I don't care about John Edwards.

Unless you're completely cut off from the outside world you heard about John Edwards admitting to having an affair. He's been denying it since December and today he finally 'fessed up. But you know what? I could care less.

It's been less than one day and I'm already sick of hearing about it. When I was at the laundromat tonight CNN was on the television and that's ALL they were talking about. Pundit after pundit was paraded in front of the camera to say the exact same thing: "Ohhhh, John Edwards is such a naughty boy. He'll never be president now!" The talk radio shows were overtaken by callers shrieking about how Edwards is a hypocrite. Today's news amounted to nothing more than a bunch of 55-year-old office women bitching about what a skank Debbie from accounting is.

I DON'T CARE!!!!! I don't care at all. Is this really that big a deal? Is there really ANYONE in America that is actually surprised that some guy cheated on his wife? Yeah, he's an asshole for doing it but there are plenty of other assholes in the world that are guilty of much worse.

I get so tired of all this smarmy mock outrage that comes out of the media over crap that really doesn't matter. There are plenty of real issues that people should be getting upset over: People are still getting killed over lies in Iraq, America continues to hemorrhage jobs and millions of Americans continue to live well below the poverty line. Why aren't people up in arms over these things?

Anton Lavey was wrong when he said it's a shame stupidity isn't painful. It is painful - other peoples stupidity gives me a migraine.

Shayne

Part Two: An Episcopal Theology of Sex, Jr.: On Pornography!

(Being a straight, white male writing from a straight, white male perspective, this post inevitably drifts towards the not-totally-accurate stereotype that men are the viewers of pornography and women the subjects. Thanks in advance for your willingness to hear what I have to say rather than getting hung up on the limitations of my perspective (though feel free to point them out). I know they're there, but it's impossible to try to appropriately address all of the perspectives in this conversation in a couple of posts.)

Ewwkay, at the end of the last post I said that I think an interesting place to begin the pornography discussion

"is with a suggestion that was made by one of the girls at my church in our annual youth group 'sex talk': that is, that pornography is actually something that can be empowering to women, and can be a celebration of the beauty of the human body".

To give you a bit of my reasoning, I'm starting here not because I'm fully comfortable with the statement, but because I'm inclined to think that there are good cultural and theological reasons to turn the Christian porno conversation on it's head, and to start with an approach that is open to affirming positives as well as negatives when it comes to this topic. For one thing, I think that if we view sexuality through the lens of sacramentality, wherein sex is viewed as something fundamentally holy and good, we're required to not be quickly dismissive of a type of sexual expression that is reportedly (though dubitably?) being practiced by 28,258 Internet users a second, and which can arguably be practiced without physical or material harm to others. We have to at least leave open the possibility that the bulk of those tens of thousands of pornography creators and viewers/second aren't morally bankrupt agents of a massive satanic conspiracy. I mean, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Along those lines, I also think that it's necessary to hold this discussion in the sphere of reality, where pornography is recognized as a cultural norm--in the US and elsewhere--that most don't have major problems with and that probably isn't going to go away anytime soon, no matter how much we Bible-beaters rail against it. Jesus' relevant suggestion,

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL."

might be a good place for us to start, but it isn't a complex enough statement to address the depth of the issue.

As with almost all issues, I'm not ready to make any strong affirmations on this, but I will give you my inclinations in a loosely particular order:

1. If I had to make a blanket and summary statement on my views on pornography, it would be that there is nothing prima facie wrong with sexual imagery, and that sexual imagery can in fact be viewed in positive--even 'holy'--terms, but that the pornography industry as it exists in reality raises major problems of personal morality and social justice that have to be addressed and acted upon from a Christian perspective.

2. With a sacramental view of sexuality in mind, I think we have to--at the very least--affirm that the human factors that make the porno industry possible are positive aspects of our nature: that is, the male's desire to look at naked women (or men, or vice versa, depending on your sex and the way your door swings), and the female's (or male's) willingness to be admired and desired. Without these things, we'd all die out in a generation and frankly live much less interesting lives. Men who like nudie mags aren't perverts, and women who pose in them aren't sluts--they're just people doing what all of us do in some form or another.

With that in mind, the suggestion that some forms of pornography can be empowering to women, and that sexual imagery can represent a celebration of both beauty and sexuality is not really that far fetched. (Even if the suggestion that those things are true at a general level is questionable.) Sexuality is a part of who we are--part of God's image in us--and sexual imagery represents one form of sexual expression. The sexual acts and fantasies that accompany the production and viewing of that imagery do not have to be rejected as 'wrong' in blanket fashion, but can in some instances be seen as a healthy aspect of what it means to be human.

3. Porno does not have to equal a male's exploitation of a female in every case, because there is undoubtedly a sort of economy in all of this that can in theory represent an equal exchange: Hugh Heffner says to the beautiful young woman, I'll make you famous and give you an opportunity for advancement if you'll let me sell pictures of you in my magazine, and the beautiful young woman says to Hugh Heffner, I'll let you take pictures of me (and airbrush them) if you give me lots of money and the prospects to eventually end up acting in crappy movies and marry a rock star. (I'm not saying this is necessarily a good trade off, but it is a trade off that you can't paint as one party exploiting the other, at least in every case.)

On this track, questions of justice are the most difficult questions in relation to pornography: Does the woman get a fair trade-off in the experience? Does she dehumanize herself in the transaction? Does she really have a full say in what is done with her image and personality? What's the cultural and social cost? The biggest problem with pornography, I think, is that women do indeed get the short end of the stick in these sorts of transactions, and are generally exploited, at least to some degree.

4. Pornography is a subjective term, and our moral approach must be situational. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is different from Playboy, which is different from 'erotic art', which is different from the porno movie and pay internet site industry, which is different from amateur internet porn, which is different from voyeuristic photos circulating without consent, which is different from child pornography. In each case, there are different issues which must be addressed, and it's unrealistic to pretend that these should be treated as one phenomenon.

5. Social relationships should play a role in pornography usage: there are different questions for the secretive male pornography viewer whose wife objects than for the female pornography viewer whose boyfriend finds that quality endearing. In both cases, these particular social questions have less to do with whether the imagery should be seen as offensive than with whether or not they are.

6. Pornography--and the porno industry--plays a major negative role in US culture. That is, it does play a role in the objectification and dehumanization of women from a male perspective, and it does play a role in the development of a sense of inadequacy among many girls and young women (though on this one I honestly think Teen Cosmo is a bigger problem than Playboy...). It's not the sole source of the problem, but it's a part of our social fabric that is generally in an unhealthy place.

7. Pornography would probably be less widespread (and damaging) if we could talk about sexuality in an open, non-guilt ridden, manner, and if Christian leaders would stop trying to suppress it.

8. A full discussion of this issue is impossible without female input, but most females don't want to talk to men about it. Vice versa is also true.

Part One: An Episcopal Theology of Sex Jr.: On Pornography!!

A month or so back I posted a few times on sex, or more specifically on my attempt to develop a way to think about sexuality consistently and realistically from an Episcopalian perspective. For a while now I've been wanting to write a little more on that topic, and have been thinking that the logical next step is to try to make a few Episco-theological suggestions about pornography based on the ideas I presented in the original post. In honor of my brother and his professed love of porno joining the blog, and in the interest of continuing to post on topics of prime interest for evangelical teenage boys, I've decided that it's finally time to give that a go. My hope, as always, is to try to be faithful to reality and Anglican tradition as I see them, and to avoid saying anything that will get me fired from my youth ministry job or shunned by my friends and neighbors.

This one, I must say, is extremely difficult--definitely more difficult than coming up with some spiritual suggestions about sexuality in general--because it's an attempt to address a religious belief that I sort of made up (well, not really) to reality: that is, it's an attempt to interpret pornography through the magical seer-stone glasses of a sacramental theology of sex. This attempt is also extremely difficult (and questionable) because I'm a male, and the most troubling moral aspects of pornography from a social justice-oriented Christian perspective relate to the exploitation and objectification of women. Because of the difficulty of the topic, this is going to need to be a multiple-post discussion. With that in mind, let's dive right in...

First off, let me clarify--this discussion isn't about masturbation. I'll only go so far here as to say that I generally think that that dirty deed is morally neutral (so Christians, stop your ridiculous obsessing about it). Spoiler alert for the ladies: all healthy men--even most husbands and sexually active boyfriends--do it with some degree of regularity, and it's an (almost) unavoidable bodily function. It's gross and unwholesomely fun, but so is pooping and sneezing and most everything else we try to confine to the bathroom. Giggling nerd scientists have even recently found evidence that it's good for us guys. Spoiler alert for the men: the stats show that almost all women also do it at some point in life, though not as much as you would probably like to think, and not as frequently as you do. If God doesn't want us to masturbate, then, well, he isn't very realistic. We could of course argue about masturbation all day, but I don't want to do that here, and if you're interested here's a random link to some people that do.

What I'm more concerned about is pornography--or, maybe more specifically, imagery that is created in order to produce sexual arousal. (Those might be different things, but for the sake of simplicity let's use porno as the blanket term in our present discussion.) The usual process with this sort of discussion in Christian circles is to start from the position that pornography is evil, offensive and degrading to women, and then to try to think of things to say about why God doesn't like it and neither should you. I--being ever the pragmatist and ever the diplomat--don't want to start there, because I don't know that it's really very helpful. In my scattershot research, I have come across fewer scientific statistics in relation to porno usage than I have on inter-personal sex, but I would be willing to wager that all of the religious condemnation of porno has played a relatively minor role in actual human behavior anyway.

I think a much more interesting place to begin the discussion (monologue) is with a suggestion that was made by one of the girls at my church in our annual youth group 'sex talk': that is, that pornography is actually something that can be empowering to women, and can be a celebration of the beauty of the human body (and the qualifying 'can' is important here). I cringed when she initially made this suggestion ("No!! Don't say that!! That's the patriarchal media corrupting your innocent young mind and transforming you into a tool for exploitation!!"), but I think it might be important to hear the idea out. With that in mind, I'm going to leave this topic as I go about my business over the weekend. Feel free to share your thoughts and talk amongst yourselves...

Rowan Williams on the Sacramentality of Sex

I haven't read it yet, but you can here. Happy Good Friday.

A pragmatic Theology of Sex?

Maggi Dawn, a popular blogger in the UK linked to my Episcopalian sex post below, so I've gotten about ten times more hits than my average today. (Thanks Maggi. My secret plan worked Wes.) Which just goes to show you that Christians get all hot and bothered about sex--and especially non-traditional naughty sex!

My working life consists of a half-time youth pastor job at a local church and a half-time program coordination job at an AIDS organization. As you can imagine, sexuality in all of its various forms is a common topic of conversation in my world. As you can imagine as well, in most of those conversations the practical "rubber hits the road" (ha ha double entendre) issues surrounding sexuality tend to carry more weight than my brand of theological mumbo jumbo, or biblical injunctions about what's acceptable. It was from within this context that my original post grew, drawing on a discussion I had with the teenagers in my youth group on Valentine's Day, with the life and death consequences of the sexual act for my friends with AIDS in the back of my mind. Sex can be a sacramental giver of life in the truest sense, as the act which leads to the conception of children, and it can be a hellish--almost comically tragic--taker of life as the act which leads to the contraction of terminal disease. Or, of course, anything in between.

In that context, you might be interested to know that the High Schoolers I presented this idea to originally didn't really care that much about it. Their responses ranged from "Oh that's nice. Can we go now?" to "I still think sex is just something you do". Nothing dramatic. The Junior High kids were totally disinterested, and were more concerned with learning about what masturbation is (and who does it), and answering the basic question "what makes sex bad?". (There are so many directions you could go in answering that one...) The AIDS community? I don't know. My guess is that sex probably loses a significant amount of its luster pretty quickly once it becomes the source of your biggest problems. Does it lose its sense of sacramentality? I don't know.

And that raises a whole lot of concerns for me. I'm a hack theologian really, but I am trying to make sense of the world from a Christian perspective because I care about the impact of our beliefs on reality. I hope you like the idea of sex as sacrament, b/c I think it can provide a nice framework in which to work out a responsible sexual ethic, b/c I think it can be a good bridge between factions in the Anglican Communion, and b/c I think it's more intellectually satisfactory than the adoption of a proof-texted moral condemnation of anything but the sexual practices that were culturally acceptable two thousand years ago. The question always is though, what difference does it make? In what sense does it matter how people view sex?

The connection between belief and action is complex, but its not a directly determinative relationship: there's plenty of evidence to suggest that, for instance, abstinence only programs don't prevent the spread of disease. The belief that premarital or homosexual sex is morally wrong also doesn't generally prevent people from engaging in those activities. (A good book evaluating the statistics is Forbidden Fruit by Mark Regnerus. The fact that the Shakers have pretty much all died out suggests that some beliefs can determine behaviors though.) So this probably isn't an issue of hugely practical importance--at least in the fight against illicit teenage sexual experimentation and the spread of AIDS. People will have sex, just like they'll eat, drink, sleep and breath. The message that the church preaches certainly matters to us pragmatically from a recruiting standpoint: if we make a wrong belief a prerequisite for membership in our community, all of the reflective people will eventually figure it out and leave. Then they also might go and write books about why it's better to be an atheist and turn all of their reflective friends against us as well. I think being right also matters, in general. The Church has always been content to accept a good amount of mystery on some questions, but on issues where we have good physical, social and emotional evidence, we'd better take the time to get it right. Let's do our work and not be blatantly wrong--if only because it's better to not be blatantly wrong. (That motivation is generally what drives me most days).

Ultimately though, I have to think that all of this blustering on about sex is a little bit silly. In my opinion, our ideas about sex matter, for the most part, simply because people care about them. What say you?

The Beginnings of an Episcopal Theology of Sex

The Episcopal Church in particular and the Anglican Communion in general have in recent years functioned effectively as theologically progressive institutions, allowing space for a wide variety of Christian belief systems to develop within their walls. However, my observation is that this isn't because we're particularly good at doing progressive theology. Focusing specifically on the subject of sexuality, the Episcopal Church has functioned as a trailblazer in its acceptance of new practical definitions to what is acceptable sexually for Christians, but has offered little formal reason for doing so. Being the hugely influential Episcopal blogger that I am, I've decided that it's high time for me to fill the gap. The world needs me, and my church needs me, to explain how we Episcopalians can justifiably be so welcoming towards the planet's 31 flavors of sexual practices. Furthermore, it needs me to offer these remarks off the top of my head, so I don't have to do any further research, hence validating the stereotype that Episcopalians are not doing their work theologically. (My hope is that this post will generate at least one more angry anonymous rant comment--and that some will lean towards my (sexual (ha ha)) position.)

To explain a few basic facts about the way things have worked in recent Episcopal thinking on sex, the first point to understand (and I'll continue to speak in broad generalities. I hope you don't mind) is foundational, and relates to our theology in general. We do theology according to a three-legged blend of "scripture, tradition and reason", and on this particular issue, our thought isn't shaped by a rigid view of scripture or tradition--both are seen as directive rather than restrictive. They're the older generation that point us in the direction that we should head, give us a few landmarks to look for, and allow us to find our own way in the theological jungle--using, of course, our reason.

Reason plays perhaps the most important role in the present discussion. It's largely because of reason that most Episcopalians have become willing to accept homosexuality, and perhaps also some formerly unacceptable expressions of heterosexuality (pre-marital sex in some instances, divorce and remarriage, etc.), against the apparent direction of scripture and tradition. You see, in recent years, science and reason have taught us some important facts about sexuality. One is that sexual orientation is not, in almost any circumstance, a "choice" in the traditional sense--it's not something people can logically consider and then make a decision on. It is, rather, probably an expression of the interaction between biological makeup ("how God made us") and cultural upbringing, which is ultimately unavoidable (notice that I'm talking about orientation here, not behavior. Notice also that I'm, once again, talking in generalities. Quibble with the details if you want). It's just a part of who you are.

It's also important to recognize that we Episcopalians have generally--in recent years--been a compassionate people when it comes to sex: not many hard edged fundamentalists here. (Don't forget that many of our priests are Catholics who couldn't deal with the celibacy thing.) We value sex, think it's important, and don't think anyone should have to go without if they don't want to. God created sex, so we should enjoy it. In my evaluation, Episcopalians primary guideline when it comes to sex is Jesus' teaching that the most important thing in life besides loving God is to love your neighbor as yourself (no double entendre is being suggested), rather than moral injunctions from Paul or the Old Testament, or even Jesus suggestion, interpreted in a hard moral sense, that even the one who lusts commits adultery. Hence, the place where we come out is that sex is good, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, or more clearly as long as it is done in love. (That principle, though stated crudely, and often dismissed as "liberal" actually represents an expression of the Golden Rule which has complex interpretations and ramifications, none of which I'll outline here.) Many of us are old and white, so we don't generally like to talk about sex, but at the same time we don't view it as something dark or naughty (unless that's what turns you on).

When you put these two characteristics together, what you come out with is a relatively sexually permissive culture. We don't see sex as something which is leading to the decline of Western Civilization. It's part of who we are, and a basic function of what it means to be a human. It, like everything, can be abused, damaged and misused, but that doesn't mean it should have a stigma attached any more than other human traits.

This general picture is pretty clear, and I think probably as far as most casual Episcopalians go in their theology of sex. The concern, I think, is that we need to go further. We need to be able to think and talk about sex in terms that are coherent, logical and theologically consistent with our Anglican tradition. Lots of people (well, other Christian types) are mad at us about the way we've approached sex, and we need to be able to explain why we do the things we do, rather than just telling them to get off our back. (We Episcopalians can also tend to be the liberal-because-it's-cool types, who just want you to let us do our thing, and we'll let you do yours.) In my opinion, the way to go about that in the future is to develop the concept of sex as sacrament.

I haven't really done my research, so take this with a grain of salt, but my thesis is that most traditional theologies of sex have been developed, at least in part, to try to convince the unmarried (especially teenagers) that they shouldn't do it. The problem with sex has always been that it's lots of fun, and that it can get you into trouble. (That's still true today despite all of the talk of safe sex.) Being the responsible do-gooders that we are, Christians throughout the ages have said that God says "no no no", and it seems with good practical reason. Nobody likes STDs and unwanted pregnancies (except maybe folks at the big pharmaceutical companies). My position is that "no no no" simply isn't the correct answer--not now, and probably not ever. Rather, we should allow the notion that sexual activity is an "outward sign of an inward grace" (The Catholic Dictionary's definition of "Sacrament") to direct our thought and behavior.

Historically, Anglicans (aka Episcopalians in the US) have identified Baptism, Confession and absolution, Holy Matrimony, Holy Eucharist (also called Holy Communion or Mass), Confirmation, Holy Orders (also called Ordination), and Anointing of the Sick (also called Unction) as our "official" capitol S Sacraments, and may it continue to be so. However, many of us think in more broadly sacramental terms--we see God as being present in our daily lives, our physical actions, and the world around us (The Anglican theologian John Polkinghorne's Panentheism is one reflection of this trend, I would argue). Hence everything takes on a sort of "Enchantment" (See also Alister McGrath on "The Reinchantment of Nature"). Sex, when viewed through this lens, clearly stands out as an act with spiritual overtones. It's an act which produces spiritual unity between two persons, which is why it is already recognized as a key aspect of the sacrament of matrimony, and it's probably the most common and universal source of "spiritual" experience in the world. (Sorry to burst your bubble Extreme Unction.) While many Christians would have you believe that this is true only of heterosexual sex performed within marriage, let's be honest, it's not. Sex prior to marriage generally doesn't destroy your life or future. In Western cultures, the majority of people enjoy positive and healthy sexual relationships prior to marriage. Sex can be affirmed, I say, as the sacramental expression of romantic love regardless of context.

Having said this, now is the part when I'm supposed to offer a list of disclaimers and Biblical justifications, because, well, what about the children?! THE CHILDREN!! Really all I want to say in terms of a disclaimer is don't be silly. I'm not saying that sex is universally good. Sometimes it's abusive or irresponsible, sometimes it's awkward and unenjoyable, and sometimes its just mundane. None of those facts undermines the argument that sex possesses a deep spiritual significance that even Paris Hilton can't deny. And honestly, I'm going to let you argue with the Bible about what's okay (interestingly enough, my spellcheck is suggesting that I change "okay" to "Tokay" here) sexually. I just don't have the energy for that anymore. I'm of the opinion that, when you read the whole thing honestly, you'll find that the Bible paints conflicting pictures about appropriate and acceptable sexual behavior, and in any case shouldn't be used as a rule book or bludgeoning device. "Use your noggin" is my guiding principle.

Worked out, this principle functions like all principles--it doesn't give you hard and fast rules, but if you think long enough about it, you can probably come up with some guidelines for your own situation. You probably won't be able to decide what's correct in every case, but you can figure out that some sexual expressions can be universally affirmed as good and right (within the bounds of a loving, committed relationship), some sexual expressions are morally indefensible (rape, molestation, etc.), and some sexual expressions probably fall into a gray area (consensual but not responsible?). This principle leaves lots of room for flexibility, which is frustrating in some instances (particularly when you're in the mood to tell someone they're going to Hell for what they've done) but that is, after all, the nature of life.

There is, as always, lots more that could be said, but it's past my bedtime.