For a quick link to someone else's blog post. Wonderfully interesting thoughts on Christian modesty over at http://sojo.net/blogs/2013/01/28/rethinking-modesty.
Peace!
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
My Religious Bucket List in Chicago, Part 2: First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple
Labels:
Christian,
church shopping,
Methodist
0
comments
Three days after our Longest Night service, my Woman and I found ourselves at the Chicago Temple for a Sunday service at First United Methodist Church. The building was smack downtown, right across from a Christmas market in Daley Plaza. My Woman had never been to a Methodist church before, but I felt right at home-- it reminded me of both my Presbyterian roots and my Episcopalian/Anglican future. Justly so-- Charles Wesley, as my former chaplain teased Methodists, lived and died an Anglican.
My Woman and I were pleased to note that we sang multiple Charles Wesley hymns. And, we joked, we think the pastor mentioned Charles Wesley more than God. (Just as well we Anglicans don't have a charismatic founder like that-- no one would dream of doing that with Henry VIII!)
Afterwards, we took a tour of the church. We were primarily interested in seeing the Sky Chapel-- a chapel on the top floor of what was once the tallest building in all Chicago and what is still the highest place of worship in the city. It's definitely beautiful and worth a look!
One thing that moved me in particular was the frequently emphasized motif of comparing Chicago with the new Jerusalem. Two altars -- one on the ground floor and one in the sky chapel-- had carvings of Jesus looking out over Jerusalem and Chicago respectively. The stained glass windows featured not only your typical Christian images of events in the Bible and your (I presume) typical Methodist images of the Wesley brothers, but also an image of Chicago. The images gave me a glimpse into what pioneers and settlers must have thought as the wound their way out west-- that they were on a pilgrimage to the New Jerusalem-- and aren't we all?
My Woman and I were pleased to note that we sang multiple Charles Wesley hymns. And, we joked, we think the pastor mentioned Charles Wesley more than God. (Just as well we Anglicans don't have a charismatic founder like that-- no one would dream of doing that with Henry VIII!)
Afterwards, we took a tour of the church. We were primarily interested in seeing the Sky Chapel-- a chapel on the top floor of what was once the tallest building in all Chicago and what is still the highest place of worship in the city. It's definitely beautiful and worth a look!
One thing that moved me in particular was the frequently emphasized motif of comparing Chicago with the new Jerusalem. Two altars -- one on the ground floor and one in the sky chapel-- had carvings of Jesus looking out over Jerusalem and Chicago respectively. The stained glass windows featured not only your typical Christian images of events in the Bible and your (I presume) typical Methodist images of the Wesley brothers, but also an image of Chicago. The images gave me a glimpse into what pioneers and settlers must have thought as the wound their way out west-- that they were on a pilgrimage to the New Jerusalem-- and aren't we all?
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Sexy Dolls Study and Religious Modesty
Labels:
Christian,
kids,
modesty,
research
1 comments
I suppose by now most of you have seen the article by C.R. Starr and G.M. Ferguson entitled "Sexy Dolls, Sexy Grade-Schoolers? Media and Maternal Influences on Young Girls' Self-Sexualization." The article has been covered a bunch, mostly with people expressing their shock and horror that 6-year-olds want to be sexy. I have to tell you, as someone who works with large groups of kids, I wasn't surprised at all.
The part you likely didn't hear much about was that they looked at mothers' religiosity as a protective factor (ie. would a child exposed to lots of sexualization in the media still want to be sexy at age 6 if her mother is more religious?). That, for me, was the most interesting part. Now, mind you, this was a majority Christian, majority White, midwestern U.S. sample, so Heaven only knows if you could actually generalize this to other people, but it's interesting nonetheless.
So here are the basics: girls were shown a sexily-dressed doll and a fashionably-dressed, but in more modest clothes. (You can check out that image here.) They were asked to choose which doll 1) looked most like them, 2) looked most like they wanted to look like, 3) looked most like the "popular girl" and 4) they'd want to play with the most.
Mothers were asked about a bunch of things, including how often they monitor their kids' TV use, how they feel about their bodies/appearances and their religiosity. The religiosity questions included: "How important is religion to your daily life?" and "How important do you think it is to teach your children your religious values?" This, in and of itself, is pretty cool. Most studies measuring religiosity just ask how often you attend religious services. That can be useful, but there's a huge difference between someone who goes to church once a week and doesn't think about it at all during the rest of the week versus someone who may not even go to weekly religious services, but who thinks about their religion all the time during the week.
The verdict was this: many of those thing that we all expect make children want to be "sexy" did, but only a little. Media influence? Yup. Mothers' opinions of their bodies? Sure. Of course, if you monitor your child's TV/internet/magazine use, that goes down a little. But what about religion?
Well, if a child watched a lot of TV and had a very religious mother, she was still likely to choose the more modest-dressing doll as who she wanted to look like most. And if a child's mother taught her about religion more, she was less likely to choose the "sexy" doll as popular. And the more religious the mother, the more likely a girl was to choose to play with the modestly-dressed doll.
Here's the kicker though: if a child watched very little TV and had a religious mother, she was more likely to say she wanted to look like the sexy doll.
Moral of the story, maybe? Being sequestered from the media only makes "sexiness" this forbidden fruit that everyone else has. But when you see "sexy" things on TV, but your nearest and dearest same-sex role model (because, let's be honest, for most 6-year-olds, that's mommy) is offering a modest alternative, that's the one you're more likely to pick.
This is good-- religiosity is just like every other part of your life; it can be used for good or evil. So choose wisely, my friends.
Reference:
Starr, C., & Ferguson, G. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy grade-schoolers? media and maternal influences on young girls' self-sexualization. Sex Roles, doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0183-x
The part you likely didn't hear much about was that they looked at mothers' religiosity as a protective factor (ie. would a child exposed to lots of sexualization in the media still want to be sexy at age 6 if her mother is more religious?). That, for me, was the most interesting part. Now, mind you, this was a majority Christian, majority White, midwestern U.S. sample, so Heaven only knows if you could actually generalize this to other people, but it's interesting nonetheless.
So here are the basics: girls were shown a sexily-dressed doll and a fashionably-dressed, but in more modest clothes. (You can check out that image here.) They were asked to choose which doll 1) looked most like them, 2) looked most like they wanted to look like, 3) looked most like the "popular girl" and 4) they'd want to play with the most.
Mothers were asked about a bunch of things, including how often they monitor their kids' TV use, how they feel about their bodies/appearances and their religiosity. The religiosity questions included: "How important is religion to your daily life?" and "How important do you think it is to teach your children your religious values?" This, in and of itself, is pretty cool. Most studies measuring religiosity just ask how often you attend religious services. That can be useful, but there's a huge difference between someone who goes to church once a week and doesn't think about it at all during the rest of the week versus someone who may not even go to weekly religious services, but who thinks about their religion all the time during the week.
The verdict was this: many of those thing that we all expect make children want to be "sexy" did, but only a little. Media influence? Yup. Mothers' opinions of their bodies? Sure. Of course, if you monitor your child's TV/internet/magazine use, that goes down a little. But what about religion?
Well, if a child watched a lot of TV and had a very religious mother, she was still likely to choose the more modest-dressing doll as who she wanted to look like most. And if a child's mother taught her about religion more, she was less likely to choose the "sexy" doll as popular. And the more religious the mother, the more likely a girl was to choose to play with the modestly-dressed doll.
Here's the kicker though: if a child watched very little TV and had a religious mother, she was more likely to say she wanted to look like the sexy doll.
Moral of the story, maybe? Being sequestered from the media only makes "sexiness" this forbidden fruit that everyone else has. But when you see "sexy" things on TV, but your nearest and dearest same-sex role model (because, let's be honest, for most 6-year-olds, that's mommy) is offering a modest alternative, that's the one you're more likely to pick.
This is good-- religiosity is just like every other part of your life; it can be used for good or evil. So choose wisely, my friends.
Reference:
Starr, C., & Ferguson, G. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy grade-schoolers? media and maternal influences on young girls' self-sexualization. Sex Roles, doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0183-x
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Light on a Hilltop VS. Hypocrite on the Street Corner
Labels:
Ash Wednesday,
Catholic,
Christian,
head coverings
1 comments
Welcome to Lent, everyone!
Regardless of your religious affiliation, you probably noticed a few people walking around yesterday with ash crosses on their foreheads. Depending on where you are, you might even have noticed priests on street corners handing out ashes.
There's a lot of fuss out there about what to do with the ashes. Do you rub them off afterwords or do you walk around advertising your religion all day? It's actually part of a much more contentious debate in Christianity as a whole, at least in the parts of Christianity I've had a glimpse of. The great debate is: Light on the Hilltop (Matt. 5:14) vs. Hypocrite on the Street Corner (Matt. 6:5). These are both descriptions Jesus has used to describe believers who act out their faith publicly. Since this is something I do on a regular basis with covering my hair, it's something that I'm always wrestling with.
The clincher of the Light on the Hilltop story (it's actually a light in a city on a hill) is this: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (KJV Matt. 5:16). "Your light," I believe, is your faith from God so if you are both letting your light shine and doing what God says you're supposed to be doing, it brings other people to worship God. That's important. You're not supposed to be just showing off.
That's where the whole Hypocrites on the Street Corner thing comes in. Jesus specifically mentions that these people get rewarded for their devotion-- this is where the well-known verse about storing your treasures in Heaven comes in. If you're getting praised just for practicing your faith, well, obviously that's not the goal. I feel like it's pretty easy to tell these people from the ones above (although it's maybe much harder to identify the difference in ourselves). The hypocrites just seem slimy and unctuous and they're more likely to put you off the faith than turn you on to it.
Now, if you're concerned you might be a hypocrite, I suppose you could say that it's better just to keep quiet about your faith to be safe, but I have a problem with that. Here's my problem: Look around at the people who are public about their faith. Often, it's the people blowing things up or driving teenagers to suicide. When we normal people don't go public about our faith, it's these hypocrites who end up being the spokespeople for religion. No wonder people are leaving religion in droves! That's why I try to go public about my faith-- the world needs to know that not all of us our hypocrites. Hopefully, I can help with that.
Anyone else have reasons why the decided to be publicly faithful? Or not?
Regardless of your religious affiliation, you probably noticed a few people walking around yesterday with ash crosses on their foreheads. Depending on where you are, you might even have noticed priests on street corners handing out ashes.
There's a lot of fuss out there about what to do with the ashes. Do you rub them off afterwords or do you walk around advertising your religion all day? It's actually part of a much more contentious debate in Christianity as a whole, at least in the parts of Christianity I've had a glimpse of. The great debate is: Light on the Hilltop (Matt. 5:14) vs. Hypocrite on the Street Corner (Matt. 6:5). These are both descriptions Jesus has used to describe believers who act out their faith publicly. Since this is something I do on a regular basis with covering my hair, it's something that I'm always wrestling with.
The clincher of the Light on the Hilltop story (it's actually a light in a city on a hill) is this: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (KJV Matt. 5:16). "Your light," I believe, is your faith from God so if you are both letting your light shine and doing what God says you're supposed to be doing, it brings other people to worship God. That's important. You're not supposed to be just showing off.
That's where the whole Hypocrites on the Street Corner thing comes in. Jesus specifically mentions that these people get rewarded for their devotion-- this is where the well-known verse about storing your treasures in Heaven comes in. If you're getting praised just for practicing your faith, well, obviously that's not the goal. I feel like it's pretty easy to tell these people from the ones above (although it's maybe much harder to identify the difference in ourselves). The hypocrites just seem slimy and unctuous and they're more likely to put you off the faith than turn you on to it.
Now, if you're concerned you might be a hypocrite, I suppose you could say that it's better just to keep quiet about your faith to be safe, but I have a problem with that. Here's my problem: Look around at the people who are public about their faith. Often, it's the people blowing things up or driving teenagers to suicide. When we normal people don't go public about our faith, it's these hypocrites who end up being the spokespeople for religion. No wonder people are leaving religion in droves! That's why I try to go public about my faith-- the world needs to know that not all of us our hypocrites. Hopefully, I can help with that.
Anyone else have reasons why the decided to be publicly faithful? Or not?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
How to Get Young People to Come to Church
Labels:
Christian,
church shopping,
God
3
comments
Since our move to Chicago, my Woman and I seem to spend a lot of time church-shopping-- you know, finding the church that's right for us. In the meantime, we've seen how blessed we were before with two wonderful churches --thank God for St. Clare's and Canterbury House-- and how hard it is as "young people" to find a Home in the church. So, although this is rather off topic, I have a list of things I'd like to say to every church I've been to that's trying to recruit "young people."
How about you? Does this list match up to what you wish you could say to your churches or synagogues or mosques? What would you change?
So, here we go: Allie's 10 Sure-Fire Ways to Recruit "Young People" to Church
How about you? Does this list match up to what you wish you could say to your churches or synagogues or mosques? What would you change?
So, here we go: Allie's 10 Sure-Fire Ways to Recruit "Young People" to Church
- We get enough advertising campaigns from Apple and Ikea. Skip the marketing and be real!
- We like pop. (Some of us.) We also like hip-hop, rock, jazz, techno, country, 18th Century Charles Wesley hymns, and genres you’ve never even heard of.
- Talk to us if we show up to church.
- If we’re not showing up to church, don’t give us flak about it! Our reasons for going or not going to church are just as complex as anyone else’s.
- Try not to beg for money too hard. When you need to beg for money (because don’t we all in this economy!), refer to #1. It’s not about give-the-church-money-or-you’ll-rot-in-Hell; I’m pretty sure God would be just as content with my donation to Unicef. A church is a business just like everything else. You need money to keep the lights on and pay the priest and buy materials for the Sunday School classrooms. Tell us that.
- We, like everyone else, need to participate. This doesn’t mean we need our own special group, although that’s sometimes nice. Welcome us into your choir, let us teach Sunday School, or invite us to Bible studies.
- If you have a group for us, please stop trying to be cool unless you’re already that cool to begin with. Why? For starters, not all of us are cool, so we don’t need a church that has all the same cliques as the rest of our lives. And lets face it, we can tell when you’re faking it, so please refer to #1.
- Don’t make us choose between our faith and our friends of other faiths. If you do, odds are good we’ll pick our friends-- not because we don’t believe, but because we don’t want a church we can’t bring our friends to.
- Don’t be stupid about science or social issues-- if you have to be stupid about them, be stupid quietly. Lots of us stay away from church because all we ever hear about church is how church-goers “don’t believe” in evolution or gay people. If church focused more on worshiping together than pushing beliefs on people, it’d appeal more to us.
- On that note, don’t force us to believe things and be open to doubt. Everyone doubts-- think Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane or Thomas after the Resurrection. If we have to have all our doubts cleared up before we walk in the door, you'd never see us! (You probably wouldn't see half your older parishioners for that matter, either!)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Eucharist
Labels:
Christian,
Eucharist,
God,
head coverings
1 comments
Several years ago, the deacon at my old church gave a sermon that sticks with me now after attending 3 Masses so far here in France. Now, I'm very bad at paying attention to sermons and I'm doing this from memory at least 3 years on, so I may not get it all right.
He was talking, as I recall, about why Episcopalians put so much weight on the Eucharist and not on the Bible (not, at least, as a literal, premade document). He compared two people growing old, one of whom was very Protestant and who's central "icon," if you will, of the faith (by which I mean what represented the faith to them) was the Bible, and the other of whom was Episcopalian and who's central "icon" of the faith was the Eucharist. Both of them were losing their eyesight and, in some ways, their understanding, so the Protestant was struggling with their faith because they were losing their ability to read and comprehend the Bible, which was their tangible connection to the faith. For the Episcopalian, even though they were losing their sight and comprehension, still had the Eucharist to hold on to. They could still experience the Eucharist, even when the Bible was inaccesible to them.
Having attended Mass here in France in 3 different churches and in 2 different languages, I get that. I love the beauty of being able to walk into a Mass and understand what is going on without knowing the language very well. It feels like the most accessible link to God possible-- a way to access God through something we humans have to do all the time anyway-- eat!
In a way, that's kind of what I'm looking for in covering my head-- a way to access God through sometihng I do every day.
He was talking, as I recall, about why Episcopalians put so much weight on the Eucharist and not on the Bible (not, at least, as a literal, premade document). He compared two people growing old, one of whom was very Protestant and who's central "icon," if you will, of the faith (by which I mean what represented the faith to them) was the Bible, and the other of whom was Episcopalian and who's central "icon" of the faith was the Eucharist. Both of them were losing their eyesight and, in some ways, their understanding, so the Protestant was struggling with their faith because they were losing their ability to read and comprehend the Bible, which was their tangible connection to the faith. For the Episcopalian, even though they were losing their sight and comprehension, still had the Eucharist to hold on to. They could still experience the Eucharist, even when the Bible was inaccesible to them.
Having attended Mass here in France in 3 different churches and in 2 different languages, I get that. I love the beauty of being able to walk into a Mass and understand what is going on without knowing the language very well. It feels like the most accessible link to God possible-- a way to access God through something we humans have to do all the time anyway-- eat!
In a way, that's kind of what I'm looking for in covering my head-- a way to access God through sometihng I do every day.
Monday, April 4, 2011
I've always been offensive, just by being myself.
Labels:
Christian,
head coverings,
hijab,
modesty,
Muslim,
offense,
stereotypes
0
comments
It's true. If I did everything "by the book" (or "the Book"), I'd still offend a majority of the world's population, just by how I feel about women. (Shall I get in to the fact that it is actually impossible to do everything the Bible says literally? ...No, I shan't.)
Simply "having homosexual tendencies" makes me ineligible to teach Sunday School in many churches.
The loving, monogamous relationship I have with my Woman has made mothers pull their children away from us in the street. (Not knocking polygamy/polyamory-- that's simply a fight I'm not going into right now.)
Being Christian means 9 out of 10 gay people I meet assume I'm closeted and self-hating. Worse! They'll assume one or the other is a "phase"-- where have I heard that before???
And while I'm on other queer people! Some of the people I find I offend the most are other queer people who are less affectionate than my Woman and I are in church. Like, they feel the need to act like heteros so why don't my Woman and I?
So I can't get around being offensive and my choice was to minimize my offensiveness and not "act gay" --whatever that means-- or be myself and risk offending people.
My point is, I guess I'm going to have to do that here.
The modesty thing is constantly changing the way I look at clothing (more on that in another post), but I don't think I will continue it (at least in quite this way) in perpetuity. Head covering, on the other hand, I really feel called to, if that makes sense. It's not something we typically talk about having a calling for in the Episcopal Church, but I really just feel like it should have been there all along.
Maybe that's offensive. Or is it only offensive if I wear hijab? To that end-- here we go.
First off, I have yet to find a source anywhere where a Muslim person says they would be offended by a non-Muslim wearing a hijab. Now, I'm sure some Muslim somewhere is probably offended, but obviously it is not a majority. Not including the ones Megan found in my earlier post, here's what I found in my first two or three pages of googling.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?7474-Can-a-non-muslim-wear-the-hijab
http://ilovehishmatheblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/juma-thoughts-non-muslims-wearing-hijab.html
http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread.php?3202-non-muslims-wearing-Hijab
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4676&CATE=115
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Non-muslim-wearing-hijab.htm
http://www.islamconcepts.com/2009/09/28/non-muslim-women-wear-hijab-talking-its-benefits/
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/50194-non-muslim-wearing-hijab.html
And then there's this facebook group that is specifically for non-Muslim hijabis.
And, check out my blogroll on the right hand side of the page. Cover(ed) Girl is by Heather, a Christian hijabi who was formerly a niqabi. Little Steps Home is written by Amber, who is an Orthodox Christian who covers, as far as I can tell, sometimes with a hijab.
Even with all that, I just feel comfortable in a hijab-- perhaps it's because I prefer it when my ears are covered and I like having something that tucks into my shirt-- it just makes the whole thing feel more "right" for me.
And when I lived in Senegal, it was encouraged. Honestly, I fought it tooth-and-nail there because it felt like it was saying they would only treat me respectfully if I wore it. And frankly, I resent that, but near the end of my time in Senegal I got into the hijab more. (As a note: I covered my hair there a lot, because it was easier to do it and not look abnormal.) So maybe that let it in as an option for me? I don't know.
I might also add that there a finite number of ways one can cover one's head. At some point, I'm going to step on somebody's toes.
All I know is: I feel called to cover. I will continue doing so unless and until I feel called to stop or it gets too difficult to manage. As for the hijab, I will try to be culturally sensitive, but I don't think I'm upsetting hijabis. I imagine a lot of them feel called to the hijab and so understand what it's like trying to argue with a call.
I do appreciate your input; after all, I asked for it. It is totally enlightening and feel free to continue commenting, but in the end, it's my submission to God and it's my call.
Simply "having homosexual tendencies" makes me ineligible to teach Sunday School in many churches.
The loving, monogamous relationship I have with my Woman has made mothers pull their children away from us in the street. (Not knocking polygamy/polyamory-- that's simply a fight I'm not going into right now.)
Being Christian means 9 out of 10 gay people I meet assume I'm closeted and self-hating. Worse! They'll assume one or the other is a "phase"-- where have I heard that before???
And while I'm on other queer people! Some of the people I find I offend the most are other queer people who are less affectionate than my Woman and I are in church. Like, they feel the need to act like heteros so why don't my Woman and I?
So I can't get around being offensive and my choice was to minimize my offensiveness and not "act gay" --whatever that means-- or be myself and risk offending people.
My point is, I guess I'm going to have to do that here.
The modesty thing is constantly changing the way I look at clothing (more on that in another post), but I don't think I will continue it (at least in quite this way) in perpetuity. Head covering, on the other hand, I really feel called to, if that makes sense. It's not something we typically talk about having a calling for in the Episcopal Church, but I really just feel like it should have been there all along.
Maybe that's offensive. Or is it only offensive if I wear hijab? To that end-- here we go.
First off, I have yet to find a source anywhere where a Muslim person says they would be offended by a non-Muslim wearing a hijab. Now, I'm sure some Muslim somewhere is probably offended, but obviously it is not a majority. Not including the ones Megan found in my earlier post, here's what I found in my first two or three pages of googling.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?7474-Can-a-non-muslim-wear-the-hijab
http://ilovehishmatheblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/juma-thoughts-non-muslims-wearing-hijab.html
http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread.php?3202-non-muslims-wearing-Hijab
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4676&CATE=115
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Non-muslim-wearing-hijab.htm
http://www.islamconcepts.com/2009/09/28/non-muslim-women-wear-hijab-talking-its-benefits/
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/50194-non-muslim-wearing-hijab.html
And then there's this facebook group that is specifically for non-Muslim hijabis.
And, check out my blogroll on the right hand side of the page. Cover(ed) Girl is by Heather, a Christian hijabi who was formerly a niqabi. Little Steps Home is written by Amber, who is an Orthodox Christian who covers, as far as I can tell, sometimes with a hijab.
Even with all that, I just feel comfortable in a hijab-- perhaps it's because I prefer it when my ears are covered and I like having something that tucks into my shirt-- it just makes the whole thing feel more "right" for me.
And when I lived in Senegal, it was encouraged. Honestly, I fought it tooth-and-nail there because it felt like it was saying they would only treat me respectfully if I wore it. And frankly, I resent that, but near the end of my time in Senegal I got into the hijab more. (As a note: I covered my hair there a lot, because it was easier to do it and not look abnormal.) So maybe that let it in as an option for me? I don't know.
I might also add that there a finite number of ways one can cover one's head. At some point, I'm going to step on somebody's toes.
All I know is: I feel called to cover. I will continue doing so unless and until I feel called to stop or it gets too difficult to manage. As for the hijab, I will try to be culturally sensitive, but I don't think I'm upsetting hijabis. I imagine a lot of them feel called to the hijab and so understand what it's like trying to argue with a call.
I do appreciate your input; after all, I asked for it. It is totally enlightening and feel free to continue commenting, but in the end, it's my submission to God and it's my call.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Please Raise Your Hand If I'm Offending You
Yes, that's what I'm asking. And I do want to know.
There are a number of ways to look at this.
Is practicing tzniut for Lent offensive to Jews? Just Orthodox Jews? Just Orthodox Jewish women?
Is practicing tzniut for Lent offensive to Christians? Just Christians who follow Christian modesty rules? If so, which kinds? All of them?
Is wearing a hijab offensive to all Muslims? Muslim women?
Is wearing a hijab offensive to Christians?
Ways people besides me might look at this: (let me know if I've missed any)
1) Closer to the One True Truth
If you believe that yours is the one true truth (ie. that Islam and nothing else is right or that Orthodox Judaism and nothing else is right) then surely it is better for me to get one thing right than nothing right. This was a prominent belief in Senegal. *Sidy* or whomever believes that Islam is the one true truth. He wishes the whole world was Muslim. He would love it if I, personally, converted to Islam. One day, I show up wearing a hijab. *Sidy* grins. He knows I'm not Muslim, because maybe he saw me at the bar the other night or whatever, but he'll applaud me, saying it's better that I do one thing right than nothing.
2) Appropriating Someone's Culture
If you believe that tzniut (or Orthodox Judaism or hijab or Islam) is a cultural thing, then obviously, taking things from it when I don't fully understand it would be hugely offensive and also awkward for me. It'd be like the people walking around with the giant Chinese word for "joy" on their back. It may or may not be Chinese and it may or may not mean "joy" but the fact that I'm walking around without knowing that would be offensive to Chinese-speaking people and awkward for me (even though I don't know it).
3) Denying My Own Religion
If you believe a) that Christianity has a mandate to not follow tzniut rules or hijab or what-have-you or b) that one cannot use aspects of another faith to deepen one's own faith-- that this amounts to a denial of the faith, then I could see some Christians being offended at my claim to be Christian. Check out this little upheaval for more ideas.
4) Truth in Advertising
This would require that you believed 2 things: 1) that practicing modesty or headcovering or whatever advertises something besides modesty or headcovering (ie. that wearing a hijab advertises being a Muslim) and 2) that since it advertises this, it must be inherently wrong to practice this if you are also advertising behaviors that you believe inconsistent with it (ie. it is wrong to drink alcohol in a hijab whether or not one is Muslim).
5) Enriching My Spiritual Practice
I'm learning about other people's religions and deepening my own in the process. To me, it seems to provide me with an opportunity (as a nerdy, overly fashion-conscious, religious college student) to combine my nerdiness (the research) my fashion issues (the clothes) and my religion (the prayer) into one Lenten discipline.
6) What About Christian Modesty?
This would mean that because my Lenten discipline uses tzniut guidlines or because I wear a hijab (occasionally), I've turned up my nose at Christian modesty practices-- such as going by Plain or Mormon standards or something like that.
7) You Can't be a Lesbian and Religious! Especially Not Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Zoroastrian!
This means assuming that queer people can't be in XYZ religion. Then, you assume that my *being* Christian or using Jewish standards to define modesty or wearing a hijab is offensive to someone, somewhere because I'm queer and they don't let queer people in that club. With all of that, you're endorsing that they have a right to be offended by my sexual orientation, which is legitimizing homophobia.
There are a number of ways to look at this.
Is practicing tzniut for Lent offensive to Jews? Just Orthodox Jews? Just Orthodox Jewish women?
Is practicing tzniut for Lent offensive to Christians? Just Christians who follow Christian modesty rules? If so, which kinds? All of them?
Is wearing a hijab offensive to all Muslims? Muslim women?
Is wearing a hijab offensive to Christians?
Ways people besides me might look at this: (let me know if I've missed any)
1) Closer to the One True Truth
If you believe that yours is the one true truth (ie. that Islam and nothing else is right or that Orthodox Judaism and nothing else is right) then surely it is better for me to get one thing right than nothing right. This was a prominent belief in Senegal. *Sidy* or whomever believes that Islam is the one true truth. He wishes the whole world was Muslim. He would love it if I, personally, converted to Islam. One day, I show up wearing a hijab. *Sidy* grins. He knows I'm not Muslim, because maybe he saw me at the bar the other night or whatever, but he'll applaud me, saying it's better that I do one thing right than nothing.
2) Appropriating Someone's Culture
If you believe that tzniut (or Orthodox Judaism or hijab or Islam) is a cultural thing, then obviously, taking things from it when I don't fully understand it would be hugely offensive and also awkward for me. It'd be like the people walking around with the giant Chinese word for "joy" on their back. It may or may not be Chinese and it may or may not mean "joy" but the fact that I'm walking around without knowing that would be offensive to Chinese-speaking people and awkward for me (even though I don't know it).
3) Denying My Own Religion
If you believe a) that Christianity has a mandate to not follow tzniut rules or hijab or what-have-you or b) that one cannot use aspects of another faith to deepen one's own faith-- that this amounts to a denial of the faith, then I could see some Christians being offended at my claim to be Christian. Check out this little upheaval for more ideas.
4) Truth in Advertising
This would require that you believed 2 things: 1) that practicing modesty or headcovering or whatever advertises something besides modesty or headcovering (ie. that wearing a hijab advertises being a Muslim) and 2) that since it advertises this, it must be inherently wrong to practice this if you are also advertising behaviors that you believe inconsistent with it (ie. it is wrong to drink alcohol in a hijab whether or not one is Muslim).
5) Enriching My Spiritual Practice
I'm learning about other people's religions and deepening my own in the process. To me, it seems to provide me with an opportunity (as a nerdy, overly fashion-conscious, religious college student) to combine my nerdiness (the research) my fashion issues (the clothes) and my religion (the prayer) into one Lenten discipline.
6) What About Christian Modesty?
This would mean that because my Lenten discipline uses tzniut guidlines or because I wear a hijab (occasionally), I've turned up my nose at Christian modesty practices-- such as going by Plain or Mormon standards or something like that.
7) You Can't be a Lesbian and Religious! Especially Not Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Zoroastrian!
This means assuming that queer people can't be in XYZ religion. Then, you assume that my *being* Christian or using Jewish standards to define modesty or wearing a hijab is offensive to someone, somewhere because I'm queer and they don't let queer people in that club. With all of that, you're endorsing that they have a right to be offended by my sexual orientation, which is legitimizing homophobia.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Headcoverings, again!
Labels:
Christian,
head coverings,
Jewish
2
comments
So, I've been covering my head most of the time lately. Saturday evening, though, I curled my hair for a 50's-themed party and it held so well through Sunday that I thought I'd go with my head uncovered. Well, I was fine with it teaching Sunday School, but when it came time to go into the sanctuary, I just really felt much better with my head covered, so I threw a scarf over it.
Later that evening, I went to my other church with my head uncovered and, while I managed, I really would have felt much more comfortable covered. This has little to do with my church community-- no one in my later church covers for sure and I'm reasonably certain no one in my early church covers either.
My rationale is not the typical reason Christian women cover their hair-- as a sign of submission to men as the head of the church/household/relationship with God/etc. My motivation is similar, I think, to why Orthodox Jewish men cover their heads-- I want a reminder that God is always above me. God is in control.
Now, I have a pretty decent collection of scarves and a hat or two, but I want a default one for church-- so if I don't have a scarf that "goes" with my outfit for the day, I can just grab my default scarf and not get caught up in the fashion-craziness of it. (But I don't plan on restricting myself to just my default scarf, so if I do have that perfect one that "goes," I can wear that too.)
The question is: what should my default church covering look like?
Initially, I thought basic would be good, since it is my "default" covering.
Like the chapel veils that some of the more orthodox Catholic women wear. The one to the right here is by Lady in Blue on Etsy. However, my Woman is a recovering ex-Catholic and I don't want my "default" to be something that freaks the daylights out of her...
Another good basic would be like this one to the left. I don't know who wears these, but I do see girls around campus wearing them (or ones like them) occasionally. Anyone know? This one in particular is from christiancoverings.com. Also, how do these stay on? I don't know what they're called, so I can't google it.
On the other hand, since my whole life seems to shock people (it seems lesbians can't be religious, let alone as theologically conservative as I am), I'm tempted to make my "basic" something with a giant rainbow on it. The one below is from Total Thread Head on Etsy.
Now, part of me says, "Wow. That's way too ostentatious" and you might agree with me. On the other hand, you must remember: I'm Episcopalian. The head of our church, Katherine Jefferts Schori (who by the way, is a really awesome person and Presiding Bishop) wears things like this:
Obviously, you can't look too ostentatious for an Episcopalian church. Obviously.
Anyway, so the rainbow headcovering is not out of the picture, but I'm trying to find the one, you know? Suggestions are encouraged.
Later that evening, I went to my other church with my head uncovered and, while I managed, I really would have felt much more comfortable covered. This has little to do with my church community-- no one in my later church covers for sure and I'm reasonably certain no one in my early church covers either.
My rationale is not the typical reason Christian women cover their hair-- as a sign of submission to men as the head of the church/household/relationship with God/etc. My motivation is similar, I think, to why Orthodox Jewish men cover their heads-- I want a reminder that God is always above me. God is in control.
Now, I have a pretty decent collection of scarves and a hat or two, but I want a default one for church-- so if I don't have a scarf that "goes" with my outfit for the day, I can just grab my default scarf and not get caught up in the fashion-craziness of it. (But I don't plan on restricting myself to just my default scarf, so if I do have that perfect one that "goes," I can wear that too.)
The question is: what should my default church covering look like?
Initially, I thought basic would be good, since it is my "default" covering.
Another good basic would be like this one to the left. I don't know who wears these, but I do see girls around campus wearing them (or ones like them) occasionally. Anyone know? This one in particular is from christiancoverings.com. Also, how do these stay on? I don't know what they're called, so I can't google it.
On the other hand, since my whole life seems to shock people (it seems lesbians can't be religious, let alone as theologically conservative as I am), I'm tempted to make my "basic" something with a giant rainbow on it. The one below is from Total Thread Head on Etsy.
 |
| Courtesy of badvestments.blogspot.com |
Anyway, so the rainbow headcovering is not out of the picture, but I'm trying to find the one, you know? Suggestions are encouraged.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
What God Wants Me to Wear, Part 2
Okay, so there's a line in scripture (Deut. 22:5) that says: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." This is oft-quoted as why tzniut women should not wear pants. I believe a good handful of other religious groups follow this as well (think Mennonites, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc).
Yeah... but Jesus says: (in Matthew 6:28-32) "Why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is here, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?' or "What shall we drink?' or "What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them."
Jesus asks us why we worry about what we wear. I feel like the clueless disciples. "Well, uh, Jesus, we're pretty sure God told us to..." But Jesus is presenting us with this idea that maybe we're wrong.
So how did we go from God-vehemently-hates-women-wearing-pants-and-men-wearing-skirts to God-says-don't-worry-about-your-clothes?
Let's look back at the Deuteronomy quote. I'm going to interpret it as the Bible saying God doesn't want us to dress in drag. In analyzing this interesting piece of scripture, I'm going to quote well-known theologian :) RuPaul, who says, "We're born naked. The rest is drag." Therefore, I'm going to extrapolate that God doesn't want us clothed. This actually might not be that far off. God created us naked and then we Fell. We Fell and were ashamed of the beautiful bodies God gave us, so we decided we needed to cover them up. If I made a masterpiece of a sculpture and gave it to you and you decided to put a blanket over it, I'd be pissed. I wonder if that's how God feels. Looking at it that way, maybe my Lenten discipline shouldn't be to follow more strict rules about clothing, but not to wear clothing at all. Unfortunately, I think that's illegal. So, I guess we should continue the analysis.
Short of moving to a nudist colony, I have to wear clothes sometimes. What does God say about that? Well, let's check out Matthew 6:32 again. "The Gentiles run after all these things and your heavenly Father knows you need them." To me, that sounds like God sighing and saying, "Wear clothes if you must, but don't fuss about them, okay guys?"
Oops. Amn't I doing just that? Worrying about my clothes? Then I should tread very lightly on this Lenten discipline of mine. The last thing I'd want is to turn worrying about my clothes into some kind of idol. The goal is wear these clothes and any time I'm about to worry or fuss about them, I pray. And maybe God is just shaking God's head at all this BUT, I sometimes think God must shake Her head throughout all of Lent-- like, hey guys, I gave you food, why are you ignoring it? Hey guys, you've got enough suffering on this earth, why are you inducing more of it for yourself? Who knows? If I'm wrong (and at least part of me has to be wrong, since I'm thinking conflicting things), I imagine God is just giggling and patting me on the head and murmuring, "It's okay, darling," as I fuss.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
What God Wants Me to Wear, Part 1
Labels:
Christian,
clothes,
God,
tzniut
2
comments
Okay so, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Amish, Mennonites, Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Catholics (that's approximately 2,339,803,500 people)... everybody thinks God has an opinion on what I wear. Many of them disagree about the specifics, but all those people think God is pro-dress-code. This makes me wonder, does God care what I wear? So, in the next couple of posts, I'm going to look at the rationale behind religiously-motivated dress codes and re-think some of my own ideas about God and clothing.
One of the reasons I picked tzniut (versus, say, following Muslim dress code rules or Mormon dress code ruels) is because of the reasoning behind it. Of course, they have the obligatory women-should-cover-up-so-men-don't-succumb-to-temptation clause (more on that another time). However, they also say that the reason there are clothing rules for b'nei Ysrael (children of Israel) and there aren't for b'nei Noach (children of Noah-- ie. the rest of us), is because Jewish people, as God's chosen people, should be dressed like royalty. I like that, but it runs contrary to many other beliefs about clothing and religion.
Often, the goal of Christian modesty rules, at least as far as I can tell, is so girls and women don't draw attention to themselves. Hence why many denominations insist their women dress the same way. I've never bought this explanation. Of course, that's certainly one way to learn humility, but it's always rubbed me the wrong way. God made us unique for a reason. We all stand out in God's eyes, don't we? So I think if we're trying to "blend in" it ends up being more about shame than humility. Shame about our bodies brings us back to the Fall-- Adam and Eve at the fruit from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and their eyes were opened, they saw they were naked and they were ashamed. That shame about our bodies was the first result of our Fall. I don't think Christianity should aim to replicate that in it's clothing.
So what about this "royalty" concept?
This reminds me of when I was writing health curricula.One of my tasks was to create a lesson about sexual abuse/"where no one has the right to touch us"/Good Touch-Bad Touch. Well, we know the Good Touch-Bad Touch curriculum was a failure. If you have any doubts about this, feel free to ask my Woman-- she'll tell you about how some of the 5th and 6th graders at the summer camp she worked at last year developed a game called Bad Touch Tag.
So I was looking for better models than that and I found a lesson from a Christian curriculum that I liked. The day before, you asked the children to bring in an object that was valuable to them. When they brought it in, everyone had the chance to show it off in front of the class. Then, you asked questions like, "Do any of you keep these in a special place?", "Do you only take these out on certain days or for certain things?" and finally, "Are only certain people allowed to touch these?" After that last question, ask them why. Maybe prompt them with an example: Ask if anyone has a younger sibling. Pick someone and ask, "[Annie] is your [sister] allowed to [wear] your [locket]?" When the answer is no ask why. Inevitably, you will hear at least somewhere in this something like, "Because it's mine and it's special to me." Then you say: "Our bodies are like that. Our bodies belong to us and God and they are special to God." You go on from there about the who/where/how/when of touching.
Maybe, this dressing like royalty is simply a way of saying, "My body belongs to me and God and it is special to God." Just like Annie might keep her locket in a special compartment in her jewelry box, I'd keep my body in special clothes, be they tzniut or hijab or temple garments or what-have-you. Does that make any sense?
One of the reasons I picked tzniut (versus, say, following Muslim dress code rules or Mormon dress code ruels) is because of the reasoning behind it. Of course, they have the obligatory women-should-cover-up-so-men-don't-succumb-to-temptation clause (more on that another time). However, they also say that the reason there are clothing rules for b'nei Ysrael (children of Israel) and there aren't for b'nei Noach (children of Noah-- ie. the rest of us), is because Jewish people, as God's chosen people, should be dressed like royalty. I like that, but it runs contrary to many other beliefs about clothing and religion.
Often, the goal of Christian modesty rules, at least as far as I can tell, is so girls and women don't draw attention to themselves. Hence why many denominations insist their women dress the same way. I've never bought this explanation. Of course, that's certainly one way to learn humility, but it's always rubbed me the wrong way. God made us unique for a reason. We all stand out in God's eyes, don't we? So I think if we're trying to "blend in" it ends up being more about shame than humility. Shame about our bodies brings us back to the Fall-- Adam and Eve at the fruit from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and their eyes were opened, they saw they were naked and they were ashamed. That shame about our bodies was the first result of our Fall. I don't think Christianity should aim to replicate that in it's clothing.
So what about this "royalty" concept?
This reminds me of when I was writing health curricula.One of my tasks was to create a lesson about sexual abuse/"where no one has the right to touch us"/Good Touch-Bad Touch. Well, we know the Good Touch-Bad Touch curriculum was a failure. If you have any doubts about this, feel free to ask my Woman-- she'll tell you about how some of the 5th and 6th graders at the summer camp she worked at last year developed a game called Bad Touch Tag.
So I was looking for better models than that and I found a lesson from a Christian curriculum that I liked. The day before, you asked the children to bring in an object that was valuable to them. When they brought it in, everyone had the chance to show it off in front of the class. Then, you asked questions like, "Do any of you keep these in a special place?", "Do you only take these out on certain days or for certain things?" and finally, "Are only certain people allowed to touch these?" After that last question, ask them why. Maybe prompt them with an example: Ask if anyone has a younger sibling. Pick someone and ask, "[Annie] is your [sister] allowed to [wear] your [locket]?" When the answer is no ask why. Inevitably, you will hear at least somewhere in this something like, "Because it's mine and it's special to me." Then you say: "Our bodies are like that. Our bodies belong to us and God and they are special to God." You go on from there about the who/where/how/when of touching.
Maybe, this dressing like royalty is simply a way of saying, "My body belongs to me and God and it is special to God." Just like Annie might keep her locket in a special compartment in her jewelry box, I'd keep my body in special clothes, be they tzniut or hijab or temple garments or what-have-you. Does that make any sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
