Put more simply, we are going to consider the importance of why it is never a good idea to confuse God’s natural order with humanity’s fallen reality, particularly when it comes to sex, babies and being the one who made a baby because you had sex.
In response to your closing question: "Is this view prevalent?" Maybe not quite yet, but I think it's going to be. Here's why. As you pointed out in your book, much of what passes for "Christian" thought on sexuality among American (USA) evangelicals is based on a moralized variation of whatever the prevailing cultural idea is. So the idea that all Christians must marry and marry young was based on accepting the broader culture's view of sex as essential for human fulfillment and sexual desire as irresistible. They got the order of things backwards, and instead of saying "sex is designed for making families through marital bonding and procreation, therefore sex is only for married couples" they say "sex is an essential drive and sex is only for married couples, therefore, all Christians should marry."
Now that culture has changed to where many (most?) people's entire sexual experience is based on the exploitation of another person for one's own sexual gratification, whether that is a hookup partner, prostitute, webcammer, or porn actor, we are back into a totally pagan mindset of sex as being something men are entitled to have in any form they like, while women who have sex for any purpose other than procreation are [you know what]. Unlike the Apostle Paul, today's Christian thought leaders can't see how polluted the water they are swimming in is, and most evangelicals are used to moralizing the prevailing view instead of questioning it. So I would say that yes, we're going to see more and more theobros claim that that women's sexual organs are for reproduction, while men's organs are for pleasure.
I'm extremely curious what your take on Humanea Vitae would be (the Catholic encyclical forbidding use of the pill). It says one of the primary dangers of the pill is that it makes it much easier for MEN to abandon their responsibilities as husband and father. Seems almost the complete inverse of what you show these faith leaders saying here.
I'm glad you caught and commented on the verbal sleight of hand that both men used in their twitter replies to you. There is a lot of that when these ideas are discussed by Smothers, Burk, and the rest of the Desiring God/CBMW types.
It is...convenient... that these "theologians" can so routinely step out of the consequences of their conclusions by distorting what they originally claimed or saying that the readers are being "obtuse" (although that is quite mild compared to some of the responses they have dished out to other women). Read enough of their writings, and it seems to be a conscious pattern. The fact that it recurs regularly is a symptom of that particular strand of thought, and indicates either a closed-mindedness to thought or a hard-hearted refusal to discuss any questions at all, no matter how innocent or well intentioned.
It's worrying that people in positions of leadership in the church have such a fuzzy understanding of the difference between God's original design and the way things are in a fallen world! Thank you for all you do in pointing out this difference.
Confusion between what is natural/ontological in men and women and what is a result of post-Fall realities lies at the heart of nearly everything wrong with the patriarchal movement in American Christianity. Equally, confusion between the ontological and economic Trinity.
How do you do this work without getting cynical? These guys aren't on the fringe; they're respected leaders. I read the articles linked and the conversations and I feel exhausted in my bones.
In response to your closing question: "Is this view prevalent?" Maybe not quite yet, but I think it's going to be. Here's why. As you pointed out in your book, much of what passes for "Christian" thought on sexuality among American (USA) evangelicals is based on a moralized variation of whatever the prevailing cultural idea is. So the idea that all Christians must marry and marry young was based on accepting the broader culture's view of sex as essential for human fulfillment and sexual desire as irresistible. They got the order of things backwards, and instead of saying "sex is designed for making families through marital bonding and procreation, therefore sex is only for married couples" they say "sex is an essential drive and sex is only for married couples, therefore, all Christians should marry."
Now that culture has changed to where many (most?) people's entire sexual experience is based on the exploitation of another person for one's own sexual gratification, whether that is a hookup partner, prostitute, webcammer, or porn actor, we are back into a totally pagan mindset of sex as being something men are entitled to have in any form they like, while women who have sex for any purpose other than procreation are [you know what]. Unlike the Apostle Paul, today's Christian thought leaders can't see how polluted the water they are swimming in is, and most evangelicals are used to moralizing the prevailing view instead of questioning it. So I would say that yes, we're going to see more and more theobros claim that that women's sexual organs are for reproduction, while men's organs are for pleasure.
Hi, just passing through....
I'm extremely curious what your take on Humanea Vitae would be (the Catholic encyclical forbidding use of the pill). It says one of the primary dangers of the pill is that it makes it much easier for MEN to abandon their responsibilities as husband and father. Seems almost the complete inverse of what you show these faith leaders saying here.
I'm glad you caught and commented on the verbal sleight of hand that both men used in their twitter replies to you. There is a lot of that when these ideas are discussed by Smothers, Burk, and the rest of the Desiring God/CBMW types.
It is...convenient... that these "theologians" can so routinely step out of the consequences of their conclusions by distorting what they originally claimed or saying that the readers are being "obtuse" (although that is quite mild compared to some of the responses they have dished out to other women). Read enough of their writings, and it seems to be a conscious pattern. The fact that it recurs regularly is a symptom of that particular strand of thought, and indicates either a closed-mindedness to thought or a hard-hearted refusal to discuss any questions at all, no matter how innocent or well intentioned.
It's worrying that people in positions of leadership in the church have such a fuzzy understanding of the difference between God's original design and the way things are in a fallen world! Thank you for all you do in pointing out this difference.
Confusion between what is natural/ontological in men and women and what is a result of post-Fall realities lies at the heart of nearly everything wrong with the patriarchal movement in American Christianity. Equally, confusion between the ontological and economic Trinity.
How do you do this work without getting cynical? These guys aren't on the fringe; they're respected leaders. I read the articles linked and the conversations and I feel exhausted in my bones.