Speaker 1
I will say, Josh, the language, and at least I've got the man, you know, page six, five, six, seven, the language does reflect, especially people who are well versed in purity culture, rhetoric, the language itself, if you detach it from what you're trying to do theologically, the language does reflect kind of that, the man's sexual needs, you know, and the woman is just kind of a passive recipient of her, you know, and she needs to make sure he's satisfied. That's not I know you. So I know that's how I should try to say it all. And I didn't even know the context, that's not what you actually are saying, but some of the individual language does reflect some of that purity culture language. Have you thought about that or what are your thoughts on that? I mean, because you said you weren't even raised. So I mean, you're kind of unaware of purity culture language. I'm vague. I I I miss a lot of that, but I'm I've gone back and read some stuff and like, you know, I deal with a lot of kind of post traumatic responses to people raising purity culture in unhealthy ways, you know, women just thinking the sex is all about pleasing the man and stuff. And so I do I am aware of people who have been kind of very much very, I mean, damaged faith, really wrecked marriages, warped view of self. I mean, just a lot of the kind of byproduct of that. I think I think, Brenna, you know, you have friends that have kind of been really burned by the church because of some of that. So do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, again, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2
one of the questions is like, is this a male centered vision? It was Philly. And I would actually argue the opposite, you know, and yeah, I think we're up in pre-it culture, have read commentary on it and tried to understand from that grid, but there is a contextual factor that maybe, you know, needed more nuance to clarify. But I don't think the opposite, you know, one critic had said, well, hey, we're all female in relation to God, like in terms of over being the bride. And I was like, exactly, where I go in the book is actually like, you know, some men get uncomfortable with the bridal imagery in scripture. But I'd say that's part of the point. Like I have so much to learn from my sisters in Christ. And even in this kind of iconic design from female sexuality, this is like how I as a man like relate to God as a part of his corporate bride, the bride of Christ. And so when I use language of hospitality, I realized, man, I think, anyway, this was some of the past one of them in Sgalasa. I think some read it, read that as like Martha Stewart, 1950s, domesticity, you know, and I was seeing more like a rich theological term that speaks even like the hospitality of God walking us in. And that implies agency. Like you don't let someone in your home that you don't want them coming in. You know, like, like it's so it's not saying, hey, why is you seem to show more hospitality or you need to give him sex or you want it? Like, no, like you don't want to know. We're like, consent is vital within marriage. But husband is again, just using you for selfish release. No, you know, and so I think even in the iconic vision, like the gospel is motivated by desire. Like we want to be with the price because he's put our needs as his bride above his own. Like he has faithful commitment, his sacrificial generosity. He's warmed our affections toward him. And so in the iconic vision, I think there's no pressure or coercion. It should be marked by mutuality and consent and freedom and joy. Yeah. But I do think that if I were to try and drill down to like what's maybe the heart issue where there maybe is a parting of the ways, you know, for some, you know, the core here is this question of do our bodies point to the gospel? Like even the sexual symbol, is there a sexual symbol that has God inscribed in our body sexual symbols in the points to the gospel? Now, I and the theology of the body tradition would say, yes, I know many of the critics of your video would say, no, and I feel like that feels like maybe we're a heart of discussion isn't so. And so the biggest critiques, I feel like that came out. I've seen two is just kind of like, essentially like, you gross, you know, like as a graphic language or it's used. And I don't know, I've done no one to ask folks like, do you let me see your Spotify playlist? You know, like, see like what you're actually listening to, the Netflix comedy specials you're watching. Yes. But really, I would say none of the imagery that I think I used was nothing that my high school sex ed teacher didn't say. You know, like, and I think of Holly and I, my wife, our philosophy of talking with our kids about sex has been to speak directly. So we talk about the penis and the vagina, not the tinkle on the woo hoo.