Get E-Mail Updates

He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not

Editor's Note: For those of you who pay attention to evangelical Christian culture (particularly its "emergent" subculture), it will come as no surprise that Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle, once again has positioned himself as a lightning rod for criticism and controversy. Since founding Mars Hill in 1996, Driscoll, 41, has drawn the ire and reproach of critics from both inside and out of evangelical circles with his penchant for a kind of nouveau-fire-and-brimstone Christianity; a plainspoken, in-your-face (some would say "bullying") preaching style, and polarizing statements about "biblical" sexuality, gender roles for women, and masculinity (he derides what he calls "girly men), and an "emasculated" image of Jesus that he says is favored by many evangelical pastors today who have turned God's Only Begotten Son into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”

Real Marriage by Mark and Grace Driscoll
Real Marriage by Mark and Grace Driscoll

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

War No More

Ten years. Thousands of lives. Billions of dollars.

A 2008 profile in the New York Times Magazine dubbed Driscoll one of the "most admired — and reviled — figures among evangelicals nationwide," and his profile at Resurgence, a theological organization he helped start, brags that the fellow known as the "cussing pastor" for his occasional use of blue language (in the pulpit) is one of the "world's most downloaded and quoted pastors." Love him or loathe him, Driscoll is undeniably one of the most influential young evangelical leaders around.

Now comes his new book, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together, co-authored with his wife, Grace, which is billed as a kind of owners handbook for married folks, with step-by-step instructions about, among other things, what sex acts are kosher (and not) in the marriage bed. The book has been greeted with considerable praise and derision from various quarters in the evangelical world.

We asked God's Politics contributors, husband-and-wife writers David and Sarah Vanderveen — a couple in their early 40s who have been married for more than 18 years and are the parents of two teenage boys — to read Real Marriage together and share their thoughts on the book and the meaning of "real marriage."

HE SAID: David Vanderveen

In Mark and Grace Driscoll’s new book Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together, the most appealing component is that they want to help couples with their marriages. The problem is that they want to give all specific answers to deeply personal marriage questions. That’s not only awkward, it's impossible.

I’ll let Sarah focus on the details of why Mark Driscoll just simply shouldn’t address anything having to do with men’s and women’s relationships — I think “patronizing” is the kindest descriptor available. My focus will be on why Real Marriage is really a failure in management techniques and maybe a cry for help from Mark Driscoll himself.

The Driscoll’s approach to this book feels like a pastor-couple holding a bad marriage seminar in an auditorium complete with fluorescent lighting, a wood-veneer pulpit and bent folding chairs. They talk about their own personal shortcomings in far too much detail and try to make a list of specific rules of engagement for everyone else based on their personal experiences and their experiences counseling others.

Think of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperatives, but instead they somehow become Driscoll’s specific imperatives that must be true for all people at all times.

Absurd.

In the book, Mark talks about how he burned out his adrenal glands and taxed his system trying to run a church. Then he talks about extremely personal and detailed counseling with random couples at weekend retreats. Reminds me of asking a medical doctor for investment portfolio advice—he’ll probably give it to you, but he has no expertise in the field.

Being a megachurch pastor and popular author doesn’t make you effective at coaching or changing people’s behaviors; it just makes you popular.

The Driscolls also continually refer to their advice as entirely biblical. In one comical section, under “SEX” and its seven essentials, we hear learn that:

Third, marriage is for one man and one woman by God’s design. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible from the table of contents to the appendix and the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself…Fifth, sex outside marriage is a sin. Sinful sex includes…polygamy…

Really? The Bible from the beginning to end calls polygamy a sin? Jesus Christ Himself condemns polygamy?”

While we may believe polygamy to be morally unacceptable in developed cultures in 2012, there is no where in the Bible that polygamy, per se, is either called a sin or where Christ condemns it. And the rest of Real Marriage is full of similar, poor biblical scholarship.

Also of note is that according to Driscoll Bible scholarship, “secret masturbation” is sinful. I told Sarah that I’d post a Facebook update the next time I loped the mule, so that it would be out in the open. ( Now there’s something that I’m sure we’d all benefit from knowing about our friends and relatives.)

To borrow from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together:

The bright love of Christian service, agape, lives in the spiritual community; the dark love of pious-impious urges, eros, burns in the self-centered community…Self-centered love constructs its own image of other persons, about what they are and what they should become. It takes the life of the other person into its own hands. Spiritual love recognizes the true image of the other person as seen from the perspective of Jesus Christ. It is the image Jesus Christ has formed and wants to form in all people.

Real Marriage feels like a control freak attempting to assert his dominance onto the fine details of my marriage. It certainly doesn’t feel liberating, it is weirdly erotic, and I don’t understand how it helps a couple develop their own fullness — the abundant life that Christ offers and the freedom that comes with it.  It certainly is not what Bonhoeffer had in mind for Christian communities.

As a simple example of why this style of management and the type of advice suggested in this rabbit’s warren of poor relationship counseling don’t work, I refer back to Christ’s management style and knowledge transfer techniques.

Christ knew that he was only on the Earth for a short time. He could not micro-manage his followers. He had to give them core values, not more laws. For discipleship to be scalable, duplicatable and sustainable, people needed general principals and broad stories to help them wrestle with their lives and their myriad decisions. Jesus’ disciples didn’t wear bracelets that said “What Would Jesus Do?” They lived to wrestle with Jesus’ values and their application to life.

Jesus could have added to the hundreds of lines of codified Jewish law already in place. He didn’t. Instead, Christ knew that he’d have to transfer the DNA of life as children of God in the kingdom of God so that it could be replicated.

When his disciples didn’t get the answers right, he’d tell another story, and another story and another story, until they got closer. Then he gave everyone who believes his body, blood and spirit so that we can be transformed, guided and dance closer to God. Christ wants us to feel the beat of his love rather than try to follow the bad disco step chart that religious law demanded.

A disco step chart doesn’t teach dancing anymore than the Driscoll book teaches real marriage.

Real marriages develop from two people who are committed to making them work. The specifics of how two real people make one real marriage work is largely irrelevant given the freedom we have in Christ. Marriage is supposed to be a symbol of our relationship with God on earth.

We don’t need more multiple choice tests and true-and-false quizzes with black-and-white answers to bring heaven to earth; we need to put the love of the other first — with God at the core — to make our marriages work.

Here’s another example of why you simply can’t make specific imperatives in a marriage book: A back massage. There’s nothing in the Bible that condemns a back massage between spouses (thank God). However, if one spouse is drained by giving massages and the other spouse knows this, it would seem to be wrong to ask for a massage.

We don’t need rules about massages. A person simply has to be aware of what empowers, enhances and enables their spouse to be come the best person they were designed to be and help them pursue that together.

My wife and I have a business where we are required to work with more than a million distributors in six countries. It would be impossible for me to answer all the questions that arise through our work together. My adrenals would burn out and I would collapse.

Instead, we have to find ways to redirect questions into opportunities for people to learn to educate themselves, do their own necessary work and find their own solutions. This process generates a sustainable model to help people develop themselves as they were designed by their creator, and it allows me to surf midweek, midday.

One would hope that the well-regarded Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson would have better editorial oversight and better author management. This book is not only a troublesome read, it dispenses poor general advice, has bad scholarship and is based on a management style that is doomed to failure from the start.

Real Marriage for me wasn’t about marriage relationships at all. It was a cry for help.

Amidst the awkward, embarrassing and problematic style, I think that the book is really an example of the desperate place to which Mark Driscoll’s ministry style has led him.


SHE SAID: Sarah Vanderveen

Full disclosure: I’m not a fan of Mark Driscoll’s work. I’ll own up to my bias: in my limited exposure to his preaching and writings, his macho, micromanaging pastoral style has left me cold.

I struggled with whether or not to review Driscoll’s Real Marriage, (which he co-wrote with his wife, Grace) because I honestly don’t want to contribute to his notoriety or effectively send one more person out to buy his book, even just to see how bad it is.

But I’ll offer a critique with as much kindness as I can muster, because I’m worried about Driscoll — and about the church — for expecting pastors to be experts in subjects that are best left to trained, licensed professionals.

Mark and Grace Driscoll state in the introduction to Real Marriage that they wrote the book because they speak at seminars and “have spent more than 15 years counseling people before they were married about how to live as a Christian in such a sexualized culture, what’s OK — from a biblical perspective — to do in bed once you are married, and how to deal with intimacy issues all throughout married life.”

Whoa.

People are looking to their pastors to tell them what exactly they can do in bed once they’re married, and how to deal with intimacy issues throughout their entire married lives?

This is a real problem, because the Bible isn’t a marriage handbook, and a seminary degree doesn’t train a pastor to be a sex therapist.

Undoubtedly, there are many, many Christians, including those who come to Driscoll’s conferences, who are struggling in their marriages with issues ranging from trauma caused by past abuse, to sexual dysfunction and addiction, to poor communication. I understand that these are real problems for which hurting couples need real help and in many cases, very specific counsel and direction. But I find it absolutely stunning that Driscoll believes that he is not only responsible for directing the nitty-gritty details of couples’ sex lives (“Can we have anal sex, watch porn, role play?”) but also that he is qualified to do so.  

In a video clip I watched in which Driscoll discusses his reasons for writing the book, he says “Who else can people ask about these things?”

Um, how about a licensed family counselor, or a caring physician?

Since when is it a pastor’s job to give folks the thumbs up or down on masturbation, oral sex, or for that matter, the thumb in…(never mind, I’m just not going to go there)?

Would you ask your pastor for her opinion on that tech stock you were thinking about buying, or what he thinks of your sore throat and inflamed lymph nodes—“Pastor Mark, do you think it’s strep, maybe? And can you write me a prescription for an antiobiotic? And by the way, are antibiotics biblical?”

No, you wouldn’t — and it would be wrong of your pastor to tell you specifically how to “biblically” manage your financial portfolio or your health.

The Driscolls barely address the myriad issues that can be root causes of marital strife and sexual dysfunction, including but not limited to: health problems including depression and other mental illness, hormonal imbalance, stress, and different stages of life, whether new baby, empty nest, unemployment, change of employment.

Unfortunately, solving these problems often takes more than Bible study and a pastor’s counsel—though that’s a good place to start.

Real Marriage is a poorly written, poorly researched book by a well-meaning pastor who I believe is struggling with his own sexuality and sense of self-worth. I don’t know how else to explain his weirdly inappropriate fixation on masculinity and specific sexual practices, and his failure to address the complexity of human sexuality and relationships.

It feels to me like he doesn’t really want to understand the whole person, rather he just wants to cut straight to the salacious tidbits. I realize that’s how you sell a lot of books, but still. I get the distinct impression that Driscoll is not a man at peace.

My biggest concern with Real Marriage is the disservice it may do the vulnerable people who will read it. I have a hunch that some might be couples who may need compassionate, professional help, not an injunction to incorporate more striptease and breast massage into their marriage based on Driscoll’s flawed, cringe-inducing interpretation of Song of Solomon. (And I’m not saying those things are bad; it’s his exegesis that I find tedious and, dare I say it, a total turn-off.)

The Driscolls are essentially practicing brain surgery without medical training or board certification. They have overstepped their credentials and are veering toward what I would call pastoral malpractice.

In his book The Mystery of Christ…& Why We Don’t Get It, the Episcopal priest Robert Farrar Capon eloquently summarizes his view of the pastor’s role:

As a pastor, therefore, my real authority — my true authenticity, whether in the pulpit, or in my office, or in the confessional, or at the end of a piano at a cocktail party — lies in my fidelity to the Gospel, not in my assorted competences (real or imagined) in other fields. …It seems to me that when pastoral advice is given by an ordained person, it ought to be given primarily on the basis of what he or she was ordained do — namely, witness to the Good News of God in Christ — and not on the basis of any other competence (or incompetence) the pastor in question may possess.

I think Capon gets it right, and the Driscolls have gotten themselves in over their heads.

A pastor’s calling is to shepherd people — to point them toward Jesus. To pray for and with them so they are able to discern the leading of the Holy Spirit when it comes to very personal, difficult questions to which there are no clear answers in the Bible. And, when it comes to real problems in something as sacred as marriage, to direct them to real, qualified, professional help.

David Vanderveen is a husband by marriage, a father by birth, a surfer by vocation, and an energy drink entrepreneur. He is the editor of Rob Bell's new book, The Love Wins Companion: A Guide for Those Who Want to Go Deeper.

Sarah Koops Vanderveen is a surf mom, writer, blogger and member of Redbud Writers Guild. She is the former editor of The Mars Hill Review, a literary journal focused on the intersection of faith and culture. She lives in Laguna Beach,Calf., with her husband and their two teenage sons. Read more by Sarah at her blog, "Once by the Pacific."


 

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: adammclane

01-23-2012 @ 10:01am

Thanks so much for this review. It gets well beyond the flowery, fan-driven stuff that so often permeates Christian "nice" culture.

Like you, the most concerning part of the book is that so many people are buying a marriage book by people who aren't experts. Being married and being a popular megachurch pastor does not make you an expert. And in the introduction Mark claims they wrote the book to help people and because they get asked a lot for marriage advice.

Being a married pastor doesn't make you a marriage expert any more than being a nineteen year old basketball star makes you a hall of fame coach.

It says a lot about Christian culture that people would look towards non-experts for advice, and that these non-experts would capitalize financially when they should just refer like most pastors I know to a qualified, trained, licensed counselor.

by: godgrrl

01-23-2012 @ 11:59am
in reply to: adammclane

Brilliant analogy, Adam!

"Being a married pastor doesn't make you a marriage expert any more than being a nineteen year old basketball star makes you a hall of fame coach."

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 12:15pm
in reply to: godgrrl

""Being a married pastor doesn't make you a marriage expert any more than being a professional surfer makes you an editor."

 


 

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 12:32pm
in reply to: thevanished

But being an amateur surfer and professional editor for 20+ years would seem to qualify one to be an editor...

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 12:42pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

So you only became qualified to do it after having done it without qualification for any number of years? You fail by your own standard, dude.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-23-2012 @ 12:49pm
in reply to: thevanished

That was a little harsh.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 1:03pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

Not unless you apply the standard he applies to Driscoll. See his comment below about brain surgery. My point is that his argument is folly, not that a surfer should not edit books. 

 

 

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 1:24pm
in reply to: thevanished

I guess my point was missed. I am have been a professional editor, not a professional surfer. How is it that a professional editor isn't qualified to edit?

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 1:36am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

Your bio says you are a surfer by vocation. How is it a pastor isn't qualified to offer marital counseling?

by: Sam Hamilton

01-24-2012 @ 1:01pm
in reply to: thevanished

Oh, I thought you were calling Cathleen Falsani (godgrrl) a surfer rather than an editor (i.e. she spends her days surfing the internet and reposting things here rather than doing the job of an editor).  I thought that was getting a little personal.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 6:11pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

Oh, that would be quite a reach. No, not what I was getting at.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-23-2012 @ 12:11pm

Deep sigh. I have no interest in the book--but thought reading a review might give me a clue what the book does and does not do. I understand you don't like it and don't think we should be micromanaged--such as in deciding who is and who is not in position to dispense advice on sex and marriage. I think I missed that corner of this society that arrived at spiritual and sexual wholeness in loving Christian community where there are licensed therapists ready to give the final word.


 

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 12:14pm

Regardless of what you think of the book, these criticisms are pedantic.

First of all, those with degrees in sex therapy often offer advice that directly contradicts the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it say "these are recommendations, but if someone with an advanced degree has another opinon, go with that".

Our pastors are our spiritual leaders. That goes for all areas of our life.

Sojourners quite frequently posts petitions, signed by hundreds of pastors, advocating this or that economic issue. How many of those pastors have degrees in economics?

My church is doing a series on sound finances. One of our pastors doesn't even have a degree. Is that out of bounds?

The bible frequently calls us to look to the leadership of pastors. Members of Driscoll's church are certainly doing the right thing in doing so.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 12:35pm
in reply to: thevanished

We are enthusiastically awaiting the Driscoll brain surgery book.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 12:35pm
in reply to: thevanished

We are enthusiastically awaiting the Driscoll brain surgery book.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 12:46pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

So, is it your position pastors are not qualified to give advice on ANY non-theological topic, so long as their exists a degree program and accreditation through which one can become a professional in that topic?

Church services, then, should be rote exegesis with no context.

Face it. You don't like the book, and you don't like Driscoll. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Your hysterical criticisms only empower his fans, who can likewise be unbearable.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 1:26pm
in reply to: thevanished

I agree with Capon (and my wife), who I think give great clarity to good boundaries for pastors:

In his book The Mystery of Christ…& Why We Don’t Get It, the Episcopal priest Robert Farrar Capon eloquently summarizes his view of the pastor’s role:

As a pastor, therefore, my real authority — my true authenticity, whether in the pulpit, or in my office, or in the confessional, or at the end of a piano at a cocktail party — lies in my fidelity to the Gospel, not in my assorted competences (real or imagined) in other fields. …It seems to me that when pastoral advice is given by an ordained person, it ought to be given primarily on the basis of what he or she was ordained do — namely, witness to the Good News of God in Christ — and not on the basis of any other competence (or incompetence) the pastor in question may possess.

I think Capon gets it right, and the Driscolls have gotten themselves in over their heads.

by: 22044

01-23-2012 @ 1:46pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

David,

This might blow your mind, or maybe it won't.  But here goes - I think Mark Driscoll would agree with Capon too.

Why? I'm not the foremost expert on Mark or Mars Hill, but from what I've seen from him, he is trying to point people to Jesus.

But Jesus is interested in people's marriages, and the church's history does not show that it has been a good representative of that interest.

Why is this book out there? Maybe it won't work for everyone. Maybe there are better resources. Mark probably understands that there are deeper issues for some folks that the book won't be sufficient for. An honest author writing a book that will likely be read by many is likely aware of that.

Maybe you & Sarah are uncomfortable that the book goes into more specifics than you would like. I think it's more to the writing style & points made, rather than any true theological diversion. Mark Driscoll is probably blazing some trails there.

Finally, to get to a specific point about your critique - Jesus absolutely does condemn polygamy. Since you rely on that point to make the case for Driscoll's supposedly errent exegesis...need anything be said further?

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 11:06pm
in reply to: 22044

The problem that my wife and I have with the book is not personal. Our problems are with the ideas in it, the structure that is proposed and the consequences of those ideas.

I really don't feel a need to get into the host of problems in fine detail, because the underlying assumptions of the book are so faulty--why worry about the house if the foundation is a mess?

Driscoll sets himself up as the center of the church--he can answer all the detailed questions you might have. Just come to him. He is the way to Christ. If that's what you want from a church or organizational leader, good luck. It's not for us.

I don't recall Christ condemning Abraham, Isaac, David or Solomon for their polygamy...perhaps you can refresh us all with that citation.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 1:48am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

Abraham's polygamy was demonstrably faithless. Let's start with that.
 

Also, you haven't dealt with the issue of homosexuality. You have used polygamy as a proxy. Why is this so?

 

by: 22044

01-24-2012 @ 8:37am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

David,

There are potentially some good critiques in your original post, but as others have pointed out, they're hard to find with the numerous personal comments.

"maybe a cry for help from Mark Driscoll himself."

"desperate place to which Mark Driscoll’s ministry style has led him."

"I’m worried about Driscoll."

"a well-meaning pastor who I believe is struggling with his own sexuality and sense of self-worth."

"Driscoll is not a man at peace."

So your claims that you have nothing personal w/ Mark & Grace Driscoll are disingenous at best, in addition to the overall post showing little to no research regarding Mark's ministry & leadership of Mars Hill.

You continue to push that Christ did not condemn polygamy. OK, continue to believe that...& continue to be wrong. As mentioned previously, it invalidates your claims about Mark's supposedly misunderstaning of Scripture.

Finally, your post appears patronizing (I think Sarah mentioned that) but it seems the patronizing tone is a thin disguise for the mean spirit displayed, which is not Christ-like in any context.

Just to check my understanding, I had an opportunity to listen to Mark & Grace's recent interview with Family Life. To the contrary of finding stuff of concern in that interview, I found it engaging & interesting.

To get better reviews of Chistian books, I'll stick with Discerning Reader. They have some critiques of Mark's books, which are nuanced & grounded, i.e. not overly praising or damning.

 

by: 22044

01-25-2012 @ 8:17am
in reply to: 22044

To my last point, it came out a little weird. I intended to mention that Discerning Reader's book reviews are nuanced and grounded, so I wanted to clarify that. Sorry for any confusion.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 1:46pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

Maybe they have. But I have two points.

First, any advice a sex therapists gives that conflicts with scripture must be disregarded. Given there are very few Christian sex therapists, the alternative for most would be to have no personal leadership or guidance in this area. At any rate, the only area where a sex therapist would likely disagree with Driscoll is that sex should be confined to marriage between a man and a woman. Driscoll is on sound footing within the gospel on that score, and has every right to assert as much.

Second, you haven't demonstrated here where Driscoll is drifting from the gospel, which does have a lot to say about marriage. If 20 years of editing qualifies you to be an editor (I think it does), then why not 20 years of marriage having applied scripture to the difficult moments in one's marriage as a leader in the church?

 

by: Arachne646

01-23-2012 @ 4:11pm
in reply to: thevanished

Professional marriage counsellors specifically include the religious restrictions, imperatives, and cultural specifics of each couple in their assessment and therapy. To do otherwise would not be in line with the standard of care for any accrediting organization. If the couple wasn't sure about religious/biblical boundaries, they could consult their pastor or another in the denomination (I would rather talk to an aquaintance).


 


We're coming up on our 32nd wedding anniversary, and my experience is that flexibility is imperative in any relationship. We've always kept the vows we made to each other, but I couldn't have promised to "obey" him--I don't know what is in the book about the Biblical teaching about relationships. I sure wish someone would have given the text where Jesus condemned polygamy--even though it wasn't done in his day, I can't remember him saying anything about it.  If as much about  new babies, health problems and other life changes is left out of the book, and other things are handled in such picky detail, I can't see this book being useful at all for married couples. It probably got published just because of the authors' name value.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 11:27am
in reply to: Arachne646

How can someone who does not understand Christianity dispense Christian advice for marriage? At best, you are asking a marriage therapist to guess who their advice fits within a Christian framework. 

Of course, there are Christian marriage therapists, and pastors (including Driscoll) often refer congregants to them.

However, the notion that what a sex therapist thinks should be weighted more heavily than our spiritual leaders is ludicrous.

by: Matt Hartzell

01-23-2012 @ 1:23pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

This is a ridiculous response to a valid criticism.

by: BlueDeacon

01-23-2012 @ 12:43pm
in reply to: thevanished

You miss the point:  Pastors are supposed to be shepherds, not dictators; servants, not masters; the last thing that a church needs is to be led by an insecure martinet.  Besides, they have to be accountable not just to God but also to a board of elders, a governing board and most importantly the congregation.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-23-2012 @ 4:08pm
in reply to: BlueDeacon

So was this a review about whether Mark Driscoll ought to pastor Mars Hill---or about the content of a book?


I have no experience with Driscolls or the book. So I listened today on Family Life (radio) to part of an interview with authors. He highlighted their focus is on young college educated men who are out of control (I forget his term); and secondarily they see huge numbers of your women who have been exploited sexually. They built ministry with a very 'hands-on' style--with thousands coming through their home. I am lost as to how one attempts to walk out the Gospel with thousands of young adults like this and NOT attempt to bring a more structured sexual ethic--a counter-cultural way of living to bear. The review above does such a lousy job laying out what Driscolls argue and responding to it that I can't defend or oppose them on content. But on the surface this Review totally loses me.


 

by: BlueDeacon

01-23-2012 @ 5:00pm
in reply to: letjusticerolldown

A lot of what passes for "a more structured sexual ethic" (which I personally subscribe to) often misses the point anyway.  Rather than establishing "rules," what should be overtly taught is an issue of service, which is often lost on folks like Driscoll.  What's needed is a situation where people can relate to each other in an atmosphere of trust and safety -- it's not nearly enough to say that the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage; rather, men should look at women and think, "How could I be so selfish even to want to do that to her?"  In other words, the focus should be on being "siblings" rather than objects.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-23-2012 @ 1:07pm
in reply to: thevanished

"...those with degrees in sex therapy often offer advice that directly contradicts the bible."

That is often true, which is why Christians should seek out Christian therapists and be discerning about the therapists they see.

On your broader point though, I think what the authors are getting at is that the Bible clearly speaks to marriage, sex and other related topics but not to the level of specificity that their book does.  I don’t think the authors mean to say that pastors should not speak about these subjects because they aren't certified marriage therapists.  Just as pastors shouldn’t refrain from speaking about economic policy just because they don’t have degrees in economics, as the Bible talks about economics.  Again, I think it's the level of specificity on these topics with which the Driscolls engage that troubles the authors.

But in general, you make a decent point that Christians should be cautious about lending pastors extra credibility on topics outside their areas of expertize based on the fact that they're pastors.  Your point about economics is well-taken.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 1:53pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

I think the admonishment certainly applies to readers of Driscoll's book. What tends to happen is Christians read this or that book, then decide their own pastor's teaching is invalid because Driscoll (or Bell, or McLaren, or Piper) said it is so. However, for his own churchgoers, the ones whose counseling is highlighted in the book, it is perfectly valid to ask for marital advice.  

 

by: BlueDeacon

01-23-2012 @ 3:25pm
in reply to: thevanished

However, for his own churchgoers, the ones whose counseling is highlighted in the book, it is perfectly valid to ask for marital advice.

If that truly be the case, then why even write the book in the first place?  Why not simply write a set of guidelines that make clear that "this is for our church only?"

by: eljeffe

02-21-2012 @ 10:55pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

"That is often true, which is why Christians should seek out Christian therapists and be discerning about the therapists they see."

What is often true? That sex therapists often offer advice that directly contradicts the bible?  Really? That's like saying "it is often true that Muslim politicians are jihadists." Or that "often Catholic priests are sex offenders." 

Have you ever consulted a sex therapist?! Be careful - you're typing as though you actually know something- about sex therapy and the nature of the relationship between a psychological professional and their patient. Gross generalizations are used by the religious right and left to make points that are generally dismissed by those in the middle who need to know Jesus, but are boxed out by the self proclaimed "know it alls."

by: speaker

01-23-2012 @ 1:54pm
in reply to: thevanished

Part of the point however is that these books offer views on sex that claim to be biblical, but in reality are just cultural.  In the end the bible says very little about marriage, and hardly ever depicts a marriage that would match what Driscoll's expectations are.  While you may be correct in saying that there are some marriage specialists that contradict biblical teachings, there are also some very good Scholars that are well respected and are also Christian, that write very good materials on this subject that could be researched before writing a book such as this.  One example would be psycologist David Meyers.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 2:22pm
in reply to: speaker

Well, Meyers might be a respected psychologist, but his theology on issues related to homosexuality is abysmal. Dismissing the idea homosexual relationships are sinful, he notes only seven verses, none of them from Jesus (as though the rest of the bible is merely serving suggestions) identify same-sex relationships as not from God. I wouldn't direct any married couple to his materials either. 

 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-23-2012 @ 2:25pm
in reply to: speaker

On the contrary, the Bible says a lot about marriage.  Why do you think God uses the metaphor of marriage as a way to describe his relationship to the church?  This speaks to its importance.  

Of course, that says nothing about whether the Driscolls got things right or wrong in their book.

by: eurotony

01-23-2012 @ 12:43pm

It's a tricky one. There are times when it's appropriate, I think, for a Christian minister in a one-to-one (or one-to-two) pastoral situation to share her/his insights into human sexuality. However, it is less appropriate (and sometimes downright inappropriate) to give those insights the full "Thus saith the Lord" treatment, which I take to be the heart of the critique offered here. I would commend St Paul's practice in this regard (especially in 1 Corinthians), where he differentiates clearly between his own view more or less firmly expressed and what he understands to be the tradition received from the Lord Jesus. It is also, I think, unwise to try to universalise those insights under the guise of "Biblical principles". Within the long conversation between God and his people, part of which is recorded in Scripture, there is a wide variety of cultural factors in play. At times polygamy is at least accepted (e.g. Abram, Jacob, David and, with reservations, Solomon). At other times the ideal of monogamy is clearly set before the believer (e.g. Jesus, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles). Again, I would commend Paul, who deals with the questions which his congregations are asking him (or situations which have been reported to him) in accordance with his understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

by: csquared78

01-23-2012 @ 12:50pm

First, thank you 'thevanished' for your posts. You seem to bring some wisdom to the writers of this article who when looking at their credentials make you ask, what are your qualifications.


 


Okay, as Mr. & Mrs. Vanderveen have posted their review of Mark Driscoll's book, I think a few things stand out to me that need addressing. One is Mr. Vanderveen's explanation as to why Jesus came to Earth. Since, you believe he came to share stories and give us some more stories, you are WRONG! Jesus came to give himself so those who believe in him will not perish, but have everlasting life. He came to save the world through him. You see, our original sin prevents us from knowing God, so God bridged the gap, by sending his son Jesus to die for our sins, and save us from God's wrath. The whole story nonsense, is just plain stupid. I agree Jesus spoke in parables, and he gave direction, but his main purpose was salvation. His parables and stories do not make sense to an unbelieving heart, it is only when our hearts are opened by the power of the Holy Spirit can we then know the greater story and apply his message to our life. Without Christ this is impossible.


Also, I think it is funny how Mr. & Mrs. Vanderveen gloss over the issues of homosexuality and polygamy. Let's focus on homosexuality, there is no way that if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, have had your heart opened by his Holy Spirit and read through the Bible with care, that you can believe homosexuality in practice is acceptable. No theology or explanation will change the Biblical text. Marriage is for one man and one woman only. The Old and New Testaments confirm this. As for those who believe Jesus never said anything about homosexuality so we cannot presume to know his views. Then first remember his words regarding marriage that a man and woman will become one flesh. That is A MAN AND A WOMAN! Next, consider this, Jesus never spoke about rape or incest. Since he did not speak about this, are rape or incest okay? I hardly think so. As for polygamy, if you believe the Bible is the whole counsel of God, then the words of Paul should ring true. However, I am suspicious that Mr. and Mrs. Vanderveen do.


In closing it sounds to me that Mr. and Mrs. Vanderveen really do not like Mark Driscoll and are resentful of the work he has accomplished in the city of Seattle through Mars Hill Chruch. Many people are entering the kingdom of Heaven and receiving forgiveness of their sins. Their lives are being written in the Lamb's book of life and they are crossing over from death to life. But hey, let's be very critical even hateful of Mark Driscoll and accuse him of sexual confusion. Let's denigrate his work, hey Jesus never said anything about gossip, hatred, or spite...or did he?

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 2:30pm
in reply to: csquared78

Neither Mrs. Vanderveen or I know Mark Driscoll or his wife. We don't have personal opinions about them and our review was not a personal attack. We prefer other models of discipleship, like Capon's and Bonhoeffer's, that do not rely on a leader to spoonfeed specific answers to their followers. The spoonfeeding specifics issue is very problematic on a variety of levels. It seems to us that discipleship ought to be more about helping people learn to think for themselves, not have to come back to the leader for every answer.

This book and this style of management is not breaking any new ground as far as I can tell. Leadership idolatry has been around for a long time. Jim Collins has done some great in-depth research on alternatives to leadership cults that I happen to agree with and strongly recommend.

by: csquared78

01-23-2012 @ 4:07pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

First, a big thanks to 2204 for his response to you Mr. Vanderveen. Second Mr. Vanderveen, since you and your wife have no personal opinions about the Driscolls and that your review was not a personal attack, other than that your wife really doesn't like him, believes he is sexually confused, and you believe his Biblical knowledge is questionable, I can see how I missed your desire for other models of discipleship.


Let's face it David, you don't like Mark Driscoll because of his theology. You don't like him because he happens to believe in the whole counsel of God and his preaching and ministry reflect that. He believes that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that there is a literal hell. He also believes in original sin and that Jesus is the way, truth, and life, and that no other person can enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. I would suspect your wife doesn't like him for the same reason. You probably also don't like him because he has the audacity to question those who deny the uniqueness of Jesus and his provision for man's sin.


I would also say that if you read Jim Collins carefully, as I have done (Good to Great and Built to Last) you will see that he never says charisma is bad, just that it can be a liability. Also, Jim Collins' material is great, it is informative, but it is NOT SCRIPTURE! Idolatry is condemned in scripture and I have heard Mark preach on its dangers. You can search his podcast to see. However, my main point is that you have a problem with his theology, which means you have a problem with God. Your problem is that you have denied the very teachings of Christ that you say you defend. How do I know this, because of your response to Mark Driscoll's position on homosexuality. I also know that if you really believed in the teachings of Christ, you would be grateful for the lives that are being changed as a result of Mark Driscoll's ministry. You would celebrate the fact that lives are changing and the Holy Spirit is working and the kingdom of God is increasing.


I would much rather ask a Godly pastor questions about sex and sexuality than a doctor or licensed therapist whose morals and beliefs may contradict the God who has rescued me. I would much rather read the Bible and see his desire for sexuality than listen to the culture about what is right and wrong or even acceptable. The words of Jesus have pierced my heart because his resurrection power has saved my soul. Has he saved yours?


 

by: BlueDeacon

01-25-2012 @ 8:16pm
in reply to: csquared78

Let's face it David, you don't like Mark Driscoll because of his theology.

Oh yeah, play the "theology card" when you can't answer.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 1:54am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

"We don't have personal opinions about them"

Oh, come on, man.

by: jesse3

01-23-2012 @ 12:50pm

"Sojourners quite frequently posts petitions, signed by hundreds of pastors, advocating this or that economic issue. How many of those pastors have degrees in economics?"

--Love this point! So true. The Bible directly speaks to what is appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. It says NOTHING about capital gains tax cuts, government programs, etc. Theologians are as qualified and trustworthy on economic policy as they are to perform brain surgery (to steal David's quote) =).

"People are looking to their pastors to tell them what exactly they can do in bed once they’re married, and how to deal with intimacy issues throughout their entire married lives?

This is a real problem, because the Bible isn’t a marriage handbook, and a seminary degree doesn’t train a pastor to be a sex therapist."

--Whoah...can't believe how incorrect these statements are! Pastors are the spiritual leaders of their flock, and it is most certainly their responsibility to tell them what is and isn't appropriate in bed.

I just started reading this book and like it so far--of course, I'm a big fan of Driscoll's anyway. This book was actually recommended to me by a well-educated, independent, woman friend, who said it is first and foremost about how marriage should be a friendship...

by: csquared78

01-23-2012 @ 12:52pm
in reply to: jesse3

Thank you Jesse03.

by: csalafia

01-23-2012 @ 2:49pm
in reply to: jesse3

"Sojourners quite frequently posts petitions, signed by hundreds of pastors, advocating this or that economic issue. How many of those pastors have degrees in economics?"

There's a difference between supporting an issue (i.e. petitions) and writing a how-to book, as Driscoll has done.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 11:32am
in reply to: csalafia

What is the substantive difference? Both are ecouraging action. When a petition floats around opposing this or that legislation, it is telling the recipient how to approach the issue. It is saying "oppose this legislation". You can split hairs, if you want, but it's the same premise. 

 

 

 

 

by: Arachne646

01-23-2012 @ 4:29pm
in reply to: jesse3

Jesus taught almost nothing about sex and marriage.  He spoke about money more often than about anything else except the Kingdom of God. Justice for the poor and the stranger are consistent priorities of God throughout the Bible. Sojournors' work to unite Christians to work for the benefit of the poor, disabled and immigrants is consistent with Biblical principles. In the Kingdom of God, peace with justice will be the rule, not the exception, and as we pray "Your will be done on earth", we must make sure we do our part to make sure it happens.


 


Mr. and Mrs. Vanderveen are not telling you to do anything against what your Pastor tells you not to do in bed. I agree with them that putting specifics down in their book is unhelpful, inflexible, and just part of a controlling, top-down leadership style as opposed to servant-leadership of the Church. Marriages must have flexibility, just as Jesus was flexible, within the Great Commandments to love God, and one another. We need to wish each other the best.


 

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 11:54am
in reply to: Arachne646

In what way should marriage be flexible, and how are the Driscoll's demonstrating their inflexibility? They seem to permit just about everything, so long as it is within the confines of marriage.

"We need to wish each other the best."

Perhaps, but I'm certainly not seeing that in this review.

by: Paulep

01-23-2012 @ 2:23pm

A pastor friend of mine made a great point about pastoral leadership by stating, "It's not the people daydreaming, or making grocery lists, or surfing their IPhones during a sermon that a pastor should be concerned about, but the one's who are hanging on every word and then apply into their lives the pastor's teaching." The apostle Paul gave stern warnings to teachers. Just a thought.

by: Paulep

01-23-2012 @ 6:57pm
in reply to: Paulep

I figured I should give credit to the person.  His blog is incredibly insightful.


 http://michaeldefazio.wordpress.com/

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 12:32pm
in reply to: thevanished

But being an amateur surfer and professional editor for 20+ years would seem to qualify one to be an editor...

by: speaker

01-23-2012 @ 1:54pm
in reply to: thevanished

Part of the point however is that these books offer views on sex that claim to be biblical, but in reality are just cultural.  In the end the bible says very little about marriage, and hardly ever depicts a marriage that would match what Driscoll's expectations are.  While you may be correct in saying that there are some marriage specialists that contradict biblical teachings, there are also some very good Scholars that are well respected and are also Christian, that write very good materials on this subject that could be researched before writing a book such as this.  One example would be psycologist David Meyers.

by: dlaverysd

01-23-2012 @ 2:31pm

"Mark and Grace Driscoll state in the introduction to Real Marriage that they wrote the book because they speak at seminars and 'have spent more than 15 years counseling people before they were married about how to live as a Christian in such a sexualized culture, what’s OK — from a biblical perspective — to do in bed once you are married, and how to deal with intimacy issues all throughout married life.' Whoa. People are looking to their pastors to tell them what exactly they can do in bed once they’re married, and how to deal with intimacy issues throughout their entire married lives?"

I am in total agreement with Sarah and David regarding this issue.  I somehow have trouble imagining Ma and Pa Ingalls of Little House on the Prarie talking to Reverend Alden about these issues.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 1:26pm
in reply to: thevanished

I agree with Capon (and my wife), who I think give great clarity to good boundaries for pastors:

In his book The Mystery of Christ…& Why We Don’t Get It, the Episcopal priest Robert Farrar Capon eloquently summarizes his view of the pastor’s role:

As a pastor, therefore, my real authority — my true authenticity, whether in the pulpit, or in my office, or in the confessional, or at the end of a piano at a cocktail party — lies in my fidelity to the Gospel, not in my assorted competences (real or imagined) in other fields. …It seems to me that when pastoral advice is given by an ordained person, it ought to be given primarily on the basis of what he or she was ordained do — namely, witness to the Good News of God in Christ — and not on the basis of any other competence (or incompetence) the pastor in question may possess.

I think Capon gets it right, and the Driscolls have gotten themselves in over their heads.

by: BlueDeacon

01-23-2012 @ 12:43pm
in reply to: thevanished

You miss the point:  Pastors are supposed to be shepherds, not dictators; servants, not masters; the last thing that a church needs is to be led by an insecure martinet.  Besides, they have to be accountable not just to God but also to a board of elders, a governing board and most importantly the congregation.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 2:30pm
in reply to: csquared78

Neither Mrs. Vanderveen or I know Mark Driscoll or his wife. We don't have personal opinions about them and our review was not a personal attack. We prefer other models of discipleship, like Capon's and Bonhoeffer's, that do not rely on a leader to spoonfeed specific answers to their followers. The spoonfeeding specifics issue is very problematic on a variety of levels. It seems to us that discipleship ought to be more about helping people learn to think for themselves, not have to come back to the leader for every answer.

This book and this style of management is not breaking any new ground as far as I can tell. Leadership idolatry has been around for a long time. Jim Collins has done some great in-depth research on alternatives to leadership cults that I happen to agree with and strongly recommend.

by: 22044

01-23-2012 @ 1:46pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

David,

This might blow your mind, or maybe it won't.  But here goes - I think Mark Driscoll would agree with Capon too.

Why? I'm not the foremost expert on Mark or Mars Hill, but from what I've seen from him, he is trying to point people to Jesus.

But Jesus is interested in people's marriages, and the church's history does not show that it has been a good representative of that interest.

Why is this book out there? Maybe it won't work for everyone. Maybe there are better resources. Mark probably understands that there are deeper issues for some folks that the book won't be sufficient for. An honest author writing a book that will likely be read by many is likely aware of that.

Maybe you & Sarah are uncomfortable that the book goes into more specifics than you would like. I think it's more to the writing style & points made, rather than any true theological diversion. Mark Driscoll is probably blazing some trails there.

Finally, to get to a specific point about your critique - Jesus absolutely does condemn polygamy. Since you rely on that point to make the case for Driscoll's supposedly errent exegesis...need anything be said further?

by: Arachne646

01-23-2012 @ 4:11pm
in reply to: thevanished

Professional marriage counsellors specifically include the religious restrictions, imperatives, and cultural specifics of each couple in their assessment and therapy. To do otherwise would not be in line with the standard of care for any accrediting organization. If the couple wasn't sure about religious/biblical boundaries, they could consult their pastor or another in the denomination (I would rather talk to an aquaintance).


 


We're coming up on our 32nd wedding anniversary, and my experience is that flexibility is imperative in any relationship. We've always kept the vows we made to each other, but I couldn't have promised to "obey" him--I don't know what is in the book about the Biblical teaching about relationships. I sure wish someone would have given the text where Jesus condemned polygamy--even though it wasn't done in his day, I can't remember him saying anything about it.  If as much about  new babies, health problems and other life changes is left out of the book, and other things are handled in such picky detail, I can't see this book being useful at all for married couples. It probably got published just because of the authors' name value.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 1:24pm
in reply to: thevanished

I guess my point was missed. I am have been a professional editor, not a professional surfer. How is it that a professional editor isn't qualified to edit?

Melody Harrison Hanson

by: Melody Harrison...

01-23-2012 @ 5:12pm

My husband asked me why I care so much about what Driscoll does or says when he clearly really ticks me off, makes my stomach ache and generally bothers me.  But I've been mulling that question over.  

It's mainly his approach to biblical hermenutics.  By turning the Bible into a manual for any topic you want, you are using the tool in the wrong way.  It isn't a rule book.   I think his approach to bible study is flawed and it gives me the creeps because you can make the bible say almost anything with that approach, obviously based on what this book is saying.   

Secondly, he's got a crazy, conserative view of women and this is evidenced by just a few of the exerpts I've read from the book.   I was dismayed by how he shamed his wife.    

 

 

by: LindaV

01-24-2012 @ 12:28am

To those of you who have criticized the Vanderveen’s comments on “Real Marriage”:

1) It’s not a “review.”-  In the Editor’s Note, it explains that David & Sarah were asked to “read Real Marriage together and share their thoughts on the book and the meaning of "real marriage." They shared their thoughts. Professional qualifications are not necessary for that, therefore there is no need to mud-sling at their qualifications or criticize that they didn’t objectively summarize or report on the contents of the book to your satisfaction. Their post was their response and thoughts on Driscolls’ book--- as they were asked to provide.

2) Dave’s challenge to the Driscoll’s claim that “their advice is entirely biblical” and the ensuing questions about polygamy and masturbation. - Regardless of Dave’s view of polygamy, homosexuality and/or masturbation, I believe his point is that Driscolls’ are claiming that these things are directly and explicitly named as sinful “from the table of contents to the appendix and the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself”, when in fact, they are not. Even if, in your honest opinion, God would, or should, favor or oppose a certain behavior--- it is dangerous to put words in God’s mouth and claim Scripture teaches something when it doesn’t specifically address that topic or behavior.

Applying Biblical principles to our modern lives often requires interpreting Scripture, looking at the whole teaching of Scripture, and prayerfully discerning godly and god-honoring guidelines to live by. Driscolls’ may have done that in arriving at their view of marriage and sex, but they must admit, with humility, that this is their best attempt to apply Biblical principles and offer them up as such.

What frightens some about Driscoll is his readiness to confuse his understanding, interpretation and application of Biblical principles with direct and explicit Biblical teachings. (As we are all well aware, deeply sincere, intelligent, godly men and women have, at times, come to different conclusions on a variety of things--- including marriage and sexuality.) Dave is not arguing for or against polygamy, homosexuality and/or masturbation--- this is just an example to demonstrate the “poor Biblical scholarship” he believes found throughout Real Marriage.

3) Christ’s model of teaching/shepherding. - Dave makes a good point that Christ’s method for teaching his disciples was not to impart more rules and regulations, but rather to teach principles and values. Dave writes, “For discipleship to be scalable, duplicatable and sustainable, people needed general principals and broad stories to help them wrestle with their lives and their myriad decisions.”

By asserting their opinion of what’s right and wrong in a marriage, or the bedroom, Driscolls promote the infant-like dependency on rule-following and pharisaical obedience, rather than the development of spiritual mature Christians who prayerfully seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and discern god-honoring behaviors appropriate for their life and their marriage.

4) And finally, Sarah has apparently hit a nerve by questioning the appropriate role of professional counseling/therapy vs. pastoral counseling and care. I would agree that part of pastoral shepherding care of the flock may include basic counseling, listening, giving Biblical guidance and direction, and prayer--- but this must include wise acknowledgement when professionals should be called in. Pastors must be sensitive to when the issues at hand exceed their training and/or expertise and wisely refer counselees to others. Pastors who think they are the only ones who can help their congregants with personal, marriage and or sexual issues not only risk hurting, rather than helping, but must also question if their egos are preventing them from recognizing their limits.

It’s not that there isn’t a place for pastoral counseling, and Sarah acknowledges talking to one’s pastor is a good place to start, but as Sarah states, “the Driscolls have gotten themselves in over their heads…. I find it absolutely stunning that Driscoll believes that he is not only responsible for directing the nitty-gritty details of couples’ sex lives … but also that he is qualified to do so.”

This is not a question of either/or, but of wisely knowing when someone’s needs are best addressed by a professional with the time, qualifications, gifts and wisdom to best guide them to health and wholeness. Unfortunately, the Driscolls seem to think they have the “right” answer for every couple and every marriage. And that can be dangerous.

by: 22044

01-24-2012 @ 8:37am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

David,

There are potentially some good critiques in your original post, but as others have pointed out, they're hard to find with the numerous personal comments.

"maybe a cry for help from Mark Driscoll himself."

"desperate place to which Mark Driscoll’s ministry style has led him."

"I’m worried about Driscoll."

"a well-meaning pastor who I believe is struggling with his own sexuality and sense of self-worth."

"Driscoll is not a man at peace."

So your claims that you have nothing personal w/ Mark & Grace Driscoll are disingenous at best, in addition to the overall post showing little to no research regarding Mark's ministry & leadership of Mars Hill.

You continue to push that Christ did not condemn polygamy. OK, continue to believe that...& continue to be wrong. As mentioned previously, it invalidates your claims about Mark's supposedly misunderstaning of Scripture.

Finally, your post appears patronizing (I think Sarah mentioned that) but it seems the patronizing tone is a thin disguise for the mean spirit displayed, which is not Christ-like in any context.

Just to check my understanding, I had an opportunity to listen to Mark & Grace's recent interview with Family Life. To the contrary of finding stuff of concern in that interview, I found it engaging & interesting.

To get better reviews of Chistian books, I'll stick with Discerning Reader. They have some critiques of Mark's books, which are nuanced & grounded, i.e. not overly praising or damning.

 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-23-2012 @ 1:07pm
in reply to: thevanished

"...those with degrees in sex therapy often offer advice that directly contradicts the bible."

That is often true, which is why Christians should seek out Christian therapists and be discerning about the therapists they see.

On your broader point though, I think what the authors are getting at is that the Bible clearly speaks to marriage, sex and other related topics but not to the level of specificity that their book does.  I don’t think the authors mean to say that pastors should not speak about these subjects because they aren't certified marriage therapists.  Just as pastors shouldn’t refrain from speaking about economic policy just because they don’t have degrees in economics, as the Bible talks about economics.  Again, I think it's the level of specificity on these topics with which the Driscolls engage that troubles the authors.

But in general, you make a decent point that Christians should be cautious about lending pastors extra credibility on topics outside their areas of expertize based on the fact that they're pastors.  Your point about economics is well-taken.

by: Paulep

01-23-2012 @ 2:23pm

A pastor friend of mine made a great point about pastoral leadership by stating, "It's not the people daydreaming, or making grocery lists, or surfing their IPhones during a sermon that a pastor should be concerned about, but the one's who are hanging on every word and then apply into their lives the pastor's teaching." The apostle Paul gave stern warnings to teachers. Just a thought.

by: csalafia

01-23-2012 @ 2:49pm
in reply to: jesse3

"Sojourners quite frequently posts petitions, signed by hundreds of pastors, advocating this or that economic issue. How many of those pastors have degrees in economics?"

There's a difference between supporting an issue (i.e. petitions) and writing a how-to book, as Driscoll has done.

by: Arachne646

01-23-2012 @ 4:29pm
in reply to: jesse3

Jesus taught almost nothing about sex and marriage.  He spoke about money more often than about anything else except the Kingdom of God. Justice for the poor and the stranger are consistent priorities of God throughout the Bible. Sojournors' work to unite Christians to work for the benefit of the poor, disabled and immigrants is consistent with Biblical principles. In the Kingdom of God, peace with justice will be the rule, not the exception, and as we pray "Your will be done on earth", we must make sure we do our part to make sure it happens.


 


Mr. and Mrs. Vanderveen are not telling you to do anything against what your Pastor tells you not to do in bed. I agree with them that putting specifics down in their book is unhelpful, inflexible, and just part of a controlling, top-down leadership style as opposed to servant-leadership of the Church. Marriages must have flexibility, just as Jesus was flexible, within the Great Commandments to love God, and one another. We need to wish each other the best.


 

by: godgrrl

01-23-2012 @ 11:59am
in reply to: adammclane

Brilliant analogy, Adam!

"Being a married pastor doesn't make you a marriage expert any more than being a nineteen year old basketball star makes you a hall of fame coach."

by: eurotony

01-23-2012 @ 12:43pm

It's a tricky one. There are times when it's appropriate, I think, for a Christian minister in a one-to-one (or one-to-two) pastoral situation to share her/his insights into human sexuality. However, it is less appropriate (and sometimes downright inappropriate) to give those insights the full "Thus saith the Lord" treatment, which I take to be the heart of the critique offered here. I would commend St Paul's practice in this regard (especially in 1 Corinthians), where he differentiates clearly between his own view more or less firmly expressed and what he understands to be the tradition received from the Lord Jesus. It is also, I think, unwise to try to universalise those insights under the guise of "Biblical principles". Within the long conversation between God and his people, part of which is recorded in Scripture, there is a wide variety of cultural factors in play. At times polygamy is at least accepted (e.g. Abram, Jacob, David and, with reservations, Solomon). At other times the ideal of monogamy is clearly set before the believer (e.g. Jesus, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles). Again, I would commend Paul, who deals with the questions which his congregations are asking him (or situations which have been reported to him) in accordance with his understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

by: liberalinlove

01-23-2012 @ 3:43pm

The following is a blog from a licensed counselor, who attended Mars Hill, and who had to receive counseling due to counseling abuse from a spiritual counselor.  She has made it her mission to sound the alarm on Mars Hill and the Driscolls because she believes them unhealthy.

 

http://freedom4captives.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/48-a-bit-troubling/#com...

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 1:36am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

Your bio says you are a surfer by vocation. How is it a pastor isn't qualified to offer marital counseling?

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 1:54am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

"We don't have personal opinions about them"

Oh, come on, man.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 11:58am
in reply to: chw

You win thread.

by: UKcontributor

01-25-2012 @ 3:43pm

by: csquared78 01-25-2012 @ 1:55am

I would say the same things if I was standing in front of Mr. Vanderveen without my computer. I am not afraid of a good fight and believe when other supposed believers attack my other fellow believers, I am required to stand up on their behalf. I do not back down and I even use my Bible when necessary. I'll even admit I am wrong if need be.

--

This is the problem that you see this as a fight and that you regard the Internet as an appropriate medium to carry out that fight. The things you said to the Vanderveens might be appropriate in the context of a relationship you two (three) shared. However, the relationship is non-existent and as such you saying these things would only be appropriate if in fact you were standing in "in front of Mr. Vanderveen". A similar thing applies to your most recent comments about their 'supposed' belief - God calls you to respect your fellow believers even when you disagree with them; not let the disagreement be ground for a judgement only He can make.

Similarly I think the parts of the article which have attracted criticism only have the right to exist in a relationship between the Vanderveens and Driscoll. If they are of the opinion that Driscoll has a sexual issue, then surely it should be discussed with Driscoll rather than hypothesised upon in front of a global audience.

So in those respects I -humbly- think your offer of an apology would be welcomed by most people who signed up to the Sojourners code of conduct and regard them as valuable and strive to abide by them. And again I would -humbly- suggest some of the Vanderveens' more personal remarks about Driscoll deserve an apology/correction.

However, beyond those slightly personal comments, I actually believe there is a deeper issue with letting a personal attack on Driscoll cloud a constructive review of the actual theology behind this: it is the individualistic focus which inherently prevails when this happens.

I am not saying Driscoll has no agency to exert, but like all of us, Driscoll is woven in an intricate web of cultural, religious, social and political realities. Within the Calvinist school of thinking especially and moreso within the strong level of control which is often found within these communities, the emphasis often lies on the religious realities. Having grown up in a strong reformed, Calvinist church environment myself I recognise many of the things from the 'church discipline contract' to which a link was posted; although even I was amazed at how far it was taken.

Meyhrar (1984) infers in his psychological research on poverty that an individualistic focus in psychology results in the focus being taken away from the system which constrains and instead pathologises the individual within this system. I think a similar thing applies here. This is what happens when we focus too much on Driscoll....we pathologise him, rather than looking beyond the individual to a religious system which constrains and is the cause of some of the views Driscoll holds.

From my own experience, Calvinist tradition has a very unhealthy sexual theology with a big emphasis on sexual sin. In fact it is regarded as worse than most other sins, although official doctrine such as the catechism are ideal for the defence that all sin is the same and all have fallen short - in practice, from the examples of how they deal with sexual sin one can infer that believe is not put into practice.

As such there is another point there; their obsession with sexual sin in fact idolises sex more than those who would regard 'all sin the same'.

So to finish my short epistle (apologies) the danger of not being salt and light is something we all face - whether through expressing criticism which satisfies the Western ideal of individualism or whether aligining our attitude to sex to the Western idolisation of sexuality.

by: letjusticerolldown

01-23-2012 @ 12:11pm

Deep sigh. I have no interest in the book--but thought reading a review might give me a clue what the book does and does not do. I understand you don't like it and don't think we should be micromanaged--such as in deciding who is and who is not in position to dispense advice on sex and marriage. I think I missed that corner of this society that arrived at spiritual and sexual wholeness in loving Christian community where there are licensed therapists ready to give the final word.


 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-23-2012 @ 12:49pm
in reply to: thevanished

That was a little harsh.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 1:46pm
in reply to: David Vanderveen

Maybe they have. But I have two points.

First, any advice a sex therapists gives that conflicts with scripture must be disregarded. Given there are very few Christian sex therapists, the alternative for most would be to have no personal leadership or guidance in this area. At any rate, the only area where a sex therapist would likely disagree with Driscoll is that sex should be confined to marriage between a man and a woman. Driscoll is on sound footing within the gospel on that score, and has every right to assert as much.

Second, you haven't demonstrated here where Driscoll is drifting from the gospel, which does have a lot to say about marriage. If 20 years of editing qualifies you to be an editor (I think it does), then why not 20 years of marriage having applied scripture to the difficult moments in one's marriage as a leader in the church?

 

by: jbardenh

01-23-2012 @ 2:59pm

Thank you for this post. I greatly fear this book and the "help" it may
provide people who need guidance in their marriage. You should always trust a pastor who prays and listens to you BUT also refers you to a therapist for issues such as sexuality, marriage or family/personal relationships.

by: BlueDeacon

01-23-2012 @ 3:25pm
in reply to: thevanished

However, for his own churchgoers, the ones whose counseling is highlighted in the book, it is perfectly valid to ask for marital advice.

If that truly be the case, then why even write the book in the first place?  Why not simply write a set of guidelines that make clear that "this is for our church only?"

by: St. Ralph

01-24-2012 @ 1:42am

Thanks for the review. Or critique, or whatever it is. Two questions:

1) Is it common practice at Sojourners for book critics to attempt to psychoanalyze the authors of books they are critiquing?

2) If Driscoll isn't qualified to be a sex therapist, what makes D & S think they're qualified to be psychoanalysts? I don't see any credentials listed for them, either.

Have a pleasant afternoon.

by: David Vanderveen

01-24-2012 @ 1:57am

There seems to be a significant amount of confusion about the revulsion that Sarah and I had about the ideas in Real Marriage. We do find the ideas repulsive and highly unusual in a healthy, Christian community. We do not know the Driscolls or have opinions about them personally. I'll share a lengthy excerpt from Robert Capon to illustrate our opinion about why the book makes us both so uncomfortable as spouses and as parents. This is from Chapter 2 of THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST:

In spite of the fact that people have an inveterate hankering to put the church in loco parentis--and in spite of the fact that the church, more often than not, has gleefully thrown itself into the role of being everybody's Mommy and Daddy--the whole exercise is a terrible idea. This insidious, parental image of the church doesn't conform to what even a halfway decent parent actually does. Only rotten fathers and mothers ride roughshod over their children's freedom to make mistakes. Only the worst parents ever suggest that there are unforgivable acts that will, unless avoided by the children, be the death of parental love. Only the most dreadful grown-ups use fear to control the young. That there are a good number of such disreputable types (and that all of us, to some degree, are equally disreputable) should not blind us to the fact that the concept of God as an angry, unforgiving parent--and of his church as a domineering grown-up issuing threats to willful kids--is bad news, not Gospel. Such concepts inculcate fear: fear of God, and then fear of our own freedom. They lead not to liberty of the children of God, to the freedom with which Christ has set us free, but to a servile mentality that kills courage and breeds resentment. Still, much of the church, clergy and laity alike, goes blithely on perpetuating its parental image. And then we have the nerve to wonder why so many people hate themselves for being sheep, and hate the church of making them such.

To us, the ideas in Real Marriage do not represent the Gospel, the Good News as we understand it. We found no Christian liberty there.

Interestingly, a friend sent me this link to the style of management at Driscoll's church--it seems to line up with Capon's criticism of a natural tendency towards bad parenting in churches:

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-needs-new-pr/mark-driscolls-church-di...

If you want a church and church leaders that dictate your life's decisions to you, good luck. We don't have much to discuss.

by: UKcontributor

01-24-2012 @ 4:55am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

I don't think there is necessary confusion with everyone regarding the same thing. Yes, some have clearly spoken out in favour of Mark Driscoll, his style of managing and teaching and yes, I don't agree.

I think what many are confused about is why you and Sarah weaken the core of your good message regarding this book (like I pointed out earlier) by making statements such as:

"Real Marriage for me wasn’t about marriage relationships at all. It was a cry for help."

"pastor who I believe is struggling with his own sexuality and sense of self-worth. "

I think reading the rest of the article again, what strikes me and clearly others is the tone of your article where you border on ridicule and rudeness (note I said 'border'). I don't think that whatever subject you write upon, bordering on those things strengthen an argument.

I don't question your authority as an editor, I share your view on church life and the role of a pastor and if you read my previous comment well, you would see that I was merely attempting to create a polite and balanced response forward to both this article and the more unbalanced comments previously....as such I'm surprised at my current -1 rating?

by: BlueDeacon

01-24-2012 @ 11:04am
in reply to: jesse3

Wanted to make a point that hasn't yet been made: this review/critique/gripe post was very clearly written by middle- to upper-income, well-educated white people.

That sounds like class envy to me -- what irony, considering that the political right has been complaining about that for decades while simultaneously engaging in it.  Seriously -- is it the fact that they dare to criticize the writings of a known conservative that ticks you off?

by: csquared78

01-24-2012 @ 11:36am

Hey David, I am sorry for misunderstanding you. You have said on more than one occasion that you don't have personal opinions about the Driscolls and do not know them personally. Forgive me for reading into that, I mean when you say that Mark must be confused sexually, and that you really don't like Mark Driscoll's ministry or leadership, I mean how could I possibly think you don't have personal opinions about the Driscoll's. Forgive me for my error.

Also, it is interesting that you don't see the power of the Holy Spirit working in the Seattle area and that you continue to denigrate the work that He is doing through the lives that are being changed. People are entering into the kingdom of God, their names are being written in the Lamb's book of life and they are being saved by Jesus himself. Why would you and your wife be so condescending to someone who is obeying the words of our Lord (Matthew 28:18-20)?

by: UKcontributor

01-24-2012 @ 6:54pm

I'm actually saddened that this forum thread is no different than any other bickering forum thread out there on the Internet. I was hoping this forum, by virtue of its host, would stand out like a sore thumb in all the right ways.

Instead I think it's fair to say the sarcasm, the impatience and unwillingness to engage in responsible Christ honouring discussion from both the "left" and the "right" are an embarrassing performance of what we Christians are all too well known for.

Do i say disagreements don't exist or do not have a place? Do I advocate a fake 'banner of love' on all we disagree on agree on? No. But let's read the Bible on love, respect and dignity and then read the article and the comments again. Also think how things would be if the security of our PCs, laptops and iPads were removed and we were having this discussion in real life....

by: karlpmitchell

01-24-2012 @ 8:03pm

I don't understand the critique of pastors not being able to give marriage advice. My wife and I went through premarital counseling with an elder and his wife, and one is an engineer and the other is a school teacher. However, they both love Jesus, and they have been married to each other for about 30 years, with kids and grandkids. I think that critique is moot.

by: beggar

01-25-2012 @ 9:01am

I'm not a fan of Driscoll by any means. I think he has done a great deal more harm than good to the gospel. But the 'appeal to authority' critique leaves me cold. Frankly, I don't care whether or not Driscoll & his wife are 'experts,' because there is a great deal of value to be learned from people who aren't. It is the same reason why I don't turn *just* to my pastor when I want to know about Jesus. We may give more weight to the teaching of people who have studied things in depth, but we can learn from everyone. Some of the deepest theological insights in my life, I learned from my father, a 10th grade dropout.


If the critque had focused more on why applying Driscoll and his wife's specific experiences as solutions to other people's problems is a bad idea, it would have been more fair and helpful (and also less condescending). Because frankly, the problems of Driscoll have nothing to do with him offering up advice in areas outside his expertise. It is that the specific advice applied to unknown situations may lead to some very bad (or even dangerous) results. This would be so even if Dricoll were opining about things which he IS an expert, like building a megachurch. What worked in Mars Hill may not work other places, because specifics don't transfer without context.


Sorry, but this review just didn't help.

by: BlueDeacon

01-25-2012 @ 8:16pm
in reply to: csquared78

Let's face it David, you don't like Mark Driscoll because of his theology.

Oh yeah, play the "theology card" when you can't answer.

by: adammclane

01-23-2012 @ 10:01am

Thanks so much for this review. It gets well beyond the flowery, fan-driven stuff that so often permeates Christian "nice" culture.

Like you, the most concerning part of the book is that so many people are buying a marriage book by people who aren't experts. Being married and being a popular megachurch pastor does not make you an expert. And in the introduction Mark claims they wrote the book to help people and because they get asked a lot for marriage advice.

Being a married pastor doesn't make you a marriage expert any more than being a nineteen year old basketball star makes you a hall of fame coach.

It says a lot about Christian culture that people would look towards non-experts for advice, and that these non-experts would capitalize financially when they should just refer like most pastors I know to a qualified, trained, licensed counselor.

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 1:53pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

I think the admonishment certainly applies to readers of Driscoll's book. What tends to happen is Christians read this or that book, then decide their own pastor's teaching is invalid because Driscoll (or Bell, or McLaren, or Piper) said it is so. However, for his own churchgoers, the ones whose counseling is highlighted in the book, it is perfectly valid to ask for marital advice.  

 

by: BlueDeacon

01-23-2012 @ 5:00pm
in reply to: letjusticerolldown

A lot of what passes for "a more structured sexual ethic" (which I personally subscribe to) often misses the point anyway.  Rather than establishing "rules," what should be overtly taught is an issue of service, which is often lost on folks like Driscoll.  What's needed is a situation where people can relate to each other in an atmosphere of trust and safety -- it's not nearly enough to say that the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage; rather, men should look at women and think, "How could I be so selfish even to want to do that to her?"  In other words, the focus should be on being "siblings" rather than objects.

by: David Vanderveen

01-23-2012 @ 11:06pm
in reply to: 22044

The problem that my wife and I have with the book is not personal. Our problems are with the ideas in it, the structure that is proposed and the consequences of those ideas.

I really don't feel a need to get into the host of problems in fine detail, because the underlying assumptions of the book are so faulty--why worry about the house if the foundation is a mess?

Driscoll sets himself up as the center of the church--he can answer all the detailed questions you might have. Just come to him. He is the way to Christ. If that's what you want from a church or organizational leader, good luck. It's not for us.

I don't recall Christ condemning Abraham, Isaac, David or Solomon for their polygamy...perhaps you can refresh us all with that citation.

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 1:48am
in reply to: David Vanderveen

Abraham's polygamy was demonstrably faithless. Let's start with that.
 

Also, you haven't dealt with the issue of homosexuality. You have used polygamy as a proxy. Why is this so?

 

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 11:27am
in reply to: Arachne646

How can someone who does not understand Christianity dispense Christian advice for marriage? At best, you are asking a marriage therapist to guess who their advice fits within a Christian framework. 

Of course, there are Christian marriage therapists, and pastors (including Driscoll) often refer congregants to them.

However, the notion that what a sex therapist thinks should be weighted more heavily than our spiritual leaders is ludicrous.

by: BlueDeacon

01-24-2012 @ 11:51am
in reply to: csquared78

Having been tangentially involved with a cult in the mid-1990s, I always withhold judgment about a "hot" church until I see the fruit.  It seems that the Vanderveens are saying that, based on what they have seen and read, they don't like the fruit of Driscoll's ministry, and I think that's fair game to address.

by: David Vanderveen

01-24-2012 @ 3:18pm
in reply to: jesse3

Thanks for making a criticism of our skin color, social status and education. It's unclear how that effects our work. Good churches in rich, middle income and poor communities with people from every color and educational background are great places to seek referrals for qualified pro bono counseling and support.

One of our favorite marriage counselors does not accept payment for services.

Going to licensed counselors really doesn't seem any different than going to licensed medical doctors--there are no guarantees and some are bad at what they were trained to do. So what? Find someone that is highly recommended and has the equivalent of a board certification. Find someone who can help you if you need help. it's unclear to me how going to a person that is not trained would give you better service than someone who is trained and certified. There are plenty of good Christians trained and certified in service professions--seek them out.

I'll go back to Capon: "...it seems to me that when pastoral advice is given by an ordained person, it ought to be given primarily on the basis of what he or she was ordained to do--namely, witness to the Good News of God in Christ--and not on the basis of any other competence (or incompetence) the pastor in question may possess."

by: thevanished

01-24-2012 @ 6:22pm
in reply to: BlueDeacon

"Because they get to write for this blog -- and you don't."

Do you actually think this is what animates Jesse? If you're a Christian and also a lefty it's pretty easy to get your name out there. Anyone really interested in writing can usually find a prominent online forum. That's the nature of the blogosphere. You have an odd read on people. 

by: BlueDeacon

01-24-2012 @ 7:45pm
in reply to: thevanished

Do you actually think this is what animates Jesse? If you're a Christian and also a lefty it's pretty easy to get your name out there.

You miss the larger point -- we're not supposed to exist.  At all.  (Never mind that Sojourners predates the religious right and has outlasted it.)

by: BlueDeacon

01-24-2012 @ 7:48pm
in reply to: jesse3

However, the culture of Reformed theology often has nothing to do with life in the here and now, which is its biggest weakness.  I see absolutely nothing in it that justifies right-wing ideology, yet virtually all of the other Reformed folks I know are politically conservative.

by: UKcontributor

01-25-2012 @ 3:47pm
in reply to: UKcontributor

I forgot to say that i'm aware that the Vanderveens have started to focus more on the system that constrains in their subsequent comments to the article; specifically with regards to the leadership/management style and the theology regarding the role of a priest/vicar/pastor

by: thevanished

01-23-2012 @ 12:14pm

Regardless of what you think of the book, these criticisms are pedantic.

First of all, those with degrees in sex therapy often offer advice that directly contradicts the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it say "these are recommendations, but if someone with an advanced degree has another opinon, go with that".

Our pastors are our spiritual leaders. That goes for all areas of our life.

Sojourners quite frequently posts petitions, signed by hundreds of pastors, advocating this or that economic issue. How many of those pastors have degrees in economics?

My church is doing a series on sound finances. One of our pastors doesn't even have a degree. Is that out of bounds?

The bible frequently calls us to look to the leadership of pastors. Members of Driscoll's church are certainly doing the right thing in doing so.