We're all bemoaning the celebrity Christian culture that led to the Ravi Zacharias & Carl Lentz (& so many more) sex & sexual abuse scandals.
But what if the problem is not just--or even mostly--celebrity culture?
What if it's the evangelical view of sex?
A thread.
Yes, celebrity culture gave these men (and so many others) more access to victims, and it gave them cover for what they were doing.
But it was not celebrity culture that taught these men to objectify women. Our evangelical culture did that all on its own.
Take the Every Man's Battle series of books: Every Heart Restored says: "Because of male hardwiring, men don't naturally have that Christian view of sex."
EMB says: "We find another reason for the prevalence of sexual sin among men. We got there naturally--simply by being male."
Got that? Men naturally sin sexually.
God-given male sexuality and objectification of women are seen as one & the same. Our evangelical books tell men: God made you to objectify women & see sex as only physical. Your sexual sin nature is innately given. You can't help it.
Tim LaHaye, in the Act of Marriage, echoes this: "Women must cultivate the problem of visual lust, whereas men almost universally must cope with the problem just because they are men."
So if men can't help it, what is the solution?
Women! It is women who keep men from sinning.
EMB says of lust: "Once he tells you he's going cold turkey, be like a merciful vial of methadone for him."
In Sheet Music, Kevin Leman tells women to give husbands oral sex or hand jobs during their periods or postpartum phase, because these are difficult times FOR HIM.
A husband can't be expected to withstand temptation by himself while she's cramping, bleeding, or recovering from birthing his child.
Leman also says: "Either you will have a love affair with your husband or somebody else will."
Emerson Eggerichs, in Love & Respect, says: "The cold, hard truth is that men are often lured into affairs because they are sexually deprived at home.”
And if women get upset by this? We need to realize that men have needs we will never understand.
Love & Respect says, "If your husband is typical, he has a need you don't have."
Power of a Praying Wife, after explaining how women need affection, says: "But for a husband, sex is pure need. His eyes, ears, brain and emotions get clouded if he doesn't have that release."
For Women Only tells women "to accept the struggle" he has with lust. Love & Respect says: "If your husband feels you do not respect his struggle...& his maleness, he’ll pull back."
We need to accept men's lustful nature, or we will disrespect them & they will have affairs.
That's typical of evangelical resources: Men NEED sex in a way women don't. They tell women: You have no right to say no. Do not deprive him. Intended for Pleasure says "The only activity that is to break regular sexual relations is prayer and fasting for some specific cause."
And when women don't put out? Men naturally become predators.
The Act of Marriage describes a husband who raped his wife while she was "kicking and screaming" on their wedding night as "equally unhappy" as his rape victim, because she had never embraced sex in their marriage
His Needs, Her Needs says, "He is pawing and grabbing because he needs something--very badly. Many men tell me they wish their sex drive weren't so strong. As one thirty-two-year-old executive put it, "I feel like a fool--like I'm begging her or even raping her."
Church, when scandals like this happen, we need to stop being surprised. These men are acting out EXACTLY what our evangelical resources have told us--men need physical release; they can't control themselves without women's help; if they don't get help, they'l become predators.
This isn't how the Bible defines sex. In Scripture, sex isn't just physical. It is intimate. It is mutual. It is pleasurable for both. It is not just about a man's "physical release", no matter what Love & Respect may say.
It's a beautiful picture of MUTUAL intimacy & passion.
And until we start talking about a true biblical sexual ethic, we will continue to have these scandals on the front pages of our magazines--because they're only reflecting what's already happening in our bedrooms.
After surveying 20,000 predominantly Christian women, we know what evangelical messages mess sex up for women--and how to give healthier ones. Check out The Great Sex Rescue--and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex.
Since this is going big—I’m happy to go on podcasts to talk about this! :)
Oh, and one more ask: PLEASE follow me on Instagram! I’m @sheilagregoire there too. I’d love to get up to 10,000 followers! Makes it easier to share links. thank you!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Remember me calling out the stat that when men come to Christ, 93% of families follow, compared with just 17% for women? And how that's not based on research? And pastors should stop claiming it's true?
Megachurch SBC pastor Josh Howerton is pushing back. A 🧵
On a recent Bare Marriage podcast, Beth Allison Barr, Miranda Zapor Cruz and I showed how this stat has no basis in any peer reviewed study.
We called out Josh Howerton for doing so--he's now claiming he DID get it from a study.
He's still fudging the truth.
4 reasons why:
He claims that he got it from PromiseKeepers. Apparently one of his staff member's fathers worked for PromiseKeepers, and that's how he knew about it. Let's dissect this.
Instead of spouting about something he knows nothing about and showing his ignorance to everyone how about I answer this one based on our data from surveys of almost 40,000 evangelical couples?
About 50% of married evangelical men currently use porn in some way, even if it's just intermittently. They are four times more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and delayed ejaculation.
They also have wives who don't reach orgasm as often.
They don't prioritize their wives' pleasure as much as men who don't watch porn, and they don't do as much foreplay. They're also more likely to be dissatisfied with their wife's level of adventure in bed.
You know that new book about Toxic Empathy that argues that empathy needs to have limits?
And how so many on the conservative side have endorsed it, like leaders of SBC seminaries?
This is the same crew that argues that wives must give husbands unconditional respect.
A 🧵
In this vein, respect for those in "spiritual authority" over us must be unconditional, but love in action for the least of these must have limits.
As a reminder, in Love & Respect by Emerson Eggerichs, he argues that women must respect husbands who are "drinking or straying", or who have recently been jailed for domestic violence, or who rage so much that she wants to go hide.
Where can I find a good counselor if the church is toxic?
I recently had a reader ask me this question. It's one that I get asked fairly often. It's a great question to ask!
So let's talk about it. 🧵
1/7
It's unwise to assume that all counselors are safe and good.
And before you invest money, time, and become very vulnerable with someone, you have to make sure they’re safe and a good fit.
Usually when we see counsellors we’re seeing one of two different types:
2/7
One type of therapist we might see is:
A licensed counsellor who has received at least two years of professional training at a government accredited university, has undergone an internship, and has a professional license.
3/7
In this Billy Graham Rule discussion, many men are talking about how temptation is just everywhere, and it's better to avoid it. You don't want to sin.
Could it be that a lot of men are feeling guilty for something which isn't sin? And that's causing shame?
A 🧵
Jesus said that whoever "looks at a woman with lust in his heart" has committed adultery.
That's a deliberate action--"looking"--combined with a deliberate mindset--"lusting"--which involves objectification & dehumanization.
Jesus did not say, "whoever notices a woman has a nice figure" has committed lust. He did not say "whoever finds someone attractive" has committed lust.
Noticing is not lusting. Staring is bad (and creepy). Lingering is problematic.