Was Jesus "Anti Slut-Shaming"?

As I go through the list of supposed teaching or positions which Jesus had, this one is such a bizarre statement, I wasn't really sure how to respond. Since the list did not include much in the way of verse references, I am assuming this refers to the woman caught in adultery brought before Jesus in John 8. This is where Jesus utters the now famous words, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (verse 8), and people usually like to draw attention to His words to the woman, "Neither do I condemn you" (verse 11).

 

Typically, I have heard or read this used as a don't-be-judgmental argument. Usually it is accompanied by a statement like, "You're not perfect either. Who are you to judge?"

 

Given the wording of the statement, "anti slut-shaming," I am assuming this implies that Christians are engaged in shaming the more freely sexually active members of society.

 

Just as a personal observation, this is usually pointed out by people who see no distinction between actual hypocritical judgmental-ism and someone simply voicing a belief or warning a friend/loved-one of what they see as harmful behavior.

 

I have even had friends who are well aware of the gory details of my past say something like, "Who are you to tell me not to do X? I've seen your misdeeds first-hand." Yes, and I have the scars from it as well, which is why I give the warning.

 

It is entirely in the realm of possibility for someone, out of a heart of love and caring, not judgmental-ism and hypocrisy, to say, "Hey, what you're doing is unwise, wrong, or even a sin." This absurd idea permeating our culture about being "tolerant" is completely ridiculous. It's not hateful, judgmental, or intolerant to simply tell someone you think they are wrong or their behavior is wrong.

 

If that skewed idea of tolerance is a person's starting point, then no serious discussion or conversation is possible. We all have to put up with and get along with people who believe and do things differently than we do. Sometimes even on deeply moral issues. It is entirely possible to disagree on these issues without thinking the other person is a vile human being. Thinking otherwise derails any sense of relation or discourse people can have and is utterly useless as a worldview.

 

Hope I wasn't unclear.

 

Now, as for the teaching of Jesus on "slut-shaming". Anyone who calls themselves a follower of Christ certainly has no business engaging in hateful or shaming behavior. I am convinced that most of the "judgmental-ism" or shaming behavior that conservative Christians get labelled with is based on the ridiculous idea of "tolerance" mentioned above, not because they are "casting stones".

 

In the case of the adulteress, amusing the charges weren't bogus, she was actually guilty. At no point is her guilt denied or is her behavior dismissed as being OK. Jesus may not have slapped a scarlet A on her chest, but His lack of condemnation was not acceptance or approval of her actions. In fact, after He says, "Neither do I condemn you," His very next words are "go and sin no more." Jesus is acknowledging that what she was doing was indeed a sinful act and that her life needed to change.

 

This is not a passage about judging. We all make all sorts of judgments about all kinds of things all the time. You couldn't go through life without making judgments. This is not even a passage about judgmental-ism. There are other passages you can go to about that. As stated above, Christians are called to love and not to condemn based on our own opinions or traditions, but on God's standard.

 

This passage is about the hypocrisy of the religious elite who were trying to set a trap for the purpose of discrediting Jesus in order to protect their own positions of power. If hypocritical judgmental-ism is indeed the activity a Christian is engaged in, then that would be wrong. 

 

Jesus does not judge or shame the woman. However, He also does not give her a free pass on her sin. He extends her grace and mercy, but those things presuppose wrong-doing or being deserving of judgment in the first place. Then He urges her to go and change her ways. 

 

The important thing here is the attitude of graciousness exhibited by Christ against the backdrop of self-righteous judgmental-ism by the ones bringing the charge. As followers of Christ we are to exhibit the same gracious attitude that Christ had for sinners. If we do not, then we are not following our Lord. But that does not mean we have a permissive attitude regarding sin. We should speak the truth, but do so out of love, not judgment (Ephesians 4:15).

What Did Jesus Teach?

OK, so I am responding to a post I saw on Facebook that included a list of supposed positions that Jesus held on a variety of issues. Almost the entire list is the exact opposite positions held by most conservative Christians in America. The point, it seemed, was to say, "Here is what Jesus REALLY taught." As if to say Christians are really just a bunch of hypocrites. Well hypocrites we may be, but you'd be hard pressed to find any person on the planet who can't carry that label for something. However, the issue of what Jesus meant and what He taught is an interesting claim.

For the benefit of skeptical friends, to give a bit of perspective, to maybe show conservative Christian positions are not simply the product of closed-minded, anti-progressive bigotry, and to at least spur some conversation on these issues, I am walking down the list and trying to address where I see Jesus' teaching or words being misinterpreted or outright twisted to mean something else.

Here are the points on the list which seemed to me to be loaded and most likely to be based on faulty understanding of what Jesus taught.

Anti-wealth

Anti-Death Penalty

Anti-Public Prayer

Never Anti-Gay

Never Anti-Abortion or Birth Control

Never called the Poor "Lazy"

Never Justified Torture

Never pro tax cuts for wealthy

Never asked a Leper for a co-pay

Community Organizer

Anti-Slut-Shaming

Anti-Violence

I dealt with Christ's teaching on violence in a previous article, and will just walk up the list answering these issues in articles to come.

Did Jesus Teach Non-Violence?

In sense, yes He did. We, as individuals are not to be people who attain our goals or spread our beliefs by force. However, I think it is a stretch to extend that idea into total pacifism. Can a Christian use force, even deadly force, to defend him/her self? Is a Christian still consistent in their beliefs if they support a particular war?

A few things need to be considered. What was Jesus' overall purpose, and what was the context of his teachings that bear some weight to the issue at hand?

Overall, Jesus' purpose was to not teach mere moral behavior or a particular philosophical system. It was the transformation of hearts, the forgiveness of sins, and foremost, the reconciliation of sinners to the God who they rebel against. The central problem being the rebellion of man against God. Christ came to expose the sin of pride in all mankind and to call us to abandon that pride and trust in God. This call was in general to all people, but the response to it is intensely individual. Christ's teachings are rarely a blanket statement to society, but a call to individuals to exhibit a certain righteousness in their own life. Every saying, deed, parable, and teaching of Christ must be viewed in that purpose or it will be wrongly understood.

Also, there are things which are shaded by our own cultural and societal idioms which would have meant something completely different, or at least more specific, to a 1st century Jew in Palestine. We have to try and not read our own feelings into the words of Jesus, but find out what message His words were conveying to those people at that time.

With that in mind, there are a handful of verses people go to when claiming that Jesus was anti-violence. We will take a look at each in turn.

Matthew 5:39 - "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Turning the other cheek has become synonymous with not fighting back at all in any situation. But is that what Jesus meant? In a right-handed world, to be struck on the right cheek is a backhanded slap. This is not speaking of an instance of mistreatment or assault in general. This is a specific act of humiliation. This verse is also grouped in with teachings to "go the extra mile" (Roman soldiers could force you to carry their pack for up to a mile) and if someone sues you for your cloak to "give them your tunic also" (in a world without climate control, taking a man's cloak would leave him exposed to the elements). These are all instances that would be dehumanizing and humiliating to the individual. Times where our arrogance and pride would seek retribution, not justice but vengeance. The point here is not pacifism because violence is evil, but swallowing our pride. It's our pride that leads us to sin, rebel against God, and choose our own way.

Matthew 26:51-52, "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

What is Jesus saying here? Is He saying to not ever use a sword in any instance? I think a good argument could be made in the negative. Rather that putting the emphasis on the sword, put the emphasis on the "live by". If this passage is saying anything about violence, it is simply saying that violence is not the means to accomplish the goal. Genuine repentence and love for God cannot be forced. Faith cannot be conjured at the point of a sword. While there is certainly truth in the idea that a life characterized by violence (live by the sword) will most likely lead to a bad end (die by the sword), I am not sure that can be extrended as a blanket statement to embrace total pacifism.

However, use of violence or lack of is not the point of this passage. Jesus is being arrested. A brash disciple pulls a sword and tries to defend Jesus. But Jesus had been telling them for years that this moment would eventually come. His arrest and crucifiction are all part of the plan. Jesus' rebuke to the disciple is not anti-violence but due to lack of understanding what is going on. In the very next verse Jesus continues, "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" (Matthew 26:53-54)


John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

This is Jesus before Pilate being grilled about being the "King of the Jews". Pilate is thinking in terms of an actual rebellion against Rome. Any insight this might have on the non-violence issue I think is pretty clear that Jesus' words here make the point that the power of His Kingdom is not to be exercised or spread in this world by violent means. Again, faith cannot be conjured with a sword. Repentence and faith must be genuine.

So, is it ever ok for a Christian to use or support the use of violence?

We see Jesus on at least one occasion overturning tables in the temple and driving men out with a whip. (Matt 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2) That seems a bit violent to me.

One thing that is consistent is Jesus' commands to love others. I do not think it is a stretch to include in that love any actions necessary to protect and defend innocents. An evil person intent on harm sometimes can only be stopped with violent means. I do not see an inconsistency in Christ's teachings for that taking place.

As for war, aside from if you take His words to Pilate in John 18 to mean Christianity is not spread by war (which is not a stretch at all), Jesus never really addresses the issue of war. Other places in Bible talk about roles and purposes of government. There is a whole other, detailed issue on whether or not there is "just war". But I do not see Jesus Himself specifically addressing that issue. He had a specific focus to His ministry and teachings before dying on the cross: preach the Gospel, prepare the Apostles, and expose the religious hypocrisy of His day which stood in the way.

Can a nation wage war to protect it's people? Perhaps each specific war is to be judged on an individual basis, but I think based on Christ's focus of individual-holiness, the general idea is not inconsistent with Christianity.

The Significance of the Resurrection of Christ

The resurrection is a demonstration of Christ's power that also confirms His deity. He was not simply some good teacher who was blessed by God. He was God Himself who came in human form to save mankind. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 uses the resurrection to point to Jesus as being “both Lord and Christ” (v. 36).

Since Christ has risen and is alive, “His divine mission is alive,” ¹ and indeed He is an active agent in that mission. An argument can be made that “without Jesus and His work, one cannot make sense of the church's existence and activity.” ² While addressing Paul's discussion of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians, one commentary puts it this way, “Faith in a dead savior is both preposterous and pathetic.” ³ The spread of the early church was not a political movement or power play. There was no benefit from a self-involved motivation among the persecution at the time, and yet the church grew and people's lives were changed. An act not attainable by a dead savior.

Best of all, while justice was met on the cross, and His death paid for our sins, that is only one half of the equation. By sharing in Christ's death we have cleared our debt, but by also sharing in His resurrection we attain renewed life. Paul points out that “if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Romans 6:5-6). 

________________________________

1. Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007) 51.
2. Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007) 53.
3. Jerry Falwell, Edward Hindson, and Woodrow Michael Kroll eds., Liberty Bible Commentary (Lynchburg, VA: The Old-Time Gospel Hour, 1982) 461.

The Problem of Evil

A quandary faced by theists and used as criticism by atheists is the "problem of evil." While the details vary depending on a particular theology, the general idea is this: God is all powerful and morally good. However, the existence of evil implies that God is either unable to stop evil (not all powerful) or chooses to not stop evil (not morally good). This would point to a logical inconsistency and supposedly disprove God.

Things certainly do not go as they should, resulting in pain and suffering. This is generally called "evil". Whether betrayal, deceit, murder, or other harm caused by people (moral evil) or events like floods and earthquakes (natural evil), there is a difficulty in calling an all powerful God "good" in face of the evil people experience.

            A solution to this problem is called a theodicy. Since the problem of evil exposes an internal inconsistency, any theodicy must be internally consistent not only to the problem but within a given theology. Otherwise, the problem still exists.

            Ultimately, there is a limit to how our finite minds can understand an infinite God. Sometimes our own experiences with evil can affect how we view God. Some people see evil and turn their backs on a God who claims to be good while allowing such things. Others deny certain aspects about God or His activity while ultimately holding on to the belief that He is good. A good theodicy can only take us so far. It is faith that takes the final steps to trusting that God is good despite the evil around us, however, various theodicies have emerged over time.      

Extreme Rationalism claims whatever is the most rational is the most good and that God, as a perfectly rational being, had to create the most rational world. Since this is the world He made, it must be the best possible world, even with evil. Having created the best, most rational possible world God is therefore off the hook for evil. While internally consistent, the view that God’s rationality is His greatest attribute seems an arguable one.

            Soul Building claims that God's purpose is to make us the greatest possible moral beings, and since hard circumstances can cause moral growth, then evil is merely a tool to be used towards that goal. Since the ultimate good of our development outweighs the consequences of the evil we may experience, God is not morally wrong for allowing (or even causing) such evil. Again, while consistent, this view makes soul building God’s main purpose, and I am not sure that is consistent with scripture.

            Free Will says that the best possible world would be one where we are free to love or reject Him. The evil originates with our own choices in opposition of God and not because of Him, thus laying the blame for evil at the feet of mankind and not God.

            All three of the above views have something to contribute. God is certainly rational. He is interested in our spiritual development, and mankind is free. It is simplistic to say that one is correct to the dismissal of the others outright.

            Out of the internal joy, love, and fellowship of the Trinity, God creates mankind for the purpose of joining in that joy, love, and fellowship. However, love requires free will, so man was allowed to choose or reject God. Mankind's rejection of God (and His moral design) is the cause of the moral evil in the world. Additionally, man's positional relationship of "dominion" over the earth (Genesis 1:26) causes the effects of The Fall to affect the rest of creation as well, resulting in natural evil (Romans 8:20-22). Since God's goal is to invite mankind into fellowship (ultimately in heaven), mankind must first be made holy again. While Christ's crucifixion and resurrection justifies, our sanctification is an ongoing process as we walk through this evil-laden world. Soul building is not the primary purpose of evil, and God does not cause evil to happen. He does, however, use it for the building of our souls as we encounter it.

            Since evil arises out of man's disobedience, God is free of the blame for evil. Also, since the fulfillment of His purpose is not in this life, what we experience here can not only be used for our own betterment but is also of little significance compared to the ultimate joy and fellowship we will experience in heaven (Romans 8:18). This shows that God is not cruel or capricious in allowing evil to happen. Also, when someone poses this problem as a criticism, they are assuming the existence of evil. Evil is a violation of what is good. Good is defined by the nature and character of God. By acknowledging evil, the critic has conceded the existence of God.

Evidence and Proof: What do a Drug Trafficker and God Have in Common?

"How much God could proof of God prove if proof of God could prove God?"

That line from my Intro to Philosophy professor has stuck with me all these years. I mentioned in a previous blog that some atheists often say that there is no proof that God exists. I have seen in conversations and debates where an atheist will say, "There is no evidence." The Christian then offers some evidence which the atheist dismisses with a wave of their hand. The comments usually amount to something like "That's not real evidence" or "That doesn't prove God exists."

Sadly, too often I have seen or heard the Christian then scramble to explain something another way or find additional information that would be better evidence. The problem is, often the atheist has already stacked the deck by defining "evidence" and "proof" in such a way, setting the standard so high, that nothing a theist can offer would qualify.

The problem is not with the Christian's evidence. The problem is that the atheist is getting to redefine the terms. I'm not saying that they are necessarily being sinister or tricky, they may indeed genuinely believe the definitions they use, but their position is seeking to rewrite the dictionary.

It would seem that the definition of "evidence" and "proof" have been corrupted by the individual's existing belief. Many times atheists hold to naturalism, materialism, physicalism, and/or scientism. While these all have separate specific meanings and uses, they all generally involve the idea that the only knowledge or data that counts is what is experiences through the 5 senses: touch, taste, hearing, seeing or smell. If it is not experienced or observed using those senses, then it can't be objective or actually known with any certainty. This view of the world has informed their definition of "evidence" or "proof" to automatically exclude anything that does not fit.

However, if you actually look up the definitions of these terms, you find a much broader use. (See definitions below from dictionary.com)

Evidence does not mean only direct evidence.

Proof does not mean absolute certainty.

Anything that points to the validity of a conclusion is evidence or proof of that conclusion, whether it is a physical thing or an abstract idea. Logic, reason, feelings, mathematics, etc. These all count as evidence in all kinds of instances, but they are not physically obtained.

I've talked before about serving on a jury. In a criminal case, most of the evidence is not going to be direct evidence like DNA, fingerprints, or camera footage. Most of the evidence is indirect evidence from which the prosecution builds their case.

In the case I was involved with, the charge was conspiracy to transport drugs. There was no direct evidence that put drugs in the hands of the person in question. Drugs were found in his house. Known drug dealers were seen coming and going. Vehicles known to have left his house had drugs stashed in them. His wife testified that he always had money but no regular employment. A large stash of cash was found in his house. Known drug dealers and suppliers in custody testified that they used his house as a stop off point between themselves and the local dealers. There were photographs of the defendant partying with known drug dealers and smugglers.

NONE of this directly put drugs in the possession of the defendant or empirically shows that he was knowingly allowing drugs to pass through his house. Indeed the defense's argument was that the worst he was guilty of was keeping bad company but was not directly involved in the trafficking of drugs.

Does that mean it is not "evidence" since it is not empirical (at least related to the defendant with drugs)? Of course not. It is clearly evidence.

Did the prosecution "prove" that the defendent was involved in trafficking drugs? According to the judge's instructions on "reasonable doubt" a jury took only a few hours to come to a conclusion, and the man is now in jail. That would seem to say "yes".

The claim was that a particular person had done a particular activity. Evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had. It was not specific, direct evidence which removed 100% of uncertainty. However, the indirect evidence as a whole built the case and laid out the circumstances which were reasonably explained ONLY by the conclusion that he was guilty.

When it comes to God, the evidences (morality, logic, philosophy, scientific data, etc.) may not directly "prove" God. However, taken as a whole, the circumstances laid out by the evidence is reasonably explained only by the conclusion that the God of the Bible exists and His Word is true.

ev·i·dence

noun ɪdəns/ [

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Proof

noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Prove

verb (used with object), proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing.

1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.

2. Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.

3. to give demonstration of by action.

4. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.

5. to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, especially through one's actions.

Faith: Just a Step Further and You're There

A big problem I have encountered with both believers and non-believers
in conversation is the idea that to have "faith" means that you lack
any reason or evidence. I have even heard people say that the very
presence of evidence or a reason means something is NOT faith.

This just boggles my mind. I am not sure where this is coming from
because we do not use this meaning in most cases. I would say that if
this IS the definition a person insists on using for the word "faith",
then the word "faith" needs to be abandoned completely when discussing
Christianity and Biblical matters.

I recently had a conversation with a skeptic friend where we kept
running in circles because he would not accept that my "faith" involves
evidence and use of reason.

Yes, there is a sense in which the word "faith" can be used to mean total blind faith, but it usually is in the context of hope where as having faith in Jesus Christ is a belief or trust based on something.

According to dictionary.com, the #1 definition for faith is
"confidence or trust in a person or thing". Of the 5 definitions
given, only 1 involved the idea of lacking proof. I would say that the
way the word is used by Christians is that there may be a lack of
absolute "certainty" but not evidence.

Faith takes the last steps where evidence cannot go. I have faith that
my wife will not cheat on me. My evidence is her moral character, past
track record with relationships, personal convictions, and our wedding
vows. Now, obviously it is possible for a wife to cheat, and my wife
is not free from sin and temptation the same as every other person on
the planet. I cannot absolutely prove with certainty that she will not
cheat on me, but the evidence provided gives me a really good reason
to believe she will not. I have faith in her ability to keep her vow.

My faith in her takes the last few steps that evidence could not take.

I have faith that my lunch from a new restaurant will not poison me,
leaving my wife a widow and my children fatherless. I have very good
evidence to believe this. It is bad business to poison customers on
purpose, so that's not likely. Our society has safety and health
regulations on multiple levels, so an accidental poisoning isn't as
likely. I have spoken with several friends who have recently eaten
there, and they were not poisoned. Even if poisoning occurs, most food
poisoning leads to discomfort not death. Now is it possible that some
deadly bacteria could get past all of the protections and by a freak
accident I end up dying from food poisoning? Of course. Can I say with
certainty that I will not die from lunch? Nope. But the evidence gets
me close enough to assume safety.

My faith in the restaurant takes the last few steps that the evidence cannot.

You can apply the same standard to driving, going for a walk, whether
or not your boss will pay you, ... all sorts of things. All day long
we put our faith in things and people that we cannot have complete
certainty about but for which we have a decent amount of reason or
evidence to deem them trustworthy.

THAT is what faith is. Faith takes the final steps towards belief that
evidence cannot take.

Christianity has an abundance of historical, philosophical,
scientific, logical, archaelogical, and experiental evidence to make
it a reasonable belief. Faith simply takes the final steps from
believing THAT Christianity as a religious belief is valid to
believing IN the person of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins.

Do not let someone get away with telling you that "faith" has no
evidence and is without reason. If they refuse to budge on their
faulty definition, then just use another word like "trust" or
something else more applicable to the conversation.

Remember, the point when we talk to other people is to communicate. If
definitions of words get in the way of that happening those words no
longer serve a purpose. Either find common agreement on a word or find
a new word.