This might be the saddest day of the presidential campaign for me personally. CNN's Roland Martin is reporting that Obama has sent a letter to Trinity United Church resigning his membership. I respect his decision, but it pains me that it has come to this. I know that such decisions can't be made lightly.
While I am excited about the role faith has played in this election, I am also worried about the increasing blurring of the religious and political spheres on both sides. As I have said before, while I understand the perspective of many of the pastors who have been politically criticized, I also believe these ministers have a responsibility for to speak truth in a way that transmits grace and promotes reconciliation. All to often ministers flaunt their right to speak "truth" without considering this truth in context.
At the same time, I have alarmed by those on the right and the left who have invaded the religious sphere hunting for sermon footage of controversial statements, infiltrating congregations, and twisting entire sermons into inflammatory sound bites. This week I saw Matt Taibbi on the John Stewart show talking about his new book The Great Derangement. Basically Taibbi infiltrated John Haggee's congregation (fundamentalist preacher from Texas) for five months and even went so far as to become a member in order to gain material for his juicy insider book. While I was shocked at the extremity of their practices Tabbi described, I was also deeply disturbed by how unethical it was for Taibbi to exploit the good faith of the church members and leadership by posing as a sincere believer. They should rightly feel betrayed.
People of faith on both sides of the aisle should be alarmed at this type of political aggrandizing, and we should condemn it. While it is appropriate to hold church leaders accountable, we should also stand by the separation of church and state. What our church leaders say should be held to account against the the gospel, not against what is politically expedient or inexpedient. We should repudiate the authority of the Shawn Hannidys or Matt Taibbis to speak about what is appropriate and not appropriate when it comes to expressing the relationship between faith and politics. There is nothing that upsets me more than to hear a Republican strategist express outrage about the "hate speech" coming out of Trinity, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of racial oppression and injustice that such comments are arising out of.
A comment by a NYT poster responding to the news about Obama demonstrates the tension of faith and politics in this presidential race:
"I have the highest regards for Senator Obama, and understand it was politically expedient to do this, in light of the unfortunate statements some ministers there have made — but I regret his decision: I think the ministers were speaking honestly, though controversially and imperfectly, out of a liberation theology entirely suited to a people whose history has been so painful and so political. These controversies are “teaching moments,” a chance to engage history and truth… "
I mourn the fact that people of faith are not responding with more vigor to these events because the bottom line is that we should be the ones to be providing a balanced critique and a vigorous exploration of faith in context. It is on us to resist the political propagandizing and turn these events into teaching moments. We should also remember that it is not just Obama who is suffering from these events, but rather all the members of Trinity and the larger African American church. Members are scared, paranoid, and worried that there every move is being scrutinized and labeled. Elderly shut in members report getting calls from the media asking how they have been treated by the church.
I know this is nothing new. Members of controversial churches have regularly been exposed to such scrutiny, especially when their leader is regarded as highly controversial and offensive. I'm thinking of my own former, former, church in Seattle, Mars Hill, as an example. However, people of faith should demand that the public and the media explore more carefully, compassionately, and critically the role and work of the church, which is not about the Republican or Democratic agenda but rather about the work of the gospel.
I'm not suggesting that the gospel doesn't have political implications. In some cases, it is entirely appropriate to address these implications within the church. However, I think people of faith should vigurously resist the politicization of the church by both the right and the left, and we should do so publically.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
a cover up!?
Today, Bill Clinton claims wife is victim of "cover up."
He then has the audacity to add "she is winning in the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence. And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."
I think the first comment on the news story says it all:
" I never realized that dementia was contagious and that it could be spread between spouses."
Jon Stewart picked up on the fun last night:
He then has the audacity to add "she is winning in the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence. And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."
I think the first comment on the news story says it all:
" I never realized that dementia was contagious and that it could be spread between spouses."
Jon Stewart picked up on the fun last night:
Sunday, May 25, 2008
to blog or not to blog
I have been a bit self-conscious recently about blogging. After reading Emily Gould's fascinating and sad article Exposed in the NYT about her life as a professional blogger, I had to ask: what is blogging, facebook, myspace really all about? What are the rules and boundaries of the internet? When I blog or post on facebook, what is driving me? Is the narcissism that Gould identifies present in me to?
I was talking to a friend from Iran last night. She thinks blogging and facebook is crazy. She made an interesting point that I had never thought about. In her country, they fight so hard to establish privacy, to create a private space that is outside the reach of the government and outsiders, and yet Americans willingly and purposefully give up their privacy.
This led into a long discussion about Americans and how we don’t care much about the distinction between private and public space. Just look at the Patriot Act – for the most part, Americans have this attitude that if I am not doing anything wrong, invasion of my privacy by the government isn’t a big deal. Who cares? We already are used to exposing ourselves everyday through the internet, reality tv, youtube, etc.
The seduction of the internet is based on the false notion of anonymity. With facebook and blogs, we suspend the rules of normal conversation. Instead, we purposefully have conversations that everyone can overhear. Why? I have to confess that I regularly debate whether I should post on someone’s wall or send them a message: I’m aware that someone else might be reading and sometimes this has a strange pull. Other times, I’m much more careful.
I’m a writer. Authentic self-expression and connecting to others is really important to me. I enjoy reading other’s blogs and writing on my own. But I also understand the dangerous seduction of blogging. I struggle with the problem of over-sharing not only on the internet, but also in real life. Too often I want release, which I can gain instantly through talking with a friend or posting a blog, instead of really sitting and digesting my thoughts and feelings. I’ve gotten a bit better at learning the wisdom of boundaries in the last few years, and as a consequence I’ve become a lot more careful about what I post and how I post. Usually, I go through some edits first, and if it is really personal, I sit on it and think about how what I say impacts both me and whoever will be reading it. I’ve learned to draw these boundaries in real life too. When I have the impulse to emotionally or verbally dump on someone, I take a step back and ask why? Am I just looking for a quick fix and release, or is their value in sharing? I’ve learned that I don’t always need to share: I have tools and resources within me. I have God. And it’s ok to not have resolution or instant release.
I think that the internet is such a new medium of communication that it’s taking time, trial and error to figure out what one’s rules and boundaries should be. We might look back, as I do, with some embarrassment at what we have posted or how we have constructed ourselves. But I try to have grace with myself too. Looking back, there were reasons why I posted things that I posted in the way that I posted or why I emphasized a certain part of my identity.
I’m not ready to swear of blogging or facebook anytime soon, but I’m definitely thinking a lot harder about the line between personal and public and the wisdom of guarding and nurturing our own private space. Because it is in this space, when we cut out all other voices, that we really begin to know our own. It is in this private space that I gain the confidence I need to be who I am, confidence that no amount of friends or sharing can give to me. I learn to trust my own voice and the still small voice within me. Ironically, I have learned that over-sharing and over-connection only exacerbates my insecurities and anxieties because I tend to lose track of my voice and just begin spewing. Generally, it feels good in the moment, but afterwards, I don't usually feel much better.
In the same way, I have to wonder how much willing public exposition contributes to our own national anxiety and insecurities. What does it mean to really honor the boundaries of both self and other? If we are serious about loving others, I think the boundaries between self and other need to become clearer; we have to be more ok about respecting the mystery of our self and the mystery of others. This is so hard for me because I crave connection and affirmation, but I think true community is only possible when we embrace our limitations and realize we don’t need to know everything and we don’t need to share everything.
This doesn’t mean that we should attempt to live in solitude or develop a false idea that we should make it solely on our own. We are created for community, which is why I still blog and get on facebook. I love seeing what friends and acquaintances are up to, especially those people who I can’t see in person (which is pretty much everyone right now). The internet has made connection and community that used to be impossible, possible. And this should be celebrated.
I was talking to a friend from Iran last night. She thinks blogging and facebook is crazy. She made an interesting point that I had never thought about. In her country, they fight so hard to establish privacy, to create a private space that is outside the reach of the government and outsiders, and yet Americans willingly and purposefully give up their privacy.
This led into a long discussion about Americans and how we don’t care much about the distinction between private and public space. Just look at the Patriot Act – for the most part, Americans have this attitude that if I am not doing anything wrong, invasion of my privacy by the government isn’t a big deal. Who cares? We already are used to exposing ourselves everyday through the internet, reality tv, youtube, etc.
The seduction of the internet is based on the false notion of anonymity. With facebook and blogs, we suspend the rules of normal conversation. Instead, we purposefully have conversations that everyone can overhear. Why? I have to confess that I regularly debate whether I should post on someone’s wall or send them a message: I’m aware that someone else might be reading and sometimes this has a strange pull. Other times, I’m much more careful.
I’m a writer. Authentic self-expression and connecting to others is really important to me. I enjoy reading other’s blogs and writing on my own. But I also understand the dangerous seduction of blogging. I struggle with the problem of over-sharing not only on the internet, but also in real life. Too often I want release, which I can gain instantly through talking with a friend or posting a blog, instead of really sitting and digesting my thoughts and feelings. I’ve gotten a bit better at learning the wisdom of boundaries in the last few years, and as a consequence I’ve become a lot more careful about what I post and how I post. Usually, I go through some edits first, and if it is really personal, I sit on it and think about how what I say impacts both me and whoever will be reading it. I’ve learned to draw these boundaries in real life too. When I have the impulse to emotionally or verbally dump on someone, I take a step back and ask why? Am I just looking for a quick fix and release, or is their value in sharing? I’ve learned that I don’t always need to share: I have tools and resources within me. I have God. And it’s ok to not have resolution or instant release.
I think that the internet is such a new medium of communication that it’s taking time, trial and error to figure out what one’s rules and boundaries should be. We might look back, as I do, with some embarrassment at what we have posted or how we have constructed ourselves. But I try to have grace with myself too. Looking back, there were reasons why I posted things that I posted in the way that I posted or why I emphasized a certain part of my identity.
I’m not ready to swear of blogging or facebook anytime soon, but I’m definitely thinking a lot harder about the line between personal and public and the wisdom of guarding and nurturing our own private space. Because it is in this space, when we cut out all other voices, that we really begin to know our own. It is in this private space that I gain the confidence I need to be who I am, confidence that no amount of friends or sharing can give to me. I learn to trust my own voice and the still small voice within me. Ironically, I have learned that over-sharing and over-connection only exacerbates my insecurities and anxieties because I tend to lose track of my voice and just begin spewing. Generally, it feels good in the moment, but afterwards, I don't usually feel much better.
In the same way, I have to wonder how much willing public exposition contributes to our own national anxiety and insecurities. What does it mean to really honor the boundaries of both self and other? If we are serious about loving others, I think the boundaries between self and other need to become clearer; we have to be more ok about respecting the mystery of our self and the mystery of others. This is so hard for me because I crave connection and affirmation, but I think true community is only possible when we embrace our limitations and realize we don’t need to know everything and we don’t need to share everything.
This doesn’t mean that we should attempt to live in solitude or develop a false idea that we should make it solely on our own. We are created for community, which is why I still blog and get on facebook. I love seeing what friends and acquaintances are up to, especially those people who I can’t see in person (which is pretty much everyone right now). The internet has made connection and community that used to be impossible, possible. And this should be celebrated.
Friday, May 23, 2008
is guilt a virtue?
In praise of liberal guilt. - By Ron Rosenbaum - Slate Magazine
Is guilt a virtue? Should guilt be a virtue? How do we appropriately respond to guilt, while not living in bondage to guilt?
Guilt is a powerful motivator. In my own life, (white western christian) guilt has been a powerful force. Of course, guilt can only take you so far. Justice and progress cannot solely be fueled by guilt because with guilt comes fear: fear or offending, fear of messing up, fear of not getting it right. Guilt is like law --- it leaves no room for grace. It leaves no room for mistakes and process. And sometimes guilt dangerously distorts causing us take responsibility for more than is ours to carry.
Guilt-oriented justice is inherently self-oriented. It is about making ourselves feel better, measuring up, getting clean. Guilt-oriented justice denies the other their full humanity and also infects our own sense of self with feelings of inadequacy and shame. Guilt motivated justice keeps us concerned with our part in the equation, which is an important part, but not the end. Ironically, the notion of supremacy that we are trying to rectify through guilt ends up being perpetuated because whether arrogant or guilty, offending or penitent, it's still about us.
It took everything falling apart to get me to give up guilt (at least in terms of racial reconciliation). I led an interracial team to Jackson, Mississippi and because of my own hypersense of guilt, it failed miserably. But through this experience, I learned something important: anger, mistrust, and mistakes are part of the process and because of this, there is no room for guilt. Guilt keeps us from diving into the mess with others and giving up control. It keeps us on the defensive. Because we are so busy trying to make things right while maintaining our own sense of power and control, we often fail to let ourselves be vulnerable and fail to recognize the vulnerability and pain of the other. In this failure, we prevent true healing and progress from occurring, even if this progress initially looks and feels like chaos.
Love is the only force powerful enough to break through guilt and denial. Having a black man (John Perkins) embrace me while I was weeping on his couch and instead of condemning me tell me that it was ok to mess up and affirm who I was was the most liberating and healing thing that has ever happened to me. Because God knows if anyone had a right to make me feel guilty or to be angry it was him. But he didn't. He empowered me to love. He saw in me a capacity for love, and so he wasn't going to let me get away with wallowing in guilt. Love, unlike guilt, recognizes that the mess can't be fixed, but that we don't need to live in fear. Instead, we can walk forward confident in the hope that things will be made right by way of the mess. Love empowers.
It seems to me that guilt and love often work in tandem with each other. Guilt can lead to progress and justice. Guilt oriented justice is based on recognizing disproportionate power and a desire to make right what has been wronged. However, love takes it one step further. Love oriented justice works towards shared power and full affirmation of self and other. Love oriented justice calls us to give up power while affirming that we are valuable. Love-oriented justice is ultimately other-oriented; it denies us the ability to see the "other" as solely victim nor to see ourselves as solely oppressor. It liberates us from identities of fear, shame, and violence.
While guilt grieves what has been lost and violated, love affirms what is still possible. When it comes to injustice, both grief and hope are needed. I don't see how we can ever get to shared power without first recognizing and grieving the disproportionate use and abuse of power. Justice demands a recognition of what has been wronged, but also a desire to move beyond. I like to think of guilt as an initial prompt, an invitation to move deeper, a call to ask "what's really going on here?" Like Ron says in the article, it's about where guilt leads you. Guilt can be a good thing. It can lead us to the point of grace where we are invited to leave behind our identities of fear and shame and embrace hope, life, and love. What is sad to me is that those who refuse to acknowledge guilt and those who remain trapped by guilt may never understand that in there is something more..
So, in conclusion, I don't know if I can say that guilt should be praised as a virtue. I think guilt can lead to virtue, but in itself, it is not a virtue. However, to ignore guilt or refuse to acknowledge it can be very dangerous. It seems appropriate to question why those who criticize "white liberal guilt" do so and what their own denial of its validity means. It also seems appropriate to question if justice and progress can be sustained by guilt alone. Most would be agree that it cannot. But let's at least start by acknowledging that it has its place.
This article was a good reminder about guilt because too often I tend to be cynical about white liberal guilt, but that's probably because I see so much of myself in such imperfect and self-conscious strivings.
Is guilt a virtue? Should guilt be a virtue? How do we appropriately respond to guilt, while not living in bondage to guilt?
Guilt is a powerful motivator. In my own life, (white western christian) guilt has been a powerful force. Of course, guilt can only take you so far. Justice and progress cannot solely be fueled by guilt because with guilt comes fear: fear or offending, fear of messing up, fear of not getting it right. Guilt is like law --- it leaves no room for grace. It leaves no room for mistakes and process. And sometimes guilt dangerously distorts causing us take responsibility for more than is ours to carry.
Guilt-oriented justice is inherently self-oriented. It is about making ourselves feel better, measuring up, getting clean. Guilt-oriented justice denies the other their full humanity and also infects our own sense of self with feelings of inadequacy and shame. Guilt motivated justice keeps us concerned with our part in the equation, which is an important part, but not the end. Ironically, the notion of supremacy that we are trying to rectify through guilt ends up being perpetuated because whether arrogant or guilty, offending or penitent, it's still about us.
It took everything falling apart to get me to give up guilt (at least in terms of racial reconciliation). I led an interracial team to Jackson, Mississippi and because of my own hypersense of guilt, it failed miserably. But through this experience, I learned something important: anger, mistrust, and mistakes are part of the process and because of this, there is no room for guilt. Guilt keeps us from diving into the mess with others and giving up control. It keeps us on the defensive. Because we are so busy trying to make things right while maintaining our own sense of power and control, we often fail to let ourselves be vulnerable and fail to recognize the vulnerability and pain of the other. In this failure, we prevent true healing and progress from occurring, even if this progress initially looks and feels like chaos.
Love is the only force powerful enough to break through guilt and denial. Having a black man (John Perkins) embrace me while I was weeping on his couch and instead of condemning me tell me that it was ok to mess up and affirm who I was was the most liberating and healing thing that has ever happened to me. Because God knows if anyone had a right to make me feel guilty or to be angry it was him. But he didn't. He empowered me to love. He saw in me a capacity for love, and so he wasn't going to let me get away with wallowing in guilt. Love, unlike guilt, recognizes that the mess can't be fixed, but that we don't need to live in fear. Instead, we can walk forward confident in the hope that things will be made right by way of the mess. Love empowers.
It seems to me that guilt and love often work in tandem with each other. Guilt can lead to progress and justice. Guilt oriented justice is based on recognizing disproportionate power and a desire to make right what has been wronged. However, love takes it one step further. Love oriented justice works towards shared power and full affirmation of self and other. Love oriented justice calls us to give up power while affirming that we are valuable. Love-oriented justice is ultimately other-oriented; it denies us the ability to see the "other" as solely victim nor to see ourselves as solely oppressor. It liberates us from identities of fear, shame, and violence.
While guilt grieves what has been lost and violated, love affirms what is still possible. When it comes to injustice, both grief and hope are needed. I don't see how we can ever get to shared power without first recognizing and grieving the disproportionate use and abuse of power. Justice demands a recognition of what has been wronged, but also a desire to move beyond. I like to think of guilt as an initial prompt, an invitation to move deeper, a call to ask "what's really going on here?" Like Ron says in the article, it's about where guilt leads you. Guilt can be a good thing. It can lead us to the point of grace where we are invited to leave behind our identities of fear and shame and embrace hope, life, and love. What is sad to me is that those who refuse to acknowledge guilt and those who remain trapped by guilt may never understand that in there is something more..
So, in conclusion, I don't know if I can say that guilt should be praised as a virtue. I think guilt can lead to virtue, but in itself, it is not a virtue. However, to ignore guilt or refuse to acknowledge it can be very dangerous. It seems appropriate to question why those who criticize "white liberal guilt" do so and what their own denial of its validity means. It also seems appropriate to question if justice and progress can be sustained by guilt alone. Most would be agree that it cannot. But let's at least start by acknowledging that it has its place.
This article was a good reminder about guilt because too often I tend to be cynical about white liberal guilt, but that's probably because I see so much of myself in such imperfect and self-conscious strivings.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
hillary should denounce racism
David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote - Bang the Drum
I wish I could directly link this media clip, but you will have to go to this blog to see it. It seems to only be available in a few places ---- hmmmm. I tried to find it on youtube but to no avail.
Basically, David Gergen calls on Hillary Clinton to denounce the white racist vote and to take the moral high road in this election. In my opinion, this would be a welcome alternative to her blatant pandering and exploitation of racism/classism.
Thanks to Aaron for bringing this my way :)
I wish I could directly link this media clip, but you will have to go to this blog to see it. It seems to only be available in a few places ---- hmmmm. I tried to find it on youtube but to no avail.
Basically, David Gergen calls on Hillary Clinton to denounce the white racist vote and to take the moral high road in this election. In my opinion, this would be a welcome alternative to her blatant pandering and exploitation of racism/classism.
Thanks to Aaron for bringing this my way :)
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
the new civil rights
Ben Smith's Blog: Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement - Politico.com
Hillary Clinton is taking her new "populist" persona to hilarious extremes. As this champion of the -- ahem -- (white) working class said last night: I'll never give up on you because you have never given up on me. Go Hillary Go. This is the new civil rights movement. It is the white working class now that is getting the short end of the stick by the African-American supporting elitist establishment media and young intellectual fat cats of greater America. So, please Hillary, fight on: they need you now more than ever.
Hillary Clinton is taking her new "populist" persona to hilarious extremes. As this champion of the -- ahem -- (white) working class said last night: I'll never give up on you because you have never given up on me. Go Hillary Go. This is the new civil rights movement. It is the white working class now that is getting the short end of the stick by the African-American supporting elitist establishment media and young intellectual fat cats of greater America. So, please Hillary, fight on: they need you now more than ever.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
this is us
Thought Leader » Christi van der Westhuizen » This is us. Welcome to South Africa
"This is us. No miracle nation. No rainbow nation. Just us: violent; intolerant of difference — hitting where it hurts. Let’s not try to sweet-talk ourselves. This is who we are. Let’s look ourselves in the eye."
Analysis on the state of South Africa. I love South Africa, and my heart hurts for the entire region at this moment.
The same could be said about my own country. And yet, the fibers of hope exist in both our countries as courageous souls dare to imagine a different world. but today is a a day of truth: let's look ourselves in the eye. Let's admit our failings, the violence that infects us all.
"This is us. No miracle nation. No rainbow nation. Just us: violent; intolerant of difference — hitting where it hurts. Let’s not try to sweet-talk ourselves. This is who we are. Let’s look ourselves in the eye."
Analysis on the state of South Africa. I love South Africa, and my heart hurts for the entire region at this moment.
The same could be said about my own country. And yet, the fibers of hope exist in both our countries as courageous souls dare to imagine a different world. but today is a a day of truth: let's look ourselves in the eye. Let's admit our failings, the violence that infects us all.
a purity ball
Dancing the Night Away, With a Higher Purpose - New York Times
The article itself is enough to make my stomach turn. Anyone familiar with the Christian sex cult will probably be familiar with the terminology and premise of the "purity ball." To be fair, there are some valid points, and I trust that the intentions are good, though perhaps a bit disconnected from the more complex realities of sex and the soul. Because of my own history and background, the rhetoric will always strike a raw never with me: I pledge "before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.” Psychoanalysis aside, I realize that there are many different opinions on this issue depending on which perspective you come from. Some will read this article and find comfort in it. They will see it as an affirmation of a system of truth and God's design for humanity. Some will read this article and feel outrage because it seems a cultural perversion and colonization of the gospel. Others with no religious background or a complicated background will read archaic systems of patriarchy and sexism at the core of the "purity" campaign, and feel anger or sorrow at the messages it transmits to both women and men. Others will nostalgically long for things to be so simple.
I could talk about this article for hours, but the picture slide show is what really caught my attention. Pictures speak louder than words. What "system" or "culture" is the purity ball trying to transmit? It seems to me based on the pictures that it is transmitting a fairy tale vision hearkening back to a bygone era that was based on chivalry, where princesses where rescued, guarded, and protected by princes, knights, and kings: men who would fight for them. Now, the question is --- did such a time really ever exist --- and even so, wouldn't it be bizarre to hold such a culture up as a biblical model when it is clearly based on the western modern tradition?
Then of course, we have all the purity symbols: laying a "white" rose at the cross, "white" ballerinas dancing around a cross, and I guess "princess" attire now qualifies as one too. Probably at some point, this all would have made sense to me, but now looking in as an outsider, this just feels extremely creepy! I guess I just wish that those on the inside could understand a bit what it looks like from the outside.
More than a purity ball, I just wish parents and children could have open, real, honest discussion about sex and God in an integrated way that connects to the here and now --- not some fantasy realm. It seems like this is what is really needed because when it comes to sex most teenagers and young adults (religious or not) are really confused. When you actually look at the data, this generation longs to bring together sex and the soul, but they often struggle in reconciling these two spheres. What is clear is that while things like the purity ball can offer some forms of integration, it comes at a high price that often results in extreme feelings of shame and inadequacy when people feel like they somehow violated their "purity." Even more alarming is that this burden disproportionally falls on women who are taught to view themselves as guardians or gatekeepers in the purity battle. Unfortunately, the real causality of this battle most often is meaningful participation in a faith community and relationship with God. This is something that should cause all people of faith to pause and assess the real impact of purity ideology.
The article itself is enough to make my stomach turn. Anyone familiar with the Christian sex cult will probably be familiar with the terminology and premise of the "purity ball." To be fair, there are some valid points, and I trust that the intentions are good, though perhaps a bit disconnected from the more complex realities of sex and the soul. Because of my own history and background, the rhetoric will always strike a raw never with me: I pledge "before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.” Psychoanalysis aside, I realize that there are many different opinions on this issue depending on which perspective you come from. Some will read this article and find comfort in it. They will see it as an affirmation of a system of truth and God's design for humanity. Some will read this article and feel outrage because it seems a cultural perversion and colonization of the gospel. Others with no religious background or a complicated background will read archaic systems of patriarchy and sexism at the core of the "purity" campaign, and feel anger or sorrow at the messages it transmits to both women and men. Others will nostalgically long for things to be so simple.
I could talk about this article for hours, but the picture slide show is what really caught my attention. Pictures speak louder than words. What "system" or "culture" is the purity ball trying to transmit? It seems to me based on the pictures that it is transmitting a fairy tale vision hearkening back to a bygone era that was based on chivalry, where princesses where rescued, guarded, and protected by princes, knights, and kings: men who would fight for them. Now, the question is --- did such a time really ever exist --- and even so, wouldn't it be bizarre to hold such a culture up as a biblical model when it is clearly based on the western modern tradition?
Then of course, we have all the purity symbols: laying a "white" rose at the cross, "white" ballerinas dancing around a cross, and I guess "princess" attire now qualifies as one too. Probably at some point, this all would have made sense to me, but now looking in as an outsider, this just feels extremely creepy! I guess I just wish that those on the inside could understand a bit what it looks like from the outside.
More than a purity ball, I just wish parents and children could have open, real, honest discussion about sex and God in an integrated way that connects to the here and now --- not some fantasy realm. It seems like this is what is really needed because when it comes to sex most teenagers and young adults (religious or not) are really confused. When you actually look at the data, this generation longs to bring together sex and the soul, but they often struggle in reconciling these two spheres. What is clear is that while things like the purity ball can offer some forms of integration, it comes at a high price that often results in extreme feelings of shame and inadequacy when people feel like they somehow violated their "purity." Even more alarming is that this burden disproportionally falls on women who are taught to view themselves as guardians or gatekeepers in the purity battle. Unfortunately, the real causality of this battle most often is meaningful participation in a faith community and relationship with God. This is something that should cause all people of faith to pause and assess the real impact of purity ideology.
Monday, May 19, 2008
her name is Memory
This is Zimbabwe » Blog Archive » Her name is Memory
The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas writes extensively on the notion of the "face." Basically, he says that the face of the other is a moral imperative that forces us to choose between protection/care and murder. The face of the other confronts us with the command "thou shalt not kill." It breaks into our reality and creates a crisis where we are forced to choose between justice and murder. In this moment of crisis in Zimbabwe, the world is being asked to confront the face of the other: the face of the oppressed, the tortured, and the destitute. Today, the face of the other is aptly named, Memory.
The question is will we see? And if we do, what will our response be?
We should not fool ourselves. The choice is between justice and murder.
The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas writes extensively on the notion of the "face." Basically, he says that the face of the other is a moral imperative that forces us to choose between protection/care and murder. The face of the other confronts us with the command "thou shalt not kill." It breaks into our reality and creates a crisis where we are forced to choose between justice and murder. In this moment of crisis in Zimbabwe, the world is being asked to confront the face of the other: the face of the oppressed, the tortured, and the destitute. Today, the face of the other is aptly named, Memory.
The question is will we see? And if we do, what will our response be?
We should not fool ourselves. The choice is between justice and murder.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Statement by Morgan Tsvangirai : 10 May 2008
On March 29th the people of Zimbabwe won an historic victory.That historic and resounding victory should have heralded a new and joyful era for all Zimbabweans. Instead Zimbabweans have endured confusion, pain, death and despair as the result of a violent onslaught against the people by Zanu PF.
As is now well documented, my opponent in this race has decided to turn his thugs on the people. The former liberator has turned his back on the people of Zimbabwe and on the entire continent of Africa.
It is very, very sad for me to call Mugabe a former liberator. It is sad for me to say that he has turned his back on both his people and his continent. Mugabe was once my hero too. Because of his sacrifices, millions of our citizens are well educated and had great opportunities to grow and prosper.
But something happened to Mugabe on our long walk to freedom, something happened that hardened his heart. Something happened that made him abandon the very people he once fought to free.
He has unleashed violence on his own children, the people of Zimbabwe.
And for those carrying out the violence on the ground, the police, the militia, the army and the so called war veterans now is the time to give very serious thought to the implications of further attacks on innocent civilians. You are breaking Zimbabwean and international laws and the whole world is watching.
The time is now for our professional security services to follow their hearts and become professional again, rather than follow a former liberation hero on his path to destruction. You will be in Zimbabwe long after Mugabe is gone.
In view of the unfolding post-election tragedy, the leadership of the MDC, civil society, and all democratic forces have had a very difficult decision to make. We know the betrayal of ballots being followed by bullets. We know that another election may bring more violence, more gloom, more betrayal.
We know there should not be a runoff election – there was only one reason the ZEC announced results before completing verification. We know the verified total would have revealed the full extent of the dictatorship's defeat – and the full extent of the peoples' victory.
But we also know a runoff election could finally knock-out the dictator for good. A runoff election could be the final round in a very long fight to liberate ourselves from our former liberator.
We know that we have won, but do we nevertheless decide to contest a runoff election to hasten the end of this debacle? Or do we wait and hope for the political environment to improve, for mediation to start, for mediation to end….all the while the people continue to suffer?
I have asked the MDC, civil society and other democratic forces to assess the feeling of the people on the ground. Do they want a runoff election? Will they vote despite the violent attacks? Could they possibly have confidence in the ZEC again?
To be honest, the answers are very mixed. Some report that they believe the people are too afraid to vote, that they are displaced by the destruction of their homes and not even near their polling stations any more. Others point to the fact that the ZEC betrayed them once and will do so again. Others say it is simply not fair to push the people into an election.
I consider all of these valid points of view. No one can dispute that going into an alleged runoff of an election that you have already won – an election controlled by an opponent whose election tactics unapologetically include stealing and killing - is a risky venture indeed.
What matters now is what we, as Zimbabweans, think is the best way to move ourselves out of this crisis. Are we brave enough? Are we strong enough? Are we angry enough?
The overwhelming sentiment that emerged from the people of Zimbabwe is that they are ready for change now, not later. They want a chance for a better life now, and they believe that the MDC can give them that chance. They believe that we as nation are brave enough, we are strong enough and we are angry enough to fight an election once again. We as MDC believe our people would feel betrayed if we shied away from the final knock out. We have lost hundreds of people in the democracy movement since 1999. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. We must fulfill the dreams of our people who have been betrayed and traumatized since March 29th.
The MDC has decided that we will contest the runoff and the people will finally prevail. The people have spoken before, and the people will speak again. I am ready and the people are ready for the final round.
Legally this election should be no later than May 24th, two weeks from today, and that is the date we are preparing for. If Zanu PF and the ZEC hope to retain what little credibility they have left they will abide by the law and declare the Presidential runoff election between today and that date.
Therefore I shall return to Zimbabwe within the next two days.
I shall return to Zimbabwe to begin a Victory Tour. Some might say this term "Victory" is cold and callous given the hardships endured by the people.
But the people are victorious. And they are being punished for their victory. We must free ourselves from those who would steal victory from fellow brothers and sisters by using guns, sticks and screwdrivers.
In the last four weeks many leaders have rallied to the cause of Zimbabwe. To SADC Chairman Mwanamwasa and African Union Chairman Kikwete, and many of your colleagues, I want to say thank you. When Zimbabwe rejoins the family of democratic nations, history will remember what you did for your brave, peace loving African brothers and sisters now living in fear of their own government.
I want to thank the labor unions and Cosatu for refusing to allow the illegitimate regime of Zanu PF to access more weapons for use against its own people.
To Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and others in the international community, we thank you and appreciate all your work. We will continue to count on you, SADC and the AU, to ensure the upcoming runoff is administered fairly, with transparency, neutrality and professionalism.
And finally, I thank the people of Zimbabwe for their courage and devotion to democracy. And I ask them not to lose hope. Together let us finish the job. Together let us have faith that this time, the ballot paper will truly liberate our country.
I thank you.
As is now well documented, my opponent in this race has decided to turn his thugs on the people. The former liberator has turned his back on the people of Zimbabwe and on the entire continent of Africa.
It is very, very sad for me to call Mugabe a former liberator. It is sad for me to say that he has turned his back on both his people and his continent. Mugabe was once my hero too. Because of his sacrifices, millions of our citizens are well educated and had great opportunities to grow and prosper.
But something happened to Mugabe on our long walk to freedom, something happened that hardened his heart. Something happened that made him abandon the very people he once fought to free.
He has unleashed violence on his own children, the people of Zimbabwe.
And for those carrying out the violence on the ground, the police, the militia, the army and the so called war veterans now is the time to give very serious thought to the implications of further attacks on innocent civilians. You are breaking Zimbabwean and international laws and the whole world is watching.
The time is now for our professional security services to follow their hearts and become professional again, rather than follow a former liberation hero on his path to destruction. You will be in Zimbabwe long after Mugabe is gone.
In view of the unfolding post-election tragedy, the leadership of the MDC, civil society, and all democratic forces have had a very difficult decision to make. We know the betrayal of ballots being followed by bullets. We know that another election may bring more violence, more gloom, more betrayal.
We know there should not be a runoff election – there was only one reason the ZEC announced results before completing verification. We know the verified total would have revealed the full extent of the dictatorship's defeat – and the full extent of the peoples' victory.
But we also know a runoff election could finally knock-out the dictator for good. A runoff election could be the final round in a very long fight to liberate ourselves from our former liberator.
We know that we have won, but do we nevertheless decide to contest a runoff election to hasten the end of this debacle? Or do we wait and hope for the political environment to improve, for mediation to start, for mediation to end….all the while the people continue to suffer?
I have asked the MDC, civil society and other democratic forces to assess the feeling of the people on the ground. Do they want a runoff election? Will they vote despite the violent attacks? Could they possibly have confidence in the ZEC again?
To be honest, the answers are very mixed. Some report that they believe the people are too afraid to vote, that they are displaced by the destruction of their homes and not even near their polling stations any more. Others point to the fact that the ZEC betrayed them once and will do so again. Others say it is simply not fair to push the people into an election.
I consider all of these valid points of view. No one can dispute that going into an alleged runoff of an election that you have already won – an election controlled by an opponent whose election tactics unapologetically include stealing and killing - is a risky venture indeed.
What matters now is what we, as Zimbabweans, think is the best way to move ourselves out of this crisis. Are we brave enough? Are we strong enough? Are we angry enough?
The overwhelming sentiment that emerged from the people of Zimbabwe is that they are ready for change now, not later. They want a chance for a better life now, and they believe that the MDC can give them that chance. They believe that we as nation are brave enough, we are strong enough and we are angry enough to fight an election once again. We as MDC believe our people would feel betrayed if we shied away from the final knock out. We have lost hundreds of people in the democracy movement since 1999. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. We must fulfill the dreams of our people who have been betrayed and traumatized since March 29th.
The MDC has decided that we will contest the runoff and the people will finally prevail. The people have spoken before, and the people will speak again. I am ready and the people are ready for the final round.
Legally this election should be no later than May 24th, two weeks from today, and that is the date we are preparing for. If Zanu PF and the ZEC hope to retain what little credibility they have left they will abide by the law and declare the Presidential runoff election between today and that date.
Therefore I shall return to Zimbabwe within the next two days.
I shall return to Zimbabwe to begin a Victory Tour. Some might say this term "Victory" is cold and callous given the hardships endured by the people.
But the people are victorious. And they are being punished for their victory. We must free ourselves from those who would steal victory from fellow brothers and sisters by using guns, sticks and screwdrivers.
In the last four weeks many leaders have rallied to the cause of Zimbabwe. To SADC Chairman Mwanamwasa and African Union Chairman Kikwete, and many of your colleagues, I want to say thank you. When Zimbabwe rejoins the family of democratic nations, history will remember what you did for your brave, peace loving African brothers and sisters now living in fear of their own government.
I want to thank the labor unions and Cosatu for refusing to allow the illegitimate regime of Zanu PF to access more weapons for use against its own people.
To Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and others in the international community, we thank you and appreciate all your work. We will continue to count on you, SADC and the AU, to ensure the upcoming runoff is administered fairly, with transparency, neutrality and professionalism.
And finally, I thank the people of Zimbabwe for their courage and devotion to democracy. And I ask them not to lose hope. Together let us finish the job. Together let us have faith that this time, the ballot paper will truly liberate our country.
I thank you.
i do not swear
News this morning is that Blackwater is off the hook as the State Department renewed its contract with them and no formal charges has been brought against the guards responsible for the Baghdad massacre in September. Read the full article here.
This is abhorrent, despicable, outrageous.
As the NYT article points out, this lack of accountability and justice is in part based on our reliance on outside military contractors to protect US interests. This is very worrisome: justice is sacrificed for both utility and profit.
Six years into the "War on Terror," we have yet to see justice and responsibility taken for US policies of torture, massacre of innocent civilians by US contractors, and CIA extraordinary renditions aka "torture by proxy."
What right to I have to lobby my own government to intervene to stop human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and Sudan when we ourselves practice such things? What moral authority do we have as citizens to speak out against terror and torture?
Nevertheless, I speak out because I believe in the dignity of the human person. I speak out because I believe that we must hold governments accountable to the care of their citizens. I speak out because I believe in God's call to care for one another. But let me be clear: I do not pledge allegience to the United States.
This is abhorrent, despicable, outrageous.
As the NYT article points out, this lack of accountability and justice is in part based on our reliance on outside military contractors to protect US interests. This is very worrisome: justice is sacrificed for both utility and profit.
Six years into the "War on Terror," we have yet to see justice and responsibility taken for US policies of torture, massacre of innocent civilians by US contractors, and CIA extraordinary renditions aka "torture by proxy."
What right to I have to lobby my own government to intervene to stop human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and Sudan when we ourselves practice such things? What moral authority do we have as citizens to speak out against terror and torture?
Nevertheless, I speak out because I believe in the dignity of the human person. I speak out because I believe that we must hold governments accountable to the care of their citizens. I speak out because I believe in God's call to care for one another. But let me be clear: I do not pledge allegience to the United States.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
I cry for Zimbabwe
I cry for justice
I cry for peace
I cry for mercy
How long?
Swollen skulls
Swollen eyes
A child beaten
A man tortured
By a State that once promised
Liberation
Many are crying too
Shell-shocked they write
Of horror tales
And courage
Today crying does not feel like enough.
What have we done?
What can we do?
How long?
I cry for justice
I cry for peace
I cry for mercy
How long?
Swollen skulls
Swollen eyes
A child beaten
A man tortured
By a State that once promised
Liberation
Many are crying too
Shell-shocked they write
Of horror tales
And courage
Today crying does not feel like enough.
What have we done?
What can we do?
How long?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
women are cool too
It always bothered me that when I stopped to think about my greatest heroes they were mostly men. It’s not that I didn’t admire or respect women because some of the most influential people in my life are women. It is just that I had a hard time finding a recognizable female equivalent to Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu, for example. Yet, my experience tells me that it was countless “ordinary” and extraordinary women who propelled all of the great movements in history. As a feminist, I feel really embarrassed about this confession and my own contradictions.
However, recently, women have been on my mind. I have been following this election closely and I have been stunned by the poise, sheer gustiness, and brilliant acumen of several women. First, I have come to admire and respect Hillary Clinton. The woman knows her stuff --- and I, like the rest of the public, found myself grudgingly respecting her tenacity and resolve. Second, I think my new hero is Michelle Obama.
When I see Michelle Obama, by herself or with Barack, I see a woman who is strong, confident, and shrewd. She is a woman who speaks directly out of the core of who she is. Hillary is commendable, Michelle is down right stunning. You can see it reflected in her relationship with Barack as well. Their relationship clearly is forged out of deep mutual respect for one another and balance. They negotiate. They take responsibility for their own selves and advocate for each other. They strengthen one another out of their individual strength. Michelle is not afraid of embracing her femininity, her strength, her intelligence, her role as a wife and mother, her passion, and her sense of calling and vocation. In fact, when I listen to Barack and Michelle together, I’m increasingly more captivated by Michelle.
There are other women worth noting as well --- commentators and pundits. I watch CNN, and I have to say that I am very impressed with Gloria Borger, Donna Brazil, and Campbell Brown. Melissa Harris-Lacewell – political science prof/activist from Princeton – pretty much rocks. She is a woman who is not ashamed to love herself, love her community, use her mind, and act. And then there’s my favorite blogger: anxious black woman.
Just a little taste of Michelle, in time for mother’s day!
However, recently, women have been on my mind. I have been following this election closely and I have been stunned by the poise, sheer gustiness, and brilliant acumen of several women. First, I have come to admire and respect Hillary Clinton. The woman knows her stuff --- and I, like the rest of the public, found myself grudgingly respecting her tenacity and resolve. Second, I think my new hero is Michelle Obama.
When I see Michelle Obama, by herself or with Barack, I see a woman who is strong, confident, and shrewd. She is a woman who speaks directly out of the core of who she is. Hillary is commendable, Michelle is down right stunning. You can see it reflected in her relationship with Barack as well. Their relationship clearly is forged out of deep mutual respect for one another and balance. They negotiate. They take responsibility for their own selves and advocate for each other. They strengthen one another out of their individual strength. Michelle is not afraid of embracing her femininity, her strength, her intelligence, her role as a wife and mother, her passion, and her sense of calling and vocation. In fact, when I listen to Barack and Michelle together, I’m increasingly more captivated by Michelle.
There are other women worth noting as well --- commentators and pundits. I watch CNN, and I have to say that I am very impressed with Gloria Borger, Donna Brazil, and Campbell Brown. Melissa Harris-Lacewell – political science prof/activist from Princeton – pretty much rocks. She is a woman who is not ashamed to love herself, love her community, use her mind, and act. And then there’s my favorite blogger: anxious black woman.
Just a little taste of Michelle, in time for mother’s day!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
charting the map
Want to see what I've been working on the last few months? What started as random thoughts, fragments and words has gradually turned into something a bit more coherent as I chart out why I want to go to graduate school and what I want to study. So, if you ever wanted to know, here it is:
My life has been shaped by many streams and experiences. Growing up in Germany, studying and volunteering in South Africa and Mississippi, and working with racial and ethnic minority students in higher education are all experiences that have forced me to confront a legacy of oppression within my own faith tradition and cultural background. As a result, questions of racial justice and reconciliation; violence, trauma, and healing; and cross-cultural dialogue have become central to me. Given my background and experiences, I hope to pursue graduate study to further understand my own journey and the journeys of others.
The range of thinkers who have influenced me are diverse – theologians, literary theorists, mystics, activists, and writers. However, I have learned the most from listening to the stories of others. Therefore, I am primarily interested in narrative and discourse. I want to explore the ways discourse reinforces and supports violence and oppression and the possibilities of narrative as an agent of justice, liberation and healing. I want to do this while taking into account emerging western and non-western worlds and changing boundaries and notions surrounding evil, oppression, and power.
I want to study dialogical strategies of resistance, healing, and empowerment and their relationship to social change by exploring the intersection of political, cultural, and historical narratives as expressed in literature and testimony. Specifically, I want to focus on comparing the American and South African contexts drawing on postcolonial theory, critical race theory, postmodernism, and psychoanalytic theory. When appropriate, I will also integrate theological perspectives and religious narratives as religion has often gone hand in hand with social liberation and healing movements and also played a significant role in the construction of oppressive systems and structures.
Research Interests: Africa and African diaspora; trauma, violence, and healing; formation of subjectivities and identities in transnational contexts; colonialism and postcolonialism; theology and society with special interests in race and social justice; narrative theory; critical perspectives on national and social discourse as it intersects with race/ethnicity, globalization and faith; continental philosophy,
My life has been shaped by many streams and experiences. Growing up in Germany, studying and volunteering in South Africa and Mississippi, and working with racial and ethnic minority students in higher education are all experiences that have forced me to confront a legacy of oppression within my own faith tradition and cultural background. As a result, questions of racial justice and reconciliation; violence, trauma, and healing; and cross-cultural dialogue have become central to me. Given my background and experiences, I hope to pursue graduate study to further understand my own journey and the journeys of others.
The range of thinkers who have influenced me are diverse – theologians, literary theorists, mystics, activists, and writers. However, I have learned the most from listening to the stories of others. Therefore, I am primarily interested in narrative and discourse. I want to explore the ways discourse reinforces and supports violence and oppression and the possibilities of narrative as an agent of justice, liberation and healing. I want to do this while taking into account emerging western and non-western worlds and changing boundaries and notions surrounding evil, oppression, and power.
I want to study dialogical strategies of resistance, healing, and empowerment and their relationship to social change by exploring the intersection of political, cultural, and historical narratives as expressed in literature and testimony. Specifically, I want to focus on comparing the American and South African contexts drawing on postcolonial theory, critical race theory, postmodernism, and psychoanalytic theory. When appropriate, I will also integrate theological perspectives and religious narratives as religion has often gone hand in hand with social liberation and healing movements and also played a significant role in the construction of oppressive systems and structures.
Research Interests: Africa and African diaspora; trauma, violence, and healing; formation of subjectivities and identities in transnational contexts; colonialism and postcolonialism; theology and society with special interests in race and social justice; narrative theory; critical perspectives on national and social discourse as it intersects with race/ethnicity, globalization and faith; continental philosophy,
Monday, May 5, 2008
summer blues
It is humid. I wait for the clock to reach 5:00 PM. Is it possible to feel thankful, content, bored, passive, meaningful, and stuck all at the same time? This is what the last few weeks have felt like to me. My frustration comes from the lack of movement I see around me – everything is still, dry, flat, dusty, old.
There is nowhere to go.
Work. Home. Work. Home. Work. Grocery Store. Home. Work. Home. Work. Home. Church. Home. Nap. Repeat.
I told Than this weekend that I don’t want him to feel guilty when I express my boredom/frustration, I just want him to empathize with me. The school year is over and everything feels like drudgery. But at the same time Than and I have these delightful conversations where we realize that internally both of us feel incredibly rich, held, and sustained. We feel surrounded with meaning, purpose, and hope.
So, it's a bit difficult to answer the question: "how are you?" right now.
There is nowhere to go.
Work. Home. Work. Home. Work. Grocery Store. Home. Work. Home. Work. Home. Church. Home. Nap. Repeat.
I told Than this weekend that I don’t want him to feel guilty when I express my boredom/frustration, I just want him to empathize with me. The school year is over and everything feels like drudgery. But at the same time Than and I have these delightful conversations where we realize that internally both of us feel incredibly rich, held, and sustained. We feel surrounded with meaning, purpose, and hope.
So, it's a bit difficult to answer the question: "how are you?" right now.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
may day
It’s May Day! Than’s wearing his red hammer and sickle shirt. I’m celebrating redistribution of wealth, as I discover $1200 has landed in my bank account thanks to the government.
Than and I owe a lot to Marx. Without Marx, we never would have met. Our fateful paths crossed on that one and only day we both attended Marxism class. Incidentally, the class was taught bya conservative faculty member of SPU's political science department.
I was fresh from South Africa and passionate about ideas of economic justice, redistribution, and reconciliation. Given Than’s mohawk and presence in the class, I just assumed he was as interested in progressive politics as I was.
My assumptions turned out to be wrong, at least initially. But so were Than’s. In those first few weeks, we were fascinated, delighted, and intrigued by the apparent contradictions we found in one another. A year later, we were not quite as amused.
Over the years, our politics and positions have mellowed out a bit on both spectrums. We used to fight a lot about politics. At times, I even wondered if I could marry someone who didn’t share my same values. I tend to take politics very personally, and my values are central to who I am. But now I have to laugh at all the energy expended worrying about this. We grew up.
These days, I’m equally amazed, delighted, and intrigued by the ways we find common ground through our unique perspectives. Than the philosopher. Rachel more the prophet. Both of us hate easy labels. Both of us are constantly struggling to change and grow. And I think this quality in both of us -- though at times it leads us to different conclusions -- has given us a deep respect for each other. We know the other person isn’t going to stay where they are at. So, now, I’ve just learned to relax and give Than a bit more credit because contrary to my own opinion, I’m not always right. And though our journeys are different, we both usually end up in the same place. I love when this happens because it usually is based not on cajoling or fighting, but on independent and quiet movement and thinking within our own selves. In the process, we sharpen one another, and it feels like divine confirmation that we were created for one another!
Awwww, I’m getting mushy. But that’s what May Day is all about. Cheers to Marx and spring!
Than and I owe a lot to Marx. Without Marx, we never would have met. Our fateful paths crossed on that one and only day we both attended Marxism class. Incidentally, the class was taught bya conservative faculty member of SPU's political science department.
I was fresh from South Africa and passionate about ideas of economic justice, redistribution, and reconciliation. Given Than’s mohawk and presence in the class, I just assumed he was as interested in progressive politics as I was.
My assumptions turned out to be wrong, at least initially. But so were Than’s. In those first few weeks, we were fascinated, delighted, and intrigued by the apparent contradictions we found in one another. A year later, we were not quite as amused.
Over the years, our politics and positions have mellowed out a bit on both spectrums. We used to fight a lot about politics. At times, I even wondered if I could marry someone who didn’t share my same values. I tend to take politics very personally, and my values are central to who I am. But now I have to laugh at all the energy expended worrying about this. We grew up.
These days, I’m equally amazed, delighted, and intrigued by the ways we find common ground through our unique perspectives. Than the philosopher. Rachel more the prophet. Both of us hate easy labels. Both of us are constantly struggling to change and grow. And I think this quality in both of us -- though at times it leads us to different conclusions -- has given us a deep respect for each other. We know the other person isn’t going to stay where they are at. So, now, I’ve just learned to relax and give Than a bit more credit because contrary to my own opinion, I’m not always right. And though our journeys are different, we both usually end up in the same place. I love when this happens because it usually is based not on cajoling or fighting, but on independent and quiet movement and thinking within our own selves. In the process, we sharpen one another, and it feels like divine confirmation that we were created for one another!
Awwww, I’m getting mushy. But that’s what May Day is all about. Cheers to Marx and spring!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)