Evangelism encounter: Myles

I've mentioned before that I currently work as a Security Officer here in North Carolina.  I work in an office building and have opportunity each day to intersect with many kinds of people.  Yesterday, I had the chance to talk to a fellow that I've seen several times in the past.  His name is Miles.  He is a good looking guy who could be a Hollywood actor.  Miles works as a transport driver for disabled patients and about a month ago while waiting on a patient we got into an interesting conversation.  He shared with me that at one point in his life, he was a drug addict, suffered from ADHD, and experienced a tough divorce several years earlier but had an experience several years ago that totally delivered him.  Of course I'm all ears but my shift was over and I had to leave.  I told him that the next time he was in the building he would have to tell me more of his story.  Well that next time was yesterday.  Miles and I sat down and he began to pick up where he left off.  He credited his "miraculous" deliverance to "God" who he say's speaks to him on a regular basis.  This was my first clue that something was off in his theology.  He told me that "God" was the author of both good and evil therefore it's up to man to choose the "best" options.  Of course if man consistently chooses the good over evil, when he dies he will be rewarded with "Heaven".  He also told me that he doesn't believe in organized religion because "religion" divides and he also denied Scripture as  God's word because of course it was written by evil men who corrupted it.  Now here is the straw that broke the camel's hump (is that how it goes?)  He stated that because God is the author of BOTH evil and good there is "NO" sin.  In fact he said that He no longer sins since his "religious" experience.  At this point I could stands no more and I jumped in and asked, "Miles since your experience, how does your life now line up with the 10 commandments?  "Have you lied? he said, "No". I asked, "Have you lusted in your heart after women?  He said, "Nope".  I finally asked, "have you loved God with all your being?  He stated, "absolutely".  The thing I love about using the 10 commandments in evangelism is because like a good diagnostic machine they expose the sinful heart for what it is. Miles may not admit it, but he violated the first commandment which states, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3).  Because of his rejection of the Bible, Miles had created or given himself to a "god"  other than the God of the Bible.  Miles was an Idolater who if he didn't repent would spend eternity not in Heaven, but in Hell.  I attempted to expose Miles to the virtues of Jesus' person and work on the cross, but he was fixed on his own ideas.  I pray that Miles will repent before it's too late.

For His Glory,
Todd

Men, whatever happened to "Women and Children First"?

I just recieved by way of "snail mail" the newest catalog (2012) from, "The Vision Forum Family". Vision Forum is a ministry committed to, "...promoting courageous fatherhood, noble motherhood, virtuous boyhood and girlhood through vision-casting discipleship tools that teach, equip, and inspire...." .   
    On page two of the Catalog is a note from Vision's President and founder Douglas W. Phillips entitled, "Does "Women & Children First" Still Matter?  This note was so good, I thought I would reprint it for your edification (www.visionforum.com).

"One hundred years ago, the second-most famous ship in the history of the world sank. What makes the story of the R.M.S. Titanic so important is the men who lived out the expression “women and children first.” From first class gentlemen to 16-year-old cabin boys, from boiler room workers to Wallace Hartley and his musicians—all perished for women and children.
Three days after Titanic sank, churchman Henry Van Dyke (author of the lyrics to “Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee”) offered this:

Where did this rule which prevailed in the sinking of the Titanic come from? It comes from God through faith of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the ideal of self-sacrifice. It is the rule that the strong ought to bear the infirmities of those that are weak. It is the divine revelation which is summed up in the words: Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. . . . Only through the belief that the strong are bound to protect and save the weak because God wills it so, can we hope to keep self-sacrifice, and love and heroism, and all the things that make us glad to live and not afraid to die.

For one thousand years, the doctrine of “women and children first” has guided Western civilization. We see this in the fields of Scotland in the seventh century when evangelist Adomnan authored the “Law of the Innocents.” We see it on board the sinking H.M.S. Birkenhead in the nineteenth century. These men, and the men of the Titanic, recognized their duty because they had been raised in a Christian culture that implicitly embraced this principle. Ours is the first generation to reject it.

How do we reconcile “women and children first” with the spirit of feminism? We do not. Today, many are confused. They have a quaint appreciation for “women and children first” while misunderstanding the application to the duties of manhood and the distinctions between the sexes.

As we progress through the twenty-first century, Christians need to understand the choice before them. It makes no sense to speak of women and children first in one breath, and place our daughters in harm’s way in military combat in another. If men are no longer the defenders of women, why hold the door for a lady or perform other acts of deference which once defined the meaning of “gentleman”? Today, Christians need to see exactly where feminism and evolution have taken us—into a world where it is every person for themselves in a struggle for the survival of the fittest.

One hundred years after the sinking of the Titanic, this message is more relevant than ever. It is a reminder of what separates Christian civilization from everything else.

Does “women and children first” still matter? You bet it does!".


Men, just some thoughts in closing.  This article was extremely interesting and challenging to me.  Imagine if we REALLY believed this, "Women and Children First" ethic.  What would happen to the Divorce rate?  What would happen to the Abortion rate?  What would happen to the Ponography industry?  What would happen to the spousal and child abuse rate?  Would families be larger than the modern 1.2 kids?
                                                                       
                                                            
                                        
Just wondering!!!
                                                
                                       
Thanks Doug for a great article.



For His Glory
Todd

Where Are The African American Evangelists? - Tom Skinner

I AM AWED AND INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT THAT was at work in the Apostle Paul. He was so much in love with the Lord Jesus Christ, with the gospel and with his own Jewish people that he could say, "If it were possible for me to go to hell that Israel might be saved, I would be prepared to do that.”  

I believe that, in our generation, there must arise young African American men and women with that kind of intensity—committed Christians who are so in love with Jesus and with African American people that they'd say, "If my going to hell could lead to the salvation of my people, I am prepared to go." Now is the time for African American Christians in this country to rise up and take their rightful place in the body of Jesus Christ—to open up and receive all that God intends for us to have as a people.

I also believe, however, that it's crucial to go to any people in the right spirit of evangelism. But before we consider what that means, we must examine a more basic question: Why has evangelism to African Americans been largely ignored in America ?

 

MISS LIBERTY TURNED HER BACK
I must place my statements in an historical context.  

America , we must recall, was founded to be a haven, a place of refuge for people who were escaping all sorts of oppression in other parts of the world. Miss Liberty stands in New York harbor as a glaring, testimony to the commitment of America 's early fathers to be available to those people seeking freedom from religious and political oppression. She stands there as a promise that America is a land where these people would be offered hope.

But what remains unnoticed—as Miss Liberty has stood there in New York harbor, facing towards Europe , welcoming all those European immigrants who came to America seeking refuge—to this day, her back is conspicuously turned to Harlem . Her promises apparently have not included certain people who were already here, whose backs were broken to build this new world.

Now these people—not immigrants, but slaves—brought the man-muscle energy that fueled America 's Industrial Revolution. While white immigrants from Europe were moving into northern port cities, slaves from Africa were being sold in the South, to develop cotton fiber. It was this all-important fiber that was shipped to those northern ports to be finished off and exported to Europe. This system allowed a balance of trade to develop that would make America a great economic power.

You may well say, "That's history. What's that got to do with winning African American people to Christ today?"

Everything! Because we must understand how we came to the position we are in today if we are to escape it.

The fourth and fifth generations of those European immigrants who built the northern cities began to accumulate wealth and power. But the descendents of the slaves did not. And as African Americans migrated north, the wealthier whites moved out to the suburbs and the country, leaving behind the urban ghetto.

It's urgent that we understand what happened to the churches of these cities as whites moved out.

THE SHIFT FROM URBAN TO SUBURBAN
Earlier in this century, we still had in our cities what was known as the parish church. By definition it was simply a church that ministered to a defined community. Its leaders chose a community where they would locate to exalt Jesus and to meet the needs of the people. The parishioners lived in the surrounding community, and thus they walked to these places of worship.

But slowly, as the century progresses—just as African Americans were migrating from the South—whites were beginning to move farther and farther out from the center city. Integration began to be defined as that period of time between when the African American family moved into this city and the last white family moved out.

Still, for several decades, suburbanites continued to use the old places of worship. They would drive from suburban communities into the downtown neighborhoods they’d left, to worship on Sunday morning. Now they needed a parking lot, and so it was appropriated in the church budget to build around the church building a parking lot that would accommodate the people who were now driving great to worship on Sunday.

And when the service was over, there would be the announcement: “Immediately following this morning’s service we will retire to the fellowship hall for a time of fellowship”—which meant tea, coffee and cookies. Then immediately after that, everyone moved into the parking lot and began to drive out—with no contact at all with the new residents of the neighborhood.

And the people who had moved into the old neighborhood never saw the commuters because they were still asleep when the commuters drove in to worship, and they were just rising when they left. There was no relationship between them.

Now, if this downtown church was a wealthy church, it was able to hire a special staff whose ministry during the week was to try to do something to reach these people in the surrounding neighborhood. But the church itself had no relationship and no contact.

Finally, everyone decided it was too inconvenient and too expensive to be driving back and forth. “Why not build a worship sanctuary in the neighborhoods where we are?” Thus the churches packed and left, leaving avoid as far as the witness of the Christian church to the inner-city. Eventually, the city would become a symbol of abandonment, guilt—a “problem.”

EVANGELISM AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS—A CRACK IN OUR LEGACY
In the meantime, among those people migrating into northern cities were my own parents who, during World War II, came up from Greenville , South Carolina , and settled in Harlem . They discovered that the patterns of segregation were not that different from the south, and they were faced with enormous problems in adjusting to these urban centers. As Christians, the question for them and many others became: “What of the Christian witness in our cities?”

Not that our community was devoid of churches. We had them. But somehow the issue of evangelism—that is, reaching out and declaring the Good News in word and deed so as to influence people to put their absolute trust in the person of Jesus Christ—was gone.

In African America, we were not devoid of churches, and we were not devoid of preaching, but we were weak on spiritual witness—this throwing out of the net, this calling people forth to a personal encounter and relationship with Jesus Christ. Evangelism was occasional, not permanent among us.

In fact, the gift of the evangelist was not widely known or understood. Or else it was somewhat distrusted. Generally, all preaching was done by pastors, and then only gift we knew was the gift of the pastor. When I was growing up, whenever we had what might have been termed “evangelistic campaigns”, it required that my father—who was a pastor—send for another pastor from another city to preach that meeting. The reason for this was that evangelists were thought of as sheep stealers. They were men who came to town, pitched a tent, stole people from the churches and started their own church.

Anybody who was called an evangelist was suspect and not to be trusted. So the gift of the evangelist did not thrive and develop among us. And even as you examine great preaching which came from the African American minister—who is the great preacher symbol of our time—there is one crack in our legacy. That crack was always the ability, after a magnificent preaching, to cast the net out and call people home to the person of Jesus Christ.

Rather, we opened the doors of the church. We called people to membership in the institution, but we had difficulty calling people to Jesus.

ON THE OTHER HAND…
Meanwhile, our white brothers and sisters ensured that from the cradle to the grave, the gospel would be heard by their children. Along with strong, local churches, they developed parachurch ministries.

Child Evangelism grabbed those young white kids when they were preschoolers and evangelized them. When they got to school, they had Bible Clubs. In high school they had Young Life and Youth for Christ. When they got to college, Campus Crusade, InterVarsity or the Navigators picked them up. After college, they were grabbed by Women's Aglow, the Christian Businessmen's Committee, or the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship or the Executive Christian Ministries .

But—do you know that I went through Harlem looking for these groups? And I went through the south side of Chicago , through the hill district of Pittsburgh, through the south side of Philadelphia , and I went to Watts to see if I could locate these ministries. And they were nowhere to be found!

Now I know a lot Of African, American Christians who get mad at these organizations for not reaching out to our people. But I don’t hold this them failure against them. They were doing what they were supposed to do—reaching their generation and their people with the gospel. It just didn't include us.

What is sadder, from my viewpoint, is that some young African American evangelists have come along—but they felt the only way they could have credentials and authentically do the work of evangelism was to hope that some of those white agencies would hire them. And they never saw that they could reach their own people with the claims of Christ.

And so, my brothers and sisters, there's a lot of catching up to be done in our generation if the truth of the gospel and the kingdom is going to become alive for our people.

FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT
What is the work of evangelism that we have to be about? Who is going to do evangelism among the African American community? Who are the people who are going to spread the Good News concerning Jesus Christ in such a way—by word and by deed—so as to influence more of our people to put their absolute trust in the person of Jesus Christ?

Scripture makes it very clear that all of us are called to the work of evangelism. All of us are called to have a passion for the lost. But who are evangelists—the called ones? By what signs will we recognize them?

I suggest to you, first of all, that effective evangelism requires that a person be filled with the Spirit.

There is a lot of discussion, even debate in some circles about this and about what the manifestation of the fullness of the Spirit would look like. I won’t enter that debate here, but when I read scripture, the Bible tells me that an evidence of the Spirit’s fullness is this: “They spoke the word of God with boldness.” (Acts 4:31 )

Whenever people were filled with the Spirit they were fearless in their proclamation of the Good News. And whenever they were filled with the Spirit, others immediately identified them with Jesus. In fact, it became unmistakable when a person is filled with the Spirit that there is a relationship between them and Jesus.

This was true of the apostles—and it was mind-blowing to the Jewish leaders to witness the spirit of the apostles because they thought they had gotten rid of Jesus. They’d nailed him to a cross, buried him in a tomb, and rolled a stone over his grave. They were sure Jesus was dead.

But suddenly they were confronted by a new, bold Peter—and they saw Jesus. They looked at John, and they saw Jesus. They looked at the other disciples, and they saw Jesus.

Our greatest argument for the resurrection of Christ is not our ability to argue it from an exegetical point of view. No, it is that the world should look at us and say, “These people have been with Jesus.”

Today, if you’re going to do the work of the evangelist, your first qualification should be that you have been with Him.

GIFTS OR FRUITS?
I hasten to add that there is a distinction between the fruit of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. We need also to understand this as it pertains to the evangelist.

Quite often we become enamored with gifted people. And we often assume that because they are gifted, that they are also spiritual. We say, “Wow, that sister can really sing. She’s a great woman of God!” But the fact that she can sing does not make her a woman of God. We say, “Boy, that brother can preach!” He is not a man of God because he can preach. The Bible says God gives gifts as he pleases.

For 28 years, I have been preaching the gospel on every continent. I am gifted to preach. But I recognize it is a gift from God. It has nothing to do with me. If you judge my spirituality by my preaching, I will snow you—because there is no relationship between my gift to preach and my spirituality.

If you want to find out whether I am a spiritual person, if you want to find out whether I am filled with the Spirit, you have to wait until I finish preaching and hang out with me.

The fullness of the Spirit is not a state of perfection; it is a state of surrender. It is not a state of sinlessness; it is a state of abandonment to Jesus Christ—when a person simply says, “I renounce all rights to myself and I give Jesus the right to do with me whatever he pleases.”

NEEDED: A MATURE MESSAGE
What is the content of the evangelist’s message? Let me suggest that at the basis of the Good News lies the matter of sin. People are not sinners because they sin.

We say, “We need to get out there and evangelize our African American communities because there’s so much alcoholism.” But I’ve got some upsetting news for you. There are professionals who don’t know Jesus who are curing people of alcoholism better than some of us Christians.

And we say, “We need to get the message out to our African American communities because there is so much drug addition.”

It’s true, alcoholics and drug addicts need Christ—but they don’t need Christ because they’re drug addicts. People are not sinners because they commit sins. Sin is the absence of the life of Jesus; sin is the failure to put one’s absolute trust in the Lordship and the authority of Jesus. Sin is unbelief. It only shows its results as alcoholism, drug addiction, stealing, murder and so on.

This point is crucial when it comes to evangelism—because what are you going to do with the people who don't commit overt, ugly identifiable “sins”? Who don’t snort coke, fornicate, or go to pornographic movies?

The message we convey to "good” people is that they don’t need Jesus because they don’t do those terrible things any more.

It has become clear to me why most Christians are always having an up-and-down spiritual life. It is our failure to preach a mature evangelistic message.

A TWO STAGE GOSPEL
You see, there is a two-stage gospel preached in America .

Stage one: You accept Jesus as your personal Savior. You collect fire insurance; you get a passport to heaven, along with the guarantee that if you die you won't go to hell.

Second stage: Sometime after that—a week, a year, or 20 years later—you go to a "Deeper Life Conference" and really get into Jesus.

Now the problem is that you don't see that pattern in scripture. The apostles preached, "If you will confess with your mouth and believe in your heart the Lord Jesus” (not Jesus as personal Savior, but the Lord Jesus) "that God hath raised him from the dead, you will be saved." In other words, they made it very clear at the outset that salvation means abandoning yourself to the Lord of a new kingdom. One who demands total abandonment of all that you are and all that you have to him. That was the evangel.

Tell the truth, you Christian leaders who are reading this, don't you watch too many people go up and down, up and down? They come to dedicate themselves—and rededicate, and re-rededicate, and re-re-rededicate themselves. They never enter in.

The problem is, these well-meaning people never heard at the outset the truth: You can’t be a Christian. You can’t live the Christian life. You have no capability to be what God wants you to be.

But the Good News is that God, in Christ, has borne on his own body your sin. He alone has all power given unto him. He alone is able to be himself in you.

AFRAID OF "WORLDLINESS"
Where does that get preached? Historically, we have stood on the doorsteps of the church and waved people in to hear our preachers. We have invited people to come to our revival meetings and our evangelistic meetings—in church.

The most wonderful testimonies I’ve ever heard were in church. And I often wondered, wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody could hear that testimony at the 21 Club? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that mighty message could be preached down in the red light district outside a house of prostitution? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that testimony could be given in the local beer joint?

But you see, we restrict evangelism. The fact is, we haven't allowed it to burst out of the four walls of our church. We are limited by this thing called worldliness, because we don't want to go to the places of the world.

Historically, we Christians have been afraid of the world. Maybe it is the false interpretation of all those scriptures we were quoted. "Come out from among them." "Be separate from them and touch not the unclean thing."

What the Bible is talking about is to come out in your conversation, come out in the way you walk, come out in the way you live, come out in your conduct. But you have to physically be in the world.

When the first deacons were chosen in the Bible, the apostles said, "Look among you and find seven men filled with the Holy Ghost and of good report in the community” (Acts 6:3). In other words, they were to be men filled with the Spirit, of whom the neighbors say, "These men have been with Jesus."

MONEY FOR EVANGELISM
Finally, if African American people are going to reach African American people, where is the money going to come from?

Part of what has created such tremendous jealousy and conflict among African American Christians who want to do evangelism is competition for this thing called the dollar. The perception is this: There is only a small group of "enlightened” white Christians who are willing to give some of their money to support African American evangelism.

Now here’s what happens. In order to get that small pot, I must appear to be the only one who is really doing the job. So when somebody asks me about the evangelistic ministry of so-and-so, I say, "Well, you know, he’s a good brother, but ... He doesn't have a real high view of Scripture." Or I say, "He’s a nice brother—talented and gifted and everything. But we should pray for him."

I say it is time that we free ourselves from this nonsense. We are called to reach our generation. We have to pay for it.

Can I talk to you about something? African Americans last year drank $2.1 billion worth of Pepsi and Coca-Cola. African Americans last year spent $653 million on candy bars. Candy bars! African Americans last year spent $2.8 billion on domestic beer—not counting imported beers, just domestic.

We have gone too long with this nonsense that African Americans don’t have the money and we can't fund ourselves. We do have it.

EVANGELISM IS WARFARE
Finally, an exhortation. Be strong in the Lord, because evangelism is a warfare! You must equip yourself in the Spirit to tread on Satan’s territory and stand there in the name of Jesus.

Paul said, "Because there’s going to be a fight, put on the whole armor, put on the helmet of salvation and the breastplate of righteousness—which is the character of Jesus."

We are not putting on armor to fight each other—the armor is for our warfare in the world. There are going to be discouragements. But if you have a passion for the lost, a passion to see people won to Jesus no matter what the setbacks, then don't give up! If you put the armor on, and if you stay faithful, and if you love Jesus, your message will break through the darkness!  

Tom Skinner

 

© 1989 BridgeBuilder. This is a reprint of an article originally featured in BridgeBuilder Magazine, published in Washington, DC.

The Rape of Solomon's Song (Part 4--Conclusion) John MacArthur

The Rape of Solomon's Song

(Part 4--conclusion)

Friday, Apr 17, 2009

Before we close this brief series, I promised to answer as many questions as possible from people who have commented here, via e-mail, through Twitter, and at Challies.com. I first want to thank Tim Challies for his courage in hosting a discussion about this topic. The very mention of propriety and language obviously stirs contemporary evangelical passions—and not necessarily in a way that is helpful. It's not easy to find forums on the Internet where such a volatile matter can be openly discussed with profit. And because of some of the very problems this series has addressed, even Christian forums aren't always safe havens from profanity and grossly carnal behavior. I'm grateful to Tim for sponsoring a more dignified level of dialogue. I resounded with the utter shock Tim expressed when he was exposed to some of the material from Driscoll’s Scotland sermon (the message that sparked this blog series). After reading some of Driscoll’s outrageous statements, Tim reacted the way any puremindedChristian would react: I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that . . . . To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just … again, words really fail me here. Tim, you were right to be shocked. The most shocking thing to me is that some people do not seem to be shocked at all. What would easily receive an NC-17 rating by the world is being heralded and defended by some in the church.

I should explain that I don't use the Internet directly; I don't even own a computer or have an Internet connection in my home. I'm totally dependent on staff and pastoral interns who print material that I need to read and make sure I get it. So for those who perhaps expected that I would interact with their comments in real time on the blog, I simply have no easy means of doing that. I scan comments when I receive them—which usually isn't until the next day—but I cannot answer blog-comments directly, nor would I be able to devote my time to Internet forums even if I were connected. But I do want to take this opportunity to reply to the most frequently asked questions from the past few days. Virtually all the questions and criticisms that have been raised can be grouped in two categories. A few are questions and observations about the proper interpretation of Song of Solomon. Virtually all the rest have to do with my criticism of Mark Driscoll. I'll answer several questions from the first category, and summarize my answers to the second category in two final answers.

* * * * *

1. Can we "give the sense," when we preach poetry without doing, verse-by-verse, precept-by-precept exposition? Or is it better to just leave it "carefully veiled," as MacArthur writes?

The question misconstrues what I said. I have never suggested that the clear meaning of any text ought to be "carefully veiled." I pointed out that some things in Scripture are carefully veiled, and we should not impose our own speculative interpretations on them. In other words, I'm urging pastors to deal with what the text says, and steer clear of imposing gnostic-style secret meanings on ideas that are deliberately left obscure or totally hidden by the Holy Spirit. I'm saying nothing more than I would say about speculative interpretations of any part of Scripture: it's unwise. No, it’s seriously dangerous. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us . . . " (Deut. 29:29). I'm also saying that the way the Spirit discussed the holy intimacy and privacy of marital love is antithetical to the sort of crass,
graphic pseudo-interpretations some contemporary evangelicals seem to crave.

* * * * *

2. Song of Solomon is a very explicit erotic book. How can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but "fully explicit"? Isn't it a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex?

Explicit -- ek ● SPLIS ● it -- Distinctly expressing all that is meant; leaving nothing merely implied or suggested; unambiguous. Since there is not one explicit mention of a reproductive body part or sexual act in Song of Solomon, no credible commentator on the Song would ever make such a claim about that book. Furthermore (and this is the key point of the whole discussion) Song of Solomon is not "erotic" literature in any sense—i.e., it is not intended to arouse readers sexually. Clearly it should never be preached in a way that has that effect. That is so obvious a point that only an exploiter of the book would ignore it for prurient interests.

* * * * *

3. Do you not see a distinction between metaphor and euphemism?

Of course. But sometimes a metaphor is also a euphemism, and that is clearly the case with some of the disputed imagery in Song of Solomon. There is no exegetical way to decide what the various jewels, flowers, scents, oils, and other sensual pleasures named in the poem represented in the author’s mind. He purposely leaves them vague. The symbols are therefore not necessarily meant to have any one-to-one relationship with corresponding realities; rather they are general emblems of beauty and desire. Solomon uses the symbolism instead of saying anything explicit—which (by definition) makes these metaphors euphemistic, too. Along these lines, Richard Hess, on pp. 34-35 of his Baker Old Testament Commentary, notes the danger of reading too much into the Song’s beautiful metaphors: The metaphor of the Song is the richest of any book in the Bible. It is, however, not intended to provide a simple one-to-one correspondence. In fact, interpreters are most likely to go astray into absurdities when they attempt to match things up where they are not explicit. . . . The best interpretation is to remain sensitive to the language of imagery and attempt to follow its contours without imposing too much demand on specifics of interpretation. . . The Song does not entertain its readers with prurient expositions nor educate them as a sex manual.

 * * * * *

4. Could it be that your scruples about graphic descriptions of sexual acts are cultural and generational? Perhaps the culture in which you minister isn't as uninhibited as the subcultures other preachers are trying to reach.

 Sex is not something new in the postmodern era. Every culture and every generation has dealt with the same obsessions and perversions as today—though not always with the same unbridled self-indulgence our culture encourages. Every Christian has always faced the same lusts and temptations that assault us: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man" (1 Corinthians 10:13). Those who think pornography and unrestrained debauchery weren't commonplace in the pre-Internet era ought to visit the ruins of Pompeii and see what life was like in the culture of Rome during the apostle Paul's generation. Paul ministered in cultures that were far less “inhibited” than ours. Yet when he found it necessary to deal with sexual topics—whether giving positive instruction about the marriage relationship or a negative exhortation about sexual sins—he never spoke in sexually graphic terms. Moreover, what was sinful in Paul's era is still sinful in our porn-saturated culture. And Paul's strategy for reaching Corinth (one of the most sexually perverted subcultures ever known) is the same strategy we ought to be using today. That includes some careful, dignified, authentically biblical teaching on sexual issues (cf. 1 Corinthians 7). But holiness, not how-to advice on sex, is the heart of what pastors ought to be teaching about sex (especially in a sex addicted culture). And our teaching on the subject must be done with grace, dignity, and sanctification, not in the manner of blue comedy. The truth is that God’s Word never gives specific instruction about the details of a married couple’s personal preferences in their sex life. Sermons that pretend to find such instruction, like the sexual preoccupation demonstrated in these assaults on the Song of Solomon, are more damaging than helpful—because they elevate the imagination of the preacher to a higher position of prominence and authority than the true revelation of God.

Neither Paul nor any other legitimate church leader in 2000 years has ever found it necessary (or even helpful) to use streetwise sex education—not as an evangelistic strategy, and certainly not as a means to sanctification for people already overwhelmed with sex talk from a corrupt culture. Adopting the world’s obsession with sex and filthy talk cannot possibly have a sanctifying effect, because the strategy itself is unholy. The notion that degenerate subcultures and sexually-addicted people cannot be reached without “learning to speak their
 anguage” is an absolute fallacy. Grace Church is seven miles from Hollywood, in the heart of Southern California, in a carnal, pleasure-mad culture well-known worldwide for everything but healthy spiritual values. No city in America is more “unchurched” than our valley, which houses more than three million people. The people of Grace church are reaching friends and neighbors in every imaginable subculture—from ex-cons to ex-Catholics to people in the entertainment industry. We baptize new believers virtually every Sunday night. It is neither necessary nor helpful to inject explicit sexual references into the conversation in order to reach people from such a culture. God draws them to Christ through the gospel.

 * * * *

5. You titled your articles "The rape of Song of Solomon." If you object so much to strong language and sexual themes, doesn't that seem over the top?

One of the fundamental problems with this whole discussion is a refusal by many to acknowledge the crucial (and elementary) distinction between strong language and obscene language. Mark Driscoll himself contributed to this confusion by blending and blurring the two issues in his message last fall at the Desiring God Conference. Scripture condemns heretics in powerful, sometimes indelicate, terms (e.g., Galatians 5:12). But the Bible is never smutty, and the strong language in Scripture certainly doesn't make profane language or filthy joking acceptable (Ephesians 5:4). In the first article of the series, I explained why the title is fitting. If someone thinks it is an example of what I have decried, that person hasn’t understood what I am saying at all. Rape is an act of forced violation; and this treatment of Solomon’s Song is a molestation of the book, tearing off its God-designed veil, publicly defiling its purity, and holding it up for leering and laughter.

 * * * * *

6. Was Driscoll’s sermon really as bad as you say? Aren’t you overreacting to what is ultimately just a difference in style?

During the Downgrade Controversy, Charles Spurgeon was essentially accused of the same thing—a misrepresentation of the facts and an overreaction to the issues. Here is what Spurgeon said in response to his critics: The controversy which has arisen out of our previous articles is very wide in its range. Different minds will have their own opinions as to the manner in which the combatants have behaved themselves; for our own part we are content to let a thousand personal matters pass by unheeded. What does it matter what sarcasms or pleasantries may have been uttered at our expense? The dust of battle will blow away in due time; for the present the chief concern is to keep the standard in its place, and bear up against the rush of the foe. Our warning was intended to call attention to an evil which we thought was apparent to all: we never dreamed that "the previous question" would be raised, and that a company of esteemed friends would rush in between the combatants, and declare that there was no cause for war, but that our motto might continue to be "Peace, peace!" Yet such has been the case, and in many quarters the main question has been, not "How can we remove the evil?" but, "Is there any evil to remove?" No end of letters have been written with this as their theme—"Are the charges made by Mr. Spurgeon at all true?" Setting aside the question of our own veracity, we could have no objection to the most searching discussion of the matter. By all means let the truth be known. In the spirit of Charles Spurgeon, then, I feel there is no other course of action than to let the truth be known. This link (https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dg4fc37g_6fjdd38c8&hl=en) which someone emailed to me yesterday) will take you to some of the things Mark Driscoll has said about Song of Solomon. My preference would be not to link to these things at all (there is, in fact, much more that I could link to), and I would warn that the content is highly offensive (especially since it was preached in a Sunday worship service where children, teenagers, and young singles were present). But, as Paul told the Corinthians, sometimes it is necessary to bear with a little foolishness in order that the truth might be known. The New Testament could not be more clear. The mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart (Matthew 12:34). And those who teach publicly are held to a higher level of accountability (James 3:1). Pastors, in particular, are to be models of purity (1 Tim. 4:12), above reproach both within the church and without (1 Tim. 3:2–7). Purity in doctrine, purity in life, and purity in speech are all part of the biblical qualifications for those who would be God’s spokesmen.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

Ephesians 5:4–5 There must be no filthiness and silly talk, or jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

1 Thessalonians 4:7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

Titus 2:6–8 Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. That’s why I am making such an issue of this. Because the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an
issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough.

 * * * * *

7. Why did you single out Driscoll and connect him with the "sex challenges"? Why call him out publicly? He has already repented of his unguarded speech, and he is being privately discipled by men like John Piper and C. J. Mahaney, who keep him accountable. Did you consult them before calling Driscoll out by name? If the problem is as serious as you claim, why haven't they said something publicly about it?

In the sermon that prompted this series, Mark Driscoll (speaking specifically to wives in the congregation) made several comments that were far, far worse than the seamiest sex challenges. Furthermore, Driscoll's edicts to married women were not mere "challenges" but directives buttressed with the claim that "Jesus Christ commands you to do [this]." That material has been online and freely circulated for more than a year. But you’ll be hard pressed to find even a single Web forum where anyone has demanded that Driscoll explain why he feels free to say such things publicly. I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums. (To be clear: I’m not suggesting that anyone needs to contact me privately about public remarks I have made. Quite the contrary. But those who insist such disagreements should be handled privately reveal the hypocrisy of that claim when they use a public forum to berate and accuse a pastor whom they disagree with.) When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses. Nevertheless, I have written Mark privately with my concerns. He rejected my counsel. As a matter of fact, he preached the sermon I have been quoting from seven weeks after receiving my private letter encouraging him to take seriously the standard of holiness Scripture holds pastors to. Here is a small selection from the six page letter I sent him:

 [Y]ou can[not] make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads—especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display. At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions; we must be in the world but not of it. . . . . It's vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness. 

Mark Driscoll’s response to that admonition and the things he has said since have only magnified my concern. Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings. It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.

Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin. In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough. Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog. To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them.

Posted online here:

http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=417

The Rape of Solomon's Song (Part 3) John MacArthur

The Rape of Solomon's Song Part 3
Thursday, Apr 16, 2009
By John MacArthur

[Editor's Note: Readers should be warned that this article contains
offensive material. Nonetheless, it is included here for the sake of
substantiating the thesis of this article.]

I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning. Solomon's Song is, as I've said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for
one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text. However, those who pretend to know the meanings of poetic symbols that are not clearly identifiable from the text itself commit the very same error. 

Their speculation is likewise a way of exalting their own imaginations to a higher level of authority than the plain sense of the text. That's a particular problem when the interpreter sees a mandate for oral sex in the simple metaphor of a fruit tree or imagines that the best way to contextualize and illustrate portions of the text is by verbally undressing his own wife in order to make the point as vivid as possible. In such a case, not only has the speaker given far too
much weight to his own speculative imagination; he has given a fairly clear signal that his imagination is not altogether pure (Luke 6:45). And that is a far more serious problem than merely allegorizing the text. By no means do I want to minimize the dangers of allegorizing the text. That approach to hermeneutics is full of mischief, even in the hands of pure-minded men who are generally sound in their doctrine. I don't approve of allegorical flights of fancy, especially
with a text like Song of Solomon, which poses enough difficulties with the obvious built-in metaphors and poetic language it features. 

Allegorizers of the Song of Solomon generally see it as an expression of tender mutual love between Christ and His church. Most of them would say that Christ is represented by the voice of Solomon; the church is represented by the voice of the Shulamite. Some interpreters go further yet and imagine they hear three or more voices speaking out of the text. (Invariably those who multiply the voices try to make the verses fit some complex libretto that arises more out of their own personal agenda than from the text itself.) Still, regardless of how many voices are heard and who is supposedly speaking, nearly all who allegorize this poem see it as a canticle of love between Christ and the church. It's probably fair to say that this allegorical view focusing on Christ and the church has been the dominant interpretation of the poem throughout church
history. That, of course, doesn't make it right. I happen to think it is not the
correct approach to interpreting this text. But it's not a view that ought to be dismissed with vulgar contempt—especially with a coarse joke attributing homosexual behavior to Christ. If you have heard any of Mark Driscoll's teaching on the Song of Solomon, you have surely heard his joke in that vein. For example, in the sermon that prompted me to write these articles1, Driscoll
says, "Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way."1 http://www.destinyedinburgh.com/ m3uPage.aspx?mp3=Sex,_a_study_of_the_good_bits_from_Song_of_Solomon_by_Mark_Driscoll.mp3

Driscoll has said almost the exact same thing in at least three other sermons. For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of
Song of Solomon.” Even in his most recent Peasant Princess series, he repeats a version of that very same joke: Now what happens is some say "Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically." And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, "Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like,
"No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd] Driscoll blew off criticism about that kind of joking by claiming it's not blasphemy because it has nothing to do with the "real" Jesus. He says he is simply making fun of a false notion about Jesus. And he continues making the joke.Here's the problem with that: Scripture clearly teaches that the love between a husband and wife in all its aspects is a metaphor for Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Thus even a non-allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, (simply taking the love-song between Solomon and the Shulamite at face value) ultimately points us to Christ and his love for the church. The text ought to be handled by the preacher accordingly,
not as an excuse to bathe in the gutter of our culture's easygoing obsession with crude sex-talk and graphic sexual imagery. 

Some who have commented on these articles have suggested that I ought to give a full exposition of Solomon's Song rather than merely critiquing the bad interpreters and decrying the contemporary church's fixation with sex. That would require a long series, and I'd prefer not to devote weeks of time on this blog to a topic that I have raised only in order to make a simple, single-pointed admonition. But those wondering what my exposition of Solomon's Song would be like will find full notes on the text in The MacArthur Study Bible. Those notes should be a sufficient answer to the commenter who pretended to wonder if I am saying it would be better not to comment on Song of Solomon at all. Of course that is not what I am saying, nor can anyone claim that I have even implied anything of the sort—without twisting my words or putting their words in my mouth. (That literally happened in a string of comments at another blog where this issue was under discussion. An early commenter accused me of opposing line-byline exposition of the Song. Halfway down the comments, people were putting that claim in quotation marks, attributing it to me.) What I am saying is that the bounds of propriety—especially when dealing with subjects like sex—should be set by whatever text we are dealing with. To interpret beautiful poetry by translating it into scurrilous soft-porn is to corrupt the most fundamental intent of the text. This is nowhere near as difficult to grasp as some are pretending, but perhaps a simple parallel will suffice: There are other private body functions and "less honorable" or "unpresentable" body parts (1 Corinthians 12:23). We find these mentioned or alluded to at times in Scripture without ever being too specific. We all would be rightly offended if the preacher gave a long, descriptive discourse or how-to instructions in the Sunday worship service, outlining these "unpresentable" things. For stronger reasons than simple modesty, certain acts involving fornication, autoeroticism, and other things people commonly "do in secret" are shameful to talk about in any public context (Ephesians 5:12), much less a church service. They may be suitable subjects for a private counseling session, or the doctor's office, or a college biology lecture, but they are not fitting topics for a worship service where God should be glorified, Christ should be uplifted, women should be shown respect, children's innocence should be guarded, and single people's prurient curiosities should not unnecessarily be enflamed. When a speaker deliberately arouses lusts that cannot possibly be righteously fulfilled in unmarried college students, or when his personal illustrations fail to guard the privacy and honor of his own wife, that is far worse than merely inappropriate. When done repeatedly and with the demeanor of an immature bad-boy, such a practice reflects a major character defect that is spiritually disqualifying. Any man who makes such things the main trademark of his style is quite simply not above reproach. As recently as a decade ago, that point of view would not have raised a peep of controversy. The fact that it is so controversial now is simply more proof that evangelicals have become too much like the world, and too comfortable with the evil characteristics of our culture. 

Tomorrow, Lord willing, I'll post the final installment in this series. Several questions have come up repeatedly from people who have commented on these articles, and in tomorrow's final installment, I want to answer as many of them as possible.


Posted online here:
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172