Rob Bell is back with a new video titled “Rediscovering Wonder” that sounds a lot like a response to his detractors if you “listen between the lines.” Watch and tell me your thoughts (HT: American Jesus):
Also, we can’t mention Rob Bell without The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gaining our attention. Jared C. Wilson approvingly shared (see The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc) an excerpt from a book by Douglas Wilson (Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man) that describes the role of males in sexual activity as follows: “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.” What do women do according to Wilson? “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Interestingly he frames this as the good that rape culture and bondage games “pollute.” You can read the vulgarity yourself, though I do recommend caution.
Of course, as you can imagine, this has outraged quite a few. It could come across as quite insensitive to, oh I don’t know, sexual abuse victims maybe? Doug Wilson responded by accusing everyone of not knowing how to read and Jared Wilson wrote a follow-up post (see Shades of Outrage) that is the equivalent to telling an impolite joke at a party and then responding to everyone’s outrage with, “What? What’s wrong? C’mon people, loosen up. Hey, where you going? No one can take a joke!” (see Dianna Anderson’s critique)
I don’t lose sleep that groups like The Gospel Coalition exist. I am sad that they are trying so hard to monopolize the word “Gospel.” Don’t they know misogyny is available? It is far more fitting.
Plenty of good, smart folks have responded already (I think the excerpt speaks for itself and I think anyone who thinks it is OK reveals their true colors…no need to argue with them): Joel Watts asks that these people unmask their ideas about sex and call it what it is: rape. Daniel Kirk agrees calling “sexual conquering” rape. Rodney Thomas exposes the sexism and racism of this post. Rachel Held Evans gives a thorough response. Scot McKnight asks TGC to do the right thing by calling them to take the offensive post down.
Needless to say, it is 2011 again.
July 18, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Doug Wilson seems like a very bored person. Had he been born a bit later, I imagine that he would’ve made an excellent internet troll.
July 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Ha! Scary thought.
Pingback: review of the novel “Fifty Shades of Grey” impact « BLT
July 18, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Sigh.
Another chord has been struck with that false dichotomy known as American politics (which seems to saturate itself in American faith).
Yes, the Douglas Wilson quote, taken out of context, is absolutely objectionable, but clearly some effort needs to be made to understand the context, before reacting, even by those who disagree with the politics of TGC; who, I might add, are still professing believers, objectionable or not. (Besides, few bloggers write well when their knees are jerking).
Jared Wilson’s follow up blog Shades Of Outrage seems reasonable enough, and many critics of his first post hardly irenic.
Is there no room for dialogue about biblical ‘authority’ in Christian sexual relationships or has that become too taboo?
July 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Andrew
If you think Wilson’s comment has anything to do with “biblical authority” see the first sentence of my fourth paragraph. Also, I would recommend Daniel Kirk’s post if you want to interact with someone on what seems to be the most “biblical” approach to this topic. I am not interesting in having said “dialogue.” I think it’s just creepy.
July 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I wasn’t responding to Douglas Wilson book, rather I was responding to Jared Wilson’s use of his words in his blog, so what matters is how he took them and how people reacted. Even so typical rules of engagement typically include proportional response limiting the use of force to minimum necessary.
I’ve read all of the blogs you linked to, including Daniel Kirks, and can’t see how the response was in any way proportional to the original post. It seems this issue simply struck a nerve (and I’m struggling to understand why it should have).
July 18, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Not sure what to tell you.
July 18, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Some things must simply resonate more with Americans than non-Americans.
When the Rob Bell thing last hit, I was equally perplexed by the hubbub around him, and his book – I just could not see see why the the dialogue seemed so urgent often lacking grace.
July 18, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Maybe it is a cultural thing. Wilson’s words are self-evidently problematic and disturbing in my opinion.
Pingback: 50 Shades of Confederate Grey: Rape Culture And Slavery |
July 18, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Douglas Wilson responds (it’s kind of sickening):
http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/cloacina-goddess-of-sewers.html
I’m seriously considering cancelling my subscription to Books and Culture (he writes for it sometimes) and letting them know the reason.
July 18, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Wilsons take on slavery is also disturbing. Very disturbing.
July 18, 2012 at 7:36 pm
There is a reason why Wilson made a good debate partner for Christopher Hitchens. He is a vulgar theist and Hitchens was a vulgar atheist. This garbage isn’t surprising to me.
Joel
As long as he contributes they should call the magazine “Books” since it cannot have “culture” with his writing being included!
Pingback: Shooting straight. lets talk about sex. « Trinitarian Dance
Pingback: Conservatives, Liberals, and the 50 Shades of Grey Between Them
Pingback: I felt sick when I read it… « The Parson's Patch
July 19, 2012 at 5:05 am
Doug Wilson said this “Right and wrong are defined by God, and not by mutual consent, or by feminine insecurities, or feminist compromises, or by masculine insecurities, or by zeitgeist-riddled cultural observers, or by evangelicals desperate to be accepted with the cool kids, or by chin-stroking, Bible-surrendering academics.”
Admitting that he could be skewing the issue at the heart of the debate is his favour, if this what the issue is really about, who determines wrong from right, and that God, not man, has set normative roles for gender, sorry, but I can’t fault him. This position is biblically founded.
July 19, 2012 at 5:07 am
It’s not a cultural thing. This would be considered deeply unacceptable and offensive in the UK as well. In fact, it’s REALLY offensive the words, the tone, the comments, the response – ugh! But I am sure that on both sides of the Atlantic some people will refuse to see why.
July 19, 2012 at 5:43 am
Did anybody actually read the post and critically think through what was said? It seems to me everywhere I looked that people are just jumping on the opportunity to just lash out. I am a woman and I read the post and subsequent update and I did not read into it what everybody else is saying. Maybe if we all used judgement and thought through the texts instead of wanting everything spelled out in the way we are most comfortable reading it, we wouldn’t appear to the world as confused about something we ALL claim to believe and subsequently shooting down God’s messengers because we dont like the way something was said. Tells me the sorry state of Christianity in America!
July 19, 2012 at 5:46 am
Andrew
No one disagrees that God determines right and wrong. Actually, let this be a starting point: Paul says neither the husband nor the wife are free of the other, but they have the right to the other’s body (1 Cor 7.4). This is not conquering. This is not colonization. This is mutual submission, and egalitarian pleasure, contra Wilson.
Wilson should, “…or fundamentalist pastors from Idaho who care more about shock value than truth.”
July 19, 2012 at 5:48 am
Ali
I think the word “refuse” is accurate. This isn’t something obscure or debatable. It is straightforward and obvious. I don’t know why I have even wasted some of my time trying to point this out to some people. Sometimes Christians make themselves to be the worst of people in the name of defending a Christian to whom they have allegiance, even when that Christian is going contrary to Christ, which Wilson has done with his conquering language supplanting Paul’s mutuality language in 1 Cor 7.
July 19, 2012 at 5:53 am
Clemmy
No one is “shooting down God’s messengers.” We are criticizing language about sexuality that emphasizes superiority over inferiority, owner and slave, conquerer and conquered. On the other hand we have the Apostle Paul, a true messenger of God, and he calls husbands and wives to give their bodies to each other. Remember 1 Cor 7 anyone? Contra Wilson this is pleasureful for both the man and the women. Both have stock in each other. It is not one giving and one receiving, one active and one passive. It is both, mutually giving pleasure to one another and having part of the other. If you want to defend someone, defend Paul the Apostle–a real messenger.
July 19, 2012 at 6:14 am
Brian said “There is a reason why Wilson made a good debate partner for Christopher Hitchens. He is a vulgar theist and Hitchens was a vulgar atheist. This garbage isn’t surprising to me.”
BTW this is a very witty quote.
Brian, you may be true that Wilson (D) is a shock pastor, I don’t know him and so won’t defend his character – but that’s kind of my point .. (said trying to be objective and impartial) .. much of this debate seems ‘political’, more than ‘biblical’. When I read first Jared Wilson’s words, then Doug Wilson’s words against his critics much appears character assassination, politically motivated (on both sides I might add).
Through the lense of establishing a biblical position, the two sides are talking across each other. Wilson (and Wilson) seem to be saying male and female in a God honouring sexual relationship (presupposed to be sanctioned by marriage) adopt God-given gender roles. I doubt most of his opponents disagree. On the other hand, his opponents seem to be saying that ultimately male and female are without distinction before God and to be mutually respected within the relationship (nuanced by specific political agendas). Doug Wilson (and Jared) have both come out endorsing this position in their follow up.
There seems to be a lot of smoke and heat here but no actual fire and light.
Comments such as “Wilsons take on slavery is also disturbing. Very disturbing” are very unhelpful. How is Wilson’s take on slavery disturbing? Are they disturbing but un-biblical? If they are biblical but true, the fact they are disturbing is irrelevant. If they are un-biblical, and he speaks a shepherd to the flock – yes that would be disturbing. Having said that, I amn’t all that familiar with (Doug) Wilson save for his debates against Hitchens – so I am likely sheltered from his more controversial quirks.
Even so, at the heart of this debate, as far as I can tell, is not a debate over hermeneutics, but politics – or perhaps I haven’t the insight to appreciate the (biblical) principle at stake.
July 19, 2012 at 6:17 am
Andrew T.
What is deeply disturbing is that Doug Wilson clearly lays blame for the level of societal violence towards women onto the shoulders of the Egalitarian church.
July 19, 2012 at 6:20 am
Andrew
Last word on this from me: I am not talking about the comments. I am talking about what Wilson wrote and what the other Wilson quoted. Those words are problematic, disturbing, and unjust.
July 19, 2012 at 6:22 am
Clemmy – oh yes! I read it all (as a woman) and I applied my judgement and thought to it. This is not a knee jerk reaction or a desire to only read what I think ‘comfortable’. The fact that you don’t even give any credence to the objections raised suggests that you are the one who is not examining critically what you read. And it would be fine to leave these posts unchallenged if this view is laughed down, critiqued and dismissed on the website it was posted on in the first place but this has not happened. Unfortunately some folk really do believe what the likes of Doug Wilson say and they actually act upon it. These ideas have consequences and they are serious ones for the victims.
As for ‘shooting down God’s messengers’ – they are only His messengers if they are faithfully teaching what the Bible says. When they fail to do this it is vital that they are challenged so those who don’t know any better get sucked into thinking this teaching is of God.
The people who have a public platform need to take great care to make their views clear and when they don’t they should apologise and learn from their error.
July 19, 2012 at 6:35 am
I forgot to add that the ‘conquering’ and ‘colonizing’ language you (and many others) are attributing to Wilson aren’t in fact Wilson’s. It’s biblical and from the Song of Songs; I recognized that immediately though Jared’s follow up comments point that out.
“Conquer.” Her neck is like the tower of David, and her necklace is like a thousand bucklers. “Colonize.” A garden locked is my sister, my bride. C’mon, people, work with me here.
It may not sync with Paul, but it is biblical. Besides Doug Wilson pointed out in his follow up comments (politically) that “So the problem is not the language I used about penetration or conquest, but rather who is in charge of the whole thing.” (from Rachel Held Evans post).
On Rachel Evan’s post – she seems to be portraying both Wilson’s as having advocated for non-consensual (domineering) type of sex, but this is only by taking them both out of context, and both have pointed out that this view is in fact false.
Also, in responding to Rachel Evan’s, Wilson has pointed out that her “I get that some folks enjoy getting ‘conquered’ to some degree in bed. That’s fine. Do what you both enjoy” position is unbiblical. That two people consent to something does not make it biblically accepted behaviour.
July 19, 2012 at 6:38 am
Ali- this is the problem. Because we do not see things the same, you assumed that I did not think critically through it because if I had, then surely I would see it the way you do. This to me is the problem with the way things unraveled. Where is the spirit of unity? Jesus said consider others better than yourself but all I saw and read all day are attacks on people judgements that dont agree with one’s point of view. I am out of this thread because my point was specifically not to spar on things like that. I have been reading it this all morning and it saddens me how everybody is out trying to be right and have the last word. As if we, mere flawed sinners could argue this. I am praying that the Holy Spirit of unity will help us all. Good luck!
July 19, 2012 at 6:40 am
Craig, can you provide an example of where he does this?
July 19, 2012 at 6:44 am
Reading the blog and blog follow ups, like Clemmy, I also don’t see “sexuality that emphasizes superiority over inferiority, owner and slave, conquerer and conquered” in the words.
July 19, 2012 at 6:46 am
A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
July 19, 2012 at 7:22 am
That first quote doesn’t do what you say it does.
In saying “… which is saying because ‘we have forgotten biblical concepts of true authority and submission .. we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence” he is saying ‘we’ collectively, fallen mankind have done this … not specifically the Egalitarian church (unless the Egalitarian church is specifically responsible for all of us forgetting biblical concepts of true authority and submission – and I doubt it is). Doug Wilson himself is also ‘included’ in the ‘we’, and I certainly consider myself (not an egalitarian) included in the ‘we’. That first quote applies as much to egalitarian’s as non-egalitarians.
You are taking the second quote out of context.
He is clearly addressing the idea that mutual consent is grounds for determining if human behaviour is acceptable or not (he attributes to the egalitarian church because of Rachel Evans “Do what you both enjoy” blog comments – which is fair given that they were her comments). Even so, again he says ‘we’ in the last bit “This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed” which I again take to mean all of, and also take to include him (or he would have said ‘they’)
July 19, 2012 at 7:25 am
I stand corrected .. (I held a false premise) the second comments may not have been made specifically in response to Rachel Evans, but that doesn’t change the point that they are still inclusive.
July 19, 2012 at 8:19 am
Clemmy – in your original comment you state:
‘Did anybody actually read the post and critically think through what was said? It seems to me everywhere I looked that people are just jumping on the opportunity to just lash out.’ You are the person who made an assumption about other commentators.
You then failed to engage with any of the precise points that were made or any of the objections raised In fact all you did was to say ‘Maybe if we all used judgement and thought through the texts instead of wanting everything spelled out in the way we are most comfortable reading it, we wouldn’t appear to the world as confused about something we ALL claim to believe and subsequently shooting down God’s messengers because we dont like the way something was said.’
I attempted to address the substance of your comment and this is part of what I said: ‘The fact that you don’t even give any credence to the objections raised suggests that you are the one who is not examining critically what you read.’
You respond with: ‘Because we do not see things the same, you assumed that I did not think critically through it because if I had, then surely I would see it the way you do.’
I made no such assumption. In fact, many of the objectors (both egalitarian and complementarian) raised their personal experiences to explain why the language upset them – that is not even something you agree with, it is a valid point of view to listen to and understand. I looked at what you wrote and had to conclude that what you dislike and are objecting to are Christians disagreeing because you didn’t bring up anything else of substance. In my response to you I stated why it was important to discuss these matters. You failed completely to address that point.
It’s OK though we can disagree. For example: I do not agree with much of Andrew T’s conclusions but he has at least attempted to deal with the substance of the debate from his point of view so I conclude he is critically thinking the issue through and I appreciate his input. On the other hand you just seem to be saying ‘I don’t like you arguing – it’s wrong so stop’. That’s not really a constructive response at all. I don’t like arguing either but some things have to be discussed and debated and when it comes to matters that are emotive, things will sometimes get heated. The trick is how to do this respectfully.
I am very glad that, for you, this is not an issue but it does you no credit to dismiss those folk for whom this is a personal issue. They are also your Christian brothers and sisters – you should at least listen to them even if you don’t agree with their conclusions.
July 19, 2012 at 8:59 am
Ali – that is a very charitable response. Strike one up for Christ-likeness!
July 21, 2012 at 8:34 am
Thought it would be worth posting his apology, response, etc. : http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/20/some-reflections-just-one-explanation-and-apologies/.
July 21, 2012 at 8:36 am
Figured it’d be worth posting the link to the response, apology, etc.: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/20/some-reflections-just-one-explanation-and-apologies/.
July 21, 2012 at 8:46 am
I mentioned it in this post last night: http://nearemmaus.com/2012/07/20/an-apology-in-the-right-direction/
July 21, 2012 at 8:50 am
Oops. Sorry.
July 21, 2012 at 8:59 am
No worries.