Previous Post – Mediocrity & the Measure of Jesus

Like the vast majority of you, when I write an email or a blog post, I do so on a keyboard that takes it’s name from the first 6 letters at the top left of the keyboard: QWERTY.  And probably also like most of you, I have always worked under the assumption that some great minds than mine had mathematically determined this layout as the most efficient and logical pattern to use.  However, that’s not exactly true.

The QWERTY keyboard was developed in the 1870’s by newspaper editor Christopher Sholes.  Sholes went through several trials, both with respect to the layout of the keys and the construction of the machine, in an attempt to produce a model a writing machine that would function efficiently and effectively.  The faster a person could use the machine, the more likely it would lock up, especially when more frequently used letters were too near to each other.  Sholes dedicated himself to overcoming those problems, which eventually led to the QWERTY layout we are familiar with today.

While some claim that Sholes intentionally created a layout that would force the user to type more slowly, that isn’t entirely true.  Rather, the layout was designed to avoid the problems caused by the physical design of the machine.  It worked so well that it quickly became the standard layout on all machines.  However, as technology advanced, the problems that necessitated such a layout disappeared, yet QWERTY has persisted.  It is easily argued that far more efficient and even healthy layouts available (such as the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, whose proponents argue even reduces carpal tunnel syndrome).  Yet try as they might, no one has made any marked headway in changing the norm.

So what does keyboard layout have to do with deviant sexuality?  Bear with me a little longer as I make that connection.  First, let’s talk about deviance.  That word, especially when coupled with “sexuality” immediately conjures up ideas of moral compromise at best, perversion at worst.  However, deviance simply means things, such as actions, behaviors or ideas, that violate cultural and social norms.  That is they deviate from that which is expected.  Deviance, as a concept, is not at all about morality.  So in this case, if we came across a keyboard that used a different layout than QWERTY, it would be a deviant example in our context.  Of course, few people would have a moral outcry about such an example, but inform them that their workplace will be requiring them to make the switch and people begin to behave badly.  Why?

There obvious argument is that the change is unnecessary.  If it’s not broke, why fix it?  The inevitable delays of relearning the system would seem to over shadow the potential efficiency improvement promised, at least in the short term.  And yet, even with convincing evidence in the long term benefit, most people wouldn’t bother.  In fact, the vast majority of QWERTY users, if they give it any thought at all, just accept their own assumption that someone who knows better has created the best possible layout.  Why rock the boat?

These same dynamic are often at play with respect to sexuality and gender identity, yet with obviously much bigger stakes.  So many characteristics that we associate with what it means to be masculine or feminine have formed through incredibly complex histories, shaped by culture, climate, the arts, economics, politics, etc.  And biological factors, such as body chemistry and physiology, play significant roles in developing them.  Looking throughout history and across cultures, we find an endless (and increasing) diversity in how these factors play out- sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, sometimes with no apparent good or bad either way.

We become familiar with what we know, what we were raised to see, experience and participate in.  As the world continues to get smaller and more interconnected, those cultural ghettos increasingly bump into each other.  For many, this can feel disconcerting and even threatening.  Their very fundamental assumptions about certain realities are being challenged by examples that contradict their norm.  This leads to groups circling the wagon to defend those fundamentals, reinforcing their belief that their norms are universal absolutes and that any that are different are flawed and, essentially, deviant.

As a Christian, I believe that there are absolute truths.  So it is not a matter (or an option) for to simply dismiss everyone who responds as described above.  After all, what if the fundamental they are defending is an absolute truth?  That is a fair question, but one that is not easy to answer.  Thus, we need to be willing to hold our beliefs with the tempered conviction- a chastened certainty- willing to explore the possibility that what we reject as immoral might simply be different.

I recently asked Scot McKnight the question, “Are there universal (and/or biblical) characteristics that are gender specific?”.  After acknowledging the complexity of the issue, Scot responded:

“My reading in the past leads me to think this is a question for which the answers are just more questions.”

Anyone who knows Scot knows that he is not suggesting that, given this dynamic, we shouldn’t ask the questions.  Far from it!  Rather, I believe Scot is cautioning us not to be too quick to jump to conclusions and be willing to keep exploring these dynamics carefully.

In many ways, my masculinity is deviant from culture in which I live.  I’ve never enjoyed sports much.  My very competitive wife is the gifted athlete in our family.  I’ve always been drawn to theatre, poetry and music styles such as classical, opera, etc.  I’ve known for years that my part of the vocation that God has called me to is to be a stay-at-home Dad.  For some, this is not only deviant, but grounds for formal church discipline.

As a man and a father, I do not take their concerns lightly.  I do not want to violate God’s plan for me, nor do I want to risk harming my son by modeling something wrong.  So I have genuinely dedicated myself to years of study, prayer and consideration.  While I have not come to absolute conclusions on all matters, I believe with deep conviction that I am fully and wholly a man.  I am the man God wanted/wants me to be.  I will raise my son to be the man God has created him to be, even if that means my son will be rugby playing outdoors man who likes hunting moose with his teeth!

We must always remember that our visceral reaction to the deviance we encounter is not proof that such things are worthy of suspicion or condemnation.  Ignorance and unfamiliarity can fuel certainty in powerful ways.  Jesus was (and is), in so many ways, a deviant in His time- socially, religiously, politically, economically.  We must never forget that our identity and our unity as Christians is entirely and essentially bound up in that same person.

Tags: culture, deviance, gender

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 19th, 2011 at 5:41 pm and is filed under Community, Jesus, Missional. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.