Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.
(Ephesians 4:29 NIV)

Abraham Lincoln: “ Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.




We have built the case that Mark Driscoll’s messages sometimes include sexually explicit material.  His language and behavior are finally drawing criticism from a few highly respected Christian leaders.  What is curious to us is that the vast majority of pastors have been notably silent about Mark's unusual brand of Christianity.  In fact, even seminary professors are extolling the virtues of Driscoll.  Could it be that they are secretly delighted that Mark is showing the world that he's as cool and crass as the rest of society?  And just what does that say about him and his supporters?  The Bible clearly teaches that we are to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It's important to stress, as John MacArthur pointed out, that Pastor Mark's "sex talk" is not limited to pre-marital counseling or marriage seminars.  No, he speaks frankly about sex in church.  Not only that, he travels the world, extolling his personal views of sex in many different venues.  Perhaps the best description would be "Brother Mark’s Traveling Sex Show".  His marketing slogan could be: “I can get down and dirty with the best of them!” 

Mark Driscoll often speaks to mixed audiences, which can include children, teenagers, and singles. Unfortunately, the sex advice he freely gives as a pastor is sadly lacking in complete facts.  To illustrate what we mean, we have decided to look carefully at one area Mark sometimes discusses.  Here's the "titillating" question presented on the Mars Hill Church website.



If you're interested in Pastor Mark's "professional" advice, go to the above link. 


One of us is a former public health nurse with some background in the potential consequences of certain sexual behaviors.

Mark is no health care professional, yet he gives advice without carefully and fully discussing the possible health consequences.  For example, he encourages husbands and wives to participate in anal sex so long as it is not coercive.  That may sound well and good, but this shepherd fails to inform his “flock” that there are definite medical issues surrounding such a sexual act.  One only has to look at the homosexual population to see the potential problems.  We apologize up front for the graphic nature of the material we are about to present, but it is imperative that the truth be told.  Lives may be at stake! 

The lining of the rectum is far more fragile than the lining of the vagina and is subject to tears.  That's why Almighty God designed the female body in the magnificent way that He did!  If a tear occurs, there is an increased risk of infection.  Sometimes an abscess can form and this, in turn, can cause a fistula (hole) that can dump the contents of one’s rectum into other parts of the body. Remember, the rectum is a passageway for defecation. 


Human defecation is filled with a bacterium known as E coli.  This bacterium is good so long as it stays where it belongs — in the intestines and rectum.  However, if it enters the bloodstream due to rectal tearing, an infection (sometimes dangerous) can occur.  Furthermore, medical documentation shows that such sexual activity increases the occurrence of hemorrhoids that can cause pain and blood loss.  There are also reports that regular participation in this act can lead to a lessened ability to control the rectal muscle, resulting in a leakage of the expelled material.  Men can experience an increase in urinary tract infections that are far more dangerous in men than in women.

Because this kind of sexual activity is widely practiced in the homosexual population, there are many websites that provide medical information regarding potential consequences of this act.  For more information, here is one link:

Driscoll sycophants claim Mark is just relating to the culture in Seattle.  Well, "that dog don’t hunt"!  As his popularity has increased, Mark Driscoll has spoken to a wide array of audiences around the world. 

Furthermore, the last time we checked the Bible we did not see Jesus or Paul engaging in such explicit talks.  Did you notice that the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to do with sexual positions?   Also, Seattle doesn't hold a candle to Rome when it comes to a debased culture.

 Promiscuous behavior was an expected part of that culture and day as well.  For example, the ubiquitous household ”boy” was often the plaything of the male owner of the house.

As for Driscoll’s take on the Song of Songs, we have provided documentation in a previous post that Pastor Mark is taking tremendous liberties with the text.  It appears he does this sort of thing on a regular basis.  Mark Driscoll is one of the key players in the "New Calvinism" movement that demands the entire Bible be read in a wooden, literal sense.  He also takes current culture and imposes it on the biblical text.  


The Song of Solomon describes marital love; however, we believe it can also be interpreted as an allegory of God’s love for His bride, the church.  Solomon employed many literary devices in his poetic rendering of marital love; yet Driscoll chooses to interpret it to fit his “shock and awe" style.   We plan to discuss this sort of Biblical literalism in future posts.  Not to worry — we are conservative in our Biblical beliefs.

So how does a good Calvinista assess sexual sin?  Driscoll provides the usual ho-hum response.  The woman is to blame!  With regard to the fall of Ted Haggard due to his sexual sin with a male prostitute, Mark concluded on his blog that many pastors fall into sexual sin because their wives let themselves go. 


In his post Driscoll wrote, "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."

Mark brings into play that a wife’s lack of style is responsible for pastors who stray. Is this a double standard? What about the pastors? Do they bear any responsibility for their own behavior or appearance? Perhaps he should take a look at himself. The wearing of an extremely tight Mickey Mouse shirt on a slightly overweight body is hardly a fashion statement!

Of course, Mark engaged his mouth (typing fingers) before his brain and had to make a public apology.  It seems to be a chronic problem. . .


Driscoll appears to have a peculiar obsession with explicit sexual discussion in public forums. Is this merely an attention seeking device or could it be a thinly veiled cry for help? Is he setting up a plausible excuse for poor behavior by blaming pastors’ wives for inappropriate pastor behavior?

We live in a world that is weary and jaded.  Most "seekers" coming into our churches have experimented sexually, done drugs, and experienced their share of broken, uncommitted relationships.  Instead of offering them sex-saturated solutions, why not present them with the “Good News” and confine the frank sexual talks to premarital counseling and marriage conferences?

Comments are closed.