RSample.com

Politics and Theology from Reuel K. Sample

Have to admit – I am proud of us.  The “us” that I am giving props to is my generation – called Generation X, GenX, “Xers”, etc.  Most of the time, references to my age group are derisive and dismissive.  We are told that we are the “whatever” generation.  We would rather sit around in hot tubs and complain than actually do anything about it.  Not much to be proud of – if you  believe it.

However, I have found ample reason to be proud of my generation.  I just started really using my facebook page.  I have never really liked networking sites.  I have always viewed them as at best a waste of time and at worst a dangerous place where  your personal information is out there for the world to see.  Then people started hooking up with me – family first, some coworkers.  In the last few days it has become really exciting, as friends from high school and college have joined the fold.  Therein lies the source of my pride.

The profiles of my friends are profiles of people who are the exact opposite of the “I Don’t Care” generation that seemed to doom us 20 years ago.  I see men and women who have raised families.  I see the athletes who are teaching at respected universities, the shy classmates who are respected lawyers, and the class clowns who are successful doctors.  I see people involved in their families, communities, and their country.

GenX became dissatisfied with the politics, practices, and procedures of institutions that were unwilling or unable to change what we saw as a very unjust and evil world.  So we said “whatever” to them.  But far from withdrawing, we decided to change things in different ways – through our families, our work, our spiritual practices, and community involvement.

So, while I might never be a facebook maniac, that social networking site has put me back in touch with some of the best people I know.  Congratulations to all – I am proud of you.

This passage of Scripture reminds me of a conversation concerning Date Rape that I had a few years back.  The gist of the conversation revolved around the question of who is at fault in this mostly college-prevalent crime.  The opposing viewpoint coming from another employee was very clear on the matter – the male is 100% at fault, every time.  Whether the girl says no, or says yes, if she states the next day that she was in no position to make that kind of choice, the boy is at fault.  The male, sober or blitzed, must make the call between a “yes” that means “yes”, and a “yes” that means “no”.  I took the position that each case must be examined differently.  While rape of any kind is a crime, the question that I posited is does the girl bear any kind of responsibility in this matter?  Was she drinking excessively?  Was she dressed provocatively?  Did she knowingly place herself in a position where such a devastating thing could happen?  Did she cry out?  If we are to hold men to such high standards, I asked, should we not hold women to some kind of code of conduct as well?

Scripture is very clear on the matter of forced sexual relations – “for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.” (Deut 22:26)  The penalty for rape at all times is death.  It is violent, it is deviant, and it flies in the face of the Covenant of love and law that God so clearly outlines for His people. Deuteronomy 22: 23 – 29 speaks of two kinds of sexual encounters.  The first case involves a man finding a girl “in the city”, who is a virgin and engaged to another man, and “lies with her”.  The penalty for this infraction is that both are put to death in order to “purge the evil from among you.” (Deut 22:24)  A horrifying, and some would say unjust,  outcome.  The location for this event, though, is important.  The cities of the Hebrews were not the cities of today – bastions of individual fortresses surrounded by sound-proofed walls of steel and concrete.  These ancient cities were open and bustling with activity.  If this action had truly been rape, such a violent act would have been noticed, the screams of help would have been heard, aid would have been rendered.  There are always exceptions, and Scripture provides a just way to handle them.  (Deut 25:1)  But barring any exceptions, this episode is not considered rape, but an encounter between two willing parties.  Since sex outside the covenant of marriage is taboo, the penalty for both is death.

Verse 25 is the second case, one where there is no possibility of hearing a call for help.  If this event happens “in the field”, then “you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin…”. (22:26)  Verse 27 states, “there was no one to save her.”  This encounter is clearly unplanned on the part of the woman, in a place where she cannot get aid.  Clearly, Scripture considers this event “rape”, with all the violence and trauma associated with that crime.  The girl is not held accountable, as justice requires.  The man is put to death, being held solely liable for his actions.

In cases of clear rape, where the woman was alone and unable to get aid, Scripture mandates a prosecution of the man only  – the woman is to be held sinless.  Whether or not rape should be a capital offense is another discussion, but Scripture does mandate a pretty stiff penalty for this crime.  (For an excellent discussion on capital punishment, see Daniel Van Ness’s article “What’s the Bible’s Position On The Death Penalty”.)

Yet, if there is no clear distinction between the guilty parties, if no cries for help were ever made, if the situation entered into was such that a sexual encounter of some sort was bound to occur, then how can only one party be held 100% accountable?  Though adultery is no longer a capital offense, the results of marital infidelity or sexual promiscuity have dire consequences.  Scripture is calling for a mantle of responsibility to be placed on both parties.  Far from holding the woman accountable for the man’s actions, Scripture holds each party individually responsible for their own  actions.  The man must not have sex outside of marriage,  not be in a questionable area with a woman, be in charge of his faculties.  The woman must also have some sense of self control – does not get drunk, watches her surroundings, be aware of who she is with, be committed to sexual fidelity.  Such vigilance on the part of both parties will greatly reduce the chance of any illicit encounter, as well as decrease the probability of charges of rape.

To go back to my conversation, how we address the issue of Date Rape reflects upon how well we know and apply the Law of God.  If we see the Law as merely a set of rules and restrictions, then we will spend a great deal of time inventing ways to circumvent those laws in order to have complete license in all that we do. The result, of course, is the moral anarchy that we are experiencing today.  Far from merely being restrictive, the Law is God’s gift for righteous living and healthy human interaction.  Once we begin to see that there is no action outside of the Law, we can also begin to see how God has already addressed difficult issues such as Date Rape.  Will we continue to measure these matters by human varying standards, codes of conduct that change with the times and political pressures?  Or,  will we submit ourselves to live according to how God would have us live?

Well, the big night is over.  If Governor Palin was the butterfly,  one does not have to go too far to feel the hurricane effect of her wings.

Liberals are stunned.  MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann seemed utterly stunned.  Not just stunned, but livid over how successful Governor Palin was as the convention.  Senator Harry Reid issued a statement saying that the VP nominee was “shrill and sarcastic.” (This comment never made it to the Senator’s website.  Check out the quote at the Boston Globe.)    Over on Senator Obama’s website, their response to the speech’s reference to his community activism: “Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.”   That is the political equiavalent to responding “Your Mother”.

Conservatives are delighted.  From Mike Gallagher’s blog: “And if we are fortunate enough to watch John McCain beat all the odds and win the presidency on November 4, I will always believe that Sarah Palin helped seal the deal for him.“   From Faith Ammen: “Palin did not pander, she did not cater, she did not complain. She did not beg to be recognized for being such a powerful leader AND a woman. She just is who she is.“   From William Crystal, over at the Weekly Standard: “This deflates all the sanctimonious praise of Obama at the Democratic convention for all his selfless years as a community organizer. And if you take away the community organizing, Obama’s just a career politician, one “who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform,” one of those who has used “change to promote their careers.” What’s left of Obama’s résumé, and his claim to deserve the presidency? Not much.”

What all this comes to is what staunch conservatives have been saying for years: conservatism works.  All it takes is one person to get up and proclaim, in clear and certain terms, that he (or now she) is in favor of the core values upon which this country was built.  Ronald Reagan did it, George Bush did it, now McCain-Palin are doing it.  If they stick to their guns (and no one is going to wrestle a gun away from an NRA member) not only will they win this election,  they will do it decisively.

Saddleback Church is not one of my favorite churches.  They embody all that has become bad in “doing church” in post-modern America.  Without going into too much detail, let me leave it at saying that I would probably not attend there.

In Saturday’s Civic Forum, they got it right.

I am convinced that liberals hate direct questions.  Direct questions leave very little room for nuance, or thoughtful reparte.  Direct questions generally demand clear, concise answers.   Unclear questions, or inquiries looking for a personal view, lead to unclear answers – answers that can be rendered and reinterpreted freely.

The problem is that “at what point does a baby get human rights” is a direct question.  State a time frame, state a trimester, or lack of one.  State something, but nuanced will not cut it.

Senator Obama tried to nuance his way out of a direct question, and failed horribly.  These questions are not above his paygrade, especially since he has admitted that he is a Christian.  Are we not given the Holy Spirit to guide us in making these decisions?  Are we not empowered by the grace of God to seek out the truth in these matters?  Far from being above our paygrade, these type of moral questions are our responsbility.

The fallout is incredible.  After failing to nuance, Senator Obama stated that he is pro-choice, and pro late term abortion.  Very clear, and very concise – despite an attempt at nuance.  The very last thing that the Democrat party needs on this issue is that level of clarity.