<div id="page">
<div id="menu">
<div class="menu-header"><ul><li><a href="http://wtfaith.com/" title="Home">Home</a></li><li class="page_item page-item-2"><a href="http://wtfaith.com/about/">About the Mitchells</a></li></ul></div>
</div>
<div id="header-wrap">
<div id="header-image">
<img src="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/cropped-banner32.jpg" alt="">
</div>
<div id="header">
<div>
<a href="http://wtfaith.com/" title="" rel="home">
</a>
</div>
</div>
</div><div id="content-container">
<div id="content">
<div id="content-body">
<h1 class="page-title">
Tag Archives: <span>douglas wilson</span> </h1>
<div class="post-487 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-dans-posts tag-complementarianism tag-douglas-wilson tag-egalitarianism tag-jared-wilson tag-rachel-held-evans tag-sex tag-the-bible" id="post-487">
<div class="post-date">
<a href="http://wtfaith.com/2012/07/18/who-put-the-blog-in-the-blog-re-blog-re-blog/" title="Permalink to Who put the blog in the blog, re-blog, re-blog?" rel="bookmark">
July 18, 2012 </a>
</div>
<h2 class="entry-title"><a href="http://wtfaith.com/2012/07/18/who-put-the-blog-in-the-blog-re-blog-re-blog/" title="Permalink to Who put the blog in the blog, re-blog, re-blog?" rel="bookmark">Who put the blog in the blog, re-blog, re-blog?</a></h2>
<div class="post-author">
<span class="author vcard">By <a class="url fn n" href="http://wtfaith.com/author/wtfaith/" title="View all posts by Daniel Mitchell">Daniel Mitchell</a></span> </div>
<div class="entry">
<p>I’ve mentioned Rachel Held Evans before. She’s got a blog I read
on a pretty regular basis, and as I’ve mentioned before (this is
important, now) she kinda looks like Claire Danes in <em>My So Called Life.</em> Not that that’s important. Except I said it was. Crap. I’m lying again.</p>
<p> </p>
<div id="attachment_488" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width:310px"><a href="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/angela.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-488" title="Angela" src="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/angela.jpg?w=300&h=225" alt="" height="225" width="300"></a><p class="wp-caption-text">
SO lying.</p></div>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, I was reading her blog today, and what I read made me bubble
with impotent fury. My insides are percolating like a coffeemaker, only
instead of making coffee, it makes <em>raw rage</em>. A “Mr. Rage”, if you will.</p>
<p> </p>
<div id="attachment_490" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width:310px"><a href="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/angrycoffee1.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-490" title="AngryCoffee" src="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/angrycoffee1.png?w=490" alt=""></a><p class="wp-caption-text">
Concept drawing, patent pending.</p></div>
<p> </p>
<p>I’m angry because I read <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex">this</a> article (written by Rachel Held Evans) about <em>another</em> article (written by Jared Wilson on behalf of the Gospel Coalition) that mentions a <em>book</em>
that supports some crazy backwards views on the role of men and women. .
. in sex. Per the Bible. As if my brain wasn’t already confused by the
Russian doll of re-blogs that I’m presenting my readers with, I have to
wonder – are people <em>paid</em> to talk about how God wants men and women to bone?</p>
<p>Want to share my rage – or confusion? <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex">Read the article</a>.</p>
<p>Here is a great quote from the blog about the blog about the book written by Douglas Wilson (the book is <em>Fidelity: What it Means to be a One Woman Man</em>):</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><em>“When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us.<strong> </strong>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.”</em></p>
<p align="center"><em> </em></p>
<p style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><font size="4">I read that, and my first thought was, “Man. . .this guy and his wife are <em>doing it wrong!</em>”
I mean, I’m not going to provide any details of my sex life on this
blog, but I really feel the need to make a point. So instead of coming
anywhere near dropping an unwelcomed info-bomb on What the Faith, let
me, instead, ask this question to the fellas who read this blog.</font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><font size="4"><strong>Hey fellas – if you and your woman are involved in ‘the act’,
and you can characterize her response to you as ‘receiving’,
‘surrendering’ or ‘accepting’, do you interpret that response as proof
that you’re. . .you know. . . <em>decent</em> at the actual carrying-out of said act?</strong></font></p>
<p>You can feel free to accept that question as rhetorical – but heck, if you answer in the comments, <em>bonus!</em></p>
<p>Also, I’ve <em>read</em> Song of Songs. It’s basically the Kama Sutra
of the Bible, and there is nothing complementarian about it. As RHE
points out in her article:</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><strong><em>Wilson</em></strong><strong><em> conveniently leaves out the fact that the Shulamite girl in Song of Songs initiates much of the action in the romance. </em></strong><em>She
is the first to speak in the poem, declaring, “Let him kiss me with the
kisses of his mouth” (1:1). She actively seeks out the handsome
shepherd in his fields, saying “Why should I be like a veiled woman
beside the flocks of your friends?” (v. 7). When the two are separated,
she goes out into the streets, looking for him, and at one point is
accosted by the city guards. When she finds him, she brings him into a
private room. There, she says, “I held him and would not him go” (3:4).
It is she who initiates a sexual encounter in a vineyard in the
countryside, and it is she who offers her lover a frank invitation to
drink her wine and to enter her “garden” to taste its choice fruits. Her
lover confesses “you have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride.” And
so <strong>the lengthiest and most detailed description of sex found in
scripture is characterized by mutuality and shared pleasure, not
conquering and colonization, authority and subordination. </strong> It is precisely what Wilson refers to as an “egalitarian pleasure party.”</em></p>
<p align="center">
</p><div id="attachment_491" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width:260px"><a href="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/songofsongs.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-491" title="SongOfSongs" src="http://wtfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/songofsongs.jpg?w=490" alt=""></a><p class="wp-caption-text">
Look at those two – ready to tear off six or seven layers of clothes and GET THIS EGALITARIAN PLEASURE PARTY STARTED!</p></div>
<p> </p>
<p>I know I’ve been over this before, but I really don’t think that God
has that much to say about how two consenting adults in a loving,
monogamous relationship combine their private parts. I think that once
people are a) consenting, b) loving and c) monogamous, I think that God
is pretty much laissez-faire about their junk. If people who fit into
those three categories want to engage in <strong><em>the business</em></strong> in a vat of Jell-O, I can’t imagine God is going to condemn that. He might <em>look away</em> from that, but then again, I would.</p>
<p>But Rachel (and several of her commenters) make a very, very good
point about the language used in Jared Wilson’s blog (and by extension,
in Douglas Wilson’s book). This is where the (slightly amused) confusion
I’m feeling turns into anger.</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><em>His characterization of sex as an act of
conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are
little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who
simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading. <strong> What
is perhaps most disconcerting is the fact that even after multiple
women expressed their concerns in the comment section, both Jared Wilson
and Doug Wilson repeatedly dismissed these concerns with exasperation
and condescension, ridiculing the commenters’ lack of “reading
comprehension.”</strong></em></p>
<p align="center">
</p><p style="text-align:left" align="center">Wow. This actually
happened. I read the comments. I don’t want to repost any of them
(mostly because I would have to repost a long chain of comments, which
is a bit distracting for people who don’t want to read them, and also a
hard thing to do and still maintain a short blog post) but you can read
them <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/13/the-polluted-waters-of-50-shades-of-grey-etc/?comments#comments">right here</a>.
The worst part is that two authors gave offense, and neither one of
them said, “You know what? I can see how that could be really offensive.
I’m sorry, it’s not what I meant.” They both took a stance that anyone
who wasn’t an <em>idiot</em> would read those words as they were meant
to be read, and be totally moved by how kind, caring, loving, and
completely rad Jared Wilson and Douglas Wilson are.</p>
<p>They certainly wouldn’t see them as misogynistic assholes, would they?</p>
<p> Anyway, here I am, sitting at work, steaming out of my ears, and then
it occurs to me – Jared Wilson’s article started as a commentary about <em>50 Shades of Grey. </em>A book that started out as a <em>Twilight</em> fan fiction. It almost made me laugh out loud.</p> <br></div><br></div>
<div class="navigation">
<div class="next">
</div>
<div class="previous">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sidebar" class="sidebar">
<ul><li id="search-2" class="widget widget_search"><form method="get" id="searchform" action="http://wtfaith.com/">
<div>
<input value="search" name="s" id="s" type="text">
</div>
</form></li><li id="blog_subscription-3" class="widget widget_blog_subscription"><form action="https://subscribe.wordpress.com" method="post" accept-charset="utf-8" id="subscribe-blog"><br>
<p><input name="email" style="width:95%;padding:1px 2px" value="" id="subscribe-field" type="text"></p>
<p>
</p>
</form>
</li></ul>
</div></div></div></div><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
<br>