Previous Posts:

• Ideas from Cru
• Part 1 Overview of Process 

The big front door of our O Week Mission was a very brief 30 second, A6 survey:

1. Advantages of the survey

• Previous approaches to contacting focussed on filtering out the Christians. We would ask 'Are you Christian? Would you like to be on our mailing list?' or something like that.
• This approach got us focussing on just making contact with as many people as possible... and then getting a really large group of people who MIGHT be interested to find out more.
• Giving a gift in return for people filling out the survey helped guarantee that we got a good cross-section of people. We didn't just get those who were inclined to approach a Christian stall. We got anyone who wanted something free for 30 seconds' work.
• Getting people to fill out the surveys themselves again protected the integrity of the data... they didn't feel like they had to 'please' us. But it made for a lot of bad handwriting!
• Our commitment to do as many as possible (we aimed for 700 people, we got 1100)... meant that the proportion of actual good contact was of a decent scale. Some kinds of promotion and contact-making are only worth doing if you do it on a large scale.
• We got the idea of MAYBE as an option from Cru. I suspect they got it from Facebook? Either way, it enabled us to get a pool of people who didn't feel ready to definitely commit on the spot, but were at least happy to give their contact details. We didn't treat the YES and MAYBE people differently... but it was helpful survey data, a helpful indicator as we contacted them, and a way to take pressure off people.

 

2. Results of the survey

The 1096 surveys we completed has given us a massive sample size to get a snapshot of the 18000 students at UTAS Hobart, especially the 13 000 undergraduates:

• 70.81% rate their spiritual life as between 3-7 on a scale of 1-7 

• In answer to the question 'In your opinion, who is Jesus Christ?' 11.68% said A Prophet, 20.16% said Myth/Legend, 33.21% said God and 34.03% said A Good Man.

55.38% were open to hearing more about us: 17.88% said Yes and 37.5% said Maybe. Of the 55.38% who were open to hear more (606 people), 32% (350 people) gave any legible and correct contact details.

This surprised as, as it demonstrated much higher degree of spiritual value and warmth to Christianity than we would have guessed. It does, however, correlate to a broader nationalsurvey conducted by McCrindle Research.  It also gives us a great mission field of people to follow up.

What does this mean?

• When surveyed anonymously, a majority of UTAS student express some kind of spiritual value, almost 50% believe that Jesus was spiritually important (30% that he was God!) and at over 50% are 'warm' towards Christianity (as indicated by some openness to hear more about our group).
• But how does this fit with our anecdotal experience about apathy and resistant to spirituality in the everyday experience of our students and staff?
• Does this anonymous survey demonstrate their genuine beliefs, that they might be less confident to share in public discussion? Does it demonstrate their 'performance' beliefs: the answers they'd like to think they should say when surveyed? Does it demonstrate their 'nominal' beliefs as opposed to their actually devout and lived beliefs?
• It's not as simple to say: "UTAS is heaps more spiritually open than we think". But it is a helpful balance to the assumed fear that "UTAS is super spiritually hostile".

3. Changes to the survey

• In a future blog post I'll comment more on the broader promotion process in how we conducted the surveys, how we tied the survey stalls to other events and how we conducted data entry and follow up.
• Next time we would have another option for Question 2: 'Historical  figure': for those who believe Jesus existed, but don't think he was a good man or a prophet.
• Question 1 was unclear as to whether 'Not Important' and 'Very important' were options (creating 7 options in total) or simply a legend for the 1-5 scale.
• We had lots of illegible responses... but we don't know how to avoid that given how swift and busy the survey stalls were. We'd make sure stall supervisors are constantly saying 'Please print legibly and carefully'.
• We had a lot of people say 'YES' or 'MAYBE' to Question 3 but not leave their contact details. And a few people say 'NO' to this question but leave their contact details. We'd make sure stall supervisors are constantly saying 'Leave your details if YES and MAYBE, don't leave them if NO'.

4. Other observations

• The Fine Arts School was very noticeably more suspicious of the stalls than any other campus! It's like they were worried that even doing our anonymous survey was somehow being complicit with Christianity or endorsing us.
• The Fine Arts School also took a lot longer to answer both Question 1 and Question 2.
• We are going to draft a one-off email to all those who said NO to Question 3 but left their contact details, pointining them to online gospel-explanation resources.

via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/1o2MMCn (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)

Leaving aside the genuine difficulties and struggles of those who experience some kind of gender dysphoria.

I would like to consider the theoretical and political position of present day transgender rights, and those who speak out against 'transexism'.

It seems to me there are a few question-begging steps in the theory put forward.

1. Neurological biology trumps reproductive biology

• A first major assertion is that there is a biological source for gender dysphoria. And this neurological grounding should therefore be determinant in someone's gender.
• It seems that a possible 'question begging' happens here: that neurology trumps reproductive biology. That priority is not inherently obvious, but rather needs to be established.
• Underlying it, I suppose, is the assumption that psychological experience is more powerful and determinative of well being than physical genitalia. 
• Maybe that is so. But maybe it is not. After all reproductive biology produces all sorts of experiential (and even neurological) experiences in life, as well as being a significant factor in human experience and relationships across a lifetime.
• Either way, it seems to me as a layman that this it is not conclusively and obviously the case that 'feeling' or 'brain chemistry' trumps reproductive biology.

2. Gender fluidity of the transgender should determine how we see gender of the 'cisgender'

• It is true that some feel discomfort or distress with their biological sex. They identify more with the opposite sex and so wish to change their identifying gender to the gender normally applied of the opposite sex.
• But it does not follow from this that the gender thus adopted actually matches the gender of those of the opposite sex.
  • In other words, does a biological man who becomes a trasngeder woman actually end up with the same gender as a biological woman who identifies as a woman? Or are 'transgender womanhood' and 'cisgender womanhood' actually two separate genders
  •  That's where the '51 Facebook Genders' might actually be a very helpful thing. Except that it strikes me that the term 'cisgender' might seem to relativise the matching of sex and gender, rather than making it foundational and primary (see next point).
• Nor does it follow therefore gender for those whose gender matches that of their biological sex (so-called 'cisgender') is equally fluid or self-identified.
  • In other words the unusual cases of gender dysphoria (or congential intersex conditions) do not establish anything about the fixity or fluidity of all gender as such... simply that there are some 'fuzzy edges' to the boundaries of gender.

------ 

But these are very much musings of an amateur... I'd be keen to hear from others if I have misunderestood something.

via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/1Vsc6PJ (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)

Late last year I posted a bunch of ideas and resources from Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ) that we used for inspiration for a bunch of new ideas for O Week that we trialled this year, made possible by a grant from the Tasmanian Christian Fund.

In the next few posts I want to share our experience, results, and lessons learned for next time.

Three preliminary comments

1. Not really that different: just bigger and more focussed

We weren't doing a whole heaps different to what lots of AFES groups and other campus ministries already do. Heavy broadcast promotion, attempts at gathering large numbers of contacts, providing a mix of social and ministry events to connect with, and personal follow up.

For that reason we probably haven't learned much that a larger campus group hasn't already figured out. But perhaps we can provide some pointers to other medium sized groups we want to stretch their reach.

But maybe one or two of our ideas will be fresh, or maybe the overall 'spirit of the project' will be inspiring to other groups.

2. Not directly applicable to church ministry, but plenty of things will be

Campus ministry is unique in its sprint-lull rhythm, its demographic focus and its concentrated seasons where a large proportion of the target group will all be in a few locations with an interest to joining new things. In that sense what we have discovered won't easily translate to church ministry.

However, I think there are lots of things that will translate well, perhaps with thoughtful adjustments. The principles around large scale promotion and connection and personal follow up will definitely have their place in church ministry. And speeding up the pace and drive of a local church could well be a good challenge.

I'm keen to hear from those who are doing some of these things in church ministry, or who have stolen and adjusted some of our ideas.

3. Spending money on mission

A lot of the scale and quality of what we did was made possible by the grant, that we spent a lot of time applying for and keping records to report against. But since we feel the O Week Mission was a success, we are resolved to spend money on this next year.

And I want to say it's worth it. If spending money helps connecting with more people more meaningfully, why be a cheapskate at this point? That's a big mindset shift though. Rather than running a campus group on a shoestring budget, to proactively plan to raise and spend more money to reach more people.

Also we have more staff than the equivalent sized local church (1:25 ratio is pretty common in campus groups in USA; these stats are similar in Australia): so we are 'spending money' at this point too. There's a bunch of reasons for this ratio... but one point is to say: to do mission really effectively and broadly 'costs' in people time too. There will be a limit to what we can attempt in outreach and promotion if it depends on one 'generalist' pastor and a bunch of volunteers.

Purpose of O Week Mission

1. Provide face to face opportunities to discuss the gospel with hundreds of university students

We wanted to stretch and push ourselves to be more present and 'ubiquitous' on the campuses of UTAS, so that there were heaps of opportunities for that connection to take place. The 'gospel opportunities' would be light touch: but a face to face invitation to find out more.

The spirit of the mission was to do more. How could we logistically stretch our group, that normally only had one 'contact table' or point of presence? How could we instead be present on multiple campuses or multiple sites on the campus at the one time?

2. Connect interested non-Christians with multiple formal and informal opportunities to investigate the gospel of Jesus Christ 

3. Connect committed Christians and nominal Christians coming to uni with a vibrant and robust Christian community to help them grasp the spiritual, personal, intellectual and lifestyle implications of the gospel 

4. Train Christian students in public marketplace evangelism, formal event evangelism and informal personal evangelism, for their ministry at university and church, both now and into the future 

5. Test effectiveness of mass promotion

For us, this O Week Mission experiment was an opportuntiy to test a couple of things. First of all, we had noticed over the last 6 years that by far the most effective way for us to connect with new people is:

• Facebook promotion
• A really good Pre-O-Week Conference (our Pre-Season Conference)
• Informal word of mouth advertising

We decreased our amount of fliering and cold contacting, and yet saw an increase in the size of the group. we 

6. Test saturation of the campus

Short of revival, most ministries will reach a point of saturation, where any further growth will be slower. This is because you have engaged most of the Christians who will ever be engaged by your particular ministry and you have connected with the 'low-hanging fruit' in evangelism. All other growth will be the slow but worthwhile trickle of evangelistic growth and maturity-leading-to-more-regular-attendance growth.

I was curious to know what the saturation point for our Hobart campuses of around 14 000 undergraduates. At what point will your group reach a 'cap' on its growth, short of significant spiritual, sociological and ecclesiological changes?

 

The O Week Mission Strategy

Basically the whole thing was one massive funnel:

1. Broadcast Promotion

We threw money at a whole bunch of things to see what would work:

• Radio advertisements on the Christian radio station and on the community radio station that broadcasts from the uni,
• Corflute signage out the front of the building where we hold our main evening 'Citywide Gatherings'
• Paid Facebook advertising and 'boosts'
• Fliering at orientation lectures
• Giveaway BBQs in Week 2 (so not competing with all the other free stuff in Week 1)

2. Brief surveys on all campuses of UTAS with gift incentive

• We positioned ourselves at contact ables at multiple points at the largest campus of UTAS Hobart, as well as the other satellite campuses and residential colleges
• Invite any and every passerby to complete a short, 3 question survey and in return we will give them a gift bag with a KeepCup and free coffee voucher from an awesome boutique cafe.
• The third questions was: "Would you like to find out more about the Uni Fellowship of Christians' events and activities? YES/MAYBE/NO

3. Live data entry and afternoon follow up

• Previously we had left data entry and follow up calls to the evenings of each day of O Week.
• But this year, because we were inviting people to things that very day (see 4, below), we sped up this process.
• We had people rostered on to do data entry at the same time that new contacts were being made.
• We recorded the raw survey data in Survey Monkey and plugged all the Yes and Maybe data into our Elvanto database.
• All the Yes and Maybe answers then received a generic 'Welcome from Uni Fellowship' email, as well as a personal call/SMS/email inviting them to the pizza parties:

4. Pizza Parties Monday-Wednesday of O Week

• We invited new contacts to come to free pizza parties (or dessert on Wednesday) each night of O Week.
• This was meant to be an opportunity to connect with people personally and socially straight away, rather than just inviting them to a public ministry event (Bible talk, for example).
• At this event we gave a brief explanation about our group and encouraged people to sign up to evangelistic courses or Fellowship Groups.

5. Personal follow up coffees

• Staff and student leaders contact each person who said Yes or Maybe, to invite them for coffee (our shout) to find out more about the Uni Fellowship and ask any questions.
• We extend this invitation 3 times before giving up.

6. Invitiation to Public Meetings Faculty Cluster social events, Fellowship Groups and Chrsitianity 1A

• Our pattern of regular meetings also became part of our follow up: inviting people to plug into our small groups, evangleistic course and public meetings.
• We also gave money to our Faculty Cluster groups to organise social events on a faculty basis.

via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/1U5zqno (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)

In my previous two posts:

1. Normal isn't necessarily good; but denying abnormality isn't good either and
2. Jesus was fully human but that doesn't mean he was totally normal

I have made the case that practically and theologically we need a spectrum of conceptual categories for something like 'normal', 'natural', 'common', 'usual', 'expected'. 

Some have pointed out how complex it is to pin down such concept and have said 'I am never going to use the word normal again!'. I don't think that will do. Some ideas are complex and hard to understand. Refusing to think about it doesn't make the issue go away!

Others have objected to the word 'normal' in particular, considering it something of an oppressive label. I'm not particularly committed to the word 'normal', I just started using it because the jump-off point for the original blog post was the unhelpful new term 'heteronormativity'. I do wonder whether there is any word that will cover the spectrum of meanings I'm trying to capture, that won't in the end sound oppressive to some.

But in this post, rather than arguing the case for a rich concept of 'normal'/'abnormal', 'usual'/'unusual', 'common'/'uncommon'... I would like to sketch out some of the ways to guard against some 'normal' group becoming harmful in their privilege... and some areas that need to be considered in caring for those who might be considered 'abnormal' in some way or another.

1. Acknowledge and name the fact of difference and diversity

It's awful to feel invisible. And it will be very unlikely that individuals and organisations will do the right thing by others, if they are thoughtless assuming everyone is the same as them.

2. Champion respect and celebrate the value of all people

I've pulled this out as a separate thing from a later point about celebrating DIFFERENCE itself. We don't need to celebrate someone in their points of difference in order to celebrate and respect all people as people. Do we think, pray, talk and behave as if all people are worthy of respect and honour as made in God's image? Not just the white, male, rich, healthy, members of nuclear families?

Now it's tricky, because to some extent our identity is interwoven with our characteristics, lifestyle and circumstances. How can you refuse to acknowledge anything distinct about what makes me, me... and yet claim to respect me? Yet there is a happy medium between these extremes.

This point stops us from dehumanising those whose points of difference we dislike in some way: I must also respect and celebrate the inherent worth, as well as any notable achievements of a prison inmate, terrorist, extreme right wing (or left wing) politician. I must honour my enemy as my equal.

3. Decry bullying and unjust discrimination

Violence, cruetly, oppression, name-calling and unjust discrimination is bad. You don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle to seek to defend them from violence or injustice.

Of course, I believe very strongly that not all disagreeable speech is actually bullying, nor are all forms of distinguishing treatment necessarily unjust discrimination.

4. Acknowledge and name the negative experiences of difference 

Some experiences of difference or unusualness or 'abnormality' are inherently negative: such as a physical disability or a chosen immoral lifestyle. Others are not an immoral thing or a disability and yet are possibly a kind of 'loss': such as unwanted singleness. Still others aren't inherently negative, but bring with them negative experiences because they make us 'different': being an ethnic minority or an introvert might be like this for some.

It can be a help to name the brute fact of difference. This doesn't solve much. But it is definitely unhelpful to ignore or deny these experiences. Sometimes naming something can give a permission to grieve the negative experience or the loss. Sometimes naming the fact can give you a vocabulary to explain your needs to others.

Now it's important to note that sometimes labels can become suffocating and limiting. A person can be 'reduced to a label' or 'defined by their disability'. So that's an important extreme to avoid!

5. Structure to give a voice to and provide support for the different

We as individuals and as organisations need to keep working at finding ways to give a voice to those who are not the 'normal' or 'common'. This can't be as simple as 'equal opportunity' or even 'proportional representation', because sometimes the disadvantages of the different person makes them 'handicapped' against taking advantage of such neutral fairness. We might have to help them speak louder and more often to be heard over the majority buzz that silences them.

So also structures of care and support might be required to fully involve different groups fully in community life. What structures are needed to involve the less-literate, the less-mobile, the intellectually or physically impaired, the cultural or ethnic minority, the poor, women, single people, the infertile, the divorced and so on? Again we might need to put more effort than simply 'equal access' to fully convey our welcome.

Such structures and voices may even be needed for those whose difference is considered a 'positive difference'. For example, the extremely intelligent child can become delinquent in the classroom if not stretched. Likewise, the elite athlete in our church will be disconnected from normal patterns of community life. 

6. Expose the privilege and biases of the 'normal'

I was listening to Hack last night on Triple J, and they were talking about the underrepresentation of women in the music industry. Two people called in and said that they didn't care about gender, awesome music was what mattered. But the radio host noted that both of these callers were men! I don't doubt their sincerity and lack of sexism. And yet they failed to grasp the social and instiutional factors that made it difficult for women in the music industry. A man has the luxury of saying 'gender doesn't matter', but a woman is reminded of her gender in sublte and not-so-subtle ways all the time.

Now we can throw the "objective truth" baby out with the "subjective bias" bathwater: it's not as if men (or white people or able-bodied people or extroverts or whatever) cannot see and speak true things. It's not as if 'different' people always accurately interpret their situation or discover the best 'solutions' to their plight.

But it is super important for those in power, and even just those who enjoy the privilege of 'normality' to recognise their blind spots and privileges and seek all sorts of ways to correct against these.

7. Celebrate some forms of difference and diversity

I don't think all forms of difference or diversity should properly be 'celebrated'. It is very misguided that some people are pushing for solutions to discrimination and bullying that basically assume that to respect people requires us to celebrate people. Some arguments I have heard for Gay Marriage, for example, argue that there will not be equality until gay relationships enjoy the same culturally celebrated value as straight ones: as if there is a "right to be celebrated".

Still, there are lots of forms of difference and diversity that can and should be celebrated. We should seek out opportunities to do just that. 

So for example, singleness is in some ways an unusual and often unwanted lifestyle. And yet the New Testament speaks very highly of the positive aspects of single life. Indeed the Lord Jesus himself was single. So while singleness may remain a different lifestyle, it is one that can and should be celebrated.

8. Find the good in the midst of undesirable difference 

There can be good things in the midst of bad, unwanted, immoral or negative experiences and circumstances. It can be helpful to highlight these.

God can bring all sorts of goods out of bad things, growth in character, empahty and unique new opportunities for love and learning. This should rightly be celebreated.

Certain things get highlighted by limitations: when someone is restricted, their perseverence and patience might shine all the brighter, or the few good deeds they are able to do can be glorified as a power in weakness. Consider how Jesus celebrates the widow's meager gift, while also denouncing the Pharisees who oppress widows, making them financially destitute!

Bad situations usually have lots of good in them. While I don't want to celebrate single parenting as a desirable norm for family life, I do want to celebrate the hardworking, love and devotion of single parents.

Indeed even sinful lifestyles usually contain in them lots of good. Two gay parents can be celebrated for their love and devotion.

via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/1peBD30 (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)

I have been fascinated with the conversation saprked by my last post, both with those who have commented on the blog, on Facebook or in email and SMS.

I'm going to post a few of my comments from that thread, because I think they're worth highlighting

1. Detailed and multi-faceted definition of the normal

It has been interesting to realise how slippery a word 'normal' is... but also how helpful it therefore is to force really careful

2. Jesus is fully human, but that doesn't make him totally normal

We are rightly Jesus-focussed in our thinking and our theology. But I don't think that should make us follow Karl Barth is someone make us Jesus-centred in some absolute sense. God was Father Son and Holy Spirit before God the Son took on a human nature. The Creation was a very good creation, with a meaning or a purpose of its own — in one sense before the story of salvation (yes I'm infralapsarian).

And so although it's right to 'think Jesus' when discussing theological questions, sometimes that can lead to a certain kind of theological clumsiness or simplicity, in my view.

Some of those I've been discussing with have fixated on the need to make Jesus the measure of what is normal. While a noble instinct, I think it is actually very problematic. 

Because our Christology must uphold both his divinity and his humanity. And even in our reflection on his humanity, we must recnognise his unique and distinct vocation among all humans. 

Jesus was fully human, but he was also abnormal in lots of ways:

1) He was abnormal in his divine-human personhood
2) He was abnormal in his virgin birth
3) He was abnormal in choosing a path of extreme self-sacrifice, with no place to lay his head.
4) He was abnormal in being part of the special, peculiar people, Israel
5) He was abnormal in being born of the tribe of Judah in the line of David
6) He was abnormal in having a unique prophetic call placed on his life
7) He was abnormal in his poverty and unremarkableness.
8) He was abnormal in his supernatural abilities, empowered by the spirit.
9) He was abnormal in his relationship to the Mosaic law, with his unique prerogatives, as Lord of the Sabbath and the one who makes things clean...
10) He was abnormal in being both a son of Adam and a the Second Adam... etc etc etc

Jesus had to be fully and truly and genuinely human. Jesus had to be sinlessly human. But that doesn't mean he had to be the typical or normal human.

In fact his unique role in God's redemptive history means that he had 

Abnormality is not evil or sinful or incomplete. To say that Jesus is abnormal is not to say that he was evil or sinful or incomplete.

3) We are not conformed to Christ in every single way, even in the New Creation

Nor, for that matter, is our conformity to Christ so absolute that we are completely like Christ in the new creation in every respect:

1) He will remain the firstborn and we his many brothers.
2) He will remain the Lord and we his servants and worshippers
3) He will remain our saviour and we remain the saved

 ... and probably many others.

We are conformed to the likeness of Christ in particular ways, and we follow the example of Christ in particular ways. But that doesn't mean we can take this conformity absolutely.

via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/21PAV9W (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)

One of the expressions I'm hearing more and more, that I find really troubling is 'heteronormativity'. Not only should homosexuality be legal and not discriminated against. Not only should it be celebrated. But it should be equally 'normal'. Anything else is 'heterosexism'.

You don't have to believe that homosexual practice is immoral to object to this bundle of assumptions. There's just so many quetsions being begged here:

• Statistically: homosexual attraction (especially exclusively homosexual attraction) is rare. It's statistically abnormal in that simple sense.
• Sexologically: homsexual sexual activity is not reproductive sexual activity. Even when the similar sexual acts are performed by a hetersexual copule they are unable to be procreative. That's not to say that all sex must be procreative. But it is to say that there is something essentially unique about heterosexual sex. Indeed the sex of an infertile heterosexual couple is abnormal, in a way that often causes a great deal of grief for that very reason.

Nevertheless, to call homosexual orientation abnormal in any sense amounts to some kind of discrimination or hate speech. In the first place, we need to be clear: normal does not necessarily mean good and abnormal does not necessarily mean bad. Just observing that something is unusual doesn't necessarily bring with some big Natural Law argument that it is therefore good and right.

But having said that, something normal is desirable and abnormal is undesirable. And that's ok too. It's ok to want to have the 'normal experience' of marriage and 2 kids. That's a noble and understandable desire. And it might be very sad for someone to miss out on this. 'Normal' can help us explain things that are generally expected, even generally valued, without implying they are necessary in some moral or experiential sense.

Often we think that calling someone abnormal would be hurtful and oppressive. We need to affirm everyone's equal normality, it is argued. Or get rid of the category altogether. But not only is denying abnormality not the path to reality (as argued above), it is also not a path to emotional resilience. Part of the growth process of dealing with any abnormality (in physical or mental disability, infertility, unwanted singleness or whatever else) is some measure of grief about that abnormality. To deny that grieving process can't be ultimately healthy. 

Even those things that are abnormal but not seen as a bad thing or a loss in and of themselves (extreme physical or mental, being a demographic minority etc) can still cause some degree of grief for being different. And that's ok. That has to be allowed and mustn't be muted by denial. Indeed that was my experience of the Queer movement of the 1990s: a celebration of difference, Otherness, Queer-ness.

Because, whether an abnormaltiy is desirable or undesirable, recognising its unusualness can lead to a special kind of redemptive celebration: delighting in the quirky and unique experiences afforded by that 'special–ness': whether wanted or unwanted, desirable or undesirable.

I suspect what really lies behind many thoughtful gay rights activist is still something pretty similar to the Queer Theory I studied at uni: by deconstructing and removing privilege from normality, we ultimately cause the whole concept to decay. In the end we don't want Gay to be 'as normal' as Straight... but rather lose the concept of normal altogether, and blur the continuum between Gay and Straight as well! In other words, in denouncing 'heteronormativity', I wonder if many people really want to denounce is normativity.

via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/1SjhKmr (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)