Monthly Archives: June 2005

Spain moves forward

Posted on by

Happy news from Spain today: 

Just two days after Canadian members of Parliament passed same-sex marriage legislation, Spanish lawmakers have voted to allow gays and lesbians to legally marry.

We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last," Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber. "After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."

Zapatero’s Socialist government proposed the legislation shortly after winning the 2004 elections.

Spanish gay couples can get married as soon as the law is published in the official government registry, which could come as early as Friday, or within two weeks at the latest, the parliament’s press office said.

One has to wonder whether Spain’s gays and lesbians have George Bush to thank!  After all, Zapatero’s Socialists were swept into power in March 2004 as a result of a massive voter backlash against Spanish Conservative support for the American intervention in Iraq.   I must confess, I rather like the idea that the legalization of gay marriage in Spain is an unintended consequence of the Iraq War.  Under Franco, homosexuality was a crime; less than thirty years later, what was once the most reactionary state in Western Europe has become only the third country (after Belgium and the Netherlands) on the continent to give full equality to gays and lesbians.    Who could ever have predicted that Spain would do this before, say, Norway or Sweden or Germany?  Surely the Iraq story factors into the equation.

For social conservatives across the globe, this must be disheartening news.   How can the right fight coordinated battles against gay marriage in Spain, Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and elsewhere simultaneously?   Here in the States, I hear nothing from the Republican-dominated Congress about the Federal Marriage Amendment.   What say you, social conservatives?  Has your fearless leader betrayed you?  The president champions Social Security reform, he champions the war in Iraq, but where are his stump speeches for a national marriage amendment?   Are you disappointed?  Frustrated?  Is it beginning to become evident that though you may have fought the good fight, whatever happens in individual American states cannot stop the inexorable advance of full equality for gays and lesbians across the globe?

I don’t mean to sound as if I’m gloating.  But I am happy that the anti-gay backlash that seemed so potent last November seems to have faded so quickly.   I’m not yet ready to predict that the anti-equality forces have hit their zenith, but I suspect that they’re awfully close.

On a related note, see this post on Canadian marriage and gay history by my fellow Cliopatriarch, Greg Robinson.

I’m off to give summer midterms.

Thursday Short Poem: Kooser’s “Student”

Posted on by

Ted Kooser is currently our poet laureate.  I like this poem very much; it reminds me both of myself twenty years ago and of more than a few of my students today.

Student

The green shell of his backpack makes him lean
into wave after wave of responsibility,
and he swings his stiff arms and cupped hands,

paddling ahead. He has extended his neck
to its full length, and his chin, hard as a beak
breaks the cold surf. He’s got his baseball cap on

backward as up he crawls, out of the froth
of a hangover and onto the sand of the future,
and lumbers, heavy with hope, into the library.

Surely anyone who survived college and grad school knows what it is to live the concluding lines!  (And I always wore my baseball caps backwards in those days; thankfully, I’ve outgrown that.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Loving the alien, and paying him too

Posted on by

For the last couple of years, we’ve lived in a small condominium complex in northwest Pasadena.  It’s a "transitional" neighborhood, but we’ve put a lot of time and effort into improving the look of our block in recent months.  For the most part, our fellow members of our Homeowners Association share our vision for our townhouses.   (I’m the temporary president of the board of directors of the HOA).  But in the past week or two, we’ve had a major conflict over the issue of hiring undocumented workers to handle landscaping and minor construction tasks around the property.

We are just a few blocks away from two large hardware stores and a lumber yard.  Day laborers, almost all Mexicans and Central Americans, line nearby streets looking for someone, anyone, willing to hire them for a few hours of work.  In response to complaints from residents about trash and loitering, the City of Pasadena opened a day laborer center on Lake Avenue, less than a mile from our home.  Folks wishing to employ workers for the day can simply drop in to the job center and hire as many or as few as they like.

To me, it is unthinkable to question the immigration status of those whom I employ on a temporary basis around my home.  Indeed, not only is it unthinkable, it seems fundamentally at odds with the gospel.  (More on that in a moment).  But one of my neighbors is very uncomfortable, for ideological reasons, with employing temporary workers who might be undocumented.  He told me, in very strong language, that hiring "illegal aliens" was pushing California towards Third World status.  Instead, we ought to be hiring American citizens to do all of our work for us, even if that meant paying higher wages.  (My neighbor and I both work for public entities; we are both members of public sector unions.)  His was, in a sense, a progressive argument: hiring the undocumented for cash-only transactions drives down wages for the American working class.  My counter-argument was that by hiring those who need work the most desperately, we are helping to lift the most marginalized out of poverty.  Trouble is, I think both of our arguments have some merit.

Whether worshiping in Catholic, evangelical, Mennonite, or Episcopal churches, I’ve always belonged to congregations that had strong feelings about welcoming all immigrants.  Here’s the Mennonite policy, based on Leviticus 19:33-34:

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Is it loving an alien as myself to ask to see identity papers before hiring someone?  If I am called to treat the alien as if he were native-born, how can I as a Christian not offer him work?

In general, we Christians are called to follow the laws of the secular state.  We are to render obedience to Caesar, save in those instances when Caesar’s imperatives conflict directly with God’s call to radical, biblical, universal justice.  Civil disobedience has a place, after all; I am convinced that Christians are called to be disobedient to the state when the state demands that we treat folks differently based upon their immigration status. 

But those of us who hire the undocumented must be very careful not to exploit them financially.  After all, giant corporations regularly hire "illegal aliens", not out of biblical compassion but out of a desire to save money by hiring vulnerable, non-union labor.   Having hired many, many day laborers over the years to help with everything from moving to landscaping to very minor construction, I’ve always made sure to pay wages that are well above the minimum.   (I’ve never hired anyone for under $20 an hour, frankly, and I’ve often paid more.  Indeed, I try to pay day laborers what I think I would pay someone whose name I got from the Yellow Pages, though that is often tough to gauge.) 

I know that many of the men I’ve hired are sending money home to Mexico, Central, and South America.   Our church has an ongoing, long-term mission project in a small Sinaloa town near the Pacific.  On my visits there, I’ve seen the tremendous good that the money sent home by those working in America has brought about.  (When I visited my fiancee’s family last year in rural northeastern Colombia, I saw the same enormous benefits that remittances from America had provided.)  When I hire a day laborer, and pay him well, I’m not merely enabling him to eat; I’m helping to support an entire community.  And as a Christian, I believe I am called to love a Latin American community every bit as much as one here in the United States.   Yes, my salary is paid by taxes — but villages in Mexico and Colombia survive on the money I pay to their sons and daughters here.  Is it not contradictory to the gospel to prefer one’s own people to those who live abroad? 

My neighbor and I are at a bit of impasse.  If he wants to insist on hiring only documented workers to work around our place, I’m happy to let him make those hiring decisions.  I will not, under any circumstances, ask to see a laborer’s identification.  My concern is simply that whomever we hire be paid justly.

I’d like to hear from my fellow Christians or other people of faith on this issue, please.  I’m sure I’ve got plenty of readers who are staunch opponents of hiring the undocumented.  I know the rhetoric, thanks.  This is one of those times when, frankly, I want to limit the discussion to the intersection of issues of faith, immigration, and obedience.  Your cooperation is appreciated.

Danica Patrick, Lawrence Summers, and grace in the face of sexism

Posted on by

First off, if anyone subscribes/buys the TLS, please pick up a copy of this week’s issue; my brother’s book is very favorably reviewed within the pages of the world’s most important literary magazine.  No link to the review yet.

I read the National Review on-line, even though I think it’s a silly magazine.  This morning, Carrie Lukas writes about Danica Patrick, the racing sensation:

The Indy Racing League’s new rookie phenomenon, Danica Patrick, is breaking ground — and not just with her performance on the race track. Last month, Patrick finished fourth in the Indianapolis 500, the best finish by a woman in the history of the nearly century-old race. Her response to sexist remarks made by Formula One boss, Bernie Ecclestone, during a “congratulatory” phone call, deserves equally enthusiast applause.

When talking to Patrick, Ecclestone remarked that “women should be all dressed in white like all other domestic appliances.” He also repeated this bizarre sentiment in an interview. This wasn’t the first time Ecclestone has made offensive remarks. According to an Associated Press story written about the phone call, in 2000 Ecclestone told Autosport Racing magazine that for a woman to compete in Formula One, “she would have to be a woman who was blowing away the boys. … What I would really like to see happen is to find the right girl, perhaps a black girl with super looks, preferably Jewish or Muslim, who speaks Spanish.”

Patrick’s reaction to the weird, sexist comments? She shrugged them off: “I was a bit confused. …So I don’t really know what to think about it. I don’t know if he was talking about someone else or the majority or what, I’m not really sure. Or, maybe that’s his real feeling. If that’s the case, then you know, [it] doesn’t really matter because I’m racing in the Indy Racing League."

So far, so good.  Then it’s Lukas who gets weird:

It’s a refreshing change from the overreaction we have come to expect when someone is confronted with offensive behavior. Patrick could have called for Ecclestone’s resignation or fueled a media frenzy to investigate the “boys club” of auto racing. She could have demanded that Formula One create a nonprofit seeking to achieve greater gender balance in auto racing.

But she didn’t. She’s in the Indy Racing League, after all. Some jerk’s remarks are small potatoes.

Compare that reaction to the hysteria surrounding Harvard President Larry Summers’s comments about gender at an academic conference earlier this year. When Summers dared to suggest that it was worth exploring how innate differences between the genders contribute to the dearth of women in the upper echelons of science — a legitimate line of inquiry — female professors and their radical feminist sisters went berserk. They weren’t just offended, they were personally distraught. One wilting violet described nearly fainting after hearing Summers’s offensive words.

Bold is mine.  Gosh, Carrie.  Where to start?  Danica Patrick was responding to a personal insult directed at her (by Ecclestone, whose Formula One circuit is about as exciting as watching paint dry, and I say that as a former F1 fan).  The critics of Summers were responding to a staggering generalization about women as a whole.  Ecclestone, as Patrick points out, has no oversight over IRL racing in this country, so his opinion is essentially irrelevant.  Feminists were angered by Summers because, as president of Harvard, he is in a position of authority over thousands of bright young women whose aptitude for hard science he openly questioned.  In other words, Ecclestone was personally offensive to Patrick; Summers was professionally offensive to hundreds, even thousands of women in the sciences.  I’ll agree that Danica Patrick showed grace in her response, but the offense was simply not comparable.

I’ve known lots of women in the sciences.  A good friend of mine got her Ph.D. from Caltech in chemistry in the 1980s, when it was far more male-dominated than it is now.  Every day, she endured the humor at her expense; almost every day, someone questioned whether she belonged there.  She succeeded, and indeed, she still loves Caltech.  But she understands why women were "distraught" at what Summers had said.  When the legitimacy of years of work is called into question because of your sex by the highest leader at your university, to be personally hurt is hardly an overreaction.

Ecclestone’s "appliance" remark was so odd that even folks in the anti-Danica camp seemed a bit bewildered by it.  His influence in Danica’s racing league is somewhere between negligent and non-existent.   Patrick could afford to shrug off his bizarrely offensive words because they had no real power to affect her career.  Summers, as president of America’s most prestigious private university, has infinitely more weight in the lives of women scientists than Ecclestone does in the Indy Racing League.  Patrick’s personal graciousness, as laudable as it is, cannot be used as an exemplar of how feminists ought to respond to the inexcusable remarks of a man in Summers’ position.

Home from Michigan

Posted on by

I’m in my office early on a Monday morning, catching up on tons of weekend e-mail and the like. 

Friday night, my fiancee and I hopped a red-eye to Detroit.  We are moving forward on the development of our Pet Homes for Ranch Chinchillas charity, and as part of that process, flew to Michigan to meet with Sally and Adam, the young couple who originally came up with the whole "Pet Homes for Ranchies" project.   Sally, Adam, my fiancee and I constitute the initial board of directors, though we have a couple of experienced chinchilla folks in mind whom we intend to ask to join us. 

Sally and Adam live in Jackson, Michigan, just over an hour west of Detroit.  We showed up late Saturday morning at their place, bleary-eyed but ready to talk chins.  The highlight of our visit (photos were taken, and will be up on the blog later this week) was spending quite some time with their forty-two wonderful chinchillas.  We got lots of chinnie kisses, rubbed lots of noses, fed a few treats, and watched a dozen dust baths.  We got to hold a few former ranch chinchillas who have already been saved from pelting, and that was very emotional for us.

We’re all prepared to make re-homing ranch chinchillas a major part of our lives over the next few years.  There was much talk of the technical and legal aspects of running a 501(c)3, but also of how we hope to reach out not only to the chin community, but to the wider "pet world."  So few folks really understand how remarkable chinchillas are!  They are both much more work — and much more reward — than other rodents.  No offense to hamster lovers, but chins can live to twenty years; they require carefully monitored diets and a cool environment.  (Far too many folks assume chins can endure heat; they die above 75 degrees.  Next to pelting, heat stroke is the leading cause of untimely death for chinchillas in this country.  Love a chin, prepare to lay out capital for air conditioning!)  But the love these little creatures give is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced, and I say that as a lifelong pet lover who was fortunate to grow up surrounded by dogs, cats, and horses.

There are so many organizations out there that deserve time and money.  In the midst of all of the suffering in the world, how can we justify giving so much time and attention — not to mention financial resources — to these small animals?  In a world of grinding poverty and unspeakable human suffering, is it irresponsible, perhaps even selfish,  to spend so much and work so hard to save cute little rodents from being pelted?  I’ve prayed a lot about that in recent months, recognizing that many of my fellow animal rights activists have shown a disturbing disregard for the well-being of their fellow humans.    I don’t like to think of myself as someone whose compassion is saved primarily for the adorable, the cuddly, and the soft!

But my beloved and I do tithe, and what we are giving to the Pet Homes for Ranch Chinchilla project does not affect what we are called to give to God.  We also believe that it is a fundamental good to struggle against all forms of suffering, whether that suffering is endured by humans or animals.   Chins, unlike almost other household pets in the United States, are regularly killed for their fur.  Imagine how anguished dog and cat owners would be in this country if they knew the breeds they loved were being turned into coats on a daily basis!  While we would love to see pelting ended, the goal of our charity is not to lobby for change.  The goal is to save chinchillas, as individuals or entire herds.  To do that, we will work cooperatively with individual ranchers.   No other organization in North America is single-mindedly dedicated to providing every chinchilla with the opportunity for a high-quality of life from birth until natural death.   

Ultimately, building the Kingdom of God is about more than justice for human beings. It is about good stewardship of the entire planet, and compassion and mercy and love for all of creation.  Though Scripture tells us that humans were made uniquely in God’s image, all life shares some aspect of the Creator.  When we protect and care for the most vulnerable parts of His creation, whatever they may be, I believe we are practicing intelligent, loving stewardship.  And I believe that a few of us have been called to protect and care for chinchillas, not because they are the only creatures that matter, but because their need is so great.

For what it’s worth, we did enjoy our whirl-wind visit to Michigan, despite the heat and oppressive humidity.  We spent some time in Ann Arbor, which has wonderful restaurants, and toured the massive campus of the university.  Yesterday, we drove around many different parts of Detroit, and had some particularly good ice cream in Grosse Pointe.  We arrived home just before midnight last night, absolutely exhausted but very happy, with lots of good ideas for the charity and even more love for chinchillas in our hearts.

Mea culpas and clarifications

Posted on by

Rilina and Camassia have posted strong responses to two different aspects of my Bulworth post. 

Rilina, quoting me, writes:

To say interracial dating and marriage is a "fundamental social
good" inevitably implies, however unintentionally, that non-interracial
dating is somehow a less valid choice.

Yes, that was unintentional on my part.  I am not a better person because I am engaged to be married to a non-white woman today than I was in my second and third marriages (both to white women, one of whom looked enough like me that we were frequently  mistaken for siblings.)  But I also believe that interracial dating, particularly when it leads to marriage and children, has a salutatory effect upon the broader culture that marrying within one’s own race does not.  The effect, of course, is of increased tolerance and understanding, as well as a blending of cultures.  That doesn’t make interracial relationships more virtuous, but it’s what I meant by a "fundamental social good."  I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer.  Rilina, writing from a Korean-American perspective, has some other interesting points as well.

Camassia — as well as Mythago in my comments section — are troubled by my support for inter-religious dating.  The original thrust of my post was aimed squarely at ethnic issues, not religious ones.  But writing quickly in the comments section, I allowed myself to be carried away by suggesting that inter-faith relationships are relatively easy.  I wrote:

I can’t tell you how many serious inter-faith couples I know who
work very, very hard to honor both aspects of their heritage. I know
what it is to go to synagogue on a Friday and church on Sunday and to
believe both are vital. It makes for long weekends!

The cross is not hummus. But just as we can blend our culinary
traditions, we can blend and synthesize our religious traditions
without compromising the distinctives of either. I have seen it done,
seen it done by family and friends dear to me. It isn’t easy. But it
can work.

In reply, Camassia writes:

For every couple Hugo knows that seems capable of being permanently
bireligious, I wonder how many there are who find they can’t bear the
tension and settle into one church — or no church. In fact, the more
normal story that I’ve encountered in my life is that when two people
of different faiths fall in love, one of them converts before the
wedding. This is especially true since one of them is usually more
devout than the other.

Another
question I brought up earlier in the thread is what happens to the
descendants of these couples. They obviously can’t go on keeping the
family permanently in two religions, so they must either pick one,
leave religion entirely, or develop some syncretic version. Syncretic
religions exist, some quite successfully. But they are definitely different
religions, not big tents that somehow embrace more than one religion at
a time. Since Hugo normally positions himself as the more evangelical
Christ-centered believer in his liberal-pluralist congregation, it’s
weird that he’s advocating a position that seems destined to turn the
world into a Unitarian soup. I can’t help wondering if there’s
something else going on here, that I’m not quite perceiving.

Well, I know some lovely Unitarians.  (Father, stepmother, and sisters, for the record.)  But Camassia is right:  it is kind of soupy, and there isn’t a lot of meat to chew on.    There’s no question that it’s easier to live as part of a community when you and your spouse share the same beliefs about the nature of the divine and what it is we are called to do with our lives!   Camassia is right: I am an evangelical in the sense that I believe Christ to be my savior.   I consider myself in "personal relationship" with Him.  Would I want my children to have such a personal relationship with Him?  Of course.  Do I believe it possible that they could find happiness, fulfillment, and even Salvation without knowing Christ as I do?  Yes, I do.  I’m not going to comment on my fiancee’s faith, mind you.  But I can say that at least at this stage of my life, I believe I can be both faithful to Christ and faithful to a relationship with someone whose views on Him may be different from my own.  (Folks, please don’t press further on this subject.  Thanks.)

Lastly, I made a number of quick remarks in the comments section which clearly upset some of my Jewish readers.  Upon reflection, writing glibly about the "dreidl and the cross" was offensive, and I apologize.  I ought to have done a better job of limiting the post to a discussion of interracial dating, marriage, and reproduction.

I’ll be away from the computer this weekend, folks.

 

Considering Porn Sunday

Posted on by

One of the problems with posting so often is that one has a hard time keeping up with the different comment threads.   Call it my ENFP flightiness, or my Gemini nature, but I can’t stay on a single topic for long.  Apologies to those who are waiting for me to respond on everything from interreligious marriage to the future of the Anglican Communion to the men’s movement.  I keep telling myself to post less often, and make the posts I do put up more reflective. 

But it’s Friday, and Friday is a day for lighter things.  I’m a big fan of the ministry of XXX Church: the #1 Christian Porn Site.  Yes, it’s absolutely work-safe.    It’s the project of two young Christians, Mike Foster and Craig Gross.  Rather than providing the usual anti-porn bromides, XXX Church works daringly and bravely with the porn industry.  They’ve put up booths at adult industry trade shows, and have done direct outreach to those who produce and perform in porn, and they’ve even developed a working friendship with porn director "Jimmy D" — at whose non-Christian daughter’s wedding they plan to officiate.

The graphics are slick and enticing.  The theology is simple and sound.  They’ve got two big projects in the works, the first of which is  National Porn Sunday (October 9, 2005):

For some it is ludicrous to link three X’s with church. For others
it’s long overdue. The one undeniable truth that we can’t ignore is the
blatant push for all things sexual in our society. It is out of
control, from Saturday morning cartoons to the prime time line up on
the networks and cable channels. PornSunday seeks to drive the
conversation about pornography in our churches, families and lives.
PornSunday wants to bring healing and recovery to those struggling with
pornography.

It’s not a small problem:


A 2003 survey from Internet Filter Review reported that 47 percent of
Christians admit pornography is a major problem in their homes.

• An internet survey conducted by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in
2002 found 30 percent of 6,000 pastors had viewed internet porn in the
last 30 days.


• A Christianity Today Leadership Survey in 2001 reported 37 percent of pastors have viewed internet porn.


• Family Safe Media reports 53 percent of men belonging to the
Christian organization Promise Keepers visit porn sites every week.

I’ve written bluntly about porn before.   But I confess we haven’t spent much time talking about pornography with the kids at youth group.  I think that I’d like to see that change this  year, perhaps in conjunction with the Porn Sunday project of XXX Church.   I know that virtually all of my teenagers  have been exposed to porn, and judging from what I’ve heard from a few of them, a not insignificant number "consume it" (meaning view it and masturbate) regularly.  From both a feminist standpoint and a Christian standpoint, porn is intensely troublesome.  (Pace, my pro-porn feminist allies.  I am not unaware of your arguments.)   And given how "wired" teenagers are today, no age group is more likely to have their view of sexuality distorted by pornography than those under 20.

At All Saints, we rarely here about sexual morality from the pulpit.  If the word "pornography" has been used in a sermon, I haven’t heard it!  Talking about porn is embarrassing.  We’d much rather talk about justice for garment workers, or the death penalty, or Iraq.  Focusing on these worthy but yet distant concerns keeps us from having to look to closely at the messy intimate details of our private lives. This fall, using the Porn Sunday material that Gross and Foster have developed, I want to see All Saints tackle this issue with the youth. I want us not to shy away from speaking (prophetically, naturally) about pornography and sexual imagery in the lives of our youth.  And I want to challenge my "kids" and my peers to confront their own relationships with porn, and to be accountable for their most private of actions.

We’ll see how this flies at All Saints.   I don’t expect a sermon on porn from the pulpit (though I would be delirious if we got one), but that doesn’t mean we can’t hit the subject head-on on a Wednesday night. If we can call prophetically for inclusion for gays and lesbians in the life of the church, we can ask young people to live out their Christian values with what they watch and with what they choose to use to arouse themselves!

And the second big project from XXX Church?  Why, it’s Wally the Wiener!  (Yes, still work-safe).  Visit Wally, and take his challenge.  (Yes, it’s rather obviously directed at men, and ignores the many women who struggle with addiction to porn.  But it’s still a fun and useful tool.)

Here at the evil cackle club, self-loathing is practiced daily.

Posted on by

The folks over at Stand Your Ground are spending more time on me than I deserve.  (So too are the boys at Mancoat Forum, but they password protect their site.)

It’s the usual drivel, but it’s entertaining.  Shades of Pale writes:

I find this guy to be evil, and nothing short of utter shunning is sufficient for such a one.

Gosh, they don’t seem to shun me very often. 

Mr. Bad, regular visitor to this site, writes at SYG:

Folks, Hugo’s a nipple-piercing, thrice-married, feminist, women’s studies professor who claims to know about not only healthy masculinity, but also what is involved in healthy marriages. As I’ve to said to many a feminist there: Bullshit. Hugo’s sources for healthy, normal masculinity are Michael Kimmel, Michael Flood and the gang at NOMAS. ‘Nuff said.

Like I said, IMO Hugo should stick to what he knows, i.e., feminist and queer studies. I stand by my assertion that despite alleged "macho men husbands gagging re. this site," you folks here have a lot more accurate, reasonable and mainstream views of healthy masculinity than they do over at Hugo’s feminist cackle club.

Am I the head chicken at the cackle club?  The rooster?  Oh, and before I forget, Michael Kimmel will be on the Glenn Sacks show this Sunday.  Tune in!

And the mysterious Typhonblue:

If Hugo was gay he would have to connect to men on some level and that he cannot do. He is completely identified with women. He isn’t able to reconcile himself to masculinity as *any* part of his personality, a reconciliation which is necessary in order to be attracted to a man. Therefore his incapable of functioning as a female-identified transgender who has sex with men. (Maybe as a lesbian one, which seems to be quite chic lately.)

What you’re looking at is the physical manifestation of the "vagina man" psychological condition. A male who is sexually functional with women but has never, in his life, identified with men.

That’s terrific!  I’ll share that with my boys in youth group.  (Or maybe not).  Sight.  I suppose vicious armchair psychologizing is the sincerest form of flattery.   

I’m going to issue the same challenge to the Stand Your Ground folks I’ve issued before.  Tell me what you are doing to reach out to young men.  I’m a mentor to several individual teenage boys at church, and I work as a youth leader and confirmation teacher.  I lead all-male mini-retreats at All Saints.  I also teach courses on men and masculinity.  Besides trying to figure out what peculiar perversity lies beneath my surface, what are you folks doing to reach the next generation of young men?  How many hours a week are you giving? 

After all, guys, do you really want to leave the youth of America (or even Pasadena) in the hands of pro-feminists like me? 

Reflection on Nottingham

Posted on by

In a widely expected but very close vote, the Anglican Consultative Council has voted to exclude the American and Canadian churches from its meetings for the next three years.   The American and Canadian churches were not permitted to take part in the vote, which was 30-28 to exclude them from ACC policy-making meetings until 2008.

It’s not a good decision from the standpoint of most progressives.  Of course, the closeness of the vote is interesting indeed.  Traditionalists in the church (who oppose the American and Canadian liberal position on homosexuality) cannot argue that theirs is the position of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans worldwide.  Had everyone who is usually allowed to vote in ACC meetings been permitted to do so, the vote would have gone the other way.

The vote came after a very strong attempt Tuesday by progressive American Episcopalians to explain our position on homosexuality.   All Saints Pasadena priest Susan Russell, president of our national organization of GLBTQ Episcopalians, was the lead presenter.  The full text of her address is here.  She has some very good bits; I loved this piece on the "ex-gay" movement:

You have heard and will hear stories of those who understand themselves to be "healed of their homosexuality" — those who tell moving and compelling stories of God healing them of an unhealthy lifestyle — freeing them to become fully and wholly the person God created them to be. I do not doubt the sincerity of their witness and I praise God if they have found place of healing and health. I do not question their healing — I question what it is that has been healed. It is not possible to be healed of something that is not an illness — and we are convinced that sexual orientation itself is morally neutral — that what matters to God is not our sexual orientation but our theological orientation — that when we turn to God and ask to be healed of patterns of behavior that are destructive to ourselves or others God in God’s grace will heal us . . . whether we are homosexual or heterosexual.  (Bold is mine).

That’s good, but so is this:

One question I often hear is "What kind of values are we teaching our children?" We are teaching our children that no matter what their sexual orientation we expect a high standard of relationship that includes fidelity, monogamy, mutual respect and life-long commitment. We are challenging all couples — gay and straight — to live their lives in relationship within the context of Christian community: both supported by and accountable to their brothers and sisters in Christ. And we are modeling to gay and lesbian young people — those so tragically at risk for self-loathing and suicide in our communities — that there is a place where they can be loved by God, embraced by a community of faith and where Jesus loves them just as they are as they grow up to be all that they can be.

Amen, Rev. Susan.  I can’t tell you how proud I am that a priest from my parish, where my time and money and prayers go, spoke these prophetic words to the leaders of the Communion in Nottingham.

But as I said in my post Tuesday, I don’t think the splitting of the Anglican Communion will be the end of the world.   I suspect that after the global Anglican church gathers with the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2008 (at the decennial Lambeth Conference), the Communion will cease to exist as we have known it.  That will be cause for some sadness, surely.   I don’t think God rejoices when His people decide that they cannot stay together.  But an amicable divorce beats the pants off a marriage that is irretrievably broken, and I for one see our Communion as just that, irretrievably broken. 

In 1991, All Saints Pasadena blessed the first public same-sex union in the Anglican world.  Fourteen years later, we remain on the cutting edge of prophetic Christian action for inclusion.  But as the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly pointed out on Monday, prophecy has a cost.  I quote again:

To claim to act prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is put before unity – to use the language that is now common in discussing this – you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers.

He’s right.  We at All Saints must not be surprised that our actions in 1991 — and other subsequent actions of our national church — have been met with scorn who think that what we call "prophetic" is a sinful capitulation to modern culture!  Prayerfully, I believe that the global church will be "where we’re at" on the issue of homosexuality within a few generations.    But with all respect in the world to Susan Russell, all the fine speeches and Powerpoint presentations in the world will not convince a great many of our fellow Anglicans of the justice and biblical soundness of our inclusive position on homosexuality.

If I were a cradle Episcopalian, I might have a far stronger sentimental attachment to the Anglican Communion.   But my Anglicanism is weak and superficial — my faith in Christ is strong.  I’m more interested in seeing my church follow Him than I am in seeing my church stay in Communion with those who think we are deluding ourselves as to the nature of His witness!   I think we ought to remain friends, good friends even.  But in our Father’s house there are many mansions, and if we choose to live in different rooms for now, we can remind ourselves that we remain under the same roof of He who loves us.

Touting Sgt. Sandra

Posted on by

Later today, I hope to post more about events from Nottingham, England.  In the meantime, I’m checking in for news at Kendall Harmon’s blog.

One of my best and brightest students, both this past spring and this summer, has been Sgt. Sandra Mercado, who at 23 is a veteran of Kosovo and two tours of duty in Iraq.  She’s headed off to USC, where she will be in the ROTC program on her way to becoming an officer.  She’s profiled this week in this public relations piece on the college website, and I thought I’d add to the chorus of praise for her.  (She also got married this past weekend, but was in class bright and early on Monday morning).

I believe it is possible to be both a pacifist and an admirer of the profession of soldiering.    The conviction, nurtured in my time as a Mennonite, that all Christians are called to radical pacifism, endures even now.   But dislike for the cause and admiration for those who fight for the cause are not mutually exclusive; condemnation of the war and uncomplicated affection for the warriors can go hand in hand.  Hurrah for Sgt. Mercado.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged ,