Tertullian on Women in Ecclesiastical Orders

Tertullian (160-220) is well known for his less than favorable opinion of women which can perhaps be attributed to his North-African origin (Carthage, modern day Tunis). But although he advocated for the exclusion of women from ecclesiastical leadership later in life, we find the following statement in his brief book On Exhortation to Chastity.

"How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact."  (On Exhortation to Chastity, XIII)

The original Latin text supports the above reading:

"Quanti (how many men) igitur (therefore) et quantae (how many women) in ecclesiasticis ordinibus (in ecclesiastical order) de (concerning) continentia (continence) censentur (judge/recommend), qui (who) deo (to God) nubere (married) maluerunt (prefer), qui (who) carnis (flesh) suae (theirs) honorem (honor) restituere (restore). (revive)." (http://www.tertullian.org/latin/de_exhortatione_castitatis.htm)

In the same book we find also that Tertullian supported the individual priesthood of all believers.

"Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for laics. Are not even we laics priests? It is written: “A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us.” It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity. Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest. If you are a digamist, do you baptize? If you are a digamist, do you offer? How much more capital (a crime) is it for a digamist laic to act as a priest, when the priest himself, if he turn digamist, is deprived of the power of acting the priest! " (Ch VII)

A "digamist" was a person who after widowhood had married a second time and Tertullian was adamant that second marriages were forbidden although the argument in favor of his position leaves much to be desired.

If the traditional chronogly of his writings is to be trusted, Tertullian changed his mind about the general priesthood and the right for all laics to baptize, teach and offer the Eucharist, for the prohibition for women to to perform these functions is found in his book On the Veiling of Virgins (ca. 213) which is of a later date than On Exhortation to Chastity (ca. 204-212).

“It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.” (On the Veiling of Virgins, Ch IX)

What caused the change? His desire to transform the church into a hierarchial institution in which authority and submission are the guiding principles. Karen Jo Torjesen describes Tertullian’s vision of the church as an essentially Roman institution.

"Tertullian’s description of the Christian community dramatically marks the transition of the model of the church from the household or private association to the body politic. With him the church became a legal body (corpus or societas, the term the Romans used for the body politic) unified by a common law (lex fidei, “the law of faith”) and a common discipline (disciplina, Christian morality). For Tertullian the church, like Roman society, united a diversity of ethic groups into one body under the rule of one law… Tertullian conceived the society of the church as analogous to Roman society, divided into distinct classes or ranks, which were distinguished from one another in terms of honor and authority."  (Karen Jo Torjesen, When women were priests (Harper San Francisco, New York, 1993) 162-3)

Only those who were full members of the political body could possess ius docendi (the legal right to teach) and ius baptizandi (legal right to baptize); women could not be full members and therefore they were excluded from the clergy- and laity.

Complementarist theologian William Weinrich considers Tertullian “a representative voice” of the universal church of the second century,  (John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossway, Wheaton Illinois, 1994,  273) but he cannot do so without excluding women from the church altogether. It is vitally important that we recognize that the early church theologians were as likely to change their minds as are modern theologians and that their views did not always adhere to biblical principles, but that they often used contemporary practices and beliefs in their biblical interpretation.

---

Contra CBMW: Different yet Equal

In order to create life, a man and a woman must come together in the same place, at the same time, and participate in the same activity, for there is only one way to create a baby (if we forget about the lab for a moment), and it requires the full participation of both a man and a woman; neither can be absent. What makes this necessary is the bodily difference between men and women; a difference that creates wholeness when brought together.

If a bodily difference makes it necessary for men and women to come together to create something new, why do we think that a difference in the realm of the mind mandates that men and women must remain in separate spheres? Why is it that in the realm of the mind, men and women must not come together to create something new, but remain separate?

Just as with the body, the difference in the realm of the mind found in men and women makes it necessary for them to come together, and think together. When they remain separate, they get only half of the story, and the rest remains unknown, which is perhaps why men and women so often have such a hard time understanding each other when they finally do come together.

Instead of being a source of inequality, the differences between men and women are the greatest reason for equality. Think for a moment of an intricate machine, and what would happen if you removed half of the parts; the machine wouldn't work. When half of humanity is excluded from decision making, humanity doesn't function as it was intended to. People become partial towards the decision makers at the expense of those who are ruled, and this creates injustice; injustice in turn creates resentment, and resentment creates bitterness.

If we want a just world in which both men and women fulfill their created purpose of being co-creators with God, and good stewards of the earth, we must ensure that women are included in decision making. Although it may be tempting for women to relinquish all responsibility and for men to accept more power than they should, it is not in the best interest of anyone, for just as we cannot create life without the full participation of men and women, neither can we create a just world without the full participation of both men and women. The first step towards a just world is the realization that although men and women are different, they are nevertheless equal.

Contra CBMW: What Makes a Woman Feminine?

The following is found on CBMW's Facebook page: 

"The Lord God made Eve as a woman before He brought her to Adam. It bears repeating. Eve was fully feminine before Adam laid claim to her as bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. It is immensely important that we single women acknowledge that our femininity is God’s initiative and creation. We aren’t feminine because a man is pursuing us. We aren’t less feminine because no man is pursuing us. Our femininity is not dependent on marriage or motherhood to be fully expressed. We are feminine from the moment we are conceived because that is God’s design, and He has a purpose for our femininity throughout various seasons of our lives.” -Carolyn McCulley, Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye: Trusting God With a Hope Deferred (p.51).

If the single woman finds her identity in Christ, why does the married woman find it in the man? Why are we told that it is the woman's body, her ability to bear children, that determines her place in the world, if a woman can be a woman without motherhood?

Why is it that a "recovering feminist" claims feminism is "anti-marriage, anti-childrearing," if any woman can choose to remain single and yet be just as feminine as her married sisters? (See http://cbmw.org/women/womanhood/confessions-of-a-recovering-feminist-3/)

What makes a woman feminine?

Is it deference to men? Or is it something deeper than that? Something God put in women when he created the first woman?

CBMW tries to say yes to both. On the one hand, all women must marry and have children; it's their created "role." Yet, it is equally acceptable to remain unmarried, especially if it is difficult to find a husband, for although married women find their identity in their role as a wife and mother, single women find their identity in Christ.

But why does Paul want us to be "found in Christ" and not to seek our identity from other humans (Phil 3:4-9)? Paul, or rather Saul, gloried in his ancestry, his ability to perform the requirements of the law on his own, with his own body, his own effort. He set all of it aside when he met Jesus, for he realized that his identity, who he was, was found only in Christ.

If a single woman can follow Paul, why should a married woman be stuck with Saul in glorying in her own ability to perform the requirements of her created role, with her own body, her own effort? Why can she not set all of it aside, and realize that her identity is found only in Christ? Why can she not affirm that motherhood is a blessing but not a requirement, for she is a woman because of God's creation, not because of her own. Why can she not recognize that femininity is nothing other than a human construction that tries to explain why a woman shouldn't seek equality with men, for equality is said to make women masculine, and men feminine?

Biblical equality doesn't create confusion; the human constructions of masculinity and femininity that try to explain what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman are the source of the confusion. Hence the ambivalence towards marriage and singleness. Equality affirms that men are men, and women are women, regardless of what they do with their bodies. This is something that CBMW cannot do.

Contra CBMW: Why Should Men Control Women?

When you read CBMW's "Danvers Statement" penned in 1987, you would think that the ultimate vocation of the church is to combat feminism. That there is no other evil on earth that is so pervasive that it needs the full attention of the entire church.

"We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large."

But really, is that all the church is supposed to be doing? Keeping women in their proper place?

Here's the real question: why do men feel they need to keep women in their proper place? For really, if you think about it, sin usually wins, and if CBMW is right, feminism appeared in 1970 and women have never been found in ecclesiastical offices before this time. So, forty years ago, something that has never happened before, happened. Doesn't that sound kind of odd to you? Since sin usually wins, shouldn't this have been a common battle throughout the centuries?

Everyone agrees that men have controlled women from the dawn of time in every era and every country. Because of their greater physical strength, men have been able to subject women through the threat of violence. For really, what could women have used to subject men? Nagging?  

So, what happened before 1970 that caused women to seek equality in unprecedented ways? The vote. It took women a few decades, but when they finally realized what having the vote meant, they began to use it, and as a result they were able to outlaw male violence against them. Without the fist, what could men use to subject women? Not much - other than the Bible.

Hence, since 1987 CBMW has done its utmost to convince us that it is God's desire that men should control women, since they can no longer do it on their own.

It must be really irritating.

Contra CBMW: The Secular and the Sacred, Part 2

When we consider the question what feminism is and isn't, we have to remember that because of evil, all things are found in a secular and a sacred form. Food, rest, clothing, even buildings, can be either secular or sacred. Their purpose (i.e., what they are used for) defines the category.

CBMW is certainly correct that there is such a thing as a secular form of feminism. It is an attempt to enter the money-making, me-pleasing world inhabited traditionally only by men. This is the world that seeks the pinnacle where power and money merge, and human rights disappear.

But what CBMW seems to have failed to notice is that there is also such a thing as a sacred form of feminism. This form of feminism seeks to correct social ills through the advocacy of human rights.

Sacred feminism was formed in the middle of the 19th century as women became increasingly aware that the lack of human rights was the cause of their plight. It took women more than a half a century of advocacy to become persons in their own right, and even then it was granted only grudgingly.

When CBMW sees all feminism in terms of women trying to capture power that has traditionally been in the hands of men, it fails to see the tremendous amount of reform work performed by women. And because it fails to see it, it combines the secular and the sacred and calls it all evil, which has had profound implications on how we look at needed reform work and what we consider to be a normal Christian response to evil. A telling example is CBMW's concern about an increase in physical and emotional abuse in the family without the recognition that it is a concern because sacred feminism made it a concern in the first place.

If all Christian women close their doors to the world, who will continue the needed reform work?

The church is the salt of the world (Matt 5:13). If the church loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?

The church is the light of the world (Matt 5:14). If the church hides its light, how can the world see the good works performed by the church?

When CBMW encourages women to busy themselves at home, aren't they doing exactly what they claim secular feminism does? Aren't they encouraging women to discard God's commands in favor of a life that is less challenging, that is more about themselves and their families than a world that needs them? All those women who braved imprisonment, force feeding, ridicule, and beatings, in order to free women from being considered property resemble the apostles more than a housewife whose only concern is to avoid burning the steak.

When we work for freedom for others, we find freedom for ourselves. That is the message of the cross. The message we hear from CBMW is that human rights are not something women need to be concerned about, for as long as they let men be in charge, the world will turn out all right. How ironic then that it was the world firmly in the hands of men, that led to the formation of sacred feminism. Or perhaps it isn't all that ironic; perhaps the reason why CBMW ignores sacred feminism is that sacred feminism doesn't cause social ills, it eradicates them.

Contra CBMW: The Secular and the Sacred

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has embarked on a crusade and its purpose is to eradicate everything secular from the church. The problem is that CBMW seems unable to see the difference between the secular and the sacred when it appears outside the church.

"Prior to conversion I was the stereotypical Generation Y feminist—anti-marriage, anti-child rearing, and corporate ladder hopeful" (http://cbmw.org/women/womanhood/confessions-of-a-recovering-feminist-3/).

This describes one kind of feminism, the kind that imitates what men were always allowed and encouraged to be. This was the kind that was born in the 1970-80s.

But there is also another kind of feminism; the original kind from the 19th century. These women saw the many social ills that plagued their time, and wanted to do something about them.

The turning point came in the late 1880s and early 1890s, when the nation experienced a surge of volunteerism among middle-class women—activists in progressive causes, members of women’s clubs and professional societies, temperance advocates, and participants in local civic and charity organizations. The determination of these women to expand their sphere of activities further outside the home helped legitimate the suffrage movement and provided new momentum for the NWSA and the AWSA. By 1890, seeking to capitalize on their newfound “constituency,” the two groups united to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Led initially by Stanton and then by Anthony, the NAWSA began to draw on the support of women activists in organizations as diverse as the Women’s Trade Union League, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), and the National Consumer’s League (http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/).

Christian women were right there in the forefront. They didn't advocate anti-marriage, anti-child rearing, corporate ladder hopefulness, for most of them were married with children, and the corporate ladder was non-existent. Instead, they focused on issues such as protections for women and children from abuse, and to accomplish it, they knew they needed the vote.

Most nineteenth-century feminists were intensely pro-motherhood and used the importance of good mothering as a prime reason that women needed civil and political rights (http://seattleuniversitylawreview.com/e-supp/2013/nineteenth-century-womens-rights-advocates-on-abortion/).

Only by being able to have a say on the laws that governed them, would they be able to protect themselves and their children. Alice Stone Blackwell from the National American Woman Suffrage Association wrote:
 

 Because laws unjust to women would be amended more quickly. It cost Massachusetts women 55 years of effort to secure the law making mothers equal guardians of their children with the fathers. In Colorado, after women were enfranchised, the very next Legislature granted it. After more than half a century of agitation by women for this reform only 13 out of 46 States now give equal guardianship to mothers.(http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/progress/suffrage/whyvote.html)

CBMW portrays men as generally benign towards women and children, or at least, it is their goal. But in reality, men aren't always benign; they can be harsh, cruel, and indifferent, as seen in the general treatment of slaves in every era. Significantly, the first women's rights advocates were all abolitionists before they took on the fight for women's rights, wherefore their ideas of what constitutes women's rights was equal to human rights. This is the difference between the secular and the sacred CBMW does not recognize: the secular seeks power and pleasure; the sacred seeks to secure human rights for all humans.

In a perfect world, men would always love and cherish women. But it is not the case in the imperfect world we live in. By demonizing those who fight for women's rights, CBMW also fights against the rights of all those who are exploited, for you cannot deny human rights from one group without denying them from all who find themselves in the same situation. It is not an accident that 37 million slaves exist in a world that believes slavery was abolished a long time ago, for when Christian women, who 150 years ago were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement, are taught to hide behind locked doors, who is going to fight for their freedom?

Contra CBMW: Does Equality Equal Selfishness?

An article by David Schrock, who is the Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Seymour, Indiana, is found on CBMW's website (http://cbmw.org/men/manhood/gone-in-60-seconds/).

Shrock's article highlights three ads seen on TV (Wolkswagon, Tide, and Taco Bell), and Shrock claims these ads distorts the biblical view of men because it enforces the idea that men care about their children only to satisfy their selfish desires.

"Yet, language is only part of the problem.  A great problem arises with the way that Tide suggests why a man should become a dad mom.  The payoff for this new role is presented as a way to get more ‘me time.’"

A man chooses to stay home and fold the laundry in order to have more "me time."  But when a woman stays home and folds the laundry, does she do it because she wants more "me time"? Is Shrock saying that women who stay home are inherently selfish?

"In reality, Tide is not to blame for this weak vision of manhood.  They are simply reflecting a culture that expects men to live for themselves.  And when adolescent boys, whose hearts are filled with selfish folly, see a picture of a man who stays home and has ample ‘me time,’ they are invited to find a woman—probably multiple women—who will take care of the finances while they take care of the home—and themselves.  This is not what God had in mind when created mankind as male and female (see Titus 2:1-10)."

If a woman finds a man (or several) who will take care of the finances, while she takes care of the home - and herself -  is it what God had in mind when he created mankind as male and female?

Perhaps Shrock thinks that women will spend a decade or two having babies, which leaves one with little "me time." But what about women who choose to have only two children (such as Shrock and his wife), or are unable to have children to begin with? Doesn't their choice to stay home reflect the selfish desire to have more "me time"?

While Shrock is certainly correct in saying that people absorb wrong messages from commercials, he seems to miss the point. The purpose of a commercial is to sell things, not help people understand right from wrong. Biblical equality does not teach selfishness; the world of commerce does. Equality affirms that all humans are created in the image of God, obligated to love their neighbors as themselves, and to serve them through love. Even Shrock sees the difference, when he isn't trying to enforce a gender separation into the picture:

What are we to make of these commercials?  Each presents something very wholesome and good—a father and son playing catch; a dad willing to serve his wife and children around the house; a man being unashamed to care for his baby on the streets of the city.  Yet, without changing camera angles, each commercial distorts God’s vision of manhood.

When he tries to make the case for the "neutered male," he loses sight of the beauty of a man caring for his children, and the same picture becomes something ugly. That he doesn't see that the ugliness comes from the advertisement department, not from biblical equality, tells us that he cannot differentiate the two.

Contra CBMW: Is the Body Enough?

Historically, the assumed inferiority of women was always based on an assumed lack of reason. The man was considered wiser, wherefore he was given the role of leading. A century ago, this assumption was proven wrong by science, but the idea that all women belong in a box have not gone away. Since we can no longer talk about silly women who don't have half a brain, the cheerleaders of the old model are now looking to the body for a reason why women belong in the home.

If a man can physically work, and if he is able to keep employment, then it is his special, God-given call to devote his strength, his intellect, and his attention to providing for his family. In following this pattern, we’re responding directly to Scripture, and also to the worldview taught us in our bodies. Men are not made for childbearing, as we have pointed out. Our bodies do not give us this revelation, to use a Wendell Berry word. They tell us otherwise. God has made men strong, in general, to provide. And he has not left us only with principles, but has supremely given us his Son, who laid down his life to make the provision of eternal life for his bride, the church. Internet controversies will wax and wane, but the image of the Son yielding his life for us will press successive generations of men into sacrificial service for those God has given them to lovingly lead.
(From: http://cbmw.org/men/manhood/studies-in-controversy-erick-erickson-and-sexual-distinctiveness/)

The concept is simple enough: men can't have children, wherefore they must work outside the house and lead the family. But what about women who are barren? Should they also work outside the house lead the family, since their bodies are clearly saying that they don't belong in the world of nurturing? And what about men who aren't physically able to work? Should they stay home with the children, while the wife works outside the house, although her body says she belongs in the world of nurturing? And what about widows, divorcees, unmarried men and women? What do their bodies say about their place in this world? Is potential enough, or do people actually have to have a baby, or a functioning body, to know where they belong?

Perhaps we are meant to study the original couple for an answer. The first humans lived in a garden, where they were naked and ate from the trees. There was no office, no home, no clothes to wash, no dinner to cook, and no babies. How did Adam and Eve know which sphere they belonged in? Did they perhaps divide the garden into two, one side for Adam, the other for Eve? Or did Adam draw a circle in the middle, tell Eve to stay put while he went out to collect fruit for both of them?

What we do know is that when the Serpent came for his infamous chat, Adam and Eve were together (The Hebrew word, 'imaah, denotes such intimacy that it is used to describe sex), Eve took the fruit (which ironically makes her the "fruitwinner"), and when God came looking for the two, he looked for both of them, not just the man. If the first humans roamed the garden freely without restrictions, perhaps God never designed humans to exist in separate spheres?

In the end, it because of sin that we have created the "breadwinner" and the "homemaker" to deal with a hostile world in which food must be produced through hard labor, and the weather forces us to seek shelter. Our bodies tell us that men and women are of the same species (since they can have children together), and that they are created to live on a planet commonly called the earth. Where we all belong on this earth is not mapped out by the body; that is something our minds must tell us.

Christian Domestic Discipline

People wonder sometimes why I spend so much time on one verse. It is true that focusing on one verse can create irreparable damage, but sometimes it can highlight an abusive methodology that is based on an altered truth.

The verse I focus on is Genesis 3:16. It is an important verse because it explains what went wrong with the male-female relationship that was once harmonious once evil entered the world.

From Intelligent Submission & Other Ways of Feminine Wisdom

"How many times can a verse be changed in Bible translations before anyone notices that something fishy is going on? Is it possible to do it, say, nine times over the course of sixteen centuries? Yes, it actually is. Genesis 3.16 has been changed numerous times over the centuries. With every major change in theology, this one verse has been changed in both wording and meaning. But why this particular verse of all the verses in the Bible? Because it is the only verse in the Bible that talks about the man's rule.
The first change was made by Jerome in the beginning of the fifth century in his newly created Latin translation. Instead of providing a literal translation, he decided to express the meaning of the verse as the patristic church understood it. In the Vulgate, Genesis 3.16 tells us that the woman was placed under the man’s authority for Jerome thought the verse said God caused the woman to turn to the man as a punishment for her sin. For about a thousand years, the Latin translation was the only one available. When the reformers decided to rid themselves of the obsolete language in favor of languages actually spoken by the people, the meaning of the verse was changed again. The German reformer, Luther, changed Jerome‟s paraphrase with a small addition of his own: he added the word “will” to the text making the woman‟s will subject to the man as a punishment for her sin; Calvin agreed with Luther for he thought the verse said the woman would desire only that which the husband wished, as her punishment was servile subjection.The creators of the Geneva Bible decided that it was the woman‟s desire that was subject to the man while Luther‟s English contemporary Myles Coverdale chose the word “lust,” making the woman literally lust after the man. The King James Version scholars must have felt uneasy about using such a crude word for they chose the more polished word “desire,” setting precedence for four centuries of translations. A deviation from the norm - and the Septuagint itself - is found in the nineteenth-century English translation of the Greek Septuagint in which the woman‟s submission is said to be to her husband. The latest change, made at the end of the twentieth century, is found in the footnotes of The New Living Translation: the desire is now understood to be the woman's desire to control the man."

This novel idea that the woman desires to control the man is the source of a modern phenomenon, the Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD).
(See: http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/)

According to CDD, "the husband has authority to discipline the wife. The wife does not have authority to discipline her husband. See Gen. 3:16."

What do they mean by it?

"Let's look at the first one a bit. This is a classic Genesis 3 classification. Women seek to usurp their husbands' authority by the nature of the Fall. Due to the same Fall, men seek to allow this to happen. The root of this is trust, or rather a lack of it. Indeed, this very nature in women is the single least common denominator in the "equal rights movement", i.e. Feminism. Were women born naturally with the inclination to trust, Feminism would not exist. Understand that I'm not speaking about trusting in the Lord, for this is something that only the Holy Spirit can bring about, in either man or woman. Rather, that any woman, regenerate or otherwise, will struggle with trusting any earthly authority, be it ecclesiastical, familial or other authority."

In other words, decause of sin, women have a tendency to distrust authority figures, wherefore they tend to rebel. Like a child, a woman is best disciplined through spanking:

"When administering physical discipline, take caution not to deliver the lashes anywhere but the buttocks. The first attempt at this punishment should only be delivered by hand so you can get an idea of how many lashings are needed. The best position will be for you to sit at the end of a bed or on a chair (with no arms) and have her lay across your lap. She can also bend over a bed with arms tucked under her chest and your left hand on the small of her back. If a strap (belt) is to be implemented watch that each stoke falls directly on the buttocks and not higher. EDITOR'S NOTE: When using the hand, or a small, short implement, such as a switch or small "hairbrush"-type paddle, over-the-knee positioning can work quite well."

What is the desired effect of spanking? 

"Her reaction after the lashing will let you know if this punishment works for her. She should be genuinely remorseful, tearful, and sore, but have an overwhelming desire to please you."

An overwhelming desire to please the man.

Now this is an interesting point, for (the original) Genesis 3:16 says that as a result of sin, a woman will turn to the man for help, which gives the man an opportunity to rule over her.

But there's more.

"On a related topic, so far as I can tell, the real reason for banishing the paddle from public school classrooms had more to do with trying to put the *domestic discipline* genie back in the bottle than it did with protecting children from educators. Schools were the designated *flag ship* of a no-spank movement that obscured the fact that girls could be quite successfully spanked after puberty. The idea being, that if spanking was eliminated, boys would never know big girls could be spanked and this would carry over into adult life. Thus, no woman would ever again be spanked by a boyfriend, husband, or boss."

Your boss should be allowed to spank you? Okay...

That some girls can "be quite successfully spanked after puberty" isn't enough for some:

"Maintenance discipline is a practice of giving your wife regular spankings to maintain her proper behavior and attitude. From our experience when Kim receives this type of discipline she is more humble and her attitude is greatly improved. Whether you as an H[ead]O[f] H[ousehold] decide to conduct these on monthly, weekly or daily schedules is up to you. I have found that daily spanking work best for Kim. Maintenance spankings help to remind her to be on her best behavior and to help keep her attitude in the proper manner, letting her know that she is required to maintain her behavior and not slip into being careless and disrespectful to her HOH."

Daily spanking?

It seems that CDD is more about women craving the energy that comes from being spanked.

"When a woman has not been punished for some time, the memory of the painful spanking she received due to her bad behavior will start to fade and the wife's attitude may change for the worse. With a regular maintenance spanking she is reminded of just how painful a punishment spanking is and that she is required at all times to act accordingly. Another reason for the maintenance spankings is to re-establish the emotional and intimate connection of the wife and the HOH, bringing out the Masculine energy from the HOH and the feminine energy from his wife. All women crave this energy. This energy is what couples feel when they were still all flowers and sunsets."

For...

"She needs and desires to submit to you and your decisions as her HOH, and by taking time to slow down the spanking and thoroughly punishing her she will find solace and be happier."

Hmm... Doesn't this sound more like sadomasochism than domestic discipline?

"Erotic spankings usually administered by the hand to the bared buttocks. Voluntary nudity and enthusiastic submission are not uncommon. These episodes are more about play than about pain, although depending on the desire of the participants, there may be quite a bit of play *and* pain. Still, in the scheme of things, they serve a useful purpose because vaginal lubrication signals the first stage of female submission to male prerogatives. That is why it is often the gateway to discovering the virtues of *domestic discipline*."

For....

"Still, most women actually prefer to be spanked harder than men often realize. It is not the spanking they crave so much as the release they experience"

In other words, married women should be spanked, preferably daily, for they need the sexual release. Could anyone be more explicit?

So, if it's really about sex, what does God have to do with it?

"Make no mistake. God is no fool. Just as He made men and women so that they would become attracted to each other and bond, He made men a little larger, a little stronger, and a little smarter for a reason. Man-made laws demanding *absolute gender equality* will not repeal the natural order of things."

Ah! Men are smarter - except that they aren't. The scientific discipline of sociology proved women to be equally smart over a century ago, but that hasn't stopped anyone from making false claims, such as:

"One line of thought - heard from both men and women - is that women were made, both psychologically and physically, to be spanked by men. Women really do want their men to *take charge* - as my wife refers to it."

What about the idea that women want to be raped by men? Who do you think came up with that idea?


But here's the real question: why does the author on the website call himself "No One"? Just like Monsanto, if he is so proud of his product, why does he hide behind anonymity? Perhaps because the idea of a woman being a perpetual child in need of physical discipline isn't quite as popular as it used to be. Grown women are quite capable of taking care of their own mental and physical well being, without the aid of a paddle - or a husband who's more than willing to use it. 

Intelligent Submission, Part 2

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!" "Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:38-42 NIV).

Who hasn't heard the story about Martha and Mary, and learned a lesson about what is important in life, i.e., hanging out with Jesus instead of the dishes. But why is it that when women become very efficient Marys and hang out with Jesus, they are told their place is in the kitchen? That they should be worried and upset about the many things that go on in the kitchen, for that is what they were created to be and do.

Doesn't it seem that there is one Jesus to men, and another to women? The "other" Jesus tells women that it is ok to be like Mary, but only as long as they do not become wise beyond measure, and they don't offend men. If they actually take discipleship seriously and become masters able to disciple others, the "other" Jesus tells them to remain silent and submissive, for they have no business teaching others.

But is that really so? Does submission require that we gain all the knowledge in the world, only to remain silent? Do we not learn in order to become wise? What in wisdom requires that we remain silent as other people make foolish decisions that affect not only themselves, but also others?


From Intelligent Submission & Other Ways of Feminine Wisdom

Submission requires a lot of wisdom. We must think before we submit or we might find ourselves agreeing with things we otherwise wouldn't, and avoiding the things we know we shouldn't. In other words, submission must be intelligent. A godly wife is worth more than a diamond, but so is wisdom, which explains why the two have a lot in common. Abigail was not only beautiful, she was also intelligent. Her misfortune was to be married to Nabal, a fool, as his name so clearly indicates. When Nabal was about to let all the men in his household be murdered due to his own foolishness, Abigail rushed off to meet David with the requested provisions. David praised her for her good judgment which prevented the slaughter of innocents. Likewise Mary, the mother of Jesus, stood before the angel and gave her own consent to becoming the mother of God. Jael is perhaps a bit more on the morbid side as far as examples go, for she hammered a tent peg through the temple of Sisera, the enemy of Israel. Nevertheless, she was praised by Deborah and Barak for her courage to act alone. Moses would not have had an Israel to lead out of Egypt if the Israeli midwives had not feared God more than they feared Pharaoh. And had his sister Miriam not been brave enough to speak to the bathing Pharaoh's daughter, Moses himself would have grown up believing himself an Egyptian. Rahab saved the Israeli spies in Jericho, the Samaritan woman preached the Gospel fearlessly to her whole town, women were first to see the empty tomb, Mary of Magdalene was first to speak to the resurrected Christ, and Lydia was first to welcome Christianity to continental Europe. Women have done extraordinary things for God without stopping first to ask for permission from men.

Submission that stands silently by as others are harmed is not submission; it is foolishness. Intelligent submission recognizes that there are times when we must stand up and resist those who hurt themselves and others, and there are times when we must willingly give in, and submit to those who create peace.

Foolish submission doesn't recognize the difference, for "[t]he way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice" (Prov 12:5 NIV).

Intelligent Submission, Part 1

Submission is one of those subjects that cannot be talked about without making enemies. Yet, submission is a central concept of the New Covenant. We cannot reconnect until we learn to submit to one another.

Yes, submission is mutual, just as resisting is mutual. We all resist the will of others; sometimes it is a good thing (when submission would lead to evil), other times it is not such a good thing (when submission would lead to peace).

The Greek philosopher, Plato, gives us an idea how the Greeks understood the words that are related to submission:

The name 'hekousion' expresses the fact that it signifies yielding and not resisting, but yielding, as I said before, to the motion (eikon toi ionti) - the one that comes into being in accord with our wish. 'Anankaion' ('compulsory') and 'antitupnon' ('resistant'), on the other hand, since they signify motion contrary to our wish, are  associated with 'error' and 'ignorance'.

We find the same words in Philemon 14:

Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind [opinion, resolve] would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity (anagke), but willingly (hekousion) (Philemon 13-14, KJV).

Mutual submission expects us to consider the feelings and interests of others (Phil 2). It doesn't allow some to force their opinions on others - not even in marriage.

From Intelligent Submission & Other Ways of Feminine Wisdom:

If the husband‟s authority is only about decisions, and if women are equally competent decision makers, perhaps the husband‟s authority is really about preferences?
- How can you say such a thing, gasps Professor Loki.
- Easily, for if the man is a relative lord, also the wife‟s obedience must be relative; in other words, the wife must use discernment to determine whether a request is moral or not, which leaves only amoral preferences as the one thing a wife must always obey.
- The wife needs to do no such thing for the man‟s authority was given to secure the holiness of the family, says Professor Loki with a stern voice.
- But if the husband believes his commandment to be biblical, and the wife doesn't, should the wife not dissent?
- It is the husband‟s responsibility to be the priest in the home and to know what the Bible says.
- I thought you said the wife was ultimately responsible to God for her own behavior?
- Yes, but the man is responsible for his wife, answers a visibly annoyed Professor Loki.
- Aren't the two concepts in conflict with each other?
- There is no conflict for the husband is to his wife what Christ is for the church.
- Are you saying that what Christ is, the husband should be?
- Yes, Christ is king, prophet, and priest for the church and that is what a man should be for his own wife, Professor Loki says with pomp.
- Why stop there?
- What do you mean?
- Why not say the husband should also forgive his wife‟s sins, heal her body, exorcise demons, and resurrect her body?
- Of course a man cannot do those things, only God can! exclaims a wide-eyed Professor Loki.
- So we must limit ourselves to the things a man can do.
- Yes, of course we must!
- Then a husband cannot decide alone what is biblical for he is not infallible the way Christ is, and he must acknowledge as much in his dealings with his wife, who in turn must use her own judgment.

Even in marriage God expects us to consider the feelings and interests of others, for it is through mutual submission that humans connect, and remain connected. Selfish ambition disconnects humans, as it leads us to seek only our own interests at the expense of others. Of course those who are enthralled with their own ambitions won't agree with mutual submission; how could they?

Born in the the U.S.A

Bruce Springsteen wrote the now famous song, "Born in the U.S.A." in 1984. The song is widely considered a patriotic song about American pride, especially after Ronald Reagan made it so in a campaign speech. But how many know, or remember, that Springsteen's song was really about the shame of how veterans of the Vietnam war were treated after they returned from the first war the US had lost.

How can a song about men sent to kill "the yellow man,"  become a symbol of national pride? Is American patriotism about killing "the yellow man," or the "brown man," or the "red man"? Or do people only hear the words they want to hear; about being "a cool rocking daddy" in the U.S.A? Rock and roll, as long as it isn't our heads that are rolling.

We are told we need to kill our enemies.

A black man born in the USA, whose enemy is he?
A Muslim born in the USA, whose enemy is he?
An Arab born in the USA, whose enemy is he?

Is it enough to say that someone is born in the USA for someone to be a friend instead of an enemy? For most people such a question isn't even an issue. But for some even being born in the USA isn't enough, for in their worldview friends were created in those few magical decades after the Mayflower sailed across the Atlantic. The descendants of the "white natives" who came to the New World share a special bond that cannot be shared with anyone else, regardless of the place of their birth. My ancestors weren't part of it, wherefore I have no right to voice my opinions about public policy. But neither does anyone else, born in the USA, or not. Hence it's not really a white issue, it is a pride issue. And because it is a pride issue, people can sing, "Born in the U.S.A" with patriotic fervor, although it is really about national shame.

As it was then, it is now: few seem to know the difference.

Why Women Cheer Patriarchy

We have all heard women cheerfully explain why patriarchy is good for women, men, and society as a whole, and we have all been equally puzzled by that cheerfulness. Why do women cheer patriarchy?

The whole thing boils down to this: women know they can climb to the top if they play their cards right. Men love beautiful women, and there aren't that many of them; women love beautiful things, and there aren't that many of them either. Put the two together and you get a fierce competition for available resources and the owners of those resources (for although beauty should be married to the owner of the moneybag, it is too often attached to the moneybag instead).

Feminism challenges patriarchy because of what it does to the women at the bottom. Beautiful women may get what they want, but their plainer sisters aren't always that fortunate. Without beauty to use as a means to influence decision making, these women will experience what men without resources experience daily: they are pushed aside as inconsequential, and more than one has had her share of violence.

Perhaps we really shouldn't be talking about the rule of the fathers, for patriarchy looks a whole lot like the rule of the bold and the beautiful, which is why feminism can't conquer it alone. Women who challenge a power structure that is founded on the belief that winners take it all aren't going to be cheered by those who have it all. In order to dismantle the power structure we need more than just one movement; we need men and women willing to move towards a just society.

Men and women who refuse to play along, do not seek what the bold and the beautiful seek. They look for partners who share their values and goals. This, of course, is an affront to patriarchy that loves all that shines, be it gold or eyes. If having it all isn't the most important thing in the world, those who have it all aren't all that important. In fact they are fools who have traded love for the lure of material considerations and fleshly delights, things that vanish with time.

But there is one more system to consider: religious patriarchy. Religious patriarchy differs from the secular in one important aspect: it rejects the life of pleasure in favor of absolute power. The religious know the influence beautiful women have on men; anyone can read about Gideon and Delilah and draw their own conclusions. Hence they hide the women and shame the men. If the bold aren't allowed to be bold (for money exists only to enrich the religious leaders), and the beautiful are tucked away, nothing hinders the absolute power of the religious leaders, who are - naturally - all men.

Because the freedom to follow one's conscience threatens religious patriarchy, rigid gender roles are created to ensure that people will remain within the narrow perimeters. Faith and fear are used to shame anyone who strays. In the world of religious patriarchy, feminism becomes an unparalleled evil, and a marriage of equals becomes a threat to the very existence of society, although, in reality, they threaten only the power of the religious leaders.

Why women cheer religious patriarchy isn't all that hard to understand. When obedience is the highest virtue, and only virtue will give the reward of eternal life, anyone is willing to put up with some measure of injustice. But what if religious patriarchy is only a dark cloak that hides an insatiable hunger for earthly power? What if justice is the true virtue, and these women are giving up their reward out of fear? What if these women are cheering a system that will incur God's wrath?

Patriarchy is one of the oldest excuses for injustice, whether it comes in the form of hedonism or asceticism. In our quest for more for me, we sacrifice that which matters the most: ourselves. Aren't we worth fighting for?

Break for Writing 11th of June to 17th of June

The Unexamined Life

Perhaps someone might say: But Socrates, if you leave us will you not be able to live quietly, without talking? Now this is the most difficult point on which to convince some of you. If I say that it is impossible for me to keep quiet because that means disobeying the god, you will not believe me and will think I am being ironical. On the other hand, if I say that it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will believe me even less (Plato, Apology, 38a).

Socrates was charged with the crime of corrupting the youth of Athens. This corruption was not the kind we talk about in the twenty-first century; it was about his devotion to a life of philosophy, asking questions where questions weren't welcomed, but most importantly, because he taught the young Athenian men to question their elders. He had corrupted their blind devotion to the state - obedience to the state was a sign of piousness, disobedience (asking questions) a sign of impiousness - and the penalty for impiousness was death.

Socrates drank the hemlock because of an activity that is considered a crime even today. Obedience is still considered virtuous, and the death penalty awaits those who ask questions the state doesn't want to answer. But as Socrates told Critos:

[I]s life worth living for us with that part of us that corrupted that unjust actions harms and just actions benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is inferior to the body?

Socrates considered death preferable to a life that cannot be examined out of fear for punishment. Countless individuals across the centuries have chosen the same fate. Only last week, in Turkey, peaceful protestors were executed by the police; they preferred to die rather than live in a repressive society.

Justice is like beauty and goodness; they are always in conflict with their counter parts, and demand that we pick a side. Socrates chose justice. I think it was a wise choice, for we are still talking about it.

The Greatest Commandments

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'  This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
(Matt 22:36-40 NIV)

The habit of people to neglect commands that conflicted with their favorites, especially the ones they had created themselves, was the reason Jesus said that the commands to love God and one's neighbor were the greatest commandments.

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'  But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
(Mark 7:9-13 NIV)

Although it was permissible for an Israelite to lift up an animal from the ditch and ignore the Sabbath laws (Matt 12:11), no other commandment was so important that humans could ignore the love of God and neighbor, for all other commands hang from these two as clothes from a hanger.

Love does no harm. Try to justify greed while telling yourself that you love your neighbor as yourself and you'll get lost in the sea of contradictions. Try to justify indifference while telling yourself that you love God and you have to created your own god - which is true of a lot of people. The God of the Bible is as relentless about his requirements as the god of Money is lax in his; the former requires us to be just, the latter invites us to become unjust.

Justice extracts what mercy withholds, and grace gives what love is offering. Try to live a life without mercy, and you'll get justice; try to live a life without love, and you won't get grace. If we want to avoid loving our neighbors as ourselves, we better not pretend we love God either.

Love is not an excuse for injustice.

Class and Cast

A thought has puzzled me for a long time: why do men claim women desire to control them. Not to sound too condescending, but what in the world do they think when they say such a thing? All evidence points to the other direction, that men desire to control women.

So, why do we keep on hearing about nagging wives and ungrateful women? Why don't we hear as much complaining about husbands who beat their wives and men who shoot escorts who refuse sex for money? Something's wrong with this picture.

When we really think about it, a clearer picture begins to emerge from the darkness. Is it not true that men claim women desire to control them because they are the ones pressuring women to conform to their will and women won't put up with it? Their refusal to comply must feel like an attempt to control, for a desire thwarted causes resentment, and resentment causes all logic to be tossed out the window, and a doubling down of the original pressure to conform. And so the battle rages on without a winner in sight.

But do women really desire to control men? Isn't that exactly what every tyrant says about peaceful protestors who are pepper sprayed, arrested, and shot, to preserve the tyrants power? Blame the oppressed, not the oppressor?

To get along with those who disagree is an art that is becoming increasingly rare in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile to free thinking and differing opinions. Uniformity creates peace but at the expense of everything else. You can't have a peace that lasts until you have a peace that is created by the mutual consent of all. Peace that is created by violence is ended with violence. And those who refuse to agree with the arrangement are called criminals, terrorists, even traitors - and nagging wives. But how can you betray something that doesn't exist?

Unless we are all free, no one is free. If no one is free, there is no free society to defend, no country to live for, no justice to uphold, no happy marriage to celebrate. All we have is a class system that exploits the majority for the benefit of the minority, and a cast system that benefits men at the expense of women.

Until the day the wealthy learn to see everyone else as their equals, and men learn to see women as persons instead of property, those who oppress and exploit will do their utmost to convince their victims that they are being exploited for their own good.

When Phones Bug Us

Why does the government need to know what we say in private? Even the government itself reserves the right to privacy by refusing to share sensitive information with the public. What right does the government have to spy on its people? The threat of terror?

Let's consider the threat of terror for a moment. If the government needs to know what its citizens say in private to avert a potential threat to its citizens, it is essentially saying that it cannot, or will not, trust its citizens. That it's us versus the government.

Now that's a scarier thought than terrorism.

But let's also consider this: who runs the government? Corporations. So in essence we are saying that corporations have the government spy on us to suppress any rebellion against their unjust labor practices and their relentless destruction of our common resources. In other words, we are all potential terrorist in the eyes of the corporations, and their trusted servants - the letter people - do the job they are paid to do: keep the corporations safe. And who pays for all of this? We do.

Talk about irony.

But really, it shouldn't surprise us that corporations have the government spying on us, for corporations do not have a loyalty to any specific country. In this aspect they are perhaps the most egalitarian of them all, except that they have a sinister motivation for their desire to see the world unified under one umbrella: it is so much easier to exploit people if there is no such thing as local laws that people get to vote on. If corporations get to make the rules, who will overthrow them?

We do still have one thing in our favor: there are seven billion of us, and only a few thousand of them. No amount of fear will keep us down forever when we find our strength in unity. And so we have. From one end of the world to the other, people are rising up and reclaiming their right to live without the tyranny of fear. For really, a life lived in fear is not lived, it is wasted.

The Price of Water is Priceless

"If it’s free, the message is that it’s unlimited," writes Stephen J. Dubner.
(See http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/15/the-strange-economics-of-water-and-why-it-shouldnt-be-free-a-guest-post/)

And he does have a point, for we calculate the worth and value of things in terms of money. Money isn't unlimited, wherefore if something costs a lot, it must be worth a lot. It explains why we pay over 2,000 times more for bottled water than tap water. It's not the water we care about; it's the sign of privilege that we are looking for. Evian may spell naive when read backwards, but anyone who holds the bottle is given an almost automatic sense of importance. It may be false, but it doesn't bother the bottle holder. Hair dye is false too, but that never stopped Marilyn Monroe from becoming famous.

Should water be free? The Chairman of Nestle, Peter Brabeck, claims that water is simply a food stuff and should have a market value (See http://usilive.org/nestle-ceo-says-water-isnt-a-human-right-tell-him-hes-wrong/). Privatization of water would ensure fair distribution, says Mr. Brabeck. But will turning citizens into customers create social justice?

If water should be treated the way we treat food, would everyone get their fair share? We live in a world of plenty, yet a quarter of humanity goes hungry. How would slapping a price tag on water ensure fair distribution when we can't even share our food?

Although free usually gives the message that the supply is unlimited, when it comes to things that humans need to survive, the message is different: free water tells us that we all all equally important, that money isn't allowed to define our worth. Those who wish to privatize water can do so the day they figure out how to create water. Until then, water belongs to all of us.

  

Controlled Desire

Ever wondered why religious leaders seem to be obsessed with sex? It's no so much because they really care about the subject; it's because they can divert the attention from themselves to the people. If everyone is always anxious about how they look at someone, or how someone looked at them, no one is paying attention to what goes on behind closed doors where the leaders live. Hence the Catholic Cardinal Pell can say abortion is worse than priests molesting children, for the former is done by the laity, and the latter by the leaders. (See: http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2013/05/cardinal-pell-who-said-abortion-is-worse-than-priests-raping-children-apologizes-for-cover-up/)

When everyone is obsessing about sex, few care about true justice, for justice has come to mean abstinence. Hence celibacy becomes the greatest form of devotion humans can offer to the divinity, and family becomes something only for incontinent people, who can't control themselves. But more so, women become the source of all evil, for when celibacy is the norm, a woman, who can seduce a man by simply being a woman, becomes injustice personified.

Although it is true that sex plays a big part in many crimes committed against humanity (such as trafficking and sex slavery), in of itself sex is amoral. We need sexual desire to continue the human race, and as a physical manifestation of love it is so tangible that it can be felt with every fiber of one's being. But when sex becomes a matter of control, it is transformed into something far less desirable; it becomes something ugly, a secret to be hidden, a sign of a lack of self-control that people shun and fear. And due to the fear people begin to avoid other humans, for sparks fly whenever they come in contact. Monasteries were built for that very reason, but it was an exercise of futility, for human desire cannot be locked in a cage; it is within us.

While some can successfully live a life of continence, for most it is an unrealistic expectation. As long as religious leaders use sex as a means of control, people will go elsewhere, or live in the shadows of shame. Neither is a viable option for those who love God and other humans, wherefore it would be so much better if those who walk before us would finally get the point and begin to obsess about something else, such as feeding widows and orphans.

The Vengeful God

It really shouldn't surprise us that Evangelicals support warfare; their concept of God is one of a violent, revenge seeking divinity that looks for every opportunity to kill and destroy humans everywhere. If God is more than willing to kill and maim, why shouldn't his followers?

But what if they have misunderstood God? A cursory reading through the prophets reveals a God who is quite frequently angry, but not randomly at humans who haven't had the forethought to confess Jesus as Lord. God is angry when humans create injustice, and he doesn't relent until he has seen justice served. That's quite different from the idea that God is after humans for failing to understand the importance of the sinner's prayer.

What is really behind this idea of God as a vengeful, angry God? Isn't it our unwillingness to love our neighbors the way we love ourselves? We think God cares deeply about morality, but God doesn't need morals, for morals are based on virtue, and virtue is based on justice. Where justice is found, morals are not needed. Our love for morals reveals our distaste for justice, for morals allow us to elevate ourselves above our neighbors - we know better, wherefore we are better; justice demands that we treat our neighbors the way we want them to treat us. Not as superiors, not as inferiors, but as equals.

Yet, mercy triumphs over justice; God forgives because he loves. Forgiveness is, however, not an invitation for us to become unjust, for if we fail to show mercy, neither will we receive mercy ourselves. It is this thought of feeding the hungry, and sheltering the homeless that makes the vengeful God so appealing, for selfish ambition and envy cause us to see ourselves, and only ourselves. We don't particularly want to share what we have with those who have less, for how can we elevate ourselves above others, if we create economic equality? Thus the vengeful God becomes the perfect excuse for us to continue to convince ourselves and others that we don't have to love our neighbors, for if God doesn't, we should we?

My Rights, Your Rights, or Everybody's Rights

A friend of mine responded to my post about patriarchy yesterday, and he asked us to remember that men need to have their rights secured too. At first I thought, huh? Don't men already have enough rights? But then it dawned to me that he wasn't talking so much about rights that only men should have, but rights that everyone should have.

While it is undeniably true that some rights cannot be transferred, such as the right to become a prima ballerina, which depends on your physique; if you were born with a slow metabolism, you just aren't going to make it. But that a black person cannot become a ballet dancer in Brazil is just plain wrong; ballet should not be a white privilege.

The same is true of motherhood: men just can't become mothers. But parenthood is a right that cannot be denied a man just because he didn't give birth.

Instead of fighting for my rights, or your rights, we should fight for everybody's right to be recognized as human beings. Human beings have rights, just because they are human, not because they are specific kinds of human beings. Male or female, black or white, young or old, chubby or skinny, slow or witty; none of these matter when it comes to human rights. We all have them just because we are human.

When we begin to advocate for the rights of a specific group, we must always remember that if a specific right violates human rights, it should not be pursued. Hence when we advocate for women's /men's rights, or the right to marry, or the right to divorce, we must always consider the question from the perspective of human rights. For really, even if we like to talk about my rights and your rights, we must also think about everybody's rights, for if we don't, one day they may no longer exist.

The Unreal Reality of Patriarchy

When our beliefs do not produce what we want in the real world, we resort to scapegoating, or just flat-out lying. Feminism is one of those perfect scapegoats for patriarchy that is so lied about that you would think there is more to it than just an attempt to equalize the worth of men and women.

Patriarchy works for some, but not even for the some all the time. When patriarchy doesn't produce the perfect marriages, the perfect children, and a perfect world, the first logical thing is to find the reason for the failure. And so feminism became the modern scapegoat, for it insists that patriarchy is wrong, and that it hurts women and children, and ultimately even men.

But as those who believe in patriarchy try to pass the blame on feminism, the first challenge they face is that cannot prove that it has ever produced perfect marriages, perfect children, or a perfect world, whereas feminism can show that it has improved the lot of women and children, and even some men.

Since patriarchy cannot use facts, it must resort to flat-out lying. And so we are told by Pat Robertson that, "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." In other words, if women aren't kept subservient by patriarchy, they will kill their offspring in order to marry their neighbor's wife.

Mr. Robertson can say such things despite the fact that feminism has improved the treatment of children by society at large, and no one has yet seen a full-scale massacre of infants, because those who believe in patriarchy desperately need any justification for their beliefs, even if it means they have to believe stories they know are lies.

In the church, things get even murkier, for here we have the Bible. Anyone can produce proof using the Bible, especially when verses are plucked randomly like feathers from a chicken. The common way of approaching the subject of patriarchy is to claim that feminism infiltrated the church in the 1970s. But here's the problem: in the 70s, theologians finally challenged the notoriously difficult two-fold subjection created by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. As a result, and by common consensus, theologians dropped the subjection that began after the fall and kept the subjection that began at creation, effectively reversing the 4th century theology that dominated for nearly a thousand years, until Thomas came along. Some theologians, however, challenged this new position by pointing out that the first centuries had believed in equality from creation, and patriarchy as a consequence of sin. What some call infiltration is what others call sound scholarship, and who is afraid of the truth?

If patriarchy cannot defend itself, and must use faith and fear to keep itself going, is it really worth it? It maybe for some, but not for most of us; fear kills joy, and faith works only if it is based on truth. Few want to feel schizophrenic, saying one thing, feeling another, until their whole reality spins. If we must get rid of patriarchy in order to remain sane, I'd say it's a small price to pay. 

Oil Companies and the Poor Do Not Mix Well

When a wealthy CEO of an oil company says we shouldn't worry about the climate because reducing the amount of oil we use would hurt the poor, the first thing that comes to mind is, why would a wealthy CEO of an oil company that spends tens of millions of dollars lobbying the congress for tax breaks, care what happens to the poor?

The second question that comes to mind is, what would happen if the wealthy oil companies paid their fair share of taxes and stopped exploiting people in poor countries rich in oil? It would reduce poverty. So why do oil companies say they care about the poor, when they do all they can to keep the people in poverty?

The Wall Street Journal claims that oil companies get no special tax breaks (see, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578380684292877300.html). Because oil companies are taxed in foreign countries where they operate, they are exempt from the portion they have already paid in US taxation to avoid double taxation. But there are other ways to avoid paying taxes, such as offsetting business costs immediately instead of gradually. And then there is of course the cost of cleaning up after oil spills that is an expensive operation, and therefore a business expense that can be re-claimed from the taxpayers (if your toilet leaks and damages the entire bathroom, try to deduct the cost on your next taxes, and see what happens).

If oil companies cared about the poor, they would work hard to combat climate change and work for sustainable energy, for a large portion of a household income goes to pay for gas for the car and for oil to heat the house, not to mention all the oil that goes into farming, and shipping food from one side of the earth to the other. Without oil food would be healthier, traveling cheaper, and incomes adequate to feed the whole family.

If wealthy CEOs of oil companies really cared about the poor, they could have eradicated poverty by creating alternative energy, for all the billions that has been poured into wars needed to secure a steady supply of oil for a handful of companies would have made everyone on the globe part of the middle-class by now.

So we find that oil companies and the poor do not mix well, for the former sees the poor only as a PR ploy to continue their relentless pillaging of our natural resources to satisfy their never ending thirst for more money, while the poor wonder what is so great about polluted water that no one wants to drink.

It's time to end the sham.