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
Why do evangelical male authors/pastors so often teach that women need to have more sex to prevent affairs--even when new research shows that's not remotely true?
I have a theory--and it's a controversial one.
A 🧵
Authors and pastors teach this because fundamentally they likely aren’t emotionally healthy themselves, or they live in communities where emotional health is relatively rare, and so they don’t understand it.
They carry a lot of shame, so intimacy, vulnerability, and authenticity–the key ingredients for emotional connection–are too difficult. Thus, sex allows them to feel connected without having to do the work of connection.
Do teen girls have a sex drive? I’m desperately hoping that you answer, “Of course!”
Recently, I had a woman email me to tell me that a friend of hers learned from a seminary teacher that teenaged girls are not aware of their sexuality and don't need to learn about sex. 🧵
And this is being taught at a seminary! So let’s go over a few things.
1. Boys tend to be more aware of their bodies and sex because their sexual organs are external. Just because boys tend to be more aware of their bodies, doesn't mean that girls are not sexual.
2. Girls are more vulnerable with sex than boys are. And so girls are naturally more focused on threats when it comes to sex than boys are.
When male pastors/teachers/authors reveal they objectify women–we should treat those men accordingly.
a 🧵:
One of the things that shocks me about evangelical culture is that a man can reveal that he has a really low view of women, or that he objectifies women or blames them for men’s sin, and that doesn’t change how that person is treated.
He can still be considered a good Bible teacher, or revered, or considered safe.
See, for instance, the recent brouhaha over Josh Howerton’s wedding night advice, or last year’s awful sermon from Jonathan Pokluda, or even Mark Driscoll’s success after calling women penis homes.
If a megachurch pastor is plagiarizing his sermons, then perhaps it's time to admit that churches are hiring performers and actors, not pastors.
A 🧵
In small churches, the pastor is often a jack-of-all-trades. The pastor has to write sermons; organize services; coordinate all the activities of the church; set the vision; plan extra events; counsel people; show up in emergencies; and more.
It's a big job, involving spiritual gifts like administration, reaching, teaching, encouragement, and discernment.
Does sex for you have a start up cost or a major cost? And what is the difference? We talked about this on the Bare Marriage podcast recently, but I’d like to elaborate on part of it today. 🧵
1/7
I think we often get confused when people talk about this. They’ll say,
“Well, sometimes I have sex when I don’t really want it, and it’s really good for us. And it’s really good for our marriage."
And what she means is,
2/7
“Sometimes I would rather watch reruns of Criminal Minds, but then my husband wants to have sex. And I know it’s going to feel so good, and I’m going to feel great once I do it."
Can we talk about how, when a pastor messes up (as Josh Howerton did with his horrendous wedding night "joke), other pastors often rush to his defence? I think there's something bigger going on here.
A 🧵
I've been just amazed at how the internet was pretty much universally appalled by Josh's words. The reason the clip went so viral is because people saw it and said, "Wow, that's bad." Atheists, SBC members, and everything in between saw it was bad.
But two groups defended him.
One was understandable--Lakepointe congregants rallying around a beloved pastor, even when he does the unthinkable.
(Note: You can support a pastor & still say he did something wrong. Blind devotion is not required. Your church would be stronger if you called him to account.)