"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

[The Gonzman]

For example: you and Friend A both agree that racism is bad and inequality between 'the races' should end. However, you are pro-affirmative action and Friend A is strongly opposed. Of course you can be friends; it's not that A is a racist, it's that she believes the negatives of affirmative action outweight the positives, and that it's a poor means to achieve a noble goal.

It becomes a problem when things such as support for affirmative action become a litmus test for anti-racism, when people demonize any opposition to their viewpoint as "it can only come from mean spiritedness." And example of this occurs frequently on abortion, where when Hugo says "I oppose making it illegal, but regard it as tragic, at best" he gets flack.

I usually base my evidence for bigotry on a double standard.

[txfeminist]

Hugo, I don't know if you have been following the recent trajectory of events over in Nevada, but a fathers rights activist by the name of Darren Mack recently stabbed his ex wife Charla Mack to death and is also wanted in connection with the shooting of judge Weller.

I posted some comments verbatim from father's rights organizations, the kind that Glenn Sacks supports by broadcasting their message, working on legislation to favor male privilege and worse, legislation that hurts women & children who have been victims of abuse, (under the ploy of "shared parenting", which I won't go into here) .

He *IS* a misogynist, he doesn't see women as the equals of men in any sense, and he furthers the misogynist message of these organizations.

The reason I mention this is this: the majority of comments at these sites after the shooting of Judge Weller were APPLAUSE of Mack's actions. Approval. At the very least-- an "understanding" of how he could have "snapped". Well I don't buy it. He didnt' snap. He was a man with violent and clearly misogynist impulses from the get-go (do a little research).

A large number of the men who flock to such organizations, are cut of this cloth. Not,necessarily, murderers, but those who believe violence against women (and men who stand in their way) is justified. Who believe in the idea they will get what they want at all costs. Who think nothing of women. Nothing at all. Just a bitch to be gotten rid of when she's no "fun" anymore.

And Glenn Sacks is happy to fan the flames. More than happy to.

Now I ask you this: If you hold the standard of Christianity so high, where on earth is it here? Where are the "christian" values of these organizations? Why aren't you renouncing them? You sure do walk a thin line between loving the sinner, hating the sin, and embracing the whole damn kit and kaboodle, in my opinion.

I am offended that you state you disagree with Sacks "ideologically".

What it really boils down to is this: We are talking about people's lives, not ideas. People's real lives, and how hatred affects those lives.

Surely the life of Charla Mack was more than "ideological"? At least to her daughter, I'm sure it was.

[Q Grrl]

Notice too how the men at SYG applaud Hugo's friendship with Sacks as a quasi-gentleman's code of conduct; while they, out the other side of their mouths, codemn Hugo's friendships with feminists, as the latter renders him a Pussy (tm). It's almost humerous to watch MRA's, and I would assume Sacks too, scramble all over themselves to deny they don't hate women.

How is it that you miss this, Hugo?

[ginmar]

The continued presence of anti-feminists and their tired old arguments on your blog, Hugo, indicates just whom you value more. Women get shit in this world, Gonzman to the contrary, so any guy like you who's a fair weather friend doesn't have to take women's rights seriously because the slightest drop of male compassion is a long drink of water in a drought. You don't have to deal with that at all. You've got your male buddies, and your male students, and you pander to them, and meanwhile, women go begging, because nothing you say or do affects you----just women. So you value men's company more than women's, and you refuse to even take a stand on the most basic principle of feminism---that women are human beings---while around you you flirt with all these men saying the most hateful things imagineable. Let's guess, Hugo, shall we, why do you suppose women just get tired of your 'men first' feminism? When are you going to try and stop being buddy buddy with men who hate women? My suspicion is never, because you just love to think that you're making a difference. Well, you're not. In some ways you're actively harming women's rights by placing such an emphasis on civility rather than respect, and pretense rather than reality. The inescapeable conclusion one gets, after seeing how many feminists have explained to you how tired they are of dealing with real sexism in the real world, is that you just don't care about women. You want to be liked by men. Are they the ones God gives you points for in Heaven?

[txfeminist]

Amen to that - no pun intended.

[txfeminist]

Q Grrl, interesting observations. I agree.

I have noticed with MRAs, that they will vigorously defend one group of women: their current wives. Usually to contrast their bitch of an ex-wife.

In fact one recently said to me that "the only real feminists are second wives". He got rather angry when I asked him, "So, you mean the only "true" feminist is the woman in your bed?"

that tells you a lot about their views on women. the only good one is the one I'm currently ****ing.

i've seen this theme repeated over and over again.

[bmmg39]

"And Glenn Sacks is happy to fan the flames. More than happy to."

You are plain wrong. Sacks has given his full condemnation of the violence. Only a sexist would call him a sexist.

"So you value men's company more than women's, and you refuse to even take a stand on the most basic principle of feminism---that women are human beings..."

Yes. That's right. Hugo hasn't made a comment on whether or not he thinks women are human beings. [sarcasm off] You're EMBARRASSING yourself now.

Maybe, just maybe, Hugo has actually taken the time to get to KNOW people like Sacks, and in doing so has learned that he isn't the misogynist ogre those of you who know NOTHING of him seem to think he is. They don't agree on everything; maybe they don't agree on MOST things, but at the very least each can see that the other isn't Evil Incarnate.

Now lay off.

[perplexed]

txfeminist, easy on the hyperbole. You're actually doing a good job of mimicking some of the extreme views I hear on MRA boards, just you have a different target. Hugo is at least trying to listen to people who have different opinions. The opposition is not all bad all of the time. I say this to MRAs too. Your posts here are just rants, and actually help build the negative stereotype feminists have these days.

[The Gonzman]

From Sacks latest mailing:

Do I Even Need to Say This?

I'm not sure that this even needs to be said but I will say it anyway--I condemn without qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack in Nevada last week.

Mack was angered by his divorce and custody case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers' rights advocates seem to be of the "he couldn't take it any more and snapped" variety.

I don't buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack's attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge's third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That's not "snapping"--that's premeditated murder.

This is in opposition, of course, to the Gaede Girls (Prussian Blue) whose awarding of custody to their unquestionably white supremist mother has been applauded by many feminists - of course, extremism is feminism is excusable and rationalized away, while the house opposite is responsible for - blah, blah, blah... (I'm sure the predictable litany of boilerplate can be supplied by everyone.)

[txfeminist]

Sacks can condemn violence out of one side of his mouth, and espouse woman-hating out of the other. Why do you think Mack murdered Charla in the first place? His misogyny allowed him to justify it.

Sacks is indeed right about premeditated murder, but this doesn't get him off the hook for supporting the rhetoric that guys like Mack feed on in the first place.

My point is, if you support a belief that women are subhuman, pain and suffering is going to result. If you propound that hatred across radio airwaves and misogynist organizations, you give nutjobs like Mack the justification they seek.

Don't try to chop logic with me.

I'm finished here. I might as well be commenting at SYG, judging from the company above.

[Q Grrl]

Gonz: can you point to *any* places where feminists have supported white supremacy, as you suggest? Or are you refering to the mother, who is undoubtably supremacist, getting custody over the father who is *also* supremacist and the one that pushed the girls into singing white power anthems? You post was unclear and because of your lack of clarity, slightly misleading. Or was that what you intended? To slam feminists as a way to discredit or detract from criticisms levied against Sacks and Hugo? Aren't you one of the one's obliquely referring to Hugo as a pussy and mangina over on SYG? I also find your suggestion of feminists *purportedly* supporting supremacy during a tangential discussion of a man who murdered his wife slightly off-putting.

Yeah, all those eeeevil feminists and their THOUGHTS! *shudder*

[bmmg39]

"My point is, if you support a belief that women are subhuman, pain and suffering is going to result."

Again, WHERE has Sacks -- or anyone else for that matter -- said that women are "subhuman"? You can't deal with what is actually being said, and so you're making things up.

"I'm finished here. I might as well be commenting at SYG, judging from the company above."

Yes, we truth-tellers can be a real pain in the ass.

[The Gonzman]

If ya look at the article, it's not that he is a white supremacist, but formerly had (allegedly)committed domestic violence, though had no convictions, and was a copnvicted drug user, though now clean.

http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/06/ouch_when_toler.html, http://redstatefeminist.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-worse.html,

And that is just two regular posters here.

So - what is worse - someone formerly accused of things, but who is apparently clean now? I've heard arguments that kids being brought up in conservative Christian homes are being hopelessly "poisoned" - but being brought up in "White Nationalist" homes, it becomes "We have to respect their choices."

Of course, argue a woman has a history of abuse and drug use, and a different song gets sung about "healing" and "reform," too.

Okay - only women can mend their ways - check.

Racism is less important - check.

I mean, far better they be brought up in a racist home, being a tool for white supremacists in a very public and high profile way, than in a home with an apparently reformed drug user and former abuser. Because we can't politically admit that sometimes a father is more fit as a parent than a mother. Gotcha.

[The Gonzman]

Don't try to chop logic with me.

Be pointless to try until you give me some to work with, eh wot?

I'm finished here. I might as well be commenting at SYG, judging from the company above.

Yeah, I didn't think you had anything. Bummer when you get decisively refuted. Cheer up, though, I'm sure you'll be counted the winner against Gonzo-meany, no matter what.

[perplexed]

Sacks can condemn violence out of one side of his mouth, and espouse woman-hating out of the other. Why do you think Mack murdered Charla in the first place? His misogyny allowed him to justify it.

txfeminist, can you cite specific quotes from Glenn Sacks to back that comment up?

[Q Grrl]

bmmg39, you ask:

"Again, WHERE has Sacks -- or anyone else for that matter -- said that women are "subhuman"? You can't deal with what is actually being said, and so you're making things up."

The thread right here on Hugo's blog about celebrating Catherine Schori is rife with men explicitly stating that women, at least on the spiritual level, are subhuman, less than men, incapable of well... they never quite say, but they're clear that women don't have "it". I can only assume, after reading account after account after account, over 2000 years of men saying THE EXACT SAME THING about women, that men really DO MEAN to imply that women are less than human.

I mean, what did *you* think they were implying?

[perplexed]

Again, WHERE has Sacks -- or anyone else for that matter -- said that women are "subhuman"? You can't deal with what is actually being said, and so you're making things up.

Exactly bmmg39. The posters here are doing a good job in consolidating the bad image feminists have given themselves - unsubstantiated slurs against anyone who disagrees with them. It shows that yet again feminism cannot survive even the most casual of scrutiny - they resort immediately to name-calling rather than actually use facts to support their position.

[bmmg39]

I won't dismiss feminism as a whole just because there are a few who claim to adhere to it who behave with mendacity.

[perplexed]

I won't dismiss feminism as a whole just because there are a few who claim to adhere to it who behave with mendacity.

Me neither - I'm just waiting to meet a feminist who will debate issues using nothing but facts to support claims. That's just my own personal experience and I realise YMMV.

[Q Grrl]

yeah, because our lives aren't factual, just anecdotal. Nice one guys.

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

[Barbara Preuninger]

People are complex, so it doesn't do much good for person A to condemn person B for being friends with C unless A also knows C personally. Even then, it's tricky.

That said, it never hurts for person A to *question* person B about their relationship.

It all has to do with whether or not the issue is personal (such as sexism, racism, etc.). To the extent a disagreement is about the treatment of "other people" who aren't "us", it seems petty to make that disagreement the reason for not being friends. To the extent that a disagreement is about "me" vs. "you", then being friends means that at least one person is compromising their own integrity (or the particular value is not really as important to them as they say). The question for Hugo is: how much does he identify with women as _fellow human beings_ (making "women" a part of "me" in his statements, as opposed to a part of "they") Sorry if this is confusing. It's the best I could muster!

Here's my personal take:

My husband is a Republican, while I am Independent. There are some issues where we disagree completely, but they are all about "other people". Two specific issues that come to mind are how to handle crime and how much power/action is appropriate for the U.S. military. Neither of those issues has anything to do with us personally. On the other hand, he is very much in line with me about feminist values (although we sometimes dispute over details).

I also have a friend who is a Republican, who is a very nice guy (and would at least give lip service to women's equality - who doesn't?). But I would never have considered a serious romantic relationship with him (back when it was a possibility) because he wasn't in line with the feminism thing. His respectful treatment of actual women however, made it possible for me to remain friends with him.

Then there are people to whom I am civil and even friendly, but would never call them my friend because their views are simply repugnant. This would include blatant racism or homophobia as well as sexism.

Lastly, there are people whose actions directly threaten others or constitute a personal affront, and I do not feel any obligation of kindness or politeness to them! (i.e. someone who questions my life choices in a hostile manner, or treats me personally as inferior, or acts in a directly rude manner to another person)

These are all appropriate responses, IMHO, and it makes no sense to treat them all like they're the same thing.

[SamChevre]

Barbara,

I think I mostly agree with you, except for this statement.

"To the extent that a disagreement is about "me" vs. "you", then being friends means that at least one person is compromising their own integrity (or the particular value is not really as important to them as they say)."

I don't have to have my friends agree with me. I don't see it as "compromising my integrity" to disagree vehemently with T (the Muslim friend mentioned above) about the benefits of Islam vs Christianity, and the appropriateness of violence in some cases, but to still count him as a friend. I think he's loyal, intelligent, and thought-provoking; I don;'t need him to agree with me for us to be friends.

Q Grrl,

I assume I'm the one who you are referring to in the Katherine Schori thread; unless you can grasp that "not the same" does not mean "lesser" to most people, and particularly to most Christians, I can't say anything that will help.

[Q Grrl]

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

Or had you missed that in Vacation Bible School?

[Barbara Preuninger]

SamChevre,

If I as a woman am arguing with someone else about my own status as a human being, it's simply a much different argument than most other types.

Religion *could* be that type of situation, if for example your friend both saw you as incapable somehow of ever becoming a true Muslim and also marked you as inferior because of that. (That is just a hypothetical example though, since I don't know of any currently popular religion that treats you as automatically second-class for not being born into the religion.)

But that's what I mean when I say the disagreement is about "me" vs. "you".

[Tom Head]

Sam writes:
I assume I'm the one who you are referring to in the Katherine Schori thread; unless you can grasp that "not the same" does not mean "lesser" to most people, and particularly to most Christians, I can't say anything that will help.

The problem is that "not the same" almost inevitably provides a convenient vessel through which "lesser" can flow through. What most traditionalist Christians fail to realize is that when they say "I believe women and men are equal; they're just ordered to different roles," they are not conceding something that's entrenched and then affirming something radical. They are conceding something radical and then affirming something that's entrenched.

Whenever I hear a feminist say "But women are better nurturers than men..." or "Women are biologically oriented to be more emotionally mature than men..." or whatever, I feel like screaming "Don't go into the water!" Because, as Brown v. Board of Education put it, separate is intrinsically unequal. And antifeminist men who hear "But we're better nurturers" or "But we're more emotionally mature" will be perfectly happy to pat the speaker on the head and say "Of course you are, dear."

So I'd say that the Christian message you're affirming now about gender roles will be completely irrelevant until feminist goals are achieved. We can't have "equal but different" until we've achieved "equal."

Cheers,

TH