The internet is alight as the passionate debate on the use of crass language from the pulpit continues.

Several blogs are red-hot on the issue, with burning comments at challies.com taking center stage. No less than the venerated Dr. John MacArthur has weighed in with a Biblical critique of Mark Driscoll’s treatment of the Song of Songs, so heated is the debate. And while the fourth and final part of this series (“The Rape of the Song of Solomon”) makes it online tomorrow, I believe the debate has just begun and will continue to smolder.

Me – I’m not on the fence regarding this issue. I think Pastor Mark, as nice and gifted a teacher he is, has crossed the line several times regarding the use of troubling language in his sermons.

For the record I’m 31 years old and not some Victorian old fuddy-duddy. But I think I know a language bomb when I hear it detonate.

What worries me about this issue though is not just the lurid stuff Pastor Mark seems to read into the SoS but that so many of Driscoll’s supporters defend what is clearly tactless language – some, apparently, are even edified with his frank and visceral approach!

But what I think is neither here nor there. What matters is what the Bible says about filthy language and offense. For this post, I’m gonna focus on the issue of offense and I turn to Romans 14: 14 to jumpstart the discussion:

But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

The context of this verse is a discussion about food sacrificed to idols. In his day, many new believers wouldn’t dream of eating food offered to imaginary gods. It was a deeply offensive thing. Paul, however, knew that sacrificed food wasn’t inherently evil. Yet he was willing to forgo eating a meal of ex-idol meat so that a weaker brother would not stumble.

Note the deeper implication of the verse though: if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Meaning if I consider something unclean – a word, a type of food, a certain behavior – then to me it is unclean, even if it really isn’t.

And that strikes at the heart of the issue of Driscoll’s occasional use of crass language and imagery. He and his supporters may not think his language unclean but a vast majority of believers– both weak and strong alike – do. And for that reason alone he should seriously reconsider certain aspects of his preaching style.

“But he has repented!” you may say. “He has changed and has publicly taken down his more offensive material.”

That may be true with regards to his sermon Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of Song of Solomon (which John MacArthur is currently critiquing) but some of his other stuff is very much available online at public sites like Youtube.

That he continues to broadcast sermons that feature base language and imagery seems to suggest that he’s “no longer acting in love” (v15) with regards to the brethren. I wish that weren’t true.

Am I personally offended by Driscoll’s remarks? In a way, yes. Not enough to stray from the faith, thank God. But when, during a sermon, he casually mentions things like oral sex, anal sex, clitoris, man and wife masturbating each other, I wince. What’s worse is I begin imagining things I shouldn’t be imagining.

“But that’s your problem.”

Exactly. It is my problem. And it’s hard enough living in a world that constantly tries to incite my flesh – the last thing I need is a sermon that imparts spiritual truth yet taints my mind at the same time.

I mean, come on, is this what Christianity has come to?

I urge Pastor Mark to consider Romans 14:16:

Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

Surely that’s cause enough for pause.