An Open Letter

To the representatives of Campus Christian Fellowship of WWU,

Today, I saw many of you wearing blue shirts that read "I'm sorry" across the front. I was tabling for an event my office is putting on this Thursday.

First and foremost, I want to say thank you. The time and energy you've taken to spread awareness about the possibility of an inclusive and loving Christian community is truly awe inspiring, and given the history of Western society, a lot of actions have been taken in the name of Christ that do not represent His teachings in a way consistent with the kind of love and acceptance he preached.

As an agnostic queer who struggles with this idea of Faith, I can appreciate the effort to make amends for a history that is tied to your most core beliefs. I want you to know that I don't hold you responsible, and I hope that the many people on this campus like me also don't hold you responsible. You are not responsible for the ills of others in the past, but it means so much that you would take on that responsibility anyway. I welcome the opportunities I've had to interact with members of your community and organization to share ideas about faith and what it means to share this earth with people of all kinds of diverse backgrounds.

In turn, I want to offer an apology for the reactionary and often harsh judgement that often arises in the communities that I come from. Just as you cannot represent all Christians, I cannot represent all queers, but this does not mean I do not see or hear the kinds of harsh judgement that get passed on all of Christianity. It does not mean I have not made those judgements in the past. From a social and cultural context, there are and have been tensions between these communities and I think any kind of reparations or restitution must begin with open dialogue. More important than any kind of history is what we do with it, how we learn from it and where we focus our work in the future.

So thank you for opening the conversation.

Sincerely,

Danny

Liminal Being: Gods, Bodies and Self

A friend recently commented on a post from... o.O almost two years ago now. To give yourself context, you should probably go read that first.

After a different post on a similar topic a few months ago, a friend suggested that maybe in reading theology, it would help me contextualize and relate to this paradigm if I were to replace instances of the word "God" with "love."

Now, I'm not sure if that solves or complicates this Christian experience for me because this approach of looking past differences in language helps, and I recognize and honor the messages being shared, but I'm still deeply uncomfortable. I will also be the first to recognize that I've been touched by a higher power. I can feel the presence of the divine in my life, in part because I've sought it out and welcomed it in all forms.

At the same time, I'm a postmodern, poststructural queer. The academic and systemic praxis I've opened myself to are in many ways explicitly counter to the kind of narratives at work within Christianity (that pushing away). I've done reading that seeks to reconcile this: Colossians Remixed was one such endeavor I borrowed from a friend, and while I feel like I better understand some of the underlying tensions between Christianity and what I would call the postmodern condition having done this reading, I just don't feel like I am of the Christian God in the sense that the phrase would usually be used.

A<3 at your service

The above picture is of my first tattoo. I'm considering getting a second one for my 23rd birthday, it would go on my right arm as a kind of parallel to the A<3 on my left. Here, I'll sketch it below:

Rough sketch of potential second tattoo

If you can't tell, that's a slightly stylized version of the symbol for Mercury. The top part that usually looks more like horns, I here represent as wings. I'll connect this all together in a bit, and no, I'm not trying to say I'm joining a sect of Hermeticism.

Imagery and symbolism are important to me, especially as it pertains to my body. I got a tattoo of A<3 because it means something to me. A<3, ACE of hearts, love, memories, and, now that I'm thinking about it, A<3 even has a hermetic influence since I chose Courier New as the typeface I wanted engraved in my body specifically in part because of the play on the word courier with messenger.

A<3 is a powerful symbol to me.

So too is Mercury.

Hermes or Mercury was a Classic god of messengers, traders, tricksters, thieves, and travelers. He was Psychopomp, guiding the souls of the dead to the underworld, and according to some tellings, he was the one who carried dreams from the god Morpheus to sleeping humans. The little glyph above looks like the caduceus that Mercury was depicted as carrying and contains the symbol for earth and the feminine, while somehow being bothandmore. It's also reminiscent of the Egyptian ankh, a symbol for life.

Though I've always been attracted to the role of fool, I'm really not much of a trickster, but I do find myself embodying a certain kind of liminality, standing at boundaries and thresholds, in-between. I put myself in transitional spaces and don't really feel at home if I don't have a certain level of adaptability and variability. Anyone I work with could tell you how much I enjoy standing in their doorways.

Astrologically, Mercury is significant to me because my sun sign, ascendant and moon sign (Virgo, Virgo, Gemini) are all ruled by Mercury. So if I understand my astrology correctly, I should be thrice influenced by this god of in-betweens.

And I would tattoo this symbol of impermanence and crossing thresholds on myself (a wry irony if ever there was one) because I feel like this influence speaks to my truth.

Binary systems leave no room for liminality. Dead religion leaves no room for liminality. The traditional narratives that govern most of Western society and popular Christianity in particular, leave no room for liminality.

There are problems with this liminality. Often times when I feel "off," I feel ungrounded. I feel as if I'm unrooted and unbalanced and floating aimlessly. Usually I'm okay with that, but every once in a while it's unsettling.

But I've also embraced the liminal. The liminal spaces are where we derive our ability to adapt. Communication and thus anything involving communication such as learning is a liminal form. Movement is liminal because it is the body in a state of being not in one place or another, but travelling between them.

Sometimes when I dance, I enter a trance-like state where there's nothing but me and the movement. It's not about where I'm going, but how I'm getting there, the process. This is when I feel most open to Gods.

I meditate on this sometimes. And I would spin like a whirling Dervish if it helped me find this space.

I don't know what this means, or where I'm going, but I'm taking this as a sign of my own process, of my own queering of religion, of my liminality expressing itself for some greater purpose. I think that's one of the lessons I was meant to learn that day almost two years ago.

Sex, Marriage, & Fairytales: A Response

So I've seen this floating around a bit through social media, and I must say great video. Well, worded, articulate, inclusive, clearly influenced by feminist values in that it seeks to move away from the traditional patriarchal values that have led us to the current state of affairs [pun intended] when it comes to marriage.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4OK9DmLpCY


That said, this video is predicated on a Christeo-normative assumption that disallows for any other kind of successful marriage. The only way is through a foundation in Jesus Christ. And for those of you reading this who believe in the Christian god, great. Awesome, even. I hope you take home the fundamental message that there is sanctity in marriage. If we as a society are going to argue over other people's right to that expression of love and happiness we need to look in our own homes first.


But this video makes me uncomfortable. Because I'm not Christian. I don't ever see myself being Christian. I don't particularly want to be Christian. This may change and I reserve the right to make that change if I feel so called. And I'm sure I could find plenty of people (religious and not) who would say the same.


Given the viral nature of this video, then, I think it's worth calling out that Christeo-normativity that makes me uncomfortable. I'm naming it as something to note. Assuming anyone listening to you is Christian (the definition of Christeo-normativity if you didn't catch that) is wrong because if there's one thing I've learned about people, it's that not all of them are Christian. I recognize that when it comes to belief and religion, the conversation is fundamentally at odds with the postmodern plurality I'm working with. 


Most religions by definition are mutually exclusive. You're supposed to spread the word and accept others into the practice that will save you. Only through this god will you make it to heaven [or whatever afterlife they teach]. You can't really be more than one at the same time. In a Christian context, this is commonly referred to as evangelism.


This is counter to the idea of plurality, that each religion is the result of a specific cultural and social causality and each has its own merits and reason for existence. They all have a right to exist and be treated equally. I can't tell you to follow my religion any more than you can tell me to follow yours unless we both mutually agree that we want to change our minds.


I think part of what differentiates between these two ideologies is faith. Or maybe Faith.


I struggle because I want to balance my foundation in plurality, in the knowledge and acceptance that there are many options, with the Faith that so many people have. If I were to make an essentialist statement about my identity, it would be that I thrive in liminality. I'm a human of in-betweens and I chafe under most dominant paradigms that enforce or too strongly advocate a way of thinking or doing things.


So the question that this post poses then is what is the goal of this video? Are we meant to turn to Christ? Are we meant to fix marriage?

"My hope in this poem is to highlight the most frequent and problematic issues marriages face today while also pointing to Jesus as the ultimate healer, redeemer, and restorer of every marriage. Whether single or married, my intention would be that this poem would allow you to look more deeply to Jesus to either better your current marriage, or prepare for your future marriage." -bball1989

The  video description (and video itself) seems to imply both. 


I'm left at a loss, and it seems the only judgement I can make is something akin to:

I'm glad that someone is taking time to address this issues for Christians, but this isn't for me by any means.

This Text is a Sheep in [Beo]wulf's Clothing

Alrighty, lovely blog readers, as promised, here's a copy of the paper I wrote for my English 307 class.

When the Roman Empire departed Britain at the beginning of the fifth century, it took with it the military might that protected the island nation so that there was little resistance when the pagan Angles and Saxons invaded and took over, their culture quickly becoming dominant. In part because of the early Christianization of Britain by the Romans, when mission work returned to England conversion became a far easier task. Beowulf, transcribed in the early years of 1000 but purported to have been taken from an oral narrative with origins as early as 700, reflects the competing influences of the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture and the Christian church in England. 

While it predominantly follows the hero narrative more traditional of the Anglo-Saxon paganism, the Christian influence on the written record of Beowulf paints not only a Christ-like image of the title character, but an evangelical one to readers that serves to transform the hero into an allegorical redemptive savior. By characterizing Beowulf as both a hero and a Christ-figure, he bridges the gaps between Anglo-Saxon paganism and Christianity.

In setting up Beowulf to arrive as savior, the first part of the story takes place in the Danish kingdom Hrothgar rules where the people still followed the Norse religious practices that would be familiar to the Anglo-Saxons. When the Danes are first beset by Grendel, they

“offered honor to idols

At pagan temples, prayed aloud

That the [devil] might offer assistance

In the country’s distress. Such was their custom,

The hope of heathens.” (175-179).

The Danes prayed to their non-Christian gods because none of the Danish warriors could defeat the monster besieging their kingdom. As an evangelical text setting the stage for Beowulf as a Christ-like savior, it is important to characterize the Danes as both non-Christian and ineffective against Grendel. In his rebuttal to Unferth’s story, one of the first things Beowulf does is recognize that the Danes do not resist Grendel's attacks (591). When Beowulf and his men land on Danish soil, they are wished “the almighty Father guard you in his grace” (316) as they continue their journey to King Hrothgar. While grace in this line is suggestive of “almighty Father” as meaning the Christian God, given the pagan roots of the Danes, it is more plausible that “almighty Father” refers to the Norse god Woden who was commonly referred to as the “All-Father.” From such strong conditions of paganism attributed to the Danes, who are unable to defend themselves, the poem begins to set the case that it is only as an outsider that Beowulf is able to defeat the monster in battle. This is developed throughout the rest of the poem up until Beowulf’s battle with Grendel where it is ultimately proved true. Beowulf is distinguished as an outsider both by being a foreigner and by his Christian faith. Again and again it is emphasized that Beowulf is a Geat, both in the repetition of his lineage and in his address. 

In his opening speech to Hrothgar, Beowulf, after establishing his lineage and knowledge of the Dane's plight, mentions putting “his faith in the Lord's Judgement” (440-441). Within Norse mythology, references to the gods were not as commonly related in terms of “faith” and “judgement” as is the case in Christian language.The Geatish warrior is the first character after Hrothgar to make reference to the Christian God. When Hrothgar tells his retainers that “Holy God in His Grace has guided [Beowulf] to us” (381-382) it is tempting to make the same attributions to Woden as with the sea guard, but the use of the Old English “Holy” here is reflective of the Latin use of sanctus more than the original Old English use meaning “whole” or “inviolate” (OED). The language Hrothgar uses here is indicative of a Latin and therefore Christian influence. This characterizes Hrothgar as king being just above the pagan morals of his people. While he is of the Danes, his Christian faith alone is not enough to save them, it does not lend them the authority of the non-pagan influence needed to fight Grendel. It is in part the Christianity of the great hero Beowulf that allows him to defeat the monster where all others are unable.

Beowulf cannot enter the kingdom and defeat the monster without first proving himself and in doing so converting the Danes. To save the Danes from the monster, Beowulf must first save the Danes from their pagan ways. When challenged by Unferth with the story of his race against Brecca, Beowulf counters with a list of accomplishments that while having caused him to lose the race, showed himself as a far greater warrior (529~). When Wealhtheow approaches, Beowulf’s words “well pleased that woman” (639). By his actions and words in the mead hall, Beowulf’s boasting impresses the Danes so that they will accept him as a hero of great renown. It is shown that they accept him when Hrothgar entrusts to Beowulf “the great hall of the Danes” for the first time since he “could hold and hoist a shield” (656). This early in the narrative, it is harder to imagine the impact of such a symbolic action, but in accepting Beowulf as their savior from Grendel, the Danes are also accepting his faith and Christianity. Beowulf, taken as an allegorical figure, as the most Christ-like character is Christianity so when the Danes accept Beowulf, they are accepting a proxy of Christ.

This change becomes apparent when Hrothgar speaks at the feast following Grendel’s defeat at the hands of Beowulf and is further shown after Beowulf defeats Grendel’s mother. The very first thing Hrothgar does is offer thanks to the Almighty and gives praise to the “Shepherd of glory” who works “wonder upon wonder” (930~). All of Hrothgar’s language after the defeat of the monsters by Beowulf is greatly saturated with references to God compared to the scant one or two mentions he makes before Beowulf’s victory. At the end of this first speech, Hrothgar gives honor to whatever woman had “borne such a son into the race of men” and says that “the God of Old was good to her in childbearing” (945). While an indirect reference at best, this suggests a comparison between Beowulf and Christ through a blessed mother, i.e. Mary.

Beowulf’s characterization to resemble Christ throughout the rest of the text furthers this acceptance by Anglo-Saxon readers of Christ-as-Beowulf as their Savior. When Beowulf searches out Grendel’s mother, he comes to a place that, to the Anglo-Saxon people, would very closely resemble hell. In some respects paralleling the narrative of the harrowing of hell, Beowulf’s fight with Grendel’s mother is like the story told of Christ in the days between his death on the cross and the Resurrection. Beowulf descends into the depths of this hell-place, defeats a devil and returns with a prize. While he is gone, he is assumed dead by the unfaithful Danes, but when he returns it is as if he is resurrected and the faithful Geats rejoice (1600). In Hrothgar’s speech after the defeat of Grendel’s mom, he says that Beowulf’s “glory is exalted throughout the world, over every people” (1704). Coupled with a few lines from the very end of the text where Beowulf is described by his people after his death “of all the kings of the world, mildest of men and most gentle, the kindest of his folk and the most eager for fame” (3180-3183), we can see how Beowulf is placed so far above normal men. Like Christ, he is a king of kings and is honored as such wherever he goes. When he returns home, he is offered land for the deeds he has done and treated as highly as nobility as any king or prince.

The kind of glory that Beowulf seeks throughout the narrative brings him fame and wealth. This search stems from a Germanic tradition of seeking glory and fame by going out and fighting monsters and wars to acquire wealth, but by virtue of Beowulf’s characterization also contains connotations of Christian glory, which is glory through and for God. This duality is reflected in Beowulf’s last word when, after having Wiglaf go to the den of the dragon and bring some treasures to show his dying lord, Beowulf first thanks “the eternal Lord, King of Glory” (2796). Beowulf’s constant reference to the Christian God makes his self-sacrifice in giving up his life to defeat the dragon for his people makes him even more Christ-like. 

Not once does the text mention any attempt made by King Hrothgar to defeat Grendel for the Danes, so as a King in a similar position later in life, Beowulf does not need to face the monster himself. Like Hrothgar he could choose to send his thanes out to fight it or wait for an adventuring hero to do the work for him, but he chooses to give up himself for the higher good of his people. In doing so, he is ensuring their safety by saving them from the dragon; by defeating the dragon he is gaining immeasurable wealth, fame and glory; and like Christ on the cross he is giving up himself so that they may live thereby attaining for them glory through God.

As much as he is characterized as Christ-like, it is where Beowulf fails as a Christ-figure that emphasizes the evangelical nature of this text and makes his character a better bridge between the Norse/Germanic influences of the Anglo-Saxons and the incoming Christian powers. When Beowulf is introduced to Hrothgar's court, he is challenged, his authority and renown are questioned. To counter this, he boasts of all his accomplishments (Sections 6, 8, 9). While such boasting defies the humility of Christian teaching, it would be a familiar cultural practice amongst the Anglo-Saxons. As discussed above, Beowulf's journey is partly inspired by a search for treasure. He does his work as a warrior for fame and glory, to gain renown. Like the boasting, this material focus is un-Christian behavior, but is a perfect example of the Germanic tradition in Beowulf. While he is characterized as a Christ-like, he is still very much a product of the Anglo-culture familiar to Old English readers. Where Beowulf crosses this gap and fits uncomfortably in both sides of the pagan/Christian duality he acts effectively as a bridge between them. Anglo-Saxons reading this story are more likely to accept the hero-Beowulf with all the aspects of Christian-Beowulf in tow.

By portraying Beowulf as a Christ-figure, his actions and the relations he has to the Danes and Geats serve an evangelical purpose. Within the text, Beowulf as an Anglo-Saxon hero is treated as Christ, turning the hero of a pagan tradition into the savior of a Christian one. This mixing of two legendary figures creates a common ground between the two conflicting cultures, making Christianity more easily acceptable to the pagan Anglo-Saxon audience. Beowulf the text, like Beowulf the character, inserts itself into the culture of the people, bringing with it a host of Christian faith to reacquaint them with ideas and themes that would seem fairly common. It shows that by taking in Christ, here represented as Beowulf, they can be saved.

Touched by the presence of the Lord

While I was at the library the other day, I was interrupted from whatever internet browsing I was doing by a kindly seeming, middle-aged, Korean woman. She told me she'd felt called to come talk to me, like I was somehow open to what she had to say.

In a way, she had been right. I was open, I listened to her with my whole heart, which is probably why the experience ended up being so intense.

She started by telling me about an email her pastor sent her and some of the scripture he quoted, particularly a verse from Isaiah 60 about light in the darkness.

As we explored parts of the Gospels together, she had me understand how the Word of God, of Yahweh, was Jesus Christ and that He was the light in the darkness. And so on and so forth, Jesus died for our sins and so only through Him can I truly be forgiven and accepted into the arms of the Lord.

She told me about her 11 year-old son and reading scripture with him. Several times she interrupted herself to pull out a small, circular sponge like you would find in a makeup kit to use to wipe her nose of her allergies. And she cried. She cried for me, at the power of what she was saying, so strong was her belief.

While I truly did try to listen with an open heart, and even read aloud some of the scripture she passed in front of me, (John 6:44, Psalm 139), I cannot fully accept this sacrifice. God sent His only son, Jesus Christ, to absolve us of our sins so that His blood may show us the way to the throne of heaven. The part I cannot understand or perhaps cannot accept is why? And this is a very specific why in that I'm not questioning the motivation of why must He do this, but rather why must it only be this way?

To paraphrase Derrida, only I can be responsible for my life, and conversely, for my death.   But examining the divine sacrifice within this discourse, we come across an intersection of the responsibility that is uniquely of man and the grace of that which we call God.

As an immortal being, God is exempt from the kind of responsibilities faced by man. He is beyond being good, being understood, morality. Who does He answer to for His actions but Himself? So for Christ to die for us, to offer to take responsibility for us and for our sins, creates a symbol wherein God accepts responsibility for His own actions.

To me at least, it says, I made this what it is. It's my fault and so I must be the one to fix it. Your failings in my eyes are because of Me, so your salvation must also come through Me, through Jesus Christ.

This is why I am not Christian. My faith is not put in Jesus Christ. I do not trust Him explicitly and wholly. The way I view it, I answer to a higher power than that, creation, that eternal force of life that moves us forward. In less secular terms, I suppose many would call this God, but that is one thing I deliberately choose not to do. How can one fathom to name and so attempt to define that which is, was and will be? Only man.

"All other sins, stealing, killing, etc, are secondary." To what? To the greatest sin which is to fail to honor your responsibility to your creator. For according to Psalm 139:13-16, we were each formed even before our birth, seen and witnessed before life itself. I cannot refer to this as God though. It's not disrespect because to me, every act of creation, which is indeed every action, is or should be a celebration and honoring of the original creation.

At the end of our conversation -- a term I use rather loosely considering I said maybe a total of 10 words of my own in the course of something like 45 minutes -- this woman prayed for me. She prayed for the Lord to bless me in all I do and to give me strength, but also to give me strength in Him. Perhaps I need that strength, but not right now, not until I'm ready to accept it.

And I admit, I felt it, what she would have called the presence of God. It was a pressure in my head given to the intensity of the moment. Something I felt physically and made me tremble. But is that God? I struggle to name and describe it, so I'm not going to rationalize with some attempt at a scientific explanation, but is it God? And if so, which god? Which faith and belief has that kind of power except that which we give it?

If I were Pastafarian, I would say in that moment I was being touched by His Noodly Appendage (RAmen). I'm not mocking faith in questioning this, I'm searching for my own.

There was one other thing she said that really struck me. Religion is dead, she said, to believe in Christ is to believe in the living spirit. This as she urged me to find a church in my area, a Foursquare where I could find Christ.

It struck me as particularly serendipitous that I should draw the attention of this woman, because I still remember rather distinctly the conversation I had about a month ago when a man stopped me in Red Square up at Western.

"I could tell the Lord had opened you to hear my message."

Perhaps I am touched by the presence of the Lord. Touched so that I may stay open to these experiences and listen and experience the diversities of Faith across our world. Religion is dead, yes, but the spirit is very much alive. 

Fate kismet and other facts of life that shape who I am as a spiritual being

A while back, I made a post about a little Buddha statue I found on the side of the road and in it, promised to write about my religious beliefs. Here's a small portion of all that I could write about there:

I don't consider myself a religious person. My faith has yet to become enamored of any single organized religion. Much like in high school, there's far too much drama and social politics involved with any of them.

I cannot call myself a Christian. I believe in the teachings of Christ, but I cannot reconcile those teachings with all the sins against man committed in the name of someone who clearly preached a far more loving ideology. At the same time though, I recognize that that history doesn't necessarily reflect any Christian people I know, because most of the ones I know are truly loving, kind people.

I take umbrage to the institution and the church, and what they've done in the name of the religion, not the religion itself.

So it's kind of a mixed bag.

And with other world religions, I feel uneducated about them and a lot of them have the same kind of deal as well. War and violence and hatred all over what some God nobody knows anything about has said. Like I watched the movie Slumdog Millionaire, and I was practically hyperventilating through parts of it watching these people in India suffering. It's the same thing when I look at history and religions, there's just this ENORMOUS baggage and weight behind it. And I don't know if I can do that. I don't know if I can embrace that and accept that it's a pain I will never be able to heal.

At the same time though, I have this unshakeable faith that there's more out there. I just don't know what it is. It's like in the books and stories, you KNOW good will win, even if it takes a while, it's gonna happen.

I believe in Fate, what some call Kismet or the hand of God. I have a hard time believing in coincidences, especially when people are concerned. It shapes my belief that certain life experiences are ordained and meant to happen. Free will shapes the path and the time it takes for you to get there, but it will happen in the end. I take peace from this knowledge.

If you are meant to meet someone, you will be presented with opportunities to meet them until you do, but how you meet them depends on which path you follow.

Religious belief as I see it boils down to the same kinds of principles I believe in love:
Love yourself so you can love others and in doing so treat them with respect.
Work towards making good things happen and good things will happen.
Live what you want to see in the world.
In short, find: optimism, respect, love, acceptance