I was listening to an NPR report this morning concerning changing attitudes among younger women and the “hook-up” culture. “Hook-up,” while meaning a variety of things depending on context, means in this context, basically, “one-night stands,” sexually speaking.
I heard again this statistic – younger people are putting off marriage until much later, men in particular are on average postponing marriage until age 28 or after. One of the people interviewed in the piece described the taking on by women of men’s attitudes toward sex, commitment, relationships, and “love.” So, hooking-up is becoming more commonplace and extending longer not only among younger men, but now among women. This causes me to think of a number of things:
1. I know of several secular studies that have been issued results over the last several years that all suggest that a primary indicator of whether a marriage will fail is if the couple lived together before they were married. If they lived together, they were far more likely to get divorced.
2. I’m saddened, frankly, that women are taking on the more beastial attitudes and actions that have long been the domain of men. Rather than the more stabilizing and civilization contribution the “woman’s way of knowing,” they are giving into the superficiality and non-committal attitudes of men (and we know where this has led with regard to single-mom households and the increased poverty rates among single-mom homes). Is this really what the women’s movement was all about?
3. What the consequences of this are going to be for society, for children’s development, and for the individual, interpersonal relationships of those caught up in a culture of “hooking-up?”
Now, there is always the tendency in the present moment to project into the future the consequences of present actions and attitudes, but the projections are based only on current understanding of things. So, projecting forward with our current eyes of understanding, it might well look bleak. Yet, for those for whom this is the developmental situation and condition of their lives, what the outcomes for a good, stable, fulfilled life will be is really unknown. Perhaps, in the transitional scheme of things, they will actually end up in better places than we are now. Who knows… It is disturbing to me, however.
I would rather see less “hooking-up” and more “committing-up!” I fear that the end result will be a lot more loneliness, anxiety, fear, and the losing of the ability to bond. Just look at what the “hook-up” culture has done to much of the gay sub-culture.
Author Archives: blgriffith
Slow, deep rivers and eddies
My continuing attempt to articulate what I’m thinking (painful, I know).
For over the last few thousands of years, since Abraham and our shared belief that he and Sarah were the beginnings of God interacting with humanity in ways that we historically understand, from the “trickle” of a stream that began with Abraham has develop a large and slow flowing river we call the Tradition (nothing to do with “traditionalismâ€).
Still waters run deep!
It is easy in a cursory way to see this river as being almost stagnant, but if we look ever more closely we recognize that, indeed, it is moving with a strength and a surety that is unequaled. The river is going in a direction, it is steady, it is powerful to those who take the time to understand it. There can be all kinds of analogies, but this is where I will go.
Despite how Man tries to control this river by building levies or barriers or dams and so on, the river will not be contained by the mere efforts of men and women. It will flow where it will flow. It will accomplish what it will accomplish, despite our most strenuous efforts to divert its affects.
People enter the river, people exit the river, while many on the banks misunderstand the purpose and power of the river. Others curse the river because it cannot be contained or controlled or manipulated by the designs of Man. The river flows where it will.
Eddies develop both within the river and just off its banks. What gets caught in the eddies has a very difficult time escaping, even as the river continues to flow, even as the eddies stay in the same place, even as some thing caught in an eddy, die.
Those who enter the river must learn to navigate its course. They must get their “river-legs” (or “sea-legs” or “subway-legs,” you get the meaning). They must learn to swim, well. They must learn to “listen” as the river “speaks.” They can fight against the current if they wish, but normally to their own detriment. We have seen again and again throughout the history of the last few thousands of years those who self-assuredly enter the river thinking they know, thinking they’ve figured it all out, only to meet their end. The river confounds the thinkings and the doings of Man’s best efforts.
At the heart of the Tradition, is this: Redemption – the reestablishment of relationship between God and man first-off and then the re-enabling of men and women to be in right relationship with one other. I’ve heard older river people talk about their relationship with a river, as if personified. For us who claim Christ, living waters now feed the river that maintains and is the Tradition. It is a relationship through which we are absolutely changed, transformed, re-formed out of the “worldly systems” that work on us and mold us (form us) in ways contrary to the Life in Christ – life as intended from the beginning and made possible, again. If we regard the Tradition honestly, I think, we will see that this relationship is established, developed, and nurtured through disciplines that when interred into have their way with us – God’s way. We are re-formed! We are enabled to experience God and life anew.
I think over the last century, particularly the last 50 odd years (and really since the dawn of the Enlightenment), we increasingly have given ourselves not to relationship, but to kinds of teaching, kinds of philosophies, kinds of theories, kinds of politics, kinds of methods, kinds of confessions, kinds of acts that all in the end still work contrary to the will of God in our communities and in our lives. Rather than give ourselves over to the re-forming disciplines of the Tradition, we give ourselves to the Ideas of Man – even ideas that attempt to help us explain all this god stuff.
So, we fight, we argue, we demean, we cast dispersions, we torture and kill over these ideas of ours as we move further to the edges of the banks of the river until we find ourselves caught up in eddies. We swirl around and around as our attention and our eyes focus on ourselves only, and we get nowhere. We keep on in this way until we don’t even recognize that we are no longer moving with the river, slow and deep.
Part of the great Tradition, a least as my understanding of our experience in Anglicanism might suggest, is to debate and argue about all manner of things. I think this is partly due to our Jewish heritage, remaining, among many other things. After all, iron sharpens iron. A river rubs a jagged rock smooth. Yet, instead of remaining in the main flow of the river, we find ourselves in eddies. We find ourselves in eddies of identity politics, political correctness, fundamentalism of the left and right, philosophies and theologies that have more to do with the hermeneutic of doubt and disbelief born out of giving ourselves to the Systems of this World rather than giving ourselves to the disciplines that keep us squarely in the river, on course. To stay the course is to allowing us to be re-formed, to be reshaped so that we know well how to navigate, how to swim, how to be in right relationship with God and one another.
So much of Anglicanism and The Episcopal Church are caught in eddies of our own making. The river continues, and we are seeing renewed expressions of the passing on of the Tradition to emerging generations. It is the same Tradition, the river continuing to flow, but experienced anew by new generations. Yet, we remain in our eddies because frankly at this point we have become blind to our own plight. In some ways, our eddies are more comfortable to us than re-integrating back into the river – even though to remain means stagnation, exhaustion, and a withering death.
I’m tired of it all. I’m tired of fighting. I want to step back into the river. I want to find people who want to dive in, head first. I want to be with people who are intentional in giving themselves to the transformative power of the Tradition, even if at present I or we don’t feel like it, or cannot ascend intellectually to what the Tradition demands, but that we think not too highly of ourselves and realize that there is far more to understand and to experience than we have thus far. We allow God to have his way with us.
Instead of coming to the Tradition and the classic Christian disciples and thinking we have to re-interpret them to fit into a “Modern world,” why don’t we engage the Tradition and the disciplines and allow them to reinterpret us! We yield in humility, rather than demand the Tradition yield to our great intelligence, our great coming-of-age.
There is nothing new here… all this is as old and tested as the slow moving river. I want the river, not the eddies. I want the relationship, not the systems, even as I try to understand it all through systems of thought. A “systematic theology” is important to consider, but it is secondary to the relationship. There is nothing sentimental about any of this, nothing nostalgic, nothing about longing for a past “golden era.” There is a gazing forward as the river flows, and I wish to give myself to the learning of how to swim, how to navigate, how to be in the midst of a deep and slow moving river of Tradition. Step out of the controversies and the fighting, out of the eddy, and into the living waters of the river.
What churches do…
This is a very real and commendable effort a church is doing. There are all manner of things churches (communities of people in God’s name) can do to be a comfort and a help to people in areas of economic and emotional trouble.
From NPR: A Door Opens … To Pie, Coffee And Possibility
Decisons, decisions…
I absolutely hate being involved in making decisions that pull me (rip me) in different directions because the alternatives are in and of themselves very good! Lord, what does one do? To be more specific, “Lord, what do I do?”
Then, if I say, “Lord, what do I do,” is that an attempt to relinquish my responsibility and give over to someone else that privilege of decision making so that I don’t have to feel the pain/confusion/angst of it all (and in some situations have to bear the brunt of the outcome), or is it a recognition that in this circumstance I just don’t know what is the best thing to do? Then, am I truly willing to hear the answer when and if it comes? Am I open to any possibility? One more thing, how much does my own want – separate from other right and good considerations – come into play? Is it possible to separate oneself from more selfish thoughts/feelings? Yes, it is, of course, but how do we know the difference between inappropriate selfish feelings – even legitimate wants – and the “right thing to do” because the option really is the right thing to do?
While I may “absolutely hate” having to be involved in such processes, I also know that even the trouble, the angst, the sick gut feeling is for a good end and the process itself is good. There are good results when we give ourselves to allowing ourselves to be challenged and changed.
My problem is that I doubt myself so much. Some have said that one of my (many) problems is that I think too much. I know from past experiences that in the end I tend to make decisions from my gut (when I’m not being slapped in the face, hard, with what should be obvious demonstrations of what needs to be done). I’ve also learned that I can depend on my gut feeling – when I am to the best of my abilities in a place of, “Lord, thy will be done.” I’ve made decisions when everything in me pretty much says, “I DO NOT want to do that!” but my gut says I need to – and the outcome was good.
I drive people crazy because I process out loud concerning these kinds of decisions. I can’t stop myself from subjecting friends to all my angst and confusion.
So, I have a gut feeling. Is it a selfish, uninformed gut feeling or a gut feeling as in, “Lord give me the desires of my heart,” gut feeling because God is directing? I guess if I remove the whole God thing, I’m just the type of person that would still feel the angst – or be far more selfish and be finished with it all. What is worse is that the decision my gut feeling is leading me to make right now doesn’t really benefit me! As a matter of fact, it will make life more difficult and in the end, fail. AND, the other option seems to have so many positives, and will even be beneficial to me as a result.
What does it mean when a very good thing is not chosen?
Right now, I am in that liminal state.
How much are the good outcomes of the decisions we make and their outcomes are simply deciding that this is what I’m going to do and the good results come more from changing attitudes and shifting outlooks to see positively the place we find ourselves or put ourselves?
So my gut feeling will put me in a place that is not as “easy,” not as serene, not as sure, not as stable, not as good for the resume, not a business-ly prudent for my future. So, why am I even considering this alternative? That’s part of my quandary!
Now, I have to try to write a sermon. Lord, help them tomorrow morning because they may just be subjected to an angst inspired interpretation of the scriptures.
Were will I be most useful? Where can my personality, my interests, my sense-of-things be most helpful?
What is theology?
From a recent e-mail update for the Emergent Village (May 20, 2009):
What, Exactly, Is Theology?
By Tony Jones
an exclusive excerpt from the book
The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (now available in paperback):
Some readers might be tempted, at this point, to say, ”All this talk of philosophy and theology is really a waste of time. Why bother with it? The only important thing is that we love Jesus. That’s it.”
Well, I submit that ”only loving Jesus” is a theology. It’s a paper-thin theology, a reductionistic theology. It’s a theology that avoids many things; for instance, (1) two millennia of argumentation over the nature of God, (2) the great difficulties in reading the Bible, and (3) all of the grief in the world. The refrain ”Can’t we all just love Jesus?” uses that unseemly word just (a word that we Christians use altogether too often in prayer: ”Father, we just ask that you would just be here with us tonight …”). Just is a term of minimization, of diminution, when used in this way. (Ironically, just can also be used to denote justice, which is at the very heart of the gospel.) But Jesus, the gospel, the Bible, theology, they’re never ”just” anything. They’re always more, much more, than we might think. These items (Jesus, gospel, Bible) should not be qualified with the adverbs just or only. The gospel is always more than we imagine, the Bible always has something for us greater than we expect, and Jesus is always beyond what we can conceive.
So we must refigure our theology. Too much bad theology has engendered too many unhealthy churches and too many people who don’t quite get the whole ”following Christ” way of life. Too much thin theology is responsible for too many Christians who practice the faith in ways that are a mile wide and an inch deep. The hope of emergents, their ministry, their message is, more than anything, a call for a reinvigoration of Christian theology—not in the ivy towers, not even in pulpits and pews, but on the street. …
Most human activity is inherently theological, in that it reflects what we believe to be the case about God—who God is, what God wants from us, how involved God is in the world, and so forth. The house I buy—where it is, how big it is, how much it costs—is a theological decision. It reflects what I believe about the following questions and more: Does God care where I live? Does God care how I spend my money? Does God favor the city or the suburbs? Does God care about energy use? Does God favor public transportation? Maybe I believe that God cares about none of these things, in which case my decision to purchase the biggest house I can afford in the nicest part of town reflects my theological belief that God is not concerned with such things. Similarly, decisions that are much more mundane also reflect our beliefs about who God is and how God interacts with us. Some people pray for a good parking spot when they’re driving to the mall. Others ask, ”If God is allowing genocide in Darfur, why would he intervene in the traffic patterns at my shopping mall?!?”
So theology isn’t just talk, and it’s not even just great works of art like The Allegory of Peace and War. Actors act theology and businesspeople work theology and stay-at-home moms change diapers and make lunch theologically. So human life is theology. Virtually everything we do is inherently theological. Almost every choice we make reflects what we think about God. There’s no escaping it.
APA and Biological Determinates
Once again, it is evident that the anti-gay forces of the politicized Religious Right will cling to or glom onto anything that even remotely seems to suggest that their pet theories may have a shred of legitimacy. The APA (American Psychological Association) has published a pamphlet that discusses sexual orientation, and in it the Religious Right organizations are having a field day.
Now, these organizations tend to believe that homosexuality is a psycho-emotional “gender identity” disorder at best or at worst simply wanton and willful engagement in deviant sexual relations by men who are intentionally trying to destroy heterosexuality even if it kills their disease ridden carcasses in the process (that is a bit of exaggeration, but not much for some). Any time a study is released that might suggest a biological determinate, they are quick to condemn it and more often than not attempt to twist the comments of the study’s author(s) in order to support their agenda. They claim that most all pro-gay people or organizations demand a “gay-gene” theory be accepted as fact. This simply isn’t true. I am yet to hear any mainstream gay organization demand such a thing, even though individuals will say that they suspect that when all is said and done they believe a biological link will be found. (Of course, there are gay people who will say that it is all biological, but they are speaking not from fact but from emotion and play right into the hands of the anti-gay Religious Right.)
Here is the paragraph from the APA that is referenced by OneNewsNow.com and commented on by the likes of Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, and their compadres:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
Interestingly, I don’t see links to the APA’s entire pamphlet on the anti-gay websites, “Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” which presents much that is contrary to the Religious Right dogma. In the OneNewsNow article, Matt Barber states, “It’s irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle…. Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through — frankly, most effectively — a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
This is completely disingenuous. From the very same APA source that is used as a “knockout punch,” comes this:
What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.
Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.
Barber’s statement has nothing to do with the orientation of homosexuality, but homosexuals who decide to forgo relationships of an intimate nature – loving or otherwise. To “leave the homosexual lifestyle” means to no longer self-identify as a homosexual (regardless of the feelings anyone may have), to burn bridges to all people or anything that may temp people to consider themselves to be homosexuals or to be sexual engaged, and to life-long celibacy. They declare that Jesus will heal people of their homosexuality and make them into heterosexuals, but again and again it is shown that beyond willful hopefulness at best and self-deception at worst, this “healing” just doesn’t happen.
From this paragraph, comes the OneNewsNow opening line: “The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch.” Now, a generally unbiased read of this paragraph will conclude that the intent is to simply say that we don’t know yet what causes sexual orientation, period. But, the Religious Right will use this as a slam against gay-rights organization and homosexuals who claim that they cannot change into heterosexuals.
I think both paragraphs are true, plainly and simply. What more can be said – we do not have enough information to determine what causes even heterosexuality, let alone other expressions of orientation. It is as equally wrong for a gay person to say that homosexuality is biologically determined, factually, as it is for anti-gay people to say that homosexuals can be changed into heterosexuals, factually.
This certainly is not a “knockout punch,” but because it says nothing about a biological determinate being the cause they consider it a victory for Jesus (or rather their manipulation of Jesus for their own ends). The APA states the truth. I wish these groups could do the same.
Why can’t people simply be forthright and truthful? Honestly, gay people or anti-gay people, just deal with the way things are and not they way you want them to be in the face of evidence otherwise.
Latest British Talent
Here’s the most current shock from a bloke on Britian’s Got Talent.
“Waterboarding” and Southern Baptists
The Southern Baptist Convention’s leader for their Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land, has come out against waterboarding and declaring it torture.
He said, in part:
“It violates everything we believe in as a country,†Land said, reflecting on the words in the Declaration of Independence: that “all men are created equal†and that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.â€
“There are some things you should never do to another human being, no matter how horrific the things they have done. If you do so, you demean yourself to their level,†he said.
“Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules,†Land concluded.” [Source: ERLC]
I originally came across this announcement from a OneNewsNow.com e-mail news summary update. OneNews is news aggregator with a intentional slant to American-Evangelicalism (really, more Fundamentalist in perspective). Here is their report. Within the article, they sponsored a poll as to whether the reader agreed with Mr. Land’s opinion. As of 7:11 AM Eastern, May 10, 2009, the results show that 85% of the nearly 18,000 respondents to the poll disagreed with Mr. Land that “waterboarding” is unethical and is torture. That is an amazingly high number, even knowing the kind of readers that regular this website. Only 9% agreed with Land, and I’m one of those respondents.
The comments to Mr. Land’s announcement are fairly typical, with some praising him and some condemning him. What I don’t understand is how those who condemn him do not realize the corrupting effect this kind of behavior has on our own national soul (let alone the individual souls of the 18 year-olds who are either commanded to or given permission to torture another person). Those who comdemn Mr. Land may not care about the soul or body of the individual being tortured, but they should be concerned about the damage done to us.
Here is one typical comment:
Jeff wrote:
Does Mr. Land not understand that we are dealing with pure evil straight from the depths of hell that is clothed in human skin? Why do I care if Satan’s own minion (aka your garden variety terrorist) has a problem with being tortured? Our responsibility to ourselves is far greater than whatever feelings of decency we have towards pure, unadulterated evil….
Jeff may be a “good” Southern Baptist, a “good” Christian family man, but Jeff doesn’t know Scripture or the elemental teachings and commands of Jesus Christ – the one to whom he would claim to have given his life.
Bat for Lashes
Bat for Lashes. She does some Kate Bush-esque performance kind of arty stuff. English.
Any one feel this way?
Sleepyhead by Passion Pit