The context concerns the novel Fifty Shades of Grey which apparently contains several explicit sequences detailing sexual bondage, sadism and masochism. So Jared Wilson published a post from a complimentarian perspective which was intended to speak against bondage, sadism and masochism. The loud and angry response to the post by many egalitarians and progressives suggested instead that his complementarian position somehow promoted the rape and subjugation of women. (More)
Scot McKnight demanded that the gospel coalition take down the post which eventually did occur. (McKnight's demand has also been removed). But his initial demand gave no indication of the intent of the authors or the context of the passage that caused offense. Commenters on the Jesus Creed site suggested TGC was endorsing "soft rape". At the same time, Rachel Held Evans in her post of July 18 on the matter stated "This is such an overtly misogynistic post" and the quote "rape isn’t really about sex. Rape is about power" was included there. (Evans thinks complementarianism is equal to patriarchy, as a matter of record). Others bloggers used terms such as the "advocacy of rape", "rape apologist" and took to verbiage that suggested the post was an example of mental instability.
Evans and McKnight have subsequently expressed a thank you to TGC for retracting the offending post and Evans later claimed she never intended to suggest TGC was endorsing rape in spite of her earlier posts. Let's say that both sides have been a bit clumsy in their articulations of their differences.
Here's the missing context.
Jared Wilson was apparently attempting to make the case that in a complementarian view, male "headship" is a basic universal reality like gravity and that "rebelling" against that headship creates an atmosphere where lots of things get distorted. He quoted a passage from a book by Douglas Wilson to make the case. The following portion of the quote is not the cause of the kerfuffle.
" ...we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in
pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual "bondage and
submission games," along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of
being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in
which someone ravishes the "soon to be made willing" heroine. Those who
deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves
lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless."
I think this is a bit clumsy, and I would not agree that there is a necessary direct link between views of authority and sexual deviance, but what Douglas Wilson seems to say is that he believes a fascination with a false form of submission is the result of a misapprehension of reality - one that leads to pathological behaviors. Some men who have a false view of authority or no view of headship instead replace it with dreams of being rapists and some women who have a false view of submission fall into dreams of being ravished. So his point is that a distorted view of male vs female roles leads to ugly and abusive counterfeits for those roles. Agree or disagree, that is the intent of Jared Wilson's post. It is not to endorse, encourage or sanction rape.
At the top of the article was this statement from Jared Wilson about the passage and its meaning: "...I found (the passage) especially relevant in the wake of the success of 50 Shades of Grey and other modern celebrations of perverted sexual authority/submission. It is found in the chapter in the book on Rape, and (Douglas) Wilson argues that this sort of sexual pathology is a perverted version of good, God-honoring, and body-protecting authority and submission between husbands and wives." (My emphasis).
At the top of the article was this statement from Jared Wilson about the passage and its meaning: "...I found (the passage) especially relevant in the wake of the success of 50 Shades of Grey and other modern celebrations of perverted sexual authority/submission. It is found in the chapter in the book on Rape, and (Douglas) Wilson argues that this sort of sexual pathology is a perverted version of good, God-honoring, and body-protecting authority and submission between husbands and wives." (My emphasis).
Clearly he is NOT advocating rape or subjugation of women.
But included in the quote was a particular passage, (which I will not quote directly because Wilson has withdrawn his post), but it included the words "pentrate", "conquer" and "colonize" and "plant" in relation to the act of marital intercourse.
Out of context, those words sounded horrifying to many. So otherwise rational people seized upon the words "conquer" and "colonize" and demanded that the Gospel Coalition retract the post in its entirety. But context matters, words can have multiple meanings and meanings are determined by context. Christians concerned with biblical interpretation know this better than anyone. Sex, according to Douglas Wilson's quotatations, is not merely about two people sharing mutual pleasure. There is a structure to marriage that includes different roles and something about those roles is implied by the act itself. Men and women are not interchangeable. Douglas Wilson clarified that he was using the offending terms in a poetic manner:
...Only a person with a poetic ear like three feet of tin foil would
maintain that "penetrates" can only be used of a Nazi invasion of Belgium,
or that "plants" means that a man must treat his woman like dirt, or that
"conquering" can only be done by ravaging Huns, and that "colonization" can
only occur in a Haitian cane break.
Talk about "wooden literalism". "Penetrates" is a common clinical term used in relation to intercourse, and which can only apply to the male - why automatically take the term to imply the use of force?. "Plants" is a term from agriculture not without precedent in it use in the sexual context. With reference to "conquer", how many love songs through the ages speak of a young suitor "winning" the heart of the beloved? Cannot "conquer" carry such a nonviolent meaning? Cannot "colonize" refer to the building of a family? Clearly Douglas Wilson felt strongly that his words were being unfairly twisted and attacked. Jared Wilson also responded, trying to clarify his intent:
"The Bible lays out complementary roles for men and women in covenant
contexts, in which men are meant to be the heads of the household and
the church and women are meant to be their helpers. Because of the fall,
this authority/submission design has become perverted. It has even
become perverted in the arena of sexuality when authority/submission
becomes about violent rape and even “rape fantasies” as found in role
playing by kinky husbands and wives or in popular pornography for women."
Response to the clarifications by Wilson and Wilson were generally met with more indignation and louder screams and cries and accusations. But whatever words were used, it is clear, in context, the whole point of the Jared Wilson post was to speak against certain practices that might be associated with rape and abuse. The view of Wilson and Wilson is clearly that a proper view of headship does NOT include sadism, masochism, rape and the like, and that should have been clear to anyone who cared to treat them with fairness.
As for me, when I first saw the particular words in the Douglas Wilson quote, I admit I was a little taken aback. But it took all of about 15 minutes to understand the intent. I don't think the choice of words was wise or effective. And I have a different take on those particular words. The language of "penetrate" and "conquer" was used in an article by Dennis Prager that detailed how in much of the ancient world sex was about power and conquering. Those in positions of power would take advantage not only of women, but also of other men, boys and various farm animals. Prager suggests, in a view that makes more sense to me than Wilson's paragraph, that the Old Testament Law placing sex within heterosexual marriage elevated women, civilized men and made stable civilized society possible. So I actually agree with some of the substance of the critics that the Biblical view of married sex is closer to an equal partnership, though I do not think egalitarianism does justice to all the biblical texts.
I do get that the words "conquer" and "colonize" communicate to many people a troubling image in our culture. I'm not sure even Douglas Wilson would recommend the use of those terms in a bedroom. Yes, TGC editors could have been a bit more careful, Jared Wilson admits he could have explained things better.
But words cannot be defined only by perceptions of listeners or readers, nor by feelings and reactions to them. Such emotion laden reaction actually stifles communication. Words have objective meanings and rational people need to read words in context to decipher which meaning applies. They need to be fair to what was intended rather than attribute the worst of motives to others based on a few sentences in a quotation.
The only way to see Jared Wilson's post which linked to Douglas Wilson's comments as an endorsement
of rape or even as insensitive patriarchalism is to completely ignore the context in which they were written.
Jared Wilson was responding to culture's fascination with a smutty novel which celebrates domination and masochism and a novel that apparently has some influence among churchgoers. He was speaking against abuse of sex roles. But his critics with all their bluster and indignation created the public perception was that he was endorsing opposite of what he intended and forced him to defend the indefensible. This whole thing was blown way out of proportion on the basis of an emotional reaction to a perception of a passage ripped out of context. Folks saw what they wanted to see and created a "have you stopped beating your wife" scenario. Instead of a debate about sex roles it turned into character assassination.
Let's be frank. Folks have a right to suggest the language used to make the point was less than ideal. Folks have a right to disagree with Wilson and Wilson's complementarianism. But to suggest, imply, or accuse that Jared Wilson was in any way promoting the very thing he was clearly speaking against is bearing false witness. The Gospel Coalition has attempted to clarify, they have retracted the post. McKnight and Evans have thanked them. But this was no example of grace winning the day. Those whose reaction led to a false characterization of Wilson's TGC post need to do more than say thank you to TGC for withdrawing the post. They need to clearly retract any false charges, eschew the unfair reader comments on their blogs and read in fairness what was written rather than impute to authors they disagree with the absolute worst of views and motives. This was not a fair exchange of ideas - one side painted the other into a corner. They stripped the comments of all context and painted their theological opponents in the worst possible light in a public forum. They picked a battle and won by insinuation and intimidation - not by reason and logic.
Jared Wilson was responding to culture's fascination with a smutty novel which celebrates domination and masochism and a novel that apparently has some influence among churchgoers. He was speaking against abuse of sex roles. But his critics with all their bluster and indignation created the public perception was that he was endorsing opposite of what he intended and forced him to defend the indefensible. This whole thing was blown way out of proportion on the basis of an emotional reaction to a perception of a passage ripped out of context. Folks saw what they wanted to see and created a "have you stopped beating your wife" scenario. Instead of a debate about sex roles it turned into character assassination.
Let's be frank. Folks have a right to suggest the language used to make the point was less than ideal. Folks have a right to disagree with Wilson and Wilson's complementarianism. But to suggest, imply, or accuse that Jared Wilson was in any way promoting the very thing he was clearly speaking against is bearing false witness. The Gospel Coalition has attempted to clarify, they have retracted the post. McKnight and Evans have thanked them. But this was no example of grace winning the day. Those whose reaction led to a false characterization of Wilson's TGC post need to do more than say thank you to TGC for withdrawing the post. They need to clearly retract any false charges, eschew the unfair reader comments on their blogs and read in fairness what was written rather than impute to authors they disagree with the absolute worst of views and motives. This was not a fair exchange of ideas - one side painted the other into a corner. They stripped the comments of all context and painted their theological opponents in the worst possible light in a public forum. They picked a battle and won by insinuation and intimidation - not by reason and logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment