Mark Driscoll

[hijklmnop]

Perhaps you have not experienced it. My wife was touched inappropriately a couple of times by a cousin as a child, did not disclose it to me until nearly 8 years into our marriage, and, subsequently, has refused intimacy ever since (going on 10 months). Counseling has not helped her. It has affected other areas of her life and our marriage. We are nearing seperation and/or divorce.

So yeah, I can understand someone being upset by not disclosing that. Especially when one refuses to seek help in dealing with it and lets it affect all aspects of their marriage.

I can understand being frustrated when a spouse refuses to seek help with a serious problem; but anger at a lack of premarital disclosure is OTT IMO. What would you have done, dumped her instead of marrying her? It's not leprosy!!!

 

[I Art Laughing]

But in that culture, they would not slap you on the other cheek.

I remember how it went! Here it is:

Turning the other cheek was basically calling someone out. In their culture, hitting someone on the right cheek as per the verse meant someone hit you with an right back hand. Back handing someone was the way of hitting someone who was inferior to yourself (someone of lower status, a servant, a slave).

A person in that culture would never hit someone with an open fist because hitting someone with an open fist implied (and still implies to this day in the middle east) that you want to kill them, so it is bad and people will not do it; a person in that culture would also never hit someone with their left hand because the left hand was considered "unclean" and you wouldn't touch anyone with it; and a person in that culture who was trying to demean someone would never hit them with an open palm because that implied that they were equal.

So the only option to "properly" hit someone to demean them is with an open back of the right hand. So by turning the other cheek (which would be your left cheek), you were in effect by your actions saying to the person hitting you "the only option available to you if you continue to hit me is your acknowledgement that we are equals". Which doing something like that would immediately stop the blows from the culturally informed person doing the beating.

This is off topic but I think you aren't understanding it as Jesus said it.

 

[hijklmnop]

Hiding something that's likely to have a long term negative effect on your and your spouse's sex life is wrong, period. It's the same as if I knew that it was impossible or difficult for me to form deep emotional connection, for whatever reason, and I decided to not say anything until after I had married.

That and like someone said, Driscoll wasn't saying that he was right to react the way he did, he was being real and transparent. Maybe I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that his anger and how he expressed it was fine and dandy. But it was, IMO, entirely understandable.

Because apparently it is such a serious betrayal to find out that the person you married was touched inappropriately at some point in their life?! I'm just....wow. Like really, I'm almost speechless. But apparently not yet. Keep going, maybe you will get lucky and render me speechless.

 

[Chaplain David]

There's been so much back and forth on this pastor here that I think I'm going to have to buy one of his books so I can get a really up close idea of what he's like. Never heard of him until he was brought up here. Any ideas on which book would be good? Or maybe a DVD or CD would be better as it's easier for me to fit into my schedule than reading?

 

[I Art Laughing]

I can understand being frustrated when a spouse refuses to seek help with a serious problem; but anger at a lack of premarital disclosure is OTT IMO. What would you have done, dumped her instead of marrying her? It's not leprosy!!!

If they didn't want to get healed I would not get married to them. It would be a symptom of a bigger, potentially marriage killing problem. If I have an ingrown toenail that doesn't get treated it can get infected and I can go into septic shock. If I love my potential future spouse I'm going to make sure she gets treatment and NOT pretend she is okay and roll ahead into a marriage. It's isn't very loving to pretend that everything is okay and will just work out.

If it got disclosed after the wedding it still needs to be addressed, and I can understand the shock of the person finding out about it. If it is affecting one spouse it's really affecting BOTH of them. How do you cure an abscess? It has to be opened up and cleaned out, with love.

Because apparently it is such a serious betrayal to find out that the person you married was touched inappropriately at some point in their life?! I'm just....wow. Like really, I'm almost speechless. But apparently not yet. Keep going, maybe you will get lucky and render me speechless.

I don't think full disclosure is necessary, just whatever is making the spouse sick. Not everything is important, just the important stuff (just stuff that is mattering through our actions and thoughts).

 

[chaz345]

Because apparently it is such a serious betrayal to find out that the person you married was touched inappropriately at some point in their life?! I'm just....wow. Like really, I'm almost speechless. But apparently not yet. Keep going, maybe you will get lucky and render me speechless.

No it's not about them being "unclean" because they were inappropriately touched. But many many CSA victims never come to a point of being able to have a normal healthy happy sex life. And that most definitely is something that the prospective spouse deserves to be aware of before the marriage.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

This is off topic but I think you aren't understanding it as Jesus said it.

No, you aren't understanding it as Jesus said it. I am giving you the cultural back drop to the story. There's a reason why Jesus was specific in saying said "if someone strikes you on the right cheek". The cultural things I stated are easily researched and confirmed.

One cannot interpret the Bible correctly without understanding the cultural backdrop of the time. If you don't take culture into account, you won't understand many things as they were intended to be understood.

 

[chaz345]

There's been so much back and forth on this pastor here that I think I'm going to have to buy one of his books so I can get a really up close idea of what he's like. Never heard of him until he was brought up here. Any ideas on which book would be good? Or maybe a DVD or CD would be better as it's easier for me to fit into my schedule than reading?

You can find podcasts of a lot of his sermons on itunes searching either Mars Hill Church or Mark Driscoll.

 

[Luther073082]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning everything he's said or written. I do have strong disagreements with Driscoll about some of his teaching, but I have first hand seen him speak about those things. In regard to his book and this oral sex thing that Luther has mentioned. I have seen zero evidence pointing to him actually saying that denying a husband oral sex is a sin. In fact, I have evidence to the opposite of that claim by Luther.

I just want a quote from Driscoll proving what people are saying.

She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.’” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help

» Mark Driscoll Slammed by Baptist Press over Sex Teaching Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

There's been so much back and forth on this pastor here that I think I'm going to have to buy one of his books so I can get a really up close idea of what he's like. Never heard of him until he was brought up here. Any ideas on which book would be good? Or maybe a DVD or CD would be better as it's easier for me to fit into my schedule than reading?

Here's a series on Song of Solomon sacerdote. It's free so it's a good place to start if you're interesting in looking into Driscolls teaching.

The Peasant Princess | Mars Hill Church

 

[JanniGirl]

Remember that Driscoll seems to think that Song of Solomon is about the woman performing sexually for the husband. It's not reciprical. She does for him and he gets to "receive" and then he is supposed to praise her -- because that's what she really needs. Praise. In his sexual universe the woman acts as a prostitute and the man is the john.

 

[Chaplain David]

No it's not about them being "unclean" because they were inappropriately touched. But many many CSA victims never come to a point of being able to have a normal healthy happy sex life. And that most definitely is something that the prospective spouse deserves to be aware of before the marriage.

I don't know if Rev. Driscol does this but I believe that for the reasons Chaz stated (and these aren't the only reasons) premarital counseling is super important. Most of us did not have that although my wife and I tried to have it when we were overseas. IMO it's super important to really get to know the other person prior to marriage. But, that is not always the way we do things and is not always possible. For example, a person may not be in a place mentally or emotionally to be able to disclose certain things. When someone is a victim it is never their fault but it does help both parties to know what stumbling blocks they will need to get support for and help in.

 

[Luther073082]

But in that culture, they would not slap you on the other cheek.

I remember how it went! Here it is:

Turning the other cheek was basically calling someone out. In their culture, hitting someone on the right cheek as per the verse meant someone hit you with an right back hand. Back handing someone was the way of hitting someone who was inferior to yourself (someone of lower status, a servant, a slave).

A person in that culture would never hit someone with an open fist because hitting someone with an open fist implied (and still implies to this day in the middle east) that you want to kill them, so it is bad and people will not do it; a person in that culture would also never hit someone with their left hand because the left hand was considered "unclean" and you wouldn't touch anyone with it; and a person in that culture who was trying to demean someone would never hit them with an open palm because that implied that they were equal.

So the only option to "properly" hit someone to demean them is with an open back of the right hand. So by turning the other cheek (which would be your left cheek), you were in effect by your actions saying to the person hitting you "the only option available to you if you continue to hit me is your acknowledgement that we are equals". Which doing something like that would immediately stop the blows from the culturally informed person doing the beating.

Source from someone who isn't a macho cultist and actually someone who's well informed on the culture at the time.

Because everything I've ever heard from the most well read and learned scholars on it all reaching back in the history of the church from 400 AD on til now, no one has held this opinion and all have held that "turn the other check" means what the church has traditionally taught on the topic.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

[/color]

» Mark Driscoll Slammed by Baptist Press over Sex Teaching Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

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.

 

[chaz345]

I don't know if Rev. Driscol does this but I believe that for the reasons Chaz stated (and these aren't the only reasons) premarital counseling is super important. Most of us did not have that although my wife and I tried to have it when we were overseas. IMO it's super important to really get to know the other person prior to marriage. But, that is not always the way we do things and is not always possible. For example, a person may not be in a place mentally or emotionally to be able to disclose certain things. When someone is a victim it is never their fault but it does help both parties to know what stumbling blocks they will need to get support for and help in.

If you are not in a place mentally or emotionally to be able to disclose at least the existance if not the gory details of something as significant and past sexual abuse, it would be my opinion that you are not in a place mentally or emotionally to be considering marriage. I'd say the same thing about someone with a past or present issue with lust/porn use too.

 

[JaneFW]

*dp

 

[JaneFW]

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:

According to Andrew, at Mars Hill, the cliche “it takes two to tango” isn’t true. Why? Because Pastor Mark teaches that women are “weaker vessels,” and therefore, when a girl and boy engage in consensual sexual activity, it is always assumed that it’s the man’s fault because he failed to lead the woman (or “weaker vessel”) toward righteousness.

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.

 

[JaneFW]

Way to make something that's all about your spouse all about you. Wow is all I can say to that egomania too.

Yes, and he DID make it about him. (Driscoll I mean) It was something done to him. I find that to be unspeakable selfishness and egoism. She was the one molested, but it was done to him? Wow.

 

[JaneFW]

[/color]

She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.’” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help
​

Eggs-actly.

A terrible sin? Was it the 11th commandment?

 

[BigDaddy4]

I can understand being frustrated when a spouse refuses to seek help with a serious problem; but anger at a lack of premarital disclosure is OTT IMO. What would you have done, dumped her instead of marrying her? It's not leprosy!!!

I would have postponed our marriage or at least insist on counseling for that particular issue. Being a victim of abuse does not mean you have to live as a victim, with a victim mentality. One can overcome such things if they CHOOSE to. My wife has chosen not to, at least at this point. Before her disclosure, there were years of sexual manipulation and refusal on her part.

From your last post, it seems like you knew about your husbands CSA prior to marriage. If that is true, you had the option to go through with it or not. You may have even been given advice on how to deal with it together. So far, I do not get that.