Driscoll, MacArthur, and the Jezebel Spirit

 So, back in the day, when my mind was being blown away by the fact that Mark Driscoll was Raping and Pornifying The Song of Solomon (hither to referred to as The Songs), I was looking for someone, anyone with any kind of platform to confront these crimes against Scripture.

And I did find a guy. I linked to him and his series and thanked him on this blog for confronting Driscoll. He was John MacArthur.

However, little did I  know how much MacArthur is NOT a friend to women. I knew he was Complementarian. And really, I thought that would make others take his rebuke of Driscoll more seriously.

But John MacArthur Shamed and Excommunicated a Mother for Refusing to Take Back Her Child Abuser Husband. AND shortly after this came to light A Prominent Elder Resigned from MacArthur's Church claiming that the church was failing to protect women from abusive husbands.

Even though I was disheartened by the knowledge of how awful MacArthur is to women, I left up my posts about him confronting Driscoll. My reasoning was this: I was on a journey. I learned awful things about the Evangelical movement and Neo Calvinists. And my blog is as good a record of that journey as anything else. I am imperfect, am not omniscient. and I'm bound to make mistakes. And I did in that area out of ignorance.

So, anyway, fast forward to the last few weeks. As I watched the crazy words and behaviors of Mark Driscoll and John Lindell and what a lot of people were saying about it, I was reminded of my frustration with praising MacArthur for protecting women from Driscoll when people need to protect women from MacArthur just as much.

I read one guy's tweet that said something along the lines of, "If we need Driscoll to call out sin in our conferences, we have fallen so very low."

Now, note. I don't know that Driscoll was in the right to call out the sword swallowing act. I do know that him associating it with anything Jezebel was way out of line. And I do know that he is in no way qualified to make such judgement calls.

Please see Wenatchee's Mark Driscoll is in a strange position to opine against church leaders and cultures influenced by the Jezebel spirit when he mentioned clear heels 17 times in 13 sermons preached between January 2004 and February 2008. 

Near the bottom of this blog post Wenatchee quotes from a CBMW post (a firmly complementarian site) concerning Driscoll's Real Marriage book:

"Another problem with the way the Driscolls treat pornography has to do with the reality that many people will be guided to pornography because of their book.  Make no mistake: men and women will be introduced to pornography because of this book.  For almost my entire ministry I have been talking to at least one person a week who struggles with pornography.  I do not live in some sheltered ministry context away from people with perverse struggles.  As true as that is the Driscolls taught me a lot about pornography I wish I never knew."

With this blog post, I feel Wenatchee firmly proves that Driscoll is not qualified to define or call out sexual sin.

Do NOT Quote Driscoll on Social Media, Part 2

So, here is the outline the I made in order to explain to my work friend why Driscoll should not be shared on her Facebook. I started way back with my relationship with The Song of Solomon in order for her to see why I found Driscoll's take on The Songs to be so wrong, ungodly, and unholy.

*****

 I was born again in 1982 through the charismatic renewal that was happening at the time. It hit many of the mainline denominations including Catholics and Lutherans.

We sang two songs that came from The Song of Solomon (hitherto referred to as The Songs) which established for me a connection to the long tradition of reading The Songs as Allegorical in nature of our relationship with God. The two songs were "We Will Rejoice in You and Be Glad" and "His Banner Over Me Is Love."

My family moved onto another church that was pastored by a Narcissist (though we didn't know it at that time. that word was not even used yet.) I won't get into this particular thing even though it is relevant to the story. But it was there that I met and married my husband (1987) and we were given the book "The Act of Marriage" by Tim and Beverly LaHaye. This book used The Songs as a physical guided to married sex. So this established the use of the Songs in this manner in a way that greatly overshadowed my previous/limited exposure to the allegorical side of the book.

Fast forward to the mid 90s. There was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit happening at a missionary organization in (name removed to guard my anonymity). During one of the sessions a frail, skinny, redheaded, young woman was in deep worship. She was responding to the intense outpouring by saying several things including, "We enrapture your heart, oh God," several times. As I stood to the side listening to her, my internal dialogue went something like this: "That's very nice sounding. But my Bible doesn't say that about us/me." But later when I looked it up in The Songs, it was there. And my next conclusion was that it might be in The Songs but that doesn't mean it should absolutely be taken allegorically like the redhead was doing. It was then that I felt impressed by God to start meditating on The Songs. But I resisted thinking that The Songs were just too racy for this small town girl. However, God shut up the whole Bible to me, even the parts that could prompt the greatest worship within me. Reading the Bible became like reading a phone book. The only scripture that I read during that time of resistance, the only Bible verse that sparked anything thing inside of me was Psalms 2:12 Kiss the Son, that He may not be angry and you perish on the way...

So I relented and began reading and meditating on The Songs. And what a blessing it was. It was an antidote and emotional protection from the shallow and self-serving love that I was receiving from my husband. It was also a healing balm for a previous and devastating rejection from a family of origin member.

I spent a decade meditating on The Songs and decided to look on-line to see if anyone else was getting so much healing from this book in the mid 2000s. This is when I stumbled upon the outrage and controversy caused by a message preached by Mark Driscoll in Scotland. The sermon was something about "The Good Bits" from The Songs. He was preaching an overly sexualized and, I would say, even pornified version so the Book. But the part that enraged people and felt like pig's blood in the Holy of Holies to me was when he told the women in that congregation than Jesus commanded them to get on their knees and service their husbands orally. It was a hard slap in my face for someone to take a healing book and use it to invade the privacy of the bedroom and command women to do an act that some women might find distasteful. Pun intended.

I got involved in on-line discussions concerning this and how far out in left-field Driscoll had taken his teaching on sex in the Bible. In these conversations, Driscoll apologists would show up, be rude and obnoxious, challenge us, call us prudes, and said we were squeamish over what the Bible "clearly teaches". They would also point out how smart and well read Driscoll was and that we were just jealous of his amazing teaching and preaching. One fellow, who was more polite than the others, agreed that the Scotland sermon was over the top. But he insisted that Driscoll was a great teacher and handled the book more graciously in his "Peasant Princess" sermon series.  He linked to an episode of the series and challenged me to go see for myself.  I went ahead and watched it. And while it was more toned down than the "Shock Jock Preacher" antics he engaged in Scotland, I was still dismayed by what he did to the Book.

Without getting into all the gory details, I'll point out a few major issues with his handling of the book. First off, he mocks, scorns, and ridicules the long standing tradition of looking at the Songs as an allegory of our relationship with God. Then, he seeks and "finds" symbolism of explicit sex acts under every rock and tree in the book. He also takes this poetic book, written mostly from a female point of view and about what made her feel loved and safe and morphs it into a pornified male-centric monstrosity mostly concerned with what a husband is owed from his wife in the bedroom. People who have left Driscoll's church had many complaints. One particular complaint was that Driscoll was trying to force women into a tiny submissive box everywhere but the bedroom. And in the bedroom, he was trying to force women into their husband's personal porn stars and nymphomaniacs, complete with stripteases and pole dancing. 

[I stopped at this moment to let my friend know that I actually didn't care if people had stripteases and pole dancing in their bedrooms. That was their business. My concern was with Driscoll making up commands concerning sex acts and deciding certain symbolisms in The Songs simply had to be about stripteases when this was highly unlikely.)

I wondered how this man was declared one of the top 50 pastors in the United States. So I took a closer look. Turns out that, besides using the Bible as a sock puppet that always agrees with him, he also has issues with rage, bullying, and fostering a cult-like atmosphere at his church, Mars Hill, in Seattle. While I was watching him and researching about him, he was credibly accused of plagiarism and of buying a spot on the New York Times Best Sellers list.

When his elders in Seattle tried to hold Driscoll accountable for his bullying, raging, and misappropriating church funds, he fled Seattle and went to Phoenix and started a new church there where he is in charge and answers to no one. No elders to get in the way of doing whatever he wants. He continues to "pastor" and "teach' and is hustling hard to be a huge, Christian online Influencer.

As you can see, I am unhappy with Driscoll, his history, and what he continues to do. However, abusers are gonna abuse and grifters are gonna grift. I am way more upset with the men who have propped Driscoll up, past and present, and have given him a platform. Christians, especially Christian "leaders", are woefully lacking in wisdom and discernment. Many Christian leaders may also be as lacking in integrity as Driscoll. They just aren't as blatant about it as he is. But God's sheep are paying dearly for the neglect of true pastors and shepherds..
 

*****

So this is what I told my friend at work. And if you have been watching Driscoll as long as I have, you know that I haven't listed half of his blatant misogyny and sins.

Twitter is all abuzz with talk of Mike Bickle of IHOP fame, and what a flaming Narcissist he is. There are also portions of Twitter (yes, I know it is X now. It just looks better typed out as Twitter) taking on Doug Wilson. There are too many Narcissists in the pulpit. And it's not going to change unless the rank and file step up and scream "ENOUGH!" and take their tithes and offerings elsewhere.

Do NOT Quote Driscoll on Social Media part 1

 As mentioned in my 2/24/24 post, I was triggered by a friend who put a Mark Driscoll quote up on her Facebook. I knew that she did it not have a clue about Driscoll being an over-the-top abusive grifter. If she knew this, she would have never put up the quote. Because we are co-workers and interact at work, I let her know that when we had time, I would explain why Driscoll is not a good person. Since work has been insanely busy lately, I felt like I should create a streamlined and abbreviated timeline for her and I wrote it down so I wouldn't ramble, get sidetracked on the many, many stupid tangents that make up Driscoll's reprehensible history.

As I revisited my history with both The Song of Solomon and Driscoll's rape of the book, I realized two things. One thing was this: It was therapeutic for me to give this testimony out loud and in person to an understanding sister in Christ who then promptly deleted her Driscoll quote. When she looked at it again, she saw that a cousin of hers had commented under the quote saying that she would never follow this guy (Driscoll).

The second was a reminder to me that, while I still meditate semi-consistently on The Songs due to their healing properties, I haven't really dived in and immersed myself in the book for a long time. Deep and immersive meditation in The Songs, besides being healing, also brings me closer to the heart and nature of God, something I've been a bit distant from. So now, I'm spending more quality time with the book along with my regular (or irregular) scripture reading and am better for it.

And then, over the weekend, something else happened. I saw a tweet from someone.

And this made a whole lot of sense. They (Christian Leaders) made a podcast about it. But now they are done. They did their due diligence. What more do we want from them?

Well, I guess it was the grass roots movement that brought him down. So, I suppose it will take grassroots resistance to keep reminding people why Driscoll has disqualified himself as a pastor or any kind of church leader both in the past and in this present.

I did my grassroots job with my friend and so did my friend's cousin.

Where the hell are the supposed Christian leaders crying out against Driscoll. I guess they are too busy protecting their own kingdoms to give a flying flip about the Kingdom of God.

The "Taking God's Name in Vain" Diversion

 A few Sundays ago, I was at church. The pastor was away and ended up being away one Sunday longer than he planned. So the children's pastor was presenting with the help of her children's church, They were talking about the Ten Commandments at one point and was asking the adult congregation what each one meant. When they came to what "Taking God's Name in Vain" meant, I raised my hand. She called on me and I said it means, "Saying that God said something when God had not actually said it." She was taken aback and responded, "Oh, that's good."

Why was she taken aback and responded thus? Well, I believe that it is because it has been beaten into our heads from the pulpit that the actual meaning of "Don't take God's name in vain" means don't use God's name as an expletive or swear word. I think most preachers, teachers, and authors do this innocently enough because they don't know any better. But I am sure that some preachers, teachers, and authors teach this on purpose to distract from the real meaning of the command. They want to make sure that this is what people think when, "Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy GOD in vain" comes up. They want people to think that this is referring to Joe Blow who hit his thumb with a hammer and is JCing and GDing all over his garage holding his injured digit. These unscrupulous preachers don't want people to realize that the greater sin of taking God's name in vain is saying that God agrees with them on some wonky doctrine, opinion, or idea that they claim is "biblical".

That Sunday mornings presentation along with the Bare Marriage's podcast on "The Problems With Lies Women Believe" put together with a quote a friend put on Facebook from Mark Driscoll has made me think again about this diversionary tactic concerning taking God's Name in vain.

First, let's look at the Bare Marriage podcast on Nancy DeMoss Wolgemoth's book concerning what Nancy refers to as lies women believe. Sheila and her guests come to the conclusion that it is Nancy who believes lies about God's attitude towards women and marriage. They did not go so far as to say that Nancy was using God's name in vain to convince women that God agrees with Nancy. But that's where my mind went. Does Nancy take God's name in vain when she wrongly uses scripture to warp God's love and nature against His daughters? When she uses the Bible to support her beliefs in a false narrative that the Bible does not actually support is she breaking that commandment? If she truly believes her lies to be true, is she then not held accountable for supporting her lies about God? I don't know. She may use these lies against herself just as much as against other women.  So this is between her and her Lord. He loves her. She is in His hands.

Now let's turn to what, in my view, is closer to taking God's name in vain. It is something Mark Driscoll said back in 2007.

The only reason I'm thinking of this now is because a friend and co-worker recently put a Mark Driscoll quote up on Facebook. It was very triggering for me to see this sold-out-for-Jesus, Celebrate Recovery Christian quote Driscoll. In order to help her understand why Driscoll is not a good person to quote, I laid out for her an abbreviated list of reasons in chronological order (that I may post later on this blog). Going through that list of things, I dealt again with the 2007 quote from Mark Driscoll's infamous sermon in Scotland where he claimed that Jesus commanded women to sexually service their husbands in a certain way. He was taking God's name in vain, issuing as command to women something that God never commanded. The bad part of that sermon is also mentioned in the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill episode entitled The Things We Do To Women.at the 34 minute mark.

People were appalled at what Mark said in that sermon. But it never came up that he was taking God's name in vain. It never came up that when Mark told those women in Scotland that Jesus commanded them to service their husbands that he was breaking one of the Ten Commandments. And I don't know why people are so squeamish about calling out this sin and naming it for what it is.

I guess I'm just tired of Christians getting all up in arms about people using God's Name in Vain when they don't actually realize that preachers do it all the time, passing off their own opinion or interpretation as the very oracles of God.

So why am I so ready to say that Driscoll uses God's name in vain over Nancy DeMoss. Well, it has to do with what each gets out of their lies. Nancy's lies hurt herself along with other women. Driscoll's lies are all about propping himself up, serving him, and putting women down. He also labels his opinion of Bible interpretation as a literal "Command" from Jesus. So, yes, I would not be surprised if the judgement against Driscoll would be stronger.

But long and short, they both hurt women and lie about Who God is and how He feels about His daughters. I would not want to be in either one of their shoes come Judgement Day.

A Pornified Brain Assaulting The Songs, Again.

 I finished Biblical Porn the other day. It's been out since 2018 but I felt no need to read it because ol' pornified brain Driscoll has been reduced to a lying little disgraced 'pastor'* in a suburb of Phoenix.

(*pastor? really? ah, no, not really. pastors care for the flock. driscoll just uses people and throws them away when they are no longer useful to him.)

But things have changed because Driscoll is at it again, assaulting a beautiful Book of Poetry in the Bible, manipulating and twisting it beyond breaking point. Then taking the twisted and broken version of that Book and using it to create a porn and rape culture in his present church. Because of this I felt the need to read the above linked book that Wenatchee the Hatchet considers to be the best book dealing with the train wreak of Driscoll at Mars Hill in Seattle.

Driscoll first unleashed his his porn heavy interpretation of the Song of Songs back in 2007 or 2008 in the form of his "Peasant Princess" series. He also gave a sermon in Scotland called "Sex, a study of the good bits from the Song of Solomon" that he has since tried to scrub because it was so wrong, un-Christian and repulsive. Listen at your own risk.

Well, a month ago, he has recycled his porn song into a book he calls "Real Romance". Unfortunately, Driscoll believes that his perception of the world, life, sex, and marriage is the only "Real" perception. All other perceptions that don't line up, lockstep, with his are, I don't know, fake? lacking? Not Driscoll centric?

Well, I waited for a while for people to do reviews on the book since I certainly don't want to read it. I'm still getting over watching the first part of just one of his Peasant Princess videos. Now, every time I read that portion of the Songs, I remember that unfortunate and video series and how it has so muddied the waters for so many people.

I know many of the people harmed by Driscoll in Seattle have no desire to review "Real Romance" and I totally get it. If I regret watching one part of one Peasant Princess video, I can only imagine what people who were immersed in his Peasant Princess/Real Marriage crap feel about ever looking at it.

Well, anyway, because of all the above, I decided to link a guest series written by Wenatchee the Hatchet concerning his view on how Driscoll mishandled The Songs back in 2011. I'm doing this as a public service for anyone who has been assaulted by Driscoll's porn meditations through his newest book and would like to see a thoughtful response from someone who had been a member of his church back in Seattle.

Introducing Wenatchee the Hatchet (WTH)

WTH on Driscoll's SoS Intro and Part 1

WTH on Driscoll's SoS Parts 2 and 3

WTH on Driscoll's SoS Part 4a

WTH on Driscoll's SoS Part 4b

Hopefully, someday, Driscoll will stop troubling the Church with his warped ideas on men, women, and sex. But I'm not holding my breath.

Brothers In Love

 Back in the day my mother used to belong to a sorority that was good about helping women get ahead in a man's world through scholarships and grants for a better education.

Along side this sorority was a group formed by some of their husbands call BIL, an acronym for Brothers In Love. And these fellows would get involved in projects to further this sorority's goal.

Today I read a post on Bare Marriage by Keith Gregoire concerning the accusations against his wife and company that Bare Marriage in it's various forms (Blog, Podcast, Facebook, Twitter etc.) engages in man-bashing. As always, he does an eloquent job dismantling these false accusations against Bare Marriage activity in his post Is Holding Men to a High Standard Man-Bashing?

Normally, I might just comment my appreciation for his words. But today, I felt like saying more.

Keith, his son-in-law, and the various male commenters and contributors, even some of the struggling but honest men are BILs to me. And I want to look at some scripture to talk about this.

[Disclaimer: The scripture I am pulling from is The Song of Solomon. I understand that many take this book of the Bible to be exclusively about sex between a husband and wife. While I understand that this is true about The Songs, I also believe in a more nuanced and even at times, allegorical take. And there is a long tradition of others looking at it this way. Some have gone way too far making an allegorical application ridiculous. And some have determined that it is never about sex, which I don't agree with. So those of you who can only see The Songs as sexual, this post may not be for you. But my personal testimony involves meditating on The Songs in order to get healing while still in a bad marriage.]

Songs 1:5“I am black and beautiful,

You daughters of Jerusalem,
Like the tents of Kedar,

Songs 1:6 Do not stare at me because I am [f]dark,

For the sun has tanned 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.

In verse 6, the beloved refers to her brothers as being angry with her and implies that they were oppressive towards her, holding her responsible for their vineyards, or someone's vineyard that was not her own to the neglect of her vineyard. This is what Evangelical men have done with their books, like "Love and Respect" and the "Every Man's Battle" series. These authors hold women responsible for the sins of men.

These Evangelical authors are not BILs. They are something else. Are they Angry Little Men Oppressing Sisters Totally maybe? Or ALMOST men? (I'll bet someone else could come up with a better acronym. This was the best I could do in the here and now.)

An over reaching theme in The Songs is about the Lover taking the beloved from being an oppressed daughter of a nobleman (or prince depending on translation) who wasn't even allowed to take care of her own business and setting her up as Queen and manager of her own vineyard.

Songs 8:12 My very own vineyard is [d]at my disposal;

The thousand shekels are for you, Solomon,
And two hundred are for those who take care of its fruit.”

Allegorically, in personal meditations, I have viewed the results in this verse as being made possible by the Lover of my Soul. Jesus.

But, I now consider all our BILs to be men of integrity that are working along side women to stop the oppression of women by false teachers. These false teachers are not true brothers and have worked very hard to lay up heavy burdens upon the backs of wives in marriage. And they don't feel the need to lift a finger to help. That would make them Pharisees or ALMOST men. (Really. Someone is welcome to come up with something better.)

As a closing thought, I am thinking of an old song that went around Christendom back in the day.

"They will know we are Christians by our love."

But according to the ALMOST men, the song might go, "They will know I'm a Christian husband by how much sex, and all the different kinds of sex I can get from my wife." (I'm looking at you, Driscoll, you Bible manipulator and leader of ALMOST men.)

I love and appreciate all our BILs at Bare Marriage. Thanks Keith for contributing to the blog.

Mark Driscoll Is So Disqualified

 He is disqualified on so many levels as a pastor, teacher, and preacher.

Yet people still support him and give him a platform. I  personally know people who think that Driscoll has repented because he is so good at spinning, spinning, spinning, and making a 'reality' that he likes rather than to deal with actual reality, with what really happened.

I have a tendency to focus on his terrible misuse of the Bible and especially The Songs as tools to further his fleshly agenda. He is busy at work building his personal earthly kingdom. Unfortunately his new fiefdom has little to do with God's Kingdom. I'm planning on reposting some things concerning this in the future, including a guest post by my blogging friend, Wenatchee the Hatchet on this particular topic. More on him later.

But for now it is good for me to remember that there is so much evidence in other areas that exposes Driscoll's woeful lack of character. There is much evidence on his failure to fulfill the requirements for the office of a pastor as lined out in the Pastoral Epistles.

There is a reason that I include Wenatchee The Hatchet in my reading concerning Driscoll. He actually attended Mars Hill in Seattle. Plus he has training in journalism so is good at research and delivery of facts. When he talks about Driscoll and the history of Mars Hill, I have never been sorry for it paying attention.

Recently, Wenatchee the Hatchet has brought up a great point that I want to link to. He has addressed an excerpt from a 2021 book, "Pray Like Jesus" written by Driscoll that completely reframes what happened back in Seattle. Wenatchee the Hatchet holds it up next to other evidence from that time including Driscoll's own words. It is a long read, but a good read for anyone who cares about actual reality vs Driscoll's self-serving spin.

an apparent account of Mark Driscoll's resignation from Mars Hill from the 2021 book Pray Like Jesus, juxtaposed with prior accounts and Sutton Turner's published notes from the 2014 investigation of Mark Driscoll

As an add on to this post, I'd like to direct your attention to a Julie Roys podcast: Escaping & Healing From Abusive Churches Part 2

Here she interviews a man who spent time in an abusive church in Oregon.

Part 1 is also good. But part 2 gets more into the difference between abusive leaders that are held up as 'good' pastors, teachers, or preachers verses a person with an actual pastor's heart.

Much of modern Christianity, and especially modern Evangelicalism, has lost its way. They want the shiny and charismatic men, the ones that entertain them and make them feel certain ways. They don't realize that these shiny men have shady characters and off-balanced teachings that often oppose the teachings of Jesus.

Driscoll Trying to Define Reality

 Mark has two books already out that contain the word "Real". They are "Real Marriage" and "Real Faith"

He has a third one coming out on February 14 called "Real Romance".

Apparently he believes himself to be an expert on what is real as opposed to everything else. "Real Romance" is based on The Song of Songs, something that he believes he is an authority on.

But there is a huge problem with Driscoll. He is not a Bible teacher. He does not rightly divide the Word of Truth. Rather he is a brilliant propogandist who can twist the Bible into whatever shape he wants in order to make it say whatever he wants it to say.

We have seen this before with The Songs. One of his most infamous sermons was in Edinberg, Scotland where he gave a message on the "Good Bits" of The Songs. The sermon and some commentary about it is preserved here:

Reflecting on a Controversial Sermon...

Driscoll skips all the parts about the egalitarian relationship between the lover and the beloved and instead zeroes in on a few poetic things and makes great assumptions about what they mean. And then, turns those assumptions into commands for women to perform.

This is the reality that Driscoll has been trying to create. One where women are commanded to do all the sex acts, where the husband/idol has the right to demand whatever appendage or orifice he wants, and where the wife is to never tell her husband no. He has taken coercion and the obligation sex message to new abusive and oppressive lows.

He has never repented from his sin against women as described by Kyle J Howard in this YouTube video.

And I have no confidence that he will not carry this sin over into his new book promoting what he wants sex to be for himself and everyone else.

So I'm declaring here and now that Driscoll doesn't have a clue concerning real romance. Nor does he really understand The Songs. He only knows how he wants things to be. And the way he wants it is abusive and oppressive to women.

Oh, by the way, Grace Driscoll is cited as co-author of this book. But I don't take what she has to say seriously. Because as a Narcissistic Enabler, she reflects back to Mark what he wants to see. It is a survival tactic on her end. She should have dealt with Mark's sin against her and the women of their church long ago. But she hasn't and I am not waiting for her to change anytime soon. She's pretty beaten down. [See Dear Grace Driscoll, a guest post open letter from back in the day.]

So, while I don't take Grace seriously as co-author of Mark's book about the pornified way Mark wants sex to be, I do take Grace seriously as a master performer to help keep Mark's propaganda machine going.

In fact, I want to dedicate a song to her called Dance Monkey because she dances the dance Mark demands. And she is the perfect Sex Monkey for Mark's Real Porn/Fake Romance Life.

Mark really likes Sex Monkeys and thinks that all men should have their own Sex Monkey. That is what he has preached in the past. And I don't expect this new book to be any different.

Driscoll is Selling Sex Again

 yay. he's at it again. whoop, whoop.

(Huge eyerolling emoji here)

Here's a link to the story about it: Mark Driscoll Says He Wants to 'Heat Up Your Marriage"

One of the things that really helped Driscoll build his kingdom on sand in Seattle was his Peasant Princess series back in the day.

Discovering his warped and perverted view of the Songs is what put him on my radar in 2009. And not in a good way.

His series definitely put him on the map and made him a lot of money. Just like Hugh Hefner made a lot money off of Sex.

The fact the Driscoll exists is sad. What is worse is all the people who can't see through what he's doing and who support him.

People would be much better off supporting legitimate ministries that actually help people like Sheila Gregoire's Bare Marriage blog and podcast.

Edited to add The Wartburg Watch's post that includes info on Driscoll wanting to make money off sex again:

"... While Mark Driscoll Remembers that Sex Sells"

Broken Love

 The goings on over at the Bare Marriage blog has got me thinking.

This month they are talking about how to repair sex in a marriage that has been broken by the horrible teachings of the big name Evangelicals. And, as expected, they are getting push back.

And, of course, there is a commenter that is wanting to accuse Sheila of  'not displaying the fruit of the Spirit'. The thread can be found here:

Christians Need a Better Understanding of Consent

Quote from FE's comment at 11/18/22 at 2:28 pm:

"This is a site that whispers in the ears of women and feeds discontent, hatred and sows the opposite of the fruit of the spirit. You flunk your own tests for the fruit of the Spirit, for safety and for doing no harm."

I will refer back to FE's quote later.

As I continue to work through the damage done to me through a decades long marriage to a low level Narcissist, part of my spiritual healing routine is meditation on The Song of Songs.

I understand that my take on The Songs is not everyone's cup of tea. But my testimony is my own and if it can help others, then I will share a bit of it here and there where it seems right to do so.

Long story short, I started meditation on the Songs back in 1998 while only ten years into a thirty year marriage. I can't tell you how many times I've been through this book of divine poetry. Nor can I tell you how many times I have copied it, word for word, in notebooks to help with deeper meditation on it.

I started meditating on it before I ever knew what a narcissist was and it helped me to see the difference between a healthy love relationship and what I was experiencing. It also helped me understand the depth of God's love for me and that He was not in agreement with what was happening to me.

Anyway, back to present day.

I am now in the second chapter and a verse in it jumped out at me last week.

Songs 2:5 Refresh me with raisin cakes, sustain me with apples, Because I am lovesick.

In the past, this verse hasn't meant a whole lot to me. I took it at face value and accepted the first level, or surface meaning of it. Teenage angst over being infatuation with their love. And that is what I believe it means.

But as I was reading it last week, what jumped out at me was the word "lovesick". And while I am in no position to be lovesick in the teenage angsty, puppy love verse, there is still a sickness within me concerning love. Or, to better put it, my love, or ability to love has been broken. So in that sense, I am lovesick.

So as I was meditating on this brokenness within me, I also looked at the other words used in that verse, refresh and sustain. And this sent me down the path of meditation on the verses in the Bible about God restoring and healing us. There are many such verses. I will share one

Psalm 23:2 He lets me lie down in green pastures, He leads me beside still waters (3a) He restores my soul.

There were many things that broke my marriage. But one big one was his sense of entitlement to sex and the coercion that he regularly used to get it. And so much of the broken Evangelical teaching agreed with him. I didn't have Sheila whispering discontent and hatred in my ears back then as FE's comment suggests. But rather, I had The Songs as a measuring rod for the abuse that I was suffering.

I want to close this post with another verse from The Songs chapter two that flies in the face of the Evangelical obligation teaching. It is the groom speaking here:

Songs 2:7 “Swear to me, you daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or by the does of the field, That you will not disturb or awaken my love until she pleases."

This is the right teaching concerning sex. It is when she pleases, when she is willing, and when she is in the position to enjoy it. She must feel safe and not coerced. And these words are repeated three more time throughout The Songs in chapters three, five, and eight! This was a very important part of the poetry. But the male teachers that teach on this book ignore this repeated refrain in favor of what they think are the best bits of the poem, the ones that can be used to coerce and shame women.

Sorry, FE. But you are on the wrong side of this argument. You have absorbed the poison from the false teachings of entitled male Evangelicals which is the opposite of the fruit of the Spirit.

5 Refresh me with raisi caksick.

Links Concerning The Songs

 Putting these here to refer to later.

Book suggestion for deeper understanding of The Songs A New Translation and Interpretation.

Britannica notes on The Songs.

I am a life long studier of the Songs for personal reasons.

Narcissistic Love

 Can those suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder love?

It depends.

First off, what kind of love are we talking about? Agape unconditional love? Or just the love one feels at the beginning of a new conquest, chasing after a shiny new target?

Love bombing is another term used to describe what Narcissists do. Love Bombing is usually part of the initial phase of a new relationship. It is also used by cults to draw in new converts. I suppose another way to look at it is grooming as Kyle Howard describes. If love bombing and grooming are not one in the same, they are definitely closely related.

Love bombing and grooming are used by Narcissists and Predators to lure and trap their prey. By prey, I mean a new source of Narcissistic Supply.

There is some question as to whether Narcissists know what they are doing. And I understand this. I understand it towards Mark Driscoll and towards my ex husband. Perhaps I am/was deceived, but I felt like my spouse was all in and wanted to do church and marriage right in the early years. And from what many say about Driscoll, especially in the early years, he also appeared to desire to do church and marriage(s) right, as is mentioned in I Am Jack's Raging Bile Duct podcast from The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill series.

So what happened to my spouse? What happened to Mark Driscoll? Or, perhaps we should ask, what was always wrong, but became worse and more evident with time?

Well, for me, personally, a few years into my relationship with the Narcissist, we entered into a Devaluing stage.(Devaluing and Discarding). It was slow and gradual but unrelenting.

I suppose the covert Spectrum of Trust ratings that Driscoll does at his new church in Arizona is a sophisticated and thought out expression of the Devaluing process. This Spectrum of Trust is described in Inside the Driscoll "Cult" part II podcast starting at the 22:58 mark for those who are curious about such things. But Driscoll mixes up Trust with Narcissistic Supply. When someone no longer panders to him and props up his ego, their "Trust" points go down. So the Spectrum of Trust is in reality the Spectrum of Narcissistic Supply.

Remember the Karen Shaffer story from You Read Your Bible Ringo mentioned in my Mars Hill and How To Become a Tyrant post? Karen's loyalty came into question when she casually mentioned that a very young Driscoll could have used some older, wiser men around him. I used her story in the Tyrant post as an example of Driscoll's Narcissistic Rage. But the full story is also an example of Driscoll's need for Narcissistic Supply and The Narcissistic Devaluing and Discarding process.

When Karen failed to prop up Driscoll as he desired, she was not giving him the Narcissistic Supply he felt entitled to. And the moment he caught wind of her perceived "disloyalty" she was devalued from a trusted administrative assistant clear down to a heretic. Her devaluation was breath taking in speed and scope. Der Fuhrer had nothing on Driscoll and his Blitz Krieg against Karen.

Driscoll has since refined and finetuned his process of managing who is qualified to be a worthy vessel of Narcissistic Supply. That is his Spectrum of Trust rating system. 

So, can a Narcissist love? Sure, as long as his underlings give his ego the supply he requires.

After about a decade of being married to a Narcissist and being devalued by him, I began to get a warped sense of what love was. Around that time, I began meditations on The Song of Songs which was oil and wine for my wounded soul and spirit. It became a healing ointment against the subtle but consistent Narcissistic abuse I was being subject to. This is why I flipped-the-heck-out when I stumbled upon Driscoll and his abuse of women through his Narcissistic twisting and manipulating of The Songs.

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.

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

A Little More Fallout from Mars Hill

I guess Driscoll and Co. is getting sued for Racketeering. Crazy stuff going on.

And in looking back at the Mars Hill Madness and Peasant Princess Pandemic I'm going to link another post concerning the fallout from that lecherous loser's legacy.

This was actually written a year and a half ago but I missed it due to personal busyness. Again it is about Driscoll's sex-saturated teachings on The Songs and the damage it did to a couple and their marriage.

Mark Driscoll and Christian Rape Culture

Also, as a side note, due to the the few hits I've gotten on the Songs I'm going to link a few old posts I wrote back in the day that counteract a bit of Driscoll's devastating doctine.

*****

It's Not about You
(In which we talk about how The Songs is not just about the husband's raging needs for sex and the wife's obligation to make sure he gets unlimited amounts of it.)

First and Last Overview, SoS
(In which we talk about the progressive nature of the healing of the Beloved from the beginning of the book to the end. I imply here, but do not state outright, that the Songs are chronological in nature. This is something Driscoll denies out of hand without supporting. He has to deny it. Some of the Best Bits that he over-sexualizes and make all about his favorite sex acts... some of the Best Bits occur before the marriage chapter. But the poem is very progressive as you will see in these first and last verses we discuss here.)

Another "Suggestive" Premarital SoS Verse
(In which we talk about why the Beloved is referring to her her own breasts and needs and how Driscoll has taken that verse away from her and made it all about the husband and his needs.)

And finally:
Manipulating Scripture for Personal Benefit
(In which we talk about another verse that Driscoll takes away from the Beloved and gives to the Lover in order to put the husband's needs front and center. In the process, he ends up burying the wife's needs in the back yard so men don't have to think about that messy little detail.)

Edit, added as an after thought:
The Bedroom Police
(In which we talk about how Mark and Co. attack and accuse people who disagree claiming they are being prudes, sexually constipated, and overly restrictive in the bedroom. This accusation is a distraction and  ploy to get people's eyes off the true, self-appointed bedroom police, Mark Driscoll and all those accusing people of sin for not having enough 'god-ordained' sex.)

Another Edit, links added 3/6/16
Introducing Wanatchee the Hatchet
This is an intro to a series of guest posts by Wanatchee the Hatchet (WTH). In these guest posts WTH deconstructs Driscoll claim that the Songs can never, under any circumstances, ever be viewed as allegorical. WTH is uniquely qualified to answer Driscoll's claims as he was once a member of Driscoll's church and a respected part of the ministry.
The series has four parts that examine various aspects of Driscoll's assumptions and explains how and why Driscoll is wrong in his claim against any and all allegorical view of The Songs.
Here is a link to the series in total:
WTH on Driscoll's SOS

There is more written here, taking another view of The Songs other than Driscoll's over-saturated-with-sex version. You can get to many of them from the links above. But if there is a need, I can make a page that contains more links.

A Little Fallout from Mars Hill

During the hey days of Mars Hill, before the fall, before the accusations of plagiarism, before and during the whirlwind promotion of his Real Marriage book, I knew that his teachings were having negative impacts on women.

You could not honestly analyze his teachings and come away thinking, "This is healthy for women, men, and marriages,"

But I couldn't find women claiming or admitting that the teachings were hurting them.

Now, years later, we see them coming forward. Here is one:

Regular attender, Female

In her comments about the negative aspects of Mars Hill, this is what she said:

"The Song of Solomon and Real Marriage series nearly ruined our marriage. During SoS we were told that because we weren't having enough sex (according to the guidelines presented by Mark) and our sex life wasn't passionate and exciting enough (according to guidelines), we were in sin and not upholding biblical teachings on giving of our bodies to each other."

She said much more if you'd like to read it. Just follow the link above.

And as a bonus, here is another Female Attender, this one from Orange County who said:

"The teaching being black and white with no gray area left our marriage with what felt like no grace.  When I disagreed with Driscoll's interpretation of scripture my husband would say things like 'are you even a Christian?  You just don't agree because you don't want to follow that part of the Bible.'"

Mars Hill was bad for women. And it gave ammunition to men to control and manipulate their wives.

A Gem Lost in the Comment Section

I have moderation turned on for my comments.
When my life gets too busy, I don't get here often enough to check the comments in moderation. For this I am truly sorry.

So anyway, I've missed a comment that contained a poem I want others to see.
It is was left under a 2009 post called:
Manipulating Scripture for Personal Benefit.

Here is the poem

The "wife creed"
Distorted Faith - Distorted Love 
© Saina Veigel 

I met a pastor and he said that I am so very right: 
My wife truly needs to serve me day and night. 
She needs to be sweet and she needs to be kind.
And she has to be my sunshine. 

Regardless of my conduct, my sins and my shame. 
I am entitled to give her the blame. 
I rightfully posess power over her.
I am her husband, her lover. 
Whenever I want her to please me, she must.
I resent it when she calls my desires dirty lust. 

How dare she argue with me? For who is she? 
Don't argue! Don't upset me! Just serve me! 
She cries, "You don't love me!"
I want her. That's love. What else could it be?

But she resents my love, and I am confused.
I blow a fuse. 

No. I am not an angry man. 
I don't want to do her any harm. 
But I can't handle that she doesn't want to submit, 
and that's SHIT!
She's sinful not to meet my every wish.
She brings it all on herself: unhappiness and anquish.

She deserves to be rebuked and put in her place.
But if she behaves - she will find grace.
She has to obey me and love me and serve me. 
I am going to let her be 
as long as she is nice to me. 

That's my crede. That's what I believe. 
I'm so much like Jesus, don't you see? 

Thank you Saina for leaving this gem even though I found it a bit late.

Saina also left a message to men who have drunk deeply of deceptive doctrine that puffs them up. Go see what is said:
Saina's comment

My Apologies

The Holidays are always very busy, energy zapping, and disorienting at my house.
But this year they hit even harder than usual.
I haven't forgotten about my critique of the Song of Songs study guide. I'm still not done shining the light of truth on it in order to expose  it for what it is, a worthless piece of tripe.
The problem is that with such a convoluted and misleading piece, it takes a bit more time that what I have to expose the layers of fraud and deceit involved in making it.
I hope to get back to this soon. But alas, I'm still recovering from the Holidays.
So here's to hoping that I can wrap this critique up sometime in the near future.

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.