Lottie The Example

Southern Baptist churches across the nation are preparing for an annual event: The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions.

This appeal provides nearly half the denomination’s financial support for international (formerly, “foreign”) mission outreach.  Every Christmas, churches big and small set goals and urge members to give monies to supplement Cooperative Program funds used to maintain nearly 4,000 missionaries around the world.

Because of this, Charlotte (“Lottie”) Diggs Moon has become the most famous Southern Baptist missionary in history.  Here’s her story as it is usually told.

Lottie’s Story

Lottie was born in 1840 on her family’s tobacco plantation in Virginia; she had four sisters and two brothers.  Her parents were stalwart Baptists.

The Moon girls were bright and their parents provided the best education available.  Defying tradition, Lottie’s older sister Orianna earned a medical degree.  In 1861, Lottie received the master’s degree, one of the first women in the South to do so; she would eventually become fluent in seven languages besides English. While at college, Lottie was converted during a campus revival led by John Broadus, founder of Southern Seminary and author of a popular textbook on preaching. 

Following college, Lottie taught at female academies and helped start one in Georgia.  She received a marriage proposal from Crawford Toy, a teacher at Southern Seminary who would eventually be dismissed from his position for teaching “modernist” views of the Bible.  Lottie, so the story goes, turned him down because of his beliefs.  Though Toy reputedly said he would join her to do mission work in Japan, Lottie believed his views would be an impediment to her commitment.  She would reminisce, “God had first claim on my life, and since the two conflicted, there could be no question about the result.”

Lottie labored in China nearly forty years, from 1873 to 1912.  At 4’3”, Lottie was one western missionary who did not tower over the Chinese.  Known as “the cookie lady,” she taught Bible stories to the children who came to her for the treats.  At the same time, Lottie regularly wrote Baptist women back home urging them to support the work of missions.  A regular Christmas offering for missions was one of the suggestions she made in these letters.

Lottie died on Christmas Eve 1912 onboard a ship in Kobe Harbor Japan.  Her failing health had prompted fellow missionaries to try to send her back to the US. It’s widely believed she had unintentionally destroyed her health by giving her food away to Chinese neighbors experiencing famine.

Now, here’s something you may not know.

Lottie’s Secret (one we might have guessed)

Lottie Moon’s father owned fifty-two slaves, the greatest number owned by any planter in Albemarie County, Virginia.  Following his death, the slaves became her mother’s property. 

This certainly means Lottie enjoyed meals prepared by slaves, wore clothing washed and mended by slaves, had her bed made by slaves, and had her college education paid for by the sweat of slaves in the tobacco fields.  Though not converted until she went to college, she first heard the gospel in a church where those slaves could not join her family in celebrating the Lord’s Supper and likely could not sit wherever they wished in the sanctuary.  That church was part of the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination formed in 1845 over the issue of whether slave owners could be missionaries (most Baptists in northern states insisted they should not be appointed).

After receiving her degree, Lottie helped her mother keep the plantation going during the Civil War while the non-slave men were fighting.  (Meanwhile, Orianna was serving with the Confederate Army as a doctor!)  Though exposure to the larger world would change her opinion, Lottie once believed slavery was a legitimate and even Biblical institution.

Heroes Revisited

I know I have written about flawed heroes in some recent posts; I will address the matter this one final time.  We know the most heroic of heroes have flaws.  Bruce Wayne (aka Batman) has trust issues; Bruce Banner (aka Hulk) has anger issues.  Santa Claus obviously overeats.

On one hand, we have long shown a degree tolerance toward our heroes.  We continue to praise and quote Christians who may have held notions we no longer accept.  Polycarp is still extolled as an example of courageous faith, even if he probably would have insisted the sun revolves around the earth. We sing Fanny Crosby’s hymns though she might have believed frogs cause warts. If these heroes held notions common to their time, we have been forgiving.  But, on the other hand, we’ve begun to draw a line about our bygone heroes holding attitudes that, while universal in their day, are condemned in ours.  We want heroes who were ahead of their time regarding certain social issues.  We want them free of racism, sexism, and any hint of homophobia.

Look at the portrayal of two popular fictional clergy/detectives.  In their respective TV Series, both Sidney Chambers and Father Brown take “the heart wants what it wants” view of homosexuality. Very modern were these clergymen ministering in the decade or so after the Second World War.  (The first Father Brown story appeared in 1911 so his series is considerably updated.) In his present-day BBC incarnation, Father Brown (played by Mark Williams) even seems to believe nature-religions are just alternative avenues to God; G. K. Chesterton, the good priest’s creator and author of the still-published Orthodoxy, would likely be so outraged he would spit out his cigar.

But this is how we want our heroes, made over in our image or our image of our image. One wonders if a new version of Mickey Spillane’s hardboiled detective Mike Hammer would be a non-smoker who has many gay friends and who never uses the word “broad” unless he is quoting pastoral poetry (“I long to leave these mean streets for a ‘broad, verdant valley.’”).   A parboiled detective, in other words.

But real heroes aren’t perfect.  Martin Luther who would face the emperor and declare, “Here I stand;” endorsed the massacre of peasants attempting to win their freedom.  George Whitefield who helped lay the foundations of modern evangelicalism, thanked God his orphanage had become prosperous enough to buy a few slaves.  Lottie Moon who would became a world-changing missionary, drew upon an education paid for by the sweat and blood of slaves.

Our heroes are flawed because we are flawed. Solomon, Israel’s king so famed for his wisdom, forgot to be wise when dealing with women—we’re told he had a thousand wives and concubines.  Government excess didn’t start in Washington. But a younger Solomon once wisely asked God to be merciful toward his people when they sinned.  He prayed this because he knew “there is no one who does not sin.” (I Kings 8:46)

Asking our heroes to be without sin is asking the impossible. Our most praiseworthy heroes have done those things they ought not to have done and left undone those things they ought to have done. That description of sin, borrowed from the venerable language of The Book of Common Prayer, allows none of us to escape the charge of sinner. As fallen men and women we may pursue the good but, in the end, must acknowledge we have failed to reach the goal. Our selfishness, pride, and obsessions impede our pursuit. Far too many passionate pastors, evangelists, and missionaries, men and women who have won thousands to Christ, have been guilty of neglecting their families.  Not because they don’t love their families but because they believe God can’t get along without them—even for the duration of a soccer game.

Talking about sin is difficult in our day. What a contrast from days gone by when Roman Catholics regularly said, “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned” and many Protestants knew the first sign on “the Roman Road” was: “…all have sinned….” But our perspective has changed. As Bill Maher, not exactly a friend of evangelical Christians, once said, “Everything that used to be a sin is now a disease.” Even the famed seven deadly sins no longer betray our spiritual rebellion but point to neuroses spawned by our modern society or to a more enlightened understanding of human personality. Those once guilty of “lust” are now suffering from sexual addiction. “Gluttony” reflects an eating disorder.  “Pride” no longer points to the assumption we can get along without God; it marks a healthy self-esteem.  If we feel “envy” because someone has more than we have, we complain their unfair advantage, thus justifying both our “sloth” and our “wrath.”  We condemn greedy corporations while we accrue crippling credit card debt, not because we have succumbed to “greed” or materialism but because we suffer from “oniomania” or “compulsive shopping disorder.”

Have I overstated the case? Sure. But it is hard to deny we have often redefined “sin” as actions and attitudes we (and our society) condemn; actions others commit, attitudes others hold. But most of us—in our most honest and introspective moment—suspect this is wishful thinking.

Who can really deny the capacity of human beings to justify evil? Richard Weikart, professor of history at California State University, comments on how Nazi Germany used science to justify their actions.

Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. 

Darwin’s Origin of Species changed the world.  I’ve read a brief biography of the scientist but I’m hardly a specialist on either Darwin or his theory.  Yet, while I cannot accept all the implications of his theory, neither do I believe he would endorse his research being used to justify the atrocity of the holocaust.  But in Nazi Germany scientists, professors, and politicians did.

Was this simply corporate sin, an impersonal bureaucracy carrying out this crime against humanity?  A bureaucracy may have sketched the blueprint but individuals put it into action. In the postwar trials the plea of “just following orders” carried little weight. Each guard in the concentration camps helped make the policy work and, of course, some guards went beyond their stated duty to be especially cruel to their hapless victims. Some of the cruelest were women guards charged with looking after women prisoners.

Our institutions do evil because they are made up of creative sinners.

John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, spent years as a sailor and ship’s master. In his autobiography, Newton recalled how he took pride in creating new curses. At the risk of engaging in stereotype, most sailors swore, cursed, and blasphemed; Newton used his poetic gifts to outdo his shipmates.

Because of sin, our creativity can be corrupted.  FaceBook and other social media venues were created so scattered families could keep in touch, old friends could reconnect, and new friendships could be made. But the technology has allowed stalkers to prey on the innocent, hustlers to cheat the unwary, and bullies to torment the fragile.

Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the twentieth-century America’s most respected theologians, once said, “original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith.” More simply, beyond reasonable doubt we are all sinners.  Every one of us.

The Exception

In 1887, Lottie Moon wrote an article urging the Baptist women in her home state of Virginia to begin a Christmas offering to support foreign missions. (Lottie proposed the offering but it was not named for her until 1918, six years after her death.)  In the article, she defended choosing the Christmas season for the offering.

Need it be said why the week before Christmas is chosen? Is it not the festive season, when families exchange gifts in memory of The Gift laid on the altar of the world for the redemption of the human race, the most appropriate time to consecrate a portion from abounding riches and scant poverty to send forth the good tidings of great joy into all the earth.

Of course, “… the Gift laid on the altar of the world…” was Jesus.  Lottie had left home and comfort, friends and family, safety and security to tell the Chinese about him.  Why?

Because Jesus was the one exception, the one who could provide “for the redemption of the human race.”

Every Christmas Christians in large churches and small heard the familiar story.  Joseph was be told the Baby born would be called “Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”  The shepherds would hear the angel declare:   “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people.  The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David!”

Only days after his birth, Joseph and Mary would present Jesus in the temple, according to custom.  There, Simeon, a venerable man who had dedicated himself to prayer for the nation, would see the Child and praise God, declaring:

I have seen your salvation,

which you have prepared for all people.

He is a light to reveal God to the nations,
                and he is the glory of your people Israel!

Years later, a community of Samaritans would have an encounter with Jesus and recognize what his closest disciples had not yet seen.  These outcasts would say, “We know he is the Savior of the world.”

How could Jesus fulfill his role as Savior of the world? How could he accomplish the personal mission statement he made in Mark’s gospel—“… the Son of Man … to give his life as a ransom for many.”?  He could do so because he alone did not carry the taint of sin.

Both implicitly and explicitly, the New Testament presents Jesus as sinless.

IMPLICIT EVIDENCE

àAt the Annunciation, Gabriel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” The words imply the child will be “holy” from birth.  While the word might imply the child would lead a life dedicated to God, it could also look foreword to his living a life of sinless perfection. In their comment on Luke 1:35 found in The Global Study Bible, Wayne Grudem and Thomas Schreiner explain the significance of the virginal conception: “He [Jesus] did not inherit a sinful nature from Adam.” His exceptional conception anticipated an exceptional life.  Like the newly created Adam, Jesus came into the world without sin; unlike Adam who faced temptation and failed, Jesus faced fierce temptation and came away victorious.

Though not every scholar agrees, it seems reasonable Luke wrote his two-volume work, Luke-Acts, prior to Paul’s death.  Many scholars believe the Gospel was written in the late 50s or early 60s. Luke claims to have meticulously researched the life of Jesus, suggesting he spoke with “eyewitnesses” and others who had examined Jesus’ life. This prompts N. T. Wright to describe Luke as

… an educated and cultured man, the first real historian to write about Jesus.
His book places Jesus not only at the heart of the Jewish world of the first century, but at the heart of the Roman world into which the Christian gospel exploded.

(Quoted http://spu.edu/depts/uc/response/new/2013-spring/bible-theology/jesus-according-to-luke.asp. Accessed 25 November 2017)

Luke, of course, might have omitted anything negative about Jesus’ character but such was his commitment to tell the story faithfully that he did not hesitate to record the foibles and failings of some who would be the early church’s most respected leaders.  Though Luke does not explicitly describe Jesus as “sinless,” his obvious reverence for Jesus suggests he believed Jesus to have been a man of singular character.

àJohn the Baptist called people from all walks of life to be baptized to demonstrate their repentance and intention to live changed lives; he issued this challenge to the despised—tax-collectors and soldiers—and to those considered the most religious—Pharisees and Sadducees, especially warning this latter group against assuming their status exempted them from any need for forgiveness (Mt. 1:7-10).  Yet when Jesus came for baptism, John initially refused, saying, “I need to be baptized by you.” (Vs. 14)  So far as we know, John said this to no one else.  John may have hesitated to baptize Jesus because his spiritual intuition told him Jesus did not need to repent; but keep this in mind: John and Jesus were relatives. We’ve sometimes said they were “cousins” but that word has a narrower meaning today than it had in the past; we simply know their mothers were related.  

Elizabeth and Mary were pregnant at the same time and they met at least once to discuss the remarkable situation they faced.  Thus, Jesus and John were almost the same age; we might conjecture they had seen each other from time to time while growing up.  We might further conjecture that John had long recognized Jesus lived differently than any other person he knew; he knew he failed to live without sinning but Jesus never failed to live up to the demands of the law.  Much of what I have just written is conjecture but we should not miss the significance of John’s initial hesitancy to baptize Jesus. He clearly believed Jesus did not need to repent.

àJesus once put this question to some of his critics: “Who among you can prove that I am guilty of sin?” (John 8:46)  A challenge I certainly wouldn’t throw out to my critics.  Jesus’ critics responded with name-calling and an attempt at character assassination; they said, “ . . . you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” They did not offer evidence of his committing sin.  Jesus ended the debate with the remarkable assertion:  “Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!” (8:58 ISV) His critics rightly recognized this as a claim to deity.  Unable to produce evidence of any other sin, they gleefully charged him with blasphemy—a charge that could be sustained only if Jesus’ claim were untrue.  So John offers additional implicit evidence of Jesus’ sinlessness.

EXPLICIT EVIDENCE

àIn 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says, “For our sake [God] made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin.” Second Corinthians was probably written about AD 55. The former Pharisee and persecutor of the church was converted about 35/36 and had spent his early post-conversion years learning more about Jesus and his teachings, often through those who knew Jesus during his earthly ministry. The two decades between his conversion and his letter had provided amble opportunity to find evidence proving any claim of Jesus being sinless was overstated.  He found no such evidence.

àPeter, who probably knew the human Jesus as well as anyone who ever lived, said of him, “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22)  Peter saying “no deceit was found in his mouth” is suggestive; Peter, after all, had the painful memory of using his mouth to deny knowing Jesus.  In his earliest sermons recorded in Acts, Peter referred to Jesus as “the Holy One” and as “the Holy and Righteous One.” Some translations say he was describing Jesus as “Blameless.”

àThe anonymous author of Hebrews writes of Jesus, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”  Hebrews appears to have been written to Christians wavering in their commitment, fearful they had erred in abandoning the rites and rituals of Judaism.  The writer of Hebrews, taking an apologetic stance, presents Jesus as fulfilling and, thus, being superior to those rites and rituals.  He is a better high priest because, unlike other high priests, he did not need to offer a sacrifice for his own sins—since he had no sin.  The writer underscores both Jesus’ capacity for empathy since he faced temptation and had an unbroken record of victory over that temptation.

àWhether written by the Apostle John or a later leader (John the Elder) with the same name, 1 John 3:5 says, “But you know that Christ came to take our sins away. And there is no sin in him.”  If the letter was written by John the Elder—who appears to have been from Ephesus—the belief Jesus was sinless was accepted by Christians outside the Palestinian context. On the other hand, if the Apostle John wrote the letter (and I’m not yet convinced he didn’t) then two of Jesus’ closest disciples during his earthly ministry (Peter and John) and two of Jesus’ most prominent post-Easter disciples (Paul and the author of Hebrews) attested Jesus was without sin.

Nicholas Batzig reflects on what Jesus’ sinlessness must have looked like as he lived out his life on earth, the life between Christmas and the Ascension.

In a life that spanned three decades, our Lord never entertained a thought, never uttered a word, and never carried out an action that was defiled by impure motives. He always honored His Father in heaven, always honored His earthly father and mother, never lusted, never uttered a word in sinful anger, never gossiped about or slandered His neighbor. He never stole, never lied, and never coveted. In short, He submitted to every commandment of the law of God without wavering. He loved the Lord with all His heart, soul, mind and strength, and He loved His neighbor as Himself. (http://www.ligonier.org/blog/significance-sinlessness-jesus/ Accessed 25 November 2017.)

That doesn’t resemble my life; my guess is it doesn’t match yours. All of us are sinners.  Some of us hide it better than others but all of us are sinners.  Jesus was the one exception.

So What?

As sinners we are naturally alienated from God.  No effort on our part can break down the barrier sin places between God and us.

Only one without sin could resolve our problem.  Only one without sin could tear down the wall.  At Christmas God initiated Operation Reconciliation. 

The successful completion of the operation would demand One who was free from sin.  And it would demand a cross.  Christians still debate about how fully to explain what happened when Jesus died on the cross—that he was our Substitute is clear, however.  That trusting the crucified Jesus will nullify sin’s poison seems equally clear.  Jesus once drew an analogy between the bronze serpent Moses raised up in the desert and his crucifixion.  When the people of Israel looked upon the snake they would be healed from the snake bites threatening to kill them; when we trust Christ we will be saved from the sin killing us.  Here is the passage from John’s Gospel; it immediately precedes one of the best-loved verses in the Bible.

“And just as Moses in the desert lifted up the brass replica of a snake on a pole for all the people to see and be healed, so the Son of Man is ready to be lifted up [on the cross], so that those who truly believe in him will not perish but be given eternal life.”   For this is how much God loved the world—he gave his one and only, unique Son as a gift.  So now everyone who believes in him will never perish but experience everlasting life.

Jesus himself was God’s Christmas Gift to us—the perfect Gift, the sinless Gift.

Lottie, Again?

A pastor once quipped, that the time had come again for the Lottie Moon Offering and added, “I’m not sure when we will ever get her debt paid off.”  Certain Women’s Missionary Union members were not amused.

Lottie’s story deserves to be told.  She wasn’t the only nineteenth-century missionary to leave behind home, family, material comforts in order to bring the gospel to those who had never heard of Christ.  She was representative of many women missionaries—whose names are largely forgotten—who made similar sacrifices to sow the seeds of the gospel.

But apart from her example, there are several other examples we might take away from Lottie’s story.

--We can outgrow the erroneous thinking of our parents.

--We can escape the negative influences of our culture.

--We can overcome the boundaries set for us by those with limited vision.

But most important, as sinners we need to accept God’s Gift—Jesus.  Lottie accepted that Gift when she was a young woman attending a campus revival.  You can accept that Gift at a church, in your home, wherever you might be reading this.

Songwriters Needed

America has a heritage of great songwriters.

Long before Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, Prince, and Bruce Springsteen were winning awards, George and Ira Gershwin, Dorothy Fields, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, and others were producing pieces still sung today, especially by vintage rockers.  These artists wrote about romance, heartbreak, patriotism, and life.  But so far as I can tell none of those featured in the Great American Songbook collection wrote about Thanksgiving.  Oh, others have written a few novelty songs about the holiday but none from the likes of Irving Berlin—who, by the way, showed his versatility with songs about a White Christmas and an Easter Parade. For some reason, we just don’t have many songs about the fourth Thursday in November.

This explains why I was listening to Holly Jolly Christmas on Veterans’ Day.

In fairness, there is Adam Sandler’s Thanksgiving Song but, after reading the lyrics, I think I’d rather listen to “Little Drummer Boy” a dozen times in one day. In 1832, Samuel Smith mentioned “pilgrim’s pride” in My Country ‘tis of Thee but he makes no reference to the holiday they gave us (yes, it was years before Lincoln proclaimed the holiday).  Today, the term is used for a famous brand of turkey--even though the pilgrims would be dismayed at being remembered for their pride.

You won’t find references to turkeys, cranberries, or pumpkin pies but you can find songs of thanksgiving in the hymnal.

In them we are called to give thanks for God’s blessings in general and, in particular, for his creation, his grace, his faithfulness, his goodness, his salvation.

This Thursday, when our families get together, when we watch football games with all those commercials to remind us Christmas is coming, when we regret eating too much, and when we end the day by hugging goodbye to those won’t be seeing for a while, we should remember something about the giving thanks.  What we should remember is well expressed in Leonard Burks simple hymn:

Everyday is a day of thanksgiving.
God's been so good to me,
   everyday He's blessing me.
             Everyday is a day of thanksgiving;
               take the time to glorify the Lord today.

Celebrity

Years ago in a small Texas town, members of the high school football team, fresh from practice, pumped about what might be a championship season, and eager for a bit of fun, broke into a mom-and-pop hamburger joint.  They threw frozen burgers and fries at each other, littering the parking lot with food worth hundreds of dollars.  They opened pop cans, drank a few gulps and tossed them aside.  Thrown to the evening wind, paper napkins resembled drunken doves flitting across the Panhandle sky. Further damage was forestalled when the local police arrived.  Small town law takes exception to trespass and vandalism.  Usually.

No criminal charges were brought. No stories in the local newspaper shamed the miscreants.  No one was suspended from school.  No one was booted off the team.

Parents and supporters quietly paid the damages and the Friday-night lights shined as brightly as ever.

“Celebrity”—even with a small “c”—carries a lot of weight.

During last year’s presidential campaign, a 2005 recording of Donald Trump surfaced.  The so-called “locker-room tape” featured the future president boasting of the kinds of things a man could get away with if he was rich and famous.

Though not multimillionaire TV moguls, those football players discovered what Trump had discovered.  If you’re famous—even small town famous—you can get away with things.  The president of the chess club might be stripped of her position and given community service but not the star quarterback.

If the tape hurt Trump, it didn’t hurt him enough to keep him out of The White House.  Many people refused to vote for him after hearing the tape; others gritted their teeth and voted for him; others weren’t bothered at all by his statements.  Imagine what his margin of victory might have been had we never heard the tapes and the things he talked about.  Crude and reprehensible things.

The kind of things we are learning rich and famous men, both straight and homosexual, have apparently been getting away with for decades.

Nearly a year later, we are again hearing about acts rich and famous men have committed with impunity.  Harvey Weinstein, Ben Affleck, and Kevin Spacey are those being talked about today.  Tomorrow we will almost certainly hear of others who abused their celebrity to force their attention on young women or young men—dreamers trying to make it big in a city where “all the stars that never were are parking cars and pumping gas.”  Who could blame these young people for convincing themselves that if they want the fame and the name, the touch of unwelcome hands is the cost of doing business?  Who would be surprised if these same people, a few years later, concluded they had been exploited and abused? 

Those who have never toured Hollywood or stood by a favorite performer’s star on the walk of fame have heard of “the casting couch.” We may have been told the stories were myth but often those denying the stories did so with a wink and a nudge.

But, now it seems a few women—and some men—have said enough is enough.  No more.  Big screen legends are saying, “No other ingénue should go through what I went through.”  Collectively, Hollywood seems to be saying, “No more.”

That being said, how far will this indignation go?  Will the reverberations change things in the business world, the sports world, the political world?

Ben Zimmer, writing in a recent issue of The Atlantic, explains the term “casting couch” originated with the Shubert brothers of Broadway fame and then migrated across the country to America’s burgeoning film-capital, Hollywood.  There the couch became a fixture in producers’ offices, directors’ offices, agents’ offices and wherever else men dictated the future of aspiring actors and actresses. 

Now, here are questions worth pondering while you mute the political screeds during the next Tony Awards: Should the Tony Awards apologize for using the Shubert Theatre so often as a venue? While we are still taking down the statues of Confederate generals, should we send a crew over to take down the marquee of that historic venue?  Since Radio City Music Hall, the most recent venue for the awards show, is sometimes vilified by feminists (the Rockettes, you know) maybe the next Tony Awards be held at Columbus’s Value City Arena—a little humility couldn’t hurt some of those folk?

Do not misunderstand.  Sexual harassment is not a joking matter.  But just as those high-school football players (who were “famous” for a brief time in a small town) got away with destroying so much food, rich and famous men may continue to get away with harassing powerless women.  Unless there are real and substantial changes.

Sexual harassment has been with us a long time.  Remember, the Biblical story of Joseph.  Sold by his brothers into slavery, Joseph found himself a servant in the household of an Egyptian official named Potiphar.  Joseph was did good work but was cursed—with good looks.  Potiphar’s wife noticed.  She propositioned Joseph. He refused.  As happens today, she didn’t stop. Again and again she propositioned the young man; again and again he refused.  Finally, angered at being rebuffed, she cried, “Rape.”  Joseph was unceremoniously thrown into prison. That he didn’t face execution has prompted some to suggest Potiphar knew the kind of women his wife was.  Interestingly, one mantra frequently heard after the Weinstein story broke was “we all knew.”

Except in rare cases, those who sexually harass women (or men) today cannot send those who refuse their advances to jail; they can, however, make life tougher.  Harvey Weinstein could end a hopeful actress’s career before it started; a department head at a local business can make sure a woman never is considered for promotion.

Because we live in a broken world (I’m a theologian, I think in such terms), humans will continue to abuse, misuse, and otherwise exploit one another no matter how enlightened we claim to be.  Sexual harassment, like racism, will continue to be part of the human experience until the Eschaton (theologian!?). But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to do something about it.

It does mean it won’t be easy. 

In The Place Accorded of Old (available as an e-book from Amazon), I suggest the hostility between men and women is rooted in the Fall.  Though we sometimes joke about this hostility, it has serious expressions, including sexism and abuse.  Genesis 3:16 underscored this reality when God says to Eve, “Your desire shall be for (or against) your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  Some translations indicated the word “desire,” implies “a desire to control.” (Expanded Bible, translators’ note)  As one conservative commentary explains:

 The word desire (Heb. teshûgâ) can also mean “an attempt to usurp or control” as in 4:7.   We can paraphrase the last two lines of this verse this way: “You will now have a tendency to dominate your husband, and he will have the tendency to act as a tyrant over you.” The battle of the sexes has begun. Each strives for control and neither lives in the best interest of the other (Phil. 2:3, 4). The antidote is in the restoration of mutual respect and dignity through Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:21–33).^[1]

While commentators (like the one cited) tend to limit their application to marriage, there are broader implications.  The abusers cannot really respect the young women they grope and coerce into sex.  There is doubtless much truth in the observation: “Rape is not so much about sexual pleasure as it is about control and power.”  We can imagine men like those we’ve been hearing about keeping mental diaries of their experiences to review whenever a victim gets a good review or wins an award.

Ideally, if the arrogant disrespect demonstrated in men sexually assaulting vulnerable young women is a manifestation of the Fall, we Christians should expect the redemptive work of Christ in reversing that Fall to establish a new relationship between men and women. But such is the power of sin that this has not yet happened.  Even professed Christians have sometimes conspired to limit the women’s freedom, though I know of none who believe women to be legitimate targets of sexual aggression. Still, we should allow the vision of a better way to shape our laws and practices. 

Producers, directors, CEOs, athletes, and other celebrities seem to feel entitled to treat women however they may wish. Doubtless, these same men would react with shock when reading journalists like Mohammed Hanif who told about “pious men” who defend “a man’s God-given right to give a woman a little thrashing,” who make “it impossible for women to prove rape,” and “defended a man’s right to marry a minor.” Or would they? 

In 2009, when admitted child-molester Roman Polanski was detained in Zurich (at the request of US authorities hoping he might be extradited), there was a protest among the elite of the entertainment world.  Long after he had admitted to unlawful sexual contact with a thirteen-year-old girl and subsequently skipped bail to avoid sentencing, the filmmaker continued to win awards.  In fact, Polanski was in Switzerland to receive a lifetime achievement award.  The complaints against Polanski came from some of Hollywood’s loudest voices.  Harvey Weinstein attempted to rally the troops in Polanski’s defense: “We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation."  (“Outcry Over Polanski’s Detention,” BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8277886.stm.  Accessed 5 November 2017) Wait, Harvey who?  Ironic, huh?

Every week new charges are being brought against the rich, famous, and powerful in Hollywood and elsewhere.  Female legislators in state capitals are reporting being harassed by male legislators.  Political ideology doesn’t seem to matter.  Both Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly and Michael Oreskes, head of NPR News, have been accused of harassment.

The problem is widespread and won’t go away quickly. 

Still, we need to create structures to protect the vulnerable.  Professional organizations should develop effective ways to police their own members.  Since “everyone knew” about Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, it certainly seems reasonable some actors’ unions or other organizations could have found ways to create a more protective environment for their members. 

We need to reevaluate our values.  Those high school football players got away with their vandalism because community leaders knew a winning team would bring honor to a town otherwise known only for the aroma of the local feed lot.  Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was tolerated because his movies made money. Established actors and actresses might refuse to work for a director or producer known to have a casting couch in the office.

Naïve?  Sure. 

But over the years I’ve met a lot of young people who have been bitten by the acting bug.  (It never happened to me though I have been bitten by bugs while watching them perform.) Most are content to explore the options available to them in central Ohio, content to keep their day jobs and do theatre in their spare time.  Still, I’d like to think if they should head off to Hollywood, New York, Toronto, or elsewhere to pursue greater glory, they will be safe from predators of all kinds.

I can’t protect them.  But actors and actresses with courage and integrity might help build a defense around such newcomers.  In fact, I suspect only established actors and actresses can find a way to protect newcomers from notorious predators.

Of course, I know far more young people preparing for careers in business, education, and other professions.  Wouldn’t it be great if corporate boards told CEOs down to the lowest level supervisors, “We don’t care how good you are or how much money you make, cross this line and you’re out.”  Maybe coaches should tell players they will be off the team if they beat-up a girlfriend or wife.  Maybe the same Americans who are tired of watching NFL games where the flag is disrespected should refuse to watch teams allowing wife/girlfriend abusers to take the field.

Just saying.

So far as I know, those young players went on from high school to the ordinary.  I don’t know if they boast of their costly food-fight or pray their children never learn of it.

Donald Trump’s boast of what a man like him could do without fear of retribution threatened his presidential bid a decade later.  (Some might say it didn’t threaten it enough.)  His words merited the outrage they engendered.  But, looking back, I wonder if some were outraged not because of what he said but because he said it.  He let the world in on a little secret—a secret we all knew—about the rich and the famous: they all too often get away with things.   It will be difficult to change or penalize their behavior in a meaningful way.  A poor woman who loses her license for DUI walks or takes the bus, a rich woman hires a chauffeur.  Still we need to try to find a way to challenge and change things.

For what happened to the young actresses we are hearing about was not just about sex, it was about the presumptions made by the rich and the powerful.

---

^[1]Radmacher, Earl D.; Allen, Ronald Barclay; House, H. Wayne: Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary. Nashville : T. Nelson Publishers, 1999, S. Ge 3:16