Mark Driscoll Slammed by Baptist Press over Sex Teaching

A number of sites have noted a report from the Baptist Press concerning Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church; a Christian radio station recently yanked a programme featuring Driscoll due to Driscoll’s teachings concerning sex. In particular, this 2007 sermon delivered in Edinburgh was considered unacceptable:

During the sermon, which was entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon,” Driscoll interpreted Song of Solomon 2:3 as referring to oral sex and then said, “Men, I am glad to report to you that oral sex is biblical…The wife performing oral sex on the husband is biblical. God’s men said, Amen. Ladies, your husbands appreciate oral sex. They do. So, serve them, love them well. It’s biblical. Right here. We have a verse. ‘The fruit of her husband is sweet to her taste and she delights to be beneath him.'”

The transcript of the sermon can be seen here. A similar talk on the same theme – part of a series called “The Peasent Princess” – can be seen here; just after 38:00 Driscoll cites a certain Joseph Dillow (also known as Jody Dillow) as his source for this exegesis. Dillow, an electrical engineer who went on to study at the Dallas Theological Seminary, is the author of Solomon on Sex (sometimes incorrectly cited as Solomon and Sex), which was published by Thomas Nelson in 1977; Dillow saw the passage as referring to an “oral genital caress”. This interpretation is also shared by the Skeptics’ Bible, although there the motive is primarily to annoy Christians.

Certainly, the Song of Solomon is a somewhat anomalous text in the Bible, but such a graphic reading of this largely metaphorical passage is something of a stretch. Commentators have suggested that probably simple kissing is intended, and they point out that there is no discussion of oral sex in comparable Egyptian love poetry. Plus, of course, the overall thrust of the Bible does not appear to favour marital kinkiness of any kind (I can’t imagine Saint Paul being very impressed), which suggests that Driscoll, as a Christian fundamentalist, is looking for a loop-hole for his own purposes.

However, Driscoll pushes the envelope somewhat further – not only has he found permission in the Bible, it appears to be a prescription:

[In recounting the story about the man who started coming to Driscoll’s church because his wife began performing oral sex:]

She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.'” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help.

Driscoll, it should be recalled, previously used the Ted Haggard male-prostitute scandal as an opportunity to opine that:

It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

Driscoll’s sermon was given at the Destiny Church in Edinburgh, which is pastored by a certain Peter Anderson. According to the website of the mother church in Glasgow:

Pastor Andrew Owen describes the church as a contemporary apostolic Christian movement that thinks like social entrepreneurs.

Today, Destiny churches are established throughout Scotland, Germany, India, Ireland and Kenya. These churches are inter-dependant, and work together as a family of churches.

(Hat tip: Jesus’ General)

87 Responses

  1. I feel is is my duty as a woman and a wife to say that I think Mark Driscoll is an ass.

    OK, I feel better now. :-D

    • Does your husband ‘pleasure’ you? I certainly hope so…… If not, Oh boy do I have something to show you…. and in response, you might consider reciprocation, for the benifit of both of you. Provided you’re not some ugly old bag…….

      • Are you really taking what Mark said in context? Was he at a marriage retreat? This was never stated. I’ve listened to many Mark Driscoll sermons. Being from Seattle, I have had much exposure to him. I doubt that he would give this same message in front of his own daughter or anyone else’s kids. Before we all rush to judgement on this, let’s see what the context of the message was. Who was the audience?

      • Since oral sex is considered sodomy…Didn’t God destroy a couple of cities for that reason? What happens when Driscoll gets into anal sex? Will all of a sudden that be a mandate from Jesus, too? This guy uses God as a reason to manipulate people into fulfilling his own crass desires. One would think there’d be a better reason to use such an omnipotent being.

      • Oops! I jumped the gun. Here’s the setup, from Real Marriage, page 186, setting up the “I want anal and you’re gonna give it to me thanks to Jesus,” argument: “Some couples use [anal sex] to prevent pregnancy. In conjunction with the rhythm method of birth control in which normal penis-vagina intercourse is suspended on a woman’s days of fertility, it is possible to use anal sex as an option.”

        For shame.

      • That said, Laura, I agree with you that Driscoll seems to be making theologically stretched arguments to justify what he wants. Not just about sex. He finds “biblical” justification to be a macho, locker room bully, too, who can push around people who don’t fall in line with his preferred gender stereotypes.

  2. I’m very pro-oral sex.

  3. Joseph Dillow, who is that? Never heard of him. The reading of Song attributed to Dillow was being taught by others who had connections to Dallas. I first heard it in a seminary class on hermeneutics taught in 1975 by a professor with a ThD from DTS. The intent may have been irony, an example of bad exegesis. But I didn’t understand it that way at the time.
    This reading of Song was considered somewhat of a bad joke among the Hebrew and Semitic language people. I haven’t run into any serious scholars who are willing to stake their reputation on nailing down the a specific action to the metaphors in Song. Nobody, with even a modest background in Hebrew poetry supports a “prescriptive” reading. That is just off the wall nonsense.

    • Saw your profile: favourite music includes “Philip Glass”. Proof we must be related. Any ancestors from Surrey, UK?

  4. “I haven’t run into any serious scholars who are willing to stake their reputation on nailing down the a specific action to the metaphors in Song.”

    I should qualify that. Pope, Murphy and perhaps others have suggested readings where certain erotic acts are connected with certain metaphors. However, being serious scholars their suggestions are qualified by plenty of room for doubt. And if you read some of the work done in the last twenty years J.Exum, Block&Block you will discover that Pope and Murphy’s tendency to nails things down has not withstood the test of time.

  5. [...] I think we should be at least as concerned about the awful preachers who’ve never been away. Richard Bartholomew summarises the sexist sex-mad Mark Driscoll’s “give your man a blow-job for Jesus” [...]

  6. Does this guy have any connection to the Christian Patriarchy movement?

  7. I’d like to know if anywhere in the ‘bibble’ it mentions a man’s obligation to pleasure his wife’s Vagina, and clitoris….. which I’m sure most men do already do, to the the delight of both partners. Oooooooh! I ‘ll bet the rediculous church is certainly against that ‘dirty’ practice!!!

    • What’s a “bibble”?! Is that perhaps a baby bib designed to catch dribble or something?! Anyway, the Bible – God’s Word – never teaches that sex is dirty. In fact, God is the creator of sex, in that he created us male and female and designed us in a way that we could come together in marriage, delight in this wonderful experience with one another, and have children as a result.

      Sex (like children) is a gift and a blessing from the Lord, and we don’t need to cheapen it by trying to decide what’s “dirty” and what isn’t. Within a Christ-honoring, committed marriage, sex isn’t dirty – It only becomes dirty when people abuse it and practice it outside of marriage. The BEST sex that we can possibly have is MARRIED SEX!

      • Josh, if that is your experience, I am glad. However, after growing up in a Christian environment and being married for seven years to an ultra-conservative prude, I find sex is a lot more mutually enjoyable when both parties have the knowledge that they can please their partner, or someone else will, and CAN….without anyone being stoned to death or exiled from the community as in times not too far past (or even presently, depending on your religion).

      • No, sex is not dirty. And neither is it an obligation of either partner to put out. Your wife doesn’t want to have sex at the moment? Jack off about her. It Isn’t that difficult.

    • Solomon 4:16 seems to strongly imply that the wife is inviting her husband to perform oral sex on her.

  8. Oh, for the love of…!

  9. Christian teaching has been that sex is ‘dirty’ and kind of a necessary ‘evil.’ Sex was always something the husband did to (not with) his wife. The wife, if she was obedient, did her duty and allowed her husband to have his ‘fun.’ She was to be emotionally and mentally detached from her husband – she could be even reading a cook book – while doing the deed. And sex is something that proper people never talk about in public. Mark Driscoll changed all this!!

    • Joe, I have no idea where you’ve heard “Christian teaching” that portrays God’s gift of sex in such a pitiful light, and which says that a husband and wife should be so disconnected from each other while engaging in sex, but that’s certainly not anything that I’ve ever encountered in my years of attending worship, reading Christian books, and studying theology in school. On the contrary, Christians have always acknowledged that sex is GOOD, that it was designed by God for our delight (within marriage) and for producing children, and that it should be cherished and protected so that the marriage bed is not defiled.

      Admittedly, Christians through history WERE much more discreet about discussing sex publicly, but is this really such a bad thing? God’s Word emphasizes modesty among Christians – and particularly so with regard to such private matters as marital sexual behavior.

      Why would we ever believe that we should discuss the details of sex openly and publicly…..to show unbelievers how “cool” and “fun” it is follow Christ? I can certainly appreciate this, because truly nobody enjoys sex more than faithful Christians. However, our job as Christians is not to be “Public Relations Agents” for God – it’s to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to trust God to change hearts in that way, rather than by our showing unbelievers how much better our sex is.

      It’s not the earthly rewards of Christian faithfulness that people are to pursue (though these are certainly nice) – it’s God himself. To hold up “Christian sex” as the ultimate motivation and goal for being saved is to make an idol out of a precious gift that God gave to us – and to make private sexual behavior the subject of public, group conversations (and sermons) is to treat something that’s sacred as very casual, and to lead unbelievers to think that we speak and act about sex just as they do.

      • “…truly nobody enjoys sex more than faithful Christians…”

        Josh, I’m curious as to how anybody could possibly know this. Should we assume you’ve conducted an exhaustive/exhausting study?

      • Thanks Josh, for a good balanced point to this subject matter. Many times it seems like Christian are trying to compete with the world in proclaiming ‘edginess’ on our view of things. I feel like we are defiling God’s gift to a married couple in the way that sexual things have been presented in recent times.
        There is a time and place for these discussions and I believe that would be in a marriage conference or private counseling.
        Our enemy, loves to distract us and take us out of the game of being about our ‘Father’s business’. I just read this morning a great thought on Psalm 1:5 which says, ‘Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”
        “If the fate of the ungodly is our continual meditation, concern for their salvation will be our continual motivation” PRESS ON!

  10. Christian teaching has been that sex is ‘dirty’ and kind of a necessary ‘evil.’ Sex was always something the husband did to (not with) his wife. The wife, if she was obedient, did her duty and allowed her husband to have his ‘fun.’ She was to be emotionally and mentally detached from her husband – she could be even reading a cook book – while doing the deed. And sex is something that proper people never talk about in public. Mark Driscoll changed all this!!

    • Apparently you, sir, are not aware that long before Mark Driscoll came along the Catholic Church was teaching that a man and a woman should strive to climax together. Yes, there have been heretics throughout Christian history who taught that sex was dirty because they misinterpreted scripture, and believed that the body was evil and therefore the urges of desire for one another were evil. Also, some incorrectly interpreted the fall of the Garden to have come from sex. However, this has not been the teaching of the Catholic Church at any point in her history. Christ elevated marriage, and with it the union of man and woman, to a sacrament – a living sign of His love in the world.

      • Roman Catholic teaching has often said the original sin in the Garden was sexual intercourse. The last time I heard it was from a Cardinal in Boston.

  11. Well Joe, I don’t think Driscoll changed anything that wasn’t already there. But I agree he has certainly helped me develop a more honest reading of the Bible. I Went up to the Resurgence Conference in 07 with my wife, it was a very good experience. I think some people like to judge Mark without giving him a fair read….enjoyed the Peasant Princess series.

  12. Do we need permission from the Bible for a husband and wife to pleasure each other orally. Song of Solomon is a sexually graphic book. so much so Hebrew boys were not allowed to read it until after their barmitvah (sp?) … If I need permission for that then I need permission to walk down the street. All that to say is Sexual activity between a man and woman within the covenant of marriage is a beautiful thing and encourages oneness. The Bible does not give guidelines on how or what to do…( with the notable exception of bestiality and involving a 3rd party in the marriage bed) . If both husband and wife agree to it, find it pleasurable and find it as a way to encourage oneness with each other then there is not a problem. If a wife or husband do not find a certain activity comfortable for them then the other is not to force them to do it and I know Driscoll would agree with that!

    • Some Rabbis recommended Song not be read before you were THIRTY years old. I was taught this by my Hebrew teacher.

  13. [...] be worse for the women parishoners of St Nicholas Parish Church; at least their vicar isn’t Mark Driscoll. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)BNP Rev Robert West Doubts Fellowship of [...]

  14. [...] controversial and authoritarian “Kansas City Prophets”. Mark Driscoll (whom I blogged here) has also spoken at Newfrontiers events. Virgo regards the grouping as “apostolic”, [...]

  15. [...] was married. Back to those famous pastors: I’m no Mark Driscoll, but come on Pastor Mark: a sermon on oral [...]

  16. Mark Driscol is right ..now I dont agree with everything he says in some of his other sermons ..but people…he right on the whole oral sex thing….just alot of so called mature Christians are not very mature when they talk about sex….they hide , they get embarrassed, they dont really understand it or worse want to understand it…and how to place the sex thing in a Godly life and I tell you …this must change! we need to be real, honest about it and ultimately see what Gods says…

    All good things comes from God,oral sex is included! when Adam and Eve was made and God saw it..he said it was good ..Adam and Eve enjoyed each other ,,

    Dare I say lots, they lived for 900 years personally I very doubt all they did was think oh sex is just for procreation and we must only do sex in the style of the missionary sex thing…hey these guys were adventuirist these guys were creative ..but they loved each other and they were married in the eyes of God!!

    Ok rant over : )

    bless ya guys God is lush , he the master of blessings

  17. Matt, you assume a great deal about Adam and Eve. And God.

    What do you know about Jezebel in Rev 2:20 who taught God’s servants to fornicate?

    The word used there, to fornicate, is porneuo from which we get our word porn. It has to do with prostitution, including male prostitution, including the acts that male a female prostitutes engage in and homosexual acts like oral and anal sex.

    Driscoll is taking porn, acts of prostitutes and homosexuals, and telling wives that Jesus COMMANDS them to behave as prostitutes for their husbands, to SERVE their husbands as prostitutes, thus defiling the marriage bed, reducing wives to prostitutes and husbands to whoremongers.

    Does this mean that Mark Driscoll has a spirit of Jezebel because he teaches porn/prostitution to the servants of God?

    I don’t know.
    But you are swallowing it hook, like, and sinker and so are lot of other men who don’t know any better.

    We live in a porn culture racked with moral decay. And instead of standing against it, men like Driscoll bring porn inside the walls of the church and commands husbands and wives to take part in it.

    You can raise him up as some great spiritual leader.
    But he really is walking on thin ice.

    • My Christian wife would find that command, to behave as a prostitute for her husband, pretty hot.

      • OMG Anonymous, that is hilarious and so true! I had to comment! I find being my sexy hubby’s “whore” pretty hot also!!! Before we married Jesus told me that sex was very important to my fiance and if I was up to the task of taking care of his needs in a loving and respectful manner…I got very excited!! 5 years later..still happily servicing him every single time he is in the mood (0 declines) and he does it for me when he is tired…our bodies are not our own…so says Paul. It goes both ways, that is the loving thing to do. Poor guys are in agony and need release…I know the feeling.

    • Obviously YOU know absolutely NOTHING about not only Pastor Mark’s message, but scripture that isn’t Revelations. I attend Mars Hill Church down here in Orange County, California where we see his sermons every Sunday. He’s been going through each chapter of his book every Sunday for the past two months now and it’s been great.
      As to your reference of Pastor Mark on ‘porn’, you couldn’t be anymore wrong. Just last Sunday we were discussing the ‘Porn Path’ and how it is a major sin and leads to addiction. I think that it’s hilarious that outsiders such as yourself tend to judge Pastor Mark’s message when all that you’ve done is hear or read a little piece of something that was spun by the evangelical media who haven’t had sex with their spouses in so long that they forgot where their genitals are. It’s truly a sin for all of you men and women to judge; especially something in which you know NOTHING about.

      • He preaches on his own book? Major alarm bells there.

        And the childish insult thrown at Driscoll’s critics is incredibly immature.

      • Outsider? Really? You want to go there?

        And this beside the fact that you basically just confessed that you attend religious broadcasting. You are no more part of Driscoll’s church than someone can say they are part of the Lamb’s church because they watch one of the shows of the Daystar Network. For you to speak authoritatively on Driscoll, you should be interacting with *him*, not the electrons that produce a digital image of him.

        You also complete missed Mara’s point of pointing out the irony of combatting porn while actually facilitating it. You did this by pointing out that Driscoll combats porn. That only deepens the irony. I’m sorry to say this out loud, for irony should never be stated out loud. It cheapens the irony.

  18. 100% BEHIND DRISCOLL.

    Quit taking everything he says out of context and actually listen to more of his sermons in their entirety. If you did, you would know that he is a man who adores Jesus and loves his wife and children well.

    • well done Sarah, I agree with you.
      They are very controversial subjects that Mark Driscoll speaks about, but issues need to be addressed nonetheless. I would encourage what Sarah says, watch his sermons and come to your own conclusion. This negative view on what Driscoll preaches just emulates the stereotypical view that Christian men and women are sexually oppressed, rather we are passionate, loving, God fearing people, in which sex between a man and a woman is good to God, enjoy it, He created it! But sex is for married couples. Mark put it this way, you wouldn’t have fire outside of the fireplace, its dangerous. Likewise, don’t have sex unless you are married and are both in love with Jesus.

    • Agreed!!! The people on this board are following the leaders in the Evangelical wing who are old and find sex to be a disgusting taboo if it doesn’t involve procreation. These people are hilarious!

  19. [...] was married. Back to those famous pastors: I’m no Mark Driscoll, but come on Pastor Mark: a sermon on oral [...]

    • Again, obviously you people know NOTHING of what Pastor Mark is preaching other than a few media snippets. Grow up!

  20. Though he does seem to take it too far times Pastor Driscoll will “go there” and give the honest truth. If you fully read the Song of Solomon there are very many sexual references , playing or sucking a womans breast, oral, (both male and female). I think that if the church would stand up and talk about sex the right way (with balance). We wouldn’t have people like Pastor Driscoll going so far and pushing the edge. If would just say yes in marriage oral is ok, yes it is ok to fondle or your wife’s breast, or make love to her and her to you. But we are too scared. So even though I do not fully agree with Pastor Driscoll I commend him for being honest.

  21. [...] then again, when it comes to power consolidation and abuses of pastoral authority….. A number of sites have noted a report from the Baptist Press concerning Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church; a Christian radio station recently yanked a programme featuring Driscoll due to Driscoll’s teachings concerning sex. In particular, this 2007 sermon delivered in Edinburgh was considered unacceptable: During the sermon, which was entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon,” Driscoll interpreted Song of Solo … Read More [...]

  22. [...] has a prurient streak that featured on this blog back in 2009: he notoriously teaches that Song of Solomon 2:3 – “The fruit of her [...]

  23. This is dangerous teaching considering oral cancer (caused by HPV – a sexually transmitted disease) is up 225%. http://theholisticdentist.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/the-oral-cancer-pandemic/

    • Julie, please don’t tell me that you’re possibly that stupid …

      He’s talking about oral relations with your SPOUSE!!! You’re going to bring science in now? What’s next …? ‘A recent study by scientists at Cambridge concludes that having sexual intercourse will cause you to lose your sight’.

      Hilarious people you all are through and through …

  24. Here is the tough part about being a pastor/preacher or a person in a roll of leadership. Do a job well many times and people do not make a big deal out of it, do a job poorly once and you are discredited. Driscoll is intelligent, however my opinion of him is that he is stupid to peach this opinion of his that a woman should service her husband based on biblical pricipal. I am a male I love my wife, enjoy sex, enjoy oral… but if my wife says that she doesn’t feel like it she is not going against God. If I attended driscolls church when he shared this I would have left his church. Driscoll has accomplished something rare in sharing this he has shown he is intelligent and stupid at the same time.

    • Actually, YOU have shown that you are “intelligent and stupid at the same time”.

      Pastor Mark NEVER … NEVER said that a wife MUST take part in oral. He stated that both the husband AND wife MUST consent to whichever act is on the table.

      Again, I’m not really sure why I’m taking my time to try and talk sense into any of you people, but Pastor Mark is a great man of the Lord and the people on this board are coming to conclusions based on faulty information. I attend one of his churches here in Orange County, California and I’ll tell you that you guys blasting him and throwing out rumors couldn’t be any further from the truth. It’s really laughable if you ask me.

      • If your goal is to “talk sense into… people” then you might want to try a different tactic than what you’re using, which basically comes across like shouting and belittling.

      • The example given above – complete with creepy scripture quoting while the woman goes down on her husband – IS Driscoll telling a woman that she MUST perform oral sex. He is crudely selling a blowjobs for Jesus message.

        If a couple consents to it, fine – but Driscoll’s obsession with sex and sexual discussion is over the top.

  25. I have been trying hard to get my wife to eat more fruit.

  26. Don’t get me wrong, I love giving my hb a blowjob :) But if he’d say I have to, because it is in the Bible, he wouldnt get anything from me anymore..

  27. [...] keep herself “sexually available” to her husband and, if she believes the Bible, better be giving him frequent blowjobs. “Effeminate” church musicians should be mocked on Facebook. Abstaining from alcohol can be a [...]

  28. Just to even things out a little. My husband and I listened to the Song of Solomon teaching– blessed us tremendously. Mark Driscoll does mention the metaphor in the Songs that talks about the clitoris and her man’s captivity by it. The Song of Solomon is an erotic book and very obviously so. As a woman and wife who listened to the series in it’s entirety, I feel it was very fair. And my husband and I have learned to be VERY fair since listening to this sermon ;p . We were also blessed by the “Servant Lovers” sermon in Mark Driscoll’s recent Real Marriage series. Driscoll addresses that sex is better when we serve EACH OTHER (not just woman serving the man or vise versa).

  29. [...] Driscoll, one of the most prominent and popular Evangelical speakers these days, is a great man for sex advice so make sure to check him [...]

  30. [...] I want to be clear that it’s not just Debi Pearl who says things like this. Here’s an excerpt from a sermon by Mark Driscoll in which he recounted a conversation with a female parishioner, a conversation [...]

  31. [...] I want to be clear that it’s not just Debi Pearl who says things like this. Here’s an excerpt from a sermon by Mark Driscoll in which he recounted a conversation with a female parishioner, a conversation [...]

  32. Why does anyone fall for Mark Driscoll. In this case, can they not even read the verse for themselves? She says, “His fruit was sweet to my taste.” This is something SHE enjoys. If she didn’t enjoy it, she wouldn’t do it. Driscoll can’t even do proper exegesis on ONE VERSE.

    This is just maddening. People, just READ FOR YOURSELVES.

  33. What gets me, is the ignorance of most on the sins of Sodom, and Gomorrah. Most people believe that the sin of sodom and gomorrah was, or is, what we refer to as sodomy, or anal copulation between 2 men, and in some instances oral sex between heterosexuals. 1st, one must read through history, and learn that oral sex, and bestiality, were added, or included to mean sodomy during the VICTORIAN era, and later adopted by ROMANISM, the victorian era also brought about the belief that sex should only happen in one position, and one position only, anything else was of lust and sin. Sodomy, was only defined as such, due to the fact of what most believe to be the main sin of that city. So this is why, now, we use the word sodomy to describe anal sex in certain traditional situations, but sodomy didn’t, or doesn’t, describe oral sex, not in its original context.

    Now lets see what the sins of sodom and gomorrah were: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

    And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50) The abomination was homosexuality, going after strange flesh (Jude 7). We have to be careful to not mix traditional teachings with what Gods word says. Alot of traditional teachings are being taught in churches and is being accepted as holy laws of God. The people in sodom and gomorrah weren’t just perverse, or engaging in homosexual acts, they were evil at heart, and only evil continually. One must remember that only 4 people left the city.

    That means that everyone else perished, children, women, men (young and old). They were all evil. So we need to stop trying to define the destruction of sodom and gomorrah as merely for sexually perversion, it was WAY more than that. Such will be the same for the destruction of the earth this time around, it will be for way more than just homosexuality. It seems that alot of us like to use sodom and gomorrah as an excuse to get out of sexual responsibility in the marital relationship. Lets be clear on a few things, the bible does not speak on the grounds of oral sex, or anal sex between man and a woman.

    But lets be clear, the bible does state that human waste needs to be buried, for it is unclean, and can cause disease. So with that said we could gather that anal sex, even between a man and a woman, is probably not the best decision to make, and as well the anus is not lubricated on its own through arousal like the vagina is, and secretes. and honestly, anything that you have to prep for, use high amounts of lubricate for, be EXTREMELY cautious, and take extra careful time with penetration, cause you may hurt, or damage the orifice, is probably not something you should try to take a stab at!

    Sex is meant to be a mutually receiving gratification. Now on oral sex, the bible is silent on these matters, the verses in song of solomon are only speaking of how deeply in love the lovers are, and nothing more. Paul writes: ” All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1 Corinthians 6:23)

    Paul is showing us here in this chapter that just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should just because we want too, especially if we are doing it for our own benefit. We have to consider others, and be concerned for one anothers well being and health. And even in the marital sense, if one partner does not want to engage in oral sex, the other should not make them, it must beof a mutual consent out of love for one another, for God does not make us do anything that we don’t want to. This is the philosophy we all should follow.

  34. [...] Driscoll, one of the most prominent and popular Evangelical speakers these days, is a great man for sex advice so make sure to check him [...]

  35. [...] of Drisoll. But he regrettably engages macho culture by appealing to the gods of SUVs and fellatio. I only wish this were The [...]

  36. [...] the best and tastiest Driscollisms is the stance that, if a woman is a good Christian, she will give her husband oral sex all…the….time. Not only that, but if she doesn’t give him oral sex, and then he [...]

  37. [...] the best and tastiest Driscollisms is the stance that, if a woman is a good Christian, she will give her husband oral sex all…the….time. Not only that, but if she doesn’t give him oral sex, and then he [...]

  38. [...] wives should give their husbands frequent blowjobs and perhaps allow their husbands to have anal sex during [...]

  39. [...] wives should give their husbands frequent blowjobs and perhaps allow their husbands to have anal sex during [...]

  40. [...] give their husbands oral sex and actually, they should do so as a part of their marital duties. He drew criticism from the Baptist Press for this comment. I could go into further depth about the statements he has [...]

  41. The Song of Solomon narrowly escaped not being included in the canon by the Jews at Jamnia and only survived because they interpreted it as being a metaphor of God’s love for Israel. The same is true of the church. The book was only retained because it was interpreted as a metaphor of Christ’s love for the church. To interpret it in any other way is to admit that it doesn’t belong in the canon.

  42. […] Life program from its stations following an interview with Driscoll. During the broadcast, he boasted about a sermon he gave in Edinburgh, Scotland where he counseled a female parishioner regarding oral sex, and then took it way too far […]

  43. ‘The overall thrust of the Bible…’?

    Lol

  44. […] “Men, I am glad to report to you that oral sex is biblical…The wife performing oral sex on the husband is biblical. God’s men said, Amen. Ladies, your husbands appreciate oral sex. They do. So, serve them, love them well. It’s biblical. Right here. We have a verse. ‘The fruit of her husband is sweet to her taste and she delights to be beneath him.’”       (http://barthsnotes.com/2009/06/27/mark-driscoll-slammed-by-baptist-press-over-sex-teaching/) […]

  45. the bible does say the women were using their bodies in unnatural ways..that that was against nature. It is not natural to use the mouth or anus for copulation. The mouth is for eating talking, breathing, etc. the anus is for defecating. Bunch of ignorant people who do not know their Bible and could not possibly be filled with the holy spirit.

  46. I find it unconscionable that so many men ignore the clear passages in Song of Songs calling them to give oral sex to their wives. I’m glad that Driscoll pointed all of these out as well.

    • Me too, Jedidiah! It sure would have been helpful for good ol’ Mark Driscoll to make sure the “servant” wives he preaches to get “served,” too!

      As far as Mark saying that women should repent, then get down on their knees to “service” their men, to that I reply that Mark Driscoll can go service one himself (and choke on it, too!).

  47. […] wide swath of destruction. Driscoll himself has made no secret of the fact that his wife is to service him on her knees whenever he feels the need for sexual […]

  48. […] stations run a program produced by Driscoll and Mars Hill, his church. But according to a recent BarthsNotes post, a 2007 sermon he offered in Edinburgh which then was broadcast on his program, crossed a line by […]

  49. […] wives should give their husbands frequent blowjobs [and repent for when they don't] and perhaps allow their husbands to have anal sex during […]

  50. […] time, he set the blogosphere abuzz by recounting a self-congratulatory story in which he advised a woman in his congregation that she should apologize to her husband for the […]

  51. Realy sounds like Driscoll has moved into the Flirty Fishing of the 70s Children of God.

  52. […] his proclivity for provocative proclamations about oral sex, “real” men, and the reasons (later retracted) for Ted Haggard’s infidelities, […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>