Most everyone is talking about the fact that the problem with Driscoll is the inappropriateness of his language. Its just not okay for you to be talking explicitly about sex and cussing from the pulpit. That’s the downbeat of the current backlash, and that’s the central issue that has framed the current debate among evangelicals that run in these circles. To his credit, MacArthur (who I generally despise, at least theologically if not personally) has put is finger on the more troubling issue here. Namely that Driscoll’s sexual explicitness is all deployed in the interest of coercing women to fulfill whatever sexual whims their husbands might have. As MacArthur rightly points out, Driscoll’s regular sermons on what the Song of Song has to say about sex always ends up pointing out “obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife’s own desire or conscience.” This is the real problem, people.
He’s right, you know – and his article is more interesting over there. (Linked above)
This will be filled under a new category, Gender Issues.
June 6th, 2009 1:05 am
Very interesting post, Polycarp, considering that the church's attitude toward women is what I call the final frontier. Women are still not considered equal by most men who twist and distort the scriptures for their own gain. Driscoll is a moron and should be taken out of the pulpit. If no one showed up on Sunday maybe he'd get the message!
btw, nice new blog!
June 6th, 2009 12:11 pm
You know, I've always thought that unity, love, respect, caring, and little things like that should define the marital relationship. That seems a bit more appropriate to the Christian calling than my wife being compelled to do whatever I want, regardless of her mood.
I haven't spent much time in Driscoll's sermons, but I wonder … does he state the same obligation from men toward women?
June 6th, 2009 4:37 pm
I generally agree with MacArthur, not that I'm an expert or authority on this stuff. However, I haven't seen where "Driscoll’s sexual explicitness is all deployed in the interest of coercing women to fulfill whatever sexual whims their husbands might have." That seems like a stretch.
Jeff
June 6th, 2009 1:09 am
Thanks, Joann. I am preparing a posting on the \\'wives\\' in 1st Tim, which I have come to believe should be translated as deaconess\\'. What do you think?
Otherwise, I believe that you are right about the attitude towards women.
June 6th, 2009 1:09 am
Thanks, Joann. I am preparing a posting on the \\'wives\\' in 1st Tim, which I have come to believe should be translated as deaconess\\'. What do you think?
Otherwise, I believe that you are right about the attitude towards women.
June 6th, 2009 1:09 am
Thanks, Joann. I am preparing a posting on the \\'wives\\' in 1st Tim, which I have come to believe should be translated as deaconess\\'. What do you think?
Otherwise, I believe that you are right about the attitude towards women.
June 6th, 2009 1:09 am
Thanks, Joann. I am preparing a posting on the \\'wives\\' in 1st Tim, which I have come to believe should be translated as deaconess\\'. What do you think?
Otherwise, I believe that you are right about the attitude towards women.
June 6th, 2009 12:20 pm
Wickle – why in the world would husbands have to be obligated to women?
You are right, and while I enjoy Driscoll\\'s take on Osteen, and his defense of God, I do not enjoy this subject. While I do think that marriage and the things that surround a godly marriage, I do not think that Driscoll is doing it the right way.
June 10th, 2009 1:02 pm
Well, I think it's been noted that men might find their wives a lot more willing to cooperate if they (we) would mow the lawn and take out the trash without having to be asked. Maybe do the dishes now and then.
Or you could try to browbeat her with an obligation. You know, one or the other.
June 10th, 2009 1:30 pm
Browbeating is a lot easier than 'submit yourselves one to another'