Metacentricities

If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you probably have picked up that the classic Christian theological concept of the trinity: Father, Son (who was an embodiment of the Father, and died, and was resurrected, etc.) and Holy Spirit is a construct of God that I find hard to embrace.

In some ways, I still am pretty much a Unitarian Christian, even though I now attend a church that is part of a trinitarian denomination (UCC). And because of that, the Trinity is in my consciousness quite often. During service, we always sing that Doxology (thankfully, using inclusive language) “Glory be to the Creator, and to the Christ and to the Holy Ghost …”

Today, the pastor of my lovely church, Rev. Andrea Ayvazian, preached a great sermon (as usual) and in it was this nugget: The qualities of water at what is called the “triple point” of water (which is 0.01 degrees C) is where the three phases can coexist in an equilibrium.

I love the metaphor - the idea of God, and the qualities of God, being in equilibrium - present all at once - it’s all the same substance, like water, but it has three different qualities.

I once wrote a paper in seminary about the concept of the Trinity by Julian of Norwich. About one of Julian’s metaphors of the Trinity, I wrote:

The triad nature, mercy and grace is very much how I experience God, and God’s love. I see God everyday in the natural world. I see the love of God in every leaf, in every rock, in the moo of a cow, the babble of a brook, the flame of a candle. God’s nature is what is so close to my eyes and ears, on a daily basis. God’s grace I experience in my life. When I find myself in the right place at the right time, I see that as grace. When it’s winter (in New England), and I hate the cold, and I look up in the sky, and see the constellation Orion, I feel God’s grace.

It seems like this is a theological concept that I’ll be chewing on for a while.

Well, since it seems I can’t figure out exactly what to say on this blog, and I am happily neck deep in science fiction writing, I have a new blog, over on LiveJournal. It’s only going to be about science fiction writing, and it’s on LJ because there is a huge community of women and feminist science fiction writers there, so it’s the place to be. Kind of ironic, I never really gave LJ much thought - even though it is, really, the grandmother of social networks & blogging, all in one.

I imagine a rant or two about the election season will end up here, or some exploration of a theological or religious conundrum. But I think most of the action is on the Zen tech blog, and LJ.

I’m quite excited - I’m on my way to WisCon, a feminist Science Fiction Convention. I’m doing a writing workshop on Friday, which I’m really excited about, then there are lots and lots of things going on until Sunday night. It’s my first scifi con, which is kinda funny, since I’ve been a science fiction fan since I was a little kid. Somehow I missed the con circuit earlier in life. I guess perhaps because I never was the fannish sort.

This should be exciting, and it has given my writing a burst of energy - now I just need to find the time to use it!

I’ve been watching the whole saga of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or FLDS). It is a very interesting situation, for sure. There is no question that polygyny (polygamy is a broader term) is oppressive to women and girls (and, also oppressive to boys, since many of them are kicked out of the church so that there is less competition among men for multiple wives.)

And, of course, since many of the girls are married off well below the legal age (as young as 14) certainly this practice amounts to institutionalized statutory rape, supposedly legitimized by revelation from God.

I don’t believe that the FLDS is necessarily any worse than the general population when it comes to child abuse (that is to say, I’m sure the prevalence is as just high, but not necessarily much higher.) And, for me, polygamy (or polyamory - the broad terms meaning sexual and marriage relationships between multiple adults) isn’t something that should be regulated by the state. In my opinion, the state really doesn’t have any business regulating what consenting adults choose to do.

Of course, that’s the rub. The girls in the FLDS, even those who are over the marriage age are not likely consenting - or if they are, it is a “consent” born of life-long brainwashing. What if, for example, the FLDS had the same polygynous practices, but women only got married at 18 or older? What do I think about that? Even though I would abhor that situation, I’d have to say that the state should have nothing to do with it.

Interestingly enough, polygyny is not something that is especially problematic for the writers of the Bible. It was completely normal to the writers of the Hebrew Bible, and it’s acceptability or lack thereof in the early Christian church is debated. Of course, no other forms of polygamy (multiple husbands, or other kinds of combinations) aren’t a part of the picture at all. At some point, polygyny became unacceptable, and polygamy is still considered such by our society as a whole.

Joseph Smith thought that plural marriage was ordained by God, as a part of his whole idea that believers needed to get back to the Old Testament ways. It was, apparently, not accepted by all followers originally. It eventually became a central part of Mormon religious practice. It was, of course illegal, and eventually, the legal pressure to conform was so great, that the church gave it up. This also lead to the schism which resulted in the FLDS.

So to the bigger question - when does the state (and, by extrapolation, the population at large) get to say when a religious practice is not acceptable? I don’t think for a moment that the arguments against polygyny in the late 19th century had much to do with women’s empowerment - even though that would be more of the argument today. And when does the prevailing morals of the majority, even if not involving laws relating to harming of individuals (such as regulations of relationships between consenting adults) infringe upon the freedom of religious expression? All good questions.

For the last six weeks or so, I’ve been making a Sunday morning trek of about 30 minutes almost directly due south from Shelburne Falls, to Haydenville Congregational Church (a member of the UCC, and an Open and Affirming congregation). HCC is pastored by the Rev. Andrea Ayvazian, a local hero to peace activists (and lots of others) in the valley.

Starting to get to know a new church community is always a bit of a twitchy experience for me. All of my shy quietness comes out. And then, add to that, my own complex relationship with the religion of my birth, and it makes for an interesting experience. I’ve been doing some church shopping over the past few months, and finding the right fit felt like an impossible task. There’s the challenge of hearing “he” and “him” all the time for God. The challenge of doctrine of various sorts. There is the challenge of my judging mind. Having been to seminary, and having been a bit of a bible geek, it’s really hard for me to sit through exegesis that isn’t that good (I remember, with some cringes, of a sermon at another church I sat through with about the worst exegesis I could imagine of my favorite parable - the good Samaritan. I felt like I could have done a much better job, and I didn’t even take preaching!)

I have felt really at home at HCC. It’s a very diverse crowd, in age, background and sexuality. And, I’m usually not the only African American there, which is a nice plus for a Congregational church in New England. Everyone really tries hard to be welcoming, and it is truly genuine. And it is clear from what Andrea says (and the way things are done) that people with a very wide range of views are welcome. And, to top it off, Andrea is a great exegete, and a really good preacher.

Today was the day that I finally, really felt like this was a community I could become a part of. I was looking forward to going this morning, I have begun to get to know a few faces and names, and the noise in my head finally yielded to just being in the presence of the Divine. Today, Andrea gave a sermon based on the story in Luke about Jesus’ appearance to some folks on the walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus. And for the first time, I think I actually got a tiny, tiny little hint about what resurrection means to me.

I remember two years ago, when I was trying my best to approach the concept of Easter - the Christian concept that I think I probably have the hardest time with, and my very well-intentioned but ill-fated spiritual director said that I needed to experience the presence of the risen Christ. I think I flew out of that room about as fast as I could, under the circumstances (I’m exaggerating, but you get the point.) Today, I think I got a tiny little inkling of what that means to me (and it doesn’t really have much to do with any human being actually rising from the dead.)

There are several folks I knew from the Unitarian Society in Northampton, which I find really interesting, considering how secular USNF is. Perhaps those folks have been on a similar kind of journey as I. I look forward to talking to them about what drew them to HCC. And I look forward to becoming part of the community.

I was having fun for a while. Interesting crop of candidates on the Democratic side for once, more than one that I really liked. It looked like there was going to be an interesting contest, one that would be about issues, and not flinging daggers back and forth.

I’m not having fun anymore. Hillary Clinton is playing dirty. She is more interested in being President than in rising above the fray, and being honest. Between the extremely problematic comments of Geraldine Ferraro (I am finding it hard to believe that I was really proud of having been to a rally during the ‘84 election and that I shook her hand,) and the fear-mongering “3am telephone call” commercial, I’m saddened by the whole thing.

Keith Olbermann, as usual, has an amazing Special Commentary on the Geraldine Ferraro mess. I could not have said it better.

Of course, in this post 9/11 climate, the fear-mongering over the possibility that Barack Obama is a Muslim, which, as he said, is both an insult to him, as a Christian, and an insult to Muslims, plays so well with the fears of many Americans of anyone that might be considered “other”, whether it be because of race, national origin, or religion.

An interesting poll just came out. Faith in Public Life suggests that since 13% of the people say in the poll that Obama is a Muslim, and that is up from 8% in December, that the rumors are having an effect. I’m not so sure. What’s also true is that 37% know he is Protestant, over 18% who knew in December. That’s actually a much bigger jump. So I think in some quarters, yes, the rumors are settling in. But a lot of people are learning more about Obama.

What true is that even at the same time as we have two historic candidates for the Democratic nomination, all the old crap is still evident. And I’m not sure we’ve gotten any better at dealing with that crap. And, of course, no matter which one of them wins, because of all of this, it will be that much harder for the Democrats to win in November.

I haven’t been blogging here much these days. Partially because I’ve been working really hard technology projects, like my consulting practice, and being Coordinator of the Nonprofit Open Source Initiative (NOSI). Partially because I’m blogging a lot on my technology blog.

Most of the reason that I haven’t been blogging much is that I’m at a loss as to what to say. Not because I don’t have opinions or thoughts on a wide variety of topics. It’s because so much in my life has changed in the last few months, and in the last 3 years, that I think it will take me a while to catch up.

You’ve heard a fair bit over the last year or so about my significant other, Ruth. She came across this quote, which I think is a great description of who we are to each other:

With a kindred spirit we meet our twin flame on a level that has no drama, chaos or karma. We connect to a kindred spirit without needs, wants or expectations. With them we can experience unconditional love in its truest form, where we can be who we are and accept them in the same way. We don’t have to heal or change anyone. We can allow the relationship to be what it is without fear of what happens if it ends, without wrapping our emotional or psychological identity into it and truly experiencing it in the present moment, without connecting to the past. — Jennifer Hoffman

Ruth is, without a doubt, my kindred spirit. And she is, at this moment, making a new life for herself back in the East Bay, in California, while I make a life for myself here, in New England. She left on Wednesday. It would be, of course a massive oversimplification to say that I don’t wrap any of my “emotional or psychological identity” into our relationship. But underneath the sadness that accompanies the loss of an attachment to an ideal, rather than reality, is the certainty that we both are doing what is right for us, and we will, in the most important senses, always be together.

Today, I feel like I have a bit of whiplash. So much has changed over the past 3 years. None of it was really expected, or part of any “plan.” So I need time to rest, be quiet, catch my breath, and move into the next phase of my life.

And, if you know anyone who wants to share a wonderful house in Shelburne Falls, have them give me a shout.

Tuesday is SuperDuper Tuesday, where a bunch of states vote in primaries. One of those states is my own, Massachusetts. For a while, I was, ironically, supporting Edwards. Mostly because I really, really don’t like Hillary, and I felt like Obama is young, could use more seasoning before being president, and Edwards would have made a great president. (Actually, my dream ticket was Edwards/Obama - 16 years of bliss.) Anyway, now that Edwards has dropped out, I’m going to support Obama wholeheartedly.

One thing, though. It appears that some people feel that you can’t really be a feminist and be against Hillary. The New York chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women) had this to say about the Kennedy endorsement of Obama:

… And now the greatest betrayal!  We are repaid with his abandonment!  He’s picked the new guy over us.  He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).

… This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.

Huh? I see, so Kennedy is not endorsing what he feels is the best candidate. No, no, he’s betraying women! Puleeze!

Would they even think of saying such a thing if Elizabeth Dole were running?

Hillary Clinton believes in “coercive diplomacy” (if there ever was a contradiction, that is one.) She voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. She has been completely bought out by the health care industry, and basically no longer believes in universal, single-payer health coverage. She voted for the 700 mile fence along the Mexican border. She voted for the Patriot Act. Twice. I can’t, in good conscience, vote for her in the primary.

NY NOW’s unfortunate perspective (feminist=must be for Clinton) is problematic on its face.  And the truth is, this election isn’t about either gender or race. It is a historic occasion that the Democratic party will nominate someone who will be the first in history. That is significant enough. NY NOW’s stance (National NOW has been conciliatory) is divisive, at a time that divisiveness is destructive. We are in deep, deep shit as a country, and we need to find a way out of it. If you think Clinton is best (and not just because she has a vagina) then great. And if you think Obama is best (not just because he has dark skin) that’s great too. Do we need to add identity politics to an already challenging time?

It’s interesting to think about the press, and the bias the press has, especially in this time. What the press says, and how it says it, is pretty darned important - it’s the way that most people get their information about politics, and the presidential campaigns.

I’ve been thinking some about the Obama/Huckabee victories in Iowa, and what people are saying about it. In particular, I’ve been interested in the whole issue of how faith is playing out - Obama’s faith, Huckabee’s faith, and the faith of voters. Faith in Public life had this recent post about what was missing.  Two separate polls of Democrats and Republican caucus-goers asked different questions of the Dems and the Republicans. They asked Republicans whether or not they were evangelical, but didn’t ask that of the Democrats. Was that because they didn’t want to know? Or didn’t think it was important? Or didn’t care?

Faith in Public Life says:

So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus. That’s some serious institutional bias.

It is, indeed. Especially given the fact that progressive evangelicals have been getting a higher profile lately.

The results from Iowa are in: Obama wins big, as does Huckabee. Edwards comes in second among dems. Hillary Clinton does really badly.

I’m happy. I’m not a Clinton fan, honestly (she’s too hawkish, too corporate-friendly.) And, as far as I am concerned, Mike Huckabee is probably the republican to beat.

Hat tip to Cranky/Happy Cindy for what coverage to follow.