Tuesday, July 29, 2014

a little clarification on the recent posts--a case for keeping Driscoll's contribution to public discussion within public access (even if Mars Hill would wish otherwise)

The Pussified Nation pages went up on Sunday but because of some formatting problems with the composite screen captures WtH reverted to draft to see if the problem could be fixed.  Not exactly.  Ended up cutting and pasting.  The massive composite screen caps assembled in the last week won't come up for you, dear reader. 

And it turns out that in the interval between taking things down to try to fix the problem and republication someone else has leaked the content and, uh, word has gotten around.

What may not have gotten around is the historical setting in which the pseudonym William Wallace II was developed.  What was Driscoll responding to, and, more literally, where was he in the time and space in which Mars Hill was emerging?  It matters because it may shed some light on why Mars Hill took the efforts it took to suppress "Pussified Nation" and other artifacts from the earlier days of Mars Hill.  Yes, Mark Driscoll mentioned that he cussed and sinned a lot in that period but a pertinent question that outsiders aren't capable of addressing across the history of Mars Hill (without some help) is whether or not there is a continuity of theme.  For those who read Real Marriage the signal quote may be this one.

Real Marriage
Mark and Grace Driscoll
Copyright (c) 2012 by On Mission, LLC
Thomas Nelson
ISBN 978-1-4002-0383-3
ISBN 978-1-4041-8352-0 (IE)


page 14
I grew more chauvinistic. I had never cheated on a girlfriend, but I never had a girlfriend who did not cheat on me. And now I knew that included my own wife. So I started to distrust women in general, including Grace. This affected my tone in preaching for a season, something I will always regret.

Well, yes, he regrets his tone that showed up in his preaching "for a season".

What about the substance?  Has he ever felt any remorse for the substance of what he has said?  It is entirely fair for readers to ask why anyone should go to the trouble of republishing "Pussified Nation" and other artifacts from Mark Driscoll's writing under the pseudonym William Wallace II.  The first is, in light of some words by someone named Jesus, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.  It's important to observe over time whether or not the substance of Driscoll's ideas and focus have significantly changed and not just to consider his "tone".  He's managed to apologize for tone over the years without apologizing for what he's actually said.  Some Christians seem to get the idea that apologizing for tone is "repentance". 

Wenatchee The Hatchet has been looking for content from the earlier days of Mars Hill for, well, years.  That any of the content was preserved via The WayBack Machine, which by now anyone who's come to this blog has likely already discovered, was a bit of a surprise.  Not everything was preserved by that method.  Some of it had to be presented as raw text.  Some of the stuff was so difficult and time-consuming to track down that if one may indulge in the possible hyperbole of this statement, Wenatchee the Hatchet has felt like some of this stuff couldn't even have been found at all unless God wanted it to happen.  At any rate, pardon the blogger for expressing feelings in those terms if it seems uncouth, because it sure felt that way to finally find some of the long-lost content.

It is important to stress that the reason a lot of material came down from the marshill.fm site was that it was no longer being used.  The unmoderated Midrash really was spiraling out of control and many contributors were not even people who attended or were members of Mars Hill.  The lack of any obligation to use real names also inspired people to luxuriate in expressing vitriol.  The 2000-2002 period was a period in which Driscoll was cementing a relationship to David Nicholas to advance church-planting activity and this was possibly also around the time that Driscoll came into some kind of contact with Jon Phelps.  Beyond the clear and practical need to ensure there was a modicum of good behavior on the Mars Hill blogs there was also the practical and pragmatic concern of ensuring that the Mars Hill web presence was not going to be an utter embarrassment to those who would donate to the cause of Mars Hill. 

And beyond all that, many of us who were there at the time got the idea that with Gunn and Moi around to reel him in that Mark Driscoll was going to tone things down and mellow out with age.  Well ... arguably those of us who thought that were being optimistic, even na├»ve, to put it a bit mildly.  Purging that content signaled a new kind of Mars Hill web presence, one that was more polished, competent, restrained, and one that was more presentable both to the outside world and to those inside.  So please don't get the idea that Mars Hill purged the content "only" because "Pussified Nation" would make Driscoll look bad.  There's little doubt that Driscoll sincerely came to regret how he said a lot of stuff under the pen name William Wallace II.

It was frustrating to see that no sooner had the posts from Sunday gone up and gotten reverted to draft in the hope of revising some formatting issues that, well, the content took off.  The aim was to present the content here in a way that didn't automatically give away that things could be found at The WayBack Machine's tools because Mars Hill has spent the last four to five months introducing robots.txt to all their sites.  It's almost gotten to the point where Wenatchee has wondered if there's just someone whose actual job is purging any MH content that gets quoted here.  Here's hoping that's not the case because well, as you've seen lately, many of those efforts are thoroughly futile.  But at another level, the reason this unprecedented purge of Mars Hill content is disappointing is because if Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll want to give the world and Christians any evidence at all that he has truly changed a sweeping retroactive purge is not going to convince anyone of much besides the notion that somebody has so much to hide it's worth purging possibly an entire decade's worth of sermons.

We could chart the growth and maturation of Mark Driscoll more readily if stuff were simply left up and not redacted and excised or circumcised.

Finally, while Wenatchee The Hatchet can actually name the real names of a number of participants on the threads reproducted from the old Midrash don't expect that to happen.  Comments, as you'll have seen, have been pretty much closed all across the board.  This work of late has been work to preserve some of the history of the early Mars Hill and the early Mark Driscoll rather than an invitation to commentary from anyone, whether those against or for.  You all have the opportunity to do that elsewhere.  Conversely, if Driscoll and the Mars Hill elders are seeking to really repent then the more explicitly they live out the repentance urged upon everyone else the more ready some may be to believe Driscoll is turning over a new leaf instead of repackaging "father" branding yet again in 2014 after using that language to sell the re-org of 2007. 

Why share "Pussified Nation" and other writings from Mark Driscoll as William Wallace II now? Because it took a long time to find, and it was intended to be shared earlier (if possible) for one.  For another, the cumulative history of Driscoll as a public figure sounding off on men and women and sexuality suggests that he has repeatedly altered his tone without ever fundamentally changing the substance of what he advocates.  If a person has truly repented of what he or she has said or done then not only would we see remorse over how things were perceived, we'd see a substantive change in what is said not just how it is sold. 

Now it's not as though there isn't a legitimate concern that young men have difficulties embracing adult responsibility.  But there's a distinction that can be made between whether or not Mark Driscoll has ever accurately diagnosed the nature of the problem and whether what he proposes offers a viable solution.

All of the content published by Mark Driscoll under the pen name William Wallace II was originally aimed at being public discourse in addition to being a rallying point for internal discussion among the people who called Mars Hill Fellowship their spiritual home.  As discussed in the past here at Wenatchee The Hatchet, though conservative and evangelical in confessional/ethical aims and in spite of Mark Driscoll's occasional claims to eschew political discourse, "Pussified Nation" was a shot fired in favor of what evangelical/conservatives in America would, if they are honest, identify as a Social Gospel.  I've bounced this idea back and forth a bit with some of my blogging friends at City of God over the last five or six years. 

In bringing "Pussified Nation" and other writings by Mark Driscoll as William Wallace II to light at Wenatchee The Hatchet I want to state in the most obvious terms that I have not brought to light private discussions at all, I have brought back into public discussion something that always was public in practice and that was even intended by Mark Driscoll to inflame or catalyze a public discussion on the nature of gender in practice.  If you have trawled through all the material I've presented in the last three days you may see that Mark Driscoll has espoused a type of Social Gospel which can be summed up thusly--if you get the young males to behave right at young enough of an age the problems of society will be taken care of by default. 

What problem needs to be fixed?  The young men need to be yelled at so that they shape up and fly right.  They need to get real jobs, find women, marry them, make babies and do all this for Jesus' fame.  The possibility that many of those 20-something men won't find "real jobs" because of changes in the economy in a post-industrial context where "we" exported a lot of our unskilled labor overseas or a lot of unskilled labor is unglamorous drudgery "real Americans" don't want to do may not be on the Driscoll radar.  That neo-Calvinists lament the median age of first marriage has soared up to the highest levels we've seen in the last forty years may need to be offset by the observation that the last time that number got so high was during the Great Depression.  It may be people would like to get married but we don't have a housing or employment market of the sort where a bootstrap social conservative Social Gospel in the closet will work any better now than the progressive Social Gospel that, whether people may remember this or not, was more characteristic of evangelicalism over the last 150 years than contemporary political discourse might have us believe. 

For those who have any familiarity with the writings of Roy Baumeister he has proposed that the nature of male social identity and economic identity is that males are valuable because they are disposable.  What Mars Hill explicitly and implicitly offered young men is the opportunity to be part of a social structure in which they would not only not be disposable but in which they were told in a variety of ways their contributions and presence were necessary.  American culture has had a propensity to focus on individual rather than social identity and in the kind of socio-economic setting in which young males (or anyone) can discover how big the world is it can be easy to see how replaceable a cog you ultimately are anywhere you go. What Mark Driscoll's sprawling flame wars can be seen as attempting to do, particularly if you read the materials in which he transitioned into what came to be known as Dead Men, was to join Mars Hill leaders in inviting young males to have a social identity. 

So when people rhetorically ask why anyone would join, let's throw out an excerpt from Phillip Zimbardo here: "Who would fall for such appeals? Most of us, if they were made by someone we trusted, in a setting that was familiar, and especially if we had unfulfilled needs." Pretty much, and since Mars Hill promised to give young males without any social or economic moorings  who grew up in latchkey homes with problematic family backgrounds it could be suggested that Driscoll and the co-founders of Mars Hill made a point of explicitly targeting those young males looking for a social as well as individual identity as the future Establishment that could be won over.  As Driscoll has been saying off and on for years if you get the young men you win the war.  Pointing out that the "war" Driscoll has had in mind since possibly the beginning of his public career can be framed as an evangelical/conservative Social Gospel is just pointing out the obvious.  That by 2013 Mark Driscoll was willing to acknowledge the political and social aims in his message regarding young men could be telegraphed by bothering to show up on Glenn Beck's show at all and by things said in the removed interview with Janet Mefferd.  Had it not turned out that Mark Driscoll was a plagiarist, let's recall, Janet Mefferd said there was a lot in Driscoll's ideas about society and life she could agree with. 

What Driscoll and others at Mars Hill may not have grasped is that focusing on male identity in particular without a corresponding balance in "feminine" ways of social cohesion as would be popularly defined by evangelicals would in the long-run paradoxically dehumanize males in individual identity even more by doing a couple of things 1) tethering male social identity quite literally to the use of the penis and 2) introducing the abjection of all forms of gendered identity that didn't fit into markulinity rather than to more open-ended working definitions of gender and identity not only from those with more progressive sympathies but even from those who would self-identify is evangelical or social conservative.  Driscoll was prescient as William Wallace II to label "Pussified Nation" as an experiment in the law and any good Lutheran would by now probably point out what Chris Rosebrough already has, that Mark Driscoll is skilled at "Law" without ever getting around to what has colloquially been called "Gospel".  That by turns Real Marriage and other confessions in Confessions of a Reformission Rev suggest at least the possibility that the social, economic and sexual ideals espoused by Mark Driscoll in the persona of William Wallace II were ideals not even he was living out in his own life and marriage may have been overdue.  As some even on the "manosphere" have pointed out, the good news of Mark Driscoll can be seen as a suffocating gospel of alpha male ascendency even by people with socially conservative Anglo-Catholic sympathies.  Not even the apostle Paul or the prophet Jeremiah could live up to Driscoll's markulinity ideal.

So in preserving and re-presenting materials Mark Driscoll wrote as William Wallace II and from his 2006 days on gender Wenatchee The Hatchet hasn't done anything more than attempt to preserve Mark Driscoll's writings as William Wallace and his purged public offerings at Resurgence circa 2006 as a way to keep in the public discourse things that were originally put by Mark himself into the public discourse. 

From Mark Driscoll's 2008 Spiritual Warfare series, on womens' ministry, " ... you have to be very careful, it's like juggling knives. ... The wrong women tend to want it."

Seeing as new content has come up under Mark Driscoll's name  on spiritual warfare, it's providentially convenient that one of the things Wenatchee The Hatchet has been planning to get around to was some things said in the deleted-but-not-formally-retracted 2008 Spiritual Warfare series.  The material seems pretty obviously recycling via proxy rather than new content from Mark Driscoll on spiritual warfare. 

While people have blogged in the past on the 2008 Spiritual Warfare sessions there's a great deal about that content that has not been discussed.  Though formerly available to the public to download and consider the content was purged months ago about a week after Wenatchee The Hatchet compared Mark Driscoll on bitterness in 2008 in this Spiritual Warfare series and his word that it was a satanic foothold to Mark Driscoll in 2012 in Real Marriage on his bitterness toward Grace about the lack of sex in their marriage.  That was discussed over here. At some point between that post being published March 17, 2014 and this post published on March 22, 2014 the whole Spiritual Warfare series got pulled. 

For a nerd reference here what would Princess Azula say?

"It doesn't matter."

That's right, because Wenatchee The Hatchet got ahold of the audio years ago so it's not difficult to consult.  For that matter, it's still out there in a couple of spots.  So now we can consult what Mark Driscoll had to say about women in ministry or women seeking ministry, that many of them were gossips and that that was satanic. 

http://castroller.com/podcasts/MarsHillChurch3/3699801
Spiritual Warfare part 2, The Devil
February 5, 2008

about 50 minutes in to the 1 hour mark.

How about this one? Idle gossip and busybodying. 1 Timothy 5:11-15. This one is amazing. Ladies this one is especially for you. Some of you say, "Oh, it's not me." Yeah, it is. 1 Timothy 5:11-15, but refuse to enroll younger widows for when their passions draw them away from Christ they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.  Besides that they learn to be idlers

Women learn how to make a lot of free time. Going about from house to house. Well now it would be from email to email and from phone call to phone call. Technology makes idle busybodying far more effective than ever.

And not only idlers but also gossips. They like to talk about people. How are you doing? What are you doing? And this isn't sisterly accountability, this is "I need to know what everybody's doing because I like to know what everybody's doing and then I can tell other people what other people are doing and then I can say, `Hey, you need to pray for so-and-so.' and I can make it sound spiritual so that when I'm gossiping and busy-bodying I'm doing so in a way that seems really Jesus-like." And busybodies, they need to know what everybody's doing. They need to know what everybody's doing, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children and manage their household, right? Stay busy, and give the adversary (that's Satan) no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. Hmm.

A woman who's a gossip and a busybody; a woman who has to put her nose in everybody's business and knows what everybody's going on; know what they're doing, she's working with Satan. Now I know most women would say, "No, no, no. I'm not Satanic, I'm concerned. I'm not Satanic, I'm an intercessor. I'm a prayer warrior. I'm not Satanic, I'm an accountability partner.  I'm not Satanic, I'm a concerned friend."  Okay, you're a Satanic intercessory prayer warrior accountability partner concerned friend but just start the whole list with "Satanic" so that we don't misunderstand your job description. 

Now there's a difference between someone inviting you into their life and saying, "I want to be friends, I want to have an accountable  relationship." and you pushing yourself into everyone's life, okay?  I'll tell you, in the history of Mars Hill, I mean, I have had to put up a firewall, a moat, guard dogs, and a high wall with barbed wire on top, and snipers behind it, around my wife. There are certain women who, they just need to know what Grace is doing and they are determined, they say things like, uh, "Hey, we need to have dinner with your family." [slight chuckle] No you don't. "Hey, we need to have coffee." No you don't.  "Hey, phone number." What? Nope. "Email." Nope.  Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

"Oh, come on." Nope.
"But I thought you were our pastor."
I am and my first lesson is to tell you you're Satanic.
"Oh, come on, in our last church the pastor's wife [sob] she was my best friend and I got to talk to her all the time."


Well, she was Satanic, too.  Give me her number, I'll call her and tell her. We'll help her out.
You ladies KNOW these women. Right? How many of you ladies know these women? They will try first with the hyper-spiritual, "Oh, praise the Lord! I'd love to pray for you. Let's get together. Let's do Christian community. Let's go to heart." If you decline, then they emotionally manipulate, [inhales, sobbing voice], "I thought we were friends, I thought you loved me. I don't have anybody to talk to." It's all manipulation. It's FEMALE manipulation.  Some of you ladies, right now? You think, "I can't believe he said that." It's all true. It's Satanic, Satanic.

Paul says, "Don't be a busybody, stay busy." Right? Your husband, your kids, your family, your home, Jesus Christ. You got things to do.

Busybodies stay busy inserting themselves into everyone else's life. In some churches there are certain women, if you call them, they'll know everything that's going on because, somehow, they know everything. There's a difference between being a woman who is invited into someone's life for friendship, prayer and accountability, and a woman who emotionally manipulates and is pushy and is sometimes hyperspiritual and demanding and forces herself in because she's a drama queen and has to be at the center of all the drama. That is a Satanic woman.

You need to believe that and the worst thing you can do is accomodate it. Okay, we'll have you over for dinner once. And then, the next month, it's "Okay, buddy, we haven't been together in a month. We need to get together again. I'm sure a lot has happened in your life and I don't know what it is and I need to know because I need to know everything. I have a God complex of omniscience. I want to know everything about everybody." And what you find with these people, Paul says, they tend to be gossips, meaning you don't just talk to them, then they talk to other people.  "Well, did you know their marriage is struggling? Did you know that she's depressed?  Did you know that  she's post-partum?  Do you know that, sexually, her husband's impotent?" These are conversations I've heard in this building. Really?

Sometimes womens' ministry is the cesspool that this kind of activity flourishes in. Some have asked, "Why don't you have womens' ministry?" The answer is we do, but it's, you have to be very careful, it's like juggling knives. You put the wrong women in charge of womens' ministry, the drama queen, the gossip mama, all of a sudden all the women come together, tell her everything, she becomes the pseudo-elder  quasi-matriarch; she's got the dirt on everybody and sometimes the women all get together to rip on their husbands in the name of prayer requests. Happens all the time. Happens all the time. We have worked very hard so that the women who teach here are like Wendy Alsup who I really love and appreciate and respect. She's not like that. It is not that no woman should lead, that no woman should teach, that no woman should in a position of authority over other women  under the authority of their husband, Jesus and the elders it's just that the wrong women tend to want it. The wrong women tend to want it and they tend to want it for the wrong reasons. And sometimes it's the humble woman, who isn't fighting to be the center of drama, control and power; who doesn't have to be up front; she's usually the one who is most capable and qualified.  

And for you single men as well I would say be very, very careful because if you're on staff at Mars Hill  (everything I say sounds terrible, this will just be added to the pile) there are certain women who will tell you, "I want to marry a pastor." Really? You should want to marry a Christian who loves Jesus, loves you, loves your kids should God give them to you. I've lectured enough Bible colleges and seminaries, the young women who come up and say, "I want to marry a pastor"  my immediate default question is, "Are you a gossip? Are you a busybody? Are you a drama queen?" "No. No, I feel called to serve the Lord."  Well, you can serve the Lord without being called to be a pastor's wife in fact, take it from me, it's easier to be a woman and serve the Lord than being married to a pastor.   You single  guys, you gotta be careful, man. There are some women, they want to marry a pastor so they can be the center of power, authority; they can be the first lady;  everybody knows them, everybody wants to be their friend, everybody wants to tell them everything; and they can be the center of all the drama. Run for your life. Run for your life. Run for your life. It's Satanic.

See?  I need you women to really search your own heart. Are you Satanic? Is this still part of your flesh, this sick desire in you to know everybody's business? I'm not saying you don't have friends but how much are you on the internet? How much time do you spend emailing? How much time do you spend crying nad freaking out and knowing everybody's business and on the phone and having to meet with people because, "Did you know so-and-so did such-and-such and so-and-so is feeling this way and did you?" Are you the center of LOTS of activity? Why? It's Satanic. It's Satanic. I think I've made my point.

Mark Driscoll in 2008 on the efforts he took to protect his wife


Sweet to My Taste
Part 2 of The Peasant Princess
Pastor Mark Driscoll | Song of Songs 1:8 - 2:7 | September 28, 2008
...
All right, I Peter 3 says that “Men should not be harsh with their wives.” If you are dating a man, ladies, and he’s harsh with you; yells at you; intimidates you; ever gets physically violent with you in any way; threatens physical violence, run for your life. He’s not a banner. He’s an enemy. The man you want to be with is the man you feel safest with, protected by, loved by: emotionally, physically, spiritually, mentally, financially. He wants to protect me. Okay. You need to know, this is a huge part of my heart for men, and this is an enormous part of my relationship with Grace. I mean, I still remember, when I first started seeing her, she went off the college. I was still in high school, and they ran out of housing. So they put her in a guy’s dorm. I was like what?

So I got in the car and I drove to the university, and I knocked on all the doors of all the guys on her floor. “Hi, my name is Mark. I love this woman. Anyone touches her, talks to her, thinks about talking about touching her, I will beat them.” Literally, I threatened 20 guys, just knocked on every door. No way she’s gonna get messed with, no way. Later on she transferred to another university, WSU. She was five hours away, and she moved out there and her phone wasn’t hooked up yet, and we didn’t have cell phones. And I told her, “When you get there, go to a pay phone. Call me. Let me know you got there safe.” Well, she didn’t call. So I got in the car and I drove there. Five hours, the day I had to work, and I knocked on the door. She answered it, and I said, “Well, you didn’t call.” She says, “I forgot.” I said, “Are you okay?” She said, “I’m okay.”

I said, “Okay, good.” Got in the car and drove home — Just checking — 600 miles. Who cares? It’s Grace; doesn’t matter. Grace is worth 600 miles any day. Just make sure she’s all right. Walk her to the car. Look after her. Tend to her. Make sure she’s okay. The other day, we’re going on a walk. I’m always thinking about this stuff. She’s holding my hand. We go for a lot of family walks, and I said, “No, no, honey, I need you to hold my left hand.” She said, “Why?” I said, “Because this is the longest shoulder of the road and if somebody skips the curb and one of us gets hit by a car, it needs to be me.” Some of you are like, “I don’t like that theology of headship.” Here’s what it means. He gets hit by the car. That’s what it means. I walk closest to the street. If one of us is going to get run over, that’s my job. Husbands: love your wives.

You get hit by the car. That’s how it goes. That’s how it goes. Even when we sit in restaurants — maybe I’m freakish, maybe. I will always face the door so I see who’s coming and going and what’s going on, and I have her sit up against the wall, and I sit on the end, because if something goes down, I’m on it. And she’s gonna be all right. I’m that guy: always looking out. Make sure Grace is okay, even emotionally. People send her nasty emails, text messages, talk trash about me, leave the church and want to take parting shots at her. She has nothing to do with any of it. So I’ve even put a white blacklist on her e-mail, and some people can e-mail her and the rest come to me. Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete. So that she doesn’t have to feel bad, because people are taking shots at her. That’s my girl. No shots. That’s the rule. Okay?

Mark Driscoll 10-1-2007 audio, commending reductio ad absurdum to argue against others and using male headship as a case study

Now no doubt Chris Rosebrough has the rest of this audio if he's recently discussing Mark Driscoll's 2007 views on T. D. Jakes.  But we're discussing it here at Wenatchee The Hatchet because, hey, if you have it you can discuss it even if you can't post the audio online in a convenient way just yet. 

And another reason to discuss it is this, Wenatchee The Hatchet has already pointed out that Driscoll has a history of trying to make a case for an idea and then when he finds he can't convince someone he can tend toward reduction ad absurdum or ad hominem.  As writing teachers nationwide are so apt to teach, you need to show rather than tell.  Having finally gotten ahold of some of the writings of William Wallace II it seemed useful to show rather than tell of examples in which Mark Driscoll, even if operating via persona, opted to go straight for ad hominem when knowah pushed back on how he expressed some of his ideas.  But for reduction ad absurdum the 2007 audio Rosebrough has features Mark Driscoll explicitly extolling the value of reduction ad absurdum (as "reduction ad absurdium"  While the audio session is more notorious (by far) for Mark Driscoll's comment about the pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus his comments on Jakes and his comments commending reduction ad absurdum and using male headship in marriage as a case study may be instructive. 

From the October 1, 2007 audio (maybe Rosebrough can tackle this and air this, too, since WtH is far more dedicated to print)
02.03.45ish
We need to do both communal apologetics (where we show the loving power of the gospel) AND we need to do propositional apologetics where we answer peoples' questions AND refute their objections. You have to. I don't care what anybody else says it's just the way it is.


02.05.00ish

What big issues today, when you look into the text, do you have to do the apologetical work of taking away the resistance? What are the big issues you guys know, 'when I hit that I gotta slow down and I gotta answer the objections."


... Gender?  Yep.  Men, women, marriage, sexuality, headship, submission.  You can't just say, "Uh, men, you're in charge. Women, shut up. Next verse." and then expect everyone to heed your counsel [chuckles]. It's going to take a little more work than that.  ...

You will need to regularly work into your sermon some apologetical defense of the authority of scripture.  That may even be, you know,  here in scripture we are told we are sinners and that God's wrath is upon us. One of the reasons we know this is true is no one would make this up. No one would paint humanity in this dark of terms and this bleak of condition. I mean, that is a simple, basic, quick apologetic for the authority of scripture from God. You're gonna need to work it in all the time. Here we learn that God is talking about specific people, specific times, specific places. Scripture is very big on details. I mean, you you're going to need to work those kinds of  apologetical arguments in--other issues that come up, you'll have to do this apologetical work.

02.07.18
One way you do it is through reductio ad absurdium. It's a mode of argument where you assume the other position is true and you work it out to its logical conclusion to show that it's ridiculous. It's a reductio ad absurdium. ...

...
02.08.58ish
I did ths at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (I'm just sort of free-flowing) but I did it out of Rob Bell's book The Velvet Elvis where he talks about doing post-foundational theology and he says that theology is like a trampoline and it's very flexible and if we take certain doctrines out of Christianity we don't really lose anything, like the Virgin Birth.  All right? So he says we can take out doctrines like the Virgin Birth. And so I said, "Okay, so let's assume theology is like a trampoline." Reductio ad absurdium.  What holds a trampoline up? A frame. What's the frame sit on?  A foundation of the earth. It's a stupid analogy for post-foundational theology. You don't HAVE a trampoline unless you have the earth and a frame to hold it up. This whole issue "we don't need rigid foundations, we need flexibility", you can't HAVE flexibility without rigid foundations.  Reductio ad absurdium.


Let's assume it's true.  Okay, fine, trampoline with no foundation. You can't. You also can't have flexible Christianity without foundation. Reductio ad absurdium.

We could do it this way, let's assume a husband has no responsibility to his wife, that he's NOT the head. Let's assume that they're complete individuals. Let's assume he has no obligation to care for her to defend her, to protect her, to provide for her. Let's assume and just walk down the road and then ask yourself, "Does he love her?" Does he love her? Because there is sentimental love which we feel and there is efficacious love which we do, and our culture only knows of sentimental love it knows nothing of efficacious love. And a man's love for his wife is efficacious. And if he is NOT the head then he has no obligation to efficacious love and that means that women will never be loved.  [chuckles slightly] I mean, just walk down the road and at the end you're saying, "I'm for love." That's an easier sell than "I'm for headship." ...

Now it would seem that in a logic or philosophy class you'd be advised to avoid the reduction ad absurdum because though it may be popular it's a common fallacy.  Maybe it's better known these days as the "straw man" and it's not difficult to observe that Mark Driscoll's reduction ad absurdum in defense of his particular understanding of male headship makes a straw man out of any egalitarian approach to marriage.

Now Wenatchee The Hatchet would close with an observation that this was late 2007.  That Driscoll could even joke that you can't say such and such a verse means men are in charge and women are to shut up and expect the conversation to be over.  Perhaps by then he'd gotten used to the idea that that practical, working definition of his idea of headship was apt to be met with resistance that characterized his view as making that claim. 

Mark Driscoll, "If you get the young men you win the war. ... You don't get the young men you get nothing. Nothing."

uploaded August 14, 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lex6orNNzTs&feature=youtu.be
about 3:00 in
...
The question is, you know, if you want to be innovative, how do you get young men? The whole war, all this nonsense how to grow the church and how to do this, one issue, young men. That's it. That's the whole thing. They're gonna get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate, they're gonna MAKE the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war. You get everything. The family, the money, the women, the children, the businesses, everything. You don't get the young men you get nothing. Nothing. Most churches are built to cater to 40-something-year-old women and their children and the guys are nowhere to be found. We built this church going after young, single, non-Christian perverted, educated, technological men. ...

Mark Driscoll's May 26, 2005 commentary on Oprah, a cult leader?


http://web.archive.org/web/20061116044355/http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-05-26_is_oprah_a_cult_leader
Is Oprah a Cult Leader?

Oprah
Her television show is a pulpit of sorts, where millions of American women tune in to hear from their great guru on everything from improving their souls to shedding their pounds. Much like a mega-church, her flock then breaks up into various small groups around the country to read the books she recommends so that her disciples can continue to grow in thinking and living according to her teaching.

For further indoctrination there is also her monthly magazine named, you guessed it, O. Like an icon upon which to meditate, her photo adorns the cover of every issue of her magazine as she is glorified in suburban homes across the nation.

In a November poll conducted at Beliefnet.com, a site that looks at how religions and spirituality intersect with popular culture, 33 percent of 6,600 respondents said Winfrey has had "a more profound impact" on their spiritual lives than their clergypersons. "She puts the ‘cult’ in pop culture," wrote media critic Mark Jurkowitz in The Phoenix.

The fifty-two-year-old Oprah Winfrey is reportedly worth a whopping $1.4 billion and is now the moral conscience and feminist prophetic voice of a generation of women. Following Hurricane Katrina, she showed up in New Orleans to berate the failure of the government as a voice for social concern. In February she attended the funeral of Coretta Scott King as an icon for civil rights while standing next to the coffin. Additionally, she regularly speaks to female guests on her show about everything from living a better life to caring for the poor and oppressed around the world.

Her fame is rising above even legendary evangelists such as my hero Billy Graham. Her television show is now watched by 49 million people in this nation, as well as many more in 122 other nations.
Jamie Foxx said, "You're going to get to heaven and everyone's waiting on God and it's going to be Oprah Winfrey." Cathleen Falsani, religion writer for the Chicago Sun-Times, recently suggested, "I wonder, has Oprah become America's pastor?" Oprah has herself referred to her television show as her "ministry."

Oprah seems to be a contradiction perfectly suited for a confused world of pluralism. She is a billionaire who speaks passionately about the pain and suffering in the world from the comforts of her sheltered life. She is among the most beloved icons of mothers yet she has never had any children. Many viewers tune in to learn how to improve their marriages yet she has never been married. And, she speaks of spiritual matters often and has an entire segment of her show titled "spirit," which makes you wonder which spirit she’s referring to.

Bad Theology - Culture - Cults & Occult

Mark Driscoll's blog

Mark Driscoll on the naked virgin Catholic model Adriana Lima at the Resurgence in 2006

For those who can't read it by way of the screen capture above, here's the text version of this 2006 post.  For those who only remember that Ted Haggard inspired post (which many people have misremembered, misquoted, and misunderstood as referring to Gayle Haggard) it's worth reminding people that Mark Driscoll was actually sounding off on women at a number of points in 2006. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20061116044939/http://theresurgence.com/huh_naked_virgin_catholic_model
Huh? Naked, Virgin, Catholic Model

Adriana LimaThe recent April issue of GQ magazine includes a most curious article about Adriana Lima. She is the Brazillian Victoria’s Secret supermodel and the ninety-seventh highest-paid famous person in the world, according to Forbes. She made Maxim’s Hot 100 list in 2003. She was engaged to rocker Lenny Kravitz in 2002. And, like many supermodels, the internet is filled with nude photos of her, which I swear I did not look at.
What makes her story so dang weird is that in addition to being a supermodel, she’s also a devout Catholic virgin. Of her modeling (that includes a lot of nudes and near-nudes), she says, "God has given me a lot of work." Apparently that work includes a part-time job learning to spell the word c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n.
The GQ interview includes the following curious points:

I take it you’re religious?
Yes! I am Catholic. [she pulls out the cardboard scapular hanging around her neck, under her big gray sweater]
Wow. A scapular. Do you go to church?
Of course! Every Sunday.
Is there anything in the teachings of the Catholic Church that you don’t agree with?
No.
Are you pro-life?
What do you mean, pro-life?
How do you feel about abortion?
I think it’s a crime.
[. . .]
Are you a one-guy woman?
Of course! I’m a Catholic.
Look, I’m Catholic, too, but there’s a lot of things about the church that make it hard to date within its rules, don’t you think?
Like what?
Birth control, premarital sex…
Well, you know, sex is just for after marriage.
Say what?
Sex is for after marriage.
Are you saying you’re not going to have sex before marriage?
Exactly.
You mean you’ve never had sex?
That’s why I have to say.
You sure about this?
Yes.
How do men respond to the fact that you plan to, you know, wait?
I don’t care. They have to respect that this is my choice. If there’s no respect, that means they don’t want me.
Having been raised as a Catholic boy, I can sadly say that I think I understand how she got to this weird point of being the naked porn fantasy of men across the world while simultaneously being devoutly committed to sexual chastity before marriage. It seems that she only sees sins of commission and does not understand sins of omission. This explains why she is proud of not committing the sin of fornication (sex before marriage, for anyone to whom that is a new f-word). And it also explains why she does not see her sin of omitting her clothes from her body as a sin. Apparently, she does not see lust as a sin but does see sex as a sin, which is the kind of theological reasoning one would expect from a supermodel.

Mark Driscoll's October 9, 2006 Resurgence post ruminating on Jenna Jameson


http://web.archive.org/web/20061116041010/http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-10-09_porn_again_Christian

Jenna Jameson was born in 1974 in Vegas, of course, and is regarded as the “Queen of Porn” and the most popular porn starlette in the world, having appeared in more than 100 porn films. She began stripping at the age of sixteen by lying about her age and taking the braces off her teeth with pliers in an effort to make herself appear older. Before she graduated from high school she was making upwards of $2,000 a night dancing.

She has since gone on to be something of a pop-culture icon, having appeared as herself in the television cartoon show The Family Guy, and her voice appears in the popular video game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. In 2004 she published her book How to Make Love Like a Porn Star, which spent six weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list.

At this point of my blog there are likely only three people left reading. The guys who got this poor blog from some link hoping to see naked pictures have already left because there are only a lot of words. But here’s where the story gets even weirder.

Not long ago I was flipping through the cable channels and found VH1 Confessions, which is a biography show (without nudity if you were wondering) on famous people. They were airing the biography of Jameson. To be honest, it was pretty sad. Her dad was not a great guy, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted and taken advantage of from a young age by older men, and did not have a mom to help raise her. It was the typical poor-broken-family-produces-a-sexually-abused-girl-who-ends-up-using-her- beauty-to-pay-her-bills kind of story.

What I found most curious, however, was her adamant declaration that she was a Roman Catholic Christian. In 2003, she married porn-studio owner Jay Grdina in a Roman Catholic ceremony. The biography included a tour of their 6,700 square-foot Spanish-style palace in Arizona. Lining the walls were numerous Catholic-looking religious icons and artwork. Showing off her religious artwork, she declared herself a devoted Catholic, despite the fact that she is a porn star who has done films called “Hell on Heels” and “Jenna Depraved.”

For the blogger record, I don’t watch porn, have never seen one of her films, and pulled some of these facts off of Wikipedia and not my personal collection.

Now, back to the story.

She then went on to explain how she would give it all up if she could just be a wife and a mother because her deepest desire was to be a monogamous married mom. She even said that if she became a mom she would leave the industry and never do another film because she would not want her child subjected to the porn industry.

To not commit adultery during her marriage, she stopped sleeping with anyone on camera other than her porn-star husband as some very peculiar form of morality. Her and her hubby spent two years trying to fulfill her dream of becoming a mom with no success. The latest word is that they are separated and that she is now seeing rocker Dave Navarro who has apparently split up with wife Carmen Electra.

The most peculiar quote she gave in the entire biography was her attempt to defend how she could be a Catholic Christian porn star: “No one can judge me but God.”

In the end, it was an incredibly confusing biography. On one hand is the fact that Jenna, though depraved as her movie title says, remains an image-bearer of God. As a result, she believes in God, believes in judgment for sin by God, and deeply longs to fulfill her feminine role as a wife and mother. Yet, on the other hand she remains the world’s best-known porn star.

I guess the entire point that stuck out is that we sinners are a crazy bunch of conflicted people torn between the dignity of creation and depravity of the curse, who, apart from Jesus saving us from ourselves and renewing our minds, are a hopeless mess.

revisiting that 2006 post that tangentially touched upon Ted Haggard

This was incontestably the most notorious post from Mark Driscoll that was published on The Resurgence in 2006, on November 3.  However, what people may not remember is that this was not even the only blog post in which Mark Driscoll would take an opportunity to sound off on women and men and sexuality.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070106220656/http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits
http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits

The news has been abuzz with controversy surrounding the allegations that Ted Haggard had a three-year homosexual relationship with a male prostitute that included drug use. Haggard is pastor of a 14,000-member church in Colorado, president of the National Association of Evangelicals that has some 30 million members, friend of men like George Bush, and outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay marriage.

The news broke in a television interview with the homosexual prostitute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 21, 2006 - Update
 Here is an updated link with footage regarding the allegations and Haggard original denial of them. This link, mostly leaves his family out of it.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3kd3TOKmiE
 For more information from the Haggard's please see the links here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A follow-up article by the Associated Press said that Haggard purchased methamphetamines from the gay prostitute but claims he never used them. He also admitted to getting a massage from the gay prostitute but denies any sexual activity between the two.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2006 - Update
 The A.P. story does not appear to be available any longer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course the media is having a field day with the scandal, particularly since Haggard's home state of Colorado is on the brink of a highly charged political vote regarding homosexual rights. It will likely take weeks to untangle the truth in all of this very devastating news. In the meantime, let us pray that his wife and five children will be loved and supported through this incredibly difficult time. The horror they must be experiencing is likely unbearable.

As every pastor knows, we are always at risk from the sin in us and the sinful temptations around us. Pastoring in one of America's least churched cities to a large number of single, young people has been an eye-opening experience for me. I started the church ten years ago when I was twenty-five years of age. Thankfully, I was married to a beautiful woman. I met my lovely wife Grace when we were seventeen, married her at twenty-one, and by God's grace have been faithful to her in every way since the day we met. I have, however, seen some very overt opportunities for sin. On one occasion I actually had a young woman put a note into my shirt pocket while I was serving communion with my wife, asking me to have dinner, a massage, and sex with her. On another occasion a young woman emailed me a photo of herself topless and wanted to know if I liked her body. Thankfully, that email was intercepted by an assistant and never got to me.

My suspicion is that as our culture becomes more sexually rebellious, things will only get worse. Therefore, as a means of encouragement, I would like to share some practical suggestions for fellow Christian leaders, especially young men:

 •The only way to stay away from sin is to stay close to Jesus. Colossians says that we are prone to making a lot of rules but that if we don't deal with the issues in our heart, we are fooling ourselves; holiness cannot be obtained by the sheer force of white-knuckled will power. More than anyone, a Christian leader needs time with Jesus in repentance, for their own soul and not just to make them a better leader or teacher. Death comes to every Christian leader who goes to Jesus and Scripture for purely functional and not relational purposes.

•Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. 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.

•Every pastor needs a pastor. Too often the pastor is seen as a sort of little God and his wife as some glorified First Lady. Every pastor needs a pastor with whom he can regularly have accountability and the confession of sin. Every pastor's wife also needs a godly woman chosen for her maturity and trustworthiness.

•No church should tolerate sexual sin among its leaders. Christians cannot be guilty of playing plank-speck with non-Christians on matters of pornography and homosexuality and be guilty of going soft on sin in their own leadership. As Paul says, nothing can be done out of partiality or favoritism.


Pastors should have their office at the church and their study at home. There is no reason a pastor should be sitting alone at the church at odd hours (e.g., early morning and late evening) to study when anyone can drop in for any reason and have access to him. Instead, a pastor should come into the office for scheduled meetings and work from home on tasks such as emails, planning, studying, sermon preparation, etc. I spend the vast majority of my time working from home. Some years ago when I did not, I found that lonely people, some of them hurting single moms wanting a strong man to speak into their life, would show up to hang out and catch time with me. It was shortly thereafter that I brought my books home and purchased a laptop and cell phone so that I was not tied to the church office.

•Pastors have the right to protect their own home. This means that if someone keeps dropping by unannounced and is unwelcome, or a flirtatious woman shows up to a Bible study at the pastor's home, the pastor and his family have the right to request that they never return. The pastor's home simply cannot be viewed as yet another piece of church property that is accessible to anyone who desires it. Rather, the pastor's home must be a safe place for the pastor and his family without the wrong people rudely calling and dropping by.

•Churches should consider returning to heterosexual male assistants who are like Timothy and Titus to serve alongside pastors. Too often the pastor's assistant is a woman who, if not sexually involved, becomes too emotionally involved with the pastor as a sort of emotional and practical second wife. I have been blessed with a trustworthy heterosexual male assistant who can travel with me, meet with me, etc., without the fear of any temptations or even false allegations since we have beautiful wives and eight children between us.

•Pastors need to protect their email and have it screened for accountability. For me, this means that no email but an email from one of our pastors comes directly to me. This also means that I leave my email account open at home and my wife regularly checks it to get schedule information, etc., because I have nothing to hide. I also do not have a secondary email account from which to build a secret identity.

•Pastors need to carefully protect their cell phone number. If that private number gets out, too many of the wrong people have access to the pastor. Not only should the cell phone number of a pastor be given out to only a few people, he should also consider eliminating his voicemail and simply have calls forwarded to his assistant. In this way people will not become too informal with the pastor and if the pastor knows someone is trouble (e.g., a flirtatious woman), he can see that on his caller ID and simply refuse to answer the call or have to deal with a voicemail.

•Pastors must speak freely and frankly with their wives about their temptations. Without this there really can be no walking in the light and sin always grows in darkness.

•Pastors must not travel alone; the anonymity and fatigue of the road is too great a temptation for many men. A pastor should take his wife, an older child, an assistant, or fellow leader with him. If this cannot be afforded then travel should not be undertaken.

•Any pastor who is drifting toward serious sexual sin should have the courage, love for God, devotion to his family, and respect for his church to simply fall on his sword and resign before he goes down in flames. He must get the professional help he needs without fear of losing his position as a pastor. It is much better to be an honest Christian than a wicked pastor.

•Lastly, the big issue is a love and fear of God. Only a man really knows his heart and whether or not he loves and fears God above all else. Without this a man will fail to live for God's glory, and it is only a matter of time.

In conclusion, I say none of this as moralism. Indeed, this is a deeply rooted gospel issue. How can we proclaim that our God is a faithful Trinitarian community if we are not faithful to our marriage covenant and family? How can we say that the same power that raised Christ from the dead lives in us if we have no holiness in our life? How can we proclaim that we are new creations in Christ if we continually return to lap up the vomit of our old way of life? How can we preach that sin is to be repented of if we fail to model that ongoing repentance? How can we say that God is our highest treasure and greatest joy when we trade Him for sin that defiles our hands and defames His name?
I do not know the guilt or innocence of Haggard. But I do know that this is a sobering reminder to take heed of, lest we fall.

the raw text (no pun intended) of William Wallace II's January 8, 2001 thread "Using your penis" UPDATED WITH SCREENCAP

Presented with a few paragraph breaks for easier reading but otherwise the text from another thread started by William Wallace II at the old Midrash which has been preserved. This content, as well as the content from the "Headship" threads were not necessarily preserved by The WayBack Machine and since Mars Hill has gone to such lengths in the last five months to introduces robots to preclude WayBack Machine crawls from happening or from pulling up previously accessible content sometimes the raw text may have to suffice. 

UPDATE 07-30-2014
In case anyone might wonder whether the content presented below is actually content from the old Midrash, Wenatchee The Hatchet has been given an old html preserve that should help clarify the veracity of the content. 



So, another thread, started the month after "Pussified Nation", by William Wallace II (better known as Mark Driscoll) ...

Author  Topic:   Using your penis 
William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-08-2001 10:59 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may seem, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is His penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.

While His penis is on loan you must admit that it is sort of just hanging out there very lonely as if it needed a home, sort of like a man wandering the streets looking for a house to live in. Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.
Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home. But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not. And, though women other than your wife may look like a home, to rest there would be breaking into another mans home. And, if you look at a man it is quite obvious that what a homeless man does not need is another man without a home. Paul tells us that your penis actually belongs to your wife, and once you are married she will trade you it for her home (I Corinthians 7:4), and every man knows this is a very good trade for him to make.

With his penis, the man is supposed to please his wife and learn how to be patient, self-controlled and be educated on how to keep his home happy and joyous (I Corinthians 7:3). The man should be aroused by his new home, and his wife should rejoice at seeing his penis rise to greet her (Song of Songs 5:14b).

[This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-08-2001).]
IP: Logged

TheOgre
Member   posted 01-08-2001 11:59 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok man, I get the point. But I don't understand where you keep getting these graphic depictions out of scripture. I looked up Song of Songs 5:14b. "His body is like polished ivory decorated with sapphires." Great, so I know Song of Songs is VERY graphicm in many spots, but I don't see where you get the "seeing his penis rise to greet her" from, HERE. It seems to me that the only reason you like doing this is to tick off less "Manly" men who don't think people should say the "p" word out loud. So maybe you'll label ME as a "pussie" now. Maybe you should take a look at Matt Verm's latest post, and next time you quote scripture for these images, make sure its really there.
your brother in Christ,
Tim
IP: Logged

William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-09-2001 09:20 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That verse in the Song of Songs was translated by some cowards. She likens her husbands penis to hard white ivory. In your NIV the footnote at the botton says it's the "lapis lazuli" which is the penis. The Bible translators are so skiddish they couldn't actually say what the author said. They do the same thing with the woman's body in Song of Songs 7:2 where they say that her belly button is round, red, and moist with a sweet taste. Guess what, it's not her belly button. Very sad, I'd have to say that if you can't just say what the Bible says but need to make it G-rated then you've got a low view of Scripture.
IP: Logged

TheOgre
Member   posted 01-09-2001 09:28 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah. I'd tend to agree. If you are honest, the Bible is rated R. But lapiz lazuli is a blue, hardened clay like rock used in ancient jewlery. Not meaning to split hairs man, but I still don't understand where your getting this stuff. (Okay, I DO know about the "belly button" mistranslation though.)
IP: Logged

Squatting Bear
Member   posted 01-09-2001 06:06 PM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And who said exegesis was boring?
Woo hoo!
IP: Logged

hopeful
Member   posted 01-09-2001 09:48 PM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
does anybody have reference material suggestions for this man so we can get on with things?
IP: Logged

William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-18-2001 11:13 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian pornography. Christian phone sex. Christian cyber-sex. Christian lap dances.
Someone recently asked me about these issues. And, they are quite valid.

The problem with many unfaithful unmanly unmen is that they have heads filled with desires and dreams, but they marry a Christian women raised on a steady diet of gnosticism (so she hates her body) psychology (so she thinks too much before she climbs into bed) and guilt ridden don't have sex because it's a dirty nasty thing that God hates and makes you a slut youth group propaganda from hell/Family Books.

So the poor guy is like a starving man who is told he can only eat once ever couple weeks and his restaurant only has one crummy unspiced bland item on the menu and he either eats it or starves to death.

Bummer for that guy.

What the guy wants is to see a stripper, a porno, and have some phone and cyber sex. What the guy needs is a good Christian woman. The kind of woman who knows that men like unclothed and sexually aggressive women. Why? Because they are breathing. As long as a man is alive he is ready for sex every minute of every day.

Ladies, listen closely. The guy will never get the big dreams out of his head. He can either explore them with his wife, become bitter and sexually repressed, or sneak off to Deja Vu or log on to the net and escape in a moment of adventure. Birds fly, ducks float, dogs bark, and men think about sex every minute of every day because they have a magical ability to continually think of two things at one time, one of which is always sex. Any man who denies this is a liar or has broken plumbing.
So it would behoove a good godly woman to learn how to strip for her husband. Some nice music, a couple of drinks, candlight and a wife who has thrown her youth group devotionals to the wind would be nice. Most women do not do this because they are uncomfortable with their bodies. Know that for a man there are two variables with a woman's body. One, what does she have to work with? Two, how does she use it? Now I will tell you a secret, number two is the most important.

How about a Christian guy who wants to watch porno? Maybe his wife should get a Polaroid and snap a few shots of her in various states of marital undress and bliss and sneak them into his Bible so that when the guy sits down to eat his lunch at work and read some Scripture he has reasons to praise God. Or, maybe if the lady would plug in a camcorder and secretly film herself showering, undressing, making love to her husband etc. she could give it to him when he's on the road for weeks at a time, or maybe just so the poor guy can see his wife as some undressed passionate goddess. I have yet to find a wife take me up on this be rebuked by her husband.

And what guy breaking his stones on the job every day wouldn't like a hot phone call from his wife now and then telling him in great detail what awaits him when he gets home. Or how about the occasional instant explicit message from his wife rolling across his screen giving him some reasons to expect that dessert will precede dinner that night.

Do you know why the adult entertainment industry is raking in billions of dollars? Because people like to have sex and have fun. Does it lead to sin? Yes. Can it lead to worship. Of course. If you resist this message, please stay single until you get your head straightened out. If you are married and fully constipated, bummer for you and your upcoming divorce.

IP: Logged

William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-18-2001 11:27 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy asked me, so what about when my wife has her cycle, has physical problems, or is recovering from a birth?

Husbands, you need to talk about this with your wife. The average Christian wife does not know that just because she's on the bench that a game cannot be played.

Think about it. It is mean and cruel to let a guy run wild three weeks a month, and then set him on the bench for a week.

I had a wife ask me if it was okay for her to find alternate ways to please her husband when she had her cycle and/or when pregnancy prevented regular intercourse.

Okay?

Uh. Duh.

A woman has a mouth, breasts, a bum, hands and other parts that when properly used can and do serve quite nicely for the full menu of intimate options. And, a woman who explores all her options and uses them well will likely find that her husband is a nice guy every week of the month every month of the year and really appreciates a woman who knows how to take care of her man.
And, he will most appreciate a woman who allows him to explore ALL of her body with her so that he can learn how to please her and cause her to be deeply satisfied and loved with the body God has given him to give to her.

So, men, you cannot be a coward and a good lover. You cannot lie there and assume that the woman is Being John Malkovich and climbing in your head to read your mind and see your desires. You have to lead her. You need to speak with her lovingly, frankly, and openly. And you need to encourage her to speak to you about her fears and her dreams.

And, you need to lead her into the land of promise. I know this may take years. You will try positions and parts that don't work well for you. But, if at first you don't succeed...
IP: Logged

TheOgre
Member   posted 01-19-2001 10:51 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Mark, I have a couple questions.

I couldn't help but notice you saying  "The guy will never get the big dreams out of his head. He can either explore them with his wife, become bitter and sexually repressed, or sneak off to Deja Vu or log on to the net and escape in a moment of adventure. Birds fly, ducks float, dogs bark, and men think about sex every minute of every day because they have a magical ability to continually think of two things at one time, one of which is always sex."

So, a man is either thinking about having sex with his wife, or off masturbating, or viewing porno over the internet somwhere. "He can never get the big dream out of his head." hmm. Bummer for those young unmarried fellows, who don't have wives, because I guess they have no other choice but continually lust eh? Guess that's a particular bummer for me, cause I happen to be a young man, who won't get married until he has a decent job to support a family. So I guess, since I don't have a wife, I'm stuck with only three options. 1) I can view porno, 2) I can masturbate, or 3) dream. lame. Not only is this untrue, but it is also unbiblical. We are not slaves to sin anymore. Males always do have hormones pumping through their bodies. But, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." I blatantly disagree with what you said. My father is a manly man. When he takes a trip to china, to give a symposium on the acoustic whatevers of bubbles in low gravity environments, or whatever, he DOES NOT need a picture of my mother stripping, to keep him a way from porno. Why? He loves the Lord. More than anything else. He is not a slave to sin. He is a pure man. Yes, he has told me that he faces temptations. But, through the grace of God, he can overcome those. It is the same with any Christian.
Second, do you believe a man can sinfully "lust" after his wife? Though I am not married, I always assumed he could. He can still use his wife as a chunk of flesh. He can still stare at her body as merely an instrument of pleasure. Am I wrong? You seem to advocate "christian" pornography. In my mind, this puts those "Christian Kid" and "Tommy Hell fighter" shirts to shame. Perhaps I'm wrong here, and if so, correct me. Sex is worship. Like a song. We can sing it in an empty way, not thinking, and so misuse the Lords name in vain. Just because the song is a worship song doesn't mean we can do anything we want with it. Isn't it the same with sex? Though the women may be the man's wife, can't he still indulge in Sex in an unholy way?
[This message has been edited by TheOgre (edited 01-19-2001).]
[This message has been edited by TheOgre (edited 01-19-2001).]
IP: Logged

William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-20-2001 12:22 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a man have healthy, godly, physical lust for his wife. Yes. And he should. His imagination should be filled of redeemed images, images of his wife. And yes, her body. Not just a "chunk of flesh" but her body in passion as a woman devoted to him and entrusting herself to him at her moments of greatest vulnerability.

A Christian married couple has tremendous freedom to explore all of their sexuality. The problem is that rarely are they encouraged to do so, and consequently one or both of them are filled with curious thoughts that they never pursue because they does not know the freedom that they have in Christ. Does the Spirit give a man strength to not sin. Of course.

And one of the ways God helps a man not to sin is to give him a wife so that when he wants to see a naked woman, he can look at her. And, when he wants to touch a naked woman, he can touch her. And, if he has a curiousity he can explore it with her. Therefore, it greatly benefits the average Christian man to grow up early, prepare to care for a wife, and take one.

Let's just be honest. The Christian divorce rate is now as high or higher than unbelievers. Porno has enslaved pretty much every young male in varying degrees. A recent survey also indicated that over half of evangelical pastors have committed adultery. This being so it is therefore not surprising that the pulpits in our day lack much clear and free teaching on sexual matters since so many servants of God are so compromised. And, what young men should not be told is to kill their desire, but to instead channel toward the covenant of marriage with a woman they adore and can trust with their desires.

A couple may not use all of their freedom, which is fine. But, they may also use all of their freedom. Either way, they need to explore their desires and learn to serve each other so that bitterness does not develop and the enemy gain a foothold. I would also add that if you plan to be with one woman for 60 years you should plan on using your imagination to keep things fresh and growing like all other areas of the marriage.

You may disagree. You are also single which may explain why. Until you take a wife I would encourage you to dream. The beginning of the Song of Songs is prior to their marriage and includes very graphic details of what they long to explore together in their sexual covenant. Dream about being with a woman and enjoying her, and learning to satisfy her also. When this crosses over into looking at porno or fantasizing about a particular woman it is lust. If it does not cross that line then you are merely renewing your mind to be a husband.

Lastly, can a man have sinful sex with his wife? If he harms her, if he is unloving, if he is unfaithful, if he is comparing her to other women, if he is degrading of her etc. of course. But, in 60 years of marriage the average couple will have some days where one person just really wants sex and jumps on the other. When you're married, it's a compliment. I know of no wife who doesn't like her husband to call during the day and tell her how he adores her body and can barely contain himself from jumping out of his skin because he wants to come home and explore her and enjoy her. I'd say it's flattering and reassuring.

With all due respect, your head is tweaked. It is likely either by being raised in the church and having a poor understanding of sexaulity from teaching that had it's goal prevention rather than healthy worship. Or, porno and sinful relationships with women may be to blame. These are the two most frequent culprits these days.

Do you really think that if your mom slipped a photo of herself in your dad's briefcase before a long road trip that she would be a wicked woman and that him closing his eyes and dreaming about the body God gave her would be inappropriate? Grow up.

It's a good question and I appreciate you asking it. But, it further proves the entire case I am making here as do most of the posts.
IP: Logged

TheOgre
Member   posted 01-20-2001 10:53 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand corrected. However, and I don't care whether you disagree or not, I think it is possible for a young man to keep a clean mind, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He does not have to be enslaved by porno or lust, simply because the Holy Spirit is stronger than that.
IP: Logged

William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-20-2001 01:20 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree. But, your goal is not to never have a sexual thought. Your goal is to get married and have redeemed sexual thoughts. So, the best thing is to not ignore your sexuality as a single man, but instead direct it toward being a husband one day. The problem is that many young Christian men do avoid lust and the like, but when they get married they view sex in an ill fashion and have a very rough adjustment to marital sexuality. That is why lust and porno etc. is so bad, it teaches a man to disconnect his sexuality from a wife and a covenant.
IP: Logged

mens
Junior Member   posted 02-01-2001 09:57 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit, I checked out this thread becuase I was curious about the title, and I saw that Braveheart Junior started it.

This is the first time I have ever been encouraged to participate in such activities, so naturally I have a couple of questions.

If a woman uses her hands, breasts, bum, mouth, and other body parts to satisfy a man, is this leaving the natural use for the unnatural? That verse is not very specific. You also said that a man will find a very nice home for his penis when he gets married and looks down at his wife. Does it matter that these other body parts are not that home?

Christian pornography, phone sex, strippers, and lap dances.

These activities are developed by secular society. Is it okay for Christians to adopt them just because we call them worship?
mens
IP: Logged

ReformUrAss
Member   posted 02-02-2001 12:46 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man I get weirded out by guys who want to dispute about this stuff.
Mens: Do you think when God see's married people using these other body parts he says "What are they doing! I didn't think they were gonna uses those thingys for THAT!"
I hope you are just asking these things so when your wife objects you can have some good content to back your arguement.
Here lay this one on her:
"A loving doe, a graceful deer- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love" Proverbs 5:19
I got plenty more if she doesn't break with that one.
IP: Logged

Porkfry
Member   posted 02-02-2001 02:32 PM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mens: Are you married?
<>
Talking about something totally different. If you are looking for biblical verses on said parts being used for said activities in the natural manner please see the Song of Songs.

<>
It's a package deal. Your Garage in your house isn't your home, Your bathroom isn't your home, your bedroom isn't your home, but those parts as a whole make up your home. dig?

<>
Hmmm.....in the context they are used in the secular society they are wrong. But placed in the marriage covenant they are fair game. See song of Songs for further reference. I am aware that they didn't have phones or camera's in the OT but if they did I can bet money that they would talk about them.

<>
Please See song of songs. Mens, if a man is married and he goes and checks out some other woman's naked body, that's sin. If a man is married and he checks out his wife's naked body that's not sin, that's fun. If a man looks at a naked picture of a woman who is not his wife, that's sin. If he looks at a picture of his wife naked, that's not sin. He's allowed to do that.

If God states things are sin in one instance but not in another, don't go out of your way to make it sin if it's not.

L8R
Porkfry

[This message has been edited by Porkfry (edited 02-02-2001).]
IP: Logged

In His Footsteps
Junior Member   posted 02-02-2001 03:39 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Porkfry>
If a man looks at a naked picture of a woman who is not his wife, that's sin. If he looks at a picture of his wife naked, that's not sin. He's allowed to do that.
Just a thought Who develped the picture of the man's wife? Caution... Polaroid or 1 hour Photo... Did that cause sin... just a thought..
I do get your point but I just had to add this
IP: Logged

Porkfry
Member   posted 02-02-2001 03:47 PM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would develop my own film.
L8R
Porkfry

IP: Logged

DigitalMan
Junior Member   posted 02-02-2001 07:22 PM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As regards the film development point, I would suggest bypassing it altogether. Digital media friends. Obviously, you either own or have access to a computer; A quality digital camera costs $300.00 and is well worth the investment. If you have an AGP graphics card with video capture, a high 8 video camera may be obtained for the same price. Make your own movies. No development fees or risk. Beautiful.
IP: Logged

In His Footsteps
Junior Member   posted 02-02-2001 08:41 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy I am so sorry that as we post on here some people just dont get the jokes at times...
L8R
and by the way I do know about the digital stuff and graphics cards but thanks....
IP: Logged

Chipmunk
Junior Member   posted 02-06-2001 04:26 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Wallace II <> In reply to that, I'm oh so glad that we are encouraging men to be lusting over their wife during the time they setting aside to praise God. How are they expected to be thinking about God when they have just place a picture of their naked wife in their mind? I don't know why God does most of the things he does, but I do know that we were placed on this earth to be man's companion and partner. Nowhere in that "job description" does it say that we are here to replace "God's time" that we have set aside.

And here's a question? Are you saying that if we are uncomfortable with something our husband would like us to do that it is alright for him to go and "find it elsewere"? Well, excuse me for disagreeing, but I find that utterly revulting. God has said, women are to submit themselves to our husbands, but it doesn't say that we are to be your personal exotic sex toy, just as it doesn't mean that we are to let you assult us.

IP: Logged

KatieVonbora
Junior Member   posted 02-06-2001 05:16 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I would hope that seeing my naked body would make my husband praise God for giving him such a wife.
Reread the entire bb and you will never see anyone endorseing anyone to "find it elsewhere".
We as women need to become comfortable with our bodies. If you aren't comfortable with a paticular request of your husband think about a compromise or alternative.
Sex is a wounderful gift from God to us as married couples.
(Edited due to my horrible spelling)
[This message has been edited by KatieVonbora (edited 02-06-2001).]
IP: Logged

Pastor Mark
Administrator   posted 02-06-2001 05:49 PM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chipmunk.
Lust and wandering outside of marriage is a sin. Lust and passion in a marriage is worship. Why would you distinguish between God and your husband. If you do something nice for your husband (i.e. cook him dinner, run an errand for him, rub his neck) are you serving God or your husband? If you love God and your husband then you are worshipping God AS you serve your husband. You show love for God by loving your neighbor, it is not an either/or but instead a both/and.
Lastly, what is wrong with being your husbands sex toy if he truly loves and respects you? If you are married, I would doubt your husband would protest if the situation were reversed. I have yet to hear a Christian husband protest "she just wants sex all the time and can't keep her hands off me - it makes me sick!"
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband...Do not deprive each other but by mutual consent..." - I Corinthians 7:3-5
Most women struggle with this because:
1. They have had a bad sexual experience in their past (i.e. molestation, rape, bad relationship etc.).
2. They were raised Christian and the church theology intended to keep them from having premarital sex and thereby caused them to see their body and sexuality in an evil way.
3. They have husbands whom they do not trust because of such things as adultery, pornography, abuse, laziness etc.
Never forget that God created men and women to be one flesh and brought them together for union and was present at the first sexual act. Sex is never done apart from God and is therefore never a "secular thing."
Lastly, the book "Intimate Issues" by Linda Dillow is excellent on this issue for women and I would strongly encourage you to pursue more learning in this area since it will adversely harm your marriage.
IP: Logged

TheBruce
Junior Member   posted 02-07-2001 12:41 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Address the Issue about Body Parts (mouth, bum, etc.) it seems pretty obvious that most body parts have multiple uses, take the hands. Building, scratching, playing guitar, typing replies on the Midrash, placing food in your mouth, picking your nose, dialing a phone, touching your wife...It seems to me that it is not unnatural for our other body parts to be used in multiple ways as well.
Also, what is unnatural in Romans 1 is not a simple matter of body parts. God intended our various parts to be used in a sexual manner ONLY with a member of the opposite sex that we are married to. It is unnatural to use those parts in a sexual way with members of the same sex.
Anyway...
IP: Logged

DigitalMan
Junior Member   posted 02-07-2001 01:16 AM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by In His Footsteps:
Boy I am so sorry that as we post on here some people just dont get the jokes at times...
L8R
and by the way I do know about the digital stuff and graphics cards but thanks....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footsteps, "I don't get the joke"? Who are you taking pictures of on film to be developed by strangers that would be eliciting lust? Is it your wife, or your hypothetical wife, or your girlfriend, or boyfriend? You know all about digital media, so why ask about the possible sin of the developer, yet state the defensive "I am so sorry that as we post on here some people just dont get the jokes at times..."?
I say it is because you do not have a subject (photographically), or you have the wrong subjects you'd like to pose for you, but won't; So, before you imply that whom you've never met (DigiMan) doesn't have some good advice for those who have (a wife), let go of your dick and your frustration, and the digital photography thing may do you some good someday. I pity you if you think that's a joke. Get a wife. If you're already married, get your wife to pose in the nude.
IP: Logged

lovermom
Junior Member   posted 02-07-2001 03:02 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Mark, for bringing up the book "Intimate Issues". I just read the book a month ago and it revolutionized my thinking. I am a wife, with kids. I've always been adventurous in bed and my husband and I are lucky enough to enjoy mutually orgasmic sex 99% of the time. What I realized is, sex has always been on my terms. If I'm too tired, forget it, it's not gonna happen. It's always been fine with me if we go weeks without it. Then when the time's right, we have sex and I find myself thinking "why don't we do this more often?"
Reading intimate issues has made me realize how utterly selfish and downright wrong my way of thinking was. We as women need to use sex to minister to, comfort, and build intimacy with our husbands. Men are created with a physical need to have sex on a really regular basis (ok, I can hear all the men reading this going "DUH" right now). It's so unfair for us women to hold our husbands at arms length physically, not meeting their physical needs. When we reject our husbands advances we are rejecting them emotionally. It's personal. By doing this we're losing out on marital intimacy. I know so many Christian women who like me hold the reigns on sex. Or women who would like to get pregnant so they do it with their husbands on a daily basis until they've acheived their goal and then, boom, the poor guys out of luck for the next 9 months or more.
Ladies, lets make sex in our marital relationships a priority. Maybe we could experiment and see how our relationships change if we become unselfish and deliver the goods even when we don't want to. Not only that, but we can seek out more creative and interesting ways to deliver those goods, on a regular basis.
Do it in the car, do it in the closet, do it on the kitchen floor. "You and me baby ain't nothin but mammals so lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."

[This message has been edited by lovermom (edited 02-07-2001).]
IP: Logged

Chipmunk
Junior Member   posted 02-07-2001 05:25 PM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Mark.
Thank you for explaining it. I'm sorry if I have come across as defensive, but I have never had anyone explain it to me like that
<< Lust and passion in a marriage is worship...If you do something nice for your husband (i.e. cook him dinner, run an errand for him, rub his neck) are you serving God or your husband? If you love God and your husband then you are worshipping God AS you serve your husband. >> And no, I'm not married, so that is also probably another reason why I didn't I was a bit on the confused side. But as said before, thank you!
IP: Logged

In His Footsteps
Junior Member   posted 02-13-2001 08:55 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Mark and Chipmunk..
Pastor Mark>Lust and wandering outside of marriage is a sin. Lust and passion in a marriage is worship. Why would you distinguish between God and your husband? If you do something nice for your husband (i.e. cook him dinner, run an errand for him, rub his neck) are you serving God or your husband? If you love God and your husband then you are worshipping God AS you serve your husband. You show love for God by loving your neighbor, it is not an either/or but instead a both/and.
I see an interesting stretch on words in this post (worship and honor)…
Pastor Mark> Lust and wandering outside of marriage is a sin. Lust and passion in a marriage is worship.
Mark is it really worship or is it that you are honoring God. This goes back to the order of submission and obeying God’s Word.
Pastor Mark> If you love God and your husband then you are worshipping God AS you serve your husband. You show love for God by loving your neighbor, it is not an either/or but instead a both/and.
Again this is not a form of worship but honoring God’s word.
There is a difference in the two of them. In the Greek it shows the differences:
Honor
timao (tim-ah'-o); to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by implication, to revere:
Honor
time (tee-may'); a value, i.e. money paid, or (concretely and collectively) valuables; by analogy, esteem (especially of the highest degree), or the dignity itself:
Honor is putting a value on something. Like if you bought a brand new car and washed it is that a state of worship? It is more of the order of obeying God’s word by taking care of it (by keeping it well maintained it will last longer and that makes us wise stewards of the finances God has supplied us (honoring God’s Word).
Look at Proverbs 31 are we not talking the Godliest explanation of a women? It doesn’t say any form of worship but complete honor and praise.
Even in Colossians it talks about the order of submission and it is as Honor to God not worship. There is a difference.
Worship
proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o); (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):
KJV-worship.
Worship is the ultimate expression of our Love for God.
William Wallace II <> I don’t know about you or any other man but I personally would not be able to concentrate on prayer and worship with my wife posing in various states of marital undress.
If you need a picture of your wife to praise God for then do it, but make it a picture you would share with a friend..
I can see it know I reading my bible at work in the lunch room get side tracked leave it and a guy I have been witnessing to sees it and looks at it (and he has a problem with sexual addiction) what just happened? Again we are pushing the envelope of reality, but it could happen. Anyone reading this post ever lost a bible or know of someone that has?
I personally have some nice pictures of my wife (dressed) but they stay in my drawer in our room for me to see. Come to think of it I don’t even look at them when I have a picture of the Bride God has given me burnt into my memory.
Pastor Mark and WWII I challenge you to be cautious on how you view and post things as it can affect many lives if the big picture is not looked at. This is purely said as a loving brother in Christ. I love your openness and honesty but lets make sure it is not just our opinion, but it is kept in the perspective of Christ, and in doing so we would not possibly cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble or confuse someone that is possibly considering a relationship with Christ.
God Bless


IP: Logged

Pastor Mark
Administrator   posted 02-13-2001 09:57 AM          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not disagree in principle. However, I would define worship in this way:
God initiates with us and we respond in an appropriate way that brings Him glory and subsequently us joy.
As such, I would say that all forms of honoring what God honors, and obeying what God commands count as worship if my motive is His glory. As a side benefit, when God is glorified I have joy because I am doing what I was created to do and seeing God in His rightful place upon His throne. Therefore, if I honor my wife, I believe that is worship to God. If I enjoy being with her intimately, I believe that is also worship to God. And if I obey Proverbs 5 and become captivated by her alone and find satisfaction in her breasts alone then that is also a form of worship to God. Why, because I am doing His will, according to His word, in His covenant of marriage, for His glory.
I believe that at its' root everything I do is either worship (according to God's Word and for His glory) or idolatry (against God's Word and for the glory of someone/something else).
But, you raise an excellent point. Christians should use their freedom in Christ to enjoy the life that GOd has given them in ways that honor GOd and are not sinful and rebellious. However, maturity dictates that we would gladly set aside some of our freedoms if we were to cause someone with weaker conscience to stumble into sin.

IP: Logged

In His Footsteps
Junior Member   posted 02-25-2001 11:11 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: by Digitalman
Footsteps, "I don't get the joke"? Who are you taking pictures of on film to be developed by strangers that would be eliciting lust? Is it your wife, or your hypothetical wife, or your girlfriend, or boyfriend? You know all about digital media, so why ask about the possible sin of the developer, yet state the defensive "I am so sorry that as we post on here some people just dont get the jokes at times..."?
It was more of rhetorical comment I figured it was a digital camera and stuff but I thought it would be a good area to put the thought out there some people don’t think past their next step.
Sorry for the confusion to you.. If you read my complete posting it is referenced to the issue of putting a picture of your wife (any married couple) in marital nakedness in your bible not to the issue of type of camera. But someone not thinking could go to a one-hour photo and not give it a thought. You know I sit back and wish you would read the complete postings as we should read the bible not just the verse..
Digitalman said:
I say it is because you do not have a subject (photographically), or you have the wrong subjects you'd like to pose for you, but won't; So, before you imply that whom you've never met (DigiMan) doesn't have some good advice for those who have (a wife), let go of your dick and your frustration, and the digital photography thing may do you some good someday. I pity you if you think that's a joke. Get a wife. If you're already married, get your wife to pose in the nude.
I look at your post and your response to a post you never read completely and I do and will question any advice you decide to give on marriage. Look at the way you respond to my post that you never read completely you attack me with a mouth that is an embarrassment to you and your wife along with Christ. Look in your bible and read James chapter 3: 5-12 talks about the tongue and what comes out of it is the heart of the person. Yes I will question you and you posting and would caution anyone else to do the same thing.
Also, just for you information if you would read my original post completely you would have read that I do have some very nice pictures of my wife. But what they look like is for my wife and I. Also, I keep them in a dresser so no one ever would see them and cause them to stumble and not in my bible that could be left where some one could see them.
God Bless
[This message has been edited by In His Footsteps (edited 02-25-2001).]
[This message has been edited by In His Footsteps (edited 02-25-2001).]
IP: Logged

In His Footsteps
Junior Member   posted 02-25-2001 11:18 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DigitalMan
As I go back and re read agian this COMPLETE POSTING I realized that the post you replied to was a responce to porkfry. We had been posting back and forth on this.
But agian if you would have read all the postings you would have figured that out I think.
I also would suggest that you maybee look to someone (an older man maybe a father figure)to help mentor you. The reason I suggest this is it sounds like from your last post to me that you have a lot of hidden issues that cause you to strike out at people.
God Bless and good luck.

[This message has been edited by In His Footsteps (edited 02-25-2001).]
IP: Logged

Shibboleth
Member   posted 03-14-2001 08:36 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------