Sex! Outrage! The Internet! Doug Wilson, Rachel Held Evans, and The Gospel Coalition
Perhaps I'm just getting old. I did turn 40 last week. But I must admit, my first read of Jared Wilson's now infamous post, "The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc.," didn't outrage me. It didn't even offend me. It did, however, confuse and creep me out.
On his personal blog at The Gospel Coalition's website, Jared ran the cold-shower-of-an excerpt from Doug Wilson's 13-year-old book, Fidelity: What It Means to Be A One-Woman Man, where Doug writes, "true authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity."
[Note: Due to the overzealous reproductive nature of the Wilsons in this world, for the purposes of this post, CT will break from its usual style of using last names in citation and instead will be using first names to distinguish between Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson, who, as a commenter pointed out, are unrelated.]
The real tweetable line was Doug's description of love-making. "A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants," Doug wrote. "A woman receives, surrenders, accepts."
Lovely. If only we could put that to music.
It all culminated with this line from Doug: "However we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party." Combine sex, gender debates, 50 Shades of Grey, and you have a recipe for an Internet explosion.
Despite Doug and sex and pleasure parties, I couldn't generate personal outrage. My ick-tank was full, and I was done with the whole thing. Of course, unless you've been hiding in an e-cave, you know that the Internet was far from done.
A day or so later, we read Rachel Held Evans' take on Jared's post. I realized I had missed so many of the fine points she raised, and thought, Ah, to be young and outraged again!
Indeed, Doug's sexual conquest language is troubling, especially considering what Paul says. "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband," Paul writes. "In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." And yet Doug's image of sex could be read as men are monster-esque and women helpless fools. Sex is a realm of God's kingdom deserving redemption.
A key issue raised by Held Evans and others includes attention given the countless women who have suffered sexual abuse or been raped in their churches, in their families, in their marriages and had it "justified" through a twisted theology of sex. Doug's words are not only confusing but potentially damaging. But so is the fallout from all of this. TGC has updated the top of the original post to reflect the following warning:
"[TRIGGER WARNING]: The content of this post (and resulting comments) contains language and imagery that may be sensitive or harmful to victims of sexual abuse or rape."
Stay Sexy or Else? Well, Please Forgive These Mommy Hips
Desperate for Their MRS. Degrees
'The Office' Shows Even TV Romance Isn't Picture-Perfect
The Double Shock of Unexpected Pregnancy
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 94 comments
See all comments
Randy Bella
Ladies, I think the whole conversation started at the cliff and now is on free fall. Open the chutes quickly. I think I will continue to be prudish about the "material" that you here have all-over the seats in the packed train. Now, I have not read anything written by Wilson, but I have seen some of his debates in YouTube and he seems to be a decent man. Now, if he did write the quotes you make, I think he went off on a limb there, and the language he uses does not appear to be godly. That is one way to get it wrong, depart from the language the Lord uses, and you may bring into the topic lots of cultural baggage you may not realize you carry--not good. I will let you all be with tone of this discussion--all flustered. Bye for now.
Ann
Part of what I am saying is that if you don't agree with parts of the bible and believe stories in the OT were fabricated story time fables/stories instead of truth - you lack faith in what God can do (in my opinion). i.e Jonah in the belly of a whale. And that is my interpretation yes. I am allowed to believe what I believe is right and wrong theology. Most of us do. And thus disagree with those who believe different - do we not? But what I was really hinting at was that (yes in my opinion - sue me! lol - but I am allowed to have an opinion!!!) that if you believe science over the bible where there is a contradiction IN MY OPINION! you lack faith in what God can do and what He said He did do in the OT as truth. And or that you lack understanding that all there is to know about science is not yet discovered. Personally, I always put God's Word and His truth before any discoveries in science and over any discoveries in science. My faith isn't in science but in God and His Word. They eventually should line up - since God created the world and wrote the bible but because of the fall we do not know a lot and sometimes what we do discover is twisted or not the full truth or tainted by evil or false or misplaced or not the whole picture thus the guess is wrong as it is only from part of the whole etc etc etc
Jeannette Altes
Ann, hmm..... your argument seems to suggest that if someone does not agree with your interpretation they have no faith. Ouch.
Ann
Ah okay! Thanks loolund! Glad then that this isn't something that is being pushed because in my opinion it is so wrong to view like that but when you don't get biblical teaching ut secular teaching I can see how that is pushed instead of the full story! Regarding the science and sun and scriptures in the OT I read a quote last night that fits perfectly.... went something like "A person of faith needs no evidence but for a person with no faith all the perfect evidence will never do"
loolund
My understanding of Rachel Held Evan's posts regarding this was, this is what she - as a teen - felt was important. I teach, and I am always struck with what adults say and how teens perceive them. Marking numerous papers have shown me how quickly many teens boil down what is being said to things that interest them, even if those points of interest are minor. It is entirely possible the leaders were not trying to focus solely on the physical act and/or a person's sexual status, but many now-adults have said that is what they heard when they went to talks like the one Rachel went to.
Ann
BTW I find it funny often how Christians think parts of the Old Testament can not be literally true often because science yet has not proven it to be so or goes against it. We by no means have the full picture of perfect science and was is or not possible or what is or was not possible in history. Or that some Christians see scripture as saying something that goes against what they could imagine to be true because they cannot see yet or now or before the full picture of what was going on in those times or other factors at play. We do not have the full story now, we don't have the full story of what it was like back then either. Also is not our God big enough to do what He wants with His creation? Surely He is above and beyond the laws of science that He made and He knows science better than we do. I think that is what miracles are all about :)
Ann
Ah thank you for explaining loolund! :) Glad you agree! Is RHE saying that the Vagina is the only important thing to "guard" and pledge in regards to virginity? Or that is not what she is saying?
loolund
Hi Collin, OK, I thought you were calling her a heretic because she used some anatomical term (or may use it) in her up-coming book - which seems to have been preemptively been condemned by some. I don't know what you are referring to about inerrancy. She once said inerrancy made her scalp itch (in a Letterman style top ten list of church-going discomforts - over a year ago). I wouldn't read too much into that. The word inerrancy needs to be better qualified for anyone to say that someone doesn't believe it. For example - do you believe the sun orbits the earth? No? Well, now you to no longer believe the Bible is inerrant - see the story in Book of Joshua of Joshua stopping the sun in it's tracks to lengthen the day (as opposed to poetry in the Psalms). It is told in historical recounting fashion, is not poetry, and is written in an account. Yet, I know of no Christian who believes the sun orbits the earth. Some of us are fine with Biology showing us how God made the earth, and don't suffer from such weak faiths that require science to be manipulated to "prove" a literalist version of Gen. 1 (while ignoring the fact that Gen. 2 is not, at all, a more detailed version of Gen. 1, but a completely different creation story - complete with a different order of creation. Was Adam created before or after the plants or animals? and you are not allowed to use the NIV for this one as the NIV notoriously fudged the wording to make it seem that the garden was planted after, but check an earlier version, and lo, Adam arrives before the plants, in direct contradiction to Gen. 1, etc., etc., etc. You know, at the end of the day, Rachel is honest. The Bible can't be taken as inerrant in a scientific, factual sense, when it's opening 2 chapters contradict one another. It can be inerrant in a message conveyed, a story told, and truths revealed, but the desperation of some to try and say the Bible is inerrant in Genesis, yet never cutting of their own hand, or other organ, when they sin, shows everyone, whether they admit it or not, picks and choses their way through the Bible. Despite this author's obvious distain for Rachel Held Evens, she is right to point out that complementarianism is case of The Emperor Has no Clothes. Really?, men and woman have different roles. OK, so back this up in the Bible. Women shouldn't lead - unlike Deborah, women shouldn't teach men - unlike Pricilla, women shouldn't speak in a church - unlike Phoebe and all the prophets Paul addresses in his letter and so on, and so on. So, what is the role of women???? See, Paul didn't not set out to write Torah. If Paul knew the people of our time were trying to turn his letters into law, he would turn over in his grave. For we have missed the forest for the trees. Paul was telling people they were free from the law, free to live for Christ. Assigning roles, insisting on natural born leaders and saying women can't have a voice in the church would have been an anathema to Paul, and yet here is our society charging right into it. No matter who has told you what about this verse, this verse reflects the heart of Paul's teaching: There is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female - you would do well to meditate on this verse - as this is a glimpse of God's Kingdom.
loolund
Hi Anne, I agree, but that is not what I was referring to, I was arguing that RHE was using this in her upcoming book because she felt that only her vagina's status was what was important in the purity pledges (or whatever it was) she was called to take as a teen. It is her experience that I was referring to - I should have clarified what I was talking about - Collin was complaining about her posts using the word (debating whether to use the word "vagina" in one of her sentences, as Christians can often get offended by this word, while not, apparently by the word "penis" which lead to a whole spin-off of discussions), and that is what I assumed Collin was referring to as heresy. Just a note, the book where all this discussion is generating from, isn't even available yet. I have learned a lot about the Christian publishing industry, however, it seems that wasn't what Collin was accusing her of heresy over - although that is what he mentioned in his post.
Ben
Collin, You're wrong and are making assumptions that you shouldn't be making. Rachel never denied creation; she just doesn't agree with the six-day/young earth creation theory. She most certainly believes that God created us.
*