Andy's Blog
When I was a junior in high school, the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" came out and was all the rage. I read it, objectively, and grabbed some good principals, but overall "rejected" the basic premise. Sometime later that year, a rebuttal, but less popular book came out called "I Gave Dating a Chance." I liked it better, but still rejected most of the premise, because frankly it was mostly the same as "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." One called dating courtship, and the other called it, well, dating. I'll get back to this later.If you have read this blog for more than 10 minutes you know I am usually not satisfied with Christian music or books. Why? Because they aren't about life. They aren't real. They give the same cheesy, bullet pointed responses which don't communicate effectively. When done, I always feel like I just drove a Porsche but kept it in 1st gear.
From what I heard from others, Rob Bell's writing promised to be different. So needless to say I was excited to read his new book "Sex God," because we all know the official topic of this blog is sex1. We also know that my favorite writer is Chuck Klosterman - sure I might not agree with some of his lifestyle choices, but he is brilliant when it comes to culture. I was expecting Rob Bell to be the "Christian" version of Chuck Klosterman. He's not. If Chuck Klosterman is a Porsche reaching 4th gear2, Rob Bell is a Porsche in 2nd gear3
I could probably write a 5,000 word blog on this book. I am going to try not to. Here are my three main issues with the book.
One, he quotes from Song of Solomon (which is good) but fails to acknowledge that a.) Solomon had hundreds of sexual partners, and b.) the Song of Solomon text implies that the "beloved and lover" were not married yet.
Now, I am not looking for a book to justify pre-marital / extra-marital sexual activity. Why? Because I still think a case can be made for sexual "purity". But Bell fails to communicate his point because he refuses to acknowledge, in full disclosure, the entire sexual narrative of the Bible.
Two, he continues the Christian myth that women aren't interested in sex as a pleasurable act, but only use it to attain other relational perks (i.e. feeling love, feeling beautiful, etc...)
I can't speak for generations past, but from my extensive conversation on the topic and cultural insight, I just don't believe that to be true (anymore?). Women are (almost?) just as interested in a sexual relationship as men.
Three, Bell fails to recognize that God is the Creator of sex as something creative and fun.
"Sex God" continues to portray marital sexuality as boring and vanilla. It still makes the ambiguous statement that "sex is good" and leaves it at that. I have written about this before, so I am not going into detail (one | two).
I know this is a shock, but according to research (I can't believe it took research to know this) the #1 reason people have sex is because it feels good. While there are 237 other reasons, because it feels good is the number one reason we enjoy and/or tempted to have sex. Sex God fails to acknowledge this with any sort of depth or genuineness.
Here is at least what I liked about the book. On page 105 Bell states:
If you have ever given yourself to someone and had your heart broken, you know how God feels.Bell acknowledges that God never intends for life to be easy. He never intended for life to be pain-free. Which brings me back to I Kissed Dating Goodbye.
My ultimate problem with "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is that it was a lesson in "avoidance theology." God can't possibly want us to have pain, therefore, we should avoid that which potentially causes pain (in this case: dating). That is a crappy way to live life and I at least respect Bell for standing up against that.
Their is one other reason this brings me back to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "I Gave Dating a Chance". I was hoping when I read this book, it was going to be so good, that I could take writing a sex book off the list of books I am going to write.4 That turned out to be false. Now I still feel the Christian arsenal is missing a good book on sexual practical theology, so it looks like I should start working on a rebuttal5.
1One of these days I will blog on why that is. No, it isn't because I am a pervert.
2He could be 5th gear in my opinion if he could keep writing like he does, but incorporating a God-honoring theology. This may not be possible
3Which, to Bell's credit, at least puts him better than most other Christian writers / media out there.
4If any Simon & Schuster or Zondervan reps out there are reading, that list so far includes 1.) "You Can Handle The Truth: A Journey of Pulling Heads Out of the Sand", 2.) "Generation-D: Surviving the Divorced Generation", and 3.) (thanks to Bell) something related to sex and theology that I haven't gotten around to titling.
5Although lets be honest, like "I Gave Dating a Chance", it won't be nearly as popular as it's predecessor
2He could be 5th gear in my opinion if he could keep writing like he does, but incorporating a God-honoring theology. This may not be possible
3Which, to Bell's credit, at least puts him better than most other Christian writers / media out there.
4If any Simon & Schuster or Zondervan reps out there are reading, that list so far includes 1.) "You Can Handle The Truth: A Journey of Pulling Heads Out of the Sand", 2.) "Generation-D: Surviving the Divorced Generation", and 3.) (thanks to Bell) something related to sex and theology that I haven't gotten around to titling.
5Although lets be honest, like "I Gave Dating a Chance", it won't be nearly as popular as it's predecessor
And come on, Cainanite, I thought for sure you would for once agree with me on a post.
Working on it...
You have me intrigued...
Concerning sex in particular- you are right to criticize this guy for discounting sex as a pleasurable act, but let's be perfectly honest here- men are way way way more interested in sex than women. Believe me I wish it were otherwise but it just isn't so. We can argue about the mechanism (God vs. Darwin vs. some hybrid) but one thing is certain: for men sex has always been
full of rewards with very little risk, whereas for women sex has always been very very dangerous.
In caveman times (or as you folks might say, back during...cough...stifled laugh...Noah's time), women risked a great deal with each sexual encounter. STDs weren't really treatable then, and could lead to death or sterility (men are anatomically better off here), to say nothing of infection of the birth canal. Even if the woman was not either infected or physically injured by a male, she still had to deal with the very real chance of pregnancy, which brought with it all sorts of other dangers. Death in childbirth was common in the days before modern medicine. Assuming she survived the sex, the pregnancy, and the childbirth, the woman then had to find a way to actually shelter, feed, and protect the infant for many years. All of this was the price of one sexual encounter. For a man the only pain was how to sneak out of the cave without waking her up.
So you can see how in the light of this it makes sense for nature- sorry...God- to equip men and women with differing desires and agendas.
There is no getting around it. Women are by nature shallow, stupid, vain, and manipulative. It works for them.
I probably went a bit too far to say they are just as interested. But what I was trying to get across, is that the Church will fail to reach the next generation (mine and "below") if they continue to believe that women aren't interested in sexual acts, and only "looking for love." The idea that "men" pursue sex, and woman just "concede" to it, is a bit of an antiquated philosophy.
Which you I think would understand the value of "sex within marriage only" (even if you married hundreds of other women). It makes sense. It is like the biblical laws about mixing dairy/meat/etc...Before refrigeration, board of healths, etc...it made a lot of sense.
Now the question is, do these "laws" adapt over the course of time as we examine the painting that is God's continued interaction with His creation.
Ahh...there's the humor from Erik that I love.
I agree, but they are the exception and it seems to be in spite of their theology that they make or enjoy great art. Two of my favorite contemporary poets, Galway Kinnell and Bill Stafford, are both Christians and their worldview informs their work, but it still seems to me that fundamentalist Christianity in it's purest form is incompatible with any sort of art. Part of what artists do is express complex feelings and thoughts, often contradictory ones, that are part of the human experience; yet to a fundamentalist Christian all these questions have already been answered by the Bible and/or Jesus, and therefore all this artistic effort is just a vain searching after The Truth, which we already have thank you very much. Art which expresses ideas not found in the Bible is heresy, while art that does is merely superfluous. And why shouldn't it be so? Who needs Herman Melville when we already have a book written by GOD for christsakes.
It makes sense for women. Women benefit greatly from this arrangement. But not for men. For men it puts too many eggs in one basket. For men there is more reward from spreading their genes around.
I do think the church is going to be dead pretty soon because of their failure to reach younger people. Church growth rates have been flat or declining in the US for about ten years now. Large percentages of younger folks are irreligious or outright atheists. It's kind of ironic to me that The Church doesn't believe in evolution, yet they are dying from this very failure to evolve.
Erik made a few very good points about women and sex, but I think I need to add some things. The high cost of sex for women in the ancient past is very real and one of the reasons girls have been traditionally taught to be more careful about sex. In other words, I think this is largely societal, related to settled communities and the institution of marriage. After all, vast majority of our existence as species has been as hunter gatherers.
With technological advancement of the last 200-300 years our way of life has changed drastically. Societal institutions play catchup only slowly (as the institutions of marriage/family, village, chiefdom and state also developed slowly and gradually after we started to sow and harvest). How this will all play out is far from certain, but it is certain that there is fundamental change afoot. That is another reason why it is silly to elevate a pragmatic structure that was created by agrarian societies into some sort of God-given gold standard.
Now obviously women are capable of sexual pleasure at least as much as men. The "women endure sex for love/companionship/security" meme I think is the result of societal negative reinforcement that is due to the high potential cost of sex for women traditionally. Since that cost is reduced by technology/education and equalized through laws there is no reason why this negative reinforcement should continue. Of course, and this goes directly to Allen's show last night, fundies try to go into the other extreme - instead of doing away with negative reinforcement for girls they want to impose virginity on guys as well. Traditionally male virginity was never a big deal because men don't get pregnant.
Another side-note on biology and sex. It seems that female orgasms serve no direct biological purpose but are there because men have orgasms (which are biologically needed for ejaculation). As such they would be similar to male nipples. Also female clitoris is analogous to the male glans. Very fascinating stuff and makes perfect sense in light of evolution.
Could be interesting though. A virgin's guide to sex. Would make it stand out.
I agree with your sentiment in part but have not read the book, so I did not feel qualified to comment on that. Recently I was at a bookstore and they only had "Velvet Elvis" (horrible title, see my other post). I leafed through a little and was disappointed. First, is it a matter of cannon law (or whatever you Protestants call it) that every 2 bit writer has to include the claim "we all have faith in something"? First it is far from original, and second it redefines faith on the fly to suit the writers purposes. Having "faith" that some invisible being begat a son by a human mother (reminiscent of pagan stories with the exception that the pagan ones are more interesting) who than had to be tortured and killed so this invisible being doesn't have to torture me in an invisible place called "Hell" is not the same kind of "faith" (reasonable expectation based on prior knowledge and experience would be a better word for it) that for example a bridge will hold my weight.
Second, the style is haphazard and substance thin. He does not really say anything new, but you have to be careful or you might miss that fact in the midst of trampolines, kitchy paintings and brick walls.
Could be interesting though. A virgin's guide to sex. Would make it stand out.
I agree with your sentiment in part but have not read the book, so I did not feel qualified to comment on that. Recently I was at a bookstore and they only had "Velvet Elvis" (horrible title, see my other post). I leafed through a little and was disappointed. First, is it a matter of cannon law (or whatever you Protestants call it) that every 2 bit writer has to include the claim "we all have faith in something"? First it is far from original, and second it redefines faith on the fly to suit the writers purposes. Having "faith" that some invisible being begat a son by a human mother (reminiscent of pagan stories with the exception that the pagan ones are more interesting) who than had to be tortured and killed so this invisible being doesn't have to torture me in an invisible place called "Hell" is not the same kind of "faith" (reasonable expectation based on prior knowledge and experience would be a better word for it) that for example a bridge will hold my weight.
Second, the style is haphazard and substance thin. He does not really say anything new, but you have to be careful or you might miss that fact in the midst of trampolines, kitchy paintings and brick walls.
Creativity? Fertility? Making people?
That was too bad, and odd.
You also stated that, " One, he quotes from Song of Solomon (which is good) but fails to acknowledge that a.) Solomon had hundreds of sexual partners, and b.) the Song of Solomon text implies that the "beloved and lover" were not married yet." Which may be true but that's not even the point. Song of Solomon is a book of the Bible that in a way is God romancing us, and shows God's true love for us.
I just think you need to read the book a little more thoroughly before reviewing like that. I think the book was very well done and is one of my favorite books of all time.
Andy, how is your book, "A Virgin's Guide to Sex" coming along?
Oh PUH-lease! This "theology" (if it can be called that) is so over the top. It stems from 2nd-century, heretical Gnosticism that was (among other things) an anti-pleasure theology. It amazes me at what lengths the church will go sometimes to deny the obvious. I mean after all, a book about a love and sexual desire about a woman can't possibly be about just that now can it?
I am sincerely glad you enjoyed it and got something out of it. It's ok to disagree. I just found it a bit disappointing, that's all. I don't think I need to read it more thoroughly though. We just don't see eye to eye on this one and that's fine.
How did I guess that was coming from you.
That's fine. That is why I built in a search feature. I want these to be ongoing conversations.
Uhhh...like all my planned book writings, it isn't coming along very well at all.
I wouldn't quite use the words "over the top" but I agree. Of course, I am usually with the "If the Plain Text Makes Perfect Sense, Seek No Other Sense Lest You End Up With Nonsense" school of Biblical hermeneutics.
I have to defend the Gnostics here, and not just because I admire their cosmogeny (without subscribing to it, just admiring it as a piece of ancient mythology) and think it is a lot more cogent than orthodox Christian cosmogeny.
Gnostics rejected the Hebrew Bible as the Scripture of the Demiurge ("Craftsman"), a lesser and malevolent deity. It would not be in the interest of Gnostics to clean up and allegorize a HB book.
One wonders if the Holy Catholic Church would have been more receptive to the worldly interpretation if it was about altar boys instead.
I am only half tongue in cheek here. I seriously think the compulsory celibacy of the clergy has negatively affected the practical theology of Catholic Church and by extension, of the wider Christian world.
Point taken. I hope Ana will be back to respond to your objections.
Hey, you can't allow Allen to beat you, can you? ;)
That story is useless without pictures! But yeah, it was quite dumb to leave such photos on her phone but I don't think she should lose her job over it.
Didn't Allen have that chick from Westboro Baptist Church on a while back? So why not David Duke? Would sure make for an interesting conversation.