50 Shades of Douglas Wilson's Racism and the Gospel Coalition @TGC


Welp. I coulda said I told you so, but if you want proof that The Gossip Coalition has lost their marbles, look no further than a post that basically PRAISES Fifty Shades of Gray by E.L. James. “The Gospel Coalition: The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey” [editor’s note: as suspected but not hoped, the Gospel Coalition took down the offending post. In it’s stead, I offer a link to the PDF version here: The Gospel Coaltion on 50 Shades of Grey/Rape

According to Reformed “theologian” Doug Wilson,

“Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.”

Oh, and let’s not forget the ever-colonizing pleasure seeking Reformed Christian Hedonist manly man:

“A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”

This is what it means to be a God-centered church folks, it’s not god-centered at all, it PHALLUS-CENTERED.

Doug Wilson is not the sanest thoroughbred in the stall; he openly advocates supported for the enslavement of black folks, and the righteousness of the Confederate cause!

“I agree with Joel, there is not much different between the misogynist philosophy of 50 Shades of Grey and The Gospel Coalition’s “theology”: Oh I Couldn’t Tell the Difference Between the Gospel Coalition and 50 Shades

“Sex is not just about the physical act – which is is being described here, it seems. I would know. But, what derails the physical act is the psychological phenomena – the reality of the act. For instance, eating. One could, say, eat an apple. That is fine. One could eat an apple that is poisonous due to disobedience. The act itself is not evil but the experience of the moment it. That is what 50 shades of grey does… it makes the act of sex and the experience of sex into exactly what the Gospel Coalition sees sex as – the conquering of a woman – the use of a woman by a man not in equality, but in domination. The GC is more like 50 Shades than they realize…”- Joel

I really can’t say how not shocked I am, cuz I am not, but here is my case for marriage as a nonviolent sacrament of mutuality between one man and one woman. The TGC article has to be one of THE WORST defenses of 50 Shades, ever. Condoning rape as a fantasy is horrifying, and should not be endorsed. The Gospel Coalition and Doug Jones’ worldview go against everything that our Savior taught us, including the need for self-control (thank you Apostle Paul!):

“The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”-1st Corinthians 7:4-5

Looks like Paul is talking about mutuality there…… 😉

48 thoughts on “50 Shades of Douglas Wilson's Racism and the Gospel Coalition @TGC

  1. Joel

    Douglas Wilson says “the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.” Wow.

    And that comment thread is depressing to read. It’s scary how Jared Wilson (and later Douglas – are they related?) seems so shocked that people are offended by the passage he posted! “But Douglas Wilson says rape is wrong – how can you people possibly be so uncharitable?”

    1. RodtRDH Post author


      It’s similar to his logic for slavery. Yeah racism is wrong, but there was no racist animus during slavery, and the abolitionists were wrong.

      He’s a pseudo-scholar trying to promote bigotry.

  2. Joel

    I’ve read one of Jared Wilson’s books (on Jesus) and thought it was pretty good for what he was trying to do, though too faux-hip. I didn’t think he would be one to go off the rails like this.

  3. Pingback: Let’s just call it what it is – rape | Unsettled Christianity

  4. Pingback: review of the novel “Fifty Shades of Grey” impact « BLT

    1. Jim

      Really?….Really?? Your “Rules for Radicals”/Alinski roots are showing.

      The fact that you say it praises “50 Shades” only proves the points made about the general state of reading comprehension in the public at large.

      1. RodtRDH Post author

        Yeah Jim, I love how Doug Wilson blames women for being the victims of rape. Where’s the critique of 50 shades at? Oh, it’s just a perversion of what is natural? Pretty softcore promotion of rape culture if you ask me or any objective, critically thinking observer.

          1. RodtRDH Post author

            Read it, unconvincing, and he’s neither back tracking or anything; he’s just saying the same thing he said in the comment section on the TGC site.

      2. Christian


        As a student of human communication, I’ve learned that we are not only responsible for what we say, but also for how it is received by those we are communicating with. Now, some decry this as “political correctness” which simply is a way for people to express their outrage at not being allowed to be as offensive as they want and say whatever they want without regard to their fellow human being.

        Both the post and the excerpt justify the view that sex is to be authority and submission… no “egalitarian pleasuring party”. Rape is not about sex, but about authority and submission. For the Wilsons to say that “well, THAT authority/submission is wrong, but ours is right” is weak tea.

        To defend their view by saying “well, you didn’t read it right” is even more pathetic. The excerpt, chosen on purpose, glorifies the submission of women to sex by a man.

        It’s also a perversion of scripture. Rod and Joel are corrrect. It’s mutuality (see: Song of Solomon, Paul’s epistles) that make sex an experience of the divine.

        To put not too fine a point on it, the TGC’s post, and subsequent defense, is akin to the theology of sex as taught by Andrew Dice Clay….

        “uh… I’m done…..now get out.”

        1. Jim


          “I’ve learned that we are not only responsible for what we say, but also for how it is received by those we are communicating with” Agreed. There is also an obligation of the listener to attempt to discern meaning and intent from what is communicated and the spirit in which it is communicated. Just from the initial post I learn that: “The TGC article has to be one of THE WORST defenses of 50 Shades,”, when in fact that the intent of the post was the exact opposite. If the poster is off on that point, and I mean way, way, way off…..how am I to judge their capacity for assessing Wilson’s view on Slavery (he is a raciest). Really….It kind of boggles my mind.

          I see the same kind of behavior and attitudes coming from those who take issue with Pr. Wilson on this and Jared’s blog as came from the raw pagans at Indiana University.


          Quite eye-opening. And quite sad. Really.

    2. RodtRDH Post author

      James Palmer

      I would ask them to remove their post, but they have decided dialoguing with people like me is useless, thus my comments being removed for no reason and blocking me via Twitter (winning!).

  5. Chad Kim

    I don’t want to go on record as being in agreement with all of Douglas Wilson’s ideas or convictions. However, to be fair to him in this video, he doesn’t actually advocate for slavery and his point is decidedly that it is not about racism at all, but the way in which the the two sides of the Civil War settled their differences. He argues for the praiseworthy way in which William Wilberforce abolished slavery in England through peaceful, legislative means. This is a side issue to what is going on in TGC, but of course, you introduced that line of argumentation in logically flawed move of ad hominem attack.

    1. RodtRDH Post author

      Greetings Chad,

      One with a certain perspective can say ” that line of argumentation in logically flawed move of ad hominem attack” and sure, I will be charitable and grant that, and by charitable, I mean really really really charitable. Obviously, you haven’t done your homework, otherwise, you wouldn’t be defending Doug’s views on slavery right now. In fact, Southern Baptist pastor and blogger Wade Burleson also affirmed what I am arguing:


      Also, I would do some more research if I were you; just take a look on Amazon at Doug Wilson’s book with Steve Wilkins and the reviews:


      In short, my blog post is confrontation, but dead on accurate about what needs to be said, and you have found yourself an apologist for a psuedo-intellectual racist and false prophet.

      1. Marie

        Yet, the piece that is pulled up in the video does not give us this background. Go ahead and view it again. He is not advocating the enslavement of blacks. He is saying that killing others in an act of war was not the correct way to solve the problem. He wishes we could have found a more peaceful way to end slavery. We have to get beyond our own biases in order to see that he is not saying what some want him to say. (Even if he may say what you think in ANOTHER situation.)

        1. RodtRDH Post author

          Greetings Marie,

          I know it’s hard to believe what I am saying is true. Let’s be reasonably logical about this thing. First, he affirms the South was right and their cause for states’ rights. Now, when it comes to states rights’, one reasonably must ask, for what purpose do we believe in the rights of states to secede. Well,for the South and confederacy, they wanted to secede so they can keep the slave trade alive. If you read the CSA constitution, they make that very clear, slavery was there to stay in the South, for the South’s economic benefit.

          So no, I am not taking out of context, in fact, I am putting him into full historical context. Read the Confederate States of America constitution online. It’s there in plain sight.

  6. RH

    Your claim that

    “Doug Wilson is not the sanest thoroughbred in the stall; he openly advocates supported for the enslavement of black folks, and the righteousness of the Confederate cause.”

    exemplifies that you are either deaf or unable to see the nuance of Wilson’s position in the video. Comments like yours above do absolutely nothing but vilify and demonize without reason. When I read your comment and then watched the Q&A by Doug Wilson I was shocked that you could watch it and then proclaim that ‘He openly advocates supported for the enslavement of black folks and the righteousness of the Confederate Cause’. But then again I was somewhat ‘unshocked’ when I remembered ‘oh, yeah – I’m reading a blog’ and in the cybersphere blatant disregard for clear rational thinking is common parlance.

    The argument in the video states clearly that Doug’s position is thus:

    A Paleo-Confederate, which Wilson states himself to be, is someone who defends the political-principles surrounding the constitutional matters that the Confederates held. (i.e. that the power of the states should not be oppressed by the federal government a la the constitution). Wilson or anyone should be able to hold this position without being called a racist or a crazed ‘thoroughbred in the stall’.

    His understanding of Southern Slavery has two points which he deals with separately:

    1st. Southern slavery should have been dealt with in the way advocated by the Bible which over time would have subverted and undone the institution as it did in Europe. He believes that the commands to masters and slaves in the Bible ‘in-themselves’ subvert the institution of slavery rather than establish it (when you tell a slave-owner to treat your slaves like God treats you and you tell slaves to work hard for your masters like unto the Lord, the barriers between master/slave begin to erode) He believes had it been accomplished in this way rather than forced by war that the racial animosity that we see today and saw during the first half (and some) of the 20th century would not be so widespread and intrusive. And that it also would not have had such a violent start (600,000 people died in the civil war). He calls slavery a ‘screaming, social, religious, ethical problem which cannot be solved by armies… but to say that armies can’t solve it is not to say that you’re denying a problem, there is a problem: particularly the racial basis for slavery” Thi s view is clearly anti-violent, interesting.

    2nd. Towards the end of the video, Wilson makes it clear that there was a racial component to Southern Slavery that was completely alien to the greco-roman world into which Paul was speaking that is one of the main problems of that ‘screaming…ethical problem’ that was southern slavery, and that you cannot use the New Testament to support that racism in any way.

    It is honestly disturbing to see the ‘talking past one another’ that passes as ‘thoughtful dialogue’ between folks that disagree with one another these days. I hope that you would read this and repent of your refusal to actually listen and think about what Douglas Wilson is saying, but perhaps this comment too will fall on deaf ears, I have no evidence to the contrary.

    1. RodtRDH Post author

      Thanks DH for setting me straight. I really wasn’t aware of all the nuances and jibber-jabber that I have to go through to read defenses of slavery. It’s not like I can’t read or anything. Or like I haven’t read racist propaganda before.

      I’m not the only 1:


      Oh, he also published a book:


      1. Christian

        Ok, now that made me LOL…literally.

        “I really wasn’t aware of all the nuances and jibber-jabber that I have to go through to read defenses of slavery.”


  7. Geoff Smith

    I’m all for pointing out the absurdity of claiming that conquest is the nature of the sexual act, but I think that in the video, Douglas Wilson is actually talking about why he prefers the New Testament model of subverting unjust social systems (ie slavery) over the revolutionary model.

      1. RH

        I doubt very much that you read his book. Because he basically says the same thing that he said in the video.

        Please remember: Reading the reviews of a book is not the same as reading the book.

  8. Pingback: Is it 2011? The Gospel Coalition and Rob Bell have our attention, again. | Near Emmaus

  9. Monte Harmon

    I’m astonished by the miscommunication that is taking place here and in other related blogs.

    Either many people are no longer using the same of English out of ignorance or other inability, or they are intentionally deconstructing what they here to serve there own purposes. The first is foolish, the other a deception unworthy of those who claim to worship the God of truth and order. When it is obvious that the case is one of deception there is no longer in purpose in listing to the argument or the one arguing.

    Please note that this comment in about the form of pseudo-debate going on, not the content of the discussion. Statements that are not actually addressing the meaning (of the author) of the prior statement are not only shouting into the wind, but defiantly un-Godly and an evidence of unwillingness to submit to the very God they claim to be arguing for.

    As I have some very deep concerns about both issues being referred to here I would be glad to hear some honest discussion of them.

    1. RodtRDH Post author


      I have no idea where you are going with this comment. All I can say is what I find astonishing is that I have had to defend my anti-racism stances over and over again while persons making racist arguments are getting off scott free. The burden of proof lays with me when I already have the historical evidence on my side? I find that just outrageous.

      I am planning on a follow-up post to clarify where I am coming from and why Doug Wilson remains wrong.

  10. Pingback: 50 Shades of Confederate Grey: Rape Culture And Slavery |

  11. Pingback: Shooting straight. lets talk about sex. « Trinitarian Dance

  12. Chris Ridgeway

    Arrive at your blog through the TGC/sexual comments controversy.

    Briefly, I’m an egalitarian Christian. I’m not a fan of the TGC. I found the Justin Wilson post to be too far. I agree with you.

    However, reading your comments, I’m concerned you won’t accept this, but I feel you strongly misread Douglas Wilson’s comments in the video where he advocates for a peaceful end to slavery being better than a violent one.

    Please consider the that you may be wrong on this one idea.

    1. RodtRDH Post author

      Hey Chris,

      I am always open to the possibility I could be wrong, but if you could read my follow up post to this post, it’s clear that Mr. Wilson believes that black slaves enjoyed their condition, and that the black families had a great time.

      Therefore, I will not consider me being wrong this time.

  13. Chris Ridgeway

    Thanks for the reply. I’m also can can consider that I’m wrong, since I haven’t read the pamphlet you refer to. I’ll try to order it.

    My only suggestion would be to remove the video, though. If someone watches all 10 mins, it seems to obviously undercut your own point (even if your point is ultimately correct). Your post would be stronger without it, imho.

    1. RodtRDH Post author

      Thanks Chris,

      I think the video more than anything proves my point. Just because a person replaces “neo” with “paleo” and supports the Confederacy does not make them any difference. Confederate double-speak is an old trick, yeah they’ll say racism is bad, but go back and rely on racist arguments. It’s always how white supremacy has worked. I speak from both scholarship and experience here.

      In any case, I appreciate the suggestions.

  14. Pingback: More on the Bad News Boors of the Gospel Coalition and Doug Wilson’s demented views on slavery

  15. Pingback: Around the Blogosphere (07.20.2012) | Near Emmaus

  16. Pingback: The Christian Theology of Abolitionists: Against Douglas Wilson’s PaleoConfederate Dreams |

  17. Pingback: Barriers To Racial Reconciliation: Black Evangelicals And Confederate Gray |

  18. Pingback: Top Bible & Theology Blogging News For #2012 #Biblioblogs |

  19. Eric

    you know, in defense of Doug Wilson, i think there are A LOT of talking past each other on what he has said.

    i do not think he is advocating rape or husband should dominate wife in a way that is against her will

    he is simply talking about the role that men and women like to adopt in the bedroom ( or as i understood it)

    and guess what, this has already been proven by scientific studies.

    that women get turned on by dominant behaviors which they equate to masculine behavior

    that is all he saying…..

  20. Pingback: I watched John Piper and Douglas Wilson Talk About “Homosexuality, Abortion, and Race” for TWO HOURS

  21. Pingback: It’s Friday the 13th in America. You know what that means.

  22. Pingback: Let’s just call it what it is – rape | 50 Shades of Grey

  23. Pingback: Durden, Deaton, and Driscoll (and toxic theologies) | A Real Rattlesnake Meets His Maker

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *