Ah… I knew that would get your attention.
OK… I’ll admit… this post by Jared Wilson did stand out to me. In a blog post entitled “The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, etc.“, Wilson quotes a book from Douglas Wilson:
A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
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.
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.
There is so much about this passage that I, as a woman, find inaccurate, degrading, and harmful that it’s hard to know where to begin. That Wilson blames egaliatarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world is ludicrous and unsubstantiated. His characterization of sex as an act of conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading. What is perhaps most disconcerting is the fact that even after multiple women expressed their concerns in the comment section, both Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson repeatedly dismissed these concerns with exasperation and condescension.
According to this post, sex is just another avenue through which a man must exert his authority over woman. As with everything else, the man is the boss and the woman is the subordinate. Wilson contrasts this “God-ordained” relationship of authority and submission to that of an “egalitarian pleasure party,” which I can only assume refers to a sexual relationship characterized by mutual pleasure, mutual authority, mutual submission, and mutual respect—which sounds a lot more desirable to me than being conquered and colonized.
(Note: I get that some folks enjoy getting “conquered” to some degree in bed. That’s fine. Do what you both enjoy. But this should be a mutual decision, pleasurable to both parties, and it is certainly not required by God-ordained gender roles.)
Furthermore, for someone who claims to support “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood,” Wilson’s argument has no support from scripture whatsoever.
So… what’s your take?
Is Evans over-reacting? Or are Wilson and Wilson a little over the edge in their description and biblical foundation for the marriage bed?
Todd
Todd, sex is a vulnerable exchange between a husband and wife who are giving themselves to each. They are so busy giving themselves, that I highly doubt that either is thinking about “who’s in charge.”
Sadomasochism, on the other hand, is ALL about domination and degradation of the other person–something God NEVER intended for sex.
As a woman, I am deeply concerned with the obsession in SOME complementary circles to make every flipping thing about their pet doctrine. It seems to me that Wilson’s vision has less to do with sex as God designed it and more to do with cementing one’s own theological position. JMO. Peace.
“So… what’s your take?”
I think Styx said it best: Too much time on my hands.
Wow. The post by Wilson is disturbing.
Held herself has said in previous blogs that “submission” is a hot button issue for her. Although Wilson does sound a bit extreme in this culture which is encouraging women to be conquerors and be okay with the “friends with benefits” mentality- let’s get back to basics. In passages related to marriage there is no talk in the Bible of “mutual submission.” A woman’s job is to respect and submit. A husband’s job is to love his wife. When each of them are doing their jobs then there is no need to take offense. His job is to love; hers is to sumbit. Period. There is no love in a man raping his wife. There is no submission in a “unless he does this, I won’t do that” attitude many women have.
I don’t know Brittney. Doesn’t Ephesians 5:21 set up the whole marriage discussion? That verse is the definition of mutual submission, with no qualifiers, and Paul is usually pretty tight in his logic within epistolary literature. Of course, you could say he wasn’t the author but the tight coherence of the letter is definitely something the writer at least learned from Paul. Am I’m missing something? I agree with your commentary on culture & women & 50 Shades, but I don’t agree with your statement about mutual submission. Would love to hear more.
peace
The “basics” are this: Wilson’s passage only proves his obsession complementarianism is no better than the culture he complains about. Delineating the responsibilities of a husband and wife is still not addressing the issues raised by some women about the offending Wilson post. I have no desire to be “conquered” by my husband. Such language was often used by colonizers who stole land from natives and enslaved them. More importantly, the idea of conquering also seems to be COMPLETELY foreign to the Ephesian context you cite. Ephesians 5 begins with Paul’s admonition to for believers to walk in love and then moves on to remind us to be filled with the Spirit.
How is the love-saturated, Spirit-filled walk of a believer reflected in the language Wilson used?
Just sayin….Peace.
I think the bigger issue is that the church largely ignores the fact that many women are ensnared in porn. If I hear another male speaker say “I know this is just a men’s issue…” I will get up and leave.
Well said… As we have shared many times before, sin has never had a gender preference.
“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.”
Sounds more like “rape” than mutual submission.
As a complentarian, Wilson and Wilson are nuts here! Husbands are called to love their wives…and love has nothing to do with conquering or colonizing. The fringe edge of any position gets creepy…and this is it.