Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Prayers I Pray

A prayer I say every day:

God, I offer myself to thee, to build with me and to do with me as thou wilt.  Relieve me of the bondage of self, that I may better do thy will.  Take away my difficulties, that victory over them may bear witness to those I would help of thy power, thy love, and thy way of life.  May I do thy will always.

This is the third step prayer from Alcoholics Anonymous (the book from which AA gets its name).  The third step prayer is fundamental:  we must offer our will and our lives to God if we are to recover.  But, like most principles and prayers in the AA program, this one has a deeper resonance, particularly for a Christian.  If I call myself a believer, if I say that I am a follower of Christ, my life is no longer my own. 

I am struggling to discover what life looks like when it is offered to God.  I'll never be a monk, and will probably never be a member of the clergy (though time will tell).  And even if I do commit my vocation to God, that is different than turning my life over.  How does a life lived on God's terms look from day to day?

My first inclination is to lean toward the don'ts:  don't drink, don't gossip, don't lie, cheat or steal.  That is perhaps part of it, but it can't be all.  A life turned over to God must surely be characterized by positive action and virtue, and not just by refraining from vice.

The prayer itself is instructive.  We pray for relief from self-bondage for a purpose, that when our difficulties are overcome, we can help others and show them a life lived in God's will.  Freedom from bondage so that we may free others from bondage.  Not a bad way to spend a day.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Powerlessness

"We admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable."

The first step of the Alcoholics Anonymous program can be daunting. Though it can be easy to recognize the unmanageability of one's life, admitting powerlessness is another story. I, like many, have spent an incredible amount of energy trying to attain more and more, not less and less, control over my life. And even as I was creating havoc in my own life, I took pride in being self-sufficient.

I am learning, though, that I am not self-sufficient, and never have been. My powerlessness over alcohol manifested itself in various ways: passing out in bars, sleeping with a bottle of bourbon next to my bed, as well as physical symptoms (shakes) and emotional symptoms (severe anxiety) when I needed liquor. Powerlessness over alcohol means that once I pick up the first drink, I have no power over what happens next.

Powerlessness over other parts of my life shows up as fear, anger, resentment, and unfulfilled expectations.

Powerlessness sounds depressing. The liberal in me wants to give power to people, not to tell them they don't have it. The American in me wants to bootstrap it. Admitting powerlessness goes against my nature. It seems unfair and frustrating.

But then came the good news: by honestly admitting - without reservation, aside or asterisk - that I am powerless over my addiction, I open myself up to a power greater than myself. And not just to knowledge of a Power greater than myself. Instead, I open myself up to a genuine relationship with and reliance upon that Power.

Time will tell, but I think this may be the greatest spiritual awakening I have yet attained: there is a God, I am not it, and I try to rely upon that God as the primary source of power in my life. This is also the daily struggle. Recognizing powerlessness and relying on something outside of oneself is not easy, and it doesn't come naturally.

They say it gets easier. One day at a time.

Monday, September 07, 2009

2006-2009 in a Nutshell

So, it's been a while since I've posted on this blog.  More than three years, actually.  So what's happened?  In the fall of 2006, I was confirmed in The Episcopal Church, and began to take off the armor I wore to worship every Sunday.  Since that time I have been more and more actively involved, and now attend Church of the Incarnation, an Episcopal parish in Dallas.

In addition to my struggles in and with the Church of Christ, I developed a nice little case of alcoholism.  Not "eh, I probably drink too much" alcoholism.  More like "why am I waking up in an alley?" alcoholism.  From 2004 to 2008 my drinks grew deeper and longer, until life was one big bender.  I dropped out of graduate school, isolated myself, and pretty much fell off the face of the earth.  In the summer of 2008 I began to wake up again (in my bed this time), and since November 25, 2008, with the help of God and Alcoholics Anonymous, I've been sober.

Becoming an Episcopalian helped restore my Christian faith.  Admitting I was powerless over alcohol helped restore my contact with God.

What now?  Who knows.  But as they say in The Program:  one day at a time.

Friday, September 04, 2009

Hmm...

Thinking of a return to the blog world. Not sure yet.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Final Thoughts

As my 3 devoted readers have probably determined by now, I think I've decided to give up the blogging game (as if that weren't readily apparent from the 3 month gap in posts). Right now, I feel like I can do absolutely no good, so I've decided to take care of myself for a while. Perhaps I shall return at some future date in a blaze of blogging glory. A couple of final thoughts, though (I, like Jerry Springer, feel the need to wrap things up).

I am convinced that our churches are wrong to treat gay men and lesbians they way they do. Period. We deserve love, full inclusion and affirmation, not pity, dismissal, and revulsion. This is not just another 'issue' the church must deal with. The Church of Christ destroys lives and families when it throws stones. Our church must grow up, move past the pettiness of absurd doctrinal disputes, and move on to the real work of Christ.

Further, while most elders, preachers, and Christian college presidents and professors insist that their opinions are based on the Bible, I am convinced that their condemnation stems more from pure disgust. The refusal of so many to reconsider their doctrine (or to even give a modicum of respect to those whose opinions differ from their own) speaks volumes. Disgust, misogyny, and homophobia, however unconscious, drive the (male) decisionmakers at our universities and in our churches:

Consider, finally, the central locus of disgust in today's United States: male loathing of the male homosexual. Female homosexuals may be objects of fear, or moral indignation, or generalized, anxiety, but they are less often objects of disgust. Similarly, heterosexual females may feel negative emotions toward the male homosexual -- fear, moral indignation, anxiety -- but again, they rarely feel emotions of disgust. What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas imaginable to males, for whom the idea of nonpenetrability is a sacred boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. The presence of a homosexual male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might oneself lose one's clean safeness, become the receptacle for those animal products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one's own imagined penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as predator who might make everyone else disgusting. (Martha C. Nussbaum, Hiding From Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, p. 113)


The male decisionmakers in our churches are afraid of penetration, of vulnerability, of the so-called "female" traits they, in their (perhaps innocent) ignorance, believe to characterize the homosexual. We must convince our elders, our leaders, to let go of notions of masculinity and femininity, of what makes one a Man, so we can convince them to reconsider their readings of the Biblical texts.

Disgust, that most unchristian of virtues, controls the discussion now. Love must overcome it.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Cowboys (Or: Learning To Be A Man, part 1)

"Institutionalised in sports, the military, acculturated sexuality, the history and mythology of heroism, violence is taught to boys until they become its advocates."
- Charles Dickens

I wish someone told me I didn’t have to be a cowboy.

At church some months ago, during a discussion about gender, a middle-aged man gruffly said, “I wish someone told me I didn’t have to be a cowboy.” I don’t want to read too much into what he meant by this statement, but I haven’t been able to get the sentiment out of my mind. It represents a thought that can and should be echoed by so many boys and men; by those who were supposed to be cowboys, but turned out not to be, or by those who became cowboys only to discover they no longer wanted to be, by those who have discovered the emptiness of the masculine baggage we’ve been handed. I wish someone told me I didn’t have to be a cowboy. I want to write those words in ash and tears on the altars of our churches, on the hearths of our homes, and on the gates of our schoolyards.

I grew up in the South, in the land of football and cheerleaders, of debutantes and good old boys, of macho men and dainty women. Women have a place (the dirty secret: so do men). I remember Texas in the 1980s, a time of blue eye shadow and platinum hair for my mother, a thick mustache and a police uniform for my father. I was dressed in cowboy boots from time immemorial (though I always managed to pull them off so I could run around barefoot in the warm Texas dirt).

Dad, you see, was (and is) a lover of John Wayne and all things War and Western. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. They Died with their Boots On. Gunga Din. Ft. Apache. McClintock. Bridge on the River Kwai. He refused to watch Rock Hudson movies, though I could never understand why. (I finally understood when I learned that Rock Hudson had died of AIDS; or was the problem not so much the AIDS as the penetration that preceded infection?). Though he also enjoyed the occasional Cary Grant romantic comedy, or even one of Jimmy Stewart’s weepy performances, Dad typically stuck with guns and horses, tanks and valor, cowboys and Indians and women waiting for their soldiers to come home.

I started playing football when I was six, baseball when I was five (I would eventually play football until I was sixteen and baseball until 17. Not a short run.). I wasn’t bad at either sport, and I could have been considered an above average first baseman. My father, like many fathers, seemed noticeably more proud when I scored the winning run than he was when I received perfect scores on my report card. And I think he was proudest when I shot and killed my first deer at the age of 7. Violence and victory and tackles and touchdowns were ways to prove my worth as a boy, it seemed.

Being a boy in my family, and in most other families I encountered, meant certain things. Don’t cry. Play rough. Win. Fight dirty if necessary, but never run away. Don’t hug too much, especially not another man. Above all: don’t cry. Oh, yes, and: don’t cry. I learned these lessons over and over. Sometimes I was taught subtly: I was rewarded for good grades with a fishing pole or a new bat; I received more than one gun as a gift. Other times, the training was more, shall we say, overt.

I have focused on my father, but he was only one of my trainers. I remember a day my mother took me to the dentist. One of the perks of visiting Dr. Connor was that, after the cleaning, I could pick out any toothbrush I wanted (not a small deal to a young child). At the end of this particular visit, I picked out a pink toothbrush, which prompted the following discussion with my mother:

“Boys don’t use pink.”
“Why?”
“They just don’t. Pink is for girls. Do you want blue?”
“No, I don’t like blue.” (I did, in fact, like blue, but I couldn’t pick the same color as my little brother.)
“Take green then. Your father will be upset if you bring home a pink toothbrush.”

So, pink was out. And so (I would later learn) were flowers, dolls, all things that sparkle, long hair, boy bands, doing the dishes, and cooking. And let’s not forget crying.

Gender, it seemed, made a lot of difference. Though he loved us all, I had a different kind of value to my father than did my sister and younger brother, or so he told me. I couldn’t understand what difference it made that I was his firstborn son; I was, after all, the middle child – he had a daughter before me and another son (whose age was so close to my own that we were practically raised as twins during our younger years).

I was also learning that gender made a lot of difference in church. Only men preach. Only men make decisions. Only men pray (They told us that women pray too, they just do it silently. I couldn't be sure at first.). I, as a male, would one day be expected to protect, to teach, to pray, to preach, to lead. My sister, for her part, would learn to follow, to submit. We would both learn that the husband was the head of the wife. We each had our burden. I would learn to pray and be strong; she would learn to cook and to mother.

Typical of my Texas fundamentalist upbringing, the Bible played an important role as I learned “what it means to be a man.” The first chapters of Genesis taught me that Adam was formed first, and then Eve formed from him. Paul reminded me that this order of creation meant that the husband was the head of the wife, just as Christ was the head of the Church. Women were to be silent. You know the rest, especially if you were raised in a Church of Christ.

********

Much of what I have described above is often seen (perhaps rightly) through the lens of the ‘subjugation of women’ in the culture of the American South and in Churches of Christ. But that is not what I want to focus on. Though the treatment of our daughters is shameful, I want, instead, to focus on the way our boys are trained to be men. I was taught that I had more value than my sister, both at home and at Church (I after all, could pray in front of the congregation and at the dinner table; she could not). This elevated place in the church and the home, though, relied in large part on my ability to swing a stick in a baseball game, tackle a foe in a football game, injure someone in a fistfight, to hide my emotions, to be hard and unyielding. I had value only as long as I eliminated everything Soft about me. If I didn’t fit the mold (if I wasn’t a Man) then, since I wasn’t a woman, I had no place in either the home or the church. My place in the world and in the church depended on my decision to buy into the violent and kyriarchal training of my youth.

Maybe my focus is off; maybe I should focus on the way my sister was treated. But I will leave that to the feminists among us, and I will wish them luck. I want now only to make this point: someone should have told me, just once, that I didn’t have to be a cowboy. Someone should have told me that I didn’t have to be ashamed that I didn’t fit the mold. Someone should have told me that it was acceptable to just be, well, me. No one ever did, especially not at church.

We need to train our boys what it really means to be a man. We need to teach them that violence is bad, not good, and that domination is to be avoided, not lauded. We need to teach them that there is neither male nor female in Christ. We need to teach them to learn from the women in their lives. We need to tell them it is not shameful to cry, that it is not shameful to express love and affection for those around them, that intimacy (whether sexual or not) is a gift from Above. We are failing our sons by trying to make them something they don’t have to be. We do it everyday at home and at school. And, saddest of all, we do it every Sunday at Church.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Family Values.

An excerpt from Know My Name: A Gay Liberation Theology, by Richard Cleaver

-----------------------------

It is worth asking ourselves what kind of movement Jesus tried to build. Where did he begin? Matthew 4:18-22 tells one version:
As [Jesus] walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea--for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fish for people." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. As he went from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John, in the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.
Notice that they drop everything. We know (because Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law) that Peter is married. There is no mention here of Peter arranging to take care of his family. We are told explicitly that James and John just walk out on their father, to whom presumably they have both business and family obligations. Elsewhere we hear similar advice for other followers of Jesus. In Matt. 8:18-22, we read:
Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
This is not a movement for family values. It is not built on a husband, a wife, and 2.3 children in the suburbs; ... Jesus' movement cut through even the most important relations in society, such as the duty to bury one's father. In Matt. 12:46-50, Jesus himself sets the example:
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
Remember, Matthew is the evangelist who devotes his whole first chapter to "begats," all the way back to Adam, so that we can know precisely who Jesus' mother and brothers were. But here he tells us that Jesus, "pointing to his disciples,...said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'"

The Jesus movement is not a workplace from which we go home to our families for emotional support. It constructs a new family not defined by blood or by marriage. It is the family of hearers and doers of the Word.

For lesbians and gay men, this is good news indeed. Many of us have been thrown out of our families. All of hear those with power in the church and in the state preach that such bourgeois families are the basic unit of society and the church. This is why they say we must be cast out: we are a threat to the family. But their kind of family, if we believe Matthew, does not seem to be the basic unit of the community that Jesus built. Indeed, it could not be, because such forms of family did not exist in the society where Jesus worked. If we put the bourgeois family at the heart of Jesus' message instead fo the assembly of hearers and doers, we worship an idol.

Some will object that we must be prepared to accept the reality of social change in history. They are right. But we must also be able to accept the social changes that have forged new forms of family amoung lesbians and gay men. Underlying the debate over family values is an assumption that "families" and "lesbians and gay men" are two separate groups, without overlap. In fact, we are all part of the families we grew up in. We may not always get along well with them, but a lot of straight people do not either. Many of us get along fine. Often we are heads of families ourselves--lesbians especially, if they have been allowed to keep their children. The bourgeois family is not necessarily any more foreign to lesbians and gay men than to others. We, too, may be guilty of worshiping that idol.

Framing the debate on the family in terms of an all-or-nothing choice between some well-defined unity unchanged throughout history, on the one hand, and the liberation of lesbians and gay men, on the other, is a kind of shell game. It diverts our attention from the uncertain place of families in a changing society, for good and for ill, and from how a changing society in turn molds families, also for good or for ill. These are issues for theologians along with everyone else, and lesbians and gay men, being, so to speak, both inside and outside the institution, have valuable insights. In this, as in so many aspects of U.S. culture that are so familiar as to be opaque to their beneficiaries, Ethan Mordden, the chronicler of New York gay life in the 1970s and 1980s, aptly observes: "We have to know more than the straights know: have to understand what we are as well as what they are--have to find our unique place in their culture."

Idols are false gods that we worship because they are easier to manage than the real thing. We have made the bourgeois family into an idol because it, unlike the living God, gives us permission to confine our concern only to our own kin and kind. It tells us it is OK to worry above all about keeping our families safe from the resto fo society.

That is precisely the kind of family Jesus tells us to reject.