Back
in Seminary, one of my former classmates related a story of a mother who made
the local news by killing herself and her three children. A suicide note left at home detailed her
reasoning quite explicitly. The purpose
of this tragic decision? She did it to
save her children’s souls. Children
below a certain age cannot sin, they lack the maturity and knowledge to fully
comprehend their actions, so rather than risking her children losing their
faith she killed them so they would never risk the eternal torment of
hell. Because it is a sin to murder
however, and the Bible says all murderers should be put to death, but that
murderers can be saved too if they repent, the answer to her was clear. She would drown them all and she would repent
in the waters of this new “baptism”. As
a loving mother it was the only right thing to do.
Now,
I have no idea what this woman suffered from.
Post-Partem could be a culprit, maybe she was abused by a religious
person – on this side of the tragedy there is simply very little left to us to
understand. I will, however, mimic my
esteemed classmates astonished reply, “Her evangelical theology was flawless”. The truly scary thing about that story to any
clergy-member of conscience is the fact she might not have had any mental
illness at all. That in the end
she simply could have, honestly and faithfully, followed the tenets of her
religion to their only logical conclusion is just as likely a possibility.
When I read this article, “8 Steps
to confront your wife’s sexual refusal,” (found here http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/05/23/8-steps-to-confront-your-wifes-sexual-refusal/),
that is the exact thing I am reminded of.
After reading the article in its entirety, which I recommend the reader here to do the same before continuing, the first thing that came to
my mind is that this man’s evangelical theology, a theology that says men have
a “right” to sex from their women “even if she is grudging about giving it”, is
similarly just as flawless. From an
Evangelical Biblically Inerrant point of view, God wrote Scripture and since
God wrote Scripture to be plainly understood, any command within Scripture
clearly included in the New Covenant needs to be understood as a command of
God. Context and qualifiers are to be
avoided, as any variation from the Scripture’s “plain meaning” is sin trying to
work its way into your interpretation of Scripture. So, strictly speaking, he is absolutely
correct. The scripture plainly says that
women should not deny their husband’s sex, going against Scripture is sin, and
as “sin” the husband has a right, no, A DUTY to drag his marital sex squabbles in front of the
congregation and the congregation must in turn demand her repentance or expel
her. – and that’s what horrifying.
Now, as a trained and educated clergy person, I would point out that
99.999% of Evangelicals don’t bring their theology to this conclusion. Technically the only medicine
allowed in Scripture is to “stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your
stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23), and scripture
is quite clear that the proper response to someone being ill is to call the church
elders to pray over them (James 5:14).
With that said, very, very few see going to the Doctor or taking
Pepto-Bismal as being unfaithful to God, even though strictly speaking those
options aren’t found in the Bible. They
do this because, quite rightly, they understand that the author never intended
those consequences. When Paul wrote to
Timothy he was expressing a loving concern for his protégé’s health and was not
commanding everyone for all time to cure their stomach aches with fermented
grape juice. When James wrote that the
faithful should pray over their sick there is no intimation that it should be
done instead of medical help. Indeed, in
the ancient world as now, that if reasonable medical means exist to treat an
affliction it was understood that they should be used – it’s why Paul feels
free to tell Timothy to have wine for that stomach ache in the first place.
Likewise for the Scripture the
author uses for his argument.
“Now in
response to the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have
relations with a woman.”2 But because sexual immorality is so
common, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own
husband. 3 A husband should fulfill his marital responsibility
to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 A wife does
not have the right over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a
husband does not have the right over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do
not deprive one another sexually—except when you agree for a time, to devote
yourselves to prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you
because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say the following as a concession, not as a command.
7 I wish that all people were
just like me. But each has his own gift from God, one person in
this way and another in that way.” – I Corinthians 7:1-7(HCSB)(emphasis his)
Any normal person would read this
Scripture and see that Paul is acting as a pastor to his congregation and
giving marital advice. That he is not giving a command for all time
and all people (or even Corinthian people) is obvious from the passage itself.
Indeed, Paul never calls such sexual denial sin, rather any congregation
could see that if you deny your spouse sex you can expect a pretty miserable
marriage and the problem will eventually fix itself, one way or another,
without need of further congregational involvement.
The problem is the author answers
this, too, and again his evangelical theology is flawless.
His
concession (or opinion) is about celibacy. He is prefacing the
statement he is about to make as his opinion – that he wished everyone could be
celibate like he was as there are many advantages to serving God as a single
person. But he realizes that celibacy is a gift God has only given to a chosen
few, while the rest of men and women ought to marry.
What he is
stating in this passage is, if you don’t have the gift of celibacy and you do
get married, you have a solemn obligation to have sex with your spouse, you
cannot deny them unless it is mutually agreed by both of you for a short period
of time.
Now I can disagree with this, and in fact I do, but
the problem is I have to leave Evangelical Interpretation to do it. As a man educated in the history and language
of the Scriptures, I can tell you Corinth wasn’t exactly a den of chastity and self-control
– so much so that the Corinthian Church had a member within it who was married
to one of his father’s wives (1 Cor. 5:1) and the church was okay with it.
Sexual immorality was a problem within this church, which is why Paul
touches on the subject not only in 7:2, but 5:1, 6:13, 6:18, and finally also
in 10:8. This rather loose environ is why he refers to sexual
immorality “being so common” and also refers to their “lack of self-control” concerning it. Because of its commonality, Paul reinforces
the marital relationship as an appropriate outlet in his response to the
Corinthian church’s questions, but Paul’s point is hardly that he wants people
to be celibate - he wants his congregation to learn to keep it zipped! Not only this, but it should also be added that the author is
also picking and choosing his Bible translations. Verse 7:6 in the Greek simply says, “but I
say this as a concession, not a command.”
He is deliberately picking a translation that plays to his
interpretation, which is why he picks from only one of the two possible English
translations that includes the phrase “the following” or least its idea.
However, all this would mean very little to a
number of those on the right. You may
choose whatever Bible you wish and it counts just as much as God’s Inerrant and
Infallible Word as any other, no matter how it would disagree with other
translations. You can pick the Bible
that plays to your own petty biases all you want. Indeed, not only do you get to choose
whatever you want to be “God’s Word”, you get to refer to anyone who calls you
out on this fact as “liberal” and “Non-Bible-Believing.” So not only can we not
refute him by showing him different Bible translations (or, heaven forbid, get
him to actually learn Biblical Greek), but I can’t even do so by pointing out
that his preferred translation is highly out of historical context. I have
to point to “flawed and sinful human knowledge” as opposed to his “Perfect Word”
for that.
And this ultimately is what is the
most disturbing. This man’s Evangelical
and Conservative Theology is so closed, so circular, so indelibly flawed (The
Bible is God’s Word and must be obeyed, I have chosen the verse I prefer in the
Bible I prefer, by obeying that verse I am obeying God) that it is literally
impossible to show this man how wrong and how damaging he is being. His theology has so disconnected him from
reality he honestly can say in one sentence “A husband ought not to feel guilty
for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood if she yields, even
grudgingly “ and say he does not condone rape in another. He honestly thinks that dragging their sex
lives in front of the church, doing no extra work on the house, and “removing
her funding” doesn’t amount to passive-aggressive manipulation on the husband’s
part, but that it is all inherently tied up to the duties of the male under the
doctrine of “Biblical Headship.” He has even
gotten himself to the point where he can call people "haters" who point out that his
advice violates domestic violence laws!
“For all of the “Rape Accusers”
out there, especially the ones that are hurling applications of domestic violence laws at me – I have written a
special post just for you.”(emphasis mine)
Just like the woman who killed
herself and her children, this man’s Religious Right Theology is incredibly
harmful and destructive. His advice,
unlike Paul’s, is going to get a number of men nothing but a lost house and alimony
garnishments at best; prison and a
lifetime of obeying sex offender reporting requirements at worst. WE AS CHRISTIANS OF GOOD CONSCIENCE NEED TO
OWN THIS. We let Christian theology
reach a point where literally any fool with a Bible translation gets to speak
for God. This man has no theological
training, no understanding of human psychology, no time spent as a pastor and
yet his beliefs not only allow him to wear those mantles but compel the
vulnerable to trust him for no other reason that he sprinkles choice Bible verses
throughout his website. American
Theology has created monsters and real people are going to be hurt by it. It’s time we all sat down and had real honest
conversation about the kinds of believers we are making, and the discussion
needs to happen yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment