Mark's thoughts: Jane Doe and the Cornell 7 - A window into our sexual culture and how we got here

 

In recent days the news has been filled with accounts about the incident that occurred at a Cornell University fraternity in October 2024. A woman currently identified as Jane Doe engaged in sex with multiple men as all were under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs. Almost three weeks later she told the police that she had experienced sexual assault. The ensuing investigation did not reveal that a crime had been committed, and so no charges were brought against the men. Then in September 2026 she filed a civil lawsuit against the seven men, Cornell University, the fraternity where it occurred, her own fraternity, and a local bar.

 

The sordid details of the woman having sex with five men in repeated sexual threesomes, and drugs being consumed off of naked bodies, leave no doubt that all involved acted in a reprehensible fashion. However, a reading of Jane Doe’s own account leaves no doubt that rape did not occur. Under New York state law sexual assault occurs when there is a lack of consent due to: 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim.

 

The District Attorney notes there was no “forcible compulsion” present because “The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.” There was no “mental incapacitation” because “The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent.” There was no “physical helplessness” because “there is no evidence in the statement that Jane Doe was unconsciousness or unable to communicate.” It was found that, “Finally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe’s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped. Thus, with no evidence of a ‘lack of consent,’ criminal charges simply could not be sustained.”

 

Jane Doe herself said that there was no rape. On the day after the incident, one of the individuals texted her to apologize about how events had occurred. She replied, “At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt” [sic]. In the days that followed as news about the incident spread among students on campus, the man encouraged her by saying it would all pass over. Jane Doe replied, “you’re right it’ll get better and u think everyone’s j jealous of us.. but also like everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and sh*t is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common,, i’m also really open minded tho. i luv u king” [sic].

 

The incident occurred on October 20/21. As a Halloween party at the fraternity approached one of the men assured Jane Doe that she was still welcome at the fraternity and their upcoming Halloween party. Jane expressed that she was pleased to hear this and would be there. It is very difficult to understand why Jane Doe wished to return to the fraternity for another party if she had just been gang raped there. In the end, the fraternity president contacted Jane Doe to say she was not invited to come to the party. This action seems to have been the catalyst for Jane Doe’s reevaluation of what had happened and subsequent filing of a police report on November 8.

 

The Cornell incident provides a window into two important questions about the culture in which we live. First, how have we arrived at the point that men and women are willing to act in these ways sexually? Second, why would a woman change her evaluation of what happened when all the evidence indicates that the sexual encounters were consensual?

 

To understand how we got here, we need to understand from where we have come. As Kyle Harper describes in his masterful work, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, in the Greco-Roman world a married man could only commit adultery by having sex with a free born woman who was the legal wife of a Roman man. A married man was permitted to have sex with slaves or prostitutes, and it was assumed that he would do so (for a summary of Harper’s research, see The early Church challenges a world of fornication). The wife on the other hand could only have sex with her husband.

 

Christianity said instead that sexual intercourse could only occur between husband and wife in marriage.  Sex with anyone else was sin against God.  This was a radical change in the way men were expected to behave. It was a change in culture that did not happen overnight.  It took more than two hundred years from the time Christianity became legal and began to be favored by the Roman government until prostitution was officially outlawed.  The Church challenged a fornicating world for five hundred years before society officially adopted a Christian view of sexual conduct.

 

Around 51 AD Paul wrote to Corinth with this instruction about how Christians were to deal with sex:

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:2-9).

Paul recognizes that not all have the gift to be single (7:7). Instead, he says that because of the threat of sexual immorality, man and woman are to be married. Their sexual needs are to be met by one another (7:3-4). In a letter that contains very strong statements about the headship of man based on the ordering of creation (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-9), this language of mutuality in marriage is striking and has important implications.

 

Paul’s statement is Christian, but it reflects the truth that man has recognized throughout history. Men and women are different. Men have a greater sex drive and want to have regular sex. Sexual intercourse entails far greater risks for women than for men. The man has his orgasm and can walk away. The woman can be left pregnant with a child she will have to raise.  A society cannot exist in which men have sex as they please and women are left with no support. Such an arrangement would be the destruction of the family upon which society is built.

 

So the acknowledged ordering has been that women set a very high bar of commitment in order for men to have sexual access. The man will have exclusive sexual involvement with the woman, and she will be the one who meets his sexual needs. In return, the man commits to the permanent bond in which he supports the woman and the children they produce. The “transactional” nature of this arrangement is simply a reflection of how God has ordered his creation in such a way that the woman is the helper corresponding to the man – the one without whom life is not good (Genesis 2:18).

 

For nearly 1500 years the West lived on basis of the sexual morality set forth by the New Testament. The cultural expectation was that sex took place in marriage, and marriage produced family. And then in a little more than fifty years, it was almost completely undone. There have been two factors in this. The first and most important, is the “sexual revolution” that began in the 1960’s as oral contraception (“the pill”) allowed people for the first time in history to separate sex from procreation easily and reliably. If contraception failed, the Roe v. Wade decision meant that from 1970’s the widespread practice of abortion guaranteed that sex did not have to result in a child.

 

This same period saw the emergence of pornography as a growing cultural force. Pornographic movies made the transition from theater settings to videocassettes with distribution to private residences. The internet age has brought the most graphic content to the phone in a person’s hand. Youth today grow up exposed to pornography in ways never seen before.

 

The result is that today our culture does not believe that moral judgment can be directed at any sexual activity (more on this in a moment). “Hook ups” are normal, and sexual intercourse is simply part of dating. Cohabitation is widely accepted,  and  the chaste couple that chooses to marry sooner rather than later is considered unusual.

 

The second factor which has produced this situation is feminism. An ideology that declared women are equal to men has taught women that they should act in the same way as men – and that includes sex. Women have been indoctrinated to believe that being sexually active outside of marriage is “empowerment.” As the sexual revolution led people to believe that there can be no moral judgments about sex, feminism taught woman that they should use sex freely just like a man.

 

So how do you get men in a Cornell fraternity who engage in this kind of sexual activity? They have been raised in a culture which says that there are no moral limits on sex of any kind. The culture has turned men loose to do whatever they want sexually. And because men are men they want to have sex. They are having sex in ways that are informed by the pornography they have been watching.

 

How do you get a woman in a Cornell fraternity who engages in this kind of sexual activity?  She too has been raised in a culture which says that there are no moral limits on sex of any kind. She also has been formed by feminism to be believe that being a true woman means acting like a man.  She should freely use her body for sexual pleasure, for she is an autonomous individual who is not limited by the constraints of patriarchy.

 

The culture has rejected all moral limits in the use of sex. But it recognizes that there still must be some kind of controlling factor and so it has based everything on consent. Two adults can do whatever they want sexually, as long as both consent.

 

This emphasis on consent brings us to the second question we are considering: Why would a woman change her evaluation of what happened when all the evidence indicates that the sexual encounters were consensual? The sexual revolution has declared that there are no moral limits on sex. Feminism has told women that they should freely engage in these sexual activities because they are equal to men and therefore they can do the same things as men.

 

But in the last fifty years the culture has forgotten what everyone else in the history of the world has understood: men and women are different. They are different in sex drive, and different in the biochemical responses generated by sex. Certainly, casual sex is harmful for both men and women. But it is exceedingly harmful for the woman who was created to be bonded to the man who is the father of her child produced by sex.  The repeated sexual unions with different partners in casual sex is emotionally and psychologically corrosive for women.

 

Women aren’t men. When they engage in sexual activity that leaves them feeling uncomfortable or bad, there is no moral category by which they can explain this. They have been shaped to believe that all sex acts between consenting adults are completely acceptable. The only category left to explain what they are feeling is consent. The event must then be reimagined in a way so that what they experienced was not really consensual. A term has been coined to describe this phenomenon: regret rape.

 

Feminism has taught women to act like men when it comes to sex. But this is a losing proposition for them. When women act like men in sex, men gladly take sex without having to give commitment. Ultimately all suffer as this is detrimental for marriage and family.

 

It is helpful to recognize the factors that have produced the sexual culture in which we live.  We are thereby better equipped to see why it is so important to teach the truth of God’s Word about his gifts of marriage, sex, and family. God’s way is always the best way, even if it means opposing the world around us.   

 

 

 

 

  

 

Sermon for the Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity - Mt 22:34-46

 

   Trinity 18

                                                                                                            Mt 22:34-46

                                                                                                            10/4/26

 

 

In last Sunday’s Gospel lesson we saw that there was a confrontation when Jesus went to the house of the ruler of the Pharisees for a meal on the Sabbath.  The conflict was entirely predictable because the Pharisees were persistently opposed to Jesus about issues that related to the Law of Moses and how it should be interpreted.

Last week Jesus asked the Pharisees about whether it was permitted to heal on the Sabbath. At another time when Jesus was in the synagogue on the Sabbath and a man with a withered hand was present, another group of Pharisees asked our Lord that same question. On that occasion Jesus answered that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath and healed the man.  Then Matthew tells us, “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.”

Questions about keeping the law continued as we learn in Matthew’s Gospel that the Pharisees and Scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat?” The Pharisees were attacking Jesus because his disciples were not following their interpretation of the law - what they called the “tradition of the elders.”

This conflict reached a crescendo during Holy Week. The Pharisees and the Sadducees – groups in Judaism who were opposed to each other – found a common enemy in Jesus. First the Pharisees plotted how to entangle Jesus in his words by asking him about whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Then the Sadducees asked Jesus a question about the resurrection.

Next we learn in our text, “But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.” There is no doubt about what is happening here. The question by the Pharisee is not a request for information. It is an attempt to set a trap for Jesus. It is a question asked in the hopes that Jesus will say something that can be used against him.

At first glance, the question does not sound all that threatening. The Pharisee asked, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Judaism was indeed focused on the Law of Moses. We know that discussions about how to rank the commandments occurred. But still, it seems difficult to understand how the Pharisee thought this was going to generate an answer he could use against Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ had repeatedly stated, “You have heard it was said … but I say to you” as he corrected common interpretations of the law that were present in his day. So maybe the Pharisee hoped that Jesus would pop off with some kind “but I say to you” statement they could use against him.

If this was the intention of the Pharisee’s question, then he was greatly disappointed. Jesus answered by saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus identified Deuteronomy 6:5 as the great and first commandment. This was part of the Shema, the statement “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” that was spoken by faithful Jews every day. And then our Lord added a second commandment, the statement from Leviticus 19 about loving the neighbor as yourself. The pairing of these two thoughts can be found elsewhere in Judaism and was hardly objectionable. But then Jesus added, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

First century Judaism was focused on the Law of Moses. How could it not be? After all, this was the law God had given to Israel at Mt Sinai when he brought them into his covenant. It was the law in which God told Israel how to live in the covenant with him. Israel knew that all of this was a matter of God’s grace. God had called Israel to be his people in fulfillment of his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He had rescued them from Egyptian slavery in the exodus. The gift of the law was a matter of God’s grace, just as the covenant of which it was a part. The law was a good thing. As the Psalm 119 says, “When I think on my ways I turn my feet to your testimonies; I hasten and do not delay to keep your commandments.”

The Jews never forgot that salvation was based on God’s grace. Only that made it possible. But over the centuries a shift occurred. There was an increasing confidence in a person’s spiritual abilities. There was an ongoing tendency to focus on the importance of what the person did in keeping the law and the role this had in being saved.  You can hear it in the rich young man’s question to Jesus, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And then there was the fact that although the law itself promised life, the history of Israel demonstrated that their continuing failure to keep the law brought only judgment.  

The Pharisees believed that the requirement to keep the law included their interpretation of the law and the things that it had added – the “tradition of the elders.” But in his answer Jesus casts all of that aside. For that matter he says nothing about circumcision, or food laws, or the Sabbath. He says it is very simple.  Love God with all that you are – the first table of the Ten Commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself – the second table of the Ten Commandments.  And the Lord says that this is what everything the Old Testament says to do is really all about: “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus strips it down to the basics: Love God with all that you are. Love your neighbor as yourself. He says that’s really what it is all about. And in this we begin to recognize that if doing the law is going to be involved in any way with why we are saved, then we have a huge problem. For there are so many things that we put before God – our sports, our hobbies, our money and wealth, our need to be approved by our culture.  These are the things we often value most. And we find so many ways to put ourselves before our neighbor. I am going to focus on my needs and desires before my spouse, children, parents, or friends because I come first. After all, I deserve it.

St Paul tells us that in dealing with God, the way of the law – the way of doing – is a non-starter. It is because as fallen people sin is a power from which we cannot free ourselves. He told the Romans, “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” And because this is so, the way of doing the law can only bring God’s curse and judgment. Paul told the Galatians, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”

The Pharisee wanted to focus on the interpretation of the law. But then Jesus asked them a question that shifted the center of the conversation. He said, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” The answer seemed simple. They said to him, “The son of David.” Everyone knew that the Christ – Messiah promised by God – would be a descendant of King David.

Then Jesus asked, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” Jesus quoted the first verse of Psalm 110. The available evidence indicates that the Jews of this time didn’t normally consider this to be a Scripture that spoke about the Messiah. Jesus was taking this text and interpreting it in a way they didn’t expect.  He was using it in his own way. Matthew tells us, “And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.”

Jesus shifts the focus away from the Law of Moses to himself. In doing so, he shifts things from law to Gospel. And he points to himself as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament says – both the law and the prophets.

Jesus tells us that David was led by the Spirit of God to speak about the Christ as his Lord. Jesus is the son of David because Joseph took him to be his own son.  But Jesus is not only a man.  He is also the Son of God, the Creator of the universe. The angel said, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, Jesus is the One whom David and all people must call Lord, for he is God himself.

The angel announced to Joseph that Jesus would save his people from their sins. He did this because all people, Jew and Gentile alike fail to keep God’s law. This law is God’s ordering of creation that expresses the will of the Creator for everyone. Paul said about the Gentiles – about you, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.” It is this law that we all break as we sin against God.

But the Son of God entered this world and took on humanity in order to bear the wrath and judgment of God against your sin. As Isaiah said, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” God condemned your sin in Christ when he died on the cross.

Then God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead and defeating death. And what is more, he exalted Christ in the ascension as he was seated at the right hand of God in fulfillment of Psalm 110.  For as David wrote, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”

Paul told the Romans, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Through faith in the crucified and risen Lord you are justified. You already know the verdict of the Last Day. You know that when you appear before the judgment seat of God he will declare you not guilty – free from sin and able to live in eternal fellowship with him.

Since you are already justified now by faith in Christ, it means that doing the law has nothing to do with your status before God. It simply can’t. So what does this mean for about how we view the law as we live in Christ?

Let us begin with the Law of Moses itself as we find it in the Old Testament. You will notice that Jesus never talks about circumcision and foods laws in the Gospels. He only talks about Sabbath keeping when attacked, and then only to say that things can be done on the Sabbath. In our text today he says that we are to love God with all that we are and love our neighbor as our selves and then concludes, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” He says that this is what the Old Testament is really all about.

The specific details of the Law of Moses – its ceremonial aspect - was the command for God’s people until the coming of Christ. But now that Christ has come it no longer is. Christians are not in any way obligated to keep the Sabbath or follow the food laws. So enjoy that bratwurst if you want to. After all, we are going to have them at our upcoming Octoberfest.

Many Jews in Jesus’ day had fallen into the trap of thinking that their actions were part of the reason they were saved.  This is not surprising because it is temptation that always confronts fallen man. We understand the way of the law. You must do something to get something. It makes sense to us and that is the reason that every religion in the world apart from Christianity works in this way. This appeals to the old Adam because if I have some role to play, then I also get some of the credit.

The history of Christian theology demonstrates how enticing this is. It happened in the medieval period and continues to exist in Roman Catholic theology where God’s grace enables a person to do their part in that work that leads to salvation. Here it is not faith alone, but faith plus our works.

But it also continues to be found even in settings that confess faith alone. It happens when faith is defined as my choice – the thing I have done. Here the assurance of salvation is found in my choice – my act of believing. So by giving one’s testimony, or of going up for another altar call, or of being rebaptized the person recalls and renews the fact he really did it.

It happens when a sanctified life becomes the proof of salvation. How do I know I am a Christian and am saved? It is because of what I do – the holy ways in which I live. The source of assurance then is what I do, and so the true focus of the Christian seeking salvation becomes one of works.

Christ does not point us to the law. He points us to himself, for he alone is the source of forgiveness and life. He is the One who gave us new life as his Spirit was at work in baptism. He has called you to faith. And he continues to sustain that faith through his Means of Grace. He draws you to his Word and his Sacraments for through these means he gives forgiveness and nourishes faith by the work of the Spirit.

The apostle Paul told the Galatians, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Faith acts in love, because that’s what faith does. It is the fruit of the Spirit. It loves and cares for the neighbor in all the vocations where God places me – for my spouse, child, parent, congregation member, and friend.

Faith seeks to love God with all that we are. It seeks to love the neighbor as oneself. It does so because we are in Christ.  Or as Paul told the Galatians, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”