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

Below is Part II in answering the question toward Mark Driscoll's latest book, Real Marriage, is he fudging in some of his footnotes? We concluded in Part I he most probably botched his source on Solomon's Song (2:3) from a 1977 book by Joseph C. Dillow. I offered no less than a baker's dozen resources which suggests the quote was, shall we say, half-done. Let's consider Driscoll's quotation from an evangelical scholar >>>

Unlike the first quotation where it appears Driscoll left significant words out of a quotation, it seems conclusive that with Tremper Longman's commentary on The Song of Songs, Driscoll apparently added some spice of his own, consequently making Longman say what Driscoll had a priori concluded. The verse in question is Solomon's Song 7:2:

Your navel is a rounded goblet;
      It lacks no blended beverage.
      Your waist is a heap of wheat
      Set about with lilies (NKJV)

On this verse, Driscoll claims to quote Tremper Longman III to substantiate his personal view on o___ s__ (though he does not mention Longman's name):

Additionally, commenting on Song of Songs 7:2, a noted Old Testament scholar said, "this may be a subtle and tasteful allusion to the intimacies of o___ sex."³³ (footnote original, p.186, XXX)

The problem is, this isn't what the noted Old Testament scholar actually wrote. Note the picture below of Longman's commentary on The Song of Songs which Driscoll references above as page 195. I underlined in red the statement in the actual commentary:

What Longman writes as "tasteful allusions to the intimacies of sex" Driscoll puts as a direct quote, "tasteful allusions to the intimacies of o___ sex," adding "oral" to the direct quote from Longman.  Longman neither states nor implies Driscoll's version of his direct quote. Nor is there apparently anything else in Longman's commentary which overtly suggests what Driscoll insists. In fact, as one theologian said when I showed him the discrepancy between Driscoll's wording and Longman's commentary:

You would have to read into Longman's text. I just went through this commentary and don't remember him becoming salacious. Driscoll is turning Longman's "subtle and tasteful" into something provocative.

Hence, a second footnote exists which most probably Mark Driscoll fudged, consequently making it appear mainstream evangelicals--in this case, a "noted Old Testament scholar"--substantiate his understanding of Solomon's Song¹.

So far as I am concerned, when an author not only leaves key phrases out of a direct quote which definitively make a difference to the reader's understanding of the quote, but also adds words not found in the original source--words which explicitly make the quote illegitimately advantageous to the person's argument or perhaps words which disingenuously make the person's argument--I possess little, if any, respect for the work; for the simple truth is, since I have no trust in his or her research practices after discovering such significant faux pas, how could I reasonably count as reliable what he or she is suggesting?

And, sadly, especially for Driscoll's church and his global following, they will rarely, if ever, check his footnotes because they possess an implicit trust in his work.

With that, I am...

Peter

¹According to a quick eye count, Driscoll has approximately 227 end-notes for his 10 chapters, with 67 for the chapter under consideration here. Are all those "fudged" as well. Undoubtedly not. The point is not to argue from two botched footnotes the unreasonable conclusion that all 227 footnotes are fudged. Rather, given the seriousness of the errors Driscoll makes in documenting authority on two substantial texts of Scripture in his argument for unorthodox sexual practices being both moral and biblical, a reasonable shadow is cast over the helpfulness this volume could be to the evangelical community in offering a well-thought out, well-documented understanding of the biblical view of marriage, especially at it relates to problem areas within the marriage relationship

Comments

[lmalone]

Peter, you are doing a yeoman's work here that those who have promoted Driscoll for many years should have done.

I have come across several blogs where the same is being done to Driscoll and more and more is coming out. One is a former member of Mars Hill who sat through many a sex sermon and Q&A. Now with this book and the timeline, the former member sees that Driscoll was being hypocritical. I think he was probably preaching to his wife. Seems for most of the time Driscoll was hammering on this topic there was serious dysfunction in his marriage.

More and more this looks like a desparate man, a bully and is willing to use preaching for personal gain in several areas of his life. And we wondered why sex was so very important to him.

But even worse is that he has preached all along that women are easily deceived and should stay home but now with all the backlash to his book, Grace is all of a sudden a media communications expert. See here: http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/

Some interesting blogs:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/ (former member very fair to Mark on doctrinal issues)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/03/what-bible-really-says-about-sex/ (Driscoll article on Fox about sex)

http://driscontinuity.tumblr.com/post/15231214839/cant-find-a-quote-make-one-up (This guys does fact checking on Driscoll's words)

[peter lumpkins]

Imalone

Thanks for the kudos. It's time to get real concerning some of the peripheral issues celebrity pastors have attempted to impose upon traditional Christianity.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Scott]

Peter,
There seems to be a real disconnect between what you are doing in this series of articles and what gets discussed in the comment sections. You are working through the argument of a book and analyzing it. That should happen with all writings like this. What I see happening in the comments are nothing less than character assassination and the assigning of motives to Driscoll that may or may not be there.
I'm also sensing from several comments here that Driscoll should not have been talking about marriage while his was difficult. If we only allow pastors to preach who completely have their act together, how many preachers will we have left?

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

Thanks. There's always going to be a disjointedness concerning a post and the thread. So, I don't know what you're wanting to state actually. I've addressed some who've focused exclusively on the thread and not so much as breathed a faint syllable about the post.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Scott,

There may be a question as to whether Driscoll should have stepped down from leadership during the troubled times of his marriage. Maybe there's a questio of hypocrisy if he was teaching on marriage as an expert who thought he had it all figured out at the time. I don't see anyone saying that only people with perfect marriages (which don't exist) should give marriage advice. The questions are about the type of advice and how the advice is being given.

As far as character assassignation and assigning motives. This is always brought up. What are we supposed to do - read and listen to idiocy and then not say a word because someone's going to come along and say "that's not nice." The man chooses to be in the public eye. His wife has chosen to put herself in the public eye. His words and his actions are going to be examined and critqued. He's supposed to be a manly man. Manly men don't pitch temper tantrums and whine when someone says "you know you shouldn't be acting that way and talking that way. It just shows you as a first class jerk."

[lmalone]

Scott, I am trying to figure out something. Driscoll has made sex and gender roles a huge focus of his ministry. Manly men. Deceieved women and sex. He has websites on Q&A that cannot even be linked from many Christian blogs because they are so explicit. I have been following him since he was the cussing pastor in Blue Like Jazz.

Now, we find out, that whole time he is preaching this...his FOCUS....telling people what to do in marriage and promoting sodomy.... his marriage was dysfunctional and he was angry about it. Scott, he put his life out there for us to analyze. Yet, you are offended when we do. Some people are very keen to compartmentalize Driscoll. And I certainly understand that if I had been promoting him for years. But, in fact, this book is the only logical outcome to the Driscoll I have followed for years. It was not shock to me at all. I know a selfish bully when I see one. His very words and deeds over the years were proof enough. But so many decided not to look a little closer at why such things were his focus. I see things. Remember? And now he tells the world he "saw" his wife having sex before marriage. Did you really need to know that? Is it sin for me to mention it now?

[Robert Vaughn]

Fortunately for us, Driscoll did include footnotes so the references could be double-checked. Sadly, as you mention, few will ever check his footnotes. I've had some experience with writing and publishing, though I am by no means an expert. I realize mistakes are made which are never caught in the editing process. These could be mistakes, but interestingly both mistakes are in Driscoll's favor and help underscore what he is saying and skew the original. The first you mention might be more likely a mistake than the secon, in accidentally leaving out something. It seems rather unlikely that the key word "oral" was accidentally inserted.

The bigger picture to me is that with the portion of the book available, and the extent of other quotes available from you and others online, the book is obviously biased and unbiblical. Even if all the footnotes were kosher and without deliberate or accidental error, the book doesn't present a valid biblical view of marriage. Don't buy it and don't recommend it to others is the clear option.