Neither Do I Condemn You. Period.

 
I'm borrowing from a post by Stan at Birds of the Air blog again, not to single him out or to talk about him. It's just that he so consistently represents so well the problems of the sort of conservative evangelicals worldview in which I was raised. In this case, he is talking about Jesus and the Woman Accused of Adultery (story found in John 8). In the story, a woman who was supposedly "caught in the act of adultery" is brought before Jesus by the Pharisees. It goes like this...

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus,

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

That is the story literally from the Bible (and with the vital note that the man - who presumably was ALSO "caught in the act of adultery" was not forcibly grabbed and detained by these religious zealots.)

What Stan did, when reading the story (and again, not singling Stan out... this kind of thinking is common in conservative circles when dealing with this story) was to paraphrase Jesus' words thusly...

And when they all slinked away, Jesus addressed the woman. "I'm not bringing judgment at this time," He told her, but that was not a dismissal of sin. "Go and sin no more."

My response to Stan (which he didn't post, but he DID refer to in his comments...)

No. You're flatly mistaken. What he literally said was...

Neither do I condemn you.

Period.

Jesus did not condemn her. Jesus said clearly and without without a caveat that he did not condemn her. Period. 

So many conservatives that I've talked with over the years deal with this text consistently in the same way: First of all, they point out that this passage (the first half of John 8) may not be part of the original text. Then secondly, they ALL proceed to read into the text to something that the text does not say.

In this text and context, with a bunch of powerful religious male oppressors literally using scripture to literally try to condemn and kill this woman who they viewed to be a sinner... in THIS context, Jesus had no condemnation for this oppressed woman.

This is in fitting with all of Jesus teachings where he took the side of the oppressed over and against the side of the oppressor.. Jesus said that he came to free the oppressed, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the immigrants, women and other marginalized groups who the religious zealots of his day regularly found unclean and unworthy of God.

In Stan's one comment (so far) he explained his reasoning as to why he changed Jesus' words to literally the opposite of what Jesus actually said, saying that Jesus DOES stand in judgment of everyone, or will one day. Jesus MUST be this harsh judge against "sin," Stan says...

"or else, we have a problem..."

Ah. Very insightful (if accidentally) of Stan. This is precisely what the pharisees of Jesus' day had to say, too. This is precisely part of the reason why they felt they had to kill Jesus. They DID have a problem.

The theology of the Pharisees (and way too often, too many modern conservative evangelicals - and even some who aren't conservative or evangelical), requires a harsh, deadly, condemn all sin to the utmost kind of god. Without that killer god on in their pocket, they lose their power to control women, foreigners, the poor and marginalized.

And part of their problem in this story was their willingness to condemn this sinner who Jesus literally did not condemn. But, they would have insisted (the Pharisees and too many modern evangelicals), all sin requires condemnation.

Jesus literally and specifically disagreed.

Stan further tries to explain why he negates the words of Jesus...

"Indeed, to suggest that Jesus didn't care about sin is to require that Jesus didn't care about justice and, in fact, denies His deity"

This is, of course, ridiculous and unbiblical and anti-christian.  That is, literally contrary to the words of Jesus.

Jesus told this woman literally that he did not condemn her and that was precisely an act of Justice against the ongoing oppression of the religious pharisees. As a matter of Justice, Jesus stood against the religious pharisees and their oppression. Because of Jesus standing against their oppression as a matter of Justice, the pharisees went against any sense of Justice and eventually plotted and killed Jesus.

Which side do you want to be on, Stan? Jesus? Or the pharisees?

It's interesting and sad that Stan's community of evangelicals view condemnation to be an essential attribute of God. Jesus and The Bible and the Gospels teach us that God is a God of love and grace and Justice, especially for the historically oppressed and especially and specifically against the religious zealots who would use The Bible and God against the oppressed.

Just as a point of clarity, to note the reality that this text has Jesus saying literally "Neither do I condemn you," is not the same as saying that Jesus doesn't care about sin. Indeed, the reason for the stand he took here against the Pharisees was because of the sin of the Pharisees, using/misusing the Scriptures and "god" as their tool for control. Jesus WAS concerned about sin... the sin and oppression and exclusionary practices/policies of the Pharisees.

And noting that reality does NOT require that we think Jesus didn't care about justice - again, just the opposite - and that reality in no way denies Jesus' deity. That's just an empty claim built on poor reasoning.

"Or else, we have a problem."

Indeed.

"Soft Totalitarianism"

I've heard mention a few times lately (especially from conservatives) of a term - “Soft Totalitarianism.” I did a little research and came to see that this is a term that seems to have been promoted by white conservative evangelicals who feel threatened by the changing demographics of the US. It appears to have been spoken of especially by Rod Dreher, and expanded upon by Jonah Goldberg, Tim Challies, Gregory Glazov, among others.

None of these white conservative men are historians or scholars on actual totalitarianism.

Dreher (who has a bachelors degree in journalism) “has written extensively about what he calls the "Benedict Option", the idea that Christians who want to preserve their faith should segregate themselves to some degree from "post-Obergefell” [the Supreme Court case that legalized folks, you know, getting married and shit - Dan] society, which he sees as drifting ever further away from traditional Christian values (particularly those regarding sex, marriage, and gender).” [wikipedia]

He's also written about what HE (and not any serious historians or scholars) thinks about what HE (and not any serious historians or scholars that I can find) calls “soft totalitarianism.” The idea being, as one might expect, that mean liberals are "forcing" by "soft totalitarianism" people to accept ideas they don't like.

Here's Dreher...

Soft totalitarianism, by contrast, depends on people being afraid of losing comfort, status, and at worst, employment, to force conformity. Nevertheless, because so few people today will be willing to suffer for the truth, it will achieve by softer means what the earlier version achieved through harsh means.

Finally, the softness of soft totalitarianism is also a reference to the fact that we are building a total control society for the sake of compassion, in order to create a “safe space” for favored minorities.

https://cbmw.org/2021/06/08/an-interview-with-rod-dreher-on-soft-totalitarianism/

And just as a reminder, here's the definition of actual totalitarianism...

Totalitarianism is
a form of government
that prohibits opposing political parties and ideologies,
while controlling all aspects of the public and private lives of the people.
Under a totalitarian regime, all citizens are subject to the absolute authority of the state.

Or...

Totalitarianism is generally identified by
dictatorial centralized rule
dedicated to controlling all public and private aspects of individual life,
to the benefit of the state,
through coercion,
intimidation, and
repression.
Totalitarian states are typically ruled by autocrats or dictators who
demand unquestioned loyalty and
control public opinion through propaganda distributed via government-controlled media.

https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-definition-and-examples-5083506

So, in short, "soft totalitarianism" is NOTHING LIKE actual totalitarianism.

The ideas that Dreher points to and objects to are the ideas of applying peer pressure for the sake of not oppressing people. But applying peer pressure is NOT totalitarianism.

If a company truly believes in accepting LGBTQ folks, for instance, and requires their employees to address people by their preferred pronouns (the horror!), the employee who wants to be a rude jackass is free to leave the company if they don't want to be a decent human being at literally no cost to themselves. (Let's face it: a woman asking you to refer to them as She or anyone requesting you refer to them as THEM is just about the lowest bar one could possibly put in place for not being a total douche). There is no government involvement, no torture, no dictators, no controlling of every aspect of one's life, no illegal coercion, no oppression, no jail... just an expectation to be a decent human being and, if one doesn't want to comply, then they can be fired.

That is not any kind of totalitarianism. It's peer pressure, naught else.

The same for boycotts or just dirty looks and losing friends for being a jerk. It's not oppression to say, "I can't be your friend if you're going to be a jerk to people doing nothing but living their life..."

It's just not.

So, here again, we have the whole "War on Christmas/Christians" emotional response from the religious right to people just asking them to be decent human being, or at least, not be a jerk. There is no war on Christmas or Christianity. People are free to find rude behavior to be rude and unwanted. Peer pressure is precisely the sort of change agent we want to see in a free and non-violent world. It's a respectful of human rights and peaceful way to try to effect positive change and fight actual oppression.

I have two questions about this that I'd love to hear conservatives give a thoughtful response to...

Prior to 1960, white conservative Christianity had a profound control of the dominant culture. If you were LGBTQ prior to 1960, you HAD to keep it in the closet for your own safety.

If it were found out or one was even suspected of it, they could be literally arrested, beaten, kicked out of their family, shunned by their faith community, gossiped about and demonized across the city and suspected of being a threat to children and people everywhere. You could be (and people were) chemically castrated!. This extreme pressure (which included peer pressure, but went way beyond it because you could be arrested and the threats of violence were never-ending and IF a person were arrested for beating/killing a gay person, there was a good chance the charges would be dismissed as justifiable!) was largely because of conservative religious teachings and beliefs.

First of all, I'd like to know if conservative Christians today can acknowledge that reality?

Secondly, I'd like to know if they can call out this extreme peer pressure AND government oppression as the great evil it was and admit it was much closer to actual totalitarianism than anything they are seeing today?

After all, you can be publicly Christian or even conservative Christian and you won't lose your job for that. You certainly won't go to jail for it. It's only if you act like a jerk and refuse to treat others with some basic decency (and again, at literally NO COST to them) that you'd be at risk of losing your job.

It would be easier to take conservatives seriously about their concern about so-called "soft totalitarianism" today IF they could recognize that much worse was done by conservatives prior to, really, the 1970s.

And one final thought: I'm thinking that this idea of "soft totalitarianism" is something that is spreading in conservative echo chambers across the nation. Conservatives truly think they are being oppressed or at risk of being oppressed and it's in part because of non-historians, non-scholars like Dreher loosely passing on ridiculous ideas like this "soft totalitarianism."

The problem with this is that conservatives seem to be moving further and further, faster and faster into the hands and ideas being passed on by people who aren't experts in the fields they're talking about and who are using inflammatory language that only serves to spread the irrational fears that conservatives appear to be prone to. We have to find some way to move away from this conspiracy-leaning mindset embraced by way too many.

And no, conservatives, that doesn't mean we're going to put you in jail for being irrationally fearful. But we WILL ask you to not spread dangerous false claims. Be better than that. Be a conservative who breaks free of that fear.

Or at the very least, don't be a jerk.