Church Campanologist offers a compelling review of Mark Driscoll's latest book, Real Marriage. See http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/mark-driscolls-real-marriage-wheres-the-sanctity/ Here's CC's post.
This post is for adults only.
Mark Driscoll‘s latest book, Real Marriage, is a frank exploration of human sexuality.
Written from a complementarian — male headship over women and children — perspective, it won’t please Christians who find this type of thinking unbiblical. It also won’t please those who are concerned about women being exploited in marriage.
Driscoll’s church members and admirers around the world will no doubt find it of value. What follows are a few excerpts of reviews from conservative and mainline pastors alike.
- Denny Burk, an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, gives a good summary of the book’s contents and purpose. He points out that the Driscolls’ account of their own marriage is written from a Christian perspective. Chapter 10 of the book concerns sodomy, which Driscoll considers acceptable in the context of the sanctity of marriage. Please note that the book discusses Mrs Driscoll’s unfortunate sexual experiences earlier in life. Burk notes (emphases in bold are mine):
This post is for adults only.
Mark Driscoll‘s latest book, Real Marriage, is a frank exploration of human sexuality.
Written from a complementarian — male headship over women and children — perspective, it won’t please Christians who find this type of thinking unbiblical. It also won’t please those who are concerned about women being exploited in marriage.
Driscoll’s church members and admirers around the world will no doubt find it of value. What follows are a few excerpts of reviews from conservative and mainline pastors alike.
- Denny Burk, an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, gives a good summary of the book’s contents and purpose. He points out that the Driscolls’ account of their own marriage is written from a Christian perspective. Chapter 10 of the book concerns sodomy, which Driscoll considers acceptable in the context of the sanctity of marriage. Please note that the book discusses Mrs Driscoll’s unfortunate sexual experiences earlier in life. Burk notes (emphases in bold are mine):
The bulk of the chapter gives an ethical assessment of a variety of sexual activities. The Driscolls invoke 1 Corinthians 6:12 as the basis for the evaluation, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” From this text, the Driscolls propose a “taxonomy” of questions to assess the different activities: (1) Is it lawful? (2) Is it helpful? (3) Is it enslaving? If one judges a given behavior to be biblically lawful, relationally helpful, and non-addictive, then it is permissible for Christians to participate in that activity. Among the activities that the authors deem permissible within this taxonomy are masturbation, fel[l]atio/cunnilingus, sodomy (on both spouses), menstrual sex, role-playing, sex toys, birth control, cosmetic surgery, cybersex, and sexual medication. The Driscolls are careful to stipulate that these are activities spouses may participate in by mutual agreement, but not that they must participate in (p. 180). No spouse should be manipulated into doing anything that violates his or her conscience (p. 178). The only item in the list deemed impermissible in every circumstance is sexual assault.
2 comments:
If you haven't read all of Andy and Wendy's review I would encourage that you read it. I ended up blogging about it though I had, as a single man, intended to just avoid writing about anything the Driscolls have said about sex or marriage. I wrote a large amount for Wartburg Watch about why I believe Driscoll's handling of Song of Songs is methodlogically and exegetically suspect. I'm just a layman and have some significant limits in how I can approach texts but I at least gave it a shot.
One of the persistent problems I've seen with critics of Driscoll is they have erroneously attempted to claim Driscoll got his chauvinism from Calvinist or Reformed authors and thinkers. The problem with this is that he wasn't even talking about Calvinism in its bare TULIP form until around 2001 or 2002; his problems with women predate his identifying himself as any kind of Calvinist or even any acceptance of charismatic theology (he used to lean toward the cessationist position). Yet many blogs and authors attempting to criticize Driscoll focus on his theology when it has been, at times, mercurial, rather than focusing on his failures as a scholar and exegete. I myself, as a layman, didn't figure out how far off he often got in OT literature until the year 2007 when his baleful preaching on Ruth and Nehemiah forced me to recognize that he could turn an OT sermon series into a typology about himself and his church in Nehemiah or about dating types in Ruth. I know this is a long comment but the article you linked to, though a good overview, is the tip of the iceberg. I did waht I could to explain the methodological and exegetical problems in Driscol's handling of Song of SOngs in a series for Wartburg Watch but it will take real scholars tackling the problems in Driscoll's teaching to make it clear how far off the rails he can get in OT literature.
Thanks, I've not followed Driscoll's teaching for several personal reasons. First, he's a modern sectarian, that is, an Anabaptist. Or, worse, a Baptacostal...who gets visions. As such, he offers little of interest. Second, I have far better books here on about everything, OT and NT, than Driscoll could ever offer. Driscoll is not scholarly. Third, I dislike his style and his loud form of agressive piety and pushiness. He's not shaped by Anglican piety which, if one does not understand that, one will not understand my take. Anglicanism, when shaped by it, distrusts enthusiasms and any shades of fanaticism. Loud and aggressive doesn't work here. It's off-putting.
Yet, the increasing interest here is Driscoll's efforts at publicity and the role he's having on others.
I won't be reading this specific work, since he holds so little interest. Yet, will continue to attempt to follow others' blogs, e.g. Wartburgh, Church Campanologist.
As to his chauvinism arising from Calvinism as claimed by some critics, I don't pay the critics much mind since the raft of them haven't read widely in Calvin himself or 16th-17th century authors. By that, I mean all the OT and NT commentaries, The Institutes, sermons and his prayers. Modern "chirpers" and "chirpettes," often on internet, pontificating about "Calvin-this and Calvin-that" are ignorant. Let them read the corpus of Calvin for a few years, be humbled, return, and then offer preliminary thoughts for peer-reviewed critiques. Driscoll hardly rises to the identity of Calvinism. If TULIP is the benchmark, that is a low bar. Calvinism is more than TULIP, but Driscoll, Mohler and Mahaney-types aren't Reformed. None of them have Reformed backgrounds and none of them have liturgical pieties. They're "particular Baptists," as a matter of historical accuracy. But, somehow, they like to adopt the term "Reformed" while never having been reared in it (obvious with Driscoll, Mohler, Mahaney, etc.), never catechetized in it, never sat under Confessional Churchmen, and never shaped by it.
Driscoll is an ex-Romanist out of an dogmatic [as he describes his father] Irish background. As an ex-Romanist, it's evident he hails from a background where his parents lacked discernment, judgment, depth, insight and doctrinal awareness. A generational price tag comes with that. That's what boy-Mark inherited. He's blue collarish without showing an effort to upgrade his skills. It shows. That's what he'll draw also...the young, the enthused, and the untrained. I commend his effort to address this category of postmodern relativists, but the antics and style are like his audience--young and immature. He'll have little appeal to jurists and judges, PhDs in literature, sociologists, psychologists, historians or academic theologians. Mark should take 4-5 years off for further work in theology, history, and other disciplines.
Thanks for your note. It reminds me that Driscoll has other problematic materials out there for review besides this recent foray into marriage.
Regards.
Post a Comment