More people talk about God than know about God. When it comes to God, we are all, as Marilynne Robinson says, biased toward error.
1. Suffering and the Book of Job.
That’s one of the points of the Book of Job. Job was a righteous man. God loved him. God boasted of him. But God permitted Satan to afflict him. And Satan afflicted him. It was a mauling.
As grief flayed a ruined Job, Job’s friends added to Job’s suffering by pouring the salt of their theology over his raw, wounded spirit. They said that God himself had ruined Job, and that God was in the right. They told Job that it followed that Job was in the wrong. Job defended himself to his friends and to his God.
At the end of the Book of Job, God restores Job. At the end, God addresses Job’s friends. He tells them that they are wrong and Job is right. He commands them to go to Job and offer up a sacrifice of seven bulls and seven rams. God tells them that Job will pray for them, and that God will not deal with them according to their folly, because God will hear the prayers of Job.
2. Richard Mourdock, rape, and the will of God.
Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said, "[E]ven when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Based on this belief, he justifies denying a woman the right to end a pregnancy in a case of rape.
Now, that is not quite blaming the victim; that does not go quite as far as Job’s friends. But it’s not only that Job’s friends judged Job. It’s also that they presumed to tell a person who suffered why he was suffering. In saying what he said, Mourdock sits in the seat of Job’s friends.
But suffering-and-God’s-will is a great mystery. Maybe it’s a mystery that cannot be explained, only known, and only known by experience and reflection.
Everybody should be humble about the suffering of others. That's Job. Certainly, we should be careful about giving to one who suffers the book on suffering.
I’m glad for my suffering. It has made me, by the grace of God, wiser. And it gives me a little knowledge of suffering. But if a friend of mine suffers, I hope that I would have the wisdom and compassion to weep with them, rather then to piously heap on them my pious ideas.
4. Some questions for Mr. Mourdock.
And it’s not the case that Mr. Mourdock’s ideas about God are self-evident. Some questions arise about Mr. Mourdock’s theology. If rape is the will of God, does somebody who talks a would-be rapist out of raping thwart the will of God? Or is the fact that an intention is carried out proof that God willed that act? If that’s true, why would a rapist’s choice be the will of God, but a woman’s choice after rape would not be?
5. Suffering.
I’m going to do the thing I speak against. I’m going to dip into theology of suffering.
The Book of Job notwithstanding, the idea of blame for suffering persists, and it persisted in the time of Jesus. Jesus’s disciples saw a man born blind, and they asked Jesus, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2 (NIV).)
Jesus replied, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him." Then he spat on the ground, made mud with the spit, and pasted it on the blind man’s eyes. Then he told the man to wash the mud in a particular pool. The man gained sight.
This account says tells me that suffering doesn’t call for empty speculation; it calls for mercy and action.
6. Mercy.
Job’s friends put themselves at the mercy of Job and God. Mourdock puts himself at the mercy of rape victims and God. He needs to make his propitiation to God, and he needs to hope for the prayers of victims of rape all over the world and across time. Their pain is not fuel for him to burn under them for their choices.
If those who have been raped, and especially those who have been raped and who have had to make hard choices after being raped – if those women have the good and strong heart to forgive Richard Mourdock and to pray for him, God bless them.
Showing posts with label Rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rape. Show all posts
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
Legitimate Rape, Forcible Rape, and Rape
An old, dead debate is clawing up out of the ground: whether a woman who can’t show two black eyes and missing teeth or the legal equivalent of that was really raped.
That debate was called back by Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin and his reference to "legitimate rape". But that reference led to a search for the position of other Republican candidates. That search led to the discovery that Akin and Paul Ryan had co-sponsored the so-called "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act". That bill proposed to limit the rape-exception in a ban on government-funded abortions. The bill proposed to limit the exception from rape to "forcible rape". That language that narrowed the definition of rape eventually was dropped from the bill.
So there we go. What’s old becomes new. But the answers to this old argument have been around for over three decades. In fact, we can find answers in a case that was decided by the California Supreme Court that talks about rape law in California.
1. Threats, coercion, and sex.
Juoquin sold marijuana. Marsha smoked a little marijuana with Juoquin at his house. After 10-15 minutes, he started to hug Marsha. She pushed him away and told him to stop. He had overstepped, but she didn’t think that it was any big deal. But he kept on hitting on her, so she told him that she wanted to go.
He told her that he didn’t want her to go. But she got up, left the house, and went to the front gate.
Things turned hostile outside. He yelled at her. He refused to open the gate, and she didn’t know how to open it herself. Then he said that he would open the gate, but that he wanted to put on his shoes first. She followed him inside.
Inside, he continued bullying her. Several times, he reared back his fist like he was going to hit her. He told her that he was a man. He flexed his arm muscles. He grabbed her sweater collar and told her that with one hand he could lift her up and throw her out.
He boasted. He said, "I had bitches do anything I want. I have had bitches suck me . . . I have had them do that. I can make you do anything I want. You understand me?" He said, "You're so used to see[ing] the good side of me. Now you get to see the bad." She expected him to hit her.
She was afraid. About 40 minutes after she followed him back inside, he turned affectionate and started hugging her. She thought that he was psychotic. She decided to act as if she were going along with what he wanted.
Then he said that he wanted sex. He told her to take off her clothes. She refused. He said that she was going to make him angry. She took off her clothes. They had sex
2. Criminal courts.
In Superior Court, the jurors convicted Juoquin of rape.
But the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction. The justices said that the conviction could not stand because Marsha had not physically resisted.
And in fact that had been the law before Joachin confined and grabbed and threatened Marsha and had sex with her. But it was not the law when he did these things.
The case went up to the California Supreme Court. In a decision written by Chief Justice Rose Bird, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 284.)
The Supreme Court first noted that physical resistance was no longer needed to prove rape. In 1980 the rape-statute was changed so that a rape was rape if the rapist accomplished it by forcing the victim to have sex by fear of violence.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted how the new definition of rape reflects a new understanding of women and proof of consent.
Historically, it was considered inconceivable that a woman who truly did not consent to sexual intercourse would not meet force with force. [Citations.] The law originally demanded "utmost resistance" from the woman to ensure she had submitted rather than consented. [Citations.] Not only must she have resisted to the "utmost" of her physical capacity, the resistance must not have ceased throughout the assault.
The law evolved, so that that need to show utmost resistance became a historical relic. Nevertheless, until 1980 in California rape wasn’t rape if the victim had not physically resisted or physically resisted only slightly.
This need for proof of physical resistance was based on distrust of women’s claims of rape. It was also based on false assumptions about a woman’s inevitable response to rape. As the California Supreme Court said, some women resist; others freeze. This "frozen fright" can be a "psychological infantilism" that looks like "cooperative behavior". Far from showing consent, the Supreme Court understood that lack of physical resistance could be the product of "profound primal terror". All of these conclusions were supported by reliable studies.
In fact, studies showed that physical resistance could fend off a rape, but that it could also lead to greater violence to complete the rape.
3. Judicial burdens.
The end of the need in rape cases to prove physical resistance has had judicial effects.
The effect of this law is that, yes, it is easier to convict a man of rape who in fact had consensual sex. This adds to the burden of an innocent defendant and his hopefully hard-charging lawyer.
But it also means that women have greater freedom from rape. A rapist’s ability to squelch physical resistance by making his victim feel a paralyzing primal fear is no longer a get-out-of-jail-free card.
4. Psychological burdens.
Any successful efforts of legislators to re-introduce the issue of "forcible rape" into abortion laws would have deep psychological effects.
I suppose that a rape victim who physically resists has at least the consolation of her courage. I would suppose that someone who was frozen in fear bears the risk of increased shame from her non-resistance. Efforts of the Todd Akins and the Paul Ryans would have the effect of narrowing the options and adding to the great burden of those victims who suffer the greatest feelings of shame.
5. Burdens on advocates
Some of my friends believe that a woman should not have the option of ending a pregnancy if she has been raped. I respectfully disagree. I mean both of those words. I respect them. And I disagree with them.
A substantial majority of Americans take the side of the rape victim. Given that substantial majority, any likely versions of the laws about abortion will protect the freedom of choice of rape victims.
That means that persons driven to protect the product of a rape will have to walk their efforts along the ancient ways. They will not be the law of the land; they must be the light of the world. If they succeed, it will be through love not compulsion. The choice will rest with the victim.
That debate was called back by Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin and his reference to "legitimate rape". But that reference led to a search for the position of other Republican candidates. That search led to the discovery that Akin and Paul Ryan had co-sponsored the so-called "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act". That bill proposed to limit the rape-exception in a ban on government-funded abortions. The bill proposed to limit the exception from rape to "forcible rape". That language that narrowed the definition of rape eventually was dropped from the bill.
So there we go. What’s old becomes new. But the answers to this old argument have been around for over three decades. In fact, we can find answers in a case that was decided by the California Supreme Court that talks about rape law in California.
1. Threats, coercion, and sex.
Juoquin sold marijuana. Marsha smoked a little marijuana with Juoquin at his house. After 10-15 minutes, he started to hug Marsha. She pushed him away and told him to stop. He had overstepped, but she didn’t think that it was any big deal. But he kept on hitting on her, so she told him that she wanted to go.
He told her that he didn’t want her to go. But she got up, left the house, and went to the front gate.
Things turned hostile outside. He yelled at her. He refused to open the gate, and she didn’t know how to open it herself. Then he said that he would open the gate, but that he wanted to put on his shoes first. She followed him inside.
Inside, he continued bullying her. Several times, he reared back his fist like he was going to hit her. He told her that he was a man. He flexed his arm muscles. He grabbed her sweater collar and told her that with one hand he could lift her up and throw her out.
He boasted. He said, "I had bitches do anything I want. I have had bitches suck me . . . I have had them do that. I can make you do anything I want. You understand me?" He said, "You're so used to see[ing] the good side of me. Now you get to see the bad." She expected him to hit her.
She was afraid. About 40 minutes after she followed him back inside, he turned affectionate and started hugging her. She thought that he was psychotic. She decided to act as if she were going along with what he wanted.
Then he said that he wanted sex. He told her to take off her clothes. She refused. He said that she was going to make him angry. She took off her clothes. They had sex
2. Criminal courts.
In Superior Court, the jurors convicted Juoquin of rape.
But the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction. The justices said that the conviction could not stand because Marsha had not physically resisted.
And in fact that had been the law before Joachin confined and grabbed and threatened Marsha and had sex with her. But it was not the law when he did these things.
The case went up to the California Supreme Court. In a decision written by Chief Justice Rose Bird, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 284.)
The Supreme Court first noted that physical resistance was no longer needed to prove rape. In 1980 the rape-statute was changed so that a rape was rape if the rapist accomplished it by forcing the victim to have sex by fear of violence.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted how the new definition of rape reflects a new understanding of women and proof of consent.
This need for proof of physical resistance was based on distrust of women’s claims of rape. It was also based on false assumptions about a woman’s inevitable response to rape. As the California Supreme Court said, some women resist; others freeze. This "frozen fright" can be a "psychological infantilism" that looks like "cooperative behavior". Far from showing consent, the Supreme Court understood that lack of physical resistance could be the product of "profound primal terror". All of these conclusions were supported by reliable studies.
In fact, studies showed that physical resistance could fend off a rape, but that it could also lead to greater violence to complete the rape.
3. Judicial burdens.
The end of the need in rape cases to prove physical resistance has had judicial effects.
The effect of this law is that, yes, it is easier to convict a man of rape who in fact had consensual sex. This adds to the burden of an innocent defendant and his hopefully hard-charging lawyer.
But it also means that women have greater freedom from rape. A rapist’s ability to squelch physical resistance by making his victim feel a paralyzing primal fear is no longer a get-out-of-jail-free card.
4. Psychological burdens.
Any successful efforts of legislators to re-introduce the issue of "forcible rape" into abortion laws would have deep psychological effects.
I suppose that a rape victim who physically resists has at least the consolation of her courage. I would suppose that someone who was frozen in fear bears the risk of increased shame from her non-resistance. Efforts of the Todd Akins and the Paul Ryans would have the effect of narrowing the options and adding to the great burden of those victims who suffer the greatest feelings of shame.
5. Burdens on advocates
Some of my friends believe that a woman should not have the option of ending a pregnancy if she has been raped. I respectfully disagree. I mean both of those words. I respect them. And I disagree with them.
A substantial majority of Americans take the side of the rape victim. Given that substantial majority, any likely versions of the laws about abortion will protect the freedom of choice of rape victims.
That means that persons driven to protect the product of a rape will have to walk their efforts along the ancient ways. They will not be the law of the land; they must be the light of the world. If they succeed, it will be through love not compulsion. The choice will rest with the victim.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Less Smart than we Think
We are often overconfident. Sometimes that wrecks lives.
1. The case of a serial rapist.
A man was raping elderly women in Long Beach. This man would find apartments of elderly women, strip off his clothes, enter the apartment (usually through an open window), and sodomize his elderly victims. The Long Beach Police were frantic to end the lengthening chain of violated elderly women.
They brought in tracking dogs. The tracking dogs followed a scent, allegedly, to an apartment building. The scent, allegedly, led to a particular floor. On that floor, there was an apartment with the lights on. The police knocked on the door, but nobody answered. The police concluded that the perpetrator was in that apartment, and that he did not answer the door to impede the investigation.
The police learned who lived in that apartment. It was a man named Jeffrey G. They put together a photo lineup with his picture in it. The lineup had five Hispanics and one White guy. The White guy was Jeffrey G. An expert, a former detective who was also the former chief of an urban police department, later said that that was the most suggestive photo lineup he had ever seen used. Most of the victims identified the photo of Jeffrey G. as the perpetrator from the suggestive photo lineup.
The police arrested Jeffrey G. for the serial rapes. He worked for the City of Long Beach, and, when the police came to arrest him, he thought that his fellow city-employees were pranking him. His mother hired my firm to to defend him.
We started to accumulate evidence of innocence. We found that on the night of one Long Beach rape, our client had been visiting his mother in Grand Terrace. He drove back to Long Beach in the morning. On his way back, he got a traffic ticket. Also, within twenty minutes of another rape, Jeffrey G. was 15 miles away in a grocery story, cashing a check. The check had a time-stamp.
The police were accumulating evidence, too. But we learned that the police were shading their recollections to tilt the evidence toward proving the guilt of Jeffrey G. In fact, the real perpetrator committed one of his signature rapes while Jeffrey G. was in custody. The police suppressed news of that. They did not tell us that the Long Beach serial rapist had struck again while Jeffrey G. was in jail for being the Long Beach serial rapist.
But Jeffrey G. caught a break. In one of the rapes, the perpetrator had ejaculated on his victim. The perpetrator tried to lick off the semen, but he missed a little. This semen was collected as evidence. In another case, after he sodomize his victim, the perpetrator exited through a window. As he exited the window, a little fecal matter, with a little semen on it, fell from the tip of his penis onto the window sill. This evidence also was collected. These two incidents, one at the beginning of the chain of rapes, and one toward the end, gave DNA to compare to the DNA of Jeffrey G. It did not match.
We were not surprised. But everybody in law enforcement was stunned, from the detectives to the prosecutors. They were so certain that Jeffrey G. was guilty that they concluded that somehow the wrong DNA had been tested. So they sent a detective by airplane to hand-carry the DNA samples to the Justice Department laboratory in Sacramento, to make sure that the right samples were analyzed. The results were the same: Jeffrey G. was innocent.
The case was soon dismissed. But the Long Beach police continued to be certain that a guilty man had somehow been freed.
Years later, the actual perpetrator was caught. He was not even the same race as Jeffrey G. He and Jeffrey G. did not look alike. Jeffrey G. also was much taller. But the perpetrator’s DNA matched.
This tale should make us humble and cautious. The Long Beach detectives did not think they were sending an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life. They were sure that Jeffrey G. was guilty. Their certainty grew from the moment nobody answered the door of Jeffrey G’s apartment. Jeffrey G. wasn’t home. He had left the lights on to fool potential burglars.
The Long Beach detectives drew a conclusion that they should not have drawn from so little evidence. Being certain, they then started sculpting the evidence to create the appearance that Jeffrey G. was guilty. For example, a detective told us about certain evidence that she had observed; when we pointed out that that evidence actually helped our client, she gave different testimony under oath.
This points out a human trait: we tend to form conclusions before the evidence supports them. We are sure about things that we should not be sure about. This can lead to terrible consequences. It almost sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life.
2. The case of the self-made man or woman.
Sometimes, we enjoy a measure of material success in life. Our business thrives. Our investments prosper. Like the Long Beach detectives, we infer from that what is not warranted. We might conclude that we have prospered because of our own virtue, talent, and effort.
And, in our pride, we might condemn those who have not prospered. We might consider them less worthy than ourselves.
In the eyes of the world, this is right. The idea of a self-made man or woman is prominent in our culture.
3. The Bible’s point of view: Hannah.
But it defies the Biblical point of view. The Biblical point of view is that we are all subject to God, time, and chance.
A woman named Hannah who lived in ancient Israel was childless. She was devastated because of that. She prayed to God to open her womb. A priest saw her praying in the temple. He thought she was drunk because her lips moved, but he heard no words. (Apparently, that was not customary in that era.) She mad a vow to God, if only he would give her a son.
And God did. That boy became the prophet Samuel.
That woman’s prayer of gratitude will live forever (1 Samuel 2:1-10 (KJV)):
4. The Bible’s point of view: David.
David, a man after God’s own heart, fought Goliath. When David approached Goliath, Goliath told David that he would kill David and give David’s flesh to the birds of the air. David answered. And he did not speak of his own prowess as a fighter. He spoke of the power of God. He said (1 Samuel 17:45-47 (KJV)):
The book of Job is the story of a good and prosperous man who had everything taken from him, and then he was restored by God to his former prosperity. In his suffering, his friends came and, for a time, sat in silence. But then, in the certainty of their knowledge of God, they spoke out. And they said that Job must have offended God to be brought so low. In fact, the point of the book of Job is that it was Job’s very righteousness that made him a target of a bet between Satan and God.
6. The Bible’s point of view: Ecclesiastes.
And one of the Bible’s more famous passages occurs at Ecclesiastes 9:11 (KJV):
So, for all this Biblical witness, why do we insist that there are self-made men and women? A believer cannot.
We cannot believe that we are completely in charge of our own prosperity or poverty; intellect or ignorance; faith or un-belief; salvation or damnation.
Certainly, we have to cooperate with God to bring about good things. There would be no point to the urging in Proverbs to do right and be diligent if we had no responsibility to choose to do right or to be diligent. We do. The point is only that there are forces unseen that have a great deal to do with the rise and fall of persons, companies, churches, nations, and peoples. To say otherwise is to defy the Bible.
So if we know something, let us be humble about our knowledge.
If we have something, let us be humble about what he have.
If we keep from evil, let us be humble about our righteousness.
1. The case of a serial rapist.
A man was raping elderly women in Long Beach. This man would find apartments of elderly women, strip off his clothes, enter the apartment (usually through an open window), and sodomize his elderly victims. The Long Beach Police were frantic to end the lengthening chain of violated elderly women.
They brought in tracking dogs. The tracking dogs followed a scent, allegedly, to an apartment building. The scent, allegedly, led to a particular floor. On that floor, there was an apartment with the lights on. The police knocked on the door, but nobody answered. The police concluded that the perpetrator was in that apartment, and that he did not answer the door to impede the investigation.
The police learned who lived in that apartment. It was a man named Jeffrey G. They put together a photo lineup with his picture in it. The lineup had five Hispanics and one White guy. The White guy was Jeffrey G. An expert, a former detective who was also the former chief of an urban police department, later said that that was the most suggestive photo lineup he had ever seen used. Most of the victims identified the photo of Jeffrey G. as the perpetrator from the suggestive photo lineup.
The police arrested Jeffrey G. for the serial rapes. He worked for the City of Long Beach, and, when the police came to arrest him, he thought that his fellow city-employees were pranking him. His mother hired my firm to to defend him.
We started to accumulate evidence of innocence. We found that on the night of one Long Beach rape, our client had been visiting his mother in Grand Terrace. He drove back to Long Beach in the morning. On his way back, he got a traffic ticket. Also, within twenty minutes of another rape, Jeffrey G. was 15 miles away in a grocery story, cashing a check. The check had a time-stamp.
The police were accumulating evidence, too. But we learned that the police were shading their recollections to tilt the evidence toward proving the guilt of Jeffrey G. In fact, the real perpetrator committed one of his signature rapes while Jeffrey G. was in custody. The police suppressed news of that. They did not tell us that the Long Beach serial rapist had struck again while Jeffrey G. was in jail for being the Long Beach serial rapist.
But Jeffrey G. caught a break. In one of the rapes, the perpetrator had ejaculated on his victim. The perpetrator tried to lick off the semen, but he missed a little. This semen was collected as evidence. In another case, after he sodomize his victim, the perpetrator exited through a window. As he exited the window, a little fecal matter, with a little semen on it, fell from the tip of his penis onto the window sill. This evidence also was collected. These two incidents, one at the beginning of the chain of rapes, and one toward the end, gave DNA to compare to the DNA of Jeffrey G. It did not match.
We were not surprised. But everybody in law enforcement was stunned, from the detectives to the prosecutors. They were so certain that Jeffrey G. was guilty that they concluded that somehow the wrong DNA had been tested. So they sent a detective by airplane to hand-carry the DNA samples to the Justice Department laboratory in Sacramento, to make sure that the right samples were analyzed. The results were the same: Jeffrey G. was innocent.
The case was soon dismissed. But the Long Beach police continued to be certain that a guilty man had somehow been freed.
Years later, the actual perpetrator was caught. He was not even the same race as Jeffrey G. He and Jeffrey G. did not look alike. Jeffrey G. also was much taller. But the perpetrator’s DNA matched.
This tale should make us humble and cautious. The Long Beach detectives did not think they were sending an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life. They were sure that Jeffrey G. was guilty. Their certainty grew from the moment nobody answered the door of Jeffrey G’s apartment. Jeffrey G. wasn’t home. He had left the lights on to fool potential burglars.
The Long Beach detectives drew a conclusion that they should not have drawn from so little evidence. Being certain, they then started sculpting the evidence to create the appearance that Jeffrey G. was guilty. For example, a detective told us about certain evidence that she had observed; when we pointed out that that evidence actually helped our client, she gave different testimony under oath.
This points out a human trait: we tend to form conclusions before the evidence supports them. We are sure about things that we should not be sure about. This can lead to terrible consequences. It almost sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life.
2. The case of the self-made man or woman.
Sometimes, we enjoy a measure of material success in life. Our business thrives. Our investments prosper. Like the Long Beach detectives, we infer from that what is not warranted. We might conclude that we have prospered because of our own virtue, talent, and effort.
And, in our pride, we might condemn those who have not prospered. We might consider them less worthy than ourselves.
In the eyes of the world, this is right. The idea of a self-made man or woman is prominent in our culture.
3. The Bible’s point of view: Hannah.
But it defies the Biblical point of view. The Biblical point of view is that we are all subject to God, time, and chance.
A woman named Hannah who lived in ancient Israel was childless. She was devastated because of that. She prayed to God to open her womb. A priest saw her praying in the temple. He thought she was drunk because her lips moved, but he heard no words. (Apparently, that was not customary in that era.) She mad a vow to God, if only he would give her a son.
And God did. That boy became the prophet Samuel.
That woman’s prayer of gratitude will live forever (1 Samuel 2:1-10 (KJV)):
1And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. 2There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. 3Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 4The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength. 5They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.
6The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. 7The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. 8He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. 9He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail. 10The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.Hannah's prayer gives glory to God for raising up and for putting down
4. The Bible’s point of view: David.
David, a man after God’s own heart, fought Goliath. When David approached Goliath, Goliath told David that he would kill David and give David’s flesh to the birds of the air. David answered. And he did not speak of his own prowess as a fighter. He spoke of the power of God. He said (1 Samuel 17:45-47 (KJV)):
45Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. 46This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 47And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.5. The Bible’s point of view: Job.
The book of Job is the story of a good and prosperous man who had everything taken from him, and then he was restored by God to his former prosperity. In his suffering, his friends came and, for a time, sat in silence. But then, in the certainty of their knowledge of God, they spoke out. And they said that Job must have offended God to be brought so low. In fact, the point of the book of Job is that it was Job’s very righteousness that made him a target of a bet between Satan and God.
6. The Bible’s point of view: Ecclesiastes.
And one of the Bible’s more famous passages occurs at Ecclesiastes 9:11 (KJV):
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.7. Defiance.
So, for all this Biblical witness, why do we insist that there are self-made men and women? A believer cannot.
We cannot believe that we are completely in charge of our own prosperity or poverty; intellect or ignorance; faith or un-belief; salvation or damnation.
Certainly, we have to cooperate with God to bring about good things. There would be no point to the urging in Proverbs to do right and be diligent if we had no responsibility to choose to do right or to be diligent. We do. The point is only that there are forces unseen that have a great deal to do with the rise and fall of persons, companies, churches, nations, and peoples. To say otherwise is to defy the Bible.
So if we know something, let us be humble about our knowledge.
If we have something, let us be humble about what he have.
If we keep from evil, let us be humble about our righteousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)