saw them, she lusted after them and(Z) sent messengers to them(AA) in Chaldea. 17And the Babylonians came to her(AB) into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoring lust. And after she was defiled by them,(AC) she turned from them in disgust. 18When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. 19Yet she increased her whoring,(AD) remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt 20and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. 21Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed[c] your young breasts.”

22Therefore, O Oholibah, thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I will stir up against you your lovers(AE) from whom you turned in disgust,(AF) and I will bring them against you from every side: 23the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans,(AG) Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them,(AH) desirable young men, governors and commanders all of them, officers and men of renown, all of them riding on horses. 24And they shall come against you from the north[d] with chariots and wagons and a host of peoples.(AI) They shall set themselves against you on every side with buckler, shield, and helmet; and(AJ) I will commit the judgment to them, and(AK) they shall judge you according to their judgments. 25And I will direct my jealousy against you,(AL) that they may deal with you in fury. They shall cut off your nose and your ears, and your survivors shall fall by the sword.(AM) They shall seize your sons and your daughters, and your survivors shall be devoured by fire. 26(AN) They shall also strip you of your clothes and take away your beautiful jewels. 27(AO) Thus I will put an end to your lewdness and(AP) your whoring begun in the land of Egypt, so that you shall not lift up your eyes to them or remember Egypt anymore.

28“For thus says the Lord GOD:(AQ) Behold, I will deliver you into the hands of those whom you hate,(AR) into the hands of those from whom you turned in disgust, 29and(AS) they shall deal with you in hatred and take away all the fruit of your labor(AT) and leave you naked and bare, and(AU) the nakedness of your whoring shall be uncovered. Your lewdness and your whoring 30have brought this upon you, because(AV) you played the whore with the nations and defiled yourself with their idols. 31You have gone the way of your sister;(AW) therefore I will give(AX) her cup into your hand. 32Thus says the Lord GOD:

“You shall drink your sister’s cup
that is deep and large;
you shall be laughed at and held in derision,
for it contains much;
33you will be filled with(AY) drunkenness and sorrow.(AZ) A cup of horror and desolation,
the cup of your sister Samaria;
34(BA) you shall drink it and drain it out,
and gnaw its shards,
and tear your breasts;

for I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD. 35Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because(BB) you have forgotten me and(BC) cast me behind your back, you yourself(BD) must bear the consequences of your lewdness and whoring.”

36The LORD said to me:(BE) “Son of man,(BF) will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Declare to them their abominations. 37For(BG) they have committed adultery,(BH) and blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even(BI) offered up[e] to them for food the children whom they had borne to me. 38Moreover, this they have done to me:(BJ) they have defiled my sanctuary on the same day and(BK) profaned my Sabbaths. 39For when(BL) they had slaughtered their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day(BM) they came into my sanctuary to profane it. And behold,(BN) this is what they did in my house. 40They even sent for men to come from afar,(BO) to whom a messenger was sent; and behold, they came. For them you bathed yourself,(BP) painted your eyes,(BQ) and adorned yourself with ornaments. 41You sat on(BR) a stately couch, with a table spread before it(BS) on which you had placed my incense and(BT) my oil. 42The(BU) sound of a carefree multitude was with her; and with men of the common sort, drunkards[f] were brought from the wilderness; and they put(BV) bracelets on the hands of the women, and(BW) beautiful crowns on their heads.

43“Then I said of her who was worn out by adultery, Now they will continue to use her for a whore, even her![g] 44For they have gone in to her, as men go in to a prostitute. Thus they went in to Oholah and to Oholibah, lewd women! 45But righteous men(BX) shall pass judgment on them with the sentence of adulteresses, and with the sentence of women who shed blood, because they are adulteresses, and blood is on their hands.”

46For thus says the Lord GOD:(BY) “Bring up a vast host against them, and make them(BZ) an object of terror and(CA) a plunder. 47(CB) And the host shall stone them and cut them down with their swords.(CC) They shall kill their sons and their daughters, and(CD) burn up their houses. 48(CE) Thus will I put an end to lewdness in the land, that all women may take warning and not commit lewdness as you have done. 49And they shall return your lewdness upon you, and(CF) you shall bear the penalty for your sinful idolatry, and(CG) you shall know that I am the Lord GOD.”

Footnotes:

  1. Ezekiel 23:3" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21011">Ezekiel 23:3 Hebrew nipples; also verses 8, 21
  2. Ezekiel 23:11" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21019">Ezekiel 23:11 Hebrew than she
  3. Ezekiel 23:21" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21029">Ezekiel 23:21 Vulgate, Syriac; Hebrew bosom for the sake of
  4. Ezekiel 23:24" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21032">Ezekiel 23:24 Septuagint; the meaning of the Hebrew word is unknown
  5. Ezekiel 23:37" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21045">Ezekiel 23:37 Or have even made pass through the fire
  6. Ezekiel 23:42" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21050">Ezekiel 23:42 Or Sabeans
  7. Ezekiel 23:43" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=47#en-ESV-21051">Ezekiel 23:43 The meaning of the Hebrew verse is uncertain
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 9:49 pm and is filed under Devotional, preaching. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

90 Comments(+Add)

1   Joe    
June 30th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Ahh, the half off bookstore. One of the very few things I miss about Ohio. And I really miss it.

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 8:31 am

Why would anyone be offended at what God” Word says? In dealing with spiritual infidelity, God sometimes uses deprecating words of judgment.

You want offensive?

Voilà.

3   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am

You want offensive?

Voilà.

I agree… That article is offensive. It’s offensive to see the Driscoll witch hunt continue…

I guess, yes, the subject matter that Driscoll was talking about is for adults, but I don’t see that he’s condoning anything sinful. He is talking about relations between married adults, anyway.

I find that some in the church act like a man who’s afraid to go to the doctor because he notices certain symptoms when it comes to talking about things like sex. If we don’t talk about it or think about, the problem will just go away… Nevermind the fact that things like the divorce rate and other indicators are virtually the same in the Church as outside of it.

I mean, I’m not a Driscoll fan by any stretch of the imagination, but his critics make me sound like one. These attacks remind me of the people who complain about Obama by saying things like he’s a closet Muslim or doesn’t have a valid birth certificate. There are plenty of valid things to complain about – why focus on the stuff that doesn’t matter?

4   chris    
July 1st, 2009 at 8:55 am

There are plenty of valid things to complain about – why focus on the stuff that doesn’t matter?

Sex sells. Whether your talking about the joys of it or complaining about those talking about the joys of it.

ODM Economics 101. Post coming shortly!

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 9:09 am

That article was in no way a “witch hunt” or an “attack”. I found it measured, well documented, and careful in its verbiage. The subject of appropriate ministry teachings is greater than Mark Driscoll, he just happens to be the most public figure.

I find that culling out Biblical references to “whores” and the like are incongruous to the issue of appropriate ministry topics and the manipulation of obscure Old Testament verses to mean something sexually metaphorical and as a springboard to the most specific sexual instructions.

6   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am

That article was in no way a “witch hunt” or an “attack”. I found it measured, well documented, and careful in its verbiage. The subject of appropriate ministry teachings is greater than Mark Driscoll, he just happens to be the most public figure.

Well, considering that article only interviewed people who have a negative opinion of Driscoll, I’d hardly call it an example of unbiased journalism.

Why do people who have virtually nothing to with Driscoll have the right to determine what are appropriate ministry topics for him to cover? I actually do support the rights of radio stations to decide whether or not to broadcast a specific sermon – they definitely have that right. But what I find disingenuous is those who have nothing to do with him calling for some sort of repentance. That is the responsibility of his elders. They are the ones who will be held accountable.

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am

“Why do people who have virtually nothing to with Driscoll have the right to determine what are appropriate ministry topics for him to cover?”

Considering this blog, that is profoundly ironic.

“But what I find disingenuous is those who have nothing to do with him calling for some sort of repentance. That is the responsibility of his elders. They are the ones who will be held accountable.”

Again, ironic.

8   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am

Considering this blog, that is profoundly ironic.

Ironic in what sense?

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am

Have you not consistently castigated Ken, Ingrid, Chris R., and some others for their coverage of “ministry topics”? And why is Driscoll only answerable to his elders, but that is not the same for Ken, Mike Ratliff, Jim Bulbitz, and others?

That is what I mean by ironic.

10   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 9:46 am

Have you not consistently castigated Ken, Ingrid, Chris R., and some others for their coverage of “ministry topics”? And why is Driscoll only answerable to his elders, but that is not the same for Ken, Mike Ratliff, Jim Bulbitz, and others?

As far as I know we have never issued a public call for repentance from any of those writers. We have disputed the content of their writings by presenting facts to back up our claims. Additionally, of those writers, the only one who is a pastor of a church is Ken Silva (and that is a rather tenuous claim as far as I can tell). None of those other writers serve under a board of elders.

That isn’t the point anyway. It isn’t even a fair comparison to compare people calling for Driscoll to repent of something because of what they consider “racy” content to presenting facts that dispute slanderous attacks. Driscoll isn’t attacking or slandering anyone (mostly, although I do think he is a bit harsh and even downright wrong in some of his characterizations of those who don’t agree with him). For as much as I dislike him, I can’t put him in the same category as the ODMs.

11   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am

I do find it interesting that those who are offended by Mark are already in the fold.
And those who are not offended by his frank preaching are being drawn to Christ in a city that is not known for its Christian influence.

On a much smaller scale, I preached one Christmas Eve at our church. I wore flip-flops because it was unseasonably warm. I wore jeans because I wear jeans. Several members of the church were offended. And yet we got no complaints from people in the community who came to one of their two yearly church services.

Unyielding preferences within the body can sometimes keep out those who just want to hear about Jesus.

12   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am

I do find it interesting that those who are offended by Mark are already in the fold.

So what does that prove Nathanael?

frank preaching

That’s a nice way to put it. I know many men who are frank preachers who don’t see the need to descend into discussions he does. Frank preaching is what Paul and Peter and the rest were known for.

Judging by the link Rick gave us above, the man twists scripture to suit his message.

I find (and this is just my experience) that many people are simply trying to push the envelope of liberty in order to make a statement. It comes across as very immature (ie: “Let me see who I can offend, and then I’ll use this as fodder to demonstrate a parallel between me and Jesus. After all the religious were offended at him, so if the religious are offended at me, I’m in good company.”)

13   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:08 am

Have you not consistently castigated Ken, Ingrid, Chris R., and some others for their coverage of “ministry topics”? And why is Driscoll only answerable to his elders, but that is not the same for Ken, Mike Ratliff, Jim Bulbitz, and others?

That is what I mean by ironic.

Rick, I cannot believe you seriously believe this. I mean, seriously? I am flabbergasted that you think this.

Unyielding preferences within the body can sometimes keep out those who just want to hear about Jesus.

Yep. This is nearly what I wrote at IM’s blog in response to his post. It is really, really, sad. It’s called tradition. And as near as I can tell, tradition has nothing necessarily to do with Christianity and everything to do with flesh.

14   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:13 am

Judging by the link Rick gave us above, the man twists scripture to suit his message.

I don’t see how he is twisting Scripture. We’ve gone over the SoS stuff here before, but there was a reason that the rabbis didn’t allow Jewish boys to read the book prior to their 13th birthday.

If you want to see someone twisting Scripture, look at the Frank Turk piece Jerry linked to in the OP…

15   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am

(“Let me see who I can offend, and then I’ll use this as fodder to demonstrate a parallel between me and Jesus. After all the religious were offended at him, so if the religious are offended at me, I’m in good company.”)

I think what is offensive is a purely subjective, generational idea.

I’m not offended at Driscoll’s sex sermons. I think they are stupid and have no place in the pulpit. But I’m not offended and I don’t particularly believe he owes anyone an apology either.

I am more offended at the content of blogs like AM or SOL where truth is particularly distorted in order to create offense. You say Driscoll twists Scripture…are you implying that Ken and Ingrid do not?

Seriously, and I have said this before, we have plenty of offended people in our culture. Being offended is not the issue here. Learning to listen is. I guarantee you that if it was Johnny Mac preaching in such a way it wouldn’t be offensive. If it was Paul Washer preaching in such a way, there would be no offense.

The only reason this is a conversation is because it is Mark Driscoll. Period.

16   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am

“Let me see who I can offend, and then I’ll use this as fodder to demonstrate a parallel between me and Jesus. After all the religious were offended at him, so if the religious are offended at me, I’m in good company.”

Paul, that’s really what you believe?
Is it not also possible that Mark is reaching a culture and generation that is turned off by the extra-biblical puritanism of the traditional church?

17   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am

I am really kind of fascinated by the idea that people put forth that Driscoll is intentionally trying to offend people for some reason. I really don’t think he cares about what Fundamentalists think of him anymore. Why would he intentionally try to tick them off?

I just think some people think they’re more important than they really are – “I bet you think his song’s about you…”

18   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:28 am

I just think some people think they’re more important than they really are

Don’t you know who I think I am?!

19   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am

I don’t see how he is twisting Scripture.

Hmmm… tying 1 Peter 3 and oral sex together?

I think they are stupid and have no place in the pulpit.

Right, we agree. But it’s an effort to generate shock or be cool. It’s very sophomoric.

You say Driscoll twists Scripture…are you implying that Ken and Ingrid do not?

I’m not sure how this ties in here… I guess any way you can tie your arch-nemesis in works.

I guarantee you that if it was Johnny Mac preaching in such a way it wouldn’t be offensive. If it was Paul Washer preaching in such a way, there would be no offense.

Or Jesus or Paul or Peter or James or Jude… the point is that they didn’t preach in such a way. They had other material to cover. Who else is preaching such junk? Is it essential to someone’s growth in Christ.

Paul, that’s really what you believe?

Yes. I do not consider myself religious, but in my observations and the admissions of some preachers (like Driscoll and others) there is absolute glee when they find themselves targeted by other Christians (not your ODMs). To me it’s so childish, because oftentimes it’s not because of the gospel but because they are trying to make a statement.

20   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am

But it’s an effort to generate shock or be cool.

Well there you have it.
Come on, you have no way of seeing into Mark’s heart. Please refrain from stating your opinion as fact about someone’s motives.
That’s not our job. The Holy Spirit is very good at this.
If you believe this is Mark’s motive, pray for him. But please don’t elevate your gut reaction to the level of impartial fact.

21   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:40 am

Come on, you have no way of seeing into Mark’s heart.

You guys are experts at this :) That’s not fair.

The Holy Spirit is very good at this.

Yes, of course. The Holy Spirit is keenly engaged and interested in married couples engaging in anal, oral and other sexual exploits.

I have seen him in interviews where he takes pleasure in the shots he takes from the ‘religious’.

22   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am

When have I ever made a statement about someone’s motives.

And I meant that the Holy Spirit is good at unveiling our motives and leading us into truth.

23   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:50 am

Clearly I have responded strongly. Paul, I am not trying to pick a fight.

I’m merely trying to caution you not to project motives on a brother in Christ.

Sorry that I got defensive regarding your statement about us being experts at seeing into others’ hearts. You did include a smiley, so my reaction was unwarranted.

Shalom

24   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am

Yes, of course. The Holy Spirit is keenly engaged and interested in married couples engaging in anal, oral and other sexual exploits.

Well, I actually believe the Holy Spirit is interested in the sex lives of married Christians. I guess I don’t see what the problem is, other than there are still vestiges of the Victorian idea that sex is really for procreation only and should never be mentioned. Yes, maybe it doesn’t need to discussed so children can hear it, and there are some contexts where it is inappropriate, but as far as I can tell Driscoll warns people before he talks about this stuff.

I have seen him in interviews where he takes pleasure in the shots he takes from the ‘religious’.

I have seen this as well, but I still don’t think we can say that is his motivation for doing what he does.

25   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am

Nathanael – no offense taken whatsoever. Appreciate your spirit though.

Phil, this gentleman (Driscoll) is taking things to the extreme and it is unnecessary. If that’s how you’d like to be edified, that’s OK for you, but to me it is turning the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk.

I have seen this as well, but I still don’t think we can say that is his motivation for doing what he does.

It’s definitely one of the ‘fringe benefits.’

26   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am

Nathanael (#22):

When have I ever made a statement about someone’s motives.

I have to second that question. This is something that this blog is routinely accused of, and yet I’ve never seen any actual examples.

Paul, you threw the grenade. Please back it up.

27   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am

Motives, especially those of the ODMs, are often questioned both in posts and comments.

28   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am

Phil, this gentleman (Driscoll) is taking things to the extreme and it is unnecessary. If that’s how you’d like to be edified, that’s OK for you, but to me it is turning the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk.

It really has nothing to do with whether I’m edified by it or not. Honestly, I’ve only listened to portions of the sermons in question, and the ones I’ve seen have been Q&A type formats where Driscoll was answering specific questions. So in that instance, it seems completely reasonable to answer a detailed question with a more detailed answer. Certainly some of the stuff was more frank and explicit than a typical sermon, but I don’t think it was sinful. Particularly because he makes it completely obvious that everything he was mentioning was within the bounds of marriage.

I just don’t see why speaking of sex within marriage is considered “junk” or somehow unimportant. I would think that after money issues, poor communication regarding expectations and whatnot is a big factor in most divorces. Why isn’t it proper to talk about it? Isn’t it worth being a little embarrassed to genuinely help some married couples who are having issues?

29   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am

Motives, especially those of the ODMs, are often questioned both in posts and comments.

Evidence, please…

Methods – yes. Motives – not so much.

I have to admit, though, I do wonder what causes some people to write the horrible things they do…

30   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am

Regarding motives, I’ve been interacting here for quite some time and have seen motives questioned… sorry I can’t dig up evidence right now, but that has been my experience. I don’t always think it’s a bad thing as motives can be questioned, with a door left open.

I just don’t see why speaking of sex within marriage is considered “junk” or somehow unimportant.

As I said, it has been taken to the extreme in the case we’re discussing.

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm

Besides all the other evidence, if you cannot see (as in the picture in the article) the inappropriateness of “demonstrating” how a wife is to “service” her unbelieving husband than we have absolutely no common ground with which to discuss the subject.

Perhaps Ingrid is completely right on this one; the day is coming when preachers will use actual pictures of positions (like the the Christian Nymphos site Driscoll directs people to) and even live demonstrations. For now we’ll have to be satisfied with mental imagery about anal sex being so bacteria laden you must wash before…well…I can hardly even go on.

John Wesley would have considered all it summarily unchristian, and so do I (which is what matters).

32   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Motives, especially those of the ODMs, are often questioned both in posts and comments.

Personally, I don’t really care why some people write nasty anti-Christian rantings (like pretty much every article on the Apprising “Ministries” site), while others fly planes into buildings or shoot other citizens in a church foyer.

They all come from the same place, regardles of motive, and I just think they ought to stop…

As for Driscoll, you hear all sorts of complaints of his “potty mouth” from the pulpit, but I’ve yet to see an actual example on YouTube or via iTunes from an actual sermon. Rick – the article you linked to was reasoned, researched and measured in the same way Pravda has historically operated…

I’m one of the minority of writers here who actually listens to Driscoll on a regular basis, who thinks he takes Scripture a bit more seriously than I’ve seen from his common critics, and who wonders why – when you’re the pastor of a church full of twenty-somethings in one of the most pagan cities in America – the topic of sex (including frank discussion on questions asked directly from your congregation) is verboten. To Nathanael’s point, I find it quite ironic that the prominent people pissing and moaning about him consider themselves fully in the fold and probably wouldn’t give the kind of folks who would first come to hear the gospel at MHC the time of day (other than to shout “you’re sinning!” at them through a bullhorn).

As to children being present – every podcast/sermon/video in which he covers topics like sex (which really aren’t nearly as often as his critics would have you believe), he gives ample warning – the week before and just before the sermon. The Q&A sessions w/ Mark and his wife were taken right after these sermons, with the questions they answered coming directly from the people in attendance via text message. I heard a number of topics/questions covered that I had very early in my marriage (and would have been too embarrassed to ask), and muddled through – some better than others.

Perhaps Ingrid is completely right on this one; the day is coming when preachers will use actual pictures of positions (like the the Christian Nymphos site Driscoll directs people to) and even live demonstrations.

Or perhaps she & her ilk will win, and only the clergy will have Bibles and well tell us all to trust them to give us exactly what we need to believe, how to dress, what music to listen to, where to eat, and how to treat an unhelpful cashier… Either “vision” of the future is as likely as the other…

If that’s how you’d like to be edified, that’s OK for you, but to me it is turning the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk.

My son (at some point in the future after getting married): Dad, I’ve got some pretty detailed questions about sex within marriage I need to ask you.
Me: Sorry, son, I can’t answer for you, because I don’t want to turn the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk to talk to you about. Ask the Holy Spirit, cuz we shouldn’t talk about sex. It’s dirty junk, you know…

33   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 1:55 pm

They all come from the same place

Nice. So now the authors at CRN and SoL are equated with terrorists and cold-blooded murderers. Chris L, you are classic. What idiocy… Oh wait, we’re not judging motives so it’s OK.

My son (at some point in the future after getting married): Dad, I’ve got some pretty detailed questions about sex within marriage I need to ask you.

Now Chris L can say:

If your marriage is ever on the rocks, just yank down your wife’s skirt. Things’ll be patched up before you know it. But if you really want to win her over, anal sex is the way to go – just watch out for them there bacteria! That’ll set ya back a little, son.

Again, idiocy in action. Whatever did they do before Driscoll broke down these barriers? Believe it or not, people can have mature discussions, at the appropriate time, around sex.

34   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
July 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Paul C (#30):

Regarding motives, I’ve been interacting here for quite some time and have seen motives questioned…

You stated that the writers here are “experts” at “seeing into Mark’s heart.” There is no way to interpret a statement like that such that it reads as questioning motives; it can only be an accusation of making declarative and definitive statements about motives.

sorry I can’t dig up evidence right now

We’ll wait.

35   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
July 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Paul C (#33): I’m assuming that your “If your marriage is ever on the rocks…” comes from somewhere/something and isn’t the “idiocy” (to use your word) of strawman logic.

36   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm

You stated that the writers here are “experts” at “seeing into Mark’s heart.”

No, seeing into the hearts of others (not Mark’s). Motives are judged and questioned all the time. Read the beginning of #32. Ingrid and bin Laden are apparently in the same boat – at least according to Chris L.

Re #35, I’m referring to the article Rick referenced in which Mr. Driscoll is pictured showing the advice he gave a young woman to “win her husband to the Lord”.

37   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm

No, seeing into the hearts of others (not Mark’s). Motives are judged and questioned all the time. Read the beginning of #32. Ingrid and bin Laden are apparently in the same boat – at least according to Chris L.

Actually, I think you need to read a little closer what he wrote. He said, “They all come from the same place, regardless of motive, and I just think they ought to stop…”

I assume he means that they all think people who don’t think exactly like them need to stopped, sometimes at any cost. It’s not commenting as to what exactly motivates them. In some ways, our motives really aren’t the important thing, anyway. We rarely have the luxury of being judged by our intentions. If our actions are hurtful to someone, the fact that it was intentional or unintentional is a moot point.

Re #35, I’m referring to the article Rick referenced in which Mr. Driscoll is pictured showing the advice he gave a young woman to “win her husband to the Lord”.

Actually, the description in the article (which never gives a direct quote) doesn’t really come close to your strawman. Do you write for the Enquirer in your spare time?

By the way, I did find this bit pretty funny from the article:

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.

I imagine little old church ladies fainting…my oh my…the horror.

38   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
July 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Reading comprehension — EPIC FAIL!

39   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pm

I assume he means that they all think people who don’t think exactly like them need to stopped

That’s not what I got from what he wrote as he said, “and I just think they ought to stop”.

Actually, the description in the article (which never gives a direct quote) doesn’t really come close to your strawman.

What strawman Phil?

40   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 2:38 pm

What strawman Phil?

This one:

If your marriage is ever on the rocks, just yank down your wife’s skirt. Things’ll be patched up before you know it. But if you really want to win her over, anal sex is the way to go – just watch out for them there bacteria! That’ll set ya back a little, son.

Which you seem to be attributing to both Chris and Driscoll, and which neither of them actually stated.

41   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pm

How is that a strawman and Chris L’s isn’t? Phil, your lack of logic is amazing.

Chris L: Me: Sorry, son, I can’t answer for you, because I don’t want to turn the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk to talk to you about. Ask the Holy Spirit, cuz we shouldn’t talk about sex. It’s dirty junk, you know…

Chris L posits a strawman which no one suggested, so I give him one back, but in more realistic context than his, based on his suggestion of openness.

42   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm

How is that a strawman and Chris L’s isn’t? Phil, your lack of logic is amazing.

Well, for one thing, Chris’ fake quote is attributed to himself in his comment. It’s a bit different putting hypothetical words in your own mouth compared to someone else’s…

Perhaps you’re the one that needs to check his logic.

You seem to have quite an ax to grind with Chris as of late…

43   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Well, for one thing, Chris’ fake quote is attributed to himself in his comment.

I knew you’d say that… Phil, you should be in either politics or public relations.

I have no grind with Chris L of late at all. From what I interpreted it seems like he tries to equate ODMs with terrorists. I’m not sure how you read it or came to the conclusion you did, but that’s what I got from his statement. If I’m wrong (and I’ve read it a few times now) I’m sorry, but if that’s what he meant, that’s just careless and quite ridiculous.

Then he creates a strawman, as you would put it, that any discussion of sex is out of bounds, which no one is advocating.

44   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm

When you cannot address the issue with forceful conviction and with reasoned passion you resort to statements like these:

* Rick – the article you linked to was reasoned, researched and measured in the same way Pravda has historically operated…

* I find it quite ironic that the prominent people pissing and moaning about him consider themselves fully in the fold and probably wouldn’t give the kind of folks who would first come to hear the gospel at MHC the time of day (other than to shout “you’re sinning!” at them through a bullhorn).

* Or perhaps she & her ilk will win, and only the clergy will have Bibles and well tell us all to trust them to give us exactly what we need to believe, how to dress, what music to listen to, where to eat, and how to treat an unhelpful cashier…

Mark Driscoll has accomplished one major feat of reconciliation, he has brought together guys like Steve Camp and Chris Lyons. :cool:

45   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm

I would have more respect if people simply came out and said that the things that Driscoll said made them uncomfortable, rather than trying to cloak their feelings in misused Scriptures. Just be man or woman enough to say you don’t like something. Don’t hide behind a poor interpretation of Scripture.

I don’t like Southern Gospel music, but I don’t think theres a Bible verse prohibiting it…

46   Neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm

I think they are stupid and have no place in the pulpit.

Right, we agree. But it’s an effort to generate shock or be cool. It’s very sophomoric.

I am continually in awe of those who have the ability “discern” the motives of others… truly a gift from…

47   Neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Hmmm… and the accusation is repeated thrice that we do the same.

I too don’t care why ADM’s choose to misrepresent various servants of the Lord.

48   Neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Now Chris L can say:

If your marriage is ever on the rocks, just yank down your wife’s skirt. Things’ll be patched up before you know it. But if you really want to win her over, anal sex is the way to go – just watch out for them there bacteria! That’ll set ya back a little, son.

Paul C.,

Where did Chrs L. make such a statement? If he did not, please do not use blockquotes when it is not an actual quote.

49   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pm

I am continually in awe of those who have the ability “discern” the motives of others…

For a clear example, see #32. Or you could read Rick’s summary in #44 for a short form.

But as I said later, if I’m wrong (and that’s highly possible) then he enjoys the fringe benefits.

As I said, I’ve seen a couple interviews where, with unveiled glee, he revels in the discomfort he causes the ‘religious’.

#45 – not sure if that comment is aimed at me, but I’ll answer: I don’t listen to him at all and he doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable as a result. However, if he quoted 1 Peter 3 in conjunction with justifying oral sex, then we have a case in point on twisting scripture.

Where did Chrs L. make such a statement?

Thanks Neil – Chris L, my apologies for block quoting here.

50   Neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 3:44 pm

I agree that interpreting SoS 2:3 as oral a sex is a stretch, also a stretch is making SoS an allegory about Christ and the Church.

I see no point in demonstrating positions, or acting out scenarios as the role of the pastor.

Given the church’s Victorian history, and even present day need to allegorize the SoS – I can see a pastor pointing out that sex within marriage is a good thing, should be fun, can even be creative.

I think Driscoll pushes the envelope farther than necessary.

51   Neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I am continually in awe of those who have the ability “discern” the motives of others…

For a clear example, see #32. Or you could read Rick’s summary in #44 for a short form.

What you see as clear, I do not see at all. Maybe you could quote where he discerns their motives.

52   Neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Where did Chrs L. make such a statement?

Thanks Neil – Chris L, my apologies for block quoting here.

Thank you Paul.

53   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 3:52 pm

#45 – not sure if that comment is aimed at me, but I’ll answer: I don’t listen to him at all and he doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable as a result. However, if he quoted 1 Peter 3 in conjunction with justifying oral sex, then we have a case in point on twisting scripture.

Well, 1 Peter 3 is about wives submitting to their husbands. It doesn’t directly mention oral sex, but I can see why Driscoll is mentioning it in this case. I do think that Driscoll is generally wrong in his whole complentarian stance, though.

54   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pm

#51:

Rick – the article you linked to was reasoned, researched and measured in the same way Pravda has historically operated…

This questions the motives of the writer. It was, in Chris L’s view, a smear job of some sort.

probably wouldn’t give the kind of folks who would first come to hear the gospel at MHC the time of day (other than to shout “you’re sinning!” at them through a bullhorn)

I don’t think that’s a fair statement. Again, Chris L seems to go over the top (bullhorn?) to prove his point.

Or perhaps she & her ilk will win, and only the clergy will have Bibles and well tell us all to trust them to give us exactly what we need to believe, how to dress, what music to listen to, where to eat, and how to treat an unhelpful cashier…

What??

Me: Sorry, son, I can’t answer for you, because I don’t want to turn the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk to talk to you about. Ask the Holy Spirit, cuz we shouldn’t talk about sex. It’s dirty junk, you know…

A dishonest mischaracterization of a position no one has taken. It seems to be a fairly consistent MO with him.

55   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Phil: It doesn’t directly mention oral sex, but I can see why Driscoll is mentioning it in this case.

What??? Phil, please just step away from the keyboard at this point.

Guys, obviously we are not going to come to agreement on this. Please carry on.

56   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Sorry for in-n-out responses – on vacation this week in Colorado…

Paul – Phil got the context of my comment right – Ingrid, Bin Laden & the abortionist-shooter all operate from the same frame of reference in terms of their willingness to use violence (in word or deed) to accomplish the ends their “god” directs them to…

57   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Phil: It doesn’t directly mention oral sex, but I can see why Driscoll is mentioning it in this case.

What??? Phil, please just step away from the keyboard at this point.

Guys, obviously we are not going to come to agreement on this. Please carry on.

It’s not that complicated, really. 1 Peter 3 says:

1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

If Driscoll is saying oral sex is something a wife can do to serve her husband, it’s not rocket science to follow his logic. I guess if your in the camp that think that oral sex is just plain wrong and dirty in any context, then you’ll have a problem with it. Otherwise, it makes some sense. I don’t see it as a huge leap…

58   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Sorry for in-n-out responses

Considering this particular discussion, I hope there was no pun intended here Chris.

If Driscoll is saying oral sex is something a wife can do to serve her husband, it’s not rocket science to follow his logic.

Phil, I honestly don’t know what to say here… To say it was even in Peter’s mind that he was thinking about oral sex renders me speechless. It is a bastardization of scripture (kind of like what you tried to pull off in the Purgatory discussion with referencing the Boyd character).

won over without words by the behavior of their wives

1 Peter 3 is a beautiful chapter exhorting women whose husbands that don’t yet believe to continue faithfully, perchance their godly example will impact their husbands.

I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.

59   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Phil, I honestly don’t know what to say here…

I guess I don’t either. Other than it seems that a lot of Christians still operate under the assumption the even sex between a married man and woman is somehow naughty or bad. Certainly there are things that a husband can do to serve each other in love in regards to sex, so certainly Peter may have been thinking in that regards. The NT writers knew about sex as well.

1 Peter 3 is a beautiful chapter exhorting women whose husbands that don’t yet believe to continue faithfully, perchance their godly example will impact their husbands.

I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.

And one way a wife can show love to her husband is by having sex with him. In fact, for most men, physical touch is their primary love language. What exactly is the issue?

60   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Considering this particular discussion, I hope there was no pun intended here Chris.

No pun intended…

The NT writers knew about sex as well.

You would assume so, since Peter had a mother-in-law (hard to have in-laws w/o being married, I would think)…

Rick – the article you linked to was reasoned, researched and measured in the same way Pravda has historically operated…

This questions the motives of the writer. It was, in Chris L’s view, a smear job of some sort.

Whatever the motive, the author of the article already had a conclusion in mind (a smear job) before he even started, which was apparent from the use of the air-extracted fallacies repeated by Driscoll’s critics that have little basis in fact, with no backing facts to support them.

Or perhaps she & her ilk will win, and only the clergy will have Bibles and well tell us all to trust them to give us exactly what we need to believe, how to dress, what music to listen to, where to eat, and how to treat an unhelpful cashier…

This was an intentional hyperbolic response to Rick’s hyperbolic suggestion about future teaching of sex from the pulpit. Using a hyper-fearful ’slippery slope’ in the opposite direction to demonstrate the silliness of the hyperbole.

Me: Sorry, son, I can’t answer for you, because I don’t want to turn the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk to talk to you about. Ask the Holy Spirit, cuz we shouldn’t talk about sex. It’s dirty junk, you know…

A dishonest mischaracterization of a position no one has taken.

How so? A) Driscoll gets anonymous, but specific questions about sex from people he pastors; B) He answers them in an honest and frank manner in the same forum in which they were asked; C) He’s criticized for talking about sex and (to quote you) “it is turning the grace of God into a license for all manner of junk. ”

My hypothetical was paralleling Driscoll – someone under my care asks me specific questions about sex not directly covered in Scripture, and – while I would do my best to answer them by tying them back to Scriptural teaching – apparently this is inappropriate if done in a way that someone else finds out about my answer.

61   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm

To summarize the folly of this entire argument:

- Chris L: Ingrid is on par with Al Qaeda and the abortionist murderer (perhaps even wrapped up in some sort of dark conspiracy yet to be unraveled – though my confidence is surging now that I am assured CRN.info is on the case).

- Phil: 1 Peter 3 is – surprise, surprise to me – coded language in which Peter is actually encouraging women to engage their husbands in oral sex. All this time I (silly me) though it was a beautiful exhortation referring to holiness and godly living.

- Mark Driscoll: if witnessing about the saving grace of Jesus or modeling godly behavior doesn’t work, a wife can always bring her husband to the Lord through oral sex.

More revelations soon to come – but that’s all I can take for now.

62   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2009 at 5:19 pm

- Phil: 1 Peter 3 is – surprise, surprise to me – coded language in which Peter is actually encouraging women to engage their husbands in oral sex. All this time I (silly me) though it was a beautiful exhortation referring to holiness and godly living.

Where did I say anything about coded language?

And I guess you’re saying that oral sex between a married couple is somehow out of the bounds of holiness and godly living? Where exactly is that specific act prohibited in Scripture?

I’m sorry if this is somehow making you uncomfortable. Admittedly, it’s not something I talk about really at all, either. And I don’t believe it’s something that needs to be discussed ad nauseum. But I just don’t see anything in Scripture that prohibits it between a husband and wife. In fact, as Driscoll has described, I think a good case can be made that it’s talked about in the Song of Solomon.

To be honest, I’m still surprised about all the craziness this has caused. I had heard about the SoS reference many years ago, like when I was an undergrad, and I just assumed everyone knew about it. I guess I was wrong…

63   Brett S    
July 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm

someone under my care asks me specific questions about sex not directly covered in Scripture, and – while I would do my best to answer them by tying them back to Scriptural teaching – Chris L #60

Makes perfect sense to me.
BUT CAUTION!
I’ve tried using this dastardly type of logic with Paul C; his version of sola scriptura = [If it ain't in the bible, it ain't true, and you can't make me believe it.]

64   nc    
July 1st, 2009 at 5:54 pm

so…talking about sex within marriage is license?

65   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm

To summarize the folly create several straw men of this entire argument so that I don’t have to engage in any thoughtful discussion:

There – fixed it for you…

Chris L: Ingrid is on par with Al Qaeda and the abortionist murderer.

No – just engaging in morally parallel activity. Granted, killing someone only ends their life, whereas gossiping and spreading falsehood ruins their reputation… Seems somewhat like sixes to me…

Phil: 1 Peter 3 is – surprise, surprise to me – coded language in which Peter is actually encouraging women to engage their husbands in oral sex. All this time I (silly me) though it was a beautiful exhortation referring to holiness and godly living.

An exhortation to holiness and godly living would, I assume, deal with the holistic nature of marriage (everything from conversation, to financial responsibility, to emotional support to sexual relations), not just a gnostic orthopraxis that centers solely on spiritual purity, because the physical is carnal and evil.

Mark Driscoll: if witnessing about the saving grace of Jesus or modeling godly behavior doesn’t work, a wife can always bring her husband to the Lord through oral sex.

Apparently straw men don’t die very hard and false dichotomies win the day in Paul C’s world.

66   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
July 1st, 2009 at 6:41 pm

I would have more respect if people simply came out and said that the things that Driscoll said made them uncomfortable, rather than trying to cloak their feelings in misused Scriptures. Just be man or woman enough to say you don’t like something. Don’t hide behind a poor interpretation of Scripture.

See, and this is the thing. The Scripture does talk about us using ‘proper’ language and not mentioning the things that are done in darkness. But where does it say that Christians are not allowed to talk to one another about what is legally done in the light between married couples?

And if a person is just freshly drawn out of darkness, why shouldn’t they ask questions about what is morally in line with the Word of Christ? And who better to ask for answers than someone who is ordained of Christ to speak on his behalf?

I don’t think the pulpit is necessarily the place, but as has been pointed out, these questions are asked in a Q/A after the sermon with his wife present…as if the set turns into an episode of Dr Phil.

Still, the outstanding question that remains is this: Who are any of us to tell Mark Driscoll and his elders how to conduct themselves in their own local congregation? And if we don’t like it…we don’t have to participate; other than that, it is none of our business unless we choose to participate.

No – just engaging in morally parallel activity. Granted, killing someone only ends their life, whereas gossiping and spreading falsehood ruins their reputation… Seems somewhat like sixes to me…

And as a preacher in a local congregation, let me give you some stories about exactly how such gossip does ruin lives…have these people thought about how such gossip and innuendo affects Driscoll’s wife…children…church? Those who are on his back are not just hurting Mark with their gossip, accusations, and slander; they are hurting and negatively affecting his family and the body of Christ.

I think his interpretation of SOS is horrifying, but I will defend his right to interpret it as such because he is a preacher and he is neither violating Scripture nor apostatizing his/the faith.

67   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 1st, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Chris L – I’ll chalk up your inability to draw proper parallels to the fact that you’re presently at high altitudes (Colorado) and not enough oxygen is traveling to your brain.

I’ve tried using this dastardly type of logic with Paul C

Yes I seem to recall our in-depth discussion on Purgatory and your defense of it. Your logic was impeccable indeed Brett.

68   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm

“Ingrid, Bin Laden & the abortionist-shooter all operate from the same frame of reference in terms of their willingness to use violence (in word or deed) to accomplish the ends their “god” directs them to…”

My record in confronting Ingrid on a variety of levels is well documented. However, that statement is about as offensive as it gets and is difficult to believe it came from a follower of Christ.

69   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 8:29 pm

I am offended, too, Rick, which was why I wrote what I did.

Doing violence to the body of Christ – whether through character assassination or literal assassination – is a sad thing – whether your idol is Mohammed, politics or your own tradition/brand of Christianity.

Casting someone out of the kingdom when you have no right to do so is something Jesus was quite adamantly against. IIRC, Jesus dined with a “goat” named Zaccheus – a goat from an entire group of “goats” cast out by the “orthodox” – and he had some choice words about the practice.

70   neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Rick – the article you linked to was reasoned, researched and measured in the same way Pravda has historically operated…

This questions the motives of the writer. It was, in Chris L’s view, a smear job of some sort.

This looks like a swipe a their methods, not their motivations…

71   neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 8:44 pm

Phil, I honestly don’t know what to say here… To say it was even in Peter’s mind that he was thinking about oral sex renders me speechless. It is a bastardization of scripture (kind of like what you tried to pull off in the Purgatory discussion with referencing the Boyd character).

- Phil: 1 Peter 3 is – surprise, surprise to me – coded language in which Peter is actually encouraging women to engage their husbands in oral sex. All this time I (silly me) though it was a beautiful exhortation referring to holiness and godly living.

I don’t see where Phil, or anyone, said this is what Peter had in mind… what they said, as I took it, was that it’s one of the ways this verse is fulfilled… it’s a way a woman can behave toward her husband.

Phil can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are reading him wrong.

72   neil    
July 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm

- Mark Driscoll: if witnessing about the saving grace of Jesus or modeling godly behavior doesn’t work, a wife can always bring her husband to the Lord through oral sex. – Paul C.

Did anyone say anything about grace or modeling good behavior not working? I don’t understand why a discussion cannot be had without injecting (and then attacking) things no one said…

73   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm

I don’t understand why a discussion cannot be had without injecting (and then attacking) things no one said…

Well, because when you’ve elevated a personal conviction (your belief that sex should not be discussed from the pulpit, or that Peter’s advice to someone married to an unbeliever is purely platonic in nature) to the level of a cross-cultural absolute, you’ve got no leg to stand on but your own opinion (or caricatures of the person violating your conviction)…

74   Jill    
July 1st, 2009 at 10:38 pm

I recently had a young man in my bible school class choose to see if he could stump (or probably embarass) the teacher by reading aloud the verse above from Ezekiel 23: 20…”as his favorite verse”. Except it was from the NIV and read: “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emissionwas like that of horses”

So should I have been offended that such words were used in front me and a class that included young innocent girls?(I’m sure they have heard worse on hip hop radio) should I have called the pastor to remove him from the class and call his parents? are they to blame ? he said he learned it from Bible Bowl competition….should Iwrite in the newsletter to the congregation on how offended I was and the sad state of our youth?
Christians need to get their heads out of their pew and be willing to tolerate the crudeness of our culture to get to the hearts of those who know no other way of life thought / behavior. Jesus is our sheild and protection …not our own sense of decency or indignation. I am weary of christians who are easily offended . And even more exhausted by those who take on another’s offense to carry it to greater and greater proportions. We can no longer afford to be offended. Our society today is filled with Ezekiel 23″s lewdness, abuse, pornography, adultery and the drunkenness, horror and violence that follows it…all because a people have forgotten ( or never knew) their God.
Frank honest teaching and speaking on these topics of sex are needed… and to a culture that judges things by a worldview heavily colored by sexuality there needs to be someone to address it biblically and not run away blushing. I agree with Jerry that Marc Driscoll has done nothing wrong scripturally and would go a step farther in saying he did it in the power of the Holy Spirit.

75   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 am

To use hyperbole like “jack-booted” (Ingrid) and “Bin Laden and murderers” (Chris) misrepresents what we as believers should be and reveals that we lack the capacity to strongly express our opinion without resorting to extreme hyperbole. It may satisfy some emotional need, but it surely does not present a difference to the world as to how we correct each other.

Even in the strongest of dialogues, we should avoid comparing people to Nazis, terrorists, and murderers. To repeat the same sins of which we accuse others cannot be God’s will. And true to form, both CRN and SoL used Chris’s words as a headline.

It is true that Ingrid Schlueter practices the use of extreme hyperbole and demeaning labels but is quick to publish and object to someone else’s words when they refer to her personally. That is a pattern of self righteousness, however I cannot understand how a discussion of appropriate pulpit issues and exegesis of certain verses elicits that hyperbolic statement about Ingrid.

I have noticed this: Thread dialogue on almost all Christian blog genres (from Calvinist to emergent to gay etc.) exhibit very little difference in the way they interact, regardless of how they contend to be dissimilar from most other Christian blog venues.

76   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:54 am

I don’t necessarily think comparing what Ingrid and other who follow her lead to murder is actually that hyperbolistic. Yes, of course, she’s not actually murdered anyone, but she has certainly launched many verbal arrows with the intention to cause harm. The act of murder is borne out of the darkness within peoples’ hearts.

21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

I can’t see Ingrid’s or Ken’s heart. I can, however, read what proceeds from it. And from my perspective, it ain’t pretty. I agree with what Jerry said – gossip and innuendo can be very harmful to a pastor’s family, and I think in some ways it would be easier for them to see someone physically attack their parents rather than hear lies and hateful things spread about them. I will admit my bias here just from being a PK, but I think in some ways I’m lucky to not be more cynical. As I heard one pastor say once, “the thing about sheep is they bite”….

77   AnonymousJane    
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 am

I do not agree with everything Driscoll says by a long shot. Some of his advice, like advising the wife to perform oral on hubby to encourage conversion, is too long a stretch when he tries to back these opinions Biblically. In short, I disagree with Driscoll’s interpretation.

However, it seems many Christians are offended by Driscoll simply because they think Christians have no business taking part in sexual acts like oral or anal sex, and I can find nowhere in the NT that supports their opinions either.

This seems a question of tradition more so than a question about what the Bible says.

78   Amanda    
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am

Sex between a husband and wife is good. I agree that SoS is a good example of a husband’s pursuit in a relationship and up to the consummation of the marriage and the celebration after reveals that when in the context of marriage sex is a good thing designed by God. However, this does not mean we need to have sermons on it, particularly when it is advertised in a more suggestive/raunchy way. I know there is the argument that it will make the church more appealing, but when you watch these videos gives the appearance anyway that they believe its silly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FxnKpfwbMg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV6HB9B8Tgg . Basically I would have to say the whole thing has gotten out of hand. Yes sex is good between husband and wife, and SoS is a good illustration of such, but considering that when you ask most (over 50%) “Christians” what must be done for salvation or if non-Christians will go to heaven and the answer is along the lines of being a good person and that so long as you are sincere in your belief you’ll get to go to heaven no matter what you practice. We need to preach the Gospel, not only on mission trips but clearly from our own pulpits along with the basic tenants of the faith! And instead of sex being preached, it should be left for counseling (both pre-marital and marital).

79   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Amanda,
What you say may very well be true, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with this conversation. There are really two issues here, in my opinion. First, is it sinful or wrong to mention sex from the pulpit? Second, who is Mark Driscoll accountable to?

Now even though there may be more important things to talk about in a sermon than sex, I don’t see where it is prohibited. If a pastor of a church feel he needs to address it for whatever reason, it is something that is between him and his local board. As far as I know, there is know Protestant Pope and Mark Driscoll doesn’t serve under a bishop. So no one is forced to listen to Driscoll and everyone is free to have an opinion about him.

I really don’t care if people like him or not. Personally, I find him sort of grating, and I disagree with some pretty fundamental theological issues with him. What I don’t believe is correct, however, is when people try to take a personal preference and force it on everyone, and then try to hide behind a misused Scripture.

80   Neil    
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm

We need to preach the Gospel, not only on mission trips but clearly from our own pulpits along with the basic tenants of the faith!

This is as true as it it is irrelevant.

81   Thomas Booher    
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Why is this sight defending Driscoll? You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

82   Thomas Booher    
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm

whoops, that should read ’site’ not ’sight’

83   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Why is this sight defending Driscoll? You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

Probably because, unlike the ODM sites, we don’t feel the need to falsely malign or accuse those who we disagree with.

As I’ve already noted, I do disagree with Driscoll on a good many things, but I don’t think that he’s not a Christian or that he deserves to be lied about.

84   Joe    
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm

T Boo,
Looks like you proved something. This site isn’t all that much like those other sites.

85   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm

Amanda,

SoS was the most preached from book in the early church. It is a to our detriment that we have gotten away from it.

With that said, I can’t stand Driscoll. He’s everything I think a pastor should not be and I disagree with him on just about everything.

But SoS? cool.

86   chris    
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm

You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

Nobody ever said it was nasty nor that it wasn’t accurate. It just isn’t the full picture. I’m still not certain why the atonement becomes the litmus test?

87   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am

Why is this sight defending Driscoll? You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

I’m not defending Driscoll per se. What I’m defending is a preacher–who, despite my misgivings with his theology, is a preacher ordained of Christ to proclaim the Gospel.

Nobody ever said it was nasty nor that it wasn’t accurate. It just isn’t the full picture.

Yep.

And, to be sure, this post isn’t about the atonement. It’s about what words preachers are allowed to use from the pulpit using Ezekiel 23 as a litmus test.

SoS was the most preached from book in the early church. It is a to our detriment that we have gotten away from it.

I’m curious about this statement. I perhaps agree with the latter part, but the former part intrigues me. So, without detracting from the point of the post, could you direct us to some concrete evidence to support this?

To be sure, I seriously doubt that the early fathers you may be referencing preached SoS in any way close to the way Driscoll preaches it. :) And, in fact, would likely be appalled at his interpretation of the book–as I am.

Still, there is a big difference at being appalled at a particular series of sermons and writing off someone/someone’s ministry because of it.

88   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 am

I am not sure what “writing off” means and no one can know for sure if God ordains someone. We can ackowledge the ordination of any man here on earth and must recognize that.

But I must admit a fleshly exhilaration concerning Driscoll and his ministry. He walks like an Arminian, talks like an Arminian, preaches like an Arminian, and even looks like an Arminain, all while professing to be a Calvinist. And all this to the consternation to most Calvinists!

When a Cal-sheep wanders off the prescribed pasture and has others follow him, I get a voyeuristic pleasure in watching the Calhedrin writhe in theological pain and anguish. I know it is sin, but I seem to be addicted to it, and I cannot summon the desire to stop.

:cool:

89   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am

I am so edified by a Scriptural, Arminian message that exhibits passion for the lost and an open proclamation that “Jesus came to save everybody”.

Like this one.

90   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am

Jerry –
I’d have to ask my Christian history prof. He said that while we were discussing Origen. SoS was preached from very heavily.

You are right that it may be different from how Driscoll is preaching it. SoS was seen then (and by many today) as allegorical.