Blueboy, Every Nation / Morning Star International

The Blueboy story doesn't concern anyone particular famous. It also is borderline in terms of church discipline. The man involved volunterily quits the church and they later take action against him in a secular context. The church involved is Morning Star International which is now known as Every Nation.

Major points of interest:

• The very explicit teachings regarding how this organization believes the mind is distorted and one should reason with their heart.
  
• Blueboy discuss his ideas of love bombing vs. friendship and recruitment. The ideas aren't fully developed but he does provide examples.
  
• Very explicit discussion of the God is a republican theme
• The writer has a behaviorist perspective on the conversion experience, that behavior induces belief. While many Christians believe this with regard to morality its unusual to see it with respect to conversion from a still active Christian.
  

Blueboy is active in Factnet discussions. I will also invite him to join us here.

Federal Vision and Catholicism

This is a discussion with David Hodges
on the connection between Federal Vision and Catholicism. David is the son in law of Steve Schlissel who along with Douglas Wilson, John Barach, Steve Wilkins "founded" the movement. About three years after the movement started, Dave Hodges and his wife Sarah Faith Hodges joined the Roman Catholic Church.

A defense against Patriarchy (part 5)

This chapter assumes the reader has already read: part3 and part4. So far we have disproven the patriarchal position that their position has been the universally held orthodox position until the last century. We have shown that the apostolic church was ignorant of patriarchal doctrine. We have shown that once an orthodoxy developed it had a theology contrary to the patriarchal doctrines. We have shown that once patriarchy emerged on its own the church actually opposed it. In this part we examine the theology of marriage during the high middle ages. As we advance through the middle ages marriages become less patriarchal and less cruel.

In the mid 11th century Saint Pope Gregory VII instituted the Gregorian reforms which sought to establish divine law as the only legitimate basis for secular law. He saw the role of the church as the ultimate governing authority he launched a war against simony as the most prevalent form of corruption. With the war against simony priests could not outwardly show disproportionate wealth and with celibacy they could not pass it on. The result was the start of honest government. This idea of honest government had begun to infect the secular governments as well and governments capable of planning and complex administration once again came into existence. The was prosperity and relative peace. Education began to flourish. The church itself asserted its authority under the Gregorian Reforms:

• That the Roman pontiff alone is rightly called universal.
• That he alone has the power to depose and reinstate bishops.
• That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
• That all princes shall kiss the foot of the pope alone.
• That he has the power to depose emperors.
• That he can be judged by no one.
• That no one can be regarded as catholic who does not agree with the Roman church.
• That he has the power to absolve subjects from their oath of fealty to wicked rulers (see Australian Catholic University page).

For the first time in almost seven hundred years the church is strong and capable of meaningful doctrinal enforcement. A church such as this needs a clear statement of doctrine , and this comes in the mid 13th century when Saint Thomas Aquinas pens Summa Theologica (the sum of theological knowledge). As the title indicates, the book is intended as a reference of basic Catholic theology on all topics. Its authority is immediately recognized, and then continues to grow so that by the Council of Trent Summa is given official status as being second only to the bible in its authority. In terms of our interests Summa contains an extended discussion of the variety of opinion on the nature of love, marriage, virginity, the sacraments. As we had mentioned in the introduction (part 1) it is here were we hit the single most damning piece of evidence in our entire study; if patriarchy had been the dominant religious teaching of the church through time then the greatest Christian philosopher ever writing a text specifically addressing the issue of the varieties of religious teachings would be expected to mention it. Rather what we see is Aquinas quoting Augustine as being in line with the Greek philosophers and then church doctrine as building on Augustine. He casually dismisses patriarchy with statements such as, "Although the husband is the head of the wife, he is her pilot as it were, and is no more her judge than she is his. Consequently in matters that have to be submitted to a judge, the husband has no more power over his wife, than she over him. ( Summa 5.62.4.O4)

Aquinas mentions other church fathers for specific topics and most certainly covers the debates about the nature of virginity in great detail. In the end Aquinas creates a harmony via advancing doctrines very much in keeping with today's catholic church. Virginity is preferable to chastity which is preferable to ordered sexuality, that is sex between a man and his wife in a manner capable of producing children, and ordered sexuality is not sinful while disordered sexuality (anything else) is. Note also that Aquinas explicitly ties his theory of marriage and sexuality to the doctors of the church, that is he agrees with our time line as presented in part 3. And moreover indirectly he is tying the church to the teachings of Thelca.

The hundredfold fruit is ascribed to virginity, according to Jerome [Ep. cxxiii ad Ageruch.], on account of its superiority to widowhood, to which the sixtyfold fruit is ascribed, and to marriage, to which is ascribed the thirtyfold fruit. But according to Augustine (De QQ. Evang. i, 9), "the hundredfold fruit is given to martyrs, the sixtyfold to virgins, and the thirtyfold to married persons." Wherefore it does not follow that virginity is simply the greatest of virtues, but only in comparison with other degrees of chastity. (Summa 3.152.5.O2)

Or for another for another example he gives his general opinion of marriage relative to virginity:

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. xix): "Both solid reason and the authority of Holy Writ show that neither is marriage sinful, nor is it to be equaled to the good of virginal continence or even to that of widowhood."

I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Cor. 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking "on the things of God" [Vulg.: 'the Lord'], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think "on the things of the world," as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence. (Summa 3.152.4)

For another place where he would disagree very strongly with the patriarchs, he grants that sex plus intent constitutes marriage. This is an explicit rejection of the notion that a woman belongs to her father and only he can marry her:

I answer that, We may speak of marriage in two ways. First, in reference to the tribunal of conscience, and thus in very truth carnal intercourse cannot complete a marriage the promise of which has previously been made in words expressive of the future, if inward consent is lacking, since words, even though expressive of the present, would not make a marriage in the absence of mental consent, as stated above (45, 4). Secondly, in reference to the judgment of the Church; and since in the external tribunal judgment is given in accordance with external evidence, and since nothing is more expressly significant of consent than carnal intercourse, it follows that in the judgment of the Church carnal intercourse following on betrothal is declared to make a marriage, unless there appear clear signs of deceit or fraud [According to the pre-Tridentine legislation] (De sponsal. et matrim., cap. Is qui fidem)....
If the woman admit her betrothed, thinking that he wishes to consummate the marriage, she is excused from the sin, unless there be clear signs of fraud; for instance if they differ considerably in birth or fortune, or some other evident sign appear. Nevertheless the affianced husband is guilty of fornication, and should be punished for this fraud he has committed. (Summa 5.46.2 A & O3)

In Summa 5.41.3 he concludes that the marriage act is not always sinful providing the proper attitude is maintained. Again we see an explicit rejection of the notion that God has a relationship with families and not with individuals. There are over a hundred pages of material in Summa addressing sex, marriage, virginity, lust, the sacraments and virtually all of them contradict patriarchy as strongly as the small sample I've selected. At this point we have proven that not only was patriarchy not the teachings of the church through time but that it was absolutely never the teaching of the church.

Since we are addressing protestants and not catholics we need to complicate our analysis. Over the course of four centuries the Gregorian reforms drove a counter reaction, a religious peasants revolt which result in the church becoming beholden to the very state interests that it was originally opposing with the Gregorian reform. Since the Patriarchs are Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist we will focus on two movements that occurred between the Gregorian reform and the start of the 14th century there are two movements which impact our story. These are proto-protestants, a larval form of protestantism.

In the late 11th or early 12th century a group of woman decide to form woman's communities called Béguinage from which the sect, the Beguines gets their name. Lay woman, who were Catholic forming woman's communities from which woman could freely come and go. They differed from convents in 3 crucial respects

• Not under the administration of the church or supervision of priests. The leadership and membership was entirely lay and female.
  
• No vow of chastity or religious vow was required. People served God as they saw fit.
  
• In terms of rules they were Franciscan not a Benedictine structure(see Franciscan rule and Benedectine rule for the distinction). Within and outside they aggressively preached the 4 friars and the poverty of Christ.

It bears mentioning that simultaneously with the rise of the Beguines, Dominican and Franciscan (Poor Clares) convents were forming and this is what ultimately survived in history. Some men began to admire the Beguine structure and a male form of the Beguines called the Beghards formed. Both organizations were devastated by the church 1299-1315 but the attacks lacked popular support (even among the clergy). As a result of these movement, inside Germany and the Netherlands a belief had taken hold within the population of an individualistic faith, where a lay leadership that had not taken vows directed religious activities among a free association of individuals who had voluntarily joined in a community. This was a compelling vision, a vision today identified with the term "priesthood of the believer". Also in terms of influence, in keeping with their low view of the church they were consubstantiationist. Also in terms of influence according the inquisitor Bernard Gui they translated parts of the scriptures into the vernacular for self study. Two hundred years after the height of the Beguine movement these organization ideas would become key in the rise of Protestantism. That is a proto-protastantism already existed in the mid 12th century as a woman's religious movement, and in choosing to be Protestant, the patriarchs are indirectly submitting to the teachings of these Beguine woman.

For the baptists the ties to the Beguine are not just intellectual but political as well. The Beguine/Beghards thrown out of their communities become the early members of the Brüder und Schwestern des Freien Geiste (Brothers and sisters of the Free Spirit) who spread throughout Europe the doctrine of equality of all believers. In Northern Italy the groups that take to this philosophy call themselves the Waldenses, and break off from the Catholic Church The anabaptists directly tie themselves to the Waldenses (though many historians see inspiration rather than direct descent) and the development of Baptists (as per the kind we have in America) from the anabaptists is the last step in the chain. Strengthening the chain further in Czechoslokian and Moravian churches these ideas of the Brethern become the Hussite, and most historians now attribute the reformation as having started with the Hussite rebellion. Regardless they are unquestionably predecessor to the anabaptist. John T Christian in his A History of the Baptists makes the ties explicit.

In England we can speculate on another tie between the Beguine and proto-protastantism. John Wycliffe creates a sect he calls the the Lollardy. Lollard is the Dutch word for a mumbling prayer. The Lollardy is the sect to which Thomas Cromwell belonged, that is the sect that will become the English Lutherans.

Even more extreme then the Beguine there are the Cathars of southern France. As the dark ages had ended there was trade between communities and the Christian Gnostics of Bulgeria (the Bogomils) moved westward. In the Albi region of france these ideas became the majority religion and full fledged Christian Gnosticism with institutional support appeared in Europe. During the 12th century these ideas continued to spread rapidly, until large parts of southern France were not part of the Catholic system at all. The church was unsuccesful in checking the spread of the Cathars and in the end the Catholic Church was victorious against the Cathari only after it resorted to genocide. While they make a fascinating study of a road not taken in Christian development, in terms of our limited interests it is worth noting that they offered in egalitarian view of the sexes having perfecti (priests) which were both men and woman. In terms of marriage they banned all oaths and only allowed for informal relationships. Further, the religion saw sexuality as depraved to a degree that surpassed even Jerome. So for example they avoided eating the byproducts of sexual reproduction: meat, cheese, milk; while freely eating fish because fish reproduce without intercourse.

The ideas of the Cathars were so popular among the peasant that the Catholic church needed to create a permanent institution called the inquisition, whose goal it was to crush their teaching throughout Europe. Saint Dominic believed that the egalitarianism of the Cathari were key to their success and challenged papel authorities of his day with:

"It is not by the display of power and pomp, cavalcades of retainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth."

A rallying cry that would be directed at the papacy by the reformers. He founded the Dominican Order to create a new sort of religious leader with less education but focused on preaching in the vernacular and holy living in their daily lives. Moreover the order maintained loose rather than strong ties to Rome to avoid corruption, to maintain a theological orthodox form of catholicism without the worldly ties that were causing the church to fall into disrepute. The protestant reformers were quite explicit in tieing their own movement to Dominic, and Dominic was explicitly attempting to create a theologically orthodox form of Catharism. The Catholic church itself acknowledges that the Dominican and Franciscan reform movement is the tradition from which the protestant reformers emerged.

So we are confronted with the dilemma of asking whether by "orthodox" the patriarchs mean Benedictine or Dominican since the one is far closer to the pope and the other a form of proto-protestant. Do we mean the views of the orthodox church or of the peasantry, the Beguine? Do they mean those aspects of Christianity in coming centuries which will come to dominate or do they mean the evolutionary dead end we will discuss below? Just as in part 2 it is no longer clear what the patriarchs even mean by orthodox at this point in history. The patriarchs have a grossly oversimplified view of the history of Christianity and they themselves haven't really considered what they mean by orthodox in a variety of Christian contexts. Above we have addressed the Christianity of the poor and how it was transforming into an egalitarian proto-protestantism. It wouldn't be until the black death that the middle class and rich would in a mass way begin to adopt these ideas (outside of Albi region of France).

There was no group of people to which patriarchal marriage was popular. The peasants as mentioned above were moving towards egalitarianism and Franciscan views of goodness, opposing hierarchy and power in their daily lives. In a broader sense, divorce was tolerated again, and a man could divorce his wife legally. Woman had created institutions (like convents and Béguinage) where they could flee a husband, which effectively gave them a right to divorce. The laws had introduced numerous protections for woman. For example the protections granted to servants were extended to wives and thus a husband who maimed or killed his wife during a beating would be criminally prosecuted.

Most importantly though a woman and a man's financial interest coincided. The dowry was usable by the man's estate only so long as the woman remained with the estate (death included). Conversely the woman was entitled to 1/3rd of the estate for life unless she had been divorced. So both parties benefit from the other's successes. The core reason that fully patriarchal marriage had been abusive in the dark ages had been removed by civil guarantees.

But in general marriage was seen as a relationship of mutual duty towards one another. The power discrepancies were seen as corrupting the sexual relationship so as to make love impossible:

We declare and hold as firmly established that love cannot exert its powers between two people who are married to each other. For lover's give each other everything freely, under no compulsion of necessity, but married people are in duty bound to give in to each other's desires and deny themselves to each other in nothing.' (Andrew the Chaplain in his treatise, The Art of Courtly Love, site)

Among the aristocrats egalitarianism and poverty of Christ teaching were not popular. What had started as patriarchal marriage had continued to evolve, and this gives us the closest thing we can have a patriarchal marriage without cruelty. And this presents another useful counter argument, what patriarchal marriage without cruelty actually looked like in practice.

The practice marriage worked like this. Boys were educated primarily in war, politics and religion. Girls were educated in domestic duties and what we would today call business administration. Girls were married at the age of about 12 or soon thereafter. They would be marrying a man who had just established his own household. That is a man in his late 20s or early 30s. From the age of 12-21 she would rapidly give birth to a half dozen or more children. The boys would be educated in war and politics , while the girls would be educated in domestic management (which also amounted to understanding of how to administer an estate). As she hit the age of 21 he would be about 40 and at that point would want to start being able to travel to further enhance his wealth. The woman would then assume complete administration of the household, including servants and finances. Her daughters would be learning administration from their mother as their mother got practical experience. Soon thereafter the daughters would be old enough to marry. Their father would negotiate strong business concessions in exchange for a large dowry of either money or land. The daughter would be married off to "sign the deal". About a decade later, the sons would then go off to establish their own estates, and generally with their father's assistance they would negotiate a marriage which would infusion their estate with a large quantity of capital and thus allow for investment and growth. After this point, the father would retire/die and the mother assume control of the primary estate if the heirs were not able to administer it. She was entitled to a third of the estate (either actually taking a third or taking the profits).

Between spouses the relationship was one of duty. Both parties saw the marital assets as something to be jointly administered. Both parties stood to benefit from the gains of the estate. Letters of the time show warmth affection, trust and sometimes admiration between spouses. Their relationship would be best described as businesses partners, CEO to COO or retail manager to assistant-manager.

In terms of sexually however the situation was quite bleak by modern standards. Upon first meeting, middle ages men reacted to their wives much the same as a man of 30 would react to a middle school child today, and vice versa. While they had an obligation to impregnate there was no attraction and both parties were in fact able to see sex as "the marital debt". Most aristocratic men's early experience's were with servant girls or prostitutes. Servants were often unmarried young girls who would live on the estate for a year in exchange for room, board and a small salary. If however the girl "lost her virtue" during her stay her father would need to be paid a large sum of money, as a legally enforceable fine. It was no uncommon for comely lower class woman to lose their virtue several years in a row to work up a large dowry and thus marry into a wealthier family (for more details). From the family's perspective this was a good way to avoid their sons getting into trouble that would rape could lead to legal trouble, and St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) claimed that by age fifteen, all young men had lost their virginity (site). Masturbation and homosexuality were also tolerated among men too young to marry. During his married years the man would often take a woman of the same age as himself as a lover, "courtly love", which will be described below. If not prostitutes, again were standard fair. Finally, as he got older there would be widows of his age available as mistresses. Also second marriages were often between people of roughly the same age and not uncommonly there was a love / lust component as well as the strictly mercenary components common to first marriages. For example the wife of bath, picks her husbands based on a large wallet, large testicles and their skill as a lover:

Of whiche I have pyked out the beste,
Bothe of here nether purs and of here cheste.
Diverse scoles maken parfyt clerkes,
And diverse practyk in many sondry werkes
Maketh the werkman parfyt sekirly;

The church while hostile to adultery and always keeping open an offer for prostitutes to reform and either marry or become nuns, was not as hostile as the present day church towards prostitution. In the eyes of the church, prostitutes were useful in that they reduced the temptation for fornication, adultery and rape among men and consequently the incidence of immorality among both sexes.

For a wealthy woman the cycle would be young mother, followed by mistress and then widow. As a widow she would either remarry (almost always a widower) or carry on as a mistress to a married man or more safely as the mistress to a widower. Again we point to the fact that widow was entitled to a third of the estate until her death. Thus the heir and the widow shared financial incentives and it was both of their interest to work together.

In starting our discussion of courtly love we continue with out pattern of looking at the most well known and authoritative sources. We turn to the single most important piece of Christian literature ever. Dante Alighieri's Divina Commedia (Divine Comedy). To have an encyclopedia say of a work "If the Faith were extinguished, Dante would restore it...The power of the sacred poem in popularizing Catholic theology and Catholic philosophy, and rendering it acceptable, or at least intelligible to non-Catholics, is at the present day almost incalculable." (Catholic Encyclopedia) gives one a sense to this poem's immense power and beauty. Since this series of essays is directed at protestants and most of them haven't read this I should just comment that this poem deserves its reputation and there is no more godly work you can read than Dante.

In the story the protoganist (Dante) is taught salvation through his mediator and guide Beatrice. Beatrice in Divine Comedy is based Beatrice Potinari a childhood infatuation of Dante's, who married to Simone dei Bardi and died at the age 24. In the poem she is the very essence of goodness and through her Dante is able to achieve salvation. Above we see Dante and Beatrice staring into the triune spirations of God made visable by Beatrice's holyness. For Dante Beatrice plays the same role as Mary does for humanity. The idea of a idealized married woman being the main sexual, spiritual and intellectual focus of a married man was called courtly love.

The classic work describing the rules of this type of relationship had been written a century earlier as the Art of Courtly Love (De Amore). For Dante, as for most people in his classes spouses through intercourse might come to have an "immoderate affection" for one another. But since such love was ultimately based in the commercial and practical aspects of the marriage it was not viewed not be ennobling (see the 31 rules of courtly love). Rather, for him the most ennobling love is generally secret (i.e., not public), extremely difficult to obtain and unconsummated, serving as a means for inspiring men to great deeds.

David Simpson of DePaul identifies 5 properties of courtly love which distinguish it from the marital relationship:

1. Courtly love is aristocratic in that it took place within the court. Marital love was common and took place amoung all people.
   
2. Courtly love was ritualistic. The rituals associated with it called courtship and courtesy were a self consciously form of play acting. Marital relationships were seen as dull and involved day to day activities.
3. Courtly love was secret. The people who knew of the affair were only those who could be trusted and the lovers formed a universe unto themselves. Marital relations were public.
   
4. Courtly love was adulterous. Marriage was perfectly licit playing into the "glorified religious swindle" of marriage.
   
5. Marriage was physical. Courtly love was literary (mental and spiritual) in its conception. The idea had been invented by the troubadours which were traveling romantic poets/bards who sang "aubade" which were songs of lovers separating at dawn. The lovers composed longing letters to one another and read erotic poetry to one another.

To see how this literary aspect plays out we pick Francesca da Rimini who was a popular heroine who was caught with her lover and then murdered by her husband. In the Divine Comedy her fictional self recounts how reading led to her downfall

124 But, if to recognise the earliest root
125 Of love in us thou hast so great desire,
126 I will do even as he who weeps and speaks.

127 One day we reading were for our delight
128 Of Launcelot, how Love did him enthral.
129 Alone we were and without any fear.

130 Full many a time our eyes together drew
131 That reading, and drove the colour from our faces;
132 But one point only was it that o'ercame us.

133 When as we read of the much-longed-for smile
134 Being by such a noble lover kissed,
135 This one, who ne'er from me shall be divided,

136 Kissed me upon the mouth all palpitating.
137 Galeotto was the book and he who wrote it.
138 That day no farther did we read therein.
(Divine Comedy, Inferno Canto V)

In this we capture the great irony of courtly love. In an unquestionably religious book, Dante shows how reading about lovers (Lancelot and Guinevere) falling into adultery leads Francesca and Paolo into adultery yet uses his skill to present the encounter as romatically as Galeotto had done. At the same time this dialog is taking place in hell, where Francesca has been sent because of her passion. Dante has managed to pull us into the moth to the flame world of courtly love. At the the same time the idea that books and words have this sort of power is unique to this period. This love of literature drove the high middle ages. For centuries people had abandoned books now at least among the aristocrats books had returned.

Duke William of Aquitaine (inventor of the troubadours) wrote about courtly love. He had defined lust as holding anything above the love of god and Dante uses the same definition. His daughter Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen of England and France, spread the idea of courtly love and established the court of love. And love through books poetry and song had returned to Europe.

The church had mixed attitudes towards courtly love. They deplored actually adultery. They recognized in courtly love strong tendencies towards sexual immorality in terms of non creative sexual acts (particularly oral sex) and pornography as well. For example in Chaucer's merchant's tale a wife has sex with her lover while escorting her blind husband, yet the tale is written so that the reader sympathizes with the wife. However the church agreed with the society at large that, "Love is a pest in a marital relationship because it interferes with duty." (Art of Honest Love). Wives were only expected to be sexually compliant not to enjoy or desire sex with their spouses:

"Ich N. take ye N. to my weddyd hosebound, to haven and to holden fro yys day forward, for betre, for wors, for rycher, for porer, in sekenesse, and in helthe, to be boneyre and buxom in bedde and at boorde, tyl deth us departe, yf holychurch hyt wol ordeyne, and ther to I plyzth my trewthe."

On the other hand the idea of a perfect love of unconsummated which was a symbolic reflection of man's longing for God was unquestionably catholic and the symbolism was approved. So it is worth remembers that De Amore (which argues for the unconsummated version) was written by a priest. Many within the church opposed the inclusion of marriage within the sacraments and saw in courtly love (a spiritual unconsummated love) a model which was appropriate for what Christian love should look like. Spouses living like brother and sister, a spiritual marriage (see Dyan Elliott spiritual marriage, online review) had been a vision of the church for a millennia and for the first time there was widespread lay support for such an idea. Some clergy went as far as to hold that courtly love by dissolving boundaries between men could lead to the brotherly love of all men.

Moreover the symbols of courtly love were seen as unquestionably spiritual. Just as Jesus is the new Adam, Mary is the new eve who distributes the graces of redemption. It seemed consistent with Christian theology to have woman share the dual role. Through marriage the fall of eve and through courtly love the assumption of Mary. These ideas continue to develop throughout the century until reaching an apex with Julian of Norwich identifying redemption and salvation so thoroughly with woman that Christ becomes essentially female.

There was Mary as well as Eve to provide images of medieval womanhood. Mary was not only praiseworthy for her holiness, but for her embodiment of ideal feminine traits. Mary's primary virtues centered on her freedom from sexuality. She was conceived by divine intervention and she conceived Jesus immaculately. The "good" feminine was thus divorced from sexuality, although not from motherhood.

During the 13th century, Mary increased in importance as the divine feminine mediator between human beings and God. She interceded for human beings seeking salvation, as Beatrice did for Dante.

The exaltation of the beatified Virgin Mary climaxed in the Marian cult or cult of the Virgin Mary, which influenced the literature, music and art of the high and late Middle Ages.

Consequently, at the same time that people were praying to the Virgin Mary for salvation, they were condemning Eve for the Fall of Man. This Eve/Mary dualism allowed and even encouraged conflicting attitudes toward medieval women.

On the one hand, women held a high position in the system of Christian redemption, yet on the other hand, they were responsible for the wretched, sinful, corrupt state of fallen humanity.

This dualistic religious attitude towards women offers us some insight into the curious mixture of love and religion, sex and purity we find in the courtly love poetry and stories of the Middle Ages.
(from Three Midieval Views of Woman, online notes)

Finally on a more practical level many felt that courtly love reduced immorality. The middle ages was concerned about the destruction to reason and temperance caused by "hot love" or what we would call today passion. It was felt that mutual love generally, but not invariably, takes place between two individuals of equal status in society. Passion typically occurs between unequals in temporary relationships (king with a barmaid). Courtly love thus acted as a constraint on passion. Countess Marie de Champagne (who commission De Amore) argued that courtly reduced rape which is a modern view as well. The argument she made is that rape often resulted from 2nd and 3rd sons who were not heirs and thus unable to establish their own households.

Well we have reached the end of patriarchy. The era of widespread approval of hierarchy is coming to an end. For the last century the glaciers have been advancing and the weather is getting slightly colder than it hand been. 800 years of abnormally warm temperatures called the "Medieval Warm Period" are over. As Dante is writing the Divine Comedy the first major food shortage caused by this climate change First Great Famine of 1315 hits. However eleven years after Dante's death in 1334 death a plague strikes the Chinese province of Hubei and travels across the world transforming the church.

The people that survive 1351 will no longer be citizens of the Christiandom who view themselves in terms of a stable order. As a result of the plague, at all levels in all institutions unqualified people are governing which combined with the complete failure to stop the plague creates a profound contempt for authority, "an antinomian spirit" of the age which took a century to overcome. English and German nationalism will explode and their will be mass resentment about taking instruction from a "foreign pope".

Nothing that looks like patriarchy will survive the plague. The huge age gaps between spouses will disappear and the foremost love poet Christine de Pizan will start to write about love between husband and wife. The core ideas of courtly love will combine with the core ideas of peasant rebellion to form a new ethic of marriage

• A man and his wife should love one another
  
• That a man should be picking his wife based on the three criteria of physical beauty, spiritual beauty and mental beauty. A woman should pick her husband based on his devotion and his valor as well as his potential as a provider.
  
• A man and his wife should have chosen one another
• A woman should act as as source of holiness for the family, while the man provides secular leadership (complimentarianism)

This is the traditional ideal of marriage that received the support of the church, not patriarchy. History however does not rest. The Decameron with its rampant sexuality, contempt for the clergy and church, and middle class economic values will capture the spirit of the age, quite different from the one that wrote Divine Comedy. By the early 15th century, the frustration with power grows and while the people are no longer antinomian in a casual sense they become even more political. In 1521 a leader of the Christian reformers stands before a church court of Worms saying in open defiance, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen" and thereby puts an end to any hope of the orderly world of the middle ages returning.

The catholic church had opposed patriarchy at every step. That case is proven. We have also seen that proto-protestantism was equally opposed. There is however one more point where history can render a verdict. What was the society's practice of marriage when feminism first arose? The patriarchs claim their opposition draws from feminism. We have already shown that patriarchal marriage's death predates feminism, but how did the church react at the time. So we advance 500 more years to part 6 and turn to a world where God had endowed woman with rights not just duties. (on to part 6)

Weblinks:

• Decammon Web, Medieval Sex and Sexuality
• Love, Marriage and Romance in Medieval and Celtic Culture
• Silent voices from the previous essay is also worth a read for this section
• While a century after the period we are discussing the Canterbury Tales are a wonderful source for the english language reader. An interlinear version for some parts exists as well.
  
• C.S. Lewis in the Allegory of Love wrote extensively on courtly love. There is a good quality online summary of the book.
  

How Kosher Was Khomeini?: The Case Against Religious Coercion

This is an essay by Shmuley Boteach from the early 1990s when he was an Oxford. Its always been one of my favorites and so I'm copying an abridged version here
__________

.... Thus, when the students asked me to go and speak to the stall holders, I had no intention of disrupting these friendly terms, but rather to ask that they promote their own cause without needing to denigrate or scorn the cause of the Jewish students just across from them. Surely, there were aspects of Islam that were not militantly opposed to the existence of the State of Israel. But I met with a hostile response. We were told categorically that we had no right to interfere with what they were distributing.

When we pointed out that we felt we did have a right to oppose literature which could be used to incite hostility, even violence, to the Jewish and Zionist organisations at the University, one of their representatives picked up one of the tracts by Khomeini and began to read aloud of the Zionist crimes and vices which had to be eradicated.

Familial Origins in Iran

I told this student that my father was born and raised in Iran, specifically from the city of Ispahan. Although he has lived for many years in the United States, all his culture and mannerisms were still distinctively Iranian. I, therefore, could not support the views of the new Iranian leader which were so blatantly hostile toward the many such Jews around the world who loved Iran and had contributed so much to its society.

The student looked at me quizzically. 'You're a Rabbi, are you not?' I replied in the affirmative. ' 'Are you observant of your religion?' the Palestinian student inquired, to which I again responded in the affirmative. 'Then how could you not support this cleric who had done so much to rescue Iranian culture form Western atheism and the systematic destruction of religious belief that pervaded Iran before his rise to power.'

Divide and Conquer

This was a classic tactic. Divide and conquer. This clever student of course noticed that the six Jewish students surrounding me were not observant, they weren't wearing Yarmulkes. So better to establish how he had more in common with me, than even they, and thus obscure the real issue of his distribution of offensive material.

But the Jewish students standing in the wings seemed uneasy with his question. Perhaps I, as a Chassidic Jew, indeed shared the goals of my Arab counterpart. Did I too not share this zeal for religious observance spreading and dominating secular culture. I did not want to debate the issue here, where the issue was clearly a different one. But when we got back to our stall, defeated because they did nothing in response to our protests, I told the students that I would address his question that Friday night at our Centre, and ever since then I have been forced to return to the issue of religious coercion, and explain the Jewish view on the subject, on many occasions.

Khomeinism in a Jewish Guise

I should say that it not only serves as a response to Khomeinism and religious coercion in general, but to Israeli politics in particular. Anger at the Israeli religious establishment has been quite vociferously expressed at Oxford since I arrived. The idea that small religious parties should blackmail the Israeli government into enacting religious measures in order for them to join a ruling coalition is one of the greatest sources of anger pertaining to Jewish matters that I have seen displayed by friends and acquaintances. Even those who are most sympathetic to the Jewish religion in general, and to traditional Judaism in particular, feel that these efforts are counter-productive, and I tend to agree. While I would support enforcing the closure of businesses on the Sabbath, the same way England has legislation penalizing businesses from opening on Sunday, I completely oppose the mixing of religion and politics, for the reason this article demonstrates.

Rabbi Meir Kahane' Legacy

When I first arrived in Oxford, I became friendly with an extremely left-wing Israeli D.Phil student who was writing a paper on Kahanism. While he despised everything Rabbi Meir Kahane stood for, he had a soft-spot for religious tradition, and once asked me to explain the differences between the policies of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who clearly would like to see a more observant State of Israel, and those of Meir Kahane. 'It appears to me,' he told me, 'without wishing to be offensive, that the goals of your Rebbe and Rabbi Kahane are similar.'

'In many aspects,' I retorted, 'that may be so. But there is a fundamental difference which separates them. Whereas Kahane has set out to change governments, the Lubavitcher Rebbe has set out to change people, one at a time,' and this answer sufficed for him.

[I should mention that I had a great deal of respect for this student, because he didn't just talk about liberalism, but embodied it completely. He may have hated Kahane for his policies, but he was mature enough to separate that from any hatred of the man. When, two years later, I awoke to the BBC headlines that Rabbi Kahane was mercilessly gunned down by a Palestinian assassin, I called this student, who today teaches politics at Tel Aviv University, to tell him what had happened, and he was genuinely saddened. 'Shmuley,' he told me, 'I did not support a word he uttered. But he did not deserve this. Nobody deserves this.' Other students, who preach of how they value human life, and criticise the Israeli military for shooting Palestinian stone-throwers, openly chuckled and told jokes to each other, in my presence, when they heard the news.]

Khomeini Is a Serious Force Reckon With

For more than a decade an elderly sage with long white beard, traditional black head-dress, and passionate religious zealotry dominated world news in a manner equalled only by the State of Israel. He challenged the technologically advanced world we live in, and our appraisal of modern society and its meaning, by showing that a theocratic state, steeped in the uncompromising ways of ancient tradition, could sustain itself in relative stability despite its turbulent revolutionary beginnings. His name, of course, was Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, and although he is now gone,the legacy he left his people remains as strong as ever.

Upon hearing of his death, I myself breathed a sigh of relief even while watching with sympathy the intense grief and anguish of the Iranian people as they abused their bodies at the funeral processions for the Imam. As I observed this spectacle, a powerful question suddenly overcame me. Why was I, an observant Jew, along with the entire body of traditional Jewry, not more sympathetic to his cause? Here was a man, as the Arab student at the Polytechnic had argued, who had rescued the mores and zealotry of religion from the secular and acculturated values of the Shah's regime. He acted like a modern-day Maccabee, rescuing a traditionally religious people from the smouldering cauldron of hellenism, the by-product of which is often the moral decadence of an atheistic melting-pot. He took a westernized society committed to the spiritual suicide of the people and delivered religious belief from systematic liquidation. Are these not values to which Judaism also aspires?

Khomeini's reform and Transformation of Iranian Society

A brief examination of the Ayatollah's legacy will help clarify my inquiry. Khomeini denounced the immorality of Western civilization to the point where Western and immoral tended to become synonymous. 'Westernisation,' in his vivid language, meant "[a man] parading around the streets with a European hat on [his] head watching the naked girls" (i.e., the women in provocative Western dress).

The look up in origianl published version in Chai Today for this.IRP programme is required reading in Iranian schools and argues: "For decades our society has been consuming imported culture and education. In order to strengthen their political and economic imperialism, the world-devourers have used cultural imperialism." Therefore, Western patterns of life had to be eliminated in all areas: food habits, clothing fashions, architecture and city planning, education and manners.

In order to gain 'cultural independence,' Khomeini declared a 'cultural revolution' in the spring of 1980 (Khomeini's speech on 26 April, 1980) and established the 'Headquarters of Culture' to coordinate the effort.' To date, the government Islamisation programme has indeed affected nearly every area of life in Iran. Media, art and entertainment, clothing, and the family all became subject to moral regulations. Prostitution and pornography were of course totally outlawed, carrying with them severe punishments. The fundamentalist regime also imposed hijab (the Islamic code of dress) on women so that none could be immodestly attired. Western-dressed Iranian women were denounced as "cabaret dancers" by Khomeini. Even coeducational schools were outlawed having been classified as "houses of prostitution, and thought of adversely affecting the concentration of the student due to the emotional appeal of the opposite sex (NY Times, 22 April, 1979)."

Khomeini's regime converted the media, artistic expression, and films into morality exercises promoting religious culture and values. The IRP characterized the media as a 'university' for the education of the population. It declared that 'printing anti-religious ideas and beliefs is not permitted in Islamic society.' Radio and TV programmes were changed to reflect 'the true message' of religious life,' as well as 'art so that it be in conformity with genuine Islamic and religious themes.'

Watching Iranian television became the kind of experience any parent could trust would only serve to enhance a child's Islamic education, rather than exposing their son or daughter to secular violence and nudity. A typical day's broadcasting is as follows: Channel 1: 4:30 pm - Sign On; 4:35 - Verses of the Holy Koran; 4:45 - English News; 5:00 - Programme for children; 6:00 -Provincial News; 6:30 - Sports Report; 7:10 - Call To Prayer; 7:30 - Desert Architecture; 8:30 - Iranian and World News; 9:30 - Economics Programme; 11:00 - Programme in Arabic Channel 2: 10:00 - Sign On; 10:05 - Verses from the Koran; 10:10 - Children's Programme; 11:05 - Family Programme (lessons in sewing, child care); 16:45 - Sign on Again; 6:50 - Verses from the Koran; 7:00 - Cultural, Art and Economic News; 7:10 - Call to Prayer; 7:20 - Lessons in Arabic; 9:20 -Selection of Students by the university; 9:50 - Miscellaneous (cartoons, etc.); 21:50 - The Shrines of Iran; 22:30 - Iranian and World News.

The regime also monopolised all means of mass communication, banning secular papers in an attempt to prevent sexual perversion from infiltrating the country's consciousness. Religious songs became the principle musical expression, replacing rock and disco; mixed dancing was forbidden.

No one in Iran seems to doubt that since the Revolution, and the introduction of its fierce penalties, crime rates, and violent crime in particular, have dropped considerably. Iran at present enjoys one of the lowest urban crime rates of any country in the world.

Consonance with Jewish Goals

In striking similarity to the rudimentary principle of Judaism being a complete way of life, Khomeini's Iran represents a return, not simply to the ideals of Islam, but to the maximalist conception of it as a guide to the details, great and small, of everyday life. As it happens, Khomeini published his own commentary on these matters. In the 1950's, at the Faizieh Theological School in Qom, his reputation as a teacher was growing and people would write to him from all over Iran to ask his opinions on points of religion. These opinions were collated and turned into a book, which he published in 1960; after this he was entitled to refer to himself as an ayatollah.

The book, Towzhih al-Masa'il, or 'Explication of Problems', is a best-seller in Iran, an immense volume which contains more than three thousand rulings on the conduct of daily life and religious observances, from laws on inheritance to matters of personal cleanliness and the right way to slaughter animals.

Nothing was private enough to prevent Ayatollah Khomeini from laying down the law on it. In Western eyes, at any rate, it seems intrusive to describe the different varieties of bleeding in a woman's menstrual flow or to prescribe the correct way to face when defecating, and the correct way to clean oneself afterwards. Similarly, the Torah espouses laws governing all of our actions, encouraging one to know G-d 'in all your ways'.(editor, please check reference)

A further significant point to note is that Khomeini did not only heighten the observance of Islam in Iran, but in many cases he coerced Jews into observance of their religion as well. In one instance, told to this author by one of the individuals who personally witnessed the event, he summoned a group of wealthy Jewish industrialists to his chambers. All of them had factories that were operative on Shabbos and, to their amazement, he condemned them for forsaking their commandments. He declared that in an Islamic country, just as Friday was revered by Muslims, the Sabbath had to be revered by Jews. He concluded by ruling that henceforth, if any Jewish factory opened on Shabbos the owner would be punished with a firing squad. All present complied.

Clearly, ideologies differ in cmplexity, and although it may not be so complex as others, Iranian fundamentalism, like many totalitarian ideologies, nevertheless provides its adherents with a sense of mission and a holistic concept of persons and society, and it has its own distinctive style and rhetoric. The original question posed to me then returns: In light of the moral, ethical, and religious achievements of this man of faith, why was no voice heard from within the camp of traditional Jewry to applaud this religious leader while alive, or eulogize him at his death?

Khomeini's Brutality Is not A Complete Response

No doubt Khomeini's brutality serves to repulse us from praising the Imam's achievements, and it may well be argued that the results in Iran may not owe as much to the vigilance of the Komitehs as to the punishments that are inflicted. But in explaining traditional Judaism's outright rejection, nay repulsion, of everything Khomeini stood for, means aside, the reason of his brutality alone remains somewhat superficial. Aside from the means taken to achieve his ends, traditional Judaism has so far latched onto somewhat incomplete reasons for its outright dismissal of Khomeini's regime. Surely, in the quest for intellectual maturity humans should have learned to extract good from evil. If the Imam's goals were good but his means evil, we should at once commend his ambitions and achievements, yet remain able to decry his methods. Yet Khomeini as an icon of religious values and leadership has been utterly rejected by the Jewish world, goals and methods alike.

When Politics ousts Religion

I suggest that Khomeini was rejected not merely because the gore of his use force to accomplish religious ends repelled the traditional Jew. Rather, it was the light that this use force shed on the Imam's very perception of religion as a whole, a perception which is loathsome to traditional Judaism, which has engendered a loathsome response to his policies.

There are those who believe that religion is a mountain to be climbed, a goal to be reached. To them, a person's status in the eyes of G-d is ascertained solely by where he or she now stands. If any actions manifest any tendency toward evil, then, in essence, the person has accomplished nothing. It is only the one who arrives at the peak of the mountain, whose journey has reached its climax, who has banished all evil from within him, who may justly be referred to as 'a religious individual'. In the minds of the leaders of this school of thought, it is not a person's slow progression in affinity with G-d which is commendable, but his rapid rise to the throne of the Creator.

Judaism does not subscribe to this outlook. In the eyes of Jewish thought it is not the goal which is significant, but the path. The distance a person has traversed, how far they have progressed, is what G-d measures. Of the Talmud's most central themes is the idea that a returnee to Judaism (Baal Teshuva) is far greater than a tzaddik, the reason being that the returnee has come much further, and travelled a far more torturous path. The Talmud even declares, 'In the place where a ba'al teshuva (returnee) stands, a tzadik cannot stand. look up the referenceThe tzadik, whose righteousness and good deeds by far outweigh those of the returnee, may indeed be standing at the mountain's summit, and from his vantage point he may gaze down at the struggling climb of the ba'al teshuva, as he slowly rises from the ash-heap in search of sublime and transcendent meaning. Yet, the tzadik is pronounced inferior for he did not travel any great distance to reach the mountain's top. Everything was handed to him on a silver-platter, from the cheder he was sent to by his parents, to the yeshiva he attended with the rest of his friends. The Baal Teshuva, on the other hand, has clambered from the abyss of spiritual despair and has, at the very least, started back onto the proper path by his or her own efforts.

Not Righteousness But Transformation

Stated in other words, what the A-mighty searches for in man is not righteousness, but transformation. A person's gradual change from being a materialistically inclined, indulgent organism governed by physical needs and tendencies, to a being with spiritual foresight and disposition. This is the purpose of religion and G-d's calling to man. What the A-mighty desires is that we make and effort to change ourselves for the better. Not that we merely become good. He desires to see a significant expenditure of effort on our part. He want to see that we give a damn. Therefore, if one is born righteous and is reared in a religiously wholesome environment, he will not be judged by how good he is, but by how much better a person and more righteous an individual he became, after embarking on the road of life.

Becoming an Outwardly Oriented Individual

Torah and mitzvot are the critical ingredient in the development and growth of humans. With every passing mitzvah one slowly becomes an outwardly oriented individual. Whereas a child's first words on learning to speak are 'Mine!', or 'Give me', each mitzvah is a lesson in reorienting this natural state to one of giving, rather than taking. As a living organism man first learns to take rather than give. It is vital to his existence. One needs to be clothed, fed, bathed, nurtured, and loved if one is to survive. Our initial stage of life is almost completely passive, and as our first lesson about life we internalize the idea of drawing in all that others are prepared to do for us. What changes this process of taking is of course responsibility. People become older and they learn that their contribution on a microcosmic level, such as family and friends, and on a macrocosmic level, such as community and the world at large, is very much needed if the world is to continue.

But before life makes any demands of the human, the very first calling to which he must respond is to that of His Creator. Before a child is old or responsible enough to help Mommy around the house, he first learns that he must say a blessing before eating food, and must give a coin to charity every day. The reason: because G-d needs him, and he must therefore learn to give, and not just to take. In slow gradual increments, then, man learns, through a religious education, to transcend physical necessity and focus on the needs of others.

Further still, the spiritual person learns to utilize their own physical desires for the purpose of understanding another's needs as well. When one understands how vital it to feel loved, one understands how critical it is to display love to someone else, for their needs are the same. And as in the process of learning how to give, and in the process of becoming an outwardly-oriented individual, man learns to discover G-d and simultaneously emulate His ways. In the words of the Talmud, 'Just as He is kind, so too should you be kind.'editor; find ref. and add one or two more lines from the quote. It is not good for Man to be alone

Marriage serves as the classic illustration of the principle of growth outwards to reach others. While a mitzvah in its own right, marriage is also the premise for the fulfilment of many other mitzvot, not least among them being the perpetuation of humanity and the Jewish people. Why did G-d choose the framework of marriage as necessary for human existence? To paraphrase the Bible, why indeed is it not good for man to be alone?

Marriage serves as the classic illustration of this principle, and the ultimate institution to constantly reeducate an individual away from his or her natural predisposition. Even the mechanical structure of marriage is such that one must learn to give constantly, from the highest things, like comforting a husband during tragedy, to the seemingly insignificant, like refraining from eating until one's wife comes to the table. It is precisely these 'mechanical' matters which are of pivotal importance to the success of every marriage.

Children Continue a Process of Reorientation

Soon children follow and every parent is faced with a new challenge in the art of generosity: giving without receiving in return. An infant is born with no saving grace, save that of the parent's intuitive love for the child. They have not yet become doctors or lawyers, or generated any nachas for their parents. Yet their dependence on their parents is absolute, needing everything from food to mobility. There are no guarantees that the child will ever reciprocate. Indeed, scores of adult children abandon their parents to nursing homes in their old age. Nevertheless, the idea of a parent coercing his offspring to sign a contract at birth mandating that child-care will be provided only on the express condition that child agree to aid his parents in their hour of need, is laughable. No mountain is too high, no sea to vast, to impede the unrestrained love of parent to child. But, why is this all so important?

Because through the love, giving, kindness, and compassion of everyday experience, a married man or woman learns to find G-d. An man slowly transforms himself into an outwardly oriented being, he learns to perceive an existence higher and greater than himself. One learns to obey the commands of that Being. Not for the prospects of reward, but out of deep-seated love and conviction. And man becomes G-dly.

G-d's laws are for people, not states

When religion is practised for any external consideration, force being the extreme amongst them, inner transformation cannot follow. Nothing changes, no-one becomes spiritual, and the purpose of religion is defeated.

Ayatollah Khomeini changed government without changing people. His theocracy was not merely tarnished by the methods it pursued in procuring religious observance, but was actually supplanted by those methods. He succeeded in bringing about a religious government, but not a religious society. And although, it may be argued, Iranian society today may indeed exist at the summit of the spiritual mountain, officially void of sexual deviance, theft, rape, or impropriety, the population did not climb that mountain. Rather, they were like a cannonball shot there by the religious zeal of the Iranian National Guard, with fear and intimidation serving as gunpowder. The population did not traverse any distance; no-one struggled with internal self-doubt, none felt the terrible tension of religious turmoil that tears the soul asunder, and the internal dialectic that make up the religious experience. In short, they were not personally touched by the sublime hand of G-d which can only be felt when one works with oneself decades to reshape oneself into a vessel for G-d. Time will tell whether the changes Khomeini brought to Iranian society will have any permanency, but one suspects that if the constraints were removed the people would naturally fall back to their previous existence.

Khomeini's Objective: Seize the Reigns of Government

The transformation of government, irrespective of whether the people kept pace, was Khomeini's intention all along. It accounts for his infatuation with absolute governmental control. He always argued the importance of politics and domination of the political and social systems by 'true believers'. In his own words:

"If in a society all its members are Muslim and they observe Islam in their personal lives while their social relations are not governed by pure Islamic laws, it is not an Islamic society. On the other hand, if in a society all its members are not Muslim.... or some of its members are weak Muslims and do not behave according to Islam in all their personal obligations, while the values and laws governing social relations are Islamic, that society is Islamic." (Mavazihi-Ma pg. 26)

In yet another of Khomeini's works, Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia, he states:

"When a Mujtahid who is just and learned stands up for the establishment and organisation of the government, he will enjoy all the rights in the affairs of the society that were enjoyed by the Prophet, and it will be the duty of the people to listen and obey (him) and this Faqih and Mujtahid will hold the supreme power in the government and the management and control of social and political affairs of the people in the same way as the Prophet and Hazrat Ali (used to do)." Clearly, to Khomeini the exercise of governmental control was the highest religious achievement, something Judaism cannot embrace. The Jewish world-view is about changing people through direct exposure. It sees religious ultimately growing from the grass-roots level of the human condition and human experience.

put shagalov in hreReligious Conviction and Governmental Control Become Synonymous

Samuel Huntington has commented that "the most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government." (Political Order in Changing Societies) The main characteristic of Khomeini's fundamentalist ideology is its totalitarian approach to politics. The regime sought to promote the politicisation of all spheres of social and even private affairs: its world view is in fact predicated upon a removal of these distinctions. In Islamic government, Khomeini had asserted: "there is not a single topic in human life for which Islam has not provided instructions and established norms." (Islamic Government in Islamic Revolution, pg. 80) The IRP program states that it aims at establishing a 'tawhidi' ('unitary') society, "a society in which Islamic values, commands, and laws govern all social relations." (Mavazihi-Ma, pg. 26)

What this has lead to is the politicisation of religion itself. In his many fiery speeches, Khomeini favoured violence and oppression to bolster religious observance, but did not offer a convincing, positive argument for the beauty and necessity of religion. The lack of explanation was not due to personal ignorance; after all, he was a recognised scholar. Rather, it is fundamentally inconsistent with his view of religion. In his eyes the only matter which was of importance was that the people should adhere to Islamic living standards. As government serves this purpose well, it has become the personification of Khomeini's religious zeal. He had no desire for the inner transformation of his people. Shiite fundamentalism has abrogated its intellectual dimension, and when this happens, fanaticism is sure to follow.

Suppressing Human Development

Khomeini has indeed expressed a distaste for the natural state of humanity, preferring to stunt it rather than allow it to fully develop. "An Islamic regime must be serious in every aspect of life," the Imam said in a broadcast on Iran Radio six months after the Revolution. "There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun or enjoyment in whatever is serious." To Judaism, happiness is representative of extraordinary energy and fervour which should be cultivated and nurtured for the service of G-d. Like everything, it can be utilised for evil or for good. Khomeini was disinterested in Man's spiritual growth and chose to eliminate any form of joyous expression, fearing that if frivolity were allowed to coexist with religion it might prevail. Judaism thrives on our constant use of material existence for good, despite the temptation that it be used otherwise. In this manner one constantly reaffirms that everything is in G-d's possession, thus substantiating His absolute sovereignty over creation.

Thorn in the side of Khomeini

This uncompromising outlook on life led Khomeini to oust his self-appointed successor, Ayatollah Montazeri, only months before he died. While Khomeini genuinely believed that the establishment of Islamic government in Iran was an end in itself, Montazeri saw the capture of political power by the clergy only as a means which ought to be used in order to improve the material and spiritual conditions of the people. Khomeini maintained that, if need be, people should be forced to behave in an Islamic way. Montazeri, for his part, argued in favour of persuasion through setting good examples.

Both men advocated a return to the simple life and helped popularise such notions as frugality, a reduction in one's expectations from life, a cut in consumption and a distaste for luxuries. Both wanted the Iranians to sleep on the ground, sit on the floor, eat only one or two simple meals a day, make do with very few clothes and be content with living in one or two rooms (Amir Taheri, The Spirit of Allah, pg. 294.)

The difference was that Montazeri believed that human nature of itself tends towards good if given the chance. Khomeini, however, pinpointed the little devil he saw hiding within every person, and thought nothing of enforcing the good at bayonet point if necessary. Between 1981 and 1985, the two leaders adopted basically contradictory positions on almost every major issue, with Montazeri playing the liberal and Khomeini remaining true to his image of the uncompromising radical.

Good Cop/Bad Cop

Opponents of the regime accused the two men of offering an Islamic version of the soft-cop/tough-cop interplay in order to confuse the people. This is almost certainly unfair: the two men genuinely had variant approaches. The difference between Khomeini and Montazeri extended to the important issue of exporting the revolution as well. Montazeri emphasized proselytisation and propaganda; Khomeini inclined to see an effective answer only in the use of force. In 1981 the Imam ordered the creation of an 'Army of Twenty Million' which, when and if fully ready, would fight to hoist the flag of Allah in every capital of the world.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, Judaism chooses to reject and finds repulsive Ayatollah Khomeini's entire perception of religion, not merely its implementation. The individual to Khomeini's conception of religion is what the incongruent piece of a puzzle is to the hammer. Although the piece may not fit or even belong to that puzzle, it must be banged in place. The puzzle must be complete overall. Needless to say, with sufficient banging its form will eventually be altered, and it will enter, but the fact that it has a different picture printed on it will forever remain. Judaism does not believe in people being banged out of shape so that they fit the spiritual puzzle. Rather, it advocates an inner transformation so that the human pieces fit the puzzle both in shape as well as content, in deed as well as in heart. The result is a truer, more beautiful whole that will no longer be a puzzle.

Attacked by Colleagues

When I first expressed this idea in print, in an American Jewish magazine by the name of Chai Today, I received several letters of disagreement, one of which was exceedingly abusive and was subsequently published in an alternative Jewish periodical. In the letter, the author attacked me for my 'misrepresenting Judaism' and accused me of possessing 'a severely misguided understanding of Judaism at best, and a liberal mind-set at worst.'

The author, who is an Orthodox rabbi from California, made the following argument, which I shall summarize.

He maintained that I had misrepresented Judaism because indeed Judaism did possess many of the mechanisms employed by Khomeini. Judaism calls for very severe physical punishment, in many cases capital, for religious transgression. For example, one who breaks the laws of Shabbos can be put to death if all the criteria is met, such as witnesses and warning, etc. Moreover, for even the slightest religious infringement, the offender would receive lashes from a Jewish court, in Temple times. 'What Rabbi Boteach is seeking to do,' he concluded, 'is to whitewash Judaism of its similarities to the Khomeini regime, so that it conforms with today's liberal values.'

To be sure, the good Rabbi, whose attack saddened me because of its hostile tone, is correct. Indeed Judaism does mandate physical punishment for religious offenders. Where he grossly errs, however, is in his understanding of the purpose of these warnings and punishment, and what the Torah is seeking to achieve by stipulating them.

One Apple Should Not Infect Another

The purpose of these punishments is not to make the population religious. Rather, their purpose is to preserve the religious observance and devotion of a population that is already religious.

To explain: G-d wishes that people approach religion from a stance of joy, interest, and personal involvement and conviction. There are numerous statements throughout Jewish literature which show that these qualifications are not just preferable in serving G-d, but rather they are what it is all about. If so, the question may be asked, why did G-d institute such severe punishments for religious infraction? The answer is that these laws were instituted for a society which used to be the norm, i.e., the majority of the population were observant and devout. The problem was, what if a few rotten apples began to appear within the group? In order to prevent them from infecting everyone else with their faithlessness, and to protect the offenders themselves from acting upon their faithlessness, the Torah instituted that punishment be instituted both as a deterrent, as well as a way of weeding out those who could adversely effect the faithful.

The Sanhedrin Exiles Itself

That this is true is easily demonstrated by a passage from the Talmud, which tells of how forty years before the destruction of the second Temple, when the terrible suffering which was being visited upon the Jews caused them to be a lawless people, many of whom having incurred a capital penalty under Jewish law, the Sanhedrin, the high Jewish court, exiled itself from its chambers on the Temple Mount. The reason: They were only allowed to pass capital judgments when they were in the chamber, and there were so many who were deserving of it, they did not wish to put so many to death.

In other words, once the death penalty no longer proved an effective means of retaining and preserving the spiritual devotion of the people, it was abandoned. And although the Sanhedrin could have used it as a means to reinstall fear into the population and thus make them religious again, this is not what Judaism is about. It is not engendered by fear or intimidation, but by love, allegiance, and an inner desire on the part of man to reach out to his Creator.

______

See Also:

• Aaron Blumer, Are rules dangerous part1 part2 (takes the opposite position from this essay)

How to leave a church

While many churches have a clear notion of leaving the church others don't really recognize this. Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses can have problems leaving a church without being excommunicated (disfellowshipped). Some conservative Presbyterians are moving towards "covenantial membership". Catholics can have trouble leaving under any circumstances. The purpose of this blog post is to walk through the process of quitting a church. If a discipline process is underway you may want to examine (How to Survive Discipline series in particular there is overlap with How to Survive Discipline -- Resign quietly (part 7) ).

The first question is whether you really want a transfer rather than to sever your membership. Most churches have transfer processes, and most churches will be amenable to a transfer process. A transfer is going to cause a lot less anger and resentment. You will also most like not burn your bridges. Almost all churches have rules for conducting a transfer and it is many times not looked on as harshly. Note, however that many churches will not issue a letter for someone starting the disciplinary process unless you are willing to have them cite the problems. Sometimes an unethical pastors will start a process so as to avoid the rules regarding transfer. Such a pastor is likely to be a problem regardless of how you leave, so the important thing is to keep good records. If either is the case make sure that the receiving pastor is aware of the disciplinary process. Coordinate your actions with the receiving pastor if possible.

If the receiving congregation is not seen as "of like faith and practice" a member can request a certificate of standing rather than transfer. That is you aren't asking the congregation that you are leaving to approve of the move but rather to simply certify your current status. (i.e. they are certifying you were a member in good standing prior to your desire to join a "bad church"), This is also more friendly and cooperative then simply leaving. The act of going through this process reduces the bridge burning problems and in general members probably should try and go through the transfer process. In summary:

1. Find out what your church's transfer process is.
   
2. If you need to transfer to a specific congregation, inform the pastor (and hand him a written document) that you are initiating a transfer process and will be "shopping" for an alternate church.
   
3. Once you have a specific congregation:
   
   1. Ask for a letter of transfer.
   2. If they refuse because "the other congregation is not godly" ask for a certificate of standing
   3. If they still want to get you involved in a long drawn out process then it is time to simply terminate membership.
4. Join your new church.

In this rest of this I'm going to be assuming that a letter of transfer (under practical conditions) would be or has been denied. That is you wish to terminate membership in your current congregation and then join the receiving congregation rather than transfer or simply terminate membership and not have a receiving congregation (which may for your church constitute apostasy).

The key here is to make clear your intention and leave behind a paper trail. Church discipline is dependent upon informed consent. Your goal here is to be withdrawing consent. Words like:

• Termination of membership
• Disaffiliation
• Withdraw of consent

Are absolutely key. If possible try and use all 3 terms.
The Catholic church is probably the most difficult to leave so they provide an excellent example of a "worst case scenario". Most Catholic literature about people who leave the faith assumes one is joining a heretical or schismatic church and thus the heresy or schism in itself constitutes an excommunication. However it is possible to leave the church voluntarily without specifically joining another (which would be the closest equivalent of erasure or "renouncement of jurisdiction" in presbyterianism). The process here requires an assertion of understanding: that is they have required that a person must (APCAM)

1. Perform an act to indicate they wish to separate (mere thought is not enough).
2. The act must be persistent that is it must take place over a long period of time, in particular it can't be a single event.
3. The person must be contumacious that is they must be firm in their conviction and not express hesitation.
4. They must be aware that their acts lead to an end of their membership (excommunication, erasure...) That is they must be aware of what they are requesting.
5. Finally they must actually be a member. The church cannot expel non members (the pope is exempted from this).

If you are intend to leave a church making sure you qualify for all of these 5 criteria will be key. Most churches do hold that the above list is sufficient to terminate membership. Note however in the above list how important it is to use strong language regarding your status. Weak language indicates a lack of awareness and a lack of contumacy.

For a Presbyterian example the Orthodox Church's Book of Discipline is quite clear on how one severs their relationship.

When a member of a particular church, whether or not he be charged with an offense, informs the session that he does not desire to remain in the fellowship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the efforts of the session to dissuade him from his course have failed, it shall erase his name from the roll and record the circumstances in its minutes, unless the session institutes or continues other disciplinary action against him.

One act that meets all of the criteria is for you to issue a letter of disassociation. A letter of disassociation has a few key parts.

1. Formal statement of disassociation, terminating your membership.
   
2. A brief history of your introduction to the church and your positive impressions
   
3. A discussion of "major issues" that forced you to disassociate. This part can be grouped by related topics, such as "Doctrinal", "Personal", "Social", "Organizational" and so on.
4. An explicit list of requests (e.g. "Don't do follow-up calls", "Don't try to shepherd my children"). If you have no specific requests, you can leave this part out. This is the withdrawal of consent.
   
5. Conclusion. (e.g. wish them well on their quest to find meaning, and assure them that you are pleased to have made your decision to broaden your search for truth).

The formal statement is simply statement indicating you are no longer a member. They look something like:

• I hereby renounce all claim to membership in church XYZ.
• It is with great reluctance that I am forced to resign my membership from church XYZ
• Many hundreds of hours and over seven hundred compiled scriptures later, my clear conscience will no longer allow me to uphold the convictions common among (name of denomination)

This has to appear somewhere in the letter to make it clear that you no longer consider yourself a member. This can appear anywhere but its the most important part. If you signed some sort of church covenant agreeing that you can't leave you want to explicitly acknowledge signing it and renounce it here, "including in this renunciation of membership is renouncing the contents of the church covenant I signed on March 13, 2001". Religious freedom is a civil right not a contractual right, you cannot sign away your right to leave a church. The covenant is in effect only as long as you want it to be.

The second part is important for explaining your reasons for membership. Because it occurs in the letter you are acknowledging you were at one time a member and that this is being drawn to a close. It goes hand in hand with the 3rd section which explains why you've decided that the new information/status is causing you to leave. I.E. you are indicating the bad outweighs the good. These two sections are often far too specific to offer much advice. The key thing is (if possible) you want to include some point of disagreement with a statement that is required for membership (generally the profession of faith). By doing this, you can establish you are not merely fleeing a disciplinary procedure but no longer share their beliefs. You'll want to pick a genuine area of disagreement. So for example:

• Quiting the Mormons: I no longer believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
• Quitting a Baptist Church: I have come to believe that children are part of God's covenant and should be baptized at birth.
  
• Quitting Soka Gakkai: I no longer believe that chanting the Gongyō will bring benefit to my life.

If doesn't have to be that fundamental it could be much more minor proving its a part of the creed:

• Quitting Baptist church: Our profession of faith requires assent to the Nicean creed, however I no longer believe that Jesus is of one essence with the Father.
  
• Quitting the Mormons: I no longer believe in the gift of tongues

If there is no areas of theological or ritual dispute that you can mention inform them that you agree you are engaged in an out of process erasure and they are free to record it as such.

After this the next step is to establish how you want the church to treat you as an x-member. This is where you can make explicit your request that oversight of you (including discipline) halt. This is where you can indicate what the contents of the announcement should be, for example you may (and probably should) indicate that this letter is public and they may read it in full and show it to people if they feel the need to make an announcement. For organizations that tend to be resistant to allowing you to leave you may need to be a bit harsh. However nothing more than something like:

Since I have voluntarily resigned from the organization, and are therefore no longer a Jehovah's Witness, I expressly prohibit you from disfellowshipping me or in any way defaming my character before others. If I am disfellowshipped or am slandered in any way, I will have to take legal action against you.

Or

I have prayerfully considered the vow I made. Jesus said "My yoke is light." I am casting off the burden I have been under for so many years while under the scrutiny of the man made organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In full faculty I am stating that I am disassociating from that organization. I no longer want to be recognized as a Jehovah's Witness because it does not fill the expectations I was led to believe.

(1) I do not want my family to contacted or coerced in any way.
(2) At my death I do not wish to be remembered as a Jehovah's Witness.
(3) There is no need for prayers or further attempt to reverse my decision.
(4) When the Congregation makes an announcement it should be an announcement of disassociation not apostasy

Finally the conclusion. Again this should be friendly if possible. A thanks for good times, a statement of best wishes or blessing on current members... are all appropriate.

some samples: Gloria Muscarell, Juliann Velasquez, Melissa C. Thiring, Mormon no more sample

Now go on and do what you want. At this point you are no longer a member according to any Christian tradition. Legally you have withdrawn your consent and you have a much greater degree of legal protection against defamation and harassment. Congratulations, its over!

There is for some poeple a tricky part. Convincing yourself that you aren't damned or evil or fallen for wanting to leave. David Rattigan wrote a terrific article about the issues and fears you are likely to face. You may even want to join (or at least read) a group for people leaving whatever faith you are leaving. This blog maintains a leaving list of support groups.