A kinky Episcopalian acquaintance once commented in an interview that the BDSM community's biggest problem isn't lust, contrary to what right-wing religionists would say. No, the bulk of us seem to have a good handle on that. The biggest problem, in her view, is idolatry. Too many kinksters seem ready to exalt one thing or another as the "one true way," even to the point of ignoring the harm such an attitude might cause. I've addressed that before regarding a BDSM organization here in Boston, whose members seem to extol the group as the center of all things, regardless of its many shortcomings. And I've mentioned idolatry in other posts as well, from Tiger Woods to iPhone apps.
Thing is, my understanding of this concept differs from "traditional" definitions of the term. How exactly does a Unitarian Universalist define idolatry? And, just as important, how do we deal with it?
From the traditionalist perspective, the best nutshell definition of idolatry is worshipping something unworthy of worship. This, of course, becomes utterly subjective, as it depends entirely on one's own particular religious allegiance. And what do you do when you consider yourself a religious humanist, given your devotion to critical thinking, not to mention how (or whether) you're willing to incorporate traditional religious terminology?
Many Christians use an alternate definition: putting the created above the Creator. But what happens when you don't believe in an anthropomorphic creator (which applies not only to nontheistic humanists, but many process theologians and pantheists as well)? Perhaps another way to word this would be to put:
-- the part above the whole
-- the immediate above the Ultimate
-- the hypothetical above the categorical
-- the means above the ends
This last wording, in my mind, not only touches upon the act of idolatry, but the very mindset behind it. When we extalt an object, person, group, idea or procedure above its proper place, we are in effect making it an end in itself rather than a means. Kantians would argue that persons ought to be ends in themselves, but I'm sure they would also agree that this excludes ranking particular persons above others.
Idolatry is not merely making a means into an end, however; it is transposing means and ends. When Jesus condemned the legalism of religious leaders, he wasn't just talking about how they imposed numerous rules upon people -- he was pointing out how they were exalting the "letter of the law" (the means of maintaining right relationship) above the spirit which was its foundation (the desired end of a just and compassionate society).
We can see such examples of idolatry all around us. Holding a grudge places one's anger and sense of self-righteousness above the need for reconciliation. Restricting where all "sex offenders" can live and work, even for the sake of public safety, can harm individuals who pose little risk to society. Embracing a political or social case, to the point of neglecting one's personal life, in the end serves neither the cause nor oneself. Seeing a given organization as virtually infallible, and mindlessly denouncing anyone who would question or critique it, can undermine the very purpose for which the organization was created.
We can even make idols of selected aspects of our religious and spiritual communities. Legalism can place rules of conduct and discipline above compassion and discernment. Ritualism can elevate selected expressions of outward worship above the inner spiritual life. Proselytism can overemphasize qualitative growth and retention of membership above quantitative growth in relationships. Devotion to a specific form of polity can stifle attempts to improve how a movement can resolve issues in ever-changing circumstances.
And while hypocrisy can be one consequence or expression of idolatry, dogmatic adherence to codified beliefs can likewise lead some to ignore the harm such hidebound attitudes can bring to others. A hard-core libertarian's devotion to the "free market" can blind them to the darker aspects of capitalist excess, while staunch leftists are oft unaware of Clarence Darrow's admonition that "even the rich have rights." Perhaps these are the "foolish consistencies" of which Ralph Waldo Emerson cautioned us to avoid.
It is indeed a difficult thing to remain mindful of our core values, especially our need to promote right relationship. To reach that ideal, we create institutions to guide us along the path. Sometimes those institutions work, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they are only partial or temporary solutions. Yet institutions often have a habit of taking on a life of its own, thus making it harder to question whether we continue to need them, and how best to craft new means to better reach our desired ends. This is especially true when people become intensely passionate about something they helped to create -- or something they feel the need to destroy.
Avoiding idolatry is indeed a hard thing, not least of which because our culture and politics are so thoroughly enmeshed in the confusion of means and ends. At the very least, we must always ask ourselves: "What good will this do -- and at what cost?"
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The End of Catholicism?
The Roman Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals have now reached the papacy itself. Der Spiegel is reporting that hundreds of German Catholics have left the faith in the past month, while internal criticism of the church hierarchy continues to grow.
Reading some of the comments filtering to my Facebook account, there are many who wonder if this is the final death-knell for Catholicism itself. With Benedict XVI caught between a rock and a hard place, it would seem that the Vatican's credibility can only go further and further down. And so I see some actually proposing that the Church itself must inevitably go the way of the Byzantine Empire.
Not so fast.
For one thing, the Church and papacy have survived far worse scandals than this. It's also important to remember that faith has a logic all its own. People will choose to remain, perhaps to weather the storm, or more hopefully to rebuild from within. Some will argue that Catholicism is bigger than the papacy, or even the hierarchy of priests and bishops. Others, like Bill Donahue, will persist in trying to dismiss the current wave of criticism.
So the question is not whether the Church will survive, but in what form. Will it revert and retreat into a conservative core of true believers? Or will it accept the challenge to examine the contradictions between its highest values and its most questionable practices?
Ultimately, the Church need not become more "worldly" to maintain influence in the world. But its leaders do need to be mindful of what the world sees -- how we "picture" Catholicism. At one end of the spectrum are cold, cloistered clerics in denial about the damage they have inflicted on their own flock. At the other end are the charities and street ministries reaching out to, and speaking out for, the impoverished and disenfranchised. The College of Cardinals behind closed doors, versus the local church with its doors wide open to all. It is these contradictions which have defined Catholicism in the modern era, and which Catholics must now address.
Reading some of the comments filtering to my Facebook account, there are many who wonder if this is the final death-knell for Catholicism itself. With Benedict XVI caught between a rock and a hard place, it would seem that the Vatican's credibility can only go further and further down. And so I see some actually proposing that the Church itself must inevitably go the way of the Byzantine Empire.
Not so fast.
For one thing, the Church and papacy have survived far worse scandals than this. It's also important to remember that faith has a logic all its own. People will choose to remain, perhaps to weather the storm, or more hopefully to rebuild from within. Some will argue that Catholicism is bigger than the papacy, or even the hierarchy of priests and bishops. Others, like Bill Donahue, will persist in trying to dismiss the current wave of criticism.
So the question is not whether the Church will survive, but in what form. Will it revert and retreat into a conservative core of true believers? Or will it accept the challenge to examine the contradictions between its highest values and its most questionable practices?
Ultimately, the Church need not become more "worldly" to maintain influence in the world. But its leaders do need to be mindful of what the world sees -- how we "picture" Catholicism. At one end of the spectrum are cold, cloistered clerics in denial about the damage they have inflicted on their own flock. At the other end are the charities and street ministries reaching out to, and speaking out for, the impoverished and disenfranchised. The College of Cardinals behind closed doors, versus the local church with its doors wide open to all. It is these contradictions which have defined Catholicism in the modern era, and which Catholics must now address.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Hopes for 2010
Happy New Year – or, as my Scots ancestors would say: Guid Hogmanay!
Usually people have looked back on the highs and lows of the past year. Personally, I prefer to look forward, and with hope. So, here’s my list of what I hope to see in the new year…
A new job - My current position is not very inspiring and downright soul-sucking. Would love to find a position where I can use my ability to write and/or teach. I’m still hunting, but as you might imagine, this economy has left slim pickings indeed. Any ideas? Drop me a note!
Equality and justice - Let’s hope that more US states and more countries recognize same-sex marriage. And for President Obama to keep his promises to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and sign a Federal LGBT rights bill into law. Not to mention an end to harassing kinky folks, like the Atlanta police did when they raided the Eagle leather bar. And while I know that it’s a lot to ask for decriminalization, especially with Rhode Island rolling back the clock, at least we could start treating sex workers like human beings.
Health for everyone - We still have a ways to go yet before we get some semblance of health care reform in the US, and it’s more likely than not that the final version will fall far short of what we really need. Millions will still not have coverage, and restrictions on legal abortion will remain in place. But it will still be a step forward, and one can only hope that activists will work to build upon it.
A wider welcome - More and more religious communities have taken steps to welcome and speak up for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks. Let’s hope this trend continues, and the circle grows ever larger. But let’s also expand what such welcome and advocacy means. Faith communities can and should consider opening their doors and addressing the spiritual needs of intersex people, polyamorous families, the BDSM and fetish communities, sex workers fighting for their rights, and more
Breaking silence - Almost two years ago, I began Sacred Eros at Arlington Street Church, to provide a safe space for people to talk about sexuality issues from a spiritual perspective. It still amazes me the number of people contacting me from other UU congregations in our area because they don’t feel comfortable going to their minister or pastoral care team. It’s time that changed. Clergy and other spiritual caregivers need to let those whom they pastor know that they can come to them with questions and concerns about the erotic. And if you don’t feel equipped to do so, then please contact the Religious Institute for Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing for information.
Of course, none of this will come about like magic. Such things only happen because we make them happen. And that is my greatest hope of all – that more people join in the work of making the world a better place, sexually and spiritually.
Usually people have looked back on the highs and lows of the past year. Personally, I prefer to look forward, and with hope. So, here’s my list of what I hope to see in the new year…
A new job - My current position is not very inspiring and downright soul-sucking. Would love to find a position where I can use my ability to write and/or teach. I’m still hunting, but as you might imagine, this economy has left slim pickings indeed. Any ideas? Drop me a note!
Equality and justice - Let’s hope that more US states and more countries recognize same-sex marriage. And for President Obama to keep his promises to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and sign a Federal LGBT rights bill into law. Not to mention an end to harassing kinky folks, like the Atlanta police did when they raided the Eagle leather bar. And while I know that it’s a lot to ask for decriminalization, especially with Rhode Island rolling back the clock, at least we could start treating sex workers like human beings.
Health for everyone - We still have a ways to go yet before we get some semblance of health care reform in the US, and it’s more likely than not that the final version will fall far short of what we really need. Millions will still not have coverage, and restrictions on legal abortion will remain in place. But it will still be a step forward, and one can only hope that activists will work to build upon it.
A wider welcome - More and more religious communities have taken steps to welcome and speak up for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks. Let’s hope this trend continues, and the circle grows ever larger. But let’s also expand what such welcome and advocacy means. Faith communities can and should consider opening their doors and addressing the spiritual needs of intersex people, polyamorous families, the BDSM and fetish communities, sex workers fighting for their rights, and more
Breaking silence - Almost two years ago, I began Sacred Eros at Arlington Street Church, to provide a safe space for people to talk about sexuality issues from a spiritual perspective. It still amazes me the number of people contacting me from other UU congregations in our area because they don’t feel comfortable going to their minister or pastoral care team. It’s time that changed. Clergy and other spiritual caregivers need to let those whom they pastor know that they can come to them with questions and concerns about the erotic. And if you don’t feel equipped to do so, then please contact the Religious Institute for Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing for information.
Of course, none of this will come about like magic. Such things only happen because we make them happen. And that is my greatest hope of all – that more people join in the work of making the world a better place, sexually and spiritually.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Not Every Battle Has a Headline
Bad enough to wake up this morning, hearing that 53 percent of Maine voters decided their gay and lesbian neighbors don't deserve equal marriage rights. But then...
A friend of mine was having surgery, so I went to visit him at the hospital. In the lounge, I saw a young couple, the mother holding an infant. I couldn't help but smile and say: "Beautiful baby."
They looked up at me, the father giving a soft thank you. Then, the mother exploded into tears, and he turned his attention to comforting her. After a few minutes, he went over to me and explained.
One of the first things every new parent wants to know is: boy or girl? For a small percentage of births, the answer isn't always that clear. And the debate about assigning gender to intersex babies -- up to and including surgery -- still goes on. After discussing their case with the doctors, these parents decided the best course was a "wait and see" approach. Give the child a gender-neutral name, and patiently watch and listen. A brave decision, especially since it might take years. But, as deeply spiritual people, these loving parents believed that it was best to leave this in God's hands.
Unfortunately, the minister of their church disagreed. After telling him about their child and their decision, he replied that he could not "in good conscience" agreed to perform a christening. In his mind, God would never create a child who was not clearly male or female. Either the doctors were all wrong, or this was the Devil's work -- and the parents were letting themselves be deceived.
He was mad. "Royally pissed" would be a better term. And he was conflicted -- tied by deep faith and family roots to his church community, yet enraged by this arrogant and inhumane minister.
So I listened. I affirmed his right to be angry, to want what was best for the beautiful child in his wife's arms. And I did what I could to help, writing down his email address so I could look for another minister to perform the christening.
They thanked me, both for understanding and for the offer. I've just finished calling and emailing, finding some ministers who would be willing to help, emailing the info to the young couple. Such battles for justice rarely make the headlines, but that doesn't make them any less worth the fight.
Before I left them, there were a few more tears. Only now, they came with smiles.
A friend of mine was having surgery, so I went to visit him at the hospital. In the lounge, I saw a young couple, the mother holding an infant. I couldn't help but smile and say: "Beautiful baby."
They looked up at me, the father giving a soft thank you. Then, the mother exploded into tears, and he turned his attention to comforting her. After a few minutes, he went over to me and explained.
One of the first things every new parent wants to know is: boy or girl? For a small percentage of births, the answer isn't always that clear. And the debate about assigning gender to intersex babies -- up to and including surgery -- still goes on. After discussing their case with the doctors, these parents decided the best course was a "wait and see" approach. Give the child a gender-neutral name, and patiently watch and listen. A brave decision, especially since it might take years. But, as deeply spiritual people, these loving parents believed that it was best to leave this in God's hands.
Unfortunately, the minister of their church disagreed. After telling him about their child and their decision, he replied that he could not "in good conscience" agreed to perform a christening. In his mind, God would never create a child who was not clearly male or female. Either the doctors were all wrong, or this was the Devil's work -- and the parents were letting themselves be deceived.
He was mad. "Royally pissed" would be a better term. And he was conflicted -- tied by deep faith and family roots to his church community, yet enraged by this arrogant and inhumane minister.
So I listened. I affirmed his right to be angry, to want what was best for the beautiful child in his wife's arms. And I did what I could to help, writing down his email address so I could look for another minister to perform the christening.
They thanked me, both for understanding and for the offer. I've just finished calling and emailing, finding some ministers who would be willing to help, emailing the info to the young couple. Such battles for justice rarely make the headlines, but that doesn't make them any less worth the fight.
Before I left them, there were a few more tears. Only now, they came with smiles.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Just for fun...
Found this originally on ministrare's blog and thought I would give it a go...
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante Inferno Hell Test
Okay, so I'm a lustful heretic. Or is it lustful-yet-otherwise-virtuous unbeliever? Well, what else can you expect from a "test" which tries to reduce ethics and character to a pair of checklists with loaded questions to be answered "Yes/No" or "True/False"?
The real tragedy is how so many religious folk try to use such tests in real life. Especially where sexuality is concerned.
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | High |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | Moderate |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Very Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | Low |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | High |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Moderate |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Moderate |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Low |
Take the Dante Inferno Hell Test
Okay, so I'm a lustful heretic. Or is it lustful-yet-otherwise-virtuous unbeliever? Well, what else can you expect from a "test" which tries to reduce ethics and character to a pair of checklists with loaded questions to be answered "Yes/No" or "True/False"?
The real tragedy is how so many religious folk try to use such tests in real life. Especially where sexuality is concerned.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thank you, Michael
Recently I received an email from Michael, an acquaintance of mine who is a survivor of clergy sexual abuse. Every time I ask him how he is, he responds the exact same way: “Hanging in there.” Which is indeed an understatement. I am always so amazed at how much this remarkable individual epitomizes grace, forgiveness and resilience. Rather than lash out that those who abused him, or the church which ignored his pleas for help, he’s managed to rebuild his life and to dedicate himself to helping other victims heal and grow.
And before you jump to conclusions … no, not a Roman Catholic. Michael was raised in a relatively moderate evangelical denomination, yet one still afflicted by similar problems of denial and ignorance. Michael has since left that church, but still takes the time to share his experience and insights with religious leaders. His number one piece of advice: Prevention. “Too often we only react to stories of abuse. If we are really against abuse, we should do all we can to keep it from happening. Speak the truth, break the silence, empower people and hold leaders accountable before any of this happens.”
Amen, brother!
One way of breaking the silence is to talk more openly about sexuality in our religious communities. Even in many liberal congregations, it’s not considered appropriate to talk about sex in the same sacred space where we revere the Divine. But if we truly believe that sexuality is a divine gift, then it’s not only right but necessary to speak about it, learn about it, and celebrate the diverse ways in which erotic love can be expressed without exploitation and harm.
While knowing the truth can set us free, it is empowerment which gives us the tools to do right in the light of that freedom. Teaching people to think critically and constructively, to move beyond mere adherence to rules into an authentic ethical discernment, gives us the power to live our lives with integrity and wholeness. Such empowerment also means we have the confidence to set boundaries for ourselves, to choose who will lead us and to what extent, and to hold them to account when they fall short.
A rather general set of points, I agree, but hopefully useful as a guide to finding the specifics. George Bernard Shaw said that there is one religion, but a hundred versions of it. Let us hope and work for every denomination to find the specifics of how to speak truth and empower one another in their sexual lives -- and not let anyone else take that power from them.
And before you jump to conclusions … no, not a Roman Catholic. Michael was raised in a relatively moderate evangelical denomination, yet one still afflicted by similar problems of denial and ignorance. Michael has since left that church, but still takes the time to share his experience and insights with religious leaders. His number one piece of advice: Prevention. “Too often we only react to stories of abuse. If we are really against abuse, we should do all we can to keep it from happening. Speak the truth, break the silence, empower people and hold leaders accountable before any of this happens.”
Amen, brother!
One way of breaking the silence is to talk more openly about sexuality in our religious communities. Even in many liberal congregations, it’s not considered appropriate to talk about sex in the same sacred space where we revere the Divine. But if we truly believe that sexuality is a divine gift, then it’s not only right but necessary to speak about it, learn about it, and celebrate the diverse ways in which erotic love can be expressed without exploitation and harm.
While knowing the truth can set us free, it is empowerment which gives us the tools to do right in the light of that freedom. Teaching people to think critically and constructively, to move beyond mere adherence to rules into an authentic ethical discernment, gives us the power to live our lives with integrity and wholeness. Such empowerment also means we have the confidence to set boundaries for ourselves, to choose who will lead us and to what extent, and to hold them to account when they fall short.
A rather general set of points, I agree, but hopefully useful as a guide to finding the specifics. George Bernard Shaw said that there is one religion, but a hundred versions of it. Let us hope and work for every denomination to find the specifics of how to speak truth and empower one another in their sexual lives -- and not let anyone else take that power from them.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Standing at the Intersection of Church and Kink
I go to church. I'm part of the team of laypeople that assists our minister with Sunday worship. I read and discuss sacred texts, theology, ethics and philosophy. I don't hold much to ancient creeds or dogmas, but I take to heart the affirmation of our church:
Love is the spirit of this congregation, and service is our gift. This is our great covenant: to dwell together in peace, to speak our truths in love, and to help one another.
I also crack a single-tail whip. I enjoy listening to a woman's darkest erotic fantasies, and bringing them to life when I can. "Safer sex" for me includes having a first aid kit and spare handcuff keys close by - and, more importantly, thorough discussions of what each of us desires and is willing to do well beforehand.
I go to church. I am kinky. And I see no conflict, no conundrum, no contradiction.
To date, those in my congregation who know about this aspect of my life have been supportive, some even willing to learn more. And I'm glad they are open to learning, understanding, and knowing more. Then again, our congregation is one of the more liberal ones within Unitarian Universalism. I'm sure in some other UU churches, I'd not be so welcome unless I ascribe to a strict "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I've also found support within the local BDSM and polyamory communities. Great to have "one of their own" in a church, blazing the trail. But many are hesitant to follow, either to join a faith community, or to come out to their fellow believers.
So here I stand, between two communities, wanting to build a bridge between them. And folks on both sides asking me: Why? Why should UUs and other progressive faith communities open their doors to kinky people? (Yes, I'm lumping poly folk under the term "kinky," defining that word broadly to refer to erotic expression outside of the mainstream) Why should kinky people go knocking on their doors asking to be let in?
Let me try to answer those questions, as best I can, from my own experience...
We kinky folks have gifts to bring. Our experience and relationships have brought us awareness of just how complex our sexualities can be. We have learned that our wider culture's assumptions about intimate relationships don't always fit actual reality. We've had to learn and develop new rules for communicating, relating, discovering joy, and the bounds of trust. For us, diversity is not merely a binary, or even along a straight-line continuum. Diversity is a palette of varied colors and shades, and beauty is found by transcending boundaries, daring to color outside the lines.
Church folk could learn from kinky folk - and vice versa. Spirituality is not merely about individual transcendent experiences, but about being part of a wider community, and learning to live ethically within it. And while many would argue that we have "our own" community, at times it feels more like a self-imposed ghetto. Whenever any community becomes too insular, it can easily become stagnant. One sign of this is how we complain about our being oppressed, constantly speaking in the language of despair, defeat, anger and resentment. And we wonder why we make so little progress, why so few of us are willing to organize to turn things around? Such language does not inspire, empower or motivate people to take action. That requires a language of hope - the language I hear consistently within my church, and the gift that progressive people of faith have to offer.
I go to church, a kinky fellow who dwells in peace with vanilla people, each learning from one another, growing together, and willing to help one another. Join me - our door is always open!
[Originally posted September 15, 2007 on Myspace]
Love is the spirit of this congregation, and service is our gift. This is our great covenant: to dwell together in peace, to speak our truths in love, and to help one another.
I also crack a single-tail whip. I enjoy listening to a woman's darkest erotic fantasies, and bringing them to life when I can. "Safer sex" for me includes having a first aid kit and spare handcuff keys close by - and, more importantly, thorough discussions of what each of us desires and is willing to do well beforehand.
I go to church. I am kinky. And I see no conflict, no conundrum, no contradiction.
To date, those in my congregation who know about this aspect of my life have been supportive, some even willing to learn more. And I'm glad they are open to learning, understanding, and knowing more. Then again, our congregation is one of the more liberal ones within Unitarian Universalism. I'm sure in some other UU churches, I'd not be so welcome unless I ascribe to a strict "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I've also found support within the local BDSM and polyamory communities. Great to have "one of their own" in a church, blazing the trail. But many are hesitant to follow, either to join a faith community, or to come out to their fellow believers.
So here I stand, between two communities, wanting to build a bridge between them. And folks on both sides asking me: Why? Why should UUs and other progressive faith communities open their doors to kinky people? (Yes, I'm lumping poly folk under the term "kinky," defining that word broadly to refer to erotic expression outside of the mainstream) Why should kinky people go knocking on their doors asking to be let in?
Let me try to answer those questions, as best I can, from my own experience...
We kinky folks have gifts to bring. Our experience and relationships have brought us awareness of just how complex our sexualities can be. We have learned that our wider culture's assumptions about intimate relationships don't always fit actual reality. We've had to learn and develop new rules for communicating, relating, discovering joy, and the bounds of trust. For us, diversity is not merely a binary, or even along a straight-line continuum. Diversity is a palette of varied colors and shades, and beauty is found by transcending boundaries, daring to color outside the lines.
Church folk could learn from kinky folk - and vice versa. Spirituality is not merely about individual transcendent experiences, but about being part of a wider community, and learning to live ethically within it. And while many would argue that we have "our own" community, at times it feels more like a self-imposed ghetto. Whenever any community becomes too insular, it can easily become stagnant. One sign of this is how we complain about our being oppressed, constantly speaking in the language of despair, defeat, anger and resentment. And we wonder why we make so little progress, why so few of us are willing to organize to turn things around? Such language does not inspire, empower or motivate people to take action. That requires a language of hope - the language I hear consistently within my church, and the gift that progressive people of faith have to offer.
I go to church, a kinky fellow who dwells in peace with vanilla people, each learning from one another, growing together, and willing to help one another. Join me - our door is always open!
[Originally posted September 15, 2007 on Myspace]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
