"Biblical (or Nouthetic) Counseling"--Another Way to Keep Women Down

Recently I have written about the case of a 15 year old girl who was raped twice by a church leader in Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH. The crime itself was bad enough but the Pastor of Trinity, Chuck Phelps (now the Pastor of the large Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis), reportedly told the girl that she bore at least 1% responsiblity for the crime. He had her get up in front of the church and acknowledge her sin. Then she was moved to Colorado to be under the "care" of another evangelical Baptist Pastor, Matt Olson (now the President of Northland Baptist College). Olson had the girl write a letter of apology to the wife of the rapist for "violating her trust." She had also been advised of the importance of "forgiving" her assailant. Where did these Pastors come up with such asinine advice? It comes from a school of thought known as "biblical (or nouthetic) counseling." The basic premise of this school is that modern psychology is flawed by secular presuppositions and that the Bible contains everything that is needed for a Christian to live a happy and healthy life.

"Nouthetic" comes from a NT Greek word meaning: "to admonish," or "to correct." This type of counseling says that man's basic problem is sin and that the job of the counselor is to point out to the counselee the nature of his sin and then admonish him to confess it and ask God to heal him. The father of the movement is Jay Adams, longtime Professor of Pastoral Counseling at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Westminster is a very conservative evangelical Reformed seminary. Adams burst on the scene in 1970 with his book, Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. The very popular book has been used by thousands of Pastors to guide them in their counseling methodology.

According to Adams,

[N]outhetic counseling consists of lovingly confronting people out of deep concern in order to help them make those changes that God requires.

By confrontation we mean that one Christian personally gives counsel to another from the Scriptures. He does not confront him with his own ideas or the ideas of others. . . . The nouthetic counselor believes that all that is needed to help another person love God and his neighbor as he should, as the verse above indicates, may be found in the Bible.

By concern we mean that counseling is always done for the benefit of the counselee. His welfare is always in view in Biblical counseling. . . . Christians consider their counseling to be a part of the sanctification process whereby one Christian helps another get through some difficulty that is hindering him from moving forward in his spiritual growth.

By change we mean that counseling is done because there is something in another Christian's life that fails to meet the biblical requirements and that, therefore, keeps him from honoring God ("What Is Nouthetic Counseling?").

This "biblical counseling" methodology has become increasingly popular among the more conservative evangelical Pastors. As a result of the fundamentalist take-over of the Southern Baptist Convention, it is now taught in all of the SBC seminaries. In a 2007 article entitled: "Biblical Therapy: Southern Baptists Reject 'Pastoral Counseling,'" (The Christian Century 124 [2]: 24–27), David Winfrey discusses how this came about. He writes:

It was not a big surprise in 2005 when Southern Baptist Theological Seminary announced that it was makiing a "wholesale change" in its counseling program. The Louisville school, flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention, declared that it was jettisoning the "pastoral counseling" model [which attempted to integrate psychology with Biblical principles] in favor of "biblical counseling" [a purely biblical approach].

The switch was foreshadowed three years earlier when Southern' dean coauthored a resolution at the SBC's annual convention on "The Sufficiency of Scripture in a Therapeutic Culture." School officials say the new approach is "built upon the view that scripture is sufficient to answer comprehensively the deepest needs of the human heart" (p. 24).

How does "biblical (or nouthetic) counseling" deal with an issue like depression? Stuart Scott, Professor of Biblical Counseling at Southern Seminary, explained that

"if [the person is] not a Christian, there's hope through Jesus Christ, the gospel, for salvation. If [the person is] a Christian and [is] disillusioned and discouraged, there's just the various promises of God and the hope that's there" (p. 26)

"All issues are in some way related to the fall of Adam," Scott maintained, adding that some of these issues can be traced to a person's sin and others traced to trials that the person is facing in a fallen world . Thus, the first place one is to look when one is depressed is inside to see if maybe there is some unconfessed sin there. Perhaps there is someone he has not forgiven. Perhaps there is some action that he has not taken responsibility for and confessed to God (p. 27).

How would a "biblical counselor" deal with an issue like bulimia?

Scott says scripture is sufficient to treat even dysfunctions such as anorexia or bulimia. Though the term "bulimia" is not in scripture, the principle for treating it is. "We would look at that as lusting over something so much that you're willing to do what you are doing . . . . Another word for lust would be "idolatry." Persons suffering from bulimia "want something so much they're willing to sin to get it or sin if they don't. So what we would ask is, "What is it that you want so much that you're resorting to gorging the food down and then throwing it up?" And oftentimes it centers around appearance" (p. 27).

Fortunately not all Christian counselors agree with this form of counseling.

Loren Townsend views biblical counseling as a very flawed model. Townsend, who teaches pastoral counseling at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, just down the road from Southern, said he sees many clients who have been hurt by biblical counseling. These patients, he said, are deeply
burdened: "Not only haven't they been able to get over their depression following the biblical example, but now they're also a failure as Christians because they had inadequate faith to be able to do that."

He recalled one woman whose marriage was falling apart and who had experienced abuse in the relationship. "The biblical counselor [gave her] no choice. "You stay married. That's the way it is, and here's how your're to organize it." The way it was organized was the woman being subjected to this man's abuse," Townsend said.

"What ended up happening was that this woman finally just came apart at the seams. She wounded up psychotic as a result of that and ended up in our system of care. Now we have to deal with her psychosis and the fact that she has the religious ideation that's eating her alive as a result of failing as a Christian" (pp. 25-26).

One of the key characteristics of "biblical counseling" is that the woman has fewer rights than the man. Of course, this is what the Bible teaches, so the "biblical counselor" is being consistent here. Bill Gothard, a very popular evangelical speaker [I attended his week long seminar in 1979 in Atlanta at the Omni with 19,000 other people], has taught for years the "umbrella of authority" concept. In his view, most of the problems that people face are due to getting outside of the umbrella, i.e., not submitting to the legitimate authorities in their lives. For a woman, this is his her husband or her father. And for all Christians it is their Pastor, who of course, is male.

So in this model, the woman, even if abused, is still under the authority of her husband or father and her Pastor. Is it any surprise then that women who are victims of abuse have little recourse in conservative Evangelicalism?

Its Not Just the Roman Catholic Church that has a Problem with Child Molesters

I have recently reported on a case of a 15 year old girl being raped in New Hampshire by a Baptist church leader and the alleged cover-up of that crime by the church and its Pastor.

The sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are well-known but what is not as well known is the problem among Baptist churches. In 2007, ABC's 20/20 did an investigative report called" Preacher Predators." They detailed the problem among Baptists and pointed out how that Baptists, as opposed to Catholics, do not even have a central database where a potential Pastor or church leader could be checked out. While in the ABC report, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Frank Page, said that they were looking into developing such a database, the decision was made in 2008 not to create one. The reason cited was that in Baptist doctrine each local church is autonomous. Time magazine listed this as one of the top 10 underreported stories of 2008.

Why do I keep discussing this subject on my blog? Because I believe that Baptists are no better than Catholics or any other religious or non-religious group with regard to this problem. BUT THEY OUGHT TO BE IF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE. I know how Baptist evangelicals think since I used to be one. They will decry the Catholic priests who molest children and say that it proves that the Roman church is corrupt and false but when the problem is in their own church, they make excuses and say that it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of their beliefs. While I admit that these problems do not prove evangelical Christianity to be false, I do think they show that evangelical Christian leaders are no more spiritual or godly than leaders from other religious or non-religious groups that they would claim to be false.

The "Preacher Predators" three part report is below:

20/20 Report Part One

20/20 Report Part Two

20/20 Report Part Three

HT: StopBaptistPredators.org

More on the Alleged Cover-up of the Rape of a 15 year old girl

In two prior posts (see here and here), I have written about the rape of a 15 year old girl by a church leader at Trinity Baptist Church of Concord, NH. A couple of my former colleagues have written me in private emails criticizing me for posting this information. I have been told that I am "petty" and that I am taking "glee" in reporting this incident. Why am I posting this information on my blog?

1) I believe that the Bible teaches that women have an inferior status to men. In the OT, women were seen as the property of either their husband or their father. I have two posts on the OT God condoning rape (see here and here).

2) I believe that fundamentalist evangelicals, people who believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant, still cling to this idea of women being inferior in status to men. I realize that they would vehemently deny this to be the case but I think it is evident in many of their teachings such as the notion that women are to be submissive to their husbands, women are not to have leadership positions in the church, and so on. And I think that the way the victim was treated in this particular case also illustrates my point.

3) I am particularly interested in this case because it involves persons and institutions that were part of my orbit when I was a believer.

4) I would like to see justice done and the victim's honor restored. I think she is owed an apology by several of the players in this tragic incident.

So, I will continue to report on this case until it is resolved.

It appears that the Pastor of the Church, Chuck Phelps (later the President of Maranatha Baptist College) and Matt Olson (now the President of Northland Baptist College) conspired together to ship the girl from New Hampshire to Colorado. Phelps claims that the police never asked him where the girl was and thus charges were never brought against the rapist, Ernie Willis. Willis continued on in the Trinity Baptist Church for years after this crime. Phelps and Olson claim they did nothing wrong. I think they were negligent in not seeing to it that Willis was prosecuted. This was not just a "church matter," it was a crime. While Phelps and Olson probably did nothing legally wrong; I fail to see how one can conclude that they didn't do something that was morally wrong. Phelps had the victim stand up in front of the church and apologize for her action. Once the victim was moved to Colorado, Olson had the victim write a letter to the rapist's wife apologizing for "violating her trust." Neither man saw to it that Willis was prosecuted.

The current pastor of the church in Colorado where the victim was sent, Tri-City Baptist Church in Westminster, Will Senn (I am not making his name up), has issued a letter trying to clear the name of his church in this fiasco. You can read it here. Here are the comments that one blogger made about Pastor Senn's letter:

1) He never says that Willis raped Tina. A reading of this letter would cause the reader to assume, which is also what Phelps engineered the church at that time to assume, that 15 year old Tina had engaged in consensual sex.

2) He never allows that Tina had no say in giving up her baby. She was allowed to select which of the final three candidate couples should have her baby, but there was no other decision given to her.

3) He declares that Tina was not being hidden in Colorado, yet Tina and her brother both say that she was being hidden.

4) He directly says, ” Dr. Chuck Phelps does not believe that Tina was responsible for being allegedly raped.” But the Concord Monitor says, “Phelps said he told her to “be responsible, don’t allow yourself to be around a person you know to be dangerous. She knew this person was dangerous after the first time, but she continued to be around him….She needed to be responsible.”

5) He directly says, “In addition, Dr. Chuck Phelps urged Tina and her mother to talk with the police, but they would not.” Tina was actually instructed to never tell anybody about what happened. And if Phelps was so determined that they should talk to the police, why did he not wield the sword of church discipline at them? After all, he had already made Tina take responsibility for being raped. Surely he could have made her responsible to go to the police.

6) He refers to the “media attack on Dr. Chuck Phelps, Dr. Matt Olson or Tri-City Baptist Church.” Actually, the news media is reporting the story, and Phelps has been given ample opportunity to give his side. The fact that he just keeps digging himself deeper every time he talks is not an attack from the media.

The current Pastor of the Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH, Brian Fuller, is to be commended for now taking a different approach on this matter.

Fuller's 38-minute sermon is devoted mostly to explaining the need for the church to face the harsh criticism from this scandal without lashing back, take a hard look at themselves and what was done in 1997 and what it says about them now, and see what restitution needs to be made and what change needs to occur at their church.(source)

A statement on the Trinity Baptist church's website says the following:

In reviewing the events of October 1997, the present leadership is seeking answers for the victim, our congregation, as well as our entire Concord community. The prayers of our entire church are for justice to be served to the alleged perpetrator, and that mercy and care will be extended to the victim.

Below is a video clip from "The Young Turks" on the situation:



HT: Jeri Massi

Follow up on Rape Case and the Alleged Cover-up by Fundamental Baptist Leader

On May 26th, I did a post about the rape of a 15 year old girl in 1997 in New Hampshire by a leader in her Church, Trinity Baptist Church of Concord, NH. The girl was raped twice by the man and became pregnant. The pastor of the Church at that time was Chuck Phelps (now the Pastor of Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis). According to the rape victim, Tina Anderson (she has made her name public), the Pastor of the church told her that even though the man was to blame, she bore at least some responsiblity, even if only 1%. Since it was going to become obvious that she was pregnant, Pastor Phelps had her stand before the church congregation and read a letter. She did not mention that she had been raped and did not identify who the father was but merely asked for forgiveness for the sin of fornication. The culprit, Ernie Willis, was also made to stand before the church and admit that he had been "unfaithful" to his wife and ask for forgiveness. The church was never told that Willis "unfaithfulness" was with a 15 year old member of the church who was now pregnant.

Since a pregnant girl is not allowed to continue in the Christian school operated by Trinity Baptist Church and since her mother did not want her to go to public school, the mother and the Pastor agreed that she should be sent out of state where she could be home-schooled by a Christian family. Within 2 weeks of her "confession" before the church, she was shipped to Denver, Colorado and put under the care of a Christian family and Phelp's Pastor friend, Matt Olson. One of the things that Olson had her do was to write a letter of apology to the rapist's wife for violating her trust (Tina was a babysitter for the Willis family).

Phelps says that he reported this crime to the local police and to the Department of Child Services in New Hampshire but that the police never followed up. He said he would have told them whatever they wanted to know if they had followed up. He essentially says that he did all that was legally required of him.

Last month, Tina Anderson, now 28, decided to come forward. Ernie Willis was arrested and charged with statutory rape. Willis was allowed to continue in a leadership role in the New Hampshire church for years after the incident. He left the church a few years ago after another act of "unfaithfulness" and his wife's divorce of him.

What has piqued my interest in this case is that the Pastor's and churches involved are all within the orbit of Baptist fundamentalism that I used to be a part of. Both Phelps and Olson are graduates of my alma mater, Bob Jones University and both went on after these events in 1997 to lead Baptist colleges that were sister colleges to the one where I used to teach. Phelps was the President of Marantha Baptist College in Wisconsin from 2006 to 2008. Olson is currently the President of Northland Baptist College also in Wisconsin. As a matter of fact, the connection gets even closer because Tina Anderson taught at my former employer, International Baptist College in Arizona, up until she went public on this rape case last month. She resigned from IBC, the day before Willis was arrested. No one has said yet why she resigned. I wonder, but it is only speculation, if the administration at IBC did not want her to go public about a case that happened 13 years ago and involved Pastors who have an association with the fellowhip that IBC belongs to, The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. I am not accusing anyone but it will be interesting to find out why she resigned from IBC. The chairman of the board of IBC is Mike Sproul, who is also on the board of directors of the FBFI. Phelps is the Vice Chairman for the FBFI. Sproul also attended Bob Jones University, although he did not graduate from the school. All three, Sproul, Phelps, and Olson are closely connected and share the same basic ideology.

Interestingly enough, the annual meeting of the FBFI will be taking place next week in the Denver area church, Tri-City Baptist, where Anderson was shipped back in 1997 to get away from New Hampshire. One of the speakers is Les Heinze who recently had his own scandal to deal with. The principal of his Christian school, Daniel Brock (who is the brother of the President of IBC, David Brock) was charged with sexual assault involving male students in his high school. A jury acquited him of all charges in February of this year and shortly thereafter one of the alleged victims committed suicide. The jury was not told that gay pornography was found on the Principal's computer. I guess one of the topics at this year's FBF meeting will be how to do damage control when sex scandals hit your church.

There seems to be a pattern among conservative Christians to blame the woman when something like this happens. It may be because of the low view of women that is found in the Bible.  I did a two part series a few days ago about how the OT condones rape. What is clear is that many of these scandals are "hushed up" because of the fear of what the revelations would do to the "cause of Christ." As with the Roman Catholic scandals, there seems to be more concern for the reputation of the church than for the well-being of the victims.

More on this story and the connections will definitely be coming out and I will be watching with interest.

Here are some TV and radio reports related to the incident involving the Anderson rape case.

1. Tina's interview on CBS Early Show:



2. Chuck Phelp's inteview on Radio Station WKXL in New Hamphsire.


3, Report, June 3, 2010, on Local News Fox 59 in Indianapolis:


4. Local TV newsreport on CBS 4 in Denver.

There has been a lot of discussion on the blogosphere about this case. On the fundamental Baptist website, SharperIron.org, many of the commenters were sympathetic to Phelps at first but as more information has come out, most seem to be distancing themselves from him.

Two women, Jeri Massi and Christa Brown, who run websites exposing Baptist predators have multiple posts on the subject. Another website called, StuffFundiesLike, has also discussed the case.

Former President of an Evangelical Baptist College is now under Investigation

I really don't want to turn this blog into a gossip column but it seems that every day I hear about another scandal among evangelical Christian leaders. (Hat Tip to Jerri Massi). I realize that no one is perfect, but my god, shouldn't we expect a little more from Christian leaders?

Chuck Phelps was formerly the President of Maranatha Baptist College and Seminary in Watertown, Wisconsin. In my former fundamentalist/evangelical circles, this was a highly respected institution. Before Phelps came to Maranatha, he was the Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, New Hampshire. In 1997, when Phelps was the Pastor at Trinity, a 15 year old girl was raped twice by one of the church leaders, Ernest Willis, who is now 51. The Concord Monitor ran an article yesterday on the subject. It reads in part:

After being raped and impregnated by a fellow churchgoer more than twice her age, a 15-year-old Concord girl was forced by Trinity Baptist Church leaders to stand before the congregation to apologize before they helped whisk her out of state, according to the police.

While her pastor, Chuck Phelps, reported the alleged rape in 1997 to state youth officials, Concord police detectives were never able to find the victim. The victim said she was sent to another church member's home in Colorado, where she was home-schooled and not allowed to have contact with others her age. It wasn't until this past February that the victim, who is now 28, decided to come forward after reading about other similar cases, realizing for the first time it wasn't her fault that she had been raped, she told the police.

The poor girl became pregnant and Willis offered to pay for an out-of-state abortion or to hit the girl in the stomach to cause a miscarriage.

When the girl's mother reported the situation to Pastor Phelps, he called the girl in front of the church to apologize.

Again the newspaper reported:

The victim said Phelps told her she would be put up for "church discipline," where parishioners go before the congregation to apologize for their sins.

She asked why. "Pastor Phelps then said that (Willis) may have been 99 percent responsible, but I needed to confess my 1 percent guilt in the situation," the victim told the police.

"He told me that I should be happy that I didn't live in Old Testament times because I would have been stoned."

The local TV station also ran a report on the crime yesterday. They contacted Chuck Phelps, who is now Pastor of the large Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis, and Phelps was tight-lipped about the matter.

Phelps, who is now a pastor in Indianapolis, said Tuesday he reported what the teen told him to police and child welfare officials within 24 hours. Phelps would not comment when asked about his role in relocating the teen to a pastor's home in Colorado.

"I called in a report," Phelps said. "I think I've said what I need to say."

Not only is Phelps currently the Pastor of a large Baptist church but he is also currently the Vice Chairman of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, one the largest groups of independent Baptist churches in the US.

The mistreatment and abuse of children is appalling but even more so when it is covered up by Christian leaders.

BTW, the President of Maranatha Baptist College prior to Phelps was David Jaspers. He resigned in 2006 when he admitted to a “lack of modesty” during therapeutic massage. His resignation letter can be found here.

Does the God of the Bible Condone Rape?--Part Two

In part one of, Does the God of the Bible Condone Rape?, I dealt with the passage in Exodus 21:7-11, in which God gave regulations concerning the selling of a daughter into slavery. It is bad enough that the God of the OT does not condemn slavery outright but in this particular case he condones rape as well. Any study of the Ancient Near Eastern societies will quickly reveal that women had few if any rights. They were regarded as property of their husbands, or if not married, their fathers. The fact that the father has the right, acknowledged by God in this passage, to sell his daughter is proof that she was considered property. Sadly, women are still treated this way today in certain Islamic societies (see Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali).

Today, I want to consider another passage, Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.(NIV)

The word translated "dishonored" in v. 14 is the Hebrew verb `anah (ענה ). In the Piel perfect it means compressit feminam [Latin], to deflower a woman, usually by force (Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, p. 783). The Latin compressit feminam means to suppress/control/stifle/frustrate/subdue/ a woman . This word obviously refers to rape and is so translated in other Hebrew scriptures. For example,

Judges 20:5: They raped my concubine, and she died.
2 Sam. 13:14: since he was stronger than she, he raped her.
2 Sam.13:32: ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar.

The captive was taken from her family by force and made to live with the one who had killed her family. To think that a woman who had gone through such tragedy would voluntarily agree to become the wife of her family's killer is incredible. The fact is she had no choice in the matter. As the text says, she was "raped."

The following could have been written by one of these so-called "war brides."

I was compelled to live under the same roof with him--where I saw a man forty years my senior daily violating the most sacred commandments of nature. He told me I was his property; that I must be subject to his will in all things. My soul revolted against the mean tyranny. But where could I turn for protection?

Instead it was written by Harriet A. Jacobs, an African-American slave in 19th century America.

So, the obvious fact is that, if the OT is really a divine revelation, then God condones the selling of a human being as property and the forcing of the female slave to grant the sexual wishes of her master. One may argue that the regulations laid out here are better than those in some other ANE societies but that is beside the point. There is no condemnation of this practice by the Hebrew God. He is not hesitant to condemn other practices that he finds abhorent such as homosexuality but apparently forcing women to have sex with a man is permissible or at least tolerable.

Now, as I expected some Christians have objected to my interpretation of these texts and offered arguments in an  attempt to mitigate what is obviously repugnant.

First, I am told that the phrase in Exodus 21:8, "if she does not please her master," does not relate to sex. That is extremely naive. As Pressler notes: her economic worth is, first of all, her sexuality and her reproductive capacity. (Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, eds. Victor Matthews, Bernard Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky [1998], p. 162).

Then, I am told that she is a concubine not a slave. While this admission contradicts the first claim (that "not pleasing" doesn't refer to sex), it is a "distinction without a difference" anyway. As Susanne Scholz says with regard to Genesis 35:

Overall, however, the roles of a concubine and a female slave are similar, so that the term "concubine" in Gen. 35:22 does not necessarily indicate a socially higher status than the term "slave." Even as a concubine, Bilhah is owned by Jacob, who has unrestricted sexual access to her body. It is thus inconsequential to Bilhah's position whether she is a concubine or a slave because in either case Bilhah lacks control over her life. She is property, and so Reuben challenges his father's property rights when he rapes Bilhah. Thus, this sad narrative illustrates an important, though depressing, truth about rape in androcentric and class-stratified texts: men rape women, enslaved or free, to mark their territory over against other men (Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible, p. 75, see also Thomas Dozeman, Eerdmans Critical Commentary: Exodus , p. 529).

Next, I am told that these passages in the OT do not suggest that God approved of the practices but that he merely tolerated the hardness of man's hearts. The objector says: To equate toleration with commendation is to impose one's preconceived view of the will of God onto the progressive revelation of Scripture.

My question is: How can a perfectly moral God regulate a practice that is clearly immoral? Can these Christian apologists imagine their God regulating homosexuality or idol worship? No, he condemns them unequivocally. If slavery and rape are "objectively wrong," based on the nature of God, how can God do anything but condemn them? If I tolerate improper behavior, I am tacitly approving of the behavior. The word tolerate means: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction .  Thus, it seems crystal clear to me that the God of the Bible condones both slavery and rape.

Does the God of the Bible Condone Rape?--Part One

It is fairly well known that the God of the Bible condones slavery and lays out laws governing the treatment of slaves. Often, Christian apologists argue that this slavery was not at all like slavery in the antebellum Southern United States. According to them, it was not based on race and it was not truly slavery but "indentured servitude." If a person found himself deeply in debt, he could sell himself and/or his family into servitude for six years to pay it off and then he was free (although apparently the Israelites did not always follow this law--Jer. 34:14) The master provided room and board in exchange for the servant's work and was required to treat him/her with a certain amount of dignity. So, according to these apologists, slavery as a means of paying off a debt was really not so bad.

What these apologists don't usually tell you is that the laws regarding non-Hebrew slaves was different. The contrast is seen clearly in Leviticus 25 (NIV).

Law regarding Hebrew servants

If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God (vv. 39-43).

Law regarding non-Hebrew slaves

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly (vv. 44-46).

Note, (1) the non-Hebrew slavery was in fact based on race. They must be non-Hebrews. (2) The slaves became the property of the slaveholder, and could even be inherited by the master's children. That appears to be the same as the slavery of the antebellum South. (3)These slaves were slaves for life with no hope of gaining freedom. (4) They could be treated ruthlessly. The last part of v. 46 says that fellow Israelites cannot be treated ruthlessly. The implication is that non-Israelites could be so treated.

Thus, there can be no doubt that the slavery of non-Hebrews condoned by the God of the Bible was not much different, if different at all, from the slavery practiced in the Old South. My purpose in this post, though, is to focus on something that the God of the Bible condoned that is not widely known or recognized, namely rape.

In Exodus 21:1-11, laws are laid down related to Hebrew servants. These laws are part of what is usually called, The Book of the Covenant or The Covenant Code (Exod. 20:22-23:33). Douglas Stuart writes:

This foundational portion of the Sinai covenant continues without interruption from the Ten Commandments. Although God left off speaking directly to all the Israelites at their request after the Ten Commandments (20:19), he had not stopped revealing his covenant. Moses simply went directly to the top of the mountain (20:21) and the instructions continued . . . . Now the divine discourse continues with what has come to be called the Covenant Code, a basic block of laws that guide the behavior of God's covenant people ( New American Commentary: Exodus [2006], p. 473).

So, following on the heels of the 10 Commandments are these regulations regarding female slaves (I doubt any of the Christian Right want to post these on public property):

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money (Exod. 21:7-11--NIV).

The word tranlated "servant" in verse 7 is the Hebrew word אמה ('amah ) which means maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid or concubine (Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, p. 63 ). So, here we have God condoning a man selling his own daughter to be a female slave. Note the phrase if she does not please her master (v. 8). What does this have reference to? Certainly, it means that he does not find her sexually satisfying. So, if the master has sex with his female slave and decides he does not like her, he has four options: 1) get his money back ("let her be redeemed"); 2) give her to his son as his wife; 3) continue to provide for her; or 4) let her go free.

Carolyn Pressler writes:

The law of the enslaved daughter highlights the extensive authority a father has over his daughter. He may sell her into bondage. She is one of his economic assets; her economic worth is, first of all, her sexuality and her reproductive capacity. Because she is purchased for sexual purposes, the daughter, if sold, does not go free at the end of six years (Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, eds. Victor Matthews, Bernard Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky [1998], p. 162).

So, a master buys a young girl to be his slave. She has no rights of her own but belongs now to her master. When her master has sex with the slave girl is it rape? Rape is defined as: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.

Even if the girl were to give her consent, it would still be rape because as a slave she is incapable of valid consent. A slave has no will of her own. She is fully at the disposal of her master. As Martin Noth writes, only the man is a person, while the woman on the other hand is a possession. (Exodus: A Commentary, 1962, p. 177). The slave laws are unquestionably written from an androcentric perspective. The presumed audience is male. ... Women are referred to in these text as objects of men's claims and obligations (Pressler, p. 160).

Now I can hear some apologist saying that the slave girl actually becomes the wife of her master with all of the privileges that entails. That is simply not true. As Pressler points out:

Three factors indicate that the daughter assigned to her master (v.8) or his son (v.9) was regarded as a slave rather than a "full wife" or "free wife." First, the drafters of Exod. 21:7-11 carefully use terminology that distinguished the girl from a free wife. . . . she is called an 'amah (אמה) not an 'ishshah (אשה). She is sold (makar--מכר), not given in marriage (nathan--נתן) The purchaser is referred to as her master or owner ('adown--אדון), not her husband (ba`al--בעל).

Secondly, if her master dislikes her, he causes her to be redeemed; if he deprives her of food, clothing, or oil (?), he must let her go free for no payment. Redemption and letting go free are ways of speaking about the manumission of slaves, not the divorce of a wife. . . .

Thirdly, the view that the girl is a free wife rather than a slave wife is based largely on v. 9, which accords her the customary rights of a daughter, and v. 11, which requires her master to provide her with clothing, food and oil (?). Neither phrase demonstrates that the 'amah (אמה) has the status of a free wife (pp. 163-64).

Since God only regulates this practice and does not forbid it, it seems crystal clear that the God of the Bible is condoning rape. More instances of God condoning rape will be seen in the next post.