Back when we were discussing the impact of p*rn and sex on the church, Brandy made this astute observation (bold mine):
I think that when you said “the p*rnification of the church” you really hit the nail on the head, Sallie. I really appreciated Challies’ review of the Driscoll sex book (henceforth the DSB ha!). He basically said that the DSB is allowing p*rnography to *set the conversation*–I totally agree! Basically, the church is beginning to come to Scripture through a p*rn*graphic lens, rather than coming to various topics through a Scriptural lens. I know none of us can interpret Scripture perfectly, but at least we should *try* to let Scripture be the lens through which we are viewing life.
My husband defines worldview as said lens. Does this mean the DSB–and parts of the church–literally have a p*rnographic worldview? Interesting question, no?
Mark Driscoll’s Esther Sermon Series
Now, go check out the overview of Driscoll’s new sermon series on Esther, the slut. Here’s a bit to get you started. This is how Driscoll describes Esther:
She grows up in a very lukewarm religious home as an orphan raised by her cousin. Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed. She’s simply a person without any character until her own neck is on the line, and then we see her rise up to save the life of her people when she is converted to a real faith in God.
Does this sound like coming to the Scriptures through a Scriptural lens or a p*rn*graphic lens? Can you even begin to count the ways he is reading into the story of Esther because of his own obsession with s*x?
How about this snippet as well?
Perhaps the ancient story of Esther is more timely than ever. A single woman, who is barely spiritual sleeping with a bad guy due in part to the fact she has no family to lean on, meets God, is transformed, and is used by God to save others.
I have always loved the book of Esther. God working through an imperfect woman and a terrible situation to save His people. I NEVER thought of her as a slut.
Good grief. What is this world coming to?
i always read it as, a young woman, experiences the tragedy of losing her birth family, is raised by her very committed to God cousin, and through no fault of her own is kidnapped into s*xual slavery. Making the best of a bad situation she listens to the advice of her cousin (who is as bound by the law as she is) and through a miracle of God is put into a situation where she can save her people from extinction. I think the only reason she would be portrayed as a slut is so that her God given leadership skills and authority can be undermined by people more committed to their own ideas about what the bible says, than they are to what the bible actually says.
Heidi
Well said, Heidi!
Oh my goodness, Sallie! That is just APPALLING!
I don’t even know where to begin on that. I will have to go think about it while I stir my dinner soup.
In my opinion, it’s pretty close to blasphemy, for him to say things the Bible NEVER says! I’m sorry, but this guy seems to have his mind in the gutter.
What should really concern us is the impact this man is having on young men, especially those entering the ministry. Can you imagine being married to a man who patterned his life after Driscoll? Or being in a church with a pastor who became enamored with Driscoll? Or being in a church that hired someone who aspired to be like Driscoll? This man preaches to thousands at multiple campuses every Sunday and reaches who knows how many through the internet. And they think it is completely normal to look at life and the Bible through a s*xual, p*rn*graphic lens.
And, folks, these are the type of people out there defining complementarianism. Maybe it isn’t the way you define it. But this is how it is being taught to lots of people. I understand that we live in a s*x saturated culture and we have to be willing to address the problems it causes in people’s lives. But reading s*x into every story in the Bible to make it “relevant” is not the answer.
While we’re on the subject of pastors obsessed with sex, consider this snippet about CJ Mahaney, head of the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches:
I’m not trying to be vulgar here in posting these things. But people really need to realize these are the men in the forefront, publishing books, training pastors, etc. These are the men your future pastor is learning from. These are the people defining complementarianism to the masses.
Mahaney thinks this is an example of a loving, Gospel-centered complementarian marriage. He thinks this is how a woman serves her husband. This is the expectation he is putting into the minds of hundreds and thousands of men. That men should expect their sicker than a dog wife to service them, even if it makes her so ill she throws up afterwards.
If you aren’t filled with disgust and righteous indignation that Mahaney is promoting this as an ideal marriage relationship, I don’t know what else to say. The man is a complete and total jerk.
And, yes, I really do mean that.
The interesting thing to me, Sallie, is that Mahaney told that story in the first place. Regardless of whether he appreciated this, or whether she truly did this out of love for him, or *whatever* (and I don’t mean that to be an endorsement) there is something that has changed about the culture that we think it is acceptable for a pastor to talk publicly about something so private. That is a sign of a p*rn*gr*phic culture, I think. Can you imagine the pastor of Ma and Pa Ingalls up front, talking about how his wife “served” him? They would have been appalled and in a city he probably would have been arrested for indecency! I would be horrified if my husband made our private life public, and it is so en vogue for pastors to do this right now that I told my husband recently I am officially glad he is not a pastor!
With that said…
I have been thinking I need to be in prayer more for my fellow believers. So many of them seem so vulnerable to theological fads and dynamic personalities. The came up recently at one of our Charlotte Mason reading meetings. CM talks about magnetic personalities having an impact on their students (or parishoners in this case!) where those in submission to it become parasitic personalities over time, needing a strong, magnetic personality in their life always. I think we moderns would call it a cult personality!
Anyhow, I wondered if this is why people seem to jump from one strong group to another–I know we all do this intellectually to an extent because we read a book and entertain the ideas and there is a pendulum swinging around in the process, but I mean more extreme, like the people who move to join RC Sproul, Jr.’s church or whatever. This makes me wonder if things like YouTube (and iTunes?) can actually mass produce the parasitic personality on accident?
I don’t know.
Just a thought I’m thinking…
All of that to say, for a while I thought I could ignore Driscoll. I really didn’t understand his popularity because his style has never sat well with me. But now I’m very concerned…
There is so *much* to be concerned about these days, it seems.
Thanks Sallie for putting your thoughts online. You have raised a good point.
I’d like to see Driscoll say something like this in a Jewish synagogue and see how he would come out afterwards!
I’m a regular at The Wartburg Watch. Appreciate all who take a stand and use their voice to come against this junk. You go girl!!
Drop by my website sometime: http://www.ChurchExiters.com
All the best!
So, what does Driscol think Esther’s choices were? I am beyond shocked! Thank you so much Sallie for this blog. I don’t comment a lot, but I do learn quite a bit. Please keep up your writing!
Exactly,Susanne! When people fail to read the Bible in its context, the ancient Middle-Eastern culture, and add in their own uninformed and misguided twists, then this is what you get–biblical ignorance wholesale!!
It remains to be seen what might be said about other women in the Bible??!!
Sallie, Driscoll’s take on Esther infuriates me and leaves me wondering how so many cannot see a man with a major sexual problem. Such blindness in the church!!! BUT, that story of Mahaney’s pregnant wife leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. It reminds me of the chuckling Piper did when he talked about physical abuse of women. Until women are loved and valued as precious in the sight of men, we can expect no better.
Gee, I wonder what he would say about David? I mean here was a guy who (seemingly) committed rape and murder, and then ignored the rape of his own daughter later on. Driscoll is unimaginable as a shepherd to anyone.
Thank you for all the great comments. I really appreciate hearing that people are reading and finding the information helpful. 🙂
Sallie: I enjoy your views on this subject because you don’t go overboard. You still believe in being biblical. To be egalitarian seems to automatically mean that you have to be pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion (or at least tolerant of abortion). They just don’t seem to have a lot of good objective biblical arguments. It’s all emotion. Emotion has it’s place, but I love objective people! 🙂
As far as the CJ Mahoney comment. Ugh. As one who suffered from horrible morning sickness all 4 times I’m getting sick right now. Also, why do these men uncover the private aspects of their marriages? Isn’t the marriage bed sacred? I’m sure these guys would be swiftly condemning the women if they were joking about similar issues. I thought comps were supposed to be gentlemen? I read some reviews of Driscol’s book and was so offended by the stuff he lays out about his wife’s past. Where is his honor? How does that help anyone? I just feel like the whole world is going backwards (Church too!). We’re all going back to the dark ages. Ugh!
Thanks, again for your great writing!
Susanne, no worries! If I were to label myself – my husband asked that we stop labeling ourselves after we left patriarchy – I would be considered egalitarian. However, I am not pro-gay in any way nor am I pro-abortion. Please know that I also strive to live “biblically” even though I would consider myself in agreement with egalitarianism. 🙂
As for the post, first off, Sallie, I am so glad you are writing posts again! We need more voices like yours! Anyways, MD is a pervert. I hate calling names so I don’t call him one lightly. And that CJ story about his wife “servicing” him while she was pregnant? Let me just say how glad I am that I have the husband that I do. It seems there are very few good and decent and loving men left.
From the Christianity Today blog Her.meneutics MIA: Men Who Don’t Use P*rn, article about a study of sex buyers:
Obviously p*rn is a huge problem in our country. I don’t remember where the article was, but it discussed how p*rn literally changes your brain. It is a terrible addiction to break.
But the church needs to provide hope for freedom from this. Instead, people like Driscoll reinforce the problem by reading it into stories from the Scripture. Yes, the Bible is full of racy situations. But how is the man (or woman) addicted to p*rn going to look at the story of Esther if Driscoll equates it to The Bachelor and steamy one night stands with a king? Is it really necessary to couch it in these terms in order for people to see how God works even in terrible situations? No, it is not.
A super resource for understading biblical gender equality is a group called Christians For Biblical Equality.
Their website is: http://www.cbeinternational.org
There are all kinds of articles, scholarly books recommended, and a free online newsletter. People can be instrumental in developing a chapter in their area.
The word needs to get out about the liberating nature of God’s grace and gender equality.
The church is in poor shape without these spiritual truths undergirding Christian spirituality and honoring women and men together in the home and in the church.
The quote about morning sickness was just sickening to me! For one thing, there is no honor left anymore, in keeping private things private. For another thing, in marriage, men and women are BOTH supposed to lay down their lives for the other. In this case, the husband does not get “his needs” met because HERS take precedence! While I have been through a bad marriage and divorce, I still believe in male leadership and female submission; however, there are some crazy, sick people who are interpetting the Bible in such abusive ways.:/
Nothing Mark Driscoll does surprises me anymore. Sickening.
Sallie,
I friend referred your blog post to me. Thank you so much for writing a thoughtful response to Driscoll. I too, like you, have serious concerns with Driscoll’s ministry – on a number of levels.
Having said that, I strongly believe that there is another possible side to Esther. Believe it or not, there is weighty evidence in both the English and Hebrew texts to suggest that what Esther did with the king that night was not good and should not have been emulated by Israel.
The text seems to suggest a beauty pageant was performed before the king. Note Esther 1:10-11. Notice the king is drunk and wants everyone to see a woman’s beauty. Thankfully Queen Vashti refuses. There are probably good reasons why she refused! The king then invites young virgins, and Esther appears on the scene and eventually goes “into the king.” The text doesn’t elaborate on what the virgins are doing (2:7, 9, 13-17) and doesn’t commend or denigrate what Esther did, as OT narrative rarely makes such comments. But I believe the text, particularly chapter 2, seems to suggest the king is up to no good – and the text also informs the reader that these women willingly give their bodies for viewing and, I believe, quite possibly for other things to win the attention and affection of the King.
I don’t think this requires us to bring any p-nograhic ideas to the text – far from it. Notice the text doesn’t give specific details – but presents the narrative in a safe manner. God always does this in adulterous and murderous narratives. He rarely gives details and when details are presented, they are far from today’s Hollywood’s pictures. Remember, there are many bad examples in the OT – even from God’s own people. Of course King David, a man after God’s own heart, lusted so much after Bathsheba that he gave a kingly order for her. If she had resisted his order she very well could have been executed (2 Sam. 11). Then David killed her husband to hide his sin. But in this section of Samuel, God does not present many details, particularly of the adulterous relationship. We understand what happened and that’s enough details for us. We also know that God preserved such horrendous accounts to serve as examples for us (1 Cor. 10:6). Even the greatest of God’s people in the OT had tremendous blemishes. But nevertheless God uses such people!
Sallie, I would encourage you to look back at the text to see if it might suggest a possible bad example in Esther, at least here in chapter two. We can be joyful, though, knowing that God in His providence used Esther to preserve Israel for the coming Messiah, and uses people like us!
Thank you for writing!
With reference to Jason’s comment. We are not privy to what occurred between the king and Esther and any speculation is purely that, speculation. I will mention that there is one woman who managed to capture a king’s attention and keep her head on her shoulders (literally) without relying on bedroom prowess: Scheherazade, who mastered the art of the cliffhanger long before JR got shot. If a heroine of literature could do succeed without being a slut, then why not give Esther the benefit of the doubt?
I’ve read chapter 2 again and I don’t see that any of the young women being actively willing. They are all referred to in the passive tense: ‘…let a search be made…’, ‘… many young women were brought…’, ‘… she had to complete…’ I am sure many of them wanted to win by seducing him but the king was looking for a Consort, he already had harem of concubines. Anyway, it wasn’t an invitation, it was a royal edict, refuse at your peril.
Above should read ‘…had a harem…’
Did anyone notice that besides genisis 3:16 that the first royal decree that a husband rule his house hold came from a wicked pagan king upset because he could not sexually exploit his wife as he wished?
Also curious to know if Genisis 3:16 is more of a prophecy from God about marital problems arising from the result of the fall rather then and actual decree given for husbands to rule because after having said that God gave no personal commandment to Adam to rule over Eve or how it should be done as when he gave specific commandments to judges and kings.