Life

Tragic losses

Last night, a young man from the town where I live took his own life. My heart aches for his family and friends.

Doesn’t it feel, when something like this happens, that the whole world should stop? As though everything should focus on the tragedy at hand?

When I read through my Facebook feed, I mostly saw people posting the same things they always do. Funny photos, interesting links, and what they had for dinner. There was a huge disconnect between the shock and sadness I’m feeling and the mundanity of life around me that others are still experiencing.

I wanted everything to just wait. To take a deep breath, to reflect, to listen. But that’s like asking traffic on the interstate highway to stop because I want to cross the road.

Tonight, I want to offer hope. If you are feeling like that young man was; if you are wrestling with your ability to make it day-to-day; if you are wondering if the only way to escape the pain is to make it stop forever: please hang on. Not because “everything will be fine”—I can’t promise you that—but because you are loved. I love you. God loves you. You are not alone. Please reach out, because you will find a hand to cling to.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Students from my church, we your youth leaders will be at church tomorrow night from 6:30-8:30. If you need someone to talk to, please come. Bring your friends. All who are involved in our church, please spread the word so that the students in our community know they have somewhere safe they can go.

Cover Up

Morality, Women

modesty — Modesty, © 2005 Nancy Breslin
http://www.nancybreslin.com/index.html

Last week, an acquaintance shared this article about a woman who was confronted by another woman from her church regarding how she was dressed. The link to the article was accompanied by this acquaintance charging women to “have your husband inspect your outfit before you leave the house!”

I shared that with my own husband. He looked at me, his eyebrow raised in puzzlement, before he burst out laughing. He told me that he couldn’t imagine me doing that, nor would he want me to. He and I have an ongoing agreement that we are both adults and do not need to be monitored like small children who don’t know any better, so I wasn’t really surprised by his reaction.

The thing that stood out to me were the particular criticisms of the writer’s clothing. The woman who confronted her wanted to know,

Do you think wearing your shoulders out is okay for other men to see while they are trying to worship?

and

Don’t you think your high heels with your toes out are a bit much?

She was not only fixated on the specifics of the clothing she found objectionable, she was placing it in the context of how it would affect the men in the church.

This is a problem.

I agree that there are standards of dress and that modesty is a good thing. Where I disagree is why. In fact, it’s why I dislike modesty culture just as much as I dislike the “immodest” styles that are available. It’s not the outfit, it’s the motivation—on both sides of the Great Purity Divide.

Ironically, I dislike the purity movement for exactly the same reasons I don’t like porn and provocative clothing. In both cases, the catering is done for the benefit of men. And it’s why I don’t give a rat’s butt about a woman wearing a cami with her bra straps showing, or a bathing suit that doesn’t make her look like she’s pretending she doesn’t have boobs, or a pair of sweat pants that says “sweet” on the rear, any more than I care about baggy dresses and “mom jeans.”

When clothing is chosen with men in mind, it doesn’t matter whether it’s chosen to entice or to “respect.” In both cases, the motivation is someone outside the woman choosing the outfit. That’s not healthy for anyone. Here’s why, and these apply in both situations:

It reinforces the imbalance of power. Here’s the idea: Men have power, women don’t, therefore everything we do as women must be done keeping men in mind, including how we dress. What a terrible way to live.
It implies that men are only ever interested in one way of interacting with women. It causes a relationship between men and women that is entirely based on sexuality, rather than mutual respect. On the one hand, skimpy clothes are intended to be sexually arousing for men, which objectifies women. On the other, “modest” dress assumes that men are looking at women as mere sex objects and that their bodies must be hidden to prevent this.
It sets up an impossible standard for women. Either she must conform to a certain kind of physical beauty or she must conform to a certain kind of moral purity, but the lines are never clear enough and the rules are never specific enough. How thin is the ideal body? How big do breasts need to be in order to be perfect? How many inches above the knee is too short? What constitutes too tight?
It makes women responsible for the actions of men. Either we’re supposed to show off our assets so those clueless men finally take notice, or we’re supposed to cover them up so those oversexed men won’t be distracted. It’s classic blame-the-victim. When a woman seen as attractive is single, people wonder what her flaws are that she couldn’t land a man. When a woman is assaulted, she’s often asked what she did to provoke the attack.
It assumes that male-female pair bonding is the ultimate goal for every woman. Female clothing is supposed to be chosen to please our future husbands. This ignores the fact that there are lesbians and women who don’t want to get married.

Ultimately, what’s more important than the dimensions of the clothing is that a woman chooses it with no one in mind except herself. A woman who is empowered does not choose her clothes based on what anyone else thinks she should wear. It is my belief that if more women dressed in ways that made them feel good about themselves, we would no longer need to continue to argue about what constitutes appropriate clothing and where the modesty line is.

Semi-radical Grace for Some

Life

Warning: Some of the content of this post may be triggering for survivors.

If there is a phrase uttered by conservative evangelicals that I never want to hear again, it’s this: “radical grace.” Because (let’s be honest) no one really means it. There are a number of other things implied, though:

Grace, if you’ve said the magic words and promised that you’ll never do it again
Grace, but only for those we deem “repentant”
Grace for certain people, but not others
Grace if you’ve committed one of the sins on the “ok” list, but not one of the Big Bad Evil Sins
Grace for the powerful at the expense of the weak

I know that it doesn’t seem that way. Well-meaning people will keep on insisting that the really, truly do mean grace for everyone. But that’s not how it plays out in the real world. It’s why we have fools spouting off about how “changed” they are, all the while continuing to victimize others, who are allowed to continue to serve in ministry—to the very people they have abused. It’s why we have extreme punishments for people for the mistake of being human, punishments which far exceed the “crime.” It’s why an adulterous spouse is eligible for membership and leadership, while the one who remained faithful is vilified (yes, this really happened). It’s why boys are told they should try to control their urges, but we understand they can’t if a girl is dressed a certain way. It’s why a thrice-divorced single parent is welcomed in, but a married gay person isn’t. (Not trying to condemn the single parent here, just pointing out that we pick and choose which is okay and which is not.)

Those aren’t examples of this radical grace of which we speak.

This problem is two-fold. First, we misapply grace. There is a mistaken belief that grace means that there are no consequences. I once listened to a mom relating a story about the wrongdoing of her teenage daughter. She explained that rather than punishing her behavior, she chose to let it go and didn’t confront her. This, people, is NOT grace. Grace would have been forgoing the punishment, while explaining to the daughter that she still had done wrong and that the trust they once had in her is gone. Grace would have been expecting that the daughter would show better judgment next time. Grace would have been expecting the daughter to earn back her parents’ trust. This is consistent with God’s grace. We may be forgiven and free, but we will still be judged.

The second problem is that we misplace In a misguided attempt at keeping the peace, we fail to hold the right people accountable. One of the worst things I heard in the last few weeks was in regard to Trayvon Martin. One of my friends said that we can’t make a judgment about whether Zimmerman was wrong because “we don’t know the whole story.” Well, yes, actually, we do. We know that an adult white man shot and killed an unarmed black teenager. (And if we’re honest, we know that had the races been reversed, or if both were black or both were white, he’d have been charged immediately.) There are not two sides to this story. There is one, and it’s Trayvon’s. There are not two sides to a rape, there is one—the victim’s (no matter how she was dressed, how drunk she was, or what her profession). There are not two sides to an adult molesting a child. There are not two sides to spousal abuse. When one person victimizes another, that person is always, always wrong. Somehow, we’ve gotten the idea that we need to forgive the abuser and simply move on. If he or she says, “I’ve repented! I’m changed!” we’re supposed to overlook past flaws.

Which leaves no grace left for the victim.

Victims are told (by the church!) all the time that they need to “forgive,” “show grace,” “let it go,” “move on.” Those who have been abused and find people or situations triggering for their trauma are told that it’s their problem and they need to deal with it. Those who have been abused and wronged by family members are nearly always told that they need to “reconcile” with the abuser because cutting off a family member is “unhealthy.”

I don’t often speak of some of the things that my father has done to hurt our family. One reason is that this is exactly what I get. The whole you-need-to-forgive-because-it’s-only-hurting-you pile of crap. As a matter of fact, I have forgiven him. But I don’t need to subject myself to ongoing abuse. I don’t need to call him and have him harass me about who I am and attempt to frighten me into believing his bizarre conspiracy theories about how I care for my body. My children do not need to have a relationship with a mentally unstable person. Extending grace doesn’t mean that I return to the same foolishness over and over. (And before even one person tries to make it sound like I’m being petty, please do not go there. You didn’t live my life, and I haven’t given enough detail here for you to know even a fraction of this story.)

This kind of misapplied and misplaced grace only leads to further hurt. Where is the grace in that? I am all for forgiving people and giving them a chance to make a new life. I’m not in favor of doing that in such a way that anyone is traumatized. Just because someone is ready and willing to turn his or her life around does not mean that trust should be given freely.

Additionally, we need to be more aware of the difference between sinning and victimizing. A couple engaging in premarital sex may be sinning according to the church, but no one is being abused if the sex is consensual. A man raping his wife is one person victimizing another, even though it still involves a sex act (of sorts) and even though they are married. There is a world of difference. To call a man “abusive” for the first and then punish him severely is an outrage. It’s equally outrageous for the second man to claim he’s changed and then be allowed to serve unchecked in the church because he’s “repentant.”

How can we reconcile radical grace with appropriate accountability? I don’t have the answers. But I know that we need to start by listening to those who have suffered.

Sunshine, Happiness and Gum*

Christianese, Emergent Thought, Evangelism, Faith and Spirituality, Life, Outreach

The youth at our church are going through a series called “Happy,” on the Beatitudes. In yesterday’s message, the youth pastor asked what culture says they should chase after to find happiness. The answers weren’t surprising: Looks, relationships, money, popularity, possessions.

Not much changes between adolescence and adulthood.

It set me thinking about a couple of things. First, it occurred to me that we don’t just tell people that they will be happy once they beautify themselves skinny, meet Mr./Ms Right, and settle down in their McMansion with their 2.4 children. We also tell them that if they don’t have all that and a side salad of career power, they should actually be unhappy. It goes beyond conveying the message that having it all makes your life good, but that your life simply cannot be good unless and until you do.

The second thing I realized is that Christians are just as guilty of this.** We like to tell ourselves we aren’t. After all, aren’t we so counter-culture in our insistence that life isn’t about money, sex, and power? We’re all about Jesus! And Love! And Following God! I don’t even mean that in a self-righteous way. I mean in the sense that we define ourselves by being people who have relationship with the Living God, and what could be better than that?

It’s certainly noble. The problem is, we make the opposite mistake from “the world.” We assume that people who are “far from God” are the most unhappy, miserable people who do nothing but run after all the wrong things. We assume that people of other religions are unhappy because they are too busy making sure they follow all the rules. We assume atheists are sad because they have no hope. We assume that people who tick the “none of the above” box on the census are miserable because they have no morals. We assume that anyone who doesn’t follow Jesus is desperate to have his or her life turned around from the wicked ways of lusting after earthly pleasures.

Not quite.

I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of joy-filled, content non-Christians. I also know an awful lot of Christians who are unhappy, and it isn’t because they don’t have enough faith or because they are still caught up in pursuit of cultural happiness. Religion that dictates whether or not we should be happy with our lives is religion gone bad. It diminishes the real joy and the real pain that people experience.

I see why it happens. People are reluctant to frighten their friends and neighbors by telling them they will go to Hell if they don’t convert. (Not that this is bad; scaring people into faith is pretty sick.) So what can we do, if we don’t just want to turn everyone off to Christ with our fire and brimstone? Aha! We can remind them how hopeless and tragic this life is unless they know Jesus. Unfortunately, that isn’t an improvement.

We need better ways to communicate the Gospel without reducing it to a set of before-and-after pictures (either the Hell kind or the happiness kind). I suggest we start by living the way Jesus taught, pursuing love, peace, and justice. The rest will come.

__________________________________________________________________
*For the morbidly curious, the title of this post is a line from a Phineas and Ferb song.
**This isn’t meant as a criticism of the message the youth heard in church on Sunday.

My Life, In Purple Font

Bible, Blogs, Faith and Spirituality, Family, Life, Links, Odds 'n' Ends, Religion, Sexuality and Gender, Women, Writing

I’m a scheduler by nature. I like to have a calendar handy. I use Google Calendar because there are four people under this roof. It’s easier to have everyone’s life neatly typed in using multi-colored blocks. I got the purple ones, of course.

I prefer a paper calendar. It’s visually appealing to me. It took a long time to get used to this new-fangled electronic planner. In fact, the only reason I use it is that I can access the calendar on my phone. I can now check everyone’s schedule before I make my next appointment at the dentist’s office, for example. Very handy.

Anyway, I’m now wildly off-topic. Sorry.

The whole point of bringing up the scheduling thing is that I want to be able to organize my blog a little better. I’ve read that it’s best to stick to one general “thing” on a blog, such as faith, sex, writing, sex, etc. I failed that test. I tend to write about whatever pops into my head at the moment. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, necessarily. But it’s probably confusing for the three or four people a month who stumble upon my blog and find that I don’t write exclusively about ~~sex~~ one thing.

So I’ve decided, for the sake of the ten people who actually read my blog, that I will organize the heck out of it. That way, if you only want to read my posts on sex (and who doesn’t like to read about sex?), you will know what day to visit. Those of you who were blushing at my last sentence (you know who you are) can skip those posts.

Here’s the New and Improved! blog schedule:

Mondays: Faith, theology, and the Bible. Here, more good stuff about literalism, interpretation, cool stuff I find in Scripture.

Tuesdays: Blogs, Twitter, and around the Web. People I follow, blogs I read, stuff I find. Featuring people a lot more interesting than I am.

Wednesdays: Women. I think that sums it up, right?

Thursdays: LGBT issues. Inspired by Naked Pastor David Hayward’s Gay Thursdays, I will also talk about these things on Thursdays. Hey, maybe we can start a trend!

Fridays: Kids and Family. Because I do like to talk about my kids, of course.

Saturdays: Everything else. Sometimes, there’s just no good place to put it. So it goes here. I suppose that includes my occasional rant about writing.

Sundays: I don’t post on Sunday. Even God took a break.

So there it is. If I don’t have anything to say that week, I’m giving myself permission to post exactly nothing. And sorry, I didn’t include a category for sex. I guess you’ll just have to be surprised.

Disciplining the Disciples

Discipline, Morality, Relationships, Sin

Church discipline has been a big topic in the last week or so, at least in the blog circles I read. I thought it was time I pitched my own tent on the battlefield.

I won’t mention any names this time (even though we all know which church sparked the conversation). I will say that I was appalled at the disciplinary contract. I wasn’t bothered by the idea of signing a contract. On the contrary, I think that can be a good thing, when it’s mutually agreed on (rather than forced) and has specific goals in mind. While I understand that there is nothing in the Bible about that type of contract, there is precedent. People made covenants with one another all the time, agreements which were typically mutually beneficial.

I’m also not against asking someone to leave who is consistently dragging down the church, blocking its mission, or who is predatory in word and deed. It’s not about simply banishing “unrepentant” people, it’s about what it’s doing to the health of the church. In my experience, it’s rarely necessary to bar someone from the church. People who refuse to acknowledge their problems typically don’t stay after they’ve been confronted. It’s the ones who insist on taking others down with them who create the most drama.

There is nothing wrong with using the Bible to understand spiritual discipline. But when it’s misused, there’s trouble. We are fortunate that the Bible tells us that we can lovingly correct someone who has done wrong. Unfortunately, it doesn’t spell out the specifics for each circumstance. We have to do that part on our own. I agree that Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 are good places to start for a healthy overall approach to dealing with sin within the church. All they do, however, is give a framework. How we carry it out is up to us, and we need to be sure that what we’re doing has the purpose of healing, not shaming.

The problem I had with the contract that’s been circulated on the ‘net was its excessive demands, nebulous action points, and lack of time frame or end goals. The terms and conditions were confusing at best. There was far too much potential for the contract to become weaponized. As far as I could tell, without any real, measurable goals, the process could have been dragged out indefinitely by the elders. If their stated result was to restore the individual to full spiritual health, that was probably not the best way to handle it.

I look at spiritual restoration as being similar to physical rehabilitation. (Before anyone gets all twisted up about whether or not that’s “Biblical,” it’s no more or less “Biblical” than the contract in question.) When a person has been injured or ill, there are always specific goals in mind. Sure, the end point may be for the person to return to work or independent living, but that’s too broad a goal at the start. That’s a great thing to aim for after smaller steps have been taken. The goals are manageable, have a specific time frame, and never have in mind the idea of reminding the person of what they can’t yet do. I believe spiritual healing when sin has been uncovered (in whatever way) can follow the same pattern.

When we find ourselves needing to discipline those under our spiritual direction (and this applies to people in lay ministry, not just pastors and elders), there are key parts of the process:

1. Does the person understand and believe that he or she has done something wrong? If so, then discipline can begin. If not, then there are further actions as described in Matthew 18. I do think we’re misinterpreting the Scripture if we think it means to shun someone. Revoking member privileges and not allowing the person to continue to serve can happen first.

2. Is this a pattern you’ve seen before in this person? We do need to give others the benefit of the doubt. Unless it’s something illegal, there is no reason to assume it’s a pattern unless it’s happened before on your watch. This was one of my problems with the contract I mentioned. There was an underlying assumption that the person had habitually engaged in the same sin. That’s a thinly veiled attempt at shaming. Unless the person says it’s a habit, or unless there is a history of discipline over the same issue, assume nothing. It doesn’t foster healthy reconciliation.

3. The consequences should fit the sin. I don’t mean in terms of ranking sins according to how bad they are. I mean that the consequences should not be excessive and that they should make sense. We use this technique on our kids. We don’t just give them a time out or extra chores for every offense. That wouldn’t even make sense. The consequences of sin should not be for the purpose of punishment but for correction.

4. There should be measurable goals. What do you want to see accomplished as a result of the discipline? The end result may be for the person to regain full membership status and the same role as before, but that’s both too far out and too unfocused. If you have specific things in mind you want to see happen, or a level of accountability, then spell it out clearly and define the parameters. This is the step that should not just be meted out by the elders or the leadership or whomever. If the person under discipline is agreeing to the process, then he or she can be part of the solution. Again, we sometimes do this with our kids. They have ownership of their action steps and are usually more compliant.

5. There should be a clear time frame. The other big problem I had with the contract was that there was no end point. There was no time limit on the action steps. They could be carried out or enforced indefinitely. That’s not helpful because it never allows the person to achieve full spiritual health. It can’t operate on an “I’ll know it when I see it” basis. People get far too emotionally involved to be objective. Again, giving someone the benefit of the doubt will help here. If it becomes a pattern, then there is always room to revise. There should be dates by which steps will be completed, and an evaluation of their success by all parties involved.

6. Shaming or humiliation should never be part of the process. If your goal is restoration, then shame should not be part of the equation. There is absolutely no Scripture that encourages making someone feel humiliated, even when there is a need to confront the person in a wider circle. We all remember The Scarlet Letter, right? Right.

7. When there is no chance of reconciliation, there are two options: Let them go or ask them to leave. Sometimes, unrepentant people will leave. I’ve seen it happen. I have never, ever been to a church that chose to a) shun the person who left; b) ask members to refrain from friendship with the person; c) pursued them angrily, demanding that they finish what they started; or d) tell the entire membership what happened. People who choose to leave, leave. They may be given over to God, with the hope that they will eventually repent. It’s different if someone refuses to be corrected and insists on staying put. It’s healthy and appropriate to ask that person to leave, especially if he or she is creating tension. It can be healthy to continue to work with the person, even if they don’t believe they were wrong, if that is what the leadership chooses to do. I’ve seen that happen, and it can result in healing and deeper relationships. (In that case, it was a matter of doctrine, and it opened up great conversation.)

In all things, the goal should be to handle things with love and not anger. If someone in leadership cannot be objective, that person should not be responsible for discipline. I imagine that’s part of what got in the way in the Contract from Heck. (Of course, I think that church has other issues, but that’s another matter.) If we stop treating people like conflicts waiting to happen and see them more as children of God, we will be able to handle sticky matters in a healthy way.

Tragic losses

Cover Up

Semi-radical Grace for Some

Sunshine, Happiness and Gum*

My Life, In Purple Font

Disciplining the Disciples

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content