I believe I had mentioned earlier somewhere that I was not interested in slogging through the Main Shock Jock's (MSJ) very long series on Song of Solomon (SOS). However, since then, on another blog, a MSJ supporter challenge me to listen to part 2 of MSJ's series claiming that if I actually listened and watched I wouldn't find it all that objectionable.
Just so you understand... the reason I don't refer to MSJ by name is because I don't want his supporters and defenders doing intense searches and coming upon my site. My site is more for healing than debating. I don't want one angry person or small group to come in here and scoff and mock as they have been trained to do by example from the preaching of MSJ. I don't want to have to shut down comments because the wrong people show up.
Anyway, back to my story. I went ahead and followed the link and listened to MSJ's message. And true to the supporter's word, much of what he said in the beginning before he actually got into the Word was pretty decent. He spoke about the love languages and talked about feeling protective over his wife even before they were married. He talked about getting her the kind of house she wanted, rather than what he wanted. All fairly decent. But as I listened, I kept in mind that this was the cleaned up version that took the place of the more outrageous version that they pulled.
To be fair, I treated this version as though it was the only version. And when done I went back to the blog where the MSJ supporter issued his challenge and told him honestly what I told you above.
BUT, I added that when listening to any preacher, one must eat the hay and spit out the sticks.
And with MSJ, there are MANY sticks.
For one thing, when MSJ actually got into the section of SOS that he wanted to cover, he displayed a clear lack of understanding of the overall view of SOS. He read it and interpreted it as a man with an agenda, rather than a Bible teacher. In short, his personal bias and cherry picking tactics made SOS into what he wanted it to be about sex and marriage rather than what it actually said.
So why do I bring this up now? Well, we are getting into a section in the first chapter that he covered in his series that I disagree with and wanted to explain how I know what he said when elsewhere I said I really didn't want to get into it. No, I don't want this blog to be an "answer" back to his teaching. But his teaching is out there for everyone to see. And I see error in it and will take that on in the next post or two.
Paul Pressler Accused of Molestation in Lawsuit
12 hours ago