p.s. If Rachel Denhollander is wrong about David "raping" Bathsheba, this does not mean (1) That David's sin was merely adultery. It was also an abuse of power most likely, and (2) if Miss Denhollander is wrong on this one particular issue, this does not mean she is wrong about her advocacy in general.
David and Bathsheba and rape
- Thread starter alexandermsmith
- Start date
- Status
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
Do you believe the power dynamic is the heart of the message? Of course David used his position to sin against God and his fellow man. But using a power dynamic against women is a feminist rendering of the passage. Why not use Joseph and his masters wife as an example? These are not the true expositions but rather politically motivated commentary. We are all sensitive to such handling of scripture these days.
The "sin" of going along and not crying out:
Some are saying that Bathsheba consented or did not fight against David. But I would like to ask if it is sinful if a woman does NOT cry out or fight during a rape.
Certainly some people get frozen in fear or at least silent in fear. I've heard of women being raped in their house while the kids slept and stayed silent and still (and even somewhat participatory) when the rapist mentioned threats concerning the children. Her efforts were to placate and please and thus spare the children any harm. Out of sheer starvation and to feed the children, some women have prostituted themselves. While we may call this sin, we should at least acknowledge mitigating factors. When a girl is brought before the king, who has the power to kill both her and her extended family, she may not have the strength of backbone to resist to the death.
In my region of the jungle we have young girls given over to marry older men. These poor girls sometimes fight. But many are resigned to their fate and go into the man's home out of family pressure and try to make the best of it (their families exchanged goods for her, after all).
What exactly is consent in these situations, after all? She is still a victim, even if she is silent.
The expectation that is is better to be dead than violated is not really true.
And even if it were, it is easy to be an armchair judge and criticize a woman for "going along" due to fear or intimidation. Joseph stayed in Potipher's house for a little while knowing that Potipher's wife fancied him, but we see no condemnation of him for not seeing the future when he would be forced to flee naked (didn't he know this was coming, after all)?
I will also point out that in Joseph's case, his concern was not sinning against Potipher by sleeping with his wife. Again, the property element comes into play again. Adultery is defrauding another man. And Joseph would not defraud his boss. Later Joseph would take CORRECTION an Egyptian wife and these actions don't seem to be condemned.
The Power dynamics angle:
Yes, the difference in power is important. Even though many woman are gold-diggers and seduce those in power, and even though some whorish women do much on the casting couch to get famous and then seek to punish those that helped make them famous in exchange for sexual favors later, this does not negate the principle. We see in the text that David approached her (rather, his soldiers approached her), and she did not seek him out. The fact that she was visible while bathing is because they were of the same extended family and shared the same complex of living spaces, probably, not because she was providing a peep show. She was simply taking her ritual bath after her menstruation.
Conclusion:
While Denhollender goes too far to label it rape, neither was it mere adultery. It was abuse.
Denhollander was trying to correct the much more egregious misinterpretation that still often prevails in many Fundamentalist churches, particularly those who are sticklers for modesty and make much of Bathsheba's bath and little of David' sin in this episode. It is a needed correction, even if a slight over-correction.
Some are saying that Bathsheba consented or did not fight against David. But I would like to ask if it is sinful if a woman does NOT cry out or fight during a rape.
Certainly some people get frozen in fear or at least silent in fear. I've heard of women being raped in their house while the kids slept and stayed silent and still (and even somewhat participatory) when the rapist mentioned threats concerning the children. Her efforts were to placate and please and thus spare the children any harm. Out of sheer starvation and to feed the children, some women have prostituted themselves. While we may call this sin, we should at least acknowledge mitigating factors. When a girl is brought before the king, who has the power to kill both her and her extended family, she may not have the strength of backbone to resist to the death.
In my region of the jungle we have young girls given over to marry older men. These poor girls sometimes fight. But many are resigned to their fate and go into the man's home out of family pressure and try to make the best of it (their families exchanged goods for her, after all).
What exactly is consent in these situations, after all? She is still a victim, even if she is silent.
The expectation that is is better to be dead than violated is not really true.
And even if it were, it is easy to be an armchair judge and criticize a woman for "going along" due to fear or intimidation. Joseph stayed in Potipher's house for a little while knowing that Potipher's wife fancied him, but we see no condemnation of him for not seeing the future when he would be forced to flee naked (didn't he know this was coming, after all)?
I will also point out that in Joseph's case, his concern was not sinning against Potipher by sleeping with his wife. Again, the property element comes into play again. Adultery is defrauding another man. And Joseph would not defraud his boss. Later Joseph would take CORRECTION an Egyptian wife and these actions don't seem to be condemned.
The Power dynamics angle:
Yes, the difference in power is important. Even though many woman are gold-diggers and seduce those in power, and even though some whorish women do much on the casting couch to get famous and then seek to punish those that helped make them famous in exchange for sexual favors later, this does not negate the principle. We see in the text that David approached her (rather, his soldiers approached her), and she did not seek him out. The fact that she was visible while bathing is because they were of the same extended family and shared the same complex of living spaces, probably, not because she was providing a peep show. She was simply taking her ritual bath after her menstruation.
Conclusion:
While Denhollender goes too far to label it rape, neither was it mere adultery. It was abuse.
Denhollander was trying to correct the much more egregious misinterpretation that still often prevails in many Fundamentalist churches, particularly those who are sticklers for modesty and make much of Bathsheba's bath and little of David' sin in this episode. It is a needed correction, even if a slight over-correction.
Last edited:
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
So the focus becomes the sexual relations? Joseph was locked up...
I think those people who make
Bathsheba to appear a temptress are just as misguided. So if that’s what DenHollander is pushing back against I guess I’m glad I have no part in this type of discussion. I don’t want to hear a child of God deemed a ‘rapist,’ and I don’t want a helpless female and victim of circumstance deemed a temptress. I don’t think it’s a healthy discussion.
I think great care needs to be taken with God’s word and with how we speak about the sin of David, the man after God’s own heart, the sweet Psalmist of Israel. Yes, David sinned against God and against Bathsheba and against Uriah (and primarily, as he confessed, against God). Nowhere does the text say or imply that he threatened or forced himself upon her and we should forbear where the Scriptures do. Nowhere do the Scriptures say that Bathsheba acted inappropriately in her bathing and so we should forbear from saying any such thing.
I checked several of the older, dependable commentators and to a man, they view David’s “sending messengers” to her (1 Samuel 11:4) as an invitation. This would fit perfectly with all passages relating David’s other interactions and relationships with women. He was a gentle man really, even though a man of war, and a man of deep feeling and sensitivity. His story with Bathsheba shows what can happen to the best when one sin leads to another, and none of us can think themselves exempt from this. It’s a shame for this story to be pulled from its context and meaning for Christians and the church and bandied about rather carelessly to make points about abusive men. We’re to read the story with a holy fear, with tears for the tragedy of sin and the incomparable, redemptive mercy of God.
I checked several of the older, dependable commentators and to a man, they view David’s “sending messengers” to her (1 Samuel 11:4) as an invitation. This would fit perfectly with all passages relating David’s other interactions and relationships with women. He was a gentle man really, even though a man of war, and a man of deep feeling and sensitivity. His story with Bathsheba shows what can happen to the best when one sin leads to another, and none of us can think themselves exempt from this. It’s a shame for this story to be pulled from its context and meaning for Christians and the church and bandied about rather carelessly to make points about abusive men. We’re to read the story with a holy fear, with tears for the tragedy of sin and the incomparable, redemptive mercy of God.
meanderingwanderer
Puritan Board Freshman
A thoughtful article on the naming/non-naming of Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 11-12 is found here:
- “Foregrounding of the Designation, The Wife of Uriah the Hittite in II Samuel xi-xii.” Vetus Testamentum (54) 2004: 403-406.
Can you explain more fully or provide a link so we can read the article?
meanderingwanderer
Puritan Board Freshman
You can sign up for JSTOR (it’s free) and read it online. Or, if you have library access (physical or virtual) JSTOR may be one of the journals provided.
I can give a more detailed explanation of the article if any of the above is not feasible. I may even be able to get a copy from the author/scholar. I did not study under her, but I did her husband. I may be able to contact him for assistance.
The short of it is to say that Bathsheba is not typically explicitly named; rather, she is referred to as, e. g. “the wife of Uriah”. Many have taken the biblical writer’s non-use of her personal name (in the majority of instances in which she is referred to in 2 Sam. 11-12) as reticence on his part, or perhaps an indication of her guilt (seductress, seducer). That is, he does not afford her the dignity of “naming” her the majority of the time, showing disgust for her.
In the article, it is argued the opposite is true. By referring to her as “the wife of Uriah”, the disgust and blame are squarely placed on David. It could also be seen as a way of protecting her “good” name.
The naming (designating) of a person or thing in the Hebrew narrative is important. This would be but one instance of this and its significance.
I hope this helps. I am on my phone, so a bit limited in my response. If you have further questions, let me know.
meanderingwanderer
Puritan Board Freshman
I would say the same for the verses in 2 Sam. 11-12, especially, as Dr. Petter points out, in 2 Sam. 12.15. There, three persons are referenced (other than the LORD and Nathan):
“And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.” ( 2 Sam. 12:15, KJV)
Notice, Bathsheba is not named explicitly, but is referred to as “Uriah’s wife” (though, David had already taken her as his own by this time; cf. 2 Sam. 11.27). The child is unnamed. But, David is explicitly named. You might say “the blame goes with the name”.
Now, an interesting question would be, “Why does Matthew follow suit?” Tradition? Jewish appeal of his Gospel account? Or, simply upholding her innocence and David’s guilt? The designation is all the more striking when considering the other women “named” in the genealogy of our Lord.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I was wondering about this. Could his act be considered rape (along with the adultery), in the sense that he had sex with her "under color of authority?" "I am the king. You are my subject. Therefore, you must submit to me."
Oh yes, I've heard that argument and think it is a good one. We are reminded more of David's sin in this manner and that the sin was also against the good man Uriah.
My tentative conclusion is that it does not fit the definition of rape (taking by force), but fits the definition of abuse (use of coercion and power).
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
Oh yes, no one here has really fallen into the opposite error as it were. I'm also not arguing for Rachael's view here really, I just think there's a bit more to it than first appearances might suggest.
The parable of the lamb is the main thing Rachael points out to back up her view, as you can see on her reply to her initial tweet, but like you say, it is not explicit in the text.
I'm more or less of the opinion that there's an abuse of power going on here at some level, but I wouldn't be able to confidently say it was rape.
On a different note, in terms of power dynamics, which has been brought up several times in this thread, it has been claimed that Rachael subscribes to a view that "imbalance in power + sex = rape" and as alexandermsmith points out, that means any relationship with a difference in power including that of some husbands and wives would be considered rape.
As her husband points out on Twitter:
So basically, it's the abuse of power in order to have sex with someone, not merely sex when a difference in power exists.
Again, I would see some abuse of power going on here, I'm not sure we could say it is rape though. On the other hand I don't think I could say it was completely consensual.
What's interesting to me however, is that the main reason Rachael gives for her position is the parable of Nathan when he confronts David, not "muh power dynamics". However, in the initial video that was posted in this thread, this was not mentioned once, nor was the text of Scripture actually looked at. We were just told that Rachael is importing "feminist views of power differentials" into the text. In fact until I linked the video by Chris Rosebrough actually going through the text, not one person here actually mentioned said parable.
Which seems to me that not many people here had actually read the twitter thread in question, nor tried to find out what Rachael's reasons were, but had simply accepted what the above video had said. And to be honest, I'm not sure said video had thought much through her views either.
As many people have noted already, Twitter is not the most suitable medium for getting across theological points, so I would suggest watching this video by Chris Rosebrough. He's not on the exact same page as Mrs. Denhollander, but I think he does show a lot of the same reasoning from the text that she would.
Last edited:
You guys continue to casually speculate, using weighted and insinuating phrases that inevitably would lead the reader’s mind to unwarranted conclusions. The prophet Nathan pronounced the true charge against King David, and the sentence for it. How is it that you go beyond his words from the mouth of the Lord and find warrant for speculating about ‘abuse’ and ‘rape’? Nathan says nothing about David’s power or the abuse of it, but simply that he already had been given all he could have wanted, and would have been given more, yet he took the only thing Uriah had and then killed him. The crimes were adultery and the theft of a man’s greatest treasure, his trusted wife; and murder.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Scripture does not say they were armed guards, but messengers. If this is how she is going to about her advocacy then she is wrong. She should restrict her work to helping counsel victims of abuse and not indulging in biblical exegesis.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
As noted above I did not argue that Bathsheba was a gold-digging temptress. The title of that video was deliberately provocative to make the point that there is as much evidence for that notion as there is for David having raped her.
Her personal experience does not disqualify her, nor did I ever make that point. What I said was that it does not qualify her to be making these public pronouncements but it is the only reason we know who she is and she has the platform she does. Because of that she should be far more circumspect in her public pronouncements and stick to what her role is. This is not about her as an individual voicing her own opinions. As you said we do that on this forum and she would be welcome to post here too and we can take or leave whatever we read here. But she has a platform that most individuals do not. Her words carry weight and influence within the church. Because of this she should not be offering her own Biblical exegesis. Especially when it is clearly influenced by unBiblical philososphies.
I do not think Weinstein is "innocent", clearly he is a degenerate. As are most Hollywood people, including the women who were happy to sleep their way to the top and then cry "rape" when it was trendy to do so or when their careers had hit a dry spot. I don't believe any of the Hollywood women, frankly. They knew full well what sort of industry they were entering and they were quite happy to play the game. I have no sympathy for them. Most of what is being alleged isn't even rape anyway. Being flashed by Weinstein in a hotel room is not rape. These people in Hollywood have been spreading their filth for decades, eroding our culture, pushing anti-Christian, anti-white propaganda, celebrating perversity. You swim in the sewer you're gonna get dirty.
As to ignoring the real wrongs committed against men: well this is a perfect example. Rachel Denhollander "corrected" the original statement to "David raped". If it was going to be corrected it should have been to "David murdered" because that is surely the most heinous crime he committed. Yet to certain women that is irrelevant. It's the imaginary crime committed against Bathsheba that is focused on, not the real crime committed against Uriah.
In terms of our own society we see it all around us how men, especially white men, are being persecuted by our schools, universities, media, professions. Boys are being dragged before kangaroo courts at universities because some girl slept around and then felt bad about it. Some boys are being put on trial and sent to prison because some girl cheated on her boyfriend, got caught and lied about it. I was reading about a boy who suffers from extreme shyness and awkwardness who was arrested because when trying to talk to a girl he put his hand on her. She goes to the papers talking about how "afraid" she was. Get over it. That poor boy has been arrested because some selfish,stuck-up girl didn't like the attention. If he'd been rich she wouldn't have complained I'm sure. She sounds exactly that type.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ent-19-faces-JAIL-sex-assault-conviction.html
MeToo is pure propaganda. And now it has come into the church.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
After posting the OP I watched James White's take on it and became aware that she used the parable as her justification. I didn't mention that in later posts because it doesn't change my opinion on the matter. As White pointed out, she is using Nathan's parable as the controlling interpretation of the incident rather than the narrative of what happened, or Psalm 51. Of these three the parable should be the least controlling interpretation because it is a parable. The actual narrative does not describe it as a rape, David's confession in Psalm 51 does not describe it as a rape. Even saying the parable describes it as rape is pushing it. Bathsheba being described as the ewe is surely to significy that she belonged to Uriah, not David, and therefore he was interfering in another's property. So, again, it is the transgression committed against Uriah which would seem to be forefront in the parable, not any transgression committed against Bathsheba.
And as White also pointed out, if the "rape" theory is true then Psalm 51 does not offer a sufficient, or full, confession. This Psalm has been the Psalm of confession for the church. It has been of immense help to the Lord's people. Have we got it wrong all this time? And if we have then David's sin and lack of repentance loses the application it has had all this time. It becomes a very different story.
BottleOfTears
Puritan Board Freshman
I really don't know what to say to that first paragraph. I mean just because someone is an actress that means their accusations of rape must be false? And most of them are as degenerate as Weinstein? You "have no sympathy" for them? Those who are sinners can still be sinned against. This is Pharisaicism of the highest order. I can imagine them saying something similar "Prostitutes are part of dirty industry I have no sympathy for them" Do you have no mercy in your soul?
You honestly think people cried "rape" because it was trendy? Or to boost their career? What? Do you realise how difficult it is for someone to acknowlege something like that? This is just victim blaming. You'd think a sudden reveal of the abuse in Hollywood, would be something we would just condemn as Christians, but instead we are just going to side with the abusers and put the same amount of blame on those who have been sexually abused as we have put on the abusers if not more? Is there actual abuse going on? Nah, its obviously just propoganda.
How can you just say all the accusations of sexual assault are false? One article isn't proof of that. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that the US police force is racist because of the cases in which black people have been unjustly shot.
"If he had been rich she wouldn't have complained I'm sure" what is this based on exactly? Why are all the girls greedy and sleeping around then falsely accusing people of rape but the boys are all innocent in your framework? Do you even realise the number of women that have been sexually assualted but have never said anything about it? Frankly, it's insane that you think "all around us" men are being "persecuted".
How do some false accusations invalidate all the real abuse that goes on? Should we just do nothing about it?
You think this is all just pure propoganda? This is the mistake that gets constantly made. The Devil doesn't just play one side here. It seems like you think the "feminists" are the bad side and must be opposed at all costs. But there's loads of people who are definitely not feminists who do great amounts of evil.
Frankly, it seems like your views on this issue are so skewed you fall into exactly the same problem you accuse Mrs. Denhollander of. You view all of these attempts at exposing sexual abuse to be "pure propoganda".
As I have made clear already, there are several decidedly "unwoke" people who have the same interpretation as Rachael, it's been 11 years since John Piper has said David raped Bathsheba and no one cares. But because Rachael says it and she's all "MeToo" and stuff, oh no it's evil propoganda infecting the church.
Maybe your view of this situation is just you viewing the text through an "anti-MeToo" lens.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I side with no one in the MeToo debacle. I have no sympathy for anyone in Hollywood. They shouldn't be in that industry in the first place. Nor, by the way, have any of these "victims" asked for sympathy or mercy from God. They have demanded to be believed despite offering no evidence; they have demanded retribution against whomever they feel like accusing on any particular day without offering any evidence; they have demanded that we celebrate their vile and depraved lifestyles while tweeting about how much they love killing unborn babies.
For Rachel Denhollander to bring the thinking of this movement into the church, into discussions of the Bible, makes me very suspicious of her motives and wary of her actions. Perhaps her motivations are only good but what she is dallying with is toxic and is already wreaking havoc in the church.
Just for awareness, Rachel got together with Mohler and explained how Mahaney claimed to have had an independent investigation that proved both his church and himself to be innocent of charges of sex abuse cover up.
Mahaney and his leaders got their private law firm, who had no expertise in this subject, to do a so called investigation, during which they did not talk to one single victim. None. Mahaney was very deceitful. This is why he is estranged with Mohler and I think to some degree Together for the Gospel and Gospel Coalition, but not sure what's going on, not interested in them and don't follow.
This is why Mark Galli, the President of Christianity today, wrote a lead editorial calling for a true independent investigation....which hasn't happened.
Rachel has been in the thick of dealing with victims in various situations and legal actions, and she isn't some stupid leftist calling every single touch a molestation, or excusing a Hollywood actress for willing promiscuity.
Rachel is a member of a Reformed Baptist Church. (with hub and kids). I agree with John Piper and Rachel that David committed rape, but that isn't the issue. The issue is even implying she is some sort of leftist woke gal trying to bring a toxic feminist anti-male pro abortion mentality into the church. Its disgusting, Alexander.
Are your hermeneutics perfect? Has your theology changed at all the past years? You can't give a fairly young girl a break who is trying hard to help sex abuse victims? She can't dialogue and discuss online on twitter?? Its twitter, not Sunday School, give us a break.
Mahaney and his leaders got their private law firm, who had no expertise in this subject, to do a so called investigation, during which they did not talk to one single victim. None. Mahaney was very deceitful. This is why he is estranged with Mohler and I think to some degree Together for the Gospel and Gospel Coalition, but not sure what's going on, not interested in them and don't follow.
This is why Mark Galli, the President of Christianity today, wrote a lead editorial calling for a true independent investigation....which hasn't happened.
Rachel has been in the thick of dealing with victims in various situations and legal actions, and she isn't some stupid leftist calling every single touch a molestation, or excusing a Hollywood actress for willing promiscuity.
Rachel is a member of a Reformed Baptist Church. (with hub and kids). I agree with John Piper and Rachel that David committed rape, but that isn't the issue. The issue is even implying she is some sort of leftist woke gal trying to bring a toxic feminist anti-male pro abortion mentality into the church. Its disgusting, Alexander.
Are your hermeneutics perfect? Has your theology changed at all the past years? You can't give a fairly young girl a break who is trying hard to help sex abuse victims? She can't dialogue and discuss online on twitter?? Its twitter, not Sunday School, give us a break.
Adam Olive
Puritan Board Freshman
It is interesting to compare the language to earlier language in 1-2 Samuel.
(2Sa 11:4) And David sent messengers, and took her [the wife of Uriah]; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her ...
(1Sa 25:40-42) When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.”
And she rose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”
And Abigail hurried and rose and mounted a donkey, and her five young women attended her. She followed the messengers of David and became his wife.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
John Piper holds this opinion? Do you have a source?
Did Alexander say that she was bringing a pro-abortion mentality into the church? I may have missed it, but I do not recall him making that claim. He did say in post #50 that "perhaps her motivations are good", but he thinks that she is bringing certain aspects of the #MeToo movement into the church. Given the "creative" exegesis of the passage in question - not to mention the times in which we live - it is hard to dismiss this conclusion entirely.
I know many are unhappy with the excesses of the #Metoo movement. But I believe the world has often dealt with sexual abuse (especially of children) better than the church. The #Churchtoo movement is helpful and a lot of good is happening. We should not resist it due to some minor excesses.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
https://www.desiringgod.org/intervi...ng-him-against-you-and-you-only-have-i-sinned
Sharing only as an FYI. I do not agree with Piper regarding the question at hand.
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Thanks, Grant. I will check it out later today.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I didn't call her a Leftist, nor did I say she personally was advocating abortion. What I said was that she is using the paradigm of the leftists- wittingly or unwittingly. Frankly her membership of a "Reformed Baptist church" is meaningless to me. What is this church? What are their standards for membership? How rigorous are they in their discipline? I have no idea. I can only judge her on her words and actions. And I find them very concerning.
I have never claimed my hermeneutics are perfect. That is irrelevant, as if only "perfect" people can criticise or draw attention to problems in others' teaching. But neither do I have a big platform on Twitter, or a seat at the SBC Annual Meeting, or a book published by Tyndale being distributed by the big Christian retailers. So actually what she says matters quite a bit.
If she is only "a fairly young girl" then why are we listening to her? Why has she got a book deal? Why is she being raised to prominence within the SBC? You can't have it both ways. What I find disturbing is that a woman has taken it upon herself to start trying to redefine how we understand the Bible in order to promote an agenda. It's not acceptable.
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter/Alexander.... Alexander said this:
they have demanded that we celebrate their vile and depraved lifestyles while tweeting about how much they love killing unborn babies.
For Rachel Denhollander to bring the thinking of this movement into the church, into discussions of the Bible, makes me very suspicious of her motives and wary of her actions.
You are all welcome to your opinions, but your phrasing was awful. "bring the thinking of this movement into the church" follows a reference to loving killing babies.
I will allow that we all write hastily and poorly at times ( I sure do). You explained what you meant as "I didn't call her a Leftist, nor did I say she personally was advocating abortion. What I said was that she is using the paradigm of the leftists- wittingly or unwittingly."
I don't think she is, I think she is one of many people who are sick of years of churches refusing to call the cops about sex abusers and sweeping victims under the bus. Boz "rhymes with religion" of G.R.A.C.E says that about 75% of churches rally round to try and help and even coddle the perps, while ignoring the victims or even implying it was their fault somehow. The left is not 100% wrong about everything- they have it right about certain things, and one of them is the way women who have been genuinely sexually abused get trashed and ignored, even in churches.
Just to give you an idea where I am coming from, my niece's husband is a cop who works for the state attorney general, won't say which one. He is in the age 9 and under pedophile p0rn unit. In general they have women who do the really gross stuff involving what you have to see online, he does a lot of arrests. He helps put away behind bars maybe 300 guys a year. Its at the highest professional levels. Doctors, school teachers, youth pastors, lawyers, you name it. These men (maybe a very tiny percent women) are addicted to internet videos of screaming little kids like five year olds being raped. They managed to catch one guy who was filming a two year old girl but she died from the penetration injuring her interior. Some of these addicts go to evangelical churches.
I know another woman in a different state whose husband was a chaplain but is now FULL TIME working with CHURCH LEADERS including many senior pastors who are sex/p0rn addicts in some fashion or other. She told me it is almost incomprehensible how widespread and pervasive it is in churches. If you think being confessional is some sort of magic protection and it isn't in your church or denomination, think again.
Anyway, if you were well read on this subject, and I don't think you are, you would have more of an idea how endemic the problem is and how often the victims- genuine victims- get brushed aside, and where Rachel is coming from. Yes, plenty of females have slept their way to the top in their careers, and plenty of women after a drunk promiscuous evening start accusing the next morning, when they have nobody to blame but themselves. It isn't black and white.
Rachel may not have it perfect, but she is far closer to the truth than anybody accusing Bathsheba of sin, or anybody accusing Rachel of some sort of toxic feminism.
Pergammum- I do want to thank you for your many thoughtful posts in this thread.
they have demanded that we celebrate their vile and depraved lifestyles while tweeting about how much they love killing unborn babies.
For Rachel Denhollander to bring the thinking of this movement into the church, into discussions of the Bible, makes me very suspicious of her motives and wary of her actions.
You are all welcome to your opinions, but your phrasing was awful. "bring the thinking of this movement into the church" follows a reference to loving killing babies.
I will allow that we all write hastily and poorly at times ( I sure do). You explained what you meant as "I didn't call her a Leftist, nor did I say she personally was advocating abortion. What I said was that she is using the paradigm of the leftists- wittingly or unwittingly."
I don't think she is, I think she is one of many people who are sick of years of churches refusing to call the cops about sex abusers and sweeping victims under the bus. Boz "rhymes with religion" of G.R.A.C.E says that about 75% of churches rally round to try and help and even coddle the perps, while ignoring the victims or even implying it was their fault somehow. The left is not 100% wrong about everything- they have it right about certain things, and one of them is the way women who have been genuinely sexually abused get trashed and ignored, even in churches.
Just to give you an idea where I am coming from, my niece's husband is a cop who works for the state attorney general, won't say which one. He is in the age 9 and under pedophile p0rn unit. In general they have women who do the really gross stuff involving what you have to see online, he does a lot of arrests. He helps put away behind bars maybe 300 guys a year. Its at the highest professional levels. Doctors, school teachers, youth pastors, lawyers, you name it. These men (maybe a very tiny percent women) are addicted to internet videos of screaming little kids like five year olds being raped. They managed to catch one guy who was filming a two year old girl but she died from the penetration injuring her interior. Some of these addicts go to evangelical churches.
I know another woman in a different state whose husband was a chaplain but is now FULL TIME working with CHURCH LEADERS including many senior pastors who are sex/p0rn addicts in some fashion or other. She told me it is almost incomprehensible how widespread and pervasive it is in churches. If you think being confessional is some sort of magic protection and it isn't in your church or denomination, think again.
Anyway, if you were well read on this subject, and I don't think you are, you would have more of an idea how endemic the problem is and how often the victims- genuine victims- get brushed aside, and where Rachel is coming from. Yes, plenty of females have slept their way to the top in their careers, and plenty of women after a drunk promiscuous evening start accusing the next morning, when they have nobody to blame but themselves. It isn't black and white.
Rachel may not have it perfect, but she is far closer to the truth than anybody accusing Bathsheba of sin, or anybody accusing Rachel of some sort of toxic feminism.
Pergammum- I do want to thank you for your many thoughtful posts in this thread.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
But that is the question isn’t it? I disagree that she is closer than the likes of Sproul Sr., Gill, Matthew Henry.... the list goes on, whom concur that she gave consent to the affair. David’s sin was no doubt the greater (though not rape), but Bathsheba was certainly not blameless.
Last edited:
Seeking_Thy_Kingdom
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is helpful, in the ears of a modern anti-patriarchal feminist this would be tantamount to rape.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
