May 30 2012
1 Comment
Gender, John Lussier, Justice, Theology, World Religions

Gender, Justice, and the “Great” Traditions Part #3

In March I posted the first in a series on Gender, Justice, and the “Great” Traditions.  My point has been to expose thoughts about gender, especially as regards women, in the great traditions of the world. A couple weeks ago I posted again with some excerpts from Aristotle and Plato, and some thoughts on those. This week I go from “Western” philosophy to more eastern religious thoughts.

Some Eastern Traditions and Women

Denigrating thoughts about women (and corresponding praises of men) are not confined to Greek philosophy, but exist in some form throughout every great tradition, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Gnosticism. Note that these are not complete analyses of how these traditions speak of women, but snippets. They do not, at all, represent the systematic view of women from Islam, Buddhism, etc. but are important examples of a way of thinking.

Islam

There is a saying in Islam that a women is like a crooked rib, she is beautiful and from man but to try to straighten her out would break her. Various interpreters have debated the meaning of this text, whether it presents women as inferior in nature, or simply different than men on purpose. Other comments from the Quran reinforce a view of women as below or less than men. While women are to be given their due, men are a “degree above them” in terms of responsibility and authority, says the Quran. When witnesses are required 2 men are sufficient, or if they cannot be found, 1 man and 2 women, “so that if one women errs, the other can remind her…” Another section, talking about the household, notes that men are in charge, and only when they are gone is the women to lead and guard her husband’s wealth.

Buddhism

There are a plethora of authoritative voices within Buddhism. A major line of thought within the grouping says that a woman must be reborn as a man to attain Buddha. That status will never come without a fundamental change in gender. Continuing, the ordination of female nuns in Buddhism was allowed for in its earliest form, but with 8 restrictions on these ordinands, including the instruction that male monks are always superior to female nuns and must be treated as such. They must be bowed to (even if the nun has been such for a very long time, and the monk has only been so for a day) and must never be insulted or reviled. There is a one way alley of respect, from the female to the male, that Buddhism does not allow to be reversed.

Hinduism

Several variants of Hinduism see a woman’s role as remaining chaste and pure within the household. “Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.” Women must be kept in dependence of males. Elsewhere in Hinduism there is discusses as to whether a woman should or should not study the Vedas (a collection of some of the oldest Hindu texts). Another Hindu work states that “The mind of a woman does not tolerate discipline, her intellect has little weight.”

Gnosticism

While Gnosticism is no longer a worldwide religion, some elements of its belief system still pervade much of modern religion beliefs. Shortly after the time of Jesus, a Gnostic writer says, that “…every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” This gender transformation is necessary because of the the Gnostic account of the fall. The feminine, Sophia (Wisdom) sought to emanate or cross a barrier for herself, in doing so started the creation of the physical world, and now must be brought back into the immaterial God through the male “Son of God” because of her error.

Where to from here?

When I look at the above, I am greatly discouraged. Women, for a very long time, have been considered ‘crooked’, less than, dishonest, forgetful, not worthy of respect, error-prone, undisciplined… I don’t need to go on. I present the above, not to repeat ill of women, to point these ‘hurtful texts’ out. If we are in anyway going to treat women (and men!) with the justice that they deserve, it has to be in a way that takes account of the above statements, refutes, and replace them with constructive realities about gender.

The built up historical noise-level as regards the unworthiness of women is very very high. We need to be aware of it, so we can start to filter it out. In the next post I take a look at one last “Great” tradition, our own Christianity, to ask how it has pictured women. While I do not believe the witness of the Holy Spirit in Scripture repeats the above, I do know that people have attempted to make it sound like that, and it is time to confess, repent, and worship, through constructive theology, a God who loves both male and female equally.

[If you found the above or other material from Hope in Exile helpful, please feel free to share it with others using the buttons below.]

Tagged , , , , , , ,
May 09 2012
8 Comments
Jesus, John Lussier, Love, Ministry, Theology

Evangelical Agenda? The LGBT community, Evangelicals, and the Politics of Marriage…

In light of President Obama’s recent endorsement of “Gay Marriage” I thought I would share with you a paper I recently wrote for a class at Multnomah Biblical Seminary. My purpose in it was to analyze the engagement of Evangelicals and the LGBT community over the “politics of marriage” . It is not an attempt to address the morality of “Gay Marriage”, but a look at how we relate to one another.

———————————————————————————-

This is an examination of Evangelical culture’s engagement of the LGBT community as it relates to the “politics of marriage”. In it I will ask “How can Evangelicals interact with the LGBT culture in a loving and truthful way that gets beyond politics?” This topic is imporant to me because of a desire to interact in a culturally intelligent way with my friends that are part of the LGBT community who have been turned off from the church due to its politicalization of marriage. First I discuss my own context. I then detail what I mean by the “politics of marriage”. Next, I take a look at Evangelical culture’s embrace of politics and how it has expressed itself. I conclude by asking what means can be taken by Evangelicals, beyond the “politics of marriage”, to engage the LGBT community in a culturally intelligent and Christ-like manner.

Being aware of my own cultural affiliation is an important first step in fostering cultural intelligence[1]. What cultures do I self-identify with? I am a white male, born in the United States, raised in a middle class Protestant family, an Evangelical Christian, single and heterosexual, and I have committed friendships with several members of the LGBT community.

These relationships to the LGBT and Evangelical cultures are not trivial to me, but central to my understanding of who I am and how God is working in my life. How Evangelicals engage in politics affects my relationships with LGBT friends. These friends feel that they cannot connect to the Evangelical community because of its stance on same-sex marriage. Many of them will not step foot into churches, and others have removed themselves from friendship groups, because of the issue and how Evangelicals engage it. The politicalization of marriage has split LGBT persons from my church family, and disrupted the unity of the wider church. This truly is a “Great Divide”[2] and one that grieves me immensely.

I am left wondering, “Is marriage really that important? Should we have to make a stand on this issue?” Specifically, is this an issue that must be upheld politically by Evangelicals?

Talk about the “politics of marriage”, and the relationship between Evangelicals and the LGBT community, can get wrapped up in any number of discussions (“Is homosexuality a sin?”, “Should same-sex persons be allowed to marry?”, etc.), which, while important, tend to make abstractions of people. These abstractions then become arguments for the public sphere, and are expressed as political statements, and create lines between the two cultures. This writing is not a discussion of those abstract arguments, but is instead a look at how the two cultures of Evangelicals and the LGBT community encounter one another through the “politics of marriage”.

Evangelicals and the LGBT differ in many ways, but they do have at least one common element between them. This is what I have referred to as the “politics of marriage”. It is a set of ideas, behaviors, and products that these two cultures hold regarding the civil nature of marriage. When I say “the politics of marriage” I refer to this set of thoughts, behaviors, and products[3]:

-Both cultures tend to think of marriage as a legal reality, validated by the state, concerning the commitment of two consenting adults to one another, for the good of those in the marriage and for wider society.

-This idea is expressed in behavior from both cultures that makes marriage a political activity, done in cooperation with the state (a legal marriage ceremony), and access to marriage a political endeavor, acted out through the political process (voting, legislation, enforcement, etc. of marriage laws).

-In turn, both cultures create products that reinforce the ideas and behaviors behind the “politics of marriage”. Organizations like the National Organization for Marriage[4], Freedom to Marry[5], intiatives like Proposition 8, and books like “Outrage”[6] or “After the Ball”[7] are products of this cultural set. These products reinforce the primary ideas and behaviors of the “politics of marriage”: marriage as a civil affair.

The “politics of marriage” is then thoroughly engrained in the LGBT and Evangelical communities. National organizations, from both groups, set political goals concerning marriage. Both prompt there members to act on these political goals. The products that come from these cultures instill the idea of marriage as a civil reality connected to the state. Browsing through a number of different writings on marriage, from both sides, revealed only two texts giving a sustained argument against any form of civil marriage[8][9]. Personal conversations with self-identified members of both cultures confirmed that they consider marriage as something that must have a civil basis, that this basis requires political action from them, and they have embraced cultural products that reinforce the “politics of marriage”.

My concern is that in embracing “the politics of marriage” both cultures have unconsciosly set themselves up for limited, ineffective, and hurtful engagement with one another. By concentrating on the political nature of marriage and controlling marriage both groups have 1. limited their engagement of one another to the political, 2. accepted an “us-vs-them” mind-set that comes with this political engagement, and 3. sought to increase their rights, entitlements, privileges, through the political process.

For Evangelical culture, as well as the LGBT, marriage is seen as a political reality to be debated over. As an concept, marriage is a social unit which functions as a sustaining element of society: it is “the foundation of civilization… the wellspring of society.”[10]. As an act, marriage is only legitimate if ratified by the government[11]. Evangelicals and the LGBT view marriage as deserving a privileged position in economic matters and parental rights[12], these privileges are products of the political nature they give to marriage, that reinforce it.

This politicizing of marriage, embraced by Evangelicals, puts them at odds with the LGBT community. Not because LGBT culture refuses to politicize marriage, but because that community comes to opposite conclusions about many areas of marriage. The LGBT and Evangelical culture, in seeing marriage as a matter of the state, delegate it to a supracultural entity which then becomes the place of engagement on matters pertaining to marriage. This engagement then goes back and forth on the political plane, keeping the two groups from any deep level of interaction.

Evangelicals commonly express the idea of marriage between a man and women as the “historical meaning of marriage that has sustained culture for millenia”, saying this meaning crosses cultures[13]. The LGBT community responds that marriage has not always been defined this way, has changed over time, and that this particular definition is not consistent with cultures outside the ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition[14]. Their conclusion is that this definition is cultural, and should not be forced upon them. Evangelicals come to a similar conclusion as regards the LGBT attempt to define marriage: gay marriage advocates seek to “redefine” marriage in terms of their culture.

We then have one cultural definition, pitted against the other, all being played out primarily in the realm of politics. Having come to different conclusions on marriage, the cultures are left to “battle”[15] the issue out in a third space: the state, through political acts.

The Evangelical community has not only argued that the traditional definition of marriage is a man and woman, but also that the ‘sacred’ definition is such. By limiting its engagement of same-sex marriage to the political, the Evangelical community has set itself in an awkward position. It must affirm the “sanctity of marriage”[16] in a setting that no longer acknowledges ideas of the sacred. Evangelicals then not only assert our right to define marriage from our cultural context, but to establish a metaphysical grounding, the category of sacredness, for this definition as well.

I am left to wonder how exactly a legal definition of marriage as between a man and a women can keep it sacred. Is a marriage sacred on the grounds that the state has certified it and because it is between a man and a women? This view assumes that the state has the power to make something sacred through its actions. I am not comfortable with that, nor do I think other Evangelicals should be either.

Not all of Evangelical culture is interested in protecting the ‘sacredness’ of marriage through the political realm, however. Instead many in that community argue against same-sex unions on the basis of natural law: moral intuitions that span across cultures. The LGBT community has responded saying that this is a veiled attempt to once again universalize broad cultural values, which they believe no longer apply[17].

Just as often, the Evangelical community describe’s itself as as “defending traditional marriage”. This begs the question, what is the importance of keeping “traditional” marriage? National organizations like the Family Research Council will answer that marriage, between a man and a woman, is the ‘bedrock’ of society and provides any number of benefits, as ‘research shows’[18]. But here again the LGBT community will reply that while research shows marriage is beneficial to society, this benefit does not necessarily derive from differently gendered partners… and so back and forth the argument goes, all through a political vehicle that keeps either side from interacting outside of press releases, debates, and ballot boxes.

This type of overtly political engagement creates an “us-vs.-them” thinking pattern between the two cultures. We can see this in polling that shows that the country is divided in half on the issue[19], in churches that have split because of it, and as each culture villifies its opponents and thrusts a persecution narrative upon themselves. (This does not deny that both cultures have been victims of persecution, but that sometimes, in both communities, opposition is termed as persecution for political advantage.[20])

This us-vs.-them mentality, brought about by the political process, is concretely expressed in the entitlements, privileges, and agenda items of the Evangelical culture in regards to marriage:

I have already mentioned that Evangelicals feel  an entitlement to protect a certain definition of marriage. We can press this point further: why do Evangelicals feel that they are entitled to legal marriage at all? Is that not an assumption on the role of the state as regards upholding relationships in society? Civil marriages have not been an eternal reality, but are a product of the last millenium[21]. If civil marriage came into existence at one point, can it change or perhaps be replaced with something else?

Further, what is the point of civil marriage as Evangelicals regard them? They answer that the states upholding of marriage between a man and a women preserves moral society. I find this correlation troubling in the way it pits political power against evil, instead of relying on the work of Christ on the cross. The Scriptures do not talk about anyone having the power to create a marriage, but instead describe it is a work of the hands of God[22]… so why do we Evangelicals try to press that power into the hands of the state? In doing so, we prop our definition of civil marriage against an entire culture, and do so in a forceful, final, and no-compromise manner, because that is the manner of engagement the political process requires.

Evangelicals should also question our reliance on privileges related to marriage: male-female marriages are automatically accorded economic and parental privileges in the United States based on a connection to reproduction. Yet, technological shifts have made “the link between sex and childbirth increasingly tenuous” and disconnected[23]. With this technological disconnection, what warrants these privileges and why should they be kept from same-sex commitments? Is the Evangelical embrace of the “politics of marriage” perhaps a way to economically benefit only a certain culture through political means? More overtly, we assume the privilege of defining marriage for the wider culture as a man and woman based off the Bible’s witness. This assumption of privilege hurts our engagement with the LGBT culture.

Why is “gay marriage” such a big item on the Evangelical agenda? There might be an element of distancing here. With opposition to same-sex marriage taking up all of our time and energy perhaps we are able to keep our thoughts from “other sexuality issues”, which may “get too close to home, too close to our inner selves, where we may feel insecure.”[24] Are there not other issues distorting marriage that we might be concerned about? We should clean our own house first, of divorce, sexual abuse, pornography, etc. before anyone elses.

Discussion of same-sex unions might also be at the forefront of Evangelical thought because it brings with it issues of gender roles and the gender spectrum that our community has not yet adequately dealt with[25].

Finally, the Evangelical culture would do well to reassess its moral agenda as regards the politicalization of marriage. Many arguments concerning same-sex unions cite potential acceptance of homosexuality, and increase in the numbers of the LGBT community, as a reason against their creation. Are we then making a civil reality the means towards change, through behavior modification enforced by legislation, in the LGBT community? This puts the cart before the horse in terms of a person’s encounter with God. As Andrew Marin points out, ““The way forward with the LGBT community is not debate… but a discussion of how to have an intimate, real, conversational relationship with the Father and Judge.”[26]

What I propose is that in order to more effectively engage the LGBT culture, we as Evangelicals reconsider our embrace of the “politics of marriage” and lay down our assumed right of ‘protecting marriage’ for the wider society. We have to place less emphasis on the “politics of marriage” by reexamining the fundemental ideas behind it, and counter balancing it with relational engagement.

Not only do we have to lay down this right to the “politics of marriage”, we also need to take up a new posture of humility, compassion, and inquisitiveness[27] regarding the LGBT community. As followers of Christ our Gospel witness has been limited due to “the politics of marriage” and the posture of forcefulness, opposition, and finality that it requires to be effective. A new posture, a more Christ-like posture, would allow Evangelicals to hear the stories of the LGBT community as a minority community[28].

What does this laying down of the “politics of marriage” and picking up a new posture look for me as I engage my friends in the LGBT community? Andrew Marin, who has purposefully removed himself from the “politics of marriage”, as an Evangelical, is helpful in this regard: we must commit to long-haul engagement with our LGBT friends[29]. Even if we disagree on the political nature of marriage, that should not lead to disengagement with them. Instead we should have humility in our opinions, understanding that they are not ultimate in contrast to Gods, and continue to seek out the other in friendship. Pursuit of those friendships will be a stretch for me, but are what I believe Christ, the God who Incarnated into the neighborhood to pursue people, demands of me.

Further, we have to be intentional in our engagement of both cultures: taking steps to stop the oversimplification or politicalization of marriage. This commitment and intentionality will lead to more personal engagement with the LGBT community. Personal engagment requires transperancy and truthfulness in ourselves, and security in God’s embrace of us. Faithful that God will work where he will, we can remove ourselves from heavy political engagement on the issue, knowing that Christ does not ask us to ‘guard’ marriage, but to be faithful witnesses to marriage within our own context. “By reminding ourselves that we’re not the solution to a person’s issues, we recrown the King in his rightful place as the center of each person’s relationship with God.”[30]

We follow a God who laid down his rights for the love of his enemy. Will we as a Evangelicals do the same for the LGBT community when it comes to the political and marriage? Will our commitment to “the politics of marriage” be the hill we die on, or will we die to our own entitlements, privileges, and agendas regarding marriage in order that some from the LGBT community come to relationship with Christ and his Church?

[1] Soong-Chan Rah, Many Colors: Cultural Intelligence for a Changing Church, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), 84.

[2] David G. Myers, and Letha Dawson Scanzoni, What God has Joined Together: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage, (New York: Harpercollins, 2005), Ch. 1. David and Letha give an excellent introduction to how this issue divides the church, families, friends, etc.

[3] Rah, 24.

[6] Peter Sprigg, Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage, (Washington: Regnery Publishing House, 2004).

[7] Marschall Kirk, and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90′s , (Plume, 1995).

[8] Tony Jones, There Are Two Marriages: A Manifesto on Marriage (Michigan: The Jopa Group, 2011), Kindle edition.

[9] John Milbank, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Human Sexuality.” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Last modified March 13, 2012.) Accessed April 8, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/13/3452229.htm.

[10] Family Research Council, “Marriage, Family, Sexuality.” Accessed April 8, 2012. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ISSUES&issue=MF.

[11] Family Research Council, “DOMA 101″ Accessed April 8, 2012 .http://www.frc.org/papers/doma-101.

[12] Family Research Council, “Family Economics” Accessed April 8, 2012 http://www.frc.org/marriage-family#economics

[13] Vigen Guroian, “Let No Man Join Together,” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, 24, no. 1 (2011): 29, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=58620951&site=ehost-live (accessed April 8, 2012).

[14] Marriage Equality USA, “A Historical Look at Marriage.” Accessed April 8, 2012. http://www.marriageequality.org/historical-look.

[15] I quick perusal of many traditional marriage organizations shows that the theme of “battle” is extremely widespread in these groups.

[16] The position paper from the ECP is a fairly typical representation of this theological point – Evangelical Presbyterian Church, “Position Paper on the Sanctity of Marriage.” Last modified June, 2004. Accessed April 8, 2012. http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/sanctity-of-marriage/.

[17] Marvin Ellison, Same-sex Marriage? A Christian Ethical Analysis, (Cleveland : Pilgrim’s Press, 2004), 154.

[18] Family Research Council, “The Benefits of Marriage.” Accessed April 8, 2012, http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS05B01.

[19] Though a recent poll does show a majority positive towards same-sex marriage, slightly beyond the level of error: Pew Research Forum, “Religion and Attitudes Towards Same Sex Marriage”, Accessed April 8, 2012 http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Religion-and-Attitudes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx .

[20] For discussion on the need to hear about and lament stories of persecution from other cultures, see Rah, pg. 45 and following.

[21] James Nelson, Embodiment: An approach to sexulaity and Christian theology, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1978), 132.

[22] Ibid, 151.

[23] Milbank, under the heading “The Loss of Sexual Difference”.

[24] Anne Krabill Hershberger, Sexuality: God’s Gift, (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1999), 103.

[25] Nelson, 203.

[26] Andrew Marin, Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 29.

[27] Marin, 162. See also Hershberger’s personal reflections in Sexuality, 110-113.

[28] See Rah, ch. 7.

[29] Marin details sixteen commitments that Evangelicals can make in their lives in order to build bridges to the LGBT community they are the basis for the following. See Love Is an Orientation, chp. 8-10.

[30] Marin, 174.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
May 02 2012
1 Comment
Gender, John Lussier, Justice, Theology

Mimi Haddad: “Gender and Justice – What Every Christian Should Consider.”

My series “Gender, Justice, and the Great Traditions” (part #1, part #2) was directly inspired by Dr. Mimi Haddad’s talk before the Justice Conference this last February. They recently released that talk on Vimeo and you can watch it below.

What do you think? What does gender and justice have to do with one another? What can be done about this? I think it is time for the church to reexamine how it discusses gender, and the impact that has on our actions.

Apr 29 2012
Leave a comment
1 Peter, Bible, Exile, Jesus, John Lussier, Theology

A Word to Those in Exile (1 Peter 3:13-4:11)

Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? Even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. Now, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Christ also suffered once for sins,the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all,were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand —with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do: living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. This is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

.

Tagged , , ,
Apr 25 2012
6 Comments
Gender, John Lussier, Justice, Theology, World Religions

Gender, Justice, and the Great Traditions, Part #2

Several weeks ago I posted the first article in this series. In it I am hoping to expose some of the thoughts of the ‘great traditions’ of philosophy and religion on gender.

Especially, I want to talk about women, because they have almost exclusively been marginalized. It is my assumption that ideas like these are important and have real-life consequences. When women aren’t seen as equal with the rest of humanity, then their mistreatment is only a step away.

We can guard against that by being aware of some of the thoughts on women around the world, and coming up with alternatives of our from our great traditions. So with that, let’s take a look at some of the earliest great thinkers…

Ancient Greek Philosophy

Plato, in his dialogue “Timaeus”, details how the world came to be filled with all kinds of things. He gets near the end and makes sure to have a remark about the generation of ‘other animals’.

Thus our original design of discoursing about the universe down to the creation of man is nearly completed. A brief mention may be made of the generation of other animals… Of the men who came into the world, those who were cowards or led unrighteous lives may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation. And this was the reason why at that time the gods created in us the desire of sexual intercourse, contriving in man one animated substance, and in woman another…

Plato goes on to say that the ‘seed’ of men was full of life, and the womb of women desired to procreate and to be filled.  So 1. Women are second generation fallen men,  2. Semen = life, 3. Women desire to be filled with the life that men have.

Aristotle’s views on the matter were more nuanced than Plato’s in some ways, but he again reflects a view of women as inferior in their being, because they are women. Speaking on slavery Aristotle in his book politics says,

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

And it is clear that the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate, is natural and expedient; whereas the equality of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

For Aristotle the rational are meant to rule over the irrational. Women are more irrational creatures than men and thus to be ruled over by them.  Women are by nature inferior.

Now it would be irresponsible of me to present Aristotle with just the above quotation. He does in other areas affirm the virtues of women, and states that this ruling of men over women is of a constitutional kind. It is like the rule of a governmental official over a citizen. They are equals, but one leads another. But still, it is because a women is naturally passionate and not as rational that she is ruled by man.

Bringing It Together 

While the above seems pretty extreme in our day, it does still reflect lingering cultural assumptions about women and men. Plato’s remark that women are the second generation of humanity, which are unrighteous or less courageous and thus have been changed, seems a little less foreign when I think about certain elements of the “gender war” where in order to establish their place in the world women are seen as having to become more like men. I especially see this in the business world, in its actions, words, values, and even forms of dress.  Further, Plato’s later remarks about women being incomplete and desiring life aren’t more than a step  away from the Freudian thought of “Penis Envy”, which well not widely accepted today, only was formed in the last century.

We might think we have gotten away from Aristotle’s thoughts on women being less rational in our modern age, but I don’t think so. There are still lingering stereotypes about the emotional nature of women taking over the rational side in our culture and others around the world. (You might have seen this portrayal of the media over Senator Hillay Clinton or Michelle Bachmann as they ran for their respective parties’ nomination for POTUS.) I find this combating between the two troubling in that it separates the emotions from rationality. Making rationality a male trait and emotionalism a female one.

We also have to face the reality that certain types of traditional family structures, including some in Christian thought, place the male as the leader and the female as the partner. They may no longer do so based on feelings about rationality, but instead on “roles”, but at the core of this thinking there is the thought that the man leads because he is better able to do so. The women is therefore inferior in her ability to lead.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Apr 21 2012
Leave a comment
1 Peter, Bible, Exile, John Lussier, Justice, Love, Theology

A Word to Those in Exile (1 Peter 2-3:12)

Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”  Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous  and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Tagged , , ,
Apr 18 2012
8 Comments
Gender, Jesus, John Lussier, Theology, Videos

Jesus + and “the Man Box”

Jesus. Now there is a man. Full beard, dirty, carpenter. Men wanted to follow him, women wanted to be with him.

Absolutely honored. Hard-working. Courageous. He got things done. Didn’t take no gruff.

Now wait… Jesus was homeless, a geeky scholar in his teenage years, and single all his life. Sure some people loved him, but others thought he was the scum of the earth, a lazy glutton.

Was he  that sturdy carpenter we figure? Do we know that for sure? He definitely took the servant’s towel — as the lowest of low.

Courageous? Sure. He was like flint. But for a lost cause. Abandoned at death… the guy really isn’t your typical machismo manly man.

A man taking a hit to the face once, let alone twice? A man walking not one but two miles to carry a soldier’s crap? A man washing people’s feet? That’s not much of a man.

Or maybe Jesus came to explode the man box? Maybe Jesus destroyed it by being destroyed? Sure he was man — he was the second Adam, he was human.

Maybe, just maybe, there really is no male or female in Christ, and Jesus is the first true human, and he shows us how to truly be human, and this whole thing about being a man (or a woman) really doesn’t matter so much as being human, and maybe the man-box is just socialization, social, fleshy, worldly and maybe character has nothing to do with gender, and maybe God doesn’t care if we’re good men and women, so much so as if we’re in Christ or not, and…

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Apr 17 2012
Leave a comment
Bible, Biblical Literature, Exile, John Lussier, Theology

A Word to Those in Exile (1 Peter 1)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces… chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In enormous mercy he has given us new birth: into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade! This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.

In all this, the resurrection, the inheritance, the faith, the salvation, you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith— which is worth more than gold, it will perish when refined by fire, but your faith won’t—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.

Even those great beings, the angels, long to look into these things.

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

You call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, therefore live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. It wasn’t with perishable things that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect! Christ! He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Now that you are purified by obeying the truth, so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God. For,

“All people are like grass,  and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall,   but the word of the Lord endures forever.”

And this is the word that was preached to you.

Tagged , , ,
Apr 15 2012
13 Comments
Gabriel Stice, Justice, Love

For Sale: The American Evangelical Vote

I was sitting on a park bench in the summer of 2008 talking about voting when the idea of one-issue voting really became prominent to me. I was dating a girl during college and we were discussing mutual values as we got to know each other on the bench. John McCain and Barack Obama were in the heat of their race for the Presidency and it was that time every four years where politics is a popular conversation. She and I had both been raised in a politically conservative family. The difference was that my parents focused on the fiscal parts of the political system and hers were concerned with the few moral issues. My dad was mainly concerned with libertarian economic ideals and would rarely mention topics like abortion or stem cell research. The park bench conversation was our first real argument.

I hadn’t come across one-issue voting all that much as a kid but at Multnomah I encountered it more often. It bothers me when people boil their choice of candidate down to the person that agrees on their one issue of concern. Evangelicals are notorious for this and politicians are fully aware of it. Once or twice a month at school I read an article about how Senator “so-and-so” or the President was courting Evangelicals with faux-prayers and insincere readings of Scripture. The most frustrating part was listening to Evangelicals fall head over heels for it. Their vote was for sale and could be bought it with some simple pandering.

In my opinion, most single-issue Evangelicals voters prioritize a certain 3 issues, and in this order: 1. Abortion, 2. Same-Sex Marriage, and 3. the Sanctity of Human Life overall. You can see this based on the amount of rhetoric each issue gets compared to others Your context may vary, but for sure abortion is the most prominent issue of Evangelicals, because we find abortion abhorrent.

Back to the park bench: I asked my date, “What if a politician was apolitical on the issue of abortion yet matched all of your values on other issues? What if their opposition was pro-life but didn’t match your values on anything else, how would you vote?” She looked at me disappointed. She gave this look because the question reveals exactly the issue behind one-issue voting. I think I also got the look because the question gave a hint about how I felt about it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very much pro-life in regards to abortion. I greatly disagree with the pragmatic and political ways Evangelicals engage the issue. But, the main problem is that in sacrificing integrity on all the other issues, for that really important one, we fail the public and your own integrity. How can we live with ourselves and vote for somebody who is “pro-life”, yet has no problem starting wars where cruise missiles destroy entire families in an instant?

Let’s use the election of George W. Bush as an example. Much of why Evangelicals one-issue vote for President is because the he or she can appoint Supreme Court Justices. Since Roe v. Wade in the 1970s there has been a battle to keep a pro-life President in office so they can appoint a pro-life Justice. The hope being that as seats come up, and the Supreme Court will have a majority of Pro-life judges, a case concerning abortions will be brought before them, and they will overturn Roe v. Wade. George W. Bush got the Evangelical vote, was elected, and appointed two Justices during his eight years in office. One of Bush’s appointees, Justice Roberts, even became the Chief Justice. Bush’s two appointees supposedly shifted the Supreme Court from a liberal to a conservative majority.

It’s been 12 years since the election and the Supreme Court has made no progress towards overturning Roe v Wade. Where is the change that Evangelicals expected? Many people now doubt the conservative nature of the two justices appointed. It seems most consider Bush’s presidency a failure despite whatever they think about Obama’s current Presidency. Evangelicals made the difference in the election that saw Bush lose the popular vote to Gore, yet still win the electoral college. What did we get for our vote? A President who got us involved in two, 10-year plus wars ( which were unethical in my opinion), who failed to make a fiscally responsible budget, and who played a major part in putting our country into recession. Electing a pro-life President was supposedly the only way to fight abortion and it has not worked. That’s what we youthful kids call an epic fail. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard people say they regret voting for Bush in 2000. They sacrificed a vote for one-issue and got 8 years of a bad President. (That said, Gore would have probably been a totally different kind of bad.)

It’s up for debate, but I think this Evangelical mandate to pick only pro-life candidates has failed. What if we picked pastors this way? If you picked pastors only on their ability to preach you might experience a similar kind of failure. Their character will fail in other areas of life, yet, supposedly, their ability to teach, entertain, and convert people makes up for that. I’ve witnessed situations in which that happens to churches. It doesn’t go well.

Let’s talk about the current election: Alot of Christians I’ve talked with about this election seem disappointed, like other Presidential races in the past. Unless a miracle happens at the GOP convention the race will be between President Obama and Former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. I’ve asked a number of Christians, whether they will one-issue vote this election. Most of them have said yes, they will only vote for the pro-life candidate. Others, like myself, won’t vote because we don’t like either candidate. I also know a few friends who will vote to re-elect Obama because they like most of his stances on social justice issues.

Let’s just assume it will be Obama vs. Romney in the next election. If your one-issue is abortion, then you don’t have a vote in this race. Obama is pro-choice politically, and has private concerns about it. Romney is currently running as a pro-life candidate but I have major doubts. (Watch this video. If you click the link you will see Mitt Romney in a 2002 debate for the Governor of Massachusetts. He adamantly defends a woman’s right to choose. Watch the entire video. That was a decade ago.) Romney knows that a GOP candidate cannot get the Republican nomination with a pro-choice stance. The majority of Evangelicals won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. It seems pretty evident that he will be what Evangelicals want him to be, at least for now, in order to get our precious 30 million or so votes.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. Presidents don’t appoint Justices solely because of their stance on Roe v Wade. They may not even consider it that much at all. Do you think that the man in the video is going to make a pro-life Justice his main priority when appointing? I don’t think so.

The Church needs to be a political force within itself to be effective on social issues. And this doesn’t just apply to abortion. Relationships are bigger influence than a vote. Love is more powerful than laws. The next piece I write on politics is dedicated to this idea. Maybe Christians put too much hope in the government to accomplish the many purposes of the Church. Maybe we need to be educated and equipped differently to engage social justice issues. Don’t be discouraged. Many have already taken this path. I want the Evangelical world to know about it. Stay tuned for part two.

[If you enjoyed this post and would like your friends to read it as well, would you do John and I the favor of sharing it on Twitter or Facebook using the buttons below? Thank you so much!]

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Apr 10 2012
Leave a comment
Gender, John Lussier, Ministry, Theology, Videos

Women, the Bible, and Ministry: Dr. Ben Witherington III

Here are two short videos from Dr. Ben Witherington III on women, the Bible, and ministry. I was very impressed by the good doctors ability to discuss the issues succinctly, you can learn so much in 14 minutes!

What do you guys think? Does Dr. Witherington present a solid case?

Tagged , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 571 other followers

%d bloggers like this: