My Experience of Gender

A note in advance: this is categorised as both ‘writing’, the tag I use for deliberate writing, and as ‘ministry’, the tag I use for things I am led to write in the same manner as being led to speak in Meeting for Worship. This is not a typical tagging pattern on my blog, and it arises for a simple reason. I am strongly led to write about my experience of gender at this time, but there is much more leading as to what I should write – though I was still guided by the Spirit more than I am generally in deliberate writing. This has been written deliberately, not entirely with the guidance of the Spirit, but definitely at the prompting of the Spirit.

I grew up in about as much of a gender-expectation-free environment as one could get, in the time and place I grew up. This is, I think, largely a result of my mother; my father never had any objections to it, as far as I was aware, but I’m not sure he would have been as encouraging without my mother’s influence. I had ‘boy’s toys’ and ‘girl’s toys’. As a small child playing dress-up, I gleefully mixed costumes and costume elements without regard for the conceptual gender that they belonged to. I even experimented with makeup as a small child, as well as in my teens within subcultures in which such exploration was acceptable. I may have grown up in a mostly male household, but my mother was always the most dominant figure in it.

The Divine and Number

Number is an interesting thing. In mathematics it is the structure that we apply to the idea of quantity, making it sit in nice neat rows. In linguistics, it’s a grammatical feature in which words mutate depending on how many (of whatever) they or another word relate to. We have our system of ‘arabic’ numerals, more properly known as hindu-arabic numerals (represented using different symbols in different scripts, but sharing the essential system of placed number and associated marks to denote decimal fractions and so on). We count things almost obsessively, at times, with national censuses (for good reason), stock takes (also good reason), or “notches on the belt” (or bedpost, both for less good reason, in my opinion).

On Sex, and Love, and Being ‘Casual’

In the liberal wing of the Religious Society of Friends, we’re pretty liberal about sex (liberal meaning slightly different things in those two cases, so not automatically following one from the other). We aren’t down on premarital sex, we’re fine with same-sex relationships and sex, and I even perceive a growing acceptance of, if not always support for, various forms of ethical non-monogamy (polyamory and suchlike). While we might not be overly judgemental of casual sex, though, I generally sense a certain disapproval, a lack of acceptance of it. I think that is driven by the right motives, there are good reasons that flow from Love for that attitude, but still I think the conclusion is slightly wrong.

What's This ‘Privilege’ Thing, Then?

In about a month, Friends from across Britain – and beyond – will gather in London for Britain Yearly Meeting 2019. The theme for this year is privilege, examining our own and the range of privilege within our community. As the document Preparing for Yearly Meeting (available from the BYM website) notes:

Privilege – whether we recognise it or not – fundamentally impacts our ability to act on our urgent Quaker concerns regarding climate justice and sustainability, and inclusion and diversity. Privilege is fluid, there are many types, and each varies according to context. The purpose of our examination of privilege is to help each of us become aware of the unseen chains that bind us and determine how we act in our lives.

That document has a lot of great material to prepare, and I don't intend to reproduce it or compete with it. There is also a ‘toolkit’ available from the same link above, Owning power and privilege, produced by QPSW, and I do not intend to supplant that, either. It looks at some key concepts and explains them somewhat shallowly, albeit with examples. I say this not as a criticism – for many, this is the most we can expect them to learn about this on their own, and the information in the toolkit is certainly clearer than a lot of explanations of these things. Hopefully, sharper learning will come from sessions at YM.

There are two things that I want to try and help with, in this post. One is simply to recognise the fact that most active Quakers in this country, including myself, won't be at Yearly Meeting. I imagine Friends House would collapse – organisationally, if not physically – if that weren't the case. Friends elsewhere in the world who are interested in the same sorts of learning that Britain YM is trying to encourage will also (in the vast majority) won't be there. These conversations have to happen in other places if they are to have the greatest benefit.

What the Light Isn't

When we talk about our different conceptions of the Divine, we tend to speak in positive terms. That is to say, we talk about what we can say the Divine, Light, God or whatever you want to call it is, what characteristics it has. This is understandable. This is how we usually think about things in life, and if we try to list everything any given thing isn't it tends to take a lot more time than describing what it is.

However, in the case of the Light, perhaps we should talk about that more. That's why I'm going to try doing so – talking about what I think the Spirit is not, as I conceive it and in my experience. This is actually a tool, a theological approach, that is as old as organised Christianity. Apophatic theology, or theology of denial, also known by the Latin expression via negativa (“negative way”, perhaps better thought of as “route of negative expression”, was applied by some of the Church Fathers based on an intellectual tradition that long predates Christianity. It reached its non-Christian philosophical peak among Pagan Neo-Platonism, a school that flourished for over a century in Roman (and later Byzantine) Greece – until Justinian cracked down on Pagan thought as well as Pagan religion.

What Is The Real Crisis In Masculinity?

There are those who talk of a crisis in masculinity. When those terms are used, it seems that it is usually to refer to an erosion of what some see as traditional masculinity – a feminisation of society, or particularly of men.

To some today, it might not be clear what some of those terms mean – particularly “traditional masculinity” or “feminisation”. Gender expectations are shifting, and weakening, in much of the global economic north (and in many other parts of the world, albeit in different ways). This is actually what some of the people who speak of a crisis in masculinity are talking about, though I'll explore what it means in some more detail later on.

Why Are We So Quiet?

This is written from the perspective of theologically pluralistic liberal Friends; I make no claims or assumptions either way of its validity to any other branch/wing of the Religious Society of Friends.

Why are we so scared of going out there and telling people about ourselves, suggesting that maybe they might like our way, were they to try it?

Is it that we are shy, culturally, corporately or individually? Our record on outspoken activism for peace, equality and justice says not.

Is it that we don't want new people in our Meetings? Maybe that is true for some; I have certainly heard some comments that seem to amount to that, reading between the lines. However, a great many of us are concerned about our numbers, about our sustainability. We cannot continue to do our work, follow our leadings, if we do not have the resources that ultimately come from there being people in our Meetings.

Equality Is More Than Equal Treatment

Equality is one of the most consistent values across the world family of Friends, and has a long and proud history as a Quaker value. Early Friend recognised the essential spiritual equality of men and women, and of rich and poor. Of course, there were hiccups on the way; Quakers were slower than we like to admit to recognise the evil of slavery, and meetings for church affairs (aka business meetings) were long segregated by gender. Still, the essential idea of equality, while it might not always have been as strongly held as it is today, is an important Quaker tradition, and is recognised as a core Quaker testimony by all groups of Friends that make lists of such (at least as far as I am aware).

What do we mean by equality? Equality before God was certainly always an important idea for Quakers, with no ordained clergy. There were those known as ministers, but this was a description of what they did more than who they were. They travelled in the ministry, held public meetings aiming to convince those outside of the Quaker fold, and developed reputations for inspired and powerful ministry in worship. For this, they were known as ministers, but this was essentially a recognition of certain gifts and activities, rather than giving them any authority. The source of authority remained the Spirit itself, and that dwelt equally in all.

The Fire Inside

There's a fire inside me.

It burns to make the world better. It burns to help those I care about, and to help those I do not know.

It burns to drive me forward. It burns to sustain me in adversity. It burns to tell me I'm still alive.

Though I am assailed and dismissed, the fire burns.

Though I am unfairly accused, the fire burns.

Though I am misrepresented, the fire burns.

Though some seek to obstruct me, the fire burns.

Though I may be unnoticed, the fire burns.

Though I fail or fall, the fire burns.

Revision: Hopes and Fears

Well, the time is almost here. Again.

Britain Yearly Meeting, taking place this coming weekend, has managed to draw a little press attention, both specialist and general (paywall), regarding the question of whether to revise our Book of Discipline. So I thought I'd take another little look at the whole matter.

Firstly, both of the linked pieces put an unreasonable focus on specific elements of change that Friends think might happen in a revision process. One focuses on environmental matters and gender & sexuality; the other focuses on the suggestion that we might remove “God” (or, they acknowledge, maybe just reduce the use of the term). These are all things that will be live issues if the revision goes ahead, to be sure, but they miss the key point of revision.

On Quaker Universalism and the Unchanging(?) Nature of the Divine

There are those who say that Truth, or the true Light, or God, is eternal and the same, unchanging, at all times and all places, among all peoples constant.

I do not know if that is true. I do not know the underlying nature of the Divine, but even if it is somehow a product of humanity, it is possible that it is constant, a product not of our changeable and evolving natures but of some common, constant core of what makes us human.

What I can say, however, is that an eternal, unchanging constancy need not be reflected in how the Spirit is revealed to us. It comes upon us in manners suited to our varied natures, in ways appropriate to our different situations. It is in this way that actions, principles and beliefs may severally be inspired by the Spirit, despite their differences. They may be different in small ways, even so small as to seem trivial, or in large ways, even so large as to seem fundamentally incompatible.

Doing It Ourselves

I've heard it said, many times, that Quakerism is a “do it yourself” religion.

People usually seem to mean it one of two ways. In one of those ways, they are usually being broadly positive about the idea. In the other, people tend to give it a negative connotation.

The first, positive way refers to our lack of separate, particularly paid, clergy. We are all in it together, we all muck in to do the jobs that need doing. Whether it's spiritual nurture, pastoral care, administration or looking after our property, everything is a communal task. This is, I think, usually seen as a positive both in the sense of having thrown off the authority of the “hireling priests” and in the fact that it enriches our sense of community. It is also often used as an encouragement, even admonition, to encourage members of our community (whether in formal membership or not) to get involved and take on voluntary roles within the community.

No Hands But Ours

In hardship, I do not expect God to help me.
For all change in this world comes through us, you must see.
As I hurt, as I fear, still I know I rely,
Upon care, upon love, those who suffer as I.

For such powers as may seek to watch and to aid,
Need our hands, need our voice, need our hearts not to fade.
We might wish, we might hope, as we nurse at our scars,
This I know, this I say, they have no hands but ours.

In Defence of Governance

In my experience, Quakers don't much like to talk about governance. As I write this, however, I am in the process of putting together written material for my Area Meeting's annual report, so governance comes to my mind.

I think Friends don't like it much because of the implications it carries in terms of authority and control, but that's not what it's used to mean in the context of organisational governance. Governance is about how decisions are made, and we have our own vital Quaker traditions in that regard. It's also about how records are kept, how we communicate, and how we take all the decisions that, for legal or practical reasons, can't be taken by the Meeting in session.

Dualism and Duality

Is the coin heads, or tails?

These might seem to you to be two words that mean the same thing, subtly different terms, or completely distinct concepts, depending on your background. In one set of definitions, they mean the same thing – that things can be divided into two, or sometimes more, categories. Self and not-self is a duality that is important in some Buddhist traditions, while we might see theism and non-theism as a duality in modern liberal Quakerism. In philosophy, dualism refers generally to any division into two, but most often (as in Cartesian dualism) the division of mind and body, or material and immaterial. In religion, we speak of dualistic religions as those that posit a pair of oppositional fundamental forces, generally – but not always – good and evil, or a pair of oppositional divinities, or a divinity and an opposing non-divine force. In mathematics, and most especially with one famous example in physics, duality can refer to two distinct systems or representations that are nonetheless equivalent, or represent the same thing; we'll return to that key example later.

What I Can Say About Sex and Gender

I've been disappointed in some discussion I've seen in British Quaker circles recently. I shan't go in to what prompted the discussion, because that's not relevant right now. What I can say is that it's about trans issues, and feminism.

I'm disappointed because I see attitudes expressed that, while not outwardly hostile to trans people, they are denying their experience. They hold up an attitude that the rights of one marginalised group are inherently in tension with the rights of another, at least at this time, and do not seek to find ways to resolve that tension to the benefit of all. That hesitate to be critical of those that advocate the idea that trans women, however well they pass, should use men's toilets. I might not reasonably hope that all Friends would support the reform of legal gender recognition, making it easier to access, but I would hope that they would not participate in scaremongering that it would somehow lead to insincere, casual changes of legal gender for frivolous or malicious purposes. That it would allow such things to be done with impunity.

I'm a cisgender, heterosexual, white man. I hope to be a good ally, just as I hope to find allies, especially among Friends, in support of my experiences and efforts as a disabled person. I know that being a good ally doesn't mean being entirely uncritical of the positions of those in another marginalised group – but also not to deny their lived experience. Their wisdom in such matters is not flawless, but will be deeper than my own. My own views are not without merit or relevance, but it is secondary to theirs.

And yet, I am heartened that we can share our opinions, even those I am disappointed by, in what is largely a loving way – certainly by comparison to discussions in many other communities. That those who know their views are not conventional for British Friends can, at least in this context, share them without feeling hemmed in by our social dogma. Even if I might hope that they change their minds, I know that it is by allowing dialogue – as well as the illumination of the Divine – that such a change will occur. It will not occur by verbal warfare or the discourse equivalent of a bludgeon.

On Marriage

Marriage is not a joining of souls,
For all souls are already connected.

Marriage is not a set of promises,
For lovers always make promises, and marriage is more.

Marriage is not a contract,
An agreement between parties for mutual gain.

Marriage is not a tool,
Not a way to fix or improve something ailing.

Marriage does not occur in truth out of choice.

It happens naturally, or not at all.

The outward forms are empty,
If pursued without the inward reality.

True marriage is the joining of lives in the care of the Spirit;

Where recognised, it is right to mark and celebrate,
It is a source of joy.

True marriage needs no validation of church or state to flourish,

But those married and those around them are strengthened
By recognition of that condition.

Even those whose minds know not the Presence of the Spirit,

Can recognise the wealth and love and beauty,
Of true marriage in the Spirit.

Written November 2017

First Conscious Contact with the Divine

My first conscious contact with the divine came a few years before I found Quakers.

My life until then, in the religious sense, had been one of seeking, though I would not have known to call it such. I found much that resonated with my condition and my experience in many faiths, and sought out opportunities to learn more of further traditions. At the same time, each generally had things that didn't ring true to me.

As a student, my house was visited by missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormons – a convention I shall follow here, for brevity if nothing else. I wasn't actually in at the time, but a housemate and a friend were, and had arranged for a return visit to start hearing what they had to say; they did this not because they had any idea that they might be converted, being settled in their own beliefs, but because they thought it might be interesting. And so I heard about it, and arranged to be there when the missionaries came back.

On Loss of Privilege

Some of the angriest and most aggressive prejudice we see today comes from those who believe that their own group – men, white people, non-disabled people, the economically well-off, straight people, cisgender people, and so on – are under threat, and are now being disadvantaged in the name of political correctness. They see civil rights as an attack on white people, feminism as an attack on men, pride as an attack on those who are cishet. Generally speaking, they are wrong.

It is helpful to understand where they are coming from, though. Not to excuse it or justify it, but simply to understand it. Understanding is the starting point for all constructive action in such cases.

It is easy for a person who is not oppressed in a certain way not to realise what it is like to be oppressed, to assume that their experience is the default, baseline, way everyone experiences things. When that experience then changes for the worse, when they lose advantages, or others are given them, it seems unfair, it seems that they are being attacked.

Do not focus your rejection of prejudice on these people, though do what you can to help them understand, or at least counteract their impact – and always reject their prejudice. The real villains in this scenario are those who fan the resentment of those experiencing a loss of privilege, usually for their own personal gain or political ends.

Written August 2017

On Tolerance

If you wish to be tolerated, you must tolerate.

This does not mean that you must be silent and put up with intolerance. It does not mean that you cannot decry the misdeeds of those who do not tolerate. It merely means that, if you wish not to be excluded, you should not exclude.

This does not mean that you cannot sometimes set yourselves apart, especially if those times and places in which you do not exclude you. But seeking acceptance and toleration cannot rightly succeed if it does so by seeking to exclude others who are not set to exclude you. The only thing that should not be tolerated is intolerance.

Written January 2017