Disqus - Latest Comments for SarahLynne

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

paulmunn — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:11:33 -0000

I think penitence is a fine word, accurately describing a vein of spirituality that we see in Francis and others (like Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, etc). But penitence is not quite the same thing as repenting, is it? Penitence refers to a state of being, a continuing condition. Repenting is something we do in the moment. Now. I recall Jesus often calling people to repent, but I don't recognize in him the spirituality of a life of penitence.

And I can see why people don't often see grace in the idea of such a "state of being." The concept of a life of penitence fits well with the social and economic critique that shows how dependent and entwined we are with the oppressive systems around us. That does seem like something we can struggle all our lives to extricate ourselves from (all the while admitting we will never be completely free). But is this the good news Jesus lived and preached?

Jesus' call to repent always included the possibility of immediate forgiveness and freedom from the fault we discover binding us. Because he offered it as a gift. By God's power, God's grace. And he showed us that the life of the kingdom could be lived right now, also a gift to us. The call to repent always included the offer of the kingdom of God now, in this moment. "Repent for the kingdom of God has come near."

Compared to that, a life of penitence may seem more heroic, but not more grace-filled. Or more Christlike.

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

SarahLynne — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:28:14 -0000

I think Paul already got at this... but I love putting in my own two cents : ) so here it is:

First of all, I believe we already have been given grace and are released. That is foundational to me. I always feel a bit wary with these kinds of discussions because someone ultimately always frames the issue in terms of working for or accepting grace. My understanding is that I am empowered to embrace the Kingdom of God (which I long for) because of grace. I can do that free from the anxiety of trying to prove myself, or of making myself acceptable before I receive love because of grace. I can try very hard things and not try hard things and still wake up everyday and not be totally despondent because of God's grace. I honestly don't usually say all of that because I have heard people use grace as an excuse so often. I don't think grace excuses us, it can only empower us and give us a proper foundation for action. (The fact that I don't care to develop a clear understanding of heaven and hell and how you get to either may have something to do with my acceptance of that kind of statement. I haven't been convinced yet that the Bible is clear in this area, and I don't understand Jesus or the early Christians as seeming preoccupied with this idea. To me Jesus warned us of the natural consequences of our actions, possibly in conjunction with judgment specifically against those who should know better and still preach a message against God's Kingdom. That's as far as I care to speculate right now, and it doesn't concern me when it comes to my own flesh being weak. I'm sure God can see my longing and so I operate from grace.)

I don't think it is all that valuable to operate from a place of anxiety/fear when it comes to this kind of things. When you talk about internally beating yourself up, or feeling guilty I get the impression that you are operating from anxiety. Do you long for faithfulness? Do long to be conformed to Christ's mind? Do you have any sense of what God's Kingdom is like, think it is beautiful, and long for its full embodiment? (I understand that we can want to want those things and lose that longing at times. I am not trying to be judgmental in asking those questions). This is what I understand as my proper motivation. It is true that I still sometimes feel anxiety and fear. I hear voices and believe that I must conform to them in order to feel loved. Sometimes this is what those voices believe, and sometimes I have to let those voices know that that is what I hear from them, but I still suspect that in the end, I am the only one in the position to judge whether I am ready to embark on something or not, and I am ultimately the only one responsible for my sense of guilt or acceptance from God. This is not to say that other people who may speak words of guilt or shame to us don't need to be addressed, but it is to say that just because I feel guilty doesn't mean the vision or recommended action isn't good. It just means that I need to attend to myself and deal with some of the issues that cause me to operate out of anxiety.

Again, I hesitate to say that, because this isn't a "before I act I have to have perfectly pure motives" type thing. I have acted even when I felt guilty and I think sometimes that it is better than if I didn't act. Sometimes it is worse. I couldn't be prescriptive here, you have to judge for yourself and within community.

One final thought in response to your post. Its true that all those things you mentioned may not make any difference in your relationships with your neighbors. A lot of those things probably make little difference to many of them. For example, having a grey water system in my house was a great social justice-y, "radical" thing to do but it made one of our housemates (who is fairly marginalized in our community) incredibly uncomfortable. This guy comes from a poor broken family and currently struggles with a disability and addiction. He is also pretty arrogant at times, incredibly defensive, machismo and rude. So when he communicates his discomfort with things like a grey water system it is often in a pretty offensive way. Does that mean I ignore him and continue to push my agenda (as good as my agenda is)? In this case, I'd say probably not. Even though I would challenge him and set boundaries when we discuss our differences and problems with each other, I still need to try to submit to his voice and show him respect. In this case I suspect that pushing my own agenda would probably not be a good idea.

Here is the reason... I am, by society's standards (and often, at my dismay, I think by my own and my community's standards) more respectable than he is. He is constantly having to defend his sense of respect and empowerment. In my relationship with him, I really don't need to do that. As I've engaged him I've realized more and more that I rest in a secure, empowered position calling him to conform to me. That doesn't really do him much justice. There is a lot of areas that we both need to grow in, but an area I could grow in is listening to him and letting myself experience cultural and time discomfort as I try and understand his experience. Again, this doesn't mean I just let him walk all over me. We have to maintain a sense of self that is choosing to submit. I'm not forced to do these things, I choose to do them (as much as I am able) because I recognize it as being good. Sometimes I see that the best thing to do is to challenge him. I think he actually really appreciates that... for him it can represent me engaging him as an equal to challenge him. So again, none of this is prescriptive. It would be really easy if it was, but it more has to do with a posture and awareness of when the power dynamics are changing in a situation. With this guy, I'm often in a place of security in the sense of feeling accepted, knowing that I won't be asked to leave the community, and knowing that I generally have everyone's support when I talk to him. We are trying very hard to communicate to him that he has that same security, but I have to be honest that it isn't always where we operate from and so then I have to try and reorient my position and hear him when he tells me that (in his often brash way).

Anyway, I hope that makes some sense. I know your experience will be different as you deal with different people. I just want to be careful of assuming that anything that is "good" is necessarily the right way to establish a sense of humility and equality in our relationship with people.

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

SarahLynne — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:46:04 -0000

If I understand you correctly, I'm right there with you. I felt that tension in writing this article, but I don't see penitence as a negative thing. I can see how that word could cause people to feel shame or guilt or something like that. In that case, I would say discard the word if it isn't useful. Guilt, shame or anxiety is not at all what I think we are called to operate from. We have to act on the foundation of love, grace, and freedom (and the winsomeness of Christ and God's kingdom). My understanding of penitence is through the way Saint Francis modeled himself after Christ. He seemed to operate from love of Christ and joy, even while he cried out about his own deprivation.

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

SarahLynne — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:11:31 -0000

Well, penitence wouldn't be the purpose. I use the word penitential to describe this for a few reasons.
1- it emphasizes our need to repent from (not just ask forgiveness for) the ways we have furthered an oppressive system
2- it specifically asks us to change
and 3- it recognizes the need for practices that embody our repentance and help us break out of the habits and pattern of sin.

This is peculiar to our position, because we need to repent. But penitence isn't the purpose, the purpose is becoming more like Jesus.

Let me explain further how I use this word... I think it implies a more extreme response than just feeling sorry for something wrong and then doing something right. Again I would liken this to alcoholism. I don't think alcohol is wrong, and I think its fine for people to drink moderately and enjoy it, but it is usually wise for an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol, even though its good to drink moderately. In this case choosing to abstain is akin to a penitential act.

Usually when I've talked to people about issues of oppression, prejudice, or materialism, we have been quick to discuss how possessions aren't bad, the idea that submitting to someone who is oppressed is like "reverse-oppression" or "reverse-racism," and how we need to seek equality so we should come to agreements or began engaging on a purely horizontal level.

Ideally, I think this is what being family and one in Christ would be like, but I don't think we can get there without having a more penitential perspective. When I say "we" I mean those who have grown up with the entitlement perspective of power (whether through social/class status, money, ethnicity or gender... or a combo of any of these). Nothing is black and white, there are times when I'm effected by our historically-oppressive culture as a female, and there are times when I realizing I'm hurting someone else by using an elitist lens or engaging with a black person or poor person from an empowered position. In the latter, even when I feel like I'm trying to help the person I need to humble myself and try to adopt a different lens to rid myself of my "bad eye." In the former I still feel called to respond graciously and even submissively at times, but I often still try and do that in a way that is empowering, not simply accepting. I can only really understand what is empowering for me in that space though, because I actually have that lens. In this case I would not be embracing penitence, but simply looking to how Jesus shows me how to engage and love my enemies. In the latter case, I would still be trying to model myself after Jesus, but to be conformed to him I would have to repent and a penitential response may be necessary.

Jesus didn't necessarily model penitence, but his life calls those who sin to repent. I think from a place of unjust power this feels penitential, and accepting that helps us see Jesus' way.

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

paulmunn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:19:24 -0000

That makes sense, thanks. Rereading your article I see it clearly now. And I agree about the need to better identify what it means to love and serve Jesus.

If we're following Jesus in his poverty, though, I wonder how penitence fits in. I agree that such a shift in our way of living will challenge our assumptions of entitlement and help us recognize our sin and encourage penitence (as well as helping the poor and encouraging solidarity with the "least"). But Jesus embraced this life himself, and he is the one we are following, and did he do it primarily for penitence?

Or is there an even deeper purpose?

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

SarahLynne — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:06:47 -0000

I agree with you. I came at this issue from that perspective and still hold it. I don't think there is any way I could prove that what I'm talking about is the most effective way to relieve poverty or help ourselves, and so I initially approached it as foolishness, and I'm sure there are many people who still view it that way (what I've said above has nothing to do with generally making everyone happy with each other. I would expect that there would be a lot of people who would hate us for embracing this kind of life). But as I've explored this way, those are some of the ideas I've been introduced to and that I have been exploring. Its helpful to identify some of the things I've seen as I've tried to embrace Jesus' teachings and model myself after him. So yeah, I do see it as a passion for Jesus, and this came out of that shift in my own life. Thanks for bringing that up.

also, just to mention b/c I think its related... even when I use salvation language to talk about this stuff, I am doing that within the context of recognizing the Lordship of Christ and understanding his identification with them. I'm not trying to misplace who my service and allegiance is ultimately to. I just want to identify what I think that really means, b/c many people talk about loving and serving Jesus, but when looking at many Christians' life I wish they would really identify what that means, what we are being called to.

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

SarahLynne — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:06:44 -0000

That is a great question. I don't think the problem is poverty or affluence though, I think the problem is at its root relational and related to the dehumanization of people. In Matt 6 when Jesus talks about serving God or Money, we could view this as him identifying the personification of money as either a deity or demon that we serve. He is naming what happens within "the world's" economic system in which we make ourselves subject to wealth (increasing wealth within our own). This causes an object to be personified, and results in dehumanization of the people in its service. The idea would be that we can only be fully human in service of God.

So poverty and affluence would be more like symptoms to this deeper problem. In this situation we ultimately want to solve this deeper problem. Obviously though we could never say something like "its ok that I'm affluent and concerned (however mildly) with increasing in affluence because my heart is in the right place" or "its ok to be in dehumanizing poverty if you look to God and are content and happy." Thats like saying that its ok to be feverish forever as long as you don't have a virus. Its ridiculous.

Recently I have had to read an article on approach family therapy (regarding even what seems like personal issues) by looking at the relationships between different members of the family and roles within families (including extended families of course). So if a woman comes to a therapist because she has nightmares, they might not concern themselves much with the content of the nightmares, but look at what relational/structural dysfunction might exist within relationships she is connected to. The article even mentioned how alcoholism could be viewed as a symptom of a deeper issue. I found this helpful as a simile.

Like alcohol, we can see how money and materialism is addictive, so even if it is a symptom of a deeper issue, in this instance you would still want to "treat" the symptom. You would still ultimately might need to abstain from mammon for your own healing. This is somewhat penitential, because we don't need to view abstinence as the ideal, but a method of treating the addiction, or of breaking a pattern. Money, property, possessions aren't inherently bad but they can be very bad for us b/c we continue to have terrible, sinful, dehumanizing relationships with them.

About your other questions... We engage in this for all our sakes. Ultimately this addresses all of our liberation and healing, though the "oppressor's" "liberation" (I know you are uncomfortable with the idea of seeking our own liberation. Is there a better word here?) can only happen in penitential submission to the oppressed's. The poor would be the most obviously benefitted first. It's just "good news" to them, but our own healing is at stake as well. The only reason I emphasize this is because we already generally have an attitude of "helping" the poor. We just tend to think that our own well-being is somehow in conflict with theirs. So in giving things away we are concerned with being "taken advantage of" or we worry about our own livelihood being in competition, that our well-being might be compromised. I'm trying to turn that upside-down, to explore how our livelihood and health is subject to theirs.

We generally already think about doing things for the sake of the poor, but we haven't really internalized the fact that the poor do more for us in terms of our humanity and soul than we do for them (we can help their physical needs, but as they embrace their own liberation and dignity and we are willing to be subject to that, they save our souls) . Anyone involved in charity has glimpsed that. I have often talked with people about how we are benefitted and grew after visiting impoverished places on short term missions trips. This is true, and good, but at the most basic level we still see ourselves as being in a better position (better in terms of healthier) than those we serve, and because of that we aren't willing to challenge some of our deepest assumptions about what kind of relationship we should have with the "less fortunate." I don't frame the question as being for "our sakes" because it isn't for the poor's sake, but because we need to fully confront the issue that our humanity is at stake before true healing and relational health can be explored. Otherwise we will continue to make the poor into our own image. To try and "help" the poor in a way that pressures them to adopt the perspective that causes extreme poverty and sinful affluence and furthers dehumanization and dysfunction.

of course I admit that I am still exploring these issues. There are some things I am convinced of, there are some things that I am unsure of, and there our some issues that I think need to be considered (for example, as a female I do think I have to consider what it means for me to be liberated from a marginalized position. I think submission still plays a huge role even from that place, but I don't know that I could ever be in the position to say that about anything more than speaking of a female's liberation. I'm really not sure...).

Re: Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near

SarahLynne — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:05:24 -0000

Thanks Kathleen! That is very encouraging. I would really like to delve into the foundation of penitence being in a deep faith and the beauty of Christ. I think it is scary because it is hard, but definitely exciting and life-giving. I'm glad you found the post that way.

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

SarahLynne — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:50:44 -0000

I did not say that living in community with people similar to you is class centric, I said your comment about the mental and physical health of poor people was class centric. Then I explained why.

In fact, I agreed that living with diverse people is very difficult and should not be taken lightly, but I don't think that it isn't possible or that you have to do it from a professional standpoint. Catholic Workers have moved in this direction. Dorothy Day did this. I do have experience in this, though I look forward to growing deeper in this direction (let me repeat, since you didn't catch that in my last post. I do have experience in this, even though I wouldn't pretend to have completed my journey in this area). This has everything to do with my understanding of family in scripture, my experience with charity as dehumanizing, Christ's identification with the poor and my experience that living with people different than me has helped me begin healing and growing in my faith. I said all of this above, and never said that living with diverse (including poor and marginalized) people was "mandatory," just that it is the direction I think we should all hope to move in, and needs to be discussed in the context of forming and living in Christian community.

Also, I never said that living with and among the poor and marginalized was for the purpose of meeting their needs. I do think counseling and treatment centers are useful, though I affirm sharing money and life together which is something that everyone needs. In fact, it sounds to me that your understanding of what it means to live with the poor is akin to a very humanist secular social justice notion of simply "helping" them.

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

D. Stall — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:09:56 -0000

I assumed you're "confusing modern humanistic egalitarian notions" because you seem to think Christians should live in community with anyone and everyone, and that anything less is "class centric". If so, I must say I think such attitude is typical of American egalitarian secular humanistic "ideals", but isn't realistic, and may be indicative of not having spent any "real" time around the "poor". Have you spent any time around the poor to have any real idea of their incredible "neediness"? If so, how do you propose to meet their needs in a community setting?
See A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby K. Payne http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Framework_for_...
Even monastic communities do not have such "egalitarian" ideals because they know that members must "fit" the community otherwise it will fall apart. Monasteries (at least E. Orthodox ones) have a 1 year "inquirer" period when the monks are evaluating the inquirer and vice versa. At the end of the year, the inquirer is either invited to stay or told it is better for them to leave.
Thinking that community should be open to anyone and everyone contributes to the top ten reasons that cause new communities to fail, not succeed. Unless we're "gifted" as psychologists, social workers, etc., we'll have to face up to the fact that many of the destitute, multi-generational "poor" have needs we can't meet and are better met by others, especially charitable organizations. We can however, still communally share with others who have less than we do, and together all reduce our overall consumption, thereby not reinforcing the oppressive global socio-economic system which puts a lot of pressure on 3rd world poor who still (unlike us) mostly live off the land, and which ultimately forces them into urban slums, making them even poorer. Communities can also consent to sponsor a poor member(s) among them, but that is voluntary, not mandatory and depends on the community.
See Practical Tools to Grow an Intentional Community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlMDckgqU30

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

facebook-640626286 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:44:10 -0000

You raise a good point about giving all of the 'excess' away. I certainly don't do that as much as I could, it is an ongoing thing that I seem to challenge myself with sometimes and not think about other times. I am hopeful that aspect will continue to grow over time though.

I agree that the only way to truly desire the response to the poor is to identify with them, although as you say this is quite challenging and uncomfortable.

To me it seems fairly clear that knowing how to respond to what Jesus says about this stuff isn't really immediately obvious, and is quite complicated. On the other hand, Kirkegaard says that the matter is quite simple, and the New Testament speaks directly about how we should act, we just make it complicated in order to avoid action that will "ruin our lives".

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

SarahLynne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:33:24 -0000

"In light of such "extended family", you are courting failure if you attempt to form intentional community with anyone and everyone, especially the hereditary poor, the multi-generational destitute with a myriad of psychological and physical problems."

I find this statement a bit short-sighted and class-centric (could that be a term? : ). People from any place could be characterized as having "a myriad of psychological and physical problems." I'm not idealizing the character or health of any individual poor or marginalized person. Even my limited experience is enough to be aware of these tensions, but to make a statement like that ignores the way American, capitalist values skills and certain mental states as "healthier" when they may not be. It also ignores the way our system causes a myriad of psychological and physical problems among people in the affluent and dominant culture. Sure, I'm more comfortable dealing with those kind of problems (because I deal with them myself and thus have more empathy in certain areas, and our more able to overlook certain things), but I've found the attempting to understand and submit to the perspectives and limitations from people in different, less dominant spaces, has actually been a factor in my own healing and addressing my own dysfunction (btw, doing that is antithetical to the idea of being a "missionary" or social worker. You must have misunderstood me here). I agree that everyone isn't in a place to do this, and I can see areas where I can't fully live into this ideal, which is why I try to be gracious towards myself and others in conversations like this. Your right, it would be stupid for someone to just pick up and move to the "ghetto" when they aren't prepared, but this isn't something to be rejected out of hand, and it is still important to recognize and lament our limitations.

"We needn't confuse or equate modern humanistic egalitarian notions with what it means to be Christian or charitable."

Your right we shouldn't confuse modern humanistic egalitarian notions. I'm not doing that, and I'm not sure why you would imply that "we" (the elusive "we" : ) are.

anyway everything else you said was really helpful. I think those would all be good steps to take in trying to live into God's kingdom.

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

D. Stall — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:52:47 -0000

SarahLynne, you write: "The first thing we need to do is form [...interdependent community] somehow... other issues arise with this, like making sure you aren't forming happy little like-minded downwardly mobile educated communities (which then just ends up practicing charity as a community)..."
Intentional community is a remedy for modernism, a reconstituting of extended family of sorts which has been destroyed by industrialism in order to create its "labor pool" for sucking life and profit from the masses. In light of such "extended family", you are courting failure if you attempt to form intentional community with anyone and everyone, especially the hereditary poor, the multi-generational destitute with a myriad of psychological and physical problems.
Are you saying forming community isn't a lot of work? (which it is), or that it doesn't necessitate introspection and growth? (which it does). As such it necessitates putting the other (neighbor) first, and is most definitely essentially Christian. Communal living was a fundamental part of early Christian community.
Forming intentional community is one of the best ways available in these modern times to share with others so everyone limits their consumption. By doing so, becoming less "greedy" for things other than necessities of life, the poor are definitely helped. Then if you want to help those poorer than oneself directly, pray and I'm sure they will be provided to your doorstep. You don't have to become a social worker or missionary to the third world or to a domestic ghetto or barrio. Not everyone is cut out for that. Many (maybe most) of the poor are caught in a cycle of poverty that involves abuse (physical, verbal, sexual), addiction, hopelessness and a host of other psychological and physical problems, which can overwhelm most who desire to help but are inexperienced in dealing with such issues. As someone else has commented here, serving in a homeless shelter on a regular basis may help connect your charity more personally, but you don't have to dedicate your entire life to such.
The early Church Fathers are clear on the role of wealth: to help the poor, not for sensual pleasure (larger yachts, diamonds, more lavish anything). But put this into perspective. In the United States, the top 300,000 earners pocketed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million in 2005. Today those who make $75-$100K annually or less are not the ones who are living on excesses that should go to help the poor; these "middle" and lower classes are those who can help the poor best by not contributing to the consumerist "system", by living frugally and sharing among themselves so that globalism isn't spreading addiction to "affluenza" worldwide.
By living in community, few may need to continue in high powered employment necessary for "nuclear" (nuked) family, reducing stress and allowing more time to devote to spouse, children, and community. Children especially benefit from communal living where they are not institutionally segregated to learn bad habits from being indiscriminately thrown into contact with peer pressure from anyone and everyone's children.
A new generation reared with such a "new American Dream" would do us all a world of good. We needn't confuse or equate modern humanistic egalitarian notions with what it means to be Christian or charitable.
See: Creating a Life Together by Diana Leafe Christian, and http://LifeGivingSpring.info/simple/

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

SarahLynne — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:22:36 -0000

If your concern is simply being able to pay for shelter and food, then do you give everything beyond that to the poor? I ask this not to be shaming, but because this is something I've begun to think about. I have thought similar things and have had similar things addresses to me, not only about "how do I pay for shelter/food," but how do I be a good "steward" and make sure its somehow used well by the people I give it to.

I still haven't come close to living into this fully, but recently I have been thinking about the role of community. As Mark mentioned in the article, the poor and wealthy lived into this reality by sharing and living in community as family. When God originally gave the jubilee commandment he gave it to people in a community. With the nuclear family as our central social structure we are shockingly individualistic and devoid of truly interdependent community. The first thing we need to do is form that somehow... other issues arise with this, like making sure you aren't forming happy little like-minded downwardly mobile educated communities (which then just ends up practicing charity as a community)... Actually, come to think of it, a way to avoid that could be to stop thinking about forming a community for yourself and looking at the way poor and marginalized peoples have established their own communities for mutual aid and support. Its my impressions that the wealthier and dominant we are the less we are able to fully live into, experience, and form community, but a sense of concern for each other and interdependence exists in the cracks of our affluence, maybe you could start looking, listening, and submitting/sharing there?

I have some practical ideas but I am hesitant to be prescriptive. But I guess what I'm saying is you need to see if you can begin submitting and sharing within a different community that is poor or marginalized. I feel like the key here is submission and solidarity. Eventually your fate has to be identified with their fate and experience (as much as it ever can be I guess), we have to make ourselves less than. This is really uncomfortable, and I feel really lame saying it because 1- I'm not doing this well yet and 2- this could even be objectifying as long as we are talking about this in abstract terms.

so all of this is awkward for me, but I think there are directions we can head, and I hope we can both start wrestling with this by trying some stuff out and listening more carefully.

Re: Opening at Missio Dei

SarahLynne — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:46:01 -0000

yeah I'm pretty sure we would : )

Re: What we Deserve?

SarahLynne — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:26:22 -0000

My understanding of God's sovereignty means that we don't have to despair, not that the benefit we receive is somehow justified. Think about how backwards that is. We use clearly evil means to get exactly what we have, then we feel bad about it, but justify keeping everything and even proclaim ourselves "blessed" because God let us have our wealth. This doesn't look anything like repentance in the gospel and it doesn't sound like anything Jesus said about who we identify as blessed.

The fact that God is sovereign means that I can reject injustice and the fruits of injustice even when the wisdom of "this world" deems it irrational. I can have faith that God is working things out for the good of those who love Him. The question is "what does loving Him look like?" and I think the point of this article, is that loving God looks little like what we have been doing and attempting to twist into a blessing.

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

SarahLynne — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:45:25 -0000

I think I understand your point.

Personally, I try not to be reactionary against gender norms either. There are certain things within my personally and that I desire to do that could be considered typically feminine. As long as I remain centered in prayer, am aware of the range of possibilities, and pursue what I understand to be my vocation I don't see anything wrong with being "normal" in some ways. I don't know whether these aspects of my personality are somehow "innate" or culturally formed, but I don't think that ultimately matters. Humans will always be formed within their community as well as with predisposition. My only problem is when people feel bound by these norms, when they are dissatisfied and feel that they cannot act otherwise, and when they say things like "boys will be boys" or "girls will be girls" in order to dismiss something that endangers the health of an individual or a community. This again may be too simplistic, and honestly I don't think I fully understand it yet. I want every individual to feel free to explore the range of their potential (with the Holy Spirit of course), and I'm afraid that I've seen all too often how assumptions based on gender can hamper that. As a result I'm more inclined to try and express possibility and to try and address a person as themselves instead of in terms of their gender. Its not that I don't see similarities among males or females, but we could make similar normative statements about any group. These are often more willingly questioned when it doesn't relate to gender and I don't think that's necessarily because gender norms are more accurate stereotypes.

But, again, I wouldn't rage against anyone who is acting in a normative way. I just know that there can be a lot of dissatisfaction related to assumptions about genders that often aren't addressed because we subconsciously expect things to remain the way they are.

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

paulmunn — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:28:40 -0000

Yes, I agree that we often end up being oppressed by the powers we use to oppress others.

I still wonder, though, if the answer is to try to eliminate "norms." Stereotypes generally are based on something real, though they often become exaggerated and rigid. Masculine and feminine traits are considered "normal" or "typical" because we do see them in a majority of people of those genders. To try to deny this, or say these are completely social constructions detaches us from reality, and won't get us anywhere when people can look around and see that men (or women) do tend to act in similar ways.

But simply recognizing a pattern or norm does not mean that everyone of that gender must act or feel that same way. "Atypical" does not necessarily mean "wrong." (Some folks, like myself, tend to think that in a sinful world atypical usually means right!)

The problem, as I see it, is that people often try to suppress or attack those who do not conform to the norm, those who diverge from the group. (Jesus also experienced such attacks.) I think this comes from insecurity and fear, and is sinful at its root. Perhaps the scapegoat effect that Rene Girard has written so much about. And the use of the power of the group to suppress or destroy non-normal people is certainly sinful. The list of minority groups who have suffered this is long. It seems people can easily find an excuse to direct their aggression against the few, the weak.

And, as you say, this also hurts the oppressors, the majority. Because the nonconformists often have very important, unique insights and creative contributions to offer to the community. And all of us usually find ourselves in the minority at some point...

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

SarahLynne — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:33:04 -0000

Here's an article that may shed some insight on how this may go deeper than simply cultural stereotypes (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3088298&page=1)

While I'm not remotely capable of addressing this from any "scientific" or biological perspective, I know that there is some evidence that transgendered people often have a more female looking brain

Also, I don't deny any differences between female or male brains, I just deny the extent to which we have constructed (or exaggerated) male and female genders. As a result I'm critical of any behavior that is deemed "male" or "female." I also think we should be aware that a spectrum view of gender and sex maybe more appropriate... but again I don't fancy myself an expert.

I think though, regards of whether or not this is also a biological reality. I understand why you would be skeptical. In my initial conversation with Claire I talked about how I never really understood the idea that I was supposed to "feel like a woman" while someone else feels like a man. I identify with men and women in different ways, and only when introduced to feminism did I begin to think of my experience and struggles as possibly a "feminine" experience... or question how it related to my gender.

But, as I spoke to her, I think I got a glimpse of her perspective. My understanding right now is that she isn't "rejecting herself" but trying to adopt visual cues that express femininity and invites people to interact with her as they would interact with females. This would be based on the cultural expression of gender.

Also, fully rejecting your sex may be more connected with desiring to be or becoming transsexual (anyone feel informed enough to speak to that?). Clare may one day seek that. Though, like I've said elsewhere, I'm inclined to feel discouraged by the rejection of our body, I have two reasons to defer to Claire's experience.

1- I don't really understand the biology of this enough to make any kind of definitive statement, and I'm not sure that anyone does.
2- If this is purely a cultural phenomenon, which could be avoided by a more open and accepting understand of gender, than I can't blame Claire for feeling the need to change her sex. She doesn't exist in that alternative open and accepting reality and I have no right to pretend to understand what it would mean to love and accept her male body in spite of what she has learned and what our culture expresses and has taught her.

Either way, I'd agree with Paul's assessment of this. Recognizing the way we, collectively, have cause LGBT people to feel marginalized and suffer, repenting of that, and learning to love is not contingent on whether or not something has a biological aspect or is purely cultural.

btw Paul, the only reason I would look at "norms" as oppressive powers is because I believe the oppress even the people who perpetuate them and feel that they "benefit" from them. You are right though, that we shouldn't let ourselves off the hook. I just think that recognizing them as realities we've constructed serves to dis-empower them and allows us to consciously deal with our oppression and ability to oppress.

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

paulmunn — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:16:05 -0000

I suppose someone could get a tattoo for ascetic reasons, or their nipple pierced. Those are pretty painful (I hear). Or someone might dress in women's clothing ascetically, if it included high heels, or maybe a girdle...

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

SarahLynne — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:32:12 -0000

haha. Thanks Paul. I thought there was something off when I wrote that word : )

Also, it was a nice Freudian slip.

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

paulmunn — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:10:11 -0000

Just wanted to point out an interesting little word choice error that three people have made now...

ascetic: practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline (like fasting or wearing hairshirts or self-flagellation)

aesthetic: of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful (which is what was meant... I think)

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

SarahLynne — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:55:35 -0000

Thanks for pointing that out. I tried to be sensitive to that in this article, but I could see how it could still come off that way.

Re: Breaking Down Dichotomies: Being “Yourself” in a Gendered Reality

SarahLynne — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:03:54 -0000

I wasn't trying to address how gender-roles prevent one's ability to embody Christ... in fact, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say that.

I'll venture into the unknown and discuss how I would view that statement though. Gender-roles are oppressive when they compel us to act in ways that deny our humanity. They can keep us from embodying Christ to someone only in-so-much as we cling to them and assist them in compelling the person to reinforce our culture's norms (that is: then further reifying and empowering abstract human-made power). Christ came to free us from the power's and principalities (which you claim to view gender roles as), and to empower us to oppose them, so in my mind this is tied to the freedom that I have found in Christ. Obviously, if you believe your gender-norms and roles are God-ordained then you would disagree with me, but if they are human-made powers that compel people to act in ways that isn't true to their humanity (which I think they do to almost everyone to some degree) than they must be properly seen as powers and principalities.

In response to your second paragraph, I firmly believe that we are formed and become persons within community, so in my mind this ideally isn't simply a matter of personal choice, but most people don't exist within the context of loving community, I imagine (only as a result of my experience) that those who do would be supported in decision to oppose the powers in this way. I certainly feel that I need to do this with Claire. We have to remember that what I am talking about her isn't choosing our sex, but adopting the gender we feel comfortable in. What I'm getting at is the need to ultimately dis-empower our gendered expectations, not let people just "choose" whatever they want in a consumerist way. In my experience this gives Claire that opportunity to explore her tastes and personality further. I don't feel like she has suddenly "changed" but has begun to courageously be herself.

Finally, in regards to surgical manipulation as sin, well if it is anyone's sin it is ours. I wouldn't see that as being specifically the transsexual's sin. Furthermore, though I lean towards arguing that feeling the need to surgically alter yourself is lamentable... which, honestly I can only understand from my perspective as a female who has felt tempted to alter myself... I don't think any of us (unless perhaps you are transgender) are in any position to understand it's sinfulness. The fact that you wrote that it would be for purely "ascetic" purposes reveals a shallowness of understand. The fact that I can only relate to it from my own desire to ascetically enhance myself reveals my own ignorance. To feel like a female in a male's body is very different from my wishing I had bigger boobs, or someone wanting a nose job or pec enhancements.

Against my better judgment I simplified this article to address the transgendered experience from a purely cultural context, but there is research that shows that there is something biologically different about transgendered people that could make them feel wrong in their body. Though I tend to hope that we can be comfortable in our natural bodies, I wouldn't pretend to understand this well enough to make any strong claims about that.

so... that's why I didn't bring that up in the article.

Re: On Homosexuality: A Pastoral Journey

SarahLynne — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:45:46 -0000

I'm not sure what research your referring to, and I'm not sure at all about that research relating to humans, but I this phenomenon isn't new within nature and concerning other organisms.