John Piper Steps In It on Rape and Sex

Tweeted January 21, 2015:

This tweet was later deleted after it generated controversy (yes, this is a pattern - see a myriad of my previous posts), but it was preserved by a few people, including blogger Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism.

For those who are wondering, the first verse cited is:

“When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her.” (NIV)

The second is:

“[A]nd after a while his master's wife took notice of Joseph and said, "Come to bed with me!" (NIV)

After a good deal of thinking about the implications of this and discussing it with my wife, I decided there was enough to warrant an entire post. I will discuss the potential ramifications of what Piper has done later in the post, but first I want to look at the stories cited, and why I believe Piper has deliberately mischaracterized the stories.

(By the way, this is a classic Kinsley Gaffe: when a person inadvertently tells the truth about what they really believe.)

What are these stories about?

The first one is pretty straight forward. While the King James just used “defiled” to describe what Shechem did to Dinah, modern translations clarify that the original meaning in Hebrew is “rape.” There is no real disagreement among translators that the meaning is that Shechem took her without consent. (I’ll leave aside a small minority that claim it was consensual to make their point that Dinah was at fault. Yes, those people exist. Bill Gothard is one of them.)

The second story is a bit more interesting in this context, because Piper uses a word to describe it which does not actually describe what went on.

Joseph was a slave in Potiphar's household. He rose through the ranks to become the administrator of the household. But he was still a slave, not a freeman. Potiphar’s wife asks him to sleep with her. 

Scratch that. 

She demanded he sleep with her. For days on end. Then she waited until there were no witnesses, and forcibly grabbed him, requiring him to ditch his robe to get away.

And then, she lied about him, claiming an attempted rape, and had him locked up indefinitely.

This is NOT a “seduction.” This is a serious abuse of power.

Joseph didn’t have the luxury of choosing a good option. She was going to use her power over a slave to gratify herself, or make sure he paid the price. After all, who would believe a slave? And if he had slept with her? If his master found out, he would be dead. If his mistress soured on him, she could have him killed with a word. This was a no-win for Joseph.

Anyone who has read To Kill A Mockingbird would recognize the power differential and the non-consensual nature of the situation. And anyone who is honest about the history of slavery would agree that a sexual abuse of power is characteristic of the master/slave relationship throughout history.

Likewise, if a boss threatened to fire an employee if he or she didn’t put out, we would call this sexual harassment, not “seduction.” If he or she grabbed the employee, we would call it sexual assault, not “seduction.”

I don’t think that Piper is so stupid that he doesn’t realize this. I also think that he knows full well that the word “seduction” does not mean in plain English - or particularly to his Evangelical audience - mean “serious abuse of power.”

In cases like this, I try to use Hanlon’s Razor (never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence), but I don’t think there is an innocent explanation here.

I believe Piper is intentionally misusing a word to further an agenda.

This agenda is one of blaming women for the sexual sins of men, and using that blame to control women. Let’s look at some of the implications of the statement, and see what they mean. 

Here is what I mean by that. I don't think Piper has ill intent. However, I believe he is smart enough to see that the Joseph story isn't a true "seduction" narrative. I believe he genuinely believes that there is no real difference, however, between what Potiphar's wife did, and what a woman does when she "seduces" in the sense of either indicating she would like to engage in consensual sex, or dresses and/or acts in such a way that a man feels aroused when he looks at her. 

Potential Implications of Piper’s Statement

First, let me clarify that all of these are potential implications. Some of them logically have to be true. However, some are obviously mutually contradictory. In these cases, I would argue that one of the options has to be the true one.

1. All sexual sin is the same, regardless of consent.

This is one of the ones that I believe is generally subscribed to by most Evangelicals, unfortunately. Thus, rape is a sexual sin, as is sex outside of wedlock, as is “lust,” as is being flirty (particularly as a woman).

That’s how you can say that “rape” and “seduction” are the same sin.

2.     Rape is about sex, not violence.

This one is pretty ludicrous, but again is a common error that Evangelicals fall into when they talk about sex. I hate just about every implication of this, but the one that is the worst to me personally is the implication that every man is a potential rapist. Each of us has to clamp down on our sexual desire, or we are a rape waiting to happen.

In the real world, though, it turns out that rapists are a very small percentage of men (and far fewer women), and that the primary characteristic of rape isn’t sex, but violence. The point is power over the victim, which is why the rapist doesn’t even necessarily have to get off in some cases. The violence itself is enough of a turn on.

3.     Alternately, “seduction” is violence just like rape.

This is where the choice of stories is telling. Someone outside of Piper’s theological bubble would instantly recognize the violence of what Potiphar’s wife does.

I think, however, that Piper knows what he is doing here. I believe he is intentionally equating “seduction” with violence.

I have blogged extensively about “modesty culture”, and I can testify that there is a generally belief within the culture that women’s bodies are considered a violent assault against the virtue of men. That’s why they have to be kept covered.

In this worldview, a woman who expresses a desire to have sex with a man is being as violent with his virtue as a rapist is to a female.

In this worldview, a woman who dresses in a “seductive” way (that is, if a man finds her attractive), she is being violent with his virtue - just as if she raped him.

4.     If a man and a woman have consensual sex - it is her fault.

This follows from the above. His sin is rape. Her’s is “seduction.” So, if he doesn’t rape her, then it has to have been because she “seduced” him, right? “Same sin, different manifestation.”

5.     Expression of sexual desire in a female is an aberration - a perversion.

Clearly, at least to most of us in the modern world, a man who rapes has perverted the meaning of sex into violence and power.

Since, in Piper’s view, “seduction” is the same sin as rape, a woman who expresses a desire to have sex is also aberrant.

Wait, this sounds a bit like Piper’s good friend Doug Wilson, who claims that dominance and submission is an erotic necessity within marriage. (I blogged about Wilson’s views of gender here.) “Good” women don’t seduce their husbands, therefore, right?

So what if women may seduce their husbands? What does Piper’s statement imply in that case?

6.     Both seduction and rape are permissible within marriage.

Not too many people seem to be aware that marital rape used to be perfectly legal. Actually, a better way to put it was that sex within marriage was never considered rape, because a marriage was a lifetime consent to sex on demand without restriction.

7.     “Real” rape may not even exist.

After all, if the woman can “seduce,” then there will be few cases where the man cannot claim that he had no choice but to rape, because of the way she dressed, acted, and so on. Or even that she was out in public without a man to protect her. (See Killings, Honor and also Akin, Todd)

8.     Just like we have a legal right (and a duty) to punish and prevent rape, we have a right and a duty to punish and prevent “seduction.”

Where do you think the “modesty police” come from? From this idea. Women’s sin is allowing themselves to be attractive to men.

This is also why women are blamed for giving in to sexual desires outside of marriage in a way that men are not. (Purity culture is real.)

9.     Desiring sex (unless married) is as serious of a sin as rape.

If being “seductive” is the same sin as rape, then someone who desires - or, heaven forbid, seeks - sex outside of wedlock is as guilty as a rapist. And we all know that this is primarily directed at women, who are expected to fend off the advances of men to protect their “virtue.”

10.     Consent isn’t even remotely important when it comes to discussing sex.

There are only two kinds of sex in Piper’s world: married (heterosexual) sex, and unmarried sex. Consent isn’t important, and it doesn’t even enter the discussion. Essentially, God approves of sex between husband and wife, and disapproves of everything else, and that is all that matters.

11.     Preventing “seduction” and non-married sex should be as great of a priority for the church (and by implication, society) as prevention of rape and sexual assault.

This may well be why the church has completely botched its response to sexual predators. We see this in cases ranging from the Catholic Church and pedophile priests to the Sovereign Grace cover up of known predators. And also in young men who believe that being sexually attracted to a female is the moral equivalent of assaulting her.

Oh, and Todd Akin too.

This false equivalency leads to a lack of concern about violent and predatory behavior, and an over-obsession with “purity” and “modesty.”  Particularly for females.

A Problematic View of Sexuality

This is one of the primary reasons that the way the Evangelical church talks about sex makes me want to bang my head on my desk.

It holds a view of gender and sexuality that is rooted, not in the teachings or actions of Christ, but in the sexist and misogynist views of past cultures. (Well, our culture too, if we are honest.) The gist basically goes like this:

Men want sex, not commitment, and they are naturally violent and out of control when it comes to sex. They think of it all the time, and will take any encouragement as permission to force themselves on women.

In contrast, women don’t really like sex. Or at least good women don’t. And even if they do, they should realize that their sexuality (and really, their bodies) are a commodity to be traded to men in exchange for commitment and financial support. Since women need that support/protection/control by men, they owe it to themselves to sell their sexuality only to a high bidder, one who will give them commitment (marriage) and good financial support.

The whole system is upset if women a) don’t need the financial support and physical protection of men and b) seek out and enjoy sex for the same reasons that men do. And thus, “feminism”™ is evil and all that. After all, it seeks to make women the social, political, and economic equals of men, which ruins the whole hierarchy. And, it elevates female sexual pleasure and desire to the same level as that of men, which is clearly unthinkable.

This could be its own blog post, of course. As I see it, though, there are a number of problems that flow from this. Tweets like Piper’s are one of them. A failure to distinguish a qualitative difference between “seduction” - that is, sexual desire and desirability - and rape, is a symptom of an underlying view of gender and sexuality that is offensive - and just plain wrong. It is a male-centric view of sexuality, and a belief that women’s sexuality must be rigidly controlled, from her clothing on down.

There are other symptoms too, including Piper’s advice to women to endure beatings from their husbands. There are more too, but I will leave them to future posts. I do wish that Evangelicals would actually ponder why they keep having these Kinsley Gaffes. But I don’t think they really want to examine the poisonous root. Because that would threaten the gender essentialism, rigid gender roles, and hierarchy of power that has become the “gospel” to so many of them.