Mark Driscoll Slammed by Baptist Press over Sex Teaching (via Barth’s Notes on Religion)

Shir HaShirim 1:1-10

Shir HaShirim 1:1-10

apparently, i’m a latecomer to the nonsense peddled by mark driscoll and the mars hill church. here’s a post from richard bartholomew on the neo-fundamentalist driscoll taking liberty with שיר השירים.

if you’ve heard my lectures on שיר השירים, you’ll know that i have fun with the text too. (then again, who wouldn’t – it’s an odd text.) but to command a wife to give head to her husband may stray a bit from the role of a pastor, and certainly does edge rather close to an abuse of pastoral authority.

then again, when it comes to power consolidation and abuses of pastoral authority…..

A number of sites have noted a report from the Baptist Press concerning Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church; a Christian radio station recently yanked a programme featuring Driscoll due to Driscoll’s teachings concerning sex. In particular, this 2007 sermon delivered in Edinburgh was considered unacceptable: During the sermon, which was entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon,” Driscoll interpreted Song of Solo … Read More

via Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

About these ads

6 Responses

  1. I have written several times on Driscoll’s fascination with demons and blaming them for everything he doesn’t like from kid’s books to Yoga, but as a scholar, if you really want your head to explode listen to this little “sermon” and what he tries to do with Targum Neofiti:

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

  2. scott, i can only utter my standard line: (i shake my head)

    a) one would think that his basic seminary training would have taught him some elementary hebrew. elohim (אלה’ם) is plural in form, but singular in meaning. if it does reflect a plurality, it is from canaan’s polytheistic past, not any notion of a trinity, which was only a theological construct to deal with the arian-nicene controversy. but i’m guessing that if i start making kuntillet ‘ajrud comments, (see also here) he’d just get lost.
    b) an elementary seminary education should have also taught him that רוח אלה’ם and simple אלה’ם are interchangeable references to the same person depending on the author (j vs. e/p). trinitarian apologists have looked to the ot for trinitarian ‘evidence’ for millenia.
    c) neofiti is from 200 years AFTER christ, not before. CE, not BCE. but nice try.
    d) neofiti was concerned with explaining away problematic pluralities of the hebrew text. however, claiming that the ‘us’ in gen 1:26 can only be explained by the trinity (instead of the more widely accepted scholarly interpretation of the ‘royal we‘ (that is, god and his royal court of angels, etc.) or polytheism present (and persistently criticized by hebrew prophets)) is simple ignorance and an unwillingness to consider any explanation other than what he wants to argue. it’s common among eisegetical fundamentalists.
    e) see the critique made by christian brady, dean and aramaic targum scholar at penn state here. he points out that driscoll completely misreads the targum, and mistakes the aramaic words ‏ מלקדמין בחכמה ברא {ד}ייי(‘at the beginning, with wisdom, god created…’) with ‘at the beginning, by the firstborn, god created… not even close! the aramaic “b’hakmah” means ‘in/with wisdom’, similar to the hebrew חכמה (hokmah). the targum is attempting to harmonize gen 1:1 with prov 8:22, where in a tribute to wisdom, the bible claims that god created wisdom first, before the rest of creation. the targum is attempting to reconcile the very fair question, ‘so what was created first: wisdom (prov 8), or the heavens and the earth (gen 1)?’ their answer was clever: god created the heavens and the earth in/with wisdom. the authors of neofiti simply added the aramaic word בחכמה (“in/with wisdom”), to their translation of the hebrew text of gen 1:1, and that solved their problem of which came first. the translators simply added to the hebrew text, which was very common at the time. it explains the many textual variants in the hebrew bible, and is why we love targums: they teach about the diversity of thought at the time. but in the end, driscoll’s so-called ‘reading’ is a mere fabrication – a complete misreading of the text that is used as evidence for something that isn’t there (evidence of the trinity in the ot).
    f) i can’t wait until he tries to claim that the johannine comma is authentic.

    as i said, i shake my head. and his 20-something male crowd is just sopping this nonsense up…

    you know, i don’t think i’d quibble with him so much if he weren’t a trinitarian apologist.

    btw – did i mention there is absolutely no reference to the trinity in the hebrew bible whatsoever. none. zippo. nada.

  3. …to command a wife to give head to her husband may stray a bit from the role of a pastor…

    Gives new meaning to the term “The Husband Is to be Head of the Household…”

  4. […] (Campbell-approves-the-instrument) Cargill has recently discovered Mark Driscoll, and he isn’t impressed! His most recent post, “how not to read the targums,” […]

  5. […] Cargill discovered Mark Driscoll, and Driscoll’s trinitarian reading of Genesis/Targum Neofiti really set him off. He sparked […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: