It’s been a while, hasn’t it? Figured I’d go ahead and respond to a twisting of 1 Corinthians 7 by the totally-not-complementarian/Christian-feminist Michael Foster.
Since this is a lengthier tweet, here’s a screenshot of the entire thing.
If there’s one thing Christians are really good at, it’s missing the point about 1 Corinthians 7:1-5. For as crystal clear as it is, there’s just something about our brains that compels us to make it look like it’s saying something else. In this case, however, it’s deliberate and purposeful. Foster says,
Men and women both have these desires. However, this desire is met in similar AND distinct ways. Listen to v. 3 again, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (or due affection), and likewise the wife to her husband.” In other words, we should met each other’s particular needs.
That’s not what the verse says, not in other words or in what is actually written. 1 Corinthians 7:3 does not say husbands and wives should meet each other’s “particular needs”. That’s certainly true, but that’s not a synonym for what this verse actually says.
I Corinthians 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
The theme of 1 Cor. 7:1-5 is that men and women both have sexual needs and that both husbands and wives should meet each other’s needs. True enough. However, this verse is very specific. It’s stating explicitly that marital sex is a right. It’s something each spouse is entitled to get from the other. The next two verses prove that’s the point being made.
I Cor. 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
The point being emphasized is that sexual intercourse is not something you’re entitled to withhold, but something your spouse deserves by virtue of being married to you. The verses is translated to say “rights” because the rights of a husband or wife is the subject being discussed.
So what was the point in twisting the meaning of verse 3 in the first place though?
…frequent sexual intimacy is promised in the taking of marital vows. Now, conventional thinking says that this is a male issue. That it is men who complain about be deprived of sexual intimacy. That’s simply not true. Women feel deprived as well. This is something the sexes share in common. The issue is that we have a truncated and reduced understanding of sexual intimacy.
And there it is. Foster wanted to respond to the common complaint that Christian wives frequently deprive their husbands of sexual intimacy. How did he respond? By denying that that’s even happening. Don’t you see- both husbands AND wives are depriving each other! But that’s obviously false. It’s so obvious that even Foster had to try and swap the reality of being deprived of sexual intimacy, and feeling deprived of sexual intimacy. Those aren’t the same thing. The fact he had to say women “feel” deprived instead of simply saying they ARE deprived is a dead giveaway that he’s playing fast and loose with the facts of the matter.
If we’re talking about sexual intercourse specifically, then wives aren’t being deprived. They’re the ones refusing to have sex with their husbands, not vice versa. Saying “sexual intimacy” is obviously a deliberate maneuver to try and discuss marital sexual problems in a broad manner that isn’t restricted to intercourse itself. That way he can say both parties are deprived, just in different ways. But that’s not what’s being taught in 1 Corinthians 7. If a Christian simply sticks to what is written and not try to slip in broad categories like Foster did (I.E., by saying “in other words”), then this overall point could not be made.
Had Foster said this,
Now, conventional thinking says that this is a male issue. That it is men who complain about be(ing) deprived of sexual
intimacyintercourse.
Then he would have had to say that’s true, and 1 Corinthians 7:3 explicitly condemns the wives who are guilty of disobeying this command. But he just can’t do that because his goal was to take a feminist problem in the church and deny its existence. The deception required his twisting of the text and the deliberate conflation of being deprived of intercourse and feeling deprived of something more abstract. In the end, it’s lies all-around. More elaborate, more subtle lies, but still lies.
As I’ve said in other contexts, being clear and direct is what complementarians strive to never be. This is a prime example of that very phenomenon, and yet another reason you need to watch your back around these guys. They say they aren’t complementarians, but like complementarians, they are ALWAYS waiting to find a way to get some feminist deception in under the radar of naïve Christian men.
I don’t know if I’ll write anymore posts besides this one. It’s very unlikely. Sometimes though, you just can’t stay silent about stuff like this. This subtle form of deception is evil. It is insidious. It is wicked, it is sinful, and it deserves to be called out and condemned. If only more Christian men would do so.
Full Metal Patriarch 
Men deprived of sex by their wives, women most affected.
LikeLiked by 2 people