Archive for March, 2004

Stonehenge and the English on the Passion

As often as I’ve been to England, I’d never been to Stonehenge before. I drove my brother and his family the some 90 miles from Exeter to the famed stone circle today; it was worth the trip. Today was a lovely, crisp, sunny spring-like day, and we were able to climb some fine barrow mounds near Stonehenge as well.

The Passion has opened in England to almost universally hostile reviews. The other night, the BBC aired a perfectly awful program on Mel Gibson, entitled “Mel Gibson: God’s Lethal Weapon”. Here is a link to the Guardian’s summary of British newspaper reviews:

After all the fuss and controversy, what a “terrible disappointment” The Passion of the Christ turned out
to be for Cosmo Landesman in the Sunday Times. The director, Mel Gibson, is only interested in Jesus’s suffering. “Where is Jesus the inspiring teacher? Gibson literally gives us the body of Christ and not much else … The violence is visceral. Raw. Relentless. You squirm in your seat.” The devout might be inspired by all this, Landesman said, but for most it is “violence overkill”. Any “thematic richness” had been washed away “in the rivers of blood” and the film ended up with “nothing to say”.

The direction was “oddly bogus”, thought Jenny McCartney in the Sunday Telegraph. And the film was let down by its “fundamental crudity of vision”, which “surges energetically into every scene, blotting out much of the pathos and humanity of the passion story”.

In the Mail on Sunday, Matthew Bond agreed with those critics who found the film anti-semitic, “given that it portrays a blood-hungry Jewish mob baying for … Christ to be crucified”. But Gibson also “goes out of his way to heap as much blame as possible on the Romans, who, the spineless Pilate apart, are all portrayed as violent psychopaths”.

In the Independent on Sunday, however, Jonathan Romney argued that the film clearly identified the Jews as “the master criminals”.

Yikes. I don’t think I saw the same film. Or I just saw it perhaps through radically different eyes — through the eyes, perhaps, of the devout whom Landesman treats so typically dismissively.

Why I am Glad I’m not English

One of the reasons I am happiest in L.A. is that I absolutely don’t understand the fascination that so many of my fellow academics (especially English ones) have with the practice of “ironic detachment”. I talked with my brother about this today at some length. Forced to choose, I’d rather have vulgar sincerity than witty cynicism; I’d rather be surrounded by folks possessed by ineloquent but genuine passions than by those who are models of articulate and affected restraint. No wonder I’ve got a soft spot for certain southerners and pentecostals. Thank God I live where I do…

Still, any culture that consumes Cadbury Cream Eggs year ’round is fine by me… I am devouring the aforementioned, a most dubious form of carbo-loading before my flight back to LAX on Thursday, and my 50K ultra in the San Gabriels on Saturday…

The UK moves ahead

This morning’s Observer reports that gay marriages will be legalized within Britain shortly:

The first laws giving gay people the right to ‘marry’ are to be unveiled this week in one of the most significant changes to Britain’s social make-up since the passing of equal opportunities legislation in the 1960s.

Attempting to show it still has a radical edge, the Government will say that all couples who sign up to a committed relationship should have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation.

‘It is about equality,’ said a Whitehall source. ‘It is not about special favours - they will have the right to commit to one another and the responsibilities that brings.’

Under the Civil Partnerships Bill to be published on Wednesday, same-sex couples will be able to sign a register held by the register office in a procedure similar to a marriage. Although the Government will insist it is not officially a ‘marriage’ but rather a contract between two people, the fact that couples will have to announce their intentions beforehand in a similar way to the reading of the banns before a wedding reveals its true effect.

Couples will have rights to pensions similar to married couples, will not have to pay inheritance tax on property passed between them when one dies and will have access to hospital records similar to that allowed for a spouse.

Progress marches on.

Brief blogging from Exeter

I am safely arrived in Exeter, having survived both a sleepless flight and a breakneck drive from London down to Devon. I am blogging on my brother’s Macintosh (as a devoted PC user, I find it agonizingly difficult to understand.) The B&B in which I am lodged is tiny and comfortable and expensive; I’ve never traveled to England with the exchange rate so poor.

Tomorrow, my brother and his family will take me to their small parish church of St. Michael’s and All
Angels (small enough that it lacks a website to which I might otherwise link.) It’s very high church, complete with all sorts of smells and bells, and is so Anglo-Catholic that Hail Marys are regularly uttered. If there are Mennonites in the southwest of England, they are not accessible on the web, and so I will be a cheerful Anglican in the morning.

More when I can find a computer that actually makes sense to me.

Well, I’m off…

I feel sorry for the poor soul who will be sitting next to me on my flight tonight from LAX to Heathrow. I am sniffling and sneezing and coughing away, even as I pump a fine mix of homeopathic and mainstream remedies into my bloodstream. I didn’t get much sleep last night, and will be up for the next 24 hours at the minimum. One thing I am accustomed to doing is renting a car in England and going for a long drive immediately after getting off a transatlantic flight. The first time I did it was on August 31, 1997 — the day Princess Diana died. She had been alive and well when my flight left the States (from JFK), but when I landed (at Manchester), the news had just broken that she was dead. I remember listening to the stunned BBC coverage on the car radio as I tried to teach myself to drive on the wrong side of the road (with a stick shift) all the way from Manchester to Durham. (I was going to a conference). I survived it in the rain and fog, no less. ‘Twas a strange day. Tomorrow’s drive from London to Exeter should be much easier.

Here is the weather in Exeter. Here is the weather in Pasadena. I must be mad.

I’ll try and post from an internet cafe in England next week…

Christianity Today goes way over the line

I like Christianity Today. I read it weekly online; I love their Books and Culture section (the evangelical answer to the New York Review). But I am furious at the tone and tenor of this piece posted today by a James Berkley, entitled “A Methodist Mob Mugging.” Referring to the Karen Dammann trial (which I posted about here, and about which fellow blogger Jay Voorhees has had much goodness to post), Berkley spews:

A deceptively docile mob mugged United Methodist Church law last week in Bothell, Washington, near Seattle. The mob was passing as a United Methodist jury in the Rev. Karen Dammann case, but it definitely was a mob nevertheless, dispensing mob justice. It broke into Methodist jurisprudence, spoke utter inanities, freed a properly charged defendant, and trampled on the rule of law, leaving a host of victims in its wake.

So a mainline denomination’s court fudged on its clearly written polity. Okay. You call that news? Wouldn’t it be news if a mainline denomination actually followed its written doctrine and polity these days?

You got me there, but this instance just has to be one of the most egregious denominational examples of the breakdown of law and reason. It could hardly be more clear-cut and dramatic, more ridiculous and disgusting.

Look, good folks can disagree about homosexuality; good folks can disagree about the logic behind the Dammann decision. But good folks also know their history. Gays and lesbians (like Dammann) have been the real victims of “mobs” and “muggings” in American history. In this country’s recent history, Methodists have no history of being physically attacked merely for being Methodists! Gays and lesbians have been assaulted, mugged, and murdered on countless occasions. Evangelical Christians — in the USA — haven’t been. I am sick and tired of having disappointing court decisions compared to “muggings”! Only those who have never endured real beatings and real intimidation would ever appropriate the language of physical violence for such nakedly political purposes.

The Supreme Court may have been wrong in its ruling on Lawrence v. Texas (though I think not), and it may well rule the wrong way on the current (and ridiculous) Newdow case. Christians do live in a culture that is, at times, openly hostile to people of faith. But that hostility is generally expressed through a series of non-violent measures that seek to redefine traditional morality — not through actual physical assault. Traditional evangelicals like James Berkley have a right to feel offended and disappointed, and they have a right to criticize the recent successes that gay and lesbian Americans have enjoyed in our culture. But those who have not truly suffered do not have the right to claim for themselves the language of victimhood; they do not have the moral right to claim that they are the victims of violence. To do so — even rhetorically – is to diminish the reality of the suffering of those who have actually been raped, mugged, and beaten. With all due respect, brother James, you owe your readers an apology.

She wore a pearl necklace…

frc_marriage.jpg

This is the logo from the Family Research Council’s website. Love the pearls.

The FRC is not happy with Senator Orrin Hatch and his compromise language on the Marriage Amendment; read their version of the story here.

Lancaster Conference and Gay Mennonites

The Mennonite Church USA is a new thing indeed; it was formed in 2001 out of two smaller groups, the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church (I know, a tough semantic distinction). The MCUSA is organized into various regional conferences (my home church is part of Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference).

But one regional conference has had only provisional membership since 2001: Lancaster Conference of Pennsylvania, which has the single largest membership of any group of Mennonites in this country. Now, the bishops of Lancaster (it would be a long post to explain the huge difference between an Anabaptist bishop and a Catholic or Anglican bishop) are urging their conference to move from provisional to full membership status.

Why is this of interest? The Lancaster Conference represents the most politically conservative region of American Anabaptism. (For most denominations, the most conservative region is the southeast; for Mennonites, it is the northeast, thanks to the historic presence of groups like the Amish). In many ways, Pennsylvania Mennonites (of whom it can be safely said that most inherited their faith from their parents) are suspicious of Mennonites in other parts of the country, especially out here on the West Coast (where most Mennonites are converts from other backgrounds). What led the Lancaster Conference to hold on to provisional rather than full membership was the perceived willingness of MCUSA to be flexible on the issue of homosexuality. MCUSA has the following official statement on sexuality:

We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life. Christian marriage is a mutual relationship in Christ, a covenant made in the context of the church. According to Scripture, right sexual union takes place only within the marriage relationship.

But to its credit, MCUSA has also encouraged the voices of those who disagree. The Brethren Mennonite Council for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Interests has been permitted to work within various conferences, and to address national gatherings. The willingness of the MCUSA to dialogue with and fellowship with LGBT Mennonites deeply troubled some folks in the Lancaster Conference. Now, at last, it seems as if Lancaster is willing to come to the table and wrestle through these difficult issues with the rest of us. The fact that the most conservative conference in America is now willing to take part in discussions in which traditional Mennonite teachings on sexuality are open to debate (and, deo volente, to change) is most encouraging to the very small number of Anabaptists who really, really care about this issue.

I believe the correct phrase is “My sentiments exactly”

117-1737_IMG.jpg

Annika linked to a list of hilarious and offensive posters from a recent anti-war rally in San Francisco; most are vulgar or merely bizarre; this one did accurately describe my feelings.

One solution that ought to catch on

Maybe it’s because I am a cantankerous divorced person, but I really like Benton County, Oregon’s solution to the gay marriage controversy: no marriage licenses for anyone until the issue is clarified:

“It may seem odd, but we need to treat everyone in our county equally,” county commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters.

Love it.

“Thinly-disguised Totalitarianism”

While resting at home yesterday with my cold, I managed to make it most of the way through my new issue of First Things, my absolute favorite conservative Catholic magazine. One article from this month’s issue is available on line: Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism, by a Father Raymond deSouza.

DeSouza writes about the gay rights struggle in Canada from a traditionalist Catholic perspective. He bemoans what I celebrate, namely last year’s extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. But DeSouza’s real concern is the uncertain fate of a “clergy exemption” under Canadian law. Instead of merely extending the civil right to marry to Canadian GLBTQs, the courts in Canada (according to DeSouza) are well on their way to insisting that those rights be recognized by religious bodies as well:

The public policy goal of rooting out discrimination against homosexuals has opened a huge new area of civil life to the power of the state, as it now seeks to regulate the socializing policies of schools, the practices of private businesses, and perhaps even the preaching and teaching of churches… First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. Then it will be religious schools not being allowed to fire a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage.

Canada has no inviolate First Amendment to safeguard religious freedom, and DeSouza concludes that with the likely erosion of religious liberty on the issue of homosexuality, totalitarianism will triumph:

A full-fledged totalitarian state recognizes no limits to state power. There are no spheres where the state is not competent to act. But before totalitarianism triumphant, there is the totalitarian impulse, which may be understood as the ambition of the state to extend its authority to realms where it has no authority. The totalitarian impulse is a threat to democracy because it seeks to overturn the democratic value of limited government. The totalitarian impulse necessarily seeks to limit religious liberty…

There are no restrictions on freedom of worship in Canada today. Canadians can practice their faith unmolested by the state. But increasingly, full participation in civil, commercial, and professional life is requiring that religiously grounded beliefs be left at the door. The threat is coming not only from courts and legislatures, but from tribunals, regulatory bodies, and professional associations. The gay marriage issue has attracted most of the attention. But the threat to religious liberty reaches much farther. It reaches toward everything, as in “totality.”

Though the progressive within me winces at Father DeSouza’s use of “totalitarianism”, I confess I concede him his point. I very much want gay marriages to be legalized by the state; I also want Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army to be able to refuse to hire gay couples. I want firm anti-discrimination laws in the public sector; I want churches and church schools and hospitals to operate according to their own faith traditions, and not according to the ethics of the state. I favor a firm quid pro quo on the issue: the churches do not question the authority of the state to legitimize whatever relationships the state feels are appropriate, and in return, the state allows the churches to refuse to recognize those relationships as legitimate. Will this lead to chaos? No. It will simply be one healthy step away from “Constantinianism”. It is both unrealistic and unbiblical (not to mention unhistorical) to expect congruence between the laws of the church and the laws of Caesar. The sooner that the churches (both Catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative) begin to see themselves as “resident aliens” in Caesar’s country (the phrase is from Hauerwas, my hero as many of you surmise) the better.

Preparing for England

As I am slowly feeling better this afternoon, I am puttering around the house, getting things ready to depart for England on Thursday. I’m taking a week to go and (among other things) visit my brother in Exeter. Here is where I shall be staying. When I visit England, this is my favorite newspaper to read. But my brother will no doubt have copies of this lying about, and I’ll peruse them happily…

I’m not a Methodist, but Jay Voorhees is, and he has this fine post about the outcome of the Karen Dammann trial. (The Methodist news service story on the trial is here; anguished reaction from conservative Methodists can be found at the website of Good News Magazine.) I really like what Jay has to say about living in tension on this issue:

I’m not going to get into an extended argument about the issue of homosexuality and whether practicing homosexuals should be ordained. I’ve come to my beliefs on the issue over time and after much prayer and study. While I disagree with our churches current proclaimed position, I have made a covenant to live within that stance until the time that we can affect change.

I do, however, mourn that we continue to use legislative and judicial means to try and address this issue. We made one attempt to talk about the issue theologically some 12 years ago, and when the outcome didn’t come out one way or the other, we gave up. The fact is that our theology of sexuality is unclear, a combination of Augustinian restraint and Protestant exuberance over “God’s good gift.” We will never come to clarity on this issue until we first do the theological and conversational work of sitting down, reflecting on the scriptures, our traditions, and our experience.

Bold emphasis is mine. I wish that all those conservatives in various mainline denominations who contemplate schism would adopt Jay’s tactic of living in obedient disagreement!

I strongly support same-sex marriage, a position that is in the minority in Mennonite Church USA. Though I pray for the day that my fellow Mennonites change their stance, I am not going to allow one issue to drive me out the door. Even within my nine-member Friday night small group, I know folks whose beliefs about sexuality are radically different from my own. We can learn from each other, challenge each other, listen to each other, and stay in communion with each other even as we come to different conclusions about what the precise nature is of the standard for sexuality to which Christ calls us. I am learning a great deal from my more conservative brothers and sisters; they are learning something from me. It’s called being the church, and I dig it.

Home and grumpy

I’m home sick from school with a bad sore throat. My ability to talk is limited, and as a teacher, the absence of a voice makes it essentially impossible to hold classes. I haven’t missed a day of classes since October, when I was still battling giardia. It’s frustrating, but I suppose my body needs the rest. I don’t rest well. Hugo is happiest when he is a “human doing”, and he doesn’t like having to sit and be merely a “human being”.

Before she left this morning, my girl made me some soup; I shall soon go and have some and pull myself together.

Why I’m happy to still be a part-time Episcopalian

The Diocese of Los Angeles is busy working to develop affordable housing here in Pasadena, the local Star-News reports:

A new affordable-housing effort led by the Episcopal Church includes a $4 million trust fund and is designed to prompt other religious communities to join in the effort, organizers say.

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the Institute for Urban Research and Development will announce Thursday the creation of the Faith-based Communities Initiative. The initiative includes a plan — the Episcopal Housing Alliance –to join private and public entities to provide affordable housing throughout the region, said Joe Colletti, executive director for the institute.

The Episcopal Housing Alliance can increase affordable-housing resources by broadening the definition of social ministry for religious groups, Colletti said. Right now, more than 50 percent of faith communities are involved in social services that provide food and clothing, Colletti said. But only about 14 percent of these groups, he said, are involved in ministry that includes housing.

“It’s becoming increasingly known that the religious community has been virtually an untapped resource” in the affordable-housing effort, Colletti said. “So the gaps in resources can be filled by the faith community.”

Robert Williams, director of communications and public affairs for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, said the alliance is a continuation of a historic commitment to provide affordable housing.

“Providing housing goes to the heart of the Gospel,” Williams said. “Christian faith has a clear mandate of outreach to people in need.”

Cool.

Meanwhile, here is Scott Richardson’s sermon from eight days ago on “Suffering and Community”. I commend it to you without reservation. Here’s an excerpt:

Someone once observed that, when it comes to the topic of God and suffering, there are three statements that Christians claim to be true, but, when reflected upon, don’t to hang together very well.

1) God is all-loving.
2) God is all-powerful.
3) People get hurt.

Any two of those statements will hold together, but not all three. God is all-loving and all-powerful and everyone is just fine, thank you very much. Or, God is all-loving and not all-powerful so hurtful things happen to people. Or, God is all-powerful but not all-loving and, once again, tragedy occurs. This is the conundrum that we stumble over whenever we explore the deeper meaning of human suffering.

Many thoughtful believers, when confronted by this enigma, suggest that God’s power might indeed be limited, by God, for the sake of the human freedom. In other words, God limits God’s ability or willingness to intervene in human affairs so that the fullness of the human journey can be experienced and reflected upon by the children of God. And, they quickly add, this does not mean that God is removed or uncaring. God, according to these theologians, is the cosmic witness. Nothing happens outside the purview of God, and, when tragedy does come to pass, the all-loving God feels it first. The first tear shed belongs to God.

Read on, it’s powerful stuff.

Hard bodies, cold culture

I’m really enjoying my new course on “The Body and the American Tradition”, especially the discussions that we are having around Susan Bordo’s recent work, The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and Private.

This week, we’re working on what Bordo calls “the cult of hardness”. The phrase generally calls to mind penises, but the concept extends beyond that, to all parts of the body — and even to the psyche — itself. We fetishize hardness in our culture. Ads for drugs that guarantee harder, longer-lasting erections permeate our culture. Ads for gyms that promise to get you that “hard body” are even more ubiquitous. This is obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with our popular culture, and is already much commented upon. (And those of us on the political left note drily that we associate muscular hardness with political virtue and skill, hence the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose absolute absence of physical softness seemed to suggest a mental toughness much desired in our state capitol). The impact on the self-esteem of men of all ages, the increase in their individual and collective anxiety, is easy to quantify through the sale of gym memberships, diet pills, as well as Viagra and its competitors.

But what bothers Bordo — and bothers me — is that we have begun to demand that hardness of women’s bodies as well. Men have long been expected to be “hard”, “tough”, “impervious”. They have long been expected to perform sexually with constantly ready penises, though in an earlier generation, the fact that most men fell short of that mark was not discussed with the frequency with which it is today. But today, “softness” is out for women as well, and that is radically new. (Think of the journey from Chris Evert to the Williams sisters in tennis). What I try and argue to my students is that this obsession with creating hardness in women’s bodies is part of a larger war on the feminine within our culture, and it is a war that is advanced with a seductive logic: “Being a vulnerable woman in this world hurts. Get hard, and the hurting stops. Men won’t protect you, not anymore, not today. The prince ain’t coming; get your own damned horse and learn how to ride it. Above all, you need to protect yourself. And protecting yourself involves becoming stronger, more masculine, more autonomous, harder.”

Bordo writes of her own experiences with a fitness regimen to tone and strengthen her muscles:

“I remember the way having definition in my upper body made me feel when I walked past men — not just more attractive, but more powerful. Their eyes did not penetrate me and reduce me to something weaker and smaller, but glanced over me with admiration, as though I were an equal… my feelings of invulnerability and power had everything to do with my having banished my then-hurting femininity from my body. I no longer felt that my body revealed my soft, bruised feelings, but instead radiated independence, toughness, emotional imperviousness.”

I try, somewhat recklessly, to go to a place that Bordo doesn’t go, and I connect the increasing obsession with hardening women’s bodies to a larger notion within our culture that men cannot be relied upon. My female students have had it drilled into them that they must get an education and become economically self-reliant so that they never, ever, have to make the mistake of relying upon a man. As women increasingly move into male-dominated spheres of life (not a bad thing in my mind, so save the brickbats), they have begun to unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) develop bodies that more closely resemble those of their brothers. Those features of the bodies (like curvy hips) that suggest reproduction need to be aerobicized away. The body fat that symbolizes the ability to nurture must be dieted off, and replaced by lean sinew and muscle — great for self-defense, lousy to snuggle against.

Collectively, I argue, men have played their part. Because so many of us have behaved so badly (or allowed other men to behave badly) we have made it necessary for our sisters to take self-defense classes. We have made it necessary for them to become harder, tougher, less vulnerable. Our failings have become their mandate for transformation into “superwomen”.

Of course, plenty of folks in our culture — particularly in communities of color — reject this new ideal. But advertising, popular culture, sports and other public areas of life make it clear that the obsession with hardness is growing for both genders. This is not, I think, something to be celebrated. Bordo writes:

“A culture that idealizes, fetishizes, is addicted to the hard and impenetrable, is a cold and unforgiving place to be.”

Amen, sister.