I’d want to affirm that ‘doing’ (as well as . . . → Read More: sex & identity]]> The ‘proper’ basis for the personal identity of any given human is a hard thing to derive… if you’re limited to the tools of, say, science.  Science wonderfully (and tragically in the case of murder, hate, discrimination, etc.) describes what humans ‘do’ (human doings), but not what/who humans ‘are’ (human beings).

I’d want to affirm that ‘doing’ (as well as ‘knowing’ and ‘feeling’) is a necessary component of what a human ‘being’ is, but not the whole composition.  Any identity based on only feelings, actions and intelligence alone is incomplete and leaves out something.

The most unchallenged (and to me, baffling) kind of identity I know of, is ‘sexual’ identity (hetero, homo, pan, omni, etc.).  I once moderated an inter-faith discussion about ‘tolerance’ in which a person (who acknowledged their sexual identity) stated their wish not to merely be ‘tolerated’, but to be accepted for who he was.  A few thoughts:

• Sexual desire seems to be quite malleable/impermanent or otherwise inappropriate for identity.  Whilst some attempts at therapeutic (including – yes – electric shock ‘therapy’!) ‘adjustment’ of sexual desire are contrived at best (and abusive at worst), it remains true that (as the old adage says) “the greatest sex organ is the mind”, which (neuro-plasticity confirming what we already knew from experience) can undergo remarkable change.
• Most (all?) have more than one sexual desire.  Both nature and nurture (genes/’memes’ if you like) combine to give us not a single sexual desire for ‘this’ sexual experience, but a range/variety of sexual desires, so identifying as ‘x’ (i.e. homo/hetero) fails to account for the other desires present (i.e. – Kinsey’s hyper-controversial research would seem to indicate that few if any people occupy only one precise ‘point’ on the ‘orientation scale’).  Perhaps this relates to some opting for the less-defined ‘bi’-sexual, or ‘pan’/'omni’-sexual identities.
• Sexual desire (particularly desire for sexual encounter with another human) is not always met.  For a variety of reasons (including physical disability, repulsion by other, unwillingness to force the other person, cultural/traditional/ideological pressures), many people go through life and manage not to have sex with another person.  Of particular concern here is the confused/contradictory influences present in many/most cultures presenting sex as something ‘everyone’ does.  Leaving those who are not (or not yet) sexually active being/feeling less than normal.  Is a fire-fighter who never fights fires really a fire-fighter?  Who wants to be normal in principle? [updated thought at bottom of post]

Where, then, is a ‘safe’ or ‘responsible’ place in which to find our identity?  Especially in a world where everything (desires, opportunities, bodily function, etc.) seems impermanent?

The Judaeo-Christian tradition answers: in relationships.  Even a non-theistic psychotherapist or counsellor could reasonably say the same: in our relationship to ‘others’ (albeit without including the supreme ‘Other’).

It seems to me, as a Christian, there are two broad categories of relationships (Creator/creation), which break down into three (Creator, human creation, non-human creation), which admit of a fourth distinction as well: Creator, other humans, self, non-human creation (or God, others, self, world).  Some thoughts:

• Creator.  Even the most tentative of theistic understandings realise the fundamental identity-forming dependence upon the Source of all being/existence.
• Others.  Other humans are like mirrors.  The opinions and influence of others shape our self-understanding.  We don’t truly know who we are apart from the ‘other’.  Our identity is formed in relationship to our brothers, sons, daughters, partners, granddaughters, aunts and husbands.
• Self.  Indeed, personal identity wouldn’t be ‘personal’ (and thus not ‘identity’) if we didn’t distinguish between ‘other’ and ‘self’.  We are unique and particular, not an identity-less component of some all-encompassing mass-consciousness.
• World.  We have an identity-forming awareness of our affect on our environment.  We can utterly wreck the place, or we can beautify and enhance it.  We are care-takers, janitors, renovators, zookeepers and stewards of the world we inhabit.

[updated thought: Not only is it true that our sexual (erotic, that is) desires are not unfailingly met, but it's also true and relevant that our deepest and truest desire is for intimacy, and this is a desire that must be met.  Whatever the gender or physiology of any given two persons, they are created for inter-personal - and thus genuinely/truly 'sexual' - intimacy.  It seems to me that, last I checked, same-sexed persons lack the physiology to engage in coitus/intercourse/'sex', and thus (physiologically speaking) cannot have a 'sexual' relationship - but they can still be genuinely intimate, as any two good friends would be.  And this is not only 'acceptable', but what all humans want and need.]

It’s worth noting (as I have before) that one cannot speak of anything . . . → Read More: teleology & ethics]]> The word ‘teleology’ (from Greek τελος ‘telos’ – meaning ‘goal’, ‘end’, ‘purpose’ or ‘that toward which things tend’) is not a street-level term.  However, the concept of a purpose, goal, function or ‘end’ to things most certainly is.  It’s a common as anything.  Teleology is blindingly relevant.

It’s worth noting (as I have before) that one cannot speak of anything being truly good or bad, well or poorly functioning without some kind of teleological concept.  From complaints (or amazement) about how poorly (or well) ‘designed’ the universe is (if designed at all – see this rebuttal), to the largest complaint of all – the ‘problem of evil’ (which has an often forgotten twin, the ‘problem’ of good); every kind of value-judgment we make assumes some kind of teleological concept.

Teleology, then, underlies the whole prospect of moral and ethical enquiry.  If things merely ‘function’, but do not function toward a certain end, goal or purpose, then there can be no such thing as a truly or ultimately immoral action.  Nothing can be said to ultimately or truly right or wrong with either the universe or human behaviour.

One can give an account of the ‘functioning’ of an event/thing in purely numerical, metrical or otherwise descriptive terms: human ‘a’ swings their right arm with tightly-closed digits in such a way that the digits impact the face of human ‘b’ with ‘x’ amount of force, resulting in human ‘b’ losing the state of balance and falling to the ground… etc.  This is a statistical, and purely ‘objective’ account of an event.  No ethical comment here.

The moment someone begins to say that one person should not have hit someone (or should have in the case, for example, of self-defense or protecting a helpless person being raped or otherwise harmed), they are imposing a teleological assumption onto the set of events.  They are no longer giving a merely descriptive account of the event, they are giving a prescriptive account.

As a Christian, my ethical thought (and hopefully my action too!) is shaped by my belief that creation has a telos.  Things are being brought from a state of chaos (Genesis 1 creation poem says ‘tohu vo vohu’ – wild and waste – formless and void) to a state of more and more orderedness.  Things are going somewhere – toward an ‘end’.  Things are meant to behave in a certain way and not another way.  This, in a basic sense, is what the notion of God’s “will” (desire) means.

The most tightly compacted summary of the desire of God is one word – Love.  Jesus summarised the entire ‘Law’ and ‘Prophets’ in two commands: Love God. Love Others as Self.

A summary that I’ve found helpful is the desire of God for humans to be in right relationship 1) with God, 2) with other humans, 3) with ourselves, and 4) with creation.

Christianity views humans as having a unique status (and therefore responsibility) within Creation.  This anthropocentricism is not, however, to devalue the rest of creation.  All of creation is seen to ‘reflect’ God’s beauty and creativity.  But humans as the ‘crown’ of creation, the ones with the capacity to bear God’s ‘image’ in a unique way, have a special role.  Humans are put ‘in charge’ of creation, commissioned to take care of it, and use it wisely – working to bring it to the fullest expression according to God’s will/desire.

Interestingly, no matter what one believes about God or whether or not humans reflect a God, it is manifestly obvious that humans have the greatest power to either utterly wreck things or to behave in a way which helps creation, humanity included, to flourish.  (And we note, again, in passing, that things being ‘wrecked’ or things ‘flourishing’ are meaningless concepts with no teleology.)

Christian ethics, then, are based on a Christian understanding of God’s purposes for His creation; namely to bring it to full and rich orderedness.  An orderedness characterised by not control but freedom to be all that it was made for.  And an orderedness characterised by Love.

Here are a few (quite random) examples of my out-working of this:

• Education: Knowledge is to serve relationships.  Humans are to celebrate any/all kinds of knowledge which enrich their relationship to/with creation, each other and the creator (i.e. medical knowledge, social knowledge, scientific knowledge, relational knowledge, etc.), while not letting knowledge –or the pursuit of it– become an idol or an enslaving thing.
• Sexuality: Sex is to be used in such a way as to bring an orderedness characterised by freedom, and not slavery.  Many forms/expressions of sexuality are characterised by human slavery to sexual desire.  Sex is for humans, not humans for sex.  Also, sex is to bring relational fullness, not relational pain.  Sex should thus be respected as the powerful thing it is, and used in ways that reflect freedom and full relationships.
• Poultry production (one of my favourite examples): God’s desire is not for chickens to live the life of a chicken in a cage covered with it’s own feces, and to be injected with steroids and killed in a mechanical and abusive fashion, etc.  God’s desire is also not for chickens to be deified to the point where they are forbidden to be eaten.  Chickens are a part of God’s good creation, and are to be farmed, ‘egged’ (hens) and processed/eaten in a way that is characterised by order and freedom (the ‘free range’ movement is brilliant here).
• Eating (while on the topic!): Humans (like other animals) need to eat to survive, but eating should not be treated as a merely biologically sustaining thing, but rather in a way that brings dignity to both what is eaten and who eats it.  One of the most degrading and undignified forms of eating is (we all do it) fast food.  Where speed and efficiency of production is the telos of eating.  The food is mass-produced, the food preparers have little/no relationship to the eaters, and the eating experience is rushed and shabby.  Contrast this with a community that grows and harvests their own crops, and where the cooks sit at the same table with everyone, serving each other and sharing in the creativity of food preparation and the joy of sharing the eating experiene (the culmination fo the whole process) together.
• Work: Work is to bring freedom not slavery and enable us to bless, rather than participate in being a curse.  Laziness and greed are equally destructive things.  Slacking on the job or working 60+ hour work weeks are ways of cheating and enslaving (or being enslaved).  Industry and production should serve to bring about the flourishing of creation – including humans.  Work in fields such as education, social-work, government, police-work, food industry, transport/travel, clothing, entertainment, etc. can all be done in either a dehumanising way or a humanising way.
• Music/Art: Art (including poetry) is a deeply human thing, and should reflect the creativity of the creator.  Art can deeply reflect reality in a way that other things cannot.  Art can be characterised by chaos and confusion with no hint of redemption or freedom, or it can speak of healing, order, justice and transformation (even while acknowleding brokenness and pain).  Sadly, much ‘Christian’ art is often cheap copies of what has been done before, and has no staying power (it is quickly forgotten).
• Technology: All technology (from eating utensils to wireless broadband) should serve to bring order, freedom and to deepen relationships.  Sadly, we often end up being enslaved to our conveniences.  Technology allows us to have higher frequency and quantity of contact with other people – bringing the sad reality of ever-increasing numbers of ‘contacts’ and ever-shallowing depth of relationship with family and friends.  Transportation technology takes us further and faster away from home than ever before, giving us more options than we know what to do with.  Add to this, the constant reminders that our basic normal life is boring, and that we ‘deserve’ another trip to this or that resort place to ‘escape’, and we find ourselves often on a treadmill-ish pursuit of ‘happiness’, being less and less satisfied with ‘normal life’ and seeking more and more after the elusive reality we see in the advertisements.
• Medical Activity: Medical knowledge and activity should serve to bring order to the chaos of disease and injury and freedom from blindness and pain.  It should always be used in the service of rich human life, not to destroy it.  Surgery should be about healing (even if it temporarily makes you bleeed), not about making a womans breasts look like this or that super-model or about doing away with an inconvenient developing pre-born child.
• Violence: Violence is only justified when in the service of bringing freedom and preserving relationships – for example protecting those who cannot protect themselves from rapists, thiefs, abusers, torturers and (actual) terrorists.  The power to inflict violence (and control people by doing so) comes with great responsibility.
• Community: Obviously, community is a place where relationships are central.  True community is characterised by freedom and whole and holistic relationships.  Community that leaves people enslaved to things, experiences or addictions, etc. is not a community characterised by love.  Also, community that controls and micro-manages people is to treat people as cogs in a system and is therefore dehumanising rather than humanising and thus not characterised by freedom.  True human-ness if found not in isolation from all others, nor in being forced into conformity with them, but in a community which values true genuine human flourishing and which is characterised by loving, patient and consistent transformation to it.
• Money/Possessions: All possessions are to be held with gratitude, and to be not merely ‘used’ or ‘consumed’ with our comfort/survival/convenience as the telos, but rather to be shared with and passed on to others.  Life’s telos is not acquisition or status, but transformation and wholeness; and our handling of money and possessions should reflect this.
• Clothing: Clothing is a wonderfully rich and creative human thing.  It can be used (both by wearers and producers) to enrich our freedom and relationship to others, or to enslave us.  Fashion, for example, can often serve to alienate and degrade those who are not able (for either financial or body-style reasons) to keep up with things.  This divides and dehumanises, and is not God’s desire.  Although modest dress will look differently from place to place and time to time, for each culture/place, there will be uses of clothing that either serve to enhance a person’s personality and humanness or which will serve to rob them of their person-hood, and make them into an object.  Clothing design and production can and should be a creative and body-honouring thing which encourages human relationships.

Obama says everyone needs to work to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.

Before sharing my (hopefully wise) perspective on . . . → Read More: wisdom for a divisive issue]]> Obama’s recent statements on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, remind us all (like it or not) of the immensely divisive issue of abortion.  The article says…

Obama says everyone needs to work to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.

Before sharing my (hopefully wise) perspective on the issue, I’ll just say that I agree and disagree with the above quote.  Indeed, the need to work together to prevent (or at least reduce) unintended (perhaps a better term than ‘un-wanted’?) pregnancies is most certainly at least some ground that all can stand on together.  But the statement that we should ‘support women and families in the choices they make’ is too vague.  Not all choices are good, therefore not all choices should be ‘supported’.  For example, many did not ‘support’ the decision to go into Iraq (and whatever position you hold on that matter, the point still stands – uncritical ‘support’ for just any decision would be advised by no one).

As for a brief – and I think wise – perspective on the issue, consider this:

What is needed most urgently with this issue is respect and self-government.

Respect in that…

• Men who are raping or using women or simply leaving them alone and scared need a new-found respect for women.  Women are not sex objects.
• Men need to respect the potential life they could be causing.  Sex, while fun, should not be reduced to recreation only.
• Women who casually have unprotected sex (obviously rape does not apply here) need a new-found respect for their own bodies.  Stop letting men use you.
• Women and men both need a healthy respect for the life-creating power of sex.  It’s not a game to play with, nor a drug to be controlled by.

…and self-government (or ‘self control’) in that…

• Men and women need to self-govern their own body in general and their sexual desires in particular.  Laws and more government will not (nor could they) help people do this.

To any readers who potentially may have gone through an unwanted pregnancy and/or an abortion, the purpose here is not to condemn you or label you a killer.  Nobody plans to have an abortion or an unintended pregnancy, and your experience would be no different.

I don’t think we need a bunch of laws to change things.  I think we need wisdom.  Wisdom is simply to learn from our past, not to repeat it – to read life’s patterns well.  However, to learn from our past mistakes (and I continue to seek to learn from mine), we must at least acknowledge that there were actual mistakes made .

And by the way, all abortions happen because of a mistake – and most certainly not only the woman or only the man, but often (or always?) both.  The rapist makes the dehumanising mistake of failing to value the dignity of a human being – while (in at least some cases) some raped women have made the utterly tragic mistake of getting drunk at a party.  Those not emotionally or financially ‘ready’ make the unthinking mistake of having sex (‘protected’ or not) knowing what could – at least possibly – happen.   As a culture, we can also be to blame – making the devastating mistake of valuing so-called ‘sexual freedom’ (which often turns out to be not freedom of sexual expression, but slavery to sexual desire) above any notion whatsoever of – shock, horror – personal responsibility or – gasp – self control.

In summary, I don’t think laws (or much less Obama) can ‘fix’ this issue.  This issue will be fixed – person by person, family by family, community by community – by the learning and loving of wisdom (philosophy: philo[love] + sophia[wisdom]).  This wisdom – however hard for some to hear – will help infinitely more than passing some laws.

For me, an interesting angle is that of self-control.  We have the ability to control even the most . . . → Read More: being responsible with your bits]]> This post over at Scoop highlights the reality (whether we like it or not) that the ‘anything goes’ mindset (and more specifically the outworking of that mindset) toward sexuality is not healthy – literally.  It does matter where you put your bits.

For me, an interesting angle is that of self-control.  We have the ability to control even the most basic and ‘natural’ desires.

Clearly, none of us controls our ‘self’ as well as we may want to (if we are audacious enough to believe that we even should control ourselves).  Apparently, something more than short-term national campaigns is needed – according to the article:

The effects of the ‘Hubba Bubba’ campaign haven’t lasted. More young people are getting STIs, not fewer.  What’s needed is a renewed emphasis on education and personal responsibility. Young New Zealanders need an attitude change.

Maybe re-claiming the value of the human body and sexuality would help just a tad?

It is ‘not offensive per se for women to be topless’; her court was not one ‘of morals and it was her job to stick to the law’; and that “It may well be that the parade is tasteless but equally it may . . . → Read More: the logic that allowed public porn]]> Judge Nicola Mathers had this to say in regards to the ‘Boobs on Bikes’ parade in Auckland.

It is ‘not offensive per se for women to be topless’; her court was not one ‘of morals and it was her job to stick to the law’; and that “It may well be that the parade is tasteless but equally it may be that in a more mature society the vast majority might consider it harmless.”

My comments on each:

‘Topless women not offensive per se’…

This may be true, in the most general sense – i.e. not every single person is offended by every single case of female breast exposure (breast feeding, for example); but the ‘Boobs on Bikes’ parade is a specific case – and one that many, many people have consistently expressed their offense at. To say that topless women isn’t offensive ‘per se’ is not only helplessly vague, but also refuses to acknowledge the high degree of offense that obviously exists!

Her court a law-court, not a court of morals…

What definition of ‘law’ and/or ‘morals’ are being assumed here? All laws are based on a version (or understanding/appreciation) of a moral framework. The domain of ‘law’ is the formalisation of the domain of ‘morals’. This may not make judgments about porn parades popular or easy to make, but to make a complete distinction between ‘law’ and ‘morals’ is infinitely problematic.

“…might be tasteless, but in a more mature society might be seen as harmless”

This – no offense intended – appears to be a case of a judge not wanting to offer a judgment. Might be this… Might be that… Her job as a judge is not to speculate on how this ‘might’ be seen; her job is to interpret and enforce the law, and to deal with the case that the Council was bringing to her – namely the case that the porn parade was declined the needed council-permit but was going ahead anyway.

Auckland City Council tried to stop the topless ride down Queen St., but Judge Nicola Mathers allowed it, commenting that it was ‘not offensive per se for women to . . . → Read More: porn parade – questions]]> The Erotica porn industry exhibition (forgive me for not hunting for a link – !!!) got free advertising by way of the now infamous and highly controversial ‘Boobs on Bikes’ parade.

Auckland City Council tried to stop the topless ride down Queen St., but Judge Nicola Mathers allowed it, commenting that it was ‘not offensive per se for women to be topless’, and that her court was not one ‘of morals and it was her job to stick to the law.’  She also said, “It may well be that the parade is tasteless but equally it may be that in a more mature society the vast majority might consider it harmless.” (source)

Christians (not that they’re the only ones who protest) often react in quite predictable fashion, and I don’t wish to contribute to this ‘reaction’.  However, I am concerned about this, and have a few questions/concerns…

• I’m curious – if in 10 years time, Steve Crow and Co. plan to have (for example) a live rape porn demonstration on Queen Street, what precedent are we setting for ourselves in order to stop it?
• Who runs the city?  The people?  The government?  The police?  Steve Crow?
• How strong is the reasoning of Judge Nicola Mathers?
• At what point does behaviour become ‘offensive’ or ‘harmful’ enough to require the government to step in?  Is there no such point?

Protesters to the parade were heckled and had objects thrown, and 2 female media reporters were asked (in so many words) by various crowd members to take off their tops and show their ‘goods’…

Wow – this kind of event really brings out the best in our community, doesn’t it?

Have a read.

It’s not just those fundamentalist, conservative, annoying Christians who are concerned about our western over-sexed culture…