Denny Burk didn’t like The Great Sex Rescue because we thought sex could be “egalitarian.”
Burk is the head of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and a professor at Boyce College at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He recently wrote an article where he critiqued The Great Sex Rescue because we ignored the asymmetry that is supposed to be part of marriage.
I thought it was actually quite funny, because in the original article (he amended it several times because of everyone laughing at him and the critiques coming in) he said that focusing on female pleasure was “selfish and small”, while focusing on procreation (where the man climaxes) is better. (I describe all of this, with links, in my post about the kerfuffle: Have Babies, Not Orgasms.)
This was actually the first time anyone high up in complementarian circles (where they believe in hierarchy and power in marriage, where the wife follows the husband rather than submitting directly to Jesus) had actually acknowledged that The Great Sex Rescue existed. They’ve largely ignored us because I think they don’t know how to deal with our findings.
This week Rebekah Mui, a brilliant theologian and deep thinker, published a long piece on why Denny Burk doesn’t like The Great Sex Rescue.
To sum it up, she argues that the roots of complementarianism see power and domination intrinsic to masculinity, while submission and passivity are intrinsic to femininity, and because of that, you can’t have “an egalitarian pleasure party”, as Doug Wilson said.
Honestly, her article is just amazing. I’ve been trying to figure out how to share it with you all, and what I’d like to try to do this morning is walk you all through her argument (which is quite long), but also encourage you to read the whole piece. You’ll need to get comfy and get a cup of coffee, but it’s worth the read.
Let’s start:
Complementarians should have welcomed The Great Sex Rescue.
If they believe what they say they believe, they should have embraced the book with open arms. Mui explains:
For all intents and purposes, “The Great Sex Rescue” by Sheila Gregoire (2021) should be a considered a revelatory breakthrough for complementarians.
After all, if the central essence of complementarity is the Christ-like, cruciform love husbands should have for their wives, then data and analyses showing where the evangelical church has fallen short in teaching husband-and-wife relationships should be celebrated. Here is a chance to take up the gauntlet of benevolent and sacrificial manhood, recognizing that, as Piper and Grudem (1991, p.80) in the second chapter of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood emphasize, biblical male headship will never, ever, “involve selfish, unilateral choices.”
She goes on to say that The Great Sex Rescue uncovered that evangelical women had dismal sex lives and our pleasure and pain were both undervalued. Yet despite all of this, they didn’t embrace our book. Why?
Our culture has historically been “phallus-centric.”
Even though women have a clitoris, the genitalia that has been emphasized in the Greco-Roman world, and then throughout Western civilization, is the penis.
The main tenets of this are as such: that the penis represents male power as embodied in the act of penetration, and that the penis and male biology in general is the ultimate and superior sexual existence around which the identity of females/the penetrated is defined. This means that female sexuality does not exist, or is secondary (perhaps where it serves and enhances male pleasure).
She takes us on a romp through Roman history and looks at how military victory was often accompanied by sexual rampage, and it didn’t matter whether the one being penetrated was male or female; it’s the act of penetration that makes one “masculine”, and the act of being penetrated that makes one “feminine.”
She looks at how this has played out in more modern history, too, with this example:
Here is an example: Pornography as an industry is largely phallocentric. Pornography is mostly designed for men and centers male pleasure, with women functioning as instruments of this pleasure. Sexual satisfaction is synonymous with conquest and often is expressed alongside violence. While evangelicalism largely condemns pornography as an aberrant and sinful sexual practice, it must be noted that evangelicals in America are heavy consumers of pornography, and as consumers, shape the pornography industry by the kind of pornography that they demand.
All of this has implications for how we see gender, and explains the “gender essentialism” that is in so many books like Love & Respect, For Women Only, Every Man’s Battle, His Needs, Her Needs, and more:
Gender essentialism, the belief that this phallocentric penetration-as-dominance ideology of biological sex determines masculine and feminine traits and behaviors, dates back to Aristotle’s natural law (Bem ,1983). Bem describes these traits as a polarized view of gender, with masculinity described as active and authoritative, and femininity as passive and obeisant”. Gender essentialism originated as a philosophical belief, became a religious doctrine in European Christendom, and evolved into a scientific, evolutionary form in the 19th century…
There can’t be any such thing as an “egalitarian pleasure party.”
She then traces how modern complementarianism has divided into two camps, the “Carefuls” who believe in biblical manhood and womanhood, and the “Courageous” ones–the ones being praised by The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, etc–that call out the evils of feminism and the emasculation of men.
She notes Doug Wilson’s rhetoric about how authority and submission are an erotic necessity and summarizes these thoughts:
- Sexual relations are essentially, invariably, and necessarily, a relation between a dominant male penetrator who “ conquers, colonizes, plants” and a passive female who “receives, surrenders, accepts.”
- There is no such thing as an “egalitarian pleasuring party” — equally pleasurable sex. There is only a relationship between penetrator and penetrated, one of authority and submission.
- Rape, rape fanstasies, and BSDM is a “caricature” that come about when society rejects and “rebels” against “authority and submission” as an “erotic necessity”.
Why did Burk defend Butler’s terrible Gospel Coalition Article?
Now we turn to Josh Butler’s article at The Gospel Coalition, which was so bad it had to be retracted. But Burk defended parts of it, and that’s where he decided to critique me. Rebekah goes through this exchange and concludes with this reprimand of Burk’s insistence that we were being selfish by ignoring procreation:
No, sir. Sheila Gregoire, among many others, did not express horror because of the biological transmission of sperm. That’s not the issue, and you know that. The thing that you, Wilson, Butler, and Burk have in common is a shared, political and power ideology that penetration means power. Burk makes this extremely clear when he rejects the mutual-but-different pleasure Gregoire (2021) emphasizes as egalitarian: what he objects to is the decentering of phallus as being the be-all, end-all of sex.
Sheila Gregoire in her writings on sex has been exceedingly detailed and clear in this regard, and in no way has she claimed male and female biology are the same, only that both male and female sexual pleasure are important and should be recognized.
They can’t accept mutuality in part because they think femininity is to give up all wants and needs and desires.
Mui then walks us through Elisabeth Elliot’s writings on the essence of femininity:
Elisabeth Elliot, who in the landmark publication of the “complementarian” position, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”, wrote of the “essence of femininity” as being that of “utter and unconditional self-giving”, servanthood, “obedience”, having “no ambition for anything but the will of God”, and self-negation, with “exceptional women in history” having the “special gift- a charism” when they “made themselves nothing” (p.403)…
What Elliot is not doing is saying that surrender and obedience are good Christian things to do in general, in imitation of Christ: rather, she is positioning the woman in relation to the same in the role of self-negating subordination.
If femininity is to surrender all and make herself nothing–then can you see why female pleasure would go against that?
I absolutely love how Mui gets to the heart of the issue here:
Burk’s use of the term “selfish” parallel’s Elisabeth Elliot, who contrasts a woman who “makes herself nothing” and a woman who is selfish. Under this view, female existence that is not obeisant and self-erasing in relation to men is inherently evil and selfish. How dare you exist, how dare you also assert that you can and should experience pleasure, that sex is not a one-sided posessive/sacrificial act. Shame on you, selfish egalitarian!
"A groundbreaking look into what true, sacred biblical sexuality is intended to be. A must-read." - Rachael Denhollander
What if you're NOT the problem with your sex life?
What if the messages that you've been taught have messed things up--and what if there's a way to escape these toxic teachings?
It's time for a Great Sex Rescue.
We need to pay attention to what Burk reveals in his critique of The Great Sex Rescue.
The reason Mui wrote such an in-depth article is because Burk’s article revealed something that complementarians rarely say out loud. They talk a good talk about the difference between men and women’s roles, and how this is so beautiful and God’s perfect design.
But Burk pulled back the curtain when he critiqued us and revealed something rarely discussed.
Here’s how she summarizes the issues:
- Burk identifies a call for equal or mutual sexual pleasure for biologically distinct men and women as egalitarianism, and thus something complementarianism is innately opposed to.
- Why is equal or mutual sex necessarily anti-complementarian and egalitarian? Egalitarianism is a political movement for women’s equality — so what does it uniquely have to do with sex? Because it is a rejection of the asymmetry of power central to a penetrator-penetrated political paradigm.
- Complementarianism, if we are to go by Denny Burk, Elisabeth Elliot, and Doug Wilson, is a defined not by gender difference but by power assymetry.
That’s not the end of it–there’s so much more good stuff.
Please read the whole thing! Rebekah wrote an insightful masterpiece that deserves to be widely read, and I (and others) encouraged her to submit it to journals.
I knew that Burk’s argument was laughable when I first read it, but I didn’t see all of the twists and turns, and this connects the dots so well. Often people ask me for information on Doug Wilson, or why complementarians largely haven’t embraced The Great Sex Rescue (though obviously many individual complementarians have), and this will now be the go-to thing I recommend.
You can also hear Rebekah as one of the panelists on the Where Do We Go From Here podcast when they talked about Josh Butler’s article, and where she mentioned some of this.
I’m very grateful to people like Rebekah who add such insightful commentary to what we do!
It reminds us that we’re not alone in this, but that there are so many, with different giftings, all working to bring the church back to a picture of mutual love, service, and submission to Christ.
What do you think? Does this argument make sense? If you see that male power and domination is intrinsic to marriage and sex, how can this affect sex? Let’s talk in the comments!
I have a fair deal to say and then I want to read the article.
I wonder sometimes if polarization and fear are part of why this is happening. I find it hard for instance not to find videos and articles concerning how men and women want nothing to do with each other, how dating is doomed, that men are pigs and women are divas with ridiculously high standards.
I think for a lot of people it is a zero sum game. So some might see women getting more out of sex as meaning that they are losing and vice versa. What you are saying with books like The Great Sex Rescue is that sex is not a zero sum game. That sex can be enriching to a man and wife and that both can enjoy it.
You are not denying the biology of small and large gametes and the differences between a pens and a clitoris. No, you embrace that. You are saying that if we are to have good sex we need to ask ourselves to see our partners pleasure as meaningful. For a man it might mean realizing that You are calling people to his wife is not “broken” for not having a sptoneous libido. For a woman it might be realizing that her husband is not less of a man if he is more responsive.
You are calling people to see their partner and themselves in a more holistic way. You encourage people to help carry each other’s burdens. You encourage play among a husband and wife. Honestly, I find that pretty neat.
I think that societally right now men and women see themselves as at odds. They might see each other as wanting to make the other miserable. You can see it in the accusations they use. ” She has your balls in her purse” ” She has you whipped” ” He is a pig” ” He thinks with his pants” I find it disheartening.
I would honestly like to hear what you think. I wonder if I am on to something with the zero sum game idea.
I definitely think many complementarians especially see this as a zero sum game. Those who stress mutuality don’t want women to be in charge. We don’t want women to have special privileges. We just want things to be truly mutual, so that real intimacy can thrive.
But when you’re used to privilege, equality can seem like oppression. Treating women well means you have to give up something. That’s what’s hard for them, I think.
Exactly. They are also so focused on hierarchy and power that some can’t even picture what a truly mutual relationship looks like, because in their mindset it is simply a loss of power and control for the man
As you have said, though, the deepest level of intimacy is referred to in the bible as “knowing”. A real, intimate relationship isn’t about power or fighting over control at all. It is about loving someone so much that you want to really know them, that you would never want them to hide their real feelings or do something that made them miserable.
I remember hearing a biblical lecture that resonated with me, from both a religious and secular POV. The gist of it was that the first human (ha-adam) was created, male and female, in the image of God, and was then split into man (ish) and woman (isha). When we find our spouse, we are basically recreating that original unity. One person may have one trait, the other person may have an opposite trait, and that has the potential to drive both of them crazy, but they may be able to recognize that if they work together, they can have something that is in the image of God. (I am not saying that a single person isn’t in the image of God, but rather that people can be different and all those differences together can reflect God. It’s too easy for someone to think that they are perfect, and that anyone different must be bad.) In more plain, secular terms – it isn’t just about giving in and coming to a midpoint where both are a bit unhappy, but about realizing that each person’s perspective is valuable and that if there are differences, it means that each is contributing something valuable and essential. This also goes along with the teaching that it was not good for the first human to be alone, and that a help opposite (ezer k’negdo) was needed. Being in charge and making all decisions unilaterally may feel efficient, but there is something good and valuable about the process of discussion and considering the point of view of another person.
I agree and would add that singles still need the opposite sex and this is exactly why we need men and women who ARENT married to each other working together as equals in church and wider society, alongside healthy married couples, with everyone valued and balancing each other out. Paul’s body metaphor about the church should make that abundantly clear.
I wonder if the idea of relationships bring a zero sum game explains other memes we are seeing in society right now.
Think about it.
If you believe the game is rigged why play? That plays into ideas such as ” Marriage is chattel slavery” or “Women are hypergamous and will leave you as soon as someone better arrives.” Or ” Why get married that is where love and sex go to die.”
If you believe the game is rigged but that you can change the odds to be in your favor it could explain the ” Alpha male” and ” Sigma male ideas” By becoming the strongest most charismatic most capable person you can be. Bench those plates, get that dough, make Conan and Sun Wukong look pathetic compared to you.To me the difference between the alpha meme and the sigma meme is this. The Alpha wants to be the top individual the sigma wants to through toil through the grind learn how to manage themselves and others to become in a sense what sigma means in math a summation the man who is a summation of the best skills in men.
If however the game is rigged and nothing can be done you may come to see love as a cruel joke. You may come to envy others. You may become angry and bitter wondering why others seem to get what they have on a silver platter despite treating it like trash. You might become a nihilist. You might become a secret romantic hoping someone may come along to show you that love is real. You might start to think that you were a failure from the day you were born and that if you must fail others must fail as well.
I wonder.
I am no expert. I do not know anything of psychology or research on a professional level. There is probably much I missed, but I have to wonder if this is part of it.
Very insightful point. And they are probably free market people who refuse to reduce economics to a zero sum game! It’s a shame men cannot think globally like women can (just kidding!!.
Neither love or economics is zero sum.
I like your sense of humor.
I’m going to be not so intellectual and point out the obvious: the entire point of sex* is pleasure and satisfaction.
I talked to a friend about the cultural problems (and why I’m talking to divorce attorneys). She was completely floored that anyone would think sex is about something other than pleasure. Connection? The joy of seeing him in pleasure he denies you? She was stunned that anyone would think that women should have sex without orgasm and pleasure.
She’s right. It might be a prevalent belief, but it’s really screwed up and completely at odds with reality.
*yes, making babies is important too, but you can have a big family and have sex less than 20 times in your life. So the other “twice a week times 52 weeks in a year times 40 years of marriage” = 4,000 sexual encounters are about mind blowing pleasure.
Sheila. I pulled up the Denny Burk article this morning after I read your post. I have to tell you this: As an immature reader of this type of material I have to say that on the surface it appears to read symmetrical. I truly had a hard time reading it an seeing the harm even with argument in hand. Were I actually finally saw the “trick” is in his follow up. In his reference to 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 he writes that “we owe each other” according to that chapter and vrs. Here is the thing: MY BIBLE DOESN’T SAY THAT. Look – I have done a lot of rotten stuff to my wife. But you know what? After 23 years of marriage my wife OWES ME NOTHING. She has never owed me anything. I may have wanted and I may have done some bad stuff to get what I want but she has never owed me ANYTHING. Duty to God and others is a moral obligation. That is on each individual. That is what I see in 1 Corinthians 7:1-6. That is quite different than owing someone. That is a language issue for sure that backs up the argument presented here. Say what you mean and then act it. After reading his article it truly helps me see why you are teaching us about tricky language. It is really sad to see that the goal is to stand up for complimentarian rather than to stand up for Jesus. I have taken up the term egalitarian as a label for myself. I have used it in public in my church. I actually had no idea it was political. I just thought of it as a label for what I stand for. That is STAND UP FOR JESUS. Standing up for Jesus is NOT POLITICAL. Standing up for Jesus is my obligation. I dont owe Jesus anything because I cant ever repay HIM! What I can do is STAND UP FOR WOMEN because THAT’S WHAT JESUS WOULD DO!
He has also amended his article so much since the pushback. Here’s what he originally wrote.
And further more I don’t think I am an Egalitarian anymore. I think I am just a STAND UP FOR JESUSITARIAN.
I’ve been thinking about all this, not just these specific articles, but just all the push back you’ve gotten. So recently when I was watching a movie, it made me think of all this. Hubby and I were watching “City of Lies”. It’s a movie with Johnny Depp and Forest Whitaker. It’s about the murder of two famous rappers in the 90s and how a detective trying to solve them keeps getting obstacles thrown in his way. Anyway, there is a scene where Johnny Depp’s character is confronting a dirty cop/ gang member in jail. Depp asks how he could have ignored his oath as a police officer and done so many despicable things. And the dirty cop says rather crudely but succinctly “power and p#ss*”. And those 3 words just stuck with me, and over the next few days I kept thinking how similar this is to these men who keep trying to tear your ministry down. Just like that officer betrayed his oath to serve and protect, these men are betraying the loving God they claim to serve and just for those 2 things. They are acting more like gang members, then Christ.
I think that’s it exactly. They aren’t following Christ’s call to sacrifice; they call themselves Christians because it gives them power and compliant women.
Exactly right, and again, really reprehensible because they are saying so publicly that they only want to protect and serve. Actions speak louder then sermons.
ACTIONS PREACH LOUDER THAN SERMONS
Alex, this is so true.
And it is what old time preachers that had integrity kept warning the younger preachers coming about.
But it appears that in TGC and CBMW circles, they have stopped up their ears to the warnings of their elders and have chosen to go headlong into those sins.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2023/02/money-power-and-sex.html
I used to say I was in the complementarian camp in a theological sense. Now I’m not so sure.
For context, my marriage is egalitarian in bed but complementarian in all other ways.
What is cracking my understanding on this is how the curtain is being pulled back on the power dynamic underpinnings to complementarian theology. It’s dark, and it’s ugly.
After all, Jesus upended power dynamics. The Jews expected a political savior from Roman oppression. Instead, He was hung on a Roman cross. Ultimately, this was far better because death wasn’t the end of His story, and His work rippled through time. Salvation was God’s larger and better purpose than rescuing an ancient and provincial people.
And even in His life, He used radical statements: “The last shall be first, and the first shall be last” or “A little child shall lead them.” Where do these red letter words fit into that theology? How do we reconcile His life and death with that understanding?
He died for His bride. I don’t see that being considered as part of the complementarian equation.
What pulled me up in Mui’s article was Elisabeth Elliot’s quote, which is quite nearly a textbook definition of self-erasure. I did that to myself; it nearly destroyed me.
I think this discussion is revealing a crucial thing: the core beliefs at the heart of complementarianism. Now we can be Bereans and evaluate those beliefs against the whole of Scripture.
So glad you’re wrestling with this! I hope the whole church will. It’s so necessary.
California Peach: “He died for His bride. I don’t see that being considered as part of the complementarian equation.”
Patriarchs and Complementarians give lip service to this.
But when push comes to shove and they feel their power or position coming into question, that all goes out the window.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-patriarchs-second-lie-to-women.html
I showed Burk’s article to my husband and he was totally floored. After reading it, he came back to me and said “I always thought I was complementarian, but this is totally insane. I guess I’m egalitarian after all, if this is what complementarians think.”
I think a lot of times the complementarian beliefs are so cloaked in “nice” language that it makes it hard for good men to really see what is being said. Once someone like Burk puts it out there, suddenly is becomes clear to the good guys that are trying to really love their wives well and support them as a team.
So… I guess I have to hand it to Burk. He converted my husband to egalitarianism.
I love it!
That is absolutely marvelous!
Or alerted your husband to the fact that he’s already egalitarian — once he got a good look at both sides. Blessings to both of you.
Maybe we can do a deep dive on how language can be manipulative. At first, it might sound nice to talk about not being selfish and putting yourself last, but it’s not. What we are seeing isn’t someone spontaneously doing things for others. It’s girls and women being told that they are required to serve others, and that they don’t matter. That is the very opposite of showing concern for other people.
Being selfish is a bad thing if someone prioritizes themselves so much that they ignore the needs of others. Someone learning that they also have needs that count is not learning to be selfish. If we are to love others as we love ourselves, and do unto others as we would have others do unto us, then we need to actually love ourselves and want to treat ourselves well.
I completely agree. So much of the language they use makes it sound noble–like men are sacrificially giving themselves for their wives–even though they’re not.
I have a memory of sitting in my pastor’s office asking him for help. For a pastor to preach selflessness from the pulpit is biblical and right. We all need to follow Jesus’s example and take up our cross and die to ourself. But sitting in his office, asking him for help (honestly just for prayer), he sat there and said, “I could, but sometimes Jesus just want us to suffer.”
The difference here is that we are accountable for ourselves before God. It’s my responsibility to suffer for Christ, or to seek help if I believe my suffering is unjust. And it’s his responsibility to help if someone asks for it. Saying what he did is appropriate from the pulpit, but not Christlike and not fulfilling his responsibility to shepherd. We are each responsible for our own relationship with God, and the problem you’re pointing out is that we’re trying to intervene into others’ relationships with God.
Why don’t these men just admit that they’re too lazy and selfish in bed to give their wives the kind of experience that men take completely for granted?
Then at least these men wouldn’t be gas-lighting women with their penis-ology.
Or maybe THAT much honesty would leave them alone, and then who could they push around?
I concur, Jo R.
Truly excellent and I can’t wait to read the full article. But I want to thank and commend all you for working together, quoting and crediting each other so us ordinary folk find other solid sources of wisdom and encouragement. Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, right? The tide is turning because of courageous leaders and grassroots protests.
I had already read through Mui’s article and honestly some of it is beyond my level of academic grasp (and level of insomnia, ha) so I am thankful for your summary of it. In her article though, the last 3 quotes she provides, from Elizabeth Elliot, Debi Pearl, and John McArthur respectively, just blow me away with how close to blaspheming they are, essentially equating husbands (and our serving/obeying them) with God (and our serving/obeying Him).
I love that your book, tGSR, has them running scared though! Yay that they finally publicaly acknowledged it! To me, it recalls Genesis 50:20. “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”
May their mention of your book bring greater awareness to your mission to help even more women!! (And yippee fr MS’s husband “converting” to egalitarianism above in the comments!)
As for sex in the Bible- you’ve mentioned one word used is more like an intimate “knowing.” If sex was meant to be good b/c of a man’s domination, then why did the Bible not use the word used when talking about Adam having dominion over the earth?
Good thoughts, Nessie! (And, yes, the article was super academic. I hope she can get it in a journal somewhere!)
You make a good point. The knowing word in Hebrew is intimate. The word used about stewardess the earth is akin to military operations in the Hebrew.
God knows different situations call for us to think and operate differently.
I think we have much to learn.
Codec-
“stewardess the earth is akin to military operations,” sounds a bit more like what these guys want than an intimate knowing. Actually, a lot more- they want no-questions-asked compliance from wives, similar to military training. Only it is two entirely different entities, marriage vs. military. Rather, they *should* be entirely different.
Thanks for the better understanding of the Hebrew there. I’m not so good at the scholarly stuff. I’m thankful for those who are that help those like me learn. 🙂
I am no scholar just an interested guy. Thank you.
I see the idea of submission fetished a lot. I find it weird.
I believe my jiu jitsu instructor when he talks about a technique not only because he knows the technique, but because he is a good teacher with a healthy and moral martial philosophy.
The idea that people in this cause a wife should acquiesce to me just because of my genitalia scares me. I feel that would exacerbate the worst parts of me.
I find that mutual submission not only allows for health and cultivation of virtue but play.
Man do I have a lot of thoughts. Most of them have been said in some form here or in the prior discussions. So I will just add a hearty recommendation for the “Where do we go from here” podcast episode. Rebekah Mui’s segment was amazing, and she was one of I think four panelists. The discussion took on the Josh Butler controversy and the deeper issues behind it in a really thoughtful way.
Awkward question, but I’m just gonna put it out there. Following Josh Butler’s logic about a man giving “sacrificially” of “his essence,” what does that mean for women’s menstrual fluid? Should we be treating it more reverently, too?
(Yes, this is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek.)
Lol! There are plenty of aboriginal cultures that have done just that. Sounds disgusting to me.
I read Rebekah Mui’s essay with great interest and growing unease. Several thoughts have been spinning around in my head, so I thought I would write them down. An essay of my own sprang out. Unfortunately, I don’t have anywhere online to post this, so I’m hoping it will get past your 300 word comment limit. This first paragraph could be deleted.
Thank you for sharing Rebekah Mui’s insightful essay in response to all the recent “courageous” outpourings from the proponents of asymmetry. I especially appreciated her dissection of the historical foundations that predicated an entrenched theology that in the last 100 years has become as blatantly male self-serving (as opposed to Christ serving) as it was in pagan times so long ago.
That history lesson was certainly eye-opening — not the kind of stuff they teach in History class! I have never really given much thought to what motivated belief and behaviour in ancient times, but if I had to articulate it, I would have said that the philosophical foundation on which ancient society operated was a general, political belief that men were stronger and therefore better and should thus be in charge of the weak. I would assume that the sexual aspect of men being the initiator/penetrator and women being built to receive was just one aspect of life that supported the overall philosophy of patriarchy.
I would also have assumed that this general world-view as I understood it, coupled with the patriarchal systems evidenced in the Bible historical accounts, thus informed the patriarchal theology of Christendom. And this worldview would support an interpretation of the curse in the Garden of Eden to mean that God *intended* for men to rule over women. And indeed, when I attended a fundamentalist evangelical Bible college over forty years ago, I learned that I was the weaker sex, because of my propensity for being deceived. This meant that I needed a man to guide me, a man who was supposed to love and care for me as he helped me through the pitfalls of life in a fallen world.
However, if I understand Rebekah correctly, the penetrator/penetrated paradigm was actually the driving force behind ancient culture and social development. The man’s power to sexually dominate underpinned the philosophy of male authority and feminine weakness and submission. It wasn’t political at all – it was *all* about sex. Or, as Rebekah stated, “Phallocentrism is loosely justified from an interpretation of biology and an ideology of male physical superiority. . .”
While I realise that such discussions were not de rigueur in Bible college, there was not even a hint anywhere that hierarchy was based on a man’s ability to physically and sexually dominate. At least, not overtly. But that was age of Dobson and Elizabeth Elliot, so the seeds were there.
However, in reading the excerpts that Sheila Gregoire and others have been revealing recently from prominent complementarian authors and leaders, and placing them in juxtaposition with the historical information that Rebekah has revealed, it seems that, God forbid, we have come full circle to practically overt phallocentrism!
Rebekah cites, “The imperial Roman society venerated machismo. In this social milieu, a free Roman man should be ready, willing, and able to express his dominion over others, male or female, by means of sexual penetration (Williams 1978:18).” I assume you see the incredibly close parallel to complementarian writing/teaching today?
Dear God in Heaven above, how has the Christian world come to this? How can anyone who lovingly reads the Bible be so blind, and so willingly support such a blasphemous, ungodly philosophy?
There are more and more bloggers, authors, speakers and church leaders who are engaging in the battle to uncover the truth behind this damnable heresy. I commend you all, I pray for you, and I encourage you and many others to continue the good fight. Our daughters, and our sons, deserve better. May they live in a world where they can rejoice as joint heirs of the riches of God in Christ Jesus, where together everyone can humbly serve each other, where the church is a true reflection of her Saviour, the Lord Jesus.
What a marvelous essay. Thank you.
Let’s not forget that in the Old Testament a man who had emission of semen was considered unclean for a while…
That very thing came up in my reading plan this morning!
How is a person wired that writes “egalitarian pleasure party” and means it as a condescending warning rather than an enthusiastic recommendation? Seriously, there’s a whole book in the Bible about enjoying and relishing in intimacy with your spouse, and nowhere is a caveat that you can only do so in the context of procreation.
I’m trying, and failing, to understand why so many people choose control, power, hierarchy and fear based rules over joy, connection, true intimacy and fun. Where are the fruits of the Spirit in that? Where is the heart of Christ? I’m not saying I’m perfect at all; I can also be hard hearted and judgmental at times. But speaking from a position of authority and telling people that pursuing deeper intimacy in marriage is selfish, is just completely wrong and it baffles me that they can’t see it.
There is absolutely no heart of Christ in any of it. It’s devoid of Christ, and it’s only about power. It’s terrible.
Lisa: “I’m trying, and failing, to understand why so many people choose control, power, hierarchy and fear based rules ”
My hypothesis is that the core of this choice is fear.
These men are terrified of being vulnerable or not being in control. Or they are just straight up terrified of women.
And rather than work towards their own healing and overcoming this fear, wherever it comes from, it’s just easier to blame someone else, hold them accountable and then oppress them in order to make themselves feel more safe.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/05/jock-strap-religion.html
I apologize for so many links.
I guess I’m like Laura O. This sharing of ideas and understanding causes my head to spin too. But it’s easier for me to point back to my thoughts when I was first dealing with the crazymaking doctrine of Patriarchy and Complemtarianism and all the contradictions within the teachings. It’s hard to deal with TGC and CBMW twisting and turning scripture around to make it support their doctrine of control, power, hierarchy and fear. It’s easier for them to build up their false doctrine of self-protection and then jump up and down screaming at egals accusing us of not honoring the Word.
I think Genesis 3:16 explains it all. (God said to the woman….your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.)
As a woman, I am very aware of my tendency to want the approval of my husband. I was boy crazy as a teen and desired my husband’s approval more than God’s sometimes in the earlier days of my marriage. I think this is what is being referred to when the verse says we will desire our husbands. But men’s biggest pitfall will be a driving need for power. This dynamic is not God’s “protection” now that the fall has happened. It’s not even a curse on Eve (it doesn’t say, “because you have done…cursed are you”) It is just describing how things will go from now on. DEscriptive not PREscriptive.
As Rebeccah Mui’s article describes, men have used sex (and control) to gain power for millennia. I agree the use of power comes from fear–fear of not being at the top of the food chain. Not all men twist their obsession with sex and control into something good and God ordained, and I am grateful for them (cough, cough, Keith). And I am grateful for women like Sheila who are optimistic that things are changing in the church. I just wish I shared that optimism, especially given the history that Rebeccah lays out.
I will keep praying, and I will keep trying to speak up (I am naturally timid.) Thank God I have found 2 like-minded friends, so I don’t feel so crazy now. My church is dedicated to the use of TGC materials, so much so, that I spend much Sunday mornings hoping I won’t throw up.
If you haven’t read Rebeccah’s article, make the time. It explains so much. And the podcast mentioned in her article is great too.
These complementarian Evangelicals are sounding a whole lot like Catholics, with their focus on procreation. I’m not a great theological thinker, so I’m curious what others here think about that.
Wow! Thank you for this summary – I dove into Rebekah Mui’s article and it is fantastic. I cannot express the amount I agree with her arguments. As the kids say, “This tracks.” Our family just left a church who taught these things and who harmed many abused spouses; this article helps me have sturdier legs to stand on to discuss and explain both simple and complex nuances of the issues with complimentarianism. Preach, Rebekah Mui and Sheila!
As a church librarian, I really appreciate your resources. I have been trying to remove some of the more problematic and unbalanced books. I don’t want resources that are just one sided as far as theology, but I also don’t want ones that are so far one direction that they are extremist. It never even occurred to me until running across your blog that I needed to have a much closer look at the marriage section. Some of the ones you had mixed reviews on, I think I will keep for now, but…Love and Respect…wow. My husband and I skimmed through the section on sex and, man what a headache!
More to the point of the current discussion, I was curious if you have looked at “The 5 sex needs of Men and Women”? I don’t see it on your rubic and I decided I should look into it, just to see if I should keep it and even if I do, if I need to put a “sensitive content sticker on it, lol; like “Sheet music” (I never thought I would be uttering the phrase “christian answer to the Kama Sutra” but here we are). I am just getting into it, but so far it is looking okay. Of note to this discussion: unlike L & R, they don’t rate the #1 sex need of men as “physical release” (very romantic, sigh) but rather, drum roll please: Mutual Satisfaction! And #2? Physical and emotional connection, *gasp*. Okay, enough sarcasm. Quote: “Yes, men need a physical release…Yes, they do think about sex a lot, but God also designed them with a strong desire to need their wives to enjoy the experience as much as they do. More than 67 % of the men who responded to our survey listed mutual satisfaction as their top need. They indicated that they believe a good sexual relationship is one in which both husband and wife experience satisfaction during lovemaking. “
At least they mention that women can reach orgasm, but look at the phrasing of it: She needs to reach orgasm SO THAT he’s happy. It’s not for her own sake. So now women are told, “if you don’t enjoy it, he won’t enjoy it, so you need to enjoy it, darn it!” It still centers his experience, not hers. Why not just say that sex is supposed to be mutually pleasurable, and often she has a much harder time reaching orgasm, so it’s his responsibility to help her? Instead, in the way they worded it, it’s HER responsibility to achieve orgasm. That’s not how it works!
Uh, bear in mind that this is the chapter specifically on his needs. The book is called Sex needs of Men And Women for a reason, it deals with both. I only mentioned part from the men’s side because the discussions at hand were about men who didn’t see any need to see sexual enjoyment as mutually necessary. It still needs to be taken in context, like all good analysis of any writing. The chapter on her needs, for instance, talks about him sacrificing to do things that will make her feel valued and loved for the sake of her enjoyment of both the relationship and sex, quote “not for what she is physically able to give you–but because you love her enough to put aside your own desire.”
Also, based on the larger content of the quote, it doesn’t imply, as you phrased it, that she has to be responsible for him coming to orgasm so he can enjoy it. You are reading into something that small quote can’t possibly communicate. The chapter actually goes on to say the opposite. It actually quotes a woman who talks about the reason that she has found sex is so enjoyable because her husband “has always made my pleasure–my coming to orgasm–his first priority”.
So, you didn’t say, have you read it?
Meant to say, that it doesn’t imply that she has to be responsible for herself coming to orgasm so that he can enjoy it.
Is there a comparable section on her need to orgasm for her own sake? Because in the book His Needs, Her Needs, for instance, she is told that sex is a need for him (but not for her), and it only registers if she reaches orgasm, so her orgasm is ultimately for him. This is also true in other Christian marriage books. Her pleasure for her own sake is never mentioned.
The tone of the book is very mutual.
Maybe not perfect, but I’m not out to remove every book that isn’t perfect (like with people in the church, if we removed all but the perfect ones, there wouldn’t be any left) just trying to get rid of the toxic ones. Coincidentally I had just taken out ‘His needs, Her needs’ to have a look at. Yeah, that’s a Very selfish tone. Very different from the other book, especially in the top 5 needs for men. I know from growing up in them that the 80s were a very ‘me’ centered generation, but his list makes me wonder if he only spent time talking to narcissists. Yeah, that book is going right in the bin.