[Mara]

Thanks, ls, for elaborating and the earlier cbe suggestions.
I started to read the paper but time got away from me. I hope to get back to it.

[EricW]

It seems, though, that the idea of "Christian marriage" - i.e., celibacy/abstinence within marriage ("Christian marriage" is I think the term Rubenstein uses for this in his book on Nicea that I mention in another thread http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=2928.msg34185#msg34185) - got a foothold in the church rather early on. And I don't think it always followed upon mutual agreement by both partners. I'm not sure to what extent Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians on spouses having authority over each other's bodies and staying apart only for a time, and by mutual agreement, were brought up in the church in its early centuries.

[BobE]

Hhmmm.
From what I can tell, Dillow says that things could be about oral sex, not that things are about oral sex.
Whereas Driscoll takes it, runs with it, and says that it not only is about oral sex, but that there is an underlying command for the activity from God.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/01/real-marriage-is-mark-driscoll-fudging-in-the-footnotes-by-peter-lumpkins.html

There is a huge difference between could maybe be and definitly is. It appears that Driscoll boldly crosses a line that Dillow doesn't. Therefore, I respect Dillow's perhap and...

 

at Driscoll's must be.

I'm very wary of anything that seems to command one person to perform sexually for another.  In my mind, this does not reflect the heart of God.  Human sexuality is designed as an expression of love--passionate love to be sure, but love nonetheless. 

In my counselling practice, one thing that has deeply troubled me is the way a patriarchal understanding of the Bible is often used to lend legitimacy to a man's sexual demands.  Love is not demanding.  It does not require a husband or wife to perform in a manner that causes discomfort.

My favourite book on the subject of marriage and sexuality is an old classic called, Married for Good, by R. Paul Stevens.  The section of the book entitled "six loves" places eros in a very healthy context, in my opinion.  There is also a chapter devoted entirely to the mystery of human sexuality.  I found it to be quite balanced.  Sexuality is celebrated, but not abused. 

[dallasapple]

Im sure no one would be surprised to know the way the verse is written (mutual agreement) that many spout isnt TOO have sex..is to NOT have sex..IOW if one partner wants to have sex adn the other one doesnt (with any encounter ) then the one thats "not in the  mood " at the moment needs their spouses consent to NOT have sex..not the other way around..

IOW the right to NOT consent to sex is given to your partner..If I dont want to have sex later on tonight and my husband does when he initiates I dont TELL him no ..I ask him if he will consent to me not enganging then he gets to decide if I do or dont engage in sex..Sad thing is if his answer is no .."No I do not consnet to YOU not havign sex with me now"..Mutual has nothing t do with both decidign to have sex..only both decidign to not have sex..and if one decides to have sex and the other one doesnt want to no "mutual " YES is involved..

You dont have to ASK yoru partner to have sex with you ..you just are autmatically entitled whenever you want it..unless YOU agree they dont have to if they ask you to be excused..Its up to YOU if you think they have a good enough "reason"...to not have sex with you ...

Dallas

[dallasapple]

Oh also I think Mark Discoll is a full blown mysogynist..

BUT I did read the book "Intimacy Ignited" by Dillow and Pintus and I think its the saem Dillow ya'll are talking about..its been a whille and it is a breakdown (their translation) of SoS...I LOVED it..it was pretty steamy..however I remember them saying there was 2 schools of thought on it(is it sex or specific sex acts being described or not)..I also dont remember any suggestion that anything in the story (book) was any kind of command on how Christians SHOULD have sex includign specific sex acts..IOW to my memory I dont remember gettign the idea I had to use SoS let only their translation as some sort of "I must do this act or else Im disobedient to God"..or Im nt having Godly sex with my husband..

Anyway I feel sorry for Mark Driscolls wife he seems like a pig to me..

Dallas

[Retha]

Dallasapple, about your reply #18: That would have been a literal interpretation, if the word only meant sex.

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife her [due benevolence/ due goodwill] : and likewise also the wife unto the husband. :4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. :5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not.

But that same word is translated with benevolence and goodwill, in a non-sexual context, elsewhere in the New Testament. The partner who wants it now will not render due goodwill if he takes without consent.

[dallasapple]

Dallasapple, about your reply #18: That would have been a literal interpretation, if the word only meant sex.

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife her [due benevolence/ due goodwill] : and likewise also the wife unto the husband. :4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. :5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not.

But that same word is translated with benevolence and goodwill, in a non-sexual context, elsewhere in the New Testament. The partner who wants it now will not render due goodwill if he takes without consent.

Many times when that has been suggested/pointed out it doesnt just mean sexual relations...but good will towards one another ..its rebutted that it couldnt mean that unless you are suggesting you should agree to abstain from benevolence and good will for a time..How coudl that ever be suggested be benevolent to one another unless you mutually decide to not for fasting and prayer..Does that make sense?

My take is its common sense..at least I know from my angle I would NOT want my husband to feel like he had to have sex with me no matter how he felt unless I decdided he had a good enouhg reason ..knowing it was not his desire at the time..to me it just seems undignified and degrading..Well thats when its suggested that the undesiring partner must "pretend" that they really want to IOW fake it.The feelings of the more amorous partner are elevated it appears to more important....the the desire to be sexual is "righteous" and the one with "less desire' that state of being is unrighteous unless you go ahead and "do it" and do "it" enthusiastically as a sacrifce..But remember you keep it to your self that its a sacrifice..Sounds liek a bunch of game playing to me..Also I have a hard time not thinking "rape" if its true you actually lose the right to NOT consent to sex..ESPECIALLY when you have persons such as Driscoll preaching that any sex act as long as its just the two of you thats requested is mandated...or you fall back into that "unrighteous even sinful cateragory if you refuse any sex act one partner wants..To me it eerily sounds like you are expected to be a porn actress(or actor) when you put it all together..

Dallas

[Don]

The context is set by 1 Cor 7:1, which is no one (not even married people) having sex (touching a woman is a euphemism).