Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Mark Driscoll is Right

I don’t like conflict and I usually steer clear of controversy, but I can’t help but weigh in on the brouhaha that’s ensued over this statement by Mark Driscoll:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

I honestly can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s so controversial. Because it’s by a man? Does that automatically make him a male chauvinist pig? Because he suggests that a sloppy, frigid wife could leave her husband open to temptation? Good grief, hasn’t anyone read I Corinthians 7:1-5? What is so scandalous about this?

To say that Mark Driscoll is pointing the finger at Gayle Haggard (who seems to be a lovely and godly lady), or that he expects women to look like 20-year-old supermodels, or that he’s giving men a free pass, or advocating some kind of wild chandelier-swinging experience, or that skinny women are the only ones who wouldn’t be offended by this, or that he doesn’t think pastors/men should treat their lives with love—all are reading a whole lot into what Driscoll actually said. Am I really the only one that’s not offended, and in fact actually agrees with him? Trust me, I’ve seen a lot of marriages wrecked in part by the kind of carelessness and frigidity he describes. It’s foolish to say that a woman has no responsibility in keeping her husband satisfied so that he’s not tempted by the pretty little hussy who’s all too willing to meet his needs. Read Proverbs 5, 6, and 7. That kind of girl is out there, waiting for your man to show up with his defenses down.

Yes, husbands should be faithful in the worst of circumstances—even if their wives do “let themselves go” and kick them out of the bedroom. Husbands should love their wives no matter what, because we’ll all have times when we’re more attractive than others. I’m glad mine loves me when I’m 9 months pregnant, when I have rooster hair, morning breath, and no makeup, when I’m fatter or thinner, whether I’m too stoic or too emotional, and all through the Hades that was hypothyroidism. But this doesn’t let me off the hook of being all I can be for him--body and soul--and meeting his needs to the best of my ability. Trust me, I’m no Victoria Osteen, but I firmly believe that we wives, especially pastor's wives, should do the best we can with what we have, and make sure that our husbands are fulfilled.

Girls, we need to stop being so all-fired sensitive. Can we just take this statement at face value? Let’s keep our guys happy!


Anonymous said...

Preach it, sister!!!

Stephen Michael said...

Not just Pastors' wives either...I have more than once felt sympathy for the man in the pew whose wife holds her body hostage to get her demands met, despises him for his God-given desires, belittles him on a regular basis, never shows him any affection but expects undying loyalty, fidelity, endless provisions for her needs and a listening ear when she needs it.

When the tables are turned and the man neglects her essential needs, no one blames her for looking elsewhere to get them met.

As I continue to say, feminism is alive and well in the church today, but few will dare to even mention it. And many who are infected or at least carriers of that disease won't even consider that they may be to blame.

I thank God for the wonderful wife I have!

Anonymous said...

My goodness--Who's family is this and who fired them up? Your right on!!! Daddy

Anonymous said...

I followed one of your links (The Relevant Blog) and she has an excellent discussion going on concerning Driscoll's comments.

My Boaz's Ruth said...

I guess I haven't seen any pastor's wives that "let themselves go" so I'm not sure what he is talking about.

I would totally agree that we should not use sex as a weapon of any sort. But... I feel like he's pulling up a straw man to shoot down because I can't think of any pastor's wives that fit the bill.

relevantgirl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dh said...

Notice what Driscol did not say: He DID NOT SAY wives were responsible for their husbands sin.

He DID SAY, wives who keep themselves up and open to their husbands act as a helpful barrier to sexual temptation. If their husbands sin, they were not helping them to keep from sinning. These wives were sitting on the sidelines, sulking, sad, and acting like spoiled children not getting what they wanted. All the while thier husbands were being ripped to shreds by the enemy. These men were looking for the other-half of them for some help in the battle, and their other-halves were no where to be found.

Relevantgirls post on how Solomon's Song of Songs is not a good role model, well is actually very WRONG. If she wants to rip pages from the Bible and declare her authority over all of Scripture, then she can. But there is The Judgment Day in which all things done in the body of believers will be accounted for - good and bad.

Choosing which books are more inspired than another is a fallacy. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and therefore inerrant and infalible.

Jesus is the perfect revelation of God and therefore should be looked to with the highest regard. But, Jesus didn't say anything about a married couple's sex life. Those who do so, take liberty with Scripture and read into it whatever they want.


Stephen Michael said...

Amen to what DH said!

Interestingly, hardly any one of the opponents are touching on anything but the physical...as in overweight or frumpy. The very first thing MD mentioned was frank communication..which I have personally seen lacking in the majority of marriages, and it isn't that the husband is unwilling to talk.

Also, I never read where he said that a husband expects to come home every day to a dolled up beauty queen begging to fulfill a man's every whim. We couldn't handle it if she did!

So many comments about being tired or overworked, but if a woman made it a point once a month to lavish her man beyond the routine, he would likely be grateful, twice a month and he would be blown away. We men also like the variety of quiet soft times, comforting bonding, unbridled passion, and the myriad ways that a couple can come together.

No time for it? How much time does it take to read and respond on 30 different blogs on a regular basis?
Five hours out of a week? That sounds like a nice evening out to me.

By the way ladies, two things that get any man's motor running are your self-confidence and to know that you want him. A man will energetically respond to those without make-up, with a few extra pounds, with a messy kitchen, whatever.

Most of the responses I read are lame excuses, blaming men for guilt and standards heaped on women by OTHER WOMEN. Ideals on weight, beauty, makeup, and all the rest come from within the sorority, not from men.

People read WAY MORE into that article than I got out of it. Sounds like he stepped on a toe already sore and throbbing with personal conviction to me.

Anonymous said...

Huh? Not following you, "dh"? I don't see where Relevant said anything like that? And where does the sulking on the sidelines come from? I must have missed that in Mark's advice?

It seems like some of the responses to Mark's comment must have hit a nerve with Stephen and Dh? You certainly are passionate on this issue. It seems to me that your big toes are aching a bit? Not every woman in the pew is holding herself hostage. Not every woman is sulking on the sidelines.

Maybe this is just very personal for the both of you? You shouldn't be so sensitive. Don't read too much into the comments of others. They are not even advocating anything close to what you two men are talking about.

Stephen Michael said...

I don't make it a habit of conversing with those who don't identify themselves, but will answer this one.

Passionate??...you bet! I've seen too many guys living miserably due to the actions and inactions of the one who should be called helpmeet. Satan doesn't have to work too hard against a man who has already been defeated in his own home. It shouldn't be so.

I never said EVERY woman was holding her body hostage ("more than once" was the actual phrase), but I have seen TOO many, and talked with enough husbands and pastors to know that it is a common occurence. How many men have you spoken with on the issue?

We shouldn't be so sensitive? Did you read the firestorm of comments based on a small percentage of MD's article. What makes all the female tyrades against MD an "excellent discussion", but our view of things is being too sensitive and reading too much into others comments? Who needs to read anything into their comments, it is by their own words that we take issue.

You would do well to take your own advice.

(Sorry SS, I know you don't like conflict, but this is just feminism and male hating. Delete my reply if you wish.)

Anonymous said...

Hi Stephen,

This seems to be a sensitive area for you. I don't know what is "feminism and male hating" but I assure you I am not.

Why are you allowed to be sensitive but others are not?

Think about it.

I was just parroting what you said. If that makes me a feminist and male hater then you are a masculinist and woman hater.

The stick you use to judge others will be used to judge you.

Surely you don't believe you are the only one allowed to talk about big toes hurting after reading something?

Stephen Michael said...

Nice try Anon,

But I don't buy what you're selling and I don't see one new thought or one direct answer to any issue raised.

Parroting?...you bet, nothing original or useful...vain repitition of others words. Go try your feminist Jedi mind tricks to stir things up with someone else...it doesn't work with me.

This will be my last comment, so now you can get the last word in. Maybe that will make you feel big and important and victorious.


Charity Grace said...

Huh, I guess I should try posting something controversial more often. It's definitely good for the comment section.

I think I'm going to let these comments stand since the conversation has gotten this far, but from here on out I'll delete all anonymous comments or any comments that contain name calling (i.e. "woman hater").

There's much I could say--so much I wouldn't know where to start...So I'll let it rest for now.

I still stand by my original position. I still am amazed that people think it's demeaning or woman-hating for a man to say that a woman should 1)communicate with her man, 2)not "let herself go" (actually a very obtuse statement, taken very personally by a lot of people), and 3)be sexually available to her husband...

For those who don't know, "Dh" is my husband and Stephen is my brother-in-law, married to my lovely sister. They're both pastors who counsel troubled couples regularly and see how detrimental these attitudes are to marriages. I claim them both proudly.

dh said...

Ok, kids, out of the sandbox. If you can't play together sweetly then you can't play.

PS. Watch out for those frigid frumpy feminists.

GarY Means said...

I live in the Seattle area and have heard about Mark's sexist attitudes for some time. He was on the local news tonight trying to defend his recent comments. This prompted me to do a little more investigating into what all the fuss was about. Is he really as bad as some people here say he is? What I found surprised me. I've posted two posts on my blog which provide a number of quotes about how Mark views women. He likes 'em barefoot and pregnant.

Anonymous said...

off the map is apparently going to have a feminist jedi mind tricks workshop at their revolution conference next year (at least according to the comments following this post), but only women will be allowed to attend. The men will be allowed to learn the technique at home from their wives submissively and quietly, *if* their wives are willing to teach them. It's probably a lost cause, though, since according to the wikipedia article, these jedi mind tricks are only for use by stronger minds against weaker ones, and everyone knows that men undergo brain damage during gestation, including shrinkage of the corpus callosum, which is the main connection between the left and right brain. That's why we can't find the mustard behind the catchup in the refrigerator, and why we continue to do really damaging things like reinforcing the enormously powerful negative message that is so prevalent in our culture toward women--"women are only valuable if they are thin and beautiful"--something Jean Kilbourne exposes brilliantly in her video Killing us Softly 3.

dh said...

Mysticism and liberalism are just cloaks for personal subjectivism. No one person or group is capable of self-determination.

The problem lies in the fact that we are in a fallen world. People have rejected the Creator and His standards for holiness, righteousness, and the roles He created man and women for. They reject Biblical standards and the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, the Bible.

Therefore, those who do such things bring their subjective hermeneutic to Scripture and reduce it to a man's philosophy as opposed to what it is – the Word of God. The Word of God is the record of God's revelation of Himself, His ways, and His purposes, as well as the truth about humanity and its wretched condition.

Those who seek to read the Scripture and say,…. “I think this means…” have utterly missed the point. The question should not be a personal subjective issue, but highly objective. What does God say here in black, and white (and red)? Too simple for liberals and mystics. God cannot actually mean what He says and says what He means.

God does actually mean what He says and says what He means.

PS. There is no sarcasm in this post. There is no underlying hostility or unresolved anger lurking under these words in a hidden manner. No need to search for some hidden meaning. No need to ask, 'What is he really saying?' SOMETIMES people say what they believe and actually mean what they say.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 "There’s nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God’s way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us." (The Message)

dh said...

Also, my wife or mother does not have her hand in my back puppetting me and telling me what to say. I did not seek my wife’s approval before writing this opinion.

Charity Grace said...

Well, guys (and girls) sorry I haven't been here to keep up with all the comments. I'm very busy most of the time, pregnant in the kitchen. However, I never go barefoot.

Just kidding!
I do go barefoot!

OK, gotcha. Kidding on all counts.

(No, Mama, I'm NOT pregnant!)

Charity Grace said...

One more thing. Dh, don't forget, I hold the delete powers. *sinister laugh*

Wait a second, that's not very subservient. What's wrong with me?

LOL, just trying to lighten things up.

Charity Grace said...

Previous comments deleted by me because I'd like to keep this conversation limited to discussion of MD's statement in this particular post; not hearsay.