Skip to main content

Considering Consent

There’s been a flurry of articles recently blowing about the Evangelical blog-o-sphere about how rape is bad. Apparently, there are some Christians out there who didn’t know this and who were unaware that this has no place in a holy marriage. They have now been duly informed.

What is Consent?

If by saying that spouses ‘must give consent’ our self-appointed internet guardians simply mean that rape in marriage is damnable, then there is no disagreement. If they are arguing that rape victims need the support of their faith communities, there is no disagreement. If there are trying to point out medical conditions can affect things, well, yes. I don’t personally know of any minister of any theological stripe that says otherwise. Granted, if we search the internet we may find a loud redneck preacher somewhere saying rape is ok. But from the way the blogs were written, you’d think these messengers were giving the Christian world a fresh revelation.

One of the reasons that these articles are so tedious to read is that they’re so vague. Most of them never defined ‘consent’. If by consent they mean that the two spouses look at each other and one asks ‘So dear, would you like to have sex now?’ and the other replies, ‘Yes, I give my consent for us to have sex’ then we can assume that these bloggers are still single or in need of marriage counselling.

Christians who have been married for more than five minutes know that initiating lovemaking is rarely formal. Signs that one is in the mood can be given in a number of ways, some direct, some indirect. They may range from a gentle footsie under the table to simply saying, ‘I really want to jump your bones now.’ Both are equally holy.

But what these blogs lack in clarity, they more than make up for in bad theology and misandry.

It’s hard to count all the times these bloggers write, ‘a woman’s body is her own’. Now in a sheer practical sense, this statement has some truth to it. Our bodies are ours in the sense that they don’t belong to the government or to Mao Tse Tung. But still, the statement is not strictly true.

As Christians, our bodies don’t ultimately belong to us – Christ owns them. We are his slaves. We offer up our bodies a living sacrifice to his service to do as asks. We must go where he calls us to go and do what he calls us to do.

But it doesn’t end there. If we choose to get married – and Scripture tells us we can be happy and unmarried – then we also yield our bodies to our spouses. It is written that ‘A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but his wife does.’

What does that mean practically? It means that if my neighbour Mark knocks on my door and asks me for a back rub, I can say ‘no’. My hands do not belong to him. But if my wife asks me for one, I am obliged. My body is not just for pleasing myself anymore, it must serve her even when I don’t feel like it.


Feminist theological bloggers usually have little use for the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. The usage of these words implies a distinction and therefore opens up the door to affirming the anathematised gender roles which they have declared jihad against. For that reason, they normally keep with the term ‘spouse’. But if they can further their ideological agenda by making all women seem oppressed and all complementarian men look like sex-trafficking oppressors, they’ll pull the terms back out of retirement. 

Which they do HERE and other places.

In every insistence in these articles, it was always the wife who had to give consent to the rather aggressive, intellectual boorish, and undisciplined husband. None of their examples implied that a wife might want to knock boot with her husband when he wasn’t up for it. 

Biblical Consent

Scripture is amusing for a number of reasons, not least of which is how it deals with the concept of consent. In the Old Testament, sex was seen as a wife’s right. Much is written to say that a husband does not have the right to withhold sex from her. In Exodus 21.10 Moses describes one of the regulations put on polygamy, ‘If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing and her marriage rights.’

According to this, a man has a role before God to keep the kitchen full of food, to make sure she has all the clothes she needs, and to be available for her sexually when she should require. Though polygamy was allowed in ancient Israel, laws like this discouraged the practice. If the obvious financial obligations in regards to the food and clothing weren’t enough to discourage a man from taking four wives, then having to be available to perform anytime for four wives would be. Remember, all this was before the invention of the little blue miracle pill.

Genesis records just such a situation. Jacob had two wives and two semi-wives (long story). One day, when he returns from a hard day’s work, he’s greeted by Leah, one of his wives, saying ‘You’re having sex with me tonight. I traded my son’s mandrakes for you!’ (Gen 30.16).

Really. You can’t make this stuff up.

Having four wives may sound like a seventeen-year-old boy’s wet dream, but the reality was unpleasant. Though Jacob was a righteous man who went to heaven, he got a good taste of hell in having to live with four competing, hormonal, pregnant women who would trade him around. At the end of his life, he would say ‘My days have been evil.’

A Biblical view of consent can teach us men three things:

1.    Sex is to be done in an atmosphere of love and affection. This means that rape is in not compatible with the way God designed sex to work, that sexual activities should be agreed upon and that churches should support victims of abuse - male or female. 
2.   We cannot deny our wives physical affection (whether its back rubs or intercourse) just because we don’t want to. Stop surfing the internet and start satisfying your wife. 
3.   You’re not a barbarian for anticipating the same treatment back. That’s equality – a concept most theological feminist wouldn’t know from Adam.


Popular posts from this blog

Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend

[Response to the letter Dear Non-Affirming Christian]
Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend,

Thank you for taking the time to write me. Sadly, it seems you misunderstand why I met with you for coffee. Please let me explain my motives by defining the words in my salutation above. Would this be too terrible a way to go about it?
Let’s start with ‘friend’ shall we? You rightly question this term as an accurate description of our relationship. For now, let's simply say I mean it as an expression of goodwill. But we will return to it again at the end of the letter.
Then there's this term, 'pro-gay'. By this, I don't mean your personal sexual urges. There have historically been―and are today―countless godly leaders in the church who have deep sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same gender. In spite of their desires, they remain celibate and teach orthodox views of gender and marriage. In your letter, you repeatedly refer to me as a ‘non-affirming Christian’, but I affi…

Jezebel: Our Whorable Queen

[Extract from the bookElijah Men Eat Meat]

Ahab married Jezebel, then he proceeded to worship Baal.’ -1Kg 16
Queen Jezebel is a Baal-snogging, fake-teaching, boob-flaunting, pride-marching, man-manipulating, Yahweh-blaspheming, prophets’ blood-drinking monstrosity of a female.
And that’s being nice.
This daughter of Ethbaal, the Phoenician King, grows up surrounded by power, education, luxury, and evil. Of course, she doesn’t think of it as evil. No one sees their culture’s sins for what they are. It is like air to a child or water to a fish: it’s so much a part of us that we don’t even know it is there. She thinks her culture is the rule by which others should be measured. Yes, Israel is used to being surrounded by pagan neighbours and their debauched royalty. But now we have a problem. The problem is that this ghoulish gal now has a throne in the midst of God’s holy nation. It’s one thing for a boat to be in the sea. It’s quite another thing for the sea to be in the boat. And the nati…

Driscoll Returns, ‘Christian Today’ Melts.

Sometimes in the course of events, a peculiar thing happens that then triggers a response more peculiar still. This is what we now see with the return of Pastor Mark Driscoll to the church scene.
For those unfamiliar with the drama, Mark Driscoll was a church planter and Bible teacher who made a big impact in the least churched city in the USA: Seattle. Thousands professed faith in Christ through his ministry. But he left the church that he had started under dark circumstances. No, it wasn’t adultery as is so often the case with some of these big-name preachers. Rather, it was heavy-handed leadership―resulting in many spiritually crushed church members―that drove him to resign.
Now, three years later, he is leading a new church and many are downloading his sermons once again. This is not without some valid controversy―for reasons we’ll mention soon. But what is most noticeable is not his peculiar return. It is the reaction among those who lean left of classical Christian teaching: the …