Social Justice

Deeper problems in “emergence” Christianity

Emergent Thought, Faith and Spirituality, LGBTQ+, Social Justice, Women

On Tuesday, Julie Clawson posted an excellent piece on the Emergence Christianity gathering in Memphis last weekend. In her article, she rightly criticized Phyllis Tickle’s thoughts on the fall of Constantinian Christianity. (Please read Julie’s post; it’s lengthy, but it’s worth your time.) As a result, several of my fellow women of faith tweeted, reblogged, and discussed the content of Julie’s post and the problems that have become evident in much of emergent culture.

There was no problem with Julie’s thoughtful remarks about the confusion over Phyllis’ speech. There was no problem with the continued discussion on Twitter, in which many women chimed in to suggest that there might be some issues within the movement, including a failure to examine privilege. But for whatever reason, the conversation turned unpleasant when the women involved were accused of “attacking” the movement and being “passive-aggressive.” In other words, it was the Emergence Christianity version of calling women “shrill.”

I stopped identifying with the emergent movement some time ago. I found it to be largely populated by well-educated, white, cis-gendered, straight men. It’s not that I have anything against that particular demographic, but I prefer to have a broader range of people in my life. I have also become frustrated with the fact that Emergent types are willing to talk about inclusion but often fail to practice it. For example, LGBT people are frequently left out of the conversation in the supposed interest of attracting more people to the table. To put it simply, there is a widespread attitude that people should not be made to feel “uncomfortable” if they believe that homosexuality is a sin by having actual gay people speaking and teaching. To allow such would imply that Emergents have taken sides; thus we’re reduced to hearing straight people speak on behalf of LGBT Christians rather than hearing from LGBT Christians themselves.

That said, I have three real problems with the back-and-forth over the last two days. First, anyone who voiced (or tweeted, rather) concern over Phyllis’ statements was shut down as approaching their disagreement in the “wrong” way. In fact, Jay Bakker even suggested to Suzannah Paul in a tweet that the best way to handle criticism is in person or via telephone. This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, given the fact that Phyllis’ speech was 1. public; 2. the last thing on the program for the weekend; and 3. made by someone with whom it would be difficult for hundreds of people to have a personal conversation. Should everyone who disagrees with President Obama’s policies attempt to put a call through to the White House? This may be much smaller scale, but the principle is the same. In effect, Jay was shutting Suzannah down for speaking out, rather than engaging her to find out why she felt that the speech was misguided. In fact, in suggesting that it is unfair or unreasonable to critique problematic aspects of Emergence Christianity is much like telling people that it’s un-American to point out continued bias in the broader culture.

The second problem is that following that awkward Twitter non-conversation (note: tweeting about someone’s tweet is also passive-aggressive), the discussion turned to “rigorous thinking.” Once again, this is a way to shut down any real opportunity for honest consideration of privilege within the movement. In this case, anyone who is not an academic or an intellectual is left out. Additionally, it is assumed that only certain people are capable of having intelligent dialogue (read: men). Women could not possibly have put in the time and study needed to be active participants. As Sarah Moon pointed out in a series of tweets,

So, today I critiqued someone’s ideology and their response was “They must not teach [ideology] in the US.” Listen, man.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when white men assume my critiques of their academic discussions is based in ignorance

I have not put hundreds of hours into studying different theories for justice/liberation to be told “You must not have been taught” Nope.

Don’t even get me started on the fact that it is taken as a given that LGBT people don’t have any background in systematic theology. Using the old “but we need to use our big brains to sort this out!” to silence reasonable criticism is a way of belittling anyone who isn’t a straight, white, cis-man by assuming that person is not intelligent or educated.

Which brings me to the last problem. It disturbs me that the words “rigorous thinking” should be used in conjunction with anything having to do with faith. This was exactly the kind of narrow-minded bullshit I tried desperately to leave behind with the evangelicals. In their case, the issue was over finding the one correct interpretation for every single word of the Bible. Right doctrine trumped everything else. Now we have this particular brand of emergent thought that assumes we just need to study harder so that we can figure out God’s intent through Scripture. Understanding the context and nuance in history and the Bible will render previous versions of Christianity null and void and lead us to perfect practice of our faith. Unfortunately, there is no such thing. Replacing one crappy theology with an equally crappy theology leaves us nothing but a huge pile of manure. And certainly, maintaining that study is the most important aspect of spiritual practice ignores the fact that not all Christians are highly intellectual, nor do all of us want to spend the majority of our time poring over dense tomes. Most of us just want to love God and love people, and we’re all still trying to work out what that means.

I no longer have any hope that this movement is redeemable. (I’m sure my first clue ought to have been that Mark Driscoll was once associated with it.) It certainly isn’t the place for progressive Christians to find the kind of faith that does not merely speak on behalf of, but openly invites the voices of those who are most frequently silenced within the church. I don’t believe the answer is to start a new movement; I believe it is to stop looking for a revolution or a leader and start practicing the very things we want to see happen within Christian faith. Until and unless we confront the real problems—those pertaining to privilege, status, and value-attribution—we will never be the people God intended us to be.

Our natural state is not “rape-worthy”

News, Social Justice, Women

Have you ever woken up and thought, I’m going to write about this today, only to have your inbox or social media change your mind?

I was going to write a great post about grace and love and what happens when those things collide with actual people. Don’t worry, I’m still going to write that one; two blog posts yesterday reminded me that we sorely need it. But today, I can’t. I can’t because the warmth I felt reading about when real, Christ-like love happens was overshadowed by what I read this morning.

I knew, of course. Who hasn’t heard about the brutal gang rape of the woman in India that resulted in her death? It’s been splashed all over the news since it happened. But that’s not what made me stop this morning as I perused my feeds at the kitchen table, sitting with my son while he nibbled his toast. No, what hit me was this article (warning: graphic rape). This quote stood out to me:

A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture. In that vision, women’s bodies are for use primarily for procreation or male pleasure.

E. J. Graff has gotten to what I believe is the heart of the matter: That rape culture, and purity culture as a contributor, have lumped rape, sex, and women’s bodies into the same category. Autonomy is for men; submission and purity are for women. The same culture that insists that a woman do everything within her power to prevent male “lust” is, if not overtly then at least complacently, accepting of rape as a means to control women. It becomes the “natural” consequence of “inappropriate” conduct.

If only she hadn’t been wearing that outfit
If only she had remained sober
If only she hadn’t been alone at night
If only she hadn’t been alone with a man
If only she had learned to defend herself better

In American culture, where women are free to dress and behave in any manner they choose, we find excuses for rapists because, in some way, we believe she was “asking for it” (or at least behaving in a foolish manner likely to result in her assault). Yet if it were even remotely true that the woman is at fault, we should not see any rapes in cultures where women are covered head to toe or who are expected to remain only among other women. This is clearly not the case.

The problem is the conflation of rape and sex. Rape is not primarily about an inability of men to control their surging hormones. If that were true, far more men would be rapists, including spousal rape. The brutalization of a woman by means of violating her vagina is about controlling her. It is a demonstration of power, whether it be power over her specifically or a display intended to prove power in general.

What I find interesting is that the vast majority of people who excuse rape, or at least minimize it, on the grounds that a woman is “asking for it,” would not ever be likely to rape anyone. A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with a young man from the church we were attending at the time. He said,

What a lot of girls don’t realize is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to treat them a certain way.

I knew what he meant, particularly when he said that he tries to show girls respect no matter how they are dressed. I tried to gently get across the point that it isn’t about a girl’s clothes, but about how a boy feels about girls in general that is the problem. I don’t know whether he believed me or not; we haven’t discussed it since then. I hope he took that conversation to heart. At any rate, his primary concern was for the girls, that they might find themselves facing unwanted contact. It is admirable that he didn’t (and presumably still doesn’t) want to see anyone victimized. I see this as one of the reasons why (misguided though they may be) that some people try to look at it as primarily a problem of inappropriate sexuality.

Unfortunately, the belief that rape is sex is what is at fault. There is no amount of changing the way a woman dresses or acts that will prevent rape. I’m not convinced (short of the kind of thing found in Minority Report that would weed out potential rapists) that there is anything we can do to prevent rape in its entirety. We can, however, change the way we view rape and the women (and men) who are violated in this way.

The picture that appears at the top of this post came from a friend who put it on her Facebook page. I believe this is the other side of the same coin, though I think the picture misses the mark in continuing to equate rape and sex in a sense. One way in which I think we can move forward is if we ask men to consider exactly why they would not violate a woman. I doubt that most of them would say that it’s merely because they can get all the sex they want consensually or because they possess “self-control.”

The other way that we can begin to make the necessary changes is to stop equating a woman’s vagina with her worth as a person. This is an antiquated view that stems from the concept of women as property, first of their fathers and then of their husbands. That is not to say that it is not admirable (or even “best”) for both women and men to refrain from sex until marriage (or, if one is more progressive, until in a committed, healthy relationship). But tying a woman’s value to what has or has not been inside her vagina creates a place of shame. It is what leads women who have been raped (including rape by family members) to believe they are unacceptable because they’ve had “sex.” Both men and women should be taught that their value comes not from the undefiled state of their genitals but from their hearts.

I want to add one last note of hope. I believe that the young people in our churches today are crying out for this message. I am so blessed to have an ongoing relationship with several adolescents and young adults who are already working to change the attitudes within the church. We need to hear their voices over the din of our culture and we need to encourage them to speak out. They are the antithesis of the morally bankrupt youths who actively and passively encourage situations like the rape of an Ohio teen. We can do this, Church. We can be the change we want to see.

It’s ok to call someone names if they deserve it.

Bullying

This one is going around again. Maybe it’s because it’s the start of a new school year. Who knows? Instead of passing it along on Facebook or Twitter, I think I’ll do what I do best: pick it apart.

At first, this looks pretty good. I mean, it’s absolutely true that people get picked on by people who don’t know them. But when I look deeper, I see something disturbing about it. There’s an underlying message that probably wasn’t intended, but is an unfortunate side effect.

It’s not okay to bully people for things that aren’t true, but otherwise it’s fine.

It’s not good to call a virgin a slut, but maybe you can get away with it if she really is sleeping with a bunch of guys.

We shouldn’t assume that pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, but if it was, we can mock her.

If we see the fat girl eating potato chips, it’s a good idea to bully her into eating the way we think she should.

Best not to physically assault someone who is abused at home, but they’re fair game if their home life is stable.

You can call a kid “lame” if you want, as long as you make sure he’s not the sole source of his family’s income.

It’s fine to make fun of people with disfiguring scars, unless they’ve served in the military.

See, we don’t really need to know someone’s story. We don’t need to know the history of another person in order to treat him or her with dignity. Respect doesn’t depend on what someone else has or hasn’t done. The message of this “anti-bullying” picture isn’t one of treating others with honor. It’s about continuing to judge others—their actions, their motives, their bodies.

I’m also uncomfortable with the “RIP” at the beginning of the message. While it’s true that sometimes bullied teens take their own lives, two other things are also true: Not all bullied kids are suicidal and not all suicidal adolescents have been bullied. It doesn’t address the problem in a healthy way. Instead of generating concern that leads to finding solutions, it only encourages pity.

There are better ways to address the serious social problems our young people are facing. We can start by being the kind of people who teach our own kids to hold others in high regard, to respect them regardless of their physical appearance or their personality quirks or what we’ve heard about their behavior. We can also help our kids recognize signs in their friends that they might need help. These are not issues that can be resolved by reposting pictures on the Internet.

Illegitimate rape?

Social Justice, Women

Warning: Discussions of rape, rage-inducing comments about what constitutes real rape.

Missouri Senate nominee Todd Akin managed to offend a lot of people with the following comment:

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s [pregnancy from a rape] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.

He tried to backpedal later, but his “apology” for his comments wasn’t much better. You can read the whole article here.

There’s been enough backlash that I don’t want to waste my time (and yours) attacking Mr. Akin. I don’t believe that his comments are a political thing; there are plenty of Republicans who disagree with him and have gone out of their way to say so publicly. I don’t believe Mr. Akin is the real problem here. The real problem is the underlying belief that there is such a thing as “illegitimate” rape.

I care far less about arguing over whether or not a woman should terminate a pregnancy if she was raped. That’s not the real issue. The real issue is the phrase “legitimate rape.” On another article regarding Mr. Akin’s remarks, someone posted this comment:

There are illegetimate [sic] rapes, It’s sad but there are many women who lie about being raped for various reasons. It is mean, awful, and worse even when proven false and admitted false that other person is forever branded a rapest [sic].

That wasn’t an isolated comment. There are far too many people who hold this view. (I’m sure some of them will find their way to the comments on my blog; rest assured, any comment defending the concept of “illegitimate” rape will be deleted. You’ve been warned.) This underlying belief about what is or isn’t rape is what contributed to Mr. Akin’s thoughtless words.

It isn’t just about people supposedly lying about rape. There is also an element of victim-blaming. Some actual things I’ve heard people say about what might make the rape “illegitimate”:

She knew her attacker
She had previously been intimate with her attacker (he thought he had “permission,” even if she said no)
He was her husband (i.e., no such thing as marital rape)
She didn’t yell for help, say no, or attempt to fight back
She was dressed provocatively, therefore inviting unwanted contact
She was drunk
She was out alone late at night (and ought to have known better)
She “puts herself in these situations” and “creates drama”
She didn’t prove it in court (he wasn’t convicted)
She was lying about it, which happens “all the time”

Apparently, I can now add, “she got pregnant” to that list. I admit, this is the first time I’ve heard that one. But I’m not really surprised.

What disgusts me even more is that it’s people who claim to be Christians who have said all of the above. The very people who are supposed to be standing up for and protecting the marginalized and the victimized.

Church, changing these attitudes has to start with us. We have to start with mercy and compassion for the victims, without resorting to blame and disbelief. We need to lay aside any judgmentalism toward those who have been raped and first care for them. We need to stand up for them and protect them. Most Christians I know pride themselves on being “different” from ordinary social culture. Let’s prove it. Let’s start by removing all traces of victim-blaming/shaming from our language and actions.

We can be the change.

Notable News, week of July 13-20, 2012

Blogs, Links, News, Parenting, Sexuality and Gender, Social Justice, Women

I woke up to some tragic news. While I’m still going to highlight this week’s major Christian debate, I also want to send prayers out for those affected by the recent shooting in Aurora.

1. Movie Theater Shootings in Aurora, Colorado

Read the story here. There are no words. I am so sorry for the families of those who were killed or injured. Also check out this article, about a blog post, the last one written by one of the victims of last night’s shooting.

2. Childless, White Feminists: Can They Speak for All of Us?

This is why I like the diverse people I follow on Twitter. I heard about this article, which on first reading, doesn’t sound entirely bad. But a more careful reading reveals that this is coming from someone who has never actually lived through the experience she is criticizing. She also makes some assumptions about the kind of people who practice certain parenting styles. So my answer is an emphatic no, this woman does not speak for me. Parents, do what you believe is the right thing for your family, even if some “feminists” think you’re playing martyr.

3. The Gospel Coalition Delivers Some Epic Fail

I’m not even going to bother adding my 2 cents. I think Rachel Held Evans, Christian Piatt, and Matthew Paul Turner have said it best. Just go read the original, then read the responses. I also highly recommend the links at the end of RHE’s second post.

Warning: Some of the blog posts contain references to rape and/or sexual abuse, which some people may find triggering. In addition, the language used in the original article also may be triggering for some because of the specific language used.

The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc.

The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination

Some final thoughts on The Gospel Coalition, sex, and submission

Gospel Coalition’s Views on Gender, Sex Aren’t “Complementary”

50 Shades of WHAT: My response

Marriage equality: a game of apples and oranges

LGBTQ+, Social Justice

After Tuesday’s vote in North Carolina, there’s been a lot of tension. I’ve seen it among my friends and on social media. It’s on blogs and in the news. It’s understandable, it feels like a huge blow and a step backwards. My prayers are with the people of NC that this won’t be the end of the conversation.

One thing I’ve seen, though, that troubles me is the comparisons being made. The fight for marriage equality has been likened to the fight for the rights of African Americans. It bothers me for several reasons. These two issues are apples and oranges. Certainly, the fact that both involve human rights puts them, in some sense, in the same very broad category. But otherwise, this is not the same thing at all.

To compare these issues does a disservice to everyone involved. First, it makes it sound as though we have somehow arrived, that racism is a thing of the past. Even though we’ve come a long way, there is still more work to be done. Second, it makes it sound as though African Americans have no stake in marriage equality, as though there isn’t anyone who is both black and gay. Third, it blatantly ignores some very real distinctions. The ways in which people have been dehumanized based on race are not the same as the ways people have been dehumanized based on sexual orientation. Playing the comparison game is dangerous here, because it’s divisive rather than uniting. That doesn’t help anyone. Finally, it makes it seems as though the only reason gay people deserve rights is because black people have them, rather than because they deserve them on their own.

It’s that last one I want to address here. When we speak about marriage equality, gay rights, and the moral implications of homosexuality, our arguments must stand on their own merit. They cannot be based on what someone else has been given. Our arguments from the Bible cannot be based on what other laws we do or do not obey. We must examine Scripture, understand context, and reach a conclusion based on that, not on a convoluted set of rules about which things it’s okay to ignore. Otherwise, all we do is go all Dan Savage on the Bible and attempt in our human frailty to simply take out everything we want to label “bullshit.”

There are people a lot smarter than I am who have studied this stuff. They’ve come to conclusions about what they believe the Bible does and does not say about homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships. I urge you to look it up for yourself. And no, I’m not going to do the work for you. There’s plenty out there, start with a simple web search and a search of the books on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, then go from there. I spent literally years reading up on this stuff, talking with people, asking questions. I didn’t just suddenly wake up one day and think, Wow, gay people seem really unhappy that we Christians think they’re sinning. I guess the answer is to stop thinking they’re sinning. I had to do much more research than that, because it’s not an experience I’ve lived. If I do the work for you, you have an excuse to ignore me. If you do it yourself—and don’t stop the minute you disagree with what you’ve read—you’ll be more likely to make an informed decision of your own. Even if you continue to disagree, you’ll be doing it because you’ve examined things thoroughly from all sides.

For those of you who are already LGBT allies and have done this work, do me a favor: stop comparing. Let your arguments stand on their own. Don’t drag into it all the other things in the Bible that we ignore, or the ways you think this is similar to other human rights issues. Just like we don’t want the “slippery slope” to be the main argument against marriage equality, we don’t want it to be the main reason for it, either. Let it be its own issue. Each ism and phobia deserves its own consideration, independent of resolving the others.

Let’s keep this door open and continue to talk about these things.

It’s ok to call someone names if they deserve it.

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content