On Knowing Shit

This actually happened once. I was with some friends at a restaurant, and having an intense discussion with two of them, when another person interrupts us.

"Tell me this. Deer, horse and cow pretty much eat the same stuff, but the deer excretes pellets, the horse big clumps, and the cow flat patties. Why is that?"

There was silence for a moment, then I spoke up: "Well, they may all eat the same stuff, but they digest them differently. I'm thinking the deer absorbs the most moisture of the three, and the cow the least." That led to the others taking out their cell phones to fact-check what I had said. Yup, I'd pretty much gotten it right.

I'd also deprived the person interrupting us of a punchline:

Since then, I've seen people getting all serious about the logical fallacy that not knowing literal shit means they are not qualified to talk about other shit. There were even people who went out and researched why different animal shit had different shapes and consistencies. No shit, folks!

This is what's interesting. Here I was, with little prior experience or study of animal biology, and I'm able to figure out why each one excretes different shit. Which raises the question of which is more important - knowing shit to begin with, or figuring out shit.

I'm thinking this is why my two friends – who are quite smart – felt uncomfortable responding to that question. They assumed that, since they didn't have enough information about shit, they weren't able to give an intelligent answer about shit. I've found myself in similar situations, even when I was able to figure out that shit. Somehow, we've equated having information with being smart, to the detriment of problem-solving and critical thinking.

That, in turn, affects our discourse. We find ourselves talking to someone, and they're rattling off all sorts of figures and assertions on some shit, and we assume that having this apparent command of facts on this shit means they really know said shit. Or, do they?

Seriously. My father's a physicist, along with knowing all sorts of random scientific and mathematical shit. Yet when something breaks in the house, he gets frustrated and unable to figure out how to get it fixed. One time, the garage door broke, and he was getting ready to bash it with a sledgehammer, when my mother yelled at him to put it away and sent me to take a look. Me, who at the time was studying sociology in college. I looked at what was broken, deduced a possible solution, and had the door up and open within ten minutes so that the car could go in and out and final repairs could eventually be made. How is it that a man with a graduate degree from Harvard, knowing all sorts of shit, is unable to figure out practical mechanical shit, but his youngest son is able to figure out such shit?

Being an empiricist, I'm deeply concerned about facts. But I'm also mindful that understanding such details – their relationship to one another, and how they fit into a larger picture – is just as important as merely accumulating them. Especially because we're often put in the position of figuring something out before we have all the details (what's often called a "minimum information problem").

And no, I'm not talking about endless theorizing and analyzing about shit, or deconstructing how other people try to understand and figure out their own shit. That's what I’ve come to call "criticality over practicality". Ever sit in a room where housemates spend hours debating how to determine who is going to clean the toilets and take out the garbage "in the most equitable fashion" even when one person rolls their eyes and says, "Look, I'm willing to do it, so let's move on"? That's what I'm talking about.

What bothers me is that we're not teaching people how to do the practical work of figuring out shit. We're teaching them to categorize and memorize, to label things and other people, and to delude one another into thinking that this amounts to knowing shit. It doesn't. And until we figure out this shit, we're going to find it harder to get shit done.

"More Radical Than Thou"?: A Toxicology of Social Justice Advocacy

I've been meaning to write this post for some time, even before my departure from UU-dom. By doing so now, I'm sure I'll face accusations of betrayal, even personal attacks and insults. More's the pity.

What I've observed in so-called progressive circles – both secular politics and theological communities – is a poisoning of language and relationships that is driving too many individuals to disillusionment and desertion. Just as many women have abandoned the feminist label while still embracing its basic values and goals, I foresee an increasing number of folks leaving the organizations and networks established by social justice advocates, not because they have given up on the ideals of social justice, but because they find the means being employed as harmful to both the collective ends and individual psychology.

The major tendency behind this toxic environment is an increasing demand for perfectionism. It's no longer enough to work for a better world; activists must now work for utopia, and settle for nothing less. The mentality of the "Bernie or Bust" tendency is an obvious example of this, but I've witnessed even more insidious manifestations. As one former activist recounted to me: "Nothing is ever good enough. The slightest thing will get you thrown under the bus, even the way you apologize for what you've said or done, or failed to say or do." This attitude, I believe, stems from the goal of "overcoming false consciousness" – first promulgated in Marxist circles, then within radical feminism, and now more widely. Gone, however, is the patience required to facilitate such changes; just as utopian goals must be achieved all at once, utopian consciousness must be similarly adopted.

This has in turn led to a culture of constant criticism within activist circles. I'm not speaking of criticism in the academic and political sense, but the vernacular sense of negative fault-finding. This is employed not only in seeing the outside world almost entirely as "intersectional systems of oppression," but directed internally at one another, even at oneself. Nothing escapes such persistent fault-finding, and rarely are constructive alternatives given. Regardless of the intended political and/or theological goal desired, such an environment inevitably causes psychological harm. For one thing, the barrage of criticisms eventually begin to contradict one another, leading to double binds and cognitive dissonance. This is assuming, of course, that the individual in question hasn't decided: "If nothing I do or say is ever good enough here, why am I bothering to stay?"

Just as criticism may be well-intentioned, excessive use of jargon by social justice advocates is rooted in the intention of expressing this community's ideas and values in convenient shorthand. Unfortunately, just as technical language in other areas may create a barrier between its users and those "outside," so the jargon of social justice tends to set them apart from so-called "ordinary" folks, especially when using words and phrases which sound overly academic. Even worse, when combined with the tendencies of perfectionism and constant criticism, certain terms of art become used to attack, belittle and silence people. Thus "privilege" may be misused as a synonym for "arrogant" or "clueless"; any male who attempts to answer a question put to them may be accused of "mansplaining"; or merely leaving to go to the bathroom gets one "called out" for their "microaggression", and the explanation rejected as "white/male/cis/hetero/ableist fragility".

In the past, I've half-jokingly referred to religious liberals embracing the idea of "protest as sacrament"; now, I fear it's become all too serious. Engaging in protest has become less about strategy and tactics, or even about sending a message – it has become an end in itself, and participation in protest an essential test of commitment. Thus the contradiction is created when someone who uses their connections and influence to affect genuine change are ignored or even looked down upon, while those who picket and chant are lifted up even if their actions lead nowhere or serve only to alienate.

I don't question the intentions or desires of those in the social justice community who have fallen into these traps. I believe they are sincere in their shared vision for a more equitable and sustainable society. Why, then, have these issues come about, and why do they persist? If I may hazard a guess, they are rooted in three problems of approach:

1. a lack of understanding of human psychology, especially regarding motivation and communication;
2. a lack of patience, leading to high demands for both personal and social change;
3. a confusion of means and ends, specifically where adopting the terminology and behavior of other activists in order to fit in diverts attention and resources.

Over thirty years ago, I was sitting in a room of other progressive student activists, listening to a seasoned grassroots organizer sharing experience and insight. "Always remember," the elder activist imparted, "that your goal is a better world, not competing to see who's more radical." If those who seek justice and acceptance are not more just or accepting of one another, and less willing to question the effectiveness of their methods, how is that better world to come about?

Are We Becoming "the Protest Church"?

As I was recovering from surgery recently, the friends I was staying with introduced me to someone who would seem open to Unitarian Universalism. An openly gay African-American man, progressive and well-educated, interested in spirituality but not committed to any single tradition.

And yes, he'd heard of UUs. "Oh yeah – the Protest Church."

That led to a couple of conversations during my first week of recovery, followed by another last night. I don't know if Carl's perspective of is typical of the "Nones" who avoid UU churches, but it's worth considering.

Carl generally agrees with our principles, and our non-creedal approach. But how he sees us currently engaging the world bothers him. While he's glad to see UUs on the picket lines on various issues – immigration, voting rights, Black Lives Matter – he still has reservations about what he considers an "overly reactive" approach. To him, UUs seem to "jump into" a movement, and then into another, and then another. He does admire the commitment and compassion around this, and he also remembers our leadership around LGBTQ rights, especially marriage equality. But when I consider his career path, I begin to understand where he's coming from.

Carl took a master's in psychology, and would employ it in diversity training and conflict resolution. He made an effort to help build bridges – and mend fences – between the LGBTQ community and people of color, then with police and other first responders, and so on. He took the time to learn more about the kink and polyamory communities, and had begun efforts to educate others as well. From one-on-one mentorship to speaking in front of groups, what struck me the most was he didn't wait for disaster to strike, or for a particular issue or cause to make the headlines.

I'm sure many UUs, especially ministers and other leaders, will respond with a sense of indignation. "Hey, we do that, too! We do all sorts of things like that!" But I had to remind myself that this wasn't about Carl not knowing these details. It was about what he was able to see of UUs engaging the world, by marching in picket lines with matching yellow shirts and attention-getting banners – "the Protest Church."

What Carl told me has prompted a good deal of questions. I'm still struggling with the answers.

Taking Down Flags ... and Other Obstacles

The horror at Emmanuel AME Church has stirred a wave of reaction, including efforts to get rid of the old "stars and bars" flag of the Confederacy. Would seem like a simple step towards progress, to consign this symbol of a racist regime to history displays, yes?

Well, I've been reading some who have argued that this "purely symbolic" act would do little or nothing to address more fundamental issues around racialized identity. Others has commented that the growing list of companies choosing to pull Confederate flag merchandise from their shelves is only doing this to avoid boycotts and appeal to a growing segment of the marketplace.

I've observed this tendency a great deal among UUs and others seeking a more just and inclusive world – the deprecation of partial solutions, especially when done out of expediency or pragmatism instead of enlightened principle. This is not to say that we shouldn’t continue to call for and strive towards something better. But I do thing we need to ask: Does it make sense to demand perfect motives and perfect actions from imperfect people living in an imperfect society?

I've seen such perfectionism tear movement organizations apart, as their members schism over which solution they consider the "correct" one to follow. I've seen once idealistic friends become hardened cynics because the process of change failed to follow their best-laid plans. And I've seen once promising groups become paralyzed, wondering and worrying which course to take.

When I find myself witnessing such, or slipping into that mode myself, I think of one of my favorite films … Miracle on 34th Street. Yes, Kris Kringle is the seemingly hopeless idealist, trying to revive the spirit of Christmas in an age of growing commercialism and cynicism. But he manages to succeed, not because everyone else suddenly adopts his worldview, but comes to see some practical reason for doing supposedly selfless acts, from the department stores helping people find what they want at another store, to the tired postal workers sending eighteen bags of "Dear Santa" letters to a New York City courthouse.

And in the end, that's ultimately how life works. People don't always do the right thing for the right reasons, or even for the same reasons as others who do them. Actions which may seem trivial to some may be transformational to others. Republicans like David Brooks and John Huntsman, for example, didn't come to support marriage equality for the same reasons as Evan Wolfson or Margaret Cho, nor does the average person commit as much time and energy in expressing their support as a politician or celebrity. But we still welcome them into our movement – don't we?

Ten Films That UUs Should Watch: Casablanca

While most of the films I listed earlier are at least critically acclaimed, not many are considered iconic classics. Truth be told, even this film was only a moderate success when it was first released. Yet it has risen in popularity to be regarded as one of the best films ever produced (if not the best by some, including yours truly).

One could say it's because Casablanca "has it all" – romance, intrigue, suspense, adventure, an all-star cast and much more. But I would argue that it is also a spiritual story of redemption, centered around Rick Blaine.

Putting the flashbacks ahead of the main story, Rick was active against the forces of fascism, running guns in Ethiopia and fighting in Spain with the Republican forces. He was living in Paris at the beginning of World War II when he met and fell in love with Ilsa Lund. As the Germans made their advance, the couple and Rick's friend Sam make plans to flee south, but Ilsa has a note delivered to Rick, saying that she will not be coming with them.

Now in Casablanca under Vichy control, Rick owns and runs the "Café Americain" nightclub and casino. He is withdrawn and seemingly cynical, frequently telling friends like corrupt police official Louis Renault: "I stick my neck out for nobody." Yet even beneath that façade, his earlier sense of commitment peeks through – denying a German banker credit in the casino, allowing a desperate couple to win enough money for passage to a neutral country, mocking attempts by visiting Nazis to intimidate him.

Things get more complicated when Ilsa arrives with her husband Victor Laszlo. Ilsa's presence alone is enough to unsettle Rick emotionally, but Laszlo’s notoriety as a fervent opponent of the Nazis shakes things up even more …



That scene, in my opinion, is the most pivotal of the film. Rick, having crafted an image of neutrality for himself and his café, must suddenly make a choice. Eventually he helps Ilsa and Victor escape, and flees with Louis to join the Free French in Brazzaville. One might see this as a sign of nobility in Rick, but I think this is also about inevitability, in that Rick realizes that the desire for freedom is too great to be squashed by the Nazis or anyone else.

But to do so, he has to give up not only Ilsa, but the safety and security of his life in Casablanca. And it is that willingness to sacrifice for something greater that we could learn from. Most of the time, we hope to make a difference in little ways, just as Rick did early in the story. But Laszlo's arrival reminds him – and us – that ultimately what is good and right demands that we let go of our transient comforts. That doesn't necessarily mean quitting our jobs or living in tents, but it does mean a willingness to stick our necks out for someone now and again. And that in turn means realizing we're not as powerless as we think, that our capacity to change doesn't depend upon how we earn our paychecks or how big those checks might be. Change occurs all around us, often sweeping us up into events bigger than what goes on in our day-to-day lives. But each of us also has the capacity to bring about change, and not just wait for some pivotal moment.

UU Social Activism: A Proposal For Your Consideration …

The Internet has revolutionized our world, including how many people work to change it. The process by which social-justice groups make decisions has become radically decentralized. The tools available to activists have gone from printed paper to electronic documents, from finding physical meeting space to setting up an online forum. The scope of e-communication has allowed us to truly "think globally and act locally." And the speed at which discussion and action takes place has accelerated to the speed at which one can type and click a mouse.

Now compare that to what we Unitarian Universalists have set up. A five-person Commission on Social Witness screens who-knows-how-many proposals down to ten or less. These are then brought to the congregations, and they have a couple of months to pick five from that list. Assuming that twenty-five percent or more of UUA congregations submit their choices, these are tallied and the results presented to that year’s General Assembly to pick one for congregations to study and act upon over the course of three years – assuming, of course, that every congregation has someone with the knowledge and passion to take the lead on that. Then reports, a draft statement of conscience, a poll of congregations on the draft statement, a revision based on comments, a two-thirds vote at the next General Assembly, and finally after four or more years, the UUA makes an official statement on the issue.

Meanwhile … How many other issues have gone by the wayside because they didn’t "make the cut" to become an official Congregational Study/Action Issue past the CSW, the first congregational poll, or the General Assembly? How many CSAIs died with a whimper because there weren’t "enough" congregations with people willing and able to take part in the process for that issue? And how many issues were given a boost because the President of the UUA used their “point of privilege” to call on people to take a stand?

Seriously, I have to wonder … Imagine if this process had been in place in the early 1970’s, given how many congregations resisted even talking about homosexuality, and given that the UUA’s President at the time responded to the proposal for an Office of Gay Concerns by asking: "What’s next, bestiality?" Would we have taken such a leadership role on GLBT issues, especially marriage equality, if this process had been in place back then?

I admit that, whatever the arguments in favor of this process, I’ve yet to hear them. But aside from the fact that it promotes competition over cooperation, perpetuates a scarcity mentality, and ultimately relies more on top-down rather than bottom-up decision-making and influence, this process is years if not decades behind how the vast majority of social-justice activists do things today. And if we are to be "the religion for our time," if we are to catch up with and even take the lead with this new approach, then we need a new "open source" method of witnessing to important issues that is more effective, inclusive and responsive.

Borrowing from both biblical and technical terminology, let me propose a "UU Cloud of Witnesses," or UU-CloWt for short. The hub for this could be a wiki site, providing a platform for people to present and organize on various issues. Each issue would have a portal under which people could find various pages, from an introductory summary of facts, to links for more information and resources, a forum for people to exchange ideas and opinions, a calendar for events (both real-time and online), and a proposed resolution with a form for individuals and congregations to record their endorsement. Such a UU-CloWt wiki site would provide a way for individuals and groups to connect and cooperate from the grassroots up – and, more importantly, to link up with activists outside UU circles and affect change both quickly and effectively.

And what of the current system? Well, what of it? If people still want to pursue that process, they are welcome to do so. But there’s also the chance that both congregations and individual activists decide otherwise, perhaps even declining to participate in the CSAI polling system, and gauging interest by activity on this open-source platform. And if that shift were to happen, I guess the UUA’s leadership and bureaucracy will have to do some serious thinking.

The Ethics of Outing

Since joining Arlington Street Church, I've found that I'm not alone there in terms of being kinky. There are two fellows who each hold different leadership positions, and who have also mentioned to me in private that they've attended Leather events. And the couple who moved to the suburbs, but decided not to go to another church because, as one whispered to me, "we're glad to see one of our own on Sunday worship."

You'll notice the emphases. Yes, I'm not alone as a kinkster at Arlington Street Church -- but I do seem to be the only one willing to be open about it. Still, it is not my place to "out" my fellow pervs, even within a kink-friendly environment like ASC. Despite the benefits to our community to have more people come out to friends and family, I believe that the process of coming out is primarily an act of self-determination.

But just as the GLBTQ community has had to face the likes of John Paulk, Ted Haggard and George Rekers, as BDSM and fetish sexuality becomes more visible -- and more a target of attack -- it is also likely that we will encounter someone who openly opposes us while secretly indulging in the very same behaviors they condemn and try to suppress. This is certainly something I have had to personally consider, as a new organization for Unitarian Universalist kinksters takes shape.

What, then, must we do?

Some within the BDSM community hold to a "never-ever" rule, that we should under no circumstances out anyone for being kinky, no matter what. Others believe it is justified to expose an opponent's hypocrisy, just as the anti-gay activists cited above were exposed in the media. One kinkster noted in an online discussion that the "never-ever" camp seems to be primarily or exclusively heterosexual, while the more "strategic outing" camp is predominantly GLBTQ.

There are few absolutes in life, as evidenced by the fact that I'm hetero and a supporter of the latter position. But I also believe that our community will need guidelines for determining when and how to implement such a decision. And this I am grateful for the work of many in the GLBTQ community who have given much careful thought to the issue, especially Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.

The rationale for "strategic outing"

Some may see a double standard here: How is it that I will not out my fellow kinksters in our kink-friendly church, but I will out kinky people if they do something bad?

First, let's be clear that we are not talking about members of the BDSM community, but people who openly oppose us. Just because they may engage in bondage, flogging or some of the others things that we do, does not automatically entitle them to community membership. If someone learned Spanish in secret, read and enjoyed Spanish literature in secret, and secretly thrilled to the sound of a Spanish-speaking voice, that doesn't mean they are part of the Spanish-speaking community -- even more so if they publicly insult Spanish and those who speak it, or try to get Spanish banned in public places.

Second, we're also not talking about "doing something bad" in general, but of specifically targeting and attacking kinksters. If a member of the BDSM community had done some questionable things within the community, then I believe it right that such conduct should be addressed within the community. And even if they had engaged in unethical conduct in their vanilla life, I don't see how outing them to the vanilla public serves any purpose.

Third, we're definitely not talking about punishing someone for secretly engaging in kink. We're talking about exposing hypocrisy, and for the expressed purpose of reducing and/or stopping their harmful actions towards us -- the equivalent of using reasonable force in self defense. If an anti-kink crusader justified their attacks on us based on "moral purity," and it turned out that same person was engaging in sexual infidelity, that is also hypocrisy, and the same rule applies. I believe the only time a person should actually be punished for their sexual conduct per se is when it is nonconsensual or otherwise abusive.

Suggestions for guidelines

If sexual minority communities are going to consider the option of strategic outing to defend ourselves from harm, then we will need ethical guidelines for determining when, why and how. I would like to propose three general principles:

1) Clear proof -- If we are to "speak truth to power," then we must be sure that we are indeed speaking the truth. Hearsay and innuendo are not evidence, any more than regarding Marcus Bachmann's so-called "flaming behavior" as evidence. And even when evidence is presented to us, we need to examine it carefully. Are there alternate explanations? Is it recent, or so far in the past as to be explained away? Could it even be a setup. Only when there is clear and reliable evidence should we even consider bringing it forward, lest we risk a considerable backlash.

2) Right motivation -- Our reason for doing this should also not stem from malice or a desire for revenge. Our goal is not to humiliate or punish an individual, but to address and put an end to harmful actions. If outing someone will only serve to do the former instead of the latter, then I believe it would be better to back off. This also connects to the next guiding principle...

3) Fair warning -- The person facing possible exposure deserves to at least be told that there is evidence of their hypocrisy, and to be provided both the options and the chance to change the course of their conduct for the better. Every effort should be made to engage the individual in question into dialogue, to present the evidence obtained, to explain our own motivations, and to propose alternate courses of actions. If the individual simply promises to refrain from further attacks against us, then there is no reason to expose them. If they choose to abandon their course altogether, and consider actually joining our community, then we should provide what support and guidance we can. And if the person chooses to out themselves, perhaps attempting to explain away their behavior, then the ball is now entirely in their court.

But if they refuse to engage in dialogue, or decide even afterwards to continue to do harm to our community, then I believe it is justified to present the evidence to reliable media outlets, along with an explanation of the the process of ethical discernment and engagement leading to that point. I hope indeed that the number of times such actions are deemed necessary are few -- but I also hope that we do so mindfully and with respect both for truth and for all people involved.

In Praise of SlutWalks

When I was in college, there would be a Take Back the Night March every year. Simple idea -- women walking together to protest sexual violence, and to assert their right to go where they choose and when they choose.

Now, a similar action is being done: SlutWalks

It started in Toronto, in response to a police officer's comment: "Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." And women responded by marching together against both sexual violence and the flippant victim-blaming attitudes which hinder real efforts at dealing with the problem.

Since then, there have been SlutWalks all over Canada and the United States -- and more to come, including London, UK. It's also prompted commentary, both print and online. Unfortunately, some of that commentary has consisted of old-school feminists decrying the reclamation of the word "slut." The most noted of these is an opinion piece by Gail Dines and Wendy Murphy, in which they tsk-tsk the women leading this effort. Their rote ideological justification is that the word is so beyond redemption "that trying to change its meaning is a waste of precious feminist resources."

With all due respect to Dr. Dines and Ms. Murphy ... Balderdash!

Words are what we make them to be. Otherwise, a whole host of words would remain off-limits. And let's not forget that, just as language and culture are complex realities, so is the definition of words. Just open any dictionary and see how many have multiple, nuanced meanings.

Besides which, you are ignoring the core message of this movement: It does not matter how a woman dresses, or what she chooses to call herself, or even how many sex partners she's had. What matters is her right to say yes or no at any given moment -- and the responsibility of men to hear and respect that.

Keep marching, women. Keep getting the message out, even when some continue to try to silence or dismiss you. Even if Dines, Murphy and others don't get what you're saying, there are those of us who do -- and who will stand with you every time you don your fishnets and stilettos to take to the streets.

What's In A Name?

Guy Baldwin, an iconic figure in the Leather/BDSM community, has been making waves recently, first with a speech at the Leather Leadership Conference, and then another keynote for the National Leather Association International. There's been much discussion and debate about the remarks he's said at those events. This post is a respectful disagreement to one of his statements.

At the annual meeting of NLA-I, Baldwin pointed out that none of that organization's founders used a Scene name. He then remarked about the number of people he'd seen at leadership events who did go by Scene names, and posed the question: "How can you lead from the closet?"

Now that's where I have a problem -- the automatic presumption that the only motivation for taking a different name is shame or fear. And since no one who is ashamed or frightened can be a leader, then soon we'll be disqualifying for leadership anyone who prefers to be known by a name other than what's on their birth certificate or driver's license.

Let me offer a counter-example. A woman given the birth name of Miriam Simos is well-known as an author, speaker and activist in Pagan, ecofeminist and social justice circles. Thing is, she prefers to be called by her craft name: Starhawk. And while one of the reasons why many Pagans adopt craft names is protection from discrimination, she doesn't hide her legal/birth name. She has simply chosen a name which reflects her spiritual and political identity. She's hardly in the "broom closet" -- but the logic of those who insist on "legal names only" for leaders would reject that reality.

Similarly, many in the BDSM community embrace Scene names to affirm the sense of transformation they experienced. Some people's Scene names were simply nicknames bestowed by others. Meanwhile, I've also known folks who never took Scene names, but who are definitely closeted about their kink. And let's not forget people who change their legal names out of genuine fear for their safety, or shame over being related to someone nefarious.

Not good enough for other kinksters, however. To them, you're either completely out or you're totally in hiding. There's no continuum, no freedom to choose -- it's as simple as black and white. Which, unfortunately, is the same mentality of those who oppose us. Just as right-wing religionists would deprive us of civil rights for not adhering to strict rules about sexuality, so there appear to be some in our own community who would deprive others of the opportunity to serve for not adhering to their own narrow beliefs about names.

I understand the need for our leaders and spokespeople to be honest and unashamed. But one can do that and embrace a new identity as well, just as Starhawk has done. To reduce leadership qualifications to a simplistic "either-or" test, without any concern for the person's actual talents and energy, sounds too much like the employers who would fire or refuse to hire someone just for being kinky. In our fight for freedom and dignity, the last thing we should be doing is behaving like our opponents -- especially towards our own people.

Busy, Busy, Busy!

Yes, I know I haven't blogged in quite some time. Other things have taken attention and energy, so much so I've felt too exhausted to go through the whole process.

So, what exactly have I been doing?

Well, there is Sacred Eros, the sexuality discussion group at Arlington Street Church. January and February I invited others to kick off conversations on different topics (unfortunately, our February speaker wound up in the hospital, so we had to "wing it").

I've long lamented that Boston's kink community seems too inwardly drawn, too focused on parties and clubbing, or the next class on some BDSM technique, while so many continue to complain about our legal and political situation. That has finally changed, starting first with a serious discussion on Fetlife, and now a series of roundtable discussions on how we can make our city and state a safer place for kinky folks. This month's roundtable will be brainstorming on educational efforts. Not to mention an all-day conference on legal issues affecting the BDSM community, hosted by Princess Kali of the Kink Academy.

Back at Arlington Street Church, I've raised the issue of how we can better respond to the issue of sexual abuse and misconduct by leaders. As Debra Haffner pointed out in her recent report, for all the good which Unitarian Universalists have done around sexuality and gender equity issues, this is actually one of the weakest areas in terms of having a clear and consistent policy for both preventing and responding to such incidents. At the very least, congregations should consider what they can do, and I hope and trust that my own congregation's leadership will help set an example to follow.

And finally, what about all of us who are both Unitarian Universalist and kinky? I keep hearing from many who are still hesitant to come out, even in confidence to their ministers. I've had ministers and seminarians asking for information, wondering how they can minister to us. Fortunately there are some positive steps being taken, some as part of a more comprehensive effort to equip UU ministers and educators. One grassroots effort is a new website: Leather & Grace, providing information and resources on BDSM to the wider UU world.

Yes, it's been a busy time. But it's also been productive. Hope abounds, and the work goes on...

Why I am Not a "New Atheist"

In my younger days, I was quite the infidel. I led a campus groups of freethinkers and secular humanists, and continued for many years after graduation.

And then, I left. I'd had enough of the overwhelming negativity -- the emphasis on how wrong the other side was, and how "we" were not like "them."

From what I've seen, both inside and out, there is nothing all that "new" about the so-called New Atheism. Read the freethought literature of the nineteenth century, and you'll hear the same strident tone of scientific certainty. Problem is, when you embrace such an uncompromising approach, what happens when you disagree with one another? Sadly, I witnessed the answer to that question within hard-core atheist ranks, and it broke my heart.

New Atheism too often comes across as merely the mirror image of the religious absolutists which they tend to target. Worse, they fail to see how their own views and approach are as much a matter of faith as their counterparts. Yes, they pay attention to empirical facts, but sometimes their understanding of those facts seems rather simplistic.

Too many supposedly liberal folks, for example, seem to regurgitate the belief that "homosexuality is genetic," when the facts are much more complex than that. For example, many tendencies may have biological antecedents which are not necessarily genetic in origin. Then there is the interplay of social and psychological factors, the interaction of gender identity with sexual orientation, how people's perception and understanding of themselves can change over time, and so on. And just as a pure genetics argument is simplistically deterministic, believing that homosexuality is a choice still begs the question of why it must be considered as inherently unethical.

Given how vehemently New Atheists put down religion, it's incredible that they would even lower themselves to work with progressive religious folks on common issues like GLBT rights and reproductive choice. They remind me of Ayn Rand denouncing both conservatism and libertarianism because neither was pure enough for her tastes. And it reminds me of the smug BDSM dominant who pejoratively labeled open discussion groups at a Unitarian Universalist congregation as "come to Jesus meetings".

I'm sure that some would argue that this portrayal of New Atheism is itself overly simplistic. Then again, even portrayals of evangelicals can be overly simplistic. Just look at Jim Wallis, who considers arguments over homosexuality and evolution as distractions from more important questions of social justice and equity. Bottom line, the New Atheists appear to be spending so much energy critiquing religion -- whether just the extremists or altogether -- that they beg the question of how they hope to usher in a better world. Just what is their vision, and how does it guide their actions?

That, ultimately, is the real poverty behind the New Atheism. While religious and political movements are at least guided by a positive vision, militant unbelief is trapped in a never-ending cycle of combative philosophical debate. So, if we are to make a better world for all of us, we need to go beyond mere intellectual sparring -- as deep as the human heart, and as broad as the human family.

Time to Get Out of the Leather Ghetto

Is it just me, or has the kink community gotten rather conservative?

I certainly don’t mean in the sense of endorsing Republican or Tea Party candidates, or working with Concerned Women for America. But I do mean a seeming lack of effort in looking for change. I mean the way that members of the Gay Liberation Front looked at the older Mattachine Society.

Truth be told, Mattachine had its own internal conflicts between those pushing for more activism, and those who argued for assimilation and public education. But I’m definitely seeing a parallel here. Like Mattachine, even though the bulk of BDSM and Leather groups espouse educating the public as one of their major goals, I’m hard pressed to find that actually being done.

Worse, even the low-key efforts which I’ve had to do among Unitarian Universalists has led to my being attacked – personally as well as politically – and histrionically labeled as an obnoxious extremist.

If you don’t believe me, go look at the website of the New England Leather Alliance, and see if you can find any signs of life in their “external outreach” efforts. Is there a list of actual accomplishments in this area? Yes, there are relevant documents from the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom – but where’s the evidence that they have actually acted on them? And it’s certainly no help that the position of Director of External Outreach has remained vacant for months. You’d think that, if this was indeed a priority, the current leaders of NELA would make an effort to recruit someone.

I’m sure there are some examples of public outreach being done by local groups and activists. The problem is in finding them, especially when the websites of these groups won’t even list them. They’ll talk about events and educational programs for kinksters - which we certainly need – but go into specifics about talking to vanilla folks, and the well comes up dry. Certainly more public events like the Folsom Street Fair provide visibility and a sense of community pride – but if a vanilla tourist is walking about lost among the spanking and bondage demos, what then? Museums have tour guides and information booths, so why can’t Folsom?

It’s as if the BDSM community has ghettoized itself – become so insular and inwardly focused, we forget one of the quintessential principles of political and social change: The smaller the minority, the greater the need to build alliances and coalitions with outside groups. So if we want to change the laws and social attitudes which lead us to remain isolated and misunderstood, then we have to leave the leather ghetto and talk with vanilla folks, whether one on one or in panel discussions or mass media.

It’s been said that the number one rule of the Old Guard was: “Don’t scare the villagers.” Many appear to have interpreted that to mean that we should always keep out of sight. Well, it’s too late for that – the villagers know we exist. And while some will always be scared of us, no matter what we say or how we say it, that’s no reason we should remain so scared that we can’t find a way to engage the rest of the village in dialogue and understanding.

SHALOM: Towards a Theology of Wholeness

Sermon delivered at Arlington Street Church, Boston MA on September 5, 2010

CHALICE LIGHTING – Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Within us is the soul of the whole; the wise silence, the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal One. When it breaks through our intellect, it is genius; when it breathes through our will, it is virtue, when it flows through our affections, it is love" – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Many sermons have been preached from this pulpit based upon a single story, or a single sentence. This one is based upon a single word – but a word with more complex meaning than you may have realized.

SHALOM has often been translated into English as “Peace.” Thus, when we hear of the word being used in the same way as “Hello” and “Good-bye,” we think in terms of bidding one another peace.

But, what kind of peace? Is it the same as the Latin Pax, meaning an agreement between two or more persons or groups? Is it like the ancient Greek Eirene, meaning rest or quiet?

No, SHALOM stems from a different root, one that conveys wholeness, integrity, and well-being. From that root also comes the verb l’shalem, “to pay,” and thus the implication that peace, wholeness and all that come with it must be bought with a price. Biblical scholar James Strong additionally included as possible definitions: to make amends, to make good, to restore, and prosperity.

With all that in mind, think now of the multitude of meanings one could garner when one person greets another with the word SHALOM:
“May you know wholeness.”
“May all things be good with you.”
“May all that is broken be restored.”
“May all you deserve be received.”

I think it no accident that the ancient Hebrews found so much meaning in such a small word. The very structure of the language allows for multiple understandings based on a common imagery. In this day and culture, what imagery can we invoke to better understand the wholeness of SHALOM?

Let me propose the image of a puzzle. Imagine that you are given a box, and inside are a number of intricately shaped pieces. As you look them over, you realize that some fit together in an obvious way. And as you sort and play about with them, you find other, less obvious ways to put those pieces together.

But, it’s a big puzzle, and it takes time and effort. So other folks come over, see what you’re doing, and suggest putting this piece in here, or sliding that piece over there. Once in a while, someone will suggest that you discard a particular piece, while another may insist that the box you were given is missing a piece. Eventually, with enough effort and insight, the pieces come together and a form takes shape – the puzzle is restored to wholeness.

Our lives – both individually and in community – can be seen as very much a puzzle, a collection of different pieces which are meant to fit together. Many times, we seek the insights of others to help us find what fits where. The difference, of course, is that we’re not given all of the pieces all at once. Many come to us over time, in the form of education and experience. Still, we need to find a way to fit them together, to bring the final form to shape.

Now, for those who come from a conservative religious background, this analogy may be pushing buttons for you. The Old Testamant prophet Jeremiah used a similar image, of a potter turning clay into a vessel. To many conservative theologians, the analogy is clear – God is the potter, and we are the clay, to be shaped according to his will. Likewise, one can see a conservative interpretation of the puzzle analogy, with God as the puzzle master, working through us and those around us to put the broken pieces back together.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I have a more positive and complex understanding of both images. I can see the Divine not as the potter, but as the source of the clay and water used to make the pot. We are the potter, kneading the clay, turning it on the wheel, artfully shaping it with our hands, while others do the same and offer help and advice. Likewise, we receive the pieces of our puzzle, and as each piece comes in due course, find its proper place in the whole, with help from those around us.

As useful as this image may be, like all metaphors it is merely a tool, and even the most useful of tools has its limits. For one thing, our industrialized culture has influenced us to think of things like puzzles as uniform objects, like mass-produced jigsaws, or the Rubik’s Cube. But neither the human soul nor the beloved community are mass-produced artifacts; our perceptions and experiences are rarely, if ever, one size fits all. We may share insights, as we share a common humanity, but the myriad details of individual experience call for us to adapt them to the unique realities of our lives.

This, I believe, is the answer to a frequent critique of the pluralistic approach of Unitarian Universalism. How can a movement which eschews doctrine and creed call itself a common faith, much less offer clear answers to the problems of life? It is because of the complexities of life that we need a faith which looks beyond ready-made formulas which often wind up dividing and separating us, even splitting the psyche from within.

Many spiritual traditions, for example, call upon people to overcome anger, fear, hatred and pain. In the quest to find spiritual well-being and peace, too often we read this as a call to discard or extinguish these parts of ourselves. Yet we do so at our peril. The quest for wholeness calls for us not to disown or shove aside unpleasant aspects of our psyche, but to put them in their proper place, to find a way to own them without letting them own us. We can be angry, for example, and it can even empower us to seek justice or avoid further harm. It is when we let it fester into a consuming rage that we risk becoming that which has injured us.

Likewise, in the life of a community, there is often the temptation to downplay the more unsavory elements of our history. A movement may pursue justice, yet adapt tactics which are themselves oppressive. Another community may extol the power of love, yet turn that love inward to the comfortable familiar, and in the process exclude those on the outside who starve for compassion and understanding.

An example can be seen in the tumult surrounding the Stonewall riot of 1969. After so many years of continued repression and violence at the hands of police, a relative handful of drag queens, street kids and other queers decided all at once that enough was enough, and rose in revolt. What is often forgotten is how the events of those summer nights were followed by bitter debates and division within the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. The Mattachine Society decried the violence and distanced themselves from those involved – and those who became involved in the burgeoning Gay Liberation movement responded that such distancing was no mean feat, as the relatively more affluent and assimilated homophile group had constantly kept many in the community at arm’s length.

They further questioned just how effective Mattachine’s more cautious approach had been, and even whether it had unintentionally aided anti-gay oppression in its striving to craft a more respectable image for itself. That debate went on for decades, and continues to this day, just as many gay men, lesbian women, bisexual and transgender folks and other sexual minorities struggle within and amongst each other to find a balance between being true to ourselves and fitting in with a culture which is not yet fully accepting of our truths.

It is that striving for reconciliation, for restoring integrity and wellness within our souls and our communities, that can seem frustrating to us. We may solve that fiendish Rubik’s Cube, and put it down with a sigh of relief – until someone comes along and messes it up again. But unlike the plastic pieces of a machine-made puzzle, the heart is a living thing, and like all living things it grows and changes with time. So even if, by miracle and effort, each of us finds that wholeness and peace of mind we seek, we are still called to grow in that wholeness. And just as every living thing is interconnected one to another, so our fate is bound with others, and so we are called to help others as best we can to find SHALOM together.

Amen and blessed be

BENEDICTION

May you know wholeness.
May all things be good with you.
May all that is broken be restored.
May all you deserve be received.
And as this brings you peace,
May you strive to share and create
The peace and goodness so needed
In this world of which we are a part.

It Takes Both Sides to Build a Bridge

Let me begin this post with an apology. If I sound angry, frustrated, or just plain fed up, it has nothing to do with you personally. I’ve been trying to comfort the afflicted for quite some time; now I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s time to afflict the comfortable. If you feel you don’t deserve the harshness of this message, please remember that there are those who do, or who fail to grasp how harsh silence can be. So, with that in mind, here goes …

As I went through the process of formally joining my congregation, I made it clear to the senior minister that I am openly kinky, and that part of my reason for joining was to help build a bridge between the two communities. And I asked her if she and the congregation were ready for that – to see more kinky folks come into the church, even reach out to the BDSM community, so that people on both sides might share their spiritual gifts with one another, and work together for justice and understanding.

She said that she believed that was possible, and that she could see me in that role of bridge builder. It was encouraging and empowering.

And now, I’m beginning to wonder.

Yes, I’ve come a long way. I’ve never hidden being kinky or polyamorous to anyone in the congregation, and they’ve been great about it. I’ve had others come out to me, even thank me for being as out as I am. Others have shown their appreciation for helping them understand sexuality issues better, whether at a Sacred Eros meeting or in private.

Yet there are others who simply do not want to talk about it. I’ve heard of at least one person who left the congregation over it, even though I had offered to answer any questions or concerns they had. And there are plenty of kinky and poly folks who have come to worship services or other events, found it a warm and inviting place, perhaps even a spiritual home, yet remain wary of going any further than “just visiting.”

I’ve heard from other UU kinksters in other congregations, and the news isn’t always pleasant. Many feel they must remain in the closet, because it’s clear that others are not comfortable with their presence. One woman told how she was hauled before a committee, questioned at length, then told to sign a one-sided covenant which would have barred her from so much as mentioning BDSM with anyone else, while the committee could selectively out her to others. Another told me that, after coming out to the new minister in private (as he had done when he joined years before) he was told it “would be for the best” if he simply left.

Granted, there will always be some who refuse to listen or understand. Even when the bridge is clearly before them, they will not walk across it, or welcome any who come from the other side. The real problem, however, is that there’s no bridge to speak of. Those of us who are kinky UUs often feel as though we have to swim back and forth between the shores, while the folks on either side expect us to build the bridge all by ourselves.

So, let me make it plain. Swimming from shore to shore is exhausting. And it takes more than one or a few hardy souls to build that bridge, and certainly not from one side alone. It takes both sides to build a bridge.

Unitarian Universalists cannot simply wait for BDSM folks to swim over. We’re already in your congregations, worshiping and serving alongside you. Many are silent, because they’ve already heard ignorant and fearful things said about them from others in the pews, or even from the pulpit. And the very reason I chose to come out to the members of my congregation is that I know from those silent kinfolk how soul-scarring that is.

That has to end. And, frankly, I can’t do it all by myself, nor can other kinky UUs be expected to do what I do all by themselves. We need ministers, educators, staff and lay leaders to join in. We need you to learn who we really are and what we’re really about. We need you to speak the truth in love whenever someone maligns us out of ignorance and fear. We need to welcome us as our whole selves, to see that the experience of our sexuality carries spiritual gifts worth sharing, and to encourage other UUs to do the same.

The same goes for those in the kink community. I have heard you talk for so long about changing laws and attitudes. Well, to do so will require allies, and you can’t just wait for them to come to you. You need to reach out to UU congregations, leaders and social justice organization. You need to help them understand what we kinksters have to go through. And yes, at the risk of sounding evangelical, you need to go to church, to understand who we are and what gifts we have to offer you.

Our two communities already have much in common, and much to offer one another – but that alone is not enough. The fact that so many UUs are so wary of us kinksters, and so many kinksters are so wary about church, tells me that we need more. We need to devote the time, resources and hard work to building that bridge, rather than assume that it’s already there. We need to realize that those of us with kinfolk on either side of the shore cannot afford to keep swimming from shore to shore. We need the experience of others who have built bridges, or who have enjoyed what has come over them, to lend a hand.

The Many Ways We Can Bear Witness

Recently it was announced that the Unitarian Universalist Association will undergo considerable restructuring, including several layoffs, in part because of a shortfall of funds. One of the casualties of this change is the UUA's Washington Office for Advocacy, and this has led to much debate among UUs online. Some are upset that we have lost what they see as a vital voice; others have responded by raising the question of how much and what kind of political activism and advocacy is appropriate for a religious body, how such advocacy might alienate some of our members, and so forth.

Below are my own thoughts on the subject, posted on one of the UUA's discussion lists:

I don't think the issue is whether we have unanimity, or live up to the perceived example of our forebears. The issue IMHO is whether the positions we take are consistent with our shared values and principles.

Supporting marriage equality, for example, is indeed consistent with our values of equality, fairness, love, and the encouragement of spiritual growth. As such, we can voice our approval of proposed legislation which furthers this goal, and the opposite to those proposals which would hinder it.

The more specific we get, however, the more problematic having the UUA as a whole voice support or opposition. What happens when a proposed piece of legislation would advance one goal, but at the expense of another? For example, we may think that restricting the politcal influence of corporations through campaign finance reform is beneficial to democracy, but what if the same legislation also restricts free speech for various non-profit advocacy groups?

At the end of the day, however, I believe the real question is what we mean by "advocacy." Is it just lobbying for Federal legislation, or are there other ways we can bend the moral arc of the universe? In my own congregation, I've been priviledged to know many such advocates -- those who tend to our city's hungry and lonely souls through our Friday Night Supper Program; the doctor who spent a week doing intensive care medicine in Haiti; the Partner Church Committee helping to rebuild homes in New Orleans; the man who has devoted his life to lift up the lives of children in Guatemala. Not only do these stories give me hope, but inspiration in my own work on sexuality issues.

We may disagree about the specific means of acheiving the ends we seek, but if we are to acheive them, then we need to acknowledge and make room for diverse ways of doing so. And, in doing so, we affirm yet another of our cherished values.