Real Marriage: Mark Driscoll's absence of moral reasoning by Peter Lumpkins

Over the past few days, I've been considering Mark and Grace Driscoll's latest book, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Earlier I noted some curious endorsements of this monograph including Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Danny Akin. Of interest is Akin's own contributions to the biblical theme of human sexuality including his book, God on Sex: The Creator's Ideas about Love, Intimacy, and Marriage, a popular but reliable look into human sexuality from a decidedly biblical perspective--particularly sexuality as expressed in the context of holy matrimony  >>>

Also of interest is Dr. Akin's presently featured message on his site: "Biblical Marriage In A Broken World: A Biblical and Practical Theology of a Redeemed Relationship," a manuscript of which Akin kindly offers as a free download. In neither his paper nor his book is Dr. Akin provocative, crude, or tasteless. And, while he is forthright and candid at times, Dr. Akin's book is a book which could be recommended without qualification.¹  And, so could his paper, which, from my perspective, makes his endorsement of Driscoll's new work all the more confusing, not to mention, as Mary England, a longtime Southern Baptist woman, wrote; that is, dragging his spouse into endorsing a book which encourages sexual hedonism (if you are not up to more explicit innuendo, do not click on the following link with Driscoll's provocative words, words which seminary presidents and theologians, embarrassingly along with their wives endorse: XXX).

That aside, let's move on to one of two more preliminary pieces I think need adequate exposure before offering a more general review of Driscoll's Real Marriage, the first of which deals with Driscoll's moral reasoning he employed to validate his position on more controversial expressions of sexuality. The following will be fairly candid so reader beware.

On pages 185-189, Driscoll offers answers to his chapter title-question, "Can we _____?" by filling in the blank with two provocative subjects--"o___ sex" (pp.185-187) and "a___ sex" (pp.187-189)--concluding what he deems as moral and biblical answers to the questions.

Concerning the latter first, Driscoll's full statement can be found at the following link--XXX. In the section (pp.187-189), not a single biblical text could Driscoll propose which validated his unqualified claim. While insisting the homosexual actions of the Sodomites (Genesis 19; cp. Judges 19) concerned prohibiting sexual activity between same-sex unmarried partners, Driscoll claimed without qualification "Scripture does not forbid it [i.e. a___ sex]." As I posted elsewhere, to simplistically conclude because Scripture does not explicitly forbid an action does not necessarily reduce to moral justification for an action:

In short, Driscoll affirms a___ s___ between husband and wife as both morally ("legally") and "biblically" permissible. And, the moral justification Driscoll cites for the ethical injunction? Simply put, Scripture does not forbid it. The underlying assumption is, if Scripture does not explicitly forbid an act, then the act is morally justifiable, hardly an assumption evangelical ethicists would embrace without highly nuanced analytic qualification. The reason is simple. Consider: since Scripture does not forbid partaking of marijuana, smoking pot is morally justifiable. Again, Scripture does not forbid torturing puppies. Hence, torturing puppies is morally justifiable. This could go on endlessly with specific things the Scripture does not actually forbid but which are nonetheless prima facie highly questionable moral acts.

Given Driscoll's moral reasoning for a___ s__--that is, Driscoll asserts a___ s__ is morally and biblically justifiable between husband and wife as Scripture does not forbid it--could we also conclude sexual watersport is morally and biblically justifiable between husband and wife as Scripture does not forbid it either?

Given what I've read thus far, Mark and Grace Driscoll's Real Marriage deserves no spot on a recommended reading list. Why academics like Akin and Grudem endorse this volume makes little biblical-ethical sense. And so far as I am concerned, since they both are well-known academics, they both ought to publicly explain their high-watermark praise for Driscoll's book.

With that, I am...

Peter

Next up: "Is Mark Driscoll fudging in the Footnotes?"

 

¹from my personal examination of Akin's volume, a single footnote remains the sum total of all which could be singled out in the entire volume as containing risque language. Of his commentary on Song of Solomon 2:3, Akin includes a footnote acknowledging what some apparently believe about this text: "Some students of Scripture believe these verses are a reference to oral sexual pleasure and activity" Akin, D. (2003). God on sex: The Creator's ideas about love, intimacy, and marriage. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Even so, Akin never suggests this type of sexual expression is biblical, beneficial, or helpful. Instead, he makes a simple factual statement about what "Some students of Scripture believe"

Comments

[Scott]

"The bottom line is: Albert Mohler and Danny Akin helped put Mark Driscoll on the map."

I don't know that there is one piece of factual evidence to back up this assertion. Akin has had Mark at SEBTS 2 times that I know of and he has preached at 1 A29 Boot Camp. By the time these things happened, Mark was pretty well known.

As for Mohler, he has not spoken much about Driscoll. When he did, he echoed MacArthur's appreciations and concerns.

[Mary]

"The bottom line is: Albert Mohler and Danny Akin helped put Mark Driscoll on the map."

Absolutely! And they seem to be willing to stick with him no matter what. Thus my allegation that Calvinists (ok Eric, many of the Calvinists within the SBC including seminary Presidents) will defend this man no matter what.

For years people have known CJ Mahaney and SGM were at the very least cultic in their practices. 800 pages of evidence is posted publically, CJ repents and takes a season off. Well, since his friends Mohler and Mark Dever are willing to stick up for him and tell people to ignore anything they see that might point to CJ's and SGM's isssues, CJ has recanted his repentance. These men have put their influence and weight behind CJ even though evidence shows he should be in no position of authority anywhere. WHY?

Driscoll has been off the charts with his bad behavior for years and yet we get mealy-mouthed "I don't agree with everything he says, but he preaches the Gospel so the bad stuff is ok." Which is the same type of reasoning that if we only put the Gospel in a Porn Flick that will make it ok. What he says about the visions alone should disqualify him for anything to do with anything. GOD IS NOT NOW NOR EVER GIVING ANYBODY VISIONS OF A PORNOGRAPHIC NATURE. That should outrage Christians that a man of Driscoll's stature is going around telling people that he receives visions from God of a pornographic nature. Instead when the discussion is addressed your attacked for not respecting Christians who are continuest(SP) which has nothing to do with the criticism against Driscoll. Divert and attack when you can't defend the indefensible.

It's insane and shows the deep fault lines within the SBC. No matter what, the leaders are going to proceed with their agenda which includes keeping the YRR appeased and they appease them by not saying boo against YRR idols such as Mahaney and Driscoll.

Catherine, God bless you and your too.

[peter lumpkins]

Catherine,

It's confusing why more SBC leaders do not see what seems so easily visible concerning Driscoll's methodology and, in some cases, his theology as well. Thank you for the encouragement.

Grace, Catherine
With that, I am...
Peter

[Catherine]

Max, in 2009, conservative, Christian women did hit the Christian airwaves calling on The Gospel Coalition to please remove Mark Driscoll from their upcoming conference speaking list. At the time, there was more than enough evidence to call into question his qualifications to speak.

Wouldn't one think that a pastor linking to Christian Nymphos and getting caught delivering his vile, disgusting Scotland sermon would have raised some serious eyebrows at The Gospel Coalition?

Unfortunately, these Christian women discovered they had absolutely no impact on making a difference among this particularly crowd of men. They seem mesmerized by this cool, hip guy from Seattle, who could draw a crowd.

The bottom line is: Albert Mohler and Danny Akin helped put Mark Driscoll on the map.

Sorry to say,....but if they wont even listen to the concerns of Pastor John MacArthur, for sure they aren't going to be too impressed with a movement led by women.

God bless you Mary!

[Mary]

Max, unfortunately it seems like the powers that be are only listening to the YRR crowd. We've learned nothing new about Driscoll. It's the same ol' same, packeged now so the Driscoll's can make some money.

I'm afraid the only thing that's going to get anybody's attention is if churches start speaking with their money.

[Max]

After reading several comments from women on various blogs dealing with this topic, I predict that their combined voices will have a significant impact on future writings of this sort. Personal observations of the treatment of women in YRR churches in my area is already pushing Biblical limits. Driscoll's book may very well push them over the edge.

Something sooner or later will cause an implosion in the YRR ranks. May it be a longing for a purer talk and purer walk ... and may that movement be led by women with a heart for Christ-likeness, rather than men desiring Driscoll-likeness.

[Catherine]

Peter,

FYI~ Below are the comments from Dr. Judith Reisman, author of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, after viewing Mark Driscoll's comments on an*l sex, sex toys and his links to kinky sex sites. (ChristianNyphos etc.) She is a respected conservative and expert witness, who addresses the dangers of pornography. Her credentials are too many to list.

"Well, this is, at best, tragic. I don't know if it is worse to think that these are phony church sites put out by pornographers or that they are real church sites put out by pornified churches. Words cannot describe the ignorance, arrogance and flagrant homoeroticism of these sites...."

Those who are defending Driscoll call into question their own heart. They obviously lack the wisdom and discernment to lead during this difficult time. It appears that at the end of the day, these men were not up for the challenge of our day. It is telling and very disappointing.

Thank you for taking a leadership role in preserving the purity of the bride of Christ. I pray other men of God will publicly join you.

[Chris Gilliam]

In this new age of unlimited and uncensored information, it is so very sad that this stuff, which could be delicately and tactfully handled by a wise pastor and the people committed to his care, has to be explained and exposed in the broad of day. Even more so, I know of many people in former soviet block countries who would not have even thought such things that are now exposed and scared in their mental faculties with such. SAD so SAD. Peter, thanks for the courage to expose this faulty logic and defunct moral reasoning. I just wish this did not have to be so public.

There are some things people really don't need to know. The answers to the questions that Driscoll poses should have been, "take that to your pastor, christian counselor and to the scriptures and ask God to reveal to you the truth."

We don't need all these experts, we need people wo will read the scriptures, seek the Lord and live in their own community as Christ in their culture.

[Robert Vaughn]

Driscoll's supposition that we can do something simply because the Bible does not forbid it is an example of problematic theology that is running rampant among God's people. Many things are forbidden in principle, or because a positive injunction enjoins us to something else. According to Burk's review, the Driscolls also drag a misapplication of I Cor. 6:12 into the fray. ("All things are lawful unto me")

Not only is there a problem with the moral reasoning in the approach to these questions, the book (apparently) fails to reckon with the possibility that the Bible does directly teach against it. For example, some Bible-believers feel Romans 1:26 addresses this issue:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (KJV)
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (ESV)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. (NIV)

Probably the majority of expositors thinks this refers to female homosexual acts. But before dispensing such intimate advice with such marriage-altering consequences, this objection at least should be dealt with. (I haven't read the book. I'm assuming he didn't bases on what I've read from others. If I'm wrong on this being addressed, please correct me.)

[lmalone]

This is an excellent analysis. Sounds like postmoderism with a reformed fish slapped on it. I think more people would figure it out if it were not Driscoll saying it. He does not shock his followers anymore. He seems to get a pass because he also says some right things. I am wondering when folks will realize the poison overrides the other.