Mark Driscoll and the Sex-Driven Church

He has been described as everything from cool and edgy to perverted. He goes by the nicknames “the cussing pastor” and “the sexpert pastor”. He is very popular among the young “new calvinists”, and everyone seems to have an opinion on him.

Mark Driscoll is a Reformed Charismatic who holds to the Sovereignty of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the Doctrines of Grace. He had his beginnings in the Emergent Church movement, but had to break away as he iterates:

"In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.” (Mark Driscoll's blog "The Resurgence")

All well and good. Mark’s theological framework appears solid. He has even been attacked from the left because of his stance on homosexuality. So why the controversy within the church?

As the church at-large loses confidence in the power of the gospel to change lives, it has adopted everything from pop-psychology to circus acts in an effort to become more “relevant”, all in the name of evangelism. Unfortunately, sex has become the latest church growth gimmick (see here and here), and Mark Driscoll is leading the way in this regard.

Now it is easy to write off Driscoll’s critics as old fashioned prudes who don’t like to mention sex in a public forum. However, this is simply not the case. The Scriptures have plenty to say on the subject of sex, and pastors should preach on this subject without apology. But Driscoll has clearly stepped over the line on several occasions, the subject of his messages including topics like masturbation as birth control, how to turn your wife into a dominatrix, biblical oral sex (Hint: There is no such thing), and crude jokes about a homosexual relationship between himself and Jesus Christ. There is certainly nothing of this type to be found within the Holy Scriptures, but that doesn't stop Driscoll. Perhaps the best example of Mark’s lewd and carnal approach to Scripture is his message entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon” from November 18, 2007, (Warning: Quotes are accurate and contain mature content);

See John MacArthur’s response “The Rape of Solomon’s Song”.

Now Solomon’s Song is admittedly a steamy passage about love between a king and his bride, typifying the relationship between Christ and His church. What a shame it is that such a beautiful passage has been twisted and mangled by carnal ministers like Driscoll to become nothing more than a sex therapy manual, as if the main purpose of the book was to teach how to get physical pleasure from your spouse in bed. Not satisfied with the language already existent in the Song of Solomon, Driscoll takes lewd liberties with passages to turn them into soft porn, such as having “apples” refer to male private parts and “gardens” to be female parts (and he doesn't call them "parts"). Consider his “exposition” of Song of Solomon 2:3

"That is oral sex. Is that how you say it in Scotland. You say, “We never say that.” But yes, yes, that’s how some say it, yes. That’s oral sex. It’s in the Bible. All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. And all the men said, “Amen.” [Laughter from audience.] Amen! Guys are like, “I knew it was in there. I was stuck in Leviticus, I’ve been looking for it my whole life.” [More laughter] What she’s saying is—and here the Bible is frank without being crass, because it’s very poetic – but what she says is, “I like – when you are standing I like to be beneath you and your fruit is sweet to my taste.” This is, all the commentators will agree, or the good ones [laughter from audience], that this is – the rest are liars with very bad marriages and very dour looking wives and we pray for them. But anyways this is a woman saying, “I like to perform oral sex on you, my beloved husband.” What do you men think of this? I’ll tell you ladies what your husbands are hoping and praying deeply, passionately in their seat, is this: oral sex is a gift that a wife gives to her husband and he enjoys it. It’s true. It’s true."

Driscoll tells us that all good commentators will agree that Song of Solomon 2:3 refers to oral sex. What commentators? Gill? Calvin? Henry? No. Barnes, Clarke, Wesley? Not a word. The church Fathers? The Geneva Bible Notes? Scofield? What commentaries? He never tells us, and I doubt that anyone in his captive audience ever asked.

I have no idea what methods of exegesis that they employ at Western seminary (where Driscoll has a “Master of Arts degree in exegetical theology”), but there is no hint of oral sex in this passage. John Gill comments:

"the fruit of the apple tree, to which the allusion is. Solon advised the bride to eat a quince apple before she went into the bridegroom, as leaving an agreeable savour; and intimating how graceful the words of her mouth should be. By "his fruit" here are meant the blessings of grace, which are Christ's in a covenant way, come through his sufferings and death, and are at his dispose; such as peace, pardon, justification, and fresh discoveries and manifestations of his love, of which the apple is an emblem: and these are sweet, pleasant, and delightful, to those that have tasted that the Lord is gracious; whose vitiated taste is changed by the grace of God, and they savour the things of the Spirit of God."

With all due respect to Mr. Driscoll, I would say that John Gill is a pretty good commentator, yet he makes no mention of oral sex, nor does he suggest that the fruit has anything whatsoever to do with the human anatomy. To suggest that the apple refers to a body part is not Biblical preaching, but carnal perversion drawn out of thin air, for the express purpose of tickling the ears of his lust crazed audience.

In short, Mark Driscoll doesn’t even sound like a pastor, but more like a junior high school pervert writing on the bathroom walls. My advice to anyone who hears a pastor over-sexualize Scripture in this manner? Run.

Edit: The quote from the Song of Solomon sermon was an older sermon, and Mark seems to have repented of that sermon...well...sort of...

Spring Cleaning

Let's pray that he will clean up the rest of his sermons.