Men Who Hate Women Should Not Teach the Bible

Maybe a better title should be, "Men Who Don't Understand the Love of God for both Men and Women have absolutely no business, whatsoever, teaching the Bible."

There are many such men. Mark Driscoll, formally an easy and frequent target of this blog is one. John McArthur, the man who puts women under church discipline for leaving abusive husbands is another. Then there is the new up and comer Josh Howerton who is very disrespectful of women.

The list is very long of men like these. And their raging, self-righteous followers are all over Twitter/X using the Bible as a club against women.

But today, I'm wanting to shine the light on an upcoming podcast series that takes on Doug Wilson, one of the most hateful men I've ever heard who claims to be Christian. Yes. He is even worse than Driscoll, McArthur, and Howerton. And according to WenatcheetheHatchet, Driscoll had early dealings with Wilson.

The Podcast will be starting on Monday, October 28th, and it is called Sons of Patriarchy. Here is a link to the trailer.

I am looking forward to listening and hope that it takes down that mobster pretending to be a pastor up in Moscow, Idaho.

Abusers Are Going to Abuse

 Narcissist are going to love bomb to build their kingdoms then devalue and discard the people they have used when their usefulness is deemed over.

Mark Driscoll is a Narcissist, a User, and Abuser. And he's not going to stop. He's just going to make a safe place for himself so that he can continue to build his kingdom and stoke his ego.

Mark Driscoll's Safe Space: How the Embattled Pastor Built a New Church and Became an Online Influencer

I don't want to wish him ill. I just want him to stop using and hurting people. Is that asking for too much?

There are too many narcissistic pastors in places of influence and Driscoll is one of the worst.

I found out from reading the article linked above that there is a closed forum where Driscoll's victims from both Mars Hill in Seattle and Trinity in Scottsdale meet, share their stories and support one another.

From the linked article:

"Former members of both churches have formed a private online forum to share their stories and support one another. They gather and discuss regularly on a locked Facebook group called “The Sound and Valley Connect,” named after the Puget Sound area that was home to Mars Hill and the Trinity’s location in the Arizona valley."

This is Mark Driscoll's legacy. These are the multitude of sacrifices that have been made and continue to be made on the altar of Driscoll's massive ego.

I've said it before many times. And will continue to say it for as long as it takes.

This man is NOT a pastor. This man is NOT a Bible teacher. He plays at teaching the Bible with great, fleshly charisma and pizzazz. But whatever he "teaches", it must prop up HIS massive ego.

No, Driscoll doesn't teach God's Word. He uses the Bible as a sock puppet that always agrees with him.

Borrowed Credentials (NPD)

 This title is taken from a quote from WanatcheeTheHatchet's latest commentary on The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill Podcast and drawing from his extensive knowledge of the history of Mars Hill.

The full sentence from Wanatchee's post goes like this:

"Driscoll has certainly fisked people out there for "borrowed faith" but the stories of all the men who have come and gone from Mark Driscoll's life of whom he at one point said "He's my pastor, you know" suggests that Driscoll has spent his entire ministry career running on the borrowed credentials of people who, at one point, believed in him. "

This sentence appears near the end of the post. But everything written before it soundly supports this statement.

I almost left a comment but decided against it as it would have been merely stating the obvious and was using a word that Wanatchee has been actively avoiding for good reason. The comment I was going to make was something along the lines of, Yes, this is typical Narcissistic Personality Disorder behavior.

I understand that there are many reasons why someone like Wenactchee would want to avoid mentioning the word "Narcissist". It is both a very charged word and a word that some people simple tune out for one reason or another. Also, when one uses the word one runs the risk of being accused of trying to armchair diagnose people.

So rather than use the word, Wanatchee simply lays things out with more than enough evidence. And I look at it and think, "Just another example of raging Narcissism that male church leaders have admired, given a pass, defended, given a platform."

Driscoll Unqualified to Teach (NPD)

Big news rolling through the blogsphere. Big news, not new news.

Apparently Former Mars Hill Elders are saying he is still unfit to pastor and that he should step down. 

He's not gonna.

By the way, I know the news is "He's not fit to pastor" and not "He's not fit to teach." I know there is a difference in the eyes of some. But I'm sticking with my "Unqualified to Teach" because he is, in spite of stories claiming otherwise.

I was made aware of Mark Driscoll back in June of 2009 and made a post about him called SOS in the Hands of the Perverted. SOS is an acronym for The Song of Songs. I knew then and there that Driscoll was unqualified to teach on this subject. I could see, readily, that 'rightly dividing the word of truth' was the last thing on his mind. It was clear to me from the start that he had an agenda that was completely different and diametrically opposed to the Spirit behind the Song of Songs.

I will link one more post written back in the day as an example of how much Driscoll was disqualified to preach in SOS. Manipulating Scripture for Personal Benefit. This concerns Driscoll's mishandling a one specific verse (out of soooo many) in The Songs.

Back then I looked at Driscoll's misuse of Scripture as evidence of him being unqualified to teach. This was before I knew about his Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) symptoms and his Narcissistic Rage and his need for Narcissistic Supply. This was before I was even aware that NPD was a thing and before I knew the fact that my husband, at that time, also suffered from NPD symptoms (besides other things that I did know about.)

In The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcasts, Mark self-reports that, as a man of Irish decent, he has two moods. Pissed off and asleep. He gets a laugh out of that. Of all the negative things I point at in him, I appreciate his self-awareness on this, even though he uses it as an excuse to rage at his underlings. I appreciate it because Narcissists are notoriously un-self-aware.

But having said this, if Mark knew he had this much anger inside, as a Christian, and especially as a Pastor, he should have done what he needed to do to overcome this. He hasn't. And even more concerning, he hasn't seen this as a need within himself nor understood that this anger disqualifies him from preaching and teaching the Bible to others. 

His anger disqualifies him from teaching any part of the Bible and, exponentially, disqualifies him from teaching anything from The Songs.

Here is why. In the very first chapter of The Songs we have this verse.

Songs 1:6 "Do not stare at me because I am swarthy, For the sun has burned me, My mother's sons were angry with me; They made me caretaker of the vineyards, But I have not taken care of my own vineyard." (NAS)

This verse talks about angry brothers and their oppression of the beloved. They basically enslaved their sister and forced her to work out in the family vineyard rather than treat her like the nobleman's daughter that she was.

Even though Driscoll would like to identify as the lover in this story, and his wife as the beloved, in truth, he is far more like the angry brothers in verse 6.

Driscoll used his anger and the Bible to command women to become sex slaves, taking care of the vineyard of the sexual whims and pornographic gluttony of his manly men. He did this to build his church. And he burned and traumatized them with his words and teaching like the sun burned the beloved in Songs 1:6.

I am not using the term sex slaves lightly. Mark Driscoll groomed and trafficked the women of Mars Hill Church as Kyle Howard so aptly points out and explains. Driscoll bullied the women of Mars Hill, pressing them down to lower than the position of harlots. At least harlots receive wages for their work. Driscoll got the benefit of the sexual work of his Mars Hill women, using them as building blocks for his church/kingdom for free. It cost him nothing but propped up the machine of his empire so well. And the women got used and burned like the beloved working out in the sun in a vineyard, not her own.

Because Driscoll takes the stance of an angry, entitled taskmaster, he embodies the villains in Songs 1:6 and will therefore interpret the rest of the book through that lens. His "Good Bits" are a villainous and oppressive interpretation of a book doing violence to the actual spirit behind it. The true spirit behind is is liberating to women and anyone else who is willing to dig deeper.

You think I'm joking about the liberating aspect of the Songs? You have seen the state of the beloved in chapter 1 verse 6. Look at her now at the end of the book, after her time spent with the true lover of her soul and compare. Here she speaks again:

Songs 8:12 "My very own vineyard is at my disposal. The thousand shekels are for you Solomon, and two hundred for those who take care of it's fruit." (NAS)

In this verse, the beloved is in now in charge of her own vineyard and she decides what to do with the money made from it. Instead of being the one working in it, she has workers that she manages and pays. And she has profited so well from her own vineyard, she is able to give a substantial amount of money away.

Her relationship with her lover builds her up, enriches her, and sets her free. This is the opposite of Driscoll and the angry brothers of the first chapter. Angry brothers tear women down, steal from them, and enslave them.

Jesus said that you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Driscoll's version of the truth does not do this. His version steals, destroys, enslaves, and rapes.

For way more evidence of Driscoll's horrible teachings about women and sex see WenatcheeTheHatchet's supplemental reading post on the topic. It is nothing short of ghastly.

Mars Hill and Consumerism (NPD)

In this post we are looking at Episodes 4 and 5 of Christianity Today's Podcast on "The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill" and it's relationship to Mark Driscoll's Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) symptoms.

Episode 4  is  "I Am Jack's Raging Bile Duct". We reference to this one in the post below.  This episode takes on Driscoll's teaching on masculinity.

And Episode 5 is "The Things We Do to Women" which is almost like Episode 4b to me. It is concerning Mark's teaching on womanhood and sex. Episodes 4 & 5 go hand in hand when talking about the toxic teaching on marriage and sex at Mars Hill..

And I do want to address how this relates to Consumerism. But first I must link to a Youtube video from a trauma informed counselor, Kyle Howard, who reflects on the connection between 4 & 5 and the bad theology presented at Mars Hill concerning gender and sex.

Thanks to Ava Aaronson and her comment at The Wartburg Watch that has alerted me to the video. Hers is the third comment down on Why Do People Attend Mark Driscoll's Church. She lists several points brought up by the linked Youtube video above. And her list is better than anything I can put together after watching only the video once.

Now, onto Consumerism.

I've heard Mark preach to men about the need to stop being consumers and to start being producers. I wish I could find a good link to an example, but I haven't been able to. Episode 4 talks about this without using the word "consumer". Mark defines masculinity as being a producer. That is, getting a job, marrying and supporting a wife, having children, supporting the church. This, according to the podcast, was what some men needed.

But, in Episode 5, concerning his teaching about women, he basically commands women to be consumed sexually and hierarchal-ly by men.

In other words, while commanding men to be producers, he enables men to be sexual consumers of their wives by teaching a rape and porn culture version of Scripture. The term "rape culture" is mentioned once in Episode 5. But Kyle Howard goes into more detail about how truly wicked and abusive the teaching at Mars Hill was.

Furthermore, Kyle Howard goes on to point out that Driscoll, through twisting scripture, commands women, in the name of God/Jesus to be porn slaves, always available, and making every part of their bodies available to be consumed by their husbands no matter how they feel spiritually, emotionally, or physically.

Writing that last sentence reminds me of some of the angry rants I made on this blog back in the day when I was speaking out against Driscoll and his false use of scripture. It reminds me of all the times I complained about him misusing the Bible to make wives submit to every whim of their husbands. Deja vu anyone else?

Anyway, I prefer Kyle's term "grooming". This is what abusers do. Also, Abusers don't just groom victims for their own personal use. They can groom victims to be used by other predatory consumers. Kyle gives several examples of this in his video.

So, in the end, I find it both ironic and the height of hypocrisy than Driscoll instructs men to not be consumers while instructing them to be sexual consumers of their wives.

You know what else is ironic and the height of hypocrisy? Driscoll is the biggest consumer of them all. As a Narcissist, he is in need of a continual Narcissistic Supply. He feeds on his inflated image of himself, the accolades given to him by those he manipulates, and the self-righteous rage he unleashes on the unsuspecting from time to time.

Relating it back to my marriage to a Narcissist, I remember how needy and demanding my ex was in so many areas. He was never satisfied, no matter how hard I tried to please him. Eventually I came to see him as a needy bottomless pit. In the end he basically used me up.

And do you know what Narcissists do when you are no longer able to give them Narcissistic Supply? They discard you like an empty wrapper.

Or, in the case of Driscoll, he runs you over with the infamous Mars Hill Bus

Mars Hill and How to Become a Tyrant (NPD)

 I haven't written much here. And I expect there is presently little to no traffic through here. And I'm okay with that. I have moved beyond my initial anger (and sometimes rage) over how broken, dysfunctional and misogynistic the modern evangelical church had become. Don't get me wrong. It is still all of these things. But now it is being exposed more and more. And hopefully it will be soundly dealt with.

We have Sheila Gregoire battling the warped and destructive sex teaching coming from Evangelical teachers.

We have The Wartburg Watch continuing to call out Disfunction and Abuse across the board.

Shirley Taylor continues to sound the alarm against the flagrant abuses of the SBC.

And WenatcheeTheHatchet keeps us abreast of any news concerning Mark Driscoll present and what is coming out concerning the former Mars Hill.

Listening to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill at this point is just a look back at a time when I couldn't believe that people actually thought that Mark Driscoll's teaching on the Songs was inspire by the Holy Spirit rather than his personal perspective that is highly influenced by our porn culture.

Yes, I was outraged back then that he was looked upon as a balanced, educated, and wise source on married sex. But there were other things at play within me during this time. And looking back with some distance and perspective I am able to see more now than I could then.

For one thing, I am finally (as of February) divorced from my ex who displayed Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) symptoms. I was married to him for over thirty years and was the target of his narcissistic rage all the time. I've been separated from him for nearly three years but am still healing from the CPSTD of living with his personality disorder and tip-toeing around his hair trigger rage.

Initially, looking back by means of The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcasts, I found, their opening, where Mark is screaming "HOW DARE YOU!" and "WHO. DO. YOU.THINK. YOU. ARE.!?" to be triggering. It is becoming easier to put distance between Mark's narcissistic rage and my soul destroying marriage. I consider this to be a good step towards the inner healing that I have been pursuing. 

Long and short, it appears that another reason Mark rubbed me the wrong way was because he was displaying similar behaviors to those that I was living with. And it was easier to focus on Mark's bad behavior and narcissistic symptoms that to deal with those of my then husband.

Concerning "How to Become a Tyrant". I just started watching this Netflix series. The little blurb given about this says, "Ruling with an iron fist requires an aspiring dictator to know the playbook for absolute power, as histories despots prove in this sardonic docuseries." One thing that keeps coming up is the Narcissistic nature of the likes of Stalin and Hitler. Seeing this while also listening to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill really magnifies how much of a religious despot Mark Driscoll truly is. There are more overlaps than differences between religious despots and political ones. Okay, so sure, the bodies behind the Mars Hill bus are figurative rather than literal. But there is still a glee in Mark Driscoll about the "bodies" that he leaves behind.

Tying this into The Rise and Fall Podcasts, it was the third podcast "You Read Your Bible, Ringo?" that gave an example of an early display of narcissistic rage in Mark Driscoll. It is the story of Karen Schaeffer who was accused of heresy for suggesting that Mark could use the guidance of older, wiser men. If you are familiar with the story, there is no need to go into it. If you are not familiar, it starts at the 40:15 mark and finishes up at the 47:28 point of the Read You Bible Ringo episode. And within this seven minute segment, Mike Cosper mentions a book by Chuck DeGroat called "When Narcissism Comes to Church" and includes a blurb from Chuck concerning the hero/martyr/victim aspect of Narcissism which is important in understanding the mind and abuses of the Narcissist.

But what really stood out to me concerning Karen's story was the rage that Mark had toward her. She said that she had never dealt with such rage against her in all of her life. She also describes how jarring and disorienting it was to her entire being to be subject to such intense rage and hated from a trusted pastor.

As mentioned above, this post (and possible future posts on this subject) is merely a vehicle to reflect on and perhaps bring closure to my time spent married to a narcissist and ,my time watching the church being taken in by the Narcissism of Mark Driscoll.

The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill

 Christianity Today is running a podcast on this topic under this name.

The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill

It is very interesting and informative.

Marital Coercion

The longer name for this post would be "Marital Coercion or Marital Consent?"

Often times I will use a title that is inflammatory or outrageous to make a point. This time I used one that understates. Or at least isn't inflammatory or outrageous.

The phrase "Marital Rape" really gets people's blood pumping. When the phrase it brought up it can completely shut down conversations. Not because it isn't an issue. But rather because it isn't understood. So today I'm not going to talk about "Marital Rape". Instead, we are going to talk about "Marital Coercion" which is not just some thing that is done in secret. It is something that is blatantly taught, out in the open, as an acceptable practice.

First we will look at part of a dictionary definition of 'coercion'

Coercion - The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.

Definition found here.

Now we are going to look at an old, well-documented quote from Mark Driscoll from his sermon "Sex: A Study of the Good Bits of the Song of Solomon". Okay, not a direct quote. But basically Driscoll told women in a Scottish church that Jesus commands them to orally service their husbands sexually.

Here is a link to the sermon in its entirety. Wish I could tell you at what point he utters this command from Jesus Himself so you don't have to wade through the entire stupid thing. But I don't know where it is and I don't expect you to take my word for it if you are new here.

The reason I bring this up is to point out that there are men who are not afraid to use psychological pressure, or even spiritual pressure to coerce women to comply to sexual demands. There are men, preachers and Bible teachers, who are not afraid to twist scripture in order to give men the tools they need in order to trample a woman's boundaries and rip away their voice in marriage when it comes to sex.

Fortunately, Driscoll has been called out for that wretched sermon and the things he said in it.

However, there is a CBA best seller that also promotes marital coercion. This book takes away the wife's voice and ability to give consent. Then on top of this, it gives husbands tools to guilt and manipulate a woman into having sex, not unlike Driscoll's more inflammatory methods.

This book, published by Thomas Nelson, teaches husbands how to compel  their wives to have sex using psychological and spiritual pressure, threatening them that if they don't comply they are not following God's commands for marriage.

This book is none other than "Love & Respect" by Emerson Eggcriches.

And here is a more in depth look at how Emerson builds his case for 'biblical' marital coercion.

Love, Respect, & Consent

Thanks, Nick, for dissecting this terrible book.

Edited to add two more links.

Mark Driscoll and Christian Rape Culture.

Coercive Sex in Marriage: Her Story

Far Graver Issue Than Driscoll

At least this is what a commentor on Throckmorton's claims.
Someone commenting under the name "Win" has brought up the issue of the ESV and it's false rise to success. He/She claims that it "is a far graver issue than the geographically isolated Driscoll situation." While I disagree with the thinking that the Driscoll situation is 'geographically isolated', I agree that the ESV situation is graver.

Here is a link to the comment: Win's words on the ESV

(note: posting this mostly so I can find it myself later)
(note #2: yes, still planning on finishing my critique of the Songs study guide.)

SoS SGC 2, The Lulling to Sleep

As I mentioned in the intro to this series, I am aware of Driscoll's tactic of front loading his messages with innocuous info to give his audience a false sense of security. He uses many words, with references and word studies at the beginning and middle of his messages to fool people into thinking that what he throws in here and there and then asserts at the end is also well researched, documented, supported and should be accepted. I saw him do this in the Peasant Princess series. I see this in the "Study Guide" as well. (Note: cn0te1 never did get back to me on where this study guide came from, even though he claimed that he copied and pasted it for my benefit, to educate me. He just thought throwing all those words with no footnotes, references, or sources should somehow be enough to shut me up.)

I started off counting paragraphs to keep track, but there are so many I've changed it to sections with paragraphs numbered in those sections.

The question is, does Song of Songs 6:13 refer to the Beloved doing a strip tease or some other sort of provocative dance?
Driscoll and cn0te1 claim that is does.
Here is the verse in question:
Songs 6:13 Come back, come back, O Shulammite;
Come back, come back, that we may gaze at you!"
Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
As at the dance of the two companies?

Part one of the study guide goes into the Beloved's name used in the verse. That the name used, "Shulammite" is about where she comes from rather than her personal name. And the study guide asserts that she is Abishag, mentioned in I and II Kings. There is no proof or disproof of this. Some traditions believe this. Others don't. Then part one goes on more about names. It gets pretty long and confusing. But for the most part, seemingly harmless.

Part two gets into the dance of the Manahaaim which I touched on in my comment to cn0te1. The first two and a half paragraphs of part two go into the meaning of this word. But about three fourths of the way down in the third paragraph, an assertion is made. The author asserts that "the daughters of Jerusalem wish to see the Shulamite dance."
This assertion cannot be derived by reading the text, nor is there any supporting documentation that is so prevalent in the everything that led up to this assertion. It is just stated as fact, as though the text says so, itself. But it doesn't. All the text does is question why people are staring at her like at some angelic dance.
Don't get me wrong. She may very well have been dancing. That is neither provable nor un-provable. The word 'dance' is mentioned in the verse. But it is not certain that anyone was dancing, going to dance, or being requested to dance. There is simply mentioned "the dance of the two companies" which refers back to Genesis 32:2. And that dance had to do with angels. Not sex.

Paragraph 4 of part 2 gets into German words and Indian mythology, which I suppose the author found interesting. But one has to wonder why it is brought up here since it has absolutely no bearing on the verse in question. It seems to appear because the author likes to fancy himself intelligent or well-read. Or perhaps it is thrown in to further confuse people so that their defenses are down and they accept what comes next.

Paragraph 5 makes unsupported assertions concerning the verses that follow Song 6:13 in Songs Chapter 7. The word 'undeniably' is used in this assertion to try to give it credibility. Again. The verse may or may not be about dancing. And if it is about dancing, it still isn't proven that this dance is in anyway meant to be provocative.

Much is said to try to prove that there is dancing, which may or may not have been going on. And much is asserted as to what people meant or intended or implied by their words. The problem is that these things can be found in neither the plain reading of the text nor in any supporting work or documentation.

So here are a lot of words that seem to be legit (again, none of this is footnoted and given sources but enough is given a person could conceivably look them up themselves) ... anyway, there seems to be a lot of legit discourse on names and angels. But toward the end of several blocks of info there are little bits of unsupportable sex leaven sprinkled in. These little suggestions in the study are part of a sales tactic. The tactic is to plant little sex seeds in order to build up to the final flight of fantasy promoted by Driscoll (or whoever the author is) at the end of the whole spiel.

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. 

Song of Songs Study Guide?

Really?

And just who exactly wrote this Song of Songs study guide (here after referred to SoS SG)? Mark Driscoll? Someone else approved by Mark Driscoll?

I'm trying to get an answer from the random person who copied and pasted it in a comment at Warren Throckmorton's blog. That anonymous person, cn0te1, copied it into the comment section to try to get me to shut up. His/her exact words were, "Please read educate yourself then be quiet." A comma would have helped for clarity. But I'm not here to critique his/her grammar, just his/her foolishness in embracing Driscoll's teachings on the Songs. This post will not contain critique, just his/her comment and perhaps some dividing and labeling for clarity. The critiques will appear in subsequent comments (here after referred to the SoS SGC).

Note: okay, just a little critique right here right now because this cut and paste job is really, really long. Do not feel obligated to read every word of it in order to follow along with my critique unless you want to and/or feel up to the challenge. One reason I suspect that this, so called "Study Guide" is written by Driscoll is because of the style. He goes on about stuff that is mostly innocuous to lull his audience into a false sense of security then throws in a bit of completely unsupportable conjecture. Then at the end, he throws in unsupportable flights of fantasy and expects his hack job to be taken seriously. He expects people to treat it as a piece of enlighten inspiration. The problem is there are people like me who don't trust him since he's a liar, a plagiarist, a cheat, and all around shyster (and yes, I know the German origin for that last word and mean it with all of my heart because that is what he has done to the Songs).

Anyway, here is the comment as it appeared over there, including the belittling, silencing tactic at the beginning from cn0te1 who has had quite enough of me at this point cause I won't stop pointing out that his/her idol is a fraud.
Also I have divided this long piece into 4 parts in order to better dissect this ugly dragon.

Comment from cn0te1:

*****

Please read educate yourself and then be quite!

SONG OF SOLOMON. 6:13

-----
(Part 1)

(7:1) Encouraged by Shulamith's unassuming answer, the daughters of Jerusalem now give utterance to an entreaty which their astonishment at her beauty suggests to them. 7:1 Come back, come back, O Shulamith!

Come back, come back, that we may look upon thee!

She is now (Song 6:10 ff.) on the way from the garden to the palace. The fourfold "come back" entreats her earnestly, yea, with tears, to return thither with them once more, and for this purpose, that they might find delight in looking up her; for b| chaazaah signifies to sink oneself into a thing, looking at it, to delight (feast) one's eyes in looking on a thing.

Here for the first time Shulamith is addressed by name. But hashuw' cannot be a pure proper name, for the art. is vocat., as e.g., yrw' habat , "O daughter of Jerusalem!" Pure proper names like shlmh are so determ. in themselves that they exclude the article; only such as are at the sametime also nouns, like yar|deen and l|baanown , are susceptible of the article, particularly also of the vocat., Ps 114:5; but cf.

Zech 11:1 with Isa 10:34. Thus hashuw' will be not so much a proper name as a name of descent, as generally nouns in î (with a few exceptions, viz., of ordinal number, haraariy , y|maaniy , etc.) are all gentilicia. The LXX render hshw' by hee Sounami'tis, and this is indeed but another form for hashuwnamiyt, i.e., she who is from Sunem. Thus also was designated the exceedingly beautiful Abishag, 1 Kings 1:3, Elisha's excellent and pious hostess, 2 Kings 4:8 ff.

Sunem was in the tribe of Issachar (Josh 19:18), near to Little Hermon, from which it was separated by a valley, to the south-east of Carmel. This lower Galilean Sunem, which lies south from Nain, south-east from Nazareth, south-west from Tabor, is also called Shulem. Eusebius in his Onomasticon says regarding it: Doubee'm (l. Doulee'm) klee'rou Issa'char kai' nu'n esti' koo'mee Soulee'm k.t.l., i.e., as Jerome translates it: Sunem in tribue Issachar. et usque hodie vicus ostenditur nomine Sulem in quinto miliario montis Thabor contra australum plagam. This placeif found at the present day under the name of Suwlam (Sôlam), at the west end of Jebel ed-Duhi (Little Hermon), not far from the great plain (Jisre'el, now Zer'în), which forms a convenient way of communication between Jordan and the sea-coast, but is yet so hidden in the mountainrange that the Talmud is silent concerning this Sulem, as it is concerning Nazareth. Here was the home of the Shulamitess of the Song. The ancients interpret the name by eireemeu'ousa, or by eskuleume'nee (vid., Lagarde's Onomastica), the former after Aquila and the Quinta, the latter after Symm. The Targum has the interpretation: h' `m b'mwnth hshleemh (vid., Rashi). But the form of the name (the Syr. writes shiyluwmiytaa') is opposed to these allegorical interpretations. Rather it is to be assumed that the poet purposely used, not hshwb', but hshwl', to assimilate her name to that of Solomon; and that it has the parallel meaning of one devoted to Solomon, and thus, as it were, of a passively-applied sh|lowmiyt = Dalo'mee, is the more probable, as the daughters of Jerusalem would scarcely venture thus to address her who was raised to the rank of a princess unless this name accorded with that of Solomon.

Not conscious of the greatness of her beauty, Shulamith asks- 1ba What do you see in Shulamith?

-----
Part 2

She is not aware that anything particular is to be seen in her; but the daughters of Jerusalem are of a different opinion, and answer this childlike, modest, but so much the more touching question- 1bb As the dance of Mahanaim!

They would thus see in her something like the dance of Manahaaïm. If this be here the name of the Levitical town (now Mahneh) in the tribe ofGad, north of Jabbok, where Ishbosheth resided for two years, and where David was hospitably entertained on his flight from Absalom (Luthr.: "the dance to Mahanaaïm"), then we must suppose in this trans-Jordanic town such a popular festival as was kept in Shiloh, Judg 21:19, and we may compare Abel-meholah = meadow of dancing, the name of Elisha's birth-place (cf. also Herod. i. 16: "To dance the dance of the Arcadian town of Tegea").

But the Song delights in retrospective references to Genesis (cf. Gen 4:11b, 7:11). At 32:3, however, by Mahanaaïm (Note: Böttcher explains Mahanaaïm as a plur.; but the plur. of mchnh is machanowt and machaniym; the plur. termination ajim is limited to mayim and shaamayim .) is meant the double encampment of angels who protected Jacob's two companies (32:8). The town of Mahanaaïm derives its name from this vision of Jacob's. The word, as the name of a town, is always without the article; and here, where it has the article, it is to be understood appellatively. The old translators, in rendering by "the dances of the camps" (Syr., Jerome, choros castrorum, Venet. thi'ason stratope'doon), by which it remains uncertain whether a war-dance or a parade is meant, overlook the dual, and by exchanging mchnayim with machanowt, they obtain a figure which in this connection is incongruous and obscure. But, in truth, the figure is an angelic one. The daughters of Jerusalem wish to see Shulamith dance, and they designate that as an angelic sight. Mahanaaïm became in the post-bibl. dialect a name directly for angels. The dance of angels is only a step beyond the responsive song of the seraphim, Isa 6.

Engelkoere angel-choir and "heavenly host" are associated in the old German poetry. (Note: Vid., Walther von der Vogelweide, 173. 28. The Indian mythology goes farther, and transfers not only the original of the dance, but also of the drama, to heaven; vid., Götting. Anziegen, 1874, p. 106.)

The following description is undeniably that (let one only read how Hitzig in vain seeks to resist this interpretation) of one dancing. In this, according to biblical representation and ancient custom, there is nothing repulsive.

-----
Part 3

The women of the ransomed people, with Miriam at their head, danced, as did also the women who celebrated David's victory over Goliath (Ex. 15:20; 1 Sam. 18:66). David himself danced (2 Sam 6) before the ark of the covenant. Joy and dancing are, according to Old Testament conception, inseparable (Eccl 3:4); and joy not only as the happy feeling of youthful life, but also spiritual holy joy (Ps 87:7). The dance which the ladies of the court here desire to see, falls under the point of view of a play of rival individual artistes reciprocally acting for the sake of amusement. The play also is capable of moral nobility, if it is enacted within the limits of propriety, at the right time, in the right manner, and if the natural joyfulness, penetrated by intelligence, is consecrated by a spiritual aim.

Thus Shulamith, when she dances, does not then become a Gaditanian (Martial, xiv. 203) or an Alma (the name given in Anterior Asia to thosewomen who go about making it their business to dance mimic and partly lascivious dances); nor does she become a Bajadere (Isa 23:15 f.), (Note: Alma is the Arab. 'ualmah (one skilled, viz., in dancing and jonglerie), and Bajadere is the Portug. softening of baladera, a dancer, from balare (ballare), mediaev. Lat., and then Romanic: to move in a circle, to dance.) as also Miriam, Ex 15:20, Jephthah's daughter, Judg 11:34, the "daughters of Shiloh," Judg 21:21, and the woman of Jerusalem,1 Sam 18:6, did not dishonour themselves by dancing; the dancing of virgins is even a feature of the times after the restoration, Jer 31:13. But that Shulamith actually danced in compliance with the earnest entreaty of thedaughters of Jerusalem, is seen from the following description of her attractions, which begins with her feet and the vibration of her thighs.

After throwing aside her upper garments, so that she had only the light clothing of a shepherdess or vinedresser, Shulamith danced to and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem, and displayed all her attractions before them. Her feet, previously (Song 5:3) naked, or as yet only shod withsandals, she sets forth with the deportment of a prince's daughter. 2a How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, O prince's daughter!

.....

-----
Part 4

""Another view is that the word "return" is for "turn round;" that is, "Let us see thee dance, that we may admire the beauty of thy form and movements." This would explain the appropriateness of the bride's reply in the latter haft of the verse. Moreover, the fourfold appeal is scarcely suitable if the bride was only slightly indicating her intention to leave. She would surely not leave hastily, seeing that Solomon is present. The request is not that she may remain, but that they may look upon her. It would be quite fitting in the mouth of lady companions. The whole is doubtless a poetic artifice, as before in the case of the dream, for the purpose of introducing the lovely description of her personal attractions. Plainly she is described as dancing or as if dancing. Delitzsch, however, thinks that the dance is only referred to by the ladies as a comparison; but in that case he certainly leaves unexplained the peculiarity of the description in Song of Solomon 7:1-5, which most naturally is a description of a dancing figure.Verse 13b. - Why will ye look upon the Shulamite as upon the dance of Mahanaim? The Shulamite, in her perfect modesty and humility, not knowing how beautiful she really is, asks why it is that they wish still to gaze upon her, like those that gaze at the dance of Mahanaim, or why they wish her to dance. But at the same moment, with the complaisance of perfect amiability, begins to move - always a pleasure to a lovely maiden - thus filling them with admiration. Mahanaim came in later times to mean "angels," or the "heavenly host" (see Genesis 32:3), but here it is generally thought to be the name of a dance, perhaps one in which the inhabitants of Mahanaim excelled, or one in which angels or hosts were thought to engage. The old translators, the Syriac, Jerome, and the Venetian, render, "the dances of the camps" (choros castrarum, θίωσον στρατοπέδων), possibly a war dance or parade. The word, however, is in the dual. Delitzsch thinks the meaning is a dance as of angels, "only a step beyond the responsive song of the seraphim" (Isaiah 6.). Of course, there can be no objection to the association of angels with the bride, but there is no necessity for it. The word would be, no doubt, familiarly known in the age of Solomon. The sacred dances wore often referred to in Scripture. and there would be nothing degrading to the dignity of the bride in dancing before the ladies and her own husband. "After throwing aside her upper garment, so that she had only the light clothing of a shepherdess or vine dresser, Shulamith danced to and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem, and displayed all her attractions before them.""...Therefore performing a provocative dance!

*****


I can't wait to get into critiquing it. But I have to wait until I have more time on my hands.

Piper Pipes In

I have no idea what he has said since I have not heard this yet. I'm so busy with personal life that my blog seems to have become my 'Pinterest' today, pinning this little blip from Piper concerning whether or not he regrets partnering with Driscoll. I'm pinning it so I can find it later. Piper may redeem himself. Or not. I have know clue. I'll find out as I listen to it.

Do you regret partnering with Mark Driscoll - Piper

I'm not a huge Piper fan. But Driscoll... wow.

"Pussified Nation" Says Driscoll (WTH)

I'm just going to link to this series under its label on Wenatchee The Hatchet's blog.

Driscoll fears the feminine and its great and magnificent power to destroy men (snark or eye rolling icon here).

He is so worried about the power of women to destroy men and manhood that he went on and on and on about it about it on some Mars Hill forum.

If you go down about half a page or more you will get to Page 1 of Driscoll's ranting against girly men (as defined by him) and the women who made them that way. Page 2 is below that.

But here is the link:

Pussified Nation (WTH)

Dang, Driscoll. Go get some therapy. You need it, dude.

SOS in the Hands of the Perverted...

I have recently been made aware that a shock jock pastor, Mark Driscoll, has a series on the Song of Solomon. I find this distressing to say the least. Whether or not I slog through this preacher's 10 week series remains to be seen. But the assertion that a certain verse is about oral sex as reported in a news piece on him, this cannot be ignored even though this has happened about two years ago and from what I understand he has repented from this and removed this teaching on this particular verse from the Internet.

 But still the damage has been done. The info has gone out as a part of a teaching. This information on this pastor is located at the link below, eighth paragraph down. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30700&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0617 

 Before we get into how SOS 2:3 can be looked upon as worship to the Lord, let me give you the context and setting of this verse and prove that it is not about OS. Chapter One of SOS is the meeting between the Lover and the Beloved. It's like love at first sight. She is drawn to Him immediately and desires to be with Him.

In addition, she points to her own short comings, as mentioned in the June 10 post. Chapter Two is Him drawing her into his world and finding His way into hers. Their worlds begin to overlap. For example, the famous verse 4 that follows verse 3 talks about Him bringing her into His banquet hall and His banner over her is love. Verse 9 speaks of His visit to her home and the thrill this brings her. Please note, very important: Chapter Three is their wedding day.

Any sex that occurs or is alleged to occur before the middle of chapter three is fornication.

SOS is a progression of love, from meeting through wedding, through troubles that bring maturity until the end which is a deep, mutual, mature, establish love that cannot be shaken. For a shock jock preacher to assert that SOS 2:3 is about oral sex is unacceptable. He shows either his ignorance or his agenda or both by having the Lover and the Beloved engaging in any sexual behavior before they are even married. He has them committing fornication.

For those of us who work in the social services, his rantings sound like a sex addict slapping a "Thus saith the Lord" onto his addictions to make them acceptable rather than a pastor rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Next post we will look more closely at SOS 2:3 and see how it can pertain to our relationship with the Lord.