As a person who spent more than half my life in a country, Jamaica, known for its strong anti-gay  sentiments the question of the origins of anti-gay sentiments has been a recurring subject of my personal musings (and I will spare you the “some of my best-friends are ____ routine).”  So far I have come to believe that the same variables that supported the Crusades, the slaughter of the natives of “the Americas,” slavery, Jim Crow, “one hundred years of lynching” mostly carried out at church picnics, legalized beatings of women and children, the millions of American Christians that were members of the KKK in the twentieth century, Holocaust, and our continued segregated church in America, result in the justification of the death penalty for homosexuals. The two chief conditions are: 1. a system of thought that views difference as inherently dangerous and warranting a pre-emptive strike or exploitable- a tool to be used for our benefit, 2. unchallenged socializing agents/ agencies that buttress the aforementioned evolutionary or sinful impulses.

I know some will argue that homosexuality is a moral issue, a sin according Scriptures.  But this response clouds the issue rather than sheds light on it for me. First many of those who make the above claim also advocate for psychology programs (such as Exodus) to cure homosexuals, so is it a sin or sickness?  A more consistent argument is offered by those who view homosexuality as a wrong choice according to Scriptures.  I am aware of the frequently quoted list of prohibited sexual acts from Leviticus: incest, sexual intercourse with menstruating woman, a neighbour’s wife, another male or animals. But I am also aware that the Hebrew people whose blessing from God was to grow from a small family to a people “as numerous as the sand of the sea” placed a premium on the procreative aspect of sexuality. Hence, any sexual encounter that did not have procreation as the goal was taboo; Onan’s spilling his seed on the ground when copulating with his dead brother’s wife, Tamar, resulted in his death. Later Pauline text provide an explicit rationale,  Roman 1 indicates that homosexuality is unnatural but Pauline writers also argue in Corinthians 11 that short hair in women is unnatural (think of the kinky delicate African hair that readily breaks and was popular in Sub-Saharan Africa at that time and is still on my head). So what does unnatural really mean?

 So I guess I understand why Christians are divided on the subject of homosexuality but the visceral, fierce, hate-like response is something else. I can recall myself as a fourteen year old girl who gleefully pledged to participate in a violent anti-homosexuality rally to counter a rumoured pro -homosexual rally (fortunately for me neither came to pass). I was not consumed by the zeal of the Lord rather as a product of a mixed ethnicity, bipartisan, heritage the only people I could legitimately hate were homosexuals. Had I really been filled with the love of Jesus I would have treated “the sin” of homosexuality the same way Jesus did all sins; give up power over, incarnate, carry the cross, and as I am not Jesus point people to him- the only Truth.

Renegade- learning to hang around

In light of recent findings that black women are the least successful with online dating and my wish for an egalitarian partner, two weeks ago I registered with e-Harmony. Mine was an unpaid registration that consisted of answering questions, filling out a profile, and submitting two of my May graduation pictures during the free communication week-end (late December).  I was sent an estimated 100 matches (ethnic/racial breakdown: majority Euro-American close second African-American, one Korean and one Latino). As I was not a paying subscriber their pictures were concealed. I was intrigued by about four but I initiated contact with about twenty. In the e-Harmony system unless you specify a “fast—track approach” you go through four stages of structured communication which culminates in an open communication stage. Four  initiated communication with me, one made it to the third communication level and another to open communication both were African Americans.

• The first was a computer tech and youth minister of music, who sailed through the first two stages until premarital sex blew us off course. He sent a question about pre-marital sex and I selected the response that “I do not believe in premarital sex” then he selected “sex was okay if marriage was imminent.” My next question, a polite way of saying get lost was, “what is your theology of sex?” He abruptly “closed communication” and his stated reason was that our values were too different. The second “close match” was a cop who seemed to have all the right answers. I especially liked his response to the question about traditional gender roles where he wrote that as he could cook, clean, wash and change diapers the only role he wanted his mate to fill was to love only him. Was I in egalitarian heaven?
• Only open communication would tell. I called from a blocked number. Over the course of the conservation he ate, brushed his teeth, and apologized for doing so. He not so skilfully asked me about my immigration status.  He advised me that I would have more success on e-Harmony if my profile picture was the one of me in a spaghetti strap knee length dress rather than the one in cap and gown, to which I responded that I was not trying to attract shallow men. But what really sealed his fate was his take on egalitarianism. He became quite agitated, loud and incoherent when I told him that I believed everyone was equal. He argued that things that are different cannot be equal “women can have children and men cannot” (men can impregnate women ;-). To buttress his argument he stated that the word/bible said so.  I queried whether he an African -American male was equal to Euro-Americans and he stated that race did not impair one’s abilities. My second question was whether a neurosurgeon was superior to him a cop and he respond yes. After his rant I was silent, and realizing that something was amiss he apologized for becoming so worked up.  He indicated that he was pressed for time and needed to drop his child off. He said he was willing to discuss this further.  I appreciated his only slightly belated honesty (some men would have waited much longer) and closed communication.
• My take on e-Harmony? check out edatereview.com                                                                                                                                                                If you have seen the e-Harmony advertisements matches are allegedly based on more than “a picture and a paragraph” rather they are “based on 29 dimension of compatibility.”1. However these pre-screenings do not include background checks and you know us humans and honour systems. 2. Similarities in answers do not necessarily mean someone is a “highly compatible match” as responses are not necessarily honest or accurate. 3. Though Dr Warren is a psychologist the “29 dimensions of compatible questionnaire” does not measure psychological health 4. There are more women on e-Harmony than men. 5. Finally, I prefer the old fashion ways of  meeting “highly compatible matches;”  while living and doing  the things that make you feel most alive (not the ones you do for appearances) look out for the people doing them for similar reasons and viola your “highly compatible matches.”
• Renegade – “ One Love”

One of the gifts a castrating single Christian egalitarian wants for the holidays …is a potential partner. Like many of my single Christian friends I have been lovingly (and not so lovingly) interrogated about my continued singleness. However, until recently I believed securing a partner was a fringe benefit; something that miraculously comes to you while you are “seeking first the kingdom/ “kin-dom” of God.” But then I had a moment of insight and thought, “what could be a better example of the kingdom/ “kin-dom” of God than a loving life- long partnership premised on and sustained by the love of Christ?”

I have listened to several suggestions, some more memorable than others, as to how to achieve my goal. There are those who have advocate Internet dating. Apart from my pride that tells me that I really don’t have a problem attracting men, my only real problem with Internet-dating is human nature. The average human is self-interested and as a result is prone to “airbrushing,” which is greatly facilitated by Internet. The potential suitor can be anything he or she believes you want until he or she achieves the desired end. Another more novel approach is that of a “mail-order mate’ but unfortunately for me these services are more suited to males seeking “traditional women” from developing countries.

I must confess that I like traditional things. I love my grandmother’s sweet potato pudding with the creamy custard on top. I prefer when my pudding is made from fresh ( not canned or frozen) coconut milk. In the old days the coconut milk was obtained by hand grating the coconut, but as soon my grandmother bought a blender she no longer grated the coconut by hand.  She did not believe that scraped fingers made the pudding more delicious. In essence I believe my grandmother was teaching us that tradition is great as long as it does no harm.  

Second only to low self-esteem, a traditional view of male-female relationship is one of the main features of relationships characterized by domestic violence, so like my grandmother I don’t grater things by hand that are safer to blend.

So we have come to my real problem. I am an unrepentant castrating single Christian egalitarian.  I know I am treading on dangerous waters when I mention castration, but my form of Christianity renders it necessary.  It is the kind of Christianity in which the possession of a phallus whether organically grown, bought or made is not the criterion for leadership; Christianity that views the Bible as divinely inspired yet gravely affected by human limitations as exemplified in instances such as Pauline theology.  In Pauline theology women are commanded to be both silent in church as well as cover their heads when prophesying— mildly contradictory. Another example is that of Bible translators who in Romans 16 changed the name of Paul’s relative Junia (female), who is described as a prominent apostle, to Junias (male). Mine is the kind of Christianity that confesses that “ as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3).” No, we are not all the same. We are still beautifully diverse but our worth, our purpose, our possibility are determined by Christ who loves all of us and not our genitalia. 

So I know I have been more naughty than nice this year (most years) but since I am asking a God of grace and not a Santa of merit I will keep hope alive. A merry everything to you and yours.

Renegade

Prior to embarking on my birthday adventure, I read my morning meditation from the book of Exodus, and by chance, I was up to the point in the narrative in which Moses was told to prepare the Hebrew people to meet their God by bathing themselves and abstaining from sex. I believe it was an especially suitable text as part of my plans for my birthday celebration was to visit the Museum of Sex located in lower Manhattan. A more timid soul would have believed this was a sign from God to avoid such a den of iniquity but like Balaam I rode on to my destination via New Jersey transit mindful not to whip any donkeys.

The Museum of Sex at the time of my visit had two floors of display. The first floor provided examples of animal sexuality which generally debunked generally held ideas of the heterosexual, patriarchal nature of the animal world. Also on the first floor were different samples of the use of sexual intercourse or lack thereof over the course of American history by the media with examples such as the Sinclair Institute. The first portion of the second floor addressed issues of sexual paraphernalia, self-pleasuring/ masturbation and the changes in perception over time. The final section mainly addressed sex-workers in adult entertainment/ pornography industry. (It is an adult museum)

Why did I go to the museum? Part of the reason is that I like to shock people and sadly human sexuality still remains taboo especially in Christian circles. How could I explain my visit to Museum of Sex to a church to which I might be called in the future as I can no longer hide behind the guise of my visit being a requirement for seminary? I went on a journey of reconciliation and the best kind starts with the individual. Sexuality is one of the MANY areas within the Christian worldview that cries out for reconciliation. From the time of Moses to the present, sexuality and sexual expressions have been viewed as things that defile and make the person untouchable by even God.

As a result of the depreciation of sexuality our approach to sexual ethics for a long time has been the antithesis of the Nike slogan “just don’t do it.” But from the pulpit to the pews our lives have belied our message pedophile-priests and parishioners, date rapes on seminary campuses, sexual addictions, adultery and incest. And as a “Christian country” we support a billion dollar pornography industry, and we are avid participants in sex -slave trade and sex tourism. And some who really abstain in truth do it for reasons that reveal a hate for the physical- the sexual. Virginity, especially in case of women, has been held as a mark of superiority rendering them good enough to wed. Others refuse to participate in loving relationships because of fear of rejection for less than ideal body parts or unrealistic expectations of others.

Is sexual reconciliation possible within the individual or the church? The paradigm of clean and unclean sexuality and the hate of the physical body are both nullified in the incarnation of Jesus. If we accept that God became human, lived in the body of a woman, entered the world through her birthing canal and was clothed in male flesh the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with the “material” aspect of humanity is quickly debunked. Second while Jesus did not address the issue of sex his treatment of those identified as unclean clearly indicated that the things viewed by humans as unclean such as leprosy, woman with issue of blood were not the things that the God-man viewed as breaches in God- human relationships. The incarnation and ministry of Jesus reiterates the value of the materiality of humanity. The incarnation reveals that sexuality, a naturally occurring element of humanity, is not inherently wrong.

Is there room for a Christian sexual ethic?

There are those within the church that advocate the seventies “free love, free sex” position but are quickly dismissed because of the lack of theological basis and short sightedness of their position. Could we really promote an anything goes sexual ethic -how about pedophilia or incest? A Christian sexual ethic is not a private sphere but should be an aspect of one’s general Christian ethic which is generally premised on the incarnation, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. One’s sexual praxis should be predicated on one’s publicly attested theological view of God and curtailed by love for self and the other. For example my belief in a God who loves humanity as we are results in shift from paradigms of clean and unclean sexuality to concepts of health/life-giving and unhealthy/ death-dealing, hence intercourse with a child is wrong because children like caterpillars are not “mature” enough to mate.

And my personal word to my future congregants? Sexual expression is akin to mango season in my country of origin. Prior to its season (time of harvest) mangoes might look fit to eat but if you bite in too early the mango sap will burn your mouth and the flesh will be too sour to enjoy. Though skilful cooks can use the green mangoes to make curries and stews  the distinct taste of the mango will be lost and seeds of the mango will not bear fruit… but if you wait till mango season, as one song records at that time you won’t have to coax the mango off the tree it will “ripe and drop.” The mango wanting only to exercise its potential to give life does everything to achieve its goal. The once almost impenetrable skin will give way to the advances of your teeth revealing succulent syrupy flesh rich with nectar; a mutually beneficial offering pleasing to your taste and an opportunity to uncover the mangoes potential to give life- its seed. And when its “mango time” even coffee one of Jamaica’s most lauded exports is regulated to the background— in service of mango monogamy.

Renegade – “running and running away but you can’t run away from yourself”

Truth, reparation and reconciliation: 9/11

In seminary I took a class on forgiveness and one of our discussion topics was the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001. I was the only person in the class with first-hand knowledge of what that day was like. At the time of the attacks, I was a student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice located at 59^th street in Manhattan and travelled under World Trade Centre earlier that morning to attend an 8 am class. I was one of the many people trying to get to safety, one of many who in the subsequent weeks walked around in a daze wondering when I would wake up from this nightmare. There are those who witnessed more, friends who lost loved ones, stood looking up while people jumped out of the buildings, searched through the rubble to find body parts.  So what about forgiveness?

Forgiveness is often touted as the sine qua non Christian virtue. Whether it is a harsh word or genocide the Christian advice most frequently doled out is forgive. The definitions of forgiveness range from not seeking revenge to maintaining relationships with the wrong doers. While I can readily accede that revenge seeking is not a Christian attitude, the same can be said for the maintenance or establishment of unhealthy relationships. My position is premised on my belief that the essential Christian state of being is love (God , self and others). My love policy is best summed up by a line from a Jamaican song “harm no one and let no one harm you.”

So what about those terrorists “axis of evil”?  I believe that love for self and fellow beings mandates that people and things that are inimical to human existence be quarantined until they cease to be so. I believe every effort should be made to find the guilty and thwart their schemes. Can I imagine a scenario in which those who lost their loved ones could establish relationships with the 911 terrorists? Yes if certain conditions are met: truth (repentance) and reparation ( fruit of repentance).  If the offenders were to come to share the point of view of the victims, that 9/11 was a wrong act and the offenders were willing to make reparation.

Renegade

“Spiritual supremacists protest Steve McNair’s funeral with sign-“McNair in Hell.”
At the core of domestic violence is the desire to exert power over and control of another individual. More times than not the perpetrators are males seeking to assert their allegedly “god-given” and society endorsed right to rule. One refreshingly honest answer in response to my question of why some men like relationships characterized by male dominance was offered by a German associate, who I affectionately called “Patriarchy.” “ Patriarchy ” confessed , “it’s not that I really believe that men are better equipped to lead than women but I have a low self-esteem and female subordination serves it.” Patriarchy’s statement captures the reason relationships of dominance are harmful; people are being used by the dominant group or individual as means ( objects, tools, slaves) rather than ends (subjects to be known and cared for). These relationships work for as long as the one designated as tool, slave, object, accepts the role but all humans have a breaking point.
So what does that have to do with McNair and Kazemi ?
FYI –Relationships characterized by infidelity and lies are psychologically abusive with the potential to become physically abusive ( STDs and murders). McNair played his way to the pinnacle of privilege and power but the grim reaper called “early retirement” appeared. But McNair held on tenaciously to male privilege with a wife of twelve years and family in another state and a recently turned twenty year old mistress on the side. The qualities that made the twenty year old a good prey ( high school drop- out and an almost teenager) also rendered her a deadly mistress. Maybe at twenty she was ignorant of the fact that, she was at the peak of her attractiveness to those who would use her as a sex object, so she accepted the story of an impending divorce without verifying it with Google, public records, his wife or TMZ. Accepting her role in the patriarchal paradigm as a dependent woman whose value and salvation is predicated on her ability to establish and maintain relationships with male power brokers when her knight in shining Escalade is revealed to be mere commoner, she snaps. As an experienced student of relationships of dominance she knows how to get her way- her man for all eternity. She goes to him at his most vulnerable, asleep ( as he came to her ?), and gets him to leave his wife and family to join her in the after-life .
So is McNair in hell?
Aren’t we all already there, a place where even God was temporarily dominated and killed. But not before we saw glimpses of heaven as the most powerful ( God) loving and serving the powerless (God’s creation). Aren’t we kind of left here in hell to practice appreciating God’s paradigm of power- the strong serving the weak so when next we see God face to face we won’t want to kill God again because God refuses to live up to our expectations, refuses to be a means but an end ? I pray for the family and friends of both of them and for us who want to put others in our hell.

I really enjoy your posts because I crave educated feminist discussions. As a woman who is readily stereo-typed as an angry black woman who needs to “calm down” so that people can accept my ideas, I have first-hand experience of being called a sower of discord, even a racist. Perhaps it is because I am more a lover of Malcolm X than Martin Luther King Jr as I believe in some respect Malcolm was the healthier of the two. I do not advocate for violence and though Malcolm advocated the use of violence, after converting to Islam he committed no documented violent act against anyone rather he was violently killed by the “beloved community.” I liked Malcolm because he, like the black panthers , preached self-love a text that abusers/oppressor do not want to hear.

More to the point…There is necessary animosity and unnecessary discord. If in the interest of loving truth telling and self-love you offend someone that is all in the game of love. I love a story by Flannery OConnor in which the “pimpled faced white girl” tells the racist classist self- proclaimed Christian Euro-American female protagonist that the latter is a warthog who needs to go back to hell her place of origin. The protagonist was greatly disturbed by the comment, but accepted it as a revelation from a truth-telling God (a Pauline moment of being knocked off her high horse). I am telling people about racism, sexism not to show that I am better than, but that we all deserve to be treated better. To open the door to mutual improvement, as you previously stated both the oppressor and oppressed are in need of liberation.

Will they still say we are sowing discord if we tell the truth in love? Hell yes. It is the age old tact of blaming the victim, where the abuser wishing to maintain power over refuses to accept how he or she is perceived by the abused. Those people were not going to form coalitional alliances with us anyway when “they” say “they” want to end oppression they mean just that. They want to be the heroes who are remembered for their acts of justice and not for their complicity in a legacy of oppression.

There are a few ideas of Karl Barth that I like and I think I would be a Barthian if I was around more people who practiced Barthian theology, instead of enshrining the man. Barth a “contextual theologian” wrote  about the krisis, which he defines as a constant state of accepting that we are at the same time condemned and accepted by God. Condemned for the non-life-giving things in us, and accepted by a God who nonetheless loves and wants to rectify us. This is a hard pill to swallow in a culture where people constantly say “don’t judge me” understood as be a false prophet and call evil ( non-life-giving things) good.

renegade-grateful for stimulating discussion in a desert land :-)

Crystal et al.:

I read and greatly appreciated your piece on Sotomayor as well as your response to my piece. I think the highest compliment to an author of anything is thoughtful dialogue- so thanks. I think you captured the intent of my blurb in your comment “challenge” … “without vilifying race and gender.” I wholeheartedly concur that there has been and continues to be a pervasive Euro-American male hegemony. The absence of other voices have greatly limited but not negated the value of some of their achievements. For example, we have a fabulous constitution mainly written by European (Anglos) males. However, had they included the Native Americans and the Africans we would have less to be a shamed of and to repair as a Nation. As a black Caribbean American who loves America, I want an America enriched by diversity and divested of systems of domination. My dream can only be achieved by coalitional alliances that are difficult to grow in soils of animosity ( vilifying race and gender). Did I think Sotomayor meant to be racist or sexist ? No! Most people who live in New York City know the value of diversity ( all voices),so I just wanted to provoke those who don’t. Those who want to be able to dismiss those who struggle for egalitarian structures as being just as dominating as those they are standing up against.

PS: Blind-spots – Prior to writing I was reading an article entitled “Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.” The theorists came to their conclusions mainly from a sample of “underprivileged” youth (ethnicity was not specified). I appreciated the “objective” take of the outsiders as many of the traits that were described such as being rebellious against the system in my opinion as a minority was very laudable. My next desire was to see studies done on juvenile delinquency of the privileged. As I as an “objective” outsider could more clearly identify delinquency in behaviours that those within the group find normal because they are not caught: drugs, promiscuity, addictions (cigarettes, alcohol). Then the next step would be the insiders and outsiders making policy together for all juvenile delinquents.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Sonia Sotomayor

One critique of Sotomayor’s statement was that it was racist, and I concur that it has the potential to be racist. It would be both racist and sexist to assume that being a wise Latina with rich experiences make you a better candidate for the job than any white male. As some logical questions would be: can a Euro-American male be wise? Don’t his experiences count? The duty of Supreme Court judges is to determine the constitutionality of the cases and state laws that come to them. In light of the task set out before the justices, one can readily concur that wisdom would be essential. The New Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines wisdom as “showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.” There are those who would argue that the only pertinent wisdom (experience, knowledge, and good judgment) is that which pertains to the law but Sotomayor hints at more. Sotomayor tackles the myth of objectivity and contends that personal experiences, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background matters. I believe that most people in USA still believe that the personal touch matters otherwise the justices would have been replaced with computers that can be programmed to produce more objective decisions than humans.

But my mind is still working on the issue of giving a “better conclusion than a white male that hasn’t lived that life.” Does the wise Euro-American experience matter ? I support Sotomayor’s candidacy as well as diversity in Supreme Court. I support it because I believe that a diverse group of wise individuals with various experiences will arrive at more balanced humane interpretations of the Constitution, which will make more citizens feel that they are Americans. However, I do not believe that specific minorities make better decisions than qualified Euro-Americans. Rather I believe that the Supreme Court will make better decisions because it is more representative of the American public. I think it something like ( excuse me if I sound like a heretic), the God of the flood and the God at Jesus’ crucifixion. The God at the flood as an objective outsider saw that we humans were just damn wicked and needed to be washed off the face of the earth. But when that God lived with us as one of us, at the crucifixion that God said “forgive them because they really do not know what they are doing.”

Was Tamar’s actions self-help or social deviance ?

There are theories of crime that speak to the blurring in distinction between criminal/deviant behavior and moral action. One such theory is the “self-help theory of crime” posited by Douglas Black. Black’s theorizes that some criminal activities do not stem from a desire to transgress the laws of the society, but rather are in pursuit of justice. “Self-help is the handling of a grievance by unilateral aggression …[it] ranges from quick and simple gestures of disapproval, such as glares or frowns to massive assaults resulting in numerous deaths.”

Black argues that many of the behaviors that are at present labeled as criminal mirror the traditional methods of self-help that were employed in conflict management in traditional societies that lacked formal legal systems.[1] In support of his thesis, Black indicates that as in traditional societies most homicides committed in modern societies are in response to conduct that the perpetrator deemed as deviant.[2] A survey conducted in Houston in 1969 disclosed that over half of the homicides occurred in the course of an argument, a quarter was explained as being “self-defense” or “provoked” and only a tenth was predatory, i.e. committed in the commission of crimes.[3] Although recent statistics evidence a decline in the number of murders that are the result of arguments, this category continues to be most cited circumstance.[4]

Read the rest of this entry »