Category Archives: male bias

Whiteness & Emergence Christianity: Tony Jones, Jason Richwine, And Other Race Science Hustles

Posted on by
9

THE WORLD OF RACECRAFT AS ROLEPLAYED BY WHITE “PROGRESSIVE” CHRISTIANS

English: Cross

English: Cross (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“So many (and again, not all) privileged people (and, honestly, though I focused on two dudes in this piece this often includes privileged white women as well) who claim to be progressive Christians act like they want a world where everyone has a “seat at the table.”

But they want it on their terms.

They tell oppressed groups what they can and cannot say. They tell oppressed groups what words they can use to define their oppressions. They even dictate whether or not the experiences and thoughts of oppressed groups are valid.”

- Sarah N. Moon, Tony Jones, Peter Rollins, and the trend of “don’t call me racist!”

“He seems to write about his understanding of the gospel as if it’s objectively better, rather than experientially better. We should all remember that whether we like it or not, religious experience is subjective. The quality or value of a doctrine or belief is determined by one’s own context and experience. I think it’s okay to say that an interpretation of the Bible is more culturally palatable, more accurate (as is conceivably possible when translating from one language to another), or even more useful in one’s own context… But Jones’ progressive interpretation of the Bible is only “better” in the sense that we live in a society which is becoming more progressive.”

- Crystal St. Marie Lewis, White Men Can’t Jump Out of the Frying Pan that Easily

Today, I was just minding my own business at work when a friend sent me a facebook message informing me of his disappointment in Tony Jones’ latest blog post,I am Tired Of Being Called a Racist, in response to Cristena Cleveland’s first post in her series, “Diversity Repellent” “We Have a better version of the Gospel than you: Diversity Repellent.” Jones complains that he was misquoted, he said “better” not “best”: good better best, never let it rest, til your good is better and your better is best. Jones’ defense is that it is more of a referent, and not comparative. Fair enough, the correction was made, so what is the big fuss over anyhow?

One would think that when Cleveland editted her post, admitted she had editted at the bottom of the post (which is good Christian blogging ethics by the way), that should have ended the squabble, no? Does this change the problematic nature of Jones’ comments today or in the past? Um, no, it does not. Jones at Fuller Theological Seminary a couple of years ago was confronted for his problematic approach to the Global South Pentecostalism at a conversation of “emergence spirituality.” If you watch the video in its entirety, the framing of the discussion was very much Euro-centric, and void of any talk of place or context (except when historian Lauren Winner was speaking). Part of the invisibility of white supremacy in progressive groups is that whites do not have to talk about race or context or place at all. This is a big problem with much of the emergence Christianity literature I have ran into: see for example Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis.

On another level, by comparison, Tony Jones’ view that the Global South’s theology reveals a colonizing gaze for a few reasons I would like to discuss. When you have this idea that the West, North American religion/society in particular, has a “high level intellectual Christianity” with a “more sophisticated theology” than them down there, and YOU have to ask if it is colonialism or not, you are participating in the history of white supremacist propaganda against People of Color. The dark art of racecraft has a long history, but in short, as Frederick Douglass said, power concedes nothing, meaning it must continue to justify itself. White supremacy in even progressive mainline religious circles finds a way to rear its ugly head under the guise of concepts such as “People in the 2/3rd’s world are not intellectual enough,” they are economically poor and therefore need some of the West’s white theological fatness. Take for example Jason Richwine’s pseudo-scientific research that was exposed this week: he made the argument that Latin@s are less intelligent than whites, and therefore, we should have closed borders. If people of color from the Global South are seen as nothing but bodies, things without minds, they must be treated as a threat to the purity of white U.S. American society. Jason Richwine was making academic arguments, in fact, a PhD dissertation in working to justify white supremacy of the conservative sort.

Likewise, Tony Jones also made his arguments in an academic setting: “I made a statement of preference, that I think the nascent Pentecostalism practiced in much of the Global South would benefit from being in dialogue with the older, more developed theologies of the West.” The defense of his position is not borderline racist; it’s just plain rank imperialism. The exchange is not mutual, and presupposes that there has been some theological vacuum in “Latin America.” Is good theology only owned by white male bodies? What about Leonardo Boff? Pope Francis the First? Gustavo Guttierez? Joao Chaves of Brazil? Are not these theologians who have a “developed” theology who were or have been placed in the “Global South” at one time or another? Why do “these people” need you? The invisibility of location and context that is glaringly familiar in white liberal Christian literature makes its way here once again. The Christianity of “high intellectualism” that Tony Jones is stressing here is culturally bound by an epistemology (way of knowing) grounded in the racist history of superior Western, white male rational subject.

FYI Mr. Jones, I’ve read that you have “global experience” and that you “have good friends who are Pentecostal” but Racism 101, heard it all before “but I have a black friend

“2. I have a black friend.

variant a. I have an Asian child.

variant b. I have a non-white boyfriend/girlfriend.”

OR ANY other version thereof does not excuse the exercise of colonizing gazes in the name of “theological arguments.” Just by even bringing up your context of American and Western, there is no such thing as a “purely” theological argument. But of course, as an “Incarnational” Christian you should know that.

Speaking of Incarnation, to get back to the root of the problem, the notion of the “highly sophisticated” and uber-intellectual white subject over and against the mindless Pentecostal bodies of color: 2 things: first, at the Incarnation, Christ does not let us forget our particularity, and we should very well remember Jesus’ place as well, where heaven and a 2nd century Jewish human are united and tied together for the sake of saving Jews and Gentiles together in reconciliation. Secondly, the Incarnation according to John 1, teaches us that people are more than bodies, that they are more than the good minds (Logos/logos/logic/wisdom) that God has given them. In that light, I am tired of black women being called emotional and angry, as you and your commenters suggested in the past and today. I am tired of women being silenced when they stand up to both institutional sexism and men’s personal sexism. I am tired of reading books by and listening to white progressive Christians who don’t want to talk about their own place or race or context.

Good better best. Never let it rest. Til your good is better, and your better is best.

;-)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before

Posted on by
Reply

LITERALLY PUTTING THE MAN IN “NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE”

225

The very first episode of  Star Trek: TOS to air was Where No Man Has Gone Before.
 Like the unaired pilot before it, The Cage, Where No Man Has Gone Before, was driven by questions of gender and epistemology (how do human know things? Is it experience? Is it reason/logic?). Unfortunately, the approach to the sexes in this episode is very much watered down, compared to “The Cage” but sorta makes up for it with an opening scene that has a positive portrayal of Black men (though they don’t have any lines really). Hey, it’s better than most shows today, so, off to a good start diversity wise for TOS. What troubles me the most about this episode is the depiction of Dr. Elizabeth Dehner, who’s a doctor only in that she like a psychiatrist, talking to patients about their problems (reminiscent of TNG‘s Deanna Troi). Dehner is a strongish female character that gets turned into the goddess damsel in distress. When an accident transforms Captain James T. Kirk‘s friend, Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell into a telepath endowed also with telekinesis and superior strength, trouble ensues on the Enterprise as Mitchell wishes to eradicate all humans starting with his own crewmates.

Mitchell is placed into the science fiction trope of an evolved human who sees himself as divine. Mitchell argues that the world cannot exist with two races living side by side, so the weaker humans have to be eliminated. Mitchell’s dream of domination is explained while he is having lunch with Dr. Dehner, with the meal being an apple from a different planet. Roddenberry sticks to ripping off Genesis again (Adam and Eve in The Cage), and now a man and woman eating of the fruits, claiming of divine power. Mitchell and, for a while, Dehner, obsess over how self-important and glorious they are over and against homo sapiens. Kirk, who had argued with Spock earlier over a game of chess about the importance of emotion, contends that “every god needs compassion.” Mitchell the new god is defeated by force and human ingenuity because Kirk has very little choice. At the conclusion, Spock admits to learning emotion, and then Kirk responds, “there is hope for you yet.”

Within this episode, one can see a clear battle of ideas: who will the man of the future be? The MAN of Passion or the MAN OF Rationality? What about ways of being and knowing in the world that include a concept of community and the presence of the Other, specifically women? The division of logic and emotion is not the simple, the mind cannot be severed from the body, and vice versa. Or what about religious epistemologies, say, Christianity, that affirm the presence of the Spirit in the everyday lives of believers, many of whom are renowned thinkers? With these ideas in mind, I think it’s fair to say that Star Trek while being intended to be progressive on gender issues, takes a step back, returning to Where Many Men Have Gone Before.

Related articles

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Reading Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis from the Margins

Posted on by
9

Difference, Subjectivity, & Repainting White MaleStream Protestantism

Cover of "Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Ch...

Cover via Amazon

Introduction

Last week was spring break, and I decided to take the opportunity to read books from my bookshelves that I had owned for a few years, but had only glanced at a few pages. In my early seminary/grad school years, I had vested interest in reading up on the Emergent/Emerging Church. A number of my peers and acquaintances (of the liberal Wesleyan & conservative Reformed traditions) had read Brian McLaren and challenged me to do the same. It all started with me reading Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight, a fairly influential book on my faith journey. I may get to blogging about influential books, but for now, I turn to Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis.

My Deep Appreciation For This Book

Having been made familiar with Emerging/Emergent Christian literature, I was not surprised by many of the questions that Rob Bell was asking. Contrary to popular summaries of Rob Bell’s work, he is actually very traditionalist in his theology; no where does he states that “tradition” or “orthodoxy” in and of itself is “bad.” He sees himself as part of the tradition of Martin Luther (though not Lutheran) but Protestantism, forever reforming and changing Christianity, repainting it is what he calls it. “Orthodoxy” should lead us on a path in search of mystery; it is paradox left unconquered that is part of the life of faith. Bell even refers to Gregory of Nyssa’s explanation of Exodus 19, that Moses’ encounter with the mystery of God on Sinai means the beginning of a new journey. It is this mystery that draws the community of faith together, and Christians have generally trusted their forebears with providing the appropriate “springs” to talk about the divine.

I was also very impressed with Bell’s mentioning of segregationist Christians’ use of scripture to justify their racist beliefs: “It is possible to make the Bible say whatever we want it to, isn’t it? [...] Nazis, cult leaders, televangelists who promise that God will bless you if you just get out your checkbook, racists, people who oppress minorities and the poor and anyone not like them- they can all find verses in the Bible to back up their agendas.” Unlike MacLaren’s earliest works, Bell was honest about racial injustice in the U.S. Really, this is all anti-racist Christians want; a truthful conversation where racial injustice is not hidden. I also enjoyed the comments Bell had to say about the Bible: that the Bible HAD to be interpreted, while fundamentalist (Protestant) Christians claim they are only relying on the word of God, no what they really mean, as Bell and others persuasively argue, is that fundamentalists rely on what other people have said about God’s word given to human beings. Bell stresses that subjectivity is everything, and everything is subjective.

Now that Rob Bell has opened up this conversation, the debate continues, who are the most trustworthy interpreters of Scripture? Whose interpretation is valued? Why is she an authority?

Accepting Bell’s Invitation To Criticize Velvet Elvis

In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell makes it clear that he is open to criticism, and that because this is a conversation, he doesn’t have a final say. I readily accept this invitation, a kind, critical response in dialogue with Womanist Theologians.[1] In Womanist theology, much like Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis, subjectivity is highly valued. The moral principle of Radical Subjectivity is described as a defiant posture and audaciousness, that come with habits of serving inquiries about oppression and that aid black women to rise above their circumstances as marginalized; it is the Spirit-filled boldness of black women of all ages to challenge racism, sexism, and classism.[2] Radical Subjectivity then, just is not about freedom, it is about the creation of social spaces that will affirm difference. Difference is something that Rob Bell tends to avoid talking about. In fact, to make Scripture relevant for people of faith today in the here and now, Bell’s choice of hermeneutic is one in which we look for similarities with characters in Scripture over and against difference. “The ancient Jewish prophets had these same kinds of spiritual experiences that we do, and they had the same sense that something holds it all together.” In another work, Sex/God, Rob Bell remarks, “What we often do is reverse the creative process that God initiated. We start with different cultural backgrounds and skin colors and nationalities, and its only when we look past these things that we are able to get to what we have in common- that we are fellow image bearers with the shared task of caring for God’s creation. We get it all backwards. We see all of the differences first, only maybe later, maybe do we begin to see the similarities. The new humanity is about seeing people as God sees them.”

He continues, “Moments when all of the ways that we divide ourselves and rank each other and convince ourselves of how different, better, and unalike we are disappear, and we are faced with the fact that first and foremost, we are humans. In this together. And not that much different from each other.”

Variation in the human experience is vilified in Rob Bell’s texts. He is willing to admit that everything is subjective, but is he being honest about his own white male liberal Protestant subjectivity? Yes, I agree, consenting to the doctrine of the imago Dei means that we affirm the humanity of everyone. But let me ask you something, what does it mean to be human? And this is where the rubber hits the road, where the studies of race and religion collide like electricity to the insides of a light bulb. Similarly, attributing difference between God and humanity does not work for Rob Bell; God’s experience is our experience: “They aren’t two different things: God’s joy over here and our joy over there. They are the same. God takes great pleasure in us living as we were made to live” (Velvet Elvis). Womanist understandings of human subjectivity, from writers like bell hooks and Jacqueline Jones Royster, teach us that acknowledging, affirming, and celebrating difference is essential to embracing the Stranger’s humanity. Trinitarian theologies of creation and the Womanist moral principle of Radical Subjectivity go hand in hand: there is difference- in- unity in the Godhead just as there is a freedom to create space to love the Other, that which transcends our experience.

Jacqueline Jones Royster wrote of her experiences in the classroom, having heard that everything is subjective, that place matters, only to learn that when it came to the final authority on history and everything that matters, white voices were placed above all others. Royster puts it this way, “I have come to recognize, however, when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted. In metaphoric fashion, these ‘authorities’ let me know, once again, that Columbus has discovered America, and claims it now, claims it still for a European crown.”[3] As I mentioned before, radical subjectivity is about freedom for difference. The recognition of difference is not only difference of skin color, gender, or class, but also one of place. If place remains hidden to the audience, certain voices remain privileged over and against those on the margins. Rob Bell begins Velvet Elvis with “Around 500 years ago, a man named Martin Luther raised a whole series of questions about the painting the church was presenting to the world. He insisted that God’s grace could not be purchased with money or good deeds.” This is all good and true, but without acknowledging where Luther proclaimed “Here I stand,” is not this just another reminder for Christians of racial minority communities that white Christians still own Christianity, that Columbus discovered America?

With this seeming aversion to particularity, Rob Bell denies his own whiteness, his own story as a Gentile Christian in the redemption history of YHWH. But this is how white privilege functions: emerging/emergent Christians can write about the Jewishness of Jesus and a whole host of other rabbis but never once talk about their/ our Gentile place in the story. Without a conversation about the Gentile place in the story, we fail to understand Jesus’ mission in the New Testament, as well as our own places in the story of the Jews. The story of the Gentiles, as Paul puts it in Romans, is engrafted into the story of God’s people, the Judeans. The differences between the Jews & Gentiles are not eradicated, they are reconciled; these differences (these bodies, these histories and these cultures) still exist, but they are made one in the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ.

[1] Womanism is to feminism as purple is to lavender.

[2] Taken from the book, Black Church Studies: An Introduction, and the definition may or may not have been written by the author of this post. ;-)

[3]Quote taken from Jacqueline Jones Royster’s essay “When The First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own.”  I am indebted to blogger JK Gayle for sharing this article with me.

Related articles

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

The Bible, Homosexuality, and Christianity: A Few Notes on Gender in the Scriptures

Posted on by
6

This is the seventh post in a series. I highly encourage that you read those previous posts before reading this one. The preface is here. The guidelines are here. A discussion of relevant Hebrew Bible texts is here. A study of Romans 1:26-27 is here. A Study of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 can be found here. A discussion about marriage in the Bible is here.

These are just a few thoughts that occurred to me in the midst of our discussion. None of this should be taken as “gospel,” – pun intended – but rather just my personal reflections on gender and the Bible.

In the current climate of discussion around homosexual practice, it has been argued that homosexuality may be wrong because it is an attack on traditional gender roles. Further, it is often said that these gender roles are rooted in scripture. Therefore, it is often argued that it is important that Christians should do everything in our power to oppose the confusion, disruption, and casting off of “traditional” gender roles that homosexuality represents. In this regard, I believe “they” are right. Homosexual people (as well as bisexual and transgender folks) do indeed seem to disrupt “traditional” gender roles. But, if Jesus taught us anything, it is that tradition that is not rooted in the scriptures AND love, may not be worth keeping. So what does the scripture say about gender roles?

Genesis 1:27 – “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

What this verse indicates is that God has created humans in God’s image, and that, somehow, males and females both embody the image of God. The way I read this, which may be controversial, is that without a woman AND a man, one cannot fully reflect the image of God. Women are just as important as men, and without one or the other, God’s image on Earth would be incomplete. Of course, Jesus takes this to a whole other level, and does include the whole image of God in himself, though he is a man. I wonder what that says for the women-specific parts of God’s image that are present in Jesus? It seems that Jesus may have had to break traditional gender roles in order to fully image God on Earth. Maybe.

Deborah – In the Book of Judges, we are told the story of Deborah, a prophetess and a judge of ancient Israel, led the nation and spoke the words of God to the people. While many in our current Christian culture would find this offensive, as they misuse the Bible, it appears God has no problem with women both in leadership or teaching about God.

Ruth - a foreigner among Israelite people. She seduced and aggressively pursued a relationship with a man who was her social superior. Not a very good “woman.” And yet, God approved, even in the midst of the scandal, and used Ruth to support the lineage both of King David AND Jesus.

Esther – Esther was a Hebrew girl who was forced to parade around in some sort of Persian beauty pageant in order to be given the “prize” of becoming a bride to the current king. Esther happened to win, although her life was one of misery because there were powerful forces who wanted to kill her entire race of people. Unfortunately, Esther could not ask the king to help because he had issued an edict that his wives could not speak unless called for. Esther broke this rule, disobeyed her husband’s direct order, and was used by God to save her people. I guess God has less of a problem with women submitting to men than Paul did in some of his churches.

Isaiah 66:13 – “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”

It seems as if God is adopting a traditionally female gender roll. Hmmmm.

Jesus – Jesus broke gender norms all of the time. For example, it was very taboo for a man to meet a women alone, let alone talk of marriage with her. That would have been fine for women, though. And yet Jesus does that very thing. Jesus lets women touch him and his feet, another gender norm broken. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, saying how he would have protected her like a hen (female) protects its babies. Jesus refuses to fight (a traditionally masculine trait), and cooks for his friends. He allows himself to lose an argument to a female, tells parables where God is represented by females, and indicates in Luke 11 that it is not by fitting in to traditional gender rolls that people please God, but by a person’s response in spirit and deed to God’s kingdom.

Of course, Galatians 3:28 puts a bit of an easy cap on all of this when Paul says that in Christ, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Turning not only gender, but societal roles upside down.

Now, lest people think that I am being biased, there are indeed many verses which tell women to do some variation of submit, obey, listen, and be silent, either in marriage or at church, or society at large. However, these were all written after Paul’s writing of Galatians. Given that Paul knew and commended female deacons (Phoebe), allowed women like Pricilla and Eunice to teach others about the faith, met in a house church led by the woman Lydia, never-mind belonging to a church which was started when Peter quoted Joel as saying that daughters would prophecy, and God’s spirit would fall on men and women. Acts also tells us that there was a man who had 4 daughters who all prophesied. Now, how do you square Paul’s teaching about women being silent with those facts? Fairly easy, as it turns out.

If Paul, having an encounter with the risen Lord, comes to the conclusion that in Christ, women and men are equal, and experiences this both by looking at Old Testament examples (as above), knowing the life and teaching of Jesus, and seeing this lived out by those women in the church around him, he of course would teach in his earliest letter (Galatians) and would likely preach in the earliest churches that he started, that women were equal in every way to men. However, what would those churches look like, if, once Paul left them to their own devices, they believed Paul? What if the women started teaching and doing traditionally “male” things without all of the benefit of learning that the males had? It would likely lead to poor teaching. Also, it would upset social norms and make Christians look like rabble rousers and turn people off to the faith. So Paul, being a pastor first (a tendency we seem to forget) would write back to those churches, telling them that “I (Paul, not God) do not permit a woman to teach, etc… Of course, this is all in the context of Christians “mutually submitting to one another,” which is also readily forgotten by many today.

All of this to say, that the traditional gender roles that we hold today are not biblical ones, at least not in the best sense of the word. Perhaps a better way to seek gender roles is to look at Jesus, who never treated anyone as a gender-ed person, but as an individual. Jesus himself, in being the complete image of God, bore in his body both the male-like AND female-like image of God. Also, Jesus embodied the wisdom of God (the female version of the LOGOS in Proverbs).

In many areas of our lives that we take for granted, traditional gender roles have been broken, to no great harm. This does not mean that men and women are the same and must conform to the standard of each other in some sort of forced equality. It does however mean that God is more than capable of bringing good into the world through many variations on gender themes, not being limited to one culture’s rules about who should be acting like what simply because they have this or that reproductive part.

Jump to part 8, A discussion about biblical interpretation, here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Optimistic Chad

Chad really really hopes things are going to turn out ok. He loves his wife - with the passion of 1000 exploding suns, and is a diligent, but surely mediocre father to his brilliant and subversive children. He likes Chinese food.

More Posts

India, Ohio, John Piper, Religion and the Triumph Of Rape Culture

Posted on by
4

*TRIGGER WARNING*: Domestic violence, spousal abuse, gender violence, oppression in the name of religion

IT’S TIME WE KISSED RAPE CULTURE GOODBYE

“The churches have language to bring to this discussion that secular society does not. We can talk about gravely harmful behavior without having to resort to legal definitions and loopholes. We can claim that sexual activities, in every instance, should embody love and respect for oneself and the other. The language of sexual activities as an expression of love and respect clearly exposes the misstep that a rape victim could ever be “asking for it” and the mistake of defining consent exclusively in terms of its minimum requirements”

– Julia, of Women In Theology, Sexual Violence And the Church Talking To Teens

“A person who has been whacked around is in no condition to spiritualize the matter. Can you imagine an abused woman being advised to wait before going to the authorities until she “longs for, with a heavy and humble heart, the reestablishment of the abuser’s “nurturing” relationship?” Why does he even assume that there has ever been a nurturing relationship? I can see it now. The woman sitting in Piper’s office, with two black eyes, shaking, and Piper saying “You are not humble enough, woman. Repent.” Good night!”- Dee, The Wartburg Watch, Domestic Violence,, Christmas, John Piper, SGM, and the TGC

“Having “liberated” us from the way popular culture and media objectifies, degrades, and oppresses women, complementarian leaders can now objectify and oppress us in other ways with nicer words (and with support from God).”

- Sarah, Sarah Over The Moon, Some Humans Are More Equal Than Others: Introduction: John Piper, Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll

““Rape culture,” as young feminists now call this, isn’t limited to India. It lives anywhere that has a “traditional” vision of women’s sexuality.”-E.J. Graff, The Prospect, Purity Culture Is Rape Culture

Today on the front pages of newspapers and blogs everywhere, after you ignore the crap we are being told about the “fiscal cliff,” there is a disturbing trend I wish to address. As I hear and read stories in silence, horrified at the events that took place in India, where a 23-year-old physiotherapy student died after having to have surgery from being sexually assaulted by several men. To add to that is the Steubenville, Ohio high school rape of a young girl where only 3 suspects are being prosecuted possibly. Rape was nothing more than a practical joke because women’s bodies have become things to be lorded over and owned as possessions. In one instance, writers like E.J. Graff would blame “traditional” religions (I guess that’s code for cultures in the two-thirds world). The conflict between the modernized Western Progressive versus the Backwoods Eastern Religious zealot does not work in the context of rape. Sexual violence is sexual violence, regardless of the culture, race, or religion of the victim. It’s a complete bourgeois move on Graff’s part to take a cheap shot a religion. A religion promoting self-control is not the problem in a late capitalist world of “Gotta Have It” desires. One historical example of chastity/purity gone right for the sake of liberation: one, when the early Black church desired emancipation from the North American rape culture of African enslavement, the few literate black (male) pastors who called upon freed black men to abstain from alcohol as to avoid any suspicion of immorality, and as an expression of dignity in the face of grave injustice.

Purity culture in and of itself is not the villain, it is the double-standards, lopsided sexist emphasis on the chastity for women, making women’s behavior and fashion the blame for men’s struggles with lust. This is an entirely modern phenomenon, by modern I mean post-Reformation/16th century. The early Church fathers, and male philosophers and thinkers in general in their context, believed that men could and should have self-control when it came to sex. Yes, they still affirmed many of them the inequality of the sexes, but when it came to traditional views of sexuality, women were not made the scapegoats (objectified) for men’s sexuality. Time Travel forward to today, and what we have in U.S. American Christianity is a purity culture only geared towards young girls and women, purity balls for girls, purity rings for girls, and purity bears.

The problem with the purity culture in North American Christianity is the very limited notion of what it means to be pure (that is, for generally all people, purity is about abstaining from sexual practices). Abstinence is a good idea, but self-control is far superior, a self-control for the sake of living before God and others. In the Old and New Testament,purity and religion are never separate from seeking justice from others. Religious purity according to James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” shows an understanding of purification that is not limited to sexual purity.

What complementarians (church going men who see women as 2nd class citizens) cling to is exactly what is impure: the power that men have over women. The world in scripture is just not about “the cosmos” or a “large group of reprobate sinners”; the world also refers to the ways that society sustains unjust and unloving practices against human beings. Domestic Violence is ALWAYS out of God’s will. Rape (Todd Akin) IS NEVER PART OF GOD’S PLAN! The social libertarian thrust of TeaVangelicals (church going tea partiers –I refuse to call them Christians)leads to religious impurity, ill-will and antipathy towards victims of sexual violence. Religious persons need to start having a broader understanding of what it means to be pure, and start incorporating nonviolent practices into that discourse. For Christians, we need to stop telling women that they need to stay on the cross of domestic violence just a little while longer to suffer with Jesus. That is not God’s will, Jesus got off that cross, died to conquer the Satan and oppression for us, and rose from the dead as the One and Only needed sacrifice, Once AND FOR ALL. No more sacrifices are required or mandated (Hebrews 10:1-18). The sacrificial system, the scapegoat mechanism. It is finished.

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter