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 is an Aussie living in Tanzania, writing at meetjesusatuni.com.