Blog - Sunday, December 11, 2011 13:48 - 0 Comments

Jack’s Immoral God

On the 17th April 2011 I posted a video featuring Jack Schaap – a preacher for the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana which is of the fundamentalist baptist persuasion, and promotes misogynistic and sexist beliefs, which was the focus of Jack’s summon that fateful day.

As I mentioned at the time, I was rather surprised when a DCMA claim was filed against the publication of Jack’s Biblical message, since during the video he states:

“You know what they’re going to say about you? Pfft – who cares?”

And …

“If they’re quoting me while I’m quoting the Bible, then Hallelujah God’s word is getting out!”

As a result of the DCMA claim I started researching who I was dealing with in order to inform any subsequent decisions. I would probably not have bothered if the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana hadn’t prevented me from spreading God’s word as I was encouraged to do. As a result of this process I discovered a few things:

1. Mr. Jack Schaap is married. Here is Jack’s wife Cindy asking if it’s alright for Pastors wife’s to have close friends. Why in the Hell would it NOT be OK? Where are people getting the idea that a pastor’s wife cannot have close friends?
2. Jack Schaap has his very own web site. While the site seem to have been abandoned since June 2010, it does provide helpful links to Jack answering questions about his faith and the central text on which it rests. On June 7th 2010 Jack was asked by Ralph:

“Is it Biblical for ladies to say amen at church services?”

He answers:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.” – 1 Corinthians 14:35

Yes Jack, the Bible is clear on the woman’s role within the church – they are not allowed to speak, nor are they allowed to ask questions. This must wait until they get home and their husbands can teach them. It says so in the very next sentence:

“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” – 1 Corinthians 14:34

However, even Jack shies away from a straight reading of scripture perhaps honest Biblical values are too strong, even for Jack?

More interestingly, on the 21st May 2010 Kevin:

“What do you think God’s reasoning was for requiring a lady to marry the man who forced her into fornication in Deuteronomy 22:28-30?”

Before we get to Jack’s answer, let’s familiarise ourselves with the passage again:

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-30

A simplified summary of this passage would be “if a man rapes a women, he must pay the father some cash and marry his victim.” Charming. Jack also plays down the rape by continually stating they were “immoral together”? This is not a passage about consensual sex, it pertains to rape – hence the phrase “lay hold on her”.

I think we should pause here for a second to consider what it means to be “immoral”.

To my mind morality pertains to the beneficial or detrimental effects on others by your actions. Actions which are beneficial are considered “moral” while actions which are detrimental are considered “immoral”. However, this condensed summary of morality does not address consensual behaviour between adults. In most cases such things have no implications beyond the scope of their relationship, thus have no moral dimension. None. Zero.

What Jack is talking about is “sin”, which can be defined as behaviour which a God disapproves of. Note this is distinct from any considerations regarding the effects of actions upon others, this is why many things are considered “sins” which have no harmful effects on individuals or the even the society at large. However I acknowledge there may be many overlaps between “sin” and “immorality”.

Deuteronomy 22 also says women cannot wear men’s clothes, bans ploughing with an ox and ass together, wearing mixed fabrics, promotes the public display of the “tokens of a daughter’s virginity” on her wedding night (and stoning her to death if she wasn’t a virgin), and stoning rape victims to death if they do not cry loudly enough. Are we to uphold these Biblical values as well?

What is truly horrifying is that Jack seems to have read these passages, but rather than view them as the rudimentary and raw beginnings of a fair and just system he maintains they are the perfect law of God. Jack wishes to throw away 2,000 years of argument, reason, evidence, and legal progress because some men living in the desert of another country partook of “the burning bush” one too many times.

Having reverting to pre-medieval times, Jack continues by slurring the name of the rape victim, accusing her of being seductive and unworthy of the title “lady”. Even IF the woman were seductive, this is no excuse for a man to force himself on her and commit rape. What defines “seductive” in any case? Making sexual advances? No, since this would indicate consent and not count as “laying hold on her”, IMHO.

Would wearing skimpy outfits be described as “seductive”? Possibly, but this still does not imply sexual consent – although in Jack’s world it may do. It seems Jack’s line of thinking leads directly to Burka’s and oppression of women.

No where in this short passage does it mention the sexual act was consensual. No where are the wishes of the woman considered or even factored into the decision.

No, what we have here is an unambiguous and hard ruling on what must be done in *every* similar situation. The rape victim MUST marry their rapist despite their personal wishes, circumstances, or howls of protest.

This is an abominable and unjust law reminiscent of an ancient past where women were property which men wished to conquer, subdue, and own. It runs against our modern hard fought sense of fairness, equality, justice, compassion, and empathy. Let’s leave “god’s law” in the past where it belongs.