A mea culpa. I got embroiled in an ill-advised internet debate a few days ago. I used to do that all the time—until, in one of my rare lucid decisions, I went cold turkey. So this was a case of falling off the wagon. Sigh. I had to reset my “It’s been” flip calendar to “0 days since you behaved extraordinarily stupid (as opposed to routinely stupid) on the internet.”
This was broadly a debate within the realm of feminism in Christianity. I think my blogging record shows me to be, what’s the right word... because I’m not going to touch the loaded “ally” term… let’s say sympathetic, especially in regard to predators in the church and victim-blaming. It is not a cause for me, but here are a few posts that set my position, which has evolved over time, so that you can judge for yourself, if you are interested:
A little bit of Douglas Wilson goes a long way
More Abuse Victim Blaming
Misusing Scripture
Victim Blaming
The actual debate, such as it was, ostensibly centered on whether it is common teaching that Bathsheba shared some of the blame for her abuse at the hands of David. That she either willfully set out to seduce David or, at the very least, should have known better than engage in provocative immodesty.
Things quickly went south when I related that I have never been taught that Bathsheba shared some of the blame, and that sermons I have sat through on the subject placed the blame squarely on David.
My big third-rail triggering action was asking for evidence that this was a common teaching. Bad move.
Other people (both men and women,) chimed in that they did in fact receive such teaching, and at every opportunity I stated that I believed them. A minority agreed with me that they never heard Bathsheba victim-blaming.
Over and over again I was challenged for demanding evidence. I could not get through to a certain number of commenters that I did not require evidence that they were poorly taught, I was looking for evidence that this was a historical and systematic church teaching. I provided some counter-evidence: Matthew Henry’s commentary, excerpts from Calvin’s Institutes, and Ligonier’s Table Talk all place the blame on David alone. 1
More than one commenter said something to the effect that I can’t see it, or any sexism in the church (period) because I’m a man. This is nonsense. I do accept a more nuanced reproach, that I will not be nearly as sensitive to sexism as a woman, but that is far short of legal blindness. If it is a white woman making this argument, I wonder if she realizes that by the same reasoning she must be blind to racism. That she could never see it, not matter how overt.
I was very disappointed in the quality of much of the criticism directed my way. It was explicit or thinly-veiled variations of the modern “you disagree with me on this point, therefore (regardless of the level of agreement we share) you are a sexist”. And there was repeated use of a cheap (again, modern) argument by intimidation: Why do you demand evidence instead of simply believing what we say? This is the uber-modern “Shut up and listen” fallacy. And it wasn't even applicable, because I was only questioning the pervasiveness of the argument, not anyone’s personal experience.
I know there are intellectual Christian feminists. I count some brilliant ones as close friends although I do not know if they accept the title (either Christian feminist, or close friend.) But this encounter revealed that there is also an element of anti-intellectual Christian feminism, an element that argues cheaply and irrationally, and is ready to demonize you if you should disagree. It appeared to me, perhaps unfairly, that there was an agenda, and everything was viewed through the lens of that agenda. Little else mattered.
For what it is worth, here is my take on the David and Bathsheba encounter.
Was Bathsheba faultless?
The most important aspect of this question is that it is irrelevant when it comes to David’s sin. David’s sin is independent of Bathsheba’s unknowable intentions.
That said, from the biblical text we have no reason to believe that Bathsheba purposely tempted David. Anyone who attributes some blame to Bathsheba is engaging is pure and unwise speculation. There is no indication that she was on the roof 2 at all, let alone sun-bathing for attention. 3 There is no indication that she knew David was in the palace rather than at the battle with her husband. Not to mention that her ritual monthly cleansing was not something that we would think of as overtly provocative. Given just that circumstantial textual evidence, the safe bet and the only reasonable assumption is that she is completely innocent in the matter. And what seals the deal (for me) is that the bible never attributes any evil to Bathsheba.
David is a rapist and a peeping Tom?
Words have meaning, and the meaning changes. Throughout most of history rape implied violence. It now (rightfully, as far as I’m concerned) includes using an imbalance of power to coerce a sexual encounter, without a requirement for overt force. By the modern definition, David raped Bathsheba. The seriousness of David’s sin, as an offense to God, was of course absolute and independent of what we call it. But the bottom line is that I have no issue with saying David raped Bathsheba, although I do have an issue with making it a litmus test. Litmus tests indicate that an agenda is driving the discussion.
Was David a peeping Tom as one of the participants in the discussion labelled him? If a peeping Tom implies someone who surreptitiously and intentionally sets out to see another in a state undress, then there is no textual evidence to support such a charge. Bathsheba may not have been on her roof but that doesn’t mean she was not in plain sight and that David encountered her accidentally without any peeping Tom intentionality. That in fact is the plain reading of the text, that this was an opportunistic encounter. Now clearly David’s gaze sinfully lingered. But to label him a peeping Tom would seem to me to be gratuitous and an accusation based, again, on an agenda, not on the text.
Still, the bottom line is that I should not have engaged. I apologize to everyone who got involved because of my contributions. Not a very proud moment.
1 One piece of substantive evidence of systematic victim-blaming of Bathsheba was provided, which I acknowledged as such. It was from the Dallas Theological Seminary. This made me modify my position (that is how dialog is supposed to work) that perhaps this teaching is more widespread than I knew, especially outside of the Reformed cocoon in which I spend most of my time.
2 It is a big mistake to place Bathsheba on her roof, because the text never places her there. However it is also a mistake to declare categorically that she was not on the roof. For the same reason, the text is silent. And it is an error of rationality to make it a litmus test to affirm that she wasn’t on the roof.
3 Which, because of the irrationality I encountered, I feel obliged to state unnecessarily, changes nothing. David’s sin is his alone. And if Bathsheba was in plain sight there are countless explanations how that could have happened innocently.
Thought-provoking. Thanks.
ReplyDelete