Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts

15 June 2023

Grace and peace, part two: windows of grace

Part one (last week's post) was my April sermon as guest speaker for Spokane Friends Meeting. In May, again hosted by Spokane Friends, I continued the theme of grace on Pentecost Sunday. Here's that sermon.


Among the questions we looked at last time was how, historically, the church has handled the extravagance of God’s grace, trying to figure out how to communicate this wonderful gift of God’s unmerited favor and blessing to a needy or skeptical audience, and maybe how to manage and filter it so that we might remain dependent on a hierarchy.

Today, I’d like to try to look at it from God’s point of view, if I dared. What I mean is, history tells us that we’ve had a hard time believing all that goodness is really ours. After all, my understanding of history as a political scientist is that it’s mainly a constant tug of war between the idealists and the cynics, and even I, idealist that I am, too often find myself looking at the scene around me and becoming a bit cynical. What does God have to do to reach us and open us up to that grace that represents God’s powerful love for all that God has created?

Fermilab's Don Lincoln on cosmic background 
microwave radiation. Screenshot from source.
Sabine Hossenfelder on uses of CMBR data for
testing the Standard Model of cosmology. Source.

When I came up with the subtitle to today’s message, “windows of grace,” I really had in mind an illustration from astronomy. Maybe you’ve all heard about the phenomenon known as cosmic microwave background radiation. It’s a form of radiation that pervades the whole universe. It even has a temperature…about two or three degrees above absolute zero. If you look at an old-fashioned analog television attached to an old-fashioned antenna, pre-cable and pre-Internet, and tuned it to an empty channel, you’d see and hear what we used to call “snow.” That static was mostly interference from nearby electromagnetic pollution, static from motors, even electrical noise from beyond our planet. but if we could filter out all interference, some tiny percentage of that snow would still be there, that cosmic microwave background. And it is a remnant, an all-pervasive souvenir from the moment our universe was created, 13.8 billion years ago.

I interpret that moment as God populating the universe with God’s beloved Creation. It grew and spread all that time to the present day, when we appeared among God’s beloved creatures, including each one of us sitting here today. Even as parts of that grand opening solidified into stars and planets and carbon and creatures, God’s burst of extravagant love continues to pervade every little corner of creation, whether we choose to receive and enjoy that universal godly energy, what I call grace, or not. We humans have our little conceits—our rules, tribes, borders, uniforms, hierarchies, conventions, prejudices—but grace is gloriously indifferent to all those filters. What matters in the universal ecology of grace is whether we choose to receive it and pass it on.

I don’t know whether that residual universal presence of cosmic microwaves, originating with the very first moment of Creation, are literally an echo of God or just some kind of side-effect. I can play with that image of the analog television set as a window of grace, but it’s really just a tiny bit of evidence. God has had far more effective ways to open grace up to us, and open us up to grace, and today’s holiday of Pentecost is one of my favorite examples.

Most of you have probably heard this Pentecost story many times, often captioned as the “birth of the church.” According to Luke in the book of Acts, at the time of the Jewish Pentecost, that is, the close of the season of Passover, lots of pilgrims of all sorts of backgrounds and languages were crowded into Jerusalem. From the place where the disciples of Jesus were meeting, marked with tongues of fire, these visitors heard the Good News being preached. Each member of the audience heard it in their own language. As Luke takes up the account…

Acts 2:12-18. Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
‘In the last days, God says,
     I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
     your young men will see visions,
     your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
     I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
     and they will prophesy.’”

The good news of God’s love cannot be blocked by ethnic or linguistic boundaries; God made a direct way to experience God’s power and to invite this audience into community with the followers of Jesus so that they could learn to live with this power. And hundreds were added to the community and inaugurated a movement that we participate in to this very day.

As the movement spread and organized itself, with the help of that new convert Paul, they continued to experience this power, but they wondered whether raw grace was sufficient to maintain an orderly community. Even Gentiles, with no history of participation in God’s people, whose men weren’t circumcised, were being touched by the Holy Spirit and experiencing this grace. The apostles gathered for a meeting for business, and James was the clerk. As Luke continues the narrative,

Acts 15:12-20. The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“‘After this I will return
     and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
     and I will restore it,
that the rest of [humanity] may seek the Lord,
     even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
     things known from long ago.’

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

And, apparently, those at the meeting for business all said “approved,” and the resulting minute was sent out.

I interpret this episode as affirmation that grace was sufficient, that a structure of rules from the original community need not be imposed on top of the work of grace. It’s hard enough for us hard-headed human beings to believe that grace is really true and available directly; let’s not get in grace’s way.

When James was summing up the sense of the meeting, he referred to a prophecy from the prophet Amos, which I’ll repeat in a modern English translation from the Septuagint, the version of the Hebrew Bible that those Greek speakers would have been familiar with:

Amos 9:11-12 [context]. In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, says the Lord who does all these things.

Maybe you remember the context here: Amos has been reading the riot act to the people of Israel, particularly to the Northern Kingdom, accusing them of the same crimes of idolatry and oppression that he has seen in the surrounding Gentile nations, and saying that God demands the same purity and the same ethical standards of all of them, Israelites and Gentiles alike. He warns Israel that the woes that will fall on those Gentiles will also fall on them. You can’t mock God.

But, according to Amos, this is not God’s final word. When the Day of the Lord comes, using a phrase that would become an important phrase for George Fox and the early Quakers, God will restore the tabernacle of David for the sake of the remnant of both Israelites and Gentiles who earnestly seek God. There will be a shrine of hope, a window of grace, even after all the mischief we humans get up to in defiance of God’s demands for purity and justice.

Doesn’t this sound like a cycle we’ve been through before? Over this past couple of years as I’ve had these chances to speak with you, we’ve revisited the story of Noah and the flood, and God’s rainbow command for us to live bountifully; we’ve considered Moses and Pharaoh and Exodus, and God making a way for the oppressed, to the point where Moses says “Wouldn’t it be great if all God’s people were prophets?” We’ve considered Ezekiel’s litany, “Then they shall know that I am the LORD.” Over and over, we as individuals or whole nations enter seasons where it seems like we either forget the presence of grace for ourselves, or withhold the message from others. It’s important to say that God’s grace doesn’t come and go in cycles. It’s our capacity to receive it and pass it on that seems so variable.

The cycle didn’t end with the Bible, of course. Aside from all the other waves of war and peace, the church has had its own struggles keeping its channels of grace clear. And in one of those eras when doctrines and territory and tradecraft seemed more important than the purity and directness of grace, George Fox and Friends, among other reform movements, rose up to take our turn at restoring that simplicity and transparency.

Here’s a final story for this morning. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, icons are considered windows of grace, or windows into grace. But even here, we humans can get a little crosswise with God’s ways.

The great icon writer, Andrei Rublyov, created an icon back in the early 1400’s, popularly called The Trinity, also known as The Hospitality of Abraham. For over three centuries, this icon was part of the iconostasis, or screen separating the main hall of the church from the area around the altar, at the Trinity Cathedral in Sergiev Posad, not far from Moscow.

This icon was deeply respected because it was closely associated with Andrei Rublyov himself, and because of its location at this important center of Orthodoxy, but for most of the years at the cathedral it was nearly covered with a metal mask that showed only the faces of the Holy Three, and it was not associated with any miracles. Traditionally, all consecrated icons are equal, in that all serve as windows of grace, but in Soviet times Rublyov’s Trinity gradually became regarded as a high point in Russian art and became enmeshed in what we sometimes call civil religion.

The icon's fragile condition required constant monitoring and ideal conditions of air purity and humidity, and because of this it has been kept in a special chamber at the Tretyakov Museum in Moscow for most of the last hundred years, and Judy and I have visited it on many occasions. Occasionally it has been allowed to make guest appearances, but only over the strong protests of conservators. So about two weeks ago Vladimir Putin ordered that the icon be returned to the Orthodox Church. After a time of display at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, it will be re-installed at Sergiev Posad.

According to much of the commentary I’ve read about this decision, this is not an assertion of grace, but of power, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine. Every indication is that Vladimir Putin wants to go down in history as the gatherer and restorer of the Russian World in Capital Letters, and he has appropriated this symbol of faith on behalf of his campaign, even as Orthodox believers are bombing and shooting at other Orthodox believers. There is no theological support for moving this icon to its earlier home, because a consecrated copy of the icon is already at Sergiev Posad, and a consecrated copy is supposed to be equal in value to the original. Wherever the icon is located, its own message cannot be changed by a politician’s will: it is a window into the life of the Holy Three, the Creator, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and so are all those other windows God has provided us to see and receive grace.

By telling this rather sour story of an attempt to control a channel of grace, I’m not encouraging us to feel totally superior to Putin and the Kremlin. Here in the USA, Christian nationalism is yet another way some of us apparently would like to obscure the universal reach of God’s grace. How shall we respond?

Although I’m a bit cynical about moving icons about in a display of power, I’m not the least cynical about icons themselves. There’s a miniature of the Trinity icon right here behind me as I speak to you, and here’s a very simple icon that I brought back from the Soviet Union in 1975. Jesus looks straight at us, holding open the Gospel to his words, “I give you a new commandment, to love one another.”

When we understand that God’s grace is for each of us, then each of us can become transparent windows of grace, icons on legs, challenging every every idolatry, injustice, prejudice, conceit that holds us and our beloved neighbors in bondage. Let’s make our church, our community, a laboratory and incubator and beacon of grace.

(Part three.)


As I re-read that last paragraph from the sermon, I want to remind all of us that we're not all equally ready to be "icons on legs" all of the time. As I said in part one, sometimes we need to take turns holding each other in grace. And that's not even taking into account that the "on legs" metaphor obscures the reality that not all of us have the use of both legs. In any case, the most constant evidence I have for the very existence of grace is not static on a television, nor a compelling image on wood, but the love and care of my global church family.


@elenakrumgolde There are news that the unique house-museum of Pelageya (Polina) Rayko is under water now because Kahovka Dam was destroyed. This war is killing not only people and animals, but also unique art. Polina Rayko (1928 - 2004) was Ukrainian naïve painter who started painting her property at the age of 69. Her home is a national cultural monument of Ukraine. 💔 Поліна Андріївна Райко (1928 - 2004) — українська художниця-самоучка в жанрі наївного мистецтва. Не маючи художньої освіти, у 69-річному віці почала малювати. Образна система мисткині поєднувала християнську, радянську та язичницьку символіки. Розписала власний будинок, літню кухню, хвіртки, паркани і гаражні ворота, використовуючи найпростіші та найдешевші фарби — емаль ПФ, де відтворила власну біографію, свою родину, домашніх тварин, картини природи. На фарби і пензлі витрачала майже всю мізерну пенсію. Будинок Поліни Райко охороняється Законом України «Про охорону культурної спадщини». Цінність її творчості підтверджена багатьма як українськими, так і іноземними експертами. Творчість народної художниці ставлять в один ряд з мистецтвом Марії Примаченко та Катерини Білокур. #folkdesign #folkart #artbrut #naiveart #stopwar #oleshki #ukraine🇺🇦 #kahovkadam #kakhovka #kahovka #stopwar ♬ You Are Holy - Josué Novais Piano Worship

Thanks to the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in Ukraine, the extraordinary house-museum of Polina Rayko is underwater. I found out about this possible loss of an artistic treasure from a Tiktok video by Elena Krumgolde. A Guardian news article gives additional details.

Here is the first post in Beth Felker Jones's new series on "Reframing Paul on Sexual Ethics." (And she's just posted part two.)

A conversation on humble, transformative accompaniment. ('But it's incredibly tempting to say “no, this is the right way to do Quaker” and import all that cultural stuff.')

Greg Morgan: a chaplain witnesses "A Mother's Longing." My own interpretation of this blog post: the conversation he describes is a window of grace.

In a message given at Durham Friends Meeting in Maine, Doug Bennett asks, "Why are we here? And why so few?"

Why are we here at Meeting? I’ve found myself wondering. And if it seems so important that we’re here, why are there so few of us? Even more I’ve been wondering that too. Are we special? What do others know that lead them to make other choices on Sunday mornings? What are we missing that those others get? Or what are they missing?

Mark Russ on Celtic spirituality and "whiteness."

There are many positive things to be gained from an exploration of Celtic spirituality. However, as a PhD student researching theology and race, I have some observations and questions about the whiteness of Celtic spirituality to wrestle with if it is going to form a part of my faith journey.

The late Tina Turner and her post-Ike performance of "A Fool in Love."

On the screens behind Tina Turner you can see glimpses of the Shindig version of this song performed in 1964.

30 March 2023

"Dismantling Racism with Grit and Grace"

Source.  

The problem with building your peacemaking on what you're against and not what you're for is that you're always prepared for a fight and always looking for an enemy.

But that's the thing. Neither response is truly peacemaking.

— Osheta Moore, Dear White Peacemakers: Dismantling Racism with Grit and Grace.

Osheta Moore has written not only an important book, but what some may consider an impossible book. In Dear White Peacemakers, Osheta calls us to fight racism while remaining true to the peacemaking ethic set forth by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. This is a smart and compelling work, and Osheta’s voice is both honest and hopeful. I benefited greatly from Dear White Peacemakers.

— Brian Zahnd, author of A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace.

I've rarely seen the words "anti-racism" and "peacemaking" in the same sentence, so when I heard about Osheta Moore's book during a visit to North Seattle Friends Church last month, I had to read it for myself. The book has been out for nearly two years, so you may well have seen it long before I did. However, just in case you haven't, here are some of my thoughts.

Moore's book reminded me of R.W. Tucker's logic in his essay "Revolutionary Faithfulness": In contrast to secular results-oriented pacifists, he says, ...

A Christian, as Friends have understood the word, is someone who elects now to live as though the world were Christian. He [sic] will remain a committed person though the heavens fall, because his inward condition demands it of him. He ardently hopes to end war—a political change—but he would continue a pacifist though certain his efforts would never bear any fruit at all.

Similarly, Moore's vision of anti-racist work, from her Anabaptist perspective, is embodied in a vision of all of us as the Beloved of God. In other words, she "elects to live" under the assumption that the Gospel of Grace is trustworthy and true for everyone. Her book is drenched in grace, and she addresses her imperfect readers as "Beloved." With endearing vulnerability, she reveals her own failures as well.

Tucker's essay doesn't shy away from addressing sentimentalized and class-bound versions of pacifism. Likewise, the "grit" of Moore's subtitle indicates that the grace she constantly holds up doesn't come cheap. 

I'm interested in dismantling white supremacy in order to build up something better for you and for me. I'm interested in the peacemaking North Star of the Beloved Community. This is our third way of anti-racism—not the cheap grace of the racial reconciliation movement and not the callous grit of anti-racism work apart from Jesus, but the Beloved Community that holds us accountable to be in right relatedness to each other and create an environment where we can all thrive.

White peacemakers engaged in anti-racist work—that is, those who accept Moore's gracious and gritty guidance—will learn not to indulge in the kind of self-flagellating shame that can actually become gratifying, nor will we get off the hook by appropriating Black culture instead of absorbing and appreciating it—and appreciating its capacity for joy as well as grief. 

But grief is there. "To be Black in America is to be constantly grieving," Moore writes. The shattering instances of recent American history—Mother Emanuel AME Church, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, just to jog (often too episodic) memories—are part of a dense pattern of daily reality.

What you're seeing in this moment, White Peacemaker, is not just a great racial reckoning, it is an invitation to grieve. To listen to our collective bodies, to hold, see, and share in grief. To mourn with us, as we mourn.

We're not just invited to "understand," we're invited into a definite discipline: to squelch defensiveness and minimization; to say "I'm sorry" and "I'm listening."

As peacemakers, we're tasked with identifying with our Prince of Peace who overcame our bloodthirsty enemy by shedding his own blood—selflessness and love flows from the cross and lays out our chosen path, humility. "I'm sorry" tames the anger. "I'm sorry" respects the pain. "I'm sorry" positions you as a friend and not adversary.

"I'm listening" because we're called to be reconcilers. Like Jesus reconciled us to the Father—it's a painful process. A denying process. A humiliating process. But a kingdom process, nonetheless. "I'm listening" says, "Yes, I have an opinion, and yes, I have strong feelings, and yes, this makes me feel more than a little helpless, but I'm going to press into this specific pain and listen."

I'm mostly quoting passages that feature Moore in teaching mode. But some of the most powerful pages are her own stories, her own experiences, her encounters with the all-too-familiar shock of racism near and far. Maybe most instructive of all are her stories of both insensitivity and generosity among those who want to be (and, thanks to grace, usually are) her allies. It was wonderful and so bittersweet to encounter the late Rachel Held Evans once again in these pages.

Among the most valuable chapters in this book are Moore's thoughts on reconciliation and forgiveness (in private and in public) and the important distinction between them.

While forgiveness is vital to a life lived in love, we must also love ourselves enough not to subject ourselves to ongoing retraumatization. Jesus' way of love opens the door to reconciliation, but it's not a guarantee. People are also free to continue in their sin, and it isn't healthy for us to join ourselves to them while they are in that state.

Moore's book is 335 pages of diagnosis and healing, both compassionate and blunt, delivered with humor, passion, anger, zero manipulation, and much hope. Believe me, there's a lot I've left out. If you haven't read it yet, see for yourself.


Another review of Moore's book. And another.

Peter Wehner's brief and blunt assessment of the significance of Trump's indictment today.

A long but fascinating and sobering essay by Rebekah Mui on "complementarian sexual 'asymmetry'," via Kristin Du Mez. (I couldn't help thinking of Sarah Ruden's Paul Among the People.)

And now for something completely different: Tory Bruno reveals the secrets of rocket design.


A rerun of one of my favorite videos: Magic Slim with the Blue Jeans Band in Brazil. Note Junior Moreno on drums and harmonica!

16 March 2023

Thinking twice about the "Billy Graham Rule"

Shurik and Lida study for exams. Operation Y and Other Adventures of Shurik; screenshot, source.

We all knew of evangelists who had fallen into immorality while separated from their families by travel. We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion. From that day on, I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.

With these words, Billy Graham explained how he and his leadership team came up with the so-called "Billy Graham Rule." It was one of four rules that they hoped would allow their work to demonstrate an integrity that they admitted was often missing from crusade-style evangelism.

I don't know of anyone who questions Graham's original intention—to shut down even a hint of the kind of impropriety that had obviously tempted many other public figures in the religion industry. (My term, not his!) However, over the years, the rule has come in for much criticism. Women have pointed out some of the implications of the rule: the not-so-subtle hint that women are temptresses, for example; and the professional and personal cost for women in public ministry because this theoretical risk has robbed them of mutually advantageous mentoring and collaboration; and finally and oh-so-familiarly, once again, men try to set all the ground rules.

In turn, others have noted that the rule reinforces the idea that men are so selfish and predatory that they must make unilateral rules to overcome their own weaknesses. Even if I intend to behave perfectly in my relationship with a woman friend or colleague, the onlooker might still assume "boys will be boys." Kristin Kobes Du Mez's book Jesus and John Wayne documents how this view of man-as-selfish-predator even served the cause of telling evangelical women to cater to their husbands' sexual whims: quoting from the LaHayes' book The Act of Marriage, "Few men accept bedroom failure without being carnal, nasty, and insulting." Really?

Behind all these discussions is the age-old question: can two people be friends across the conventional lines of sexual attraction? To be more precise and pointed: can two people who, in a romantic context, might feel sexually attracted to each other, relate fully in other contexts—work-related, for example, or simply as friends with shared interests and mutual appreciation?

Adrian Warnock, an MD and long-time Christian blogger, surveys the subject of male-female friendships in this recent blog post, "Men and Women CAN Be Friends—Retiring the Billy Graham Rule." He ends up firmly supporting the idea that men and women, including married men and women, can have warm and mutually helpful non-romantic relationships outside marriage, even though those relationships would not meet the Graham standard. He points out that some perfectly normal (heterosexual, he assumes) men prefer the companionship of women, and vice versa.

Warnock also says that "Men cannot pass the buck to women for their disgraceful thoughts. Men must take responsibility for handling their own internal thought life. and the stimulus that provokes it." (His emphasis; presumably the same applies to women.) This reminded me of something that a woman Quaker leader once said at a conference: (quoting from memory) "absolutely pure male-female friendships might happen, but they're rare. There's almost always some sexual tension."

If this is true (and I have no research to go on beyond what Warnock cites), the solution is not to avoid such relationships, but (a) not to "pass the buck" for this tension, making it somehow the other person's or other gender's fault; and (b) instead, take the responsibility to confront and manage the tension within oneself. Consider whether, after all, the relationship is rewarding in so many ways that this management of the tension, with prayer and with honest self-examination, is well worth it.

So, the question isn't whether non-sexual friendships across the conventional lines of sexual attraction will ALWAYS be successful, or NEVER be successful, where "success" means mutually beneficial and productive without becoming sexualized. Sometimes the truth is, success takes work and restraint and honesty, but the rewards can make that effort worthwhile.

PS: Is this a fair definition of "success"?


In the past, the categories Adrian Warnock uses in his post (male-female friendship, etc.) don't take into account sexual temptation outside once-predominant heterosexual male-female assumptions. To widen the discussion, I've adopted this formula of "friendships across the lines of sexual attraction,"  or "two people who, in a romantic context, might feel sexually attracted to each other..." but these sound a bit clumsy to me. Are there better ways to express my meaning?


Related posts:  Trust, the first testimony—now it gets personal; What's so urgent about sex?


Swedish "charismactivist" Micael Grenholm interviews Craig Keener on the Asbury University revival of last month.

Russia at war, faith, and conscientious objection: a successful appeal for alternative service; a draft counselor comments on the current wave of notifications to update conscription records (video, in Russian); Forum 18: "Thou shalt not kill" leads to fines.

David Remnick interviews historian Stephen Kotkin on how the war in Ukraine will end.

And so we have a Russia which looks more and more like the Putin regime as a society, not just as a regime, potentially. We have all the flotsam of the xenophobic hard right in Russia complaining that the war is not being fought properly, wanting to nuke Ukraine, nuke the West, as they go on social media and express the extremism that unfortunately social media facilitates and encourages. And so that’s the Russia we have already. Russia has already been transformed utterly. Wars are transformational in all ways.

Friends Committee on National Legislation looks inside the Biden budget.

"Ya gotta have fun, baby." Greg Morgan (Elder Chaplain) gives us a story of friendship and closure from one of his readers. Have you had a similar experience? Write to Greg.

Beacon Hill Friends House in Boston (where Judy and I met 45 years ago) is looking for a facility manager.

The people of Sierra-Cascades Yearly Meeting of Friends: Judy interviews Gil George.

Gil: Part of why I have the skill I have at fitting in wherever I go, is because I grew up in a house where I literally walked from one culture to another, just by changing rooms. I go up on the third floor and I'm in Guyana. I go across the hall from the Guyanese room, and I'm in Colombia. I go downstairs, I'm in Ethiopia. I go down to the basement and I'm in Jamaica.


To Josephine from Australia: Queen Juanita and the Zydeco Cowboys play an old classic.

Also on YouTube: Henry Gray's version, old-school (audio only). The Jerry Jaye version I remember from my teen years. The Fats Domino original.

26 September 2019

Purity of heart


Gallery: visit to a lamp store in Hebron


Recently in Christian and ex-Christian blogs and social media feeds, "purity culture" is getting the shredding that it has apparently deserved for a long time. For two examples from the CBE Web site, here's a recent one, 5 purity culture myths; and an article from 2015, lies purity culture teaches women. (Also see Melanie Springer Mock's book If Eve Only Knew, which I reviewed here, for a deeper biblical and cultural analysis.)

I say "apparently," because that culture and its trail of pain was invisible to me for most of my life as a male Christian. As you know if you've been following this blog for a while, I grew up in an atheist family and didn't come to faith until I was 21. During the years since, most of the women I've talked with about faith belong to one of these groups: either they didn't come through that culture either, or it somehow worked for them, or they dealt with the residue more or less privately. Or they left the church. In any case, I was oblivious to their experience. Instead, I mostly noticed the healthier aspects of church as a multi-generational community and developed a sort of secondhand nostalgia for the churchy childhood I never had.

I remember just one incident in my years in Quaker ministry that should have caused me to be more curious. About twenty years ago, I went to a wedding at which, during the ceremony, the father of the bride paid tribute to his daughter and her "purity pledge." It struck me as peculiar that parents would announce such an intimate detail about their daughter -- but I had not heard about the underlying cultural phenomenon.

There's just one aspect of purity culture, as I am beginning to understand it, that makes me want to pause before burying it forever. For all its poisonous theology and its crass merchandising, did it once have, at its inception, a realistic concern for the integrity of human sexuality? The original impulse to defend "purity," however that impulse later went astray, seems to have a realism about it that continues to be worth considering.

Labeling sex as dangerous is a tactic that can go wrong in so many ways, but on some raw level it could contain at least two important and related insights:
  • Sex can become dangerously addictive, particularly when coupled with our primordial sin of objectifying one another; and addiction, in turn, blinds us to the harm we cause ourselves and others;
  • Sex and its risks and rewards are not just an individual concern but also a community concern, especially if that community is committed to putting Jesus at the center (which happens to be my Quaker definition of church). By that I don't mean that the details of our lives as sexual beings are proper grist for the church's rumor mill, but that guidance on healthy sexuality and boundaries, and the consequences of violations, are both proper subjects for the church's teaching and pastoral roles. Unhealthy secrecy and mystery can set up opportunities for predators.
Churches are not just confined to two choices -- either being utterly oblivious to their task of helping their members to become disciples in sexuality as well as in peace, simplicity, equality, stewardship, and so on; or binding their members with legalistic and gender-biased expectations along the lines of purity culture.

Here I want to submit to you a recent blog post by Eastern Orthodox writer Frederica Mathewes-Green, Why They Hate Us. I hope that you'll take a moment to read it and maybe tell me whether you agree with me that her defense of purity is very different from the defense represented by purity culture -- and much more helpful. Does she in fact contribute to a defense of discipleship in sexuality that isn't trapped in that all-or-nothing choice? Or is it the same old thing in a more elegant presentation?

There are a couple of sentences in her post that threatened to become a stumbling block for me:
Given all the varieties of sexual upheaval today, critics tend to focus on gay marriage, saying that it destroys traditional marriage. But in terms of sheer numbers, porn is overwhelmingly more destructive.
She never returns to refute or amplify the "critics" who say that gay marriage destroys traditional marriage, albeit less than pornography. Personally, I understand her defense of purity as totally applicable to any relationship that has integrity.

One last writer to mention on the subject of purity: Søren Kierkegaard, author of Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing. Kierkegaard keeps challenging us to face the challenge of living as free, responsible, God-dedicated individuals. Much of the book is dedicated to all the ways we can avoid that responsibility, outsourcing our morality, pleasure, intellect, to all the structures and powers ready and eager to control and smother us. Purity is a product of looking as directly into God's face as we can possibly dare; purity culture is something else entirely.



Anything I might say about Donald Trump and the impeachment process threatens to be out of date as soon as I push the "Publish" button. But in view of the "purity" discussion, I found something fascinating about Trump's characterization of the summary of his phone call with Zelensky as "absolutely perfect," even after its damning contents were available to the public. That call did not focus on Ukraine's geopolitical situation or the overarching priorities of U.S.-Ukrainian relations, but on Trump's own political interests, and his wretched, even threatening, expressions of contempt for the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

The fact that the U.S. president considers his performance self-evidently "perfect" forms a clear article of impeachment for which no further investigation is necessary. The thing speaks for itself. This is a president who is unable to understand, let alone choose, a responsible course of action corresponding to his obligations as head of the nation's executive branch and chief articulator of our foreign policy. The problem isn't fake news, it is a fake president.



Related posts on sexuality and discipleship:

What's so urgent about sex?

Trust, the first testimony, part two: now it gets personal



David Swartz on the Quaker legacy of the Vineyard's John Wimber.

Emily Couch wonders whether the "holy tandem" linking the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church is showing signs of weakening. And an update from RFE/RL's Matthew Luxmoore. Friday PS: Ksenia Luchenko, The Moscow Times.

Peter Pomerantsev left Russia to escape Putin's assault on reason.

Lynn Gazis-Sax: If the president can ask a foreign government to go after one particular citizen, why not others?

Philip Weiss: Palestinians now count for practically nothing in Israeli elections, but might they be the last hope for liberals in Israel?



Buddy Guy and Samantha Fish together!

21 February 2019

Trustworthy, part one: the cost of betrayal

This isn't one of the QL issues I mentioned
below. In this March 1998 issue, we covered 
financial betrayals.
Money is hardly a full and adequate way of costing out harm, but it does have a snappy convenience. When Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends was sued in 2015 for having had a sexual abuser in its employ, the amount demanded was $4 million. Just for perspective, its budget for that year was $1.2 million, and its assets (2013, actual) about $3.17 million.

As far as I know, the final settlement in that case was never made public. In a larger sense, the "final settlement" demanded by God's grace and justice will never be measured in dollars, but sometimes it is satisfying to know that money is involved: almost nothing slices through pious misdirection or sophistry like cold cash. But it's also true that cash doesn't cut deeply enough.

We're in a season of exposure for all sorts of betrayals, particularly sexual and psychological. With Paul Manafort in the news again, I ran into Maya Gurantz's article Kompromat: Or, Revelations from the Unpublished Portions of Andrea Manafort’s Hacked Texts. The author manages to be extremely pointed and amazingly merciful all at the same time in her dissection of multiple layers of betrayal ... not least, the theft of the raw material (the daughters' private texts) behind the article.

My biggest concern is when it's the church who betrays. There, too, we have plenty of new material coming into public view. Today, Pope Francis has opened a global leadership conference on abuse, challenging participants not to be content with "simple and predictable condemnations." Meanwhile, the Southern Baptist Convention is reeling from recent revelations published in two Texas newspapers, and powerful voices are calling for a new reckoning of the links between sexist theology and patterns of abuse.

Our own brush with the cost of betrayal -- that $4 million lawsuit -- had swift consequences for all of us on the Northwest Yearly Meeting program staff. An improved abuse policy meant that every program and field staff member, and every church staffer and ministry volunteer throughout the yearly meeting, had to comply with training and background-check requirements.

Somewhere else I mentioned the sadness I felt when I heard there had been harassment going on even in my earliest Friends community, Canadian Yearly Meeting. Later, in the 1990's, I was confronted by church-related betrayals in the first year of my administration at Friends United Meeting. I was asked to be part of an ad hoc group investigating charges of sexual harassment at a Friends school. Around the same time, one of the Mennonite periodicals (much to the consternation of some readers) directly addressed abuse by church leaders, and that gave us the idea of devoting the May 1994 issue of Quaker Life to that same topic among Friends. We mentioned the school case without naming the student whose experience of abuse was described; however, she wrote a letter to the editor, published in July. Her words could have been written yesterday:
Judy [the cover story's author] referred to three (pseudonymous) women, Alice, Bonnie, and Carol, who had been sexually perpetrated by Quakers or in Quaker organizations. The article was true and good. I know, because I am Alice. I was molested by the headmaster of a well known Friends school in the early 1960's. The devastating emotional impact of this has become apparent only in the last few years. I need good therapy but I can't afford it, so I contacted the school and asked if they could help. I didn't ask for much, I just wanted to be able to pay for weekly therapy for two years or so. I assumed that some fund had been set up because the episodes of sexual molestation, (not just mine) were known to the school's administration, faculty, and board of directors at the time. My request was met with silence and total denial of responsibility. I was devastated, re-traumatized.

Does anyone have any suggestions about what I should do? It seems that protection for the institution and the "pillar of the community" (the perpetrator) take much bigger precedence. If one is not part of the solution to help end sexual abuse and to help victims and instead protects the perpetrator, then one becomes part of the problem and thus a co-perpetrator. I wish Quaker Life well and thank you for addressing this widespread and terrible problem.
Later, when several cases hit close to home -- among Friends I knew personally, in our Indiana county -- I was at least a little better prepared. I remember being impressed by West Richmond Friends' approval in 1998 of a "bill of rights" compiled by Joshua Brown and given to every member and attender. Still, conversations with other denominational executives at gatherings such as the U.S. Church Leaders and American Bible Society meetings, reminded me constantly that perpetrators continued to wreck lives and churches. Lawsuits and insurance payouts gave these (mostly) men some solid incentive to come up with "policies" ... but we never seemed to go deeper to ask whether the roots of these problems were in our theology -- particularly our theology of leadership.



Last weekend we attended a quarterly gathering of our new Sierra-Cascades Yearly Meeting of Friends. As part of the business agenda, we worked through a draft abuse prevention policy. We also reviewed and approved a policy to deal with comments on candidates for being recorded as Friends ministers. This was not jolly work; we began the discussions of these policies with silent worship to acknowledge the betrayals that made these kinds of policies imperative.

As we went slowly through the abuse prevention document, trying to identify unintended loopholes and other potential problems, I reflected that this was a very different kind of devotional exercise. It wasn't pious in any conventional sense, but it was the work of building faithfulness. That's why I said at one point, "I'm daring to believe that we're starting to build a trustworthy church."

Interestingly, the majority of our pastors are women. The sample is very small (five churches so far, and our male leadership minority really seems beyond reproach!), so I am not asserting anything definitively, but I'm simply going to suggest gently that some underlying theological influences might be working in our favor.

In part two, I'll look at some of the information I've started to glean from last December's survey.



Diana Butler Bass tweets about sin and shame.

This list of articles by Myriam Renaud includes three interesting pieces on the political behavior of white American evangelicals.

Clint Schnekloth: All activism is pastoral ministry. (How protesting and hospital visitation are similar.)

This evening, a Falcon 9 rocket sent an Israeli moon lander on its way, and Japan's Hayabusa 2 operated its impact collector on asteroid Ryugu. A lot for one day! David Brin reviews our recent space milestones.

While we're at it ... Ultima Thule has an unexpected flattened shape.



Larkin Poe, "Trouble in Mind."

19 January 2018

What's so urgent about sex?

Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (Paramount 1968) Seeing this film is the only high school field trip I still remember! Source.
Heterosexual men who can't or won't hear "no" are back in the news, along with women's time-honored tactics to ward them off. As unlikely as it is that anything I say would be read by any man who needs enlightenment -- and at the risk of being accused of virtue signalling -- I'm going to persist in asking my questions, and I'm going to begin by paying tribute to my late friend Betsy Moen. During a Right Sharing of World Resources study tour in Jamaica about thirty years ago, she addressed the then-current fashion of focusing on women as the "targets" of economic development. As I recalled in an earlier post,
While there, Betsy gave a talk at a seminar organized by Geoff Brown at the University of the West Indies, and the next day she summarized her talk on a Jamaican Broadcasting morning television interview show.

Her talk was entitled, "Why Target Women?" She explained why women were "targeted" in much contemporary economic development work—resources devoted to women were far more likely to benefit the whole family, according to credible research, whereas men tended to spend additional resources on themselves.

However, after describing the efficacy of targeting women in development work, Betsy asked a powerful question: what are the assumptions and consequences of this strategy for men? Are men just a problem to be bypassed, or are they themselves worthy of attention? Clearly, the old development methods of transferring more money and power to men don't work, but is neglect the only other option? Have we assumed that men cannot be educated to be responsible fathers, productive economic partners, collaborative leaders?
In the specific area of sexual boundary violations, men are perpetrators far more often than women, so why target women as the ones responsible for fixing the situation?

In targeting men, we'll have to work at several levels. The most frustrating and intractable cases, involving men who seem undeterred by fear of consequences, might need to be worked primarily at the systems level. Sex addicts, for example, are just as destructive and self-destructive as other addicts, meaning that persuasion won't work and fear-based disincentives probably won't work either. For their own protection and the protection of others, they need to hit a brick wall, and then be directed into treatment, while we also help victims heal in every possible way, including the poison of shame.

For those men who still believe or take advantage of the ancient double standards, but who aren't total sociopaths, maybe persuasion and education have a better chance...? I hope it's starting to dawn on these operators that they can't count on social impunity anymore. For them, fear of a devastating exposure might work. As I argued a couple of years ago,
Not every accusation will emerge from a 100% clear-cut predator/victim encounter. My point is that sexually aggressive people are now living in a far riskier world, and they have to face the question of whether their preferred lifestyle and image are really worth it.
As we survey the wreckage left by boundary-violators and the huge outpourings of outrage and counter-reaction greeting every new celebrity scandal and every new debate about "consent," there's something I just don't understand, and this may reveal what a sheltered life I've led. The mystery: why does it seem so important to have sex with someone before you know that person well enough to understand their boundaries? I ask this because every discussion of determining what constitutes "consent" seems to presuppose that having sex is so urgent that those boundaries ought to be measured and crossed (with whatever form of consent the pundits finally agree on) as soon as possible!!!

I get that, in a new relationship, either partner may be simultaneously attracted and a bit ambivalent, hopeful and fearful in practically equal measures. When you assume a truncated timespan, it's understandable that signals may not be all that clear! Some of the more measured recent discussions of consent seem to grant this, while still somehow assuming that the ultimate and obvious goal is sex that very night.

(That tired old male defense, "she was just a tease," precisely exposes a predatory mentality that puts gratification before understanding. Honest flirtation can certainly include teasing, but subsequent resistance of any kind should tell the one being teased that something dangerous is going on.)

But, seriously, aren't there many delightful ways of expanding each one's knowledge of the other before sexual boundaries are crossed? Isn't that exploration a joy? And isn't the willingness to show restraint in itself a gift to the other? How do we begin to challenge the presumption of urgency and raise up a positive, even erotic role for restraint?

George Fox University's tagline is "be known." (The university's Web site makes the very relevant point that, among other things, "to be known is to be heard.") Maybe the King James Bible translators gave us a precious insight when they translated "to have sex with" as "to know." I don't want to hide behind a fake piety here -- we understand that not every episode of "knowing" in the Bible was sweet and romantic. But as we try to understand what "targeting" men means, maybe we can teach this insight:
  • I want to know you. I want to know you as much as any one person can know another. In fact, I believe that, knowing you this deeply, I can trust you, not just allowing you beyond my most intimate boundaries but entrusting you with my life.
  • I want to be known by you. I want to reveal to you how I came to be who I am. I want to offer you joy and comfort, not bitter memories. As the Song of Songs reveals, sex is very much part of this knowing, but by far not all.
Not every sexual encounter will match this level of knowing, but every sexual encounter obtained by lying about our good intentions will certainly end in pain. The more lying and coercion, the more pain. I may indeed have lived a sheltered life, but honestly, this shelter (based on a biblical appreciation of sex as "knowing") is available to everyone, and seems a lot nicer in the long run than the world's urgent and chaotic addictions.



Some of the articles I read these past few days that led to these meditations are the following:

Elizabeth Bruenig, "The Aziz Ansari debacle proves it's time for a new sexual revolution." Related: Caitlin Flanagan: "The humiliation of Aziz Ansari."

Andi Zeisler, a thread on Twitter.

Morgan Guyton, "How can we talk forgiveness in the age of #MeToo?"
For evangelicals, Jesus’ penal substitution is the same thing as Donald Trump’s pardon pen. It erases all culpability, all accountability, all responsibility for processing, growth, reparation, and reconciliation. This is because evangelical atonement is “objective,” not “subjective.” It’s about satisfying God’s wrath against sin, not about giving a Christian believer the courage to face the evil he’s done with integrity.
Ann Voskamp: "The Church's Weinstein Moment: nailing some theses for assault to the door of the Church."

Peg Conway, "Shades of grey: toward real-life Christian sexual ethics."



Addicted to crisis?: when we gather together in times of crisis, let's remember who we are.

Edward Snowden talks to Daniel Ellsberg.

Perpetual War Watch: William Hartung says that 2018 looks like an arms bonanza.



James Harman medley -- another video from his partnership with Junior Watson and Esben Just.


02 November 2017

Cruelty

Moscow's Wall of Grief, commemorating victims of political repression, was unveiled Monday. (Source.)
Russia's President Putin led Monday's unveiling of the Wall of Grief, the first official national monument to the victims of political repression in the USSR. Perhaps aware of the skepticism of today's human rights defenders in Russia, who charge the president with unleashing a whole new wave of repression, Putin was unusually direct:
Neither talent, nor services to the Motherland, nor sincere devotion to it could help avoid repression [in the Soviet system], because unwarranted and absolutely absurd charges could be brought against anyone. Millions of people were declared ‘enemies of the people’, shot or mutilated, or suffered in prisons, labour camps or exile.

This terrifying past cannot be deleted from national memory or, all the more so, be justified by any references to the so-called best interests of the people.

The history of our country, like that of any other country, has plenty of difficult and controversial stages. People argue about them, discuss them, offering different approaches to explaining various events.

This is a natural process of learning history and seeking the truth. However, when we are speaking about the repression, death and suffering of millions of people, it will only take a visit to the Butovo memorial site or other common graves of victims of repression, of which there are quite a few in Russia, to realise that these crimes cannot be justified in any way.

Political repression has become a tragedy for all our people, all our society and dealt a harsh blow to our people, its roots, culture and self-consciousness. We are still feeling its consequences. Our duty is to not let it slip into oblivion. Remembrance, a clear and unambiguous position and assessments with regard to those sad events serve as a powerful warning against their recurrence.
I quote extensively from his speech, because most of the Western press coverage (example) of the event pays more attention to the skepticism than to the actual event. I'm not necessarily criticizing the skepticism, since it's clear that the space for political activism in Russia has been shrinking continuously since he took over, but it seems patently unfair not to report the guarantee implicit in his speech that the cruelties of Stalinism will not be covered up or repeated.

Stalinist repression represents cruelty on a pervasive, industrial scale. Zooming inward, I reacted with  horror at Manhattan truck terrorist Sayfullo Saipov expressing satisfaction with his actions, regretting only that he couldn't drive farther and hit more people. Cruelty, it seems, is no nation's monopoly.

Another sort of cruelty has been at the center of attention these last weeks: sexual harassment in its most persistent and transgressive forms. Why is the word "cruelty" appropriate here? It just seems the right word to use for any situation where physical or mental pain is inflicted for the satisfaction of the perpetrator. We pacifists might insist that there is no legitimate reason ever to inflict pain, but "just war" reasoning allows proportionate violence when it's, well, just. Violence to assuage paranoia or simply for enjoyment is outside anyone's ethical framework, but it happens, over and over again. My fourteen-year-old sister's murderer faced no threat at all from her, yet he pulled the trigger that blew her stomach away. Cruelty and its delights have been around a long, long time.

Back to aggravated sexual harassment, a cruelty that takes place in the larger context of sexuality, with all its uncertainties and anxieties for those who find themselves at the crossroads of ethical ideals and raw desire. Where are the boundaries, they legitimately ask, especially as culture exalts gratification. Guidelines, etiquette, warnings, second chances for bumblers ... all these devices help us muddle through the typical awkwardnesses of flirtation and courtship, but just don't seem to work when we confront the serial violator.

Elizabeth Bruenig looks directly at this dilemma in her article, "This is why sexual harassment can't truly be rooted out."
Once we exhaust our tools of procedure and persuasion, those who still offend are of a different moral sort. It isn’t clear what to do about them; it never has been. But it seems obvious that we shouldn’t build our public consciousness around their uncommon deficits, or abandon efforts that are generally working (the long-term legal and cultural campaigns against workplace sexual harassment) in favor of procedures designed to do the impossible.
"Hard cases make bad law" goes the saying, and we don't want to descend into a regime of total prudery in a vain attempt to head off the worst cases. Instead, as Bruenig implies, let's do what's already working for the more typical problems. Let's also keep reminding each other -- as Putin attempted to do, whatever his motives -- what cruelty looks like and what it costs society. Let's remove shame from the equation, so that victims regain power, knowing that they can count on our support.

Something in me also yearns to address perpetrators and their spiritual situation. Were they born without an effective conscience, or was that conscience damaged by illness or abuse? Is there room in our discipleship to pray for them, to pray for their release from bondage and the restoration of the image of God in them? If we can't all do this, can it be part of the church's division of labor?

Can we also pray for the healing of memories, and the healing of the world? In Russia, we were often reminded of the persistent echoes of national trauma and the virus of fear that causes so many people to try to live in a cloak of near-invisibility. But as Putin said, every country has its difficult and controversial stages. We are not helpless: let's pray boldly, passionately, and even publicly (according to our gifts and leadings) to exorcise those demons.

When I wrote about #MeToo a couple of weeks ago, I was remembering my own #MeToo moment, around the age of 12, when two guys bigger than me ganged up on me in a bathroom. The sheer number of such experiences challenges us to grow in our awareness of cruelty and bondage, to anchor ourselves in the solidarity of sorrow and joy that we gain from living in reality instead of denial and sentimentality, and to love each other more fiercely in the face of that reality.



A powerful sermon about the most important thing: Becky Ankeny... "On Friday, I started hearing this verse march through my head: whoever comes to me, I will never send away."

Andrei Sabinin talks about what it's like to be a human rights lawyer in Russia.

Stanley Hauerwas asks: The Reformation is over. Protestants won. So why are we still here?



19 October 2017

My heart is breaking. So what?

We left Russia on Tuesday evening. Now we're traveling on Amtrak from New York City to Portland, Oregon. Our train stopped for nine minutes in Charlottesville, where we spent the first two years of our marriage. A lot has happened since then, with us and with Charlottesville.


My heart is breaking with the flood of #MeToo stories from people who've experienced sexual violence and objectification of all degrees. CNN reports a Facebook statistic: "...More than 45% of people in the United States are friends with someone who's posted a message with the words 'Me too'." Seems entirely possible. Just based on people I know, that proportion might actually be low.

But my breaking heart is completely beside the point. The problem is people whose hearts aren't breaking and will not soon be breaking. Many of them don't consider themselves predators, and their behavior is often supported and protected by their surrounding culture, as noted in Teri Carter's article, "Saying 'me too' isn't enough. Women have to stop excusing men." Some no doubt plunge into cycles of offense and remorse, hoping that their remorse counts for something....

Last year, a similar online phenomenon took off in Russian and Ukrainian social networks. Natalia Antonova described the origins of this movement and some of the assumptions it unearthed. She did not express wild optimism about outcomes, but there is a path toward progress:
We are seeing an example of real collective action — not sponsored by any government, not popularised by marketing or television. The very fact that there is such a big controversy, an outcry, criticism, and counter-criticism tells us that quite a lot of people are emotionally invested both in the problem of violence and trauma — and are also invested in public life and public discourse.
Before we protest that the USA (for example) is more progressive on this score than the post-Soviet world, can we honestly say that we never see examples of  the "hypocritical blending of patriarchal and liberal norms" mentioned by Antonova?

One thing that seemed possible in July 2016, the time of Antonova's article, was a woman serving as president in the USA, something that no Russian I spoke with thought would happen in Russia in their lifetime. Most Russians told me that it shouldn't happen, in Russia or in the USA. Of course, for the USA, that moment didn't come to pass.

(But yesterday came the announcement that Ksenia Sobchak plans to run in the Russian presidential election next year! The conventional wisdom so far seems to agree that this is just a way that the Kremlin wants to make the highly stage-managed Putin re-election process more interesting and entertaining. My question: Can Sobchak's candidacy nevertheless have subversive benefits in widening the forums for discussing sexual violence and related topics?)

Back to #MeToo and the chorus of male grief. The sad truth is that the existence of men (and women) who have no desire at all to offend, or are supposedly too nice to offend, or who repent, or who simply have learned how to manage their "needs," hasn't been enough to prevent that "more than 45%" statistic. Our goals should go way beyond expressing sympathy; they should include ending cultures of impunity. This isn't an easy thing to advocate -- my conscience is stabbed by the question, How often have I been given the benefit of the doubt?

Ending cultures of impunity ... what might this imply? How do we get there? For one thing, it would help to have offenders' peers confronting offenders, and for these stories to circulate. I'm reminded of a case I know personally: an alcoholic wife-abuser being confronted by his older brother, himself a recovering alcoholic: "Hey, take it from me, you straighten up or you're going to lose the best thing you have, and I'll want to know the reason why."

Victims' and survivors' dearest ones also have a role to play, especially in cultures where the "boys will be boys" attitude prevails. In theory, we know that love trumps shame, but we need to make that true in every concrete situation where shame smothers the truth. This is especially important where victims end up entering into alliances with their attackers and therefore feel complicit. Again, for cultures that don't value lofty theories, we need stories of families and sweethearts taking shame out of the equation. Let's tell our stories of shame being healed, whether we were the channels of healing or the ones experiencing healing.

What about men? (After all, the majority of offenders, and also the apparent beneficiaries of the prevailing power systems, are men.) Sometimes my inner cynic worries that this arena is just another channel for men to entertain fantasies of heroism, or (given the persistence of sin and addiction) to use a veneer of sensitivity for seductive purposes. But there are concrete steps we can take:
  • Listen, don't rush to fix. Be rooted in grace. Listen, listen some more. Be human! 
  • When women exert leadership, respond positively. That may simply mean getting out of the way without waiting for recognition or credit.
  • Replace the old "men have needs" excuse with active encouragement for any decent efforts to teach young people about sexuality and boundaries. Maybe it's an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to work together -- for liberals to assert the importance of equality, for conservatives to remind us of sin's devious persistence.
  • Other ideas?
One of my biggest frustrations is the lack of attention to sexual discipleship in the church. The resulting harm includes not just violence and harassment, but endless shame, anxiety, hypocrisy, homophobia, and ultimately cynicism, alienation, atheism, ... in total, a lot less joy, intimacy, and long-term pleasure than God intended for us.

I think I understand the reluctance to tackle sexual issues; I don't know about you, but I really don't go to church to talk about sex! That means finding creative ways to confront the old boundaries and allergies that ultimately served oppression, and create new boundaries that put sexual discipleship in proper perspective with other topics of life as believers -- such as financial discipleship, to name another awkward theme.

Think of the rewards of expanding our discipleship education: building a far more rewarding model of whole-life Christianity that doesn't keep two sets of emotional books (one for display at meeting, and the other reflecting our private anxieties and agonies). Think of the evangelistic advantages as well -- inviting skeptical people into a community that behaves as if it actually believes in the abundant life Jesus promises.



A related post from last year: Trust and its erotic dimension. ("Now it gets personal.")



How badly have traditional Christian sexual ethics failed?
In the absence of any concept of consent, patriarchy might have been the best humanity could do to provide a stable social order that somewhat protects vulnerable people from the kind of mayhem we see in Sodom in Genesis 19 and Gibeah in Judges 19. Unfortunately it fails to provide full protection; it just keeps the violence behind closed doors.
Postliberalism for Quakers. (Thanks to @MeetinghouseBP for the link.)

Another view of Ksenia Sobchak's candidacy, from a pro-Kremlin outlet.



"Johnny B. Goode" Russian style.

12 October 2017

Signs and Weinstein

Our corner, Yalagin Street and Fryazevo Highway, two nights ago. Our time in Russia is nearing an end; I'm storing up all these impressions, sensations, and amazing memories.


It's a sign of today's toxic political environment that the revelations of Hollywood sexual harassment connected with the Harvey Weinstein scandal are exploited by some Trump supporters as evidence of a liberal double standard.

That might be, but you can't convince me that only liberals "pester" women in the entertainment industry! I draw the word "pester" from this BBC interview with Emma Thompson. Locating Weinstein in a larger context, she says,
What I find sort of extraordinary is that this man is at the top of a very particular iceberg, you know he’s — I don’t think you can describe him as a ‘sex addict,’ he’s a predator. But what he’s, as it were, at the top of the ladder of is a system of harassment, and belittling, and bullying, and interference, and what my mother would have referred to in the old days as ‘pestering.’ ‘Is he pestering you?’ That’s the word we used to use in the olden days, if you recall. This has been part of our world, women’s world, since time immemorial. So what we need to start talking about is the crisis in masculinity, the crisis of extreme masculinity, which is this sort of behaviour, and the fact that it is not only OK, but it also is represented by the most powerful man in the world at the moment....
Not all public conservatives are reacting to the scandal with glee. Samuel James takes a much more measured look at men and women relating in the workplace, referring back to the brief swirl of controversy around Mike Pence's use of the "Billy Graham rule." The dilemmas of managing human lust (a problem not confined to liberals, considering how often Republicans get caught in sex scandals!) while also confronting systemic imbalances of power, will not be solved by confusing the issue with left/right labels. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [context] and all of us need to confront that impulse to exploit -- when we see others being targeted, and when we ourselves are tempted to target others. The last thing we Christians need to do is feel superior!!

One more point. Many evangelicals who do not themselves pester anyone nevertheless do not allow women to exercise leadership in their churches and religious organizations. Their stained glass ceilings are reinforced with scriptural arguments and the weight of centuries of tradition. The evangelical publishing and conference industry (specifically, the "biblical womanhood" industry -- see this post) harvests billions of dollars peddling this message to this day. I dare not mock this community, because I know many dear people who are under its sway, but I'm totally opposed to its message and influence.

The Christians in this corner of Christendom claim to be conservative and Bible-believing. Here's my question: why do they not make a direct connection between sex-based oppression and the Fall? Why is sexual equality not linked with the redemption and reconciliation offered by Jesus?

When we try to understand pervasive sexual discrimination and patriarchy (not just in Hollywood, but as Thompson says, "this has been part of our world, women's world, since time immemorial"), we have two choices:
  1. This is how things should be ... Christ did not come to lift this oppression, and we will accordingly continue to let men lord it over women -- in the church just as in the world. God chased us out of Eden, and we're content to stay out.
  2. This sorry situation is part of the Fall; but the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, offers reconciliation to men and women -- all humans -- and makes them unashamedly equal, able to accept or challenge traditional roles according to their own prayerful seeking and the gifts they have been given, but in any case resuming the innocence and intimacy they had in the Garden of Eden.
Which of these alternatives fits our own understanding of the transforming power of the Good News?



Equality of men and women is one of the Quaker signs and wonders.



Tebow and Kaepernick: two Christians on their knees. Is there a false dichotomy here? ("One is concerned with private sins like abortion. The other is concerned with public sins like racial discrimination.") Gene Veith has some additional thoughts.

Dreams, prophecy, and ministry: Patricia Dallmann. Marge Abbott.

Andrei Kolesnikov on Alexei Navalny's permanent revolution.



"When things go wrong, so wrong with you, it hurts me, too."