First, Mark Driscoll complains about teaching about Esther… a woman whom he calls a whore, but delights in the fact that she allows the men to make the decisions in her life. Notice that this goes together, even in psychology. Anyway… Driscoll is reading Esther as badly as he does Song of Solomon and teaching others how to do it.
I’m beginning to think his teaching expertise is about as real as Davy-Tee’s “doctorate,” but I digress.
Driscoll removes Esther from her “time” and puts her into his frame of mind – that of an agnostic woman with loose morals who has one saving grace – submitting to every man who comes along and knowing how to please her husband.
This is sick, no doubt, and wrong.
Rachel Held Evans has since responded. Good, I guess, but I am beginning to tire of responding to Marky Mark’s funky bunch, at least directly. In speaking with “Lightning” Rod today, I suggested a method of response he has used in the past – to speak past the opponent in such a way as to answer their garbage. Such as… instead of linking to Mark or mentioning his name, posting positively.
A little mimeticly, if you will.
I am not denying Scripture’s use of human experiences, including sex and sexual situations hot enough to make a stripper blush, but the reason I suggest Driscoll sees it as soft porn because he sees it as a sexual release filled with sex for sex’s sake, and only for the male. No story line, just S & M sex. Driscoll sees only fantasy…