Pastor Dan, in a culture that places such a heavy emphasis on empiricism and evidence, why do you believe in God? What's so special about the God in whom you believe that makes you not demand evidence for his outrageous claims? -Joseph
---------------------
Thanks for writing in, Joseph!
I've actually been sitting on this one for awhile, weighing how precisely to answer. I know that this particular question is a problem for a lot of those who deal with me on ANF and elsewhere, trying to figure out how I do this when it seems so unintuitive to them, almost anathema to contemporary thought.
How do I follow a God for whom I have no evidence? Simply put, I don't.
Of course it isn't ACTUALLY that simple. If I had the sort of evidence that you could publish in a Scientific Journal or something like that, I probably would have done so. Of course, if I had that kind of evidence, then I also wouldn't be doing the faith thing I talk about so much around here.
So what, precisely, am I doing?
I often get irritated when people dismiss faith as something inherently childish, like believing in the tooth fairy, or completely imaginary, like deciding that I think Hogwarts is real and waiting on my letter. Such comparisons are obviously dismissive and, when shared in the hearing of believers, usually intentionally insulting, hence my irritation, but the comparisons miss the point. I am not simply choosing to believe in an abstract concept. My faith is placed in a being I have spoken to, conversed with. I don't do faith from a place of pure abstract... but rather from experience.
Faith is a confusing subject, all the more so for people who have no real experience with it. Plenty of people who claim faith actually work from a position of internally confirming abstracts. I believe in the Bible, why? Because the Bible told me to. These are often the same people who react so violently to any kind of challenge to their faith, because they act as if they come from a place of certainty and proof when even casual observation can tell you that they're not. This leads to narrow Biblical Literalism and other forms of blinkered existence I have talked about elsewhere. They use the word faith, but deal instead on imagined proofs of the more mundane variety.
Faith is not simple acceptance of abstract concepts. It's a sort of sense, another paradigm of awareness that is difficult to convey to someone who does not share it. Imagine trying to convey concepts of sight to someone who is blind, or sound to someone who is deaf. Imagine then being in a courtroom filled with people who were blind and giving testimony. You saw what you saw, but all they want to know is, "Yes, but what did you hear? What did you smell? What did you feel? What did you taste?"
If all you have is visual, then it won't mean much to them. But it doesn't make it any less real to you.
What I have is evidence that is sufficient for me, but that I simultaneously recognize is not sufficient to make my case unassailable. I could just be crazy. This is a possibility, or deluded. Maybe I am like the child who believes in the tooth fairy, clinging to my evidence without recognizing it as the intricate deception placed by someone smarter than I am. I do not think this is the case, but I obviously can't prove it.
Beyond that, it's also possible that I see what I see through rose-colored glasses, as it were. It's possible that a lifetime of Christianity made me inclined to interpret what I experience through faith sense as confirmation of the Christian God, rather than something else. Again, I do not believe that is the case, but I'd be an idiot to not recognize the possibility.
These are all possible, and so I know that people need to do faith on their own. Senses need honing, Palates need to be developed, and so while I am always eager to answer questions of faith, I know that very few people are ever in the same place on that path of development, and like any sense, open to different forms of interpretation.
So how do I believe without evidence? I don't. But in the same vein, I recognize that I cannot force others to believe based on that same evidence, because in the end, that simply isn't how faith works.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
It's Time to Back Off of 50 Shades
So let's get one thing clear from the get go... I am not a fan of 50 Shades of Grey. I read a bit of it once and just couldn't get around the writing quality, so I never even got near the supposed "good bits." It's heritage as a piece of Twilight fan-fiction stand out proudly on the page. But I have watched, with a bit of morbid fascination, as the movie transformed this franchise into a lightning rod of hate in the internet communities where I regularly visit.
Part of the fascination is that the people who are usually all "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" are talking about how excited they are for the release, while some of the other folks who usually oppose the censorship crowd have gotten all bent out of shape about it. And on the surface, their arguments do have legitimate concerns.
It's seen as glorifying rape. The BDSM crowd sees it as a poor depiction of their community. Throw in the usual forces that will always oppose films made by women for women, and there is quite an outcry.
But here is the thing: we are talking about a piece of fantasy... and that changes how the piece is to be approached. And it is something that is routinely missed by all the articles that bash 50 Shades. It is an extreme version of Romantic Comedy behavior... perceived in Real Life, the behavior of Christian Grey is criminal, full stop. But how is that any different than, well MOST of the "fantasy romance" films that you can find on the market at any given time?
50 Shades is a fantasy piece. Christian Grey does not EXIST separate from that fantasy. When the protagonist wants him to keep going regardless of what she says, he does, because he is literally controlled by those desires. In BDSM terms, it is the best kind of "scene" there is, because everyone participating knows exactly their role and plays it perfectly, so that the vocalizations are just window dressing. There is no real risk... it's all in the head, and (mostly) everyone knows it. You may as well say that Superman comics are a risk because people might think they can fly.
Now typically I would be very (and I mean VERY) nervous about this form of argument. "It's just in fun!" is dangerous reasoning, and a kind I often condemn. And I don't here, and here is why:
50 Shades of Grey was written by a woman, for women, and is (hugely) popular almost exclusively among women. I find that difficult to argue with. Were this a piece written by a man for men, then it would be HUGELY problematic, because then it becomes rape apologia. But it isn't, and we KNOW that, because rape and sexual assault is a threat faced by every woman, every day. And if the women who read this were comfortable reading it (or even found it exciting,) then it is clear that Rape Glorification is NOT what is actually going on here, even if, when you parse it out, that is what would be happening if this story occurred in the real world. For whatever reason, this fantasy worked for a lot of people because it was fantasy, not Rape apologia (which the female audience would not have stood for) or BDSM marketing (which it wasn't sold as or really read as.)
Now none of this makes 50 Shades good. It can still be a bad movie based on a bad book. But people like bad movies and bad books all the time, for their own reasons. It is time to recognize that our differences over 50 Shades are ultimately based on taste, not on the inherent "danger" of the piece.
50 Shades was never going to work for the BDSM crowd, because that isn't how BDSM actually operates, so suspense of disbelief gets broken. Likewise, a woman who has actually had someone behave towards her like Christian Grey behaved towards Ana won't be able to get there, either. You can't do the fantasy if it takes you too close to reality.
There are lots of works of fantasy out there. And while 50 Shades very definitely isn't mine (or lots of other peoples on the forums I inhabit) the articles I have read that condemn it for reasons outside of taste do so in ways that portray the books and movie to be something that they're not. Breaking down the actions of Christian Grey to show how it's really all just rape ignores the core premise of 50 Shades... which is that as the story was written by a woman, for women, with a predominantly female audience, it is actually E.L. James (and her author surrogate Ana) who controls every moment of every scene. Christian is HER toy, not the other way around, and through her, the toy of every woman who enjoyed the books and movie.
We may not like the scene she had him play out, and that is our choice. But pretending that it wasn't her choice to play it in the first place is a step in the wrong direction for people who value female agency in media.
Part of the fascination is that the people who are usually all "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" are talking about how excited they are for the release, while some of the other folks who usually oppose the censorship crowd have gotten all bent out of shape about it. And on the surface, their arguments do have legitimate concerns.
It's seen as glorifying rape. The BDSM crowd sees it as a poor depiction of their community. Throw in the usual forces that will always oppose films made by women for women, and there is quite an outcry.
But here is the thing: we are talking about a piece of fantasy... and that changes how the piece is to be approached. And it is something that is routinely missed by all the articles that bash 50 Shades. It is an extreme version of Romantic Comedy behavior... perceived in Real Life, the behavior of Christian Grey is criminal, full stop. But how is that any different than, well MOST of the "fantasy romance" films that you can find on the market at any given time?
50 Shades is a fantasy piece. Christian Grey does not EXIST separate from that fantasy. When the protagonist wants him to keep going regardless of what she says, he does, because he is literally controlled by those desires. In BDSM terms, it is the best kind of "scene" there is, because everyone participating knows exactly their role and plays it perfectly, so that the vocalizations are just window dressing. There is no real risk... it's all in the head, and (mostly) everyone knows it. You may as well say that Superman comics are a risk because people might think they can fly.
Now typically I would be very (and I mean VERY) nervous about this form of argument. "It's just in fun!" is dangerous reasoning, and a kind I often condemn. And I don't here, and here is why:
50 Shades of Grey was written by a woman, for women, and is (hugely) popular almost exclusively among women. I find that difficult to argue with. Were this a piece written by a man for men, then it would be HUGELY problematic, because then it becomes rape apologia. But it isn't, and we KNOW that, because rape and sexual assault is a threat faced by every woman, every day. And if the women who read this were comfortable reading it (or even found it exciting,) then it is clear that Rape Glorification is NOT what is actually going on here, even if, when you parse it out, that is what would be happening if this story occurred in the real world. For whatever reason, this fantasy worked for a lot of people because it was fantasy, not Rape apologia (which the female audience would not have stood for) or BDSM marketing (which it wasn't sold as or really read as.)
Now none of this makes 50 Shades good. It can still be a bad movie based on a bad book. But people like bad movies and bad books all the time, for their own reasons. It is time to recognize that our differences over 50 Shades are ultimately based on taste, not on the inherent "danger" of the piece.
There are lots of works of fantasy out there. And while 50 Shades very definitely isn't mine (or lots of other peoples on the forums I inhabit) the articles I have read that condemn it for reasons outside of taste do so in ways that portray the books and movie to be something that they're not. Breaking down the actions of Christian Grey to show how it's really all just rape ignores the core premise of 50 Shades... which is that as the story was written by a woman, for women, with a predominantly female audience, it is actually E.L. James (and her author surrogate Ana) who controls every moment of every scene. Christian is HER toy, not the other way around, and through her, the toy of every woman who enjoyed the books and movie.
We may not like the scene she had him play out, and that is our choice. But pretending that it wasn't her choice to play it in the first place is a step in the wrong direction for people who value female agency in media.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Reader Question- Let's Talk Lust!
Let's talk lust. Specifically, let's talk about how lust is personified in media. Every other of the Seven Deadly Sins is portrayed as what it is. Gluttony is a fat, hungry person, wrath is an angry guy, and so on. But I have only ever seen lust portrayed as the object of lust (normally a really beautiful woman, such as in Full Metal Alchemist). What is your opinion on this and the general personification of sin in the media? -Nathan
-------------
Thanks for writing in, Nathan!
You're not wrong about the portrayal of Lust in popular culture. Whenever a work of media calls for a personification of a sin, that personification normally is of either an image of the person who is committing the sin (say, a very angry person for wrath) or a natural phenomenon that embodies it (like, say, a figure made of lava for wrath.)
I mean, that makes sense. It's characterization 101. The exception always seems to be Lust, however, which is near universally portrayed as an attractive (and often scantily clad) woman. This despite the fact that the lust typically being discussed is male lust. It's so pervasive that it's become almost automatic in culture, and yet if the same logic were applied to the other sins, we'd think it was ridiculous, because in the case of lust, rather than focusing on a person under the influence of a particular sin, it focuses on the object of that sin.
Imagine if we portrayed wrath that way. Wrath would become some guy that other people found infuriating, and would probably fail to be an intriguing character.
Now why media portrays Lust in such a way is basically a no brainer. Sex sells, and an excuse to have an attractive, scantily clad woman talking dirty to the main characters is a near assured ratings booster. But why is this ok? When the idea doesn't make sense with other ideas, why did the initial idea that this was an ok tactic ever take hold?
Well, for starters, I can say (for once, and with relief) that this is NOT an idea that began in the Bible, which takes precisely the opposite stance on lust. Jesus flat out says that if a man feels lust from looking at a woman, then it would probably be best for him to pluck his eyes out, (and hints, not at all subtly, that if your penis is causing you trouble, you could always just cut it off.)
You heard it here first, folks... the Biblical stance on Lust is that every man is responsible for his own penis. Women are officially NOT to blame for the thoughts you feel when you look at them.
Not that certain elements in the church are going to let a little thing like the Bible stop them from objectifying women and turning them into the poster children of this particular sin. It is entirely too easy to find some preacher telling the women in his flock that they must mind how they dress, lest they lead their brothers into sin. (Never mind that this particular phrase in the Bible was about respecting the theology of others, not maintaining an air of saintliness for them.)
Nope, it's not the Bible that gave us this discouraging development but people who don't really know how to deal with their own sin. But if Lust is someone ELSE sinning and you being affected by seeing it, then you still get to be "hard on sin" (hurr hurr) without having to spend too much time worrying about all the sinning you're doing.
The really troubling part of all of this is that Lust is a sin that, as it is condemned in the Bible, really would be useful in todays culture. Because, as I pointed out, it isn't about slut shaming, or going "You did a thing that felt good so now you are Evil!"
The Biblical condemnation of Lust is not about sex. It's about objectification. It's about looking at another human being, not as someone made in the image of God, but as a sex object. It's about desire that trumps judgement, and human decency.
So the young woman who dares to wear attractive clothing is NOT committing Lust, but the guys who cat-call her ARE. If you are the sort of person who likes to look nice, then you may be dancing with Pride, but Lust is not that problem. The person who only thinks of other people insofar as how to get into their pants, that is the one Lust is talking about.
We could use more of THAT kind of Lust discussion.
But in the end, it's easier to sell a naked woman, and then act like our thoughts towards her are somehow her fault.
-------------
Thanks for writing in, Nathan!
You're not wrong about the portrayal of Lust in popular culture. Whenever a work of media calls for a personification of a sin, that personification normally is of either an image of the person who is committing the sin (say, a very angry person for wrath) or a natural phenomenon that embodies it (like, say, a figure made of lava for wrath.)
I mean, that makes sense. It's characterization 101. The exception always seems to be Lust, however, which is near universally portrayed as an attractive (and often scantily clad) woman. This despite the fact that the lust typically being discussed is male lust. It's so pervasive that it's become almost automatic in culture, and yet if the same logic were applied to the other sins, we'd think it was ridiculous, because in the case of lust, rather than focusing on a person under the influence of a particular sin, it focuses on the object of that sin.
Imagine if we portrayed wrath that way. Wrath would become some guy that other people found infuriating, and would probably fail to be an intriguing character.
Now why media portrays Lust in such a way is basically a no brainer. Sex sells, and an excuse to have an attractive, scantily clad woman talking dirty to the main characters is a near assured ratings booster. But why is this ok? When the idea doesn't make sense with other ideas, why did the initial idea that this was an ok tactic ever take hold?
Well, for starters, I can say (for once, and with relief) that this is NOT an idea that began in the Bible, which takes precisely the opposite stance on lust. Jesus flat out says that if a man feels lust from looking at a woman, then it would probably be best for him to pluck his eyes out, (and hints, not at all subtly, that if your penis is causing you trouble, you could always just cut it off.)
You heard it here first, folks... the Biblical stance on Lust is that every man is responsible for his own penis. Women are officially NOT to blame for the thoughts you feel when you look at them.
Not that certain elements in the church are going to let a little thing like the Bible stop them from objectifying women and turning them into the poster children of this particular sin. It is entirely too easy to find some preacher telling the women in his flock that they must mind how they dress, lest they lead their brothers into sin. (Never mind that this particular phrase in the Bible was about respecting the theology of others, not maintaining an air of saintliness for them.)
Nope, it's not the Bible that gave us this discouraging development but people who don't really know how to deal with their own sin. But if Lust is someone ELSE sinning and you being affected by seeing it, then you still get to be "hard on sin" (hurr hurr) without having to spend too much time worrying about all the sinning you're doing.
The really troubling part of all of this is that Lust is a sin that, as it is condemned in the Bible, really would be useful in todays culture. Because, as I pointed out, it isn't about slut shaming, or going "You did a thing that felt good so now you are Evil!"
The Biblical condemnation of Lust is not about sex. It's about objectification. It's about looking at another human being, not as someone made in the image of God, but as a sex object. It's about desire that trumps judgement, and human decency.
So the young woman who dares to wear attractive clothing is NOT committing Lust, but the guys who cat-call her ARE. If you are the sort of person who likes to look nice, then you may be dancing with Pride, but Lust is not that problem. The person who only thinks of other people insofar as how to get into their pants, that is the one Lust is talking about.
We could use more of THAT kind of Lust discussion.
But in the end, it's easier to sell a naked woman, and then act like our thoughts towards her are somehow her fault.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Concerning Atheism
So I woke up this morning to the news that three young Muslims were killed in Chapel Hill this morning. I braced for the usual, expecting it to be an act of radicalized Christians (How freaking messed up are we as a faith when we start EXPECTING that sort of thing) when the big news circulating was that the Killer was an Atheist, and the spin was that the killer often advocated violence against believers in various internet forums.
That version of the story becomes less believable as time goes on, the usual internet hysteria doing its thing, and now it seems that while, yes, the killer was atheist, the killing was over a parking spot, and it is hard to be certain there was a religious motivation at all.
Really. A Parking Spot. What the hell, America?
Of course, commentators haven't let anything as silly as facts detract from the opportunity to point some fingers at prominent atheists. Again, what does it say about us as a faith that we get excited when the crazy killer wasn't one of ours, and that we are then so eager to go to others and say; "Hey! You've got crazies too!"
I've read a couple of blogs on the subject and, in general, those same prominent atheists are taking it in stride, with almost no apologism, a simple, "yeah, we condemn it." Take note, Christians, because that is something we REALLY could be doing better.
Originally I was just going to not comment and go on to the next question, as this is an issue that, for once, doesn't really have anything to do with my faith and so I could let others handle it. But I have already started getting the messages from some colleagues asking me if I still stand by "my atheists" as I refer to them here in the blog, so desperately wanting that killing in Chapel Hill to be the smoking gun that shows the true face of Atheism.
My time on ANF has given me the opportunity to interact with many atheists. Some I get along with famously, others I tend to squabble with. (Hi, Robert!) But the general common thread between them, and other atheists I have known in my life, has been that they are, in general, caring and respectable people who, as it happens, do not have a faith system governing their life.
This actually gives them some advantages in the whole "be a good person" department. They do not have a faith history of violence to look back on, don't care if an ancient book dictates murder (except insofar as it might lead to them or others getting murdered) and never seem to feel the need to spin old quotes out of context in order to justify their less admirable human urges. They're every bit as beholden to sin as anyone else, but they don't have a tradition of millennia of less than saintly "heroes" spinning justifications to help them out with rationalizing the sin as moral action.
We do.
So I would recommend treating the tragic deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha as that... tragic deaths. The atheist community is actually working on holding themselves accountable beyond what I think is actually necessary, which is highly, highly commendable. But while they work on getting their house in order, I think we Christians are called to pray for the deceased, their families, but also to look inward at ourselves and our own reactions to this crisis.
Because if our reaction is to gleefully direct attention towards the lack of faith of the accused, then these murders somehow manage to reflect worse on Christians than they do on Atheists, AND WE WEREN'T EVEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
Come on, believers, we need to do better. We need to BE better.
That version of the story becomes less believable as time goes on, the usual internet hysteria doing its thing, and now it seems that while, yes, the killer was atheist, the killing was over a parking spot, and it is hard to be certain there was a religious motivation at all.
Really. A Parking Spot. What the hell, America?
Of course, commentators haven't let anything as silly as facts detract from the opportunity to point some fingers at prominent atheists. Again, what does it say about us as a faith that we get excited when the crazy killer wasn't one of ours, and that we are then so eager to go to others and say; "Hey! You've got crazies too!"
I've read a couple of blogs on the subject and, in general, those same prominent atheists are taking it in stride, with almost no apologism, a simple, "yeah, we condemn it." Take note, Christians, because that is something we REALLY could be doing better.
Originally I was just going to not comment and go on to the next question, as this is an issue that, for once, doesn't really have anything to do with my faith and so I could let others handle it. But I have already started getting the messages from some colleagues asking me if I still stand by "my atheists" as I refer to them here in the blog, so desperately wanting that killing in Chapel Hill to be the smoking gun that shows the true face of Atheism.
My time on ANF has given me the opportunity to interact with many atheists. Some I get along with famously, others I tend to squabble with. (Hi, Robert!) But the general common thread between them, and other atheists I have known in my life, has been that they are, in general, caring and respectable people who, as it happens, do not have a faith system governing their life.
This actually gives them some advantages in the whole "be a good person" department. They do not have a faith history of violence to look back on, don't care if an ancient book dictates murder (except insofar as it might lead to them or others getting murdered) and never seem to feel the need to spin old quotes out of context in order to justify their less admirable human urges. They're every bit as beholden to sin as anyone else, but they don't have a tradition of millennia of less than saintly "heroes" spinning justifications to help them out with rationalizing the sin as moral action.
We do.
So I would recommend treating the tragic deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha as that... tragic deaths. The atheist community is actually working on holding themselves accountable beyond what I think is actually necessary, which is highly, highly commendable. But while they work on getting their house in order, I think we Christians are called to pray for the deceased, their families, but also to look inward at ourselves and our own reactions to this crisis.
Because if our reaction is to gleefully direct attention towards the lack of faith of the accused, then these murders somehow manage to reflect worse on Christians than they do on Atheists, AND WE WEREN'T EVEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
Come on, believers, we need to do better. We need to BE better.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Reader Question: Polyamory (Here we go...)
You've held us in suspense long enough! Tell us what you think of Poly-amorous relationships, based on your own experience and what the Bible says! (Hey, it should help your view count, right? I'm just trying to help you out here.) -Dave
-----------------
Sigh. Thanks for writing in, Dave. (I wonder if this will kick off a theme of "Ask Dan Questions that Might Embarrass him." Only time will tell.)
Ok. Starting caveats- I have never been in a poly relationship, and my experience with them is HIGHLY limited. So I can only answer this question based off of Biblical Teaching and my VERY LIMITED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. So if I come off as completely off base, then ignore this post as the ignorant drivel that it is. You know, about what you could expect with this question when directed towards a white, cishet and married North American Protestant Pastor.
But since you asked...
Anyone who demands that the "marriage code" as described in early Genesis of "one man, one woman" (based off of Adam and Eve) was designed to be proscriptive of all other possibilities is willfully ignoring the presence of poly-amorous marriage in the Bible. It's not precisely hiding, either. Jacob himself (who would later be given the name Israel, so kind of a big deal) had four wives. David had several. Solomon had hundreds. Gideon, the Judge, had "many" wives, the Prophet Ezra had two, even Moses had a couple.
Now you'll notice that these are all polygamous... one guy and an unspecified number of women. They are also not glowing accounts of the institution. Jacob's first two wives (one of which he was tricked into marrying while wishing to marry the other) were constantly squabbling, and Jacob himself played favorites. Solomon's wives are often blamed for him being led astray though to be fair this has more to do with them being foreign than being numerous enough to make up a small army. Other instances are merely stated in lists of begats, so were presumably not a cause of biblical level trouble, but we are never really presented with a good couple. Then again, there aren't really any rockstar monogamous couples in the Bible, either, so maybe it's all a wash.
The main problem with Biblical Polygamy (which is the only real instance of Biblical Polyamory) is how the women are treated as collectibles. Kill a guy, take his wife, was pretty much the order of the day. Biblical Law did what it could to make sure they weren't disposable (a man was beholden to all of his wives and had to see them cared for) but there is no telling how well these laws were enforced, and even if they were, these laws are now seen as fairly reprehensible in their own right, as they often translated to: "This guy raped you, now you have to marry him." It was put in place to see to it the women were cared for, but again, an inherently flawed system based on the really not great gender roles of the time.
And that has translated forward. Modern polygamous societies, based on the Biblical code, have had their own MAJOR problems with the concept of consent, with underage girls being married off to far older men as the sixth or seventh wife. Modern reporting has sensationalized some of it, but the problems still exist to the point where I take the tales of Jacob and Solomon's love lives as a warning, not a recommendation, and encourage people who want to follow a Biblical concept of marriage to stick to one partner.
That said, most of the folks who have talked to me about their polyamorous relationships have absolutely not been attempting to follow a Biblical model of any kind, and so likely will not fall into those traps. When you ask me my opinion on that...
Eh...
I still don't think it is a good idea. As I discussed in the Premarital sex question, respect is MASSIVELY important in sexual relationships because of how vulnerable sex can make people to one another. Human beings, when living in groups, naturally form hierarchies, and those same hierarchies can lead to abuse. Put in the context of a sexual relationship, and that abuse can be hugely, hugely harmful.
I made a similar comment in an earlier question and was later informed that many poly relationships don't form hierarchies, with everyone acting as even, respectful partners. That's good to hear, but a part of me doesn't buy it. I've just seen way too many groups of people attempt such a system and fail even when sex WASN'T involved.
So, at the end of the day, I can't say I recommend polyamory. Now, I am hardly expecting people to leave their poly relationships based on this post. "Whelp, Pastor Dan said no, later guys..." I know it doesn't work like that. As I said in the question about who you should not marry, the key is respect, specifically, that you feel respected. If you do, then go for it, I guess. It's your call, not mine.
But if you are reading this because you are thinking about trying trying a poly relationship, my recommendation is still a no. Sexual Relationships are hugely complicated and difficult to properly maintain as it is. Somehow, I don't see adding other people to the equation making it any easier.
Hey, you asked.
-----------------
Sigh. Thanks for writing in, Dave. (I wonder if this will kick off a theme of "Ask Dan Questions that Might Embarrass him." Only time will tell.)
Ok. Starting caveats- I have never been in a poly relationship, and my experience with them is HIGHLY limited. So I can only answer this question based off of Biblical Teaching and my VERY LIMITED PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. So if I come off as completely off base, then ignore this post as the ignorant drivel that it is. You know, about what you could expect with this question when directed towards a white, cishet and married North American Protestant Pastor.
But since you asked...
Anyone who demands that the "marriage code" as described in early Genesis of "one man, one woman" (based off of Adam and Eve) was designed to be proscriptive of all other possibilities is willfully ignoring the presence of poly-amorous marriage in the Bible. It's not precisely hiding, either. Jacob himself (who would later be given the name Israel, so kind of a big deal) had four wives. David had several. Solomon had hundreds. Gideon, the Judge, had "many" wives, the Prophet Ezra had two, even Moses had a couple.
Now you'll notice that these are all polygamous... one guy and an unspecified number of women. They are also not glowing accounts of the institution. Jacob's first two wives (one of which he was tricked into marrying while wishing to marry the other) were constantly squabbling, and Jacob himself played favorites. Solomon's wives are often blamed for him being led astray though to be fair this has more to do with them being foreign than being numerous enough to make up a small army. Other instances are merely stated in lists of begats, so were presumably not a cause of biblical level trouble, but we are never really presented with a good couple. Then again, there aren't really any rockstar monogamous couples in the Bible, either, so maybe it's all a wash.
The main problem with Biblical Polygamy (which is the only real instance of Biblical Polyamory) is how the women are treated as collectibles. Kill a guy, take his wife, was pretty much the order of the day. Biblical Law did what it could to make sure they weren't disposable (a man was beholden to all of his wives and had to see them cared for) but there is no telling how well these laws were enforced, and even if they were, these laws are now seen as fairly reprehensible in their own right, as they often translated to: "This guy raped you, now you have to marry him." It was put in place to see to it the women were cared for, but again, an inherently flawed system based on the really not great gender roles of the time.
And that has translated forward. Modern polygamous societies, based on the Biblical code, have had their own MAJOR problems with the concept of consent, with underage girls being married off to far older men as the sixth or seventh wife. Modern reporting has sensationalized some of it, but the problems still exist to the point where I take the tales of Jacob and Solomon's love lives as a warning, not a recommendation, and encourage people who want to follow a Biblical concept of marriage to stick to one partner.
That said, most of the folks who have talked to me about their polyamorous relationships have absolutely not been attempting to follow a Biblical model of any kind, and so likely will not fall into those traps. When you ask me my opinion on that...
Eh...
I still don't think it is a good idea. As I discussed in the Premarital sex question, respect is MASSIVELY important in sexual relationships because of how vulnerable sex can make people to one another. Human beings, when living in groups, naturally form hierarchies, and those same hierarchies can lead to abuse. Put in the context of a sexual relationship, and that abuse can be hugely, hugely harmful.
I made a similar comment in an earlier question and was later informed that many poly relationships don't form hierarchies, with everyone acting as even, respectful partners. That's good to hear, but a part of me doesn't buy it. I've just seen way too many groups of people attempt such a system and fail even when sex WASN'T involved.
So, at the end of the day, I can't say I recommend polyamory. Now, I am hardly expecting people to leave their poly relationships based on this post. "Whelp, Pastor Dan said no, later guys..." I know it doesn't work like that. As I said in the question about who you should not marry, the key is respect, specifically, that you feel respected. If you do, then go for it, I guess. It's your call, not mine.
But if you are reading this because you are thinking about trying trying a poly relationship, my recommendation is still a no. Sexual Relationships are hugely complicated and difficult to properly maintain as it is. Somehow, I don't see adding other people to the equation making it any easier.
Hey, you asked.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Saturday Ramble- "Frozen" was a Misfire
Well, now I've done it.
I have, of course, been aware of Disney's "Frozen" since it came out. I never got the chance to watch it, though I saw plenty of clips on the internet and my little niece has been singing it's songs nearly nonstop since her parents bought the DVD. So today I finally watched the movie with my wife. I enjoyed the songs, I laughed at the characters, I saw everything that everyone said was so great about this film, and then, when it ended, I went...
...eh?
THIS was the piece that everyone said was Disney's game changer?
Granting that this is all my own opinion, Frozen is not better than the Little Mermaid or Aladdin. It doesn't even approach the mountaintop that is the Lion King or Beauty and the Beast. It is a beautiful, HIGHLY ambitious piece that, in the end, cannot stand under it's own weight.
It feels as if there is an absolutely stunning script here that someone decided to cut through at breakneck speed, whether for fear of child attention spans or animation costs I don't know, but it was dizzying. It's like someone told the directors "You can totally use musical numbers to develop character" but then no one told the songwriters that was the plan.
I once heard that Elsa was originally the villain until the director's heard "Let it Go," and then they changed their minds. It's a very romantic idea of a living, growing character in creation... and of a HOT MESS of animated movie making. Yet, thinking back through the movie, that kind of internal disconnect seems a bit more obvious.
Some of my biggest gripes.
Elsa is a non-character. She's scared and doesn't talk, and has ice powers that go out of control when afraid. She has a break down and flees, then has a HUGE (and legitimately amazing) musical number, at which point she goes back to scared and not talking. That's not her character in a nutshell, that's her WHOLE character. She doesn't get the screentime to be anyone else.
So fine, she's the motivation of the story, not it's hero, right? That would be Anna, who does get the best beats and is the only character given any kind of depth at all. But she's scattershot, making mood shifts depending on joke beats, not character motivations. She "falls in love" with Hans in a great display of an extrovert finally being released from her shell (easily the best character beat in the movie) and then proceeds to stumble around the plot for the rest of the movie, looking for all the world like she knows she is supposed to be providing the depth and is trying desperately to keep up, until "screw it, turn into an ice statue to save my sister" is the best she can manage.
And Hans! We're supposed to believe that the guy who is out the snow caring for the poor and needy, getting them into the warm(er) palace with free blankets and cloaks (which the sweet shopkeeper in the mountains was bilking people on) is THEN gonna make a heel turn like that? Those were NOT the same two characters. I would have bought it if he kissed her and it didn't WORK, if he just admitted that he was hoping to marry royalty and hey she seemed great and eager and so why not but SHEESH lady... but no, he then goes about making sure she dies slowly? I would have accepted a Gaston argument for killing Elsa (It's her or us, folks, and even SHE admits she can't control it...) but no, we needed full on evil for... reasons, I guess. Which would have been fine if it had been hinted at ALL earlier.
The Trolls we could have done without entirely. "Fixer Upper" might even have been my favorite song of the movie (possibly because, even having not seen the movie before this, I am a little over "Let it Go") but they didn't motivate the plot in anyway that another character couldn't have managed. Without them, we get another fifteen minutes or so in which to give some of the other characters room to breathe, for their motivations to make sense.
Olaf, also, adds NOTHING to the movie besides a saleable character. He was ABOUT to be a great connection reminding Elsa and Anna both of their childhoods, but since Elsa was too busy not being in the movie and Anna was being hurried on to the next set piece, nothing ever came of it, and so Olaf ceased to exist for anything other than comic relief, which is hardly needed with a heroine who never misses a chance to make a joke.
The reason I think this is making me so crazy is that this COULD have been the movie everyone told me they saw. It had the bones of a truly great character piece, a revelation dealing with the poles of introversion and extroversion and trying to hide what you are. They even set up a lesson about fear being the problem, not fear of others, but fear of yourself. IT WAS THE ONE WORTHWHILE THING THE TROLLS DID AND THEY JUST DROPPED IT!
(pant, pant, pant)
It actually feels a great deal like Maleficent, a movie with the potential to be amazing that was hamstrung in the oddest ways. I am starting to very strongly get the sensation that the Disney formula that has been so brilliant elsewhere is present in the Princess franchise, but hamstrung by voices worrying about protecting the Brand.
If they had added, say, another 45 minutes to the runtime, or maybe dropped a song or two, FROZEN could have been a masterpiece. As it is, it has a collection of great songs, great characters, great jokes and great ideas that are too busy elbowing each other for room to breathe to create a glorious tapestry.
It's not bad to shoot high and fall short. I wish more companies took risks like that. But given that Frozen was never not going to make money, I wish the Brand managers had left it alone. Or, at least, that the directors paid enough attention to the creators under their direction were all working on the same movie.
I have, of course, been aware of Disney's "Frozen" since it came out. I never got the chance to watch it, though I saw plenty of clips on the internet and my little niece has been singing it's songs nearly nonstop since her parents bought the DVD. So today I finally watched the movie with my wife. I enjoyed the songs, I laughed at the characters, I saw everything that everyone said was so great about this film, and then, when it ended, I went...
...eh?
THIS was the piece that everyone said was Disney's game changer?
Granting that this is all my own opinion, Frozen is not better than the Little Mermaid or Aladdin. It doesn't even approach the mountaintop that is the Lion King or Beauty and the Beast. It is a beautiful, HIGHLY ambitious piece that, in the end, cannot stand under it's own weight.
It feels as if there is an absolutely stunning script here that someone decided to cut through at breakneck speed, whether for fear of child attention spans or animation costs I don't know, but it was dizzying. It's like someone told the directors "You can totally use musical numbers to develop character" but then no one told the songwriters that was the plan.
I once heard that Elsa was originally the villain until the director's heard "Let it Go," and then they changed their minds. It's a very romantic idea of a living, growing character in creation... and of a HOT MESS of animated movie making. Yet, thinking back through the movie, that kind of internal disconnect seems a bit more obvious.
Some of my biggest gripes.
Elsa is a non-character. She's scared and doesn't talk, and has ice powers that go out of control when afraid. She has a break down and flees, then has a HUGE (and legitimately amazing) musical number, at which point she goes back to scared and not talking. That's not her character in a nutshell, that's her WHOLE character. She doesn't get the screentime to be anyone else.
So fine, she's the motivation of the story, not it's hero, right? That would be Anna, who does get the best beats and is the only character given any kind of depth at all. But she's scattershot, making mood shifts depending on joke beats, not character motivations. She "falls in love" with Hans in a great display of an extrovert finally being released from her shell (easily the best character beat in the movie) and then proceeds to stumble around the plot for the rest of the movie, looking for all the world like she knows she is supposed to be providing the depth and is trying desperately to keep up, until "screw it, turn into an ice statue to save my sister" is the best she can manage.
And Hans! We're supposed to believe that the guy who is out the snow caring for the poor and needy, getting them into the warm(er) palace with free blankets and cloaks (which the sweet shopkeeper in the mountains was bilking people on) is THEN gonna make a heel turn like that? Those were NOT the same two characters. I would have bought it if he kissed her and it didn't WORK, if he just admitted that he was hoping to marry royalty and hey she seemed great and eager and so why not but SHEESH lady... but no, he then goes about making sure she dies slowly? I would have accepted a Gaston argument for killing Elsa (It's her or us, folks, and even SHE admits she can't control it...) but no, we needed full on evil for... reasons, I guess. Which would have been fine if it had been hinted at ALL earlier.
The Trolls we could have done without entirely. "Fixer Upper" might even have been my favorite song of the movie (possibly because, even having not seen the movie before this, I am a little over "Let it Go") but they didn't motivate the plot in anyway that another character couldn't have managed. Without them, we get another fifteen minutes or so in which to give some of the other characters room to breathe, for their motivations to make sense.
Olaf, also, adds NOTHING to the movie besides a saleable character. He was ABOUT to be a great connection reminding Elsa and Anna both of their childhoods, but since Elsa was too busy not being in the movie and Anna was being hurried on to the next set piece, nothing ever came of it, and so Olaf ceased to exist for anything other than comic relief, which is hardly needed with a heroine who never misses a chance to make a joke.
The reason I think this is making me so crazy is that this COULD have been the movie everyone told me they saw. It had the bones of a truly great character piece, a revelation dealing with the poles of introversion and extroversion and trying to hide what you are. They even set up a lesson about fear being the problem, not fear of others, but fear of yourself. IT WAS THE ONE WORTHWHILE THING THE TROLLS DID AND THEY JUST DROPPED IT!
(pant, pant, pant)
It actually feels a great deal like Maleficent, a movie with the potential to be amazing that was hamstrung in the oddest ways. I am starting to very strongly get the sensation that the Disney formula that has been so brilliant elsewhere is present in the Princess franchise, but hamstrung by voices worrying about protecting the Brand.
If they had added, say, another 45 minutes to the runtime, or maybe dropped a song or two, FROZEN could have been a masterpiece. As it is, it has a collection of great songs, great characters, great jokes and great ideas that are too busy elbowing each other for room to breathe to create a glorious tapestry.
It's not bad to shoot high and fall short. I wish more companies took risks like that. But given that Frozen was never not going to make money, I wish the Brand managers had left it alone. Or, at least, that the directors paid enough attention to the creators under their direction were all working on the same movie.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Reader Question: 7 Questions for Church Shoppers
My wife and I are moving to a new city and we met the pastor at First Pres after worship. He said they're considering breaking away from PCUSA over the Palestine resolution and various queer-friendliness. What questions should I think about when deciding whether to join that church or find one with more liberal commitments? Thanks and DFTBA! -Ben
---------------
For starters, I wouldn't blame you for simply moving on. That's a pretty big double whammy to receive right at the outset of a church relationship.It'd be hard to get over that kind of a first impression. (An earlier question asked if there was some sort of shrub that indicated LGBT friendliness. Leaving the denomination in this way is sort of an indication of the opposite.)
But, if you would like to try to stick it out, here are my list of questions that you want to ask yourself when considering if a church is for you, in order of importance.
1: Do I like the social atmosphere?
This one used to be "Are the people friendly," until I met a sweet lady who used to attend my church regularly until her social anxieties got too much from her. My people were too friendly, she knew that was a good thing, but it gave her anxiety attacks and ultimately she gave up for a mega church where she could be invisible, until she needed pastoral care when she called me. Sigh.
The point is that churches each have their own atmosphere and you should really attend one that helps you feel at home. If you're too busy being distracted by how isolated you feel or how overwhelmed you are to ever actually worship, then nothing else that will happen during the service matters.
2: Does the worship feel worshipful?
There are thousands of styles of Christian worship out there, each with its own blend of theology, music, and cultural influence. Most (I can't bring myself to say all) have their own merit, there own worth as worship. Which won't matter in the slightest if it doesn't feel like worship to you.
That isn't to say you have to LIKE everything. Worship in church is a group activity, and so cannot be slavishly styled to any one person's tastes. But at the end of the day you need to be able to let go of distractions and participate. Everyone has a certain range of worship types where that is possible. If the church you are in does not fit your range, then you should probably keep looking.
3: Is the Pastor worth listening to?
We can usually tell this within three sermons. The first might be a fluke, the second might be a rut, but if after three sermons you just can't muster any enthusiasm, then probably that pastor isn't for you. They may be a brilliant orator, or at least have something good to say, but it is all for nothing if you just can't hear it for whatever reason. Treat a new Pastor like a new counselor... whether or not you are willing to listen to them is every bit as important as whether or not they actually have anything to say.
4: Are there any cute girls in attendance?
Sorry, that was from my list of questions for finding a church while single in college. And to be honest, it was probably #1 at the time. Moving right along.
5: Is the church close enough to where I live that I will actually go?
My favorite church that I attended in College was an hour and a half away. It had everything, a great atmosphere, brilliant worship, a great preaching Pastor and SO many cute single girls. But... it was an hour and a half away. It meant waking up at 5:30 am to get to church on time, and as often as my friends and I SWORE we would make it work... we only managed it a few times before the excuses started cropping up. Too tired, too much studying to do, etc. What was worse, we didn't go anywhere else either, because that was where we said we went to church. It took a few months but eventually we realized that if we were going to have a church home, it needed to be in town. We ended up finding a pretty great place.
6: Can you see yourself still there after a decade or so?
A church family is just that, a family, and so unless you are living a life where you expect to move more frequently, you are connecting with a group of people for the long haul. And they probably won't get better. They will still be who they are, only more so, because the longer you are around the more you'll know about them as you become part of the furniture.
This can be a hard call which is why it is so low on the list, but as time passes, keep it in mind.
7: What do I think of their politics?
Some might be surprised to see this so low on the list, because it often gets treated much higher. As I said at the outset of this answer, the ideology going on may have already soured you, and if so, it's okay to move along. But if you find a church where all the above questions are answered in a positive way...
Church politics are strange. Again, it's like family. We love our relatives, even if sometimes we just avoid certain subjects entirely when we get together. If you find a place where you enjoy the atmosphere, can groove with the worship, enjoy the teaching, and see a future, then it's entirely possible that being the token liberal or conservative won't be an entirely bad thing.
We live in a world that is growing increasingly divided. By putting a beloved face on a less understood ideology, you may be what helps that church to be a positive voice in politics, rather than one defined strictly by theological standards.
Good luck with the church shopping!
---------------
For starters, I wouldn't blame you for simply moving on. That's a pretty big double whammy to receive right at the outset of a church relationship.It'd be hard to get over that kind of a first impression. (An earlier question asked if there was some sort of shrub that indicated LGBT friendliness. Leaving the denomination in this way is sort of an indication of the opposite.)
But, if you would like to try to stick it out, here are my list of questions that you want to ask yourself when considering if a church is for you, in order of importance.
1: Do I like the social atmosphere?
This one used to be "Are the people friendly," until I met a sweet lady who used to attend my church regularly until her social anxieties got too much from her. My people were too friendly, she knew that was a good thing, but it gave her anxiety attacks and ultimately she gave up for a mega church where she could be invisible, until she needed pastoral care when she called me. Sigh.
The point is that churches each have their own atmosphere and you should really attend one that helps you feel at home. If you're too busy being distracted by how isolated you feel or how overwhelmed you are to ever actually worship, then nothing else that will happen during the service matters.
2: Does the worship feel worshipful?
There are thousands of styles of Christian worship out there, each with its own blend of theology, music, and cultural influence. Most (I can't bring myself to say all) have their own merit, there own worth as worship. Which won't matter in the slightest if it doesn't feel like worship to you.
That isn't to say you have to LIKE everything. Worship in church is a group activity, and so cannot be slavishly styled to any one person's tastes. But at the end of the day you need to be able to let go of distractions and participate. Everyone has a certain range of worship types where that is possible. If the church you are in does not fit your range, then you should probably keep looking.
3: Is the Pastor worth listening to?
We can usually tell this within three sermons. The first might be a fluke, the second might be a rut, but if after three sermons you just can't muster any enthusiasm, then probably that pastor isn't for you. They may be a brilliant orator, or at least have something good to say, but it is all for nothing if you just can't hear it for whatever reason. Treat a new Pastor like a new counselor... whether or not you are willing to listen to them is every bit as important as whether or not they actually have anything to say.
4: Are there any cute girls in attendance?
Sorry, that was from my list of questions for finding a church while single in college. And to be honest, it was probably #1 at the time. Moving right along.
5: Is the church close enough to where I live that I will actually go?
My favorite church that I attended in College was an hour and a half away. It had everything, a great atmosphere, brilliant worship, a great preaching Pastor and SO many cute single girls. But... it was an hour and a half away. It meant waking up at 5:30 am to get to church on time, and as often as my friends and I SWORE we would make it work... we only managed it a few times before the excuses started cropping up. Too tired, too much studying to do, etc. What was worse, we didn't go anywhere else either, because that was where we said we went to church. It took a few months but eventually we realized that if we were going to have a church home, it needed to be in town. We ended up finding a pretty great place.
6: Can you see yourself still there after a decade or so?
A church family is just that, a family, and so unless you are living a life where you expect to move more frequently, you are connecting with a group of people for the long haul. And they probably won't get better. They will still be who they are, only more so, because the longer you are around the more you'll know about them as you become part of the furniture.
This can be a hard call which is why it is so low on the list, but as time passes, keep it in mind.
7: What do I think of their politics?
Some might be surprised to see this so low on the list, because it often gets treated much higher. As I said at the outset of this answer, the ideology going on may have already soured you, and if so, it's okay to move along. But if you find a church where all the above questions are answered in a positive way...
Church politics are strange. Again, it's like family. We love our relatives, even if sometimes we just avoid certain subjects entirely when we get together. If you find a place where you enjoy the atmosphere, can groove with the worship, enjoy the teaching, and see a future, then it's entirely possible that being the token liberal or conservative won't be an entirely bad thing.
We live in a world that is growing increasingly divided. By putting a beloved face on a less understood ideology, you may be what helps that church to be a positive voice in politics, rather than one defined strictly by theological standards.
Good luck with the church shopping!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)