The Bible is wrong on rape, and because of that, Christians that take the Good Book literally don’t know what to do with it. It comes down to this: fundamentalists believe that the Bible is inerrant and (usually) the word of God, and that means the Bible always has to be right. It has to have all the answers, but that presents a problem, both for the fundamentalist and for everyone else, too. I think I can say that, as a society, we have intelligently agreed that rape is wrong, and that it is a horrible crime, and that means that most evangelicals think the same thing, even when the Bible seems to suggest otherwise. That leaves the fundamentalist with three options: 1) admit that his or her moral compass is right and that the Bible must therefore be errant (even if only on some matters); 2) decide that because the Bible is inerrant, his or her moral compass must be incorrect; or 3) uncomfortably try to rationalize the Bible’s stance on rape. The problem for society is that we have elected or could elect far too many politicians that choose either option 2) or option 3), which in turn legitimizes the extreme and terrible positions on rape that they hold. We have to stop. We must no longer elect politicians who hold these beliefs (and other extreme fundamental positions like them) and seem unable to answer even some of the most basic moral questions properly.
Now before I begin, I hope you’ll allow a brief caveat. Christians
that choose option 1) on this or in any other area where the Bible and morality
come into conflict, often abandon or lack fundamental views on the Bible. Once
the Bible is no longer inerrant, it becomes open to interpretation and
selective reading, allowing for a so-called “liberal” Christian viewpoint on
any number of issues. I’m not concerned with those Christians who are not so
chained to the literal aspects of a two thousand year old religion that they
cannot comfortably adapt it to suit modern sensibilities and advancements. My
issue is only with those Christians who would tether us to the often incorrect morality
of people that lived thousands of years ago.
When it comes down to it, the Bible does not have a great
deal to say about rape, but everything that it does say about it is wrong. We can start from the beginning, with
Genesis and the story of Lot, the only man deemed worthy enough of surviving
the destruction of the wicked city of Sodom. This is the earliest point at
which rape (or rather, the possibility of it) comes up, and we should expect
that the virtuous Lot should know how to properly respond. What we find in
Genesis, though, is that Lot has the wrong answer:[i]
9:4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house.9:5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”9:6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him,9:7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!9:8 “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
We have here, in the very first book of the Bible, a man compromising with a gang of rapists by
offering them his virgin daughters instead
of his (admittedly angelic) houseguests. And, instead of admonishment for
treating his daughters like tools meant to sate a bunch of drunks, Lot is
allowed to escape Sodom’s destruction. So, almost right away, the Bible gives
us a supposedly virtuous character who doesn’t seem concerned about protecting his own family from rape. A similar
story, about an unnamed Levite, is recounted in Judges 19-22:27, which ends
with the Levite’s concubine dead and her bones scattered across the Israel.
To modern eyes, this should seem reprehensible; however,
from a Biblical perspective, Lot (or his Levite counterpart in Judges) may not
have been that out of line. Quite frankly, the Bible doesn’t see rape as a
particularly heinous crime, as demonstrated in the laws laid down regarding it
in Deuteronomy:
22:23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,22:24 “then you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.22:25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.22:26 “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.22:27 “For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.22:28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,22:29 ”Then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; she shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
There are almost too many problems to innumerate in these
barbaric laws (from many perspectives), but here’s what we can take a few
things away from them with regard to rape. If a woman is raped in in a city and
does not cry out (perhaps because she is terrified into silence or gagged) for
help, she should die along with her rapist.[ii]
If the rape occurs instead in the countryside, where no one can hear her, she
is fortunately absolved of any wrongdoing (whether she cries out or not). If
the rapist is caught in the act, the man has to pay a fine to the girl’s
father, and has to marry her, with no
possibility of divorce. This is perhaps the vilest aspect of all that
Deuteronomy has to say on the matter of rape, as it means the victim must spend
the rest of her life married to her rapist.
The attitudes of Lot and the Levite toward rape are
disturbingly dismissive. While rapes of houseguests seem impermissible, the
rapes of family seem to be an acceptable compromise.
Meanwhile, in Deuteronomy, we learn the punishment for rape varies depending on whether the rape also results in adultery (willful or not)—with adultery apparently being the more serious crime, since the rape of a woman not engaged results in marriage for both parties, rather than death.
Meanwhile, in Deuteronomy, we learn the punishment for rape varies depending on whether the rape also results in adultery (willful or not)—with adultery apparently being the more serious crime, since the rape of a woman not engaged results in marriage for both parties, rather than death.
Now, these examples come from the Old Testament. One might
expect that Jesus, the great moral teacher, would condemn rape more forcefully
and more mercifully (in the case of the victim). Unfortunately, the New
Testament has very little to say on the subject, mentioning it only once, and
only indirectly on that occasion. This happens in the Gospel of Matthew, where
Jesus refers to upholding the laws of the Prophets:
5:17 “Do not think that I come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
5:19 “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does[iii] and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Once “all is fulfilled,” Jesus suggests that there may be
changes to the laws of Moses; however, as of yet, all has not been fulfilled,
so the laws of the Old Testament seem to stand. Beyond this indirect reference,
Jesus offers no advice on the matter of rape to followers of the faith, and nor
does the rest of the New Testament.
So, when the Bible mentions rape, it gets the matter
barbarically wrong, and it is otherwise largely silent. Where does that leave
us, today? It leaves us with
politicians, influenced strongly by fundamentalist Christian teachings, who don’t
seem to understand the severity of rape as a crime. Not long ago, Todd Akin, Republican
member of the House of Representatives and Senate candidate for Missouri made
now infamous remarks regarding “legitimate rapes” and the apparent
impossibility of pregnancy resulting from them. In the time following, numerous
Republicans called for Akin to resign, but others have tried to stand with them
or have offered views that are in many ways just as terrible.
One recent example is Tom Smith, a Republican candidate for
Senate from Pennsylvania. Here’s an exchange between Smith and some reporters (source),
regarding his stance on access to abortions:
Robert Vickers, Patriot News: In light of Congressman Akin’s comments, is there any situation that you think a woman should have access to an abortion?Tom Smith: My stance is on record and it’s very simplistic: I’m pro-life, period. And what that Congressman said, I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that.Vickers: So in cases of incest or rape…Laura Olson, Post-Gazette: No exceptions?Smith: No exceptions.Mark Scolforo, Associated Press: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?Smith: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to… she chose the way I thought. No, don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.Scolforo: Similar how?Smith: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.Scolforo: That’s similar to rape?Smith: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.
As a father, Smith apparently sees situations of rape and
pre-marital sex as similar, which isn’t that different from the Bible equating
adultery and rape in Deuteronomy. In one
instance, we have a woman who had consensual sex, became pregnant, and decided
to carry the baby to term. In the other, we have a woman who was victimized and
violated, became pregnant, and, according to Tom Smith, should do the same, without
question. That he can even relate the two situations to one another suggests
that either he views rape as a less serious crime than the rest of the
population, or he views pre-marital sex as seriously as the rest of the
population sees rape. Both positions are ridiculous and abhorrent.
Only within the last week during a political debate, another
Republican Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock, offered his own cruel and
unusual view of rape (source):
"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in
the case of the life of the mother," said Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed state
treasurer. "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to
realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that
horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to
happen."
The idea that pregnancies resulting from rape are a gift
echoes sentiments of former Senator (and candidate for the 2012 Republican
presidential nomination) Rick Santorum, who suggested that a woman could “make
the best out of a bad situation” (source).
Mourdock’s comments are even more callous, however, as they suggest that he
believes the benevolent creator of the universe would deliberately allow or
cause a rape to happen in order for it to result in a pregnancy. His remarks
further suggest that the rape is ultimately justified because of the resulting
pregnancy. But we all know that a good end shouldn’t justify terrible means to
get there, and I can’t fathom how a rape could never be a terrible way for a
benevolent God to arrange a pregnancy.
These politicians are undoubtedly not the first to espouse
such positions, and unfortunately, they likely won’t be the last do so, either.
The truth is that they should never have
arrived at the conclusion that any rape is trivial (in Smith’s case) or
ultimately something positive because of a pregnancy (in the cases of Mourdock
and Santorum), and nor should any other person, citizen or no. Such beliefs are
poisonous and horrible, and were it not for the legitimacy of certain
fundamentalist positions, rooted in ancient religion, people knowingly holding
them would never even be considered for election to any government post in any
civilized and humane society.
As citizens, we have to stand up and make sure that these
beliefs are not legitimate. We may prefer a candidate’s views on fiscal matters
(like taxes), but we should never sacrifice our moral fabric and endanger our
sense of social justice over matters such as money. The only responsible
and moral thing a citizen can do is to vote against candidates with such views.
That does not have to mean compromising your views on other, unrelated matters,
as even a vote for a third-party candidate or a write-in vote is a vote against
such ill-informed, fundamentalist moral ineptitude.
Get out and vote. You owe it to the country. Even if you’re
in a state or district that will likely lean toward a candidate with such despicable
views, vote against them. I truly believe that if we all voted, such terrible
beliefs would find that they are truly in the minority. So, why don’t we prove
that in November, and for every election in the future?
[i]
All quotations are drawn from the New King James Version—any italics represent
words that are absent from the original Hebrew or Greek but would have been
understood. (This is why you’ll see the verb “to be” italicized in many
translations of the New Testament, as the verb was understood to be the verb of
most sentences otherwise lacking one.)
[ii]
The idea that she otherwise enjoyed being “humbled” is implicit here, which is quite
barbaric, too.
[iii]
The Greek verb is ποιεω (poieo),
which has connotations of “doing right,” not just acting.
