"Our father who art in heaven..."
I know many
people want to blame Lindsay Clancy nearly getting off on the women on the
jury. But historically men were less likely to find women guilty as well.
Women have
always been treated with less criminal responsibility than men, even in cases
involving killing their own children. Martin Van Creveld’s notes how this favouritism
before the law goes back to ancient times,
“Some
six centuries later, Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, rebelled against Rome. Defeated
and taken prisoner, she begged Emperor Aurelian for her life as “a mere woman.”
Instead of being executed in one of the many unpleasant ways reserved for
enemies of Rome, she was spared. Zenobia’s male adviser, the philosopher
Cassius Longinus, took the blame and suffered the consequences. She herself
ended as a grande dame in a villa near Rome. This good fortune was almost
certainly connected to the fact that she was said to possess a beautiful voice
and “incredible sex appeal.”[ 584] That is not necessarily to say that the
emperor, a tough soldier and capable statesman, fell for her charms. Like many
other rulers before and since, he must have realized that executing a woman,
especially a good-looking one, makes for bad publicity. Conversely, one reason
why early Christian propaganda abounds with stories, real or invented, of women
being tortured and put to death[ 585] is to put the pagans in the worst
possible light. From the point of view of the propagandist, whether or not the
stories were true was immaterial.
The
tradition of treating women better than men was continued under Salic law.
Originally issued by Frankish King Clovis between 507 and 511, it was later
developed byhis successors. For example, for merely touching “the hand or the
finger of a freewoman or any other woman” a man could be fined 15 solidi. The
more intimate the touch, the higher the penalty.[ 586] Cutting off the hair of
a boy “without the consent of his relatives” cost he who was found guilty of it
1,800 solidi. Doing the same to a girl cost 4,000. Though minors of both sexes
were under the control of their adult relatives, obviously a woman’s person was
considered more precious. The fine for blocking the road of a free woman or
striking her was also three times the sum due for the same offense committed
against a man. The penalty for killing a freeman was 600 solidi; for killing a
freewoman, 1,800. Another clause says that the penalty for killing a freewoman
was the same as the one for killing a male count. Other traditional societies
maintained similar distinctions. For example, in Yemen the blood money demanded
for the death of a woman was 11 times that demanded for a man. In the eyes of
one modern female writer, this rule was part of a “chauvinistic code of
chivalry.”[ 587]
To
oblige women, many medieval rulers were even prepared to forego the usual
penalty reserved for rebels, namely the confiscation of property.[ 588] In
1333-1347 Joan, countess of March, was able to keep her Irish estates even
though her husband, Robert Mortimer, had been executed for not only committing
treason against King Edward III, but also for being the queen’s lover. In
1399-1402, Elizabeth Fitzalan, widow of the duke of Norfolk, persuaded King
Henry IV to allow her to keep her property. Three years later, Constance
Holland, the widow of another duke of Norfolk who had ended his life on the
scaffold it was a time of civil war, unhealthy for dukes persuaded the same
Henry, who was her uncle, to allow her to retainher dower. Each of these cases
marked a conflict between the desire to uphold the law and enrich the treasury
and the political imperative to avoid treating women too harshly. In each of
these cases, it was politics that won out.
Conversely,
when a woman bit into the proverbial unripe fruit, it was the teeth of her
husband or other male relatives that broke. A good example of the way things
worked, this time at the bottom of the social ladder, is provided by the
English village of Alweras in Staffordshire.[ 589] In Alweras, and presumably
in many other villages as well, most of those active in illegal brewing were
women. But in Alweras, and presumably in other villages as well, most of those
fined for illegally selling ale were men. The explanation is simple: Those who
committed the offense were actually female. Most females, however, were either
the daughters of males or married to them, and consequently it was they who
were made to bear the consequences.
In
1634 another English court spelled out the reasoning behind this arrangement.
The case in question was that of one Thomas Hellyard. He and his wife Elizabeth
were brought before the dreaded Star Chamber to answer for having sold
saltpeter — an ingredient of gunpowder — without a license. The charges were serious
indeed, comparable in today’s terms to a crime like assisting terrorists.
Convicted, Hellyard was sentenced to pay the enormous sum of 1,000 pounds
sterling, and was subjected to pillory, whipping and imprisonment. Not so his
wife and partner, who had sold over 1,000 pounds of saltpeter. Though “the
courte was fully satisfyed with sufficient matter whereupon to ground a
sentence against the defendant... shee being a wyfe and subject to obey her husband
theyr Lord ships did forbeare to sentence her…
…
In both Britain and the United
States, people were prepared to see women as a priori less culpable. In both
countries, the prevailing view was that “women are more often the accomplices
of crime, its aiders and abettors.”[ 630] Whereas men were held “strictly
accountable,” women were assumed to be endowed with an “almost paralytic
passivity”[ 631] and were judged accordingly. To the extent that they
participated in crime at all, it was believed at the time, was not on their own
initiative, but because of the corrupting influence of vicious men. Whether by
making false promises of marriage or by other means, those men had somehow
succeeded in robbing women of their independent will. However flawed the logic,
the privileges to which it led were very real. In the words of one British
journalist, “very properly the law makes merciful allowance in dealing with the
female offender when it can be apparent that she has been impelled to commit
breaches of the law under masculine influence.” [1]
And regarding
killing children in particular he notes,
“Like
Medea, some women were literally able to get away with murder. In late
19th-century Britain, less than one-quarter of those tried for the crime were
women. On the other hand, then as now women made up almost all of those tried
for infanticide. British juries regarded these women as victims of “puerperal
mania.” The latter was a fashionable disease that was also believed to cause
“extraordinary obscenity in thought and language.” Very often, juries would
simply refuse to convict. Parliament responded by changing the law so as to
separate infanticide from murder and place it in a category of its own. Yet
even so prosecutors still found it all but impossible to obtain convictions.
Normally they could do so, if at all, only if they agreed that light sentences
should be imposed. Even so, rarely did infanticidal women serve out their
complete term. This was because, among all those declared to be criminally
insane, it was they who stood the greatest chance of being granted an early
release.”[2]
How much does
what van Creveld say here match with the Lindsay Clancy trial? The more things change,
the more they stay the same.
This is historically
why women were also not allowed certain roles of authority in society.
Authority must be matched with accountability. Those who cannot be held as accountable,
cannot by any reasonable society be given larger responsibilities over others. Our
society is slowly, and painfully, learning old lessons again.
This case,
with Clancy, has done more to tarnish the demonic ideologies of egalitarianism
and feminism than anything in modern history. Which is important.
But also it
needs to be noted that one man on the jury did something most men and women
have struggled to do in history: hold a woman accountable. Most people struggle
to do this.
It is a
fascinating social phenomenon when you think about it. A woman can do the worst
possible crime, turn on the waterworks, and manipulate most people. I have
observed this sort of action, in lesser circumstances of course, so many times
in my life, and it is recorded by historians as well, as I have demonstrated in
this piece. This man showed an ability many people, men and women, do not have:
under powerful social pressure he refused to let a woman not be held
accountable. Men like that are rare.
Praise God
one was on the jury. Good job brother, good job.
[1] van
Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 140-142, 151). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
[2] van
Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 151). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
[3]
From Not The Bee.
I finally
watched Bullit for the first time last night. I have owned the movie for a
while now, but only just got around to watching it.
Most of the
movie is dead boring, to be honest. With moments of real intensity breaking up
the monotonous story.
I know
McQueen meant to play the strong quiet type, that was his thing, but in this
movie he was too quiet, way too quiet. Surely about half the movie is just him
staring at the screen brooding. He was much better in The Great Escape and
The Magnificent Seven. And I don't just say this because the movie is
old, some of my favourite movies come from that era. The aforementioned movies,
Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen, Commancheros, Chisum,
and many, many movies as well. No, I just think he did not have a good enough
cast to play of, and the movie was longer than the story required, really.
The car chase
was still worth watching. It deserves to have its iconic status. To me the most
remarkable thing about the car chase is not just how well they chose the cars,
but it is also the fact that so few modern cars could even do that car chase
today. The hills of San Francisco would kill most performance cars made since
about 1990, except for a few exceptions. You need a powerful car with live
axles, very strong suspension preferably lead sprung, and older cars were
massively over built, which is why you pay a premium for them today. They will
outlast many of their modern rivals for that very reason, their frames were just
so sturdy. You have to keep on top of the rust in the body and you need to be
able to continue sourcing led for their engines, of course, but with the right
maintenance, they are hard to break.
The movie was
worth watching. But, personally, I think the creators of many cop movies looked
at this movie and thought, "We can do way better." And they would be
right. I think Clint Eastwoods movies are examples of that.
I would like
to see an Aussie remake of the movie, set in the 70's. I would swap the Dodge
and Mustang with a 1971 XYGTHO and 74 Monaro GTS. That could work. In fact, I
think that movie would do really well. Australia has a legacy of great fast car
movies, it is time to bring it back.
You've all
heard the saying, History repeats. You also likely heard the saying, History
does not repeat but it does rhymes. Both these statements are pointing to a
true phenomenon, but they both fall short of describing what is really
happening.
The real
lesson of history is actually an observation of science and wisdom. It is this:
cause and effect. The same things happen because certain causes have
predictable effects. It really is that simple.
The Romans
opened their borders to mass immigration, therefore they lost their kingdom.
Cause and effect.
The
Carthaginians sacrificed their children in the fires, they could not, therefore,
raise the manpower to continue to fight the Romans. Rome won. Cause and effect.
Nations which
seek to rule over peoples, we call it empire or colonialism, always attract the
very foreigners they seek to rule to the centre of their power structures, and
they lose their own authority in their own nations. Cause and effect.
Nations that
offer overwhelmingly generous welfare to their native citizens, as Rome did,
end up hollowing out their own strength and being ruled by others who do not
rely on that welfare. Cause and effect.
If you want
to understand where the world is going, you have to study history, because
history documents for us what has happened and what was the result of those
things happening. And we see a lot of consistent patterns as we study history. And
you have to have a basic understanding of the principles of the scientific
method, which help us to quantify the observations of cause and effect.
Interestingly,
the vast majority of the Bible is not prophecy, it is actually history. In
fact, even the vast majority of prophetic utterances are the prophets
themselves reflecting on what will happen to their people if they reject their
historical law and origins, and chase new-fangled philosophies that undermine
established principles of wisdom. Cause and effect.
It has been
obvious to see how our nation has been heading towards disaster for some time
now. I find it encouraging how many more people are starting to see this, as
well.
Only an
arrogant people believe they can ignore cause and effect. The laws of nature
apply to us all, no matter how special we think we are. The laws of history are
simply man's attempt to wrestle with how these laws bear out in the story of
our civilisations. There is nothing exceptional about any nation on earth,
there is just wisdom applied and wisdom ignored. Each has their effect.
You can
watch the online version of this study on my channel, Based
Christian History at 8pm AEST
In this study
you will find the passage, some analysis of the passage, and 10 study questions
with cross references for a Bible study setting.
Jude
New King
James Version
Greeting
to the Called
1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ,
and brother of James,
To those who
are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus
Christ:
2 Mercy, peace, and love be
multiplied to you.
Contend
for the Faith
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to
write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to
write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was
once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain
men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this
condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny
the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Old and
New Apostates
5 But I want to remind you, though you
once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of
Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And
the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode,
He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the
great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over
to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile
the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet
Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed
about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but
said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these
speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like
brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe
to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in
the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
Apostates
Depraved and Doomed
12 These are spots in your love
feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They
are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn
trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; 13 raging
waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for
whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten
thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on
all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which
they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which
ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Apostates
Predicted
16 These are grumblers, complainers,
walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering
people to gain advantage. 17 But you, beloved,
remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus
Christ: 18 how they told you that there would
be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly
lusts. 19 These are sensual persons, who cause
divisions, not having the Spirit.
Maintain
Your Life with God
20 But you, beloved, building
yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep
yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus
Christ unto eternal life.
22 And on some have compassion, making
a distinction; 23 but others save with
fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating
even the garment defiled by the flesh.
Glory to
God
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you
from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.
Introduction
and Evaluation of Jude
If we were to
summarize Jude we could say his big idea would be:
Because false
teachers have infiltrated the church and perverted God’s grace, Christians must
contend for the apostolic faith, persevere in holiness, and lovingly rescue
those being led astray, trusting the Lord God who is able to keep them from
falling.
That captures
the movement of the whole letter particularly well. It is a call to action to
defend the truth for the sake of God’s people.
Jude himself
identifies his purpose in 1:3. He notes that he had intended to write about
their “common salvation,” but found it necessary to exhort them “to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” He has
to do this because certain people have secretly entered the church and were turning
God's grace into sensuality and denying Christ's lordship.
Aim and
structure
Jude has an
unusually clear overall structure:
The
transition at verse 17 is particularly important. Jude moves from describing
the false teachers to addressing his readers directly: “But you, beloved…” That
contrast occurs again in verses 20 and 21. The letter therefore isn't merely a
denunciation of heresy; it is pastoral instruction about how faithful
Christians are to respond when error threatens the church.
As I already
noted; Jude wants believers to contend for the faith for the sake of the body
of Christ.
Interpretation
Jude's
argument is theological as well as moral. The false teachers do not merely have
some incorrect opinions. Their distorted understanding of grace produces
distorted behaviour. They turn grace into an excuse for sensuality and
simultaneously deny Christ's authority.
That is why
Jude repeatedly connects belief and behaviour. Cain, Balaam and Korah in verse
11 are not random examples: each represents rebellion against God's revealed
order. The images Jude uses in verses 12–13, imagery like waterless clouds,
fruitless trees, raging waves and wandering stars, communicate spiritual
barrenness and instability.
The second
half of this small letter gives the positive alternative. Believers are to
build themselves up in the faith, pray in the Holy Spirit, keep themselves in
God's love and look forward to Christ's mercy. They are also to show
differentiated pastoral care toward those affected by error.
There is a
beautiful tension between human perseverance and divine preservation. Verse 21
says, “keep yourselves,” while verse 24 declares that God is able to “keep you
from stumbling.” God's preserving work does not make Christian perseverance
unnecessary; rather, persevering in the faith is one of the ways God's
preserving grace is evidenced. The believer is responsible to keep their faith
in God, while relying on God to sustain them. Jude would laugh at those who complain too
much about tone. His letter is rhetorically forceful. His language becomes
increasingly vivid as he describes the false teachers. This is appropriate
because the tone of the letter is one of urgent pastoral warning, not detached
academic analysis. Jude cares enough about people’s souls to use strong language
to warn them about dangerous teachers.
Jude Bible
study Questions
Bible
Study: Jude — Contending for the Faith
1. Who are
the people Jude is writing to, and what does he say God has already done for
them? Vv. 1-2
Cross-reference:
1 Peter 1:3–5
2. Why did
Jude feel compelled to change what he originally intended to write about? Vv. 3–4.
Cross-reference:
Galatians 1:6–9
3. What
exactly was wrong with the false teachers? Vv. 4, 8–13 and 16.
Cross-reference:
Titus 1:16
4. Why
does Jude spend so much time reminding his readers about examples from the
past? Vv. 5–11.
Cross-reference:
1 Corinthians 10:1–12
5. What do
Jude's vivid descriptions in verses 12–16 tell us about the character and
destiny of false teachers? Vv. 12–16.
Cross-reference:
Matthew 7:15–20
6. What is
the positive alternative to following false teachers? Vv. 17–21.
Cross-reference:
Acts 20:28–32
7. What
does it mean to “keep yourselves in the love of God”? Vv. Jude 20–21.
Cross-reference:
John 15:9–10
8. How
should Christians respond to people who are doubting or being drawn toward error?
Vv. 22–23.
Cross-reference:
Galatians 6:1–2
9. What
does Jude mean by saying that God is able to “keep you from stumbling”? V. 24.
Cross-reference:
Philippians 1:3–6
10. How
should Jude change the way we live as Christians and as a church? Vv. 24–25.
Cross-reference:
Romans 16:25–27
“What will
you say when a child asks: Why are we driving a vehicle that is killing our
planet?”
"Honey,
it's retarded." Or something like that.
But in all
seriousness, there are elements in modern media, schooling and government, who
genuinely and truly believe it is their task to turn your children against you
and your way of life and values.
Many parents
are sleepwalking into this happening, as well. They might even be seeing it
happen to their friends, or people they know, and of course it cannot happen to
them, right?
A lack of
diligence in what your kids are being taught both when they are with you, and
when they are not, often turns into one of the biggest regrets of many older
parents. And saying, “We chose a private school for that reason,” does not
count as much as you think. I know I went to one, in a good area. They are not always
the bulwark of righteousness that many Christian parents think they.
And, of
course, the devil knows that if he can get the children to turn against their
fathers, and the fathers to turn against their children, then he can destroy a
society.
"5
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before
the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6
And he will turn
The
hearts of the fathers to the children,
And
the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest
I come and strike the earth with a curse" (Mal. 4:5-6).
Once a
society gets to that point, it is almost impossible to preserve.
That overly
progressive teacher or that annoyingly invasive government bureaucrat is not
harmless. They are actually part of a concerted effort in our modern society to
make our way of life unliveable, whether they know they are or not.
Beware of
their lunatic influence on your children.
Paul says
something really interesting in Titus 2, that is being highlighted by the
Lindsay Clancy trial. He says among other things that women need to be taught
how to love their children,
"3 the
older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not
given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young
women to love their husbands, to love their children,..." (Tit. 2:3-4).
There are a
lot of amazing mothers. I am surrounded by many of them in my family, social
network and church environments. Incredible women, doing incredible things for
their children and families.
If you are
surrounded by such women, you might find Paul's statement, here, that women
need to be taught how to love their children, to be strange. But the Lindsay
Clancy trial has, once again, shown us that Paul had a supernatural insight
into human nature for both men and women. He was not seeking to simply repeat
cultural ideas, but rather to convey transcendent truths. Transcendent truths that
we ignore at our own peril.
If the
culture of the home is broken enough, for long enough, you will have an
increasing number of women in society who will support a woman like Lindsay
Clancy, as we have all just seen, to our horror. The abortion numbers should
have told us this problem existed. If that did not, abortion up to birth should
have told us this. But people were so uninterested in hearing this, that it
took the evil of a woman blaming her depression for pre-meditated murder to
remind us that women need to be taught to love their husbands and children,
just like men need to be taught to love their wives.
People forget
that Paul lived and wrote in a day where a woman who really did not want her
kids could dump them in the forest to let them die of exposure. Something which
was common in ancient Rome, Greece and other societies in that day. Or she and
her husband could sell unwanted children into slavery; something which also
happened. Or they could simply put their children under the authority of a
slave or other servant to be raised, trained, and brought up, barely even engaging
with them. These are just some of the evils that were accepted.
These things
sound unconscionable in our day and age, though many parents have moved back
closer to doing the third one through the schooling system. But the support for
Clancy amongst a too large subset of women shows us the old pagan ways could
easily come back, if society lets them.
Paul knew
that a young mother needed the guidance of older, experienced women, especially
her family and Christian family, to help her get through the harder stages of
pregnancy. He did not know the term post-partum depression, and he did not have
children of his own. But he had supernatural insight into the kind of healthy
structures a young woman needed around her to get through pregnancy well.
Praise God,
for the women I know doing this. May God use the clear nature of Lindsay
Clancy's evil to wake up more people to the way our society has been heading.
