• home
  • about
  • books
  • links

Posts Tagged ‘culture’

« Older Entries

Deviant Sexuality

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

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
Posted in Community, Jesus, Missional | 13 Comments »

Being Missional In A Culture Of Compromise

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Previous Post -Gardening In Exile

Last night at Little Flowers Community small group we were discussing the kind of community of faith we hoped to become.  We started by reflecting on experiences with church in the past that were particularly negative and disappointing.  Then we reflected on experiences with church that stood out as positive or even exceptional, asking what was required for those experiences to be possible.  Finally we examined what the different examples had in common.  In the end, we were able to clearly see, not only what we hoped to become as a community together, but what it would cost each of us to get there.  Our answers were calling us to give more time, energy, consistency, priority, sacrifice- things that seemed obvious but were important to be reminded of.

At one point, it came up that people would more involved if we were doing more in the community- outreach of some kind.  After all, they said, they had been involved off and on in a number of other ministries in the city that had been great.  While they were right to affirm this direction, I found myself sighing with frustration.  This was a conversation I seemed destined to repeat over and over again.  As positively as I could, I affirmed the suggestion and asked: “So what are you waiting for?”

When push came to shove, the answer came down to this: they were waiting for someone to start the ministry so that they could join in.  And this was a problem for me on several levels.  First, “someone” almost always referred to myself or my wife.  Now, the fact that we are career missionaries with many years of experience gives the expectation some credibility.  However, our experience has also been that people also want others to lead so that their involvement could be based on their convenience.  In other words, when it wasn’t convenient, the “leaders” would be left to fill in the gap themselves.  Our small missionary team (which had planted Little Flowers Community and continues to work full time in the neighbourhood) tried this before and led the group to near-burn out.

Second, and most importantly, this pattern inevitably discipled those some-time volunteers in an experience of missional engagement that was divorced from the nitty-gritty, mundane aspects of ministry.  By allowing people too much access to missional context with requiring them to carry the cost creates the illusion of missional living that can proved dangerous to all involved.  Of course, I am well aware of how such a pattern has emerged.  While some might blame it on influences such as “short term missions” (a claim with some, but less truth than most people might imagine), it has more often been born of desperation and necessity.  Let me explain.

The ability to get people to meaningfully and sacrificially engage in lives of missional service is very, very hard.  We live in a culture of consumer Christianity where people have to be convinced (sold) on an idea or activity.  Even then, their participation and/or support is seen as their exceptional contribution rather than the base-line for required service.  However, the need for people to be involved continues to grow, especially in contexts where the needs are so severe and the resources so scarce (such as in our inner city context).  Therefore, in order to bring the needed people in, we accommodate or even compromise.  One way of doing that is to do all the “behind the scenes”, mundane work so that people can in and participate in the more dynamic aspects of ministry that interest them.

This needs to stop.  By doing this we are actively discipling people into a way of Christian service the affirms and entrenches the individualistic, consumer-driven impulses of our culture.  Further, it creates an illusion of what it means to be missional people that in the end is little more than a shell of the sacred vocation that God calls us to.  Of course God, in His grace, will work through these situations in spite of us.  And of course the the unique gifts of some will predispose them to certain roles and not others.  However, these points do not mitigate the danger and compromise of the approach that is all too common.

What scares me most about this is the fact that, whenever we resist this impulse, we find ourselves standing quite alone.  The Dusty Cover, the ministry that gave birth to Little Flowers Community, had to be closed due to a lack of people willing to consistently and selflessly serve.  By requiring even a little more from people, we’ve seen many move on to more accommodating ministries.  It is discouraging, disheartening and more than a little disturbing.

I am grateful that the core group of people in Little Flowers Community are beginning to see this.  It is particularly difficult for single 20-somethings (who make up the majority of our church) to realize this and adjust to it.  However, the harvest is plentiful and the workers are few.  Has the familiarity with that truth numbed us to the urgency of its message?  We need to begin to require more of ourselves and each other.  We need to resist compromising and begin to call ourselves back to the radical vocation of being the community of Christ, a community called daily to lives of sacrifice, even unto the cross.

What do you think?  Is this a problem for your community?  How do we change this?


Tags: Community, culture, Missional
Posted in Community, Discipleship, Leadership, Missional, church | 13 Comments »

« Older Entries
  • @chrislenshyn @_b_d Of course, all of my arguments are empty considering I'm writing this from a retirement community in Florida. sigh... # 11 hours ago
    Follow Me

    • Adoption (13)
    • Advent (5)
    • Anabaptism (23)
    • Bible (34)
    • Books (70)
    • church (55)
    • Church Planting (34)
    • Community (150)
    • Discipleship (31)
    • Easter (1)
    • emerging church (4)
    • Evangelism (18)
    • Film (9)
    • Gospel (50)
    • Jesus (36)
    • Justice (73)
    • Leadership (23)
    • Missional (251)
    • Money (6)
    • Pastors (9)
    • Peace (17)
    • Personal (13)
    • prayer (7)
    • Sexuality (4)
    • St. Francis (35)
    • Third Place (6)
    • Uncategorized (245)
    • 2012
    • 2011
    • 2010
    • 2009
    • 2008
    • 2007

Jamie Arpin-Ricci – Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
Site Design by SoloDesign.ca
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).