In the Driscolls' new book, Real Marriage, they pervert and twist Paul's meaning from "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything" (1 Cor. 6:12). "From this taxonomy they draw three questions which they apply to a list of specific sexual acts. Is it lawful? seeks to ascertain whether an act violates the laws of government or the laws of God; Is it helpful? seeks to ascertain whether that act draws a couple together as one or pushes them apart as two; and Is it enslaving? seeks to ascertain whether that act could become obsessive, out of control, or addictive."1 In their perversion of Paul's words, the Driscolls then say, "we are explaining what a married couple may do, not what they must do. The Bible often gives more freedom than our consciences can accept, and we then choose not to use all our freedoms."
I have never read the book and I do not plan to. I have heard enough out of the mouth of Mark Driscoll to know that he is not a person that any genuine Christian should be listening to. He is a filthy, disgusting, perverted swine! To respond to those ignorant individuals who would say, "You can't judge it if you've never read/watched/listened to it," I say: If parents tell their children never to touch the stove because it is hot and they will get burned, does that mean their children must touch the stove in order to accurately judge that it is hot and that they will indeed get burned? No, they do not! People who say that you have no valid opinion if you have never read/watched/listened to something are trying to feed you a fallacious argument. Their argument is baseless and asinine.
Without having read this book, there is a specific sexual act that comes to mind that I am certain they will address, seeing as how many confused individuals will no doubt ask about it (seeing as how it is a sick fascination amongst people these days). I have addressed this in a prior post, but it requires being addressed yet again. The act in question: anal intercourse. The old English term found in the Geneva Bible was "buggerer" (bugger), derived from the Anglo-Norman "bougre." The more-or-less modern term is "sodomite." Both these terms describe anal intercourse between two men and/or anal intercourse between a man and a woman. To demonstrate that this is so, here are two dictionary definitions for the related words:
Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
The Driscolls addressing these various sexual acts is not needed. Especially not in the manner with which they no doubt deal with them (based on how he has dealt with this subject in the past). If a married couple wants to know whether a particular sexual act is valid for them or not, all they have to do is (1) search God's Word, (2) think logically about it, and (3) discuss it amongst themselves. If it is something legitimate but one of you feels awkward about it, do not do it. There might be nothing wrong with it, but if the other person does not feel right about it, respect that and leave it alone. Romans 14 and Philippians 2:3-4 might help here; get you thinking about the other person rather than about yourself. For the question of anal intercourse, the answer is a no-brainer; it is clearly against the laws of God. If it is a question of role-play in the bedroom, just take a moment to think about that. What are you doing when you are role-playing? Typically, 9 times out of 10, you are imagining your spouse to be someone other than who they are; not merely them in a different setting/occupation. This would be categorized as lusting and/or adultery.
Too many people these days forget what the Bible has to say: "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4). Not only is this referring to the defiling of the marriage bed by the committal of adultery, but it can also refer to discussing sexual acts outside of the marriage bed without shame. If a young couple has legitimate concerns, I see nothing wrong with them approaching a mature Christian couple (or the elders of the church) and asking them about it. They can receive wise godly counsel this way. However, the sexual acts of the marriage bed should not be discussed as loosely as they are in public by the world. Genuine Christians need to start standing up and silencing those who do such by letting them know we disapprove. Let us try and bring back some sort of moral decency to our communities and societies. Change starts with us. Be bold and take a stand. The Apostles turned the world upside down, let us do the same.
I have never read the book and I do not plan to. I have heard enough out of the mouth of Mark Driscoll to know that he is not a person that any genuine Christian should be listening to. He is a filthy, disgusting, perverted swine! To respond to those ignorant individuals who would say, "You can't judge it if you've never read/watched/listened to it," I say: If parents tell their children never to touch the stove because it is hot and they will get burned, does that mean their children must touch the stove in order to accurately judge that it is hot and that they will indeed get burned? No, they do not! People who say that you have no valid opinion if you have never read/watched/listened to something are trying to feed you a fallacious argument. Their argument is baseless and asinine.
Without having read this book, there is a specific sexual act that comes to mind that I am certain they will address, seeing as how many confused individuals will no doubt ask about it (seeing as how it is a sick fascination amongst people these days). I have addressed this in a prior post, but it requires being addressed yet again. The act in question: anal intercourse. The old English term found in the Geneva Bible was "buggerer" (bugger), derived from the Anglo-Norman "bougre." The more-or-less modern term is "sodomite." Both these terms describe anal intercourse between two men and/or anal intercourse between a man and a woman. To demonstrate that this is so, here are two dictionary definitions for the related words:
Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
bugger n. slang a person who commits buggery.Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
buggery n. 1 anal intercourse. 2 bestiality.
sodomite n. a person who engages in sodomy.
sodomy n. anal intercourse performed between two males or a male and a female.
1bugger n. sodomite.If the Driscolls are going to apply their "grid" (their use of 1 Cor. 6:12) to this sexual act, any legitimizing ("what a married couple may do") thereof by them for married couples is dead wrong! It is clearly against the laws of God. Ever since high school, I have always stated that a man who has anal intercourse with a woman is severely messed up in the head and acting out homosexual-like tendencies. At that time, I never had a clue what the above words meant. It turns out that my statement was very much true. Furthermore, any woman who would let a man degrade her like this and do this to her (and perversely enjoy it) is severely messed up in the head, too. Anal intercourse is a disgusting and degrading abominable practice!
2bugger vt. to commit sodomy with.
buggery n. sodomy.
sodomite n. one who practices sodomy.
sodomy n. [the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11] 1 copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal. 2 anal copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
The Driscolls addressing these various sexual acts is not needed. Especially not in the manner with which they no doubt deal with them (based on how he has dealt with this subject in the past). If a married couple wants to know whether a particular sexual act is valid for them or not, all they have to do is (1) search God's Word, (2) think logically about it, and (3) discuss it amongst themselves. If it is something legitimate but one of you feels awkward about it, do not do it. There might be nothing wrong with it, but if the other person does not feel right about it, respect that and leave it alone. Romans 14 and Philippians 2:3-4 might help here; get you thinking about the other person rather than about yourself. For the question of anal intercourse, the answer is a no-brainer; it is clearly against the laws of God. If it is a question of role-play in the bedroom, just take a moment to think about that. What are you doing when you are role-playing? Typically, 9 times out of 10, you are imagining your spouse to be someone other than who they are; not merely them in a different setting/occupation. This would be categorized as lusting and/or adultery.
Too many people these days forget what the Bible has to say: "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4). Not only is this referring to the defiling of the marriage bed by the committal of adultery, but it can also refer to discussing sexual acts outside of the marriage bed without shame. If a young couple has legitimate concerns, I see nothing wrong with them approaching a mature Christian couple (or the elders of the church) and asking them about it. They can receive wise godly counsel this way. However, the sexual acts of the marriage bed should not be discussed as loosely as they are in public by the world. Genuine Christians need to start standing up and silencing those who do such by letting them know we disapprove. Let us try and bring back some sort of moral decency to our communities and societies. Change starts with us. Be bold and take a stand. The Apostles turned the world upside down, let us do the same.
1Tim Challies, Challies.com: "Real Marriage: Can We _____?".