Yesterday, I managed to
make some waves by sharing a rather scandalous photo. Given the nature of the
picture, who I am, and whose I am, I owe you an explanation.
Now, since not everyone
who could read this knows me personally, I'll include the link below. For those
weary of clicking on a scandalous picture, for whatever reason, I’ll give you a
description: The picture is of a young woman in a skirt, with no top covering
except flesh-colored tape covering her nipples. On her body is written
"still not asking for it." It was taken at some sort of anti-rape
rally, and the message is pretty straightforward: no means no. A woman isn't
"asking for it" because of how she dresses or anything else. Rape is
rape and wouldn't be justified even if a woman was walking around
topless. This message was further emphasized in the caption, recounting a
profanity-laced but nonetheless apt defense of this position against an anonymous
internet poster. I will say, in my opinion it kinda looked ridiculous. But,
ridiculous or not, it is still a (mostly) topless woman, and that is a pretty
provocative image in American culture.
Why would a devout
Christian like myself, whose blog is devoted mostly to Christian theology and
living, post something like that for all to see on Facebook (and then reference
it here)? The short answer: because I agree with the message, and while most
people I know would probably never rape anyone under any circumstances, it's a
message that many need to hear nonetheless.
But why would I post
such a risqué and provocative image, one that any moron in my position would
realize would cause blowback? Because I agree with the message. More than that,
the way it is presented I think is quite fitting to the situation.
Let me explain. Now, I
acknowledge that it is a very risqué image by Christian standards. I mean,
it's a topless woman (of age and build that men would want to look at).
Superficially, it's like pornography. But, not everything that is like
pornography is pornography. The Bible doesn't say anywhere "never show a
picture of a (mostly) topless woman" or anything like that. Context and
circumstance and the overall message all matter here. There are a lot of
principles about sexual purity and clean behavior in the Bible, but this isn't
like how it seems.
I implore everyone to
look past the fact that you can (sorta) see a woman's bare chest and think
about why it's there. It's not part of some crude joke. I wasn't giggling like
a kid and saying "boobies" when I clicked "share." It
wasn't some advertisement for Spring Break in Cancun or some raunchy young
adult comedy. It's supposed to be shocking. It's supposed to push
the envelope. It's supposed to make a point. Sometimes something shocking
and normally unbecoming of a holy person is justified if it drives home an
important point. Was it not God Himself who, to underscore the perverseness of
the Israelites following other gods, compared them to prostitutes who lusted
after men, men who fondled their breasts and had the genitals of horses and
donkies (Ezekiel 23:19-21)?
The human body isn't evil,
even when certain parts are exposed. If used for evil (like pornography or
fornication), then obviously that is evil. But this isn't that. Not every
picture where certain body parts are shown is sinful pornography.
But couldn't I have used
something less outrageous to make the point? Well, yes and no. The point can be
made a million different ways. I could simply say "even if a woman were to
walk around naked, it's still rape if you force her to have sex."
But you know what? A picture is worth a thousand words. God could have
told Ezekiel just to say "you all are being horribly evil in your
idolatry," and avoided all the crude statements that in most situations
would be quite inappropriate for a person of God to make. But He didn't. He took
what we are used to being used for evil, and used it for good. That is what I
did here (or at least tried to do). It wasn't just a way to make the point. It
wasn't that the point was good and this was a way to deliver. The shocking and
outrageous delivery is part of what makes it stick.
What of the weaker
brother, one who might be enticed to lust after seeing such an image? I did
take them into account, although I may have underestimated the likelihood of it
actually being an issue. Like I said, I thought the girl looked kinda
ridiculous covered in tape, but I guess that is rather subjective. I would
daresay that this aspect of it, looking out for other Christians who may be
tempted to sin, is the only thing that really gives me pause. I'm not that
concerned about being scandalous or being labeled "inappropriate"
(which is basically the Christian equivalent of accusing someone of racism;
powerful, but so overused and misapplied that it is quickly becoming
meaningless). But I do know that, out of love, the spiritually strong are to
sacrifice their liberties in certain context so that weaker believers aren't
tempted to sin, even if that which is sinful is only sinful because the weaker
brother would be doing it despite feeling that it is wrong. I can look at that
picture and my mind won't go to a bad place unless I tell it to go there, but
it is true that I must consider those who are not so able. And I myself have
had significant issues with that sort of thing myself, and am always on the
look out. I too was once not so able. It is this factor, probably to the
exclusion of all others, that will make me consider a different course of
action next time.
But there also is a
balance here. Protecting those who might be tempted into some sort of sin isn't
the be all end all of things. This isn't about my liberty to eat a piece of
meat that was sacrificed to an idol and my brother who thinks it is sin but
might be tempted to eat it anyway because of me; it's about forcefully driving
home the point that there is an element, a faction in American culture, whose
views on rape need to be radically changed. This wasn't for my own joy and
benefit. If it was, I'd have bigger problems than just having offended some
people! It's a balance, and a delicate one at that. Ultimately, I determined
that the message, the message that is both behind the image and forcefully made
by the image itself, was worth the risks. And so I stand by it today. I do need
to look out for my brothers, but ultimately, it is their hearts, their sins,
and their ability to turn to God to avoid sinning in thought or deed that
determines what happens (James 1:14-15). We have the Holy Spirit, and with
that, the power to stay holy. Plus, you can always click "hide story"
on your newsfeed. In a perfect world that would never be a requirement, but
until God brings us that world, we'll do what we have to do.
For what it’s worth, not
all feedback has been negative. And the positive feedback has come mostly from
women, Christian and non-Christian. I don't know; maybe they're glad to hear a
conservative Christian man, despite his preaching and practicing of abstinence,
not blaming women for rape for a change...
And that is what this
was all meant to come down to. In an admittedly very provocative manner, I made
a stance that should be easy for anyone to make. If you can't make that stance,
that rape is rape, that no means no, that even a naked woman has the clear and
unambiguous right to say no to sex, then you have far greater problems than
blowback from a Facebook picture you posted.
The Post I shared: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151240485121347&set=a.447933696346.242216.74156301346&type=1&theater
No comments:
Post a Comment