Shouldn’t authors care if their teaching harms women?
I shared a story on Facebook yesterday, and I wanted to expand on it a bit today here, since it resonated so much there.
The last few weeks my mind has been replaying a convo I had a few years ago with one of the authors we frequently critique. He had been a good friend, and when The Great Sex Rescue came out, I thought he’d be all for it.
But he wasn’t.
He said that we weren’t sympathetic enough to men’s struggle with lust.
He had read our manuscript, and I remember having a phone call with him to discuss it. I frequently talk on the phone while walking around my neighbourhood, and I remember what streets I was on as I tried to explain women’s perspective and experience. I explained, over and over again, that when you teach “all men struggle with lust, it’s every man’s battle” you hurt women. Their libidos fall. Their orgasm rates fall. And their rates of sexual pain disorders go up. I repeated all the statistics that he had read in our book, while on that phone conversation.
He kept saying, “but women just need to understand this.”
I explained that, since we have proof now that this does demonstrable and measurable harm for women, that this message can’t be from God and it can’t be true, because God wouldn’t harm women like that. And he kept doubling down that this was how men were.
So I tried a different tactic. I asked, “What if instead we taught men what lust is, and called men to treat women with respect, as whole people? Isn’t women’s pain worth that?”
And he kept repeating that I was being naive; that I didn’t understand men. That if women just understood men better, they wouldn’t have these negative outcomes. The negative outcomes were apparently due to women not accepting how men were, and fighting against it and, presumably, expecting more.
So the problem, again, was with women.
That broke my heart.
I had thought this person truly loved Jesus.
I had thought they were committed to marital health. But when I showed evidence that his teaching hurt women, he basically said, “well, that’s their fault for not accepting men as they are.”
Now, I know some of you may be pushing back (as some did on Facebook!), saying that just because someone is wrong about something doesn’t mean they don’t love Jesus. And I agree with that.
But this isn’t a matter of a difference of opinion on infant baptism or the rapture or whether you should raise your hands when singing. This is about “is it okay to harm a whole group of people by what you teach? Does their pain matter?”
And he felt it didn’t. And all the markers of loving Jesus show that loving Jesus means loving those that Jesus loves and wanting to protect them, not hurt them. You certainly can’t justify hurting women just so that men can continue to sin!
It all reminds me of a scene from the movie Shrek that I talked about recently on a Substack article:
There’s a line in the movie Shrek that our family keeps repeating lately that sums up our society: the evil prince is announcing a tournament for the “privilege” of rescuing Princess Fiona. He declares magnanimously to the knights gathered before him, “Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”
That’s the call of the (largely American white) evangelical church right now as it looks at the rest of society: “Some of you may suffer, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”
We teach as gospel that men get to make the final decision, even if she doesn’t like it. We teach that men have a “God-given” need for domestic support, so she should have to do the housework (thanks, His Needs, Her Needs and Marriage on the Rock). We teach that sex is a male entitlement and a female obligation, to the extent that Love & Respect even teaches that women don’t need orgasms, and Sheet Music tells women that when they’re bleeding heavily or they’re not feeling well, they should just give their husbands hand jobs or blow jobs, since “faithfulness is a two-person job.” We teach that God created men to lust (thanks, Every Man’s Battle), but God’s will is that a man lusts after only one woman, rather than every woman, so she must make herself available at all times so he doesn’t stray.
None of this is good news. But if you don’t believe it they say you don’t believe the Bible…
But Jesus sacrificed Himself, not others.
…Yet instead of giving away power, they are trying to remake society into something that benefits them. And when others say, “hey, that’s not fair,” they say they’re being persecuted, that Biblical values are under attack.
But their good news is only good for a very small group of people.
So it’s not really good news at all.
That’s really the heart of it. Jesus sacrificed himself for others; this author was saying that women should sacrifice their safety and well-being for men’s comfort.
“Some of you women may never receive the sexual pleasure you otherwise would have; your marriages may be much worse; you may even have sexual pain disorders. But this is okay, because it’s worth it because men need not to be shamed for lusting.”
Did he say that in those exact words? No, of course not. But that was the meaning of it.
He didn’t care that women were hurt, because the priority was that men not be shamed for lust.
And, as people said on Facebook, there’s a lot of grey areas in the Bible, but lust isn’t one of them.
Jesus explicitly blamed men for lust.
He said they should pluck out their eyes. He didn’t say “boys will be boys.” Yet our best-selling evangelical authors argue that it’s okay that the cost of men’s comfort is women’s pain.
This interaction triggled a huge crisis of faith for me.
It was right around when The Great Sex Rescue was published, and I was honestly a mess for the next two years or so. I truly believed that these authors who were preaching about Jesus would care about women when they saw our stats, but they didn’t. How could it be that these people that I thought loved Jesus truly didn’t care about women?
The only parts of the Bible I could read were the gospels, and that’s where I stayed for a long while.
I don’t keep tabs on that author very much anymore. We never talk anymore, and we’ve gone our separate ways. He considers me an enemy, I’m sure (and he’s written as much without directly naming me).
But I did see his social media recently, which is likely what triggered the dreams I’ve been having lately replaying this conversation. And in that post, he was calling making racist and misogynistic statements “painting outside the lines a little”, and said we shouldn’t judge someone’s faith by that.
This same man once preached sermons against racism. I wonder if he would do the same today.
I think God gives each of us very specific moments in life when we get to choose our path.
Yes, everyday decisions matter, but I think there are these telling, defining moments for each of us. I think that’s what the story of Pharaoh and the 10 plagues is really about. Pharaoh had the opportunity, at each point, to change the whole trajectory of his life. And each time he chose wrong, bringing more and more calamity–but also making it more likely he would choose wrong again in the future.
When we choose the wrong path, we harden our hearts. When we ignore the voice of God, we make it harder to hear Him later.
I think my interaction with this author is a microcosm of what’s happened in evangelicalism.
As I’ve said before, the American evangelical church as a whole was more open to women thirty and forty years ago than it is today. Beth Allison Barr shows that so well in her newest book Becoming the Pastor’s Wife. The church has hardened its heart. And much harm has been done.
And many people’s faith is floundering, like mine was, because how can these people who know the Bible so well and who claim to love Jesus not care about the harm they are doing? As one woman said on Facebook, the real fear she has is that THIS is what God actually thinks. And how could we live like that? They are teaching women to doubt God’s love for us and His goodness towards us.
That’s what still haunts me. Rebecca and Keith have an easier time processing this than I do. But I feel like I knew this author; I felt what I thought was his love for Jesus. How do I reconcile that?
I don’t know. Which is likely why I keep dreaming about this conversation, on an endless loop, hoping that one day it may end differently.
One thought that I had that might illuminate the difference between your opinions on the matter. I think largely across the evangelical space, lust is viewed as a sin that mostly harms the sinner (mostly a inward heart issue, like pride), vs a sin that actively harms another (murder being the most obvious example in this category). You are talking past each other because he doesn’t see that lust has victims outside the sinner. If lust is a heart only issue, then women need to give grace as the man works on his own heart. You are saying, while you work on your heart issue, your lust is hurting those around you. I think he is dismissing your data because “lust is a heart issue” so others can’t be hurt that isn’t how this works. (I think that is a delusional thought by the by but that is another matter.) I think this might also be why he is missing that when people act like predators, other people pull away from them, because he doesn’t think that a solely heart matter would make someone a predator. I think it is weird that people think that what you think about others in the privacy of your own bedroom won’t affect how you treat them when you actually interact with them.
This has me asking…. Do we, as the church really know the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit?? I don’t think we do. Do we really believe God has a more full life for us than we have for ourselves? I don’t think so. We’re missing the Gospel completely.
I disagree that pride doesn’t harm others. I’d argue it’s the primary cause of most of the recent scandals in the church!
(I agree with you on everything else though)
I absolutely agree that frankly there is really isn’t a sin that only affects the sinner, but I needed some example where there isn’t a direct “I do the sin and it immediately affects the other person” situation.
I think you may be on to something! I think this is a big part of it. I also find it interesting that in the book Every Man’s Battle they never once talk about the effect on the women around them. The victim of their lust is–their own purity.
This topic is so wonderful for me to hear. I have a whole childhood that has been shushed in order for the people I am begging to care to feel more comfortable. I am so glad you are sharing this I’m not the only one! I’ve experienced certain kinds of church people not having empathy for my pain because of having hard hearts. To top it off, my daily reading is in Exodus reading about the ten plagues! I’m in shock how this all lines up, and so grateful for you’re honesty, Sheila. I respect you and your book so much and feel less alone now 😊
Oh I’m so glad! And I do think the 10 plagues have a to teach us about hardening hearts!
I think we need to define lust here.
Shortly after the birth of one of my children, I was in the grocery store checkout line when I heard a baby cry ACROSS the store. In less than a minute, I was leaking milk profusely. I did not picture that baby in my mind, I did not imagine nursing that baby. I simply heard the cry and my body took over.
If a man sees woman or an image, and starts to rise, I am struggling to label that lust.
However, if he is looking at a women or images FOR THE PURPOSE OF stimulating a rise, that IS lusting.
If the first situation is lusting, then yes, (almost) all men lust and I’m having a hard time seeing it as sin.
I shall go now and find a good place to hide. =)
I think you’re exactly right. Lust isn’t merely a biological reaction or that spark of attraction. Lust is objectifying someone and using them for your own gratification.
I think sometimes when we think that “you can’t lust for your own wife” that proves people don’t understand lust. Because you absolutely can lust after your spouse, since lust isn’t just sexual attraction but objectification and using someone.
Interesting you should bring that up. I mentioned the suggestion of “sending boudoir pictures to your husband” to my husband. I said this seemed unwise for a couple of reasons. He was quiet, then said…”I don’t think that men should feed that side of themselves”. Later (a few days) it came up again and he said “that is straight up objectifying your wife”.
We have never really discussed these things or talked about objectifying women. He does not participate in any social media, hasn’t read any “christian” marriage books. I was impressed that he pegged these things so accurately.
I don’t think a woman that sends a picture to her husband of her wearing the new cute lingerie she bought is objectifying. There is a danger that we may go to the other extreme, a woman expressing her sexuality is seen as unholy, being sexual is not what a good girl does.
A woman expressing her sexuality consesually is not disrespecting herself. Objectification occurs when the man disrespects the woman’s consent.
Effimia, if a woman chooses to have these pictures taken, that’s her choice, but the example in the book was portrayed as a way of stopping the husband lusting after other women, which is very different. (Though I’m still not convinced that boudoir pictures are a good idea anyway because of the risk of hacking etc)
This is such an interesting discussion. One of my best friends shared with me what happened in her first marriage. They had both waited until marriage to have sex, but the husband had a background in porn when he was younger, and had continued to turn to it occasionally when stressed etc. The woman had no background in porn.
My friend is a very loud and energetic character, very athletic, impulsive. She would be honest about the
fact she had found waiting to have sex really hard. Once they were married she couldn’t wait to enjoy all the sex she had been denying herself – everything. But the first time she stripped in front of him, he shut down and told her please not to ever do that again. That it made him feel so guilty, and even though they were married, he just could not ever get to a place where it wouldn’t feel wrong.
Look they still had a very active sex life, and were married for a number of years. But eventually the marriage broke up. But I remember the pain when my friend was trying to process what had happened there right at the beginning of their marriage, and it took her ages, like maybe years, to even realise that the reason he reacted like that and wouldn’t be comfortable with stripping was because he had watched women stripping for years (something she hadn’t understood when they had been trying to work through his porn history prior to marriage).
It just killed me that my friend’s freedom to be herself sexually was so affected and even sort of cancelled by his deliberate choices to lust after other women prior to marriage.
Porn is really the definition of lust, and the stats on teenage boys seeking out porn are horrific, so I think the idea that most men are never tempted by lust is impossible.
We have to start reckoning with the damage porn works in peoples marriages. The way the comparisons hit and paralyse women, and destroy what should be special, and private to two people only. I feel so lucky I’m old enough to come from a generation before the internet, where girls my age really did get guys that had kept all of this for their future wife. The current generation of girls seem to have just resigned themselves to there being no men at all who have made godly choices in this arena, and refused to pursue women sexually before marriage, or in a ‘using’, objectifying way (not saying someone who has sex before marriage in a loving and exclusive relationship is necessarily wrong).
Wow! That’s so great.
Sheila, I understand your faith dilemma as it is my own. Reconciling why a group of proclaimed Christians would turn their back on a population in the Body of Christ is beyond baffling to me; it is egregious. In my case, it was young boys being sexually assaulted by another young teenage boy, and when the Christians in authority over these children learned of it, they did nothing. Actually, they initially claimed to have done something, only to admit later that they had done nothing. In essence, what they did is make it go away. I struggle to find a church community in my area that is non-denominational and without legalism and fundamentalism. There is a dangerous trend happening in some of our churches across this country, and I fear what my own children will have as options. I believe our family unit is not destined to remain in our current “pond.” We will soon retire/relocate to another place that will be more like an “ocean” from which there are so many fish in the sea from which to pick. Having lived in a more metropolitan area eons ago, the choices of finding a church were many. I believe this author, of whom you speak, will have his day of reckoning, as I also believe so many others like him will. It is my prayer that it will not be on their deathbeds. Proverbs 16:18 – Pride goes before destruction. Sheila, you have brought to light a gi-hugic (yes, made-up word) issue that these men are unable to acknowledge because of their pride – they see it, I know they do. They believe the statistics because they cannot refute them, but they can ignore them because they do not serve their egotistical purpose for keeping men infantile, entitled, and well-served by their wives. These men – the patriarchy, the privileged – attack you because the truth is not on their side. Someone once shared this with me when I was in the thick of my situation with the young boys. She asked me, “What are they denying?” I thought about that and I guessed, “The truth?” She smiled and wrote down on a napkin, Truth. I saw she capitalized the “T” in truth, and her point hit me hard. I said, “They are denying the Truth, so they are denying Jesus.” And she said, “Just like they did in Jesus’ time.” I hope that brings you, Sheila, what that brought me – enlightenment on a situation that is covered with justification. Let them know we are Christians by our love, even if it means we are persecuted for believing in the Truth.
I don’t understand why people in ministry are so lackadaisical about the knowledge that their words and actions can drive a wedge between other people and God. I would never want to face God and have Him say, “You caused someone to turn away from Me.” That is a terrifying, soul-destroying idea. But people say and do things all the time that make others turn away from God and in the case of this guy, he knows it and he literally doesn’t care. How tragic.
I don’t get it either. I really don’t!
I think what he should more accurately have said is that HE has a problem with lust which he does not want to confront because he really likes it. And he has convinced his wife (if he’s married ( that this is how men are made and so she has to accommodate him, and he doesn’t want that to change.
Thank you for posting this.
I am grateful for people like Dr. Andrew Bauman who have written books like: The Sexually Healthy Man” with reams on the social and relational harm in objectifying and or “consuming” women” (lust). His work with Men’s Intensives and at Men’s recovery conferences in this space is amazing. He will not let any man in his presence minimize the harm or collateral damage from lusting. When a man I know tried to minimize the damage from his compulsive behavior Dr. Bauman called him a “sneaky bastard”. We need more men and women to callout things as they see them and not minimize harmful behavior.
There are a few faith driven, clinically informed sexual/love addiction programs out there like the Samson Society, and Pure Desire-not a weekend but 10 months or more of intensive daily work in a safe community of men tired of living unhealthy , inauthentic lives hurting themselves and their relationships.
In short: IMHO lust is not a victimless crime!
I really appreciate Andrew Bauman too! He’s a treasure.
Just to clarify I don’t personally recommend Pure Desire, I found it quite gaslighting towards women who had been in adulterous or sex addicted marriages.
The articles were all purely focusing on forgiveness, reconciliation and how much better the marriage was going to be than it was before. They didn’t at all take the experience of the betrayed spouse seriously. They didn’t seem to understand betrayal trauma at all, or the fact that forgiveness and trust are two entirely separate things. One is recommended by Scripture – forgiveness. The other – trusting immediately a person again who has deceived you – is not.
I felt the wounding to the betrayed spouse was seriously undervalued, and to be honest I sort of got the feeling the whole website existed to enable Christian men to cheat and get away with it without losing their wife or any status. That might sound harsh, but it came very slowly as the result of reading a lot of articles that said the same thing. That your marriage was going to be so much better as a result of this cheating. And in the experience of myself and a lot of friends, none of us would say our marriage dramatically improved because of the cheating. And all of us have and will have trauma for life and an inability to trust, regardless of any future relationships etc. So just be careful if you’re using the site.
Not only does the “all men lust” belief hurt women, it also hurts men. Especially teenage boys when they’re being told that “all men lust, it’s just the way you are.” This causes them to feel shame whenever they look at an attractive female, then they’re worried that they’re lusting.
During my single years, I was told feeling an attraction toward another single guy was lusting. Since I was afraid of sinning, I almost married someone I was not physically attracted to and thought that was a good thing because I hardly had sexual thoughts about him. I’m glad I realized that attraction is an important ingredient to a marriage or you might just as well be platonic roommates.
On another note, how would this man feel if you told him that women love to shop? They cannot help it, that’s just how they are and you men need to accept that.
Exactly, Laura!
The part about women compulsively needing to shop is actually a common trope among the men in the 95%+ male workforce where I work.
I am not surprised that someone who has belittled women’s suffering in the past is now treating racism as unimportant. People who drift away from one area of truth don’t usually stop there. People who treat one group of people as less important don’t usually stop there either.
Absolutely! But he had actually preached sermons against racism in the past. He was quite sensitive to it and got in trouble for it in his denomination. And now he’s minimizing it. I’m just totally gobsmacked.
Look at David. Started off so well. Then got a little bit lazy and arrogant. Then lusted. Then raped. Then murdered. The slippery slope is a very real danger. People don’t tend to go from 100% wholeheartedly following Jesus to turning their back on him. It starts off with excusing the ‘little things that don’t matter’, with ignoring the gentle prompts of the Holy Spirit about something that doesn’t really seem important.
Many years ago, I read a book on humility that argued it was the most important characteristic of the Christian life, because everything else was rooted into that. At the time, I thought it was overkill, but the older I get, the more I think the author was right! Arrogance and pride are so insidious.
What was the book please? X
The Blessing of Humility by Jerry Bridges. He goes through the Sermon on the Mount and points out how everything links back to being ‘poor in spirit’ (i.e. humble).
Humility by Andrew Murray is the other one I read at the same time – from memory, both are good.
I wonder how much of this guy’s doubling down was a case of “I have Problem X, so All Men must have Problem X”?
Isn’t belittling women’s suffering just a hop, skip and a jump from convincing yourself it’s all part of God’s plan? And if you’re a man it becomes good news for me but not for thee.
I don’t see how your reply relates to my comment.
Depending on how the page displays (computer/laptop, phone, etc.) it is easy to think you are making a stand-alone comment, then it shows up as a “reply” to another. It well may not have been meant as a reply.
Sheila, I write with care and great concern.
You say were messed up two years since the conversation. But then triggered now, many years later and spend weeks dreaming about this conversation, on an endless loop, hoping that one day it may end differently.
This profoundly disturbing to read. You admit fabricating quote and imagine conversations that did not even take place? And to infer his meaning from imaginary conversation?
You certainly can’t justify lying just so you can continue to attack evangelical authors.
Its dishonest. Its not of Jesus.
You risks integrity of ministry, not to mention own well being.
Please, I implore, speak with psychologist to process grief with private healing and anger.
Where did she say any of the things she had paraphrased him on were fabricated? The only thing she mentioned was remembering a conversation that *actually occurred* a few years ago multiple times across a few weeks, from which she drew out the *logical implications* of the attitude he had.
We have proof that if you teach “all men lust, and thus shouldn’t be shamed for it” then you harm women. The author endorsed the view that all men lust and shouldn’t be shamed for it. By modus ponens, the most fundamental rule of logic, he harms women. By giving reasons why it’s no big deal, he’s excusing the harm of women. This is basic logical implication.
There is no fabrication. You are reading things Sheila did not say (dare I say mirroring the fabrication you accuse her of) and denigrating her character because of it. Please, *I* implore *you*, read and consider her words more carefully rather than tell her she needs psychological help.
I’m not sure what you mean, Anna? The conversation did take place. And I’ve been dreaming that it may end differently and he may see the light. I’m not sure why that’s disturbing?
What, exactly, is dishonest here? What quote have I fabricated?
Anna, that’s a seriously messed up response.
Hey Anna,
I think I understand where your heart is so I hope this helps clear up some misunderstanding.
The only part Sheila made up was the quote IN THE SMALL BOX in which she was concisely summarizing the other person’s many thoughts on these issues, “Some of you women may never receive … because men need not to be shamed for lusting.” Anna, I get the feeling you believe she imagined all of the conversation (everything on the blog post) up until that but she did not. If that is what you understood it to mean, I can see where you would feel so concerned and think she was lying. I’d suggest rereading or asking clarifying questions next time before making such an accusation though.
That said, when a person has spent years trusting others who claim to be those who love Jesus and His’ children and who use that influence to teach others then ignore all the work and money Sheila has put into research to figure out the reason women are hurting, of course it will take time to process that! It is a major, and large-scale, betrayal trauma! That is a massive paradigm shift to make and process, particularly when in the public eye where words that you or they say are all over social media, internet, in print, etc. Add to that her job is hosting a blog in which these very issues are dealt with on repeat likely daily… I cannot imagine the extra layer.
Sharing one’s grief and hurt, particularly when in the public eye, so transparently so you can help women en masse is courageous and displays incredible strength of character. I admire her honesty with her struggles. It allows many of us to know it is good for us to process our pain, too. My belief is that her heart isn’t just hurting for herself; it hurts for the thousands of women who will continue to hurt because men like this author refuse to accept biblical accountability and repent.
Well, I really wanted to write here yesterday. I just didn’t have the words. My thoughts were focused on the heading “Having a defined moment where we get to choose our path.” If I am honest, that scares me. I don’t want to be in the wrong place and choose wrong, if that is true. This morning as I read ALL the comments it was so refreshing. Then? Yep, I saw where someone chose their path in the moment. It made me feel sad. There is Hope! There is hope that they may need food. There is hope that they may need drink. There is hope that we have the opportunity to give kindness. That is of Jesus.
Yes! And honestly, we always have the choice to choose a better path, even if we’ve chosen wrong in the past. It just gets harder. But there’s always the chance.
Paul addresses this topic directly in 1 Thessalonians, and he makes it quite clear that the believer needs to learn self-control in matters of lust, so that they don’t wrong their fellow believer (spouse!). Then he goes on to equate rejecting this with rejecting God himself! I’m honestly not sure how a Christian could read this teaching and still continue to double down on accepting the sin. Is this a hard teaching? Sure! Do I have other internal sins (pride, greed, etc) that I am responsible for addressing, so that I don’t harm my fellow believer, and am I tempted to justify or indulge them? Also yes!
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
4 As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b] The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.
YES! We used those verses in The Great Sex Rescue too to debunk the idea that all men struggle with lust.
Is it possible that it is terminology and grammar that is the problem here?
I think when you are using the phrase ‘all men struggle with lust’ you are possibly using it in a present continuous type way – meaning more like ‘all men will always continue to struggle with lust, all the time’.
When I hear the phrase ‘all men struggle with lust’ what I have always understood or thought of is like almost a future perfect or past perfect meaning ‘all men will have a struggle with lust at some point’, or ‘all men will at some point int heir lives face a struggle with lust’.
When I hear that phrase nothing in the phrase automatically suggests to me that the ‘struggle’ is the same as a capitualisation, or a giving in and giving up. I just hear the phrase as ‘all men will be tempted by lust at some point’.
I think for me, couldn’t it be that you and the author actually might agree on more than you think? He might be meaning ‘all men will be tempted to lust at some point’ and you might well agree with that. Especially given the horrendous porn stats for teenage boys, and the fact that some teenage boys who don’t pursue porn will still be tempted to lust. Then when you say that you don’t believe that all men will continuously struggle nonstop with lust for their whole entire lives and never try to improve on it, he might well agree with that, and say that he believes men, and women, should all work hard to grow our self-control in this area, even though it is hard.
When you point out that lust is a choice its going to get a lot of people mad, but its the truth. I believe that women could wear anything and be lusted over because its a fantasy about the woman. I understand modesty being brought up is only good if you want to protect the woman and done in a loving manner. I a 35yr old man that has a lust problem does not blame women for it. I am to repent of my sin and try again not attack anyone and use it as an excuse. Please pray for me that I can overcome this In Jesus name.
I think we will rarely be successful in trying to argue against someone’s belief in a certain tenet by presenting scientific evidence that it harms someone. That doesn’t work generally- many studies have shown that most people cling to their beliefs no matter what evidence you show them. Jesus summed it up: “Believing is seeing.” And Christianity, with its emphasis on suffering for faith and obeying God even when it hurts, is no exception. The first pivotal act of faith in the OT was Abraham offering his son as a sacrifice. Probably most studies would show that family members who are bound and have knives plunged into their hearts as a human sacrifice have worse outcomes than family members who don’t, but Abraham was lauded for being willing to do exactly that.
The research you have done is extremely important, but when it bumps up against what someone else considers “biblical truth”, you’re often going to be talking to a brick wall. I mean, look at Christians who interpret the Bible to say that modern medicine, doctors, drugs and vaccines are not biblical— they will literally watch their beloved family members die because of their misguided beliefs. They would be willing to give their own lives for their loved ones, but they won’t take them to a hospital because they think that is what God wants. That’s an extreme example, but I think it’s representative of how dedicated people can be to a belief that harms themselves and others, even when it breaks their hearts- you can’t necessarily say they don’t care about others. In the case of Christians, they are often more afraid of seeing someone else sin than of seeing them suffer, because they think sin has eternal consequences, but suffering is only “for a moment.” It’s an almost universal characteristic, to be loyal to ideas even in the face of being shown that they are illogical or harmful. Perhaps your former friend falls into that category, it’s hard to say.
Personally, I think asking questions that speak the language of the person’s worldview may be more likely in getting a toe in the door, although it’s still tough. Several commenters have alluded to it— lust is one of the seven deadly sins, which I have heard described as sins of lifestyle and habit rather than a one-time sinful act. And we probably would be skeptical if we met a person who claimed they had never lied, never lost their temper, never been greedy or selfish, never lusted. So in that sense, yes, all men lust just like all humans sin… but it makes things worse if we do not make some important clarifications. There is a difference between someone who recognizes sin, takes responsibility for it, stops the sin and makes amends if appropriate, and either moves on or seeks help, vs someone who is enslaved to the sin, blames others for it, justifies it, and is habitually sinful. Perhaps that person’s sin has even moved into the realm of the abusive, pathological or criminal. A statement like “all men lust,” is equivalent to saying “hey, I’m only human” or “hey, everybody does it” when confronted with sin.
Also, the fact that we all commit certain common sins at times— does that mean we are excused? Does it mean that those around us have to shelter us from the common, everyday scenarios that may provoke temptation? Should my boss never ask me a hard question, because I might be tempted to tell a lie? Should I never be asked to do a lot of work, because I might be tempted to be lazy?
I think to be honest I do find this post confusing. At the heart is it’s still not clear what exactly words the original author used.
In the title of this article you are saying he said ‘ men always lust’, but in the article itself you indicate that he said ‘all men struggle with lust’.
Those are two completely different sentences, with different meanings that cannot remotely be conflated. And it’s really important we don’t conflate them. Did the author say both? As if that is the case it would be more helpful to have that drawn out.
For me, saying ‘men always lust’ is hugely problematic, and would seem to suggest the belief that the Holy Spirit is not capable of helping in this area of a human’s life, and that human’s themselves will not take it seriously enough to enact self-control in this sexual area. So if he said that, I can understand where your concern is coming from, although, like others, I would suggest this doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Jesus, just that like all of us, he may love Jesus and still have erroneous beliefs and problematic beliefs. Peter loved Jesus and denied knowing him.
If he said ‘all men struggle with lust’, that’s an entirely different thing, and to me that doesn’t indicate that we then wholeheartedly receive ‘Every Man’s Battle’ etc, as the teaching inside that book is horrendous. But the title of Every Man’s Battle isn’t the part that is damaging.
I think Jesus himself was indicating in Matthew 5 that lust and anger are more common temptations than adultery and murder. Not many of us will do the latter, but we all will probably do the former at some point in our lives. To acknowledge the struggle not to sexualise other people is categorically not the same as saying we are to give in to that struggle.
I believe the vast majority of men and women will struggle at some point in their life with lust, and the oversexualised culture we live in makes it all the harder. I want to see men as my brothers, but when I see them portrayed on TV or in movies in sexual ways, it is really hard for my mind not to go there and think about having sex with them – ie it’s hard for me not to lust. When I see guys in my church doing things that are attractive, it’s a temptation to think about them sexually. That doesn’t mean I’m saying I should give in to the lust and treat men as possible sex objects. No. It just means it’s a temptation. I don’t think denying that temptation helps anybody. It’s just going to drive it underground and fill anyone who ever lusts with such shame that they feel like monsters.
I want to grow in my ability to treat all men as brothers and fathers, but I’m honestly not there yet, and me admitting that lust is a temptation and a struggle in no way means I’m going to treat men as objects or have less good sex myself. None of the bad outcomes you mention are linked to the idea itself of lust being a struggle, they are linked to how people act concerning lust. Do they downplay it? red flag. Do they excuse it? Red flag. Do they admit it’s a struggle they honestly face, but want to improve? No red flag.
Does this make sense? A lot of the time you guys are bang on the money, and you have helped so many people in so many ways. But here I just gotta say my truth and say I think the picture is more nuanced than you are making it out to be.
In our book, we specifically used the phrase “all men struggle with lust”, because that is what we measured in our survey.
And yet it was because of that phrase that he couldn’t get on board, because we just didn’t, apparently, realize what men go through with lust.
So he was objecting to the more mild phrase that “all men struggle with lust”.
So he was objecting to the idea that ‘all men struggle with lust’? That puts a totally different spin on it. What did he object to about that phrase?