I've always liked the idea of a vision quest, the Native America tradition of a young person going on a personalized adventure to discover their identity, their real self, receive guidance and purpose. This is a time of transition, discovery, exploration.
I recently read a post about the concept of a faith quest, which I think is a Christianized reflection of this type of transition. A faith quest is a proactive personal decision to determine what a person really believes, who they are in terms of the big picture and what their self-determined purpose will be. This type of self analysis takes dramatic courage, because it is so much easier to allow ourselves to live in the assumptions and status-quo of our circumstances. "To doubt what we think we know in order to explore and correct ourselves"
The issue that often arises when an individual embarks on a faith quest is the extreme and overblown reaction by family, friends and fellow church members. In extreme patriarchy (where the male figure is responsible for the family's or congregation's spiritual well-being), this reaction, in the guise of "concern", morphs into judgmental, often passive-aggressive emotional abuse. "Even a prayer or a blessing can be designed as
a hurtful rebuke."
Why is a faith quest threatening to people? Especially the person undergoing the quest. Christianity and Mormonism in general have created such a negative and shaming narrative about doubt and faith exploration that an individual who is experiencing this type of quest is not only experiencing that process, but also the guilt and shame for being on this quest. The ideal fulfillment of this quest is a deeper understanding of self and place in a religion, a culture and broad society in general. "It can bring us into deeper trust and
relationship to deity and each other". Doubt, or misunderstanding, the feeling that something isn't right.... isn't that a spiritual prompting? Why do we socially and emotionally penalize those who are attempting a faith quest?
We’re all on some sort of faith quest. "Rather than
mark the path by transition or crisis, why not see the whole thing as a
quest in making our way back to God?" I firmly believe that we all have different routes and paths in this quest. We all have different challenges and circumstances and no one has the right to judge another's path. We need to be allowed to change, to explore and transition without social sanctions and judgement.
Another reason why the idea of a faith quest resonates with me is that a faith quest also has an epic, exploratory kind of ring to it. Like Bilbo leaving the shire... Like Link leaving the Great Deku Tree... Like Merlin leaving the reef.... Like Captain Kirk beaming down to an unknown planet.... Like every episode of Doctor Who.... Every good story has this type of plot twist. Why should our reality be any different?
So, as with any vision quest, I don't know how my personal faith quest will conclude. As I try to be more self-aware, more patient and open to ideas, I have hope that I will discover my path, which I suspect will not be the same as any other.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Ukulele Songs, Grad School and Dinosaurs-with-Tiny-Arms
I know I tend to rant and climb on a soap box, but I don't mean to always be negative. After reading through my last few posts, I decided I needed to share something more fluffy.... something light-hearted and fun. Then today I saw this:
Ukuleles are such happy, social instruments! I love it! I've been playing myself for a few years (The hipster in me must point out that I was into the ukulele way before everyone else rediscovered them!!!), but gotten more serious recently.
This is the ukulele I've been playing. His name is Cecil.
We are really getting along well!
We are really getting along well!
I'm also getting ready to start grad school next month..... Yippee!
Going to be studying library science, with an emphasis on archives.
Support your local library!
And finally, this gave me a nice chuckle this week:
Have a happy, marshmallow-filled, butterfly-attacking, chocolate-covered week!
Other Interesting Things I've read this week:
The Things We Are Prepared to Walk Away From
Why I Wouldn't Attend Pastor Steepek's Church
Feminism and the New Domesticity
Why I Wouldn't Attend Pastor Steepek's Church
Feminism and the New Domesticity
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Chivalry vs. Misogyny
A few days ago at work, a coworker and I were discussing a task, a task involving some physical effort. He made the comment, 'You shouldn't do it by yourself, you know... Because of chivalry.' I immediately responded, 'You mean misogyny!'
Does chivalry even exist? Or is it an invention by the male-centric structure of human culture to make subjugation more palatable? Let a man open a door for you, it's chivalry! Let a man pay for your meal/movie/entertainment, it's chivalry! This process teaches women, and especially young girls to not be independent, to rely on men, that they are unable to provide for themselves. It allows thought processes where a woman's place is at home, protected and reliant upon their man.
Can you imagine if the common dating methods were gender swapped? Most men I know would cringe at the thought of a woman paying!
When I've tried to discuss this idea with other women, I inevitably get some response to the effect, we could take care of ourselves but its important to make men feel needed and important. This is completely belittling any action taken by men, to the passive aggressive control of women. This is not a function of a healthy relationship!
I think that men and women should individually act in the best interest of each other, dividing tasks and repositioning according to ability and experience, not gender. There is nothing as frustrating to me, as not being allowed to do something simply because I was born with a certain genetic code.
Just to clarify, I'm not blaming men for acting 'chivalrous'. They are acting in noble, polite and according to how society teaches them to act. They are just as much victims in this gender-imposed mess as women. And they deal with and are negatively affected by misogyny as much as women.
Does chivalry even exist? Or is it an invention by the male-centric structure of human culture to make subjugation more palatable? Let a man open a door for you, it's chivalry! Let a man pay for your meal/movie/entertainment, it's chivalry! This process teaches women, and especially young girls to not be independent, to rely on men, that they are unable to provide for themselves. It allows thought processes where a woman's place is at home, protected and reliant upon their man.
Can you imagine if the common dating methods were gender swapped? Most men I know would cringe at the thought of a woman paying!
When I've tried to discuss this idea with other women, I inevitably get some response to the effect, we could take care of ourselves but its important to make men feel needed and important. This is completely belittling any action taken by men, to the passive aggressive control of women. This is not a function of a healthy relationship!
I think that men and women should individually act in the best interest of each other, dividing tasks and repositioning according to ability and experience, not gender. There is nothing as frustrating to me, as not being allowed to do something simply because I was born with a certain genetic code.
Just to clarify, I'm not blaming men for acting 'chivalrous'. They are acting in noble, polite and according to how society teaches them to act. They are just as much victims in this gender-imposed mess as women. And they deal with and are negatively affected by misogyny as much as women.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Modern Children of Israel
Disclaimer... The opinions expressed here are my own and not those of my employer, my church, my university, my family or my friends. These opinions will change from time to time... Here is today's rant.
I've been reading the Book of Matthew in the New Testament lately. I'm trying to get a new perspective on Christ and his gospel. Today, in Matthew 12, the thing that really stood out to me was how anti-establishmentary Christ was. This whole chapter is him breaking traditions and rules, upsetting people. He is consistently outwitting and dressing down members of the traditional religious community.
The Mormon Church is much like the Children of Israel in the Old Testament. They take great pride at being different. At living in the world but not of the world. In the days of David and Solomon, one of their greatest sins was polluting the purity of the community by marrying foreign wives. There was no proselyting, no invitation to join the "saints", but rather war and death over property rights. These people could not live together in peace because they were so intolerant. This also perfectly describes the Pharisees and traditional religious leaders, with whom Christ constantly is butting heads. Elder Oaks has discussed the importance of not tolerating anything but pure Mormon Christianity (here).
As a young woman, I took great pride in my long shorts, my dateless status and my refusal to participate in school dances or activities. I had more righteous, important things to do with my time, was my thought process. I went to seminary (a church class) at 6 AM every day, went to church services 3 hours on Sunday, church activities on Wednesday nights, dances occasionally. But, I'm not so sure that we are any different from the rest of world, especially the conservative Christian world. There are many other Christian groups that are just as self-righteous and sure that they, and only they, have the truth.
Any organization/establishment has to deal with the dilemma of "melting pot" vs. "mixed salad" in terms of culture, structure, organization, etc. America used to be seen as a melting pot, a place where people of all cultures could come together and discard their cultural identities to become America. The concept of a mixed salad is that people can and should retain their identities while interacting with and supporting the structure.
Just like any country or cultural group, religion has to deal with "melting" vs "mixing". Do we attempt to assimilate newcomers? Or do we respect their traditions and encourage them to maintain their identity? This is where my problems with missionary work come out. What right does any church have to come into someone's life and tell them that they are living incorrectly? Now, there are extremes, with drug abuse, alcoholism and other fundamentally detrimental behavior choices. But I think it takes a substantial amount of self-righteous moral superiority to tell Hawaiian women they are dressed immodestly, or African men that they need to wear white shirts and ties to church, or that quasi-traditional Protestant hymns are the only appropriate music for church, played on an organ. God is not only in those types of churches. I believe that many people feel the presence of God in different ways than three hours of church, listening to white-shirted men instill guilt in them.
Back to Matthew, why did there need to be an apostasy? We Mormons are taught that the gospel was taken from the earth after Christ's death because of the wickedness of the people. But if Christ established his perfect church, it should have stood the test of time. There are always wicked people on earth, but there are also always good innocent people. I propose that Christ didn't so much found a formal church, as debunk intolerance and religious superiority. He fought against the religious establishment. And the Mormon church has done the direct opposite, by building up a massive structure, a "pure" and "righteous" culture that people are expected to assimilate into to be a part of the "one true church". I remember the first time I saw pictures of the new conference center. I'll be honest, my first thought was of the great and spacious building discussed in the Book of Mormon, the embodiment of pride and sin.
The Church (yes, with a capitol "C") has grown so big and unwieldy that I feel it has lost touch with it's members. The combination of growth outside the US, political missteps and it's seeming refusal to allow women more substantial roles has made it a massive bureaucratic machine rolling on, intent on "melting" any violations from what it perceives as the norm. In other words, assimilation is your only righteous option. And after growing up in the church, it definitely is easier to just go with the flow, to accept the demands of the Church. I've taken real courage from my fellow bloggers, Young Mormon Feminists and Feminist Mormon Housewives. I am still trying to understand my relationship with religion, still trying on various ideologies and schools of thought. I don't have the answers yet, but I feel like I'm beginning to ask the questions.
I've been reading the Book of Matthew in the New Testament lately. I'm trying to get a new perspective on Christ and his gospel. Today, in Matthew 12, the thing that really stood out to me was how anti-establishmentary Christ was. This whole chapter is him breaking traditions and rules, upsetting people. He is consistently outwitting and dressing down members of the traditional religious community.
The Mormon Church is much like the Children of Israel in the Old Testament. They take great pride at being different. At living in the world but not of the world. In the days of David and Solomon, one of their greatest sins was polluting the purity of the community by marrying foreign wives. There was no proselyting, no invitation to join the "saints", but rather war and death over property rights. These people could not live together in peace because they were so intolerant. This also perfectly describes the Pharisees and traditional religious leaders, with whom Christ constantly is butting heads. Elder Oaks has discussed the importance of not tolerating anything but pure Mormon Christianity (here).
As a young woman, I took great pride in my long shorts, my dateless status and my refusal to participate in school dances or activities. I had more righteous, important things to do with my time, was my thought process. I went to seminary (a church class) at 6 AM every day, went to church services 3 hours on Sunday, church activities on Wednesday nights, dances occasionally. But, I'm not so sure that we are any different from the rest of world, especially the conservative Christian world. There are many other Christian groups that are just as self-righteous and sure that they, and only they, have the truth.
Any organization/establishment has to deal with the dilemma of "melting pot" vs. "mixed salad" in terms of culture, structure, organization, etc. America used to be seen as a melting pot, a place where people of all cultures could come together and discard their cultural identities to become America. The concept of a mixed salad is that people can and should retain their identities while interacting with and supporting the structure.
Just like any country or cultural group, religion has to deal with "melting" vs "mixing". Do we attempt to assimilate newcomers? Or do we respect their traditions and encourage them to maintain their identity? This is where my problems with missionary work come out. What right does any church have to come into someone's life and tell them that they are living incorrectly? Now, there are extremes, with drug abuse, alcoholism and other fundamentally detrimental behavior choices. But I think it takes a substantial amount of self-righteous moral superiority to tell Hawaiian women they are dressed immodestly, or African men that they need to wear white shirts and ties to church, or that quasi-traditional Protestant hymns are the only appropriate music for church, played on an organ. God is not only in those types of churches. I believe that many people feel the presence of God in different ways than three hours of church, listening to white-shirted men instill guilt in them.
Back to Matthew, why did there need to be an apostasy? We Mormons are taught that the gospel was taken from the earth after Christ's death because of the wickedness of the people. But if Christ established his perfect church, it should have stood the test of time. There are always wicked people on earth, but there are also always good innocent people. I propose that Christ didn't so much found a formal church, as debunk intolerance and religious superiority. He fought against the religious establishment. And the Mormon church has done the direct opposite, by building up a massive structure, a "pure" and "righteous" culture that people are expected to assimilate into to be a part of the "one true church". I remember the first time I saw pictures of the new conference center. I'll be honest, my first thought was of the great and spacious building discussed in the Book of Mormon, the embodiment of pride and sin.
The Church (yes, with a capitol "C") has grown so big and unwieldy that I feel it has lost touch with it's members. The combination of growth outside the US, political missteps and it's seeming refusal to allow women more substantial roles has made it a massive bureaucratic machine rolling on, intent on "melting" any violations from what it perceives as the norm. In other words, assimilation is your only righteous option. And after growing up in the church, it definitely is easier to just go with the flow, to accept the demands of the Church. I've taken real courage from my fellow bloggers, Young Mormon Feminists and Feminist Mormon Housewives. I am still trying to understand my relationship with religion, still trying on various ideologies and schools of thought. I don't have the answers yet, but I feel like I'm beginning to ask the questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)