So I’ve heard from more a few quarters that I too should throw in my two cents. Well, since you asked…
A Note for Rachel Held Evans:
In your follow up post to the initial critique of Jared Wilson’s 50 Shades..you write the following,
“Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did not mean to be hurtful, and let’s engage the content of The Gospel Coalition post instead of criticizing the character of the authors, who very few of us know personally.”
Great! Even if we grant (for argument’s sake) that they were hurtful at all, why didn’t you begin your initial blog post with that quote? Why didn’t you begin with a call for a respectful discussion? Instead, your very first call to action was literally for your followers and readers to all “get angry” (your words). Instead, you blogged/tweeted quotes without any context and without any reference to what the authors were trying to say, and now you act coy and innocent when people draw the very conclusions you led them to, and react (anger, anger!) just how you suggested. At this point, you don’t just get to say, “I never accused Jared Wilson or Doug Wilson of promoting rape or sexual violence against women, so let’s just strike that narrative from the dialog.” Sorry, Rachel, the arsonist doesn’t just get to throw on her firewoman helmet. Striking that narrative at this point would require something more like a retraction and, dare I say it, an apology? “Get angry” came from you. Are you now sorry that it did?
You obviously feel strongly that the gents made some word choices that were poor and insensitive. You obviously differ on their views of submission (even if you weren’t engaged in misunderstanding them). But did your approach really move anyone towards meaningful dialogue? There was, and is, some real dialogue to be had here. It’s a great topic for discussion (and edification) among cool heads.
I am all for a heated discussion when there are differences of opinion on Scripture and how it plays out in our lives, but as far as I can tell, that was never your point. You demonstrated more concern that the pro-S&M crowd could feel stung by some of the discussion than concern for the rampant slander you set blazing against two ministers of the Gospel.
If you want to talk about using wisdom in one’s rhetoric, if you want to talk about insensitivity in word choice, if you want to underscore the fact that words can do damage, how about trying to practice what you preach. Thus far, on that topic, you’ve been nothing but a blogging contradiction.
