Black Wealth, White wealth

The author of a book I read in college, "Black Wealth, White Wealth," has come out with a follow-up study. It was covered today on the Michael Eric Dyson show.

The original research (from 1984) shows that while blacks' average income had grown to within 77% of whites' pay for the same job, there was still a huge disparity in wealth, defined as financial assets. One illustration I remember particularly well described how long different families' available assets could support them if they lost a job. With no income, "White's reserves allow them to survive at the poverty level ($968 per month) for over a year, while most blacks... would not make it through the month."

The current update to this research shows that this original disparity between black wealth and white wealth has quadrupled since 1984. It's getting worse - according to the radio interview - at a time when the reigning perception is that a) the racial disparity has pretty much disappeared, and b) that if left to themselves, our social systems will trend toward equalization and erasing the problem.

The research shows this is not the case. There is much to be discussed here, but a conclusion of an hour-long discussion with three of us at Lydia house the other night on this topic is that we as youngish white guys perhaps don't have "responsibility" for creating this problem, but we do have "responsibility" for analyzing and holding accountable the current external social systems and internal unconscious prejudices which contribute to the increasing skin-color disparity in economic opportunity.

All I have to add to this is one thing. The radio show points out that typically such disparity is falsely attributed to flaws perceived as inherent in African Americans - ie, they're lazy, they're bad with money, etc. The research explores and refutes these claims by focusing on the highest-achieving blacks and whites, but still the tendency is to explain away the problem as something "personal" about people with dark skin.

I see a parallel problem that paralyzes well-meaning whites who might be interested in doing something about it: we read such news as an accusation against us - that the disparity is our personal fault and something we should feel guilty about - simply because of our white skin color. Thus we become defensive and take actions more oriented toward self-justifying than toward solving the problem.

Taken together, we can see that the problem is perpetuated by a tendency to blame the individuals involved, which distracts us from looking more broadly at the difficult problem of a complex society which both influences and implicates both blacks and whites in perpetuating both the unequal distribution of resources and a mass abdication of responsibility.

Ironically, we are bombarded by false concepts of responsibility which we must clarify and defend ourselves against, while the true responsibility we have and must take remains buried and unrealized.

We must scrutinize both our motivations and the ways false concepts are given free reign in our thinking and consequent behavior, or nothing will change.

Notes on Atonement

atonement theory seeks the answer to 'why did Jesus have to die upon the cross?'

Excerpt:

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).
That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.

Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
The Ransom theory dominated the theological landscape for a millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109). Anselm rightly pointed out that this theory gave the devil far too much power. Hence Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.

Anselm, who lived in a feudal society, saw sin as dishonor to God. God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is then a payment not to Satan but to God.

Pasted from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html


---
CAN WE THINK OF IT PARALLEL TO JESUS ANSWERING THAT THE MAN BORN BLIND FROM BIRTH WAS NOT BECAUSE OF ANYONE'S SINS, BUT SO THAT MORE WOULD BELIEVE IN HIM?..
---

...
Bob: Okay, Jane, you owe me ten dollars. Pay up.
Jane: Oh, but I don't have the money. Do I really have to pay you back?
Bob: I'm sorry, Jane, but I can't forgive your debt. Somebody has got to pay.
Ted: Hey guys! What's up?
Bob: Well, Ted, if you must know, I'm trying to collect the ten dollars that Jane owes me, but she can't pay it.
Ted: Hmm. Let's see here. Hey, I do have ten dollars on me. Here, Bob, you can let Jane off the hook.
Bob: Jane, your debt is paid. You can go now. You don't owe me anything.

Now in the illustration, did Bob forgive the debt, or was he paid? In fact, Bob was paid off. There was no grace, no mercy, no forgiveness of the debt.

Similarly, if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our sins, then God cannot truly be said to forgive sin.

This observation points out the difficulty of "go[ing] beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). Posing the question, "to whom was the ransom paid?" takes us beyond the purview of the Scriptures. The "ransom" was not literally paid to anyone. It is a metaphor used to describe the significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death.

Above Pasted from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

---
in my experience, the power of the cross is not in the concept of my sins being forgiven by it. it is in the fact that jesus would be willing to get up there, both for obedience and for love of me. that somehow if he didn't, then the scriptures would not be fulfilled and his job would not be done… the cosmic effect of what is opened to us in the door to everlasting life - available both now and after we die, through belief in (=relationship with) jesus.

something actually changed cosmically by jesus getting up there. i think it has to do with him drinking the sour wine after telling us to do so as a rememberance of him… it made possible forever after god being able to relate to us (the experience of suffering to death on the cross? - did it make possible a perspective by god, something limited which because of god's omniscience, he could not access outside of human form… his experience of the power of temptation, his expereince of wanting to disobey when he felt how hard it was to walk toward death… i really believe god learned something through this.

the concept of a learning god may seem heretical given an omniscient god, but actually god cannot know everything - because of human free will. he does not know what we will do - this explains his frustration and wrath. god is omniscient in what can be known - but the story of the bible is ultimately the story of god learning how to do relationship with humans, in a way that continues to respect our autonomy as separate persons. coming to walk the earth as jesus then was a 'take a walk in my shoes' journey for god, who would then forever after understand our struggle, temptation, and pain - and truly be able to forgive freely, from a place of empathic compassion.

This is my answer to why Jesus had to die on the cross. i don't think it needs to have anything to do with atonement.

(afterthought ...it strikes me how much our confusion is answered by jesus' teaching to his disciples. he criticizes the disciples for arguing who is greatest (cf conservatives/liberals arguing); and he calls them out for not realizing and being with him when he is there (cf. Christianity and Real Relationship post)

The Mother wart

.

It's interesting, our mother taught us a lesson about warts.

She said If you start getting warts, you need to remember which one came first. That's the mother wart. Whatever you do to get rid of them, you just need to go for the mother wart. If you try to attack the warts that came after, they'll just keep coming back again, or you'll get new ones to replace them. The cycle won't stop until you kill the mother wart. And If you go after the mother wart from the start and are able to burn it or freeze it away, all the other warts will just fall away.

Now I have never heard this story anywhere else but from my mother. For all I know its just an old wives' tale and may be limited to my family. But I find it interesting that this same story turns out to be what I am learning about growing up and letting go of relationships.

Because you may have trouble getting over an ex-, and even people from long ago can still feel like live wires if they come up. Its like they never went away. And in this case no amount of effort directed toward these ex-relationships, or forgetting, will make them fade from your mind. Because they are not the original source of your trouble letting go. It's your mother, who never let you grow up but forced herself into your consciousness, who must be left behind.

If the mother's relationship was like a wart - something intrusive, violating, near impossible to get rid of - then the troubling attachments that persist later in life also come from the mother. And the only way to move beyond any of them is to kill the mother.

My mother taught me that.



.

Braveheart as Healing from emotional incest

England is the incestuous Mother. She can't stand her son Scotland to break away or find independence; she needs him. So she infiltrates the core of any love Scotland is about to embark on as an adult, inserting herself into the relationship so no real bond can be found between Scotland and its wives. Prima Nocte allows no real integration, no real growing up - the Mother will always be part of every relationship, part of what Scotland sees and remembers when they look at their wives. True love for the emotional incest victim is often murdered by the Mother's overpowering presence, which at first we are paralyzed to resist, even as we stand by passively while the murder takes place.

William Wallace represents the will, awakened by a direct and aware confrontation with the injury that has been perpetrated and accepted, unconsciously, for ages; the will to change is finally activated when a cherished love falls victim to the injustice we have tolerated and even participated in. Wallace becomes the true drive to separate, expressed as anger or rage even, directed appropriately toward its proper source in the incestuous parent. The nobles are the injured, non-adult self that prefers to crawl back into bed with Mom, rather than face the challenges of growing up as an adult, standing on their own as a unified Scotland, and incurring the Mother's wrath. Compromises like these are so easy for the emotional incest victim, for the Mother lives on in every relationship, every fantasy, every facet of our minds that wants not to face fully how injured and backwards we are. These parts of ourselves will compulsively sacrifice our will/betray William at any chance of crawling back into bed with Mother / the woman who we fantasize will take care of us.

Even when we think we have integrated, and are finally breaking away from Mother as an integrated whole, we find later that some part of us has subconsciously betrayed this intention through a bargain with the world to reestablish the old, incestuous relationship Mother initiated. The confusion this engenders within the emotional incest victim is captured on the face of William Wallace when he unmasks the Bruce, who made a deal to kill him for favor with England, and who personally struggles through the movie with his own enmeshment with a manipulative, selfish, domineering parent.


Wallace's relationship with the princess shows us that what seems impossible for the emotional incest victim is attainable - to experience love without having to sacrifice our true self in exchange for it. Any true love found must be approached with caution - shown by how on-guard and suspicious Wallace is every time he approaches her camp - as it will seem always at first to bear the needy and manipulative agenda of the controlling Mother. Through direct testing, however, we can uncover which potential loves share and support the quest for autonomy from our parents as a prerequisite to love.


In the end, the betrayal that succeeds is not a trap fallen for that is laid by an outsider (mother or lover), but by the unintegrated parts of ourselves which have adopted the agenda of being dominated. The weaker nobles, who have acclimated to living in bed with Mother, lay a trap when the two stronger parts of Scotland - Wallace and Bruce - are ready to unite. The forceful, uncompromising leader Wallace - who is also suspicious and guarded from real relationship must die, as eventually the emotional incest victim must go through a wrenching death of the incomplete identities he has taken on in order for the whole self to survive. The hallmark of this death truly approached will come as overwhelming resistance, from every facet of ourselves, urging us to abandon our principles and take the easy way out, swearing allegiance finally and forever to the Mother. The death must be walked to, however, and certain things we held dear abandoned, in order for the final unification of a new, whole self to emerge.

For Scotland, as for us, Wallace's singular, uncompomising adherence to the vision of and shape of freedom is essential to keep from falling into traps laid by an enveloping Mother, which may show up in even the slightest dynamics of relationship. In the end, however, Wallace's beacon of change cannot facilitate the internal healing Scotland or the emotional incest victim needs to stand as an integrated whole, once the possibility of freedom has been tasted. As a final step, after following an uncompromising Will through the first stages of battle, we must develop our Bruce, the broken part of ourselves that lives with an emotional connection to the wound opened by the tyrannical parent, which can chooose to embrace Wallace's force while remaining sensitive to the parts of ourselves that will continue to feel the pull back toward Mother's bed. This final integration allows Scotland, and the victim, to move forward tenderly, carrying all parts of ourselves forward in a healed, whole, and finally independent self.

MLK, climate change, and responsibility

I have been listening to the speeches of MLK and his relatives today, especially Yolanda King, his eldest daughter, who made the connection for us of finding inner peace to MLKs philosophy of nonviolence.

And it seems to me that something has shifted, between the 60s and today, in that MLK had a clearly identifiable evil that he could articulate and orient against; that of white oppression, expressed so many different ways.

I have sensed that the fight on climate change resonates with principles of MLK's philosophy; namely that the way to approach change is through proactive action guided by principles (http://www.itscool.us/) - rather than backbiting/blame vs denial, which seems to be the prevailing approach.

In his first Massey lecture (http://www.prx.org/series/31037-martin-luther-king-jr-massey-lectures) King contrasted the effectiveness of the nonviolent approach - where the oppressors are exposed in their evil for violent reactions to nonviolent measures - with the strategy of riots which had erupted in the North, which gave fuel to pre-existing prejudices and arguments against integration. However, King did allow that non-violent protest had not been working as well in the North, where the racism, though present, was not as overt - so the oppressors could not as easily be taunted into exposing themselves.

How does this compare with the fight on climate change? Today we do not have a clear enemy. Society has quickly evolved (having learned from King?) to the place of more effectively hiding our evils. Multi-national corporations' oppression and rape of the Earth, while present and deplorable, is not the bulk of the problem. The subtext of every public plea to reduce energy use is the implication that we are all part of the problem; we are all to blame. There is no way to tweak one part of the system (along the lines of our traditionally linear, judicial model) and contain carbon; rational analysis by policymakers continues to conclude, rightly, that every penalty levied or offset offered will simply be paid for or passed along the supply chain, in order to preserve the right to continue polluting, or maintaining a standard of living within the "American way of life" without alteration. (Vanity fair featured a spread this week on a Vegas hotel that was LEED certified, proving "the simple notion that luxury and responsibility are not mutually exclusive" - http://www.vegasnews.com/16177/star-studded-event-marks-grand-opening-of-first-citycenter-hotel-–-vdara-hotel-spa.html ).

The downfall of all offset programs is that they must be comprehensive - encompassing the full carbon cycle, through the whole of the planet - to not be outsourced. The reason the simple solution of a worldwide, per-citizen offset system has not been introduced is that the implications are too radical. To do so would effectively address the economic imbalance between the first and third worlds - and this is something we would like to avoid thinking about for as long as possible.

It's not just our politicians and our corporations. It is, first and foremost, an evil embedded in our consciousness, as born by citizen of the developed world. Jesus had plenty to say about it, but the implications are so deep that nary a preacher wants to draw the obvious connection: our way of life is unsustainable, and it is simple sinfulness that keeps us from clearly addressing this obvious fact. Unsustainable, not just ecologically, but firstly spiritually. To dig to the roots of American concepts of "progress," what constitutes a healthy economy, and what kind of technological advances we should have the right to look forward too, would force us to call out the hypocrisy of manifest destiny, the deep distortion of the gospel and evil on which this entire nation was founded. Remember the religious fundamentalist mass murderer from Utah who claimed "God told me to do it"? That is our founding fathers, and the prevailing consciousness of the developed world.

While the rape of extermination of great native populations may seem far removed in history, we perpetuate the same mass denial today in our rape and extermination of the planet's healthy ecology. This same consciousness, which allows us to perpetuate rape and aggression while continuing to think we are basically good people, manifests in our relationships and treatment of each other, as I have recently learned the hard way. The simple act of looking at ourselves, to truly see and admit our sinfulness, is so difficult today that we must pay a fortune in therapy simply to access it.

MLK faced a simple, clear enemy. The oppression in the South failed to manipulate its audiences as well as the North. But the the civil war was fought largely for style points. The continuing, systemic racism in our country - discovered in the North by MLK after winning his battles in the South - shows that no one has ever been that interested in changing the status quo. We want our power and our ability to feel good about ourselves. So what to do? Change? No - simply get better at manipulating.

This seems to have been the course our country has followed since the Viet Nam era. It explains a fundamental problem that I have been noticing more and more in myself and in most people I talk to - a basic inability to take responsibility. Our deficit in responsibility fuels the therapy industry - most of which has us simply chasing our tales, but never getting called out for our part in causing the problem - and it is the basic evil that is at root of our inability to deal with climate change. We will continue to generate Green "spin" and talk a good game without taking action, until we can finally admit we're all fuckers who don't give a shit what happens to the Earth. That at least would be a good starting point, because we'd have some honest ground to stand on, rather than living in a self-imposed hype that increasingly has nothing to do with reality.

In the south, MLK had a clear enemy. In the north, that enemy was harder to see. Today, we are all going crazy and feeling under attack, because we have no idea where the problems are coming from. It's hard to look at ourselves when the enemy is within us.

The only way to take down this enemy is to take responsibility.

suffering from what we can't see

Originally I posted then removed this article, but as it earned praise from the short time it was up here, I am going to repost, with a revised introduction.

Socially-sanctioned child abuse is a touchy subject, but one I feel it is important to face, because it holds the key for explaining and healing life turmoil for so many people who have suffered from it.

Sometimes addressed under the name "emotional incest" or "covert incest" (Adams), the dynamic refers to inappropriate emotional bonds between a parent and usually the opposite-sex child, which causes psychological and emotional damage on par with actual incest and child abuse, although no physical molestation occurs. Most writing on the topic has to do with mother-son violations, however it is perhaps just as prevalent between fathers and daughters, as this article below shows.

I encourage a read-through this, especially if you are a young parent, or if you suffer from general life chaos and repeated relationship problems for which you haven't been able to identify the root. And if this resonates, please do find a therapist experienced with emotional incest, and commit to yourself to work through healing from this dynamic in your life. It is painful, but wonderfully real and freeing work.



http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/10/22/princesses-princes-daughters-and-dads-against-emotional-incest/


Princesses, princes, daughters and dads: against emotional incest
Published by Hugo Schwyzer on October 22, 2009
in Emotional and Sexual Boundaries, Favorite Posts 2009, Marriage and Parenting.

Our daughter Heloise Cerys Raquel (often abbreviated as HCRS) is almost nine months old, and continues to amaze and delight her parents. She’s standing and crawling now, and making ever more comprehensible noises. She’s a happy baby, prone to shrieks of delight and an enthusiastic wind-milling of arms when she sees a returning parent or other beloved care-giver. We have a nanny to help out some of the time, but most of the care is done in carefully orchestrated shifts shared among my wife, her mother, and me. (My mother-in-law moved in with us after we moved from Pasadena to West Los Angeles at the beginning of summer, and that has been a special blessing for all.)

In August, I posted “She’s got you wrapped around her finger”: fathers, daughters, and a variation on the myth of male weakness in which I noted the extraordinary number of folks who expressed to me their certainty that I would treat Heloise as a princess whose whims I could not help but indulge. I’d like to touch on another aspect of the father-daughter relationship I’ve noted. Becoming a parent for the first time in one’s forties has myriad advantages, not least that one has had the opportunity to watch a great many of one’s peers “do it all first.” (I have two high school friends of mine who are already grandparents, mirabile dictu.) And I’ve seen, a time or nine, an unhealthy triangulation occur with dads, moms, and their daughters.

While the dangers of physical incest and abuse are real, there’s a kind of emotionally incestuous dynamic I’ve witnessed between fathers and daughters, one in which dads seek from their daughters the validation and affirmation that they feel they are entitled to, but are not receiving from their wives. Little children adore their parents. Really, it’s a lovely thing to come home each day and be welcomed, as I invariably am, with gales of excited laughter and delight. (I’m the primary care giver for much of the weekend and most late afternoons and evenings; my wife handles the mornings, my mother-in-law and the nanny work splendidly in the gaps.)

My daughter’s love is an impressive thing to feel, especially as she’s gotten better recently at wrapping herself around my neck and squeezing me tight. No matter what has transpired during the day, no matter what I’ve said or done (or failed to say or do), Heloise seems to adore me. It’s a wonderful thing, and I eat it up with wonder and gratitude and delight. I’m told that her devotion will only grow more intense; many little girls begin to bond more intensely with their fathers in their second and third years of life, presuming that a dad is around. One looks forward to this. Of course, spouses aren’t the same as children.

My wife loves me, a fact of which I blessedly have no doubt. But she most certainly doesn’t have me a on pedestal, doesn’t think I’m flawless, and doesn’t greet me with shrieks of joy everytime I walk into the house. Eira engages with me as a partner, and she challenges me and pushes me and asks me for things; I do the same for her. In a good marriage, iron sharpens iron, and the more friction in the sharpening process, the greater and more enduring the heat. Anyone who’s met my wife knows that she’s a tall, strong force of nature. (This is a woman who can dress down Israeli soldiers on patrol and make them blush apologetically. If you know the men and women of the IDF, you’ll know how astounding that is.)

She loves me and she encourages me as I do her, but she doesn’t conceal her displeasure when she’s unhappy, and she doesn’t come rushing to me like something out of a Marabel Morgan book when I enter the house. Here’s the thing: I’ve seen men play their daughters against their wives, mistakenly believing that the way in which their daughters see them (as heroic and perfect) is the way that their spouses ought to as well. If a man hasn’t done his “work”, he may find himself looking at his daughter, gazing up at him with adoration, and he may start (resentfully) to contrast his girl’s fierce and uncomplicated devotion with the somewhat less enthusiastic reception he may be getting from his overworked and exhausted wife.

In most cases, this doesn’t mean the papa will turn to his daughter sexually, though it surely, tragically, maddeningly does happen more often than we like to think about. But he may find himself relying more and more on the affirmation he gets from his adoring baby girl. A wife’s affection needs to be earned anew each day; it requires a husband (I’m writing this, of course, from a heterosexist perspective) who can pull his weight in housework and childcare and the emotional maintenance of the family. Marriage is, as we are invariably reminded, hard work. Getting a small child to adore you is not anywhere near so difficult.

Many husbands do tend to think that merely being married (or living together) entitles one to expressions of devotion from one’s partner. They buy into a myth about men and women, one that suggests that it’s a woman’s job to soothe, to affirm, to encourage, and to manage her husband’s emotions. Think of the execrable bestseller by Dr. Laura, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. Dr. Laura often suggests that if a woman doesn’t validate “her man” well enough, then she’s to blame if he looks for that validation somewhere else. Men have needs, Dr. Laura insists, and the greatest need they have isn’t for sex, but for a woman’s affirmation and admiration. If they aren’t getting that from their wives, they will invariably find it from another woman.

Men’s capacity to self-soothe is just as great as women’s, and women’s need for affirmation is just as great as men’s. That ought to be a given. But Dr. Laura does speak for a great many people who have bought into this delusionary understanding of what it is that men are entitled to. And men who do believe that they are being deprived of what is rightfully theirs may indeed go elsewhere. And disastrously, for fathers of daughters, that “elsewhere” may be to their little girl.

Again, that doesn’t mean physical incest in every, or even most, instances. What it means is that a great many dads (and it wasn’t until I became a father to a baby girl myself that I realized how common this was) start to rely more and more on the simple intensity of their daughter’s love rather than doing the much more difficult work to remain connected with their wives. I’m certainly not saying every father of a daughter does this, but it is common — and if you ask the mothers of daughters, as I have, you’ll hear plenty of anecdotes about this.

Princess culture is huge for little girls, as surely anyone who spends time around children between three and eight knows. I’m convinced that some of this phenomenon is fed by fathers’ longing for validation. After all, princesses need princes; giving your daughter her princess fantasy is a way for a man to feed his own longing to feel like a handsome prince, indispensable and heroic and good. The gulf between the “handsome prince” in his daughter’s eyes and the loved but decidedly imperfect man in his wife’s eyes grows greater and greater.

All the more reason to do what more than one man I know has done, and spend one’s family time basking in a daughter’s affection — and then, after the kids have gone to bed, spending time compulsively staring at internet pornography. And of course, there’s almost no time spent actually engaging, face-to-face and eye-to-eye, with one’s wife. This doesn’t mean that we won’t let Heloise dress up as a princess if she wants to. (For her first Halloween, we think she’s going to be a chinchilla.) But it does mean that as devoted to my amazing, lovely, grace-filled daughter as I am, I’m very clear that in our relationship, validation needs to be a one-way street.

Plenty of daughters grow up with a sense that they are somehow responsible for taking care of their fathers emotionally, for being the good and understanding woman in his life (as opposed to the mother/wife figure, who is invariably cast as judgmental and cold.) To do this to a daughter is child abuse, and I am determined not only not to do it myself, but to be bolder at calling out other fathers of daughters when I see the signs of what can only be called emotional incest. HCRS may or may not choose to be a princess as she gets a bit older. But in her little games, I will not play the part of the prince. I’m a father, and that is something utterly and wonderfully different. And if I need validation, I need to go and get it from my equal, my peer, and my partner — the one who will make me earn that validation, as she should.

Is it the 'homo' or the 'sexuality'?

The problem I have with public issues of sexuality:

I recoil from liberal discourse on the topic

but am not conventionally conservative

I feel uncomfortable with the focus on gay rights

but not because I am against them

and I am anti-abortion

but don't feel it is my place to step in to protect unborn babies

but is rather to mourn, and perhaps to speak from my heart, where God gives me opportunity

But moreover, I am angered by the assumption

that I must "have" a position on these topics

These particularly political issues

are raised against a backdrop of non-controversial,

commonplace obscenity

in every commercial, movie and television plot;

there is a dominant discourse in which sexuality occupies center stage

in the sphere of human relations

while I feel that it should rather be something respected, treated as sacred,

and respectfully hidden from view.

Our kids should be well-protected from their parents' sexuality

and friends and neighbors should not be exposed to sexually-suggestive behavior of couples

Rather, we should be able to relate in human ways, from places of our heart

And sexuality should be expressed, celebrated, privately - so it does not need to be repressed

But simply kept in the bounds God designed it to be

We are an oversexed culture

We have no bearing about how to solve the problems of gay rights and abortion

But perhaps we can see that these "problems" are created when sexuality itself leaves the bedroom

And parades on the street

The trend toward everybody's sexuality

Being everybody's business

Creates the problems we cannot solve

The liberal emphasis on liberating sexuality

is one ingredient to the problem;

The conservative audacity to violate what God relegated to the privacy of couples, and committed communities at best,

is the other, reactionary at best.

Both are to blame, and neither is right

More modesty is needed all around,

built on humility

of our own confusion, flawedness, and brokenness

Adam and Eve's problem, recorded in the bible

should be suggestive enough

that we all are going to be confused around sex

None of us has the place to parade sex around,

Neither our personal sexuality, nor our positions on it.

Parents, humbled by their own struggles, and helped by God,

should introduce children to what they need to know, when the time is right

Couples should further explore sexuality together

Only when already committed to each other for life

And seek guidance from elders, and other committed couples,

Once sex has been put in its proper place:

Not the central issue, not an issue on its own,

but one mysterious dimension of human relationship and existence

of which our proper and most healthy priorities and boundaries

have already lovingly been described by God

God's way of treating each other, regarding each other,

Checking ourselves and living in obedience to Him

Must be the first and far more important emphasis,

and aspect of life to be explored and practiced

long before anything about sex is discussed or explored

This is the only way out of the mess

This is the only hope for surviving the confusion

Our particular brokenness must be discovered, confessed, allowed to convict,

and shared in living relationship with God

and then we will be shown what to do with the rest

Afterthought:

Churches should boldly address impropriety, or the desacralization of sex

But only in the context of their charge of shepherding their flocks,

Not as a weapon to wield in general, irresponsibly, doing the same damage

as the impersonal, generalized liberal portrayal of sex.