SEBTS & Mark Driscoll: "Forget the Cussin'! Let's Talk Sex!" by Peter Lumpkins

This may be the final post I publish with hopes in making more people aware of some uncharted waters Southern Baptists are sailing as we drool over linking ourselves to the innovative ministries of controversial pastor, Mark Driscoll.

I'm quite sure I'll receive the standard "Why do you hate Driscoll so much?" replies, as well as the "Mark Driscoll does more for evangelism and church growth than all SBC pastors put together!" ones.  Not to mention, of course, the concerns I raise are but the musings of an "ill-informed" blogger who unfortunately doesn't know what he's talking about.  

Between the Times, a blog sponsored by SEBTS, published a joint statement this week, finding it necessary to defend their relationship with Driscoll.  In it, the authors asserted,

"One of the speakers, Mark Driscoll, has received significant criticism from some Southern Baptists in recent days. At first the criticism was limited to ill-informed bloggers, but yesterday Baptist Press entered the fray with an article titled “Driscoll’s Vulgarity Draws Media Attention.” We were very disappointed in the BP piece, which we believe was inaccurate in content harsh in tone..." (emphasis mine).

Founders Ministries followed in support (here). My own contribution to the discussion is here. 

Personally, I would like this thing to go away.  I take no joy in raising concerns about the wonderful institutions with which our Lord has graced us. Yet, when Between the Times insisted critics read Driscoll himself before making "ill-informed" judgments, I could not resist their plea. 

They wrote: 

"We suggest that those who have concerns about Mark’s ministry actually listen to his sermons and read his books. You may listen to Mark’s recent chapel sermon and two 20/20 addresses-and all of the other excellent 20/20 sessions-at Southeastern’s multimedia page."

I took their advice but I did not go to the multimedia page.  Instead I hopped over on Driscoll's site via the link Between the Times gave.  Some material on Driscoll's site is impressive.  Some is also profanely vulgar.

One of the popular criticisms leveled against Driscoll has been his alleged "cussing," which, supporters insist, Driscoll has long ago put behind him.  While I am unsure about such, let's, for the sake of argument, accept their defense.

Even so, without a moral blink, how Southern Baptists can partner with a ministry obviously obsessed with some of the most rabid, gutter-oriented understanding of sexuality evangelicals imagine I cannot fathom.  What, under the blue sky, was Between the Times thinking when they linked to a site that, more probable than not, could not be accessed from their own seminary browsers?  Driscoll's series on sexuality includes images so base and utterly vulgar that I'd bet a weekly Starbucks Southeastern's web security filters would block access to some of the pages!

It shames me to do this but Southern Baptists need to know. 

Indeed they must know.

On Driscoll's site is an entire series of sexually explicit posts in Q/A format.  Some of the questions are both appropriate and timely.  Issues like sexual boundaries between the unmarried, overcoming lust, intimacy apart from sex, etc.

Perhaps one could quibble about the most appropriate venue where either discussions or teaching times on subjects like these would best fit the context.  However, for questions like the above, even given the reservations on venue, there is surely a place to explore them in biblical sexuality. 

Thus, it is not sexuality teaching that is at issue here.  Instead, it is questioning exactly how far to take this "study."  The fact is, other explorations Driscoll pursued are in an entirely different category than the above.  Indeed, many of his topics are so morally repugnant that I refuse to link them on the main page of SBC Tomorrow.**

For Between the Times, then, to link to Driscoll's site--a site which is definitively X-rated...a site with pages which probably could not be opened on the campus browsers due to security filters--for Between the Times to do such, while pleading for others to dismiss criticism against him from the "ill-informed," and instead read Driscoll directly, must be among the most morally confusing decisions I've ever observed from an administrative standpoint.   

And, while I am writing this post, a Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary professor has issued a further defense of Mark Driscoll.  After giving a who's who in church history about whom he possesses both admiration and concern, here is what Professor of Evangelism, Alvin Reid, writes about Driscoll,

"I have a problem with Mark Driscoll. Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle and recent speaker on our campus, has seen possibly more hardcore unchurched young adults come to Christ in the last decade than any church in the US. He has led a church planting movement as well. But sometimes his language is a little edgy for my tastes, and I interpret the Bible differently than does he on the place of alcohol" /link

In addition, Professor Reid commendably underscores his own weaknesses, concluding he has a problem with himself.

Finally, Dr. Reid concludes, after singing the melodies of the Conservative Resurgence, with a lament, expressing his problem with the Southern Baptist Convention:

"But I have a problem with my convention, when we seem more intent on witch hunts than on contextualizing the gospel in our time, when we love to pick at each other’s differences than unite for the sake of the gospel...when we castigate younger men who love Jesus and His truth for simply doing what we taught them to do: study and honor the Word...I was a supporter of the conservative resurgence...But the resurgence I supported did not include a Pharisaical legalism that expects conformity in nonessentials...I am tired of talking good younger men off the ledge from leaving the SBC." (emphasis mine)

Though Dr. Reid does not explicitly say, presumably his problems concerning "witch hunts," "pick[ing] at differences," "castigat[ing] younger men," Pharisaical legalism," and "conformity in nonessentials" addresses, or, at minimum, is occasioned by, criticism toward the Driscoll liaison with SEBTS.  If so, we unhappily have a much greater issue before us as Southern Baptists than we have imagined thus far. 

I profoundly disagree with what can only be legitimately described as a white-washed description Professor Reid gives toward Driscoll's alleged potty mouth.  If there is truth to it, then pulpit use of the "F" word must solicit significantly more than merely language a "little edgy for my tastes."

Even more, if Dr. Reid and Between the Times remain entirely comfortable morally categorizing the sincere concerns some Southern Baptists express about the sexually absurd pastoral counsel offered by Driscoll on his site, as nothing less than a "witch hunt," led by men tragically embracing "Pharisaical legalism," who seek but to "pick at differences" over "nonessentials" by "castigating younger men" who are only "loving Jesus" and "following Scripture," then Professor Reid is correct about at least one thing: he nor I signed on to a Conservative Resurgence which promoted such an agenda. 

On the other hand, when our ethical lens is so morally scuffed, we can no longer rightly discern proper biblical categories...when we so badly blur distinctions, mistaking sincere conscience for unconscious antinomianism, excuse me if I confess--as a full-throttle supporter of the Conservative Resurgence all through the bloody eighties--and, confess just as boldly as did Dr. Reid:  Neither did I sign on to a Conservative Resurgence then, or will I sign on to a Great Commission Resurgence now, which would sell its moral soul for a bowl of nihilist pottage.

With that, I am...

Peter             

**If you must read for yourself, click the link below.  I forewarn you, sexual advice not lacking on many secularly-driven nihilist sites you will find--

XXXExplicit

Comments

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

I haven't worked all of this out in my mind, but some of the questions I have include:

1. Should academic institutions, even seminaries, only invite speakers who (and I struggle for the right description here) are "like-minded"? And, if they do, should the school disclose their concerns to the students in advance?

2. Does having Driscoll speak imply endorsement?

3. I think we should hold pastors/elders to a higher standard because scripture does.

4. Some of his defenders keep pointing out that his coarse language is old news and that he has repented; therefore, we should forgive him and get over it. In fact, I may have said something to that effect myself. However, see point #3, and if you look at some of his recent material, I'm not convinced he gets it yet. Apparently, he was on CNN last night. You can check it out HREF="http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/02/mark-driscoll-on-cnn.html">here. I don't think he gets it.

[scott shaffer]

Oops. I messed up the link. Click here to watch the video.

[Romans 1:26]

Sodomy! How is the promotion of sodomy and instruction as to how to engage in sodomy "relevant" to the Christian gospel?! This is morally repugnant!!!!! This is an outrage!!!!!!! This is not Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[scott shaffer]

Another thought on this:

I'd wager that if you went back through church history, you'd be hard pressed to find orthodox ministers of the gospel discussing sex in the same manner Driscoll does. Yet, the topic has always been relevant to mankind. So, are we to believe that MD is the first gospel minister to get it right?

[Jim Champion]

Well Peter, it probably comes as no surprise to you that we are going to disagree again.

A couple points - would you rather his church members - and now the general population of blog readers get their answers to these questions from playboy or cosmopolitan magazine (or pornographic web sites - and no I dont include Pastor Driscolls web site in that description) or from Pastor Driscoll with answers from a biblical perspective.

If Pastor Driscoll was advocating sex outside of marriage and would be as hot about this as anyone - but he is giving honest answers to honest questions to married people.

Number two, as the father of a teenage daughter (who is in a Christian school, and is very active in our church youth group), people need to be able to turn to the church for these answers. There is so much garbage out there, and there is no one immune. Some of the kids that I never expected to wind up with teen pregnancies did. I hope that Pastor Driscolls frank talk helps some parents talk with their kids.

I think that Pastor Driscoll recognizes that our society is so overwhelmed with sex in media - his answer is to take the problem head on. I for one am glad he did.

Jim

[Darby Livingston]

Some polls have as high as 50% of Christian PASTORS confessing looking at pornography. Porn is rampant in Christian circles. And any pastor who thinks otherwise is just not getting into their people's lives. It's sad that it has come to this, but it's true. Take a stroll through the average southern baptist youth group. They're hookup groups. Generalizations? I'm sure I'll be accused of it. "Not my church." "Not my youth group." "Where's your proof?" We should wake up and realize that Driscoll isn't doing anything but giving the proper context for what much of Christianity in America is already enthralled with, and most pastors, hiding behind a facade of prudishness, refuse to deal with.

[Dave Miller]

While I may not agree with everything he says on his sex-topics blog, I think it is a reasonable thing for a pastor to address these issues.

I think the main issue I would have is the fact that this is open and out there for everyone. He has warnings, but those do little to stop people who shouldn't be reading this.

Peter, are you upset THAT he addressed these issues directly, or at WHAT he said when he addressed them?

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

Thanks, brother. As for academic institutions only inviting speakers who are whole-heartedly agreeable to the institutions' doctrinal position, my own answer is that institutions should have a measure of liberty--within our trustee guidelines, of course--to invite guests whom they deem would intellectually stimulate the student body without sacrificing the moral, spiritual, or doctrinal health of the student body toward whom, under God, they have received stewardship. In other words, I am not principally opposed, in an academic setting, to guests being less than entirely "like us."

The derailing comes, however, if or when an institution (I am not implicating SEBTS necessarily;this is a general statement) somewhere in its soul begins to lose its once established "like us" identity and flirtatiously envisions a "like others" future. As I recall, such a description is applicable to pre-CR SBC academia.

Pertaining to having Driscoll speak necessarily implying endorsing Driscoll, the answer is yes and no. Nevertheless, the issue we face with SEBTS is, no question remains as to precisely where they stand. They have taken bold steps to assure no misunderstanding--Mark Driscoll should be supported and defended.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Romans 1:26,

As much as I agree with you, please do not comment again anonymously. Here, if we cannot link comments to real people, comments will not stand.

Email me with what I can determine a legitimate reason why you must remain anonymous, and I may oblige you. Nonetheless, as the bloghost, I still must know your identity. Sorry.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jim,

You assume far too much.

First, you set up a false dilemma--playboy or Driscoll.

Second, you assume that apparently the local church is entirely absent it showing any involvement in teaching biblical sexuality. I can assure you, that is a false assumption.

Third, you assume Driscoll gives valid biblical counsel. When you can show me where's there's biblical support to affirm sex toys and sodomy, we'll address this one, Jim.

Fourth, you assume the info Driscoll gives is to married couples. It is not. It is offered to all over 17. Even more tragically, it is available to anyone with an internet connection.

Fifth, you assume parents will want to talk frankly with their kids as a result of Driscoll's series. Would you talk frankly with your daughter about sex toys and sodomy, Jim? You don't have to answer: Neither would I.

Sixth, you assume Driscoll's material is qualitatively distinct from the garbage out there. That's an arguable assumption. More significantly, even granting for arguments sake Driscoll's advice is better, being better does not equate to being biblical. Again, is recommending that a husband pray about sodomizing his wife a biblical notion, Jim?

Seventh, you assume Driscoll sees sex-saturation and tackles it head-on. Just as easily one could arguably assume Driscoll sees sex-saturation and exploits it as church-growth methodology.

Like I said, Jim: you assume far too much for your view. A real test for you is this: think about your little girl and ask, would I want some dude treating her like Driscoll advocates?

I too am a dad, raising a son and two daughters. My little girls are all grown up now--both married, one being a mother of two.

Know this, Jim. If I knew either of my s-i-ls was sodomizing my girl, I can readily imagine myself inviting them over for dinner. Later, I can envision sending my sweet daughter shopping with her mother.

And, while they were away, I'd take a rubber mallet and beat the fool out of the no-good who defiled, degraded, and dehumanized my beautiful virgin daughter he received with our blessings many years ago.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

So many of your contributions, Dave, attempt--and many succeed, I might add--to walk the middle way. There is some virtue in such an approach, I have to admit. Know, however, Aristotle was the master of middle-way ethics, not Paul. There comes a time, as heart-breaking as it is, to shift to one side or the other. Biblical absolutism requires such.

Having said that, you write Driscoll's subjects--presumably those to which I linked--qualify as "a reasonable thing for a pastor to address..." O.K., Dave, here it is: I challenge you to get up Sunday morning and mention these "reasonable" things to your congregation. Talk about sex toys as one subject and follow up by encouraging the husbands to prayerfully consider sodomizing their wives for greater "intimacy." By the way, make sure you emphasize the disgusting details as does Driscoll.

Please know: I am not being sarcastic. I am dead serious. If Driscoll's subjects qualify as a "reasonable thing for a pastor to address..." then do it.

As for "being upset" either because of Driscoll's sex-talk or the content of Driscoll's sex-talk, I'd have to say both pose particular problems from my perspective. First, his biblical understanding of sexuality is shallow, at best, drawing more from culture than Scripture. Second, his sensationalistic announcement of all-things-sexual as the preferred venue for teaching "biblical" sexuality betrays, at least for me, respect for pastoral office.

Given the biblical profile for pastoral requirements in The Pastorals, were I apart of the ordaining church which commissioned Driscoll, I'd personally lead the church to defrock him--'lay hands on no man quickly...'

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Since I haven't a clue what your focus on the statistics cited have to do with the post here, I cannot comment.

However, I can comment on this: "We should wake up and realize that Driscoll isn't doing anything but giving the proper context for what much of Christianity in America is already enthralled with, and most pastors, hiding behind a facade of prudishness, refuse to deal with"

First, Darby, the "anything but" betrays an irrational assessment of what's been offered here. To reduce Driscoll's perverted opinions about sex toys, M______n, and sodomy to "proper context" qualifies as unmitigated nonsense.

Secondly, to blow smoke in "most" pastors' faces by suggesting they are "hiding behind a facade of prudishness, refuse to deal with" is argument without evidence. In addition, it's the old-bait-and-switch strategy--that is, get the attention off Driscoll and on the failings of an unidentified mass of other pastors.

My advice, Darby, is to stay on point.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Let it go.

One of the popular criticisms leveled against Driscoll has been his alleged "cussing," which, supporters insist, Driscoll has long ago put behind him. While I am unsure about such, let's, for the sake of argument, accept their defense.

I profoundly disagree with what can only be legitimately described as a white-washed description Professor Reid gives toward Driscoll's alleged potty mouth. If there is truth to it, then pulpit use of the "F" word must solicit significantly more than merely language a "little edgy for my tastes."

This has gone beyond arguable and is just sad. Peter, with Calvinism you simply misrepresent people and speak without (apparently) understanding. With Driscoll though you show a whole different level of vileness. You have tossed charity out the window and joined with the fear-mongering, hate-driven separatist wing of the SBC in your rhetoric.

You don't get it. Pride is puffing you up to not see what Reid means by "a Pharisaical legalism that expects conformity in nonessentials." This is the same message Matt Chandler was hammering at FBC Jax by asking those who fought so hard in the battle for inerrancy to stop fighting over issues that are secondary in nature to the gospel. Quit picking fights over gossip and personal, extra-biblical opinion. When I first started coming here I disagreed with what I saw as your comical understanding and representation of Calvinism. Now I am just saddened by how far you have let the ugliness of your feelings towards another brother take you down. Please consider what I am saying before ripping me over how this is just my opinion and that no one else sees such a problem here.

I'm not perfect either, but I charge you, if you really care about reaching people, to stop trying to slander someone who is doing God's work faithfully in a place and time where not many other people are. Your messages have gone from attempts to inform to attempts at driving a wedge of hate between people. Enough is enough.

[Chris Poe]

Todd,

This Calvinist couldn't disagree more. Peter has not engaged in any misrepresentation of Driscoll in these posts. I find it ironic that Calvinists of all people make excuses for someone simply because he gets visible results and seems to have most of his doctrinal ducks in a row.

The last time I looked, the pastoral ministry entails more than simply getting visible results and preaching what is for the most part sound doctrine. But maybe your Bible reads differently than mine.

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

Is it just me, or does it seem like most of MD's defenders are the young Calvinists? (This is coming from a long time classical five pointer, so I no longer fit into the "young" category.) So, is he getting a free pass by Calvinists because he is a Calvinist, and especially by the younger set because they identify more closely with him? Just wondering.

[Bob Willits]

What I find most upsetting about all of this is that you clearly go to Driscoll's website with a personal agenda that is abnormal and unhealthy, and says a lot as to where you are in your life.

Go to Mars hill's sermon content section and you will find dozens of topics and hundreds of sermons. The book of Ruth, 1 Peter, Jesus Life, Nehemiah, The Book of Titus, and on and on...

You could be downloading sermons and listening for years and never even get to the one series that offends you. You intentionally look for something titillating and you found it. Good for you. That speaks volumes on your secret life. The rest of us download hundreds of hours of good teaching and appreciate what MD has to say. What you found and linked to is something you had to go out of your way to unearth.

Listen to the 30+ hours on Nehemiah and write a report on that next. What you are doing is akin to reading Song of Solomon and reporting that all the Bible talks about is sex. There are 65 other books to read but you hone in on the juicy stuff.

[Darby Livingston]

Bob,

It is the nature of fundamentalism to find the vice in a sea of virtue, and then build a characterization of a person based on the vice. There's simply no time to write a report on anything positive because there's so much negative to fight against. I suppose that's why the church I was baptized in had the "fighting fundamentalist" as they're school mascot. I've seen it my entire Christian life. And of course, anyone who calls a fundamentalist on this peculiar trait is considered carnal and worldly.

[selahV]

Peter...as a woman, I find Driscoll's suggestions to husbands to sodomize their wives to be thoroughly repugnant and not productive in creating anything but perversion in a relationship. This whole thing is turning my stomach.

I wouldn't listen to anything this man has to say relating to biblical instruction anymore than I would Haggard, so there is no need to go to his sermons at Mars Hill, in my very biased opinion. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Todd,

O.K. Have it your way. The problem is not Driscoll's encouragement to prayerfully consider sodomizing one's wife. Instead, it's:

--my misrepresenting Driscoll
--my lack of understanding
--my vileness
--my lack of charity
--my liaison with fear-mongering, hate-driven separatists
--my rhetoric
--my not getting it
--my pride puffing me up
--my picking fights over gossip and personal, extra-biblical opinion
--my comical understanding of Calvinism.
--my ugliness of feelings towards another brother
--my not really caring about reaching people
--my slandering someone who is doing God's work faithfully
--my driving a wedge of hate between people

Does that just about cover everything in your very thought-filled contribution to this discussion, Todd? If I left anything out, just let me know.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

I think there may be some truth to what you suggest. Note, however, Chris Poe's response to Todd's enlightening contribution.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

All,
Listen to Chandler and Reid again. This is not a Calvinist v. Non-Calvinist divide here, it's a young v. old. The problem is, the young are winning, but the old still hold the keys to influence in the denomination, so all of the bright young faces are getting frustrated and driven away. We can make all the excuses that we want about soteriology, comprimising, blah blah, and yes, not all young people agree with Mark's side, not all old people are against it, but by and large this a generational divide and what you are now seeing is young people saying, "I don't need this fighting about stuff that's non-essential to spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ," and then packing their bags and heading to another denomination or church planting network. Hence Dr. Reid's comment that he is "tired of talking good younger men off the ledge from leaving the SBC."

This has been a good thing, the SBC has had a blessing from God over it for many years, but now the old guard is letting their extra-biblical infatuations kill it. Please see this before it's too late.

[peter lumpkins]

Bob,

You're exactly right. Dricsoll taught that stuff way back in December, 2008, a whole 2+ months ago. How careless of me. And, what a huge waste of my time surfing so long--and so deep into his ministry!--to get such insignificant fodder.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Unfortunately, the comments you make here engage nothing in this post. Please do not fill this thread with broad-brushes about nothing. Thanks.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Read the note I left Darby. It also applies to you. I desire not this thread clogged with unprovable accusations--his about fundamentalism and yours about vague generational gaps.

And, for the record, unless you can demonstrate how sodomy is an "extra-biblical infatuation" I suggest you drop the point.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

SelahV,

My deepest apologies to you and every woman reader of this post. For me, I took no pleasure in openly speaking about such mundane matters.

I honestly believe mainstream Southern Baptists, upon learning about Driscoll's radical, culturally-driven hermeneutic, which pulls from the immediate cultural context, models for proclaiming Scripture, rather than focusing on Scripture's own model, will sigh in utter disbelief--especially when they connect the dots to precisely what such a hermeneutic produces: in this case, a sexuality not unlike those produced by atheistic hedonism (the ethical philosophy which embraces pleasure as its highest value).

Grace, SelahV. With that, I am...

Peter

[Bob Willits]

To me the time table is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was 2 weeks ago, 2 months ago or 2 years ago. The fact is, it represents a minuscule portion of a very large, broad base of teaching yet is seems that it is the only part you are willing to focus on. I don't understand why.

Have you ever reported on any other of his hundreds of sermons on other topics? if not - why not? When he went through I Corinthians, did you do a feature on that? How about his incredible series on Nehemiah or on Ruth? What other Driscoll series have you done a critique of?

A first time visitor to MHC is going to presented with a boatload of sermon content to download and unless they go there looking for sex, they aren't going to naturally end up where you did. His church is full of young single people and he tackled a difficult topic that needs to be tackled occasionally. He's not preaching to seminary kids or kids who grew up in church and christian school.

He begs his people to be pure sexually, faithfully in their marriage, and abstinent until marriage. He takes heat for that and then from the other side he takes heat from Christians who don't like his marriage bedroom advice. It's a lose-lose for him.

[Dan]

Peter,

The language in the pulpit issue is dead. It is repented of and covered by the blood of the Lamb. To rehash it without citing any sermon in which he uses a foul word subsequent to his confession is, well, sin.

Driscoll addresses some bedroom issues that are not directly addressed by the Scripture but are questions people in our culture are asking. For example, sodomy is always condemned in the Scripture in the context of homosexual relationships. To say Southeastern is endorsing everything Driscoll does seems, to me, to misrepresent the responses that I have read and the scholarship attributable to their faculty, e.g. Dr. Akin's very solid teaching on the subject in God on Sex. At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their wives and their wives only. Wives are to do the same.

Anyhow, sounds like we would share many agreements on the text of Scripture, the exculsivity of salvation in Christ, and many other matters. Just relax for a moment, and resist the urge to make a blog or a response say more than it says. While I did not visit Driscoll's site, I did read the questions you posted from the site. None of them struck me as out of bounds to be addressed by a pastor - these are the quetions people are asking.

In Christ alone,

Dan

[peter lumpkins]

Bob,

When you have something relevant about this post to offer, I'll be glad to engage.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dan,

First, you write "The language in the pulpit issue is dead...To rehash it without citing any sermon...is, well, sin." Read the title of the post.

Second, you write "sodomy is always condemned in the Scripture in the context of homosexual relationships." Granted. Are you then suggesting moral liberty to sodomize in heterosexual relationships?

Third, you write "To say Southeastern is endorsing everything Driscoll does seems, to me, to misrepresent the responses that I have read and the scholarship attributable to their faculty..." Show me one statement where I necessarily implicate Southeastern as endorsing everything Driscoll does.

Fourth, you assert "At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their wives and their wives only. Wives are to do the same." That is biblically incorrect. At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their Lord and their Lord only. Wives are to do the same.

A healthy biblical focus caters to the Lordship of Christ. Human relationships must wait their turn. But aren't human relationships important to fulfilling Lordship to Christ? Yes. But human relationships are only properly fulfillable in conjunction with, not contrary to, the Lordship of Jesus. Question: does the Lordship of Jesus in a man's life solicit from him prayers to heaven concerning sodomizing his wife? I think not.

Fifth, you exhort, "resist the urge to make a blog or a response say more than it says." O.K. Where have I colored outside the lines?

Sixth, you conclude, "I did read the questions you posted from the site. None of them struck me as out of bounds to be addressed by a pastor - these are the quetions people are asking" (my emphasis).

So, let me get this straight, Dan: instructions on sodomizing your wife doesn't qualify as :"out of bounds." Interesting. Could you please give me some historical figures--perhaps Reid's history of imperfect heroes may offer some examples--who counseled their flocks in such a way?

Nor is it necessarily the case that Christians are asking questions like Driscoll's, questions he feels obligated to answer. Have you any studies to cite that appear to show your conclusions, by the way? If not, you are making assertion without any evidence whatsoever. Simply moot.

Yet, even if we did grant that Christians obsess with such mundane questions, soliciting an answer from their pastor, such does not necessarily imply the question deserves an answer. Calvinists--with their strong sense of human depravity--knows this perhaps more than anyone else.

Thus, Dan, my own advice is, stop defending the morally indefensible.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Poe]

Here's a word for those who ask "Show me in the Bible where it says you can't do x." IMO they have it backwards. John Milton had an answer for this:

"License they mean when they cry liberty."

[Chris Poe]

I wonder how many people will go to a site like the one Driscoll linked, and once having their fill of that and finding it doesn't satisfy, eventually a site that, shall we say, pushes the envelope even more? There are a multitude of "Christian" sites that attempt to defend such practices as polygamy from the Bible. And depravity being what it is and the fact that we are never free from sin in this life, it's not much of a leap for some to go from a site like the one Driscoll linked to one that allows one to gratify their lusts to the full.

What's wrong with sodomy? Simply, it's against the law of nature and contrary to design. I'll save the hip contextualists the trouble of pointing it out and admit I'm going into Jesse Helms mode here. If sodomy ended today, the AIDS epidemic would largely disappear as well. That's only among homosexuals you say? The greatest devastation from AIDS has been in Africa. It's primarily spread there among heterosexuals who resort to the practice as a form of birth control.

On the page in which he links to the site, Driscoll goes into a number of disclaimers and warns of potential health risks, etc. Having to go to all that trouble to warn of the risks just might be an indication that the practice is something that ought not to be done.

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Thanks for just ignoring the generation gap issue. You're right, it isn't provable so let's not focus on the fact that irregardless it is still happening. Would you like to tell Alvin Reid and Matt Chandler it's not worthy focusing on also?

Now, I was wondering, since you see sodomy as an offense worth beating your son-in-law with a mallet over, I was wondering if you would share with us the verses you use in justifying this (being against sodomy, not the mallet)? This isn't to take a stance, so please don't read one onto me, but I would like for you to give a defense for why you have gotten so bent out of shape over this.

Oh, and even though you told Dan to read the title of the post when he told you to quit attacking the language issue, that still doesn't answer for why you mentioned it at least twice in the article. Please hold yourself to the same standard you are holding other commentators to.

[Doug]

Peter,
I am a 49yo white conservative SBC Pastor. I can barely bring myself to say the word "sex" in public because of my upbringing, cultural conditioning and my "shy" nature, so I was expecting some pretty heavy stuff when I clicked on your link to Driscolls page. Did you really "*" out even the word "sex" on your link??? I thought I was a prude! Thanks for a great laugh. I did read some of his responses and followed a link or two. Not exactly company conversation, but then again, isn't sex supposed to be private? I am afraid you are making a "mountain out of a molehill" and you surely look foolish in the eyes of many. I think you would make a great candidate for the SNL"s "Church Lady"! LOL

[Chris Poe]

Todd,

I'm younger than many of the so-called "younger leaders," FWIW. I think it's more appropriately termed a Discernment Gap issue than a generation gap issue. Thank you for inspiring me to come up with that phrase. :) It's quite useful and appropriate to describe what's going on, and I think I'm going to base at least one if not a series of blog posts on my observations of the SBC around that theme.

[mike]

i didn't know what to expect when i checked out some of driscoll's question-and-answer stuff about sex . . . but after looking, give me a break. these are honest questions that lots of folks have, and at least he's not avoiding them. also, he's not making stuff up - he says things like, "the old testament forbids this, but the new testament never discusses it," and so on. if you ever pastor a church long enough to establish some trusting relationships, people will swallow their pride and ask you questions about sex, alcohol, etc. etc. if they don't ask you, they don't trust you, so don't say "not MY congregation."

the trust is that God gives quite a bit of direction and instruction concerning sex in the Bible. also, some people have committed themselves to turning to the Bible as a standard for living. kudos to pastor driscoll for not being too embarassaed or too legalistic to dismiss questions that real christians have.

since you're dealing with the article, why don't you address macarthur's quote that driscoll's students will not be able to "make progress towards authentic sanctification"? am i the only one who sees how doctrinally unsound that line is?

[Chris Poe]

Perhaps so, Mike. If you disagree with the MacArthur quote, I suspect you may have a quietist approach to sanctification and perhaps have missed the point of Philippians 2:12-13. Do you not believe that the believer has a responsibility to actively pursue obedience? Is it your position that the believer has no responsibility in pursuing sanctification?

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Not interested. You do not want my biblical understanding, you want to tit/tat. I suggest you get some good, standard commentaries on Romans, focusing on Romans one. There you will learn much. In fact, learn to defend sodomy all you wish. As for the "two times" Todd, you are unbelievably selective in your reading. Please...

Doug,

I am glad I gave a good laugh. Thanks for letting me know...

Mike,

If you think Christians routinely ask about sodomy between husband and wife, you must have some evidence. Are you able to cite it?

In addition, the Old Testament forbids bestiality. The New Testament never discusses it. Are we, therefore, morally free to pursue intimate relations with animals?

The superficial understanding of biblical/Christian ethics is astounding.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dan** & Doug,

Either identify yourself or refrain from commenting. Sorry.

With that, I am...

Peter

**Sorry Mike. I mistakenly placed your name instead of Dan on the original comment...

[Dave Miller]

Peter, disregarding your armchair psychoanalysis of my blogging tendencies, let me respond to what you said.

I would never address issues like this on a Sunday morning or in a regular group. However, I think that many Christians today, living in a sex-saturated society, want to know what the Bible says about some of the sexual issues of the day.

They need a balanced approach - one that upholds the sanctity of marriage, but also addresses questions about what is proper between a husband and wife.

[Chris Poe]

Todd,

Thanks again for inspiring this title: :)

http://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/generation-gap-or-discernment-gap/

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

No "armchair psychoanalysis" here, bro.--whatever that's supposed to communicate.

I simply--and sincerely, I must add--took your assertion and applied it. You wrote, "While I may not agree with everything he says on his sex-topics blog, I think it is a reasonable thing for a pastor to address these issues." You never qualified a venue, Dave.

However, even if you now do qualify the venue, your assertion about the topics under discussion states "it is a reasonable thing for a pastor to address these issues." Fine. So, you agree Pastors who encourage husbands to prayerfully explore sodomizing their wives is a reasonable thing to address?

With that, I am...

Peter

[mike]

peter,

thanks for the response. i think using "bestiality" in the discussion clearly falls under the slippery slope fallacy, meaning it's not the issue, so why bring it up as a distraction? saying "it could lead to this, which will lead to this, and then to this" doesn't clear up anything with the original issue.

i have no idea why someone would want to inquire into sodomy, but if they do, shouldn't we attempt an answer? or do we dismiss a christian's question without telling them why? at least driscoll is trying to answer the tough questions, and in so doing he's saying at least the question itself isn't off limits. my personal answer would be this - clearly humans aren't built for it, and many christian ethics books discuss the physical damages caused by it (feinberg & feinberg, if i remember correctly)

so, i might disagree with pastor driscoll's answer, but i can't condemn him for at least hearing the question (from what i understand, those questions on his sight aren't merely hypotheticals).

and about sanctification: i do believe we should pursue a deeper commitment to God in our words and works. but, in the OT, vessels and people are "set apart" & "made holy" (qadosh & other words)as instruments to be used in the things of God. i think it works similarly in new testament theology - we are sanctified when we are saved, i.e. set apart for God. i think the terminology is important and worth discussion, so i would say we should strive to live morely holy, knowing that we are already sanctified because of Christ & through the Spirit. i can't increase my sanctification any more than i can increase (or preserve my own) salvation.

thanks for your response. i understand where you're coming from, but i respectfully disagree about pastors being willing to answer tough questions about sex. thanks for your discussions

[peter lumpkins]

Mike,

To to the contrary, you are the one who positively cited Driscoll's interpretative principle. You said, "he's not making stuff up - he says things like, "the old testament forbids this, but the new testament never discusses it," Thus, to suggest my comment on bestiality "clearly falls under the slippery slope fallacy" makes no sense whatsoever, for bestiality precisely fits the principle--forbidden in the OT, never discussed in the NT.

Now, I'll ask again, Mike: since the Old Testament forbids bestiality and the New Testament never discusses it, are we, therefore, morally free to pursue intimate relations with animals?

That's a simple question and perfectly consistent with your positive portrayal of Driscoll's ethical principle.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Dan]

Peter,

I did read the title of the post, but then I kept reading! You write, "One of the popular criticisms leveled against Driscoll has been his alleged "cussing," which, supporters insist, Driscoll has long ago put behind him. While I am unsure about such, let's, for the sake of argument, accept their defense." What are you unsure of? And, if you are "forgetting" the "cussin'" you sure did a great job of bringing it back up for absolutely no reason. Of course, once was not enough, you had to mention it again later in this sentence, "If there is truth to it, then pulpit use of the "F" word must solicit significantly more than merely language a "little edgy for my tastes."

I appreciate you granting that sodomy is in all cases referring to a homosexual act in the text of Scripture. While I don't think urging married heterosexuals to pray about incorporating this is necessarily the wisest practice, I do not see, textually, how I can rebuke a heterosexual, married couple who does so. Scripturally speaking, it is none of my business or yours.

Your misrepresentation of Southeastern occurs in both what you write and what you omit. You sensationalize by noting that the seminary's filters would probably eliminate Driscoll's site. You are probably right. They probably also eliminate searches on "breast cancer." This really is not pertinent to the argument. Filters are designed for the universe of searchers. Driscoll intends his site for Christian married couples coming from a culture where the questions he addresses are a part of the common vernacular. Also, you omitted the fact that Dr. Akin has written a book entitled "God on Sex." In light of the topic in question, this omission seems more than mere oversight. The positons of the seminary faculty are more likely aligned with what he writes in that book than with any other source.

At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their Lord and their Lord only. Wives are to do the same. Uh, Peter, I fully affirm that husbands and wives are to relate to one another under the mutual submission to the Lordship of Christ. I do not affirm, however, that pleasing the Lord and pleasing one's mate are dichotomos. The Lord wants marriage to be pleasurable for both, and He wants husbands to please their wives and vice versa. A man who says, "I'm just gonna please Jesus" while thinking that means he doesn't need to think about pleasing his wife is a Biblical egg head.

"A healthy biblical focus caters to the Lordship of Christ." I think this is your own corrective to your overstatement above; I hope so.

It is clear you are not comfortable with sodomy. I have no problem with that. Indeed, we're on the same page. But, I cannot find a shred of Scripture to condemn a married heterosexual couple that does engage sexually in this way.

"Where have I colored outside the lines?" Well, many places. But your strong implication that Dr. Reid and others who have taken issue with the steady stream of Driscoll bashing are guilty of selling their "moral soul[s] for a bowl of nihilist pottage" should suffice as evidence.

Sixth, you conclude, "I did read the questions you posted from the site. None of them struck me as out of bounds to be addressed by a pastor - these are the quetions people are asking" (my emphasis).

So, let me get this straight, Dan: instructions on sodomizing your wife doesn't qualify as :"out of bounds." Interesting. Could you please give me some historical figures--perhaps Reid's history of imperfect heroes may offer some examples--who counseled their flocks in such a way?

Peter, the sarcastic allusion to Reid's blog is precisely the sort of thing that irks me about your post. When I was married 9 years ago, I was pointed in the direction of some great books on sex that include some more racy topics. I've never regretted that pastor's suggestion. I would never say that his/his wife's recommendations for me and my then fiance were out of bounds. The difference is, of course, that those were books. They were not on the web or information distributed publically by the pastor - only suggestion in individual counseling.

I do not need a Gallup Poll to demonstrate that Christians are asking questions about sex. Good grief. If a typical lost person in Seattle gets redeemed tomorrow, s/he will have been listening to a steady stream of sexual advice from the world. They will, obviously, want to know how that advice jives with the Lordship of Christ. Does it all go out the window, or are the parameters changed (e.g. one man with one woman for life, one flesh, equally yolked). Of course, if you need a more scientific poll, witness the rising number of adulteries in the church.

I'm not a Calvinist. I affirm the radical depravity of man, depraved in every part. I do not, however, believe the best pastoral approach is to dismiss a young adult beleiver's questions about sex. Maybe answering them on the web is not the best approach, but I can stomach that more so than I can baptizing babies or proposing that a Baptist church accept for membership people who were baptized before their conversion.

Dan

[Dan]

Peter,

Not to speak for Mike, but beastiality is forbidden by one man, one woman for life which is reaffirmed and strengthened by Jesus in Matthew's gospel. Clearly, two human beings becoming one flesh rules out beastiality.

Daniel

[mike]

peter,

you asked me, "Now, I'll ask again, Mike: since the Old Testament forbids bestiality and the New Testament never discusses it, are we, therefore, morally free to pursue intimate relations with animals?"

my answer - see leviticus 18. then see song of songs (though it's a lot steamier than driscoll, maybe too much for you lol). also see romans 1. obviously bestiality is wrong. and the NT does address this by reinforcing that marriage and sex are between a husband and wife, male and female. by establishing this principle, obviously bestiality is wrong.

wow, how did i end having to prove to you that bestiality is wrong?

oh, and comment, loosely put, that something is forbidden in the OT but not in the NT was about intercourse while a woman was menstruating. driscoll was right - forbidden for ritual purity reasons in the OT, but not addressed in the NT. so, like i said, he's at least trying to answer questions from people biblically. funny, nobody asked him about bestiality on the sight!

above i wrote i "respectfully disagree" with you on this subject. i really mean that. i really tried to hear what you have to say, but in my opinion driscoll's willingness to address tough questions about sex is admirable.

and for the record, i personally would tell people that sodomy clearly goes against God's design for our bodies. like cigarettes, the bible doesn't address it (at least bwtn a husband and wife). but, like cigarettes, it physically damages the human body, among other things.

again, thanks for the discussion and responses

[Chris Poe]

Take a look at this comment. It's one of the best I've seen at describing the problem in a careful and comprehensive way:

http://bkingr.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/missing-the-moment/#comment-588

[Dave Miller]

Peter, I would disagree with Driscoll on that issue, I think. But I do not believe that one disagreement does not negate the quality of the rest of his teaching.

All in all, he upholds the standard of sexual activity only in marriage and is strongly against lust, porn, etc.

I guess that we disagree about how this one thing colors the rest of his teachings

[peter lumpkins]

Dan,

Read comment #38.I meant what I said. You posted two more comments about which I would gladly restore and answer if you identify yourself. If you post again without identity, your IP will be flagged.

You can contact me via email if you wish.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

Thanks for the return...

Mike,

Unfortunately, the same hermeneutic you employed to argue against bestiality argues against Driscoll's position, Mike; and, through the backdoor, proves my point, not yours. Thank you!

With that, I am...

Peter