Historically, religious and cultural conceptions of the woman have set her up as Other in relation to men, who were considered to be truly and completely human.

The practice of vilifying women, as well as so-called female attributes, as Other, is generally condemned within Unitarian Universalism. Indeed,  we seem to be moving away from shunning the female body in disgust, towards venerating it for its supposed mystical and transcendent qualities. I wonder, however, how the reverance of the female I have noted during some services, in particular on the part of men, might not be just as objectifying and as Othering as the vilification of the past.

Statements such as “Women are closer to nature than men due to their menstrual cycles” upset me.  These words are distinctly more harmful than those speaking them might understand. They are harmful because they assume one single, fundamental, biologically determined framework for women’s nature. While it might be spoken in tones of admiration and longing, one cannot forget that this very line has been used for millenia to impose control over women’s bodies. This statement is not empirically verifiable; furthermore, it is directly at odds with many a woman’s experience. Plenty of women do feel distinctly alienated from their physical selves, in particular while menstruating.

The tangible relation of a woman to an external temporal flux is just one means through which the female body is objectified for the purpose of spiritual veneration. The capacity to become pregnant and carry children is similarly Othered: a mystery beyond simple biological imperative. To be sure, it is compelling to consider the processes of carrying and birthing a child to be miraculous on one level: it is with wonder that we observe the creation of someone from a seeming nothing. However, it is a mistake to invoke any kind of supernaturalism to enjoy this wonder at the generation of new life. Indeed, part of the problem of the reification of women is the insistence upon imbuing her biological functions with transcendent power.

This perspective, to a certain extent, inadvertently removes a woman’s agency. She is transformed from an individual being, with a unique perspective, to a generalized, constructed Female with a universalized, easily definable experience. This change, imposed from the outside, veers dangerously towards the negation of the fundamental humanity of all women.

It is crucial to remember that in spite of biological sex, in spite even of gender identification, individual mileage may ultimately vary. Experiences reinforcing, as well as refuting, essentialist statements with regards to female perspective are just that – experiential. As such, it differs wildly from person to person. Men and women, as groups, are probably equally attached overall to physical processes; within this division, some individuals will find more attachement than others. To claim otherwise imposes a significant yet arbitrary limitatiion upon the humanity, the individual experience, the free will, and the physical autonomy on the entire human species.

It was a few worried days later that I came to an understanding of the situation fueling my frustration.

I realized I have been feeling quite alienated within my own congregation. I am the only person in my twenties who attends my church. My congregation is comprised mainly of older adults, and of families with children, and is tilted decidedly towards the open-concept model. There is a strong tendency to seek out and identify with one’s inner child. We are encouraged to play with colours, to create pictures, to let ourselves go with the flow without worry. However, this is incredibly alienating to those of us who are seeking spiritual guidance in order to nurture our individual inner adults.

I’m wondering whether the problem I’m having  might be a conflation of factors. The distinct makeup of my congregation is certainly one aspect of the issue. As a relatively young congregation (we’re about ten years old), the necessity to provide meaningful programming for young adults has been nonexistent thus far – it simply hasn’t come up. Furthermore, and I may be wrong here, within Unitarian Universalism, there seems to be a wide variety of opportunities for high school and college-aged young people, but for the post-university, aspiring professional crowd, there’s a distinct lack of resources. The best one can hope for, it seems, is a strong congregational or regional network, and I’m lacking in both.

Don’t get me wrong here – I do think that intergenerational friendships are overwhelmingly positive. I am involved with both the Service Leaders and the Chaplaincy Committee, and I have recently been asked by an eleven year-old girl to be her mentor as she enters our Coming of Age program. I am thoroughly enjoying all of these activities, which involve people spanning the age spectrum in both directions. It’s that I’m not feeling a lot of congregational support for myself as a young adult who hasn’t quite decided what she wants to be when she grows up, but wants to get there sooner rather than later.

Those of us in our mid-twenties have come into adulthood in an age of perpetual childhood, of indecision and of quarter-life crises. Many of us young adults are just testing the waters as self-actualizing, fully responsible beings, and it is tremendously misguided to assume that those of us beyond our initial formative periods are seeking to recapture some mythologized past. In other words, I’m sick of searching for my inner child as I am trying to shed my outer child. I am close enough to my childhood that I can remember all its growing pains and suffering rather acutely, and I’d rather not reify it into an idyllic past.

Ultimately, I do think that all stages of life desire movement forwards, upwards, and onwards. It is in these directions that I seek to go, and I am hopeful that in spite of my frustration,  my congregation, with all its positive attributes, will support my in this growth. What I can do to resolve this conflict remains to be seen.

“Without a doubt, human beings are fundamentally creatures of narrative. Author Terry Pratchett refers to our species as Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee. Our fascination with stories manifests itself not only in our passive consumption of tales in all their forms, from books to movies, from comics to video games, but in our attempts to act them out throughout our lives.

Rites of passage provide formalized acknowledgement of the achievement of narrative milestones: these range beyond the well-practiced hatch, match, and dispatches; they extend beyond birthdays, the celebration of each successive year lived out; they cover everything from first day of school, to graduations, from entry into adulthood, moving eventually into sagehood. Rites of passage, then, denote beginnings and endings. These moments furthermore bestow a sense of purpose upon the periods lived between them.

It is crucial to remember that stories never, ever occur in isolation. They always play out against a backdrop of social, cultural, religious, and personal experience. Narrative moments also always display a distinct relation between the subject and his or her family, friends, and loved ones. Commemorating a milestone achieved is certainly not a solitary observance. Rather, they are communal celebrations.

Once upon a time, these observances were very strictly mandated through cultural practices. Nowadays, in the context of pluralistic relativism, it has become, in my opinion, absolutely necessary that we take on the responsibility of marking important moments in our lives’ journeys. In spite of the transience encouraged by our current urban social structure, we as individuals operating within this culture are yearning to redefine our capacity for narrative expression. Many people are seeking, or would like to be seeking, a manner in which they can honour the stories their lives describe, both personally and collectively, meaningfully if unconventionally, non-traditionally and yet grounded in shared values.

I firmly believe that Unitarian Universalist lay chaplaincy can provide an opportunity to pursue this goal. Our purpose is like that of a midwife: we are there to facilitate a ceremony of transition. It is not up to the master of ceremonies to impose any kind of spiritual imperative or moral requirement upon the process. Instead, there is a distinct respect held for the beliefs and values of those for whom the service is performed. It is they, after all, who seek us out to fulfill their needs. Individuals often seem as though their lives have been fragmented into a collection of puzzle pieces; as a chaplain, I would thoroughly enjoy the challenge of assembling these disparate components into a cohesive whole, in order to create ceremonies that unite and honour a person as a complete being, in birth, in death, and in between.

I have always loved stories. The most powerful I have encountered have been those unfolding as I watch – human lives themselves. Births, deaths, and all the milestones in between are the definable moments which, together, assemble into the story of a person. I am ultimately pursuing chaplaincy, fuelled by this fascination, so that I can contribute to these ongoing tales.”

And I need to relearn where the ‘Publish’ button appears on the screen.

As the sordid details behind the killings emerge, we are discovering that the perpetrator, Jim Adkisson, was a mistrusting man in dire financial straits, who subscribed to popular right-wing thought in regards to the source of social and economic dysfunction. It seems to be certain that extreme, right-wing eliminationist hate rhetoric, peddled by talking heads such as Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Bill O’Reilly, played a role in Adkisson’s decision to target a liberal Unitarian congregation. I am wary of attempts to place the blame squarely outside the actions of the gunman. Jim Adkisson was emotionally disturbed and isolated, and already had a history of violent unpredictability, if the restraining order obtained by his ex-wife, a former TVUUC member, is any indication.

I was fifteen when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris unleashed a firestorm of bullets at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. As a high school student with vaguely countercultural tastes, I remember being aghast at the veritable witchhunt that followed, as victims and investigators and commenters alike sought high and low for an Ultimate Source for the hatred displayed, as they settled upon Marilyn Manson, rock star and bogeyman to the right-wing, whose apparent disdain for humanity allegedly pushed the teenaged misanthropes into violent behaviour.

There are some fundamental differences between the two situations. In the case of Columbine, a popular scapegoat was seized upon rather viscerally by the vulturous news media. Manson, to his credit, maintained a very level head through the ordeal, which culminated in a thoughtful, articulate piece published in Rolling Stone magazine. In other words, Marilyn Manson responded to the controversy by engaging in dialogue, and emphasizing that rather than being the fault of a rock star, the high school tragedy represented the failure of society as a whole. In Tennessee, however, we have tangible evidence that the shooter believed the hateful rhetoric found on his property – a telling four-page letter detailing his hatred for gays and the liberal movement. While it was Adkisson’s hands that held the shotgun, Adkisson’s feet which brought him into the TVUUC sanctuary, it was words which he had appropriated that echoed through his head.

I suppose the important question is, will Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage et. al come forward with statements condemning the tragedy at TVUUC, perhaps providing a more in-depth, even rational defense of their eliminationist remarks?* Will this horrible event trigger a wider discussion about institutionally-sanctioned hate speech? While it is a hopeful sentiment on my part, I fear that the most we will receive is a series of dismissive, “It’s not our fault someone takes our jokes seriously,” responses, with the emphasis upon the so-called joking nature of “must kill librulz” commentary. In essence, I’m prepared for the standard denial that anything they say could possibly cause actual problems in the real world.

*I’m not convinced that this rational defense even exists, but treatment of inherent worth and dignity is compelling me to ask whether there might be a minute possibility.