Mark Driscoll defends his sex book to CNN, what is your opinion?

[Tami Martin]

The Driscoll hermeneutic of scripture is so convoluted at times I find it hard to follow. He sanctions beer drinking as biblical, yet does not want women in leadership. Does that make sense to you?

I was going to explain how Driscoll's convoluted hermeneutic can, at times, make sense to me, but it seems you've proved my point with the above discussion on masturbation.

And on that subject...

Honestly! How can anyone read and post statistics on this? Do you actually believe that there is any possible way to get at this information? Heck no. No one is going to be honest. That's private. And it should be private. I saw some graphic on the internet the other day that said something along the lines of "is touching yourself worth an eternity in hell?" Seriously?? Our ideas of sex are so warped that I don't think we would recognize healthy sexuality if it fell out of the sky and landed on our heads.

[Bob Hunter]

JPII wrote the magnum opus on the subject here: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He-C.../dp/0819874213 all else pales in light of this extraordinary work grounded in theology. Anyone who is serious on the topic must read this in its entirety.

The Archdiocese of Omaha and others across the nation have invited Christopher West of :http://www.tobinstitute.org/default.asp to address the work in layman's language. This writing has made a remarkable impact upon young believers. My husband has West's Marriage Counseling material.

As I stated, if you want an authentically theological approach to the topic, Theology of The Body is a must read.

Somewhere, I once read that according to Chestetton, "sex will be the final heresy"

Tami,

Very interesting stuff, I was not aware of it. Nonetheless, I don't think I have time to read a 768 page book these days! It seems Christopher West has a condensed work. My question is this, how does your husband utilize material that is pretty distinctly Catholic and complementarian (I'm guessing) and remain a Nazarene? I mean, you do know we are all egalitarians and anything that smacks of complementarianism is archaic and condescending toward women. Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but I think you get my point. Just wondering how he would approach it.

[Ryan Pugh]

Shea, thanks for the explanations (without going into too much detail ).

I'm still wrestling (and struggling, honestly) with some of the ideas you've written, but I know that my experience and knowledge are limited to just those - my experience and knowledge. Others have different experiences and knowledge about issues I'm not aware of, and I need to make room for those, even if they don't initially line up with my understanding of things. Thanks for helping me think deeper.

[Todd Erickson]

Shea, thanks for the explanations (without going into too much detail ).

I'm still wrestling (and struggling, honestly) with some of the ideas you've written, but I know that my experience and knowledge are limited to just those - my experience and knowledge. Others have different experiences and knowledge about issues I'm not aware of, and I need to make room for those, even if they don't initially line up with my understanding of things. Thanks for helping me think deeper.

Let's assume for a moment, all things being equal, that most marriages are not happy and communicative, and that people don't have aligned interests and needs, and that every day is a struggle just to get through. Which is most of the couples I know, including my own.

You can state ideals all that you want, but in the end, people need to be able to live in Grace, and currently, this thread is verging toward all sorts of legalism. It's fine to say that sexual sin is a sin against yourself, but when you become 'of one body' with somebody who doesn't want to share their half most of the time, the situation is already broken. You can either condemn people for trying to live in the middle of a broken situation, or you can leave it in God's hands.

[Ryan Pugh]

Let's assume for a moment, all things being equal, that most marriages are not happy and communicative, and that people don't have aligned interests and needs, and that every day is a struggle just to get through. Which is most of the couples I know, including my own.

You can state ideals all that you want, but in the end, people need to be able to live in Grace, and currently, this thread is verging toward all sorts of legalism. It's fine to say that sexual sin is a sin against yourself, but when you become 'of one body' with somebody who doesn't want to share their half most of the time, the situation is already broken.

Todd, please trust me that I'm not trying to just state ideals and I'm certainly not trying to express some form of legalism that every couple needs to live by or being living in sin. I'm truly sorry if I have come across that way.

You can either condemn people for trying to live in the middle of a broken situation, or you can leave it in God's hands.

I've chosen option #2.

[Bob Hunter]

Let's assume for a moment, all things being equal, that most marriages are not happy and communicative, and that people don't have aligned interests and needs, and that every day is a struggle just to get through. Which is most of the couples I know, including my own.

You can state ideals all that you want, but in the end, people need to be able to live in Grace, and currently, this thread is verging toward all sorts of legalism. It's fine to say that sexual sin is a sin against yourself, but when you become 'of one body' with somebody who doesn't want to share their half most of the time, the situation is already broken. You can either condemn people for trying to live in the middle of a broken situation, or you can leave it in God's hands.

I think our lives sexually is one particular area where God has shown all of us enormous amounts of of G-R-A-C-E!!! Period. End of story! I would even extend to this Grace to Mark Driscoll and his rigid interpretation of scripture. In the end, I think we will find that God's Grace has covered us more than we will ever know. God is using Mark Driscoll in spite of his arrogance, missteps, and crude remarks.

So let's have a little hope here today folks, God's Grace is bigger than we think.

[Hans Deventer]

I mean, you do know we are all egalitarians and anything that smacks of complementarianism is archaic and condescending toward women. Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but I think you get it.

Well, I for one believe man and woman were and are meant to complement each other, since they are obviously different and still both are created in the image of God. The latter, of course, means that both have equal value and that's how I believe in complementing AND equality and mutual submission.

[Hans Deventer]

You can state ideals all that you want, but in the end, people need to be able to live in Grace, and currently, this thread is verging toward all sorts of legalism. It's fine to say that sexual sin is a sin against yourself, but when you become 'of one body' with somebody who doesn't want to share their half most of the time, the situation is already broken. You can either condemn people for trying to live in the middle of a broken situation, or you can leave it in God's hands.

Responding from practice, I can say that in the 31st year of our marriage, we're finally getting to a place where (1) we indeed live from grace, (2) we are getting the hang of communicating, (3) I've figured out the best way to communicate love towards Hannie and (4) I'm seeing happen what I've been dreaming about since the beginning, because there is no better reason to give yourself then feeling loved.

I don't want to say we've ever had a bad marriage, but, let's put it this way, there was a lot of room for improvement. Truth be told, Hannie has had to put up with quite a lot from me. And the fact that she can't do that anymore forced us to talk, and thus became a blessing in disguise.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

Here is Rachel Held Evans take on the book, which she wrote about in her blog on Jan. 3:

http://rachelheldevans.com/mark-dris...vans+-+Blog%29

Karen, THANK YOU for posting this. Oh my goodness. I have not paid much attention to Mark Driscoll or Mars Hill. This sounds like a damaged book coming from damaged people who are not yet whole. If I have to ever read this book, it will be a borrowed or used, and very cheaply priced, copy.

[Bob Hunter]

Responding from practice, I can say that in the 31st year of our marriage, we're finally getting to a place where (1) we indeed live from grace, (2) we are getting the hang of communicating, (3) I've figured out the best way to communicate love towards Hannie and (4) I'm seeing happen what I've been dreaming about since the beginning, because there is no better reason to give yourself then feeling loved.

I don't want to say we've ever had a bad marriage, but, let's put it this way, there was a lot of room for improvement. Truth be told, Hannie has had to put up with quite a lot from me. And the fact that she can't do that anymore forced us to talk, and thus became a blessing in disguise.

Can't hit the Thank you button enough. This is premise of Peter Scazzero's book, "Emotionally Healthy Church". I heard Scazzero speak to this very issue. His wife was so fed up with him, she almost left the Church he was pastoring! In fact, she gave him an ultimatum, get help or I'm leaving. That was a turning point in their marriage, he got help and now he is helping others. It's the mystery of God works, we have to die a death in order to experience the joy of resurrection. In the last year, Cambria and I have gone through every major stress that a marriage can endure. We sold our home, quit jobs, and moved across the country to an unfamiliar place. Throw a remodeling project in the mix and some unexpected financial set backs. We still don't have friends here, it's lonely and the kids are not adjusting as quickly as we thought. We need His Grace more than ever.

[Billy Cox]

If someone cannot imagine how masturbation within marriage could be a healthy or loving action, then it probably wouldn't be in their marriage. But if that's the case, they probably also haven't faced some of the trials in their sex life that some others have. I know of two couples who, for differing reasons, literally could not have sex for over a year. In one instance it was the husband, and in the other it was the wife, who could not have sex for health reasons. I don't know what those couples' sex lives looked like during that time period, but I have to say that if they decided to find alternative ways to remain sexually satisfied, and mutually agreed upon masturbation was a part of that, I think that's a loving relationship in which the sexually able spouse showed respect for the inability of his/her partner.

It's topics like this that nudge me toward theological libertarianism. Or to state it another way, there are some topics that the church should just keep its nose out of.

As long as the sexual activity is consensual and non-adulterous, anything goes.

[Billy Cox]

In the last year, Cambria and I have gone through every major stress that a marriage can endure. We sold our home, quit jobs, and moved across the country to an unfamiliar place. Throw a remodeling project in the mix and some unexpected financial set backs. We still don't have friends here, it's lonely and the kids are not adjusting as quickly as we thought. We need His Grace more than ever.

I think you realize that your list doesn't include every major stress.

[Shea Zellweger]

It's topics like this that nudge me toward theological libertarianism. Or to state it another way, there are some topics that the church should just keep its nose out of.

As long as the sexual activity is consensual and non-adulterous, anything goes.

I agree, although I would add private to the list (sorry, exhibitionists!). We really don't need to start making lists of the "acceptable" and "dirty" forms of sex. If a couple both find it enjoyable and non-degrading, there's no reason to think they can't engage in the activity out of love and a sense of giving to one another, while still receiving pleasure from the act. It's true that sex is about giving of oneself to one's spouse, but it's also perfectly acceptable to want, enjoy, and explore things which one finds personally pleasurable. I'm guessing there are very few people out there who regularly "sacrifice" themselves via sex without gaining any enjoyment from it...

[Glenn Messer]

I always spend a good bit of time on human sexuality and the sexual relationship in marriage when I am going through pre-marriage counseling with a couple. My own kids were not exempted, though I think discussion was probably muted by the idea of their dad and mom ...... well, you know. Years ago (early '70's) I had a textbook written by a professor from the University of Houston that covered everything you could imagine, and a few things you couldn't imagine, about human sexuality. Sometimes i would lend it out to the couple; I would suggest that one of them read it and then pass it on to the other. We would discuss any (and I do mean "any") questions they might have in our counseling sessions. Once I had the father of one young lady ask if he could talk to me. I said, certainly. He told me he had a question about the book I had given his daughter and her fiance to read. My initial thought was, "Uh, oh. I have an upset father." He sorta stuttered around for a moment before asking, "When my daughter is finished, can I keep it for a while longer. I would like to read it." "No problem. Help yourself." Eventually, someone kept the book and I never replaced it.

My basic approach is that our sexuality is meant (by God's design) to nurture, enhance, and strengthen our marriage relationship. It was not meant to add stress or make us uncomfortable. Like everything else we do in life, we get the most from it when we take the time and effort to learn how to effectively use it. I also believe that, like most other relationships, you benefit the most from it when you focus on 'giving' rather than 'receiving'. The best sexual experience for any of us is the one in which we know that our spouse was wonderfully satisfied. You know .... those times when we grin at ourselves in the mirror and think, "Boy was I good!"

My definition of "normal sex" is the physical and emotional relationship shared by a husband and wife in the privacy of their own bedroom. It is mutually agreeable and satisfying, is beneficial to both and is not physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually harmful to either. It is never forced. Within the boundaries of this, your sexual relationship is your business.

A good sexual relationship will not cure a bad marriage.

Don't take the sexual relationship so seriously that you miss the humor and laughter that can sometimes be a part of it. Some nights things just don't work the way they are supposed to; that's OK. That's what keeps you looking forward to tomorrow night.

Oh, by the way. I heard Driscolls' book being discussed on Imus this morning. Maybe I'll write my own book someday. Probably not --- it sounds too much like work.

P.S. Moderator, if I've included too much info here, do whatever it is you do. It's OK.

[Bob Hunter]

I always spend a good bit of time on human sexuality and the sexual relationship in marriage when I am going through pre-marriage counseling with a couple.

Thanks Glenn, we need more Nazarenes like you. I think pre-marriage counseling is a great place to start. Hopefully, the couple is not sexually active. But even if they are, it can pay off big time.

[Bob Hunter]

Okay, before we let this topic slip away, I have a Mars Hill video where Driscoll's wife explains why a boisterous wife is not necessarily unsubmissive. Yeah...whatever that means. Does this make any sense to you? It doesn't me...

[Tami Martin]

It makes perfect sense to me.

In an effort to be Christlike, I choose with my will to prefer others over myself. That includes my husband. But to know us is to be familiar with the phrase "a plowhorse yolked to a thoroughbread." I am boisterous, oh sweet Lord! lol But I can still prefer others. I can still have a teachable heart. That's how I choose to interpret that scripture, not necessarily Grace Driscoll!

[Kami Tuenning]

Tami,

Very interesting stuff, I was not aware of it. Nonetheless, I don't think I have time to read a 768 page book these days! It seems Christopher West has a condensed work. My question is this, how does your husband utilize material that is pretty distinctly Catholic and complementarian (I'm guessing) and remain a Nazarene? I mean, you do know we are all egalitarians and anything that smacks of complementarianism is archaic and condescending toward women. Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but I think you get my point. Just wondering how he would approach it.

Through a group I am involved with; Theology ob Tap, I just came across this book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Sex-Naked.../dp/158743069X Read the extended review and you will see that Theology of the body has influenced this writers thesis. This book came highly recommended from this protestant pastor: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/richard...o-about-it-ii/

West's premarital book does a splendid job of centering the marriage act as the definition of being truly married elevating it to "The Spousal Mystery". He is not so prude as to imply that the only reason couples engage in the act is to lift high the name of our LORD, but for those who grasp the fundamental meaning of marriage and the "sign" of this sacrament, their union is therefore made more trusting, more solid and more inclined to a total exchange of oneself to the other. The premise of all of this is that in the Bible God clearly describes to us HIS desire to "marry us" in Hosea 2:19. Whenever the married couple come together in marriage union, they are proclaiming their deep love for each other but also symbolizing the even greater love of GOD for his people, thus they renew their marriage covenant each time they engage in the act!

Marriage is a sacrament of the church, however it is the only sacrament that the priest does not dispense. Instead the man and woman are the actors in the the sacrament with GOD and their union is the "sign" or seal of the sacramental covenant. The Priest and wedding guests are witnesses to this divine sacrament. The couple receive the priest's blessing (and therefore God's blessing) after the sacramental vows are exchanged between the couple and GOD.

Coming back to how does a Nazarene apply such theology... when we understand that marriage is not simply a "right" or a mere legal transaction - it allows those who are entering into this bond to see far beyond the dresses, the receptions and the honeymoon destinations. It gives a concrete, Bible based approach to showing how permanent this union is to be. It underscores that in HIS great love for each of us, He had designed a way to have even creation proclaim HIS mighty love for us. Yes, for the non-catholic, parts of the book would be modified, such as banning birth-control (however, the compelling reasons laid out may even cause a protestant to rethink such things) But the emphasis as marriage as a mystery which points to what was, what is and what is to come can help many young couples regain focus as to what exactly they are proposing to enter into.

My marriage counseling in 1980 was pathetic! It centered on the human aspect of respecting one another. Isn't that what all people are to do in a civil society? What will be the motivation to "continue" to love and respect a person who may cause grief, distress and distrust in years to come? It had better be something deeply rooted in Biblical truth and centered on the person of CHRIST and larger than this finite life or it would be only logical to flee from such unpleasant circumstances. If your not afraid to step away from denominational bias, there is much to be found in Christendom which can strengthen our walk towards holiness and CHRIST.

Thanks for your sincere interest on the topic!

[Kami Tuenning]

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-n...e-dotted-line/

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-n...-at-mars-hill/

I literally thank GOD for the gift of the Sacrament of Reconciliation! When I confess my sin, it stops there! It is not the confession behind a window dramatized in old movies - there is true pastoral counseling and mercy. When I hear the words of absolution, I can rise in confidence knowing my sin is forgiven and done! It stops there! No need to have an accountability group whom one can rarely "count on". I have been in two churches in my 50 years EXACTLY like Driscoll's! What a nightmare. Nearly everyone is a fallen away christian or divorced! God have Mercy on us!

[Bob Hunter]

Through a group I am involved with; Theology ob Tap, I just came across this book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Sex-Naked.../dp/158743069X Read the extended review and you will see that Theology of the body has influenced this writers thesis. This book came highly recommended from this protestant pastor: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/richard...o-about-it-ii/

West's premarital book does a splendid job of centering the marriage act as the definition of being truly married elevating it to "The Spousal Mystery". He is not so prude as to imply that the only reason couples engage in the act is to lift high the name of our LORD, but for those who grasp the fundamental meaning of marriage and the "sign" of this sacrament, their union is therefore made more trusting, more solid and more inclined to a total exchange of oneself to the other. The premise of all of this is that in the Bible God clearly describes to us HIS desire to "marry us" in Hosea 2:19. Whenever the married couple come together in marriage union, they are proclaiming their deep love for each other but also symbolizing the even greater love of GOD for his people, thus they renew their marriage covenant each time they engage in the act!

Marriage is a sacrament of the church, however it is the only sacrament that the priest does not dispense. Instead the man and woman are the actors in the the sacrament with GOD and their union is the "sign" or seal of the sacramental covenant. The Priest and wedding guests are witnesses to this divine sacrament. The couple receive the priest's blessing (and therefore God's blessing) after the sacramental vows are exchanged between the couple and GOD.

Coming back to how does a Nazarene apply such theology... when we understand that marriage is not simply a "right" or a mere legal transaction - it allows those who are entering into this bond to see far beyond the dresses, the receptions and the honeymoon destinations. It gives a concrete, Bible based approach to showing how permanent this union is to be. It underscores that in HIS great love for each of us, He had designed a way to have even creation proclaim HIS mighty love for us. Yes, for the non-catholic, parts of the book would be modified, such as banning birth-control (however, the compelling reasons laid out may even cause a protestant to rethink such things) But the emphasis as marriage as a mystery which points to what was, what is and what is to come can help many young couples regain focus as to what exactly they are proposing to enter into.

My marriage counseling in 1980 was pathetic! It centered on the human aspect of respecting one another. Isn't that what all people are to do in a civil society? What will be the motivation to "continue" to love and respect a person who may cause grief, distress and distrust in years to come? It had better be something deeply rooted in Biblical truth and centered on the person of CHRIST and larger than this finite life or it would be only logical to flee from such unpleasant circumstances. If your not afraid to step away from denominational bias, there is much to be found in Christendom which can strengthen our walk towards holiness and CHRIST.

Thanks for your sincere interest on the topic!

This is great stuff! I'm so glad you shared these resources, I read reviews of the book and it sounds very interesting and worthwhile. We have to get beyond purity balls, true love waits and the traditional "NO" that most young people are accustomed to hearing. It seems the author has struck a chord with a group that is tired of the same old answers.

I would hazard to guess that one of the main reasons young people are leaving the Church in droves (especially young men) is that we have not been able to address sexuality in the postmodern context. The Church has failed to offer a compelling vision of holiness and sexual ethics. Just my opinion, and let's face it, most young men and women do not want to give up their sexual indulgences. Once they start having sex...it's hard to stop.

[Kami Tuenning]

It makes perfect sense to me.

That's how I choose to interpret that scripture, not necessarily Grace Driscoll!

I am not coming in defense of Grace Driscoll (haven't even read the book) but your remark "That's how 'I' choose to interpret scripture" is the very reason I began to question protestantism. The Reformation, carefully examined, did not free us from error, indeed it rather created the greatest schism in history to separate us to only perpetuate error. Is it any wonder young people leave the church? If it all comes down to "what I choose" what's the point?
Please note I am not demanding you "choose" my belief as the interpretation of scripture as being entrusted to one, visible and apostolic CHURCH...but it sure stands up in debate as a much stronger argument than the one you or Mrs. Driscoll propose : )

[Hans Deventer]

Is it any wonder young people leave the church? If it all comes down to "what I choose" what's the point?
Please note I am not demanding you "choose" my belief as the interpretation of scripture as being entrusted to one, visible and apostolic CHURCH...but it sure stands up in debate as a much stronger argument than the one you or Mrs. Driscoll propose : )

Not sure if that is true. Is truth in numbers? I would dare to say it is not. And it is only YOUR very personal choice to follow the RC Church. What's the difference?

[Kami Tuenning]

I suppose THEOLOGICALLY is the only way he could really engage in the subject matter

Appreciate your humor, however I would hope THEOLOGICALLY would be the only way you could engage in the subject matter such as stealing, beastiality, cheating, lying, arson, or whatever the subject may be....apply the argument to every subject and we find your humor is misplaced : ) But I still appreciate your humor!

[Kami Tuenning]

Not sure if that is true. Is truth in numbers? I would dare to say it is not. And it is only YOUR very personal choice to follow the RC Church. What's the difference?

Oh, boy!....could we not all predict this was coming : )

[Jim Franklin]

It is about time that I added, "Sure wished I could remember what the topic of this discussion is all about."

[Tami Martin]

I am not coming in defense of Grace Driscoll (haven't even read the book) but your remark "That's how 'I' choose to interpret scripture" is the very reason I began to question protestantism. The Reformation, carefully examined, did not free us from error, indeed it rather created the greatest schism in history to separate us to only perpetuate error. Is it any wonder young people leave the church? If it all comes down to "what I choose" what's the point?
Please note I am not demanding you "choose" my belief as the interpretation of scripture as being entrusted to one, visible and apostolic CHURCH...but it sure stands up in debate as a much stronger argument than the one you or Mrs. Driscoll propose : )

So, you never make choices? I object to you using my words, cut them up to suit yourself, then present an idea which has nothing to do with my post.

See, Bob posted a clip. He suggested it didn't make sense to him. I watched the clip. It made sense to me. I explained how being Christlike included both my boisterious personality AND submission to others. Then I stated that this was how I chose to interpret that scripture. NOT that I was interpreting Grace Driscoll.

The way you cut it all out makes it seem like I am the sort of person who just picks and chooses what scriptures mean with only my own carnal desires as a guide. You are welcome to throw that mud somewhere else.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

When I hear the words of absolution, I can rise in confidence knowing my sin is forgiven and done! It stops there!

When anyone repents and asks forgiveness for their sin, they can rise in confidence knowing their sin is forgiven and done! It stops there!

[Kami Tuenning]

Quote from Tami Martin "It makes perfect sense to me.

In an effort to be Christlike, I choose with my will to prefer others over myself. That includes my husband. But to know us is to be familiar with the phrase "a plowhorse yolked to a thoroughbread." I am boisterous, oh sweet Lord! lol But I can still prefer others. I can still have a teachable heart. That's how I choose to interpret that scripture, not necessarily Grace Driscoll! " end of Tami Martin quote

I have placed your comment without cutting anything. As it stands, I still understand you to state that regarding a particular passage of scripture, "you choose" to interpret it one way but you want to go on record as a whole interpreting scripture differently than another christian whom has the same regard as to the authority of scripture as yourself.

All this being said to underscore "my choice" to put aside the scripture interpretation wars and move on. One couple who worked for, I believe it was Campus Crusades For Christ in the Los Angeles area, had converted to RC. When the wife was asked what one of the biggest differences being RC meant for her she stated that having the freedom to lead other women in Bible study knowing that there was an authoritative position on scripture was so freeing. It allowed her to minister the Word of God rather than defending a denominational or personal position on certain passages.

I never meant to suggest you were interpreting Grace Driscoll (words are so limiting aren't they?) I meant to imply that the remark, "That's how I choose to interpret that scripture..." simply summarizes what protestantism/evangelicalsim in all its 20,000 plus expressions essentially have stated. Protestantism has removed itself from the Reformer's cry of purity and incorrupt use of church teaching, with the intent of restored unity. Instead, modern protestantism and evangelicalism is more about branding or perpetuating pet doctrines than about unifying the body of Christ.

I am surprised in your strong reaction that implies I felt you would use your "carnal desire as a guide", although that is certainly where many of us turn to some extent to determine which denomination we will settle down with. If we can pick and choose our beliefs to match a certain denomination or sect, aren't we in essence letting our carnal nature play a part in that decision? I want to get a divorce and remarry so I will go to XY or Z church. I want to be a pastor but I am female, so I will align with this or that seminary or denomination. I do not want to answer to anyone but GOD regarding my sexuality or birth control so I can only align with such and such. I don't go for liturgy or formality so I can only respond to this particular brand of christianity. So, so many choices, and so often they are made based upon our carnal desires. So much so, that most young people today do not want to be a part of it.

Of course I make choices. Everyday. Some minor choices and some major choices. I just don't apply those choices to my interpretation of Sacred Scripture any longer. I trust in the 3 pillars of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ that He would indeed remain with HIS CHURCH until the end of time and the gates of Hell would not prevail.

No mud slinging here.

Now that this once meaningful and wonderful thread has been hijacked by a silly woman (me) I gracefully bow out : )

[Shea Zellweger]

I have placed your comment without cutting anything. As it stands, I still understand you to state that regarding a particular passage of scripture, "you choose" to interpret it one way but you want to go on record as a whole interpreting scripture differently than another christian whom has the same regard as to the authority of scripture as yourself.

All this being said to underscore "my choice" to put aside the scripture interpretation wars and move on. One couple who worked for, I believe it was Campus Crusades For Christ in the Los Angeles area, had converted to RC. When the wife was asked what one of the biggest differences being RC meant for her she stated that having the freedom to lead other women in Bible study knowing that there was an authoritative position on scripture was so freeing. It allowed her to minister the Word of God rather than defending a denominational or personal position on certain passages.

Tami,
I hope you're aware by now (if you've been reading NazNet) that I have great respect for the the Catholic Church. But I think you're a little off-base in saying that the RC has "an" authoritative position on Scripture. One of the beauties of RC tradition lies in its diversity. Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and members of other sects have differing interpretations, and even within sects there are differing interpretations of Scripture. If you sat down with 4 priests of 4 orders and discussed the interpretation of a given passage, there would be differing understandings. Some of the most interesting theological debates I've encountered have been between Dominicans and Jesuits defending their historic positions. Were I to ever join the Catholic Church, it would be largely because of the unity which exists through such diversity, not because of some single authoritative position on Scripture.

[Bob Hunter]

Tami,
I hope you're aware by now (if you've been reading NazNet) that I have great respect for the the Catholic Church. But I think you're a little off-base in saying that the RC has "an" authoritative position on Scripture. One of the beauties of RC tradition lies in its diversity. Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and members of other sects have differing interpretations, and even within sects there are differing interpretations of Scripture. If you sat down with 4 priests of 4 orders and discussed the interpretation of a given passage, there would be differing understandings. Some of the most interesting theological debates I've encountered have been between Dominicans and Jesuits defending their historic positions. Were I to ever join the Catholic Church, it would be largely because of the unity which exists through such diversity, not because of some single authoritative position on Scripture.

Agreed, and the Popes have wisely nurtured diversity throughout the centuries. On essential matters they demand compliance, but there seems to be a great deal of charity. Instead of demanding uniformity, they rally around dissenting groups and form a new "order." In my opinion, this has been a strength not a weakness.

[Hans Deventer]

Oh, boy!....could we not all predict this was coming : )

Might be. If you come to a Nazarene forum, telling how protestants got it all so wrong with their 20.000 opinions and individual decisions, it does sound somewhat strange when one considers that you too have made a very individual decision have others think for you. Now that's anyone's right to do, no problem, but it makes no sense to accuse others of doing what you have done yourself - make a personal decision.

So again, you're very welcome to have made a personal choice for the RC Church. It's a bit ............. (you may fill in the blanks) though to blame others for making their own decisions as well.

[Tami Martin]

Quote from Tami Martin "It makes perfect sense to me.

In an effort to be Christlike, I choose with my will to prefer others over myself. That includes my husband. But to know us is to be familiar with the phrase "a plowhorse yolked to a thoroughbread." I am boisterous, oh sweet Lord! lol But I can still prefer others. I can still have a teachable heart. That's how I choose to interpret that scripture, not necessarily Grace Driscoll! " end of Tami Martin quote

I have placed your comment without cutting anything. As it stands, I still understand you to state that regarding a particular passage of scripture, "you choose" to interpret it one way but you want to go on record as a whole interpreting scripture differently than another christian whom has the same regard as to the authority of scripture as yourself.

All this being said to underscore "my choice" to put aside the scripture interpretation wars and move on. One couple who worked for, I believe it was Campus Crusades For Christ in the Los Angeles area, had converted to RC. When the wife was asked what one of the biggest differences being RC meant for her she stated that having the freedom to lead other women in Bible study knowing that there was an authoritative position on scripture was so freeing. It allowed her to minister the Word of God rather than defending a denominational or personal position on certain passages.

I never meant to suggest you were interpreting Grace Driscoll (words are so limiting aren't they?) I meant to imply that the remark, "That's how I choose to interpret that scripture..." simply summarizes what protestantism/evangelicalsim in all its 20,000 plus expressions essentially have stated. Protestantism has removed itself from the Reformer's cry of purity and incorrupt use of church teaching, with the intent of restored unity. Instead, modern protestantism and evangelicalism is more about branding or perpetuating pet doctrines than about unifying the body of Christ.

I am surprised in your strong reaction that implies I felt you would use your "carnal desire as a guide", although that is certainly where many of us turn to some extent to determine which denomination we will settle down with. If we can pick and choose our beliefs to match a certain denomination or sect, aren't we in essence letting our carnal nature play a part in that decision? I want to get a divorce and remarry so I will go to XY or Z church. I want to be a pastor but I am female, so I will align with this or that seminary or denomination. I do not want to answer to anyone but GOD regarding my sexuality or birth control so I can only align with such and such. I don't go for liturgy or formality so I can only respond to this particular brand of christianity. So, so many choices, and so often they are made based upon our carnal desires. So much so, that most young people today do not want to be a part of it.

Of course I make choices. Everyday. Some minor choices and some major choices. I just don't apply those choices to my interpretation of Sacred Scripture any longer. I trust in the 3 pillars of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ that He would indeed remain with HIS CHURCH until the end of time and the gates of Hell would not prevail.

No mud slinging here.

Now that this once meaningful and wonderful thread has been hijacked by a silly woman (me) I gracefully bow out : )

I am completely confused here.

I am saying that it is possible to be submissive with a variety of personalities. I do not believe that any scripture suggests that there is only one correct personality ("doormat") that is acceptable for submission.

Are you saying that I'm wrong? Are you saying that a everyone else who is correct believes that a submissive person is never boisterous?

Please!! Someone step in here if Tami doesn't. This is a very big deal to me. I am kinda tired of feeling like God was feeling particularly sadistic the day He put together my giftings. But now I am to believe that He topped it off with the "wrong" personality? I'm feeling like I need to just pack it up and forget about church altogether if even my personality offends Him.

I simply cannot imagine where I might have suggested, on this board or anywhere else, that I feel enough authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church (universal, going all the way back) and with no other guide than my own self.

[Todd Erickson]

Ships passing in the night.

The two Tami's are sharing context, but have completely different pressure points as to what those context communicate. I firmly believe that the two of you are talking past each other, and the resulting tid bits are throwing everybody into a fuss. This doesn't seem to be doing anything other than causing frustration.

[Tami Martin]

Can't think of a better reason to consider the horse dead and quit beating on him.

[Cam Pence]

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-n...e-dotted-line/

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-n...-at-mars-hill/

That is disgusting. As a pastor, my heart is broken for Andrews experience, but more so it is broken for the actions of the leadership of MH. That actually makes me sick to my stomach.

[Bob Hunter]

Can't think of a better reason to consider the horse dead and quit beating on him.

[Susan Unger]

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-n...e-dotted-line/

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-n...-at-mars-hill/

I have really witnessed an increase in this sort of thing since moving to the PNW. I'm not sure what the deal is but there are a number of churches that have pretty aggressive "church discipline" like this. I am running into way to many folks who have been damaged by this sort of thing. Most often the greatest damage is not from the original issue but the members resistance to what appears to me to be very invasive and presumptive discipline. I can't tell you how often I hear the words "controlling" about these things. Mars Hill is not at all the only church like this in the area. Maybe it is because of the success and influence of MH?

Fundamentally their understanding of "repentance" is flawed.

That is disgusting. As a pastor, my heart is broken for Andrews experience, but more so it is broken for the actions of the leadership of MH. That actually makes me sick to my stomach.

This is the culture of where I used to live. Not all the churches were like this but oh, so many were. It is such a pervasive attitude that it affects even those who do not attend their churches or ascribe to their beliefs. The shock value of the blog is not there for me for this reason. I hated seeing what it did to people and how it kept them in bondage. While I never believed in that way of doing church, I often felt like a lone voice in sea of craziness. It took leaving that place and getting into a healthy environment as well as studying up on how manipulators use religion, plus praying alot before I could heal. It is only because my parents and home church raised me differently that I never succumbed to such garbage. I just pray that others will hear God's voice telling them there is a better way, and that they find it.

[Greg Farra]

I kind of like the diversity in denominations, as long as we have the same Lord!

[Billy Cox]

I suppose THEOLOGICALLY is the only way he could really engage in the subject matter

It's like the old joke of the dentist looking at the centerfold in Playboy magazine and noticing only that the subject of the photo has a slight overbite.

Theology is a tool. It is a measuring tape that has very little application in driving nails or drilling holes. Theology won't answer every question any more than biology would explain seismic activity or the movement of the planets.

[Bob Hunter]

I ran across this great blog article written by Frank Viola that elevates the value of women. I wonder how Mark Driscoll would respond to this idea, since he does not allow women in leadership.

http://frankviola.org/2012/01/30/godsviewofawoman/