Friday, November 21, 2014

SoS SGC 1, The Bedroom Police

First off, before anyone wants to accuse me of thinking that I presume to be the bedroom police, let me clarify. I do not feel it is my job to tell people what is and is not acceptable in their own bedrooms. If people do strip teases or oral sex as part of their married sex lives, that is their business, not mine. My little critique of the study guide linked by cn0te1 has nothing to do with whether a sex act is right or wrong. My critique has to do with whether or not strip teases or provocative dancing is mentioned and maybe even encouraged in the Song of Songs.

Secondly, while I was debating this topic with cn0te1, he/she seemed to assume a great deal about me without even knowing me. He/She seemed to think that the reason I didn't like Driscoll's teachings was because I thought Driscoll was misogynous. He/She assumed that I hated Driscoll and that that hatred was blinding me to Driscoll's brilliance in explaining the Songs. He/She assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about and that Driscoll did know what he was talking about.

Another thing cn0te1 assumed was that he/she has the right to comment on my sex life and, in essence, be the bedroom police towards me. He/she tried to bring up what was going on in my bedroom and what should be going on that he/she assumed wasn't. He/She was convinced I had certain issues since he/she had determined that I wasn't obeying the sex laws that he/she and Driscoll believed the Songs had set up for all married couples.

Cause you see, the ones who really think they are the bedroom police are Driscoll, the Bedroom Police Chief, and all his little deputies like cn0te1. They have certain ideas of what it takes to make a happy bedroom and want to make sure those things are going on in the bedroom. Or at the very least, they want to make sure everyone knows about all those things and how important those things are to God. They push the notion that it pleases God for married people to carry out all sorts things in the bedroom. In fact, Driscoll is even caught on tape telling women that Jesus commands them to do certain sex acts that they may not feel comfortable with.

Driscoll, and those like cn0te1, also consider themselves judge and jury. They believe that they are the ones who get to accuse others of being insecure, prudish or some such rot if people point out that God might not be all that interested in that much variety in the bedroom.
And where the heck do they get such a notion that wild sex pleases God?
From a legalistic view of the Songs. That's right folks. legalism.

You see, instead of seeing the Song of Songs for what it is, a love poem in the Bible, something beautiful and descriptive, they see it as some sort of divine remedy, something prescriptive to a healthy sex life in marriage. They truly believe that the Song of Songs (their take on it) is the healthy-sex trouble-shooting section of the Bible. Their personally subjective, black and white thinking has pounded this beautiful piece of poetry down into the little mold of a modern day 'how-to' guide for sex. To them, this book is about sex, sex, and nothing but sex. And anyone who suggests that there might be a bit more to it than that is labeled as religious, insecure, unenlightened, uneducated, and a whole host of other ad hominem attack words.

cn0te1 has made a whole host of assumptions concerning me, labeling me stubborn and religious, thinking that because I don't use the Songs the way Driscoll teaches, then I must be a Puritan prude who blushes at the mention of the very word 'sex'. Talking to him/her became frustrating because of the wall of accusations and assumptions on his/her part. He/She engaged in twists, turns, circular logic, and name calling rather than face the truth that Driscoll's doctrine on sex is bogus. It became so frustrating that I had to bring his comment over here and dissect it here rather than in the comments at Throckmorton's.

Driscoll has been exposed for the shyster that he is so I no longer feel the need to call attention to that. But his bad doctrine is still floating around, damaging people and their perceptions of God and the Bible. Therefore, when I come across someone who stubbornly holds onto Driscoll's wrong teaching, I don't back down.

Now for a link to an old post from Virginia Knowles at Watch the Shepherd.
My Thoughts on the Sexualization of the Church (and other problems)
The sex police (Mark Driscoll and all) have forced sex into the face of the church for quite long enough. We've had enough of their demands. And we are no longer going to let them use the Bible to promote their twisted doctrine that invades the bedroom and defiles the marriage bed.*

*Again, what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business. What is being discussed here is what Driscoll and Company says God is pleased with and in some cases commands


rach.h.davis said...

Here's what's interesting to me. There are a whole host of people (if cnote1 would bother to look around) who have no problem with strip teases, oral sex, and all the rest....and enjoy them within marriage....but still don't actually believe that the Song of Songs was specifically prescribing them in the way Driscoll implies. So even people who agree with his/her approach to married sex might disagree with using the Song of Songs to back it up.

Mara Reid said...

I read a comment somewhere else that said, to the effect:
Why do you need specific Bible references to support these actions?
Are you really that dependent on the Bible specifically saying this or that in order to feel it's okay?
But they have framed the argument so strongly, that if you don't agree with their interpretation, then you have issues with sex. period.
Their black and white thinking is getting them into trouble and blinding them to any reasonable discussion.