Critical of Racism Criticism

A response to “Critical Race Theory and Christianity” 

Speakers Monique Duson and Krista Bontrager

The first time I remember hearing the phrase “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) was a month ago. I’ve been hearing it constantly since then. (I thought it was just the Baader-Meinhoff phenonmenon, but apparently this is the new hot topic.) 

According to Duson and Bontrager, it’s the core of the justice work I’ve been doing the last six years. That may be true- I don’t work in the vaunted halls of academia just because I hang out with college students- so if CRT is what I’ve been doing all these years, I should probably learn about it. 

But that already puts me in a sticky situation for writing this blog post. I need to research before I can give a true response to this talk. I’m happy to admit that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’d like to read an actual book from a CRT scholar. And that may take me awhile. So for now, consider this post more of a “huh, what?” response rather than a deep dive. 

Because I do still have a response. I have concerns about the material presented here. If I’ve been unknowingly involved in CRT all these years, I see two options. 

1. All of the teachers, writers, and activists I’ve been learning from are dramatically changing the teachings of CRT and not staying true to its core at all.
2. Duson and Bontrager are representing an untrue version of CRT. 

So let’s walk through that and see if we can find some contradictions.

First, here is Duson & Bontrager’s evidence that I’m practicing CRT. I have used the following terms: white privilege, inclusive, racial reconciliation, systemic injustice, reparations, diversity, equity, and white fragility.

They keep saying CRT is complicated and confusing. But when they define it, I find the definition simplistic.

“White people are oppressors. Black people are oppressed.”

This may be generalized and unhelpful, but I wouldn’t call it complicated. If this were true, it would be easy to dump folks into categories. Of course, those categories would be nonsense, but that’s what makes a strawman. A strawman serves the purpose of making your enemies look bad, not of understanding them. 

The last Maven talk left me feeling confused, but in this talk, the ladies are organized. They made it quite clear what they believe CRT is, and why they believe it’s bad:

White culture is wicked. Western European culture is wicked. Being born white is bad. If we could just get rid of whiteness, we could get rid of society’s fundamental problems. People of color can’t commit the sin of racism. Today’s generation is responsible for the sins of previous generations. You need to divest yourself from whiteness. We must retrain white people to think differently. We associate privilege purely with skin color. You’re a racist. You’re responsible for 250 years of economic disadvantage. People of color don’t need to look inward- they aren’t racist and don’t need to do any self-examination. The goal is to hand over all power structures to people of color.

I’ve never been taught these things, and I don’t believe these things. (I could re-interpret some of them: “Aspects of Western European culture are wicked.”) I understand why hearing these things makes their audience mad. I feel a bit emotional myself. 

1.

Duson and Bontrager did not provide quotes from scholars or activists for these statements. (Instead, their slides are peppered with exhausting scare quotes centered on all the words they don’t like.) 

It leaves me floundering to try and understand where these extreme beliefs came from. Duson hints a bit at her conversion story: she was a black Democrat, living in Africa, doing activism work, and a passionate believer in CRT. Perhaps these were once her beliefs? Yet she changed her mind when she came home to the US and moved in with the Bontragers, a family of white Republicans. It sounds like they had many interesting conversations.

Yet, I’m questioning my theory already. If Duson thought white people are evil, she wouldn’t have moved in with them or had conversations with them. 

There were some good parts to this talk. Even after Civil Rights passed, things weren’t equitable. Bontrager says, “It makes sense” that the rise of Critical Legal Theory (a precursor to CRT) grew out of this. She calls out the “awkward silence” of Christians during these bad parts of history, and explains that this is what activists are talking about when they talk about complicity.

I’m grateful they recognize America’s history of racism, and how racism does still exist. I’m not sure how many churches believe and recognize this. I can only speak of my own experience. Duson and Bontrager have a description they consider to be an extreme belief:

“Racism is a thing of the past; racial incidents are rare and isolated.”

I believed that when I was a kid. And I often meet people who believe that. So, I’m genuinely glad these ladies aren’t promoting that belief.  But, they set another belief at the other extremity of their scale:

“Racism permeates every system. Everything is rigged to benefit whites and marginalize People of Color.”

This is a trick to make yourself look moderate, by the way. As long as you are the one creating the scale, you can always set other’s beliefs as the extremes and place yourself in the middle. 

Oddly, although the ladies don’t believe that racism permeates every system, they do believe that CRT has permeated everything. Bontrager in particular has a distrust of Christian colleges, and gave a lot of advice about making sure you aren’t sending your kids somewhere that has any version of CRT beliefs. (I admit finding a college that never uses the words “diversity” or “inclusion” might be hard.) 

Read more on my blog about individual vs. systemic sin here and here.

2.

So, not having sources is my first concern. My second concern is about intersectionality (although D&B don’t use the word). They make it clear that CRT is exclusively about black vs white and reasonably observe how that leaves a lot of people out. But, they also discuss the overlapping philosophies with CRT: Critical Legal Theory, Feminism, Disability Theory, Queer Theory, and Child Studies. This, for them is a scare tactic. “If you agree with CRT, you’ll have to believe in feminism as well.” they say, knowing feminism is a scary boogie man for their audience. Most people, including me, don’t know anything about child studies, so they give us a brief description: “It means that children are oppressed by their parents.” This baffling descriptor seems untrue to me, and when she follows it up with, “What will happen to parents’ rights?” I become worried that she’s talking about anti-vaxxers. 

So. Black and white are the only categories that matter. Although gender matters too. And ableism matters too. And sexuality matters, and age matters. So perhaps CRT isn’t only about being black or white? This feels like a contradiction in our speakers’ premise. 

Again, I’m not qualified to talk about this, but I want to give my limited understanding on power imbalances. I think that’s what they’re actually talking about here. Regarding children: I’m a parent. I have power over my infant. It doesn’t always feel that way: if he’s crying and screaming, it feels like he’s the one in charge. Or if he falls asleep in my lap, I am “trapped” for an hour, unable to do my own thing. But, I’ve made a choice to be attached to my child 24/7. I have the power to do things quite differently. I could leave him in the crib all day (he lacks the power to get out) and barely care for his basic needs if I wanted to. Yes, he could yell, but I could leave the room and turn up the music. I can overpower him in absolutely every way. 

When you talk to a friend who lived through an abusive childhood, you don’t (I hope) ask them, “Why didn’t you do something?” We intuitively know children lack power. They may be too small to fight back, too scared to speak up, or too isolated to ask for help. Even as adults, abusive relationships can follow similar patterns (coercion, intimidation, emotional abuse- see Power and Control wheel.) Gender often plays a role in this because men have historically had more power than women.

Please notice though, that I’m not saying “Men are evil. Parents are evil. Babies should be in charge.” We can understand power imbalances with room for nuance. There are situations where a basic binary isn’t true. White people usually have more power than black people. But not in every situation. (A badge or a gun can change a power imbalance immediately.)

But we do know situations where people use their privilege and power for bad. Think about the viral video from 2020 between a black bird-watcher and a white dog walker. The white woman was the one breaking the rules (dog off leash.) But she was confident that if she called the police and lied that the man was threatening her (he wasn’t), he’d be the one arrested.

I have power over a person in a wheelchair when I’m climbing stairs and there’s no ramp. I have access (to school, city hall, the library, whatever it is) that they don’t have. My family member who works in disability services is the one who taught me the word “equity.” (I thought it was only about mortgages.) A staircase is already equality: we both have the same challenge. But only a ramp creates equity. She told me that certain professors at her university have disputes with disability services. Her department will say, “Student X is allowed an extra half hour on her tests.” The professor says, “No, that isn’t fair. Everyone gets an equal time on tests.” But fortunately, we have laws that empower the disability services department to get the student the help they need. 

In a different circumstance, maybe the person in a wheelchair has power over me because he’s my boss. I had a long conversation with a friend a few years ago about the power of being a boss and sexual assault.  My friend had empathy for a pastor accused of sexually assault. He imagined all the attractive young women in the office throwing themselves at him for years. “If that’s true, why not fire them? Or move them to a different office?” I wondered. The boss has the power. (An employee can also choose to quit, but there’s an economic punishment for that. And in this situation, there was enormous pressure from family and community to do whatever the pastor wanted, since he was considered to be God’s Anointed.)

 

In the New Testament, tax collectors were empowered by the Roman government to collect money and enrich themselves. But, also all their Jewish families and neighbors hated them and thought they were traitors. They got excluded from the community. Power is complicated. 

3.

My third frustration is the way Duson and Bontrager believe they are the only ones interpreting scripture correctly. I know everyone does this a bit. I have as well. But I’d like them to reconsider saying things like, “We have a solely Biblical perspective.” Two people can read the Bible and come out with quite different perspectives. (In fact, I could argue that any time two different people read the Bible, they’ll read it differently.) I especially felt concern about this when they said things about historical Christianity like, “scripture is clear: it’s about your own personal righteousness.” Ancient Christianity and Judaism were communal, not individualistic.

I understand that having a Biblical perspective is their goal. That’s a fair thing for a Christian to want to do. But when one claims to have achieved it, I find it prideful. It feels like dubbing yourself the arbiters of Christianity when you say, “CRT is antithetical to the gospel.” “The goal of CRT is to undermine and demolish Christian worldview and culture.”

Additionally, this turns into a purity contest. I felt there was a heavy implication that the Bible is all you need. I don’t understand the disdain for having secular sources of knowledge. Does the Bible tell us everything we need to know about medicine? About science? (I’m almost afraid to ask these questions because, again, anti-vaxxers may answer in the affirmative.) 

Bontrager even goes so far to say that everyone is reading too many books about the Bible- they need to just read the Bible. There’s an element of truth to that, BUT— if you fully believe that, why are you standing in front of a room giving an interpretive speech? You should just be reading the Bible to us. 

Let’s zip through what they think the Bible says about racism. First, “There’s only one race.” I think what they mean is that everyone is related. Yes, secular folk and religious folk agree on that. But I don’t find it that helpful for most racism related issues. Yes, race is a construct (it exists in our minds more than our biology) - but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. It deeply impacts people’s lives. We don’t solve problems about race by pretending race doesn’t exist. 

Next, Duson and Bontrager say that we Christians need to see each other FIRST as brothers and sisters, not as any other identity. That’s fine too- and I like the emphases on first. It leaves room for the fact that we do have other identities that matter to us as well. I’m not sure if our speakers think they matter- Duson made comments like, “I’m a women who happens to be black,” or “I live in brown skin” - which implies that being black is not important to her. That’s her choice- I’m not judging. But I hope she would allow other folks to believe their racial or ethnic group is important to them. I never thought about being white growing up. Whiteness was invisible, “normal.” I think it’s good to take some time to think about it. 

They also taught that the Bible has different standards for marginalized and oppressed than our world does: only the poor, widows, orphans, and foreigners count. However, Bontrager wanted to add disabled to the list. I’m not sure why she gets to add to the Bible if no one else does. Just looking at the Bible, I’d add biracial Samaritans, tax collectors, sex workers, eunuchs, lepers, second wives, hand maidens, infertile wives… (Maybe not everything in the Bible is easy to apply to contemporary society.)

They call racism “the sin of partiality.” This feels weak to me. I’m partial to green tea over black. I’m partial to brownies over cake. Partiality doesn’t explain why America is separating immigrant families at the border and locking them up in detention centers with unlivable conditions. Partiality doesn’t describe dehumanization or genocide. Some aspects of racism could be partiality, but it does not describe all.

Lastly, Duson and Bontrager stated that Jesus has already accomplished all that’s needed. They scorned CRT activists who want us to lament and repent, to perform acts of contrition, or who want to bring the kingdom of Heaven to earth. They said that trying to do racial reconciliation doesn’t work because it’s never enough. Activists always want more from you, they say. 

I find this version of Christianity off-putting. Yes, Jesus has accomplished the great task they we never could - sacrificing himself, defeating death, forgiving sins. But I feel like they are saying that next time I’m a jerk to my husband, I don’t have to apologize. That is not good relationship advice.

At this point, I feel like I’ve answered my question. Why build such an elaborate strawman of CRT? Yes, building a strawman lets a one “win” an argument, but if you are being honest with yourself, you know you aren’t being truthful. And I do think that our speakers want to be honest people. So I suspect (I can’t know for sure) that this core belief about the Bible is the problem. If the Bible is the only source of truth and understanding, CRT must be bad. So starting with the belief that CRT is bad, they may slowly distort and misinterpret each principal until it becomes unrecognizable, yet suitable for their purposes. 

We can toss Bible verses at each other all day, but I can’t change another's heart. I’ll pray for the Spirit to work. I’ll try to teach a clear understanding about what different beliefs are, and to be critical when they don’t line up with God’s heart. I’m sure CRT has flaws, and I know the social justice movement has flaws. That is something we can have a conversation about. But making up these distortions about the other side only sows confusion and disunity. Let’s be humble and see what we can learn from each other when we’re being honest. We can also learn from people who are different than both of us. God spoke to Gentiles, Magi, and Roman Centurions. I want to hear what God has to say. 

God has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” -Micah 6:8

text: a twitter quote from Phil Vischer @philvischer
If only we had fought racism with the same passion
we are now bringing to the fight against anti-racism.
Would there have been a need for an anti-racist movement?
The church allowed racism to flourish.
Now we're mad about secular solutions to a problem we wouldn't solve.  

Updates:

Critical Race Theory: An Overview and Appraisal from Emerging Scholars Network 

A debate between Neil Shenvi (Duson and Bontrager reference him) and Rasool Berry Unbelievable? Is Critical Race Theory Compatible with Christianity?

Why Nathan Cartagena Teaches Critical Race Theory to Evangelicals from Sojourners

What Christians get Wrong about Critical Race Theory from Faithfully Magazine

Framing Critical Race Theory from Christianity Today

Jeff Liou on Justice and Critical Race Theory from The Reclaim Podcast

Understanding Critical Race Theory: Part 1 from Missio Alliance

Unity or Overturned Tables?

 A response to: “Unity or Uproar? A Biblical Vision of Justice for a Divided Age” 

Speaker:  Dr. Thaddeus Williams

I feel like I need to confess that I start this review from a place of distrust and confusion. I know that the speaker and I disagree, but I’m distracted by his style of argument more than the essence of his arguments. I’m trying my best to understand, but frankly, he tends to be so vague and leave so much up to assumptions, that I am probably not representing his true thoughts or beliefs here. He’s a professor and a doctor, but I want to go over this talk with a red pen, slashing out the tangents and asking for citations in the margins. I suspect that he is not arguing in good faith, and that’s a bad place to start a discussion. I’ll try anyway. 

Social Justice Warriors

We open on an antagonistic note, because he’s talking about me. Not actually me, of course; he doesn’t know me. But a caricature that’s meant to be me. 

Dr. Williams explains: Before social justice got to people like me, I was “bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for the Gospel, excited for missions, shouting the good news of salvation. Grace alone, faith alone, in Christ alone, for God’s glory alone.”

But after, some ideologue convinced me that my “primary mission was to fight systemic injustice. The fruits of the spirit were replaced by resentment, rage, suspicion, assuming the worst of other’s motives, and a quickness to be offended.” 

And what’s worse? I’m not even just the “after” — I’m the ideologue who’s duping young people into believing these things. 

Okay, now that we’ve painted a picture of our divisions, let’s slow down. I want to start with compassion. When he describes these people, he makes it sound like they are personal friends of his. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, I’m sorry that he’s lost friendships. I feel the same way. Divisions among family in the faith are very painful. I stand with you in wanting unity. But, I want us to have true unity through justice and restoration: not to pretend that our issues can be ignored. 

“They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace.” -Jeremiah 6:14

"I’m offended"

This relates to the big issue about taking offense. Dr. Williams says, “In our day, it’s a virtue to be quick to take offense.” I find this to be an extraordinary claim. I would like him to provide examples: what teachers are saying this? I feel like he is saying this to poison the well. Now when I respond to him, no matter what I say, he can respond, “See? I told you. She takes offense to everything.” As if there aren’t things we need to speak up about. As if there aren’t injustices for us to fight. 

So I’m going to argue anyway. You can call it taking offense if you like. I don’t think it makes my arguments untrue. 

"Social Justice Work was Better in the Past"

Dr. Williams appeals to past glories when he talks about doing social justice work “the right way.” He brings up the examples of William Wilberforce and John Newton, whose abolitionist and political work ended slavery in the UK. A wonderful example, although I want to point out that the only protests that meet today’s approval are seated firmly in the past. If we lived then, are you quite sure you’d want their uproar over unity?

Later he makes an argument I find startling. (He may be quoting economist Thomas Sowell here.) “Conservative religious activists ended slavery.” “If they were alive today, we’d call them the Religious Right.” I don’t know who gets to claim Wilberforce (or the American abolitionists). I find it prideful to be so sure that they would be proud of you and everything you do. I’m not sure these historical figures fit that neatly into a conservative/liberal dichotomy. (I’m sure Wilberforce and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on many issues.) 

And Dr. Williams must have a very different definition of conservatism than I do. (I know some people who think to be conservative just means to be Christian, and perhaps that’s the whole argument here.) I think an important aspect of conservatism is about looking to the past: finding good things and maintaining (conserving) them. But that isn’t something we want to do with slavery. Wilberforce and his team looked toward the future. On this issue, the past was not something we want to keep. 

…let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. -Hebrews 12:1b-2a

I think he is attempting to make a valid point that Christians, throughout history, have done good things for the cause of justice. I agree. (If you’d like to read more about Wilberforce or other historical Christians who’ve done social justice work, here are links on this blog.) However, this history is not an excuse to ignore the oppression and injustice caused by Christians. American abolitionists were not called “Bible-believing Christians” in their day, like he suggests. They were the heretics. Slave-owners were the ones who took the Bible “literally.” There are still pastors today who will defend slavery. 

"I’m suspicious"

But enough about conservatives vs. liberals. Dr. Williams wants to stop such divisions. (Or he wants all Christians to join him on the correct side of the political spectrum. I’m not sure.) A main point of his social justice work is that we shouldn’t have group identities. (Or perhaps that our group identities shouldn’t be very important. Again, it’s hard to tell what he’s saying.)

I was raised to be “colorblind,” a simplistic interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that “people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In my education, this meant ignoring people’s color and ethnicity. (I would argue this was not King’s intention.) Thus, things like “Black Pride” or “Native Pride” seem offensive to colorblind white folk, who are steadfastly pretending that we have no differences. Colorblindness also helps us ignore injustice: someone recently told me that the first thing I should do to solve the disproportionate incarceration of black and brown people would be to stop talking about it. 

Maybe that is part of Dr. William’s argument. When he describes it in more detail, it seems further and further from the reality I know. He describes a table where modern social justice divides people. “You can’t sit by Bob. Bob isn’t your brother in Christ. He’s a Roman oppressor.” 

Again, if Dr. Williams has had this experience, I’m sorry for it. But no one has ever told me, “You’re a white oppressor. We can’t sit together.” And even if they did, I don’t understand why this would be interpreted as a core teaching of modern social justice. I would interpret it as a hurt person trying to protect themselves. It’s not the aim of social justice – but one of the steps along the way is that, as a white person, if I need to give somebody space to do their healing, I’m going to give them space. I don’t need to force them to have a relationship with me. I hope for a relationship in the future. 

Also… if you have had this experience, it may be a good time to ask yourself where you tried to sit at the table. 

“When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited.  If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” -Luke 14:8-11

If you have the opportunity to spend time with people who are different than you, come as a learner and a servant, not as a leader or preacher. 

Gender is a useful comparison here. As a woman, there are times and situations where I feel unsafe around men. This doesn’t mean I hate men, or think all men are out to get me. But if I’m walking along at night, and a man starts following me, will you really begrudge me for being a bit fearful?

This may relate to Dr. William’s multiple references to suspicion. I think he’s saying that modern social justice teaches us to be suspicious of anyone outside our race. As I’m mulling this over, two examples come to mind. First, “Stop and Frisk.” This contentious police policy allowed officers to stop anyone they thought was suspicious, and search them for a weapon. Not surprisingly, the police primarily found people of color to be inherently suspicious, and stopped them at much greater rates. (This did not create a good relationship between the police and the people they were meant to serve.) 

The second example of suspicion goes the other way around, when someone who has been stopped by police are afraid for their life. They are suspicious that the cops aren’t going to treat them well. This goes against my upbringing: I was always told that the police were my friends, and I could go to them if I needed help. I didn’t know other groups of people were teaching their children how to be extra careful around the police, because they had the power to harm them. I was startled when I heard this report from LeVar Burton, one of my childhood heroes, whose race I never considered, because his interactions with the police were so much more cautious and fearful than mine.  

Yes, we dream of a future where both kinds of suspicion are gone. But this is a situation where the people in power have to surrender their suspicion first. 

"I’m aggrieved"

Dr. William’s complains about a “game of historical grievances” as if this isn’t people’s reality in the present. He provides some articles as evidence. I read, “Can My Children Be Friends with White People?” It’s a poignant article. Of course there is hurt, but not only does the author admit that he does still have white friends, he also says the real problem is the actions or inactions of white friends, more so than their ethnicity. (The article is framed around Trump supporters. Dr. Williams does not address this topic in this talk.) “White People are Cowards” is also a thoughtful article. “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” was weaker; she makes good points with a bad conclusion. (I wouldn’t call these articles “mainstream” like he does. Opinion pieces are meant to be provocative.) Dr. Williams doesn’t actually address any of the points from these articles (which would have been interesting.) I think he was mostly using the titles to stir up offense in his audience.

“All have sinned and fallen short,” Dr. Williams quotes Romans 3:23. “Not ‘white people,’ not ‘economically privileged,’ not ‘straight people,’ not ‘capitalists,’ not ‘cops.’ All have sinned.” This is the point where I start banging my head. It deeply shows how he and I read the Bible differently. Yes, all have sinned. (Yes, white people, rich people, etc…) But I won’t pretend the Bible doesn’t put people in categories. 

Have you read the Beattitudes?  “Jesus said: Blessed are the poor in spirit… Blessed are those who mourn… Blessed are the meek… Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness… Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness…” from Matthew 5 

Or maybe read the Magnificat? Mary said: “God has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.” (Luke 1:52-53) 

Scorning the idea that “White people have sinned and fallen short” has the taste of entitlement to me. It feels like reading the scripture and rather than saying, “Wow, I’ve fallen short too.” turning and looking at your neighbor and saying, “You’ve fallen short. You’re no better than me.” Why does Dr. Williams feel a need to reassure his audience? Why inoculate them from feeling shame? It’s a comforting talk that makes you feel better about yourself, sure, but I don’t see it leading to unity. 

Fruits

Dr. Williams makes a good point about the Fruits of the Spirit. I agree, social justice work should be full of fruit.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” -Galatians 5:22-23a

I recently heard a progressive Christian share a talk that was such a beautiful, bright picture of the future that it actually brought me to tears. I praised Jesus for giving hope in divided times. I prayed for true unity.

If you haven’t seen the fruits of the Spirit in my social justice work, I apologize. That genuinely gives me a lot of remorse. But if you don’t see Fruit in the movement… you aren’t looking. I’ve heard from so many inspiring teachers. I’m not a part of this because I’m driven by anger (even though anger can be healthy and important). I’m driven by a vision of a better future. I have hope in Jesus that the whole world is redeemable. “in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God… the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth.. -see Romans 8:19-27 

Yes, my view on the Gospel has changed. My faith is no longer an other-worldly construct where praying the prayer of salvation, and getting others to pray it, is my only task as a believer. I take Jesus at his word when he says his mission statement:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” -Luke 4:18-19

We actually want good news for the poor: an end to poverty. We actually want freedom for the prisoners: ending America’s bloated incarceration system. We actually want sight for the blind: healthcare for all people. Peace, patience, kindness, self-control are all deeply wrapped up in the dream for a better world. It can’t be done without love, joy, and faithfulness. But change will take some uproar too. 

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.  “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’” -Matthew 21:12-13

A conversation about sexual assault and churches

A conversation about systemic sin, sexual abuse, rape, and consent, especially in churches.

I’m a married woman in my early 30s, R is an unmarried man in his 30s. I volunteer minister to college students; R works full time and ministers to refugees and immigrants several hours a week.

Content note: reading this may be upsetting for some people, discussing rape, sexual assault, victim blaming, and more. 

This conversation has been heavily cut down from the original. I’ve added bold to significant statements. I’m sharing this conversation with permission. 

Ginger
Here's another systemic church example that is upsetting- women who've experienced sexual harassment or assault from leaders being told- "Don't tell anyone cause you'll harm his ministry and he's doing the Lord's work!" Both the leader and the advice-giver are sinning, but there's a deeper cultural church problem where that would be a common or acceptable answer

R
Yea, it’s a sin and very systemic, one of the big ones. I bet you could find 1000 examples of it in history, but to leave a church because of it seems even worse. Remember when King David did this? The whole nation was outraged. David’s own son took power from him and it took a civil war to restore David to power. Leaders sin, they are human, so a path to reconciliation must exist. If not, God’s appointed might get rejected by the people and be unable to use his gifts. We shouldn't tolerate sin, but neither should we demand perfection. Rebuke and correct, then forgive but don't forget. I would welcome the chance to meet King David, but if I was married I wouldn't let him spend time alone with my wife. I wouldn't reject someone because I knew they had sinned. I work with adulterers and murders, and I will help them be as good and successful as possible. Imagine the world we would live in if the whole church closed its doors to those who sinned or had bad theology. Fight the sin, fight the ideology, but don't reject humans because they sin, only if they propagate sin. If in the above example once it was exposed everyone apologized and repented I would stay and help clean up the mess. If they declared their actions justified, or denied that they occurred I might leave or force him out, but I would respond if they repented in the future and needed help.

G
I see what you are saying- I do believe in forgiveness and reconciliation. But Christian culture loves to forgive people in power and stigmatize the marginalized. You make a good example with David, but if you can't trust him with your wife, why would you believe that he repented? A man who can't be trusted with a woman shouldn't be trusted with leadership.
Look up Bill Gothard for a good (aka bad) example of this

R
My mom loved his preaching, so I actually grew up going to Bill Gothard conferences, watching his chalk talks and reading his stuff. Haven't heard the name in 20 years and it looks like the scandal is recent.

G
Yeah, my [extended family] knew about him back in the day too.
The worst part for me was reading this worksheet for counseling sexual abuse victims http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Counseling_Sexual_Abuse.jpeg

R
What did you not like about the worksheet? Some weird stuff like bringing eunuchs into the picture. That's a bit outdated of an example. But it does have a good focus on reporting and confessing which most sex abuse things sweep under the rug.
Wow, I cannot believe that girl [one of Gothard’s accusers] didn't see anything wrong with him giving her money to buy sexy bras. If your boss asked you this, would you comply? Not to justify his request, but you can't just comply with requests like that. Anyway rant aside and back to your main point, women do sometimes comply when men make outrageous demands. Why they do doesn't matter. So what do you think should happen to women who are taken advantage of? I assume you think the laws are too weak. That article indicated that she would be unable to win her case in a court of law thought it incorrectly stated the reason was the statute of limitations. (If she is underage there is no statue of limitations) I assume you think she should win her case, what should she be awarded. If you were the judge of the case what would your verdict be? Related question, what should happen if a slut deliberately seduces, or inappropriately touches a powerful man? Does the direction of affection matter? Is the man just as guilty as if he seduced the woman?

G
The direction matters because of power imbalances. If an employee is inappropriate with a boss, the boss can fire them, or distance themselves from them with some ease. If a boss is inappropriate with an employee, that person isn't sure how to respond. Do I report them? What if it was just something small, (like Gothard playing footsie?) Maybe she can't afford to lose this job. Maybe people will be angry with her if she says anything bad about the boss. Maybe people won't believe her. Seduction is about lust- abuse is about fear. Do you know much about the dynamics of abuse? I can send some links- I think it's something everyone should know about. A key aspect of abuse in the Gothard story is grooming: he would do small inappropriate things, mixed with kindness, to tear down confidence and defenses. The first time he caresses her, she draws away. She tells herself it was a mistake and didn't mean anything. The second time, she feels bad for not speaking up the first time, and that paralyzes her. By the time he's telling a girl to buy a sexy bra, she's already scared and ashamed. She realizes she should tell someone, but after months of footsie and hair touching, she feels guilty, just like he wants her to feel. The abuser also grooms everyone around him to think he's an upstanding man- when they do hear an accusation, they don't believe it. And they do, they blame the scared 15 year old girl rather than the conniving 60 year old man, who people revere.
(I should have also said abuse is about control, not lust)
Here's a page about grooming, better than my explanation
https://www.abuseandrelationships.org/Content/Behaviors/grooming.html

R
Grooming for abuse sounds A LOT like dating. For example I bet your husband held your hand before kissing you. I bet he didn't walk up and say, hey you look nice; let’s have sex. The differences between grooming for abuse and grooming for friendship or romance seem almost trivial, until the abuse occurs. If you outlaw these "grooming" items would you be married today? To me more of the problem is putting a guy in a room with dozens of attractive women who fawn over him for 30 years without any real oversight. It’s like giving one man unrestricted and unmonitored access to the company bank account for 30 years, its just a bad idea.
What did you not like about the worksheet?

G
I feel there is a strong implication that sexual abuse damages the body, not the soul. (Saying the offender only damaged the body, but the victim damages her soul with guilt and bitterness.) Abuse damages every part of you. The mental, psychological, and spiritual abuse can be MUCH worse than punching or than intercourse.
I'm saying the pain of assault goes really deep and hurts you in ways that don't show on the outside. Bruises and cuts heal- but fear, shame, and other trauma change the way your mind works, the choices you make, the way you value yourself, your trust in God.
Next, there's a lot of work to blame the victim. No one is raped because of immodest dress or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A rapist makes the choice to rape. The clothing didn't make him do it. Yes, there is danger in certain situations, like being drunk at a party. However, if Girl A wasn't drunk at the party, the rapist would have simply raped Girl B instead. In the Gothard case, it's distressing because the girls were working a job in a Christian setting. They dressed very modestly, like the Duggar girls. They thought they were under the "umbrella of protection." [a Gothard teaching] They didn't realize that the person everyone trusted to protect them was the one mostly likely to hurt them. (That's usually the case- most women are raped by someone they know and trust, not a stranger in a dark alley.)

R
I highly disagree your statement. "No one is raped because of immodest dress or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.” A rapist makes a choice, because of this women are raped for all manner of reasons, including their clothing and their location, all the time. I can show the counter point most clearly by taking the issue to an extreme, if no woman was ever present at the location a rape occurs, none would ever occur. Clothing and location does not cause rape, but certain clothing choices and locations make it much more likely. It is like wandering dark alleys proclaiming you have $1,000 on you. It does not cause robbery, and it does not excuse the robbers, but it’s just a stupid thing to do. If you’re at a party where lots of sex is happening and a guy can see your breasts and up your blouse, you’re being stupid, especially if you wander off with him to a room alone. Remember it doesn’t take a conscious choice to rape someone. Even animals, and mindless beasts rape. Not raping someone when you want to takes a conscious choice, trust me sometimes it is a VERY conscious choice. Women use this all the time to hook men who otherwise wouldn't be interested in them.
…But you are correct, women are often abused by people they trust. I wouldn't say they are the one most likely to hurt them but it does happen a lot. This is usually men being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his sin hurting another. This is often caused by male pride, saying I can handle a little temptation, and perhaps the first few times they can, then one day they just don't. I have lines I won't cross, like sleeping alone in the same room as an attractive woman. I have bought hotel rooms and slept on concrete floors to avoid it. I am sure I could resist the temptation but I also wouldn't be surprised if I didn't. If you notice it was Bill Gothard being alone with a woman that got him sacked. Not the belief that he actually abused a woman but the knowledge that he could have and was tempted to do so. Every guy should know not to be in that situation. I would give myself no chance of lasting 30 years in an office full of beautiful women fawning over me without doing something wrong.

G
I know this is a complicated point to make- I think about it really differently than the way I used to, or the way churches taught me. If "modest" woman get raped, doesn't that prove that rape isn't about clothes? Woman is burkas get raped. Children in carefree kid's clothes get raped.
Yet, women in nudist colonies aren’t constantly getting raped. Women wearing bikinis on the beach aren't constantly getting raped.
You brought yourself into these examples- do you think there is any situation where you'd have sex with a woman who said she didn't want to have sex with you? Do you consider yourself a mindless beast, operating on instinct? I have a high opinion of men. I think they are fully capable of refraining.
I think you might be considering your doubts about yourself with what you might be tempted to do with a willing partner. If a woman in your office was really fawning over you, and you invited her into something sexual, it would still be fornication, but it wouldn't be rape.
I realize most rapists aren't walking around thinking, "I wonder who I should rape tonight?" Once you use that word, it sounds wrong. But they are thinking, "I'm having sex with her," and not considering whether or not she also wants to have sex with him.
How does the church deal with it? Unfortunately, most churches have no plan for dealing with this sort of thing. I think they should encourage and support the victim if she choses to report to authorities. I think they should find her good counseling. They should make sure she is safe and protected from her abuser- whether that's a change in living situation, job, etc. If the offender is a leader in the church, he should be removed from his position of power. Often, I would remove him from church membership entirely. I would encourage him to seek help- counseling, or whatever, but prioritizing helping the one who has been hurt is more important than saving the abuser. (Especially since abusers are very skillful at false repentance.)

R
You say they should support the victim, who is that? Most of the time its a “he said / she said” case, like with Bill Gothard. You have to pick the one you believe without evidence. Recall the story of Potiphar's wife, if a woman is angry she will do anything to hurt a man. Plus this relies on memory, which is not very accurate. If you doubt this ask two kids who got in a fight who started it, even if they both believe they are telling the truth they are probably both wrong. Plus it gets worse as time passes a skilled advertiser can change someone memory, most famously in 16% of people exposed to adds about meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney World believed they had met him there as a kid. (Bugs is Loony Tunes not Disney) https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/BraunPsychMarket02.pdf
If you can prove rape the problem is easy, and your solution sounds reasonable, but what if you cannot? Just because you cannot prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen, but by the same token just because rape is claimed doesn't mean it occurred. What do you do in this case? Personally I would not condemn anyone, either the man or the woman.

G
Responding to your comment: ”Grooming for abuse sounds A LOT like dating."
This really distresses me, so I hope I'm not too incoherent here. The difference- a huge, key, obvious different, that everyone should know about but doesn't- is CONSENT. Holding hands with someone you like is delightful. Holding hands with someone you don't want to be with is scary. The easiest way to find out the difference is to ASK. Use your words. If I could give every guy this advice, I'd say the best thing is say, "I like you. I'm interested in you. Can we go out? Would you be my girlfriend? Can I hold your hand? Can I kiss you?" 

R
This is not the cultural norm. This is no where close to the cultural norm. It might be better than the norm but its not the norm. You can’t judge people based of how you would do it. I would also change the system if I could. I think everyone has their idea on the way it “should be.” Sadly they are all different systems.

G
Isn't it weird that communication isn't the cultural norm? It’s “normal” to force someone to do what you want and then see how they react? We should be sad about this.
I was pleasantly surprised when I was re-watching "Hitch" recently- Will's character was teaching a man how to get a woman, and one piece of advice was about kissing. He said, "You go 90% and let her go 10%" as he leans into a kiss. Although he didn't use words, it seemed like a good way to communicate the desire for a kiss without forcing one on someone else. They have an opportunity to turn away or to close the gap.
There's probably other good ways to do it- I'm not saying every single person has to say "Can I kiss you?" But everyone should make a system based on communication and consent.
I know that all our movies and sexy stories make it seem like people just fall into bed together- and even worse, we have tons of stories about one person pressuring and manipulating the other to date them and it all works out- but it's also very like that the person being coerced is scared feels guilty and doubtful.
This does sound like the bad side of dating to me- I had guys slide their hands up my legs, push my boundaries, expose themselves, and more. Without asking, communicating, and considering that I'd already been clear about what I wanted. But because I didn't understand consent then, I always ended up thinking it was MY fault- and I treated other women the same way with their similar problems. That's what I regret.
Yes, there is a progression of physical intimacy in most dating relationships. But some people want it and others don't. In the Gothard example, we're dealing with teen girls. Even if they were "fawning over him" (which I doubt, given the age difference) - they are legally unable to consent. The power imbalance is too great, and teens and children are easier to manipulate. Yes, Gothard should have had better oversight, but it also seems like many people knew and did nothing about it.
Grooming is about coercion and deception. Dating should be about communication and respect.

R
Yes dating SHOULD be about communication and respect, but let’s be honest its sometimes not. And many women like it that way. You were offended that guys slid their hands up your legs, well other girls are turned on by that kind of thing. Who is right? In America everyone decides for themselves. Was the guy who slid his hand up your leg a creep because he slid his hand up a woman's leg or because he slid his hand up YOUR leg? America has no standards and rules are flexible based on who is involved. You say you think verbal agreements should be made, what if the guy’s last girlfriend hated those? You must judge by society’s standard, and what kind of madness is that standard? It’s “free sex.”
Let me say this clearly, in a world with “Free sex” where anyone can have sex with anyone at any time things like “rape” get very vague. What is consent? Who decides it? Ultimately it is the guy. If he thinks the girl has given him consent he can have sex with her. If he guesses right its romantic, if he guesses wrong it’s rape. Its a judgment call. Most of the time it depends on the attractiveness of the man if the action is creepy or romantic. Let me say that again to be clear, if two men do the exact same thing to a woman one can be rape and the other romantic based on how nice his hair looks. This is acceptable to society. What practical impact does this have, the more drinks a guy has had the more likely it is that you have given him your consent. It is very important for women to realize this. Many women love this system, in fact the current rules were developed by feminists, and they just think some guys are born rapists. Much of the time this isn't true, some guys are just uglier than they think, or stupid or drunk and think they are following the rules. Plus women have different tastes. This is why you hear guys say things like “she wanted it” and they are believed. Many people have met a woman who would have “wanted it” in similar circumstance. This upsets people who haven't met such people. Classic example is 50 Shades of Gray. It horrifies some people, but lots of women think it romantic.

G
I agree that many women like having a man slide his hand up her skirt- but that doesn't mean she doesn't like communication and respect. She has different rules for her body than my rules. She wants her rules to be respected just like I want my rules to be respected. Can you provide an example of a woman who doesn't like communication and respect? (In real life. Like I said before, our fiction world does a terrible job of this.)
Don't guess! Ask! I feel like you are saying that an attractive man can get away with raping more women than an unattractive man. Yes, women have different tastes. Communicate about it. It's not an excuse for sex.
50 Shades of Gray is a great example- I'm glad you brought it up. I am sad that many women think that book is romantic. (I think if many of them were living it rather than reading it, they might be more aware of how abusive it is.) Interestingly, the BDSM community has done a great job speaking out against that book- they were pretty angry to be represented that way. People who get off on pain and things like that take boundaries very seriously.
Even if someone does love 50 Shades, they could still communicate by telling their partner they love that book and would like to act it out. But any guy who say, "Women love that book- I'm going to treat a woman that way" is headed down a bad path.
Lastly, don't think of sex as something a man does to a woman. It should be something they do together.

R
I consider rape to be sex without authority to do so.
Generally we discuss it in the context of society, so legal authority. This is because the legal authority is the agreed upon standards which society has agreed to uphold. Note: much immorality is not covered by the term "rape." What is your definition.

G
Both people have authority over their own bodies and need to agree to have sex.
Yes, ultimately God has authority over our bodies, but God gave us stewardship and free will.
There are situations where consent isn't able to be given: children can't give consent to sex, adults can't have sex with teens, mentally handicapped to caregivers, prisoners to guards, etc. A unconscious person can't consent to sex. A person who is drugged or drunk can't consent. 

R
What do you believe consent to be, and who gives it? Can a good man ever think he has consent but doesn’t?

G
I do think men have thought they had consent, or that they didn't need it. Because we have bad teaching on this subject- like we've said before about "romantic" stories where men keep pressuring women to love them until they do.

R
The clearest case is the issue of dress. To me its super easy to say don't wear revealing clothing that turns guys on.

G
What kind of clothing turns guys on? It's different for everyone. Trying to not turn on men with one's clothing is an impossible goal. One person says don't show any cleavage. Another says that yoga pants are wicked. Another says modest women only wear skirts. Trying to be modest and please everyone is an impossible standard. Here's a good list of how impossible these rules are: https://kateschell.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/ip-rules/ 

R
That link is clearly a joke, your case would be stronger if you found some draconian dress code, which I am sure exists. But I will agree it is funny because it is based on truth. I will point out that dressing like a nun seems to cover all these points, so if you want to be a super Christian in the eyes of all it’s easy to follow all those restrictions. But on a practical point, most women actually seek out clothing that turns guys on, because it turns guys on. Ask a woman if her outfit is sexy. If she says yes, she is intentionally encouraging guys to try to have sex with her. If a woman thinks she is dressed modestly and is not sexy, I would accept that she is properly dressed. Again women dressing sexy does not cause guy to act sexy, but I do believe a correlation exists.

G
No, it's not easy to follow all these restrictions, because everyone disagrees about where the line should be drawn. You could dress like a nun, but some men have a nun fetish. Bill Gothard's girls dressed like that- all long skirts.
I see you are switching to focus on intentions- if a women is trying to arouse a man. I think it's not good to make assumptions. For many years, I haven't worn shorts (outside of gym). I was told when I was a teen that my long legs were too sexy and needed to be covered up. I was mortified. Now that I'm living in Hawaii, I finally bought some shorts. It's hot outside! and inside my house! Although I don't wear shorts to work because I don't think it's office professional, I'm wearing shorts a lot. I love it! Both because it's cooler, and because I feel freedom from being ashamed of my legs and fearing that I was being sinful. But that's not all. I do like the way my legs look. I don't think my body is sinful anymore. It feels nice to like my body, but it has nothing to do with encouraging men to have sex with me. My body isn't public property.
Even for women who are trying to get attention from men, that doesn't meant they want every single man to feel entitled to her. A women might be looking for sex, but men still have to ask permission, not just start raping her.
There's NO reason to assume a stranger wants to have sex with you unless you've had a conversation about it. 

R
I question this, so you really believe that everyone who has consensual sex has a conversation about it ahead of time? Watch the TV that teens emulate and tell me if this is true. Especially chick flicks violate this rule. Women should expect guys to act the way society says normal guys should be. I am not saying society’s rules are good, but that they should be expected and planned for.

G
Yes. I hate how click flicks portray this.
That's what we call rape culture.
That's why I'm trying to make cultural change.
And really- even without words- you should be able to tell if the person you are having sex with isn't enjoying it. If they are unconscious, or too drunk or drugged to be clear headed, if they are crying, if they are staring into the void, if they are fighting back, if they are only following instructions without giving any input... It's hard for me to have compassion for guys who "accidentally" rape someone. I do identify it as a systemic problem more than a personal problem, because our culture and media teaches us that "no doesn't mean no." But they should still know better.
The only people who enjoy having sex with someone who isn't enjoying having sex with them are rapists. They are getting off on the power and control, not love or lust. 

R
Do you really think guys can't get self absorbed in themselves and not notice they are hurting someone? Again to the TV watch any guy action flick and you will likely see him go berserk when he gets passionate. But I do think what we have here is another clear point of disagreement, does rape involve a women not being satisfied? Your statement seems to imply that if a guy takes a women without her consent but she enjoys the experience and is pleased at the end its not rape. Now combine this thought with the belief that many men have, that they are super studs and all women love them, with a belief that if a women enjoys it, then it’s not rape.
FYI culture and media don't teach men that no doesn't mean no, it’s women that teach that lesson. Sadly lots of women do say no when they mean yes, I can tell you many stories. Those women exist, and they make it harder for those who say what they mean.

G
If a women says no when she means yes, respect the No. Maybe she'll be sad that she didn't get to have sex, but that can start a change for her to start communicating properly in the future.
Yes, I think guys can get self absorbed and not notice they are hurting someone. So? It's rape, or at the very least, bad sex. Like I said before, sex is something two people do together, not something one person does to another person.
It really distresses me that Christian men don't take this more seriously. They should care about this. Why is it that an atheist, nudist man who practices BDSM can care about consent and will refrain from sex because his partner doesn't want it, but a Christian man will rape or at least defend rapists?

R
Lets bring back up Bill Gothard, and Bill Cosby, both men who have not yet been proven did anything wrong, but have only been accused of abuse. Is the correct action respect and acceptance for those who bring serious accusations against people, or should it be skepticism?

G
Certainly there is a healthy level of skepticism. I think Gothard and Cosby have moved far beyond that level. If you believe that many women are lying, it must be a conspiracy, and you would need a lot of evidence for that. 

R
Far beyond a healthy level of skepticism? (That is me expressing extreme amazement, I am actually offended that you said this. This is the only thing you have said that has offended me) Correct me if I am wrong but a jury (which was approved by the prosecution) listened to the case of Bill Cosby and refused to condemn him. Normal people looked at the facts and the verdict was split. Are the jurors stupid? Why is it clear to you but not to the jurors who have reviewed the case in detail and heard both sides? Its a complex case, like they all are. Cases like this are only simple on internet blogs. Full disclosure I know almost nothing about this case but I hate trial by Facebook. People who read an article and jump to conclusions before hearing the other side of the story don't do any good. Don't make cases like Bill's turn into cases like Leo Frank's. Be a skeptic.

G
I'm sorry to offend you. I am confused though. I believe the testimony of dozens of women. You believe the testimony of two men. Why is my position offensive?
I don't think the jurors are stupid, but they live in a culture where we say that raped women are asking for it. I don't see why I need to agree with the results of every trial. Leo Frank got a bad trial- I don't agree with the decision his jury made either. 

R
Sure, I agree I work with refugees and have to deal with the messed up system. But it is better than any other I have seen or heard of. That's why I don't want to bash it, I know what other systems exist, and what would happen if certain policies were introduced. So I have a deep fear of any system other than our own. 

G
I admire the work you do.
I'm not discarding our whole system.
You also mentioned David before. I was always taught Bathsheba was a slut in that story- now I'm frustrated that adults portrayed her that way. It's victim blaming. The story is clear that she was doing a ceremonial bathing, required by law, after her period. She wasn't showing off hoping to get noticed. And if the King asks for you to come to the palace and have sex with him, you don't have any choice in the matter. It's rape, not an affair. 

R
Yea, I have heard the Bathsheba was a slut story before as well. I don't really believe it but I also don't believe your story that she was ceremonially washing either. The bible is unclear, it neither claims she was a slut or ceremonial washing. Truth be told her actions really are not relevant to the story so they are left out. If she was a slut, David shouldn't have slept with her. If she wasn't a slut, David shouldn't have slept with her. 

G
The Bible isn't unclear on this point, it says it. 2 Samuel 11:14 "Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness."
It's like the article I posted above- it matters that that girl didn't chose to have sex with her pastor. She carried around guilt and was blamed by her community for something that wasn't her fault. This is so damaging. The church should care. 

R
I have friends who are both rapists and those who have been raped. I know of people who have been falsely accused of rape and those who have committed rape and had no punishment. I think God has a plan for them all, even if some of them will need punishment.
As for the rapists I think once a prescribed punishment is complete they should be forgiven. My example is King David. After he did his raping the High Priest publicly condemned him. David repented and was punished by God. Then some of his subjects didn't forgive him and tried to overthrow him and they found themselves fighting God. Also remember this was the "Man after God's Own Heart" a Godly man and Godly leader who raped that woman. When you think of rapists remember he was one, they aren’t some vile breed of immoral men. Just men who do immoral things.

G
David repented. That's key.

R
As for those raped I think they should be supported as we are able. Doing so its like supporting Christ, as it is written "When did we see you thirsty and give you a drink"
Overall I think that many “rapist” like Joseph deserve the benefit of the doubt. Even the guilty ones like King David sometimes deserve a second chance. This is not meant to excuse rape, I would support extreme penalties for extreme cases. Some men just take advantage of women, but to the counterpoint some women go out looking to be taken advantage of. Good women shouldn't emulate loose women. Women should expect men to act within the norm of society. Sadly “rape” is part of the norm, women need to be prepared for some normal guy to come on to them and avoid the normal pitfalls. Hoping it wont happen isn't much of a solution. Punishing men is a long term way to change what the normal guy is. However I would try to insure the guys like Leo Frank get a fair trial and are not convicted because people know that “those kinds of people do that kind of thing.” Social media can distort things as in The Affair of the Diamond Necklace, sometimes people are convicted in the court of public opinion solely because one side is louder and more popular. 

G
Thanks for discussing it with me. It does seem like we're reaching an impasse.
I do think it's good to discuss- sex was a taboo subject for me growing up.