Second subtitle would have been "Why not to Trust Pastors Who Speculate on what the Bible Means about Things it doesn't Mention." Driscoll got some (un)wanted press recently for his masturbation chapter in the laugh out loud funny Porn-Again Christian. The money shot...er...quote is:
First, masturbation can be a form of homosexuality because it is a sexual act that does not involve a woman. If a man were to masturbate while engaged in other forms of sexual intimacy with his wife then he would not be doing so in a homosexual way. However, any man who does so without his wife in the room is bordering on homosexuality activity, particularly if he's watching himself in a mirror and being turned on by his own male body.
This is only the first disturbing quote among many in this chapter. Here's the thing about qualifiers and examples; they're usually based on experience or common lexicon. If I'm illustrating something in class, I'm likely to draw on Eminem, Jay-Z, Family Guy, South Park, or a recent film. It's shared language and experience. Absent those options, I have to draw on common human experience, like initiating a new relationship before the old one is over, especially in the form of inappropriate texting, conversations at work, or flirtation that goes too far. Most students can identify with something in those examples. Driscoll offers a qualifier that is beyond bizarre, and quite frankly, probably drawn from his own bizarre experience. "...particularly if he's watching himself in a mirror..." Um, you know, in all honesty, most of us have tossed one off or rubbed one out from time to time, but watching in the mirror, well, that's just a special case. It seems Driscoll has reached into his own box of darkness here and found himself guilty of that common human error: everyone beats off like I do. Okay, maybe it's everyone thinks or does like I do, but still, it's hard not to see Driscoll (aka Maximus) in a pleated Roman skirty thing tossing one off in front of a cheval mirror. Helmet? Maybe. Sword? For sure. Ha! That's a Bible double entendre.
As for the assertion that masturbation borders on homosexual behavior, it's just idiocy. Homosexual behavior requires another person of the same sex to be present and participating (even voyeuristically) in the act. All Driscoll offers here is another reason (amongst the vast catalog) for young Christians to feel guilty about masturbating. Even after admitting that the Bible doesn't mention it, he goes on to offer "Practical and Theological Reasons not to Masturbate." Oh, little beater-offer, beware the pastor who uses theological as a euphemism for "it's not in the Bible but here's why God thinks it's important."
Another dead giveaway that Driscoll is both full of shit and a perv? His shitty interpretation of Song of Songs. Driscoll insists that Song of Songs 2:3 permits oral sex. Now, before we proceed, you should know that the Mosaic law expressly prohibits sodomy, and sodomy, dear beater-offers, can be oral or anal. Against all evidence to the contrary and all solid exegetical practices, Driscoll, because he likes blow jobs (and who doesn't?), is going to insist that this verse permits oral sex:
As an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. With great delight I sat in his shadow, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Most Biblical scholars, especially of the Hebrew expert variety, will tell you that euphemisms, idioms, and figures of speech are critically important for understanding a text. The use of a word idiomatically in more than one location is critical to understanding it as an idiom elsewhere. Fruit is nowhere else in the Tanakh used to mean testicles, penis, dick, cock, trombone, skin flute, nuts, jewels, pecker, etc. That Driscoll believes fruit here means dick or balls only means he's relentlessly American and a huge fan of bjs (and who isn't?). If you want to plumb the depths of his weirdness, check out his justification for cunnilingus, and yes, he uses the word in the soon to be banned in 84 countries chapter.
The most egregious example of his hubris, though, is the list of questions and answers in their entirety. Just read through and see how freely he interprets the text while ignoring or fucking the text in the ass (that's bad, by the way). I've seldom seen sexual preferences and peccadillos so clearly writ in exegesis. Enjoy, kids, but take a tissue along for the ride...
