Dee –

Thanks for the song. Brightened my Friday evening 🙂

As for Driscoll – I have no comment at the moment as I’m not spending my evening reading the transcript. I’ve also had enough reviewing of what CJ Mahaney had to say this week at the SGM pastors conference to want to vomit. I need a break from these ever so humble leaders who SERVE us so well!!!

Bridget2,

Agreed! I read Mahaney’s comeback speech as well. How do SGMers tolerate him? He is so UNLIKE Jesus, whom he continues to call “the Saviour”.

Dee – we are mostly adults here, but I personally would not go beyond a link to Driscoll’s Scotland message – and I’d put a disclaimer on that. There is little doubt some reading it will be pulled into sinful lust and fantasy by what is written there. Especially single men. You don’t want that on your conscience.

Zeta

John MacArthur has written extensively about Driscoll’s careless, blasphemous interpretation of the Song of Solomon in a four-part series entitled ‘The Rape of Solomon’s Song’, found here:

http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A396_The-Rape-of-Solomons-Song-Part-1

http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A397_The-Rape-of-Solomons-Song-Part-2

http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A398_The-Rape-of-Solomons-Song-Part-3

http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A399_The-Rape-of-Solomons-Song-Part-4

These admonishments are well-worth reading by a veteran pastor and teacher and were written out of love for His Church and in defense of biblical truth. Dr. MacArthur is one of the very few public voices willing to call others (including other Calvinists) out for their false, sinful teachings and practices. Let us learn from his lifetime of wisdom in these posts.

Eagle, I touch on your point 7 in the series that will be going up. It’s 4k words but it can’t be (and couldn’t be) considered comprehensive).

I’ve approached the subject of Driscoll and SoS from a number of angles in the past and have also written a lot about conservative Protestants and sex.

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2011/09/i-managed-to-miss-this-this-year.html

The above link was what I wrote after I saw a video of Dricoll talking about how too many pastors today talk about sex too much. The world’s biggest pot called a couple of kettles black.

Because I was at Mars Hill in the early days and have seen a few people age into their thirties and forties without marrying this has prompted me to write about evangelicals and single men. I ended up seeing a number of guys who were once at Mars turn into remarkably bitter guys with resentments against women, resentments against marriage, and resentment all around. It has struck me that unmarried people are disposable in a way that isn’t true for married people or parents and that this is true in the church in ways that may be even more problematic than in secular society.

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/search?q=disposable

Driscoll is, in the long run, a single case study of a way in which conservative Protestants and evangelicals approach marriage and family. Earlier this year I ended up writing thousands of words on the subject. I took into account a debate mentioned on Internet Monk about why evangelical churches won’t hire single men and the contorted interpretations of scripture used to get to that conclusion. All that writing culminated in an essay called “We have the same ethics because we worship the same idols” A link to the tagged essays (some of the few I bothered to topically tag) are below:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/search/label/inspired%20by%20a%20BHT%20discussion

I never actually imagined people would read my blog so I was very poor at organizing threads of thought and posts over the years.

Should you go over to Wenatchee The Hatcet and read my blog brace yourself for unabashedly nerdy discussions of monothematic sonata form in chamber music, contrapuntal music for the guitar, and rambles on cartoons along with the Mars Hill or theology stuff. I may get more traffic for Mars Hill related stuff but that’s a mere part of what I ramble about. I hope the above links may help constitute a relatively simplified summary of some of what I’ve written in the past that touches on Mars Hill and Driscoll and Protestantism in America on marriage.

I know that’s a lot of links but it may help provide some context for why I finally decided to do a guest series on Driscoll and Song of Songs. Plus Mara Reid asked me, there is that. 🙂

btw, my “s.e.x” spelling above is a joke – and a bit like the title of that old Tammy Wynette song “D-i-v-o-r-c-e.”

And these people are who and what the Southern Baptist are now accepting as OK are now allowing them to “control” and infiltrate the mindsets of theology students and others within the Baptist conventions and at many Seminaries, especially the one in Louisville KY under the control of Al.

Just shaking my head….

This was actually a Sunday morning sermon??!! As Dee said in a previous post that was linked….were there CHILDREN present? I cannot even imagine sitting through that with my kids, even the grown ones, even the one that is married!! (Should i phone her right now, and inquire as to whether she is doing all this biblical stuff Driscoll teaches about? ) Almost worse than being there with the kids, would be being there with my FATHER IN LAW. I once said “breast pump” in front of him, and he had to leave the room. 🙂

I personally think MacArthur is right on target about Driscoll.

Wenatchee The hatchet,

Thanks so much for your courage in blowing the whistle on Mark Driscoll. He really gets off on this stuff! He tickles the ears (and other body parts) of so many young guys that its scary! Yes, one day he will have to stand befoe THE ONE who inspired those words in the Song of Songs… Shame on Driscoll for using God to garner a following.

I think a more compelling argument against Driscoll scholastic approach (and I use that phrase a bit loosely) comes not from John MacArthur on Song of Songs but from Scott Bailey regarding Driscoll’s even more wildly speculative (and dishonest) appropriation of Targum Neofiti.

http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/mark-driscoll-as-scholar-and-exegete/

MacArthur and Driscoll are basically on the same page as to how Song of Songs ought to be read. MacArthur differs with Driscoll on where to take the images. The Puritans (and others) argued that when once a person rejects a typological reading as a way to read Song of Songs that Driscollisms are where you’re going to end up (which is, somewhat broadly speaking, the warning Matthew Henry had about attempting to fixate on just the plainest reading of the text).

I do not care for Mark Driscoll much, and find his reading and sermons of SOS to be as others have pointed out- obscene and pornographic. That is why I love and appreciate the ministries of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, etc, who have stood up and pointed out as much.

I just think too many elders are self appointed and not enough are truly fruitly annointed. The whole system is odd and is in desparate need of reform and I actually graduated from a seminary. And what is odd Dee, that these popular guys of late in the neoconservative movement claim to be fundamental and biblical. If you sincerely want move some one from back from liberal to what you believe to be conservative notions you don’t fire people that don’t fall in line. Take Klouda for example, her husband couldn’t work and was disabled. I don’t see that how she could not stay on staff at SWBTS. A lecturer does not fall into the “mentoring” framework of Paul’s on teaching on men. Also prooftexting is apparently not taught in seminaries at all as well as we see a president of a seminary indict his “poor” seminary collegues as poor for “not tithing.” They may bring Scriptures and know them but let the fruits speak out. Too me Driscoll is a minister who thinks being grity and crass is appealing to get men into church again. Let the fruits speak. To ministers like these, I say this “One can bring Scriptures all day…but your fruits will speak so much more.”

Hi Dee and Deb,
I realize that this more appropriately belongs on the previous thread, but I was so struck by its poignancy that I had to post it for you. This excerpt is from a blog response from John Immel over at Spiritual Tyranny . com; and it puts into great clarity the reason for my utter disagreement with SGM and other Calvanista views on women in the church. It’s why, in the context of the Neo-Reformed movement, I am a stark feminist:

“So men and women are compelled to live in the worst of all worlds… men who have no responsibility to produce one thought worth accepting, one action worth following and or one trait worth desiring, and women are compelled to live a fraud. They must sit silent and rationally subordinate to a man who they know doesn’t have a brain cell in his head while he makes choices and takes actions that are devoid of sense. But he gets to puff out his chest like he’s the original theologian, taking credit for the doctrinal sufficiency of his family, all the while taking his rational queues from some man sitting in a office.

So you have rational third class citizens, being “led” by rational second class citizens, who mooch their ideas from doctrinal autocrats who rule the definition of TRUTH by fiat. “

Argo, because I firmly agree with the idea of male headship and female submission, would you say that my wife and I necessarily fall into those categories and caricature that you’ve portrayed?

If “headship” means “he would be greatest among you must be the servant of all” I see THAT kind of “headship” in the Bible. 😉

Dustin,

In the NT, “head” means “source”, not boss.

Dustin –

I’m getting on in years, but my mother used to say, “if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t fit, just let it sit there.”

So if you are a man who has “no responsibility to produce one thought worth accepting, one action worth following and or one trait worth desiring” then I guess the shoe fits. Otherwise you are free to leave that shoe alone. Your choice.

btw, the remark on MD’s perception that he wasn’t getting enough sex is just… was sex the problem? Or was there something deeper going on in their relationship?

But instead of preaching about working on problems in marriages – working on them together<. with one's spouse – he instead comes up with all this "lotsa sex will make it better" prescription. (And graphic descriptions of it at that.)

A friend of mine would categorize this in part as "Doing things and avoiding relationships." And I believe she would be right. (Actually, she *has* writtena bout this, and things like 30 day sex challenges and… see her blog, Stuff Christian Culture Likes.)

I personally find MD's approach to sex – and his many stupid off-the-cuff remarks about it – juvenile at best. And I cringe inside for his wife and children. (Honestly, I do.)

I’m referring to what Driscoll wrote in Reformission Rev, which was published in 2006 and can be consulted for how Driscoll worded things. He used to say that he and Grace “weren’t coming together as often as we should have.” He once said, somewhat famously, at a mens’ retreat, that if he went without sex for a period of more than three days he’d get “wiggy”. This made the rounds and not all the married guys thought it was very wise for Driscoll to have said that.

Driscoll has made a point of addressing other problems in marriage besides sex. He has at times used SoS as a lure to discuss sex and then discuss other issues in married life like conflict resolution and communication. It’s important to stress that he has never only preached all sex only sex in these series. That doesn’t mean I agree with his approach but as I put it in the body of the post, I’ve got ten years of Driscoll sermons jostling in my head and many here have not heard all of what Driscoll has said. he’s talked a lot in the past about how there was a particularly miserable stage in his marriage because he didn’t want to lose any arguments so he’d spend a lot of time having won his arguments with Grace but noticing he’d be sleeping on the couch a lot. Has he come off as obsessed with getting as much sex as possible? Absolutely. But he has actually preached sermons from Song of Songs that are not just about the sex part. One of the key themes he ended the 1999 series on SoS with was that a good marriage must never be taken for granted, that an apparently good marriage can still end in disaster.
To cite a reference to Peasant Princess from the late Internet Monk, here’s a link to what Michael Spenser had to say about Driscoll’s Peasant Princess, albeit buried in a larger context:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/whats-a-conservative-reading-of-song-of-solomon

Why do some people even listen to Driscoll? I just don’t get it.

On another topic altogether: I had to call the township cops about an hour ago – there was a herd of 15 or so sheep running around and sampling the tasty parts of the neighbors’ lawns!

They were awfully but, but obviously escapees, and I was worried that one or more might get hit by a car.

People will come home, find chomp marks in their bushes and never know who did it… ; )

Late to the party cause home computer is down.

Concerning Driscoll and his take on SoS, I’m far past the shock and outrage stage. I’m more in the generally disgusted stage.

The crazy thing is this, any man, woman, or child with a below average IQ, a King James Bible, and a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance can figure out that “mah haneim” is not an ancient strip tease. If this were so, the angels on Jacob’s ladder would be doing strip teases because this is were the term “mah haneim” comes from. (look it up)

Yet I can’t tell you how many Driscolites (usually male) I’ve come across that are convinced, strip teases are in the Bible because they take what Driscoll says without ever checking the facts. Why? Because they WANT strip teases to be in the Bible. Driscoll WANTS strip teases to be in the Bible so bad, he has deceived himself and an entire generation of blinded followers.

And the irony of it all? Driscoll teaches that WOMEN are the more easily deceived gender. He wishes!

Dee – the thing is, I want Grace Driscoll and her kids to get the hell out of there! He seems (mo) unhinged, and I don’t think they’re safe.

As for all the claims about Seattle being “unchurched” prior to MD, that’s also a lot of bs. There were plenty of churches out there, and I’m sure there still are – I do know that some refugees from MD’s cult (and yes, I believe it is one) are finding safety elsewhere.

He *is* a bully, which is one of the main problems with him.

As for your background, WH, it makes sense to me that MD’s church would have been much more appealing. But lined up against what I’ll call a more normal religious/church setting, it’s clearly off by quite a few degrees.

Addendum

I noticed after my comment that according to the link above, the sermon was preached in the morning service so I deduced from this,that it was removed from Destiny’s website.
However,the link does refer later on down the page to the evening service which is slightly different than my link.

Thanks

I’m late posting on this thread, but I was pretty much just sick when I read MD’s sermon for several reasons. First, it was a ravaging of a beautiful portion of scripture for what appears to be MD’s own personal intentions, especially when I read the part about, “Christ commanded this . . .” Jesus Christ made no commandment regarding MD’s “interpretation” (which is all this was at best) of these scriptures, and I don’t recall Jesus making any commandments at all during the time that SOS was written. To make a statement like that from a pulpit is a lie. So, is MD purposely misleading people? Does he have a seminary degree?

Secondly, I think it is very dangerous the way many preachers today are teaching as “biblical” or “Christ commands” regarding issues that are really preferences and practices. New believers, and even some older believers who don’t or have not studied the Word for themselves, easily assume that what they hear on a Sunday morning is the Truth. So, how many people are set free by what they hear MD teach? How many are actually condemned by what they hear on a Sunday morning because they compare themselves with what MD might do or not do? The Bible gives us very few specifics about how we are to conduct our sexual life within the confines of our marriage. Why does MD feel free to tell men and woman what they should do? Why would all marriages need to look the same as his might? Can’t there be many differing expressions of how a man and wife express their love? I think so. I don’t think we need MD to tell us what our sexual experiences should look like.

Third, DOESN’T MD HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO PREACH ABOUT. Sorry for yelling, but good grief, why this expounding on one’s sexual preferences in marriage? Why is this so important to someone’s walk with God? Is this something that was so important to Jesus that he spoke to his disciples about it? When I gather together with believers to worship and share in God’s Word this is not what I want to hear, nor is it central to to one’s walk with Jesus.

Do preachers think about the word they are bringing and how that message will help edify those listening, or advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to Him? Do they desire to handle God’s Word carefully and respectfully by not adding or taking away from it?

Just to clarify, I think there is a time and place to talk about and ask questions about the marriage bed, or sexual issues, but not in a Sunday morning sermon. A better place might be a discussion between two couples in counseling, or man with man and woman with woman. This being said, I wouldn’t want MD to counsel me because it appears he would just be bringing me a list of what I should do based on his personal desires – hmm. Sounds pretty legalistic to me.

Shep, the fixation commenters here have about the Scotland address withstanding I’m discussing The Peasant Princess, the 1999 SoS sermons and Driscoll’s teaching from SoS and Proverbs in 2002. I mentioned the Scotland sermon in passing and have been discussing Driscoll’s approach to Song of Songs over the last decade. People here at Wartburg are more likely to focus on the Scotland sermon and the sermon that was pulled off mid-broadcast due to concerns about sexual content. I understand how their perspective would be limited to those sermons but that’s not where I’m coming from. I’m coming from the perspective of someone who is taking a more global examination of Driscoll’s approach to Song of Songs over the course of a decade and to having heard Driscoll teach on the subject at mens’ retreats and other church events that many Wartburg readers wouldn’t know about or have been at. There may be a few ex-MH lurkers here but I don’t know if they have identified themselves as such as I’m new to this blog and the conversations here.

Wenatchee,
Thanks for this ,,I understand where you are coming from but as an ex Pastor, I am double wary about attributing to other Pastors and Fellowships comments and instances like this.
I have no problem with you or anyone else sharing their dislikes or other matters about Mark Driscoll but by posting as we do and incorrectly attributing the instance,we become guilty of heresay and gossip.
If we pass something on for whatever motive,let it have some positive aspect in that we are not just peddlers of ‘smut’ whoever and whatever the source.
Thanks

Shep,

Here is a brief excerpt from my 2009 post in which I quote John MacArthur:

“What has John MacArthur so outraged? Dr. MacArthur explains in Part 2 of the installment: “A CD copy of that shocking message, entitled Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon was recently sent to me by some deeply offended and concerned Christians in the UK. It is the primary reason I’m doing this series.” ”

In case you’d like to read the post, here it is.

Smacking Down Mark Driscoll

I’d also like to direct you to another post I wrote from a very personal viewpoint.

Driscoll’s Sex Tips and the Tipping Point

Shep, I appreciate the concerns. In this context mentioning the Scotland sermon was not helpful because it has sidelined where I was hoping discussion would go. The core of where I differ with Driscoll has to do with the content from the “Let Him Kiss” me intro to Peasant Princess and not the Scotland sermon. I “could” refer to material in the 1999 sermons but since he has basically stuck to the same overall approach to SoS over the last ten years referring to Peasant Princess has sufficed for attribution.

And I’ve been up front with married friends at Mars Hill that I recused myself from that series because I worried it was going to be a rerun of stuff that I felt was TMI for me. My married friends at MH have been pretty understanding about that concern and respect my decision. I don’t contest that other people have genuinely benefited from the Peasant Princess series but I believe it would have been better kept in the marriage classes and counseling settings (where it largely WAS restricted to from about 2003-2007) instead of brought out as a three month series for the entire denomination/church in 2008.

Driscoll, though his critics may not want to believe it, actually HAS toned things down. The 2007 was not quite as racy as the 2002 version of what he taught from the pulpit, let alone in mens’ groups. But I’ve heard enough of how he’s broached the topic to say that while I grant in advance he has toned things down over ten years I still take issue with some basics in his interpretive approach. At least now he states upfront that the Abishag bit is speculation on his part, in contrast to his 1999 series.

Shep,

By the way, thanks for reading our posts here at TWW. I do appreciate your input.

Dee and Deb –

That sermon could be the centerfold for the magazine!!

Most of the visions stuff, if memory serves, is in connection to a four-part day-long spiritual warfare presentation Driscoll did in early 2008. One of the significant problems in attempting to focus on what is involved in the spiritual warfare presentation is that content preached to leaders inside Mars Hill four years ago is not necessarily the best way to assess what Driscoll may be saying or thinking now. It would take a great deal of study and research simply to verify whether or not Driscoll’s presentation on Spiritual Warfare would fit in any way to even one of the sources he cited as a reference, William Gurnall’s door-stopper sized book The Christian in Full Armour. How many people here own that book? A show of hands? Well, if there’s more than just ME here who actually owns the unabridged Gurnall book we could have a conversation about that and whether Driscoll’s presentation could be defended on the basis of that later.

Here I suggest that people don’t even take the word of watchbloggers for it. Driscoll has in the case of spiritual warfare topics claimed to refer to Gurnall as a primary source and this means that it’s possible (though not easy or practical!) to go to Gurnall’s published work and start discussing how or if Driscoll’s approach can be defended plausibly on the basis of Gurnall or if Driscoll is just name-dropping a Puritan as an authority so that people will look him up, assume it’s all legit, and just listen to what Driscoll says. I’d say whether or not I’ve reached a conclusion about that but Gurnall is long-winded. There are certain Puritans who couldn’t have been having sex as often as Driscoll says people should have sex because they were writing so much not even N. T. Wright could compete with them.

Discernment ministries are basically of no value in dealing with visions stuff because they assume a satanic or fleshly origin without attempting to get at the psychological and herd elements of how these kinds of problems develop. For that, frankly, you have to consult a lot of skeptical literature, comments from atheists, and also literature from psychologists. There is virtually no contemporary scholarly work done by NT authors on demonology that I’m aware of except for Susann R. Garrett, who published The Demise of the Devil and The Temptation of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (both of which I own). Most people who try to refute Driscoll on the subject of spiritual warfare from conservative circles are too ignorant of how much intertestamental literature has informed even the nT documents and attempt to shoehorn everything that “can” be said about Judeo-Christian ideas about diabology into “just” the canon. Honestly, that can’t really be done and that’s part of what I’m trying to put together as a supplement to this current series. Selective literal and allegorical reading isn’t just a problem with Driscoll and it is relevant to the broader subject not only of how Christians read SoS but other types of literature.

The thing is, every culture has its folklore about devils and demons – and imo, there is a great deal of folklore in what often passes for a “Christian” understanding of these topics. (cf. a series of sermons I heard preached by quite a number of different people over my several decades in charismatic circles.)

The evangelical church as a whole is still pretty far removed from the “charismaniac” understanding(s) of Satan, spiritual warfare and the like. I think it would be better if people remained ignorant of that junk, too.

RE: visions, weird visions, “charismaniana”:

I know we’re trying to steer clear of the precipice to explore this topic more here & now — so forgive this my 2 cents:

Whenever a person has been “hurt” (betrayed, violated, humiliated, verbally offended, & anything on the spectrums of rejection and disappointment), we tend to readjust our boundaries through a newfound awareness of what amounted to danger.

This can be a reasonable & healthy respect for “fire”, so to speak.

But I’ve observed (certainly in myself) a tendency to overreact — to keep pushing our readjusted boundaries farther than is necessary or reasonable. Something approaching a wholesale rejection of the whole thing/person/format/organization/etc.

I think of my aunt — who eroded my self=esteem as a child by constantly comparing me to her superior daughters. My struggle now is not to assume that her every action and motivation has some mean intent behind it. Because in actual fact, she is a good, dedent, & kind person who (whether or not I can completely accept it in my heart of hearts) does love me.

With things associated with “charismatic”, surely there have been excesses, the exercise of bad judgement, not tempering things in a wise way given the situation. But I am picking up on an overreaction against things that have been labled “charismatic” — something approaching a wholesale rejection of these things.

Although I understand it, as I see it, it can’t be a reasonable approach. And to me, the wonderful commenters here in the TWW community are deep and wise and intelligent, in favor of what is reasonable.

I think of my aunt — who eroded my self=esteem as a child by constantly comparing me to her superior daughters. My struggle now is not to assume that her every action and motivation has some mean intent behind it. Because in actual fact, she is a good, dedent, & kind person who (whether or not I can completely accept it in my heart of hearts) does love me.

But…while I understand what you’re saying, (we’re all flawed), there’s still a big problem, which you have clearly stated. That doesn’t make her an evil person, but it doesn’t negate the painful effects her speech and actions had on you.

I’ll try to get to some of that stuff numo, because those are all fair questions, but I’m up for evaluation for eye surgery for both eyes today. I’ll see, so to speak, if I can field some of the questions you asked later in the week when my pupils aren’t the size of nickels.

elastigirl: i don’t want to make all things and people that fall under the “charismatic” heading look bad. That would be very unfair, and (imo) false. (I became a professing xtian during the height of the Catholic charmismatic movement, and saw many good things over the years.)

But… by the same token, I *could* say that there are *some* things about SGM that seemed to have a positive influence in the lives of a few of my old friends. However, those few positive things are greatly overshadowed by the wrongs, theological and otherwise, committed by SGM “pastors” and “leaders.”

That’s pretty much how I feel about the charismatic movement as a whole, especially as it is now. (Super-weird “strategic level spiritual warfare”-ness and all.)

Hi, Numo.

I’m all for being upfront and honest, instead of avoiding things. Yes, these “visions” should be discussed. It just seemed like for this post in particular, moving over into debating MD’s “visions”, & charismatic things was straying too far from the intended point. At least, I think Wenatchee the H mentioned somethign like that — & since he authored this post, i just wanted to be respectful of that. But of course I barged on ahead and composed my lengthy comment anyway!

I’m sure “charismaniac” is apt for what you have in mind.

I don’t mean to negate the painful effects of bad behavior (whether done on purpose or by accident or ignorance). Just seems it’s not impossible to make peace with bad events and their “perpetators” and not be in denial about it all. A delicate matter, for sure.

And perhaps not always appropriate (i can think of a number of people and movements and organizations that are despicable enough to not warrant peace-making).

(fwiw, I live near Penn State, and I think some of my anger, grief and frustration over recent news – especially the cover=up/enabling of child abuse – is affecting me…. and so I ranted about MD instead.)

You could say that… 😉

Driscoll is evil. I cannot believe more people cannot see it. He gives more and more proof all the time. He blasphemes the God in the Flesh.and at the same time he claimed that every word out of his mouth on stage is from the Holy Spirit. He is vile, vulgar, hateful and cruel.

If this is Christianity and people believe he represents our Lord we are in big trouble. The video “I see things” is nothing but divination and people need to run from him.

Dee – no worries, and I hope you had a good time.

About lip service to Calvin: honestly, I don’t think Calvin has much – if anything – to do with it. This is a good old boy network; they have passwords and “Calvin” is one of them.

But theologically? Forget it!

As for Driscoll (again), I am baffled by the adulation and how people seem not to realize exactly how bad he is, on multiple levels. If he was part of some other religion, he would probably be viewed as dangerous and mentally unbalanced – and rightly so.

I think Eagle’s comparisons to Joseph Smith and other Mormon “prophets” are very applicable to MD and crew. (Especially re. the “rogue” prophets out there who are associated with various fundamentalist LDS groups…)

WH… Driscoll the person is solely responsible for Driscoll the persona.

And that is THE face that the public sees, plus – from what many of us understand – offstage as well.

So… I’m not sure you can present what we cannot see/hear, y’know?

Hope that makes sense.

He is responsible for his actions.

Even if he did people here would likely assume that it was a sham.

I never said he wasn’t or isn’t responsible for his actions and words.

That also doesn’t change the fact that his persona is not merely what he makes it but what his fans and detractors invest in it. Unlike many of his fans and detractors Driscoll gets this dynamic. In fact it is essential to the persona. He has been able to sell himself on the claim that if you’re ticking off both the liberals and the fundamentalists you must be doing something right.

Well, no, not really, as the liberal and conservative reactions to Joel Osteen on gay marriage have demonstrated this year. To liberals Osteen is a homophobic bigot and to fundamentalists (and evangelicals) he’s still a heretical prosperity teacher. But in the case of Driscoll fans and detractors are often responding to the ads and soundbites and not engaging with the kind of work needed to highlight the weaknesses in Driscoll’s positions and research. It’s as though people were seeing the ad for a car and discussing the car rather than also observing how the car actually drives. By responding to just the persona people (for or against) are only responding to the ads for the car and not discussing the car on the road. If Driscoll is a Corvair there is not, as yet, an “Unsafe at Any Speed”.

A shade less jokingly, I think MD’s so-called “visions” are really quite perverse, and I’m not sure that I need to go to the sources you suggest to have that conviction. — Numo

These “visions” are probably how Driscoll passes off his own sexual fantasies without admitting what they are.

In Medieval times, when Clericalism was rampant and the only way to be Truly Godly was to become a celibate monk or nun, most monks reported sexual “temptations” and “visions” credited to the Devil. (And nuns had “Bridal Mysticism”, which focused eroticism onto the male person of Christ.) I suspect some of these were the result of sworn celibates who weren’t actually cut out for the celibate lifestyle but felt they had to take such vows to be spiritual.

HUG, you bring up a few things I may have to write about some time after holidays with family and eye surgery. You’ve touched on something that I think is a more plausible explanation of Driscoll’s claims that the rote “divination” cessationists keep hammering away at. If I indulged in a strictly Christianese ranter definition of divination and responded in kind I could still point out that the entire Bible can be considered a kind of collection of divinations established by a committee. The urim and the thummim constituted something that could be construed as a form of acceptable divination within the Israelite community. On the subject of devils and the like there’s a lengthy post-script in which I get into some interpretive questions raised by certain preachers refusing to see Jesus in Song of Songs because a plain reading can’t be there but insisting on only really discussing certain prophetic passages as referring to Satan even though they can’t be read that way if they go for the plain meaning of the text. I knew reading all five of Jeffrey Burton Russell’s books on the devil would be useful one day. 🙂

Re. how MD has been “selling himself,” I think that lately, it’s been as a bigoted jock (the FB post on “most effeminate worship leader,” for example).

WH, I realize that you are trying to be fair to MD, but I think there is a line here that might be harder for you to see (having been an insider there) than it is for others.

I am sure that the “leaders” at SGM are mostly kind and loving to their spouses and immediate families, but that in no way changes the fact that they’ve committed some egregious wrongs 9and keep on compounding them).

Not sure i can see any difference between them – and some abusive “pastors” I’ve known personally – and MD. To take this to an extreme (or maybe to a logical conclusion), lots of Nazi war criminals were doting fathers and husbands. That doesn’t make them “good” people.

PA: that’s… [no words].

WH, my apologies for the semi-hijack of this thread!

Dee – thank you!

And I think you’re right about their use of the word “mentoring.”

Mahaney as supposed to be mentoring Driscoll. And, as is usual, there are no comments forthcoming. It is all smoke and mirrors. I think they just like the sound of the word “mentoring.” — Dee

Is Mahaney one of Driscoll’s cronies or yes-men?

Someone as Domineering and Hypermasculine as Driscoll sounds like the type of Pointy-haired Boss who can only tolerate Yes-Men in his presence. (Examples: Baba Saddam and Brother Leader Gadhafi.)

He once said, somewhat famously, at a mens’ retreat, that if he went without sex for a period of more than three days he’d get “wiggy”. — WTH re Driscoll

Isn’t this usually called “hypersexual” or “male nymphomaniac”?

WTH:

Sounds very plausible. Add to that Driscoll’s position as CELEBRITY Megachurch Pastor (which usually means a one-man Apostle show). He’s the Big CELEBRITY; he can’t open up or share his burden with anyone else (except maybe his wife, and his sexual obsession and male-supremacist leanings makes that VERY problematic). He has to handle it Alone (or just ME and JESUS(TM)), without any third party. (Aside: The Macho Lone Ranger Christians, the Evangelical Gospel of Personal Salvation and ONLY Personal Salvation, no third parties needed or wanted.)

I think his erotic “visions” are his obsessive sexual fantasies bursting through in a Church Lady-acceptable form. (Like those Medieval monks & nuns, he might not even be aware they ARE sexual fantasies — only Heathens have THOSE and He’s Saved! Big Megachurch Preacher!) His “porno-preaching” on Song of Solomon might be a way to make his obsession acceptable or a way to self-medicate and self-treat. (They say a lot of psychiatrists & psychologists get into the field because they’re not wrapped all that tight themselves and becoming a shrink means they can self-treat without anyone knowing.)

This idea adds more weight to my original prediction: This guy’s Celebrity preacher career is gonna end in a BIG sex scandal. He’s messed up, he has to go it alone, which will make him even more messed up, and one day it’s all gonna blow sky-high.

I read the transcript. The interpretation and prooftexting errors are rampant, and what pisses me off is how often he goes ‘It’s biblical, it’s in the Bible, Jesus/Scriptures command this’ etc. Lies. SOS is a poem, nothing more. And since when did Jesus ever tell a woman to perform fellatio on her husband?

Then there are the insinuations, the underlying messages. 41:48 – men go to strip clubs because their wives don’t strip for them. Also a lie, and blaming the wife for husband’s sin. 33:00 Apparently the Corinthians verse of how a married couples’ bodies ‘belong’ to each other means that men are entitled to fondle their wives’ breasts whenever they want. That those breasts are ‘their property.’ 45:38 Men can’t imagine their wives without imagining them naked. They don’t considered she is a person at all, at first, just an object of lust.

Elsewhere, though the minutes aren’t named: 1) it’s a ‘sin’ for a wife not to go down on her husband 2) to be a godly wife you must give him oral sex (or else be a sinner) 3) sex will make a non-believing husband turn to Christ. I wonder if his motive behind this is that his wife simply won’t perform on him, and the only way he can get her to is to twist Scripture and lie, saying ‘God commands thee’. Then he’ll preach the same message to his fanboys, trying to give them the same deceptive idea.