Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed. As the apostle Paul states, the husband and wife no longer own their own bodies, but each now belongs to the other (see 1 Corinthians 7:4). At the same time, Paul instructed men to love their wives even as Christ has loved the church (see Ephesians 5:25). Even as wives are commanded to submit to the authority of their husbands (see verse 22), the husband is called to a far higher standard of Christlike love and devotion toward his wife. Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly "earn" privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Desire and Deceit: The Real Cost of Sexual Tolerance, pg.38
8 comments:
AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!
I know I never post here, but this one warranted a response. I am so sick of hearing the "wives, joyfully submit and give yourself to your husband, no matter what he does or says". That is NOT what Scripture teaches. What Dr. Mohler said, THAT is what Scripture teaches.
-Carolyn
I just discovered that I never set up a draft for this on the other blog! I was going to do them both today but I already had a post for today on TWB so I figured I post it tomorrow. So you'll see it on that one too!
Since the citation isn't really about apologetics, and not really limited to Christians, I thought it would be worthwhile to post here also. Glad you liked it!
Mohler is completely wrong. "Due benevolence" means sex is a right between husbands and wives. It is earned once at the wedding ceremony and never again. Regular sexual relations are the moral responsibilities of both husband and wife. A pattern of continuous refusal is a grave sin on the level with adultery. It is a defrauding of your spouse and God hates it. The resentment against the act of sex with one's spouse is a stronghold of evil that must be rooted out before even more sin destroys the marriage. Mohler is espousing a stronghold of evil wherein the husband must perform various acts and pass various tests to prove his fitness for access to the marriage bed. What Mohler argues for is so wrong it borders on evil. I pray for the husbands whose wives read this garbage and agree with it.
Doug,
(I only published one comment since both said virtually the same thing -- as noted, please post only once.)
You are reading way too much into the citation, and even misrepresenting what Mohler is saying. All he is saying is that if the husband wants regular relations, he needs to treat his wife as Christ treats the church -- i.e., treat her like he loves her.
What wife wants to give herself to a drunk husband, or an abusive husband, etc? While Paul teaches regular relations, it is with the understanding of a proper relationship to begin with. The only proof of "fitness" is that the husband treat his wife like a wife instead of a slave.
Mohler did not accidentally use the phrase "regularly earn access to the marriage bed." He specifically states that sex is "earned" and even when earned is a "privilege." You are doing what so many people do when they are trying to excuse the inexcusable. You are trying to walk back Mohler's words for him. Mohler does not say what you do. "If a husband wants sex" is what you say. What Mohler says is much more extreme. Unlike you, I take Mohler at his words. He says "earn" he means "earn". The fact that you want to infer a much more benign meaning tells me that you haven't paid attention to the fact that Mohler's piece is consistent with the general theme of so much teaching on marital sexuality in the church today that is horribly biased against men. Read Dalrock's excellent series on the "Reframing of Christian Marriage" (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/reframing-christian-marriage/).
Doug,
Again, you are reading into the citation what is not meant, and you are doing so intentionally. Read this again:
Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly "earn" privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.
Notice that he has quotation marks around the word earn. It's symbolic. He even explains what he means in regards to how the husband needs to treat his wife. Dalrock's article has no bearing on what is said here, nor is he biased against men. You practice eisegesis with this citation. I'd hate be your wife.
Discussion over.
Discussion over? After that cheap shot about my wife? God bless you, too.
Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.
The quotes are because he used the word earn without quotes in an earlier paragraph, not because he was using the word symbolically. Read the whole article. He is definitely not just referring to drunk or abusive husbands:
God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.
Being "worthy of her attention and desire" involves a lot more than just not being drunk or abusive. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse me of doing eisegesis because I have gone through this article paragraph by paragraph and Mohler's theme is all about husband's literally earning access. He says earn. He means earn. Stop trying to walk back his comments for him.
I wanted to end the discussion because of the futility of discussion with someone who wants to attack Mohler -- and me for supporting what he says -- because YOU decide you make him say what he isn't saying. The whole CONTEXT, understood by anyone without some sort of attack mode, is about "earning" as a metaphor; i.e., as I previously noted, having proper biblical behavior towards one's wife in every way. It isn't "earning" as "tit-for-tat" or for "payment," it's a matter of being a proper husband so that the wife will willingly accept with begrudging or feeling duty-bound, etc.
But you don't seem to understand that, which is why I said I'd hate to be your wife; your attitude is that the Bible requires her to have sex, ergo you could be a complete jerk and treat her like trash and tough bananas she has to be ready at the drop of a hat. THAT is the attitude you project, which is totally unbiblical. And, yes, you practice eisegesis with it because you bring in YOUR belief rather than reading the meaning behind it.
THERE. I GET THE LAST WORD. Further comments from you will be deleted.
Post a Comment