Lest Blood Be Shed

So I was over reading Justin W.'s blog and he references a survey. So I took it. Here are the results

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. Emergent/Postmodern 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 64% Neo orthodox 64% Classical Liberal 50% Modern Liberal 43% Reformed Evangelical 39% Charismatic/Pentecostal 36% Roman Catholic 29% Fundamentalist 0% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Now, I don't think there will be a real schism in the Roman church but the fact that there are ordinations that are being flatly called illicit just reminds me so much of what the Donatists were saying way back in the fourth century. For those who don't know, there have been a handful of ordinations of women to the priesthood that some are calling illegal according to Roman church law. I think it's awesome women are taking a stand in the church and calling out in their prophetic voices what the Holy Spirt decrees over and against what the Holy See decrees.


I put together a new machine this week for work and it's awesome. It's a 3GHz P4 with 1G Dual Channel DDR 400. It has a 120G SATA drive in it that is so fast, a DVD Burner and the case just looks cool. Oh Oh Oh... and I can't forget... it is silent! Around maybe 14-16 decibels. It's awesome!

More than a few people sent me a link to this story or other people covering it. Apparently this practice of executing people for the crime of homosexuality is a common practice if not sentiment in Iran and possibly the greater region. It completely baffles me at what the thought process could be to come to the conclusion that rubbing flesh together in a particular way requires a person the be executed. It can not simply be that two males or females had a particular part of their bodies touch to have a society demand that those people be murdered for it. All I can think is the power structure of a patriarchal society requires a strictly defined master role and a strictly defined slave role and when individuals fall outside of that power structure they must be killed because the structure would crumble. The power dynamics would be seen for what they are (that is fictional fodder). How is it people do not recognize the inherent oppressiveness of patriarchy (or matriarchy for that matter)? And why is it that the church if fighting to maintain patriarchy and hierarchy if it is obviously evil?

I was sent this by some friends already in ministry and in seminary. How true.

How baffling you are, oh Church,
and yet how I love you!
How you have made me suffer,
and yet how much I owe you!
I should like to see you destroyed,
and yet I need your presence.
You have given me so much scandal
and yet you have made me understand sanctity.
I have seen nothing in the world more
devoted to obscurity, more compromised,
more false, and I have touched nothing more pure,
more generous, more beautiful.
How often I have wanted to shut the doors
of my soul in your face, and how often
I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms.
No, I cannot free myself from you, because
I am you, although not completely.
And where should I go?

-Carlos Carretto

Foucault points out something in his Use of Pleasure work that I have seen quite a few other places in modern discourse. In his chapter on the object of pleasure he goes into great detail about why paiderastia was such a huge topic for the ancient Greeks. The conclusions he draws, and I tend to agree with, are that in Greek society there was a strict notion of governance. That is to say, the society had many laws and dietetics concerning the organization of society in a master<->mastered type dichotomy. For the household this was structured as the man of the house was the supreme governor over all the people and property in the house. This included the wife, children and slaves. The notion was extended to public encounters and public governance. The king was ruler over all his subjects but in a strictly formulated way. The governing board or the governors were much the same as "less kings" for those societies in Greek culture that were democratic. In any case the hierarchy of power in this society was well formulated. This formulation encompassed ever aspect of a man's life. With this background this is how Foucault starts his chapter:

In order to understand how the use of the aphrodisia was problematized in reflection on the love of boys, we have to recall a principle, which is doubtless not peculiar to Greek culture, but which assumed considerable importance within it and exercised a decisive authority in its moral valuations. I am referring to the principle of isomorphism between sexual relations and social relations. What this means is that sexual relations—always conceived in terms of the model act of penetration, assuming a polarity that opposed activity and passivity—were seen as being of the same type of relationship between a superior and a subordinate, and individual who dominates and one who is dominated, one who commands and one who complies, one who vanquishes and one who is vanquished. Pleasure practices were conceptualized using the same categories as those in the field of social rivalries and hierarchies: an analogous agonistic structure, analogous oppositions and differentiations, analogous values attributed to the respective roles of partners. And this suggests that in sexual behavior there was one role that was intrinsically honorable and valorized without question: the one that consisted of being active, in dominating, in penetrating, in asserting one's superiority.

This principle had sever consequences relating to the status of those who were supposed to be the passive partners in this activity. Slaves were at the master's disposition, of course: their condition made them sexual objects and this was taken for granted—so much so that people could be astonished that the same law would forbid the rape of slaves and that of children. In order to explain this anomaly, Aeschines submits that the aim was to show, by prohibiting violence even in the case of slaves, what a serious thing was when directed at children of good birth. As for the woman's passivity, it did denote an inferiority of nature and condition; but there was no reason to criticize it as a behavior, precisely because it was in conformity with what nature intended and with what the law prescribed. On the other hand, everything in the way of sexual behavior that might cause a free man—to say nothing of someone who, by birth, fortune, and prestige, held or should hold one of the first ranks among men—to bear the marks of inferiority, submission to domination, and acceptance of servitude, could only be considered shameful: a shame that was even greater if he offered himself as the obliging object of another's pleasure

Foucault further goes into unwrapping the concern some of the Greek philosophers had about the relationship between a free man and a free boy in relationship. This type of relationship was accepted in Greek culture but with the tension that the free boy was submitting himself to a passive role. On the one side you have a culture praising the purity and physin (naturalness) of a man seeking a relationship with a youth. The honor in the desire for the beauty of a youthful man. On the other, the same culture felt the tension of the patriarchal power structures which were in place in society and in the bedroom that would render the boy as submissive and as such unable to govern or rule because he had taken a passive role in a sexual relationship. This type of tension can be seen in the work Against Timarchus. In this work Aeschines challenges the worth of Timarchus as a ruler, rather, as having the nature to be able to rule because as a youth he enjoyed the relationship of Cedonides, Autocleides, Thersandrus, Misgolas, Anticles, Pittalacus, and Hegesandrus. The challenge is brought up in the courts so the actual charge is prostitution (that is Timarchus was a prostitute) but the underlying assumption is that to the the passive, the penetrated, was dishonorable and disqualified a man from assuming any ruling position.

Now, I've read this notion in other writings that usually had a feminist slant to them. These works, though, were charging our society of the same structure. A society of the "fuckers and the fucked" are some words used to describe it. I would agree with the evaluation. There is still a taboo in our society of the passive role. Lord knows in many households in western culture the passive role of women is thought to be natural. The were made to bear. The were made to be penetrated. They were made to submit to the wisdom and advanced reason of men. Because of that passive role they are thought to be lesser than those who preform the active role.

Now if we take the understanding one step further, we can begin to see why queer folk are chastised in our society. There is the obvious notion of para physin (beside nature) for the act but we see that the nature that is being talk about is one of societal structure. The act of homogenital intercourse completely throws the active/passive structure into disarray. Two men together can't both be honorable. One has to be active (honorable) and the other has to be passive (dishonorable). Two women together can't both be dishonorable. One has to be active and the other passive. So, yes, homosexuality is completely un-socially-and-culturally-"natural". It completely messes with the system of oppression that our society has formed. Now, because it "breaks down all wall of oppression" when it comes to this particular power structure, those who have a vested interest in maintaining society as it is (e.g. those who have been made rich by the structures, those who have been given power [in the house or in the public square] by the structures, etc.) rail against those who would challenge the structure's "naturalness" and do everything in their power to dissuade society from moving in the direction that would take away the structures. We see this being enacted right now in the US with the movement of same-sex marriage. There is no logical reasoning for preventing the legal binding of two persons of the same sex. In fact the only reasoning given for disallowing same-sex marriage is that it is "non-traditional", it threatens "traditional marriage", it will "destroy the family", it will mean an "end of society". Do you see the connection? These arguments are all attempting to maintain the oppressive power structure of active/passive, of patriarchy.

What I see the queer movement accomplishing for us in the public square is exactly what I see the church needing to do the the local community. Too long has the church postured itself to maintain the oppressive power structures of the particular society in which it rests. It started in 312C.E. and has only become worse as the church has dulled its perception of just how radical Jesus and his followers were when it came to the understanding of how "power" worked in a Godly society. Christ came to free us from the bonds of this original sin in society but the church throughout history has been the one upholding and creating more of these sins of power. The church must remove the blinders from its eyes. In so doing I believe God has called the queers, those who challenge the societal norms, to rise up within God's Church and awaken the church on earth to the oppression and sinfulness it has sunk in to as it has grown the world over.

Wow, I didn't expect to end up there. Oh well, congratulations to the UCC church for its full acceptance of homosexuals in both ordination and marriage. This marks one of the largest mainline denominations in the country moving forward in God's call for society as it tears down the walls of oppression that we have built. But on to lighter matters. I had the craziest dream last night!!!

So ever since Saturday evening I've had the song "Lay, Lady, Lay" by Bob Dylan in my head. It's a wonderful tune and I haven't minded it being stuck in my head playing over and over again because it seems to tune itself out when I actually have something to do. "Lay, lady, lay...lay across my big brass bed..." I really thought nothing of it or even where it came from or why I was singing it. Today I received the answer in my email Inbox at work. I'm singing it because Jesus doesn't like self-indulgent capitalism (mammon) either!

I receive a daily email from the Bruderhof Community and they always start out with an inspirational quote from some famous (and usually stuffy) person. The quote is suppose to awaken in one the interest for the subject they will be speaking about in a link they put at the end of the email. Well, today's Daily Dig quotes a Bob Dylan song. I'll just put the text of the email here:

Bob Dylan

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk,
You may be the head of some big TV network,
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame,
You may be living in another country under another name

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride,
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side,
You may be in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir

Might like to wear cotton... might like to wear silk,
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk,
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread,
You may be sleeping on the floor, or in a king-sized bed

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody.
It may be the devil, or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You can't serve two masters. Which have you chosen?

With the help of Maura, I was able to finally get my garage clean on Sunday. It has not been clean since I moved in and it really is neat to have so much room in the garage. I really just wanted to make a public thank you to Maura for helping out. The fourth weekend was something else. Starting off on Friday (after a 3 hour essay exam in Chicago that actually took 3 hours) with dinner and drinks at the pub--partial purchased by a very nice priest who got us wasted. Finding myself at 5:30am in a strange building in downtown Rensselaer on Saturday was another joy. The next stop was Lafayette to find some crazy imported beers. Sunday was communion and cleaning the garage! Then Monday a wonderful cookout and I broke a curse that has been hovering over my house for the past year! All in all a good weekend.

In more academic news, I've started reading Post-structuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross by Stephen Moore because of a suggestion from another blog I read. I've only read the Introduction so far and I'm not sure I like his writing style. It's kind of flippant and quite possibly overly pretentious. I'll probably wait to actually get into the chapters of that book until after I'm finished with Foucault's The History of Sexuality Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure. I'm almost the end of the section on the Economics of chresis aphrodision (use of pleasure). It really is amazing how patriarchal the ancient Greeks were when it came to ordering the oikos, household. What is fascinating is that the "restrictions", the suggestions for moderation for the men were concerned with physical health (too much sex an you loose your life force) and with the role of a ruler be able to moderate himself if he was to subject others to his will. Sexual pleasure, aphrodisia, had no inherent moral worth or ailment associated with it. There were no pedagogy for sex being anything but natural and as such never morally evil. Despite the social constructions of patriarchal power structures, it seems the Greeks had it right in regards to how chresis aphrodision fit into a healthy society. Moreover, this is what the Church should be purporting (at least from my reading of Scripture) but it has become corrupted by the codification of morals and seared those codes by the age of reason.