You are here

Home ›

Authority and submission in the bedroom...

by Tim Bayly on July 22, 2012 - 12:15pm

Under son Joseph's post, "Humble is as stupid does...," "Anne" asks the question:

Can you provide Scripture that says authority and submission, 'conquering' and 'surrendering', are to be carried out in the bedroom? Because neither Song of Songs nor 1Corinthians 7, not even Ephesians 5 in its entirety suggests such a thing.

P.S: Failure to respond will be taken as a failure to provide appropriate scripture.

To which I respond:

Dear Anne,

Concerning physical marital intimacy, function follows form... One of the race of Adam has been blessed by God the Father with physical body parts that receive and one with parts that penetrate. This requires those wishing to use those body parts as God intended--for the propagation of a Godly seed through being fruitful and multiplying--to initiate or to submit, just as God made them. One says, as it were, "Dear other half, my love and wife, I'm coming in," and the other "Dear other half, my love and husband, I'm ready and waiting to receive you." From love one deposits the seed; and from love, the other receives, protects, and nurtures the seed, ushering it toward the egg so that that male seed may penetrate the female egg, bringing about by the power of God a new man--male or female--who also bears the image of God.

If one understands that authority is to take responsibility for others and submission is to serve the one in authority to the end that his taking of responsibility bears the fruit God commands, it would be hard to come up with a more accurate picture among men (male and female) of Godly authority and Godly submission than the union of man and wife for the propagation of a godly seed. Function follows form.

I suppose you could use the words 'conquering' and 'surrendering' if you were determined to do so, but in our world where feminists speak much of "marital rape" and define the institution of marriage as "sex for money," it would seem infelicitous to do so. It might better serve as a description of the dance of sperm and egg because then no one could accuse the sperm of raping the egg. It's hard to impute hostility to the sperm or fear and terror to the egg.

Further, the whole language of Scripture in describing marital union is the language of free consent, and where there is no free consent, there is no marriage. This is the reason for the Declaration of Consent at the beginning of every Christian marriage service--the "will you" part at the beginning of the service. Without that initial inquiry and satisfactory responses on the part of two equal and free individuals, male and female, there is no Biblical marriage. Note that the model Jewish marriage to this day--that of Isaac and Rebekah--was clearly recorded by the Holy Spirit at the detail of Rebekah's consent (Genesis 24:55-61). Rebekah was asked by her family and she herself agreed to go with Abraham's servant and thereby to become Isaac's wife.

Note that all of Scripture speaks of the authority of the man and the submission of his wife. There is nowhere to escape this fact of God's Creation Order, and certainly not in the marital bed. God our Heavenly Father designed the marriage bed so that it testifies to His Creation Order and those who think they may rebel against him by rebelling against His Creation Order immediately find themselves up against the wall of the body parts He gave them. Again, the authority has the organ of penetration and the submission has the organ of reception. This is the reason Jesus speaks of the Bridegroom going to the Bride to take her away. One is the authority who initiates and the other is the submission who joyfully receives his initiative. Jesus' account of the Bridegroom and the Bride is modelled in every Christian wedding by the pastor asking "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" to which the father of the bride responds, "I do." That is, the bride is given to the bridegroom.

So of course there is authority and submission in the bedroom. It's impossible to escape God's Creation Order. But why would we want to? It's the beauty of sexuality and marriage, that God has made us for union giving us complementary parts of authority and initiative and taking of responsibility and, on the other side, parts of submission and reception and bearing of fruit.

Thus when God made Eve from Adam's rib and gave him his suitable helper, he named her "Ishah" for she was taken out of "Ish." And Scripture records they were both naked and were unashamed.

To rebels it seems as if authority and submission are antithetical to mutuality and love. But Scripture demonstrates the opposite, starting with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. From love for the world, God the Father sent His Son to die. And from love, God the Son submitted to His Father and died. On the Cross. He was crucified, dead, and buried, and He descended into Hell.

There has never been anything but love and mutuality between the members of the Godhead and that mutuality has never been in the slightest degree antithetical to the submission of the Son to His Father. Fully equal. Fully submitted. Both at the same time.

This is what rebels can't understand, and it's the reason Scripture names rebels "idolaters." They do not know the True God. They worship an idol made by the wicked mind of man who is out to kill the father and the Father from Whom all fathers get their name.

So, dear sister, it is fair to say that authority and submission are so deeply embedded by God in man and woman that nowhere Scripture speaks of marriage or sex or fruitfulness or man and wife does it fail to speak of woman being the glory of man, woman being named by man, woman being the helpmeet of man, woman being the wife and the man husbanding her, woman being barred from teaching or exercising authority over man, woman being silent in church, and so on.

Then too, the Bible explicitly speaks of authority and submission in the matter of marital intimacy when it commands husbands and wives to give themselves to one another sexually: "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:4, 5).

So you see the answer everywhere is that there is authority and submission in marital sexual intercourse--"in the bedroom," as you put it. Perfect mutuality and perfect submission. All is at rest when we love and submit to our Heavenly Father.

Love,

PS: After writing the above response to "Anne," I found she had explained her question above in a comment (July 22 at 9:31 AM) she made over at a blog of feminist heretics. Please pray for her.

Tags: 
Femininity & modesty
Feminism
Motherhood
Fatherhood
Marriage
Weddings
Authority

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by Anne on July 22, 2012 - 2:28pm

Tim,

Thanks for your reply. I would like clarify that my reference to the words 'conquering' and 'surrendering' are quoted from the excerpt of Fidelity by Doug Wilson, which was endorsed by Jared (at first). Your belief that he was apologising for scriptural truth,  suggests that you agree with the Doug Wilson excerpt/perspective which is why I quoted those words to you. I was intending to mirror your stance, not give a 'feminist' opinion of authoritative/submissive sex.

I would also like to clarify that I'm not accusing such a stance of supporting non-consensual submission/rape, however Doug Wilson's words had some terrible semantics. He far extended the line. No matter how we interpret the words authority and submission, it very much seemed that in his idea of authority, the husband has the right to penetrate his wife like an invading army in foreign land; whether she likes it or not, she is to submit to him. Doug Wilson's words indicated a sense of violence, violation, domination. Domination in sex, when not mutually enjoyed, has a terrible effect on the receiving party. It's not loving at all, even if she consented to being submissive on the wedding day. This, Tim, is what the 'rebels' objected to when it came to the firestorm. God never calls for a husband to 'conquer and colonize' his wife in bed. Not to mention that it sounded extremely like rape language, which was insensitive towards sexual abuse survivors. 

Biblical headship, if anything, means giving and taking care, which is the ONLY thing husbands are EVER told to do towards their wives. Doug's 'headship' described taking. Selfish authority is the bane of the earth. Selfish 'authority' in sex destroys souls.

Second, am I accurate in understanding that the above response, in a nutshell, says "Authority and submission are God's design for the bedroom because it's God's design in almost everything, including scripture"? I don't want to set up a straw man, so enlighten me if I'm off.

If, however, it's an accurate analysis then I'd like to ask for more proof from the Bible. Simply telling me that 'all of scripture' supports the idea is far too sweeping and generalising and frankly, I can't see what you're talking about. The submission of women in Old Testament times was down to sin, as prophesised in Genesis 3. God was telling Adam and Eve what life would be like out of the garden and 'your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you' is a description of sin when read in context. In the Garden, man and woman were both in God's image and both told to take control of the earth. There is NO verse that can support the idea that 'helper' meant 'to serve'. It can just as easily mean 'to assist on equal level', like a business partner would.

Also, the Corinthians 7 verse talks about mutual authority in the bedroom, yet your argument is that the authority belongs to the man. Why are you using scripture that contradicts you?

I look forward to further debate with you.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 22, 2012 - 2:48pm

>>frankly, I can't see what you're talking about. 

Yes, I'm sure not. I have answered your question and your denial of it is the end of the matter. For any additional questions, please see my six or seven years of responses to the feminist rebellion under the category "Feminism."

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1 Timothy 2:9-15)

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-10)

When I see the slightest hint that a woman or man honors these explicit words of God, we can talk until the cows come home and I'll enjoy it. But to provide a forum for debate over God's Word is a fool's errand and I sign off.

Sadly,

Submitted by Anne on July 22, 2012 - 3:30pm

Fair enough.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 22, 2012 - 3:34pm

By the way, here's the text from Doug Wilson that caused all the feminists to beat their breasts and scream. It's good stuff, as anyone who knows Doug's work could guess. But if you don't know Doug's work, another way to judge how good it is is to watch the rebels respond and the complementarians backpedal. Doug hit his mark squarely.

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.

Submitted by Malorie on July 22, 2012 - 3:44pm

Dear Pastor Tim,

I have read Joseph's post, your post, and your most comment written in response to Anne's most recent comment.  What you have written in this post makes sense to me in light of Scripture and what I've been learning about God's design for men and women.  What I am actually wondering is why does the passage from 1 Corinthians 7 speak of the woman also having authority over the man's body?  That is acutally somewhat suprising and confusing to me when I read it because it doesn't seem to fit with what the rest of Scripture says.  However, I know it must fit becasue it's Scripture.  Can you help me see how it fits?

Thank you!

-Malorie

Submitted by SM on July 22, 2012 - 3:45pm

If masculine authority i.e. penetration, conquering, colonizing, and planting and female submission i.e. reception, acceptance, and surrender are inherent in the act of sex, then what exactly is being suppressed?   Wilson/Wilson and it seems this blog's authors are claiming masculine authority as in penetration, planting, conquering, and colonizing in relationship to female submission is suppressed therefore the cause of rape and rape fantasies?  How is it suppressed if married couples are indeed having sex?

Function follows form.  Authority has the organ for capturing or consuming. Submission has the organ to be enclosed. Authority conquers by enveloping, enclosing, and taking captive. One says, as it were, "Dear other half, my love and husband,  I'm coming after you," and the other "Dear other half, my love and wife,  I'm ready and waiting and surrender to being taken."   Again, the authority has the organ of consuming,  capturing, or enclosing and the submission has the organ of captivity or to be enclosed. This is the reason the Shulamite says,

"When I found the one I love. I held him and would not let him go, Until I had brought him to the house of my mother, And into the chamber of her who conceived me." 

One is the authority who initiates and the other is the submission who joyfully receives her initiative. So of course there is authority and submission in the bedroom. It's impossible to escape God's Creation Order. But why would we want to? It's the beauty of sexuality and marriage, that God has made us for union giving us complementary parts of authority and initiative and taking of responsibility and, on the other side, parts of submission and reception.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 22, 2012 - 3:55pm

>>why does the passage from 1 Corinthians 7 speak of the woman also having authority over the man's body?

Dear Malorie, the wife has authority over her husband's body because a husband might be tempted to sinfully deny his wife her conjugal rights. It might be simply sinful abstinence that constitutes his denial. It might be adultery or pornography leaving him uninterested. Regardless of the sinful origin (we're not talking about prostate cancer here, for instance), God makes it clear that marriage is a vow of physical intimacy which leaves both the husband and wife possessing authority over each other's bodies. They have authority for physical intimacy and each spouse is to submit to other spouse's authority in this regard. This is the one exception to the rule of the husband's authority.

Here's how Calvin explains this passage from 1Corinthians 7:

Husband and wife, therefore, are bound to mutual benevolence: hence it follows, that they have, neither the one nor the other, the power of their own body. But it may be asked, why the Apostle here puts them upon a level, instead of requiring from the wife obedience and subjection. I answer, that it was not his intention to treat of all their duties, but simply of the mutual obligation as to the marriage bed. In other things, therefore, husband and wife differ, both as to duty and as to authority in this respect the condition of both is alike — as to the maintaining of conjugal fidelity. For this reason, also, polygamy is again condemned; for if this is an invariable condition of marriage, that the husband surrenders the power of his own body, and gives it up to his wife, how could he afterwards connect himself with another, as if he were free?

Love,

Submitted by Kamilla on July 22, 2012 - 3:58pm

Tim,

It's funny how when you refuse to go endless rounds with a feminist it's because you have no answers (yep, I toddled on over to the WW for a quick peek) but when a feminist shuts things down it is because the other party has been vile and hateful and doesn't deserve a hearing.

I've heard from several people this weekend, one an irenic and (I think, overly generous to the feminist heretics) calm man, who have been banned from further commenting on a certain feminist heretic's blog.  And she's one who prides herself on pursuing "better" conversations.

I am glad you have the wisdom to shut it down and not give voice to endless rounds of deception.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 22, 2012 - 4:04pm

>>Authority has the organ for capturing or consuming.

This is not what I wrote above. Don't twist my words. It's dishonest. 

>>One says, as it were, "Dear other half, my love and husband, I'm coming after you," and the other "Dear other half, my love and wife,  I'm ready and waiting and surrender to being taken." 

Again, this is not what I wrote above. Don't twist my words. It's dishonest.

Here are my exact words: "One says, as it were, 'Dear other half, my love and wife, I'm coming in,' and the other 'Dear other half, my love and husband, I'm ready and waiting to receive you.'"

Love,

Submitted by SM on July 22, 2012 - 4:17pm

They were not represented as your words. 

If my point was misunderstood, I take responsibility and apologize.  If my point was misunderstood then I suppose that explains your not addressing either of my points directly.

Submitted by Anne on July 22, 2012 - 4:35pm

A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

Do you not see the issue with the choice of words? This is what got the blogosphere in a tizzy. Like I was saying above, the semantics are violent and can be triggering for sex abuse survivors. As much as 1 Corinthians suggests that the husband is to give to his wife, what about Doug's (unwitting, perhaps) insinuation that the husband can 'conquer' his wife's body and she is to 'submit' to it? At best, it makes sex sound one-sided ('for the man'), at worst, it sounds like he is free to dominate and take sex as he wishes and she must simply lie down and comply. This may not be the picture Doug intended to paint but his choice of vocabulary left little other image. Remember, they sound like the husband is to take, not give.

Thoughts?

Submitted by Kamilla on July 22, 2012 - 5:10pm

Anne,

I have a thought.  It is this: the protestations of disgust, emotional harm, etc. coming from the professionally aggrieved would have a whole boat load more of credibility if you all:

First, were largely the same audience helping to put trash like "50 Shades" on the bestseller list and, 

Second, if you *were* ginning up the same sort of outrage over trash like that as you are over this.

The selective outrage speaks very loudly about it's genuineness.

Submitted by Anne on July 22, 2012 - 5:20pm

How do you know that the aggrieved are buying and reading Fifty Shades? How do you know that they're NOT against it, and are voicing off somewhere else? You've made two completely unfounded assumptions.

Submitted by Anne on July 22, 2012 - 5:21pm

Oops, correction. I should have said, "how do you know they're NOT against it and aren't voicing off somewhere else?"

Submitted by Rachel (not Hel... on July 22, 2012 - 5:36pm

Kamilla~ I have written publicly about why I'm not reading 50 Shades of Grey or watching Magic Mike. I firmly believe that both are offensive and repulsive, and as Christians we should speak out against them. 

I am a complementarian woman. I submit to the authority of my husband and to the authority of the elders that God has placed over me. I have absolutely no desire to be an elder or deacon. 

That said, I found Jared Wilson's post and Doug Wilson's quote to be expressing ideas that go beyond Scripture. I am fully aware of the anatomical issues expressed rather explicitly in Doug Wilson's quote, and I'm hardly denying the obviousness of how bodies function. What is offensive (and rightfully so, in my opinion) is the use of words that invoke violent images.

The relationship between husband and wife is not best expressed as "conquering" and "submitting" as if that is the sum total. When Scripture speaks of a husband's body belonging to his wife and vice versa, there is a much better picture of how spouses should relate to each other in regards to the marital bed. 

So, my outrage is not selective. I don't approve of either 50 Shades or Doug Wilson's quote. 

Submitted by Douglas Wilson on July 22, 2012 - 5:50pm

Anne,

If I might . . .?

There are three layers of context that are being ignored in this. The first is the context provided by the paragraph following the one that people found offensive. I was seeking to give an account of why some people were going for the idea that the woman's consent was unnecessary. To treat her consent as superfluous is (to me) loathsome. If Jared had only quoted the one line you cited above, I could understand someone who did not know the rest of my work going yikes. It is something that could be appalling, depending.

The next paragraph makes it plain that I regard sex without the woman's consent to be a "pathological form" of sexuality. Polluted water is sex that despises the woman's consent; pure water is mutually sought after.

The second layer of context was found in other portions of the chapter in question, and other parts of the book.

The chapter: "When biblical law is read thoughtfully and carefully, it is plain that a wall of protection is built around women, and many restrictions are place upon the men" (p. 86).

The book: "Must my wife have sex with me whenever I want it? Don't be a fathead. It was a serious question. Yes, she must have sex whenever you want it. And you must refrain whenever she wants to refrain. You have authority over her body, but never forget that she also has authority over your body" (p. 151).

The third layer of context was provided in the early stages of the controversy, where first Jared and then I clarified that we did not intent for the words to be taken that way. Moreover, we could show that the words could not be taken that way (see above) and be consistent with my meaning and intent. These clarifications were ignored because there were some folks who had those words -- penetrate, conquer, colonize -- and a head of steam up.

So what did I mean by conquer? I meant something like King Caspian not getting to kiss the princess until after his adventure, until after he had won her. And by "winning her" I do not mean something like winning a jackpot in a game of craps. I mean something different -- something noble and consistent with honoring women.

Submitted by Jimmy Lee Brown on July 22, 2012 - 6:09pm

""Three young men are being hailed as heroes for their old-fashioned chivalry and courage under fire in saving the lives of their girlfriends."
Matt McQuinn, 27, Jonathan Blunk, 26, and Alex Teves, 24 — each died protecting a woman in the Aurora theater massacre. That is, out of 12 individuals who died, 3 were men instinctively performing the traditional, masculine protective role."  Ann Althouse

Submitted by Kamilla on July 22, 2012 - 6:27pm

Yeah, right.

They're expressing so much outrage that its gone totally under the radar.  If you've got a blog or website where one of RHEs commenters who has criticized Doug Wilson has also criticized "50 Shades", Id love to see it so I can thank them for their consistency.

But so far, crickets.  Something I am not the first person to point out.

Submitted by Dee Parsons on July 22, 2012 - 6:36pm

Wow- Thank you for calling us "feminist heretics." We will proudly add it to our list of "What the world is saying about The Wartburg Watch." I personally prefer "Philistine" or "Assyrian," both on the list. However, I am waiting desperately for Amalekite. Those suckers really kept stirring the pot. Perhaps you could oblige us in your next post? It would mean a lot.

Just so you know, we are deeply devoted Christian women who stayed at home to raised our children. If you wish to call us heretics, you will have to answer to the One Who we both know and love.

May God bless you all as you seek to follow Him. Please know that you are always welcome to visit and comment on our blog.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 22, 2012 - 6:58pm

>>we are deeply devoted Christian women who stayed at home to raised our children. If you wish to call us heretics, you will have to answer to the One Who we both know and love.

I'm sorry. Reading the comments led me to believe otherwise. The comments are horrendous, spiritually. But then, comments are comments and posts are posts.

Submitted by Kamilla on July 22, 2012 - 8:27pm

Dee,

I have a great appreciate for moms who stay home to raise their kids.  It's often tough in the face of a culture that says you are wasting your time. 

However, if you are devoted Christians who know and love the Father, why do you promote a feminist and blasphemer such as Rachel Held Evans?  Mrs. Evans mocks the Fatherhood of God when she cheerfully blasphemes about feelings "even god herself" can understand. And that's just one of the heresies she promotes.

Submitted by Dee Parsons on July 22, 2012 - 9:03pm

Kamilla

Please visit us at our blog. I have barely enough energy to keep that one going. My interaction here was directed at the post. God bless.

Submitted by Anne on July 23, 2012 - 2:39am

Doug,

Thank you for clarification. Maybe it would be wise to place your explanation on your blog (if you haven't done so already), to help calm things down. 

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 23, 2012 - 9:27am

Anne,

I did not read in Doug's explanation anything that had not ~already~ been explained in numerous other places.  His posting yet another explanation, especially at ~your~ suggestion would accomplish nothing new.

Far wiser would it be if you (and others like you) were to attend to the things Doug has laid out above -- I'm referring to the levels of context he's pointed out after others have  ~already~ pointed them out, contexts which his detractors assiduously ignore because it suits their polemical purposes to do so.

Borrowing an image from someone else out there in blogoland, I observe Doug to be conducting a seminar in water-color pastel still life, while his detractors respond to his insight as if they were a spinning disco-mirror ball locked into a tiny closet with a 1000-watt strobe light.

Such folk have no point to make about Doug or his insights. Doug's detractors manifestly insist that  their bosom-heaving outrage is the only point people should notice.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 23, 2012 - 10:49am

Again, I've responded with a blog post.

Submitted by su. on July 23, 2012 - 6:31pm

I have been following this argument all morning, but I've never commented on this blog before. (Hope this is ok.)  I've read all of the posts that I can and tried to understand exactly what the big deal is.  I initially read Mr. (Doug) Wilson's words and was a little shocked by his use of "colonize" and "conquer," and then I read them again and tried to disable all of the connotations and baggage those words seem to carry, and I understood more what Mr. Wilson was driving at. Finally, I read them and I tried to bring all of my personal experience to the table and I understood it even more. 

I guess what I'm driving at is that when you endeavor to discuss something as sacred and close to God as the mystery of a "man with a maid" in such an impersonal context as a blog, you're bound to be misunderstood and people are bound to be offended. I understand what Anne and the women at WW are talking about and I feel that I understand what Mr. Wilson is saying. (If you take out those two words, it probably wouldn't be so scandalous. And I think you could keep the meaning without those words.)

I just wonder if by lifting one passage out of an entire book and ripping away its context, you're just asking for trouble. Especially when the subject matter is so dear. Maybe that was a mistake made in the initial blog post. (?)

Submitted by Lucas D. Weeks on July 23, 2012 - 9:38pm

Hello Su,

Tim responded to your type of question in this blog post, and here is a good summary:

Under another post, one commenter quotes Doug Wilson, "A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts." and asks, "Do you not see the issue with (Doug Wilson's) choice of words?"

To which I respond, yes, I see how it's possible to put the worst construction possible on Doug's words. It's understandable many would do so but we don't stop writing because of the danger... This is the paralysis that keeps sermons and classes and pastoral counseling from being helpful today. Communication that goes somewhere and rebukes something and teaches the truth is always at risk of being misunderstood, which is why most professors no longer profess and most teachers no longer teach and most preachers no longer preach. In our narcissistic and sentimental age, being nice is all that matters, but niceness is innocuous and boring, both of which are antithetical to true Gospel preaching.

In other words, whenever there is communication in this fallen world, there will be mis-communication that goes along with it. It just goes with the territory. However, just like it is an act of faith to have a baby or start a business, it is an act of faith to say something worth saying and trust that God will use it. It might be small, it might be pathetic, but we speak by faith.

But the point here isn't really that there has been mis-communication at all, is it? The point is that Doug Wilson, and the Bayly's here, have actually communicated their thoughts very well, and people have hated what they had to say.

How can I tell? I can tell because the responses are so obviously not inquiries to "better understand". The majority of the responses aren't "wait, I don't get it. Can you explain what you mean?" Doug Wilson and Tim have demonstrated time and again their willingness to "explain what they mean" – these guys are writing all the time! Instead, the responses have been "You blankity-blankity-blank-blank MAN! You have no right to say that!"

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 24, 2012 - 10:35am

" Doug Wilson and Tim have demonstrated time and again their willingness to 'explain what they mean' – these guys are writing all the time! Instead, the responses have been 'You blankity-blankity-blank-blank MAN! You have no right to say that!'"

You know, I heard something else from the critics of Prs. Doug and Tim, something along the lines of “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"

Oh yes ... in the background you can hear the sound of clothes being ripped to shreds.

Submitted by Anne on July 24, 2012 - 7:08pm

The only response from Doug that I knew of was his 'Politics of Outrage' blog entry, which provided no explanation at all but simply attacked his critics. Could you link me the explanations you talk about so I can read them?

Submitted by Malorie on July 24, 2012 - 11:46pm

for answering my question.  That makes sense. 

I have another question.  The relationship between husband and wife represents the relationship between Christ and the Church, His bride.  Does everything about a biblical relationship between husband and wife teach us something about the relationship between Christ and the Church?  In particular, does this fact that the wife also has authority over her husband's body teach us something about the relationship between Christ and the Church?

Thanks!

 

Submitted by Lucas D. Weeks on July 25, 2012 - 4:49pm

Hey Malorie,

I'm not Tim, but I'll take a swing at responding to that one: no, everything about the relationship between a husband and a wife does not necessarily teach us something about the relationship between Christ and his church. It's a very common error to grab a hold of a Scriptural principle and then apply it woodenly all over the place. "Scripture says the wife is to submit to her husband. You're disagreeing with me, therefore, you're not submitting! You need to submit!"

There's no need to do that. Instead, we take the truths of Scripture and we ask God for wisdom and discernment about how to live them out.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on July 25, 2012 - 5:39pm

Dear Lucas (and Malorie), my time is limited, so I'm pleased others are picking up the questions and answering them. Love,

Add new comment

2013 Clearnote Summer Conference
Man vs. Lust
Sexual by Design