on rape, truth, and why the church is silent

My guess is that the reluctance of Christian organisations to address rape culture or the denigration of women is multi-layered.

Even once you get past the 'sexual assault is a woman's problem, not caused by men and male entitlement' line, Christianity has to deal with the "we've been pushing the 'ladies, be modest in your dress so you don't inflame men's desire' for centuries and we can't admit it was wrong because church outsiders might challenge us on other matters of authority" blockage. That's a pretty huge blockage, and the church self-defends against it in every way, shape, or form - and has historically, from the theory of evolution being in opposition to biblical literality, to women's equality being valid and necessary, to it being a sin to be same-sex attracted no matter what you did or didn't do with that attraction.

Once it swallows that, it needs to address "well, obviously a woman being sexually assaulted must be sinning (because of course marital sex isn't rape, and 'good women' don't put themselves in a situation where rape could happen - see 'be modest in your dress...') and we shouldn't be helping to make her sin consequence-free". This is a pretty common 'sin-conflation' among Christian organisations. The premise is that "the problem is that the little sins are the same as big sins in God's eyes" which means there's no essential difference to the church's mind between a woman being sexually active outside of marriage, and a man taking a woman against her will.

And even once they've managed to choke down that idea, there's an attitude of "this is a worldly problem, not a spiritual problem, and church organisations, leaders, or preaching do not in any way contribute to it". Y Helo Thar "Porn Is The Problem", crowd.

Male entitlement, buoyed by the theology of male headship (with corresponding female inferiority), underpinned by a Madonna/whore complex regarding female sexuality? Not even acknowledged, although it underpins many a talk about sexuality and gender in the church and is reinforced by worldly masculinity and advertising.

Oh and then there's the deep-seated perennial mentality of "ew, feminism makes a woman unclean; she can be cleansed of it by the blood of Jesus, but she can't keep the feminism" which dislikes supporting anything with even the whiff of 'feminism' about it. Frankly, feminism is outright sin to the hard end of complementarianism and a 'slippery slope' to the more flexible ones: why, let women think they don't have to submit to the authority of men - let them suppose they're equal and they'll be abandoning their families and thinking they know more about anything than their husbands!

The authority question, incidentally, is also a root of the trans-panic in conservative and complementarian churches; "if we can't define male and female with definitive biology, then how can we be sure that men are given the due authority that their gender entitles them to?"

I don't hate the church or Christians. But I sincerely and truly understand why others do.

March 4 Respect: unsilent women, authority, and feminism.

Some people use the word 'respect' to mean "assign authority". And some people use the word 'respect' to mean "assign human dignity". Which leads to the point where someone says, "You must respect me, or I won't respect you." And what they mean - and will frequently act out - is, in fact, "You need to recognise me as an authority, or I won't treat you with human dignity."

As such 'feminism' is anathema to men who use the term 'respect' to mean 'recognise as an authority' because it no longer takes male authority as the last word. 

It also occurs to me that when men or male authorities talk about "being respected" they're largely talking about being assigned authority and recognised and acknowledged as such. So a man feeling disrespected is most likely because he isn't considered the last word, the leader, the ultimate authority. However, when women talk about "being respected" they're largely talking about being assigned humanity.  A woman feeling disrespected is likely because she's not being considered as a person  - rather, she's an object, a usefulness, or an adjunct.

As such 'feminism' is anathema to men who use the term 'respect' to mean 'recognise as an authority' because it no longer takes male authority as the last word. This explains a lot of pushback against feminism in Christian and peri-Christian (Christendom?) circles. When 'respectfulness' is seen as "you will recognise, acknowledge, and submit to my authority for no other reason than that I am male" then, yes, feminism is dangerous to the rigid end of complementarianism and a slippery slope to the more flexible side.

In contrast, 'feminism' to most feminists means  the recognition that a woman is a person: fully whole, legally independent, individual and worthy of decent treatment without regard to whether or not a male finds them personable, socially acceptable, or fuckable. Women are worthy of existence and human rights simply because they are (...made in the image of God, the Christian mentally adds).

I have never ever had a conflict between my feminism and my faith. Jesus' closest followers included women who not only fed him and washed his feet, but also learned from him and were witnesses to his resurrection. And his behaviour and teachings are what we would these days call 'feminine'. So, yeah, of course God sees me as any man's equal in human dignity, therefore any human dignity accorded a man is my right, too. And yeah, it gets messy when we bring it into society where men hold the power, the authority, and even the truly godly ones are not above tweaking the system to give them the advantage. Human nature is human nature, after all. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just unpopular. (And shouldn't we as Christians know about not-wrong-just-unpopular? I mean, that's a biggie in our cultural victimhood...)

I want to say something cynical about the rather notable silence about the March4Respect from most of the churchgoing people that I know. I won't. Some of them are trying; some of them aren't. Most are focusing on the Great Trans Fight that will kick into gear over the next 12 months, because from that will come the dollar signs of religious education and our right to teach and preach our views like they're dominant and nobody is going to question them.

But I still think we're spending our coin on the drug of 'moral self-righteousness' that will leave the broader church with no witness in the world. But I'm nobody on that point - who'd listen to me?

they want to believe

Sometimes I think Christians don't give non-Christians quite as much benefit of the doubt as they should.

For the most part, non-Christians want to think well of Christians. Yes, they want to think well of Christians in a namby-pamby kind of ineffectually good but otherwise unharmful way, but overall, they want to think well of do-gooders and moral people - they want to admire people for their principles. Not just on "marriage, sexuality, and reproduction" but on "the poor, the widow, the displaced, the fatherless".

What they don't want is to see people who claim the moral high ground be complete jackasses when it comes to dealing with matters that require grace and graciousness, charity and compassion, justice and fairness. They especially don't want to see comfortable middle-class Christians lord it over them morally while refusing to lift a collective finger for the unfortunate and dispossessed.

They want to see our collective actions conform with our beliefs. And too often, the actions of our leaders don't conform with our beliefs except in marriage, sexuality, and reproduction. Our graciousness is lacking as we clutch desperately at the remaining shreds of social power that we have, brandishing them while shrilly proclaiming "the truth in love" - truth it may be, but loving? Not in any form that they'd recognise.

(Sometimes I wonder if the "but I'm telling the truth in love" crowd realise that if you correct a child when they're doing wrong but fail to cheer them on when they're doing right because that's just what they should do, then you might be acting in love but the child doesn't recognise it; 'love' doesn't mean forcing truths that are presently unpalateable to them down their throats. It's amazing how many Christians will not understand this.)

In his post about the RZIM revelations, Dr. Russell Moore observed that the world beyond Christianity doesn't reject Christians because of Jesus; they reject Christians because so often it seems that Jesus is no more than a tool in the hands of Christians.

That's a damning observation.

For two thousand years, the Christians who changed the world were tools in the hands of their Saviour.

Today, most people would think of 'the church' and condemn it for using Jesus as one more weapon to be used in the culture wars. They might respect and admire individual Christians, but 'the church'? No. Not for them, thanks.

platforms and pulpits and 'free speech'

I am getting the feeling that a lot of the Australian Christian response to Twitter dumping the US Prez's personal account is anchored in a fear of our own deplatforming on account of "saying things that are true but which lefty liberals don't like to hear".

Are we aware that our 'Christian platform' isn't Twitter or Facebook or Parler? Our 'Christian platform' isn't even the pulpit or our church services or our Christian events.

Our 'platform' is our lives - the intimate struggle of day in, day out that our neighbours and regular interactions bear witness to. That argument you had with your kids last night with the screen door open? Platform! That frown you always wear when you pick up your coffee in the morning? Platform! Picking up your neigbour's bin and refilling it after the teenaged vandals in the area spilled it? Platform! Offering eggs when the neighbour hasn't had breakfast? Platform! Growing a verge garden for people to freely pick from? Platform!

I mean, it's just living, and not as exciting as the thrill of knowing hundreds, nay, thousands, nay millions of people are hanging breathlessly on your every character. But a handful of people who love your character? Ask Paul how loving the people who were around him worked for 'platform'.

We don't *need* social media. We don't need to boycott it if we haven't been banned - it's not an either/or proposition. We just don't *need* it to continue to live lives of love and care and thoughtfulness to our society and people.

biology, gender, sex, and God

In the beginning, God made humanity in His own image. In His own image He formed them: biologically, chromosomally, cellularly, and chemically male and biologically, chromosomally, cellularly, and chemically female, He created them... Probably.

Before we go around demanding that people "live out the truth" of their biology - an argument I've seen in Christian circles - are we absolutely sure we are "living out the truth" of our own biology? Or of the biology of those around us?

And, really, does biology matter when one serves the living God who sees, knows, understands, and still calls us all to Him? Is an argument over biology worth the kindness, patience, gentleness, and self-control that Paul instructs Christians to exercise as indicators of God's spirit in us and as a witness of love to the world? Twitter thread

summer solstice and John the Baptist [Sel's Swift Sermon series]

It's just past Summer Solstice here in Sydney: three days to Christmas 2020.

Sydney is in the throes of a COVID resurgence with restrictions on gathering and travelling for everyone in the Greater Sydney area - right before Christmas. Jupiter and Saturn are converging in the skies of Earth, and yesterday was the Summer Solstice down here in the Southern Hemisphere. It was cloudy and rainy and really not very summery at all. And, unfortunately, my usual group of friends who celebrate the sun seasons with a garden gathering and food and friendship had to forgo our Solstice gathering because of the COVID resurgence taking place in Sydney. We'll pick it up later, during the holiday season or possibly January.

But the Summer Solstice always makes me think of John the Baptist.

In the northern hemisphere, Litha - the Summer Solstice - is traditionally the birthday feast of Saint John the Baptist. There's two reasons for this - John the Baptist, cousin to Jesus Christ through their mothers, was born six months earlier, and since the celebration of Jesus' birth - Christmas - is at the Winter Solstice, the feastday of John is at the Summer Solstice, six months earlier.

The other reason is John's purpose in life: to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.

There's a moment in the gospels some time after John has baptised Jesus, when his disciples are watching people gather to Jesus now - a new and greater teacher to follow - and they're anxious and worried. But when they take their concerns to John, asking him to do something about the loss of disciples and his words are simply, "As He increases, so must I decrease."

John understood his place in the scheme of things. He understood transitions. He understood that he had to give up what scraps of pride or social standing he had gained, because he wasn't the Main Event, he was just the Warm-Up Act. Not the King, but merely the herald of one greater than himself, whose sandals he was not fit to tie.

And so, at the Summer Solstice, the days are the longest, and will slowly grow shorter and shorter, until we reach the longest night - Winter Solstice - when a dark world is lit up by the star of incarnation: deity become humanity, very nature God become very nature man.

As He increases, so must I decrease.

This can be harder to comprehend this in the Southern Hemisphere when our summer solstice is mere days away from our celebration of Christmas - or maybe easier - because the summer solstice also arrives before Christmas: heralding the coming of God. And the message has not changed over 2000 years.

Give up your old ways, make a public stand, trust in a God who came in human form - not to rule over us, not merely to bestow knowledge or a kinder way of living, but to serve us in love and the sacrifice of not only his life but his living for those he loved.

As He increases, so must we decrease.

It holds true for us, as much as for John the Baptist.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, a generous and bountiful solstice, and a Happy New Year to all of us.

assorted thoughts: failings of the western church

I wonder sometimes; do other Australian Christians see the faint echoes of themselves in the extreme of American Christianity? Or am I the only one?

Do they look at the well-worn warnings of "well, you can't trust the leftist, liberal media!" and not see that echoed in their dismissal of anything the ABC reports?

Do they look at the obsession with a leader who 'will take them to righteousness' and not see the echoes of "our Scott Morrison, defender of the Christian faith in (godless) Australia"?

Do they look at the obsession with our position, our standing, ourreputation, our freedoms and not see that echoed in the outrage that businesses can open and churches cannot, that children can have LGBTQIA explained to them in schools, that we can't functionally behave like nobody else's beliefs matter?

People are often bewildered by my interest in American politics.

The Americans are disdainful that anyone should care what they do; it's their country, they can do what they like! They have rights! Responsibility of leadership? Well, yes, they're leaders, but they don't do responsibility.

Australians, I think, side-eye me, because "well, they're just crazy in America". And yes, they are. I said once: "Hong Kong foams at the mouth; China foams in the brain." It was a Pterry reference, differentiating between 'mad' and 'insane'. These days, I'm more likely to think "China foams at the mouth, while America foams in the brain".

But America is our canary in the coal mine. Socially, politically, and, yes, spiritually. The faults and flaws of American Christianity are ones that we have in Australia - less dramatic, perhaps, but still there. Our reluctance to acknowledge racial divide, our unwillingness to concede our privilege, our inability to connect with people outside the faith in a spiritually meaningful way because we demand they come to us, on our ground - both physical ground of the church, and the spiritual ground of a Christian underpinning... These are all problems in the American churches and they are also problems in the Australian church, just in different dimensions.

The 'church of God' across the nations will survive this year, our lives, our family lines, our culture, and this earth. It may not survive it with the trappings of what we recognise as 'church' today - but how much would the Christians of the first and second centuries recognise our version of 'church', either?

I love my church and my church people, but I don't know how well we know how to 'reach' people outside our area. How to love them and let our love speak. And yes, we will eventually need to use words - when necessary - but I'm starting to think that the words should be employed later and later and only at a timely point.

I saw my cousin J last week while I was up visiting him in the NT. On his 40th birthday, we went to a couple of National Park pools and waterfalls and swam while a thunderstorm crackled overhead. It was amazing and awe-inspiring. And at one point, I turned to J and said, "You guys don't do church, do you? But do you remember that verse: The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim his works?" He remembered the hymn. I said it was a verse first, then added, "That's what I'm thinking of sitting here. The glory of God. Thanks for bringing me out here."

We turned the conversation after that, but a small dose of reminder was all I thought was needed at this time. I think his younger brother is still a believer, his older brother converted to Islam for his wife. And I have a vague memory that the younger brother castigated the older for converting. So the boys aren't close and there may be religious rifts. So I didn't think this was the right time.

We're still in the reconnection stage of things anyway: friendly and appreciated, but not close. Hopefully opportunities will come in future; I hope so.