Real Marriage: Is Mark Driscoll fudging in the footnotes? (Part I) by Peter Lumpkins

Earlier, I mentioned two preliminaries concerning Driscoll's newest book, Real Marriage, preliminaries which I felt needed initial attention before I posted a general review of Driscoll's book. The first one dealt with Driscoll's obvious absence of adequately thinking through moral issues within the marital relationship. Contrarily, many suggest Driscoll is a model preacher, clearly presenting the gospel to the lost (one Driscoll supporter offers an honest appraisal, recording both "pros" and "cons" he feels Driscoll brings to the table, with the "pros," however, winning out over the "cons"). I would only add that however great Driscoll is in presenting the gospel, he woefully lacks, from what I've read, in giving consistently sound biblical counsel toward couples who desire a healthy marriage (a.k.a. Real Marriage)  >>>

Let's proceed on to preliminary number two (part I): the probability of Driscoll fudging some of his footnotes¹. On page 186 in Real Marriage, Driscoll is explaining his answer to the question about o___ s__, "Is it legal?". He'd already given the short answer--"O___ s__ is lawful both culturally and biblically" (p.185, XXX²). Thus, Driscoll proceeds to demonstrate this from The Song of Solomon despite Solomon's Song being "three thousand years old and written in a highly conservative Eastern religious culture." For Driscoll, Solomon definitively "speaks of o___ s__ in a positive and poetic fashion." He then offers commentary on two specific texts from the Song to make his case.

First, chapter two, verse three³:
      As an apple tree among the trees of the forest,
      so is my beloved among the young men.
                  With great delight I sat in his shadow,
      and his fruit was sweet to my taste (ESV)

For Driscoll, there is no romantic mystery or unspoken but imaginative passion in Solomon's poetic line. Instead Driscoll is dead sure the Shulamite, with great delight, "performs 0___ s__ (f____) on her husband" as she speaks the words above (XXX). What is Driscoll's proof for his interpretation of this line of the Spirit's inspired romantic rhetoric? Apart from his sex-soaked, erotically-inundated Western mind⁴, Driscoll offers the comments of a single "Bible commentator":

One Bible commentator said of this text, "'Fruit' is sometimes equated with the m___ g________ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ caress."³⁰

So, in Driscoll's mind apparently, it's completely settled: Solomon's Song (2:3) demonstrates the biblical, moral justification of o___ s___.  Apart from the paper-thin evidential approach Driscoll seemingly accepts,⁵ the quote Driscoll employs deserves a deeper look. In the end-notes, Driscoll indicates he's quoting from Joseph C. Dillow's book entitled, Solomon on Sex (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977, p.27). Unfortunately, the book is now out-of-print; however, that it not to say the quote above is out-of-print. In fact, the internet appears saturated with the same quote Driscoll uses to prove his interpretation of Solomon's Song (2:3).

As a sampling, consider the websites below (these sites are not "porn" sites but sites which have general resources on marriage issues. Be warned, however. These sites do not employ my clumsy "blanks" attempting  a measure of modesty and tastefulness)⁶:

• Kitty's Corner: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"
• Epoch Book Ministries: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"
• Ghana's Online Wedding Album: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"
• babycenter.com: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"
• growthtrac: build a better marriage: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"
• Golden Wives Club: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"
• Marriage Missions International: "In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an o___ g_____ caress"

Added to the partial list of websites above, the quote Driscoll employs is also found in at least four other resources on marriage counseling:  

• A Wife's Invitation to Intimacy by Vickie Sloderbeck (p.198)
• Passionate Partnership: Leader's Guide also by Sloderbeck (p.219)⁷
• Intimate Issues: Conversations Woman to Woman by Linda Dillow and Lorraine Pintus (p.200)⁸
• Sexual Intimacy in Marriage by William Cutrer and Sandra Glahn (pp.124-125)⁹

So what is the problem with Driscoll? After all, didn't he appropriately give credit where credit was due? Indeed he did. Unlike many of the sources listed above, Driscoll appropriately cited where he got his information.

Understand, however: the problem is not where Driscoll got the info but the info itself.

If one will compare Driscoll's version of Dillow's commentary on Solomon's Song 2:3 with the other versions listed above, invariably, one will see a major difference. While every other quotation of Dillow has the qualifying phrase, "In extra biblical literature" before the statement, "fruit is sometimes equated with the m___ g______ or with s____ ..." Driscoll drops the qualifying phrase out.¹⁰

For my part, this is entirely inexcusable because Driscoll is telling his readers what the biblical text meant not what extra-biblical definitions may imply about or affect our understanding of the biblical text. In fact, on the very next page in his book, Driscoll rejected extra-biblical definitions of sodomy because the definitions were not based in the biblical text!

The simple point is this: Driscoll appears entirely disingenuous by leaving out a key phrase in a direct quote. And, I have no hesitation in suggesting the quotation from Dillow is entirely skewed.¹¹

With that, I am...

Peter

Part II of "Is Mark Driscoll fudging in the footnotes?" follows

¹obviously I do not know how deeply the problem exists in the entire volume. It would take more time than I'm prepared to offer to check out all Driscoll's citations. It nonetheless remains severely disturbing that I personally found enough mishandling to conclude I wouldn't trust Driscoll's footnotes without reading his sources myself. It saddens me to confess that, but the truth is, if Driscoll's sermons are no more well documented than the citations I checked, Driscoll's supporters will one day face an ugly illusion

²if one wants to read Driscoll's statements without the annoying "blanks," I have a page with the full quotes. Hence, the "XXX" refers the reader to the page (XXX)

³Driscoll apparently used The New King James Version

⁴this is not a criticism of Driscoll per se but of Western culture and hence a criticism of us all 

⁵usually most cases for a particular interpretation of biblical texts offer several lines of evidence, especially when suggesting a non-traditional interpretation of the text

⁶what does remain unacceptable about the sites is, some of the sites didn't even give credit to the original author of the quote but posted the entire piece as if it were theirs

⁷for the record, Slouderbeck gave appropriate credit to the sources in both volumes

⁸presumably, Linda Dillow is related (spouse?) to author, Joseph C. Dillow whom Driscoll quoted

⁹the quote is from the third edition of this book (2007) by these popular authors, the Foreword written by celebrity pastor, Tony Evans. Strangely not to mention disturbingly, the authors apparently give no credit to Dillow for this virtually direct quote from his 1977 book, Solomon on Sex

¹⁰Driscoll even begins the sentence with "fruit" capitalized--"Fruit"--perhaps indicative that the qualifying phrase, "In extra-biblical literature," was not a part of the original. See footnote below for probable evidence that Driscoll was not quoting an unrevised version even though we must, at least, leave the bare possibility open 

¹¹this does not imply that Dillow did not embrace extra-biblical materials affecting our understanding of the biblical text. Perhaps he did. But according to the numerous renditions above, Dillow didn't actually say that in the quote Driscoll cited. Nor is it persuasive to suggest the possibility that while all the others quoted the updated version (1979), Driscoll quoted the original version (1977). First, even if this were so, what kind of researcher quotes an outdated version when a revised version was presumably available? At minimum, this should have been noted if the original version was being quoted. Second, it's unlikely the original version did not posses the phrase "In extra-biblical literature" for two reasons. First, Linda Dillow (Joesph Dillow's wife?) quoted from Solomon on Sex in her book (p.267). If Mrs. Dillow is Joseph Dillow's wife, it's highly unlikely she'd have misquoted her husband. Second, and more significantly, one website has a chapter-by-chapter analysis of Dillow's Solomon on Sex, because, according to its author, Keith Hunt, "the true understanding of the Song of Songs by King Solomon. Further, and more important, in my view, it is GOD'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL on the subject of sex in marriage" (//link, caps original).  Hunt furthermore makes it clear that he is using Dillow's 1977 version, the version from which Driscoll quoted (//link).Hence, Hunt's quotation from Dillow is especially enlightening: "In extra-biblical literature, "fruit" is sometimes equated with the male genitals or with semen, so it is possible that here we have a faint and delicate reference to an oral genital caress" (//link).