Idolatry

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?"

Why I'm Signing Change.org's Petition to iPhone

Recently, Exodus International has released an iPhone app which makes it easier for people to send "help" to young folks questioning their sexuality. Translation: If you want to scare and shame a teenager you know into a so-called ex-gay ministry, there's an app for that.

Now if any group wants to offer an app, that's their right. But for Apple to rate such a feature as having "no objectionable content"? I beg to differ.

At best, the claims of these groups to "cure" homosexuality through prayer and/or "reparative therapy" is incredibly dubious. Many of these ministries don't even do long-term follow-up studies on the effectiveness of their programs.

And that's the best you can say about them. From what many men and women who have endured those programs have reported, the potential for psychological harm is very high and very real.

From a spiritual perspective, it seems to me that the whole basis of ex-gay ministries is a legalistic dogma -- that being gay and being "right with God" are mutually exclusive, based on a biased reading of six Bible passages. Now we can debate the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek, and the context of those passages, but instead I'll just pose one simple question:

If you believe that all things are possible with God, then why not the possibility that there's nothing inherently wrong with same-gender love?

The Exodus app is at the very least false advertising, and at worst it is selling poison as medicine. Please join me in signing Change.org's petition, and demand that Apple stop supporting the Exodus app.

Compassion for the Closeted - And the Real Hypocrisy Behind It

Recently someone on my Facebook list posted a link to a scandalous story. In it, the president of a prominent Catholic high school in the Midwest had been caught in a sex sting, groping an undercover police officer in a park notorious for anonymous gay sex.

You'll notice I've refused to give any personal details here. It's bad enough this fellow has been forced out of the closet in his home town. Does he really need a kinky heretic like me adding to his misery?

There are different reasons different people keep their sexual identity away from public view. Whatever that reason, we should lean towards respecting them. If the person in question is a public figure renowned for "promoting family values", then exposing such hypocrisy seems more important than privacy.

In this case, however, we're dealing with a private individual with no record of espousing anti-GLBT propaganda. Yet he's also caught in the dilemma of having to deny his desires for intimacy and pleasure out of obedience to church doctrine. Well, you can only do that for so long. Is it any wonder, then, that he resorted to such risky action?

So I feel compassion for this fellow, and I hope he can find a way to come to grips with his sexuality, and to reconcile it with his faith. I feel that way for so many who feel they are caught between competing desires - the erotic and spiritual - and hope that they and their families and communities will come to see that these need not be mutually exclusive.

What really bothers me is the real hypocrisy behind all of this. Men like this school administrator can confess their sins, do their penance, and be forgiven for what is seen as a temporary lapse in moral judgement. If, however, they chose to live in a committed loving relationship, then all bets are off. Thus the churches which continually condemn anything outside of "traditonal marriage" wind up showing greater tolerance for behavior which is furthest away from that ideal.

This is the problem with a sexual moralism which fixates on form instead of being concerned with content. The forms are so many, contradictions and conundrums are inevitable. And in all of this, where is the value of love - not just for those who repent and obey church doctrine, but those who are willing to question bravely how those doctrines do more harm than good?

Core Values ... or Puritanical Legalism?

You'd have to be a hermit in the tundra to be unaware of how conservative Christians have upheld opposition to abortion, contraception, homosexuality and sex education other than "abstinence-only" as going against their beliefs. What you may not have heard is how it's been ratcheted up. These positions aren't just beliefs, or even "deeply-held religious beliefs" -- they are now deemed "core values."

So now we have a conservative Christian university student claiming a right to refuse to counsel openly gay clients because she claims it would contradict the "core values" of her faith.

On the flip side, a nun who approved an abortion to save a critically ill woman's life is not only fired from her post at Saint Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix but excommunicated from her church, because Bishop Thomas Olmstead apparently holds as a core value of Catholic faith that "the mother may in fact die along with her child."

When Jesus was asked: "What is the greatest commandment?" he did not talk about carrying pregnancies to term, rejecting anything outside of heterosexuality, or more generally talking about sexual purity. All of that was secondary. He answered the question about the greatest commandment -- the core value of his day -- thusly:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, "You shall love your neighbor s yourself."

Let me go further, and give an example of how Jesus put this into practice. That would be when a Roman centurion -- not just a gentile, but an active participant in the military occupation of Judea -- comes to him asking that he heal his servant, who is seriously ill. And not just any servant. In the extant Greek, the centurion describes him specifically as his pais and entimos duolos -- denoting not just any male slave but one obtained to share his bed as his lover.

What did Jesus do? Did he tell the centurion: "Sorry, but helping a gentile oppressor, and a homosexual to boot, goes against my core values"? No, he said very simply and clearly that he would go to the centurion's house to heal the young man. And when the centurion asserted his belief that Jesus had the power to heal without having to step into his house, Jesus praised him for his faith, and did so.

The very phrase core value depends on the concept that certain beliefs and principles are dependent upon others. Belief in prayer, for example, depends upon the belief that you are praying to some entity or power worthy of receiving those prayers. And the belief that one should help those in need regardless of their station in life depends in turn on the core values that each human being, created in the image of the Divine, is worthy of respect and love -- even a sinner or an enemy.

To hold up specific doctrines about sexuality above the more central value of compassion is more than mere legalism. It is virtual idolatry. It is confusing means with ends, giving more weight to selected issues than to the central message of one's faith, and in that process, distorting that faith beyond recognition.

Jesus condemned Pharisees and Saducees for doing much the same thing. What would he who healed the "honored slave" of a gentile soldier, and without hesitation, say to those who would refuse to do so today?

It's Still Cheating, Guys!

Two related items crossed my laptop this evening. First, fellow UU blogger Debra Haffner commented on Mark Souder's revelation of infidelity, noting that she often posts the same commentary every few months when some other politico or celebrity is caught with their pants down.

Next, I check out recent posts on Fetlife, the premier social networking site for the BDSM and fetish community. A fellow writes about being married to a wonderful vanilla woman, unable to fulfill his kinky longings, posing the question of whether seeing a professional dominatrix on the side would be considered cheating. And this isn't the first time I've read this question posted somewhere online.

It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative advocate for abstinence-only "education," or an unfulfilled kinkster looking for release. When you secretly break your promise to your partner, it's cheating, and no amount of rationalization can defend it.

I can understand when someone feels that their sexual needs and desires cannot be fulfilled with their current partner. But infidelity is no solution, and certainly not the only option.

Debra Haffner makes the point that "you can have a sexual feeling without acting on it." Very true, but I would add that it is also important to find other ways to deal with those feelings. For one thing, we need to overcome the myth that, just because you're happily married to someone, that doesn't mean you can't find someone attractive, or even fantasize about them.

Sometimes, however, the issue is more fundamental than imagining yourself with someone else. Too many times cultural and religious pressures lead to folks trying to fit rigidly unrealistic expectations about relationships and sexuality. When the only two options given to you are to follow the rules or be miserable, and following the rules only leads to misery, is it any wonder that so many people in these positions are driven to break the rules?

This is not to excuse the dishonesty and betrayal behind infidelity. It is merely an attempt to understand why so many fall into that trap. And, more importantly, to call for a different path of sexual ethics -- one which puts greater value on the emotional and relational context in which we make decisions about sex, instead of the mechanics of who does what with whom.

Conservative critics may call such an approach an easy out, but I would strongly disagree. This path calls for greater awareness of both oneself and the realities of human diversity, and a higher quality of communication about sexuality both between intimate partners and across society. But such demands, once met, reap greater insight and well-being than the more traditional moralism being preached by today's so-called conservatives.

We need to be honest with ourselves, not only about cheating, but about how we can best understand and deal with all of the problems standing in our way of a more healthy approach to sexuality.

For All the Kinky Christians Out There...

I originally posted this on Myspace and Fetlife; many on those sites have responded positively, so I thought I would share these thoughts with a wider audience...

Being kinky is hard enough. Being a kinky Christian can really be a burden, when even the most liberal of theologians still cling to the idea that sexuality needs to follow some prescribed set of rules. It's amazing how people will roundly condemn the legalism of others, yet ignore when they themselves cling to their own.

My own observation is that many liberals take a "case-by-case" approach to questioning traditional rules about sexuality. They question whether you have to be married to be sexual with someone, or whether gays and lesbians can be good Christians, but fail to question the whole basis for the various rules we've inherited. Or, they simply discard the whole set of rules, not so much out of a sense of genuine liberation, but as if saying: "I give up! It's all a mystery, so I might as well do what I want and leave the rest to God!"

Well, let me offer some thoughts on that...

In my reading of the New Testament, the most transformative and liberating passage on ethics comes from Paul, in First Corinthians: "'All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be dominated by anything." (1 Cor 6:12)

Now often this verse is used to caution people against an "anything goes" approach (frequently called antinomianism). Yet this ignores the full context of the message. Paul is not saying: "Go back to the rules, but for a different reason"; he's saying to rethink what we've learned in the light of our experience and needs.

"All things are lawful" -- More specifically, all things are allowable. We have the liberty to choose whatever we do, rather than follow the prescriptions of old.

"But..." -- How, then, are we to determine what to do? Can we really do whatever we want, without fear of punishment? Of course not. George Bernard Shaw said that liberty means responsibility, which is why so many people dread it. So while liberty frees us from the burden of someone else's rules, it gives us in its place the burden to choose wisely.

"Not all things are beneficial" -- Imagine a rule which said that everyone had to eat three peanut butter sandwiches a week. Well, what if you're allergic to peanuts? Or you like peanut butter sandwiches so much, you'd like to eat more? And does the rule allow for additional spreads, like jelly or Fluff? Is half a sandwich six times a week okay? Or spreading peanut butter on a slice of bread and rolling it up? Now discard the rule and go by what is beneficial. If you like peanut butter sandwiches, go ahead. If you don't like them, or you're allergic, then you don't have to. And don't worry about who eats them or who doesn't, or how many, or what other stuff they put on them. If it works for them, let them be; and if someone else tries to impose their standards on you, ignore them.

"I will not be dominated by anything" -- Let's switch back to the "three peanut butter sandwiches a week" rule. Remember all those questions we were asking? That's what happens when you hold up a rule as an end in itself. It takes over a good chunk of your life, if not your entire life; you've let it dominate you. Now imagine someone who was forbidden by their parents or church to eat peanut butter sandwiches who then discards that and goes hog wild. They are still letting it take over their lives, just in a different way. Mindless obedience and mindless rebellion are fraternal twins, born of arbitrary authority. And authentic liberation comes from being mindful and loving in all that we do.

So how does this apply to sex, especially the unconventional? Often religious groups teach us to simply follow a set of rules; some have a long list of very strict rules, others have a shorter list of general guidelines. More often than not, BDSM and polyamory are on the "no-no" list, albeit with different reasons given (if reasons are given at all). But, if "all things are lawful" then we have to rethink these. Can they be beneficial? For some, certainly. Should we therefore do them? Well, only if they are beneficial to us. And how do we know whether they will be? By being mindful of ourselves and our partners, of what we truly need and desire.

Kinky Christians deserve to be relieved of the burden of legalistic dictates against unconventional sexual expression. More important, they need to be able to show how such expression is consistent with the love ethic of their faith. Perhaps then they can join others in their faith towards a genuine transformation, a true metanoia, of the approach towards sexual ethics.

Moralistic Extremes: The Rock, the Hard Place, and What Lies In Between

Sometimes I wonder which is more exasperating - responding to the moralistic ravings of the Religious Right, or trying to engage in conversation with extremists in the "sexual freedom" camp.

I've often labeled the former as legalists for their penchant of creating rules to regulate people's sexuality. It's easy to do that, to post a ready-made list and convince people that everything will be all right if they just do what they're told and don't question why. Until reality happens.

Well, there's also an opposite extreme. The theological term is antinomianism - the belief that moral rules do not apply to you, so long as you have reached some sufficient level of salvation or enlightenment. And I've grown weary of those who seem to respond to the sexual legalists with the very caricature which those legalists use to describe all of us.

How ironic that my brand of radicalism is now caught in the middle between these two extremes - one which seeks to constrain people to a spiritual death, and the others which could toss too many to the wolves.

Freedom to me does not mean amoralism. It means making choices. With freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility requires knowledge and discernment.

So I'm all for comprehensive sex education ... as long as its accurate and helps young people to think critically and set limits for themselves.

I'm all for abortion ... in consort with other measures to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I'm all for decriminalizing and destigmatizing prostitution ... as a starting point for empowering sex workers to create better lives for themselves and their families.

I'm all for openly discussing polyamory and BDSM with monogamous and vanilla folks ... so that they can see how seriously we take responsibility, and so we can all learn to share one another's gifts with joy and meaning.

Mother Theresa is famous for saying that she would never join an anti-war rally, but would join a rally for peace. In a sense I find both extremes of legalism and antinomianism to be reactive and negative - and moralistic, in that each reduces morality and ethics to a highly simplistic formula. For the legalists, that formula is purity. For the antinomians, it is defiance. And both seem tinged with a sense of self-righteousness towards those with whom they disagree - including, and especially, those of us caught in the crossfire.

Above all else, both of these extremes seem devoid of communication. Each side comes across more as a lecture than a discourse. When we act on our sexuality, we are involving another, and that essential reality means we need to connect and communicate in the fullest sense - to listen as well as talk, to be open to learning and sharing, and to do so with beauty and joy.