# Anyone listening to "The Peasant Princess"?



## Kevin (Nov 10, 2008)

Is anyone else listening to Mark Driscoll's series of sermons from the Song of Songs?

What do you think?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 11, 2008)

I think this series is best not listened to. Making jokes about Christ having homosexual desires for him is so inappropriate it defies description.

Further, his scholarship is awful. He simply dismisses the vast majority of commentators and teaching, choosing a definition of the book that turns it into a marital sex manual. His dismissal of the weighty views against him speaks volumes, and his levity and flippancy are deeply offputting.

I say this as someone who has in the past got a lot from his output. I'm just sad about this sermon series.


----------



## asc (Nov 11, 2008)

I've listened to a few of the sermons online and thought they were helpful. I've personally never studied Song of Songs and am not qualified to critique his exegesis. But I find it interesting to hear his frank discussion of human sexuality, which I've never heard before in a Christian context. Maybe it would be better as a Saturday lecture series instead of a Sunday sermon series. in my opinion, sexuality should be addressed more by the church, given our culture with its ubiquitous p0rnography and high rates of marital infidelity.


----------



## Honor (Nov 11, 2008)

I have watched the first two in the series an dI personally loved it.... I like the way he is honest.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 11, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> I think this series is best not listened to. Making jokes about Christ having homosexual desires for him is so inappropriate it defies description.
> 
> Further, his scholarship is awful. He simply dismisses the vast majority of commentators and teaching, choosing a definition of the book that turns it into a marital sex manual. His dismissal of the weighty views against him speaks volumes, and his levity and flippancy are deeply offputting.
> 
> I say this as someone who has in the past got a lot from his output. I'm just sad about this sermon series.



??? I missed the inapropriate references to Christ, what one was in?

PS it is about sex.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 11, 2008)

I've got 4 or 5 videocasts downloaded to my iPod on the series, but I haven't had the chance to watch yet.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 12, 2008)

Kevin said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > I think this series is best not listened to. Making jokes about Christ having homosexual desires for him is so inappropriate it defies description.
> ...



So, the Song of Solomon is all about sex because Mark 'Let me make you all laugh' Driscoll says so?

I find it quite laughable that 'reformed' people can dismiss their entire heritage and take a one-eyed view of the book. It is entirely debatable whether there is ANY marital relationship between Solomon and the Shunamite. I am happy to agree to disagree on the Song but not with those who are so flippant.

Here is the quote from Driscoll. I assume you've heard it:



> DRISCOLL: “Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book, 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]” source: (from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess” - start at 27:15)



More here: Mark Driscoll: The Guardian of Grunge and Seattle Sludge… at Christian Research Net

And here: CAMPONTHIS: THE GUARDIAN OF GRUNGE AND SEATTLE-SLUDGE<br>...Driscoll uses the Lord Jesus Christ again as his punch-line. It's not funny anymore - repent.

I cannot recommend this sermon series because of the mouth it is coming from and the attitude displayed. Period. It simply saddens me. God seems to have done very great things through MD, but he is not above reproach.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 12, 2008)

Honor said:


> I have watched the first two in the series an dI personally loved it.... I like the way he is honest.



You watched the first one? And you didn't take offence at his joke about Jesus being a homosexual?


----------



## Kevin (Nov 12, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> Honor said:
> 
> 
> > I have watched the first two in the series an dI personally loved it.... I like the way he is honest.
> ...



Johnathan, to be fair I listened to it, my wife listened to it, as well as a couple of other people that I know. I quized them all & no one thought that reference was calling Jesus a homosexual.

He (it seems clear to me) was rather mocking those who insist that clear sexual references in the text are in fact a mere allusion to underlying spiritual realities with no physical reference at all.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 12, 2008)

I had this series recommended to me, but I think I'm going to pass as I am not yet married.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 12, 2008)

SRoper said:


> I had this series recommended to me, but I think I'm going to pass as I am not yet married.



Not a bad idea. I would recomend it if you were in the weeks or months leading up to a marriage, but not otherwise for single people.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 12, 2008)

Kevin said:


> He (it seems clear to me) was rather mocking those who insist that clear sexual references in the text are in fact a mere allusion to underlying spiritual realities with no physical reference at all.




And it is acceptable to mock the majority view of the reformed church in history? His tone wants for a great deal. Mocking is no way to treat fellow believers. I take it for what it seems, a smutty, schoolboy joke that has no place in the public ministry of the word. How is he mocking those who take a different view? By suggesting that Jesus (a man) might love him (a man). And they are all laughing. Anyone taking an objective approach must conclude that at the very least, his language is inappropriate. 

But again I repeat - I have benefited greatly from some of MD's other stuff.


----------



## asc (Nov 12, 2008)

Kevin said:


> He (it seems clear to me) was rather mocking those who insist that clear sexual references in the text are in fact a mere allusion to underlying spiritual realities with no physical reference at all.



This is also how it came across to me. He wasn't mocking Jesus but mocking other people's interpretation. I think it's similar to other times when he's railed against other people for singing praise songs which sound like "Jesus is my boyfriend" music.


----------

