On Real Marriage

Pastor Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace recently released their new book, “Real Marriage“.  Compared with past events with Mark’s name attached to them, I think the reaction to this one only rises to the level of a “minor dust up”.

Right off the bat, let me commend to you and include by reference everything in Douglas Wilson’s opening post in his brief series interacting with the book.  As is often the case, Pastor Wilson is clearer, cleverer, and quicker to market with much of what I had hoped to say.

Having said that, I wish to begin with a few observations about some of the less charitable tweety-bloggy reactions I have seen:

1. Some cessationists will take every opportunity presented to them to pick on Mark for being unashamed of his own charismatic experiences.  Particularly problematic in their minds: he heard an audible voice tell him to marry Grace, preach the Bible, train men, and plant churches; what’s worse, he sometimes has visions (in the technical sense) that uncover things about the histories of others (often sexual sins committed by or against them).  Some have gone so far as to accuse Mark of mistaking some sort of demonic mental pornographer for the Holy Spirit, but these critiques seem to me to exemplify the kind of foolish hermeneutic (let’s call it “theological spice-tithing”) that latches on to single details in a way that manages to completely ignore both context and plot.  Mark describes these visions not as cause for salacious lust, but as occasion for mourning and weeping on behalf of sinners and victims, and frequently as the opportunities of their repentance.  There is nothing authoritative about these “revelatory” experiences (so “revelatory” is probably a misnomer), leaving us to judge them as the Bible teaches us to: do the experiences agree with the testimony of Scripture or contradict it (Isaiah 8:20), and do the fruits of these disclosures lead to confession, repentance, and thanksgiving, or do they lead to more sin, pain, and death (Matt 7, 1 Corinthians 14)?  Since I’m what you might call a chandelier-swinging charismatic, my only concern about these stories is that Mars Hill hasn’t yet found a theology of the Spirit that’s actually big enough to account for them.
2. Some from the egalitarian/equalitarian camp think it’s contradictory for Mark and Grace to simultaneously advocate (a) hierarchy of role and (b) sexual mutuality within marriage.  As I understand the Bible, (1) there is a recurring principle of particular mutual servanthood between spouses as an instantiation of the principle of the general servanthood of believers toward others (Luke 22, Ephesians 5, etc), (2) there is a recurring imperative for a wife in particular to specifically and distinctively submit to her husband in particular, who in turn specifically loves the wife in particular (Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, etc), and that (3) particular texts which apply mutuality to particular areas of marriage (such as sex, as taught in 1 Corinthians 7) in no way invalidate or conflict with the general theme of a structured leadership and submission relationship between mutually-serving spouses.  The donning of sufficiently thick hermeneutical glasses can render point (2) obscure, which wrongly turns the concurrent and mutually-informing commands of Scripture into a contradiction that needs to be untangled and resolved.
3. I’ve seen few reviews speak skeptically about the book’s approving citations of Archibald Hart on “testosterone-induced depression”.  This is another case where critics uncharitably latch on to one detail at the expense of context and theme.  The idea as presented is couched in Mark’s usual language about “this doesn’t excuse sin” and “this is not a weapon to use against your spouse”, phrases that most Christians would do well to repeat to themselves at pretty much all times.  Testosterone-induced depression is easy to scoff at until you or someone you love actually experiences it.  It’s not for nothing that 1 Cor 7 commands spouses not to deny each other sexually and tells singles that it’s better to marry if their alternative is to burn with desire; those blessed with the gift of chastity or with the gift of a satisfying sexual relationship with their spouse need to be very mindful of publicly taking their graces for granted.  Interestingly, this skepticism tends to come from the same sources that dislike the general frankness of the book; with Wilson (above), I worry that these reviews look more like willful obliviousness or denial about just how broken and confused so many of us are (congregants, pastors, everyone) than like pastoral wisdom.
4. Some have complained that the book doesn’t say enough to legitimize Christian vocational singleness (those who are called and gifted not to marry).  This complaint is fine so far as it goes, but really it’s just asking this book to do something it doesn’t claim to do: articulate a comprehensive theology of sex, gender, and sexuality.  There are plenty of other books that try to do that; this book seeks to be helpful to people who are or who desire to be married.

But enough about what everyone else says!  A few of my own thoughts:

1. Most importantly: mega-kudos to the Driscolls for their transparency in this book as sexual sinners, victims of sexual sin, and pastors/ministers.  This is as close as I’ve seen a book come to meeting the challenge of my Christian Sex Books Rant, and anything less-than-flattering I may have said above or below should be read as a footnote to my appreciation and gratitude.  Without diving too deeply into my own autobiography, the story of their own marital problems and God’s often slow, often painful work of redemption between them has encouraged and challenged me in ways too personal to share here.
2. Noticeably missing from the book is a development of a theology of marriage and sex; Paul connects the revelation of Christ and the church with marriage as a living illustration and embodiment of the gospel.  I appreciate the desire to try to get straight into the practical/”helpful” content, but it feels like the “It’s All About Jesus” meme could have made a stronger showing.  Some of my more sacramentally-minded friends will say this is to be expected given Driscoll’s de-spiritualized reading of Song of Songs; if it’s anything of the sort, I think it’s Mark’s Calvinism drawing his focus too quickly to the sin issues within marriages.  A brief chapter would, I think, have been helpful in providing a stronger foundation going into the questions in the “Can We ____?” chapter, and would have afforded an opportunity to preempt the quips about vocational singleness to boot.  To fill this gap, I recommend Sex and the Supremacy of Christ and Peter Jones’ “The God of Sex“, and wish to dissuade you in no uncertain terms from paying any attention whatsoever to Rob Bell’s “Sex God“.
3. The “Can We ____?” chapter, which many seem to latch on to as the “controversial part of the book where the Driscolls go too far”, struck me as truncated; the hype said “all your questions” so I fully expected the questions about body modification and home-made sex tapes that were asked but not answered in The Radical Reformission to make the cut.  As a series of brief and oversimplified case studies in how to apply the three-part ethic (“Is it unlawful? Unhelpful? Enslaving?”) to a relatively short list of controversial sexual topics, it’s a helpful starting point.  The message boards at http://boards.themarriagebed.com/ are a very useful resource for working through these questions with more depth and nuance; in addition to the technical points of the three-part ethic, it’s valuable to reflect upon pastoral questions about a spouse’s purpose and motive in making one of these decisions, and also to consider medical implications (What about oral sex with someone who has cold sores? What are the medical risks of anal sex? etc).

In short: if you’re married, or if you hope to some day be married, or if you’re in any way involved with counseling people who are, please read this book.  It sets a very different tone for the Christian conversation about sex and marriage, and I pray it’s a tone that will outlast whatever buzz the book itself generates.