Hacking Christianity

Several understandings of Christianity and Christian traditions place the authority of the church and the family in the man's hands.  But what happens when men take too much authority and beat their spouses with those hands?

According to a Southern Baptist Convention professor, much of the blame is in the man's hands...but the blame is also put into women who do not accept their authority.

From EthicsDaily:

One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.

This merits a new category at hx.net...let's call it a classy.hack: blaming the victim.   It's probably a subcategory of a bad.hack.

Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.

Violence in intimate relationships is never acceptable and is never justified.  I accept that Ware is not justifying men's actions so much as seeking out the root of the problem.  However, I don't think blaming the victims (often wives and spouses) for being too uppity is the way to go.

Thoughts?  Do battered women challenge a "God-given" authority in ways that lead men to abuse them? Or is this just classy?

I want to clarify I'm not picking on the SBC, but I am picking on public statements and theological points presented that I do not think are reflective of a helpful and empowering Christian ethic.

Read full post >>

This is a short, simple hack anyone can do.

Like Windsor Hills Baptist Church (I used to know people there!) in Oklahoma City, to get people to come to their youth rally (last year, by the way, they had a shooting competition).

I don't need to explain it.  Just don't do it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway
• Baptist church in assault rifle giveaway

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

I'm struck at more and more churches that have bookstores within the church walls.

Sure, it's a great place to get discounted devotionals, pre-approved books, no worries about your kid wandering off to the Erotica or the (gasp) Gay & Lesbian sections of Barnes&Noble.

But is it a good idea? Is it right to sell books in church? To answer this question with a question:

What do Medieval Cathedrals, Fashion Magazines, Flowers, and Church Bookstores have in common?

Find out after the jump...

First up, Medieval Cathedrals. Bryan Caplan from EconLog just got back from Europe and engaged another blogger on medieval cathedrals.

Seeing a bunch of French cathedrals makes me even more skeptical of the claim (made by Larry Iannaccone and others) that people weren't more religious in earlier centuries. If people weren't far more religious in the Middle Ages, why did they pour such a high fraction of their surplus wealth into century-long religious architectural projects? You could say "It was primarily rulers, not donors, who allocated the funds," but that just pushes the question back a step. Were rulers vastly more religious than the masses? That's hard to believe. Were rulers trying to impress the masses by building churches? Well, why would churches impress the masses unless they were highly religious?
...
Religious architecture and art were to medieval feudalism what advertising and commercialism are to modern capitalism: A rather effective way to build support for the status quo using aesthetics instead of argument.

Cathedrals depicted Feudal relationships in positive ways.To Caplan, cathedrals were not just monuments to God and gathering places for the people of God. They were endorsements of the relationships that people held; namely, feudal relationships of Lords, vassals, peasants, etc. We see this echoed in atonement theology etched out during one period of Cathedral-building: humanity has offended God's honor and Jesus restores God's honor by taking the shame on himself. You see how not only theology, but also church architecture/art endorsed the status quo.

Were Cathedrals intentionally supporting feudalism? No. But by their depicting the type of relationship in art, building, and theology, they were supporting feudalism.

Next up...Flowers. Caplan continues:

Less than a decade ago, I drove from former West Germany to former East Germany, and was struck by how much more beautiful the West was. Houses in the West had flower boxes. Houses in the East did not. I reflected that the aesthetic gap between West and East used to be vastly greater. And I recalled how people I knew who toured the Soviet bloc were more likely to sadly describe the "greyness" of communist life than the machine guns at the border.

The upshot is that the private pursuit of beauty in the West had a striking externality. Every time a West German put a flower box in his window, he was making capitalism look prettier than socialism. And while intellectuals may say they couldn't care less about such things, I suspect that sheer aesthetics changed a lot of minds about East versus West.

Flowers made socialistic life look drab and boring.Again, art and aesthetics portrayed life in the West as better than life under the socialist East. In people's daily walks, they would pass by more flower boxes than they would anti-socialist propaganda. In pictures comparing the two Germanys, the color of life contrasted with the gray monotones of order.

Did the West intentionally put flower boxes out to oppose socialism? No. But by endorsing the relationship between socialism and monotony, they were opposing socialism.

Finally, Fashion Magazines (Vogue, GQ, and other fashion magazines). Caplan once more:

Corporations do not advertise to create support for capitalism, any more than West Germans planted flowers to fight communism. But advertising does more than just sell one firm's products; it also contributes to the beautiful image of the whole system.

Flip through a popular magazine, or wander through your local mall. Even if you don't remember a single product, you get an overall impression of a world that is colorful, fun, glitzy, and sexy. And that probably leads more people around the world to admire capitalism than Milton Friedman ever did.

Fashion mags sell an image, not just products.We see that fashion magazines do not overtly support capitalism. They are simply trying to sell products and earn money, and I doubt "let's support capitalism" is on their radar. But by their marketing and imaging, they portray the capitalistic world as better, prettier, and sexier.

As Caplan concludes:

My claim, in short, is that Notre Dame played the same role during the Middle Ages that fashion magazines play today. Notre Dame was not an argument for feudalism, and Elle is not an argument for capitalism. But both are powerful ways to make regular people buy into the system.

All of the above endorse the Status Quo of "proper" relationships.Now, we can answer the original question: What do Medieval Cathedrals, Fashion Magazines, Flowers, and Church Bookstores have in common? They all endorse the Status Quo. Be it exemplifying feudal relationships, anti-socialism, or capitalism, they endorsed the current relationship between aesthetics and society in attractive ways.

Is a bookstore an endorsement of consumerism?So what happens when a visitor comes into a church door, gets greeted by an usher, and to the side...there's the church bookstore, with a flashy display of Joel Osteen's Your Best Life Now? I would claim such a church bookstore is exactly an endorsement of consumerism.

We approve of what happens within the church walls.Within the Church, we act and speak in ways that are pleasing to God. We act differently in church, we speak differently, we treat our children differently, we respect our elders differently. Within the Church, we endorse types of relationships by exemplifying them. Whatever is tolerated or lifted up within the church walls is assumed to be good.

Within the Church, if we have a bookstore where we sell things, we are endorsing consumerism. That sounds blunt and hardline, but it is a simple comparison. If you remember the SATs and syllogisms, here it is made perfectly clear:

• Church Bookstores are to Consumerism what Cathedrals are to Feudalism.
• Church Bookstores are to Consumerism what Flower Boxes are to Anti-Socialism.
• Church Bookstores are to Consumerism what Fashion Magazines are to Capitalism.

If we offer a flashy bookstore, aren't we making consumerism look good?Consumerism is believing that buying something will lead to happiness. That's the simple definition. And by offering convenient ways to buy a devotional book, bookmark, card, BibleMan action figure...we are saying within the church walls that buying something will lead you to happiness. How can a Church preach against consumerism, against materialism, against the Prosperity Gospel, against shopaholics...if we are suckling Consumerism by endorsing it within the church context?

Convenience is the polar opposite of being prophetic.You may say that by running our own bookstore, we are not encouraging people to run and buy them at Mardel's or Cokesbury or Walmart. But Zondervan will send you the flashy displays, right? Abingdon will send you the catalogs to put out. The whole "selling" side of bookstores will still be present.

In short, we cannot stand against the culture of consumerism, and preach against the corrupting influence of materialism on our nation if we endorse such a relationship within our church walls.

For this web community, church bookstores can be seen as bad.hacks: manipulations of the Church's stand against consumerism and materialism by allowing consumerism-lite within the church walls. By allowing it within the church walls (because it brings in money, it is convenient...so many excuses!), we are watering down our social witness against materialism. And that's a bad thing!

I will allow that there may be ways that do sell things in church and not truly endorse consumerism. (This may seem like splitting hairs and I fully expect to be accused of double-standards...but....great! It means people are reading my blog! Ha!)

• In my parent's church, they sell fair trade items from a "World Market" where the highest percentage possible of profits go to third-world countries. This seems to be a nice fit between recognizing people will buy gifts, so why not funnel that money away from corporations and to the world market? It is still getting happiness from buying things, but that happiness would hopefully come more from knowing you are supporting a family or village far, far away.

Your turn...What do you think? Are church bookstores endorsements of consumerism and contribute to our society's materialistic tendencies? Or is there a middle road between church bookstores and finding solid ground to offer a prophetic word against consumeristic cultures?

Thanks for your comments, and welcome to Hacking Christianity.

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

I'm all for any event that gets families closer together and parents having a stronger sense of ownership over their children's lives. But I get creeped out when we harken back to the days of father's ownership over their daughter's bodies and giving them up for dowries and such.

So, in other words, this story at the New York Times creeps me out: Dancing the Night Away: Purity Balls.

The first two hours of the gala passed like any somewhat awkward night out with parents, the men doing nearly all the talking and the girls struggling to cut their chicken.

But after dessert, the 63 men stood and read aloud a covenant “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.”

The gesture signaled that the fathers would guard their daughters from what evangelicals consider a profoundly corrosive “hook-up culture.” The evening, which alternated between homemade Christian rituals and giddy dancing, was a joyous public affirmation of the girls’ sexual abstinence until they wed.

Anyone else creeped out a bit by these images? Sorry to post such a visceral response, but there's got to be some theological or social reason behind my gut reaction. Read on for more on purity balls and abstinence pledges, and how they are, with the best of intentions, hurting women and youth.

First, do boys go to these things? Are there boy purity paintball events? (Please don't say Promise Keepers) Apparently, they don't need protection from the evil hook-up culture.

Then, a few quotes that jumped out at me:

“Fathers, our daughters are waiting for us,” Mr. Wilson, 49, told the men. “They are desperately waiting for us in a culture that lures them into the murky waters of exploitation. They need to be rescued by you, their dad.”

Um, no. Characterizing women as passive and helpless will not lead to ownership over their sexual identities.

"premarital sex is seen as inevitably destructive, especially to girls, who they say suffer more because they are more emotional than boys."

Um, again, no. This characterizes girls as lacking a positive sexual understanding, and boys as lacking an emotional attachment to their sexual understanding. Stereotypical, but neither are true.

Finally, here's the worst part: this isn't directly about the girls' virginity at all, is it? Everything I read from this event focused on the fathers. And as a commenter wrote at Feministing (could be NSFW images and language):

You know what? At it's core, this is not about female virginity at all. It's about male honor, which apparently rests between a woman's (or girl's) legs.
Read what the dads are saying. It's all about them.

OK, so those are my subjective reactions. Now, here comes the Science! [/Ben Affleck]

Youth who take abstinence pledges are more likely to put off sexual escapades, but when they do so, they are much more risky.

Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.

"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior...From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement...may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs."

While we want to knee-jerk and say it is our youth as a whole that are massively experimenting in alternative forms of sex, a recent study shows that is just not true. There's a whole laundry list of studies showing the harmful impact of abstinence-only programs at No More Money: a website lobbying for no more funding for these types of programs.

So, not only are purity balls and abstinence pledges devaluing women, rendering them as passive maidens who need saving from a malicious culture, but also they are hurting them with ignorance. ARGH.


Let's take a deep breath..................there.


Purity balls and abstinence pledges are bad.hacks. Why? Regardless of the real-world effects, the theology behind them devalues women while idolizing their virginity, makes women victims and renders them passive in decision-making, and basically is patriarchal. More importantly to systems, the focus on fatherly honor mirrors a medieval-age feudal honor system that only still exists in.......well, ransom atonement theologies. Hmm.

But this isn't to say they aren't onto something. I think purity balls and abstinence pledges are hitting at a missing aspect of youth lives, but I'm pretty sure this expression isn't it. In what ways can we address this gap in ways that are meaningful?

• In a Feminist Theology class I took in seminary, a fellow seminarian created a ritual celebrating teen girls who began ovulating. It sounds weird, but the service liturgy was very powerful. I'm all for a positive father-daughter ritual, and our culture needs more rituals to support these transitions into new ways of being and new biological ways of living too! Perhaps a reader can point us to religious resources dealing with teenagers and pubescence?

• Perhaps just subtle shifts in these event's theologies. There needs to be stronger emphasis that girls' worth to fathers has nothing whatsoever to do with their sexual activity. By removing the shame and guilt from women's perceptions of their bodies, then they will have the proper self-image and self-appreciation to say "no" when the time comes (and it will). Just tweak the theology a bit, just a bit...please?

• It is just criminal to take a abstinence pledge without age-appropriate sex education. If they don't know what they are pledging against, then how will they recognize it when the time comes? The higher numbers of oral sex say to me that youth don't see it as sex because they can remain virgins...while still being at-risk for STDs. Stop killing our children.

• Finally, a commenter at GetReligion wrote the following which hits at the holistic approach that could be taken:

To me it makes a lot more sense to teach one’s children honesty, integrity, responsibility, chastity (in the broad sense of the word), forgiveness and all those things — all those things that make one a fully functioning adult, and sex is just one part of that.

True purity involves a lot more than virginity. This just seems a bit unbalanced.

So, that's my Tuesday rant. Sorry it came so early in the morning. Thoughts or reactions? Any resources celebrating these biological changes for youth? Thanks in advance!

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

Homophobia leads to weakened witness against sexual violence.

Hear that again: Homophobia in the United Methodist Church has weakened our witness against sexual violence.

I was having dinner with T.L. Steinwert and she alerted our table to this fact. I'm gonna post it here before her to steal her thunder. :-) As a result of our denominations' fear of gay people, we voted in a weaker stance on sexual ethics that does not give words or power to those who suffer from sexual violence.

We get our stance on sexual ethics from the Social Principles. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church are our stances on social issues, such as war, the environment, politics, democracy, abortion, and...homosexuality! Indeed, we have an entire section devoted to human sexuality.

Anyway, other blogs have written much about the lack of changes to the homosexuality prohibitions. I'll leave that to them. I want to write about how our fear of all things gay has removed the language against sex acts of violence.

Anyway, here's what the Social Principles say now about sexual violence.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond. Sex may become exploitative within as well as outside marriage. We reject all sexual expressions that damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.

Here's what was removed at General Conference 2008.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage bond . Sex may become exploitative within as well as outside marriage. We reject all sexual expressions that damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.

Notice what is missing?
You can read it again here, it wasn't put in elsewhere.
Here's what the 2008 Social Principles will NOT say about sexual violence.

• No words of prohibition against marital rape
• No words of prohibition against improperness in marriage relationships that are outside of legal codes.
  
• No words of comfort to those who are troubled by their partner's demands of them in sexual relations.
  

I know when we get hurt we turn to the bible for comfort. As sick as it sounds, some pastors and even lay UMs turn to their Book of Discipline for our stance on deeply personal issues. If they don't see their issue reflected back at them, if a woman being raped by her husband doesn't see words to give her power, then the United Methodist Church's stance on sexual violence has been weakened.

The minority report tries, it really does. Here's its reference to violence in sexuality.

All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence.

Weak. Way to replace a well-written sentence that acknowledges the messy humanity of relationships with an ambiguous one that does not speak truth to power.

This is a bad.hack. We have replaced language that gives power to people with language that does not empower people. It's like saying "We are against snowcones" without condemning those who make snowcone machines or the funnel-sized cups. There is no substance behind our witness, and indeed the substance that was there was removed, making the system of symbols less effective in social witness. By this change, we have made our system of social witness weaker and less relevant.

There are always unintended consequences to our actions. In our homophobia and zeal, we forget the humanity of those whom we wish to strip rights from, and unintentionally remove language of power to those who suffer from sexual violence. In other words, by focusing so much on sexual relationships, we have given power to those who commit sexual violence.

May the God of broken bodies forgive our church for our homophobia, and may we look in the mirror and realize that the one who is broken by homophobia is ourselves.

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

MethoFolks, listen up. This is a big post. I've got plenty of links and information regarding the PhoneGate at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a controversy surrounding the gifts of cell phones to African delegates from a Renewal group with an implicit exchange for their votes.

Read the UMNS news service report today on a Renewal Group handing out free cell phones to delegates with guides on who to vote for for Judicial Council.

Delegates and church officials attending General Conference are wondering if democratic processes have been compromised because a renewal group provided some African and some Filipino delegates with cell phones.

The Renewal and Reform Coalition created myriad conversations among delegates, church leaders and visitors after they learned that the Confessing Movement, Good News/Renew, Transforming Congregations and UMAction provided free cell phones to more than 150 African delegates to use during the General Conference.

Some delegates and officials expressed concern that the coalition is trying to sway the votes of African delegates who are typically more conservative than their U.S. counterparts. They fear the coalition might use the phones to offer suggestions on how to vote on particular issues.

INCREDIBLE!! They purchased cell phones and gave them to delegates, "no string attached."

I'm with GC Blogger in that this just smells fishy...and not good cooked fish, but raw stinky fish. And yes, Jim...FAIL.

I'm not the only one smelling the stink. Here's a relevant response from an ethics monitoring team:

A joint monitoring team from the Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the Commission on Religion and Race said the giveaway “is inappropriate behavior and it destroys community. We have gathered for Christian conferencing, which requires trust, honesty, openness and respect. Whenever there is an imbalance of power relationships with the expectation of reciprocity, this behavior gives the appearance of paternalism, manipulation, exploitation and of course, racism."

However, it seems to get much worse!

The GC2008 blog linked to the Daily-Kos affiliated blog StreetProphets post with video and images of the offending incidents that claims the cell phones came with a list of people to vote for, and information that who to vote for will be text-messaged to delegates during conference.

Here's the video (from StreetProphets):


However, StreetProphets erroneously credits the IRD solely with this scheme, but it was a joint effort among all the Renewal groups. I was handed a Good News written response to the controversy which claims "a cell phone is just a cell phone."

It is demeaning to the African Delegates to think that a gift of a cell phone would change their vote. They are highly educated, aware of issues, and supremely principled in their beliefs; and to think that the gift of a cell phone would change their view is demeaning to them. ...the Rev. James Heidinger, president and published of Good News, [said] "We believe that equal access to techno0logy helps create a more just and equitable playing field."

Finally, Will Green, a delegate from New England, also mentioned this:

Another member of the New England delegation - Ralph - was granted the floor for a moment of personal privilege and requested the Commission on General Conference form an Ethics Committee to address such crises as this. It was seconded and passed by a hand count (in other words, it wasn't close)!

That sounds brilliant. You need an established body of people to decide whether censure or condemnation is needed in an official capacity. Personally, I think it should have happened at GC2004 when the renewal groups said the UMC was splitting and that they speak for the church....

But I digress. This is hacking Christianity, right? So, what kind of hack is this?

• An offering of hospitality to delegates whose international citizenship would make it difficult to purchase a cell phone?
  
• Or a gift with no explicit strings attached, but with the means and method to influence votes at General Conference?

I guess I'm troubled mostly by the text-message thing: to send text messages on the floor to delegates while they are supposed to be in Holy Conferencing and listening only to the Spirit of God seems really antithetical to the whole thing.

If that proves true, then I would call this a bad.hack, one that uses a system of acceptable gifts and abuses those acceptable gifts to influence delegates while they are supposed to be listening to the Spirit of God. There's some more debate of this here on Matthew Kelley's blog.

But still, giving of "gifts" especially to those from third-world (hate that term) and developing nations (better) just reeks of, in the words of the UMNS article, colonist mentality that gives gifts with an implicit exchange of reciprocity. That sort of mentality has no place in a global Methodist church.

Sigh. I'm torn. What are your thoughts?

• Is a cell phone just a cell phone? A gift of hospitality to our overseas friends?
  
• Or is a cell phone an abuse of a system that seduces good Christian people to listen to a cell phone rather than the Spirit of God?

Thoughts?

Read full post >>

This topic begins with abortion in the secular sphere and ends with sex education in the church setting. Seriously, we can get there! Let's go...

Hundreds of medical schools and databases have applied for federal funding. And several of them are interpreting federal funding to mean that they no longer should offer medical information and data on abortion.

Wired's blog reports that John Hopkins University, a recent recipient of federal dollars, had removed "abortion" from their search index. Why? Exactly as I told you:

Yes we did make a change...We recently made all abortion terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now. In addition to the terms you’re already using, you could try using ‘Fertility Control, Postconception’. This is the broader term to our ‘Abortion’ terms and most records have both in the keyword fields.

While this blogger tried it out today, I found several entries, which then multiplied over the next few hours. Obviously, the blog's comments and readers had an effect to the point that JHU opted to re-index the search term (yet another example of bottom-up pressure causing top-down change).

Regardless, this is a bad.hack of a system. Knowledge is not coercive. A lack of knowledge kills women, not protects them. A lack of knowledge of options (and lack of support) is what causes women to take coat hangers to back alleys.

And it is the same top-down censoring of knowledge that permeates Sex Education in the church today.


I noted yesterday in the links (which I will do often...send you the link then blog about it as several topics coalesce together), sex education must be comprehensive. From Common Dreams:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported March 12 that one in four teen girls (approximately 3 million) is infected with a sexually transmitted disease. This study came on the heels of the CDC’s December announcement that teen birth rates rose in 2006 for the first time in 14 years.

It isn’t altogether surprising, given the prevalence of abstinence-only education programs across the country. These new findings indicate that nationwide, teens are not receiving the sex education they need to protect themselves from STDs and unintended pregnancy. The situation, while disturbing, is not without remedy. Honest and complete sex education is essential to reducing STD and unintended pregnancy rates.

The problem is, yes, the teens and their personal choices. But the problem is also top-down systems and authorities that censor information. Like, say, churches that promote abstinence.

Some people would rather teens learn about abstinence only; they believe that giving them information about sex will encourage them to have sex. There has been no recognized correlation between comprehensive sex education programs and an increase in sexual activity. Further, studies have shown that many teens become sexually active before leaving high school; giving them medically accurate sex education will only help them to be safer.

There is, however, an increase in STDs and unintended pregnancy following a $1.5 billion effort to promote abstinence-only education in the U.S. The University of Washington recently released a study on the failure of abstinence-only education: It results in a higher teen pregnancy rate than does comprehensive sex education. And there is recent evidence of the failure of incomplete sex education programs in Washington.

Churches that endorse or promote abstinence-only sex education are hacking the system of values in the worst way: by removing information. They are also going against the social principles of the United Methodist Church:

We recognize the continuing need for full, positive, age-appropriate and factual sex education opportunities for children, young people, and adults. The Church offers a unique opportunity to give quality guidance and education in this area.

We have an opportunity for a christ.hack here: to show teens that by showing light on all aspects of human sexuality, there is no need to be afraid to ask questions about the "dark areas" that your parents or even schools won't talk about. That the Christian life embraces all of you; you don't need to cut off your genitals at the door.

But there is discipline behind the information: an expectation that if the top-down authorities are frank with you and offer all the information that you will be able to make informed decisions. It is an empowering and discipline-expecting move to offer comprehensive sex education.

Empowerment. Education. Allowing for Bottom-Up consideration of Top-Down authority. Sounds like a hack to me!

May we not censor the education of our youth to teach them the moral use of sexuality;
May we rather educate our youth to allow them to teach us the moral use of power.

Read full post >>

There are good hacks which make systems more open and ideas more subversive...and then there are bad hacks like this guy who made his camera into a taser.



Teen Arrested for Modifying Camera into Taser

Police say the camera, modified according to instructions available on the Internet, had been converted into an improvised electronic demobilizing device similar to a Taser.

School Resource Officer Kyle Strunjo says the makeshift device is potentially capable of a 600-volt shock.

Oddly enough, I could have been that kid. I read the post on BoingBoing a few days ago on how to do it! Ha! [link]

Read full post >>