Mark Driscoll, the gospel-contextualising Neo-Calvinist poster boy, has come under some heavy fire at times for alleged inappropriate language — even calls for resignation.
In this instance, which is certainly sexually explicit, I reckon Driscoll is guilty of little more than being literalistic with Scripture. I think the question is more about the extent to which sex should be discussed in public. I figure that many people, including non-Christians, are finding his frankness helpful rather than off-putting. If the sex-charged Grey’s Anatomy is anything to go by, he seems to be pitching his language at the right level for his home paddock in Seattle. These are people who want straight talk on sex, and I reckon this is another instance of Driscoll trying to contextualise the gospel. But is he selling out to world-culture and in fact compromising Christian witness? I’m keen to hear what you reckon — but from what I’ve heard, I wonder if the things he has been accused of are not so much sins as taboos of American Christianity. (Driscoll makes a response here.)
Stay tuned for the write-up on Vintage Church.
Categories: Written by Arthur
Arthur Davis
Arthur Davis is an Aussie living in Tanzania, writing at meetjesusatuni.com.
Meet Jesus at uni 
I wonder if the comment “If you are single, I apologize in advance” slightly gives the game away – perhaps this was not the right context to be preaching on these particular aspects of the song of songs (even given the slightly peculiar theology of the whole sermon!)
Yeah, and as MD said in the link above, he’s still adjusting to the fact that his material is being listened to by people all over the place.
Arthur, whilst discussions about sex in a public setting are more mainstream, I found some of the content subtly disturbing and quite serious … if I have read it correctly. (One problem is that transcribed sermons loses some context from the original)
While he was obviously wanting to communicate that certain types of sex are permissible from a Biblical perspective, I saw implied some degree of coercion for women to participate from a ‘Biblical mandate’ rather than from free choice.
Ooh yeah, I can see it coming across that way. He hasn’t gone out of his way to qualify that, which would certainly be a useful/loving/edifying thing to do. It’s hard to straightforwardly communicate the freedom and goodness of sex in a world of abuse.
check out this discussion about Driscoll:
http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-driscoll-and-sex-driven-church.htmll
including Andrew Nicholson (from Christchurch’s) comments…
Thanks for that, Nat — I added a comment at the end