« Pseudogamy 108 | Main | Court Overturns Sotomayor »
June 29, 2009
The Gospel of Mark (Driscoll) & His Critics
By Justin D. Barnard
June 26, 2009 - Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle-area Mars Hill Church, has continued to draw fire for his frank discussions of sex, both from the pulpit and on his church’s blog. Both John MacArthur and John Piper have criticized his exegesis of Song of Solomon; many have been critical of the “unwholesome talk” that is unbecoming one charged with the proclamation of the word of God. Still, some (including John Piper) defend Driscoll’s ministry for its faithfulness to the Gospel.
Sadly, most of the discussion about Driscoll is reflective of a deeper problem that infects not only evangelicalism writ large, but Driscoll’s views on sex as well. Typical criticisms of Driscoll suggest that his preaching style and methods “go too far.” He’s “coarse” or “vulgar” – or so Driscoll’s detractors allege.
What is striking about this critique is what it assumes about sin and the Gospel. Sin and redemption are, on this view, principally, if not exclusively, matters of the heart or soul. The effect of the Gospel is primarily about having a “clean heart” (not a sanctified, embodied life). Unwholesome talk despoils sanitized hearts. Hence, it is to be avoided in order to maintain the pristine condition of a soul that’s been washed by the blood.
Meanwhile, the life that believers lead in the flesh bears little to no relation to the life they possess in the spirit. Ironically, this is what enables Driscoll’s defenders to argue that his verbal faux pas is excusable since overall, Driscoll’s ministry has reached hundreds of “souls for Christ.” Moreover, by focusing their critical efforts exclusively on his lack of circumspection in speaking about sex (which, for the record, is clearly problematic), Driscoll’s critics disclose their tacit agreement with this dichotomized Gospel that undergirds Driscoll’s very teaching about sex. Specifically, (within marriage, of course) we can do whatever we’d like with our bodies; let’s just not talk about it publicly, since that might corrupt our souls.
Even if he were as circumspect as the most sanctimonious of Puritans in how he spoke of it, the content of Driscoll’s teaching about sex (even within marriage) is inexcusable. Driscoll seems to think that traditional marriage is the gateway to the license of mutual consent. Thus, like the world, he fails to grasp that human sexuality might be ordered toward ends to which even husband and wife might be subject. Rather, just like your garden variety advocate for moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior, Driscoll views sexual activity (of course, within traditional marriage) as subject to nothing other than the mutual desires of the participants.
Driscoll’s teaching reflects an impoverished understanding of the Gospel. For it presupposes that the moral boundaries expressed in Scripture have no internal order. They are, in that respect, effectively arbitrary. Thus, in Driscoll’s view, provided that we remain within the arbitrary boundaries expressed in God’s word, God’s saving grace in Christ gives us license to follow our desires. In practice, this means for Driscoll that a husband and wife may do things in their marriage bed that a gay couple may not since the former, having had their souls saved from the disembodied stains of sin, are doing such things within the essentially arbitrary boundaries that God has given.
Such a view is deeply mistaken. The Gospel does not free us to give license to our desires; it orders our desires aright. In ordering our desires, it guides and governs our behavior – to wit, the very acts of the body. Yet, this aspect of the Gospel is apparently lost not only on Driscoll, but his critics as well. For by and large his evangelical critics fail to call Driscoll to account for the fact that the things of which he speaks publicly should not merely not be said; they should not even be done.
The furor over Driscoll’s teaching about sex within marriage should be an occasion for evangelicals to reflect deeply on their understanding of the Gospel. If the Gospel is nothing more than fire insurance for the soul, then both Driscoll and his critics are right. We can do whatever we’d like (Driscoll), as long as we don’t talk about it in “dirty” ways in public (his critics). But if the Gospel has genuine implications for the conduct of our embodied public lives, then we must one and all repent of the dialectical quagmire that we’re currently in over Driscoll’s pillow talk from the pulpit. For it reflects a Gospel eviscerated of its power to transform human life - body and soul.
Justin Barnard teaches philosophy at Union University, where he also serves as Director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Intellectual Discipleship.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 09:45 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef011571872c2a970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Gospel of Mark (Driscoll) & His Critics:
Comments
As a twenty-something, newly married (orthodox-with-a-small-o) Christian and a philosophy graduate student, I find Driscoll's discussion of sexual matters refreshing and I've learned a great deal from it. His study of the Song of Solomon ministered to my heart. I read through his blog's comments on sex, and while I think he is wrong about anal sex and sex toys in Christian marriage, much of what he says is wonderful and obviously in line with Christian orthodoxy while being relevant to young people in ways that most Christians have failed to be.
He also ties his views of Christian sexuality to his views about Christian gender roles. His study of Ruth is particularly fine exegesis on the matter. Sometimes it is important to be frank - after all, the Scripture sugar coats very little. Driscoll is rarely more explicit than the Song of Solomon itself. What I think Driscoll is most valuable for with respect to these issues is his strident defense of a fully masculine yet Christian identity for the Christian male. The Church has not been good about this in the latter half of the twentieth century and that is why it has lost the attention of so many men.
Posted by: TheOctagon | Jun 29, 2009 11:23:26 AM
At least Driscoll didn't compare JPII with Hugh Hefner!
Posted by: Benighted Savage | Jun 29, 2009 11:33:43 AM
Benighted Savage,
Who did? And please don't claim that Christopher West did so. That would simply not be true.
Posted by: therecusant | Jun 29, 2009 12:33:38 PM
... and while I think he is wrong about anal sex and sex toys in Christian marriage, much of what he says is wonderful and obviously in line with Christian orthodoxy while being relevant to young people in ways that most Christians have failed to be.
Much of what any heretic says is in line with Christian orthodoxy. That isn't the problem, it's the heretical part. And just why do you "think he's wrong about anal sex and sex toys"? Hmmmm?? The Bible does not obviously forbid them. Therein lies the problem. He's wrong because he takes a radically shallow view of Scripture (that it's a handbook of suggestions) and of Man (some of whose members may licitly be, as long as we're doing what the Bible literally commands, perverted from their original telos), totally at odds with the whole of Christian tradition. By this very fact, he is far *more* dangerous than your garden variety pagan priestess. One wonders which "Christ" it is to whom has he led so many so souls.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jun 29, 2009 1:19:01 PM
"Who did? And please don't claim that Christopher West did so. That would simply not be true."
Why Christopher West did, of course. Cf. his ABC interview at about 52 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hli9xccpPBg
West: "I actually see some very profound historical connections between Hugh Hefner and John Paul the Second."
West: "I love Hugh Hefner. I really do. Why? Because I think I understand his ache. I think I understand his longing because I think I feel it myself. There's this yearning, this ache, this longing we all have for love, for union, for intimacy."
However, more significant to drawing a parallel between West and Driscoll on this matter comes at 2:05:
West: "...and indeed, the authentic soundtrack of Christianity is a small book in the Old Testament called the "Song of Songs." What is it? It is [please note his delivery here] Glorious Erotic Love Poetry."
So, oddly enough, both West and Driscoll see the SOS as a key text for their teaching on this matter. Mere coincidence?
************************
Is ABC trying to trivialize what West really thinks (and, based upon what little I've read, what JPII is arguing for in the TOB)? Yes. Did West "shoot himself in the foot" with his statement about Hefner? Also, Yes. Does the problem Prof. Barnard discusses extend beyond the confines of the Protestant evangelical movement? So it would seem.
Posted by: Benighted Savage | Jun 29, 2009 2:00:31 PM
Well said, Steve. This Protestant firmly agrees with you. "A radically shallow view of Scripture" is a good way of putting this. However, it's not that Driscoll thinks Scripture is merely a book of suggestions. I'm sure that Driscoll thinks Scripture is a book of limitations as well as suggestions. But these limitations are not exhaustively of its meaning. Scripture has not only imperatives but implications, which the church and the wise expositor must draw forth.
Driscoll is hardly a deep thinker, but he is, I'm afraid, quite symptomatic of what afflicts the church today.
Posted by: Bill R | Jun 29, 2009 2:17:49 PM
Mr. Barnard,
I appreciate your insights and the different angle from which you addressed these issues. If what you say is correct then there is certainly more explicit concerns about the Gospel in play.
Good food for further consideration.
Mark
Posted by: Mark | hereiblog | Jun 29, 2009 3:36:23 PM
Driscoll's views may be "shallow", but what makes his views more dangerous than other simplistically naive yet popular Protestant views of baptism, regeneration, repentance, salvation, etc?
Is it merely because it involves sexual matters?
Posted by: James | Jun 29, 2009 3:42:56 PM
Wow, Steve, calling him a heretic is absurd. In fact, I don't think it's appropriate to use that word against fellow Christians. But his doctrines are hardly 'heretical' in any sense of the term.
I have to say, this is not something to brand someone as out of the church over. Driscoll has been able to reach people with the gospel in ways that most people associated with Touchstone (which I love and often read) have not been able to do. We catholic-with-a-small-c Christians should learn from him and argue with him when we think he is wrong, not brand him a heretic. To a Catholic, standard Protestant doctrine should be seen as dramatically more dangerous, and vice versa for the orthodox Protestant.
Incidentally, one reason to find anal sex and sex toys problematic spiritually is because it is hard to imagine a virtuous or even neutral motive for engaging in them. But that's an argument Driscoll would seriously consider.
Posted by: TheOctagon | Jun 29, 2009 3:45:20 PM
Bill R,
I can't see why from Driscoll's blog and comments on sexuality you can assume he has a shallow view of Scripture. He may, but why are his comments evidence of this? That a doctrine or imperative is not explicitly cited in Scripture is not a conclusive reason to reject it, but it *is* a ceteris paribus piece of counter evidence. Of course the Church has a role in bringing out these implications, but what gives you a reason to think that Driscoll would ever deny this?
I can't help but feel that many of the comments here are just self-righteous condescension coming from catholic Christians who can't appreciate the good he has done. And this comes from a Confessional LCMS Lutheran.
Posted by: TheOctagon | Jun 29, 2009 3:48:30 PM
This post puzzles me. John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and John Piper said Mark Driscoll's ethical teaching was sound, he just used dirty words?
I think the writer here better go back and re-read (or re-listen to) the long-form criticisms of Johnson and MacArthur (the Piper rebuke is too short to make a conclusive judgment) to underscore where that happens. I think one of the significant attributes of Phil Johnson's talk at the Shepherd's conference this year was, in fact, the completely contemptible nature of this content in question. he even called it the "pornification of the pulpit". How much more obvious could he be?
Posted by: Frank Turk | Jun 29, 2009 3:50:53 PM
Incidentally, one reason to find anal sex and sex toys problematic spiritually is because it is hard to imagine a virtuous or even neutral motive for engaging in them. But that's an argument Driscoll would seriously consider.
Because, presumably, he doesn't recognize telos (or any authority thereunto) in nature, which has long been recognized authoritatively by the Church (and churches), the failure of which is heresy in anthropology (theologically speaking).
And, just to make sure we're speaking the same language here, "heresy" specifically puts someone *IN* the Church, and not outside her. I.e., it is not a sin which someone outside the Church can commit.
Driscoll's views may be "shallow", but what makes his views more dangerous than other simplistically naive yet popular Protestant views of baptism, regeneration, repentance, salvation, etc?
I didn't want to go there... but, in general, where there's smoke, there's a fire of some sort. Yes, you cannot compartmentalize theology(ies)... if you make a grave error somewhere, it's likely to infect the whole... sooner or later.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jun 29, 2009 3:56:36 PM
There is no such thing as Christian sex.
First of all, there was no such thing as sex, for anybody, in 1930 or prior. Proof? Go to your university library, and borrow the 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Sometime after 1933, the three-letter word s-e-x (which meant male or female) was co-opted for the description of a NEW THING, a thing for which no word used to exist.
There was always intercourse... sex need not be intercourse.
There was always mating... sex need not be mating.
There was always marriage, there was always fornication. What do we accomplish by saying "sex," instead of "marriage" or "fornication" as the case may be, except to erase the distinction between them?
People got along fine, without sex, for countless centuries. The church has no business helping people be "sexually healthy." Sorry, but sex is a fad. Let the church not touch it with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Jun 29, 2009 4:02:59 PM
Benighted,
I'm not going to highjack the thread with a Christopher West discussion. But whatever critiques one might have about West's apostolate, it is nothing like the criticisms Mr. Barnard levels against either Driscoll or his evangelical opponents. Not even close.
I'm not sure how the quotes you listed link West to Driscoll. Shouldn't any Christian discussion of sexuality include a consideration of the SOS? Just because Driscoll and West both use it in their teaching doesn't mean anything. Based on the Theology of the Body, West explicitly rejects the sexual activity that Driscoll endorses/condones for married couples and that as generated so much controversy.
Again, I don't want to highjack the thread, but your insinuation regarding West is way off.
Posted by: therecusant | Jun 29, 2009 4:26:43 PM
TheOctagon,
Check out "Young, Restless, Reformed" for a damning (yet still somewhat sympathetic) chapter by a young Reformed writer (Collin Hansen) on Driscoll. I don't call Driscoll a "heretic," largely because that label hinders understanding, but I would say that Driscoll seems intellectually immature.
"That a doctrine or imperative is not explicitly cited in Scripture is not a conclusive reason to reject it, but it *is* a ceteris paribus piece of counter evidence."
It may well be. But in view of the traditional teaching of the church on matters of sexual morality, doesn't your statement really condemn Driscoll? Who, pray tell, is arguing that his novel moral understanding really conforms to the Christian faith?
Posted by: Bill R | Jun 29, 2009 5:06:55 PM
The Octagon,
You said, "He also ties his views of Christian sexuality to his views about Christian gender roles." And therein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a "gender" "role". We are sexed beings, male or female. These are not "roles" we take up and put down as we please. Hamlet is a role. Ophelia is a role. Male is a sex. Wife is a relationship. Your mistake is Driscoll's mistake and is perfectly answered by Jim Kushiner here:
"Thus, like the world, he fails to grasp that human sexuality might be ordered toward ends to which even husband and wife might be subject."
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Jun 29, 2009 7:25:46 PM
Oh, and if what Driscoll teaches is a genuine, orthodox, " fully masculine yet Christian identity for the Christian male." Count me thankful to be single.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Jun 29, 2009 7:30:21 PM
The Recusant,
You're right; this thread should not be hijacked.
I have neither listened to Driscoll's "The Peasant Princess" nor listened to West's recordings. So I am not talking from a position of expertise on either man's teaching. What I posted was not indicative of an insinuation, but of my puzzlement over an unexpected parallelism. Especially since, according to a friend who is currently making his way through the TOB, JPII's teaching was focused on Genesis and the New Testament, not the SOS. My friend is not an expert either; perhaps you could clarify this matter (if it would not lead us too far "off topic").
However, I have read somewhat on the controversy that followed West's appearance on ABC's _Nightline_ (on sites like the Ignatius Press's "Insight Scoop"), and was struck by the similarities between the defenses and attacks on West to what was said by Prof Barnard about Driscoll. Specifically the question of objectively disordered activities which "should not even be done" by married couples. It seems to me that what activities West DOES condone in his teachings is precisely what is, amongst other matters, being rather heatedly discussed right now.
Posted by: Benighted Savage | Jun 29, 2009 8:19:45 PM
First, I have read Driscoll's sermon on the Song of Solomon delivered in Scotland and have read some of his other writings which included his views on what are appropriate sexual acts between married couples. Put simply, what Driscoll teaches as acceptable and, indeed, commanded by our Lord is nothing else than sodomy as that term as been understood by the Church universal throughout the two millennia of our Faith. Indeed, all traditions, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, so held until the 20th century. The acts which he declares that God commands wives to perform or allowed to be performed on them were crimes in many states of the United States as late as the last century. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing and following his teaching is extremely dangerous.
Second, in teaching that God commands women to perform sodomitic acts on their husbands, he is using God's Word to demand women to commit acts which many of them might find demeaning or even abusive. He perverts the teaching that wives must submit to their husbands to demand that they must submit to committing acts of sodomy and to be victims of such acts.
Third, in ridiculing the traditional interpretation of the Song of Solomon as being a metaphor of Christ and His Church, he resorts to words which I find blasphemous. He mocks the traditional teaching on the Song found in the early fathers, the Reformers and earlier Evangelicals, such as Charles Spurgeon in the following words:
If so, it is weird, because Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places. It’s bizarre, Jesus has his hand up my shirt. That doesn’t help the interpretation in any way. Now I’m gay … or highly troubled … or both.* * *
They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way.”
* * *
As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.
Our Lord clearly and explicitly declared that ALL Scripture is about him. ALL Scripture includes the Song of Solomon. It is only because Driscoll's mind is in the gutter that he finds such views of Christ in the standard understanding of the text. His teaching tells us a lot more about him than it does about the Song of Solomon.
Flee from this man and his false teachings.
Posted by: GL | Jun 29, 2009 9:00:18 PM
I listened to a couple of Driscoll's "Peasant Princess" sermons as I prepared my own sermons on the Song of Songs. I was a little alarmed by his interpretive strategy, which took no account of how the Song was read by most Jewish and Christian exegetes through the ages (including the very Puritans that Driscoll says he admires.) I had thought that only liberal mainline "scholars" read the Song as mere sex advice, and I was surprised to find Driscoll basically in their camp.
So I'd hesitate to say that Driscoll has a "shallow view of Scripture," just because I've not heard everything he's preached. But his Song of Songs sermons certainly did not plumb the depths of that text, with or without the "dirty words."
Posted by: Keith | Jun 29, 2009 9:05:35 PM
I am definitely uncomfortable with his approval of degrading acts universally condemned by the church before our decadent age. Yet I am in agreement with him that SOS is a love poem between real people, but it is one divinely purposed to reveal the higher love of the divine marriage. His dislike for the typological understanding of SOS shows a simple hyperliteralism that also impedes his literal interpretation. That he would think "with great delight I sat in his shadow, and his fruit was sweet to my taste"(2:3,ESV) indicates oral sex shows that he doesn't know how metaphors are part of a literal interpretation. He says it is poetry. But he acts as if he had never read any poems before.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 29, 2009 9:32:10 PM
Christopher,
I agree with your analysis.
That he would interpret "his fruit was sweet to my taste" indicates oral sex shows that he really isn't using a literal hermeneutic, as John MacArthur has so well pointed out. He is reading into the text what those words mean to him, not what they literally say. It is not hyperliteralism; it is not literalism at all. And, again, what he reads into it says much more about what is in his head than what is in the text.
I don't disagree, however, that this is a love poem about a man and a woman which also presents a picture of our Lord's love for His Church. It can be read more than one way, as can much of Scripture. One way it cannot be read, however, is as condoning or even mandating sodomy.
Posted by: GL | Jun 29, 2009 10:21:24 PM
Benighted,
Like you, I do not claim to be an expert on either TOB or West. But I did attend a full day (6 hours?) seminar on the TOB that West presented in Indianapolis about two years ago. I have also listened to his CD set on the topic that runs about 5 hours on CD. (And I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express on several occasions.) I cannot remember in either case West dwelling on SOS. I don't even remember him mentioning it. While I wouldn't be surprised if he did, it would certainly have been a relatively minor point. His lectures are founded on the Bible, the historic teaching of the Church, and JPII's TOB.
As far as sexual activities between married spouses that Driscoll condones, West specifically declares them off limits.
Posted by: therecusant | Jun 29, 2009 10:26:40 PM
>I didn't want to go there... but, in general, where there's smoke, there's a fire of some sort.
Your initial instincts in the matter were your best. Ignorant criticism of Protestantism will not enhance needed criticism of Driscoll.
Posted by: David Gray | Jun 29, 2009 10:35:51 PM
From James Altena, a long-time friend of MC:
""And, just to make sure we're speaking the same language here, "heresy" specifically puts someone *IN* the Church, and not outside her. I.e., it is not a sin which someone outside the Church can commit." -- Steve Nicoloso
Actually, not true. There are different levels of heresy, some of which (e.g. gnosticism) do put one outside the Church. Several of the later patristic fathers called Islam a heresy, and surely they did not consider it to be within the Church.
But whether in or out of the Church, Driscoll is heretical. Why? Because he is immoral, and a proponent of immorality; and immorality is a form of heresy, just as heresy is also a form of immorality. It is heretical to advocate and practice false conduct, just as it is immoral to advocate and practice false belief. Both are lies -- one in speech, the other in action. But every word is an act, just as every deed makes a statement.
And so, to Octagon, I reply as follows:
"Driscoll has been able to reach people with the gospel in ways that most people associated with Touchstone (which I love and often read) have not been able to do."
What he is "reaching" them with is not the Gospel, but another "gospel" of the kind condemned by St. Paul (Gal. 1:6-9); one that appeals not to well-formed conscience, but to fallen worldly appetites.
"I can't help but feel that many of the comments here are just self-righteous condescension coming from catholic Christians who can't appreciate the good he has done."
This is simply low anti-catholic bigotry. Longtime readers of MC will see that the critics of Driscoll on this thread include a Baptist (Clifford), another LCMS Lutheran (Bill R.), a Presbyterian (GL), an Anglican (Kamilla), and an Eastern Orthodox Christian (Jim Kushiner), as well as an RC (Steve Nicoloso).
"As a twenty-something, newly married (orthodox-with-a-small-o) Christian and a philosophy graduate student, I find Driscoll's discussion of sexual matters refreshing and I've learned a great deal from it."
Then, frankly, I question both your orthodoxy and theological acumen. As Justin Barnard said, it "reflects an impoverished understanding of the Gospel." No sound Christian would find either Driscoll's endorsement of sodomy or his smutty talk "refreshing." Or perhaps you confuse "refreshing" with "titillating" -- in that manner wherein vulgarity masquerades as frankness and sophistication, and contemns proper reticence and abhorrence as prudishness."
Posted by: Bill R | Jun 29, 2009 11:35:21 PM
I also have to admit that I find the prudishness regarding language here (have you considered the language that Paul used in some of his epistles?)and the readiness to condemn a preacher for one flaw to be uncharitable and unwise. Having listened to a portion of his teaching I have to say that he is pretty solid on sex being for marriage alone and on the traditional roles of man and woman in marriage. Yes, he has a seriousflaw in his view that all things might be permissable within marriage, but in a culture that encourages sex long before marriage and promotes marriage as the capstone of a sexual relationship rather than the foundation his teaching contains much good that may well, I will even say HAS brought people out of sexual promiscuity.
Let us be slow to condemn the good because it is not the best. Many Goths were brought to a faith in Christ by an Arian missionary. That faith needed to be perfected later but I would say that it was a saving faith and I dare anyone to prove that it didn't do them any good.
Bottom line, Let us correct his error. But let us try not to be judgmental perfectionists in doing it.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 29, 2009 11:54:54 PM
Christopher Hathaway: "Bottom line, Let us correct his error. But let us try not to be judgmental perfectionists in doing it."
Christopher's counsel is good, reasonable, and biblical. Amen.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Jun 30, 2009 12:05:19 AM
A third LCMS Lutheran joins the fray.
I've attended Mars Hill on numerous occasions, it being a sort of magnate for all ex-pat Christians at UW-Seattle, many of whom are friends. I do not bear Driscoll nor his church any ill will, and his general theology, though of the Reformed variety, is not so objectionable as to expel him from the "hall" that mere Christianity is. I do not recommend making Mars Hill anyone's home church, but then I also don't recommend the same for St. Vincent de Paul, the local RC parish. (Why would I? I'm not Roman Catholic; I disagree with them.)
My principal issue with Driscoll lies in his bizarre interpretation of the Law in the context of the New Covenant. When speaking of perversions of sex, Mere Commenters seem to fall in with the belief that NFP is okay for birth control, but barrier and/or chemical methods are not. I tend to think that NFP is just as much divorcing sex from its natural end of procreation as condoms or the Pill, if less effective. Condoms and the Pill cannot be 100% effective either, so it's a question of degree of success rather than intent with birth control. I say this to make it clear that intercourse not ordered toward procreation is not universally condemned, even in the MC thread, and my commentary as follows is not about the goal of children.
Now, there are "forms" of sex that are also naturally prohibitive of begetting children; such acts have been called "sodomitic" by GL earlier in the thread. I hesitate to join in GL's stated position, which is clearly passionate, but I do think there is something fundamentally flawed in Driscoll's endorsement (and even promotion) of non-vaginal sex--especially anal sex--and even of sex with a woman currently on her cycle. I his response to a question regarding intercourse while the wife is menstruating (posted on the linked blog), Driscoll says:
The Old Testament forbids this but the New Testament does not. It is likely a ceremonial aspect of the Old Covenant that is no longer in effect today, though the moral aspect of the Old Covenant is. Therefore, you are allowed to operate with conscience.
Ceremonial? Ceremonial? Really, now, Mr. Driscoll, this is the best you can come up with? With all its language about clean and unclean, one would imagine that the Law is self-evident in its purposes to protect and purify God's people. In Acts, Peter is given his celestial picnic and exhorted by God to not call unclean "what God has made clean" (Acts 10:15). This narrative takes place in the context of a potential gentile convert, Cornelius, being the first to approach the Jewish messianic movement seeking Christ as Lord. We are to understand that the Gentiles are not "unclean" people in the eyes of the Lord, but included in the Covenant, but also that Peter could kill and eat certain unclean animals.
What does it mean, however, in the broader Law? Certain acts are inherently unclean and thus detrimental to the health of God's children. Homosexuality is not only a perversion of the order of one man and one woman, not only a true fundamental rejection of procreation (beyond mere birth control, gays are simply incapable of producing children), but also incredibly harmful to one's body, which in the case of the redeemed, are temples of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). Anal sex has numerous medical repercussions, including increased chance of infection, tearing of the skin and one can only imagine the pain. In the words of a friend, "Exit only." I imagine having sex during a woman's period is not particularly advisable for sound sanitary/medical reasons as well.
There are things which God has made clean. Certainly mutually enjoying each other's bodies in the context of marriage is a sacred act. Indeed, sex between two virgins is the cutting of the marriage covenant, thus the establishment of their union before God. Some things, however, are in opposition to God's order for the world, and in opposition to his Law. Driscoll ought to know this. God is not arbitrary; that which He has called unclean, let no man call clean.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2009 12:32:14 AM
Michael, thanks for the leg up. I never interacted with Touchstone commenters before and I have been pretty surprised to see blog comments be as curmudgeon and dogmatic as reactions to the print edition often are. I agree that there are things to criticize Driscoll on. I'm not much for his asacramentalism, for one thing. But some replies to the more vituperative and dogmatic commentators:
Bill R: “This is simply low anti-catholic bigotry.”
I don’t see why it has anything to do with bigotry of any kind. You really don’t see catholic condescension in the thread?
“What he is "reaching" them with is not the Gospel, but another "gospel" of the kind condemned by St. Paul (Gal. 1:6-9).”
Dude, chill out. We’re talking about sex acts, not direct implications of the Gospel. You’re really excited to count people in and out of the Church, aren’t you? One thing we know not to do with the Gospel is to use it to beat people down with in terms of the Law. I take it that’s one of the points of Galatians.
The rest deserves a hearty LOL.
GL: Generally speaking, the acceptance of oral sex within the context of unity and procreation in Christian marriage is accepting by even the most conservative of churches. The Catholic Church practically never pushes this line, and would probably take it off the books if they could. As I understand, oral sex is OK so long as it is part and parcel towards building to intercourse. What gives?
And don't use the standard of what the Church always believed. We've learned a lot this century that the Church didn't know before, about how to treat women, not killing homosexuals, not being racist, teaching everyone to read, socialism is really, REALLY bad, democracy is good, interracial marriage is good, sexual abuse is a rampant problem that needs to be discussed, and so on. Some churches took until the 20th Century to learn that religious toleration should be accepted and that the laity reading the Bible for themselves doesn't necessarily lead to heresy. Of course, there's a presumption against departing from tradition, but sometimes that presumption is overridden.
Kamilla: you’re reading way too much into my use of the word ‘role’. Furthermore, there can be both gender roles and real genders. What could your problem with the concept possibly be except that it is sometimes abused (like your understanding of being charitable)?
Posted by: TheOctagon | Jun 30, 2009 12:57:13 AM
Octagon,
Bill R's post was from longtime commenter James Altena, who is reading the blog and contributing vicariously when he feels compelled. I do not know why he made the decision to refrain from posting directly, but your response to Bill R is really a response to James. As such, refrain from calling out Bill R. (As an aside: Bill, or anyone else in contact with him: how is James? Well, I hope.) And if you had read it, you'd know that Bill is also an LCMS Lutheran (no condescension from him, at least not of the "catholic" persuasion), Clifford is a Baptist (even less "catholic" than Bill or myself), GL a Presbyterian (who, as a descendant of Calvinism, probably is in the best position to take on Driscoll, who also claims to be Reformed), Kamilla an Anglican (so perhaps we're moving closer to the "catholic" thing you're looking for), Jim Kushiner Orthodox (so now we're away from Catholicism in the other direction) and finally Steve (ah, here's your one and only Catholic).
With that said, I do not think it is possible to talk about sex acts without looking at direct implications of the Gospel. The Gospel as such does not exist in a vacuum. Not only did Christ speak on the topic of lust and adultery, but His life was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Because of this, the Gospel is tied to the Law--indeed, without the Law, there would be no Gospel! They come as a set, conveniently packaged for us by our forbearers in the faith in a book we call the Bible.
What does the Law say about sex that has not been "made clean" in the New Covenant? I'd say it unequivocally condemns at least anal sex, which Driscoll endorses. Its condemnation of oral sex, sex toys and masturbation is questionable. This is why we look to church history, men and women who were faithful to God, and trust in their understanding to guide us, even if Scripture itself is fuzzy. Indeed, in the words of the our own Lutheran tradition, from the Augsburg Confession: "saints should be kept in remembrance so that our faith may be strengthened...their good works are to be an example for us" (Article XXI, "The Cult of Saints").
I am of the mind that certain traditional views are simply that, tradition that has found its way to traditionism. Luther thought the same, which is what sparked the entire Reformation, and is why I am Lutheran today (actually, considering all the counterfactuals like wars, the separation of families along dogmatic lines, et cetera, it might be why I'm alive today). I am not, however, of the mind that we can just shuck tradition part and parcel from the body of Christian belief without examining its claims and "testing [its] spirits" against our own conscience, which is bolstered by the whisperings of the Spirit to the baptized. With prayer, with Scripture and with the guidance of spiritual elders--those fallen asleep and those living--you may come to conclusions more generally accepted in Christian orthodoxy (and this thread).
And don't use the standard of what the Church always believed. We've learned a lot this century that the Church didn't know before, about how to treat women, not killing homosexuals, not being racist, teaching everyone to read, socialism is really, REALLY bad, democracy is good, interracial marriage is good, sexual abuse is a rampant problem that needs to be discussed, and so on. Some churches took until the 20th Century to learn that religious toleration should be accepted and that the laity reading the Bible for themselves doesn't necessarily lead to heresy. Of course, there's a presumption against departing from tradition, but sometimes that presumption is overridden.
Garbage. I am not even going to bother responding to this.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2009 1:24:55 AM
Christopher,
I guess if finding it distasteful for a preacher to mime a wife pulling her husband's pants down and him telling wives to "serve" their husbands well is prudishness then I am a pruded indeed.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Jun 30, 2009 1:28:57 AM
>I guess if finding it distasteful for a preacher to mime a wife pulling her husband's pants down and him telling wives to "serve" their husbands well is prudishness then I am a pruded indeed.
As are most orthodox Christians.
Posted by: David Gray | Jun 30, 2009 3:45:12 AM
The Octagon:
Well, perhaps you have a different understanding of what Driscoll is teaching than I do. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states plainly, "[T]he Church, which is 'on the side of life' teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." I believe it is clear that the Church universal agreed on this for the first 19 centuries of the Faith. If you believe what Driscoll teaches is consistent with this and you are correct about this, then I have misunderstood our brother. I think it is clear that this is not what he means. If what he is teaching is consistent with the Church's teaching as contained in the CCC, then all he needs to do is clarify his point. He doesn't seem to have a problem with being blunt, after all.
Posted by: GL | Jun 30, 2009 6:03:51 AM
I guess if finding it distasteful for a preacher to mime a wife pulling her husband's pants down and him telling wives to "serve" their husbands well is prudishness then I am a prude indeed.
I feel the same way. But I am trying to factor out the fact that this is an act I find both distastful and immoral. If I agreed with him on the permisability of that act would I find as offensive his blunt way of encouraging a believing wife to do that to win her unbelieving husband's favor? I am not so sure.
Look, I wouldn't be comfortable seeing that in a church, but our culture is comfortable with so much that it shouldn't be. Sometimes a cursing pastor is the only kind that will be respected enough to be given a hearing by a culture that has lost its senses.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 30, 2009 8:45:35 AM
Octagon: "Generally speaking, the acceptance of oral sex within the context of unity and procreation in Christian marriage is accepting by even the most conservative of churches. The Catholic Church practically never pushes this line, and would probably take it off the books if they could. As I understand, oral sex is OK so long as it is part and parcel towards building to intercourse. What gives?"
GL: "The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states plainly, "[T]he Church, which is 'on the side of life' teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." I believe it is clear that the Church universal agreed on this for the first 19 centuries of the Faith."
Genuinely curious, does the Catholic Church formally and specifically teach that oral sex is sin?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Jun 30, 2009 9:22:50 AM
"If I agreed with him on the permisability of that act would I find as offensive his blunt way of encouraging a believing wife to do that to win her unbelieving husband's favor?"
Perhaps Kamilla is suggesting that to say a believing wife should (or even could) evangelize her unbelieving husband by performing an act of sodomy is offensive per se (aside from the question of permissability). And also aside from the question as to whether such an argument even makes sense, or would draw assent from anyone who is not a complete cad.
Posted by: Benighted Savage | Jun 30, 2009 11:07:05 AM
Perhaps Kamilla is suggesting that to say a believing wife should (or even could) evangelize her unbelieving husband by performing an act of sodomy is offensive per se (aside from the question of permissability). And also aside from the question as to whether such an argument even makes sense, or would draw assent from anyone who is not a complete cad. -Benighted Savage, emphasis mine
The flaw here is that if one accepts oral sex as permissible, it is not sodomy. That is to say it is not a perversion of Sodom, a disordering of the sexual relationship. Of course such an argument could make sense if oral sex is not per se sinful. You're speaking out both sides of your mouth here, and it doesn't do much in terms of furthering discussion.
Also, don't you think casting aspersions on the opposition like calling them "complete cad"s a little caddish on your part? Just to be fair, if we go with the assumption that Driscoll and Octagon are fellow Christians, we are looking to correct theological error in regard to sex.* Driscoll's talk is, I believe, a separate issue from his sexual theology; it is an issue of behavior.
*One that I am not personally assured about in conscience anyway. It is only with adherence to Tradition versus the novelty of Driscoll that I take my position, as Scripture is not clear on the matter of oral sex. It is culturally accepted as porneia, but it is never singled out by God in His Word. Perhaps we are wrong, but I tend to think Driscoll is.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2009 12:48:03 PM
I've read precious little of Driscoll and only became aware of him here in an earlier article. That being said, of what little I've read I think he does say some important things. The swearing is totally unnecessary, but I'm with Chris that if the acts themselves are acceptable his miming them shouldn't be a problem. Sorry, Kamilla, but I think we've oddly moved away from acceptable sexualized imagery. The OT is pretty rough and tumble compared to what most would feel comfortable with in church (I think there's a reason every Jew I've met is more comfortable discussing sex than almost every Christian).
That being said, while I'm not a 100% with GL on this, Driscoll is showing his immaturity in dealing with sex. He should rely more on the Fathers. Also, claiming that the Song of Solomon isn't about Jesus is clearly in conflict with Jesus' own words as GL rightly points out.
To TUAD, the Church is unambiguous about the _ends_ of intercourse. There must be full intent to complete the act such that a life can be realized if it is the will of God. I don't think there's ever been a detailed discussion of where anything else goes as long as basic human dignity is maintained (which is why anal intercourse is a non-starter).
Posted by: Nick | Jun 30, 2009 1:38:31 PM
I'm with Chris that if the acts themselves are acceptable his miming them shouldn't be a problem. Sorry, Kamilla, but I think we've oddly moved away from acceptable sexualized imagery. The OT is pretty rough and tumble compared to what most would feel comfortable with in church (I think there's a reason every Jew I've met is more comfortable discussing sex than almost every Christian). -Nick
Whereas I agree that Christians are a little too uncomfortable discussing sex, I do not agree that a pantomime of the acts are acceptable in public, especially in sermons. No matter what kind of intercourse is described--genital, oral, God forbid (literally) anal--all of these acts are done between a man and his wife, a union before God. The privacy of their marriage and the sanctity of their union is done no favor with the pantomime. I think Driscoll, even if telling wives to serve their husbands, should never do so in such vulgar displays. Even if we accept oral sex as permissible (it seems we are all in agreement on anal), that is between me and my future wife. That is between Driscoll and his wife. It is not between Driscoll and every member of the audience therein.
If the sex act is a completion of the union before God, to be done in private, then it should not be publicly mimed by a pastor. Say "Oral sex is okay, here's my exegesis explaining that theory." Done, end of story. I'm pretty sure every member of the audience can figure out how to perform said act without his accompanying pantomime.
Again, though, I think Driscoll's behavior is a separate issue from that of his sexual theology.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2009 1:59:25 PM
Nick,
I don't think you can be really serious! If the acts are acceptable, miming them publicly is also acceptable? Are we next to have demonstrations of . . .oh bother, I refuse to go there.
There is a difference between frankness about these matters and being crass, crude and vulgar. I've *never* had a problem with the former.
Time for me to bow out of this discussion.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Jun 30, 2009 2:09:58 PM
Let us tame our tongues so as not to defile anyone or someone might stumble. The main question really is are the people blessed with the way he preaches or are they stumbled and un-blessed? Another question should be is God glorified with what he's doing?
Posted by: Mikes Sumondong | Jun 30, 2009 4:52:39 PM
Another question should be is God glorified with what he's doing?
A good question. And yet, isn't it a question that we must ask ourselves and never presume to answer for others absent clear illumination from Scripture? I hear Billy Sunday was a rough preacher, but he led a lot of people to Christ. Was that glorifyimng to the Lord.
We are all broken vessels used by God. I'm on the side of saying oral sex is wrong. But I'm withholding judgment on his general preaching style and vocabulary.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jun 30, 2009 6:48:47 PM
I am quite saddened by this discussion. Most of what I read here is self righteous banter. We so easily find fault with others without checking ourselves first. There is a reason Christ told us to take the plank out or our own eye, because He knew how ridiculously foolish we all are.
I will be first to say that I know I don't do enough to follow the commands of Jesus by actively loving Him, loving my neighbors, and especially loving my enemies. My role in increasing the Kingdom of God here on earth has been found quite wanting at this point in my life. So to fear and become angry by the teachings of a man who is pouring himself out to the ministry to which Jesus has called all of us is preposterous. If anything, I am ashamed that I am not someone like Driscoll, being attacked for speaking what God has called him to speak. So I challenge you as I am myself, get over your personal insecurities by turning your life to Christ and the direction of the Holy Spirit, and bear fruit.
Matthew 7
15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
So, would you consider the "ravenous wolves" those that preach the gospel, calling people to repentance or those who nibble and bite at those who preach the gospel...?
Posted by: Benjamin J. Perry | Jun 30, 2009 8:38:12 PM
Benjamin,
While you are saddened by this discussion, I'm saddened by your post. Commenters on this thread are "foolish" because they take sexual sin seriously? They suffer from "personal insecurities" because they consider it a scandal for a Christian pastor to condone sexual conduct that has long been considered gravely sinful? They "nibble and bite" at poor Mr. Driscoll because he twists traditional sexual morality?
Your post could easily be made to defend any sort of criticism against any pastor, as long as said pastor teaches with sincerity and conviction - including, for instance, a pastor who argues from Scripture that two men may sexually express their affection and commitment to one another in a loving and monogamous relationship. Seriously. Re-read your post. Certain Christian leaders advocate that very thing, and do so with the sincerity and conviction that they are following God's will. They even do so despite being "attacked" be traditional Christians.
You completely ignore the content of Driscoll's message. If what he preaches is, in fact, sinful, then it must be confronted & his good intentions must be set aside.
Posted by: therecusant | Jun 30, 2009 10:43:32 PM
In a web site article I did address what I consider to be 'deviant teachings' by Mark Driscoll and this article can be viewed on http://www.takeheed.net/CurrentConcerns_2/md_ed4.htm
Additionally I have just responded to an email on Mr Driscoll and in my reply I wrote 'As regards Mark Driscoll I think God's prohibitions in Ephesians 5:3-4 should be engraved on his pulpit or lectern.'
True conversion will evidence itself in Holy consecration.
Posted by: Cecil Andrews | Jul 1, 2009 1:26:53 PM
Benjamin,
I doubt that either you or I know Steve well enough to accuse or acquit him of the accusations you have made. Perhaps you do, but if you are making your sweeping judgment of him on the basis of a couple of comments to a blog, you are veering rather close to the error that you assign to him.
Regardless, you are mistaking the arguments that therecusant and Steve are making as being about what they believe as individuals. On the contrary, Steve in particular makes it clear that he is not basing his arguments on personal beliefs but on the particular teachings of the church (as universally understood for two millennia). In fact, I think it is fair to say that this is the intent (if not always the perfectly executed practice) of most who align themselves with the Touchstone project. Consequently, you can argue that the church is wrong or that we are misrepresenting the teaching of the church. But to argue that this a contest of one sanctimonious attitude against another is simply false.
Furthermore, if a public figure such as Mr. Driscoll is promulgating serious error in a public manner, then it behooves us to work against this error by whatever means possible. Since most of us don't have personal access to him, we do what we can to confront what is wrong in his teachings here and elsewhere.
Posted by: TimC | Jul 1, 2009 1:30:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004