How far can we go? Or, is oral sex OK?

Mrs R and I have been watching The Peasant Princess from Mars Hill. We downloaded the episodes and burned them to DVD. Fantastic stuff (that's another post). Driscoll's pastoral heart can sometimes seem cold and hard, but it is precisely because he has a deep pastoral heart that he addresses issues so starkly. I was particularly struck by this comment, which I paraphrase loosely because I didn't jot it down at the time. It relates to non married couples and the oft asked question "How far can we go?" Oh, if I had a pound for every time I've heard that. Driscoll's reply:

When you ask, "How far can I go?" you are essentially asking "How far can I push sin?" That's the wrong question. The right question is "When is the right time?" to which the answer is "Marriage." Think of it like this. The Scriuptures say "treat younger women as sisters" (1 Tim 5.1-2) so guys, would you hang out with your sister? Yep! Would you hug your sister? Sure. Would you go to the cinema with your sister? Why not? Would you touch your sister in any sexual way at all? NO! NO! NO! There's your answer.

It's a great way of answering this pastoral hot potato - much better than the Joyce Huggett approach of my youth - which is putting all sexual activity on a scale and then "drawing a line." Driscoll's line might seem more subjective (no hard and fast rules of what's in and what's out), but is actually (in the long run) more objective, culturally sensitive and, of course, Scriptural.

He mentions this in response to something I've seen over here too (and perhaps hinted at in a letter to EN this month): that though couples may be wearing purity rings and saying that they are "virgins" when they marry, they are practising oral sex with no sense of wrongness or guilt.

7 comments:

Jonathan Hunt said...

I hate the series and couldn't get past episode one.

I am not a driscoll hater but I cannot get over 2 things:

i) his dismissal of the entire history of the interpretation of the book in a couple of sentences

and

ii) his nasty smutty joke about Jesus being gay.

i.e. "I hope the book isn't about Christ's love for me, because, you know, I don't want to be loved in that way"

Cue laughter. Or vomit in my case.

adrian reynolds said...

Interesting.

(i) I take the view that ultimately it must be about Christ if it is most obviously about marriage first (the two are closely related throughout Scripture) but that the primary meaning IS marriage. In other words, I don't want to choose between them. I have preached Songs and took this "both" line. So I guess I am seeing Driscoll's contribution for what it is - but you're right to pick up on this because the series is not, IMHO, Christ centred enough: however this doesn't stop it being useful.

(ii) missed that entirely. Was it episode 1? I must have been making the coffee. That is a typical Driscoll-ism which really gets me going. Unnecessary.

dave bish said...

I don't really like his dismissal of Christ & the Church as an interpretation, but watching/listening to them it seemed like a really really helpful series - surely we should be having series in our churches that can address these kind of subjects...

If not then Christians will simply learn this from the world instead, since our culture is happy to talk about it.

adrian reynolds said...

BTW - whatever you think of Driscoll, doesn't detract from this post which remains good pastoral advice.

Ann said...

I realise I look at things on a different level to you guys but I'm reassured that Jonathan felt sick, that is exactly how I felt too and couldn't finish episode one. Just too much negative, revolting detail.

As I became a christian after marriage and my husband has not, I find it difficult that both my sons are having sex outside marriage because they aren't christians either.

Where do I stand? I want them to be able to talk to me if they are having relationship problems without worrying that I will be judgemental. They are learning lessons the hard way. As a mum I believe my job is still unconditional love.

adrian reynolds said...

Ann, I think you're confusing details and issues.

(1) the issue of the meaning of the Songs is, I think, primarily about sex in marriage. Although you can argue that Driscoll argues his point inappropriately, his point is, I think, right - that is, the language is too explicit to be about first and foremost about the relationship between Christ and the church. However, by definition sex within marriage IS about Christ and the Church (Eph 5.25) so this is a valid secondary meaning.

I am not personally persuaded by the allegorical understanding when we have rejected that kind of thinking for all other 38 books of the OT. MacCulloch has ably shown how this really gained favour in the late middle ages because of a humanist revolt against understanding the book as an allegory of Mary and Christ.

(2) I don't think we can force biblical standards onto those who are not believers. Their need is for salvation, not moral application. Moral application comes through a transforming work of the Spirit. Of course, we must maintain what we think is wise and pure and useful - but just because we see others doing things we don't approve of outside of marriage, doesn't mean we must disapprove of it in.

Mrs R points out that she is quite "prudish" but she couldn't agree with your understanding - quite the opposite, in fact, thinking Driscoll careful in the way he talks and honest about the text.

Ann said...

Thanks, I admit I didn't get any further than the OT sexual behaviour that God disapproved of and the pornography etc today. I will try it again! My view is obviously about the sexual behaviour of young people today which is what I thought it was mainly aimed towards. Also, as you know I easily go off at a tangent - hehe! I'll just keep praying.