Slaves of all races needed and still need free people to fight with them to defeat slavery.
Blacks needed whites to stand in solidarity in order to roll back Apartheid and the Jim Crow laws.
The GLBTQI community needs members of the heterosexual community to come along side them to find acceptance.
Jews needed Gentiles to stop the madness of Auschwitz and defeat the Third Reich.
Women need men to achieve equality in the church, in the home, in government and in the workforce.
The minority always needs at least a few members of the majority to stand in their corner and advocate on their behalf for the status quo to be challenged and for things to change.
The persecuted, the excluded, the oppressed, the enslaved, the unclean, the deformed and the sinners needed someone to tear down the wall that separated. (That is all of us)
The women, the men, the Jews, the Gentiles, the slaves, the free needed someone to tear down the dividing wall that separated them from each other.
Jesus is the obliterator of all that separated and separates us still. He came to rip it in half and to tear it down.
Today an amazing blog from J. R. Daniel Kirk a Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary came to my attention. It is called A Time to Speak. It is specifically about the issue of women in the church however the truths in it can be applied to more than just this issue.
Dear men, it is not enough to be supportive in your hearts. If your church is excluding women from service, you need to be creating opportunities to overturn that practice.
You need to speak. You need to ask.
Dear pastor, it is not enough to huddle with your buddies over beer or in your internet discussion room and talk about what a bunch of sexist bastards your fellow pastors are in your denomination.
If you are not working to change what women can do, you are promoting and sustaining the sexism that you deride in private.
If you are not opening up space in your church for women to preach and teach, you are promoting and sustaining the sexism that denies the truth of your women’s identity in Christ.
Dear seminary professor, your job is to be a change agent. Your job is to transform the way that your students, and their churches, think about and act on issues of gender.
It’s not enough to “know” that women should be able to do anything. You need to show your students, from your scripture study or theology, that this is God’s intention for the church.
This applies to all of us. If there is something you believe in, if there is an area where you know you should be speaking on behalf of the oppressed or excluded and you keep silent you are in effect promoting and sustaining that which you know is wrong. If you fail to speak up when your friend calls something or someone “gay” or you don’t come to the defense of a female coworker when she is called a bitch for being a strong leader, if you stand by when girls and women are silenced and discounted in the name of Jesus you participate and condone the very thing you disagree with in your heart. I believe this is what the Scriptures are talking about when they say a double-minded person is unstable in all their ways. When we will not stand up for our convictions we waver in our faith and become double minded.
He wraps up the post with this call to action:
We must create the kind of church that will receive not just our sons but our daughters, not just our brothers but our sisters, in the fullness of who God is making them to be, in Christ, by the Spirit.
If you believe in women’s equality, your calling is to act it out. If you’re not, don’t convince yourself that you’re being “wise” in biding your time while your sisters suffer. Wisdom is a convenient cover for fear, but not all silence is golden.
I for one have decided not to remain silent anymore. This blog is my attempt to speak into the world a message of love and acceptance, freedom and hope. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand and the gates have been flung wide
Are there virtues exclusive to women?
Are there virtues which should be exclusive to women?
Don’t the scriptures make a listing of what it is to be virtuous?
This week I was prompted to read a blog entitled “Militant Virtue” by Rachel Janovic at the Femina blog. Rachel makes all sorts of assertions in her post about “female virtues” and how we as women should have an “active defense” against men who would “leave a mark” on us (yes, like a dog marks its territory).
Sigh.
First let us look at the definition of the word virtue. Dictionary.com defines virtue as:
vir·tue [vur-choo]
noun
1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
2. conformity of one’s life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.
5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one’s weaknesses.
The word virtue is not used in the Old Testament rather, the word virtuous is. The word for virtuous in Hebrew is chayil (which you will recognize if you have been following this blog for long).
Chayil is defined by Thayer’s Lexicon (Strongs #2428) as:
Did you catch that? Chayil is used 243 times and translated:
army
man of valor
host
forces
valiant
strength
riches
wealth
power
substance
might
strong
Chayil is used 3 times specifically of a woman or women.
Ruth 3:11 – And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman.
Proverbs 12:4 – An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.
Proverbs 31:10 – An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
We have been through this before, but the Proverbs 31 list is not viewed in the Jewish tradition as a list of things all good wives (read “women of virtue”) must live up to. But rather it is a listing of examples of ways that women can show their Chayil. Just a bonus, if you read Proverbs 31 and compare it to the list above these are all different ways women can show valor or virtue. I will assert here again that there are as many ways to be an excellent wife as there are women. I would also assert that even these examples of virtue can have application to men as well. Could you not (gasp) reverse the genders in the Proverbs verses and still have truth? Let’s try it and see…
An excellent husband is the crown of his wife, but he who brings shame is like rottenness in her bones.
An excellent husband who can find? He is far more precious than jewels.
I know my excellent husband is like a crown to me. I am a very blessed woman. And I know plenty of women who can attest that a man who behaves shamefully is “like rottenness to her bones”.
Second one, once again, true. As the saying goes, “a good man is hard to find” and honey if you find one as good as mine you better hang on to him tight! He is more precious than a big ass engagement ring.
Okay, for grins, now let’s look at the word virtue in the new testament and see what it has to say. The word for virtue in the new testament is Dynamis. Dynamis is defined by Thayer’s as:
Dynamis is used 120 times and translated the following ways:
power
mighty work
strength
miracle
might
virtue
mighty
Dynamis is never used to exclusively describe men or women but rather God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Kingdom, miracles and even the strength of sin.
Ok, enough background (sorry about the length of this post but I felt like proper background was needed), on to the article. Ms. Janovic lists what she considers to be “female virtues” at the beginning of her post: gentle and quiet spirit, modesty, chastity, faithfulness at home. She states that, “Scripture does not define virtues in terms of empty space; it is defined in terms of fruit.” First of all I feel compelled to point out that I am unable to find a verse in the Bible that defines virtue in terms of fruit. I am also unable to see where virtue is delineated along gender specific lines. I do see in Galatians where it lists the fruit of the spirit for both men and women. I do see in scripture where it says that in Christ there is no male or female.
It would seem that the author subscribes to the gendered virtue model embraced by Rousseau. This model asserts that there are special virtues characteristic of each and arising out of their different basic natures. This model is extra biblical. P.J. Ivanhoe of the University of Michigan summed it up this way in his paper Women and Virtue,
In his work Emile, he describes the ideal education that a young man should receive, an education that will develop the set of virtues that are the full manifestation of his manly nature. In this same book, though not occupying as important a position, is a description of the proper education Emile’s sister, Sophie is to receive. It too is described in terms of developing virtues that fully manifest her basic nature. But while Emile’s virtues concern life in the public realm of a citizen, Sophie’s virtues concern life in the private realm of the home. According to Rousseau, women not only have special virtues that are theirs alone, they lack many virtues that are seen as exclusively male. And virtues that women are thought to lack are those required for public, political life – the realm of a great deal of power.
Ms. Janovic or other Christians I know who take her positions in this article might say they disagree with my characterization, however I think her post belies that assertion. First of all her use of the Fairie Queene as an illustration points directly to the division of the virtues into masculine and feminine. Chastity in this story is represented as a female Knight or female virtue. As she says, a “militant virtue” that “requires an active defense”.
What happens next and throughout the article I find patently offensive. She decides to use the imagery of men as dogs who simply go about “marking their territory”. She states:
“…if you have ever watched a nature film, or seen a dog on a walk, or really paid attention to life at all, you will have noticed a certain tendency among the male of the species. They mark their territory. They make a claim. They fight over the girl water buffaloes. Men do exactly the same thing, starting somewhere around the sixth grade. They like to impose on women around them in a way that builds their territory, or their prestige, or their ego.”
So guys, here it is, you are nothing but a beast who cannot be trusted to control himself when wanting to…
wait for it…
wait for it…
SIT NEXT TO A GIRL ON A BENCH IN A PUBLIC PLACE!
ASK A GIRL FOR A RIDE!
HAVE AN INSIDE JOKE WITH A FRIEND WHO HAPPENS TO BE A GIRL!
TEXTING HER TOO LATE
But it is ok, “it is not necessarily springing from any deep nefarious desires. Sometimes, it is just an accident. Sometimes it is a bad habit, or a different culture. Sometimes they aren’t actually paying attention when they impose. So don’t take this post as an accusation towards the men who impose on, or attempt to impose on you. These are all excellent opportunities for you to practice virtue.”
You see, you don’t even know you are being inappropriate, you are simply clueless. But that is ok too because it is all the woman’s responsibility to have a strong defense! She must not allow herself to “be imposed upon”. She should not “just let these things happen.” It is her fault if she stays on the bench when you sit down to chat. “Simply not resisting is how [she lets]a mark be made.”
Of course it is also her responsibility not to be shrill. According to the author, “Young women have a great deal of trouble with the fear of being shrill, and if that doesn’t scare them they probably are shrill.” So ladies, it is also your job not to”overreact, but to be perfectly firm and cheerful. Someone unwelcome joins you on a bench? Unjoin him. Stand up. Walk away.”
The author also appears to think the women are clueless. She writes:
I know another problem for the unmarried women is that they might think that the young man, or young men, are all interested in them seriously. They feel like these things would not be happening in Christian circles if the men involved had no intentions. They would not be getting rides with me, walking me to my car, making a show of having inside jokes with me, or otherwise giving me attention if they were not actually interested in me.
Perhaps *gasp* the man and the woman are JUST FRIENDS! Perhaps they just want to get to know each other.
In the end her advice is this:
So if you are a young woman in this kind of situation, practice cheerful resistance. If the world of interaction between the sexes was a billiard table, be a bumper, not a pocket. Cheerfully, firmly, rudely enforce your standards. You don’t owe him an explanation. Don’t get caught up in reasons you can’t give him a ride. Just say no. If he insists, pushes, tries harder, say, “Have a nice walk!”
Do not be afraid that this kind of defense will keep anyone from ever seriously being interested in you. If it is the right kind of man, this sort of behavior will bless him deeply.
Again guys, if this kind of behavior is off putting to you, if you think that when you sit down to chat with a girl on a bench and she gets up and walks away that she isn’t interested, you just aren’t the “right kind of man.”
And now I’m telling you lies,
All because I hate to see the tears in your eyes.
Of course I want my cake, and eat it too,i’m a guy
And of course, you don’t understand,
But you would if you thought like a man in love
[Chorus]But in love, in love,in love, in love You gotta act like a woman but think like a man
But in love, in love, in love, in love You gotta act like a woman but think like a man
Our sons are being told they have no control of themselves and their thoughts when it comes to girls and women. That they are slaves to their hormones and their eyes. Society shrugs and says, boys will be boys. The church tells young men. Distance yourselves from girls, they are dangerous to your spiritual health. You cannot resist them. This is a lie. And rather than a discussion about self control we have a talk keeping your distance and about how girls should just stop being so attractive.
Our daughters are being told by this song, this book and this movie that they need to understand these “truths” about men and learn how to “play the game”. They need to learn how men think so they can be a “fish” he’s going to want to “take on home, scale it, fillet it, toss it in some cornmeal, fry it up, and put it on his plate” instead of one he will take a picture of “admire it with his buddies and toss it back to sea”. (Believe it or not being scaled, filleted and fried is supposed to be a good thing). Girls and women are also told by the church that they are to dress modestly, and make sure that they are unsexy enough not to “cause a brother to sin” (Never mind the mixed signals of the “modest is hottest” [great article on this HERE] campaign or the fact that they are somehow supposed to be attractive enough to snag a husband but not too attractive so as to “cause” him to sin in the process).
So on the one hand we have Steve Harvey and his book which sets people up for heartache and failed relationships because it advocates manipulation and totally belittles men and puts all the responsibility at the woman’s feet. Behold a few gems from the book:
“Newsflash,” Steve writes, “it’s not the guy who determines whether you’re a sports fish or a keeper—it’s you. (Don’t hate the player, hate the game.) When a man approaches you, you’re the one with total control over the situation. … Every word you say, every move you make, every signal you give to a man will help him determine whether he should try to play you, be straight with you, or move on to the next woman to do a little more sport fishing.”
So women it is your job to be careful about every word you say and every move you make because it determines whether a man treats you with respect or just tries to sleep with you. In other words, if he doesn’t treat you like a man of character it is your fault. You obviously said or did something wrong.
Men have affairs because they can…
Dress it up any way you want to, but men don’t view sex the way you women do, plain and simple. For a lot of you, the act of intercourse is emotional—an act of love. … By contrast, when it comes to men and sex, neither emotions nor meaning necessarily enter the equation. It’s easy—very easy—for a man to have sex, go home, wash it off with soap and water, and act like what he just did never happened.
A man can love his wife, his children, his home, and his life that they’ve all built together, and have an incredible physical connection to her, and still get some from another woman without a second thought about it, because the actual act with the other woman meant nothing to him. It was something that may have made him feel good physically, but emotionally, his heart—the professing, providing, and protecting he saves for the woman he loves—may be at home with his woman.”
I am going to call bullshit on this one. Seriously? Men, you should be offended. Let me remind you Steve Harvey claims to be a follower of Jesus.
That’s the truth no woman wants to face. … Men can cheat because there are so many women willing to give themselves to a man who doesn’t belong to them. … Yes, these are women who have no standards and requirements and who suffer from serious self-esteem issues, making themselves willing to cheat and available to be cheated on.”
So men cheat because there are women who will do it with them. “I mean she was there and she wanted to so I had to do it.” What???
There is much more, not the least of which is the title, Act like a lady (a woman of refinement and gentle manners), think like a man (not sure what this is supposed to mean except for in the book and the song it would imply “of course I want my cake, and eat it too, i’m a guy” after all boys will be boys.
Do you see the difference? On the one hand we have, “boys will be boys”. And on the other we have to the women,”you must have done something, or said something, or worn something unladylike to be treated that way.” From the time we are little, girls are told we must do certain things to “act like a lady”. The implication being if you don’t do the right things, say the right things and/or wear the right things, you will not be treated like a lady. The sad part is, it is an ever changing standard that varies from person to person.
Let’s look at an example from the headlines. This week there has been a story in the news about the Secret Service and their use of prostitutes in Colombia in advance of the President’s trip there.
Is there something different about guys in law enforcement and the military? Since they are required to exude an intimidating kind of macho in their daily work does that dictate a high testosterone ethic in every part of their lives? When you are expected to put your life on the line at any moment, does that automatically instill an “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” attitude? Are they like members of a football or rugby team who revel in male bonding rituals that almost invariably include proving sexual mastery?
I’d say yes to all of the above. So, while we should demand restraint and professionalism from these kinds of men when they are carrying out official duties for our country, we should not be shocked if, occasionally, they fail. We did not hire them to do flower arranging or assist in the kindergarten classroom (or to draw cartoons, for heaven’s sake). We hired them to use a gun and take a bullet whenever necessary.
And this from NPR’s Talk of the Nation where Jeffrey Robinson, co-author of “Standing Next to History: An Agent’s Life Inside the Secret Service”, asserted that this is just what guys do:
“When you get 11 guys together with a lot of testosterone, things happen,” he told host Neal Conan. “It happens in the Secret Service, it happens with the New York Yankees, it happens in fraternities. I suspect it would happen in the House of Representatives.”
“I don’t honestly think that they, at any time, exposed the president to any sort of real danger,” he continued. “I think it was simply boys being boys, and I’m afraid boys will be boys. I know, because I was one. I still am, I guess.”
Contrast that with the headlines about the prostitutes involved, they are referred to over and over as “the women who took down the secret service” as if the men had no chance or choice. Now I know that these men are being punished and are losing their jobs and the one’s who are married are (I am sure) having consequences at home; However, there are many who say they shouldn’t because after all, “boys will be boys” and “Hey, it was legal”. Like that makes this okay. Oh, it is legal in Columbia? Consider this from the U.S. State Department web site:
Colombia is a major source country for women and girls subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically forced prostitution in Latin America, the Caribbean, Western Europe, Asia, and North America, including the United States. Within Colombia, some men are found in conditions of forced labor, but the forced prostitution of women and children from rural areas in urban areas remains a larger problem. Individual cases of forced marriage – a risk factor for trafficking – involuntary domestic servitude, and forced begging have been reported. Some children are subjected to forced labor in mines and quarries or as domestic servants. Groups at high risk for internal trafficking include displaced persons, poor women in rural areas, and relatives of members of criminal organizations. Continued armed violence in Colombia has displaced many communities, making them vulnerable to human trafficking. Guerillas and new illegal armed groups forcibly recruit children to join their ranks; the government estimates thousands of children are exploited under such conditions. Members of gangs and organized criminal networks force their relatives and acquaintances, and displaced persons – typically women and children – into conditions of forced prostitution and forced labor, including forced work in the illegal drug trade. Colombia also is a destination for foreign child sex tourists, particularly coastal cities such as Cartagena and Barranquilla. Migrants from South America, Africa, and China transit Colombia en route to the United States and Europe; some may fall victim to traffickers.
So what is the solution? Does the church have the answer? I think the recent article from RELEVANT Magazine, Beauty vs. Sexuality handles it best:
Our contemporary cultural dialogue about men emphasizes the decisive role that biology plays in driving behavior. Evolutionary psychologists, brain researchers and TV doctors regularly produce studies “proving” men are hardwired to be visually stimulated or to cheat on their wives. The emphasis is on men’s helplessness in the face of their own physiology, an emphasis many women find disillusioning and many men find disheartening.
…The response of the Church has been to reframe basic male decency as Christlike heroism.
…This reframing fails both men and women. It fails men by insisting they can’t gaze at an attractive woman without automatically lusting for her; it denies any possibility that the average man can appreciate female beauty without desiring to possess it. If a man claims to be able to “look” without lusting, he’s too often accused of denial at best and rank dishonesty at worst. If a woman says she believes men can gaze without carnal desire, we call her foolishly naïve. A self-fulfilling prophecy is created; if men are taught they can’t separate a delight in beauty from a longing for sex, they won’t.
…“women are victimized by the soul-crushing weight of having your motives (or even personal worth) judged incorrectly on the basis of something as simple as an article of clothing. A huge percentage of women within the Church are silently battling eating disorders, self-harm, pornography addiction and depression—all stemming from misplaced shame, a shame they feel because fellow Christians have equated their beauty with intentional malice or deliberate seductiveness toward men.”
…To put it another way, we shame men by insisting they’re fundamentally weak, constantly vulnerable to being overwhelmed by sexual impulses. We shame women for not being better stewards of that supposed weakness. That shame doesn’t just lead to unhealthy sexual relationships (including between husbands and wives); it leaves too many men feeling like potential predators and too many women feeling as if they’re vain, shallow temptresses.
…While it would be absurd to deny any link between beauty and sexual desire, it’s even more preposterous (not to mention spiritually toxic) to assert the two are so inextricably linked they can’t be separated. A broken worldview that reduces human behavior down to a predictable set of gendered, inevitable physiological responses shouldn’t be the framework for a Christian discussion of beauty, desire and the longing for affirmation. If grace is real, it is strong enough to give us the capacity to distinguish the delight in gazing at beauty from obsessive lust. If grace is real, it is also strong enough to give us the capacity to distinguish between the longing to be validated as beautiful and the longing to cause another person to be overwhelmed by a desire so strong he or she forgets their commitments.
Too often, the Church talks about beauty and desire in ways that suggest the Church doesn’t believe grace is quite that real.
We must begin to believe and to teach that a man can look on a woman and a woman can look on a man with an appreciation of their attractiveness without sexually objectifying them. Beauty is not something to be feared and possessed, hidden or blamed but rather something to be celebrated and admired. When we start believing that and stop blaming women for men’s sin and vice versa; when we stop arbitrarily deciding when a woman is too attractive; when we stop separating boys and girls in Sunday school, youth group and college ministry; when we stop teaching men and women, boys and girls to to fear one another; when we stop teaching girls their bodies are a source of sin and shame; then we will begin the healing process.
Plumbing the depths
And
Exploring the edges
Makes
For questions
About
My salvation
Now
I know how Jesus must have felt
When
Confronted with the company he kept
Strange
It seems like the makings of family
Breathless
And trembling I gaze in the face of
Love
Imagining that this is what heaven is
Where
Everyone and everything is as it
Always
Should have been
For the last several weeks we have been going through the passages in the scriptures that have been used to condemn gay marriage, convince gay individuals that they need to “pray away the gay”, and sadly, by some to bully LGBT persons.
It is my contention that these verses have been either misinterpreted, misunderstood or misapplied.
I set out in the beginning that I read the Bible as a library of God inspired books that together tell the story of God and humanity. It is a collection of books that contain the truth as it was seen and told from different points in history in the ways and words of the people of that time and culture. God spoke in each era in a way that the people of that time could understand and apply. I believe that God revealed himself little by little, all the while drawing humanity into a more and more reconciled and connected relationship with him. The story of God with humanity in the Scriptures begins with a beautiful poem about the beginning of our story: God and individuals. As the story develops, Abraham & Sarah, Isaac & Rebecca and Jacob & Leah & Rachel are added along with the 12 Tribes of Israel: God and the Nation of Israel. Soon Jesus arrives on the scene and expands the story to include previously excluded or marginalized people and give them a voice and a place at the table: Gentiles, women, adulterers, drunks, tax collectors, prostitutes and all others: God and all of humanity. As it turns out God’s story has ALWAYS included ALL people and inviting them in. The blood of Christ covers all. His perfect love and sacrifice is enough for all sin for all time. As we like to say at Novitas, if you want to stand on a street corner with a big sign it should say, “Your sins are forgiven.” The forgiveness, grace, mercy and love of Jesus is big enough to include Pharisees and Homosexuals, Jews and Gentiles, Saints and Sinners.
You can read all the posts in this series at the following links:
Hilary Rosen, a DNC consultant, has insulted stay at home mothers everywhere by saying women like Ann Romney have “never worked a day” in their lives.
We have learned that women in the Obama White House are earning 18% less than their male counterparts while President Obama travels around the country condemning this very problem.
“You could argue that money is more important for men.” and “I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”
John Piper , influential pastor and author, posted, “When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.”
Of the 740,000 jobs lost since president Obama took office, women accounted for 683,000 of those jobs.
Ashley Juddhad took to the internet to decry the morbid fascination people have with women’s appearances and the glee they seem to have in picking them apart (especially other women). She wrote,
“Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.”
The “war on women” is not a war waged by Democrats vs. Republicans; Men vs. Women or Christian vs Atheist. It is not a war of gender or a war of politics. It is a war of ideas. It must be turned into a war, not on women but a war on patriarchy. According to dictionary.com:
pa·tri·arch·y [pey-tree-ahr-kee]
noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
As Ashley Judd so eloquently said, “Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate.” I know plenty of men who, armed with love, education and justice wage war against patriarchy. I also know all too many women who defend patriarchy even when it means the subjugation and abuse of themselves, their daughters and other women.
I know many, many patriarchalists, some of whom believe with all their hearts that it is the answer to all of societies ills and for whom if they were honest would admit that they would prefer it if we could roll the clocks back to when women occupied the private sphere and men the public. I do not doubt their sincerity, I do however disagree with them vehemently on the roles of women in the family, in society, in the workplace, in politics, in church and in every arena.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11 NKJV)
knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1Tim 1:9-10 NKJV)
Today we are looking at two passages together because they deal with the same concept and Greek words; malakoi and arsenokoitais. Let’s start with the 1 Timothy passage. Justin R. Cannon, an Episcopal Priest and the founder of Inclusive Orthodoxy, covered the topic so well I am going to simply share what he wrote in his article, The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality:
1 Timothy 1:8-10
“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…” (RSV)
Let us keep in mind that the word translated sodomites is the Greek word arsenokoitai. Our question right now should be, “What is this talking about?” In order to answer this question, we will begin by breaking up the phrase into its structural pairs. You will see these groupings reflected below in the English as well as the Greek. (The New Testament, by the way, was originally written in Greek)
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (ENGLISH, RSV)
A:
Lawless
and
disobedient
B:
Ungodly
and
sinners
C:
Unholy
and
profane
D:
Murders of fathers / murders of mothers / manslayers
E:
Immoral persons / sodomites / kidnappers
F:
Liars / perjurers / and whatever else
As we see in the English there seems to be a relationship between the words in each rows A, B, C, D, and F. What about row E, though? What do “immoral persons, sodomites, and kidnappers” have in common? To answer this question we will need to explore the Greek. The three Greek words present in line E are: pornoi (pornoiV), arsenokoitai (arsenokoitaiV), and andrapodistai (andrapodistaiV).
As we see there is no clear-cut agreement as to what these words mean, though the above translations agree on the general sense of such words. To determine the precise meanings, a lexicon will be used. A lexicon is a scholarly dictionary used to determine the meaning of biblical words. A search through the online Greek lexicon available at searchgodsword.org gives the following information on the Greek term pornos, which is the stem of the word pornoi, the first of the three words:
Pornos derives from the verb pernemi meaning “to sell” and the following three definitions are given:
a male who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
a male prostitute
a male who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
Andrapodistes, the stem of the word Andrapodistai, the third word, returns the following definitions:
slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
of one who unjustly reduces free males to slavery
of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.
Arsenokoitai, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could translate this as “male bedder.”
We should now be able to derive an exact understanding of the word arsenokoitai based on the two words that surround it. We have, first of all, the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. The New American Bible offers a footnote that might shed some light on the historical context of the time:
“The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamus…” (NAB)
There was a common practice in which men of Paul’s time would have slave “pet” boys whom they sexually exploited. These boys were prepubescent and without beards so they seemed like females. Today, this practice is referred to as pederasty. Regardless, however, the pornos is clearly a prostitute.
Keeping this in mind, let’s look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute, the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying, “male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them…” Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself.
If this translation of arsenokoitai is correct, it should also make logical sense where it is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, either confirming or refuting our understanding of this word.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (RSV)
The term translated “sexual perverts” in RSV is actually two different words. The first word is malakos, which is the singular form of the word malakoi, and the second term is arsenokoitai.
The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means “soft.” In Matthew 11:8 it has been used as an adjective in reference to clothing. In this text, however, it is used as a noun and its meaning is debated. Does our understanding of arsenokoitai as revealed in 1 Timothy 1:10 as “men who sleep with male-prostitutes” make sense next to this word malakos which is translated by both NIV and RSV as male prostitutes? The Jerusalem Bible even translates the term malakos as catamites, those young soft prepubescent “pet” boys mentioned earlier. The syntactical and historical context of 1 Timothy 1:10 reveals the meaning of the word arsenokoitai as men who sleep with prostitutes, and the fact this also fits the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems to confirm that we have found the meaning of these obscure words. It makes perfect sense that Paul would rebuke not only the prostitute, but also the “male-bedder” or the man who sleeps with that prostitute.
It is also worth noting that the second edition of Tyndale’s New Bible Commentary points out some people believe the Greek word arsenikoites, which some Bible translations say is homosexual, might be “restricted” to male prostitutes. Leon Morris, in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1 Corinthians observes, “The inclusion of idolaters may point us to the immorality of much heathen worship of the day.” Charles Errdman, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians indicates, “The practice of impurity formed a feature of idolatrous worship.”
The Catholic Study Bible also indicates that these verses may be in reference to religious prostitution or as a symbol of any sexual relationship that conflicts with Christ’s claim over us. These verses are a call to gay and straight Christians to maintain only relationships that strengthen their relationships with God. Any relationships, be they sexual or non-sexual, that weaken our bonds with Christ should be terminated. Relationships at work that harm our connection with God need to be changed.
In conclusion I believe that these scriptures are best explained by Rev. Cannon’s work which would have the 1 Timothy read like this,
Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…”
And the 1 Corinthians passage read like this,
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes or the men who sleep with them, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. (Matt 15:37-38)
Today, on this day that we celebrate the empty tomb and the risen Jesus, I am reminded of a torn curtain and the reconciliation that it represented.
The temple curtain that separated the most holy place and the presence of God from the people. No one was allowed in save the high priest once a year on the Day of Atonement, to offer the blood of sacrifice and incense before the mercy seat. It was a curtain woven together of selfishness, of hardheartedness and of pain. It was a reminder that no matter what we did, the gulf between human and divine was too much for us to span. Here is the thing though. God wasn’t satisfied with the state of our relationship. He didn’t want to be separated from us. He wanted to be with us. So Jesus came. He came to show God’s love for us. He came to save us not to condemn us. He came to set the captives free. He came to proclaim good news to the poor. He came to bring liberty to those who are oppressed.
Christmas came. Jesus was born. But the veil was still there.
He made water into wine and the veil was still there.
He healed a blind man, and a lame man, and the woman with the issue of blood and the veil was still there.
He forgave the sins of the woman caught in adultery, the lame man and the woman at the well and the veil was still there.
He cast demons out of a boy, and a woman and the man of the tombs and the veil was still there.
He raised Lazarus from the dead and the veil was still there.
But then, he did something the disciples didn’t understand, he said he had to go away.
He allowed himself to be crucified, he didn’t say a word in his own defense, he laid down his life on behalf of us, because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit wanted to be with us; to have communion with us; to live forever with us to be our God and make everything right for us.
On that dark day we call Good Friday, he gave up his life, and the earth shook and the sky went dark and the veil of the temple that kept us apart was torn top down. The veil was 4 inches thick. The veil weighed 4 tons. The veil took 300 men to carry it. The veil we couldn’t get beyond. He tore it in half from the top to the bottom. And so it was that the gulf that separated God and humanity, and humanity from creation and humanity from from each other. The torn curtain says your sins are forgiven. The torn curtain says love wins. The torn curtain says the price has been paid. The torn veil is also a reminder of the day that is coming when the final veil will be removed and the new heavens and the new earth will be joined forever in the presence of God and everything will be made right. This is the day when what Jesus began on Good Friday and continued on Resurrection Sunday will be completed with the tearing apart of the second veil.
Today is Good Friday. The day we set aside to remember the brutal slaying of the lover of our souls. The day our sin was heaped upon him and darkness covered the earth and then it happened.
Love won. The veil was torn in half that kept us out of the presence of God. Death and sin were defeated and forgiveness was purchased for everyone for all time. Grace won. Mercy won. Love won.
So how can it be then that this morning I am hearing about how Christian groups like Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Citizens for Community Values, Faith 2 Action, Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family and Save California are standing up and speaking out against The Day of Silence? How did we come to this? How did Christians become known by what they’re against instead of “by their love.” I am sad. I am disappointed. I am sorry.
The National Day of Silence is a day of action in which students across the country vow to take a form of silence to call attention to the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.
Given that according to bullyingstatistics.org, 9 out of 10 LBGT teens report being bullied at school and these students are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers, how can this be a bad thing and how in the name of all that is holy can anyone who claims to be a Christian be against it? In my humble opinion, the Christians should be the first people participating even if their theology says homosexuality is sinful. We are sent to bring reconciliation, to set the captives free, to love without an unless. We should be known for our love not our judgement, hypocrisy and homophobia. Sadly we are not. According to Barna, the vast majority of non-Christian people age 16-29 — 91% — said Christianity had an anti-gay image, followed by 87% who said it was judgmental and 85% who said it was hypocritical. And we wonder why young people are leaving the church.
What the Day of Silence does is ask kids to refuse to speak during instructional time in class, that they have no legal right to do and no school has to accommodate that, and so that’s what we’re doing is asking parents to call their school, ask if students are allowed to refuse to speak in instructional time, and if they are, to keep their kids home in protest about the disruption of instructional time for a political purpose.
This is FALSE. On the GLSEN site it unequivocally states:
While you DO have a right to participate in the Day of Silence between classes and before and after school, you may NOT have the right to stay silent during instructional time if a teacher requests for you to speak. According to Lambda Legal, “Under the Constitution, public schools must respect students’ right to free speech. The right to speak includes the right not to speak, as well as the right to wear buttons or T-shirts expressing support for a cause.” However, this right to free speech doesn’t extend to classroom time. “If a teacher tells a student to answer a question during class, the student generally doesn’t have a constitutional right to refuse to answer.” We remind participants that students who talk with their teachers ahead of time are more likely to be able to remain silent during class.
Sadly, this type of thing isn’t limited to Miss Higgins. These groups would have you believe that The Day of Silence as well as other anti-bullying rules and laws that specifically mention homosexuality are really not about protecting these kids from bullying but are more about a political agenda. They say that they are “of course” against bullying for any reason. I honestly think they believe that. Part of the problem here is that anti-gay bullying and homophobia will not end without education; without people recognizing that we are after all, all the same. And for the Christians specifically, that we are all image bearers of God, even homosexuals. It seems to me that they are afraid if their kids realize that these are people just like them, they might somehow become gay when they would have otherwise been heterosexual. If you look at the science this just isn’t so. What is so is that these are people who hurt and love and dream; people who have contributed to society in many positive ways; inventors and scientists, writers and philosophers, doctors and attorneys, politicians and professors, brick layers and bus drivers – just like the rest of us.
Not that long ago in our history the same type of eduction was needed during the civil rights movement. Today we take time out to recognize the great achievements of black Americans, women, Hispanics, Asian Americans and other formerly overlooked people. Why? Because as a society we recognize that we fear what we do not understand. Education removes fear; Fear that prevents us from loving our neighbor. Honestly, I am not sure what it is that these brothers and sisters are so afraid of; You cannot “catch” homosexuality.
Christian Groups in opposition to the Day of Silence have proposed a few options.
Truancy – Stay home and remove yourself from even being a part of the conversation.
Day of Dialogue (formerly Day of Truth sponsored by Focus on the Family) – This event takes place 2 days before the Day of Silence and is meant to be a day where “excellent opportunity for students to respectfully present a different viewpoint than the Day of Silence”
Day of the Golden Rule (This one I like) – Solution proposed by Warren Throckmorton and Michael Frey, I co-founded a bullying prevention initiative called the Golden Rule Pledge. We promote the application of the Golden Rule by evangelical youth as a means of preventing school bullying. They don’t stay away. They stay close. They say, even if I disagree with you I will love you. I will make sure school is a safe place for you. The Pledge states:
This is what I’m doing:
I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.
Will you join me in this pledge?
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).
So please, please on this Good Friday, let us not curse the silence. If you are a person like me, a Christian who believes that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and that people can be both practicing homosexuals and Christians, then, please, wholeheartedly participate in Day of Silence. But, if you are a person who disagrees with the objectives The Day of Silence, I implore you, don’t keep your children away. Don’t encourage fear or spread falsehoods. Encourage them to love their neighbor and participate in The Golden Rule Pledge. Everyone deserves to be safe at school. No one deserves to be bullied. They don’t want to make your child gay. They just want to be free to live their lives without persecution especially from the one group on earth who is supposed to be “known by their love.”
Lately my husband and I have been feeling overwhelmed and frankly a little burnt out. We believe very much in what we are doing at Novitas and know that there are people out there like us (even down here, or maybe especially down here in the heart of the Bible belt). People who desperately want church to be different. The question is, how do we find each other? That is a question we just don’t know the answer to. The good news, I suppose, is that several of us have managed to find one another on “The Island of Misfit Toys” as we affectionately call ourselves.
Several weeks ago, Kathy Escobar wrote a post entitled, Plant New Trees. I wrote a response piece that you can find here. I like to think that Novitas is the kind of “tree” she was talking about when she said,
plant new trees.
trees that have the roots of equality from the very beginning.
trees that gain nourishment from a free-er gospel and soil that is enriched with freedom and hope instead of fear and absolute certainty.
trees that have men and women and rich and poor and educated and uneducated and black and white and gay and straight all tangled up together from the beginning.
trees that are tended to gently and naturally instead of pumped with unnatural growth agents & pesticides that try to advance the progression of development to “catch up faster” to other churches that will always have the advantage of time and power on their side.
trees that get their strength from the beatitudes not the latest and greatest how-to-grow books and conferences.
trees that are well-watered by people who are tired of talk and are ready for action.
trees that over time will flourish and bring shade and fruit and all kinds of other goodness for generations to come in the communities & cultures where they are planted.
a diverse ecosystem of trees that more accurately reflect the fullness of God’s image.
There is no paid pastoral staff. Every one has a regular job. We plan to keep it that way. We pay our rent and then give the rest away. No one gets paid except Linda, our fantastic nursery worker and the people who babysit at our life groups.
We don’t own a building and we don’t plan to.
We don’t do programs and we don’t plan to.
We don’t feel like we need to control where people give their money. We ask that people give as they are moved to help us keep going and to help the people of our community, but we set them free to give to their neighbors and their friends who have needs as well as ministries and non profits that move them.
We don’t feel like we need to control people’s time. We gather Sunday mornings and in life groups once a week. We release people to give their time to organizations that need volunteers and to live their lives which is a sacred endeavor.
We do life together. Our youth comes to the main gathering and adult life group. We do not have gender specific groups or ministries.
To borrow from John Wimber, everyone gets to play. We believe that a person’s gifts make room for them. So we let people use the gifts God gave them and make every effort to help them develop those gifts.
We have a very flat leadership model. Our directional team consists currently of 4 men and 4 women and we make decisions together.
We believe in equality. Our speaking team is currently 2 women and 1 man (our amazing friend Eric just moved to FL or there would be 2 men). We believe that there is no function in the church reserved for males only. (check out CBEand the Willow Creek statement on men and women in ministry).
We welcome and value everyone; men and women, rich and poor, democrat and republican, gay and straight. (Our friends at RISE church have graciously allowed us to use this video from their AND campaign).
We have no problem with people asking hard questions and wrestling with their faith. We embrace discussion and debate.
We believe that God and science are like peanut butter and jelly; They belong together.
We affirm that all beauty is God’s beauty and all truth is God’s truth.
We reject the notion of sacred and secular and embrace the idea that all of life is a sacred pursuit. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
We affirm that humanity is beautiful and part of God’s design. We all bear his image and will be fully human for eternity in a new heavens and a new earth where everything will finally be right.
We like to say that we are a movement of people dedicated to loving God and caring for people, all people.
Bottom line, Kent and I love our Novitas family. We keep going because of them. We give all we are because of them. They are worth it. You are worth it.
Truth? I wish we had more people. Because we all need to know…
God came for us. He did not stay away, he came near. Not to condemn us, but to save us.
We are loved with no unless.
Our sins are forgiven. All of them.
There are people who want to know you, to be your family. There is a place where you don’t have to pretend anymore.
I love the new Bruce Springsteen album Wrecking Ball, especially the song Land of Hope and Dreams. It says in part,
Well this train
Carries saints and sinners
This train
Carries losers and winners
This train
Carries whores and gamblers
This train
Carries lost souls
This train
Dreams will not be thwarted
This train Faith will be rewarded
This train
Hear the steel wheels singing
This train
Bells of freedom ringing
If we are who God made us, Novitas will look like that; The Land of Hope, Dreams and Misfit Toys.
word of a woman 