<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head><meta name="charset" content="UTF-8"/><title></title><link rel="stylesheet" href="main.css" type="text/css"/> </head> <body><h3>Sexual Harassment</h3> <p>Sexual harassment is the use of one’s authority or power, either explicitly or implicitly, to coerce another into unwelcome sexual relations, to punish another for her or his refusal, or to create a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment through verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Women continue to be the most common targets of male harassment. Examples of sexual harassment include pornography posted in the workplace or sent through email, sexually explicit comments meant to degrade, jokes based on sexual stereotypes, and requests by professors for sex in exchange for grades. The “cultural custom” quality of sexual harassment means that the primary hurdle to eliminating it remains proving that it is in fact a problem. The widespread trivializing of sexual harassment fuels those who would engage in it and ensures that this degrading treatment can continue.</p> <p>Sexual harassment takes many forms: intentional individual harassment, pseudoromantic individual harassment of a selected person, intentional group harassment (wolfpack mentality), unintentional or unenlightened harassment, harassment threatening economic or educational conditions, paraphilic harassment (e.g., voyeurism or exhibitionism), and harassment as a prelude to a more serious act (Cooper-White).</p> <p>Sexual harassment can be humiliating, leaving a woman with a heightened sense of wariness and a lack of trust in this and similar relationships. Victims of even mild forms of sexual harassment may question their safety, worrying about whether a harasser’s conduct is merely a prelude to violent sexual assault (Ellison). Relying on sexual stereotypes, harassers play by the rules of the “shame game,” in which they tacitly expect victims and bystanders to collude with the degrading behavior by “playing along,” submitting, or remaining quiet (MacKinnon). Because consensual sexual interactions are generally relegated to the private sphere, confronting (nonconsensual) harassment challenges the presumed rules of engagement by forcing private or unnamed male privilege into the public for scrutiny. A victim who challenges these rules is accused of failing to recognize the harassing behavior as humorous, as unintentional, or as something to which she consented.</p> <p>Scripture</p> <p>There are no direct biblical edicts pertaining to sexual harassment, and yet the Bible presents several examples of people using coercive power to gain access to sexual relations or to create a hostile environment based on sex. In 2 Sam. 11-12 David abuses his power by sending Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, to the front lines of battle to be killed so that David can have Bathsheba for himself. Nathan, citing the story of a rich man robbing a poor man of a lamb, accuses David of abusing his power and compromising his moral authority. In Gen. 39:6a-23 Potiphar’s wife threatens a false charge of attempted rape against Joseph unless he agrees to have intercourse with her. In the apocryphal book of Susanna, Susanna is sentenced to death by two men who, in an attempt to coerce her into having sex with them, falsely charge her with infidelity. While not all directly related to unwanted sexual advances, there are many biblical stories in which an authority figure misuses his power, harms someone of lesser power, and creates a hostile working environment, such as in Ezek. 34, where shepherds are accused of stealing from the flock they are charged to protect, using the gains to meet their own needs.</p> <p>The Just Community</p> <p>Sexual harassment in the workplace, school, church, and the public taints the important work in these spaces. It violates one’s sense of safety and compromises one’s relational world. Sexual harassment works against the goals of a just community. The ubiquitous nature of sexual harassment makes it difficult to eradicate. The greatest legal progress in addressing inappropriate sexual-ized behavior in the workplace has occurred because these “mundane” private interactions are understood to be public violations with economic consequences.</p> <p>Today, legal and ethical debates on sexual harassment include questions about what constitutes sexual harassment, growing rates of sexual harassment despite laws prohibiting it, failures in law enforcement, the connection between racism and sexual harassment, and questions of free speech.</p> <p>See also Authority and Power; Professional Ethics; Sex Discrimination</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Cooper-White, P. The Cry of Tamar: Violence against Women and the Church’s Response. Fortress, 1995; Ellison v. Brady. 924 F.2d 872. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1991; MacKinnon, C. Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. Yale University Press, 1979; “Prohibited Employment Policies/</p> <p>Practices.” U.S. Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (http//<a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index">www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index</a> .cfm); West, T. “The Harms of Sexual Harassment.” ASCE 19 (1999): 377-82.</p> <p>Kristen J. Leslie</p> <p>Sexuality See Sex and Sexuality Shalom See Peace</p><h3>Shame</h3> <p>Shame is a feeling or perception that one experiences after breaking a cultural norm or transgressing social boundaries. Shame and its counterpart, honor, are key social values that undergird the thinking of ancient Mediterranean peoples, including the authors of the biblical texts. Within these cultures, shame has both positive and negative aspects. In a positive sense, shame is related to a person’s proper awareness of social norms and standards. Such a person possesses shame. The modern expression “Have you no shame?” captures the idea that a person might lack this capacity. Shame also has a negative component. When a person or a group does something socially inappropriate, or when someone is challenged by another and is unable to rise to that challenge, the resulting status for that person or group is shame. For example, when someone fails to act in accordance with accepted boundaries of public en-gagement—for example, speaking to one’s elders disrespectfully, challenging a social superior, using inappropriate speech—the resulting status for that person is shame. Similarly, if one tribe of peoples taunts another group or that other group’s gods, and the mocked group fails to respond, the second group has been humiliated and experiences shame. In both cases, the court of approval for these examples is the larger social order. Shame is not synonymous with modern understandings of guilt, which emphasize an individual person’s feelings of unworthiness after doing something wrong. Ancient societies were group-oriented or dyadic, and thus the individual’s identity was rooted in a person’s reputation in relationship to others. Shame emphasizes this more social component.</p> <p>The vocabulary for shame in both the OT and the NT assumes this broader context of honor/ shame culture in the ancient Mediterranean world. In the OT, the Hebrew roots bws and klm and their corresponding verbs and nouns connote humiliation, embarrassment, and a loss of face in the larger social sphere. The concept of shame and shaming are important interpretive keys for understanding much of the prophetic literature and the psalms, where this vocabulary is used often. Thus, when the psalmist cries out in lament to God in the face of persecution, it is not simply for relief; rather, the appeal is for God to minimize shame and preserve the petitioner’s honor: “O my God, in you I trust; do not let me be put to shame; do not let my enemies exult over me” (Ps. 25:2). In a similar way, when the prophets proclaim divine judgment on a nation, the end result is humiliation and dishonor: “So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as captives and the Ethiopians as exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt” (Isa. 20:4). Moreover, it is God’s honor that is at stake when Israel or Judah acts disobediently or is unfaithful to the terms of the covenant. In this way, divine judgment is the deity’s way of preserving honor or saving face among the nations and their gods.</p> <p>In the NT, the Greek verb aischyno (“to be ashamed, disgraced”) and the noun aischyne (“shame, disgrace”), along with other words from the root aisch- (e.g., kataischyno and epaisch-ynomai, both meaning “to be ashamed”), also presuppose this larger sociocultural understanding of shame. Paul, for example, appeals to those in early Christian communities to hold fast to their faith in the face of social rejection. Therefore, he boldly proclaims, “I am not ashamed [epaischy-nomai] of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (Rom. 1:16); and he encourages followers to persevere, since the Scriptures proclaim, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11). In this way, NT writers adopt earlier biblical themes of divine judgment, framing God’s execution of justice for the faithful in terms of the preservation of divine reputation, including the establishing of God’s eschatological reign over the earth—a final and complete vindication of God’s honor.</p> <p>It is important that theologians and interpreters of the Bible recognize how biblical authors understood shame. Ideas such as honor and shame remind the contemporary interpreter that the Bible is working from a worldview that is different from a modern contemporary context. In the cultures of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world, virtues and morality are not only related to the composition of a person’s nature; they are connected to the reputation of others. How one acts reflects positively or negatively upon the character of one’s God and the community to which one belongs. Thus, prophetic words of judgment in the OT are not simply political or theological statements about how humans have strayed into error. They are culturally specific descriptions of the shameful incongruity that results from the moral failures of a social order or the humiliation that accompanies a nation’s devastating destruction at the hands of a conquering enemy. Similarly, oracles of salvation are not simply statements about a person’s ontological redemption. They are witnesses to the preservation of God’s honor and glory in the earth through this person’s or nation’s circumstances. Moreover, early Jewish and Christian eschatological hope is tied directly to the cultural values of honor and shame, because within these traditions the destiny of humanity is inextricably tied to God’s final vindication, when “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” to the goodness and justice of God’s reign in the earth (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10-11).</p> <p>See also Guilt</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Bechtel, L. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” JSOT 49 (1991): 47-76; deSilva, D. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. InterVarsity, 2000; Malina, B. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed. Westminster John Knox, 2001.</p> <p>Frank Yamada</p><h3>Sick, Care of the See Care, Caring</h3><h3>Sin</h3> <p>Colloquially, the omnibus term sin denotes any violation of some moral standard. This moralistic usage has significant roots in a theological tradition long dominant in the West (Augustine, Martin Luther, Reinhold Niebuhr) that relies on a legal/ juridical metaphor. Since Abelard, a distinction with regard to intention has also been a factor, so that a given act may be deemed wrong or harmful without rising to the level of sin because the agent lacked the requisite intent. Sin, in this view, is violation of the law of God.</p> <p>Not surprisingly, the biblical view involves a much more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of human behavior. The task of outlining the biblical concept of sin immediately confronts the problem of language and culture, a problem complicated by the fact that the Bible communicates in two unrelated languages and reflects cultural settings that stand in a complicated relationship to one another. The description of the biblical notion of sin must account for the semantics of the Hebrew concept, on the one hand, and</p> <p>Koine Greek, on the other. Careful attention must be given to subtlety and substance.</p> <p>Remembering that usage carries greater weight than etymology, the point of departure is a survey of biblical terminology. Biblical Hebrew and Greek exhibit vocabulary for human wrongdoing too extensive for detailed discussion here. Nonetheless, a few terms appear in frequencies and contexts that suggest their centrality. The most common terms in both the OT and the NT derive from the realm of archery and connote the image of “missing the mark” (Heb. ht’, verb and related noun more than 580 times; Gk. hamart-, about 270 times [see, e.g., Judg. 20:16; 1 Pet. 2:20]). Especially in the wisdom literature, the term can refer to “bumblers, losers” (see Eccl. 9:18). The NT equivalent renders the full range of Hebrew “sin” vocabulary, suggesting that in Koine Greek the term lost contact with its origins to a degree, although significantly, Paul uses hamartano once to parallel “falling short (of an objective)” (hystereo [Rom. 3:23]). Notably, one does not usually “miss the mark” intentionally but rather as the result of incapacity or error. Both the OT and the NT employ other terms denoting willful transgression. The image underlying the Hebrew term ps<sup>c</sup> (verb and related nouns more than 130 times), which appears in contexts involving property crimes (e.g., Gen. 31:36; Exod. 22:8) or political rebellion (e.g., 1 Kgs. 12:19; 2 Kgs. 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:20), seems to be the breach of relationship. It appears in concentrations in the Deuter-onomistic History and the prophetic literature emphasizing Israel’s persistent rebelliousness and apostasy. New Testament equivalents (e.g., parabaino, hyperbaino) refer to similar acts of rebellion. A final key term in the OT underscores the inadequacy of the crime-and-punishment model in accounting for the holistic relationship between agent, act, and aftereffect. From a root that means “to bend, twist, contort” (e.g., Isa. 24:1; Lam. 3:9), the noun ’awon occurs in three overlapping usages describing (1) the wrongful act as “perversion” (in this sense, usually translated “iniquity” in English), (2) the twisted condition of the agent created by the act (“guilt”), and (3) the perversion of the agent’s environment produced by the iniquitous act (also usually translated “guilt”). Although the NT does not reserve a term for this aspect of sin, the Hebrew notion echoes in passages such as Paul’s discussion of God “handing” humanity “over” to its sin (Rom. 1-2) and Jesus’ discussion of the maturation of sin into consequences (Matt. 23:36; Luke 11:51).</p> <p>This survey of biblical vocabulary for sin points to the Bible’s comprehensive understanding. First, the crime-and-punishment model, though insufficient alone, corresponds roughly to one aspect of the biblical idea. The prophets and the Deu-teronomistic History view Israel’s long history of sin as violation of its covenant with Yahweh—a covenant with established, clear standards. Indeed, for the Deuteronomistic History, Israel’s fundamental covenant violation was the breach of relationship inherent in transgressions against the supreme commandment of fidelity to Yahweh. Similarly, texts in 1 John (2:22-23; 4:2-3; 5:10) and in Hebrews (6:4-6; 10:26-27) deal with the renunciation of relationship with God through Jesus Christ. The failure to recognize Jesus or, having recognized him, to willfully deny him is sin.</p> <p>What, however, does this model have to say about people who do not stand in Israel’s covenant relationship or who have not been introduced to Jesus? Can infants and young children be charged with willfully violating the covenant or with rejecting relationship with God through Jesus Christ? The portrayal of early humankind in Genesis offers key insights. Traditional Western readings emphasize the first pair’s rebellion against the divine command. A closer examination reveals a much more complex and subtle situation. The Bible explicitly points to the moral naivete of the first pair: they did not yet know good and evil. Like infants and small children, they did not yet possess the capacity for moral judgment necessary for “willful rebellion.” The text details Eve’s thought process: the fruit was beautiful and apparently edible and had the capacity to bestow Godlikeness—the very faculty of moral judgment necessary as a prerequisite in a juridical model. Subsequent texts in the primal history confirm that this desire to transcend humanity’s proper boundaries is fundamental to the human predicament: Cain stubbornly substitutes his own criterion for God’s; at Babel, humanity seeks to “make a name” by literally climbing to heaven. In a midrash-like meditation on Gen. 3 (Eccl. 3:11-22), the preacher offers a somewhat forlorn commentary. Human beings, made in the image of God, are able to emulate divinity (“eternity in the hearts of men” [3:11 NIV]) but are unable by God’s design, nonetheless, to transcend the limits of creatureliness. In the NT, Paul echoes this line of thought in Rom. 1. Combining the prophetic/ Deuteronomistic and creation/wisdom traditions, he portrays the human condition as the refusal to worship the true God revealed throughout nature in favor of elevating the creature to divine status— a violation of the created order. In sum, a basic component of human sin is dissatisfaction with the limits of creatureliness, a desire to be more than human, a concupiscent hunger for autonomy.</p> <p>As feminist theologians have pointed out, however, the model of sin as prideful egocentrism fails both to account for the full range of human behavior and experience and to reflect the comprehensive biblical witness. The biblical vocabulary for “sin” already implies that sin can also involve the opposite of overreaching, namely, underachieving— “sloth,” to use the language of medieval theology, or “loss of self,” as feminists and others sometimes put it. The Bible attests to the human tendency to shrink back from the attainment of proper goals (see, e.g., Num. 11:4-6; 14:2-4). On some occasions, Jesus, aware that human beings can prefer disability over the challenges and responsibilities that come with wholeness, pointedly asks infirm persons whether they wish to be healed (Mark 10:51; John 5:6). Expectedly, the notion of sin as a failure to mature dominates the wisdom literature. This tradition views wisdom, the order in God’s creation (Prov. 8:22-31), as God’s gift readily available to any who seek it (Prov. 2:1-6). The objective of authentic humanity is harmony with this wisdom. Therefore, failure to seek it and live in accordance with it, the failure to mature, constitutes sin. Proverbs 8:36 states pointedly that “those who miss [ht’] me [i.e., ‘wisdom’] injure themselves” (cf. Prov. 1:24-25, 29-33). The NT Letters of 2 Peter (2:4-22) and Jude (vv. 5-18) inveigh against a group of “false teachers” (early libertine/antinomian gnostics?) who encourage subhuman or animalistic behavior (2 Pet. 2:12; cf. Jude 10). Both letters cite episodes in the primal history involving the intermarriage of angels and human women (Gen. 6:1-4) and the atrocious intentions of the men in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) as examples of the kind of boundarycrossing (human/divine) that violates the proper order. The inference defines the behavior and attitudes advocated by the false teachers as a transgression of the boundary between human and animal, an abandonment of the nobility of humanity’s status as beings created in God’s image.</p> <p>Paul’s view of the human condition hinges on the contention that the proper objective of human life is full humanity as modeled and made possible in Jesus Christ—a view consistent with John’s understanding of the incarnation. Indeed, Paul describes salvation as transformation into the image of God in Christ (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 4:4-6; Col. 1:15-20; 3:10). Consequently, Paul’s understanding of sin involves the assertion, explicit in Rom. 3:23, that human beings universally “miss the mark” (hamart-) by “falling short” (hyster-) of the “glory of God” (a near synonym in Paul for “image of God” [see 1 Cor. 11:7; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4, 6]). Sin, then, can be manifest either in overreaching or in falling short of proper humanity.</p> <p>Motivating the human propensity to overreach or underachieve is a basic mistrust of God and God’s order of creation. In Eden, the serpent insinuates that God has withheld something good from humankind. With half-truths sowing seeds of doubt and mistrust, the serpent seduces the first pair to undervalue their humanity. Indeed, the Bible consistently defines the antidote to sin as believing/trusting in God, implying that the problem is mistrust, seen in events such as the Israelites “murmuring” (e.g., Exod. 15:24) and “rebelling” (e.g., Deut. 1:26, 43; Ps. 78:17) against God for bringing them into the wilderness to die and the prophetic accusations against Israel for trusting falsely in untrustworthy idols (Isa. 40:1820; Jer. 2:11-13; Hos. 2:5, 8), political alliances (Isa. 7:4; Jer. 2:36b-37; Ezek. 29:16), and military might (Isa. 31:1; Jer. 5:17; Hos. 10:13). Similarly, wisdom literature warns against trust in untrustworthy sources such as wealth (e.g., Ps. 49:6; cf. Job 31:24), military strength (Ps. 44:6), princes (Ps. 146:3), and oneself (Prov. 3:5). Conversely, it encourages trust in God as solely reliable (e.g., Ps. 4:5; Prov. 3:5).</p> <p>Although Jesus had little to say about sin in terms of a systematic definition, his message compares repentance of sin to trust in the good news (Mark 1:15). He offers a child’s trust in his or her father as a model for the trust in God that is key for entry into the kingdom of God (Mark 10:14 pars.) and defines anxiety as a lack of trust in God’s determination to provide (Matt. 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-30 [cf. the mistrust of Adam and Eve]). Indeed, Jesus identifies the only sin beyond forgiveness as mistrust of God’s presence (Mark 3:28-30 pars.). John and Paul reduce the issue to its essence. In John, Jesus asserts boldly, “For you will die in your sin unless you believe that I am he” (John 8:24). Paul’s entire argument in Romans revolves around the proclamation of God’s absolute reliability (e.g., Rom. 3:21-22), the essence and foundation of the gospel. Mistrust is sin.</p> <p>Perhaps the chief shortcoming of the crime-and-punishment model involves its view of sin as an act discrete from its real-world effects. For this model, the issue involves whether an intentional violation of the law has been committed. The remedy involves the willingness of the divine judge to pardon. Meanwhile, however, the real damage done to the sinner and the sinner’s environment survives. Much that is clearly wrong lies outside the purview of redemption.</p> <p>In contrast, both the Bible and common experience demonstrate that sin has a quasi-objective character. It creates its own reality in the world, a reality that cannot be remedied by a mere pardon. The Deuteronomic case of a corpse discovered in the open countryside (Deut. 21:1-9) attests to ancient Israel’s concern that wrong be addressed even when the wrongdoer cannot be identified. Similarly, the Priestly manual specifically discusses the need to address “unintentional sin” (Lev. 4:1-6:7), wrong committed “accidentally” and “unknowingly.” After having become aware of the wrong, the perpetrator must effect restoration and restitution. The priority for the ancient Israelite priest was not pardon for the wrongdoer but healing of the injury inflicted, the restoration, as far as possible, of wholeness and balance. Although Jesus’ teaching, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, insists on the unity of</p> <p>intention and action, it should not be taken as a reversal of the Priestly determination to deal with the quasi-objective nature of sin. Indeed, Jesus expresses not the reverse, but the converse view, that even apparently “good” deeds such as prayer and almsgiving can be tainted by improper motivations. The case of the man blind from birth recounted in John 9 offers significant insights into Jesus’ attitude toward the real-world quality of sin. Resisting the disciples’ desire to assign guilt, Jesus moved directly to rectify the harm. In defiance of common sense, the Western church has for far too long ignored the everyday, real-world manifestation of sin. From an ethical standpoint, the church’s inconsistent view of sin as largely a question of intention has left it poorly equipped to deal with real pain that may result from error, inattention, or recklessness. A Priestly approach to sin focuses on damage and restoration; notably, for Jesus, throughout his ministry, forgiving sin and healing physical conditions were but aspects of a holistic redemption.</p> <p>The biblical concept also incorporates the sphere around the individual sinner. It insists on the organic relationship between deed and consequence. The Hebrew term Wn, which can denote the act, the condition of the sinner produced by the act, or the effects of the act in the broader world, points to this continuum of sin. This holistic view is perhaps best expressed in the Bible’s language for punishment and forgiveness. Since sin perverts reality (Isa. 59) such that the aftermath lingers far beyond the originating moment (Hos. 13:12), it “twists” conditions in which others must live (cf. Josh. 22:17, 20).</p> <p>Indeed, the maturation of sin in its consequences constitutes the central principle of the moral order that God incorporated into creation (Gen. 15:16; Ezra 9:6-7; Ps. 38:4; Matt. 23:29-36; Luke 11:47-51; Gal. 6:7). Thus, the Bible contradicts the crime-and-punishment model regarding the notion that God “punishes” sinners. Instead, the Hebrew expression regularly translated “God punished” relies on the organic principle for its force. God “visits guilt/consequences on [the orginator]” (pqd ’awon <sup>,</sup>al [e.g., Exod. 20:5; Lev. 18:25; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9; 2 Sam. 3:8; Ps. 89:32; Isa. 13:11; Jer. 25:12; Lam. 4:22; Amos 3:2]). In other words, God’s role in “punishment” is either to actively enforce the moral order (e.g., Lam. 1:2-14, especially v. 14; Hos. 8:13) or simply to allow events to take their natural course (e.g., Amos 1:3, 6, 9, where Amos announces God’s intention not to “turn it back”—that is, not to reverse the natural course of events). In the NT, Paul also describes the human condition as the result of how God has “given [human beings] up” or “handed [them] over” (paradidomi) to the consequences that they have chosen (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28) and offers the proverbial statement of the principle (Gal. 6:7; cf. Jesus’ statement in Matt. 26:52).</p> <p>If the penalty for sin consists in its organic maturation, forgiveness must also address sin’s aftereffects loosed in the world. In fact, the most common terminology in the OT refers to “bearing (away),” “covering,” “removing,” or “washing away, cleansing from” sin. Of these, the image of “bearing” sin predominates. The language conveys the image of reality twisted such that simply to pardon its perpetrator would have no effect on the continued virulence of the contagion. The NT also prefers verbs that connote “removal” (the verb aphiemi forty-four times, the noun aphesis fifteen times), “covering” (a range of terms [e.g., Rom. 4:7; Jas. 5:20; 1 Pet. 4:8]), “redeeming” (e.g., Titus 2:14), and “washing/cleansing” (again, a range of terms [e.g., Acts 15:9; 22:16; 1 Cor. 5:7; 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb. 1:3; 9:14, 22, 23; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2 Pet. 1:9]).</p> <p>The Bible’s account of the series of family crises with national import that followed David’s adulterous and murderous affair with Bathsheba exemplifies the poisonous nature of sin (2 Sam. 12-19; 1 Kgs. 1-2). Although Nathan assures a repentant David of God’s pardon, David’s subsequent indulgence and passivity encourage three of his sons in succession to replicate behaviors modeled by their father. David’s sin came to fruition not as a God-imposed penalty but as the organic result of sin left to flourish.</p> <p>In sum, the Bible sees sin as fundamental mistrust of God’s constant benevolence, a mistrust manifest in the effort to exceed human limitations or to shirk the wonder of being fully human. These behaviors do real harm to the agent and to the world, perverting it such that, in a practical form of original sin, it contorts circumstances in which others must subsequently act. An approach to ethics informed by this comprehensive understanding of sin will be alert to failures to recognize human limitations as evident in unbridled scientific and technological development (e.g., thalidomide, reproductive technologies). It will take into account the implications of the failure to exercise full humanity involved in addictions and educational choices or to encourage full humanity involved in decisions on public policy. Given affinities with the insights of developmental psychology, it will take seriously the welfare of infants and young children as essential for the development of the basic trust necessary for mature ethical behavior. Finally, it will address the systemic nature of sin, recognizing the manner in which structures embody and perpetuate harm and wrong.</p> <p>See also Forgiveness; Intention; Pride; Seven Deadly Sins</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Biddle, M. Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology. Abingdon, 2005; Dunfee, S. “The Sin of Hiding: A Feminist Critique of Reinhold Niehbuhr’s Account of the Sin of Pride.” Soundings 65 (1982): 316—27; McFayden, A. Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust and the Christian Doctrine of Sin. CSCD 6. Cambridge University Press, 2000; Mercadante, L. Victims and Sinners: Spiritual Roots of Addiction and Recovery. Westminster John Knox, 1996; Murphy-O’Connor, J. Becoming Human Together: The Pastoral Anthropology of St. Paul. Liturgical Press, 1982; Park, A. The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin. Abingdon, 1993.</p> <p>Mark E. Biddle</p><h3>Singleness</h3> <p>The OT gives a more positive assessment of married life than it gives to singleness, while the NT considers marriage the norm but evaluates singleness as having equal worth. It is important to remember that in both Testaments, salvation comes from God without regard to one’s marital status.</p> <p>Old Testament</p> <p>When considering the OT views on singleness and marriage, we must remember that ancient Israel was a kinship-based society with no concept of the nuclear family or of the social construct of singleness that we have today. Unmarried individuals, for instance, did not establish independent households and live alone. In Hebrew culture, men and women were expected to marry, primarily to ensure the family line by bearing children, and remaining childless was considered a disgrace (Gen. 16:4; 1 Sam. 1:5-6; Ps. 127:3-5). Marriage and sexuality within marriage were celebrated (Eccl. 9:9), and remaining unmarried well into adulthood is rarely mentioned. Women are portrayed as especially vulnerable if they did not marry. A father could sell his daughter as a concubine (Exod. 21:7-11), and if a single woman was the victim of rape, she could find herself married to her attacker (Exod. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:28-29). Divorced or widowed women needed to find a father, brother, or new husband to protect them (Deut. 24:1-4). The OT, however, includes some positive references to single women and men. Promises are made to single women and eunuchs (Isa. 54:1; 56:5), prophets often admonish the people for not taking care of widows (Isa. 1:23; Ezek. 22:7; Mal. 3:5), and God even called Jeremiah not to marry, albeit as a sign of imminent punishment for Israel (Jer. 16:1-4).</p> <p>New Testament</p> <p>In the NT, marriage is represented as the norm, but singleness is portrayed as equally valued in the church. Jesus was single, counseled celibacy for some (Matt. 19:10-12), and shifted emphasis from the family to the community of faith (Matt. 12:50; Luke 18:29-30). Paul states a personal preference for the state of singleness (1 Cor. 7:28, 36, 39-40). Philip’s four unmarried daughters are described as actively involved in prophecy with no negative connotations for being single women (Acts 21:9).</p> <p>The Church</p> <p>The church has historically tended to elevate either the state of marriage or the state of singleness as superior. The early church fathers, for instance, considered singleness and celibacy to be morally superior, whereas today being married and having children is the expected norm for Christian men and women in the church. If, however, what is promised in heaven signifies what we value today, the contemporary church should consider the claim in the NT that there is no marriage in the age to come (Matt. 22:30). More important, however, the contemporary church should remember that the Bible consistently affirms, in both Testaments, that salvation comes from God alone, independent of one’s marital status.</p> <p>See also Celibacy; Family; Widows</p> <p>Nancy J. Duff</p><h3>Sirach</h3> <p>Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) is a wisdom book written by the Jewish sage Jesus Ben Sira in the late third or early second century BCE. The book did not make it into the Jewish and Protestant canons, but it is part of the Roman Catholic OT. In these reflections, Ben Sira presents pithy sayings and longer theological discourses as he addresses a group of pupils negotiating the complex circumstances of the Hellenistic age. This colorful advice constitutes the longest postexilic sapiential work.</p> <p>In terms of ethics, Sirach encourages upright behavior in the tradition of the book of Proverbs, but with a major innovation: the author explicitly links wisdom and Torah. Earlier sages in ancient Israel had discussed Wisdom and the virtuous life without mentioning the Mosaic covenant, but Ben Sira brings these together. For example, “If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments, and the Lord will lavish her upon you” (1:26).</p> <p>The sage includes a great deal of discussion on financial matters, offering advice on how to handle money and remain faithful to God. Favorite topics include the intricacies of the marketplace, borrowing and lending, relations between rich and poor, and the practice of almsgiving. Of particular interest is Ben Sira’s belief that “riches are good if they are free from sin” (13:24). The sage is dubious of this possibility, since he also states, “A merchant can hardly keep from wrongdoing, nor is a tradesman innocent of sin” (26:29). Yet it is noteworthy that Ben Sira does not categorize material assets as inherently evil. His ambivalence about money appears to stem, at least in part, from the fact that he educated young scribes who were destined to serve the elite classes.</p> <p>Family relations also receive attention in this instruction. Ben Sira affirms the Decalogue by highlighting the need to honor one’s parents (3:1-16). He also has an extended discourse on the good wife and the bad wife (25:13-26:27) and emphasizes the anxiety that daughters may bring (42:11). His discussion includes harsh language that goes beyond the patriarchal ethos of Israel’s wisdom tradition. For example, “Any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity” (25:19). In his instruction on such matters, Ben Sira focuses on the shame that ensues from disreputable behavior, and it is likely that he was influenced by Greek ideas of honor and shame.</p> <p>On the issue of moral agency, Ben Sira urges his listeners to take responsibility for their actions: “Do not say ‘It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away’; for he does not do what he hates” (15:11). According to certain maxims in this book, God places human beings in the power of their “inclination” (15:14), and it is up to each person to practice “fear of the Lord” by leading a righteous existence and making the correct decisions. Elsewhere, he appears to contradict this logic by claiming that wisdom is created “with the faithful in the womb” (1:14). There is an unresolved tension between free will and determinism in Sirach.</p> <p>Ben Sira’s ethics are also famous for his interpretation of the creation story in Gen. 2-3. When alluding to this narrative and explaining God’s creative acts, the sage declares, “He filled them with knowledge and understanding, and showed them good and evil” (17:7). According to the sage’s interpretation, moral discernment was not a forbidden fruit, but an essential gift imparted to the first humans. In addition, Ben Sira appears to understand human sin and death in the context of the Adam and Eve story: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (25:24). Yet he is inconsistent on this point, since he argues elsewhere that death is a “decree” from God (41:3-4) rather than a punishment for Eve’s transgression.</p> <p>Finally, this instruction deals extensively with death and cultivating a good name. Like the author of Ecclesiastes, Ben Sira endorses a carpe diem mentality (e.g., 14:16), since he does not believe in the immortality of the individual soul. At the same time, he exhorts his pupils to cultivate a positive reputation among their contemporaries. Many sayings represent the core belief that the best way to achieve happiness and to secure a lasting future for one’s offspring is through a good name. Such a goal can be met by upright, pious behavior (i.e., “fear of the Lord”).</p> <p>See also Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal Books; Wisdom Literature</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Collins, J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Westminster John Knox, 1997, 23-111; Skehan, P., and A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. Doubleday, 1987.</p> <p>Samuel L. Adams</p><h3>Slander</h3> <p>Slander is a sin of speech that involves reporting information about someone else in order to discredit that person. The information usually is false or distorted, or it could possibly have a shade of truth. Motivated by jealousy, quest for power, money, job advancement, or personal dislike, the slanderer desires to sway public opinion against a rival. As Ezek. 22:9 describes them, slanderers “shed blood,” and Jas. 4:2 likens slander to “murder.” Slander is lying with sinister intention.</p> <p>By its inclusion as the ninth of the Ten Commandments, slander is immortalized as one of humanity’s worst sins not just against others, but against God as well (Exod. 20:16). The ultimate slander occurs in the formality of public court, where the slanderer offers an untrue report under oath. Jewish thinkers describe slander as “more vicious than transgressions which are called ‘great’ ” (Midrash Psalms 12.2), and as the Greek orator Isocrates explains, “It causes liars to be looked on with respect, innocent men to be regarded as criminals, and judges to violate their oaths” (Antidosis 18-19).</p> <p>Jeremiah and Ezekiel list slander as one of the prevalent activities in Israel for which God will bring destruction and exile (Jer. 6:28; 9:4). Psalm 101:5 and Prov. 21:28 forecast the condemnation of slanderers.</p> <p>Slander is the most commonly named speech sin in the NT, occurring at least eighteen times, appearing on most of the sin lists. In Rom. 1:30, Paul points at slander as a sin of people who do not recognize God. In Col. 3:8, slander is one of the old ways of life that believers are to leave behind. In 2 Tim. 3:3, slander epitomizes the evil of people in the last days, and in 1 Pet. 2:1 slander is one of the childish behaviors that serious believers are implored to grow out of into mature living. “Slanderer” is one of the names for Satan in the Bible (Job 1:6-11; Rev. 12:10).</p> <p>James 4:11-12 indicates that slanderers elevate themselves into a position that only God can occupy, since they choose to act as if the clear teaching against slander in God’s law does not apply to them. More is at stake than ignoring OT law, because the passage implies that slanderers are violating Jesus’ teaching to love their neighbors (note “neighbor” in 4:12; cf. Luke 10:27).</p> <p>Augustine observes that any speech intended to deceive misappropriates the gift of speech that God has given people for good. Despite the speaker’s perception of having good intentions—even slanderers might consider their actions as covertly bringing about a greater good certainly for themselves but maybe also for the good of society—no good can come of slanderous speech (Griffiths 89-93).</p> <p>Certainly believers, then, are not to slander. However, they can also be proactive against slander by standing up for the integrity of people who are being slandered and also by exposing and confronting the slanderer.</p> <p>See also Libel; Speech Ethics; Ten Commandments; Truthfulness, Truth-Telling; Vices and Virtues, Lists of</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Baker, W. Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. WUNT 2/68. Mohr Siebeck, 1995; idem. Sticks and Stones:</p> <p>The Discipleship of Our Speech. InverVarsity, 1996; Griffiths, P. Lying: An Augustinian Theology of Duplicity. Brazos, 2004.</p> <p>William R. Baker</p><h3>Slavery</h3> <p>Slavery as a socioeconomic institution permeated the ancient Near East and the Roman Empire. In Israel and early Christianity distinctive Judeo-Christian humanitarian ethics regulated slavery practices.</p> <p>Three types of slavery existed in Israel: by birth or purchase Hebrews served fellow Hebrews as security against poverty, Hebrews took non-Hebrews as slaves through purchase or capture in war, and Hebrews sold themselves to non-Hebrews as security against debt. In the first type slaves were eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Exod. 21:2-6; Lev. 25:10, 38-41). In the second type slaves were circumcised and sworn into covenant membership (Gen. 17:9-14, 23; Deut. 29:10-15) but were not eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Lev. 25:44-46). In the third type slaves could be redeemed; freedom was mandatory in a Jubilee year (Lev. 25:47-55). Participation in Sabbath rest and religious festivals was normative for all slaves.</p> <p>The humanitarian impulse regulating slavery among the Hebrews, compared to practices of contemporary nations, was grounded in God’s deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt (Deut. 15:15; cf. Lev. 25:42-43). Prophetic ethics criticized slavery practices, forbidding King Ahaz to enslave Judean captives (2 Chr. 28:8-15), calling Israelites to “break every yoke” and “let the oppressed go free” (Isa. 58:6), and declaring Israel’s exile to be God’s punishment for not granting slaves sabbatical release (Jer. 34:8-20). Eschatological hope foresaw God’s Spirit poured out on both male and female slaves (Joel 2:29; cf. Acts 2:18).</p> <p>Although slavery practice prevailed in first-century culture, Roman and Jewish (Matt. 24:45-51; 25:14-30; 26:51; Luke 7:1-10; 12:37-46), Jesus proclaimed release for the oppressed (Luke 4:1819) and turned conventional culture on its head, measuring greatness by the humble service of others. Jesus identified his mission as serving (Mark 10:42-45), giving himself for the life of the world (John 6:51). He emptied himself of his divine prerogative and took upon himself the form of a slave (Phil. 2:7).</p> <p>Slavery functions as a metaphor of the Christian life. Due to multivalent meanings of slavery in the Roman world (where a slave’s rise to power surfaced in Greco-Roman novels and history—e.g.,</p> <p>King Cyrus of Persia), Paul uses “slave of Christ” (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1) to enhance his status and authority or “slave of all” (1 Cor. 9:19) to lower himself to identify with slaves (Martin). Murray Harris, however, contends that the metaphor “slave(s) of Christ/God,” in more than forty uses, designates divine ownership and devotion to Christ or God as Lord. The NT Epistles regulate the conduct of slaves and masters, with slaves usually addressed first, showing their significant standing in the Christian community (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-19). Jesus Christ’s liberating gospel abolishes status distinctions between slave and free in the Christian community (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). Slaves and masters alike are accountable to the Lord Jesus, thus jettisoning temporal slavery by the reality of new creation, in which all believers are slaves of Christ. Paul’s Letter to Philemon transforms slavery. Paul instructs Philemon to receive his runaway slave Onesimus back as a brother “both in the flesh and in the Lord” in the same way he would receive Paul himself (Phlm. 16-17). Affirming the equality of slave and free, the Christian gospel subverts the social institution. Moral philosopher Epictetus, among other writers, expressed similar thought: no essential difference exists among humans, whatever their social status (Glancy 30-31).</p> <p>Western imperialism developed a flourishing slave trade in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century, first in Britain and then in the United States, which had been key beneficiaries of the slave trade’s economic prosperity, purchasing West Africans for slaves as chattel. In hot debates over scriptural sanction and economic necessity, both in England and the United States, abolitionists appealed to broad moral scriptural principles while slavery proponents legitimated slavery practice by citing scriptural texts that condoned slavery (Swartley 31-64; Wayland and Fuller). Richard Fuller’s voice represented pro-slavery views, contending that Scripture does not condemn slavery but only abuses of slavery. Francis Wayland, a gracious and patient correspondent, argued that we must recognize Scripture’s gradual revelation, and if “slavery is inconsistent with the principles of the Gospel, it is wrong” (Wayland and Fuller 78). Indeed, slavery contradicts the principles of the gospel. Some abolitionists, but not Wayland, unpersuasively distinguish between the humane nature of OT servitude and the insufferable slavery conditions in the United States (Barnes, in Swart-ley 40-41).</p> <p>David Torbett’s analysis of Horace Bushnell and Charles Hodge is fascinating. Bushnell opposed slavery but maintained Anglo-Saxon superiority; Hodge regarded slavery as scriptural but decried the conditions in Southern slavery. The debate had no resolution (Swartley 58-64). Evangelicals zealously voiced both sides (Torbett 25-31; Weld, in Swartley 38, 39, 41-42). Moses Stuart’s interpretation, Quaker and Mennonite witness (Swart-ley 53-56), and slaves’ use of Scripture (Swartley 56-58) offered alternatives.</p> <p>English Quaker Josiah Wedgewood’s plea, echoed later by ex-slave William Wells Brown, “Am I not a man and brother? Ought I not then to be free?” led to a situation in which “slaves were reframed, re-described and re-presented as ‘brothers’ and ‘men,’ so they could be found in the love-commandment, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable of the sheep and the goats, and elsewhere, whatever might be said in texts more explicitly concerned with slaves and slavery” (Barclay 14). This reframing of the slave as a person in God’s image spurred the abolition of slave trade in the British Parliament in 1807, though owning slaves continued until 1833. William Wilberforce’s courageous leadership, together with William Pitt and earlier prophetic voices (Clarkson, Sharp, Ramsey) and the writings of ex-slaves Olaudah Equiano and Quobna Ottobah Cugoano, ended this hellish treatment of “Negroes” (Hochschild 30-40, 135-36). It took a tragic civil war in the United States to bring about President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Slavery put biblical interpretation and moral sensibility through the fiery furnace.</p> <p>Great Britain’s bicentennial of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade took place in 2007, and around this time Wilberforce’s fight against slavery was popularized in film and biography, especially utilizing the theme of “Amazing Grace,” the hymn authored by former slave trader John Newton after his conversion. On July 29, 2008, the US House of Representatives made a first formal apology to African Americans for slavery and its subsequent racist social consequences. Sojourner Truth’s lifework shines (Stetson).</p> <p>Slavery continues today, with twenty-eight million people worldwide trapped in slave bondage, from sex trafficking to forced labor (prompting a 2008 global church conference). Poverty victims are most vulnerable. Slavery, in whatever time and place it occurs, violates Christ’s gospel and human dignity.</p> <p>See also African American Ethics; Civil Rights; Emancipation; Equality; Freedom; Human Rights; Image of God; Jubilee; Liberation; Natural Rights; Philemon</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Barclay, J. “ ‘Am I Not a Man and a Brother?’ The Bible and the British Anti-Slavery Campaign.” ExpTim 119 (2007): 3—14; Glancy, J. Slavery in Early Christianity. Oxford University Press, 2002; Harris, M. Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. InterVarsity, 1999; Hochschild, A. Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves. Houghton Mifflin, 2005; Martin, D. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. Yale University Press, 1990; Stetson, E. Glorying in Tribulation: The Life-work of Sojourner Truth. Michigan State University Press, 1994; Swartley, W. Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation. Herald Press, 1983; Tor-bett, D. Theology and Slavery: Charles Hodge and Horace Bushnell. Mercer University Press, 2006; Wayland, F., and R. Fuller. Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution. Ed. N. Finn and K. Harper. Mercer University Press, 2008 [1847].</p> <p>Willard M. Swartley</p> <p>Sloth</p> <p>One of the seven deadly sins, “sloth” (Gk. akedia) generally is understood to mean “apathy” or “laziness.” Some passages in Scripture, especially in the book of Proverbs, emphasize the problems brought about by physical idleness or laziness (Prov. 12:24-27; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30; 26:13-16; Eccl. 10:18). It is more frequently the case, however, that discussions of sloth emphasize the dangers of spiritual weariness. As the idea of sloth developed within the Christian tradition, theologians increasingly came to highlight the challenges that sloth poses to spiritual development. Sloth is considered to be sinful because, in its most severe form, it represents a refusal to embrace the joy that comes from God and a resistance to celebrating and returning God’s love.</p> <p>Sloth in the Scriptures</p> <p>The Scriptures generally associate akedia with a lack of watchfulness or attentiveness to the possible activity of God in one’s life. In the Sep-tuagint the word akedia appears in Ps. 119:28 (118:28 LXX) in connection to the soul’s weariness or torpor: “My soul is weary with akedia” (TNIV). Although the word does not appear in the NT, theologians perceive several Gospel stories to caution against the vice. When Christ leaves the disciples in Gethsemane to pray, their falling asleep might be thought to represent sloth (Matt. 26:40-45). Several of Christ’s parables and teachings can be read as exhortations against sloth as well: the fig tree will be cut down unless it bears fruit (Luke 13:6-9), the servant who buries his talent is chastised (Matt. 25:24-30), the man who does not wear the proper garment to a wedding is expelled from the event (Matt. 22:11-14), the people whose hearts have grown “dull” and who have “shut their eyes” are unable to understand Christ’s teachings (Matt. 13:13-17). Christ calls his followers to exercise vigilance in a manner that will allow them to be open to God’s activity in their lives.</p> <p>Sloth in the Christian Tradition</p> <p>Akedia appears in many early writings of the Christian tradition as a physical weariness that interferes with a monk’s spiritual growth. During the medieval period, Christian authors came to emphasize the risks that akedia poses to each Christian’s spiritual development and to describe akedia increasingly in spiritual terms. In some early lists of the “deadly sins” akedia was treated as a different sin from tristitia (“sorrow”). But medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas defined akedia as a particular kind of tristitia. This sorrow is sinful for two reasons. First, akedia is a feeling of sadness about God’s goodness, and Thomas explains that it is sinful to be sorrowful about such a great spiritual good. Second, akedia is sinful because it causes us to be lazy. According to Thomas, akedia is a sorrow that “so weighs upon man’s mind, that he wants to do nothing” (ST II-II, q. 35, a. 1).</p> <p>This connection of sloth to sorrow might raise questions about whether Christian theology condemns all feelings of depression or discouragement. Thomas’s response to this issue is reassuring: it is possible for Christians to feel themselves to be struggling against sloth without actually succumbing to its temptations. He also reminds his readers that there are times in Scripture when Christ feels great sorrow. Not all sorrow is slothful or sinful.</p> <p>See also Seven Deadly Sins; Sin Bibliography</p> <p>North, J. “Akedia and Akedian in the Greek and Latin Biblical Tradition.” Pages 387-92 in Studia Evangelica, vol. 6, ed. E. Livingstone. Akademie Verlag, 1973; Wenzel, S. The Sin of Sloth: Acedia in Medieval Thought and Literature. University of North Carolina Press, 1960.</p> <p>Elizabeth Agnew Cochran</p><h3>Social Contract</h3> <p>The term social contract refers to a political claim about the state that arose out of the mixture of rising capitalism, Enlightenment understandings of the natural order and human nature, and fear of the unfettered passions that led to war after war in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. The social contract is a deontological assertion about social relations. Because everyone has “interests” in personal well-being, individuals can band together for common ends. Although the terms are sometimes used synonymously, social contracts differ from community-creating covenants in emphases, with contracts relying more on legality (and using deontological reasoning), and covenants relying more on the character of the covenantal partners (virtue teleological reasoning). Social contracts generally are assumed to be generated in a natural state of potential conflict or extreme uncertainty among strangers. John Rawls and Robert Nozick are two major contemporary theorists of social contract. The three foundational theorists of social contract are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.</p> <p>Hobbes found that life without appropriate governance is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Indeed, this state of nature is a war of all against all. The only logical solutions are continuing escalation in arms, which is finally against one’s own interests, or formation of a social contract and ceding of self-sovereignty. The new ruler is Leviathan, who takes the combined sovereignty of the contract makers and uses force to protect the individuals from the most dreaded of aversions, a violent death.</p> <p>Locke, however, did not favor a contract that protected only life at the cost of losing freedom. His proposed social contract is one in which sovereignty remains with the individual, bound to other individuals for protection of life, liberty, and property. Locke’s social contract assumes prior existing natural rights—a concept derived from natural-law theory but without the assumption of a shared telos; instead, each individual sets a personal telos limited by the contract and others’ rights. Property is necessary for seeking that individual telos (or what Thomas Jefferson later calls “the pursuit of happiness”).</p> <p>Rousseau thought that the natural state was original innocence, but that individuals were corrupted by society. While one might seek to return to a state of nature, it is so improbable as to be considered generally impossible. As an alternative, a social contract can be formed that will allow the fulfillment of one’s purpose (understood as appropriate self-love) while restraining selfish selflove for one’s own sake and the sake of others. Individual sovereignty is ceded to the general will, which, as opposed to Locke, is not the cumulative total of all the contract makers’ sovereignty but is actually a whole that is more than the sum of the parts. The danger of such understandings is that those who do not agree with what is deemed the general will are considered either ill or subversive.</p> <p>Social contract, in this specific sense, does not exist in Scripture. Rather, most social agreements in the OT are based on tribal affiliation, including relations of suzerainty and rules of hospitality. Something approaching a social contract, though without assumptions of individual autonomy or liberty, can be found in the Deuteronomic “original agreement” between God and his people. In particular, sections describing the role of political and legal authorities that require fairness by judges, limitation on the authority of the king, and protection of sojourners indicate some civil significance for all humans expressed in a legal agreement among the people and with God (Deut. 16:18-20; 17:14-20; 24:17-18). This interpretation, centuries later, played a role in Enlightenment theories of social contract when Puritan Samuel Rutherford, in Lex, Rex (1644), claimed that a constitutional monarchy, a contract between citizens and the government expressed in the regent, was both divinely intended and divinely limited, as evidenced by God’s restraint on royal prerogative when the people asked for a king like other nations had, but Yahweh gave them one constrained by divine law (1 Sam. 8). This argument was later used and expanded by Locke.</p> <p>In the NT, the political language of lordship is that of shared sovereignty or contract agreement. Further, the dominant image of the gathered Christian community is familial and covenantal, not contractual. Still, one basis of social contract can be found in the NT assertion of universal human worth to God. The notion of human rights exists in a nascent form, and Paul’s plea on the basis of his Roman citizenship indicates how rights might be used under a social-contract arrangement. Still, modern political structures are not described in the text of the NT, nor is there any specific enumeration of negative rights</p> <p>or entitlement claims (positive rights) protected</p> <p>by social contract.</p> <p>See also Covenant; Deontological Theories of Ethics; Government; Natural Law</p> <p>James R. Thobaben</p><h3>Social Service, Social Ministry</h3> <p>Social ministry is ministry to and with persons and communities that addresses their societal context, the needs of the whole person, and personal and social reform and renewal.</p> <p>The biblical warrants for social ministry include the many injunctions to care for the poor and hungry, widows and orphans, as well as the broader mandate to combine justice and mercy. The parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) stands out, including its prophetic social critique. In addition, Jesus’ own calling “to serve rather than be served” (see Mark 10:45) and his uniting the good news of God’s reign with healing and social reintegration also provide guidance. In the OT, prophets speak to the responsibilities of those in power and of the whole people of God, putting political and economic matters under God’s sovereignty. Both Testaments present the values and virtues of individuals and communities, seen in times of disaster and cooperative action. The NT provides four basic dimensions of ministry: kergyma (proclamation), leitourgia (worship), koinonia (community), and diakonia (caring for physical needs), which is most linked to social ministry.</p> <p>In earlier times, corporal works of mercy would address physical circumstances caused by social as well as natural factors (e.g., wars and war-related famines, enslavement, deportation). Diaconal service would still include agents of a faith community providing healthcare and institutions such as hospitals. Social services today link persons to a range of institutions that meet a variety of individual, familial, and communal needs; the dimension of ministry lies in the intent to serve the whole person in community and in so doing to reflect the imperatives of love and justice. Government “ministries” provide much of the social services in most developed countries.</p> <p>Broadly speaking, social service ministries or social ministries help those who are disabled or disadvantaged. Both Testaments judge individuals and communities by their care for the “widows and orphans” and the “halt and the lame.” Prophets and saints criticized the “faithful” for neglecting the disadvantaged. Sometimes these prophets went on to organize groups dedicated to specific forms of social ministry. At times, these groups have become institutions, some of which later were secularized.</p> <p>In 1955, when the churches of the United States were entering into a time of postwar prosperity, the National Council of the Churches of Christ produced a comprehensive three-volume study, Churches and Social Welfare. Social welfare work was seen to include social service, social education and action, and social research. Reports from fourteen denominations summarized work in these areas, often drawing on traditions of immigrant mutual aid, circumstances of political and economic strength, particular theological inspiration (often by “social gospel” leaders; the 1908 Social Creed is specifically mentioned three times), and historic commitment (such as the Quakers’ involvement in prison ministry and penal reform). Chapters in these volumes reflect strategically on the various levels of explicitly Christian influence that may accompany the provision of specific services, the need to protect human dignity without resorting to paternalism, the mixture of preventive and remedial concern, and the degree to which the church’s role as social conscience may make it a critic of government and private institutions. Administration and funding challenges are also considered: “The basic objective must be continued development of strong, well equipped, well supported institutions under the influence of the Protestant churches” (Bachmann, Cayton, and Nishi 3:79).</p> <p>The earlier ideas of the social gospel about social ministry brought social-science values and professionalism to a wide range of social work and ministry: settlement houses, YMCAs and YWCAs, specialized orphanages and therapeutic schools, homes for older persons, provision of counseling and training on family life and childrearing, help for immigrants, the training of volunteers to do direct service, and the training of ministers and priests to understand the need for social welfare and social workers. Temperance, antigambling, and public health/nutrition initiatives were meant to prevent tragedy, degradation, and family breakup; the transformation of rescue missions into rehabilitation centers, the rise of church-based counseling centers with clinical pastoral training of various forms—all spoke to a holistic understanding of salvation and health. The relatively recent development of “parish nurse” programs speaks to a bridging role for the church between its members and complex medical institutions and to the continuum between salvation and health in the community of the congregation.</p> <p>In the 1960s, concern for racial justice led to the question of whether direct action, including demonstrations and protests, could be a form of social ministry. Between four hundred and five hundred Protestant ministers went to Hattiesburg and several other Mississippi towns in 1964 and volunteered their help with voter registration and various kinds of teaching. Although these efforts aroused tensions and exposed local residents to physical risks from some parts of the community, they persisted in a sometimes symbolic witness for justice and solidarity, crossing not only racial but also class lines. Participants themselves were profoundly changed as they sought to change the social climate and horizon for African Americans. A study by Nile Harper of what some called “servant ministry” or a “ministry of presence,” based on seventy-four in-depth survey responses by Presbyterian ministers, showed that few lost their pulpits, and most were family men with an average of three young children. Harper more recently charted the work of “religious collaborative working for social transformation” involving ranges of stakeholders and community-building strategies.</p> <p>In the more recent period in the United States, some services and institutions directed to serve particular racial-ethnic populations have changed focus, seeking to meet new demographic or educational needs. The “deinstitutionalization” of the mentally ill, facilitated by new medications, led to more homeless persons beginning in the 1970s. Very basic services, such as food banks and clothing distribution, have been needed to face the rise of homelessness of more than one million citizens starting in the 1980s. Prison ministry has also been increasingly needed to meet the vast numbers of persons convicted of drug-related offenses, sometimes connected to addiction and mental illness.</p> <p>The role of welfare itself became widely debated; critics of dependency alleged that government support weakened families and benefited social service providers. Critics also pointed to the stagnation of real wages, deindustrialization, and persistent levels of unemployment, particularly in inner cities. Critics such as John McKnight, though supportive of government social welfare provision, pointed to the lack of actual care in the treatment of caseloads of clients and to the development of disempowered “client neighborhoods.” Scholarly debate has identified sophisticated forms of “blame the victim” and “unintended consequences” in dealing with an “underclass” dimension of persistent poverty in areas abandoned by all but mandated service providers and struggling public schools. The “feminization of poverty” has also been noted in the growth of households headed by mothers; the absent fathers are often poor as well, but the focus is more on the high proportion of impoverished children.</p> <p>Since the 1990s, some churches have adapted the broad language of “public ministry” rather than “urban” or “rural” ministry to address the combination of service and advocacy for services and social change needed. Communitarian ethics seeking the common or public good is invoked, capacity-building is a goal, and cultural creativity is encouraged. Although more US citizens will have medical insurance after the healthcare legislation enacted in 2010, advocacy is still needed in many areas of social service for availability, adequacy, accessibility, affordability, and accountability (Miller and Burggrabe).</p> <p>Dieter Hessel’s Social Ministry offers a comprehensive vision of social ministry as a liberating dimension of ministry learned from struggles for social change from the 1960s. This approach lifts up the benefits of social involvement for churches that are sometimes fearful of being “political.” He argues for coalitional and organizing strategies that link particular caring action with larger social analysis, including reflection on the church’s own situation as a community and an institution. The range of experts is also expanded to include not only the established and credentialed but also the affected and change agents, including independent prophets. Rather than be trapped in the private sphere in its own “downward mobility,” the church and its members are given confidence to address the public order and its dysfunctions and to sustain these efforts without “burnout” or isolation. He contrasts a constructive opposition to all forms of abandonment and scapegoating with a crusading style that can confuse public piety with social righteousness. This vision of social ministry, then, combines the pastoral and the prophetic, seeks to build congregational sustainability, addresses lifestyle change for ecojustice and wider sustainability, and appeals to real interests and personal needs while at the same time putting them in a shared context. Social ministry provides a dimension of corporate responsibility to enhance the vocation of every Christian concerned to be part of the “salt and light” described in Matt. 5:13-16.</p> <p>See also Charity, Works of; Common Good; Justice; Neighbor, Neighbor Love; Poverty and Poor; Welfare State</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Bachmann, T., H. Cayton, and S. Nishi, eds. Churches and Social Welfare. 3 vols. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 1955; Findlay, J., Jr. Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom Movement, 1950—1970. Oxford University Press, 1993; Harper, N., Journeys into Justice: Religious Collaboratives Working for Social Transformation. Bas-com Hill, 2009; idem. Social Conflict and Adult Christian Education. General Division of Parish Education, Board of Christian Education, United Presbyterian Church U.S.A., n.d.; Hessel, D. Social Ministry. Rev. ed. Westminster John Knox, 1992; Miller, K., and J. Burggrabe. “A Health Crisis and a Healing Ministry.” Pages 205-20 in Envisioning the New City: A Reader on Urban Ministry, ed. E. Meyers. Westminster John Knox, 1992.</p> <p>Christian Iosso</p> <p>Sociobiology See Science and Ethics</p><h3>Sociology of Religion</h3> <p>Sociology is a social science that uses quantitative (e.g., surveys) and qualitative (e.g., personal interviews) tools to study how human beings relate to one another within a society or subculture. The discipline assumes that people both shape and are shaped by their environment. Sociology of religion is a branch of this larger discipline that studies how people put their beliefs about the sacred into practice as they interact with others, particularly through institutions and systems (political, economic, family, church, etc.). In this sense, the sociology of religion affects theology and ethics, as it concerns itself with the behavior of individuals and groups and the beliefs that inform those actions. Because the discipline focuses on the practical impact of religion, it presses beyond discussions of beliefs as mere abstractions and instead steers us to faith’s moral and pragmatic importance.</p> <p>The founders of sociology devoted much effort to the study of religion because of its unquestioned significance for providing meaning. However, many sociologists believed Max Weber’s prediction of religion’s demise, claiming that it would fade in a “disenchanted world” in which science, technology, bureaucracy, and other aspects of modernization reigned. This secularization theory continues to provide useful insights but is now tempered by religion’s vitality in much of the world, including the Global South and industrialized nations such as the United States.</p> <p>One of the major concerns of sociologists of religion has been the definition of religion itself. There are two major schools of thought, each associated with pioneers in sociology. Influenced by Emile Durkheim, some emphasize the function of religion within a culture or group, usually with an eye to how faith supports a particular moral outlook or helps control behavior. Durkheim and many after him viewed religion as inherently conservative of the status quo. Others, taking their cue from Max Weber, stress the substance or content of a faith tradition and the ways that beliefs influence patterns of relationships and forge ethical frameworks. For theological ethics, understanding how beliefs function in society as well as their substance is crucial.</p> <p>In Rom. 12:1-2 Paul warns of subtle encroachments of society upon Christian beliefs; he commands a renewal of mind that bears fruit in moral transformation. Sociologists provide “sensitizing concepts” or theories regarding various aspects of culture that influence us, such as race, ritual, gender, identity, power, individualism, community, and class. Revealing how faith commitments intersect experience, sociology provides tools for understanding our cultural milieu and its influence on us, as well as for measuring faith’s impact on our world.</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Bellah, R., et al. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. 3rd ed. University of California Press, 2007; Dillon, M., ed. Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Cambridge University Press, 2003; Emerson, M., and C. Smith. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford University Press, 2001; Wuthnow, R. Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves. Princeton University Press, 1993.</p> <p>Erin Dufault-Hunter</p><h3>Sodomy</h3> <p>The term derives from Sodom (Heb. sedom; Gk. Sodoma), the name of an ancient biblical city located in the southern portion of the Dead Sea corridor, which, according to Gen. 19:24-28, was destroyed along with the neighboring city of Gomorrah by Yahweh.</p> <p>Although the exact nature of Sodom’s sin(s) is never made clear in the Genesis account, most interpreters have linked it to the licentious behavior that its men display toward Lot’s guests. In Gen. 19:4-9, the men of Sodom demand that Lot turn over his male guests so that they “may know them.” Since the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) has sexual connotations (e.g., Gen. 4:1; 1 Sam. 1:19), the men appear to be demanding sexual intercourse with Lot’s guests, an act expressly forbidden in Lev. 18:22; 20:13.</p> <p>The notion that Sodom was destroyed because of its sexual perversion is made more explicit in 2 Pet. 2:6-10 and Jude 1:7, although the precise meanings of aselgeia (“licentiousness” [2 Pet. 2:7]), epithymia miasmou (“depraved lust” [2 Pet. 2:10]), and sarx hetera (“unnatural lust” [Jude 1:7]) do not necessarily refer to homosexual intercourse. In light of Gen. 18:1-8; 19:1-4, 8, it is a violation of the rule of hospitality and protection to traveling strangers, which was a crucial ethical mandate in that time. Josephus (Ant. 1.11.1), Ezek. 16:49-50, and Wis. 19:13-17 speak of Sodom’s callous disregard of the poor and the stranger as being the primary cause of its destruction.</p> <p>See also Homosexuality; Hospitality; Rape; Sexual Ethics</p> <p>Bibliography</p> <p>Gagnon, R. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abingdon, 2002; Helminiak, D. What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Alamo Square Press, 2000.</p> <p>Nicholas Read Brown</p> </body> </html>