Driscoll's “Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friendship and Life Together” Controversial
- 3 views
No doubt no degree of offensiveness, sloppiness and error by Driscoll will keep him from the TGC group hugs. They will wring their hands, Tim Challies will have his fits, John MacArthur will frown, some others will boo hoo and a few others plea for “love” and “tolerance” but this novice and spiritual juvenile will still be celebrated as an Elder.
One of the more humorous things I have observed is when certain Christian personalities decide it is time for them to set people straight about what kinds of sexual activity are and are not permissible between a husband and a wife. It is as if none of this has been discussed, it has Mr. Driscoll, but it is discussed in private because people know what discretion is, children don’t.
Driscoll isn’t the first, though, to try and prescribe detailed prohibitions and licenses for martial sexuality. But everyone will get over it, few will learn that this is simply another reason why Mark Driscoll is unfit for such a high profile role of leadership and instruction in the Word and we will wait for the next carnival to arrive.
One of the more humorous things I have observed is when certain Christian personalities decide it is time for them to set people straight about what kinds of sexual activity are and are not permissible between a husband and a wife. It is as if none of this has been discussed, it has Mr. Driscoll, but it is discussed in private because people know what discretion is, children don’t.
Driscoll isn’t the first, though, to try and prescribe detailed prohibitions and licenses for martial sexuality. But everyone will get over it, few will learn that this is simply another reason why Mark Driscoll is unfit for such a high profile role of leadership and instruction in the Word and we will wait for the next carnival to arrive.
Disclaimers: I’m not a Driscoll fan or defender; all I know about him is what I’ve read here at SI. Nor have I read the book, so Challies’s criticisms of the editing and a failure to ground the book sufficiently on an explicitly gospel-centered view of marriage may well be spot on. (On the other hand, the Driscolls come across pretty well (i.e., careful and thoughtful) in the CT interview. My one criticism would be that they apparently missed a significant book in their research — A Celebration of Sex, by Christian therapist Doug Rosenau — which is recent, biblical, comprehensive, and explicit, as they wished other sex books for Christians had been.)
However, it seems clear to me from Challies’s own description of the “grid” used by the Driscolls in the “Can We ____?” chapter (Is it lawful? Is it helpful? Is it enslaving?) that Challies’s primary criticism is off base. His criticism is that 1 Cor. 6:12’s “all things are lawful” statement was the Corinthians’ misinformed mantra and not Paul’s (or God’s) truth, a point which apparently the Driscolls don’t get right. I’ll assume Challies’s understanding of the “all things are lawful” statement is correct, and I’ll assume the Driscolls don’t share or don’t articulate that same understanding. As a result, IF the Driscolls’ grid consisted solely of the question “Is it lawful?” and an across-the-board affirmative answer because of the erroneous assumption that Paul said all things are lawful in 1 Cor. 6:12, Challies would have a point. But by Challies’s own description, the Driscolls don’t stop there — they also go on to ask the additional two questions that Paul asks in 1 Cor. 6:12: even if it is lawful, is it helpful and is it enslaving?
Challies does not identify any specific issue or practice that is in fact unlawful (i.e., forbidden by scripture) that should therefore not have survived the first question in the Driscolls’ grid. Nor does he identify any issue or practice that he agrees is not unlawful but that he believes does not survive either or both of the follow-up questions. (And is it even possible that there would be an issue or practice that is unlawful but would still survive the second two questions?) We’re left with the implication that of course none of the issues or practices in the “Can We ___?” chapter are legitimate because everyone knows they are all unlawful or unhelpful or enslaving. But we’re given that answer solely on the erroneous argument that the Driscolls premised their acceptance of the listed issues/practices entirely on the lawfulness issue, when in fact they also screened them for helpfulness and enslavement as well (whether or not Challies or anyone else agrees with the results of their analysis).
Bottom line: on Challies’s own terms, his dismissal of the “Can We ___?” chapter is completely unpersuasive.
However, it seems clear to me from Challies’s own description of the “grid” used by the Driscolls in the “Can We ____?” chapter (Is it lawful? Is it helpful? Is it enslaving?) that Challies’s primary criticism is off base. His criticism is that 1 Cor. 6:12’s “all things are lawful” statement was the Corinthians’ misinformed mantra and not Paul’s (or God’s) truth, a point which apparently the Driscolls don’t get right. I’ll assume Challies’s understanding of the “all things are lawful” statement is correct, and I’ll assume the Driscolls don’t share or don’t articulate that same understanding. As a result, IF the Driscolls’ grid consisted solely of the question “Is it lawful?” and an across-the-board affirmative answer because of the erroneous assumption that Paul said all things are lawful in 1 Cor. 6:12, Challies would have a point. But by Challies’s own description, the Driscolls don’t stop there — they also go on to ask the additional two questions that Paul asks in 1 Cor. 6:12: even if it is lawful, is it helpful and is it enslaving?
Challies does not identify any specific issue or practice that is in fact unlawful (i.e., forbidden by scripture) that should therefore not have survived the first question in the Driscolls’ grid. Nor does he identify any issue or practice that he agrees is not unlawful but that he believes does not survive either or both of the follow-up questions. (And is it even possible that there would be an issue or practice that is unlawful but would still survive the second two questions?) We’re left with the implication that of course none of the issues or practices in the “Can We ___?” chapter are legitimate because everyone knows they are all unlawful or unhelpful or enslaving. But we’re given that answer solely on the erroneous argument that the Driscolls premised their acceptance of the listed issues/practices entirely on the lawfulness issue, when in fact they also screened them for helpfulness and enslavement as well (whether or not Challies or anyone else agrees with the results of their analysis).
Bottom line: on Challies’s own terms, his dismissal of the “Can We ___?” chapter is completely unpersuasive.
Your grid point is a well articulated about C’s aporoach on that element.
doesn’t Driscoll=controversy? :-) Seems like everybody’s surprised when they shouldn’t be by now.
David,
I think Challies addresses all your points pretty well.
He explicitly responds to your assertion what “We’re left with the implication that of course none of the issues or practices in the “Can We ___?” chapter are legitimate because everyone knows they are all unlawful or unhelpful or enslaving,” when he says, “I have not said that any particular sex act is wrong. The purpose of writing this little series is not to point to any single act and say, ‘That is wrong.’”
So it seems clear that he doesn’t give any answer to the “Can we _______?” question, much less one based “solely on the erroneous argument that the Driscolls premised their acceptance of the listed issues/practices entirely on the lawfulness issue, when in fact they also screened them for helpfulness and enslavement as well (whether or not Challies or anyone else agrees with the results of their analysis).”
Furthermore, his criticism is not only that Driscoll misused 1 Cor 6: 12, and he doesn’t focus only on the first question. Challies actually adds other questions such as “Why do I want to do this act? What do I think this act will accomplish? What kind of fulfillment will it bring me? Is this first and foremost an act of love? Does this reflect that relationship of Christ to the church that my marriage is meant to image?”
In addition, and perhaps more importantly, he focuses on the fact that the grid never addresses heart issues. That is seems to be Challies primary complaint about the grid, and one that seems to escape your comments. I think it is a significant issue.
He says, “All of which is to say, this grid, drawn from 1 Corinthians 6, is just too simplistic, it is inadequate. It does not call you to examine and even doubt your motives and it does not call you to ensure that your actions are a display of a life that has been radically transformed by the gospel.”
I think Challies addresses all your points pretty well.
He explicitly responds to your assertion what “We’re left with the implication that of course none of the issues or practices in the “Can We ___?” chapter are legitimate because everyone knows they are all unlawful or unhelpful or enslaving,” when he says, “I have not said that any particular sex act is wrong. The purpose of writing this little series is not to point to any single act and say, ‘That is wrong.’”
So it seems clear that he doesn’t give any answer to the “Can we _______?” question, much less one based “solely on the erroneous argument that the Driscolls premised their acceptance of the listed issues/practices entirely on the lawfulness issue, when in fact they also screened them for helpfulness and enslavement as well (whether or not Challies or anyone else agrees with the results of their analysis).”
Furthermore, his criticism is not only that Driscoll misused 1 Cor 6: 12, and he doesn’t focus only on the first question. Challies actually adds other questions such as “Why do I want to do this act? What do I think this act will accomplish? What kind of fulfillment will it bring me? Is this first and foremost an act of love? Does this reflect that relationship of Christ to the church that my marriage is meant to image?”
In addition, and perhaps more importantly, he focuses on the fact that the grid never addresses heart issues. That is seems to be Challies primary complaint about the grid, and one that seems to escape your comments. I think it is a significant issue.
He says, “All of which is to say, this grid, drawn from 1 Corinthians 6, is just too simplistic, it is inadequate. It does not call you to examine and even doubt your motives and it does not call you to ensure that your actions are a display of a life that has been radically transformed by the gospel.”
Alex,
I agree with your opening statement. Thank you for pointing out the obvious flaws in Driscoll’s so-called ministry. This man is and has been a disgrace to the ministry for many years, even going back to his sinful demonstrations of the flesh at his church’s New Year’s Eve celebrations in which he served alcohol and promoted sensual dress and dance contests (He and his wife were the contest winners! Surprise?). The fact that this man is a featured speaker in the Gospel Coalition and one of Piper’s favorite interviewers and interviewees is also indefensible. Yes, I get disgusted when I hear fundamentalist types preach easy believism; I get more disgusted when I see Lordship Salvationists like Driscoll practice it.
I agree with your opening statement. Thank you for pointing out the obvious flaws in Driscoll’s so-called ministry. This man is and has been a disgrace to the ministry for many years, even going back to his sinful demonstrations of the flesh at his church’s New Year’s Eve celebrations in which he served alcohol and promoted sensual dress and dance contests (He and his wife were the contest winners! Surprise?). The fact that this man is a featured speaker in the Gospel Coalition and one of Piper’s favorite interviewers and interviewees is also indefensible. Yes, I get disgusted when I hear fundamentalist types preach easy believism; I get more disgusted when I see Lordship Salvationists like Driscoll practice it.
Pastor Mike Harding
Discussion