Category Archives: Religion

Gerald Gardner’s Myth of the Goddess

30 October 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

While I do not consider myself Wiccan and I’m certainly not an Initiate of Gardnerian Wicca or any of it’s close relatives, my own understanding of witchcraft has been strongly influenced by the thoughts and writings of various such Initiates, including the public writers of Gerald Gardner himself.

Gardner presented a piece of writing in his books which he referred to as “The Myth of the Goddess.”[1] He indicated that it was one of the — if not THE — central myths of the form of witchcraft he taught. It also happens to be one of my favorite myths. As it features the god of the witches as Death himself, I thought it appropriate to post it the day before Samhain.

Now, G. (the Witch Goddess) had never loved, but she would solve all the Mysteries, even the Mystery of Death; and so she journeyed to the Nether Lands.

The Guardians of the Portals challenged her, “Strip off thy garments, lay aside thy jewels; for naught may ye bring with ye into this our land.”

So she laid down her garments and her jewels, and was bound , as are all who enter the Realms of Death the Mighty One.

Such was her beauty that Death himself knelt and kissed her feet, saying, “Blessed be thy feet that have brought the in these ways. Abide with me, let me but place my cold hand on thy heart.”

She replied, “I love thee not. Why dost thou cause all things that I love and take delight in to fade and die?”

“Lady,” replied Death, “’tis Age and Fate, against which I am helpless. Age causes all things to wither; but when men die at the end of time I give them rest and peace, and strength so that they may return. But thou, thou art lovely. Return not; abide with me.”

But she answered, “I love thee not.”

Then Death said, “An thou received not my hand on thy heart, thou must receive Death’s scourge.”

“It is Fate; better so,” she said, and she knelt; and Death scourged her, and she cried, “I feel the pangs of love.”

And Death said, “Blessed be,” and gave her the Fivefold Kiss, saying, “Thus only may ye attain to joy and knowledge.”

And he taught her all the Mysteries. And they loved and were one, and he taught her all the Magics.

For there are three great events in the life of man; Love, Death, and Resurrection in a new body; and Magic controls them all. For to fulfil love you must return again at the same time and place as the loved one, and you must remember and love them again. But to be reborn you must die, and be ready for a new body; and to die you must be born; and without love you may not be born. And these be all the Magics.

Notes:
[1] At least that’s the name he used for it in Witchcraft Today. In The Meaning of Witchcraft, he renamed it to “The Magical Legend of the Witches.”

Paganism, Religion, Witchcraft

The Underworld

29 October 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

As Samhain approaches, my thoughts turn to the ancestors and the realms of the underworld. As a witch whose practice tends to be highly shamanistic in nature, I’m quite familiar with these realms and spend a bit of time exploring them and drawing on the wisdom of their inhabitants.

Some of my friends — including Pagans who tend to focus on the brighter side of the divine and upper- and mid-world beings occasionally ask me about my interest in the darker places of our spiritual cosmos. They find the underworld realms a frightening and daunting place. And there wariness is not unwarranted. The underworld can be a strange chaotic, and troubling place. After all, half-formed and malformed things live their, including our own shadows. As a witch, I’m thankful that I have guardians, guides, and other allies to walk with me in such places.

But just as I wouldn’t amputate an arm just because because it’s broken or is suffering from pain, the troubling aspects of the underworld are not sufficient reason for me to ignore it. There is great power and wisdom waiting there.

In addition to everything else it is,[1] it is the home of the ancestors, those who have gone before us, built up the world we lived in, and even gave us our lives. These are the ones who have set the stage we now walk upon and helped form the person we would become as we walked on them. The ability to visit them, thank them, and learn from their experiences is cherished.

The fact that we come from the ancestors who inhabit the underworld is also one of the things that makes the underworld the home of all potential. It is the place where dark — as in unrevealed and unformed — forces exist, waiting to be given shape, form, and purpose. As a shamanistic witch, I seek to seek out and explore these potentials that lay in the underworld so that I may draw them out and pull them into something in this realm. It is the realm which provides the source material for new beginnings.

Notes:
[1] Indeed, trying to describe everything that can be found in the underworld (or mid-world or upper world, for that matter) is not something I can do in a thousand blog posts, let alone this single post.

Religion, Society

How not to do moral philosophy

28 October 2011 Jarred 2 Comments

While I was attending college at Susquehanna University, I took a class on religious philosophy. A week of class-time was spent discussing morality. The first day of that segment of the class, the instructor made it clear that the purpose of moral philosophy — and morality in general — was to aid an individual in evaluating situations in sir life and determining zir best course of action. It’s a lesson that has stuck with me.

Unfortunately, it’s not a lesson that seems to stick with some groups, such as the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). Consider as evidence CARM’s statements about morality in their Statement of Faith:

Homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, cross dressing, trans-genderism, lying, bearing false witness, adultery, wife-swapping, pornography, fornication, and coveting are all sinful practices, against scriptural revelation, are contrary to proper living, and are not acceptable to the CARM ministry as normal or approved behaviors. Still, we do not hate those who practice these things but pray for their deliverance.

Note that with the exception of laying, bearing false witness (how it differs from lying is unclear), and coveting, this list is almost exclusively about declaring what sexual practices[1] and gender non-conforming practices are to be considered sinful.

This is not a useful moral paradigm by the standards of my college professor, standards which I’m inclined to accept for myself. It offers no advice to someone who is confronted by injustice, nor does it offer any practical advice on how zie may come to recognize injustice. It does not cover what it actually means to live with integrity, how to embody compassion, or what it means to love both your neighbor and your enemy.[2] The average person would find this list completely unhelpful in answering the question, “What can I do to live a more moral life?”

That’s because CARM did not develop the morality clause of their Statement of Faith to help guide people through the process of determining the moral thing to do in everyday situations or when confronted with some troubling situation. CARM developed this clause in order to declare who they considered immoral — particularly and almost exclusively in terms of sexuality. They creed it to attempt to exert control over other people’s sexuality. This is not called morality, but moralizing.

I tell you the truth, there is far more moral guidance in 1 Corinthians 13 than in the CARM blurb.

Notes:
[1] Actually, CARM doesn’t even say that same sex sexual activity is sinful. It condemns homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism. It is not clear whether CARM does so because it does not consider sexual orientation does not exist beyond sexual orientation or if they are one of the last groups to still insist that even being gay — that is, having feelings for and experiencing an attraction towards members of the same sex — is sinful in itself. Either way, CARM demonstrates that even if we accept that CARM’s statement is only about sexual morality rather than morality in general, it is still deeply flawed.

[2] Considering Jesus himself gave a direct command to his followers to love their enemies, I think it’s fair to say that any Christian organization’s morality clause that does not cover that command[3] is fatally flawed.

[3] No, I don’t consider a quick “we do not hate…but pray for their deliverance” tacked on at the end as sufficient for that purpose. That’s called “covering your ass.”

Memories, Meta-Blogging, Religion

Guest-blogging, Day Three

25 October 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

My final day of guest-blogging at Confessions of a Former Conservative is being met with My enemy’s pawn is still just a pawn to me. Here’s the teaser:

Of course, I told myself that I didn’t hate these Pagan people.
After all, they ultimately were not the enemy, and I was no Jack Chick.
I understood that these poor peers of mine were mere dupes of Satan,
pawns of the enemy that were being used. I didn’t hate them. I did not
spew venom at them directly, but at their invisible masters, of whom
they were completely unaware.

Meta-Blogging, Religion

Guest-blogging, Day Two

24 October 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

My stint over at Confessions of a Former Conservative continues with When losing your religion involves losing more than that. Here’s a snippet to pique your curiosity:

Beyond that, you might have no sense of who you are, because everything
you based your identity on is now gone. So in addition to not knowing
how to relate to anyone from your past or new friends you might make,
you find yourself trying to figure out what it means to be you all over
again.

Meta-Blogging, Religion

I’m a guest-blogger!

24 October 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

While I’ve lapsed into silence here at my blog (something I hope to remedy soon), I’m spending a few times as a guest-blogger over at Confessions of a Former Conservative. My first post there talks about fundamentalism as an all consuming identity. Here’s a brief excerpt:

Granted, my story is probably not typical in the fact that not every fundamentalist gets as involved in leadership roles as I did. However, the pattern of increasing involvement in church activities is pretty standard. It may be another small group Bible study. It may be some outreach ministry, like going door to door or handing out tracts for Halloween. But it’s simply assumed that “church stuff” — a term used to great effect by Frank Paretti in his book, The Visitation — will continue to consume more of the fundamentalist’s life.

If you haven’t done so already, hop on over and read the rest. And if you’re not a regular over there, be sure to check out the rest of FC’s blog. He’s well worth the read.

Religion

(It’s) Nothing Like a Good Parody

20 September 2011 Jarred 6 Comments

Tonight, while reading Confessions of a Former Conservative, I ran across a blog called The Emotions of hdn666. This blog is apparently a young Christian’s attempt to parody liberals, atheists, and apparently anyone else who isn’t just like him. I’ve read a few posts and I have to say that I’m giggling a little bit. What can I say, I love a good parody.

Except, I’m not laughing because it’s a good parody. In fact, I would be hard pressed to imagine what a worse parody would look like. The author of this site has created such strawman arguments and caricatures of real liberals, atheists, and just abut everybody else that they bear almost (and I’m being fairly generous by adding the “almost”) no resemblance to real live people. To give you an example of what I mean, let us take a look at one of his posts, Atheism is Truth.

See, the Bible is full of holes. Evolution, well science, is truth. It is absolute.

This statement is somewhat accurate to many atheists’ views. Hell, it’s somewhat accurate to my views, and I’m not even an atheist. The problem is, the author doesn’t understand what atheists and others (like me) mean when we say something like this. This becomes clear as his straw-man representation of atheists’ views continues.

People who believe the Bible are stupid morons.

I’ve known a few atheists who have said this very thing. To the best of my knowledge, none of them were above the age of majority. They acted their age in many ways, including calling other people stupid morons. Interestingly enough, there were a number of adult atheists around that found these immature atheists as annoying as we theists did.

Adult atheists do find it hard to understand why someone would believe the Bible (especially “literally”). However, this is not the same as thinking that such people are stupid morons. Atheists are perfectly capable of understanding that people can be intelligent and rational while still holding views that they (the atheists) don’t “get.”

They are believing stories that have come down the line from person to person and have changed very little or none since their first telling.

I don’t fully get this statement. The atheists I know actually challenge the idea that Biblical texts have been passed down unchanged over the centuries. (And indeed, there are manuscripts that differ. It’s why certain passages are carefully footnoted in translations like the NRSV to indicate that said passage was not found in “earlier manuscripts.”) So I’m not entirely sure why the author through that bit in.

I can speculate, however. I suspect that the author behind the parody is the one who believes that these stories have never changed. In other words, this is one of those cases where the author interrupts the narrator to come out and say “isn’t this totally stupid?” In my opinion, it disrupts the parody.

Of course, I’ll also note that the unchanging nature of “Biblical truth” is one of the points championed by conservative Christians. In fact, it’s often used as proof of Biblical truth’s “superiority” over science, as the latter “is constantly changing.”

What they author and most other conservative Christians fail to understand is that science’s ability to change based on new evidence is a strength rather than a weakness. A method of inquiry which can accept new data and revise its premises to accommodate the new data as necessary allows us to enrich, enhance, and even correct our understanding of reality. It allows us to engage in an honest search for truth rather than insisting we already know it and pray to God we’re right.

Compare this to conservative Christianity, which seems to maintain that if one little thing changes, the entire religion will shatter into a million shards. This strikes me as a weak faith, a house of cards that will topple when enough new data which cannot easily be bent to support the presupposed and unquestionable beliefs of the religion accumulates. I would think that the parody’s author would do well to learn the strength in flexible systems of understanding.

Christians are believing in a God that they have never seen from people that they have never met.

This needs an “objectively” inserted in it. Atheists are perfectly willing to accept that Christians and other theists of experienced something that they interpret to be God or some sort of Divine presence. However, they argue that Christians and other theists cannot objectively demonstrate that their interpretation of their experiences are true.

As a theist, I have no problem admitting that the atheists are right about that. I also think that any theist who is being honest would be hard pressed to disagree with that position.

But see, I’m an intelligent Atheist. I get my facts from real sources. You get your information from a book and I…well, actually I get mine from books too. Huh…well now I’m stumped.

Actually, atheists get their facts from several sources. Among them are personal experience, their own ability to reason, the experiences and reasoning of others, and yes, even books. Lots of books.

The thing is, atheists don’t have to take any particular book (or set of books) as 100% factual. What’s more, they don’t have to take a particular narrow interpretation of what a given book means and accept it 100% at face value. They can critically examine the books they get their facts from. They can cross-check those facts from the claims made in other books as well as their own personal observations and reasoning. In the end, the atheist has quite an arsenal for gathering, examining, and refining the facts at their disposal.

The fact that our strawman atheist is stumped reveals his nature as a strawman.

Well, I know for a fact that the earth is millions and millions of years old! Trying to say otherwise is idiotic. What proof is there? Scientists say so. And we all know that scientists never lie.

Laying aside the ludicrous question of whether or not scientists ever lie, let’s consider that our author (and his strawman atheist by extension) don’t understand how science works here. We know for a fact that the earth is millions of years old because everything we know about numerous and diverse fields of scientific inquiry point to that fact. If the earth isn’t millions of years old, just about everything we know about how the world works is completely wrong. And considering the amount of time we’ve spent verifying, challenging, and reaffirming what we know about the way the world works is right, that’s a pretty hard sell.

After all, they are all-knowing, right?

I know of no scientist who claims to be all-knowing. In fact, I’m pretty sure most of them admit that there’s a lot they still don’t know. If they knew everything, they wouldn’t have a job to do anymore. Our author is just making wild accusations.

Bible believers are taking someone else’s word for what they believe and I…well actually, I’m doing the same thing.

And again, here’s where the author doesn’t get it. Yes, we take scientists’ word on certain things. But we don’t actually have to. Assuming I had an infinite amount of time and resources at my disposal, I could go get a degree in microbiology and rerun all the experiments that every single microbiologist has ever done to confirm or further explain the mechanisms of evolution. I could then do the same for biochemistry, the various geological sciences, and every other field of scientific inquiry. Those scientists have even helped me out if I want to do this by recording their experiments, the procedures and materials they used, their results, and their conclusions.

I’m not going to do all that, even though I could. I simply don’t have the time. But here’s the thing: scientists double-check other scientists’ work all the time. It’s actually an important part of the scientific method.

So I’m not just “taking other people’s word for it.” I’m taking the word of people who showed how they came to their conclusions, “showed their work,” and had other people double-check, verify, and build upon that work.

In the end, an attempt to parody something that one does not understand will fail miserably. Apparently, the author of The Emotions of hdn666 has yet to learn that lesson.

Books, Politics, Religion, Religious Discrimination, Spiritual Development

Raised Right: Spiritual Warfare Goes Political

17 September 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

Cover of Carman

Harris begins chapter two of Raised Right with a description of a music video made by Christian pop artist Carman. As I read her description, I found them eerily familiar, but could not place them until she mentioned the artist’s name. I spent my teen years listening to and idolizing[1] Carman and I’m sure I saw the video in question.

Harris uses the video to introduce the importance of “spiritual warfare” that was ingrained into her when she was a youth. She speaks of singing a familiar Sunday school song (“I’m in the Lord’s army”) and learning the importance of fighting Satan. She describes one event she witnessed:

While Pastor John was speaking, one of my parents’ friends, Greg, came forward and lifted his hands to ask for prayer. Pastor John reached out his hand and shouted, “I bind you, Satan, in the name of Jesus Christ!” The moment he said “Jesus Christ,” Greg staggered as if shot through the heart and then fell flat on his back, lying spread-eagled on the floor with a smile on his face.”

While I got involved in a Full Gospel[2] congregation while in college, I was raised in an American Baptist. My church — and as I understand it, Baptist in general — don’t really believe that “miraculous gifts” such as speaking in tongues, prophecies, or instantaneous healing. They also tend not to believe in or expect to encounter demons in a direct manner as might be described in This Present Darkness or as recounted by pentecostal/charismatic believers. So while I too sang “I’m in the Lord’s army,” learned to recite all the parts of the “armor of God,” and was inundated in the same spiritual warfare terminology, I suspect that I took these things things far more metaphorically than Harris and her Sunday school classmates.

Of course, this left myself and my classmates trying to understand the metaphor. We had an enemy we could not confront directly. We had no demons to cast out. So we were left wondering what “I’m in the Lord’s army” really meant beyond being a silly song. We wondered what it really meant to put on the full armor of God. Sure, knew we were supposed to invite friends to Sunday school and church. We knew we were supposed to read the Bible, pray, and be good. But for what? Surely these things were never meant to be an ends in themselves[3].

So in many ways, I think I was more primed for the transition that Harris describes as she continues telling her story:

Though I wouldn’t have put it in these words at the time, I came to believe that our battle was not against invisible demons but against evil people who brought the fight into the real world. They were the spiritual enemy clothed in flesh: abortionists, feminists, secularists, humanists, the people conspiring to destroy God’s witness by corrupting America. Finally I had an enemy I could see and point out to others, one that didn’t require a mysterious intuition or the spiritual gift of discernment to identify.

I can understand that, wholeheartedly. While Harris had an unseen enemy, I had no enemy. So latching onto a concrete enemy was a gift from God Himself. Furthermore, this new, tangible enemy offered a tangible strategy for fighting back: politics.

Suddenly, “fighting the enemy” meant speaking out against abortion, homosexuality, and premarital sex. It meant voting for the “holy” candidates so that they could defeat the “evil” ones and stop their “evil” plans[4]. Suddenly, there was a way to become a righteous crusader with a clear path.

Ironically, while this gave me a tangible “enemy,” what it did to my perceptions of the “enemy” was almost the exact opposite. Adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, and all those other people ceased to become people and became caricatures in my mind. My “tangible enemy” turned into smoke and mirrors again. I find myself wondering if Harris intended this chapter to explain the need to reconnect with “flesh and blood” people discussed in the previous one.

Related Posts

I have created a separate page to track all the blog posts I’ve made regarding this book. If this post interests you, I would encourage you to go check out the other posts as well.

Notes

[1] Well, insofar as a good little Baptist is allowed to idolize anyone or anything.

[2] “Full Gospel” is the preferred term used certain charismatic/pentecostal churches.

[3] I strongly believe that even “being good” for the sake of “being good” is meaningless and pointless. “Being good” is about doing something for others because it has a positive impact on their lives. It’s about building a better world. This is not something that I feel is always properly communicated to young Christians, nor do I feel it is emphasized enough.

As a former Sunday school teacher, I’d also like to suggest that this is in part that the much of the teaching materials for chidren and teen Sunday school classes are abysmal. They do not treat the students like intelligent people who need to learn what it truly means to live a life that expresses the fruit of the Spirit and are ready to do exactly that. If you are a Sunday school teacher, I would encourage you to re-evaluate your curriculum and honestly ask yourself if it insults, patronizes, and holds back your students.

[4] I’m engaging in a certain amount of hyperbole here. However, don’t overestimate just how much.

Books, Religion

C.S. Friedman and Religion

16 September 2011 Jarred 1 Comment

Last night, I finished reading C.S. Friedman’s final book in her Magister Trilogy, Legacy of Kings. It was a compelling and captivating end to a fantastic (pun not intended) series of books. In many ways, I feel sad leaving behind the world of Souleaters and Magisters and the people (and creatures) that inhabit those worlds.

However, as I think of the series as a whole and her equally excellent Coldfire Trilogy, what really gets my notice is the skill, criticality, and sensitivity with which she writes about religion. In both series, she writes about characters who follow diverse religions and yet work together. And in both series, she describes one religion (though unique to each series) that is monotheistic in nature and, in my opinion anyway, bears numerous similarities to Christianity (or at least certain expressions of Christianity). Whether it is the authoritarian church created by Prophet-turned-traitor Gerald Tarrant to tame the chaotic and deadly fae or the Penitent Church of King Salvator that believes the soul-devouring ikati are the punishment of the Destroyer for mankind’s sins, the monumental religion in question takes on trapping that are reminiscent of the dominant monotheistic faith in our own society.

What I find interesting about Friendman’s treatment of these religions is that she offers a thoughtful and critical — yet not damning — analysis of these monotheistic religions, and Christianity by analogy. She seeks to explore what she clearly believes are both strengths and weaknesses of the faiths of her creation, offering a commentary that is neither too harsh more too fawning.

One of the methods she accomplishes this is through the stories characters who practice these faiths. She explores how their faith influences their actions and how the trials they face challenge, strengthen, and occasionally alter their faith. In effect, she creates deep characters of substance to occupy and portray these religions rather than strawmen to prop them up or tear them down. Damien Vryce, Gerald Tarrant[1], and King Salvatore are all (relatively, in Gerald’s case) sympathetic characters who put humanity to faith.

Of course, their actions and portrayal of the monotheistic faiths are strengthened by their interactions with people of the other religions in these two worlds, the polytheistic, pagan idol-worshippers[2]. The monotheists sincerely struggle with how to interact with the other people who make up their world, even when confronted with things that are forbidden by their own faith. In turn, the polytheists are given voice by Friedman to express, explore, and revise their opinions of the monotheistic religions and how those religions affect those followers.

In effect, Friedman writes a beautiful yet realistic world in which the realities of pluralism are negotiated and dealt with. If only we could do so well here in the real world.

[1] Granted, one might argue whether Tarrant can still rightfully be called a follower of the Church he founded. But I seem to recall that he arrogantly claimed at one point in the Coldfire trilogy that he still served the Church in his own way, and I’m inclined to grant him that conceit.

[2] Interestingly, neither Friedman nor her characters seem to use this term in a derogatory manner, but in a more technical manner. And while I might nit-pick whether people actually worship their idols in the technical sense, I applaud Friedman’s apparent lack of denigration.

Books, Politics, Religion

Raised Right: Chapter 1

6 September 2011 Jarred Leave a comment

Image by B.S. Wise via Flickr

Chapter 1 of Harris’s book, Raised Right: How I Untangled My Faith From Politics, bears the title “Flesh and Blood.” I assume it was chosen for the chapters attempt to show the need to see not issues, but people. Harris starts the chapter by describing a scene where she, her parents, and her younger siblings picketed an abortion clinic together. After describing that scene, she speaks of her past, offering the following insight:

I had been picketing since before I could walk.

Understanding that statement and its significance reveals a great deal about those of us who were raised as conservative Christians. In a sense, I think it makes it easier to understand us — whether speaking of those of us whose politics and/or faith have changed or those who remain a part of the movement — as flesh and blood people. Our understanding of the religio-political views we were meant to adhere to was formed very early in our lives.

As I mentioned when I announced I’d be reviewing this book, I was not raised with the direct activism as Harris. I never picketed before I could walk, or even after. However, the messages about what I was supposed to believe started when I was young. Perhaps nothing about the political topics that seem to make up most of the Religious Right’s platform, but there were still those subtle messages that set the stage for me to understand what “good people” believed and did versus what “bad people” said and did.

Subtle is a key-word here. While Harris’s own childhood experiences were direct and explicit, my own (and I suspect others’) was more subtle. Things got implied more than said. Or certain things were said and I inferred. To be honest, I don’t remember ever hearing a sermon about the evils of homosexuality. I’m not even sure where I first learned that homosexuality was supposed to be wrong, or even that there was such a thing as homosexuality.[1] But I certainly picked that message up from somewhere.

When we read Old Testament passages like the story of Rahab and I asked my mom what a prostitute was, she said, “Women that men paid to act like their wives,” which conjured confusing pictures of paid cooks and housekeepers. When I asked how the single mom in our church had a baby without a husband, she said the mom “acted like she was married.” Apparently, I was too young to know how people made babies, but not too young to know how they killed them.

Harris’s statement above is something I can totally appreciate. Sex was something that simply was not discussed. I remember spending the night with one (male) cousin and sharing a bed and wondering if it was okay, because that’s something only a husband and wife do. I did not understand there was more to being a husband and wife (or lovers) than merely sharing a bed for actual sleep.

I don’t think my own parents meant to keep me naive about sex. Looking back, I think that if I had asked about it, either of them would have answered me honestly. They simply weren’t going to volunteer the information.

However “sinful sex” or the consequences of it did tend to get a bit more attention, from other sources if not directly from my parents. And that strikes me as quite common in conservative circles. In many ways, the discussion of sexual sin[2] seems to be the only discussion of sex that goes on in many such environments. This tends to lead to a rather grim view of sex in general. I know I tended to think of it as a mostly dirty thing, despite my eighth grade science teacher’s occasional declaration to the contrary — a declaration he made the few times the subject came up in his classroom at all.

Harris goes on to describe a protest held in front of New York Governor Paterson’s Manhattan office which she covered as a journalist. This protest took place when the state’s same sex marriage legislation was waiting to be approved by the State Senate. Harris describes the shouting, the anger, the jeering, and the rebukes offered up during the protest.

As the crowd yelled, I would at times forget that these were supposed to be prayers until I would catch an “Almighty God!” or “Lord we pray!”

I have seen these kinds of public “prayers” before. In fact, I recall participating in a few of them during my college years. The ones I was involved in were not as heated, aggressive, or condemning as the ones that Harris describes in her book, but they were surely sham prayers meant for public piety and acts of showing others our (my) own superiority. They were the same in spirit, even if not the same in degree or volume. I think Harris remarks upon this practice when she writes:

I couldn’t help but think of the kind of ostentatious prayers Jesus chided: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.” He must have meant, Pray to Me and not to the cameras. When you pray, talk to Me.

Harris describes talking about the importance of love and her own struggle with the idea that these protestors would insist that they “loved” the homosexuals and that they merely wanted to help them “out of their sin.” She thought of how they would compare themselves to a parent correcting a child. Harris then goes on to share her own revelation in response to that claim:

Then I realized why these efforts at love sounded hollow — because this love was not the way I experienced love every day. Even setting aside the arrogance suggested by viewing all other sinners as children and saved sinners as the world’s in loco parentis, I know my parents love me because they sacrificed to feed and clothe me every day. In the end that burden of labor and sacrifice is what gives them any right to be heard or believed when they say “I love you” after they say “you’re wrong.”

I don’t believe I’ve heard anyone express this as eloquently as Harris did here: If you want to correct people out of “love,” then you first need to show those same people love in other, tangible and edifying ways. That may mean meeting other needs they might have — which might actually mean learning what those needs are in the first place. That’s something that many conservative Christians are not good at. I know I wasn’t.

Unfortunately, my former self and many conservative Christians come to “sinners” with pre-conceived notions about what they are like and what their needs are. And they act on those pre-conceived notions, never questioning their accuracy or relevance. This often leads to offering help that is unneeded, unhelpful, and even insulting. And then the “helpful” person wonders why they get such a negative response. Their premise for action is completely wrong.

The problem is, learning people’s real needs and responding to them can get messy. There are rarely prepackaged slogans, ready-made signs, or “witnessing tools” that covers those needs. And that can be scary. But I think that’s exactly what Harris is calling for in this chapter:

Unless you are smuggling soup to the Jews in your attic, I think a political act can’t be an act of love. It can be a good act, even noble and heroic, but love is not something that takes place behind a barricade; it happens in the breaking of bread and the passing of cups. Political love is theoretical, directed at some vague “humanity,” and Jesus didn’t say to love humanity, but to love your neighbor.

May God bless her for it.

[1] I do, however, remember when I first learned what it meant for two guys to “screw.” It was during my ninth grade English class, and a classmate explained it to me in a tone of complete and obvious disgust.

[2] Let’s face it, too: The two biggest issues in conservative Christian politics are still homosexuality and abortion, meaning it’s mostly — or even all — about sex.

Musings of a Wyrd-Worker