Godly sex is not for enjoyment, but for having children! Orgasms are demonic? What’s next in Christiandom?

***

Christiandom seems to be making a mess out of something beautiful God intended for married couples to enjoy.  Sex is only for procreation?  Orgasms are demonic?

***

There’s a whole book in the Bible that seems to describe a mutually pleasurable experience of sex between husband and wife:

**

As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.

Song of Solomon 2: 3-4

My beloved is mine, and I am his: he feedeth among the lilies. 2:16

How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!

 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.

 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. 3:10-12

**

See!!!!  This is good and godly!  There’s so much more in Song of Solomon where the two lovers cannot get enough of each other and use very descriptive words and imagery.

To me, the idea of sex is an obvious way in which Christians can truly say “intelligent design,” right?  You can let your mind wander about why God made man and women, how He carefully designed man and woman, paid special attention to the positioning of body parts, etc. He had something up his sleeve, didn’t He?  Why is the Song of Solomon book in the Bible, anyway?

Yet, respected Pastor Doug Wilson defined specific roles for the sexual act between a husband and wife and put a damper on the idea of the sex act in marriage as a mutually enjoyable experience.

Here is a controversial quote from his book, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man, which went viral in the summer of 2012:

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.

Someone sent me another very bad example of twisting scripture to make sex into an act solely for the purpose of producing offspring.  And the sad thing is that people believe this kind of stuff, just as they believed Wilson.  Hold on to your hats, people.

**

tPUlpRL

**

There are enough challenging and hurtful things going on in Christiandom.  Can we please leave the beautiful gift of sex that God created for couples to enjoy out of the mess?  Thank you very much.

Source

Here is Reddit conversation on the topic.

**

121 comments on “Godly sex is not for enjoyment, but for having children! Orgasms are demonic? What’s next in Christiandom?

  1. Unbelievable, just unbelievable. First off the writer or writers have the mentality of a stalker. I’m willing to bet that a judge would grant a order of protection should the identies of the writers be known after simply reading it. It’s that bizzare, dangerously invasive and makes one assume that the recipient could be in danger of abduction. Second it contains extortionist threats that violate the law. These manipulative wackadoos forgot that you don’t have to be extorting money or property to be charged. Forcing someone to do something by force of threat or BLACKMAIL is a crime. I will have to comment on the rest of this latter. This is just so upsetting to think that some young person had this done to them. It brings back very bad memories of painful experiences from my past. Praying for the indivual who received this filth. The writer or writers are NOT Godly people, they are thugs.

    Like

  2. Sort of reminds me of a story in the Vagina monologues which was an account of a poor woman being tried as a witch and her inquisitor presented as damning evidence her clitoris which he didn’t realize was a normal part of the female anatomy he referred to it as “The Devil’s nipple” because of the response to touch. Of course, my first two reactions to reading this were (1) What on earth was this man doing and how could he begin to justify sexually assaulting her and (2) pity his poor wife.

    Like

  3. Marital sex isn’t an egalitarian pleasuring party? Speak for yourself, Doug Wilson! I feel very, very sorry for Mrs. Wilson.

    Like

  4. “Yet, respected Pastor Doug Wilson defined specific roles for the sexual act between a husband and wife and put a damper on the idea of the sex act in marriage as a mutually enjoyable experience.”

    Makes me feel sorry for his wife. Poor woman.

    On another more unseemly note but necessary to point out to those who don’t think past Doug Wilson….keep in mind that men MUST reach the pleasure point in order to “colonize and plant” as he puts it. Therefore what he is REALLY teaching is that the pleasure is only for men but sin for women. That is the anti egalitarian part of his teaching.

    Again, poor Mrs. Wilson.

    Amazing people actually listen to him.

    Like

  5. That some married couples are infertile is reason enough, in my view, that Christians need to stop saying sex is for pro-creation only.

    Men over 40 have issues – their fertility goes down, not just the women. Women go through menopause. Dudes that father kids after they are 40 tend to have kids with lots of health problems (that was in some articles I read).
    Tick-Tock, the Male Biological Clock

    I wouldn’t expect a married couple to stop having sex just because one or both reaches menopause (or whatever the male kind of equivalent to that is).

    HUG and I have talked about this before over at TWW blog, but there is a lot of kooky sex stuff believed by evangelicals and Neo Reformed guys and others. Married women supposedly don’t want to have sex anyway.

    Listen to any sermon about sex and marriage (by a Baptist preacher) and they always assume married ladies don’t want sex at all, so they guilt the married ladies in their sermons with the “men really really want sex, so married ladies, give him sex regular.”

    They assume single ladies are having sex all up in the place, so if they mention us at all, they say, “Remember singles, sex is for marriage only so stop having sex all over the place.”

    Married and single men are taught in Christian literature and radio shows to stay away from single women, because it will always end in sex. This supposes one or both are uncontrolled bimbos… either that single women are on the make for all men they meet, or married men are all rapists in waiting if only they are left alone with an unmarried lady in whatever context.

    I don’t know why preachers assume all single ladies are harlots who are sex obsessed and sleep around constantly, but once we marry, (these preachers believe), a light switch goes off, and we women automatically hate sex and don’t want it. (Most Christian advice and dating/marriage books are based on these assumptions.)

    There is all kinds of screw ball beliefs about sex among some groups of Christians (Baptists, evangelicals, Protestants, Neo Calvinists, the fundamentalists). The “sex is only for procreation” thing is just the tip of the sex ice berg.

    Like

  6. Has anyone ever happened to notice that the Bible gives absolutely no step by step instructions on how to procreate? You would have thought that God would have told Moses to write it down, within the context of the story of Adam and Eve. I mean, really, God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, without telling anyone how?

    Besides, I guess those who are beyond child bearing years are not allowed to engage in sex if it’s only for pro-creation?

    Based on how I interpret the above letter, ungodly sex causes cancer? But how was it ungodly to begin with? They got married. Premarital sex is not a sin if those engaging are going to be married anyway. I wish I knew where the preaching of premarital sex began in the first place.

    1 Corinthians 7:25-28
    25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

    26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

    27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

    28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

    Ed

    Like

  7. “Has anyone ever happened to notice that the Bible gives absolutely no step by step instructions on how to procreate? You would have thought that God would have told Moses to write it down, within the context of the story of Adam and Eve. I mean, really, God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, without telling anyone how? ”

    Ed, for several years I have tried to explain to the Driscollite YRR preacher wanna be boys in my neck of the woods that people HAVE figured this out over the millennia. In fact, some of us have even experienced hot jungle love in our marriages. For some reason they think they have discovered married sex and simply MUST teach the rest of us. But then, look at all the film stars who think they have discovered motherhood/fatherhood.

    The narcissism never ends.

    Like

  8. Oh Ed, you will love this. We had a guest preacher not long ago…a young prof who preached on sexual immorality. Over half of our church are older senior citizens. The way he preached it was almost insulting as if everyone in the room was “thinking” about it before he got there. The way these guys approach it is almost like telling people not to think “pink”. :o)

    Methinks they are the ones “thinking” about it the most.

    Like

  9. I agree with Ed – lol – “hot jungle love.” I must incorporate that into a tweet. Also must make a birthday cake – decisions, decisions – lol.

    BTW – one of the thing that absolutely floored me was not only that Jared Wilson posted this on the blog, but he defended Doug Wilson’s words. And he kept defending and kept defending and then he posted another blog post in which he still didn’t get it.

    You can read the thing right here: (trigger warning)

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120720004121/http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/13/the-polluted-waters-of-50-shades-of-grey-etc/?

    So it’s like this: if Doug Wilson, whom “we” approve says it, then it must be okay and we must also back him up. Where do these pastors find their Bibles that are obviously missing Song of Solomon? I didn’t know they had any of those kinds of “special” Bibles that help to reinforce man on top. Pun intended.

    Like

  10. “Godly sex … only lasts a short time… It isn’t hour after hour of orgasms.”

    They’re doing it wrong. 😀

    Like

  11. Julie Anne, maybe you could write “hot jungle love” on the birthday cake. Depending on who it is for, of course. 😛

    Like

  12. I think the biggest problem with these guys is their mindset that it’s all about men. Men have to be in complete control, 24/7, and women are supposed to be subservient and submissive to them at all times. Men exist to dominate, rule and be served, and women have no rights, no say, no voice, and their opinions and feelings don’t matter. Women have no right to enjoy sex. They exist only as an orifice, a night depository. Only men have the right to any enjoyment, any climax. I feel sorry for any female who comes in contact with these guys! 😦

    Like

  13. I remember the original argument over Doug Wilson’s comment (I’ve been a regular reader of his blog for quite some time and enjoy it). I don’t think he was implying that women are only to be used. Why is this coming up again? And, does anyone know the origin of this letter signed by “We Are Christians Who Care”? That almost reads like an urban legend that started out as a joke.

    Like

  14. JA, I want the demons! I guess my fiance and I are doomed as we are not going to have children and we fully intend on enjoying the many delights of married life.

    Like

  15. Bystander, I don’t know how else you would interpret Wilson’s comment that no matter how hard you try you can’t make the sex act into an egalitarian pleasuring party. It’s not true, as millions of happily married couples can attest. So why would he say that?

    Julie Anne linked to the posting and exchange on Reddit. I read it. The letter was one of two sent to the poster’s mother.

    I would imagine that Julie Anne quoted Wilson to show that the letter writer wasn’t alone in having odd ideas about marital sex.

    Like

  16. Exactly, Marsha. The point is that the whackadoo twisting of scripture on the topic of sex knows no bounds. It’s coming from “respected” pastors/leaders (I didn’t even discuss Mark Driscoll) and the letter from above shows that this person has skewed teachings.

    I’m trying to show that if you read Song of Solomon, you get the idea that God created it for our good pleasure and gave us His stamp of approval.

    Ok, and then if you want to discuss intelligent design and how our bodies join together, the functioning of the sex organs that are obviously designed for pleasure . . . . come on, now, I think God knew what He was doing and it wasn’t just for men to conquer and women to surrender/accept. What a magnificent aspect of His creativity He gave us to enjoy.

    Speaking of cake: I want to have my cake and eat it, too – the homemade cake AND frosting and I don’t want people telling me I can only have a dry graham cracker. Enough of this.

    Like

  17. Godly sex is not for enjoyment, but for having children! Orgasms are demonic?

    Why am I reminded of George Orwell’s description of INGSOC sex in 1984?

    “Our Duty to The Party.”

    Like

  18. @Lydia:

    Over half of our church are older senior citizens. The way he preached it was almost insulting as if everyone in the room was “thinking” about it before he got there. The way these guys approach it is almost like telling people not to think “pink”. :o)

    Methinks they are the ones “thinking” about it the most.

    “I have X problem, so All of You MUST HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM!”

    And it’s nothing new. The guy who wrote the Malleus Maleficarium had a “thing” for demon-witch sex. And several of his examples have to do with uppity witches stealing men’s penises.

    Christians are just as screwed-up sexually as everyone else, just in a different (and usually-opposite) direction.

    Like

  19. @Daisy:

    don’t know why preachers assume all single ladies are harlots who are sex obsessed and sleep around constantly, but once we marry, (these preachers believe), a light switch goes off, and we women automatically hate sex and don’t want it. (Most Christian advice and dating/marriage books are based on these assumptions.)

    They’re not the only ones to do so. It’s one of those “everybody knows that” tropes of post-Sexual Revolution America. From the joke that “How do you stop your girlfriend from having sex with you? Marry her.” to the Eighties music video for “Our Love’s in Jeopardy”, conventional wisdom is that marriage and sex do NOT go together. Ever. And these preachers are just hopping on the bandwagon going “ME, TOO!”

    Like

  20. JA, the wedding is scheduled for June in the mountains. Right now I am busy preparing for a rather large engagement party at my parents home in TX next month – I have to do all of the food prep from scratch since my fiance and I both have celiac disease. Right now my days consist of physical therapy to treat a few injured joints, cleaning, packing, baking and resting in between. I was overjoyed when I realized that my guy actually likes planning the wedding so all I really have to do is show up. 🙂

    Back on topic, something that stands out to me from a lot of these legalistic groups is that they seem to have lost the joy in marriage and see it as a giant checklist to finish so that they don’t incur the wrath of God.

    Like

  21. Speaking of joy, I got to go sit skiing last week! I laughed and smiled and giggled for the entire two hours. For the first time in my life I was able to participate in an activity and not watch from the sidelines. To have my fiance there with me sharing in the fun was an extra bonus. We already have plans next winter for a few more lessons and are saving up to buy a used sit-ski for me so that we can have fun on the slopes together. I have been blessed far beyond my wildest dreams.

    Like

  22. Mandy – – I’m thrilled for you. You sound so happy! You’ll have to send me a picture of you on the sit-ski.

    Smiling for you!

    And yes, I think these guys (notice it’s not coming from women from what I’ve seen), really like rules. They don’t seem to know freedom.

    Like

  23. If everyone agreed on everything, I guess we would all be boring people. If married couples are happy or even mildly content in the belief that sex is only for procreation, I don’t see anything wrong with that. The way I understood Doug Wilson’s comments, I saw nothing “wrong”. That’s between the Wilsons. Mocking other people’s beliefs just because you don’t agree with them seems unproductive.

    Like

  24. @ Bystander.
    But did Wilson publish any or all of these views we’re are talking about? Did he make them public in a book or blog?

    If he did, I think people have a right to express views about his views in public.

    I might agree with you on this point to an extent, “If married couples are happy or even mildly content in the belief that sex is only for procreation, I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

    The problem is that from what I have seen, some people who believe that teach it to others, they do not ‘live and let live’.

    I have seen ‘sex = procreation’ argued by Christians on forums and blogs, where they are trying to shove that view down other people’s throats.

    They believe the idea that sex is for procreation only holds true for everyone, not just them. Some of them insist (in books, blogs, forums) that other people believe that way, too.

    Like

  25. @ HUG

    Yes, I have heard Non Christian people joke about marriages lacking sex. I’ve heard comedians joke about it, and it seems to be a staple in Non Christian movies, etc, that is true.

    It just seems to me that Christian culture lays it on a little more thick in this regard, and, Christians seem to emphasize the idea that single Christians (females especially) are harlots or little vixens who are intentionally plotting and pining to bed down any and every man, with MARRIED dudes being our prey of choice.

    I do not see secular culture being as into the idea that unmarried women are potential harlots (except for perhaps highly jealous, insecure, Non Christian married women who view other women as threats).

    Another aspect I find weird about Christians teaching this garbage about single women being big sex pots is that the Christian faith teaches and stresses sexual purity. I don’t know how to convey my thoughts about this…

    I just find it weird that preachers assume that unmarried Christian girls and women are just as sexually loose as some Non Christian ones. Preachers assume the single Christian ladies are out bedding down every man in sight.

    Do these preachers not believe that some Christian women are at least attempting to remain celibate?

    Are preachers and Christians and Christian culture assuming that single women never read the Bible, and we don’t see the verses that talk about the marriage bed not being defiled? Do they assume most, or all, of us single ladies just do not care what God thinks about pre marital sex, so we sleep around and do what we want?

    If I were a preacher, I would maybe assume or expect a Non-Christian gal (or guy) to sleep around, because secular culture has very few boundaries about sex, but why assume that Christian women would do this? So that is odd to me.

    The other thing is, Christian culture (Baptist, evangelical etc) expects me, a single lady to have this huge libido and to be out fooling around with 56 guys every night, but the minute I get married and Mr. Daisy carries me across the thresh hold, they are teaching I will immediately start saying, “Not tonight dear, I have a headache.”

    I don’t get how I’m to go from (1.) an over sexed rabbit; to (2.) a cold fish
    within the space of a few hours, like these preachers teach. (I’m not even #1, so that much is not accurate.)

    It’s like preachers assuming I LOVE rocky road ice cream as an unmarried woman and eat 456 bowls of it EVERY DAY, but once I marry, I will instantly HATE rocky road ice cream and will stop eating it altogether, or only have two bowls a year.

    And then the preacher assumes it’s his job to nag me from the pulpit that I have rocky road every week.

    Like

  26. Bent But Not Broken….what movie is that from? That would be funny if that happened in any number of fundagelical churches that I know.

    Like

  27. True confessions: your moderator has not hit play on any of these YouTubes. Someone will send me a note if they aren’t okay, right? ha 🙂 Ok, maybe I’ll go to my bedroom, the kid-free zone, to make sure they are okay.

    Like

  28. “I’ll have what she’s having” is one of the most famous lines ever uttered in the movies. It’s from when “Harry Met Sally.” It’s a romantic comedy that is absolutely hilarious!!!

    When Julie Anne wrote the “O” word in her blog title, this immediately came to mind.

    In the scene Sally – Meg Ryan – proves to Harry – Billy Crystal – that women can fake orgasms. He didn’t believe her. So…she proceeded to convince everyone in the restaurant that she was having an orgasm. The older lady – Rob Reiner’s mother – decides she wants what Sally is having.

    The Song of Solomon is filled with sexual references! How many professing Christians have ever read it? In olden times, Jewish men were not allowed to read it until they were 28 years old!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Harry_Met_Sally

    Like

  29. bystander,

    Well, in regards to the word mocking, Doug Wilson was not just having an opinion. He is in a position of what some would classify as authority, a teacher. Therefore, he is teaching his opinion to be fact.

    Also, Jesus mocked the Pharisees for their beliefs. I don’t think that righteous mocking is a sin.

    Let the blind lead the blind is just one of those mocking’s that Jesus stated to his own disciples about the Pharisees.

    Like

  30. Bystander, it is not between the Wilsons when he presents his ideas as normative for Christians. And he is not saying that sex is only for procreation. He says that even when couples try, they cannot turn the sex act into an egalitarian pleasure party because the intrinsic nature of the act is that the man is exercising his authority over the woman in this area of life (as in others) and her role is to submit.

    Just because Wilson is happy with this, it doesn’t mean Mrs. Wilson is and I am genuinely sad for her, not mocking. Wilson is telling people who may not know any better an outright lie. It is not only perfectly possible for both the husband and wife to achieve pleasure, but mutually satisfying love-making is one of the most joyous parts of married life. Wilson thinks Christian women should give that up and I find that tragic and immoral. I am surprised that you don’t.

    Like

  31. If God did not intend for women to enjoy sex, they would not have the equipment to enjoy it! And any woman with sexual experience who has not experienced “O” has only had sex with a man who is too self-centered.

    Like

  32. “If everyone agreed on everything, I guess we would all be boring people. If married couples are happy or even mildly content in the belief that sex is only for procreation, I don’t see anything wrong with that. The way I understood Doug Wilson’s comments, I saw nothing “wrong”. That’s between the Wilsons. Mocking other people’s beliefs just because you don’t agree with them seems unproductive.”

    I would most likely agree with you if this were a simple convo expressing opinions between 2 people. However, he wrote a book, worked to market it PUBLICLY with help from TGC and others that PUBLICLY TEACHES this junk as a ‘truth” of Christianity. IN other words, it is his mission that as many people as possible believe what he teaches as truth. Keep that in mind. That is his goal. This is NOT about differences of opinion or all of us having to be alike. It is about false teaching.

    He is also the leader of the CREC cult of personality in Moscow, Idaho and has a history of aberrant teaching and authoritarian rule. Been reading about his cult since 2007. Oh and if you disagree with him on his blog, he demands the name of your church and pastor so he can call to have YOU disciplined.

    What he wrote as truth DESERVES to be mocked because it is false teaching. It is a lie and he cannot make the case from scripture. It is ALL made up as most of his ilk like to do. The blind fall for it. Sad stuff.

    Now, I believe he is free to write and publish false teaching all he wants. And we are free to point out the false teaching and mock it. You seem to think it is a a bit of a sin to do so. Kind of strange since the logical end result of his teaching is that women who enjoy sex are sinning.

    what you are really saying it is ok for Doug Wilson to be a public teacher, putting out false teaching publicly but wrong for us to point out the false teaching and mock it. Not buying it. In fact, I think folks here have been reserved.

    The fact that DW is becoming popular with the YRR/Neo Cal set should make people very nervous. When DW is being mainstreamed we are in big trouble. Ever read his views on slavery? Read Black and Tan or Slavery as it Was? How about his connections to the League of South? You might want to study up on him.

    Like

  33. “If God did not intend for women to enjoy sex, they would not have the equipment to enjoy it! And any woman with sexual experience who has not experienced “O” has only had sex with a man who is too self-centered.”

    Interesting. What is different about Doug Wilson’s view on women/sex and the typical Islamic view?

    Like

  34. As a Christian woman who reads other people’s blogs just for insight and to sample the diversity of thought out there in the wide world, I’ve read enough of Doug Wilson to say I think he ruffles a lot of feathers, but there are ways to disagree with people without mocking them or making generalizations.

    The title of the blog post implies that it is widespread teaching in Christendom, and I don’t think that’s the case. I understand that people have been hurt by abusive leaders in churches, but there are thousands of healthy, growing congregations of Christians out there too. Part of growing spiritually includes learning how to examine all things critically and following Christ, not your pastor.

    I have a pastor who tries very hard to live up to his responsibilities and his calling. He preached a series on Song of Solomon which reflected the joys of marriage for both spouses. The knitting together of two into one is a beautiful thing. But my experience with marriage was pretty bad. After I became a Christian I thought I would remarry and I had a couple of prospects but just couldn’t go through with it. Now I am post-menopausal and would rather stay single at this point. I have friends who feel as I do, and I have friends who want to get married so they will have a man to take care of them. When one of my married friends suggested to one of my twice-divorced friends that she should learn to be content as a single, all hell broke loose, so to speak. I guess my point is, marriages are as diverse as the people in those relationships and married couples are free to disagree with whatever thoughts are coming from their pastor, their parents or whomever they look up to. I don’t think we should assume that Doug Wilson’s words automatically become the thoughts of those who hear or read them.

    Like

  35. ” Iguess my point is, marriages are as diverse as the people in those relationships and married couples are free to disagree with whatever thoughts are coming from their pastor, their parents or whomever they look up to. I don’t think we should assume that Doug Wilson’s words automatically become the thoughts of those who hear or read them.”

    That is interesting since what DW is trying to do is make them conform/uniform. And I think you are the one “assuming”. DW went from a fringe wacko nutcase in Moscow Idaho to being embraced by Piper, The Gospel Coalition and is being “mainstreamed” in what is passing for Evangelicalism. And selling many more books because the Reformed guru’s are promoting him.

    Think back in history at how many people said the same thing you have said about some obscure nobody who was considered no threat even though certain groups were starting to follow. People blew it off thinking it did not matter so they said nothing.

    You are certainly not going to make me feel guilty about mocking and analyzing false teaching. I don’t have a live and let live attitude toward false teachers or tyrants. I think we must analyze their words/actions since they strive to be public figures and gain followers.

    Like

  36. On the question of mocking, it may be that we need to be careful, but even God mocks. “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. (Psalm 2:4, ESV). Surely Jesus, who is the perfect representation of the Father, did not sin when He mocked those who removed others’ specks without noticing their own logs; nor did He sin when he referred to people as wolves, pigs, whitewashed tombs and vipers. I submit that we who are endeavoring to become Christlike may actually be called upon to mock the self righteous who so assiduously endeavor to enslave God’s children to their pretended authority, whether under the guise of patriarchy or otherwise.

    Like

  37. Reading that letter, I wasn’t sure whether my response ought to be laughter or disgust. Or maybe disgusted laughter.

    Until I read this line: “Neither you nor him know who we are. We’ll avoid any future embarrassment that way.”

    Ah, that clears it up. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

    Looking at the comments on Reddit, it seems she got away from these creeps. Thank God for that.

    Like

  38. Bystander,

    You say, “Part of growing spiritually includes learning how to examine all things critically and following Christ, not your pastor.” I like that. If I have a life verse it is 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “[B]ut test everything; hold fast what is good.” (ESV)

    One of the things I have tested and rejected is the supposed office of pastor. I have also tested and rejected the role of pastor as practiced in the modern church. If you are interested in considering how little basis there is in Scripture for much of modern church practice (including the “office” of pastor), I recommend “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola and Christian pollster George Barna. Of course, you really don’t need Viola and Barna. Just choose a given modern church practice and try to honestly and objectively discern where in Scripture that practice is sanctioned.

    Just be careful that you don’t fall into traps such as blithely accepting the usual conflation of the supposed office of overseer/elder/bishop with the supposed office of pastor. Also, unfortunately, one must be constantly aware that the English translations of the Bible are fitted to preconceived ecclesiastical practices (as well as other doctrinal stands). One of the most egregious examples of this is the fact that, though the word “office” appears in the English translations, there is no corresponding word in the Greek!

    Like

  39. When Julie Anne wrote the “O” word in her blog title, this immediately came to mind.

    Full disclosure: JA had to really think about putting that O word in the title. 🙂 There was a little war in my head about “is this okay to discuss and put in a title” and then I decided that if this was how God created us, it must be good, so why am I letting old tapes of “sex as dirty” from toxic church backgrounds enter my mind. So, now you know the rest of the story.

    Like

  40. He is in a position of what some would classify as authority, a teacher. Therefore, he is teaching his opinion to be fact.

    And he’s a pastor, Ed. He’s also the guy that arranged a marriage between a pedophile and a daughter from his church. He got the judge to lighten the pedophile’s sentence. I keep wondering how this is going to work out when they have children and he is not allowed to be around children. Yes, this is the kind of pastor Doug Wilson is.

    Like

  41. He is in a position of what some would classify as authority, a teacher. Therefore, he is teaching his opinion to be fact.

    When someone sent me the link, my first reply back was a fit of laughter: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    And then it went to: okay if that’s how that works, bring on the demons

    And finally, it went to anger because a bit of twisting the Word from a lofty pulpit yields great and lasting harm to so many people. Where did this person learn this nonsense to be so adamant and passionate about it?

    It’s the same kind of urgency in that letter that I sensed among the full-quiver crowd when my thinking was challenged about should I have another baby or not. The question to them was never “should,” but “when” I have another baby. Yet these people were not living in my body and did not know the chronic pain I was dealing with from birthing so many large babies (the largest being over 13 pounds). Yesterday I was at the Physical Therapist exactly 8 yrs from his birth still trying to cope with the pain. I affectionately call him Caboose. And yes, I made the choice.

    Yea, this kind of passionately urging others and telling people how to run their lives coming from twisted teaching, twists my panties. It really gets me worked up.

    Like

  42. I am a male in my mid 60s. My spouse of 30+ years is in her late 50s. I have always believed that it is my obligation as her husband and lover to put her pleasure in our love-making a priority over my own, and that continues to today. And if every husband put his wife’s pleasure a priority every time, they might find a more receptive partner!

    Like

  43. Thank you for the laugh, JA. At first the start of the letter sounded like real concern (I had a negative reaction to the term “sex slave” which DW never gave evidence for), then I got baffled and then it dawned on me that DW actually said: “Stay away from this guy! You will really, really enjoy sex with him, so much that you’ll do a tiring amount of it!” And then I laughed. Even as a 40-year-old virgin who wants to save sex for marriage, and thus rather capable of self-control, that would encourage me to marry the guy, rather than to stay away from him.

    (I agree, though, that Godly sex is loving, but DW never mentioned anything unloving this man did? What was that about?)

    Like

  44. The way I understood DW’s statement was, that when sex is reduced to “fun” it loses its larger purpose. To me, the metaphors he employed were describing the mechanics of it. We even refer to inanimate objects (for example, electrical plugs) as male and female.

    God has the authority to mock. Jesus has the authority to mock. I do not.

    “False teaching” to one person is spiritual freedom to another. I try to avoid subscribing to theological “isms” because I do not believe any of them constitute a complete picture of life in Christ. I’m deeply involved in my church family and I also participate in a Tres Dias community, an inter-denominational organization. I frequently speak with people who see things differently than I do. That doesn’t make them wrong. People will be arguing over complementarianism vs egalatarianism until Christ returns. My opinion is, each married couple has to work it out for themselves. I’m not married, so I don’t have a dog in that fight.

    As far as the letter from “Christians Who Care” – yes, this would be a bullying tactic. The recipient of such a letter should say, if summoned to a meeting, “Thanks, but no thanks, mind your own beeswax.” And then move on to another church. But by the same token, I think that if the guy being referred to in the letter is really all that bad, a personal face-to-face visit or at least a phone call with the woman involved would be appropriate. No thuggery involved that way.

    Like

  45. ” I frequently speak with people who see things differently than I do. That doesn’t make them wrong. .”

    So, the slave owner would not be wrong because s/he sees things differently? How far you willing to take that stance? Your comment is a variation of some of the apologetics for slavery I have read from pastors of the era. Some tried to make a biblical case but others simply slipped in the “you see it differently” argument.

    When they reduce certain groups or genders to a different value system, you had better bet they are wrong.

    Like

  46. BTW bystander, DW is welcome to do whatever he wants in the privacy of his own bedroom but when it teaches it publicly, marketing books about it and pretending it is the way for believers, he needs to put on his big boy britches and expect to have his public teaching analyzed and even mocked when it is ridiculous. And it is ridiculous.

    From pedophiles to slavery, DW has some serious false teaching. And it is becoming mainstreamed by Piper, The Gospel Coalition, etc. Sorry but I am not into that sort of tolerance!

    Like

  47. Bystander said,

    “God has the authority to mock. Jesus has the authority to mock. I do not.”

    Where in the Bible does it teach that? Bible actually demonstrates the opposite of that sentiment.

    Far as I can tell, Jesus was sent for several purposes, one of which was to serve as the role model for humanity, especially for people who claim him as savior.

    One reason I disagree with you about this is that this sort of teaching lends itself to codependency, something the Bible does not support.

    For example, my mother was very codependent. She raised me to think that Christians (especially females) are to always be sweet, loving, accommodating, and to never, ever use self defense (not even verbally), but just go through life being other people’s doormats. She thought it mean, unChristian, and unloving to confront people, stand up to them, or be tough.

    I read the Bible as a teen. I saw examples in there of Jesus biting the heads off of people and chewing them out. Jesus was not always ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ to everyone he met. Sometimes Jesus said “No” to people who asked him for help or favors.

    Christian women are not to only copy the parts of Jesus they are comfortable copying.

    Christian women typically feel comfortable following the very gentle, meek and mild Jesus they believe they see in the Gospels, but they make excuses for not following the assertive, outspoken Jesus who confronted people and didn’t take nothing off nobody.

    The Bible does not teach that there is a “pink Jesus” that women are to follow and a “blue Jesus” for men to follow. There is not a feminine, lovey, sweet Jesus and a tough, masculine, he man Jesus. There is one Jesus who encompasses all those traits and more.

    If you are a Jesus follower, the Bible’s teachings in the New Testament indicate that you follow ALL of him and all his examples, including the tough, assertive standing up to people part, and NOT just the lovey dovey, sweet, passive, and forgiving aspects.

    Jesus is lion and lamb, not 100% lamb.

    Look at the Apostle Paul. After believing in Jesus, he boldly and loudly confronted Peter for teaching or supporting heresy, as well as false teachers.

    Like

  48. The people writing the letter need a restraining order placed on them. Wow!

    They sound like gossip hounds as well. He elopes with his bride, and her immune system failed from too much sex and she dies?

    (snickers) Seriously?

    These people need to be examined at the local mental hospital. They have bigger issues than their viewpoint of the gospel!

    Like

  49. “God has the authority to mock. Jesus has the authority to mock. I do not.”

    Where in the Bible does it teach that? Bible actually demonstrates the opposite of that sentiment.”

    Yeah, I immediately thought of Paul telling the agitators in Galatians he wished they would ” go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Yikes. Cruel mocking for false teaching? Yep. There are things that are simply ridiculous and objectify other humans. That is not a difference of opinion. That is wrong.

    Like

  50. Bystander said: I’ve read enough of Doug Wilson to say I think he ruffles a lot of feathers, but there are ways to disagree with people without mocking them or making generalizations.

    Mocking people and making generalizations is one of Wilson’s trademark behaviors. He is, IMHO, the meanest man in Christendom.

    Like

  51. Basically Paul told those who were advocating that to be a Christian one had to be circumcised (cutting off the foreskin) that they should not be taking a halfway measure and should remove the entire male sexual apparatus. BTW that would solve the issue of sexual impurity in the males of that church!!!! Pretty strong mocking language. “Go all the way for God — take it all off.”

    Like

  52. Pingback: Godly sex is not for enjoyment | CREC Memes

  53. Lydia – in the context of my comment about seeing things differently, I was speaking of doctrinal differences, not slavery. Calvinism, Arminianism, complementarianism, egalitarianism, continuationism, cessationism. Those issues. And from those issues stem many of the arguments that people have with DW. Yes, he does employ sarcasm and mockery, which is somewhat subject to the beholder’s eye. Clever response, or sarcasm? Metaphor or mockery? I try to take the Apostle Paul’s advice about getting along with people as much as it depends on me. But getting back to the title of this blog post, I just don’t think that it is widely taught that women are not supposed to like sex. What husband in his right mind wants his wife to feel that way about physical intimacy?

    Miss Daisy – the Bible teaches many things, including humility, that there is a time to speak and a time to listen, that actions have consequences. I prefer to take a low-key approach to disagreements.

    Like

  54. “Lydia – in the context of my comment about seeing things differently, I was speaking of doctrinal differences, not slavery”

    Bystander, Doug Wilson views sex, slavery and patriarchy etc, as “doctrinal”.

    Like

  55. Miss Daisy – the Bible teaches many things, including humility, that there is a time to speak and a time to listen, that actions have consequences. I prefer to take a low-key approach to disagreements.

    When someone’s bad and twisted teachings keep women in bondage as slaves to men sexually, emotionally, spiritually, I will shout it from the rooftops. I’m so tired of this kind of nonsense being paraded around as Biblical and godly.

    Like

  56. “a time to speak and a time to listen.”

    And when it comes to these self-aggrandizing, hyper-authoritarian, über patriarchist, misogynists, it is a time to mock and a time to scorn.

    Like

  57. Bystander says: “God has the authority to mock. Jesus has the authority to mock. I do not.”

    Bystander, if mocking is in and of itself evil for you and me, it is also evil for God/Jesus. Do you realize you have just ascribed evil to Jesus and His/our heavenly Father?

    No, I will do my part to discredit real evil, and I will use the tools Jesus used. I will especially do so when the targets of evil are selected on the basis of gender, race, socioeconomic status and the like. I will more especially do so when the evil is perpetrated in the Name of God by false shepherds who, curiously, don’t much use the Name of Jesus.

    Like

  58. Just as a sample…..

    The new sexual morality: Will the bra open for you?
    Posted on January 31, 2014 by Dalrock

    There is a moral frame embedded in the tingle detecting bra video which most viewers won’t notice because this frame is our new normal. The three types of men thwarted by the bra are presented as bad not because they are trying to pick up the bar sluts, but because they aren’t providing the bar sluts with the feeling they are searching for. These are the bad men the bra in the video is designed to protect women from.

    It’s time to save women from these guys!

    The bar sluts themselves however are presented as moral for seeking out what they want:

    Women always seek true love.

    These women are on a noble quest, and need to be saved from the bad men who don’t make them tingle. There is however one good man presented in the video, and we know this because he alone is able to unlock the bra.

    This elevation of the tingle/feelings of romantic love by women to the new moral test for men isn’t limited to modern secular culture. Modern Christians have internalized this new sexual morality as well. The ability to make the bra pop is the Arthurian task modern Christian husbands need to pass to prove their righteousness.

    Link:
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/the-new-sexual-morality-will-the-bra-open-for-you/

    Like

  59. @GaryW:

    Bystander, if mocking is in and of itself evil for you and me, it is also evil for God/Jesus. Do you realize you have just ascribed evil to Jesus and His/our heavenly Father?

    Or Bystander is more Godly than God.

    Like

  60. @Lydia:

    Interesting. What is different about Doug Wilson’s view on women/sex and the typical Islamic view?

    God’s Eternal Word was dictated word-for-word in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe instead of Classical Meccan Arabic?

    Like

  61. Lydia – DW is a Calvinist. Almost all of his opinions spring from that framework. I am not a Calvinist. But to be fair to Calvinists in general, Harriet Beecher Stowe was also a Calvinist.

    Gary – I have read Pagan Christianity. It’s been several years. I appreciate the authors’ points of view but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with congregations being led by a pastor who teaches from the Bible. I am not prepared to write a book review here. I am more concerned, though, about being misquoted. I don’t see where I said that mockery and scorn were evil per se. I said that I do not have the authority to do it. If you are comfortable doing it, go for it. It’s not my style. I prefer to deal with disagreement in a different way.

    Like

  62. Dear Bystander,

    “I just don’t think that it is widely taught that women are not supposed to like sex.”

    I very much hope that you’re right. But as Lydia noted above, this attitude has gained some traction. Guys like Piper are out to make Wilson’s teachings more mainstream.

    Perhaps, as you say, this nonsense is still not widely taught. If it’s not, I personally would like to keep it that way.

    “What husband in his right mind wants his wife to feel that way about physical intimacy?”

    A husband in his right mind? I’m sure he wouldn’t. So let’s keep Christian husbands in their right minds, by calling out Doug Wilson’s un-Christlike ideas for what they are.

    Like

  63. God is love, right? He created us out of love, from love. So, what is love?

    Love-making. Look what we create from love. A baby. So, if sex is for the purpose of pro-creation, where is the love out of love making? All you have left is “making”.

    How do spouses EXPRESS their love to each other?

    1 Corinthians 7:5 ESV (Calvinists favorite version)

    5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    Does that verse apply to both spouses, or just one? Lack of what? For which spouse? Does that verse indicate anything about procreation? NOT AT ALL.

    Ed

    Like

  64. Bystander,

    You say you “don’t see anything inherently wrong with congregations being led by a pastor who teaches from the Bible.” Well, I have a huge issue with the position and accepted functions of people we call pastors. I have a problem with the way they tend to dominate congregants on the basis of their supposed authority, when they should be serving on the basis of love. I have a problem with the way they allow themselves to become the center of attention, to the exclusion of Jesus. I have a problem with the way they promote, even insist upon, a clergy-laity divide, insisting that the mere pew sitters remain passive and excluding them from serving according to their gifts, talents, training and experience. (O.K., the pew sitters aren’t expected to remain totally passive. They are allowed and even expected to pray, pay, stay and obey–except nobody will notice if they don’t pray.) I have a huge problem with the way these so-called pastors accept salaries and are quick to move on when the going gets rough–all the while insisting that they are no hirelings. Of course they are hirelings! I have a problem with the way the modern so-called office of pastor is structured so that it draws narcissists and sociopaths/psychopaths just as certainly as any other profession. At least to be a narcissistic lawyer or doctor one must actually be qualified.

    To be sure, there are Godly pastors. Some of them comment here from time to time. I applaud them. Yet it will be the rare wo/man who can overcome the temptation to corruption inherent in the raw power afforded to so-called pastors by the very organizational structure of the typical church organization. These Nicolaitans who want to instruct married Christians on what is and is not appropriate in the marital bed are but one example of the excesses fostered by the modern concept of the “office” and role of pastor. You are free to seek fellowship under the authority of these tyrants, and I do not condemn you for doing so. But you are also free to flee.

    Like

  65. @Bystander:

    Lydia – DW is a Calvinist. Almost all of his opinions spring from that framework. I am not a Calvinist. But to be fair to Calvinists in general, Harriet Beecher Stowe was also a Calvinist.

    That explains Reverend Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant’s similarity to Islam.

    Both Calvin and Mohammed were heavily into Predestination, elevating God’s Omnipotent Will (i.e. POWER) over all else. I would expect similar side effects. Especially when you get followers More Calvinist than Calvin and/or More Islamic than Mohammed.

    Like

  66. Does that verse apply to both spouses, or just one? Lack of what? For which spouse? Does that verse indicate anything about procreation? NOT AT ALL.

    Very good point, Ed. I wish I would have thought of that verse when I was influenced by the full-quiver bandwagon. Those folks kept pointing back to Onan and spilling seed. Don’t spill the seed!!!!

    Like

  67. “I very much hope that you’re right. But as Lydia noted above, this attitude has gained some traction. Guys like Piper are out to make Wilson’s teachings more mainstream”

    We can also include all those years Mahaney/SGM taught that his wife serviced him when she was ill. Made a HUGE deal of it and taught this to women. Driscoll…well, I could fill pages of his teaching on this subject but some of it so vulgar I cannot repeat it. The bottomline is it has been about the man. The woman is objectified. This view is all over that movement.

    Mahaney/SGM has been embraced by all of the Neo Cal reformed movement. Driscoll was for years until the Petry/Joyful exiles site came online. And the only reason I think some other Neo Cal leaders backed off is because Petry is a lawyer. This is a nutshell but the proof of this teaching being totally accepted in that movement is out there if people are paying attention. DW is another variation of it that is even more patriarchal.

    Like

  68. “Lydia – DW is a Calvinist. Almost all of his opinions spring from that framework. I am not a Calvinist. But to be fair to Calvinists in general, Harriet Beecher Stowe was also a Calvinist”

    It really is not that simple. History is much more nuanced than that. Her father was put on trial by his fellow Calvinists because he strayed big time outside of what they thought was correct doctrine. This was particularly important because he was not only a minister but also as head of Lane seminary. You have chosen an example from an era where there was a huge shuffling of beliefs/loyalties to denominations/groups going through a huge change because of not only trying to spread Protestantism West but also because of the great debates over slavery. People were questioning what they believed and why. And it was upsetting institutions and denominations. It is too complicated to go into here but the subject is fascinating.

    With all that said, I would highly recommend reading her “Oldtown Folks”. I think it might keep you from referring to her as a Calvinist as it looks to be that in her immediate and extended family there was a long coming move away from Calvinism. There is also some moving away from Calvinism in her “The Minister’s Wooing”. She communicates this with her characters. It is quite fascinating.

    Like

  69. ” I said that I do not have the authority to do it. If you are comfortable doing it, go for it. It’s not my style. I prefer to deal with disagreement in a different way.”

    This might be what is confusing some of us here. Earlier you said this:

    “That’s between the Wilsons. Mocking other people’s beliefs just because you don’t agree with them seems unproductive.”

    You seemed to feel you had the authority to say this to us here. So, what “authority” are you referring to? Is it you think you don’t have the authority to question Wilson’s teachings because he has a title of pastor? But you have the authority to call out commenters on a blog? I am very confused about where you are coming from.

    Like

  70. I know I am in the minority here, but I can see Bystander’s point of view. People in this country do have a right to their opinion. This becomes dangerous when the person who holds abusive ideas is in a power position and can manipulate others. For example, the actions and views of Westboro Baptist are heinous. Most people are appalled by them and certainly call them out for this. However they don’t have the actual power to control large groups of people (unlike Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler ). I don’t think B was excusing slavery. Of course with church abuse and other abuses, we have a right and dare I say an obligation to expose these practices.

    I know this is a very sensitive topic for many here. I just hate to see when people take another’s words and assume that mean something different. I guess it is important to show a little grace toward posters here (especially new ones). I have personally had my intentions misunderstood. I even clarified and apologized. It was hurtful because even my apology was dismissed. I still post because I believe strongly in what JA does here. I hope we can educate each other. Thanks! Ann

    Like

  71. Thank you, Ann – and yes, I came here because I heard about JA and SSB on another blog, and I am concerned about spiritual abuse. I want to keep it out of my congregation and I want to help people who have been affected by it.

    Lydia – yes, I agree with you that history as it unfolded is fascinating, and inter-denominational disputes have happened throughout history. I don’t want to go to the Calvinism thread. I find the system depressing. At the same time, I have known Calvinists who are sincere Christ followers and felt called to serve others. But on this subject:

    You seemed to feel you had the authority to say this to us here. So, what “authority” are you referring to? Is it you think you don’t have the authority to question Wilson’s teachings because he has a title of pastor? But you have the authority to call out commenters on a blog? I am very confused about where you are coming from.

    All I said was I don’t feel like I have the authority to mock anyone, so I choose not to. The lack of authority I was referring to is self-imposed, and I don’t know why that seems offensive. I wasn’t calling anyone out. I don’t know the Wilsons, but I do enjoy reading his blog. I do not agree with everything he says and I do not follow his teachings. They’re in Idaho, I’m in southern Arizona. His being a pastor does not make him special. I just think that people get too focused on the writings and teachings of people they disagree with and it becomes a distraction.

    Gary – my experience with pastors has not been negative. Tyrants? I have no desire to flee my congregation. If others prefer to meet in house churches or small groups, I have no quarrel with that. But, just so you know, even Frank Viola has been accused of abuse recently. He’s another Christian leader who writes books. We all tend to look up to the leaders we agree with, and disparage those we don’t.

    Like

  72. Really, Wilson is not anti-pleasure in quote from his book. He’s anti-egalitarian. Pleasure is fine and dandy– indeed, enhanced– when the all-important AUTHORITY is properly honored. Wilson writes later: “True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours.”
    For further elaboration, I copy this comment exchange focusing on the between Wilson and a certain “David”, a fellow to whom I feel rather “attached”. 🙂
    Douglas Wilson July 16, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    Well, hi, everyone. Sorry for being so late to the party — I just now found out about it.
    My apologies to Jared for causing him so much grief, and my compliments to him for giving a very good account of what I was saying and not saying. Not only was I not saying many of the things attributed to me above, but I abhor them.
    That said, I would be happy to answer any specific questions about the issue.

    David July 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm
    Hi, Doug,
    By “Water” which some deny they need, do you mean that living water referred by Jesus, or that “True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.”? Either way, some further definition and application of that statement to marriages would be appreciated.

    Douglas Wilson July 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm
    David, by pure water versus polluted water, I meant godly sexuality expressed within the confines set forth in God’s Word. But then, godly marriage (pure water) is a reflection, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 5, of the ultimate living water. So ultimately, I think it would have to refer to both.

    David July 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm
    Thanks Doug,
    How does an erotic necessity of of authority and submission fit into this reflection, and what scriptures do you think most strongly support such a necessity?

    Douglas Wilson July 17, 2012 at 1:01 am
    David, I would point to a couple things. First, Paul uses the word authority with regard to sexual relations in 1 Cor. 7 — applying it equally to both men and women — but I would argue the differences between the sexes will affect how that authority is wielded. The second thing would take a Pauline form of argument — “does not nature itself teach you . . .?” I was arguing in that excerpted section that the nature of the sexual act itself shows us this.

    David July 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    No! Nature does not teach us that sexual relations between husband and wife are about authority being “wielded” and neither does scripture. Authority is wielded in rape, where the “wieldee” must “surrender” and be “conquered” by the mn in charge. The 1 Cor 7 “authority” is about husbands and wives (not men and women in general) mutually giving each other his/her “due”, which you condemn as an egalitarian pleasuring party. Then you go on to give rapists an excuse by implying normal men have rape fantasies and women are “asking for it” by reading romance novels.

    David July 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    Tell me why Eph 5:1 and Eph 5:18 should not be the prime directives in Christian marriages with Eph 5:21 as one example, and the following verses, in which Paul “forgot” to mention authority as a husbandly duty, as an “unpacking”.

    David July 17, 2012 at 12:46 pm
    When a rapist, or an abusive authority-wielding husband or boyfriend, is in charge, I think you’ll agree he’s not a real man, but a ” mn”.

    David July 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    One more thing, I almost forgot, and then I will forever hold my peace.
    I can paraphrase the main point of this post as “Some people practice perverted bondage and discipline. We have denied the need for bondage and discipline, so this polluted water springs up. We must counteract this with GOOD bondage and discipline, which is the pure water.
    But the Gospel says, “Only bondage to and discipline of a PERFECT MAN will do. Only the water He gives will slake our thirst, water the tree of life, and bring us its healing leaves. Bondage to and discipline of imperfect men “shall not be so among you”.
    If your mother had gone to postwar Japan and said, “You have been submitting in a perverted way to a polluted authority (the emperor)” she would have been correct. But if she had gone on to say, “You must submit to a better authority, our President, and he’s so much better for XYZ reasons” she would have been presenting a deficient gospel.

    (End comments. I love how this rascal “David” made a “Gospel Presentation” to Doug. I’m especially pleased that this “David” character mentioned Doug’s mother, rest her soul (a former missionary in Japan and someone who once taught me ((horrors!!)) a thing or two).

    Like

  73. For context, the paragraph from Wilson’s book Fidelity in between the one JA quotes in the OP and the one I quote in my comment– this is where he talks about water.
    “But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way 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.”

    Like

  74. “All I said was I don’t feel like I have the authority to mock anyone, so I choose not to. The lack of authority I was referring to is self-imposed, and I don’t know why that seems offensive”

    This is what I don’t understand. Perhaps you are clarifying now that we have gone around the bend with it a few times. Do you not see how what you said earlier implies you don’t think others here have the authority to what you called, “mock” someone. I am not even sure what your definition of “mock” is.

    ” I wasn’t calling anyone out.”

    That was not clear and I am very glad you have clarified.

    ” I just think that people get too focused on the writings and teachings of people they disagree with and it becomes a distraction. ”

    A distraction from what? Perhaps if you lived in my neck of the wood,s which is ground zero, you might think differently. We have legions of 20 something young men running around quoting these guys as if they are quoting Jesus. I see the devastation of church splits, contentiousness and viciousness of this movement up close and personal. The biggie celebs are constantly coming to ground zero Mecca to energize the troops..

    Introducing DW as mainstream was astonishing to me since I knew his history. When I would ask these young men if they had read “Black and Tan” or” Slavery as it Was”, they had no idea what I was talking about. They are not adept at connecting dots as most are horribly indoctrinated. All they knew was that Piper and TGC approved and that was enough for them to start quoting Wilson and hanging on his every word. They especially like his sarcasm and mocking. I guess he has authority to do that. :o)

    As someone who read his blog a while back, I could hardly stomach it. It was almost a study on how people fall under the spell of a tyrant. For me, It was more about doing research into that dark world but I found it creepy. There is such a thing as tolerating what is evil and false teaching. It is when we don’t find it evil we should be concerned.

    Like

  75. DaveAA,

    Thanks for sharing that exchange. What I am seeing is that DW is promoting pleasure only within the confines of authority/submission using his definitions of both. (I read all that stuff at TGC and other blogs when this first came out)

    So I stand by my position that he teaches sexual pleasure is wrong for women unless they are the type that enjoy reading cheap bodice ripper novels. They are dreaming of being conquered.

    As one who used to be on the board of our city’s Rape Crisis Center, his thinking makes me furious. He knows nothing and is a false teacher. He is a danger to the Body of Christ.

    Like

  76. “But, just so you know, even Frank Viola has been accused of abuse recently. He’s another Christian leader who writes books. We all tend to look up to the leaders we agree with, and disparage those we don’t”

    Yep. Viola sold out to fame and money. The goal should be to NOT have a Christian leader except Jesus Christ. There will be “helps” along the way in the form of pastors, scholars, etc but the focus should always be living the Kingdom now and knowing Christ. Not someone else’s definition of Christ. No one can be our Holy Spirit for us but they sure do try!

    Like

  77. Headless Unicorn Guy
    February 5, 2014 @ 6:58 AM

    @Bystander:

    Lydia – DW is a Calvinist. Almost all of his opinions spring from that framework. I am not a Calvinist. But to be fair to Calvinists in general, Harriet Beecher Stowe was also a Calvinist.

    That explains Reverend Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant’s similarity to Islam.

    Both Calvin and Mohammed were heavily into Predestination, elevating God’s Omnipotent Will (i.e. POWER) over all else. I would expect similar side effects. Especially when you get followers More Calvinist than Calvin and/or More Islamic than Mohammed.
    ____

    …So then if one gets a dominant, unsubmissiveness wife then that is God’s predetermined will for him and he should just go with the flow instead of trying to change her.

    Like

  78. ” This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”

    And its no surprise that BDSM and other weird fetishes were invented by Anglo Christians during the Victorian Era.

    Like

  79. Speaking of ungodly sex, has anybody checked out the Bill Gothard scandal exploding over at Recovering Grace. Allegedly there are 34 women and counting…coming forward…at least one was underage.

    I’m really sick of all the self appointed Moses wannabes. I’m ready just to trash my theological library (Gothard was never in it), and just read my Bible and ignore every one of them.

    Like

  80. JA

    I’ve heard all about Onanism. I think that those who began teaching this missed the point. It wasn’t about spilling seed. It was that it was prophesied that Jesus would come from the family line of Judah, and Onan obviously didn’t want kids. So God killed him, and the next brother was supposed to do the duty.

    Keep in mind that the “custom” was that of the first born. The first born of the brother of Onan would NOT have been considered to be the child of that of the brother, but of Onan.

    And since Jesus was to come from the line of Judah, the widow of Onan played a prostitute to Judah.

    It was Satan that didn’t want Jesus to be born. This really has nothing to do with Onan at all, but that of Jesus and Satan.

    But, people only wish to take from this Onanism, the spilling of seed. And yet, the spilling of seed is discussed with the word “discharge” in the Law of Moses, in that one is unclean until he, um….takes a bath.

    Anyway, that’s what I get out of the story.

    But in any case, the Apostle Paul shows that sex is for pleasure, and OUT OF THAT comes a baby…MAYBE…if God permits.

    THIS might be interesting to some:

    Hebrews 13:4
    Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

    NOTE: The word “bed” is the Greek word koith, from where we get the German word Koitus, which, in the English is “coitus”, which means “sexual intercourse”.

    Ed

    Like

  81. Bystander said

    Miss Daisy – the Bible teaches many things, including humility, that there is a time to speak and a time to listen, that actions have consequences. I prefer to take a low-key approach to disagreements.

    Jesus also said he gives you all authority under Heaven, which includes, well, mocking false teaching.

    You may be overlooking the point of my first post. You’re called to emulate all of Jesus’ personality, not just the meek, mild, “humility” part, but the brash, outspoken, brazen, take- no- crap- off- anybody part, too.

    If you choose to be a quiet-ish, mellow, and low key person in debates for yourself, or when commenting on actions or views of other Christians, that is all fine and dandy, but please don’t make it sound like all Christians have to follow your lead, or else they are not being “Christian.”

    Other Christians are welcome to model Jesus’ behavior of boldly and assertively confronting false teachers and evil doers and calling them out, if that is their preferred style.

    Like

  82. Bystander said,

    I just don’t think that it is widely taught that women are not supposed to like sex. What husband in his right mind wants his wife to feel that way about physical intimacy?

    You’d be surprised.

    Men who are abusive tend to be very entitled and self centered, even in the area of sex (so I have read in books and blogs about the topic).

    Some types of abusive husbands do not care if their wife derives pleasure from the act or not, it’s all about them and if they get off. No doubt men like that find comfort in Dough Wilson-ian / gender complementarian / patriarchy teachings, since they support these ideas.

    You said,
    I just don’t think that it is widely taught that women are not supposed to like sex.

    Most gender comps assume married women hate sex and are not interested in it to start with, and they assume that most (or all) women don’t get hot and bothered for shirtless photos of buff movie actors like Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling.

    Hence, the many sermons by male preachers where they tell married women (I have heard a ton like these over my life, on TV and a few in person),

    /start sermon:
    “Remember married ladies, men like sex, so be sure to give it your spouse often. Remember, wives, men are “visual” so stay skinny and pretty ladies!

    “Married Men: remember wives are emotional, delicate things who are not into sex, women are not visual, so don’t worry about going fat and bald.
    However, be sure to bring your special woman pretty flowers, dust the furniture without being asked, and bond with her in conversation; that is what pleases all wives: emotional intimacy.”
    /end typical marriage / sex sermon

    You never hear male preachers assume single women hate sex. Quite the contrary.

    Many preachers and Christians who write romance advice for Christian readers assume we single women are gettin’ our freak on with 456,564 different men (including married Christian ones) nightly.

    Hence, all the warnings from pastors to men, married and single:

    “Remember men, flee from temptation, as Joseph fled from Potiphar’s wife! Never put yourself in that position by being alone with an unmarried woman!!”

    You know, because all single women are just like Potiphar’s wife (who was married, LOL, she was not even single), just dying to get our nasty, sexy little claws into married men.

    I do think some of these guys don’t expect women to want sex or to like it. But in the view of the married men who give these sermons, it is oh so very important that the MAN gets sex, and how the MAN prefers it, and WHEN.

    Preacher Driscoll wrote a book called “Real Sex” (or was it “Married Sex” or “Real Marriage”) and unless my memory is bad (and this is based on the excerpts I read on the web), he is all concerned in that book that married men are not getting ENOUGH sex and not the TYPE they like.

    Driscoll goes so far as to suggest that even when the woman is going through her monthly period, that the husband should still get sexual access to her body if he is randy, so he tells women in the book to perform sex acts X, Y, Z, on the man, or let the man do “X” to her.

    Driscoll (who, IMO, is a huge, huge idiot about women and many other topics) has no understanding that for many women, their period can be a time of sickness, back ache, stomach cramps, etc. So some woman will not want to “service” a man at all during that time, in any position at all. (Or let the man do stuff to her.)

    Again, unless I am mistaken (this is based on excerpts I saw), Driscoll does not discuss in the book the sorts of sex WOMEN like.

    Driscoll does not acknowledge that women have a sex drive, or that women have sexual needs, wants, and preferred sexual acts, just as some males do.

    Someone here who has read the entire Driscoll book, you may correct me if I am wrong, but I’d like you to provide me with a book page number, excerpts of where he does talk about such. I have read excerpts of his book online, I’ve read reviews of it that contained long excerpts, etc.

    In his Song of Songs sermon, Driscoll (based on the parts I heard) tried to tell women that God commands them to, or expects them to, perform a certain sexual act on their spouses…. he tries to guilt trip them into doing this deed.

    At no time (based on the snippets I heard of that sermon) did Driscoll tell husbands what sex acts to do on their wives.

    Why? Probably because Driscoll does not care or realize that some women have sex drives and their own preferences in the sack. Men like him only care about what the guys want, and that the guys get it. Again, anyone out there who heard the entire sermon, please fee free to correct me if my understanding of this is inaccurate or lacking (with a link to the transcript, please).

    I’ve seen equally sexist and weird comments about married sex, or any sex at all, by male Christians, some of whom are not even preachers. There is an underlying assumption or attitude from some of them that they don’t care if the wives enjoy sex, or they assume women don’t like it anyhow, so who cares about what they want/ prefer.

    Like

  83. RiRi,
    ABout your link to the blog by Dalrock and the bra snapping and tingling. I glanced the blog over.

    The guy at that blog links to the Vox Popoli blog and a couple of other blogs I recognize as basically being Christianized versions of secular PUAs (pick up artists – they teach men how to get into a woman’s pants by playing mind games on women and so forth).

    Such “Christian” men also tend to adhere to very rigid gender role views.

    They think women should be passive, quiet, 1950s June Cleaver Barbie types who love to do nothing but bake pies and wait on that man o’ theirs, and they think that “real” mean crush beer cans in one hand, love NFL, belch loudly, and slap their wives on their butts as they walk by their LaZBoy recliner.

    Also, these are the sorts of men who blame secular feminists for why Christian men cannot get dates or wives, and/or blame they blame single, Christian men for being single because they “don’t got game” and are “too beta / wussy”.

    They are sexist swine who brag about “being alpha,” and they put down men they regard as “beta.”

    (Beta = usually understood by them as men who actually treat other women as human beings who have working brains that said women utilize. In other words, these types of men would peg Jesus Christ as a “beta” because Jesus treated women with respect and kindness, and didn’t demand they bring him a sammich and frosty brew from the fridge.)

    These Christian PUAs have lots of their own lingo I don’t keep up with, though. I can’t decode all their “Dude Bro” jargon, and I’m not sure I’d want to try. They use the word “game” a lot. Relationships are all a “game” with them, they make me sick.

    Sometimes, some types of Christian women buy into their garbage. You will find them on these Christian PUA blogs bad mouthing feminists and lamenting how much more difficult men and boys have life these days.

    It’s a shame about the guy behind the Vox blog. He’s smart, and does a decent job rebutting New Atheist arguments, but he comes off as being terribly, terribly sexist. He thinks being sexist is biblical.

    Like

  84. Ann said,
    “I know I am in the minority here, but I can see Bystander’s point of view. People in this country do have a right to their opinion.”

    I don’t think anyone disputes that, but I think other people on this blog (or where ever else) have a right to criticize the guy’s views, or mock them. He made those views public. He or his views are not above criticism.

    Like

  85. “They think women should be passive, quiet, 1950s June Cleaver Barbie types who love to do nothing but bake pies and wait on that man o’ theirs, and they think that “real” mean crush beer cans in one hand, love NFL, belch loudly, and slap their wives on their butts as they walk by their LaZBoy recliner.”

    – Gross! I need some brain bleach.

    “Driscoll goes so far as to suggest that even when the woman is going through her monthly period, that the husband should still get sexual access to her body if he is randy, so he tells women in the book to perform sex acts X, Y, Z, on the man, or let the man do “X” to her. ”

    – Does he suggest anal sex?

    Is there any female Christian preacher talking just as openly and positively about female sexuality?

    Like

  86. Bystander,

    Yes, I will stand by my application of the word tyrant to people we call pastors. Whether derived from constitutions and bylaws, covenants, denominational authority structures or whatever, they wield man-made authority to lord it over others. Some may come closer to the Platonic ideal of the philosopher king, being restrained–and even judicious–in the exercise of their authority. Still, they are approximating a Platonic ideal rather than the servant-hood Jesus taught.

    Don’t get me wrong. As I have already stated, there are Godly men and women filling the not-to-be-found-in-Scripture position/role to which we assign the term pastor. Maybe you have been fortunate to have encountered only those “pastors” who are Godly. On the other hand, maybe it is just that your personality is such that you have never provoked them into exposing the extent to which they, like all wo/men, are corrupted by power (with Jesus being the only exception).

    My experience is that, if you ask questions, and especially if you attempt to hold any given pastor to what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what their denomination says it says, there will be fireworks–fireworks that would be experienced as spiritual abuse by those who are not accustomed to dealing with controversy.

    The one pastor with whom I am personally acquainted who came closest to approximating the ideal of Plato’s philosopher king proved himself to be corrupted by the temptations of authority. He insisted on crowding out those in his congregation whose gifts, talents, training and experience were perceived, however unconsciously, as competing with his own. If I understand how the Ephesians 4:11 ministries (that’s ministries, not offices) are supposed to work, this pastor should have been preparing others to do what he did, not pushing them aside so he could shine. It was the organizational structure and the authority it conferred that enabled this Godly pastor to do what he did.

    Like

  87. Bystander,

    Thanks, not just for having given me the opportunity to hone some of my thinking, but also for, very gently, helping me see some things from a different point of view. I do hope you will return if you see something that piques your interest.

    Like

  88. Ri Ri said:
    “BDSM and other weird fetishes were invented by Anglo Christians during the Victorian Era.”
    Part of BDSM is the word sadism. That gets its name from the Marquis de Sade, who described himself as “atheistic to the point of fanaticism.” Even today, most every time I get an Internet blogger referring to involvement in BDSM, and I elsewhere hear that same blogger mention religious views, it is an atheist. (To be fair, it does not seem that atheists are disproportional in DD, go figure.)
    Missdaisyflowr said: “It’s a shame about the guy behind the Vox blog. He’s smart, and does a decent job rebutting New Atheist arguments, but he comes off as being terribly, terribly sexist. He thinks being sexist is biblical.”
    Vox (Theodore Beale, who also writes for the site World Net Daily)’s previous blog is the reason why I started the search in which God showed me egalitarianism. He is into both PUA arguments and (the aspects he like of) Christian™ patriarchy. He once showed a photo of his wife on that blog – it is technically very attractive facial features, but I never saw a colder, harder face on anyone – including mugshots of criminals. Did he choose her that way, or make her that way? (To the extend that a single photo can tell you of someone, and I grant there are limits to that. But she, a home schooling mother, has a razor tongue to match the face…)

    Like

  89. “Basically Paul told those who were advocating that to be a Christian one had to be circumcised (cutting off the foreskin) that they should not be taking a halfway measure and should remove the entire male sexual apparatus. BTW that would solve the issue of sexual impurity in the males of that church!!!! Pretty strong mocking language. “Go all the way for God — take it all off.”

    I’m currently listening to the audio book “The Evolution of God” and the author discusses this.

    Like

  90. @Ri Ri:

    …So then if one gets a dominant, unsubmissiveness wife then that is God’s predetermined will for him and he should just go with the flow instead of trying to change her.

    Remember that Some are More Equal than Others, Comrade.
    And The Predestined Anointed Elect are the Most Equal of All.

    Like

  91. @Ri Ri:

    ” This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”

    And its no surprise that BDSM and other weird fetishes were invented by Anglo Christians during the Victorian Era.

    “Erotic Flagellation” (including “Papa Spank!” Domestic Discipline) was so characteristic of RESPECTABLE Victorian Upper- and Middle-class Men behind closed doors (and of Victorian porn) that I call it “Kink of England!”

    Funny thing about Victorian porn; like all their attitudes toward sex, Victorian porn was very indirect, whereas today’s porn is just the opposite — VERY direct. In-Your-Face Direct. To someone from today’s culture, Victorian porn may not be recognizable AS porn. I heard somewhere that a lot of Christian Child (and Wife) Discipline manuals were actually sourced from unrecognized Victorian porn (of the “flagellation” variety). Gives a whole new meaning to “spanking”

    Like

  92. @Daisy:

    Driscoll does not acknowledge that women have a sex drive, or that women have sexual needs, wants, and preferred sexual acts, just as some males do.

    He seems to acknowledge only “ME MAN! I WANNA! I WANNA! I WANNA!”
    Any way, any time.

    Like

  93. This one’s for you, Reverend Bee Jay (with the fauxhawk and puka shells), Head Apostle with the HUMBLE Chuckle, and Reverend Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant.
    From the CULT of the Blue Oyster:

    Like

  94. “He once showed a photo of his wife on that blog – it is technically very attractive facial features, but I never saw a colder, harder face on anyone – including mugshots of criminals.”

    Are you really criticizing a woman’s personal appearance in the middle of a discussion about feminism and theology?

    Like… REALLY? DID YOU ACTUALLY JUST DO THAT?

    Like

  95. Are you really criticizing a woman’s personal appearance in the middle of a discussion about feminism and theology?

    Like… REALLY? DID YOU ACTUALLY JUST DO THAT?

    I don’t think she is. Please re-read it in context. She identified the wife to be attractive, but she questioned the way in which the picture was taken to make her appear cold.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s