The Driscolls on Sex: Sexual desire in young men November 12, 2008
Posted by Damian in Sex, Sexuality and Marriage.Tags: cultural norms, culture, God, grace driscoll, mark driscoll, marriage, mars hill, psychology, sex, sexual desire, social
trackback
I previously posted on the merit of the frank sex advice Mark and Grace Driscoll gave their congregation. For the most part, I said (in my complete lack of authority as an unmarried man), that I felt their answer were sound and much-needed. There is, however, one answer they gave that I think is dead-on wrong. That is the answer (close to my unmarried heart), to the question ‘Why does God give young men such strong sexual desires?‘. Their complete answer:
To motivate them toward growing up and honorably taking a wife. Nearly every man wants to have sex. The issue is which woman he will have sex with. If he grows up, leaves home, walks with God, pursues his career, and then marries his bride to enjoy her biblically, then his love for her was part of God’s motivation to turn a boy into a man by making him take manly responsibility. Since most young men want sex, that desire is to encourage them to not settle for having sex with their hand or with their girlfriend, but rather grow up and lovingly enjoy their wife.
First of all, I think this attitude towards young male sexual desire encourages young couples getting married early, at the drop of a hat, when they’re inexperienced and immature, simply to satisfy their desires. This is a wrong reason to marry. It’s that simple. But it doesn’t clarify what the right reason to marry is.
Until recently, marriage was a social tool. It was used to bring families together, and to prevent social discord. It wasn’t an issue of love. It wasn’t an issue of desire. It would often happen at an early age – soon after puberty. Love was an important part of marriage – God makes this clear – but the reason he commands love in marriage is because it always had to be worked on. It wasn’t the purpose of marriage, which is the reigning opinion in our culture (I’ve posted on this here). In smaller, more interdependent and often more violent societies, marriage was a way to bind disparate groups together.
What’s more, until relatively recently, you didn’t wait to have sex before marriage, you got married when you began having sex (I’ve posted about this here). Desire wasn’t a motivating factor for marriage, because marriage hasn’t always occurred before sex. Until recently, it always occurred between the engagement and marriage, and, in fact, had to occur before the marriage, or there would be none. So, whilst sex was reserved for marriage, it was never an incentive for marriage.
The Driscoll’s opinion seems, to me, to be a classic example of assuming that our current cultural norms are God’s norms. But they aren’t. God transcends norms. We should be careful of making the assumption that popular western (American) culture is God’s culture. I don’t claim to know the right reason for marriage. Within my culture, it seems love and security are the right reasons. But I don’t assume that these are God’s reasons, nor that they are universal reasons.
I don’t know why young men have such strong sexual desires. But I would suggest it is because they were designed to be married earlier, to have careers and homes at a far earlier age than we do in the 21st century west. Those desires were designed to be a joy within marriage, not as a motivator for marriage. Our having to deal with those desires is a symptom of our consumer culture, our expansive system of education and our acclimatisation to a higher level of comfort, not of God directing us towards sex within marriage or of God torturing us with desires that aren’t to be fulfilled.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
So what you are saying in this post and the older one is that in the past:
1. Sex was permissible after engagement.
2. Marriage did not occur until after sex.
I guess I’m not really following you. I read both posts but it doesn’t really make sense to me. Would you be willing to do a step-by-step or chronological occurrence of what exactly was acceptable?
Sure Nathan. This was basically how things worked:
Girl & Guy fell in love/marriage was arranged.
Girl & Guy had a ‘betrothal’ (engagement) ceremony.
Girl & Guy moved in together (often with one or the other family).
Girl falls pregnant.
Girl & Guy are then taken to a priest to be married.
This was under Jewish, Orthodoxy and pre-Trent Catholicism (with slight differences).
Basically, you got married because you had had sex; you didn’t wait until you got married until you had sex.
I’m not claiming this is the way things should be done now – culture is as good a reason to do things such as marriage in a certain way as any. But we should be aware that our culture isn’t necessarily the only way God does things.
And considering that our culture didn’t develop the post-marital sex characteristic until after 1500 (when protestant England secularised marriage), I doubt very much if it’s God’s will.
And, it must be noted, that this doesn’t encourage sexual promiscuity – sex is still inexorably tied to marriage. This is indicated in scripture quite clearly. It’s just not necessarily tied in only the way western Christianity sees it.
Does that help?
Yes a bit. So my next question is, what happened if the woman never became pregnant? Could the man divorce her or break off the engagement and then repeat the scenario with another woman in the hopes of offspring with another?
This is a really helpful post and is stirring some ideas in my head. Are there any resources you could point me towards that go into this in more detail?
I believe there was a right of divorce if there were no children, although I’m not 100%.
I don’t know of any books that piece it all together like I have. The Jewish background I got from ‘The Essential Talmud’ (Steinstalz) and ‘Back to the Sources’ (Holtz). The Catholicism stuff I believe I found on the Catholic Encyclopaedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/) and wikipedia. I didn’t include much on Orthodoxy (although it started the interest), but what I know I pieced together from websites on Eastern Orthodox marriage and the information on marriage and tradition on Father Stephen’s site (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/). It’s an ongoing interest for me to look into the history of marriage rituals, but I haven’t come across any academic-quality material on it. I’m sure there’s more out there – but to be honest, I’ve only scraped the surface so far.
Hope my response didn’t disappoint you
but if you find anything in depth on the subject, I’d appreciate it if you let me know. Most of what I’ve found in books are in paragraph or two long tidbits of larger cult descriptions.
Will do. I’m going to point my friend/pastor to this topic and see what he thinks. It makes for an interesting backgroun for the whole Mary/Joseph scenario, among others.
It certainly does. But notice that the Gospels are somewhat silent on the subject. Any reading into Joseph/Mary’s marriage really is us reading into the context.
“The Driscoll’s opinion seems, to me, to be a classic example of assuming that our current cultural norms are God’s norms. But they aren’t. God transcends norms. We should be careful of making the assumption that popular western (American) culture is God’s culture. I don’t claim to know the right reason for marriage. Within my culture, it seems love and security are the right reasons. But I don’t assume that these are God’s reasons, nor that they are universal reasons.”
This is a really good insight.
Thanks Brian.
Hi Damien, I clicked through from Steve’s blog and landed here, perhaps out of prurient motive. If you want an exhaustive treatment of the subject, c. 500-1500, check _Law, Sex, and Society in Medieval Europe_, by James Brundage. It’s available as a Google book.
The locus classicus for later medieval canon law is Raymond de Penafort’s Summa de Poenitentia et Matrimonio (mid 13th cent.). I’ve got a translation of the most relevant bits, if you’re interested.
Thank’s Jared – I remember you from Steve’s comments. I’ll check out the Google book when I have a moment. I’m curious about the de Penafort text, but the truth is I doubt I’m knowledgeable enough to understand much of it. If you’ve got it online, though, I’d love to see the relevant sections. Thanks!
I just want to encourage all of you out there who are seeking wisdom on the issue of marriage and Gods views of marriage- please, seek the Bible for answers rather than human wisdom that will always fall short of Gods unfathomable knowledge. The bible clearly teaches that marriage is meant and planned by God to be a clear picture of Christs love and care for the Church. Jesus Christ has pursued those who are members of the Church by His grace and are given the gift of knowing Him because of Christs work on the cross. The churchs role is to submit to and love Christ while His role (one of many) is to support and build up the Body. The wives of husband and wives should fall in this same way if they are truly in a marriage that is designed by God. This is what marriage is designed to portray regardless of any cultural norms-with Christ, those have no importance-all that matters is the truth of Christ found in Scripture and living lives that glorify Him and exemplify His perfect will for our lives. Marriage only exists rightly when it is in perfect alignment with the Holy Scriptures. May Gods perfect grace grant you all wisdom and knowledge of the heights and depths and lengths and widths of Christs love.
[...] entitled Pre-Trent, Catholic, and Protestant Marriage, but also out ahead of the pack were a post on sexual desire in young men (oh! total depravity strikes again!), and a post questioning the validity of ‘the [...]