Social Justice

Guest Post: Justin Hanvey

Faith and Spirituality, Guest Post, Social Justice

I am so excited to have Justin guest posting for me today. Part of this is that he’s one of the few online friends that I’ve met in person. Let me tell you, Justin is a great guy, and he thinks deeply about some of the same stuff I do. Naturally, that’s why today’s post is a good fit—it’s a subject close to my own heart. I’ll stop playing fangirl (can you fangirl for your own friends?) and let Justin’s words speak for themselves.

The Cost of Grace and Justice

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Romans 6:1-2

I’ve been pondering grace lately; it’s a concept I often wonder about. I take a less strict view of the nature of man— in fact, it’s less about our nature than it is about community, social development of ethical morals that engender healthiness and safety in the community of humans, etc. But what about grace?

We seem to have a twisted understanding of this, a grace which denies justice. Or justice that denies grace. For humans, we often fall on one end or the other. I’d like to take this blog post and explore some ways in which we deny one or the other with some practical examples as well as repercussions, or “cost” if you will, of doing so.

The first example that comes to mind is the culture of forgiveness based reconciliation which permeates both evangelical and mainline church culture. For instance, we have ministries like Sovereign Grace seeking to cover up the sexual abuse of a pastor, which sought forgiveness but not consequence. Or Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill, where a reportedly arrogant, abusive pastor was allowed to apologize many times while continuing his verbal abuse. There is even among the peace- and justice-loving Mennonites a kind of cognitive dissonance in their continual use of the nonviolent teachings of John Howard Yoder, a man reportedly accused of sexual abuse, although he apologized but received no consequence, yet was allowed to continue ministering. Or take for instance another reported abuser, Bill Gothard, who apologized and was allowed to continue ministering.

Are we sensing a pattern here?

As soon as forgiveness is sought, reconciliation immediately is forced upon the community that was abused. But that’s not all: any cynicism, any desire for consequence or push to not allow reinstatement is treated as unforgiveness. Grace has a cost here, sticking communities in an endless cycle of abuse-repent-forgive-abuse-repent-forgive-abuse instead of truly seeking a safe reality for the community as well as rehabilitation for the abuser that will mean facing actual consequences and changing actual praxis.

But let’s look at the other side of the coin, justice without grace.

Recently a United Methodist pastor named Frank Schaefer sought to be loving to his gay son by holding a same sex wedding for his son and his son’s fiancé. This caused him to be defrocked as church discipline, and he is still seeking to be reinstated. Another example happened even more recently to a Quaker pastor, C. Wess Daniels, who was a teacher at George Fox University. Because he stood up for a transgender student, he was more or less fired from his job. Or to be more in comparison with the examples in paragraphs above, take the many churchgoers who attended Mars Hill but were ostracized or kicked out altogether by church discipline for many different reasons, such as premarital living together or gossip against the leadership (which usually was and is merited).

It seems we have a lopsided view of justice here. Justice means that if you break church policy you must be punished, even if your offense is something as small as gossip or loving your gay son by giving him the wedding he asks for. In fact, ethical love of community, including the example of Daniels, is treated as unforgiveable. You are immediately defrocked or asked to leave your church. If you write a book about how Love Wins you’ll find yourself farewelled on Twitter by John Piper, but if you show a pattern of sexual abuse, as long as you ask for forgiveness, and often even if you don’t, you will have your pattern covered up and your name untarnished by Piper and others. You won’t be farewelled for sexually abusing your congregation, but you will be for loving your community if doing so means you cross some line of orthodoxy.

I’m pretty sure this makes no cognitive sense, but for some reason it’s how grace and justice is handled in the church. We have created heinous sins out of acts of love (and I’m not saying we even necessarily have to doctrinally agree with those acts, but we can understand and affirm the loving intentions and realize grace need be more important than justice in those cases) while covering over abusive patterns with a grace that is unbiblical, such as the verse mentioned above. Many a pastor has sought grace while continuing in sin because the church has provided him a system that he can easily abuse, while actually good pastors who simply do not fall in doctrinal lines are treated as heretics and worse.

And that, my friends, is the cost of grace and justice. I would submit that we need to change this somehow, and I’d like to see people begin to discuss how we should. I think that if the church is to ethically evolve and survive in a human community that is often far beyond it ethically, at least in these cases, it needs to change. And that begins with leadership changing how it offers grace, and justice.

Justin is a librarian-to-be living in the Pacific Northwest, he blogs about faith, life and writes stories at The Peregrinatio http://theperegrinatio.wordpress.com/

Guest Post: Graham Jenkins

Guest Post, Social Justice

Happy Friday! I hope you all had a good week. I’m welcoming fellow blogger Graham Jenkins today with his thoughts on being in the majority but standing in solidarity with those who are marginalized. Just as a reminder, allowing a guest post is not an indication that I endorse or agree with 100% of everything being said; it only means that I think the writer has something to contribute to the ongoing conversation.

In this together, but I need to be allowed at the table

by Graham Jenkins

The Master [as The First]: “It’s not about right. Not about wrong.”
Buffy Summers [as The First]: “It’s about power.”
Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 7 Episode 1; Lessons

I am Graham. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male. I mention these things because when it comes to privilege, these groups aren’t exactly in the minority. The only way I could probably be more privileged is if I was financially well off, and even on that front, I’m not exactly struggling. I have a well-paid job that covers my bills and allows for some luxuries each month. Governments were set up by people like me, are run by people like me and are pretty much set up to benefit people like me. In a democracy, it is the majority that (usually) gets what they want. In jury trials, it’s the majority that decides the verdict. In Star Trek, it’s the needs of the many that outweigh the needs of the few. The minority are just expected to accept what the majority say. This can leave a lot of trampled people, even more so when the political system is set up to serve an even smaller minority of the rich.

Chyler Silva: “Look. You want people to change? You want this war to end?”
Thomas Lasky: “Yeah, of course.”
Chyler Silva: “Then you’re gonna need people to follow you.”
Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn, Episode 2

Any change throughout history has been started by the minority standing up for their rights or bringing things to people’s attention that the majority have missed or just conveniently ignored. These stands have often come at a cost to those who started it, but have succeeded because they got people to join them. In a world where majority rules, the more people you have, the more chance you have of succeeding. Sometimes though, it’s not just about numbers it’s about who you have with you. When Emma Watson offered an invitation to the all men to get involved in gender equality during her speech to the U.N., it wasn’t just about getting a majority group on board. People like me have benefited from the current patriarchy, people like me have caused it to persist, and it’s going to take people like me to change it. In order for me to change, I need to know what, how and why. I’m not referring to being told like a drill sergeant barking out orders, I mean being allowed into the discussion to hear the stories of abuse, to ask questions and then be allowed to go and speak. Not with a view to lead or take over, but always with the knowledge that we are participating, following and building on the groundwork that has already been laid by those before us. But I need to be allowed on the team.

Angel: Think about what I’m asking you to do. Think about what I’m asking you to give.
Spike: [grim tone] Kill ’em all. Burn the house down while we’re still in it.
Angel, Season 5 Episode 21; Power play

With some causes it’s not a simple matter of getting the law changed. With some, we’re talking about changing an entire society, dismantling an entire culture and building a new one. We’re talking about doing all of this whilst still being part of the world. We can’t exactly live in space whilst this happens. This type of change doesn’t happen overnight and doesn’t happen without casualties as many of those who are invested in the status quo won’t let go willingly. People are needed to stand up and confront the injustice or call out an inappropriate comment. This can mean going up against peers and friends, heck even family, often without the safety net of hiding behind a monitor and keyboard, often alone when no is there to back you up. Even if we do have those things, there will be push back and probably on a wide scale. You may lose friends or family over taking a stand. We risk being alienated. This isn’t a no cost stance.

Capt Mal Reynolds: You all got on this boat for different reasons, but you all come to the same place
Serenity

I volunteer for a charity called Great Men Project. I heard about them through the No More Page 3 campaign. I joined because I saw a world where women were treated as less than equal, saw that this is a world my 2 nieces would be growing up in and decided to try and do something about it. During the first training session, I met many of the other volunteers and all had their reasons for getting involved. Some were the same as mine, some were there because of the number of women that get abused and assaulted each year (1 in 4 girls have experienced sexual violence, almost 1 in 3 girls have experienced unwanted sexual touching at school, In England and Wales, on average 2 women a week die at the hands of a violent partner/ex-partner.) Some were worried about the suicide rates among men (suicide is the highest cause of death in men under 50), others were concerned about men’s mental health issues in general which resonated with me. I always felt the pressure of doing what was expected of me because I was a man; try and sleep with many women, get drunk. I was bullied because I didn’t conform and I get very anxious very quickly. Whatever our reasons for being there, we all had a common goal though; the dismantling of patriarchy, equality for all and no one should fear abuse for being who they are.

Washington: I don’t know what’s gotten into you Carolina, but you better figure out the difference between your enemies and your friends.
Red vs Blue, Season 10, Episode 18; Change of Plans

Inevitably, not everyone will be happy with how you do things or your reasons for doing so. Accusations of the white male saviour complex, drowning out minority voices, being complicit purely because you’re a man, not doing it for the right reasons are among the ones that have been thrown out there. The blows don’t just come from the people you’re standing up against. We’re not going to cover everything or get everything right, but it does seem to be a characteristic of the Internet to micro-analyse everything and point you to what you’ve missed, all in the name of “ensuring a view is not seen as the norm for all”, (often rolled out by those wanting to ensure their view is accepted by all). Eventually, it’ll get to the stage where people go quietly because they feel they can’t go on. A lot of people say that by being silent, you are complicit in the problem and are going on about how men don’t want to give up their power so they’re being quiet and not standing up. My response to them will be “we did, we tried, but you kept telling us to be quiet and when we were allowed to speak, you just sat back and let them beat us into silence, you even threw in some kicks of your own“. People baulk at the idea of praising people for doing something they should be. As someone put it to me “I’m not going to give credit to someone for being a decent human being”. I accept that, but sometimes you need to. As important as it is to point out when and where people are wrong, it’s equally important to point out where they’re going right; to put an arm around them in support and re-assure them they’re doing the right thing and it‘s worth it. They need to know they’re not alone.

Lt. James Gordon: I don’t get political points for being an idealist, I have to do the best I can with what I have.
The Dark Knight

I can nod in the right places, say the right things but it doesn’t mean anything when it comes to having to make the step and actually do something. When I’m stood in front of 2 dozen teenagers, when I’m encouraging others to look at things like patriarchy, when I’m explaining to someone why a comment is inappropriate; I just do the best I can. I’m going to get things wrong, I’m always going to have things to learn but there’s just too much to this and it’s all important. I have some women saying men should be quiet, I have others saying men should speak up. Who’s right? It depends on the situation. How do I know when to speak? Just got to make the decision with what I know having discussed it with other people and take it from there.

Angel: Power endures. We can’t bring down the Senior Partners, but for one bright shiny moment we can show them that they don’t own us!
Angel, Season 5 Episode 21; Power play

Teams are individuals who come together for a purpose, they exist for a purpose. Each member has their own strengths, their own way of doing things, their own ideas and the best teams allow that individuality to shine to utilize their strengths. This is really no different. Instead of running around telling everyone how they’re getting it wrong, how about we focus on the task at hand? How about working to build each other up, to listen to each other and support each other as we aim to try to make the world a better place? I’ll be honest, I don’t know if we can do this, not in my life time anyway. Maybe the best we can do is to just make a dent and give future generations something that they can continue with. But we can make a difference now, men and women, working together. Isn’t this the point?

The “policing” of free hate speech

LGBTQ+, News, Politics, Social Justice

Courtesy of http://amleibowitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/e0273-6a00d8341c730253ef01a511bcf529970c-pi.jpg

This article popped up in my Facebook feed yesterday because a friend shared it. Before you click the link, be forewarned it may be highly triggering due to the transphobic language. Yes, it’s bad enough to put it in bold, red letters. The summary alone includes quotes which are so offensive that even someone ignorant of trans* issues would recognize them as hateful. I’m not joking. Unless you have an extremely strong constitution, I recommend against listening to the broadcast, which is linked in the article. The extracted quotes are bad enough.

Rochester Radio Hosts Mock Transgender People in Disturbing, Offensive Segment

It speaks for itself. There’s no need for me to say anything about how horrible those comments were. Besides, anyone local to me who has ever heard Kimberly and Beck knows that they are Grade-A Jerks. That is what they do; they’re paid to be awful. I think this one is particularly bad, given the fact that they were responding to trans-friendly local legislation. It’s also frustrating given that I live in a city that, while conservative in some ways, is better than average regarding LGBTQ issues (though there’s always room for growth, of course). But I’m not writing today to call for their heads on a platter, or even their permanent firing.

When I posted this, the responses were interesting. (Side note: Anyone who thinks people under 21 aren’t articulate, intelligent people able to hold their own in a debate does not know my friends.) Naturally, one of the things that got invoked was “free speech.” Dear God, why is that the first thing that’s trotted out in response to assholes spouting off? I mean, I would think that the first response to the article might possibly be, oh, I dunno, “Wow. It sure is crappy that trans* people have to put up with hearing that shit on the radio. Maybe I’ll go check and see if my friend/family member/stranger I interact with on the Internet is okay and didn’t have a massive anxiety attack triggered by that.”

Besides the obvious lack of compassion, the other thing I don’t understand is why anyone would bother trotting out “free speech” in the first place. My commentary on the article when I posted it to Facebook:

This carries a very heavy TW for incredibly offensive transphobic language and commentary. Read at your own risk. Also? SCREW THEM. I already don’t listen to them (they’re God-awful and annoying as it is). But this makes it a billion times worse. And now I’m telling everyone else to not listen to them.

I never once demanded they be fired or disallowed from broadcasting. I said I didn’t like them, and I said I was going to discourage other people from listening to them. They are entirely free to spout all the garbage they like, and the rest of us have the choice to change the station. Which is exactly what I suggested doing!

Aside from the fact that I never threatened their right to free speech in any way, why are they the ones given that card to play? Do I not have just as much right to the same free speech? Just as they are (technically) free to share their disgusting views with anyone fool enough to listen, I’m also free to tell the world they are ass-hats. I posted on my own Facebook page that I don’t like them. I’m posting it on my own blog. Why? Because they spewed trash and I didn’t like it, and I’m allowed to say so. It’s not a zero-sum game. My freedom to discourage people from tuning in does not curtail their right to broadcast their nonsense.

Even if I were demanding they be fired or sending out a petition for such action, guess what? Still my free speech. Yep. Just because I say it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, and I’m absolutely allowed to say I think they should be dumped. And let’s not get into the fact that “free speech” is not the same as “consequence-free speech.” If you violate the terms of your employment with your words, then you still get the ax, regardless of whether you had the “right” to say it in a Constitutional sense. (Also, please go educate yourselves on what is, in fact, meant by Constitutional freedom of speech.)

Whenever the “free speech!” argument comes out, I’d like to remind you all that it isn’t just bigoted radio DJs or Westboro Baptist protestors or Michele Bachmann who have the right to say whatever they want. Those of us who don’t like what they are offering also have the right to say so, loudly and often. We have the right to call them on their hate and encourage other people to stop listening to their shows, attending their churches, or voting for them.

Next time someone points to “free speech” as some kind of argument (for what, I’m not exactly sure), point out to them that you, too, have the same right.

How Plato ruined everything

Life, Social Justice, Writing

All right, maybe “everything” is a bit of an exaggeration. Still, I’m convinced that Platonic notions color so much of our culture (not just Christian religion) that it’s hard to know where to start.

I suppose a word of explanation as to why I’m thinking about this is in order. I haven’t blogged much this fall; there are several reasons why not that I won’t go into here. One of the reasons, though, has to do with online politics and the constant pressure to get it right. It was a crisis of correctness, I suppose, that led to my on-and-off writing over the last three months. I blame Plato for that, too.

In an ideal world, life would work like this: No one would ever be distracted by the appearance of another person; every act of justice would take into account every possible situation and person; and no one would ever get off on picturing themselves licking whipped cream off a naked celebrity.

We don’t live in that world.

The problem with that world is that it doesn’t exist anywhere except in the heads of would-be online philosophers. In all things, there’s some imaginary line that Must Not Be Crossed when it comes to behavior. It might not have overtly religious overtones, but there’s still the same message: If you don’t do things right, you are flawed. Broken. Damaged.

Instead of learning respect and consideration, we end up with the same fears often instilled by our religious communities–that we are not good enough and must seek to work towards this imaginary standard to which no human can measure up. How many seconds is too long to stare at someone’s half-undressed body? Which fantasies are okay to have when masturbating? How carefully do we have to phrase things to make sure someone disagrees with our views and not our word choice or tone?

There’s no answer to that outside the heads of a few people who have styled themselves the Gatekeepers of Blogging.

My husband and I had an interesting conversation the other night. He’s been taking a philosophy class–don’t ask me the details; I’ve never had much interest in that sort of thing. I didn’t entirely follow everything he said, but the gist of it was that some people live in the realm of ideas and some people live in the realm of practicality. About eighty percent of people are in the latter group. The difficulty I see is that (at least on the Internet), the other twenty percent often see themselves as being at the top, and the rest of us should conform our practical existence to fit into the theories they’ve developed.

Well, screw that. I can’t live that way. When I started writing, it was because I was in a religious context in which I felt that there were specific people being marginalized (namely, LGBT people) and that the church had it dead wrong in how to care for them. I remained anonymous for about a year and a half. When some of my Christian LGBT offline friends began sharing my writing (not knowing it was me), I told them. At that point, I decided hiding was a disservice to people I love in my non-bloggy life. If they were out, why shouldn’t I be public too?

Note that I never said I blogged because I had some Magic Words of Wisdom on the church and LGBT people or any other issue regarding church teachings (which I also covered). Honestly, I just wanted those I love to know that, and I wanted anyone like me who might be an ally in enemy camp to know they were not alone. Practical purposes, people. Nothing philosophical.

I recently stopped blogging as much because I had started to feel the same sense of “not good enough” that I’d had for over twenty years in the church. I couldn’t blog about LGBT issues and the church because I didn’t know enough about intersectionality. And other people who needed my support. And not tagging every post on social justice issues as triggering (because, realistically, every post could trigger someone for something). And not actually being LGB or T myself. And not criticizing progressive Christians correctly. The list goes on.

That, right there, is Platonism at its finest: There’s a right way to blog about these issues, and you’re not doing it. There’s often a sense that the critic doesn’t actually know what the right way is, just that one must exist. Well, no. There is no hypothetical idealized advocacy. There are some things that get it decidedly wrong (go research Human Rights Campaign, for example;p see also the Good Men Project). Most of the time, though, it’s a matter of different people wanting or needing different things.

Another serious problem with forcing advocacy into a Platonic ideal is that the vast majority of the time, the people pushing it at the rest of us genuinely believe they have it right and we have it wrong. There’s no sense that they might also be falling short of an unnamed ideal or that their particular philosophy might not be the best version because it still leaves some people vulnerable. It’s an unfortunate reality that there are people out there who simply do not care about hurting people they think are in the wrong. I’ve seen things get pretty ugly when one person gently explains why they need a particular type of ally and another person says the equivalent of, “That’s the wrong thing to want” rather than, “Tell me more.”

I spent several years deconstructing my faith. I’m now in process of reconstruction, and there are some great people I can trust along the way. Deconstructing social justice advocacy feels pretty similar. I’m disappointed with the online community in a lot of the same ways I was disappointed in the church. Before someone gets all heated about it, I’m not saying that social justice movements are abusive. But are there abusive, powerful people within them who want to control the rest of us at any cost? You bet. (“No! I don’t want to control you! I just want you to get it right, dammit!” is, in fact, controlling–particularly when the person saying it does not belong to the group for which they are advocating.) Those are the people I’m trying to steer clear of.

There’s no way to know where this will end up. I don’t want to stop writing, but some days, I think I have no choice, at least when it comes to blogging. I do know that it won’t change anything in my everyday life; my loved ones will still know they can count on me. As for the online advocacy police? There’s no reason I should care about their Platonic ideals.

Ruining our kids

Discipline, Parenting, Social Justice

I was already in an irritable mood after seeing Christianity Today refer to Rachel Held Evans as having a “meltdown” because she pointed out the flaw with The Nines conference’s lack of women. It didn’t help that this awful post on parenting turned up in my newsfeed–more than once, I might add, and not because anyone was being critical. Nope, everyone seemed to love it.

I can’t speak for other parents, but I’m very tired of people who think that yesteryear’s parenting was so much better than today’s. It’s like all the other times people talk about wanting to return to “the good old days.” While there may be some good things we’d like to keep–or reclaim–there’s also a whole lot of terrible things that, unfortunately, cannot be separated from the things we like. (And there are relationships between them that we’d prefer not to see, as is the case with “1950s values” and racism.)

In this particular post, I was most disturbed by the way that she emphasized the result of what she sees as bad parenting (coddling, apparently) without mentioning a single word about the consequences of other parenting flaws. For example, she’s concerned that her boys won’t be able to play shoot-the-bad-guys at school, but seems unconcerned that parents might not be adequately teaching their children who is or isn’t “bad.”

There were some specific things that bothered me about what she had to say: boys will be boys (what about girls who like that kind of play? or boys who don’t?); bullies perpetrate physical violence but claims of emotional bullying are more or less just whining; people become suicidal as a result of a single nasty remark; and college students and new graduates are going home crying over every failure and quitting (as though this didn’t already happen with people born into extreme privilege).

Believe it or not, I don’t care what you let your kids do. Buy them toy guns? Whatever. Don’t buy them? Whatever. The reason is that it’s not in the purchase or non-purchase of a particular toy that learning non-violence happens. Kids are not better off because they are allowed to play cops and robbers or because they are forbidden from playing. Ms. Metz has it wrong–boys don’t somehow magically grow up better because they were allowed to play certain types of playground games. Not only that, boys do not grow into better men because they played those games. That’s part of a particular view of masculinity that says there are certain Normal Things Boys Do, and anyone outside that must either have freak parents who regulate their play or else there’s something unmanly about them. Weirdly, she seems to be blaming parents for the lack of gun play at school, when it is, in fact, the rules of the school restricting play. She’s conflating parenting with public education and really seems hung up on this gun thing throughout.

As for bullying, I’m super happy for Ms. Metz that she got over whatever things were said to her. Perhaps she’s just very confident in herself. I think it’s far more likely that she simply never experienced the kind of emotional, verbal, and sexualized bullying some of us did. Maybe she doesn’t know what it’s like to go to school and wonder how many hurtful things will be said to you that day or whether the boy who sits behind you is going to grab your ass yet again while the teacher looks the other way. She might not understand how it feels to walk into a room to a class full of kids calling you an elephant and making “boom” noises at you while you walk, every day. She probably doesn’t know what it’s like to spend three years trying to find a lunch table where the other kids won’t slowly slide over while you’re eating until you end up on the floor, followed by laughter and fake apologies. I’m just guessing here, though.

I suppose because Ms. Metz doesn’t understand that kind of harassment, she’s more likely to also misunderstand being suicidal. I do not know any person who has felt suicidal or attempted suicide or has succeeded who did it simply because some random girl called her a bitch one day. If a single episode of name-calling sends one to such a dark place, then it wasn’t just because of the mean word–that was just the proverbial straw. I find Ms. Metz’s words hateful, hurtful, and inappropriate. They lack any sort of empathy. I have no idea where she got her information that this is all it takes to make teenage girls commit suicide, either–apparently, she also doesn’t read all the way through stories about bullying and suicide enough to get the whole picture.

On the other hand, college students with helicopter parents are a real issue, so I’ll give Ms. Metz credit for spotting that one. The way she presents it, though, makes it sound like she’s saying this is happening in dire proportions compared to the number of students enrolled in college. She’s making blanket statements about “today’s parenting” being responsible for this. Oh, really? Because that wasn’t happening before. Spoiled, bratty kids going to college is totally a new thing, right?

My biggest problem with this post is that it’s so vague. She never actually says what she thinks is the bad parenting responsible for selfish, needy kids. She hints that it has to do with “catering” to them, but what does that even mean? How, exactly, is it “catering” to kids to have a philosophy of not buying toy guns or allowing shooting play? And how are her kids better off for being allowed to do those things? In what way does stopping verbal bullying prevent people from being emotionally healthy? She gets at it a little with her comment about not giving in to them unless they use manners. But if what she meant is that kids have no manners, why didn’t she just write a post about that? She says her boys will be emotionally hurt but that she’ll cushion it as much as a mother can. Isn’t that catering to them? How will they learn to deal with things if she’s “cushioning” them?

Like the post about how “marriage isn’t for you,” this just smacks of self-righteousness. The big FAIL for me is that she never once suggests that the best way to help our kids grow up to be responsible, respectful people is to teach them how to treat others. I didn’t see even one reference to, say, the Golden Rule. I saw nothing in there about teaching our kids about kind words, respecting personal boundaries, or helping people who need it. There wasn’t a single word about making things right when we’ve hurt other people.

Ms. Metz claims that she “respects” others’ right to parent how they see fit. I’m not that nice. I think if you’re abusing your child, you are a sorry excuse for a parent, and I do not respect your “right” to harm your child. Beyond that, I’m just not that concerned with what you do. As for me, I’m going to worry less about whether I’m “overprotective” and more about whether I’m teaching my kids that all people have value. That strikes me as far more important than whatever vague badness Ms. Metz is suggesting I avoid.

Humanizing the other

Social Justice

I usually avoid taking on Tony Jones. Actually, I usually just avoid reading Tony Jones. I know a lost cause when I see one. Chances are good that on any given day, he’s going to say something I find offensive. My time is too valuable to waste on spending it being irritated. But he posted this, and, well, I couldn’t resist.

First of all, let me start with the very title of this piece of crap. “Humanize the Other, because That’s the Gospel.” Oh, okay. Got it. There’s no other reason to treat people with respect outside of “Jesus said it” or scoring Compassion Points with the Big Guy. I certainly hope that’s not the only reason to show kindness to people, though the nice part about that rationale is that you get to then self-righteously claim that atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and Wiccans have no idea how to be nice to people because the Gospel. Yay.

What really bothers me, however, is the idea of “othering” people in the first place, and the need to “humanize” anyone. There are two problems here. One is that, by definition, people are already human. No one needs to be “humanized.” I understand that what’s meant is both not dehumanizing people and reaffirming their humanity. That sounds pretty good on the surface. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works in practice.

The way it often plays out is something akin to “love the sinner, hate the sin” (which is so full of superiority bullshit I would need a whole post just to dissect it). In other words, think of people as your fellow humans–ones who happen to make you feel weird, gross, creepy, uncomfortable, or whatever, but still your fellow humans. That enables people to continue to feel that they are better because at least they’re not whatever-it-is. Perfect example: You can totally love your gay friends, even if you still think they’re probably going home right now to do some kind of sex thing that trips your gag reflex. And since you are obviously not going to trip anyone’s gag reflex with your completely non-kinky, missionary-position, married (of course) straight sex, you are clearly still morally superior. You may get it that your gay friends are human, but you still think they are morally inferior humans.

That can be applied to anything–race, ethnicity, neurodivergence, varying physical and mental ability, and so on. It’s this pitying standpoint–that we are going to show compassion on the poor, suffering masses–that bothers me. It isn’t giving up any of the power and privilege we enjoy, and it isn’t sharing it with someone else. It’s a posture of reaching down rather than across.

The second problem is that “humanizing” nearly always becomes about seeing abusers as humans. How often do we see people defend the likes of Driscoll, Piper, Furtick, Schwyzer, Yoder, and so on by saying, “Look at the good they’ve done! And they are only human, after all.” That’s misplaced compassion. I agree that they are human; but that doesn’t absolve them from the harm they’ve done, particularly that which was done in Jesus’ name. Humanizing, in this case, must always start with the people who were harmed. We need to see the individual faces, and hear the individual voices, of the people who have been wronged rather than imagining them as, collectively, the “sin” of the people who perpetuated the damage.

Finally, specifically about Tony Jones’ post: He used the image of the Pope kissing the man with boils to launch into some nonsense about blogging. What a way to miss the point. He wasn’t speaking about loving actual people who have been shamed, dehumanized, and wounded. He was talking about Internet writers. That says everything I need to know about where he’s coming from.

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content