Did Independent Baptist Pastor Endorse Spousal Rape?

1906 reads

There are 9 Comments

RPittman's picture

The response to Mr. Hamman's article is exemplary in its political correctness. Reading Mr. Hamman's article, one can clearly see that he is not condoning or advocating spousal rape but the response insinuates that he may be. Rather than refuting or critiquing Mr. Hamman's points, the editor chooses to smear him by innuendo to establish her own political correctness with the public. IMHO, this indicates bias and prejudice rather than a reasoned response. This is rapidly becoming the standard attitude toward things Christian in America. It only goes to show the abyss between a Christian worldview and the prevailing secular worldview. (And yes, I know my word choice appears contradictory to what I've argued regarding the worldview concept. My use of worldview here is nothing more than perspective or point of view in reference to beliefs generally considered to be Christian or secular.)

RPittman's picture

The Feminist Movement has greatly influenced politically correct thought. One of the basic presuppositions of hardcore feminism is all women are victims and all males are cruel aggressors. Feminist philosophy finds almost every male-female interaction abusive to some degree. There is no denying the abuse of women--and there's too much of it--but it is extreme to see abuse in every male-female relationship. This extreme view appears in the arena of child abuse by alleging that every girl is abused and it is now rearing its ugly head in the marriage arena. Extremism, such as this, tends to discredit and trivialize the real problem, thus hindering more than helping.

When a woman marries a man, she is agreeing to intimate sexual relationship. This is quite different, on the other hand, from a woman forced into a sexual act with a man with whom she has never sexually consented. Forced sex without consent is obviously rape and it is morally wrong. However, it becomes increasingly moot when it involves a situation where consent has been given.

From a Christian perspective, the wife is not to withhold herself from her husband to avoid temptation (I Corinthians 7:1-6). As pictured by Paul, it is a mutually consensual relation. Of course, any loving Christian husband would consider his wife's feelings at the time because he cares and the act is more than the animal urge. There are the finer points of refusal such as a "headache" or disinterest.

In spousal rape, the question is what constitutes "forced sexual relations." Is it simply physical force alone or does it involve coercive persuasion? What is spousal rape? How do we recognize and establish it in court? These are difficult questions because the concept is not clearly defined.

Furthermore, the whole matter is filled with pitfalls and landmines. It opens the feminist Pandora's Box to the demons of unsubstantiated allegations against innocent husbands. It invites a bitter, angry spouse to even the score with her estranged so that the "rape" occurs after the fact. It is best that we build safeguards before we proceed.

Jay's picture

Quote:
In spousal rape, the question is what constitutes "forced sexual relations." Is it simply physical force alone or does it involve coercive persuasion? What is spousal rape? How do we recognize and establish it in court? These are difficult questions because the concept is not clearly defined.

Feminist theory or not, it is a sin against God and the woman and a crime against society to compel any woman to have sexual activites against her will, whether one uses physical, financial, psychological, spiritual, or other means of coercion. I don't think this is really that difficult to understand, and I'm embarrassed that I even need to say this online.

Findlaw.com:

Quote:
The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. Rape can occur when the offender and victim have a pre-existing relationship (sometimes called "date rape"), or even when the offender is the victim's spouse.

Under a variation known as "statutory rape," some states make it unlawful for an adult to engage in sexual intercourse with a person who has not reached the age of consent (usually 18 years of age).

It may be difficult to determine the motives behind someone's claim to be a rape victim, but that doesn't matter because it isn't our responsibility to discern motives anyway - that's a matter for the cops. Every accusation must be taken seriously.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

GregH's picture

The editorial is an embarrassment. It is not that there is not an element of truth in it because of course there is. It is the tone, the unbalanced treatment, and the overreaching hyperbole that is offensive. I do not want someone like Hamman speaking for me or any group I am in the least associated with.

The article could have been written in a positive and helpful way that does not denigrate women or ignore man's responsibilities. And for that matter, defraudment is not a sin limited to women anyway. But regardless of whether defraudment takes place, Hamman should have clearly stated that spousal abuse is a horrific sin.

RPittman's picture

Jay C. wrote:
Quote:
In spousal rape, the question is what constitutes "forced sexual relations." Is it simply physical force alone or does it involve coercive persuasion? What is spousal rape? How do we recognize and establish it in court? These are difficult questions because the concept is not clearly defined.

Feminist theory or not, it is a sin against God and the woman and a crime against society to compel any woman to have sexual activites against her will, whether one uses physical, financial, psychological, spiritual, or other means of coercion.

How do you know this? You are spouting the feminist pabulum. Do you have Scripture that says this? If not, then you need to state your reasoning because otherwise it is nothing more than your prejudiced opinion, which does not appear to be well-thought-out. For example, you mentioned financial. Does paying a prostitute, who desperately needs money for her drug habit, constitute rape? Is it psychological coercion when a husband brings home flowers, buys candy, purchases sexy lingerie, or schedules a romantic getaway to create an atmosphere leading to sexual relations? A husband, who discusses I Corinthians 7 with his wife, could be accused of using "spiritual" force. Conceivably, "other means of coercion" may mean any means of persuasion or request for relations. Thus, almost any man is guilty. No, this is too broad and ill-defined. How do you practically differentiate between consensual relations and rape? From your overly broad description, it appears that only those initiated by the women would be free of these accusations. It's precisely this sort of gloss that muddies the water and hinders clear thinking and debate of moot points. It works against addressing the real problem that exists and creates more problems of its own.

Also, you've virtually given a blank check to any woman (I'm sorry but in this politically correct climate, one can't accurately state an idea without opening one's self to charges of sexism or insensitivity.) who has second thoughts or pique after having consensual sexual relations. It's open season on males with no limits. Where's justice and fairness?

Quote:
I don't think this is really that difficult to understand, and I'm embarrassed that I even need to say this online.
I'm disappointed that you don't understand beyond your own political correctness. Your view is a gloss and an oversimplification. Although you indicate that you thoroughly understand, your comments indicate that you don't. I don't like being brusque but you intimated that I don't understand even the simplest and most obvious and my views are embarrassing.
Quote:

Findlaw.com:

Quote:
The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. Rape can occur when the offender and victim have a pre-existing relationship (sometimes called "date rape"), or even when the offender is the victim's spouse.

Under a variation known as "statutory rape," some states make it unlawful for an adult to engage in sexual intercourse with a person who has not reached the age of consent (usually 18 years of age).

It may be difficult to determine the motives behind someone's claim to be a rape victim, but that doesn't matter because it isn't our responsibility to discern motives anyway - that's a matter for the cops. Every accusation must be taken seriously.

Although I favor taking every accusation seriously, I don't necessarily trust the cops. In light of recent incidences of aggressiveness, abuse of power, encroachment into the lives of citizens, and other malfeasance, it is somewhat naive and gullible to implicitly trust our "guardians," who are as much the depraved creatures as the civilians. Our founding fathers wisely realized that freedom could only be preserved by the moral strength of the citizenry, not a watchdog force externally enforcing right behavior. Morality and justice are going down the drain if citizens don't take an active participatory interest in the affairs of society.

Mike Durning's picture

Leaving aside all questions of political correctness, false accusation, feminist thinking, etc., I must point out that the fact that a husband and wife have rights to each other's bodies does not necessarily imply that one has the right to take the other's body by force. People are not property.

For example, the wife is to submit to the husband, says Ephesians, but the command is given to the wife, that she might truly and willingly submit. It is not given to the husband that he might force her submission.

RPittman's picture

Mike Durning wrote:
Leaving aside all questions of political correctness, false accusation, feminist thinking, etc., I must point out that the fact that a husband and wife have rights to each other's bodies does not necessarily imply that one has the right to take the other's body by force. People are not property.

For example, the wife is to submit to the husband, says Ephesians, but the command is given to the wife, that she might truly and willingly submit. It is not given to the husband that he might force her submission.

Agreed. (I haven't seen anyone arguing against this.) It's a mutual submission of both partners. The problem is when one tries to enforce compliance of the other to the Biblical exhortation by force. This is not to say one cannot reason, plead or exhort another to obey the Scriptural imperative. But, each is responsible before God for his or her own actions. Hopefully, each partner will be responsive to the submission of the other and the Scriptural admonition. It is when one becomes self-centered and willful that the discord begins.

My only disagreement is that we CANNOT leave "aside all questions of political correctness, false accusation, feminist thinking, etc." These are realities and here to stay. We must face and deal with them or become ostriches. We must address the nasty issues on both sides of the question for a fair, balanced view.

Shaynus's picture

Mike Durning wrote:
Leaving aside all questions of political correctness, false accusation, feminist thinking, etc., I must point out that the fact that a husband and wife have rights to each other's bodies does not necessarily imply that one has the right to take the other's body by force. People are not property.

For example, the wife is to submit to the husband, says Ephesians, but the command is given to the wife, that she might truly and willingly submit. It is not given to the husband that he might force her submission.

Mike, as usual, you cut through the clutter of ideas. This is a laser beam. Well said.

RPittman's picture

Sometimes I am tempted to agree with Stanley Fish. No one really knows what a written piece says or means. I had to go back and read Mr. Hamman's article again. Did he really say that? Did he endorse spousal rape? The obvious answer is NO!

Even a casual reading reveals that Mr. Hamman did NOT endorse or even intimate spousal rape. His points are apparently:

  1. Spousal rape is not a big problem in Alaska
  2. Alaskan preachers are not covering it up
  3. Alaska is unjust in giving preference to one person's word against another
  4. In a Biblical view of marriage, each partner has given up his or her own bodily rights in mutual submission to one another
  5. Influenced by secular humanist thinking, America has turned from a Biblical view of things to the secular view
  6. Many Christians have bought into the secular view

    I still fail to see where Mr. Hamman even hints that spousal rape is ok. Someone is reading and adding between the lines.

    Mr. Hamman evidently ruffled a few feathers because he was not diplomatic and sophisticated enough, he was plain and outspoken, and he was not politically correct in his view. But, he did NOT endorse or intimate approval of spousal rape.