Monday, April 30, 2007

Driscoll on Daily Sex

After I saw Driscoll's video today (see previous post) I found this post from Internet Monk that gives a friendly critique on Driscoll's "style of maleness" and his particular assertion that men want to learn how they can have sex with their wives at least once a day. While I think that particular remark was not really the point of Driscoll's message, I.M. uses it as a launching pad to articulate a fear that many seem to have about Driscoll, namely that he may be presenting Christianity "primarily as a way to great maleness."

With Driscoll's emphatic - and often brutally brusque - call to male leadership in the church, I can see how many may not be able to see past this. Yet, his read on the culture is accurate, at least in my experience; both within the Church and without, we generally have men who are practically neutered and passive or irrelevantly hyper-masculine. I appreciate Driscoll's frankness regarding the issues with which he is passionate. I like that he walks a fine line between the overindulged secular culture and the oversheltered church culture. I like that he addresses sex in the context of Christianity (I laughed when he talked in the video about dudes "banging their girlfriends." Not because that is funny, but because the 2 times I have heard sex referred to by the pastors at my church, it is called "physical intimacy" - two very different approaches, methinks. I find it sad that most of us have learned way more about sex from wherehaveyou than from the church.)

I think, like myself and everyone I know, Driscoll falls at times into imbalance with the issues he pushes. But at the end of the day, I think this dude loves Jesus more than his issues.

If you know much of Driscoll or have comments regarding the video, I'd love to hear your thoughts.


ckhnat said...

I think you'll find Mars Hill's recent Men's Basic Training podcast very engaging ... at one point in his ministry he was doing marriage counseling with a couple and his homework assignment was to come back in a month after having made love once a day for thirty days to assess if the wife still thought that they were having communication issues. apparently not ...

vandorsten said...

ha! nice... i will check that out. congrats on the engagement and upcoming marriage, btw. i keep up with your posts, but don't think i've ever commented - but you write and think well.

Truitt said...

guy in bar: "you wanna go back to my place for some physical intimacy?"

Allie said...

um, I did not like to Driscoll's message. But I do know one thing:

1. I hate the phrase "made love"
2. Most women I know want to have sex everyday when they are married, too. In the words of Harry Carrie:

"I know I would."

Allie said...

oops. type-o. Meant to say, "I didn't listen to the message."

vandorsten said...

The Truitt: I hope you are never that guy. "That guy."

1. Yes. I don't know why (other than that phrase makes me think of cheesy ballads from the 70's and 80's.)
2. Yes. Unfortunately, though, expectation and reality collide in this area for most married folk I know. Which is a bummer.

Jason said...

Although guy in bar saying "Wanna go back to my place so I can bang you?" probably wouldn't work either.

Actually, that probably would work. Girls like jerks.

Sex is awesome (speaking from observation, not experience), but I'm uncomfortable with encouraging the expecation or practice of doing it every day. Especially in today's culture, sex becomes an end to itself, and the other person a tool for one's own pleasure. I'd hate to see that even begin to happen in a marriage. I think there would come a point (that likely isn't reached in only one month) when a couple realizes they need to romance each other in non-sexual ways to keep the sexual chemistry alive. After all, good sex isn't so much about the sex itself, but about the covenant/sacramental relationship between husband and wife.

And in response to vandorsten's question on Matt's blog, I've been praying and discerning about the priesthood for the past year or so. I used to attend Sojourn regularly (and still like to go there sometimes) and became Catholic a year ago. Matt and I go way back to our Springdale Church days.

vandorsten said...

Jason - I think your thoughts there are good. Daily sex sounds great to me, but that can be a killer expectation because practically, it just could not work out for prolly 99% of married folk. Just guessing, but at some point, it seems it would only become the fulfillment of a driving biological desire and little else.

I have an analogy.

I love a good filet mignon. I don't get to have a good steak often, but when i do... oh mercy. I eat slow. I don't gobble - I dine. I savor that baby.

Now, I would be happy as could be if I ate filet mignon every single day. No question. But, although I would still enjoy it, I know that the increased frequency of the experience would decrease the 'specialness' of it. It's not that I would cease to enjoy it... but I would guess that on some level, I would have less appreciation and would certainly not savor the experience as much.

The correlation I am making is incomplete, obviously, but mostly accurate I think. I can't say that is true for everyone, but I would say it would be true for most.

There can certianly be much enjoyment in frequent sex, no question. But there is definitely a deep sweetness in restraint and anticipation.

I think there should be seasons of both between husbands and wives.

Jason said...

Definitely. There's a reason we fast from things we like, not because we enjoy suffering, but simply to recognize that everything we've been given came from God. That's part of what I appreciate so much about Natural Family Planning. Instead of using a pill to subdue the cycle of fertility that God designed, NFP allows a couple to work with God's design and use times of fasting from sex to not only plan when they want to have kids, but to regularly engage God as the center of their marriage through prayer and serving each other. It's so simple, yet genius at the same time :)