The New Calvinism

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW041809pod_hour2.mp3]

Guest: Collin Hansen, author, Young, Restless, Reformed

The common perception is that the post-modern, doctrine-is-there-to-be-redefined EmergentChurch with false teachers (heretics?) such as Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones is the most significant (and distressing) movement for the younger generation of Christians.

That perception would be false.  A new movement, or more specifically, a “resurgence” movement based on the Protestant Reformation and its signature doctrine – Calvinism – has become increasingly populated over the last ten years with a younger generation of Christians.  Each in their own unique way, pastors such as John Piper, Al Mohler, CJ Mahaney, and Mark Driscoll are preaching a “New Calvinism” that Time Magazine rates as the 3rd most important idea changing the world.

Collin Hansen, editor-at-large of Christianity Today and author of Young, Restless, Reformed (and a Christianity Today article by the same title) will join me to discuss who is influencing this resurgence to the Reformation, what are its characteristics, and whether this is a positive or negative development.

Missing the Forest for all the Trees

John MacArthur has kicked off a bit of controversy with his posts on Song of Solomon and, in particular, with his rationale for doing so—addressing pastors who, when preaching through the book, “employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon’s poem.” In his first two articles he has singled out Mark Driscoll as one he considers a prime offender. This will be the last time the name Driscoll comes up in this article; I really do not want his name to sideline any discussion.

As I wrote in yesterday’s A La Carte, I think this is a discussion that we will all benefit from. I look forward to hearing what Dr. MacArthur has to say about Song of Solomon and a proper, biblical way of understanding, interpreting and preaching it. I think his long and faithful ministry has given him the right to speak out and speak up. We’d be foolish to immediately write him off as old and irrelevant and out-of-touch (as some are doing, based on what I’ve seen in blog comments). There is no need to be defensive here! The men he is writing against are all big boys and can handle what he says and the discussion that will ensue.

And already I have read some interesting discussion. For example, Erik Raymond gave me some things to think about when he gave two reasons that he is uncomfortable with all the talk of sex coming out of evangelicalism today. Here is what he wrote:

1. The emphasis upon sex has become so strong that it has begun to sound like our message. The danger here is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is regrettably assumed, neglected or forgotten. When many evangelicals begin to ride the waves of media popularity and are given a platform to speak, they sound more and more like sex coaches than ministers of a message. Somewhere along the way that which is of first importance gets shelved.

2. Most of the way in which these pastors handle the text is just flat out troubling. Often times we are given a reading of a verse or a section and then the pastor launches off into sexual advice and counsel. And when there is something that is legitimately debated among Bible teachers the issue is not dealt with responsibly (in my view) but rather quickly. The text then, which has not been adequately unpacked within its context, is then made prescriptive for the Christian.

I have listened to a couple of sermons of the kind MacArthur is reacting against—sermons which tend to look at Song of Solomon line-by-line, expressing how each metaphor, each poetic device, describes a particular part of the body or a particular sexual act. I have been bothered by such sermons for two reasons. The first lines up with what Erik wrote above: the poor handling of the text. Turning Song of Solomon into a how-to manual that describes or prescribes certain acts is to miss the point of the book. As MacArthur says, “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.”

The other reason is one for which I’d be interested in feedback. Song of Solomon is poetry and as such, should not be treated, exposited, in the same way as prose. Not too many people would disagree with this. It strikes me as well that Song of Solomon is substantially different from other kinds of biblical poetry. If we compare one of David’s Psalms to Song of Solomon we see that they are tangibly different. So while it may make sense to progress line-by-line through Psalm 119, interpreting each line, it seems to me that Song of Solomon does not give itself to this kind of interpretation. Song of Solomon is an expression of wonder, an expression of joy, an expression of mystery. Or that’s certainly how it appears to me. I don’t think we are supposed to understand it in a word-by-word, line-by-line sense as we might the book of Romans.

MacArthur quotes a few lines. They are worth reading just for the beauty of the poetry and the creativity of the imagery:

A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
A rock garden locked, a spring sealed up.
Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates
With choice fruits, henna with nard plants,
Nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon,
With all the trees of frankincense,
Myrrh and aloes, along with all the finest spices.
You are a garden spring,
A well of fresh water,
And streams flowing from Lebanon.”
Awake, O north wind,
And come, wind of the south;
Make my garden breathe out fragrance,
Let its spices be wafted abroad.
May my beloved come into his garden
And eat its choice fruits!”

MacArthur says it right, I’m sure, when he says “Let’s face it: overall, the Song is about as far from explicit as the writer can get.” Had the author wanted to be explicit, he could have done so. Instead, he wrote in poetry, in metaphor, carefully crafting a poem that is full of mystery. “Song of Solomon is incredibly beautiful precisely because it is so carefully veiled. It is a perfect description of the wonderful, tender, intimate discovery that God designed to take place between a young man and his bride in a place of secrecy. We are not told in vivid terms what all the metaphors mean, because the beauty of marital passion is in the eye of the beholder—where it should stay.” To remove the veil is to remove the beauty!

So here is what I am wondering. Don’t we do damage to the Song of Solomon when we seek to interpret and explain every line? To use an old cliche, don’t we miss the forest for the trees? Isn’t it better to leave some mystery in the Song, understanding themes but ultimately finding satisfaction not in drawing a one-to-one comparison between metaphor and act, poetry and body part, but rather in seeing it as one man’s attempt at expressing the joy, the wonder and the mystery of sex and sexuality? Isn’t the very reason he had to use poetry was that prose just couldn’t express the wonder? The beauty and the mystery of the Song go hand-in-hand. To remove one is to remove the other.

“The Rape of Solomon’s Song”

John MacArthur wrote the first in a series of articles today on an issue we’ve covered a couple times in recent months on The Christian Worldview Radio Program — the current trend for pastors to be sexually graphic in their preaching.  I included the first two paragraphs of MacArthur’s column below (with a link to the full article — please read it) and then a comment I wrote in response on the Shepherds’ Fellowship blog.

MacArthur starts his column by writing…

“Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. The defenders of this trend solemnly inform us that without such a strategy it is well-nigh impossible to connect with today’s “culture.” (In contemporary evangelicalism that term has become a convenient label for just about everything that is uncultured and uncouth.)

Sermons about sex have suddenly become a bigger fad in the evangelical world than the prayer of Jabez ever was. Everywhere, it seems, churches are featuring special series on the subject. Some of them advertise with suggestive billboards purposely designed to offend their communities’ conservative sensibilities.”  Read full MacArthur column…

My post-column comment…

Mark Driscoll is so wrong on so many levels and he needs to immediately repent:

1. He’s gone way over the biblical line in dealing with sexual topics by uploading videos to YouTube about “biblical oral sex” for the general public to view, including children and singles, joking about masturbation on CNN, and by generally lowering the sacredness of Christ and Scripture. Al Mohler said it best, “We should be as explicit as Scripture is … and no more.” By account of any mature, Spirit-filled believer, Driscoll has transgressed this line.

2. Driscoll, who is 38 years young, knows very well that he is going against the counsel of far older, more mature and experienced shepherds of the faith like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Al Mohler. Only a pastor stuck in his own conceit wouldn’t heed the wise counsel of these older, godly men. In my opinion, John Piper is getting used by Driscoll and the favored line that “Driscoll has repented and is changing and John Piper is mentoring him” is baseless in reality. (Note to John Piper: if Driscoll stays on present course with you providing cover, beware lest your ministry and the glory of God be tarnished.)

3. Unless Driscoll is completely ignorant or so blinded by his own arrogance, he should know that his graphic content offends the consciences of weaker Christians, and if for no other reason than 1 Corinthians 10, he should clean up his act so that weaker brothers’ consciences aren’t offended. I am a Christian radio talk show host and when the head of a major Christian radio network emails me the night before I’m going to do a program on Driscoll and “the pornification of the pulpit” warning me to not offend the listening audience, and when I am personally convicted that I would be disobeying Scripture by playing sound bites of a Christian pastor’s content (i.e. Driscoll’s) on Christian radio, that pretty much sums up how wrong Driscoll is.

Finally, it’s irrelevant that Driscoll “has helped me so much spiritually” or “he’s reaching the young and urban generation” or “he’s started so many churches” — the same or similar could be said of Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller. The bottom line is that Driscoll is unrepentantly perpetuating extra-biblical sinful content and needs to stop sullying the holiness of God and Scripture and the pulpit … NOW.

Does anyone, including Driscoll, really think that if he toned it back to the biblical line that people wouldn’t listen to him or be reached? Please. There’s nothing new under the Seattle sun (or is it rain?) that wasn’t present in the hearts of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago that the clear and sound preaching of the gospel can’t redeem.

As for me, I will pray that Mark Driscoll stops causing this unnecessary division, that he will repent of his sinful ways, that he will listen to his elders in the faith, and that he will fulfill the pastoral potential that God has given to him.

The Pornification of the Pulpit

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW032809pod_hour1.mp3]

Guest: Phil Johnson, Executive Director, Grace to You

Who would’ve thought that the new trend for American pastors would be to joke about masturbation on CNN or give public advice on “biblical oral sex” or challenge their congregants to seven days of sex with their spouse?  (See links at bottom of page here.)

The fact is the “pornification of the pulpit” has arrived and is making huge inroads into churches all across the country under the guise of “contextualizing” Scripture and being “relevant” to an un-churched and sex-addicted generation.

Have sex-selling pastors like Mark Driscoll and Ed Young gone over the biblical line or are those calling for reverence and restraint overly puritanical?

Helping us discern this growing trend will be Phil Johnson, who gave a landmark sermon on this topic when he spoke at the Shepherds’ Conference in Los Angeles earlier this month.

When Relevance Becomes Irreverence – The Curious Case of Mark Driscoll

Podcast: Download (12.3MB)

Guest: Cathy Mickels

Being “relevant” to your audience is the big buzzword in Evangelical and Emergent churches today.  Whether it’s dressing down to look like “one of them” or playing “edgy” music or using Hollywood movies as sermon examples or preaching “30 days of sex with your spouse”, being relevant and “contextualizing” your message is seen to be as important as sound doctine (if that’s important anymore).

One of the more curious examples of this rush towards relevance is Mark Driscoll, popular author and preaching pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle that attracts 7500 attendees to seven church locations each week and who also has an enormous following world-wide.  Why Driscoll is a “curious case” is that he describes himself as “Emerging Reformed” which I would define as sort of merging Reformation theology with urban culturalism.  So what’s the big deal?

Well, you can read for yourself what author Cathy Mickels from Seattle reports in a memo this week highlighting concerns about Driscoll’s so-called relevant ministry and the association well-known church leaders like John Piper, Erwin Lutzer, Alistair Begg, and others have with him as part of “The Gospel Coalition“.  You can also click on the links below to YouTube videos of Mark Driscoll (viewer warning advised).

When is “the line” crossed between relevance and irreverence?  How are the younger generation and the unchurched to be reached without someone and some message they can relate to?  You won’t want to miss Hour 1 of The Christian Worldview this Saturday.

Follow-up radio program on March 28, 2009:  The Pornification of the Pulpit. Guest: Phil Johnson

MEMO BY CATHY MICKELS:
Mark Driscoll: Is He Qualified To Lead?

• Mark Driscoll on “Biblical Oral Sex” (YouTube)
• Driscoll on “Masturbation as Birth Control” (YouTube)
• Who Would Jesus Smack Down? (NYT)
• Driscoll with D.L. Hughley on CNN (CNN video)
• Ed Young Sex Challenge (AP Video)

“Sound Doctrine, Sound Words” by Phil Johnson, Shepherds’ Conference 2009
http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/SC-2009-03-06-PJ.mp3

Mark Driscoll: Is He Qualified To Lead?

Guest Blogger: Cathy Mickels lives in Seattle and is the co-author of Spiritual Junk Food: The Dumbing Down of Christian Youth

Summary and Introduction

This memo is written to Christian leaders detailing my concerns regarding the ministry of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. His church has grown to 6,000 members in 11 years and is also described as one of the fastest growing, innovative churches in America.

Because this ministry is characterized by so many examples of the trivialization of Scripture, crudeness, foolish talk and vulgarity it will be a challenge to keep my correspondence as brief as possible.

Research leads me to concur with Pastor John MacArthur, who has also said, “I have a great concern about him. [Mark Driscoll.]”

Note: The Christian Worldview radio programs on this topic

• When Relevance Becomes Irreverence: The Curious Case of Mark Driscoll. Guest: Cathy Mickels
• The Pornification of the Pulpit. Guest: Phil Johnson, Grace to You

In fact, in a radio interview with Todd Friel on the April 7, 2008, edition of Way of the Master, referring to Mark Driscoll’s book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Pastor MacArthur said, “…there are statements in that book that are so sexually explicit and unnecessary and purely gratuitous humor at the basest kind of level; I saw a video from a service in the church in January in which comments were made from his pulpit, which were then put…. on the website, which again, were sexually explicit and gratuitous and unnecessary Read more