The heinous murders of eight people (seven of whom were women) at massage parlors in the Atlanta area have shocked Americans, particularly Americans of Asian descent. Whether or not this proves to be a hate crime motivated by race, at the very least it appears (in my judgment) that it should be deemed a hate crime against women. We should also note that the relationship between racial and sexual identity may well prove difficult to separate in this instance, given the all-too-common fetishizing of Asian women in our culture and the sexualization of massage parlors in particular.
The reason it appears relevant to bring all this up is because of the reported statements by the suspect to police “that he had a ‘sexual addiction’ and had carried out the shootings at the massage parlors to eliminate his ‘temptation.’” Additionally, it seems the suspect was a baptized member of a Southern Baptist Church and was participating in student ministry as recently as 2018.[1] As important as the racial dynamics of these crimes are, I want to focus my reflection in this article on the sexual dynamic and its implications for––or, perhaps, its indictment against––Christian men and church leaders.
Not All (Christian) Men?
I must confess that I found the phrase “eliminate his temptation” truly bone-chilling. Of course, such a blatant dehumanization of women created in the image of God should be deeply disturbing to anyone. But the reason this phrase stung me so deeply is because I immediately saw its logical resonance with a view of women that pervades the conservative evangelical subculture, a view that many in my (millennial) generation of churchgoers were reared on. This view sees the sexual “power” that women have in their bodies as dangerous and potentially destructive. It totalizes the erotic potential of the female form as the essence of female identity.
But I’m getting ahead of myself a bit. The point of this article isn’t to talk about the evangelical view of women. The point of this article is to talk about our view of men.
I’m sure a natural response for many as we continue to learn details and process this story will be, “Don’t blame the church! Not all Christian men are like that!” And, of course, on one level that is absolutely true. But I imagine that the description of women as “temptation” doesn’t feel all that foreign to many who grew up attending evangelical churches. It certainly doesn’t to me.
Victims of Our Own Nature
Here’s the point. Beneath this overly sexualized view of women is an overly sexualized view of men. But the way we have skewed our view of men is different. For women, we have over-sexualized their bodies; for men, we have over-sexualized their minds. Specifically, the view of men that has dominated a generation of discipleship materials and preaching is that we are naturally, hopelessly, and helplessly erotic in the way we view the world. “Men are visual,” and thus a man cannot be expected to resist the “overwhelming” bodily response that he experiences at the “unwelcome” thought, sight, or (heaven forbid) sexual advance of a woman who is not his wife.
Now, I do not mean to deny the unique power of sexual temptation in many men’s experience, but I sometimes wonder if we have given sexual sin more credit than it deserves. I subscribe to the Reformed doctrine of total depravity––every aspect of our humanity, in mind, body, and soul has been somehow tainted by the Fall. But sometimes when we’re talking about men, in particular, we tend to think of their sexuality as especially or even hopelessly depraved. But is there any good theological reason for thinking this? Are men naturally more inclined towards sexual sin than they are towards greed or violence or idolatry or dishonesty? All of these sins appear alongside sexual immorality on New Testament vice lists, after all.
I should also say that I am by no means implying that sexual sin is not serious. It is the case that young and adult men who go to church abuse pornography at alarming rates. This is of the utmost pastoral concern. But I am beginning to wonder if the rate at which men in the church “struggle” with these sins is partially a function of the way we teach men to think about themselves. To put it another way, I wonder if this over-sexualized view of the male mind has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When “Victims” Become Abusers
We have trained a generation of Christian men to view themselves as victims of their own out-of-control sexual desire. Thus, the conversations around sexual sin in many churches have been dominated by “strategies” for avoiding temptation. Because, after all, resisting temptation is seen as either impossible or difficult enough so as to be an unreasonable expectation to place upon your “average” Christian man. Really, these strategies often amount to avoiding women. Avoid women in porn by putting blocking software on your computer. Avoid women in your office by adhering to the Billy Graham Rule. Avoid women in your meetings by doggedly and over-zealously insisting on a complementarian view of church leadership. But the way we’ve talked about sin and temptation has ironically served to instrumentalize and pornify our vision of what sexuality is. The result has been a radical dehumanization of women, who are viewed as either a threat that could compromise a man’s faithfulness/career or (in marriage) as a God-given “outlet” for a man’s animalistic sexual desire.
The point I’m trying to make in this article is that men have also been dehumanized by purity culture. But, as we are now seeing all too well, it is women who suffer worst when men dehumanize themselves. If male nature is unavoidably hypersexual and men are unable to control themselves, the logical conclusion is that the only way to avoid sexual sin is to control women. This manifests in the over-regulation of women’s clothing, their denied access to leadership circles, the way they are spoken about and spoken to, and a thousand other tiny de-humanizations. And when this “uncontrollable” sexual urge cannot be satisfied, we are seeing that it also manifests in violence against women. It creates a situation where women are especially vulnerable to abuse, and “victim blaming” becomes the logical default when reports of abuse are made. A man couldn’t possibly be expected to not take advantage of a young, beautiful, vulnerable woman he was counseling, right? God help us. Moreover, this view of men creates a church culture where women feel as if they have done something wrong when they fall victim to the unrestrained excesses of male sexual desire. (“The reason my husband feels like he needs to watch porn is because I don’t have sex with him enough.”)
We are starting to see a reckoning for this false teaching in evangelical churches. When we tell young men the lie that their sexuality cannot be controlled, is it any wonder that they struggle to control it as adults? Is it any wonder that abusers have found our churches not to be hostile but hospitable to their predatory behavior? Given this sub-human view of maleness, we have created space for men like Ravi Zacharias to practice their wickedness with impunity. It has also perpetuated a narrative where many Christian men are trained to respond to this story with an overly pious and pseudo-humble, “That could be me if I’m not careful.” Seriously, dude? If you feel like you are anywhere near doing the things that Ravi Zacharias did, you need immediate and professional help. Thank God that most men are not like Ravi Zacharias. But many men believe that they easily could be. And that lie has created a toxic culture in our churches.
Horrifically, a young professing Christian man appears to have followed this line of reasoning so far that he felt murdering seven women was a legitimate way of addressing his sexual addiction. The perverse logical coherence of this thinking within the Christian subculture should absolutely terrify us. And it is incumbent upon evangelical pastors, theologians, and men to begin addressing this immediately. Women have suffered too long in our congregations, and this wickedness must stop.
Reclaiming Masculine Dignity
The biblical example of King David is often brought up in discussions of sexual sin. Even this great and godly man was “vulnerable” to temptation when he “took” (read: “raped”) Bathsheba. There’s a lot that could be said about the way this biblical episode has been talked about in our churches. But make no mistake: David was not a victim here, whether of Bathesheba’s supposed seduction or of his own “male” inclinations. He was the abuser, the assailant. This is important. David was not doing what any “godly” man might do if he’s not careful. He was acting out of a deep and compulsive wickedness that was anything but godly. He was a fully responsible moral agent who leveraged his power to live out his unrestrained sexual desire––and death was the result.
But what about the biblical example of Joseph? Joseph was the victim of an advance from a woman who held power and position over him––but he didn’t indulge in sexual sin! For Christian young men, the “lesson” from this biblical narrative shouldn’t be: “Watch out for women like Potiphar’s wife.” It should be: “Look at this godly young man! He upheld the dignity of his own person at great personal cost. Be like Joseph!”
What about the example of Jesus, who, as best we can tell, was perfectly comfortable being seen alone with a woman? (See John 4) No “Billy Graham” rule for Jesus––who, by the way, was (and is) a truly and fully male human being, complete with sexual anatomy and the experience of sexual desire. Despite this, Jesus did not need overly cautious “moral fences” to maintain his integrity.
Absolutely, let’s talk about women’s dignity. But let’s also dignify men. Let’s tell them that they are responsible for their own choices and for their own responses to temptation. They are responsible for living in loving relationship with all women, even if one of them happens to be their wife. The way to respect women is to fully humanize them, not just avoid them. Men must also fully humanize themselves, not viewing themselves as a hopelessly sexual animal, but as a creature bearing the divine image, with the potential to bless and share the love of God with heart, mind, and body.
Men are not victims of our nature. We are spirited moral agents, a little less than the angels, bursting with incredible potential for the creation of life––for love, passion, creativity, emotion, and self-restraint. It’s high time for the conversation around violence against women to land squarely on the shoulders of the men who perpetrate these crimes. And the leaders who teach Christian young men how to view themselves (and women) bear particular responsibility in beginning to set this wickedness right. A renewed and redeemed evangelical vision of masculinity is needed––dare I say a more theologically robust vision. (John Paul II’s Theology of the Body may be a good place to start.) Yes, let’s have a conversation about race and the dehumanization of women. But let’s also begin the work of repenting of the way that we have dehumanized men.
Notes:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/17/us/shooting-atlanta-acworth
Zachary Wagner is the Editorial Director of the Center for Pastor Theologians. He is currently studying for an MSt in New Testament at the University of Oxford, with plans to continue on to DPhil research at Oxford on the Apostle Paul’s view of reward. He holds degrees from Wheaton College and the Moody Bible Institute. He is a member of the St. Basil Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
