What do you think?
I Heart Sex Workers: A Christian Response to People in the Sex Trade
Paying for sex engaging in the oldest profession --is everywhere, even in your church. The factors leading individuals into sex work are as varied as hair colors, yet sex workers are viewed as powerless individuals who must be rescued.
I Heart Sex Workers offers another perspective, one where the characters defy stereotypes and solutions are hard to find. Author Lia Scholl firmly believes the Christian response to sex work should be one of building agency for women, through education, through fighting injustice, by listening to the voices of sex workers.
I Heart Sex Workers examines the forces leading individuals into prostitution, whether through coercion, choice, or circumstance. And it provides a Christian response, answering the question, Are you my neighbor? How do we respond to woman trading sex for a place to live tonight when she asks, "Where will I sleep?" This book discusses these issues and many more.
I Heart Sex Workers offers another perspective, one where the characters defy stereotypes and solutions are hard to find. Author Lia Scholl firmly believes the Christian response to sex work should be one of building agency for women, through education, through fighting injustice, by listening to the voices of sex workers.
I Heart Sex Workers examines the forces leading individuals into prostitution, whether through coercion, choice, or circumstance. And it provides a Christian response, answering the question, Are you my neighbor? How do we respond to woman trading sex for a place to live tonight when she asks, "Where will I sleep?" This book discusses these issues and many more.
167 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 24, 2013
First, I will tell you what I know. This book gives a wonderful, accessible introduction to systemic oppression and anti-oppression work in general. These ideas are both critically important and really tough concepts... and this book is a great place to start, with straightforward definitions and examples to explain. Scholl also has some wonderful instruction to give on basic pastoral care: active listening, being truly present to someone, and helping to empower people simply by acknowledging their agency and treating them as children of God.
Now, what I don’t know. I do not have the expertise to say that the book accurately portrays sex work, or that it addresses the needs and desires that sex workers have for their allies. Only those folks who work in the sex trades can do that. I can tell you that a lot of what I read here is congruent with what I hear from sex workers. I can tell you that Scholl clearly loves the people she has worked with, whose lives she attempts to give a glimpse of here. I get a strong impression that their humanity and the complexity of their lived experience is being respected.
Scholl articulates her main point as this: Christians can be allies to sex workers by doing three things: fighting the isolation sex workers face, fighting the stigma sex workers face and being more accepting, open and affirming, and striving for economic justice in our society and world. At another point, she boils her thesis down even further: the only solution that works for every person in sex work is "acceptance and advocacy for increasing personal choice." Because of this agenda, Scholl is able to invite to the table - with a fair amount of success, in my opinion - readers with a variety of opinions on the inherent moral rightness or wrongness of sex work. She does focus part of the book on those who want to leave sex work... partly because the social stigma that touches each person in the sex trade makes it difficult to leave if they wish to. But “rescuing” sex workers, especially from sex work, is not a goal of this book. Scholl centers her work around us all supporting one another’s agency and personal choice. She mentions those who like doing sex work. She contextualizes sex work as being like any other work, with a range of enjoyment, resentment and ambivalence among the workers in any field. She discusses at length the dangers inherent in sex work that come not from the work itself, but from societal treatment of it, like police misconduct toward sex workers, various legal models of sex work and how sex workers feel these models affect their lives, and the deep harm of and multiple layers of victim blaming. Scholl wants to improve the lives of those who engage in sex work by offering relationship, respect, and solidarity in fighting against unjust systems. Her focus is not on ending sex work, but on fighting systemic oppression that disproportionately affects both those who trade sex and the populations most likely to be in sex work.
Her focus, ultimately, is on embracing those in the sex trade as people who deserve “all the rights and privileges that come with being a child of God and created in the image of God.” (p.150) I believe she does real work here to unpack what it means to honor someone’s agency, resourcefulness and dignity... work clearly rooted in Christ’s admonition to love one another. I am so very excited to have this resource.
Now, what I don’t know. I do not have the expertise to say that the book accurately portrays sex work, or that it addresses the needs and desires that sex workers have for their allies. Only those folks who work in the sex trades can do that. I can tell you that a lot of what I read here is congruent with what I hear from sex workers. I can tell you that Scholl clearly loves the people she has worked with, whose lives she attempts to give a glimpse of here. I get a strong impression that their humanity and the complexity of their lived experience is being respected.
Scholl articulates her main point as this: Christians can be allies to sex workers by doing three things: fighting the isolation sex workers face, fighting the stigma sex workers face and being more accepting, open and affirming, and striving for economic justice in our society and world. At another point, she boils her thesis down even further: the only solution that works for every person in sex work is "acceptance and advocacy for increasing personal choice." Because of this agenda, Scholl is able to invite to the table - with a fair amount of success, in my opinion - readers with a variety of opinions on the inherent moral rightness or wrongness of sex work. She does focus part of the book on those who want to leave sex work... partly because the social stigma that touches each person in the sex trade makes it difficult to leave if they wish to. But “rescuing” sex workers, especially from sex work, is not a goal of this book. Scholl centers her work around us all supporting one another’s agency and personal choice. She mentions those who like doing sex work. She contextualizes sex work as being like any other work, with a range of enjoyment, resentment and ambivalence among the workers in any field. She discusses at length the dangers inherent in sex work that come not from the work itself, but from societal treatment of it, like police misconduct toward sex workers, various legal models of sex work and how sex workers feel these models affect their lives, and the deep harm of and multiple layers of victim blaming. Scholl wants to improve the lives of those who engage in sex work by offering relationship, respect, and solidarity in fighting against unjust systems. Her focus is not on ending sex work, but on fighting systemic oppression that disproportionately affects both those who trade sex and the populations most likely to be in sex work.
Her focus, ultimately, is on embracing those in the sex trade as people who deserve “all the rights and privileges that come with being a child of God and created in the image of God.” (p.150) I believe she does real work here to unpack what it means to honor someone’s agency, resourcefulness and dignity... work clearly rooted in Christ’s admonition to love one another. I am so very excited to have this resource.
June 13, 2015
While I applaud Scholl’s goal of helping people affected by socio-economic inequality and helping people in the sex industry, her book is heavy on unscriptural thinking.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
------------------------------
"I think the antitrafficking and profamily movements miss the real issues that keep the sex industry expanding and keep interested parties from impacting change. If they keep us distracted by horror stories of women trapped by traffickers, then we won’t pay attention to the fact that women still make less money than men. “
- I agree that more attention needs to be placed on equalizing socio-economic disparities. However, to borrow the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:23 “justice and mercy and faithfulness”…”these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”
“If they keep us distracted by statistics about Internet porn, then we won’t wonder why women are still the primary caregivers of children.”
- Why is it bad that women are the primary caregivers of their children? Scholl’s statement flies in the face of Titus 2:4ff “encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.…” Women as the primary caregiver is quite commendable, though it would be a perversion of Scripture to say they must be the primary caregiver. I think it would be safe to say they should have the option of not being the primary care giver should they wish.
LGBT
------
Scholl:
1) “Acceptance [of LGBT behavior] is only the first step. Inclusion is good. Celebration is better. If we celebrate with our friends who come out, we are saying, “God didn’t make any junk.””
2) How could God, who is love, condemn a person to live without love?
3) “Who are we to say whether someone deserves to be accepted and embraced or not?”
Responses:
1) First, how does Scholl think that God approves of homosexual behavior in light of Scripture? There are six primary passages of Scripture that reference homosexuality: Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. In all of them, homosexuality is strongly condemned. I can only assume that Scholl has bought into the error of the GayChristian101 website that twists the meaning of these verses. For a detailed discussion of this topic, I recommend https://carm.org/homosexuality
“Acceptance” of sinful behavior is not what we are called as Christians to do. We are called to preach the gospel—that Christ died for our sins and that we must turn from sin to obey him.
The claim that “God didn’t make any junk” sounds nice, but it is not Biblical. It would be correct to say that God works with the junk of our fallen world.
2) Scholl seems to have a very poor understanding of Biblical love. Where in the Scripture does God promise us romantic fulfillment?
3) To what degree are we to “accept” and “embrace” unrepentant sinners?
Acts 10:34 states, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” Notice He does not “accept” those who do wrong.
1st Corinthians 5:11ff states, “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” Do verses 12 and 13 mean we should “accept” or affirm the behavior of unrepentant sinners who are outside the church? Hardly. 2nd Corinthians 6:14 says, “14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”
Balance this with Jesus’ command for us to “love our neighbor as our selves” (Matthew 22:39), but remember that “loving” doesn’t = accepting evil behavior. Evil may be tolerated—Romans 12:18 says “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Indeed, even though the world is our enemy, Romans 12:20 says: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.”
In light of all this, I see no issue in allowing common civil rights for homosexuals, sex workers and such. But Scholl deeply errs to say we should “celebrate” their behavior. We need not be quick to rub their sin in their faces either. When Jesus confronted the adulterous woman he merely told her, “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11).
Regarding LGBT, I will also say this—being LGBT is a very heavy cross, but there are people in the LBGT community who honor God by abstaining from expressing their “internal gender” in homosexual acts. They show Scholl’s claim that “being celibate for life does not work” to be a lie.
SIN OF OTHERING
----
Scholl: “In my immaturity, I committed the sin of “othering,” especially when it came time to talk about the ministry I was doing. I talked about statistics, the kind the rescue movement uses, judging the customers of sex harshly. I used the “these poor women” tactic, because it was the only one I knew. I shudder now when I think about talking about some of the sermons and teaching I did. I try to imagine myself saying those things in front of the women I work with, and I just can’t imagine it.”
If by “othering” Scholl meant that we must not dehumanize people then we are in agreement. We are commanded to love our neighbors and not hate them. Unfortunately, Scholl’s quote makes me think she isn’t willing to be hard on sin in a sermon of all settings.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, "Do not be deceived: Neither the *sexually immoral* nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
In light of this verse, most if not all of women in prostitution are lost souls. That makes them most decidedly “these poor women”. They are also villainously selfish if they are voluntarily part of the sex industry since Jesus said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.“ (Matthew 18:6).
As for "judging the customers harshly” could Scholl explain how their actions are not selfish beyond words? 1) Sex buyers help those who are willingly in sex work on their way to hell (see 1 Cor 6:9-10 above). 2) They create the demand for forced sex workers. 3) By now sex buyers should know that they run the risk of using a forced sex worker. That makes them criminally negligent rapists.
If anyone thinks I am too harsh, do they also think Jesus owes the Jews an apology for calling them a "wicked and adulterous generation" to their faces (Matthew 16:4)? Does John the Baptist owe the Pharisees an apology for calling them a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7)? We are all sinners and villainous when we sin.
That said here are some verses on kindness to consider. Colossians 4:6 tells us, “Let your conversation be always *full of grace*, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Also Ephesians 4:29 states, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only *what is helpful for building others up according to their needs,* that it may benefit those who listen.” And in Matthew 7:12 we read, “So *in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you*, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
From these passages we might find grounds to be gentler in what we say to a sex worker’s face verses in a sermon or an online forum. But even then, I ask which is kinder: to let the sinner perish without warning them about their peril or should we warn them of the danger they are in? And which kind of messenger are they more likely to respect and heed: one who makes it plain up front what they believe in or one who acts as if they are ashamed of the Scripture?
Maybe Scholl figures that most of the sex workers with whom she interacts already can guess what she believes. I don’t see a problem with that per se. If they will listen to a softer voice, then praise God. After all, John the Baptist’s style was “turn and burn” while Jesus and Paul often took a softer tone. I cannot recall any of them pulling punches about sin in a sermon and that is what I am afraid Scholl is doing here. Again, I welcome clarification by the author if she is willing to provide it.
Scholl: "I saw sex workers as “other,” and that is a sin.”
Where exactly did Scholl come up with this "sin of othering?" The Experimental Theology site says othering is "The process of turning a fellow human being into something foreign, alien, strange, and not 'one of us.'” If this is what Scholl had in mind, then the logic behind the “sin of othering” is self-defeating—by saying there is a sin of othering, it creates two groups: those who don’t “other” and those “other guys” who do commit the othering sin. Which would mean no one can avoid committing a “sin of othering” if they recognize that anyone else is committing it.
Whatever Scholl means, I would remind her to be careful of 1 Corinthians 4:6 which says "Do not go beyond what is written." There are sins of favoritism and partiality (James 2:8-9), but those concern fair treatment based on social status and not moral behavior, which is what we’re dealing with here. We are commanded to show mercy (James 2:13) and to do good to our enemies (Romans 12:20). That last verse is enough to tell us that we should be helping sex workers. We should not be naming new categories of sin out of the blue as though we were God. Again, this sin of othering is not defined in the book, so I am having a hard time responding to it.
Scholl: “I perpetuated that othering through conversations, preaching, and teaching. I am convinced that the church is replete with well-intentioned people who are committing the sin of othering through their mission endeavors. Church members are concerned with the sin of commercial sex, but, really, it keeps them cozy in their feeling, “I’m better than you.” Failing to understand this and failing to point this out put me in collusion with their sin."
Points to Scholl for calling commercial sex sinful. Galatians 6:4 says, “Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else.” So, yes, it is wrong to help lost sinners in order to make oneself feel morally superior, but make no mistake—Christians are *commanded* to be better than the world. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus tells us, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Scholl: “But there has to be a way that we can justify “ministry,” even if we don’t think that sex workers are “worse off” than we are.”
This statement baffles me. Christians are, by virtue of Christ’s saving grace, supposed to be “better off” than sex workers. The desire to share the gospel—the good news that even a sex worker can turn from sin and receive salvation—is supposed to be our chief motivation.
Sadly, I strongly suspect this “sin of othering” concept is a smokescreen to get people to accept sexually immoral behavior as good: homosexual or otherwise.
I’m curious as to what place Scholl thinks shame has in society. Shame involves othering, as I understand it, but just because we are shaming someone it doesn’t mean we are dehumanizing them. In fact, shaming a sinner may be the most loving thing we can do. In the case of a brother or sister in Christ, it is something we are commanded to do under certain circumstances.
I look forward to someone clarifying this “sin of othering.”
FACTUAL ERRORS ABOUT BIBLE
------
Scholl commits factual errors about the Scripture. Some of these may be excused as part of her retelling of some stories to make a point, but they all bear calling out for accuracy’s sake..
1) Scholl claims that the “Song of Solomon is all about a young couple in love, unmarried and having sex.” Not at all necessarily true. While it is *possible* to interpret the Song of Solomon that way, there is hardly a scholarly consensus to do so.
2) Scholl says that “The book of Hosea, at its basest level, is the story of an open marriage. Hosea married Gomer knowing that she was a “promiscuous” woman (Hosea 1:2– 3).” To say that Hosea and Gomer had an open marriage is completely false. An “open marriage” would require that Hosea gave his wife, Gomer, permission to be promiscuous. He did not as a plain reading of the verse Scholl cited would show.
3) Scholl’s retelling of Esther’s story purports that Mordecai, Esther’s guardian, was responsible for putting Esther into the Persian king’s harem. Strictly speaking, the Scripture is silent on his role in this regard.
4) In Scholl’s retelling of Esther’s story, Esther says, “Moses lived in Egypt, was raised by the pharaoh’s family, and left only after watching [an] Egyptian soldier kill a Jew with no consequences.” I certainly hope that this is not an indication of how well Scholl knows the Bible! Moses did not leave after he saw an Egyptian soldier kill a Jew with no consequences. Exodus 2:11-15 has the true reason.
EQUATING MARRIAGE WITH SEX WORK
-----------
Scholl repeatedly equates marriage as a form of sex work in her retelling of Esther’s story.
Hebrews 13:4 says “4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Scholl does not sound like she is honoring marriage when she drags it into the gutter with prostitution. The only reason I can think of for equating marriage with sex work is to argue that commercial sex work should be afforded a similar respect as marriage.
MEASURING SUCCESS
-------------
“When my friend from the large antitrafficking agency and I talked about the negative impact her organization was having on the sex workers, I suggested that she contact some of the strong sex worker unions and networks in the countries where she works and ask for their assistance in understanding how they can help rather than harm. “They won’t talk to us,” she said. “They hate us.” Is it not a pretty good indicator of the work you’re doing if the very people you’re setting out to help don’t like you or appreciate your work?”
1) Strictly speaking, counter-trafficking groups are not chiefly concerned with trying to help *willing* sex workers. Their primary mission is to rescue and restore *trafficked* sex workers (who wouldn’t be there if the sinful commercial sex industry were abolished!). It would be ideal to find a way for the career sex worker and counter-trafficking groups to work together, but their ultimate goals may never be fully compatible. 2) Doing the right thing for people often angers them, as any parent who has taken something harmful from a child knows. Also, Jesus sent his disciples out to “help” the world and told them in John 15:18-19 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”
MORAL RESPONSBILITY
-------------
“Inevitably, there’s some admonishment to sex workers that they are responsible for their own deaths or for any violence that happens. In one New York Times article about the Long Island Killer, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said, “And their deaths are a direct result of their business as prostitutes.”4 Well, actually, their deaths are a direct result of a killer, not their work.”
Scholl, is correct in saying that the deaths of these people were not a DIRECT result of sex work, but we are fooling ourselves if we say their deaths were not an INDIRECT result of them doing something they were not supposed to be doing. That’s called moral accountability.
That said, NEVER EVER tell a person who is the recovering victim of a violent crime that it was their fault. That is terribly insensitive. If you must say something, it is ALWAYS TRUE to state that the criminal had NO EXCUSE to assault the victim.
HUMAN DIGNITY
------
Scholl says, “What would you call human dignity? Isn’t it the recognition that we all have the right to live our lives as we see fit as long as we’re not infringing on anyone else’s right to do the same?”
On the face of it this sounds fair, except that in her book’s context Scholl seems to be arguing that sex workers aren’t infringing on the rights of others.
Would Scholl dare to say that to a kid born with AIDS because the mother chose to engage in prostitution (sexual immorality) and/or drug abuse!? Have not that child’s rights been infringed upon by the sex worker?!
Would Scholl dare to say that to the wife who can’t have children because her cheating husband passed along a disease that he got from a sex worker? Have not that wife’s rights been infringed upon by the sex worker (and sex buyer)?
Would Scholl dare to say that to the teenager forced into prostitution because men care more about satisfying their sexual urges than making sure there is no demand for innocent lives in the sex industry? Have not that girl’s rights been infringed upon by the johns who raped her out of criminal negligence?
Would Scholl dare to say that to Jesus who died on a cross to pay for our sins? Had we not sinned, he would never have had to suffer to save us.
Where is Scholl’s concern for the rights of innocent people? Why does she seem to be to trying to use this definition of human dignity to excuse so much evil?
Scholl states, “When we blame the sex worker, we exonerate the man from his responsibility and we really shift the blame to someone who, while maybe not blameless, probably hasn’t gone to the trouble of luring the man into the relationship.”
The quote above was in the context of women calling up sex workers and complaining that they were home wreckers. Does Scholl not believe that women have a right to defend their families? Does Scholl not suppose that the women being cheated on are not also giving their men an earful?
Why is Scholl playing favorites for sex workers here? Proverbs 6:30 says “People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. 31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.” Colossians 3:25 says, “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.” Leviticus 19:15 shows God’s hatred for partiality and favoritism, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
Of course, this must be balanced by the bible's doctrines of mercy, for all of us are sinners. In Luke 6:36 Jesus commands us to "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." James 2:12-13 says, "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." But taken together, our Christian call to show mercy cannot be understood to be an excuse to let injustices run rampant for Romans 13:4 tells us, “4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
If the author believes that I have misunderstood her on any point, I invite her to contact me at brianvictor at gmail.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
------------------------------
"I think the antitrafficking and profamily movements miss the real issues that keep the sex industry expanding and keep interested parties from impacting change. If they keep us distracted by horror stories of women trapped by traffickers, then we won’t pay attention to the fact that women still make less money than men. “
- I agree that more attention needs to be placed on equalizing socio-economic disparities. However, to borrow the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:23 “justice and mercy and faithfulness”…”these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”
“If they keep us distracted by statistics about Internet porn, then we won’t wonder why women are still the primary caregivers of children.”
- Why is it bad that women are the primary caregivers of their children? Scholl’s statement flies in the face of Titus 2:4ff “encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.…” Women as the primary caregiver is quite commendable, though it would be a perversion of Scripture to say they must be the primary caregiver. I think it would be safe to say they should have the option of not being the primary care giver should they wish.
LGBT
------
Scholl:
1) “Acceptance [of LGBT behavior] is only the first step. Inclusion is good. Celebration is better. If we celebrate with our friends who come out, we are saying, “God didn’t make any junk.””
2) How could God, who is love, condemn a person to live without love?
3) “Who are we to say whether someone deserves to be accepted and embraced or not?”
Responses:
1) First, how does Scholl think that God approves of homosexual behavior in light of Scripture? There are six primary passages of Scripture that reference homosexuality: Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. In all of them, homosexuality is strongly condemned. I can only assume that Scholl has bought into the error of the GayChristian101 website that twists the meaning of these verses. For a detailed discussion of this topic, I recommend https://carm.org/homosexuality
“Acceptance” of sinful behavior is not what we are called as Christians to do. We are called to preach the gospel—that Christ died for our sins and that we must turn from sin to obey him.
The claim that “God didn’t make any junk” sounds nice, but it is not Biblical. It would be correct to say that God works with the junk of our fallen world.
2) Scholl seems to have a very poor understanding of Biblical love. Where in the Scripture does God promise us romantic fulfillment?
3) To what degree are we to “accept” and “embrace” unrepentant sinners?
Acts 10:34 states, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” Notice He does not “accept” those who do wrong.
1st Corinthians 5:11ff states, “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” Do verses 12 and 13 mean we should “accept” or affirm the behavior of unrepentant sinners who are outside the church? Hardly. 2nd Corinthians 6:14 says, “14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”
Balance this with Jesus’ command for us to “love our neighbor as our selves” (Matthew 22:39), but remember that “loving” doesn’t = accepting evil behavior. Evil may be tolerated—Romans 12:18 says “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Indeed, even though the world is our enemy, Romans 12:20 says: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.”
In light of all this, I see no issue in allowing common civil rights for homosexuals, sex workers and such. But Scholl deeply errs to say we should “celebrate” their behavior. We need not be quick to rub their sin in their faces either. When Jesus confronted the adulterous woman he merely told her, “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11).
Regarding LGBT, I will also say this—being LGBT is a very heavy cross, but there are people in the LBGT community who honor God by abstaining from expressing their “internal gender” in homosexual acts. They show Scholl’s claim that “being celibate for life does not work” to be a lie.
SIN OF OTHERING
----
Scholl: “In my immaturity, I committed the sin of “othering,” especially when it came time to talk about the ministry I was doing. I talked about statistics, the kind the rescue movement uses, judging the customers of sex harshly. I used the “these poor women” tactic, because it was the only one I knew. I shudder now when I think about talking about some of the sermons and teaching I did. I try to imagine myself saying those things in front of the women I work with, and I just can’t imagine it.”
If by “othering” Scholl meant that we must not dehumanize people then we are in agreement. We are commanded to love our neighbors and not hate them. Unfortunately, Scholl’s quote makes me think she isn’t willing to be hard on sin in a sermon of all settings.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, "Do not be deceived: Neither the *sexually immoral* nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
In light of this verse, most if not all of women in prostitution are lost souls. That makes them most decidedly “these poor women”. They are also villainously selfish if they are voluntarily part of the sex industry since Jesus said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.“ (Matthew 18:6).
As for "judging the customers harshly” could Scholl explain how their actions are not selfish beyond words? 1) Sex buyers help those who are willingly in sex work on their way to hell (see 1 Cor 6:9-10 above). 2) They create the demand for forced sex workers. 3) By now sex buyers should know that they run the risk of using a forced sex worker. That makes them criminally negligent rapists.
If anyone thinks I am too harsh, do they also think Jesus owes the Jews an apology for calling them a "wicked and adulterous generation" to their faces (Matthew 16:4)? Does John the Baptist owe the Pharisees an apology for calling them a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7)? We are all sinners and villainous when we sin.
That said here are some verses on kindness to consider. Colossians 4:6 tells us, “Let your conversation be always *full of grace*, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Also Ephesians 4:29 states, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only *what is helpful for building others up according to their needs,* that it may benefit those who listen.” And in Matthew 7:12 we read, “So *in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you*, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
From these passages we might find grounds to be gentler in what we say to a sex worker’s face verses in a sermon or an online forum. But even then, I ask which is kinder: to let the sinner perish without warning them about their peril or should we warn them of the danger they are in? And which kind of messenger are they more likely to respect and heed: one who makes it plain up front what they believe in or one who acts as if they are ashamed of the Scripture?
Maybe Scholl figures that most of the sex workers with whom she interacts already can guess what she believes. I don’t see a problem with that per se. If they will listen to a softer voice, then praise God. After all, John the Baptist’s style was “turn and burn” while Jesus and Paul often took a softer tone. I cannot recall any of them pulling punches about sin in a sermon and that is what I am afraid Scholl is doing here. Again, I welcome clarification by the author if she is willing to provide it.
Scholl: "I saw sex workers as “other,” and that is a sin.”
Where exactly did Scholl come up with this "sin of othering?" The Experimental Theology site says othering is "The process of turning a fellow human being into something foreign, alien, strange, and not 'one of us.'” If this is what Scholl had in mind, then the logic behind the “sin of othering” is self-defeating—by saying there is a sin of othering, it creates two groups: those who don’t “other” and those “other guys” who do commit the othering sin. Which would mean no one can avoid committing a “sin of othering” if they recognize that anyone else is committing it.
Whatever Scholl means, I would remind her to be careful of 1 Corinthians 4:6 which says "Do not go beyond what is written." There are sins of favoritism and partiality (James 2:8-9), but those concern fair treatment based on social status and not moral behavior, which is what we’re dealing with here. We are commanded to show mercy (James 2:13) and to do good to our enemies (Romans 12:20). That last verse is enough to tell us that we should be helping sex workers. We should not be naming new categories of sin out of the blue as though we were God. Again, this sin of othering is not defined in the book, so I am having a hard time responding to it.
Scholl: “I perpetuated that othering through conversations, preaching, and teaching. I am convinced that the church is replete with well-intentioned people who are committing the sin of othering through their mission endeavors. Church members are concerned with the sin of commercial sex, but, really, it keeps them cozy in their feeling, “I’m better than you.” Failing to understand this and failing to point this out put me in collusion with their sin."
Points to Scholl for calling commercial sex sinful. Galatians 6:4 says, “Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else.” So, yes, it is wrong to help lost sinners in order to make oneself feel morally superior, but make no mistake—Christians are *commanded* to be better than the world. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus tells us, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Scholl: “But there has to be a way that we can justify “ministry,” even if we don’t think that sex workers are “worse off” than we are.”
This statement baffles me. Christians are, by virtue of Christ’s saving grace, supposed to be “better off” than sex workers. The desire to share the gospel—the good news that even a sex worker can turn from sin and receive salvation—is supposed to be our chief motivation.
Sadly, I strongly suspect this “sin of othering” concept is a smokescreen to get people to accept sexually immoral behavior as good: homosexual or otherwise.
I’m curious as to what place Scholl thinks shame has in society. Shame involves othering, as I understand it, but just because we are shaming someone it doesn’t mean we are dehumanizing them. In fact, shaming a sinner may be the most loving thing we can do. In the case of a brother or sister in Christ, it is something we are commanded to do under certain circumstances.
I look forward to someone clarifying this “sin of othering.”
FACTUAL ERRORS ABOUT BIBLE
------
Scholl commits factual errors about the Scripture. Some of these may be excused as part of her retelling of some stories to make a point, but they all bear calling out for accuracy’s sake..
1) Scholl claims that the “Song of Solomon is all about a young couple in love, unmarried and having sex.” Not at all necessarily true. While it is *possible* to interpret the Song of Solomon that way, there is hardly a scholarly consensus to do so.
2) Scholl says that “The book of Hosea, at its basest level, is the story of an open marriage. Hosea married Gomer knowing that she was a “promiscuous” woman (Hosea 1:2– 3).” To say that Hosea and Gomer had an open marriage is completely false. An “open marriage” would require that Hosea gave his wife, Gomer, permission to be promiscuous. He did not as a plain reading of the verse Scholl cited would show.
3) Scholl’s retelling of Esther’s story purports that Mordecai, Esther’s guardian, was responsible for putting Esther into the Persian king’s harem. Strictly speaking, the Scripture is silent on his role in this regard.
4) In Scholl’s retelling of Esther’s story, Esther says, “Moses lived in Egypt, was raised by the pharaoh’s family, and left only after watching [an] Egyptian soldier kill a Jew with no consequences.” I certainly hope that this is not an indication of how well Scholl knows the Bible! Moses did not leave after he saw an Egyptian soldier kill a Jew with no consequences. Exodus 2:11-15 has the true reason.
EQUATING MARRIAGE WITH SEX WORK
-----------
Scholl repeatedly equates marriage as a form of sex work in her retelling of Esther’s story.
Hebrews 13:4 says “4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Scholl does not sound like she is honoring marriage when she drags it into the gutter with prostitution. The only reason I can think of for equating marriage with sex work is to argue that commercial sex work should be afforded a similar respect as marriage.
MEASURING SUCCESS
-------------
“When my friend from the large antitrafficking agency and I talked about the negative impact her organization was having on the sex workers, I suggested that she contact some of the strong sex worker unions and networks in the countries where she works and ask for their assistance in understanding how they can help rather than harm. “They won’t talk to us,” she said. “They hate us.” Is it not a pretty good indicator of the work you’re doing if the very people you’re setting out to help don’t like you or appreciate your work?”
1) Strictly speaking, counter-trafficking groups are not chiefly concerned with trying to help *willing* sex workers. Their primary mission is to rescue and restore *trafficked* sex workers (who wouldn’t be there if the sinful commercial sex industry were abolished!). It would be ideal to find a way for the career sex worker and counter-trafficking groups to work together, but their ultimate goals may never be fully compatible. 2) Doing the right thing for people often angers them, as any parent who has taken something harmful from a child knows. Also, Jesus sent his disciples out to “help” the world and told them in John 15:18-19 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”
MORAL RESPONSBILITY
-------------
“Inevitably, there’s some admonishment to sex workers that they are responsible for their own deaths or for any violence that happens. In one New York Times article about the Long Island Killer, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said, “And their deaths are a direct result of their business as prostitutes.”4 Well, actually, their deaths are a direct result of a killer, not their work.”
Scholl, is correct in saying that the deaths of these people were not a DIRECT result of sex work, but we are fooling ourselves if we say their deaths were not an INDIRECT result of them doing something they were not supposed to be doing. That’s called moral accountability.
That said, NEVER EVER tell a person who is the recovering victim of a violent crime that it was their fault. That is terribly insensitive. If you must say something, it is ALWAYS TRUE to state that the criminal had NO EXCUSE to assault the victim.
HUMAN DIGNITY
------
Scholl says, “What would you call human dignity? Isn’t it the recognition that we all have the right to live our lives as we see fit as long as we’re not infringing on anyone else’s right to do the same?”
On the face of it this sounds fair, except that in her book’s context Scholl seems to be arguing that sex workers aren’t infringing on the rights of others.
Would Scholl dare to say that to a kid born with AIDS because the mother chose to engage in prostitution (sexual immorality) and/or drug abuse!? Have not that child’s rights been infringed upon by the sex worker?!
Would Scholl dare to say that to the wife who can’t have children because her cheating husband passed along a disease that he got from a sex worker? Have not that wife’s rights been infringed upon by the sex worker (and sex buyer)?
Would Scholl dare to say that to the teenager forced into prostitution because men care more about satisfying their sexual urges than making sure there is no demand for innocent lives in the sex industry? Have not that girl’s rights been infringed upon by the johns who raped her out of criminal negligence?
Would Scholl dare to say that to Jesus who died on a cross to pay for our sins? Had we not sinned, he would never have had to suffer to save us.
Where is Scholl’s concern for the rights of innocent people? Why does she seem to be to trying to use this definition of human dignity to excuse so much evil?
Scholl states, “When we blame the sex worker, we exonerate the man from his responsibility and we really shift the blame to someone who, while maybe not blameless, probably hasn’t gone to the trouble of luring the man into the relationship.”
The quote above was in the context of women calling up sex workers and complaining that they were home wreckers. Does Scholl not believe that women have a right to defend their families? Does Scholl not suppose that the women being cheated on are not also giving their men an earful?
Why is Scholl playing favorites for sex workers here? Proverbs 6:30 says “People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. 31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.” Colossians 3:25 says, “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.” Leviticus 19:15 shows God’s hatred for partiality and favoritism, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
Of course, this must be balanced by the bible's doctrines of mercy, for all of us are sinners. In Luke 6:36 Jesus commands us to "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." James 2:12-13 says, "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." But taken together, our Christian call to show mercy cannot be understood to be an excuse to let injustices run rampant for Romans 13:4 tells us, “4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
If the author believes that I have misunderstood her on any point, I invite her to contact me at brianvictor at gmail.
September 7, 2021
A life changing book
January 30, 2013
The rescue of human trafficking victims is all the buzz these days. Christian organizations, private mercenaries, government officials, humanitarian workers--everyone is on top of efforts to rescue men, women, boys, and girls who are forced into sexual slavery. And this is good.
But sometimes the focus on this area of sex work causes us to make broad generalizations about all people involved in the trade, generalizations that simply aren't always true.
Lia Scholl draws on years of experience to shed light on common misconceptions and how we can minister to sex workers. She explains how we can increase agency for each person--her ability to make a solid choice based on the options available for her life. Most importantly, the author educates about respecting individuals and rejecting the urge to treat them as victims.
I particularly enjoyed this book because I am often exposed to people who fit into the category of sex workers, and I'll bet you are, too. From the transgender hairdresser at the end of my block to the ladies who use conjugal visits to barter with the male inmates across the yard, to the young person who is struggling with his sexual orientation and stumbles into my church. The more I understand where these people come from and what drives their decisions, the better equipped I am to form a relationship with them. And isn't that what I'm called to do?
This book is a valuable tool, not only for clergy and those in secular or religious ministry to sex workers, but also for anyone who wants to reach out to those around us and learn how to treat an often misunderstood population with dignity. As we come alongside them, we empower them to make solid choices. I Heart Sex Workers is a vital guide to understanding just how we can do this.
WARNING: Obviously, there is adult content in this book, so you won't want to pass this one along to young readers. I think this goes without saying, but since I often review books for teens and young adults, I'm including this disclaimer. That said, Rev. Scholl handles these delicate topics with tact--enough information and explanations to understand a world I didn't fully grasp, but without the gory details that would make me cringe or skip through sections.
**I was provided an advance review copy of this book through netgalley.com, in exchange for my honest review.
But sometimes the focus on this area of sex work causes us to make broad generalizations about all people involved in the trade, generalizations that simply aren't always true.
Lia Scholl draws on years of experience to shed light on common misconceptions and how we can minister to sex workers. She explains how we can increase agency for each person--her ability to make a solid choice based on the options available for her life. Most importantly, the author educates about respecting individuals and rejecting the urge to treat them as victims.
I particularly enjoyed this book because I am often exposed to people who fit into the category of sex workers, and I'll bet you are, too. From the transgender hairdresser at the end of my block to the ladies who use conjugal visits to barter with the male inmates across the yard, to the young person who is struggling with his sexual orientation and stumbles into my church. The more I understand where these people come from and what drives their decisions, the better equipped I am to form a relationship with them. And isn't that what I'm called to do?
This book is a valuable tool, not only for clergy and those in secular or religious ministry to sex workers, but also for anyone who wants to reach out to those around us and learn how to treat an often misunderstood population with dignity. As we come alongside them, we empower them to make solid choices. I Heart Sex Workers is a vital guide to understanding just how we can do this.
WARNING: Obviously, there is adult content in this book, so you won't want to pass this one along to young readers. I think this goes without saying, but since I often review books for teens and young adults, I'm including this disclaimer. That said, Rev. Scholl handles these delicate topics with tact--enough information and explanations to understand a world I didn't fully grasp, but without the gory details that would make me cringe or skip through sections.
**I was provided an advance review copy of this book through netgalley.com, in exchange for my honest review.
January 23, 2013
On the whole, I Heart Sex Workers is a very balanced, insightful look at what the Christian response to the sex industry should be. It does a good job of debunking myths, providing real stories of workers, and quite a bit of experience. However, the main thing I couldn't get over is the author's portrayal of those fighting human trafficking. Towards the beginning of the book, this portrayal was fair and balanced, as well as making the good points that people working in those agencies don't always "get" what's really going on. Fair enough. However, towards the end it began to feel a bit more personal and it put me off just a little bit. Overall, though, this book is a necessity for any Christian really interested in seeing what a good response to that entire industry would be.
October 15, 2013
This book is a great book detailing the author's own journey in working with female sex workers and coming to a harm reduction Christian response. Her response of acceptance without judgment is similar to mind in work with male sex workers. She gives a good back ground in harm reduction and brings into it the Christian perspective. Excellent book!
April 3, 2013
I heard the author speak at a harm reduction conference last September. I was glad to see that she had written a book. I loved this book, and I learned a lot reading it.
January 31, 2015
It's a good book to help understand sex workers, why they do what they do and how the church can support them. It can be an uncomfortable book, but it's a good kind of uncomfortable.
August 3, 2015
Found the writing style a bit clunky at times, but very valuable stories, advice, and thoughts. Definitely challenged me to think about sex work/workers in a new way.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews