Disqus - Latest Comments for OneLittleBird

Re: Unit 1 – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:51:32 -0000

"Isn't the whole bible a literary device?"

No. In same way an anthology isn't a literary device.

The bible, like all literature to some extent or another, contains numerous literary devices.

This is but one form.

Re: Tamar – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:48:55 -0000

hey all,

I'm doing some catching up. Interesting to read through everyone's comments & various "takes" on this story. Here's a handful of thoughts in response to the whole conversation so far.

As intimated by Kevin - it seems to me here that Tamar is in the archetypal guise of the "trickster". The storyteller has God here as a character executing justice - literally. Judah, the patriarch, tries to play the trickster and outwit God and fails - he is undone by his own hypocrisy within the social order. His judgment falls back on himself.

I do wonder here whether it is not only Judah is outwitted but whether the writer has God outwitted by Tamar as well. I'm not sure how to read that.

Tamar is not only described first as a prostitute but then by inference as a "consecrated worker" and then as a "holy woman."Presumably we're talking here about some form of temple prostitute. But i find the description of her as a "holy woman" interesting.

So in part I read this story, being about the system being a site of disruption - it's own structures of power being used against itself, even though the system is not actually dismantled by the tricksters like Tamar within it.

Which, echoing a comment from Matthew, might be seen to set Tamar up as a foreshadow of others who follow, not least, Jesus. That said, I personally don't go in for a *literal* prophetic foreshadowed reading. Any way in which I read Jesus into this story is just that - choosing to see Jesus in the form of an echo of Tamar, as a trickster. In other words, seeing Jesus as being like her in some way - by using judgemental power against itself. The woman about to be stoned immediately comes to mind.

Something I do see happening in this story is God is at the start of this story and recedes as it proceeds until it is about Judah and Tamar. Judah is pronoucing righteous behaviour rather than God meting out the justice.
Perhaps then we are talking about one Hebraic story among many that explore what it means to believe in a monotheistic deity - what is the character of God? How does one ethically relate to that God and act righteously within the order which is shaping a society that has moved from poly- to mono-theism.

It leaves me asking questions about what it means to act justly and in the name of survival and standing in (religious) society? What does it suggest to me about power and social order? How might I move within it with agency? If I am cautious about the notion of "queer" as directly equatable to "(straight) scandalous sexual immorality", how might I read this genealogy in a way that unpacks that message and my own cautiousness and so find liberation in it?

Re: Unit 1 – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:38:46 -0000

this is fascinating comment on that second list. i really like how you are naming the flaws of the powerful in
this lineage here so distinctly on their own (de)merits.
"contradiction and tension" indeed... nicely put. :)

btw, well done on the back to back reading. that's impressive.

Re: Unit 1 – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:39:17 -0000

thanks for sharing this, Peter. really. there's some powerful thoughts here. much to think about and be inspired by -- you pull together the threads of these themes really well. huge help. thank you.

Re: Unit 1 – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:38:54 -0000

i like this perspective a lot. thanks for sharing it. finding connection to what is of value & connecting that to one's experience is something i seek from the process. seeing how you do that here is helpful.

Re: Unit 1 – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:36:40 -0000

that's really interesting about the naming of the father. i knew about the connection between matrilineal line and Jewish identity (as i understand it you are correct in that) but was not aware of the father/naming aspect. that's helpful.

as for Perez... lol. nicely spotted. ;)

Re: Unit 1 – Genealogy & Inclusion

OneLittleBird — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:40:54 -0000

hey all,

well this is certainly an intriguing place to start.

here's some observations. i'm going to bullet point my stream of consciousness purely for clarity's sake (by which i mean my own)... apologies in advance, this is longer than i'd like it to be.

* like Emil, i think it's notable that we only have few women - and biological mothers at that - in this string of names. i'll note there's actually 5 women in this list, not 3. Not atypical in "telescoping genealogies" - the act of leaving out names thought to be insignificant because (1) it strengthens to line being drawn to more important people in the lineage &/or (2) because it creates a numeric pattern.

* this reminds me that a significant first step of queering the text, as with feminist theologies, is often about digging into the narrative to uncover that which is tucked away in the midst of the apparent significant story on offer.

* so i see not so much the names that are there but the names that are not. there's no mention of sisters or daughters.

* this kind of genealogy by its nature is not only patriarchal but also then straight, telling of the story. or to put it another way - begatting seems to matter an awful lot.

* 3 x 14: numerical patterns and patterns in structure (that often get lost when we are reading texts in translation and in the chapter, verse style) occur across scripture, including Matthew's gospel. a bit of research suggests it might be because 14 is twice 7 - the number of completion or perfection. 7 is apparently the numerical value of the name "David".

* so i'm reminded that where numbers and numerical patterns occur we're looking largely at a literary device.

* numerology is not good historiography (the act of doing history). these numbers are both a chosen, subjective retroactive reading into history and entirely arbitrary, since history does not actually operate/occur from a bird's eye view that makes a pattern, however neat it makes for a story.

* but if i assume that Matthew understood history as something God has a hand in determining, what i find more significant - or telling - is that Matthew is reflecting the cultural importance of lineage. and specifically a royal lineage - with that pattern of line up to King david -to deportation - to a kind of *return* to Christ as "King".

But,
* there's a kind of curious twist in the tale at the end. Perez and Zerah are begat "by Tamar", Boaz "by Rahab" and Obed is begat of Boaz "by Ruth". Uriah's wife isn't even named. but Joseph is "the husband of Mary". that seems to me a significant shift - the status of women in this line is, with Mary, taken up a notch.

* but i have to ask then why any of this begatting matters at all - since we are about to hear in Matt 1:18 the story of a virgin birth - Joseph had no genetic role in the begatting. the 14 generations technically falls apart there. if begatting is what matters, then Joseph doesn't count. does that mean his active fathering matters more than the act of begatting? and it all makes me wonder why Matthew didn't give us Mary's geneology since the thread of all that begatting actually comes down *her* line not his.

* and if we don't have women here bar 5, nor any sisters, we also don't have all the other wives, concubines, nurse-maids and eunuchs -- all these men were being raised by far more than one maternal biological mother. far more women than in a contemporary "Western" setting i've been raised in. Matthew could have written that geneology - it would have been a very different, messier, more complicated - but perhaps richer for it - lineage.

this might be jumping ahead a bit but it's where those two original questions up top took me:

* the weight of genealogy - of the supposed cultural significance of family of birth, as opposed to the significance of family of choice and the role of family that we live in rather than who "begat" us. (might be something in that Joseph/Mary "twist" there. makes me think of Peterson Toscano's "Jesus had 2 daddies")

* i've a suspicion that the straight line story is highly partial. and that maybe what is most provoked in me is a wondering what it means to be queer in light of that weight of lineage - of how that disrupts this kind of patriarchal telling. there's something in all of this about what's not written on the page, on what's left out - both here in the text and in how we understand our own lineage.

* provisional thought - there's a connection for me personally here between the text and lived experienced that's frustratingly as yet only on the margins of thought. but if i applied the "what's not on the page" to my life, what names would i be recovering? how does my life disrupt the straight line story? and how do it identify with a lineage *not* given.

* oh. hold up... David... straight? if he's the lynch pin in this genealogy, does he by definition *queer* this straight line by his very inclusion in it?

sorry, that was too long.

cary.

Re: Identity Politics Are Not the Gospel

OneLittleBird — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:26:27 -0000

I don't think there's much more to be said on my end but to clarify, on #1, when i used the terms cavalier and sweeping i was speaking to the content of the words and the style/tone of the delivery, which even tripp has made allusion to in his most recent comment. whatever anyone else has said i was not referring to your character, motivations or degree of internet celebrity.

as for churches, my own definition is in the end, that whatever shape, size or theology, a faith community _is_ people - a collection of individuals. i know i appreciate, in the church of which i am part, the consistent challenge that comes with a strong critique of and collective response to systemic economic, social & civil injustice. after 3 decades or more of being 'inclusive' - without a sign on the front door - we are still continuing to learn what it means for all in the community to better embrace one another in our whole identities & to embody a radical alternative. there is still much work to be done.

i hope your continued discussions prove fruitful for you.

best wishes,

cary.

Re: Identity Politics Are Not the Gospel

OneLittleBird — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:16:25 -0000

I think an implicit point being made in these comments is that the very argument Tripp makes is itself an act of silencing the lived particularity of the very marginalized voices it claims to be so radically embracing of. [Jules, this is something you raised and please feel free to contradict me for stepping in on this if you feel misrepresented by it in any way] And by silencing I infer an erasing of people's lived experience through a disregard for those identities and thus a failure in the here and now to embrace meaningfully the intersectionality and complexity that transformation of a diverse society demands.

Silencing then, is not a "please shut up" but a persistent failure to incorporate marginalized perspectives into the very content of the central argument.
This is perhaps why there is deep felt frustration - it persists writ large across much of the current "emerging conversation" - and is a central problem in this specific interview that was, to my mind, far from adequately addressed.

Identity politics are indeed produced by, and foundational to, the very system Tripp criticizes and seeks to transform but that will not be achieved, nor should it be, by suggesting to anyone who is marginalized by their identity that they are not thinking radically, progressively or Biblically enough. I can’t believe the offense in that needs to be pointed out. Even throughout these comments there is a persistent return to challenge so-called “deeper issues”, more life threatening problems. That, I see as an extension of the persistent false dichotomies and rhetorical either/ors that are set up in the conversation. Anarchist Reverend’s point was very well made elsewhere in the thread on this issue of privileged voices determining for others what get to be classed as life threatening issues and what can be ignored as a distraction, and to pit marginalized groups against one another (e.g. support for Prop 8 is defined as a “never defending immigrants rights”)

This kind of hyperbolic language throughout both videos was intentionally and unapologetically offensive in the name of being theologically provocative and risks excluding vital voices from *wanting* to ever participate. I had great hesitancy to responding to a discussion where specific challenges are met with requests to wait for another person who will come along and give an opinion next week you might like more. I don't think it was meant to be offensive but when people are offered a provocation and respond that it _is_ offensive, the appropriate response is to actually listen now. What several commentators were pointing out here was not that their opinion was offended but their lived reality and their dignity.

At no point was Tripp challenged on his derisive languaging of the identities of people whose lived realities are experienced through non-straight identities ("letters"). For a conversation challenging a system that uses people as political pawns, I found no reason to believe that there was any meaningful alternative being offered - people in this argument are *still* political pawns or indeed “letters” - but this time to assault a large, vague set of “progressives.”

The acknowledgment made of privilege both on the part of the speaker and through the question posed in video 2 was therefore all but nullified by both the message and the manner of the message. Claims of gay friends, or of only working in inclusive churches does not act as license to say whatever one likes and in doing so mock the diversity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, questioning community. This is not about “letters” but people. If churches celebrate lesbian and gay as born this way to the detriment of bi- and trans* inclusion the obvious conclusion is not that identity serves a capitalist market.

Many people use hyphens and asterisks or live without labels wherever possible and yet are capable of a complex understanding of identity while still knowing that "LGBTQ affirmation" is not just a string of essentialized letters that represent nothing more than ideological markers or a new target market. I would counter that it is not “progressive churches” that are (only) suffering from a lack of imagination here and when engaging in marxist-queer theory, particularly when straight, one needs to be willing to respond to questions of how that will actually play out, just as radical marxist feminism was and continues to be challenged in the feminist academy while appreciated as having value as a system of thought.

The frustration is compounded by the erasing of groups that historically continue to struggle for enfranchisement and who in doing so, (at great sacrifice & risk in many cases), have and continue to transform society. Rather than distracting from the “real” problems, these same people do indeed question & delegitimize the very system itself, and do so starting through their transformative presence and participation in society.

Such generalized, sweeping, cavalier hyperbole for the sake of "being more progressive" suggested an assumed audience that is deluded, unread and incapable of the complex thought required to address _in practical terms_ the systemic intersectionality of identity marginalization/oppression and economic oppression. Even the diversity of the Occupy movement was subsumed into a universal singular rallying cry that disavows the efforts being made on the ground to be a diverse but harmonious representation rather than a homogenized voice.

I am not sure by what magical means this new kingdom will be ushered in, nor what guarantee that new reality or indeed fantasy “church” will not continue to marginalize people, if in order to get there people must lay down their identity to do so. To lay down part of people’s identities is to take away part of people’s humanity - which makes much of the content of a conversation about getting to the issue of “what does it mean to be human?” something of a contradiction. Constructed identities of all kinds are still _lived_ identities. That this argument culminated in the assertion that progressive churches and their members are both pacified and pacifiers who never “go all the way to the cross” honestly astounds me.

Given the history of the USA, I am shocked that it apparently needs to be pointed out why *that* particular comment might be received as grossly offensive by anyone who experiences the lived reality (by which we actually challenge and transform the system that produces systemic violence) as an every-day battle for their own and others’ civic, social and politically equality. To let that statement not only go unchallenged but instead to affirm it deserves a strong response.

At least two respondents in these comments have rightfully pointed to racial segregation and women’s rights and raised the issue of historical context - suggestive that this discussion cannot be abstracted out as if identity politics were some new phenomenon amongst progressive churches. And indeed it is not.

I am left wondering if in 1851 Sojourner Truth had *not* asked the very *particular* political identity question, “Ain’t I a Woman?” whether we might now be farther down the road to the gospel-based world Tripp imagines and many a person could have saved themselves a lot of time struggling against disenfranchisement in this "demonic" system. Perhaps she should have been told to wait for the coming gospel kingdom and until then to stop playing identity politics and be more...“Christian”.

I’m not surprised in the least by the reaction these particular videos have garnered. It's disappointing to see the desire to provoke taking precedent over listening to the people one purports to speak for.

Cary.

Re: Troy’s Ending Should Be Our Beginning

OneLittleBird — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:55:32 -0000

Thank you for sharing this.

Re: The Future Of Snail Mail

OneLittleBird — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:38:06 -0000

i find this troubling. however much the business model needs to change - the electronic transformation of society is not something everyone has access to. anyone who speaks of the post office as disposable because of digitisation is speaking out of a mindset of technological, social and economic privilege.
as an immigrant to the US, i cannot imagine my life without the post office.
and for the record - my local postal service is fantastic. the staff are helpful and friendly, and one only need look at the folks in line to see that there is a broad cross section of society relying on their service.
the same issues are facing postal services elsewhere, but we should all be wary of thinking we can gut this service and not have a significant detrimental impact on society.
there is far more to the postal service than 'being a business'.

Re: Death Row Applause - Atlantic Mobile

OneLittleBird — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:19:06 -0000

I'd like to go back to the stats you used before - the ones from just a
month ago that used the UK as an example. i think this was the article
you shared:
http://www.google.com/hostedne...

As
a Briton, with 37 of my 38 years living in the British Isles, i'd like
to note that a poll commissioned by the daily mail that did _not_ show
that a majority of Britons support the death penalty would surprise me
and probably most of the UK.

Failing to take into account
the origin of that (now deleted out of the thread) poll you cited only
demonstrates a lack of understanding of the history of capital
punishment debates in the UK and/or the political make up of the British
press and their agenda history.

this issue *does*
periodically resurface. but it surfaces in specific contexts - usually
in reaction to particular crimes and often involving the death of police
officer or a child murder that gets high levels of tabloid coverage or
when someone wants to stir things up. not once in my life - having
never
supported the death penalty - have i thought i was out of step with
majority mainstream opinion even though i can recall several of the
cases in my lifetime that put the issue back on the table.

the
polling company acting for the daily mail claimed it "clearly" showed
it's an issue that's "divisive along gender and party lines" AND
"clearly" a majority in favour. i'd be more confused by two
clearlys
in their one line statement if i didn't know the editorial approach of
the client/newspaper for whose benefit that statement was being made.
the poll's gender gap is massive and requires
further scrutiny
before deciding that the message of the poll is 'clear'at a national
level. there are also significant party political and geographic
differences. this issue is bound up in a range of factors and
not
one on which there is unity by any stretch of the imagination. but nor
is it actually a burning issue of urgent public debate.

and the government e-petition sites that appear to have triggered the daily mail poll?
the
petition to maintain the ban on the capital punishment is at number 6
in the rank of most signatures gained, while the reinstatement petition
is at 10, with a significant margin between them.
it is pretty
obvious that people are not banging on the doors of Westminster to bring
back hanging. the only place that happens is in the tabloid
imagination.
furthermore, a debate in the HoC does not create public policy.

capital punishment is understood in a British and i think, it is fair to say in a European,
context
to be a matter of deep seriousness. and one that if it is to be argued
for has to be based on more than just tabloid reactionary revenge that
relies on emotions of fear and anger to sell newspapers. it should be
based on actual considered ethical argument and social policy, not
public opinion with little consideration of the actual facts. just
because the public *thinks* capital punishment deters crime, does not
make it fact. i see no signs of any serious minded argument for a lift
on the UK ban. and it is interesting to note that the first country
whose record is cited as
proof of why the UK should not return to the death penalty - the US.

it's quite obvious if one traces the various press articles about the
e-petition site and the poll in these past few weeks, particularly that of the daily mail, that this is
largely a manufactured and frankly fictitious outrage. and by no means for the first time.

but
none of that actually matters. and here's why. this isn't about just
nation state law, but european law. in reality MPs could not restore
capital punishment unless they first agreed to a demand to withdraw the
UK from the European convention on human rights. protocol 13 bans all
forms of capital punishment. and one can only presume the same goes for
all other eu signatories.

you think that's elites. think that if
you like. it becomes a major issue when politicians use it as an
election issue and in europe, i can't see that happening apart from
amongst far right wing groups most people would view as extremist.

be
wary of polls unless you are going to really examine who paid for them
and you look beyond mere numbers to take in a bigger context.

Re: Death Row Applause - Atlantic Mobile

OneLittleBird — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:10:42 -0000

Deleting as it didn't thread correctly.

Re: http://blog.onbeing.org/post/9675153431

OneLittleBird — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:19:23 -0000

Simply gorgeous.

::contented sigh::

thanks for that.

Re: Division & Solidarity: A letter to straight allies

OneLittleBird — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:50:36 -0000

This is a thought-provoking piece. Thanks for sharing it again on twitter - I
hadn't seen it when you first posted. I can, however, understand why other
commentors here expressed hesitancy. I feel it too.

"If we abandoned those anti-queer places, we would abandon not just the
straight folks but also, undoubtedly, queer folks too." really grabbed my attention.

I can't help but think that there is a rigid drawing of lines, or maybe
it's a narrowness of perspective, here that perhaps overlooks both
history and the complexity of social
transformation. I write this not from within a congregation that is
anti-LGBT but one that has for a very long time had queer members and
staff and yet is continually undergoing transformation and still has a long
way to go. And I have zero interest in attending or to be honest even
dialoguing with anti-LGBT churches. So while your message is not for me
or my church, it still leaves me wrestling...

If I'm reading you right your
position here does not seem to allow sufficient room for those allies
and furthermore those queer members who have stayed within churches in order to transform them.
Not only in the present, but also crucially to my mind: in the past. Without those who did _not_ heed that call to leave but did the exact
opposite would there be far less achievement made for queer justice in
the church? If we say "no, they should have left" we risk making much of
queer Christian history invisible.

Is there space here that allows for those churches that are undergoing
transformation? For the fact that those churches that are attempting to embrace
all were perhaps not always like that? Activists both queer and straight are
a vital part of that story. Were they wrong to stay in the excluding church and fight for inclusion?

Why now? What is it about this moment in history that there's a line
crossed that means that's not a cause worth fighting still? The queer
Christian movement stands - in part - on the shoulders of those who
stayed and continue to stay.

Further still, the issue of whether to transform the
church from within or leave is not a new question that's been
identified by the queer community. Historically, women in the church have wrestled with this for a very long time.

It might be worth incorporating the complex histories of both feminist
and
civil rights movements as well as queer history both inside the church
and without - these same issues of "separate and create
alternate system" vs. "change from the inside" have been trodden before
and not always as neat lines as we might like to assume. These movements are perhaps good histories to consider
because they have always had to wrestle with one another as well as
wrestling within themselves. "What divides our society more at a
fundamental level? Gender? Or race?" "What is our goal and what tactics get us there?" These were and are often highly complex debates and they continue right up into the present moment.

Your comment, "I want you to leave my oppressors behind and stand with me."
is targeted at straight allies but what of queer activists in churches
who have made incredible sacrifices personally to transform the church
they are in?
In those now increasingly inclusive churches and
denominations - ELCA or PC(USA) or the Episcopal church for examples -
change would arguably never have happened or continue to be happening if every queer member and
straight ally had left.
I'm not saying the choice
to leave is wrong, but nor is the choice to stay a de facto act of
"cooperating with injustice." For some, the choice to leave can be
viewed as just that: giving in to injustice and handing over power that
those in authority have no right to claim. The call to stay or leave is
not a call we get to make for someone else. Nor is what is "inevitable" for one, inevitable for everyone.

And although you write, "work with us to build solidarity movements that
cut across race, class,
nationality, immigration status, physical and mental ability, and any
other gulf of division which has been created to keep us apart" and in a
later comment you
note that not all queer affirming churches may be affirming of everyone,
I find need of a more rigorous acknowledgement of the layered nature
of privilege here.

I'm not convinced that straight allies leaving
the church and setting up new communities alongside queer Christians
will inevitably create a diverse church across every societal divide,
given the systemic nature of oppression in our society and the deep
wounds, particularly racial and economic, that fracture this society. I
like the ideal but the history of churches and social movements tells a
different story.

When it comes to ideological lines being drawn, if we went by the actual
embodiment rather than the intended or spoken ideology we
would be hard pressed to find a church or movement that hasn't failed or
continues to fail across a number of societal dividing lines.

Perhaps there is a place for an alternative perspective - one that
starts where you conclude. A vision of a just and diverse church and
then works towards that. For some of us that may be the conclusion that
leaving and starting something new is the best path to that goal, but
for others of us it has been to stay and change things from within. I don't think it's either/or. I
think it's an "and".

For as much as I have zero interest in defending churches that are not embracing of all, there is a starkness to your call that makes me wonder if I myself all too easily forget that there are and have for a long time been people working for justice in the very places I refuse to. I'm not sure I get to make that call for those activists and allies to leave even while I may continue to criticize or reject the institutions they are in. Just as I don't get to tell you or anyone else that leaving and starting something new is wrong.

A strong movement is one that focuses on supporting its diversity rather than dividing itself against itself.

Sorry, I could perhaps have been more succinct.

Cary.

(edited to try and get rid of some formatting glitches in the spacing - sorry that the lines are so narrow in width. not sure why that's happened.)

Re: http://blog.onbeing.org/post/6535597294

OneLittleBird — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:14:09 -0000

Such an awesome track from a great band. Great story too. Loving the smiles in the middle of the storm.

This is such a cool new feature of the blog. Man, the bar's been set so high already. But it's sending me back to a lot of tracks I've not listened to in ages from different stages of life...

I think perhaps the motto of the tuesday evening melody should be the last line from W.B Yeats He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven:

"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

Precious stuff, this.

Re: http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/panicsam/~d2fC9

OneLittleBird — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:36:10 -0000

That's an interesting distinction and also rather frightening. But that's where I think it's important to have another distinction between a reasonable presentation and an unreasonable proposition. One can still very reasonable respond with the harmful reality of ex-gay treatments. For me the challenge is finding the best way to express opposition, or disagreement or just the plain evidence of harm being done without demonising the other person. And yes, that that reasonableness can have people thinking it's worth discussing as a positive thing is scary. Which suggests to me that people aren't actually listening to the content or aren't thinking it through in the moment. It's a risk to give that perspective a platform. i saw someone noting in a tweet the other day re: the role of journalism that there is a difference between balance and truth. I think that applies here in some sense. The real risk to my mind, and this is where i think i'd find it impossible not to push back is that if there is someone present who has endured and survived that treatment then it asks a lot for them to have to listen to their experience of abuse being presented as something reasonable. I know that that experience and their own response is for them to own for themselves but rightly or wrongly i would feel a very strong need to repudiate any such argument for ex-gay treatment as an act of solidarity to those abused by it.

Re: A Statement on Sojourners’ Mission and LGBTQ Issues

OneLittleBird — Mon, 09 May 2011 21:27:59 -0000

I am writing, like so many others today, to express my disappointment. I am especially concerned about a series of problematic language choices made in this statement.

If we have learned anything from the history of the 20th century, and indeed the past decade, it should be that referring to _people_ and their identity as an "issue" or "question" is dangerous territory - benign as it may appear it serves to dehumanize individuals and groups, and make abstract the substance of people's lives. Such language is both a manifestation of, and fuel for, discrimination.

In the case of this statement (and the editorial note of earlier today) repeated reference to differences of "opinion" about "controversial" and "difficult" "political wedge issues" and your concern that controversy may impede "Christians" being able to dialogue about their theological disagreement overlooks the lived reality of LGBTQ lives and identity.

For the queer community this is not a difficult theological debate of an "issue"- to regard this as an "issue" is a position of privilege for those of us who are straight. For those of us who are LGBTQ this is about the denial of, and struggle for, equality and justice in our lives. Furthermore, there is no neutral yet socially just position regarding the rights and lives of any group of people facing any form of discrimination. Neutrality is the preserve of the privileged and the oppressor. Neutrality never serves those seeking justice but rather maintains the status quo that favors those with power.

"Welcoming" and "affirming" may in your mind be "code words" for different positions in a political debate, but for those of us in churches that are welcoming and affirming of all people, these are not "codes" but the lived embodied reality of what it means to be church.

Professing religious faith and sexual orientation are not mutually exclusive modes of identity - I had hoped that any statement might include the acknowledgment that many people of faith, including Christians, identify as LGBTQ. This statement, by lacking such acknowledgment, perpetuates the false perception that there is natural division between Christians and the LGBTQ community and that one either falls on one "side" or the other - it makes invisible the lives of those of us who are LGBTQ Christians.

Issues of poverty and race cannot be separated from gender and sexual identity. These factors are profoundly inter-related in the systemic problems of inequality in our society. For example, I would be interested to understand how Sojourners seeks to achieve just and equitable immigration reform without expressing vocal and active solidarity with the many transnational LGBTQ couples facing persistent discrimination when attempting to live together in the US.

All too often language persists in reproducing and maintaining power and privilege. This statement reflects the voice, not of solidarity, but of straight privilege. I hope that in the coming days, weeks and months, the board and staff of Sojourners will make a commitment to not only addressing the concerns expressed by so many today but also addressing an editorial voice of "we", which sadly and dangerously objectifies LGBTQ individuals and groups as _other_ and as an "issue".

Language can also liberate: as Dr Cornel West has said, "Justice is what love looks like in public."

Re: http://blog.onbeing.org/post/3197353603

OneLittleBird — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:41:10 -0000

That's such a useful insight. Seems like a good reminder of the importance of context -- the same/similar meaning or value can be expressed so differently in different cultures/contexts.

Re: http://blog.onbeing.org/post/3085548600

OneLittleBird — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:58:37 -0000

When I think of my childhood growing up in the church, I find a hymn coming to mind which had the refrain - "they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love"... All too often that line seems like an indictment of my own failure to love rather than something I could sing with celebration...

Like so many others I've been moved, inspired and humbled by Nevine's photographs, just as i was no less inspired to hear that Egyptian Muslims held vigils and protected Coptic Christians going to church to celebrate Christmas eve on January 6th (in the wake of the bombing of the al-Qiddissin church in Alexandria on New Year's day).

I was inspired too when, last summer, churches here in Nashville, TN gathered to show their solidarity with the local Muslim community after Islamic community centers and mosques in Nashville and Murfreesboro, TN were vandalized and the subject of aggressive Islamophobic protests. I am painfully mindful that much of the anti-Islamic protest in this state has been led by people claiming to speak for Christianity. (They will know we are Christians by our love...?)

Working for love, justice & solidarity are by no means the exclusive claim of Christians, but I hope that in many churches this coming Sunday Christians, across the US and around the world, will hold up these stories & images coming from Egypt as a sign of hope & a call to prayer for the courageous multi-faith democratic movement there. But I also see that first image as a deeply serious reminder of what I firmly believe those of us who do identify as Christians are called to live out in our faith: non-violent peacemaking, deep love of our fellow human, active commitment to solidarity and working for justice when others are suffering. For myself, that is what I feel called to by these images.

As I contemplate Navine's photograph of those young men protecting those in prayer I am personally reminded that as a part of Christian community I am not instructed in the way of Jesus to only pray for peace & justice... I am called to be an active, living embodiment of those hopes. Just as peace is not the mere absence of violence but the presence of justice, it is not enough for me (if I claim to be Christian) to passively 'not hate' but instead I am meant to commit to a life of actively loving others -- in each moment of every day I have to make a choice to step out with courage and embody my hope for the future right here in the present.

2010 was marred by intense public debate and maligning of Muslim Americans centering around the community center in Manhattan. I hope 2011 will be taken by Christians across the US as an opportunity to commit as individuals and communities to put our faith in action -- with humility to serve, defend & protect our neighbors of every creed, in the US and beyond, so they may be able to freely live in peace.

I can't look at these iconic images and not think that while the defiantly raised fist is an embodied symbol of revolution, so too is the hand opened to clasp the hand of another. And I hope I find within me an ounce of the courage being shown by so many in Egypt.

Re: http://blog.onbeing.org/post/1226974265

OneLittleBird — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:24:34 -0000

This is so inspiring. I immediately sent a link, drawing attention to the Penny Power Calendar, onto a couple of folks in my PC(USA) home church in Nashville as a possible future fundraiser for communities in need that we serve. I think this would be a great Lenten activity and I definitely plan to have a Penny Calendar and jar at home.

I've been looking around my apartment and thinking of all the things one could count, including some "invisible" items - my cd collection isn't that big... and then I considered how many albums I have in iTunes.

I'd be inclined to up the ante and make Sunday a "dollar day" - a dollar for some major signifiers of our wealth... tv. car. computers. dishwasher. And also using it as a way of considering whether, after counting them, there are belongings that we don't really need that we could sell to raise money for others or be donated to others more in need or that we could share with others.

This is such an adaptable idea with real opportunity for creativity - it could be applied to so many different kinds of issues and causes and so appropriate for kids. I like that folks end up giving relative to their wealth and that it's something members of a household could do together as a reflection on gratitude, service to others and our attachment to material possessions.

I also think it makes for a great way to learn from, and about, our neighbors in the Mennonite tradition and your social justice values. It could be inspiration for conversation - to be encouraged by a different religious tradition's approach to poverty and be open to reinvigorating our own ongoing efforts in new ways.

Thanks for sharing, Anne. So glad this was posted. Looks like a great event and those quilts... oh my. Beautiful.

Cary.

Re: http://blog.speakingoffaith.org/post/1052603617

OneLittleBird — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:02:52 -0000

Thanks for sharing this, Trent.

I'm finding it a deeply thought-provoking and powerfully moving project, as are your own honest reflections on it. I read neither Rafiqui's words, nor your own, as political comment but as being profoundly pro-human.

During a time when I doubted my skin was thick enough, when grief felt like a raw open wound & that everyone else seemed so much more in control of their emotions, a mentor of mine used to tell me repeatedly...

"The one thing we humans all have in common, without exception, is our vulnerability. To be open to your own fragility and to want to connect with the same place within others -- that is true strength...that's when you know you are really alive."

His words came to mind as I've been sitting here with these images and your words and thinking about human dignity and hospitality.

Over the past couple of days I've been revisiting a text that never fails to deeply touch me: a short essay on alienation and the hospitality of human connection by Frederick Beuchner - it's called 'Pontifex', (meaning bridge-builder); chapter 5 of his collection, 'The Hungering Dark'. I'm finding it speaks beautifully into this conversation. Others might like to check it out...

"We need each other greatly you and I..."

Peace be with you,
Cary.

Re: The Woods - Personal - The Atlantic

OneLittleBird — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:13:58 -0000

That's fantastically informative. Thanks, Kerouax. :)
I'm printing this off and sticking it on my fridge. I never knew about the tiny ice chips - I've clearly never shaken my cocktails hard enough. I'm renaming my shaker "my home gym". Henceforth, I am on a mission to improve my skills. The St Germain website has some nice looking recipes.

I'm getting married in the US in the spring. I can see your recipe getting incorporated into the celebrations. And by incorporated, I mean imbibed. and by me. :)

I was in Belfast over the weekend and Sipsmith gin was the latest gin-du-jour at my favourite bar. Folks were also raving about a Tanqueray/Chambord mix (didn't see the full recipe) served in a tea cup and saucer with a spoon of "gin jam" - presumably it's juniper flavoured - resting across the top of the cup, to be either eaten straight off the spoon before drinking, or stirred in. I love Chambord but the jam seems a strange idea. However, for purely scientific empirical purposes, I may try it out on my next visit.

(TNC readers in UK and Ireland wanting to try Kerouax's recipe might find this useful info...)

I was thinking St Germain, which I've only ever had in bars & restaurants, might be hard to get hold of here in Ireland in retail stores. Harvey Nichols, (very upmarket department store) claim they're the the sole UK retail distributor through their in-store wine shops. They have an international store here in Dublin, (in Dundrum). If they don't stock it I suspect they can order it.

Sláinte!

Re: The Woods - Personal - The Atlantic

OneLittleBird — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:39:43 -0000

hey kerouax,

i am definitely going to try this out.
i love Hendricks. when it comes to gin, typically, i just use it for a g&t (with cucumber and/or lime over ice. but i've never made a gin martini. this recipe sound delicious. i'm a massive fan of elderflower.

so, i'm asking a rookie question for which i apologize (for its rookiness) in advance -

do i use a classic martini glass for this recipe? (i remain unclear if there's a rule that to be a martini it's meant to come in a martini glass)

oh i have another rookie question, does one shake it with ice?

thanks, in advance. :)

Edited to add: meant to say, TNC - this post is awesome. (Got distracted by my tastebuds.)

Re: The sullen prophet: a commentary on the Book of Jonah - Politics - The Atlantic

OneLittleBird — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:21:36 -0000

well done! that's brilliant. :)

(sorry for delayed reply. i switched off email past couple of days.)

as of about 5 hours ago, i'm done too. hurrah. i'd jump up & down but i'm too exhausted and the poms are a good pillow. :)

i don't think the full reality that i've completed will hit me until i've handed it over. (submission deadline is Thursday. the copies are currently being bound in their fancy hardcovers to 'university specified requirements' for collection tomorrow. )

Looking forward to reading everything on here I've been missing out on and i've a pile of books that have been waiting patiently for my attention.

but i gotta say, tiredness aside: it feels good. damn good.

Let the repression begin!