SNL and The Handmaid’s Tale were combined this weekend in a rant against pro-life laws passed in various states.
Comedian Leslie Jones appeared on SNL over the weekend dressed in a red coat and a white hat.
According to Yahoo!
Leslie Jones stopped by the “Weekend Update” segment of the season finale of “SNL” to deliver a fiery denunciation of “the war on women” she sees in recent anti-abortion laws passed by multiple states in an apparent effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Jones first appeared in a red cape and white bonnet in homage to the regressive dystopia depicted in Hulu’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.” “Well, basically we’re all handmaids now,” she said, before removing the cape to reveal a black t-shirt that said “MINE” with an arrow pointing down.
“I see on the news a bunch of states are trying to ban abortion,” she said, before jokingly suggesting the moves could lead to a slippery slope. “The next thing you know, I’m at Starbucks and they won’t take my credit card because I’m a woman instead of the regular reason, which is I don’t have no money on me.”
Of course, the video clip was circulating online and I didn’t
care enough to click on it. But the more
I saw others comment on it in relation to the abortion bills, I really wanted
to know why the left is obsessed with this Handmaid’s thing.
If you remember back to Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, left-wing women were dressed up in the red garb. If I remember college correctly, my studies in lit class had The Handmaid’s Tale on a list of books one could read for the final project.
Outside of that, I didn’t know much about it.
Thank God for Wikipedia.
Basically, the concept is similar to the dystopian society featured in V for Vendetta. The only difference is that V for Vendetta didn’t focus on the ISIS like sex slavery and V for Vendetta didn’t spawn inane political posturing in the real world. Okay sure, some people like the Guy Fawkes mask, but that’s hardly been a staple in a coherent political movement like feminism.
Since The Handmaid’s Tale is such a prominent fixation in the left-wing psyche, we have to ask why.
Any protection of life is seen as the early warning signs of a theocracy. Anytime due process is strengthened in sexual assault cases, the left worries that women will be forced into sandwich-making reeducation camps. Anytime scientists or intellectuals affirm the existence of genuine gender differences, some on the left fear that women will be shipped off to baby-making factories.
And before you claim that’s hyperbole or a strawman (okay the sandwich making thing is a joke), all you need is this display from Leslie Jones to see that some genuinely think that something bad is going to come from our legal system.
It makes me wonder if they actually believe the theology and political theory that is described in The Handmaid’s Tale.
Knowing liberals, it’s not a stretch for them to take such
distortions to heart. How many times has
a liberal asked you about eating shellfish or wearing blended fabrics or
cutting the corners of your hair?
The author of The Handmaid’s Tale explicitly states that the society in her book DISTORTS scripture on purpose and does not represent true Christians. Yet, absent that explanation and reliance on a TV series in lieu of the book, it would not surprise me that some actually think that Christianity will lead to the type of society described in the series.
It is very easy to find the story about Jacob, Leah, Rachel, and their servants and conclude that “the bible permits men to behave like they do in The Handmaid’s Tale.” Except that’s not how Scripture is understood. Our understanding is constrained by the text being descriptive or prescriptive. Lot’s daughters got their father drunk and slept with him so they could have children. That is a grievous sin. Abraham slept with his slave in direct violation of God’s promise. He too sinned. The occurrence of events in scripture does not mean that those event’s are commendable or to be emulated. The fact that Solomon had 700 wives is not an endorsement of polygamy.
So we have that dynamic between descriptive and
If one were to study scripture further, the conduct in The Handmaid’s Tale is clearly proscribed in Mosaic Law. The text being “prescriptive” includes “proscriptions” as well. It’s dos and don’ts.
Chief among prohibited conduct is adultery, fornication, and prostitution, which The Handmaid’s Tale seems to think is the natural outgrowth of a biblical worldview regarding men and women. The entire premise is that the Handmaids are sex slaves. Scripture prescribes punishment for both men and women who defile themselves in such ways.
Understanding scripture does not end with knowing what is descriptive or prescriptive. We also understand scripture in light of the change from law to grace. In the law, we see God’s holy and unmovable standard as well as our own depravity and the punishment we deserve. In grace we see God’s loving-kindness and mercy, making the filthy clean. Yet grace is not a license to sin. We see repeated commands to flee from sexual immorality because we have already died to those sins, they have already been addressed on the cross.
The author of the book says that the dystopian society would
focus on the Old Testament as a means of establishing its heavy-handed
theocracy to the exclusion of the New Testament. Christianity is not understood that way. Law and grace have to be understood together.
This is what some on the left miss. They think that scripture, taken in bits, can lead to something like the society in The Handmaid’s Tale.
I don’t think many liberals are actually scared of what Christianity could lead to in politics, after all, some do like to trot out Mosaic Law as it relates to the foreigner and they aren’t particularly averse to Jesus saying “judge not.”
What’s clear is that biblical illiteracy is detrimental to Christianity
and to society whenever a distorted understanding of scripture is presented,
especially in the political context where everyone has an opinion.