John Piper had better hurry up and get back from his writing break. Soon I’ll be talking about Driscoll more than Piper.

Apparently a new controversy has broken out around Mark Driscoll (mentioned by the Founder’s folks). I don’t know all the details but some of the criticism focuses on his explicit discussion of sexuality. A number of people strongly oppose the amount of explicit information Driscoll is willing to put in public.

Here is my take.

First, consider the medium. Critics are concerned with Driscoll making such explicit information easily available over the internet. I would share their concern except for the fact that a tremendous amount of pornographic material is even easier to obtain over the internet. It is very difficult to spend much time on the internet and avoid seeing things you do not want to see. Today’s young people spend a lot of time on the internet. I guarantee most of them have seen by accident more pornographic material than many adults have seen in their lifetime. I also guarantee that a large percentage of people on the internet – including Christian young people – are not just stumbling across pornographic material by accident, they are looking for it.

With that in mind, I am reluctant to disapprove of churches offering a counter response. Driscoll and others are saying that sexuality is a good thing if handled properly. Want to know how to handle it properly? Don’t go to a porn site, go to church. Young people are more open discussing sexuality than most older people. Biblically, I don’t know how anyone could make the case that Christians should not be explicit when talking about sex. One must be wise, yes, but I think in this case wisdom leans in Driscoll’s direction.

Second, consider the context. Driscoll is pastoring a church of young people in Seattle, Washington. If he were trying to present this material to my church it would be inappropriate. Most of my people are not immersed in culture and technology the way his are. Most of my people do not have the questions about sexuality that his people have. I don’t believe Driscoll has anywhere said all preachers should address sexuality in the way he does. He has his flock with their quirks and their needs, I have mine. There may be some in my church – and are certainly many in my city – who would benefit from his preaching on this subject, but the majority of my people do not need the material he is offering. The majority of the people in Driscoll’s church do.

This does not relativize preaching and practices. Rather it seeks to accomplish the same end through the same means carried out in different ways. The end is glorifying Christ and leading people to live God glorifying lives. The means is preaching and teaching that will help them know how to live those God glorifying lives. Such preaching will guide people to make decisions guided by the Bible and know how to handle issues not clearly spelled out in the Bible. If my people don’t have those issues it would serve no purpose to raise them. Driscoll’s people do have those issues and questions so he guides them to know how to glorify God in those areas.

This is pragmatism of the good sort. All preachers should ask this question: “What do my people need to hear in order to help them glorify God better in their lives?” This requires knowing your people, knowing their needs, and being bold enough to address those needs, whatever they may be. Are your people consumed with racism? Preach on it. Do they struggle with alcohol addiction? Preach on it. Do they cheat on their taxes? Preach on it. Do they want to know how to honor God with how they raise their kids? Preach on it. Do they struggle with how their sexual relationship with their spouse can be glorifying to God in the midst of a culture that sees sex as the ultimate selfish pursuit? Preach on it. That’s what Driscoll has done.