"Let them go in peace": some thoughts on unity, friendship, the Episcopal Church, and staying friends with Glenn Sacks

In a comment below yesterday's post about the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop, I said (writing about the now-clear impossibility of preventing a schism): 

None of us should value unity over conscience.

Evil_fizz, a regular commenter here, wrote:

Hugo, I think that this comment is worthy of its own post, especially in light of a lot of the criticism you've been getting in the blogosphere lately. I find it fascinating that you're able to stand on principle when it comes to something like ordaining liberal female bishops, but you still have lunch with Glenn Sacks (to use an old and well-thrashed example).

Evil_fizz refers to my personal fondness for men's rights/father's rights commenter and columnist Glenn Sacks on whose radio show I appeared twice in early 2005.   At various times as a result of various posts, I've been challenged in regards to Glenn and to my willingness to maintain warm friendships with men and women who hold strongly anti-feminist, anti-progressive views.  And while I have consistently celebrated the possibility of close relationships across ideological lines, I wrote yesterday that I do think that the best solution for the Episcopal Church in the USA would be for progressives and traditionalists to go their separate ways, acknowledging that to work to stay in the same denomination would involve too great a compromise on both sides.

Friendship and denominational unity are two different things, just as friendship and marriage are different things.  Last year, I wrote in defense of divorce.  Quoting Hall and Oates, I suggested that when it comes to ending a marriage -- or, in this case, ending a theological union -- "the strong give up and move along, the weak, the weak give up and stay."  That's not a defense of giving up at the first sign of trouble; it's an acknowledgment that after you've worked hard and unsuccessfully to bridge the gap, it's wisest and best sometimes to let each other go. 

On a personal level, I'm grateful for all that my ex-wives taught me, even as I'm sorry for the pain I brought to them.  I'm not close to them any longer, but there is no enduring spirit of bitterness either.  We let each other go in peace.  I truly believe that the Episcopal Church in the USA may have reached the point where divorce is necessary and healthy.  The beauty of a "good divorce" is that it brings to an end the pointless fight over who is "right" and who is "wrong."  Though in the end, we Christians all believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, we can in good faith and conscience disagree radically about issues of sexuality and faith.  Though those disagreements will not, I believe, be impediments to our collective salvation, they are -- in this broken world -- real impediments to unity.  And that's okay.  In the name of love, perhaps now is the time to let the other go.  Neither side (progressive or traditionalist) should have to sacrifice conscience any longer on an idolatrous altar of unity.

But giving up unity isn't the same as terminating a friendship.  Nothing is more important to me than my faith.  The Great Fact of my life is that Jesus Christ is my savior; I believe His blood atoned for my sins and I believe I am called to follow Him.  But if I limited my social network to those who shared that set of theological beliefs, my life would be poor indeed!  I have friends who believe in the ordination of women -- and those who are strongly opposed.  I can disagree with the latter openly; real friendship is not about the denial of differences but the warm and polite exploration of those differences! 

Of course, I have a great many friends who don't share my feminism. Indeed, I am fond of some men who are active in the anti-feminist movement, just as I am close to some folks who are involved in the anti-immigrant Minuteman Project.  Yes, I acknowledge that "white male privilege" allows me to move in a variety of circles with a variety of friends, but I reject the charge that to believe in something passionately means forgoing a warm relationship with someone who actively believes the opposite.    I've been told countless times that I'm "not a serious person" (the classic slur among the leftist intelligentsia) because I insist that political and theological convictions are not the sum total of our identities. One can believe execrable things (and be an activist for execrable causes) and do so with the best of intentions and the most loving of hearts. Real friendship means "calling" one's friends on their views and their behavior, but it also means acknowledging the possibility for mutual pleasure in each other's company despite vast differences.  Ideology, folks, is not identity.  Good hearts can coexist with bad judgment and appalling views (something I know some folks regularly say about me.)

Marriage and the church involve a special kind of unity.  In order for a marriage to work, it may not be necessary to share the same views (we all know couples who cancel each other out every election day), but it is necessary to share the same ultimate goals for the relationship and a general agreement about how those goals are to be achieved.  Similarly, in a religious denomination, there can be some room for disagreement about non-essentials, but there needs to be a shared understanding of the fundamentals of issues like human sexuality and identity.  The Anglican Communion is, I believe, irrevocably split over these latter issues.  A warm and amicable divorce, with as little squabbling over property and power as possible, is in my humble lay-person's opinion now the best course of action.*

But during and after a divorce, friendship can survive. And truly, we are all at our best when we surround ourselves with friends and family who challenge us regularly, whose beliefs trouble us as ours trouble them.  We may not be able to marry them, or worship in the same house, but we can "do lunch" and go for long runs together, neither obscuring our differences nor allowing them to drive us apart..   Friendship without ideological unity?   Not always easy, but almost always worth it.

*(Yes, I often mention that I'm fond of L.A.'s bishop, Jon Bruno, whom I've known for nearly a decade.  As a layman, I disagree with his decision to engage in litigation with those parishes that wish to leave the diocese with their property.  But I'm not the bishop; Jon is.  My admiration for and friendship with him does not preclude my disagreeing with him on my own blog, but I do so with a humble recognition that he is surely privy to facts that I am not.)

Comments

[bmmg39]

"What's your response to the thread on Catherine Schori? Or don't those men's words count as 'fact'?"

So, in that thread, Glenn Sacks and/or Hugo Schwyzer suggested that women aren't fully human beings? I'll have to check that out and see.

[mythago]

That's just my own personal experience and I realise YMMV.

Irony alert!

whose awarding of custody to their unquestionably white supremist mother has been applauded by many feminists

"Many feminists", in this case, being "imaginary feminists we drag out and parade around because we don't like the real ones".

I'm not sure why you chose to miss the point on my example of affirmative action. The subject was 'disagreeing with friends', not 'the ways in which people associate motives with particular political views'. If you don't know whether Friend A's views on affirmative action stem from racism or not, you're hardly friends.

[perplexed]

Sam, we're talking about spirituality and 2000+ years of women's souls viewed as flawed, inferior, and the originators of sin.

QGrrl, I have to say : big deal - suck it up. You know why I say that so flippantly? Because I know of many belief systems that class me as an infidel, unclean, inferior etc. I shrug my shoulders and think "whatever, doesn't effect me". What does effect me are laws that view me suspiciously because of my gender - guilty until proven innocent. I can cite specific examples of this if you like. What does effect me are the way my gender is neglected in law because of feminist myths. Again, I can cite examples (these are much discussed before, I don't want to dredge up a laundry list again but if you really want to, just request these examples and I'll put them in my next post).

That's just my own personal experience and I realise YMMV.

Irony alert!

We have another Alanis Morissette in the house - perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word. The statement is more of a tautology than an irony.

Back to my previous question (as yet, unanswered): can anyone here give me specific examples of where Glenn Sacks is a misogynist? I understand misogyny to be the hatred of women. The term is used an awful lot by feminists. The problem is - when you reply "OK, perhaps you can give me a specific example of where this person is being a misogynist" - they never do. Few people truly understand the meaning of the word. It's used more as a shaming device than a truly descriptive noun. Are non-feminist women misogynists? What about female MRAs?

[The Happy Feminist]

Whoa. This thread seems to have drifted into a free for all.

Since Gonz cited my post on the Gaede twins, I will respond briefly to that for purposes of clarification. The Gaede twins are the tween Nazi pop stars. Mom was teaching them white supremacy so dad sued for custody. He was accused of having a past history of domestic abuse.
My post had nothing whatsoever to do with feminism or gender. My point was that a parent's ideology, no matter how repugnant, should not be relevant to the custody decision because then we are all fair game to have our ideology questioned as perhaps bad for our children -- including all you sexists out there. While I mentioned the dad's history of abuse in my post, that wasn't the point although my wording may have implied that it was. Prior abuse certainly would be relevant to the judge's decision but its weight may depend on the nature of the abuse, of which I am unaware. Again, the point I was trying to make had nothing to do with gender or feminism; it was about how our values should be weighed in custody decisions.

I also don't think that allowing anti-feminists to comment here is evidence at all that Hugo is not committed to feminism. I think it's great that there are some blogs for feminists only and I also think it's great that there are some blogs that are more free-wheeling, where everyone can comment. The free-wheeling ones (including my own) piss me off sometimes but they are never boring, and I can go to the feminist-only ones when I need a break.

[The Happy Feminist]

And I don't think either I or Red State Feminism could be said to be "applauding" the fact that these Gaede twins are being raised as a white supremacist mother. The whole point of our posts was, "Ouch, this really sucks but you can't deprive someone of their kids based on their ideology."

[perplexed]

You can only decide custody on a case-by-case basis - therefore, there might be cases where a parent's ideology affects the well-being of their children. An ideology that finds the amorality of modern life abhorrent may manifest itself as a child being isolated from his or her peers - perhaps forced to do home-schooling and never allowed out to play - you have to consider mental abuse as well as physical.

[The Gonzman]

Mom was teaching them white supremacy so dad sued for custody. He was accused of having a past history of domestic abuse.

So - what then would be the reaction if, say, we had a custody case where Dad belonged to a very strict, conservative, and fundamentalist chuurch which effectively did make women second class people, and mom had some past convictions for drugs and asault, and he won custody of his girls - which meant they would be raised to believe they were to be meek and obedient towards men?

Would you regard that as irrelevant, or since it is your own ox being gored...?

[mythago]

Your analogy is a little off, Gonzman. The girls in this situation are being taught hateful ideas, but their racist mother is not teaching them that they are inferior or are second-class people, as in your analogy.

If it were a more apt situation, say where Dad was raising two boys to be male supremacists and drug-abusing, violent Mom were challenging him for custody? All other things being equal, I'd pick Dad every time. Violence and drug use are far greater threats to any child than bad politics.

Sorry to disappoint. Maybe you can find some imaginary feminists who disagree. :D

[The Happy Feminist]

Gonz, on the thread at my site someone asked:

What if the ideaology was that females should serve the males?

Let's say that after the marriage and/or birth of kids, Dad joins a church that promotes the man being in charge and females shouldnt question the males.

Same view?

My response:

Yep.

I think Mythago makes an apt distinction, but ultimately it's tough to justify the state getting involved in the values parents choose to teach their kids, repugnant though I personally find the concept of female submission.

[perplexed]

What if an ideology results in a child becoming depressed, anxious, withdrawn etc for his or her entire childhood? For example, a child who is forbidden to leave the house and is told to study at home because of his or her parent's ideology? Thoughts are fine if they remain thoughts (theories) - but ideologies rarely remain just thoughts - they tend to manifest themselves into actions - actions that can end up mentally or even physically abusing others.

[mythago]

What if an ideology results in a child becoming depressed, anxious, withdrawn etc for his or her entire childhood?

It doesn't really matter what the ideology is, then, but the fact that whatever the parent's doing, it has a horrible effect on the child. Are you really saying that we should divide up custody based on the parents' political views? That parents should have to prove that their beliefs are the "right" ones?