Mark Driscoll

[Sailor_A]

I do wish I hadn't read that . I don't think it is right to guilt either party into sex; especially sex acts they are not comfortable or disagree with. And sex bringing people to God... well let's just say it sounds like something from an anime series!

 

[McScribe]

I member a friend coming to my store to talk about how his wife was fed up because they only had sex a few times a year. It was a stupid situation. He was gay. She was naive. They got married. I said, "Look, if you really love her, have sex with her as a way of showing it, and make an agreement to do it more often. Meet her halfway." He could not bring himself to do it or even talk about the possibility.

See, the horror on his face at what I said is the same I see in words here. To be blunt, I think if he loved her he should have.

 

[Luther073082]

I have seen that quote. He's referring to counseling a woman who's husband is an unbeliever.

And I think Driscoll point is sound. People feel loved differently, and he was basically saying maybe the best way to make your husband to feel loved and to show him the love of Christ is to give him some oral sex? I can't argue with him that in that particular circumstance.

Obviously the woman was going through counseling with Mark and his wife so they knew her much more personally than us. Maybe she was a religiously pious pharisee type woman who needed to loosen up for her and her husband's sake. I can guarantee you that it would be extremely difficult for a nonbeliever to be married to a believer who acts like a pharisee. Maybe that's how she was?

Anyway, I can't take a specific example that he related to that woman and somehow translate it for everyone. In her situation, that may be exactly what she needed to hear.

I mean Paul says that he has become all things to all men that he might somehow possibly save some.

Keep trying to two step around Mark's statements so you can listen to him tell you how to be a real man.

He ment what he said, he ment that oral sex is pretty much commanded in his mind.

The fact that he would practically order a woman using the bible to give her husband oral sex is pretty well disturbing in and of itself.

 

[JaneFW]

I member a friend coming to my store to talk about how his wife was fed up because they only had sex a few times a year. It was a stupid situation. He was gay. She was naive. They got married. I said, "Look, if you really love her, have sex with her as a way of showing it, and make an agreement to do it more often. Meet her halfway." He could not bring himself to do it or even talk about the possibility.

See, the horror on his face at what I said is the same I see in words here. To be blunt, I think if he loved her he should have.

If he loved her, he shouldn't have married her.

Are you referring to oral sex? Nobody is saying that oral sex is terrible (to my knowledge), it's the issue of making it a SIN not to do it that is a problem. OS, imo and experience, is something over and above normal intercourse. It's showing an incredible amount of trust when you are willing to give that to your spouse. It's also dependent on taste. Not everyone wants to, because they have a distaste, and that's okay too. If a spouse of either gender just does not enjoy doing it, they should not be commanded on the basis of "Jesus said" and "it's a sin not to". That's pretty sickening.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Keep trying to two step around Mark's statements so you can listen to him tell you how to be a real man.

He ment what he said, he ment that oral sex is pretty much commanded in his mind.

The fact that he would practically order a woman using the bible to give her husband oral sex is pretty well disturbing in and of itself.

She should do it. If she's opposed to it he shouldn't demand it (or guilt her into it). If he wants it he should ask (prayer is also in order), she should help him out (again, prayer is in order) if she can. I think it is a matter of benevolence, it's a way of expressing love. Why wouldn't she want to?? If she doesn't want to why would he want her to? We are talking about spouses that love each other here right? Not some power tripping ego-fest wherein one person has to have their own way?

 

[Luther073082]

I find this to be scary stuff:

Mark Driscoll’s Church Discipline Contract: Looking For True Repentance at Mars Hill Church? Sign on the Dotted Line : MATTHEW PAUL TURNER ✪ Believing.Doubting.Writing.Parenting.Laughing.Thinking.Creating.Hoping.Living.

Mark Driscoll’s ‘Gospel Shame’: The Truth About Discipline, Excommunication, and Cult-like Control at Mars Hill : MATTHEW PAUL TURNER ✪ Believing.Doubting.Writing.Parenting.Laughing.Thinking.Creating.Hoping.Living.

It's a two parter about the experience of a young man who became involved at Mars Hill.

If we were ALL treated like this at the church .. well, I just can't imagine it, and get this:


Is anyone else in agreement with this? I mean, my whole history of promiscuity (prior to becoming a Christian) was a man's fault then, right? I'm just fine. No need to repent.

Anyway, interesting stuff. Crazy stuff, imo.

Sounds like Joel and Kathy Davidson stuff right there. . .

 

[JaneFW]

So, based upon how a person has to admit to CSA - which was not his or her fault, and was an act of rape perpetuated upon them by an adult - should everyone admit to any and every sexually misdemeanour that they willingly committed before marriage? Including porn use? If a husband doesn't admit to porn use and it later turns out that he is an addict, perhaps a wife has grounds for divorce then. Particularly if he doesn't CHOOSE to fix his problem.

 

[Luther073082]

She should do it. If she's opposed to it he shouldn't demand it (or guilt her into it). If he wants it he should ask (prayer is also in order), she should help him out (again, prayer is in order) if she can. I think it is a matter of benevolence, it's a way of expressing love. Why wouldn't she want to?? If she doesn't want to why would he want her to? We are talking about spouses that love each other here right? Not some power tripping ego-fest wherein one person has to have their own way?

What???

She should do it as an act of love only if she's comfortable with it. If she's not comfortable with it, then she shouldn't have to. And a pastor should not be commanding a wife to give her husband oral sex as a specific sex act.

I can see a pastor telling a wife that the bible commands her to have regular sex with her husband. . . because it does. But you are starting to specify specific acts here which the bible does not do.

 

[McScribe]

If he loved her, he shouldn't have married her.

Are you referring to oral sex? Nobody is saying that oral sex is terrible (to my knowledge), it's the issue of making it a SIN not to do it that is a problem. OS, imo and experience, is something over and above normal intercourse. It's showing an incredible amount of trust when you are willing to give that to your spouse. It's also dependent on taste. Not everyone wants to, because they have a distaste, and that's okay too. If a spouse of either gender just does not enjoy doing it, they should not be commanded on the basis of "Jesus said" and "it's a sin not to". That's pretty sickening.

I'm talking lovemaking generally. I think Driscoll says some really dumb things sometimes, and frankly I don't think I would want to go to his church, because he blames men and women together and is wrong on a lot of things. However he has a point about the sex thing. Couples need to be loving and good to one another about that. There has to be a way of generally knowing how to get to yes as well as respect for saying no. I've seen a lot of people just being selfish. In the example I gave, you are right, the marriage should not have happened. But you know how it goes.

So I believe that in his clumsy way he was trying to say "Stop withholding sex from your husband" in that particular way. He's not saying "Every woman needs to get on her knees before her husband". You're quite right in that not everyone likes it, whether giving or receiving. That's not really the point. It's that giving and receiving in a loving way takes place, of what is pleasing to each person and is agreed upon together.

 

[JaneFW]

She should do it. If she's opposed to it he shouldn't demand it (or guilt her into it). If he wants it he should ask (prayer is also in order), she should help him out (again, prayer is in order) if she can. I think it is a matter of benevolence, it's a way of expressing love. Why wouldn't she want to??

Because she doesn't like it. Because it's not the natural orifice for sex, and it's painful and uncomfortable, and unpleasant, and - to some people - degrading. If he hasn't showered, it smells let me tell you.

You wanted to know why she wouldn't want to - there are several reasons.

Men also feel this way about giving O/S to their wives for goodness sake. I don't see any male pastor beating down the door to demand that husbands give their wives o/s because otherwise it is a sin. Oh no - it's what the man wants that is important.

Huh.

 

[chaz345]

So, based upon how a person has to admit to CSA - which was not his or her fault, and was an act of rape perpetuated upon them by an adult - should everyone admit to any and every sexually misdemeanour that they willingly committed before marriage? Including porn use? If a husband doesn't admit to porn use and it later turns out that he is an addict, perhaps a wife has grounds for divorce then. Particularly if he doesn't CHOOSE to fix his problem.

I never said that failing to disclose previous sexual abuse would be grounds for divorce so you can maybe stop distorting things so much. And you apparently missed where I specifically said that I'd say the same thing about past or current porn use as I did about sexual abuse.

I'm am honestly truly baffled though that some seem to think that keeping secret something that's likely to have a deep and significant lifelong impact on the couple's sex life is appropriate.

 

[McScribe]

Because she doesn't like it. Because it's not the natural orifice for sex, and it's painful and uncomfortable, and unpleasant, and - to some people - degrading. If he hasn't showered, it smells let me tell you.

You wanted to know why she wouldn't want to - there are several reasons.

Men also feel this way about giving O/S to their wives for goodness sake. I don't see any male pastor beating down the door to demand that husbands give their wives o/s because otherwise it is a sin. Oh no - it's what the man wants that is important.

Huh.

Hm. I would say this to anyone who is simply withholding sex from their spouse...that they need to examine why they are doing it.

Driscoll is being over analyzed here. He's basically got a "tough coach" style and it doesn't always work, but now and then he can say something that's biblically true. He's managed to find a church he has a lot of authority in. That's a kind of fad many denominations go through from time to time, giving the church lead all kinds of authority. I don't find that it leads to people being stronger in faith, because they tend to lean on the leader for it. However the videos Stan posted are pretty good.

 

[JaneFW]

I never said that failing to disclose previous sexual abuse would be grounds for divorce so you can maybe stop distorting things so much. And you apparently missed where I specifically said that I'd say the same thing about past or current porn use as I did about past sexual abuse.

I wasn't referring to your posts.

 

[chaz345]

I wasn't referring to your posts.

Ok then who said that failing to disclose CSA was grounds for divorce?

 

[JaneFW]

Hm. I would say this to anyone who is simply withholding sex from their spouse...that they need to examine why they are doing it.

It's not about "simply withholding sex from their spouse" it's about being dictated to about a 'variety' of sexual interplay, which is NOT appropriate.

Driscoll is being over analyzed here. He's basically got a "tough coach" style and it doesn't always work, but now and then he can say something that's biblically true. He's managed to find a church he has a lot of authority in. That's a kind of fad many denominations go through from time to time, giving the church lead all kinds of authority. I don't find that it leads to people being stronger in faith, because they tend to lean on the leader for it. However the videos Stan posted are pretty good.

He's not being over-analyzed at all. People are talking about various abuses they have suffered at his hands. There are a LOT of people out there who have been excommunicated, thrown out, otherwise pushed around by those church members. How is that Christ-like?

 

[JaneFW]

Ok then who said that failing to disclose CSA was grounds for divorce?

Show me where I said they did.

 

[JaneFW]

I'm really not going to go there. I'm going to make general comments whenever I feel like it without it being attributable to other people.

This - if a husband doesn't admit to porn use and it later turns out that he is an addict, perhaps a wife has grounds for divorce then - was simply my expanding on a thought process. Perhaps I should define where every word I post comes from. Uh, no.

I am allowed to expand upon my thoughts. Especially when I'm not attributing or quoting another person. I hope that's okay with everyone.

 

[McScribe]

It's not about "simply withholding sex from their spouse" it's about being dictated to about a 'variety' of sexual interplay, which is NOT appropriate.


He's not being over-analyzed at all. People are talking about various abuses they have suffered at his hands. There are a LOT of people out there who have been excommunicated, thrown out, otherwise pushed around by those church members. How is that Christ-like?

Do you really read it as orders? I read it as suggestions, really. Do you mind showing me where?

And I'm referring to the context of this thread.

Look, let's suppose we go back in time and Pope Alexander IV preaches on forgiveness from the Book of Matthew, and what he says is absolutely biblically true in context. But we also know that he is an incestuous lecherous tyrant. Does that make it a bad sermon?

So if someone says, "Hey, that was a good sermon," that doesn't mean that they love the Borgia family; it means that they thought it was a good sermon.

 

[chaz345]

Show me where I said they did.

Post 227.

By suggesting that undisclosed porn use would be grounds for divorce in the same sentence you talked about disclosing CSA it's pretty clear that you were implying that someone said that undisclosed CSA was grounds for divorce.

Bottom line though is that it's wrong to not disclose something, be it CSA or porn use or whatever that's likely to have such a deep and lasting impact on the marriage, be it in the area of sex or in any other area. I absolutely reject the idea that being a victim of CSA or anything else excuses someone from being open and honest about something that has such a potential for such serious long lasting effects on both spouses and the marriage as a whole.

 

[hijklmnop]

I member a friend coming to my store to talk about how his wife was fed up because they only had sex a few times a year. It was a stupid situation. He was gay. She was naive. They got married. I said, "Look, if you really love her, have sex with her as a way of showing it, and make an agreement to do it more often. Meet her halfway." He could not bring himself to do it or even talk about the possibility.

See, the horror on his face at what I said is the same I see in words here. To be blunt, I think if he loved her he should have.

To be blunt, I think this post reveals that there is a lot you don't understand about human sexuality.

Anyways, why was he marrying her if he was gay in the first place? And quite frankly I've never seen the appeal in someone having sex with me when they really don't want to. I'd prefer to go without. I think if you love someone, you shouldn't pressure them into having sex with you when it "horrifies" them.