Skip to comments.Mark Driscoll changes the climate on Christian sex
Posted on 01/26/2010 2:03:24 PM PST by SnakeDoctor
One the of leading three evangelical prophets of America who has recently visited Australia, Mark Driscoll, preaching pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, openly declares that the subject of delightful 'Christian sex' is a proper topic for discussion.
Lillian Kwon writing for the Christian Post, and reprinted in Christian Today Australia, explored Mark Driscoll's credentials and his topic saying that The Song of Songs is said to be the most erotic and exciting book in Scripture.
Driscoll says that it literally describes an intimate relationship between a husband and a wife. "At Mars Hill Church, we believe that 'all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable' (2 Tim. 3:16), therefore we do not hesitate to discuss anything that the Bible addresses," stated Mark Driscoll.
And that includes sex of course, within the context of marriage. In his "The Peasant Princess" sermon series, which he launched in September, he deals frankly and openly with [Christian] sex; challenging married couples in their congregations to be intimate every day for a week or a month.
But Driscoll goes further with the Song of Songs chapter 6, describing the wife dancing for her husband and is "exceedingly visually generous to her husband," while the husband is verbally generous as he pays her compliments of her body and then "proceeds forward."
He claims that it's in the Bible and is "an example of marital freedom."
Lillian Kwon stated that the 10-week "Peasant Princess" sermon series comes at a time when traditional marriage is being challenged in courts, Americans are daily inundated with sexual images, and more money is being spent on pornography than foreign aid.
Driscoll believes non-Christian sex is the greatest threat to Christianity and wants to replace porn, adultery and divorce with "hot, hetero, covenantal monogamy."
Well-Being Australia chairman Mark Tronson, a Baptist minister of 31 years, said that as a result of that article he Googled 'Christian Sex' and up came numerous pages, five items (on the first page) of which were -
Sex for the Christian Man (Woman)
Christian Sex rules
The Joy of Christian Sex toys
What the Bible says about sex
One Preacher's message have hotter sex
Several Australian Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals in line with fundamentalism were beside themselves with horror; aghast and baying for blood some nine years ago, when the mildest of 'Christians and sex' websites (when compared to these sites above), explored this same subject on the Internet in an attempt to convey the joy of Christian marital sex to Christian young people, M V Tronson remembered.
Mark Tronson wonders what changes took place in that nine year period to bring about such a revolution in evangelical and Pentecostal thinking and writing. He puts forward three ideas for discussion.
First, wiser heads within the evangelical and Pentecostal movement recognised that sex had to be raised and discussed within their Churches with an almost shocking openness, if a discussion with parishioners of all ages was to be maintained with credibility.
Second, all young people now have access to sex education in the classroom, and many reasonable evangelicals and Pentecostals saw their participation in the education process as an absolute necessity. Sadly, some will always have their heads in the sand.
Third, although books on sex for Christians have had this type of information for decades, websites for Christian material on 'sex' was basically non-existent a decade ago. This area has developed exponentially as more and more people of all ages and walks of life find the Internet a convenient (and sometimes indispensable) way to get information.
Mark Driscoll is clearly on the right path, and many serious evangelicals and Pentecostals have already been thinking that these developments were long overdue, M V Tronson said.
Reverend Dr Rowland Croucher has written and counselled extensively on this issue, an extract from his book 'The family at home in a heartless world' published by Harper Collins has a final chapter on this subject. This is an available resource for study and discussion.
I know the die hard fundies will get their undies in a wad over this. Bring out the no sex for fun crowd.
Works for me.
Not particularly fond of discussing it in public, though.
Out of curiosity, which die hard fundies might these be?
Hmmm.... I consider myself a fundies.....and I like sex for fun with my husband.
Somehow mankind got along just fine for centuries without sex education. Do people need education in eating, or any other vital function? (To refrain from overeating, yes.) I find it ludicrous that people allegedly need encouragement to engage in sex. What people do need from the church is help in remaining faithful, considering the natural temptation (esp. in males) to be promiscuous.
Most of the die-hard fundies that I know (I suppose most folks who know me consider ME to be one) would agree whole-heartedly with the pastor's argument that sex is a beautiful gift from God, designed by God, meant for pleasure and intimcacy between husband and wife, and should be enjoyed as much as possible.
The problem is, people already have the encouragement to engage from all the wrong people. People need encouragement to engage properly. Christianity is very pro-sex — but the message is getting lost in the list of things that you can’t do.
Christian sex is much more than a “don’t” list.
What about those who weren’t fortunate enough to be married.
>> Works for me. Not particularly fond of discussing it in public, though.
Understandable. The thing is, pastors need to discuss it in public. Christians need to discuss it in public. When we don’t, the only public message is the wrong message.
I don’t write the rules. Ask Him.
I suppose there are some people who get a thrill from talking about sex in public. I think that’s adolescent.
I can find no scriptural basis for exhorting people to have sex with such and such frequency. People differ in their sex drive, and setting quantitative goals seems to me to just encourage people to feel discontented, rather than to think first of the partner, as the Gospel teaches. With enough agape love, anything becomes possible.Yes, Judeo-Christianity is extremely positive about sex, provided it is monogamous and in a context of love. It is also very positive about the natural consequence of sex, which is children. Everything God commands is for our own good. Even the horniest of men usually wind up married, because monogamy is best for all concerned.
I agree. What's wrong with just letting couples decide what they want to do, and when. Too much salivating is simply tacky, and can make people feel there's something wrong with their just making one another happy, even if it's not what someone else would call "hot, steamy," or whatever.
Perhaps — but it seems to me to be a bad thing when the only frank sex-talk is coming from the wrong side.
It depends on whether “frank sex-talk” is a good thing or a bad thing. Certainly it’s not an unlimited good: sex is supposed to be private, not a group activity. Some FReeper quoted a speaker who said, “Sexuality is not a ‘thing’: it is a person, the person of your spouse.”
Perhaps Christians speaking on the subject should emphasize the true intimacy of keeping your personal relationship *personal*, between you and your spouse only, all your life, rather than the false intimacy of getting hot and steamy with every random stranger.
First, there is a scriptural basis for exhorting people to fully meet the needs of their spouse. But, you are right — if everyone’s satisfied, there isn’t a frequency requirement.
Second, marital relationships are almost never harmed by too much sex within the relationship. A quantitiative goal helps demonstrate the intimacy a relationship may be missing when the frequency has dipped.
I think the point of Paul's teaching is to never deny your spouse anything good which youj have to give. Going beyond that, never resist any impulse to be generous to anyone, to do someone a favor, to show love. But the idea that one must perform umpteen times a week is a warped legalistic perversion of that idea.
Sex is an idol to the world, something that secular culture puts above every consideration of morality, health, common sense, or concern for others. The church needs to be very cautious about going down that road.
I agree. What the church should be teaching is agape love, not eros. I don’t think the ministers in the original post are following the injunction to be “in the world but not of it.”
The emphasis needs to be on what must satisfy and fulfill us ABOVE and BEYOND sex, namely Christ Himself--and true intimacy with God--> so that even something as beautiful and amazing as sex takes a secondary (if not lower than secondary) role in the lives of married Christian couples...Think for example, of a couple of which one of the spouses is a veteran amputee or is paralyzed...so it wouldn't be physically possible for those couples to have sex. Obviously, God still intends for the couple to stay married, to enjoy each other, and to glorify Him...
So yes, there always runs the risk of elevating sex to a place it's not meant to be. The emphasis must always be on the beauty of Christ and the satisfaction that should come from Him alone, and then everything else will follow from that. Otherwise, sexual fulfillment in marriage can become an idol and the end in and of itself, rather than a means...
Very well said.
I do see your point, but I think you’re misconstruing some of the emphasis.
Though I do not attend Driscoll’s church, he seems to target an audience of young adult males (20-35) — a demographic largely ignored by the Protestant Church, and one that is very suceptible to secular images of sexuality. “Hotness” is appealing to this demographic, and the marketing machine for hedonism is winning.
I don’t think Driscoll is saying that “hot Christian sex” is the emphasis of a Christian marriage — I think he is saying that, in most cases, it is a component of a Christian marriage (and a component which is often overlooked even within the faith).
He is fighting against the stereotype that Christian marriages are stuffy and sexless (i.e. in the dark, missionary-only, and only for procreation). This stereotype of Christian sexuality has done a LOT of damage to marriage as an institution — and that Christian sexuality needs a PR makeover.
I agree (and I think Driscoll would also) that marriage is about loving and committing to your wife as Christ commits to His church. It is about forgiving and sacrificing for your spouse. But, there is no reason that a couple cannot enjoy themselves — and no reason that Christian circles cannot acknowledge that enjoyment.