With all this news about the Falwell's mess churning about, I find myself a little frustrated.

Disgusted, sure.

Surprised? Meh.

But also frustrated with how it's getting framed and talked about.

#Exvangelical https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/27/becki-falwell-affair-liberty-university-student-band-jerry-402559

Look, this is the second story that's come out. If I had to guess, I'd say there are more stories about both of them.

Because, and this is the whole point, they're both predators.

Religious predators who use their power and privilege to exploit and use other people.

Many of us, including myself, grew up in the Evangelical power structure.

Which meant that we learned their version of consent.

Evangelical consent can be defined as this: a one-time all encompassing surrender to a higher authority that gives away personal autonomy and rights.

People say that in the Evangelical world, consent doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

I disagree. I think consent DOES exist and it's vitally important to them.

But they tend to frame it in terms of saving one's eternal soul.

After all, one must beg Jesus to spare one from eternal hellfire and come into the heart to stay forever.

That's consent.

That (in this broken bankrupt system) is the ONLY consent that matters. And that action gives tacit permission for everything afterward.

They frequently talk about it in legal terms, so for this purpose, it's an eternal contract that forever signs someone's rights away.

And it's not just consent to God - it's the whole Evangelical church structure.

Which is the point, right?

The power chain goes God -> Pastor -> Husband -> Wife -> Child.

Presumably, everyone fits somewhere on there. Sure, there's some finessing that happens, and depending on the circumstances, other parties will come into play.

But that's the basic thing.

The problem comes when we're talking about sexual consent (let's leave lofty notions of "Enthusiastic Consent" out of this right now, cause they don't believe it's possible or important), because sexual consent deals with a notion of power balance that they must ignore.

That is, for true sexual consent to occur, it has to happen in a power neutral situation.

Circumstances cannot put pressure on one person to say "yes" or face consequences.

Neither can status, nor privilege, nor position, nor threats, nor incentives.

This is a complicated topic and many more qualified people have talked about how things can happen to help balance and adjust power to make consent possible.

These are good conversations to have, and very important ones.

However, having them at this point misses the problem.

Within the Evangelical Consent Model, the power imbalance is THE feature, not a flaw.

I am expected to surrender BECAUSE there are those with greater power than me.

In fact, if there is no power imbalance, there is no reason to give consent at all.

After the "important" consent occurs (being saved), then consent becomes assumed, the default.

Which is why people can ask, and expect, you to tell them your "testimony" at a moment's notice.

Or for you to confess your sins without a relationship, solely based on status.

I think that often, after we move out of the Evangelical world, we forget that consent is repeated, modified, temporary, and must be centered.

And we forget that for relationships to exist, hierarchy is the enemy, not the mandatory default.

Which is why many, many people can talk about Jerry watching his wife have sex with another man and never talk about consent.

They talk about sex.

And kink.

And hypocrisy.

And guilt.

And shame.

But not about consent or the predatory nature of the situation.

It's not sex if there's no true consent; it's rape.

The Falwell family is a legacy family in the Evangelical world. They are cloaked in power and privilege and wealth. While operating within their sphere of influence, they tower above almost everyone else they come into contact with.

In the case of the first story, they didn't find a man on a kink site to engage in consensual sex with them.

They didn't find a stranger in a bar.

They didn't approach one of their friends.

He was their young employee.

The fact that he's male doesn't matter - men can be raped and the victims of assault and predatory relationships.

He was their 20 year old pool boy, a position of low status which put him beneath them in terms of power.

They're in their 50's.

That's huge.

They're rich, his employers, and older than him.

All of this matters.

All of this makes true consent difficult, if not impossible.

This isn't about sex, it never was about sex; it's about power.

Now, we have a second story that makes things more clear.

Becki selected one of her son's friends, 22 at the time, to groom and assault.

This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I want to encourage everyone to practice making consent the center of any conversation that involves sex.

It should be the center of more kinds of conversation.

And yes, we should talk about hypocrisy and the dangers of purity culture.

But we must be careful what situations we choose to discuss that. Otherwise, we risk making the Falwells appear to be victims of a damaging system, helpless just like those entangled in it with them.

They're not.

They're the architects of the system, the ones maintaining it and using it to prey on others.

We must reject the teachings about consent that we learned in the Evangelical Church and vigilantly practice talking and centering true consent.

We must practice holding people accountable for violating consent, and not get distracted by salacious details, or a sense of righteousness that comes from seeing the powerful fall due to their hypocrisy and lies.

Please, topple the assholes and burn it all down, but for the right reasons.

As more conversations happen, I hope that we can use our experiences to help keep the focus where it belongs.

When in doubt, define your terms, and ask, "Who holds the power? How do they use it?"