Duck Dynasty and the World, Part 2: Syria

[This is the second part of a 2-part piece 3-part piece on the response of Christians to the Duck Dynasty situation; the third part is now the prayer for peace for Syria, Gaza, South Sudan, and North Korea.]

When I think about the attention given to the Duck Dynasty response, though, the thing that upsets me is how often the news discusses it before Syria.  An actual war with significant consequences for religious freedom for Christians in the Middle East is bumped so we can discuss whether an actor - who likely has a contract provision allowing for his suspension in circumstances just like this - is being persecuted because his employer is suspending his presence on TV (not even his primary income source) after insulting members of the audience.  

I’ve wanted to discuss Syria for the past few days. I started these blog posts long before Phil whats-his-name destroyed the internet – or at least my Facebook feed. I can’t stand what I see as the indifference people have towards the situation facing my friends and their families. 

Before I go further, I feel the need to explain a little about Syria to combat stereotypes people may have in their head. Like Lebanon, Syria has actually been a pretty safe country for Christians, on the relative scale of persecution of Christians world wide – or the relative scale of the persecution faced by minority religious believers in most states, including Muslims in Christian-dominant states and atheists and agnostics in a slew of states.  But back to Syria… Christians are a smaller part of the population than they are in Lebanon – about 10% for Syria while Lebanese Christians are almost 40% of the population there - and the Christians in Syria face dire consequences from this conflict. Christians are targeted by multiple sides in the conflict there, and if extremists win the war, Christian refugees may feel completely unable to return.

But all of that is one small part of the story in Syria. 

I’ve never been to Syria, but I have been lucky enough to end up with amazing Syrian friends, both Muslims and Christians. So when I think about Syria, it’s their faces I see.  It’s their families I think about.  It’s their communities I pray for. Their whole communities.

The last few days my mind and heart have been pre-occupied with those friends, and the people in Syria who are unable to leave and find safe refuge elsewhere.  The situation in Syria is grave. For those who would flee, though, the situation in Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan may be just as bad.

There's been snow on the ground in the refugee camps, and the winter is expected to get worse.  The tents in the camps, though, are not made for snow - or for the extreme cold.  There aren't enough mattresses for people - or enough food and supplies.  

This, of course, encourages some people to stay in dangerous situations. If the options are living in danger in a place they know or living in danger in a place they don’t, many are likely to choose the former.  In Syria, that often means staying in cities where they risk dying of starvation.  Or dying from barrel bombs. Or from the cold. Or just dying -because they don't have the means to live.

The scene sounds like something out of The Hunger Games, minus the televised audience and the potential for one person to win food and a reprieve for their entire community.

I've been thinking a lot about the snow in Syria and the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. Snow changes things.  

The temperature in my parents’ house is set at 71F/21.6C. Outside the house, the ground was covered by several inches of snow and ice until it rained last night. If the house dips to 69F/20C here, I can feel it. It means the timing mechanism on my parents’ heating had kicked in and I have to go fix it. I wear warm-ish clothes – sweatshirts and thick socks – and I have blankets wrapped around me. Right now, an electric fireplace is running nearby. Yet, when the snow is on the ground, I can feel those two degrees of difference. 

In the UK summer, 20C (69F) feels just fine to me. I would like it to be 22C (72F), but I’m okay with it being 20. In the Cleveland winter, 69F (20C) makes me reach for hot chocolate. It makes me find another blanket and turn up the heat a little.

Snow changes things.

What must it feel like, then, for the refugees who live in tents and sleep on mattresses in below freezing temperatures?  

1.4 million people will live in the refugee camps. 

Another 7.6 million will spend their winters in need in Syria itself. They will survive - or not - based on the provision of international aid.

Some read the stories of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and think, “Not our problem.”  Or worse, “there but by the grace of God…” 

But, it’s not the grace of God.  It’s a political choice.  It’s a political choice by the international community.  It’s a political choice by the US.

Why must refugees sleep in tents not designed for the cold?  Because Western leaders, amongst others, aren’t willing to offer resettlement options to those in need.  Because we won’t fund the UNHCR’s response in a meaningful way that would allow for something better than what is being offered.  Because it’s easy to get distracted by the shiny, sexy things of war – chemical weapons; and disputes at the UN – rather than think about the individuals on the ground, who have fled and who need us to be their neighbors, to serve them as Christ served us.

There are one million Syrian refugees in Lebanon (there are also Palestinian refugees that predate the Syrian ones). One million Syrian refugees.  It’s only 1/9 of the Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance, and yet it represents 1/4 of Lebanon’s total population. Lebanon only has 4.425 million people, but it is being asked to house one million of its neighbors in need of help.

In comparison, during the last financial year and according to data from the UN, the US granted asylum to approximately 25,300 (p. 46) while our July 2012 population was 313 million+.  So, we granted asylum to refugees representing .008%** of our population while Lebanon is housing refugees that make up 1/4 of its population. 

We also granted resettlement to some people – allowing them to apply to enter the country as refugees.  We almost doubled the number of asylum grants with refugee resettlement.  58,238 in 2012. In total, while Lebanon took in a million people, the United States – whose national pride takes the form of a statute that literally says “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” – we took in 83,538 people.  That’s .0266% of our total population.  

We're not alone in our pathetic response to the Syrian refugee crisis - many other countries share the blame.  But we share it, too. Globally, the world rejected almost twice as many applications for asylum as they offered. 438,000 claims were rejected but only 261,900 people were granted asylum. (p.46)  

At a time when the global humanitarian crisis was at an all-time high, we – as an international community – rejected 2x as many claims for asylum as we granted.

When we do this to other human beings, we are leaving them impoverished.  In turn, we impoverish ourselves. 

Albert Einstein, Marlene Dietrich, Sigmund Freud, Hannah Arendt, Bela Bartok, Frederic Chopin, Victor Hugo, and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki were all refugees. The US also has two former Secretary of States – one Democrat and one Republican – it gained from granting refugee status: Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.

We lose something when we leave people like this behind – when we care so little about those in need. We lose the potential, but we also lose ourselves, and we lose our faith. 

The book of James says “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?  In the same way, faith by itself, if not accompanied by action, is dead.” 

I know this passage raises issues for Christians – a debate over whether you can be saved by faith alone or need works to be saved.  That misses the whole point of the passage, though.  James isn’t discussing how one obtains salvation – yes, he uses the word ‘saved’ but the totality of what surrounds this passage indicates it’s not about salvation per se, but about what true faith means.  Faith should be motivating for us. And what does faith call us to do?  It calls us to love.  To love God and to love our neighbor. 

When we fail to offer refuge to those in need, we have failed to love. And when we fail to love, we have failed to show faith.  We have failed to live by faith. 

It’s easy to want to bomb something in the hopes that stops the war.  That’s a one-and-done kind of “service.” It’s cheap and easy and doesn’t require us to follow up. It allows us to wash our hands shortly after we’ve bombed people.

True love, though, isn’t easy.  And true love is what the Church is called to do.  

True love stretches beyond race or religion or ethnic identity.  True love is grand and encompassing.  True love means opening our borders to those looking to resettle.  And not for a ridiculously small 83,000 people.  We should love big – love strong – and open up our arms to really, truly help people. During the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time, we should be looking for ways to find Syrians to bring into our communities.  Anything less than that is not worthy of claims that we act in Christ’s name.

A friend of mine - a Christian from the Middle East - wrote the following, and I want to use it as the start of my prayer for Syria:

This Christmas I sincerely hope that nativity scenes will not be baby in the manger but the holy family as asylum seekers to Egypt... 

Yes, next time you hear demonization of asylum seekers as 'illegal migrants', do remember.. Christ and his family were asylum seekers who entered Egypt illegally fleeing for their lives after baby Jesus' birth. 

I pray that we remember how connected we are to the plight of those seeking asylum. We need to pray for those who are there in Syria - who are fleeing, and who are staying.  We need to pray that we become better advocates for them, and that we speak out more frequently on their behalf. We need to pray that we become better at responding to this crisis.  We pray for those in refugee camps, and those who, because of the conditions in the refugee camps, are staying in Syria.  We pray for those who are starving in Syria, and those who are freezing both in the camps and in Syria. We pray for our leaders, who decide who and how many to let into our borders in the midst of crisis.  We pray for those working in aid agencies and for the Red Cross and Red Crescent, that they are protected in their work, and are able to reach those most in need.  We pray that their coffers overflow with the funds necessary to alleviate suffering.  And we pray for peace.  For a durable, honest peace that impacts all the way down. That we encourage and facilitate that peace.  That we truly love the Syrians, and that we demonstrate that love in all we do.

** When I first typed this, I made a mistake and said .0008% but it's just .008%.

Update:  I always enjoy moments when I agree with my friend Matt.  This is one of those issues, so I'd encourage those still intent on defending Phil - and those interested in Chrisitan thoughts on this - to check out his post here.

Duck Dynasty and the World: Part 1

I was supposed to do a situation for prayer a week, but I failed.  Massively, publicly failed.  I blame my PhD, and a book chapter, and a book, and multiple workshops, and a slew of other things, but ultimately I failed. So, I’m sorry.  One of the nice things about being a Christian, though, is that I’m acutely aware of how frequently I fail but how much I live in grace and love even when I fail.  Still, I’m trying this again – and just in time for Christmas.

Unfortunately, though, a lot of other Christians failed this week as well so they’re stuck discussing whether a rich guy on a popular TV show should be suspended from the show for saying things that were hurtful and dismissive of two vulnerable groups in our society – homosexuals and black Americans, who are racial minorities. In this discussion, somehow it is Christians who are being persecuted rather than the two groups that are actually vulnerable in our society. 

And by vulnerable, I’m discussing power dynamics and discrimination; not anything else that people will want to misconstrue vulnerability as. Statistically, blacks have a smaller share of economic and political power than whites and have therefore been subject to systemic discrimination. Statistically, the LGBT community have less power and are subject to rampant discrimination in civil rights and economic opportunities. 

Christians on the other hand?  Puh-lease.  

I’ve been around significant parts of the world – every continent but Catholic-dominant South America and our-slightly-more-rednecky-cousins in Australia – and there are few places where Christians wield as much power, and as much freedom to do and say whatever they want to do and say, as the US.  Yet, somehow whenever people suffer social consequences for saying things that hurt others, Christians in America feel they are the most persecuted people in the world.

To those in the Church who think Duck Dynasty is what we should be discussing, I respond solely with this article and a long list of things the US Church should care about a lot more than Duck Dynasty and anything associated with it:

-        A South Sudanese town was just taken over by rebels. Three UN peacekeepers, along with a large, untold, number of civilians were killed.   South Sudan is a newly established Christian-majority state formed after decades of religious-based violence – where persecution actually meant persecution.  Christians had been killed for their faith, arrested, tortured, beaten, etc. Now, the new state faces another armed conflict – this time both sides dominated by Christians killing each other for power, with ethnic divisions used to justify the killing – that threatens the future of the country.  So, when we pray about persecution, let’s pray for those who have been persecuted for their faith and who are now really being persecuted for their ethnicity.  Let’s pray for, and speak out against, South Sudan.

-        40,000 Gazans have fled their homes from flooding.  You know those beautiful pictures of Jerusalem in snow that were playing around the world? Well, that same snowstorm left an area the UN has describedas "one of the most densely populated areas in the world: with 40,000 new homeless people.  1/3 of the 1.4-1.7 million people in Gaza are currently refugees." They have no place to go – Egypt has closed its borders and Israel does not let many from Gaza into Israel, even for humanitarian reasons. Israel also unilaterally decides how much aid – food, fuel, blankets, housing materials – can come into Gaza.  When we pray for God’s kingdom come on Earth, let’s pray that those in Gaza receive the humanitarian assistance they need. That they receive God’s blessings here, and that we as Christians work to serve them as Christ served others, that we look for avenues and opportunities to ensure greater security for food and housing and health care.  Let’s pray for, and speak out against, the crisis in Gaza.

-        When Kim Jong Un executed his uncle, it was an indication of a coming reign of terror for North Koreans worse than they’ve faced in the past, and on par with the very worst dictators in the world. Then he threatens South Korea (by fax mind you), and that threat means the US may need to go to war. We have a treaty with South Korea that requires us to go into war for their self-defense.  So, let’s pray for, and speak out for, peace. Let’s pray for a changed attitude in North Korea, and for an opening up of space on that.

So, when I hear Christians in the US talk about how we need to be vocal on the rights of the Ducky Dynasty thing, I just think… is this really what the Church needs to be focused on?  And the thing is that these aren’t even the situations that I find most troubling in my heart right now…

I initially did this as one long post, but it's too long. So, I'll continue in a separate post.

Praying for Peace: Palestine-Israel

So, this is the first of my posts on praying for peace, and starting with the Israel-Palestinian conflict (or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) is an intimidating one to start with.

I have so many people I love on both sides of this conflict. Friends I hold near and dear to my heart, and friends I would never want to hurt or upset.  But at times I think you can't discuss this conflict honestly without upsetting someone. Just using the names "Israel" and "Palestine" can trigger emotions as one side denies the existence of the other (I cannot emphasize this enough, but this is true of people on both sides of the conflict).

It is for that very reason, though, that I need to start here, with this conflict, as my first "Praying for Peace."

The land is the land of my faith.  Jesus wept there, in the town of Bethany, which is now known as al-Eizariya ("The Place of Lazarus") in Palestine's West Bank. He pulled Lazarus from death and told Martha to put away her chores and listen to his teachings. It was there that he accepted the offering of a woman that others scorned. The land is the land of my faith, where Christ was willing to die.  Where he was buried.  Where he revealed himself again, resurrected. The land is the land of my faith.

And in my lifetime it has never known peace.

Some say it has not ever known peace.  I reject that assertion. The land was occupied prior to 1948 - a British and Ottoman exchange of rights and privileges over who could collect taxes and impose sanctions, use its water and its resources.  But the communities there knew peace within themselves. I have friends whose families farmed those lands, whose parents and grandparents sewed clothing for people living on that land regardless of their faith or ethnicity.  These friends are Christian, Muslim and Jewish, and their ancestors once lived much closer to each other than these friends live now.

I have other friends in this conflict. Friends whose families moved to Israel after 1948; friends who are moving to Israel now.  I have other friends who grew up in the Palestinian IDP camps, never able to know a true home. Both claim the same land as their own, their understanding of history as truth.

My friend Murad, who is one my newest friends but one I am certain will last a lifetime (assuming he doesn't disown me after this post), has written on the concept and nature of citizenship. To understand what he writes, you need to understand the meaning of three Arabic words: Watan, Mowatana, and Mowatin.  Watan is the "home you live in." But as Murad explains "The Watan is not just about the history or the geography, it also becomes a creator of the self, and an important source in creating the ego and the collective self.  It becomes the glasses we look through towards ourselves and the world, and forms a part of culture." Maybe it is best understood as our homeland, the place where we identify ourselves with, though I think the English word still lacks something.

Mowantana is also not clearly translatable, though it is often defined as citizenship. As Murad explains, though, Mowantana is broader, meaning Muslims who by virtue of their faith have a right to belong. Finally, Mowatin are citizens, or the members of the community who belong.

The complexity surrounding these words becomes important when you consider Murad's broader conclusions about Palestinian citizenship, which I'm going to quote at length because they are really beautiful and they tell us so much about this conflict:

"The Palestinians lose their Watan, but they still are attached to it even though they are living in it as Mowatin. The Palestinian generation creates the difference between the Watan and Mowatin and they can distinguish between them very well.
. . .
In the Palestinian context, the Watan is the imaginary part, because it is missing from the reality. So, the Palestinians draw the Watan in their imagination wishing and working to move it into their reality. Here we can notice the correlation between the lack of the Watan in reality and the imagination of each person and their will to make it real. This depends on each one's belonging and believing in these terms. 

Why do we feel that we have to be tied to one place? 

In an attempt to redefine these terms, these questions may help you to analyze your point of view: What does stability mean to you? Does stability change from one period to another in a humans' life? What does it mean to belong? Does belonging to something mean you feel responsibility towards it?   

Tell me what the Watan is for you, and I tell you who you are."

Now, I am afraid he will hate me for what I am about to write (though he's a very good man, and he should be super flattered with how much of him I quoted, so I'm hoping he'll forgive me... eventually), but....

While I have never heard this sentiment expressed as beautifully by my Jewish friends of Israel, I have heard it expressed all the same. That longing for the place you belong.  That desire to be reunited with your heritage, your ancestry, your family, your community; the desire to unite your past and your future.

It is not something I can relate to particularly well, and I think many in the US and Western Europe would have difficulty truly understanding this sentiment. I feel connected to Slovenia and Germany, where my mom's grandparents were born, but it's not that same grounding or gravitational force for my life.  There is, however, a piece of farmland in Western Ohio that my family has owned since Ohio was "settled" by Europeans.

We are the settlers to that land. And while I realise the long-standing claims the indigenous of Ohio have to that land, it is so dear to my family. It plays a strange role in the identity of my immediate family.  It's land shared between 3/4 of my great-grandparents' heirs, and it isn't even mine yet. My brother, sister and I will inherit our share at one of the worst moments of our lives: when both my parents have passed.  My father has already told us he will haunt us if we ever even think of selling that land. That land will be our connection when all else has left us but each other.  And it's a connection we'll share with our own children, probably with the very same promise of haunting them forever.

And yet, I know that my inheritance of that land is actually a source of pain for Native Americans. I don't usually rely on Wikipedia for facts (though the footnotes are sometimes awesome), but I was curious about who had been in this land before it became ours.  Reading the story, though, is hard for a human rights activist (perhaps particularly one who also has Cherokee Indian heritage). By 1750, the county where our land is was occupied by members of eleven Native American tribes. After the Native Americans were defeated in 1795, they were supposed to have the land my family now owns as their place to be.  In 1820, it was organized into a county with 12 townships. In one of those townships is my land. I hate how it became my land, but still... it is my land.  It is the inanimate object with which I have my deepest connection.

When I feel lost in the world - and I mean truly lost, unsure of where I belong in the world - I rely on the knowledge that my family loves me and that land represents them, strangely in many ways even more than the home I grew up in because the land is representative of my broader family: my aunt Peg, who whispers to me how happy she is with what I'm doing; and my Uncle Mike, who took me aside once to tell me he doesn't understand half of what I'm doing, disagrees with me on the half he does, but he's still proud of my for doing what I do; my great-aunt Jo, who came to my law school graduation because my own grandmother was too sick to remember it; my uncle Johnny who left us much too young but whose spirit I have felt quite clearly protecting me at times while I drive; and my great-grandma Kate, who my father tells me I'm just like. Quite honestly, I don't know that I could pick out the actual property without my dad or brother along, but still... that land is my land, my family, and the idea that I would ever have to give it up - even though I deplore how it came to be ours - it would be heartbreaking and I would absolutely fight tooth and nail for it (probably not with actual weapons but I'm a lawyer... in the US that might be better than a weapon!).

What I feel can only be a small portion of the feelings associated with land like Israel and Palestine, whose recent past is so deeply intertwined with conflict and displacement. Israel was born from the Holocaust, from the reality that the Jewish people had few safe havens in the world, and felt most secure with the notion of living in community on the land of their ancestors.  But taking that land required conflict and the expulsion of the Palestinians. Land ownership continues to be an issue. I was intending to link to this very specific article about property issues in Jerusalem, which I read when it was first published, but when I searched keywords associated with it, I just found story after story after story about the conflicts associated with land [the background to this one was the hardest for me to read]. Perhaps one of the more relevant ones was this, in which the then 80-year-old mayor of Jerusalem (an Israeli who immigrated to Palestine in 1934) blasted new settlements in the "Arab Quarter" of Jerusalem:

"Does anyone seriously think that there will not always be Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem, that we can ignore their rights and expect the world to respect our own?" the 80-year-old Mayor, in office since 1965, said in a statement.
An Israeli newspaper quoted him today as saying, "We are driving the Arabs crazy and forcing them to hate us." 

Israel has the power now, so it is often Jewish Israelis taking land previously belonging to Palestinians, but in another time that power dynamic could shift. I can only imagine how much fear and anxiety this causes the Jewish people living in Israel.  I know how much anxiety and anger the dispossession causes the Palestinians.  And fear. Fear that they will never see their homeland in their lifetime. Fear that they will always be the newest "people without a land."  Fear that they have lost themselves, their community, and their ancestry.  Fear that their life will always include outsiders who control so much more of their existence than they do themselves.

Fear drives anger, and anger hatred, and hatred violence, and violence conflict.  All from a desire for self; a desire to realize the connection with one's homeland, with one's Watan.

It is a common desire for the Palestinians and the Israelis. That very reality is what makes this conflict so tense, so personal, so seemingly without end.

But I believe it will have an end.  I am praying that the leaders will have wisdom and see a solution, and then be brave enough to pursue that solution.

I don't want to have simplified the conflict down to just land.  There are serious and grave human rights issues here. Palestinians are often shot seemingly without cause, their ability to get to medical care and their ability to get to school or work is often hampered.  Israelis fear incursions, particularly from Gaza but also from neighbouring Lebanon and Syria.  It is tense and with each new death, there is new anger, and perhaps also a deeper connection to one's ancestral struggle - something that again these two sides share.

I don't have a solution that I can propose. I am neither Palestinian nor Israeli and my connection to the conflict comes only from my faith and from my friends. The solution will need to be internal; a coming together of two peoples with the same desire and the same fear to alleviate the other's fear and realize both desires.  It seems impossible.  But everything seems impossible until someone does it.

It is not the impossibility that worries me - it is the lack of courage to make this happen that worries me. Courage to admit that one's own side has not always been right or good or fair or just in this conflict. Courage to develop a solution that may not meet the desire of everyone but will meet the needs of everyone.  Courage to see the other side as a full, real human being with their own truth and their own reality and their own human worth and value.  And courage to stand up to the interests of one's own side to develop a plan and to implement it.

Children know in a way adults sometimes forget that human beings are, at our heart, the same. Our languages and clothing and music and food preparation may differ, but our feelings are universal. Our fears our universal.  I am praying that courage will be too.

And that is what I'm asking from you as part of this first praying for peace.  I am asking that you pray for courage for individuals and leaders in this conflict in identifying, developing, and realising a solution. Pray for the individuals and the leaders on both sides, not just the side you normally favour.  Pray for the individuals whose lives will be affected by whatever decision is developed. Pray for Peace.


I know as a Christian, I am supposed to go into our closest and prayer, but how are you supposed to encourage people to pray about something if you don't talk about it and talk about praying?  That's the very issue I face here. But if you want to pray over this, and you're unsure how to do that, this is a short version of the prayer I will inevitably be reciting over and over this Saturday and you're welcome to use it:

Dear God, I ask you to bless the people and the leaders of Israel and Palestine. I ask you to help them find a solution.  Help them identify it, develop it, and realise it. Give them the courage and strength necessary to find communal peace, and through communal peace eventually individual acceptance and peace with one's life and surroundings. Help the people in Israel and Palestine to see each other as your children, and help them to value the human worth in one another. All these things I pray in your name, Amen.

Does God "intend" rape?

I was - and remain - outraged at the suggestion by  US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who in a debate said this:

"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. 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."

I expressed my outrage on facebook, linking to an article and providing this highly witty comment (I'll admit that I do say lots of things on facebook - where I've met almost every single one of my 1300+ friends in real life, that I wouldn't actually say if I was posting it on this blog as a first-instance): "Seriously? If you think rape is a gift from God, (a) you don't understand the Bible, and (b) you don't understand how to be a politician. So, either way, you should've just stayed home and STFU." 

A Christian friend challenged me and said that what Mourdock said was Biblically accurate. I disagreed, pointing out that evil is the antithesis of God and therefore God cannot intend for it to happen.  First, the friend said, that Mourdock wasn't saying the rape was intended, but just the conception. This is nonsense to me.  You cannot intend the conception of a child through rape without intending the rape itself.  For God's intention to be for conception through rape to occur, then God must intend the rape.  My friend again said Mourdock's position was biblical - that God is sovereign and therefore intends all that happens in the world, including things we perceive as evil.

The challenges came with a reference to Genesis 50:20, in which Joseph - yes, the one of the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat - was addressing his brothers, who had thrown him into a pit to die. Joseph was rescued from the pit and through a series of circular twists and turns ended up in a position of great power in Egypt. After his father's death, Joseph's brothers wrote to him begging forgiveness.  According to Genesis 50, starting at verse 19, They went to him and "threw themselves down before him. 'We are your slaves,' they said. But Joseph said to them, 'Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children. And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them."

When I've previously studied this passage, I have always thought of it as a foreshadowing of the type of forgiveness lavished on mankind for our own sinfulness.  It resembles the crucifixion of Christ and the forgiveness that is redeemed through that. 

My friend must make similar connections because he also pointed to the crucifixion of Christ as evidence that God sometimes "intends" what we would call evil to happen.  My friend said, in part, "Genesis 50:20 says God INTENDED. It doesn't say that God fixed the problem that Joseph's brothers caused. God also INTENDED for Jesus to be murdered. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Man is not sovereign, God is."  He then challenged me - and others I had tagged into the conversation who are trained ministers or who work in ministries - to explain how we could say God doesn't intend for rape to happen with this one, very clear verse. 

Now, I will set aside the idea that Jesus was "murdered" - because I think that's such a rare and unique thing that any comparison to what happens to us human beings is out of line.  But also no where in the Bible is the word "intended" used in context of Jesus's crucifixion.  How do I know this?  Because after this friend's challenge, I went through every instance of the Bible - using the New International Version as my text - to determine what it meant in Genesis 50:20 that God "intended" what happened to Joseph.  My friend wanted a Biblically based discussion and I wanted to know the actual answer - was I wrong? Did God intend rapes?  What does it mean when we say God "intends" something?  I started writing this initially as a facebook comment, but realized that that was insane and it is way too long to even try to be included on facebook.  So even though I don't intend for this blog to be all about my religious beliefs, I am going to use this space now for a little biblically exegesis on the question of "Does God intend rape?"

When I read the very verse that was pointed to - Genesis 50:20 - I did so only after praying for a while and thinking about what my assumptions were. Because even though I'm relatively certain the inverse is not true, when this friend raises an issue of Biblical interpretation, I do tend to sit and pray about it to determine what I feel the Holy Spirit is telling me.  And on this, when I opened Bible Gateway and read the verse, I felt an immediate sense that the two "intendeds" were not the same, and that within the God "intended" was a Romans 8:28 understanding, not that God required it or ordered it, but rather than he used it and utilized it.  I then went and read the entire passage in context and felt this even more clearly.  Then I took the NIV Study Bible from my shelf to see what it says and it says this as the note to this verse: "God intended it for good. Their act, out of personal animosity toward a brother, had been used by God to save life -- the life of the Israelites, the Egyptians and all the nations that came to Egypt to buy food in the face of a famine that threatened the known world. At the same time, God showed by these events that his purpose for the nations is life and that this purpose would be effected through the descendants of Abraham."  Within the note, I see that the learned scholars who put together the study Bible also found a difference in the "intended" of mankind and the "intended" of God. 

But I was having difficult pinning down exactly what that difference was that I felt - at least with just one verse.  I was still unsatisfied and went back to Bible Gateway and did a search for "intended."  Many of the results appeared irrelevant (i.e., Numbers 35:23; Deuteronomy 19:19; 1 Samuel 14:4), and I initially dismissed them.  But I did come back to them as I was writing this very long comment.  And when I thought about what they say about "intended."  What does the word mean?  It is clear it is the thing that is desired but not necessarily the thing that is to come.  Intended does not mean ordered; it means a desired outcome.  Numbers 35:23 is in the context of handling problems and crimes within the community. It starts at 22 and continues through 25: "But if without enmity someone suddenly pushes another or throws something at them unintentionally or, without seeing them, drops on them a stone heavy enough to kill them, and they die, then since that other person was not an enemy and no harm was intended, the assembly must judge between the accused and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which they fled. The accused must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil." So clearly in this context, "intended" means something desired or planned with a desire of its realization. Because something occurred that was not intended to occur, it is not as abominable as the very same result with a different planning or desire.

Deuteronomy 19:19 comes in the context of the settlement of disputes within the community.  The Word says "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime . . . [t]he judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother." Clearly, in this context, "intended" is not "ordained" or "ordered."  It could be said that "intended" here means to have a desire and to take actions to realize that desire, or to "plan" based on contingent factors, perhaps while taking actual steps to realize that plan.  We know this first because it was by a human and second because the very thing desired is not the thing the witness receives. 

And in 1 Samuel 14:4, it says "On each side of the pass that Jonathan intended to cross to reach the Philistine outpost was a cliff; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh."  But then it goes on to discuss the conversation between Jonathan and his armor-bearer. In it, Jonathan says "we will cross over toward them and let them see us. If they say to us, 'wait there until we come to you,' we will stay where we are and not go up to them. But if they say, 'come up to us,' we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands.'"  So even though Jonathan intended - or desired and took actions to ensure - to cross over the cliff, He did not fully do it until He had received a signal from God.  Had he not received that, Jonathan would have stayed on the other side of the cliff.  His intention was not an order.  This has a similar understanding in 1 Samuel 20:33 "Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David." 

When just the previews came up, I thought there might be an outlier. 2 Chronicles 32:2-3: "When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him."  When you read it in context, though, it is clear that Sennacherib had not yet gotten to Jerusalem and was not yet waging war.  He was fighting in other places and so Hezekiah and the men of Jerusalem took actions to make it harder for Sennacherib to wage war. Before Sennacherib was able to really wage the war he intended against Jerusalem - he had laid seige but had not waged war - Hezekiah and Isaiah son of Amoz prayed to heaven. "And the Lord sent an angel, who annihilated all the fighting men and the commanders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king."  So, again intended was not ordered or required or forced into happening, but was akin to desiring while taking steps to realize those desires.

And Acts 12:4, "Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." The "him" was Peter, but of course the Angel of the Lord came and broke the chains the night before Herod intended for the trial. And 2 Corinthians 1:17 "Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both 'yes, yes' and 'no, no'?" Again, intended means planned or an expressed desire. Similarly, Acts 20:7 and John 6:15 and John 12:7 discuss intentions as plans that humans make.

The reason I originally thought these verses did not apply was that they referred to men and not God.  And again, when I read Genesis 50:20, I felt an immediate difference in the purpose of the words when used to describe Joseph's brothers and when used to describe God. So I started off initially looking just for verses that related to times when God "intended" things.

Hosea 2:9: "'Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens, and my new wine when it is ready. I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her naked body."  Hosea is a bit confusing, and it was more confusing when I went to the introductory note and found that one of the debates over Hosea comes in Chapters 1-3 as to whether the story of Gomer is literal or allegorical. So I was a little concerned that this particular verse again wasn't about God's intentions. But Hosea 1:10-2:1 is an introduction to the section titled 'Israel Punished and Restored' and it says this: "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called sons of the living God.' The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great was the ay of Jazeel. Say to your brothers, 'My people,' and of your sisters, 'My loved one.'  And then it goes on to talking about the rebuke of Israel.  So, Hosea 2:9 comes in that context of rebuking of Israel's ways.  And after discussing Israel as an adulterer, Hosea 2:7-8 says "She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them. Then she will say, 'I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now.' She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold-- which they used for Baal."  Now clearly the reference to Baal means that this is about Israel's turning away from God and then attempting to turn back not out of love for God but out of dissatisfaction with the other things she had found. Perhaps a bit of boredom but also a bit of 'eh, this isn't really working out for me, so I might as well try it again with that other guy.'  And that's where Hosea 2:9 comes in, with the relevant "I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her nakedness."  So God had intended for Israel to be protected and covered, and yet in response to her wickedness, he was not going to give her that protection. He had planned and desired for her protection, but in response to the daily goings on, he was withdrawing that protection and was not following through on his own intentions.

Jeremiah 18:5-10: "Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, 'Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?' declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if a another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." So in this chapter, it is clear that the word "intended" is not used as a synonym for "ordered" or "required" or "forced."  The good God provides is contingent upon the choices of man.  And the destruction God could order is contingent upon the choices of man.  According to these verses, God allows for his relationship with mankind - with Israel specifically in this chapter - to develop with some give-and-take, some back-and-forth between them.  God does not force a particular avenue on man and may intend or desire or plan the realization of one thing but ultimately responds to human actions with another.

And Romans 2:1-6: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forebearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.'"  Again, the word "intended" here is clearly not a synonym for ordered or forced.  Rather it is referring to the way in which God uses things for His good purposes. There is an interplay between God's desires and the free will of mankind. 

Romans 7:7-12: "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "you shall not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but the commandment cam, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." So, again, intended is used here as the thing from God that is supposed to bring about good but that we can allow to bring about evil.  It is the good that was desired by and planned by God but not the evil that resulted.

2 Corinthians 7:8-9:  Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, discussing previous communications they had had (at least the letter in 1 Corinthians) and their response to his rebuke for their wayward actions. "Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it -- I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while -- yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us."  Again, God intended for something and used things around to realize it, but he did not force them to repent.  

That's every instance in which the word "intended" is used in the Bible. 17 uses of the word in 16 verses, starting with Genesis 50:20 and ending with 2 Corinthians 7:9. Ten verses referring to human intentions and 7 referring to times in which God "intended" something (as noted above, Genesis 50:20 includes the word "intended" as something from both man and God). I also looked up the word "intend" and "intention" to see if there was anything that would add to what is outlined above - either changing my beliefs or altering them. I found nothing. And after prayerfully considering what they mean, these are my conclusions:

When man intends something, it is a planning and desire to bring it about, that may or may not be successful.  Man's intentions can be for good or for evil.  They may or may not come into being, and they won't know what occurs until after it is done.  When God intends something, though, it is only for good.  It is also not an ordering or a forcing, but the word "intended" throughout the Bible is used as an expression for His wish for goodness.  His actions, however, work in conjunction in a give-and-take with mankind.  He responds to our responses to Him and His callings.

Taking it back to Joseph, God did not require or force Joseph's brothers to throw him in a pit to die.  It's not even clear that God wanted that.  It is clear, however, that God's intention for good was to use any evil done against Joseph to realize a greater plan.

Now, I have to address an additional two points.  First, I realize that this very discussion elicits a distinction between Calvinist and Arminian beliefs within Christian doctrine.  For those unfamiliar with Christian splits, consider the difference between Calvins and Arminians to be similar to the difference between Shiia and Sunnis: the basic tenants and scriptures are the same, but their interpretation over the years has led to some doctrinal splits on what exactly is meant by God's word. Calvinists believe in predestination; Arminians do not. My friend is a Calvinist and I am an Arminian.  But I am an Arminian because when I go through the Bible, I see all sorts of verses like those outlined above that point me regularly to the position that God is good and gives us free will. Our relationship with Him is one that involves His calling us to goodness, but not forcing us on a path, and responding regularly to what do.  It's a relationship of give-and-take, not one of forcefulness and pain.

So does God intend rape?  I again answer, unequivocally, no. 

Rape is, by its nature, a forceful imposition and a denial of choice or consent. It is the stripping away of love and security. It is the opposite of God. And God does not intend the opposite of himself. God intends evil things to be used for good - this is the promise of Romans 8:28 ("And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.") - but that is substantially and unalterably different from God intending the evil thing itself. Evil exists in this world.  God gives us free will and a knowledge of sin, but that does not mean that God intends for sinfulness and evil to exist or to occur. 

I believe that God can use even the most evil of evils - rape, murder, oppression, genocide - for good, but I don't think that means He ever wanted, desired or intended for those things to happen. I have known women who set up counseling centers and grief or crisis hotlines as a response to their sexual assault. I've known war veterans who come back and reinvest in their community in reaction to losing a friend overseas. And I've known a few hundred human rights activists who have responded to evil in their lives with compassion and a dedication to fighting for the underdogs of our world. These are the good that comes out of evil. 

But, that does not mean that every consequence of evil is intended and good, and no where in the Bible have I found any support that the consequences of evil are always good.  So sometimes, I think, a child conceived will be a good that comes out of it, but not every child conceived is something God intends to come about - either before or during or after the rape. And we should not assume to know the thoughts of God for each individual case; there does not seem to be a blanket rule on this issue - at least no where that I've found in the Bible.

Now, I have a final question to be posed to those who would simultaneously agree with Mourdock's assertion that God intends rape - and the conception that sometimes occurs thereafter - but who still fight against abortion.  This is a serious question, not just a rhetorical one to win the argument: how do you reconcile a belief that God intends the evil of rape while still fighting against abortion as some special evil that needs to be eliminated?  If you believe God is sovereign over all - and therefore anything that is done is something God intends to do be done - would that not also include abortion?  Would God's sovereignty not also include sovereignty over when abortion occurs and why and in what circumstances and by whom?  Why must you fight against abortion if it is part of God's intention and sovereignty?