About spousal abuse, it is sad that there is a religious component to it quite often, based, on what some think, is Christian teaching. Sure, you can write it off as stupid (Christian) people interpreting the Bible incorrectly. But maybe there's some place for blaming God (if he exists) and Scripture for being so unclear?
Story:
http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page385.html
Excerpt:
Some (RE: abused women) are complicit on religious grounds which, of course, complicates matters. Abuse is often wrapped in beliefs about the role of men and the place of women in a divinely ordered universe. An abused wife sometimes believes that it is her duty to suffer, to turn the other cheek, to forgive her abuser because the marriage takes precedence over her own well-being. Belief becomes tangled in ideology and theology, sustained by fear, embarrassment, and guilt. If she accepts patriarchy, must she also accept abuse?
-also-
In the Hebrew Bible, Tamar (2 Samuel 13) is the model for the victimized victim, a position that abused women today experience. Amnon rapes Tamar, discards her, and refuses to marry her. The community responds by expelling her as a piece of ruined property, and the Biblical narrative forgets her. When a health professional encounters an abused woman he or she is often seeing a modern Tamar, a woman without communal protection.
In recent times, the murderous gang raping of Muslim women in Bosnia and in parts of Africa replicates the Tamar story. Muslim women do not report the rape because they would be ostracized as spoiled women. Although Islam does not condone the violence, the effect is quite the same. The man goes unpunished; the woman is banished. What recourse does she have but silence?
The concept of women as property has not disappeared in modern America. Some husbands (and some clergy) tell women that they must submit to their husbands. Tamar's story is reenacted whenever clergy counsel battered women to forgive and forget, to turn the other cheek, to save the family and the marriage. Women are idealized as keepers of home, hearth, and children at the same time they are subtly discounted as moral agents, sometimes demonized as temptresses, and sent home to their abusers. Despite having no intention to harm abused women, clergy often do not hear their voices. Instead, women hear their fears discounted and their abuse misunderstood or minimized; women also report feeling blame or being made to feel responsible for what happened to them.
-also-
This is the kind of violence health care professionals often face. So what should they do when encountering a patient who traces abuse to religious justifications? How can they help a woman who believes she must suffer in silence, must submit to her husband, must protect the family at whatever cost to herself, that she must be at fault? How can health professionals help her maintain her faith and reject the arguments that expose her to abuse and suffering? Few health professionals have the expertise to provide counter arguments from scripture. But they can respect the power of the woman's deeply held beliefs, asking how her belief system shapes her perception of what happens to her without condoning excesses committed in its name.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:34 AM
To: Pete Enns; Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
But men should? In general I think it is fair to say that a battered anyone should not turn the other cheek.
I think this example refers to specific cases where God is using someone in judgment against you like the Romans against the Jews and where your resistance would be resisting God. This requires discernment and can't be applied across the board.
John
----- Original Message ----
From: Pete Enns <peteenns@mac.com>
To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 1:29:24 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
On the last point, I am saying that a battered wife or child should not turn the other cheek.
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Pete said:
> " You seem to be assuming that "turn the other cheek" is intended by
> Jesus to have absolutely validity regardless of circumstances? Am I
> reading you correctly?"
>
> I'm trying to find out how you, as an experienced and highly trained Christian, actually apply the teaching of Christ to an actual practical application. So it s a specific example trying to draw out your personal opinion on a specific situation.
>
> Pete said:
> "As for other situations, re: C, if it is a troubled teen I would take
> steps to have him apprehended and given the help he needs. A is the
> only real option in the case of an oppressed wife or child. I don't
> think I need to go, do I?"
>
> I'm trying to find out how you would respond "in the heat" if you could pre-meditate your response. Yes- apprehending him would be another choice. That is in line with the option of self-defense, as opposed to 'turning the other cheek' (no defense) or repaying 'evil for evil' (an active-aggressive mirror-type response).
>
> When you say you would choose "A" (turn the cheek) for an oppressed wife or child, it sounds like you are saying to use this option when the physical threat isn't much of a threat. Is that why you mentioned spouse or child? So you are saying if they are a real physical threat to you (more powerful than you), then you would try self-defense (protect yourself, get away, or apprehend them if possible), but if they are weaker, you would turn the other cheek?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:04 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>
> Bernie,
>
> You seem to be assuming that "turn the other cheek" is intended by
> Jesus to have absolutely validity regardless of circumstances? Am I
> reading you correctly?
>
> As for other situations, re: C, if it is a troubled teen I would take
> steps to have him apprehended and given the help he needs. A is the
> only real option in the case of an oppressed wife or child. I don't
> think I need to go, do I?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. What are you trying to
> demonstrate, for, surely, I sense more here than an innocent line of
> questioning.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Pete said:
>> " Accepting for the sake of argument the three options you give, It
>> depends on the situation."
>>
>> Then could you give two examples of situations that would give you
>> different answers?
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>>
>> Accepting for the sake of argument the three options you give, It
>> depends on the situation.
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>> Pete said:
>>> "Yes, Jesus was correct. Next question."
>>>
>>> Next question, regarding specific application:
>>>
>>> Pete, suppose someone is mad at you and slaps you very hard across
>>> the face, so hard as to even knock out a tooth.
>>>
>>> Which would be the best Christian response for you (as an immediate
>>> "next step" response in this confrontation):
>>> A. Turn the other cheek, making it easy for them to strike again
>>> B. Defend yourself against another attack and/or try to leave
>>> C. Strike back to "teach them a lesson"
>>>
>>> If you don't like those options, and think there is another one,
>>> please specify.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:19 PM
>>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>> Cc: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>>>
>>> Yes, Jesus was correct.
>>>
>>> Next question.
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>
>>>> "It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are
>>>> not
>>>> expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions
>>>> rather
>>>> than as a book that reflects active theological thinking."
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pete- overall- as far as Christian interpretation of things, I
>>>> pretty much agree with you. However, my question is more specific
>>>> to the time and place of Jesus' "active theological thinking."
>>>>
>>>> When Jesus talked about "turning the other cheek" I think what he
>>>> meant, given the context is pretty clear. And I think we might
>>>> agree on what he meant. My question goes beyond what most
>>>> Christians want to do, and this is ask the question "was Jesus
>>>> correct?" (I'm sure most Christian philosophers are trained to ask
>>>> such questions so it is no problem for most of them; but all other
>>>> Christians probably think it is out-of-bounds to "question God.")
>>>>
>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>>> On Behalf Of Pete Enns
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:49 AM
>>>> To: Murray Hogg
>>>> Cc: ASA
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to comment more later, but I agree with this. A former
>>>> professor of mine, Paul Hanson, used to talk about the "form/reform"
>>>> dynamic on the OT, where particular ways of thinking gain assent but
>>>> then are themselves later reformed/changed. Chronicles is one global
>>>> example of this.
>>>>
>>>> It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are
>>>> not
>>>> expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions
>>>> rather
>>>> than as a book that reflects active theological thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Some of you may no longer be wondering why I left WTS..... :-)
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Murray Hogg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Pete,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see where the Talmud might be an interesting analogue - but
>>>>> I'd have to play with it a bit myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it is, the suggestion spawns one random thought:
>>>>> Regardless of what dates we put on the various OT books and
>>>>> portions
>>>>> thereof it seems to be pretty evident that the OT isn't the
>>>>> unvarnished account of Israel's history that many would like it to
>>>>> be. But this fact alone suggests that one doesn't need to even go
>>>>> as
>>>>> far as the Talmud to discover a dynamic engagement with the
>>>>> tradition as we already see just this very thing within the pages
>>>>> of
>>>>> the canonical OT itself. The idea, then, that the covenant
>>>>> community
>>>>> EVER had a static notion of scripture might be a tad unrealistic
>>>>> and
>>>>> we may well need to accept that dynamic engagement with the
>>>>> tradition has ALWAYS been part-and-parcel of the covenant
>>>>> community's practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the tradition eventually ends up becoming codified -
>>>>> first in the OT and subsequently in the Talmud and NT (same sort of
>>>>> thing happens in Islam with the Koran and Hadiths) - but I wonder
>>>>> (and it's just an idle musing for now) just what this suggests for
>>>>> our theory of Scripture? All too often the focus is on the
>>>>> codification. But what happens if one focuses on the dynamic nature
>>>>> of the tradition in its formation and subsequent reception?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be that the discontinuity and the continuity are, in fact,
>>>>> one and the same thing? That is, might it not be the case that the
>>>>> one constant throughout the entire history of the tradition is that
>>>>> the tradition itself has always been dynamically appropriated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps our maxim should be "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme
>>>>> chose" or something of that order?
>>>>>
>>>>> Blessings,
>>>>> Murray
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete Enns wrote:
>>>>>> I think trajectory is a good model for the relationship between
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> testament.
>>>>>> Another model I have toyed with--very simply--is that the NT is
>>>>>> analogous to to the Talmud. Both reflect attempts to engage the
>>>>>> Bible/OT in view of changing circumstances: for Jews, the exile
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> for Christians the death and resurrection of the messiah.
>>>>>> I think the trajectory and Talmud models together aim at
>>>>>> addressing
>>>>>> the continuity and discontinuity seen in the NT vis-a-vis the OT.
>>>>>> To get back to the original point, I think Bernie is concerned
>>>>>> about the fact that discontinuity is something that resides in a
>>>>>> book that is supposedly written on some level by God.
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 10 11:44:46 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 10 2009 - 11:44:46 EST