Slut Walks and 2 Samuel 11

Something entirely surprising to me considering the general desire to subjugate women in classical Christian culture, Bathsheba is usually not considered the sinner in this situation. Last night I made it to a church that has been going through a Study in the Life of David series. What is the first name you think about when you think about David? …Solomon? …Saul? …Bathsheba? Ding! Ding! Ding! One of the most powerful stories in the life of David is that of him and Bathsheba, particularly how their sin and redemption created the classical land of Judah.

However, there is a certain large portion of contemporary Christians who, completely negating the previous thousands of years of Rabbinical and Christian writings, portray Bathsheba as the temptress that led David astray, and use this as a further implication to subjugate women. While it is entirely possible that Bathsheba knew what she was doing, bathing on a roof as was customary in that time, but it was also David who had been taught by God to remove himself from the situations that caused him to sin against Him. Did Bathsheba receive the same instruction? We don’t know, but it is absolutely evident that David did and completely threw it out the window to sleep with this woman, whom his servants had told him not to for she was his warrior’s wife and a daughter of one of his most respected leaders, and kill her husband to cover up their infidelity (2 Samuel 11:3-5).

This brings me to the current trend across the world of so-called Slut Walks. Just as Bathsheba may have enticed David into infidelity and sinning against God, it is ultimately the sin of the man not to turn away. In January, a representative of the Toronto Police said, “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” A woman dressing provocatively, while not advisable for attracting a man worthy of dating or anything else, does not mean that she is asking to be raped. Just as Bathsheba bathing on the roof, though ill advised because she was in eye-sight of those in the palace, does not mean she was asking to sleep with the King. Furthermore, given that he was the king, she may not have been able to say no. This insistence that it is the obligation of the woman to not dress proactively in order to keep men’s eyes from straying assumes that men do not have the control to keep themselves in line with God. Not all women are Christians–and not all women (Christians or otherwise) dress modestly–this does not mean that it is suddenly OK for a man to sin and to violate a woman. It is the man’s responsibility to control himself, as David should have controlled himself. To blame the victim of rape is to take away any authority that a man could have over himself.

Does this then mean that men are weaker than women? Are they so controlled by their flesh that they cannot help themselves from sinning against God? Then perhaps they shouldn’t be the leaders of churches, politics or anything else for that matter. If they share such horrendous judgment that they cannot keep themselves from committing felonies and violating women then perhaps they shouldn’t be control of anything at all. But hey, what do I know? I’m a woman and therefore incapable of fair judgment, sound mind for preaching, or fostering healthy relationships in the church body that would accompany the station of pastor.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s