Referenced Articles from the APSE Bible Study: The Apostle Paul
The Life of Jesus - The Life of Jesus is a 50 page study
available from APSE Ministries
The third president had a secret: his carefully edited
version of the New Testament 1
The Acts of Paul (and Thecla) 3
Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven? 5
Facts About The Ancient Roman Empire 8
Rome’s Bloodiest Emperors 12
Caligula 14
Evangelism and Apologetics Questions 13) What about
misogyny? And 81) Are women second class citizens? 19
Shut Up Woman! Explaining Thecla. 27
Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker 30
The Antichrist 33
What is the Significance of Corinth in the Bible. 34
Articles on Abortion
What the Bible actually says about abortion
may surprise you, et. al 36
Jews, outraged by restrictive abortion laws, are
invoking the Hebrew Bible in the debate 37
Want to Lower Abortion Rates?
Look to Canada’s Example. 42
Champion of the unborn 44
Hate Pastor Threatens to Kill Gay Pastors After
Same-Sex Couple Delivers Sermon 45
Bibletalk.TV Forbidden Topic
FORBIDDEN TOPICS 46
Anti-Trans Laws Linked to Trans Youth Suicide Attempts 54
Anti-LGBTQ+ Policies Across American Schools
Are Seriously Impacting Queer Youth 55
Forced Marriage 57
Conservatorship 61
Evangelism and Apologetics Question - The Bible and Divorce 64
The Invisible Romans by Guy de la Bedoyere. 66
Trapped in Servitude - Ancient Greek Slavery 70
What did Jesus Mean by “Upon this rock I will build
my church” in Matthew 16:18? 72
Is There a Christian Litmus Test? 74
Homosexuality in Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman Cultures
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT
ANCIENT GREECE 75
Homosexuality in the Roman Empire 75
Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity
Evangelism and Apologetics Questions 13)
What about homosexuality? 76
Six Biblical Passages That Discuss LGTBQ Issues 77
Marriage of a Couple Compared to Christ
and the Church 78
John 8:1-8 reinterpreted 78
What did Jesus teach? 79
Judging homosexuals: BEWARE (he without sin…) 79
Christian Doctrine by Shirley Guthrie 80
A thousand years ago, the Catholic Church
paid little attention to homosexuality 81
The American family moving to Russia to flee
‘moral decline’ of US - Opinion 84
The Bible verse proving anti-LGBT
Methodists have not truly read the Bible 86
What Does Romans 13 Mean?
What does Romans 13 mean? 87
Context Is Key to Interpreting Romans 13:1-7 88
NO, ROMANS 13 IS NOT ABOUT OBEYING
THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. 92
From PBS - Beliefs and Daily Lives of Muslims 94
Slavery and the Bible: Does the Christian Faith
condone slavery? 95
The Barmen Declaration 98
Learning from the Barmen Declaration of 1934:
Theological-Ethical-Political Commentary 100
1
The third president had a secret: his carefully edited version of the New Testament.
By Erin Blakemore. UPDATED:AUG 1, 2019 ORIGINAL:JUL 31, 2019 (from History)
Made for his private use and kept secret for decades, Jefferson’s 84-page Bible was the work of a man who spent much of his life grappling with, and doubting, religion.
A bible assembled by Thomas Jefferson from four different translations on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.
Prepared near the end of the ex-president’s life, the Jefferson Bible, as it is now known, included no signs of Jesus’s divinity. In two volumes, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth and The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Jefferson edited out biblical passages he considered over-the-top or that offended his Enlightenment-era sense of reason. He left behind a carefully condensed vision of the Bible—one that illustrated his own complex relationship with Christianity.
The book was kept private for a few reasons. Jefferson himself believed that a person’s religion was between them and their god. Religion is “a matter between every man and his maker, in which no other, & far less the public, [has] a right to intermeddle,” he wrote in 1813.
But there was another reason for Jefferson to keep his revised Bible private. In the early 19th century, taking a knife to the Bible was nothing less than revolutionary. If the book had been known, argues Mitch Horowitz, who edited a reissue of Jefferson’s book, “it likely would have become one of the most controversial and influential religious works of early American history.”
Jefferson’s editorial work happened in a United States that was deeply rooted in state-sponsored religion. Though many emigrants had come to America to flee religious persecution, laws about religious practice were part of pre-Revolutionary life. Even after the founding of the United States and the ratification of the First Amendment, states used public funds to pay churches and passed laws upholding various tenets of Christianity for over a century after the passage of the Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, for example, didn’t disestablish its official state religion, Congregationalism, until 1833.
Jefferson, a believer in rational thought and self-determination, had long spoken out against such laws while keeping his own views on religion fiercely private. In 1786, he wrote a Virginia law forbidding the state from compelling anyone to attend a certain church or persecuting them for their religious beliefs. The law unseated the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia. Jefferson was so proud of his accomplishment that he told his heirs he wanted it inscribed on his tombstone, along with his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the University of Virginia.
During his political career, Jefferson’s religious views—or lack thereof—drew fire from his fellow colonists and citizens. The Federalists charged him with atheism and rebellion against Christianity during the vicious 1800 election. Among them was Theodore Dwight, a journalist who claimed that Jefferson’s election would shoo in the end of Christianity itself. “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and
practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, the nation black with crimes,” he prophesied.
Jefferson continued to wrestle with his own views on Christianity after his presidential term ended. His personal correspondence often dealt with religion and religious freedom, and in 1820, when he was 77 years old, he began excising the portions of the New Testament he found unnecessary.
“Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor,” writes historian Edwin S. Gaustad, “Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus’ role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer.” Jefferson didn’t intend for the Bible to be read by others, Gaustad notes. “He composed it for himself,” he writes. “He cherished the diamonds.”
During Jefferson’s lifetime, few people knew about the former president’s revised Bible, which he willed to Martha Randolph, his eldest daughter. But in the 1880s, a Johns Hopkins University student, Cyrus Adler, found the cut-up books in a private library. When he learned they were Jefferson’s, he began a search for the book they became.
In 1895, Adler finally got access to Jefferson’s Bible. By that time, the first volume, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was lost. But Jefferson’s great-granddaughter agreed to sell the second volume, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, to the Smithsonian Institution.
Now the world knew about Jefferson’s private Bible, and from 1904 to the 1950s, incoming Senators received their own copy of the Bible. That practice ended once the government-sponsored printing ran out, but in the 1990s, economist Judd W. Patton revived the tradition, and began mailing it to each member of Congress. Today, Jefferson’s secret Bible is held by the Smithsonian Institution, which has digitized the book for anyone to read.
3
THE APOCRYPHAL
ACTS OF PAUL (and Thecla)
(THECLA – THE FIRST WOMEN’S LIBBER)
(Sources: The Apocryphal Jesus/The Great Courses by David Bakke, Ph.D.
Wikipedia and other various on-line resources)
The Background from the Acts of Paul (and Thecla):
The Acts of Paul and Thecla is a 2nd-century text (c. AD 180) which forms part of the Acts of Paul. It was also circulated separately. According to the text, Thecla was a young noble virgin from Iconium who listened to Paul's "discourse on virginity", espoused his teachings, and became estranged to both her fiancé, Thamyris, and her own mother. Thecla sat by her window for three days listening to Paul and his teachings. When her mother and fiancé witnessed this, they became concerned that Thecla would follow Paul's demand that "one must fear only one God and live in chastity", and turned to the authorities to punish both Paul and Thecla.
Thecla was miraculously saved from burning at the stake by the onset of a storm and traveled with Paul to Antioch of Pisidia. There, a nobleman named Alexander desired Thecla and attempted to rape her. Thecla fought him off, tearing his cloak and knocking his coronet off his head in the process. She was put on trial for assault. She was sentenced to be eaten by wild beasts but was again saved by a series of miracles. Female beasts (lionesses in particular) protected her against her male aggressors. While in the arena, she baptized herself by throwing herself into a nearby lake full of aggressive seals. Lightning killed the “killer seals.”
Thecla rejoined Paul in Myra, traveling to preach the word of God and becoming an icon. She encouraged women to imitate her by living a life of chastity and following the Word of God. She then went to live in Seleucia Cilicia, living in a cave there for 72 years according to some versions of Acts. Other versions say she spent the rest of her life in Maaloula, a village in Syria. She became a healer, performed many miracles, but remained constantly persecuted. The text reports as her persecutors were about to get her, she called out to God and a new passage was opened in the cave and the stones closed behind her. The passage and caves are still found in Maaloula and became a very important site for pilgrims. She was finally able to go to Rome and lie down beside Paul's tomb.
COMMENTS:
It is doubtful Thecla existed as a single person, but instead was an amalgamation of many women in Biblical history. It is known Paul did work with many female believers – Priscilla, Phoebe (Paul called her a servant or “deacon”, the same Greek word Paul used for Timothy), and Jania to name a few. Priscilla, Julia, and Nereus’s sister traveled as missionaries with their husbands. In promoting celibacy under Christianity, Thecla demonstrated a way for a woman in the First Century to escape her “required role” as child bearer of the family and to escape domination by her husband. She could be on her own and make her own decisions, certainly not the societal norm of the day.
(DESPITE THESE OPINIONS, THECLA HAS BEEN NAMED A SAINTE BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND A DAY OF CELEBRATION IS HELD FOR HER EACH YEAR ON SEPTEMBER 24.)
A theory arose that 1 and 2 Timothy were written to correct or dispel the lessons of the Acts of Paul even though the Timothy epistles (perhaps not written by Paul) were written BEFORE the Acts of Paul. The thought is the Acts of Paul were written later but relied on verbal stories in early Christianity that had survived for years. Hence, the Book of Timothy calls them “wives tales.”
The Acts of Paul adds to the debate on the role of women in the church AND the role of celibacy in the church AND in Christianity itself. Paul is basically anti-marriage in this book, although Paul admits marriage is OK in order to prevent lustful living. He adds church leaders should be celibate.
A contradiction to Timothy where he describes the church leaders as GOOD, FAITHFUL HUSBANDS OF BUT ONE WOMAN WITHOBEDIENT, BELIEVING CHILDREN!
Paul is also an ambiguous figure in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. He is seen as a preacher of asceticism (avoiding all forms of indulgence, sexual, etc.), but one with whom women are besotted (infatuated, intoxicated). His teachings lead Thecla into trouble, and yet he is never there when the trouble comes. This presentation of Paul as an ascetic preacher, discouraging marriage, appears to be very different from that of the Pastoral Epistles. For instance, 1st Timothy 4:1–3 has Paul explicitly condemning anyone who forbids marriage. However, 1st Corinthians 7 is more ambivalent about marriage, saying that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1). This text has been interpreted as ideologically closer to Paul and Thecla. In any event, The Acts of Paul and Thecla indicates one possible understanding of Paul's legacy in the second century.
Was Paul misogynistic or were these epistles added to reset the church somehow, define order in a church that was struggling or that was deemed by leaders (men) to assure the leadership would REMAIN by men?
Seems so. This presentation says women should maintain headcoverings because they were inferior to men. Man came from God. Woman came to serve man.
Also Paul separates woman from man – a woman has long hair and should keep it long. A man should have short hair to distinguish him from the (inferior) female.
As for women speaking:
Women are to stay quiet in the church. Was Priscilla? Was Phoebe? Probably not.
In the Acts of Paul the apostle Paul actually commissions Thecla to travel and spread the Gospel. She offered to and probably did cut her hair to travel like a man, not to pretend to be a man in order to preach, but in order to travel more safely.
Additionally, as stated above, Paul did work with many female believers – Priscilla, Phoebe (Paul called her a servant or “deacon”, the same greek word Paul used for Timothy), and Junia to name a few. Priscilla, Junia, and Nereus’ sister traveled as missionaries with their husbands. Think THEY kept quiet???
5
Is Jesus the only way to heaven?
What did Jesus mean when He said,
“I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6)?
“I am the way and the truth and the life” is one of the seven “I Am” statements of Jesus. On the last night before His betrayal and death, Jesus was preparing His disciples for the days ahead. For over three years, these men had been following Jesus and learning from His teaching and example. They had placed their hopes in Him as the Messiah, the promised deliverer, yet they still didn’t understand how He was going to accomplish that deliverance. After the Last Supper, Jesus began speaking about His departure, which led to questions from His disciples.
In John 13:33, Jesus said, “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.” This prompted Peter to ask where He was going (verse 36). Peter and the others did not understand that Jesus was speaking of His death and ascension to heaven. Jesus’ response was, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.” Peter was still misunderstanding and declared that he would follow Jesus anywhere and even lay down His life if necessary. As Jesus patiently continued to teach His disciples, He began speaking more plainly about heaven, describing the place He was going to prepare for them (John 14:2–3). Then Jesus said, “You know the way to the place where I am going” (verse 4). Speaking for the others, Thomas said they did not know where He was going, so how could they know how to follow Him there? It was in answer to this question that Jesus uttered one of the seven famous “I am” statements.
I am – In the Greek language, “I am” is a very intense way of referring to oneself. It would be comparable to saying, “I myself, and only I, am.” Several other times in the Gospels we find Jesus using these words. In Matthew 22:32 Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6, where God uses the same intensive form to say, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” In John 8:58, Jesus said, “Truly, truly I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.” The Jews clearly understood Jesus to be calling Himself God because they took up stones to stone Him for committing blasphemy in equating Himself with God. In Matthew 28:20, as Jesus gave the Great Commission, He gave it emphasis by saying, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” When the soldiers came seeking Jesus in the garden the night before His crucifixion, He told them, “I am he,” and His words were so powerful that the soldiers fell to the ground (John 18:4–6). These words reflect the very name of God in Hebrew, Yahweh, which means “to be” or “the self-existing one.” It is the name of power and authority, and Jesus claimed it as His own.
The way – Jesus used the definite article to distinguish Himself as “the only way.” A way is a path or route, and the disciples had expressed their confusion about where He was going and how they could follow. As He had told them from the beginning, Jesus was again telling them (and us) “follow me.” There is no other path to heaven, no other way to the Father. Peter reiterated this same truth years later to the rulers in Jerusalem, saying about Jesus, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The exclusive nature of the only path to salvation is expressed in the words “I am the way.”
The truth – Again Jesus used the definite article to emphasize Himself as “the only truth.” Psalm 119:142 says, “Your law is the truth.” In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded His listeners of several points of the Law, then said, “But I say unto you . . .” (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44), thereby equating Himself with the Law of God as the authoritative standard of righteousness. In fact, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1) is the source of all truth.
The life – Jesus had just been telling His disciples about His impending death, and now He was claiming to be the source of all life. In John 10:17–18, Jesus declared that He was going to lay down His life for His sheep, and then take it back again. He spoke of His authority over life and death as being granted to Him by the Father. In John 14:19, He gave the promise that “because I live, you also will live.” The deliverance He was about to provide was not a political or social deliverance (which most of the Jews were seeking), but a true deliverance from a life of bondage to sin and death to a life of freedom in eternity.
In these words, Jesus was declaring Himself the great “I Am,” the only path to heaven, the only true measure of righteousness, and the source of both physical and spiritual life. He was staking His claim as the very God of Creation, the Lord who blessed Abraham, and the Holy One who inhabits eternity. He did this so the disciples would be able to face the dark days ahead and carry on the mission of declaring the gospel to the world. Of course, we know from Scripture that they still didn’t understand, and it took several visits from their risen Lord to shake them out of their disbelief. Once they understood the truth of His words, they became changed people, and the world has never been the same.
So how do we follow Him today? The same way the disciples did long ago. They heard the words of Jesus and believed them. They took His words and obeyed them. They confessed their sins to Jesus as their Lord and God. They believed that He died to take the punishment of their sins and rose from the dead to give them new life. They followed His example and command to tell others the truth about sin, righteousness, and judgment. When we follow Him in “the way,” we can be assured of following Him all the way to heaven.
Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?
Got question.org
Yes, Jesus is the only way to heaven. Such an exclusive statement may confuse, surprise, or even offend, but it is true nonetheless. The Bible teaches that there is no other way to salvation than through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He is not a way, as in one of many; He is the way, as in the one and only. No one, regardless of reputation, achievement, special knowledge, or personal holiness, can come to God the Father except through Jesus.
Jesus is the only way to heaven for several reasons. Jesus was “chosen by God” to be the Savior (1 Peter 2:4). Jesus is the only One to have come down from heaven and returned there (John 3:13). He is the only person to have lived a perfect human life (Hebrews 4:15). He is the only sacrifice for sin (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:26). He alone fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). He is the only man to have conquered death forever (Hebrews 2:14–15). He is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only man whom God has “exalted . . . to the highest place” (Philippians 2:9).
Jesus spoke of Himself as the only way to heaven in several places besides John 14:6. He presented Himself as the object of faith in Matthew 7:21–27. He said His words are life (John 6:63). He promised that those who believe in Him will have eternal life (John 3:14–15). He is the gate of the sheep (John 10:7); the bread of life (John 6:35); and the resurrection (John 11:25). No one else can rightly claim those titles.
The apostles’ preaching focused on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Peter, speaking to the Sanhedrin, clearly proclaimed Jesus as the only way to heaven: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul, speaking to the synagogue in Antioch, singled out Jesus as the Savior: “I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin” (Acts 13:38–39). John, writing to the church at large, specifies the name of Christ as the basis of our forgiveness: “I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name” (1 John 2:12). No one but Jesus can forgive sin.
Eternal life in heaven is made possible only through Christ. Jesus prayed, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). To receive God’s free gift of salvation, we must look to Jesus and Jesus alone. We must trust in Jesus’ death on the cross as our payment for sin and in His resurrection. “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22).
At one point in Jesus’ ministry, many of the crowd were turning their backs on Him and leaving in hopes of finding another savior. Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” (John 6:67, ESV). Peter’s reply is exactly right: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68–69, ESV). May we all share Peter’s faith that eternal life resides only in Jesus Christ.
Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.
8
Facts About The Ancient Roman Empire
May 8, 2024 | 2:40 PM (From a BuzzNet article but supported by many historical sources.)
The smell of the city is strong and foul as you make your way down Trajan’s Market. The narrow streets are hot and overcrowded with soldiers supervising, civilians running errands, and the aristocracy taking a stroll in their expensive togas.
All around you peddlers and customers are squabbling and negotiating prices. Amidst all of the commotion, you can still hear the roars from the Colosseum as another gladiator meets a violent end. Welcome to Ancient Rome. While most people have a basic understanding of Ancient Rome, take a deeper look into the culture that’s credited with shaping the Western World.
Ancient Romans Were Ahead Of Their Time
It may appear that folks of the Roman Empire hardly batted an eye towards same-gender marriage. Emperor Nero who reigned for 13 years during the Roman Empire, married two men during his reign.
During the Saturnalia, Nero married Pythagoras, a freedman under his rule. Nero acted as the wife in the ceremony during this marriage. Of course, Nero did marry some women, but after horribly murdering one of them, he took a young boy named Sporus as his new wife. Sporus evidently resembled the murdered wife in appearance. Nero even had Sporus castrated to make him more womanlike.
Caligula often appeared in women’s clothing, evidently a transvestite.
Emperor Claudius’ third wife, Valeria Messina, was a nymphomaniac.
Homosexuality in Ancient Rome - (Wikipedia)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active / dominant / masculine and passive / submissive / feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, so they were excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome.
Same-sex relations among women are far less documented and, if Roman writers are to be trusted, female homoeroticism may have been very rare, to the point that Ovid, in the Augustine era describes it as "unheard-of". However, there is scattered evidence—for example, a couple of spells in the Greek Magical Papyri—which attests to the existence of individual women in Roman-ruled provinces in the later Imperial period who fell in love with members of the same sex.
Roman Life Expectancy
Although Rome was extremely technologically advanced, that doesn’t mean that the living conditions of the commoners or the city were anywhere close to being sanitary. This led historians to believe that the life expectancy in Ancient Rome was probably around 25 to 40 years old. However, this is a massive misconception because that is the average lifespan of the population, not the expectancy of the individual.
Ancient Rome had an incredibly high child mortality rate with half of the children dying before they were ten years old. However, if you did live past ten, you were expected to live a long life. Another factor that brought the average down was men in military service and women that died during childbirth.
Reclining And Dining Was The Way
Romans didn’t like to eat at the table. They usually enjoyed their meals lying down and eating with their hands — if they could afford to. Typically only the wealthier Romans who enjoyed their meals in such a relaxed state and even then, it was mainly men.
Women weren’t really invited to nice banquets and when they were, they still had to eat sitting upright. Eventually, customs changed to allow upper-class women to enjoy fancy lying-down meals. Enjoying a lavish meal in this manner was a way to show off your wealth in those days.
Atheists Of The Ancient World
Inhabitants of the Roman Empire had a variety of gods and goddesses, but there were people back then who would be considered early Christians. Ironically, these people were considered atheists by the ancient Romans because they didn’t pay tribute (or money?) to any of the pagan gods.
But their refusal to acknowledge traditional pagan gods wasn’t the only reason early Christians were considered atheists. These Christians didn’t really practice an organized religion, had no temples or shrines, and no priests. As a result, these people were ostracized from society as salacious rumors regarding their lives would often float around.
It Wasn’t Good To Be Left-Handed
Although being left-handed today is more of an inconvenience rather than an actual problem, in Ancient Rome, that wasn’t the case. People that were left-handed were considered to be unfortunate or even wicked by their right-handed counterparts. Those who were left-handed were held in suspicion by others because they were also believed to be deceitful people.
Although some people claim that left-handed Romans were held in high regard, this is false. The prejudice against left-handed individuals was so strong that the Ancient Romans began to wear their wedding rings on their left hand’s third finger to avoid sin from lefties.
Fathers Could Sell Their Kids
Ancient Roman dads definitely put their kids to work and that included selling them into slavery. The arrangement, however, was kind of like a lease since the buyer had to return the kid at a certain point.
Fathers did this all the time apparently, but there were limits. You could only lease off your kid as a slave up to three times. If you tried to do it any more than that, you’d be considered an unfit father and therefore, your kid would earn emancipation from you. This is why it was helpful to have more than one kid, so you could lease off each one at least twice.
Wives Took A Three-Day Vacation To Avoid Becoming Property
Wives in the Roman Empire had to be vigilant enough to leave their homes for three days in the year. The “usucapio” laws dictated how long you could possess something before it was legally yours. These laws also applied to humans.
If a wife stayed in her house for a whole year then she legally became her husband’s property. Luckily, women were somewhat entitled to their freedom, so many of them left their homes for three consecutive days to avoid becoming their husband’s property.
Women Were Publicly Shamed For Having Affairs
No one likes to be cheated on, but it happens, even in Ancient Rome. If a man cheated on his wife, the wife couldn’t do anything about it but cry. However, if a woman cheated on her husband, she got the ultimate punishment.
According to some sources, the husband would lock up his wife with her lover. He’d then have about a day to call up everyone he could so that they could come to check out the guy she cheated with. Then, the husband made a public declaration about the affair, providing as many details as possible before he was legally obligated to divorce her.
There Was Less Income Inequality Than There Is In Modern-Day America
According to some historians, the wealth in Ancient Rome was spread out more evenly than it is in the present-day U.S. Research shows that Ancient Rome’s top one percent of earners only controlled 16% of society’s wealth. These days in the U.S., the top one percent control 40% of the country’s wealth.
While studies have shown that this inequality is what helped the expanse of the empire, it is also part of what ultimately led to the fall of the Roman Republic. As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, eventually Julius Caesar came along and put an end to all of it.
Ancient Romans Thought Early Christians Were Cannibals
As we’ve learned, the refusal of early Christians to acknowledge the Romans’ traditional pagan gods meant that they were considered to be atheists. It turns out that the Romans also had another negative impression of Christianity.
The ancient Romans believed that Christians were cannibals! This stems from the fact that they “drank” Christ’s blood and ate of his body during their communion services. The early Christians invited Roman authorities to come and observe their communion practices to prove that they weren’t literally eating human beings or drinking blood.
Slavery Was A Big Part Of Life In Ancient Rome
Slavery was an unfortunate but important part of Ancient Rome’s economy. One estimate is that slaves accounted for 10–15% of the total population of the Empire. It was the most widespread between the Second Punic War to the 4th century CE.
As PBS has reported, “Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race. Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory.” It’s also worth repeating that it was not rare for people to sell their children into slavery during desperate times.
Rome’s First Christian Emperor Ended The Practice Of Gladiatorial Combat
Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, brought an end to the gladiatorial games in 325. Under his rule, he declared that the violence of the games was unnecessary at a “time of civil and domestic peace.”
Nevertheless, some historians argue that another reason for the games coming to an end was that Rome was fighting fewer wars, and therefore had fewer prisoners to force to fight as gladiators. Unfortunately, for those slaves serving as gladiators during the time of Constantine’s decree, they remained slaves and were forced to work in the Empire’s mines.
14
Rome’s Bloodiest Emperors
BBC History Magazine - Three of Rome’s Bloodiest Emperors Reigned During the Times of Jesus and the Apostle Paul
1. TIBERIUS. (Ruled AD 14–37)
Tiberius was the successor to Augustus, but Augustus did not particularly want Tiberius to succeed him. In fact, it was only the untimely deaths of the emperor’s grandsons Gaius and Lucius – and Augustus’s decision to exile their younger brother, Agrippa Postumus – that put Tiberius in line for the imperial throne.
Tiberius was a gifted military commander and respected the authority of the Senate. However, he had a gloomy and increasingly suspicious outlook that won him few friends and led him into a bitter dispute with Agrippina – the widow of his war hero nephew, Germanicus. Fatally, Tiberius relied heavily on the ambitious and ruthless administrator, Aelius Sejanus, who instituted a reign of terror until Tiberius, learning that Sejanus planned to seize power himself, had him arrested and executed.
Tiberius then sank into a state of dangerous suspicion, distrusting everyone around him. He retreated to the island of Capri, revived the ancient accusation of maiestas (treason) and used it to sentence to death anyone he suspected. Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus painted a picture of Tiberius living on Capri as a depraved sexual predator. This may owe more to colourful imagination than to fact – but he did make use of a sheer drop into the sea to dispose of anyone he took issue with. Tiberius was not a monster in the mould of some of his successors, but he certainly set the tone for what was to come.
NOTES: Tiberius revived an ancient law surrounding treason, then used it as a convenient way of ridding himself of anyone he didn't like.
“Tiberius made use of a sheer drop into the sea to dispose of anyone he took issue with.”
2. GAIUS Aka Caligula. (Ruled AD 37–41)
Gaius (known as ‘Caligula’, meaning ‘little bootee’ – a childhood nickname given him by his father’s troops) – is perhaps best known for a series of downright strange actions, such as declaring war on the sea and proclaiming himself a god. His reign actually began quite promisingly, but after a serious bout of illness, Caligula developed a paranoia that led him into alarmingly erratic behaviour – possibly including incest with his sister, Julia Drusilla, whom he named as his heir.
Caligula took particular delight in humiliating the Senate, claiming that he could make anyone consul, even his horse (though, contrary to the popular story, he didn’t actually go through with this). As the son of Germanicus, a prominent general, Caligula was keen to establish his military credentials. However, his campaign in Germany achieved little, and his abortive invasion of Britain had to be turned into a battle with the sea god, Neptune. He is said to have told his troops to attack the waves with their swords and gather seashells as booty.
Caligula declared himself a god and used his ‘divine status’ to establish what was, in effect, an absolutist monarchy in Rome. He followed Tiberius’s example of using treason trials to eliminate enemies, real or imagined. But in the end, it was the emperor’s rather childish taunting of Cassius Chaerea, a member of the Praetorian Guard, that brought him down. Chaerea arranged for Caligula’s assassination at the Palatine Games. He apparently protested that he couldn’t be killed because he was an immortal god, but he turned out to be rather less immortal than he thought
NOTES: Caligula's claims to godliness didn't prove to be much protection from his peeved Praetorian guardsman. The guardsman killed him.
Nero kicked his lover, Poppaea, to death.
3. NERO. (Ruled AD 54–68)
Nero is the Roman emperor we all love to hate, and not without reason. He was actually a competent administrator and benefitted from the aid of some very able men, including his tutor – the writer Seneca. However, Nero was also unquestionably a murderer, starting with his step-brother Britannicus, with whom he had been supposed to share power. He then masterminded the death of his own wife, Octavia – after deserting her for his lover, Poppaea, Nero then had Octavia executed on a trumped-up charge of adultery.
Probably on Poppaea’s prompting, Nero had his own mother murdered, but his initial attempt – making use of a collapsible boat – went wrong, and she had to be beaten to death instead. He also snuffed out Poppaea’s life himself, repeatedly kicking her in a fit of anger while she was pregnant with his child.
Contrary to the myth, Nero did not start the Great Fire of Rome; neither did he ‘fiddle’ (nor even play the lyre), while the city burned. In fact, he organised relief work for its victims and planned the rebuilding. But Nero’s fondness for his own music and poetry, which made him force senators to sit through his own interminable and talentless recitals, meant people could easily believe it of him.
Nero was much hated for building his huge, tasteless ‘golden house’ complex (aka the Domus Aurea, a large landscaped portico villa) in the ruins of what had been the public area of central Rome. He undoubtedly persecuted Christians in large numbers, and his infantile insistence on winning the laurels at the Olympic Games in Greece – whether or not he actually won, or indeed finished the race – brought the empire into disrepute.
Nero was eventually toppled by an army revolt that spiralled out of control, becoming a destructive three-way civil war.
NOTES:
Nero kicked his lover, Poppaea, to death.
Nero gave the command for his mother to be murdered in a complex sea accident. When that didn’t work, he opts for a blunter approach: he has her beaten to death.
CALIGULA: WAS HIS TYRANNY ALL IN THE MIND?
The story of Caligula has long been about the corruption of absolute power, murderous madness and sexual perversion, but Philip Matyszak reveals how the Roman emperor’s reputation is far more seductive than the mundane reality
The Roman Empire produced some spectacularly bad emperors over the centuries. There was the brutally egotistical Commodus, who moonlighted as a gladiator in the Colosseum, and the bizarre Elagabulus, who dressed in women’s clothing and got about the Palatine in chariots pulled by slave girls. Then there was Nero, whose orgies and tyrannical excesses were notorious.
No list of Rome’s worst emperors would be complete, though, without Caligula. Everybody knows, after all, of how he threw obscene orgies, had sex with his sisters and was an ingenious and sadistic torturer. And, of course, he was stark, raving mad. Yet most of what we think we know about Caligula comes from accounts (both ancient and modern) based on the authors’ highly active imaginations, rather than historical record.
It is true that few lives have come close to the absolute heights and profound depths Caligula experienced in just 25 years. He was the youngest son of Germanicus, the rising star of the imperial dynasty, and part of a revered family, which combined celebrity glamour with monarchy and a cult of personality.
As the youngest in this Roman pantheon, he was the ‘chick’, the darling, the mascot. The name Caligula, or ‘Little Boots’, came from adoring soldiers to whom Germanicus liked to display his son dressed as a miniature Roman legionary. Uncomfortable with the moniker, Caligula later insisted on the given name he shared with a famous ancestor – Gaius Julius Caesar. (Many historians today use Gaius rather than the sensational alter ego of Caligula.)
Caligula’s childhood idyll ended when his father apparently contracted a lethal dose of malaria in Egypt and died in the province of Syria, certain to the last that he had been poisoned. Almost the entire population of Rome turned out to receive his ashes, but significantly the emperor Tiberius was not present.
Germanicus’s sons were potential successors to the emperor, making the family a threat to Tiberius’s second-in-command, the sinister Sejanus, who had ambitions of his own. By now, Tiberius was elderly and had withdrawn to his villa in Capri, leaving much of the governance of Rome to Sejanus.
Yet Sejanus could do nothing against his rivals while their protector Livia, the mother of Tiberius, was still alive. It was only after her death in AD 29 that Caligula’s mother and his two older brothers were arrested. The mother was flogged so badly that she lost an eye, and died soon afterwards (or was killed) in exile. Caligula’s brother Drusus was deliberately starved in his imprisonment until, in his hunger, he tried to eat the stuffing from his mattress. The other brother avoided a similar fate by taking his own life.
Before Sejanus could move against Caligula, however, he himself was executed when Tiberius awoke to the treachery of his scheming subordinate. Caligula, the last surviving son of Germanicus, was appointed the imperial heir and ordered to live with Tiberius in Capri.
The next six years were stressful beyond belief for Caligula. The biographer Suetonius tells us that he was scrutinised day and night for any signs of disaffection or hints of disloyalty, deliberate or unintentional. Let’s not forget that this was an era when a senator could be put to death for going to the toilet while wearing a ring with the emperor’s portrait.
FROM MASTER TO MADMAN
Caligula went to bed every night wondering if he would be woken in the small hours and taken to the cells for summary execution. Even as Tiberius lay dying, the capricious emperor could have abruptly appointed a different successor, which would have meant certain death for Caligula as no other emperor could tolerate his claim to the empire.
Once Tiberius died, Caligula went literally overnight from a near-hostage to the acknowledged master of Rome. His return to the city was welcomed with wild enthusiasm. Soon afterwards, he had a nervous breakdown. In an age familiar with post-traumatic stress we should perhaps expect this. As veteran soldiers will testify, the true psychological impact is felt only upon returning to normalcy and safety, then experiencing utter alienation from others who have not shared the same experience. Caligula’s collapse left him bed-ridden in delirium while an anxious Rome prayed for his recovery. Ancient biographers report that he arose from his sickbed as a madman.
The truth proved to be worse though. Caligula, ruler of Rome, had been out of action for weeks – and nothing had happened. The provinces had been governed as usual, the Senate met and passed decrees and the praetorian prefects administered justice. The empire had gone peacefully about its business. The way that the imperial system functioned meant that Rome did not actually need a hands-on ruler.
Caligula was not really necessary and, to someone with his upbringing, ‘unnecessary’ meant ‘disposable’. As a headstrong young man with a survival instinct ingrained across every fibre of his being, Caligula set about rectifying what he saw as an unacceptable situation. He would make himself necessary, and make the Senate and the people of Rome dependant on his rule. It ended up being a flawed and fatal strategy, but it followed logically from Caligula’s life experience to date.
SENATE STRANGLEHOLD
He immediately jettisoned the example of his immediate predecessors, who had carefully pretended to work through the senate, even while slaughtering individual senators. By explicitly taking direct control of the empire, Caligula was not only ahead of his time, he was declaring war on the Senate. Therefore, Caligula’s reign is not about the antics of a young madman, but the story of a political struggle for supremacy – a story told by the victors, for whom libel laws were non-existent and the truth optional.
The last ruler of Rome to openly place himself above the Senate was Caligula’s namesake, Gaius Julius Caesar, and the Ides of March shows what they thought of that. Nevertheless, Caligula elevated himself above the senate by declaring himself a God. Later, that was less unusual – the emperor Domitian entitled himself Master and God – but at the time this seemed blasphemous and bizarre.
Even in Caligula’s time, it was not unprecedented. In the Greek east, rulers were almost routinely deified, and the divine status of the Egyptian pharaohs had been adopted by their Macedonian successors. Caligula awarding himself the same status in Rome was only insane in the sense that it was a political gambit certain to fail.
Caligula the God had the support of the people and the army, but was a political neophyte with a personality totally unsuited to fighting a senate of ruthless fixers hardened by savage, often fatal, political battles. Senators had connections, clients and a hidden grip on the levers of power. Both sides in this struggle used any and all means at their disposal, but it was Caligula who was outmatched.
One of the weapons of the senate was propaganda. Here, a comment by the great orator Cicero is revealing: “I call this man a gladiator, not as the usual rhetorical insult, but because he really was one.” In other verbal attacks, Cicero labelled opponents as arsonists, patricides (even those with living fathers!), pathics, coprophiliacs and murderers, and even claimed – with no proof whatsoever – that one man killed children to use their organs in necromantic rites. In Roman political invective, mud was hurled with gleeful disregard for the truth, just to see what would stick.
As for Caligula, the senate seized upon his claim of divinity and interpreted it as madness. They twisted every action of an emperor who was in any case young, headstrong and thoughtless, and simply invented other cases. Even the fact that his wife loved him was seen as evidence of his madness (he allegedly threatened to torture her to discover why). Caligula was also a loving father, but apparently only because his child shared his sadistic inclinations, which excused Caligula’s eventual murderers bashing the toddler’s brains out against a wall.
MANIACAL MYTHS
Staying with family relations, the biographer Suetonius reports that Caligula enjoyed sex with his sisters during banquets while appalled guests looked on. Yet Suetonius wrote a century later, when the legend of Caligula as a lunatic had been well established. By then, some believed he had become a sex-crazed madman because his wife had overdosed him with a love potion. Since much of the detail of Caligula’s mental state comes from Suetonius, the claim of incest merits further examination.
The historian Tacitus was born 15 years after Caligula died. Unlike Suetonius, he scrupulously reports allegations as just that – allegations rather than fact – and he does not mention any such dinner party entertainment. Nor does the philosopher – and senator – Seneca, who actually knew Caligula. Both writers do not shy away from the topic, but mention Caligula’s sister Agrippina in connection with incest only with her uncle and son, not her brother.
As to Caligula’s murderous side, there is a definite shortage of victims. While Suetonius is fond of saying the emperor had people slaughtered by the dozen, he is curiously reticent about naming them. Other writers, such as Appian and Plutarch, meticulously document the senators killed in the much bloodier purges of Sulla and the Triumvirs.
Caligula did order the execution of Tiberius’s son and his Praetorian prefect Macro (who appeared set on emulating Sejanus in ambition), as well as his cousin, the king of Mauritania. But most of his other victims are dubious, like the gladiator who died of an infected wound after Caligula had visited him. So in all there are less than a dozen names. Compare this to hundreds killed by Augustus, dozens by Tiberius, and many more by Nero and Claudius, with most of their high-ranking victims carefully named.
As there is insufficient space to refute every allegation of Caligula’s madness, two examples must suffice. The first is Philo’s account of a meeting with Caligula. He and a group of ambassadors had travelled from Egypt to complain about the provincial governor, but Caligula was inspecting some mansions he had ordered so the unfortunate ambassadors had to run after him from room to room. Finally, Caligula ordered the breathless delegation to present their case.
Philo reckons he was dealing with a lunatic, yet this deranged conduct led to a rehearsed hours-long speech being compressed into a five-minute synopsis, after which Caligula decided in the delegation’s favour. He also inspected his buildings while he was at it.
DAMNED BY HISTORY
Secondly, we are told that early in his reign Caligula had a sudden impulse to visit the army in Germany and dashed to the frontier with none of the usual preparations. Once there, he decided to kill the army commander and various soldiers. In truth, that commander was a general of suspect loyalty whom Tiberius had earlier ordered to Rome. The general knew he faced execution on arrival there, so replied that if he came he would bring his army; he then remained in Germany. Caligula’s sudden arrival caught him flat-footed and he was executed before rallying allies, whom Caligula subsequently purged. The move was bold, ruthless and decisive, but not necessarily insane.
After Caligula’s assassination four years after he took power, it became even more urgent to stress that he had been mad – he was still popular with the people and army despite his war with the Senate. The new emperor Claudius was insecure in his position and the senate eager to justify Caligula’s killing – so, without Caligula present to retaliate, the damning of his name proceeded without restraint.
CONFIRMING CALIGULA’S ROTTEN REPUTATION
Sometimes we only hear what we want to hear. When people start with an idea they want to be true, they may downplay or reinterpret anything that disagrees with it and enthusiastically accept anything that helps confirm it. (Anyone who has been wildly in love and later disillusioned will know this phenomenon.) Until the concept was given its more scientific-sounding name – confirmation bias – this tendency would be described by the cynical saying, “Give a dog a good name and bless it, give a dog a bad name and hang it”.
Thanks to Suetonius, confirmation bias has shaped our view of Caligula. Why did he commit his atrocities? Because he was mad. How do we know he was mad? Because he committed atrocities. Once we break confirmation bias, other motives become apparent. But then we have a mundane political power struggle, when we secretly prefer the delicious horror of an empire (safely distant from us) ruled by a sex-crazed, murderous tyrant.
DID CALIGULA REALLY MAKE HIS HORSE A CONSUL?
Caligula had a favourite racehorse named Incitatus (The Swift). He gave the animal regular treats and a stable made from marble. Soldiers were ordered to hush the neighbourhood when the horse was sleeping. “It is even said he planned to make the horse a consul.” All the above comes from Suetonius. When even he repeats something as hearsay, it is time to be very wary.
Instead, the consul story has become part of the Caligula myth. In Robert Graves's novel I, Claudius, Caligula makes the horse a senator, with the intention of making it a consul later, while in Lloyd C Douglas's book The Robe he actually does the deed. In reality, he did not. Perhaps he publicly quipped that even his horse would make a better consul than the present incumbents, and the senate propaganda machine took it from there. It is also possible that Caligula did seriously contemplate making his horse a consul, but as a way of demeaning the senate. Nero later tried to demean senators by making them fight as gladiators and by prostituting their wives.
19
Evangelism and Apologetics
Question 13) What about misogyny?
Question 81) Are women second class citizens?
(Various notes from APSE Studies)
APSE Ministries began as an exploration of questions. We have heard church positions for years. Where did they come from? The Bible? Tradition? History? The easy way is to take them at face value. Our leaders have done the studying for us. All we need to do is follow them. No need for us to study. No need for us to question. No need for us to think. No need for us to trust and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I decided to question. Ask. Pray. Study. Embrace. 13) and 18) are two of the topics I wanted to know more about.
13) What about misogyny?
Why male superiority? Genesis 3:16 I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing…, Your desire will be for your husband and HE WILL RULE OVER YOU.
Numbers 30 is about vows. And now relegates a woman not back to a second class citizen, but about a fifth class citizen. Men make the decisions. See read the entire Bible: Numbers 30.
Women as property of men. Deuteronomy 21:10 Marrying a captive woman. When you win a battle and you see a hot woman (vs. 11) and want her for your own wife (add to your harem?), take her home, shave her head, clean her nails, set aside her clothes. Give her a month to mourn her parents (whom you may have killed), then check her out and see if you still want her. If you decide, nah, never mind, you must let her go as a free woman since you dishonored her. She, obviously having no rights, would be at your mercy. Maybe wanting you since you then have to take care of her and she has no family and is dishonored, or maybe not since she probably hates your guts. (IMHO…)
Sexual Complimentarity – John Piper if women are elders and pastors then there is no difference between man and woman, hence homosexuality is ok.
Prohibiting women in leadership positions in the church. i.e. elders, pastors. Is this based on scripture written in a time when females were denied the opportunity of education? Are we limiting ourselves based on customs of the 1st century????
For all the criticism of misogyny, anti female, material in the Bible in truth it is actually the opposite. Even in Deuteronomy when a woman is raped her rapist must MARRY HER is revolutionary for the day. Woman had NO RIGHTS. They were UNCLEAN and useless for 20% of their lives (via menstruation). They were “dirty” and must be cleansed after menstruation.
Education was not wasted on any but a few wealthy chosen women. Hence many of Paul’s references of a woman must stay quiet in church and have her husband explain what was going on once they got home.
In Greco-Roman society a married woman was useful for childbearing then the husband was off to his pleasures.
Jewish families were much more liberal, equitable, fair, faithful in treating women, but the eldest son was critical. If the husband died first, which frequently happened, the woman’s sustenance was wholly dependent on the eldest son. Hence the concern over the welfare of the eldest son over all children.
The meshing of Judaism with the Gentiles was quite a task. (Perhaps why the eldest son got the “birthright,” the larger portion of the inheritance? Adultery was rampant. Homosexuality was rampant. The desire and status for sex with young boys was rampant. Women were so worthless that after one daughter was born, future daughters born were tossed out to the street to either be picked up by a family or left to die.
Here were the issues that Paul was confronted with. Changing Jews to the New Covenant while preserving Jewish law which had many positive aspects (and proponents - James and John wanted to have “Christians“ maintain much Jewish law). And introducing a radical change in societal norms by introducing life through Jesus to a people who had much less respect for the life of individuals. Care for your neighbor as yourself? These folks were raping young boys with glee and tossing disabled children and girls out to the street to die with not a care in the world.
With these factors that Paul cared so deeply about, the Jewish converts were requiring these Gentiles to be circumcised to be saved! Like that’s the big issue that needed to be solved. Paul throws up his hands and says, shoot, if they need to be circumcised to be saved why don’t YOU cut off your whole penis and really grab yourself some glory!!!
Here is the problem text from Paul that offends: Ephesians 5
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
YES, BUT… (this is HUGE. Men never had this responsibility to a wife before. This sounds awful but it is really quite radical in its day)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
(Summation of Ephesians chapter 5: Woman, submit /love/respect) your husband. It will be easier for him to love you. Man, love your wife, it is easier for your wife to submit to you. Neither of these comes before the other as we are to SUBMIT TO EACH OTHER OUT OF REVERENCE FOR CHRIST. WHY DIDN’T PAUL JUST SAY THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!)
This theme is also in Colossians 18-19 Wives, submit to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
TAKE IN CONTEXT that at that time in the Gentile world marriage was not about love, but about a woman bearing children for her husband (and her own future security IF she bears a son). This is NOT women are second class to their husbands TODAY, it was a radical idea of the time for a marriage to be about LOVE AND CARING FOR YOUR PARTNER - BOTH WAYS.
In these texts Paul is referencing Isaiah: Isaiah 62:5b ...as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will God rejoice over you. (This appears to be the analogy Paul uses in his description of marriage in the epistles, verbiage that was understandable in Paul’s time but seems almost insulting in today’s world of women’s rights.)
1 Timothy 2 Instructions on Worship 8Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn (the importance here is that women MUST LEARN, a very unusual and PROGRESSIVE POSITION in that in normal life very few women had an opportunity for an education. The reference is not complete silence, but a quiet demeanor. Why are we applying this 1st century thought to today??????) in quietness and full submission 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man (again the word in Greek here is DOMINEER over a man not that she has to remain totally quiet. One interpretation is that women may teach but cannot be considered AUTHORITATIVE. Can MEN DOMINEER over a woman??? If a woman can be authoritative I assume the men can be… Why are we applying this 1st century thought to today??????), she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 4 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (OUCH. Try to spin THIS verse to say Adam was as much at fault as Eve for original sin.). 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (MORE OUCH. A woman who does not procreate is doomed???)
Worship: For a different take on worship read 2 Samuel 6:21–22 on David’s method of worship when restoring the ark of the tabernacle. Are we to be so strict and regimented? We do not worship for the benefit of the perceptions of others but in humble response to God (John 4:24).
1. Timothy 3 Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons (OVERSEERS HAVE AUTHORITY. DEACONS ARE TEACHERS, hence women can be deacons, or deaconesses, but not have authority. Women cannot be ELDERS. Is this a timeless mandate? Or just because women were teaching heresy in the day.) Here is a trustworthy saying. Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited, and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. 12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. (SO WHAT ABOUT HUSBANDS OF WIDOWS? OR, HORRORS, A DIVORCEE? What about a father of Janice Hale?)
Oh, the heck with it. The male superiority in the faith… Women, learn from Joseph Barsabbas (Justus), the follower of Jesus that was not chosen to replace Judas. Mathias was chosen as the 12th apostle. But Justus continued to serve the Lord Jesus in whatever capacity he could even though we COULD NOT SERVE IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION. Just like women… Woman: KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!
From The Historical Jesus by Crossen:
Pg 299 I have not come to bring peace to the world but daughter against father… Just because of religion (the old covenant vs the new covenant) or more BECAUSE JESUS IS UPSETTING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF MALE (Patriarchal) DOMINANCE. In the various versions, including the Gospel of Thomas, the divisions over Jesus will not only be patriarchal but also INTERGENERATIONAL (parents vs children - sons and daughters, and sons OR daughters and spouses) and also ACROSS SEX AND GENDER - male vs female.
(Were these words written AFTER Paul’s epistles? But spoken BEFORE Paul’s epistles. Perhaps indicating Paul’s words about woman keep quiet in church and women cannot teach in church are not JESUS’ words but merely Paul trying to make or keep peace with his Greco-Roman male dominated audience.)
81) Does the Bible Teach that Women are Second Class Citizens?
(July 19, 2017 / biblicalgenderroles)
Second class citizen: “A person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.”
So the question then becomes, does the Bible advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men according to the dictionary definition I just gave?
The answer simply put is YES. The Bible does in fact advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men if “second class citizen” simply means they are to have less rights and opportunities than men.
In fact, women occupy the second of three social classes of humanity that God designed.
God’s First-Class Citizen – Man as God’s Image Bearer“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27 (KJV)
God’s Second-Class Citizen – Woman the helper to man “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help mate for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)
God’s Third-Class Citizen – Children as God’s inheritance to man “Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)
God’s Fourth-Class Citizen - A fourth social class allowed by God because of Sin
Sin’s entrance into the world resulted in crime, laziness, poverty and war. These four human conditions would necessitate that God allow for a fourth class of citizen which is that of a slave. While God allowed for slavery he also specifically gave rules regarding the humane treatment of slaves and the conditions under which slavery may occur. (Because of sin there is laziness, evidently also stupidity and inability to care for oneself, so God decided for the benefit of that sinner that he should become a slave for his own good. The only way he could survive…)
Is a woman’s second-class status only applicable if she is married or living with her father?
Even if a woman feels called by God to celibacy in his service this does not remove her second-class status. Paul’s divine commentary on the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman makes this clear. I Corinthians 11:3 “3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
“We attended home church and were told that women are to be submissive to their husbands, and not speak in the church.”
MY RESPONSE: If you had church services in your home (as many churches do) then your husband would be right in teaching that you and your daughters should remain silent and simply listen during the spiritual instruction given by the men. This is actually very clearly taught in the Scriptures. “11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)
So, it is perfectly Biblical for elder women in the Lord to conduct women’s Bible studies in their home or maintain blogs online with other women as long as this occurs under the authority of their husbands. The women teaching should teach what is in accordance with their husband’s teachings and the women attending should do so with their husband’s permission.
“Some of the men in the church were not very caring and loving husbands and they did not honor their wives. Last year I realized that my efforts to be a Proverbs 31 wife has led me to have a relationship that is not what I consider to be what God wants. My husband is verbally abusive, self-centered, and has neglected his role as Father and Husband.”
Who determines if a husband is acting in a caring or loving way toward his wife or honoring his wife? I can tell you who does not determine this. Neither his wife nor his children. Ultimately it is God himself who judges whether your husband is caring and loving to you and honoring you in the way God expects of him. And how does he determine God’s will in these areas? By examining the Scriptures and how God loves his wife.
Responses:
1) Nice article. I disagree on women teaching women about Scripture. They simply can’t be trusted to get it right. Let them teach how to be a good wife and mother, no more.
2) You only mentioned that with regards to going to church in the article, so I just wanted to make sure you knew it applies to all times, not just in church. Wasn’t trying to be rude though. Sorry if I came off that way. Hope you’ve been doing well lately, and God bless you!
WAIT! THERE’S MORE!!!! Bible.org Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh Dallas Theological Seminary
Old Testament Precedent: Divine Distinctions Based Upon Gender
Family leadership (rights of the first-born) was passed down from one generation to another through the males. The Abrahamic Covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, and then through his sons. In the Book of Numbers, we find provisions made for the rare instances in which there were no males through which the inheritance would pass down. But it is clear that such instances are rare, and are the exception, rather than the rule.
When a census was taken, it was of males only. Of course, we should remember that a census was taken for military purposes, and thus only males 20 years old and older were counted.
Circumcision was a male ritual. It was the male Israelites who identified with the Abrahamic Covenant by means of circumcision.
The laws regarding ceremonial uncleanness after the birth of a child made distinctions on the basis of gender. A woman who bore a male child was declared unclean for seven days, while a woman who bore a female child was declared unclean for fourteen days.
Only the male Israelites were required to appear in Jerusalem three times a year for the three great religious feasts. In some instances, at least, this must have meant leaving the family behind in order to attend some of these feasts.
Contrary to popular representations, angels appear only in masculine form.
The regulations of the law regarding vows assume the subordination of women to men. A man was bound to his vows. When a single woman made a vow, it could be nullified by her father, and when a woman who had made a vow married, her husband had the right to set aside her vow (at the time he first learned of it, but not later on).
The laws pertaining to jealousy and divorce also distinguished on the basis of gender. If a man doubted the purity of his wife, there was a process whereby his suspicions could be verified or shown to be false. Regulations regarding divorce seemed to pertain only to the men, but not to the women. In other words, there were provisions for a man to divorce his wife, but not reciprocal provisions for a woman to divorce her husband.
Women were not allowed to assume positions of leadership over men. There were no women priests, no women kings, and only a few women prophets. Indeed, it was an indication of divine judgment when women ruled over men:
My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths (Isaiah 3:12, ESV).
The bottom line is that with a very few exceptions (and these served to prove a point), women did not lead men in the Old Testament. Instances where women did lead will be dealt with in our next lesson.
The Old Testament evidence is beyond dispute: God distinguished between males and females, on the basis of gender alone. This mountain of evidence sufficiently explains Paul’s concluding words in 1 Corinthians 14:
Paul teaches that women are to remain silent in the church. We know that this means women cannot teach the men, and that they are not even to ask a question. But what does it mean to be “silent”? Some may conclude that this means absolute silence. Thus, a woman could not even sing with the congregation, or lean over to tell one of her children to be quiet. We have drawn the line elsewhere. We believe that the woman’s silence is directly related to the leadership and authority of men in the church. Thus, we believe that a woman should not “lead in prayer,” “teach the congregation,” or exercise authority when the church is gathered.
Do all the same rules apply in the home, or when a ministry group meets? Some might think so. We don’t allow women to teach men, even in small groups and in the context of the home. We do allow women to share observations and to ask questions in these smaller and less formal settings. Could our “lines” be challenged? No doubt, but wherever we do draw the line, someone is sure to disagree.
To press on, we know that Paul has forbidden women to teach men. But we also know that women can teach their children in the context of the home. Can a woman teach a Sunday school class? We believe so, but we draw the line at the junior high level. Women can teach children, and they can teach women, but we don’t allow them to teach young men. Where these lines are to be drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and so we try to make these distinctions wisely, realizing that others may draw them elsewhere.
However, saner heads put forth: Historical Context of the Scriptures
“The first stage in serious Bible study,” notes Grant Osborne, “is to consider the larger context within which a passage is found.” He goes on to note, “Since Christianity is a historical religion, the interpreter must recognize that an understanding of the history and culture within which the passage was produced is an indispensable tool for uncovering the meaning of that passage.” Osborne’s advice is especially pertinent considering the wide chasm that exists between the Ancient Near East (ANE) and twenty-first century America.
If we are to understand what Moses meant in the Pentateuch, we must have some understanding of his milieu. Moreover, we must remember that Israel was birthed out of the ANE where patriarchy, primogeniture, polygamy, and slavery were accepted norms. That is to say, Israel did not exist in a vacuum, isolated from its neighboring nations. This close proximity explains why many of those less than ideal structures existed in ancient Israel.
With this context established, one readily observes that God does not endorse the broken structures of patriarchy, polygamy, slavery and so forth. Rather, we observe that God worked within those already existing structures, seeking to make incremental moral improvements on established practices. This strategy is not too different from a new pastor who aims to take his church in a new direction, but he does so gradually lest he leave others behind.
Of course this is all important because, remember, THE WOMAN IS THE WEAKER VESSEL.("Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). She did bite the apple first…
Nor can a woman be an elder!!! Paul listed qualifications for elders.
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.
27
Shut up, woman! Explaining Thecla. And maybe the epistles to Timothy at the same time.
By Despina Iosif Ancient World Magazine
Mary Beard was right in the observation she made in the opening of her book Women and Power that the first recorded example of a man telling a woman to “shut up”; telling her that her voice was not to be heard in public is immortalized in the Odyssey 1.346-7 and 356-9 when Telemachus orders his mother not to express her thoughts and will in the presence of others but rather to withdraw to her quarters (Beard 2017).
Throughout antiquity in the Mediterranean, it was widely held that women were by nature inferior to males and prone to error, that their subordination was totally justified and that it was preferable for them to remain silent.
The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (from now on: AAPT) did not follow widely held notions on women. It is a fascinating early Christian text written in the second half of the second century AD as a manual for educating liberal and strong women.
This was also precisely the reason why it was soon considered by mainstream Christian fathers as a far too dangerous read for Christian maidens and it got rejected. What if it got ideas into silly little female heads?
Scholars who study the early Christian world ought to consult the entire early Christian literary production, both the canonical and the apocryphal productions, both mainstream and marginal, and not just the fortunate texts that passed the selection process and finally prevailed. For all texts satisfied at one time the needs of the communities which produced them and thus are windows that afford a view of the past and they can help us grasp the preoccupations and the problems troubling the entire early Christian world.
Bishops had to repeatedly meet in formal assemblies (i.e. Synods) in order to discuss which texts they were to approve and which to reject, and the ways they were to be used in order to enforce their will. The last text that made it to the Christian Canon was the Revelation of John, which only became part of the Canon as late as the twelfth century. The apocryphal gospels have been unjustly neglected by scholars for centuries. The Orthodox Church, for it respects tradition, detests them particularly.
She totally ignored the social norms of her times. She distanced herself from her upper class family – at first metaphorically and soon after literally – she dissolved the engagement with her fiancée which according to the social standards of the time her family had chosen for her.
Thecla chose to keep her virginity at a time when one was meant to get married and procreate. She traveled around the Mediterranean in order to preach the word of God.
The AAPT were composed in the second half of the second century in Asia Minor to narrate Thecla’s story and to promote Thecla as a role model. It was a very popular read. Many Christian fathers knew it, although they did not necessarily agree with it, and translations of the text survive in many languages: Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopian and maybe Arabic.
The text was written in the not very intellectually demanding koine Greek and it could easily be read regardless of one’s educational background. People could easily follow it as another read it aloud to them; this it seems was the most common way in which texts were disseminated in the ancient world.
The earliest mention of the text belongs to Tertullian, a little after 190, who wrote in On Baptism 17.5, that a presbyter (an elder or minister of the Christian Church) from Asia composed the AAPT and as a result was deposed by apostle John after confessing the sin of its composition.
Why did the text as soon as it circulated offend the sensibilities of male Christian fathers? One reason must have been because it preached an impossible code concerning sexuality. However, I will argue in this paper that it was rejected mainly because it presented Thecla as an empowered, independent charismatic figure and even more so because it showed the remarkable impact Thecla had on her female contemporaries.
Women appear in the text as strongly admiring Thecla – for the choices she made as far as her sex life was concerned, her traveling, her preaching in male clothes around the Mediterranean as a wandering charismatic and her resistance against authority and being vocal about their admiration. Thecla is the undisputed inspirational protagonist of the story. She clearly overshadows the apostle Paul and she highly impresses other women who can no longer hold their enthusiasm for her.
At the same time there is the idealization of lifelong celibacy over marriage, of cross-dressing and of traveling as a wandering charismatic. Paul, settling in one place, getting married and behaving according to what society has already prescribed for one’s gender (silence and passivity as far as women are concerned) are clearly of lower value. The text explicitly upsets the boundaries each gender was to observe.
Thecla was a beautiful maiden from an upper class family residing at Iconium. Her family was about to marry her with a socially equal young man called Thamyris. The plan was disrupted when the apostle Paul came to the city and started preaching the Christian ideal of virginity. Thecla was mesmerized and shunned her fiancée and the plans made by others for her future.
Her mother Theocleia was furious with the unexpected disobedience and turned to the authorities and accused her own daughter for being anome (against the laws) and anymphe single), and Paul for being a xenos (foreigner) and a magos (magician). As a result, Paul was arrested and sent to prison, where Thecla visited him. As was customary, she bribed the prison guards (with a silver mirror) to allow her access.
In prison, Thecla sat at Paul’s feet all night listening to his teaching and kissing his bonds in adoration. A public trial was soon held. The judge decided to expel Paul and to have Thecla burnt at the stake. Against all odds, Thecla was saved and she left the city. She met with Paul and she suggested that the apostle let her cut her hair short and join him in his travels around the Mediterranean. Paul unenthusiastically agreed. She also suggested that Paul baptize her. Paul refused, for it was too early.
Thecla and Paul then begun their travels together and reached Antioch where an upper class individual called Alexander found Thecla attractive and tried to rape her. Paul did absolutely nothing to help her out of the dire situation and even pretended not to be acquainted with her and left the city. Thecla stood her ground. But as a result she had to stand yet another trial for assaulting a nobleman. This time she was sentenced to be thrown to the beasts.
The female citizens of Antioch furiously protested and wholeheartedly and openly supported her. They could not keep silent. She had a tremendous impact on them and they could not endure passively the injustice. A wealthy, upper class woman called Thryphaena, who happened to have just lost her daughter (mortality rates in antiquity before the advent of antibiotics were extremely high), said publicly she would protect Thecla.
In a dramatic episode, as she was about to meet her death Thecla, who could not afford to wait any longer for an unwilling male (i.e. Paul) to baptize her, baptized herself in the arena in front of the crowd. (Baptism signified remission of sins and guaranteed entrance to heaven, so Thecla could take no chances.)
By another divine intervention Thecla was saved and set free. She then adopted male attire and started looking for Paul and indeed found him in Myra. Paul suggested she teach the word of God as a wandering charismatic. Thecla happily complied. After many years Thecla returned to Iconium where she tried to be reconciled with her mother. She ended up in Seleuceia and she met her death there.
According to another version of the story that survives, Thecla lived for seventy two years as an ascetic and offered superb medical services to her frequent visitors. The Christian Church promoted ascetics and monks as the new highly successful and highly powerful physicians of the day in an attempt to keep people away from Asclepeia where incubation was practiced. When Thecla was ninety there was yet another attempt of rape against her, this time by a gang of pagans solicited by the physicians of the city who, because of Thecla, had lost their clients. God intervened and prevented the rape.
30
Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker
Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker says Pride Month is example of 'deadly sin' during commencement speech
by Lukas Weese May 14, 2024 12:35 PM
Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, speaking during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, referred to Pride Month, the events in June demonstrating inclusivity and support for the LGBTQ+ community, as an example of the “deadly sins” as he advocated for a more conservative brand of Catholicism.
“Not the deadly sins sort of Pride that has an entire month dedicated to it,” Butker said, “but the true God-centered pride that is cooperating with the holy ghost to glorify him.”
Butker spoke for more than 20 minutes to students at the Catholic school in Atchison, Kansas, saying he wanted the graduating class to prevent political leaders from interfering with social issues that impact their relationship with the church.
Butker, 28, criticized an Associated Press article on America’s Catholic Church, which detailed the institution’s shift “toward the old ways.” It highlighted Benedictine’s rules that “seem like precepts of a bygone age,” which include “volunteering for 3 a.m. prayers” and “pornography, premarital sex and sunbathing in swimsuits being forbidden.”
Butker said the story was an “attempt to rebuke and embarrass” places like Benedictine, and that it would be met with “pride” instead of “anger.”
Benedictine, a college with more than 2,100 full-time undergraduates as of September 2022, describes itself as a liberal arts institution aimed at “the education of men and women within a community of faith and leadership.” Butker, who called on religious leaders “to stay in their lane and lead,” praised Benedictine for embracing what he called traditional Catholic values.
“When you embrace tradition, success, worldly and spiritual, will follow,” Butker said.
In October 2014, the school ordered basketball player Jallen Messersmith to remove a Pride flag from his dorm room window.
Butker also used the speech to criticize President Joe Biden on several issues, including abortion and the coronavirus pandemic, and questioned Biden’s devotion to Catholicism. Butker also addressed gender ideologies and said that a woman’s most important title is “homemaker.”
“It is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world,” Butker said.
The Chiefs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While the NFL isn’t in season during Pride Month, the league participates in LGBTQ+ initiatives. On the Wednesday before Super Bowl LVIII, the NFL hosted a “Night of Pride” event in partnership with GLAAD, the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization. The Chiefs are among the NFL teams that have a Pride selection of apparel with rainbow colors.
Kansas City is among the many North American cities that host Pride events during June, led by the KC Pride Community Alliance.
Butker is a three-time Super Bowl champion with the Chiefs. He was a seventh-round draft pick in 2017 and made 33 of 35 field goals in the 2023 season.
Chiefs Kicker Spreads Antisemitic Lies In Benedictine College Graduation Speech
Rolling Stone Magazine MAY 15 2024 AT 9:53 AM
Harrison Butker claimed Congress “passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail”
Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker kicked the hornet's nest last weekend when he encouraged the women of Benedictine College's 2024 graduate class not to embrace their roles as wives and homemakers rather than putting their degrees to use. While the speech drew widespread criticism for his characterization of women and LGBTQ people, Butker also promoted an insidious piece of antisemitic misinformation pertaining to legislation in Congress.
"I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you," Butker said in his commencement speech. "Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world."
The three-time Super Bowl champion went on to describe how his wife, Isabelle, never achieved her "dream of having a career," but that "if you ask her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud without hesitation, and say, 'Hey, no.'"
Of course, Butker earns millions of dollars per year as an NFL player -- so a second income isn't exactly necessary. Ironically enough, during his commencement speech, Butker quoted Taylor Swift, a woman who has built a wildly successful career and billion-dollar fortune without a husband, who is now dating Butker's teammate, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce.
Butker, a devout Catholic, also claimed that "Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail."
This is a reference to the Republican-led House of Representatives passing a bill that would threaten federal funding for colleges and universities that fail to restrict antisemitic speech. The controversial legislation was almost certainly designed to limit speech criticizing Israel, but it would also target "claims of Jews killing Jesus."
Some conservative lawmakers opposed the bill on this basis, arguing it would effectively outlaw the classic antisemitic belief that Jews killed Jesus. To be clear, though, the bill threatens university funding, not jail time for bigots. It has not been voted on in the Senate.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she opposed the legislation because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) argued "the Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of the bill."
These statements are a misinterpretation of Catholic doctrine. While the Biblical gospels do say that Jesus was presented before Jewish leadership of Judea for judgment, he was ultimately condemned to death by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. Historically, claims that Jews were ultimately responsible for the death of Jesus have been wielded as an antisemitic trope against Jewish populations.
In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI, then-head of the Catholic Church, declared that there was no basis in scripture that would hold Jews in collective guilt for the death of Jesus, and pointed out that -- after all -- the early followers of the Catholic faith were themselves Jewish.
In his Benedictine College speech, Butker also said that "things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerative cultural values in media all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder." He specifically criticized Joe Biden for being pro-choice, saying that the president "proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally."
The speech wasn't the NFL player's first foray into the abortion debate. In 2022, Butker starred in a misleading TV ad campaign promoting a failed Kansas ballot measure that would have ended constitutional protections for abortion in the state, so that lawmakers could ban the procedure.
In the ad, Butker identified himself as the Kansas City Chiefs kicker, and claimed the amendment would "let Kansas decide what we do on abortion, not judges and not D.C. politicians."
The ad campaign was funded by the dark money group CatholicVote Civic Action, which in turn was bankrolled by the dark money network led by Leonard Leo -- who is best known as the architect of the conservative Supreme Court supermajority that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion.
In an odd coincidence, Leo gave Benedictine College's commencement speech last year, giving a similarly right-wing speech warning of "modern-day barbarians, secularists, and bigots" who are "determined to threaten and delegitimize individuals and institutions who refuse to pledge fealty to the woke idols of our age."
33
What is the Antichrist?
First John 2:18 speaks of the Antichrist: “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” The specific term antichrist is used five times in Scripture, twice here in 1 John 2:18 and once in 1 John 2:22; 4:3; and 2 John 1:7. So, what is this Antichrist that the apostle John refers to?
The meaning of the term antichrist is simply “against Christ.” As the apostle John records in First and Second John, an antichrist denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22), does not acknowledge Jesus (1 John 4:3), and denies that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7). There have been many “antichrists,” as 1 John 2:18 states. But there is also coming theAntichrist.
Most Bible prophecy/eschatology experts believe the Antichrist will be the ultimate embodiment of what it means to be against Christ. In the end times/last hour, a man will arise to oppose Christ and His followers more than anyone else in history. Likely claiming to be the true Messiah, the Antichrist will seek world domination and will attempt to destroy all followers of Jesus Christ and the nation of Israel.
Other biblical references to the Antichrist include the following:
The imposing, boastful king of Daniel 7 who oppresses the Jews and tries to “change the set times and the laws” (verse 25).
The leader who establishes a 7-year covenant with Israel and then breaks it in Daniel 9.
The king who sets up the abomination of desolation in Mark 13:14 (cf. Daniel 9:27).
The man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12.
The rider on a white horse (representing his claim to be a man of peace) in Revelation 6:2.
The first beast—the one from the sea—in Revelation 13. This beast receives power from the dragon (Satan) and speaks “proud words and blasphemies” (verse 5) and wages war against the saints (verse 7).
Thankfully, the Antichrist/beast, along with his false prophet, will be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will spend all eternity in torment (Revelation 19:20; 20:10).
What is the Antichrist? In summary, the Antichrist is the end-times false messiah who seeks, and likely achieves, world domination so that he can destroy Israel and all followers of Jesus Christ.
34
What is the Significance of Corinth in the Bible
GotQuestions.org
Corinth was significant in the ancient Roman world because of its geography, its wealth, and its regional influence. In the Bible, Corinth is significant because of its connection with the apostle Paul’s missionary work. Corinth was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia and was situated on the Isthmus of Corinth, and about 40 miles west of Athens in Greece. It was a large city that controlled two harbors: Cenchreae on the eastern side of the isthmus, and Lechaeumon on the western side. Providing a natural refuge for the city was the Acrocorinthus, a large monolithic rock rising about 1,800 feet above the surrounding plain. Corinth had a large population of both Jewish and Gentile residents.
Paul spent about eighteen months in Corinth during his second missionary journey (Acts 18). Both Jews and Gentiles believed Paul’s message about Jesus, and these new believers became the Corinthian church. The New Testament epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians are letters Paul later wrote to these believers. Notably, Corinth is also the place where Paul met Aquila and Priscilla, fellow tentmakers who became ministry coworkers (Acts 18:2, 18–19, 24–28).
Paul first traveled to Corinth after spending time preaching in Athens (see Acts 17:16—18:1). Upon arriving in Corinth, Paul met Aquila and Priscilla, who were tentmakers like the apostle, so Paul lived and worked with them (Acts 18:2–3). As was his custom, Paul reasoned in the Jewish synagogue every Sabbath, sharing the truth about Jesus, for as long as the Jews and God-following Gentiles there would endure it (Acts 18:4–5). When opposition and abuse arose, Paul took the message of the gospel more directly to the Gentiles (Acts 18:6). Utilizing the house of Titius Justus, a Gentile who worshiped God and lived next door to the synagogue, Paul continued to share the message of the gospel. Many Corinthians placed their faith in Christ, including the synagogue ruler and his family (Acts 18:7–8).
In Corinth the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision, telling him not to fear but to keep speaking. God promised, “For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:10). Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching the word of God and successfully establishing a group of believers there. Paul returned to visit the Corinthians at least twice (2 Corinthians 13:1). He also wrote them several letters to address problems in the church. Two of those letters are in our Bibles today, known as 1 and 2 Corinthians. At least one letter Paul wrote to them before 1 Corinthians has been lost to history (see 1 Corinthians 5:9), and there was possibly another letter he wrote between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians (see 2 Corinthians 7:8). We have in our Bibles the words that God intended for us. These other letters were important for the church at Corinth in that time, but are evidently not necessary for us today.
In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul addresses multiple issues. These range from division in the church, to immorality in the church, to freedom concerning foods, to voluntary restriction of rights, to spiritual gifts, to generosity, to explaining the glorious depth and beauty of the truth of the gospel, and more. Paul also defended his ministry in Corinth and his calling as an apostle because false teachers were leading the Corinthians astray. The words in these letters are theologically rich and of practical use in the church and our lives today.
First Corinthians addresses several issues of sexuality. There was a large following of the cult of Aphrodite among the Gentiles in Corinth—her temple was atop the Acrocorinthus, and her worship involved temple prostitution. In fact, the city had so many prostitutes that well-known Greeks, including Plato, openly referred to prostitutes as “Corinthians.” Although many natives of Corinth placed faith in Jesus, many were still influenced by their immoral surroundings, which promoted sexual immorality. In 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions the problem of sexual sin in the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 5:1–2). God ultimately used this problem to bring about Paul’s inspired writing on sexual purity, marriage, and singleness (1 Corinthians 6—7). These inspired teachings have continued to instruct and guide the church regarding sexual issues. They are certainly beneficial to us in our sex-obsessed world.
Corinth was home to many people with diverse backgrounds, a characteristic reflected in the Corinthian church that contributed to some division and confusion. Previously legalistic Jews needed to hear about the freedom of the New Covenant in Christ; previously pagan Gentiles needed to be reminded that the gospel is not a license to sin. Both groups needed to learn to love the other and live at peace. Paul famously explains what true love is in 1 Corinthians 13. In our fractious world, this message of self-sacrificial love based in the person and work of Jesus Christ is equally important.
The city of Corinth was steeped in all the sins attendant upon a prosperous society, including idolatry and gross immorality, but the gospel still made a way through. We may fear our surrounding culture is too far away from God for people to hear His truth, but nothing is impossible for the Lord (Luke 1:37; Matthew 19:25–26). Paul gave the Corinthians a list of sinful behaviors that characterize those who will not enter God’s kingdom, then he declared, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). God changes lives! In fact, “if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:17–18). Just as Paul was an ambassador of Christ to the Corinthians, we can be His ambassadors in our world, imploring people “on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:20–21).
36
Articles on Abortion
What the Bible actually says
about abortion may surprise you
Melanie A. Howard, Fresno Pacific University Published: July 20, 2022 8.22am EDT
In the days since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to an abortion, some Christians have cited the Bible to argue why this decision should either be celebrated or lamented. But here’s the problem: This 2,000-year-old text says nothing about abortion.
As a university professor of biblical studies, I am familiar with faith-based arguments Christians use to back up views of abortion, whether for or against. Many people seem to assume the Bible discusses the topic head-on, which is not the case.
Ancient context
Abortions were known and practiced in biblical times, although the methods differed significantly from modern ones. The second-century Greek physician Soranus, for example, recommended fasting, bloodletting, vigorous jumping and carrying heavy loads as ways to end a pregnancy.
Soranus’ treatise on gynecology acknowledged different schools of thought on the topic. Some medical practitioners forbade the use of any abortive methods. Others permitted them, but not in cases in which they were intended to cover up an adulterous liaison or simply to preserve the mother’s good looks.
In other words, the Bible was written in a world in which abortion was practiced and viewed with nuance. Yet the Hebrew and Greek equivalents of the word “abortion” do not appear in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible. That is, the topic simply is not directly mentioned.
What the Bible says
The absence of an explicit reference to abortion, however, has not stopped its opponents or proponents from looking to the Bible for support of their positions.
Abortion opponents turn to several biblical texts that, taken together, seem to suggest that human life has value before birth. For example, the Bible opens by describing the creation of humans “in the image of God”: a way to explain the value of human life, presumably even before people are born. Likewise, the Bible describes several important figures, including the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah and the Christian Apostle Paul, as having being called to their sacred tasks since their time in the womb. Psalm 139 asserts that God “knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
However, abortion opponents are not the only ones who can appeal to the Bible for support. Supporters can point to other biblical texts that would seem to count as evidence in their favor.
Exodus 21, for example, suggests that a pregnant woman’s life is more valuable than the fetus’s. This text describes a scenario in which men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. A monetary fine is imposed if the woman suffers no other harm beyond the miscarriage. However, if the woman suffers additional harm, the perpetrator’s punishment is to suffer reciprocal harm, up to life for life.
There are other biblical texts that seem to celebrate the choices that women make for their bodies, even in contexts in which such choices would have been socially shunned. The fifth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, for example, describes a woman with a gynecological ailment that has made her bleed continuously taking a great risk: She reaches out to touch Jesus’ cloak in hopes that it will heal her, even though the touch of a menstruating woman was believed to cause ritual contamination. However, Jesus commends her choice and praises her faith.
Similarly, in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ follower Mary seemingly wastes resources by pouring an entire container of costly ointment on his feet and using her own hair to wipe them – but he defends her decision to break the social taboo around touching an unrelated man so intimately.
Beyond the Bible
In the response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Christians on both sides of the partisan divide have appealed to any number of texts to assert that their particular brand of politics is biblically backed. However, if they claim the Bible specifically condemns or approves of abortion, they are skewing the textual evidence to fit their position.
Of course, Christians can develop their own faith-based arguments about modern political issues, whether or not the Bible speaks directly to them. But it is important to recognize that although the Bible was written at a time when abortion was practiced, it never directly addresses the issue.
37
Jews, outraged by restrictive abortion laws, are invoking the Hebrew Bible in the debate
Lindsay Schnell USA TODAY. July 24, 2019
When Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed into law in May one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans, she invoked her faith.
“To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” Ivey said in a statement.
This is a familiar argument for the Republican Party when it comes to abortion access. In January, Kirk Cox, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, cited biblical scripture when he came out against a proposed bill that would lift late-term abortion restrictions.
"You knit me together in my mother’s womb,” he said, quoting Psalm 139. “You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”
But for many leaders in the Jewish faith, such interpretations are problematic and even insulting.
“It makes me apoplectic,” says Danya Ruttenberg, a Chicago-based rabbi who has written about Jews' interpretation of abortion. “Most of the proof texts that they’re bringing in for this are ridiculous. They’re using my sacred text to justify taking away my rights in a way that is just so calculated and craven.”
Across the country, as a wave of anti-abortion legislation reinvigorates the fight over reproductive rights, Jewish religious leaders, activists and women are speaking out in favor of a woman's right to choose, buoyed by their faith.
It’s not just that the U.S. shouldn’t be deriving law from poetic language, Ruttenberg said. It’s that the Jewish tradition has a distinctly different reading of the same texts. While conservative Christians use the Bible to argue that a fetus represents a human life, which makes abortion murder, Jews don’t believe that fetuses have souls and, therefore, terminating a pregnancy is no crime.
While some Orthodox rabbis have denounced abortion, within Jewish communities there’s considerable support for keeping it legal. Studies from the Pew Research Center show that Jews overwhelmingly (83%) support abortion rights. The National Council of Jewish Women, a 126-year-old organization that helped establish some of the first birth control clinics across the country, considers reproductive rights a cornerstone issue and has publicly condemned the strict abortion bans recently handed down in Alabama and Mississippi.
What to know about abortion laws:
Republicans have been pushing for decades to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that recognized a woman's right to an abortion. Now, with two Supreme Court appointments from President Donald Trump giving the court a conservative bent, the law seems more at risk than ever before. Restrictive laws are being passed all over the South, and, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion legislation, 30 states now "demonstrate hostility toward abortion rights" while 14 demonstrate support.
It’s common in this debate to hear the Christian perspective. But what’s often left out of the conversation is how Jews, who read the Hebrew Bible – referred to in Christian circles as the Old Testament – argue that their tradition condones abortion. Sometimes, if the mother's life is at stake, it even insists on it.
This is a big deal for us,” Ruttenberg says. “We’re very clear about a woman’s right to choose. And we’re very clear about the separation between church and state.”
What Jewish lawmakers say about abortion rights
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., likes to joke that she took tikkun olam so seriously, she wound up in politics.
Within the Jewish tradition, tikkun olam – Hebrew for “repair the world” – is a sort of call to action, a concept defined by acts of kindness and service that help heal the world. Wasserman Schultz, the first Jewish woman to represent Florida in Congress, says her faith informs her politics every day.
“I have always served and looked at policy through a distinctly Jewish lens,” Wasserman Schultz says. “And so for me, when I’m thinking about a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices, the Jewish tradition that I’ve always been taught holds that existing life should take precedence over potential life, and a woman’s life and her pain should take precedence over a fetus.”
Abortion poll: Most Americans oppose 'fetal heartbeat' laws, closing of all clinics in a state
The strongest argument in the Hebrew Bible for permitting abortion comes from Exodus, Chapter 21, Verse 22-23: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take a life for a life.”
In this passage, "gives birth prematurely" could mean the woman miscarries, and the fetus dies. Because there's no expectation that the person who caused the miscarriage is liable for murder, Jewish scholars argue this proves a fetus is not considered a separate person or soul.
The Talmud, a two-part Jewish text comprised of centuries worth of thought, debate and discussion, is also helpful when discussing abortion. The Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and considered part of the mother until birth. The baby is considered a nefesh – Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” – once its head has emerged, and not before.
Jewish tradition and scholars have also acknowledged a pregnant woman’s potential “great need” to terminate a pregnancy.
Rabbi Elizer Waldenberg, a leading authority on Jewish law who died in 2006, wrote in Tzitz Eliezer, his major text, that "it is clear that in Jewish law an Israelite is not liable to capital punishment for feticide. ... An Israelite woman was permitted to undergo a therapeutic abortion, even though her life was not at stake. ... This permissive ruling applies even when there is no direct threat to the life of the mother, but merely a need to save her from great pain, which falls within the rubric of ‘great need.’”
“There’s a lot of ambiguity about what that need means,” Ruttenberg says. “A psychological need is considered real.”
Wasserman Schultz references pikuach nefesh, the principle in Jewish law that the preservation of a human life overrides nearly all other religious considerations, which also allows a woman to seek an abortion, especially if her own life is in danger.
“You can use that same principle to show that women, more than anyone else, understand their bodies and what medical decisions are right for them,” Wasserman Schultz says.
For Wasserman Schultz, abortion access should be unrestricted, regardless of faith. “I’m not going to tell you that you’re interpreting Scripture incorrectly,” she says. “But don’t prescribe rules for me and my decisions based on your interpretation of your scripture.”
Retired U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer was one of the most prominent Jewish lawmakers in the country while she represented California for 24 years. There’s no doubt, Boxer says, that faith informs each person's views on a variety of subjects. But that’s exactly what they are – personal views, not something for everyone else to comment, or legislate, on.
“If you respect religion, then you should be pro-choice,” Boxer says. “We can’t always agree 100% with each other, but we can respect each other … and I feel I am respecting religion by saying I would fight for your rights regardless of what you believe.”
Religious freedom concerns
To Rabbi Michael Adam Latz of Minneapolis, the fight over abortion rights – and lawmakers who reference their faith as a reason for why certain laws should exist – is a larger issue. That shouldn’t just worry Jews, whose tradition teaches something other than Evangelical Christianity, he says. It should worry anyone who believes in religious freedom.
“While I certainly understand that there are people who disagree with me, in a nation for which religious pluralism is a hallmark, to impose one religious tradition on this is not actually how a democracy functions, it’s how a theocracy functions,” Latz says.
Every person of conscious, he says, regardless of their personal views on abortion, should be deeply concerned.
That sentiment is echoed by Sheila Katz, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women. Katz has been in her role only since June, but she says she was struck in her first few days on the job by the number of volunteers and activists she saw in the streets engaging in the debate over abortion rights. It makes her angry, she says, when men try to govern women’s bodies. As a member of a religious minority, she’s particularly wary of one dominant religion trying to govern based on its faith texts.
“As Jews, we know that true religious freedom is a shield to protect all religions and never a sword to discriminate,” she said. “It often feels like religion is used to discriminate – and that is not something we stand for, regardless of the issue.”
Latz has spent time speaking on women’s rights both from the pulpit and in smaller conversations with his congregation. He says his directness can catch some people off guard. But a rabbi’s job is to teach the Torah, he says, and the Torah itself is “inherently political."
“It’s important to recognize that this is not a new fight,” Latz says. “This is just the latest chapter. Our tradition teaches that women don’t have abortions they want – they have abortions they need.”
Abortion felt like only option
For at least one Jewish activist, that rings especially true. She didn't necessarily want an abortion – she felt she had no other choice.
It was 1967, and Nancy Litz didn’t want to be pregnant.
Six years before the Roe vs. Wade ruling would guarantee a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion, Litz, then a freshman in college, believed terminating her pregnancy was a necessity. Her father had recently died, and her mother, who had dreamed of going away to college herself, was at what Litz described as “a horribly traumatic point in her own life.” She never considered what she did destroying a human life.
“I don’t believe that clump of cells, while it was potential life, was actual life,” Litz says. “And it certainly wasn’t more important to me than the lives of the people I already knew and loved.”
Through a friend, Litz connected with a doctor, a man she says told her he was compelled to perform the illegal procedure because he had daughters of his own who were college age and he wouldn’t want them opting for a dangerous, back-alley operation in hopes of extracting themselves from a desperate situation.
Fifty-two years later, Litz, 71, lives in St. Louis and owns a small business. Her abortion story isn’t gruesome, and there were no lingering consequences. Litz, who has two grown daughters, is now an activist and volunteer with the National Council of Jewish Women and shares her story whenever she can. She’s disturbed by both the potential of Roe being overturned, and the way other faith leaders frame the conversation around abortion.
“The right word is shame,” Litz said. “What I heard were women telling stories about having an abortion and the suffering with giant regrets and self-condemnation, and I couldn’t help but thinking, I couldn’t help but wondering – how much of that was genuinely the feelings that they had about the procedure, and how much of it was layered onto them by messages from specific faith traditions telling them that what they had done was terrible?”
Litz came to Judaism later in life. Raised Protestant, she wasn’t practicing by the time she went off to college. Even if she had been active in the church at the time she got pregnant, she can’t imagine she ever would have consulted a minister – in the '60s, abortion wasn’t something you talked about openly. She recalls a couple of girls in her high school disappearing for a stretch, then magically showing up again, presumably after they’d given birth. The media, she remembers, was consumed for a time with a woman who traveled all the way to Japan to access abortion services. But even then, discussions stayed quiet.
Ending Roe v. Wade wouldn't end abortion in America. This is what happens next
She wonders, too, if people really understand the risk women will be under if Roe is overturned. Like many activists, Litz is adamant that criminalizing abortion won’t stop it – it’ll just make it deadly. Women will continue to terminate pregnancies and put their lives in danger in the process. Years after her abortion, Litz got emotional when she read that in 1967, 42% of the nation’s maternal death rate was attributed to botched abortion. She’s terrified of those numbers resurfacing.
Litz says she’s often praised privately by other women who have had abortions, women who comment on her bravery and honesty, admitting they could never share publicly the way she does.
“It just doesn’t make sense,” she says. “Why can’t we, as people of faith who have different specific beliefs about the significance of terminating a pregnancy, be equally free to express our truth?
“It’s distressing to me that extreme right wing conservatives, that specific segment of Christianity, has co-opted this entire discussion. ... They present themselves as speaking for all people of faith when that is really not the case.”
42
Want to Lower Abortion Rates?
Look to Canada’s Example.
Susan Ostermann, Tamara Kay. 08.27.22 11:35 PM ET
The U.S. could learn from its neighbor to the North, where access to health care, family leave, and contraception led to far fewer terminated pregnancies.
Many conservatives believe the demise of abortion access in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade will bring a new dawn in which fewer abortions take place and more children are born. This promised new reality is likely to remain fantasy.
Why?
Because limiting legal abortion access does not result in fewer abortions.
A better course of action, if reducing the number of abortions is the goal, is regulatory pragmatism—a flexible approach to the design and implementation of a regulatory system that avoids legal doctrine and dogma, while prioritizing effectiveness and durability.
Regulatory pragmatism adapts for context and on-the-ground realities, sets ideology aside, and focuses on the goal—sometimes even employing tactics that seem antithetical to that goal, simply because they work.
Take the current state of the battle over reproductive rights in the U.S.
Conservatives’ stated goal is “saving babies.” If serious about achieving that goal, it would make sense to look at a similar country that has significantly fewer abortions per person.
Canada is democratic, comparatively wealthy, and, in 2020, had a quarter fewer abortions per women than in the U.S. For women of typical childbearing age (15-44) Canada had 10.1 abortions per 1,000 women that year compared to 14.4 per 1,000 in the the U.S.
Though it may seem counterintuitive, Canada did not achieve its lower abortion rate by banning abortion. Quite the opposite, in fact. Canada decriminalized the procedure in 1988. It is now legal, at all stages of pregnancy, and publicly funded. The most pressing concern is access to care, as most clinics are located near large population centers, and those living in rural Canada often have to travel significant distances to secure an abortion. But it is safe to say that very few Canadians who want abortions are denied them by their government.
Canada’s example suggests that completely free access to abortion does not cause high abortion rates. That means if the goal is to “save babies” and reduce abortions in the U.S., we need to take the broader context into account when considering how to regulate.
Canada consistently supports women and babies throughout their lives. Women have easy and inexpensive access to contraception. Should they choose pregnancy, they have good health care throughout the process, including prenatal care.
Maternal health is better and pregnancy is less dangerous in Canada. In 2018, the most recent year for which statistics are available, Canada’s maternal mortality rate was 8.82 per 100,000 live births. This stands in stark contrast to the same statistic in the U.S.—which was 17.4 in 2018 and then increased to a shocking 23.8 in 2020. Among high-income countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of maternal mortality—a rate that multiplies 2.5 to 3.5 times for Black women.
In Canada, biological and surrogate parents who have given birth receive 15 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive their regular pay and benefits. Afterward, all parents, biological or adoptive, can receive an additional 35 weeks of “parental benefits.” These provide for partial pay, with most receiving at least 55 percent of their average earnings. Either parent is eligible for this benefit and it can be split between the parents. Through the Canada Child Benefit, the government also helps eligible parents with child-care costs with a monthly tax-free payment.
The U.S., for its part, offers no guaranteed paid family leave, nor subsidized childcare, nor universal basic health care. And it has far more abortions than its neighbor to the North.
A system with almost unlimited abortion access, when combined with decent health care (including contraception), and good support for new parents, goes a long way towards creating ideal conditions for bringing babies into the world. Indeed, one might even call Canada’s policies more accurate examples of what pro-life should mean: policies that support the health and well being of pregnant people and their children.
But can such pragmatic regulatory policies work in the U.S.?
One Colorado program suggests that they can.
In 2008, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment launched a program to offer low-or no-cost long-acting reversible contraceptives to low-income women across the state. The results were astounding: Between 2009 and 2014, the teen abortion rate was nearly cut in half. In addition, teen birth rates were nearly cut in half, births to women without a high school education fell 38 percent, second and higher order births to teens were cut by 57 percent, and rapid repeat births declined by 12 percent among all women.
The decline in rapid repeat births is particularly important for the lives and health of low-income women and their children. Research shows that low-income women with shorter intervals between pregnancies have higher odds of precipitous labor, and infants whose birth was not spaced have higher odds of low birth weight, NICU admission and mortality. Medical research shows that spacing babies is critical to their survival.
With the demise of Roe, we have the opportunity to re-envision and redefine in the U.S. what it means to be pro-life.
Those who are “pro-choice” are rarely against saving babies and most will easily shift their support to a pragmatic strategy that preserves freedom and lowers abortion rates. Those on the right who are more traditionally “pro-life” will have to decide whether their anti-abortion stance is really about “saving babies” or about something else entirely. The evidence is clear and regulatory pragmatism suggests that we follow Canada’s lead.
44
Champion of the unborn
Pastor Dave Barnhart / Birmingham, Alabama
The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or
complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege,without reimagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
45
Hate Pastor Threatens to Kill Gay Pastors After
Same-Sex Couple Delivers Sermon
BIAS WATCH
Hate pastor threatens to kill gay pastors after same-sex couple delivers sermon.
"They should get the death penalty, not be preaching behind the pulpit."
By Daniel Villarreal Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Pastor Dillon Awes, a hate preacher at the Stedfast Baptist Church in Watauga, Texas, is upset that some Christian churches affirm LGBTQ+ people—or “sodomites” and “sexual predators,” as he calls them—and he’s especially angry that some pastors even allow queer people to speak from the pulpit.
“These faggots should get a bullet in their brain,” he said in a recent sermon. “They should get the death penalty, not be preaching behind the pulpit.”
Awes made his comments in response to Pastor Charles Andrew Stanley—founder and senior pastor of the nondenominational evangelical Christian megachurch North Point Ministries—who invited a married same-sex couple to deliver a sermon at a recent conference.
“In this conference, he invited two sodomites that were married to each other to preach,” Awes said. “These two sodomites were talking about how they’re so excited to be able to preach that because it’s the message that the children need to hear. So they’re literally just admitting their heart, like, ‘We’re here behind the pulpit so that we could defile children with our message.'”
“That’s where we’ve gotten as a nation by being nice to sodomites,” he ranted. “You know, first, it was, ‘They can get married.’ Then it was, ‘They could have all equal rights.’ Then it was, well, ‘We could have drag shows out in public.’ Then it was, ‘Well, we could take children into the drag shows too.’ Then it was like, ‘Well, we could allow homosexuals to attend church.’ Then it was ‘Well, we can now let drag queens attend church.'”
“Now they’re behind the pulpit. Why? Because of nice guys like Andy Stanley that won’t say what needs to be said, which is that these guys should get a bullet in their brain, that they should get the death penalty, not be preaching behind the pulpit.”
Of course, LGBTQ+ people do not have full equal rights, and children have viewed age-appropriate drag performances in cartoons, TV shows, and films for decades. Also, numerous Christian churches embrace queer congregants, preachers, and drag performers as a way to spread the gospel.
“What a nice guy Andy Stanley is,” Awes added. “What a nice guy you are for letting children in your congregation be abused by pedophiles. How nice of you, Andy Stanley. How nice of all the pastors today that are enabling sexual predators in their church to harm people permanently, to scar them for life, to hurt them spiritually, because you just want to be nice. Well, you know what? Go to Hell, Andy Stanley, and every single pastor like you—go to Hell.”
Notably, anti-LGBTQ+ figures who accuse LGBTQ+ of sexually harming children rarely, if ever, comment on the tens of thousands of documented cases of child sex abuse happening in Christian churches.
This isn’t the first time that Awes has made such comments. In June 2022, he said the government should criminalize homosexuality because of the Bible and then line homosexuals against a wall to be shot in the back of the head. Two months later, he said that allowing a woman to preach in church is like “spitting in the face of God.”
In August 2023, locals in Watauga protested the church’s hateful messages.
“I cannot believe you expose kids to that garbage,” town resident Mandi Skinner said at a protest outside the church. “That’s not freedom of speech. That’s vile, threatening, slanderous, dangerous language. And I don’t think it should be protected just because they call themselves a church.”
Awes and others like him call themselves New Independent Fundamental Baptist (New IFB) preachers. New IFB isn’t affiliated with any mainstream Baptist denomination, although both Baptist and New IFB teachings exhibit anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry, antisemitism, and misogyny. But while Baptists merely condemn queer people to hell, New IFB goes a step further, calling for the execution of LGBTQ+ people.
The Southern Poverty Law Center considers Stedfast Baptist Church to be a hate group.
46
Bibletalk.TV Forbidden Topics
BibleTalk.tv Pastor Mike Mazzlongo
1. FORBIDDEN TOPICS
A discussion of sensitive topics involving morality/immorality and right/wrong
with a conservative Pastor of the Church of Christ.
The following are notes, observations, questions, and comments, and from this online presentation.
1) Mercy Killings or Selective Killing?
Assisted suicides - The dangers of euthanasia
1. Reduces the value of life – no matter who it is. Every life is valuable.
2. Mercy killing leads to selective killing.
If we justify killing a fetus it is only a small step to kill someone in a nursing home, or the mentally insane, or criminals. Once society accepts it the government will control it. (Don’t we already kill criminals? Government will kill nursing home residents to save money?)
God’s promises
1. God will listen – does that reduce your pain?
2. He will help. No suffering will be greater than you can bear.
God will not allow pain beyond what you can bear? Do you forgo painkillers? (Jesus did)
You can escape the pain and suffering by prayer (pray that your life ends???)
He will be there. So don’t feel bad if grandma dies alone. God is there. (Huh?)
For mercy killings, for abortion. Here is their warning:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. They came next for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the catholics, and I did not speak out because I was a protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time there was no one left to speak up.” - Martin Niemoller
Then again, Pastor Mike also said THIS:
From Pastor Mike (BibleTalk.tv), Church of God, regarding Covid, vaccines, and masks: I agree that we are going through difficult times, however, this is nothing new for believers. In my opinion, this is strictly a matter of earthly concern. How we die, when we die, how we delay our dying is pretty much a personal decision and people should be left to decide for themselves.
Like Paul the apostle I prefer to exercise my Christian freedom when I can and submit to human laws as well as the weakness of my brethren when required. I am convinced, however, that this too shall pass and we will be better for it if we put our trust in the Lord each day since, in the end, He has the power of life and death and not some Asian virus or American lawmaker.
Rejecting vaccination or treatment to prolong life - a personal decision. Seeking assisted suicide for a painful, prolonged illness? SIN!
2) Superstition, Astrology, and the Occult (omitted)
3) The 4 Phases of Addictions
Getting AIDS is not a sin, but the sexual act that transmits AIDS is a sin.
Alcoholism is not a sin, but taking the first drink is...
Stages of addiction:
1) Learning the mood swing – certain chemicals produce euphoria. If you only use pain meds AS DIRECTED and only take them for pain, and STOP TAKING THEM WHEN THE PAIN STOPS, you will NOT become addicted. (Crazy...)
2) Seeking the mood swing – keep looking for the high.
3) Chemical dependence. Growing anticipation and preoccupation with needing the high. Changes in your personal moral system – you steal. Your peer group changes – fellow users. Your self esteem declines but you refuse to accept why. Your peers do not challenge your behavior – they help you accept it. You experiment with type and quantity. Your health and spiritual stability declines. Now your normal is high and the abnormal is the crash – pain. Your friends desert you. Dependence needs drugs to stay nomal.
4) Addiction. Drugs now must be used to stay alive. Euphoria cannot be achieved any more. Chemicals are now used only to avoid withdrawal – pain. Desire to live is reduced. Fatalism – there is no way out so I may as well continue to use. Morals decay. Risk taking increases. Your personality changes. You will steal from those you love. Addicts will reject every authority. Your addiction is stronger than any love of any person – including self. A pimp will start with getting a girl addicted to drugs and she will do whatever she is told.
4) The Bible and Addiction
Types of addiction: A) Psychological B) Physical
Steps to addiction:
1) Ingestion 2) Infatuation 3) Infection - I NEED this. 4) Imprisonment – I cannot live without this. Control > Dominate > Kill
Your body is a temple. Do not risk your body. Stay out of the military? Were all in Israel’s army sinners? Is a missionary who is martyred a sinner? Paul made his body a slave so he is not disqualified. Did he not glory in his beatings?
Drug abuse is a form of idolatry.
5) The Sobering Truth about Alcohol
Statistics on Alcoholism
1) alcohol is addictive
2) alcohol is involved in 28% of highway deaths
3) alcohol is involved in 40% of violent crime.
4) 12% of all teens are alcoholics.
5) alcohol is involved in 30% of all suicides.
6) Alcohol is directly linked to cancer.
7) Alcohol is involved in 50% of domestic violence and child abuse. 50% of drowning victims were drunk.
8) $175 billion is spent each year to treat alcoholism
9) 1/3 of all prison inmates were drunk during or prior to committing their crimes.
10) alcohol is legal.
The first step of drug or alcohol use is as much of a sin as anything else assocciated with addiction or alcoholism.
5 Best Reasons to Drink
1) Makes you feel good
2) Alcoholic drinks taste good
3) Most people can drink without getting
drunk or addicted.
4) Alcohol is inexpensive and easily
obtainable.
5) Everybody drinks.
5 Best Reasons Not to Drink
1) Alcoholism is the #1 drug problem in the world.
2) Alcohol is a major factor in illness, accidents, death, crime, and family destruction.
3) Alcohol contributes nothing to a person’s well-being.
4) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
5) Christians who drink undermine their spiritual lives and witness.
6) Pro-life or Pro-death (part 2)
Abortion and miscarriage differ. Miscarriage is death by natural causes.
There is no such thing as a fetus. Only an unborn child.
In the case of the health of the mother, doctors must make a decision like a battle field medic in triage – who has the better chance of survival? The baby or the mother? And then you have to roll the dice. Because the stress of killing an unborn baby would be too much for the father. He is affected mentally by the abortion as well. Although he will be just fine if his wife died. The price you pay for being in the line of battle. Tubal pregnancy be damned. Mom, I am so very sorry…
On the Day She Died. An ultrasound identifies a malformed baby that will survive no longer than an hour or two. The family is told the baby will not suffer. Do you carry to term? Is it important to hold a baby even if it’s for just an hour? How do you feel if the baby drags on for a week? What if the baby does suffer? Does it make a difference if the mother’s life would have been in jeopardy? Does it make a difference if the baby was doomed to terrible suffering before he died? Is there a socioeconomic impact here if the mom is poor and barely making ends meet? Is there an issue here if the mom is of limited intelligence? Is the family doing this for the baby or for themselves? Does that even make a difference?
7) Pro-Life or Pro-Death (part 2)
The Bible says thou shalt kill (kill or MURDER?). 100% In the Law. But not buried in the Law, right there in the top 10, the Ten Commandments. This despite the death and warring and killing in the Bible. And except for the right of your government to sanction killing. In war. In capital punishment.
The only place in the Bible that murder or killing is sanctioned: Romans 13:4 For he (the authority, the government) is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an angel of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The speaker is not a woman. He does not act like a woman. He cannot feel like a woman. He also cannot understand there are people who do NOT feel that way. He is pre-wired to be a man. But God does not pre-wire you to be a woman in a man’s body. (So there).
God permits the taking of life in certain situations: in war, in self-defense, in accidents, in legal executions. Not for convenience. Abortion is an inconvenient killing. Kyle Rittenhouse was convenience? Wrongful execution? Convenience?
Besides, they are pressured by someone into the abortion in the first place. There is no pressure to NOT have an abortion?
Medicine shows us that the fetus is more viable than we thought. We should trust science. Wait. Science says this is an nonviable baby. Well you can’t trust science.
8) Pornography and Behavior
If you make pornography illegal where will it end? You will stop my free speech. That is ridiculous. For porn. Certainly the case for gun control, though.
Pornography is a psychological narcotic. It is addictive.
There is no limit to the creativity that occurs in the marital relationship. Huh? Like doing WHAT? Like sex for pleasure? Like certain sex acts that do not involve procreation? Like certain things homosexuals would do? That God has given sex such pleasure that you can explore what you want? As long as you are married…
Porn has the same effect on the brain as crack cocaine. The same area of the brain lights up in the same way as drugs. Porn is a drug.
Except in the marriage relationship nudity is SHAME! Some people would rather DIE than be naked in public. Then again some don’t. Maybe a lot don’t.
You cannot be holy and watch porn. You are not acceptable to God. And our bodies are to be holy to God.
In the Old Testament God wanted ENTIRE PEOPLES to be wiped out because they were unholy and would pollute the Israelite people. The did sex acts and unholy acts.
The only sexual fantasy should be for your marriage partner. God says ENJOY YOURSELVES!!!! “Let her breasts satisfy you AT ALL TIMES!!!” Be completely satisfied with your wife, and in turn each wife should be satisfied the same. Communicate! What do you want??? For 5 minutes Pastor Mike has put NOTHING in the sex world off limits as long as it is with your spouse.
9) The Alphabet Gender Wars
16% of Gen-Z identifies themselves as LGBTQ.
Homosexuals commit suicide.
(See below. Do homosexuals commit suicide because they are homosexuals? Or because they cannot live their lives openly as homosexuals? See article below: Anti-Trans Laws and Suicide and Anti-LGBTQ+ Policies Across American Schools Are Seriously Impacting Queer Youth.)
It is a mental illness. The LGBTQ community claims they were BORN gay (“Pre-wired”). There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back that up.
LGBTQ advocates as a persecuted MINORITY so they can use it TO RAISE MONEY!!! (Do LGBTQ+ opponents use the issue to raise money? Ditto for abortion opponents?)
The Freedom Act for LGBTQ trumps the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which backs churches, businesses, and individuals from snubbing LGBTQ events.
People want to only elect Christians to power and force these issues on the American people. Amazingly Pastor Mike DISAGREES. Jesus would NEVER address issues through political means or through earthly power! Jesus said we are only provided with earthly bodies to use as a vehicle to get to heaven. (So much for life is supposed to be fun – eat, drink, and be merry…)
God has given man “absolute free will,” meaning despite overt evidence man has the ability to even deny his creator. This also gives God the right to send these people committing these evil acts into eternal hell.
Our mission given us from Jesus is to save souls. Our calling is not to save the world. This world is doomed to pass away, so it is not our job to save the world. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord is coming like a thief in the night… and the earth and its works will be burned up. Seems like a reprieve from addressing climate change or providing a safe environment for our children. The world is ending. Of course, Paul thought that too. What did that get us?
Homosexual acts. Why are they different? Is sodomy ok if between members of the opposite sex?
Pastor Mike: There is no limit to the creativity that occurs in the marital relationship. Huh? Like doing WHAT? Like sex for pleasure? Like certain sex acts that do not involve procreation? Like certain things homosexuals would do? That God has given sex such pleasure that you can explore what you want? As long as you are married…
In the Old Testament God wanted ENTIRE PEOPLES to be wiped out because they were unholy and would pollute the Israelite people. They did sex acts and unholy acts.
The only sexual fantasy should be for your marriage partner. God says ENJOY YOURSELVES!!!! “Let her breasts satisfy you AT ALL TIMES!!!” Be completely satisfied with your wife, and in turn each wife should be satisfied the same. Communicate! What do you want? Once again, Pastor Mike has put NOTHING in the sex world off limits as long as it is with your spouse.
While we are at it, let's try transexuals…
Bibletalk.tv having sport with Rachel Levine: The speaker is not a woman. He does not act like a woman. He cannot feel like a woman. He also cannot understand there are people who do NOT feel that way. He is pre-wired to be a man. But God does not pre-wire you to be a woman in a man’s body. (So there). Nor does he prewire you to be gay!
Every cell in your body has been stamped with the code “male” or “female” and that is how you will be judged. God will judge you according to how he made you. Woe to those who try to change that. He will judge your soul on how you respond to faith in Christ. You can come to Him no matter how lost and broken you are and He will ALWAYS receive you. WAIT. You just said God will receive you. Do you have to change? Will this change if the genetic code identifies a link to LGBTQ behavior?
Besides, if this is a “mental illness,” a deviant behavior, are all other mental illnesses that result in deviant behavior unforgivable sins for people?
Anyway, if God will always “receive you,” are WE allowed to abandon these people?
10) The Great Illusion: Gambling
Gambling gives the same high and creates the same addiction of other issues discussed here.
Gambling: Easy money at the expense of others.
People use their welfare checks to buy lottery tickets. Governments are simply recycling money.
Our job is not to win elections. It is to win people to Christ. Our job is not to make laws but to warn people which laws are contrary to the laws of God. Renounce the world in all its unholy actions.
Even Bingo is part of the world, part of the darkness. It is NOT part of the kingdom.
Gambling hurts many and benefits the few.
11) Genetic Engineering: Playing God – part 1
Genetic screening is acceptable to help the parents prepare or plan whether they should CONCEIVE or try to have a baby. Screening during pregnancy is acceptable to prepare the parents for a child who may need treatment (prenatal surgery perhaps?). But having screening during pregnancy is NOT a reason to have an abortion, AT LEAST NOT FOR THE CHRISTIAN. And if not a Christian? Do we legislate to apply our values and ideals on THEIR LIVES? And if the baby is deformed, certain to die, risking the life of the mother? Allow it to be born, allow God to let it die a “natural death,” and if mom dies, well, thems the breaks…
12) Genetic Engineering: Playing God – part 2
Do not abort a child because of disability. The cost is not an issue. The inconvenience is not an issue. The quality of life is not an issue. Society is responsible for this child. TELL THAT TO THOSE THAT MAKE BANNING ABORTION THEIR LIFE’S MISSION. And quit calling them retards.
Do you think there is not someone investigating cloning and other genetic engineering in the world? Like Donald’s friend Vladimir?
If a child born has no potential for developing any type of relationships the child has no value. Food and nutrition were withheld. Does this handicapped person have the ability to have an enjoyable life. No person has the right to end the life of any other person. Does any person have a right to live if they can NEVER support themselves or contribute to their world? Would you want to live that way?
Just about everything this guy bases his theories and positions on abortion, genetic engineering, certain fertility treatments are not even mentioned in the New Testament, but are based on the Book of Genesis written at least 3600 years ago – one man, one woman. So critical: Is Genesis to be accepted as verbatim truth? Or is it an allegory of Moses describing the birth of the chosen people through Abraham and written to motivate the Israelites perseverance in the exodus to the Promised Land.
13) Prejudice and the Bible
All people are the same because they came from the same one woman and the same one man.. Blacks are the same as whites because they also came from Adam and Eve. There was only ONE language in the world until the building of the Tower of Babel. At that point people scattered as God had ordered years before. Only after the Tower of Babel were different languages used in the world. People are different today ONLY because they separated into different groups and encountered different experiences and different ways of life. INCLUDING skin pigmentation by the way. And NOT over many thousands of years, but over about 5000 years of life.
Ham’s curse was that he would not be more prosperous than Shem and Japheth (if that was a curse). Ham’s son Japheth, on the other hand, WAS cursed to be slave to Shem and Japheth IF Japheth allied with Shem.
Comments:
Slavery is wrong Biblically because it is wrong to enslave someone because we all come from Adam and Eve and it is wrong to treat a person in the image of God improperly. But death penalty executions are proper? - killing a person in the image of God?
The OT also says slavery is OK. David did it. Solomon did it. Judah did it. Israel did it. They just couldn’t enslave a fellow Jew.
Then again treating someone as a slave is going against God’s will.
We are all equal before God. But not all BEHAVIOR is equal(or acceptable) before God.
It is our responsibility to shine the light on bad or unbiblical behavior, even if it brings push back and accusations of prejudice.
54
Time Magazine
Anti-Trans Laws Linked to Trans
Youth Suicide Attempts
By SOLCYRÉ BURGA. SEP 26, 2024 6:46 AM PDT
The passage of anti-trans laws caused suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth to increase from 7 to 72%.
Anti-transgender policies have caused a rise in suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth, according to a new Trevor Project study published in the journal Nature Human Behavior.
The peer-reviewed study found that when states pass anti-transgender laws—with policies like bathroom bans, which bar trans students from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity, or challenges to gender marker updates, which make it more difficult for trans people to have their accurate gender on state IDs—suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth ages 13 to 17 increased from 7% to 72%.
“There's nothing inherent in transgender, nonbinary young people that makes them at greater risk for suicide,” says Ronita Nath, vice president of research at the Trevor Project. “They're placed at greater suicide risk because of the stigma and mistreatment experienced in society, including these discriminatory laws and policies.”
Reseachers compared suicide-related outcomes for trans and nonbinary youth in states that had enacted one or more anti-transgender laws to states that did not enact such laws. They also accounted for outside factors that could affect suicide rates—including a state’s pre-existing suicide rate, national suicide prevention efforts, and more.
It’s the first study to establish what the researchers call a causal relationship between such policies and higher suicide attempt rates. The study used data from 2018 to 2022 from the Trevor Project’s national survey on the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth. The answers of more than 61,000 people ages 13-24 across five years were used.
The research shows that the adverse effects of anti-trans state policies on minors were seen earlier, or shortly after the law was passed, and were much more pronounced compared to the broader sample size that encompasses adults.
Part of the reason why may be because of the greater access adults have to LGBTQ+-affirming spaces. “Many state-level anti-transgender laws [are] targeting minors under the age of 18, and therefore really limiting the ability of young people to access gender-affirming-care or facilities to participate in school activities and sports that align with their gender,” says Nath.
Researchers did not find a link between the introduction of anti-trans policies that never moved forward and suicide attempts. Experts say more research is needed regarding the negative consequences of such policies.
“The results of the study point to an urgent need for protected policies that support transgender, nonbinary youth,” says Nath. “I would just urge all lawmakers to stop risking the health and safety of young people in hopes of scoring political points.”
55
Time Magazine
Anti-LGBTQ+ Policies Across American Schools
Are Seriously Impacting Queer Youth
By Solcyré BurgaAugust 21, 2024 12:00 PM EDT
Nearly one in three LGBTQ+ students say their school has at least one anti-LGBTQ+ policy, a survey released Wednesday found.
The survey was conducted by the Trevor Project, a suicide prevention organization that provides 24/7 crisis support for LGBTQ+ youth. About 18,000 LGBTQ+ youth, ages 13-24, were polled about whether students were able to do things like use their chosen name or pronouns and use locker rooms that matched their gender identity.
Many anti-LGBTQ+ rules in schools target students’ access to support services and affirmative spaces, though others were much broader—limiting conversations about LGBTQ+ topics both during classroom instruction and out of it. Schools with at least one anti-LGBTQ policy were also less likely to have a gay-straight alliance—a student-led club that is intended to be a safe space for queer individuals—or a gender-neutral bathroom, according to the survey. Seven percent of respondents also said that their school used to have a gay-straight alliance but stopped offering it.
The new survey adds to another Trevor Project survey published in May that found 40% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the last year. The latest study didn’t re-measure suicidal ideation, but found that LGBTQ+ students attending more supportive school environments had lower suicide risk rates and reported fewer depressive symptoms compared to queer youth attending schools that were less supportive. Attending a school with anti-LGBTQ+ policies also meant students were more likely to be exposed to verbal and physical attacks, as well as unwanted sexual contact, because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
“These alarming findings signal that anti-LGBTQ+ school policies have real-life consequences on the mental health, well-being, and overall safety of LGBTQ+ youth,” Ronita Nath, Vice President of Research at The Trevor Project, told TIME. “Young people learn harmful and discriminatory behavior from the adults, communities, and institutions that raise them…When anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment is normalized in school environments, it is then internalized by students and creates a culture of intolerance and hostility towards LGBTQ+ people in general.”
School districts and local legislatures have become hotbeds for culture wars across the U.S. At least eight states—including New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Alabama—explicitly forbid curriculum about LGBTQ+ people or topics, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank. By contrast, only seven states have laws that require LGBTQ+ inclusion in state education curriculum.
And while anti-LGBTQ+ policies impact the queer community as a whole, transgender and nonbinary students are disproportionately impacted, according to Nath, as they confront barred access to sports teams and bathrooms, as well as parental notification laws, which require staff to inform parents or guardians of their child’s gender identity or pronouns. Other data by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute looking at the broader effect of anti-LGBTQ+ policies, including those outside of classrooms, found that 93% of transgender youth ages 13 to 17 were living in a state that had passed or was considering a bill that targeted access to gender-affirming-care, the ability to use pronouns that match students’ gender identity, and more.
Anti-LGBTQ+ policies appear to be more prominent in certain regions. For instance, the survey found that 34% of LGBTQ+ youth living in the South reported going to a school that had at least one anti-LGBTQ+ policy—the highest rates in the country—followed by the Midwest at 29%.
The impact of such policies is perhaps best seen in states like Florida, which Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, calls the “frontline in America’s fight against the far-right anti-LGBTQ agenda.” Gov. Ron DeSantis made headlines in 2022 when he signed a bill dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” that would ban public schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity. (This March, the state settled a lawsuit that allows students and school staff to write and speak about LGBTQ+ issues and people in classroom discussion, though the ban is still active in terms of classroom instruction.) A January 2023 study by UCLA’s School of Law’s Williams Institute found that 88% of LGBTQ+ parents living in Florida were concerned about the impact Don’t Say Gay would have on their children, and more than half of LGBTQ+ parents considered moving out of the state because of the bill.
“Despite what proponents of anti-LGBTQ+ policies say, these efforts do not make school safer or better for any student. Instead, they stop LGBTQ+ students from being able to bring their full selves to school, and prevent school staff and allies from providing them with the support they need,” says Nath. “Making schools inclusive of LGBTQ+ students can provide a life-saving sense of belonging for young people.”
57
Forced Marriage
At 19, I Was Forced To Marry A Stranger And Was Sexually Assaulted Every Month For 12 Years
"I love my daughters, but I did not consent to having them."
By Fraidy Reiss
Jan 9, 2024, 08:30 AM EST
They sent me off to be raped, with a party and a tube of K-Y Jelly.
The lubricant was to reduce the intense physical pain they explained I would endure while being penetrated by a stranger-turned-husband, without foreplay, without consent. Every month. Until death do us part.
The party — a low-budget wedding in 1995 at a Brooklyn venue aptly nicknamed Armpit Terrace — was to distract me from the horrific reality of my forced marriage to the stranger.
“Mazel tov!” they told me, beaming.
In the reclusive Orthodox Jewish community in New York City where I grew up, choices about whether, when and whom I would marry did not belong to me. At home and at the all-girls religious school I attended, where I learned to cook and sew and keep house, I was groomed from early childhood to expect a teen marriage to a stranger my family and a matchmaker would choose for me.
I was allowed to meet the stranger several times before my engagement, but I was not allowed to be alone with him nor to have any physical contact with him. I was a clueless 19-year-old who had never been allowed to “talk to a boy,” and suddenly I was given a matter of hours, over a period of a few weeks, to answer my family and his family and the matchmaker and everyone in the community standing there, tapping their feet, looking at their watches, waiting for me to tell them: You’ll marry this man we chose for you, right?
“No” was never really an option.
During my six-week engagement, I still was not allowed to be alone with the groom nor to have any physical contact with him, which left more time for me to begin experiencing the myriad other abuses that come with a forced marriage.
First, a virginity exam. The groom’s rabbi sent me to an Orthodox Jewish gynecologist, where I was instructed to disrobe, get on the examination table and put my feet in the stirrups. The doctor inserted her gloved fingers into my vagina and confirmed that my hymen was intact.
“Mazel tov!” she told me, beaming.
I attended one-on-one bridal classes, where the curriculum centered on the requirement that I have unprotected sex with my husband on my wedding night and on a monthly basis thereafter. A lifetime of rape.
Yes, the rapes probably would hurt, the bridal class teacher explained. Hence the K-Y Jelly.
“Mazel tov!” she told me, beaming.
My stranger-turned-husband turned out to be violent and abusive. I learned this exactly one week after our wedding, when he became enraged because he had woken up late, and he punched his fist through the wall — hard enough to leave a sizable hole.
His first threat to kill me came only days later. Soon these threats became more frequent, specific and gruesome. He was brimming with creative ideas for how he would end my life, and he took the time to describe them to me in vivid detail. A lifetime of fear.
Yet I was trapped.
My forced marital sex was carefully timed each month for when I was ovulating. The reason for this was obvious: My first child was born 11 months after my wedding, and soon I had a second child.
I love my daughters, but I did not consent to having them. A lifetime of forced parenthood.
This denial of sexual and reproductive rights was not the only shackle preventing me from leaving my marriage. My husband did not allow me to have my own bank account or credit card, and I was taught that, under Orthodox Jewish law, if my husband allowed me to work, any money I earned belonged to him. A lifetime of domestic servitude and financial dependence.
I had limited legal rights too. Under Orthodox Jewish law, only a man can grant a divorce. I, as a woman, did not have the legal right to end my own marriage. A lifetime of being locked in unwanted wedlock.
One escape route for me would have been to move back in with my family as an agunah, a “chained woman” who is bound to a husband who refuses her a divorce. The life of an agunah is brutal; she is shamed for her powerlessness, blamed for her failed marriage and treated as an outcast.
But even this dreadful escape route was closed to me, because my family refused to take me back in. A lifetime of betrayal.
So I remained trapped in my abusive forced marriage. In accordance with Orthodox Jewish law, I was considered “unclean” every time I menstruated. While I was “unclean,” I was prohibited from having physical contact with my husband, sleeping in the same bed as him, handing him anything or undressing or singing in front of him. A lifetime of shame.
Once my period ended, I needed to count seven “clean” days without any menstrual blood, during which time the rules against physical contact continued. To make sure I stayed “clean” for the full seven days, I was required to wear white panties and, twice a day, to insert a white cloth into my vagina, swish it around and inspect it in sunlight to make sure it did not have blood spots. If I found questionable marks on my panties and could not tell whether they were blood, the rabbi would inspect them and give his pronouncement.
And the rabbi would keep my panties. A lifetime of extreme patriarchy.
Each month, after the seven “clean” days, I was forced to strip naked in front of an attendant who watched me immerse in a mikvah, or a ritual bath of rainwater, which frequently left me with a yeast infection and always left me shaking uncontrollably. A lifetime of violation.
All I wanted, every time I left the mikvah, was to take a hot shower and scrub the violation off me. That was prohibited. Instead I was required to go home and have non consensual sex with the man who had spent the day describing to me in graphic detail how he was going to murder me. The man who would not let me close the door when I used the bathroom, because “what was I hiding from him in there?”
No matter. I had to get on the bed and spread my legs and forget what had happened to me at the mikvah and ignore the pain while I waited for him to finish, and I had to remind myself how lucky I was that he usually was done after only three or four thrusts. A lifetime straight out of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Forced marriage — in which one or both parties do not give full, free consent — is recognized globally as a form of modern slavery. My story is far from unique: Around the world, 22 million people were in a forced marriage as of 2021.
Yet, even though the United States acknowledges that forced marriage is a human rights abuse, few laws and policies are in place to prevent or punish it, and the nation has paid such scant attention to this issue that we do not even know how often forced marriage happens here.
What’s more, child marriage remains legal in most U.S. states, even though it is recognized as a form of forced marriage and a human rights abuse. Some 300,000children were married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2018, mostly girls wed to adult men. At least 60,000 marriages occurred at an age or with a spousal age difference that should have been considered a sex crime.
My husband would regularly search through my personal belongings in front of me, including in the pockets of the clothing in my closet and in my bag of tampons under the bathroom sink. A lifetime of subjugation. When I finally realized at age 27 that I was the only person who would help me leave my abusive forced marriage alive and I decided I would secretly save up cash for my escape, I found the only safe hiding place in the house: a box of Whole Grain Total in the pantry.
I saved more than $40,000 in that cereal box over the next five years.
During those years I also defied my community and did something no one in my family had ever done: I became a college student. My husband forbade me from attending classes. I informed him, calmly, that nothing he did to me would stop me from getting my education.
And I did something no one I knew had ever done: I threw out the limp, ugly wig I was required to wear as a married woman to cover my own thick, healthy hair. I walked outside with my uncovered head held high — the equivalent, in that community, of walking outside naked.
My family retaliated immediately by shunning me. One of my sisters notified me that my family was planning to sit shiva — or observe the Jewish mourning ritual for me — as if I had literally died. I have had almost no contact with my family since that day. A lifetime of being dead.
But I graduated from Rutgers University (as commencement speaker, the equivalent of valedictorian) at age 32, and I escaped my abusive forced marriage on my own, with my daughters and my box of Total. I fled the Orthodox Jewish community too, and I rebuilt my life.
In 2011 I founded a nonprofit organization, Unchained At Last, to combat forced and child marriage in the U.S. through direct services and systems change.
The U.S. is one of 193 countries that agree forced and child marriage are harmful practices, particularly for women and girls, and have promised to eliminate these abuses by year 2030 to help achieve gender equality, under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Yet the U.S. is not on track to keep its promise.
I refuse to accept this. Not after I escaped my lifetime of oppression.
We at Unchained are fighting back by providing crucial wraparound services to a long-ignored population: those who are fleeing an existing or impending forced marriage in the U.S. To date we have provided legal and social services, always for free, to nearly 1,000 individuals, to help give them a lifetime of dignity, safety and hope.
We also started a national movement to end child marriage. In the last few years, our groundbreaking research and relentless advocacy have allowed us to help change the law in 10 U.S. states to ban child marriage — a stunning victory for the 7.5 million girls who live in those 10 states — and we are working on the other 40.
A lifetime of preventing other lifetimes of rape.
“Mazel tov!” I now tell myself, beaming, with each triumphant step closer to ending forced and child marriage in the U.S.
Fraidy Reiss is a forced marriage survivor turned activist. She is the founder and executive director of Unchained At Last, a survivor-led nonprofit organization working to end forced and child marriage in the U.S. through direct services and systems change. Fraidy’s research and writing on forced and child marriage have been published extensively, making her one of the nation’s foremost experts on these abuses. She has been featured in books (including as one of the titular women in Hillary and Chelsea Clinton’s “The Book of Gutsy Women”), films and countless television, radio and print news stories.
61
CONSERVATORSHIP
The Daily Beast July 25, 2021
The Romans, the Supreme Court, and Britney Spears—Conservatorship Abuse Has Been Happening for 2000 Years
Conservatorship was born in ancient Rome, focusing on the power and privileges invested in the father. It was, “quite literally the patriarchy.”
This week iconic pop star Britney Spears gave stirring and emotional testimony about living under the conservatorship granted to her father in 2008. Likening her experience to enslavement, Spears said she had been forced to work against her will, compelled to enter a mental-health institution, drugged, and prevented from having children. The shocking revelations drew instant support and raised questions about the nature of the conservatorship system. How could an international star who earned millions of dollars be exploited and controlled in this way?
For years the #FreeBritney movement led by fans of Ms. Spears has questioned the legality of the system. Conservatorship, sometimes known as guardianship, is a last-resort legal measure that is typically invoked on behalf of those with severe disabilities or dementia. Recent news coverage coupled with the release of films like I Care A Lot has shone a spotlight on the ways in which the system is open to abuse. Conservatorship has ancient roots and when you look at its history it’s unsurprising that socially marginal people—mostly the elderly and those with disabilities—are susceptible to this kind of legal manipulation. In fact, some might say that was always the point.
Conservatorship was born in ancient Rome. Roman law focused on the power and privileges invested in the pater familias (the citizen father and head of household), who were seen as the protectors of minors, their wives, and enslaved persons who lived in their home. Discipline began here: Roman law invested the pater familias with the power to administer punishment and justice within his own household. It was, University of Iowa ancient historian Sarah Bond told me, “quite literally the patriarchy” and “both the young and women were seen as vulnerable and often mentally incapable” of making their own financial decisions. If the father died, therefore, then a different male relative (usually an uncle) was appointed as a guardian (a tutor or curator). With a few exceptions, adult women as well as children needed the approval and support of their male tutor to take any kind of legal action of their own. Technically, their assets were the property of the tutor for as long as the tutelage continued.
It wasn’t just women and children who could find their legal and financial privileges revoked. As early as the fifth century BCE, when the Laws of the Twelve Tables, were formulated “diminished mental capacity” became a category in the legal system. A Roman magistrate, Bond told me, had the power to appoint a curator to oversee the finances of someone who was mentally incapable (potentially because of age) or a spendthrift. The assumption here, as in our own system, is that certain kinds of “bad” decisions render one incapable of making any decisions. Money and the preservation of wealth is often the key element. Implicit in this institution, as Bruce Frier writes in his Casebook on Roman Family Law, is a focus on “the protection of the ward’s property, mainly in the interest of potential heirs.” Even today it is mainly those with assets and money who are likely to find themselves in conservatorship.
The basis for this whole system, Bond said, was the power of the father as the supreme authority in the lives of women and children. The only way a woman could hope to gain any kind of personal legal status was through childbearing. The ius liberorum introduced by Augustus around the turn of the Era granted women who had had three children the opportunity to escape from the constant oversight of guardianship. For male children tutelage and curatorship ended when they became men in their teens, but could be extended until the age of 25. For female children it could continue in perpetuity.
This may seem to be 2,000 years and 5,000 miles removed from our own world, but the U.S. legal system is a direct heir of Roman law. The legal system that flourished and expanded from the second century BCE onwards in Rome and was codified in the centuries thereafter affected the development of European and ecclesiastical legal systems that, in turn, shaped the US Criminal Justice System.
You only have to visit Washington DC with its neoclassical architecture, said Bond, to see that how true this is. Half of the bas-reliefs that adorn the bronze doors of the Supreme Court depict ancient legal scenes and lawmakers. The Supreme Court website describes the overall scheme as representing “the evolution of justice according to the Western tradition.” The founding fathers read classical legal texts and thought with their systems of classification. You can see a copy of the Institutes of Justinian, the emperor Justinian’s sixth-century CE attempt to codify Roman law, alongside other important legal texts in Thomas Jefferson’s library.
One of the most troubling aspects of Ms. Spears’s claims was her statement that she has been prevented from removing an IUD so that she could not become pregnant. Not only has Spears expressed a desire to have more children but, at 39, the clock is ticking. Spears compared her experience to that of an enslaved sex worker. The comparison is apt: while historically most enslaved women have been coerced and forced into bearing children that would add to their enslaver’s workforce, the situation was different for sex workers whose ability to earn would be adversely affected. As an entertainer known for her slim build and energetic dance routines it seems that her “guardians” were concerned about her image. The implicit logic here seems to be that Spears’s career and, thus, earning potential would have suffered were she to become pregnant.
There is, however, another layer to this particular attempt to control Spears’s body and that is the history of ableism and eugenics in the American legal system. As activist Judy Heumann tweeted this week, conservatorship is “an abusive system that has been used against disabled people and older people for decades.” Those with mental health issues are especially vulnerable. In 1927 the Supreme Court upheld eugenic sterilization: in the decision Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” As Adam Cohen observed in his book Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck over 70,000 people were forcibly sterilized in the U.S. as a result and—shockingly—the 1927 Buck v. Bell case has not been overturned despite opportunities to do so. As recently as 2001 a case heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a sterilization case by citing Buck v. Bell.
Britney’s experience is part of a lengthy history in which able-bodied people use medical diagnosis and mental health in order to control the reproductive rights of others. The situation is especially tragic when you consider that Britney’s conservatorship began as the result of a “meltdown” that took place in the context of an embittered custody dispute. Her desire to be a mother is denied and exploited at every turn.
Even in ancient Rome—a world in which women and children were considered legally and intellectually inferior—lawmakers were aware of the ways in which the system could be abused. They introduced measures, albeit ineffective ones, to prevent caretakers from taking permanent control of the wealth of their wards and allowing guardians to be sued for maladministration. They were expected to take an inventory of the ward’s assets, invest their money promptly, collect any debts owed to them, and ensure that they were well educated. If they didn’t do these things, they might be liable to pay interest. The responsibilities and burdens of guardianship were so high that many tried to avoid it citing infirmity or disability as a reason they could not serve.
It is, therefore, an indictment of our own system that someone as visible and demonstrably capable of supporting themselves as Britney Spears could be treated in this way. It makes you wonder how many others are stripped of their rights and civil liberties. As writer and activist Eric Michael Garcia put it “if the state can do this to one of the most influential pop stars in my lifetime, think what it can do to others.”
64
Evangelism and Apologetics Question 74 -
The Bible and Divorce
74) The Bible and Divorce
1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies she is free to marry anyone she wishes BUT… HE MUST BELONG TO THE LORD. (let the beating begin. Unless a woman murders her husband…) This is written for 1st century Greek society. We are not there anymore.
Matthew 19:10-12 (Jesus speaks about divorce.) The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Explained: The disciples have listened to Jesus' response to the Pharisees' question about the grounds for divorce. The Pharisees have asked for Jesus' perspective about what "indecency" means in Deuteronomy 24:1, where the law seems to allow a man to divorce his wife for this reason. Jesus has stated that divorce is never allowed except in cases of sexual immorality. (Of whom? The woman, the man, or either? Is the man ALLOWED to be sexually immoral?)
The disciples respond to Jesus' declaration by saying that it's better not to get married at all. Most commentators agree that what the disciples mean by that is, if divorce is not an option, it would be better not to marry than to be stuck for life in an unhappy marriage. The presumed right to divorce if things did not go well was held dearly by many Jewish men of the time, including many of the religious leaders. Divorce had become common in Israel. The disciples said, perhaps foolishly, that marriage is too big of a risk without the possibility of divorce. Add to that marriages were arranged by the parents, NOT based on love necessarily.
Jesus will respond that though some can live without marriage, not everyone can.
Is this applicable today with society’s norms? Do women have rights? Should women have rights? Is the women’s rights movement a bad thing? If divorce was forbidden in Biblical times to “protect the woman” because she had no means of support, no education, no ability to provide for herself, has that situation changed today where colleges and many professions are now more attended by women. Is THAT non-Biblical?
Verse 12b: The one who can accept this should accept it.” Is Jesus advocating celibacy? For his followers? Celibate priests - even though Peter was married? FOR ALL MEN??? WHERE ARE THE BELOVED LITTLE CHILDREN GOING TO COME FROM???
Can women divorce? Even if the husband commits adultery? In the Old Testament, if a man has multiple wives and/or concubine(s) does THAT constitute adultery.
Ahhh then there is Paul… 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):) If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. (so divorce is ok if one is not a believer? Abuse is ok, but being married to an unbeliever justifies divorce???)
66
BBC History Magazine
The Invisible Romans
by Guy de la Bedoyere
Rome’s slaves were brutalized, mocked, and exploited - or simply ignored. Yet the Roman Empire could hardly had functioned without the labors of this captive population…
In AD 61, Pedanius Secundus, prefect of Rome, was murdered by one of his slaves. One story had it that the killer had been denied his freedom after agreeing the price of his liberty with Pedanius. An alternative version of events claimed that he had been infatuated with another of his master’s slaves. Either way, the law was clear: the murderer would have to die.
But the punishment didn’t end there. For, according to an ancient tradition – reinforced by a recent senatorial decision – every slave in Pedanius’s household would have to be executed, too. This grim prospect led to protests among the ordinary people of Rome, but the emperor Nero upheld the law. And so the hapless (and innocent) slaves were put to death.
Ancient Rome was a grisly and a glamorous place. The sun was barely able to creep down the narrowest alleys beside which most Romans lived, briefly illuminating the dirt, peeling plaster and filthy streets. Only a short distance away that same sun burnished the glittering temples of the forum with their garishly painted statues of the gods, the emperors and other greats. This bustling metropolis was home to the obscenely wealthy, to the middling sort of soldiers, bakers and actors, and, at the bottom of the pile – subject to the brutalities meted out by the Roman justice system – to thousands of slaves.
A huge proportion of the population in Rome was made up of slaves, former slaves, or the descendants of slaves. They were merely the tip of an iceberg: untold numbers worked on vast estates and mines across Italy and the empire, out of sight and out of mind.
Even in and around Rome, slaves were both visible and invisible. They were visible in the sense that they were to be found in every home, factory and farm; invisible in the sense that most of them were simply part of the background noise of life. Just as we ignore the hum of our fridges and the buzz of electric fans, so the Romans often took little notice of the human beings whose servitude and labour made their lives possible.
Looking the other way
The range of jobs slaves performed ranged from the hard labour of working in the mines or on vast agricultural estates to being the secretaries or personal assistants of Rome’s most senior magistrates or even the emperors. In the household a slave might find herself at the beck and call of a demanding domina (mistress) to help her dress, while also being subject to the sexual demands made by the dominus (master). The Roman general Scipio Africanus’s wife, Terentia, was highly regarded for looking the other way and ignoring her husband’s activities – if she had spoken out, she might have damaged his reputation.
Slaves were also required to haul rainwater by rope out of the cistern in buckets under the atrium (hall) floor. They cooked, they tended the garden. And they fulfilled tasks like dashing out of the house carrying a tray of hot food kept warm by a brazier all the way to the Forum for the master while he dealt with politics and deals.
Slaves arrived for sale in Rome and Italy from all over the Roman world. They formed a huge part of the booty from wars of conquest and could then be used or sold on by the generals responsible, with some soldiers also receiving an allocation. Julius Caesar had a reputation for collecting slaves of “exceptional figure and training”, and this had supposedly attracted him to invading Britain.
There was a vast and ceaseless second-hand market in slaves. Pliny the Younger, a wealthy senator and writer in the early second century AD, received a recommendation from Plinius Paternus, probably a relative. Having looked at them himself, he wrote to say: “I think the slaves you recommended I buy look fine. The only other thing I care about is that they are honest. On this, I can only rely on their reputations rather than their appearance.”
A writing tablet from Pompeii refers to the sale of slaves “on 13 December next… at Pompeii in the forum publicly in the daytime”. Slaves for sale could expect to be stripped and inspected by a slave dealer, usually known as a venalicius. Pliny the Younger referred to slaves casually, using the related word venalibus, which was a synonym for saleable, and in this case sentient, commodities. It’s the origin of our word venal, which now means something associated with corruption – and indeed the trade was notorious for sharp practice.
Threats and punishments
Slave dealers had plenty of tricks up their sleeves because there was a vast amount of money to be made from the trade. Hyacinth root could be placed in sweet wine to help delay signs of puberty (how this worked, if indeed it did, is not clear) and was clearly designed to help sell a slave to a buyer interested in having children either as a decorative ornament or for sexual purposes. Castration was another method. Meanwhile, resin dissolved in oil made an ointment used by dealers to rub all over the limbs of slaves. According to Pliny, this had the effect of “relaxing the skin upon all parts of the body, and rendering it more capable of being plumped out by food”.
One trader, Gaius Sempronius Nicocrates, detailed on his tombstone how troublesome and arduous long sea and overland journeys with slaves were. The tombstone of Aulus Caprilius Timotheus, who died around the end of the second century BC, showed his chained slaves being pulled along like mules. At least two children were involved. Timotheus, ironically, was a freedman and thus a former slave who made a living out of enslaving others.
When another slave-owner, Marcus Antonius Creticus, was asked by a friend for money, Creticus gave him a silver shaving bowl and told him to make what use he could of it. His wife, Julia, was furious when the bowl was discovered to be missing. She was about to interrogate the slaves individually, believing that one of them had been responsible. Her husband had to come clean to save them from punishment.
In a Roman household, the servile staff were seen as a potential threat to such an extent that they were automatically believed to be culprits. Of course, in practice they probably often were since theft was one way of supplementing their marginal existences.
The poet Juvenal (cAD 55–128) slated a woman whose husband seemingly turned his back on her at night. She took out her angst at her marital woes by presiding over the beating – and execution – of their slaves. “While the flogging goes on, she daubs her face, she listens to her girlfriends or considers the measurements of a gold-embroidered gown,” wrote Juvenal. “Her household is no mellower than a Sicilian [tyrant’s] court.”
These instances of cruelty were far from isolated. Slaves were subjected to an array of punishments. They might be punished by being sent to an ergastulum (‘slave prison’ or ‘workhouse’) throughout Italy where they had to work in the fields in chains. The managers of these establishments also increased their labourers by capturing travellers, or those trying to dodge military service.
Any mutiny within the household, or an attack on an owner, could result in all the household slaves being executed – as was the case following the killing of Pedanius Secundus in AD 61. In the early second century, the emperor Hadrian had to ban masters from killing their slaves and ordered that a slave who had been accused of a capital crime should be tried by the courts instead.
Also in around the early second century AD, Largius Macedo, a senator, was relaxing in the baths at his country villa when he was surrounded by some of his slaves. While one grabbed him by the throat, a second punched him in the face and more began to kick and trample him, including his private parts. Macedo was soon unconscious, or had the wit to pretend to be. The slaves threw him on the floor of the heated bath and decided to pretend that he had been overcome by the temperature. Macedo only survived a few days. Most of the guilty slaves were caught and would undoubtedly have been executed.
The motive is the one key factor missing from Pliny the Younger’s account of the incident. But the assault on Macedo’s body, and his genitals, suggests that he had gone too far with his prerogative to impose sexual demands on the female or young male slaves.
From bondage to business
Rome differed from other slave-owning societies in the ancient world in one key respect: its relationship with its freedmen and freedwomen class. No other ancient civilisation distinguished freed slaves so clearly and in such huge numbers. Rome’s senatorial upper classes spurned the idea of earning money through commerce and trade. But by freeing selected slaves they were able to create retainers who were tied to them through personal obligation and could run businesses on their behalf.
Freedmen and women became merchants, shop owners, managers of public baths, or pimps, and indeed almost any profession imaginable. Freedmen could not stand for office or even vote, but their sons could. Success in business enabled them to raise the funds to bankroll their sons’ political careers.
Some freedmen did exceptionally well. Euhodus was a freedman dealer in pearls (margaritarius) who lived and worked in Rome in the second or first century BC. We have no idea whether Euhodus was thought well of or not by his family and descendants. However, he was undoubtedly impressed by himself. His epitaph reads:
“Stranger! – stop and look at this mound to the left where the bones of a good, compassionate man and friend of those of modest means are contained. I ask that you, traveller, do nothing bad to this tomb. Gaius Ateilius Euhodus, freedman of Serranus, pearl seller on the Via Sacra, is preserved in this tomb. Farewell traveller. Under the terms of the will, it is not lawful to preserve or bury anyone in this tomb except those freedmen to whom I have granted and assigned [this].”
Euhodus’s name was Greek. He probably came from the eastern half of the empire, perhaps being sold in a Rome slave market as a child or youth. The Via Sacra, where he sold his wares, ran through the forum in Rome. This was a prime location that brought Euhodus sufficient success that he could afford to have his tomb and epitaph prepared, free his own slaves, and offer those whom he specified in his will a place in his tomb, too.
Just outside the Porta Maggiore in Rome is an incongruous sight. A prominent Roman tomb, made in the shape of a stack of bins for kneading dough, stands surrounded by modern streets and overhead cables, silent among the racket from the traffic that churns around it. This was the burial place of the ashes of a successful freedman (libertus) called Eurysaces who lived in the first century BC. He had a sense of humour. “It is obvious this is the tomb of Marcus Vergilius Eurysaces, baker, contractor,” proclaims the inscription. The tomb is an elaborate joke, hence the substitution of dough bins for the usual cremation urns. Eurysaces and his wife, Atistia, had made a small fortune from his nearby bakery business and was keen for everyone to know it for all eternity.
Eurysaces’s tomb towered over a road junction and the endless cavalcade of carts, animals and pedestrians that entered and exited the ancient city on either side. It’s fascinating to stand there today and imagine the cluttered drama that took place all around it as Romans of all types from rich to poor, free and enslaved, passed by. Thanks to the boastfulness of men like Eurysaces, we have an unparalleled window on this period in the ancient world – and of the men and women who emerged from the agonies of bondage to make a success of their lives.
Guy de la Bédoyère is a historian and broadcaster.
70
BBC History Magazine
Trapped in Servitude - Ancient Greek Slavery
Treating other humans as property was part and parcel of Greek life, with enslaved people ‘used’ across virtually all areas of society.
Enslaved people were an integral part of society in ancient Greece. Or, rather, the work they were involuntarily charged to undertake was an integral part of society – tasks, duties and jobs that the Greek citizens were broadly loath to carry out themselves.
Servitude was widespread in Greek antiquity. Athens alone was home to an estimated 60,000–80,000 slaves during the fifth and fourth centuries BC, with each household having an average of three or four enslaved people attached to it. Athenian slaves tended to enjoy more freedom than those elsewhere. A typical Athenian slave formed part of his master’s household and was initially welcomed with ceremony, offered nuts and fruits, just as a new bride might be. While denied many of the judicial rights possessed by Athens’ citizens, Athenian slaves enjoyed a few personal liberties: they could follow their own religious customs and they couldn’t be struck by their master.
VARIED FORTUNES
But, as the property of their master, Athenian slaves could still be sold off in the blink of an eye. Even Aristotle, arguably one of Athens’ more progressive thinkers, referred to enslaved people as ktêma empsuchon – a phrase that roughly translates as ‘animate property’, or ‘property that breathes’.
If they fell on hard times, Athenians could become a slave themselves through a practice called debt enslavement. For instance, if they leased land from a landowner but fell behind on the rent payments, they would become ‘enslaved’ to that landowner until the debt had been fully paid off. Many enslaved people were foreigners who had been captured during wars; the sons of defeated enemies might also be forced into slavehood, sometimes ending up serving the clients of male brothels. Or enslaved people were simply born into servitude, resigned to a life of comparative captivity as they inherited the family ‘trade’.
So-called chattel slaves were those owned by a master who viewed them as his possession, while dêmosioi were public slaves owned by the state and who worked for the civic good, whether in non-manual roles, such as clerks, or undertaking more physical work, such as road construction. All, though, were united in being denied civic rights and disqualified from participating in politics.
The most common type of work for enslaved people was within the agricultural sector, although many were otherwise set to task in quarries and mines. Domestic slaves arguably had less physically demanding existences; some would accompany their masters on their travels, perhaps even being becoming informal confidantes. Enslaved people might also work in professional trades, perhaps as artisans or shopkeepers or bankers. These – known as chôris oikountes – didn’t actually live under their masters’ roofs, but did work on their behalf, and paid them a commission. Their lives would, unsurprisingly, not be as harsh as those forced into heavy manual labour every day.
So, just as there was great variety in the nature of the work undertaken, when it came to status, being an enslaved person in ancient Greece was by no means a uniform experience either; there was no neat slave/non-slave binary distinction. Several shades of grey existed. For instance, enslaved people in Sparta were known as helots (pabox, above), a group that, at least in the eyes of the scholar Pollux, occupied a status “between free men and slaves”. In the region of Thessaly, the closest equivalent to helots were penestae who, like their Spartan counterparts, were tied to the land they inhabited. While their status was similar to serfs in later medieval times, the land of Thessaly was notably fertile and uncrowded, ensuring the penestae could comfortably pay the proportion of their produce due to their masters. The third-century BC writer Archemachus even claimed that “many of them are richer than their masters”.
FINDING A WAY OUT
Enslaved people who lived and largely worked independently of their masters were those least likely to feel the iron rod of discipline. Athenian slaves, too, could be physically punished and even tortured, and enslaved people elsewhere were also subject to beatings. As the statesman and intellectual Demosthenes argued, “the body of a slave is made responsible for all his misdeeds, whereas corporal punishment is the last penalty to inflict on a free man”.
While most enslaved people remained in servitude until death, it was possible to be freed by a master – the process of manumission, or enfranchisement. In all but the most benevolent of cases, an enslaved person effectively had to buy their way to freedom for this to happen, paying their master a sum that at least equated to their value were they to be sold off to a new master. If the slave had sufficient savings to be able to do this, their emancipation was likely to be total, meaning they couldn’t be enslaved again at any point in the future.
But if, as was distinctly likely, the enslaved person didn’t have access to sufficient funds, they might request a so-called ‘friendly’ loan from their master. In these circumstances, it was probable that they would still have to fulfill particular obligations to their former master until the loan had been repaid. That is, emancipation would only be partial. Completely escaping the control of a master was an ambition seldom realized.
72
What did Jesus mean by “upon this rock I will build my church” in Matthew 16:18?
GotQuestions.org
Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are the focus of an ongoing debate over who or what “the rock” is that Jesus mentions. The immediate context contains a question that Jesus put to His disciples: “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16), to which Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (verses 17–18).
Is “this rock” on which Christ promised to build His church Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Is it the truth of Peter’s statement? Or is the rock Jesus Himself? In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100 percent sure which view is correct.
First view: the rock is Peter
One view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter [petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means “rock,” and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock, it appears that Christ means to link Peter with the founding of the church. It’s true that God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14–47). Peter was also the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1–48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church.
Second view: the rock is the truth contained in Peter’s statement
Another popular interpretation is that the rock Jesus was referring to is not Peter, but Peter’s statement in Matthew 16:16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” In this view, the “rock” is the truthfulness of that statement—the church is built on the rock-solid truth that Jesus is God’s Chosen One and the eternal Son of God. In confessing Jesus as the Christ, Peter, the “rock,” was demonstrating his own stability as he stood on that truth. He was, in a way, showing his character and why Jesus nicknamed him “Cephas” or “Peter” (see John 1:42).
Third view: the rock is Peter’s faith
Jesus had never explicitly taught the disciples the fullness of His identity, and so it was God who had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes to that revelation. Jesus marks the source of that truth in Matthew 16:17. Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God poured forth from him as a heartfelt declaration of personal faith. Since personal faith in Christ is the hallmark of the true Christian, those who place their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter, writing to believers dispersed through the ancient world, likens them to stones used to build the church: “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” (1 Peter 2:4–5). The faith of believers is what makes them “living stones” able to be built into the church.
Fourth view: the rock is Jesus
After Jesus declares that God the Father had revealed the truth to Peter, He says, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). The word for “Peter,” Petros, is a masculine noun that means “a detached stone, a stone that might be thrown or easily moved” (Zodhiates, S., The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, 1992, p. 1,154). The word for “rock” next mentioned is a different Greek word, petra, a feminine noun that means “a mass of rock” or “a cliff” and therefore something foundational (ibid.; see also Matthew 7:24–25). The difference in the two terms may suggest that Jesus was contrasting Peter with Himself. That is, Jesus was saying, “You are the small rock, but I am the foundation of the church.” This view finds support in other passages that present Christ, not Peter, as the foundation of the church (1 Corinthians 3:11) and the life-giving rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Of course, the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church, but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone. So, Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are best interpreted as a simple play on words: a boulder-like, foundational truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone.
Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6–7; cf. Matthew 21:42). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which a building is anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? Believers are the stones that make up the church. They are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (not just Peter) and anchored to the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). “The one who trusts in [Christ] will never be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church, confers upon Peter the title of pope, and claims to be the one true church. As we have seen, however, identifying the rock as Peter is not the only valid interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Even if Peter is the rock upon which Jesus promised to build His church, it does not give the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the all-authoritative leader of the early church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
74
Is There a Christian Litmus Test?
Obery Hendricks, Jr. Christians Against Christianity
Is there a Christian Litmus Test? A Litmus Test for Politics? Do these views define a Christian? Are these the TRUE FAMILY VALUES that define a Christian?
It does NOT MATTER how much one attempts to love their neighbor or responds to the needs of the weak and vulnerable. What matters is that a person is:
1. Anti abortion
2. Anti divorce
3. Anti LGBTQ
4. Anti IVF
Note that NOWHERE does Jesus define or even SUGGEST a dogmatic religious litmus test as requirements for following him, let alone a test to determine if one is fit for heaven. NOT ONCE did Jesus say that God would judge anyone based on adherence to any particular creed. In fact, in the entire gospel, Jesus says virtually NOTHING about what to believe.
What Jesus DID teach were 2 ethical precepts: Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself - better stated as TREAT THE PEOPLE’S NEEDS AS HOLY.
Matthew 25:31-46 The Sheep and the Goats
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
75
Homosexuality in Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman Cultures
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW
ABOUT ANCIENT GREECE
BBC History Magazine
Q: Why were homosexuality and bisexuality accepted in ancient Greece but not in Rome?
A: It’s very, very hard to say. I think one possible explanation is that if you conquer a people and you think yourself, therefore, superior to them, you look for the things that differentiate your civilisation from theirs. And the Romans singled out their abhorrence, their rejection, of this ‘deviant custom’ of homosexuality among the Greeks, which they thought was effeminate. So I think that’s the answer: the Romans conquered the Greeks; Greeks were therefore seen as feeble; and one manifestation of their feebleness was seen to be their acceptance of homosexuality.
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece
In cities such as Sparta and Thebes, there appeared to be a particularly strong emphasis on relationships between men and youths, and it was considered an important part of their education. On the night of their wedding, Spartan wives were expected to lie in a dark room and dress as a man - presumably to help their husbands make the transition from homosexual to heterosexual love. While in Thebes, the general Epaminondas commanded a regiment composed of 150 pairs of lovers. This 'Band of Lovers' became a formidable fighting force, with lover defending lover until death.
Homosexuality in the Roman Empire
Wikipedia
Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active / dominant / masculine and passive / submissive / feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, so they were excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome.
Same-sex relations among women are far less documented and, if Roman writers are to be trusted, female homoeroticismmay have been very rare, to the point that Ovid, in the Augustine era describes it as "unheard-of". However, there is scattered evidence—for example, a couple of spells in the Greek Magical Papyri—which attests to the existence of individual women in Roman-ruled provinces in the later Imperial period who fell in love with members of the same sex.
Overview:
During the Republic, a Roman citizen's political liberty (libertas) was defined in part by the right to preserve his body from physical compulsion, including both corporal punishment and sexual abuse. Roman society was patriarchal (see paterfamilias), and masculinity was premised on a capacity for governing oneself and others of lower status.[6]Virtus, "valor" as that which made a man most fully a man, was among the active virtues. Sexual conquest was a common metaphor for imperialism in Roman discourse, and the "conquest mentality" was part of a "cult of virility" that particularly shaped Roman homosexual practices. Roman ideals of masculinity were thus premised on taking an active role that was also, as Craig A. Williams has noted, "the prime directive of masculine sexual behavior for Romans". In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, scholars have tended to view expressions of Roman male sexuality in terms of a "penetrator-penetrated" binary model; that is, the proper way for a Roman male to seek sexual gratification was to insert his penis into his partner.Allowing himself to be penetrated threatened his liberty as a free citizen as well as his sexual integrity.
Then again… Apollo, the god of sun and music, is considered the patron of same sex love, as he had many male lovers and was often invoked to bless homosexual unions.
76
Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity
Evangelism and Apologetics Question 12) What about homosexuality?
(Statements, opinions, quotations, Bible references meant to stir the mind and initiate the discussion on same sex relationships and homosexuality. From 3+ years of religious and Bible studies.)
Leviticus. 20:13 If a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman he must be put to death. Their blood will be on their own hands.
“For Christians, the problem is not how to reconcile homosexuality with scriptural passages that condemn it, but how to reconcile the rejection and punishment of homosexuals with the love of Christ.”
-- William Sloane Coffin
Why does discussion about LBGTQ always go straight to intimate acts and not about a loving relationship?
What bothers people? What is the sin? Attraction of love of the same sex or the intimate acts they may (or may not) perform? Were arranged marriages by parents, mainly the father, where love may not even be involved (pretty much the norm in Biblical times - Did Joseph “love” Mary? Is “old Joe” what Mary had in mind for her life? Or was she told “that’s gonna be your man.”) better than love between 2 people of the same sex?
Rep. Ted Lieu: This is how many words Jesus spoke about homosexuality… followed by 20 seconds of silence…
1 Timothy 1:10 Compare the King James version to the NIV to the Fresh Start Bible. We have gone from “immorality” to full blown condemnation of homosexuality. …it’s always the sex part…
An aside: What causes “love?” According to Dr Helen Fisher, a renowned anthropologist, there are 3 distinct phases of falling in love.
Stage 1: Lust is driven by the levels of testosterone (men) and estrogen (women) in our bodies. This isn’t so different from other mammals on the planet.
(The initial happy feelings of being in love is stimulated by 3 chemicals in the brain: noradrenaline that stimulates adrenaline production causing that racing heart and sweaty palms; dopamine, the feel-good chemical; and phenylethylamine that is released when we're near our crush, giving us butterflies in our tummies.)
Stage 2: Attraction is similar in feeling to the effect of certain drugs or alcohol. The emotion of euphoria, and the release of a jumble of chemicals in the brain, including dopamine (pleasure), adrenaline (fight or flight) and norepinephrine (alertness), can make falling in love feel like an addictive rush. Adrenaline, in particular, is the reason your cheeks feel flushed, your palms feel sweaty and your heart races when you meet someone you like for the first time.
Stage 3: Attachment sees the release of dopamine and norepinephrine replaced with oxytocin (the ‘cuddle’ hormone), which is when you may begin to feel closely bonded and start making long-term plans together.
While the 3 phases of love might seem straightforward, there are several other factors that affect who you end up falling in love with. Many of us say we have a ‘type’, but is that true? Here are 4 scientific reasons why you might fall in love with someone.
Their smell. How similar they are to you. Their appearance. Their BMI (body mass index).
More: Reasons for love: intimacy, passion and commitment.
What are the main signs of love? Here's what these feelings might look like in action.
1. You feel charged and euphoric around them. …
2. You can't wait to see them again — even when they've just left. …
3. Everything feels exciting and new. …
4. You always make time for them. …
5. You don't mind making sacrifices for them. …
6. You have fantastic sex. …
7. You idealize them.
Six Biblical Passages That Discuss LGTBQ Issues
While the six passages that address same-sex eroticism in the ancient world are negative about the practices they mention, there is no evidence that these in any way speak to same-sex relationships of love and mutuality. To the contrary, the amount of cultural, historical and linguistic data surrounding how sexuality in the cultures of the biblical authors operated demonstrates that what was being condemned in the Bible is very different than the committed same-sex partnerships we know and see today. The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) are about sexual violence and the Ancient Near East’s stigma toward violating male honor. The injunction that “man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) coheres with the context of a society anxious about their health, continuing family lineages, and retaining the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation. Each time the New Testament addresses the topic in a list of vices (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the argument being made is more than likely about the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, a practice called pederasty, and what we read in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans is a part of a broader indictment against idolatry and excessive, self-centered lust that is driven by desire to “consume” rather than to love and to serve as outlined for Christian partnership elsewhere in the Bible. While it is likely that Jews and Christians in the 1st century had little to no awareness of a category like sexual orientation, this doesn’t mean that the biblical authors were wrong. What it does mean, at a minimum, is that continued opposition toward same-sex relationships and LGBTQ+ identities must be based on something other than these biblical texts, which brings us back to a theology of Christian marriage or partnership.
78
Marriage of a Couple Compared to Christ and the Church
Evangelicals have a core belief that sex differentiation is an indispensable part of Christian marriage. The latter being of tremendous importance, because according to the New Testament, marriage is a primary symbol of the love between Christ and his beloved “bride,” the church. To them, same-sex couples (and single people for that matter) are uniquely excluded from participation in this symbol on the basis of a failure to perform one or more dimensions of an often vague category referred to as ‘gender complementarity.’
And yet, those who are not married but are not LGBTQ+, like single people or people whose spouses have passed, are embraced as Christians.
Is the larger point that God’s design for Christian partnership is about reflecting the truest and sweetest love that anyone could know; that is the self-giving, ever-enduring, liberating love between God and creation made possible for us through Christ?
(This is a profound comparison. However, it raises this question: At the time, and in Israel’s past as well, marriages were ARRANGED by the parents. Love may have had little or NO factor in a marriage. In fact it appears LOVE is way down the list of importance in a marriage, purity of the religion and producing a son-heir being FAR more important.)
(Was Jesus rejected by encouraging marriage based on LOVE and not on PURITY OF THE RELIGION and PRODUCING A SON-HEIR with pure Jewish blood? Jesus, then Paul to an even greater extent, advocated for LOVE. For devotion to spouse and to family. Wouldn’t this put a risk to the ever ending power of the religious leaders? Put an end, eventually after many generations, to the purity of the Jewish people?)
John 8:1-8 reinterpreted
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a man caught in relations with another man. They made him stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this man was caught in the act of homosexuality. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such men. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first first to throw a stone at her.”
One of the Pharisees bent down to grab a stone anyway and when he stood up he looked at the accused. “This man is my son.” And then he ??????
I wonder why Jesus never addressed circumcision in the Gospels since I think he knew it would be the biggest theological hurdle the disciples would face. But now I see it was purposeful. The life and ministry of Jesus showed the disciples how to read Scripture and apply it in a way that doesn’t exclude, but instead offered life to as many people as possible. So even though the disciples knew what Genesis said about circumcision being an eternal sign of the covenant between God and the people of Israel, the disciples chose to remove the requirement of circumcision. They said that there shouldn’t be a stumbling block for those who choose faith in Christ.
*****If Romans 1 doesn’t address woman with woman relationships, then there are no passages in all of Scripture that condemn intimacy between women. This would make sense because much of the understanding behind what was “natural” is that sex ought to lead to procreation. Culturally, marriage between Roman citizens was valued primarily for cementing one’s status as the head of a household and contributing to society by opening the avenue for procreation. A marriage ensured offspring you could impart your inheritance to. So men pursued marriage and women accepted it not primarily because they fell in love, or because of attraction, but for social status and for procreation. Unlike today, Roman marriages were not based on romantic attraction. A marriage was the result of two families coming together to agree on an arrangement. People whose marriage was arranged for them didn’t have a valid objection if their sole reason for not wanting to marry was because they weren’t in love. Having children was considered a social responsibility to one’s family and to the Empire. So one significant reason why gay marriage wasn’t addressed in Scripture was because it wasn’t a cultural issue; marriage between two people of the same gender was out of the question, since romantic feelings were not the reason for marriage—procreation was.
79
*****What did Jesus teach?
Matthew 5:28 But I say to you everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent (is this “she is beautiful, attractive, hot?” or is it “I want to have sexual relations with her?”) has already committed adultery in his heart. (Are women allowed to ogle a man??? Or is she just not allowed to lustfully desire another woman?)
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (what is that? Any sex other than for procreation? Who decides this? St. Augie thought ALL sex was a result of lust, so all sex other than procreative efforts - and you evidently need forgiveness for THAT! - is EVIL!), theft, false witness, slander.
More on Augustin: Augustin of Hippo - the 5th century. A slave to his own sensuality, uncontrollable sexual desires. Romans 13 changed him. He became chaste. He felt Paul tormented as much as himself. Pelagius, an Irish monk, felt that Jesus was a moral teacher who showed us the way. Man can do good. Augustin was outraged! He felt humans ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING GOOD UNLESS THEY ARE SAVED BY THE GRACE OF GOD IN JESUS CHRIST.
The good: The teacher of grace, an important interpretation of Paul.
The bad: Human depravity - especially human sexuality - is the problem.
Theory: Homosexuality is a learned behavior.
You are not “hard-wired” to be homosexual. But… from DTS lectures.
Corinthians DTS Tom Constable worked as a counselor at a summer Bible camp and wanted to continue that position so he could counsel the campers. The staff kept giving him administrative positions. He was told because they recognized his ADMINISTRATIVE GIFTS from God. He had to accept that HE WAS HARDWIRED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATOR. As homosexuals try to explain that they are HARDWIRED to their preference for a partner.
The Story of Scripture Mark Yarborough Week 7 I need to get outdoors sometimes to be with God – JUST THE WAY HE IS WIRED.
Judging homosexuals: BEWARE (he without sin…)
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. THEY MUST BE PUT TO DEATH. (See Romans 1. In the same vein those of sexual immorality DESERVE DEATH.)
All other sexual taboos – most requiring death, are listed in Leviticus 20. Beware of judging homosexuals. If you: have sex during a woman’s period, if a man commits adultery, if a person turns to a spiritist or medium, if a person curses his mother or father, they must be put to death. If a man marries his brother’s wife (WAIT! I thought a man HAD to marry his brother’s wife if the brother died… Matthew 22:24 …Moses told us if a man dies without having children, his brother MUST marry the widow and have children for him…) they will be cursed.
Leviticus 24:17 If anyone takes the life of a human being he must be put to death (including the one who KILLS THE HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE? And the guy who kills HIM? Pretty soon EVERYBODY is gonna be dead.
Leviticus 24:20 ...fracture for fracture, eye for an eye. (Thank heavens for Jesus!)
Follow these laws. KILL these offenders or I will evict you from “THEIR LAND” which I have given to you. (God gave the chosen people SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND!)
80
Christian Doctrine by Shirley Guthrie
Sexual, racial, and cultural differences are not bad in themselves, they contribute to the richness and variety in God’s world. But they become demonic when such attributes result in sexism, racism, and classism that seeks to humiliate or destroy, even wipe out, such people with whom one disagrees. We are ALL created in God’s image.
Take a culture like Jamaica where religion is front and center in people’s lives but adultery and procreating children with no intention of raising them (on the part of the father) is pretty much the way of life there.
More Guthrie: Pg 202 Man is made in God’s image, MALE and FEMALE. This defines our humanity. Does God have male or female attributes? Or both? Or none? Guthrie postulates NONE. Second point, marriage or being sexually active does not define humanity. One may be human without engaging in either. Relationships do NOT have to be between male and female to be human. The Bible has MANY same sex relationships - Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Jesus and his disciples. The Bible does question homosexual relationships as “immoral” (I think). Why do same sex relationships go straight to “Sexual Activity?”
81
A thousand years ago, the Catholic Church
paid little attention to homosexuality
Published: April 10, 2019 6:49am EDT
Author: Lisa McClain, Professor of History and Gender Studies, Boise State University
Disclosure statement: Lisa McClain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Pope Francis has spoken openly about homosexuality. In a recent interview, the pope said that homosexual tendencies “are not a sin.” And a few years ago, in comments made during an in-flight interview, he said,
“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
However, the pope has also discouraged homosexual men from entering the priesthood. He categorically stated in another interview that for one with homosexual tendencies, the “ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.”
Many gay priests, when interviewed by The New York Times, characterized themselves as being in a “cage” as a result of the church’s policies on homosexuality.
As a scholar specializing in the history of the Catholic Church and gender studies, I can attest that 1,000 years ago, gay priests were not so restricted. In earlier centuries, the Catholic Church paid little attention to homosexual activity among priests or laypeople.
While the church’s official stance prohibiting sexual relations between people of the same sex has remained constant, the importance the church ascribes to the “sin” has varied. Additionally, over centuries, the church only sporadically chose to investigate or enforce its prohibitions.
Prior to the 12th century, it was possible for priests – even celebrated ones like the 12th-century abbot and spiritual writer St. Aelred of Riveaulx – to write openly about same-sex desire, and ongoing emotional and physical relationships with other men.
Biblical misunderstandings
The Bible places as little emphasis on same-sex acts as the early church did, even though many Christians may have been taught that the Bible clearly prohibits homosexuality.
Judeo-Christian scriptures rarely mention same-sex sexuality. Of the 35,527 verses in the Catholic Bible, only seven – 0.02% – are sometimes interpreted as prohibiting homosexual acts.
Even within those, apparent references to same-sex relations were not originally written or understood as categorically indicting homosexual acts, as in modern times. Christians before the late 19th century had no concept of gay or straight identity.
For example, Genesis 19 records God’s destruction of two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, by “sulphur and fire” for their wickedness. For 1,500 years after the writing of Genesis, no biblical writers equated this wickedness with same-sex acts. Only in the first century A.D. did a Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, first mistakenly equate Sodom’s sin with same-sex sexuality.
It took centuries for a Christian consensus to agree with Philo’s misinterpretation, and it eventually became the accepted understanding of this scripture, from which the derogatory term “sodomite” emerged.
Today, however, theologians generally affirm that the wickedness God punished was the inhabitants’ arrogance and lack of charity and hospitality, not any sex act.
Religious scholars have similarly researched the other six scriptures that Christians in modern times claim justify God’s categorical condemnation of all same-sex acts. They have uncovered how similar mistranslations, miscontextualizations, and misinterpretations have altered the meanings of these ancient scriptures to legitimate modern social prejudices against homosexuality.
For example, instead of labeling all homosexual acts as sinful in the eyes of God, ancient Christians were concerned about excesses of behavior that might separate believers from God. The apostle Paul criticized same-sex acts along with a list of immoderate behaviors, such as gossip and boastfulness, that any believer could overindulge in.
He could not have been delivering a blanket condemnation of homosexuality or homosexuals because these concepts would not exist for 1,800 more years.
Gay sex, as such, usually went unpunished
Early church leaders didn’t seem overly concerned about punishing those who engaged in homosexual practice. I have found that there is a remarkable silence about homosexual acts, both in theologies and in church laws for over 1,000 years, before the late 12th century.
When early Christian commentators such as John Chrysostom, one of the most prolific biblical writers of the fourth century, criticized homosexual acts, it was typically part of an ascetic condemnation of all sexual experiences.
Moreover, it was generally not the sex act itself that was sinful but some consequence, such as how participating in an act might violate social norms like gender hierarchies. Social norms dictated that men be dominant and women passive in most circumstances.
If a man took on the passive role in a same-sex act, he took on the woman’s role. He was “unmasculine and effeminate,” a transgression of the gender hierarchy that Philo of Alexandria called the “greatest of all evils.” The concern was to police gender roles rather than sex acts, in and of themselves.
Before the mid-12th century, the church grouped sodomy among many sins involving lust, but their penalties for same sex-relations were very lenient if they existed or were enforced at all.
Church councils and penance manuals show little concern over the issue. In the early 12th century, a time of church revival, reform and expansion, prominent priests and monks could write poetry and letters glorifying love and passion – even physical passion – toward those of the same sex and not be censured.
Instead, it was civil authorities that eventually took serious interest in prosecuting the offenders.
The years of hostility
By the end of the 12th century, the earlier atmosphere of relative tolerance began to change. Governments and the Catholic Church were growing and consolidating greater authority. They increasingly sought to regulate the lives – even private lives – of their subjects.
The Third Lateran Council of 1179, a church council held at the Lateran palace in Rome, for example, outlawed sodomy. Clerics who practiced it were either to be defrocked or enter a monastery to perform penance. Laypeople were more harshly punished with excommunication.
It might be mentioned that such hostility grew, not only toward people engaging in same-sex relations but toward other minority groups as well. Jews, Muslims and lepers also faced rising levels of persecution.
While church laws and punishments against same-sex acts grew increasingly harsh, they were, at first, only sporadically enforced. Influential churchmen, such as 13th-century theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas and popular preacher Bernardino of Siena, known as the “Apostle of Italy,” disagreed about the severity of sin involved.
By the 15th century, however, the church conformed to social opinions and became more vocal in condemning and prosecuting homosexual acts, a practice that continues to today.
Priests fear retribution today
Today, the Catholic Catechism teaches that desiring others of the same sex is not sinful but acting on those desires is.
As the Catechism says, persons with such desires should remain chaste and “must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Indeed, Catholic ministries such as DignityUSA and New Ways Ministries seek to serve and advocate for this population.
Yet gay priests are in a different category. They live and work under mandatory celibacy, often in same-sex religious orders. Pope Francis I has encouraged them to be “perfectly responsible” to avoid scandal, while discouraging other gay men from entering the priesthood.
Many fear retribution if they cannot live up to this ideal. For the estimated 30-40% of U.S priests who are gay, the openness of same-sex desire among clerics of the past is but a memory.
84
The American family moving to Russia to flee
‘moral decline’ of US
Marc Bennetts August 16 2024, The Times
Kremlin claims the Heyers from New York — part of a steady trickle of western citizens relocating — believe they are safer in Moscow after being granted asylum in their new homeland
The middle-aged American held up his blue Russian residency permit for the cameras and expressed his gratitude to the Kremlin for allowing his family to escape from the United States to Moscow.
“I feel like I’ve been put on an arc of safety for my family,” Leo Heyer said in a video published by the Russian interior ministry. “The person I want to thank is President Vladimir Putin for allowing Russia to become a good place for families in this world climate.” His wife, Chantel, said: “In a small way, it feels as if I just got married to Russia.”
The Heyers, along with their three school-age children, were granted asylum in Russia this week after fleeing “moral decline” in their homeland, state media said.
Irina Volk, the interior ministry spokeswoman, said they were a Christian family who had decided to move to Russia due to fears about the “abolition of traditional moral and family values” in American society. “[They] were concerned about the future that awaited their children. They say it is safer here and the level of education is better,” she said.
Very little is known about the couple apart from that they come from New York. Neither of them appear to have social media accounts and Moscow did not reveal their children’s names or ages. They are planning to apply for Russian citizenship, the interior ministry said.
Extracting Americans from Russia’s brutal prisons has proven a major diplomatic challenge for the United States, requiring it to hand over spies, a Kremlin-linked arms dealer and a convicted FSB assassin to secure their freedom. The White House has accused Moscow of seizing Americans to use as “bargaining chips” in prisoner swaps, while the US state department has repeatedly warned against travelling to Russia.
Yet despite the obvious risks, a small but steady trickle of western citizens are relocating to Russia, drawn by the Kremlin’s depiction of the country as a bastion of Christian values. In recent years Putin has told his people that Russia is engaged in an existential battle with the West for the future of humanity’s soul. He has accused western countries of of “Satanic” LGBT-friendly policies that he says have destroyed the traditional family unit.
The Kremlin recently outlawed the “international LGBT movement” as an extremist organisation, even though no such group exists. It has also enshrined the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman in its constitution.
On social media, Americans and Europeans actively seek advice on how to move to Russia. This week a woman from Texas wrote on a Facebook group called Expats in Russia that she was planning to move to the country with her family to escape “fake people, politics interjected into everything, [and a] lack of family values”. She also claimed there was no such thing in Russia as racial discrimination.
Some of the westerners who hope to begin new lives in Russia appear to have little knowledge of the country. “Is it possible to move and live in Russia as an American citizen? What jobs are available? Where do I go to apply? Then what would I need to do to get to Russia?” read another recent post.
Arend and Anneesa Feenstra, a couple from Canada who moved to Russia this year with their eight children to get away from “LGBT ideology”, ran into difficulties when their bank accounts were frozen. Anneesa posted an angry video to YouTube saying that she was “disappointed” in Russia and was ready to “jump on a plane and get out of here”. The couple, who remain in Russia, later deleted the video and apologised.
Putin’s depiction of Russia as a stronghold of traditional Christian family lifestyles is not backed up by the facts. About a third of Russian families have been abandoned by their fathers, according to official statistics. Half of all marriages end in divorce, with infidelity, poverty and alcohol cited as the leading causes.
The Kremlin has also allowed the imposition of strict Islamic laws in Chechnya, where women are forced to cover their heads and the sale of alcohol is banned. Putin’s government has even cracked down, often violently, on its own citizens who adhere to Christian faiths other than Russian Orthodoxy.
The stories of couples like the Heyers who move to Russia on ideological grounds have echoes of the western citizens who relocated to the Soviet Union to help Moscow “build communism”. Many ended up in Gulag labour camps when Joseph Stalin unleashed his campaign of political terror in the 1930s.
Note: This is not a new phenomenon. From Christians Against Christianity/Hendricks, Jr. pages 57-58: In 1977 Anita Bryant unleashed attacks against Miami, FL’s gay community telling the Cuban community that gays were “recruiting their children to homosexuality. Miama was becoming a second Sodom and Gommorah and the Cubans would have to flee again and RETURN TO CASTRO’S CUBA to escape them.”
86
Opinion | The Bible verse proving anti-LGBTQ
Methodists have not truly read the Bible
Dec. 31, 2023, 6:00 AM EST. by Robert Allan Hill | MSNBC Opinion Columnist
On Dec. 31, the United Methodist Church will officially complete its realignment, a period of several years during which congregations could vote to leave the denomination. Up to a quarter of American congregations have chosen this option. The percentage of churches and percentage of congregants is not the same — it may be a smaller percentage of actual members who split off — but this schism has changed the shape of Methodism. And yet, while the schism will bring challenges, it also has provided a way forward for the vast majority of members to affirm and love its LGBTQ members, as well as their many family members and other allies.
Like other Protestant denominations (for example the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches), the United Methodist Church has faced decades of conflict, largely over the full humanity of gay people. Also like other denominations, after years of national and other meetings, the denomination has at long last come to a conclusive point after deliberations by the General Conference (the church's governing body).
These divisions are by no means a surprise, and in fact have existed openly since at least 1970. Over the past 50 years, the question of how to treat LGBTQ Methodists has been debated, avoided, postponed — and dreaded — since before I entered the ministry in 1979.
Politics has played a clear role here, as it has in church decisions for the more than 200-year history of Methodism. The United Methodist Church has always been the most national, most representative Protestant denomination, with at least one church in every county in the United States.
Given this reality, LGBTQ rights is not the only wedge issue dividing the denomination. Our current Book of Discipline affirms a moderate pro-choice position on abortion, something many of those leaving the denomination similarly oppose. Methodism also has a long track record of advocacy for the rights of women, including the right to ordination, which some of those leaving the denomination oppose. And even broader cultural issues related to lifestyle, parenting and schooling have percolated not only through the body politic of the country, but also through the community and communities of faith.
There is a direct relation and correlation between the denominational debates and national political currents. Some of this is simply the societal: John and Mary argue at the school board meeting on Tuesday evening and then worship together on Sunday morning. But it’s also tied to differing churchgoers’ divergent perspectives on local versus national authority, and state versus federal authority.
Having had the privilege of preaching from 10 different pulpits, I’ve observed just how localized and culturally distinctive each congregation becomes, in matters great and not so great.
But while our faith communities, like our country, have become polarized across a wide range of issues, differing stances on gay rights have contributed most directly to the current denominational move forward. This is an issue that is biblically misunderstood. There are, in all 66 books of the Bible, including both Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament, some 30,000 verses. Exactly six of those — six out of 30,000 — arguably have anything directly to say about same-gender relationships. It was not exactly a central theme for the biblical writers.
But what makes this matter so devilish for modern Methodism is not the utter paucity of any biblical material related to this theme, but rather the very clear, centrally admonished teaching otherwise. Take Galatians 3:28, often a favorite verse for conservatives. Paul writes: “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female." Martin Luther called Galatians “the Magna Carta of Christian liberty.” And in it, Paul very clearly sets aside religious, economic and sexual distinctions, on the power of the unity of faith, of baptism and the Gospel of Christ. “There is no male and female,” but rather the unity of faith, hope and love in the person of Christ, crucified and risen. (For more analysis on this topic, see J.L. Martyn’s magisterial “Anchor Yale Bible Commentary.”)
Thus, many of those now leaving the denomination, purportedly on biblical grounds, have apparently not read all of the Bible, or at least have not read some parts of it carefully, faithfully and fully, especially Galatians 3:28 and similar passages within the full and fully liberating arc of biblical theology.
Nevertheless, the separation is happening. And for the future, that means hard work for Methodism. It means the ongoing struggle to support urban ministry with poor and underprivileged people, the struggle to support growing churches in Africa and Asia, the struggle to support summer camping ministries, campus ministries, elder care ministries and many other forms of service that our connectional system has effectively and efficiently provided over decades, will have to go on with fewer people, churches and far less money. We will have to cut in all these mission-driven areas and of course in many other administrative ones (number of Bishops, superintendents and other).
Politics is downstream from economics, which is downstream from culture, which is downstream from religion (and here I mean religion very broadly construed). What happens in religion really matters, and it both conditions and reflects the broader American landscape, for good or ill or very ill. Our divisions flow downstream into others.The work of the church will get more difficult after today. But 2024 also brings a new day, a chance for creative repositioning, a moment for younger clergy coming of age to find their voice and influence, and the kind of freedom that comes with change.
87
What Does Romans 13 Mean?
(Do you willingly submit to authorities? Continue to speak the truth despite what the authorities say, even if you create conflict? Or do you shake off the dust and move on to a more receptive audience?)
In Romans 12, Paul described what it means to be a living-sacrifice Christian. In short, it mostly has to do with setting ourselves aside to serve the Lord, each other, and even our enemies in love.
Now Paul turns to the issue of how Christians who are saved by God's grace should interact with our present governments. He describes the biblical doctrine of submission to human authorities, something Peter also teaches (1 Peter 2:13–17). Again, those in Christ are called to set themselves aside and to trust God to provide what is needed through those in authority, whether good or evil.
Paul is clear that this applies to every person. He calls for us to be in submission to government authorities, though he does not say that we must obey them in all cases. Paul and the other apostles refused to obey commands from people in authority to stop preaching the gospel, for instance (Acts 5:27–29). They did, however, submit to those in authority in all matters that were not in contradiction to the will of God.
Why should we submit? Paul is clear: Every authority in the world was established by God. This would include, of course, good leaders, evil leaders, and everyone in-between. Paul's instruction here, then, is not about blind nationalism or absolute obedience to men. Rather, it is a recognition that human government—in general—is a legitimate authority, and that Christians cannot use their faith as an excuse for civil lawlessness. God puts all leaders in place for the specific reasons Paul will describe in the following verses.
We should remember that Paul is writing this letter to Christians in Rome. The government of Rome ruled much of the known world at the time. It was led by the Emperor Nero from AD 54–68. Nero is famous for his cruel and unfair treatment of Christians, among other groups. We must not assume that Paul is writing these words lightly. He was aware of the implications of his teaching.
Well this raises a lot of questions. Like Hitler. Putin. Trump. Raiding abortion clinics. Slavery. Misogyny. If we are not to rebel WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS SINNERS???
AND: When is the only time it is justifiable to kill? THOU SHALT NOT KILL…
Romans 13:4 For he (the authority, the government) is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an angel of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (What say we to Hitler? Stalin? Capital punishment? What would Jesus say??)
88
Another take:
Context Is Key to Interpreting Romans 13:1-7
by David May | May 9, 2012 | Opinion
A critical factor for biblical interpretation is context, context, context. Nowhere is this point truer than Romans 13:1-7.
As Robert Parham’s recent editorial, “Romans 13 Is Weak Proof-Text for Anti-Immigration Church Members,” illustrates, Romans 13 is often the go-to proof-text for urging compliance with and allegiance to government authority.
But here is the rub: Romans 13 has absolutely nothing to do with one’s relationship to the government, whether the Roman Empire in the first century or any government today.
That’s right: We have misunderstood, misapplied and missed the point of these verses all because we have divorced them from the original context.
The original Judean context, specifically believers worshiping in the Roman synagogues, makes all the difference in the world how verses 1-7 are understood.
Let me illustrate this neglected context. First, rarely does a reader consider it odd that these few verses suddenly appear out of nowhere related to the Roman Empire and taxes.
Paul has spent chapter after chapter focused on internal community issues related to Judeans and Gentile believers. Why does Paul change direction from dealing with these issues and digress to a totally off-the-wall subject about Roman rule?
He doesn’t. We have wrenched these verses out of their Judean context and made them service a de-Judaized interpretation – a thing they were never meant to do.
Mark Nanos, author of “The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letters,” has pointed out this disservice to the text with brilliance, clarity and impeccable research.
What I am suggesting below is indebted to his research, and fuller detail is found in his chapter, “Romans 13:1-7: Christian Obedience to Synagogue Authority.”
In Romans 13:1-7, Paul is writing to Gentile believers in Rome to obey, not Roman secular/pagan authority, but to obey the God-ordained authority of the synagogue rulers in Rome.
This presupposes that the early Jesus believers were continuing to meet with Judean non-believers within the synagogues.
We too quickly have early believers divorcing themselves from the synagogue, discarding Judaism, and establishing something totally new.
Instead, they (Judean believers and Gentile believers) continued to meet and worship in the synagogues.
These believers would also gather for special times in homes to eat, sing and read correspondence, but they did not abandon worshiping with their brothers and sisters who were Judeans – at least not yet.
The possibility of believers leaving the synagogue was Paul’s greatest concern in Romans.
It cut at the heart of theological understanding of what had happened in Jesus Christ. It defied his belief that the new age had dawned in Jesus, a very Judean Messiah.
In Rome, however, Gentile believer arrogance had raised its head. Some believers wanted to cut themselves off from their Judean roots and do their own thing.
Paul would have none of it and gives very clear instructions about how they were to relate to the leaders of the synagogue.
This Judean context makes perfect sense of verses 1-7 as one reads Romans. For example, Paul speaks of authority that exists from God (v.1) and is appointed by God (v. 2). This hardly sounds like a description of Caesar and his predatory legions.
It does, however, ring true about Judean synagogue rulers who can also be called “God’s servants” (v. 4) and “ministers of God” (v.6).
When Paul tells the Gentile believers to pay taxes and revenue (v. 6), he is telling his readers to pay the two-drachma Temple tax. Even the Roman historian Tacitus mentions Gentile converts sending contributions to the Temple.
Paul is dealing with a group that hesitated to send contributions, and he urges them to contribute because it shows that through Christ equality has come upon both Judeans and Gentiles.
Some might question, however, the one image that sounds like it originated in a Roman Empire context: “for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!” (13:4b).
As Nanos points out, this word for sword can also be used for the knife in circumcision (Joshua 5:2), or it could be used metaphorically as a symbol of the authority of the synagogue rulers to inflict punishment.
Paul himself has submitted to such punishment according to his account to the Corinthians: “Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one” (2 Corinthians 11:24).
Or perhaps this reference is a metaphor for Scripture as the “Word of God.” At least one New Testament writer is familiar with this image by noting that the Word of God is “sharper than a two-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12).
In this sense, the synagogue rulers are the interpreters of the Torah, and Paul encourages Gentile believers to give them their due respect.
No doubt many will not be convinced that the original context is a Judean one. They have been too mesmerized by only one perspective.
They will continue to drink deeply from this passage to support giving allegiance to this program or that agenda of a secular government – but it is a dry hole.
To see government authority as the focal point in this passage is an interpretative mirage.
Context, context, context causes the mirage to fade into the clear vision of Paul’s very real concern about Judean nonbelievers’ and Gentile believers’ relationship.
AND...
Political meaning and use
Some interpreters have claimed that Romans 13 implies that Christians are to obey all public officials under all circumstances. Many interpreters and biblical scholars dispute this view, however. Thomas Aquinas interprets Paul's derivation of authority from God as conditional on the circumstances in which authority is obtained and the manner in which it is used:
The order of authority derives from God, as the Apostle says [in Romans 13:1–7]. For this reason, the duty of obedience is, for the Christian, a consequence of this derivation of authority from God, and ceases when that ceases. But, as we have already said, authority may fail to derive from God for two reasons: either because of the way in which authority has been obtained, or in consequence of the use which is made of it.[11]
According to biblical scholars John Barton and John Muddiman:
Few if any passages in the Pauline corpus have been more subject to abuse than w. 1–7. Paul does not indicate that one is required to obey public officials under all circumstances, nor does he say that every exercise of civil authority is sanctioned by God. No particular government is authorized; no universal autarchy is legitimated. Instead, Paul reiterates the common Jewish view that human governance operates under God's superintendency (Jn 19:11; Dan 2:21; Prov 8:15—16; Isa 45:1—3; Wis 6:3), that it is part of the divine order and so is meant for human good (i Pet 2:13–14; Ep. Arist. 291–2).[12]
On occasion, Romans 13 is employed in civil discourse and by politicians and philosophers in support of or against political issues. Two conflicting arguments are made: that the passage mandates obedience to civil law; and that there are limits to authority beyond which obedience is not required. John Calvin, in Institutes of the Christian Religion[13] took the latter position: "that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men". Martin Luther employed Romans 13 in Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants[14] to advocate that it would be sinful for a prince or lord not to use force, including violent force, to fulfil the duties of their office.[15]
Theologian Paul Tillich is critical of an interpretation that would cast Romans 13:1–7 in opposition to revolutionary movements:
One of the many politico-theological abuses of biblical statements is the understanding of Paul’s words [Romans 13:1–7] as justifying the anti-revolutionary bias of some churches, particularly the Lutheran. But neither these words nor any other New Testament statement deals with the methods of gaining political power. In Romans, Paul is addressing eschatological enthusiasts, not a revolutionary political movement.[16]
Romans 13 was used during the period of the American Revolution both by loyalists who preached obedience to the Crown and by revolutionaries who argued for freedom from the unjust authority of the King. Later in US history, Romans 13 was employed by anti-abolitionists to justify and legitimize the keeping of slaves; notably around the time of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which precipitated debate as to whether the law should be obeyed or resisted.[15] It was also used by the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid rule in South Africa.[17][18]
In June 2018, Romans 13 was used by Jeff Sessions to justify the Trump administration family separation policy, saying:[15][19][20]
I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws Of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.[21]
Commenting on the fight to define Romans 13, historian Lincoln Mullen argues that "what the attorney general actually has on his side is the thread of American history that justifies oppression and domination in the name of law and order."
92
NO, ROMANS 13 IS NOT ABOUT OBEYING THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES.
By Craig Greenfield.
Another take: You may protest, but if you do and it is against prevailing laws, you will have to pay the penalty of those laws. Be they right or wrong. ( Jesus did. So did Paul.
So did many Christian martyrs.)
“Historically, the most terrible things: war, genocide and slavery, have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience.” - Howard Zinn
If I ever get to meet the Apostle Paul, I’m hoping to have a little chat about some of the things he wrote.
It’s not that I disagree with him. It’s just that I wish Paul had been a little clearer at times. Especially when he wrote the original King James version of the Bible ;)
Take Romans 13. This chapter is one of those classic clobber passages, used to make sure we are all being obedient citizens, which historically has led Christians into all KINDS of problems:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities...” (Romans 13:1)
His fellow Bible-writer, Peter, wrote something very similar:
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority…” (1 Peter 2:13)
I call these clobber passages because they are too often used to crush dissent, stifle protest and discourage civil disobedience.
But we live in times where dissent is more important than ever. All around the world we are witnessing the rise of the “strongman” – brutal leaders like Putin, Erdoğan, Duterte and yes, Trump. These are hard-line men who rule with an iron fist and with little regard for justice or the downtrodden.
I’m concerned that if we don’t get this right, we could easily find ourselves treading the path of the German church under Hitler’s Nazi government.
In those days, too many good citizens – good Christians! - stood by, while their vulnerable neighbours were crushed by the governing authorities.
So, let’s take a closer look at these passages.
After Jesus’ death and resurrection, King Herod got super mad and arrested some of the believers, including James and Peter, and put them on public trial. The night before the trial, an angel of the Lord woke Peter up, removed his chains, opened the prison doors and led him out the main gate of the prison.
Yet after escaping from jail, where he had been imprisoned for breaking the law, Peter went on to write in a letter:
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to the 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 men.”
And similarly, while Paul was in Damascus, he escaped from a strongman city governor who was trying to arrest him, by concealing himself in a wicker basket and having himself lowered down the city wall through a window.
Then after reaching safety, Paul wrote a surprising letter:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities which exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
So are Peter and Paul hypocrites, asking Christians to do as they say, but not as they do?
Though these passages have been used to maintain the status quo (ever since the Emperor Constantine became a Christian and made it the official religion of the Empire), there is a BIG disconnect between Peter and Paul’s actions and the way we have traditionally interpreted their words.
The key to undertanding is in the word "submit". Take a look at this. The Greek word hupo-tasso, which has been translated as “submit” or “be subject,” literally means to arrange stuff respectfully in an "orderly manner underneath".
This simple meaning of "social orderliness" would have been understood by original readers, but it is a little obscured in our English translation.
This word is used in Ephesians 5:22 to encourage husbands and wives to submit to one another, and it reflects God’s concern for order and respect.
Here’s the main point – Paul and Peter believed that governing authorities are necessary for keeping the peace. God is a God of order – not anarchy or chaos.
But here’s where we go wrong. There’s ANOTHER word, hupo-kouo, which is best translated as “obey,” which literally means to conform, to follow a command, or to kowtow to an authority as a subordinate.
Peter and Paul could have used this word, "obey," but they chose not to.
Used twenty-one times in the New Testament, hupo-kouo always suggests a hierarchical context, as in the relationship between children or slaves and their parents or masters (Eph 6:1 and 6:5).
And so here’s the most important thing to remember - in the New Testament Greek, to submit does not always mean to obey! They are two separate actions or postures.
Though Paul, Peter and other followers of Jesus deliberately disobeyed laws that were in conflict with God’s commands, they still submitted to the authorities by accepting the legal consequences of their actions.
I’m proud to be friends with a bunch of clergy, activists and other serious Christian types who are willing to pursue justice in costly ways.
Some of them stage hippie sit-ins on the floor of their local government representative’s office to protest unjust treatment of refugees. Others chain themselves to bulldozers to protest environmental injustice.
I won’t mention everything online, but suffice to say, many of them are willing to break laws that are wrong and unjust.
This is nothing particularly new. As far back as the book of Exodus, the Hebrew midwives refused to carry out the Pharoah’s repugnant order to murder newborn babies.
The first people who sought to worship Jesus, a trio of spiritual gurus from Asia, deliberately disobeyed the orders of King Herod, a criminal offence punishable by death (the first recorded act of civil disobedience in the New Testament). Many of the disciples ended up in prison.
As Christians, the law cannot be our ultimate moral guide. Slavery was lawful. The holocaust was legal. Segregation and apartheid were legally sanctioned. Many of today's laws are created to protect corporations rather than people.
Simply put, the law does not dictate our ethics. God does.
But when my radical clergy friends break unjust laws you won’t see them struggling to avoid arrest. You won’t see them acting violently or promoting chaos. In fact, they gladly submit to the legal consequences of their actions.
They show us the way to interpret Romans 13 as Peter and Paul meant - if we break an unjust law to highlight and protest its injustice, we should be willing to submit to the punishment for breaking such laws, so that we demonstrate our respect for the role of government in general.
We do not follow a God of chaos, each doing whatever we want. But a God of order and respect for one another and the governing authorities.
There are times when we, as followers of Christ, will be called upon to stand up with a holy ‘NO!’ in the face of evil and injustice.
Romans 13 does not undermine that posture - it informs it.
94
Intro: From PBS - Beliefs and Daily
Lives of Muslims
Beliefs of Muslims
Islam teaches the importance of both belief and practice; one is insufficient without the other (except for some Sufis). The following six beliefs are those that are commonly held by Muslims, as laid out in the Quran and hadith.
Six Major Beliefs
Belief in the Divine Decree: This article of faith addresses the question of God's will. It can be expressed as the belief that everything is governed by divine decree, namely that whatever happens in one's life is preordained, and that believers should respond to the good or bad that befalls them with thankfulness or patience. This concept does not negate the concept of "free will;" since humans do not have prior knowledge of God's decree, they do have freedom of choice.
95
Slavery and the Bible: Does the
Christian faith condone slavery?
APSE Ministries: Evangelism and Apologetics 16) Does the Christian faith condone slavery?
BIBLICAL COMMENTS ON SLAVERY MUST BE PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME. Something that has frequently been ignored.
Romans 13:1-7 Submission to authorities. Does this legitimize slavery? Racial prejudice? Misogyny? WERE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES SINNERS???
Slavery: also add 2 Peter 13-25 18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, NOT ONLY TO THOSE THAT ARE GOOD AND CONSIDERATE BUT ALSO TO THOSE WHO ARE HARSH. WOW! What does this mean? Enjoy the whipping? Or prepare to suffer for Jesus? Does this even refer to “slavery” or is it reference to treatment for being a slave to Christ?
Ephesians and Philemon Christians and Slavery
Using the Bible to justify slavery:
Biblical References:
• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).
• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24–27).
• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it Ex. 20:10 The Sabbath… on it you shall do no work, nor your son or daughter, OR MAIDSERVANT OR MANSERVANT… Ex. 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, OR HIS MANSERVANT OR HIS MAIDSERVANT…
• Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.
• The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).
• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).
Charitable and Evangelistic Reasons
• Slavery removes people from a culture that “worshipped the devil, practiced witchcraft, and sorcery” and other evils.
• Slavery brings heathens to a Christian land where they can hear the gospel. Christian masters provide religious instruction for their slaves.
• Under slavery, people are treated with kindness, as many northern visitors can attest.
• It is in slaveholders’ own interest to treat their slaves well.
• Slaves are treated more benevolently than are workers in oppressive northern factories.
Social Reasons
• Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.
• Slavery is God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).
• Abolition would lead to slave uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Consider the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution.
Political Reasons
• Christians are to obey civil authorities, and those authorities permit and protect slavery. (Romans 13:1-7)
• The church should concentrate on spiritual matters, not political ones. (When it is convenient?)
• Those who support abolition are, in James H. Thornwell’s words, “atheists, socialists, communists [and] Red Republicans.”
Biblically:
Ephesians 6:5-8 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. ((OUCH!))
When we think of slavery we think of the evils of the African slave trade – family separation, chains, rape, beatings, murder....
In the Bible slaves were a product of 1) spoils of war. 2) debts – there was no banking system. In OT times there was no currency. If a bad crop yield how did you pay debts? Should you be put in prison? Killed? Exiled? Slaves most often, especially in Jesus time, had rights. Some people, including eatly Christians raising money for the church, sold themselves into slavery for the money. It meant they were indebted to their masters, they owed something to their masters. They could save and buy their way out of slavery. In Roman times slaves were to be freed upon their 30th birthday.
Not to say all slave owners were kind, honest, and respectful, but slavery seen in this context is actually a good thing in its day and progressive given the options. Slavery was often a positive economic arrangement, slave and master living in the same household, almost an extended family arrangement.
However …
Our Daily Bread (ODB) – Course on Philemon. Although Paul hints he would like Onesimus made a free man and even be free to work with him he does not address slavery as we would have wished. 1)
In the ancient world slavery was not the evil that we think of in the modern context. Some were mistreated persons, but many were servants, butlers, etc. of noble people. 2) Slavery was not a product of racism. More the subjugation of conquered territories. 3) Christianity had no power as that point to be any force to radically change the social norms. (would this new religion grow if it disrupted the whole economic and social norms of the day? Maybe it should have!!!) 4) Paul’s concern was more about inward spiritual liberation than outward slave liberation. 5) Paul say in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 if slaves have the opportunity to become free persons they should do this. According to history Onesimus was freed and made a leader in the church.
BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NOTHING SCRIPTURAL TO JUSTIFY OR RATIONALIZE ANY CONDONING OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE, THE PRACTICE OF AFRICAN SLAVERY IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THE RACIAL HATRED SEEN IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY. AND YET…
Never is the U.S. more segregated than Sunday morning church services.
90% of all churches in the U.S. are either 90% white or 90% black.
Whatever the dividing walls in your community it is the church that should knock them down and bring people together.
From Jesus and His Times Another viewpoint:
The concentration of wealth in Jesus’ time was extreme. The aristocracy, a few upper and middle class, but mostly poor. Even the Pharisees had to work day jobs to support families.
Tradesmen had steady work but were heavily taxed to fund the building they did. Day laborers lived just that way - day to day. Some professions were nasty. Weavers were in the least desirable neighborhood - near the Dung Gate where refuse was dumped. Trade guilds were developed to provide a bit of help to these workers.
Copper smelting, tanner, or dung collector were atrocious jobs. A wife was PERMITTED to divorce her husband if he had one of these occupations as his smell would be unbearable. She could even divorce him if she had known he had one of these occupations before marriage and still married him as the stench could not be foreseen. (Tanners and dung collectors were linked - the dung was used in the tanning process.)
Unemployables were in desperate straits. Crippled, diseased, blind, insane. Lepers had to stay out of the city gates to fend for themselves. There was no hospital, no aid, no hope. The Jewish tradition of haves sharing with the have-nots was over. All free cash went to taxes.
But the lowest class was the slaves.
Slavery was an old institution in Palestine. There were Jewish laws protecting slaves. Work was limited to 10 hours a day. Slaves did not work on the Sabbath (Saturday). They did not do jobs that interfered with their faith - bath attendants, for example. If a master killed a slave the master was killed as punishment. If a slave was mistreated he was set free. If he fled his master he was not to be returned.
Female slaves were not as well off, but did also have some protections. A female slave, usually a concubine, could always hope her owner might find her desirable enough to make her a wife.
Most slaves in Jerusalem were Gentiles, but some Jewish slaves existed out of the city.
A person may be made a slave as a punishment, for unpaid debts, or one may sell oneself into slavery to provide emergency funds for his family.
Hellenistic influence changed this. By Jesus’ time slaves were objects, not persons - a tool with a voice. ONE MORE reason why this class, as with the others (tradesmen, priests, farmers, vendors), looked longingly for a Messiah.
98
The Barmen Declaration
Thesis §1
(John 10:1,9) "Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation."
Thesis §2
(1 Cor 1:30) "As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so in the same way and with the same seriousness is he also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.
We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords—areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him."
Thesis §3
(Eph 4:15-16) "The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and Sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions."
Thesis §4
(Matt 20:25-26) "The various offices in the church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give to itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers."
Thesis §5
(1 Peter 2:17) "Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the church’s vocation as well.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State."
Thesis §6
(Matt 28:20; 2 Tim 2:9) "The church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and Sacrament.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.
The Barmen Declaration resulted in the foundation of the Confessing Church, comprised of Christians who opposed the nazification of the German Evangelical Church, and which included a small group of Christian leaders that opposed the Nazis such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer. (Whether the Confessing Church was ultimately a successful protest is contested.)
Today, the Theological Declaration of Barmen (as it is commonly titled) has been adopted by many churches, including the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church in North America, and many others. The PCUSA (my home church) also created a banner for the Barmen Declaration (as depicted in the header image).
Barmen's Warning
In hindsight, we see the horrors of Nazi Germany here and now, but during the present situation of 1933, the Christians there and then didn't understand that their nationalism would result in the nazification of the church. Every time I see an American flag in a church, I remember this present situation of 1933, and horrors that resulted from them. So I recommend heeding the warning of Barmen, so that the church in my homeland or yours, does not repeat the same disastrous error of capitulating the Church's proclamation of the gospel to agenda of Christian Nationalism like the Nazi "German Christians". We are in constant need to re-affirm the Barmen Declaration, and I am thankful every time I see instances of it such the recent statement "In Defense of a Christian Faith and a Democratic Future" by the faculty at Princeton.
“A glittering figure to emerge from the darkness and degradation of the Nazi epoch.”
Near the foot of the window stood Frenciszek Gajowniczek, one of an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 pilgrims who had journeyed here from Poland for the ceremonies.
In July 1941, Gajowniczek and nine fellow prisoners in the German concentration camp at Auschwitz were selected by guards to die in retaliation for the successful escape of another prisoner.
When Gajowniczek, a sergeant in the Polish Army, cried out that he would never see his wife and children again, Father Kolbe, a prisoner in the same block, broke out of line and offered himself in the soldier’s place. The priest was killed by the Germans with an injection of carbolic acid on Aug. 14, 1941.
Where is God???
A local Seventh-day Adventist pastor, Rev. Hampton Walker invoked the words of infamous writer Elie Wiesel in presenting a question that many surely must have asked in a Times Observer column in 1977 entitled “Where is God?”
“Elie Wiesel, who was interned at the concentration camp at Auschwitz, tells the account of an execution of two men and a young boy which he witnessed. In his own words he relates: ‘The three victims mounted together onto the chairs. The three necks were placed at the same moment with the nooses. ‘Long live freedom,’ cried the two adults. But the child was silent. ‘Where is God? Where is He?’ someone behind me asked.’ This question, what Elie Wiesel heard asked... has been on the lips of many a man through history....”
100
Learning from the Barmen Declaration of 1934: Theological-Ethical-Political Commentary
The Journal of Lutheran Ethics
Craig L. Nessan 12/01/2019
The Barmen Theological Declaration was crafted and adopted in May 1934 by a scholarly team whose guiding figure was Karl Barth. The context for this theological statement included the increasing machinations by the German Christians, supported in their efforts by the Nazi regime, to control and dominate the Protestant churches in Germany through the formation of a national church. Up to this time the Protestant churches had existed in a federation constituted of Landeskirchen, regional church bodies related to the state territories within Germany.
The Theological Declaration of Barmen was formulated during an historical moment in which questions about the flight and migration of endangered persons was becoming acute. This document provides theological, ethical, and political implications for the political responsibility of Christians in response to the flight, migration, and integration of displaced persons also in our own time. This essay presents in entirety each of the six articles of the Barmen Declaration followed by contemporary theological-ethical-political commentary.[1] Importantly, this commentary begins with a confession of failure on the part of the teaching office of the church both then and now.
Article 1
“‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14.6). "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber…. I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved’ (John 10:1, 9).
“Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation.”
Commentary: One of the acute and enduring failures of the church in the exercise of its teaching office has been the inability to make clear the distinction between the worship of God in Jesus Christ as our ultimate loyalty and the service of one's nation as a penultimate loyalty. For example, we in the United States have failed miserably in differentiating between following Jesus Christ as a way of life and the requisites of American civil religion. This is so much the case that many church members continue to conflate Christian faith with nationalistic patriotism. This leaves them subject to being misled by those religious leaders who confuse their nationalistic political agenda with faithfulness to the God of the Bible. While citizenship is one arena in which Christians are called to live out their faith in daily life, the measure of good government involves how it tends to the common good and particularly how it protects the most vulnerable persons in society. This is in accordance with the Great Commandment to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:34-40).
Article 2
"‘Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30).
“As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.”
Commentary: A second acute and enduring failure of the church in the exercise of its teaching office involves the bifurcation of Christian existence into two separated realms, a public realm ruled by the state and a private realm belonging to the church. This is due to a misinterpretation of Luther's two kingdoms teaching and a misunderstanding of the United States’ insistence on the separation of church and state. The result of these misunderstandings leads to relegating religion to a private (religious/spiritual/ecclesial/churchly) compartment of life. Instead of understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ as setting us free for serving neighbors through political engagement for justice and peace in the world, a distortion of the two kingdoms limits Christian existence to what happens through church programs and activities. Instead of understanding separation of church and state as a constitutional protection from the imposition of religion by the state, a distortion of the establishment clause leads Christians to think Christian faith precludes political involvement. In both cases these misinterpretations have resulted in political quietism by Christians leading to passivity in the face of great evil. Jesus Christ is the Lord over all of life who calls us to discipleship in every arena of our daily lives, including political responsibility as citizens.
Article 3
"‘Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together’(Ephesians 4:15,16).
“The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.”
Commentary: A third acute and enduring failure of the church in the exercise of its teaching office involves the disproportionate authority given to Romans 13:1-2 in defining the relationship of church and state: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." While government that functions to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) is a gift for which we in the U.S. can give God thanks, the Bible also testifies to the necessity of holding rulers accountable and engaging in resistance to tyranny. In the Hebrew Bible the law establishes protections for the most vulnerable (the poor, widows, orphans, strangers) and the prophets forcefully denounce injustice by rulers and elites. In the New Testament Jesus proclaimed a kingdom in which the hungry are fed, the sick are healed, and the poor are privileged. Revelation 13 authorizes resistance to the Roman empire, even as Romans 13 advises obedience. According to the Bible, Christians fulfill their political responsibility not only by rendering obedience to just government but also by resisting oppressive government. History is replete with instances where Christians were obligated to hold the governing authorities accountable, not only to render obedience, as guided by ethical criteria of what makes for the common good of all.
Article 4
"‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant.’ (Matthew 20:25,26.)
“The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.”
Commentary: A fourth acute and enduring failure of the church in the exercise of its teaching office relates to how the church has disproportionally protected its own self-interests in relation to the state rather than risking its own welfare in defending the weakest and most vulnerable persons in society. The fatal flaw of the Barmen Declaration was its myopic focus on protecting the members and interests of the church from the interference of the state, rather than understanding its essential calling as coming to the defense of all those in harm's way of state injustice, including those who were not Christian. This meant that the church primarily sought to defend its own clergy and ministry from state oppression, while failing to intercede for endangered neighbors who were not necessarily Christian: Jews, gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, disabled people, homosexuals, and others. A contemporary analogy would apply to efforts by the church to focus its efforts in charity and advocacy exclusively on its own members and interests, while neglecting to intercede on behalf of endangered neighbors who are not necessarily Christian: Muslims, immigrants, refugees, indigenous people, homosexuals, and others. Today the church is summoned by God in Jesus Christ to pray for all endangered groups (including in the intercessions at worship), and to advocate for just policies, minister to the victims of state injustice, and, when these measures fail, participate in peaceful civil disobedience against state injustice on their behalf. The threefold counsel of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Christian political responsibility in relation to the state is instructive.
Article 5
"‘Fear God. Honor the emperor’ (1 Peter 2:17).
“Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.”
Commentary: A fifth acute and enduring failure of the church in the exercise of its teaching office is the confusion of church and state under the conditions of Christendom. One poignant instance of this confusion has been the development and use of just war principles by Christian leaders to legitimate war (for example, last resort, legitimate authority, legitimate cause, likelihood of success, peace as goal, proportionality of means, distinction between combatants and noncombatants). Whereas disciples of Jesus Christ in the pre-Constantine church refused to participate in war, under the conditions of Christendom the church consistently has appealed to Christian faith to authorize war making by the state with reference to just war principles. By contrast, the church under the conditions of Christendom never has developed comparable principles by which to measure the legitimacy of just civil disobedience. It becomes urgent in times of increased militancy by the state for Christians to consider also those principles that would counsel resistance to war. The support of extreme nationalism by Christian leaders today perpetuates the confusion of church and state under the conditions of Christendom. This tendency increases the likelihood that such leaders will endorse and legitimate future military endeavors rather than giving reasons to test and, as necessary, resist them, effectively making the church an organ of the state.
Article 6
"‘Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20). "The word of God is not fettered’ (2 Timothy 2:9).
“The Church's commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ's stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.
“We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.
“The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of Confessional Churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in Church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.”
Commentary: Jesus Christ is the one and only Lord sent of the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit to be Sovereign of this world. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the source of all faith, love, and hope now and forever. This Jesus Christ alone is the One we are called to worship and serve with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. The Gospel sets us free to serve neighbors in every arena of daily life. This includes active participation in citizenship to advocate for the common good of all, showing partiality to the weakest and most vulnerable, including an endangered creation. Clarity about the centrality of Jesus Christ provides the only foundation upon which Christian life and discipleship can abide against injustice, oppression, persecution, and tyranny. Confessing Church then and now centers on Christology (justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone) as the central article upon which we stand or fall. We are called to be mindful of these theological convictions as we seek the unity of the church and live out our political commitments again in our time.
Conclusion
The Theological Declaration of Barmen remains an instructive document to inform Christian political responsibility in relation to the state, both in its achievements and limitations. This commentary highlights several implications of the Barmen Declaration from the struggle of the Confessing Church in the Nazi period for the situation of becoming confessing church today in relation to flight, migration, and integration of refugees, especially in the United States. It is vital that Christians learn not only from the accomplishments but especially from the limitations of earlier efforts that called for confessing church, in order to attain greater faithfulness in our present calling to political responsibility as churches.
Dr. Craig L. Nessan is Academic Dean and Professor of Contextual Theology and Ethics at Wartburg Theological Seminary.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.