Saturday, August 30, 2014

Real Marriage in January 2012 and William Wallace II's "Using Your Penis" from January 2001--comparing talking points and positions

Earlier this year Wenatchee The Hatchet published not only a majority of "Pussified Nation" but also other materials published by Mark Driscoll under the pen name William Wallace II.  Lost in the public statements made about the pen name are any observations about the substance of what Driscoll wrote under that pen name.  That he expressed regret for having written under the pen name is a given; that he retracted the substance of what he said is open to some interpretation and, unfortunately, no one to the left of an imaginary center seems to have seen fit to actually discuss the substance of what Driscoll wrote.  There has been, to be sure, a lot of discussion about the tone and language of what William Wallace II wrote, but what has not happened is to consider whether there is any continuity between anything Mark Driscoll wrote in 2001 under the pen name William Wallace and later publications.

First, if you haven't read the thread "Using Your Penis"

Presented in sequence are posts William Wallace II/Mark Driscoll published in that discussion from the old Midrash, starting on January 8, 2001. Comments and questions from other participants have been omitted here for sake of brevity.

 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

 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

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.


 Uh. Duh

 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

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

Pastor Mark
 Administrator   posted 02-06-2001 05:49 PM          
 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

Now that we've laid the groundwork for what Driscoll wrote as William Wallace II in January 2001, we can proceed to a brief overview of the much-discussed Chapter 10 from Real Marriage, published by Thomas Nelson and authored by Mark and Grace Driscoll, from 2012.  Again, the pertinent question with respect to the writing of William Wallace II (better known as Mark Driscoll) is to find out what level of continuity and discontinuity may exist in the substance of what Driscoll endorses or says.

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)

Chapter 10, Can We _____?

Page 172

… Before we answer the most common and controversial questions, a bit of preface will be helpful. If you are older, from a highly conservative religious background, live far away from a major city, do not spend much time on the Internet, or do not have cable television, the odds are that you will want to read this chapter while sitting down, with the medics ready on speed dial.

If you are one of those people who do not know that the world has changed sexually, read this chapter not to argue or fight, but rather to learn about how to be a good missionary in this sexualized culture, able to answer people’s questions without blushing. 

The questions today are different, and if people don’t get answers from pastors and parents, they will find them in dark, depraved places. …

Page 173

… Throughout this book in general, the next few chapters in particular, we are explaining what a married couple may do, not what they must do. The Bible often gives more freedom than our consciences can accept, and we then choose not to use all of our freedoms. This is true of us (Mark and Grace); we do not do everything that is mentioned in this book or the ensuing chapters, although we are free in Christ to do so if our consciences should ever change. Those wanting more detailed analysis on the frequency of various sexual practices will find it in appendix V of the e-book and on our website

These caveats are significant in that what the Driscolls were willing to endorse as permissible if mutually agreed upon by married people should not be construed as a litany of things either of them would necessarily feel comfortable with.

Summary of topics addressed:
Oral sex
Anal sex
Menstrual sex
Sex toys
Birth control
Cosmetic surgery
Sexual medication (i.e. drugs)
Marital sexual assault

This list has been discussed at some length by other writers in the past and the survey of evangelical reactions to this chapter hardly bears repeating. 

However, the substance of what has been discussed in the chapter itself is worthy of review.  T
he Driscolls wrote in Chapter 10 of Real Marriage that masturbation is not forbidden by the Bible. They quickly dismiss the popular prooftext of Genesis 38:6-10 that refers to Onan by pointing out that the sin for which God killed Onan was the failure to produce offspring to carry on the name of his brother, and that Onan probably withdrew after sex with his sister-in-law to prevent insemination and pregnancy.

Page 182

But the story of Onan says nothing of masturbation. Instead, the story is about a man who died leaving his wife a childless widow. The dead man’s brother was then expected to marry his widowed sister-in-law, have normal sexual relations with her, and enable her to have children. Although Onan was happy to have sex with his sister-in-law,, he would pull out of her to ejaculate on the ground rather than obey God and become a father. His sin was not masturbation but wanting to have sex with a vulnerable sister-in-law without being in any way obligated or committed to her.

For a cross reference to this kind of ancient near Eastern expectation, consult the passages about Levirate marriage consult Deuteronomy 25, although this narrative case of Onan would predate such laws by centuries. 
On to the business at hand, the Driscolls say that there is no prohibition in the Bible against masturbation as such and that it is an act that can be legitimate within marriage depending on a variety of variables. 

Oral sex:

The Driscolls say that it’s okay. The passages cited in Song of Songs are 4:12-5:1 and 7:2. But that these passages refer to oral sex is not entirely clear.  Scholars have indicated that there are references to past sexual activities that are completed but that the poetry is more allusive than specific. 

Anal sex:

The Driscolls state that the Bible does not forbid the act (though if you were to refer to the average Puritian author both anal and oral sex would be considered very bad).  They go so far as to note that “sodomy” is not a word that appears in the Bible but is derived from a passage in Genesis 19.  The word is described as not referring to anal sex between a husband and wife but to homosexual acts.  That others have pointed out that Ezekiel condemned the people of Sodom for being inhospitable can be set aside for some other occasion.  It suffices to say that in Real Marriage both Mark and Grace Driscoll affirm that anal sex between married heterosexuals is legitimate if both agree to it. 
It is here that the Mark Driscoll of 2012 seems more direct about a subject than the Mark Driscoll of 2001.  There's no sign of William Wallace II referring to anal sex at all. For those who read the William Wallace II material above, there's definitely a 2001 reference to ...

Menstrual sex:

Here the Driscolls note that the Old testament had explicit prohibitions and discuss the fairly standard Christian interpretive paradigm of moral, ceremonial and civil law and swiftly designate that a prohibition against sex during menstruation is in the part of the law that no longer applies.  On this particular subject Driscoll 2001 and Driscoll 2012 don't seem hugely different.

After all, in 2001 William Wallace II wrote:
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.

And yet that prohibition against sex with a menstruating woman was in the Old Testament.  If God punished Israel for failing to observe all of the laws given through Moses would God have been unjust for punishing Israel if the men insisted on having sex with their wives during their periods?  Neither Driscoll as William Wallace II in 2001 nor Driscoll in 2012 seems to have found that a particularly pertinent question.
The other discourses on the other kinds of sex that are or are not permitted are not of any particular interest to Wenatchee The Hatchet.   
Overall it doesn't seem that there is exactly a huge amount of difference in substance or even tone between the Mark Driscoll of 2012 in Real Marriage and the Mark Driscoll who wrote as William Wallace II in 2001 on "Using Your Penis".  When some ask why there's any point in bringing back into the public sphere material Mark Driscoll wrote "fourteen years ago" it is because it wasn't all just written in 2000.  "Using Your Penis" was published at the start of 2001, not really fourteen years ago, if we're going to be picky about spans of time.  Another reason is that the substance of what Driscoll was saying as William Wallace II has enough correspondence to material in Real Marriage that it seems worth highlighting.  The change and growth may be that Driscoll more openly endorses the option of married Christians to engage in anal sex, use sex toys, and some role-playing.  He was already addressing the subject of menstrual sex in 2001 and seemed to arrive at the conclusion that it was a solid option more than a decade ago.

Where Driscoll may have changed, as well, is on the matter of photos of naked wives in Bibles.  After all, one of his children is old enough to head off to college.  It seems supremely improbable that sort of Bible bookmark is going to be around now at the Driscoll house.  Even if we suppose, as some have suggested, that what Driscoll wrote fourteen years ago was "in character" where did Driscoll draw upon for this character?  When Driscoll mentioned that physical aggression among brothers is a sign of brotherly love where did he get that idea for William Wallace II, even if we assume it is a character.  If anything "Using Your Penis" suggests that the ease with which Driscoll transitioned "out of character" into Pastor Mark can make it seem to a reader that the alter ego may have had more of Mark Driscoll in him than William Wallace the "first".

What is striking about "Using Your Penis" thirteen years later is that it was begun by William Wallace II who, as the discussion wound down, switched over to writing directly as Pastor Mark while maintaining complete continuity of tone, voice, and substance. 

No comments: