Blind Faith

"The answer is 'yes' to whatever God says.

His plan is alright with me wherever he leads.

Any time, any place, I'm gonna obey.

He knows that I know that he knows best,

That's why the answer is 'yes.'"

That was the chorus from a song in a children's church musical. While my church growing up performed this musical long after I had grown out of the children's ministry, I was still attending the church when it was put on; so I watched the kids performed this song.

As I look back on it, I realize that this song is brainwashing kids into just blindly accepting what God says. That is a hallmark of an extremely weak faith.

The song teaches kids that it is not acceptable to wrestle with God over issues. It teaches kids not to think for themselves. Frankly, some of the greatest growth in one's faith happens while arguing and resisting God, rather than just tacitly agreeing with whatever.

This song also makes kids very vulnerable to dangerous church authority figures. Many church leaders begin their talks with a prayer asking God to "speak through" them. Everything that they say thereafter is supposedly a message channeled from God, or at least given by his influence. But what happens when the speaker's message isn't spoken or inspired by God? Then the kids will unquestioningly accept whatever information they are spoon-fed from the speaker, even if it is horribly wrong or damaging.

The problem with the type of faith described in the song is that it discourages critical thought. It discourages asking questions. Essentially, it discourages real relationship. We need to teach kids to make their faiths their own; to teach them to make informed decisions about their lives; to teach them that it is okay to disagree with and question authority; to teach them to think and reason. Kids should not be satisfied with doing (or not doing) something just because "God says so," or "The Bible says so"--and much less because "The Pastor said so."

And this is what I do instead of studying for finals--Ha!

Dear Police,

Dear Police Departments around the country,
If you would like not to have to deal with riots and protests, then please stop fucking up justice.


Dear United States Justice Department,
If you want peace in this country, and if you want an end to these riots and protests, then please stop fucking up justice.


Sincerely,
Citizens who are tired of cases where the profilers and murderers of Oscar Grant III, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and others (and probably more to come) keep getting acquitted.

A Stream of Consciousness about Evangelical Christianity

Often, I wonder if I've lost my faith due to things that I now do (or do not) believe. I do not fit into the box of the Protestant, evangelical Christianity.

Evangelical Christianity is exclusively self-affirming. If you do not believe in its core values and ideologies, then they claim (not overtly) that you are not saved. I am reminded of the link to an article I posted on Facebook, entitled "What Leaving my Religion Did for Me." Most of the critiques I received about that article were that the writer did not have a personal relationship with Jesus, and so what he was freed from was many of the cultural facets of evangelical Christianity. But the thing is, evangelical Christianity has more conditions for salvation than just believing that Jesus is Savior. You must adhere to and think the right things as well--a particular set of values. They back it up by saying "faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:14, 26), and they expect their followers to perform deeds such as converting Catholics and marginalizing LGBT+ folks. Evangelicals claim to know what a personal relationship with Jesus is and what it is not; and in their mind, a relationship with Jesus is mutually exclusive with LGBT+ affirmation, evolution, any dogmatic approach other than "Sola Scriptura," etc. They claim that you cannot possibly have a relationship with Jesus unless you believe what they believe.

But that's only one perspective.

Romans 10:9 gives the conditions for salvation according to Paul: "that if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Of course, these conditions are not trivial--the vocal confession and internal belief necessitates a transformation of how one conducts their life. But it is naive to think that this transformation can only happen into one particular conservative ideology. Perhaps that's what the concept of "one body, many members" (Romans 12:4-5) means. Not just diversity of talents and abilities, but also diversity of ideologies. If we all had the same ideology, then perhaps we would be too much alike to form a complete body.

The Baptist cannot say to the Catholic, "I don't need you!" And the Pentecostal cannot say to the Episcopal, "I don't need you!" (1 Corinthians 12:21) (kind of a shocking manipulation of Scripture, isn't it?)

We must also keep in mind that these conditions for salvation are according to Paul. Paul is revered in evangelical culture, but he was a flawed, incomplete human with finite understanding. All we can objectively know is that Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"(John 14:6). But he doesn't say how we get to him in the first place. Perhaps Paul's way is just one of many possible paths to salvation, a relationship with Jesus (whatever that relationship may look like). Perhaps all these paths converge to Jesus, who then points to the Father. There may be multiple different ways of finding Jesus. And that speaks to the individuality and uniqueness of each person's relationship with Jesus.

Multiple ways to salvation. Boy, does that make evangelicals' blood boil. They arrogantly assume that their way is the way. But it might do us all well to step off of our high horses and consider other possibilities outside of our own belief system.

Faith is private

I had a conversation with a friend the other day, and the topic eventually migrated over to faith things. I won't go into details, mostly because I can't remember all that was said, but she seemed to come from the perspective that she knew better than me. It seemed that she was diagnosing my spiritual health, and that she could offer me solutions. The solutions, of course, were laced with Christianese terminology all over the place. I chose to let the Christianese slide rather than stopping her every half-sentence and saying, "But what does that actually mean?"

There were a few topics of conversation/belief/experiences that I just wouldn't tell her about. She would try to pry and find out what was in my head, but I refused to let her in. That is something that I learned to do through counseling. If I don't want to talk about something, I have a right to set up boundaries and not talk about it. That doesn't mean that I've walled myself in, as she put it.

I've come across two quotations which are very applicable to this encounter that I had:

"One’s relationship with God or religion is a deeply personal thing and it’s not something that we can or should pass judgment on."
(http://whatismattwalshwrongabouttoday.com/spiritual-struggles/)

"The best that a Christian can do to relate to me is to remember that my relationship with God is a highly personal, fragile, and private thing. Respect my process. Don’t push your agenda. Trust me in the hands of the God you follow."
(http://deeperstory.com/safe-churches-abuse-survivors/)

So I have a right to share what I want, and not to share what I want. Why does another person have to try to fully know what my faith is? They have not experienced things in the ways that I have, so they will never truly know what my faith is like anyway. And that's ok.

I feel like a lot of Christians feel that they have a right to pry into other Christians' business in the name of "keeping them accountable." But they don't. Accountability can only happen on a mutual level. You only have a right to know what others choose to tell you.

Please respect my boundaries and other Christians' boundaries as well.

I'm Sex Positive

Being sex positive means that one believes sex is good and exploring sexuality is good, as long as it is conducted safely and consensually. It's characteristic of liberal groups, and the Berkeley campus is no exception. A sex positive person does not shy away from having or frankly discussing sex, and believes that it is good for a person to discover who they are sexually, whether with one or more partners.

And I'm sex positive. A kid who grew up Baptist and was taught that sex before marriage is wrong, and was taught all sorts of methods for "keeping pure until marriage," is sex positive. This definitely alienates me from most forms of Christianity, where sex is clearly a big deal for a reason that essentially boils down to "because God says so." How do we know what God is really saying? Are we so arrogant that we think we can really know what God means and is trying to tell us? This leads to larger debates, of course, so let's consider those questions rhetorical for now. The point is: as a sex positive person, have I separated myself from the community that counts as legitimate Christians?

If you're not an expert

Christians sometimes like to talk about things they have no idea about, but they think that they are experts because they know Jesus. And it often leads to conversations completely absent of grace. This needs to stop.

Example 1: mental illness. Many Christians who have never personally experienced a mental illness are quick to oversimplify the complexity and gravity of it. Anytime a solution is suggested with the word "just" in it, there clearly is a lack of understanding about the illness. Mental illness is not easily solved by "just" one simple step or series of steps. It is an incredibly long and slow process to overcome the beast(s) of mental illness. Christians who have not experienced it for themselves can have a hard time understanding this. Also, being on medication is not a sin. God has allowed man to create anti-depressants as a resource to help overcome mental illness. It only makes sense to use whatever resources are available to fight the illness. In my opinion, you don't have a right to offer advice to a mentally ill person unless you have been there yourself, or unless you have a degree in clinical psychology.

Example 2: homosexuality. For Christians who do not have homosexual desires, it is quite easy and painless for them to simply say, "Practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle which is outside of God's plan" or other similar statements. But before you say that statement, step into the shoes of a homosexual Christian. Imagine how you would feel if you are told that every romantic attraction you have is a perversion and is wrong. Imagine how hopeless you would feel if you were told that you must be celibate, and you can never share your life with a partner. When those statements are made, regardless of what you believe about the issue, it hurts. It puts gay Christians into a state of self-loathing and suppression, regardless of what they believe about the issue. In my opinion, you don't have a right to speak condemningly about the issue of homosexuality unless you identify as homosexual and have experienced what we have experienced.

Example 3: abortion. It is extremely easy for Christians, particularly Christian men, to shame women who have had an abortion. As a Christian male, I can't speak as an expert on this topic, but I imagine that abortion is a highly complex issue. There is probably a whole lot of pain involved both in the conception of the child and in the choice to remove the child from the womb. I highly doubt that any woman who has had an abortion did so senselessly. You don't know her story of why she did it. There's probably a good chance that she's actually not a heartless human, and that she does indeed value human life (gasp!). I don't think anyone has a right to say whether an abortion was "right" or "wrong"--that's between her and God. And we should allow her to let us into that part of her life only if she wants to let us in there. Because it's probably a very sensitive issue.

Of course, I am not saying that if a Christian has not experienced these things, then they are automatically condemning of them. There are countless Christians who have not experienced these three examples, but they still have grace for those who struggle with these three issues. Follow their example.

What is one way we can ensure that these kinds of conversations do not lead to graceless, painful blows? Perhaps consider starting a statement with "I have no experience with this topic" or "I don't know what it's like." If you use these statements, you must also be open to listening and accepting people's stories. You must be open to changing your beliefs about an issue. It is dangerous when we come to a point where we are so sure of what we believe that we shut out all other opposing voices.

Two words

Many American Christians make a big stink about two words. They assertively respond "Merry Christmas" to a store employee when he or she wishes them "Happy Holidays." They fight to keep "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. They stress the "In God" portion of the U.S.'s motto "In God We Trust."

They lament that stressing or fighting for these two words is something that they find themselves having to do. They claim that this signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

But I claim otherwise.

That so many school shootings happen and we allow them to continue by failing to take preventative steps signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

That a white man can be acquitted in court for racially profiling and killing a black man signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

That the incomes of the top fractions of the population are skyrocketing while people sleep on the streets signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

That people who illegally come into this country to make a better life for their families across the border are told to leave without receiving any assistance signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

That kids in school think it is okay to pick on other kids who are different signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

That Christians drive people away from the church signals the eradication of Christ from our society.

This begs the question--was Christ ever in our society to begin with?

Perhaps there are issues in our society that are bigger than two words.

White picket fence

I'm never going to have the typical American "ideal" life. I'm never going to experience the scene where I have my stay-at-home wife and two and a half kids, and we live in a house in the suburbs that we are paying a mortgage on. That's not going to happen to me.

When I first started being honest with myself about who I really was and whom I was romantically attracted to, these thoughts ran through my head. And they came with a twinge of sadness. I wanted my life to be what I had grown up with and seen modelled for me. It was a safe and predictable lifestyle to have. But since I'm attracted to guys, that ideal could never happen.

But now, things are different. Thinking those thoughts does not lead me to despair. Rather, I see brightness in my future.

Chances are good that I am going to be living in a city after I finish college or grad school and enter the working world. I'll probably be renting an apartment either by myself or with a roommate or two. Chances are also good that I will date well into my late twenties, given my track record with dating thus far. I will probably hold off on marriage so that I can establish an identity for myself in the workplace.

And then when I get married, I do not foresee us moving out to the burbs and starting a family. We'll probably still be in a city, renting an apartment. He's probably going to be just as ambitious as I am in the workplace, so it'll probably be several years before kids are even an option on the table. We might decide that kids will never even be an option. That's the best part--we can't just "accidentally" have a kid. It will only happen if we both agree either to adopt or to find a surrogate.

Even if we do have (a) kid(s), we may just decide to stay in a city and raise children there. Suburbs are boring! Perhaps we will take turns staying at home with our child(ren). Or perhaps we will hire a live-in nanny to care for our child(ren) while we are at work. Also, on an unrelated note, what will the last name of our child(ren) be?

The fact that I will never have a typical American family life represents a tremendous opportunity for me. I have never had a same-sex couple role model in my life, so my future really is unknown. I have no basis to model my future around, so I get to carve my own future with someone that I love immensely. I get to be creative and make up the rules as I go; there aren't really any expectations or norms as to what a same-sex-couple-headed household looks like. And that's an exciting and bright future.

Emotional abuse crossed my mind today for whatever reason.

"Abuse teaches a lot of terrifying lessons. It teaches you that your body is not your own. That your hopes and feelings are irrelevant. It teaches you shame. It teaches you to be bullied under the guise of protection. It teaches you to blame yourself for the harmful actions of others. It teaches you that some people are allowed to hurt those less powerful than them." -- Laura Gaines

One scary part of abuse is how subtle it can be. Another person can slowly take hold of you while giving you the impression that you are healthily opening up and trusting them. That is sometimes what makes abuse so hard to get away from. Although you know something isn't right in the relationship, you have opened up to the other party so much that you just can't walk away.

When Dr. Ono at Kaiser told me that what my fraternity did to me has a name--"emotional abuse"--I immediately tried to shut her down. I told her, "No, it wasn't that bad." I was defending my abuser--even while I was sharing about what it did to me. I had given so much of myself to the fraternity that when someone confronted me with its crime, I defended it.

A couple months later, I opened up to my fraternity roommate and told him that I had been emotionally abused. It was a side comment in a larger story about the awesome things God had done in my life. His only response to my story was, "That wasn't emotional abuse." He then proceeded to tell me that I didn't know what emotional abuse was. Needless to say, he completely missed the point of my story.

"Do you think a survivor is too angry about her abuse? Unless she’s personally threatening you, it’s time once again to get over yourself and listen. Discern the source of that anger. I cannot emphasize this enough: at no point do you ever possess the right to tell a marginalized person how to react to her marginalization…When you dismiss our anger at abuse, you dismiss the validity of our experiences, and that is itself an abusive deed. This isn’t about you." -- Sarah E. Jones

And I almost believed him, because he was someone that I loved and trusted.

They told me that my opinions and feelings were wrong. They treated me as inferior. They presented themselves as unimpeachable. They constantly punished me for arbitrary "shortcomings." They were unpredictable. They reminded me of my faults. They neglected my individuality, sometimes in the name of "tradition." They never apologized. They rationalized what happened, or even flat out denied what happened. They did not take responsibility for what happened, and sometimes put the blame back on me. They did not notice or seem to care how I felt. They never asked questions to hear my side of the story (even to this day). They showed little empathy. They minimized what happened to me. And sometimes, they used the Bible to back up what was happening.

That sounds like abuse to me.

"I want someone to look at me and listen to the horrors I have endured, and instead of telling me that all would be well if I just forgave my abuser – instead of telling me to pray…to seek healing, as if I haven’t spent years doing just that – instead of telling me that maybe what I suffered wasn’t actually abuse -just listen, hear me, and say, 'What happened to you should not happen to anyone.'" -- Becca Rose





All quotations taken from "Christians, Stop Shooting Our Wounded" by Suzannah Paul. http://deeperstory.com/safe-churches-abuse-survivors/

Update 7/1/15: the article has been taken down from the above location. It can be found here: http://www.missioalliance.org/christians-stop-shooting-our-wounded/

A follow-up to the last post

I think about this more often than not, actually. I briefly touched on it in the last post, so I wanted to talk about it more fully.

Our scope of the world--even the universe--is so limited. We only base our future discoveries on what we already know. But what if we began to look for things in creation that go outside what we already know?

When I was a senior in high school, a friend of mine threw out the idea that in heaven, things don't have to be made of atoms. The laws of physics and chemistry don't have to apply. That blew my mind. I still cannot wrap my head around that, simply because we as humans do not know any other way. Everything we know and see is made of atoms and follows the laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore, trying to imagine a new system of matter is nearly impossible.

This also extends to our quest for extraterrestrial life. We need to qualify that we are searching for life as we know it. Scientists look for evidence of running water on other planetary bodies to determine the possibility of life. But what if there was another system of life that wasn't reliant on water or oxygen for sustainability? We wouldn't know to look for it, because we only know what we experience. Who knows--life could very well exist out there that is completely impossible for us to even detect at all. Just like how for a long time, we never knew about all the different types of light emissions outside of the visible spectrum because we couldn't detect it. (Speaking of which, what if there are types of light beyond gamma rays and infrared?) But I digress. The point is, trying to imagine other forms of life which operate completely differently from systems on earth is nearly impossible.

But God can imagine it.

God could create it.

Maybe he already has.

God is so much bigger than our understanding of the universe.

It's interesting to see how our understanding of the universe frames, and therefore limits, what we can and will discover in the future.

Christians are so funny: The Series; Part V - Extraterrestrial Life

I came across an article which commented on Ken Ham's apparent belief on extraterrestrial life. I then was pointed to Ham's original article. I was amused.

Ham believes that funding space programs in search of extraterrestrial life is a waste of money. He claims that the earth is God's sole focus, and he cites verses which apparently support that idea. The logic goes that if there is other life out there, then it changes the meaning of the gospel. Also, "because they are not Adam's descendants, they can't have salvation." "An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race--human beings who are all descendants of Adam." Evidently, it is "totally wrong" to suggest that aliens could respond to salvation. He then closes his article by implicitly asserting that the Bible speaks about aliens, and then he tries to sell you something from his organization's bookstore. (You can even order it in bulk for "witnessing purposes"!)

For whatever reason, Ham seems unnecessarily antagonistic about the idea of extraterrestrial life. And he wants to be sure to drive home the point that this life, if it were to exist COULD NOT receive salvation.

I just want to ask him, "How do you know?" And he would respond by saying something like "God's Word says so" or whatever. Yeah, but God's word doesn't explicitly say anything about extraterrestrial life. How do we know there aren't other non-human forms of "life" out there that have a similar salvation story, where Jesus became one of those creatures as well? We have no way of knowing.

But, I guess if you base your entire life around what the Bible says, and ONLY what the Bible says, then you would think that way. The thing is, the Bible is not holistic. It doesn't cover absolutely everything that we encounter in life. Truth manifests itself in forms other than the Bible as well, and God has given us those other forms to discern more of life. So let's use them. Let's not just disregard them and treat only the Bible as worthwhile.

And let's open our minds and consider the possibility that maybe God has created more than we will ever know about.




Ken Ham's article here: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/07/20/well-find-a-new-earth-within-20-years/

Christians are so funny: The Series; Part IV - Marriage (post also entitled "What brings us together today")

Marriage.

The sacrament of marriage is something that Christian culture latches onto like no other. Which is why they get so upset when anyone tries to tell them that maybe they have too narrow a view of what is and what isn't marriage. Christians would like to think that they have the monopoly on "true" marriage.

However, the irony is that Christians have let marriage be defined by the state. They claim to have a monopoly on marriage, but they are letting the state dictate when marriage occurs. This in turn affects how Christians approach relationships prior to marriage.

What do I mean? In Scripture, the marriage relationship is simply defined as two people being united to one another--emotionally, spiritually, and in particular, physically. There is no mention of a wedding ceremony, no mention of getting legal documents signed, etc. Essentially, sex is marriage.

The Christian argument, however, states that sexual relations are something that should only be reserved for marriage and afterward. And when does marriage happen? Some kind of ceremony must occur, whether that is a church service or a signing of legal documents. Then, and only then, is it okay to proceed with sexual relations.

However, the church has inverted this process. If the sanctity of marriage is something that belongs to Christianity, then there is no need for a ceremony or for documentation to serve as the hurdle to jump over. A couple commits to each other for life and has sex--they are married.

Suppose an engaged couple has sex for the first time two nights before their official wedding ceremony. And this is the first sex that either of them has had in their lives, and neither will have sex with anyone else. Christians would label this as "premarital sex" because they had sex before their ceremony. But Christians have let external factors determine when the couple is married. The couple must be wed by a minister ordained by the state; and until then, the couple is not married.

False.

The couple was married when they had sex. A ceremony with a state-ordained minister is not how God recognizes marriage. By making a ceremony something necessary, Christians are actually releasing their monopoly on marriage to the state.

If we think about it that way, it actually makes a lot of sense. It explains why Christians are so particular about same-sex marriage legislation.

This is an example of how American Protestantism has been wedded to American politics.

I want someone

I want someone who enjoys being with me.

I want someone who thinks I’m attractive.

I want someone who takes as much initiative as I do to plan hang outs.

I want someone who makes time for me and makes me a priority.

I want someone who nerds out about academic topics of interest in the same way I do.

I want someone who respects the fact that I hate the world in the mornings.

I want someone who doesn’t take himself too seriously.

I want someone who laughs at my pathetic jokes.

I want someone who laughs at my good jokes.

I want someone who will gently place his hand on my shoulder when I’m stressed.

I want someone who softly kisses my forehead while we watch a stupid rom-com.

I want someone to be my cuddle buddy.

I want someone to be my big and/or little spoon.

I want someone who holds me as I cry.

I want someone to hold as he cries.

I want someone who reassures me that he loves me in my moments of self-doubt.

I want someone who just sits with me while negative thoughts swirl in my head.

I want someone who feels safe to share his anxieties with me.

I want someone who is my equal because he is just as broken as me.

I want someone who knows when to give advice and when to listen.

I want someone who doesn’t expect me to solve his problems, but can still trust me for support.

I want someone who pushes me to try new things, but knows when to back off.

I want someone who doesn’t think birthdays, holidays, and anniversaries are that important.

I want someone who doesn’t have to go out to have fun.

I want someone whom I can go with anywhere, do anything, and still have a good time.

I want someone who loves me as I am.

Is that too much to ask?

"Stop being such a girl!"

I took an extended lunch the other day. One of my coworkers in the cubicle next to me invited me to watch the USA-Germany World Cup match in another building with him and one of the FAA's contractors. So I went.

There was a point where a US player fell over in pain. And then someone who was watching the game in the room with me called out, "Stop being such a girl!"

That line rang around in my head for so long afterward.

How is "Stop being such a girl!" supposed to be motivating? Because we don't respect femininity, and we idolize masculinity, particularly in the sports sector. From a young age, femininity as bad and masculinity as good are engrained within us, particularly for boys. One of the most detrimental things for a boy to hear is "Be a man!" or "Man up!" It teaches boys that being a real "man" (whatever that is) is the ultimate goal, and whoever they might be otherwise must be cast aside. Being a "girl" is an insult and is shameful, even to grown men who play in the World Cup, apparently.

Of course, gender norms is a massive can of worms. I was just focusing on that one line that I heard a couple days ago.

Gun rights and school shootings

I don't care if "it's your right." I don't care if you feel safer with it. I don't care if you like owning them. I don't care if you think the government is growing too big and taking away your freedom. Gun control needs to be a thing.

Yes, the American people have a right to bear arms. But when the people show that they can't handle this right, and multiple school shootings occur each year, something has to change. Which is more important to you: having your guns, or reducing the probability of dozens of people getting killed in reckless shootings? (I realize that that is probably a false dilemma, because bad guys will still get their hands on guns, even if they were outlawed. But the least we can do as a society is to try our best to prevent our citizens' deaths at the hands of irresponsible gun owners.)

Perhaps I'm only posting this out of reactionary emotions because another school shooting just occurred, and this time at a school where a close friend of mine attends. But perhaps that reason is legitimate, because a person whom I care very dearly about potentially had her life in danger due to someone who should never have possessed a gun.

As I'm writing this, I'm realizing how much more tragic and scary school shootings are when you have only two degrees of separation from it. I feel that I have a widened, yet incomplete understanding of the gravity of these catastrophes. And I hope it doesn't have to get any wider or more complete.

Christian patriarchy and modesty

I'm hoping that this post will sum up what I think about modesty culture in Christianity so that I never have to talk about it again.

I came across an article online written by a male pastor, entitled "The Theology of Yoga Pants." Just from the title, and from the fact that it was written by a man, I could tell that it was going to be pejorative toward women. Let me dissect some parts of this article.

The article early on claims that "Everything you wear says something about who you are and what is in your heart." Does it really, though? So when I wear a plain blue V-Neck, what does that say about my heart? When I choose to wear sweats instead of jeans, is that really indicative of what's going on in my heart? Or does this statement only apply to women and not to men?

It then moves into a section where it talks about how men look at women. "Whether he is young or old he has to constantly deny those sinful desires and seek to honor the Lord with his mind. If you love your brother in Christ and do not want him to see you or think of you in a way less than holy..." These sentences highlight a frequent trend in Christian culture: women are seen as responsible for men's lustful thoughts. There is an underlying assumption--but Christian men will deny it--that men's lustful desires are totally uncontrollable, and that women are the triggers to releasing these thoughts. It completely puts the blame on women for things that men should take responsibility for. Men are the ones that are accountable for their own lustful thoughts, not women. Rather than blaming women for their own problems, Christian men should instead work to change their thought processes and thereby stop oppressing women.

Next, the article asserts that when women wear more revealing clothes, they are donning a sign that says, "For Sale: Cheap." "If you’re dressing in a way that is immodest, would you consider that you are inviting men to think about you in a sexual way?" Um, no, that's not the case. Here's a thought: maybe women want to wear certain clothes because they like the way they look or feel? Let's not assume that women have malicious motives, such as that they wear certain clothes because they are trying to seduce men.

"According to the Bible, this [sexual] way of thinking should be reserved for your husband." Where does it say that, exactly? Also, this is another funny thing that Christians do. They enforce the idea that having sexual thoughts is completely sinful until marriage, after which these thoughts are totally acceptable. Why does marriage suddenly make thoughts okay that were previously considered inappropriate? Are they somehow purified within the context of marriage?

And then the article ends with a list of do's and don't's. Yay, we are given easy rules to follow, because Christian life so simple that we can reduce it to such a list.

This article is filled with so much patriarchal oppression of women, it disgusts me. And the unfortunate reality is that that kind of thinking is rampant in Christian culture. It really sucks that the modesty talk for girls is laden with male oppression.

The darkest side of evangelical culture

I have never been as disgusted with evangelical culture as I am now.

This past week, World Vision (a Christian aid organization, through which thousands of children overseas are financially supported) released a statement saying that they were allowing Christians who were in same-sex relationships to work for them. Their given reason was that they did not want to take a stance on the issue; they were letting individual churches decide the issue for themselves, and they would allow anyone who is a follower of Jesus to serve.

I was elated when I saw this statement released. This was perhaps the first time I have ever seen a large, mainline Christian institution make such a progressive move. Usually large Christian institutions move the other direction, toward exclusion and marginalization of LGBT Christians.

Unfortunately, evangelicals across the nation saw otherwise. Even though World Vision deliberately said that they made this change to avoid taking a stance on the issue, evangelicals saw it as an endorsement of same-sex relationships. Evangelical sites on the internet, including my favorite (*cough cough*), The Gospel Coalition, exploded with hateful and ignorant responses to the policy change. And the responses of individuals were depressing. Here is a sample from a comment on an article from The Gospel Coalition:

"Help! We’ve been sponsoring a child through World Vision for years. Do we pull our funding and hurt the child? Moral dilemma… At the same time I don’t want to support World Vision any more… Thoughts?"

It is heartbreaking that this is even a "dilemma" at all. But a response to this question was even more frightening:

"Drop your support. The organization has taken a stand antithetical to the God of the Gospel. Under the ruse of “unity” they’ve embraced wickedness and tossed the Good News. The Gospel is the Good News that we can be delivered from our sin. They’ve turned it upside down and simply said there is no need to be delivered. Pray for the child you support; attempt to contact them for direct support; see if you can provide support for the child through another faithful ministry. But if we cannot even eat with those claiming Christ who embrace evil (1 Cor 5), how much more should we not support them with our our tithes and offerings that, after all, are really offerings to the Lord. The Lord can direct your giving in a manner that reflects his character."

So the gospel that this person follows believes that correct ideology trumps helping the needy. I sure hope this person doesn't call his gospel "Christianity." Another thing about this comment: "But if we cannot eat with those claiming Christ... (1 Cor 5)." The word "cannot" implies that a desire is there, but it is disallowed by God's commandments. Please. As if evangelicals wanted to spend any time with LGBT folk.

And, unfortunately, thousands of "Christians" began dropping their sponsorship of children because of World Vision's policy change. In fact, churches were even advocating this to their congregations! It's shameful that American Christians' care for the needy is so shallow.

And then the worst part happened. World Vision reversed its policy change.

That's right, instead of sticking by and defending its neutrality stance, it caved to the peer pressure of evangelicals. Why? Probably because they were scared of not having enough money to cover costs.

I'm sorry, but I thought we served a God who provides. A God who wants us to trust him.

This conflict has also revealed a secondary dark part of the cult of evangelicalism. There was a series of responses to the "Drop your support" comment. The conservative comments sent shivers down my spine.

Comment response:

"Matthew 25:45 – ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ We can all play the quote game, John. I ask: do you choose the letters of Paul, or the words of Christ?"

Then:

"The words of Paul ARE the words of Christ."

Then: 

"That’s blatantly untrue, bordering on blasphemy. Paul himself would certainly have disagreed with you."

(http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/03/24/grieving-for-the-children/?comments#comments, comments on 3/24 and 3/25)

The words of Paul are the words of Christ. That's terrifying that Christians believe that. And unfortunately, it's all too true that that belief is common among evangelicals. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

I think the extremities of the situation point to the fact that evangelicals have made opposing homosexuality an essential part of their gospel. When the policy change was in place, evangelicals dissociated with World Vision. When the policy change was reversed, they were satisfied. And all this happened over the course of two days. I personally don't have the emotional energy to be supportive one day, angry and heartless the next, and then appeased again two days later.

In closing, fuck the Pharisaical, hypocritical cult of evangelicalism. Sorry for the long post. I don't feel catharsis even after writing all this.





P.S. The article written by The Gospel Coalition is entitled "World Vision and Why We Grieve for the Children." That title is blatantly phrased in an attempt to evoke emotions to side with the writer--similar to a "think of the children" argument. How low can you sink, TGC?

Freedom of religion

Last night, I was walking on UC Berkeley's campus. As I crossed over Strawberry Creek, I noticed something on the concrete bridge. Someone had drawn a pentagram with a tea candle in the middle. Not only that, but the pentagram had been drawn in what appeared to be blood--it was a thick, red fluid. It had also been recently drawn; some of the fluid was slowly flowing down the slight downgrade of the concrete bridge.

Needless to say, I was uncomfortable. So uncomfortable, in fact, that it actually crossed my mind to call PPCS (Physical Plant - Campus Services) and ask them to hose it down. But it appears nature took care of that. Today, I walked on the same bridge, and it was gone. Apparently last night's and today's rains washed it away.

The question has appeared in my mind: if I had called PPCS, would they have come and washed it away? The answer is probably, because you are not allowed to draw or advertise on campus property except for designated signs and areas. But let's suppose that you could post or chalk wherever you wanted on campus. If I had called, would they have washed it away because it was a pentagram?

If the answer is yes, then that could arguably be a violation of one of the U.S.'s most valued aspects: freedom of religion. It would be a similar situation if someone had chalked a cross on the ground, and someone called PPCS to hose it down because it made them feel uncomfortable. Would Christians be offended by that, and claim that they were being persecuted? What then does that mean for the pentagram case?

I guess the point is, how far does the right to freedom of religion go?

"I love them, but I don't like them."

A common evangelical saying when someone isn't particularly fond of someone else is, "I love them; I just don't like them." Basically, they're expressing their distaste for the person while covering their ass and ensuring that no one can call them out on breaking the command of loving your neighbor. The phrase ensures that they are allowed to avoid confronting issues between the two parties because they love them.

Yeah, but I call bullshit.

That phrase doesn't make any sense. How can you love someone but not like them? Loving is much stronger than just liking someone. If you don't even like someone, there is no chance that you can care more deeply for them to call it "love."

The command to love your neighbor as yourself was never an easy command. Saying "I love them, but I don't like them," makes it seem like the command is simpler than it really is. When Jesus told us to love our neighbors, he meant bearing with each other, tolerating each other, apologizing to each other, forgiving each other. That's not easy work. Obviously, we will all fail at that from time to time. But when we do, let's not pretend that we are perfect by saying, "I love them; I just don't like them."

The phrase is often given as a reason why someone doesn't associate with someone else in the church. Except there's probably more going on there--they are likely avoiding issues that need to be discussed. Avoiding confrontation. That doesn't sound very loving to me.

It's a part of being human that we are inevitably not going to get along from time to time. We need to be more okay with people admitting that they are struggling with the sin of not loving others.

On premarital sex.

To preface this, I want to make clear that I do not necessarily believe what I am about to say. As of right now, I am simply toying with and mulling over the ideas that I am about to explain.

Anyway, because I can't come up with a clever way of working it into a sentence, I'm just going to flat out say that what I am going to argue here is that premarital sex is perhaps not wrong, and is in fact not prohibited in Scripture.

Perhaps I should also preface this by saying I'm not a Bible scholar. So maybe everything I present here is completely wrong. Again, these are just thoughts that are going through my head.

Let me begin by defining the term in question: "fornication." I am defining fornication as having consensual sex before marriage, as it is commonly defined in the church today. As I've been doing some research, it seems that the more archaic meaning of "fornication" is just any consensual extramarital sex; or, figuratively, idolatry.

The instances that I can think of off the top of my head where "fornication" is mentioned in the Bible are 1 Corinthians 6:14-17, Hebrews 13:4, and Revelation 21:8. There are probably more, but it's hard to decipher when the Bible is talking about "fornication" versus general "sexual immorality." In fact, the usage of these two terms appears to be interchangeable based on the translation used! So I guess there's the first issue--why are some verses cited as talking about premarital sex, and others are cited as talking about extramarital sex after marriage (aka infidelity)? I've done research--they both use the same Greek word: pornei. People say that context can determine the meaning, but it seems that the context doesn't indicate whether the word means premarital sex, or infidelity. So who gets to say how the Greek word gets interpreted? And what right do they have to say that?

I want to speak specifically about the 1 Corinthians verse here. Chapter 6:14-17 says,
"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.' But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." Somewhere in there, the Greek word "pornei" is used. And some versions have interpreted it as "fornication." However, from the context of this passage, it seems clear to me that what is being talked about is the body of Christ as a whole being unfaithful to Christ. So this is the more archaic form of "fornication" here. But I think our contemporary understanding of the word "fornication" has forced the misinterpretation of this passage.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the idea of premarital sex as sinful was some kind of European cultural carryover. 17th-19th century Europe was all about sexual suppression. And the church was hugely interwoven into the fabric of society, so it could be very possible that if premarital sex as sinful was a cultural idea, then it became associated with a Christian belief.

I have also heard quite a few stories about Christian couples that waited until they were married to have sex. Then, when they were married, and they had sex for the first time, they found that they were completely incompatible sexually. That led to a great deficiency in their marriage, and they ended up divorcing. Theoretically, the pain of divorce could have been avoided had they had relations before marriage. Perhaps, therefore, it might be better to have sex before marriage to find out if a couple is sexually compatible or not, rather than waiting for marriage when the stakes are much higher.

The more I think about it, the simultaneous ideas of "no sex before marriage" and "no divorce," which are so ubiquitous in Christian culture, seem extremely risky.

In conclusion, I am considering that it might be better to have sex before marriage, and that maybe the Bible doesn't actually forbid premarital sex. Perhaps that is just a contemporary cultural idea forced upon Scripture, altering its interpretation.




Further reading as food for thought:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/samantha-pugsley/2014/08/i-waited-until-my-wedding-night-to-lose-my-virginity-and-i-wish-i-hadnt/

In defense of musicians

A lot of people say they have no respect for a musical artist because they don't write their own music. That's silly.

Consider actors, who are also artists. No one expects them to write the scripts for the films, shows, or plays that they perform in, and yet their talent is still commended, solely for their acting abilities. Their ability to write a script is not considered.

And consider dancers, who are artists as well. They may not choreograph the pieces that they perform, but people still recognize dancers' talent. Their talent as dancers--not choreographers--is what is important.

Why can't we treat musical artists the same way? A vocalist may not have written the stuff they sing, but so what? He or she still deserves to be respected for the ability to deliver the vocal performance. Meanwhile, the writer of the song should be credited for writing a great song.

Of course, that makes an artist that much more impressive if they write their own material AND perform it. But writing his or her own material certainly should not be a requirement for them to earn respect as an artist and a performer.

I will end this post with a quote from comedian Mitch Hedberg:

As a comedian, I always get into situations where I'm auditioning for movies and sitcoms, you know? As a comedian, they want you to do other things besides comedy. They say, "Alright, you're a comedian; can you write? Write us a script. Act in this sitcom." They want me to do shit that's related to comedy, but it's not comedy, man. It's not fair, you know? It's as if I was a cook, and I worked my ass off to become a really good cook, and they said, "Alright, you're a cook; can you farm?