Checking In: Congregations, Cats, Anti-Racism Class, etc.

Ah, school and work are setting in. I’m dying to jump into the conversation on Unitarian Universalist-identified people who are not part of congregations, the limits of Unitarian Univeralist congregationalism, the exciting possibilities for broadening our vision of what it means to be Unitarian Universalist, and the ways that this could expand our reach and ministry. Ms. Theologian links to the various posts here and also eloquently writes about why she is Unitarian Universalist but does not go to church. But, alas, I just don’t have the time to craft something worth putting out there - a lot of important things have already been said. (Come to think of it, I will refer readers to a 2006 post - A Congregationally Based Movement? On Community Ministry and the Work of Our Faith in the World - about my call to community ministry and how I struggle with how that fits into a congregationally-based movement. Slightly longer. Written in third person - why? I do not know. Maybe just how I was feeling that day….)

In other news, our cat Murray is hanging in there. He changes all the time. But seems to not be getting worse (as of the past two days - but who knows).

I am teaching OWL (a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum - Our Whole Lives) and loving it. I was never a huge fan of working with teens. Not so much that I was against it, but I just never understood how people could think it was so awesome. Not that I am clamoring to be a youth minister now, but I “get” it much better how one could consider that as a career option or long-term volunteer option. I’m sure all people who work with young people and really like it think that they are working with especially impressive teens, but I actually think it is true in my case. And my co-facilitator is great too.

I have started five posts relating to the sexual purity movement, a NYTimes article on meat, “the hard work of being a peaceful presence”, and the GA brou-ha-ha (as Philocrities put it) but none have gotten done enough that I want to put them out there. I guess I will just have to resign myself to things being slower while classes are going on and chiming in on discussions a little late in the game.

Speaking of classes, I am taking one called Racializing Whiteness with an excellent instructor who presents ideas, but does a great job of not making everyone feel guilty and horrible (which was my fear of what it would look like) and leaves room for the exploration of issues rather than preaching some sort of party line about the only and right way to be anti-racist (again, this was a fear of mine). I am learning a lot. And now fear less nervous of saying something “wrong” about anti-racism work, since it can be (lest we all forget the brown bag controversy last year) a sensitive subject in our denomination. I think it will help me be more anti-racist (or, framed more positively, more just) in my own life and inform (in a positive way) my ministry and scholarship. Somehow it is a huge relief to me that it is a really helpful and meaningful class and that we have room to learn and grow and grapple with hard questions.

That’s all for now.

p.s. I just read Chalice Chick’s reasons she does go to church. It is super-good. A great compliment to Ms. Theologian’s post about why she does not go to church.

It’s that time again. UU Blog Awards

It is time for the UU Blog nominations and awards! How about that. First, I just want to encourage bloggers to highlight their favorite posts of the year because I went to go nominate people and then it became a huge hassle to try to go back to my favorite blogs and find favorite posts. You are doing us all a favor by highlighting your favorite posts and what categories you think you might like to be nominated for in the all-around category. Don’t be shy!

As for this little blog, I won the best seminarian blog last year for which I am very grateful! I would say that since there isn’t a best UU vegetarianism/eco-friendly living writing category, this would again be the category that I would be most happy to be nominated for this year.

And I have two favorite posts, one of which I think has no chance of winning anything.

Drumroll….

My favorite post is The Secret is Total Bunk about the ethical and theological problems with a philosophy/mindset/belief that if you believe that certain good things will happen to you, they will and if they don’t, it is because you didn’t believe enough as put forth by the best-selling book The Secret.

Second favorite is my response to the UU World Article on Ethical Eating although somehow I feel like this is not going to be a winner.

*There were also quite a few follow-up posts on this theme:

Ethical Eating in UU World - A Short Response

Sigh. I am SO trying to be such a friendly, non-judgmental vegetarian. And apparently not coming across that way.

Read Reader Responses to UU World Ethical Eating Article

Over at Trivium: More on Ethical Eating (Food Post I)

Scott Wells on Good Food (Food Post II)

Death by Veganism: A Response to the NYTimes Article (Food Post III)

Anyway, that’s about it folks. Happy nominating and blogging - and really may I take a moment to say how blessed I feel to be able to learn so much from so many wonderful UU bloggers out there. Thanks to all of you. You are a bunch of smart, thoughtful cookies. I really appreciate what the world of UU blogging has brought into my life.

Peace, E

p.s. Late addition to favorite posts of the year: On the Fluidity of Sexuality; or My Coming Out Story

Be an Advice Columnist for a Day

Dan Savage writes a sex-advice column. This is not an endorsement or non-endorsement of that column, but a call to wise ministers and seminarians everywhere who have read the UUMA guidelines, the MFC reading list (including Sex in the Parish), and have possibly even taken the sexual ethics seminar at Andover Newton that I plan on going to tomorrow morning assuming we are not all blizzarded in.

Savage says he is stumped by a range of questions from readers, one of which is this one:

There’s this new pastor at the church I visit. She’s gorgeous, an athlete, and can read ancient Greek. I’ve managed to get her to lunch twice, despite her schedule, and I spelled out my interest explicitly. She seemed receptive, posited that dating someone in her new congregation could possibly cause issues, but may go hiking with me this weekend. So what’s the protocol for dating a smokin’-hot priestess?

Not Very Good Xian

Savage says: I don’t have answers for these folks. If you do, gentle readers, send ‘em in and we’ll run the mother of all Savage Love web extras sometime in the next couple of weeks.

Write him at mail@savagelove.net. Since you can’t write to this young minister and tell her the potential dangers that come with dating someone in your congregation and lack of setting clear boundaries with congregants, what can you at least tell the guy? Does it matter that he “visits” the church? An opportunity to educate the public on healthy ministerial relationships!

Polyamory on Susie Bright’s Blog

Susie Bright is known as a sex-positive feminist. I like a lot of the stuff she says and does. Not all of it, mind you, but a lot.

I know polyamory/non-monogamy/having more than one partner (there are varying opinions as to if these are different things and to what extent) is a point of contention in some Unitarian Universalist circles, and I don’t want to reignite some sort of dramatic blogosphere discussion (as happened in July). But I did want to point out a recent posting on Susie Bright’s (possibly not work safe*) blog, “Peppermint, On The Strange Credibility of Polyamory,”* which LINKS TO THIS BLOG. Susie Bright is sort of famous. And her blog links to a posting on polyamory right here on this very blog. This is almost as exciting as being mentioned in UU World!

So, if this is a topic that interests you, I suggest you read the post. And just look around her blog. Remember, I don’t agree with everything she says (please don’t post comments pointing out what you believe to be the problematic things she says and does) and you don’t have to either. But she does say a lot of important, good stuff that we need to hear in a world where sex-negative, embarrassed, sad, and shameful feelings are way too common when it comes to sexuality and our bodies.

Afterthought: While Rev. Debra Haffner (sexologist, minister, and the Director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing) and Susie Bright have quite different approaches to promoting healthy attitudes about sexuality, and likely many points of disagreement, I thought that I would point out Rev. Debra Haffner’s blog Sexuality and Religion: What’s the Connection? because Rev. Haffner also strikes me as a very sex-positive person that we are lucky to have as part of Unitarian Universalism. Take a look. Her blog is excellent.

*It really depends on how sensitive your work is about what is “work safe”. Breasts are on the page. But as Susie Bright herself points out in the comments, it isn’t anything more than you would see in Vanity Fair or Vogue.

*Correction: In my excitement about being linked to on Susie Bright’s blog, I failed to read carefully and originally thought Susie Bright wrote the post On the Strange Credibility of Polyamory, but it is in fact a reposting from another blog by another author, PepperMint. Still, it is on her blog and still worth the read.

God’s Gift to Women: Discovering the Lost Greatness of Masculinity

I’m working hard on finals and Latin, but in searching for some books for a paper on sexual purity, I found this baby which I thought was just so great, I had to share. Because, really, don’t you think that what we need these days is a book explaining how masculinity is God’s gift to women? In case you want to order it as a stocking stuffer for that special woman in your life who might not yet know about this gift from God, click on the link.

God’s Gift to Women: Discovering the Lost Greatness of Masculinity

The Queen of the Scottish Fairies; NYTimes story about a little boy that loved his skirt

http://modan.blogs.nytimes.com/** This so reminds me of something that we would read in Women’s Studies 101. In a way, I love it. I wish that things ended so lovely. Maybe in Cambridge, MA they do. I’m with the mom on this, mostly, except stories like this do leave out important things. We read this story X: Fabulous Child’s Story and I always thought it was a little too idealistic. Great if your kid is all about just being his or herself and ignores gender norms. But these sorts of stories leave out the part where a child in his/her preschool class calls him a fag, and then the next door neighbors call your husband a pansy, and then the kid eventually gets beat up in second grade, the principal calls you, the teacher calls child protective services, and then the child is in therapy and hates you because you let him wear a tutu when he was 4. Not that all this should happen and maybe it won’t if you live in a super-progressive town, but in Ohio or Kentucky, mostly, I’m pretty sure my version of what could happen is a best-case-scenario.

Anyway, I still loved the story and long for a world where there are happy endings to boys that want to wear skirts.

**I realized that this is a New York Times select article. Darn it! Okay, so I’ll explain. It is a little cartoon/book/story on Ruth Modan’s blog about a little boy that loves to wear his tutu. The dad doesn’t think this is a great idea. The mom is like, “Hey, just let him be.” So the boy wears the tutu and is happy. Finally, they are going to a costume party and the dad can’t take it anymore, and then the daughter says “Let him wear my plaid skirt” and so then it is more like a Scottish tartan and the dad thinks it is more acceptable, and then at the end the little boy announces that he is the queen of the scottish fairies, which of course, was not quite what the dad was looking for. Its cuter when you read it than when I describe it.

Queer Identity Questions

So in my post On the Fluidity of Sexuality; or My Coming Out Story I wrote about how I identify as queer rather than bisexual (even given the awkwardness of explaining this given that my partner is male, and since most people expect a “queer” woman to be, well, way different than me). And today I saw this super-exciting article called Why I Don’t Do Bi which I encourage everyone to read. It found it really eloquent and great at expressing why someone might identify as queer rather that G, L or B. (Maybe T, too, but I know less about that.) Of course, the article raises questions about how to balance advocacy for same-sex marriage, and GLBT rights, while at the same time trying to destabilize binary understandings of sexuality and gender and bring into question the man/woman model of gender and the homo/hetero/bi model of sexuality. Hard questions. Sorry I don’t have better answers just now, but I encourage you to read the article and if you want to learn more, take a glance at my work-in-progress bibliography on queer theology which also deals with queer theory and that sort of thing.

The Discussion on Polyamory / People With More Than One Romantic Partner

So there appears to be quite the discussion in the UU Blogosphere on polyamory - that is, people who are not so much into monogamy (one partner) but feel okay with or pulled toward having more than one romantic partner or loves - poly (many) amory (loves). I posted on this a little while back, but not in the context of the independent affiliates discussion, which you can read about here and here.

The Lively Tradition has been the main poster (here too), with Boy in the Bands, Chalice Chick, Never Say Never to Your Traveling Self, Liberal Faith Development chiming in, and Philocrites referring us some of his older posts.

A lot has been said. I guess I just want to highlight the need for a parsing of two separate issues. One is if Unitarian Universalists should, as a movement, support legal rights for polyamorous folks, and/or should we spend our time and energy thinking and talking about the importance of this as a legal question.

The other issue is if it is possible for consenting adults to love and/or relate intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity, and without causing harm to children involved in that relationship, and without somehow threatening the minimal social framework that keeps the universe as stable as it is (which is not very, but it could be worse). You get the idea - is polyamory just weird and bad and something to be avoided, or at the very least kept quiet, or can it be a reasonably normal, okay thing that is certainly not going to become the norm, but isn’t scary or weird or messing up kids.

As you can see, I am trying to move away from an ultra-careful phrasing of this, as so many people have taken a lot of time to do in the comments sections on some of the other postings. I’m trying to de-dramatize this a little bit, I suppose, but also I’ve never been one for treatises arguing super-logically, and rationally on every point because I don’t think this is how most people think.

Anyway, so what I’m trying to say is that I think folks on all sides of this need to be clearer about what they are talking about. The UUPA (Unitarian Universalist for Polyamorous Awareness) claims that their thing is about just that - awareness. The recognition that there are people in partnerships with more than one other person in our congregations, so we need to figure out a way to minister to these folks with love and care. I, naively, often take people at their word, it seems that there is actually a bit of a bigger agenda at least in parts of the UUPA. I am not all that familiar with how this bigger agenda has been communicated, but it seems like a lot of people are aware of it, and it has something to do with sort of taking the marriage/legal rights thing on in a similar way that the UUs did with same-sex marriage. That said, it seems like some who are not so pro-polyamory are conflating the moral/ethical questions related to polyamory automatically with whether or not this should result in legal recognition of marriage and/or whether or not UUs should take this on as a project.

So, in sum, all I am saying at this point is that this is a sticky issue, and it makes a lot of sense for everyone to be clearer about what they are talking about:

1) legal-rights/marriage/UUA-as-a-lobbying-organization/UUism-as-a-platform-for-political causes OR

2) the potential/reality of polyamory/multiple-partner-relationships to be ethical and just (and how, if at all, this relates to theological questions).

To me, these are separate issues because even if you think that poly relationships can be just lovely for all involved, it is another question whether you think that should be a legally recognized entity, and another one whether you think it is wise for our movement to somehow take this on as one of our “things”.

I have opinions on all of this, but I don’t feel like I have the patience to articulate it in a way that would suit anyone. Maybe another time.

I just hope everyone can be respectful and nice about this whole thing. I hate it when people get mean about things like this.

Much peace, Elizabeth

Article on People With More Than One Partner in Salon.com

I know a lot of people freak out about Unitarian Universalists that support/advocate/are okay with relationships that are non-monogamous (often called polyamorists, although I guess I tend to avoid that term since it sounds identity-ish - it isn’t like people in monogamous relationships go around calling themselves monogamists… but I digress). Anyway, I tend to think that all the freaking out or abhorrence or whatever of people who aren’t gung-ho about monogamy is a bit dramatic and not that fair. I’ve been meaning to write a post on marriage/the modern (or post-modern) relationship for a while, so perhaps this is a precursor.

All of this just to point out an article in Salon.com www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/06/14/polyamory/index.html that does (I think) a decent job of de-dramatizing people with multiple romantic partners in their life (or who are open to such constellations). I also read a good article in Tikkun about it a while back www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0701/frontpage/monogamy. Just so no one overreacts, I am not advocating or coming out with an opinion on this - rather, I guess I just feel like relationships, love, traditional marriage, jealousy, monogamy are things that need to be reflected on and assessed. I feel like the whole get married to one partner and stick with that your whole life and be 100% monogamous just isn’t working on a big scale, as evidenced by adultery and divorce rates. I’m not saying non-monogamy is the answer, but rather that we need to consider the current accepted “right” way to do things. These are two reflection pieces around this idea. (I also reviewed a good book on marriage here a while back, which is also part of this overall conversation.)

Also, a note on the blog. I am realizing that I don’t have as much to say as I thought I would. I considered retiring from Elizabeth’s Little Blog, but every once in a while, I DO have something that seems blog worthy. So perhaps that is being downgraded to an occasional blog. It has been that way for a while now, but I suppose I have yet to acknowledge it - always thinking I would get around to posting more often.

On the Fluidity of Sexuality; or My Coming Out Story

When I was about 10, there was a Sally Jesse Raphael show on TV (anyone remember that lovely show?) and it was a segment on….. bisexuals. Back in 1989 that was still a talk-show worthy topic. “With men? With women? Crazy or just confused?” And there was a woman who was talking about her bisexuality and she said something along the lines of “I just like the person. I don’t care if its a man or a woman - I am attracted to the person.” At ten, this struck me as very wise and something that resonated with me.

Fast-forward to my first year in college at a feminist majority meeting. There was a blond, hippie-ish woman at the meeting and I couldn’t stop thinking about her. As I was writing in my journal not too long after that I sort of came to a very matter of fact conclusion that I was attracted to women and not just men. It didn’t feel that dramatic to me, maybe because it had been there for a while. I was an avid read of the Seventeen Magazine “Sex and Your Body” column as a teenager and there were often questions along the lines of “I have a crush on a girl at school. Does that make me gay?” and the answer was that no, not necessarily. Girls get crushes on girls all the time and it doesn’t mean you are a lesbian. So throughout high school, I think I put girl-crushes in this category. Plus, I had lots of crushes on boys too, and so clearly I was not a lesbian. Again, this was before GLTB stuff was big on the radar. Pre-Will and Grace, Pre-Gay/Straight Alliance Clubs. I grew up on a farm in Ohio. It wasn’t as if I didn’t know about GLBT-ness (my parents were relatively liberal), but it wasn’t the sort of issue it is now. I thought it was fine to be gay or a lesbian. It just never occurred to me that it could be me.

So anyway, I had this realization that I could love women sexually and as a life-partner my first year of college. At the time, I was dating a guy who I cared for a lot. I could envision dating or marrying a man too. So I called myself bisexual. This was just at the time when this was getting to be “cool” which I hated because I didn’t want to be a college woman experimenting with women or making out with women at frat parties or something a la girls gone wild. It quickly felt like a solid part of my self.

To make a long story short, my college boyfriend and I broke up for reasons unrelated to my bisexuality. I dated a wonderful woman for a summer and then went abroad. I would have liked it to work with her, but being abroad was difficult. And then, I met my partner when I was abroad. The plan was not for it to be serious. But sometimes you can’t do much about that and before long it was serious and I couldn’t imagine my life without him.

When I was dating my girlfriend during the wonderful summer we were together she suggested a book called Pomosexuals: Challenging Assumptions about Gender and Sexuality which was really helpful for me. It was a collection of essays by people who didn’t fit into the hetero/gay/lesbian framework - a male who becomes a female lesbian, trans folks, a heterosexual woman who is attracted to gay men - there were a range of sexualities. It made a lot of sense to me. I became more interested in queer issues - where queer denotes a range of sexualities that don’t use or fit into the hetero/homo model of sexualities.

So now, I call myself queer and not bisexual. That is, when I call myself anything, which I still sort of tend to avoid. I am so fine with the way that women are feeling more open to experiment with other women. Yet, for me, the popularity of “bisexuality” has made it feel like not a right fit for me. Aside from that, it implies a dualistic framework that doesn’t seem to apply to me. Bi means two - you like men and/or women. But for me, queer encompasses a wider range of sexualities that doesn’t break it down into either/or.

As I’ve written before, sometimes I can be a bit naive about how things are supposed to go. It was this way with Christianity, church in general, feminism, and queerness. Somehow I always imagine people will somehow live up to their best selves. I do this with people too - expect too much. So, it has been a tad discouraging to try to dip my toes into TBGLQ circles where often B is not so embraced, or a Q woman with a male partner (and married at that! gasp!) doesn’t quite count as “in.” I haven’t felt so welcomed. I’ve felt shy about being somehow “out” as queer when I am partner with a man - I feel like people won’t take me seriously, that I can “pass” too easily - that I have it too easy - as if I want to have my cake (hetero privilege) and eat it to (queer sexuality). And I won’t even start on my ambivalent feelings about marriage. That is another post.

I have been meaning to write about this for a long time. I think it is important to question our assumptions about our own sexualities and that of others. Maybe our assumptions are right. But maybe they could be thought about differently. I hope that this post will maybe open some doors, challenge assumptions, encourage folks to think about the ways that none of us fit so easily into the sexuality boxes that we are often put into (be it BLTGQ or S).

Judith Butler and Marcella Althaus-Reid both write a lot about how binary models of sexuality are not just any old framework for sexuality, but it is a framework that has caused much violence and much pain. To have hetero/homo model of sexuality sets up the framework not only heterosexual privilege, but heterosexual ideology that permeates so much of the world causes emotional and physical violence to far too many people. What would it mean to think of sexuality more fluidly? Not as either or? Or defined only by the sex/gender of people we are attracted to?

I ask, kindly, that any responses to this post are gentle, if you disagree. I understand that there are a lot of sensitive issues here, a lot that remains to be said, and a lot at stake with these sorts of topics. But remember that this is also my own story - my own incomplete story. A blog post can’t touch on everything or deal with all issues adequately. I hope to write more about this - queer issues, queer theology, queer theory, and so on. Thanks.  E