Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

Monday, July 2, 2012

Women in Literature and in Life -- Modesty and Misogyny



Three years ago, I read Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott, the story that weaves bold knights and chivalry with Richard the Lion-Hearted from history and known characters from the Robin Hood tales. It had only been sitting on my shelf for 16 years waiting for me to get to it. I know it was sitting on my shelf for 16 years, because it's encased in a fragrant leather book cover I brought back from a trip to Riga, Latvia in 1994. When I brought it home, I searched for the appropriate paperback to put in it and chose Ivanhoe; and there it sat in its place of honor neglected until recently.

There are many themes and thoughts I could expand on from Ivanhoe, such as the very unchristian way that the Jewish people were treated during this period of the Crusades. I do want to talk about a Jewish character, Rebecca of York, not as a Jewish woman, but simply as a woman.

As the story goes, she is sexually harrassed and kidnapped by the Knight Templar Brian De Bois Guilbert, a man who is sworn by his order to a chaste life. Rebecca must have feared for her chastity, because, in one of the book's dramatic moments, she threatens to throw herself from a parapet of the castle to save herself from him.



When De Bois Guilbert's crime is discovered by a superior of the Templars, it is explained away as the result of the Jewish woman's witchcraft and evil spells. That is the only thing that can explain this man's bad behavior. Rebecca is put to trial and sentenced to death at the stake for her supposed witchcraft. Of course, she is rescued by Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe who acts as her champion and wins her life back for her in a jousting match.



In the novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Archdeacon Claude Frollo parallels De Bois Guilbert in some respects. He falls in "lust" with the gypsy woman Esmerelda. Frollo's feelings cause him to kill his romantic rival, the soldier Phoebus whom Esmerelda loves, and have Esmerelda arrested for the crime. Later, he visits Esmerelda in prison, after she has endured torture, explains to her his feelings for her, saying, "Each night, on examining myself, I found that I was more helpless, more spellbound, more bewitched, more undone."



Frollo states:

"I learned who thou wert; Egyptian, Bohemian, gintara, zingara. How could I no longer doubt that there was witchcraft in the case? I hoped that the law would break the charm. A sorceress had bewitched Bruno D'Ast: he caused her to be burned and was cured. I knew him. I decided to try the same remedy."


Just as Rebecca had Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe as her champion, Esmerelda has the hunchback Quasimodo. He swings down on the ropes from the bell towers to rescue her from the gallows and takes her into the church for sanctuary.



Frollo makes several attempts to win Esmerelda's affection but is rejected each time. In the end, Esmerelda dies at the gallows, and Frollo dies at the hands of Quasimodo. The story of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is over all a tragic one. All of its major characters die in some tragic way.

Frollo, like De Bois Guilbert, could not take responsibility for his own actions. If he had feelings he shouldn't have for Esmerelda, it must be that he was bewitched. A psychologist might say that both De Bois Guilbert and Frollo used psychological projection. Unable to accept failure for their own sins, it was necessary to blame another.

Notice that it is two literary men, Sir Walter Scott and Victor Hugo, that write with such sensitivity about these issues concerning women.

Sir Walter Scott



Victor Hugo



Sadly, these examples in fiction make me think of real situations with real women. Another book I have read somewhat recently is the non-fiction Reading Lolita in Tehran, written by Azar Nafisi, a female literature professor, who gives a glimpse into what life is like for Muslim women in Iran.



There is one example in the book I remember where some Muslim girls find themselves in a similar position as Rebecca or Esmerelda. In one chapter, Nafisi describes comforting her daughter Negar who came home from school crying. Negar tells her mother her story.

"That day in the middle of her last class -- science -- the principal and morality teacher had barged in and told the girls to put their hands on their desks. The entire class had been escorted out of the classroom, without any explanation, their schoolbags searched for weapons and contraband: tapes, novels, friendship bracelets. Their bodies were searched, their nails inspected. One student, a girl who had returned from the United States the previous year with her family, was taken to the principal's office: her nails were too long. There, the principal herself had cut the girl's nails, so close she had drawn blood. Negar had seen her classmate after they were dismissed, in the school yard, waiting to go home, nursing the guilty finger. The morality teacher stood beside her, discouraging other students from approaching. For Negar, the fact that she couldn't even go near and console her friend was as bad as the whole trauma of the search. She kept saying, Mom, she doesn't know about our rules and regulations; you know, she just came back from America -- how do you think she feels when they force us to trample on the American flag and shout, Death to America? I hate myself, I hate myself, she repeated as I rocked her back and forth and wiped the mixture of sweat and tears from her soft skin.

This, of course, diverted the whole class [girls meeting in Nafisi's home.] Everyone tried to distract Negar by joking and telling stories of their own, how once Nasserin had been sent to the disciplinary committee to have her eyelashes checked. Her lashes were long, and she was suspected of using mascara. That's nothing, said Manna, next to what happened to my sister's friends at Amir Kabir Polytechnic University. During lunch, three of the girls were in the yard eating apples. They were reprimanded by the guards: they were eating their apples too seductively!"


The picture below is from the graphic novel Persepolis, an autobiography of Marjane Satrapi, depicting her life in Iran during and after the Islamic revolution.



An incredible burden is placed on Muslim women in some nations to guard their own modesty, to what would be deemed in most other cultures as ridiculous extremes. As with Brian de Bois Guilbert or Claude Frollo, if a Muslim man has a lustful attraction to a woman who is not his wife, the woman is blamed. Perhaps, she showed a little ankle or made direct eye contact. Maybe, she bit an apple seductively! A woman might even be blamed in her own rape, and thus victimized twice. Certainly, it is mysogynistic to put the full burden of purity on the woman, even to the extreme of defying all reason.

I confess I don't know how to bite an apple seductively. Perhaps, there are some people who might know how to make an attempt at it. But since what might be perceived as seductive is subjective, my thought is that these girls were merely eating apples with no thought of flirting.

I think I can relate to those apple-eating girls in a scenario from my own life. Once, I was with a friend shopping at a drug store in New York City.



The temperature was stifling hot inside the store, and my friend and I both found cold drinks to purchase which we carried with us around the store. My hair was quite long at the time, hanging halfway down my back. At one point, I lifted my hair and put the cold bottle I was carrying on the nape of my neck. Shortly after that, a man, who was a complete stranger to me, said something to me with a creepy leer on his face. I did not hear what he said. I only know that he made me uncomfortable, and I quickened my pace to hurry past him. It wasn't until months, maybe even years later, that I considered the thought that, perhaps, in this man's mind, my cold bottle to the neck was some sort of attention-getting flirtatious gesture, as I have since seen women on TV do a similar trick with a cold can or ice cube to some part of the body. The creepy leering man was quite mistaken if that's what he thought. My neck was hot, and that's all.

In the U.S. and Canada, rape shield laws have been put in place to prohibit cross-examination of the accuser(alleged victim)in certain areas, such as what she was wearing at the time of the incident. Of course, there have been cases where women have falsely accused men, such as in the 2006 case against three members of the Duke lacrosse team.



So it is hoped, that the truth would come out during a fair trial. Of course, it should be determined if the accusation rings true or not. However, in a case where there is force, not consent, I don't think it is really that consequential what the woman was wearing. Some choices of clothing may show poor judgment on the woman's part, but her state of dress or undress doesn't give license to the man to lose control of his behavior.

Modesty, pornography and related topics have often been a discussion point in my workplace, so I have given it much thought. Where does the burden lie in cases of sexual sin and sexual crime? Does the burden lie with women to guard their own modesty or does the burden lie with men to guard their own minds? I have heard arguments for either side, sometimes with an extreme lean towards one side or another, but I think the answer is more straight down the middle, a little bit of both.

As a Christian, I believe that all mankind descended from Adam and Eve. When sin came into the world with Adam and Eve, so did clothing. Adam and Eve first made clothing for themselves from fig leaves, and then God Himself made clothing for them from an animal's skin. If sin had not come into the world with Adam and Eve, I think it is reasonable to assume from the Bible that people would have continued to live in the Garden of Eden, as strange as it seems, in some sort of nudist colony type civilization. If everyone could be trusted to be pure-minded, nudity would not be an issue.



Nudity itself does not equal lust or necessarily produce lust. People of certain professions -- doctors, surgeons, medical examiners, people in the funeral business -- look at naked bodies repeatedly. We certainly hope that these professional people look at the body with a pure mind, in a professional way, and not a lustful way. Some people I know, who are not coming from a Christian worldview as I am, in debating with me, have taken this point to the extreme, that if we, as a culture, were less prudish about the body, if we were more lax about modesty and more lax about pornography, sexual crime in this country would actually decrease rather than increase. I think the point that my debaters attempted to make was that removing the mystery of the naked human body would remove the unhealthy obsession with it.

If this is the case and that point is valid, then it is only reasonable that cultures where people have traditionally worn less clothing should have less sexual violence.



In doing some research on this subject, I read Chapter 7 of "The Origins of War in Child Abuse," 2010, by Lloyd DeMause. What I found is far too disturbing to share in detail -- Feel free to look it up yourself. The book is online -- but the author made a study of this aspect of life in Papua New Guinea, Australian aboriginal culture and African tribal cultures. His study would certainly seem to suggest otherwise. In fact, some child abuse seems to be encouraged by the fact that some families in Papua New Guinea would sleep close together in the nude. This includes the abuse of boys and not just girls or women.

Clearly, removing the mystery of the human body does not lessen lust or sexual crime. It is true that, to the pure-minded, nudity is not necessarily pornographic. Titus 1:15, "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure." At the same time, we are a fallen, sinful people, and we need the fig leaves. It is not wise to live as nudists or to wear provocative clothing. The mind can not be trusted to be pure, and we can not trust the minds of others to be pure. This makes modesty a necessity.

But how modest is modest? How much covering do we need? I Timothy 2:9 in Scripture says, "In like manner also, that the women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation..." But how do you define what modest apparel is?

Should women wear burkhas, smothering garments that impair both vision and movement?



Should we go back to wearing cumbersome Victorian swimsuits on the beach?



These measures are a bit extreme (certainly in the case of the burkha) but I think it's clear from the modern culture what is considered to be sexually provocative. Otherwise, a prostitute would not know how to dress. To be modest, a woman should not dress like a prostitute. She should not draw too much attention, as in showing cleavage, to the parts of the body that are eroticized.

Though she's far removed from being a theological or moral expert, I like this quote by fashion designer Edith Head.



In closing, yes, a woman should guard her own modesty, but, that said, a man should also guard his mind. "Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it." Proverbs 4:23

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Vampires and Redemption

A few years ago, I bought a copy of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” at a garage sale. I was not prompted by the trendiness of vampires, the Goth culture or the popularity of the “Twilight” books and movies. I am not even a horror fan. The closest I ever get to watching a horror movie is maybe an Alfred Hitchcock flick or a suspense/thriller that turns out to be a bit more thrilling than I expected. I will admit that, as an English major, I enjoyed reading some Edgar Allan Poe, but that’s about the extent of it. But I do like classic 19th century literature, and here was an opportunity to read a classic for only $.25.

I was surprised at the respect for Christianity that was present in this novel about a blood-sucking vampire. It’s true that Dracula was repulsed by garlic, but it’s also true that he was repulsed by a crucifix and the host, the round wafer used in Catholic mass. As a Protestant, I have a different interpretation of the bread. To me, it is representative of Christ’s body. To the Catholic, in the doctrine of transubstantiation, the host is Christ. That shows to me two things, that in the writer’s philosophy, Christ is the opposite of evil and has the power to repel evil.

Other things in the story disturbed me. What I found most disturbing was Mina Harker’s transformation into a vampire. Mina is depicted as a loving wife and friend before her vampirization. Mina is bitten by Dracula, and at one point, compelled to drink his blood which transforms her into a vampire herself. What bothers me is that her path to becoming this despicable creature seems to be through no willful choice of her own.

In Dracula, Mina describes her experience in these words.
“With that he pulled open his shirt, and with his long sharp nails opened a vein in his breast. When the blood began to spurt out, he took my hands in one of his, holding them tight, and with the other seized my neck and pressed my mouth to the wound, so that I must either suffocate or swallow some to the … Oh, my God! My God! What have I done? What have I done to deserve such a fate, I who have tried to walk in meekness and righteousness all my days. God pity me! Look down on a poor soul in worse than mortal peril. And in mercy pity those to whom she is dear!”
The same incident is described in the narrating voice of Dr. Seward.
“The attitude of the two had the terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten’s nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink.”
Even more bothersome is a scene with Mina that follows soon afterwards. Van Helsing takes some precautions to protect Mina from Dracula. Mina’s husband, Jonathan Harker, is the narrator in this section.
“‘Now let me guard yourself. On your forehead, I touch this piece of Sacred Wafer in the name of the Father, the Son and…’ [in the words of Van Helsing] There was a terrible scream that almost froze our hearts to hear. As he had placed the Wafer on Mina’s forehead, it had seared it…had burned into the flesh as though it had been a piece of white-hot metal. My poor darling’s brain had told her the significance of the fact as quickly as her nerves received the pain of it, and the two so overwhelmed her that her overwrought nature had its voice in that dreadful scream. But the words to her thought came quickly. The echo of the scream had not ceased to ring on the air when there came the reaction, and she sank on her knees on the floor in an agony of abasement. Pulling her beautiful hair over her face, as the leper of old his mantle, she walked out. ‘Unclean! Unclean! Even the Almighty shuns my polluted flesh! I must bear this mark of shame upon my forehead until the Judgement Day.’”
To me, this is mixed-up Christian imagery. The whole message of the gospel is grace, and here is a woman who is unhappy in her condition and seems rejected by God and beyond redemption. There is some discussion among the characters afterwards that God will make things right for Mina at Judgement Day, but that is little consolation to me as a reader that she must suffer until then.

In one sense, I can see that we are all “infected” in our blood as humans, not because of personal actions, but because we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

In Romans 5:12…
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man [Adam,] and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—“

And later in verse 15…
“But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”

The condition that we’ve inherited through Adam does not place us beyond God’s grace. My God is a God of grace. There are no irredeemable people, certainly not someone like Mina who is unhappy in her condition and wants to change. Faith, however, is a requirement for redemption.

Blood is actually a theme throughout the entire Bible. If you do a search on the Amazon site for “blood,” you will find a lot of titles for vampire fiction and a lot of books on Christian theology.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were told not to eat blood.

Leviticus 17: 13-14 NKJV
“Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.”

The idea of the life being in the blood is in Dracula also. This is most seen in the psychiatric patient Renfield, the zoophagous “life-eating” patient, who keeps pets that progress along the food chain, and seems obsessed with consuming life. In fact, Renfield even makes a reference to the Old Testament Scripture.

"I tried to kill him for the purpose of strengthening my vital powers by the assimilation with my own body of his life through the medium of his blood – relying, of course, upon the Scriptural phrase, 'For the blood is the life.'"

Also, in Old Testament times, a system of animal sacrifices was set up to atone for sins.

Dracula drinks blood to take life to himself and give himself life and power. Christ shed His blood to give life to others.

Ephesians 1:7 “In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.”

Strangely enough, Jesus commands his disciples to drink His blood at the Last Supper. That sounds very close to vampirism. It must have seemed strange to these men that followed the law of avoiding animal blood in their diets.

John 6:54-56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

It’s explained this way in “Hard Sayings of the Bible” by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch.
“What could He mean? Plainly His language was not to be taken literally: He was not advocating cannibalism. But how was it to be taken? It was not only obscure, they thought: it was offensive. For Jews the drinking of any blood, even the eating of flesh from which the blood had not been completely drained, was taboo. But drinking the blood of a human being was an idea which ought not even to be mentioned. This was a hard saying in more senses than one.

Jesus answered their protest by pointing out that His words were to be understood spiritually. ‘It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’ (John 6:63 RSV) The physical or literal meaning of the words was plainly ruled out. But what was the spiritual meaning?

Again the reader of this Gospel, viewing these words in the context of the whole work, has an advantage over the first hearers, who had no such explanatory context. What we have in Jesus’ strange language is a powerful metaphor stating that a share in the life of God, eternal life, is granted to those who in faith come to Jesus, appropriate Him, enter into union with Him.”
Again, Jesus gives His life through His blood rather than taking life, ala Dracula, through our blood. Because Dracula’s action is kind of a sinister twist on the Christian communion, perhaps that is why the Sacred Wafer acts as a repellent.

Christ also acted as our final sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 10:11-12 NKJV
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 9:13-14 NKJV
“For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Christ appears to John in Revelation as the Lamb, symbolizing the ultimate sacrifice. In Revelation 5:9 the twenty-four elders worship Him saying, “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals, For you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”